Computer-based instruction (CBI) is the powerful tool to teach arithmetic skills for elementary school students. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects on achievement of instructional control strategies (program control, learner control, and learner control with advisement) and cognitive style (field independence and field dependence) in computer-based instruction. Also, this study attempts to find an optimal type of instructional control strategy based upon students' achievement and learning time. Subjects were eighty-six Dongsung Elementary School students in Pusan, Korea. The possible interactive effects between cognitive style and instructional control strategy on CBI were analyzed. Differences in achievement and time spent on the lessons were compared. A significant interaction effect was found between types of instructional control strategies and types of cognitive styles on and students achievement scores and time-on-task.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BloomB. S., Human Characteristics and School Learning, McGraw-Hill Book, New York, 1976.
SkinnerB. F., Teaching Machines, Science, 128, pp. 969–977, 1958.
4.
GagneR. M., The Conditions of Learning, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1977.
5.
ReiserR. A., Instructional Technology: A History, in Instructional Technology: Foundations, GagneR. M. (ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1987.
6.
BrunerJ. S., On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1962.
7.
HickenS.SullivanH.KleinJ., Learner Control Modes and Incentive Variations in Computer-delivered Instruction, Educational Technology Research and Development, 40: 4, pp. 15–26, 1992.
8.
MilheimW. D.AzbellJ. W., How Past Research on Learner Control Can Aid in the Design of Interactive Materials, (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 295 652), 1988.
9.
RossS. M.MorrisonG. R., Issues Concerning External Validity, Media Replications, and Learner Control, Educational Technology Research & Development, 37: 1, pp. 19–33, 1989.
10.
CarrierC. A.DavidsonG. V.WilliamsM. D.KalweitC. M., Instructional Options and Encouragement Effects in a Microcomputer-delivered Concept Lesson, Journal of Educational Research, 79, pp. 222–229, 1986.
11.
CarrierC. A.DavidsonG. V.WilliamsM. D., The Selection of Instructional Options in a Computer-based Coordinate Concept Lesson, Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33: 3, pp. 199–212, 1985.
12.
HannafinM. J., Factors Affecting the Locus of Instructional Control in the Design of Computer-assisted Instruction, Journal of Instructional Development, 7: 3, pp. 6–10, 1984.
13.
SnowR. E., Aptitude, Learner Control, and Adaptive Instruction, Educational Psychologist, 15, pp. 151–158, 1980.
14.
SteinbergE. R., Review of Student Control in Computer-assisted Instruction, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3: 3, pp. 84–90, 1977.
15.
HannafinM. J.HooperS., Learning Principles, in Instructional Message Design(2nd Edition), FlemingM.LevieH. (eds.), Educational Technology, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (in press).
16.
SantiagoR. S.OkeyJ. R., The Effect of Advisement and Locus of Control on Achievement in Learner-Control Instruction, Sandiego, (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 330 332), 1990.
17.
TennysonR. D., Instructional Control Strategies and Content Structure as Design Variables in Concept Acquisition using Computer-based Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72: 4, pp. 525–532, 1980.
18.
TennysonR. D., Artificial Intelligence Methods in Computer-based Instructional Design: The Minnesota Adaptive Instructional System, Journal of Instructional Development, 7: 3, pp. 17–22, 1984.
19.
ArnoneM. P.GrabowskiB. L., Effect on Children's Achievement and Curiosity of Variations in Learner Control Over an Interactive Video Lesson, Educational Technology Research and Development, 40: 1, pp. 15–27, 1992.
20.
ChungJ.ReigeluthC. M., Instructional Prescriptions for Learner Control, Educational Technology, 32: 2, pp. 14–20, 1992.
21.
Higginbotham-WheatN., Learner Control: When Does it Work? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 930), 1990.
22.
JohansenK. J.TennysonR. D., Effect of Adaptive Advisement on Perception, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 31: 4, pp. 226–236, 1983.
23.
