The effects of learn units on student performance in two college courses.

Abstract

Abstract We report an experiment examining academic performance of undergraduate students in two special education college courses. experimenter/professor taught both courses in which he presented curriculum material via written (LUs) (Greer & Hogin, 1999) or in a lecture format across randomly selected weeks in a 12-week semester. There were a total of 20 students (11 in Emotional Disturbance course, 9 in ABA course) primarily juniors and seniors majoring in special education ranging in age from 20 to 48. independent variable consisted of a series of written LUs presented to students in form of guided notes that were scripted in logical sequence (based upon textbook material). LUs were defined as a series of meshed or interlocking 3-term contingencies 1 for student and at least 2 for professor arranged through scripted curricula. During LU condition, professor (1) read a phrase or question from guided notes (with blank lines) that were distributed to students, (2) discussed phrase or question, (3) exposed phrase/question and its corresponding answer on overhead, (4) provided an opportunity for all students to respond by writing/copying answer, and (5) then immediately consequated their answers by checking their accurate completion of blank line. During lecture condition, professor lectured (from material obtained from textbook chapter) without providing any written LUs. dependent variable was student grade achievement on weekly short answer essay exams. Interobserver agreement for independent scoring of dependent variable for ABA exams was 97%. Interobserver agreement for independent scoring of dependent variable for ED exams was 95%. mean percentage of procedural integrity for ABA course was 88% ranging from 83% to 100%. mean percentage of procedural integrity for ED course was 100%. In ABA course, mean percentage correct on exams was 83% during LU class sessions and 68% during lecture sessions. In ED course, mean percentage correct on exams was 84% during LU class sessions and 74% during lecture sessions. Social validity measures indicated high student satisfaction with unit instructional procedure. These results were discussed in terms of potential utility of unit as a microanalytic measure of both teaching and learning particularly for subject matter in higher education containing specificity in terminology (i.e., factual and scientific content). Key Words: Learn Units, Instructional time, active student responding, interobserver agreement ********** Effects of Learn Units on Student Performance in Two College Courses It is generally agreed that goals of science are to understand, predict, and control behavior (Berliner, 1990). Consequently, every respected scientific discipline has its corresponding basic unit of measurement which is ultimately responsible for profession's advancement and improvement (e.g., biology: cell, nutrition: vitamins and calories, chemistry: molecules, engineering: micron). Unfortunately, professions of education and school psychology have lacked an accurate and replicable basic unit of measurement which may well account for decades of student underachievement. Greer (1994) states that the identification and use of a primary measure of teaching is essential to maturation of a science of pedagogy (p. 161). refinement of instructional time concepts in relationship to educational outcomes has evolved over decades (Fisher & Berliner, 1985). Recently, learn units have been identified within field of education: The unit consists of interlocking operants of instruction that incorporate particular student and teacher interactions that predict whether student behavior will be controlled by particular stimuli and setting events (p. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.