University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The interrelation of instructional strategies and learner aptitude profiles on the performance and retention of a complex psychomotor task

(USC Thesis Other)

The interrelation of instructional strategies and learner aptitude profiles on the performance and retention of a complex psychomotor task

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE INTERRELATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
AND LEARNER APTITUDE PROFILES ON THE PERFORMANCE
AND RETENTION OF A COMPLEX PSYCHOMOTOR TASK
by
Roseann Mikos
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
June 1980
UMI Number: DP24718
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publ sbng
UMI DP24718
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
Ph/P-
This dissertation, written by £) *~7 / Z~
....
Roseann Mikos
under the direction of hex..... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
n,u.l>hu 4,L I W
DEDICATION
Many people would be happy if they could point to even
one person who had been their mentor: who had inspired
them to strive for excellence, who had believed in them
before anyone else did, who had given them responsibility
and the chance to fail, who had known when to give advice
and when not to, who had shown leadership and excellence
in their own right, and who have that special gift that
makes others loyal to them. That is not all that makes
a mentor, but if anyone really knew what did, there would
be a lot more of them to go around. For me, I feel blessed
that I can point to four people, each of whom, at one time
or another in my life, has been my mentor. They have all
helped me tremendously and I will be forever grateful. If
I could help even one person as much as they have helped
me, that would be my thank you. It is to them that I
dedicate this accomplishment and it is very much because
of them that I have been able to achieve it. This is to
you dad, Ray Santi, Matt Kastello, and Bob Casey.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sincere thanks are extended to the many people who
have contributed to, financially supported, and/or facili
tated the research reported in this dissertation. Mr.
Dennis J. Sullivan, Dr. Robert J. Casey, and Dr. Jeanne
M. Hebein laid the groundwork for this research through
their efforts with Canyon Research Group, Inc. in an
earlier series of studies in 1978. Each has provided
valuable advice and guidance at various stages throughout
the research effort. Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Casey were
particularly instrumental in getting me involved with the
research. Thanks go also to EDUCARE, without whose assis
tance I would have been unable to take advantage of the
opportunity to do this research, when it presented itself.
I am especially Indebted to Canyon Research Group, Inc
and to the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences, both of whom have financially supported
this research effort. The study was part of a larger pro
gram of research performed for Canyon under contract to
the Army Research Institute (ARI). None of the research
could have been conducted without the assistance and sup
port of Dr. John Lockhart and Major Bill Hink of the ARI
Field Unit at Fort Bliss, Texas. Dr. Lockhart was always
available to discuss issues concerning the research. To
gether with Major Hink, he arranged for all on-site sup
port and subjects at Forts Carson, Bragg, Riley, and Hood.
iii
Major Hink also coordinated all on-site Army and civilian
support personnel at each fort during the training and
testing periods--which proved to be an almost monumental
task at times--and which allowed the research to continue
when it would have otherwise been impossible.
Dr. Casey, Ms. Donna Danowski Olson, Major Hink, and
Dr. Michael J. Kelly each participated in data collection
efforts at one or more forts. Ms. Gina Becchetti, Ms.
Elaine Murakami, and Ms. Nancy Ward each helped to sort
and correct many of the tests used in the aptitude battery
or for written testing.
Special thanks go to Drs. Bob Casey, Robert Smith, and
Milton Holmen of my dissertation committee and to Drs. Dick
Clark, Fred Knirk, Ed Lieb, and Kab Mitchell, of the De
partment of Instructional Technology, for either their
comments and critiques on early drafts of the dissertation
or for their moral support while it was being written.
No research is ever complete until it has been re
ported in written form. I am grateful that TRATEC/McGraw-
Hill was willing to exchange some work done by me for some
work from their word processing department to type this
manuscript. I am very appreciative of the efforts of
Jenifer O’Brien and her competent staff: Gwen Bennett,
Walt Bruegger, Mary Bulmer, Wally Hutchins, and Jayne
Somogy, each of whom contributed substantially, through
many drafts, to make this final copy look as it does now.
iv
No acknowledgements are complete without mention of
the support of fellow students, both past and present, who
have provided varying amounts of understanding, advice,
companionship, and constructive criticism--all of which
help to shape the final version of an effort such as this.
It would be impossible to name them all but it would be
unforgiveable not to name the most important one--Dr. Anne
Coyle. Thank you, Anne, for overlooking the many times X
let the dissertation get in the way of my other responsi-
bilities at home.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION ........... . .......... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........ ........ iii
LIST OF FIGURES .......... viii
LIST OF TABLES . . i * • ‘ ......... ix
CHAPTER
ONE. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......... 1
Introduction
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Importance of the Study
Assumption and Limitations
Definition of Terms
TWO. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH ......... 19
Overview of the Chapter
Aptitude Profiles
Aptitude x Treatment Interaction Research
Perceptual/Psychomotor Tasks
Conceptualization of Treatments
Treatment Variables
Instructional Strategies and Aptitudes
THREE. METHODOLOGY ..................... 94
The Population
Measuring Instruments
Aptitude Profile Groups
Instructional Strategies
Learning Task
In s t rumen tation
Field Procedures
Design of the Study
Experimental Variables
Dependent Variables
Research Hypotheses
Statistical Analysis
Theoretical Rationale for the Methodology
vi
Page
FOUR. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............. . 167
Analysis of the Data
Discussion of Hypotheses
Summary
FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 199
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
REFERENCE LIST 222
APPENDIXES
A. SCRIPT FOR ORIENTATION OF SOLDIERS BEFORE
RANDOM ASSIGNMENT TO STRATEGY GROUPS 237
B. INFORMATION CONCERNING INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIALS FOR STRATEGY 1 239
C. NON-CONFIDENTIAL INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
FOR STRATEGY 2 242
D. NON-CONFIDENTIAL INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
FOR STRATEGY 4 257
E. POINT VALUES USED IN SCORING FILM 10
AND FILM 12 FOR REFRESHER REDEYE TRAINING 282
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Statistical Analysis Process Used by Canyon
Research (1978) for Aptitude Profile
Formation . . .................. , . . 26
2. Moving Target Simulator (MTS) ........ .... 138
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Table of Strategy Characteristics.......... .. . 115
2. Performance and Written Test Means, Standard
Deviations, and Ranges from Training and
Retention for Aptitude Profiles . . . . . . , . 168
3. Performance and Written Test Means, Standard
Deviations, and Ranges from Training and
Retention for Instructional Strategy Groups . . 170
4. Film 10 Performance Test Means and Standard
Deviations for Aptitude Profile x Instruc
tional Strategy Cell (N - 87) . . . . . . . . . 171
5. Film 10 Performance Test Means and Standard
Deviations for Aptitude Profile x Instruc
tional Strategy Cell (N = 61) ........ . 172
6. Film 10 Retention Test Means and Standard De
viations for Aptitude Profile x Instruc
tional Strategy Cell (N = 61) . . . . . . . . .173
7. Film 12 Performance Test Means and Standard
Deviations for Aptitude Profile x Instruc
tional Strategy Cell (N = 8 7 )............ 174
8. Film 12 Performance Test Means and Standard
Deviations for Aptitude Profile x Instruc
tional Strategy Cell (N = 61)............ 175
9. Film 12 Retention Test Means and Standard De
viations for Aptitude Profile x Instruc
tional Strategy Cell (N - 61) . .176
10. Range Ring Profile Written Test Means and
Standard Deviations for Aptitude Profile x
Instructional Strategy Cell (N = 87) ..... 177
11. Range Ring Profile Written Test Means and
Standard Deviations for Aptitude Profile x
Instructional Strategy Cell (M - 6 1 ) .......178
12. Range Ring Profile Written Retention Test
Means and Standard Deviations for Aptitude
Profile x Instructional Strategy Cell
(N = 6 1 ) ............ ,179
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Summary of the Multiple Regression Analyses
for Film 10 .... .. ... .. ... .. . . 181
Summary of the Multiple Regression Analyses
for Film 12 .............182
Post hoc LSD Comparisons Between Means
Following Significant Aptitude Profile
Effects (N = 61) 184
Post hoc LSD Comparisons Between Means
Following Significant Strategy Effects
(N = 61) 186
Summary of the Multiple Regression Analyses
for the Range Ring Profile Written Test . . . . 187
Post hoc LSD Comparisons Between Means
Following Significant Aptitude Profile
Effects (N - 8 7 ) ......................... 188
CHAPTER ONE
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
In an article that identified instructional technology
as a prescriptive (rather than a descriptive) science,
Glaser (1976) described what he believes to be the process
and end result of educators' efforts at instructional re-
t
search. He said that the technique is to
get A set of alternative goals or possibilities for
action, certain fixed parameters and constraints of
the situation, and a function that describes the
relationship between these factors; then find a set
of values that provides the best means of attaining
pos s ib1e outcomes. (p. 6)
He then outlined four components of a prescriptive theory
of instruction, including elements of task, learner, In
struction, and evaluation.
In line with Glaser's thinking, much educational re
search, especially in the last ten to fifteen years, has
been conducted with the goal in mind of explaining individ
ual differences in performance under different methods of
instruction rather than trying to discover "one best way"
to teach all people. Research conducted in this way is
typically called aptitude x treatment interaction (ATI)
1
research. An underlying assumption of this kind of re
search is that certain personalogical characteristics help
to determine success or failure in learning situations and
that these same characteristics can help to determine
which instructional methods might be most appropriate for
which people in specific situations (DiVesta, 1975;
Hebein, 1978; Hunt, 1975; Parkhurst, 1975).
The purpose of the present effort was to investigate
the effects of selected instructional strategies, matched
to predictable learner aptitude profiles, on the perfor
mance (during refresher training) of a complex procedural
psychomotor task. An equally important purpose was to
extend, validate, and improve some earlier research (Canyon
Research Group, Inc., 1978; Hebein, 1978; Sullivan, Casey,
& Hebein, 1978) by using the actual target population
rather than one that was only similar to it. The underly
ing goal of the research program was to learn something
about how to maximize performance outcomes for each student
on this task. By having done this, one more piece of
evidence was collected that helps to document a theory of
instruction that instructional technologists and others
are hoping to build, with the help of ATI research.
Background of the Problem
There has been (Tallmadge & Shearer, 1971) and there
is now (Bloedorn, 1979; Canyon Research Group, Inc., 1978;
2
Federico, 1978; Hebein, 1978; Sullivan et al., 1978) a
growing body oi literature which seeks to explain and/or to
recommend a methodology that will help to explain interac
tive effects between different learner characteristics and
alternative instructional methods as they relate to task
performance in a military setting. The current effort grew
out of the earlier work by Canyon Research. That work made
a beginning with respect to the use of a viable methodology
for the design and implementation of alternative instruc
tional strategies using a variation of the aptitude x
treatment interaction approach.
In contrast to the simple notion of a two-way aptitude
x treatment interaction, a more recent trend in instruc
tional technology research (Clark, 1975a; Koran, 1974;
Rhetts, 1972, 1974; Salomon, 1979) recommends that the
focus of ATI research should instead be on a three way
interaction between the nature of the task, the traits,
attributes, or aptitudes of interest and the treatment di
mensions (Hebein, 1978). For the three-way interaction,
the three things (tasks, traits, and treatments) simultane
ously affect performance. In this study, the task was
held constant while the treatments and traits were allowed
to vary.
ATI researchers have identified a number of aptitude
variables that are postulated to predict the likelihood for
success under given treatments. These include general
3
mental ability, cognitive styles, personality characteris
tics, sex, and other individual traits (Shapiro, 1975).
The use of a multi-test battery (Cronbach & Gleser, 1975)
can enhance the ability to predict criterion performance
from aptitudes if the range of aptitude testing encompasses
all dimensions of a prediction problem and focuses on the
relative contributions of each test. In multidimensional
situations, such as the performance of the complex proce
dural psychomotor task of this study, a combination of mea
sures provided more useful Information than would one pre
cise measure of a single dimension that excluded any mea
sures of the other equally important dimensions of the
problem (Cronbach ■& Gleser, 1975).
In this study, such a test battery was administered
which measured aptitudes that were found to be related to
the task. These included general ability, cognitive style,
two dimensional perceptual ability, and anxiety. These
factors, because of the relevant instructional research
concerning them, have been (Canyon Research Group, Inc.,
1978; Hebein, 1978; Sullivan et al. , 1978) and were used in
this study as a basis for the design of the differing in
structional strategies.
Cronbach and Snow (1977) maintained that no ATI study
should be conducted without a measure for general ability
because it still remains the best overall predictor for
successful task performance. A number of studies reviewed
4
by Allen (1975) have shown that there are certain design
elements within instructional presentations that are dif
ferentially effective for learners of differing mental
abilities. In addition, Allen identified several specific
methods and techniques that can be used to boost the
learning of students with different intellectual abilities.
There has been a host of research done on cognitive
style, which has proven to be one of the most interesting
of the individual difference variables. The cognitive
style of interest in this study was that of field depen
dence/independence (also called global/analytic). Differ
ing instructional strategies, media, and methods of in
struction are recommended depending on the degree of
global or analytic functioning within learners (Witkin,
Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977).
One of the most useful hypotheses about learning with
respect to global/analytic style was proposed by Goodenough
(1976), who holds that analytics or field independents
have a greater capacity to structure information, thereby
being able to engage in their own learning strategies
rather independently. On the other hand, globals or
field-dependents are more reliant on the instructional
materials or on an instructor to provide the necessary or
ganization and structure to the information to be learned.
Fitzgerald (1979) reviewed the literature on field-
independence/dependence and has synthesized the work
5
across many categories, including: social orientation,
the relation of field-independence/dependence to achieve
ment and intelligence, learning strategies, and reinforce
ment, among others. Clear implications for instruction
can be gleaned from this thorough review.
Learners’ perceptual abilities have proven to be im-
portant variables in determining levels of proficiency
that can be obtained in any perceptual/ psychomotor task
(Michael, Guilford, Fruchter, & Zimmerman, 1957). Upon
analysis of the learning task for this study, two dimen
sional spatial ability was found to be predictive of
criterion performance (Hebein, 1978). Because of this,
instructional strategies in one of the treatments were
designed to capitalize on this ability (for those who
scored high on it).
The personality factor of anxiety was also found to
be predictive of criterion performance for a certain group
of subjects in the target population for this study.
Cronbach and Snow (1977) reviewed extensively on types
of instructional strategies for dealing with anxiety. How
ever , they were not able to synthesize the complexities in
to anything more generalizable than the idea that anxiety
is important and does interact with instruction. Snow
(1977) went further and recommended that anxiety be in
cluded as a variable in all instructional evaluations. He
6
is convinced that anxiety is fundamentally involved with
learning.
Gaudry and Spielberger (1971), and more recently,
Sieber, O'Neill, and Tobias (1977) have reviewed not only
the history and nature of anxiety and how it can be mea
sured-, but also what can be done to circumvent or neutral
ize the debilitating effects of anxiety on highly anxious
students/trainees.
In the effort to refine the test battery used in the
earlier work by Canyon (Canyon Research Group, Inc., 1978;
Hebein, 1978; Sullivan et al., 1978), so as to encompass a
broader range of the prediction problem, a conceptual
search was undertaken to see what other variables might be
related to criterion performance. It was believed that the
ability of an individual to work under stress might also be
predictive of performance on this complex procedural
psychomotor task. If found to be so, as measured by the
Press Test (Baehr & Corsini, 1965), it will be added to
the test battery for future studies to help define member
ship of aptitude profile groups more precisely.
Sufficient documentation that gives a rationale for
and explains the exact nature of instructional strategies
or treatments has often been lacking in educational re
search . To design treatments for use in instructional
research or practice is no easy task and there is a paucity
of literature on the specification of treatments. Carrier
7
(n.d.) synthesized an interesting review on the topic,
giving many useful suggestions on how to conceptualize
treatments. She pointed out that the major criticism of
instructional research has to do with this basic lack of
understanding about what constitutes treatments. An
effort has been made in the present study to answer this
Criticism.
The original hypothesis for earlier studies by Canyon,
as it related to initial training on a complex procedural
psychomotor skill, was that an analysis of the cognitive
processes and/or the perceptual processes operating during
performance would provide a reasonable basis upon which to
structure alternative instructional strategies. For this
study, that original hypothesis was extended to refer to
refresher training on the same task.
Based on a review of the research and a thorough pro
cess analysis of the task, certain personalogical factors
were identified that related to criterion performance.
These included intellectual ability, cognitive style, two
dimensional perception, and the personality factor of
anxiety. The implications for instruction for people with
differing levels of these factors were then studied and
synthesized to develop alternative instructional strategies
that were hypothesized to interact with the trainees* char
acteristics with respect to successful/unsuccessful perfor
mance on the complex procedural psychomotor learning task.
8
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the study was to test the hypothesis
that instructional strategies which were matched to pre
dictable learner aptitude profiles within the population
will, when implemented, result in different levels of
criterion performance. The aptitude profiles characterized
groups of people according to what might be called the
task-aptitude requirements and the person aptitude reali
ties of the population. "Task-aptitude requirements”
refer to those aptitudes that were identified, through a
process analysis of the task, and were later verified to
be related to criterion performance.
"Person-aptitude realities1 1 refer to those aptitudes
that people actually appear to be using (from the set of
"task aptitude requirements"). In other words, there may
be a certain set of aptitudes that are in a sense "re
quired" to perform the task; however, not all possible
aptitudes would be "required" by all possible trainees.
Therefore it was assumed that different learners did not
necessarily all call upon the same aptitude or set of
aptitudes in order to perform the task of this study.
Rather, there were different sets of aptitudes for each
profile group which allowed successful or unsuccessful
task performance to be realized in a variety of ways
(Canyon Research Group, Inc., 1978; Simon, 1978). What
9
appeared to be a required set of aptitudes for one person
may not have even related to performance for a different
person.
The question to be answered then, in this study, was;
What are the relationships between the various aptitudes
found to be predictive of task performance, the instruc
tional strategies designed to match those aptitudes, and
the re-learning and retention of a complex procedural
psychomotor task (which had been previously taught without
regard for differing aptitudes)?
Importance of the Study
In this study, compared to the earlier work by Canyon
(Canyon Research Group, Inc., 1978; Hebein, 1978; Sullivan
et al., 1978), there were some changes aimed at improving
the capability for discriminating the profile groups and
at increasing the generalizability of this approach to ATI
research. If it could be said with confidence (in one
instance) that this approach worked, there would then be a
useful model with which to generate instructional strate
gies (in other instances) that would be related to both
critical performance tasks and to characteristics of those
who must perform those tasks. In addition, there would be
a reliable way to categorize people based on unique apti
tude profiles. With such information in hand, educators
10
would be that much closer to a prescriptive theory of
instruction, the ultimate goal.
As sump tion and Limitat ions
Assumption
I. It was assumed that the sample population would
consist of approximately the same percentages of racial and
ethnic subgroups as are found in the U.S. Army as a whole.
Limitations
1. The subjects were not randomly selected from the
total Armed Services population of Redeye gunners. They
were selected, however, from four of the five possible
locations within the continental United States where the
necessary equipment for the training and testing was
available.
2. Random assignment to a fully crossed design was
not possible, but random assignment to strategy groups was
achieved.
3. The study was limited to the three profile
groups (plus one default group) that had been identified
in earlier research (Canyon Research Group, Inc., 1978;
Hebein, 1978; Sullivan et al., 1978). There could be
other profiles for which other strategies might be more
appropriate.
11
Definition of Terms
Ability to Work Under Stress
The ability to work under stress is the ability of an
individual to perform in the face of interference caused
by distracting stimuli (Baehr, Corsini, & Renck, 1967,
p. 1). It was neither an independent nor a dependent vari
able but was collected for exploratory purposes concerning
the possible future refinement of the test battery that was
used to identify aptitude profile groups.
Analytic
A dimension of cognitive style characteristic of an
individual who: can perceive items as discrete from his
background; can reorganize an already organized field; can
provide structure to unstructured material; and who tends
to be independent. The term is used interchangeably with
the term Field Independent. In this study, this was one
of the variables that was used to form one of the aptitude
profiles.
Anxiety is a largely internal response or process,
the essential features of which are feelings of tension,
nervousness, worry, and apprehension (Spielberger, Gorsuch,
& Lushene, 1970). It was one of the variables used to form
one of the aptitude profiles'of the study.
12
Aptitude
In this study, aptitude refers to "any characteristic
of a person that forecasts his probability of success
under a given treatment" (Cronbach & Snow, 1977, p. 6).
Aptitude Profile
An aptitude profile is a characterization of a partic
ular group of people that consists of the simultaneous con
tribution of the two or more individual aptitudes (from a
larger set of aptitudes) which explain the greatest amount
of variance in performance on the dependent measure(s) for
a selected class of task. Aptitude profile served as an
attribute variable or a non-manipulated "independent" vari
able in this study.
Aptitude x Treatment Interaction (ATI)
An aptitude x treatment interaction exists when the
regression outcome from one treatment differs in slope
from the regression outcome from another treatment on the
same task (Cronbach & Snow, 1977) .
Closure Flexibility
Closure Flexibility is the ability to hold a given
configuration in mind so as to disembed it from other Well
defined perceptual material. It appears to be related to
the cognitive style call "field-independence" (Ekstrom,
French, Harmon, & Dermen, 1976, p. 19). It was used with
the goal in mind of checking its relationship with field-
dependence/independence in an exploratory fashion that
13
could point toward a future revision of the test battery
used to identify the aptitude profiles. As such, it was
included as an alternate measure of field-dependence/
independence and was one of the variables used to form two
of the aptitude profiles.
Closure Speed
Closure Speed is the ability to unite an apparently
disparate perceptual field into a single concept. It may
also be a component of cognitive style (Ekstrom et al.,
1976). Closure Speed was also used to check its relation
ship with field-dependence/independence. It was neither an
independent nor a dependent variable but it was collected,
hence the explanation.
Cognitive Style
Cognitive style is the characteristic mode of func
tioning that individuals show throughout their perceptual
and intellectual activities in a highly consistent and
pervasive manner (Witkin, 1973).
Feedback
In the most general sense, nfeedback" is used to de
scribe "any of the numerous procedures that are used to
tell a learner if an instructional response is right or
wrong." It can range on a "continuum from the simplest
’Yes-No’ format to the presentation of substantial
corrective or remedial information" (Kulhavey, 1977,
14
pp. 211-212). It was one of the dimensions of the
instructional strategies for this study.
Field-dependent
See Global.
Field-independent
See Analytic.
Global
A dimension of cognitive style characteristic of an
individual who: tends to have difficulty separating field
from ground; is inclined to respond to a stimulus as a
whole; tends to rely on external sources for structure
and organization; and is socially oriented. The term is
used interchangeably with the term Field-Dependent. In
this study this was one of the variables that was used to
form one of the aptitude profiles.
Group Instruction
Refers to a setting of instruction Where a whole
group of students/trainees is required to be present to
gether for the entire lesson(s). It was a feature of three
of the instructional strategies in this study.
Individual Instruction
Refers to the setting of instruction where each stu
dent proceeds through the lesson(s) on his/her own and is
not required to stay in any group while going through the
instruction. This was a feature of one of the treatments
in this study.
15
Instructional Strategy
An instructional strategy is a method of teaching
something. The dimensions of the strategies used in this
study included variations in: group vs. individual in
struction, feedback (and reinforcement), motivation (in
cluding social orientation), pacing, practice, presentation
modes, sequence of presentation modes, and structure.
Instructional Strategy is used interchangeably with Treat
ment and Was the manipulated independent variable of the
s tudy.
Intellectual Ability
A large group of abilities of an intellectual nature
measured by mental ability tests and including abstract
reasoning, perceptual coding, perceptual processing, and
analytical skills (Allen, 1975). It is used interchange
ably with General Ability and Mental Ability. This was
one of the aptitudes that was used to form two of the
aptitude profiles for this study.
Motivation
’ ’ The common conception among theories is that motiva
tion is an initiating state leading to increased response
activity, the consequences of which strengthen certain re
sponses and heighten the probability of their future
occurrence under similar conditions” (McDonald, 1961, p.
62). In this study, the social atmosphere of the group,
including both instructor and soldiers was considered part
16
of the motivation, as was the source of the motivation
(i.e., extrinsic vs. intrinsic). Motivation was one of
the features of the instructional strategies for this
study.
Pacing
In this study, pacing referred to whether the training
was paced by the individual or by the group as a whole.
Variations in amount or repetition might also be included
under the heading of pacing. This was one of the features
of the various treatments of the study.
Practice
The performance of an act one or more times with a
view toward its fixation or improvement (English &
English, 1958). In this study, practice was one of the
features of each treatment.
Presentation Mode or Medium
The vehicle or form through which the instructional
content is presented or conveyed, (e.g.; print, visual,
film, simulator, live demonstration, videotape, etc.).
This was one of the features of each treatment of the
study.
Sequence
Sequence refers to the order of the events of instruc
tion. It can refer to the order of events with respect to
actual learning content or with respect to the presentation
modes. In this study, sequence primarily referred to the
17
sequence of the presentation modes. It was one of the
features of the strategies employed in this study.
Spatial Ability
Facility in the use of spatial and visual imagery
(Thurstone, 1938). This was one of the aptitude variables
that was used to form one of the aptitude profiles for
this study.
Structure
Refers to the inherent organization (or lack of it)
that is present within the content of the instructional
materials themselves and within the larger instructional
situation that includes the way the teacher conducts the
class. It was one of the features of the different treat
ments for this study.
Treatment
See Instructional Strategy.
Treatment Variable
In its broadest sense, a treatment variable is any
manipulable variable (Cronbach 6c Snow, 1977, p. 6), whether
it has to do with the content and structure of the informa
tion to be learned or whether it has to do with the situa
tion that surrounds the entire teaching/learning experi
ence. In this study, the manipulated variable was Ins true-
tional Strategy, which was a composite of several manipu-
1able features.
18
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH
Overview of the Chapter
Because of the complex nature of each of the indepen
dent variables for this study, the structure of the litera
ture review is somewhat non-standard and requires explana
tion .
Both independent variables--aptitude profiles and
instructional strategies--consist of several component
features. Any one feature of an aptitude profile, taken
without the other feature of the profile could not fully
explain the profile. Similarly, any one feature of an
instructional strategy, taken without the other features
of the strategy, could not fully explain the instructional
strategy. This made it difficult to structure the litera
ture review in the usual manner.
In most research studies, the independent variables
are not composites of several features, but in this study,
that is precisely what they are. Any one of the features
of each independent variable for this study might be
classified as a separate independent variable under other
19
circumstances in a more traditional study. Therefore,
while there may be considerable literature about a particu
lar feature of each independent variable (taken in isola
tion) , there is little literature about the combinations
that make up the levels of the independent variables for
the study. Where there is literature about the specific
combinations for each level, it is cited. But in most
cases, the literature cited is about component features of
each combination. The combinations were derived from a
synthesis of the available literature about these component
features for each variable. The synthesis was also derived
from the literature concerning each feature’s specific
relation to the task and to instructional strategies,
where possible.
As a result, the review of literature that follows
consists of four broad areas: aptitude, task, treatment,
and the interaction of aptitude and treatment. The apti
tude area, taken in isolation, comes first and is subsumed
under Aptitude Profiles. In this section, the aptitude
profile variable, as a composite, is discussed. There is
also a brief discussion of each component feature of the
aptitude profiles: general ability, cognitive style,
perceptual abilities, and personality factors (particularly
anxiety).
From the discussion of aptitude profiles, the transi
tion is made to Aptitude x Treatment Interaction Research,
20
in which the general conceptual basis for this kind of
research is discussed, ending with a focus on the "task
first" approach to ATI research. This section is the
first of two sections in the area of the interaction of
aptitude and treatment. It is a general section that is
designed to tie together the broad areas of aptitude and
treatment which come before and after it.
The next area discussed is the task area. There, a
brief review of the literature on the general type of task
for the current study, is presented. It is found under
the heading of Perceptual/Psychomotor Tasks.
The next two major sections of the review concern the
area of treatment. The first, Conceptualization of Treat
ments , is a general section about how investigators might
study Or think about treatments. The second, Treatment
Variables, is more specific. It focuses on a brief discus
sion or history of eight different treatment dimensions.
Each dimension or feature (practice, feedback, motivation,
structure, pacing, sequence, presentation modes, and group
vs. individual instruction) was manipulated to a greater
or a lesser degree for each treatment combination of this
study. Towards the close of the section on treatment vari
ables is a summary and synthesis that emphasizes the com
bination of dimensions approach taken for the study. That
synthesis leads into the last and perhaps most important
21
section of the review, Instructional Strategies and Apti
tudes .
In contrast to the 1 1 general” thrust of the Aptitude-
Treatment Interaction Research section, the Ins truet i ona1
Strategies and Aptitudes section provides more "specific”
information on the area of the interaction of aptitude and
treatment. The specifics relate to the component features
of aptitude and treatment (considered together) that helped
to determine the various levels of both independent vari
ables studied. The literature reviewed in this section
was the most pertinent to the design of the instructional
strategies used in the study.
Aptitude Profiles
In a recent ATI study, Solomon and Kendall (1976)
took what is still a novel but rather promising approach
to the specification for attribute or aptitude. Their
approach parallels the one used in the present study.
Instead of analysing the separate effects of a number of
individual attributes or dimensions, Solomon and Kendall
viewed each child as a pattern or profile of attributes.
They then looked at the interactions of such total profiles
with different classroom types--which would be analogous
to different treatments.
Such an approach stems from an earlier work by
Fredericksen (1972), who postulated that a taxonomy of
22
situations can be developed using combinations of attri
butes. He identified a three-dimensional surface with
behaviors, subjects, and situations. Clark (1975b) used a
similar approach when he tried to foster the generation of
hypotheses about person-treatment links by means of his
media taxonomy cube.
While Clark (1975b) and Fredericksen (1972) used a
similar cube to try to identify unique situations, Solomon
and Kendall (1976), Canyon Research Group, Inc. (1978),
Hebein (1978), and Sullivan et al. (1978) each used a
similar approach to identify unique aptitude profiles.
The profiles that were identified in the latter three
studies were also used in this study since the task of
this study was either parallel or identical to the task of
each of the aforementioned studies. In order to understand
how those aptitude profiles were formulated, some back
ground information about the task that was performed is
essential.
The specific task of interest in this study was the
operation of the Redeye Missile. Redeye is a man portable,
shoulder fired, infrared-seeking guided missile system de
signed to provide air defense for forward combat elements
and other assets against low altitude hostile aircraft
(TRASANA, 1977). Recent studies by the U.S. Army (TRASANA,
1976, 1977) indicate that Redeye gunner proficiency is de
ficient in several areas at the completion of Advanced
23
Individual Training (AIT). In addition, skill in these
tasks declines quite rapidly after initial training and
air defense unit proficiency in these same tasks is gen
erally quite low.
Given the above situation, the original hypothesis
for the earlier studies by Canyon, as it related to initial
training of Redeye employment and engagement, was that an
analysis of the cognitive processes and/or the perceptual
processes operating during target acquisition, tracking,
and engagement decision making would provide a reasonable
basis upon which to structure alternative instructional
strategies (Canyon Research Group, Inc., 1978; Hebein,
1978; Sullivan et al., 1978). That analysis revealed a
set of aptitude variables that were considered likely to
predict performance. Subjects were then measured on these
characteristics. Performance measures were also collected.
Then, using correlations of the aptitude predictor vari
ables and of both written and performance tests on the
Redeye employment task, a series of statistical analyses
were performed.
From those analyses, three different aptitude profiles
were identified, each consisting of two or more different
aptitudes. A fourth group consisted of all those who did
not fit one of the identified profiles. Each aptitude for
each profile consisted of either the high or the low end
of the continuum. In other words, only one end of the
24
continuum for each aptitude entered into each profile. The
other end of the continuum for a particular aptitude may or
may not have been part of a different profile.
Each identified profile described those characteris
tics of a particular group of subjects which explained the
greatest amount of variance in performance on the criterion
task for that group. In other words, when subjects (pre
viously tested across a wide range of relevant aptitudes)
were tested on the criterion task, they clustered into
groups at different performance levels. However the
performances within each identifiable profile group were
similar. Upon analysis of what contributed to the differ
ent (good or bad) performance of the different groups,
unique profiles consisting of not less than two aptitude
characteristics per profile were established. Anyone who
did not fit into one of the unique profiles was considered
part of a separate group, the so-called "default*1 group.
See Figure 1 for a graphic representation of the entire
statistical procedure they used to determine the aptitude
profiles (Canyon Research Group, Inc., 1978).
In the final analysis for the formation of the pro
files, those measures which predicted criterion perfor
mance best and which were used as the basis for the differ
ing instructional strategies were: general ability, cog
nitive style, perceptua1 abi1ities, and anxiety. A brief
25
STRAT STRAT STRAT STRAT
HIGH ON V?
HIGH ON V??
ALL OTHERS
(DEFAULT)
LOW ON V?
LOW ON V??
HIGH ON V. .
PEARSON PRODUCT
MOMENT CORRELATION
HIGH ON V???
HIGH ON V????
HIGH ON V . .
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEPWISE MULTIPLE
REGRESSION
LOW CORRELATION
OF ALL APTI
TUDE MEASURES;
NONE REMOVED
FROM ANALYSIS
VARIABLES DISCRIMINATING
BETWEEN HI AND LOW SCORES
ON DEPENDENT VAR. USED TO
DETERMINE APTITUDE PROFILE
GROUPS & STRATEGIES
VARIABLES ACCOUNT
ING FOR GREATEST
VARIANCE IN DEPEN
DENT VARIABLES RE
TAINED FOR FURTHER
ANALYSIS (e.g.:V?,
V??,V???.V?,V????)
Figure 1. Statistical Analysis Process Used by Canyon
Research (1978) for Aptitude Profile Formation
26
description of these profile components, taken in isola
tion, follows:
General Ability
As stated earlier, Cronbach and Snow (1977) have con
cluded that no ATI study should be conducted without a mea
sure for general ability. In the broadest sense, general
ability is the ability to learn and to know. Depending on
whose model one Wishes to use, the components of intellec
tual ability can be few or many. The Spearman structure
which is dominated by a more general factor is an example
of general ability with few components. Guilford, who hy
pothesized some 120 component parts to intellectual abili
ty, provides an example of many components. It was not
the purpose of this study to investigate general ability
per se. Rather, general intellectual ability was only one
feature of several that made up the specific aptitude pro
file combinations for this study. The discussion of gen
eral ability that is most pertinent to this investigation
will be found in the section on "Instructional Strategies
and Aptitudes."
Cognitive Style
Cognitive style is a generic term that can refer to
any type of consistent functioning mode across differing
situations. The cognitive style of interest in this study
was that of field-dependence/independence (also called
global/analytic), which was first identified and studied by
27
Herman Witkin and his associates (Witkin, Lewis, Hertzman,
Machover, Meissner & Wagner, 1954).
Information about the global/analytic construct has
accumulated over the years so that it may be the most
studied of all cognitive styles and the one with the great
est implications for instruction (Witkin et al., 1977).
Early research on the global (field-dependent)/analytic
(field-independent) dimension of cognitive style focused on
the perceptual ability to see objects as distinct from an
embedding background. Later research (Witkin, Dyk, Fater-
son, Goodenough, & Karp, 1962) focused not only on the
perceptual differences of global/analytic individuals but
also on psychological differentiations and the cognitive
ability to use an analytic or global problem solving ap
proach .
There has been some concern that performance on the
Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Witkin, Oltman,
Raskin, & Karp, 1971), and other reliable measures of the
global/ analytic construct, is highly related to general
intelligence. Upon closer investigation Witkin et al.
(1977) reported that while there may be some correlation
with general intelligence, it is not always found; and,
when it is, it is small. Berger and Goldberger (1979)
showed two different measures of field-dependence to be un
correlated with the measure of intelligence in their study.
Keane (1979) did a study of only global individuals, who
28
had the full range of general ability scores. These two
studies lend further support to the notion that field
dependence/independence is not strongly related to measures
of general ability.
Witkin, Goodenough and Karp (1967) conducted two lon
gitudinal studies concerning the stability of cognitive
styles. Over a 14 year period, they found a marked degree
of stability. There was a progressive increase toward
field independence from age 8 to 17 but each person re
tained relatively the same position on the analytic/global
continuum throughout the time period, when compared with
his/her peers. Witkin et al. (1971) said that field
independence tends to become "absolutely stable” in young
adulthood. Then, during old age, a tendency to return to
field dependency is observed.
Guerrieri (1978) synthesized a considerable amount of
research on this dimension of cognitive style and deline
ated 12 characteristics each for the global and the analyt
ic person. Many of these characteristics are directly
related to the implications for instruction and will be
described later under "Instructional Strategies and Apti
tudes . "
Perceptual Abilities
Perceptual abilities encompass those abilities that
can be considered spatial. Thurstone (1938) defined spa
tial ability as facility in the use of spatial and visual
29
imagery. Michael et al. (1957) noted that perceptual abil
ities are particularly important for proficiency in per
ceptual psychomotor tasks. They distinguished between two
kinds of spatial ability. The first type, spatial rela
tions and orientation (SRO), includes the ability to under
stand the nature of the arrangement elements of a visual
stimulus pattern when the examinee's body is the primary
frame of reference.
The other kind of spatial ability is called spatial
visualization (Vz) and refers to the ability to mentally
manipulate, rotate or invert objects or parts of objects,
given a specific sequence of movements, etc. It is some
times described as the ability to "see" imaginary movement
in three-dimensional space.
Just as with general ability and cognitive style,
more on spatial ability, as it relates to instruction,
will be discussed in a later section.
Anxiety
Anxiety, a largely internal response or process, has
been shown to be negatively related to learning outcomes.
Considerable research has been done on anxiety.
Spielberger et al, (1970) have distinguished between
state and trait anxiety, with the latter relating to a gen
eralized fixed level of anxiety that is omnipresent within
an individual. The former describes a dynamic kind of
anxiety that is dependent on the situation at some particu
lar moment in time. They say that the essential features
measured on an anxiety scale involve feelings of tension,
nervousness, worry, and apprehension. Seiber et al.
(1977) view anxiety more as a process than as a unitary
trait. If pressed to define anxiety, they call upon
Sartre for their definition (p. 21): ”Anxiety is the fear
of failure to meet a standard, or fear that one does not
hold the appropriate standard.1 1
The implications for instruction which takes anxiety
level into consideration are reviewed later along with
other implications for instruction for the other features
of the aptitude profiles. That information is presented
in the section in which aptitude and instructional strate
gies are discussed together.
Now that the isolated features of each aptitude pro
file have been identified and discussed briefly, a clearer
picture of each unique profile combination is needed.
Note that for Canyon Research Group, Inc. (1978), Hebein,
(1978), and Sullivan et al. (1978), varying combinations
of the four aptitudes characterized each profile. One
profile included those with high general intelligence
coupled with an analytic cognitive style. Another group
was characterized by high anxiety and high two dimensional
perceptual ability. The third group had a global cognitive
style and was of low general ability. Alternative
31
instructional strategies were designed to match each of
the relevant aptitude profiles. These strategies were
later tested during training on the Redeye task. Support
for the existence of the profiles and for the effective
ness of the strategies designed to match the profiles was
received by Canyon Research Group, Inc. (1978), Hebein
(1978), and Sullivan et al. (1978) for initial trainees.
Confirmation of the existence of the profiles identi
fied in that earlier research and of the effectiveness of
the strategies was needed. The present investigation was
designed to provide that confirmation on a population of
soldiers who were initially trained as Redeye gunners
under the traditional army methods, but who now needed
refresher training on the task. If such confirmation could
be accomplished on actual Redeye gunners during refresher
training, it would provide considerable support for this
method of training.
Although the concept of identifying aptitude profiles
and designing instruction to match them is not yet common
place, support for the idea comes from several sources.
Hunt (1975) appeared to be describing this very idea, in a
