ANALYSIS OF FACTORS REPORTED IN THE RESEARCH LITERATURE THAT AFFECT THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES RUTHERFORD, VICKY LYNN DEGREE DATE: 1991 UMI Dissertation Servncesa IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 11/00 chIRC/DateDmpGS—p.“ mesns This is an authorized facsimile, made from the microfilm master copy of the original dissertation or master thesis published by UMI. The bibliographic information for this thesis is contained in UMI’s Dissertation Abstracts database, the only central source for accessing almost every doctoral dissertation accepted in North America since 1861. [M1 Dissertation Services A Bell & Howell Company 300 North Zeeb Road PO. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1346 1-800-521-0600 734-761-4700 http'J/www.umi.com Printed in I999 by digital xerographic process on acid-free paper DPPT INFORMA'HON TO USERS mmumwmwmmmm flhutheteatdircctlyh'ontheoriglnflorcopymhnitud. “Insane thesisaaddissertationcopicsareintypevriteriace.vhieothersmy heh'olnanytypeoiconputerprinter. mmaumquummuu agent-M Brokenorindistinctprinhcoloredorpoorqnality WMWWWWW andinproperalignrnentcanadverselyfiectreprorhtcdon. lntheunlihelyeventthattheauthordidnotsendUlflacornplete mamauiptandtherearelusriogmthesewillbenoted Also,“ unaothuiaedcopyrightmatarialhadtobennovedanotevillinficste thedeletion. Oversize materials (e.g.. maps. drawings. charts) are reproduced by sectioningtheoriginaLheginningatthe upperleft-handcornerand contimingfromleittorightinequalsectionswithsmalloverlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the hack of the hook. Photographsinchrdedintheoriginalnanuscripthavebeenreproduad xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9' black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appeariqintiu'scopyioranadditionalcharge. ContactUMldirectly toorder. U-M-I Unwersaty MICfdllfl'IS lntemariora A Bell a Howell Inlormation Company 300 ~0th 2900 Road. Ann Arbor. MI 48106- I345 USA 3‘31761-47m “1521-0600 . l «lid Add?“ Order Number 9119695 Analysis of {actors reported in the research literature that elect the electiveness and eflcieney of self-instructional strategies Rutherford, Vicky Lynn, Ph.D. Michigan State University. 1991 Copyright ©1991 by Rutherford, Vicky Lynn. All rights renewed. ANALYSIS OF FACTORS REPORTED iN THE RESEARCH LITERATURE THAT AFFECT THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES by Vicky L. Rutherford A DISSERTATION submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Educational Systems Development I99! ABSTRACT ANALYSIS OF FACTORS REPORTED IN THE RESEARCH Ll‘IERATURE THAT Amer TI-IE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES By Vicky L. Rutherford “There is a need for alternative systems of instruction if the American educational sysrern is to be able to meet current educational demands of the society. Given the array of individual studenr needs. demands. and constraints. self-instructional systems (such as disunce learning. computer learning. and individual learning systems) appear to offer a significant potential 3 alternative instructional systems. The purpose of this study. then. is three-fold: to identify selected factors which appear to impact the efficiency and effectiveness of self- irrstructional sysrems. as fourd in the research literature: to analyze this data in an effort to sunrnarize the currcnr State of self-instructional systems as represented in the research literanrre; and to identify relationships which appear to exisr among factors or combinations of fxtors affecting self-instructional systems. 11re researcher conducted an integrative review using the Integrative Review Research Method. This rescach method required that the researcher analyze dau collected from existing research studies for the purpose of integrating the findings. The research findings included the following: i. The representation of self-insrructional strategies included strategies within the individualized learning sysrem (44.63% of the studies); Strategies within the cormuter learning system (29.2I‘7o of the studies found); and Strategies within the distance learning (26.17% of the studies). 2. The following strategies reported positively impact student achievemenr: CAI. expert systems. sclfoteaching workbook. and individualized instruction. 3. Leaning environment was a significant factor for each of the three selfoinstructional systrn (distance learning. individual learning. and computer learning system). Specific learner characteristics were significant in each of the learning sysrems. 4. The following student support services were reportedly offered: telephone office hours for faculty teaching the course (86%). study guides (75%). individualized feedback from faculty (75%). and phone calls initiated by faculty (70%). 5. The factors learning environment. teacher/teaching process. learning mrerial. and the learner are supported for inclusion in a self-instructional systerrr. Tire resecchcr conclrrdes by proposing an idealized model of self-instruction. The self- insrructionmodcl provides five factors and conditions which can serve the insrructional developers a guide when making decisions about what to incorporate in a self- instructional module. Copyright by VICKY LYNN RUTHERFORD l99l 'IO Herbert and Juanita Fortune my parents. and the rest of the clan. David. Carol. Tony. Wanda. lan. Chrisra. Danielle. and Noel. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the members of my doctoral committee. Dr. Peggy Riethmiller. Dr. Debra Gash. u. Lawrence Alexander. and Dr. Castelle Gentry. the chairperson. for the guidance and support drey so graciously provided. To my fivisor. Dr. Castelle Gentry. I wish to express special thanks for the years of valuable advice and consunt support that he so willingly provided during my educational pursuit. Drank you Dr. Stephen Yelon. for the encouraging words. advice. and time you so generously shared. To Valerie Nixon and the staff at the Computing Center (University of Michigan). thank you for your technical assistance and support. To my my friends. but especially Parshoram Dass. Joshua Bagaka. and Sohed Rorh'igez. thank you for your willingness to Iisren patiently and to offer encouraging words. Finally. to my family. I extend heartfelt thanks for your enduring confidence in my ability to achieve dris dream and the never-ending prayers toward this end. vi Table of Contents LISTCPTABLES I. OlapterOne: Overview irttroduction Smernent of the Problem Ptlposc of the Study Need for the Study Relevance to Field of Educational Technology Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations Characteristics of Self-Instruction Research Methodology Issues for Self-Insn-uctional Strategies Definition of Terms Research Quesrions “Irritation of the study Organization of the study Sunlnary Chpter Two : Literature Review Introduction Canpucr Learning System Individual Learning System fistance Learning System vii Page ix Summary 40 III. Chapter Three: Research Methodology Introduction to the Chapter 4| Selection Procedures 45 Coding Procedures 48 Data Analysis 50 Summary 50 IV. Chapter Four: Dam Analysis Innoduction 52 Data Collection and Analysis 52 Summary 9I V. Chapter Five: Summary of Findings. Conclusions. and Recommendations Introduction 94 Summary of Study 94 Summary of Findings. Conclusions. and Research Implications 96 Idealized Model of Self-Insrrucrion I I0 Summary 120 APPENDICES A. Coding Sheet l2l 3. Studies Included In This Research 123 BIBLINRAPHY 12$ viii Tabb List of Tables Range of Self-Insurerional Strategies Found Using ERIC Database Range of Self-Insmrcrional Snaregies Found ”in! . . , . . Ran of Seif-Instrucrional Strategies Found In Research Literature Cormarison of Self-Instructional Strategies learning Environment A Teedter/I'eaching Environment Mauial Leaner: Values Learner: Perception of Relevance Leaner: Interest. Time learner: Aptitude. Morivation (for Achievement) Learner: Level. Age Leamer: Ethnicity. Attitude Learning Environment Teacher/1' caching Process Mariel leaner: Values learner: Perception of Relevance leaner: Interest Time Page 55 S7 20. 21. 22 learner: Aptitude. Motivation (for Achievement) leaner: level. Age Ienmer: Etllucuy Attitude 89 92 #3“ “I g If CHAPTERONE introduction Dubsky (1985) observed that "[al major consequence of current and future societal change is the placement of intensified demands upon individuals " (p. 144). Educational Mordonsuefacedwithdudilenmofpmvidingeducadonaflywmdpmgmmung during a time plagued with constantly-changing educational demands. Dubslty further stats tha “lelduestional excellence is that which motivates and challenges the individual to personall'unitsinschoolandlife. ltistheprovisionofmany.variedopponunitiesfor success " (p. 144). Self-instructional strategies are used within a multitude of diverse educational systems. such as individual learning. computer learning. and distance learning. Because of this diversity among educational settings. the purpose ot‘this study is to present an analysis of the factors reported to impact the effectiveness of self-inso'uctional strategies m these diverse settings. Statemenmt'theProblem The advent and widespread use oftecltnology in the us. has had a significant impact on all phasesofour society. Typical ofcommerttsrnade by technological prognosticators is thatoflohnston and hiscolleagues (1987) : ”Teclmology will introduce change and orbulenceintoeveryindustryandeveryjob" (p. 37). Theverynatureot‘worltand its demands on the workforce me in a constant state of transition. As a result.“...(i]ndustry is demanding a more skilled and wchnologically competent workforce...”(0fl'tce of Teclutology Assessment.1988. pp. 171-172). According to Johnson et al.: “...the necessity forconstant learning and constant adapmion by workers will be a certain otttgrowth of technological innovation” (p. 37). Isl lnor'dertoptepare itscitiaenrytoaddress the transitional natureoftoday's society.our educationalsysemmustitselfundergochange. Accordingtoastudyconducted bythe Hudson Institute (1988). “...the public schools cc s'unply not producing enough functionally literate graduates. let alone graduates with skills tailored to the technologies of the 1990's and beyond...” (p. 70). American educational institutions are faced with a two-fold ptoblern. Not only must they developstntegiestoovetcomecurrentdeficiendes. buttheymustalsoproject future educationaldemandsanddevelopaplan toaddressthesedemands.1'he0fftceof Technology Assessment (1988) reports“...[t]he most profound question facing American society today is whether its institutionscan adapt to a world that has changed more drarnaticallyinthepast30yearsthaninthepteceding30dccades. OurSchoolsare assigned the monumental taslt ofarming young people to compete in this changing world...” (p. 201). lfthis neweducational system isto beeffective in its charge to arm “young pople to compete in this changing world." then die goal of educational programs must be to develop and to support learners that will exhibit flexibility and adaptability. fliese lea-nets must be flexible enough to recognize occasions which require new skill and capable of adapting current skills to meet these constuttly evolving demands. Asaresultofthetransitional natureoftoday's society.thetypesofsltills required by business and industry are changing to include such slcills as. “an ability to translate complex problems into solvable ones. an ability to absorb complex and often inconsistent information quickly" (Office of Technology Assessrnent.1986. p. 127). Many attempts have been madetoidentifyordescribethischangingsetofjobsltills. lthasbeen suggested that new workers must possess..."slrills in working with people in groups. in 3 self-education. in coping with ambiguity. and in coping with too much or too little information..." (Office of Technology Assessment. 1988. p. 48). A portion ofthe new workforce has been able toexhibita flexibility which hasenabled drerntoadapttonewjobdemands. ”Moteandmote people...are findingthattheyhmro continue to study after they finish their full-time schooling in orderto gain the extra qualifications and expertise that they need to survive...” (Percival et al.. 1988. p. 170). Moreoveuhere are a number of segments of our society which are struggling to survive. One of those segments which has found itself notably ill-prepared for dealing with the current economic state of affairs are the “... many minority workers...who continue to sufferdisadvantagesineducation and training thatmay prevent them frommoving into the new jobs that are becoming available “ (mm 1988. p. 9). According to repom from the Census Bureau. “...blaclt adults rue completing college at only half the rate of white adults. And the U.S. Hispanic population is compleo'ng college at less than half the rate of blacks “ W. 1988. p. 15). The following is a statement from the Office of Technology Assessment (1986): 'l‘ohelpprovidedreslrilledworld'orcethatAmerican industriesneed tomairttain competitivenessintheworldeconomy.the[iobtraining] programlsl will havetoreach my mac displaced workers. and emphasize training - particularly basic skills o'aining - more strongly " (p. 20). According to (3qu (1988). many students...”ftnd it difficult I) travel to an institution of higher learning...[becausel dtey are constrained by factorsrelatedtothepteasureofworlrorfamily" (p. 91). Furthermore. inaresearch report ondisunceeducation. Nanhwenya (1975) states that rrtany students who enroll in distance duration courses. for example. do so because...”‘they have no other alternative" (p. 203) . 4 PurposeoftheStudy Aconerttionthatledtothisresearchisthatoneavenuetla'oughwhichwemightreach.not onlydisplacedwakas.brnallnttdenowhofinditdifhcuhbamndoadidenal classes. is by the useof self-instructional systems. such as distance leaning. conputer learning. and individual learning systems. Percival and Ellington (1988) suggest thatthere is acurrcnt trend“...towardsamorestudent-centredappoachtolearn'urgashiftthatismanifesring ineflinaneadyhraunindemeofhrdividuflindleurfinghrafliomimfmmflp. 169). According to Shanna (1986). "conventional methods ofirrqrarting instruction are inarhquate...“ (p. 2). He further justifies this criticism by stating that the ”uniform methods of teaching" that are present in conventional education systems do nOt allow for nor adjust to differences which exist arrtong leamcrs. A contention of this research is that oneavenuethrough which panofdtetrainingneedsofdisplacedworltersmaybemet is through the use of self-insmtctional material. Hammer (1987) hypothesizes that "the fourth revolution [in world education) will occur when we individualize insmrcrion on a mass but.wlnnmadequamlyaccunnndaehrdeualdiffaencesinkamers.mdwhn learning becomes interactive for each leamer" (p. 268). Furthermore. the Office of Technology Assessment (1986) suggests the development of "a systemdducationdesignedtoprovidedteeconomywidtdteskillsneededtoprosperin the enterging world economy..."(p. 126). They ftnther state that such an educational system should have die following objectives: 'the development of a system that could allowallcitiaenstodiscovermdenjoy thepotentialoftheirownintelligence. tohave practicalaccess toall knowledgeandtomderstandandcelebrate theaccomplishmentsof the human mind and spirit " (p. 126). One goal of education. according to Deatsman (1971) "...is to produce individuals capable of continuing self-education “ (p. 67). He further suggests that the use of independent study in colleges "...might contribute to the development of one‘s ability for self- education" (p. 67). Bloom (1984) . cormrenting on several studies comparing three kinds ofinstruction (conventional insuuction. mastery learning. and tutoring). concludes that "...[tlhe tutoring processdemonstrates thatmost ofthe studentsdohave the patential to reach [a] high level of learning” (p. 4). He further recommends that researchers “...seek ways of accomplislu'ngthis undermorepractical andrcalisticconditionsthandreone-to—one tutoring. which is too costly for most societies to bear on a large scale" (p. 4). in recent years. educational progmnming in higher education has been directed toward making "...college credit more accessible to people wherever they may live or work or whatever their particular life circumstances" (Brown. et a1. 1973. p. 1). Brown and his colleagues (1973) report that accessibility currently implies “...reaching students where they are at physically and educationally" (p. 1). Deanman (1971) shares the observation that" [ilnrecentyearsindependetustudyhasbecomeincreasinglycommon inAmerican schoolsandcollegesasavarietyofinstructional methods have been adopted which replace attendance of conventional classes with individual self-instruction" (p. 64) . DmaHElyandhiscoaudtashaveurdicaedmadtueiscmdyaoendmusedismnce emrcationhn exarrpleofaself-insrructional system)asaneducationaldelivery system. 1hrypoimrodefactdut'interestindusaspemoferhnanonalechmbgyhasbeen Whpmbyconcemsoverequityindrefaceofshonagesofqualifiedelementary and secondary school teachers. Where a sufficient supply of teachers is unavailable or 6 wherethereare unusually high tumoverrates.as innualorinnercity districts. student oppomtnitytoleam isdiminished"(Educarional MediaandTechnology Yearbook:1‘he Year in Review.l988. p. 10). Wood (1988) contends that "...while traditional methods will condnue to play a valuable role indevelopirtgcertain typesofskillsatkeyperiodsintheworking lifeofindividuals. theycanMondreirowncopewith thegrowing volumeandvarietyofpresentand future trainingneeds"(p.9). “rereisaneedforalternativesystermofinstructionifthe Amaicaneducadmnlsyscmismbeabktoneetcmntedueadonddemndsofthe society. Given the array of individual student needs. demands. and constraints. self- instruetional systemsappeartoofferasignirtcantpotential asaltemative instructional systems. in addition. Ross( 1984) found that ”(clompared to classroom lectures. the adaptationptovided [byoomputer-assisted-instructionlcan betailoredtothe needsofeach individual ratherthanbeingresrricted tothe nonnativecharacteristicsofaclassofstudents“ (p. 42). Therefore. self-instructional systems. such as individual learning. computer learning. and distance learning systems. should be considered seriously as possible instructional alternatives. 1heptuposeofthisstudy.then.isthree-fold:toidentify selectedfactorswhichappearto impacttheefficiencyandefl'ectiveness ofself-insmrctionalsystems.asfoundinthe research literantrettoanalyze dtisdatainanetfontosummarizedtecurrent stateofself- instructional systemsasrepresented in theresearchliterature; and to identify relationships which appeartoexistamong facta'sorcombinations of factors affecting self-instructional systems. 5' J 335'8 #933"? 55 7 Need fordte study Tumblicrannenveakmmyreseamhmrdieswhkhhawmssedawidevanety of issues relatingto self- instruction. However. no studies were found which identified the rangeof paro’cularfactors in support of the proposedresearch.thathavean impacton the efi'ecrivenessandefficiencyofself-insmrction. ln thissntdy.effectivencssisdefinedas thedegreebwhichadesiredoutcomeisproduced. Efficiencyisdefinedasthedegreeto whichadesiredefi’ectisacluevedwithuteleastuseofdnmsuncesavaflable. According to Green ( 1967). one goal of research should be to assess "...the relative effectiveness of the various components of [an instructional] system” (p. 85) . Green justifies this reconanendation. stating that it is necessary “...to determine whether certain combinadomofcornpotenoofdtesystemanbteffectcmyingthebnmtofdte instructional burden. while others are contributing little” (p. 85) . Ault and others (1989) have reconanended that researchers should conduct (a)..."more studies comparing the effectiveness and efficiency of instructional strategies." (5)...” investigations of the specific va'iablesofsingle strategiesto identifythemostefficientuseofeach procedure.” and (c)..." research to determine which strategy is best to use with given types of students and skills '(P- 346). Thisrcsearcherhareviewedtheliterature through severalsoureesdncluding: Educational Resourceslnformation Center (ERIC).searchedforthe period 1979 through 1990: the CormehensichissertationWmmuallywchedfortheperiod 1979tluough 1988: the Disserution Absoacndatabase.elecoonicallysearchedfortheperiodl950dtrough 199Ihutdotherrelevantbooks.journalsanddocurnents.notfoundin thesedatabases. werealsosearched. Noneoftheseseuchesgaveevidenceofanycomptehensivegathering ofreae-ch idenrifyingandanalyzing factors inoactingtheeffectivenessandefficiency of self-instructional systems. RelevancetotheFteldodeucationalTechnology ltisagivenIhaLifthefieldofeducationaltechnologyistocontinuetogrowanddevelop. diaemuncondnuembeahnkbetwemresearehemducedindteareaofinsmenmal technologyandtheprofessionalactiviuesofpr'acodortersintrtefield. ‘lheresearchonself- insmrctionanditsrelatcdfactotsarescamedthroughouttheliteranueandisnoteasily accessedby ptactitionersinthefield. lntheopinionofthistesearcher.itisnecessaryfor developetstointepate researchandpractice. Moffettfl983. p. 169)contendsthat "...[ilnstructionaldevelopment is itself aresearchptocess. insofarasit seekstofind the mosteffectiveinsmrctionalaltemao'ves foragivenandspecificsetofcircumsunces.“ This snrdynemisanmemptopresentvalidmeuchdanteladngmself-utsoucdoninamore mmageablemdlessscatteredformat. 'l'heresexcherwouldhopethatbysodoing. pncodataswouldnmrudflymviewmhfiruinuuseudtemteoftheucunent ptacticesin lightof these results.and. finally. eithermake adjustments in their current pracucesadevebpahstofcarsidaadmuwevaluateintarmofcmrempractiees. Theoretical 81d Conceptual Foundations I . n . mpmblmofprovidinginsmxdonfwdeutdividuflhasbeenapproachedmmany ways. UnwinanndAlaeseU978)statethat"[tlhereisnoonewayoroneprocedurethat cmnukeavailabledrevaietyofleanungcordinaunecessuytoaccmunodacau individuals. Armdtiplicityofapproachesnutstbemadeavailableandinanaddplicityof 9 ways " (p. 391). The development of self-instructional systems appears to reflect the influence of both behavioral and cognitive leaming theory. Wing. According to the behaviorist's viewpoint. the learner is ”...a passive recipient of environmental stimulation“ (Saettler. 