Student use of computer‐assisted learning (CAL) and effects on learning outcomes

Abstract

This article reports on a qualitative evaluation of student use of a computer-assisted learning (CAL) program and associated learning outcomes. Learning outcomes were classified by analysis of examination scripts using the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy, and individuals were interviewed to uncover aspects of their learning processes while using the CAL program. All students were aware of the "design for learning" features of the CAL program, although not all students were able to take advantage of these because of their own note-taking practices. Verbatim or excessive note-taking was associated with surface learning outcomes, while summarizing or personal note-taking and engagement with the program was associated with deep learning outcomes. Other factors affecting learning outcomes included students' perceptions of the role of the program, social elements of the learning environment, and a lack of distinction between major and minor issues in the content.

Dissection versus Prosection: A Comparative Assessment of the Course Experiences, Approaches to Learning, and Academic Performance of Non‐medical Undergraduate Students in Human Anatomy

“…The deep and surface approach scales neither share a direct inverse relationship, nor are they permanent traits (Biggs, 1987), so each student may exhibit a complex combination of deep and surface approaches that is uniquely tailored to the individual, the learning environment, and their perception of that learning environment (Biggs, 1987; Trigwell and Prosser, 1991). Deep approaches have been repeatedly tied to desirable products of learning such as higher academic achievement, skill development, and meaningful learning (van Rossum and Schenk, 1984; Newstead, 1992; Gibbs, 1994; Norton and Dickens, 1995; Zimitat and McAlpine, 2003; Pandey and Zimitat, 2007). Therefore, constructing an environment to encourage deep approaches is widely endorsed (Trigwell and Prosser, 1991).…”

“…Similarly, situational presage factors such as the instructional methods and the student's perceived course experience also contribute to SAL (Entwistle and Tait, 1990; Trigwell and Prosser, 1991; Lizzio et al, 2002). Given the known relationship between SAL and academic performance (van Rossum and Schenk, 1984; Newstead, 1992; Gibbs, 1994; Norton and Dickens, 1995; Zimitat and McAlpine, 2003; Pandey and Zimitat, 2007), these influencing variables should be accounted for when evaluating the role of different environments, such as dissection and prosection, in modulating learning (Biggs, 1987; Theobald and Freeman, 2014). However, due to the complexity of learning, as well as ethical and administrative considerations that limit the creation of identical study populations, educational research is often confounded by overlooked presage factors (Thompson and Marshall, 2020).…”

Design and use of a multimedia trainer for the subject Descriptive Geometry

“…Other factors affecting learning outcomes can be social elements in the learning environment or a lack of distinction between major and minor issues in the content [6].…”

“…From this problem, the following work was defined and tackled: to design, to develop and to evaluate a means of Computer Assisted Teaching to train the students in the methodologies of resolution of the typical problems of the subject Descriptive Geometry, since the application may be used by instructors in a complementary way for their courses [6].…”

Commentary: When can we claim to have made teaching better using multimedia?

“…If you feel a need to take evaluation more seriously then you may be disappointed with the lack of agreed standards [2]. Faced with the need to take some form of approach I would commend you to the following article by Zimitat and McAlpine titled “Student use of computer‐assisted learning (CAL) and effects on learning outcomes” [3]. In that article you will find that a standardized Study Process Questionnaire can be adapted to produce analyses of deep and shallow learning by students using computer tutorials.…”