conceptual sense, when he said:
I have proposed describing persons in terms of
"accessibility characteristics" (Hunt, 1971) that are
directly translatable into specific forms of educa
tional environments likely to be effective for the
person’s learning or development . . . Imagine a pro
file of a person in terms of "accessibility character
istics" that would describe his cognitive orientation,
32
motivational orientation, value orientation, and sen
sory orientation. (p. 219)
More recently, Kulka (1979) discussed the outcomes
that result from a good "person-environment fit." Although
he didn't specifically mention aptitude profiles, his men
tion of "characteristics" of people implied that he recog
nizes the importance of many characteristics taken togeth
er. He said:
The concept of person-environment (P-E) congruence
focuses on the extent to which characteristics of
the person match those of the environment to which
he or she is commonly exposed, assuming that the
better the fit the more favorable the consequences
for the person. (p. 56)
Kulka, by his remarks above, has recommended an
aptitude x treatment interaction approach to research
without actually using the term.
Aptitude X Treatment Interaction Research
A current trend in educational research which is rec
ommended by a great many professional educators is the
methodology of aptitude treatment interaction (ATI) re
search or trait treatment interaction (TTI) research
(Allen, 1975; Clark, 1975a; Snow & Salomon, 1968). TTI
is an approach to research, not an area of research in and
of itself, which holds particular promise in that if it is
successful, students could be differentially assigned to
alternative instructional treatments based upon empirical
evidence regarding the match of individual characteristics
33
with the designated treatments (Berliner & Cahen, 1973;
Cronbach 6c Snow, 1977). It is implicit in ATI research
that there is no one best way to instruct the majority of
people. The whole movement for individualized instruction
is a testimonial to the intuitive sense that the concept
implies.
Aptitude treatment interaction connotes a simple two-
way interaction between one aptitude and one treatment. In
practice, it is much more complicated than that. Cronbach
and Snow (1977), whose definitive work gives many practical
guidelines, cautions, and reviews of the ATI literature,
admit that the confounding of other variables makes it un
realistic to hypothesize about only one variable at a time.
They had expected that specialized abilities would predict
performance on Specific tasks better than more general
abilities only to discover that the reverse seemed to be
true. It does make intuitive sense that more specialized
abilities would account for interactions, yet the evidence
for general abilities is^ more impressive.
Perhaps there is some truth to both ideas in that
several abilities or aptitudes, in combination are highly
related to task performance and it is only together that
they can account for interactions with treatments. It is
this idea that the present investigator has used as part
of the design of this study. The formation of aptitude
profiles as described from earlier studies (Canyon Research
34
Group, Inc., 1978; Hebein, 1978; Sullivan et al., 1978)
followed the advice of Cronbach and Snow (1977) who hold
that rules for placement have to be developed ad hoc,
i.e. . , for a specific purpose.
Grouping students on the basis of general ability
alone has met with much criticism because it is often so
selective, insensitive, or discriminatory. It is impracti
cal to teach every student as an individual, so this
leaves us with the task of trying to compromise between
the two. If the ATI approach suggested here fulfills its
mission, there will be a way to go about defining manage-
' able size instructional groups with specific aptitude
profiles on the basis of correlations with task perfor
mance. Educators can then tailor-make instructional
methods per each profile group so that students who might
not succeed in a more traditionally selective program
would now have the chance. ATI findings will not reduce
individual differences; instead they will help to capital
ize on them for the benefit of the learners.
Salomon (1972) has conceptualized a treatment function
approach to instruction which he hopes will assist re
searchers in formulating hypotheses about ATI’s. He iden
tified three different functions that a treatment might
serve depending on the information processing and other ap
titude characteristics of the learner. The three functions
are: (a) preferential, (b) compensatory, and (c) remedial.
35
Preferential treatments ostensibly call upon a learner's
stronger aptitudes. It is in this sense that they are
said to be preferential.
Compensatory treatments provide strategies for learn
ers that they are incapable of structuring for themselves.
In other words, an effort is made in the design of instruc
tion to circumvent certain weaknesses that presumably can
not be corrected.
Remedial treatments are those that are designed to
make up for specific weaknesses, prerequisite to the
learning of a knowledge or skill, which may be the result
of a lack of prior knowledge or the interference of a
competing stimulus. In contrast to compensatory treat
ments, remedial treatments presumably impact weaknesses
which are correctable. Conceivably, what might be a
remedial treatment for one student could be a compensatory
treatment for another. Therefore, the distinction between
the two, in terms of instructional strategies, may not
exist. What may be more important is the coordinating of
several capitalization and compensation devices within
given treatments (Cronbach & Snow, 1977).
In the Canyon Research studies, materials were de
veloped and utilized that either capitalized on high
abilities characterizing those with a particular aptitude
profile or that compensated for or remediated the low
abilities characterizing subjects with a different profile
Such preferential, compensatory and/or remedial treatments
were fashioned after the model by Salomon (1972) and heed
the advice of Cronbach and Snow (1977) to coordinate
several capitalization and compensation devices within
treatments.
The effectiveness and efficiency of strategies for
improving initial gunner proficiency and retention, both
for a civilian population on a complex psychomotor task
parallel to that of REDEYE and for an army population on
the Redeye training task itself, was tested. In the
former, Hebein (1978) found that there was a significant
overall interaction between aptitude profile groups and
treatments on the performance test but not on a written
test. In the latter, due to an unpredictably small number
of subjects, no significant interactions were identified.
Stepwise multiple regressions did confirm that there were
strcmg trends (in the expected direction) with respect to
the interaction of aptitude profile group with treatment.
Rather than look only at aptitudes and at treatments,
the "task first" approach of Rhetts (1972, 1974) is a
useful one. According to this approach, one must:
1. concentrate on analysis of the characteristics
of the task.
2. identify plausible individual difference charac
teristics related to the performance demands of
the task.
37
3. develop different treatments or modes of presen
tation designed to influence performance differ
ences .
Rhetts (1974, p. 347) has said: "In summary, this
research demonstrates that learner, task, and treatment
characteristics can combine in interaction with one another
to produce complex performance differences." That approach
was used in the Canyon studies already mentioned, and
therefore in this study, both to choose aptitude measures
and 'to determine appropriate strategies (Canyon Research
Group Inc., 1978; Hebein, 1978; Sullivan et al,, 1978).
Rhetts' approach is in concert with the idea of pro
cess analysis, advocated by Cronbach and Snow (1977) and
that of Fleishman (1972, 1975) who has worked out a taxon
omy of instructional situations for psychomotor tasks.
The taxonomy considers a multitude of dimensions, including
the stimulus properties of the task, those of the instruc
tor, the instructional displays, and the conditions of
practice and reinforcement.
Perceptual/Psychomotor Tasks
An analysis of the characteristics of a learning task
demands that it be classified into one of three broad cate
gories of learning outcome: (a) the learning of informa
tion, (b) the acquiring or changing of attitude, and (c)
the acquisition of motor skills (Gagne & Briggs, 1974),
38
Within the broad category of motor skills, further
classification of specific skills can be made. Fleishman
(1967) noted that there are a relatively few abilities in
the perceptual-motor domain which prove to be useful in
organizing a wide array of performances meaningfully. He
contended that knowledge of these basic abilities is what
makes the prediction of later more complex performances
possible. The same perceptual motor factors that he and
his colleagues identified by means of factor analysis
consistently accounted for variance across hundreds of
different tasks, lending much support to their existence
as constructs (Fleishman & Ellison, 1969; Fleishman &
Fruchtor, 1960; Fleishman & Hempel, 1956; Parker &
Fleishman, 1960).
Three of Fleishman's most well known factors, which
seemed most relevant to this study, are: (a) Control Pre
cision, which is the ability to make highly controlled,
but not overcontrolled, rapid positioning movements--it is
most critical where adjustments must be rapid, but also
precise, (b) Perceptual Speed, which is the ability to
make rapid discriminations of highly visual patterns, and
(c) Response Orientation, which is the ability to make
rapid selection, with respect to direction of movement or
choice of movement; this involves the ability to select
the correct movement in relation to the correct stimulus,
especially under highly speeded conditions. The other
39
factors are: (d) Multi-limb coordination, (e) Reaction
Time, (f) Speed of Arm Movement, (g) Rate Control, (h) Man
ual Dexterity, (i) Finger Dexterity, (j) Arm Hand Steadi--
ness, (k) Wrist Finger Speed, and (1) Aiming.
Other aspects of motor skill performance that result
from motor skill learning are described by Gagne (1977).
They are: the distinction between fine vs. gross motor
performance, that of continuous vs. discrete motor tasks
and closed-loop vs. open-loop tasks. Gagne's chapter on
Motor Skills (1977) is most useful in providing suggestions
for the following external conditions, all of which merit
attention when designing strategies for instruction in the
acquisition of motor skills: verbal instructions, pic
tures, demonstrations, practice, and feedback. Gagne
espoused the idea that complex motor skills involve more
than just a series of simpler motor skills. Instead, they
involve the totality of a procedure that necessarily
includes intellectual skills in addition to the motor
skills. This has further implications for education in
that the learning requires an integration of activity that
probably comes closer to the idea of a Gestalt (or Informa
tion Processing) Theory than to the more limiting idea of
Stimulus-Response Theory that is often associated with the
learning of motor skills.
Gagne, like so many other researchers, recognized
that perceptual/psychomotor skills are not completely
40
isolated from the more verbal skills. Singer (1978)
stressed the importance of cognitions and cognitive strate
gies as integral to motor learning. He said that skilled
motor activity is a function of Input x Central Processing
x Output (p. 83); therefore, he too appears to look at
psychomotor skills from an information processing point of
view.
Fitts (1964) also explained the relationship between
motor skills and cognitive skills in terms of an informa
tion processing model. Fitts said that the processes un
derlying skilled motor performances are Very similar to
those that underly language behaviors--the most important
of which is probably serial Ordering. He quoted Lashley
who said that skilled performance is the "orderly arrange
ment of thought and action."
According to Fitts, there are three elements of
skilled performance: (a) task continuity, which refers to
the continuous vs. discrete dichotomy as well as self vs.
external pacing; (b) task coherence, which he considers to
be the most important and which has to do with the sequen
tial organization of the component tasks (e.g., how much
of the series of movements or steps goes together or is
predictable in terms of what you do each time and how you
do it; and (c) complexity, which "refers to the number of
different stimuli, responses, or transformation operations
that are possible (in a statistical or probabalistic
41
sense) or that are actually contained in some block of
space or time (in a deterministic sense)1 1 (pp. 246-247).
If there can be even partial agreement with Gagne,
Singer, and Fitts--that there is a relationship between
cognitive learning and skill learning--then it seems rea
sonable that some of the research findings for cognitive
learning can be applied to skill learning situations. A
good example where educators do this regularly concerns
feedback, which is discussed later in this manuscript.
Pacing is another descriptive categorization of psy
chomotor tasks. A task can be either a paced task or a
self-paced one (Adams, 1954). In a paced task, there is a
limit set on how long the stimulus is presented. If the
subject hasn’t made the correct response by the end of the
time, he loses the chance, at least for that trial. In a
self-paced task, there is no time limit, so the presenta
tion of the stimulus is governed by the response speed of
the subject. The performance task for this study was pri
marily paced although there were elements of self-pacing to
it, depending on level of proficiency.
Bilodeau and Bilodeau (1954) investigated how compo
nents of a task relate to the total psychomotor task per
formance. They found, for example, that
for a 2 component task, raising the proportion for one
relatively low component at the expense of the second
will raise the proportion of the total or criterion.
In this way it is suggested that overall proficiency
42
on some tracking tasks might be improved without
raising S‘s general skill level. (p. 45)
Fleishman and Rich (1963) found that for later stages of
perceptual-motor learning, the more proprioceptive (touch/
feel) cues appeared to be more important. In early and
intermediate stages of learning, spatial-visual abilities
were more critical.
Implications for the predictions of ultimate task
performance come from the finding that the abilities
required for performance on certain psychomotor tasks may
change during the course of learning the task; i.e.,
different abilities may be called into action for early
stages of the task as compared to the later stages. Thus,
if final proficiency is what is desired, it may be more
efficient in training to concentrate on the abilities
required for the final proficiency and not those necessary
only during the early stages of skill acquisition (Fleish
man Sc Hemp el, 1955; Hinrichs, 1970). In their research,
the pattern of abilities from one state of practice to
another appeared to change in a systematic fashion.
Of all the learning strategies used in the acquisition
of any psychomotor task (simple or complex), the most
important appears to be repeated practice, which needs to
be done during all phases of the task. This function of
practice in psychomotor skill development is explained by
Gagne (1977) '
43
The effects of practice are presumably due to progres
sively greater precision With which stimuli, both
external and internal come to exert control over the
responses of the learner, (p. 255)
Other aspects of practice involve whether there is
actual physical or only mental practice of the skill to be
learned and whether the practice is massed or distributed.
If it is distributed, how long are the rest periods between
practices? Practice itself, without any kind of feedback,
will be of little use to a learner. Whether the feedback
is provided intrinsically by the learner himself or exter
nally by someone else, it is still a necessary condition
that a learner know how he/she is doing on the task (Gagne,
1977).
Conceptualization of Treatments
Cronbach and Snow (1977) criticized a vast body of
research for its lack of clear operational definitions of
treatment variables. Seldom is there a truly clear de
scription of what constitutes particular treatments.
Carrier (n.d.), in her excellent manuscript on
treatments, described the treatment problem as having four
facets:
1. Some level of agreement must be reached on what
set of conditions constitute a treatment in
research and instruction.
2. Ways must be devised to better analyze treatment
components and to investigate their interrela
tionships.
3. Treatment dimensions must be conceptualized in
terms of existing theory and research.
4. The contributions of personalogical variables to
the operation of individual treatment components
and to the treatment as a whole must be reasoned
through in both the design stage and the analysis
of results. (p. 3)
An effort was made in the present study to adhere to
Carrier’s four suggestions. With regard to the first
point, eight different conditions about each treatment
have been described so that what happens for one condition
in one treatment can be compared against what happens for
the same condition in other treatments. This is just one
set of conditions that might be used to conceptualize
what makes up a treatment. These conditions might be
called the design variables under the control of the
teacher/trainer or Instructional developer that may influ
ence the rate and degree of learning by different individ
uals. They are usually termed, simply, the instructional
strategies (Hebein, 1978). The eight conditions are (not
necessarily in order of importance): group vs. individual
instruction, presentation modes, practice, motivation
(which includes social orientation and social interaction),
feedback (a special case of reinforcement), pacing, se
quence of presentation modes, and structure.
With regard to Carrier’s second point, it will become
clearer to the reader how the interrelationships among
treatment components were analyzed once the methodology
45
for this study is more clearly explicated. A key to the
analysis, though, is found in Carrier’s third point, which
is exactly how treatment components are conceptualized for
this study. Existing theory and research may not have
totally definitive and truly generalizable results, but
there are some guidelines, tentative as they may be, (e.
g., Allen, 1975; Bialek, Taylor & Hauke, 1973; Carrier &
Clark, 1977; Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Gaudry & Spielberger,
1971; Parkhurst, 1975; Rosenberg, Mintz & Clark, 1977;
Sieber et al., 1977; Taylor, Montague & Hauke, 1970; Witkin
et al; 1977; and others), which can at least provide a
starting point from which to test hypotheses.
If it is not yet clear by the description of the pur
pose and major hypothesis of the current study, it should
soon become understandable that Carrier’s last suggestion
was heeded in this study from its inception, namely: to
reason through the contributions of personalogical vari
ables to the operation of specific treatment components.
Carrier also described problems with external validity
and implied that careful attempts to design treatments
must of necessity narrowly limit the number of variables
operating and that this in turn increases artificiality,
thereby decreasing external validity. She advocated having
the concern for ecological validity--a form of external
validity--which implies a ’ ’representativeness” of treat
ments. She said (p. 21) that this representativeness of
46
treatment is complicated because treatments (like people)
differ across many dimensions and it is likely that these
dimensions, both known and unknown, may interact to produce
even more dimensions.
This investigator, however, does not agree that care
ful design necessarily limits the number of variables oper
ating in treatments. In fact, it seems unlikely that one
could narrowly limit the number of variables operating be
cause there are so many operating that an investigator must
consciously choose to consider a host of them together as
outlined earlier. They are going to operate in some way
whether it is desired or not, so the more that can be
identified, the better. There will always be a number of
other variables that perhaps can’t even be conceptualized.
One variable in a treatment never operates in a
vacuum, no matter how hard one tries to control things, so
it can be couched with the variables that it relates to
and one can test the combination. If it works, there is
external validity and generalizability more quickly than
if an experimenter had artificially manipulated only one
variable at a time.
One other set of guidelines was given to us by Car
rier, who referenced Clark (1975b). In his effort to
describe how to construct a media taxonomy, he listed four
different approaches which can be used to generate hypothe
ses about person-treatment links. Rather than list the
47
four approaches, suffice it to Say that each approach was
used to a greater or lesser degree in the design of the
current study.
Treatment Variables
Parkhurst (1975) said that treatment variables are
the instructional strategies which structure information
for the purpose of having students learn that information.
Cronbach and Snow (1977) said that, in a broad sense, a
treatment variable is any manipulable variable. They
included such things as pace, method, style of instruction,
classroom environments, and teacher characteristics. But
at this point, it is probably best to simply see what the
literature says about some of these dimensions. To look
at them all would be impossible. In this review, eight
treatment dimensions will be reviewed--the eight dimensions
that were manipulated in varying ways in the instructional
strategies for this study.
Practice
There have been numerous studies done on practice--
the amount and type as well as how it is distributed.
What Gagne (1977) had to say about practice was already
discussed under "Perceptual Psychomotor Tasks." Postman
(1961, p. 73) noted the role of practice in the process of
skill acquisition when he said that "in any case, overt
performance of the correct response (i.e., practice) is
48
considerably more effective than passive observation." He
also noted that continuing practice beyond the point of
mastery, called overlearning, is especially beneficial
because it builds resistence against interference--espe
cially when the task is particularly complex and requires
a variation of the standard response based on the environ
mental conditions. The task for this study was such a
task.
Fitts (1964) found that at very high levels of prac
tice in highly coherent tasks, the variability of response
becomes less and the differentiation of response becomes
greater than would be expected from data taken in earlier
stages of practice. This seems to indicate that as prac
tice is continued, smoother and more automatic performance
is the result.
Glaser (1961) synthesized a large volume of practice
research on distributed vs. massed practice, making the
statement that most experimental psychologists would agree
that learning is most effective (in terms of faster acqui
sition and higher performance levels) when practice is
spaced into a number of daily trials (p. 51). Glaser sug
gested that spaced or distributed practice be the guiding
rule in instructional situations.
Underwood (1954), who did the bulk of the research
on massed and distributed practice, noted that sometimes,
under certain conditions, and for certain ability levels,
49
distributed practice was not necessarily superior. For
example, there was no significant difference in retention
as measured by relearning via massed practice or vice
versa. In the same study, Underwood found that a subject’s
ability level did differentially influence recall following
learning by massed and distributed practice. In fact, for
serial learning, slow subjects tended to show better re
tention following massed rather than distributed practice.
For one profile group of this study, all practice was dis
tributed so that there were other kinds of activities
interspersed with actual practice. In another strategy
for a different profile group, (those who had low ability
as part of their profile), the practice was primarily
massed in that it was the main method of instruction. It
also had elements of being spaced because of the logistics
of using the limited amount of equipment that was available
for practice.
Whitely (1970) echoed some of Underwood’s findings
when he found that even though massed practice initially
depressed levels of performance, recovery after a rest came
quickly. This indicates that massed practice is probably
not that inferior to distributed practice when terminal
performance is considered. Therefore, distribution of
practice may not be as important as is amount of practice.
In addition to actual physical practice on a particu
lar task, mental practice has been found to be nearly as
50
effective in developing many different types of motor
skills (McBride & Rothstein, 1979; Richardson, 1967).
After initially attempting a skill and/or after watching a
demonstration, a learner can develop a good deal of motor
skill through mental practice. Usually practice of active
ly imagining the movements and steps involved in a motor
skill is most effective when the learner has already had
at least some physical experience with the skill (Clark,
1960).
McBride and Rothstein (1979) manipulated three prac
tice conditions (physical only, mental only, and combined--
alternating evenly) and found that the different conditions
seemed to affect both closed and open skills similarly.
All practice conditions led to improvement in accuracy but
the combined treatment was most effective, followed by
physical only. The mental only condition Was least effec
tive in terms of overall accuracy. These results support
those of Richardson (1967) and Clark (1960).
There is little doubt then about the importance of
practice. Of.the four treatments in this study, two of
them, Strategy 2 and Strategy 3, have more physical and
mental practice as part of the treatment than the others.
This suggests that apart from the expected interactions
between treatment and profile group in this study, there
could also be a main effect for treatment. This could
happen if the practice feature of Treatments 2 and 3
51
turned out to be more powerful than some of the other
features of other treatments. Another treatment for the
study, Strategy 1, relied primarily on mental practice for
this treatment dimension.
Feedback
In order for practice to be truly effective, feedback
must be provided to the learner concerning results of
performance* Bilodeau and Bilodeau (1961, p. 250) said
that “studies of feedback or knowledge of results show it
to be the strongest, most important variable controlling
performance and learning." Gagne (1977) noted that some
feedback is intrinsic in that it is provided by the learn
er himself just by how the learner feels about the perfor
mance and how he/she evaluates it. But much feedback is
external, either furnished by the instructor verbally or
through actual performance on the task (Bilodeau, 1966).
Barringer and Gholson (1979) recently reviewed the
feedback literature, primarily with respect to children's
conceptual learning, but some of what they reviewed also
included adult learning. The two most consistent findings
that they reported were: (a) that “verbal and symbolic
feedback produce more rapid acquisition than does tangible
feedback" (like money or tokens) and (b) that “the wrong-
blank combination produces faster acquisition and more
resistence to extinction than does the right-blank condi
tion" (p. 459). Often the wrong-blank was superior to
52
right-wrong as well, but the findings there were inconsis
tent. This indicates that "wrong" may be a more powerful
negative reinforcer than "right" was a positive reinforcer.
For the blank condition of no feedback, most people inter
preted the blank as meaning "right"--regardless of whether
it really meant right or wrong in terms of the actual
performance.
Other generalizations made by Barringer and Gholson
from their review were: (a) the superiority of verbal
feedback can be enhanced by directing attention to relevant
stimulus cues, and (b) providing positive feedback alone
was less helpful than was providing negative feedback
alone.
Kulhavey (197?) did another recent review of the
feedback literature but concentrated on that for written
instruction. It seems reasonable to generalize his conclu
sions to other areas besides written instruction although
his review was limited to only the written instruction.
Kulhavey pointed out that corrective feedback is much more
powerful than simply right-wrong. He said (p. 221) that
"supplying feedback after an error is probably far more
important than providing confirmation." On the other
hand, he found that even corrective feedback was not
always helpful. For example, if there was total lack of
understanding about what was done, then corrective feedback
didn't help, presumably because it couldn't be understood.
53
However, if mistakes made were as a result of a faulty
interpretation, then corrective feedback would be effec
tive. Kulhavey concurred with Barringer and Gholson
(1979) when he said that corrective feedback following
wrong responses probably had the strongest positive effect.
Fitts (1964) discussed what he called "augmented
feedback," a very specialized and precise form of feedback
that would not ordinarily be present in a skill learning
task. One might say that augmented feedback is a special
case of corrective feedback. However, augmented feedback
would be given primarily to highly skilled performers who
were trying to become even more skilled.
Other findings reported by Kulhavey (1977) were con
cerned with a person’s confidence in his response and how
it affected both his desire to have feedback and the
effect of the feedback. The most effective combination
occurred when a student had high confidence in an answer
that turned out to be wrong. In such cases students paid
a great deal of attention to the feedback, indicating that
this should be where feedback plays its most corrective
role. Note that "regardless of the correctness of an
item, high confidence responses followed by feedback were
remembered significantly better on tests" (p. 226).
Kulhavey summarized his review by listing the impli
cations for instructional design as they relate to feed
back: (a) make sure the learners have appropriate entry
54
skills for the lesson; (b) structure the material in such
a way that the response precedes the feedback (in spite of
the student), and (c) provide feedback as often as possible
during the course of the lesson (p. 229).
With respect to feedback in each of the treatments of
this study: for Treatment 2, corrective feedback in a
supportive way was given after all responses to both
written and performance practice. In Treatment ' 3 . , 'the
wrong-blank condition was used throughout training but the
level of "correctiveness'’ in that group was minimal. In
Treatment 1, the feedback had to be supplied by the indi
vidual himself. In Treatment 4, there was immediate
feedback on both tests and practice but it was given with
a more neutral attitude than in Treatments 2 and 3.
Motivation
Ball (1977, p. 4) stated that "A . . . problem is that
motivation . . . involves many processes. No current the
ory can provide a full picture of motivation in education."
Unfortunately, his remark has summarized the bottom line
with respect to motivation, which has made it a difficult
dimension to study systematically. No one will question
its importance, yet researchers are hard pressed to break
motivation down into easily studied component parts. One
of the reasons for this, according to Ball (1977) is that
motivation is something that must necessarily be inferred.
Like intelligence, motivation is a hypothetical construct
55
but, unlike intelligence, it is not easily measurable.
Even if it were, educators must not be deluded into think
ing that if they could solve the problems of motivation
they would then have the answers to all learning problems.
Motivation, like any other dimension of treatment, is but
one of the factors that determine behavior. In other
words, whether someone succeeds or fails in a learning
situation is only partially determined by processes of
motivation.
Glaser (1961) noted that it was impossible to be very
definitive about the problem of motivation. However, he
did outline several things that are related to it and which
he thought ought to be studied. They are: the effects of
anxiety, the effects of "social conditions" (including co
operation and competition), how motivating conditions might
generalize from one situation to another, and how motiva
tion might relate to curiosity and exploratory drive. This
list provides some indication of the complexity of motiva
tion in the learning process.
In this study, motivation was viewed in a broad con
text that included not only the source of motivation as
intrinsic or extrinsic, but also the social atmosphere of
the learning environment, particularly the peer group in
fluence and the person to person interactions between stu
dents and between students and instructor. It was the
investigator's belief that these conditions in the learning
56
environment had to be described in order to make the study
more easily replicable.
Ball (1977) said that "motivation” is usually defined
by psychologists as the processes involved in arousing,
directing, and sustaining behavior" (p. 2). McDonald
(1961) said approximately the same thing when he wrote:
The common conception among theories is that motiva
tion is an initiating state leading to increased
response activity, the consequences of which strength
en certain responses and heighten the probability of
their future occurrence under similar conditions. (p.
62)
It was the hope of the investigator that the descriptions
of the motivation dimension for each instructional strategy
in this study would be precise enough that future occur
rences under those conditions would result in similar
criterion performances.
There are a number of possible motives that impact on
learning. Among them are anxiety, curiosity, need for
achievement, achievement through conformity, achievement
through independence, and many more. Variables like locus
of control and the social situation of the classroom are
also related to motivation. Ball (1977), as the editor of
a comprehensive book called Motivation in Education, made
an attempt to bring the various authors on motivation
together to discuss this difficult topic from many view
points. Many of the lines of research are traced and at
least some sense is brought to the confusion to enable
57
other researchers to point toward more directed inquiry.
Postman’s (1961) comment, however, probably still holds,
even today:
In spite of a long history of experimental attempts,
there is still little or no clear evidence that the
affective characteristics of the learning materials
influence either the speed of acquisition or the rate
of forgetting . . . We are not suggesting, of course,
that motivational variables are of no significance in
human learning; we merely point out that there is
only scattered and inconclusive information about
their mode of action. (p. 72)
Perhaps the confusion in motivation research is simi
lar to the confusion in research that has compared alterna
tive instructional treatments for so many years. The re
sults of many of those studies were often "no significant
difference,” which then led researchers to look more close
ly at ATI’s. So with motivation, the question may be not
whether it affects performance, but rather, for whom and
under what conditions does it affect performance?
It would be impossible to review every aspect of
motivation for this study since it was only one of the
features that distinguished the different treatments.
Indeed, it was not the purpose of the study to account for
every possible kind of motivation. The relevant literature
that related to the use of motivation in this study was
incorporated into the section on ’ ’Instructional Strategies
and Aptitudes” and as a result, was not repeated in this
section.
58
Structure
Structure, as it is used in the education and psychol
ogy literature, encompasses a broad range of conditions.
Posner and Strike (1976) referred to structure in terms of
the content to be learned. For them, the way the content
is arranged would be the content structure. In their
words; "Content structure refers to the content elements
and the ordering relationships that exist between them"
(p. 666). The content elements are the propositions,
concepts, skills, or attitudes to be learned by the stu
dents. For Posner and Strike (1976), structure and se
quence were virtually the same when it came to content.
They explained that
the problem of content structure can be considered a
sequencing or ordering problem. Most questions about
content structure can be reduced to questions concern
ing what content comes before what other content and
the rationale for that order (i.e., the sequencing
principle or, more precisely, the ordering relation).
Occasionally the problem of content structure is
concerned with grouping principles. In these cases,
the important structural relationships hinge on the
relationship among content elements to be taught in
conjunction, and the order of the elements may be a
matter of relative indifference, (p. 666)
s
Posner and Strike (1976) delineated a set of five
sequencing principles, each of which is organized in some
different, yet useful, way. .There are also subcategories
within each principle. The five principles with their
subcategories are: (a) World-related--(Spatial relation
ships; Temporal relationships; Physical Attributes), (b)
59
Concept-related--(Class relations; Propositional Rela
tions; Sophistication Level; Logical Prerequisites), (c)
Inquiry-related--(Logic of Inquiry; Empirics of Inquiry),
(d) Learning-related--(Empirical Prerequisite; Familiar
ity; Difficulty; Interest; Internalisation; Development),
and (e) Utilization-related--(Procedure; Anticipated
Frequency of Utilization). Thorough explanations of these
principles and their subcategories can be found in Posner
and Strike (1976).
Host educators probably view the concept-related se
quencing principle as the one that most epitomizes the
concept of structure. In fact, within this principle
would be the familiar notion of induction vs. deduction.
Although the deductive framework is popularly thought to
have more "structure" than an inductive framework, Posner
and Strike would argue that they merely have a different
kind of structure based on a different ordering principle.
In addition, they have pointed out that even though the
different types and subtypes are conceptually distinct
from one another, it is unlikely that any content is
structured purely according to a single principle. Rather,
actual content sequences are typically blends of several
subtypes or even of several major types. Such blends are
not only possible, but they are recommended.
Perhaps in terms of structure, there is more research
on the inductive vs. deductive contrast than there is on
60
most others. Fischer (1979) reviewed the inductive-
deductive literature, especially as it related to teaching
grammatical structures of a foreign language. He classi
fied cognitive or expository approaches (like Ausubel’s)
as the deductive methods and audio-lingual teaching materi
als as inductive. In the latter there were no explicitly
stated rules before instruction but mainly pattern drill
followed by a brief grammatical summary. Such an approach,
Without a Summary, is similar to that used for Strategy 3
of this study. MacNamara (in Fischer, 1979), "cast doubt
on a totally deductive approach by declaring that the stu
dent ’must learn to get on as soon as possible without
explicit rules’ despite the growing number of cognitive
proponents” (p. 99).
Grieve and Davis (1971) investigated inductive (dis
covery) and deductive (expository) approaches to teach
ninth grade geography to students with global and analytic
cognitive styles. They found that for both knowledge
learning and higher order learning outcomes, extremely
global males scored significantly lower than extremely
analytic males when given the deductive (expository)
treatment. This indicates that the more global male is
likely to benefit from inductive (discovery) approaches
and is one of the primary reasons that Strategy 3 of this
study utilized an essentially inductive approach.
61
Long (1979) found that undergraduate students in
educational psychology, taught by an inductive method,
scored significantly higher on knowledge of generalizations
than did those taught deductively. The inductive group
also reported higher motivation afterwards than did the
deductive. There was no significant difference between
groups on knowledge of specifics, retention, or enjoyment.
Holliday (1979) reviewed 22 ATI science studies that
yielded significant results. Some of these pertained to
the issue of structure within treatments and all compared
how low or high ability students performed on each treat
ment. Some studies showed that lows benefited from a more
structured approach (Cowan, 1967; Koran & Koran, 1973;
Owen, Hall, Anderson, & Smert, 1965) while others showed
that lows benefited from a more inductive (less structured)
approach (Grote, 1960; Lucow, 1964; Pyatte, 1969). Clear
ly, results such as these point to the variable of struc
ture- -however it is operationalized— as an important one
to consider. Cronbach and Snow (1977) said:
It is evident that the response of students to induc
tive/ deductive instruction is worth studying, but
that we should abandon the search for a simple gen
eralization about the main effect or the first order
interaction. (p. 320)
Holliday (1979) suggested that researchers who are
evaluating structure in Science classrooms look for a
variety of describable characteristics of classroom struc
ture that are designed specifically for particular learner
62
types. He recommended, as does Snow (1977) that re
searchers use a comprehensive set of personality and cog
nitive factors to evaluate classroom structure variables.
Mizell (1970) did that by studying the interactions
of personality factors, as measured by the Sixteen Person
ality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), with structured or un
structured strategies. He found that venturesome students
seemed to perform best on both immediate and delayed reten
tion tests if they had been in the unstructured treatment
while shy students performed best in the structured treat
ment. In addition, the higher intelligence people (on the
16PF) got higher scores on immediate tests and required
less study time when assigned to the structured treatment,
while less intelligent people did best, taking less time,
in the unstructured situation. On retention, however, the
results above were reversed. That complex result may indi
cate that if you are concerned about both kinds of outcomes
(immediate and retention) then a combination of structured
and unstructured methods could maximize both kinds of
learning for both groups.
In this study, such a combination was achieved in
both Strategies 1 and 3. How? By taking a broader view
of the definition of structure. Structure can refer to
the inherent organization of the content or to the in
structional materials themselves. It can also refer to
the larger instructional situation that includes the way
63
in which the class is conducted--loosely (with little
structure)--or, in a step-by-step structured manner with
predictable transitions from one event to the next. The
strategies for this study can be described according to
both kinds of Structure. However the values for each kind
of structure may not be the same within the same treat
ment. By conceptualizing structure in this broader sense,
and by operationalizing both kinds of structure, the stra
tegies become more precise and more generalizable.
Pacing
Adams (1954), cited earlier under "Perceptual/Psycho-
motor Tasks," distinguished between paced and self-paced
tasks. Recall that when a stimulus is presented for a
limited amount of time, the task is considered "paced."
However, if there is no time limit designated for a stimu
lus presentation it can be said to be a "self-paced" task.
Pacing could be categorized in other ways. Brophy
and Evertson (1978) identified many process variables in
instructional situations and noted that "the relevance
and implications of many of these variables differs with
lesson pace, and pacing itself is related to group size"
(p. 313). In this study, pacing referred to whether the
training was paced by each individual or by the group as
a whole.
64
Sequence
While. Posner and Stike (1976) might equate sequence
with structure, that is not what is meant by sequence in
this study. In this study, sequence referred to the order
of events of the instruction. While it can refer to the
order of content topics, the order of concepts within the
content and the order of the various presentation modes,
the term sequence primarily referred to the first and last
of these for this study. In order to be replicable, the
order in which things occurred had to be specified. A very
complete description'of the Sequence of both the events of
instruction (almost like a lesson plan) and the sequence of
the presentation modes for instruction is detailed in the
methodology section of this manuscript.
Presentation Modes
Presentation modes or media are the vehicles or forms
through which the instructional content of a strategy is
conveyed and/or presented. Examples include: print, visu
als, live demonstration, simulator, discussion, etc.
The visual versus verbal research question, which
might also be called pictures vs. words, has been studied
by many researchers and was particularly relevant for this
study, especially as it related to research on spatial
factors. The major components of these two kinds of pre
sentation mode have been described by Knowlton (1966) and
65
Pryluck and Snow (1967). Verbal formats are more ab
stract, consisting of words, numbers or symbols which pre
sent information in succession, serially in discrete
steps. Visual formats consist of drawings, pictures, or
other representations and are more concrete non-verbal
formats.
Some researchers have found that visual treatments
enhance learning, at least for some learners in some sit
uations (Gagne & Gropper, 1965; Hamilton, 1969; Holliday,
1976). However caution is in order when trying to general
ize about the superiority of visual treatments. More
specific information on this dimension of presentation
modes will be presented in the context of "Instructional
Strategies and Aptitudes," where it may have more meaning.
Instead of using visual treatments, some people seem
to be able to learn better when the presentation mode is
more lifelike. This could be called the "hands on" method
and can be achieved by means of real equipment or simula
tors. Finch (1972) tried to teach automotive diagnostic
problem solving (trouble-shooting) by means of three dif
ferent strategies with the hope of finding an alternative
to equipment or equipment simulator approaches. In one
treatment, he used a textbook approach. In another there
was programmed instruction. The last strategy used the ac
tual equipment* He found that there were no significant
differences in attitude toward instruction or in knowledge
66
about troubleshooting among the three treatments. How
ever, when actual troubleshooting performance was tested,
the equipment groups did significantly better than either
of the more verbal and print oriented groups. The results
of this study suggest that performance outcomes of psycho
motor tasks are best taught with more lifelike realworld
strategies, such as using the real equipment or using a
simulator if one is available. In the present study, the
simulator was one of the primary modes of presentation.
Using a simulator can be more cost-effective, and it
is safer when the task is an especially dangerous one. In
this study, such was the case; men learned how to operate
an almost exact replica of a sophisticated weapon system
without the dangers that would be involved with a real
weapon--and without the costs that would be incurred if
using real missiles and real targets.
Group Vs. Individual Instruction
Webb (1977) cited a host of literature that compared
individual and group performance on different specific
tasks. However, most, if not all, of these studies con
trasted the work output of groups cooperating together and
individuals working alone on problem solving or concept
learning tasks. Much of the literature reviewed, even
Webb’s (1977) herself, compared the learning of subjects
who worked in pairs, in quads, or alone on a practical
task. The actual instruction was given to the large
67
classroom size groups and then the smaller groups went
into action. It is unclear what would happen if the be
ginning instruction had also been given to the various
size groups.
In Webb1s study (1977), the students were formed into
groups based oh ability (high, medium, low). Webb studied
the effects of peer interaction and tutoring as well as the
differences in achievement between those who actively par
ticipated and those who did not. None of these variables
precisely relate to the operationalization of group vs.
individual instruction for this study. In this study, what
Webb was calling problem practice would be practicing in
