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. Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases
  2. Competing Vegetation Structure Indices for Estimating Spatial Constrains in Carabid Abundance Patterns in Chinese Grasslands Reveal Complex Scale and Habitat Patterns
  3. Spaces for challenging experiences, indeterminacy, and experimentation
  4. Mapping Khulan habitats - a GIS based approach.
  5. Commitment to grand challenges in fluid forms of organizing
  6. Soft Optimal Computing Methods to Identify Surface Roughness in Manufacturing Using a Monotonic Regressor
  7. A Review of the Application of Machine Learning and Data Mining Approaches in Continuum Materials Mechanics
  8. Determination of 10 particle-associated multiclass polar and semi-polar pesticides from small streams using accelerated solvent extraction
  9. Training effects of two different unstable shoe constructions on postural control in static and dynamic testing situations
  10. Intraspecific trait variation patterns along a precipitation gradient in Mongolian rangelands
  11. Artificial Intelligence in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching
  12. Unraveling Privacy Concerns in Complex Data Ecosystems with Architectural Thinking
  13. A survey of empirical studies using transaction level data on exports and imports
  14. Governing Objects from a Distance
  15. An Outcome-Oriented, Social-Ecological Framework for Assessing Protected Area Effectiveness
  16. Aspect-oriented software development
  17. Web-Based Drills in Maths Using a Computer Algebra System
  18. Effectiveness of a Web-Based Cognitive Behavioural Intervention for Subthreshold Depression
  19. Machine Learning and Data Mining for Sports Analytics
  20. E-stability and stability of adaptive learning in models with private information
  21. Action rate models for predicting actions in soccer
  22. Time Use Research and Time Use Data
  23. Failing and the perception of failure in student-driven transdisciplinary projects
  24. Computational history of knowledge
  25. Increased auditor independence by external rotation and separating audit and non audit duties?
  26. Lost-customers approximation of semi-open queueing networks with backordering
  27. Pushing the Envelope: Creating Public Value in the Labor Market
  28. An Interactive Layers Model of Self-Regulated Learning and Cognitive Load