1990. p. 318). Since the leuneris perceived as “...playing a very passive role in die learrting process" (Dubin & Okun. 1973. p. 16). behaviorists focus on external behavior and emphasize the need to mnipulate instructional nutcrial(Saett1er. 1990). Behaviorists. therefore. view media as reinforcement and as "...displacing the teacher in many instructional situations" (Saettler. 1990. p. 286). The strict behaviorist "...avoids any speculation about what is going on in the mind” (Dubin a Okun. 1973. p. 4). The neo-behaviorist. on the otherhand. ”...considertsl what happens between the input of stimuli and the output of responses in terns of mediational processes” (Dubin & Okun. 1973. p.4). The behaviorist view of learning inplies such aco’vities as "...making careful analyses of desired behaviors....employing appropriate schedules of reinforcement....uti1izing knowledge of results as reinforcement and specifying terminal behaviors.." (Dubin 8t Okun. 1973. pp. 16-17). These implications ”...emphasiae. for the most part. the relationship between the operants (responses) and stimuli (reinforcers)" (p. 17). Winning. The cognitivist maintains a “...concern for man's ability DMWMMWMMWWMB internally inthe form of comitive structtrre" (Dubin & Okun. 1973. p. 14). According to this viewpoint. die leaner is "...active. constructive. and problem-solving" (Saettler. 1990. p. 318). The 10 leaner.therefore. "...becomesanactivepudcipantin dteprocessofacquiringandusing knowledge" (p. 14). Cognitivistsemphasiae ”...how learnersusethe'u'knowlcdgeandconsmrctionsto understutd what they are taught” (Saettler. 1990. p. 319). Because of this position. ”aeognidvesmenueofduwvimnlkconsidaedwbeofpuammtknponancefu Iearn'atg" (Dubin & Okun. 1973. p. 4). They also emphasize “...the need to appraise or antic'pnewhatcognitive smacturesorunderstandingsbarnersbringtodre instructional situation" (p. 319). The cognitivist view of leaning implies activities such as ”...utalyzing the types of errors made. using knowledge of results as feedback. assessing the complexity of the learner‘s cognitive structure. and linking new information to die learner’s existing Imowledge system" (Dubin & Okun. 1973. p. 17). These implications ”...so'ess the operations which the learner perfonnson the stimuli which heencodes" (Dubin 8t Okun. 1973. p. 17). Warning Sevaaldminshaveproposednndekofcachingwhichnfbaeiderabehaviomlma copudvepuspecdve.11ueemchnndeklnvebeenidmdfiedbydnresearcherwhkh aternptwfimuplaindnvanayofapprochesukenbyedwaminvdvedmself- instruction. 'l'hemodelreflectingthebehaviorist's viewpointiswmm W. Two trtodelsreflectingthecognitivist's viewpoim includem I' I . IIIndB III] E 'l' . . WWW Rorhkopt‘smdelisatrodwofthe beluviorist'sphilosophyofeducation. Rodtkopfrecogniaeddteinporranceofthepartthat the learner plays in the learning situation. lie suggested that "...teaching plays a certain ll role. but what a student learns is ultimately determind by his own activities.“ (Baath. 1979. p. 28). Hewaspudcularlycutcanedaboutdepmdtatvanouschancterisdcsofwnnen textplay irt itstruction. He identifies three teaching-relevant characteristics of text: content. representation. and form. Content refers to the completeness. acctncy. goal guidance of dretestudtheextenttowhich uruelatedmaterial isincluded. Representationtefersto the choice of words. exposition. and text organization and sequencing. Form refers to the grarnnaticalstrucnrreandcomplexityofthetext. AccordingtoRothkopf.theteacher defines die learning of objectives (or accepts objectives determined by a higher authority). hechoosestextrnaterial. andhetriestofacilitateandconnolthe students' processing of this material" (Bath. 1979. p. 33). W]. Bruner's model reflects a cognitivist's view of educlion. Drum suggest that teaching should "...wirmrily be directed towards helping rhesrudentstogainaninsightintodtesmrcnneofafieldoflmowledge- its basicconcepts and principles as well as their interrelationships (Baath. 1979. p. 62). The teachers role. then.isto"...planthelessonsinsuchawaythattheyareconcentratedonessential problems...” and to ”...present the material needed as a basis for the students' problem- solving” (Bath. 1979. p. 62). Onpramygodofdceachautmisnedelisbdecrusedndeyeeofdepmdememat surrentsfeeltowadtheteacher. Thisnndelrecornmertdstltat"[c]orrective feedback shouldbegiveninsuchawaythatthestudentwillnottemaindependentontheteacher’s helplongerthannecessary. Eventually.thestudenthastotakeoverthecorrective function himself" (Baath.1979. p.63). 12 lndtistmdeLthe learningobjecdvesltddteindividualsoategiesoattaindtoseobjecdves are learns-dependent. it is noted that ”...teachinggoalscanbe specifiedonlyin a fairly broadoutline andcanbeattainedinpartlydifferent ways bydifferent studentsparticipating in the same course" (Baath. 1979. p.62). WW Rosen' madam“; humartisricviewof education. lndtisntodekthe teacherplaysasupporrive.secondaryrole. Thismodel suggests that "...the teacher's attinrde should be nottodireco've. His principle teaching task is to provide resources for the studenr's learning - including himself (Bath. 1979. p. 73). ‘l'helearner.ontheodterhand.hasaprimaryrolein theleamingsinration: “hechooseshis goals [perhaps within certain frantes]. cakes the responsibility for die learning process. and evaluates his own learning work and its results" (Bath. 1979. p. 73). In this model. becauseeach lemterorchestrates his/herown learning ”...the learning goals must be allowed to vary considerably between different students of the same course” (Bath. 1979. P- 72). Characteristics of Self-instruction Gagne and his colleagues (1988. p. 297) suggest that an ”...array of educational methods" hawbeenuudnhflividtafluutsoucdaLAmngmenmhodsnmedwuewp297-298): 1. brdependerustudyplminwhichdtereisagreemembetweenastudentand a tacherononly themost general level ofstatedobjectives... 2. Self-directed study. which may involve agreement on specific objectives but with no restrictions upon how the student learns... 3. Leamercerrteredprograminwhichstudentsdecideagreatdealfor thennelves within broadly defined areas... 13 4. Self-pacing. in which learners work at their own rates. but upon objectives setbytheteacherandrequiredofall students... 5. Student-determined instruction. providing for student judgmmt in (several areas such as) selection of objectives...selection of materials...selection of a schedule. Demindemydalf-Wmfiammitappwsmummdiues eainamngdmefxmpeseuinaflofdumethodsdnleannndtceachendte nataials. 'l'heleanerandtheteacherworkcollabotatively. Thelearnerassumessomemeasureof responsibilityforhis/herinsmrcrion. Theleamermayberequiredtornakedecisions concerningwhattolearn.thebestwaytolearnthematerial.andwhenhelshehasleamed dispercribednnterials. AecordingtoGagneandothers(1988). "(ilndividualized instruction dependstoa lesser degreeondeteachersfurcnonaspmviderofudormanontnnresnessisphcedon cormseling, evaluating. monitoring. and diagnosing " (p. 315). The teacher often serves in asupportiverole. 111eactivitiesoftheteacherareorchesoated.inlargemeasure.in responsetotheactivitiesofthe learner. lnaracuaulmaaialsdedpedmmeetdreutdividtnlneedsofeachfludemue chuacteristically differentfromrraditional classroom insmrction. Gagne and his colleagues (1988.p.315)suggestthefollowingdifferencesexist: 1. Modules are usually more distinctly self-insmtctional...; 2. The materials [thermelves] domoredirect teaching“: 3. Smcsymprovideahemaivenmerialsmdmediafrreachobjective. l4 Thermuialsusedinsynumofself-insmeuonuededgnedbmppatdeirumrcnmal requirementsoftheleamer. Theyaredesignedbprovidednsomemeastledhedirection ardutsoucdonwhichwouldbeprovidedbydtechsuoaneadterdtuingoadidmal i . This teseucher investigated existing self-insmrctioml sysuns searching for evidertce of theinqtactoftheirrespectivecornponentpartsonsrudentleaning. Thisteaearcheralso cviewedfindingsfianmtdiesrepaongdtehnpactdself-mmnonflsoategies. The uaidpatedprodrctdstmhamseamhscuegyanmmnuuadmconcuning:(l)meset of componentpartsrequired for self-instructional systems: and (2) the interrelationships amongthesecorrqronentpartsforgivenlearningtasks. Thepurposeofthissntdy.then.istoinvestigateevidencefoundindteresearchlitetature documenting the effectiveness and efficiency of seleced self-instruco'onal so'ategies. as to theirrepra'udeffecton the several conqronentpartsofseleced self-instructional systems -- including. learner. design. environment. and support. Reselch Methodology The Integrative Review Research Method is one of several research review techniques. This teaeuch techru‘que ertables the researcher to "...accurately sunanariae research as it is reported“ (Eugen-Drowns. 1986. p. 396) ad to ”...systetmtically attempt to relate study feanns or treatment characteristics to the study outcomes" (p.398). This review technique providesaprocedurethrough whichtheresearchermayexpla'ediversityamongsnrdy outcomes. For the researcher who may ”...prirnarily want at describe a body of lime..." this research technique enables hirther to answer such questions as “...What does available research say about treatment X's effects?” (Bangers-Drowns. 1986. p. 396). 15 ltalsoisdesignedaiprovideanswerssuchastowhedraleiversity in study outcomes...is due to subtle differences in setting. subjects....or researcher" (Bangert- Drowns. 1986. p. 388). issues for Self-Instructional Strategies Educadanlmeuchusueconfimallybanlingwidtdenadd-faceedproblanofdte efi’ecdveressutdefficiencyofinsmrcfianlsoacgiesandedrxaiaulsysm One issue mausquesdonofefiecuwmssandeffidmyofsnacgiesandsymisduissueofme effect of combining two or rrtore educational strategies. For example. Dukeshire (1966) exana'ned the effect ofstqrplementing the lecntre method with a self-teaching workbook. The resulu showed achievement gains for the group receiving lecttae instruction supplemented with the self-teaching workbook. She suggests that researchers consider combining other educational methods. Asecondissteisdeneedformseuchasmidauifylessonchuaccnsdcswhichhave universal snrdentappealandeffectiveness. Brownandhis colleagues(1973) investigated dwaspondvanssdseleaedadultleannrchamcrisocsmnhasbvdofeducauon. mjoymuaofedtnadaanV.pastacadmicacluevenem)bnuldnediaMsuucdmd progran3(unhashudcaaw.audiocassenemdtexmflnntenals).1hesepmgnnn weredesigndformopenuniversitysystemwhichisasubsetofthedistanceleaming system. Resultsoftheirstudy suggestthatbeforelessonsaredesignedandproduced. eduausneedbmidamenmueddnurgetpopuhdomstehasmeubackgromdand interests. Theyrecomrmndthatresearchersconduct ftl'ther study "...to identifythekey lessonchuacuisdcsuweuudnkeyleamrchuacerisdcswluchprmusemhave universalappealandeffectiveness" (Emma. 1973. p. 3). l6 Amdtahneisdepmuemofestabfishingdremappmpriaterdeofdtecacheror facilitatorin individualized instnrction. Green (1967) suggests that " [tlhe most important considerationin any plan forindividualiaed instruction...is finding waystofreetheteacher frornthesoleresponsibility for presentation of'basic tnstrucnon withotasacrificeof quality '(p. 82). llereconanendsthatreaearchersdevelopandevaluaenatlti-media insmtctional systems "...to detemtine theextent to which such systems can function utdependmdyofdeclasnoaneacheruflbdetamutehowdtecachercanmost effectivelysuppondtesystemtorhowdtesystemcansupportdteteacher)” (p. 85). Finally. sortie researchers recommend that educators develop improved strategies by combining techniques from existing strategies. Main (1986) conrhtcted a metaoanalysis of the various techniquesusedin calculus instructionatdtecollege level. Thestudieswere divided into four categories of instruction: 1. self-paced mastery learning; 2. formative evaluation/feedback remediation: 3. computer-assisted—instruction: arid 4. innovative teaching strategies. Self-pacedrmsteryleaming wasusedasanalternativetonditionalinsmrction. The tenuiningthree categoriesofinsuuctionwereusedtosupplementtraditional instruction. Afar sudsrically comparing study results. Moin concludeddtatitwasdifficulttodetemtine which ofthefota'methodsofinstructionwasthe"best"method. Moinproposedrhatthe ”bestsrrategy" shouldbeone whichisacombinationofthefota'methodsstudied. lnmanmrptmaddressissuessuchndnsemahapsreseuchenshoufladoptmseuch technimeswluchwouldalbwmembckaaossavuietyofinmdmnlsnamgiesand 17 systems. lndteopinionofdusreseamher.dtelnteyadvekeviewkeseamhMedtodisone suchresearcheclutiquewhich willallowthiskindofreseuchacrivity. Definition ofTerms A. Artificial incllipnce - "simulation of the chuacretistics and cognitive functions of die human brain using 'intelligent' cotrqruter systems such as the filth: Was: «My brine developed” (Percival and atrium. 1988. p. 181). B. Conqruter Assisted (aided) Instruction - °' use of a computer as an inugralpartofan instnrctional system. the leamergenerallyengaging in two- way interaction with the computer via a terna'nal" (Percival aid Ellington. 1988. p. 187). C. Correspondence educating processes - ...”the unique set of teaching - learning strangiesenquoyed whentheleamerisatageographicaldistancefromthe teacher in the educating processes of a system" (Sims.l982. p. 116). D. Distance education - "the teaching and learning process in which a significant proportionofthecachingisconductedbysomeoneremovedin spaceand/ortime from the learner" (Sharma.l986. p. 4). E. Edtnarional system - a set of interacting elements (re. the learner. the instrucrional aerial. the learning envirounent. and the teacherorteaching process) for aceooquislu‘ng a specific educational purpose or goal. F. Effectivenessdhedegreetowhichadesiredoutoomeisproduced. Efiiciency-dtedegreetowhichadesiredeffectisachievedwithdteleast useoftheresotacesavailable. 18 Expert syscms- ”highly sophisticatedcomputerprogtarrane ina specific domain M W W mil: with m WW" W Malcolm p- 46). lndependentStudy- ”anactivityinwhichpupils.caryingontheirsnrdies without dtemqtfimmoffonnalclnseacomultpaiodicanywidroneormoreuaff membmfadhecdonandassisnrrceutd.hmmndy.worktowudsdtecmnpktion of individual sandy Wicca” W P- 57)- Individtnlmd insmtction. teaching. learning - “the uiloring of insmrction. teachingorleunutgbmeetdteneedsofdtehtdividualleunertuherdnndte learning group as a whole” (Percival and Ellington. 1988. p. 203). leanercontrol-"thedegreetowhichaleamercandirecthisorherown learning process” (Milheim.l988. p. 1). learning effectiveness - "enhancing the mastery md retention of facts. concepts. and relationships“ (KASmithJ987. p. 274). leanu'ng environment - the physical setting in which leanring takes place. Open leaming - “a system which removes administrative and educational constraints that interfere with leanting opportunities" (Wood.l988. p. 1) (for example. distance education. home study) Prograrrmudlnsmrcdon-“ageneraltamforinsmtcdonorlearningdtatakes place in a systermric. highly-smeared manner. generally. in a step-by-step fashionwithfeedbaclt takingplacebetweensteps”(Ellingtonartdlluris. 1986. p. 133). Relevancy- ”a fitness for or appropriateness to the situation" (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary). Self-instruction - ”An instructional technique which involves dte use. by students. ofinsmrctionalmaterials.sothatthestudentscan learneitherwithout teacher l9 irtcrvenrionorwithaminirrutmofteacherguidance" W W p. 98) Self-impraction module - "a packet which contains information and questions relatedtothetopie. Asrudentwasto completethispaeltetwithoutute assistance of a teacher by reading. answering questions. and checking his own answers (Freeland.l983. p. S). SeK-instructionalsn'ategy- ageneralapproachtodreproblernofproviding irtstruetionoindividuals whichseekstoeliminatetheneedfordirectteacher Strategy - a general approach to a particular problem or situation which provides an overall framework for subordinate procethtres in the solution to the problem. Smue-drearnngementoftheelements rnaltingupasystem. Support system - the interaction of related elements or means to facilitate the student's learning. System- the interactionofrelatedelementscotnbinedtoaccormlisha specific purpose or goal. Technique - a specific or identifiable process which can be followed to achieve a specific objective. 20 Research Questions Em Thebroadquesdonthisresearchanemptedtoansweristhefollowing: Wht facnrs reported in the research licrltle affect dte effectiveness and efficiency ofself-instructionalstrategiesand howdodtosefactorsrelate? Theconceptofself-instructionisgenerallydiscussedinrefereneetoitsusewidtina specific educational soategy.suchas programnd instruction. corrputerassrsted insmtction.andcortespondencestudy. ltappeatsthatptoponentsofaparticular educadonalsoategyauchaspmgnrnmedinsouctiomeonductreseareh studiesevaluating dwefficimyantVortheeffecdvmessofeduadondlechniquesasdnymhebthm specificedueationalstrategy. Furdtermore.thefocusoftheirconcemwhenlookingat orhertechniques within educational soategiesappears tobecenteredon evaluating these wehniquesudmcgiesinmofmaewehniquesuedwimhtmeirself-humnonal strategyofinterest. Datafrornthisresearchquesu'ontmypettnitthereseatchertoloolt acrosspatticulareducational systernsatfactotsidentifiedashavinganimpactonthe efficiency or effectiveness of their respective selfoinstructional strategies. After identifying factors which intact eitha the efficiency «effectiveness of self-instrucdonal strategies. the researcher aternpted to identify any relationships which appeartoexist between or amongthesefactors. SW. ln ordertoanswerthe hroadreseareh question. theresearcher developed a set of specific questions. 21 Question l: Plowmanydisa‘nctself-insouedonalsnategiesareuterementioned in theliterattle.andltowoftenatetheyrnentioned? Thetesearchonselfoimmtcdonalsuategiescndstobetepottdasitrelatestoaspecific educao'onalsystem. Danftornthisresearchquestionwillbeusedfirsuoanemptto mmw-mmuwmmummmwmw madeeanpareutesereponsacrosseducadonalsystems Question 2: Howdo self- instructional so'ategiescompare in terms ofeffectiveness andet’hciency? Asmentioned earlier. researchers luveconducnd studiesin whichthe useofstrategies and techniquesmeducationalsystemswerecompared. ‘l'heresponsetothisresearch questionisdesignedtocompiletheresultsofthesefindings. Question 3: Whateffectdoesthemanipulationof factors(variables)haveonself- ittsouctionalstrategies? misreaeachquestionisirnportattforseveralreasons. Ftrstofall.itidentiftesfactorsor vafiabieswhichnuyimpactureefiecovenessadnefl'timcydself-mdanl strategieso- htchtdingteacherlwachitgprocessleuningenvironntenhmdleamer cluracterisn'cs. Second. it attempts to present f'urdings ofdte reported effects of these Wmvariouseducationalsystems. Questiond: Wharsystemofeducaionalsuppottisnecessaryfaeffective I‘ . ofself-' . l .7 22 misraeamhquesdukhnponmtbecatsehaddrucstheMdptwidingeduadonu suppat ~orspeciftcresotaces-whichmaybe anessentialelemerttinthesuecessofa ulf-itsuocdonflmgy(forexanph.Anspecificskills.afacifidesmquied 1’). QtestionS: Whatcombinatiods)offactorsdrawnfromdtelitetaturearesupponed fatheirinclusioninanidealiaedclf-instructionalsyscm? Thisreaeuehquaduufimexamhtessinglefacmwhkhrepatedlyimpactthe efi’ecn’venessandlordteefficiencyofself-inso-uctional strategiesin searchofrelationships whichappeartoexist. Second.theresultingeombimtionswereevaluatedforpossible inclusioninamodelofself-insouction. 'l'heresponsetothisquestionwasdesigned to syrtthesiaedataoollectedinanswertoearlierresearchquestions. Concenrradoninthisstudywasonthesearchforandanalysisofdtosefactorswhich irnpacttheeffectivenessandefliciencyofself-insmtctional strategies.asreportedinthe reselchliterature. Therewasnoartempttovalidatedteirpossihlecornbinationtlmgh etwiriealreaeuch. Del'mitatiortoftheSmdy Dumtheextensivenanneofmseachsnfliesavaihbleanddnnseamherspasmal hmmdnmicofufl-iumwfiwaebefimofmfliesfuflspmjxrwremimed to dwasudieswhichirvolvepncdcesudmregiesusedhtposueeondaryduadunl settings. 23 OrganizationoftheStudy Thisstudyisorganiaed intofivechapters. ChapterOnepresentsageneralovetviewofthe entirestudy. Chapter'l'woincludesareviewoftheresearchliteratureinseveral lteyareas. hatapcrflueednreseuchmethodmedforthissmdyisdiscussedindeuil. lnChapter Fw.drerewarcherpresenrsrheresearchl'mdingflnnarrativet'ortn.aswellasasin charts. Chapmfivecmclrrdeswirhasunumryofdnfmdingsreeunmendadonsfora proposednndelofself-insmumashtdicatedbythelhmmmdsuggesnons for further research. Summary Wadventandwidespreaduseofteelnologyintheus.hashadasignif‘tcantimpacton allphasesofoursociety. lnorrlertoprepareitscitiaemytoaddressutetransitionalnatute of today's society. our educational system must itself undergo change. Educational htsdntdonsanfatedwimthedikmofMdingeducadonanysoundpmgnmring during a time plagued widt constantly-changing educational demnds. leamers today tnust befiexibhmrghmreeopriuocasimswhkhreqfinmwskiflandcapafleofadapdng cutteruskillsmmeetdteseeonstamlyevolfingdertwtds. MisanedfwaltemafiwsyscmsofhumrcfimifdreAmericaneducafimal systemis mheabletorrteetcurrenteducationaldermndsofthesociery. Giventhearrayofindividual student needs.demanrk. andeonstraints. self-instructional systems (such asdistance Wmmmwwmusymlappwmdferasignifimt patential as alternative instrucdonal systems. 