Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Selection strategies and performance on attribute identification task as a function of time- and accuracy-stressed… Wasilewski, Bohdan Kazimierz 1970

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A8 W38.pdf [ 2.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104114.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104114-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104114-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104114-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104114-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104114-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104114-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104114-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104114.ris

Full Text

SELECTION STRATEGIES AND PERFORMANCE ON ATTRIBUTE IDENTIFICATION TASK AS A FUNCTION OF TIME- AND ACCURACY-STRESSED INSTRUCTIONS AND LEVEL OF MOTIVATION by BOHDAN KAZIMIERZ WASILEWSKI B.A., University of Manitoba, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Educational Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1970 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Bohdan Kazimierz Wasilewski D e p a r t m e n t o f Educational Psychology T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a 19 August; 1970. Abstract 36 Ss randomly selected from 76 volunteers from Grade-Xll Richmond Secondary School were randomly as-signed to six treatments in a 3 x 2 factorial design to test the effect of instructions (time-stressed, ac-curacy-stressed, or control) and level of motivation (high or low) on performance on three problems of a predetermined, conjunctive, attribute identification task, with stimuli (64 six-dimensional figures) con-taining the exemplars and non-exemplars of a bi-dimen-sional concept, and presented simultaneously; and measured in the postulated three phases by i time i n -terval between reception of the task and selection of the f irst card (Phase 1 - analysis of the problem); index of dimensional change of attributes from the first exemplar (Phase 2 - selection or development of a strategy-plan)? and average time per card choice (Phase 3 - execution of a strategy-plan). Two addition-al measures, number of cards to solution and total time to solution, were observed in order to confirm the successful manipulation of the instructional var-iable in terms of its behavioral effects. The results suggest that the manipulation of instructional varia-ble was successful. The results indicate that Ss under i i -accuracy-stressed condition took significantly more time during the time interval (Phase 1) and spent s i -gnificantly more time per card choice (Phase 3)> than Ss without instructional treatment (control); and that Ss under time-stressed condition behaved in Phase 1 and 3 in the very same way as Ss without instructional treatment (control). It was observed that Ss under time-stressed condition spent about the same amount of total time to solution as Ss under accuracy-stressed condi-tion, and since Ss under time-stressed condition spent significantly less time per card choice than Ss under accuracy-stressed condition, then these facts indicate that the accuracy-stressed instructions are responsi-ble for the better performance of Ss under accuracy-stressed condition than Ss under time-stressed condition. This suggests that knowledge of the reason for ignoring the time and emphasis on accuracy may induce Ss to take time to analyze the problem and that this opportunity to follow the postulated logical sequence of behavior may improve execution ( i . e . , performance) on concept-ual task. The results failed to confirm third hypothe-sis that motivation impairs performance under time-stressed condition and improves performance under ac-curacy-stressed condition. It was observed during the - i i i -experiment that Ss shifted the focus card from the f irst exemplar to other positive instances previous-ly identified, and since the focus card used by Ss can not be identified, the index of dimensional change can not be used as an indicator of the strategy-selec-tion behavior in Phase 2. Table of Contents S e r i a l Subject Page(s) 1 Abstract i - i i i 2 Table of Contents i v 3 L i s t of Tables V k Acknowledgment v i 5 Problem 1 - 8 6 Method 9 - 1 2 7 Results 12 - 21 8 Discussion 21 - 25 9 References 26 - 27 10 Appendix A - Instructions 28 - 32 11 Appendix B - Analysis of Variance Tables 33 - 37 - V -L i s t of Tables Table Subject Page (s) 1 Observed Means for Total Amount of Time and Cards to Solution 13 2 Observed Means for Time Interval 15 3 Observed Means for Index of Dimensional Change 17 4 Observed Means for Average Time per Card Choice 19 5 Analysis of Variance for Total Time to Solution 33 6 Analysis of Variance for Cards to Solution 34 7 Analysis of Variance f o r Time Interval 35 8 Analysis of Variance for Index of Dimensional Change36 9 Analysis of Variance for Average time per Card Choice 37 - v i -Acknowledgment I wish to express my gratitude for the enlighting guidance and generous advise given to me by the mem-bers of the supervising committee i n charge of t h i s thesis, Drs. Wilson E. Schwahn, the chairman; Seong Soo Lee; and Robert F. Conry. Selection Strategies and Performance on Attribute Identification Task as a Function of Time- and Accuracy-Stressed Instructions and Level of Motivation Problem The results of concept identification studies under experimental conditions indicate that the behavior of Ss during the period from the presentation of the task to the solution of that task involves cognitive act ivi -ties which may be classified into types of operations on the basis of the method used by Ss to solve the prob-lem. The interpretation of these methods led Bruner (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956) to develop a set of ideal strategies for the most efficient solution of con-cept identification problems. Ss using conservative strategies accept a l l attributes of the f irst exemplar as relevant, and then test their relevance either one attribute at a time (focusing) or more than one a t t r i -bute at a time (gambling), while keeping other a t t r