Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

.f . 8
.,d *. I .*.
\
. ‘,’
*.,
\ I’ .
answer had been generated more r\tYectively than cognitively, the
I
technique succeeded where logical :\I *stunlent a and kogent reasoning
I
had failed. Some instructors were nwre concerned with the minutia
of goal achievement than xvith the :wllie\Vement itself. It was more
imp&ant, for example. for the student to know the fact that a hole
must be dug to a certain depth than it was to specify acceptabie
behavior for determining hole dep’.I\. This attitude was amenable
to suggestion that a slight change of teaching strategy would present
lwth the doctrine and thr terminal Iw!1avior.
I+qlxum’s reason 2 (Gb) is sho\vn On this slide:
(SLIDE i OX\‘) i
I
I
SLIDE ‘i REASOS 2: PRESPEC,tW-$TIOS OF EXPLICIT GC\:lLS.. .
I
(SLIDE OFF)
The con-2arison of the three schcx:ls i 1
(SLIDE 8 ON)
I
shotvn on this slide.
SLIDE 8 REXSOS 2: “USEXPG si TED OI’R~RTGNITIES”
We see that esperi&crs among the three schoois differ. The differ-
ences may stem from the different frames of references, i. e., adult,