The effects of different on-line adaptive response time limits on speed and amount of learning in computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

The effects of different on-line adaptive response time limits on speed and amount of learning in computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring. / Leutner, Detlev; Schumacher, Gerd.
in: Computers in Human Behavior, Jahrgang 6, Nr. 1, 01.01.1990, S. 17-29.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{672eeca9a63d4045826b95db225d871e,
title = "The effects of different on-line adaptive response time limits on speed and amount of learning in computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring",
abstract = "Instructional systems usually do not limit the time available to a learner for responding to questions or practice items. However, experiments conducted by Robert Tennyson and his research group indicate that with regard to the speed of learning this common practice is less efficient compared with the computer-controlled adaptation of a proper response time limit to the learner's increasing competence during instruction. Until now the theoretical background of these results is not well understood and the effects are only reported by a single research group. In this article two experiments are reported. They are based on recent cognitive theories and are aiming at differences between learner control of the response time and adaptive program control of a response time limit on speed and amount of rule learning. Experiment number 1 (N = 66, 3-group-ANCOVA-design) replicated the results of Tennyson and co-workers: Learning speed is highest under a response time limit which is adapted on-line to the achievement of the student in such a way that there is short time available to respond at low achievement and more time at increasing achievement. Learning speed is slowest under a response time limit which is inversely adapted to increasing achievement. Learner control without any time limit is located in-between. Experiment number 2 (N = 40, 2-group-ANCOVA-design) extends this effect to the overall level or amount of learning within a fixed time period: Students learn more under an adaptive response time limit than under learner control without any response time limit. This effect, however, depends on a successful implementation of the algorithm to adjust the response time limit. Otherwise there is a kind of boomerang effect by which learning is hindered. Furthermore, the results indicate that the effects of an adaptive response time limit are more cognitive than motivational, so that they are in accordance with modern cognitive theories like ACT* and repair theory.",
keywords = "Psychology",
author = "Detlev Leutner and Gerd Schumacher",
year = "1990",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/0747-5632(90)90028-F",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "17--29",
journal = "Computers in Human Behavior",
issn = "0747-5632",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effects of different on-line adaptive response time limits on speed and amount of learning in computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring

AU - Leutner, Detlev

AU - Schumacher, Gerd

PY - 1990/1/1

Y1 - 1990/1/1

N2 - Instructional systems usually do not limit the time available to a learner for responding to questions or practice items. However, experiments conducted by Robert Tennyson and his research group indicate that with regard to the speed of learning this common practice is less efficient compared with the computer-controlled adaptation of a proper response time limit to the learner's increasing competence during instruction. Until now the theoretical background of these results is not well understood and the effects are only reported by a single research group. In this article two experiments are reported. They are based on recent cognitive theories and are aiming at differences between learner control of the response time and adaptive program control of a response time limit on speed and amount of rule learning. Experiment number 1 (N = 66, 3-group-ANCOVA-design) replicated the results of Tennyson and co-workers: Learning speed is highest under a response time limit which is adapted on-line to the achievement of the student in such a way that there is short time available to respond at low achievement and more time at increasing achievement. Learning speed is slowest under a response time limit which is inversely adapted to increasing achievement. Learner control without any time limit is located in-between. Experiment number 2 (N = 40, 2-group-ANCOVA-design) extends this effect to the overall level or amount of learning within a fixed time period: Students learn more under an adaptive response time limit than under learner control without any response time limit. This effect, however, depends on a successful implementation of the algorithm to adjust the response time limit. Otherwise there is a kind of boomerang effect by which learning is hindered. Furthermore, the results indicate that the effects of an adaptive response time limit are more cognitive than motivational, so that they are in accordance with modern cognitive theories like ACT* and repair theory.

AB - Instructional systems usually do not limit the time available to a learner for responding to questions or practice items. However, experiments conducted by Robert Tennyson and his research group indicate that with regard to the speed of learning this common practice is less efficient compared with the computer-controlled adaptation of a proper response time limit to the learner's increasing competence during instruction. Until now the theoretical background of these results is not well understood and the effects are only reported by a single research group. In this article two experiments are reported. They are based on recent cognitive theories and are aiming at differences between learner control of the response time and adaptive program control of a response time limit on speed and amount of rule learning. Experiment number 1 (N = 66, 3-group-ANCOVA-design) replicated the results of Tennyson and co-workers: Learning speed is highest under a response time limit which is adapted on-line to the achievement of the student in such a way that there is short time available to respond at low achievement and more time at increasing achievement. Learning speed is slowest under a response time limit which is inversely adapted to increasing achievement. Learner control without any time limit is located in-between. Experiment number 2 (N = 40, 2-group-ANCOVA-design) extends this effect to the overall level or amount of learning within a fixed time period: Students learn more under an adaptive response time limit than under learner control without any response time limit. This effect, however, depends on a successful implementation of the algorithm to adjust the response time limit. Otherwise there is a kind of boomerang effect by which learning is hindered. Furthermore, the results indicate that the effects of an adaptive response time limit are more cognitive than motivational, so that they are in accordance with modern cognitive theories like ACT* and repair theory.

KW - Psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025343168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0747-5632(90)90028-F

DO - 10.1016/0747-5632(90)90028-F

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:0025343168

VL - 6

SP - 17

EP - 29

JO - Computers in Human Behavior

JF - Computers in Human Behavior

SN - 0747-5632

IS - 1

ER -

DOI

Zuletzt angesehen

Publikationen

  1. Formative Perspectives on the Relation Between CSR Communication and CSR Practices
  2. Study of fuzzy controllers performance
  3. Learning from partially annotated sequences
  4. Active learning for network intrusion detection
  5. Global Finite-Time Stabilization of Planar Linear Systems With Actuator Saturation
  6. A Lyapunov based PI controller with an anti-windup scheme for a purification process of potable water
  7. Embarrassment as a public vs. private emotion and symbolic coping behaviour
  8. The Creation of the Concept through the Interaction of Philosophy with Science and Art
  9. Strategies of postural control in static and in dynamic testing situations
  10. Design of an Information-Based Distributed Production Planning System
  11. Understanding and Supporting Management Decision-Making
  12. Topic selection and development in learner-native speaker voice-based telecollaborative discourse
  13. Adaptive control of the nonlinear dynamic behavior of the cantilever-sample system of an atomic force microscope
  14. Transductive support vector machines for structured variables
  15. Exploring transition research as transformative science
  16. »HOW TO MAKE YOUR OWN SAMPLES«
  17. Performance of process-based models for simulation of grain N in crop rotations across Europe
  18. Aspect-oriented software development
  19. Learning shortest paths in word graphs
  20. Distributable Modular Software Framework for Manufacturing Systems
  21. Measuring Learning Styles with Questionnaires Versus Direct Observation of Preferential Choice Behavior in Authentic Learning Situations
  22. Oddih
  23. “Ideation is Fine, but Execution is Key”
  24. Towards a spatial understanding of identity play
  25. Resolving the Complexity-Flexibility Dilemma in Multi-Issue Negotiations: Nested Bracketing as a Strategy to Enhance Negotiation Outcomes
  26. Developing a sustainable platform for entity annotation benchmarks
  27. Machine Learning For Determining Planned Order Lead Times In Job Shop Production: A Systematic Review Of Input Factors And Applied Methods
  28. Foreign bias in institutional portfolio allocation