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.

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 ACCURACYSTRESSED 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  In  presenting  an  advanced  the I  Library  further  for  this  thesis  degree shall  agree  scholarly  at  the University  make  that  purposes  his representatives.  of  this  written  it  freely  permission  by  thesis  in p a r t i a l  for financial  of  of  Columbia,  British  available  for  for extensive  may be g r a n t e d It  fulfilment  gain  reference copying  by t h e Head  i s understood shall  that  the requirements  of  I agree and this  n o t be a l l o w e d  or  that  study. thesis  o f my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  publication  without  my  permission.  Bohdan Kazimierz Wasilewski  Department  of  Educational Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a  Columbia  19 August; 1970.  Abstract 36 Ss randomly selected from 76 volunteers from Grade-Xll Richmond Secondary School were randomly assigned to six treatments in a 3 x 2 factorial design to test the effect of instructions (time-stressed, accuracy-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) containing the exemplars and non-exemplars of a bi-dimensional 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 i r s t card (Phase 1 - analysis of the problem); index of dimensional change of attributes from the f i r s t exemplar (Phase 2 - selection or development of a strategy-plan)?  and average time per card choice  (Phase 3 - execution of a strategy-plan). Two additional measures, number of cards to solution and total time to solution, were observed in order to confirm the successful manipulation of the instructional variable in terms of its behavioral effects. The results suggest that the manipulation of instructional variable was successful. The results indicate that Ss under  ii -  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 timestressed condition spent about the same amount of total time to solution as Ss under accuracy-stressed condition, 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 responsible for the better performance of Ss under accuracystressed 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 conceptual task. The results failed to confirm third hypothesis that motivation impairs performance under timestressed condition and improves performance under accuracy-stressed condition. It was observed during the  - iii-  experiment that Ss shifted the focus card from the f i r s t exemplar to other positive instances previously 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 tion behavior in Phase 2.  strategy-selec-  Table of Contents  Subject  Page(s)  1  Abstract  i  2  Table of Contents  iv  3  L i s t of Tables  V  k  Acknowledgment  vi  5  Problem  1-8  6  Method  9 - 1 2  7  Results  12 -  8  Discussion  21 - 25  9  References  26 - 27  10  Appendix A - I n s t r u c t i o n s  28 - 32  11  Appendix B - A n a l y s i s of Variance Tables  33 - 37  Serial  -  iii  21  -  V  -  L i s t of Tables  Table  Subject  Page (s)  Observed Means f o r T o t a l Amount of Time and Cards to S o l u t i o n  13  2  Observed Means f o r Time Interval  15  3  Observed Means f o r Index of Dimensional Change  17  1  4  Observed Means f o r Average Time per Card Choice 19  5  A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r T o t a l Time to S o l u t i o n  33  6  A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Cards t o S o l u t i o n  34  7  A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Time I n t e r v a l  35  8  A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Index of Dimensional C h a n g e 3 6  9  A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Average time per Card Choice  37  - vi -  Acknowledgment I wish to express my g r a t i t u d e f o r the e n l i g h t i n g guidance and generous a d v i s e g i v e n to me by the members of the s u p e r v i s i n g committee  i n charge of t h i s  t h e s i s , Drs. W i l s o n 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 AccuracyStressed 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 a c t i v i ties which may be classified into types of operations on the basis of the method used by Ss to solve the problem. 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 i r s t 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 progressively a l l possible concepts hypothesized on the basis of the f i r s t exemplar by eliminating as many hypotheses 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 d i r e c t test of the hypothesis  (scanning).  The review of l i t e r a t u r e reveals that i t i s often very d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y ^ s * behavior i n an experiment a l s i t u a t i o n with these ideal strategies (Klausmeier,  1964;  1965), and that this behavior i s Byers (1961) found that Ss ignored  Haygood & Bourne,  highly i n e f f i c i e n t .  