RossS. M., Matching the Lesson to the Student: Alternative Adaptive Designs for Individualized Learning Systems, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11: 2, pp. 42–48, 1984.
24.
TennysonR. D.ButtreyT., Advisement and Management Strategies as Design Variables in Computer-assisted Instruction, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28: 3, pp. 169–176, 1980.
25.
TennysonR. D., Use of Adaptive Information for Advisement in Learning Concepts and Rules using Computer-assisted Instruction, American Educational Research Journal, 18: 4, pp. 425–438, 1981.
26.
GoetzfriedL.HannafinM. J., The Effect of the Locus of CAI Control Strategies on the Learning of Mathematics Rules, American Educational Research Journal, 22: 2, pp. 273–278, 1985.
27.
GayG., Interaction of Learner Control and Prior Understanding in Computer-assisted Video Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, pp. 225–227, 1986.
28.
RossS. M.RakowE. A., Learner Control Versus Program Control as Adaptive Strategies for Selection of Instructional Support on Math Rules, Journal of Educational Psychology, 73: 5, pp. 745–753, 1981.
29.
BurgerK., Computer-assisted Instruction: Learning Style and Academic Achievement, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12: 1, pp. 21–22, 1985.
30.
WhyteM. M.KnirkF. G.CaseyR. J.WillardM. L., Individualistic versus Paired/Cooperative Computer-assisted Instruction: Matching Instructional Method with Cognitive Style, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 19: 4, pp. 299–312, 1991.
31.
LouieS.LuickA. H.LouieJ. L., Locus of Control among Computer using School Children: A Report of a Pilot Study, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 14: 2, pp. 101–118, 1985.
32.
SeymourS. L.SullivanH. J.StoryN. O.MoselyM. L., Microcomputers and Continuing Motivation, Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 35: 1, pp. 18–23, 1987.
33.
KimI. A., School Computer Education in Korea, Educational Technology Research and Development, 40: 2, pp. 116–118, 1992.
34.
KinzieM. B., Requirement and Benefits of Effective Interactive Instruction: Learner Control, Self-regulation, and Continuing Motivation, Educational Technology Research & Development, 38: 1, pp. 1–21, 1990.
35.
ArmstrongA. M., The Development of Self-Regulation Skills through the Modeling and Structuring of Computer Programming, Educational Technology Research & Development, 37: 2, pp. 69–76, 1981.
36.
FennemaE. H.ShermanJ. A., Sex-related Differences in Mathematics Achievement, Spatial Visualization, and Affective Factors, American Educational Research Journal, 14, pp. 51–71, 1977.
37.
TobiasS., Learner Characteristics, in Instructional Technology: Foundations, GagneR. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 207–232, 1987.
38.
HollandJ. G., Variables in Adaptive Decisions in Individualized Instruction, Educational Psychologist, 12, pp. 146–161, 1977.
39.
BurwellL. B., The Interaction of Learning Styles with Learner Control Treatments in an Interactive Videodisc Lesson, Educational Technology, 31: 3, pp. 37–43, 1991.
40.
CaninoC.CicchelliT., Cognitive Style, Computerized Treatments on Mathematics Achievement and Reaction to Treatments, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4: 3, pp. 253–264, 1988.
41.
KernG. M.MattaK. F., The Influence of Personality on Self-paced Instruction, Journal of Computing-Based Instruction, 15: 3, pp. 104–108, 1988.
42.
WitkinH. A.MooreC. A.GoodenoughD. R.CoxP. W., Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications, Review of Educational Research, 47, pp. 1–64, 1977.
43.
CohenJ., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences(3rd Edition), Chapman and Hall, New York, 1988.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE.KarpS. A., A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test, Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, California, 1971.
46.
DraneM. J.HalpinG. M.HalpinW. G.VonEschenbachJ. F.WordenT. W., Relationship between Reading Proficiency and Field Dependence/Field Independent and Sex, Educational Research Quarterly, 13: 2, pp. 2–10, 1989.
