Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of locus of control on the computer-assisted learning of gravimetric stoichiometry Wong, Simon Chi-hon 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 W65.pdf [ 3.12MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054507.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054507-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054507-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054507-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054507-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054507-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054507-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054507-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054507.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF LOCUS OF CONTROL ON THE COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEARNING OF GRAVIMETRIC STOICHIOMETRY by SIMON CHI-HON WONG B . S c , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1976 B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y , 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y a n d S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA A u g u s t , 1986 © Simon C h i - h o n Wong I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a nd s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y a n d S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e : A u g u s t , 1986 A b s t r a c t T h i s study examined the e f f e c t s o f the l o c u s o f two co m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n (CAI) c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s over the sequence of i n s t r u c t i o n and number of p r a c t i c e examples s t u d i e d on the accuracy and e f f i c i e n c y i n the l e a r n i n g o f g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y of grade 11 che m i s t r y st u d e n t s . The two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s were a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l (ALC) s t r a t e g y and a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l (APC) s t r a t e g y . E f f e c t s were examined f o r CAI s t r a t e g y , p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge, m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , and gender o f stud e n t . The group working w i t h CAI s t r a t e g y o f the a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l demonstrated b e t t e r d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t performance, w h i l e r e q u i r i n g fewer number o f p r a c t i c e examples and thus c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s l e a r n i n g time than students i n a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l . The i n t e r a c t i o n o f gender by l o c u s o f c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y was s i g n i f i c a n t , i n t h a t male student a c h i e v e d s l i g h t l y more under ALC than APC and female s u b j e c t s d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r under APC than ALC. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. RESEARCH PROBLEM , 1 Statement o f the Problem 1 T h e o r e t i c a l Background 5 R a t i o n a l e and T h e o r e t i c a l Hypotheses 17 I I . METHOD 23 S u b j e c t s and Design 23 L e a r n i n g Program and Task A n a l y s i s 25 I n s t r u c t i o n a l System Design 29 Apparatus and Procedures 35 I I I . RESULTS 38 Analy s e s of P r i o r L e a r n i n g T e s t Scores 38 Ana l y s e s o f CAI L e a r n i n g Process V a r i a b l e s 40 Analy s e s o f L e a r n i n g Outcome V a r i a b l e s 43 IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 47 P r i o r L e a r n i n g Experience 47 E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the Chemistry CAI Program 48 E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f Locus of C o n t r o l S t r a t e g i e s , ALC and APC 49 REFERENCES 57 TABLES 1 Four Types o f S t o i c h i o m e t r y Problems 64 2 I n s t r u c t i o n a l Design f o r Teaching G r a v i m e t r i c S t o i c h i o m e t r y C a l c u l a t i o n s 65 i v 3 P r e - r e q u i s i t e K n o w l e d g e R e q u i r e d f o r S o l v i n g t h e F o u r T y p e s o f S t o i c h i o m e t r y P r o b l e m s 67 4 Mean S c o r e s o f P r i o r L e a r n i n g S u b t e s t s 68 5 C o r r e l a t i o n s Be tween P r e - R e q u i s i t e K n o w l e d g e T e s t a n d M e t a c o g n i t i v e A b i l i t y S u b t e s t s S c o r e s 69 6 Means o f L e a r n i n g P r o c e s s V a r i a b l e s f o r t h e F o u r T y p e s o f S t o i c h i o m e t r y P r o b l e m s . . . 70 7 Means o f L e a r n i n g Outcome V a r i a b l e s f o r t h e F o u r T y p e s o f S t o i c h i o m e t r y P r o b l e m s . . . 73 8 S t a n d a r d i z e d R e g r e s s i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e R e g r e s s i o n o f L e a r n i n g P r o c e s s a n d L e a r n i n g Outcome V a r i a b l e s On P r i o r L e a r n i n g S u b t e s t s S c o r e s I n L o c u s o f C o n t r o l G r o u p s , A L C a n d APC 76 F IGURES 1 T a s k c o m p o n e n t s a n d p r o c e s s e s f o r s o l v i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y p r o b l e m s 78 2 I n s t r u c t i o n a l f l o w c h a r t f o r l e a r n i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y 79 3 I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n g e n d e r a n d l o c u s o f c o n t r o l f o r D e l a y e d P o s t - t e s t S c o r e s 80 APPENDICES A . P r e - t e s t a n d P o s t - t e s t s S a m p l e Q u e s t i o n s . . . 81 B. P r e - r e q u i s i t e K n o w l e d g e T e s t S a m p l e Q u e s t i o n s 83 C . M e t a c o g n i t i v e A b i l i t y T e s t S a m p l e Q u e s t i o n s 84 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e t o thank my a d v i s o r , Dr. Seong-Soo Lee f o r h i s p a t i e n c e , guidance, a d v i c e , and support d u r i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h . I a l s o thank my committee members, Dr. Nancy Suzuki and Dr. Ron Jarman f o r t h e i r v a l u a b l e s u g g e s t i o n s and comments. F i n a l l y , I thank my w i f e , R o s a l i n e , f o r her encouragement and unders t a n d i n g . 1 I . Research Problem Statement of the Problem I n s t r u c t i o n i s a s e t o f events t h a t i s planned t o a c t i v a t e and support the l e a r n i n g of an i n d i v i d u a l i n an unique way. I t s purpose i s t o h e l p each person develop as f u l l y as p o s s i b l e , i n h i s / h e r own i n d i v i d u a l d i r e c t i o n . With t h i s assumption and g o a l i n mind, t e a c h e r s have l o n g attempted t o d e s i g n t h e i r l e s s o n s , a d j u s t i n g both the o b j e c t i v e s and the methods of t e a c h i n g , t o match the needs and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n e r s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e i r e f f o r t s have been l a r g e l y f r u s t r a t e d i n the p a s t because of the l a c k o f r e l i a b l e d e l i v e r y systems designed t o a d j u s t i n s t r u c t i o n t o the i n d i v i d u a l s i n a group of twenty-f i v e o r more l e a r n e r s . I n r e c e n t y e a r s , however, comprehensive d e l i v e r y systems f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n have s u r f a c e d . They attempt t o 1) p r o v i d e a means f o r a s s e s s i n g the e n t r y s k i l l s o f p u p i l s ; 2) a s s i s t i n f i n d i n g the s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r each p u p i l i n a c a r e f u l l y sequenced s e r i e s of o b j e c t i v e s ; 3) p r o v i d e a l t e r n a t i v e m a t e r i a l s and media f o r adjustment t o v a r y i n g l e a r n i n g s t y l e s o f p u p i l s ; 4) enable p u p i l s t o l e a r n a t t h e i r own r a t e ; 2 and 5) provide frequent and convenient progress checks so that pupils do not become "bogged down" with cumulative f a i l u r e s (Gagne & Briggs, 1979). The advancement of high technology and the a p p l i c a t i o n of microcomputers to education have made i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n even more f e a s i b l e i n terms of computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n (CMI) and computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n (CAI). Such e l e c t r o n i c d e l i v e r y systems have set a milestone i n the f i e l d of education, and educators are now presented with a new medium of i n s t r u c t i o n , the microcomputer, that adds several dimensions to t h e i r r e p e r t o i r e of educational instrumentalities. Although there i s yet no consensus as to the extent to which computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n (CAI) f a c i l i t a t e s learning, serious considerations need to be given to the powerful and varied c a p a b i l i t i e s of CAI for adaptive i n s t r u c t i o n . Compared to textbooks, CAI i s a dynamic medium, capable of instantaneously varying such properties of a lesson as the content selected, modalities featured, sequencing of topics, amount and d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of practice, type of feedback, and so on, a l l as learner needs d i c t a t e . Compared to classroom lectures, the adaptiveness provided can be t a i l o r e d to the needs of each i n d i v i d u a l rather than being 3 r e s t r i c t e d t o the normative c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a c l a s s o f s t u d e n t s . Compared t o programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , a d a p t i v e f e a t u r e s can be c o n t i n u o u s l y r e f i n e d as l e a r n e r needs change over the course o f a l e s s o n ( S t e i n b e r g , 1977; Rothen & Tennyson, 1979; Tennyson & B u t t r e y , 1980; Ross, 1984). Owing t o the f l e x i b i l i t y f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n t h a t microcomputers d i s p l a y , many a d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l systems such as the L e a r n e r - C o n t r o l l e d E d u c a t i o n System (LCES) ( J e l d e n & Brown, 1982); t h e Minnesota A d a p t i v e I n s t r u c t i o n a l System (MAIS) (Tennyson, C h r i s t e n s e n & Park, 1984); and the Time-shared, I n t e r a c t i v e , Computer-Controlled I n f o r m a t i o n T e l e v i s i o n (TICCIT) system ( M e r r i l l , 1980) have been developed. Numerous s t u d i e s t h a t compare a d a p t i v e s t r a t e g y w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l non-adaptive programs have c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrated the s u p e r i o r i t y o f a d a p t i v e programs over non-adaptive ones. However, q u e s t i o n s which o f t e n a r i s e i n the study o f a d a p t i v e f e a t u r e s of CAI are: Should the l o c u s of c o n t r o l l i e w i t h the computer program or w i t h the l e a r n e r ? Should the l e a r n e r be allowed t o e x e r t c o n t r o l over the p a c i n g , number, o r sequencing o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l events? Can such c o n t r o l by l e a r n e r s accommodate t h e i r own i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s more e f f e c t i v e l y than program c o n t r o l ? There seem t o be no simple o r easy answers t o th e s e q u e s t i o n s . C o n t r o l of the amount and sequence of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t i m u l i has been a r e c u r r i n g but as y e t u n r e s o l v e d problem i n the d e s i g n of c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d l e a r n i n g environments (Tennyson & B u t t r e y , 1980). N e v e r t h e l e s s , a w i d e l y h e l d b e l i e f i n many e d u c a t i o n c i r c l e s i s t h a t l e a r n e r s should be encouraged t o make c h o i c e s f o r themselves or t o e x e r t some p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l . The p r e s e n t study employs the l o c u s o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y as a d e s i g n v a r i a b l e i n the development of an a d a p t i v e - i n t e r a c t i v e CAI program f o r t e a c h i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y i n chemi s t r y . The e f f e c t s o f l o c u s o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o n t r o l a re s t u d i e d under two treatment c o n d i t i o n s : (a) a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l (APC) i n which the sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n and the number o f p r a c t i c e examples p r e s e n t e d are c o n t r o l l e d by the program; and (b) a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l (ALC) i n which l e a r n e r s are p r o v i d e d w i t h a d v i c e and sug g e s t i o n s but are g i v e n c o n t r o l over the sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n and the number of p r a c t i c e examples. In both treatment c o n d i t i o n s , the number o f p r a c t i c e examples p r e s e n t e d o r suggested i s 5 based on the s u b j e c t s ' p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and on-t a s k performance. Dependent v a r i a b l e s o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t f o r t h i s study are: number of p r a c t i c e examples used, t o t a l l e a r n i n g time, time spent per p r a c t i c e example, and performance and time spent on immediate and d e l a y e d p o s t e s t s . P r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge s c o r e s and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s c o r e s are employed as concomitant v a r i a b l e s . Furthermore, the presence/absence o f i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between gender o f the s u b j e c t s and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s f o r a l l l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s and outcome v a r i a b l e s i s a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d . T h e o r e t i c a l Background I t i s a w e l l accepted b e l i e f i n the p a s t 50 y e a r s t h a t a d a p t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s among students can improve l e a r n i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y . E d u cators g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n a l system i s needed t h a t i s designed f o r mass usage, but which a l l o w s f o r unique environments f o r the many l e a r n e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Recent work i n a d a p t i v e d e s i g n s has generated a number of i n n o v a t i v e methods f o r t a i l o r i n g i n s t r u c t i o n t o s t u d e n t s . In most of the s t u d i e s , r e s u l t s have shown t h a t a d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs 6 are f a r more s u p e r i o r than non-adaptive programs i n f a c i l i t a t i n g l e a r n i n g . For examples, Tennyson & Rothen (1977) demonstrated t h a t f u l l a d a p t i v e s t r a t e g y i s more e f f i c i e n t than p a r t i a l s t r a t e g y , which i n t u r n i s more e f f i c i e n t than nonadaptive s t r a t e g y i n s e l e c t i n g number of i n s t a n c e s needed i n a concept l e a r n i n g t a s k . Park & Tennyson (1980) found t h a t the s e l e c t i o n o f the number of examples a c c o r d i n g t o on-task i n f o r m a t i o n i s more e f f i c i e n t than the s e l e c t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o p r e t a s k i n f o r m a t i o n ; and the students i n the r e s p o n s e - s e n s i t i v e c o n d i t i o n performed b e t t e r i n the p o s t t e s t than s t u d e n t s i n the r e s p o n s e - i n s e n s i t i v e c o n d i t i o n . Ross, Rakow & Bush's (1980) study on s t r a t e g i e s f o r a d a p t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l