the optimal strategy f o r a t t r i b u t e testing (conservative focusing) and used instead gambling strategies which r e quire varying amounts of r i s k - t a k i n g . In the Wisconsin studies (Klausmeier,  1964)  86$ of Ss (N=64) used gamb-  l i n g strategies i n preference to conservative focusing, although conservative focusing i s considered the most e f f i c i e n t strategy i n concept learning tasks et a l , 1956;  Byers, 1 9 6 I ; Klausmeier, 1964;  (Bruner, Laughlin &  Doherty,  1967). The writer  students  (1st Year Architecture, University of B r i t i s h  observed that even graduate  Columbia) performed unreasonably poorly on concept ident i f i c a t i o n tasks. These Ss selected instances f o r t e s t ing without any apparent systematic plan of operations; f a i l e d to adhere to the p r i n c i p l e of constancy of the untested dimensions ( i n a t t r i b u t e testing); f a i l e d 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 c l a s s i f y Ss* behavior i n  - 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 i r s t 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 i n such a disorganized manner when they were faced with a concept identification task in a laboratory-type experimental situation ? The reason for this inefficient performance may well l i e i n 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 i n any experimental or test-like  situation;  Most of the experimental studies with the selection strategies used time-to-criterion as measure of performance efficiency;  i t is therefore possible that i n 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 t o make t h e i r  judgments  i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n , and observed : ..." t h a t t o a l l o w a l l s u b j e c t s i d e n t i c a l , b r i e f p e r i o d s i n which t o make judgments would have been to o b t a i n from one of them a f a i r l y a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e o f how he p r e f e r r e d t o 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 )  S i e g e l proposed t h a t time t o c r i t e r i o n need not c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y w i t h t r i a l s t o c r i t e r i o n , and t h a t i t may r e f l e c t something q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ; y e t experimental s t u d i e s with t i m e - s t r e s s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s as independent v a r i a b l e and t r i a l s t o c r i t e r i o n as dependent  v a r i a b l e , do not show  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n performance sed  between t i m e - s t r e s -  and t i m e - n o t - s t r e s s e d treatments ( S i e g e l , 1 9 6 4 ;  Laughlin,  1964).  The a n a l y s i s of time t o c r i t e r i o n s t u -  d i e s r e v e a l s however t h a t Ss behave as i f time was v i t a l even when they are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t speed o f s o l u t i o n i s of no importance. In  order t o analyze the e f 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 t h a t the l o g i c a l sequence  o f behavior i n that  s i t u a t i o n should c o n s i s t of three phases : a  °  Phase 1 . S c o n s i d e r s f a c t o r s r e l e v a n t t o h i s task and t h o r o u g h l y analyzes the problem.  b  *  Phase 2 . S formulates a s t r a t e g y - p l a n f o r s o l v i n g 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 behavior is not normally present under standard experimental 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, 1 9 6 4 ) 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 necessary to give Ss the reason for the unimportance of speed of solution, and to place them in a condition where they can u t i l i z e 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 accuracystressed condition w i l l u t i l i z e the optimal strategy more, and will.consequently perform better, than Ss in time-stressed condition. The results of Laughlin s study f  (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 variation in the degree of motivation may affect performance 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 probable, and consequently, i f i t impairs the execution (Phase 3)» then i t seems that motivated Ss in time-stressed 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 performance w i l 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 condition; 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 condition should perform more efficiently than less motivated 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 strategyplan 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 i r s t instance for testing;  b. Phase 2 : obtain significantly larger index of dimensional change (the sum of attributes changed on each card choice from the f i r s t exemplar, divided by total number of card choices to solution); 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 strategy-plan (Phase 2), and i f i t improves execution of the strategy-plan (Phase 3), then Ss in an accuracy-stressed condition w i l l : a. Phase 1 : use significantly more time between reception of the task and selection of the f i r s t 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 impairs performance in the time-stressed condition, and improves