i -butes constant. In scanning strategies Ss reduce prog-ressively a l l possible concepts hypothesized on the basis of the f irst exemplar by eliminating as many hy-potheses as possible per each successive choice of i n -stances (simultaneous), or test one hypothesis at a time by limiting their choices to those instances that - 2 -provide a direct test of the hypothesis (scanning). The review of literature reveals that i t is often very d i f f i c u l t to identify ^s* behavior in an experimen-t a l situation with these ideal strategies (Klausmeier, 1964; Haygood & Bourne, 1965), and that this behavior is highly inefficient. Byers (1961) found that Ss ignored the optimal strategy for attribute testing (conservative focusing) and used instead gambling strategies which re-quire varying amounts of risk-taking. In the Wisconsin studies (Klausmeier, 1964) 86$ of Ss (N=64) used gamb-ling strategies in preference to conservative focusing, although conservative focusing is considered the most efficient strategy in concept learning tasks (Bruner, et a l , 1956; Byers, 196I; Klausmeier, 1964; Laughlin & Doherty, 1967). The writer observed that even graduate students (1st Year Architecture, University of British Columbia) performed unreasonably poorly on concept iden-t i f i c a t i o n tasks. These Ss selected instances for test-ing without any apparent systematic plan of operations; failed to adhere to the principle of constancy of the untested dimensions (in attribute testing); failed to u t i l i z e a l l information offered by the instances tested; and tested attributes already confirmed by previous tests. When attempts were made to classify Ss* behavior in - 3 * terms of a continuum, with conservative focusing at one extreme, focus gambling at the other, and the strategies used by Ss corresponding to the points between these two extremes (Byers, 1961); or to quantify Ss' performance in terms of attributes accepted by Ss as relevant from the f irst positive instance (Bourne, 1963)? i t was found that Ss f a i l to maintain a fixed focus and f a i l to keep the untested attributes constant, thus violating the prerequisites for efficient attribute testing strategy. It therefore seems legitimate to ask why these Ss behaved in such a disorganized manner when they were faced with a concept identification task in a laborato-ry-type experimental situation ? The reason for this inefficient performance may well l i e in the two conditions inherent in the standard ex- ' perimental situation 1 stress on the speed of solution, and previously developed habit of performing as quickly ~ as possible in any experimental or test-like situation; Most of the experimental studies with the selection strategies used time-to-criterion as measure of perfor-mance efficiency; i t is therefore possible that in those studies, time-stressed instructions forced Ss into the execution of a hastily-constructed strategy-plan, or into action without a strategy-plan (trial-and-error behavior). Gardner (1953) noted that Ss are normally given r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e time to make t h e i r judgments i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n , and observed : ..." that to allow a l l subjects i d e n t i c a l , b r i e f periods i n which to make judgments would have been to obtain from one of them a f a i r l y accurate p i c -ture of how he preferred to organize the s t i m u l i ; from another, an incomplete stage of approximation i n making the judgment; from s t i l l another, a guess " (Gardner, 1 9 5 3 , p . 2 1 7 ) Siegel proposed that time to c r i t e r i o n need not correlate highly with t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n , and that i t may r e f l e c t something quite d i f f e r e n t ; yet experimental studies with time-stressed instructions as independent variable and t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n as dependent variable, do not show s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n performance between time-stres-sed and time-not-stressed treatments (Siegel, 1 9 6 4 ; Laughlin, 1 9 6 4 ). The analysis of time to c r i t e r i o n stu-dies reveals however that Ss behave as i f time was v i t a l even when they are instructed that speed of soluti o n i s of no importance. In order to analyze the ef f e c t of time on the per-formance i n a concept i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i t u a t i o n , i t i s proposed that the l o g i c a l sequence of behavior i n that s i t u a t i o n should consist of three phases : a ° Phase 1. S considers factors relevant to his task and thoroughly analyzes the problem. b * Phase 2 . S formulates a strategy-plan for s o l -ving the problem. c. Phase 3« S executes the strategy-plan. If this logical sequence is followed by Ss, i t would facilitate selection of the optimal strategies for the concept identification tasks, and consequently, i t would improve Ss* performance on those tasks. The review of literature, however, reveals that this sequence of be-havior is not normally present under standard experimen-tal conditions. The reason for this absence of logical sequence may be the lack of opportunity in the standard experimental situation, to analyze the problem (Phase 1) and to formulate a strategy-plan (Phase 2 ) . It appears from previous studies (Siegel, 1964; Laughlin, 1964) that telling Ss that speed of solution is of no importance is not enough. In order to change the habitual behavior in the test-like experimental situation, i t may be necessa-ry to give Ss the reason for the unimportance of speed of solution, and to place them in a condition where they can uti l ize that information, i . e . , take time to analyze the problem and formulate a strategy-plan. Then i t could be expected that Ss in time-not-stressed or accuracy-stressed condition wil l util ize the optimal strategy more, and will.consequently perform better, than Ss in time-stressed condition. The results of Laughlin fs study (1964) also indicate that accuracy- and time-stressed instuctions should be - 6 -explicitly differentiated in future concept-attainment research. In order to ensure that these instructions are successfully instated