One of the potential advantages of computer-based instruction (CBI) is individualization of instruction. However, this goal has not been fully realized in practice, due largely to limitations of natural language understanding and to combinatorial explosion. It is nonetheless possible to develop CBI programs which can adapt to students, depending on their performance, by adjusting the length of computer-guided practice exercises and computer-based tests. The validity of this approach is supported empirically. The number of questions can be significantly reduced for many individuals, while mastery and nonmastery decisions remain highly accurate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ParkO.-C.PerezR.SeidelR., Intelligent CAI: Old Wine in New Bottles, or a New Vintage?, in Artificial Intelligence and Instruction: Applications and Methods, KearsleyG. (ed.), Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, pp. 11–45, 1987.
2.
ArbibM., Computers and the Cybernetic Society, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, pp. 178–239, 1984.
3.
ClanceyW., Methodology for Building an Intelligent Tutoring System, in Artificial Intelligence and Instruction: Applications and Methods, KearsleyG. (ed.), Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, pp. 193–227, 1987.
4.
MinksyM., The Problems and the Promise, in The AI Business: The Commercial Uses of Artificial Intelligence, WinstonP.PrendergastK. (eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.
5.
SleemanD.BrownJ. (eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Academic Press, New York, 1982.
6.
FergusonR., Computer-Assisted Criterion-Referenced Measurement, University of Pittsburgh Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh, 1969.
7.
McArthurD.ChouC.-P., Interpreting the Results of Diagnostic Testing: Some Statistics for Testing in Real Time, University of California Center for the Study of Evaluation, Los Angeles, 1984.
8.
ReckaseM., A Procedure for Decision Making Using Tailored Testing, in New Horizons in Testing, WeissD. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 238–256, 1983.
9.
TennysonR.ChristensenD.ParkS., The Minnesota Adaptive Instructional System: An Intelligent CBI System, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11, pp. 2–13, 1984.
10.
WeissD.KingsburyG., Application of Computerized Adaptive Testing to Educational Problems, Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, pp. 361–375, 1984.
11.
WaldA., Sequential Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1947.
HambletonR.CookL., Latent Trait Models and Their Use in the Analysis of Educational Test Data, Journal of Educational Measurement, 14:2, pp. 75–96, 1977.
15.
KingsburyG.WeissD., A Comparison of IRT-Based Adaptive Mastery Testing and a Sequential Mastery Testing Procedure, in New Horizons in Testing, WeissD. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 257–283, 1983.
16.
AlessiS.TrollipS., Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1985.
17.
MillmanJ., Passing Scores and Test Lengths for Domain-Referenced Measures, Review of Educational Research, 43:2, pp. 205–216. 1973.
18.
FrickT., The Indiana Testing System (ITS, Version 1.0), Department of Instructional Systems Technology, School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1986.
19.
FrickT., An Investigation of the Validity of the Sequential Probability Ratio Test for Mastery Decisions during Criterion-Referenced Testing, paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, April 16, 1986.
20.
LordF.NovickM., Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1968.
21.
HambletonR.CookL., Robustness of Item Response Models and Effects of Test Length and Sample Size on the Precision of Ability Estimates, in New Horizons in Testing, WeissD. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 31–50, 1983.
22.
HambletonR.SwaminathanH.CookL.EignorD.GiffordJ., Developments in Latent Trait Theory: Models, Technical Issues, and Applications, Review of Educational Research, 48:4, pp. 467–510, 1978.
23.
LordF., Small n Justifies Rasch Model, in New Horizons in Testing, WeissD. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 52–62, 1983.
24.
NovickM.LewisC., Prescribing Test Length for Criterion-Referenced Measurement, American College Testing Program, Technical Bulletin No. 18, Iowa City, 1974.
25.
HeinesJ., Basic Concepts in Knowledge-Based Systems, Machine-Mediated Learning, 1:1, pp. 65–95, 1983.