performance in the accuracy-stressed condition, then a. highly motivated Ss in time-stressed condition w i l l ^  n  Phase 3 © significantly less average time per us  card choice than less motivated Ss in time-stressed condition; whereas b. highly motivated Ss in accuracy-stressed condition w i l 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 independent 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 attribute identification of a conjunctive concept), set (two sets of two dimensions, A and B - see Stimulus Materials), and order (three conceptual problems presented i n three different orders i n a 3 x 3 Latin square design). Three dependent measures, that i s , time i n terval between reception of the task and selection of the f i r s t card, index of dimensional change, and average 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 ) , randomly selected from ?6 volunteers (obtained by the principal through a Public Address request for volunteers for a " concept learning project ") out of a population of  381 (47.5^ hoys, 52.5# girls) Grade-Xll  students at Richmond Secondary School, Richmond, B.C..  Ss were randomly a s s i g n e d to s i x treatments, which contained 6 Ss Stimulus  ( 3 boys and 3  each of  girls).  M a t e r i a l s . The s t i m u l i were 64 white 2 i - i n by  3§-in paperboard  cards, c o n t a i n i n g a l l p o s s i b l e combi-  n a t i o n s of s i x b i n a r y dimensions « number of f i g u r e s (one or two)} texture  size  ( s m a l l or l a r g e ) ; c o l o r  (red or b l u e ) ;  ( s o l i d or s l a s h e d ) ; shape ( t r i a n g u l a r or c i r c u -  l a r ) ; and border domly arranged  ( s o l i d or broken).  i n e i g h t rows and e i g h t columns on a  2 4 f - i n by 32|--in board. l a r s and 48  The cards were r a n -  The board  contained 16 exemp-  non-exemplars of any b i n a r y c o n j u n c t i v e con-  cept based on the above dimensions. each dimension  A s e t of values of  and the other s e t of complementary values  of the s i x dimensions were r e f e r r e d to as Set A  and  Set B, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Three c o n j u n c t i v e conceptual  prob-  lems were c o n s t r u c t e d on the b a s i s of randomly s e l e c t e d two b i n a r y dimensions,  w i t h i n each s e t ( i . e . , Set A  and  B). As a r e s u l t the focus card f o r Set A, g i v e n to 18 had a t t r i b u t e values  i one,  Ss,  large, red, slashed, t r i a n -  g u l a r f i g u r e , w i t h s o l i d border, and the focus card f o r Set B, g i v e n to the other 18  Ss, had  t h e i r complementary  a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s . Three conceptual problems i n Set A were : one s l a s h e d f i g u r e , l a r g e t r i a n g u l a r f i g u r e ,  and  l a r g e f i g u r e w i t h s o l i d border; and the other three conc e p t u a l problems i n Set B were s two  solid  figures,  - 11 -  small c i r c u l a r figure, and small figure with a broken border. Ss were randomly assigned to sequences (one S i n each set of each treatment group to one sequence)* Procedure. As each S reported to the laboratory set up i n the school, he was seated at the table i n front of the stimulus board, which contained 64 cards. A set of instructions, appropriate f o r 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 f o r manipulating the i n s t r u c t i o n a l variable, Part 2 f o r general learning i n s t r u c t i o n including practice/warm-up,, and Part 3 f o r manipulating the motivat i o n a l variable as related to Part 1. Each of three s p e c i f i c variations i n Part 1 ( i . e . , time-stressed, accuracy-stressed, and neutral as control) and each of two s p e c i f i c variations i n Part 3 were combined and r e sulted i n s i x sets of instructions, each corresponding to one of the s i x treatment  combinations as shown i n  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 h i s own r a t e . Upon s e l e c t i o n of each card E designated whether i t i s an exemplar or non-  - 12 -  exemplar of the concept that S had to identify. The choice of stimulus cards, one by one, continued u n t i l 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 selection of the f i r s t instance by S; and the other for taking the total amount of time to the solution of each conceptual problem. The f i r s t watch was stopped when S selected the f i r s t card, and the second watch was stopped 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, u n t i l 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 completed. Results Ss' responses were observed in terms of time interval 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 r e s u l t of i n s t r u c t i n g Ss i n certain way ( i . e . , time-stressed vs accuracy-stressed), i t appears necessary to confirm the v a l i d i t y of the assumption that the manipulated i n s t r u c t i o n a l variable was behaviorally e f f e c t i v e . To t h i s end two additional measures, t o t a l time to solution and cards to solution, were observed; and are presented i n Table 1 i n terms of observed means.  