the simulator; which is more or less an individual activi
ty. However the environment for each treatment in this
study, with the exception of that for Strategy 1, was with
an entire group. Even when two people were practicing, the
others were still in the social situation but could not
practice at the same time.
In a series of studies (Lemke, Randle, & Robertshaw,
1969; Lemke & Hecht, 1971; Beane & Lemke, 1971), different
group variables that influenced concept learning and tran
sfer were investigated. They found that low ability stu
dents who worked in homogeneous pairs or quads exhibited
greater performance on transfer tasks as individuals than
if they had been trained alone. This relates very much to
part of the rationale for Strategy 3 of this study. They
68
found further that training high ability subjects as homo
geneous quads inhibited individual transfer performance,
presumably because the subjects developed a group strategy
that Was not as efficient as would be their own preferred
individual strategies. The group strategy thus interfered
with what would have been a more efficient individual
strategy for each subject. Treatment 1 was designed to
prevent such interference.
For this study, the group vs. individual instruction
dimension of treatment was more straightforward and de
scriptive than any of the ways described in the studies
cited. No studies were uncovered that looked at this vari
able in the same simple way for which it was used here.
Group instruction in this study referred to the setting
of instruction where the entire group of students was re
quired to be present together for the entire lesson, even
if they were only observing or interacting socially while
someone else was getting practice.
Individual instruction in this study referred to the
setting of instruction where each soldier was allowed to
proceed through the lesson independently of every other
person assigned to the same treatment. If a soldier did
not proceed through the lesson(s) independently of others,
it was as a result of his own individual choice. There was
no requirement for those in individual instruction to be
69
together at all, after the initial materials were distrib
uted.
Summary and Synthesis
Eight different treatment dimensions were reviewed
and/or described in this section on treatment variables.
It was not an all-encompassing list but they represented
probably the most salient features of any treatment. It
would be difficult indeed, to conceive of any instructional
strategy that doesn * t have some level of motivation associ
ated with it--that isn1t either presented to a group or to
an individual--that can’t be classified according to amount
and type of feedback given--that doesn’t allow some type
and amount of practice, etc., etc. . . .
Any instructional strategy could be classified over
a host of different dimensions, some of which refer to the
presentation itself and others of which refer to the con
tent of the presentation. There are other variables that
relate to the kinds of skills and knowledges that are ne
cessary to perform the task. Still other variables, that
were discussed earlier in this manuscript, and which are
always present in the situation, are those that describe
the individual learner traits. When thinking about all
these treatment, task, and trait variables, one can easily
see that even though they are not part of an exhaustive
list, any cross-product would result in an unmanageable
universe.
70
In the search for some practical application, some
organized restrictions must be placed on each set of vari
ables and Combinations thereof. For this research, the
set of trait variables was limited to some degree by the
particular task of the study. The variables that describe
the kind of information to be learned were limited some
what by the choice of tests in the aptitude battery. The
treatment variables were limited by the research uncovered
on instructional strategies for people with the particular
aptitudes of interest in this study. The design of the
strategies included primarily those manipulable features
that received support in the literature for people with
varying levels of the aptitudes.
Since the aptitude profiles consisted of more than
one aptitude, there was a greater chance to locate re
search on strategies that related to at least part of the
profile. In addition, the research located encompassed
several dimensions of the instructional strategies allow
ing for more representativeness of treatment in a field
situation. Most research methods tend to maximize the
effect of the variable being measured by randomizing the
other effects of other variables. While that may be good
research, it limits generalizability considerably.
Postman (1961, p. 71) said that ’ ’theoretical progress
continues to come through eclectic accretion.” This com
bination of dimensions approach (for both treatments and
71
aptitudes) is definitely in the mold of eclectic accre
tion. It also coincides with the ideas of Gagne and White
(1978), who have found many examples of improved retention
and transfer when combinations of memory structures (net
works or propositions, intellectual skills, images, and
episodes) are utilized instead of a single structure.
The usefulness of combinations of situational vari
ables was recently recognized in Bell and Dolly (1979) who
noted that although forming instructional prescriptions
based on underlying psychological processes is a step in
the right direction, it is still too limiting because it
doesn't take into account the range of situational vari
ables that necessarily influence learning. They said
there was a problem with depending on theories of learning
as the total basis for a theory of instruction. The re
sult of that, they said, Was that "the learning theory
debates of the 501s have become the instructional theory
debates of the 70's" (p. 3).
In speculating what lies in the future for instruc
tional psychology, Bell and Dolly look to the research on
adaptive systems that is being done by Atkinson, Tennyson,
and others as a more useful way to procede. Such research
incorporates a range of variables. "Factors such as prior
student history in the course, student pretask and on-task
performance, motivational and anxiety states, and types of
72
exercises and psychological process required for perfor
mance are combined into probability models that predict
success” (p. 3). According to what Bell and Dolly have
said, the wave of the future lies in these more adaptive
instructional systems that make use of multiple factors
for the selection of instructional prescriptions. Such
an approach would "incorporate presentation and response
modes in conjunction with learner and task characteris
tics” to facilitate instructional prescriptions in a vari
ety of situations.
The research described in this manuscript appears to
fit this description for the wave of the future. How the
combinations of treatment dimensions match up with particu
lar aptitude patterns is discussed in the next section.
Instructional Strategies and Aptitudes
Cronbach and Snow (1977) have stated:
Highs are expected to make progress if the instruction
demands the skills they displayed on the aptitude test
And lows are expected to progress if the treatment
makes little demand on the skills they lack. Hence,
the investigator needs to form a theory about what
kinds of intellectual activity make for good perfor
mance on the aptitude measure, and what deficiencies
are most responsible for low scores. It is on this
basis that he shapes the instructional treatments, one
to employ this ability and one to sidestep that defi
ciency. (p. 510)
Such advice Was explicated in terms of a single aptitude
for simplicity’s sake, but the same advice holds true for
73
any and all aptitudes, including aptitudes taken collec
tively. A well-known thing about instruction and apti
tudes is that learners do not all necessarily call upon
the same aptitudes when they learn the same things. Be
cause of this, any instructional designer or teacher must
plan for as many different possibilities as is feasible in
the instructional situation.
In a heterogeneous group, everyone simply does not
necessarily do a given task according to the particular
strategy suggested and/or devised by the teacher. It is
for this reason that educators must reason through at
least three different sets of variables in the search for
effective instructional experiences. The word "experi
ences" rather than "method" has been used for a purpose.
When one thinks of an instructional method, it often con
notes more about the structure, and objective presentation
of a lesson than it does .about the totality of an instruc
tional experience. A full instructional experience takes
into account person characteristics and task/content char
acteristics as well as instructional method (treatment)
characteristics, This reference to task, person, and
treatment characteristics is reminiscent of the earlier
discussion of Rhetts (1972, 1974).
Recall that Hebein (1978) said that the entire col
lection of design variables (in an instructional situa
tion), which is under the control of the teacher/trainer
and which may influence the rate or degree of learning are
collectively and commonly called instructional strategies.
Since anything that can influence learning is an instruc
tional strategy, then a human relations strategy, for ex
ample, can also be classified as instructional.
More specifically, the three sets of variables that
are related to the instructional strategy development for
this study, similar to those of Hebein (1978) and Sullivan
et al. (1978), are:
1. variables which describe the individual learner
in terms of his performance of the tasks required
for weapon employment, (e.g., general ability,
cognitive style, perceptual ability, and person
ality type--tense/anxious vs. relaxed) ,
2. variables which describe the type of information
to be learned in order to perform this, complex
procedural psychomotor task, and
3. variables which describe presentation methods in
terms of (a) presentation mode, (b) amount and
type of practice, (c) motivation and feedback,
■(d) group vs. individual instruction, and (e)
sequence of presentation.
Information from the instructional design literature
and available research on the design and prescription of
specific strategies were synthesized in the effort to
75
establish instructional strategies tailored to each apti
tude profile (Allen, 1975; Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Gagne &
Briggs, 1974; Rosenberg, Mintz & Clark, 1977; Wheaton,
Fingerman, Rose, & Leonard, 1976; and others). What fol
lows now is the review of particular strategies for parti
cular levels of the identified aptitudes that made up the
aptitude profiles for this research.
For Cognitive Style
Ogden and Brewster (1977) found that successful and
unsuccessful secondary science students did have different
cognitive styles. Guerrieri (1978) found that college
students with different cognitive styles exhibited signif
icantly different performance on an unfamiliar cognitive
learning task. Bodine (1977) found that for one dimension
of cognitive style, mixed groups of field-independent and
field-dependent college students performed better than
groups matched for either single cognitive style. For 7th
and 8th graders who received an experimental treatment
using cognitive styles, Retzke (1976), found that the use
of cognitive style information in the classroom had a pos
itive and significant effect on the motivational level of
the participating students.
The foregoing four studies, at three different school
levels, seem to indicate that cognitive style is an opera
ting variable or structure that must be reckoned with con
sciously in training/classroom environments. When it is,
76
both affective and cognitive achievement outcomes seem to
be influenced. In the present study, two of the treat*
ments are designed with strategies geared toward cognitive
style.
In reviewing the research regarding which kinds of
instructional strategies appear to result in greater learn
ing gains for global or analytic persons, it was found that
field-independent persons tend to focus more on task req
uirements and on the stated objectives than do field-
dependent people, who focus more on the social situation
in which they are asked to perform a task (Fitzgerald,
1979; Fitzgibbons & Goldberger, 1971; Goldberger & Bendich,
1972). This focus on the social orientation of the learn
ing situation appears to cause global learners to be more
influenced by teacher-student interactions than are more
analytic learners. As a result, global learners are much
more affected and influenced by the opinions of both the
instructor and of others than are the more analytic types.
While such influence could be either beneficial or detri
mental, the goal of an instructional strategy for field-
dependent learners would be to capitalize on the knowledge
of this notion so that the more global individuals will be
more Influenced by the instructor and peers in such a way
that they will learn more as as result, input of both
instructor and peer opinion was built into the design of
77
Strategy 3 in order to take advantage of the global learn
ers1 social orientations.
There are several studies (e.g., Eagle, Goldberger, &
Breitman, 1969; Ruble Sc Nakamura, 1972) that have shown
that field-dependent learners appear to learn and remember
more when the content is of a social nature while field-
independent learners tend to do better with very task-
specific content. This suggests that if the content to be
learned is of a social nature, that analytic people will
learn less than global people Unless they are guided to
focus on such content as the primary task of learning. If
the content to be learned is not of a social nature, then
global persons would be at a disadvantage compared to their
analytic counterparts unless some type of intervention was
conceived (only for globals) to make such a learning situa
tion more socially oriented than it would otherwise be.
This more social focus was maintained throughout Strategy
3.
The focus on social orientation for global indivi
duals impacts at least two other features of an instruc
tional situation for them; namely, reinforcement and feed
back. Ferrell (1971) found that reinforcement of all
types, positive or negative, affected global individuals
more than it did analytics--this presumably because analyt
ics are more intrinsically motivated than are globals and
have goals that are more self-defined than do the global
78
individuals (Witkin, et al., 1977). Globals care more
about what others think of their performance than do ana
lytics and this appears to be why negative forms of rein
forcement (e.g., punishment) can be as effective as those
that are more positive (e.g., praise). Sometimes, the ef
fectiveness may depend somewhat on the way in which the
reinforcement is administered (Ferrell, 1971; Fitz, 1971;
Randolph, 1971; Steinfeld, 1973). For analytics, Strategy
1 was self-paced and provided no overt reinforcement. For
globals, Strategy 3 utilized more negative forms of rein
forcement- -mediated by peer feedback within the social
situation.
Closely related to reinforcement is feedback--the
presence, absence, or amount of it in the instructional
situation. Renzi (1974) found that performance for field-
independent s was not significantly affected by the amount
of overt feedback that they received (or didn't receive).
Conversely, field-dependents performed better when overt
feedback was given. This supports the notion that field-
dependents are more influenced by external conditions than
are field-independents. Field-independents are more apt
to provide their own feedback intrinsically and they were
expected to do so in Strategy 1 of this study. Feedback
was provided for globals in Strategy 3.
79
It was stated early on in this manuscript (Goodenough,
1976) that the superior ability of analytic individuals to
structure information could be the most useful notion in
terms of the design of instructional strategies. When in
structional material is abstract and full of competing
cues, the field-dependent learner is at a disadvantage.
Field-independent learners, however, have the ability to
sample the wide range of cues, to isolate which cues are
relevant to the learning task, and to disregard those which
are irrelevant.
If, on the other hand, the material is more clear
cut, having an apparent structure--and especially if the
relevant cues are of a social nature, then the field-
dependent learner can expect to learn as much (often in
less time) as his/her field-independent peers, who may
still sample the full range of cues (social and non
social) before finishing the task (Goodenough, 1976;
Kirchenbaum, 1968; Witkin et al., 1977). It follows then
that the field-dependent learner, who takes the instruc
tional material as is, can be said to favor a more passive
approach to learning than the field-independent learner,
who appears to favor an active, hypothesis-testing ap
proach to learning.
Field-dependent learners can, if given explicit in
structions, use a more active hypothesis-testing approach,
but if left to do so on their own, they won't. Since
80
field-independents favor their own hypothesis-testing
approaches, efforts to instruct them explicitly in a par
ticular approach could interfere with their preferred
strategies and may inhibit learning (Bruner, Goodnow, &
Austin , 1956 ; Nebelkopf & Dryer, 1973; Shapson, 1977 ;
Witkin et al., 1977). There is, however, some question
about the effects of such interference because the field-
independents’ active participation in the organizing of
instructional material does make them less susceptible to
some forms of interference (Goodenough, 1976; Witkin, et
al., 1962; Witkin et al., 1977). In this study, field-
independents were left on their own to utilize their own
preferred strategies, while the field-dependents were put
into a social situation that encouraged more active and
interactive responses,
A listing of which characteristics/attributes have
been said to describe people at the extremes of the
global/analytic dimension of cognitive style was provided
by Guerrieri (1978). His comprehensive list was generated
after reviewing most of the literature cited herein as well
as much more. It is reproduced now in its entirety:
Field-dependent persons:
1. Tend to adhere to the organization of the field
as given.
2. Are likely to rely on external referents as
guides in information processing.
3. Favor interpersonal domains which are primarily
social in content, require interpersonal rela
tions for their conduct, and do not require cog
nitive restructuring skills.
81
4. Are better able to learn socially relevant ma
terial.
5. Tend to assume a passive or spectator role in
learning.
6. Are much more affected by negative reinforcement.
7. Are inclined to be influenced by authority and
the opinions of others.
8. Are likely to have lower performance expecta
tions.
9. Favor interactive teaching methods.
10. Tend to be more considerate managers.
11. Are inclined to assume a more stereotyped role.
12. Favor nonspecific defenses, such as repression.
These persons tend to prefer professions such as
nursing, social work, and elementary education.
Field-independent individuals:
1. Are likely to overcome the organization of the
field, or restructure it, when presented with a
field having a dominant organization.
2. Tend to give greater credit to internal refer
ents .
3. Favor domains which emphasize cognitive re
structuring skills, are primarily abstract and
nonsocial in content.
4. Prefer to learn general principles rather than
specific information.
5. Assume a more active or participant learning
role.
6. Learn more effectively when the motivation is
intrinsic.
7. Are inclined to attend to nonsalient attributes
in Concept learning tasks.
8. Favor expository teaching methods.
9. Are inclined to be less considerate managers.
10. Are likely to use specialized defenses such as
intellectualization.
11. Tend to be independent.
12. Tend to be articulate when describing themselves
and their experiences.
These individuals tend to prefer professions such
as: mathematics, engineering, and experimental psy
cho! ogy. (pp. 28-29)
82
In summary, there is a wealth of information to indi
cate that manipulating specific features of an instruction
al situation to favor one style or another is likely to in
fluence the amount and/or rate of learning for global and
analytic individuals. How much influence will actually oc
cur depends upon the degree of global or analytic function
ing within any given learner. In the present study, an ef
fort was made to isolate sets of individuals who function
at similar extreme levels on this dimension of cognitive
style and to design treatments that reflect many of the
principles that have been outlined in this review of liter
ature .
For Spatial Ability
Cronbach and Snow (1977) reviewed the literature
comparing the influence of verbal and spatial abilities on
the acquisition of various skills. The overall conclusion
that they reached was that high spatial ability learners
appear to benefit most from instructions that are in a
spatial (i.e., including diagrams and/or pictures instead
of a verbal presentation) format. A caution is in order
though, because there has been some question in several
studies about the appropriateness of a particular spatial
measurement for the criterion task in question. Clark
(1978) warned that too many researchers give any test of
spatial ability, often not giving consideration to the now
accepted notion that there are at least two kinds of
83
spatial ability and not just one. Clark (1978) agreed with
Michael et al. (1957) when he differentiated between spa
tial relations and orientation (SRO) and spatial visualiza
tion (Vz). These two kinds of spatial ability are analo
gous to two and three dimensional perceptual ability, re
spectively.
Related to spatial ability is the difference in ef
fectiveness between verbal versus visual presentations.
There has been much conflicting evidence on the above, but
overall, for specific categories of tasks, the more visual
ly oriented strategies appear to be more effective than
those which are verbally oriented for learners that are
high in spatial ability (Gagne, I960)- For this reason,
Strategy 2 was primarily visual with a minimum of verbal
materials to capitalize on the high spatial abilities of
the men with Profile 2.
It is unfortunate, but there is definitely some con
fusion about whether high spatial ability learners do in
fact need spatial materials. If they are also high in
verbal ability (and particularly if the content is spa
tial), it could mean that a verbal treatment might be more
effective because it allows such learners to call on their
own spatial abilities without the bias of a spatial format
that is presented for them in a spatial treatment. Numer
ous studies have shown that providing a strategy for a
learner that is high in a certain ability (spatial or
84
otherwise) can interfere with the learner’s ability to
call on that aptitude in a way that is most beneficial to
him/her (Carrier & Clark, 1977; Cronbach & Snow, 1977) .
Nevertheless, there is enough evidence to support the
use of spatial treatments for high spatial ability learn
ers. For example, Frandsden and Holder (1969) found that
only when low spatial ability students were given instruc
tions on how to interpret or use diagrams, maps or other
spatial representations were they able to solve problems
as well as students of high spatial ability who had the
ability to interpret the visuals on their own with little
or no instruction. Gauverin (1967a, 1967b) observed a
similar phenomenon when he found that low spatial ability
learners needed to physically manipulate letter-tiles in
space before they could solve anagrams as well as those of
high spatial ability, who could evidently manipulate the
tiles mentally instead and needed no overt manipulation at
all. In Strategy 2 for this study, there was little or no
instruction on how to interpret the visuals.
It could also be that immediate performance is not as
affected as is retention when highly visual treatments are
used for high spatial ability learners. Hancock (1975)
found that to be exactly the case when comparing verbal and
figural treatments for learners high on verbal or figural
aptitudes. Retention was better if a figural treatment was
used for those high in figural aptitude. Retention was
85
also better if a verbal treatment was used for those high
in verbal aptitude. In both cases, though, there was not
much difference between treatments for immediate perfor
mance .
For General Ability
Who would question that the most powerful determiner
of amount learned and rate of learning would be general
ability? One does not need to go to the literature to find
out that smart people learn more, faster, than do dull peo
ple. Yet it is helpful to find out what assists the highs
to do their best and what can help lows to overcome at
least some of their deficits.
Any instructional situation will fall somewhere on a
continuum from simple to complex. The more complex the
conditions, the greater the demand will be on the informa
tion-processing skills of the learner. High ability
learners have a large repertoire of strategies that they
can call upon to meet the demands of a task situation;
they can generally analyze problems for themselves and
more or less build their own concepts as they go about
learning. lower ability students are generally less able
to utilize those strategies that it takes to analyze and
learn complex concepts; consequently, instructional treat
ments must be designed to provide such strategies for
lower ability learners, who cannot provide them for them
selves . To the extent that this is done, differences in
86
general ability can be somewhat neutralized (Cronbach &
Snow, 1977; Snow, 1976, 1977).
Strategy 1 of this study was designed for high intel
ligence types and did require that they build their own
concepts in learning. Strategy 3 was designed for lower
ability soldiers and provided direct guidance by demanding
a large amount of active and focused practice. By having
primarily practice for Strategy 3, those in it did not
have to analyze and learn complex relationships formally.
Instead, they could learn them through direct application
while performing the task.
Fox, Taylor and Caylor (1969) found that no matter
how simple or complex a learning task, the amount learned
and rate of learning were related to overall aptitude. For
this reason, they recommended that instructional systems
be designed with the following in mind: a clear recogni
tion of the effects that differing levels of aptitudes
have on amount and rate of learning.
Low ability learners, according to Taylor et al.,
(1970), were found to be slower to respond, needed more
instruction to reach criterion, and required more guidance
and repetition during instruction than did middle or high
ability learners. As a result, Strategy 3 was designed to
provide such increased repetition by making it virtually
all practice for the low ability people who have Profile 3.
87
Allen (1975) synthesized a host of studies and identi
fied the following guidelines for low ability subjects;
1. Organizing and structuring features of a treat
ment are likely to enhance learning.
2. Perceptually complex, information-laden formats
may inhibit 1earning.
3. Attention directing devices or procedures (e.g.,
visual pointers, underlining, etc.) should en
hance learning.
4. Active participation and response during instruc
tion will enhance learning.
5. If the learning material is compressed and sim
plified too much, perhaps leaving out redundant
details, it may place too heavy a demand on
processing skills and thereby diminish learning.
6. Feedback and knowledge of correctness of response
should enhance learning.
7. Fast-paced presentations are likely to hinder
In the same review, Allen noted that high ability
learners, when compared to low ability learners:
1. Are less likely to need organizing or structuring
features since they can provide them for them
selves .
2. Tend to thrive on and be challenged by perceptu
ally complex, information-laden formats.
88
3. Are less likely to benefit from attention-
directing devices in presentations.
4. Are less likely to benefit as much from active
participation and response during instruction.
5. Are more likely to become bored when details are
redundant, except on complex material.
6. Appear to need less overt feedback and knowledge
of results since they are often intrinsically
motivated.
7. Enjoy, are challenged by, and can learn more
from fast-paced presentations.
Hebein (1978) provided a succinct synthesis of recom
mendations regarding instructional strategies for learners
of high or low general mental ability, taken from many of
the sources listed in this review, and from others. She
said:
The most efficient strategy containing the great
est motivation for high aptitude learners is a non
structured individualized program. The learners in
this category should be given the instructional objec
tives, the freedom to choose their own study method,
to pace themselves, to decide whether to practice, to
decide whether to work in groups or alone, and to de
cide when to be tested. External feedback and motiva
tion are not needed, since this group provides its own
intrinsic feedback and motivation.
In contrast to this, low aptitude learners re
quire complete structure with instructional sequences
broken into small steps, a slow rate of presentation,
high degree of repetition, elementary language level,
with content presented in a functional context, and
extensive practice. The presence of a live instructor
to provide constant external feedback and motivation
appears to be essential. (pp. 40-41)
89
Hebein1s synthesis describes Strategies 1 and 3 of this
study very precisely.
As pervasive as general ability is in affecting any
performance, it seldom, if ever, acts alone. Cronbach and
Snow (1977) have listed numerous instructional variables
with which general ability has been found to interact, not
to mention the many specialized abilities and personality
factors with which it also interacts. When general ability
is combined with other specialized abilities and with
personality factors, the combination has been shown to be
a much more powerful predictor of performance than that of
general ability alone (Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Seregow,
1979).
For Personality Factors
In recent years a number of personality factors have
been measured and investigated with respect to their
effect on learning. Instruments like the Sixteen Personal*
ity Factor Questionnaire (16PF) (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsouka,
1970) have been particularly helpful in predicting academic
performance in numerous cases. Probably the most interest
ing and perhaps useful personality indicator that appears
to make a difference in instructional outcomes is that of
anxiety.
Several definitions of anxiety were given earlier in
this manuscript. Regardless of one’s definition of anxi
ety, however, Gaudry and Spielberger (1971) point out that
90
the most consistent thing about it is its negative relation
with various measures of learning and achievement.
Gaudry and Spielberger (1971) recognize the interac
tive effects of intelligence and anxiety with respect to
task difficulty as it relates to Spence Vs Drive Theory.
Drive theory is concerned with the strength of the correct
responses and the interferring error tendencies that are
aroused in learning tasks (Gaudry & Spielberger, 1971;
Spielberger, 1966). A distinction is also made by Gaudry
and Spielberger (1971) between stress and threat:
Stress refers to the objective stimulus properties
of a situation, whereas threat refers to an indi
vidual ’s idiosyncratic perception of a situation
as physically or psychologically dangerous or fright
ening for him. (p. 67)
People are said to be anxious when they perceive
threats. Just because a situation has stress does not
necessarily mean that it will be perceived as a threat.
Therefore, stressful situations do not necessarily provoke
anxiety, although they often do.
Both Seiber et al. (1977) and Gaudry and Spielberger
(1971) cite the prominent names in anxiety research (Mand-
ler, Sarason, Spielberger, Spence, Tobias, etc.) when
giving their recommendations for instruction. A report
from both reviews reveals several useful principles with
which to begin designing instruction for highly anxious
students. Some of these principles are now listed.
91
1. Highly anxious students perform best in a non-
evaluative setting. If found in an evaluative setting,
they become more concerned with the evaluation of their
performance than of the details of the performance itself.
2. If anxiety is aroused, ways to reduce it include:
(a) modification of interaction patterns, (b) redefini
tion of task situations, (c) redirection of attention
during task performance, and (d) strengthening or
supplanting of required cognitive processes.
3. A highly structured learning situation with clear
organization, precise instructions and an almost total
reduction of extraneous material ought to be particularly
helpful to highly anxious students because it would elimi
nate uncertainty.
4. Highly anxious individuals appear to be more
responsive to positive reinforcement than are less anxious
students; they respond well to supportive, nurturant,
personal interactions in which they are reassured that
they don’t have to worry if they make mistakes or go
slowly during the initial stages of a task.
5. Discovery learning approaches are wasted on an
xious individuals who need gradual and reasonably predict
able transitions involving frequent successes from one
phase of learning to the next.
6. The attention of highly anxious students can be
refocused by downplaying the nature of a task and instead
92
emphasizing the particular elements that are intrinsic to
task performance.
7. High anxiety will combine with high intelligence
to enhance performance on easy tasks and most intermediate
tasks. Except on the very simplest of tasks, the reverse
would be true for low general ability high anxious learn
ers.
Clearly, anxiety is an important variable in the
learning process, but one that cannot be studied in isola
tion. The suggestions above are only tentative, yet they
have been supported by enough research to warrant their
consideration, along with other strategies, specific to
other traits. In this study, Strategy 2 was designed to
incorporate the first six suggestions listed, in order to
compensate for the high anxiety of those with Profile 2.
The fact that such confusion and complexity still
exists underscores the danger of studying only one trait
at a time. Particular abilities are not used in a vacuum
by learners and investigating them alone is fraught with
difficulties. This is one reason why the "combinations"
approach, which this study utilized, may prove to be more
fruitful than other more limited approaches.
93
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The.purpose of this study was to investigate the in
teractions of individual aptitude patterns (called aptitude
profiles) that were found to be related to performance on
a complex procedural psychomotor task, and selected in
structional strategies that were matched to those profiles.
Even though significant interactions were expected between
profiles and strategies, the literature reviewed on treat
ment variables, particularly that on practice and feedback,
suggested that some treatments may be more powerful than
others* At the same time, the literature reviewed on apti
tudes, particularly that on general ability, indicated that
some aptitude profile groups may perform better than others
even if the predicted interactions occurred. Because of
this, both interaction effects and main effects were stud
ied .
This chapter describes the population for the study,
the measuring instruments for the aptitudes that determined
the aptitude profiles, the aptitude profiles themselves,
the strategies developed, the learning task, the instrumen
tation and field procedures for the study, the research
94
design, the statistical analysis of the data, and finally
an explanation of the theoretical rationale for this meth
odology, using a concrete example taken from the study.
This was done in order to make a complicated process
easier to understand for the practitioner or for other
researchers.
The Population
The sample population consisted of 102 military per
sonnel who were in the 16P MOS (Military Occupational Spe
cialty) as air defensemen, specifically as Redeye gunners.
The target population was the entire population of Redeye
gunners in the U.S. Army. All of those in the sample had
already had initial regular army training in the perfor
mance of the Redeye task and were slated to have refresher
training on this task.
The sample was taken from approximately 110 Redeye
gunners at Ft. Carson, Colorado, 126 at Ft. Bragg, North
Carolina, 119 at Ft. Riley, Kansas, and 150-160 (75 of
which could be sampled) at Ft. Hood, Texas. Forts Carson,
Bragg, and Hood were each to provide 20 subjects. Fort
Riley was to provide 40 subjects in 2 groups of 20 each.
These were not the only forts where Redeye personnel are
stationed but they did represent 4 of the 5 possible in
stallations within the continental United States where the
95
instrumentation necessary to conduct the study was avail
able.
Since training and testing had to be conducted at a
facility that had a Moving Target Simulator (MTS), any
Redeye gunners that were stationed at forts without simula
tors were automatically excluded from being in the sample
population. Typically, Redeye gunners experience some
tours of duty at installations where there are MTSs and
others where there are not, during their tenure in the
service. There was no reason to suspect that the gunners
who participated in the study were any more or less ex
perienced or practiced than gunners stationed elsewhere.
The only fort with an MTS that did not furnish subjects
for the study was Ft. Bliss, Texas. Fort Bliss was not
involved because the soldiers who would have participated
were offpost at another installation doing special field
exercises when an MTS was available for training. To wait
until both the men and the MTS would be available at the
same time would have delayed the experiment more than was
justified. Instead, Ft. Riley provided the extra subjects.
On the first scheduled day of training/testing at
each fort, the numbers of soldiers who appeared were: 21
at Fort Carson, 20 at Fort Bragg, 18 for the first group at
Fort Riley, 23 for the second group at Fort Riley, and 20
at Fort Hood for a total of 102 soldiers. With the excep
tion of the soldiers at Fort Riley, Complete data were
96
collected for the aptitude test battery on all of them.
However, when performance data were collected, i.e., the
dependent measures, one of the soldiers from Fort Bragg
never appeared. The reason why is unknown. This soldier
did not return for the training that was held prior to per
formance testing either- Another three soldiers, also from
Fort Bragg, got pulled out of training by their commanding
officer during the last half hour. As a result, all of
the dependent measures for these four soldiers were not
collected and the men had to be eliminated from the study.
At Fort Riley, the complications were more serious.
Of the 18 soldiers who appeared in the first group, only
16 received security clearance to enter the MTS. The other
two had been court-martialed and could not be given clear
ance. Of the 23 soldiers in the second group, the security
clearance for 5 of them was "unknown.1 1 This was totally
unexpected because confidential clearance is a prerequisite
to being in the 16P MOS. Confidential clearance is also
required to enter any MTS. As a result, complete data for
both independent and dependent measures could be collected
on only the 16 soldiers from the first group who had clear
ance .
For the second group, independent measures were col
lected on all 23 soldiers, without entering the MTS, while
clearances were being checked. The next day, the issue of
97
security clearances for the five soldiers was still unre
solved. The MTS operator had also inadvertently broken
the primary piece of equipment needed to do the training
and had removed it from the premises. Consequently, no
training was conducted and no performance data could be
collected for the second group at that time. Approximately
30 days later, 14 of the 23 soldiers from that group were
trained and tested for the first time. (This should have
been when retention data was collected on them.) Only one
of the five with questionable security clearance status had
been able to get clearance. The other five who did not
appear for training were either on leave or were being held
by their commanding officers for other duty. This left a
total of 87 subjects in the entire study for whom there
were data on all independent and dependent measures, prior
to retention testing.
Retention data on performance measures were to be
collected on the same 87 subjects approximately 30 days
after the training data were collected. In the final
analysis there were 61 subjects from whom both training
and retention data were collected: 20 of the 21 from Fort
Carson, 13 of the 16 from Fort Bragg, 14 of the 16 from
the first group at Fort Riley, 0 of the 14 from the second
group at Fort Riley, and 14 of the 20 from Fort Hood.
98
The loss of subjects at the time of retention data
collection was caused by several different reasons. Among
them were: AWOL (Away Without Leave), on leave, out on
sick call, stationed elsewhere during the interim and could
not be located, or retasked for other duties by their pla
toon sergeant or commanding officer and therefore unable to
come. The aforementioned reasons explained why all but the
14 from the second group at Fort Riley did not have their
retention tested. As explained earlier, the second group
from Fort Riley was a special case because the men in it
never received training or performance testing at all until
30 days after the aptitude measures were collected on them.
It was impossible to wait another 30 days to do retention
testing on this group for at least three reasons: (a) there
was no guarantee that the 14 soldiers would still be sta
tioned at Fort Riley within another 30 days; (b) financial
ly it would have been too expensive for the investigator
and assistants to return again to Fort Riley; and (c) it
would have delayed the completion of the study beyond the
scope of what was acceptable to the research team.
With respect to the selection of specific men from
each fort, those selected for the study came from units
that did not happen to be out on field exercises on the
days of scheduled training. With few exceptions, this
was the case. In addition, only men who would still be
stationed at their respective forts for at least 30 days
99
after the training were to be selected. This was stipu
lated in order to insure that the population would be
available for retention data collection. Nevertheless, as
noted already, some men did not meet this criterion.
From the available units, it was the responsibility
of each platoon sergeant to send the number of men that had
been specified by his commander. In most cases, except
when all the Redeye gunners were all from the same battal
ion, those selected represented a good cross-section of
battalions, brigades, divisions, etc. The officer in
charge of procuring the subjects was completely satisfied
with the representativeness of the sample.
Measuring Instruments
Three of the measuring instruments used in the study
were identical to those used by Canyon Research Group, Inc.
(1978), Hebein (1978), and Sullivan et al. (1978) in their
previous research that identified the aptitude profiles of
this study for the first time. They were chosen because
of the relationship between subjects’ scores on them and
performance on the Redeye task. The three tests were
originally part of a larger battery of tests that had been
chosen as representative measures of aptitudes that related
to the acquisition of this skill. These three tests were
found to account for the greatest amount of variance in
performance in the studies named.
100
The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was used to
measure the global and analytic dimensions of cognitive
style (Witkin et al., 1971). The GEFT is a substitiute
for the Embedded Figures Test which must be administered
individually. The test can be administered easily to a
large group of subjects in about 15-20 minutes. The test
has been shown to have adequate reliability as measured by
the correlation between the scores on part 2 and part 3,
corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula. That reliability
estimate was .82. The validity of the instrument is demon
strated by correlations between it and the original Hidden
Figures Test--.82 for males and .63 for females (Witkin et
al., 1971).
The Catfell Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
(16PF) was chosen to measure the personality factors of
anxiety and general intelligence level. Factor B measures
intelligence and Factor Q4 was used for anxiety although
its definition is Tense/Relaxed. There is a second order
anxiety factor that can be calculated from the first order
factors, but it was believed that a first order factor
would give a more direct measure, uncontaminated by other
factors. The Cattell test was chosen over other personal
ity inventories because of its long history of development
and the vast bulk of data that has been collected to verify
the 16 factors as distinct from one another.
101
The test has been in use since 1954 and has higher
reliabilities and validities than most other personality
inventories. When the test is given as a single form, the
test-retest reliability averages run about .75, while that
for the combined forms is about .86. Internal construct
validities average .67 for single form scales and .77 for
combined forms (Cattell & Tatsouka, 1970). According to
Seregow (1979), the 16PF is a good measure of anxiety.
Factor B was found to correlate .46 with verbal WAIS and
.60 with performance WAIS by Crooks and Pearson (1970).
Sims and Clowder (1966) conducted a study in which factor
B on the 16PF correlated .51 with the full WAIS. This
indicates that the empirical evidence supports the validity
of the measure, even though it has so few items.
There are four forms of the test in regular use and
one experimental form. More than one form is recommended
for use at one time in order to increase reliability (Man
ual for the 16PF, 1972). Forms C and D were used in this
study. Administration time is approximately 30-40 minutes
and the test can be given either individually or in a
group.
The third test was the test of Spatial Relations for
Two Dimensions, from the Multiple Aptitude Tests (Segel 6c
Raskin, 1955/1959). This test measures the ability to see
and understand the arrangement elements of a visual stimu
lus pattern when the examinee's body is the primary frame
102
of reference. This is a group test with an actual testing
time of 8 minutes. It has a reliability, using the Kuder-
Richardson formula, of .81 for females and .87 for males.
In addition to the measures listed and described
above, there were six other tests administered in the
battery given the soldiers. One, the Press Test (Baehr
et al., 1967) was adapted from the early Stroop Test
(Thurstone 6c Mellinger, 1953), which measured interference
in serial verbal reactions. The Press Test has a word
naming score, a color naming score, and a color-naming
with distraction score. It is designed to measure the
ability to work under stress. Test-retest reliabilities
are .72, .82, and .80 respectively for the three parts.
The test is still an experimental test and was used
strictly in an exploratory fashion. It and all the other
of the six "extra" tests in the battery were to be
thoroughly analyzed after this study, as designed, was
completed. Only those tests from the "extra" tests in the
battery, which could be considered alternate measures of
the four original measures used for profile formation were
included as part of the study. How they were used will be
explained subsequently.
Since the measures for anxiety and for intellectual
ability from the 16PF were based on only six and eight
items respectively, and in spite of the demonstrated
validity and reliability of the 16PF, the investigator
103
reasoned that it might be wise to get an additional measure
for each construct that was based on a larger set of items.
For this reason, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAX)
(Spielberger et al., 1970) was administered for anxiety.
The Thurstone Test of Mental Alertness (Thurstone &
Thurstone, 1952) was the additional measure for general
ability.
The STAI is given in two parts, one right after the
other. It is recommended that Form X-l, which measures
state anxiety, be given first, followed immediately by Form
X-2, the measure for trait anxiety. The state anxiety mea
sure can be adapted for measuring anxiety in very specific
situations simply by changing the directions slightly while
administering the test, to reflect the particular state of
the subjects that is of interest. It is very easy to ad
minister in a group or individual setting. Both forms
together take 20 minutes or less. Once a subject has
taken the regular state and trait tests, another test for
a particular measure of state anxiety (such as one while
performing the experimental task) would take only about 5
minutes. A high score on either scale indicated high
anxiety, however half the items on the State scale and
nearly half on the Trait scale are reverse keyed in an
