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 E F F E C T S OF LOCUS COMPUTER-ASSISTED  OF CONTROL ON  L E A R N I N G OF G R A V I M E T R I C  THE STOICHIOMETRY  by SIMON B.Sc,  CHI-HON  McGill  University,  B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y A T H E S I S SUBMITTED  WONG 1976  of Calgary,  1978  I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF  THE R E Q U I R E M E N T S  FOR  MASTER  OF  THE DEGREE  OF  ARTS  in THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE S T U D I E S Educational We  Psychology  accept to  this  and S p e c i a l  thesis  the required  as  conforming  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H August, ©  Simon  Education  COLUMBIA  1986  Chi-hon  Wong  In  presenting  this  requirements  Columbia,  freely  available  permission  scholarly  I agree for  purposes or  understood  that gain  by  the  reference  may his  copying  shall  partial  degree  that  for extensive  Department  financial  in  f o r an a d v a n c e d  British  that  thesis  not  be or  fulfilment  shall  and study. of  this  granted  by  the  allowed  Psychology and S p e c i a l  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  Date:  August,  1986  Columbia  Head  of t h i s  without  Education  of i t  agree  thesis  representatives.  permi s s i o n .  Educational  make  I further  copying  or p u b l i c a t i o n be  the  a t t h e The U n i v e r s i t y Library  her  of  of It  for my i s  thesis for my  written  Abstract  This  s t u d y examined t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e l o c u s o f  two 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 (CAI) c o n t r o l  s t r a t e g i e s o v e r t h e s e q u e n c e o f i n s t r u c t i o n a n d number o f p r a c t i c e examples s t u d i e d efficiency  on t h e a c c u r a c y a n d  i n the learning of gravimetric  o f g r a d e 11 c h e m i s t r y s t u d e n t s . control strategy  The two l o c u s o f  s t r a t e g i e s were a d a p t i v e and a d a p t i v e  stoichiometry  learner control  program c o n t r o l  (APC)  E f f e c t s were e x a m i n e d f o r CAI s t r a t e g y , knowledge, m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y ,  (ALC)  strategy.  pre-requisite  and gender o f  s t u d e n t . The g r o u p w o r k i n g w i t h CAI s t r a t e g y  of the  adaptive  delayed  program c o n t r o l demonstrated b e t t e r  p o s t - t e s t p e r f o r m a n c e , w h i l e r e q u i r i n g f e w e r number o f p r a c t i c e examples and t h u s c o n s i d e r a b l y time than students interaction  i n adaptive  o f gender by l o c u s  significant,  less  learning  l e a r n e r c o n t r o l . The of control strategy  i n t h a t male s t u d e n t a c h i e v e d  slightly  more u n d e r ALC t h a n APC a n d f e m a l e s u b j e c t s d i d significantly  b e t t e r u n d e r APC t h a n ALC.  was  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.  RESEARCH PROBLEM  ,  Statement o f t h e Problem T h e o r e t i c a l Background  II.  III.  IV.  1 1 5  R a t i o n a l e and T h e o r e t i c a l Hypotheses  17  METHOD  23  S u b j e c t s and Design L e a r n i n g Program and Task A n a l y s i s I n s t r u c t i o n a l System Design Apparatus and Procedures  23 25 29 35  RESULTS  38  Analyses of P r i o r Learning Test Scores A n a l y s e s o f CAI L e a r n i n g P r o c e s s Variables A n a l y s e s o f L e a r n i n g Outcome V a r i a b l e s  38 40 43  DISCUSSION AND  47  CONCLUSION  P r i o r Learning Experience E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e C h e m i s t r y CAI Program E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f Locus o f C o n t r o l S t r a t e g i e s , ALC a n d APC REFERENCES  47 48 49 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 Gravimetric Stoichiometry Calculations  65  iv  3  P r e - r e q u i s i t e Knowledge R e q u i r e d f o r S o l v i n g the Four Types of Stoichiometry Problems  67  4  Mean  68  5  C o r r e l a t i o n s Between Pre-Requisite Knowledge T e s t and M e t a c o g n i t i v e Ability Subtests Scores  Scores  of  Prior  Learning  Subtests  6  Means o f the Four  Learning Types of  Process Variables for Stoichiometry Problems  7  Means  Learning  Outcome V a r i a b l e s  Types  Stoichiometry  the 8  of  Four  of  69  ...  70  ...  73  for  Problems  Standardized Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s for the R e g r e s s i o n o f L e a r n i n g Process and L e a r n i n g O u t c o m e V a r i a b l e s On P r i o r L e a r n i n g Subtests S c o r e s In Locus o f C o n t r o l Groups, ALC  a n d APC  76  FIGURES 1  T a s k components and p r o c e s s e s f o r s o l v i n g gravimetric stoichiometry problems  78  2  Instructional flowchart for gravimetric stoichiometry  79  3  I n t e r a c t i o n between c o n t r o l for Delayed  learning  gender and l o c u s Post-test Scores  of  80  APPENDICES A.  Pre-test  and  Post-tests  B.  Pre-requisite Questions  Knowledge  C.  Metacognitive  Ability  Questions  Sample Test  Test  Questions  Sample  ...  81 83  Sample 84  V  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I w o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k my a d v i s o r , Lee  f o r h i s patience,  during  this  research.  members, D r . Nancy valuable wife,  understanding.  advice,  I a l s o t h a n k my  Suzuki  suggestions  Rosaline,  guidance,  D r . Seong-Soo and support  committee  a n d D r . Ron J a r m a n  a n d comments. F i n a l l y ,  f o r h e r encouragement and  for their I t h a n k my  1  I. Research Problem  Statement of the Instruction activate  Problem i s a set of events that  and s u p p o r t t h e l e a r n i n g  a n u n i q u e way.  as p o s s i b l e ,  both the objectives  teaching,  t o match t h e needs  of  learners.  largely  In systems They  i n mind, lessons,  and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s their efforts  systems d e s i g n e d t o  i n a group o f  learners.  for individualized  of pupils;  starting point  i n s t r u c t i o n have  pupils;  4)  2)  assist i n finding  f o r each p u p i l  of objectives;  and m e d i a  lack  twenty-  delivery surfaced.  a t t e m p t t o 1) p r o v i d e a means f o r a s s e s s i n g  series  have  adjust  r e c e n t y e a r s , however, c o m p r e h e n s i v e  entry s k i l l s  of  i n the past because of the  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 o r more  individual  and t h e methods o f  Unfortunately,  frustrated  reliable delivery  five  own  long attempted t o design t h e i r  adjusting  been  i n his/her  W i t h t h i s a s s u m p t i o n and g o a l  t e a c h e r s have  individual  o f an i n d i v i d u a l i n  I t s purpose i s t o help each person  d e v e l o p as f u l l y direction.  i s planned to  the  the  in a carefully  sequenced  3) p r o v i d e a l t e r n a t i v e  materials  f o r adjustment t o v a r y i n g enable pupils  to learn  learning  styles  a t t h e i r own  rate;  of  2  and 5) p r o v i d e f r e q u e n t and convenient p r o g r e s s  checks  so t h a t p u p i l s do not become "bogged down" w i t h cumulative f a i l u r e s  (Gagne & B r i g g s , 1979). The  advancement of h i g h technology and the a p p l i c a t i o n o f microcomputers t o e d u c a t i o n 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 o f computer-based instruction  (CMI)  and c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d  instruction  (CAI). Such e l e c t r o n i c d e l i v e r y systems have s e t a m i l e s t o n e i n the f i e l d of e d u c a t i o n , and educators are now  p r e s e n t e d w i t h a new  medium o f i n s t r u c t i o n ,  microcomputer, t h a t adds s e v e r a l dimensions  the  to t h e i r  r e p e r t o i r e of e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s . Although t h e r e i s y e t no consensus  as t o the  e x t e n t t o 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 l e a r n i n g , s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s need t o be g i v e n t o the powerful and v a r i e d c a p a b i l i t i e s o f CAI f o r a d a p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n . Compared t o textbooks, CAI i s a dynamic medium, capable of i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y v a r y i n g such p r o p e r t i e s o f a l e s s o n as the content s e l e c t e d , m o d a l i t i e s f e a t u r e d , sequencing o f t o p i c s , amount and d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of p r a c t i c e , type of feedback,  and  so  on, a l l as l e a r n e r needs d i c t a t e . Compared t o classroom l e c t u r e s , the adaptiveness p r o v i d e d can be t a i l o r e d t o the needs of each i n d i v i d u a l r a t h e r than b e i n g  3  restricted of  t o the normative  characteristics  s t u d e n t s . Compared t o programmed  a d a p t i v e f e a t u r e s c a n be  Buttrey,  1977;  1980;  continuously refined  Rothen & Tennyson,  Ross,  instructional  (Tennyson, shared,  lesson  1979;  Tennyson &  for individualization  d i s p l a y , many a d a p t i v e  systems such as t h e 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 Minnesota  as  1984).  Owing t o t h e f l e x i b i l i t y t h a t microcomputers  (LCES)  ( J e l d e n & Brown, 1 9 8 2 ) ;  Adaptive Instructional C h r i s t e n s e n & Park,  Interactive,  System  1984);  (TICCIT)  system  (Merrill,  developed.  Numerous s t u d i e s t h a t  strategy with the t r a d i t i o n a l have c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrated  f e a t u r e s o f CAI  are:  and  the  Time-  Information  1980)  have been  compare a d a p t i v e  non-adaptive  programs  the s u p e r i o r i t y  a d a p t i v e programs over non-adaptive questions which o f t e n a r i s e  the  (MAIS)  Computer-Controlled  Television  ones.  of  However,  i n the study of adaptive  Should the l o c u s of c o n t r o l l i e  w i t h t h e computer program o r w i t h t h e l e a r n e r ? t h e l e a r n e r be pacing, Can  class  instruction,  l e a r n e r needs change o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f a (Steinberg,  of a  allowed to exert control  number, o r s e q u e n c i n g  s u c h c o n t r o l by  over  Should  the  of instructional  l e a r n e r s accommodate t h e i r  events? own  individual control? these  d i f f e r e n c e s more e f f e c t i v e l y  T h e r e seem t o be no s i m p l e  than  o r easy  program answers t o  q u e s t i o n s . C o n t r o l o f t h e amount a n d s e q u e n c e o f  instructional  s t i m u l i has been a r e c u r r i n g b u t as y e t  unresolved problem i n the design o f computer-assisted l e a r n i n g environments (Tennyson & B u t t r e y ,  1980).  Nevertheless,  education  a widely held b e l i e f  i n many  circles  i s t h a t l e a r n e r s s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d t o make  choices  f o r t h e m s e l v e s o r t o e x e r t some p e r s o n a l  control. The p r e s e n t instructional  study  control  employs t h e l o c u s o f 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  t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n a d a p t i v e - i n t e r a c t i v e CAI p r o g r a m for teaching gravimetric stoichiometry i n chemistry. The e f f e c t s  of locus of instructional  s t u d i e d u n d e r two t r e a t m e n t program c o n t r o l instruction presented  control are  c o n d i t i o n s : (a) a d a p t i v e  (APC) i n w h i c h t h e s e q u e n c e o f  a n d t h e number o f p r a c t i c e  examples  a r e c o n t r o l l e d by t h e program;  adaptive learner control  a n d (b)  (ALC) i n w h i c h l e a r n e r s a r e  p r o v i d e d w i t h a d v i c e and s u g g e s t i o n s b u t a r e g i v e n control  o v e r t h e s e q u e n c e o f i n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h e number  o f p r a c t i c e examples.  In both treatment  number o f p r a c t i c e e x a m p l e s p r e s e n t e d  conditions, the  o r suggested i s  5  b a s e d on  the  subjects'  pre-requisite  k n o w l e d g e and  t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e . Dependent v a r i a b l e s interest  f o r t h i s study are:  examples used, t o t a l practice  learning  example, and  i m m e d i a t e and s c o r e s and  of  number o f  delayed postests.  metacognitive a b i l i t y  concomitant v a r i a b l e s .  particular  practice  time, time spent  p e r f o r m a n c e and  per  time spent  Pre-requisite scores are  Furthermore,  on-  on  knowledge  employed  as  the  presence/absence of  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between  gender  of the  locus  for a l l  subjects  learning  and  p r o c e s s and  of  control  strategies  outcome v a r i a b l e s  is  also  investigated.  Theoretical It that  Background  i s a well  adapting  accepted b e l i e f i n the  instruction to  among s t u d e n t s c a n Educators generally is  needed t h a t  allows  individual  agreed that  an  years  differences  i n s t r u c t i o n a l system  f o r mass u s a g e , b u t  f o r unique environments f o r the  many  which  learner  R e c e n t work i n a d a p t i v e d e s i g n s  g e n e r a t e d a number o f instruction to  50  improve l e a r n i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y .  i s designed  characteristics.  past  innovative  students.  r e s u l t s h a v e shown t h a t  methods f o r  I n most o f t h e  has  tailoring  studies,  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  facilitating  than non-adaptive programs i n  l e a r n i n g . F o r examples, Tennyson & Rothen  (1977) d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t  full  adaptive  efficient  than p a r t i a l  efficient  than nonadaptive strategy  of  instances  Tennyson  strategy,  which i n t u r n  i n s e l e c t i n g number  t o on-task information  than the s e l e c t i o n according  information;  and t h e s t u d e n t s i n t h e  c o n d i t i o n performed b e t t e r  Rakow & B u s h ' s instructional  response-sensitive than  condition.  