Table 1 • Observed Means of Total Amount of Time i n Seconds and Cards to Solution by Treatment Combinations Time-stressed High Low  Accuracy-stressed High Low  v  Control High Low  Time to Solution  306.2  248.4  331.7  359.7 198.9  292.2  Cards to Solution  18.83  14.22  .6.6.7  7.78 10.67  19.17  MS Error f o r Time to Solution =57062 MS Error f o r Cards to Solution=82.01 Two analyses of variance were performed ta collected i n the 3x2  on the da-  major part of the design with  three control-variables ( i . e . , set, problem, order) i n terms of t o t a l amount of time and number of cards to solution. Results of the analyses are presented i n Appendix B-l and B-2. Hypothesis tests f o r the above purpose were carried out at the o v e r a l l Type 1 Error of  .05.  If the time-stressed instructions were behaviorally  - I n -  e f f e c t i v e i t should be r e f l e c t e d i n the measure of tot a l time to solution, such that Ss under time-stressed condition 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, and control conditions are  accuracy-stressed,  277.3» 3^5»7» and 245.6,  res-  p e c t i v e l y . Although the r e l a t i v e magnitude of the f i r s t two means was  i n the expected direction,the main effects  due to the i n s t r u c t i o n a l variable were found non-significant,  F(2,18)=1.65, £^.05.  If the accuracy-stressed instructions were behaviora l l y e f f e c t i v e i t should be r e f l e c t e d i n the measure of number of cards to solution, such that Ss under accuracy-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 cont r o l Ss. The observed means for the time-stressed, accuracy-stressed, and control conditions are and  1^.92,  respectively. The main e f f e c t due to the i n -  s t r u c t i o n a l variable was  p^.05.  Two  l6.53» 7.23,  significant,  F(2,18)=10.85,  i n d i v i d u a l 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 ficant,  signi-  F(1,18)=6.32, £<\025.  These results are p a r t i a l l y as expected with regard to accuracy-stressed instructions; but however, because Ss under control condition appear to act i n the verysame 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 i n s t r u c t ional conditions i n terms of both measures are p a r t i a l l y as expected suggests that manipulation of i n s t r u c t ional variable was  effective.  Analysis of data concerning Phase 1 ( i . e . , analysis of the problem). Ss" responses f o r Phase 1 were observed i n terms of time i n t e r v a l elapsed between the presentation of the focus card and s e l e c t i o n of the f i r s t instance by S, and are presented i n Table 2 i n terms of observed means.  Table 2 Observed Means of Time Interval i n Seconds Instruetions  Motivation  Timestressed  High Low  Accuracy- High stressed Low Control  High Low  1st  Problems 2nd  7.6? 3-67 7.67 7.00 19.33 18.33 38.33 18.17 9.33 10.00 9.50 6.33  3rd  6.17 5.17 22.33 16.67 7.33 7.83  Marginal Mean  5.83 6.61 20.00  24.39  8.89 7.89  - 16 MS Error f o r Time Interval =90.43 The analysis of variance was performed and i s presented i n Appendix B-3.  on the data -  Hypothesis tests were  carried out at the o v e r a l l 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 f o r unimportance of speed of solution induces Ss to analyze the problem, then i t should be r e f l e c t e d i n the amount of time i n t e r v a l , such that Ss under time-stressed condit i o n 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 f o r the time-stressed, accuracy-stressed, and cont r o l conditions are 6.22,  22.19»  and  8.39»  respectively.  The main e f f e c t due to the i n s t r u c t i o n a l variable s i g n i f i c a n t , F(2,l8)=29.88,  £^.05. The  was  i n d i v i d u a l con-  t r a s t between time-stressed condition and control cond i t i o n was found to be non-significant,  £^.05. However,  F(l,l8)=.31,  the individual contrast between ac-  curacy-stressed condition and control condition was found t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t , F(l,l8)=12.82,  £^.05. These  results are as hypothesized with regard to accuracystressed 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-  - 17 -  stressed instructions appears to be minimal. In summary, the  fact that Ss under accuracy-stressed condition spend  s i g n i f i c a n t l y 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 analyze the problem. I t appears that when Ss are not told the  reason f o r unimportance of speed of solution  (i.e.,  control Ss), then their responses f o r Phase 1 seem to be the very same as the responses of Ss under time-stressed  condition.  Analysis of data concerning Phase 2 ( i . e . , s e l e c t i o n of a strategy-plan). Ss'  responses f o r Phase 2 were observed i n terms of-  index of dimensional change of attributes from the f i r s t exemplar, and are presented i n Table 3 i n terms of observed means.  