support a l s o showed the advantages o f ad a p t i n g the q u a n t i t y o f examples p r e s e n t e d w i t h r u l e s . Ross & Rakow's (1982) s u b j e c t s l e a r n e d a s e r i e s o f 10 math r u l e s under f u l l a d a p t a t i o n , p a r t i a l a d a p t a t i o n , and s e v e r a l forms of standard i n s t r u c t i o n . R e s u l t s on a cumulative p o s t t e s t f a v o r e d f u l l a d a p t a t i o n over p a r t i a l a d a p t a t i o n and both a d a p t i v e treatments over st a n d a r d i n s t r u c t i o n . Ross' (1984) review of o t h e r s t u d i e s t h a t i n v o l v e d the t e a c h i n g o f s t a t i s t i c a l and mathematical m a t e r i a l s c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrated t h a t 7 a d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g y was more e f f e c t i v e than c o n v e n t i o n a l supports. Although r e s e a r c h e r s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n r e c e n t y e a r s have s y s t e m a t i c a l l y attempted t o accommodate i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h d i f f e r e n t needs i n e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e , t h e r e i s s t i l l c o n s i d e r a b l e disagreement and c o n f u s i o n r e g a r d i n g e x a c t l y what c o n s t i t u t e s i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n and how a d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d be a c h i e v e d . H o l l a n d (1977) d e f i n e s a d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n as a s e t of p r o c e s s e s f o r d e t e c t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n student needs and t o p r e s c r i b e t o each student o n l y those l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s t h a t are necessary t o reach the f i n a l o b j e c t i v e s of the i n s t r u c t i o n . Park (1982) d e s c r i b e s an a d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l system as a program t h a t takes i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a g i v e n student's l e a r n i n g h i s t o r y and v a r i e s t h e sequence of i n s t r u c t i o n a c c o r d i n g l y . A c c o r d i n g t o Tennyson and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (Tennyson, Tennyson, & Rothen, 1980; Tennyson, 1981; Tennyson & Rothen, 1977), an a d a p t i v e system i s one t h a t p r e s c r i b e s the o p t i m a l amount o f i n s t r u c t i o n r e q u i r e d t o a c h i e v e a g i v e n o b j e c t i v e . G l a s e r (1982) suggests t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n i t i a l competence sh o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d f o r p r o v i d i n g a l t e r n a t i v e environments t h a t w i l l match the d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s o f l e a r n i n g . Jonassen (1985) p o i n t s out t h a t an a d a p t i v e t u t o r i a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n v o l v i n g the a b i l i t y o f the t u t o r t o s e l e c t a d d i t i o n a l , more r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s o r t o e x p l a i n , prompt, c a j o l e , o r do whatever i s necessary t o a s s i s t the t u t e e i n a c q u i r i n g the knowledge. The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f microcomputers f o r i n s t r u c t i o n uses i n r e c e n t y e a r s have allowed f o r g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y i n the d e s i g n o f a d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs. Computer power i s p o t e n t i a l l y g r e a t enough t o p r o v i d e a d a p t i v e a l g o r i t h m s a t many l e v e l s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . Moreover, a d a p t i v e d e c i s i o n s on i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s can be l e f t t o the student, e i t h e r i n p a r t o r i n e n t i r e t y . The term l e a r n e r c o n t r o l has v a r i e d from t h a t a l l o w i n g t h e student t o make d e c i s i o n s on j u s t one aspect t o t h a t o f almost complete c o n t r o l o f i n s t r u c t i o n . In a program c o n t r o l environment, on the o t h e r hand, i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n s a re s e l e c t e d f o r students and i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e i r l e s s o n s . The q u e s t i o n then becomes which l e a r n i n g d e c i s i o n s should be l e f t up t o the student and which s h o u l d be put under computer c o n t r o l s i n c e i t i s neces s a r y t o a s s i g n the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l o f such v a r i a b l e s as i n s t r u c t i o n a l / l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y , sequence 9 o f i n s t r u c t i o n , completion time, amount of p r a c t i c e , l e v e l o f d i f f i c u l t y , e t c . In the p r e s e n t study, focus i s c e n t r e d on the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l over the sequence of l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s and the amount o f p r a c t i c e examples s e l e c t e d . The purpose o f the study i s t o compare t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s , namely, program c o n t r o l and l e a r n e r c o n t r o l . Some r e s e a r c h e r s assume t h a t l e a r n e r c o n t r o l i n CAI would b e n e f i t s t u d e n t s . They argue t h a t r a t h e r than b e i n g an advantage t o i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f e c t s , a program c o n t r o l system may be maladaptive, making st u d e n t s system dependent. For example, M e r r i l l (1980) c l a i m s t h a t such "spoon f e d " s tudents under program c o n t r o l may f i n d t h a t l e a r n i n g from the n a t u r a l environment i s more d i f f i c u l t because the r e a l world i s not as ad a p t i v e t o the i n d i v i d u a l needs o f the student. A l e a r n e r c o n t r o l system which r e q u i r e s a student t o l e a r n t o make a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y c h o i c e s i s d i f f e r e n t from a system which c a t e r s t o the student's needs and a p t i t u d e s . M e r r i l l argues t h a t a student must l e a r n t o r e c o g n i z e h i s / h e r own l e a r n i n g needs and not r e l y on a t o t a l l y a d a p t i v e system which may make d e c i s i o n s on the b a s i s o f needs t h a t the student may not even know t h a t s/he has. On the o t h e r hand, advocates f o r a program c o n t r o l system seek f o r a maximally a d a p t i v e system which c o u l d a s s e s s a g i v e n student's l e a r n i n g s t y l e , a p t i t u d e s , p a s t achievement, and r e a d i n e s s and then p r e s e n t t o the student t h a t content and s t r a t e g y which are o p t i m a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r him/her t o r e c e i v e a t a g i v e n moment i n time. They m a i n t a i n t h a t when students c o n t r o l t h e amount o f i n s t r u c t i o n they r e c e i v e , they o f t e n t e r m i n a t e t oo e a r l y and f a i l t o l e a r n what they should. L e a r n e r s a re o f t e n poor judges o f how much i n s t r u c t i o n they need, or i n what o r d e r ( C a r r i e r , 1984). Recent s t u d i e s on the e f f e c t s o f the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s have y i e l d e d v a r i o u s r e s u l t s . F i s h e r , B l a c k w e l l , G a r c i a & Greene (1975) s t u d i e d the e f f e c t s o f student c o n t r o l and c h o i c e on engagement i n a CAI a r i t h m e t i c t a s k i n a low-income elementary s c h o o l . The study r e v e a l e d t h a t s u b j e c t s i n the c h o i c e c o n d i t i o n maintained h i g h e r l e v e l s o f engagement over l o n g p e r i o d s o f time than d i d s u b j e c t s i n the yoked c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , but the s u b j e c t s i n the c h o i c e c o n d i t i o n had the tendency t o choose problems t h a t were e i t h e r t o o d i f f i c u l t o r too easy and thus t h e i r performance was worse. F i s h e r e t a l . (1975) thus concluded t h a t w h i l e c h o i c e may be m o t i v a t i n g f o r some c h i l d r e n , i t can r e s u l t i n poor academic performance. S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d i n F r y ' s (1972) study. S u b j e c t s who were allowed t o s e l e c t which q u e s t i o n s they wanted t o answer i n o r d e r t o l e a r n about computers had a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e than those who were not; however, they l e a r n e d the l e a s t . R e s u l t s o f F r y ' s study a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t h i g h a p t i t u d e , h i g h i n q u i r y s t u d e n t s d i d b e s t under student c o n t r o l . High a p t i t u d e , low i n q u i r y s tudents performed b e t t e r i n the e x p e r t ordered c o n d i t i o n than under l e a r n e r c o n t r o l . Low a p t i t u d e , h i g h i n q u i r y s tudents l e a r n e d b e s t under student c o n t r o l . Low a p t i t u d e , low i n q u i r y s t u d e n t s a c h i e v e d so l i t t l e t h a t the r e s u l t s c o u l d not be i n t e r p r e t e d . In t h e i r experiment, Judd, Bunderson & Bessent (1970) s t u d i e d the e f f e c t s o f f o u r l e v e l s o f student c o n t r o l ( t o t a l computer management; student c o n t r o l over the sequence of t o p i c s ; a d d i t i o n a l student c o n t r o l o f t h e amount o f p r a c t i c e ; and t o t a l l e a r n e r c o n t r o l ) over course flow i n a r e m e d i a l mathematics course f o r c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . They found t h a t students who were all o w e d t o choose the sequence o f t o p i c s d i d worse than those who were under computer c o n t r o l . In p a r t i c u l a r , s t u d e n t s who had done p o o r l y on a p r e - t e s t d i d worst under l e a r n e r c o n t r o l . However, the study showed t h a t c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s were good judges o f the amount o f p r a c t i c e they needed. Furthermore, l e a r n e r c o n t r o l d i d not improve student a t t i t u d e s . Tennyson and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (Tennyson & Rothen, 1977; 1979; Park & Tennyson, 1980; Tennyson, 1980; Tennyson & B u t t r e y , 1980) compared d i f f e r e n t l o c i o f c o n t r o l u s i n g computer-based concept l e s s o n s . In l e a r n e r c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s , the l e a r n e r d e c i d e d how many i n s t a n c e s o f the t a r g e t concept t o review. In a d a p t i v e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s , the program i t s e l f determined the number of i n s t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d by c o n s i d e r i n g the achievement l e v e l , and on-task mastery c r i t e r i o n , and a l o s s r a t i o . In l e a r n e r advisement c o n d i t i o n s , the l e a r n e r had c o n t r o l , but the program p r o v i d e d a d v i c e based on i n f o r m a t i o n used i n the a d a p t i v e c o n t r o l system r e g a r d i n g the number o f items th e i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n e r should review. In Tennyson's r e s e a r c h , t o t a l l e a r n e r c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t l y y i e l d e d lower p o s t t e s t performance than a d a p t i v e c o n t r o l , o f t e n because s u b j e c t s i n l e a r n e r c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s t e r m i n a t e d the i n s t r u c t i o n too e a r l y . However, when advisement was i n t r o d u c e d i n the form o f feedback, s u b j e c t s i n the l e a r n e r c o n t r o l d i d as w e l l as those under a d a p t i v e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s . Furthermore, the l e a r n e r - c o n t r o l - w i t h - a d v i s e m e n t c o n d i t i o n showed s i g n i f i c a n t decreases i n on-task time and amount of i n s t r u c t i o n . Ross & Rakow (1981) r e p o r t e d t h a t i n a s e l f - p a c e d l e s s o n on math r u l e s i n which the number o f s u p p o r t i n g examples was e i t h e r a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l l e d , l e a r n e r c o n t r o l l e d , o r kept cons t a n t , the a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s 1 immediate and d e l a y e d t e s t s c o r e means were c o n s i s t e n t l y the h i g h e s t w h i l e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s ' means were lowest. Non-adaptive support and l e c t u r e treatments produced middle-range outcomes. As f o r the number o f examples r e c e i v e d by the s u b j e c t s under d i f f e r e n t treatments, Ross & Rakow r e v e a l e d t h a t the r e s u l t s p r o v i d e d an obvious e x p l a n a t i o n f o r performance d e f i c i t i n l e a r n e r c o n t r o l . S u b j e c t s working under LC c o n d i t i o n s e l e c t e d much fewer examples than were p r e s c r i b e d under o t h e r t h r e e t r e atments. Furthermore, LC s u b j e c t s ' average study time p e r r u l e d i d not d i f f e r from non-adaptive and l e c t u r e s u b j e c t s . The r e s u l t was an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e i r poor performance was more of f a i l i n g t o use r e s o u r c e s w i s e l y than t r y i n g t o t e r m i n a t e t h e t a s k e a r l y . I n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s a l s o suggested t h a t the advantages o f program c o n t r o l over l e a r n e r c o n t r o l i n c r e a s e both a c r o s s r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s and as s u b j e c t e n t r y a b i l i t y decreased. G o e t z f r i e d & Hannafin (1985) examined the e f f e c t s o f t h e l o c u s o f t h r e e CAI s t r a t e g i e s on the accuracy and e f f i c i e n c y o f mathematics r u l e l e a r n i n g and a p p l i c a t i o n by low a c h i e v i n g seventh grade s t u d e n t s . In the a d a p t i v e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , the computer branched st u d e n t s f o r r e - t e a c h i n g or more examples, depending on the accuracy of responses d u r i n g the l e s s o n , and the s u b j e c t s had no c o n t r o l over the p a c i n g or amount o f t e a c h i n g i n the l e s s o n . S u b j e c t s i n the l e a r n e r c o n t r o l w i t h advisement treatment were c o n t i n u o u s l y a d v i s e d of t h e i r p r o g r e s s and were p e r m i t t e d t o determine i f r e -t e a c h i n g and/or a d d i t i o n a l problems were needed. Students u s i n g the l i n e a r c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y r e c e i v e d t h e same sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n and examples but had no advisement and no i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r o l . The study showed t h a t although achievement d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t i n g from the v a r i o u s d e s i g n s t r a t e g i e s were not found, both i n s t r u c t i o n a l time and a s s o c i a t e d l e a r n i n g e f f i c i e n c y were a f f e c t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The b a s i c l i n e a r d e s i g n y i e l d e d comparable l e a r n i n g coupled w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s i n s t r u c t i o n a l time and thus r e s u l t e d i n more e f f i c i e n t l e a r n i n g . The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study may be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o i n f o r m a t i o n and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n d e f i c i e n c i e s o f low a c h i e v e r s . The somewhat i n