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. What would Colin say?
  2. How Much Home Office is Ideal? A Multi-Perspective Algorithm
  3. Is too much help an obstacle? Effects of interactivity and cognitive style on learning with dynamic versus non-dynamic visualizations with narrative explanations
  4. Learning how to request using textbooks
  5. Use of Machine-Learning Algorithms Based on Text, Audio and Video Data in the Prediction of Anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress in General and Clinical Populations
  6. Distributed robust Gaussian Process regression
  7. Mathematical relation between extended connectivity and eigenvector coefficients.
  8. Artificial Intelligence in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching
  9. Assembly Theory for Restoring Ecosystem Structure and Functioning
  10. A tutorial introduction to adaptive fractal analysis
  11. Nest site selection and the effects of land use in a multi-scale approach on the distribution of a passerine in an island arid environment
  12. Assessment of university students’ understanding of abstract binary operations
  13. HR practices and ambidexterity in small- and medium-sized consulting firms: An exploratory multi-case study
  14. Comparative study on corrosion behavior of we33 in immersion and polarization influenced by heat treatment
  15. Why Notational Iconicity is a Form of Operational Iconicity
  16. Comparison of Supervised versus Self-Administered Stretching on Bench Press Maximal Strength and Force Development
  17. Rolling bones
  18. Conduct or Construct Ourselves?
  19. Comedy of Deviation: Tamar Getter's Hēliotropion Cycle
  20. The Island of the Day After.
  21. War isn't hell, it's entertainment
  22. Simulation of fatigue crack growth in residual‐stress‐afflicted specimen with a phase‐field model
  23. [U]topische Körper in der Adoleszenz
  24. Erratum
  25. An empirical agent-based model of consumer co-adoption of low-carbon technologies to inform energy policy
  26. Zukünfte des Computers
  27. Ports
  28. Reform oder Ende der ErzieherInnenausbildung
  29. Client-consultant interaction
  30. Phase equilibria, thermodynamics and solidification microstructures of Mg-Sn-Ca alloys, Part 2
  31. Biodiversität
  32. On the Existence of the Moments of the Asymptotic Trace Statistic
  33. Lernaufgaben nachhaltig gedacht