adaptation  learned  adaptation,  forms o f s t a n d a r d  cumulative posttest  favored  Ross,  involved  mathematical materials  a s e r i e s o f 10  partial  adaptation,  instruction. Results  full  adaptation  and b o t h a d a p t i v e  i n s t r u c t i o n . Ross' that  pretask  o f examples p r e s e n t e d w i t h r u l e s .  (1982) s u b j e c t s  math r u l e s u n d e r f u l l  studies  i s more  s u p p o r t a l s o showed t h e a d v a n t a g e s o f  R o s s & Rakow's  standard  Park &  (1980) s t u d y on s t r a t e g i e s f o r a d a p t i n g  the quantity  several  to  i n the posttest  students i n the response-insensitive  partial  i s more  (1980) f o u n d t h a t t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e number  efficient  and  i s more  needed i n a c o n c e p t l e a r n i n g t a s k .  o f examples a c c o r d i n g  adapting  strategy  the teaching  over  treatments  (1984) r e v i e w o f  on a  over  other  o f s t a t i s t i c a l and  c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrated  that  7  adaptive  instructional  conventional  more e f f e c t i v e  researchers  and  practitioners  have s y s t e m a t i c a l l y attempted t o  individuals with  different is still  needs i n e d u c a t i o n a l  there  confusion  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  individualization achieved.  instruction individual  and  Holland as  considerable disagreement  how  a set of processes  d i f f e r e n c e s i n student  are necessary  instruction.  Park  instruction  the  consideration  a given  n e e d s and  learning materials  final  o b j e c t i v e s of  t o T e n n y s o n and  his associates  Tennyson,  & Rothen,  Tennyson,  1 9 7 7 ) , an  p r e s c r i b e s the to achieve that  an  adaptive  optimal  considered  1981;  s y s t e m i s one  initial  and  (Tennyson, Tennyson  (1982)  required suggests  competence s h o u l d  for providing alternative  &  that  amount o f i n s t r u c t i o n  a given objective. Glaser  individual's  into  accordingly.  According  Rothen,  the  adaptive  learning history  sequence o f i n s t r u c t i o n  1980;  the  to  a program t h a t t a k e s  student's  should  for detecting  (1982) d e s c r i b e s an  system as  and  adaptive  only those  to reach  instructional  v a r i e s the  adaptive  (1977) d e f i n e s  p r e s c r i b e t o each student that  i n recent  accommodate  practice,  be  than  supports.  Although years  s t r a t e g y was  be  environments  that  will  match t h e d i f f e r e n t  styles of learning.  (1985) p o i n t s o u t t h a t a n a d a p t i v e t u t o r i a l involving the a b i l i t y additional,  instruction  of the tutor to select  more r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s  prompt, c a j o l e ,  Jonassen  or to explain,  o r do w h a t e v e r i s n e c e s s a r y  to assist  t h e t u t e e i n a c q u i r i n g t h e knowledge. The  availability  o f microcomputers  u s e s i n r e c e n t y e a r s have a l l o w e d flexibility  f o r greater  i n the design of adaptive  instructional  p r o g r a m s . Computer power i s p o t e n t i a l l y provide adaptive simultaneously.  algorithms  has  a t many  c a n be l e f t  i n part or i n entirety.  levels  t o the student,  The t e r m l e a r n e r c o n t r o l  v a r i e d from t h a t a l l o w i n g t h e student  decisions control  on j u s t  one a s p e c t  of instruction.  variations their  t o make  t o t h a t o f almost  I n a program  e n v i r o n m e n t , on t h e o t h e r hand,  in  g r e a t enough t o  M o r e o v e r , 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 processes either  for instruction  control  instructional  are 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  l e s s o n s . T h e q u e s t i o n t h e n becomes w h i c h  l e a r n i n g d e c i s i o n s s h o u l d be l e f t  up t o t h e s t u d e n t a n d  w h i c h s h o u l d be p u t under computer c o n t r o l necessary  complete  t o assign the locus of control  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  since i t i s  o f such  s t r a t e g y , sequence  9  of  i n s t r u c t i o n , c o m p l e t i o n t i m e , amount o f p r a c t i c e ,  level is  of d i f f i c u l t y ,  centred  etc.  on t h e l o c u s  learning materials  In the present  study,  focus  o f c o n t r o l over t h e sequence o f  a n d t h e amount o f p r a c t i c e  s e l e c t e d . The p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e two l o c u s  examples  i s t o compare t h e  of control strategies,  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 CAI  assume t h a t  would b e n e f i t students.  being  learner control i n  They argue t h a t  s y s t e m may b e m a l a d a p t i v e , m a k i n g  s y s t e m d e p e n d e n t . F o r example, M e r r i l l  students  (1980)  such "spoon f e d " s t u d e n t s under program  may f i n d  that  more d i f f i c u l t adaptive learner  l e a r n i n g from t h e n a t u r a l because t h e r e a l world  c o n t r o l system which r e q u i r e s  from a system which c a t e r s aptitudes. recognize totally  claims control  environment i s  i s not as  t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l needs o f t h e s t u d e n t . A  l e a r n t o make a p p r o p r i a t e  basis  than  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  control  that  rather  Merrill his/her  adaptive  strategy  a student t o  choices  i sd i f f e r e n t  t o t h e s t u d e n t ' s needs and  argues t h a t  a s t u d e n t must l e a r n t o  own l e a r n i n g n e e d s a n d n o t r e l y s y s t e m w h i c h may make d e c i s i o n s  on a on t h e  o f n e e d s t h a t t h e s t u d e n t may n o t e v e n know t h a t  s/he h a s .  On t h e o t h e r hand, a d v o c a t e s  f o r a program  system seek f o r a maximally a d a p t i v e assess  a given student's  system which  learning style,  that content  appropriate time.  they  t h a t when s t u d e n t s  too early  control the  r e c e i v e , they  and f a i l  o f how much  (Carrier,  R e c e n t s t u d i e s on t h e e f f e c t s  Fisher,  B l a c k w e l l , G a r c i a & Greene  effects  o f student  s c h o o l . The s t u d y  instruction  of the locus of  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  a CAI a r i t h m e t i c t a s k  should.  1984).  control  control  often  t o l e a r n what t h e y  a r e o f t e n poor judges  n e e d , o r i n what o r d e r  results.  (1975) s t u d i e d t h e  a n d c h o i c e on engagement i n  i n a low-income  elementary  revealed that subjects i n the choice  c o n d i t i o n maintained  higher  long p e r i o d s o f time  than  control  to the  and s t r a t e g y which a r e o p t i m a l l y  amount o f i n s t r u c t i o n t h e y  Learners  present  f o r h i m / h e r t o r e c e i v e a t a g i v e n moment i n  They m a i n t a i n  terminate  could  aptitudes,  p a s t achievement, and r e a d i n e s s and t h e n student  control  levels  o f engagement  over  d i d s u b j e c t s i n t h e yoked  condition, but the subjects i n the choice  c o n d i t i o n h a d t h e t e n d e n c y t o c h o o s e p r o b l e m s t h a t were either too d i f f i c u l t  o r t o o easy  and thus  their  p e r f o r m a n c e was w o r s e . F i s h e r e t a l . (1975) concluded  that while  thus  c h o i c e may b e m o t i v a t i n g  f o r some  children,  i t can  result  i n poor academic  S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d S u b j e c t s who  i n Fry's  performance.  (1972)  were a l l o w e d t o s e l e c t w h i c h  study.  questions  t h e y wanted t o answer i n o r d e r t o l e a r n a b o u t had  a more p o s i t i v e  however, t h e y also  a t t i t u d e than  learned the l e a s t .  inquiry  ordered  students performed  inquiry  control.  achieved  Low  so l i t t l e  students  not;  control.  High  aptitude,  b e t t e r i n the  expert  learned best  a p t i t u d e , low  inquiry  t h a t the r e s u l t s  study  inquiry  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 .  aptitude, high student  were  Results of Fry's  indicated that high aptitude, high  students d i d b e s t under student low  t h o s e who  computers  Low under  students  could not  be  interpreted. In t h e i r  experiment,  (1970) s t u d i e d t h e e f f e c t s control  (total  Judd, Bunderson & of four levels  o f t h e amount o f p r a c t i c e ; over  course  of  c o m p u t e r management; s t u d e n t  over the sequence of t o p i c s ;  additional  and  total  Bessent student control  student  control  learner control)  flow i n a remedial mathematics course  college  s t u d e n t s . They found  allowed  t o choose the sequence o f t o p i c s d i d worse  t h o s e who  t h a t s t u d e n t s who  were u n d e r c o m p u t e r c o n t r o l .  s t u d e n t s who  had  done p o o r l y on  In  for  were than  particular,  a pre-test did  worst  under l e a r n e r college  c o n t r o l . However, t h e  s t u d e n t s were g o o d j u d g e s o f t h e  p r a c t i c e t h e y needed. Furthermore, not  1979;  his associates  Park & Tennyson,  Tennyson & Buttrey, control using  1980)  of  learner control  did  1980;  of the  the  target  determined the  criterion,  the and  conditions,  the  number o f  the  program  instances  achievement l e v e l , a loss ratio. l e a r n e r had b a s e d on  In  c o n t r o l system r e g a r d i n g  information  i n d i v i d u a l learner should  the  the  used i n  feedback,  subjects  i n the  program the  i n learner  introduced  items  consistently  adaptive  i n s t r u c t i o n too  However, when a d v i s e m e n t was  by  Tennyson's  learner control conditions  terminated the  In  number o f  review. In  o f t e n because subjects  conditions  how  advisement  lower p o s t t e s t performance than  control,  In  on-task mastery  c o n t r o l , but  adaptive  total  and  of  itself  presented  learner  advice  yielded  loci  learner decided  provided  research,  1980;  concept to review.  control conditions,  considering  Tennyson,  computer-based concept l e s s o n s .  many i n s t a n c e s adaptive  (Tennyson & Rothen,  compared d i f f e r e n t  learner control conditions,  the  amount  that  improve s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e s . T e n n y s o n and  1977;  s t u d y showed  control early.  i n the  form  l e a r n e r c o n t r o l d i d as  of  well  as  those under adaptive  Furthermore, the condition and  control  conditions.  learner-control-with-advisement  showed s i g n i f i c a n t  decreases i n on-task  time  amount o f i n s t r u c t i o n . R o s s & Rakow  lesson  (1981) r e p o r t e d  in a  self-paced  o n math r u l e s i n w h i c h t h e number o f  supporting  e x a m p l e s was e i t h e r a d a p t i v e learner  program c o n t r o l l e d ,  c o n t r o l l e d , o r kept constant,  program c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s score  that  1  the  immediate and d e l a y e d  means were c o n s i s t e n t l y t h e h i g h e s t  control  subjects'  adaptive  means were l o w e s t .  test  while  learner  Non-adaptive  s u p p o r t and l e c t u r e t r e a t m e n t s produced  middle-range  o u t c o m e s . A s f o r t h e number o f e x a m p l e s r e c e i v e d  by t h e  subjects  u n d e r d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t s , R o s s & Rakow  revealed  that the r e s u l t s provided  explanation Subjects  f o r performance d e f i c i t  w o r k i n g u n d e r LC c o n d i t i o n  e x a m p l e s t h a n were p r e s c r i b e d treatments.  i n learner  subjects.  control.  s e l e c t e d much  under other  F u r t h e r m o r e , LC s u b j e c t s '  time per r u l e d i d not d i f f e r lecture  an o b v i o u s  fewer  three  average  study  from n o n - a d a p t i v e and  The r e s u l t was a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t  t h e i r p o o r p e r f o r m a n c e was more o f f a i l i n g t o u s e resources early.  wisely  than t r y i n g t o terminate the task  Interaction patterns  a l s o suggested that the  advantages o f program c o n t r o l increase entry  both across retention  ability  and  locus  & Hannafin  o f t h r e e CAI  low  strategies  on  adaptive control  accuracy of  condition,  the  the  the  pacing or  control  over the  teaching  i n the  lesson.  Subjects i n the  on  the  amount  of  control  advised  of  were p e r m i t t e d t o d e t e r m i n e i f r e -  a n d / o r a d d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s were n e e d e d .  Students using  the  same s e q u e n c e o f a d v i s e m e n t and  no  linear control  i n s t r u c t i o n and  strategy  although achievement d i f f e r e n c e s various  d e s i g n s t r a t e g i e s were n o t t i m e and  associated  were a f f e c t e d  s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The  comparable l e a r n i n g  i n s t r u c t i o n a l t i m e and  received  examples but  i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r o l . The  instructional  less  and  learner  w i t h a d v i s e m e n t t r e a t m e n t were c o n t i n u o u s l y  yielded  In  branched  lesson,  no  the  and  o r more e x a m p l e s , d e p e n d i n g  responses during  t h e i r p r o g r e s s and  effects  accuracy  computer  had  teaching  subject  seventh grade students.  subjects  that  as  (1985) e x a m i n e d t h e  achieving  students f o r re-teaching the  i n t e r v a l s and  e f f i c i e n c y of mathematics r u l e l e a r n i n g  a p p l i c a t i o n by the  control  decreased.  Goetzfried of the  over learner  had  study  resulting found,  the no  showed from  both  learning efficiency basic  l i n e a r design  coupled with s i g n i f i c a n t l y thus r e s u l t e d  i n more  efficient  learning.  The f i n d i n g s  a t t r i b u t a b l e t o information deficiencies The studies  o f low  and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n  achievers.  