Abstract
Some students studying programed books “cheat” by copying the comparison answers. In this study students who cheated were identified. When compared to those who completed the lessons as instructed, the students who cheated achieved significantly lower scores on a test. An advantage of teaching machines is that they can prevent both inadvertent and deliberate cheating which is usually permitted by programed books.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ANDERSON, R. C. 1967. Educational psychology, In P. R. Farnsworth, Olga McNemar, & Q. McNemar (Eds.) Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc., Pp. 129–164.
BARLOW, J. A. 1960. Conversational chaining in teaching machine programs. Psychol Rep., 7, 187–193.
BARLOW, J. A. 1963. Programed instruction in perspective: yesterday, today and tomorrow: In R. T. Filep (Ed.) Prospectives in programing. New York: Macmillan, Pp. 3–15.
BARLOW, J. A. In Press. Stimulus and response. New York: Harper & Row.
HOLLAND, J. G. 1960. Teaching machines: an application of principles from the laboratory. J. exp. anal. Behav., 3, 275–287.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This paper was delivered at the 1967 meeting of the Michigan Academy of Arts, Sciences, and Letters. A portion of it is included in slightly different words in the appendix of the program (Barlow, In Press).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barlow, J.A. Note: Student Cheating in Studying Programed Material. Psychol Rec 17, 515–516 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393726
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393726