in Ss, i t may be necessary to introduce a motivational variable. Consider how a var-iation in the degree of motivation may affect perform-ance under time-stressed condition in comparison with performance under accuracy-stressed condition. It has been observed by Deese and Hulse (19&7) that i f motiv-ation directed toward a particular goal is high, then the probability of occurance of the behavior designed to achieve that goal is also high. Since the goal in time-stressed condition is to accomplish the task as quickly as possible, i t follows that motivated Ss in that condition should attempt to accomplish their tasks more quickly than less motivated Ss. But if.speed of performance makes the analysis of task (Phase 1) and the formulation of strategy-plan (Phase 2) less probab-le, and consequently, i f i t impairs the execution (Phase 3)» then i t seems that motivated Ss in time-stres-sed condition should perform less efficiently than less motivated Ss in that condition. On the other hand i f the goal in accuracy-stressed condition is to accomplish the .task with as few card choices as possible, Ss in that condition should be fully aware that speed of per-formance wil l impair their efficiency. It follows that motivated Ss in the accuracy-stressed condition should - ? -attempt to accomplish their tasks more slowly and with greater accuracy than less motivated Ss in that condi-tion; and i f this emphasis on accuracy and disregard for time makes the analysis of task (Phase 1) and the" formulation of strategy-plan (Phase 2) more probable," and consequently, i f i t improves the execution (Phase 3)» then i t seems that motivated Ss in accuracy-stressed con-dition should perform more efficiently than less motiv-ated Ss in that condition. It is hypothesised that, i f pressure of time through time-stressed instructions prevents Ss from analyzing the problem (Phase l ) , and from formulating a strategy-plan designed to solve that problem (Phase 2), and i f i t impairs execution of the strategy-plan (Phase 3), then Ss in a time-stressed condition wills a » Phase 1 s use significantly less time between reception of the task and selection of the f irst instance for testing; b. Phase 2 : obtain significantly larger index of dimensional change (the sum of attributes chan-ged on each card choice from the f irst exemplar, divided by total number of card choices to so-lution); and c » Phase 3 : use significantly less average time per card choice; than Ss in a control condition. - 8 -The second hypothesis is that, i f knowledge of the reason for unimportance of speed of solution induces Ss to analyze the problem (Phase l ) , and to formulate a stra-tegy-plan (Phase 2), and i f i t improves execution of the strategy-plan (Phase 3), then Ss in an accuracy-stressed condition wil l : a. Phase 1 : use significantly more time between re-ception of the task and selection of the f irst instance for testing; b. Phase 2 s obtain significantly smaller index of dimensional change; and c * Phase 3 t use significantly more average time per card choice; than Ss in a control condition. The third hypothesis is that, i f high motivation im-pairs performance in the time-stressed condition, and im-proves performance in the accuracy-stressed condition, then a. highly motivated Ss in time-stressed condition w i l l ^ n Phase 3 u s © significantly less average time per card choice than less motivated Ss in time-stressed condition; whereas b. highly motivated Ss in accuracy-stressed condition wil l in Phase 3 use significantly more average time per card choice than less motivated Ss in accuracy-stressed condition. Method Design* A 3 x 2 factorial design was used with indepen-dent variables » type of instructions (time-stressed; accuracy-stressed; or control), and level of motivation (high, through instructional inducement or low, without instructional inducement); with additional variables « problem (a sequence of three different problems of at-tribute identification of a conjunctive concept), set (two sets of two dimensions, A and B - see Stimulus Materials), and order (three conceptual problems pre-sented in three different orders in a 3 x 3 Latin squa-re design). Three dependent measures, that i s , time i n -terval between reception of the task and selection of the f irst card, index of dimensional change, and avera-ge time per card choice, were taken. Two additional measures, number of cards to solution and total time to solution, were observed for the use of confirming the successful manipulation of the instructional variable in terms of its behavioral effects. Subjects. Ss were 36 students (18 boys, 18 g i r l s ) , ran-domly selected from ?6 volunteers (obtained by the principal through a Public Address request for volun-teers for a " concept learning project ") out of a po-pulation of 381 (47.5^  hoys, 52.5# girls) Grade-Xll students at Richmond Secondary School, Richmond, B.C.. Ss were randomly assigned to s i x treatments, each of which contained 6 Ss ( 3 boys and 3 g i r l s ) . Stimulus Materials. The s t i m u l i were 64 white 2 i - i n by 3§-in paperboard cards, containing a l l possible combi-nations of six binary dimensions « number of figures (one or two)} size (small or large); color (red or blue); texture ( s o l i d or slashed); shape (triangular or c i r c u -l a r ) ; and border ( s o l i d or broken). The cards were ran-domly arranged i n eight rows and eight columns on a 24f-in by 32|--in board. The board contained 16 exemp-la r s and 48 non-exemplars of any binary conjunctive con-cept based on the above dimensions. A set of values of each dimension and the other set of complementary values of the s i x dimensions were referred to as Set A and Set B, respectively. Three conjunctive conceptual prob-lems were constructed on the basis of randomly selected two binary dimensions, within each set ( i . e . , Set A and B). As a r e s u l t the focus card for Set A, given to 18 Ss, had a t t r i b u t e values i one, large, red, slashed, t r i a n -gular figure, with s o l i d border, and the focus card f o r Set B, given to the other 18 Ss, had t h e i r complementary attr i b u t e values. Three conceptual problems i n Set A were : one slashed