11tepurposeof this study. then. is three-fold: 24 midmdfychcndfcorswhichapparnmdeefliciemymafecdmdself- Wmufotmdindtemhmnmalyuthisdauinmdfonm mmcmentnaeofself-insouedonflsymumesemedindteteseueh literaturezandbidentifyrelationshipswhichappeartoexist Inongfactorsorcombinan'ons offactors affecting self-instructional systems. Sdf-inmfianlmgiesueuedwiminamhindeofdivuseeducaionusym suchasindividualleaming.eomputerleuning.anddistaneeleuning. Becameofthis divusirymgedueaomusemngsdnpuposeofmisaudyisnpremtmuolysisof dufaausmndmhwdreefleedmofself-ngiam W Despitedrearrayofself-insmrcrionalstacgiesinmitappearsdrat someconanaulideseainarnongdueefactotspreaeminallofutemethods: dreleunemhe cacha.mddnnncfid.1'helennrmddtecachermkcdhbaadvely.1hemer assurmssomerrcasureofresponsibiliryforhisnterinsmtction. Thelearnermaybe reqrdmdnnukedecisbmcmcardngwhatmmmehestwaywleundnmaerialand whenltelshehaslearnedtheprescrihedmaterials. 11teucheroftenservesinasuppottive role. Theacdvidesofdtecadtamachesnmhthrgeminresponsetodte activitiesoftheleaner. Self-insmtctionalmaterialsdesignedtomeetdteindividtnlneedof eachmtdentueeharaaaisdcanydiflauttfromndidaulcmmion. The mwhmdufl-Mmmbmmw requirementsoftheleuner. flteyaredesignednprovide.insornerneastle.dtedirection witsn'ucdonwhichwouldbeprovidedbydteclasuouncacherdmingoadidmal Bdueadonalreseuehasueeondmflybauflngwiutdtemuldfaceaedpmblanofme efiecdveneasandefiieiacyofimoucoaulsuacgiesudeducaionalsym Oneissue indusquesdonofefl’ecdveressmdeffidencyofsuacgiesandsyneooisdteissueofthe 25 effectot'combittingtwoormoreeducationalstrategies. Asecondissueisdteneedfor mouswidemifychuactensdcswhichhaveunivasalsntdemappealand caectiveness. Anodterissteismpmblemofesnblislungutemostappropriatemleofthe teacherorfactlttator" inindividualiaedinstructton. ‘ The reaeucltercoMumed an integrative review ofthe literati-e using the Integrative Review lleaeuchMethod. Thisresearch methodrequitedthattheresearcheranalyaedata collecmdlromeaistingreseuchstudiesfordtepuposeofintegradngute findings. The Study was guided by the following research questions: I. What is the range of self-impaction” strategies pmented in the literature? 2. How do self-instructional strategies compare in terms of effectivenessandefiiciency? 3. What effect does die manipulation of factors (variables) have on self- instrttctionalstrategies? 4. What are the educational support systems necessary for effective application ofself-instructional strategies? 5. What combinations(s) of factors drawn from the literature are supported for their inclusion in an W self-instructional system? m TWO Review oftlte Liar-am Introduction Theliterarurereview sectionofadissertationwhoaemainresearehdauiscollectedftom drefimnnediffershomdefimmviewsecdonofadissatadonusingmre traditionalteseachmethods. Theprincipalroleol'theliteratttrereview.whenusingdte lncgradwkeviewkeseuchMethodasdoesthisreseuchJsmprovidedefinidmal informtionaboutthetopicmorrmentsfromexpertsindrefieldconcemingthetopic.and supportfordoingthereseareh. firepttrposeMofmisreviewoftltelitet-atureisto providefoundationalinformationabout: (l)thenatureofself-instrttctionalsysterrts:and (2) self-instructional strategies commonly irt use within thoseself-instntctional systems. Theself-inso'uctionalsystemsdiscussedarezcomptnerleaming. individual learning.and distancelearningsysterm. Muchot'theotherresearch.thatwouldusuallybefoundinrhis chapter.willinsteadbereportedmdanalyaedinChapterFour. Self-instructionisanueawhichisspecifieallydesignedtoadthessdtehtdividualneedsof leamers. lndreiranempstoaddressuteneedsofsomeleameumukepanininsmrction from adistance. educators have «veloped self-instruction. which may be categorized into three systems: compute learning. individualized learning. anddistance learning systems. 26 27 ComputerLeaming System mmmofinsmndonindncanputerleuningsystanisdtecmtputer. lnthis syuemofhtsmndmmelamuminmmmexclusivdywimmecomputerin adermcawlectheleamingactiviry. hmisleuningsymdrentainquestiontobe Itsweredis: l-lowshallinsmmionbeadjustedsodutdteleamerm(infact)leamwith theaidofdtecorrmteer? Majorselfcinsu'uctionalstntegiescommonlyfoundinthissystem are: -computer-assisted-instruction.and -eapertsysterro. Q .5.” . Conner-assisted-insmtctiontmnian instructional techniquebasedon thetwo-way inactionofalearnerandaconputerwiththeobjectiveofhutmlearningandretention" W p. 29) In CAI. asdisfinsuished from mthmwdonlCMDJnconpmaisincgalinundiminmionof thestudent. lnChfl.ontheodrerhand.thecornputerisintegralinrecortfiteeping activities. Applicationsofconpucrsineducationhavebecomeapopularsnategy. ”CAllcomputer- assismd-iastruaionl is...trsed frequently toassess thestudent’s achievemenrand prescribe the aestinsmtction" (Alto. l988. p. 26). McNeil (l989)conducted a meta-analysis of unmovevidmmmrcfion(avaiuionofCAleichmveabdmunnstconmtuught wasaeortbirtatiortof faculllcortoeptttallearning.psychomotorskill8. problem-solving. mdmlelpriltciplelemting. Mostsnrdiesemployedacombinationoflea-ner.promand gtddedconoolsoaegiesfanokhtgdecisiuureganhngseqtnncingofcmrent Despite themehu'sanunptmsynuresiuauossbommnonddesignvariabksand 28 methoddogicdnfiables.dwmseuchawasumbbmproposeanndel(cunposedof Wdedprwnnthodobgicflvtiabks)whichcuudexplainmpmeddifiemmes inachievementeffect. Ahn (1988) filther states that connect-assisted-instruction wovides advantages to both the learnerandtheteacher. CAloffetsfotradvurtagesmsntdents: (1)” ...itprovides more sensory interaction. thereby attracting students' attention”: (2) ”...CAl provides individual tutoring at the student's own pace and schedule..."; (3) ”...CAl provides a good deal of drill and practice”: and (4) ”...CAl provides prompt artd inertediate feedback” (Ahn. pp. 26-28). CAI offers three advantages for teachers: (l) “...CAl releases teachers from routine work and course preparation”: (2) ”...CAl maintains student's denil records and activities": and (3) "...CAl requires...no limit to class size" (Ahn. pp. 28-29). W Anexpettsystemisdefinedasa "highlysophisticatedcomputerproparrnne inaspecific domn'n thatcombinesformalreasoningwithexpettknowledge" Winn] Wm. p. 46). According to Lippert (I988). an expert system characteristically "...uses symbolic processing. is easily modified to include new rules. searches by using 'heuristics’. can respond to questions asking for explanations like 'why' and 'how’. [and whose] input/output reflects 'skilled activity' such as reasoning" (p. 8). Lippert (I988) further sures that expert systems have the following advantages: "...l) unbiased solutions. 2) problems solved where no procedure exists. 3) unstructured problems. do-able. 4) cost effectiveness when no human expertise exists. or is scarce. 29 expensive a not readily accessible" (p. 9). However. expert systems are limited in that tltey ”...do poorly when analogy. itttuition. common sense or matlterrutical applications are needed" (p. 9). Expertsystemshavebeenusedineducational activitiessuchas "findingandptescrihing remedies for “functions... designing actions and strategies... [and] diagnosing and Mg student behIViors/needs' (Lippert. l988. p. 9). The current interest in the use of expatsyscmsinself-instructionappeastobemodvaedbythepotendal forexpen syscmstoprovidesupporttousers. 11rissupportmaytalreseveral forms. First.expen systentsmsupportstudent useoftheexpert system hyproviding personalized feedback astotheaccuracyofshrdentresponseonexercises. Second.based upon theseresponses. the expert syscm may then refer students to additional readings. follow-up exercises. or introduce dte next module. Perhaps the greatest potential for student support using expert systems tecltnology is the assessment capability of such systems. The assessment capabiliryofexpertsystutucouldpocmiaflyoansfamsnrdentassessrnent intoamore proactive. inuactive. and continuous element widrin a self-insmtctional system. Thesesyscrmcouldpomdaflycmdntmhuddemtcaoondasessnentmeachuser. Thisdatawmtldthenbettsedtoanswersuchquestionsas: (l)\VhereslIould instruction beginforddspudcdasntdemhinmmadingsaexaciseswfllhdpfindugapsm dissudem‘shtowledgebaseuevidencedbycmpafmncehandomasedon curemsntarupaformancewhaisdenexrnepuhmhainsmtcdmaddinonal exercises.orsupplementaryreadings? 30 individual learning System Affirmiewingunsmdiesincludedinuussysemdnteseuchamluddmawkey feanneofhmfioninduindividualleunhtgsyscmisdnindividudsnrdatt lnthis leaning system. it appears that the specific conditions of the learner (i.e.. m. interest. lamingmstyleofleaminngivetheleamingprocess. Self-itsuuctional strategies in this syscm include: - independenrstudy. - individualized instruction. and tmminstruction. Il"ll' II . ‘l'heconcept irtdividualiaedinstructionhasbeendefinedinnunydifferent ways. ”In the l960sartdearly l970stheter'rnindr'vr'duolt'zedt'nrrruction becameassociared with the promise of prograrnmed leaning ”(Further Education Unit.l989. p. 3). Currently definitions for individtnliaed 'utstrtrction range from "...a process by which the student woceedsnhislhaownmeduoughawesaibedsetofmcfiflsmmachpredetemuned goalswaprocessinwhichthestudentisfieetoselecthislherown meansofachieving selfdesigned objectives " (Dubsky.l985. p. 28). In his study. individualized instruction isdefinedas ”the tailoringofinstruction...tomeettheneedsofthe individual leamerrather than the leaning group as a whole" (Percival and Ellington. I988. p. 203). Mvidtnfindhtsmnomhasbeutmgodzedbythismchaasambsetoftheself- htsmrcoonalsymirtdividualleaming. 'l'hissystemalsoincludestheself-inso'uctional strategiesindependentstudyandprograrrlredinscuction. Theresearchemherefore. EE- 3' 5 . VI 31 wand a definition for individualiud instruction which would not include the strategies independenr study ltd prop-attuned instruction. W Winmdonisdefinedasfigeneraltermforinsnuction orlearning that takes place in a systertuic. highly-structured manner. generally. in a step-byostep fashion with feedback uking place between steps" (Ellington and Harris. 1986. p. 133). Programmed instruction. according to Lunsdaine and Glaser (1960). ”...represent some form of vuiationonwhatcan becalled thenrtorialorSocratic methodofteaching" (p. S). Progratutted instructionhasthe followingthreeimportantpropertiesCLurmdaineand Glaser. 1960. p. 6): - ”...continuous active student response is required. providing explicit practice and testingofeach srepofwhat is robe learned...”: - ”...a basis is provided for informing the student with minimal delay whether each resputsehemakesiscorrecrleadinghimdirecdyorindbecdytoconecdon ofhis errors...”: and - "...the students proceed on an individual basis at his own rate.” lnwopmedinsmmmeuhmgnncndsphyamajamleinmelmmgptocess. According to Unwin aid McAlaese (1978). ”[sleveral machines were constructed with the purposeof giving individual learners step-by-step self-paced reinforcement" (p. 637). UnwinlthcAleese(l978) fwtlustauthuthesemachinesweredesignedtoensure that: -icmswet'eirtdividually|lesenl¢d. ' othelearnercouldmoveonlyafiermak'ltgaresponse. -dteleamerisgivmdtecortectanswerafwrmaldnghismcrresponse.and otheleamerfollowsdtelemungplatprescnbedbydteauthorofdrelesson. 32 Advocaesoflurtingnuchhessuggenmudnsemachirnslnvemmdvefeames tousers-'...peopleenjoylressingbuttonsandthebulkofwhathastobelearnedcanbe hiddensothatleamersdonotfeelthattltesizeoftlretaskisbeyondtltem"(Unwin& McAleese. 1978. p. 637). Pmponamofprogmunedhtsmrcdonsuggestdntthissncgyisavaltndself- F instructionalstrategy becauseit "...enablesthe stillenttoworkindividuallyat arate which willenablehhnmacquhennximumkmwledgewimmdtelioinMofhisnannal endowments"(Dulteshite. 1966. p. l8). Critics. however. reportthat programmed insomoonhuamajadisadvanuge:"[phogranmndnmaiflmovesaavuysbwpace. butitdoesallowthesnrdenttoleunbyhimselfataracwhichwillpermithimtoabsorball theknowledgesetforth inthematerial" (Dukeshire. 1966. p. 40). W lndwentbnt study is "an activity inwhichpupils.earryingontheirstudieswithout the mquimncntdfannlchmconsuhpaiodicaflywiutmeamesufimembenfor direction andassisnnce artd. frequently. work mardsthe completion ofindividual study projects" WW 9. s7). Accordint to Hcin (I979). independentsntdyrequ'uestwoconditions: "theplacemenrofresponsibilityandthe selectionofmetlrodology'(p.11). “teacherplaysamajorroleinindependent instruction. Thesnrdmrisgivendtemsponsibflityofsebcdngfiomamngseveral learningoptionsforthoseoptions which matchhis/herlearning styleandwhich will help himachievethespecifiededucationalobjectivesfllein. 1979). lnthissystemtheteacher playsamoresupportiverole: "...theteacherusesherselftocreateanamtosphereconducive wkanmgpwidesdirecomactsaaresomaysaniaesimpumuprutciplesm helps students make generalizations " (Hein. l979. p. 12). 33 [WMisaself-humrcdonumregydesipedwpmvidememtual Wwidtinwhichastudentwillwakinthecompletionofacourseofstudy. ltis assurmdthatthisgoalisaccomplishedeitherintheabsenceofateacherorwidtlimited inerventionofateaeher. 11ternaterialsthemselvesassumetheresponsibiliryfor strttcttlingleuningrdterthandteliveteacherassurra'ng dtisresponsibilityasisthecase in maeo'aditlonalstntegies.suchaslectureordiscussionsuacgies. Distance Learning System Thekey featureofinstruction indtedistanceleaning systernisthedistance that separates theleanerfromtheinstructor. 111eprimaryissueisthefollowing: Howshallweadjust immrcfionncunpemtefwdtephysicalseparafionoflemandinsmrcmr? ‘l'heself-‘mstructional strategies irt thedistance learning system include: -distaneeeducation. -correspondencestudy. -1tomestttdy. «opertedttcao‘onnnd -self-study. 0' El . Thewhnchhuaauifingfeanueofmedisameleaningsysunismefaawtmeleuna anddtecacherarephysicallyseparated. Bcauseofthis.”[d]istant1earnersareplacedina uniquesituationinwhichneitherfellow snidentsnorteachersaepresenttoclarify. discuss. orprovide feedback ”(Gunawardena.l988. p. 83). 34 Snideritswhoenrollinsuchcoursesarecharaccriaedasthoae studentswho"...find it difficult to navel to an institution of higher learning or...are constrained by factors related tothe pressine ofwork or family "(Gunawardenal988. p. 91). These students are further chractericed as those who '...prefertoworkeritirely attheirownpace andprivately and arenotwillingtohavetoattendregulartutorials'andodrers"...who benefitftomdie advantages of both distance-study and face-to-face sessions ”(Gmwadenal988. p.91). Fromthestudents' perspective '...distanceeducationdenotesthatheleu'nerisremoved fromrhephysicalpresenceofateacher. whetherrxnothe sntdiesinprivateorasamembet of a WP "(Nankwenyml97i p. 203). Thedesignofthenuterialisa crucialfactorinthedisanceeducao'onalstrategy. “A dismmesnrdycmhastheckarwposeofindicingdiemnemmbambyguidmhim orhertliroughouttliematett'al"(6unawardena.l988.p.9l). Theuseofthestudyguide hasbeensuggested asameansof achieving this purpose.(Gunawatdena.l988). Astudy guideisespeciaflymcmmiendedfauseinsyscnowluchhmpuauamuld-media approach. medisnrceeducanonalsuategyhasmpatedlyhicorporateddieuseofopen- televisionbroadcast.videocassettes.computersandcabletelevision. Manyresearchershave soughttodetermine which components orcornbinationof componentssturhnts perceiveasvaluableintheirptirsuit of instruction. Gunawardena (1988) conducted asurveyofeducators from49postsecondary institutions within the 0.5. This study iricludedthreeinstintrion types it diesanple: two-yearcolleges.four-year colleges.andconsortia(specificgroupsof institutions responsible forprofessional continuingeducation). lnsttuctionwasdeliveredthroughtelevisioruideocassette. compuer.radio.andcorrespondencetext. Theseeducators reportedthernostpopular mediaamong studentsweretelevisionandvideocassettes(i.e.. twovideotechnologies). 35 Edmutwoyeucouegesandconmeatuieorderofsmdentptefaences. as follows: l-television. 2-videocassettes.and 3-computers. MummmfaIMMnappredateeurespondmcetextanmchas elevisioti. Ethreatrx'satpostsecondlyinstinttions perceivethatsrudents like electronic nfia-mmmmmmg-mmn dieothermedia. Openckvhionbroadcatlusbeconeapoptuunediunbeaushcanprmideaccessma hrpntmbaofmtdenmhowevaijudisadvmugeisdiudtisnndiumauypenniu one-way corrununieation. "Videocassettes re a very versatile distribution medium where Ieunashveaccessmfideocasemrecadasinmeuownhumasuieyprovidefor flexibility of use and student control over the medium ”(GunawardenaJ988. p. 107). Cunpuashavebegunmbeusednancansdimughwhichdietacherandmident maniac with exhother. “Although two-waycable systems using fiber optics offer uniquehumnduulpmsibflioesauchfirutsmmdenthomeswfllnmbepossiNeinme immediate future "(Gunawardena.1988. p. 110). Mmystudentstakingcoursesindismcelearningsysm haveexperienced feelings of isohtioa. lnanefi’orttoaddressdiisissue.coursesindistanceeducation focuson providingadequatesupportservicesfaitsstudents. 'l'hesesupportservicesnuy include sewicesntchastheuseofmmconferencesmrseminars. 36 lnsornedimeedtrcadonmnnorsueassignedtowakwidisntdenu. Harris (l973)conductedastudyof569coriespondencennorsin6teat8ritain. Thepercentage responsesofthenrtorstospecifictasksueasfollows: (l)tocontact shtdentswhoarebeliind(66%): almgivespedalanenuontoconunendadaiandencotngementM): (3)tointerpretthecotrsc(90%):and (4)bgivespecialartentiontothoaeacaderticallyweak(60%). Pascalconuctwithmmrsnuybeprovidedbydiewnnenwadtelephone.maded audiocassertes.andmost recently. bytheeomputer. lnothercourseegroupactivitiesareplannedforputicipants. Thosenukntswhorequite face-to-facecontactasacotrqionentofdistanceeducation luveoptions availabletothern such as ”...conferences. seminars. week-end schools. summer schools. holiday Wetsuit: like” mums. p. 46). Mill Thecrmopenlearningisoftenassociatedwithdistance learning. AccordingtoWood. this hasoccmredduetodierunovalofrequhunenumncaningsnidentauenthnceat institutionsptovidingopenleamingcourses. Openlearriingisviewedas"...asystem wluchrenmvesadninisuanveuidemndanlcmsuainudathmrfuewidimmg opportunities ”(Wood. 1988. p. 9). Open learning has three main features (Wood.l988): " (1)...basedon the needs and circumstances of individual students...: (2)...solutioo orientated. aiming to identify andovercomebarrietstoaccessandtoleuningonanindividualbasis: (3)...concemed 37 with howpeople learn and with what is possible. appropriateorcost-effective for peoplemlearnincertainways"(p. ll). Theopenleuningsuacgyanenpumovucumbaniasmaccessandlearninginmany differentways. Firstofall. 'mtaialurdmchersareanilableondermndroallow flexible tini'mg aid access" (Wood.l988. p. 11). Second. often ciarent course offerings are redesigned to produce courses which follow a non-traditional learning approach (Wood. 1988). Forexample.acourse which isofferedatafixedlocationwith fixedstartingand fira'shingdatesmaybetevised toreflectanon-caditional learning approach. Students taking the new cause may have the flexibility as choose the m of instruction (e.g.. at horrte). the “of instruction (e.g.. individualised instruction). or the W for instruction (e.g.. self-paced). institutions which follow such an approach include: The Open University (Great Briuin). Nova Univesity (United States). and Holland College (Canada). lndnopenleuningsuategyjneducadonalmaterialsplayacrucialmle. First.the nouialdnuldprumtehidepuidentleuninganmngnudenuusingthenntenal. ”...[Olpen learning units shouldbeasfreestandingaspossibleandshouldactastriggers toledstudemsmthekindofexperiencethatisnotonlypossiblebutalsonecessaryifopen learningismachieveitsfullpotetitial"(Wood.l988.p.40). Second.theopen learning mmbedesignedtoprovideassemtentofsntdemcompetency. Accordingto Wood.anopen learning strategyshould"...be abletoidentifytheparticulareompetencies ofthesmdaupriormnudngaprogmrmmennnedutnewmndiscovemd"(p.ll). Propuiemsddteopenleurungsuaegyncopdudnsiytificanceofpwidingboui courtselingandtutorialsuppottforsnrdents. Becauseofthistrend.”...therehasbeena 38 giadtnlshiftfiomus'uigdietermmtosuppomdM‘meher Education Unit.1989. p. 3). lniuauunptmprwidemdmmdleununbuofethcaaonalpossibihdeadeopen learriingstrategymaypossessaseriousfiawforsomepocntialusers. "l'hemenuctvtld becunesovastaidcomplexdntapocnnallemcmudbefiighcnedawaybefae sunpling it “(Wood.l988. p. 43). Ward: Catespondmceorhomenudymuonalsuacgiesuesaidmbemluedmdisme learning system. (FurthctEducationUnit.1989.p. 3)statesthat”[c)orrespondence cdkgahavebeenuiexktmcefusevaaldecadaandmeypiaweddeuseofdism batting. Harris(1975) furtherstatesdiat "(the expression 'distance education' has been incodieedonuieeducafionalscenemderwtewhuhubeenpopulaflyreferredmas corresporidenceeducationforalongtime”(p.203). Correspondence (home) study has beenruedmaddessunissueofuiaeasingmdmtaccessdespiteflnuwdhunnnand physical resources (West.196l). Correspondencestudyhasbeendescribdasafortnofself-teaching. Self-teaching is definednfiaheappruchinwhichdresnflnukdeperflatdyfolbwmhunucfional packet..." (Segan.l980. p. 30). in correspondence study '...the student's share of activity is high and the instructor’s share is low..." (Nankwenya.1975. p. 205). ”...[1'1he iruuuaorsavesasacorutnuntbansweraquesdonifitishudatedbyuienudem" (Segan.l980. p. 30). .... __,_4__._ F __. ~—~ 39 flieeacherisaaucialelementincorrespondencestudy. AccordingtoWood(l988). '...incorrespondenceteaching itistheteacher whoconuolsthelearning process" (p. 12). l-loweva.tltemachefssignificanceisduetothepartheorslieplaysinthedeveloprnentof trienncrials. Sornesaydutiltccorrespondenceteecherhaslessconooluunauaditional classroomcachersinceheorsheworlts"...inassociationwiththewri'terofthelesson mwhOhupn-detutlunedmanyofdwviulfacmindieedmdonalsimauon “W19”. p. 46). mdedpiofhimucdondnnerialisanunpauntdenentindncorrespmdence study strategy. ”Inatleastthebroadestsensemnepurposeforusingproyammed influcdon...ismprovidecaninupecuofinsotndmmmflenuin0eabsenceofthe texhamsponsible forthe flow of thatinstruction " (Green.1967.p. 5). There issomecontroversyabout the impactofteacherintervention in thecortespondence study strategy. Green (1967) states that "(there is some evidence...that the presence of. and interaction with. an on-the-spot teacher may not be so vital with adult learners..." (p. 6) . Sunlnary Chmter Two desaibes three self-instructional systems (computer learning. individual learning. and distuice learning system) and the self-instructional strategies commonly in usewithittheaesysems. “remainfeatitreofinstrirction inthecomputerlearningsystem is the m. In this system of instruction. the learner must interact (almost exclusively) withthecmwuterinordermcorrpletethe learningacu'viry. Theselfoiristructional strIegies in use in the computer learning system included compucr-assisted-instruction and expert systems. 