Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Performance in a computer maze as a function of cognitive style Knechtel, John David 1984

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A8 K64.pdf [ 11.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055093.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055093-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055093-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055093-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055093-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055093-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055093-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055093-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055093.ris

Full Text

PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE by JOHN DAVID KNECHTEL B.A. (Chemistry), University of Western Ontario, 1967 B.Ed., University of Toronto, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Faculty of EDUCATION Department of Mathematics and Science Education We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1984 © J o h n David Knechtel, 1984 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publi c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of S C I E N C E E D U C A T I O N The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date A U G U S T 1 9 8 4 DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT This study examines the rela t i o n s h i p between f i e l d independence (Witkin & Qoodenough, 1982) and performance in a Computer Maze. Performance was assessed from f i v e perspectives: a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations, s k i l l in locating the correct position for turning, proficiency in adjusting to changes in orientation, learning s t y l e s , and o v e r a l l performance. The predicted i n f e r i o r performance of the f i e l d dependent comparison group was p a r t i a l l y confirmed. The performance of the f i e l d dependent comparison group was lower for decoding of three dimensional representations variables, for orientation variables, and f o r some ov e r a l l performance variables. The performance of the f i e l d dependent comparison group was not lower for variables associated with i d e n t i f y i n g the correct positions for turning, for learning s t y l e variables, and f o r several o v e r a l l performance variables. Based on these findings, the author concluded that l e v e l of f i e l d independence was associated with decoding of three dimensional representations, and that l e v e l of f i e l d independence was linked with a b i l i t y to adjust to changes in orientation. However, although there was some relat i o n s h i p between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and o v e r a l l performance, because the two comparison groups d i f f e r e d in previous experience with computers, the author cautiously interpreted the difference in overa l l performance between the two comparison groups. The author recommended additional studies to examine the relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and the performance of students in a Computer Maze, between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and the performance of students in a computer assisted instruction exercise, and between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and performance of students in a computer studies class. The author also encouraged educators to c l a r i f y the r o l e of computers i n education. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES v i i i LIST OF FIGURES x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x i Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The General Problem 1 1.2 Importance of the Problem.. 10 1.3 Description of Terms 16 1.4 The S p e c i f i c Problems 23 1.5 The S p e c i f i c Hypotheses 26 1.6 Limitations of the Study.... 30 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 32 1.0 H i s t o r i c a l Perspective 32 1.1 Hardware and Software Changes 33 1.2 Educational Uses of Computers 34 1.3 Pedagogical Debates 37 2.0 Psychological Approaches to the Study of Learning 40 V Chapter Page 3.0 F i e l d Independence and Task.Performance 43 3.1 F i e l d Independence Construct... 44 3.2 Measures of Task Performance 46 III . METHOD OF STUDY 50 1.0 Experimental Design 50 1.1 Population 50" 1.2 Sample and Sampling Procedures...... 52 1.3 Variables 55 1.4 Instrumentation 60 1.5 Rationale f o r Design.... 63 1.6 Internal V a l i d i t y of Design 71 1.7 External V a l i d i t y of Design 73 1.8 Method of Analysis 75 1. 9 Research Hypotheses. 77 2.0 Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n 80 2.1 Training Procedures 80 2.2 Method of E l i c i t i n g Observations.... 83 2.3 Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n 85 2.4 Microcomputer Session Questionnaire. 86 2.5 Data Accumulation Procedures 86 v i Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 88 1.0 Summary of Data 88 1.1 Population C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 88 1.2 Age, Achievement and F i e l d Independence Test Scores 91 1.3 Summary of Training Session Results. 92 1.4 Dependent Variables 94 1.5 Microcomputer Session Questionnaire. 99 2.0 Analysis of Data 100 2.1 Summary of Violat i o n s of Parametric Assumptions . 100 2.2 Homogeneity of Comparison Groups.... 100 2.3 Analysis of Training Session Results 102 2.4 Null Hypotheses 105 2.5 Summary of Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests.. 107 2.6 Microcomputer Session Questionnaire. 109 3.0 Summary of Results 112 V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 114 1.0 Conclusions and Implications 114 1.1 Decoding of Three Dimensional Representations 115 1.2 Determining F i e l d s of Reference..... 116 1.3 Determining Points of Reference 117 1.4 Learning Styles....... 117 v i i Chapter Page 1.5 Overall Performance 118 1.6 Training Session 119 1.7 Microcomputer Session Questionnaire. 120 2.0 Recommendations 124 BIBLIOGRAPHY 129 APPENDIX A - Procedures f o r the Group Embedded Figures Test 136 APPENDIX B - Microcomputer Training Manual (Instructor's Version) 139 APPENDIX C - Procedures f o r the Microcomputer Assignment (Instructor's Version) 150 APPENDIX D - Summary of Transparencies and Slides for the Microcomputer Training Session... 152 APPENDIX E - Microcomputer Training Session Transparencies 156 APPENDIX F - Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Covering Page) 172 APPENDIX G - Student Training Manual 174 APPENDIX H - Maze Overviews and Three Dimensional Graphics Representations. 182 APPENDIX I - Computer Programs and Sample Computer Printouts 202 APPENDIX J - Analysis of Maze #2 226 APPENDIX K - Diagram of the Error. Committed by Subjects in Part I of the Training Session 229 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. L i s t of Independent Variables and Dependent Variables 56 2. Summary of GEFT Norms fo r College Males and Females 65 3. Comparison of the English Achievement of the Target Population, the Accessible Population, and the Students in the Target Population That Did Not Volunteer for the Study 89 4. Summary of the Age, English Achievement, and F i e l d Independence Test Scores of the Accessible Population, and the Two Comparison Groups 90 5. Summary of the Training Session Results (Part I ) . . . 93 6. Summary of the Training Session Results (Part II - F i e l d Independent Subjects) 94 7. Summary of the Training Session Results (Part III - F i e l d Dependent Subjects) 95 8. Summary of Training Session Results (Part I I I ) . . . . . 96 9. Summary of the Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s on the Dependent Variables - Maze #1 - F i e l d Dependent Subjects 97 10. Summary of the Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s on the Dependent Variables - Maze #1 - F i e l d Independent Subjects 98 11. Summary of Responses by the Comparison Groups to the Questionnaire at the End of the Microcomputer Session 99 12. Summary of the Violat i o n s of Parametric Assumptions 101 13. Summary of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests of the Ages and English Marks of the Comparison Groups.... 102 14. 2 X 2 Contingency Tables f o r Correct and Incorrect Responses to the Questions in Part II and Part III of the Training Session. 103 ix Table Page 15. 2 X 2 Contingency Tables f o r Correct and Incorrect Responses to the Questions in Part III of the Training Session 104 16. Summary of Nilcoxon Rank Sum Tests f o r Dependent Variables 108 17. 2 X 2 Contingency Table of the Responses of the Two Comparison Groups to the Questionnaire at the End of the Microcomputer Session 109 18. Summary of Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests Comparing the Performance of F i e l d Independent Subjects with Computer Studies Training With the Performance of F i e l d Independent Subjects Without Computer Studies Training I l l 19. Summary of the Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s on the Dependent Variables - Maze #2 - F i e l d Dependent Subjects 227 20. Summary of the Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s on the Dependent .Variables - Maze #2 - F i e l d Independent Subjects 228 X LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Diagram I l l u s t r a t i n g the Four Orientations in the Computer Maze 27 2. Diagram Showing the Relationship Between the Most Recent Constructs Associated with F i e l d Independence 45 3. Diagram I l l u s t r a t i n g the Grid Positions on the Computer Maze Screen 203 4. Chart Showing Sample Information Generated by the Computer Program Version I 204 5. Chart Showing Sample Information Generated by the Computer Program Version II 210 6. I l l u s t r a t i o n of Some of the S t a t i s t i c s Printed by the Computer Program Version IV. . . 