Theorists and researchers have suggested that some degree of individual control is an important and necessary instructional component. Students may better learn how to learn through making instructional choices and may feel more intrinsic motivation for learning, which ultimately results in better performance. In this study, learner and program control of content review were provided in science computer-assisted instruction (CAI). The instruction was completed by 98 eighth-grade students. Results indicate that students under learner control scored higher on the posttest than those under program control. Reading ability accounted for the highest proportion of variance in posttest scores. No differences were noted in time to completion between treatment groups. The overall results suggest that students given limited control over instruction can adjust their study behaviors appropriately and achieve greater learning in the same amount of time than can students not given such control.

No abstract

No abstract

The study investigated the effects of three types of evaluation on preservice teachers' performance, knowledge and attitudes related to writing lesson plans that incorporate technology. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment conditions: teacher-evaluation, self-evaluation or peer-evaluation. All groups completed three class periods of instruction on writing lesson plans, then each subject submitted his/her draft lesson plan. The drafts were evaluated by assigned evaluators (teacher, self or peer), who provided scores and written feedback on a 15-item rubric. Students then revised their lesson plans into final form. All three treatment groups improved their lesson plans significantly from draft version to final version, with the teacher-evaluation group showing significantly greater improvement and writing significantly better final lesson plans than each of the other two groups. Teacher-evaluation and self-evaluation groups had significantly higher scores on a knowledge-based posttest than the peer-evaluation group. Several suggestions are discussed for making further improvements in the self-evaluation and peer-evaluation processes.

No abstract

This study investigated the effects of several elements of instruction (objectives, information, practice, examples and review) when they were combined in a systematic manner. College students enrolled in a computer literacy course used one of six different versions of a computer-based lesson delivered on the web to learn about input, processing, storage and output of a computer. The six versions of the program consisted of (1) a full version that contained information plus objectives, practice with feedback, examples and review, (2) a version without objectives, (3) one without examples, (4) one without practice, (5) one without review and (6) a lean version containing information only. Results indicated participants who used one of the four versions of the computer program that included practice performed significantly better on the posttest and had consistently more positive attitudes than those who did not receive practice. Implications for the development of computer-based instruction are explored.

This study investigated the effects of teacher, self and peer evaluation on preservice teachers' performance, knowledge and attitudes. Earlier research by the same authors revealed that students made significant improvements in their lesson plans under all three of these conditions, but the teacher-evaluation improved significantly more than the two student-evaluation groups. Therefore, relevant training and practice in the evaluation process were added in this study. All three groups made significant improvements from draft to final version of their plans, and the differences between the teacherevaluation group and the two student-evaluation groups were non-significant. The authors attribute the stronger performance of the student-evaluation groups to their training on the evaluation task. Students' overall attitudes were significantly more positive toward teacher evaluation than toward peer evaluation, but did not differ significantly between these two groups and the self-evaluators. Several suggestions are discussed for further improvements in the training of self and peer evaluators.

No abstract