Multiple regression equations were used to assign 40 students to fixed-difficulty or adaptive training based upon the shorter predicted time-to-train score. In addition, 40 students were randomly assigned to the two training conditions, and 40 students were mismatched to training based upon the longer predicted time to train. Using predicted scores to match students to training alternatives resulted in a 47% savings in training time over random assignment and a 53% savings over mismatched assignment. The assignment effect was reliable at the 0.0001 level. Future research will examine different categories of predictors, additional training alternatives, and more complex training tasks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BloomB. S.Human characteristics and school learning.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
2.
CarrollJ.A model of school learning. Teacher's College Record, 1963, 64, 723–733.
3.
EkstromR. B.FrenchJ. W.HarmanH. H.DermenD.Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive test.Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1976.
4.
EstesW. K.Learning theory and the new mental chemistry. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 207–223.
5.
FletcherJ. D.Models of the learner in computer-assisted instruction. San Diego, California: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, Technical Report NPRDC TR 76-23, December, 1975.
6.
HansenD. N.The nature of adaptive models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, February, 1973.
7.
KaskowitzD.SuppesP.Development and implementation of a computer model for student management: Phases I and II. Lowry AFB, Colorado: Human Resources Laboratory, Technical Report AFHRL-TR-78-7, March, 1978. (AD A057 930).
8.
KelleyC. R.What is adaptive training?Human Factors, 1969, 11, 547–556.
9.
McCombsB. L.Identifying individualization parameters, strategies and models that are acceptable and feasible: Methodological considerations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April, 1979.
10.
MinskyM.Computation: Finite and infinite machines.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
11.
NewellA.ShawJ. C.SimonH. A.A variety of intelligent learning in a general problem solver. In Information processing: Proceedings of the international conference on information processing.Paris, France, UNESCO, 1960.
12.
SmallwoodR. D.A decision structure for teaching machines. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1962.
13.
SuppesP.FletcherJ. D.ZanottiM.Performance models of American Indian students on computer-assisted instruction in elementary mathematics. Instructional Science, 1975, 4, 303–313.
14.
WagnerH.BehringerR. D.PattieC. L.Individualized course completion time predictions: Development of instruments and techniques. Alexandria, Virginia: Human Resources Research Organization, Technical Report 73–25, 1973.
15.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. N.RaskinE.KarpS. A.A manual for the embedded figures test.Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1971.