221 7. I l l u s t r a t i o n of the Remainder of the S t a t i s t i c s Printed by the Computer Program Version IV 222 8. Diagram I l l u s t r a t i n g the Error Committed by Subjects in Part I of the Training Session 230 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere thanks are extended to my thesis advisor, Dr. Robert C a r l i s l e , who not only provided expert advice and consultation during my course work and during the preparation of t h i s thesis, but also acted as a valued f r i e n d and colleague: I w i l l always be thankful for his insight, h is i n t u i t i o n , his expertise, and his friendship. My thanks i s also extended to Dr. Walter Boldt f o r his expertise in the design and organization of t h i s study. I am extremely grateful to my wife, Rosemary, for her patience and co-operation. A special thankyou i s extended to Gerry Purdy, a fellow graduate student and valued f r i e n d : t h i s study would not have been possible without h i s generosity and co-operation in the administration of t h i s study, and his par t i c i p a t i o n in the many discussions which we had during t h i s research project. I would also l i k e to thank the Peel Board of Education, and the s t a f f and students of the schools p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h i s study for t h e i r co-operation and par t i c i p a t i o n . And f i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank Jan Bradley, Cheryl Tulley, Laurel Ahern, Sandra Peters, and the students in the Microcomputer Business Applications Program at Mohawk College who participated as research assistants in th i s study: the professional manner in which they conducted the f i e l d independence testing, the tr a i n i n g session, and the microcomputer exercise contributed substantially to the quality of t h i s f i n a l document. 1 CHAPTER I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The General Problem This study sought to determine whether l e v e l of f i e l d independence (Witkin, 1948) was a contributing factor in the performance of grade ten (10) English-speaking students in a computer maze. Student performance i n a computer maze was assessed from f i v e perspectives. F i r s t , student a b i l i t y to decipher three dimensional representations on a computer screen was measured: these representations had to be interpreted co r r e c t l y by the students in t h i s study in order to proceed towards the end of a computer maze. Second, student s k i l l in loaating the correct positions i n the corridors of a computer maze for completing r i g h t and l e f t turns was quantified. Third, student proficiency in adjusting to changes in location and in orientation in a computer maze was determined. Fourth, student preference f o r rely i n g on two dimensional diagrams in a computer maze was studied. And f i n a l l y , differences i n o v e r a l l performance of the students in a computer maze (eg. the time required by students to complete the computer maze) was assessed. This study was undertaken for two reasons. One, the author wished to review changes in educational computing over the decade preceeding the study. Second, the author wanted 2 to i d e n t i f y a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n f o r investigating the often made observation that students in a computer science class polarized into two groups: one group was highly motivated to work with computers, another group was hesitant to interact with computers/ often because they found the tasks required in programming and operating computers d i f f i c u l t to understand. These two reasons r e f l e c t e d the interest of the author in a better understanding of the interaction between students and computers, and more generally, the interest of the author in the role of computers in education. In the f i r s t phase of the study the educational computing l i t e r a t u r e was reviewed to determine the "state of the a r t " of computers in education. This review of the educational computing l i t e r a t u r e revealed a rapidly changing technology, a d i v e r s i t y of educational uses f o r computers, a debate over the role and effectiveness of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI), a disagreement over strategies f o r implementing computer technology within the schools, a dispute over the importance of programming i n education, a general lack of understanding of the educational process, and as a r e s u l t of t h i s incomplete grasp of the educational process, a confusion over the role computers should play in education. This f i r s t phase of the study suggested to the author that the general lack of understanding of the learning process was one of the central issues at the root of the other educational computing issues. 3 In -the second phase of the study the educational psychology l i t e r a t u r e was reviewed as a method of assessing psychologists' capacity to explain the learning process. During the review of the educational psychology l i t e r a t u r e , the author focused on two perspectives which had influenced the study of the learning process: the behaviorist approach and the information processing approach. According to the l i t e r a t u r e , proponents of the behaviorist t r a d i t i o n concentrated on investigating the overt responses of students to various forms of s t i m u l i , and proponents of the information processing approach concentrated on the i n t e l l e c t u a l processing which occurred between a stimulus and a response. Reports by educational psychologists at the time of the study re f l e c t e d the popularity of the information processing approach to the study of learning, and acknowledged the lack of a comprehensive and coherent theory of learning that was also reported i n the educational computing l i t e r a t u r e . However, despite d i f f i c u l t i e s in understanding the learning process, the author was of the view that educators were assisted at a p r a c t i c a l l e v e l by the psychological constructs in educational psychology l i t e r a t u r e , and that these psychological constructs helped to explain the actions of students in a classroom s i t u a t i o n , and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , assisted educators with interpreting the interaction between students and computers. In the t h i r d phase of t h i s study a psychological 4 construct which could serve as a t h e o r e t i c a l base f o r designing a study to investigate the interaction between students and computers was i d e n t i f i e d . The concept of f i e l d independence, a concept from the educational psychology l i t e r a t u r e , was chosen f o r t h i s purpose. This construct was chosen because the tasks associated with the tests for l e v e l of f i e l d of independence appeared s i m i l a r to the tasks required by a person when deciphering a screen of computer graphics. This construct was also chosen because the construct of f i e l d independence had strongly influenced educational psychology, growing from a t e s t of perception of the upright to a comprehensive model of two d i s t i n c t learning s t y l e s which was dependent on physiological and environmental factors. In the fourth phase of t h i s study the f i e l d independence l i t e r a t u r e was reviewed and the t e s t s f o r l e v e l of f i e l d independence were analysed to determine the s k i l l s which distinguished between f i e l d independent subjects and f i e l d dependent subjects. This procedure revealed that f i e l d independent subjects and f i e l d dependent subjects were d i f f e r e n t on two dimensions: a b i l i t y to locate simple figures in a complex background, and a b i l i t y to perceive the upright. Locating simple figures in a complex background was associated with paper and pencil tests such as the Embedded Figures Test {Witkin, 1950), and the Group Embedded Figures Test (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971). The s k i l l of 5 perceiving the upright was associated with tests of a b i l i t y to orient an object or oneself to a v e r t i c a l position within a perceptually altered f i e l d t the Body Adjustment Test (Witkin 1948, 1949), the Rod and Frame Test (Witkin, 1948; Witkin & Asch, 1948), and the Portable Rod and Frame Test (Oltman, 1968) were three examples of tests of a b i l i t y to perceive the upright which were reported in the l i t e r a t u r e . Although the l i t e r a t u r e showed that f i e l d independent subjects and f i e l d dependent subjects d i f f e r e d ' i n a b i l i t y to complete embedded figures tasks and to perceive the upright, the fourth phase of t h i s study also revealed that i t was not clear whether differences in a b i l i t y to complete embedded figures tasks and differences in performance on orientation tasks contributed to differences in the learning s t y l e s and ov e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects. Some evidence in the concept attainment l i t e r a t u r e suggested that differences in the learning s t y l e s f u l l y compensated for the i n a b i l i t y of f i e l d dependent students to ide n t i f y embedded figures and to adjust to the upright (Nebelkopt and Dreyer, 1973; Mulgrave, 1966). However, most of the evidence in the l i t e r a t u r e suggested that in concept attainment tasks, despite differences in learning s t y l e s , the ove r a l l performance of f i e l d independent subjects was greater that the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d dependent subjects (Goodenough, 1976). At the time of t h i s study, t h i s controversy over the relationship between embedded figures 6 tasks, orientation tasks, learning s t y l e s , and ov e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects needed to be c l a r i f i e d : whether