figure, large triangular figure, and large figure with s o l i d border; and the other three con-ceptual problems i n Set B were s two s o l i d figures, - 11 -small circular figure, and small figure with a broken border. Ss were randomly assigned to sequences (one S in each set of each treatment group to one sequence)* Procedure. As each S reported to the laboratory set up in the school, he was seated at the table in front of the stimulus board, which contained 64 cards. A set of instructions, appropriate for each treatment condition, was read to the S by the E who was standing behind the S. Each set of instructions was composed of three parts : Part 1 for manipulating the instructional variable, Part 2 for general learning instruction including prac-tice/warm-up,, and Part 3 for manipulating the motiva-tional variable as related to Part 1. Each of three specific variations in Part 1 (i.e., time-stressed, ac-curacy-stressed, and neutral as control) and each of two specific variations in Part 3 were combined and re-sulted in six sets of instructions, each corresponding to one of the six treatment combinations as shown in Appendix A. After the appropriate instructions were read to the S, E answered the questions, i f raised by the S, by reading appropriate part of instructions again. Immediately after these instructions S was given a series of three conceptual problems. Choice of each stimulus card was made by S at his own rate. Upon selection of each card E designated whether i t is an exemplar or non-- 12 -exemplar of the concept that S had to identify. The choice of stimulus cards, one by one, continued until S correctly verbalized the concept. Two stop-watches were used : one for taking the time interval elapsed between the presentation of the focus card and the se-lection of the f irst instance by S; and the other for taking the total amount of time to the solution of each conceptual problem. The f irst watch was stopped when S selected the f irst card, and the second watch was stop-ped when S reached a criterion of solution. Each card choice made by S was recorded on a protocol, sheet. When S completed a conceptual problem, he proceeded without pause to the next problem, until he solved a l l the three problems. Then he was asked not to discuss the experiment with other students until the whole experiment is com-pleted. Results Ss' responses were observed in terms of time inter-val for Phase 1, index of dimensional change for Phase 2, and average time per card choice for Phase J. Examination of validity of the assumption of instrumental  variable's manipulation. Since the present study is primarily concerned with the functional change in selection strategies and per-- 13 -formance as a result of instructing Ss in certain way (i.e., time-stressed vs accuracy-stressed), i t appears necessary to confirm the validity of the assumption that the manipulated instructional variable was behaviorally effective. To this end two additional measures, total time to solution and cards to solution, were observed; and are presented in Table 1 i n terms of observed means. Table 1 • Observed Means of Total Amount of Time in Seconds and Cards to Solution by Treatment Combinations v Time-stressed Accuracy-stressed Control High Low High Low High Low Time to 306.2 248.4 331.7 359.7 198.9 292.2 Solution Cards to 18.83 14.22 .6.6.7 7.78 10.67 19.17 Solution  MS Error for Time to Solution =57062 MS Error for Cards to Solution=82.01 Two analyses of variance were performed on the da-ta collected in the 3x2 major part of the design with three control-variables (i.e., set, problem, order) i n terms of total amount of time and number of cards to solution. Results of the analyses are presented in Ap-pendix B-l and B-2. Hypothesis tests for the above pur-pose were carried out at the overall Type 1 Error of .05. If the time-stressed instructions were behaviorally - I n -effective i t should be reflected in the measure of to-t a l time to solution, such that Ss under time-stressed condition should spend the least amount of time, where-as Ss under accuracy-stressed condition should spend the most amount of time, as compared to control Ss.The observed means for the time-stressed, accuracy-stressed, and control conditions are 277.3» 3^5»7» and 245.6, res-pectively. Although the relative magnitude of the f i r s t two means was in the expected direction,the main effects due to the instructional variable were found non-signi-ficant, F(2,18)=1.65, £^ .05. If the accuracy-stressed instructions were behavior-a l l y effective i t should be reflected in the measure of number of cards to solution, such that Ss under accura-cy-stressed condition should select the least cards to solution, whereas Ss under time-stressed condition should select the most cards to solution, as compared to con-t r o l Ss. The observed means for the time-stressed, ac-curacy-stressed, and control conditions are l6.53» 7.23, and 1^.92, respectively. The main effect due to the i n -structional variable was significant, F(2,18)=10.85, p^ .05. Two individual contrasts, one between accuracy-stressed condition and control condition and the other between time-stressed condition and control condition were found to be non-significant, F(l,l8)=4.28, jo^ .025 - 15 -and F(1,18) = .21, j>^'.025. However, the contrast between time-stressed and accuracy-stressed condition was signi-ficant, F(1,18)=6.32, £<\025. These results are partially as expected with regard to accuracy-stressed instructions; but however, because Ss under control condition appear to act in the very-same way as Ss under time-stressed condition, the effect of time-stressed instructions appears to be minimal. In summary, the fact that observed means of three instruct-ional conditions in terms of both measures are partial-ly as expected suggests that manipulation of instruct-ional variable was effective. Analysis of data concerning Phase 1 (i.e., analysis of  the problem). Ss" responses for Phase 1 were observed in terms of time interval elapsed between the presentation of the focus card and selection of the f i r s t instance by S, and are presented in Table 2 in terms of observed means. Table 2 Observed Means of Time Interval in Seconds Instrue- Motiva- Problems Marginal tions tion 1st 2nd 3rd Mean Time- High 7.6? 