Comparison of two teaching strategies in computer-assisted instruction

Three experiments were run using the SCHOLAR CAI system to teach geography to high-school students. The experiments compared a method of teaching derived from analysis of human tutors (Tutorial Mode) vs a method derived from programmed instruction (Block-Test Mode). In the three experiments, Block-Test Mode was systematically converged toward Tutorial Mode in order to pinpoint what aspects of teaching strategy affected student's learning. Tutorial Mode was significantly more effective in the first two experiments, and nonsignificantly in the third. The results indicated that the major factor affecting student's learning was the strategy that tutors use of reviewing the material in greater depth on a second pass. The advantage of CAI for purposes of implementing and evaluating different teaching strategies was discussed.     

Real-time simulation in computer-assisted instruction

Large scale computer-assisted instruction systems generally impose severe constraints upon the demands that individual users may make. Nevertheless, it is possible to overcome these problems and a program is described which teaches students how to fly a specific maneuver through real-time simulation of the flight of a student-controlled airplane. This is achieved in spite of the fact that the student is flying his plane through the use of a manually controlled analog input device. Both computational and educational implications are discussed.Contractual support for this work was provided in part by the Life Sciences Program Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Contract number F44620-70-C-0105. Dr. Charles Hutchinson was the scientific monitor of the contract.     

Control of feedback in computer-assisted instruction

Although considerable research has been conducted on both learner control and feedback, very little research has addressed the effect of giving learners control over the feedback that they receive. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of learner control over feedback in a CAI lesson. Subjects used one of four CAI programs which provided either program control or learner control over verification or elaboration feedback. Results indicated that subjects who received elaboration feedback during instruction performed better than students who received verification feedback. Type of control did not have a significant influence on performance. However, when subjects selected feedback for items answered incorrectly during instruction, subjects under learner control/elaboration performed better on the posttest than subjects under learner control/verification. Implications for the design of CAI are discussed.     

高校生物化学课程多媒体辅助教学的研究与探索

为了适应现代教育技术发展和教学改革的需要,CAI课件广泛应用于生物化学教学中。本文结合生物化学课程及多媒体教学的特点,分析了CAI课件应用于生物化学课程教学中的优势和目前使用中普遍存在的问题,并对我们的实践探索进行了总结,提出了提高生物化学多媒体辅助教学效果的方法和途径等。     

Comparative effects of ability and presentation mode in computer-assisted instruction and programed instruction

Summary The duration of the current experiment was admittedly quite short—30 minutes to an hour of learning time. A longer program may have produced more pronounced differences. Sixty-four students including 32 high and low ability males and females were randomly assigned to programed instruction and computer-assisted instruction programs on the topic of Significant Figures. The results indicated that the students using programed instruction performed significantly better than those using CAI. This difference was attributed primarily to the very poor performance by the low ability students in the CAI group. There was also a significant ability effect. The posttest and retention test results, as well as number of errors in the actual learning sequence, indicated there was a trait by treatment interaction which was interpreted primarily as a very poor performance by low ability students on CAI, with almost equal performance by high and low ability students utilizing programed instruction. The data would not support such explanations as the use of recognition responses or the inability to achieve any particular concepts in the program for the performance of low ability students on the CRT-oriented CAI. Further research is suggested. The work reported herein was sponsored by the Florida State University Computer-Assisted Instruction Center and the Office of Naval Research under Grant No. N00014-68-A-0494.     

Principle learning as a function of instruction on excluding irrelevant variables

The purpose of this study was to determine if instruction on excluding irrelevant variables enhanced learning the principle that explained why objects float and sink. The results of the study show that learning the correct principle without first learning to exclude the false principles is not as effective as learning to exclude the false principles and then learning the correct principle. The data also indicate that the presentation of the verbal principle in the program enhanced achievement on the concept criterion test.     

Process-oriented instruction in learning and thinking strategies

Process-oriented instruction is defined as instruction aimed at teaching thinking strategies and domain-specific knowledge in coherence. This new conception of instruction is derived from psychological research on the way students learn and on the interplay between self-regulation and external regulation of learning. In the research reported here the learning effects of a process-oriented instructional program for university students were empirically studied. The instructional program consisted of a diagnostic learning style instrument, a learning guide and tutorials. The results showed that the majority of students reported significant general, knowledge, insight and application learning effects. The program effects were typified more by integrating and making usable metacognitive knowledge already present, than by increasing knowledge about new subjects. Evidence for transfer effects was obtained because participants in the program scored better than non-participants on two exams of another course. The learning effects were higher than the effects of an preliminary version of the program implemented with students from an open university. These results support the importance of the process-oriented instructional model. The linking of a thorough diagnosis of personal learning styles to individually tailored instructional measures, turned out to be a powerful way to activate students to reflect on their learning and to develop their mental models of learning.     

The effectiveness of a computer-assisted instruction package in high school chemistry

The attributes of a commercial microcomputer software package were evaluated as a supplement to traditional instruction in general chemistry classes in a suburban public high school. During a unit of study of writing and naming formulas and balancing chemical equations, the experimental group received reinforcement via microcomputer while the control group used parallel worksheet exercises over a period of three weeks for concept reinforcement. Analysis of achievement scores indicated significantly higher scores among the students in the control group. In order to ascertain any possible differential effects favoring either method for students at varying cognitive development levels, the study investigated the relationship between treatment (CAI versus worksheet) and development stage; no significant interactions were discovered.     

Performance models of undergraduate students on computer-assisted instruction in elementary logic

Performance data were collected for students taking the computer-assisted instruction course in logic at Stanford University. The fit of the data to the Suppes, Zanotti, and Fletcher trajectory model was found to be good, though a systematic deviation from the model suggested some changes in the curriculum. A quantitative approach was used to pinpoint areas for curriculum revision. In addition, the model was evaluated for use as the basis of a predictive control mechanism.This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant No. NSF-SED74-15016. The authors wish to thank Mario Zanotti for several discussions of the original model, and Lauri Kanerva for the use of his program for exponential regression analysis.