differences in learning s t y l e s of f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects f u l l y compensated f o r perceptual differences between f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects also needed to be c l a r i f i e d . Consequently, because of these unresolved issues, and because of the author's interest in c l a r i f y i n g the role of computers in education, the f i f t h stage of t h i s study was commenced. In the f i f t h stage of the study a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n was chosen f o r investigating whether the perceptual s k i l l s associated with the tests of f i e l d independence could be detected in the performance of students when they interacted with a computer, and i f these differences in perceptual s k i l l s influenced the learning s t y l e s and o v e r a l l performance of students when they interacted with a computer. The computer maze program "Ratrun" (Nadovich, 1979) was selected for t h i s purpose. This program was selected because some of the tasks associated with t h i s computer maze were sim i l a r to the embedded figures and orientation tasks associated with the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), and because computer games showed promise as an in s t r u c t i o n a l tool (Nawrocki, 1983). The study which resulted from modifying t h i s computer maze program answered the question "when operating a computer maze containing tasks si m i l a r to the embedded figures tasks 7 and orientation tasks associated with tests f o r l e v e l of f i e l d independence, did the o v e r a l l performance and learning s t y l e s of f i e l d independent students d i f f e r from the ov e r a l l performance and learning s t y l e s of f i e l d dependent students?". There were f i v e hypotheses associated with t h i s study: f i e l d dependent subjects would have d i f f i c u l t y interpreting three dimensional diagrams in a-computer maze, f i e l d dependent subjects would have greater d i f f i c u l t y readjusting to changes in orientation in a computer maze, f i e l d dependent students would have greater d i f f i c u l t y in adjusting to changes in point of reference (Aguirre, 1981) in a computer maze, the learning s t y l e s of f i e l d dependent subjects in a computer maze would be d i f f e r e n t than the learning s t y l e s of f i e l d independent subjects i n a computer maze, and the ov e r a l l performance of f i e l d dependent subjects i n a computer maze would d i f f e r from the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent subjects in the same computer maze. Associated with each hypothesis was a major assumption. The f i r s t hypothesis assumed that, to decipher the three dimensional diagrams in a computer maze a subject had to identify simple figures within a complex background, and after i d e n t i f y i n g each of the simple figu r e s , the subject had to interpret the combinations of simple figures as representations of the imaginary h a l l s of a computer maze. The second hypothesis assumed that tasks associated with 8 changes in orientation in the computer maze were sim i l a r to the orientation tasks associated with the Body Adjustment Test <BAT>, and the Rod and Frame Test (RFT). The t h i r d hypothesis assumed that the a b i l i t y to change orientation in a computer maze, and to interpret three dimensional images i n a computer maze, was dependent on corre c t l y i d e n t i f y i n g a point of reference and f i e l d of reference (Aguirre, 1981) from which to assess the three dimensional representation on the computer screen. The fourth hypothesis assumed that the differences in learning s t y l e s in a computer maze was associated with differences in a b i l i t y to interpret the two dimensional overview of a computer maze. And f i n a l l y , the f i f t h hypothesis assumed that d i f f i c u l t i e s in interpreting the three dimensional representation in a computer maze, that d i f f i c u l t i e s in adjusting to changes i n orientation in a computer maze, and d i f f i c u l t i e s in i d e n t i f y i n g points of reference in a computer maze, would not be f u l l y compensated by differences in learning s t y l e s : consequently, the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent subjects i n a computer maze was hypothesized to be higher than the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d dependent subjects. Three of the f i v e p r i n c i p a l hypotheses in t h i s study were confirmed. The confirmation of the f i r s t two hypotheses demonstrated a relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and certain perceptual tasks i n a computer maze. Rejection of the t h i r d hypothesis supported the conclusion 9 that there was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and point of reference tasks in a computer maze. The re j e c t i o n of the fourth hypothesis supported the notion that the learning s t y l e s (as defined by t h i s study) of f i e l d independent subjects i n a computer maze did not d i f f e r from the learning s t y l e s of f i e l d dependent subjects in the same computer maze. Conditional acceptance of several sub-hypotheses from the f i f t h hypothesis supported the conclusion that the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent subjects in a computer maze was higher than the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d dependent subjects in the same computer maze: t h i s conclusion was cautiously stated pending r e s u l t s of future studies referred to in Chapter Five (5). The s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s in t h i s study i d e n t i f i e d the need f o r further research into the relat i o n s h i p between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and the perceptual and psychomotor s k i l l s associated with the operation of computers: the author suggested that research was required to further define the relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and the a b i l i t y of students to interpret computer graphics, that research was required to determine i f l e v e l of f i e l d independence was a factor contributing to the pol a r i z a t i o n of the marks of computer science students into two groups, and that research was required to determine i f the performance of a student in a computer assisted i n s t r u c t i o n exercise was 10 influenced by the l e v e l of f i e l d independence of the student. In summary, t h i s study evolved from an interest in reviewing the changes in educational computing over the decade preceeding the study, and in explaining an unusual d i s t r i b u t i o n of marks i n the author's computer science classes. The study which was eventually completed was based on finding i n the educational computing and educational psychology l i t e r a t u r e , focused on the differences in performance of f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects in a computer maze, implied that l e v e l of f i e l d independence may be one factor contributing to the bimodal d i s t r i b u t i o n of marks in a computer science cl a s s , and suggested that the s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s in t h i s study r e f l e c t e d a need f o r further research into the re l a t i o n s h i p between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and the perceptual and psychomotor s k i l l s associated with the operation of computer mazes. 1.2 Importance of the Problem The general problem expressed a need to determine the influence of l e v e l of f i e l d independence on the a b i l i t y of students to complete a computer maze and to interpret a computer graphics screen. The need f o r investigating t h i s problem was seen i n a number of contexts: h i s t o r i c a l , psychological, and s o c i e t a l . In these contexts, and also in the experiential context of the writer as a former high school computer science instructor, and as an administrator 11 in the Ontario Community College System, the problem found i t s j u s t i f i c a t i o n . H i s t o r i c a l Context: This study was important h i s t o r i c a l l y because i t began to answer two questions of h i s t o r i c a l s ignificance in the educational computing l i t e r a t u r e : "Could the perceptual and psychomotor s k i l l s inherent in the interpretation of a computer graphics screen detract from the learning process?", and "could f i e l d dependent subjects be trained to overcome t h e i r v i s u a l d e f i c i t s ? " . The f i r s t question was important since the educational computing l i t e r a t u r e suggested that educators should incorporate more Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) within t h e i r curriculum, especially CAI which contains computer graphics: however, as the author implied in the study, i f a student had d i f f i c u l t y learning from CAI, not because the material was d i f f i c u l t , but because the student had d i f f i c u l t y interpreting a graphics screen, teachers were creating an additional obstacle f o r the f i e l d dependent student to overcome. The second question was important h i s t o r i c a l l y since the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s in the second t r i a l of t h i s study suggested that f i e l d dependent students could be trained to overcome t h e i r v i s u a l d e f i c i t s . Demonstrating that f i e l d dependent subjects could be trained to overcome t h e i r v i s u a l d e f i c i t s was h i s t o r i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t to educators, since 12 t h i s evidence suggested that psychological t r a i t s of students were not necessarily fixed as implied by some psychologists, and that lack of performance as a r e s u l t of v i s u a l d e f i