Table 3 Observed Means of Index of Dimensional Change Instructions  Motivation  1st  Timestressed  High Low  2.48 1.62  Accuracy- High stressed Low Control  High Low  Problems 2nd  3rd  Marginal Mean  1.81  2.32  2.15 2.15  2.32  2.02  1.96  1.80 2.08  2.47 2.12  2.09 2.Q5  2.15  2.23  2.12  2.17  2.22  2.38  2.6,5  1.86  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 unimportance 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-stressed condition should have higher index of dimensional change, whereas Ss under accuracy-stressed condition should have lower index of dimensional change, as compared to control Ss. The observed means for the timestressed, 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 i n 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 i n Seconds Instructions  Motivation  Timestressed  High Low  Accuracy- High stressed Low Control  Problems 2nd  1st  High . Low  14.25  17.10  18.80  19.79  13.95 17.3^  10.49 13.41  38.53 38.31 40.88 34.60 37.33 23.16 11.27 18.15  39.24  50.12  22.37  14.52  hypothesized  40.68  17.53 15.99  11.09  MS Error for Average Time per Card Choice It was  Marginal Mean  3rd  =244.6  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 unimportance  of speed of s o l u t i o n improves the execution of  a strategy-plan, 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 Ss under time-stressed condition should spend the least amount of time, whereas Ss under accuracy-stressed cond i t i o n should spend the most amount of time, as compared to control Ss. The observed means for the time-stressed, accuracy-stressed, and control condition are  39.96,  and  16*76,  r e s p e c t i v e l y . The main e f f e c t due to  the i n s t r u c t i o n a l variable was  £^.05»  15.65,  significant,  F(2,l8)=27.24,  The i n d i v i d u a l contrast between time-stressed  condition and control condition was gnificant,  F(1,18) = .029,  found to be non-si-  £^.05. However,  the individu-  a l contrast between accuracy-stressed condition and  con-  - 20 -  t r o l c o n d i t i o n was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t , £</.05.  P(l,18)=12.96»  These r e s u l t s are as h y p o t h e s i z e d w i t h r e g a r d t o  a c c u r a c y - s t r e s s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s ; but however, because Ss under c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n appear t o a c t i n the v e r y same way as Ss under t i m e - s t r e s s e d c o n d i t i o n , the e f f e c t of times t r e s s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s appears to be minimal. Furthermore, a c c o r d i n g t o the r e s u l t s of the two c o n t r a s t s i t i s c l e a r t h a t Ss under t i m e - s t r e s s e d c o n d i t i o n spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s amount of time per card choice than Ss under a c c u r a c y - s t r e s s e d c o n d i t i o n . In summary,  the f a c t t h a t Ss under  a c c u r a c y - s t r e s s e d c o n d i t i o n spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time per  card choice than Ss under c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , suggests  t h a t knowledge of the r e a s o n f o r unimportance  of speed of  s o l u t i o n improves the e x e c u t i o n of a s t r a t e g y - p l a n  (i.e.,  performance). I t appears t h a t when Ss are not t o l d the reason f o r the unimportance o f speed of s o l u t i o n  (i.e.,  c o n t r o l S s ) , then t h e i r responses f o r Phase 3 seem to be the  v e r y same as the responses of Ss under t i m e - s t r e s s e d  condition. I t was a l s o h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , i f h i g h m o t i v a t i o n impairs performance i n the t i m e - s t r e s s e d c o n d i t i o n , and improves performance i n the a c c u r a c y - s t r e s s e d  condition,  then i t should be r e f l e c t e d i n the amount of average time per  card c h o i c e , such t h a t h i g h l y motivated Ss under time-  s t r e s s e d c o n d i t i o n should spend the l e a s t amount o f time  - 21 as compared to less motivated Ss under time-stressed condition; whereas highly motivated Ss under accuracy-stressed condition should spend the most amount of time as compared to less motivated Ss under accuracy-stressed condition. The observed means are presented in Table 4. The main effect due to the motivational variable was non-significant, F ( l , l 8 ) = .13,  £^..05. These  results are not as  hypothesized.  ...Discussion It was assumed that when Ss are aware, through accuracy-stressed instructions, of the reason for the unimportance of speed of solution in a test-like experimental situation involving a conceptual task, that they w i l l follow the postulated logical sequence of conceptual behavior and consequently their performance w i l 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 i r s t 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 accuracystressed condition. Nevertheless, as revealed by the ana-  - 22 -  lysis of the average time per card choice, Ss under timestressed 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 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 logical sequence of behavior may improve 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 performance w i l l be impaired. The results do not confirm this hypothesis. They indicate that Ss under time-stressed