Indexador

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Students enrolled in a Psychology of Learning course were assigned to either a lecture section, one of two similar personalized instruction sections, or a fourth section that rotated across all three teaching procedures. All students took identical midterms and a final examination. After correcting test performance for differences in the cumulative grade point average of students in the four sections, examination performance of students in the personalized sections was found to be superior to that of students in the lecture section. An analysis of class section examination performance by item type revealed that students in the lecture section scored lower on all item types, but the greatest differences occurred on items that required written responses (essay and fill‐in items) rather than recognition responses (multiple choice items). A gross analysis of student performance in the class rotated across the instructional procedures suggests that personalized instruction had its greatest impact on students with “average” to “poor” academic records.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

The percentage of fixed intervals terminating with food presentation was varied parametrically. Intervals that did not end with food were terminated by a stimulus uncorrected with food presentation (a timeout stimulus). In Experiment I, the pigeons' response rates were an inverted U‐shaped function of the percentage of food presentations: decreasing the percentage from 100% to 90%, 70%, or 50% produced an increase in response rates; lower percentages decreased the rates. The patterns of responding in the 100% condition differed from those of the other conditions. In Experiment II, the chamber was darkened after food presentations and timeouts. Response rate was directly related to the percentage of food presentations: decreasing the percentage decreased the response rate. Characteristic fixed‐interval patterns of responding were maintained as long as there were occasional food presentations; pausing followed by positively‐accelerated responding occurred in percentage conditions ranging from 7% to 100%. The ability to maintain fixed‐interval performance with percentage reinforcement suggested that the behavioral sequences occurring in each interval may operate as unitary responses.

Rats trained to lever press on a fixed‐interval limited‐hold avoidance schedule maintained a pattern of responding similiar to that maintained by fixed‐interval limited‐hold schedules of positive reinforcement. But this positively accelerated pattern of behavior was maintained only when the occurrence of reinforcement was signalled by the presentation of a brief flash of light. This result suggests that the discriminative function of the reinforcer in avoidance is less pronounced than the discriminative function of the reinforcer in escape or positive reinforcement. It also suggests that the distinction between positive reinforcement and avoidance is not superfluous. Although the schedule of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the pattern of behavior, other variables, such as the nature (i.e., stimulus presentation, termination, or omission) of the reinforcer, are also potent determinants of behavior.

The rate at which Congress passes bills during its legislative session exhibits a fixed‐interval pattern: the rate of passage is extremely low three to four months after commencement followed by a positively accelerated growth rate that continues until the time of adjournment. This scalloped configuration appears uniformly in each of the eight Congresses sampled, from 1947 to 1968, and in both sessions of each Congress.

Four rats were trained on a schedule in which completion of a fixed number of lever presses initiated a signalled delay period, at the end of which food was delivered. Lever presses made during the delay had no scheduled consequences. Delays of 12, 3, and 0.75 sec were used, and it was found that the latency of the first response after food (the post‐reinforcement pause) increased with length of delay. There was, on the other hand, no consistent effect of delay upon rates of responding after the post‐reinforcement pause.