c i t s was perhaps, in part, a function of lack of t r a i n i n g . Psychological Context: Psychologists and educators benefited from expanding the tasks associated with l e v e l of independence to include perceptual tasks related to the operation of computer mazes. Psychologists were furnished with additional information concerning the f i e l d independence construct, and educators were given additional information for assessing the r o l e computers should play i n education. Psychologists benefited from t h i s study i n two ways. F i r s t , the r e s u l t s of t h i s study showed a relationship between f i e l d independence and perceptual tasks associated with computer mazes: s p e c i f i c a l l y t h i s study showed that in a computer maze, when compared to f i e l d independent students, f i e l d dependent students committed more errors when interpreting the three dimensional representations, perpetrated more errors in adjusting to changes in orientation, and performed at a lower l e v e l of o v e r a l l performance. Second, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study provided evidence of several factors in a computer maze which were not related to l e v e l of f i e l d independence: s p e c i f i c a l l y , the study showed that students with a low f i e l d independence score, as compared to a students with a high f i e l d 13 independence score, did not show a greater preference f o r requesting two dimensional representations for navigating through a computer maze, and did not commit more errors in i d e n t i f y i n g the correct point of reference in a computer maze for making a turn. Educators benefited from the r e s u l t s of t h i s study in three ways. F i r s t , t h i s study demonstrated that the relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and performance in a computer maze was independent of l e v e l of English achievement. Second, t h i s study demonstrated that computer mazes were useful i n i d e n t i f y i n g perceptual handicaps. And t h i r d , the r e s u l t s of t h i s study implied that the research associated with f i e l d independence was helpful in understanding the r o l e of computers in education. By demonstrating that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and performance in a computer maze was independent of English achievement, t h i s study cautioned educators to examine c a r e f u l l y the impact of an educational experience presented by computers. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s study implied that f i e l d dependent students have more d i f f i c u l t y with an educational experience presented by a computer, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f there are graphics representations associated with the educational experience, such as Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) in the form of a computer game: i f follow-up studies confirm that f i e l d dependent subjects have more d i f f i c u l t y with educational experiences presented on a 14 computer, and i f these differences are found to be independent of achievement, educators should c a r e f u l l y examine the implications to f i e l d dependent students of moving towards a greater u t i l i z a t i o n of Computer Assisted Instruction. By showing that the microcomputer exercise i n t h i s study could i d e n t i f y a student with a s p e c i f i c perceptual handicap, t h i s study demonstrated a mechanism by which educators could capture more information concerning the thought process and perceptual handicaps of t h e i r students. This finding led the author to believe that computer tasks such as computer mazes could be used by educators to i d e n t i f y perceptual handicaps, perhaps without some of the problems associated with psychological testing. And t h i r d , by extending the tasks connected with l e v e l of f i e l d independence to include tasks associated with computers suggested to educators interested in the application of computer in education that the extensive pyschological research associated with the f i e l d independence construct could be applied to other educational computing tasks ( i e . the author implied that by applying the findings reported i n the f i e l d independence research i n t h i s way, additional information concerning the relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) could be obtained). It was the opinion of the author that t h i s additional insight would r e s u l t in a better 15 understanding of the role of computers in education. Societal Context: From a s o c i e t a l context t h i s study was important because of the prominence of computers in society at the time of the study, and because of the information t h i s study provided to researchers, to educators, and to the public. Stating t h i s point more e x p l i c i t l y , as society continues to embrace computers and technology, the author implied that researchers must continue to investigate the nature of the interface between people and computers, that educators must examine the psychological implications of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI), and that the public must obtain more detailed information for determining the impact of computers on t h e i r l i v e s and on t h e i r society: t h i s study provided useful information to each of these groups. For example, t h i s study disclosed to researchers a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between performance in a computer maze and l e v e l of f i e l d independence, implied to psychologists that computer tasks such as a computer maze were useful in i d e n t i f y i n g learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , suggested to teachers that there were unresolved pedagogical issues associated with the use of computers in education, and reported to the public that differences in performance in computer related tasks were deeply routed i n fundamental differences in perceptual a b i l i t i e s . 16 Experiential Context: From the experiential point of view of the author t h i s study served four purposes: alluded to a possible explanation f o r the previously i d e n t i f i e d bipolar d i s t r i b u t i o n of marks in a computer science c l a s s , suggested further studies which would c l a r i f y t h i s unusual d i s t r i b u t i o n of marks in a computer science c l a s s , c l a r i f i e d the h i s t o r i c a l roots of educational computing, and demonstrated a mechanism for using technology to study psychological constructs and to improve educational practice. 1.3 Description of Terms Training Session: The Training Session was operationally defined as the session in t h i s study which preceeded the Microcomputer Session. In the Training Session the research assistants simulated a Computer Maze using a ser i e s of s l i d e s and overheads and explained the meaning of the six symbols necessary f o r interpreting the three dimensional representations of the corridors of the Computer Maze. In the Training Session the subjects also completed a paper and pencil maze and completed several assignments which evaluated the subjects' knowledge of the information presented i n the Training Session. The terms Microcomputer Session and Computer Maze are defined l a t e r i n the description of terms. Microcomputer Session: The Microcomputer Session was operationally defined as the period of time which included 17 the time when the research assistants introduced the subjects to the assignment the subjects had to complete on the microcomputers, the time when the subjects were completing the Computer Mazes, and the time when the subjects were completing a questionnaire concerning t h e i r past experience with microcomputer maze programs. The term Computer Maze i s defined l a t e r in the description of terms. Maze #1: The maze generated by Version I of the "Ratrun" program, and selected as the f i r s t Computer Maze presented to the subjects in the Microcomputer Session, was referred to as Maze #1. The term Computer Maze i s defined l a t e r i n t h i s section. • Maze #2: The maze generated by Version II of the "Ratrun" program, and selected as the second Computer Maze presented to the subjects in the Microcomputer Session, was referred to as Maze #2. Maze #3: The maze generated by Version I of the "Ratrun" program, and selected for the paper and pencil maze in Part I of the Training Session, was referred to as Maze #3. Computer Maze: A Computer Maze was operationally defined as a maze generated by either Version I or Version II of the microcomputer program "Ratrun". The two Computer Mazes IB generated by Version I and II of the "Ratrun" programs, incorporated into Version III of the "Ratrun" program, and used f o r data c o l l e c t i o n in t h i s study, were c a l l e d Maze #1 and Maze #2. Diagrams of Maze #1 and Maze #2 are reproduced in Appendix H. A subject completed Maze #1 and Maze #2 by running Version III of the "Ratrun" program on a microcomputer. While the subject completed the two Computer Mazes, the responses of the subject were captured for l a t e r analysis. The sequence of Responses of a subject during one of the Computer Mazes was c a l l e d a Maze T r i a l . The terms Maze T r i a l and Response are further defined l a t e r in the description of terms. Maze T r i a l i A Maze T r i a l was operationally defined as a sequence of Responses executed by a subject in one of the two Computer Mazes used for data c o l l e c t i o n i n t h i s study. A Maze T r i a l ended when the subject reached the end of the Computer Maze. A Maze T r i a l also terminated i f the t h i r t y minute time l i m i t f o r completing two Computer Mazes was exceeded, i f a subject completed two hundred Responses, or i f a subject chose to stop. F i e l d of Reference: A F i e l d of Reference was operationally defined as a graphics display on the microcomputer screen which was generated by Version III of the program "Ratrun". Each graphics display represented the imaginary corridors 19 which were v i s i b l e to a subject from his present position i n a Computer Maze. Point of Reference: Points of Reference were operationally defined as imaginary positions in the corridor of a Computer Maze: from these positions F i e l d s of Reference displays were presented to the subject by the computer maze program c a l l e d Version I I I . Response: A subject completed a Response in a Computer Maze by depressing the forward key, the l e f t turn key, the ri g h t turn key, the turn around key, or the "?" key. Move: A subject completed a Move in a Computer Maze i f he depressed the forward key, the l e f t turn key, the ri g h t turn key, or the turn around key, and i f h i s Point of Reference and/or F i e l d of Reference changed as a r e s u l t of depressing the key. Extra Move: An Extra Move was operationally defined as a Move by a subject which was in addition to the minimum moves required to proceed towards the end of a Computer Maze. Excluded from t h i s category of moves were moves i n i t i a t e d while Offtrack or Backtracking, Orientation Errors, Repetitive Moves, and Point of Reference Errors: these terms are defined l a t e r i n the description of terms. 