condition 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 opportunity 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 correlate highly with t r i a l s to criterion (cards to solution). They also indicate that merely telling Ss that time is of no importance (Siegel, 1964; Laughlin, 1 9 6 4 ) 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 solution is not important. It is interesting to note that the highly significant difference in performance was apparently 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 i r s t exemplar card. This condition was  - 24 -  s p e c i f i e d i n the p r o c e d u r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s and emphasised i n the practice/warm-up t a s k . Ss n e v e r t h e l e s s  switched  t h e i r focus card hack and f o r t h , from the f i r s t to  the immediately preceeding  any  exemplar  p o s i t i v e card c h o i c e , or t o  other exemplar p r e v i o u s l y t e s t e d . Since the focus  card  used by Ss can not be i d e n t i f i e d , the a n a l y s i s of Phase 2 performance as measured by index  of dimensional  change i s  meaningless and has to be d i s c a r d e d . This i s d i s a p p o i n t ing,  because without  evaluate  t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i t i s impossible t o  the s t r a t e g y - p l a n s used by Ss and t o i n f e r from  these s t r a t e g y - p l a n s what behavior  took p l a c e d u r i n g the  a n a l y t i c a l and p l a n n i n g phases (Phase 1 and 2 ) . I t i s suggested  t h a t the f a i l u r e o f index  can be prevented  of dimensional  change  i n future attribute i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  research  by the use o f a r e c e p t i o n model where only the f i r s t exemp l a r i s a v a i l a b l e t o the S f o r comparison; or by the use of a r e p o r t form the S i n d i c a t i n g the exemplar used as focus on each card c h o i c e . The r e p o r t may be f u r t h e r supported by an eye-marker camera of the type used by Mackworth and Thomas (Bandura & Walters, The  1967).  a n a l y s i s o f Ss* responses i n Phase 3 f a i l e d t o  confirm the t h i r d hypothesis  t h a t m o t i v a t i o n impairs  per-  formance under t i m e - s t r e s s e d c o n d i t i o n , and t h a t i t improves performance under a c c u r a c y - s t r e s s e d  condition.  This f a i l u r e may. be due t o the i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the  -  25  -  method used f o r the inducement of m o t i v a t i o n , and may  be due  i t also  to the a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g high l e v e l of  t i o n i n the sample, s i n c e i t was  motiva-  a v o l u n t e e r 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 f a t i g u e or boredom on the t h i r d problem. I t was  observed  t h a t the p r o c e d u r a l  instructions,  although e x t e n s i v e and encompassing a p r a c t i c e p e r i o d , a p p a r e n t l y f a i l e d to ensure t h a t a l l Ss b e g i n t h e i r tasks with a thorough understanding  of the task and w i t h a good  f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the stimulus m a t e r i a l s . This c o u l d have been prevented -by p r e - t e s t i n g a l l Ss on these two  prere-  quisites. These r e s u l t s have a d e f i n i t e e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . They i n d i c a t e t h a t the importance of the speed of s o l u t i o n on a c o n c e p t u a l task seems to be i m p l i e d i n a t e s t - l i k e s i t u a t i o n , and t h a t t h i s may formance. Classroom  d e t e r i o r a t e l e a r n e r s ' per-  c o n d i t i o n s where students are con-  s t a n t l y competing a g a i n s t each other, tend to c r e a t e 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 f o l l o w i n g the p o s t u l a t e d l o g i c a l sequence of conceptual b e h a v i o r , and f o r c e s them i n t o e x e c u t i o n without  the  an a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y - p l a n of a c t i o n ,  r e s u l t i n g i n a poorer performance than they are o f . In order to e l i m i n a t e t h i s extraneous  capable  v a r i a b l e from  the conceptual l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n , t i m e - s t r e s s , whether a c t u a l or i m p l i e d , must be removed from the  classroom.  - 26 References Bandura,A., & Walters,R.H.  S o c i a l L e a r n i n g and P e r s o n a l i t y  Development. New York, H o l t ,  1967, 76-77.  Bourne,L.E. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s t r a t e g i e s used i n problems of concept f o r m a t i o n . American  J o u r n a l of Psychology,  1963, 76, 229-238. Bruner,J.S., Goodnow,J., & Austin,G.A. A Study of T h i n k i n g . New York, Wiley,  1956, 83-90.  Byers,J.L. S t r a t e g i e s and l e a r n i n g s e t i n concept ment. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1961,  21,  attain-  1904.  Deese,J., & Hulse,S.H. The Psychology of L e a r n i n g . New York, McGraw-Hill,  1967, 208-218.  