c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g s o f the above s t u d i e s suggest t h a t the e f f e c t s o f l e a r n e r c o n t r o l may v a r y a c r o s s the age l e v e l and a b i l i t i e s o f the s u b j e c t s , the type o f content taught, and the s p e c i f i c n a ture o f the o p t i o n s allowed. Student c o n t r o l o f i n s t r u c t i o n was sometimes m o t i v a t i n g . A t t i t u d e s were p o s i t i v e l y a f f e c t e d by l e a r n e r c o n t r o l , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t the elementary l e v e l . But improved o r even e q u i v a l e n t performance was not n e c e s s a r i l y a c o r r e l a t e ; sometimes performance was worse. Under s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s s t udent d i d know how t o manage t h e i r own i n s t r u c t i o n . When stu d e n t s were allowed t o c o n t r o l course flow, some of them ac h i e v e d as much as students who d i d not have t h i s o p t i o n . But t h i s was not t r u e o f students who were poor performers i n a s u b j e c t . They used i n e f f i c i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s and l e a r n e d l e a s t under student c o n t r o l . Students were g e n e r a l l y poor judges when they s e l e c t e d the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l o f problems, the sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n , o r the amount of p r a c t i c e . The p o o r e s t d e c i s i o n makers were the students who knew l i t t l e about the s u b j e c t o r who were p e r f o r m i n g p o o r l y i n i t . T h i s f i n d i n g s u p p o r t s T o b i a s ' w o r k (1976) on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p r i o r k n o w l e d g e t o i n s t r u c t i o n a l s u p p o r t . H i s r e s e a r c h c o n s i s t e n t l y f o u n d t h a t t h e l e s s f a m i l i a r t h e s t u d e n t s a r e w ' i th t h e c o n t e n t , t h e g r e a t e r t h e i r n e e d i s f o r c l e a r l y s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s , e x p l i c i t h i g h - l i g h t i n g o f i m p o r t a n c e , r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r o v e r t r e s p o n d i n g , a n d o t h e r g u i d a n c e d e v i c e s . T e n n y s o n & R o t h e n (1979) s i m i l a r l y p r o p o s e d t h a t h i g h t a s k demands a n d l o w s t u d e n t a p t i t u d e seem t o f a v o r g r e a t e r u s e o f p r o g r a m o r t e a c h e r c o n t r o l a s a management s t r a t e g y w h i l e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l seems t o b e f a v o r e d f o r e a s i e r s u b j e c t s r e q u i r i n g m i n i m a l p r e r e q u i s i t e k n o w l e d g e . Snow (1980) a l s o a r g u e d t h a t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t y p e o f l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , l e a r n e r s a r e d i f f e r e n t i n t e r m s o f how w e l l t h e y (1) l i k e s e l f - c o n t r o l o v e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l e v e n t s , (2) w i l l p e r f o r m u n d e r s u c h c o n d i t i o n s , a n d (3) w i l l u s e t h e i r s k i l l s i n e x e c u t i n g s u c h c o n t r o l s . F a c t o r s s u c h a s a g e l e v e l , f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s , d e g r e e o f s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , e t c . d e f i n i t e l y p l a y a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t . T o b i a s ' s (1976) a c h i e v e m e n t - t r e a t m e n t i n t e r a c t i o n a p p r o a c h s h i f t s t h e f o c u s o f a d a p t a t i o n f r o m g e n e r a l t r a i t s a n d a p t i t u d e s t o t a s k - s p e c i f i c m e a s u r e s o f s t u d e n t s ' p r i o r f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e m a t e r i a l t o b e l e a r n e d . Tobias (1981) c l a i m s t h a t c a r e f u l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f a p t i t u d e and treatment v a r i a b l e s between i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r achievement and i n s t r u c t i o n a l method av o i d s some of the problems o f o t h e r approaches, i n c l u d i n g examining i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s and i n s t r u c t i o n a l method. An i n t e r a c t i o n i s h y p o t h e s i z e d such t h a t the h i g h e r l e v e l o f p r i o r achievement, the lower the i n s t r u c t i o n a l support needed t o accomplish o b j e c t i v e s ; c o n v e r s e l y , the lower the p r i o r achievement l e v e l , the h i g h e r the support t h a t i s needed. R a t i o n a l e and T h e o r e t i c a l Hypotheses The u l t i m a t e g o a l o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e s i g n e r s i s t o i d e n t i f y a s e t of l e a r n i n g events and the d e l i v e r y system t h a t would p r o v i d e an o p t i m a l environment i n which l e a r n e r s can l e a r n most e f f e c t i v e l y i n o r d e r t o r e a c h a s e t o f pre-determined o b j e c t i v e s . Computer-a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n has g e n e r a l l y been shown t o be e f f e c t i v e i n i n c r e a s i n g performance, improving l e a r n e r a t t i t u d e s , and r e d u c i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l time ( K u l i k , Bangert, & W i l l i a m s , 1983) when p r i n c i p l e s of t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g are a p p l i e d i n the development o f e d u c a t i o n a l coursewares (Gagne, 1982; Jay, 1983). The s u p e r i o r i t y o f a d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s over non-adaptive programs i n CAI has been r e p e a t e d l y demonstrated i n v a r i o u s s t u d i e s (e.g.; Tennyson & Rothen, 1977; Park & Tennyson, 1980; Ross, 1984). I t i s t h e r e f o r e g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t an a d a p t i v e computer-a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n system which i s based on sound p r i n c i p l e s o f l e a r n i n g and t e a c h i n g would be f a r more s u p e r i o r than the c o n v e n t i o n a l CAI system. However, s p e c i f i c l o c i o f such s u p e r i o r i t y have not y e t been w e l l understood and s t i l l need t o be d i s c o v e r e d . The p r e s e n t experiment attempted t o f u r t h e r the und e r s t a n d i n g o f the e f f e c t s o f the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s i n comp u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n . I t i n v o l v e s the d e s i g n and development of an CAI che m i s t r y program which allowed the comparison of the e f f e c t s o f the l o c u s o f two CAI c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s over sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n and amount o f p r a c t i c e examples on the accuracy and e f f i c i e n c y i n s o l v i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems. The two treatments are an a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y and an a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l w i t h advisement s t r a t e g y , which are somewhat s i m i l a r t o the treatments employed i n the s t u d i e s o f Tennyson & B u t t r e y (1980), and G o e t z f r i e d & Hannafin (1985). Tennyson & B u t t r e y r e v e a l e d t h a t a l t h o u g h achievement d i f f e r e n c e s were not found, l e a r n e r c o n t r o l w i t h advisement s t r a t e g y was more e f f i c i e n t than program c o n t r o l . However, G o e t z f r i e d & H annafin d i d not f i n d any d i f f e r e n c e s between the two s t r a t e g i e s . The c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d may have r e f l e c t e d the d i f f e r e n c e s i n age of the s u b j e c t s (grade 12 v s . grade 7), nature o f the t a s k ( p s y c h o l o g i c a l concepts v s . r e m e d i a l math), achievement h i s t o r y of the s u b j e c t s ("regular" v s . r e m e d i a l ) , e t c . i n t h e two s t u d i e s . I t i s the i n t e r e s t of the p r e s e n t experimenter t o f i n d out when i t comes t o t e a c h i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y i n c h e m i s t r y v i a CAI, which one o f the two c o n t r o l would be more e f f e c t i v e , i f t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e ? I t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t v a r i a t i o n s i n the l e a r n e r s ' performance under the two l e v e l s o f treatment may be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o not o n l y the l e a r n e r s ' p r i o r achievement i n chemistry, as most r e s e a r c h e r s have claimed, but a l s o the l e a r n e r s ' m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y -t h e a b i l i t y t o p l a n s t r a t e g i e s f o r m o n i t o r i n g thought and r e g u l a t i n g one's own behaviour a c c o r d i n g t o what a t a s k demands. As Quinto & Weener (1983) p o i n t e d out, performance on problem s o l v i n g i s not o n l y determined by pure c o g n i t i v e knowledge and behaviours but by the knowledge about these c o g n i t i o n s and b e h a v i o u r s . Most m e t a c o g n i t i v e r e s e a r c h e r s are concerned w i t h developmental s t u d i e s on memory (e.g. F l a v e l l & Wellman, 1977) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . In problem s o l v i n g , s t u d i e s on m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s a re s t i l l q u i t e s c a r s e . However, i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t the a b i l i t y t o s o l v e problems, such as s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems, c o u l d be r e l a t e d t o the l e a r n e r s ' s k i l l s o f m e t a c o g n i t i o n . Thus, p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y o f the s u b j e c t s are employed i n t h i s study as c o v a r i a t e s t o reduce any e r r o r v a r i a n c e . In the p r e s e n t experiment, c h e m i s t r y i s viewed as a d i f f i c u l t and unpopular s u b j e c t f o r the student p o p u l a t i o n concerned. When t h i s p a r t i c u l a r l e s s o n i s implemented i n Chemistry 11, which i s the f i r s t c h e m i s t r y course t h a t most of the students ever take, h i g h e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l support w i l l be needed t o accomplish the l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t h i g h e r l e v e l of l e a r n i n g achievement w i l l be o b t a i n e d under program c o n t r o l than under l e a r n e r c o n t r o l over sequencing of t o p i c s and i n s e l e c t i n g number of p r a c t i c e examples. In t h e domain of p r e - r e q u i s i t e k n o w l e d g e / m e t a c o g n i t i v e . a b i l i t y / t r e a t m e n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s , i t was expected t h a t l e a r n e r s w i t h low p r e -r e q u i s i t e knowledge or low m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y would do b e t t e r under program c o n t r o l f o r they are l e s s s e cure and need more guidance. As f o r l e a r n e r s w i t h h i g h p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge o r m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , t he two treatment c o n d i t i o n s would be s i m i l a r l y e f f e c t i v e . However, when p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y f a c t o r s are c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r , i t was expected t h a t l e a r n e r s of low p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge/low m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y would b e n e f i t most from program c o n t r o l , and l e a r n e r s of h i g h p r e -r e q u i s i t e knowledge/high m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y would f i n d l e a r n e r c o n t r o l w i t h advisement t o be most e f f i c i e n t . As Brown & DeLoache (1978) proposed, n o v i c e s are d e f i c i e n t i n terms o f s e l f - c o n s c i o u s p a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n t e l l i g e n t s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n of t h e i r a c t i o n s . The l a c k of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s would l e a d t o a concomitant l a c k o f s e l f - i n t e r r o g a t i o n about the c u r r e n t s t a t e o f knowledge and t o inadequate s e l e c t i o n and m o n i t o r i n g of necessary s t e p s between s t a r t i n g l e v e l s and d e s i r e d g o a l s . T h e r e f o r e i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t t h i s type of l e a r n e r s would r e q u i r e a more s t r u c t u r e d approach, which i s o f f e r e d under the program c o n t r o l treatment. On t h e o t h e r hand, Brown & DeLoache c l a i m t h a t l e a r n e r s who possess h i g h m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s a re a b l e t o p r e d i c t the consequences of an a c t i o n o r event, check the r e s u l t s o f t h e i r own a c t i o n s , monitor t h e i r ongoing a c t i v i t y , t e s t the r e a l i t y o f t h e i r a c t i o n s , .and demonstrate a v a r i e t y o f o t h e r behaviours f o r c o o r d i n a t i n g and c o n t r o l l i n g d e l i b e r a t e attempts t o l e a r n and s o l v e problems. I t was t h e r e f o r e expected t h a t such independent l e a r n e r s who have a h i g h achievement h i s t o r y would be a b l e t o c o n t r o l the i n s t r u c t i o n a l events e f f e c t i v e l y and thus t h e i r achievement l e v e l would be t h e h i g h e s t under l e a r n e r c o n t r o l . As f o r l e a r n e r s o f h i g h p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and low m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , and l e a r n e r s of low p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and h i g h m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , i t was expected t h a t the two treatment c o n d i t i o n s would be s i m i l a r l y e f f e c t i v e . I I . METHOD SUBJECTS AND DESIGN P a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study were student v o l u n t e e r s from t h r e e Chemistry 11 c l a s s e s i n a s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l i n Burnaby, B r i t i s h Columbia. The s u b j e c t s were t o have completed the u n i t on Mole, Molar Mass, and Mass r e l a t i o n s h i p s and t o have mastered the concept of the mole and the i m p l i c a t i o n s of chemical formulas and chemical e q u a t i o n s . Twenty-eight students (13 males and 15 females) s i g n e d up f o r the study. They were randomly a s s i g n e d t o one o f the two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l groups i n the c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d l e a r n i n g (CAL) o f g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y . However, two male stude n t s , one from each o f the two c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s , withdrew d u r i n g the middle o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . As a r e s u l t , t w e n t y - s i x s t u d e n t v o l u n t e e r s (11 males and 15 females) completed th e study. The two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s were: (a) a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l (APC) i n which the sequence o f t o p i c s p r e s e n t e d was f i x e d and the number o f p r a c t i c e examples p r e s e n t e d was c o n t r o l l e d by the program and was determined i n i t i a l l y by the s u b j e c t ' s p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge s c o r e s and subsequently by the s u b j e c t ' s on-t a s k performance and; (b) a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l w i t h s u g g e s t i o