In a study of incidental learning effects upon listening ability, 135 eleventh grade students, in four treatment groups, participated in a program of testing and training in note-taking skills. Pretesting provided data on critical thinking, study skills, note-taking, intelligence, PSAT math and verbal abilities, and listening ability ( Brown-Carlsen) . Posttesting included alternate forms of the listening and note-taking tests. Analysis of variance of scores on the listening tests by treatment groups showed apparent significant differences in gains of listening skills between groups. However, analysis of covariance, using the listening pretest as covariant, revealed that the indicated gains in listening ability were pretest effects rather than experimental effects. Implications for listening research are discussed.No significant correlations between pretest scores and gains in listening were found. However, when grouped according to sex, females were found to have made significantly greater gains than the males.Conclusions cast doubt upon the usefulness of the Brown-Carlsen test in pre-and post-treatment measures of listening ability.

In discussing dimensions of aptitude Guilford (1959) isolates ideational fluency as an output factor which can be used to measure underlying dimensions of ability. He specifically defines ideational fluency as the ability to call up many ideas in a situation relatively free from restrictions, where quality of response is unimportant. The types of tasks usually performed by a subject are of the nature of (1) thing listing, where the subject names things having one or two specifications, or (2) brick uses, where the subject lists as many uses as he can for the common brick. In each case the fluency score is the number of responses recorded. The usual method or presenting the stimulus task to the subject has been the printed word in a test booklet. Little interest has been shown concerning the effect of varying the mode of presentation of the stimulus. It is entirely possible that the fluency factor might assume a different dimension if the stimulus were given to the subject in an oral form or in a pictorial form rather than in a graphic mode. It seems relevant to suggest that by differing the mode of presenting stimuli different restrictions might be placed on the respondent, and that the number of responses made to a stimulus might well be a function of the degree of ideational restriction associated with the stimulus

No abstract

No abstract