Campus Access Only

All rights reserved. This publication is intended for use solely by faculty, students, and staff of University of the Pacific. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or later developed, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher.

Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Master of Arts (M.A.)


Graduate School

First Advisor

Michael L. Davis


This experiment investigated the effects of differential study guide assignments and testing. requirements on higher-level performance in a PSI course. Twenty-six students who were enrolled in an elective psychology course in self-control at the University of the Pacific served as subjects. The taxonomy of educational processes developed by Bloom (1956) served as a guide to writing course materials corresponding to six levels of learning.Two levels of study guide assignments and testing requirements were varied across four groups of students in a multilevel design. The first level was the simplest, in which students were required to complete written . exercises in the study guide corresponding to the two ·lowest levels of Bloom's taxonomy, and to pass a 10-item multiple-choice quiz. In the second level, students were required to complete all requirements for level one, and in addition, complete study guide exercises corresponding to the four higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy. During the last four units of the course, a choice procedure was in effect. Students stated whether they wished to complete the second level of study guide assignments at the time that they received a study guide for each unit. Most students did not choose to complete the second level of assignments and requirements. Student performance on higher-level items on three major examinations indicated that the training procedure had some differential effect across the groups but the hypothesis was only partially supported by the results. This may have been due to the lack of consistency between requirements placed on students during training and criteria used to grade the essay questions on the examinations. Additionally, skills that may contribute to the students' ability to respond to higher-level questions were not defined or taught in a systematic way. Measures of student performance in the PSI lab indicated that the course procedures were a practical way to teach higher-level skills in a PSI course.



Included in

Education Commons