n s (ALC) i n which s u b j e c t s were g i v e n a d v i c e as t o the sequence of i n s t r u c t i o n and the number of p r a c t i c e examples needed. The number o f examples suggested was based i n i t i a l l y on the s u b j e c t ' s p r e -r e q u i s i t e knowledge s c o r e and subsequently on h i s / h e r on-task performance. However, s u b j e c t s under ALC were g i v e n t o t a l c o n t r o l as t o whether o r not f o l l o w the s u g g e s t i o n s . S u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t they would r e c e i v e a book c e r t i f i c a t e a t the c o n c l u s i o n of t h e i r involvement i n t h e l e a r n i n g p r o j e c t . T h i s contingency was i n c l u d e d t o encourage s e r i o u s p a r t i c i p a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y from s u b j e c t s i n the l e a r n e r c o n t r o l group who might have the tendency t o t e r m i n a t e e a r l y . T h i s study employed a simple completely randomized CR-1 d e s i g n i n which s u b j e c t s were randomly a s s i g n e d t o one o f the two l e v e l s o f CAI l o c u s o f c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y (APC and ALC). Gender of the s u b j e c t s i s used as a b l o c k i n g f a c t o r . P r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b - t e s t s s c o r e s s e r v e d as c o v a r i a t e s . Dependent v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d were number of p r a c t i c e examples done, r a t i o o f examples c o r r e c t , l e a r n i n g time (the time d u r i n g which the student engaged i n l e a r n i n g ) , time spent per p r a c t i c e example, c o r r e c t s c o r e s and time spent on the immediate and del a y e d p o s t - t e s t s , and average c o r r e c t response time. The a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e and a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e procedures were used t o t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s . LEARNING PROGRAM AND TASK ANALYSIS The l e a r n i n g t a s k i n v o l v e d a t o p i c i n a B r i t i s h Columbia Chemistry 11 u n i t d e a l i n g w i t h G r a v i m e t r i c S t o i c h i o m e t r y . The u n i t r e f l e c t s the s t u d e n t s ' f i r s t exposure t o s t o i c h i o m e t r y - the p r e d i c t i o n o f how much of one substance w i l l r e a c t o r be produced i n a chemical r e a c t i o n r e l a t i v e t o the amount o f another substance i n the r e a c t i o n . The study o f s t o i c h i o m e t r y r e q u i r e s t h e understanding and a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Law o f D e f i n i t e P r o p o r t i o n i n chemical r e a c t i o n . Everyday a p p l i c a t i o n s o f s t o i c h i o m e t r y are numerous. For examples: 1. The g a s o l i n e t o a i r mixture i s r e g u l a t e d i n a c a r or m o t o r c y c l e by the c a r b u r e t o r . Proper p r o p o r t i o n s o f g a s o l i n e and a i r mixture are nece s s a r y f o r maximum power and g a s o l i n e mileage. 2. S i n c e cooking food i n v o l v e s chemical r e a c t i o n s , every r e c i p e suggests the proper p r o p o r t i o n o f "chemicals" t o produce a complete r e a c t i o n . For example, i f the proper p r o p o r t i o n s o f ba k i n g soda and cream of t a r t a r are not used, some o f one o r the o t h e r w i l l be l e f t over ( i n e x c e s s ) . An excess o f one component (reacta n t ) may a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t the cooked product. 3. A n t a c i d t a b l e t s may be harmful i f taken i n excess. Each a n t a c i d t a b l e t c o n t a i n s a c e r t a i n amount o f chemical which n e u t r a l i z e s stomach a c i d . I f t o o many t a b l e t s a re taken, too much stomach a c i d i s de s t r o y e d and proper d i g e s t i o n can not occur. C a l c u l a t i o n o f the amount of m a t e r i a l s used o r produced i n chemical r e a c t i o n s i s r e q u i r e d when many n a t u r a l , l a b o r a t o r y , o r i n d u s t r i a l chemical t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a re s t u d i e d . Such c a l c u l a t i o n s seem, a t f i r s t , t o take on many d i f f e r e n t and c o n f u s i n g forms. They a l l , however, have an u n d e r l y i n g s i m i l a r i t y , and i f t h i s i s a p p r e c i a t e d a t the o u t s e t the e n t i r e s u b j e c t can be e a s i l y mastered. To do t h i s , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t a l l problems be approached i n an o r g a n i z e d way. The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s l e a r n i n g program i s t o h e l p the stu d e n t s adopt one such approach i n s t o i c h i o m e t r y c a l c u l a t i o n s . G r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y r e f e r s t o s t o i c h i o m e t r y i n v o l v i n g the measurement of g r a v i t y o r mass as opposed t o measurement o f s o l u t i o n volume ( s o l u t i o n s t o i c h i o m e t r y ) o r gas volume (gas s t o i c h i o m e t r y ) . In g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y c a l c u l a t i o n s , the amount of substances may be expressed as number o f moles ( i n moles) o r mass ( i n grams). For example, i n the f o l l o w i n g balanced equation, 2 H 2 ( g ) + °2(g) > 2 H 2 ° ( g ) two moles (4.04 g) o f hydrogen r e a c t w i t h one mole (32.0 g) o f oxygen t o produce two moles (36.04 g) of water vapor. Thus the amount o f one of the substances r e a c t e d o r produced (the r e q u i r e d substance) can be c a l c u l a t e d i f the amount o f another substance (the g i v e n substance) i s known. Depending on whether the number o f moles or the mass o f the g i v e n substance i s known, and whether the amount o f the r e q u i r e d substance i s t o be expressed i n moles o r grams, f o u r types of s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems can be d e r i v e d , namely, (a) mole t o mole; (b) mole t o mass; (c) mass t o mole; and (d) mass t o mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y as shown i n Ta b l e 1. I n s e r t T a b l e 1 about here Given a balanced chemical equation, the t a s k of s o l v i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y problem i s c o n c e i v e d t o c o n s i s t o f 5 t a s k components: (1) i d e n t i f y the g i v e n and the r e q u i r e d substances; (2) express t h e amount o f g i v e n substance i n moles; (3) i d e n t i f y the c o e f f i c i e n t s of the g i v e n and r e q u i r e d substances from the b a l a n c e d e q u a t i o n ; (4) f i n d the amount of the r e q u i r e d substance i n moles by u s i n g the mole r a t i o ; and (5) express the amount o f r e q u i r e d substance i n grams i f d e s i r e d . F i g u r e 1 shows a flow c h a r t of the components and p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d . I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 about here Among the f o u r types of s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems, mole-to-mole i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be the e a s i e s t s i n c e i t i n v o l v e s a one-step c a l c u l a t i o n ( n G > n R ) . Mass-to-mass i s most d i f f i c u l t , f o r i t r e q u i r e s a t h r e e - s t e p c a l c u l a t i o n (m G > n G > n R > m R). Mole-to-mass and mass-to-mole problems are o f i n t e r m e d i a t e d i f f i c u l t y , i n v o l v i n g a two-step c a l c u l a t i o n ( n G > n R > m R or m G > n G > n R ) . I t i s t h e r e f o r e a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the most l o g i c a l sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n f o r the f o u r types of s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems i s (1) mole-to-mole; (2) mole-to-mass or mass-to-mole; and (3) mass-to-mass. INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM DESIGN The i n s t r u c t i o n a l t a s k s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s study was a c h e m i s t r y l e s s o n on g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y c a l c u l a t i o n s . I t was designed w i t h the assumption t h a t the t a r g e t l e a r n e r s had not y e t been taught the co n t e n t . The i n s t r u c t i o n a l system d e s i g n f o r each o f the two treatment c o n d i t i o n s was the same, c o n s i s t i n g of an a d a p t i v e , i n t e l l i g e n t c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n (ICAI) program. Roberts & Park (1983) d e s c r i b e ICAI systems as t u t o r i n g systems t h a t have s e p a r a t e d the major components o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l systems i n a way which a l l o w s both the student and the program t o have a f l e x i b i l i t y i n the l e a r n i n g environment more c l o s e l y resembling what a c t u a l l y o ccurs when student and t e a c h e r s i t down one-on-one and attempt t o t e a c h and l e a r n t o g e t h e r . Roberts & Park propose t h a t the o p e r a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s of an ICAI system are determined by t h r e e main components which r e p r e s e n t the t h r e e main components of any i n s t r u c t i o n a l system, namely, the cont e n t t o be taught (the expert module), t h e i n h e r e n t t e a c h i n g o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g y (the t u t o r i n g module), and a mechanism f o r understanding what the student does and does not know (the student module). In the development o f the CAI modules, Jay's c o g n i t i v e approach t o computer courseware d e s i g n (1983) i s noteworthy. Jay focuses on some as p e c t s t h a t concern human i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g a b i l i t i e s which, he ma i n t a i n s , must be accounted f o r i n o r d e r t o develop good courseware. Such a b i l i t i e s may i n c l u d e : (a) memory and a t t e n t i o n ; (b) language o r t e x t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; (c) use o f g r a p h i c s and v i s u a l p r o c e s s i n g ; (d) mental computation; (e) c o g n i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a us e r ; and (f) feedback t o u s e r s . The system designed f o r the p r e s e n t study f o l l o w e d Lee's (1983) i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e s i g n model which s a t i s f i e s t h e c r i t e r i a f o r an ICAI system o u t l i n e d by Roberts & Park. Lee's l e a r n e r - b a s e d computer system c o n s i s t s o f 3 main components or modules: (1) the E v a l u a t o r , (2) the D i a g n o s t i c i a n , and (3) the Tu t o r . The f u n c t i o n s o f these components f o r the p r e s e n t study a re o u t l i n e d i n T a b l e 2. F i g u r e 2 shows the i n s t r u c t i o n a l f l o w c h a r t of t h e system. I n s e r t T a b l e 2 about here a. P r e - t e s t A t o t a l of 12 items c o n s i s t i n g o f 3 r e p l i c a t i o n s o f the 4 s t o i c h i o m e t r y problem types were mixed and p r e s e n t e d i n a random o r d e r . Sample of p r e - t e s t q u e s t i o n s i s shown i n Appendix A. The p r e - t e s t was t o ensure t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s had no p r e v i o u s knowledge o f s o l v i n g s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems. I n s e r t F i g u r e 2 about here b. D i a g n o s t i c T e s t The p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge i n v o l v i n g mole, mass, molar mass concept, and r a t i o c a l c u l a t i o n t h a t i s r e q u i r e d f o r s o l v i n g s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems was e v a l u a t e d . Twelve items c o n s i s t i n g of 3 r e p l i c a t i o n s of the 4 p r e - r e q u i s i t e areas were pre s e n t e d . No feedbacks were g i v e n f o r e i t h e r c o r r e c t o r i n c o r r e c t responses. Sample items from the d i a g n o s t i c t e s t s are shown i n Appendix B. T a b l e 3 summarizes the types o f p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t h a t are r e q u i r e d f o r s o l v i n g v a r i o u s s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems. I n s e r t T a b l e 3 about here Score o b t a i n e d by the students i n the p r e -r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t was used t o determine the number of p r a c t i c e examples i n i t i a l l y p resented/suggested. The number of p r a c t i c e examples i n i t i a l l y p r e s c r i b e d / s u g g e s t e d were 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, o r 5 f o r a s c o r e o f 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 o r l e s s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , c. CAI Module The CAI module c o n s i s t e d of f i v e s e c t i o n s : 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o G r a v i m e t r i c S t o i c h i o m e t r y ; 2) Mole-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; 3) Mole-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; 4) Mass-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; and 5) Mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y . Under the computer-a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n of each type of s t o i c h i o m e t r y , an i n s t r u c t i o n a l example was g i v e n , f o l l o w e d by 0 t o 5 p r a c t i c e examples, depending on the p r o g r e s s and/or c h o i c e o f the l e a r n e r . The i n s t r u c t i o n a l example i l l u s t r a t e d the p r o c e s s e s and demonstrated how the answer t o the problem c o u l d be d e r i v e d , without a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n on the p a r t o f the l e a r n e r . The p r a c t i c e example(s), on the o t h e r hand, r e q u i r e d a c t i v e involvement from the l e a r n e r . The l e a r n e r was p r e s e n t e d w i t h a problem and was prompted t o s o l v e i t s t e p - b y - s t e p . Feedbacks were g i v e n a t each s t e p and r e m e d i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s were p r o v i d e d a t any p o i n t when r e q u i r e d . Under the APC c o n d i t i o n , the sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n was f i x e d . A f t e r the i n t r o d u c t i o n s e c t i o n , s u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d f i r s t w i t h the r e l a t i v e l y e a s i e r mole-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y , f o l l o w e d by the more d i f f i c u l t mole-to-mass and mass-to-mole problems. Mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y , c o n s i d e r e d t o be the most d i f f i c u l t , was g i v e n l a s t . In APC, the number o f p r a c t i c e examples was c o n t r o l l e d by the program and was based i n i t i a l l y on t h e l e a r n e r s 1 p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t s c o r e . However, the number of p r e s c r i b e d p r a c t i c e examples was c o n t i n u o u s l y m o d i f i e d , r e f l e c t i n g the performance of the s u b j e c t s on the immediate p o s t -t e s t o f the p r e v i o u s s t o i c h i o m e t r y type. Under the ALC c o n d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s were g i v e n s u g g e s t i o n s but were granted c o n t r o l over t h e sequence of i n s t r u c t i o n and the number o f p r a c t i c e examples t o be s t u d i e d . The number o f p r a c t i c e examples suggested was based on the s u b j e c t s ' p r e -r e q u i s i t e knowledge s c o r e s and on-task performance as d i s c u s s e d above, d. Immediate P o s t - t e s t s An immediate p o s t - t e s t was g i v e n a t the end o f each type of s t o i c h i o m e t r y l e s s o n . Each immediate p o s t - t e s t c o n s i s t e d of 5 q u e s t i o n s which were p r e s e n t e d i n