40 Theheyfeaueofhuuwdonindnhflividmlleufingsysmmisdnhdivimmnudenc 1n dusle-tingsystenahappeanmatdnspecificcmdidonsdmemhpmdmde. intercst.learningrate.styleofleaning)thivedtelearriingprocess. ‘Ihestrategiesinusein mehidividulkmungsyuunimltfldhidepuflutsmdydndividuflindimndmmd Winsmtction. Thekeyfeaueofhisnucdmindndismebunhgsyscmisthedimdutcpmcs thelearnerfromdieinsmtctor. Theprinnryissueinthisleamingsystemiszl'lowshallwe convensacfordtephysicalsepnationbetweenleamermdirunuctor? Thefollowingfive strategiesareincludedinthedisnnce learning systemzdistanceerhrcation.conesporidence study. home study.openeducation. and self-study. CHAPTERTHREE Designofthe Study introduction Cooper ( 1982) repair that because researchers find it diffith to '...keep abreast of primary data reports except within a few specializations...[they] rely heavily on integrative research reviews to define the state of knowledge " (p. 291). An integrative review has been defined as '...the synthesis of separate empirical findings into a coherenr whole" (Cooper.1982. p. 29l). Jackson (1980) describes a good research review as one which ”...explorelsl the reasons for the differences in the results and determinels) what the body ofresearch.takenasawhole.revealsanddoesn0trevealaboutthetopic " (p. 439). In addition. Cooper( 1982) states that researchers “...should (a) describe all the operational variations that were considered concept-relevant. and (b) report all variations in study methodsthatwererelatedtostudyoutcomes" (p. 294). flamenchfimnuemself-MMdmisxamedamngdnspecificficmmesofsclf- imoucdmflmmodswsoawgiaself-hisuucdonalpromnswcuusesofnudy.md self-instructional syscms. 11iegoalofthisstudyis:(l)toanalyaereseatchfindings lookingforsimilarities.difl'erences.andconflicting information amongthedataaboutself— WWanda)mmueamidaliaedmodelofsefl-msuucdmbasedupon thesefindings. ThelntegrativelleviewltesearchMethodappearstobedierriost appropiateresearchprocedrretoaccomplishthisgoal. Theproceduresofthismethodare explainedindetaillaterinthischapter. 4| 42 am Whafacmrsmpamdindnreaeachliaranueaffectdneffecdvmeaaideffmiency ofself-insmrctionalstrategiesandhowdothosefactorstelaa? 'l'hisreseachquestion isanattenmttolookacrosspao‘cularemtcationalsystemsauchas individual leaning. corrqiuter learning. anddisance leaning systems. at factors identified uhavinganurmanondaefi'ciemyoreffecdvaieaofselecmdself-humndonal strategies. Afteridentifying factors which inmact eithertheefficiencyoreffectiveness of self-instruco'onal strategies. the reseacher will then attempt to identify any relationships whichappeartoexist berweenoramongthesefactors. 51°. Qtestion l: Howmanydistinct self-instructional strategiesaretherementioried in dreliteraureandhowofienaretheymenrioned? Responsesmdiisreseatchquesdonananptedtoidendfyself-insmtcdonal strategies reportedintheliterantreaboutasingleeducational system.andtocorrmarerhesereports acrosseducationalsystems. Question 2: Howdo self-inunuctional strategies compare in terms of efi‘ectiveness and efficiency? 43 Asnatnionedealieraesearchershaveconductedsnidiesinwhich dieycompaedtheuse ofsuategiesand techniques‘educational systerru. This research question seeks to conpilediercsuluoftheirfindings. Question 3: What effect does the manipulation of particular factors (variables) have on self -instrucn'onal strategies? Responses to this question identified facrtxs a variables which inpacted the effectiveness orthe efficiency of self-instructional strategies. Examples of such variables were: teacheduaching process. learning environment. and learner chaacteristics . Responses also provibd findings of the reported effects of these factors m various educational systems. Questiond: What systemofeducational support isnecessary foreffective application of self-instructional strategies? Thisresearchquesdoriaddresseddieisstteofedticadonalsupport ~orspecificresources- ~whichmaybeanessendaleknaminuenncessofaself-insuucnonalsnawy. Question 5: Whatcombination(s)offactotsdrawnfrorntheliterarureonself- insaucdorulsuaagiesamsupportedfatheirinelusioninanideafimdself- iristtuctionalsyscm? Thisrecachquesfioncoraidaedmbinadonsofsinglefactaswhichrepmedly impact dwdfcdvatessmd/ordteeffidencyofself-imucdonalmagiesinseachof Mpwhichappeartoexist. 11nresult'mgcorrbirntiorKs)wereevaluated for possibleinclusioninariidealiaedtmdelofself-instruction. 44 Wen flareseaclarcaidtxtedmuitepadwmviewunngdielnauadvekeviewkaeach Method.11usteseachmedoquuireddiathereseachamlyaedaucollecmdfiun ..‘ l I' forthe of" 'gthefl' 'l'hisreseacher followedafive-sep procedtIe(Ault.1989): l. Themhaidendfndmkvammeachmtdiataingcvadmhichrding: ERlCadConmtelansivemssaudooAbmdaMandodnrbibliopaphic references includedin individual journal articles. reviews.booltsormonographs. Combinadonsofsevaalrdevantdescfiptusgtddeddnseachfamlevammtdies 2. RelevantnudieswaereviewedThesesnrdieswerecodednuninully.intanuof die following independent aid dependent variables: independent variables: ‘leaner characteristics 'cornnt lea ‘self-instmctioml strategy 'leaning environment dependent variables: 'effectiveness om 3. Foreachofdieidauifiedvaiablesnhereseacharepmmdhspiupmtedeffectm self-instructionalsystems. thamethemeasruesofeffeetivenessand efficiencyusedintheindividualstudieswerereported. 45 4. Therese-chamzedfuidingsinemuofsimilaidesanddifferencesacmss die many self-instructional systems. 5. Thereseacherdrewconclusionsfiomthesnidy.andmademonunendations for finarereseach. Theprocedutesareoperariorialiaedinlatersectionsofthechapter. W Thefollowingbroadaeasofthe literatureweresearched: . inmm. - leaning - learning strategies - teaching so'ategies Sebction Procedures W M. First. using the Bibliographical Research Service (3R5) lnforrnation Retrieval Symanon—Bneseachwucmwdofraeachsntdiesinmm Wfor theperiod 1950- 1990. Sixteendescriptorswereusedinthesearch. Eshrhsaipmrwupahedwimmedesaipmgflggflmmfidgmfmexample. plop'aanedinstruction and efficiencyatdeffectiveness openeducation and efficiaicyandelfectivemss etc. 'l'hedeactiplirsusedinthesearchincluded: l. prograrrmedinstruction 46 computer-assistcd-instruction artificial intelligence ”93“ W correspondence study discovery learning distance education m M lifelong leaning open education self-teaching independent study individual study sassy-992° ”~— 3399?; effectiveness efficiency 9‘ Next.anon-Iineseach wasconductedofresearch studies included in ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center). The dates for this reach included 1966 (the beginning date for the ERIC database system) through June. 1990. Fifteendescriptorswereusedinthesearch. Fifteen.ratherdiansixteendescriptorswere used because the descriptor "self-teaching" could only be searched using the descriptor "independent study." As in the previous search. each pair of descriptors included a single self-instructional area. plus the variables efficiency or effectiveness. 47 m TobeginPliaseTwo.diereseacherfiadierresuicteddieiriclusioncritena by using an alditional pairof descriptors - postsecondarytradult(s). Asecondon-linesearch wasconductedof’researchstudiesinwm W for the period 1950 - 1990. The following descriptors were used: progi-arrimed instruction computer-assisted-instruction are" 5m individualized instruction correspondence study home My discovery leaning disunce education lifelong leaning open ethication ram; Next.usingdieERlCSysterri.a search wasconducredcombiningsachdescriptorwith effeca'veriess. efficiency. adult. and postsecondary. Then. the researcher manually 48 seaclndmecanpuarfisdngofsnidiahomERlChokiagfamtdieswhkhtmghthave appearedrrmredianonce. Duplicatestudieswereidentifiedatdonlylistedwidioneself- inmdonflsnategy.11nhuwaiondmtegythawadnfocusofdusntdydaanuned theself-instructional soategy with which theduplicatesnidy was listed. W During PhaseThreeofdiesearchftrpoterttiallyrelevantsnidies.tlie mohamviewedeithametitlesofmrdiesadieabsuaaofnudiessebceddunng PhaseTwo. Only studieswhich metoneormoreofthe followingcriteriawere selected for further review: 1. studies which compared two or more self-insmrctional strategies: 2 studies which compared two or more selfoinstructional systems: 3. studies which investigated the impact of a single self-inso'uctional strategy: 4 studies which investigatd the impact of a single self-instructional system: 5 studies which compared a self-instructional strategy against a traditional straagy: and 6. studiesinwhich self-insmrctionalsoategiesarecombined with other strategies. Coding Procedures Initially.eachselectedstudywascodedinterrnsofoneormoreofthefollowingeight variables: W: flusvaiablewasusedtocollectidentifying inforrrmion aboutthe subjects involved in thestudy. Thisdanwould include such thingsas age. sex of subjects. or any other special distinguishing feature. such as the fact that subjectswereremedial students. 49 m: This vaiable includes such information as subject matter. or learning task to be evaluated. m: This variable included information concerning the results of the study. borh expected and unexpected resulu. W: This variable was used to identify the specific self- irtstrttctional strategy (strategies) used in the study. W: This variable was used to record information about the natitre of the educational setting in the study. This data included such information asthepresenceorabsenceofaartor: thephysical locationoftheeducational activity. such as in the student's home: and study deterrents and facilicitors. Mm: Here information was collected concerning the specific measures used to gage the deuce to which the self-instructional strategy achieved a desired goal. such as increuing student achievement. gm: This variable included information concerning the specific measures used to gage the degree to which the self-instructional strategy successfuuy achieved itsdesiredgoalusingdiesmallestamountofresources. suchasthe amount of time used for student learning. In some instances. researchers provided the faontlas used tocalculate efficiency. Mmedaacollecmdusingdaabwe-fisedvaiableswaemcodednmdicated in AppendixA. 50 DataAnalysis Thedatawereanalyaedusingathree-stageprocess Fumdeptuportedefi'ecuofeach identified variable on self-insouctional strategies were sumrrrariaed. mumseachfindhigswaeevflmwdinflghtofcondhiomnichuunpresemeof disaepanciesamngmsulmordiehckofsufficiaxhifonmdonincludedinuie studies. mwmhaidendfiedfactaswluchappeaedmunpacteithadneflecfivmessa theefficiency of a self-instructional strategyorself-insmrctional system. Finally. dieresearcheridentifiedrelationships which appeared toexist betweenaridamong these factors. These relationships included such findings as the following: 1. similarities within and across self-instructional systema 2 similarities within and across programs using self-instructional strategies. 3 differences within and across self-instructional systems. 4. differences within and across programs using self-instructional strategies. 5 conflicting evidence within and across self-instructional systems. Reseachfiridingswaeptesentedinanar'rativefonnaaaswellasintables Summary Chapter3 began with anoverviewofthe research design forthisstudy. an integrative review. An intensive review has been defined as ”...the synthesis of separate empirical findings into a coherent whole” (Cooper. 1982. p. 291). The research literature on self- insrnrctionisscatteredamongthe specific Iiteranueson self-insmtctionalmethodsor strategies. self-instructional program or courses of study. and self-instructional systems. The goal ofihis study is (l) to analyse research findings looking for similarities. Sl Wandcatfiicting infatuation anongthedataaboutselfoinstrucrional strategies: udmmatgpaanidediaednndelofsdf-mdonbasedupondiesefmdings. The hauaivemviewmseachnemodappeanabeuenastapwopriueresemhpmcedumto acconnilishthisgoal. Amlysisofthedataincludedseveralsteps. Fmdnavailabk studiesweresampled for possiblehiclusion. Second.theresearcherrcadthestudiesaridcodedtliedatatliatwas collected. hicludedindtischaptaisadenfledaccountofdieproceduresusedtoselett the studiesandtocodethedata. Finally.thef'rndingswereiriterpretedinlightofcertain restrictions suchasthepresenceof discrepancies among results.orthe lack of sufficient informao'onincludedinthestudies. Analysis and findings Introduco'on Induschapterthereaurchfindingsaepesenmdfamchoftheresarchquesnons These dataarepresentedinbothnarrativeandtabularforrnats. Thepaweofdussntdywas(a)midendfyatdatalytedaafiomdiemseachhmmre aboutselectedself-insmrctional strategiesasfotmdin oneself-instructional systems: (b) to mutefindingscorearungdieeffecdvenessaaefficieuyofdieseself- insmxdomlsuaagia:and(c)midendfymhdondiipswhichappeamexiaarmgun individual component partsofthe threeself-instructional systems. DCll' |!l’ Procedures fordatacollectionandanalysiswerecompletedusingseveral steps. Tobegin dancoflecdamelevantreseachsnidieswaeidatdfiedusingsevaalsources. Second.the mkvamsntdieswaemennviewedandmdednuMmaflymmofspecifiedudependent anddependentvaiables. Third.thepurporadeffectofeachidentifiedvariableonself- instructionalstrategieswerereported. Fourthdref'uidingsweresurrlnariaedintermsof muammmmMuu-Wmmmmme learning. computer leaning. and individual learning systems. Finally. conclusions were drawnandrecorrlneridationsforfurtherresearchweresuggested. 52 53 Thedanweanlyaedintennsofdiespecificreseadiqtnsdoruofthissntdyas preterm in the following sections: Range of Self-Instructional Strategies. Efi’ecriveneslefficrency Comparison of Self-Instructional Strategies. Manipulation of Variables. Support for Self-Instructional Sysems. and Combined Factors For ldealized Self-Instrucdonal System. Range of Self-Instructional Strategies Responsestoresearch question 01 attemptedtoidentify self-instructional strategies reportedindieliterature aboutasingleeducational system.andtocompaethesereports acrosseducatioml systernsin terrnsoftheiroccurrences. Question": I-Iowmanydisrinct selfoiristl'itctiorial strategiesaretherementioned in dieliterature.andhowofrenarctheyrrientioned? The researcherconducted searches of the ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)database anddieWWdatabase. Thetitlesor abstractsofthestudies werereviewedtodetermine the studies which metoneofthe following criteria: 1 . studies which compared two or more self-instructional strategies: 2 studies which conmared two a rrmre self-instructional system: 3. studies which investigated die impact of a single self-instructional strategy: 4 studieswhichinvestigadtheirwactofasingle self-instructional system: S studieswhichcompaedaself-insuuctionalsnategyagainstauaditional snacgy: and 6. studies inwliich self—imauctional strategiesarecombined withother musics S4 Ovaafl.dielapanumhaofstudieswaefoundusingdteERlCdanbase(n-250) when comparcdtoihesntdiesfound usingtheratabasem-lfl). Ofthe studiesfoundusingtheERlC system(seeT'able l). thelapstperceotageofself- irismwtionalsuategieswere found indiedistancelearriingsystern(40.4%).followed by individual learning systern(31.6%). and computer learning system (28%). The largest mindisnncekaningsysmnMOAflyieldedsnfliesusingdiefdbwingmme self-insuucrional strategies: - distance education (20.8%). - correspondence (home) study (12.8%). - open education (6.8%). and self-teaching (0%). The individual learning system (31.6%) yielded studies using the following three strategies: - individualized instruction (14%). - independent (individual) study (9.2%). and - programmed instruction (8.4%). In the computer learning system. the self-instructional strategies in greatest use was corriputer-assisted-instruction (27.6%). followed by expert system (0.4%). In Table 1 the range is alsoexpressed as the numberofstudies found forspecific straegies. Ofthestudies fotmdttsingdiemmsystem(seeTable2).diesystem individualleaming yieldedthehighestpercenageofstudies(62.9%).followedbythe cortputer learnin! m (30.9%). and ti: distance learning sysum (6.2%). The largest system. the individual learning system (62.9%) yielded studies using the following four selfoinstructional strategies: - individualized instnmion (38.2%). - prom instruction (18.5%). and - independetit (individual) study (6.2%). 55 Tfibl B “I“ . IS . E III' ERICD I Strategies By System % of Studies 4 of Studies W 40.4% 10! Distarce education 20.8% 52 Correspondence (home) study 12.8% 32 Open education 6.8% 17 Self-teaching 0% 0 W 31.6% 79 Individualized instruction 14% 35 Independent (individual) snidy 9.2% 23 Prograrruned instruco’on 8.4% 21 W 28% 70 “unassisted-instruction 27.6% 69 Expert systems 0.4% 1 The second largest systern. computer leaning system (30.9%) yielded studies using the following two selfinstructional strategies: - computer-assisted-instruction (29.2%). and - expert system (1.7%). Fatally. the distance leaning systero (6.2%) yielded studies using the following four self- instructional strategies: - distance education (2.2%). - carespondence study (1.1%). - home study (1.1%). - self-teaching (1.1%). and . open education (0.6%). The diree self-instructional systems (distance learning. computer leaning. individual leaning) ac more equally represented in the ERIC system (40.4%. 28%. 31.6%. respectively) than in the W system (6.2%. 30.9%. 62.9%. respectively) as illustrated in Table 3. Effectivenessl Efficiency Cormaisoris of Self-instructional Smgies Daucoflemedmruponsewmefoflowingnseachquesdmadaessesdeisueofwhich self-instnrco'onal strategies were found to be effective orefficient. Question 42: How do self-insmrcrional soategies compare in terms of effectiveness and efficiency? Themjodryofdtesaacgiescanpaeddidnmhidicaesigruficantdifiaemesin effectiveneasoret’ficiency anong straltgies (see Table 4). Piplro(l980)reportsno sigruficaudiffaencebipafmmnceonthewntcnexmwasfoundamongdnmree immrcdonflpoupflprogramedhuaucdmvslecnuevsprommdinsmndonplus lecnrre). Nopardculacanbinadonofyeahiclass(fustyearvssecoridyea)andtypeof mmmmmsoucdonvsleauevsprogimnedinsmrcdonpluslectae) interacmdtoresultinsignificantly higherperformances forsnrdentsinanyoneofthe instructional groups. 57 Strategies By Syscm % of Studies 0 of Studies Wm 452-996 112 mm 33.2% 68 Housman-cum 13.5% 33 Independent (individual) study 6.2% 11 W 30.9% 55 Coutptquuststeduuuucdon 29.295 52 Expert system 1.7% 3 W 6.2% 1 1 Meditation 2.295 4 Correspondence study 1.1% 2 Home study 1.1% 2 (beam 0.6% l Sen-exiting 1.1% 2 58 Database Searched System ERIC (1966-1990) Dissertation Abstracts International (1950-1990) Distancelearning 40.4% (101) 6.2% (11) Comptner Learning 28% (70) 30.9% (35) Individual learning 31.6% (79) 62.9% (112) TOTAL n=250 n=178 Deatsrmn(1971)repottsthattheexperirrental treatment (independenr learning vs conventional lecnne classes) did notresult in adifference between the groups in efficiency of time usage. Sdpe(l987)reporisnosignificantdifferencesbetweenuietwoteaching methodsflunrre-discussion/independentleariing triodule)asarrieansofstimulating self- direcmdnessinthefreshmenclassina twoyearnursingprogram. Green(l967)repotts diat man test acres were not significantly difl'erent beaveen experimental (correspondence - programmd text and broadcast video tapes) and control (classmorn instruction with adjunct instructor and progr'arraned text and broadcast videotapes). 59 In a few instances. dthough the results favored one self-instructional strategy over another. differenceswere not sntistically significant as seen in Table 4. McLaughlin (1981) reports movaallrelan’veeffectivenessofcomputeticeddiscovery instructioncornparedto cornptrteriad prograrrirred instruction. No consistent differences were found among the tlleedifferent variationsofDiscovery Instruction. Tobin (1986)conducied a study comparing vocabulary instruction using CAI versus individualized laboratory instruction. For the experimental group. vocabulary instruction wasprovidedusing thecorrputer. A teacherwa presentduringtheclass period toactas facilitamr if studenn needed clarification on procedtues or if they encountered problems usingthecomputer. Fathecontrolgi'oup. vocabulary instruction wasprovidedduringan irtdivirhtaliaed laboratory period with the aid ofprinted nuterials. A teacher was also presentiopovideclaification. ifneeded. TobinreportsthatCAI wasabettermethod than individualised lab instruction for teaching vocabulary. No significant differences were fotlid mtong subjects taught under the differenr instructional mediods (CAI vs Indivirhtalired laboratory instruction). The botmm section of Table 4 presents instances in which the self-instructional strategy did woduce significantly different results among groups. Prater (1987) conducted a sntdy in whichuisoiadmwuprwidedmgmexpensymconibhedwimcmptinsoucdon. The comment concept instruction included factors used in making decisions about learningdisabled classifications as wellas a presaitation ofexamples. non-examples. and definitions. Prater reports diat subjects in the experimennl group (expert system plus concept instruction) scored statistically and educationally significantly better on the posnest diari those in the cancel group (expert system only). 60 Gm(l986)repcrtsanegafivecureladonbetweenperunugctneoflectuemd pufamanceofsntdenu(fiunapuficulsnndicalwclunbgypom)mcanficaion emposidveeonelafimbuwecnpuunugcuseofindividufiudinmdmandexm Williams 0986”!!!“ significant differences betweennu'noritiesusingCAlasthemerhod ofinsnuctionversusminoritiesusingnnnringorindependentsntdy. 'l'herewere sigrufieantdifferencesin achievementscores between minorities using compute-assisted- imnmuanndtodofinsnucuonmdninaifiesusingmuinguutdcpendentfludy. Dukerhire (1960M that lectureplus self-tenchingworlrbooltgrouprcoredhigherthan lecture only group. Findings revealed higher final exam scores for lecture and self-teaching workbook groupthanforlecntre-only group. Morelrnowledge wasacquired when lecture plus self-teaching workbook method was used than when lecture-only method was used. Hdn(l979)nmdemulnmple(hdividufindinsnucfim:clubedlwningomions vs nochoicc) achievedasignificantpre-toposttestgain. TheNoChoicegroupnude greaterovaalltestscoregainsthanOIoice. lrtdtisstudy.arelationshipwasfoundto exinbuweensndenn'pomstneanscaexhievennmmdmeupadepointavaageand evaluationofthemodule. 