20 Overview: An Overview was defined as a two dimensional diagram on a computer screen of a Computer Maze. An Overview was created on the computer screen by Version III of the computer program "Ratrun", and i l l u s t r a t e d the paths in a Computer Maze from the perspective of a person standing above the maze and looking down on i t . An Overview included the st a r t i n g point of a subject in the Computer Maze, the location of the end point in the Computer Maze, the present location of a subject in the Computer Maze, a l l the pathways in the Computer Maze, and the Points of Reference a subject had passed during the Maze T r i a l . Diagrams of the two Overviews in t h i s study are included in Appendix H. Overview Request: An Overview Request was operationally defined as a request by a subject to examine an Overview. A subject requested an Overview by pressing the "?" key on the microcomputer. After the subject had completed his examination of an Overview, and a f t e r the subject pressed the "Continue" key on the microcomputer, the subject's present F i e l d of Reference i n a Computer Maze was returned to the computer screen. Overview Time: After a subject requested an Overview, the time engaged by the subject i n examining the Overview was referred to as an Overview Time. Overview Time was measured in s i x t i e t h s of seconds. 21 Ontrack: A subject was operationally defined as Ontrack i f he was situated on one of the Points of Reference located on the most di r e c t route between the s t a r t of a Computer Maze and the end of a Computer Maze. On the diagrams in Appendix H, the Points of Reference located on the most d i r e c t route between the s t a r t of Maze #1 and the end of the Maze #1 are la b e l l e d with the numbers one (1) to twenty (20), and the Points of Reference located on the most d i r e c t route between the s t a r t of Maze #2 and the end of Maze #2 are l a b e l l e d with the numbers one (1) to twenty-two (22). Offtrack: A subject was operationally defined as Offtrack i f he was positioned on one of the Points of Reference between the s t a r t of a Computer Maze and the end of a Computer Maze, excluding Points of Reference which were located on the most dir e c t route between the s t a r t of a Computer Maze and the end of a Computer Maze. Backtracking: A subject was operationally defined as Backtracking i f he was located on a Point of Reference which he had previously attained in a Computer Maze, and i f he was not Offtrack. Error: An Error was operationally defined as a measure of a subject's a b i l i t y to avoid "bumping into walls in a Computer Maze": to avoid "bumping into walls" a subject had to 22 correctly interpret three dimensional representation on the computer screen. A subject committed an Error when he attempted to move forward i n a Computer Maze when an imaginary wall was immediately in front of h i s present Point of Reference. When an Error was committed by a subject, the microcomputer displayed the message "NO DOOR" on the computer screen, indicating that an i l l e g a l move had been attempted. The subject's Point of Reference and F i e l d of Reference did not change as a r e s u l t of an Error. Repetitive Move Error: A Repetitive Move Error was operationally defined as a r e f l e c t i o n of a subject i n i t i a t i n g the same Response more than once in succession with no apparent relationship between the Move and the tasks associated with completing the Computer Maze. A subject committed a Repetitive Move Error i f he i n i t i a t e d the same turn more than once in succession r e s u l t i n g in the subject moving in c i r c l e s , or i f he i n i t i a t e d more than one "turn around" response in succession. Orientation Error: An Orientation Error was operationally defined as a measure of a subject's i n a b i l i t y to choose the correct d i r e c t i o n to turn at a corner or a branch in a Computer Maze. A correct d i r e c t i o n to turn was interpreted to mean a Response which turned the subject in the di r e c t i o n of the end of the Computer Maze. A subject committed an 23 Orientation Error i f he was situated at a corner or a branch in a Computer Maze and he i n i t i a t e d a l e f t or r i g h t turn when a turn i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n would have oriented the subject in a d i r e c t i o n towards the end of the Computer Maze. A subject also committed an Orientation Error i f he was situated one Point of Reference away from a corner or a branch in a Computer Maze and he i n i t i a t e d a l e f t or r i g h t turn when a turn in the opposite d i r e c t i o n would have oriented the subject i n a d i r e c t i o n towards the end of the Computer Maze. Point of Reference Error: A Point of Reference Error was operationally defined as a measure of a subject's i n a b i l i t y to choose the correct Point of Reference in a Computer Maze to i n i t i a t e a turn. A l e f t or r i g h t turn executed while Ontrack, and while situated one Point of Reference before the correct Point of Reference f o r the turn, was considered a Point of Reference Error. 1.4 The S p e c i f i c Problems The s p e c i f i c problems to be investigated in t h i s study were associated with a subject's a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional graphics representations on a computer screen, to adapt to changes in F i e l d of Reference i n a Computer Maze, and to ident i f y the correct positions (Points of Reference) for completing turns in a Computer Maze. The s p e c i f i c 24 problems were also associated with the learning s t y l e s and o v e r a l l performance of subjects in a Computer Maze as a r e s u l t of t h e i r differences in a b i l i t y to interpret three dimensional graphics representations on a computer screen, and t h e i r differences in a b i l i t y to adjust to changes i n Point of Reference and F i e l d of Reference in a Computer Maze. The categories of problems, and the questions associated with each category of problem were: A: Decoding of Three Dimensional Representations During the completion of a Computer Maze, would f i e l d independent subjects interpret graphics representations in a Computer Maze more accurately than f i e l d dependent subjects? This question further divided into three sub-quest i ons: 1) Would f i e l d independent subjects, compared to f i e l d dependent subjects, commit l e s s Errors while interpreting the three dimensional graphics representations on a computer screen? 2) Would f i e l d independent subjects, compared to f i e l d dependent subjects, commit fewer Errors in proportion to forward moves. 3) Would f i e l d independent subjects commit Errors l e s s frequently than f i e l d dependent subjects when interpreting graphics representations in a computer maze? 25 B: Determining Fields of Reference 4) When completing a Computer Maze, would f i e l d independent subjects commit l e s s Orientation Errors than f i e l d dependent subjects? C: Determining Points of Reference 5) When completing a Computer Maze, would f i e l d independent subjects commit l e s s Point of Reference Errors than f i e l d dependent subjects. D: Learning Styles While completing a Computer Maze, would the learning st y l e s of f i e l d independent subjects d i f f e r from the learning s t y l e s of f i e l d dependent subjects? This question further divided into four sub-questions: 6) Would f i e l d independent subjects request le s s Overviews of the two dimensional diagrams of the Computer Maze than f i e l d dependent subjects? 7) Would f i e l d independent subjects pause longer than f i e l d dependent subjects on the two dimensional diagrams of the Computer Maze? 8) In a Computer Maze would f i e l d independent subjects spend more time between requests f o r Overviews than f i e l d dependent subjects? 9) In r e l a t i o n to t o t a l moves forward in a Computer Maze, would f i e l d independent subjects request assistance from the two dimensional diagram of the Computer Maze more frequently than f i e l d dependent 26 subjects? E: Overall Performance While completing a Computer Maze, would the ov e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent subjects d i f f e r from the ove r a l l performance of f i e l d dependent subjects? This question further divided into f i v e sub-questions: 10) Would f i e l d independent subjects complete a Computer Maze more quickly than f i e l d dependent subjects? 