somewhat i n c o n s i s t e n t suggest that  findings  o f t h e above  the effects of learner  v a r y a c r o s s t h e age l e v e l subjects,  o f t h i s s t u d y may b e  and a b i l i t i e s  the type o f content taught,  control  may  of the  and t h e s p e c i f i c  nature o f t h e options allowed. Student c o n t r o l o f i n s t r u c t i o n was s o m e t i m e s m o t i v a t i n g . A t t i t u d e s positively the  affected  by l e a r n e r  elementary l e v e l .  were  control, particularly at  But improved o r even  p e r f o r m a n c e was n o t n e c e s s a r i l y  equivalent  a correlate;  p e r f o r m a n c e was w o r s e . U n d e r s p e c i f i c  sometimes  conditions  s t u d e n t 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 s t u d e n t s were a l l o w e d t o c o n t r o l of  course flow,  some  them a c h i e v e d a s much a s s t u d e n t s who d i d n o t h a v e  this  option.  B u t t h i s was n o t t r u e  poor performers i n a subject. instructional  strategies  o f s t u d e n t s who were  They u s e d  and l e a r n e d  l e a s t under  s t u d e n t c o n t r o l . S t u d e n t s were g e n e r a l l y when t h e y s e l e c t e d  the d i f f i c u l t y  inefficient  level  poor  judges  o f problems,  the  s e q u e n c e o f i n s t r u c t i o n , o r t h e amount o f p r a c t i c e .  The  p o o r e s t d e c i s i o n m a k e r s were t h e s t u d e n t s who knew  little  about t h e s u b j e c t  o r who were p e r f o r m i n g  poorly  in  it.  This  finding supports Tobias' of  support.  His  research  consistently  found that  familiar  the  students  are  content,  need  is  high-lighting responding, Rothen  subjects (1980) locus  of  how w e l l  will  control  as  high  favor  be  use  argued that  with  learners  they  like  (1)  will  their  in  to  executing  such  familiarity  learning materials,  degree  of  Tobias's approach traits  an  important  (1976)  shifts  the  and a p t i t u d e s  students'  prior  for  to  of  Snow  of  terms  of  instructional and  (3)  controls. with  the  self-confidence,  etc.  part.  adaptation  task-specific  familiarity  of  easier  type  in  achievement-treatment focus  use  such c o n d i t i o n s ,  level,  play  demands  strategy  the  over  age  definitely  task  knowledge.  different  self-control  perform under  skills  such as  are  greater  overt  greater  favored  respect  less  explicit  for  a management  seems t o  control,  (2)  Factors  control  the  Tennyson &  r e q u i r i n g minimal p r e r e q u i s i t e  also  events,  proposed that  the  the  objectives,  requirements  seem t o  on  instructional  guidance devices.  aptitude  teacher  learner  stated  importance,  similarly  student  program or while  of  to  w'ith t h e  clearly  and o t h e r  (1979)  and low  for  knowledge  (1976)  relationship  their  prior  work  with  the  interaction  from  general  measures material  of to  be  learned.  Tobias  classification  (1981) c l a i m s t h a t of  aptitude  and  between i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s  careful  treatment  i n p r i o r achievement  i n s t r u c t i o n a l method a v o i d s some o f o t h e r approaches,  including  between c o g n i t i v e  p r o c e s s e s and  An  level  of p r i o r achievement, the  s u p p o r t needed t o the  lower the  support that  identify  Theoretical  learning  and  lower the  instructional conversely,  the  e v e n t s and  can  the  higher  the  and  & Williams,  generally  applied  e d u c a t i o n a l coursewares  improving  i n s t r u c t i o n a l time  1983)  development  (Gagne, 1982;  Jay,  be  learner  (Kulik,  when p r i n c i p l e s o f i n the  to  Computer-  b e e n shown t o  performance,  to  in  l e a r n most e f f e c t i v e l y i n o r d e r  reducing  are  is  delivery  optimal environment  of pre-determined objectives.  learning  higher  instructional designers  w o u l d p r o v i d e an  in increasing  attitudes, Bangert,  of  i n s t r u c t i o n has  effective  the  Hypotheses  a set  which l e a r n e r s  assisted  such t h a t  i s needed.  goal of  reach a set  of  i n s t r u c t i o n a l method.  accomplish objectives;  ultimate  system t h a t  problems  and  interactions  p r i o r achievement l e v e l ,  R a t i o n a l e and The  the  examining  i n t e r a c t i o n i s hypothesized  variables  teaching  of 1983).  The  superiority  of adaptive i n s t r u c t i o n a l  n o n - a d a p t i v e programs demonstrated Rothen,  i n CAI h a s b e e n  i n various studies  1977; P a r k & T e n n y s o n ,  instruction  principles  over  repeatedly  (e.g.; Tennyson & 1980; R o s s , 1 9 8 4 ) . I t i s  t h e r e f o r e g e n e r a l l y agreed that assisted  strategies  an a d a p t i v e  computer-  s y s t e m w h i c h i s b a s e d on s o u n d  of learning  a n d t e a c h i n g w o u l d b e f a r more  s u p e r i o r t h a n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l CAI s y s t e m . However, specific  loci  o f such s u p e r i o r i t y have n o t y e t been  w e l l u n d e r s t o o d and s t i l l  n e e d t o be d i s c o v e r e d .  The p r e s e n t e x p e r i m e n t a t t e m p t e d t o f u r t h e r t h e understanding of the e f f e c t s strategies  of the locus of control  i n computer-assisted  instruction. I t  i n v o l v e s t h e d e s i g n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n CAI c h e m i s t r y program which a l l o w e d t h e comparison o f t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e l o c u s o f two CAI c o n t r o l of  instruction  s t r a t e g i e s o v e r sequence  a n d amount o f p r a c t i c e e x a m p l e s  a c c u r a c y and e f f i c i e n c y  i n solving  on t h e  gravimetric  s t o i c h i o m e t r y p r o b l e m s . The two t r e a t m e n t s a r e a n 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 a r e somewhat s i m i l a r t o t h e t r e a t m e n t s e m p l o y e d s t u d i e s o f Tennyson & B u t t r e y Hannafin  i n the  (1980), and G o e t z f r i e d  (1985). Tennyson & B u t t r e y r e v e a l e d  that  &  a l t h o u g h a c h i e v e m e n t d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t learner  c o n t r o l w i t h advisement s t r a t e g y  efficient  strategies.  12  vs.  The  the  find  concepts vs.  any  more  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e  conflicting  differences  grade 7),  subjects  was  t h a n p r o g r a m c o n t r o l . However, G o e t z f r i e d  Hannafin d i d not  reflected  found,  two  r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d may  i n age  nature of the  of the  task  &  have  subjects  (grade  (psychological  r e m e d i a l math), achievement h i s t o r y o f  ("regular"  vs.  remedial),  etc.  i n the  the  two  studies. It find  i s the  out  i n c h e m i s t r y v i a CAI,  c o n t r o l w o u l d be  difference? learners' may  be  It i s believed  a t t r i b u t a b l e t o not  claimed, but  a l s o the  the  ability  to plan  and  regulating  p e r f o r m a n c e on by  only  the  is a the  two  l e v e l s of  treatment  the  learners'  prior  as most r e s e a r c h e r s  have  strategies for monitoring behaviour according  Q u i n t o & Weener  problem s o l v i n g  pure c o g n i t i v e  of  learners' metacognitive a b i l i t y  o n e ' s own  demands. As  w h i c h one  that variations i n  performance under the  to  gravimetric  more e f f e c t i v e , i f t h e r e  achievement i n chemistry,  task  present experimenter  when i t comes t o t e a c h i n g  stoichiometry two  i n t e r e s t of the  k n o w l e d g e and  thought t o what  (1983) p o i n t e d  i s not  only  -  out,  determined  behaviours but  by  the  a  k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e s e c o g n i t i o n s and  behaviours.  metacognitive  researchers are concerned  developmental  s t u d i e s on memory  W e l l m a n , 1977) solving, quite  and  learning d i s a b i l i t i e s .  c o u l d be  such  as  problem  are  still  metacognitive study  as c o v a r i a t e s t o reduce  a difficult  and  unpopular  p o p u l a t i o n concerned. implemented  and  chemistry  subject f o r the  11,  which i s the  support w i l l  the learning  be  objectives.  that higher level  i s viewed  over  sequencing  s e l e c t i n g number o f p r a c t i c e I n t h e domain o f  as  student lesson i s first  needed  take,  to  It i s therefore  of learning  achievement  o b t a i n e d under program c o n t r o l than  learner control  in  error variance.  c o u r s e t h a t most o f t h e s t u d e n t s e v e r  hypothesized be  any  When t h i s p a r t i c u l a r  i n Chemistry  higher instructional accomplish  of  o f t h e s u b j e c t s a r e employed  In the p r e s e n t experiment,  chemistry  skills  Thus, p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge ability  ability  s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems,  r e l a t e d t o the l e a r n e r s '  metacognition.  will  skills  In  &  s c a r s e . However, i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e  t o s o l v e problems,  this  with  (e.g. F l a v e l l  s t u d i e s on m e t a c o g n i t i v e  Most  under  o f t o p i c s and  in  examples.  pre-requisite  knowledge/metacognitive.ability/treatment  interaction  effects,  i t was  requisite do  expected  that learners with  k n o w l e d g e o r low m e t a c o g n i t i v e  b e t t e r under program c o n t r o l  s e c u r e and  n e e d more g u i d a n c e .  f o r they As  low  ability are  treatment  effective.  f o r learners with  it  was  c o n d i t i o n s w o u l d be  ability  similarly  expected  factors are considered  t h a t l e a r n e r s o f low  knowledge/low m e t a c o g n i t i v e from  program c o n t r o l ,  and  ability  and  together,  pre-requisite would b e n e f i t  learners of high  r e q u i s i t e knowledge/high metacognitive find  ability,  However, when p r e - r e q u i s i t e k n o w l e d g e  metacognitive  would  less  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 t h e two  pre-  most  pre-  ability  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 t o be  would  most  efficient. As  Brown & D e L o a c h e  deficient  (1978) p r o p o s e d ,  novices  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  intelligent  self-regulation  o f t h e i r a c t i o n s . The  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  to  a concomitant  current and  lack of s e l f - i n t e r r o g a t i o n  s t a t e o f k n o w l e d g e and  monitoring  levels  are  and  hypothesize  of necessary  t o inadequate  s t e p s between  desired goals. Therefore t h a t t h i s type  and lack  lead  about  the  selection  starting  i t i s reasonable  to  o f 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 t h e  program c o n t r o l  treatment.  On t h e o t h e r  hand, Brown & D e L o a c h e c l a i m  l e a r n e r s who p o s s e s s h i g h to  metacognitive s k i l l s  are able  p r e d i c t t h e consequences o f an a c t i o n o r e v e n t ,  check t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i r ongoing a c t i v i t y , .and  own a c t i o n s , m o n i t o r  test the r e a l i t y  demonstrate a v a r i e t y o f other  coordinating learn that  of their  s u c h i n d e p e n d e n t l e a r n e r s who h a v e a  events e f f e c t i v e l y  As f o r l e a r n e r s  of high  and t h u s  high  their  under  learner  pre-requisite  knowledge and low m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , low p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge and h i g h  ability,  expected  to control the  achievement l e v e l would be t h e h i g h e s t control.  actions,  behaviours f o r  a n d s o l v e p r o b l e m s . I t was t h e r e f o r e  instructional  and l e a r n e r s metacognitive  i t was e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e two t r e a t m e n t  conditions  their  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  achievement h i s t o r y would be a b l e  of  that  w o u l d be s i m i l a r l y e f f e c t i v e .  II.  SUBJECTS AND  DESIGN  Participants  in this  from t h r e e Chemistry school  METHOD  11  s t u d y were s t u d e n t  classes i n a senior  i n Burnaby, B r i t i s h  t o have completed the u n i t Mass r e l a t i o n s h i p s and t h e m o l e and chemical 15  the  f o r the study.  the computer-assisted  control  and  They were randomly  of gravimetric one  from  c o n d i t i o n s , withdrew d u r i n g As  (11 m a l e s and  a result, 15  females)  the  twenty-six completed  study. The  two  locus of control  a d a p t i v e program c o n t r o l topics presented  was  examples p r e s e n t e d was  and  (13 m a l e s  male s t u d e n t s ,  of t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  student volunteers the  formulas  of  l o c u s of c o n t r o l groups i n  l e a r n i n g (CAL)  s t o i c h i o m e t r y . However, two  middle  and  t o have mastered t h e concept  o f t h e two  e a c h o f t h e two  on M o l e , M o l a r Mass,  Twenty-eight students  f e m a l e s ) s i g n e d up  secondary  s u b j e c t s were  i m p l i c a t i o n s of chemical  equations.  a s s i g n e d t o one  C o l u m b i a . The  volunteers  determined  and  i n which the t h e number o f  c o n t r o l l e d by  initially  k n o w l e d g e s c o r e s and  (APC)  fixed  was  c o n d i t i o n s were:  by  the  (a)  sequence  of  practice  the program  and  subject's pre-requisite  subsequently  by  the  subject's  on-  t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e and; suggestions as t o t h e  (ALC)  (b)  adaptive  learner control  i n w h i c h s u b j e c t s were g i v e n  s e q u e n c e o f i n s t r u c t i o n and  number o f  suggested  on t h e  was  based i n i t i a l l y  r e q u i s i t e k n o w l e d g e s c o r e and on-task  advice  t h e number  p r a c t i c e e x a m p l e s n e e d e d . The  control  of  examples  subject's  subsequently  on  prehis/her  p e r f o r m a n c e . However, s u b j e c t s u n d e r ALC  given t o t a l  with  as t o whether o r n o t  follow  were the  suggestions. S u b j e c t s were t o l d certificate the  t h a t t h e y would r e c e i v e a book  at the conclusion of t h e i r  l e a r n i n g p r o j e c t . This contingency  encourage s e r i o u s p a r t i c i p a t i o n , subjects  i n the  T h i s study  one (APC  design  blocking  ALC).  