random ord e r . No feedback was p r o v i d e d d u r i n g the immediate p o s t - t e s t s . However, s u b j e c t s were g i v e n the s c o r e a t the end o f each t e s t . f . F i n a l Delayed P o s t - t e s t The f i n a l p o s t - t e s t was a d m i n i s t r a t e d one day a f t e r the c o n c l u s i o n o f the e n t i r e l e s s o n . A t o t a l o f 12 items c o n s i s t i n g of 3 r e p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e 4 s t o i c h i o m e t r y problem types were randomly chosen and presented. APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES The experiment was conducted i n the S c i e n c e Resource Room h o s t i n g f i v e IBM PC microcomputer systems each w i t h a RGB c o l o r monitor. P e n c i l s , paper, nonprogrammable c a l c u l a t o r , and a p e r i o d i c t a b l e o f chemical elements were a v a i l a b l e t o each p a r t i c i p a n t . Each s u b j e c t attended f o u r t o s i x s e s s i o n s w i t h approximately 60 minutes t o 120 minutes per s e s s i o n . The s e s s i o n s were conducted o u t s i d e r e g u l a r c l a s s time, i . e . , b e f o r e s c h o o l , a f t e r s c h o o l , o r when the student had a " f r e e p e r i o d " . During the f i r s t s e s s i o n , the s u b j e c t was a s s i g n e d t o one of the computer s t a t i o n s and was p r o v i d e d w i t h d i r e c t i o n s on the o p e r a t i o n and use o f t h e microcomputers. S/he was then g i v e n the p r e -t e s t , p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t , f o l l o w e d by the m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y t e s t . The instruments f o r a s s e s s i n g m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s were adopted from Quinto & Weener's study (1983). Quinto and Weener's t e s t was designed t o a s s e s s more comprehensively the m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s used i n t h r e e t y p e s o f problem s o l v i n g t a s k s by u s i n g s e l f - r e p o r t measures and s y s t e m a t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s i n d e t e r m i n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the outcomes of these methods and t h e degrees o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the m e t a c o g n i t i v e measures and a c t u a l performance. These instruments were chosen f o r t h i s study because of the g e n e r a l nature o f the q u e s t i o n s and problems and t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s f o r the grade l e v e l concerned. More i m p o r t a n t l y , these instruments were found t o have a h i g h t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y (0.86) and i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y (0.70) as c l a i m e d by the authors. The t e s t c o n s i s t e d of t h r e e p a r t s : 1) S e l f - r e p o r t i n v e n t o r y of m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s i n problem s o l v i n g , a s e l f - r a t i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o f i n d out how people p e r c e i v e t h e i r own a b i l i t i e s and performance on problem s o l v i n g t a s k s and the nature o f the problem s o l v i n g t a s k s ; 2) A q u e s t i o n n a i r e on 8 s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g t a s k s ; and 3) S o l v i n g t h e 8 S p e c i f i c problem t a s k s p r e s e n t e d i n 2. Sample q u e s t i o n s of t h e m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y t e s t a re shown i n Appendix C. Quinto & Weener's study r e v e a l e d t h a t c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ' s e l f - r e p o r t e d assessments o f t h e i r a b i l i t y on a g e n e r a l and s p e c i f i c l e v e l were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e i r performance on the problem s o l v i n g t a s k . On p r e d i c t e d performance, students were more a c c u r a t e i n p r e d i c t i n g t h e i r performance on math and language t a s k s . R e l i a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s on the instruments used showed the S e l f - r e p o r t i n v e n t o r y o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s had a t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y o f .86 and an i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y o f .70. In the second s e s s i o n , the l e a r n e r was randomly a s s i g n e d t o one of the two treatment c o n d i t i o n s and began the CAI s e s s i o n s . During the subsequent s e s s i o n s , the student was t o c o n t i n u e on w i t h the CAI l e s s o n s and was allowed t o stop the s e s s i o n a t the end o f each immediate p o s t - t e s t i f d e s i r e d . A t i m e r was b u i l t i n t o the CAI program t o r e c o r d the t o t a l amount o f time the s u b j e c t spent on the CAI l e s s o n s . The l e a r n i n g s e s s i o n s were h e l d between f o u r t o s i x c o n s e c u t i v e days. One day a f t e r the s u b j e c t completed the CAI l e s s o n s on the f o u r t y p e s of s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems, s/he was g i v e n the f i n a l p o s t - t e s t . I I I . RESULTS An a l y s e s o f P r i o r L e a r n i n g T e s t Scores The d a t a a n a l y s i s of the p r i o r l e a r n i n g t e s t s c o r e s c o n s i s t e d o f a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on p r e - t e s t , p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t , and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b - t e s t s s c o r e s . The t e s t s f o r homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e o f w i t h i n group and between group l i n e a r i t y were n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (JJ > .05) and thus no t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f s c o r e s was necessary. Mean s c o r e s f o r v a r i o u s t e s t s are p r e s e n t e d i n Ta b l e 4. C o r r e l a t i o n s f o r p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b - t e s t s s c o r e s are a l s o shown i n Ta b l e 5. P r e - t e s t . A l l s u b j e c t s i n both the a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l (ALC) and a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l (APC) c o n d i t i o n s encountered d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the q u e s t i o n s i n the p r e -t e s t . None o f them was a b l e t o make any s c o r e . Thus, no a n a l y s i s o f p r e - t e s t s c o r e s was necessary. P r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t (PRK). The p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge mean c o r r e c t s c o r e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p_ > .05) f o r the two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l groups. Means f o r males and females were a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p_ > .05). I n t e r a c t i o n between gender of students and l o c u s of c o n t r o l was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . . M e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y t e s t . The m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y t e s t c o n s i s t e d o f t h r e e s u b - t e s t s : (1) O v e r a l l s e l f - r a t i n g i n v e n t o r y ; (2) S e l f -r a t i n g on s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g t a s k s ; and (3) Performance on s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g t a s k s . The s c o r e s f o r o v e r a l l s e l f - r a t i n g i n v e n t o r y (OSR) and s e l f r a t i n g on s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g t a s k s (SRS) were determined by adding the t o t a l s c o r e s o b t a i n e d i n each ca t e g o r y . The maximum and minimum p o s s i b l e s c o r e s f o r OSR and SRS were 207, 39 and 96, 18 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Score f o r performance on s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g t a s k (STS) was the number of problems c o r r e c t out o f 8 problems. Anova's on OSR, SRS, and STS (Table 4) showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the two c o n t r o l groups (p_ > .05) o r between males and females (p_ >.05). I n s e r t T a b l e 4 about here I n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between gender of student and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l were a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t . R e s u l t s of c o r r e l a t i o n t e s t s (Table 5) performed on p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b - t e s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t o n l y the c o r r e l a t i o n between o v e r a l l s e l f - r a t i n g (OSR) and s e l f - r a t i n g on s p e c i f i c t a s k s (SSR) s c o r e s was s i g n i f i c a n t , r = 0.86, p_ < .00. I n s e r t T a b l e 5 about here A n a l y s e s o f CAI L e a r n i n g Process V a r i a b l e s S i n c e a l l the s u b j e c t s i n the l e a r n e r c o n t r o l group (ALC) f o l l o w e d the s u g g e s t i o n s as t o the sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n , a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s (both i n ALC and APC) completed the l e a r n i n g program i n e x a c t l y the same o r d e r . Thus, no a n a l y s i s i n v o l v i n g the sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n was necessary. The d a t a a n a l y s e s f o r CAI were performed on f i v e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s v a r i a b l e s : (a) number o f p r a c t i c e examples s u g g e s t e d / p r e s c r i b e d (EP), (b) number o f p r a c t i c e examples done (ED), (c) examples c o r r e c t r a t i o (CR), (d) l e a r n i n g time (LT), and (e) time spent per p r a c t i c e example (ET), f o r each of the f o u r t y p es o f s t o i c h i o m e t r y . Means f o r the above are p r e s e n t e d i n 41 T a b l e 6. T e s t s f o r homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e were n o n s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s (p. > .05) except f o r l e a r n i n g time i n mole-to-mass, mass-to-mole, mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y (BLT, CLT, DLT), t o t a l l e a r n i n g time (TLT), and o v e r a l l time spent per p r a c t i c e example (TET). Thus, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of these s c o r e s t o t h e i r square r o o t was performed i n o r d e r t o reduce t h e range I n s e r t Table 6 about here and s t a b l i z e the v a r i a n c e ( K i r k , 1982). The number o f p r a c t i c e examples s u g g e s t e d / p r e s c r i b e d f o r ALC and APC was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p > .05) i n a l l types o f s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems. However, ANOVA r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s i n the ALC group d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p r a c t i c e examples than t h e i r APC c o u n t e r p a r t s i n l e a r n i n g mole-to-mass (BED), mass-to-mole (CED), and mass-to-mass (DED) s t o i c h i o m e t r y , Fs (1,24) = 23.67, 9.41, 8.44, MSe = 1.77, 1.64, 1.17, ps < .0001, .0053, .0078 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The t o t a l number of examples done (TED) was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n ALC than i n APC, F (1, 24) = 29.88, MSe = 8.24, p < .00. Furthermore, r e s u l t s of a n a l y s e s a l s o showed t h a t s t u d e n t s i n ALC group spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n l e a r n i n g mole-to-mass (BLT) and mass-to-mole (CLT) s t o i c h i o m e t r y , Fs (1, 24) = 22.11, 5.86, MSe = 72.20, 91.88, p_ < .0001, .023 r e s p e c t i v e l y . ALC s u b j e c t s a l s o spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n the e n t i r e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s (TLT) , F (1, 24) = 15.33, MSe = 550.70, p. < .0031. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was observed i n the examples c o r r e c t r a t i o (CR) and the amount o f time spent p e r p r a c t i c e example (ET) f o r the two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l groups (p_ > .05). Analyses o f the s e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s v a r i a b l e s a l s o r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o r males and females. However, study o f i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n l e a r n i n g mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y , the most d i f f i c u l t o f the f o u r t y p e s o f s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems, male st u d e n t s i n APC spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time than t h e i r ALC c o u n t e r p a r t s , and female students i n ALC spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time than t h e i r APC c o u n t e r p a r t s , F (1, 22) = 6.82, MSe = 71.71, p_ < .016. S i m i l a r i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was a l s o n o t i c e d f o r time spent p e r p r a c t i c e example i n mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y (DET), F (1, 22) = 7.23, MSe = 8.08, p_ < .0130. Other i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s were not s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ > .05). The t e s t s f o r p a r a l l e l s l o p e s f o r the r e g r e s s i o n o f t o t a l examples done (TED), o v e r a l l r a t i o o f examples c o r r e c t (TCR), and t o t a l l e a r n i n g time (TLT) on p r e -r e q u i s i t e knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s c o r e s (PRK, OSR, SRS, STS) were performed f o r the two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l groups. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the r e g r e s s i o n s l o p e s was observed except i n the r e g r e s s i o n o f TCR on OSR, F (1, 22) = 4.60, p_ < .044. However, f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e on TCR w i t h OSR i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . The s t a n d a r d i z e d r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s shown i n T a b l e 8 i n d i c a t e t h a t the i n f l u e n c e of the p r i o r l e a r n i n g t e s t s s c o r e s on the l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s v a r i a b l e s was not s i g n i f i c a n t . A n a l y s i s o f L e a r n i n g Outcome V a r i a b l e s F i v e l e a r n i n g outcome measures from immediate and d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t s were of i n t e r e s t : immediate p o s t -t e s t s c o r e s ( I P ) , immediate p o s t - t e s t time ( I T ) , d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t s c o r e (DP), t o t a l d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t time (TDT), and average c o r r e c t response r a t e (ART). Means o f t h e s e outcome measures are shown i n T a b l e 7. T e s t s f o r homogeneity of v a r i a n c e f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s 44 were not s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ > .05) except f o r immediate p o s t - t e s t time i n mole-to-mass (BIT), I n s e r t T a b l e 7 about here mass-to-mass (DIT) s t o i c h i o m e t r y , and t o t a l immediate p o s t - t e s t time (T I T ) . Thus, BIT, DIT, and TIT s c o r e s were transformed t o t h e i r square r o o t f o r a n a l y s i s . Immediate p o s t - t e s t . ANOVA * s on both immediate p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s (IP) and p o s t - t e s t time (IT) f o r each and o v e r a l l s t o i c h i o m e t r y type were not s i g n i f i c a n t (p > .05) f o r the two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l groups and f o r males and females. I n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and gender o f s tudents were a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t . T e s t s f o r homogeneity of s l o p e s f o r the r e g r e s s i o n of immediate p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s (IP) and p o s t - t e s t time (IT) on p r i o r l e a r n i n g s u b t e s t s s c o r e s (PRK, OSR, SRS, STS) i n ALC and APC r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . S i n c e t h e e f f e c t s of p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y on immediate p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s and p o s t - t e s t time f o r the two l o c u s of c o n t r o l groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , no f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s f o r 45 i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s was necessary. The s t a n d a r d i z e d r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are shown i n T a b l e 8 which i n d i c a t e t h a t the i n f l u e n c e of p r i o r l e a r n i n g s u b t e s t s s c o r e s on IP and IT was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Delayed p o s t - t e s t . A n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e on d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s (DP) showed t h a t s u b j e c t s i n a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l group (APC) s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than s t u d e n t s i n a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l group (ALC) i n mole-to-mass (BDP) and mass-to-mass (DDP) s t o i c h i o m e t r y t y p e s , Fs (1, 24) = 4.71, 5.05, MSe = 0.99, 1.10, p_ < .04, .03 r e s p e c t i v e l y . APC s u b j e c t s ' o v e r a l l d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t s c o r e was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e i r ALC I n s e r t T a b l e 8 about here c o u n t e r p a r t s , F (1, 24) = 4.32, MSe = 9.12, p_ < .049. P o s t - t e s t s c o r e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r males and females. However, i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and gender of the students were s i g n i f i c a n t i n which male students i n ALC d i d b e t t e r than t h e i r APC c o u n t e r p a r t s and female students i n APC d i d b e t t e r than t h e i r ALC c o u n t e r p a r t s i n mole-to-mass d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t (BDP), F (1, 22) = 7.30, MSe = 0.81, p_ < .013, and i n t o t a l d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t (TDP), F (1, 22) = 6.60, MSe = 7.65, p_ < .018 as shown i n F i g u r e 3. T o t a l time spent on d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t (TDT) and average c o r r e c t response time (ART) f o r the two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l groups and f o r males and females were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p_ > .05). I n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s were a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t . I n s e r t F i g u r e 3 about here T e s t s o f homogeneity o f s l o p e s f o r the r e g r e s s i o n o f a l l l e a r n i n g outcome v a r i a b l e s on p r i o r l e a r n i n g s u b t e s t s s c o r e s (PRK, OSR. SRS, STS) i n the two l o c u s of c o n t r o l groups showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s (p_ > .05). S i n c e the e f f e c t s of p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y on the l e a r n i n g outcome measures f o r the two l o c u s of c o n t r o l groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , no o t h e r a n a l y s i s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s was necessary. S t a n d a r d i z e d r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 8 show t h a t t h e i n f l u e n c e of p r i o r l e a r n i n g s u b t e s t s s c o r e s on l e a r n i n g outcome s c o r e s was not s i g n i f i c a n t . IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION P r i o r L e a r n i n g Experience The r e l a t i v e l y h i g h mean p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge s c o r e (71%) and the f a c t t h a t more than h a l f o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s o b t a i n e d a s c o r e o f 75% o r more are good i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t these student v o l u n t e e r s have a b e t t e r - t h a n - a v e r a g e chemistry background. T h e i r performance on the e i g h t s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g t a s k s r e v e a l e d t h a t these students are average problem s o l v e r s . In p r e d i c t i n g t h e i r problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t y , the s u b j e c t s were q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t i n j u d g i n g themselves as was i n d i c a t e d by a h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between s e l f - r a t i n g o f g e n e r a l problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t y (OSR) and s e l f -r a t i n g o f s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t y (SRS). However, the l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n p a t t e r n s between p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge s c o r e s (PRK), o v e r a l l s e l f - r a t i n g s c o r e s (ORS), s e l f - r a t i n g on s o l v i n g s p e c i f i c t a s k s (SRS), and performance on s o l v i n g s p e c i f i c t a s k s (STS) made i t i m p o s s i b l e t o draw any v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the p r i o r l e a r n i n g v a r i a b l e s . A n a l y s e s o f p r i o r l e a r n i n g t e s t s r e s u l t s a l s o r e v e a l e d t h a t s u b j e c t s between the two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l groups d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r p r e -r e q u i s i t e c h e m i s t r y knowledge, or i n t h e i r problem-s o l v i n g a b i l i t y . S i n c e none o f the s u b j e c t s s c o r e d any p o i n t s i n the p r e - t e s t , we can a t t r i b u t e any l a t e r g a i n s i n the a b i l i t y t o s o l v e s t o i c h i o m e t r y problem t o the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the l e a r n i n g programs, and f u r t h e r any d i f f e r e n c e i n g a i n s between the s u b j e c t s i n the two l o c u s o f c o n t r o l groups t o the d i f f e r e n t treatment e f f e c t s . E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the Chemistry CAI Program C a r e f u l a n a l y s e s o f the r e s u l t s p r o v i d e c l e a r e vidence f o r the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d l e a r n i n g program employed i n t h i s study. The o v e r a l l g a i n s i n d i c a t e d by the immediate p o s t - t e s t s and d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t f o r a l l s u b j e c t s are 68% and 63%, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t should be noted t h a t the average net l e a r n i n g time t o achieve these g a i n s was approximately 50 minutes which i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s than the seven hours n o r m a l l y spent by classroom t e a c h e r s t o cover the same t o p i c s (see A l b e r t a E d u c a t i o n Chemistry C u r r i c u l u m Guide, 1983). These f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h those of p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h (e.g. K u l i k , Bangert, & W i l l i a m s , 1983) t h a t c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n i s g e n e r a l l y e f f e c t i v e i n i n c r e a s i n g performance and r e d u c i n g i n s t r u c t i o n time. However, i t must be p o i n t out t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study were l i k e l y t o be above average a c h i e v e r s i n c h e m i s t r y as mentioned e a r l i e r , the average l e a r n i n g time c o u l d be somewhat l o n g e r f o r a "normal" ch e m i s t r y 11 c l a s s when a l l students are i n v o l v e d . The e f f i c i e n c y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r CAI program f o r t e a c h i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y i n terms o f achievement and i n s t r u c t i o n a l time deserves f u r t h e r study. E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f Locus of C o n t r o l S t r a t e g i e s . ALC and  APC Although the t o t a l number o f p r a c t i c e examples suggested t o the l e a r n e r c o n t r o l (ALC) group (9.85) was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than t h a t p r e s c r i b e d f o r the program c o n t r o l (APC) group (8.00), s u b j e c t s i n ALC d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more (14.15) examples than t h e i r APC c o u n t e r p a r t s (8.00). Consequently, the t o t a l l e a r n i n g time was s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o n g e r f o r the ALC group. These f i n d i n g s agree w i t h F i s h e r , B l a c k w e l l , G a r c i a & Greene's study (1975) which i n d i c a t e d t h a t when s t u d e n t s were g i v e n a c h o i c e on engagement i n a CAI a r i t h m e t i c t a s k , they maintained h i g h e r l e v e l s o f engagement over l o n g p e r i o d s of time than d i d s u b j e c t s who were not g i v e n a c h o i c e . On the o t h e r hand, the s e r e s u l t s are i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e a r l i e r p r e d i c t i o n and w i t h o t h e r r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s (e. g. C a r r i e r , 1984; Tennyson, 1980; Ross & Rakow, 1981). Both C a r r i e r and Tennyson argued t h a t when students c o n t r o l the amount o f i n s t r u c t i o n they r e c e i v e , they o f t e n t e r m i n a t e t o o e a r l y and f a i l t o l e a r n what they should. The o r i g i n a l p r e d i c t i o n a l s o was t h a t s u b j e c t s i n ALC would t e r m i n a t e e a r l y e s p e c i a l l y when they encountered new and u n f a m i l i a r l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s . In the p r e s e n t study, t h e l o n g e r l e a r n i n g time engaged by t h e ALC s u b j e c t s c o u l d be o f two reasons: (1) P a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study were s t u d e n t - v o l u n t e e r s . They were asked t o take p a r t i n t h i s l e a r n i n g t a s k o u t s i d e t h e i r normal c l a s s time, i . e . b e f o r e s c h o o l , l u n c h time, a f t e r s c h o o l , o r when they have a " f r e e " p e r i o d . Thus, i n d i v i d u a l s who were w i l l i n g t o be i n v o l v e d were more l i k e l y t o be those who had a keen i n t e r e s t i n l e a r n i n g c h e m i s t r y i n g e n e r a l , and l e a r n i n g through a computer i n p a r t i c u l a r . As a r e s u l t , these s t u d e n t s tended t o be more s e r i o u s and w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t more time; and (2) None of these p a r t i c i p a n t had p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e w i t h c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e they found such an ex p e r i e n c e q u i t e i n t e r e s t i n g and were more motiva t e d t o spend more time when g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o do so. I t i s r a t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t a l t h o u g h s u b j e c t s i n ALC spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n l e a r n i n g , they d i d not ac h i e v e as much as t h e i r APC c o u n t e r p a r t s . S u b j e c t s i n APC d i d s l i g h t l y b e t t e r than t h e ALC l e a r n e r s i n a l l the immediate p o s t - t e s t s , and the APC's s u p e r i o r i t y s u r f a c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the de l a y e d o v e r a l l p o s t - t e s t . The study by B l a c k w e l l , G a r c i a & Greene (1975) r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . They found t h a t l o n g e r engagement on a CAI t a s k d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t i n b e t t e r performance. The r e s u l t s i n t h e p r e s e n t study suggest t h a t APC i s a c o n s i d e r a b l y more e f f i c i e n t s t r a t e g y i n the co m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d l e a r n i n g o f g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y than ALC s i n c e s u b j e c t s i n APC ac h i e v e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n a much s h o r t e r p e r i o d o f time. The s u p e r i o r i t y o f a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y demonstrated i n t h i s study i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h our p r e d i c t i o n and agrees w i t h p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s (e.g. F i s h e r , B l a c k w e l l , G a r c i a & Greene, 1975; Tennyson & B u t t r e y , 1980; Ross & Rakow, 1981). However, e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the s u p e r i o r i t y o f program c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y demonstrated i n t h i s study are not q u i t e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . In Ross & Rakow's study, program c o n t r o l produced b e t t e r performance because LC s u b j e c t s s e l e c t e d much fewer examples than were p r e s c r i b e d and t h e i r average study time per r u l e d i d not d i f f e r from s u b j e c t s i n o t h e r groups. In the p r e s e n t study, the reason seems t o be the o p p o s i t e . C a r e f u l a n a l y s e s of the r e s u l t s show t h a t l o n g e r l e a r n i n g time was not conducive t o the a c q u i s i t i o n o f r u l e s f o r s o l v i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems. In f a c t , when s u b j e c t s were not g i v e n a s e t number of p r a c t i c e examples t o do, they tended t o r e l y on having more and more l e a r n i n g r e s o u r c e s and not t o c o n c e n t r a t e on what they were a t t e n d i n g t o . Although they d i d more examples and spent approximately the same amount o f time per example as t h e i r APC c o u n t e r p a r t s , they p r o b a b l y l e t t h e i r mind wander w i t h the hope t h a t they c o u l d always l e a r n from another example i f d e s i r e d . As a r e s u l t , s u b j e c t s i n ALC and APC d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n immediate p o s t t e s t performance but s u b j e c t s i n APC were a b l e t o r e t a i n the l e a r n e d m a t e r i a l s f o r a l o n g e r p e r i o d o f time as r e f l e c t e d by t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r d e l a y e d p o s t t e s t s c o r e . I t can t h e r e f o r e be concluded t h a t ALC s u b j e c t s ' poor performance was more o f f a i l i n g t o use r e s o u r c e s w i s e l y than t r y i n g t o t e r m i n a t e the t a s k e a r l y . C o n t r a r y t o o r i g i n a l p r e d i c t i o n s and T o b i a s ' achievement-treatment i n t e r a c t i o n t h e o r y (Tobia, 1976), n e i t h e r the s t u d e n t s ' p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge nor t h e i r m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y had any e f f e c t on l e a r n i n g outcomes. P r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y were not s i g n i f i c a n t c o v a r i a t e s f o r a l l l e a r n i n g outcome v a r i a b l e s . In o t h e r words, the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge, m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y and l o c u s of c o n t r o l were not s i g n i f i c a n t . The absence of i n t e r a c t i o n s may be e x p l a i n e d by the f a c t t h a t the s u b j e c t s i n v o l v e d i n the study were a s e l e c t i v e group o f students whose p r i o r c h e m i s t r y knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y