11) Would f i e l d independent subjects complete le s s Moves than f i e l d dependent subjects? 12) Would f i e l d independent subjects complete le s s Responses than f i e l d dependent subjects? 13) Would f i e l d independent subjects follow the shortest possible path towards the end of a Computer Maze more closely than f i e l d dependent subjects? 14) Would f i e l d independent subjects move more frequently than f i e l d dependent subjects? 1.5 The S p e c i f i c Hypotheses The categories of s p e c i f i c hypotheses and the s p e c i f i c hypotheses associated with each category of hypothesis were: A: Decoding of Three Dimensional Representations Given the task of interpreting a screen of computer graphics in a Computer Maze (Appendix H), f i e l d independent subjects would interpret the screens of computer graphics more accurately than f i e l d dependent 27 subjects. This hypothesis further divided into three sub-hypotheses: While interpreting the three dimensional graphics representations on the computer screen: 1) F i e l d independent subjects would commit l e s s Errors than f i e l d dependent subjects. 2) F i e l d independent subjects would commit fewer Errors in proportion to forward moves than f i e l d dependent subjects. 3) F i e l d independent subjects would commit Errors l e s s frequently than F i e l d Dependent subjects. B: Determining F i e l d s of Reference 4) Given the task of following a path through a Computer Figure 1 upright orientation l e f t orientation r i g h t orientation downward orientation 28 Maze while changing F i e l d s of Reference from upright orientations, to downward orientations, to l e f t orientations, and to r i g h t orientations (Figure 1), f i e l d independent subjects would choose a Response which pointed i n the d i r e c t i o n towards the end of the maze more often than f i e l d dependent subjects. Determining Points of Reference 5) Given the task of selecting the correct Point of Reference in a Computer Maze f o r each l e f t or ri g h t turn, f i e l d dependent subjects would turn too soon more frequently than F i e l d Independent subjects. Learning Styles Given the option of consulting'a two dimensional Overview of a Computer Maze (Appendix H) i n addition to the three dimensional interpretations of the h a l l s and corridors of a Computer Maze, f i e l d independent subjects would manifest d i f f e r e n t learning s t y l e s than F i e l d Dependent subjects. This hypothesis further divided into four sub-hypotheses: 6) F i e l d independent subjects would view the two dimensional Overview of the Computer Maze more times than the f i e l d dependent subjects. 7) On average, f i e l d independent subjects would pause longer than f i e l d dependent subjects each time they viewed a two dimensional Overview of a Computer Maze. 8) F i e l d independent subjects would spend more time 29 between requests f o r Overviews than f i e l d dependent subjects. 9) In r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l moves completed by a subject i n a Computer Maze, f i e l d independent subjects would request assistance from the two dimensional Overview of the Computer Maze les s frequently than the f i e l d dependent subjects. Overall Performance The o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent subjects when completing a Computer Maze would be greater than the ov e r a l l performance of f i e l d dependent subjects when completing the same Computer Maze. This hypothesis further divided into f i v e sub-hypotheses: 10) F i e l d independent subjects would complete a Computer Maze more quickly than the f i e l d dependent subjects. 11) F i e l d independent subjects would require l e s s Moves than f i e l d dependent subjects to complete a Computer Maze. 12) F i e l d independent subjects would require l e s s Responses than f i e l d dependent subjects to complete a Computer Maze. 13) F i e l d independent subjects would follow the shortest possible path towards the end of a Computer Maze more closely than f i e l d dependent subjects. 14) F i e l d independent subjects would move more frequently than f i e l d dependent subjects in a Computer Maze. 30 1.6 Limitations of the Study There were six l i m i t a t i o n s to t h i s study: 1. There was no reason to suspect that the r e s u l t s of t h i s study could not be generalized to boys in grade ten (10) English classes in other high schools, and to a more broadly defined target population such as a l l students who interact with computers. However, because the sample was a l l boys, and because the sample was from grade ten (10) English classes at one high school, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study do not necessarily apply to a more broadly defined population. 2. The analysis of the Training Session r e s u l t s and the questionnaire given to the comparison groups a f t e r the microcomputer exercise indicated that differences in understanding of the computer maze task and that differences in exposure to computers may have contributed to the differences in performance of the two comparison groups. Although the e f f e c t of these differences were hypothesized to be minimal, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study should be interpreted with caution: t h i s study must be repeated with s p e c i f i c controls f o r these two factors, in order to eliminate the p o s s i b i l i t y that differences in understanding of the computer maze task and that differences in exposure to computers contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the difference in performance of the two comparison groups. Further c l a r i f i c a t i o n of these 31 l i m i t a t i o n s are stated i n Chapter Five (5). 3. This study did not imply that the dependent variables in t h i s study were separate factors accounting f o r the difference i n performance of the two comparison groups. Multivariate analysis with a larger sample would be necessary to make such claims. 4. The conclusions of t h i s study should be interpreted with caution since the non parametric s t a t i s t i c s on which the conclusions were based carry l e s s power than t h e i r parametric equivalents. Non parametric s t a t i s t i c s were used because of the frequent severe v i o l a t i o n s of the assumptions of parametric s t a t i s t i c s , and because of the size of the comparison groups. 5. The alternate subjects who replaced four of the o r i g i n a l subjects selected f o r the Training Session and the Microcomputer Exercise introduced addition variance into the r e s u l t s of the two comparison groups, p a r t i c u l a r l y into the r e s u l t s of the f i e l d dependent comparison group. This additional variance increased the p o s s i b i l i t y of introducing a Type II Error. 6. Since the o r i g i n a l comparison groups were selected from volunteers from the target population, generalizing of the r e s u l t s to the target population should be interpreted with caution. 32 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This review of the l i t e r a t u r e was completed in three main stages. The f i r s t stage of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e review i s reported in Section One (1) of t h i s chapter: during t h i s stage the author traced major h i s t o r i c a l developments in educational computing, and summarized the "state of the art" of computers in education at the time of t h i s study. The second stage of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e review i s reported i n Section Two (2) of t h i s chapter: during t h i s stage the author commented on two h i s t o r i c a l approaches to the study of i n t e l l e c t u a l processing as a means of suggesting that the capacity of psychologists to explain the learning process was limit e d at the time of t h i s study. The t h i r d stage of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e review i s reported i n Section Three <3> of t h i s chapter: during t h i s stage the author reviewed the relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and performance in a computer maze task, and i d e n t i f i e d the categories of variables which would discriminate f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects in a Computer Maze. 1.0 H i s t o r i c a l Perspective This f i r s t phase of the l i t e r a t u r e review indicated that developments i n computer technology i n the decade preceeding 33 t h i s study permitted the wide-spread use of computers i n education, and suggested that there were many unresolved issues associated with educational computing at the time of the study. 1.1 Hardware and Software Changes Computer hardware and systems software improved rapidly in the two decades preceeding t h i s study (Ahern, 1982). At the time of t h i s study computer systems were emerging faster than society could assimilate the new advances. Computer networks formed the basis f o r early educational computing. These networks were usually associated with u n i v e r s i t i e s (eg. Kessler, 1974; Liana J r . , 1969; Parker & Denk, 1974). The response time in the early computer networks was very slow. However, timesharing supervisors and fas t e r Central Processing Units (CPU's) reduced the turn around time, enhanced computer network c a p a b i l i t i e s , and permitted the development of the large scale data bases introduced in the s i x t i e s . With the reduction i n the si z e of computers and the introduction of the minicomputer in the early seventies computers became more accessible to schools. The early computers introduced into public schools and high schools were primarily f o r administrative work (eg. EDRS, 1966: Devine & Kimin, 1976), and f o r the teaching of computer programming (eg. Daykin, 1975). 