3-67 6.17 5.83 stressed Low 7.67 7.00 5.17 6.61 Accuracy- High 19.33 18.33 22.33 20.00 stressed Low 38.33 18.17 16.67 24.39 Control High 9.33 10.00 7.33 8.89 Low 9.50 6.33 7.83 7.89 - 16 -MS Error for Time Interval =90.43 The analysis of variance was performed on the data -and is presented in Appendix B-3. Hypothesis tests were carried out at the overall Type 1 Error of .05. It was hypothesized that i f pressure of time through time-stressed instructions prevents Ss from analyzing the problem, and i f knowledge of the reason for unimpor-tance of speed of solution induces Ss to analyze the problem, then i t should be reflected in the amount of time interval, such that Ss under time-stressed condi-tion should spend the least amount of time, whereas Ss under accuracy-stressed condition should spend the most amount of time, as compared to control Ss. The observed means for the time-stressed, accuracy-stressed, and con-t r o l conditions are 6.22, 22.19» and 8.39» respectively. The main effect due to the instructional variable was significant, F(2,l8)=29.88, £^ .05. The individual con-trast between time-stressed condition and control con-dition was found to be non-significant, F(l,l8)=.31, £^ .05. However, the individual contrast between ac-curacy-stressed condition and control condition was found tobe significant, F(l,l8)=12.82, £^ .05. These results are as hypothesized with regard to accuracy-stressed instructions; but however, because Ss under control condition appear to act in the very same way as Ss under time-stressed condition, the effect of time-- 17 -stressed instructions appears to be minimal. In summary, the fact that Ss under accuracy-stressed condition spend significantly more time between presentation of the focus card and selection of the f i r s t instance than Ss under control condition, suggests that knowledge of the reason for unimportance of speed of solution induces Ss to ana-lyze the problem. It appears that when Ss are not told the reason for unimportance of speed of solution (i.e., control Ss), then their responses for Phase 1 seem to be the very same as the responses of Ss under time-stres-sed condition. Analysis of data concerning Phase 2 (i.e., selection of  a strategy-plan). Ss' responses for Phase 2 were observed in terms of-index of dimensional change of attributes from the f i r s t exemplar, and are presented in Table 3 in terms of ob-served means. Table 3 Observed Means of Index of Dimensional Change Instruc-tions Motiva-tion 1st Problems 2nd 3rd Marginal Mean Time- High 2.48 2.32 2.15 2.32 stressed Low 1.62 1.81 2.15 1.86 Accuracy- High 2.02 1.80 2.47 2.09 stressed Low 1.96 2.08 2.12 2.Q5 Control High 2.15 2.23 2.12 2.17 ..... Low 2.22 2.38 2.6,5 2.42 - 18 -MS Error for Index of Dimensional Change =.3730 The analysis of variance was performed on the data and is presented in Appendix B-4. Hypothesis tests were carried out at the overall Type 1 Error of .05. It was hypothesized that i f pressure of time through time-stressed instructions prevents Ss from formulating a strategy-plan, and i f knowledge of the reason for un-importance of speed of solution induces Ss to formulate a strategy-plan, then i t should he reflected in the i n -dex of dimensional change, such that Ss under time-stres-sed condition should have higher index of dimensional change, whereas Ss under accuracy-stressed condition should have lower index of dimensional change, as com-pared to control Ss. The observed means for the time-stressed, accuracy-stressed, and control condition are 2.09, 2.07, and 2.29, respectively. The main effect due to the instructional variable was non-significant, F(2,l8)=l .45, £^ .05. These results are not as hypothe-sized. Analysis.of data concerning Phase 3 ( i . e . , execution). Ss* responses for Phase 3 were observed in terms of average time per card choice, and are presented in Table 4 in terms of observed means. The analysis of variance was performed on the data and is presented in Appendix B-5« Hypothesis tests were carried out at the overall Type 1 Error of .05. - 19 -Table 4 Observed Means for Average Time per Card Choice in Seconds Instruc-tions Motiva-tion 1st Problems 2nd 3rd Marginal Mean Time-stressed High Low 17.10 19.79 14.25 18.80 10.49 13.41 13.95 17.3^  Accuracy-stressed High Low 38.53 50.12 38.31 34.60 40.88 37.33 39.24 40.68 Control High . Low 18.15 22.37 23.16 14.52 11.27 11.09 17.53 15.99 MS Error for Average Time per Card Choice =244.6 It was hypothesized that i f pressure of time through time-stressed instructions impairs the execution of a strategy-plan, and i f knowledge of the reason for unim-portance of speed of solution improves the execution of a strategy-plan, then i t should be reflected in the amount of average time per card choice, such that Ss under time-stressed condition should spend the least amount of time, whereas Ss under accuracy-stressed con-dition should spend the most amount of time, as compa-red to control Ss. The observed means for the time-stres-sed, accuracy-stressed, and control condition are 15.65, 39.96, and 16*76, respectively. The main effect due to the instructional variable was significant, F(2,l8)=27.24, £^ .05» The individual contrast between time-stressed condition and control condition was found to be non-si-gnificant, F(1,18) = .029, £^ .05. However, the individu-al contrast between accuracy-stressed condition and con-- 20 -t r o l condition was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t , P(l,18)=12 .96» £ < / . 