David R. Krathwohl

The Effect of Sequence on Programmed Instruction1

Of all the criteria of a good linear program, the one which seems hardiest is that of sequence. Other criteria such as overt response, small steps, and response mode have all been questioned successfully, and so, for that matter, has sequence. But sequence continues to be widelyaccepted as a criterion on an intuitive basis, even if it is not always supported empirically. No one seems to doubt, that were one to scramble a whole course that learning would be retarded, so that in part, the size of the unit in which sequence is destroyed is a factor. But as Levin and Baker (1963) point out, perhaps equally critical is the apparent logical dependence upon sequence within the material to be learned. Thus there may be a continuum of dependence on sequence. At one extreme of the continuum, scrambling may have no effect on learning a set of spelling words which has no logical structure. At the other extreme, scrambling would be expected to result in considerable decrease in learning if the learning of one concept were prerequisite to learning the next in a logical hierarchy. In previous studies of sequencing the researchers used programs which were supposed to be at the latter extreme of the continuum, but the position of the programs on the continuum, but the position of the programs on the continuum was not systematically examined as an independent variable. On learning elementary probability from a 71 frame multiple choice program, Gavurin and Donahue (1961) scrambled 29 items of the Holland and Skinner (1961) program within approximately 10 item blocks and required an errorless trial within a block before the subject proceeded to the next block. Although the scrambled program group took more trials to criterion, retention a month later showed no statistically significant difference in comparison with conventional use of the program in proper sequence.

Merlin C. Wittrock and the Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy

Merl Wittrock, a cognitive psychologist who had proposed a generative model of learning, was an essential member of the group that over a period of 5 years revised the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, originally published in 1956. This article describes the development of that 2001 revision (Anderson and Krathwohl, Editors) and Merls contributions to that effort.

An analysis of the perceived ineffectiveness of educational research and some recommendations 1

Abstract While not the usual type of presidential address, this paper follows a conviction that began with a similar presidential address to the American Educational Research Association, that it is more important to use this occasion to consider critical problems confronting the profession than to report personal research. Because of the leadership role that educational psychologists have traditionally played, the consideration of these problems, which affect the entire educational field, seemed particularly appropriate.

Mario Fantini's Experience With His Own Child Public Schools of Choice: A Plan for the Reform of American Education. Mario D. Fantini. New York, N. Y.: Simon and Schuster, 1973

S ome day it would be interesting to see how many reform movements in education spring from the personal experiences of social leaders with their children. Such was the impetus for Mario Fantini’s proposals. Fantini accepted a school psychologist’s suggestion that he seek a noncompetitive &dquo;child-centered&dquo; classroom for one of his offspring deemed immature for first grade. Despite passionate parental pleas, the school system proved unwilling to accommodate the request for such placement. Finding other parents who also sought a more &dquo;open&dquo; learning environment for their children, Fantini and his wife were able to bring pressure to start an &dquo;experimental&dquo; classroom in the public schools. Under this treatment, his child improved. This brought Fantini to serious consideration of alternatives on a larger scale, such as the voucher system.