Gardner,R.W. C o g n i t i v e s t y l e s i n c a t e g o r i z i n g b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y ,  1953, 22, 214-233.  Haygood,R.C., & Bourne,L.E. A t t r i b u t e - and r u l e - l e a r n i n g aspects o f c o n c e p t u a l b e h a v i o r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review,  1965, 72, 175-195. Klausmeier,H.J. S t r a t e g i e s i n Concept Attainment. Summary review of p e r s o n a l correspondence,  1964.  Laughlin,P.R. Speed vs minimum-choice i n s t r u c t i o n s i n concept attainment. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l l o g y , 1964,  67,  Psycho-  596.  Laughlin,P.R., & Doherty.M.A. D i s c u s s i o n vs memory i n coo p e r a t i v e group concept attainment, J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology,  1967, 58, 123-128.  - 27 -  S i e g e l , P . S . Concept formation's  response-time c o n s i d e -  r a t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports,1964. 14, 435-442.  - 28 -  Appendix A Instructions 1.Time-stressed high motivated (TSHM). 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 as quickly as possible. Time i s of vital  importance.  Part 2. I s h a l l now demonstrate  to you what i s a concept.  Look at this board i n front of you; i t contains 64 cards, and each card i s composed of six c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For example s t h i s card (E points to a card i n the f i r s t  row,  second column) has the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s one, large, s o l i d , red, c i r c u l a r figure, with a broken border. If your task i s to i d e n t i f y the concept " large red f i g u re  " then this card i s an example of the concept " large  red  figure " since i t contains both c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  the concept t large and red. If you w i l l look now at t h i s card (E points to a card i n the fourth row, f i r s t  column),  you w i l l notice that i t has s one, large, s o l i d , blue, c i r c u l a r figure, with a broken border. This card i s 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 l i e s i n 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 w i l l conduct this game. I w i l l point to you one card that • is an example of the concept which you have to identify. This card w i l l contain six characteristics, and two of them w i l 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 w i l l point out to you. You w i l l indicate to me with the pointer the cards which you want to check, and r w i l l say " yes " i f the card is an example of the concept, or I w i l 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 w i l l say " yes " and your task on that concept is.completed; i f i t is not correct I w i l l say " no " and you w i l l continue selecting cards u n t i l you w i l l identify your concept. You can offer only one solution on each card choice. Part 3» This study has already been conducted in Vancouver 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 Richmond students. Your school has been selected, and you are one of the few students who w i l l have now the op-. portunity to help your school in breaking this record.-  - 30 -  S i n c e a l l students were s e l e c t e d randomly, you are comp e t i n g with an average Vancouver student. Please remember t h a t speed i s - v e r y important  i n t h i s game. Your  p r i n c i p a l i s v e r y i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s p r o j e c t , 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  i n d i c a t e t o us how  w e l l you can t h i n k . 2. Time-stressed  low motivated  (TSLM).  Part 1. (Same as f o r TSHM). P a r t 2. (Same as f o r TSHM). P a r t 3« Please remember t h a t speed i s v e r y important i n t h i s game. 3. A c c u r a c y - s t r e s s e d high motivated (ASHM)-. P a r t . 1 . This study i s concerned  w i t h how students  learn  concepts. Your task i s t o 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 w i t h as few card choices as p o s s i b l e .  Time i s o f no importance. > P a r t 2. (Same as f o r TSHM)-. P a r t 3*. This study has a l r e a d y been conducted couver  i n Van-  s c h o o l s , and based on t h a t , we have e s t a b l i s h e d  a r e c o r d of minimum cards t o completion  of the t a s k .  Now, we would l i k e t o see whether t h i s r e c o r d can be broken by Richmond s t u d e n t s . Your s c h o o l has been s e l e c t e d , and you are one of the few students who  will  now have the o p p o r t u n i t y to h e l p your s c h o o l i n break-  - 31 ing  t h i s r e c o r d . Since a l l students were s e l e c t e d r a n -  domly, you are competing w i t h an average Vancouver s t u dent. Please remember t h a t speed i s of no  importance,  and t h a t the v i t a l t h i n g i n t h i s game i s t h a t you i d e n t i f y the concepts with as few card c h o i c e s as p o s s i b l e . I f you hurry, you w i l l not be able t o 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 v e r y i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s p r o j e c t , 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 i n d i c a t e t o us how w e l l you can t h i n k . 