effort to prevent a response set from occurring.
104
Test-retest reliabilities for state anxiety are low,
ranging from .16 to .54 with a median r of .32 for 6 dif
ferent subgroups after 3 different time intervals. This is
to be expected because of the transitory nature of state
anxiety. One would expect that anxiety would fluctuate
from one state (situation) to another. Alpha reliabilities
(calculated with K-R 20 as modified by Cronbach) for norma
tive samples, which are more appropriate than test-retest
correlations for state anxiety, ranged from .83 to .92 on
this scale, which is very acceptable.
For the trait scale, there are high test-retest re
liabilities that range from .73 to .86 and the alpha relia
bilities range from .86 to .92 which is indicative of a
highly reliable instrument.
The validity of the STA1 has been checked by corre
lating the Trait Scale with other measures of anxiety such
as the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (TMAS), the IPAT
Anxiety Scale and the Affect Adjective Checklist (AACL).
The intercorrelations among the scales, with the exception
of the AACL, approach the scale reliabilities of the STAI
so the validity of the instrument has been demonstrated
(Spielberger et al*, 1970). The STAX is considered one of
the best standardized measures of anxiety, if not the best,
as the reliabilities are nearly as high as one would expect
for intelligence scales (Dreger; in Buros, 1978). The
105
score for the trait anxiety scale was used as an alternate
measure of Q4 from the 16PF in this study.
The Thurstone Test of Mental Alertness (TMA) was
chosen because it has a testing time of only 20 minutes and
can be administered to a group. It is self-correcting and
besides being a test of general ability, "it is designed to
measure the capacity of an individual to acquire new knowl
edge and skills and to use these in problem solving. It
assesses the ability to respond quickly and accurately
to question situations of alternating problem types"
(Thurstone & Thurstone, 1968).
The test yields a language score, a quantitative score
and a total score. There are two equivalent forms avail
able. The correlations for equivalence range from .75 to
.86 and the test-retest reliabilities for the two forms
range between .84 and ,96. The true reliability of any
one form is estimated to be somewhere between the figures
for equivalence and for test-retest.
Studies for validity have been done by correlating
with student grades (mean validity coefficient - .64) and
with other measures of educational ability. Correlations
ranged from .71 to ,85 for various total or composite mea
sures of general ability. Some industrial validity studies
have also been done which have indicated that the TMA can
distinguish betwen effective and ineffective workers
106
(Thurstone & Thurstone, 1968) . In this study the total
score on the TMA was used as an alternate measure of FB
from the 16PF.
Two measures were used in the battery for the purpose
of checking their relationship with fieId-dependence/in-
dependence . These were Closure Speed and Closure Flexi
bility. Closure Speed is a paper and pencil test that can
be administered in groups in less than 5 minutes. It con*
sists of incomplete pictures of familiar objects that must
be identified in writing on the test booklet. Subjects are
typically challenged and amused by the test.
The Closure Speed test was designed to measure Thur
stone 's "first closure factor," which "is defined as the
ability to perceive an apparently disorganized or unrelated
group of parts as a meaningful whole, i.e., the capacity to
construct a whole picture from incomplete or limited
material" (Thurstone & Jeffrey, 1966, p. 1). It may also
be a component of cognitive style (Ekstrom et al., 1976).
There are two forms of the test available and the
reliability coefficient between administrations (regardless
of form) is .82 or better. In terms of validity, several
factor analytic studies were done with this and earlier
forms of the test (e.g., Gestalt Completion) and there
were substantial loadings of .35, .49, and .36 on Thur
stone’ s "speed of closure" factor depending on the study
(Thurstone & Jeffrey, 1966).
107
The other test, Closure Flexibility, is designed to
measure Thurstone !s "second closure factor ,1 1 which 1 1 is
defined as the ability to hold a configuration in mind
despite distraction. It is the capacity to see a given
configuration (diagram, drawing or figure) which is
'hidden’ or embedded in a larger, more complex drawing,
diagram, or figure" (Thurstone & Jeffrey, 1965, p.1).
Ekstrom et al. (1976) think that Closure Flexibility
is related to 1 1 field-independence." The items on the test
are similar to those on the GEFT however the simple form is
visible at all times on the Closure Flexibility test while
it is not on the GEFT. Another difference between the two
tests is that the simple form can always be found in the
complex form on the GEFT while it may or may not be present
within each of 4 complex forms presented with each simple
form on this test. The individual must make a decision
about whether or not the simple form is present in each and
every complex form and must check each one accordingly.
Time limit on the test is 10 minutes and it may be ad-
ministered in a group.
Thurstone (cited in Thurstone & Jeffrey, 1965) report
ed a split-half reliability coefficient of .78 while
Pemberton (cited in Thurstone '& Jeffrey, 1965) reported a
corrected split-half reliability of .94 on the present form
of the test.
1 0 8
The validity of the test is primarily based on factor
analytic studies that report correlations of .59 between a
reasoning and a perceptual factor that is now identified
as closure flexibility. Second order factor analyses show
that closure flexibility loads .64 on an analytic reasoning
factor (Thurstone & Jeffrey, 1965). Because of its high
correlation with the GEFT in this study (.77), it was used
as an alternate measure for field independence/dependence.
The last test of the battery was the Pursuit subtest
from the MacQuarrie Test for Mechanical Ability (Mac-
Quarrie, 1925/1953). This is one of a series of subtests
to measure aptitudes which underlie successful performance
on a wide variety of jobs of a mechanical nature. The en
tire battery tests such things as recognition of space
relations, hand and eye coordination, manipulative skill,
muscular control, visual acuity, etc. This particular
subtest tests something that is related somewhat, but not
completely, to a factor called spatial scanning, which is
defined as speed in exploring visually a wide or compli
cated spatial field (Ekstrom et al., 1976; MacQuarrie,
1925). The test manual for the MacQuarrie Test reported a
reliability coefficient for the Pursuit subtest of .76.
In this study, the Pursuit Test was used as an alternate
measure for the Two-Dimensional Spatial Relations Test
because of the significant correlation between the two
measures.
109
Aptitude Profile Groups
Four aptitude profile groups were identified, based
on the results of the aptitude measures that Were adminis
tered to the sample population. Recall that criteria for
membership in a particular aptitude profile group was based
on specific aptitude patterns that trainees exhibited when
performing on a series of tests outlined earlier, prior to
training. Recall also that such criteria were established
(Canyon Research Group, Inc., 1978; Hebein, 1978; Sullivan
et al., 1978) in earlier research which provided the model
to follow in this study.
High and low scores on the measures used to identify
those who fit particular aptitude profiles were opera
tionally defined as those that were plus or minus .6 stan
dard deviation units from the mean. These included
approximately the top or bottom 27% of scores for each
measure.
Individuals with Aptitude Profile 1 were those who
scored high on either the GEFT or on Closure Flexibility
while at the same time scoring high on either Factor B (In
telligence) of the Cattell 16PF or on the Total Thurstone.
Operationally, if a soldier scored greater than or equal to
10 on the GEFT or greater than or equal to 60 on the Clo
sure Flexibility and scored greater than or equal to 5 on
FB or greater than or equal to 51 on the Total Thurstone,
110
he would be classified in Aptitude Profile 1. Such indi
viduals can be described as field-independent (analytic)
and of high general intelligence.
The group with Aptitude Profile 2 included all those
who scored high on either the Two-Dimensional Perception
portion of the MAT or on the MacQuarrie Pursuit Test and
scored high on Factor Q4 (tense-relaxed; i.e., anxiety
level) of the Cattell 16PF or on the Trait scale of the
STAX. Individuals in this group can be characterized as
being above average in two-dimensional perceptual or
spatial ability and as being generally anxious persons who
are more likely than not to be tense and to perceive a
situation (like the Redeye task) as threatening, psycholo
gically dangerous, or frightening for them. Operationally,
those who qualified for Profile 2 scored greater than or
equal to 15 on the Two-Dimensional Perceptual Test or
greater than or equal to 24 On the Pursuit Test while also
scoring either greater than or equal to 6 on Q4 of the 16PF
or greater than or equal to 45 on the Trait Scale of the
STAI.
The criteria for Aptitude Profile 3 membership were
as follows: low scores on either the GEFT (less than or
equal to 4) or on Closure Flexibility (less than or equal
to 22) and on Factor B of the 16PF (less than or equal to
3) or on the Total Thurstone (less than or equal to 29).
Ill
Such individuals are characterized as being field-dependent
(global) and of low general intelligence.
Any individual who did not meet the criteria for
membership in one of the identified groups was placed in
Aptitude Profile Group 4. This group represented people
with varying combinations of the measured aptitudes and
could be considered comparable to a general trainee popula
tion. High or low scores on a measure for only one of the
constructs needed for membership in one of the other pro
file groups was not enough to warrant inclusion into that
profile group. Remember that it was the combination of
aptitudes that proved to be important and not any one
aptitude alone.
It was possible for the same person to qualify for
membership in Profile Group 1 and Profile Group 2 at the
same time. If that happened, the individual was assigned
to Profile Group 2 because it was decided that the high
anxiety should be considered directly. It was also possi
ble to qualify for both Profile 2 and Profile 3 simultan
eously. If that happened, the soldier was assigned to Pro
file 3. It was decided that the low intelligence level and
social orientation of the global individual was more criti
cal to consider than were the characteristics of Profile 2.
There was no possiblity for anyone to qualify for both Ap
titude Profiles 1 and 3.
112
Far the training portion of this study, there were
eight soldiers who had both Profile 1 and 2. There were
four men who qualified for both Profile 2 and 3. For the
reasons described already, the former were assigned to Pro
file 2 and the latter were assigned to Profile 3. The
final tally for each Profile included 16 with Profile 1,
14 with Profile 2, 36 with Profile 3 and 21 with Profile 4.
In the retention portion of the study five of the eight who
qualified for both Profile 1 and 2 were lost, while one of
the four who qualified for both Profile 2 and 3 was lost.
The final count for the retention group included 14 with
Profile 1, five with Profile 2, 28 with Profile 3, and 14
with Profile 4.
Instructional Strategies
Based on specific research related to the instruction
of learners with varying levels of the identified aptitudes
and on specific instructional design principles that have
been identified in the literature, 3 different treatments,
one for each aptitude profile, fashioned after Canyon
Research Group,.Inc., (1978), Hebein (1978), and Sullivan
et al., (1978) were developed. Hebein (1978) found that
even though there was a significant overall interaction
between aptitude groups and treatment groups in her study,
that Treatments 2 and 3 (designed specifically for Aptitude
Profiles 2 and 3 respectively) were significantly superior
_____________________________________________________________ 113 |
to the other treatments. This may be because more people
In her sample fit the criteria for membership in those ap
titude profile groups than did for Aptitude Profile 1. As
a consequence of Hebein*s findings, only strategies 2, 3,
and 4 were retained by Sullivan et al« , (1978) with an ac
tual Army population. Anyone who fit the criteria for
Aptitude Profile 1 in that study, the last of the series,
was randomly assigned to either Treatment 2 or 3 instead,
since there was not a Strategy 1.
In this study, since there was a larger and more rep
resentative sample population, all four strategies were
again developed and/or refined and then used. What follows
is a general and then a detailed description, in outline
form, of each strategy. In each of the detailed descrip
tions , the variations for the eight treatment dimensions
are discussed. See Table 1 for a summary of the major
features of each strategy. See Appendix A for a short
script that describes what was told to all soldiers before
they were randomly assigned to the four strategy groups.
Strategy 1: General
Strategy 1 was designed specifically for people who
are characterized by the combination of aptitudes that made
up Aptitude Profile 1. As a result of the literature
review on field-independent subjects and on learners of
high general ability, it was decided to make Treatment 1
independent study. It included both printed and visual
114
TABLE 1. TABLE OF STRATEGY CHARACTERISTICS
Features Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4
Group Vs.
Individual
Instruction
Individual Group Group Group
Presentation
Modes
Simulator
Print
Model
Visual
Videotape
Simulator
Discussion
Print
Visual
Diagrams
Live Demo
Videotape
Simulator
Videotape
Visuals
Diagrams
Print
Simulator
Lecture
Discussion
Print
Model
Maybe Visuals
Maybe Simulator
Maybe Only
Mental Imagery
Sequence of
Presentation
Modes
(-*
ui
Videotape Videotape Videotape
Visual/Diagrams Simulator Visual With
Diagrams Lecture
Discussion Discussion
Visual Visual With
Visual/Print Lecture
Discussion Print
Visual Visual With
Print Lecture
Discussion Print
Simulator Simulator
Live Demo
Visual
Discussion
During Visual
Simulator
116
TABLE 1 — . Continued
Features Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4
Pacing Individual Group Group Group
Motivation
(Including
Social Atmos
phere)
Intrinsic Extrinsic
Easy Quizzes
Supportive
Climate
Peer Group
Extrinsic
Competition
Accent on Dis-
Approval More
Than Approval
Extrinsic
Structure
Of
Materials: Yes
Of
Environment: No
Of
Materials: Yes
Of
Environment: Yes
Of Hardly
Materials: Appli
cable
Of Verbal
Information: very
much
Of
Environment:
Socially-no
Me cha ni ca1ly-ye s
Of Yes,
Materials: but
not
as much
as #2
Of
Environment: Yes
Practice
Self-
Mental\ItCms-
* . , /cretion
Actual/ - T' .
' of Indi
vidual
Distributed
Actual —
More than #4;
Less than #3
Main Method
of
Instruction
Limited
Actual
At the End of
Training
117
TABLE 1 — Continued
Features Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4
Feedback
Individual
Provides Own
Feedback
Immediate,
Corrective,
Supportive and
Continual in *
Both Written &
Practice
Immediate Thru
Practice:' Mini-
Mai Corrective
Information
Immediate on
Both Tests and
Practice; More
Neutral Than
#2 or #3
information in a self-paced packet. This was followed by
mental practice in the form of observation of others and
actual physical practice if and when the student thought he
was ready and wanted it before testing. There was little
or no extrinsic feedback with intrinsic motivation of
learners inherent in the strategy. (Appendix B)
Strategy 1: Detailed
I. GROUP VS. INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTION
Was primarily individual in that all information
was presented via the self-paced packet. The
only group requirement was to get the packet and
receive general instructions on what they could
or could not do before testing. Men could work
in groups, with a buddy, or alone. That was their
decision to make.
II. PRESENTATION MODES
A. Print, in the form of a self-paced packet (with
some photos and diagrams).
B. Dummy model of weapon made available for those
who wanted to practice firing sequence (outside
simulator).
C. Pictures of aircraft posted on walls or model
airplanes hanging from ceiling. These were
not in the MTS itself but were in adjoining or
nearby rooms and/or hallways.
118
III.
IV.
D. The simulator itself for practice for those who
requested it.
SEQUENCE
A. Of Presentation Modes:
1. Print (definitely).
2. Visuals within the print materials.
3/4/5/6. Maybe simulator.
3/4/5/6. Maybe a Model.
B/4/5/6. Maybe only Mental Imagery.
3/4/S/6. Maybe Visuals other than those embed
ded within the print materials.
B. Of events during training period:
1. Men were gathered into the MTS in their
group, where they met for approximately 3
minutes to find out what they were sup
posed to do. (See Appendix B for the
Suggested script that was used during
those 3 minutes.)
2. Men were dismissed to go through their
self-paced training.
3. Men "did their own thing1 ' without
supervision.
4. Men returned at appointed time or sooner.
5. Men were dismissed for lunch as training
was over.
PACING--Individual
119
VI.
VII.
MOTIVATION (Including Social Atmosphere)
Intrinsic motivation. No one was supervising to
make sure they did what was suggested; it was
strictly up to them to motivate themselves. Any
interactions they had with others were as a result
of their own efforts.
STRUCTURE
A. Of the materials themselves:
Print packet was highly structured and step by
step, although it was somewhat verbally loaded
in parts.
B. Of the training situation:
There was virtually no structure other than a
definite starting and ending point. There Was
nothing done to insure that all of the content
of the packet was "covered."
PRACTICE
A. Mental (as in observing others) and/or actual
practice in the simulator was optional♦ It was
not required and was experienced only at the
discretion of each individual.
B. Practice with the dummy model outside the simu
lator was also done only at the discretion of
each individual.
C. Mental practice outside the simulator was also
a possibility, although not required.
120
VI11.FEEDBACK
A. No extrinsic feedback was provided as part of
the training.
B. Individuals provided their own feedback, if any
was to be received.
Strategy 2: General
Strategy 2 was designed specifically for people who
have been shown to have Aptitude Profile 2. Based on the
research for individuals high in two-dimensional spatial
ability, predominantly visual materials were used with a
minimum of printed matter. The training began with a short
(19 minute) videotape called "Introduction to Redeye," that
highlighted the parts of the weapon, its capabilities, the
sequence of steps for engagement and a small amount
of Range Ring Profile information, among other things.
The printed information was limited to a few key
words, especially for attention directing, since attention
directing during task performance is particularly advanta
geous for highly anxious students. The visuals were se
quential and varied from simple to complex. The learning
materials were structured in order to deal with anxiety.
The soldiers alternated between classroom instruction and
instruction in the simulator. A demonstration and a brief
chance to handle the weapon, before having to perform with
it and before more classroom instruction with visual for
mats, was provided in order to keep the anxiety level
121
reduced to a minimum. Small quizzes dependent on the
visual materials and constructed for success were given.
These were intended to capitalize on the high spatial
ability while at the same time compensate for high anxiety
proneness. Actual practice followed the end of the last
visual presentation, during which frequent reinforcement
and feedback was given in a supportive fashion--all in an
effort to keep the anxiety down. If an individual was not
doing well in practice, he was told what was wrong, that it
was all right to make a mistake, and what could be done to
correct any errors. It was expected that the supportive
reinforcement/feedback from the investigator would engender
similar supportive peer group interaction during practice.
This was the case in the earlier studies and in this one,
so that a friendly, non-threatening competition was pre
sent. (Appendix C)
Strategy 2: Detailed
I. GROUP VS. INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTION--Group
II. PRESENTATION MODES
A. Diagrams
B. Visuals (Still)
C. Simulator
D. Videotape (motion visual)
E. Discussion
F. Demonstration
122
III. SEQUENCE
A. Of Presentation Modes:
1. Videotape
2. Visual/Diagrams
3. Diagrams
4. Discussion
5. Visual
6. V i sual/Print
7. Discussion
8. Visual
9. Print
10. Discussion
11. Simulator
12. Demonstration in simulator
13. Visual
14. Discussion during Visual
15. Simulator
B. Of events during training period:
1. 19 minute videotape: MIntroduction to Red
eye ., f
2. Slide set on general use of weapon, empha
sizing maximum and minimum angles for fir
ing (script read by live instructor).
3. Quiz #1 on angles.
4. Supportive feedback discussion on quiz.
123
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Slide set on nomenclature of weapon, re
peated twice (script read by live instruc
tor) .
Quiz #2 on nomenclature.
Supportive feedback as in #4.
Slide set on firing sequence (script read
by live instructor).
Quiz #3.
Supportive feedback as in #4 and #7.
10-15 minute break.
Moved to simulator: "hands on" experi
ence. Two passes each on slower aircraft.
They were told not to be concerned about
hits at this time, but only to be con
cerned about getting the correct firing
sequence.
Demonstration by instructor in simulator.
Back to classroom: Slide set on range
estimation, identification of aircraft and
range ring coverage. Give and take dis
cussion and reasoning on each example
working backwards and forwards from cer
tain reference points, while slide set
was going.
124
15. Actual practice (not testing): They were
told to be concerned with both sequence
and with getting hits this time.
3 passes each on slow aircraft (Film 5)
3 passes each on fast aircraft (Film 9)
IV. PACING--Group
V. MOTIVATION (Including Social Atmosphere)
Provided by instructor in a supportive fashion.
There were periodic quizzes after each small chunk
of information that were constructed for success
and were therefore externally motivating. The peer
group modeled the supportive manner of the instruc
tor providing a friendly and non-threatening, yet
mild competition.
VI. STRUCTURE
A. Of Materials:
1. Started with mostly simple information and
progressed to more complex.
2. Used as few words as possible keeping in
formation only to minimum essentials.
B. Of the Training situation:
1. Demands made on tests and during practice
started very low and continued to in
crease; as training continued, more was
expected.
125
2. Entire training period proceded in small
steps and in step by step process with
each activity being rather short in and of
itself.
VII. PRACTICE
Distributed actual practice in the simulator with
more at the end of training than earlier in train
ing.
VIII. FEEDBACK
It was immediate, corrective, supportive and conti
nual in both written and practice.
Strategy 3: General
Treatment 3 was designed specifically for people with
Aptitude Profile 3--those low in general ability who are
field-dependent. Because of the research that recommends
active response for low ability trainees and the indica
tions that field-dependent individuals favor interactive
teaching methods, virtually the entire strategy relied on
practice of the specific task with instructor and peer
feedback. There was no print and all information was pre
sented verbally, in small steps, at a simple level. There
were very few visuals and no quizzes. Because global indi
viduals are likely to rely on others opinions to guide them
and favor interpersonal and social contact in learning, the
entire group remained together during the treatment. The
peer group influence was encouraged and was allowed to
126
generate into fierce competition that could become abusive
and negative when trainees made mistakes during practice--
this because the field-dependent individual is said to be
positively affected by negative reinforcement. Instructor
feedback was generally negative or non-supportive and no
effort was made to explain what may have been done wrong by
a trainee unless he specifically asked. Then, only the
specific question was answered and nothing else.
Strategy 3: Detailed
I. GROUP VS. INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTION--Group
II. PRESENTATION MODES
A. Videotape (motion visual)
B. Simulator
III. SEQUENCE
A. Of Presentation Modes:
1. Videotape
2. Simulator
B. Of events during training period:
1. Short clip (about 3 minutes) from same
videotape shown in Treatment #2. (Only
the part on the firing sequence was
shown.)
2. Instructor demonstration on activation
procedure (once with empty weapon).
3. Instructor gave rules of engagement once
orally.
127
4. Soldiers practiced on Film 5 in the simu
lator .
5. Soldiers practiced on Film 9 in the simu
lator.
6. Men were dismissed for lunch at the end of
training.
IV. PACING--Group
V. MOTIVATION (Including Social Atmosphere)
Extrinsic and provided in part by the competitive
atmosphere of the peer group that was allowed to
emerge. The desire for approval was intended to
motivate and approval was not easy to get for those
in this strategy.
VI. STRUCTURE
A. Of the Materials:
The only thing other than practice and verbal
instructions was the short 3 minute videotape
segment and it gave a step by step sequence,
which was highly structured.
B. Of the training situation:
1. The bare minimum of instruction was pre
sented- -virtually all verbally by the in
structor . His remarks were always made
at a simple level and any content was
presented in small steps. Therefore the
direct instruction was structured.
128
2. The practice proceeded from easier targets
to harder targets which is also a struc
tured approach.
3. HOWEVER, since practice was the main meth
od of instruction and since subjects got
so much of it compared to the other
groups, it might be stated that there was
less structure in the training situation
(for the most part) than for the other
groups. This was because even though the
men had to be present together during all
practice, there was a loose and unstruc
tured atmosphere to the situation. Such a
situation was able to develop because of
the lack of formal instruction.
4. The men learned things more experientially
than conceptually, in contrast to the
other groups. In this sense there was
less structure than in other groups--a
more inductive approach.
VII. PRACTICE
A. It was the main method of instruction, there
fore it was, in a sense, massed practice.
B. Since only 2 people could physically practice
at a time it was necessarily somewhat distrib
uted for each person.
129
C. The total atmosphere of the practice, if you
consider both mental and physical practice was
definitely massed rather than distributed.
VIII.FEEDBACK
A. Immediate through practice.
B. Provided primarily when something wrong was
done.
C. Was minimal in terms of corrective information.
D. Given by both instructor and peers in a nega
tive way.
Strategy 4: General
Strategy 4 was, in a sense, a control group for treat
ment in the study and was not specifically designed for
soldiers with this "default" profile. It consisted of a
synthesis of the current regular refresher training for
Redeye gunners as it is presently "supposed to be" held by
the Army. It was discovered during the course of the study
that a good deal of refresher Redeye training is simply not
conducted, which helped to explain the low unit proficiency
that TRASANA (1977) found. The instructional strategy re
lied on lecture as the main method of instruction, in the
form of a live script that accompanied a slide set. There
were some print support materials. The presentation of the
material was structured and repetitious with a good deal of
verbal information, much of it extraneous, presented with
each slide. The training began with the same videotape
130
that was presented to Profile Group 2, followed by the
verbally loaded lecture/script and a test of the course
material. A limited amount of practice was given as the
final instructional step. (Appendix D)
Strategy 4: Detailed
I. GROUP VS. INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTION--Group
II. PRESENTATION MODES
A . Visuals (s ti11)
B. Lecture
C. Diagrams
D. Simulator
E. Discussion
F. Videotape (motion visual)
G. Print
III. SEQUENCE
A. Of Presentation Modes:
1. Videotape
2. Visual/diagrams with lecture
3. Discussion (during visuals)
4. Visual/diagrams with lecture
5. Print
6. Visual
7. Print
8. Simulator
B. Of events during Training:
1. Videotape (same as in Treatment #2).
1 3 1
2. Part I of slide set on techniques of fire
with lecture from live instructor to
accompany slides.
3. Discussion in question and answer format
while slide set was going (for material
of Part 1).
4. Break.
5. Part II of slide set on techniques of fire
with lecture from live instructor to
accompany slides.
6. Written quiz on techniques of fire.
7, Self Evaluation.
8. Break.
9. Techniques of fire test (written) with
some items requiring judging something
from a visual on a slide.
10. Practice on film 9 in simulator; 2 passes
per person only.
11. Dismissal for lunch at the end of
training.
IV. PACING- -Group
V. HOT I VAT ION (Including Social Atmosphere)
A. Extrinsic motivation in that a criterion was
set up at the beginning of instruction of 90%.
The soldiers were told they must meet it.
132
B. Although it did not happen with the particular
military instructor that participated in this
study, usually the regular army training is
based on negative incentives motivation (e.g.,
”If you don’t do well, I’m going to put you on
detail for 8 hours.”)
VI. STRUCTURE
A, Of the Materials;
1. The script was not as structured as the
one in treatment #2, primarily because the
same information was repeated in more than
one place with intervening information on
other material in between.
2. Also, some of the sequential information
was embedded within some of the other in
formation. There were not clear separa
tions in the presentation from one topic
to another.
3. However, there was a structure that was
repeated several times in the repetition
sequence so that within smaller segments
there was more structure.
4. There were a lot of words for each slide--
fewer words may have provided more struc
ture .
133
B. Of the Training Situation:
It was structured in that it went right along
from one activity to another and clear expecta
tions were set.
VII. PRACTICE
Very limited actual practice at the end of
training.
VIII. FEEDBACK
Immediate on both tests and practice, but given
with a more neutral attitude than in either group
2 or 3.
Learning Task
According to Rhetts (1974), it is only after the rele
vant aspects of the task in question have been identified,
that one can identify what individual difference measures
or characteristics are related to performance on the task.
As indicated by Canyon Research Group, Inc. (1978),
Sullivan et al. (1978) and TRASANA (1977), the missile en
gagement task in this study involved all of the following:
1. Visually acquire target.
2. Place target in range ring.
3. Apply Range Ring Profile (RRP) information to
determine next step.
4. Determine that target is in range prior to acti
vating system.
134
5. Ac t ivat e the weapon.
6. Continue to track target during warinup (3-5
seconds).
7. Recognize audible and/or vibratory signal to
indicate that IR signal has been acquired.
8. Uncage gyro to allow automatic tracking.
9. Continue to track.
10. Superelevate and lead target.
11. Track target after superelevation in correct
lead reticle.
12. Fire and continue to track.
This learning task was a complex procedural psycho-
motor task that demanded that the soldier acquire the
knowledge and skills to successfully perform a missile
engagement task with an M49 Tracking Head Trainer (the
training model for the REDEYE Guided Missile System) while
in the Moving Target Simulator (MTS). In order to reach
criterion, the skills that were necessary were classified
as follows:
1. Visual Recognition--Ability to recognize given
visual stimuli.
2. Visual Discrimination--Ability to discrimininate
between various visual stimuli.
3. Eye-hand Coordination--Ability to coordinate the
movements of eye and hand to perform a task.
135
4. Tracking--Ability to acquire a visual stimulus
in a sight and follow its movements.
5. Reaction Time--Speed with which an individual is
able to respond to stimuli.
6. Response Orientation--Ability to make rapid
selection, with respect to direction of movement
or choice of movement; this involves the abil
ity to select the correct movement in relation
to the correct stimulus, especially under highly
speeded conditions.
7. Rate Control--Ability to precisely time continu
ous responses relative to changes in speed and
direction of a continuously moving target.
All of the above skills were used in order to successfully
perform the task.
Instrumentation
The REDEYE Moving Target Simulator (MTS) and the
Tracking Head Trainer (THT), as shown in Figure 2 (Redeye
Gu1ded MissiIe System, 1971) , are used to simulate tactical
air defense engagements for training gunners. TRASANA
(1977) provided an excellent description of the instrumen
tation .
The MTS projects the images of hostile aircraft
against a natural sky background with 3-channel sound
effects. Twelve reels of film are used with 20 target
presentations per reel. Reels 1 thru 10 contain pro
gressively more difficult presentations. The velocity
of the aircraft may be up to 650 knots. Reels 11 and
136
12 contain aircraft of all performance categories, and
are representative of the variety of targets to be
engaged by the tactical REDEYE Weapon System. De
tailed descriptions of the target aircraft types and
flight parameters for each film reel are confidential,
(p. 2-1) [sic]
In addition, an infra-red (1R) spot is superimposed
on each moving target for the same length of time as would
be detectable if it were the heat source of a real target.
The IR can be detected by the IR sensor in the THT just as
it would be in an actual weapon, allowing the gunner to
track the target.
The THT is a full scale model of the REDEYE weapon
system that is ballasted to simulate the weight of the
fully loaded REDEYE Weapon System (about 28 pounds). The
THT simulates the operating characteristics of the weapon
system from activation to firing. Just as in a tactical
situation, the gunner using the THT has only 31 seconds
from the time of activation to complete a successful firing
sequence and launch. Otherwise the battery coolant unit
will run out of life which would create loss of IE and
would prevent a successful launch. The THT looks and feels
almost exactly like the Redeye Weapon except for a compres
sor actuator assembly (gas pump handle) mounted on the
launch tube, a performance indicator assembly that is under
the gyro activator coils and a few other smaller items.
The pump is operated in order to build up the pressure nec
essary to recirculate freon in Order to cool the seeker so
137
Figure 2. Moving Target Simulator (MTS)
138
that it can detect the IR heat source. The performance
indicator gives a visual indication of sequential errors
made by a gunner during an engagement sequence (TRASANA,
1977).
The combination of the MTS and the THT is a very
sophisticated, realistic, and effective Simulation device.
If a gunner completes the firing sequence with a successful
launch, a ’ ’ beep" tone sounds signifying "hit" in the THT.
If an error in the sequence was made, which was not cor
rected before pulling the trigger, a "turkey-call" tone
sounds signifying "error” at the moment the gunner pulls
the trigger.
By looking at the performance indicator panel before
resetting the battery, the gunner (and the instructor) can
see which step or steps in the sequence were performed cor
rectly and incorrectly. A white flag drops down at each
position when that step has been performed correctly. If a
step is never performed, if it is performed out of sequence
or if the gunner does not continue to perform it, the white
flag will either not drop in that position or it will dis
appear again, as the case may be. Any time that one or
more errors has been made, a red flag will drop in the
"err" position on the panel. Once the gunner has pulled
the trigger, he cannot go back to retrace any steps. Be
fore then, he can make corrective actions in response to
feedback from the system, at any stage of the sequence, as
139
long as he does so within the 31 second life of the battery
coolant unit.
By recording the precise performance on each try for
a launch and by setting values on each part of the se
quence, a score for each try can be otained. A try con
sists of all actions from one trigger pull to the next
trigger pull, or if the trigger is never pulled, from the
time a target first appears on the screen to when it disap
pears completely, not to return. There is a time lag be
tween targets, when none are projected. This is necessary
so that the mirror system that projects the IR spot can
position itself for the next target. See Appendix E for
the point values used in scoring the films during perfor
mance testing for this study.
Field Procedures
The experiment was conducted at 5 different times,
one for each scheduled group of 20 subjects over a two
month period by the investigator and several assistants.
The order for the locations was: Fort Carson, Fort Bragg,
Fort Riley, Fort Hood, and Fort Riley again. The proce
dures at each site were essentially the same with some not
able exceptions that will be detailed, by site, at the com
pletion of the discussion of the ''typical” experimental
situation.
140
Prior to the first training session at Fort Carson,
the investigator and all of the assistants travelled to
Fort Bliss, Texas to run through the training procedures
and to become practiced in using an MTS and a THT. This
was done so that there would be continuity in training and
so that the training at the first site (Fort Carson) would
not suffer because of lack of experience on the parts of
the experimenters.
The officer in charge of obtaining subjects for the
study, a major, accompanied the investigator and assistants
to all sites. He served as the instructor for Strategy 4
since it was felt that a bona fide military person should
conduct the training for that group if it were to have
fidelity. In addition, the Major handled any trouble
shooting that needed to be done at each site.
The soldiers were tasked for two consecutive days of
training by their commanders. They were tasked for another
day to follow 30 days after the first two day session.
Training was conducted with each group of 20 men indepen
dently in time and place (except for the two groups at Fort
Riley) from the other groups. The groups at Riley were put
through the training separately in time from one another.
On the first day for each group, the men were random
ly assigned to treatment. The training was conducted ac
cording to the specifications already developed for each
treatment and documented under "Instructional Strategies."
141
The time required for the training varied from one strategy
to another but all training was accomplished within 4 hours
or less. The men were given approximately 1% hours for
lunch between training and performance testing. Perfor
mance testing in the simulator was done individually or two
at a time and took approximately two to three hours total
depending on how well the equipment was working. Each
individual soldier experienced testing for only a few min
utes in the simulator on two different occasions. No ob
servers were allowed in the room while testing was going
on. This was a necessary condition so that none of the
soldiers would get any additional mental practice on the
task in the simulator beyond the training as designed.
Scoring for both performance measures was tightly control
led to insure accurate measures.
During the testing, each soldier got two passes on
Film 10 and was encouraged to attempt as many hits as pos
sible on each pass, as long as time allowed. The targets
on Film 10 were of constant speed, all fast, with consider
able evasive action. After every soldier had completed his
turn on Film 10, Film 12 was mounted.
The soldiers were then each given two passes on Film
12 with the same suggested directions as for Film 10. The
targets on Film 12 represented the full range of targets
that can be engaged by the REDEYE Weapon System, consider
ing performance category, speed, and possible evasive
142
action. After all had completed the performance testing,
the entire group was given two pencil and paper instruments
which took approximately 20-30 minutes to complete.
The first was given while still in the simulator and
was a measure of State Anxiety (Form X-l of the STA1) with
special instructions that asked for their anxiety state
while operating the THT in the MTS. This was collected
with the intention of using it to refine the formation of
profiles in the future. It was not part of the study per
fie, but was collected during the study, hence the explana
tion. After completing the MTS anxiety questionnaire, the
men moved to an adjoining classroom where they took a writ
ten test on the Range Ring Profile (RRP) information.
After completing the Range Ring Profile test, the men were
dismissed for the day.
The next day, aptitude tests were administered that
were intended to discriminate the aptitude profile groups.
Total testing time, including directions and all breaks for
each group was approximately three hours. There were nine
tests in the battery, seven of which contributed to the
formation of aptitude profiles. The remaining two tests
were used for experimental purposes only, with a view to
ward a refinement of the test battery for future use. The
contributions of all nine tests to a refined test battery
for more precise aptitude profile formation would be exa
mined in another study at the completion of this one. The
143
testing was done in the morning and the men were dismissed
as soon as they finished the last test. Note that the
order of administration for the aptitude tests was deter
mined by means of a random number table.
Approximately one month later, the Major who was
responsible for getting the subjects returned to each site
to collect retention data on both the performance (Films 10
and 12) and the written (Range Ring Profile) portions of
the task. During the interval between the training/testing
period and the retention testing none of the subjects par
ticipated in any other Redeye refresher training nor did
they get any practice with a THT in the MTS.
The Outline of field procedures for all sites that was
just described .was not the first choice of the experimen
ter, however it was the most practical plan given the con
straints of the situation. What were the constraints?
It has been learned just prior to the first data col
lection trip that all soldiers would be available for
training, performance testing, and aptitude testing all
within the same time frame. It had been preferred that
aptitude testing be done earlier in time than training so
that refined profiles might be established through careful
data analysis before the start of training. Since this was
an impossibility, it was clear that aptitude profiles for
the men could not be identified before the start of
144
training, even if aptitude testing were done the day before
training.
Because there would be only two full days for each
scheduled group of 20 soldiers, the decision was made to
begin the session with training and performance testing on
the first full day. Then if training proved to take longer
than anticipated, there would still be time to complete the
end of the training as well as conduct the aptitude testing
on the second day.
This proved to be a wise decision because of the
idiosyncrasies in field procedures that occurred at some
sites, particularly at Forts Bragg and Riley. The remain
der of this section will describe the exceptions to the
standard field procedures that occurred at each fort. In
addition, any information about the overall experimental
conditions at each fort that might provide insights to
later interpretation of the findings will be documented.
At Fort Carson, training was conducted on the first
day and aptitude testing on the second day as planned. For
performance testing on the first day, the print of Film 10
that was available was very old and was not in good working
order. There was no other print of Film 10 available and
no other film has the same target representation as does
Film 10. There was no other choice but to use the bad
print of the film. If any other film were used instead, it
would invalidate the performance testing because the men
145
across all forts would then not be tested at the same skill
level.
During testing, 12 of the 20 targets on Film 10
appeared in a normal enough manner that they could be en
gaged by the gunners just as would any target on a film in
good working order. The other eight targets appeared with
erratic motion that sometimes defied the capabilities of
any aircraft. For example, some high performance jets
moved across' the sky, took a dive into the ground and con
tinued to fly on the ground before abruptly changing direc
tion to bounce back and forth between sky and ground.
Since gunners are not trained to engage targets like that,
having to engage such a target would be an unfair test of
a gunner. There was no way to predict which targets would
behave erratically. Consequently, as soon as it became
clear that a gunner was faced with such a target, he was
told to disregard it and was given another target instead.
While this provided a small amount of extra practice for
some gunners, every gunner seemed to have an equal chance
to be faced with an erratic target. In other words, it
appeared to randomize itself out. Other than the problem
with Film 10, everything at Fort Carson proceeded according
to plan.
Such was not the case at Fort Bragg, however. Upon
arrival at Fort Bragg the day before training was to begin,
it was brought to the attention of the investigator and
146
assistants that the soldiers who had been tasked for two
days of training would not be released for that duty. In
stead, the base commander had called a surprise inspection
that would prevent them from participating in the study.
The Major who was accompanying the investigator then used
his influence to make some changes. He got a commitment
that the soldiers would appear at 12:30 p.m. on the first
day instead of at 7:30 a.m. as originally planned. After
applying considerable pressure, he was also given assur
ances that the troopers would be authorized to participate
on the second day as well.
These conditions required that the field procedures
at Fort Bragg be altered. Instead of having training on
the first day, the aptitude testing was done during the
afternoon after the men arrived. They did not arrive until
almost 45 minutes after the appointed time so there was
some question, for a while, about whether the study could
be carried out there at all. After the men arrived, the
aptitude testing was conducted without complication other
than the fact that it was out of sequence from the experi
mental plan.
The next day the men arrived for training by 7:30 a.m.
Some informed the experimenters that they had to be dis
missed by approximately 2:30 p.m. because it was payday and
they had "payday activities" scheduled. They volunteered
to work through lunch so that they could be dismissed
147
early. Other troopers informed the Major that their com
manding officer had indicated that they must return to
their unit by 1:00 p.m. for another special inspection.
Again, the Major had to use his influence to try to insure
that all the men would be present for the duration of the
training and testing that day. He convinced the commanding
officer that the men should be dismissed from the inspec
tion so that they could complete the training. However, it
was decided to work through the lunch hour because the
indications were that some of the men still might be pulled
out for inspection. This was the only fort where the pos
sibility of losing subjects during training or before
training ended was a constant condition. It was a condi
tion that was known to both the soldiers and the experi
menters. This meant that the entire conduct of the study
at Fort Bragg was done in a different time frame and order
than at the other sites. However, if such arrangements had
not been made, it is doubtful if the study could have been
conducted there at all.
There were additional complications at Fort Bragg.
The tracking head trainers were not working properly during
training or during performance testing. It was learned
that most of the THTs needed new seekers and therefore were
not picking up the IR heat source very well. Some men had
to be sent back to their units to get other THTs so that
there would be working equipment for the performance
148
testing. For the first part of the testing period, one of
the working THTs started to malfunction intermittently.
This made it difficult to know whether the gunner was
making errors or whether there was really a malfunction in
the trainer. It was at that point that use of that trainer
was discontinued and someone was sent to locate a different
trainer. For about one hour of the performance testing,
there was only one working THT, which slowed the progress