d i d not v a r y much and thus no c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n c o u l d be drawn between i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h i g h and low a b i l i t y . Another p o s s i b l e reason f o r the absence of i n t e r a c t i o n between m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y and l o c u s of c o n t r o l c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o the i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of t h e instruments employed i n measuring m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group. Although Quinto & Weener (1983) had claime d a h i g h t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y and a h i g h i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y on the instruments used, the e m p i r i c a l evidence may have o n l y p r o v i d e d the f a c e o r content v a l i d i t y o f the instruments and not i t s c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y . Thus the a p t i t u d e - t r e a t m e n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s h y p o t h e s i z e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h deserve f u r t h e r study u s i n g more s o p h i s t i c a t e d and r e l i a b l e instruments. The reasons f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t gender by l o c u s o f c o n t r o l i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t observed i n d e l a y e d p o s t -t e s t s c o r e s are not easy t o e s t a b l i s h . Although t h e r e has been no c o n c l u s i v e evidence i n r e c e n t r e s e a r c h e s t o show t h a t boys are b e t t e r independent workers than g i r l s i n p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g , a w i d e l y h e l d b e l i e v e i s t h a t g i r l s g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e more guidance and d i r e c t i o n s than boys i n s c i e n t i f i c l e a r n i n g t a s k s and thus they r e q u i r e a more s t r u c t u r e d approach. I t i s obvious t h a t f u r t h e r s t u d i e s on i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between l o c u s of c o n t r o l and gender need t o be conducted b e f o r e any e x p l a n a t i o n s and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n can be made. Such s t u d i e s s h o u l d i n v o l v e a more g e n e r a l i z a b l e sample which i n c l u d e s s u b j e c t s w i t h a wider range o f p r i o r l e a r n i n g and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s so t h a t the p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s f o r l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , gender, and o t h e r a p t i t u d e measures can be s t u d i e d i n depth. I t i s q u i t e c l e a r t h a t t h i s study p r o v i d e s evidence f o r the s u p e r i o r i t y o f a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y over a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y i n t h e c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d l e a r n i n g of g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y as was p r e d i c t e d . When e n c o u n t e r i n g new and u n f a m i l i a r task, as i n t h i s l e a r n i n g program, s t u d e n t s r e q u i r e more s t r u c t u r e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l support. More p r a c t i c e and more l e a r n i n g time do not n e c e s s a r i l y f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g , e s p e c i a l l y when s u b j e c t s have the tendency t o r e l y on more l e a r n i n g r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s and do not c o n c e n t r a t e on what they are a t t e n d i n g t o . However, b e f o r e any v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n s can be made from t h i s study, a few p o i n t s must be kept i n mind. F i r s t , because of the l a c k of computer f a c i l i t i e s , i t was not p o s s i b l e t o conduct a l a r g e s c a l e r e s e a r c h t h a t i n v o l v e d every student i n a l l Chemistry 11 c l a s s e s d u r i n g r e g u l a r c l a s s time. As a r e s u l t , v o l u n t e e r s had t o be d r a f t e d and p a i d f o r t o a t t e n d study s e s s i o n s o u t s i d e r e g u l a r c l a s s hours. S i n c e v o l u n t e e r s were s o l i c i t e d f o r the study, they tended t o be o f a s e l e c t e d group of students w i t h a s m a l l range o f a b i l i t y and t h i s makes g e n e r a l i z a t i o n somewhat d i f f i c u l t . Second, because the study had t o be conducted o u t s i d e r e g u l a r c l a s s hours, i t was d i f f i c u l t t o c o n t r o l the amount o f time e l a p s e d i n between s e s s i o n s and the p o s s i b l e e r r o r s caused by d i f f e r e n t time of the day. For example, i t was n o t i c e d t h a t s t u d e n t s who came i n d u r i n g l u n c h hours appeared t o be under g r e a t e r time p r e s s u r e than those who attended s e s s i o n s e a r l y morning and a f t e r s c h o o l and t h e i r performance would l i k e l y t o be d i f f e r e n t . Another p o s s i b l e e r r o r came from the i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n the l e n g t h o f s e s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g from an attempt t o accommodate every v o l u n t e e r i n the study. Due t o s c h e d u l i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s , the l e n g t h per s e s s i o n v a r i e d from 60 minute t o 120 minutes. Although r e s u l t s of t h i s study p r o v i d e p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the d e s i g n of c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s , r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s recommended w i t h t i g h t e r c o n t r o l over the p o s s i b l e sources of e r r o r s d e s c r i b e d above b e f o r e these r e s u l t s c o u l d be g e n e r a l i z e d i n i n s t r u c t i o n . I t would a l s o be i n t e r e s t i n g t o conduct s i m i l a r s t u d i e s u s i n g d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t domains t o see i f s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s would be r e p l i c a t e d . REFERENCES Brown, A.L. & DeLoache, J.S. (1978). S k i l l s , p l a n s , and s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n . In S i e g l e r , R.S. (ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s T h i n k i n g : What Develops? H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . C a r r i e r , C. (1984). Do l e a r n e r s make good c h o i c e s ? I n s t r u c t i o n a l Innovator, 29, 15-17 & 48. F i s h e r , M.D., B l a c k w e l l , L.R., G a r c i a , A.B. & Greene, J.C. (1975). E f f e c t s of student c o n t r o l and c h o i c e on engagement i n a CAI a r i t h m e t i c t a s k i n a low-income s c h o o l . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 67. 776-783. F l a v e l l , J.H. (1979). M e t a c o g n i t i o n and c o g n i t i v e m o n i t o r i n g . A new area of c o g n i t i v e developmental i n q u i r y . American P s y c h o l o g i s t . 34., 906-911. F l a v e l l , J.H. & Wellman, H.M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. K a i l & J.H. Hagen (Eds.) P e r s p e c t i v e s on the  Development of Memory and C o g n i t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. 58 F r y , J.P. (1972) . I n t e r a c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n q u i s i t i v e n e s s and student c o n t r o l of i n s t r u c t i o n . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 63, 459-465. Gagne, R.M. (1982). Developments i n l e a r n i n g psychology. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e s i g n ; and e f f e c t s o f computer technology on i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e s i g n and development. An i n t e r v i e w w i t h Robert M. Gagne. E d u c a t i o n a l Technology. I l -l s . Gagne, R.M. & B r i g g s , L . J . (1979). P r i n c i p l e s of I n s t r u c t i o n a l Design. Tornoto: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston. G o e t z f r i e d , L. & Hannafin, M.J. (1985). The e f f e c t o f the l o c u s of CAI c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s on the l e a r n i n g o f mathematical r u l e s . American  E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 22., 273-278. Jay, T.B. (1983). The c o g n i t i v e approach t o computer courseware d e s i g n and e v a l u a t i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l  Technology, 23., 22-26. J e l d e n , d.L. & Brown, B.R. (1982). A g e n e r a l i z e d l e a r n e r - c o n t r o l l e d e d u c a t i o n system. J o u r n a l o f  E d u c a t i o n a l Technology Systems. 11, 3-21. 59 Jonassen, D.H. (1985). I n t e r a c t i v e l e s s o n d e s i g n s : a taxonomy. E d u c a t i o n a l Technology. 25, 7-16. Judd, W.A., Bunderson, C.V., & Bessent, E.W. (1970). An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t s o f l e a r n e r c o n t r o l i n c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n p r e r e q u i s i t e mathematics. (MATHS Tech. Rep. 5 ) . A u s t i n , Texas: U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 053 532) K i r k , R.E. (1982) . Experimental Design: Procedures f o r  the B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s . C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole. K u l i k , J.A., Bangert, R.L., & W i l l i a m s , G.W. (1983). E f f e c t s of computer-based t e a c h i n g on secondary s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Psychology, 75, 19-26. Lee, S.S. (1983). A l e a r n e r - b a s e d computer i n s t r u c t i o n system: an experiment. Presented a t the 21st Annual Convention o f A s s o c i a t i o n f o r E d u c a t i o n a l  Data System. P o r t l a n d , Oregon, May 9-13, 1983. Markman, E.M. (1979). R e a l i z i n g t h a t you don't understand: elementary s c h o o l c h i l d r e n ' s awareness of i n c o n s i s t e n c e . C h i l d Development. 50, 643-655. M e r r i l l , M.D. (1980). Learner c o n t r o l i n computer based l e a r n i n g . Computer & E d u c a t i o n . 4, 77-95. 60 P a r k , O . C . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A r e s p o n s e - s e n s i t i v e s t r a t e g y i n c o m p u t e r - b a s e d i n s t r u c t i o n : a s t r a t e g y f o r c o n c e p t t e a c h i n g . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y  S y s t e m s . 1 0 , 1 8 7 - 1 9 7 . P a r k , O . C . SE T e n n y s o n , R . D . (1980) . A d a p t i v e d e s i g n s t r a t e g i e s f o r s e l e c t i n g number a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r o f e x a m p l e s i n c o o r d i n a t e c o n c e p t a c q u i s i t i o n . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 7 2 , 3 6 2 - 3 7 0 . Q u i n t o , A . L . & W e e n e r , P . D . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . A s s e s s i n g m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s i n p r o b l e m s o l v i n g . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n ( 6 7 t h , M o n t r e a l , Q u e b e c , A p r i l 1 1 - 1 5 ) . R o b e r t s , F . C . & P a r k , O . C . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . I n t e l l i g e n t c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n : a n e x p l a n a t i o n a n d o v e r v i e w . E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y . 23., 7 - 1 2 . R o s s , S . M . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . M a t c h i n g t h e l e s s o n t o t h e s t u d e n t : a l t e r n a t i v e a d a p t i v e d e s i g n s f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d l e a r n i n g s y s t e m s . J o u r n a l o f C o m p u t e r - B a s e d  I n s t r u c t i o n . 1 1 , 4 2 - 4 8 . 61 Ross, S.M. & Rakow, E.A. (1981). Learner c o n t r o l v e r s u s program c o n t r o l as a d a p t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r s e l e c t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l support on math r u l e s . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 73., 745-753. Ross, S.M. & Rakow, E.A. (1982). A d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s f o r t e a c h i n g r u l e s i n mathematics. E d u c a t i o n a l Communication & Technology J o u r n a l . 30. 67-74. Ross, S.M., Rakow, E.A. & Bush, A . J . (1980). I n s t r u c t i o n a l a d a p t a t i o n f o r self-managed l e a r n i n g systems. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 72., 312-320. Snow, R.E. (1980). A p t i t u d e , l e a r n e r c o n t r o l , and ad a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g i s t . 15. 151-158. S t e i n b e r g , E.R. (1977). Review o f student c o n t r o l i n computer a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n . J o u r n a l o f  Computer-Based I n s t r u c t i o n . 3., 84-90. Tennyson, R.D. (1980). A d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l models f o r concept a c q u i s i t i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l Technology. 20. 7-15. 62 Tennyson, R.D. (1981). Use of adaptive information f o r advisement i n learning concepts and rules using computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n . American  Educational Research Journal. 18, 425-438. Tennyson, R.D. & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design variables i n computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n . Educational  Communication & Technology Journal. 28, 169-176. Tennyson, R.D., Christensen, D.L. & Park, S.I. (1984). The Minnesota adaptive i n s t r u c t i o n a l system: an i n t e l l i g e n t CBI system. Journal of Computer-Based  Instruction. 11. 2-13. Tennyson, R.D. & Rothen, W. (1977). Pretask and on-task adaptive design strategies f o r s e l e c t i n g number of instances i n concept a c q u i s i t i o n . Journal of  Educational psychology, 69, 586-592. Tennyson, R.D. & Rothen, W. (1979). Management of computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n : design of an adaptive control strategy. Journal of Computer-Based  Instruction. 5, 63-71. Tobias, S. (1976). Achievement treatment in t e r a c t i o n s . Review of Educational Research. 46, 61-74. T o b i a s , S. (1981). Adapting i n s t r u c t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e among stu d e n t s . E d u c a t i o n a l  P s y c h o l o g i s t , 16, 111-120. 