Abstract
The study described in this report was designed to test effects of learner control at the level of instructional sequencing within a self-contained tutorial course, administered by an adaptive computer program. Applicability to other levels is speculative and clearly requires further research.
The experimentation has as independent variables four features of our CAI system that afford the student a specified degree of control over the sequencing of instructional material. Three of the variables are student options that control remedial activity and acceleration. The fourth variable allows control over sequencing of topics at specified points in the course. The purpose is to assess the relative contributions and interactions of these variables with respect to instructional effectiveness and efficiency.
Following an entry test period, students were administered tutorial CAI instruction, a COBOL course (an average of 30 hours long), with four possible types of learner-control variables. These students were assigned at random to one of 24 factorial treatment conditions. Sessions were approximately three hours long per day with breaks left up to the individual. Following the instructional period, students were administered an “exit questionnaire” covering their opinions about course administration, content, and instructional environment.
During the conduct of the experiment, three types of measures were taken on each student: (a) entry characteristics, including information processing (Guilford's Structure of Intellect), affective, and biographical data; (b) learner strategies, including type and frequency of control usage and the circumstances of their use; and (c) achievement and other performance-related measures including quiz scores, transit times, programming errors, opinions of topics, and Level of Aspiration (LOA) prior to the quiz of each topic. Assessments were made of the relative contributions and interactions among the learner-control and entry characteristic variables with respect to instructional effectiveness and efficiency as represented by the dependent measures.
The result and implications can be described as follows. First, the study developed a well-tested instructional vehicle that meets the criterion of student mastery, a prerequisite for valid research in an instructional environment. Secondly, the study was performed in a rich instructional environment, preferred for generalizing results of Aptitude by Treatment Interaction (ATI) studies to a real instructional world. The third significant aspect of the current study has been the development of a very useful means to characterize high and low performers with an operationally defined set of criteria that has highlighted the value of discriminant function analyses in instructional research settings. Of great importance is the finding that the particular individuals designated high or low performers differed depending upon the particular instructional tasks. Yet, the phenomenon of high and low performance was consistent across two divisions of the course. High and low performers differed with respect to the usage of options, as well as their Level of Aspiration settings concerning their performance. Research is needed to identify more specifically the taxonomic characteristics of instructional tasks related to student profiles of high and low performers.
Another significant finding in our study was that self-assessment can make a significant contribution to instructional management, whether the latter be by students or by the learning system. The next step that should be taken is to use the instructional options based on expectations, as part of the decision-making process in an adaptive instructional environment. A proposed prescriptive use of LOA as an Expectancy Operator is described. Lastly, research requirements for systematic study of levels and types of self-managed learning paradigms are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Atkinson, R. C., 1972. “Ingredients for a Theory of Instruction”, American Psychologist 27 (10), Oct.
Boutwell, R. C. and Barton, G. E., 1974. “Toward an Adaptive Learner-Controlled Model of Instruction: A Place for the New Cognitive Aptitudes”, Educational Technology 14 (5): 13–18.
Brennan, R.L., 1970. “Some Statistical Problems in the Evaluation of Self-Instructional Programs.” Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, University Microfilms No. 70-23080, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Bunderson, C.V., 1967. Transfer of Mental Abilities at Different Stages of Practice in the Solution of Concept Problems. Research Bulletin RB-67–20, Educational Testing Service. Princeton, N.J.
Carbonnell, J.R. and Collins, A.M., 1970. “Mixed-Initiative Systems for Training and Decision-Aid Applications.” Hacscom AFB-Electronic Systems Division ESD-TR-70-373, Bedford, Mass.
French, J.W., Ekstrom, R.B., and Price, L.A., 1963. Kit of Reference Tests for Cognitive Factors. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J.
Fry, J.P., 1972. “Interactive Relationship Between Inquisitiveness and Student Control of Instruction”, Journal of Educational Psychology 63 (5), Oct. Issued as HumRRO Professional Paper 22-72, December 1972.
Gagné, R. M., 1970. Conditions of Human Learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagné, R. M. and Bassler, O. C., 1963. “Study of Retention of Some Topics of Elementary Nonmetric Geometry”, Journal of Educational Psychology, pp. 123–131.
Grignetti, M.C., Gould, L., Hausmann, C.L., Bell, A.G., Harris, G., and Passafiume, J., 1974. “Mixed-Initiative Tutorial System to Aid Users of the On-Line System (NLS).” Hanscom AFB-Electronic Systems Division ESD-TR-75-58, Bedford, Mass.
Grubb, R.E., 1967. “Learner Controlled Statistics.” Research Report, IBM Corporation, Los Gatos, Cal.
Guiford, J.P. and Hoepfner, R., 1966. “Structure-of-Intellect Tests and Factors”, Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, No. 36. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Hansen, D.N., Dick, W., and Lippert, H.T., 1969. “Annual Progress Report” (January 1, 1968–December 31, 1968) Report No. 7, CAI Center, Institute of Human Learning, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Hartley, J.R., 1966. “Optional and Controlled Branching: Comparison Studies”, The Journal of Programmed Instruction 3 (4) 5–11.