of the testing considerably.
By the time a new trainer was brought in, it was
almost 2:00 p.m. and the men were anxious to leave for the
day, having already worked through lunch. With only about
a half hour left to complete all testing, three troopers
were called for the third time to report to the inspection
after all. In all the other instances, When their comman
ding officer had recalled them, the Major had been able to
talk the officer out of it. In this instance, the Major
had stepped out for a few minutes to take care of other
business, so the officer had to be obeyed. As a result,
those troopers had to be dropped from the study.
All in all, the complications at Fort Bragg, as
numerous as they were, did cast a shadow on the fidelity of
the procedures there. The whole tone of the base was quite
different from that of any other fort represented in the
study.
149
At Fort Riley, the most serious complications were
already discussed under ’ ’The Population” and will not be
repeated here. For the first group there, the training was
conducted on the first day and the aptitude testing on the
morning of the second day. Other than the fact that train
ing started late on the first day because of the clearance
problems, everything went smoothly and according to plan.
However, when the operator of the MTS took the special film
projector away at the end of the first day to be repaired,
there was some concern on the part of the experimenters.
There had been no reason to suspect that something had
broken, because the films for the first group all ran quite
normally. Nevertheless, assurances were made that the
projector would be back in time to train the second group
two days later.
The second group came on the afternoon of the second
day at Fort Riley for aptitude testing. They were not
present with the first group at the same time at all during
training or testing even though both groups did receive
aptitude testing on the same day. This second group at
Fort Riley was the only group of soldiers at any fort to
come to the experiment directly from having been out on
maneuvers in the field. They were tired and dirty and had
already had a full day’s work before they reached the
classroom. Once the testing began, they seemed more fresh
and relaxed, probably because it was a change of pace for
150
them. All procedures for aptitude testing went smoothly
and according to plan other than the fact that the testing
took place in an afternoon instead of a morning.
On the next day, the men arrived at the MTS along
with the experimenters, only to find it locked with a note
from the operator that the projector would not be fixed for
"a while." Since clearance still had to be secured for
some men, as outlined earlier, a small wait seemed reason
able. Unfortunately, nothing worked to secure the clear
ances or to repair the projector and the men had to be
dismissed and told to return about 30 days later for the
training. This group is the only group who had such a long
time lag between their aptitude testing and their training/
performance testing. These circumstances were far beyond
the control of the experimenters.
When the experimenters returned a month later to train
the second group, only 14 of the 23 appeared. The training
began over an hour late because of a malfunctioning video
tape player and another piece of missing equipment. Once
everything was there and in working order, the training
progressed smoothly. The films worked well as did the
THTs except for an occasional malfunction of the batteries
for the BCUs. Such malfuctions were mild compared to what
happened at Fort Bragg, so it was not considered serious.
In between the two trips to Fort Riley, the group at
Fort Hood was trained and tested. This was the first fort
__________ 151
at which there were not all Redeye films to be used in the
MTS, The next generation up from Redeye is the Stinger
Missile System, It is similar to the Redeye but has a
greater range and capability. Eventually, all Redeye films
will be replaced by Stinger films. Stinger films have some
targets that would be out of range for the Redeye. For one
of the practice films, there was a Stinger film in use at
Fort Hood. Also, Film 10 at Fort Hood was a Stinger film.
It was the judgement of all of the experimenters that the
Stinger Film 10 was not significantly different from the
Redeye Film 10. However, there was also agreement that the
launch boundary and IR lights on the MTS console were
inaccurate. As a result, independent judgements by one ex
perimenter were made with regard to launch boundary for
eve ry 1aunch.
In addition, all experimenters agreed that the IR
spot, superimposed on the film, appeared to be slightly off
the mark. This resulted in some errors for gunners that
were not their fault. There were some complaints from the
gunners that the THTs were not picking up IR properly.
From the collective observation of all who were doing the
scoring, it Was determined that most of the time, the mis
takes that concerned acquisition of IR tone were the fault
of the gunners and not of the equipment. One of the THTs
did have a poorly functioning battery pack. If the battery
152
clearly malfunctioned the gunner was given another target
to engage.
In terms of sequence of activities, at Fort Hood,
the training was done on the first day and the aptitude
testing on the second day according to the original experi
mental plan.
Design of the Study
The research design for the study was a ' ’Posttest
only-Control Group Design” (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) with
s o m e subjects from all aptitude profile groups (theoreti
cally) being placed in all four strategy groups. The basic
design was extended in that there were two posttests for
each dependent variable: one immediately following
training and the other approximately one month later for
retention. It had been originally intended that a crossed
design be used that would guarantee complete random assign
ment from each aptitude profile to each treatment group.
This was not possible because of subject availability for
training occurring simultaneously with availability for the
testing designed to identify the aptitude profiles. In
stead , subjects were randomly assigned to strategy groups
(from the total sample population). Without randomization
to the fully crossed design, the study is best categorized
as quasi-experimental research. It was a 4 x 4 factorial
design.
153
Experimental Variables
The study was designed to measure the interaction
between two independent variables: aptitude profile groups
and instructional strategies. There were four different
aptitude profile groups whose characteristics were defined
by scores on a specific set of aptitude measures. There
were also four strategies, each designed to match One of
the aptitude profile groups.
Dependent Variables
The three dependent variables from the training
portion of the study were the individual scores on the two
performance tests, Film 10 and Film 12, and the score on
the written test (Range Ring Profile). There were three
additional dependent variables for retention that were col
lected approximately 30 days after training at each fort.
They were identical tests to those administered during the
training portion of the study except for when they were
given. They could be called Film 10 Retention (Film 10R),
Film 12 Retention (Film 12R), and Range Ring Profile (writ
ten) Retention (RRPR).
154
Research Hypotheses
Interaction Hypotheses
Hi:
There will be an interaction between aptitude
profile groups and strategy groups on performance
on Film 10.
H2: There will be an interaction between aptitude
profile groups and strategy groups on performance
on Film 12.
h3: There will be an interaction between aptitude
profile groups and strategy groups on performance
on the written (Range Ring Profile) test.
H4 =
There will be an interaction between aptitude
profile groups and strategy groups on performance
on Film 10 Retention.
H5:
There will be an interaction between aptitude
profile groups and strategy groups on performance
on Film 12 Retention.
H6:
There will be an interaction between aptitude
profile groups and strategy groups on performance
on the written (Range Ring Profile) test of
retention.
For all six hypotheses listed, the expected direction
describing the expected interaction is now presented.
1 . Soldiers with aptitude profile #1 (i.e., who are
both highly intelligent and field-independent) will perform
155
significantly better if they receive Strategy #1 than if
they receive other strategies.
2. Soldiers with aptitude profile #2 (i.e., who are
both high in spatial ability and anxiety level) will
perform significantly better if they receive Strategy #2
than if they receive other strategies.
3. Soldiers with aptitude profile #3 (i.e., who are
both low in intelligence and are field dependent) will
perform significantly better if they receive Strategy #3
than if they receive other strategies.
While interactions were expected, it was possible that
interactions would not be observed. If that proved to be
the case, then--and only then--could main effects be oper
able. The main effects hypotheses are presented next,
first for aptitude profile and then for instructional
strategy.
Main Effects Hypotheses
Hy: There will be differences in performance on Film
10 between soldiers who fit the Aptitude Profiles
1, 2, 3, and 4.
Hg: There will be differences in performance on Film
12 between soldiers who fit the Aptitude Profiles
1, 2, 3, and 4.
Hg: There will be differences in performance on the
Range Ring Profile Written Test between soldiers
who fit the Aptitude Profiles 1, 2, 3, and 4.
156
H10: There will be differences in performance on Film
10 Retention between soldiers who fit the Apti
tude Profiles 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Hii: There will be differences in performance on Film
12 Retention between soldiers who fit the Apti
tude Profiles 1, 2, 3, and 4.
H^2: There will be differences in performance on the
Range Ring Profile Retention Written Test between
soldiers who fit the Aptitude Profiles 1, 2, 3,
and 4.
In general, for all six main effect hypotheses for
aptitude profile, the expected direction describing the
effect is a follows:
1. Soldiers with Aptitude Profile 1 will perform the
best.
2. Those With Aptitude Profile 2 will perform the
next best.
3. Those with Aptitude Profile 3 will perform the
least well.
H^; There will be differences in performance on Film
10 between soldiers assigned to Strategies X, 2,
3, and 4.
: There will be differences in performance on Film
12 between soldiers assigned to Strategies 1, 2,
3, and 4.
157
H-|^: There will be differences in performance on the
Range Ring Proiile Written Test between soldiers
assigned to Strategies 1, 2,3, and 4.
H16: There will be differences in performance on Film
10 Retention between soldiers assigned to Strat
egies 1, 2, 3, and 4.
17
H : There will be differences in performance on Film
12 Retention between soldiers assigned to Strat
egies 1, 2, 3, and 4.
H^g: There will be differences in performance on the
Range Ring Profile Written Retention Test between
soldiers assigned to Strategies 1, 2, 3, and 4.
For the performance tests: Film 10, Film 12, Film
10R, and Film 12R, the expected direction describing the
effect of instructional strategy is now stated.
1. Soldiers who receive Strategy 3 will perform
best. The effect will be stronger on Film 12 than on Film
10 for either training or retention, but stronger on reten
tion .
2. Soldiers who receive Strategy 2 will perform next
best. Again, the effect would be stronger on Film 12 than
on Film 10, for either training or retention, but also
stronger on retention.
3. Those who receive Strategy 1 will perform less
well than those in Strategies 2 or 3, with the effect being
more pronounced on retention than during training.
158
4. There will be no significant differences between
those in Strategy 4 and soldiers in the other strategies.
For the Written Range Ring Profile Test and the subse
quent retention test, here are the expected directions de
scribing the effects of treatment.
1. Those who receive Strategy 2 will perform best on
the written test given at the time of training and will
maintain approximately the same level performance on the
retention test.
2. Those in Strategy 3 will perform the next best at
the time of training and could surpass the Strategy 2
people on retention.
3. Those in Strategy 4 will perform at the next best
level on both training and retention testing but will per
form more poorly on retention than on training.
4. Those in Strategy I will perform least well for
both training and retention testing.
Statistical Analysis
The data collected in this study were analyzed using
multiple regression analysis. According to Cronbach and
Snow (1977), it is the preferred method of statistical
analysis for ATI studies. Furthermore, in the case of
unequal cell frequencies in factorial designs with categor
ical variables, the multiple regression approach is called
for in order to appropriately partition variance that is
159
confounded by correlations between the independent vari
ables and their interactions (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973).
The apriori ordering approach, with effect coding, (Ker
linger & Pedhazur, 1973, pp. 193-196) was used to set up
the regression analysis. The stepwise solution with the
following hierarchical ordering was used: all Interaction
terms were submitted for analysis first, followed by all
coded vectors for aptitude profile at the next inclusion
level, and then all coded vectors for instructional strat
egy at the last inclusion level.
The analyses were performed using versions H and M,
release 8.0, of the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent,
1975). Alpha was set at .05. Significant main effects
were tested by Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD)
Procedure, adjusted for the compounding of the comparison
wise error rate (Kirk, 1968; Nie et al., 1975).
Theoretical Rationale for the Methodology
It has been stated before (Cronbach & Snow, 1977) that
the coordinating of several capitalization and compensation
devices within a treatment can enhance learning. It should
be clear from the descriptions of the treatments for the
study that this was done. But, there was much more to
this methodology than only that. Using Treatment 2 as an
example from which the rest of the explanation will flow,
160
the reader is asked to generalize from this first explana
tion what is theoretically happening in the other
treatments of this study or in other treatments yet to be
conceived by means of an ATI approach such as this.
Treatment 2 was designed to capitalize on high spatial
ability and compensate for high anxiety. One can’t get rid
of anxiety completely so remediation was out of the ques
tion . One can only compensate for it in given situations.
In this treatment/aptitude group, in a sense, one collapsed
across the other aptitude variables in the study by
focusing on only two-dimensional perception and anxiety.
With this group, one was not concerned with their general
ability or global/analytic functioning, because for this
group the overriding characteristics of the people in it,
which were most relative to their performance, were the two
named--and only those two. Since that was the case, it
made sense to ”treat” those aspects of the group, and not
the others. Those 2, in combination, accounted--more than
any others--for terminal performance on this task. There
fore, at least for this task, for this profile group, these
are the aptitudes toward which one gears the instruction.
On another different task, the same combination of
aptitudes may not be such a strong discriminator of per
formance. In other words, the same person who was in a
group with this profile, for this task, might fall into a
different group with a different profile for a different
161
task. This would only be natural because learners all have
many aptitudes, abilities (or disabilities), and personal
characteristics, which they use in combination to perform a
variety of tasks/skills. It would be a rare instance if
only one aptitude would be called on at a time in order for
a trainee to accomplish a particular task! If learning
were that simple, there would not be so many conflicting
results in ATI studies (Cronbach & Snow, 1977).
In any case, educators must find a way to study more
than one aptitude at a time and still be able to replicate
results. The approach suggested in this study is one such
way.
Some characteristics serve to suppress other charac
teristics (at times) and some serve to enhance others (at
times). The problem is that it is difficult to know which
aptitudes/characteristics will be called upon (consciously
or unconsciously) by a given learner for a particular
learning task. With the approach suggested here, an
educator has a better idea about which aptitudes (mental
operations) are presumably being used. With that knowledge
the educator can know better how to instruct such a set of
individuals.
By now, the complexity of the situation should be be
coming quite clear. Researchers may be asking: "Do you
mean that for every task, you'd have to find out which
aptitudes discriminate between levels of performance? That
162
could take forever I” Not really--at least certainly no
longer than it has taken to discover that the mental opera
tions that a learner uses during a learning task are more
important than any other aspect of the learning situation--
i.e., more important than the delivery system of the treat-
ment--or any other aspect of the treatment!
Clark (1978), Cronbach and Snow (1977) and others have
been advising that researchers, teachers, and instructional
technologists focus on these mental operations of learners,
but there has been little precise guidance about how to do
it very effectively. The work on compensatory treatments
(Salomon, 1974; Snow, 1970; and others cited in Carrier &
Clark, 1977 and elsewhere) has perhaps been the most prom
ising effort so far to focus on actual mental processing.
But the approach suggested in the line of research for this
study is even more fundamental than that.
With this approach, researchers can be more sure about
exactly which aptitudes, out of a universe of aptitudes
within each learner, are called into action for a skill or
task that also has specific characteristics. More than
that, they can discriminate between people to find out
large enough groups of people who seem to be calling upon
the same set of aptitudes in order to perform a certain
category of task. They can then design strategies for that
set of learners geared to that set of aptitudes.
163
A learner may or may not have control over which men
tal processes "get used" when s/he attempts to learn some
thing. If the aptitudes that correlate with criterion
performance are low aptitudes, it may be those low apti
tudes that are being called into action, albeit unsuccess
fully , and that any different high aptitudes don'1 seem to
matter-- for the particular learning task at hand . If
that's the case, then strategies must be designed to relate
to those low aptitudes, the ones that it has been empiri
cally determined are the ones that are presumably being
used. Strategies would have to be designed this way even
if a researcher could not understand why a set of learners
might use such weak aptitudes when it might seem that they
could use other stronger aptitudes. The point is that a
researcher or designer cannot be expected to understand all
the reasons why a particular combination of aptitudes
happens to get called into action by a set of learners for
a specific task. Researchers wouldn't keep complaining
about complex higher order interactions that confound the
results of studies if they knew how to explain such re
sults .
This investigator contends that it is not necessary
to understand such a phenomenon; it is only necessary to
accept its existence from the empirical evidence collected
in a screening study. Then it becomes necessary to act on
the basis of that evidence, whether one understands why it
164
exists that way or not. Does it not make more Sense to
design strategies for aptitudes that have been shown to be
related to terminal performance? If one knows which apti
tudes (mental processing components) are most related to
actual performance, one will be in a better position to
decide if a treatment should function perferentially or
compensator!ly/remedially,
The sometimes conflicting results from studies dealing
with a limited number of aptitudes (usually one but some
times two) only take into account what a researcher
"thinks" might be the mental processing for the task. With
the approach suggested here, less is left to chance than
with other more traditional approaches to instructional
research. It may seem like a lengthy process but the pay
offs could be enormous if enough evidence accumulated to
show that the process works.
As more and more classes of tasks are analyzed, as has
been the one in this study, and as educators reason about
the mental processes they "think" are related to these
tasks, they can come up with test batteries based on those
two sets of Information for each class of task. Then, they
try them out, correlating the predictor measures with cri
terion performance, and developing strategies based on the
research for the aptitudes that have been identified as the
critical ones. Next, they train according to those
165
strategies as in the present study, and refine the predic
tor test battery if need be, until there is sufficient
evidence to indicate that the strategies predicted to work
for specific sets of people do in fact work. When that
happens there will be a generalizable set of procedures to
use for a set of learners who fit the description for the
aptitude profile that characterizes each group.
166
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of the Data
This chapter presents a descriptive summary of the
raw score data and the results of the multiple regression
analyses. The hypotheses are discussed based upon the
analysis of the data.
The performance tests (Films 10, 12, 10 Retention,
and 12 Retention) and the written tests (Range Ring Profile
and Range Ring Profile Retention) were scored according to
aptitude profile group, instructional strategy group, and
aptitude profile x instructional strategy interaction cell.
Table 2 reports the number of soldiers, means, standard
deviations, and ranges for all of the dependent measures by
aptitude profile group. In this table, the named statis
tics are reported for the 61 soldiers from whom there was
complete data for both training and retention. In addi
tion, the same table reports the information on all but re
tention testing for 87 soldiers from whom there was com
plete training data, regardless of the availability of re
tention data. The same data: number of soldiers, means,
167
TABXE 2
PERFORMANCE AND WRITTEN TEST MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND RANGES
FROM TRAINING AND RETENTION FOR APTITUDE PROFILES
Dependent Aptitude Profile 1 Aptitude Profile 2
Measures
N X SD Range N X SD Range
Film 10*
Film 10
Film 10 b
Retention
16 6.81 3.23 9 14 6.71 4.56 14
14 7.36 3,05 9 5 6.60 4.83 13
14 7.64 2.56 6 5 8.20 1,79 4
Film 12* 16 11.19 5,78 23 14 15.00 9 .20 33
Film 12
Film 12 b
14 11.07 6.15 23 5 16.80 7.69 20
Retention 14 10.29 5.20 20 5 8.40 2.30 5
RRP*,C 16 38.88 6.47 27 14 38.79 3.95 15
RRP? 14 39.29 6.83 27 5 39.80 5.17 13
RRP Retention 14 41.21 2.61 9 5 39.20 4.66 13
Dependent Aptitude Profile 3 Aptitude Profile 4
Measures
N
X SD Range N X SD Range
Film 10* 36 5.86 3.27 10 21 6.67 4,46 18
Film 10
Film 10 . ■
28 5.54 3.29 10 14 5.79 4.68 18
Retention 28 5.89 3.70 10 14 6.71 3.24 10
Film 12* 36 9.36 6. 12 29 21 12.76 7.50 29
Film 12
Film 12 b
Retention
28 7.93 5.15 20 14 11.50 7.50 29
28 11.50 5.30 25 14 10.00 4.82 21
RRP*,C 36 32.44 6.41 26 21 33.29 5.75 24
RRP* 28 33.18 5.37 21 14 35.14 4.52 18
RRP Retention 28 33.. 82 5.36 24 14 37.79 6.22 25
d
From the sample of 87 soldiers for whom there was complete
training data regardless of availability of retention data,
t )
From the sample of 61 soldiers for whom there was complete data
for both training and retention,
c
Range Ring Profile Written Test
168
standard deviations, and ranges are presented in Table 3
for instructional strategy groups.
Tables 4 through 12 summarize the data for the apti
tude profile x treatment cells for each test. Tables 4 and
5 report the descriptive information on Film 10 for the 87
cases and the 61 cases respectively. Table 6 presents the
information for Film 10 Retention. The descriptive data
for Film 12 and Film 12 Retention for 87, 61, and 61 sub
jects respectively, is presented in Tables 7 through 9.
Finally, Tables 10 through 12 complete the descriptive in
teraction cell reports giving the data on the Range Ring
Profile Training and Retention tests.
Multiple regression analyses were performed to deter
mine if significant interaction or main effects existed
for aptitude profile groups and instructional strategy
groups on both immediate and retention performance and
written posttests. For the three immediate posttests only,
separate analyses were performed for each of the following:
(a) all subjects for whom there was complete training data,
regardless of the availability of retention data (N = 87),
and (b) all those for whom there was complete data for both
immediate and retention posttests (N = 61). The regression
summary tables include the following information: (a) the
proportion of variance explained by each factor, the inter
actions between factors, and the residual, (b) the respec
tive sums of squares, (c) degrees of freedom, (d) mean
169
TABLE 3
PERFORMANCE AND WRITTEN TEST MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND RANGES
FROM TRAINING AND RETENTION FOR INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY GROUPS
Dependent Strategy 1 Strategy 2
Measures
N X SD Range N X SD Range
Film 10* 21 7.29 4.81 18 24 6.08 3.08 10
Film 10 15 7.07 4.96 18 16 5.81 2.90 10
Film 10
Retention 15 6 *73 3.22 10 16 7.38 3.05 8
Film 12*
Film 12
21 11.76 10.23 37 24 10.00 4.52 20
15 8.40 8.03 33 16 9.50 4.93 20
Film 12 ^
Retention 15 10.00 4.81 21 16 10.44 3.93 15
RRPf*C 21 32.57 6.93 25 24 37.00 5.55 27
RRPT 15 33.87 6.85 25 16 38.13 3.28 11
RRP Retention 15 35.93 6.65 27 16 37.88 3.52 11
Dependent: Strategy 3 Strategy 4
Measures
N X SD Range N X SD Range
Film 10*
Film 10
Film 10 ^
22 7.14 3.36 13 20 4.90 3.43 10
14 6.14 3.35 11 16 5.44 3.52 10
Retention 14 7.36 2.84 8 16 5.31 3.75 10
Film 12* 22 13.59 7.69 25 20 10.40 4.75 17
Film 12
Film 12 ^
14 12.93 7.91 25 16 10.19 4.83 17
Retention 14 12.43 6.31 20 16 9.81 4.82 20
RRP* *c
RRP?
22 35.09 5.98 25 20 34.40 7.34 28
14 35.36 5.40
20 16 34.81 7.51 28
RRP Retention 14 37.14 4.35 15 16 36.50 7.89 25
From the sample of 87 soldiers for whom there was complete
training data regardless of availability of retention data,
b
From the sample of 61 soldiers for whom there was complete data
for both training and retention,
c
Range Ring Profile Written Test
170
FILM 10 PERFORMANCE
APTITUDE PROFILE X
TABLE 4
TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY CELL (N = 87)
Aptitude Instructional Strategy Groups
Profile Row Totals
Groups 1 2 3 4
7.25 4.60 7.80 9.00 6.81
1 3.77 2.88 3.11 1.41 3.23
4 5 5 2 16
8.25 8.50 7.80 1.67 6.71
2 6.95 0.71 2.17 2.08 4.56
4 2 5 3 14
5.60 5.54 6.67 5.67 5.86
3 4.04 2.99 3.57 3.39 3.27
5 13 9 9 36
7.88 8.50 6.33 4.00 6.67
4 5.19 3.00 5.86 3.03 4.46
8 4 3 6 21
Column 7.29 6.08 7.14 4.90 6.37
Totals 4.81 3.08 3.36 3.43 3.76
21 24 22 20 87
Note. For each cell, the numbers from top to bottom represent: X,
SD, and n. N = 87 soldiers for whom there was complete data for train-
ing and immediate posttests regardless of availability of retention
data.
171
FILM 10 PERFORMANCE
APTITUDE PROFILE >
TABLE 5
TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR
I INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY CELL (N = 61)
Aptitude Instructional Strategy Groups
Profile Row Totals
Groups 1 2 3 4
7.25 5.25 8.75 9.00 7.36
1 3.77 2.87 2.63 1.41 3.05
4 4 4 2 14
9.50 8.00 5.00 1.00 6.60
2 6.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.83
2 1 1 1 5
4.75 5.56 5.71 5.75 5.54
3 4.11 3.05 3.50 3.62 3.29
4 9 7 8 28
7.80 7.00 3.00 4.40 5.79
4 6.61 4.24 1.41 3.21 4.68
*
. 5 2 2 5 14
Column 7.07 5.81 6.14 5.44 6.10
Totals 4.96 2.90 3.35 3.52 3.71
15 16 14 16 61
Note. For each cell, the numbers from top to bottom represent: X,
SD, and n. N = 61 soldiers for whom there was both training and reten-
tion data.
172
TABLE 6
FILM 10 RETENTION TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR APTITUDE PROFILE X INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY CELL (g = 61)
Aptitude
Profile
Groups
Instructional Strategy Groups
Row Totals
1 2 3 4
7.25 7.50 7.50 9.00 7.64
1 3.20 2.89 2.89 0.0 2.56
4 4 4 2 14
9.00 9.00 9.00 5.00 8.20
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.79
2 1 1 1 5
4.50 7 . 22 7.14 4.00 5.89
3 4.12 3.42 3.13 3.82 3.70
4 9 7 8 28
7.20 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.71
4 2.77 4.24 4.24 4.06 3.24
5 2 2 5 14
Column 6.73 7.38 7.36 5.31 6.67
Totals 3.22 3.05 2.84 3.75 3.28
15 16 14 16 61
Note. For each cell, the numbers from top to bottom represent: X,
SD, and n. N = 61 soldiers for whom there was both training and reten
tion data.
173
TABLE 7
FILM 12 PERFORMANCE TEST MEANS AN STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR APTITUDE PROFILE X INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY CELL QJ =87)
Aptitude
Profile
Groups
Instructional Strategy Groups
Row Totals
1 2 3 4
7.00 10.80 16.40 7.50 11.19
1 3.56 3.96 6.19 3.54 5.78
4 5 5 2 16
17-25 12.00 16.00 12.33
15.00
2 13.28 2.83 9.77 7.64 9.20
4 2 5 3 14
5.80 9.46 11.56 9.00 9.36
3 6.37 5.65 7.97 4.18 6.12
5 13 9 9 36
15.13 9.75 11.10 12.50 12.76
4 11.17 0.50 6.08 4.18 7.50
8 4 3 6 21
Column 11.76 10.00 13.59 10.40 11.43
Totals 10.23 4.52 7.69 4.75 7.16
21 24 22 20 87
Note. For each cell, the numbers from top to bottom represent: X,
SD, and n. N = 87 soldiers for whom there was complete data for train
ing and immediate posttests regardless of availability of retention
data.
174
TABLE 8
FILM 12 PERFORMANCE TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR APTITUDE PROFILE X INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY CELL @ = 61)
Aptitude
Profile
Groups
Instructional Strategy Groups
Row Totals
1 2 3 4
7.00 11.00 17.00 7.50 11.07
1 3.56 4.55 6.98 3.54 6.15
4 4 4 2 14
11.00 14.00 29.00 19.00 16.80
2 2.83 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.69
2 1 1 1 5
3.50 8.22 9.29 8.63 7.93
3 4.73 5.67 5.25 4.31 5.15
4 9 7 8 28
12.40 10.00 9.50 12.00 11.50
4 12.18 0.0 7.78 4.47 7.60
5 2 2 5 14
Column 8.40 9.50 12.93 10.19 10.20
Totals 8.03 4.93 7.91 4.83 6.57
15 16 14 16 61
Note. For each cell, the numbers from top to bottom represent: X,
SD, and n. N = 61 soldiers for whom there was both training and reten
tion data.
175
TABLE 9
FILM 12 RETENTION PERFORMANCE TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR APTITUDE PROFILE X INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY CELL (N = 61)
Aptitude
Profile
Groups
Instructional Strategy Groups
Row Totals
1 2 3 4
8.00 11.00 13.25 7.50 10.29
1 2.45 4.55 7.85 3.54 5.20
4 4 4 2 14
8.50 10.00 5.00 10.00 8.40
2 2.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.30
2 1 1 1 5
11.00 10.44 14.14 10.63 11.50
3 2.16 4.56 6.04 6.46 5.30
4 9 7 8 28
11.40 9 .50 8.50 9.40 10.00
4 7.96 0.71 2.12 2.61 4.82
5 2 2 5 14
Column 10.00 10 * 44 12.43 9.81 10.62
Totals 4.81 3.93 6.31 4.82 4.97
15 16 14 16 61
Note. For each cell, the numbers from top to bottom represent: X,
SD, and n. N = 61 soldiers for whom there was both training and reten-
tion data
176
TABLE 10
RANGE RING PROFILE WRITTEN TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR
APTITUDE PROFILE X INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY CELL (N = 87)
Aptitude
Profile
Groups
Instructional Strategy Groups
Row Totals
1 2 3 4 -
36.25 39.20 38.60 44.00 38.88
1 11.21 3.70 4.93 4.24 6.47
4 5 5 2 16
36.75 38.00 38.80 42.00 38.79
2 2.87 4.24 3.78 5.29 3.95
4 2 5 3 14
29.80 35.92 30.44 30.89 32.44
3 5.50 6.26 5.59 6.58 6.41
5 13 9 9 36
30.38 37.25 37.00 32.67 33.29
4 5.80 6.40 2.65 4.80 5.75
8 4 3 6 21
Column 32.57 37.00 35.09 34.40 34.85
Totals 6.93 5.55 5.98 7.34 6.53
21 24 22 20 87
Note. For each cell, the numbers from top to bottom represent: X,
SD, and n. N = 87 soldiers for whom there was complete data for train
ing and immediate posttests regardless of availability of retention
data.
177
TABLE 11
RANGE RING PROFILE WRITTEN TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR
APTITUDE PROFILE X INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY CELL Qf = 61)
Aptitude
Profile
Groups
Instructional Strategy Groups
Row Totals
1 2 3 4
36.25 40.25 39.00 44.00 39.29
1 11.21 3.30 5.60 4.24 6.83
4 4 4 2 14
37.50 35.00 41.00 48.00 39.80
2 2.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.17
2 1 1 1 5
30.75 36.67 32.29 31.25 33.18
3 5. 85 2.35 4.57 6.94 5.37
4 9 7 8 28
33.00 42.00 36.00 34.20 35.14
4 4.53 2.83 2.83 3.35 4.52
5 2 2 5 14
Column 33.87 38.13 35 .36 34.81 35.57
Totals 6.85 3.28 5.40 7.51 6.06
15 16 14 16 61
Note. For each cell, the numbers from top to bottom represent: X,
SD, and n. N = 61 soldiers for whom there was both training and reten-
tion data.
178
TABLE 12
RANGE RING PROFILE WRITTEN RETENTION TEST MEANS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS FOR APTITUDE PROFILE X INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY CELL (N = 61)
Aptitude
Profile
Groups
Ins truetiona1 Strategy Groups
Row Totals
1 2 3 4
41.25 41.25 41.00 41.50 41.21
1 3.77 1.50 3.56 0.71 2.61
4 4 4 2 14
36.00 38.00 40.00 46.00 39.20
2 4.24 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.66
2 1 1 1 5
32.50 35.56 34.71 31.75 33.82
3 3.70 2.60 3.95 8.56 5.36
4 9 7 8 28
34.40 41.50 36.50 40.20 37.79
4 9.29 2.12 2,12 2.77 6.22
5 2 2 5 14
Column 35.93 37.88 37.14 36.50 36.87
Totals 6.65 3.52 4.35 7.89 5.80
15 16 14 16 61
Note. For each cell, the numbers from top to bottom represent: X,
SD, and n. N = = 61 Soldiers for whom there was both training and reten-
tion data.
179
squares, (e) the observed values of F, and (f) the prob
ability levels for significance.
Table 13 summarizes the results of the multiple
regression analyses of aptitude profile, treatment, and
interactions for the immediate and retention performance
posttests of Film 10 for N = 87, N = 61, and N = 61 respec
tively. None of the observed values of F were significant
at the .05 level. Consequently, no further analyses of
Film 10 data were warranted.
Table 14 contains the results of the multiple regres
sion analyses of aptitude profile, instructional strategy,
and interactions for the immediate and retention perfor
mance tests of Film 12 for N = 87, N = 61, and N = 61
respectively. For the 87 subjects, none of the values of
F were significant at the .05 level but the observed F
value for Profile, 2.345, approached significance. Since
none of the values were significant, no further analyses
were appropriate. When the same analysis was performed on
the 61 subjects who had both immediate and retention
scores, there were significant effects at the .05 level or
better for both instructional strategy and aptitude pro
file, but not for their interaction. The F value for
stategy was 2.897 (.05 level), while the F value for apti
tude profile was 3.595 (.025 level). Since strategy and
profile were significant, further analyses were performed.
180
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES FOE FILM 10
Depend.
Meas.
Variable
Prop, of
Variance
(R sq. change) SS df
Mean
Square F
£
Profile x
Strategy .12357 150.289 9 16.988 1.202 ns
Film 10 Profile .02662 32.376 3 10.792 < 1 ns
(N=87)
Strategy .03876 47.141 3 15,714 1.131 ns
Residual .81105 986.430 71 13.893
Total 1.00000 1,216.236 86
Profile x
Strategy .10174 83.970 9 9.330 < 1 ns
Film 10 Profile .06429 53.066 3 17.887 1.212 ns
(N=61)
Strategy .03843 31.722 3 10.574 < 1 ns
Residual .79554 656.651 45 14.922
Total 1.00000 825.409 60
Profile x
Strategy .08691 56.095 9 6,233 < 1 ns
Film 10R Profile .08382 54.100 3 18.033 1.564 ns
(N=61)
Strategy ,02523 16.285 3 5.283 < 1 ns
Residual .80404 518.963 45 11.533
Total 1.00000 645.443 60
181
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR FILM 12
Depend.
Meas.
Variable
Prop. of
Variance
(R sq. change) SS df
Mean
Square F
E
Profile x
Strategy .08773 386.824 9 42.980 < 1 ns
Film 12 Profile .07957 350.845 3 116.948 2.345 ns
(N=87)
Strategy .02956 130.338 3 43.446
< 1
ns
Residual .80314 3,541.256 71 49.768
Total 1.00000 4,409.264 86
Profile x
Strategy .10435 270.438 9 30.487 < 1 ns
Film 12 Profile .14982 388.279 3 129.426 3.595 . 025
(N=6l)
Strategy .12072 312.863 3 104.288 2.897 .05
Residual .62511 1,620.059 45 36.001
Total 1.00000 2,591.639 60
Profile x
Strategy .10348 153.598 9 17.066 < 1 ns
Film 12R Profile .04585 68.056 3 22.685
< 1 ns
(N—61.)
Strategy .00308 4.572
3 1.524 < 1 ns
Residual .84759 1,258.104 45 27.956
Total 1.00000 1,484.104 60
182
Post hoc comparisons were performed using Fisher's
Least Significant Difference (LSD) Procedure, adjusting
for the compounding of the comparison-wise error rate
(Kirk, 1968). According to the adjustment, only compari
sons that had a t probability of .01 or less would be con
sidered significant at the .05 level. Any contrasts with
a t probability greater than .01 but less than or equal to
.05 could be said to approach significance. Using this
method, the contrast between the means of Profile Groups 2
and 3 had a t . probability of .001 with 45 degress of free
dom. This indicated that those with Aptitude Profile 2
performed significantly better on Film 12 than men with
Profile 3 at the .05 level of significance. None of the
Other individual comparisons for aptitude profile were
significant at the .05 level. However, Profile 2 people
also performed better than both Profile 1 and Profile 4
people and these differences approached significance. See
Table 15 for a summary of these comparisons.
When post hoc comparisons between means were performed
to isolate the significant treatment effects, the results
were as follows: The t probability for the contrast be
tween Strategy 3 and Strategy 1 (with 45 degress of free
dom) was .005, indicating that Strategy 3 soldiers per
formed significantly better on Film 12 than soldiers who
had Strategy 1 at the .05 level of significance. No other
comparisons were significant. The comparisons after
1 83
TABLE 15
POST HOC LSDa COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEANS FOLLOWING
SIGNIFICANT APTITUDE PROFILE EFFECTS (N = 61)
Dependent
Variable
t probabilities
Film 12 Profile
3
Profile
1
Profile Profile
4 2
Count Mean
28 7.9286 Profile 3
14 11.0714 Profile 1 .125
14 11.5000 Profile 4 .102 .887
5 16.8000 Profile 2 .001* .024 .034
61 10.1967 Total
Range Ring
Profile Test
Profile
3
Profile
4
Profile Profile
1 2
Count Mean
28 33.1786 Profile 3
14 35.1429 Profile 4 .067
14 39.2857 Profile 1 < .001* .106
5 39.8000 Profile 2 . 007* .174 .864
61 35.5738 Total
Range Ring Profile
Retention Test
Profile
3
Profile
4
Profile Profile
2 1
Count Mean
28 33.8214 Profile 3
14 37.7857 Profile 4 .018
5 39.2000 Profile 2 .019 .519
14 41.2143 Profile 1 < .001* .146 .658
61 36.8689 Total
3
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference Test adjusted for the
compounding of the comparison-wise error rate. Since alpha was set at
.05 for the entire experiment, any t probability that is .01 or less
would indicate significance at the .05 level.
. < .05 *
184
significant strategy effects are summarized in Table 16.
The results of the multiple regression analyses of
aptitude profile, instructional strategy, and interactions
for the immediate and retention Range Ring Profile written
posttests are summarized in Table 17. There were no
significant interaction or treatment effects on the immedi
ate RRP written test for either the 87 or the 61 cases.
However, for both groups of people, there were significant
main effects for aptitude profile at the .05 level on both
the immediate and retention written tests, where applica
ble. Because of the significant main effects for profile,
further analyses were conducted.
Using the adjusted LSD Method, post hoc comparisons
between means of the profile groups for the 87 cases
revealed that those with Profiles 1 and 2 performed signi
ficantly better than those with Profile 3 on the immediate
RRP test. The t probability levels for the contrasts
between Profiles 1 and 3 and Profiles 2 and 3 were less
than .001 with 71 degrees of freedom. Both values were
significant at the .05 level. No other comparisons were
significant at the .05 level but the contrasts between
Profiles 1 and 4 and then 2 and 4 approached significance.
The comparisons following significant profile effects for
the 87 cases are presented in Table 18.
Post hoc comparisons between means of the profile
groups for the 61 cases, again using Fisher's LSD Method
185
TABLE 16
POST HOC LSDa COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEANS FOLLOWING
SIGNIFICANT STRATEGY EFFECTS (N = 61)
Film 12
t probabilities
Strategy
1
Strategy Strategy Strategy
2 4 3
Count Mean
15 8.4000 Strategy 1
16 9.5000 Strategy 2 .378
16 10.1875 Strategy 4 .212 .736
14 12.9286 Strategy 3 . 005* .070 .134
61 10.1967 Total
Fisher's Least Significant Difference Test adjusted for the
compounding of the comparison-wise error rate.
< .05
186
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES
FOR THE RANGE RING PROFILE WRITTEN TEST
Depend. Prop. of
Me a s,
Variable
Variance
(R sq. change) SS
df
Mean
Square F
E
Profile x
Strategy .09816 359.958 9 39.995 1.195 ns
RRP Profile .19634 719.990 3 239.997 7.168 .001
(N=87)
Strategy .05726 209.976
3
69.992 2.091 ns
Residual .64824 2,377.133 71 33.481
Total 1.00000 3,667.057
86
Profile x
Strategy .14269 314.334 9 34.926 1.229 ns
RRP Profile .20449 450.475 3 150.158 5.285 .005
(N=61)
Strategy .07246 159.623 3 53.208 1.873
ns
Residual .58036 1,278.479 45 28.411
Total 1.00000 2,202.910 60
Profile x
Strategy ,11062 223.115 9 24.791 < 1 ns
RRPR Profile .25233 508.937 3 169.646 6.398 .005
(N=61)
Strategy .04549 91.751 3 30.584 1.153 ns
Residual .59156 1,193.151 45 26.514
Total 1.00000 2,016.954 60
187
TABLE 18
POST HOC LSDa COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEANS FOLLOWING
SIGNIFICANT APTITUDE PROFILE EFFECTS (N = 87)
t probabilities
Range .Ring . . _ _ _ _ _
Profile Test Profile Profile Profile Profile
3 4 2 1
Count Mean
36 32.4444 Profile 3
21 33.2857 Profile 4 , 136
14 38.7857 Profile 2 .001* .035
16 38.8750 Profile 1 .001* .014
87 34.8506 Total
3
Fisher's Least Significant Difference Test adjusted for the
compounding of the comparison--wise error rate.
*& < .05
188
(adjusted), indicated that those with Profiles 1 and 2
performed significantly better than those with Profile 3
on the RRP Immediate Test. The t probability for the
contrast between Profile 1 and 3 was less than .001 while
that between Profiles 2 and 3 Was .007, demonstrating
significance at the .05 level. No other contrasts were
significant. The comparisons for this sample on the RRP
Immediate Test are summarized in Table 15.
On the RRP Retention Test for the 61 cases, there
were similar results. Men with Profile 1 performed signif
icantly better than those with Profile 3. This was also
determined by using the adjusted LSD Method of post hoc
comparisons between means. The t probability for the
contrast between Profiles 1 and 3 was less than .001.
Profiles 2 and 4 approached being significantly better
than Profile 3 on performance for the RRP Retention Test.
The t probabilities were .019 and .018 respectively.
Refer again to Table 15 for summaries of these comparisons.
To recapitulate, the summaries of all post hoc compar
isons that followed significant main effects were presented
in Tables 15, 16, and 18. Table 15, based on 61 cases,
showed the LSD comparisons between means following signifi
cant aptitude profile effects. Table 16 presented similar
information following significant treatment effects when N
=61. In Table 18 were the post hoc LSD comparisons
189
between means following significant profile effects, based
on 87 cases.
Discussion of Hypotheses
The research hypotheses, restated below in null form,
were tested by means of multiple regression analysis.
After each hypothesis, an analysis is presented based
upon the data.
Null Hypothesis 1:
There will be no significant interaction between
aptitude profile groups and strategy groups on
performance on Film 10.
The data analysis indicated no significant differences
in the scores between those in the different profile X
treatment cells on performance on Film 10, regardless of
whether the analysis was based on 61 or 87 cases. As a
result, the null hypothesis was accepted.
Null Hypothesis 2:
There will be no significant interaction between
aptitude profile groups and strategy groups on
performance on Film 12.
The data analysis indicated that no significant in
teractions between aptitude profile x instructional stra
tegy groups existed; therefore, the null hypothesis was
accepted. This was true both when N = 87 and when N = 61.
190
Null Hypothesis 3:
There will be no significant interaction between
aptitude profile groups and strategy groups on
performance on the Range Ring Profile Written
Test.
The data analysis indicated that there were no signif
icant differences in scores between soldiers in the differ
ent aptitude profile x treatment categories, regardless of
the sample size analyzed; therefore, the null hypothesis
was accepted.
Null Hypothesis 4:
There will be no significant interaction between
aptitude profile groups and strategy groups on
performance on Film 10 Retention.
The data analysis indicated that there were no signif
icant differences in scores between soldiers in the differ
ent aptitude profile x treatment groups; therefore, the
null hypothesis was accepted.
Null Hypothesis 5:
There will be no significant interaction between
aptitude profile groups and strategy groups on
performance on Film 12 Retention.
The data analysis indicated that there were no signif
icant differences in scores between men in the different
aptitude profile x strategy groups; the null hypothesis
was accepted.
191
Null Hypothesis 6:
There will be no significant interaction between
aptitude profile groups and strategy groups on
performance on the written (Range Ring Profile)
test of retention.
The data analysis indicated that there were no signif
icant differences in scores between the different profile
x strategy groups. Consequently, the null hypothesis was
accepted.
Null Hypothesis 7:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on Film 10 between soldiers who fit the
Aptitude Profiles 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The data analysis indicated that no one profile group
performed significantly better than any other profile
group. For this reason, the null hypothesis was accepted.
Nu11 Hypo the sis 8:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on Film 12 between soldiers who fit the
Aptitude Profiles 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The data analysis indicated that there were signifi
cant differences in performance test scores on Film 12 for
aptitude profile groups when the analysis included only
the 61 men for whom there was both training and retention
data. When the data on Film 12 for these 61 men were
analyzed along with that of the men who never appeared for
192
retention (combined N = 87), the significant main effect
for profile group was not observed. However, even with
the 87 men, the effect for profile group approached signif
icance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected at
the .05 level of significance.
Null Hypothesis 9;
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on the Range Ring Profile Written Test
between soldiers who fit the Aptitude Profiles
1, 2, 3, and 4.
The data analysis indicated that for both the 61 and
87 cases, there were significant differences in performance
scores on the written test for the different aptitude
profile groups. Because of this, the null hypothesis was
rejected beyond the .05 level of significance.
Null Hypothesis 10:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on Film 10 Retention between soldiers
Who fit the Aptitude Profiles 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The data analysis indicated that no one profile group
performed significantly better than any other profile
group on the Film 10 Retention Test; therefore, the null
hypothesis was accepted.
Null Hypothesis 11:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on Film 12 Retention between soldiers
193
Who fit the Aptitude Profiles 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The data analysis indicated that there were no signif
icant differences in performance scores on Film 12 Reten
tion between the various profile groups; therefore, the
null hypothesis was accepted.
Null Hypothesis 12:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on the Range Ring Profile Retention
Written Test between soldiers who fit the Apti
tude Profiles 1, 2,3, and 4.
The data analysis indicated that there were signifi
cant differences between profile groups on Range Ring
Profile Retention Test scores; therefore, the null hypothe
sis was rejected beyond the .05 level of significance.
Null Hypothesis 13:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on Film 10 between soldiers assigned
to Strategies 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The data analysis indicated that no one strategy group
performed significantly better than any other strategy
group for either the 61 or the 87 cases on performance for
Film 10. Consequently, the null hypothesis was accepted.
Null Hypothesis 14:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on Film 12 between soldiers assigned to
