Kopcha Sullivan 2008 Reaction


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Kopcha Sullivan 2008 Reaction

  1. 1. Learner Preferences and Prior Knowledge in Learner-Controlled Computer-Based Instruction<br />Reaction of Kopcha & Sullivan (2008)<br />Educational Technology Research and Development<br />Nicola Ritter<br />Texas A&M University<br />This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.<br />
  2. 2. Previous Research<br />
  3. 3. Theory<br /><ul><li>Prior Knowledge</li></ul>Cognitive theorists acknowledge the influence prior knowledge has on long-term memory storage (Ormrod, 2008).<br /><ul><li>Cognitive Load</li></ul>Cognitive theorists believe giving learners control over the instruction allows the learner to manage the cognitive demand of the activity<br />Bannert (2002), Salden et. al. (2006), and van Gog et. al. (2005) that attribute learner control to a reduction in cognitive load<br />
  4. 4. Questions<br />1. Do learners achieve better in a full version of a computer-based instructional program in which they have no control over the amount of instruction (program control) or in a full version in which they have control over the number of examples and amount of practice they receive (learner control)?<br />2. Do learners achieve better in a computer-based program when their preference for amount of learner control is matched with the amount they receive?<br />3. Are there any statistical interactions between learners’ prior knowledge on the instructional task, learner preference for control, and type of control (learner or program) that affect learner achievement?<br />4. Do amount of preference for control and prior knowledge influence learners’ choices of amount of instruction in a computer-based instructional program? <br />
  5. 5. Sample (n = 99)<br />
  6. 6. Variables<br />Independent <br />Control preference<br />Prior knowledge<br />Dependent<br />Achievement<br />Instruments<br />Learner Control Preference<br />Content Pretest<br />Content Posttest<br />
  7. 7. Method<br />
  8. 8. Results<br />Question #1: <br />Achievement higher in learner-controlled or program-controlled environments<br />Findings: <br />No statistically significant (p = .39) (η²= .01)difference between students using a learner controlled environment and program controlled environment<br />
  9. 9. Results<br />Question #2:<br />Achievement higher when preference for control is matched<br />Findings: <br />No statistically significant (p = .48) (η² = .01) difference between matched preference for control and unmatched preference for control<br />
  10. 10. Results<br />Question #3: Are there any interactions that affect learner achievement?<br />Findings: <br />A statistically significant (p < .05) (η² = .07) interaction: <br />prior knowledge x control preference x control type<br />High prior knowledge learners scored higher when their control preference matched <br />Low prior knowledge learners scored lower when their control preference matched <br />
  11. 11. Results<br />Question #4:<br />Do amount of preference for control and prior knowledge influence learners’ choices of amount of instruction in a computer-based instructional program? <br />Findings:<br />There were statistically significant relationships between control preference and both the number of options used and time in the program. While prior knowledge influenced learner attitudes about the instructional program.<br />
  12. 12. Strengths<br />Utilized mixed methods<br />Minimized novelty effects<br />All assumptions of the analyses conducted were met and discussed. <br />Scores were reliable and reported appropriately.<br />
  13. 13. Weaknesses<br />Generalizability is poor. <br />No validity information on the scores.<br />Limitations were not expressed<br />Internal validity<br />Pretest sensitization due to content<br />External validity<br />Selection-treatment interaction<br />Ecological validity<br />Non-random sample<br />
  14. 14. References<br />Kopcha, T. J., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Learner preferences and prior knowledge in learner-controlled computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(3), 265-286. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9058-1 <br />