6| Tab 0 Pm’ at 9141.5 M' Slflflllfl F'tnth‘ngs Effect SuugiesCornp-ed Neil-u: . Frogs-armed inaction vs have vs canbinlion insnuction ad locale (Pinko. l9”) htpentm le-rttng vs conventioral lecule (Deatsntan.l97 I Supe I987) -TV carerponbnce vs traditional classoorn insnuction (Green. I967) Now ' mam CAI ratle - 'CAl vs W effective. but not Watery instruction (Tobin. signifmtly 4 variaions of - C programmed entwined dis- instruction vs '4 vaiuions of may 'msntcn'on compuuized d'ncovcry more efiecnvehut irtsuuction (McLaughlin. I98 I) not significantly SW ' differeru CA1 sigra'ficauly - lCAl (mirtorities) vs tutoring maeeflective fa ‘ vs Wt study (Williams. minorities I986) WMBU- -WWMWMI£H- tcxh'ug workbook tcshing wakbook (Dukcshirc. significattly mac I966) effective diaper mocca- Eaperr 3788 vs Ieapen system cent iretrttctha plus concept instruction (Prater. significattly more I981) ell’ective 416W 'm- - Ilndividualiaed' muction vs strucrim signifiatly traditional lectue Gm. :986) me clfective him i- - lnrividtnliaed moon strtsu'ort(no choice) (choice of lctlntng option) vs sigru'fcmtly more Individualized itstruction (no cfleuive chotce) (Rein. I979) 62 Manipulation of Variables The litetlttne was searched for studies demonstrating the effects of manipulating variables ofthelcarningenvironmenueacherlteachingprocess. instructionalmaterial.andleamer.in order It respond to the following research question: Question 03: Wha effectdoes nunipulation of selected factors (variables) have on self-instructional strategies? l'E' TableSisasurrmaryofthereseareh findingsforthevariable ‘leamingenvironrncntfi' Baird(l985)leptnsrhatsubjectswhoworlredaloneatthecorrputersecmedtohavemore stable correlation between their final reasoning ability and theirpost-treatment hypofieaizingskills(j9&.64)mmsubjecuwhowakedindueemunbams(15& ~27). 11tissntdy(CAlindividualvsCAldueemembergroups)producednomppat for dteefiecdvenessofcoopemdvelemunggrwpsofdueenembusinpromodng hypothesiz'mgskillsarnongallleamers. Whensubjectswereasltedtoratethesoftware. subjectsindicatedastrongdislilreforthisprograrn 1hesntdyalsoreponedthat coopaafivegroupleaningudcdasimulaimsuennreeflecnveutmhdividual incracnonutdconmunrextinelevadnganintdetowardprogrambeingused in a study by Zuliclr(l976) (comparing conventional class group and individual television viewingwith andwithoutresponse sheets)revealednooverall significantdilferencein attitude towardtelevision instruction anongthe four groups. (However. students teaming inisolaedcarrelshadameneguiveanintdetowardTVinsnuctionwhen usingthe response sheets). Students in aconventional class situation withorl response sheets had a 63 sigru'ficudy morenegative attitude towardtclevision instruction. There isnoevidence. basedon this study(convenrional class group. individual television viewing. with and withoutreaponseshects).thatthesizeoftheclass (conventional grouporindividual)hasa sigrufiantefl'ectonchievenentwhendcmtekvisedlessomwaepreaened. Table 5 l . E . Findings Strategies Compared Effect No significant difference CAI (indiv.) vs CAI (grp) Cooper'aive youp learning + (Baird. l985) colastmul ations more effective than indiv. interacrion + computer text for elevating attitude toward program Conventional TV vs lndiv. TV Individual TV (with response (with and without sheets) I higher negative sheets) (Zuliclr. I976) atn'tude Class viewing without response sheet a higher negative attitude Significarn difference Interactive video instruction N instruction beneficial for (W) (McNeil. 1989) Team assisted individualintion (TAD vs individualintion (Emley. I986) Self-instruction vs cooperative learning (Segart. l980) botlt indiv. and grp. instruction TM a higher completion rates TM 2 greater arithmetic achievement Higher performance of cooperaive learning group than self-instruction group 64 lnthestudiesreviewedbyMcNeil(l989).interactivevideoinstruction(lV)wasfoundto bebeneficialforindividualandgroupinsmtction. McNeilreportsthathinstructioncould beexpectedmutaeaesntdentachievememfiundtesmhmdtewlndpucendle. AccadingtoMcNeil.'[m)emefiecBwuegreaerforgroupinsuucdmbtnwerenot significant'(p.44). Etruey(l986)condtnmdasntdymnpminghtdividudindinsmndmmmasuswd individualintioni'l‘AD. TAlisaprocessinwhichsntdentsmallgroupinteractionisadded torheindividualieedprocess. Borhgroupshadidenticalworltsheets. Studentsworltingin srnallgroups"...helped each other with problcms.discussedwordproblems.cornpared andcheckedanswers"(p.87). Emleyreportsthattheeffectofmmassisted individualization on aritllnetic achievemenr was significant (p<033). Arithmetic achievernentwas significantly higher with unassisted individualization than with individualized insnuction. Course cormletion rates with team assisted individualization were significantly higherthan thatof individualized instruction. Segan (1980) reports that the cooperative leaning group scored (performed) significantly better titan the self-uistruction group. W Amydmereseachfindingsfaduvanable"nacheduachMgprocas"isprmided in Table 6. In the studies he reviewed. McNeil (I989) repom interactive video instruction wausuallyemployedaareplacementfortraditionalinstruction. Outcomesforstudies empbyingdusureteachafuintaacfivevideoimdmpoupsandconndpoups were msignificantiy different from studiesernploying different teachers. McNeil further 65 reports that the lowest achievement effect was for interactive video instruction studies employing learnerconrrolofreview and practice. In the review of studies by Aiello ( I981) (lecture. audio-tutorial. CAI. Progrartuned instruction. personalized system of instruction. combination approach). self-pacing of instruction for the entire class yielded higher effect sizes dtan daily pacing. Self-initiated eating yielded higher effect sizes than the absence of flexibility. Allowing student choice armng instructional delivery systerm yielded higher effect sizes. than where uniform delivery systems were required. Moin (I986) reports that self-paced mastery learning had the largest effect size.ln this study. Moin compared self-paced mastery learning (used as an alternative to traditional inmrction) to formative evaluation/feedback remediation. CAI. and innovative teaching strategies (all of which were used to supplement traditional instruction). Hein (I979) reports the Choice (individualized instruction with choice of learning options) used the learning options provided in the module. but their individual selections did nor result irt higher test scores titan No Choice. M Table7containsasumrmryofresearehfindings forthevariable "material." lnastudy conduccdbmewardena(l988)utfornafionwassyndtesizedfiuntwosoumes: an enauivereviewofdnfimmnandsumynsulnoprosuecondaryedmafional institutions irt the U.S.‘Ihese educattl'smdingto the study. perceived television as an effectivedeliveryrnediumfora varietyofsubjectareas. Postsecondaryeducatorsranlted thefollowingtechnologiesaseffectivemeansforproviding instruction: Table6 W Condition StrategiesComped Fm Smeahervsdifierentncher haeractivevideoinstrucoon Nosignifmtrh'llerences (McNeil.l989) Welt-math LeenIevsaudio-uuialvsCAIvs Highereffactsiusforcourselcngth rel-pig WW!!! self-(Icing pasoaaliaedsyaofinatctinnvs combiruionapwoach(Aiello.l9ll) Sci-initial vs flexible test’mg Led!!! vs audio-tunnel vaCAI vs Higher effect since for self-initiated the“: prograrnmesinstructionvs estirtgscherhtle persoraliudsys.of‘nstructionvs cornbinaionapwoach(Aiello.I98l) Suttntehoicevsuniformmo Irectuevsardio-nrtorialvsCAlvs Highereliectsieeslorstudcntchmcc choice)ofiruuctionalrhliverysys. programmeainsnuctionvs ofinstructionddcliverysys. persomiindsys. ofitstructionvs combinationappoacNAielloJQl) Prerencevsabsenceofmutery Lectuevsaudio-urtorialvsCAlvs Largestefiectsieest‘orprcscnccot' lecitg prograrnrnesinstructinnvs mylanrng personairndsysmfinstructionvs combinan'onappoacNAielloJflI) Choicevsnnchoiceofleara‘ng lnrividdiaedmtionoleit. Highertcstscoresfornochutccut‘ options I979) leuningoptiorts Leanacorurolvsnocontrolof Interxtivuidenitsllmnn Lowesteft‘ectforleamcrcontrulot‘ revicwttlxtice (McNeiI.l989) reviewtuxtice Untold-med Self-pmednuruyhlru‘ag mining vsfennaiveenm Udeectloruseorscltpuct-d reraedinionvsCAIvs'altovative masterylelning uhrrrgstraeo’es mum l - Broadcast television (including open-broadcast. cable. artd rrrs deliveries): 2-videocassenes; 3-videoconferencing: 4-cornputerszand S-videodisc. 67 Naethlofmefiventediabroadcasthaspaceivedasdtemosteffecnve. Furthennote. a study by Zullclt (I976) (conventional classroom group. individual televisionviewing.with andwithoutresponsesheeuflailedtoproduceasignificant diffcence'machievementregardlessofwhetherthe studentsusedordidnotuse the responseflteeuwlnnmcdvingdtesanetelevisedkssonindteconvenfionalade indivirhaliaed class situations. All subjects in the four groups (conventional class group. indivithral coup television viewing. widt and without response sheets) acquired a high level of achievement during this experiment using televised instruction. Table 7 Mmial Condition Strategies Cornpared Findings Broadcast TV as a delivery Distance education Perceived as most effective or“ nudism (Gunawardena. I988) 5 media Response sheet vs no response TV curespondence vs No significant difference sheet traditional TV (Zulick. I976) Leaner imerest in course 4 TV forums (Brown. et al.. Straightforward. little content I973b) entertainment preferred In a stttdy by Brown and his colleagues (I973a) comparing four television formats. when dtecotlsecontentwasintrinsically interest'utg tothe learner. asn'aightforward. low erm'ntmentvaluefcrrnatwaspreferred. I.“ W Brownandhiscolleagues(l973a)conducudasnrdyofinsnuctionufilizing anopenleamingsnategyinwhichfotrtelevisionformnwerecompared. Alllearners preferredreal-life settings. positivethernes.doulnentaryappoaches.andsome irbntificationofinstructionalgoals. ‘I'hisstudyandothersconcernedwithvaluesand goals arestmarizedinTables. InasntdybyDeaBman(l97|)oomparing independent learningwithconventional lecture classes.mostsubjects favored independent study. Most subjectsagreedthatthey benefittedfrommoreindividualhelp(providedbytheprectors)inthegroupsrudysessions thanwasavailableiniecntreclasses. IOoutofl3favoringstudysessionsreponedthey waeberefinedbynnreutdividuafizcdhdpindnsnrdysessimnthaninlecttne. InastudyconductcdbySmbbs(I984)boldngathomemtdywidtaconptnerhb cunportemnunypreconceivednodonswaereuinedafiermodulecanpledon. Many subjectspreferredinteraction. W Therempearstobemuchinterest inassessingtheperceptionsot‘ studentstegardingtheirsucccss while receiving instruction (seeTable 9). Participants accudinngannchoDmgca(l9fl)(indisunceemnadmcouseianrmeda)RPMa gainincmnsecmtenthnwledgeuwefluexpuiendalbtowbdgedtmughanmdinga fusttimeeeperimentaicoursethatisdeliveredatadistance. In astudyby Brownet al(l973a)cornparing four television formats. inmany instances. dusubjeculanudnuemmmeydmghtdteyhadmdmhaddiffictdryacupdngme factthattheycouldhmandenjoydteactivityatthesanetine. Table 8 malaria Condition Strategy Compared Value Learnerprefuence 4 TV Formats (Brown. et al.. - real-er settings I973a) - positive titerrles - documentary approaches - identification of instructional goals lanterpreference Independent learning vs lecture Independent study (Deatsman. l97l) Majorbenefit Same as above (Deatsman. Individualized help in study 1971) sessions Icarrterpreference Hornestud with computer lab Interaction (Stubbs. l 84) AmadingtoasnrdybyBaird(l985)cunpanngCAlartdividual)widtCAl(dtree member group).changea in subject’s (teachers) perception of theirown success and ratings of the propundleyusedmaybeinfluutcedbybodtnndeofpresumdonandwhetherpeer supportwasinvolved. Cooperativegroup learningandcolorsirntdanonsarentoreeffecdve mutdividuflumdonmcmnpuercxtmekndngpacdvedstncessmmuseofthe computer. hasudybyDcanranWllmtmmtmingmcmvendonalkaun chasesaflhuonembjectfeltdteynldebenertneoftheirdnninmegroupsmdy sessionsthaninlectureclasses. Mostsubjectsagreedthattheywereabletoconcentrate beneraMwerelessboredingroupsntdysessionsthaniniecnneclasses. Mostsubjects ayeddutdreyenjoyedleamingatdteirintfividualpamdntdmewentbymorequicltly: Talie9 70 WW Condition StrategyCormared Findings Attenrfingdisuncecourse Distanceeducation(Carnacho- Gainincotnsecontent Dungca. 1987) knowledge leaningwithTVinstruction 4TVforrmts(open1earntn oSubjcctslearnedmorethan Coopernn've group learning and cola simulation independent learning Low vs High level students Cornplet'utg self-instructional module Particip-ttscuittn'ally different frorneducational institution (Brown. et al.. l973a) CAI(indiv.)vsCAl(grpl (Baird. 1985 ) Independent learningvs lecture (Deatsrnan. 1971) TVCorrespondencevs traditionalTVinstr-uction (Green. 1967) Home study with cornpucr lab (Stubbs. I984) Disnnce education (Carrncho- Dungca. 1987) expected . - Subjects dtd mt expect to enjoy while learning Moreeffectivenchange studentperceptionofsuccess - Made beter use oftime - Benerabletoconcentrate - Less bored -enjoyed learning - time went faster ”Leamed about the same" (TV l - 14% Low - 61% High Would have learned "some more" - 50% Low Would have leaned "much more" - ll‘ilnw SO‘ilrofsubjectsneeded assisuncefrornpcerorteacher Participation and flow of discussion inhibited 71 artdmaburungwaseasierinthegroupsntdysessionsdtaninlecnneclasses13outof lSexpaimental subjectsfindependent leaning) prefer-redstudy sessions toclasses All 13 subjectsfelrtheymadebetteruseoftheirtime inthesrudysessionsthaninlecture. In a study byGreen (1967) comparing correspondence(experirnental) programmed text and broadcastvideotapeswith classroom insnuction (adjunct instrtrctor withpograrnrned test andbr'odcastvideotapes)14%ofthe hggr'oupandt'tl‘iofthe highgroup feltthey leaned'abotnthesame'incorrespondencesetting. 50%ofthelmygroupfelt they would havelearned"somcmore"and11%inthemgroupfclttheywouldhaveleamed"much more" in the classroom. Sntbbs (1984) reports although the computer module was desigrted as self-instructional. about 50% of the subjecn needed assistance from peers or the facilitator in order to follow all instrtrctions. Camacho-bungee (1987) reports that participation and flow of discussion (of distance erhrcatiort students in Micronesia) was inhibited because of the course requirements for studentstointeractwiththeirinstructortlnough television. Micronesians have anoral tradition which requires face-to-face interactions between teacher and student. 1m Inastudyby Brown etal.(l973b) (lookingattheresponsivenessofcerrainadult chu'actu'isticstonnritimedia instructionalprograrrtsdesigned foranopenuniversity ”Wideneralinterestintheoveralllessonwasrelatedtothedegeetowhichlearners foundmaterial useful (see Table l0). Interest ratings forreading materialsusedfor the Accomdnglesmwasigruficandyrelacdmhownutchdmewasspemreadingfor the AmountinglessonandtostudentachieverncntitAccounting. 72 m ThequestionoftirneiseeTable 10)hasbeenofinteresttosomeresetchers. I-lein (l979)reporteddifferencesin ”amendments-rumors“. lntltisstudya-lein. 1979) cornpan'ng individualized instruction (with and witltout choice oflearning options). the tirtte spertt studying (titat is. activity time) WWO‘I- 90.20 minutes)was significattlygreacrthanthatofmm-“natiutefl. Thetimcspenttakingthe pombycmiratxs 29.00mimnes). however. wassignificandygreatcrthan Illatoleg mm 16.60 minutes). In asrudybyGreen(1967) cortmaringconespondencdexperimennDWtext artdbroadcastvideotapesnndclassroom instruction (adjunct instructor. Programmed text andbroadcastvidconpes).high utdmiddlelevelexperimenral subjectsrequirednomore timetoworktheexercisesthancontrolsubjectsatthoselevelstthelowertperirnentalgroup. however.averaged68minuteslongerpersessionthanthelowcontrol group. Em|¢y(l986)considereddifferences incornpleo’onrates. In this studyZEmleycompared team assiswd individualintion with individualized instruction course completion rates. and fourtd that team assisted individualintion completion rates were significantly higher titan that of individualized insn'uction (83% . 54% respectively). WhiledteChoicegroupinastudyconductedbyHein(1979)didnotspendasmuchtimc contpledngannduhdteNoGtoicegroupdanonsoateddminvesnngnnreune corwletingali testingandstudy activities notonly resulted in significantly greatertestscore gains butalsohigherposttestmeanscotesthandidtheChoicegroup. m M30987) investigated differences irt terrnsofexperiencedand inexperienced learners (see Table 11). In this study (cornering expert system only with expert system plus concept instruction). statistical artd educational significance were obtained 73 Table 10 Imam Condition Strategy Cormared Findings Inst General interest in lesson Distance learning (multi-media) Related to degree of usefulness (Brown. et al.. I973b) of material line Activiy tirtte Individualized instruction No choice group significantly (choice) vs (no choice) of greater dim choice group learning options (Hein. I979) Test-taking time Same as above (Hein. I979) Cltoice group significantly greater titan no choice group. but no choice had greater test score gains and higher post test mean scores Acn'virytirne T'VCorreswtdencevs -Nodifferenceintime traditional insn'uctiort required of high and middle (Green. 1967) level subjects - Low (TV correspondence) averaged 68 minutes longer per session titan low (traditional) subjects Completion rams Team assisted individualintton - TAI significantly higher (TA!) vs individualintton (83%) the indiv. instruction (Enuey. I986) (54%) across tlte experienced and inexperienced subjects (when experience level was considered alone) when using an expert system plus concept instruction. 74 Bahd(l985)wuuttuestedinaspecificqtdntde(apdudefafamlreasanngand hypothesizingsltills). Inhisstudy comparingCAI(individual)withCAl(3rnember group). learnerswith specific aptitudes (formal reasoningmd hypodtesizing slrills) tespmtdeddifiaendyoechofdtefmrcanbimdomofpresuxadatnndeandgroup size. Snrdaxspossessingdtesespecificapdntdesappeumbenefitnnrefiunleuning in srnallgroupsand learning from cola simulatiats. Odterresearchers haveconsidered difi'erencesamongdn'eeabilitygroups - low. middle. high. In a sttrdy conducted by Williams (1986) conparing tutoring. indepertdent study and CAdehrprovemnoinachievennntscaesbymusingCAIappeumbcmue efiecdwmgmmuudentsmanitwafwmofmgeachievemnt Subjectsatthelowlevelwerejudgedtobelesssuccessfulandlessateasewiththe cxperimcnultreatmentthanweretheodters. W Sung(l986)conductedastudytodetenninefactorswhich influenced student persistence in distartce education (see Table 11). The following cornbinationsoffactorsreportedhadaneffecton persistence: -16%ofdtevariartceinpersistencewasduetodtestudent'spereeived reasortablenessofinsmtctionalobjectives. -21%ofdtevuiutcewasassociaredwidtacmnbinanonoffieedmeutdofstudy The following factors did not significattly afi‘ct persistence: influence of the instructor. artd motivational factors. 75 Table 11 l E . I I I . . ill I . 1 Condition Strategy Compared Findings mu: Inexperienced vs experienced Expert sys. vs expert sys. + Significant differences between learners concept instruction (Prater. results of experienced and 1987) inexperienced subjects Aptintde for fornul reasoning CAI (indiv.) vs CAI (grp.) Different responses to the and hypothesizing skills (Baird. I985) combinations of presentation mode and group size Minaity (low level) vs CAI vs nttoring vs i CAI more effective for low minority (average level) study (Williams. 1986) achieving minority students Low level vs high & nu'ddle TV correspondence vs (TV correspondence groups) traditional ‘W instruction (Green. 1967) “.. Student persistence W education (Sung. Student persistence Same as above (Sung. 1986) Judged to be less successful. less at ease Significant effect: - student's perceived reasonableness of objectives 06% of variance) - combirtation of free time and study time (21%) No significant effect: - influence of instructor - motivational factors WW Research findings differ when researchers consider such factors as the grade/level. age. or dteethnicityofthestudent. 76 IM- Jaus(l982)inasntdyexarninhtgasystemwhichhtcludedrunedialworkplus propessrepomartdposting test profiles (see Table 12).reports tltefollowing findings for dieino'oductorystodenu: -rernedialworkwastherrtostinteractivelysiptificarttrn'acgy: -fermlcsperformedbetterthanmalesinallpoups; ~attitudedidnotsiptificantly afi'ectsntdentachievernent. F'utdingsfortheadvancedpoupshoweddtat: -remedialworkandGPAweresignificantcontribotorstotitevariance in achievement. - achievement interacted with Treatrnent.