Strategies 1, 2, 3, and 4.
194
The data analysis indicated that there Were signifi
cant differences in performance posttest scores on Film 12
for strategy groups; therefore, the null hypothesis was
rejected at the .05 level of significance.
Null Hypothesis 15:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on the Range Ring Profile Written Test
between soldiers assigned to Strategies I, 2, 3,
and 4.
The data analysis indicated that no strategy group
performed significantly better than any other strategy
group on performance on the written test; therefore, the
null hypothesis was accepted.
Null Hypothesis 16:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on Film 10 Retention between soldiers
assigned to Strategies 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The data analysis indicated that no individual strate
gy group performed singificantly better than any other
strategy group on the Film 10 Retention test. As a result,
the null hypothesis was accepted.
Null Hypo thesis 17:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on Film 12 Retention between soldiers
assigned to Strategies 1, 2, 3, and 4.
195
The data analysis indicated that there were no signi
ficant differences between strategy groups on performance
test scores for Film 12 Retention; therefore, the null
hypothesis was accepted.
Null Hypothesis 18:
There will be no significant difference in per
formance on the Range Ring Profile Written
Retention Test between soldiers assigned to
Strategies 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The data analysis indicated that no one strategy group
performed significantly better than any other strategy
group on Range Ring Profile Retention performance; there
fore, the null hypothesis was accepted.
Summary
Multiple regression analyses were performed for
aptitude profile groups, instructional strategy groups,
and profile x strategy Interaction groups for the two
performance tests and one written test that were adminis
tered immediately after training. Other multiple regres
sions analyses were performed on the retention measures
collected for the two performance posttests and the written
test. The multiple regressions for the six dependent
measures analyzed utilized a sample of 61 soldiers who had
completed both immediate and retention testing. Additional
multiple regression analyses were performed for the three
196
immediate posttests (Film 10, Film 12, and RRP) utilizing
the entire sample population of 87 cases, 26 of whom did
not complete the three retention tests. Based on all
analyses of Film 10., whether for immediate or retention
performance, there were no significant interactions found
between aptitude profile and instructional strategy, nor
were there any main effects for either aptitude profile or
strategy.
The analyses for Film 12 (immediate performance)
revealed significant profile main effects at the .025
level and significant strategy main effects at the .05
level, but no interaction effects between profile and
strategy. These significant results occurred only for the
sample of 61 soldiers and not for the entire group of 87
who completed the Film 12 immediate posttest. In the
sample of 87, the main effect for profile on Film 12
performance did approach significance, however. Fisher’s
LSD tests of multiple comparisons adjusted for the com
pounding of the comparison-wise error rate, indicated that
soldiers with Profile 2 performed significantly better
than those with Profile 3 on the Film 12 immediate post
test . No other comparisons for profile were significant
although some approached significance. For strategy groups,
the adjusted LSD Test revealed that Strategy 3 was signifi
cantly better than Strategy 1 for performance on Film 12.
No other comparisons for strategy were significant at the
197
.05 level. On the Film 12 Retention Test, none of the main
effects for strategy or profile or their interactions were
significant.
For the Range Ring Profile Written Tests, whether for
immediate or retention performance, or for either 61 or 87
cases, there were significant main effects for aptitude
profile. The significance level reached .005 for the sam
ple of 61 and .001 for the sample of 87. There were no sig
nificant strategy effects or interaction effects for any of
the written tests. The adjusted LSD post hoc comparisons
that were significant at the .05 level indicated that Pro
file 1 performed better than Profile 3, regardless of the
Sample size for either immediate performance or retention.
Profile 2 was also superior to Profile 3 at the .05 level
of significance for the larger sample of 87 on the immedi
ate written test. In the smaller sample of 61, the same
comparison of Profiles 2 and 3 reached significance on the
immediate test and approached significance on the retention
test. Other comparisons that approached significance for
the full sample were between Profiles 1 and 4 and then 2
and 4. Both Profiles 1 and 2 showed better performance on
the immediate Range Ring Profile Test than did Profile 4.
198
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This chapter contains a summary of the investigation.
Conclusions are drawn based on the findings reported in
Chapter IV and on additional observations presented in this
chapter. Further explanations are presented which may
indicate why some of the hypothesized effects Were not
observed. The chapter concludes with recommendations for
further research.
Purpose
The purpose of the study was to investigate the rela
tionships between specific aptitude profiles, four instruc
tional strategies, and acquisition of a complex procedural
psychomotor task. To investigate these relationships, the
aptitude profiles Were defined by the scores on measures
for two or more aptitude constructs that were matched to
the aptitude requirements of the task. Based on literature
that, described interactions between alternative instruc
tional strategies and the various measured aptitudes, the
instructional strategies for this study were developed.
199
This was done by synthesizing the available research about
single aptitudes and single strategies and then developing
unique strategies which combined elements of several meth
ods in order to match to the predominant characteristics
of the identified aptitude profile groups.
Methodology
The Group Embedded Figures Test, the Closure Flexi
bility Test, the Thurstone Test of Mental Alertness, the
Cattel Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, the State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory, the two-dimensional perception
portion of the Multiple Aptitude Test, and the Pursuit
subtest from, the MacQuarrie Test of Mechanical Ability
were administered to 102 soldiers from the U.S. Army (16P
Military Occupational Specialty) at four sites. Based on
the scores on these measures, four aptitude profile groups
were identified:
1. Analytic thinking (high GEFT or high Closure Flex
ibility) and of high intelligence (high on Factor
B of the 16 PF or high on the Total Thurstone),
2. High spatial ability (high two-dimensional percep
tion from the MAT or high pursuit from the Mac
Quarrie) and with high anxiety (high on Factor Q4
[Tense/Relaxed] of the 16 PF or high on the Trait
scale of the STAI),
3. Global thinking (low GEFT or low Closure Flexibil
ity) and of low intelligence (low on Factor B of
200
the 16 PF or low on the Total Thurstone), and
4. All other subjects who did not qualify for member
ship in either Aptitude Profile 1, 2, or 3.
Separate instructional strategies were then developed
that would match to the predominant characteristics of each
identified profile group. Since there were no predominant
characteristics to identify the fourth group, Strategy 4
was utilized as a control and represented the standard
regular army refresher training for this task.
The final number of subjects to participate in the
study included 87 men who completed training and immediate
posttests. Of that 87, there were 61 men who also com
pleted retention testing approximately one month after the
immediate testing. At the time of training, the men were
randomly assigned to treatment without regard for their
aptitude profiles. Aptitude profiles could not be iden
tified before training was to be conducted. All four
instructional strategies were given to men at all four
sites, followed by two performance tests and one written
test. Thirty days later, the men who returned for reten
tion were administered the same two performance posttests
and one written posttest.
The posttest only, control group design was used; the
hypotheses were tested by means of multiple regression
analyses.
201
Findings
The results of the data analysis are now presented.
1. There were no significant interactions between
aptitude profile groups and instructional strategy groups
on either the immediate or retention tests for Film 10, one
of the two performance tests. In addition, there were no
significant main effects for either profile or strategy on
either of the measures. These results were observed for
either the full sample population of 87 men or for the 61
who completed both immediate and retention testing.
2. There were no significant interactions between
aptitude profile groups and strategy groups on the other
performance test--Film 12--for either the immediate or
retention posttests. Again, this was the case for either
size sample.
3. There was a significant difference (.05) between
Film 12 immediate performance posttest scores of the apti
tude profile groups for the sample of 61 subjects only.
Further analyses indicated that men with Profile 2 per
formed significantly better than those with Profile 3,
Those with Profile 2 also performed better than subjects
with Profiles 1 or 4 but the differences in these cases
only approached significance.
4. There was a significant difference (.05) between
the Film 12 immediate performance posttest scores of the
different strategy groups for the sample of 61, but not for
202
that with 87. Further analyses revealed that those who
received Strategy 3 performed significantly better than men
who received Strategy 1.
5. There were no significant interaction or main
effects for instructional strategy or aptitude profile in
either sample on the performance retention test of Film 12.
6. No significant interactions between aptitude pro
file and instructional strategy group were observed on
either the immediate or retention written tests (Range Ring
Profile Tests) for either sample size. Nor were there any
significant treatment effects on either test.
7. Significant main effects for aptitude profile were
observed for the sample of 61 on both immediate and reten
tion written tests (.05). Further analyses indicated that
for either test, Profile*Group 1 performed significantly
better than Profile Group 3. On the immediate posttest,
the performance of Profile 2 was also significantly better
than that of Profile 3. On the retention test Profile 2
and 4 approached being significantly better than Profile 3.
8. For the sample of 87, there were significant main
effects for aptitude profile on the immediate RRP posttest
(.05). Further analyses revealed that both Profiles 1 and
2 performed significantly better than Profile 3. The same
two profiles * posttest scores were better than the Profile
4 test scores but the differences in these instances only
approached significance.
203
Conclusions
Based on the analysis of the data, several conclusions
have been drawn. However, it must be pointed but that the
interpretation of the data was made complex by the fact
that there was not complete random assignment (i.e., to a
fully crossed design). While random assignment to strategy
group was achieved, it can not completely substitute for
the increased control and power that would have been pre
sent had there been random assignment from aptitude pro
file groups to strategy groups. A careful inspection of
the cell sizes (Tables 4 - 12) will reveal the effect that
this lack of randomization had on the distribution of cases
in the study. The most serious imbalance occurred With
Aptitude Profile 2 subjects, especially for the retention
data. For retention, some cell sizes for Profile 2 have
only one case, which is totally unacceptable if one wants
to have confidence to generalize* Nevertheless, this
occurred and the results and conclusions must be looked at
in light of these conditions.
Other occurrences and observed conditions that may
limit the generalizability of the conclusions are presented
next.
1. An assumption that was made before the start of
the study proved to be false. There was no reason to sus
pect that the composition of the population for soldiers
204
in the 16P MOS would be any different than for any other
military occupational specialty of the U.S. Army. The
racial make-up of the populaton should have been approxi
mately 307o black as it is in the U.S. Army as a whole--with
a lesser.number of Hispanics and the rest whites. Racial
data was not collected because it was not expected that
the distribution would be significantly different than just
outlined. By the time the investigator and assistants had
completed several rounds of experimental training and
testing, it became apparent that there were at least 70%
blacks in the sample. An effort was made, after completion
of the experiment at all sites, to retrieve racial data for
the subjects from the Army. That effort was unsuccessful,
primarily because so many of the soldiers had been sta
tioned elsewhere by the time it became clear that such data
might be helpful. In order to preserve confidentiality,
social security numbers from the soldiers had not been
collected. Had those numbers been collected, it may have
been easier to gather the racial data through other
channels. The Army Research Institute, who had sponsored
the research, was made aware of this occurrence and agreed
to view the conclusions in light of it. It could be that
differences that occurred or that failed to occur may have
been influenced by cultural factors relating to race that
were not investigated in the study.
205
2. The number of soldiers who qualified for Profile
2 was much smaller than anticipated. In earlier research
(Canyon Research Group, Inc.; 1978; Hebein, 1978; Sullivan
et al., 1978), the only group for whom there were few cases
was Profile 1. There had been no shortage of Profile 2
people and there was no reason to suspect that a shortage
in this group would occur in this study. Related to the
number of people who qualified for Profile Group 2 was
the actual make-up of their aptitude pattern. Eight of
the fifteen soldiers who were analyzed in the Profile 2
group also qualified for membership in Group 1. This left
only seven people with Profile 2 whose Aptitude Profile was
uncontaminated by that of any other profile. Recall that
there were four people with Profile 3 that also had Profile
2. This means that of all the people who qualified for
Profile 2, more of them had duplicate qualifications with
another Profile than had Profile 2 alone. This did not
happen in the earlier research and further complicates the
interpretation of conclusions about Profile 2.
3. Because the experiment was conducted at four
different sites at four different times, and in spite of
efforts to maintain standard procedures, there were exten
uating circumstances (outlined in Chapter Three) which
altered the experimental situation at times and which
necessarily limit the generalizability of the findings.
More than likely, such idiosyncracies would serve to hide
206
some significant findings but this would be difficult to
determine. Nevertheless, it could also be argued that
any significant findings which did emerge can probably be
trusted. According to such an argument, this would be
because of the unlikelihood that a small effect could have
been felt in such fluid field situations.
4. An alternative explanation related to the third
point just listed is possible. It appeared that the inter
vening variable of fort could have been more powerful than
the variables studied. The various idiosyncrasies at each
site may have really been systematic variation attributable
to fort and not to any extenuating circumstances or to the
experimental variables. This would coincide with Snow’s
(1977) idea about local instructional theories. He has
suggested that general instructional theory is a ’ ’ Holy
Grail, ’ ’ that educators cannot generalize across sites
(horizontally) when it comes to instructional effective
ness, and that the key to generalizability is local evalua
tion. If Snow is correct, then one could not expect to
achieve the same results at Fort Bragg as would be achieved
at Fort Riley, etc., even when the same methods were used
in each place. The conclusions for this study should be
viewed with this possibility in mind.
5. Because all four strategies were used at. all four
sites, the size of each ’ ’class” during training was smaller
than most classes would likely be in a real training
207
situation. The small groups could have influenced perfor
mance for better or for worse and should be considered as
a possible threat to validity. Stated differently, the
soldiers may have behaved differently as a result of the
small groups rather than as a result of the training
methods, their aptitude profiles, or the interactions
between aptitude profile and training method.
First, conclusions will be presented that relate
directly to the hypotheses and the expected directions for
effects that were discussed in Chapter Three. Then, other
conclusions, more tentative in nature, that are based on
additional observations (not as directly related to the
hypotheses) will be presented.
No firm conclusions can be made with regard to inter
actions. The cell sizes did not allow a powerful enough
test. Nevertheless, a tentative explanation of the inter
action results will be presented.
While there were no significant interactions between
aptitude profile and strategy groups to indicate that men
with each particular profile would perform significantly
better if they received the treatment that was designed
for them (as hypothesized), an inspection of the means
and standard deviations gave some indications that a few
interactions may have occurred. For example, on Film 10
performance, whether for 87 or 61 cases, the proportion of
variance accounted for by interactions was greater than
208
that for either profile or treatment. Also on Film 10, for
the sample of 87, those with Profile 2 who received Treat
ment 2 and those with Profile 3 who received Treatment
3 did perform better than those who received other treat
ments. On Film 12 and Film 12 Retention, whether for the
61 or the 87 men, those who had Profile 3 clearly performed
best if in Treatment 3.
One of the reasons why interactions were not found may
be attributed to the unequal and nonproportional cell sizes
that resulted from the inability to randomly assign to a
fully crossed design. Without complete random assignment,
there were four cells (in the sample of 87) which had only
two or three cases each. In the retention sample of 61,
the breakdown was even worse: seven cells had only one or
two cases each. With cell sizes that small, the differ
ences in performance would have to be so great to reach
significance that it is not surprising that significance
was not observed. However, in spite of the small cell
sizes, it could be argued that if the effects were oc
curring at all, they would have shown through. This brings
up the question of why else the interactions may not have
occurred.
In the case of those who had Profile I, why didn’t
they do best with Treatment 1, which had been designed as
independent study specifically for them? More often than
not, they did worse in Strategy 1 than in any other
209
strategy. It could be that the treatment was not as well
designed as the other strategies, particularly Strategies 2
and 3. Strategy 1 had not been used for this specific task
in the Sullivan et al. (1978) study and had to be designed
especially for the present study. The investigator and
assistants were not completely satisfied with the final
form of Strategy 1 that was used. However, since it did
meet the basic qualifications for the strategy, and since
there were time constraints that prevented further develop
ment, the decision was made to use it, even though it was
considered imperfect,
Treatments 2 and 3 had been refined for this study
from what were used by Sullivan et al. It could be that
the additional iteration in strategy development for those
two strategies was enough to make them more powerful than
Strategy 1. However, this doesn’t explain why Profile 1
people who got Strategy 4 performed better on Film 10, 10R
and the written test than if they got other strategies.
It could be that because Strategy 4 was so verbally loaded,
had so much information embedded within it and contained
so much Range Ring Profile information, that the Profile 1
people needed to call upon their analytic skills and their
intelligence more than anticipated to be able to learn all
that was presented. It seems as if they used their ana
lytic ability to apply the Range Ring Profile information
to their performance on Film 10 and that this worked better
210
than if they had to generate the information more on their
own as in Strategy 1. Guerrieri (1978) noted that ana
lytics favor expository teaching methods. This could be
an example of the analytic persons’ opting for that prefer
ence over the more hypothesis- testing approach that would
have been required if in Strategy 1.
In the case of Profile 2 people, the major problems
have already been discussed--the small number of people
with the profile and the multiple membership with other
profiles. Because of this, any interactions concerning
Profile 2 would necessarily be confounded. As a result,
even if they had been observed, they would have been dif
ficult, at best, to interpret.
For Profile 3, in more instances than not, Treat
ment 3 was more effective than other treatments. This was
especially true for Film 12 Retention. Those who received
Treatment 3 who had Profile 3 contributed enough to make
Profile 3 people outperform all other profiles on Film 12
Retention. This was the only instance when Profile 3
outperformed anyone. In all other cases, Profile 3 scored
lower than every other profile group. Again, there was no
significant interaction, but this occurrence (Strategy 3/
Profile 3) does arouse speculation that some kind of inter
action effect was present.
It was somewhat easier to draw conclusions about main
effects. Except for Film 12 and Film 12 Retention, the
211
pattern of performance for the different profile groups
was as expected with Profiles 1 and 2 at the top. On all
but Film 12R, Profile 3 performed least well, also as
expected. On Film 12, although Profile 1 people ranked
third in performance, they still performed at a level that
approached being significantly better than performance for
Profile 3. As a matter of fact, the other profile groups
performed either significantly or almost significantly
better than Profile Group 3 on Film 12.
The significant effects for profile on the Range Ring
Profile Test were exactly as expected. Since it was a
written test that required the application of a series of
rules, Profile 1 should have done best because of their
high intelligence and analytic thinking ability. The
nature of the task was spatial which may explain why the
people in Profile 2 performed as well or almost as well as
those in Profile 1. Profile 3 people were at a distinct
disadvantage when faced with the written test, simply be
cause it required them to read, interpret visuals, analyze,
synthesize, and write a response all on the same test.
Having to do so many things, almost at once, tends to over
load the information processing capabilities of the global
person of low intelligence (Allen, 1975; Goodenough, 1976).
Consequently, Profile 3 people did worse than every other
group--usually significantly worse--on the written test.
212
Although the order of performance from best to worst
on Film 10 and 10R was as expected, the differences in per
formance Were not significant. This could be because of
the nature of the performance required on Film 10. All the
targets were of constant speed and all were very fast. The
men were not novice gunners and had practiced on Film 10 in
the past. It is the film that is used to determine if a
gunner is considered an acceptable gunner. To get a clean
hit on Film 10 theoretically requires more skill and preci
sion because there is so little time in which to perform
all steps in the sequence. However, an intervening vari
able, expectation that the target will only be in range for
a short time, could have washed out any differences between
performances of the different profile groups. The men had
learned that when Film 10 was running, they did not have to
wait to see when the aircraft got in range in order to be
gin the engagement sequence. Instead, they expected that
it would be in range in an instant and began the sequence
early--possibly out of expectation from prior knowledge of
the film--and not necesssarily because they were so accom
plished with fast and evasive targets. Because of this,
many of the men did not go through the sequence in the way
they were taught. Therefore the similar performances could
be attributed to an artifact of the expected situation and
are most probably not associated with differences in apti
tude patterns.
____________ 213
. While performance on the film may predict initial
gunner performance well, it turned out not to be a good
test of a gunner during refresher training. If there had
been a different film that had fast and evasive targets
but which the gunners had never seen before, perhaps the
results would have been different. An alternative explana
tion to the similar performances on Film 10 could be that
the aptitudes that make up the profiles are not predictive
when expectation of a constant target speed is added to the
equation for performance. Perhaps other factors, more re
lated to personality could predict Film 10 performance,
following refresher training, better than the identified
profiles could.
Film 12 appears to be a better test of a gunner be
cause one never knows what size, or type of target will
appear. Nor is there an expectation of speed since the
speed varies from target to target. With that kind of
uncertainty, the gunner is forced to apply the knowledge
and skill that he has if he is to have any chance for a
successful engagement. Profile Group 2 performed better
on Film 12 than any other group, including Profile Group 1.
Actually this is not surprising because eight of the 15
people with Profile 2 really had both Profile 1 and 2.
With the strengths from both profiles, it is understandable
that they would outperform those in Profile 1. The high
spatial facility would complement the high intelligence and
214
analytic ability on this very visual task.
It seems reasonable to conclude that poor performance
by certain profile groups could be mediated by particular
treatments, as appeared to be the case with Profile 3 on
Film 12 Retention for those who received Strategy 3. This
conclusion cannot be stated more firmly because there were
not enough people with Profile 2 who received Strategy 2 or
enough people with Profile 1 who received Strategy 1 to be
able to generalize across all Profiles.
Concerning the main effects for treatment, the only
conclusion that is warranted is that Strategy 3 was signif
icantly better than Strategy 1--but only on Film 12. This
effect was expected because Strategy 3 relied on practice
as the main method of instruction. For psychomotor tasks,
practice is considered one of the most essential elements
for successful performance. This conclusion replicated the
earlier finding of Hebein (1978) for the superiority of
Strategy 3 on a performance test for a psychomotor skill.
In the Hebein study, Strategy 2 was also found to be
significantly better than other strategies. This did not
occur again in this study. One possible explanation for it
is that 13 of the 24 people who received Strategy 2 had
Aptitude Profile 3. Ten of those had an "uncontaminated"
Profile 3 (i.e., no duplicate membership with Profile 2).
The characteristics of Profile 3 would require that there
be more "hands on" experience and less content to process
215
verbally or visually. The Group 3 people would not get
that in Treatment 2. In addition to the large number of
Profile 3 people who received Strategy 2, there was an
especially low number of people with Profile 2 who received
the treatment (only two). Both Profile 2 people also
qualified for Profile 1 so there was really no one who
received Strategy 2 who had only the predominant charac
teristics of those for whom it was designed. This should
have affected performance in Strategy 2 and is probably why
performance was not significantly better for Strategy 2
subjects on the various performance tests.
There were no significant treatment effects for the
written test, but performance of soldiers in Strategy 2 was
best for either immediate or retention testing. This was
as expected and can be attributed to the fact that more
instruction on applying the Range Ring Profile information,
coupled with considerable feedback, was a part of Strategy
2 than was part of any other strategy. In addition, Strat
egy 2 allowed the second most actual practice on the task.
This combination of more practice with more formal instruc
tion on the task would be hard to beat. Again, it was not
significant, but Strategy 3 people performed second best
on the Range Ring Profile written tests in every instance.
Apparently, the large amount of practice in engaging the
aircraft transferred without formal instruction to reason
ably successful performance on a written test of the same
216
information. Those who got less practice but more formal
instruction (Strategy 4) did the next best, while the
people in Strategy 1 (who got little practice or formal
instruction) performed most poorly.
To sum up, it could be said that there were complex
results for strategy across tests, yet only one significant
effect. Nevertheless, Strategy 3 was typically most effec
tive on skill performance, while Strategy 2 was most effec
tive on written performance.
Comparisons between scores on the immediate and reten
tion tests, whether performance or written, indicated some
tentative conclusions that do not have significant results
to back them up. No hypotheses were advanced to test
whether improvement on retention would be significant.
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to note, at least in
a descriptive fashion, the directions that occurred.
On Film 10, all aptitude profile groups improved
performance scores upon retention. For treatment, only
Treatments 2 and 3 showed improved performance scores upon
retention. Treatments 1 and 4 showed a decline for reten
tion. This provides additional support for the effective
ness of Strategies 2 and 3 as originally hypothesized.
Across all cells, overall performance on Film 10 was better
for retention than for the immediate posttest. This seems
to indicate that the learning curve continues after train
ing has been concluded. Usually, over time, forgetting
217
sets in. This did not appear to be the case in this study.
A similar finding occurred in the Sullivan et al. (1978)
study and would be worth investigating separately in future
studies.
Across the board increases in retention posttest
scores occurred for Film 12 and the RRP so the finding
does not appear to be an artifact of any one kind of test.
People in all treatments except Treatment 2 performed
better on the RRP Retention test than on the immediate
test. In Treatment 2 the scores on the two tests were
similar.
Rec ommendat i on s
The results of the study suggested no significant
interactions between aptitude profile groups and treatment
groups. The ability to make a powerful enough test for
interaction was limited by the lack of complete randomiza
tion, It is recommended that the same profiles be utilized
in another study in which all profiles can be Identified
before the start of training. There should be random
assignment to a fully crossed design and if at all possible
there should be a larger number of cases at each site to
counteract the possibility of an unintended effect for
group size. In this way, if the predicted interactions
exist they could be observed and tested with confidence.
218
Of all the possible interactions that were expected,
the only one that received some support was that soldiers
who are global thinkers and of low intelligence should be
given an instructional strategy that relies on practice as
the main method of instruction. In addition, the strategy
for such people should take on values for each of the other
seven features similar to those outlined for Strategy 3 in
Chapter Three. If that occurs, educators can expect that
such learners will perform better than if they are exposed
to other kinds of strategies. If the methodology is per
fected further* other prescriptive generalizations for
education should be identified.
Although not formally tested in this study there were
indications that performance was continuing to improve
after a thirty day interval following training. This
phenomenon and how it may relate to the aptitude profiles
and the strategies designed to match them should be In
vestigated .
With respect to the formation of the aptitude profiles
themselves, a good theoretical rationale has been presented
for the identification of each group. The data should be
reanalyzed along with the other measures from the test
battery that were not used to create the profiles for this
study. By so doing, a refinement of the existing profiles
to include more than two aptitude constructs each might be
established. In addition, other unique profiles might be
219
identified that Would include some of those who were in the
M de fault1 1 group.
An exploratory reanalysis of the data, following the
suggestions just given, might also help to explain why
significant differences in performance were observed in
the sample of 61 but were not observed in the full sample
of 87 for Film 12. It may be that the 26 soldiers who did
not return for retention had something in Common that
should and could be identified. If the group who had both
immediate and retention testing is quite different than the
group who.only had immediate testing, it could indicate
some curvilinearity in the data for the 87 cases. If a
curvilinear relationship were found, it would suggest that
perhaps the data should be interpreted differently than it
was in this manuscript.
In conjunction with the refinement of the aptitude
profiles, each strategy should be refined and improved upon
according to any newly documented research relating to the
original aptitudes as well as to any other aptitudes which
may become a part of each profile. Through an iterative
process of both aptitude profile identification and strat
egy development, effective strategies that are known to
work when matched to the predominant characteristics for
each profile, could become a reality. This would require
both confirmatory and exploratory analyses of the data,
both of which can be collected with the same population as
220
was done in this study. With this sample, future explor
atory analyses may prove to be more instructive than was
this confirmatory analysis. However, that will not always
be the case. There is reason to believe that productive
results in both areas could be realized if careful atten
tion is paid to both internal and external validity and if
efforts are made, from one study to another, to correct
past mistakes.
This study confirmed the existence of the self-same
profiles that had been identified in an earlier series of
studies and improved upon the discrimination of these pro
files. It would be instructive to identify the same pro
files in other samples and to develop instructional strat
egies for other classes of tasks besides target engagement
and employment to see if there might be generalizability
across tasks.
The methodology is still new and will need continued
refinement, but there is enough evidence to suggest that
it could yield results that would be prescriptive. As a
combinations approach to instruction and to aptitude, it
is a promising, difficult, yet perhaps more realistic way
to investigate learning and performance in a field setting
than are some other ways. For this reason, it should be
continued.
221
REFERENCE LIST
Adams, J. A. The effect of pacing on the learning of a psy
chomotor response. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1954, 47(2).
Allen, W. H. Intellectual abilities and instructional media
design. AV Communication Review, 1973, 23, 139-170.
Baehr, M. E., & Corsini, R, J. The press test. Chicago:
Industrial Relations Center--University of Chicago,
1965.
Baehr, M. E., Corsini, R. J., & Renck, R. The press test
(Test administration manual). Chicago: Industrial
Relations Center--University of Chicago, 1967.
Ball, S. In S. Ball. (Ed.), Motivation in education.
New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Barringer, C. & Gholson, B. Effects of type and combina
tion of feedback upon conceptual learning by children:
Implications for research in academic learning. Review
of Educational Research, 1979, 49(3), 459-478.
Beane, W. E. & Lemke, E. A. Group variables influencing
the transfer of conceptual behavior. Journal of Educa
tional Psychology, 1971, 62(3), 215-218.
Bell, M. E. & Dolly, J. P. Instructional psychology:
Focus for the future. Journal of Instructional Psychol
ogy, 1979, 6(1), 2-4.
Berger, E. & Goldberger, L. Field dependence and short
term memory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1979, 49,
87-96.
Berliner, D. C. & Cahen, R. S. Trait-treatment interaction
and learning. In F. N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of
research in education (Vol. 1). Itaska, 111.: F. E.
Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1973.
Bialek, H. M., Taylor, J. E., & Hauke, R. N. Instructional
strategies for training men of high and low aptitude.
Human Resources Research Organization, Technical Report
73-10, April 1973.
Bilodeau, E. A. & Bilodeau, I. M. The contribution of
component activities to the total psychomotor task.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 47(1), 37-46.
222
Bilodeau, E. A. Sc Bilodeau, 1. M. Motor-skills learning.
Annual Review of Psychology, 1961, 12, 243-280.
Bilodeau, X. M. Information feedback. In E. A. Bildeau
(Ed.), Acquisition of skill. New York: Academic Press,
1966.
Bloedorn, G. W. Improving soldier tra1ning: An aptitude-
treatment interaction approach. United States Naval
War College: The Naval War College Center for Advanced
Research, June 1979.
Bodine, R. L. The effects of cognitive style, task struc
ture , and task setting on student outcomes--Cognitive
and affective. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New
York: April, 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 135 781)
Brophy, J. E. & Evertson, C. M. Context variables in
teaching. Educational Psychologist, 1978, 12(3),
310-316.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., Sc Austin, G. A. A study of
thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.
Campbell, D. T . Sc Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1963.
Canyon Research Group, Inc. Acquisition and retention of
cognitive versus perceptually oriented materials (Phase
I Report). Unpublished report, submitted to U. S. Army
Research Institute for the Behaviorial and Social
Sciences, Ft. Bliss, Texas, January 1978.
Carrier, C. A. Designing treatments for use in instruc
tional research and practice. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Minnesota, n.d.
Carrier, C. A. Sc Clark, R. E. Current research on spatial
ability and instructional methods. Educational Techno
logy , September 1977, 61-63.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H . W., Sc Tatsuoka, M. M. Handbook
for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16
PF). Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality
and Abi1ity Testing, 1970.
223
Clark, L. V. Effect of mental practice on the development
of a certain motor skill. Research Quarterly, 1960, 31,
560-569.
Clark, R. E. Adapting aptitude-treatment interaction meth
odology to instructional media research. AV Communica
tion Review, 1975, 23, 133-137. (a)
Clark, R. E. Constructing a taxonomy of media attributes
for research purposes. AV Communication Review, 1975,
23(2) , 197-215. (b)
Clark, R. E. Visual instruction and visual aptitude. Un
published manuscript, University of Southern California,
1978.
Cowan, D. J. Autoinstructional materials in teaching
physics in small high schools. Journal of Experimental
Education, 1967, 36, 46-50.
Cronbach, L. J. & Gleser, G. C. Psychological tests and
personnel decisions (2nd Ed.). Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1965.
Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. Aptitudes and instructional
methods. New York: Irvington Press, 1977.
Crooks, T. G. & Pearson, P. R. WAIS, 16PF-B, score and
education, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1970, 26(3),
348-349.
DiVesta, F. J. Trait-treatment interactions, cognitive
processes and research on communication media. AV Com
munication Review, 1975, 23(2), 185-196.
Dreger, R. M. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), The eighth mental
measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N . J. : Gryphon
Press, 1978.
Eagle, M., Goldberger, L., & Breitman, M. Field-dependence
and memory for social vs. neutral and relevant vs.
irrelevant incidental stimuli. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1969, 29, 903-910.
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harmon, H. H., Sc Dermen,
D. Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests.
Princeton, N . J.: Educational Testing Service, 1976.
English, H. B. Sc English, A. C. A comprehensive dictionary
of psychological and psychoanalytic terms. New York:
David MeCay Co., Inc., 1958.
224
Federico, P. Accomodating instruction to student char-
acteristics: Trends and issues (Final Report). Un
published Report, submitted to Navy Personnel Research
and Development Center, San Diego, California, October
1978.
Ferrell, J. G. The differential performance of lower class
pre-school, Negro children as a function of the sex of
E, sex of S, reinforcement condition, and the level of
field dependence (Doctoral Disstertation, University of
Southern Mississippi, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1971, 32, 3028B-3029B. (University
Microfilms No. 71—1457)
Finch, C. R. The effectiveness of selected self-instruc
tional approaches in teaching diagnostic problem sol
ving. The Journal of Educational Research, 1972, 65(5),
219-223.
Fischer, R. A. The inductive-deductive controversy re
visited. The Modern Language Journal, 1979, 63(3),
98-105.
Fitts, P. M. Perceptual motor skill learning. In A. W.
Melton (Ed.) Categories of human learning. New York:
Academic Press, 1964, 243-285.
Fitz, R. J. The differential effects of praise and censure
on serial learning as dependent on locus of control and
field dependency (Doctoral Dissertation, Catholic
University of America, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1971, 31, 4310B. (University Microfilms
No. 71-1457)
Fitzgerald, K. Field independence-field dependence: The
interaction of cognitive style and organizational struc
ture of learning materials. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Southern California, 1979.
Fitzgibbons, D. & Goldberger, L. Task and social orienta
tion: A study of field dependence, ’ ’arousal," and
memory for incidental material. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1971, 32, 167-174.
Fleishman, E. A. Individual differences and motor
learning. In R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Learning and individ
ual differences. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Co., 1967*
225
Fleishman, E. A. On the relation between abilities,
learning, and human performance. American Psychologist,
1972, 11, 1017-1032.
Fleishman, E. A. Toward a taxonomy of human performance.
American Psychologist, 1975, 1127-1149.
Fleishman, E. A. & Ellison, G. D. Prediction of transfer
and other learning phenomena from ability and personal
ity measures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969,
60(4), 300-314.
Fleishman, E. A. & Fruchter, B. Factor structure and
predictability of successive stages of learning morse
code. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1960, 44, 97-101.
Fleishman, E. A. & Hempel, W. E. The relation between
abilities and improvement with practice in a visual
discrimination reaction task. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1955, 49, 301-312.
Fleishman, E. A. & Hempel, W. E., Jr. Factorial analysis
of complex psychomotor performance and related skills.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1956, 40, 96-104.
Fleishman, E. A., & Rich, S. Role of kinesthetic and
spatial-visual abilities in perceptual-motor learning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66(1), 6-11.
Fox, W. L., Taylor, J. E., & Caylor, J. S. Aptitude level
and the acquisition of skills and knowledges in a
variety of military training tasks. HumRRO Technical
Report 69-6, May 1969.
Frandson, A. N. & Holder, J. R. Spatial visualization
in solving complex verbal problems. The Journal of
Psychology, 1969, 73, 229-233.
Frederiksen, N., Toward a taxonomy of situations. American
Psychologist, 1972, 29, 114-123.
Gagne, R. M., Ability differences in the learning of con
cepts governing directed numbers. Research Problems in
Mathematics Education. Cooperative Research Monograph,
No. 3, 1960, 112-113.
Gagne, R. M. The conditions of learning. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1977.
Gagne, R. M. & Briggs, L. J., Principles of instructional
design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.
226
Gagne, R. M. & Gropper, G. L. Individual differences in
learning from visual and verbal presentations* In
Studies in Filmed Instruetion. Pittsburgh, Pa.:
American Institutes for Research,1965.
Gagne, R. M. & White, R. T. Memory structures and learning
outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 1978, 48(2),
187-222.
Gaudry, E. & Speilberger, C. D. Anxiety and educational
achievement. Sydney: John Wiley & Sons Australasia Pty
Ltd, 1971.
Gauverin, E. I. Anagram solving and spatial aptitude. The
Journal of Psychology, 1967, 65, 65-68. (a)
Gauverin, E. I. The relationship of mental ability to
anagram solving. The Journal of Psychology, 1967, 66,
227-230. (b)
Glaser, R. Learning and the technology of instruction.
AV Communica11on Review, 1961, 9(5), 42-55.
Glaser, R. Components of a psychology of instruction:
Towards a science of design. Review of Educational
Research, 1976, 46(1), 1-24.
Goldberger, L. & Bendich, S. Field dependence and social
responsiveness as determinants of spontaneously produced
words. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1972, 34, 883-886.
Goodenough, D. R. The role of individual differences in
field dependence as a factor in learning and memory.
Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 675-694.
Grieve, T. D. & Davis, T. K. The relationship of cognitive
style and method of instruction to performance in ninth
grade geography. The Journal of Educational Research,
1971, 65(3), 137-141.
Grote, C. N. A comparison of the relative effectiveness
of direct-detailed and directed discovery methods of
teaching selected principles of mechanics in the area
of physics. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Univer
sity of Illinois, 1960.'
Guerrieri, J. A. The interactive effects of cognitive
style and learner preparation on cognitive learning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1978.
227
Hancock, R. R. Cognitive factors and their interaction
with instructional mode. Journal for Research in Mathe
matics Education, 1975, 6, 37-50.
Hamilton, N. R. Differential response to instruction de
signed to call upon spatial and verbal aptitudes (U.S.
D.E. Contract No. DEC 4-6-061269-1217). Stanford, Ca.:
Stanford Univ., School of Education, 1969.
Hebein, J. M. The interactive effects of cognitive style
and selected instructional strategies on a complex psy
chomotor skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1978.
Hinrichs, J. R. Ability correlates in learning a psycho
motor task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970,
54(1), 56-64.
Holliday, W. G. Conceptualizing and evaluating learner
aptitudes related to instructional stimuli in science
education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
1976, 13, 101-109.
Holliday, W. G. Aptitudes and science instruction.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1979, 16(2),
167-176. ■ ' ■ ■ ■
Hunt, D. E. Person-environment interactions: A challenge
found wanting before it was tried. Review of Educa
tional Research, 1975, 45(2), 209-230.
Keane, E. J. The interactive effects of global cognitive
style and general mental ability with three instruction
al strategies on a mathematical concept task. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1979.
Kerlinger, F. N. & Pedhazur, E. J. Multiple regression in
behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1973.
Kirk, R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the
behavioral sciences. Belmont, Ca.: Brooks/Cole, 1968.
Kirschenbaum, J. Analytic-global cognitive style and
concept attainment strategies (Doctoral dissertation,
Claremont Graduate School, 1968). Pissertation
Abstracts International» 1968, 29, 4868-4869B.
(University Microfilms No. 68-18, 276)
228
Knowlton, J. Q. On the definition of a "picture. ’ * AV
Communication Review, 1966, 14, 157-183.
Koran, J. J., Jr., & Koran, M. L. Differential response to