Hartley, J.R., Sleeman, D.H., et al., 1969. “Teaching and Evaluation Logics in a Computer Assisted Learning System.” Paper presented at University of Leeds, England, September.
Hickey, Albert, 1974. “Research Guidelines for Computer-Assisted Instruction.” Paper presented at Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems (ADCIS) Winter Meeting, Jan. 29–Feb. 1, Washington, D.C.
Hunter, B., Kastner, C.S., Rubin, M.L., and Seidel, R.J., 1975. Learning Alternatives in U.S. Education: Where Student and Computer Meet. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.
Jacobson, E. and Thompson, M., 1975. “Self-Managed Learning Using CAI.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March 30–April 3, Washington, D.C.
Judd, W.A., Bunderson, C.V., and Bessent, E.W., 1970. “An Investigation of the Effects of Learner Control in Computer-Assisted Instruction Prerequisite Mathematics (MATHS).” Technical Report No.5, Computer-Assisted Instruction Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.
Judd, W.A., Daubek, K., and O'Neil, H.F., Jr., 1975. “Individual Differences in Learner Controlled CAI.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March 30–April 3, Washington, D.C.
Luskin, B.J., 1970. “An Identification and Examination of Obstacles to the Development of Computer Assisted Instruction.” Unpublished EdD Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, Cal.
Mager, R.F., 1964. “Learner-Controlled Instruction—1958–1964”, Programmed Instruction 4 (2): 1–8, 10, 11.
Mandler, G. and Sarason, S.B., 1952. “A study of Anxiety and Learning”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44: 166–173.
McMullen, D.W., 1975. “Parallel Mastery With Learner Control.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March 30–April 3, Washington, D.C.
Merrill, P.F., 1971. “Task Analysis—An information Processing Approach.” Tech Memo No. 27, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Mukherjee, B.N., 1964. “Development of a Forced-Choice Test of Achievement Motivation.” Report Number CRP-S-113, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind.
Olivier, W.P., 1971. “Learner and Program-Controlled Sequences of Computer-Assisted Instruction.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Febr., New York.
O'Neal, F., 1973. “Learner Control of Instruction: Requirements and Potentials.” Paper presented at the ADCIS Conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Perry D.L. and Cantley G., 1965. “Computer Programmer Selection and Training in System Development Corporation.” Tech. Memo 2234, System Development Corporation.
Rappaport, M.M. and Rappaport, H., 1975. “The Other Half of the Expectancy Equation: Pygmalion”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 67 (4).
Rowan, T.C., 1957. “Psychological Tests and Selection of Computer Programmers”, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 9: 348–353.
Seidel, R.J., 1969. “Computers in Education: The Copernican Revolution in Education Systems”, Computers and Automation, March, 24-9; issued as HumRRO Professional Paper 16–69, May.
Seidel, R.J., 1971. “Theories and Strategies Related to Measurement in Individualized Instruction”, Hum RRO Professional Paper 2-71, March.
Seidel, R.J., 1973. “Research on Instructional Decision Models.” HumRRO Final Report FR-D1-73-6, Dec.
Seidel, R.J. and Hunter, H.G., 1970. “The Application of Theoretical Factors in Teaching Problem-Solving by Programmed Instruction.” HumRRO Professional Paper 23-70, Aug.
Seidel, R.J. and Kopstein, F., 1968. “A General Systems Approach to the Development and Maintenance of Optimal Learning Conditions.” HumRRO Professional Paper 1–68, Jan.
Seidel, R.J., et al., 1969 a. “Project IMPACT: Computer-Administered Instruction Concepts and Initial Development.” HumRRO Technical Report 69-3, March.
Seidel, R.J., et al., 1969 b. “Project IMPACT: Description of Learning and Prescription for Instruction.” HumRRO Professional Paper 22-69, June.
Shuford, E., and Brown, T.A., 1975. “Elicatation on Personal Probabilities and their Assessment”, Instructional Science 4 (2) 137–188.
Shuford, E.H. Jr., Albert, A., and Massengill, H.E., 1966. “Admissible Probability Measurement Procedures”, Psychometrika 31 (2), June, 125–145.
Spence, K.W., and Spence, J.T., eds., 1967. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C.D., O'Neil, H.F., and Hansen, D.N., 1972. “Anxiety, Drive Theory and Coputer-Assisted Learning”, in Moher, B.A., ed., Progress in Experimental Personality Research: VI, New York: Academic Press.
Swets, J., et al., 1964. “Further Experiments on Computer-Aided Learning of Sound Identification and Cope Light Pen.” NAVTRADEVCEN Technical Report 789-2, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., April.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The study described in this report is part of an extensive program of research in the area of instructional strategies and decision models, sponsored by the U.S. Army and The National Science Foundation. The opinions expressed do not reflect official positions of any sponsors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seidel, R.J., Wagner, H., Rosenblatt, R.D. et al. Learner control of instructional sequencing within an adaptive tutorial CAI environment. Instr Sci 7, 37–80 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00121275
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00121275