$ex andGPA tocontribute significantly to thevarianceinachievement. Inastudy by Pipko(1980) cornparingPrograrruned Instruction. lecttleonlyanda combimnonofpropunnedimmndmmdlecnneJnsemndyeademalsnrdatnscmed higherdtan firstyeusnrdmtsngardlessofmemthodofutsnucdonondtecfinicalexarn. Ag. In a study by Tobin (I986) comparing CAI with Individualized lab instruction (see Table 12). no difference was found in achievemem between younger and older age groups. However. the older CAI poop performed best of all the poops. although not siptificantly different. Inastudy conductedby Brownetal. (1973a) comparing fotntelevisionformats.older aduln preferredsome forntofon-cameraauthority figurernore dtandidyoungeradults. Youngeradultlearners were generallymoreresponsivetosubtle instructional formats (e.g.. story-line nrnning through a lesson) titan older adults (eg..authority figure). but there was enough variation in botit groups for a sobsuntial arnoont of overlap. Table 12 77 StrategyCortpared Findings Introducatryvs advanced students First yr. vs second yr. dental studenn Are Younger vs older (CAD W Older vs younger adults Remedialwork+ reports+testprom 1982) MM" lectuevs rrograrr(rmed instruction + ecture( I980) CAI vs individualind lab instruction (Tobin. I986) 4 TV formats (open (Brown. et al.. I973a) leaning) lnnndummrdsms; significantly affected achievement: ~remedial work ~sex(fernales only) no significant effect: - attitude AWE; Significantly affected achievement- - remedial work - GPA Second yr. students outscored first yr. students regardless ot method of instruction No sigrtificant differertcc III achievement. but older CAI poop had highest performance - Older adults preferred on- camera authority figure - Younger adults preferred subtle instructional formats W Williams (1986) repom tltu ntinority students performed at achievement levels approximring the levels of non-minority students (see Table 13) when using CAI as the medium of irtstruction. Furthermore. nu'nority studcns achieved significantly higher 78 scoreswhen usingCAlthan were obtained dtrough theuseofdteotherrworncthods (i.e.. tutoringandindependent study). Am Findingsconcerningdteaninrdeofmelemterusingavuietyofedtcafional mediaisvaried. ln astudy by Brownetal. (l973b) lookingatreactiortsofadultstudents tonnrldmediaimmrcnonalprograrnsinanopenuniversirysystemflable 13)revealedthat snrderttattintdestostrchproparns were (siptificantly)positivelyrelatedtothefollowing chm-acuisn’cs: -levelofeducation -enjoyrnentofedocationaltelevision -conceptofselfasastudent -thoughtsabootfutureeducation -pastacadernicachievement. Additionally. student attitudes toward aodiocassette lesson nnterial wererelaredto initial attitudestowardeducationaltelevision. In a study conducted by Brown and his colleagues (l973a) countering four television forrrtats. attitude outcomes were influenced by the difi'ering clevision formats. Support For Self-Instructional Strategies Thcmchquesdonbebwaddresseddnismofedtnadonalsoppatuorspecific resmlces-whichmybeanessendalelanuuindnsmcessofaself-insmrcfimal strategy. Question“: Whatsysternofedocationalsupportisnecessaryforeffective applicationofself-instructiomlstrategies? 79 Table 13 l E | . . ! . I Condition Strategy Compaed Findings 5 | . . Minoriryvsnon-minority CAivsirtdividualizedlab Minority students scored snxients (CAI) instruction (Tobin. 1986) significantly higher using CAI AM Toward multi-media programs Multimedia ptopam (open Significantly related to: learning) (Brown. et al.. - level of education l973b) - enjoyment of educational TV - concept of self as student - thoughts about future education - past academic achievement Toward audio cassette lesson Same as above (Brown. et al.. Related to irtitial attitudes m l973b) toward educational TV Toward TV instruction 4 TV formats (open learrting) Influenced by different formats (Brown. et al.. 1973a) findings about the use and effectiveness of an educational support system were found in the distance learning literantre (i.e.. distance education. correspondence/home study. open learning). Gunawarrbna (1988) conducted a survey in wlu‘ch educators of 49 post seconrhry institutions answered a series of questions. Percentages of respondents indicating that their institutions reputedly provided the following student support services are as follows: telephone office hours for faculty teaching the course (86%) study guides (75%) indivtdualized feedback frorn faculty (75%); and 80 pltonecallsinitiatedbyfaculty (70%) Thaewusunediscnpueyabwtmemponedusemddepaceivedhelpfulnessoftwo studentservices provided. Although 86% oftheinstitotiortsreportusingtelephoneoffice hours. only 47% of those institutions perceive telephorte office hours to be very helpful. Ontlteotherhartd.altltoughonly 30%oftheinstitutionsrepatusingcompoterized feedback. 64% of the institutions perceive feedback as a very helpful student support service. Theseeducatorswerealsoaskedtoratealistofstudcntsupponservices. Resoltsshow that these educators perceive the following five services to be the most helpful (in order frorn highest to lowest ranking) : study guides. individualized feedback from faculty. computerized feedback. telephone calls initiated by faculty. student access to public or college libraries. Gar-u (1986) conducted a study of program directors from 156 medical technology propams. These programs employ individualized instrucn‘on as one strategy for instruction. This study revealed : ( l) a positive correlation between faculty/student ratio artd students' mean raw scores on a cutification exam; (2) a positive correlation between the provision of stipends and loans by rmdieal technology programs artd students' scores on the certification exam. Combined Factors For ldealized Self-Instructional System Response to the following research question sought data concerning combinations of single factors which reportedly impacted the effectiveness or the efficiency of self-instructional strategies. The findings for research question five are presented in terms of the following variables: learning environment. teacher/teaching process. leaning material. and learner. thtionds: Whatcombinatiorus)offactorsdrawnfromrheliterattneare supported for their irrclosion in a self-instructional system? I'E' The vaiable ”leaning environment" (see Table 14) had the following reported effects: I. Theldptestperformutcebydisunceleambtgsnrdennwasachievedbystudenu puticipating in cooperative teaming groups. 2. Individual learning students participating in cooperative group learning achieved higher cornse completion rates artd arithmetic achievement. 3. Interactivevideoinstructionwasbeneficial forbothgtoupandindividoal Table 14 l . E . l Cortrfition Strategy Compared Findings Use of cooperative Self-instruction vs Highest student leaning poops cooperative lemung performance (Segan. 1980) Use of team Team assisted indiv. Highest student course usised indi- (TAI) vs individuali- contpletion rates vidualizarion ration (Entley. 1986) Highest arititmetic achievement Use of been Interactive video Berteficial for both ctive virbo instruction (IV) indiv. & grp. instruction (CAI I) insuuction W 'Ihevariable ”resale/teaching process” (see Table 15)hadthefollowingreportedeffects: l. Studertts receiving individualizedinstructionobtained highertestscoreswhenthey werenmperrnitedtochooseamongleamingoptions. ‘l'ltesesobjectsperforrnedat ahighlevelwhatdteywaerequhedmconpleteaflleanungacdvideswithintle rrtodole. Table 15 Watt Condition Strategies Compared Findings Self-pacing Lecture vs audio- Highest effect sizes for entire class tutorial vs CAI vs Pl vs for self-pacing vs daily pacing personalized sys. of instruction vs combina- tion approach (Aiello. 1981) Self-initiated same as above (Aiello. I981) Highest effect sizes vs flexible testtng motioned testing e schedule Student choice vs sartte as above (Aiello. 1981) Highest effect sizes uniform (no choice) for student choice of of ' ' instructional delivery delivery sys system Presencevs sameasabove(Aiello.1981) urgesteffectsizesfor absence of . presence of mastery matery learning m8 Choice vs nochorce lrtdiv. instruction Highest test scores for no of leaning options (I-lein. I979) choice pp. Leamer control vs Interactive video Lowest effect sizes for no control of review instruction learnerconool of artd practice (McNeil. 1989) review and practice 83 2. Ccrqxrerleaming students attained Icwestacltievementsccreswhendreyuhe snrdents) were able to control learning review and practice in the learning process. 3. The peatest (largest) effect was experienced when the following conditions were present when comparisons were made of combinations of teaming strategies: - self-pacing for the entire lengtit cf the course vs daily pacing - studentchoiceoflhe insuucdonaldeliverysysternand - rrtastery learning. I . II . I Thevariable "teaming material" (see Table I6)had the followingreportedeffect: - Television is perceived as the mosteffective delivery medium indistance educationwhencomparedtcfiveotherdeliverymedia. Inner The findings for the variable "leanrer" are fortherorganized according to the specific learner W Distance learning students valued interaction with peers (see Table 17) despite the tact that irtstructicn was primrily individual rather than group instruction. Learners involved in individual learning preferred independent study to traditional instruction. They particularly valued individualized assistance provided by prcctcrs during poop study sessions. 84 1971) 1 able l6 W Condition Strategies Compared Findings TV as a delivery Distance education Perceived as most median (Gunawardena. l988) effective medium Learns herested 4 TV fornnts Straightforward. little in course content (Brown. et al.. l973b) entertainment preferred Table 17 MW Condition Strategy Compared Findings 12' I . S lnrnerpteference 4 TV Formats (Brown. et al.. - reaHife settings l973a) - positive themes - documentary approaches - identification of insti-notional goals Waterpreference Homestudywithcornputerlab interaction (Stubbs. l984) Lampreference lndependentlearningvslecttne lndependenrstudy (Deatsrnan. l97l) Major benefit Same as above (Deatsrnan. individualized help in study sessions 85 Wm Distance learning students felt they gained course content knowledge with distance courses and TV instruction (see Table 18). Those who did n0t have perceptions of achievement gains or high gains indicawd a preference for instruction with more teacher intervention. Sort: learnersdidnotertpect toenjoy while learning. Some learners indicateda need for assistmce form peers or teacher even during instruction which was self-instructional. Participants of a culture different from the culntre ofthe institution indicated that course participation and flow ofdiscussion was inhibited. Learnen involved in individual learning appear to have the perception that independent studyismoreeffectiveandmoreefficientthanlecture. Conquer learning students who participated in cooperative youp learning while convicting a color simulation had a high perception of success. Imam General interest (ofdistance learners) inthe lessonas indicated inka 19 was related to theusefulnessof course materials. Students generally maintained an interest in the distance lemingcmuseuhngasmtdenupaoeiveddtecmusenuunalsmbeusefultocoufie conviction. Table 18 E . [B l I Condition Strategy Compared Findings D' I . S Attendingdistancecotnse DistaneeedoeatioMCamcho- Gainincoorsecontent Dungca. I987) knowledge learningwithTthstroction 4TVformats(open ~Sobjeculetnedmorethan (Brown. et al.. l973a) expected - Subjects did net expect to enjoy while learning LeuningdtroughTV TVCorrespondencevs "l.earnedabootthesatne"(TV correspondatceofhighdtlow traditionalTVinsmrction ) achievement students (Green. 1967) . [4% Low - 61% High Would have learned "some mu - 50% Low Would have learmd ”much more" - 11% Low Cortmledng self-instructional Home with computer lab 50% of subjects needed coupon module (Stubbs. l 84) assisnnce from peer or teacher Participants culturally different Distance education (Camacho and flow of from ethteational institution Dungca. I987) discussion inhibited I I‘ . l I I . S lndepentbntleuntn' g lndependentlearru'ngvslecttee -rmdeberteruseoftirne (Deatsman. 1971) -betterabletoconcentrate . less bored - enjoyed learning - time went faster W Cooperative group learning + CAI (indiv.) vs CAI (grp.) more effective to change color simulation (Baird. I985) student perception of success 87 Tabb l9 Wm Condition Strategy Conoared Findings lens a. I . 5 General interest in lesson Distance learning (mold-media) Related to depee of usefulness (Brown. et al.. l973b) of material line Activity time Individualized instruction No choice group significantly (choice) vs (no choice) of peater titan choice poop learning options (Hein. l979) Test-taking time Same as above (Hein. I979) Choice poop significantly peater than no choice group. but no choice had peater test score gains and higher post test mean scores Corwletion rates Team assisted individualization Team assiswd individualization (TA!) vs individualization significantly higher (83%) than (Emley. I986) individualized instrucrion (54%) D. I . 5 Manny" tin: TVCorresgtdencevs ~Lowfl'Veorrespondence) traditronal’ tnsn'uco' 'on averaged 68 minutes longer per (Green. 1967) session than low (traditional) subjects' mm When 'mdividual learning students were given a choice of learning options (see Table 19). a sltercrdntewasrequiredtoeornpletetheleaningactivity. butapeareramountoftime to complete mat-taking resulting in lower test score gains. Low achieving distance learning students required longer activity time than high and middle achieving students. 88 I ll' . Pasisutceindisnnceleamenwasmhwdmstudenrspuceivednasonabhnessof objectivesandfreetimelsntdy time (see Table 20). Snrdenuwetemoreliltelytocontinue with distance learning classes when courseobjectives were perceived to be reasonable. Studentpersistencewasalsorelatedtothedepeetowhichtheamountofanticipatedftee andstudytimematchedtlteamountofactoalstudyatdfreetime. leaner-Matt Experienced subjects using an expert system (with concept instruction) (set: Table 20) had the highest achievement scores. Subjects who had experience teaching learning disabled studentsandsubjectswhohadnothadpriorteachingexperience were given instructionon how to classify learning disabled students. When compared to two other self-insmtctional strategies (tutoring and independent study). CAl was the most effective strategy for low achieving nu'nority students. inner-AI: Student preference ofdiStance learners (see Table 21) forTV forum was related to the age of die student (younger vs older adult). Older adults preferred an on-carnera authority figure. However. younger adults preferred a TV format which used a variety of enterta'utment techniques. Older adults using CAl obuined higher achievement scores than older adults using individualized lab instruction for vocabulary instruction. 89 Title!) I'IHI"[E|' H Condition Strategy Conpared Findtn’ gs ! . I I: I . S lnexpenenced' vs experienced' Expert sys. vs expert sys. + Signrficant’ differences between learrters concept instruction (Prater. results of experienced and 1987) inexperienced subjects Apo'turb fa formal reasoning CA1 (indiv.) vs CA1 (pp.) Different responses to the and hyporhesrzrn' ' g skills (Baird 1985) combinations of presentation mode and group size D I . . I . S Minaity (low level) vs CAI vs tutoring vs i CAI more effective for low na'nority (average level) study (Williams. 1986) achieving minority students 0' I . S lnwlevelvshighdtmiddle TVcorrespondencevs ('Wcorrespondencegroups) traditionalTVinstruction Judged to be less successful. less at ease (Green. 1967) l I . . D' I . 5 Student persistence Distance education (Song. Siptifieant effect: 1986) - student's perceived reasonableness of objectives (16% of variance) - combination of free time and study time (21%) M lntrodocta'y students (in an individual leaning ml were successful using the remedial work strategy (see Table 21); however. females achieved higher scores titan males. For advanced stodenn. achievement was related to the remedial work strategy and G.P.A. Second yeardenul students outscored first year students despite method of instruction. Table 21 mm Condition Strategy Compared Findings lad introductory vs advanced Remedial work + progress W reports +testprofiles(lonas. significantlyaffected 1982) achievemenc - remedial work - sex (ferrules only) am Significantly affected achievement: - remedial work - GPA First yr. vs second yr. dental students A8 Younger vs older (CAD was [2' I . 5 Oldervs youngeradults Proparnrned instruction vs lecture vs combination programmed tnsmrctton + lecture (Pipko. 1980) CA1 vs irtdivirkraliud lab instruction (Tobin. 1986) 4 TV formats (open leaning) (Brown. et al.. l973a) Second yr. students outscored first yr. students regardless of method of instruction No siptificant difference in achievement. but older CA1 poop had highest performance - Older adults preferred on- carnera authority figure - Younger adults preferred subtle instructional formats 91 More Artitudesofdisunce leaner: toward mold-media programs (see Table 22) were found to be relaedtodte levelofeducation.enjoyrnentofedocational television.conceptofselfas a student. droughts about future education. and past academic achievement. Student attitudes wad atoiio cassette lessons were found to be related to initial attitudes toward educational elevkion. Student attitudes toward television instruction were influenced by different television formats. I E l . . Minority students achieved high results when using CA1 that was reported when they used two other strategies (tutoring and independent study) (see Table 22). Summary in Chapter Fou. the research findings were reported for each research question. Qrestion 01: What is the range of self-instructional strategies? Strategies within the individual learning system represented 44.63% of the studies found. Strategies within the computer learning system accounted for 29.21% of the studies found. Strategies within the distance learning system accounted for 26.17% of the studies. 92 Table 22 E I . . I ! . I 1 Condition Strategy Compared Findings E I . . Minority vs non-minority Tutoring vs independent Scored significantly higher studenu (CA!) vs CA1 (Williams. 192-5) using CAl am 0' I . S Toward mold-media proparns Multimedia propam( Siptificantly related to: learning) (Brown. et al.. - level of education l973b) - enjoyment of educational TV - concept of self as student - droughts about future education - past academic achievement Tow-daudiocassettelesson Sarneasabove(Brown.etal.. Relatedtoinirialattitudes material 1973b) toward educational TV Toward TV instruction 4 TV formats (open learning) influenced by different formats (Brown. :1 al.. 19738) Question 02: How do self-instructional strategies compare in terms of effectiveness “efficiency? The two strategies within the computer learning system were reported to positively impact student achievement: - computer—assisted-insrruction (especially for minority students) - expert systems (when used in conjuncoon with traditional concept instruction) One distance leaming strategy was reported to positively impact student achievement: - self-teaching workbook (used with lecttn'e) 93 One individual learning strategy. individualized instrucrion. was reported to irnpacr student achievement. Question 03: What effect does the manipulation of factors (variables) have on self-insmtctional strategies? The variables selected for study were the learning environment. teacher/caching process. irtsu'uctional material. and the learner. Learning environntent was a significant factor for each of the three self-insu'uctional systems (disunce learning. individual learning. and compact learning system). Teacher/teaching process was a significant factor in strategies in die individual and computer learning systems. Learning material was a significant factor in the distance learning system. Specific learner characteristics were significant in each of the learning systems; however. learner characterisdcs appeared to more significantly impact strategies irt the distance learrting system. Question 84: What system of educational support is necessary for effective application of self-instructional strategies? Educators from 49 post secondary institutions reportedly provided the following student support services: telephone office hours for faculty teaching the course (86%) study guides (75%) individualized feedback from faculty (75%); and phone calls initiated by faculty (70%) Qtafion 85: What combination(s) of factors drawn from the literature are supported for their inclusion in a self-instructional system? The ftmrs learning environment. teachedteaching process. learning material. and the learner are supptrted for inclusion in a self-instructional system. CHAPTERFWE Somrnary. Conclusions. and Recommendations lamina Chapter Five summarizes research findings artd presents conclusions artd recortunendations for each of the research questions. The purpose of this study was (a) to identify and analyze data from the research literature about selected self-instructional strategies in use in defined self-instr'ttctional systems: (b) to sttrrunarize the findings concerning the effectiveness and efficiency of these self- instructional strategies; and (c) to identify relationships which appear to exist among factors or combinations of factors affecting self-insmtctional systems. Surrrrnary ofthe Study ChapterOnepresents anoverviewofthe issoesunderinvestigarion andthe procedures usedtriaddresstheseissues. Oneproposedsolutiontotheproblemofmeetingthe educational needs of students who find it difficult to attend traditional classes is to use self- instructional strategies. These self-instructional strategies are categorized within three self- instructional systems. i.e.. individual learning. computer learning. and distance learning. More specifically. this study. then. seeks: to identify selected factors which appear to impact die effectiveness and efficiency of selected self-instructional systems; to describe the current state of self-instructional sysmns in light of this data; and to identify relationships 94 95 which appear to exist among factors orcombinatiorts of factors affecting self-instrucfional systems Becausedtereseachonself-insmrcdonanditstelatedfactusaeseattered dlougbmudnhcranueagoalofmissntdyismpresemnlidreseamhdanrehfingto selfoinmuctioninamoremanageableandless-scatteredforrnat. MTwodeseribesdueeself-insmrco‘onalsysems(cctnputer learning. individual leuninpanddistance learning systems)andtheselfoinstructirxtal strategies corranonly in osewitltintltesesysterns. Themainfeatureofinstructionindtecornooterlearnincsystem isthecornpuer. In this systemof instruction. the leamermust interact (almost exclusively) widrdecanputainordertocontpletedtelear'ningacdvity. ‘l'heselfinstructional strategieainuseinthecomputer learningsystemincluded computer-assisted-insn'uction andexpertsysterns. 