Research in Higher Education

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 169–179 | Cite as

An examination of male-female performance in a programmed achievement learning center

  • Jack R. Nation
  • Hanna Levenson
  • Stephen S. Roop
  • Richard W. Dickinson
Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

College students operated under different classroom contingencies. The Programmed Achievement (PA) condition required students to evidence criterion performance (100% mastery) on weekly quizzes. Failure to show mastery performance on any of the weekly quizzes resulted in course failure. The Standard Control (S-C) condition involved a more traditional college classroom structure where students took weekly quizzes with no requirement to evidence mastery. Male and female performances were analyzed to determine if different course structures interacted with sex of student. The results indicated that PA students demonstrated higher performance than controls on weekly quizzes and a major exam. It was also shown that PA females increased at a more rapid rate than PA males, while S-C males and females were not significantly different. Theoretical implications of the results are discussed.

Key words

male-female performance programmed achievement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carlson, E. R., and Carlson, R. (1960). Male and female subjects in personality research. J. Ab. Soc. Psychol. 61: 482–483.Google Scholar
  2. Haddad, N. F., Nation, J. R., and Williams, J. D. (1975). Programmed student achievement: A Hawthorne effect? Res. Higher Ed. 3: 315–322.Google Scholar
  3. Keller, F. S. (1968). “Goodbye, teacher ...” J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 1: 78–89.Google Scholar
  4. Knight, J. M. (1973). The effect of programmed achievement on student performance. J. Ed. Res. 66: 291–294.Google Scholar
  5. Lamberth, J., and Knight, J. M. (1974). An embarrassment of riches: Effectively teaching and motivating large introductory psychology sections. Teaching Psychol. 1(1): 16–20.Google Scholar
  6. McMichael, J. S., and Corey, J. R. (1969). Contingency management in an introductory psychology course produces better learning. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 2: 79–83.Google Scholar
  7. Nation, J. R., Knight, J. M., Lamberth, J., and Dyck, D. (1974). Programmed student achievement: A test of the avoidance hypothesis. J. Exp. Ed. 42: 57–61.Google Scholar
  8. Unger, R. K., and Denmark, F. L. (1975). “Woman: Dependent or Independent Variable?” New York: Psychological Dimensions, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Vaughan, G., and Corballis, M. (1969). Beyond tests of significance: estimating strength of effects in selected ANOVA designs. Psychol. Bull. 72: 273–276.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© APS Publications, Inc. 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack R. Nation
    • 1
  • Hanna Levenson
    • 1
  • Stephen S. Roop
    • 1
  • Richard W. Dickinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas A & M UniversityCollege Station

Personalised recommendations