4. A c c u r a c y - s t r e s s e d low motivated P a r t 1.  (Same as f o r ASHM).  Part 2.  (Same as f o r ASHM).  (ASLM).  P a r t 3« Please remember t h a t speed i s o f no  importance,  and t h a t the v i t a l t h i n g i n t h i s game i s t h a t you i d e n t i f y the concepts with as few card c h o i c e s as p o s s i b l e . I f you h u r r y , you w i l l not be a b l e t o complete your t a s k s efficiently. 5. C o n t r o l h i g h motivated  (CON-HM).  Part 1. This study i s concerned  w i t h how students  learn  concepts. Your task i s t o 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  P a r t 2.  concepts. (Same as f o r TSHM).  P a r t 3. This study has a l r e a d y been conducted  i n Van-  -  32 -  couver s c h o o l s . Now, we would l i k e students l e a r n concepts  t o see how Richmond  i n comparison  t o Vancouver s t u -  dents. Your s c h o o l has been s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s  compari-  son, and you are on of the f e w students who w i l l r e p r e s e n t your s c h o o l i n t h i s study. S i n c e a l l students were s e l e c t e d randomly, you are competing with an average  Vancouver s t u d e n t . Your p r i n c i p a l i s v e r y i n -  t e r e s t e d i n t h i s p r o j e c t , and asked me t o 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 i n d i c a t e t o us how w e l l you can think. 6 . C o n t r o l low motivated  (CON-LM).  P a r t 1,. (Same as f o r CON-HM). P a r t 2 . (Same as f o r CON-HM). P a r t 3« ( E l i m i n a t e d ) .  -  33 -  Appendix B - l Table 5 Analysis  o f Variance f o r T o t a l Time t o S o l u t i o n  Source  Error  Mean Square.  df S i g n i f i - p cance  Instruction (I) Motivation (M) Order (0)  S(IMO)  94233  2  S(IMO)  .21 . 12096  1  S(IMO)  4 . 3 9 250690  2  Problem (P)  SP(IMO)  .45  37386  2  I x M  S(IMO)  .91  51698  2  I x 0  S(IMO)  83538  4  M x 0  S(IMO),  •33  I8613  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  57062  18  52737  8  82352  36  F -1.65  1.46  S ( I x M x 0) I x M x 0 x P SP(IMO) S x P (I x M x 0) *  .64  n/s y  .05  i n d i c a t e s t h a t the is f f e c t estimated . i s of i n t e r e s t  S =  subject  - 3^ Appendix B-2 Table 6 A n a l y s i s of Variance Source .  Error  * Instruction (I) Motivation . (M) Order  (0)  S(IMO) S(IMO) S(IMO)  f o r Cards t o S o l u t i o n  F  Mean Square  ..df S i g n i f i - p, cance  890.36  2  75.00  1  2.09 171.69  2  .74  53.69  2  10.85 .91  Problem (P)  SP(IMO)  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  OxP  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  82.02  18  S ( I x M x 0) . I x M x 0 x P SP(IMO) S x P ( I x M x 0)  .62  45.04 • 72.57  s  <V.001 ^  8 36  * i n d i c a t e s t h a t the e f f e c t estimated i s o f i n t e r e s t only S = subject  - 35 Appendix  B-3  Table 7 Analysis Source  of Variance f o r Time I n t e r v a l  , Error  F  Mean Square  df S i g n i f i - p cance  29.88 2702.4 2 S(IMO) • 57 52.1 1 S(IMO) Order (0) 1.46 132.3 2 Problem (P) SP(IMO) 5 -67 250.0 2 I x M S(IMO) .75 67.9 2 I x0 .88 79.4 4 S(IM'O) M x0 1.62 146.6 2 S(IMO) I x P SP(IMO) 2.05 90.5 4 M x P SP(IMO) 4.01 176.8- 2 0x P SP(IMO) • 55 24.2 4 I x M x0 S(IMO) 1.19 107.5 4 I x M x P SP(IMO) 4.06 178.9 4 I x 0x P SP(IMO) 2.08 91.8 8 M x 0x 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) 6.6 8 .15 S x P ( I x M x 0) 44.1 36 Instruction (I) Motivation (M)  S =  subject  S(IMO)  - 36 Appendix  B-4  Table 8 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Index o f Dimensional Change Source  Error  F  Instruction (I) Motivation (M) Order (0)  S(IMO)  l  Problem (P)  SP(IMO)  I x M  S(IMO)  I x 0  S(IMO)  M x 0  S(IMO)  I x P  SP(IMO)  2 .45 .5412 ;50 .1858 1 .89 • 3325 2 2.73 .4301 2 2 3-07 1.1439 .41 .1520 4 .09 •337E-•01 2 • 55 .859E-•01 4  M x P  SP(IMO)  1.80  0 x P  SP(IMO)  1;60 .2512  I x M x 0  S(IMO)  2.86 1.0678  I x M x P  SP(IMO)  2.40  I x 0 x P  SP(IMO)  M x 0 xxP  SP(IMO)  S(IMO) S(IMO)  Mean Square  .61 1.67  S ( I x M x 0) I x M x  O x P SP(IMO)  S x P ( I x M x 0) S = subject  1.00  .2816  .3771  df S i g n i f i - p cance  2  4 4 4  .967E-•01 8  .2626 .3730  4 18  .1578  8  .1572  26  - 3? Appendix Table  B-5 9'  A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Average Time per Card Choice Source  Error  Instruction (I) Motivation • (M) Order (0)  S(IMO)  Problem (P)  SP(IMO)  I x M  S(IMO)  I x 0  S(IMO)  0  S(IMO)  M x  S(IMO) S(IMO)  I x P  SP(IMO)  M x P  SP(IMO)  0x  SP(IMO)  P  I x M x  0  I x M x P I x M x  0x 0x  S(IMO) SP(IMO)  P  SP(IMO)  P  SP(IMO)  0) 0x P  SP(IMO)  Mean Square  27.74 6785.1 .13 32.5 2.78 679.9 2.02 433.4 .23 55.3 1.06 259.5 • 39 95.1 .42 89.4 .87 185.7 250.3 1.09 266.3 .41 88.6 1.32 283.3 .14 30.1  S(I x M x I x M x  S x P(I x M x S = subject  0)  .28  df S i g n i f i - p cance  2 1 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 8 4 244.6 18 60.7 8 214.0 36  s  ^.001  n/s  y.05  

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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104114/manifest

Comment

Related Items