Previous research has revealed various advisement strategies and computer control options in computer assisted instruction (CAI) modules. While these studies suggest that learner performance has rarely been optimized under learner control, those conditions under which the learner may demonstrate effective learner control warrant further study. This study was conducted to examine college level modules with feedback on current student performance. An analysis of the 2 (learner control, program control) X 2 (feedback, no feedback) X 2 (trained, untrained test questions) completely randomized factorial design indicated student performance was superior in modules which contained feedback on students' cumulative performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlessiS. M.TrollipS. R., Computer-based Instruction: Methods and Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1985.
2.
CartwrightG. P.CartwrightC. A.RobineG. G., CAI Course in Early Identification of Handicapped Children, Exceptional Children, 38, pp. 453–459, 1972.
3.
TennysonR. D.ChristensonD. L.ParkO., The Minnesota Adaptive Instructional System: An Intelligent CBI System, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11, pp. 2–13, 1984.
4.
HannafinM. J., Guidelines for Determining Locus of Instructional Control in the Design of Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Instructional Development, 7:3, pp. 6–10, 1984.
5.
LepperM. R., Microcomputers in Education, American Psychologist, 40, pp. 1–18, 1985.
6.
SchlossP. J.SchlossC. N.CartwrightG. P., Efficacy of Four Ratios of Questions and Highlights to Text in Computer Assisted Instruction, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11:4, pp. 103–106, 1984.
7.
SteinbergE. R., Review of Student Control in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3, pp. 84–90, 1977.
8.
SnowR. E., Aptitude, Learner Control, and Adaptive Instruction, Educational Psychologist, 15, pp. 151–158, 1980.
9.
BardwellR., Feedback: How Does It Function?Journal of Experimental Education, 50, pp. 4–9, 1981.
10.
BrownJ. S.BurtonR. R., Diagnostic Models for Procedural Bugs in Basic Mathematical Skills, Cognitive Science, 2, pp. 155–192, 1978.
11.
CohenV. B., A Re-examination of Feedback in Computer Based Instruction: Implications for Instructional Design, Educational Technology, 25, pp. 32–33, 1985.
12.
FriendJ.MilojkovicJ. D., Designing Interactions Between Students and Computers, in Instructional Software: Principles and Perspectives for Design and Use, WalkerD. F.HessR. D. (eds.), Wadsworth, Belmont, California, pp. 75–96, 1984.
13.
HartleyJ. R.LovellK., The Psychological Principles Underlying the Design of Computer-Based Instructional Systems, in Instructional Software: Principles and Perspectives for Design and Use, WalkerD. F.HessR. D. (eds.), Wadsworth, Belmont, California, pp. 135–147, 1984.
14.
TennysonR. D.ButtreyT., Advisement and Management Strategies Design Variables in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28, pp. 169–176, 1980.
15.
TennysonR. D., Use of Adaptive Information for Advisement in Learning Concepts and Rules for Computer-Assisted Instruction, American Educational Research Journal, 18, pp. 425–438, 1981.
16.
CartwrightG. P.CartwrightC. A.WardM. E., Educating Special Learners (2nd edition), Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 1984.
17.
SchlossP. J.SindelarP. T.CartwrightG. P.SchlossC. N., Efficacy of Higher Cognitive and Factual Questions in Computer Assisted Instruction Modules, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13:3, pp. 75–80, 1986.
18.
SedlakR. A.BormanK. G.CartwrightG. P., Using Student Attitudes as an Index for Gauging Improvements Following a Formative Evaluation, College Student Journal, 6:4, pp. 3–9, 1972.
19.
NeterJ.WassermanW.KutnerM. H., Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Designs, (2nd edition), Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois, 1985.