0 5 . These r e s u l t s are as hypothesized with regard to accuracy-stressed instructions; but however, because Ss under control condition appear to act i n the very same way as Ss under time-stressed condition, the e f f e c t of time-stressed instructions appears to be minimal. Furthermore, according to the res u l t s of the two contrasts i t i s clear that Ss under time-stressed condition spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y less amount of time per card choice than Ss under accura-cy-stressed condition. In summary, the f a c t that Ss under accuracy-stressed condition spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time per card choice than Ss under control condition, suggests that knowledge of the reason for unimportance of speed of soluti o n improves the execution of a strategy-plan ( i . e . , performance). It appears that when Ss are not t o l d the reason for the unimportance of speed of solut i o n ( i . e . , control Ss), then t h e i r responses f o r Phase 3 seem to be the very same as the responses of Ss under time-stressed condition. It was also hypothesized that, i f high motivation impairs performance i n the time-stressed condition, and improves performance i n the accuracy-stressed condition, then i t should be r e f l e c t e d i n the amount of average time per card choice, such that highly motivated Ss under time-stressed condition should spend the least amount of time - 21 -as compared to less motivated Ss under time-stressed con-dition; whereas highly motivated Ss under accuracy-stres-sed condition should spend the most amount of time as com-pared to less motivated Ss under accuracy-stressed condi-tion. The observed means are presented in Table 4. The main effect due to the motivational variable was non-si-gnificant, F ( l,l8) = .13, £^ ..05. These results are not as hypothesized. ...Discussion It was assumed that when Ss are aware, through accu-racy-stressed instructions, of the reason for the unim-portance of speed of solution in a test-like experiment-al situation involving a conceptual task, that they wil l follow the postulated logical sequence of conceptual be-havior and consequently their performance wil l be improved. The results do confirm this hypothesis. They indicate that Ss under accuracy-stressed condition took more time during the interval between presentation of the focus card and selection of the f irst instance (Phase l ) , and spent more time on each card choice (Phase 3), than Ss without i n -structional treatment (control). It was also observed that Ss under time-stressed condition spent about the same amount of total time to solution as Ss under accuracy-stressed condition. Nevertheless, as revealed by the ana-- 22 -lysis of the average time per card choice, Ss under time-stressed condition spent significantly less time per card choice than Ss under accuracy-stressed condition. These facts indicate that the accuracy-stressed instructions are responsible for the better performance of Ss under accu-racy-stressed condition than Ss under time-stressed con-dition. This suggests that knowledge of the reason for ignoring the. time and emphasis on accuracy may induce Ss to take time to analyze the problem and that this oppor-tunity to follow the logical sequence of behavior may im-prove the execution ( i . e . , performance). It was also assumed that under the pressure of time through time-stressed instructions, Ss would not follow the logical sequence and that consequently their perform-ance wil l be impaired. The results do not confirm this hy-pothesis. They indicate that Ss under time-stressed condi-tion behaved in Phase 1 and 3 in the very same way as Ss without instructional treatment (control). This suggests that lack of knowledge of the reason for ignoring the time and no emphasis on accuracy may force those Ss who are told that speed is important, and also those Ss who are not told that speed is important, into the execution phase without analyzing the problem, and that this lack of op-portunity to follow the logical sequence of behavior may impair the execution ( i . e . , performance). - 23 -The results support Siegel's (1964) proposition that time to criterion (total time to solution) need not cor-relate highly with trials to criterion (cards to solution). They also indicate that merely telling Ss that time is of no importance (Siegel, 1964; Laughlin, 1964) is apparently not enough in a test-like experimental situation, and that in order to change Ss* habitual behavior which impairs performance, Ss must understand the reason why speed of so-lution is not important. It is interesting to note that the highly significant difference in performance was appa-rently caused by a variation of four sentences in the i n -structional treatment. One may speculate on the magnitude of the effect of an intensive and prolonged instructional treatment on performance in the attribute identification task. It is suggested that the evidence from the present ... study casts some doubt on the validity of using time to solution as the only criterion of conceptual performance. The results did not bear out the contention that a thorough analysis of the problem results in a selection of the optimal strategy for that particular problem, because the measure, index of dimensional change, designed to evaluate the strategy used, failed to perform its function. Index of dimensional change was to calculate the average number of attributes changed by S on each card choice from the f irst exemplar card. This condition was - 24 -sp e c i f i e d i n the procedural instructions and emphasised i n the practice/warm-up task. Ss nevertheless switched t h e i r focus card hack and f o r t h , from the f i r s t exemplar to the immediately preceeding positive card choice, or to any other exemplar previously tested. Since the focus card used by Ss can not be i d e n t i f i e d , the analysis of Phase 2 performance as measured by index of dimensional change i s meaningless and has to be discarded. This i s disappoint-ing, because without t h i s information i t i s impossible to evaluate the strategy-plans used by Ss and to in f e r from these strategy-plans what behavior took place during the a n a l y t i c a l and planning phases (Phase 1 and 2). I t i s sug-gested that the f a i l u r e of index of dimensional change can be prevented i n future attribute i d e n t i f i c a t i o n research by the use of a reception model where only the f i r s t exem-plar i s available to the S for comparison; or by the use of a report form the S in d i c a t i n g the exemplar used as focus on each card choice. The report may be further sup-ported by an eye-marker camera of the type used by Mackworth and Thomas (Bandura & Walters, 1 9 6 7 ) . The analysis of Ss* responses i n Phase 3 f a i l e d to confirm the t h i r d hypothesis that motivation