11tekeyfeattaeofinsouctionindteindividuallearningsysternisthe individualstudent. lnthis learning system. itappearsthatdtespecific characteristics of mug" aptitude. interest. learning rate. styleof learning)drivethelearning process. Theatr'acpescategorizedundertheindividoal learning system were: independent study. utdividttalizedinsmrcdornandprograrrlnedinsmrcrion. Titekeyfeattu'eofinstruction in dcdinancebanongsymisutedismnedmsepannsmelemrfiomuninsmntor. Thepr'anaryissoeinthisleuningsysemiszflowshallwecornpensate forthephysical separationbetweenlearnerand instructor? ‘l'hefollowingfivestrategiesareincludedinthe dkmleurungsyscmzdisunceednadon.conespmdenceaody.honemdy.opm educan'on.artdself-stody. Chapter3beganwithltoverviewoftheresearchdesign forthisstudy.anintepative review. Anintepativereviewhasbeendefinedas"...the synthesisofseparateempirieal f'utdings inaoacolterentwholc" (C0096. 1982. p.291). Becattsetltegoalofthis study is (l)tomalyzeresearchfindings looking forsirrtilarities.differences.andconflicting Wormdonunongdredaaabmnself-hmndmalsoategies;md(2)mmggeaan 96 idalizedmodelofself-msoucdmbandupondufirtditnmeunepadvereview cashmedmdappeuedmbemennstappropnacmchprmmaecanplishmat goal. Theplanforanalyzingthedatainclodeddueesteps. meeavailablestttdieswere sampledforpossibleinclosion. Second.theresearcherreadthestudiesandcodedthedata thatwascollected. lnclodedinthischapurisadetailedaecomtofdteprocedtuesusedto select thestodiesandtocodethedata. Finally.thefindingswereincrpretedinlightof ceminmsuicMsuchudtepresenceofdisaepanciesanmngmauts.mmehckof sufficient information included in the studies. lnChapterForuJereseuchfmdingswerereponedforeachreseuchqoesdon. The specifcfindingsanpresenedinemjmdonwithmemlufimsmdmtpficadmsfu fiu'dterresearch.inutenextsection.tobeuershowtheirrelationships. Somrnary of Findings. Conclusions. artd Research lrnplicarions ‘l'hesornmaryofreseatch findings.conclosions.andimplications forfurtherreseatcltare presenedforeachresearchqoestion. Qaeso’on Ill: l-lownnnydistinctself-instroctional strategiesarethereinthe liarrantreandhowoftenaretheymentioned? Einrlinaa lnidentifyingandcategorizingtheself—instroctional strategiesreportedintheliterature.the distinct self-instructional strategies found in the literatureandthe numberof studies for eachwere: distanceedueation 56 97 correspondenceandhomesntdy 36 open education 18 selfoteaching 2 individualized instruction 103 inbpendent and individual study 34 W instruction 54 eemputee-eesisted-tnsuuetion 121 expert systems 4 Strategies within the individual learning systernrepresented 44.63% of the studies found. Thepereenugeofsntdiesfoond foreachstrategywas: Individualized instrttction 24.07% Independent (individual) study 7.94% Propanuned instruction 12.62% Strategies within the corrputer learning system accouned for 29.21% of the studies found. Strangies within this system were the following: Cormner-usistedoinstruction 28.27% Expert systems .93% sttategietwitutt dredisunce teettu'ttg system accounnd rot 26.17% ofthe stttdies round. ‘l'hepereentageofstudiesfoondforeachstrategywas: Distmce erhteation 13.08% Correspondence (home) study 8.41% (lien education 4.20% Self-Teaching .47% 98 mm Conclusions for research question 81 were the following: Thacisnnrchoverlapindtecharactefisticsofself-insmcdatalsu'uegies 2. Saneself-insmcdonalsoategieshavehadcatsiduablymaesnrdythanodien. 3. Thaeissomecud'osionindteliteranneconcerninghowselfoinsmtcdoml sn'Iegiesaresimilarartddiffer-ent. Wright lmplicationsforfortherresearchforqoestionelwerethefollowing: 1. Conduct further study ofundertepresented self-instructional strategies. such as self. teaching and expert system. 1hereappearstobeaneedtoestablishbroadcaegories. suchasthethreelearning systerm proposed. here to help practitioners distinguish among the wide variety of self-insatctional strategies. Question 02: How do self-instructional strategies compare in terms of effectiveness and efficiency? Eindinss Twoso-ategieswithinthecomputerlearningsystemcategory werereponedtopositively impact student effectiveness: computer-assisted-instruction (especially for minority snaderns).ardexpursystuns(whatosedinconjomdonwhhcadidatflconcept instruction). Onedistance learning system strategy. self-teaching workbook (used with lecntre).wasreporutdtopositivelyimpactsntdent effectiveness. One individual learning www.mmmwommm. W Marty self-instructional strategies. when compared to other self-instructional strategies were equally ts effective. instructional developers may very well select self-instructional mountedonemoruseoteost.ndiettlttndteindividutlenmetetistiesottlte strategy. W An inpllcatlon for research for question 82 was the following: - Conduct further study of self-instructional strategies which were found to be equally as effective to deterrru’ne what the specific conditions were for each strategy that caused them to compare in effectiveness Question 03: What effect does the manipulation of factors (vuiables) have on self- instruetionai strategies? The research findings for this question are organized according to the specific self- instrttctlonal system to which they are related. The three specific self-instructional systems re: distance learning. individual learning. and computer learning. Some of the findings will be organized through a fourth category: combination of learning systems. This categtly includes findings from studies which made comparisons among self-instructional strategies from different learning systems. Effect of Distance Learning System Factors Eitliilln Televisitm is perceived by students and when as die most effective delivery medium in distance education. The highest performance was achieved by students participating in 1m cooperative learning polars that meet periodically. Distance learning students valued interaction withpeers. SnrdemsfeltmeygainedcounecomentbrowledgeduoughdismrcecomsesandTV irlsuuction. 11rosewhodidnothaveperceptionsofacltieverrlentgainsorhighgains indicatedapreferencefcrinsmlcdonwithmoreeacherinterverrdon. Sourelearnersdidnot expecttoenjoydreprocesswhileleamingdrrooghtelevisioninsuuction. Someleamers airing self-instruction indicatedaneedforassistancefrornpeersorteachers. Participants fiomculuuesdiffmrfiunmatofmeinsuocdonalimdmdonurdicatedmatcoune participation and flow of discussion were inhibited. General humestofstudenuinthelessonwasrebtedmdnusefulmssofcoonematenals. Pemistenceinthecomsewumlatedwhowreasombkdnsntdentpuceivedurecwme objecrivestobeandthebalancebetweenfreetimeandstudytime. The levelofstudent preference foraparticularTV instructional format wasrelaredto the age of the student (younger vs older adult). Stodentattitudestowardmolti-mediapropamswerefoondtoberelatedtothelevelof education. enjoyment of educational television. concept of self as a student. droughts about ftltllreeducationandpastacademieachievement. Snrdentattinrdes toward audiocassette lessons were found to be related to initial attitudes toward educational television. Student attitudes toward television instruction were differentially influenced by the television forurats used. 101 lower thieving students required longer activity time than high artd middle achieving students. Cranium Conclusions for research question 83 were the following: - Periodic poop learning activities should be included in self-instruction. -Teacherintervention should beoptional forstudents. ~Allcourse material should beclearlymarkedsothatthesnldenteandistinguish between (1) those materials necessary for successful course completion. and (2) those nucrials which are optional or provided as supplementary material in order to increase student interest in self-instruction. - Make theinstruction meterealistic inordertoincrease persistenceamong students learning through self-instruction. 3 II I' . Aniuquicationforfturherresearchintheareaofdistanceleamingforqoestionflwasthe following: -cmflttctfiuthashtdiestorhtermirretheextenttowhichtheuseofgroupleaming activities. avaihbility of teacher intervention. andorgartization of course material itrtpactstuderltperforrrtarrceindistarrcelearning. Effect of individual Learning System Factors Eindilraa Snideatsteeeiving irrdividualizedinstructionobtainul highercstscoreswhen theywere uprauritted tochoose certain learning options. Forexarnple. in one study subjects perfumedaahigherlevelwhentheywerelequiredtocomplete all learningactivities l02 wilundtennduleascuncutedwithdnnhavingdteopdorutocunpleteuuyutose leamingactivitieatheychose. Students participating in cooperative group learning achieved higher course completion rates and arithmetic achievement . leartersvaluedindependent study (in general) arid valued individualized assistance (specificdly).Lunmappearmhavedtepemepdmthnutdependentsnrdyismae effective arid more efficient titan lecture. Introductory students were successful using the remedial work strategy: however. females achieved higherscores than males. Foradvanced students. achievement was related to the remedial work strategy and G.P.A. Second yeardental students outscored first year students despite method of instruction. When students were given the opportunity tochoose from among available learning activities.dtetinterequiredtocorrtpletetlte learningmomrlewasshorterthanfotsnrdents who were required tocornplete all learning activities. However. the students who were perrruttedmchoosehunamngleanungacdvidesmquuedalmgermtountofnm to complete teat-taking and had lowerestworea than students who completed all learning activities. W - Studenrparticipation indecisions concerning the learning process should be limited to those decisions which encourage successful student performance. - Include group learning activities to encourage studean to continue in a particular learning strategy or system which is designed for non-group instruction. 103 - Design self-insmiction so that it includes factors relevant to the age of the student. I - When the amount of available time fa instruction is limited. the number of student decisions concerning the learning process should be limited. I II I' . Implications forresearchintheareaof individual learning forquestion 03 were the following: Conductfurtherstudy todeterminetheextenttowhich thedeyee ofstudent participation in decision-nuldng affects student performance in the individual learning system. 2. Conduct further study to determine the extent to which the use of group learning activities and the time available for instruction affect student performance in irtdividual learning. Effect of Computer Learning System Factors W The lowest achievement scores were attained when students were able to control leanting reviewmdpr'acticeinthelearningprocess. lneractive video instruction was beneficial for both group arid individual instruction. Students who participated in cooperative youp learning while completing a color simulation had a high perception of success. l04 Subjectswitltpreviousteachingexperience hadhigherachievernentscoresthandid students without prior teaching experience. 9mm - Learnercontrol should be limited tothedegreetowhichitencouragessuccessful Ml achievement. - The computer learning system includes strategies which may be used for individual and cooperative poup rnsmrctron.' ' B I I I' . An implication for further research in the area ofcornputer learning for question 03 was the following: - frather study should be conducted to determine conditions in which learner control bodt positively and negatively impact student performance in computer learning. Effect of Combination of Learning Systems Factors W The greatest (largest) learning effect was experienced when the following conditions were present : . self-pacing for the entire length of the course (as opposed to daily pacing). - student choice of the instructional delivery system. and - use of outcry learning techniques. Minority students achieved high results when using CAI. CA! was the most effective strategy fa low achieving minority students. Older adults using CAI also obtained high achievement scores. 105 mm - Provide students an opportunity to self-pace to encourage student performance. - Learner - control of selection of delivery systems encourages student performance. - When designing instruction for ntinority students and older snrdents. computer. assisted-instruction is suggested. I I I l' . lrnplications forreseuch on instruction from a combination oflearning systerrts were the following: l. Conduct further study of the effects of self-pacing and learner—control of delivery system selection when instruction is provided using strategies from a corrtbination of learning systems. 2 . Conduct further study to determine whether other self-instructional strategies are suggested for other categories of students. Question M: What system of educational support is necessary for effective application of self-instructional strategies? Wan Postaecondary institutions reportedly supply the following support services: ~telephoneofiicehourssothatsnrdentscancontactinstructors -indivithralindwrirtenfeedback - studyguidesforeachcourse -phonecallstostutntstoprovidefeedbackonassignrnents Educatusatpostsecondaryinstiuttionssuggesttheuseofadditional services: l06 - cormuterized feedback - student access to instructional institution‘s libraries W Conclusions for research question M are the following: ~Snrdenushotddbepmvidedreadyaccesstoirumnmrsforaruwersmqtesdons and for feedback on performance. - Interaction with proctors should be limind to low proctor/student ratio. 3 I I I' . 11te following isthe implication for fta'therresearch forquestion #4: - conduct further study to determine additional essential elernentsofarr educational support system. Question 05: Whatcombination(s)offactorsdrawn fromrhe literature are supported for their inclusion in an idealized self-instructional system? ThefindingsforresearchquestionSwillbepresentedaccordingtoeachofthethreeself. instructional systems. Distmce Learning System Factors Eindinsa Thunsteffective strategywastheuseofaself-teaching workbook with lecture. The highestperforrnance was for students working in cooperative learninggroups. TV was perceived as the most effective delivery medium as contrasted widt videocassette. audioeassette and computer. The following student characteristics significantly impacted student performance: - value of instruction to them - perception of relevance of instruction to snrdents 107 - inmost in course materials - motivation - age of student - attitude toward instruction - tine W - There appearsto be an advanuge rocornbining a youp strategy (lecture) with a self-instructional saategy. - Distance learning should include some group leaning activities. - Lear-nu characteristics should be accounted for in the design of disrance learning. 3 I I I. . lnvesu'gate further the effects of the following: - 'utcluding group learning activities in instruction within the distance learning system. and - accounting fa leaner characta'istics in the design of instruction within the distance learning system. Individual Learning System Factors Eindinaa The research literature lends suppat fa are following factors in the individual learning system. The most effective strategy was individualized insauction. Highest perfomtance was achieved when students had no choice of learning options. The following student chaacteristics significantly impaccd student perforrmnce: - value of insauction to students - perception of relevance of insmrction to dtem - level of student 108 ...5. action shoals. .. individuals... for higher imp-set on student achievement. - Instruction should permit student choice of learning options for higher positive irrqract on student performance. -Accoundngforleanercharactaisucsindedesignofinsmrcdonhaslunited irrmact on student perforrrwtce. B I I I. . Conduct further study of the effects of various strategies for irtdividualizing insauction on student performance. Computer Learning System Factors Eintlinss The literattae lertds support for the following factors in the computer learning system: - CAI artd expert systems were dte more effective saategies whencompared with aditional strategies and other self-instructional strategies. - interactive video instruction is a useful strategy in both group artd individual learning. - Studerus should have limited control of learning review and practice. . The following student characteristics significattly irmcted student performance: - perception of relevance of insauction . “an: Conclusions Consider strategies in the corrtputer learning system for both individual and group insauction. Lirrtit learner control of review and practice. The following learner 109 WMheaccoumedforindtededgnanddeflvayofinmdm: perception ofrelevance.andaptitude. I II I' . Futhainvesdgacdeimpaaofleamerconadmmchaaccnsdcsonsmdent pafamnceininsmrctionwirhinacomputerlearning system. Combination of Learning Systems Factors arm The resarch literature lends support for the following factors: - The highest performance was achieved under the following conditions: - self-pacing forentire length ofcourse . student choice of delivery system - presence of mastery learning component ~The following student chmcteristics significantly impacted student performance: -eduuctty .m age mm Whenlookingacrosssysems: -studentinputintheleamingprocessappetl'simportant; oextermlintavendoruofperfonnancesmrdardsappeartobeneededmnd -dtefdbwingsnrdentcharactuisdcsslmuldbeaccomtedfainmedesignand delivery of tire insauction: ethnicity. aptitudeandage. ”0 WW Condrnthuunrnudiesofdteimpactoffacmsuchumrdmutputindelanung prowuurdextamlintavendonofperfamameflndafionaudentpafunnncem instructioninvolvingmorethanorteedueationalsyscrn. W Mdel OfSelfolrurruction Theproposednmdelofsdf-insaucdonfbelowmanwldesignedmbeusedby dedpnrsadevelopasofinsaucdoninconjumdonwimwainsmndonudevdopnent modelofchoice. Theself-utsauctionmodelprovidesdirecdonwaseduponexpenopinion ardfirflingsfiomdnprofessionflhmme)mnddedeadecisiononukingprocess. Once medevebpahugadereddanmgudinghisnuinwmaudiemecmnseobjecrivamtd avaihbkmmutddecrmineddtahe/shewoulduseaself-insatndonal saategy.then mrmmmmmmmmmrmymrmwmmwwp guideadditional decisionsconcerningdtedesiutmddevelopmentofdteproposedself- mmmmmmammmmmmmdumr below.dtouldnotbeviewedugenauizingmallcasesandslmuldbeadoptedwhh madmmdduoughcareftdanalysisofdepuoculaimmdonddeveloprrent projectTobeenaNishedumaliuble.ammtberofdtesecondidauneedmbe replicadwithdifferentpupulationsartdmodesofpresentation. Whilethismodelcan servedteirmrcdonaldevelopaasaguidewhenmaldngdecisiuuabmnwbarto incapaammaseflmdmdnndukhreqtdnsnmhaddidaulreswchbefmemy ofhsmndidonscanbeaccepmdugenaalinblemmprojecumingself-im lll ......