structure of advance organizers in science instruction.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1973, 10,
347-354.
Koran, M. L. Aptitude, achievement, and the study of
aptitude-treatment-interactions. In D. R. Green (Ed.),
The Aptitude Achievement Distinction. Monterey: CTB/
McGraw, 1974.
Kulhavey, R . W. Feedback in written instruction, Review of
Educational Research, 1977, 47(1), 211-232.
Kulka, R. A. Interaction as person-enviornment fit. In
L. R. Kahle (Ed.), New directions for methodology of
behavioral science: Methods for studying person-situa-
tion interaction. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Inc.,
2, 1979. ~~~
Lemke, E. A. & Hecht, J. T. Effects of degree of training,
group size, and inductive ability on the transfer of
conceptual behavior. Journal of Educational Research,
1971, 65(1), 43-45.
Lemke, E. A., Randle, K., & Robertshaw, C. S. Effects of
degree of initial acquisition, group size, and general
mental ability on concept learning and transfer.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60(1), 75-78.
Long, V. O. Inductive vs. deductive teaching strategies:
An action research study. Journal of instructional
Psychology, 1979, 6(2), 2-4.
Lucow, W, An experiment with the Cuisenaire method in
grade three. American Educational Research Journal,
1964, 1, 159-167.
MacQuarrie, T . W. MacQuarrie test for mechanical ability
(pursuit subtest). Monterey, Ca: CTB/McGraw-Hill,
1925/1953.
Manual for the 16PF. Champaign, Illinois: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing, 1972.
McBride, E. R. & Rothstein, A. L. Mental and physical
practice and the learning and retention of open and
closed skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1979, 49,
359-365.
229
McDonald, F. J. Motivation and the communication process.
AV Communication Review, 1961, 9(5) , 57-67.
Michael, W. B., Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., & Zimmerman,
W. S. The description of spatial visualization abili
ties . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1957,
17, 185-199.
Mizell, A. Aptitude treatment interactions--A search for
personality factors which interact differentially with
structured and unstructured teaching strategies.
(Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, 1970)
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 31, 6474-
6475A. (University Microfilms No. 73-35, 324)
Nebelkopf, E. B. & Dreyer, A. S. Continuous-discontinuous
concept attainment as a function of individual differ
ences in cognitive style. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1973, 36, 655-662.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K.,
& Bent, D. H. SPSS statistical package for the social
sciences (Second edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1975.
Ogden, W. 6c Brewster, P. An analysis of cognitive style
profiles and related science achievement among second
ary school students. A paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Cincinnnati: March 1977, (ERIC Docu
mentation Reproduction Service No. ED 139 610)
Owen, S. G. , Hall, R. , Anderson, J. , 6c Smert, G. A. A
comparison of programmed instruction and lectures in the
. teaching of electrocardiography. Programmed Learning
and Educational Technology, 1965, 2, 2-13.
Parker, J. F. 6c Fleishman, E. A. Ability factors and
component performance measures as predictors of complex
' tracking behavior. Psychological Monograph, 1960, 74
(Whole No. 503).
Parkhurst, P. E. Generating meaningful hypotheses with
aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Communication
Review, 1975, 23, 171-182.
Posner, G. J. 6c Strike, K. A. A categorization scheme for
principles of sequencing content. Review of Educational
Research, 1976, 46(4), 665-690.
230
Postman, L. Human learning and audiovisual education. AV
Communication Review, 1961, 9(5) , 68-78.
Pryluck, C. & Snow, R. E. Toward a psycholinguistics of
cinema. AV Communication Review, 1967, 15(1), 54-57.
Pyatte, J. A. Some effects of unit structure on achieve
ment and transfer. American Educational Research
Journal, 1969, 6, 241-260. "
Randolph, L. A study of the effects of praise, criticism,
and failure on the problem solving performance of field
dependent and field independent individuals (Doctoral
dissertation, New York University, 1971). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 3014B. (University
Microfilms No. 71-28, 555)
Redeye Guided Missile System (Field Manual 23-17). Washing
ton D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, October
1971.
Renzi, N. B. A study of some effects of field dependence-
independence and feedback on performance achievement
(Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, 1974).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 35, 2059A.
(University Microfilms No. 74-21, 861)
Retzke, R. E. The effect of an experimental treatment
using cognitive styles on the motivation of students
in a junior high setting (Doctoral dissertation,
Marquette University, 1976). Pissertation Abstracts
International, 1976, 37, 1966A-1967A.
Rhetts, J. E. Attribute-treatment interaction and individ
ualized instruction. In T. Sperry (Ed.), Learning per
formance and individual differences. Glenview, 111.:
Scott, Foresman, 1972.
Rhetts, J. E. Task, learner, and treatment variables in
instructional design. Journal of Educational Psychol
ogy, 1974, 66(3), 339-347.
Richardson, A. Mental practice: A review and discussion,
parts I and II. Research Quarterly, 1967, 38, 95-107;
263.
Rosenberg, H., Mintz, S., & Clark, R. E. The educational
significance of field dependence research. Educational
Technology, 1977, 43-44.
231
Ruble, D. N. & Nakamura, C. Y. Task orientation vs. social
orientation in young children & their attention to
relevant social cues. Child Development, 1972, 43,
471-480.
Salomon, G. Heuristic Models for the generation of
apti tude-treatment interaction hypo the s es. Review of
Educational Research, 1972, 42, 327-343.
Salomon, G. Internalization of filmic schematic operations
in interaction with learners’ aptitudes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 499-511.
Salomon, G. Interaction of media, cognition, and learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.
Segel, D . & Raskin, E. Multiple aptitude tests: Test 8
spatial relations--Two dimensions. Monterey, Ca.:
CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1955/1959.
Seregow, D. A. The interaction of selected aptitude
variables on defined concept identification during
televised observation. Unpublished doctoral disserta
tion, University of Southern California, 1979.
Shapiro, K. E. An overview of problems encountered in
aptitude-treatment-interaction (ATI) research for in
struction. AV Communication Review, 1975, 23, 227-241.
Shapson, S. Hypothesis testing and cognitive style.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69, 452-463.
Sieber, J. E., 0 'Neill, H. F., Jr., & Tobias, S. Anxiety,
learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
Simon, H. A. Induction and representation of sequential
patterns. In E. L. J. Leeuwenberg and H. F. J. M.
Buffart (Eds.), Formal theories of visual perception.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.
Sims, N. B. & Clowder, R. P. Correlations between WAIS
I.Q. and 16 PF-B factor scores of general hosital
scores. Newsletter for Research In Psychology, 1966,
8, 10-11.
Singer, R. N. Motor skills and learning strategies. In
H. F. O'Neil, Jr. (Ed.), Learning strategies. New York:
Academic Press, 1978.
232
Snow, R. E. Research on aptitude for learning: A progress
Report. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of Research in
Education (4). Itaska, 111.: F. E. Peacock Publishing
Inc., 1976.
Snow, R. E. Individual differences, instructional theory,
and instructional design (Technical Report No. 4) .
Stanford, Ca.: Aptitude Research Project, School of
Education,. Stanford University, June 1977.
Snow, R. E. & Salomon, G. Aptitudes and instructional
media. AV Communication Review, 1968, 16, 341-357.
Solomon, D. & Kendall, A. J. Individual characteristics
and Children’s performance in "open” and "traditional”
classroom settings. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1976, 68(5), 613-625.
Speilberger, C. D. The effects of anxiety on complex
learning and academic achievement. In C. D. Spielberger
(Ed.), Anxiety and Behavior. N. Y.: Academic Press,
1966.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. STAI:
Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo
Alto, Ca.: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1970.
Steinfeld, S. Level of differentiation and age as pre
dictors of reinforcer effectiveness (Doctoral disser
tation , Hoffstra University, 1973). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1973 , 34, 2912-2913B.
(University Microfilms No. 73-25, 324)
Sullivan, D. J., Casey, R. J., & Hebein, J. M. Acquisition
and retention of cognitive versus perceptually oriented
training materials (Final Report--Contract # DAHC
19-77-C-00401). Westlake Village, Ca.: Canyon Research
Group, Inc., October 1978.
Tallmadge, G. R. & Shearer, J. W. Interactive relation
ships among learner characteristics, types of learning,
instructional methods, and subject matter variables.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62(1), 31-38.
Taylor, J. E., Montague, E. K., & Hauke, R. The inter
relationships of ability level, instructional system,
and skill acquisition, Symposium Presentation at the
American Psychological Association Convention, Miami
Beach, September 1970.
233
Thurstone, G. W. & Thurstone, L. L. Thurstone test of men*
tal alertness, Chicago: Science Research Associates,
1952.
Thurstone, L. L. Primary mental abilities. Psychometric
Mongraphs (Whole No. 1), 1938.
Thurstone, L. L. & Jeffrey, T. E. Closure flexibility
[(concealed figures): Test administration manual].
Chicago: Industrial Relations Center--University of
Chicago, 1965.
Thurstone, L. L. & Jeffrey, T. E. Closure speed: Test
administration manual. Chicago; Industrial Relations
Center--University of Chicago, 1966.
Thurstone, L. L. & Mellinger, J. J. The stroop test
("Number 3 .11) . Chapel Hill, N. C. : The Psychometric
Laboratory, University of North Carolina, May 1953.
Thurstone, L. L. & Thurstone, G. W. Thurstone test of
mental alertness examiner manual. Chic ago: S'c i enc e
Research Associates, 1968.
Underwood, B. J. Studies of distributed practice: Reten
tion following varying degrees of original learning,
journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 47(5), 294-
300.
U.S. Army TRADOC Systems Analysis Activity. Redeye train-
up study, part I, Department of the Army, White Sands
Missile Range, New Mexico, November 1976 (Confidential).
U.S. Army TRADOC Systems Analysis Activity, Redeye weapons
system training effectiveness analysis, Department of
the Army, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, August
1977, Technical Report 20-77.
Webb, N. M, Learning in individual and group settings
(Technical Report No. 7). Stanford, Ca.: Aptitude
Research Project, School of Education, Stanford Univer
sity, 1977.
Wheaton, G. R., Fingerman, P. W., Rose, A. M., & Leonard,
R. L., Jr. Evaluation of the effectiveness of training
devices: Elaboration and application of the predictive
model (Research Memorandum 76-16). U, S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Soial Sciences, July
1976.
234
Whitely, J. D. Effects of practice distribution on
learning a fine motor task. Research Quarterly, 1970,
48, 576-583.
Witkin, H. A. The role of cognitive style in academic per~
formance and in teacher-student relations. Unpublished
Report, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N. j.,
1973.
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R., Faterson, H., Goodenough, D., &
Karp, S. Psychological differentiation. New York:
John Wiley 6c Sons, Inc. , 1962.
Witkin, H. A., Goodenough, D. R., Sc Karp, S. A. Stability
of cognitive style from childhood to young adulthood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7,
291-300.
Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H., Hertzman, M. , Machover, K.,
Meissner, P., 6e Wagner, S. Personality through percep
tion . New York: Harper and Row, 1954.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P.
W. Field-dependent and field independent cognitive
styles and their educational .implications. Review of
Educational Research, 1977, 47, 1-64.
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., 6c Karp, S.
Manual--group embedded figures test. Palo Alto:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1971.
235
APPENDIXES
236
APPENDIX A
SCRIPT FOR ORIENTATION OF SOLDIERS
BEFORE RANDOM ASSIGNMENT TO STRATEGY GROUPS
237
ORIENTATION
Good Morning:
You are here today to help with some research which we
hope will improve training. What you do here will not be
come part of your record. The subject is Redeye refresher
training and four groups will take part in four different
kinds of refresher training. The kind of training you will
receive is selected by chance. It may be the best kind of
training for you and it may be the worst--it is a matter of
luck.
At the end of the training you will be allowed to prac
tice and then be tested. The results of these tests will
be taken with us when we leave; they will not influence
your future at all. If you wish to know the results of
your own tests, we will send them to you.
238
APPENDIX B
INFORMATION CONCERNING INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
FOR STRATEGY 1
239
Suggested Script for Instructor of Strategy 1
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, men. The training that you will go
through today Is just about all contained in the self-paced
packet that I’m going to give you as soon as X finish talk
ing. You won’t get any formal instruction from me or any
one else today. Instead, you'll have to read through this
yourself and study the information in any way that you see
fit. You can take as long or as short as you want but when
you’re done, you should be sure that you can do everything
the way it says. In other words make sure, in your own
mind, that you know it well enough to pass the test.
You’ll get the same test as everyone else does at the end
of training.
We have a dummy weapon here for you to use if you
think you need or want to do the practice that will be men
tioned in the packet. If and when you decide to use the
dummy, stay in the general area of the building with it;
use the hallway or the area just outside the building but
don't walk off with it or we'll both be in trouble. If you
don’t want to use the dummy but just want to read and prac
tice in your head, that's fine too. If that’s the case, we
don’t care where you go to study as long as you’re back by
the time I tell you.
240
If you want to watch somebody else practice (from
one of the other training groups) while they’re here in the
MTS using a tracking head trainer, that’s okay. You can do
as much watching as you want. But you don’t have to do any
if you don’t want to.
Once you think you’re ready to be tested, but no
later than ____ o’clock, come back. If you think you want
to get some actual practice with a tracking head trainer
here in the MTS, come back about 15 minutes early and let
us know. At that time, you can have some practice. Are
there any questions? . . . (Answer questions, if any.)
One more thing: you may not go into any of the
other classrooms where the other groups are being trained.
What you’re doing for training is different from the others
and it wouldn’t be fair if you also got some of their
training. Does everyone understand? . . , Okay, here are
your packets, there is the dummy weapon and I’ll see you
back here at . o’clock. Thank you for your attention.
241
APPENDIX C
NON-CONFIDENTIAL
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FOR STRATEGY 2
242
MOTE: The material that follows is a slightly altered copy
of the sequence of activities (including the slide/tape
script) for Treatment 2. All confidential information has
been deleted and replaced with a series of spaced periods
surrounding the word ”conf idential.1 1 This had to be done
for security reasons according to U.S. Army requirements.
If large blocks of material have been deleted, a note to
that effect has been inserted instead.
Copies of the three quizzes that were given follow the
last page of the slide/tape script.
243
Video tape: "Introduction to Redeye”
(Treatment #2 and #4 view it together without any discussion.)
TREATMENT 2
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
"k . *
1. (V)
This is a refresher of the Redeye, a man portable shoul
der held heat seeking missile.
Let’s go over the safety procedures first.
2. (U) Each weapon is packed with three Battery Coolant units or
BCU’s. Each one will supply power for about thirty
seconds. After the weapon has been activated, the BCU
becomes very hot— hot enough to injure your hand.
3. (U) If a second one must be used, be careful to touch only
the protective covering on the end.
4. (U) When the weapon is fired, the exhaust is forceful and hot
and would severely injure someone standing close to it.
A clear safe area of about thirteen meters . . . (PAUSE)
*(U) denotes an unclassified slide.
(C) denotes a confidential slide which cannot be seen by anyone
without appropriate security clearance.
244
SLIDE NO.
5. (U)
6. (U)
7. (U)
S. (U)
9. (U)
SCRIPT
or about 42 feet; (that's a little longer than this
room), should be maintained in all directions•
Because of the exhaust, it is also dangerous to fire at
an angle greater than 65 degrees.
At this angle the force of the exhaust will cause loose
ground debris to inflict injury on the gunner's legs. A
slightly higher angle will raise temperatures to a dan
gerous level on important parts of the body.
This is a 65 degree angle; try to establish a reference
for it. Actually raising above this angle is uncomfort
able, when you are holding the weapon. The Redeye has
two motors.
One of them, the first one, is designed to fire only
during the time the missile is in the launch tube. This
is so that the gunner will not have an active rocket
firing two feet in front of his face. You can see how
close it would be.
(pause)
10. (U) The ejector motor rapidly accelerates the missile while
it is in the tube and then shuts off.
245
SLIDE NO.
11- (U)
12. (U)
13. (U)
14. (U)
DOES ANYONE
some.)
Hold #14
15. (U)
16. (U)
SCRIPT
So that when the missile clears the tube it is coasting--
not under power--so it immediately starts to drop. When
it is a safe distance in front of the gunner, . . . about
thirteen meters.
The sustainer motor fires and powers the Redeye toward
the target. During this free flight stage the missile
drops about fifteen degrees.
For this reason, the weapon should never be fired at an
angle less than fifteen degrees.
(PAUSE)
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? (Answer questions and maybe ask
Remember, the maximum firing angle is 65 degrees . , .
And the minimum angle is 15 degrees.
(pause) ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
16A. Black Let’s try a little exercise on estimating these angles.
Slide Make your responses and then we will compare our answers.
246
(ASK WHICH ONES WERE GREATER, LESS THAN, ETC.)
1
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
17. (U) Now let’s review the parts of the weapon. The protective
cover on the front must be removed.
18. (U) The sight assembly must be rotated into position. As it
is moved upward, two clicks will be heard.
19. (U) The protective cap must be removed in order to insert the
BCU.
20. (U) The BCU is then inserted and turned to secure it. Now
shoulder the weapon.
21. (U) (PAUSE)
22. (U) The right hand should be on the gripstock and the left
hand balances the weight of the weapon.
23. (0) The safety and actuator device will . . .
24. (U) be under the right thumb.
247
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
25. (U) (PAUSE)
26. (U) The acquisition indicator will be near the right ear,
27. (U) and the uncaging switch will be under the left thumb.
27A.(U) Be careful to keep the right trigger finger off the
trigger. Let*s look at those again. (REPEAT from 17-27A
again)
(End of segment)
QUIZ 2 -- PASS OUT -- See if you can name these parts correctly.
Fill in the blanks and we will compare our answers.
(DO IT)
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
28. Black
Slide
Now lets look at the sequence of steps needed to fire
the weapon. This is what you do.
29. Same as
slide #17
Pick up the weapon and remove the cover.
248
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
30. Same as
slide #18
Rotate the sight assembly into position.
31. Same as
slide #19
Remove the protective cap . . .
32. Same as
slide #20
and insert the BCU.
33. Same as
slide #21
Shoulder the weapon and prepare to oversight to acquire
the target. Find the target with your ears first and
then by looking over the sights. When the target is
visible move to the sight and track the target in the
range ring.
34. Same as
slide #22
If it is in range, activate the weapon With the right
thumb by pushing in to take off the safety . . .
35 - Same as
slide #23
(PAUSE)
36. Same as
slide #24
and rotating the activation switch.
249
SLIDE NO.
37. Same as
slide #25
38. Same as
slide #26
39. Same as
slide #27
40. (U)
41. (U)
SCRIPT
Pushing the activation switch down will supply power to
the weapon.
You will hear the gyro spin up. Allow three to five
seconds for the gyro to come up to speed. Continue to
track the target.
When a slight change in tone occurs in the acquisition
indicator, an infra-red signal has been obtained and
you can uncage the gyro by . . .
pressing the uncaging switch. The uncaging switch must
be continued to be pressed or it will again lock up the
gyro. When you have uncaged, you will have to insert
the proper amount of super elevation to compensate for
the 15 degree drop, and the proper amount of lead.
This is done by moving the target to one of the three
reticules at the bottom of the sight. A head-on target
would be placed in the center reticule.
A target coming from the left would be placed in the
left reticule and a target coming from the right would
be placed in the right reticule.
250
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
42. (U) (PADSE)
43. (U) You are ready to fire. Press the trigger. Continue to
track.
(END of this segment)
QUIZ 3 — Multiple Choice PASS OUT. SHARE ANSWERS
BREAK
Go to MTS Room and allow 2 passes each, on Films 5 and 9.
(GO BACK TO CLASSROOM FOR MORE SLIDE-TAPE SHOW ON RANGE RING PROFILE)
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
44. (C) The range ring tells you whether a target is in range or
45. (C) not. (PAUSE)
46. (U) You must quickly decide if target is a friend or foe,
47. (U) if the target is incoming or outgoing, and if it is large
or small.
251
SLIDE NO.
48. (U)
49. (C)
50. (C)
51. (U)
52. (C)
53. (U)
54. (U)
SCRIPT
(PAUSE)
A large aircraft is one that is approximately 40 meters by
40 meters. It will . . . (confidential) .........
A small aircraft is about 15 by ten meters and will . . .
. . . (confidential) ................
Helicopters are about twenty meters long.
This small jet is . . . (confidential) . . . and is . . . .
(confidential) . . . away. You would engage it.
This one is either coming in or going out, it is hard to
tell from a still picture. If it were incoming you would
hold fire and turn to preposition your weapon in the direc
tion you expect it to be going.
You would activate the Redeye as the target went over your
head and hold fire until the angle reduced to less than 65
degrees. Remember that the Redeye does not look at the
aircraft, only at the hot exhaust from the manifold or the
jet. It is sometimes difficult or impossible to acquire an
IR signal until the target is going away from you.
252
SLIDE NO.
55. tC)
56. (C)
57. (C)
58-77
CC)
SCRIPT
This helicopter . . . (confidential)........ ..
This helicopter . . . (confidential) . . . . . . . . . . .
........ Any large aircraft covering . . . (confidential)
. . . . . . . should be engaged and any small aircraft
covering .... (confidential) ........ should be
engaged. Let's estimate how much of the range ring is
covered in these next slides and estimate how far away they
are.
How about this one.
How much is covered? What do you think? Do you agree?
What is it, large or small? How far away is it? How much
of the range ring is covered?
NOTE: The series of 21 slides from 58 through 77 are all
confidential and so is the entire script for them.
What occurs is a give and take discussion or ques
tion and answer session all concerning the actual
range capabilities of the weapon system and the
precise guidelines used for each decision of when
and when not to fire.
253
COPY
REVIEW
Estimate whether each ! one of these angles is greater than
65 degrees or less than 15. Most of them are between 15 and 65.
If you find one greater than 65, put a G on the line. If it is
less than 15, put an L on the line. If it is between 15 and 65,
leave the line blank.
i. £
2, .
9.
4
s .
L
1.
254
COPY
REVIEW
Trigger
BCU
Cover
Acquisition indicator
Seeker
Launch tube
Gripstock
Uncaging switch
Safety and actuator
device
Sight assembly
of an aircraft,
seconds.
1. The seeker looks for
2. The BCU supplies power for
3- The acquisition indicator is nexTlTyour
4. To start the battery you press the __
5. The BCU is always very
a^ter it has been used.
255
COPY
REVIEW
Circle the correct answer. (More than one may be correct. Circle
all correct answers.)
1. When the seeker acquires a target, the acquisition indicator
a. lights up.
b. changes its tone.
c. buzzes.
d. rings a bell.
2. Before shouldering the weapon, you must _____________ .
a. clean the sights.
b. remove the cover.
c. insert a BCU.
d. swing out the sight assembly.
3. After acquiring a target, the next thing you should do is
a. activate the weapon.
i>., insert a BCU.
c. superelevate.
d. press the uncaging switch.
4. To activate the weapon, you _____________ .
a. push forward and down on the actuator device.
b. press and’hold the trigger while continuing to track.
c. press the uncaging switch to the right while listening
carefully.
d. insert another BCU.
5. After pressing the uncaging switch, you must _____________ .
a. superelevate and lead.
b. activate the weapon.
c. reacquire the target.
d. change the fuse.
6. Before pulling the trigger, you must _____________ .
a. insert a new BCU.
b. identify the target as hostile.
c. recage the acquisition sight.
d. uncage the BCU.
256
APPENDIX D
NON-CONFIDENTIAL
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FOR STRATEGY 4
257
NOTE: The material that follows is a slightly altered copy
of the script for Treatment 4. All confidential informa
tion has been deleted and replaced with a series of spaced
periods surrounding the word "confidential." This had to
be done for security reasons according to U.S. Army re
quirements. If large blocks of material have been deleted,
a note to that effect has been inserted instead.
258
LESSON: TECHNIQUES OF FIRE PART I
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
1. (U)* Introductory music (added by ETV),
2. (U) You are now about to enter the wonderful world of Redeye
techniques of fire. You already know how to fire a Redeye.
Now you will learn WHEN to fire, and WHEN NOT to fire.
3. (U) At the end of this lesson you must be able to state the
three classes of aircraft and the range ring profile for
each class. You will also be able to explain special en
gagement rules for jet targets. Finally, you will be able
to apply this knowledge to make engagement decisions so
that you will be able to successfully engage 90% of the
aircraft you are exposed to.
4. (U) The techniques of fire lessons contain CONFIDENTIAL infor
mation. Do not discuss these lessons outside of the train
ing area or with anyone other than facilitators or fellow
students. Disclosure of Classified Redeye information
could lead to disciplinary action.
* (U) denotes an unclassified slide.
(C) denotes a confidential slide which cannot be seen by anyone with
out appropriate security clearance.
259
SLIDE NO
5. (U)
6. (U)
7. (D)
SCRIPT
Now to the first objective. There are three classes of
aircraft which you must know in order to properly engage
the enemy. The three classes are, small fixed wing, large
fixed wing, and helicopters. Let's look a little closer at
the three classes.
Class one includes all small fixed wing aircraft. How
small is small? Well, small fixed wing aircraft are those
with less than 15 meter wing span and 20 meters fuselage
length. Small fixed wing aircraft may be either propeller
driven or jet aircraft. Study this example on the screen,
we’ll use these two examples to represent all class one
aircraft. Although, there are many different aircraft in
each type.
Class two Covers large, fixed wing aircraft, which includes
60th jet and propeller driven aircraft. These aircraft
have a wing span larger than 15 meters and a fuselage
greater than 20 meters. Again, we’ll use these two views
to represent all aircraft in this class whenever we speak
of large props or large jets.
260
SLIDE NO.
8. (U)
9. (U)
10. (U)
SCRIPT
Finally, class three is helicopters. With helicopters you
don’t have to worry about size or how they are powered. So
there you have the three classes of targets. Once again
they are: small fixed wing, large fixed wing, and heli
copters. So much for objective one.
Before we go any farther, there are three critical points
along a target’s flight path which you must be able to
determine in order to engage it. The first point is the
activate point. This is where you decide that the aircraft
is within engagement range, and you operate the safety and
actuator device to ready the missile for firing.
The second critical point is the crossover point. When the
target is incoming, it keeps getting larger as it gets
closer to you until it reaches the point where it is clos
est to you. This is the crossover point. After crossover,
it gets smaller and smaller as it moves away from you. You
must find the crossover point for each aircraft so that
you’ll know if its coming towards or going away from you.
261
SLIDE NO
11. ttO
12. (U)
13. (U)
14. (U)
SCRIPT
The third critical point is where the target goes out of
range and you can no longer fire at it. If you can’t de
termine this point, and fire at a target after it passes
the "DO NOT FIRE” point, you have wasted a valuable mis
sile, and alerted the enemy to your position.
Remember the three classes of targets? Small, fixed wing;
large, fixed wing; and helicopters. You have to be able
to place targets into the correct class in order to make
the right engagement decisions.
Now, let’s take a look at what happens during an engage
ment. The first step is to visually acquire the target.
Then you must determine the class of the target.
When you have determined the Class, you apply the correct
range ring profile to determine when to activate. After
the seeker has warmed up, listen for the change in tone
that indicates IR acquisition. When you have a good IR
tone press and hold the uncaging bar. The IR tone SHOULD
GET STRONGER WHEN YOU UNCAGE.
262
SLIDE NO.
15. (U)
16, (U)
17. (U)
18. (U)
SCRIPT
Continue to track the target in the range ring until you
are ready to fire. Then you must add superelevation and
lead angle, confirm that you still have IR tone, and fire.
If the target goes out of range before you complete the
steps, do not fire.
Now here are some special engagement rules for jets.
First, do not fire at a jet until it reaches crossover.
This is why you must be able to determine the crossover
point. If you determine that the jet target will cross
overhead, or that its flight path will bring it within 500
meters of your position, a second rule applies.
Here’s the situation. You visually acquire the jet target
and determine that it will cross within 500 meters of your
..position. You determine the class and apply the correct
range ring profile.
When the jet target reaches the activate point, you turn
around 180 degrees, and then activate. Look back over your
right shoulder while you keep the weapon pointed at the
point where you expect to pick up the target. When it
crosses over, pick it up in the range ring, and then follow
the engagement steps.
263
SLIDE NO.
19. (U)
20. (U)
21. (U)
22, (U)
SCRIPT
These are the special rules for jets. You cannot fire at a
jet until it reaches crossover. If a jet's flight path
will bring it overhead, or cross within 500 meters, you
must turn around BEFORE you activate. You can engage pro
peller driven aircraft and helicopters before crossover.
Now, let’s take a look at these things called range ring
profiles. They are simply instructions for when to start
and stop engaging a target. There are different instruc
tions for each class of target. Let’s start with the small
fixed wing.
Within the small, fixed wing class, there are small props
and small jets. Here is a typical small prop. We’ll use
this aircraft to represent all small props throughout the
range ring profile lessons.
And here is the small jet we will use. Any time you see
either of these aircraft you will know that the class is
small, fixed wing.
264
SLIDE NO.
23. (U)
24. (C)
25. (U)
26. (U)
SCRIPT
Remember that you must know the class of the target before
you can apply the correct range ring profile. You must
also be able to tell jets from props in order to apply the
correct engagement rules.
Now, let's look at the small prop. The engagement ring for
small, fixed wing aircraft is identified by . . . (confi
dential) * . . . . . . - . . . . When an incoming small prop
. . . . (confidential)................. you should
activate the weapon and engage it as soon as you can.
It will take a few seconds for the missile to get ready.
Meanwhile, you are still tracking in the range ring. Then
you will hear the missile tone change when you get IR tone.
You press the uncaging bar and the tone gets stronger. You
add superelevation and lead, and fire.
But, let’s say you never got a good IR tone while the tar
get was incoming. It has passed crossover and is going
away from you now. You still keep trying to complete the
engagement steps and fire at it.
265
SLIDE NO
27. (U)
28. (U)
29. (C)
30. (C)
SCRIPT
When the outgoing small prop gets down to . . . (confiden
tial) ........ .. . . . . . it is out of range and you
can’t fire at it. The ”D0 NOT FIRE’ ’ point for a small
fixed wing is . . . (confidential) ......... You
replace the BCU and go back to scanning for targets.
However, don't just forget about the target that went out
of range. It might come back and give you another chance.
At this time, it's out of range, but remember that it
doesn't stand still up there, it’s always moving.
Now, let's look at a small jet. As soon as you see that
it’s a small fixed wing class, you know that the key to its
range is ..... . ........ (confidential) ........
You are scanning your research sector and you see a small
jet incoming and crossing in front of you. You know that
the range ring profile for a small, fixed wing is ......
. . . (confidential) . .................You determine the
crossover point and decide that the target will not pass
. within 500 meters of you. You track him in the range ring.
266
SLIDE NO.
31. (C)
32. (U)
33. (U)
34. (U)
SCRIPT
He is now filling . . . (confidential) .......... ..
so you should activate and continue to track him in the
range ring. Remember the first special rule for jets, do
not fire until the target reaches crossover. If you get
IR tone before crossover, uncage and continue to track in
the range ring.
As soon as he has passed crossover and you are uncaged with
a good IR tone, add superelevation and lead angle, check
that you still have IR tone, and fire.
But, suppose you didn't get a good IR tone. He’s outgoing
now and getting smaller. When he . . . . . . . (confiden
tial) . . . . . . . . and you still haven’t fired, its too
late, he’s out of range. Do not fire when .... (confi
dential) ...... Now, let’s look at the engagement
steps for small jets.
Again, you must visually acquire the target and then deter
mine its class. As a small fixed wing you activate when
. . . (confidential).................. But, you must not
fire until it passes the crossover point. However, remem
ber if it is a prop, you can activate as soon as ... .
(confidential) ............
267
SLIDE NO
35. (C)
36. (U)
37. (C)
38. (U)
SCRIPT
When you receive a good IR tone, uncage and continue to
track in the range ring until the target reaches crossover.
Then superelevate, confirm your IR tone, and fire as soon
as you can. If the target . . . (confidential) ....
........ and you haven't fired, do not fire, it's out
of range.
Now, let's look at a small jet coming directly at you. You
visually acquire it. It's a small, fixed wing, a jet, and
you decide that it will pass within 500 meters of you. The
second special rule for jets applies.
For an incoming overhead small jet, you track it until it
. . . (confidential) . ............ Then you turn
around, so that the weapon is pointed to where the target
will pass over you. Then you operate the safety and actu
ator device. Look back over your right shoulder and visu
ally track the target until it passes overhead.
As soon as it passes over you, pick it up in the range
ring. When you get IR tone, uncage; superelevate, confirm
your IR tone, and fire. You have to do this quickly be
cause the jet moves fast and you will only have a few sec
onds .
268
SLIDE NO.
39. CC)
40. (C)
41. .(C)
42. (U)
SCRIPT
If you haven't fired by the time the target . . . (confi
dential) ......... it's too late. The target is
but of range, so do not fire. Replace the BCD and return
to scanning.
Let's look at the engagement steps for an overhead crossing
small jet. Once more you visually acquire the target. You
determine that it's a small, fixed wing, a jet, and in
coming, overhead . . . (confidential) ........ you
turn around, activate, and look back over your shoulder to
follow the target until it passes overhead.
Then you pick it up in the range ring. When you have IR
tone, uncage, superelevate, confirm your IR tone, and fire.
If you haven't fired when . . . . . (confidential) ..........
don’t fire, the target is out of range.
Now, let's practice using the range ring profile and the
engagement rules to make some engagement decisions.
269
SLIDE NO,
43. (C)
44. (C)
45. (C)
SCRIPT
You just acquired this target. It's Incoming, and it is
a small fixed wing aircraft. You also see that it1S a
prop, and that it’s . . . (confidential)........ ..
What do you do?
(STOP PULSE)
You should have said activate, because........ ..
. . . . . (confidential) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This one is also a small prop. You have activated, but
never got IR tone. Now it’s outgoing. What do you do?
(STOP PULSE)
You should have said, DO NOT EIRE, The target is out of
range.
What about this one? (STOP PULSE)
It is a small fixed wing, . . . (confidential) ......
, ............ the activate point. It’s an incoming,
crossing jet. So, your answer is small fixed wing; jet;
activate; don’t fire until crossover. Your answer should
have all four parts in that order.
270
SLIDE NO
46. (C)
47. (C)
48. ,(U)
SCRIPT
This is a small jet, it has passed crossover and is going
away. What do you do?
You should answer: small fixed wing; . . . . . . . . .
. . . (confidential)..........do not fire. This target is
out of range.
Try this one. (STOP PULSE)
It is a small fixed wing, jet, . . . (confidential) . . . .
. ... . so your answer should be turn around then acti
vate.
Well, how did you do? If you got four or five correct
you’re ready to move on to the next lesson. If you missed
more than one, go back and take the lesson over.
SLIDE NO.
1. (U)
2. (U)
3. (U)
4. (U)
5. (U)
6. (U)
LESSON: E-3-2 TECHNIQUES OF FIRE PART II
SCRIPT
Introductory music (added by ETV).
This is part two of Redeye techniques of fire. This lesson
contains CONFIDENTIAL material, so you can’t take notes.
At the end of this lesson you must be able to state the
range ring profiles for large fixed wing aircraft and heli
copters. You also must be able to use the range ring pro
files and engagement rules to make engagement decisions so
that you will be able to successfully engage 90% of the
aircraft you are exposed to.
Now we’11 take up the second class of targets, the large
fixed wing aircraft. Here is the large propeller driver
aircraft we’ll use.
And here is the large jet. Again, these two will represent
all aircraft in their class during the techniques of fire
lessons.
This is an incoming large prop. The engagement steps for
it are the same as for a small prop, except that the size
of the range ring profile changes.
272
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
7. (C) The key to large fixed wing aircraft is .... .
............... (confidential) . . . . . . .
........... it is at the activate point.
8. (C) When the large prop is outgoing, and ...........
. . . .......... .. . (confidential) . . . . .. . , ,
...... Do not fire if ................ (confiden
tial) .....
9. (C) The range ring for large jets . . . . . . (confidential)
. . ............. it is at the activate point,
10. (C) Outgoing, the large jet is out of range when .........
. . . (confidential) . . . . . . so you do not fire at a
large jet........... . (confidential) .................
11. (C) Now, let’s go through the engagement steps for a large
prop. You visually acquire the target and determine that
it is a large fixed wing, and that it is a prop. You put
it in the range ring and track it until ..... (confi
dential) . . . .
273
SLIDE NO.
12. (C)
13, (C)
14. (U)
15. (C)
16. (C)
SCRIPT
When the large prop reaches . . . . (confidential) . . . .
you activate. As soon as the missile warms up and you hear
IR tone, uncage. The tone should get stronger to tell you
the seeker is tracking the target* Add superelevation and
lead angle, confirm that you still have IR tone, and fire.
When the large prop . . . . . (confidential) ............
. ■ ........... it is out of range. Do not fire at . . . . *
. . . (confidential) .....
Here are the engagement steps for a large prop. You visu
ally acquire the target and determine that it is a large
fixed wing, and that it is a prop.
Now that you know the class you know that you activate when
the target ........ (Confidential) ..............
When the seeker has spun up, listen for IR tone, when you
have a good IR tone, press and hold the uncaging bar; the
IR tone should get stronger.
When you are ready to fire, move the target to the proper
superrelevate and lead reticle and confirm that you still
have IR tone, then fire. If you haven’t been able to fire
before ........ (Confidential) .............. do
not fire because it is out of range.
274
SLIDE NO.
17. (U)
18. (C)
19. (U)
20. (C)
SCRIPT
Let's look at the special engagement rules for jets again.
The first rule is: Do not fire at a jet until it has
passed crossover. Even if you get IR tone on an incoming
jet, you have to track it thru crossover before you can
fire. Of course, remember, you have to turn around if it
will cross overhead.
If the target's flight path will bring it within 500 me
ters, you should consider it in an overhead course and use
the turn around rule. When the target reaches the activate
point . . . . . . . . (Confidential) ........ you
turn around, and then activate. After crossover, you pick
it up in the range ring and complete the firing sequence
before the target ...... (Confidential) ......
Let's go through the engagement steps for large jets.
Again you visually acquire the target and determine its
Class. This is a large fixed wing. It is a jet On a
crossing course.
When the large jet ...... (Confidential) ........ .
is time to activate.
21. (U) It is a jet target so you must track it in the range ring
until it reaches the crossover point.
275
SLIDE NO.
22. (U)
23. (C)
24. (C)
25. (U)
26. (C)
SCRIPT
When you get a good IR tone, uncage and continue to track
in the range ring until crossover. As soon as possible
after crossover, superelevate and lead the target, confirm
IR tone, and fire. Continue to try to fire until the
target is out of range.
After crossover, the target gets smaller. When ........
. . . (Confidential) . . . . . do not fire, the large jet
is out of range. That is it for engaging a large jet on ah
incoming crossing course.
For a large jet which will cross within 500 meters of you,
you . . . (confidential) . . . . . . . . . Then you turn
around and activate. Look back over your right shoulder
and visually track the target until it passes overhead.
As soon as it passes over, you pick it up in the range
ring. When you get IR tone, uncage. Superelevate, confirm
the IR tone, and fire as soon as you can. Remember you
only have a few seconds until it is out of range.
If you have not fired before the large jet .......
..... (confidential)..........it is too late, the
target is out of range, so do not fire.
276
SLIDE NO.
27. (C)
28. (C)
29. (U)
SCRIPT
Here are the engagement steps for an overhead crossing jet.
You visually acquire the target and determine its class.
It is a large fixed wing and it is a jet incoming overhead.
When the target ..... (confidential) ...... turn
around activate, and look over your right shoulder and
track the target through crossover.
As soon as the target passes overhead, pick it up in the
range ring. When you get IR tone, uncage and listen for
the IR tone to get stronger. Then superelevate, confirm
the IR tone, and fire. If you have not fired when the
target ..... (confidential) . . . . .do not fire.
Because it is out of range. That covers the second class
of targets, large fixed wing aircraft.
Before we get into the third class of targets, the helicop
ter, there is one step in the engagement process we haven’t
mentioned yet; identification. This is normally the team
chief’s job, and it doesn’t have a fixed place in the se
quence .
277
SLIDE NO.
30. (U)
31 (U)
32. (U)
33. (U)
SCRIPT
Identification can take place anywhere in the firing se
quence up to pulling the trigger. The team chief must con
firm the target as hostile before you can fire. This is
true for both small and large fixed wing aircraft, but a
little different for helicopters.
The key to engaging helicopters is identification. When
you see a helicopter well enough to identify it as hostile,
w/o binoculars, activate and complete the engagement steps.
Fixed winged aircraft move fast, and if you wait to identi
fy them, you may not have time to complete the engagement
in range. Helicopters move slower, and you have time to
identify them before activating. Also, you will see a lot
more helicopters than fixed wing aircraft, and would waste
a lot of BCU’s if you activate before identifying.
Once you have activated on a hostile helicopter, continue
to engage it until .......... .. (confidential) . . .
. ..............(confidential) . .......................
do not fire, it is out of range. Replace the BCU and re
turn to scanning your sector.
278
SLIDE NO
34. (U)
35. (U)
36. (U)
37. (U)
38. (U)
39. (U)
SCRIPT
Let’s look at the engagement steps for helicopters. Here
are the helicopters we’ll use. Of course, they represent
a lot of other helicopters too.
You have visually acquired a target and determined that it
is a helicopter. You follow the chopper until you can
identify it, or until your team chief identifies it. This
one is hostile.
When the target is identified hostile, activate and track
it in the range ring. After the seeker spins up, listen
for the change to IR tone.
When you get a good IR tone, uncage and confirm the IR
tone. Add superelevation and lead, confirm you still have
IR, and fire. Continue to attempt to complete the engage
ment until (confidential) ............
When ........ . (confidential) . . . , . . ., it is out of
range, so do not fire. Replace the BCU and continue to
s can.
QUIZ
279
SLIDE NO. SCRIPT
40. Q. What, is the activate point for a large fixed wing air
craft? In other words, how much of the range ring
would it he filling?
41. Q. What action do you take for a large jet which is at
the activate point, and will cross overhead?
42. Q. When do you stop trying to fire at a large fixed wing
target?
43. Q. What are the three classes of Redeye targets?
44. Q. Which of these targets can you fire at before cross
over?
45. Q. What is the activate point for helicopters?
46. Q. What is the DO NOT FIRE point for an outbound helicop
ter?
47. SELF EVALUATION.
280
LESSON: E-3
SLIDE NO.
■W TECHNIQUES OF FIRE TEST
SCRIPT
THE ENTIRE TEST IS CONFIDENTIAL
AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED HERE.
281
APPENDIX E
POINT VALUES USED IN SCORING FILM 10 AND FILM 12
DURING REFRESHER TRAINING
L
282
Point Values Used in Scoring Film 10 & Film 12 for Re
fresher Redeyes:
For each try:
A. If the gunner did not activate the weapon at
all, did not put in the BCU, did not take the
cover off, did not acquire the target at all,
or did not continue to keep the target ac
quired through the sequence: 0 pis.
B. If he acquired the target only: 1 pt.
C. If he did B above and also uncaged: 2 pts.
D. If B and C above and also superelevated: 3 pts.
E. If B, C and D above and got a hit, but it
was either out of launch boundary or he
violated the 65° angle rule: 4 pts.
F. If B, C, and D above and got a clean hit: 5 pts.
(Note: Condition D above is not possible to get without
also getting condition E or F as well. It was believed
that the additional weighting that results for any kind
of hit was appropriate.)
283
A try consists of the time from trigger pull to trigger
pull or the time that a single target remains in view
(whichever comes first).
It does not count as a try if the gunner does not pull the
trigger UNLESS he had no other trigger pull during the
time that the target was in view.
There was only one possible Instance when a gunner could
get a perfect score without pulling the trigger; that was
for a target that never came within range. If he correctly
did NOT fire in that instance, he earned 5 points for that
try.
284