metacognitive  practice  included to  especially  from  might  have  early.  employed a s i m p l e  levels  o f CAI  Gender o f t h e  factor.  covariates.  in  completely  randomized  i n w h i c h s u b j e c t s were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d  o f t h e two and  was  l e a r n e r c o n t r o l g r o u p who  the tendency t o terminate  CR-1  involvement  locus of control  ability  strategy  s u b j e c t s i s u s e d as  P r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge  a  and  sub-tests scores served  as  D e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d were number  e x a m p l e s done, r a t i o  l e a r n i n g time  (the time  o f examples  d u r i n g which the  to  correct, student  of  engaged i n l e a r n i n g ) , time spent correct  scores  delayed  p o s t - t e s t s , and average c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e  The  and t i m e s p e n t  p e r p r a c t i c e example,  analysis of variance  p r o c e d u r e s were u s e d interaction LEARNING The  on t h e i m m e d i a t e a n d  and a n a l y s i s o f  to test  covariance  f o r d i f f e r e n c e s and  effects.  PROGRAM AND  TASK  learning task  ANALYSIS  involved a topic i n a  C o l u m b i a C h e m i s t r y 11 u n i t d e a l i n g w i t h Stoichiometry.  The u n i t r e f l e c t s  exposure t o s t o i c h i o m e t r y o f one s u b s t a n c e w i l l chemical  time.  British  Gravimetric  the students'  first  - t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f how  much  r e a c t o r be p r o d u c e d i n a  r e a c t i o n r e l a t i v e t o t h e amount o f a n o t h e r  s u b s t a n c e i n t h e r e a c t i o n . The s t u d y requires the understanding of D e f i n i t e Proportion  of stoichiometry  a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Law  i n chemical  applications of stoichiometry  r e a c t i o n . Everyday  a r e numerous. F o r  examples: 1. T h e g a s o l i n e t o a i r m i x t u r e i s r e g u l a t e d or motorcycle proportions necessary 2.  by t h e c a r b u r e t o r .  i n a car  Proper  o f g a s o l i n e and a i r m i x t u r e a r e  f o r maximum power a n d g a s o l i n e  Since  cooking  food  involves chemical  every  r e c i p e suggests the proper  mileage.  reactions,  proportion of  "chemicals" example,  t o produce a complete r e a c t i o n . F o r  i fthe proper  and  cream o f t a r t a r  the  other w i l l  the  cooked  a r e n o t used,  be l e f t  o f one component  proportions o f baking  over  some o f one o r  ( i n e x c e s s ) . An  ( r e a c t a n t ) may a d v e r s e l y  Each a n t a c i d t a b l e t  i ftaken  affect  contains a certain  i n excess. amount o f  which n e u t r a l i z e s stomach a c i d .  many t a b l e t s a r e t a k e n , destroyed  excess  product.  3. A n t a c i d t a b l e t s may b e h a r m f u l  chemical  soda  and p r o p e r  I f too  t o o much s t o m a c h a c i d i s  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 t h e amount o f m a t e r i a l s u s e d o r produced i n chemical natural,  laboratory, or industrial  transformations first,  t o take  They a l l , if  this  can that The  r e a c t i o n s i s r e q u i r e d when many chemical  a r e s t u d i e d . S u c h c a l c u l a t i o n s seem, a t on many d i f f e r e n t  and c o n f u s i n g  however, h a v e a n u n d e r l y i n g s i m i l a r i t y , a n d  i s appreciated at the outset the entire  b e e a s i l y m a s t e r e d . T o do t h i s ,  objective of this  subject  i ti s essential  a l l p r o b l e m s be a p p r o a c h e d i n an o r g a n i z e d  students  forms.  way.  l e a r n i n g program i s t o h e l p t h e  a d o p t one s u c h a p p r o a c h i n s t o i c h i o m e t r y  calculations.  Gravimetric involving  stoichiometry  t h e measurement  refers to  stoichiometry  o f g r a v i t y o r mass a s o p p o s e d  t o measurement  o f s o l u t i o n volume ( s o l u t i o n  stoichiometry)  o r gas volume  gravimetric stoichiometry  (gas s t o i c h i o m e t r y ) . I n  c a l c u l a t i o n s , t h e amount o f  s u b s t a n c e s may  b e e x p r e s s e d a s number o f m o l e s ( i n  m o l e s ) o r mass  ( i n g r a m s ) . F o r example,  following balanced  2 2(g) H  two m o l e s (32.0  +  i n the  equation,  °2(g)  >  2  H  2°(g)  (4.04 g) o f h y d r o g e n r e a c t w i t h one  g) o f o x y g e n t o p r o d u c e two m o l e s  mole  (36.04 g) o f  w a t e r v a p o r . T h u s t h e amount o f one o f t h e s u b s t a n c e s reacted  o r p r o d u c e d ( t h e r e q u i r e d s u b s t a n c e ) c a n be  calculated given  i f t h e amount o f a n o t h e r s u b s t a n c e ( t h e  substance)  i s known.  D e p e n d i n g on w h e t h e r t h e number o f m o l e s o r t h e mass o f t h e g i v e n  s u b s t a n c e i s known, a n d w h e t h e r t h e  amount o f t h e r e q u i r e d s u b s t a n c e i s t o b e e x p r e s s e d i n m o l e s o r grams,  f o u r types of s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems  can  namely,  be d e r i v e d ,  mass;  (a) mole t o m o l e ;  (c) mass t o m o l e ; a n d  stoichiometry  (b) m o l e t o  (d) mass t o mass  a s shown i n T a b l e  1.  Insert Table  Given  a balanced  1 about  chemical  here  equation,  the task  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 t o c o n s i s t o f 5 t a s k components:  (1)  and  express  the  given  r e q u i r e d substances;  substance  i n moles;  o f t h e g i v e n and equation;  (4)  i n m o l e s by  (3)  find  the  amount o f t h e  u s i n g t h e mole r a t i o ;  the  given  amount  of  coefficients  from the  balanced  required  substance  (5)  express  the  i n grams i f d e s i r e d . components  and  involved.  Insert  Among t h e  F i g u r e 1 about  four types  mole-to-mole i s c o n s i d e r e d  mass i s most d i f f i c u l t , calculation  (m  G  > n  G  here  of stoichiometry t o be  i n v o l v e s a one-step c a l c u l a t i o n  and  the  the  and  1 shows a f l o w c h a r t o f t h e  processes  conceived  identify  identify  r e q u i r e d substances  amount o f r e q u i r e d s u b s t a n c e Figure  (2)  of  the (n  easiest since i t > n ).  G  R  for i t requires a > n  R  mass-to-mole problems are o f  problems,  > m ). R  Mass-to-  three-step Mole-to-mass  intermediate  difficulty, n  R  > m  R  involving or m  a two-step c a l c u l a t i o n  > n  G  G  (n  > n ) . I t i s therefore R  a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e most l o g i c a l  sequence  instruction  stoichiometry  problems  f o r the four types of  i s (1) m o l e - t o - m o l e ;  t o - m o l e ; and  >  G  of  (2) m o l e - t o - m a s s o r mass-  (3) m a s s - t o - m a s s .  INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM DESIGN The  instructional  task selected  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 calculations. the  target  of  two  designed w i t h the assumption  instructional  instruction  systems  s e p a r a t e d the major  taught the  t h e same,  consisting  Roberts & Park  as t u t o r i n g  (1983)  systems t h a t  components o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l  in  a way  to  have a f l e x i b i l i t y  closely  which  that  i n t e l l i g e n t computer-assisted  (ICAI) program.  d e s c r i b e ICAI  was  system d e s i g n f o r each o f  t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s was  an a d a p t i v e ,  study  stoichiometry  l e a r n e r s had not y e t been  c o n t e n t . The the  I t was  for this  a l l o w s b o t h t h e s t u d e n t and t h e  have systems program  i n the l e a r n i n g environment  r e s e m b l i n g what a c t u a l l y  more  o c c u r s when s t u d e n t  and t e a c h e r s i t down one-on-one and a t t e m p t t o t e a c h and  l e a r n together. Roberts & Park propose t h a t  operational  the  f u n c t i o n s o f an ICAI system a r e d e t e r m i n e d  by  t h r e e m a i n components w h i c h r e p r e s e n t t h e t h r e e  components o f any i n s t r u c t i o n a l content  t o be t a u g h t  system, namely, t h e  (the expert module), t h e i n h e r e n t  teaching or instructional  strategy  (the t u t o r i n g  m o d u l e ) , a n d a mechanism f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g student  main  d o e s a n d d o e s n o t know  what t h e  (the student module). I n  t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e CAI m o d u l e s , J a y ' s c o g n i t i v e approach t o computer courseware d e s i g n noteworthy. J a y focuses  (1983) i s  on some a s p e c t s  that  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 w h i c h , h e maintains,  must b e a c c o u n t e d  f o r i n order t o develop  g o o d c o u r s e w a r e . S u c h 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) u s e o f g r a p h i c s a n d v i s u a l computation; and  processing;  (d) m e n t a l  (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  of a user;  (f) feedback t o users. The  Lee's the  characteristics;  system designed  f o rthe present  (1983) i n s t r u c t i o n a l  criteria  study  d e s i g n model w h i c h  followed satisfies  f o r an ICAI system o u t l i n e d by R o b e r t s  &  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 m a i n components o r m o d u l e s : Diagnostician, these  (1) t h e E v a l u a t o r ,  (2) t h e  a n d (3) t h e T u t o r . T h e f u n c t i o n s o f  components f o r t h e p r e s e n t  study  are outlined i n  Table the  2.  F i g u r e 2 shows t h e  i n s t r u c t i o n a l flowchart  of  system.  Insert  a.  Table  2 about  here  Pre-test A total  o f 12  r e p l i c a t i o n s of the w e r e m i x e d and of pre-test  items  consisting  of  3  4 stoichiometry problem  presented  questions  types  i n a random o r d e r .  Sample  i s shown i n A p p e n d i x A.  pre-test  was  t o ensure t h a t  p a r t i c i p a n t s had  previous  knowledge o f s o l v i n g  The no  stoichiometry  problems.  Insert  b.  Diagnostic The  F i g u r e 2 about  Test  pre-requisite  knowledge i n v o l v i n g  mass, m o l a r mass c o n c e p t , that  i s required  p r o b l e m s was  No  and  for solving  evaluated.  3 r e p l i c a t i o n s of the presented.  here  ratio  mole,  calculation  stoichiometry  Twelve items  4 pre-requisite  f e e d b a c k s were g i v e n  consisting areas  were  for either  of  correct the  or  i n c o r r e c t responses.  d i a g n o s t i c t e s t s are  Table  3 summarizes t h e  knowledge t h a t a r e stoichiometry  Sample i t e m s  shown i n A p p e n d i x  types  from  B.  of p r e - r e q u i s i t e  required for solving various  problems.  Insert Table  Score obtained  by  3 about  the  here  students  i n the  pre-  r e q u i s i t e k n o w l e d g e t e s t was  used t o determine  number o f p r a c t i c e e x a m p l e s  initially  p r e s e n t e d / s u g g e s t e d . The examples i n i t i a l l y 2,  3,  4,  number o f p r a c t i c e  prescribed/suggested  or 5 f o r a score  the  of  12,  11,  were 0,  10,  9,  1,  8,  7  or less, respectively, c.  CAI  Module  The 1.  CAI  module c o n s i s t e d o f  Introduction to Gravimetric  Mole-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; stoichiometry; 5)  4)  3)  Stoichiometry;  an  2)  Mole-to-mass  Under the  i n s t r u c t i o n of each type  stoichiometry,  sections:  Mass-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ;  Mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y .  assisted  five  instructional  and  computer-  of  example was  given,  followed the  by  0 t o 5 p r a c t i c e examples, depending  p r o g r e s s and/or c h o i c e  instructional and  the on  be  part the  derived, of the  other  from the  the  processes  answer t o t h e  l e a r n e r . The  hand, r e q u i r e d  was  the  The  problem  w i t h o u t a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n on  l e a r n e r . The  p r o b l e m and  learner.  example i l l u s t r a t e d  d e m o n s t r a t e d how  could  of the  on  practice active  l e a r n e r was  prompted t o s o l v e  F e e d b a c k s were g i v e n  a t each step  i n s t r u c t i o n s were p r o v i d e d  a t any  example(s),  involvement presented with  a  i t step-by-step. and  remedial  point  when  required. Under the  APC  i n s t r u c t i o n was section,  followed  the  more d i f f i c u l t  sequence  of  introduction  were p r e s e n t e d  e a s i e r mole-to-mole  by  the  f i x e d . A f t e r the  subjects  relatively  condition,  f i r s t with  the  stoichiometry, mole-to-mass  and  mass-to-mole problems. Mass-to-mass  stoichiometry,  considered  was  last.  t o be  I n APC,  c o n t r o l l e d by on  the  score.  the  given  the  number o f p r a c t i c e e x a m p l e s  the  p r o g r a m and  learners  1  was  based  was  initially  p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t  However, t h e  e x a m p l e s was  most d i f f i c u l t ,  number o f p r e s c r i b e d  continuously  modified,  practice  reflecting  the  p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e s u b j e c t s on t h e immediate test  of the previous  stoichiometry  type.  U n d e r t h e ALC c o n d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s w e r e suggestions  b u t were g r a n t e d  e x a m p l e s t o be s t u d i e d . The number  d.  of practice  of practice  was b a s e d on t h e s u b j e c t s '  r e q u i s i t e knowledge s c o r e s as d i s c u s s e d  given  c o n t r o l over the  s e q u e n c e o f i n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h e number  examples suggested  post-  pre-  and o n - t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e  above,  Immediate P o s t - t e s t s An i m m e d i a t e p o s t - t e s t was g i v e n  of each type  of stoichiometry lesson.  