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

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

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, Vol. 6, No. 1, 01.01.1990, p. 17-29.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

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 -

Recently viewed

Publications

  1. Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Students’ Self-report Checklist of Social and Learning Behaviour (SSL)
  2. Interactive Media as Fields of Transduction
  3. Using data mining techniques to investigate the correlation between surface cracks and flange lengths in deep drawn sheet metals
  4. Agency and structure in a sociotechnical transition
  5. From entity to process
  6. Geometric structures for the parameterization of non-interacting dynamics for multi-body mechanisms
  7. Predicate‐based model of problem‐solving for robotic actions planning
  8. Vergütung, variable
  9. Mechanism of dynamic recrystallization and evolution of texture in the hot working domains of the processing map for Mg-4Al-2Ba-2Ca Alloy
  10. A cascade controller structure using an internal PID controller for a hybrid piezo-hydraulic actuator in camless internal combustion engines
  11. Editorial: Machine Learning and Data Mining in Materials Science
  12. Computing regression statistics from grouped data
  13. Quantum Computing and the Analog/Digital Distinction
  14. The representative turn in EU studies
  15. Temporal dynamics of conflict monitoring and the effects of one or two conflict sources on error-(related) negativity
  16. Users’ handedness and performance when controlling integrated input devices
  17. Differences in adjustment flexibility between regular and temporary agency work
  18. Modelling, explaining, enacting and getting feedback: How can the acquisition of core practices in teacher education be optimally fostered?
  19. Petri net based EMIS-mappers for flexible manufacturing systems
  20. An Overview of Electro Hydraulic Full Variable Valve Train Systems to Reduce Emissions in Internal Combustion Engines
  21. Reciprocal Relationships Between Dispositional Optimism and Work Experiences
  22. A dialectical perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity
  23. 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
  24. Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology
  25. Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities