A proposed expert system was simulated in order to evaluate its potential impact upon instruction. Undergraduate students (n = 100) enrolled in a course in deductive logic were assigned to one of three treatment conditions. Students in one group received diagnostic feedback from the instructor as was the current standard in the course. Students in a second group received diagnostic feedback from a computer in ways that simulated the operation of an expert system. Students in a third group received no feedback from either the instructor or the computer so as to provide a baseline for assessing feedback effectiveness. Dependent variables included exam performance, attendance rate, in-class responsiveness, and several attitudes. The most favorable results were found for students receiving feedback from the instructor.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AikenM., Using a Group Decision Support System as a Teaching Tool, Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 19: 3, pp. 82–85, 1992.
2.
AttishM. and YazdaniM., An Expert System for Diagnosing Children's Multiplication Errors, Instructional Science, 13, pp. 79–92, 1984.
3.
GisolfiA.BalzanoW., and DattoloA., Enhancing the Learning Process with Expert Systems, Educational Technology, 33, pp. 25–32, 1993.
4.
GloverR. and KrotsengM., Design and Implementation of a Decision Support System for Institutional Advancement, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 3: 2, pp. 99–120, 1992.
5.
KarakeZ., Enhancing the Learning Process with Expert Systems, Computers and Education, 14, pp. 495–503, 1990.
6.
PollockJ. and GrabingerR., Expert Systems: Instructional Design Potential, Educational Technology, 29, pp. 35–39, 1989.
7.
NynsR., An Expert System in Computer Assisted Language Learning, Computers and Education, 15, pp. 99–103, 1990.
8.
SaleemN. and AzadA., Expert Systems as a Statistics Tutor on Call, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 11, pp. 179–191, 1992.
9.
ValleyK., Explanation, Exploration, and Learning: The Use of Expert System Shells in Education, Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 3, pp. 255–273, 1992.
10.
WehrsW., Using an Expert System to Support Academic Advising, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24: 4, pp. 545–562, 1992.
11.
YaziciH., An Intelligent System Approach to Graphical User Interface Management, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3: 1, pp. 37–54, 1994.
12.
WoodS., AI and Theories of Social Situations, in Artificial Intelligence for Society, GillK. (ed.), Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 237–244, 1986.
13.
HollnagelE., Responsibility Issues in Intelligent Decision Support Systems, in Expert Systems: Human Issues, BerryD. and HartA. (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 237–249, 1990.
14.
BerryD. and HartA., The Way Forward, in Expert Systems: Human Issues, BerryD. and HartA. (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 250–259, 1990.
15.
CroyM., The Use of CAI to Enhance Human Interaction in the Learning of Deductive Proof Construction, Computers and the Humanities, 22: 4, pp. 277–284, 1988.
16.
CroyM. and AmidonJ., A Mouse-driven Graphic Interface for Deductive Proof Construction, in Philosophy and the Computer, BurkholderL. (ed.), Westview Press, New York, pp. 198–203, 1991.
17.
SleemanD., Assessing Aspects of Competence in Basic Algebra, in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, SleemanD. and BrownJ. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1982.
18.
GrabingerR. and PollockJ., The Effectiveness of Internally-generated Feedback with an Instructional Expert System, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, pp. 299–309, 1989.
19.
FeldmanD. and SearsP., Effects of Computer-assisted Instruction on Children's Behavior, Educational Technology, 10, pp. 11–14, 1970.
20.
TsaiS. and PohlN., Computer-assisted Instruction Augmented with Planned Teacher/Student Contacts, Journal of Experimental Education, 49, pp. 120–126, 1980.
21.
HarringtonK.McElroyJ., and MorrowP., Computer Anxiety and Computer-based Training, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6: 3, pp. 343–358, 1990.
22.
LambertM.LewisD., and LenthallG., Impact of Classroom Computer Use on Computer Anxiety, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, ERIC Document Number ED 308453, Houston, April 1989.
23.
PowellJ., Affective Response of College Students to an Exemplary Application of CAI, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, pp. 142–145, 1987.
24.
SoledS.SchareB.ClarkH.DunnS., and GilmanB., The Effects of Interactive Video and Cognitive Achievement and Attitude Toward Learning, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, ERIC Document Number ED 310735, San Francisco, March 1989.
25.
ReglinG., CAI Effects on Mathematics Achievement and Academic Self-concept, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 18, pp. 43–48, 1989.
26.
StephensonS., The Effect of Student-Instructor Interaction on Achievement in — Computer-based Training (CBT), Report Number AL-TP-91-0002, Armstrong Laboratory, Training Systems Division, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 1991.
27.
StephensonS., The Effect of Student-Instructor Interaction and Paired/Individual Study on Achievement in Computer-based Training (CBT), Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, pp. 22–26, 1992.
28.
CroyM.CookJ., and GreenM., Human versus Computer Supplied Feedback: An Empirical and Pragmatic Study, Journal of Research on Computing and Education, 26: 2, pp. 185–204, 1993.
29.
HilW., A Wizard of Oz Study of Advice Giving and Following, Human Computer Interaction, 8, pp. 57–81, 1993.
30.
MacKayW., Tutoring Information Databases and Iterative Design, in Instructional Design for Microcomputer Courseware, JonassenD. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 327–344, 1988.
31.
WickensC., Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, Merrill, Columbus, Ohio, 1984.
32.
SiegelS., Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956.