a t t h e end Each  immediate p o s t - t e s t c o n s i s t e d o f 5 q u e s t i o n s were p r e s e n t e d provided  i n random o r d e r .  No f e e d b a c k  which was  d u r i n g t h e i m m e d i a t e p o s t - t e s t s . However,  s u b j e c t s were g i v e n t h e s c o r e a t t h e e n d o f e a c h test. f.  Final The  Delayed P o s t - t e s t final  p o s t - t e s t was a d m i n i s t r a t e d  after the conclusion of the entire of  12 i t e m s  and  lesson. A  consisting of 3 replications  s t o i c h i o m e t r y problem types presented.  one d a y  were r a n d o m l y  total  of the 4 chosen  APPARATUS AND The Resource  PROCEDURES  experiment  was  conducted  Room h o s t i n g f i v e  e a c h w i t h a RGB  IBM  c o l o r monitor.  nonprogrammable c a l c u l a t o r , chemical elements  The  had  PC m i c r o c o m p u t e r Pencils,  paper,  a periodic table  60 m i n u t e s t o 120  minutes per s e s s i o n .  outside regular class  a " f r e e p e r i o d " . During the a s s i g n e d t o one  and  was  use  o f the microcomputers.  test,  time,  student  f i r s t session, the  o f t h e computer  stations  p r o v i d e d w i t h d i r e c t i o n s on t h e o p e r a t i o n  pre-requisite  The  instruments  were a d o p t e d and  from  S/he  types of problem m e a s u r e s and  then given the f o l l o w e d by  pre-  the  f o r assessing metacognitive  Quinto  & Weener's s t u d y  skills  (1983).  d e s i g n e d t o a s s e s s more  the metacognitive s k i l l s s o l v i n g t a s k s by u s i n g  used  i n three  self-report  systematic observations i n determining  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e o u t c o m e s o f t h e s e methods the degrees  and  test.  Weener's t e s t was  comprehensively  was  knowledge t e s t ,  metacognitive a b i l i t y  Quinto  of  participant.  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 t h e  s u b j e c t was  systems  four to s i x sessions with  s e s s i o n s were c o n d u c t e d  i.e.,  Science  were a v a i l a b l e t o e a c h  Each s u b j e c t attended approximately  and  i n the  o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e  the  and  metacognitive  measures and a c t u a l performance. These i n s t r u m e n t s chosen f o r t h i s  study because o f t h e g e n e r a l nature o f  t h e q u e s t i o n s and problems and t h e i r f o r t h e grade l e v e l instruments reliability  concerned.  were f o u n d  appropriateness  More i m p o r t a n t l y ,  t o have a h i g h  (0.86) a n d i n t e r n a l  t h r e e p a r t s : 1) S e l f - r e p o r t  to  i n problem s o l v i n g ,  find  o u t how p e o p l e  these  test-retest  consistency  (0.70) a s c l a i m e d b y t h e a u t h o r s . The t e s t  skills  were  reliability consisted of  inventory of metacognitive a self-rating  perceive their  questionnaire  own a b i l i t i e s  and  p e r f o r m a n c e on p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t a s k s and t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p r o b l e m 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 o n 8 specific  p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t a s k s ; a n d 3) S o l v i n g t h e 8  S p e c i f i c problem tasks presented of the metacognitive C. Q u i n t o  ability  & Weener's s t u d y  students' self-reported a g e n e r a l and s p e c i f i c  test  i n 2. Sample q u e s t i o n s a r e shown i n A p p e n d i x  revealed that  college  assessments o f t h e i r l e v e l were p o s i t i v e l y  ability  correlated  w i t h t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t a s k . p r e d i c t e d performance,  e s t i m a t e s on t h e i n s t r u m e n t s  showed t h e S e l f - r e p o r t  On  s t u d e n t s 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 p e r f o r m a n c e on math a n d l a n g u a g e tasks. R e l i a b i l i t y  on  used  inventory of metacognitive  skills  had  internal  a test-retest  consistency  In the assigned  reliability  second s e s s i o n ,  t o one  began the  reliability  CAI  of the  two  sessions.  the  student  was  was  allowed  to stop  the  of  CAI  subsequent  on w i t h  the  session at the  subject  s p e n t on  the  CAI  the  total  lessons.  CAI end  types of final  subject  completed the  stoichiometry  post-test.  problems,  sessions,  built  learning  into  s/he  was  on  given  the  sessions  d a y s . One  lessons  and  each  amount o f t i m e  The  CAI  and  lessons of  was  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 a f t e r the  an  randomly  treatment conditions  to continue  program t o r e c o r d  and  .70.  immediate p o s t - t e s t i f d e s i r e d . A t i m e r the  .86  l e a r n e r was  During the  the  of  the the  day four  III.  RESULTS  Analyses of P r i o r Learning Test The d a t a a n a l y s i s scores consisted pre-requisite  Scores  of the p r i o r learning  of analysis  of variance  on  scores.  of within  group and between group l i n e a r i t y  nonsignificant  presented  pre-test,  k n o w l e d g e t e s t , and m e t a c o g n i t i v e  sub-tests  s c o r e s was  test  The t e s t s  (JJ >  f o r homogeneity o f  variance  were  .05) and t h u s no t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f  n e c e s s a r y . Mean s c o r e s f o r v a r i o u s i n T a b l e 4. C o r r e l a t i o n s  shown i n T a b l e  tests are  for pre-requisite  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 scores are also  ability  sub-tests  5.  Pre-test. All  subjects  i n both the adaptive learner  (ALC) a n d a d a p t i v e p r o g r a m c o n t r o l encountered d i f f i c u l t i e s test.  None o f them was  analysis  of pre-test  Pre-requisite  locus  of control  able  i n the pre-  t o make any s c o r e .  (p_ >  different  scores  .05) f o r t h e two  g r o u p s . Means f o r m a l e s a n d  were a l s o n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  no  (PRK).  k n o w l e d g e mean c o r r e c t different  Thus,  necessary.  knowledge t e s t  were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  conditions  with the questions  s c o r e s was  The p r e - r e q u i s i t e  (APC)  control  females  (p_ > . 0 5 ) .  Interaction  b e t w e e n g e n d e r o f s t u d e n t s and l o c u s  c o n t r o l was  nonsignificant.  Metacognitive a b i l i t y  . test.  The m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y sub-tests: rating  (1) O v e r a l l  of  test  self-rating  consisted inventory;  on s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t a s k s ;  and  of three (2)  Self-  (3)  P e r f o r m a n c e on s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t a s k s .  The  scores f o r overall  (OSR)  and  (SRS)  were  rating  self-rating  inventory  on s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t a s k s  d e t e r m i n e d by a d d i n g t h e t o t a l  scores obtained  c a t e g o r y . The maximum and minimum p o s s i b l e OSR  a n d SRS  were 207,  39 and 96,  i n each  scores f o r  18 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  f o r p e r f o r m a n c e on s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t a s k was  t h e number o f p r o b l e m s c o r r e c t  A n o v a ' s on OSR, significant .05)  SRS,  differences  o r between males  Insert  Interaction of  and STS  effect  (Table  females  4)  showed  (STS)  control  no  groups  (p_ >  (p_ >.05).  T a b l e 4 about here  between gender o f s t u d e n t and  c o n t r o l were a l s o  Score  out of 8 problems.  f o r t h e two  and  self  not  significant.  locus  Results on  of  correlation tests  pre-requisite  ability  (Table  k n o w l e d g e t e s t and  sub-tests  only  b e t w e e n o v e r a l l s e l f - r a t i n g (OSR)  and  p_  <  tasks  (SSR)  s c o r e s was  Analyses of  CAI  (ALC)  T a b l e 5 about  s e l f - r a t i n g on 0.86,  subjects  followed  the  completed the  learning  i n the  i n s t r u c t i o n was  necessary.  learning  process variables:  (d)  practice  e x a m p l e s done learning example  stoichiometry.  time  (ET),  (ED), (LT),  and  the  APC)  same  sequence  number o f  (EP), (c) and  (b)  of  five  practice  number  of  examples c o r r e c t (e)  time spent  f o r each of the  Means f o r t h e  sequence  were p e r f o r m e d on  (a)  examples s u g g e s t e d / p r e s c r i b e d practice  ( b o t h i n ALC  i n v o l v i n g the  f o r CAI  control  to the  program i n e x a c t l y  analysis  data analyses  learner  s u g g e s t i o n s as  o r d e r . T h u s , no  The  here  Variables  instruction, a l l participants  (CR),  correlation  significant, r =  Learning Process  Since a l l the  of  the  .00.  Insert  group  performed  metacognitive  that  specific  indicated  5)  above a r e  four  ratio per  types  presented  in  of  41  Table  6.  Tests  nonsignificant  f o r homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e  were  f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s (p. >  except  .05)  l e a r n i n g time i n mole-to-mass, mass-to-mole, mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y  (BLT,  (TLT),  time spent  and  overall  CLT,  (TET). Thus, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s q u a r e r o o t was  performed  s t a b l i z e the variance  total  not  significantly  6 about  (Kirk,  different  (p >  .05)  (1,24) = 23.67, 9.41, <  .0001,  .0053,  e x a m p l e s done ALC .00.  than  MSe  F  was  and  i n a l l types results  their  APC  stoichiometry,  = 1.77,  Furthermore, r e s u l t s  = 29.88, MSe of analyses  Fs  1.64,  1.17,  total  number  also s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  (1, 24)  APC  (BED), m a s s - t o -  .0078 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The  (TED)  i n APC,  8.44,  (DED)  of  group d i d  i n l e a r n i n g mole-to-mass mass-to-mass  range  number  f o r ALC  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p r a c t i c e e x a m p l e s t h a n  (CED), and  their  here  1 9 8 2 ) . The  i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s i n t h e ALC  mole  to  i n order to reduce the  o f s t o i c h i o m e t r y p r o b l e m s . However, ANOVA  counterparts  l e a r n i n g time  scores  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 was  mass-to-  p e r p r a c t i c e example  of these  Insert Table  and  DLT),  for  = 8.24,  p  ps of  in <  a l s o showed t h a t  s t u d e n t s i n ALC g r o u p s p e n t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t i m e i n l e a r n i n g m o l e - t o - m a s s (BLT) a n d m a s s - t o - m o l e (CLT) stoichiometry, 91.88, p_ <  Fs  ( 1 , 24) = 22.11, 5.86, MSe  .0001,  .023 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  ALC s u b j e c t s  s p e n t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t i m e i n t h e e n t i r e process  (TLT) , F  ( 1 , 24) = 15.33, MSe  .0031. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was examples c o r r e c t  ratio  spent per p r a c t i c e control  groups  difference interaction  learning  observed  also  (ET) f o r t h e two l o c u s  revealed  effects indicated  that  However,  learning  study of  i n l e a r n i n g mass-to-  t h e most d i f f i c u l t  types of stoichiometry  of  no s i g n i f i c a n t  f o r m a l e s and f e m a l e s .  mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y ,  i n the  of time  (p_ > . 0 5 ) . A n a l y s e s o f t h e s e  process variables  also  = 550.70, p. <  (CR) and t h e amount  example  = 72.20,  of the  four  p r o b l e m s , m a l e s t u d e n t s i n APC  s p e n t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t i m e t h a n t h e i r ALC counterparts,  a n d f e m a l e s t u d e n t s i n ALC  spent  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t i m e t h a n t h e i r APC c o u n t e r p a r t s , (1,  22) = 6.82, MSe  = 71.71, p_ < .016.  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was practice (1,  also noticed  Similar  f o r time spent per  e x a m p l e i n mass-to-mass s t o i c h i o m e t r y  22) = 7.23, MSe  interaction  F  = 8.08, p_ < .0130.  (DET), F  Other  e f f e c t s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ > . 0 5 ) .  The  tests for parallel  of t o t a l correct  e x a m p l e s done (TCR), and  requisite (PRK, of  SRS,  c o n t r o l g r o u p s . No  regression of  total  STS)  TCR  on  slopes OSR,  F  (1,  further analysis indicated  no  was  f o r the  regression  (TED), o v e r a l l r a t i o  k n o w l e d g e and  OSR,  slopes  l e a r n i n g time  of  (TLT)  metacognitive a b i l i t y  significant difference observed except =  4.60,  p_ <  o f c o v a r i a n c e on  TCR  regression  locus the  regression  However,  with  OSR The  c o e f f i c i e n t s shown i n T a b l e  indicate that  the  scores  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  the  scores  in  i n the .044.  pre-  two  significant interaction effect.  standardized  on  on  were p e r f o r m e d f o r t h e  22)  examples  influence  of the  prior learning  8  tests  not  significant.  Analysis Five  of  L e a r n i n g Outcome  l e a r n i n g outcome m e a s u r e s f r o m i m m e d i a t e  delayed post-tests test  scores  (IP),  delayed post-test time  Variables  ( T D T ) , and  were o f  i n t e r e s t : immediate  immediate p o s t - t e s t score  (DP),  total  delayed  f o r homogeneity of v a r i a n c e  post-  (IT), post-test  average c o r r e c t response r a t e  Means o f t h e s e outcome m e a s u r e s a r e Tests  time  and  (ART).  shown i n T a b l e  for a l l variables  7.  44  were n o t  s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ >  post-test  except  t i m e i n mole-to-mass  Insert  mass-to-mass post-test  .05)  (DIT)  time  for  (BIT),  T a b l e 7 about  stoichiometry,  ( T I T ) . T h u s , BIT,  here  and  total  DIT,  were t r a n s f o r m e d t o t h e i r s q u a r e r o o t Immediate  post-test  time  (IT)  f o r e a c h and  t y p e were n o t  the  of  locus  gender of Tests  of  STS)  i n ALC  prior learning  Since the  and  APC  not  scores  analysis.  