Programmed Student Achievement: A Test of the Avoidance Hypothesis.
College students operated under different intensities of the consequence of failing to evidence criterion performance (100 percent mastery) on weekly quizzes. Although there were no differences in test performance as a function of the aversiveness of the contingencies, Programmed Achievement (PA) student performance on weekly quizzes and major examinations was superior relative to control groups where no contingencies were in effect. Additionally, the Programmed Achievement (PA) students demonstrated higher performance than control students on an unannounced retention test. An anxiety scale administered to all students at the beginning and end of the semester revealed that no differential anxiety levels were produced by the contingencies. The results suggested that an avoidance interpretation of Programmed Student Achievement may be inappro priate . SUCCESS IN A college classroom is usually defined by the teacher in terms of performance on exams, with student motivational level being one of the more important factors determining exam per formance. Even though motivational variables have long been suspected to interact with learning at the college level they have largely been ignored by most college educators. This is particularly true in large general survey courses which are often structured for the convenience of the instructor. Students must evidence learning through test per formance, thus, the educator should teach the stu dent to perform at an optimum level. These moti vational variables, which are strong contributors to an individual's test performance, deserve sub stantial consideration. Whaley and Malott (3) investigated motivational variables which affect subsequent scholastic achieve ment. They required students in an introductory psychology course to retake exams until they evi denced 100 percent mastery of discrete units of material. This was not as malicious as it might first appear, as the student was responsible for only small amounts of material at a time and had virtually unlimited opportunities to retake each exam. Under these contingencies Whaley and Malott reported that 98 percent of their students received A's in the course. This Programmed Student Achievement (PA) procedure defined above was hypothesized to be analogous to an avoidance task, with the student avoiding failure if he evi denced criterion performance (100 percent mastery) . The student could avoid the noxious consequence of failure only by exhibiting a high level of performance. Their assumption was that test performance reflects study behavior and that the threat of failure energizes this behavior. The Whaley and Malott results must be treated with caution since only the last test score in the series of retake examinations was recorded, insuring 100 percent mastery or failure. Knight (2 ) recording only the initial test grade in the series of retake examinations, provided further support for the assumption that student performance is enhanced when the PA contingency is in effect. It was also demonstrated that the threat of losing a letter grade was as powerful a motivator as failing the course when the criterion was not reached, and that a group of students who were not operating under the PA contingency significantly increased their performance on quizzes when shifted to the PA contingency at mid-semester. While this study supported the hypothesis that the introduction of the PA contingency results in superior performance only 47 percent of the students received a letter grade of "A"; substantially lower than the 98 percent reported by Whaley and Malott. Whaley and Malott, in proposing an avoidance model, assumed that the student is controlled by threats of failure. In order to avoid the punish ment of failure the student must study discrete This content downloaded from 157.55.39.238 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 06:19:27 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 58 THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION units of material and evidence complete mastery of the material. If this analogy to the avoidance paradigm is applicable, then performance should vary as a function of the intensity of the consequence of failing to evidence mastery. Knight (1) in a direct test of this prediction, failed to find any dif ferences between two Programmed Student Achieve ment groups which were operating under different intensities of the consequence of failing to evidence criterion, i.e., course failure for one group and loss of a letter grade for the other. It should be pointed out, however, that the lack of difference between the PA conditions might be attributed to the fact that loss of a letter grade and failure may psychologically represent equally severe conse quences to the student. The purpose of the present experiment was to further investigate the potential of the PA contin gency as an academic motivational factor. Of theo retical interest is the question of whether or not the avoidance paradigm is an appropriate model for the PA contingency. In order to answer this question a considerably lessened consequence of failing to evidence criterion was provided, i.e., loss of a letter grade if the student failed to demonstrate criterion on three of seven weekly quizzes. Secondly, in previous research the instructor has known the design of the experiment and may have inadvertantly contributed to the superior performance demon strated by the PA students. The instructor variable was also controlled in the present investigation.