Effects of problem order on accuracy, preference, and choice of multiplication assignments.

Abstract

College students (N = 151) completed three in-class mathematics assignments that varied with respect to the order of short, medium, and long multiplication problems, including a short-to-long order, a long-to-short order, and a random order. Problem order within assignments did not significantly affect work accuracy, completion time, or assignment preference. However, participants rated (1) the assignment with random order as less difficult than the other two assignments and (2) the assignment with long-to-short order as requiring less time than the other two assignments. Participants were likely to choose a related homework assignment viewed as less effortful, less difficult, or less time consuming. Several concepts (e.g., matching law, behavioral momentum, and Premack reinforcement principle) were used in interpreting the results. Keywords: problem order, mathematics, homework, matching law, behavioral momentum, Premack reinforcement principle. ********** Academic assignments and tests often involve a series of tasks or problems that can be ordered in a variety of ways. A typical pattern is to begin the assignment with the less demanding tasks (briefer, easier) and proceed to the more demanding. A less common order is to begin with the more demanding tasks and proceed to the less demanding. A third order is to randomize task order with respect to difficulty. Because order of tasks within an assignment could affect performance on the assignment, time to complete the assignment, and favorability rating of the assignment, one would expect a plethora of research dealing with the effect of task order on student performance and preference of task order. However, an examination of research on assignment performance and assignment preference reveals few studies that deal specifically with the effects of task order within assignments. Research in this area has focused mainly on exams rather than assignments. Studies of multiple-choice exams have demonstrated mixed effects of item order on performance accuracy. Balch (1989) found that sequential exams (in which the test material was presented in the same order that material was presented in texts or lectures) produced higher scores than randomized or chapter-sequenced exams. In contrast, Neely, Springston, and McCann (1994) reported no differences in accuracy between sequential and randomized questions on undergraduate psychology exams. Similarly, Perlini, Lind, and Zumbo (1998) found no influence of easy-to-hard, hard-to-easy, or random item order on psychology exam performance. Studies of difficulty ratings of exams with different task orders have also produced mixed results. Laffitte (1984) found no differences in perceived difficulty of exams organized as easy-to-hard by chapter, easy-to-hard across chapters, randomly within chapters, and randomly across chapters. In contrast, Olson and Barickowski (1976) reported that hard-to-easy tests were viewed as easier than easy-to-hard, with no differences in accuracy of answers. Whether these research findings on item order with psychology exams can be generalized to assignments that involve skill building in a variety of academic domains remains an issue for further investigation. Research regarding the effects of choosing assignment sequence has been done mainly with children and adults with special needs (e.g., autism, mental retardation) and has typically dealt with the scheduling of assignments rather that the order of tasks within assignments. For example, Kern, Mantegna, Vorndran, Bailin, and Hilt (2001) found that students having intellectual and behavioral problems improved both in task engagement and appropriate conduct when allowed to schedule the sequence of required tasks. Similarly, Seybert, Dunlap, and Ferro (1996) reported that giving high school students with severe mental retardation the opportunity to schedule their tasks increased task engagement and task productivity. …