impairs per-formance under time-stressed condition, and that i t im-proves performance under accuracy-stressed condition. This f a i l u r e may. be due to the ineffectiveness of the - 25 -method used f o r the inducement of motivation, and i t also may be due to the already e x i s t i n g high l e v e l of motiva-t i o n i n the sample, since i t was a volunteer group. The s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of problem on time i n t e r v a l may be the r e s u l t of fatigue or boredom on the t h i r d problem. It was observed that the procedural instructions, although extensive and encompassing a practice period, apparently f a i l e d to ensure that a l l Ss begin t h e i r tasks with a thorough understanding of the task and with a good f a m i l i a r i t y with the stimulus materials. This could have been prevented -by pre-testing a l l Ss on these two prere-q u i s i t e s . These re s u l t s have a d e f i n i t e educational implications. They indicate that the importance of the speed of s o l u t i o n -on a conceptual task seems to be implied i n a t e s t - l i k e s i t u a t i o n , and that t h i s may deteriorate learners' per-formance. Classroom conditions where students are con-stantly competing against each other, tend to create a t e s t - l i k e s i t u a t i o n ; and i t i s suggested that t h i s pre-vents the students, from following the postulated l o g i c a l sequence of conceptual behavior, and forces them into the execution without an appropriate strategy-plan of action, r e s u l t i n g i n a poorer performance than they are capable of. In order to eliminate t h i s extraneous variable from the conceptual learning s i t u a t i o n , time-stress, whether actual or implied, must be removed from the classroom. - 26 -References Bandura,A., & Walters,R.H. S o c i a l Learning and Personality  Development. New York, Holt, 1967, 76-77. Bourne,L.E. Factors a f f e c t i n g strategies used i n problems of concept formation. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 229-238. Bruner,J.S., Goodnow,J., & Austin,G.A. A Study of Thinking. New York, Wiley, 1956, 83-90. Byers,J.L. Strategies and learning set i n concept a t t a i n -ment. Dissertation Abstracts, 1961, 21, 1904. Deese,J., & Hulse,S.H. The Psychology of Learning. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967, 208-218. Gardner,R.W. Cognitive styles i n categorizing behavior. Journal of Personality, 1953, 22, 214-233. Haygood,R.C., & Bourne,L.E. Att r i b u t e - and rule-learning aspects of conceptual behavior. Psychological Review, 1965, 72, 175-195. Klausmeier,H.J. Strategies i n Concept Attainment. Summary review of personal correspondence, 1964. Laughlin,P.R. Speed vs minimum-choice instructions i n concept attainment. Journal of Experimental Psycho-logy, 1964, 67, 596. Laughlin,P.R., & Doherty.M.A. Discussion vs memory i n co-operative group concept attainment, Journal of  Educational Psychology, 1967, 58, 123-128. - 27 -Siegel,P.S. Concept formation's response-time conside-ra t i o n s . Psychological Reports,1964. 14, 435-442. - 28 -Appendix A Instructions 1.Time-stressed high motivated (TSHM). Part 1. This study is concerned with how students learn concepts. Your task is to identify the characteristics of three concepts as quickly as possible. Time is of v i t a l importance. Part 2. I shall now demonstrate to you what is a concept. Look at this board in front of you; i t contains 64 cards, and each card is composed of six characteristics. For example s this card (E points to a card in the f i r s t row, second column) has the following characteristics s one, large, solid, red, circular figure, with a broken border. If your task is to identify the concept " large red figu-re " then this card is an example of the concept " large red figure " since i t contains both characteristics of the concept t large and red. If you w i l l look now at this card (E points to a card in the fourth row, f i r s t column), you w i l l notice that i t has s one, large, solid, blue, circular figure, with a broken border. This card is not an example of the concept " large red figure " since i t does not have both characteristics of the concept s large and red. Now, using the pointer which lies in front of you, please indicate to me a l l the cards on this board which are examples of the concept " large red figure ". - 29 -(E ensures that S identifies a l l exemplars). Listen carefully now, and I shall explain to you how we wil l conduct this game. I wil l point to you one card that • is an example of the concept which you have to identi-fy. This card wil l contain six characteristics, and two of them wil l form your concept. In order to determine which two characteristics form your concept, you should test the characteristics of other cards on the board in relation to the characteristics of the example card which I wil l point out to you. You wil l indicate to me with the pointer the cards which you want to check, and r wil l say " yes " i f the card is an example of the concept, or I wil l say " no i f the card is not an example. When you think that you know what is the concept, t e l l me, and if' i t is correct I wil l say " yes " and your task on that concept is.completed; i f i t is not correct I wil l say " no " and you wil l continue selecting cards until you wil l identify your concept. You can offer only one so-lution on each card choice. Part 3» This study has already been conducted in Van-couver schools, and based on that we have established a record time to completion of the task. Now we would like to see whether this record can be broken by Rich-mond students. Your school has been selected, and you are one of the few students who wil l have now the op-. portunity to help your school in breaking this record.-- 30 -Since a l l students were selected randomly, you are com-peting with an average Vancouver student. Please remem-ber that speed is-very important i n t h i s game. Your p r i n c i p a l i s very interested i n th i s project, and asked me to show him a l l the r e s u l t s from t h i s study. You see, your performance on these tasks w i l l indicate to us how well you can think. 