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The interactive effects of cognitive style and selected instructional strategies on a complex psychomotor skill

PDF

The effects of the motion variable on performance of a psychomotor procedural learning task by adult occupational students

PDF

The effect of seating position on performance and personality in a college classroom

PDF

Student use of conscious cognitive strategies in instructional situations as a function of task-type and outcome measure

PDF

The effects of cognitive and experiential instructional methods on attitude and behavior change

PDF

The interactive effects of global cognitive style and general mental ability with three instructional strategies on a mathematical concept task

PDF

The affect of the repetition choice task on the self-evaluative behaviors of learning disabled and normal-achieving males

PDF

The effects of verbal rehearsal and visual imagery on the performances of learning disabled and normal students

PDF

The effects of advance organizer format and learner personality in the learning and retention of verbal material

PDF

Sex differences, spatial visualization ability and the effects of induced and imposed imagery on problem solving performance

PDF

The role of stress, cognitive complexity and career maturity in teacher socialization

PDF

The differential effectiveness of three cognitive coping strategies on examination performance and test anxiety

PDF

The effects of system-assigned learning strategies and hierarchical displays on acquisition of coordinate concepts: An exploratory study utilizing a computer-based research tool

PDF

The relationship between task type, prior knowledge, and fluid and crystallized abilities in problem solving achievement

PDF

The prediction of academic performance in a community college from intellective variables and from nonintellective variables emphasizing study attitudes and methods

PDF

The relationship of medical, social, and familial variables with school-related performance of adolescents born at a low weight

PDF

A study of the quality of behavioral change in learners when a system model is used for the instructional design

PDF

The interaction of locus of control with type of feedback on the problem-solving performance of middle-class boys

PDF

The lonely profession: A study of the psychological rewards and negative aspects of the practice of psychotherapy

PDF

A critical study of the aptitude hypothesis in vocational guidance and selection

Asset Metadata

Creator Mikos, Roseann (author)

Core Title The interrelation of instructional strategies and learner aptitude profiles on the performance and retention of a complex psychomotor task

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-541919

Unique identifier UC11246795

Identifier usctheses-c26-541919 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24718.pdf

Dmrecord 541919

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mikos, Roseann

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA