Abstract
A cognitive processing capacity model of teaching and studying improved immediate posttest and delayed posttest performances of low-ability students, while it reduced performance differences between the low- and high-ability students. A skeletal study outline and a restudy and retest provision also made positive contributions to performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ausubel, D. P.Educational psychology—a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research.Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. Levels of processing: a framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1972,11 671–684.
Furukawa, J. M.The successful student: study skills. Minneapolis: Burgess, 1978.
Furukawa, J. M. Cognitive processing capacity effects on prose learning.Journal of Educational Psychology 1977,69 736–743.
Furukawa, J. M. Chunking method of determining size of step in programmed instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology 1970,61 247–254.
Gagné, R. M.The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.
Horowitz, L. M., & Prytulak, L. S. Redintegrative memory.Psychological Review 1969,76 519–531.
Jones, H. E. Experimental studies of college teaching.Archives of Psychology, 1923,10, No. 68.
Keller, F. S. Goodbye teacher....Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1968,1 79–89.
Mandle, G. Words, lists and categories: An experimental view of organized memory. In J. L. Cowan (Ed.),Thought and languages. Tucson, Ariz.: University of Arizona Press, 1969.
McKeachie, W. J. Research on college teaching.Educational Perspectives 1972,11 3–10.
McKeachie, W. J., & Solomon, D. Retention of general psychology.Journal of Educational Psychology 1957,48 110–112.
Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our ability for processing information.Psychological Review 1956,63 81–87.
Morris, C. G.Psychology: an introduction (2d ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976.
Morris, C. J., & Kimbrell, G. M. Performance and attitudinal effects of the Keller method in an introductory psychology course.Psychological Record 1971,22 523–530.
Moss, J. L. Study guide and workbook.Psychology: an introduction (2d ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976.
Ryan, G. A.PSI, Keller's personalized system of instruction: an appraisal. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association, 1974.
Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. Misreading: a search for causes. In J. F. Kavanaugh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.)Language by ear and by eye. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1972.
Sterret, M. D., & Davis, R. A. The permanence of school learning: a review of studies.Educational Administration and Supervision 1954,40 449–460.
Wertheimer, M. Untersuchung zur Lehre von der Gestalt, II.Psychol. Forsch. 1923,4 301–350. Translated and condensed as: Laws of organization in perceptual forms. Ellis, W. D.A sourcebook of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1938.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Furukawa, J.M., Cohen, N. & Sumpter, K. Improving student achievement. Res High Educ 16, 245–263 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973586
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973586