The present study compared the effects of two training methods on computer attitude and performance in a WWW page design program by a field experiment. Results indicated that the instruction-based approach outperformed in the skill-based test of WWW page design functions, whereas the example-based approach reported significantly higher computer attitude. An interaction between personal learning style (decomposed into information perception and information processing) and training condition was reported. Implications for training interventions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SeinM. K.BostromR. P.OlfmanL., Conceptual Models in Training Novice Users, Proceedings of INTERACT'87, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 861–867, 1987.
2.
BostromR. P.OlfmanL.SeinM. K., The Importance of Learning Style in End-User Training, MIS Quarterly, 14:1, pp. 101–109, 1990.
3.
DavisD. L.DavisD. F., The Effect of Training Techniques and Personal Characteristics on Training End Users of Information Systems, Journal of Management Information System, 7:2, pp. 93–110, 1990.
4.
SnowR. E., Individual Differences in the Design of Educational Programs, American Psychologist, 41:10, pp. 1029–1039, 1986.
5.
SnowR. E., Aptitude-Treatment Interaction as a Framework for Research on Individual Differences in Learning, in Learning and Individual Differences, AckermanP. L.SternbergR. J.GlaserR. (eds.), Freeman, New York, pp. 13–59, 1989.
6.
ShiehL. J., The Effects of Cognitive Traits and Training Method on Learning Performance, master thesis, Tan-Kan University (in Chinese), 1994.
7.
GistM., The Influence of Training Method on Self Efficacy and Idea Generation among Managers, Personnel Psychology, 42:4, pp. 787–805, 1989.
8.
PosnerM. I.McLeodP., Information Processing Models—In Search of Elementary Operations, Annual Review of Psychology, 37, pp. 477–514, 1982.
9.
SeinM. K.BostrumR. P., Individual Differences and the Training of Novice Users, Human-Computer Interface, 4:3, pp. 197–229, 1989.
10.
AmdtS.ClevengerJ.MeiskeyL., Students' Attitudes toward Computers, Computers and the Social Sciences, 1:3–4, pp. 181–190, 1985.
11.
BostromR. P.OlfmanL.SeinM. K., End User Computing: A Framework to Investigate the Training/Learning Process, in Human Factors in Management Information Systems, Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1988.
12.
SzajnaB.MackayJ. M., Predictors of Learning Performance in a Computer-User Training Environment: A Path-Analytic Study, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7:2, pp. 167–185, 1995.
13.
GlaserR.BassockM., Learning Theory and the Study of Instruction, Annual Review of Psychology, 40, pp. 631–666, 1989.
14.
GattikerU. E.PaulsonD., The Quest for Effective Training Methods: Achieving Literacy for End Users, INFOR, 25, pp. 256–271, 1987.
15.
PintrichP. R.CrossD. R.KozmaR. B.McKeachieW. J., Instructional Psychology, Annual Review of Psychology, 32, pp. 611–651, 1986.
16.
KalsbeekD. H., Linking Learning Style Theory with Retention Research: The TRAILS Project, Association for Institutional Research, 32, pp. 1–7, 1989.
17.
MurrellP.ClaxtonC., Experiential Learning Theory as a Guide for Effective Teaching, Counselor Education and Supervision, 27, pp. 4–14, 1987.
18.
MyersI. B.McCaulleyM. H., A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California, 1985.
19.
SaljoR., Learning Approach and Outcome: Some Empirical Observations, Instructional Science, 10:1, pp. 47–65, 1981.
20.
WitkinH. A.MooreC. A.GoodenoughD. R.CoxP. W., Fields-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications, Review of Education Research, 47:1, pp. 1–64, 1977.
21.
PaskG., Styles and Strategies of Learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46:2, pp. 128–148, 1976.
22.
MartonF.SaljoR., On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I-Outcome and Process, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46:1, pp. 4–11, 1976.
23.
ThorslandJ. D.NovakJ. D., The Identification and Significance of Intuitive and Analytic Problem-Solving Approaches among College Physics Students, Science Education, 58:2, pp. 245–265, 1974.
24.
BrumbyM. N., Consistent Differences in Cognitive Styles Shown for Qualitative Biological Problem-Solving, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52:2, pp. 244–257, June 1982.
25.
KobD. A., Learning Style Inventory, Technical Manual, McBer and Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1976.
26.
KolbD. A.FryR., Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning, in Theories of Group Processes, CooperG. L. (ed.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 33–54, 1975.
27.
De CiantisS. M.KirtonM. J., A Psychometric Reexamination of Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle Construct: A Separation of Level, Style, and Process, Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56:5, pp. 809–820, 1996.
28.
GeigerM. A., Performance during the First Year of College: Differences Associated with Learning Style, Psychological Reports, 68, pp. 633–634, 1991.
29.
GreenD. W.SnellJ. C.ParimanathA. R., Learning Styles in Assessment of Students, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, pp. 363–369, 1990.
30.
SeinM. K.RobeyD., Learning Style and the Efficacy of Computer Training Methods, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, pp. 243–248, 1991.
31.
AtkinsonG., Reliability of the Learning Style Inventory—1985, Psychological Reports, 62, pp. 755–758, 1988.
32.
AtkinsonG., Kolb's Learning Style Inventory—1985: Test-Retest Déjà Vu, Psychological Reports, 64, pp. 991–995, 1989.
33.
MarshallJ. C.MerrittS. L., Reliability and Construct Validity of Alternate Forms of the Learning Styles Inventory, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, pp. 931–937, 1985.
34.
RubleT. L.StoutD. E., Learning Style and End-User Training: An Unwarranted Leap of Faith, MIS Quarterly, pp. 115–117, 1993.
35.
WilsonD. K., An Investigation of the Properties of Kolb's Learning Style Inventory, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 7, pp. 3–15, 1986.
36.
HickcoxL. K., A Historical Review of Kolb's Formulation of Experiential Learning Theory, Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1991.
37.
CurryL., Integrating Concepts of Cognitive or Learning Style: A Review of Attention to Psychometric Standards, Adams and Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Curry, 1987.
38.
LamS. S. K., Organizational Performance and Learning Styles in Hong Kong, Journal of Social Psychology, 138:3, pp. 401–402, 1998.
39.
HolleyJ. E.JenkinsE. K., The Relationship between Student Learning Style and Performance on Various Test Question Formats, Journal of Education for Business, 68:5, pp. 301–307, 1993.
40.
BozionelosN., Cognitive Spontaneity and Learning Style, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, pp. 43–48, 1996.
41.
RaschickM.MaypoleD. E.DayP. A., Improved Field Education through Kolb Learning Theory, Journal of Social Work Education, 34:1, pp. 31–42, 1998.
42.
GremillionL. L.HopkinsG. N., An Empirical Study of Learning Style and Personal Computer Use, Working Paper #0286, Information System Research Center, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, 1987.
43.
FidelmanU., Experimental Testing of Constructivism and Related Theories, Behavioral Science, 36:4, pp. 274–297, 1991.
44.
KolbD. A., Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual, McBer and Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1985.
45.
KirkpatrickD. L., Evaluate Training Programs: The Four Levels, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, California, 1994.
46.
HortonW.TaylorL.IgnacioA.HoftN. L., The Web Page Design Cookbook, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 31–50, 1996.
47.
LoydB. C.GressardC., Reliability and Factorial Validity of Computer Attitude Scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, pp. 501–505, 1984.