‘OCODOOOOOIOOOO...........O0.000‘OOOUO0.0.....OOOOUIOOI 0.... t. I t. t ldeallud Model of Self-Instruction m Tomakeuseofthe research impliedbythemodel.the instructional devebpermayseleuoneannreofmemdelcangodesofintaestfieflifl'aemes in Entry Behavioraoflaearners. EffectsongeorStrategy Selection. LearnerControl vs System Connol. Student Working Alone vs ln Collabaation.orTirne for Completion of Leaning Activities). and relate each of its factors andconditions to the insauctional developer'sspecificproject. kW Em Condition teamerinterestincontent -Whenlearnerisalreadyinterestedinthe content. they prefer a rrtore straightforward broadcast TV format. with minintal use of enrenainment techniques. -When learner is not initially interested in the content. increased use of entertainment techniques increases interest. learrterpeferenceindisnnceleaming Distancelearnerspreferreallifesettings. positive themes. documentary TV approaches (as contrasted with enrenainment). identification of instructional goals. and group interaction Studentpereeprions about distance learning Students who participated in distance instruction learning. felt that distance learning was a satisfactory method for learning cotase content knowledge Studertt perceptions of learning with TV -Student felt they learned more than instruction expected with TV instruction and did not expect to enjoy while learning -High achieving students felt that with TV insauction. dtey learned about the same Low achieving students felt they could ltave leaned rrtore with teacher-intervention Snrdentpereeptiortofconqruterbased instructionalrrardules Perceptionsofparticipantsroward instructionwithadifferentcultualbase Generalinterestofsnrdentsindisnnce learninglesson Low achievement students Student persistence at tasks in distance learningcorases Strider! attitudes toward aarlti-media Prom Snrdentatn'nrdestowardaudiocassette lessoninstruction StudentaaitudestowardbroadcastTV . . llZ Despiteasstanptiondtat ntuduleswere standalone.sntdentsperceivedaneedfor periodicassiscrncefrompeerorteacher WWW what/teacher interaction. may prevent studenrs culturally different from those for whom die instruction was desigrtedroparticipateadequately Snrdentinterestisrelatedtodeyee of perceivedusefulnessofmateridtothem individually Researchersjudgedlowachievement studentstobelesssuccessful. andlessat easeinlearru‘ngby‘l'Vcortespondence “ISM -Students were ntore persistentat leaning nskswhenthecourseobjectives tomatch their perception ofthescopeofthe course -Students were more persistent at learning taskswhentheir ' ofthebalance benveenfreeandstudytirnematchedthe acnraltirrtes Student attitudes toward mulri-media programs were positively related to: level of education. enjoyment of educational TV. concepts of self as student. thoughts about future educaion. artd past academic achievement Studentwhoseinitialattinrdestoward educationalTunhightertdedtobe favorabletowardaudiocassettelesson . . Student attitudes toward broadcast TV were influencedbydifferent TV forrmtsleg. entertainrrtentforrnatvsducumenuly format) ll3 Valuesofstudentsmwardlearningtluough indepertdentsrudy Studerttperceptions of independent learning utstructton Vuflles affecting student learning tn an 'atdividtnl learning system Advanced vs. begirating students taking individual learning system instruction Perceptionofstudentsonaffectofgroup sizeandpresentationrnodeonlearning Effectofexperienceonlearningtlaoughm expertsyscrnsaacgy Effectofaptitude forskillsofforrml and hypothesizing on learnirtg tltrough coamtner- asked-instruction Students independent study with MW in poop study sessions. to aaditional instruction Sntdentsfelttheymadebetteruseoftime. werebetterablenoconcenaate. wereless bored.enjoyedlearningmoreandfelttime went faster. that in traditional instruction Student achievement for introductory students was affected by completing remedial wuk -The female student was more successful using this system titan were males. aldtough both were successful in its use -Student achievement for advanced students was positively affected by completing Randal wuk Advanced students with a high GPA consistently achieved better than did students with a lower GPA On the occaion of taking the same irtdividual learning system instruction. second year students' tn the propam consistently out-performed first students regardless ofself instructional suategy Cooperative learning poops in combination with color computer simulation mode perceived that they achieved significantly more than was perceived by individuals in combination with black and white corrrputer text rrtode Experienced learrters (e. g.. dtose who had ytaught disabled snrdents) performed significantly higher in diagnosing problems of disabled students than did inexperienced learners learnerswithhigberaptintdeforskillsof formalreasonin andhypothesizing perforrrndsi tcmtlybetterthandtoseof lowerskills m ll. W Exit Preferencesofoldervsyoongeradultsin disunceleuning G I" -Younger adula preferred subtle insauctiortal formats (e.g.. use of entertainment to demonstrate content) -Older adults preferred straightforward presentation of the documentary and/or on- camera authority figure presenter mode MW Fads: Course-length self-pacing vs daily self- Ml Self-initiated vs flexible testing schedule Studerttchoicevsnochoiceofdeliverysys. Presencevsabsenceofmuterylearning Choicevsnochoiceoflearningopdons Learnervseachalrrnehineconrrolof review/panic Groiceofdeliverymeditnrtindistance learning 0 I" Studentspermirtedmself-paceforentire lengthofcorne. betterthan students perrrtitted topace each day. Whensnrderrrisablerodeermineesring schedulehclsheperforrnedbetteron test Whenstudentisgivenchoiceofself— insauctionaldelivery system. More performed better. When matey learning stringy is combined with self-instruction strategy. student per-fortunes improved Students.whereleamingwasprescribed bodtinactiviryandactivitysequence. paforrrtedbetterthanstudentswhoselected freelyarrtongtltesarrreactivities. Whenprimaryreview/pacticedecisions wereconrrolledbyteacher. studentsdid beterthanstudentsthathadprimarycontrol SnrdentschoselloadcastTVasthemore effectivenachingmdiurrrfromamong five ”5 IV. WW Earn Conditions lndivithalvsgroupinsauction lrtdividualinsrructionispreferredforhigh or middle level students; and/or for students completing familiar tasles. «Group instruction is preferred for students corrmleting novel asks: artd for low level students. Aflecrofpoupsizeonrateofcorrquetion Studentswhoweremembersofcooperative ofindividualleuningsyscmcourses learningpoupahadhiptercorrquetionrates thanstudenaworkingalone MW E C I" Tunerequiredbystudenttocomplete‘l‘v lowachievingstudentsin‘l'v carespondenceutsauctionactivities correspondencecourserequiredlongertirne tocontpleteactivitiesdtanhighalevel students Acti' tirnerequirernentsofstudents Studentscornpletingalllearrtingactivities takinmvidualircd iru-acme.“ requiredmoretimethanstudents who were perrrtitted to select only tltose activities they wished Test-taking time effects on students taking Students completingall learning activities indvidualizedinsmrction requiredshortertesttakingtimeand performed better than students who were pet'lru'ttedshed toselectortlythoseactivitiesthey wt DiscussiorroftheldealindModel Camil.“DifferencesinEnaderaviaofLeamers.”pfinurilycentasondre mmammmmummmm for.artdperceptionof.theproposedself-instructionalcourse. Thisissueisespecially aidcalwhenastudemisinvolvedinaself-itsaucdondlearningsimation ltisessentialto deurrt'atestudentexpectationsfortheproposedcourse. lftltestudentexpecutionsdonor 116 mahacnnlexpaiemdnndemrdentwfllexpaiencefeefingsofdismnce. When mueisdissonuwebuweenwhmmemrdentexpecaandwhuhelflnwmaflyexpaiences. Mdtenhidfllarmrchancmisdcscmddponndaflyhuuaumgadvdymmflem performance. Aneffmdtenshouldbenndebyinsauctionaldeveloperstoeitherayto nmhwnnsfamaudmtexpecndonsformeproposedself-insamdonsomameywfll beconpuent addrtheactualleamingexperiences. Perhapsclearlyandexplicitly describing drcnanueofdreprospecdvekamingexpuiencewillbeginmaddressddsisste. The secondcategory. “Effects of Age on Saategy Selection." focuseson theeffects of the age of dre learner. Sorrretirnes the age of potential studertts in aself-instructionalcourse nayirwacttheursmrcdonaldevelopa'sselecdonofaninsmrcdonalsaategy. Ageofthe studentisparticularlyafactorinsaategyselectionwidrindredistance learningsystern. Category l3.“l.earnerControlvs System Control.” focusesonthedesiredbalance betweenstudentartdsystemorteacher decisiort-rtllting. Research findings appearto mumngnudenaachdcecmcemmgdemofdnkmungptocessffm example.Whatdeliverysysremwouldlliltetouseforthiscourse?)maybenefirstudent performnce. However. giving students achoice concerningdremofleaming (for entrails.Bdtaeaneedmpacdcethisnewlyacquiredskin?)nuyacmanyhirderstudent perfumutce. Qteexplartationrrtaybethatstudentsmaynothavedtelatowledgeor expaiencebasenecessuymmakesomddecisionscommningdrebeupocerhaesm facilitaelearning. Ondreodralnnddtesnrdentisdrebestjudgeofmatterssuchaswhich mediumbestsuitsltitlherrteedsinterests.orpreferences. Often.srudentachievernent (when using different self-insauctional strategies) is msignifieandy difl'erent. m sntdaudecisionsdtcn.mayhavelioleeffectonsntdentperformance. ll7 Catepryld.“StudentWorkingAlonevs. in Collaboration.” focuseson theirnpactofboth "Itdividoalmdporquearning in thedeliveryofself-instruction. Decisionsconcerningthe issueofwhedrerstudents shouldworkaloneorincollaborationwithodrerstudents deperais upon the nantreof the self-instructional learning condition. 1hefinalcacm."finuforCanpledmofLeuningAcdvides”isconcemedwith the issueof timein tlredelivery of self-instruction. Several conditions areprovided in which dteirwactofthisfactorisdescribed. PersonalReflections Ftrst.performanceofsnrants leamingtla'ough self.insauctionwaspositively impacted whendteyparticipated in variouspouplearning activities. 11reresearcherfound thistobe a sornewhat surprising finding for instruction which is mdesigned primarily for group attraction. hseenndtatitwouldbebeneficialforfunaemsearcherstodemrunewhedrer grorqractivityshmldbeanecessarypanofself-insauctionorwhedteruushmactofgmup acdvuyindcaeadraelermnuneedmbeaddedmself-ursmrcdonmfiudegaprhmis currentlybeingfilledbypoupactiviry. lfpoupactivityshould.infact.beincludedasan esserfialebmmtinself-immnimtdenpahapsmseamhaswmflnmdminwsdgmeme effectsthatpoopleaming haveonself-instructiort. Second. thefindingsindicatedthatcertain learnercluracteristics positively inpacwd while odrusnegadvdyiapcedsnrdempafmwhmleaningduouprsaaepeswimindn dtreelearrringsyscrrts. ltistheopinionofthisresearcherthatitwouldbehelpfultoknow wlntdtemdanlmmwouldbewhenaseH-ursaucdondsoategykadjtmedro polubitlemrachmaisdcswhkhhaveanepdveunpactmutdmtpufmweandto enhance those learner characteristics which have positives effecaon student performance. ll8 Mmudeducadonalsupponwaefomdodymgmtdiesfiommesnrdies fallinginutedistance learning systerncategory. Perhqrsfutureresearchersmightanswer questionssuchasthefollowing: Whataretheefl‘ectsofapplyingsimilarkindsofsupport cunponausmsaaepeswidrinthecawmerleanungsysmanddreutdividml learning systemsaswell. Fimnydtwasurcresdngdutsomesuacgiesweresipuficandynneefi’ecdve forsorne learner's than for others. For example. ferrtale students perforrrted significantly better than male students when using a remedial work strategy. Also. low achieving minority students perfarrred significantly better using CAI than the low achieving minority students who were provided instruction using other self-insmrctional strategies. Perhaps future researchers will be able to explain such phenomena. Sorranary Chapter Five includes a sornmary ofthe findings. conclusions. and recorrtrrrendations for further research. Based on the research studies identified. the percentage ofstodies for each of the three learning systenrs were: Individual learning system (44.63%). computer learnin! m (29.21%). and the distance learnin: m (2617*). The strategies foottd to have the peatest impact on student achieverrtent included corrtputer-assisted- insauction. expert systems. self-teaching. and individualized insauction. Four categories ofvariableswerefoondtosiptificantlyirraractstuderrtperformance. Theategorieswere: learning environment. teacher/teaching process. learning material. and leaner. Snrdent mpputsavicescunendyprwideduenponedlymlephoneofficehmnsndyguides. individualized feedback. faculty phone calls. H9 The following conclusions were drawn: -11rereappearstobeanadvantage tocornbiningagroupstrategy (lecture) with a self-instructionalsaategy. oDisnncelearningshouldutchrdesaneperiodicpoupleamingacdvides -Leanercharacteristicsslrould beaccounted forintlredesiptofdisnnce learning ~lrtstruction sltoold beindividualind ft: higherirnpacton student achievement. -lnstruction should perrnitsntdentchoiceofle-ningoptionsforhigherpositive itrqractorrstudentperfomtatce. Consider strategies inthecomputer learning system forboth individualand group -Linitleanercorraolofreviewandpractice. .11.: following learrrercharacteristicsshooldbeaccountedforintlredesiprand deliveryof instruction: perception of relevance. artd aptintde. oWhen lookingacrosssysterns: -studentinputintheleamingptocessappears inportant: -external interventionsofperformancestmdardsappeartobeneeded: and -thefollowinglearnercharaccristics should beaccounted forin thedesign and delivery of the instruction: ethnicity. aptitude. artd age. he following research implications were suggested: l. Investigac further the effecs of the following: ~inchtdhrgpmrpleurungacuvidesininsmrcdmwithindtedisnnceleaming system.and ~accotmdngforlelnerchuactaisdcsindtedesiptofinsmrcdonwidtindte distanceleamingsystern. Cortdrrctfrutlustrrdyoft‘re effectsofvarioussaategies forindividualizing instrtrctiononstudentperformance. [20 3. Fudrerhtvesdgatedrcuwactofleunercuraolmdleamerchuacuisdcson studentperforrrtmceininsauction widu‘nacornputerlearningsystern. 4. Cadmhndrersudiesofureinpactoffacmnnhustudeminpuuttbelearning processurdextanalimavendonofperfamancestudadsonaudentpafomnnce ininstructioninvolvingtrrorethanorreeducatiortalsystem. munchercomludesbyptoposurganidealizednndelofself-uuaucdon. Theself- instructiortmodel providesfive factors(i.e..DifferencesinEnayBehaviorofLearners. Effectsongeon Strategy Selection. Learner Control vs. System Control. Student WaldngAlanvslnCdlabaadaLdeuneforleedonofleuningAcuviueshnd cardidauwhichcmsavemcinsatedmaldevebpauagtddewhenmkingdecisims aboutwhattoincorporatein "elf-instructional module. APPENDICES APPENDIXA CODINGSHEET Appendix A Coding Sheet Ara Record Dissemdon/ERlC/Other Tile: Autha: Effectiveness: skill taught Efficiency: instructional tints error ether lndcpcrdertt variables: Depcndcruvariables: Forrrrof Publication: dissertation master's thesis researchreport orher: Age of subjects: adult postsecortdary Level: College(lstyr.; 2nd yr.: 3rd yr.: 4th yr.: 5th yr.) Continuing Ed. Ability level: Ethnicity: 1L5. BL WH His Asian Amlndian Other Eonisn Student diagnosis (problem): Competency (skilll task): SI Strategy: Pl CAI AUExpert sys. lrtdiVidualized insauction independent study self-teaching disnnce education open education correspondence srudy home study Strategies corrtpared: Sl instructional System: Distance Learning lrtdividualized Learning Computer Learning 8! Systems conpared: Evidence of validation: Type of Analysis: Sarrrplesize: 121 l22 Selection of subjects: Possible explanation for results: Fordings: Correlusions: Recorrutendations: Summary: Conclusions: Special Notes: APPENDIX B STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE RESEARCH Appendix B Studies lrrcluded in the Research Aiello. Nancy Carol (l98l) Baird. William E. (1985) Brown. Robert: Cavert. C.; Craig. 1.: Snodpass. S. (l973a) Brown. Robert: Cavert. C.: Craig. 1.: Snodgrass. S. (l973b) Camacho-Dungca. Bernadito (l987) Deatsrnan. Gary (1971) Dukcshire. Mabel U966) Emley. William 0986) Gina. Diana (l986) Green. George 0967) Gunawardena. Charlotte (1988) Harris. WJ. 0975) Hein. Eleanor (1979) Jonas. Myrtle (1982) McLaughlin. Brian (1981) McNeil. Barbara (1989) Moin. Arifa (I986) Pipko. Margaret (I980) Prater. Mary (1987) Segan. Frances 0980) Stipe. Denise (1987) Stubbs. Katherine 0984) l23 124 Sung. Nakdon (l986) Tobin. Walter (1986) West. LEROY (1961) William. Randall (1985) Zulick. John (1976) BIBLKXSRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY AM. K.(‘988). 'ott \- Teachers College. Aiello. N. (1981) . lrrstitute and State University. AW (1963). Ault. MJ.; Wolery. M. ;.Doy1e P. M. & GastD. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies indreinstructionofsnrdentswithmoderateandseverehandicaps. W (4). 346 -356 Built. LA. 0979). (ERIC Document Reproduction Servrce NO. so 224 455). BMW (I985) Was W. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin. I gen-Drowns. RJ... (1986). Reviewztafadsvgglopments tn meta- analytic method. MW - Bloom.B.S. (I984).The2sipnaproblem:11reseuchformethodsofpoupinsouctionas sfgective as one to-one tutoringmm June IIuly. 1984. pp. 4- Brown. R.; CsvercC: CraigJ.: tSnodpassS. ( I973). W (ERIC Document Reproducrion Service No. sn tree 157). " Brown.R.. Cavert.C.; Craich &Snodgrass.S. (I973) Adulucameuharactatmand. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon. 1 0mm“. D L & Tennyson RD. (1988) Aonlicanonofletaisdcmthodainsbs. in: Proceedings of Selected Research Papers presented at the annual Meeting of the Association For Educatiornl Communicaions and Technology (New OrleansMJanuary 14 -19. 1988). (ERIC Docunrent Reproduction Service No. ED 295 673). l25 126 Doctnaldissertation. The University of Nnth Carolina atChapel Hill. J. Cooper. HM. (1982). Sciendftczgum for conducting' tntepative reviews. W W5 Culver. RS. (1987). Who' s in chugghere? sgssuhting self-managed learning. Windmill. .297 - was. (1937). Technical learning strategies. Wm. 230 dissertation. Arizona State University. Deanna???“ R.P.; a Mack. P. (1987). Does cnnputerohased training pay? W Dewey._l. (1983). r.. of Minnesota. Diehl.G.E. : andothers(l987). W (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 290 961). Dubin. 8. 8t Okun. M. (l973)3lm9plications of learning theories for adult insmlction..Adn|t W -l . ' Doctoral dissolution. University Drake University. Libraries Unlimited. lnc. Ellintm rt ; at Harris. D. (I986). Wharton New Your: Nichols Publishing . University of Maryland College Park. Flantrner. (Ll-£0987). Amodeloflearnin andleamin efficiency. M MD). 268 473 g ‘ Freeland. K. (1983). . (ERlCDocutrtentReprothcoonSemce No.ED2259l9) 127 Pusher Education Unit. 0989)me (ERIC Document Repoduction Service No ED 306 458 Gum 8»: “if“ 1.; Walter. W (1988). Maintain edition) New orkHolt. Rinehart. and Winston. Inc. Garza. D. (1986) _ _ mm. Doctoral dissertation. Universityof Houston. I Giaconia. RM; & Hedges. LV. (I982). Ider(tti)fying_602 features of effective open education. W4 .5 «986). W Paris. France: UNESCO. Green. E1 (1963) Wins New York: Holt RineharLand Winston. Inc. Green. 6. F. (1967). Warns. .Doctoral dissertation. The Florida State University. I l J Goetafried. L.; & Hannal'tn. MJ. (I985). The effect of the locus of cai control strategies (alligms of mm rules Well University of Kansas. 9 W MW. (1975). WI»: mSystemof Distance Education Papers to the ICCE International Conference (lOth. Brighton. gantsfritain. May 1246,1975). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 9) Hartley. I. (1972). - London: 8 WWWMnM D C: U 3 Government Printing Office. Superintendent of Docttrnents. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 506). Jackson. 6.3. (1980). Methods for integrative reviews. W. 50. 438-460. WRONG) Wm Pneumatwal theConfereneeanroductivityinTettiary Education ('I‘oowootnba.Qleensland 128 w July 3 -6. I986). (ERIC Docttrnem Reproduction Service No. ED 282 Iohnston.W. 8.: Stacker. A. H. (I987). W. Indianapolis. IN: Hudson Institute. Jonas. M. (1982).. MK.(I975).91_t-r .erlo,'r In. TheSystemsofDistance Education. Paperstothe ICCEIn International Conference (10th. Bri hton. Great Britain. May I2ol6.l975). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service 3No. ED I70 549). ystems ucauonPapersb International etence :(IOIh Brighton. Great Britain. May l2-I6. I975). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED I70 549). Upper. 8. (1988) WWW Paper presented» Corranmcaoonsatd Technology Conference (New Orleans. LA. January. I988). Lumsdailte. A.A.: Glaser. R. (I960). ' mm. Washington. D. C.: National Education Association. MilheinLW. D.: & AzbeIIJ. W. (I988). WWII! Proceedin! of Selected Research Papers presentedattheAnnuaI MeetingoftheAssociation forEducational Communications and Technology (New Orleans.LA. January I4- 19. I988). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295 652). Moflett. K. (I983). Needs assessment ill the college classroom. In: R. McBeath (ed). Wheaties New York: 8am Publishins Cams.“ Morrison. G. R.: at others (I988). W W In. ProceedingstelectedResearchPapersptesentedatdteAnnual Meeting of the Association for Educational Cottaralnications and Technology (New Orleanrl. A. Ianu Id- '9. I988). (ERIC Docuntent Reproduction Service No. ED295 654) ”y McLaughlth. (I98I) WW Doctoraldissertatint. TheCatholic UniversityolArnerica. McNeil. 9.51989). . Doctoral dissertation. University of Idaho. Moin. A. (I986) ' .Doctoral dissertation. Syracuse University. NWLUWS). . I. I . In: The System of Distance Education. their... the ICCE 129 International Conference (1011. Brighton. Great Britain .May I2-16. 1975). (ERIC Doctnnent Reproduction Service No. ED 170 549). Otheeot't'echno WOMW WEMmtmmm. Washington. D.:C. U. S. Congress. WdTechAmmufl 0W WW ”hit-aanC UH-SConsms IndianapolislN: . Hudson Institute. Percival. 13.: a Ellington. It (1988) Woolen New York: Nichols Publishing Company. Peterson.T. (1988). t. dissertation. Tertas Artist University. Pipho. M. (1930). ‘ Doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh Pollaway. E.A.; Cronin. M. E.: & Patton. J. R. (1986). The efficacy of group versus one to-one instruction: A review. mm. -.30 PostlethwaihS. N.: Novalt. I.M.: Murray. HT (1969) MJIW Earning. Minneapolis. MN: Burgess. Prater. M.( I987). University. Roberts. R.N.: Nelson. R.O.; & Olsen. T. W. (1987). Self-instruction: An analysis of the difl’erelttial effects of instruction and reinforcement. WW W0). 235 -242 Ross. S. M. (1984). Matchingthe lesson to thestudent: Alternative adaptive desipts for materialized learnin: meme W410). 42 Rwambiwa.1. (I988): . ' College. Saettler. P. (1990) MW Entlewood. C0: Libraries Unlimited. Inc. Sean. F: (I980). . ‘ .DoctotaI dissertation. Columbia University Teachers . Doctoral dissertation. Fordham University. Shaina. M (I986) WWW Paper Presented at the Reponal SeminaronDistance Education (Bangkok.1hailaltd.Novembcr26 December3. I986).(ER1CDocumentReptoduction Service No. ED281 520). I30 Sims.R.S. (I982) WWW(mise version). Edmonton. MbnnCanadazGramMaeEmeomnnlnityCollege. International gosnscligorbistmceEducation. (ERICDocument ReptoductionSetviceNo. ED SleeEJ. (1989)-AW In: Proceeding! of SelectedResealobPaperspresentedatuleAnmnlMeedngofdreAssociaionfn Educational Communications and Technology (Dallas. TX. February 1- 5. I989). (ERIC Document Reproducdon Service No. ED 308 818). Strtith. K.A. ( 1987). Educational engineering: Heuristics for improving effectiveness and efficiency W (S). 274 .279) SticeJ.E. (1987). Using Kolb's Ieami cycletoinplovestudentleaming. Enginggfing Wish») 29s "' Sitter D. (I987) WWW- Nlastet's thesis. California State University. Long Beach. SmbbLK(1984).st —a . om lien-J r' 'll$‘<“! lt-ls. mam. Doctoraldissertation. University of Cal' omia. LosAngeles. Sung. N. (1986). '...-H. ' . The Pennsylvania State University. (1964) W Ottawa. Onurio: Canadian Teachers' Federation. ‘IIlorrtpsonM.E(I988) . InzProceedings of Selected Research Papers presented at the Annual Research Papers presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (New Orleans. LA. January 14- 19. 1988). (ERIC Docunrent Reproduction Service No. ED 295 669). Tlcltton. 83. (ed.). (I970). W New York: R.R. Bowker cnnpany. thltton. S.G. (ed). (1971). W New York: R.R. 80an Company. w dissertation. University of South Carolina. Unwin. D. & McAIeese. R. (eds.) (1978). maintains mm Weapon. CI“: 0mm Press Waldheim.G ..P (1987). Understanding how snrdents understand: A prerequisite to guanine effeenve whine - learnin: mm W3 (5)306 West. 1... (I961). I3I Wilcox.R.‘I'. (I987). Rediscoveringdiscoveryleaminl We). 53 55. Williarnr.R.(I986). : ' fl .Doctoral dissertation. ‘Ihe University of New Mexico. Winn. B. (1988). .:In Proceedings of Selected research Papers presented at the AnnualmeedngofdieAssociadonforEducadonalComrmnicationsand Technology (New Orleans. LA. January I4- 19. I988). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295 670). Wood. D. E. (I988). Doctirnent Reproducnon Service No. ED 299 383). . (ERIC sums. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Connecticut. "IT'iii'fliiii’ii'i’ifliis