34 Improvements in computer technology i n the l a t t e r part of the seventies and early eighties enabled educators from a l l l e v e l s of the educational system to explore the use of computers as enhancements to curriculum. The three noteworthy technological developments that contributed to t h i s change in focus were the introduction of microcomputers (eg. F i t z p a t r i c k , 1977; Stahl, 1979), microcomputer graphics (eg. McKenzie, 1978), and "user f r i e n d l y " software. Suppes surveyed the kinds of impacts that these new developments were having in the seventies, or would have in the eighties, on curriculum i n the schools (Taylor, 1980). 1.2 Educational Uses of Computers The educational uses of computers at the time of t h i s study were categorized into six areas by Nestrom (1981): Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI), Computer Managed Instruction (CMI), On-line Testing, Prompting Aids, Prototypes, and Data Management. CAI, the f i r s t of Westrom's categories of educational uses of computers, was a popular computer application in education at the time of t h i s study. CAI was divided by Westrom into four types. The author found that there were a large number of a r t i c l e s written about these four areas. Since i t was not possible to document a l l these reports, only b r i e f explanations of each type of CAI were included in t h i s review. Further background and procedures f o r Computer 35 Assisted Instruction in education and in i n d u s t r i a l t r a i n i n g for those readers interested in more detailed information on CAI was reported by Burke (1982). D r i l l and Practice CAI, or programs which d r i l l s students on information they have previously learned, was frequently reported and generally well received in educational c i r c l e s at the time of the study, perhaps because t h i s form of CAI was r e l a t i v e l y easy to design and comparatively easy to program. Tut o r i a l CAI, or programs which teach new information by computer, was also reported frequently in the l i t e r a t u r e . However, unless the content of the t u t o r i a l was well a r t i c u l a t e d , and the strategies f o r sequencing the t u t o r i a l were c l e a r l y defined, the author concluded that t h i s form of CAI was d i f f i c u l t to design, to program, and to evaluate. Two other categories of CAI were also reported in the l i t e r a t u r e : simulation CAI (eg. AEDS, 1976), and games with educational content or format (eg. Robinson, 1977; Nawrocki & Winner, 1983; Turkle & Sudnow, 1982; Malone, 1981a, 1981b): simulation CAI referred to computer programs that simulated situations which could not otherwise be demonstrated to students. I t was the opinion of the author at the time of the study that these forms of CAI were important new types of learning experiences which were available to students in part because of the microcomputer. However, the author also concluded that the educational value of these forms of CAI 36 was often hard to assess. CMI was a second category of educational computing which was reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e : t h i s type of CAI was used to manage the learning environment, and reportedly s i m p l i f i e d some of the routine tasks (eg. the tracking of student progress in a program) which teachers performed manually pr i o r to the introduction of computers. I t was the opinion of the author at the time of the study that the p r i n c i p l e d i f f i c u l t y with t h i s approach was that the implementation of CMI on a meaningful scale required large scale computing f a c i l i t i e s , and these f a c i l i t i e s were not generally available to most school boards at the time of the study. On-line te s t i n g was a t h i r d category of educational computing outlined by Nestrom. This form of computer application referred to the tes t i n g of student at a computer terminal (eg. Sands & Gade, 1983). The l i t e r a t u r e associated with On-line te s t i n g reported -that teachers found On-line testing b e n e f i c i a l because i t f a c i l i t a t e d marking of tests, compiling of student averages, and analysing of class r e s u l t s . The l i t e r a t u r e also reported that additional benefits from On-line Testing were attained when t h i s form of testing was combined with CAI (eg. Oehmke, 1976): according to reports i n the l i t e r a t u r e , t h i s combination of On-line testing and CAI assisted teachers with the ca l c u l a t i o n of student marks, and provided students with frequent formative evaluations. 37 Three other categories of educational uses of computers were reported by Nestrom and had become available to educators by the time of t h i s study. F i r s t , Prompting Aids were available to f a c i l i t a t e the presentation of material to a group of students by microcomputer. Second, Prototypes, s i m p l i f i e d versions of more costly or complicated software, were accessible f o r the simulation of more expensive or more sophisticated version of the software application. And f i n a l l y , Data Management programs were obtainable f o r generating, searching, sorting, and analysing data. Stahl (1979) stated that, i n addition to supporting conventional teaching methods, computer applications, including the categories described above, would revolutionize the educational theories and practices which were in existance at the time of t h i s study. However, at lea s t one author, as well as the author of t h i s study, concluded that the p r i n c i p l e problem with computer applications i n education at the time of t h i s study was the lack of educational software that was pedagogically sound (eg. Nilson, 1981), and that was well programmed. 1.3 Pedagogical Debates Also at the time of t h i s study, in addition to the lack of well designed educational software, there were numerous concurrent and int e r - r e l a t e d pedagogical debates in educational computing (Oettinger, 1968). Educators debated 38 the role and effectiveness of Computer Assisted Instruction, the strategies f o r implementing computer l i t e r a c y , and the role of programming in education. Educators were divided on the issue of effectiveness of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI). Educators committed to the p r i n c i p l e s of CAI reported that t h i s form of instruction was more e f f e c t i v e than t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l modes. For example, Gilmour reported that twenty hours of CAI was s u f f i c i e n t to move tenth grade student one grade ahead (Science Council of Canada, 1981). Non-committed educators ins i s t e d that CAI was overrated, and might be "nothing more than a fl a s h in the pan" (Science Council of Canada, 1981). Unfortunately, many of the studies associated with t h i s debate were descriptive studies, contained numerous biases, or were inadequately designed. At the time of the study, most educators were receptive to the p r i n c i p l e s of CAI, but waited f o r better evidence of the effectiveness of CAI and for further c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the ro l e of the computer as an educational t o o l . Also at the time of t h i s study, educators discussed obstacles which prevented the wide spread use of computer in education (eg. Seidel, 1974), and debated stategies for implementing computer l i t e r a c y . Several models of implementation were proposed (eg. Waksman, 1974; Pogrow, 1980; Bjorum, 1982). Most models did not take advantage of the two primary reasons why microcomputers were so well 39 received by students: microcomputers provided learners with access to "hands-on experience" with computers, and microcomputers provided students and educators with the opportunity to develop computer applications which solved immediate problem. A model based on these p r i n c i p l e s was described in the proceedings of the 1983 Association for the Development of Computer Instructional Systems Conference <Knechtel & Purdy, 1983). Educators also debated the ro l e of programming in education. Some educators, often those with a computer science background, suggested that students must study the pr i n c i p l e s of programming to understand computers {Anderson, 1980). Other educators stated that students did not need to-learn programming. A t h i r d group of educators i n s i s t e d that programming languages such as APL and LOGO taught concepts of problem solving <eg. Papert, 1980), and mathematical p r i n c i p l e s (Abelson & di Sessa, 1980; Borton, 1970). Several authors expressed opinions as to the means by which educators could resolve these debates. According to these authors the success of microcomputer-based t r a i n i n g depended on convincing proof of i t s effectiveness (Aitken and Braun, 1980), successful implementation strategies {Montague et a l . , 1983), and greater understanding of the contribution of computers to the learning process (Camstra, 1977; Hooper, 1978; Nasman, 1978). It was the opinion of the author at the time of t h i s study that i m p l i c i t i n the opinions of these 40 authors was the notion that research into i n s t r u c t i o n a l design had to proceed concurrently with the introduction of microcomputers in education. The a r t i c l e s of several other authors supported t h i s opinion (Braden, 1982; Montague et a l . , 1983) In summary, t h i s stage of the l i t e r a t u r e review traced the hardware and software developments which ushered computers into prominence in education, itemized the current educational uses of computers, and reported the current pedagogical debates associated with educational computing. This section concluded that the ultimate success of computer-based education was convincing proof of i t s effectiveness. 