scores  (IP)  overall  f o r males  slopes (IP)  subtests  revealed  of  no  f o r the  and  .05)  for  and control  scores  time f o r the  significantly  on  (PRK,  locus  d i f f e r e n t , no  time  OSR,  SRS,  significant difference.  immediate p o s t - t e s t  two  regression  post-test  e f f e c t s o f p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge  metacognitive a b i l i t y post-test  scores  s t u d e n t s were a l s o n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .  immediate p o s t - t e s t on  for  e f f e c t s between l o c u s  f o r homogeneity of  (IT)  TIT  s i g n i f i c a n t (p >  c o n t r o l g r o u p s and  females. I n t e r a c t i o n and  and  b o t h immediate p o s t - t e s t  stoichiometry two  immediate  post-test.  ANOVA * s on and  immediate  of  and scores  and  c o n t r o l g r o u p s were  further analysis  for  45  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s was  necessary.  regression coefficients  are  i n d i c a t e that the scores  on  I P and  The  shown i n T a b l e  i n f l u e n c e of p r i o r I T was  not  standardized 8 which  learning subtests  significant.  Delayed p o s t - t e s t . Analyses (DP)  (APC)  adaptive  (BDP) (1,  on d e l a y e d  and  24)  scored  mass-to-mass  = 4.71,  5.05,  s c o r e was  (DDP) MSe  counterparts,  F  (1, 24)  s c o r e s were n o t  m a l e s and  females.  1.10,  8 about  MSe  delayed  .04,  gender of the  counterparts t h e i r ALC  and  Fs .03  post-test  their  ALC  here  = 9.12,  significantly  i n which male s t u d e n t s  d i d b e t t e r than  p_ <  p_ <  students i n ALC  for  between  were  did better  female students  counterparts  .049.  different  However, i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s  l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and  t h e i r APC  students  i n mole-to-mass  higher than  = 4.32,  Post-test  significant  (ALC)  subjects' overall  Insert Table  than  stoichiometry types,  = 0.99,  also significantly  scores  program c o n t r o l  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  l e a r n e r c o n t r o l group  r e s p e c t i v e l y . APC  than  post-test  showed t h a t s u b j e c t s i n a d a p t i v e  group in  of variance  in  APC  i n mole-to-mass  delayed post-test p_ <  .013,  22)  =  and  6.60,  (BDP), F  in total  MSe  (1, 22)  = 7.65,  p_ <  .018  significantly  as  MSe  (ART)  (1, 3.  (TDT)  and  two  locus  f o r the  .05).  0.81,  shown i n F i g u r e  f o r m a l e s and  d i f f e r e n t (p_ >  =  (TDP), F  delayed post-test  average c o r r e c t response time c o n t r o l g r o u p s and  7.30,  delayed post-test  T o t a l t i m e s p e n t on  of  =  f e m a l e s were Interaction  not  effects  were a l s o n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .  Insert  Tests of  of >  3 about  o f homogeneity o f  a l l learning  subtests  Figure  scores  OSR.  SRS,  c o n t r o l g r o u p s showed no .05).  and  Since the  significantly interaction regression the  two  on  STS)  prior  d i f f e r e n t , no  the  two  locus  outcome  other analysis  of p r i o r l e a r n i n g  (p_  knowledge  o f c o n t r o l g r o u p s were  necessary.  was  learning  i n the  learning  c o e f f i c i e n t s presented  l e a r n i n g outcome s c o r e s  regression  significant differences  on  locus  e f f e c t s was  influence  f o r the  e f f e c t s of p r e - r e q u i s i t e  metacognitive a b i l i t y  measures f o r the  slopes  outcome v a r i a b l e s (PRK,  here  not  for  Standardized i n T a b l e 8 show  subtests  scores  not s i g n i f i c a n t .  on  that  IV.  Prior Learning The score  DISCUSSION AND  Experience  relatively  (71%)  and  participants  CONCLUSION  h i g h mean p r e - r e q u i s i t e  the  fact that  more t h a n h a l f o f  obtained a score of  indications that  75%  t h e s e student v o l u n t e e r s have  revealed  that  the  eight  the  o r more a r e  better-than-average chemistry background. p e r f o r m a n c e on  knowledge  good  a  Their  s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g  these students are  average  tasks  problem  solvers. 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 , subjects was  were q u i t e  i n d i c a t e d by  consistent  i n judging themselves  (OSR)  rating  ability  s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g  However, t h e  lack  of  between p r e - r e q u i s i t e self-rating  scores  knowledge s c o r e s  (SRS), and  specific  tasks  (STS)  the  (SRS).  p e r f o r m a n c e on  patterns overall  solving solving  made i t i m p o s s i b l e t o draw  regarding  prior learning  self-  (PRK),  (ORS), s e l f - r a t i n g on  tasks  conclusion  and  significant correlation  specific  valid  as  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  of g e n e r a l problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t y of  the  the  variables.  relationships  any  between  Analyses  of p r i o r  learning tests results  r e v e a l e d t h a t s u b j e c t s b e t w e e n t h e two groups d i d not d i f f e r requisite solving points gains  significantly  locus of  in their  c h e m i s t r y knowledge, o r i n t h e i r  ability.  S i n c e none o f t h e  i n t h e p r e - t e s t , we i n the a b i l i t y  can  also control  pre-  problem-  subjects scored  attribute  any  later  t o s o l v e s t o i c h i o m e t r y problem  t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e l e a r n i n g p r o g r a m s , and any  difference  any  further  i n g a i n s between t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e  l o c u s of c o n t r o l groups t o the d i f f e r e n t  to  two  treatment  effects.  E f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Chemistry Careful evidence  f o r the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the  i n d i c a t e d by  post-test  Program  analyses of the r e s u l t s provide  l e a r n i n g program employed gains  CAI  the  in this  clear  computer-assisted  study.  The  overall  i m m e d i a t e p o s t - t e s t s and  f o r a l l subjects are  68%  noted  and  respectively.  I t s h o u l d be  l e a r n i n g time  t o a c h i e v e t h e s e g a i n s was  63%,  t h a t the average  same t o p i c s Guide,  s p e n t by  classroom  seven  teachers to cover  (see A l b e r t a E d u c a t i o n Chemistry  1983). These f i n d i n g s  net  approximately  50 m i n u t e s w h i c h i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s t h a n t h e hours normally  delayed  the  Curriculum  are c o n s i s t e n t with  those  of previous research 1983)  that  effective  (e.g.  Kulik,  computer-assisted  Bangert,  instruction is  i n i n c r e a s i n g p e r f o r m a n c e and  i n s t r u c t i o n t i m e . However, i t must be participants  the a  "normal" chemistry  involved.  The  particular  11  stoichiometry  be  time deserves f u r t h e r  of  t o be  that  above earlier,  somewhat l o n g e r  effectiveness  program f o r t e a c h i n g i n terms of  Effectiveness  out  c l a s s when a l l s t u d e n t s  e f f i c i e n c y and  CAI  reducing  i n c h e m i s t r y as m e n t i o n e d  average l e a r n i n g time could  Williams, generally  point  i n t h i s s t u d y were l i k e l y  average achievers  &  of  for  are  this  gravimetric  a c h i e v e m e n t and  instructional  study.  Locus of C o n t r o l  S t r a t e g i e s . ALC  and  APC Although the suggested t o the  total learner  not  significantly  the  program c o n t r o l  did  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  counterparts t i m e was  number o f p r a c t i c e control  (ALC)  group  (9.85)  d i f f e r e n t than that prescribed (APC)  group  (8.00),  significantly  subjects  longer  f i n d i n g s agree with F i s h e r ,  f o r the  Blackwell,  total ALC  in  (1975) w h i c h i n d i c a t e d t h a t  ALC APC  learning  group.  Garcia  was  for  (14.15) e x a m p l e s t h a n t h e i r  (8.00). Consequently, the  Greene's study  examples  &  when  These  students  were g i v e n a c h o i c e on  arithmetic task, engagement o v e r who  they maintained  with  are  higher  long p e r i o d s of time  w e r e n o t g i v e n a c h o i c e . On  results  engagement i n a  inconsistent with  1980;  and  fail  r e c e i v e , they  t o l e a r n what t h e y  p r e d i c t i o n a l s o was terminate and  early  control  the  and  1984;  should.  t h a t s u b j e c t s i n ALC  longer l e a r n i n g time o f two  the  The  amount too  original  would  encountered  new  present  engaged by  reasons:  and  often terminate  e s p e c i a l l y when t h e y  s u b j e c t s c o u l d be this  Carrier,  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  study,  these  R o s s & Rakow, 1 9 8 1 ) . B o t h C a r r i e r  i n s t r u c t i o n they  early  did subjects  earlier prediction  T e n n y s o n a r g u e d t h a t when s t u d e n t s of  than  of  t h e o t h e r hand,  o t h e r r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s ( e . g.  Tennyson,  levels  CAI  the  ALC  (1) P a r t i c i p a n t s  in  s t u d y were s t u d e n t - v o l u n t e e r s . T h e y w e r e a s k e d  take part i n t h i s c l a s s time, school,  i . e . before  o r when t h e y  i n d i v i d u a l s who likely  learning task outside their  t o be  chemistry  s c h o o l , lunch time,  who  had  i n g e n e r a l , and  in particular.  As  more s e r i o u s and  normal  after  have a " f r e e " p e r i o d . Thus,  were w i l l i n g  those  to  i n v o l v e d w e r e more  a keen i n t e r e s t l e a r n i n g through  a result, willing  t o be  these  students  in learning a  computer  tended  t o i n v e s t more t i m e ;  and  to (2)  be  None o f t h e s e p a r t i c i p a n t h a d p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e  with  computer-assisted  found  such  an e x p e r i e n c e  motivated  instruction,  and t h e r e f o r e t h e y  quite interesting  a n d w e r e more  t o s p e n d more t i m e when g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y  t o do s o . It  i s r a t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g t o note  subjects  i n ALC s p e n t  learning,  that  although  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t i m e i n  t h e y d i d n o t a c h i e v e a s much a s t h e i r  counterparts.  S u b j e c t s i n APC d i d s l i g h t l y  APC  b e t t e r than  t h e ALC l e a r n e r s i n a l l t h e i m m e d i a t e p o s t - t e s t s , a n d t h e APC's s u p e r i o r i t y delayed Garcia found  surfaced s i g n i f i c a n t l y  i n the  o v e r a l l p o s t - t e s t . The s t u d y b y B l a c k w e l l , & 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  t h a t l o n g e r engagement o n a CAI t a s k d i d n o t  necessarily  result  i n b e t t e r p e r f o r m a n c e . The suggest  results  in the present  study  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  strategy i n the computer-assisted  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 t h a n ALC s i n c e subjects  i n APC a c h i e v e d  s h o r t e r p e r i o d o f time.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n a much The s u p e r i o r i t y  program c o n t r o l  s t r a t e g y demonstrated  consistent with  our p r e d i c t i o n  research Greene,  findings  (e.g. Fisher,  of adaptive  i n this  and a g r e e s  with  study i s previous  Blackwell, Garcia &  1975; T e n n y s o n & B u t t r e y , 1980; R o s s & Rakow,  1 9 8 1 ) . However, e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e s u p e r i o r i t y program c o n t r o l  s t r a t e g y demonstrated  in this  of  study  are  not q u i t e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . I n R o s s & Rakow's s t u d y , b e t t e r performance fewer  b e c a u s e LC  program c o n t r o l  subjects selected  e x a m p l e s t h a n were p r e s c r i b e d and  study time per r u l e d i d not d i f f e r other groups. be  In the present study,  the opposite. Careful  that  of rules  r e s o u r c e s and  t h e i r APC  the reason  seems t o  to  show  the  when s u b j e c t s were  e x a m p l e s t o do,  on h a v i n g more and more  they  were  t h e y d i d more e x a m p l e s and  t h e same amount o f t i m e p e r example  counterparts, they probably l e t t h e i r  ALC  example i f d e s i r e d . As  a n d APC  d i d not d i f f e r  p o s t t e s t performance retain time  but  a result,  spent as  mind  w a n d e r w i t h t h e hope t h a t t h e y c o u l d a l w a y s l e a r n another  not  learning  n o t t o c o n c e n t r a t e on what t h e y  attending t o . Although approximately  subjects i n  not conducive  In f a c t ,  g i v e n a s e t number o f p r a c t i c e to rely  from  average  for solving gravimetric  s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems.  tended  their  much  analyses of the r e s u l t s  l o n g e r l e a r n i n g t i m e was  acquisition  produced  from  subjects i n  significantly  i n immediate  s u b j e c t s i n APC  were a b l e t o  the learned materials f o r a longer p e r i o d of  a s r e f l e c t e d by  their  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  delayed  posttest  s c o r e . I t c a n t h e r e f o r e be  s u b j e c t s ' p o o r p e r f o r m a n c e was  concluded  that  more o f f a i l i n g  resources w i s e l y than t r y i n g t o terminate the  to  ALC use  task  early. Contrary to o r i g i n a l achievement-treatment  p r e d i c t i o n s and  interaction theory  Tobias' (Tobia,  1976),  n e i t h e r t h e s t u d e n t s ' p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge n o r metacognitive  ability  had  any  effect  o u t c o m e s . P r e - r e q u i s i t e k n o w l e d g e and ability  were n o t  learning  significant  outcome v a r i a b l e s .  