Learner Control over Full and Lean Computer-Based Instruction under Differing Ability Levels.

196 Pages·2012·2.01 MB·English

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 408 935
IR 018 340
AUTHOR
Schnackenberg, Heidi L.
TITLE
Learner Control over Full and Lean Computer-Based
Instruction under Differing Ability Levels.
PUB DATE
May 97
NOTE
194p.; Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University.
PUB TYPE
Dissertations/Theses
Doctoral Dissertations (041)
Reports
Research (143)
Tests/Questionnaires (160)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC08 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Academic Achievement; *Computer Assisted Instruction;
Education Majors; Higher Education; *Learner Controlled
Instruction; Programmed Instructional Materials; Student
Attitudes; *Student Motivation; Student Surveys; Teacher
Education Programs
ABSTRACT
Undergraduate education majors in a teacher preparation
program completed a computer-assisted instructional program for a study
designed to examine the effects of type of instructional control and program
mode on the achievement, option use, time spent on program, and attitudes of
higher and lower ability students. Students-w,,re
and
low-ability groups based on Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and American
College Testing Assessment (ACT) scores. Four versions of a
computer-delivered program on competency-based instruction were created by
crossing the two control conditions (learner control, program control) with
the two program modes (full, lean). Subjects in the full-program control
group were required to complete all questions. Subjects in the full-learner
Toi.th the entire set of auestions, but given.
control grc.,1_10 -,'ere
choices of how many and which questions they wished to complete. Subjects -in
the lean-program control group were given fewer questions than in the full
program, and required to complete all. Subjects in the lean-learner control
group were given options to'complete fewer questions or to answer additional
questions for further practice. Results include:
(1) subjects in the full
program scored significantly higher on the posttest than those in the lean
program;
(2) higher-ability students scored significantly higher than
lower-ability students;
(3) learner-control subjects chose to view 68% of the
optional screens in the full program but only 35% in the lean program; '(4)
subjects spent significantly more time on the full version; and (5) subjects
had more favorable attitudes toward learner, control than program control.
Appendices include the "Teaching for Competence" instructional program and
student posttest and attitude questionnaire. (Contains 30 references.)
(SWC)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
********************************************************************************
LEARNER CONTROL OVER FULL AND LEAN COMPUTER-BASED
INSTRUCTION UNDER DIFFERING ABILITY LEVELS
by
Heidi L. Schnackenberg
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
May 1997
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Heidi L. Schnackenberg
(>0
6
2
MP COPY AVAILABLE
0,4
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
LEARNER CONTROL OVER FULL AND LEAN COMPUTER-BASED
INSTRUCTION UNDER DIFFERING ABILITY LEVELS
by
Heidi L. Schnackenberg
has been approved
May 1997
APPROVED:
Chair
.
ll'r/eYA
Supervisory Committ
ACCEPTED:
Division Director
Dean, Graduate College
3
ABSTRACT
This study examined the effects of type of instructional control and
program mode on the achievement, option use, time in program, and attitudes of
higher-ability and lower-ability university students. Ability level was determined
using subjects' SAT and ACT scores.
The instructional materials for the study were four versions of a computer-
delivered instructional program on Competency-Based Instruction created by
crossing the two control conditions (learner control, program control) with the
two program modes (full, lean). Subjects were randomly assigned to the four
program versions within higher-ability and lower-ability groups. The program-
control versions consisted of a fixed number of screens to be completed by
students, 196 in the lean version and 240 in the full one. Each student under
learner control could add optional practice screens to the lean version or delete
optional practice screens from the full one, enabling them to adjust the length of
their program version between 196 and 240 screens.
Subjects in the full program scored significantly higher on the posttest
than those in the lean program, and higher-ability students scored significantly
higher than lower-ability students. Posttest achievement did not differ
significantly by type of control. Learner-control subjects chose to view 68% of
the optional screens in the full program but only 35% in the lean one, and
subjects also spent significantly more time in the full version. Subjects had more
favorable attitudes towards learner control than program control.
The higher achievement for students in the full version of the program
was most likely due to their greater amount of practice, both under program and
learner control. That subjects under learner control chose to view many more
optional screens in the full program than in the lean one reveals a tendency for
iii
4
many students to follow the default path through their assigned program. The
overall results of the study indicate that a relatively full version of an instructional
program is more effective for improving student achievement, and that learner
control in an instructional program is more appealing to students than program
control.
iv
5
For my sister Kimmy,
who taught me what perseverance and
overcoming obstacles are all about.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people have supported me in this endeavor and throughout the
course of my life. The following people I thank with all my heart:
To Howard Sullivan, my major professor. When I look back at this time in
I will always remember your encouragement, patience, guidance, and
my life,
sense of humor. You helped me to produce a quality of work that I never
thought I was capable of - thank you - for everything.
To my committee, John Behrens, Jim Klein, Ray Kulhavy, and Willi
Savenye. Thank you for the support, advice, mentoring, and warm smiles during
my years here at Arizona State University. A special thanks to Jim for always
taking the time to listen and to care.
To my friends, both far and near. "A faithful friend is a sure shelter.
Whoever has found one has found a rare treasure." (Ecclesiastes 6:14) Thanks
for believing in me when I didn't even believe in myself.
To my Mom. Thank you for your unwavering support and love. Knowing
that you were there for me gave me comfort in even the hardest of times.
Without you, this degree would not have been possible.
To my Dad. Thank you for always showing me the person that I would
like to become. Your perpetual smile and kind words for all that you meet show
me that the true accomplishment of a lifetime is to be happy and well-loved.
To my sister Kimmy. Thank you for reminding me not to take myself so
seriously. Your quiet determination and joyful spirit have inspired me more than
you know. You are a constant reminder to me that anything is possible with a
little faith.
To God in heaven through whom all good things come. Thank you for
teaching me that "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we
cannot see" (Hebrews 11:1) and that "there is a time for everything"
(Ecclesiastes 3:1-15). These are by far the most important lessons I have
learned in graduate school.
vi
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
.ix
LIST OF FIGURES
. x
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
1
METHOD
7
II
7
Subjects
Materials
7
10
Procedures
Criterion Measures
12
.12
Design and Data Analysis
14
RESULTS
III
14
Achievement
14
Option Use
Time in Program
19
Timeper Screen
22
30
Attitudes
33
DISCUSSION
IV
33
Student Achievement
35
Option Use
.36
Time in Program
vii
8
Time per Screen ................................... .............................39
40
Student Attitudes
42
Implications and Further Research.
44
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM:
A
48
TEACHING FOR COMPETENCE
169
POSTTEST
B
181
STUDENT ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE
C
viii
9
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
Mean Overall Posttest Scores by Program Mode,
1
Type of Control, and Ability
15
ANOVA Summary Table for Posttest Performance
16
2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages of
3
Optional Screens Viewed Under Learner Control
17
ANOVA Summary Table for Optional Screens
4
Viewed Under Learner Control
18
Mean Overall Time in Program (in Minutes) by
5
20
Program Mode, Mode of Control, and Ability
ANOVA Summary Table for Time in Program
6
(in Minutes)
21
Mean Overall Time per Screen (in Seconds) by
7
Program Mode, Mode of Control, and Ability
25
ANOVA Summary Table for Time per Screen
8
26
(in Seconds)
Attitude Scores by Mode of Control and Program Mode
31
9
ix
10