64 Table 1 Four Types of Stoichiometry Problems required substance in mole in mass in mole mole to mole to given mole mass substance in mass mass to mass to mole mass T a b l e 2 I n s t r u c t i o n a l Design f o r Teaching G r a v i m e t r i c S t o i c h i o m e t r y C a l c u l a t i o n s Sequence Intended F u n c t i o n s Component 1. P r e - t e s t (12 items w i t h 3 r e p l i c a t i o n s o f 4 s t o i c h i o m e t r y types) 2. D i a g n o s t i c t e s t (12 items w i t h 3 r e p l i c a t i o n s o f 4 p r e -r e q u i s i t e areas) To assess the l e a r n e r ' s p r e -l e a r n i n g l e v e l o f knowledge i n s t o i c h i o m e t r y c a l c u l a t i o n s : (a) mole-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y (b) mole-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y (c) mass-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y (d) mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y (a) To assess the l e a r n e r s ' p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge: i ) molar mass (M) E v a l u a t o r D i a g n o s t i -c i a n c a l c u l a t i o n s i i ) mole (n) t o mass (m) c a l c u l a t i o n s i i i ) mass (m) t o mole (n) c a l c u l a t i o n s i v ) r a t i o c a l c u l a t i o n s ( t a b l e continues) Sequence Intended F u n c t i o n s Component (b) To d e r i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s 3. CAI Modules To p r o v i d e i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r T u t o r s o l v i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems. (a) i d e n t i f y the g i v e n and r e q u i r e d substances (b) express the amount o f g i v e n substance i n moles (c) i d e n t i f y the c o e f f i c i e n t s of the g i v e n and r e q u i r e d substances from the balanced e q u a t i o n (d) f i n d the amount o f the r e q u i r e d substance i n moles (e) express the amount of the r e q u i r e d i n grams i f d e s i r e d 4. P o s t - t e s t s To assess the e f f e c t i v e n e s s E v a l u a t o r o f CAI program T a b l e 3 P r e - r e q u i s i t e Knowledge Required f o r S o l v i n g  the Four Types of S t o i c h i o m e t r y Problems S t o i c h i o m e t r y type P r e - r e - Mole Mole Mass Mass q u i s i t e t o t o t o t o knowledge mole mass mole mass R a t i o c a l c u l a t - yes yes yes yes i o n s Molar mass c a l c u l a t - yes yes yes i o n s Mole t o mass c a l c u l a t - yes yes i o n s Mass t o mole c a l c u l a t -i o n s yes yes T a b l e 4 Mean Scores o f P r i o r L e a r n i n g Subtests ALC APC Male Female Male Female (n=4) (n=9) (n=7) (n=6) PRK (Max. 12) 9.50 7.89 9.00 7.83 (Min. 0) OSR (Max. 207) 144.00 137.78 142.86 147.17 (Min. 39) SRS (Max. 96) 67.25 62.56 67.86 67.83 (Min. 18) .STS (Max. 8) 4.50 3.67 3.86 3.67 (Min. 0) Note. ALC = a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l ; APC = a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l ; PRK = p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t s c o r e ; OSR = o v e r a l l s e l f - r a t i n g s c o r e i n m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b t e s t ; SRS = s e l f - r a t i n g on s p e c i f i c t a s k s i n m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b t e s t ; STS = performance on s p e c i f i c t a s k s i n m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b t e s t . T a b l e 5 C o r r e l a t i o n s Between P r e - R e q u i s i t e Knowledge T e s t and Metacocrnitive A b i l i t y S u b t e s t s Scores OSR SRS STS PRK -0.0023 OSR SRS -0.1003 0.1081 0.8633 0.1794 0.2867 Note. PRK = P r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t ; OSR = O v e r a l l s e l f - r a t i n g s c o r e ; SRS = s e l f - r a t i n g on s o l v i n g s p e c i f i c t a s k s ; STS = performance on s o l v i n g s p e c i f i c t a s k s . T a b l e 6 Means o f L e a r n i n g Process V a r i a b l e s f o r the Four Types o f S t o i c h i o m e t r y Problems ALC APC M F M F (n=4) (n=9) (n=7) (n=6) Type A: AEP 2.50 3.78 3.00 3.50 AED 3.75 4.22 3.00 3.50 ACR 0.81 0.73 0.83 0.83 ALT (min) 9.93 12.04 5.63 8.25 AET(min) 2.64 2.60 2.09 2.08 ?ype B: BEP 2.00 1.67 1.43 1.17 BED 4.00 3.79 1.43 1.17 BCR 0.15 0.40 0.56 0.54 BLT(min) 26.17 19.08 6.23 4.85 BET(min) 6.96 5.03 4.21 4.43 ( t a b l e continues) ALC APC M F M F (n=4) (n=9) (n=7) (n=6) Type C: CEP 2. 25 2. .78 2. .57 1. 33 CED 3. 25 3. .67 2. .57 1. 33 CCR 0. 83 0. .61 0. .60 0. 50 CLT(min) 13. 71 19. .72 11. .15 5. 99 CET(min) 3. 77 5, .32 4. .29 5. 20 ?ype D: DEP 1. 75 2. .22 1. .43 1. 50 DED 2. 00 3. .00 1. .43 1. 50 DCR 0. 88 0. .39 0. .40 0. 53 DLT(min) 5. 47 22. .04 10. .94 9. 41 DET(min) 2. 79 7. .32 7. .62 5. 89 ( t a b l e continues) ALC APC M F M F (n=4) (n=9) (n=7) (n=6) T o t a l : TEP 8.50 10.44 8.43 7.50 TED 13.00 14.67 8.43 7.50 TCR 0.63 0.56 0.65 0.70 TLT(ltlin) 55.28 72.88 33.95 28.49 TET(min) 4.15 4.87 3.99 3.71 Note. ALC = a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l ; APC = a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l ; M = male; F = female; Type A = mole-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; Type B = mole-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; Type C = mass-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; Type D - mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; EP = number of p r a c t i c e examples s u g g e s t e d / p r e s c r i b e d ; ED = number of p r a c t i c e examples done; CR = r a t i o o f examples c o r r e c t ; LT = l e a r n i n g time; ET = time spent p e r p r a c t i c e example. T a b l e 7 Means o f Learning; Outcome V a r i a b l e s f o r the Four Types o f S t o i c h i o m e t r y Problems ALC APC M (n=4) F (n=9) M (n=7) F (n=6) Immediate P o s t - t e s t : Type A: AIP AIT(min) Type B: BIP BIT (min) Type C: CIP CIT (min) Type D: DIP DIT(min) 3.50 4.83 3.00 8.09 3.25 7.00 2.75 7.94 3.67 6.17 2.67 8.66 2.89 8.15 2.89 12.53 3.71 5.79 2.57 11.31 3.57 8.55 3.71 10.70 4.33 6.57 4.33 9.03 4. 00 10.79 4.17 11.83 ( t a b l e continues) ALC APC M F M F (n=4) (n=9) (n=7) (n=6) Immediate P o s t - t e s t T o t a l : TIP 12.50 12.11 13.57 16.83 TIT (min) 27.85 35.51 36.35 38.49 Delayed P o s t - t e s t : Type A: ADP 2.75 2.33 2.29 2.83 Type B: BDP 1.75 0. 67 1.43 2.33 Type C: CDP 2.00 1.22 1.86 2.33 Type D: DDP 2.00 1.22 2.00 2.83 ( t a b l e continues) ALC APC M F M F (n=4) (n=9) (n=7) (n=6) Delayed P o s t - t e s t T o t a l : TDP 8.50 5.44 7.57 10.33 ART (min) 1.92 1.97 2.04 2.32 TDT (min) 23.83 26.77 26.01 28.15 Note. ALC = a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l ; APC = a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l ; M = male; F = female; Type A = mole-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; Type B = mole-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; Type C = mass-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; Type D = mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; IP = immediate p o s t - t e s t s c o r e ; IT = immediate p o s t - t e s t time; DP = dela y e d p o s t - t e s t s c o r e ; ART = average c o r r e c t response time; TDT = t o t a l d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t time. T a b l e 8 S t a n d a r d i z e d R e g r e s s i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the R e g r e s s i o n  of L e a r n i n g Process and L e a r n i n g Outcome V a r i a b l e s On  P r i o r L e a r n i n g S u b t e s t s Scores In Locus o f C o n t r o l  Groups. ALC and APC PRK OSR SRS STS L e a r n i n g Process V a r i a b l e s : TED -0.4981 -0.1264 -0.1173 -0.3606 TCR 0.2984 0.1192 0.0269 0.3111 TLT -0.4574 -0.1203 -0.0233 -0.2783 L e a r n i n g Outcome V a r i a b l e s : Immediate Post T e s t : TIP 0.0805 0.2506 0.2417 0.5160 TIT -0.1621 -0.0016 -0.1095 0.1010 ( t a b l e continues) PRK OSR SRS STS L e a r n i n g Outcome V a r i a b l e s Delayed Post T e s t : 0.2157 0.0968 0.2770 TDP 0.0116 ART -0.1212 TDT -0.0280 0.2149 0.0852 0.2151 0.1488 0.0719 0.1536 Note. ALC = a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l ; APC = a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l ; M = male; F = female; PRK = p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t s c o r e ; OSR = o v e r a l l s e l f r a t i n g s c o r e i n m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b t e s t ; SRS = s e l f - r a t i n g on s p e c i f i c t a s k s i n m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b t e s t ; STS = performance on s p e c i f i c t a s k s i n m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s u b t e s t ; TED = t o t a l p r a c t i c e examples done; TCR = t o t a l examples c o r r e c t r a t i o ; TLT = t o t a l l e a r n i n g time; TIP = t o t a l immediate p o s t - t e s t s c o r e ; TIT = t o t a l immediate p o s t - t e s t time; TDP = t o t a l delayed p o s t - t e s t s c o r e ; ART = average c o r r e c t response time; TDT = t o t a l d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t time. I d e n t i f y t h e g i v e n s u b s t a n c e (G) I d e n t i f y t h e r e q u i r e d s u b s t a n c e (R)  I s (G) e x p r e s s e d i n moles ( n r ) 7 no ye s r i I d e n t i f y t h e c o e f f i c i e n t f o r (G) from t h e b a l a n c e d e q u a t i o n ( C G ) 1 I I C a l c u l a t e ( n G ) from t h e f o r m u l a n = m/M I d e n t i f y t h e c o e f f i c i e n t f o r (R) from t h e b a l a n c e d e q u a t i o n ( C R ) I Use r a t i o t o f i n d t h e number o f moles o f t h e r e q u i r e d s u b s t a n c e ( n R ) : n R 'R n G I I s t h e mass o f t h e r e q u i r e d s u b s t a n c e (m R) d e s i r e d ? y e s T no E n d U -C a l c u l a t e m R by u s i n g t h e f o r m u l a m = n.M F i g u r e 1. Task components and p r o c e s s e s f o r s o l v i n g g r a v i m e t r i c s t o i c h i o m e t r y p r oblems 79 MARKER MANAGER c STOP PRE-TEST /• DIAGNOSTIC \ -TESTS ? MOLE-TO-MOLE STOICHIOMETRY IMMEDIATE POSTTEST MOLE-TO-MASS STOICHIOMETRY IMMEDIATE POSTTEST s • ~r— ? MASS-TO-MOLE STOICHIOMETRY IMMEDIATE POSTTEST \ r 7-MASS-TO-MASS . s, IMMEDIATE —^~ STOICHIOMETRY POSTTEST / DELAYED POSTTEST Figure 2 . I n s t r u c t i o n a l f lowchart for Learning Gravimetr ic Stoichiometry . \2 F i g u r e 3. I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n g e n d e r o f s t u d e n t s a n d l o c u s o f c o n t r o l APPENDIX A P r e - t e s t and P o s t - t e s t Sample Questions How many moles of oxygen would be r e q u i r e d t o produce 43.5 moi of carbon d i o x i d e ? c 2 5 H 5 2 ( s ) + 3 8 °2(g) > 2 5 c o 2 ( g ) + 2 6 H 2 ° ( g ) 568.2 g o f i r o n would produce how many moles o f i r o n [ I I I ] oxide? 4 F e ( s ) + 3 0 2 ( g ) What mass o f s i l v e r would produce 26.84 moi o f s i l v e r s u l f i d e ? 16 A g ( s ) + S 8 ( s ) > 8 A g 2 S ( s ) F i n d the mass o f sodium hydrogen carbonate r e q u i r e d t o produce 89.62 g of carbon d i o x i d e . 2 N a H C 0 3 ( s ) > N a 2 C 0 3 ( s ) + C 0 2 ( g ) + H 2 0 ( g ) APPENDIX B P r e - r e q u i s i t e Knowledge Sample Questions F i n d the molar mass of (NH 4) 2SO Determine the number of moles i n 745.3 g o f CC1 4 C a l c u l a t e the mass i n 5.92 moles of C 0 H c O H . S o l v e f o r x: x 84 APPENDIX C M e t a c o g n i t i v e A b i l i t y T e s t Sample Questions General I n s t r u c t i o n : The statements i n t h i s i n v e n t o r y are used t o f i n d out how people p e r c e i v e t h e i r own a b i l i t i e s and performance on problem s o l v i n g t a s k s and the nature o f the problem s o l v i n g t a s k s . Answer Them according; t o what you a c t u a l l y t h i n k and  do and do not answer them a c c o r d i n g t o what you t h i n k vou  sho u l d do. Respond as a c c u r a t e l y as you can. SUBTEST 1. S e l f - R e p o r t Inventory of General M e t a c o g n i t i v e S k i l l s . A. On a s c a l e of 1-7 (from poor t o e x c e l l e n t ) r a t e y o u r s e l f i n s o l v i n g t h r e e d i f f e r e n t t y pes o f problem s o l v i n g t a s k s . Type the number you choose t o r a t e y o u s e l f . Time l i m i t : 60 seconds p e r response. 1. Mathematical Problems - These may i n v o l v e problems such as adding, s u b t r a c t i n g , m u l t i p l y i n g , and d i v i d i n g numbers. C o n v e r t i n g meters t o k i l o m e t e r s , f i n d i n g the r i g h t number i n a s e r i e s (3, 6, 12, 24 ....) o r c l a s s i f y i n g d a ta. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Very Poor Poor F a i r Good Good S u p e r i o r E x c e l l e n t 85 B. Rate y o u s e l f on the f o l l o w i n g items by t y p i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e number. Time l i m i t : 60 seconds per response. 1. I f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o grasp v i s u a l / s p a t i a l problems l i k e u s i n g a v i s u a l diagram t o put t o g e t h e r a home a p p l i a n c e or v i s u a l i z i n g how a room w i l l l o o k a f t e r the f u r n i s h i n g s have been changed. 1 2 3 4 5 Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never 2. I can estimate q u i t e a c c u r a t e l y how I do on exam. 1 2 3 4 5 Always O f t e n Sometimes Seldom Never 3. When t a k i n g exam, I u s u a l l y work on easy items f i r s t and then go on t o the more d i f f i c u l t ones r a t h e r than j u s t t a k i n g them i n the o r d e r they are p r e s e n t e d . 1 2 3 4 5 Always O f t e n Sometimes Seldom Never SUBTEST 2. A q u e s t i o n n a i r e on S p e c i f i c Problem S o l v i n g Tasks. D i r e c t i o n : Type the number you choose t o r a t e y o u r s e l f . Give your b e s t guess i f you are u n c e r t a i n about how t o respond. Time l i m i t : 60 seconds per response. 1. Three f a t h e r s — Pete, John, and N i c k — have between them a t o t a l o f 15 c h i l d r e n o f which 9 are boys. Pete has 3 g i r l s and John has the same number o f boys. John has 1 more c h i l d than Pete, who has 4 c h i l d r e n . N ick has 4 more boys than g i r l s and the same number of g i r l s as Pete has boys. How many boys each do N i c k and Pete have. 86 a. How w e l l can you s o l v e t h i s problem? 1 2 3 4 Very Well Good F a i r Poor b. How c o n f i d e n t are you i n your e s t i m a t e o f your performance. 1 2 3 4 Very W e l l Good F a i r Poor c. In a s c a l e o f 1 t o 4 (4 as v e r y d i f f i c u l t ) how d i f f i c u l t i s t h i s problem f o r you? ,1 2 3 4 Very W e l l Good F a i r Poor 2. On a c e r t a i n day I a t e l u n c h a t Tommy's, took out two books from the l i b r a r y , v i s i t e d t he museum, and had a c a v i t y f i l l e d . Tommy's i s c l o s e d on Wednesday, the l i b r a r y i s c l o s e d on Staurday and Sunday, the museum i s o n l y open Wednesday, Monday, and F r i d a y , and my d e n t i s t has o f f i c e hours Tuesday, F r i d a y , and Saturday. On which day of the week d i d I do a l l these t h i n g ? a. How w e l l can you s o l v e t h i s problem? 1 2 3 4 Very W e l l Good F a i r Poor b. How c o n f i d e n t are you i n your e s t i m a t e o f your performance. 1 2 3 4 Very W e l l Good F a i r Poor c. In a s c a l e o f 1 t o 4 (4 as v e r y d i f f i c u l t ) how d i f f i c u l t i s t h i s problem f o r you? 1 2 3 4 Very W e l l Good F a i r Poor B e l o w i s a d i a g r a m s h o w i n g t h e a r r a n g e m e n t o f c e l l s i n a s t a t e p r i s o n . One d a y t h e p r i s o n e r i n t h e c e l l m a r k e d w i t h a n "X" w e n t b e r s e r k a n d was o v e r c o m e w i t h t h e u r g e t o k i l l . So he b r o k e t h r o u g h t h e w a l l w h i c h s e p a r a t e d h i s c e l l f r o m t h e o n e n e x t t o i t , a n d m u r d e r e d t h e i n m a t e t h e r e . T h i s j u s t i n t e n s i f i e d h i s m a d n e s s , s o he p r o c e e d e d t o b r e a k i n t o e a c h c e l l a n d k i l l t h e p r i s o n e r t h e r e . A f t e r e a c h was d e a d , he d r o p p e d t h e b o d y a n d w e n t on t o t h e n e x t . He w o u l d n e v e r go b a c k i n t o a c e l l c o n t a i n i n g a d e a d b o d y . E v e r y c e l l c o n t a i n e d a p r i s o n e r ; he n e v e r w e n t t h r o u g h a c e l l w i t h o u t m u r d e r i n g a n y o n e he f o u n d t h e r e ; a n d he n e v e r b r o k e t h r o u g h an o u t s i d e w a l l o r a c o r n e r . When t h e a u t h o r i t i e s f i n a l l y a r r i v e d , h e was j u s t k i l l i n g t h e l a s t i n m a t e i n t h e c e l l m a r k e d w i t h a n " 0 " . Show t h e d i a g r a m b e l o w w i t h a p a t h he m i g h t h a v e t a k e n t o a r r i v e a t t h a t c e l l l a s t . X 0 a. How w e l l c a n y o u s o l v e t h i s p r o b l e m ? 1 2 3 4 V e r y W e l l Good F a i r P o o r b. How c o n f i d e n t a r e y o u i n y o u r e s t i m a t e o f y o u r p e r f o r m a n c e . 1 2 3 4 V e r y W e l l Good F a i r P o o r c . I n a s c a l e o f 1 t o 4 (4 a s v e r y d i f f i c u l t ) how d i f f i c u l t i s t h i s p r o b l e m f o r y o u ? 1 2 3 4 V e r y W e l l Good F a i r P o o r SUBTEST 3. S o l v e e a c h o f t h e p r o b l e m s p r e s e n t e d i n SUBTEST 2. T i m e L i m i t : 5 m i n u t e s p e r q u e s t i o n . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054507/manifest

Comment

Related Items