on  learning  metacognitive  covariates for a l l I n o t h e r words,  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 metacognitive  ability  and  l o c u s o f c o n t r o l were  The  a b s e n c e o f i n t e r a c t i o n s may  e x p l a i n e d by  the  fact  metacognitive  Another p o s s i b l e reason  the  instruments  ability  a t t r i b u t e d to the employed  low  prior d i d not  c o u l d be  drawn  ability.  f o r the absence  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 c o u l d be  ability  clear distinction  b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h i g h and  control  be  g r o u p o f s t u d e n t s whose  k n o w l e d g e and t h u s no  not  that the subjects involved i n the  s t u d y were a s e l e c t i v e  v a r y much and  the  knowledge,  significant.  chemistry  their  ability  of  and  locus of  inappropriateness of  i n measuring  metacognitive  f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group. Although  Quinto  &  Weener  (1983) h a d c l a i m e d a h i g h  reliability on  and a h i g h i n t e r n a l  the instruments  used,  test-retest consistency  reliability  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 t h e f a c e o r content v a l i d i t y instruments  and n o t i t s c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y .  aptitude-treatment this  The control test has  f u r t h e r s t u d y u s i n g more  and r e l i a b l e  reasons  Thus t h e  interaction effects hypothesized i n  research deserve  sophisticated  of the  instruments.  f o r the significant  interaction effect  s c o r e s a r e not easy  observed  gender by l o c u s o f i n delayed  to establish.  b e e n no c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e  Although  there  i n recent researches t o  show t h a t b o y s a r e b e t t e r i n d e p e n d e n t girls  i n problem-solving,  girls  g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e more g u i d a n c e  than boys i n s c i e n t i f i c  post-  workers  than  a widely held believe i s that and d i r e c t i o n s  l e a r n i n g t a s k s and t h u s  r e q u i r e a more s t r u c t u r e d a p p r o a c h .  they  I t i s obvious  further  s t u d i e s on i n t e r a c t i o n  control  a n d g e n d e r n e e d t o be c o n d u c t e d  that  e f f e c t s between l o c u s o f b e f o r e any  e x p l a n a t i o n s a n d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n c a n b e made. S u c h studies should  i n v o l v e a more g e n e r a l i z a b l e s a m p l e  which i n c l u d e s s u b j e c t s with 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  so t h a t t h e  possible  abilities  interaction effects  f o r locus of control,  g e n d e r , and  other  aptitude  measures can  be  studied  in  depth. It  i s quite clear that this  study  provides  evidence f o r the  s u p e r i o r i t y of adaptive  control  over adaptive  i n the  strategy  computer-assisted  stoichiometry and  a s was  unfamiliar  task,  learner control  l e a r n i n g of  facilitate  tendency t o r e l y and  do  not  on  When e n c o u n t e r i n g  as  learning  in this  First was  any  a few  , because of the  not  during  every student  regular  regular  solicited  valid  necessarily  p o i n t s must be l a c k of  have  kept  the  materials  attending  conclusions  can  be  to. made  i n mind.  computer f a c i l i t i e s ,  f o r the  and  i n a l l Chemistry  paid  a result,  for to attend  c l a s s hours. Since  s e l e c t e d group of ability  what t h e y a r e  c l a s s t i m e . As  d r a f t e d and  outside  not  support.  p o s s i b l e t o conduct a l a r g e s c a l e research  involved  t o be  study,  instructional  more l e a r n i n g r e s o u r c e on  new  program,  e s p e c i a l l y when s u b j e c t s  concentrate  However, b e f o r e from t h i s  gravimetric  more l e a r n i n g t i m e do  learning,  strategy  predicted.  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 More p r a c t i c e and  program  11  sessions  volunteers  s t u d y , t h e y t e n d e d t o be students with a small  that  classes  volunteers  study  i t  of  range  t h i s makes g e n e r a l i z a t i o n somewhat  were a of  had  difficult.  Second, because t h e  conducted outside to c o n t r o l the sessions  and  time of the students  day.  under g r e a t e r sessions  r e g u l a r c l a s s hours,  amount o f t i m e e l a p s e d  the  who  For  example,  came i n d u r i n g  t o be  120  the  f o r the  design  be  Another  study.  in  Due  to varied  of  computer-assisted of t h i s  above b e f o r e  research  is  possible these r e s u l t s  i n i n s t r u c t i o n . I t would a l s o  domains t o see  replicated.  to  practical  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 using subject  the  session  t i g h t e r c o n t r o l over the  generalized  their  study provide  replication  sources of e r r o r s described could  and  attempt  length per  be  minutes.  instruction materials, recommended w i t h  that  attended  inconsistency  Although r e s u l t s of t h i s implications  different  noticed  different.  i n the  difficult  i n between  a f t e r school  accommodate e v e r y v o l u n t e e r  f r o m 60 m i n u t e t o  i t was  hours appeared t o  r e s u l t i n g f r o m an  difficulties,  be  t h a n t h o s e who  p o s s i b l e e r r o r came f r o m t h e of sessions  i t was  lunch  time pressure  e a r l y m o r n i n g and  scheduling  to  p o s s i b l e e r r o r s c a u s e d by  performance would l i k e l y  length  s t u d y had  be  different  i f s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s would  be  REFERENCES  Brown, A.L. and  &  DeLoache, J.S.  self-regulation.  Children's Thinking: N.J.: Carrier,  ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Do  Instructional Fisher,  M.D.,  J.C. on  I n S i e g l e r , R.S. What D e v e l o p s ?  Lawrence Erlbaum  C.  Flavell,  29,  L.R.,  15-17  engagement i n a CAI  choices?  &  48.  G a r c i a , A.B.  (1975). E f f e c t s o f s t u d e n t  & Greene,  c o n t r o l and  arithmetic task of Educational  choice  in a  low-  Psychology,  776-783. J.H.  (1979). M e t a c o g n i t i o n  monitoring.  A new  area  J.H.  R.V.  Kail  & Wellman, H.M. & J.H.  Hagen  Erlbaum.  cognitive  34.,  906-911.  ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Metamemory. (Eds.) P e r s p e c t i v e s  D e v e l o p m e n t o f Memory and N.J.:  and  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 . Flavell,  Hillsdale,  Associates.  Innovator,  Blackwell,  plans,  (ed.),  l e a r n e r s make g o o d  income s c h o o l . J o u r n a l 67.  (1978). S k i l l s ,  Cognition.  on  In the  Hillsdale,  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 b e t w e e n  inquisitiveness instruction. 63,  and  student  Journal  c o n t r o l of  of Educational  Psychology,  459-465.  Gagne, R.M.  (1982). Developments i n l e a r n i n g  psychology.  Implications  and  o f computer t e c h n o l o g y  effects  instructional with  design  R o b e r t M.  and  for instructional on  d e v e l o p m e n t . An  Gagne. E d u c a t i o n a l  design;  interview  Technology. I l -  ls. Gagne, R.M.  & Briggs,  Instructional  L.J.  (1979). P r i n c i p l e s  of  Design. Tornoto: Holt, Rinehart  &  Winston. Goetzfried, the  L.  & H a n n a f i n , M.J.  l o c u s o f CAI  ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The  c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s on  l e a r n i n g of mathematical r u l e s . Educational Jay,  T.B.  Research Journal,  ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The  Technology, Jelden,  d.L.  23.,  and  the  22.,  273-278.  evaluation.  computer  Educational  22-26.  & Brown, B.R.  learner-controlled Educational  of  American  c o g n i t i v e approach t o  courseware design  effect  (1982). A  education  generalized  system. J o u r n a l  T e c h n o l o g y S y s t e m s . 11,  3-21.  of  59  Jonassen,  D.H.  (1985). I n t e r a c t i v e  lesson designs: a  taxonomy. E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y . Judd,  W.A.,  Bunderson,  C.V.,  mathematics. University S e r v i c e No. Kirk,  R.E.  (1970).  An  of learner control  in  instruction  (MATHS T e c h . Rep.  o f Texas. ED  053  (ERIC  prerequisite 5). Austin,  532)  (1982) . E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n : P r o c e d u r e s f o r  J.A.,  Bangert,  Effects school  S.S.  75,  t e a c h i n g on  (1983). secondary  19-26.  an e x p e r i m e n t .  (1979). R e a l i z i n g t h a t you elementary  inconsistence. M.D.  learning.  Child  21st  for Educational  S y s t e m . P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n , May  understand:  instruction  Presented at the  Convention of A s s o c i a t i o n  Markman, E.M.  Merrill,  & W i l l i a m s , G.W.  (1983). A l e a r n e r - b a s e d computer  Annual  of  Brooks/Cole.  students. Journal of Educational  system:  Data  R.L.,  o f computer-based  Psychology, Lee,  Texas:  Document R e p r o d u c t i o n  the Behavioral Sciences. C a l i f o r n i a : Kulik,  7-16.  & B e s s e n t , E.W.  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t s computer-assisted  25,  9-13, don't  school children's D e v e l o p m e n t . 50,  (1980). L e a r n e r c o n t r o l  1983.  awareness 643-655.  i n computer  Computer & E d u c a t i o n . 4,  77-95.  based  60  Park,  O.C.  (1982).  A response-sensitive  computer-based teaching. Systems. Park,  O.C.  Journal 10,  of  for  Quinto,  for  concept  Technology  (1980) .  in  Adaptive  number  and  coordinate of  design  presentation  concept  Educational  Psychology,  362-370. A.L.  & Weener,  presented  at  Educational Quebec,  the  overview. S.M.  learning  problem  solving.  Annual  Meeting  of  Association  O.C.  (1983).  adaptive  11,  an  Technology.  Matching  systems.  Instruction.  the  Paper  American  (67th,  Montreal,  Intelligent  instruction:  Educational  alternative  Assessing  11-15).  & Park,  (1984).  (1983).  in  Research  April  F.C.  P.D.  skills  computer-assisted  Ross,  R.D.  Journal  metacognitive  Roberts,  strategy  Educational  selecting  examples  acquisition. 72,  of  a  in  187-197.  SE T e n n y s o n ,  strategies order  instruction:  strategy  the  lesson  designs  Journal 42-48.  of  for  explanation 23., to  and  7-12. the  student:  individualized  Computer-Based  61  R o s s , S.M.  & Rakow, E.A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . L e a r n e r  program c o n t r o l  as adaptive  R o s s , S.M.  of Educational  rules.  P s y c h o l o g y . 73., 745-753.  f o rteaching  Educational 30.  o n math  & Rakow, E.A. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A d a p t i v e  strategies  versus  strategies 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 Journal  control  rules  Communication  instructional  i n mathematics.  & Technology  Journal.  67-74.  R o s s , S.M.,  Rakow, E.A. & Bush, A . J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) .  Instructional  adaptation  systems. J o u r n a l  f o r self-managed  of Educational  learning  P s y c h o l o g y , 72.,  312-320. Snow, R.E. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A p t i t u d e , adaptive 15.  l e a r n e r c o n t r o l , and  instruction. Educational  Psychologist.  151-158.  Steinberg,  E.R.  (1977). Review o f s t u d e n t  computer a s s i s t e d  instruction. Journal of  Computer-Based I n s t r u c t i o n . T e n n y s o n , R.D.  (1980). A d a p t i v e  3., 84-90. 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 . Educational 20.  7-15.  control i n  Technology.  62  Tennyson, R.D.  (1981). Use  of a d a p t i v e  information f o r  advisement i n l e a r n i n g concepts and r u l e s computer-assisted  i n s t r u c t i o n . American  E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l . 18, Tennyson, R.D.  using  & B u t t r e y , T.  425-438.  (1980). Advisement  management s t r a t e g i e s as d e s i g n v a r i a b l e s computer-assisted  C h r i s t e n s e n , D.L.  The Minnesota a d a p t i v e i n t e l l i g e n t CBI Instruction. Tennyson, R.D.  11.  in  i n s t r u c t i o n . Educational  Communication & Technology J o u r n a l . 28, Tennyson, R.D.,  and  169-176.  & Park, S.I.  (1984).  i n s t r u c t i o n a l system: an  system. J o u r n a l o f Computer-Based 2-13.  & Rothen, W.  (1977). P r e t a s k and  on-task  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 o f i n s t a n c e s i n concept 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 psychology, 69, Tennyson, R.D.  & Rothen, W.  586-592.  (1979). Management o f  computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n : d e s i g n o f an  adaptive  c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y . J o u r n a l o f Computer-Based Instruction. Tobias,  S.  5, 63-71.  (1976). Achievement treatment  Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 46,  interactions. 61-74.  Tobias,  S.  (1981). A d a p t i n g  difference  instruction to  among s t u d e n t s .  Psychologist,  16,  111-120.  Educational  individual  64  Table 1 Four Types of Stoichiometry Problems  i n mole given  required  substance  i n mole  i n mass  mole to  mole to  mole  mass  substance i n mass  mass to mole  mass to mass  Table  2  Instructional  Design f o r Teaching  Stoichiometry  Calculations  Sequence  1.  Pre-test  To a s s e s s  (12  learning  items  with  2.  Intended  3  Functions  Component  the learner's prelevel  knowledge  Gravimetric  of  i n stoichiometry  replications  calculations:  of 4  (a) m o l e - t o - m o l e  stoichiometry  stoichiometry  (b) m o l e - t o - m a s s  stoichiometry  types)  (c) m a s s - t o - m o l e  stoichiometry  (d) mass-to-mass  stoichiometry  Diagnostic t e s t (12 items with  (a) To a s s e s s 3  of  4  pre-  learners'  Diagnostician  calculations ii)  requisite areas)  the  p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge: i ) m o l a r mass (M)  replications  Evaluator  mole  (n) t o mass  (m)  calculations iii)  mass  (m) t o m o l e  (n)  calculations iv)  ratio  calculations (table  continues)  Sequence  Intended Functions  (b)  To d e r i v e  Component  instructional  prescriptions 3. CAI M o d u l e s  To p r o v i d e solving  instructions for  gravimetric  stoichiometry (a)  and  substances  e x p r e s s t h e amount o f given  (c)  problems.  