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

Forschende

  1. Neele Puhlmann

Aktivitäten

  1. Field Experimentation in Governance Research. Early insights from researching the effectiveness of public participation in implementing the EU Floods Directive
  2. Digitalization and cross-border knowledge transfer: The impact on international assignments
  3. Between primary and secondary information: Gilbert Simondon and the question of complexity and control
  4. Travelling Codes
  5. Robotic Mobile Fulfillment Systems
  6. The influence of polycentricity on collaborative environmental management – the case of EU Water Framework Directive implementation in Germany
  7. Time and Organizational Development
  8. The global classroom: Introduction, presentation and workshops
  9. It's how, not what we use that matters - Communications Modes in the Internet
  10. Artistic Utopian Spaces and the Promise of Urban Development
  11. Verification of Measuring the Bearing Clearance Using Kurtosis, Recurrences and Neural Networks and Comparison of These Approaches
  12. Linking Teaching and Learning Formats with Student Development of Key Sustainability Competencies
  13. Unintended Consequences of Field Experiments in Poverty Settings
  14. CIRCULATING OBJECTS: four stories about bocios
  15. Where To Start? Exploring 1-Year-Students’ Preconceptions of Sustainable Development
  16. Predicting negotiation success with a multitude of negotiators’ inter-individual differences—a latent personality model of the successful negotiator
  17. Strengthening Form-Focused Practice in Task-Based Language Teaching Through Intelligent CALL (EUROCALL)
  18. Where To Start? Exploring 1-Year-Students’ Preconceptions of Sustainable Development
  19. Foresters understanding of forest nature and its gender

Publikationen

  1. Performance Saga: Interview 01
  2. Study of fuzzy controllers performance
  3. Simple saturated PID control for fast transient of motion systems
  4. A Lean Convolutional Neural Network for Vehicle Classification
  5. Employing A-B tests for optimizing prices levels in e-commerce applications
  6. An intersection test for the cointegrating rank in dependent panel data
  7. “Ideation is Fine, but Execution is Key”
  8. An analytical approach to evaluating nonmonotonic functions of fuzzy numbers
  9. Understanding the properties of isospectral points and pairs in graphs
  10. Improvements in Flexibility depend on Stretching Duration
  11. Pluralism and diversity: Trends in the use and application of ordination methods 1990-2007
  12. Editorial: Machine Learning and Data Mining in Materials Science
  13. Effects of diversity versus segregation on automatic approach and avoidance behavior towards own and other ethnic groups
  14. Between Recognition and Abstraction
  15. Using data mining techniques to investigate the correlation between surface cracks and flange lengths in deep drawn sheet metals
  16. Species constancy depends on plot size - A problem for vegetation classification and how it can be solved
  17. Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases
  18. The Relation of Children's Performances in Spatial Tasks at Two Different Scales of Space
  19. Modelling, explaining, enacting and getting feedback: How can the acquisition of core practices in teacher education be optimally fostered?
  20. archiDART: an R package for the automated computation of plant root architectural traits
  21. A Lyapunov Approach to Set the Parameters of a PI-Controller to Minimise Velocity Oscillations in a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Using Chopper Control for Electrical Vehicles
  22. Trait-based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services
  23. Binary Random Nets II
  24. Understanding Context Collapse for Social Media Users
  25. Challenging the status quo of accelerator research: Concluding remarks