2. Time-stressed low motivated (TSLM). Part 1. (Same as for TSHM). Part 2. (Same as f o r TSHM). Part 3« Please remember that speed i s very important i n this game. 3. Accuracy-stressed high motivated (ASHM)-. Part.1. This study i s concerned with how students learn concepts. Your task i s to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three concepts with as few card choices as possible. Time i s of no importance. > Part 2. (Same as for TSHM)-. Part 3*. This study has already been conducted i n Van-couver schools, and based on that, we have established a record of minimum cards to completion of the task. Now, we would l i k e to see whether th i s record can be broken by Richmond students. Your school has been se-lected, and you are one of the few students who w i l l now have the opportunity to help your school i n break-- 31 -ing t h i s record. Since a l l students were selected ran-domly, you are competing with an average Vancouver stu-dent. Please remember that speed i s of no importance, and that the v i t a l thing i n this game i s that you iden-t i f y the concepts with as few card choices as possible. If you hurry, you w i l l not be able to complete your tasks e f f i c i e n t l y . Your p r i n c i p a l i s very interested i n this project, and asked me to.show him a l l the re s u l t s from thi s study. You see, your performance on these tasks w i l l indicate to us how well you can think. 4. Accuracy-stressed low motivated (ASLM). Part 1. (Same as for ASHM). Part 2. (Same as for ASHM). Part 3« Please remember that speed i s of no importance, and that the v i t a l thing i n th i s game i s that you iden-t i f y the concepts with as few card choices as possible. If you hurry, you w i l l not be able to complete your tasks e f f i c i e n t l y . 5. Control high motivated (CON-HM). Part 1. This study i s concerned with how students learn concepts. Your task i s to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three concepts. Part 2. (Same as f o r TSHM). Part 3. This study has already been conducted i n Van-- 32 -couver schools. Now, we would l i k e to see how Richmond students learn concepts i n comparison to Vancouver stu-dents. Your school has been selected for th i s compari-son, and you are on of the few students who w i l l re-present your school i n thi s study. Since a l l students were selected randomly, you are competing with an average Vancouver student. Your p r i n c i p a l i s very i n -terested i n thi s project, and asked me to show him a l l the r e s u l t s from t h i s study. You see, your performance on these tasks w i l l indicate to us how well you can think. 6 .Control low motivated (CON-LM). Part 1,. (Same as for CON-HM). Part 2 . (Same as for CON-HM). Part 3« (Eliminated). - 33 -Appendix B-l Table 5 Analysis of Variance for Total Time to Solution Source Error F Mean Square. df S i g n i f i - p cance Instruction (I) Motivation (M) Order (0) S(IMO) S(IMO) S(IMO) -1.65 .21 4.39 94233 . 12096 250690 2 n/s y .05 1 2 Problem (P) SP(IMO) .45 37386 2 I x M S(IMO) .91 51698 2 I x 0 S(IMO) 1.46 83538 4 M x 0 S(IMO), •33 I 8 6 1 3 2 I x P SP(IMO) .64 S8490 4 M x P • SP(IMO) .18 14952 2 0 x P SP(IMO) .93 76368 4 I x- M x 0 S(IMO) .73 41836 4 I x M x P SP(IMO) 1.22 100378 4 I x 0 x P SP(IMO) 1.21 99920 8 M x 0 x P SP(IMO) .41 33874 4 S(I x M x 0) 57062 18 I x M x 0 x P SP(IMO) .64 52737 8 S x P (I x M x 0) 82352 36 * indicates that the i s f f e c t estimated . i s of in t e r e s t S = subject - 3^  -Appendix B-2 Table 6 Analysis of Variance for Cards to Solution  Source . Error F Mean ..df S i g n i f i - p, Square cance  * Instruction S(IMO) 10.85 890.36 2 s <V.001 (I) ^ Motivation S(IMO) .91 75.00 1 . (M) Order (0) S(IMO) 2.09 171.69 2 Problem (P) SP(IMO) .74 53.69 2 I x M S(IMO) 4.74 388.86 2 I x 0 S(IMO) 2.35 192.56 4 M x 0 S(IMO) 2.49 204.19 2 I x P SP(IMO) .17 12.06 4 M x P SP(IMO) 1.71 123.86 2 O x P SP(IMO) 3.18 230.51 4 I x M x 0 S(IMO) 1.19 97.55 4 I x M x P SP(IMO) 2.22 161.39 4 I x 0 x P SP(IMO) 1.61 116.83 8 M x 0 x P SP(IMO) 1.43 104.01 4 S(I x M x 0) . 82.02 18 I x M x 0 x P SP(IMO) .62 45.04 8 S x P(I x M x 0) • 72.57 36  * indicates that the e f f e c t estimated i s of in t e r e s t only S = subject - 35 -Appendix B-3 Table 7 Analysis of Variance for Time Interval  Source , Error F Mean df S i g n i f i - p Square cance  Instruction S(IMO) 29.88 2702.4 2 (I) Motivation S(IMO) • 57 52.1 1 (M) Order (0) S(IMO) 1.46 132.3 2 Problem (P) SP(IMO) 5-67 250.0 2 I x M S(IMO) .75 67.9 2 I x 0 S(IM'O) .88 79.4 4 M x 0 S(IMO) 1.62 146.6 2 I x P SP(IMO) 2.05 90.5 4 M x P SP(IMO) 4.01 176.8- 2 0 x P SP(IMO) • 55 24.2 4 I x M x 0 S(IMO) 1.19 107.5 4 I x M x P SP(IMO) 4.06 178.9 4 I x 0 x P SP(IMO) 2.08 91.8 8 M x 0 x P SP(IMO) .43 19.2 4 S(I x M x 0) 90.4 18 I x M x 0 x P SP(IMO) .15 6.6 8 S x P(I x M x 0) 44.1 36 S = subject - 36 -Appendix B-4 Table 8 Analysis of Variance for Index of Dimensional Change Source Error F Mean df S i g n i f i - p Square cance  Instruction S(IMO) l .45 .5412 2 (I) Motivation S(IMO) ;50 .1858 1 (M) Order (0) S(IMO) .89 • 3325 2 Problem (P) SP(IMO) 2.73 .4301 2 I x M S(IMO) 3-07 1.1439 2 I x 0 S(IMO) .41 .1520 4 M x 0 S(IMO) .09 •337E-•01 2 I x P SP(IMO) • 55 .859E-•01 4 M x P SP(IMO) 1.80 .2816 2 0 x P SP(IMO) 1;60 .2512 4 I x M x 0 S(IMO) 2.86 1.0678 4 I x M x P SP(IMO) 2.40 .3771 4 I x 0 x P SP(IMO) .61 .967E-•01 8 M x 0 xxP SP(IMO) 1.67 .2626 4 S(I x M x 0) .3730 18 I x M x O x P SP(IMO) 1.00 .1578 8 S x P(I x M x 0) .1572 26 S = subject - 3? -Appendix B-5 Table 9' Analysis of Variance for Average Time per Card Choice Source Error Square Instruction (I) Motivation • (M) Order (0) S(IMO) S(IMO) 27.74 .13 6785.1 32.5 2 1 S(IMO) 2.78 679.9 2 Problem (P) SP(IMO) 2.02 433.4 2 I x M S(IMO) .23 55.3 2 I x 0 S(IMO) 1.06 259.5 4 M x 0 S(IMO) • 39 95.1 2 I x P SP(IMO) .42 89.4 4 M x P SP(IMO) .87 185.7 2 0 x P SP(IMO) 250.3 4 I x M x 0 S(IMO) 1.09 266.3 4 I x M x P SP(IMO) .41 88.6 4 I x 0 x P SP(IMO) 1.32 283.3 8 M x 0 x P SP(IMO) .14 30.1 4 S(I x M x 0) 244.6 18 I x M x 0 x P SP(IMO) .28 60.7 8 S x P(I x M x 0) 214.0 36 Mean df S i g n i f i - p cance s ^.001 n/s y.05 S = subject 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104114/manifest

Comment

Related Items