i d e n t i f y the given required  (b)  Tutor  substance i n moles  identify the coefficients of the given  and r e q u i r e d  s u b s t a n c e s from t h e balanced (d)  find  t h e amount o f t h e  required (e)  substance i n moles  e x p r e s s t h e amount o f the if  4. P o s t - t e s t s  equation  required  i n grams  desired  To a s s e s s  the effectiveness  o f CAI p r o g r a m  Evaluator  Table  3  P r e - r e q u i s i t e Knowledge R e q u i r e d the  Four Types o f S t o i c h i o m e t r y  f o r Solving Problems  Stoichiometry  type  Pre-re-  Mole  Mole  Mass  Mass  quisite  to  to  to  to  mole  mass  mole  mass  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  knowledge  Ratio calculations  M o l a r mass calculations  M o l e t o mass calculat-  yes  yes  ions  Mass t o m o l e calculations  yes  yes  Table  4  Mean S c o r e s  of Prior Learning  Subtests  ALC  PRK  OSR  Male  Female  (n=4)  (n=9)  (n=7)  (n=6)  9.50  7.89  9.00  7.83  144.00  137.78  142.86  147.17  67.25  62.56  67.86  67.83  4.50  3.67  3.86  3.67  39)  (Max. 96) (Min.  .STS  Female  0)  (Max. 207) (Min.  SRS  Male  (Max. 12) (Min.  18)  (Max. 8) (Min.  APC  0)  N o t e . ALC = a d a p t i v e l e a r n e r c o n t r o l ; APC = program c o n t r o l ; s c o r e ; OSR ability  specific  PRK = p r e - r e q u i s i t e k n o w l e d g e  = overall  self-rating  ability  test  score i n metacognitive  s u b t e s t ; SRS = s e l f - r a t i n g  metacognitive  adaptive  on s p e c i f i c  tasks i n  s u b t e s t ; STS = p e r f o r m a n c e on  tasks i n metacognitive  ability  subtest.  Table  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 M e t a c o c r n i t i v e Subtests  PRK  Scores  OSR  SRS  STS  -0.0023  -0.1003  0.1081  0.8633  0.1794  OSR SRS  0.2867  Note.  PRK = P r e - r e q u i s i t e k n o w l e d g e  OSR = O v e r a l l s e l f - r a t i n g self-rating STS  Ability  tasks.  s c o r e ; SRS =  on s o l v i n g s p e c i f i c  = performance  test;  on s o l v i n g  tasks;  specific  Table  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 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)  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  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  Type  A:  ?ype B:  (table  continues)  ALC  APC  M  F  M  F  (n=4)  (n=9)  (n=7)  (n=6)  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  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  Type  C:  ?ype D:  (table  continues)  ALC  APC  M  F  M  F  (n=4)  (n=9)  (n=7)  (n=6)  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  Total:  N o t e . ALC = a d a p t i v e  l e a r n e r c o n t r o l ; APC  =  adaptive  program c o n t r o l ; M = male; F = female; Type A = m o l e - t o mole  stoichiometry;  Type B = mole-to-mass  Type C = mass-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; stoichiometry;  Type D -  mass-to-mass  EP = number o f p r a c t i c e e x a m p l e s  suggested/prescribed; done; CR = r a t i o ET = t i m e s p e n t  stoichiometry;  ED = number o f p r a c t i c e e x a m p l e s  o f e x a m p l e s c o r r e c t ; LT = l e a r n i n g t i m e ; p e r p r a c t i c e example.  Table  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 Four Types o f S t o i c h i o m e t r y  Problems  ALC  M (n=4)  APC  F  M  F  (n=9)  (n=7)  (n=6)  Immediate Post-test: T y p e A: AIP  3.50  3.67  3.71  4.33  AIT(min)  4.83  6.17  5.79  6.57  BIP  3.00  2.67  2.57  4.33  B I T (min)  8.09  8.66  11.31  9.03  CIP  3.25  2.89  3.57  4. 00  C I T (min)  7.00  8.15  8.55  10.79  DIP  2.75  2.89  3.71  4.17  DIT(min)  7.94  12.53  10.70  11.83  (table  continues)  T y p e B:  T y p e C:  Type  D:  ALC  M (n=4)  APC  F  M  F  (n=9)  (n=7)  (n=6)  Immediate Post-test Total: TIP  12.50  12.11  13.57  16.83  T I T (min)  27.85  35.51  36.35  38.49  2.75  2.33  2.29  2.83  1.75  0. 67  1.43  2.33  2.00  1.22  1.86  2.33  2.00  1.22  2.00  2.83  (table  continues)  Delayed Post-test: T y p e A: ADP Type  B:  BDP Type  C:  CDP Type DDP  D:  ALC  APC  M  F  M  F  (n=9)  (n=7)  (n=6)  8.50  5.44  7.57  10.33  (n=4)  Delayed Post-test Total: TDP ART  (min)  1.92  1.97  2.04  2.32  TDT  (min)  23.83  26.77  26.01  28.15  N o t e . ALC = a d a p t i v e  l e a r n e r c o n t r o l ; APC  =  adaptive  program c o n t r o l ; M = male; F = female; Type A = m o l e - t o mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ;  Type B = mole-to-mass  Type C = mass-to-mole s t o i c h i o m e t r y ; stoichiometry;  Type D =  IP = immediate p o s t - t e s t s c o r e ;  p o s t - t e s t t i m e ; DP = d e l a y e d correct  stoichiometry;  r e s p o n s e t i m e ; TDT  mass-to-mass IT = immediate  p o s t - t e s t s c o r e ; ART  = total  delayed  = average  p o s t - t e s t time.  Table  8  Standardized Regression of Learning Process Prior  Coefficients  f o r the Regression  a n d L e a r n i n g Outcome V a r i a b l e s  Learning Subtests Scores  On  In Locus o f C o n t r o l  G r o u p s . ALC a n d APC  PRK  OSR  SRS  STS  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  TIP  0.0805  0.2506  0.2417  0.5160  TIT  -0.1621  -0.0016  -0.1095  0.1010  (table  continues)  Learning Process Variables:  Learning Outcome Variables: Immediate Post  Test:  OSR  PRK  STS  SRS  Learning Outcome Variables Delayed Post  Test:  TDP  0.0116  0.2149  0.0852  0.2157  ART  -0.1212  0.2151  0.1488  0.0968  TDT  -0.0280  0.0719  0.1536  0.2770  N o t e . ALC = a d a p t i v e  l e a r n e r c o n t r o l ; APC =  adaptive  p r o g r a m c o n t r o l ; M = m a l e ; F = f e m a l e ; PRK = p r e - r e q u i s i t e knowledge t e s t metacognitive tasks  s c o r e ; OSR = o v e r a l l  i n metacognitive  i n metacognitive  practice  e x a m p l e s done; TCR = t o t a l l e a r n i n g time;  score; TIT = t o t a l post-test delayed  score i n on  specific  a b i l i t y s u b t e s t ; STS = p e r f o r m a n c e on  tasks  = total  rating  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  specific  TLT  self  a b i l i t y s u b t e s t ; TED = examples c o r r e c t  TIP = t o t a l  immediate p o s t - t e s t time;  time.  ratio;  immediate p o s t - t e s t TDP = t o t a l  s c o r e ; ART = a v e r a g e c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e t i m e ;  post-test  total  delayed  TDT =  total  Identify the required s u b s t a n c e (R)  Identify the given s u b s t a n c e (G)  I s (G) e x p r e s s e d i n moles ( n )  no  7  r  1 I  yes  r i  I  Calculate (n ) from t h e f o r m u l a n = m/M G  Identify the 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 equation (C ) G  Identify the 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 equation (C ) R  I  U s e r a t i o t o f i n d t h e number o f m o l e s of t h e r e q u i r e d substance ( n ) : R  nR  'R  nG I  I s t h e mass o f t h e required substance (m ) d e s i r e d ?  yes  R  T no  Calculate m by u s i n g the formula m = n.M R  EndUF i g u r e 1. T a s k c o m p o n e n t s a n d processes f o r solving gravimetric s t o i c h i o m e t r y problems  79  PRE-TEST /•  DIAGNOSTIC TESTS  \  -  ?  MANAGER  MARKER  IMMEDIATE POSTTEST  MOLE-TO-MOLE STOICHIOMETRY  c  MOLE-TO-MASS STOICHIOMETRY STOP  r  MASS-TO-MOLE STOICHIOMETRY  MASS-TO-MASS  —^~ STOICHIOMETRY  • ~r—  7-  IMMEDIATE POSTTEST IMMEDIATE POSTTEST  . s,IMMEDIATE  POSTTEST  s  ?  \  /  DELAYED POSTTEST  Figure 2 . I n s t r u c t i o n a l flowchart f o r Learning 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  Figure  3.  I n t e r a c t i o n between gender of students and locus of control  APPENDIX A Pre-test  and P o s t - t e s t  Sample  Questions  How many m o l e s o f o x y g e n w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d 43.5 m o i o f c a r b o n d i o x i d e ?  c  25 52(s) H  +  3  8  °2(g)  >  2  5  c o  2(g)  +  2  6  H  t o produce  2°(g)  568.2 g o f i r o n w o u l d p r o d u c e how many m o l e s o f i r o n [ I I I ] oxide? 4 Fe  (  s  )  +  3 0  2  (  g  )  What mass o f s i l v e r w o u l d p r o d u c e 26.84 m o i o f s i l v e r sulfide? 16 A g  +  ( s )  S  >  8 ( s )  8 Ag S 2  ( s )  F i n d t h e mass o f s o d i u m h y d r o g e n c a r b o n a t e r e q u i r e d t o p r o d u c e 89.62 g o f c a r b o n d i o x i d e . 2 NaHC0  3 ( s )  >  Na C0 2  3 ( s )  + C0  2 ( g )  +  H 0 2  ( g )  APPENDIX B Pre-requisite  K n o w l e d g e Sample Q u e s t i o n s  F i n d t h e m o l a r mass o f  (NH ) SO 4  2  D e t e r m i n e t h e number o f m o l e s i n 745.3 g o f C C 1  C a l c u l a t e t h e mass i n 5.92 m o l e s o f C H c O H . 0  S o l v e f o r x: x  4  84  APPENDIX C Metacognitive  General  Ability  Sample  Questions  Instruction:  The s t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s how  Test  people perceive  their  problem s o l v i n g tasks  inventory  own  are used t o f i n d out  abilities  and t h e n a t u r e  and p e r f o r m a n c e on  o f the problem s o l v i n g  t a s k s . A n s w e r Them a c c o r d i n g ; t o what y o u a c t u a l l y t h i n k and do a n d do n o t a n s w e r them a c c o r d i n g should  t o what y o u t h i n k v o u  do. R e s p o n d a s a c c u r a t e l y a s y o u c a n .  SUBTEST  1.  Self-Report  Inventory  of General  Metacognitive  Skills.  A. On a s c a l e o f 1-7 ( f r o m p o o r 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 three d i f f e r e n t types of p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t a s k s . T y p e t h e number y o u c h o o s e t o r a t e y o u s e l f . Time l i m i t : 60 s e c o n d s p e r response. 1. M a t h e m a t i c a l P r o b l e m s - T h e s e may i n v o l v e p r o b l e m s 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 m e t e r s t o k i l o m e t e r s , f i n d i n g t h e 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 t a . 1 Very Poor  2 Poor  3 Fair  4 Good  5 Very Good  6 Superior  7 Excellent  85  B. R a t e y o u s e l f on t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s b y t y p i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number. Time l i m i t : 60 s e c o n d s p e r response. 1.  I f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to 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 o r 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 t h e f u r n i s h i n g s h a v e b e e n changed.  1 Always 2.  2 Often  3 Sometimes  4 Seldom  I c a n e s t i m a t e q u i t e a c c u r a t e l y how 1 Always  2 Often  3 Sometimes  5 Never I do  4 Seldom  on  exam.  5 Never  3. When t a k i n g exam, I u s u a l l y work on e a s y i t e m s f i r s t and t h e n go on t o t h e more d i f f i c u l t o n e s r a t h e r t h a n j u s t t a k i n g them i n t h e o r d e r t h e y a r e presented. 1 Always  SUBTEST  2 Often  3 Sometimes  4 Seldom  5 Never  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  Solving  Tasks.  D i r e c t i o n : T y p e t h e number y o u c h o o s e t o r a t e y o u r s e l f . Give your b e s t guess i f you a r e u n c e r t a i n a b o u t how t o r e s p o n d . Time l i m i t : 60 seconds p e r response. 1. T h r e e f a t h e r s — P e t e , J o h n , and N i c k — have b e t w e e n them a t o t a l o f 15 c h i l d r e n o f w h i c h 9 a r e b o y s . P e t e h a s 3 g i r l s and J o h n h a s t h e same number o f b o y s . J o h n h a s 1 more c h i l d t h a n P e t e , who h a s 4 c h i l d r e n . N i c k h a s 4 more b o y s t h a n g i r l s and t h e same number o f g i r l s a s P e t e h a s b o y s . How many b o y s e a c h do N i c k and P e t e h a v e .  86  a . How w e l l  can you solve t h i s  1 Very Well  2 Good  3 Fair  problem? 4 Poor  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 performance. 1 Very Well  2 Good  3 Fair  4 Poor  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 ) d i f f i c u l t i s t h i s problem f o r you? ,1 Very Well  2.  2 Good  3 Fair  how  4 Poor  On a c e r t a i n d a y I a t e l u n c h a t Tommy's, t o o k o u t two b o o k s f r o m t h e l i b r a r y , v i s i t e d t h e museum, and h a d a c a v i t y f i l l e d . Tommy's i s c l o s e d o n Wednesday, t h e l i b r a r y i s c l o s e d o n S t a u r d a y a n d Sunday, t h e museum i s o n l y o p e n Wednesday, Monday, and F r i d a y , a n d my d e n t i s t h a s o f f i c e h o u r s T u e s d a y , F r i d a y , a n d S a t u r d a y . On w h i c h d a y o f t h e week d i d I do a l l t h e s e t h i n g ? a . How w e l l  can you solve t h i s  1 Very Well b . How c o n f i d e n t performance. 1 Very Well  2 Good  3 Fair  problem? 4 Poor  a r e you i n your estimate o f your 2 Good  3 Fair  4 Poor  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 ) d i f f i c u l t i s t h i s problem f o r you? 1 Very Well  2 Good  3 Fair  4 Poor  how  Below i s a diagram showing t h e arrangement of 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 the 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 through the w a l l which separated h i s c e l l from the one n e x t t o i t , and murdered 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 to b r e a k i n t o each c e l l and 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 o n t o t h e n e x t . He w o u l d n e v e r g o b a c k i n t o a c e l l c o n t a i n i n g a dead body. Every 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 ; and 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 the l a s t inmate i n the c e l l marked 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 might have taken t o a r r i v e a t t h a t c e l l last.  X  0 a.  How  Very  b.  can  1 Well  How c o n f i d e n t performance.  Very  c.  well  1 Well  you  solve  2 Good  are you  2 Good  this  problem?  3 Fair  4 Poor  i n your  3 Fair  estimate of  4 Poor  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 ) d i f f i c u l t i s t h i s problem f o r you?  Very  1 Well  2 Good  3 Fair  your  4 Poor  how  SUBTEST  3.  Solve each o f t h e problems presented Time L i m i t : 5 m i n u t e s p e r q u e s t i o n .  i n SUBTEST  2.  

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