2.0 Psychology Approaches to the Study of Learning During t h i s second stage of the l i t e r a t u r e review the author examined the educational psychology l i t e r a t u r e to determine i f reports by psychologists would resolve the pedagogical debates found in the educational computing l i t e r a t u r e . This stage of the l i t e r a t u r e review focused on the behaviorist and the information processing approaches to the study of i n t e l l e c t u a l development. The purpose of t h i s stage was to summarize these two approaches, and to suggest that pyschologists studying the learning process perhaps could provide the factual base which could ultimately resolve the educational issues which permiated the educational 41 computing l i t e r a t u r e at the time of t h i s study. For the purposes of t h i s stage of the l i t e r a t u r e review, educational psychologists were categorized as behaviorists and information processing proponents. Behaviorists were more concerned with the observation and analysis of human responses to a variety of s t i m u l i . Researchers who focused on the information processing approach to understanding human behavior were more concerned with explaining the events between a stimulus and an observed response. Both groups attempted to describe and evaluate a model of human i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y : however, each approach was d i f f e r e n t . The p r i n c i p l e l i m i t a t i o n to the behaviorists' point of view was that t h e i r research focused on the stimulation and measurement of the a c t i v i t y of e f f e c t o r s that contributed to measureable behavior: effectors were defined as motor neurons which contributed to overt behavior. Behaviorists hypothesized that i f the same ef f e c t o r s that contributed to overt behavior controlled i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y , then by stimulating these effectors and analysing the responses of these effectors, models of internal i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y could be developed. However, the e l e c t r i c a l recording of the a c t i v i t y of motor units provided only a supplementary and often not readily interpretable source of information about the a c t i v i t y of an individual engaged in i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y . Much research at the time of the study focused on an 42 information processing approach to understanding thought processing (Estes, 1975; Anderson, 1980). This approach hypothesized computer analogs: reaction time studies tested these computer analogs against measures of human thought processing. The c l a s s i c information processing point of view was stated in the l i t e r a t u r e by Newell and Simon (Newell and Simon, 1972). However, there were d e f i c i e n c i e s in the information processing model of thought processing as well. The following four statements highlight some of the de f i c i e n c i e s in the information processing approach at the time of t h i s study. F i r s t , the encoding, storage, and information r e t r i e v a l processes associated with the information processing approach were not f u l l y a r t i c u l a t e d . Second, S e r i a l Processing, one of the central concepts in information processing theory, was challenged by evidence in the l i t e r a t u r e that suggested the presence of p a r a l l e l processing c a p a b i l i t i e s (Anderson, 1977; Townsend, 1974). Third, information processing models at the time of the study were not consistent with other models of learning such as Piaget's stage model (Klahr, & Wallace 1976). And f i n a l l y , the neurophysiological processes responsible f o r information processing and t h e i r anatomical l o c a t i o n i n the brain were not in evidence in the l i t e r a t u r e . In summary, the psychological l i t e r a t u r e at the time of the study contained frequent references to information 43 processing models of cognitive develpment and of thought processing. These models focused on models of neurological a c t i v i t y between a stimulus and a response. These research papers implied that common physiological processes contributed to observed behavior and d i f f e r e n t cognitive st y l e s . Some studies in the l i t e r a t u r e sugggested that some progress had been made i n developing computer models which correlated with human i n t e l l e c t u a l behavior. However, l i t t l e information was evident i n the l i t e r a t u r e that suggested that s i g n i f i c a n t progress had been made i n id e n t i f y i n g the s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r a l components responsible f o r i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y , in i s o l a t i n g the differences in i n t e l l e c t u a l processing that contributed to d i f f e r e n t learning s t y l e s , or in explaining the growth and development of human thinking. On the other hand, the author was of the opinion that a s i g n i f i c a n t c o l l e c t i o n of knowledge had emerged from the behaviorist and information processing t r a d i t i o n s , and that t h i s information, although not cohesive or conclusive, provided useful material f o r educators who wished to understand and evaluate the progress of t h e i r students. 3.0 F i e l d Independence and Task Performance This t h i r d stage of the l i t e r a t u r e review examined the changes i n the f i e l d independence construct from a s k i l l associated with the perception of the upright, to an incomplete theory of two learning s t y l e s . The purpose of 44 t h i s stage was to summarize Witkin's view of the f i e l d independence construct at the time of the study, to review the l i n k between the f i e l d independence construct, the tasks associated with the perception of upright, and the tasks associated with the location of simple figures i n complex backgrounds, and to state some of the evidence that suggested that l e v e l of f i e l d independence contributes to differences • i n learning s t y l e s and o v e r a l l performance. 3.1 F i e l d Independence Construct The f i e l d independence construct has been refined since i t s o r i g i n in 1948. I n i t i a l l y i t was associated with a b i l i t y of subjects to orient t h e i r bodies to an upright position (Witkin, 1948). Since Witkin's o r i g i n a l experiments i t has been associated with embedded figures tasks (Witkin, 1950), a global - a r t i c u l a t e d continuum (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1974), and Pychological D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1974). At the time of the study, Witkin defined the construct of f i e l d independence in terms of three new constructs: Cognitive Restructuring, Interpersonal Competencies, and Autonomous Functioning (Witkin & Goodenough, 1982). In t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of the construct of f i e l d independence, Autonomous Functioning was hypothesized as a superordinate construct. This higher order construct'included perception of the upright and interpersonal behavior. The other new concepts 45 Figure 2 AUTONOMOUS FUNCTIONING COGNITIVE RESTRUCTURING COGNITIVE RESTRUCTURING VARIABLES (spa t i a l & non sp a t i a l ) INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCIES INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCIES VARIABLES associated with f i e l d independence, Cognitive Restructuring and Interpersonal Competencies, were hypothesized to be subordinate constructs to Autonomous Functioning, and subordinate to these two concepts were s p e c i f i c Cognitive Restructuring and Interpersonal Competency variables (Figure 2). Embedded figures tasks such as the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) were hypothesized to be associated with a s p e c i f i c s p a t i a l Cognitive Restructuring a b i l i t y . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the three new constructs associated with f i e l d independence was not clear at the time of the study. However, according to Witkin at the time of t h i s study, evidence suggested that cerebral l a t e r a l i z a t i o n (Witkin, Goodenough, & Oltman, 1979; Dawson, 1972; Waber, 1977), sex linked chromosomal differences (eg., Bock & 46 Kolakowski, 1973; O'Connor, 1943; Stafford, 1961), hormonal determinants (Komenich, Lane, Dickey, & Stone, 1978; Broverman, Kobayashi & Vogel, 1968), t r a i n i n g (Gaines, 1975), and c u l t u r a l factors (Witkin & Berry, 1975), were among the factors contributing to the differences associated with the hypothesized model of f i e l d independence, as stated by Witkin at the time of the study. In summary, the f i e l d independence construct originated from studies of a s p e c i f i c perceptual s k i l l , was modified over the four decades preceeding the study, and became a comprehensive but not well understood model of two learning s t y l e s : these two learning s t y l e s were hypothesized to be dependent on physiological and environmental factors. 3.2 Measures of Task Performance In the context of t h i s study, and based on evidence in the l i t e r a t u r e at the time of t h i s study, the performance of f i e l d independent subjects d i f f e r e d from f i e l d dependent subjects on four dimensions: embedded figures tasks, orientation tasks, learning s t y l e s , and learning effectiveness. According to the l i t e r a t u r e at the time of the study, f i e l d independent subjects were more competent at embedded figures tasks and orientation tasks. The greater competence of f i e l d independent subjects i n these two areas r e f l e c t e d the two categories of tests used to id e n t i f y l e v e l of f i e l d 47 independence: tests such as the Body Adjustment Test (BAT), Rod and Frame Test (RFT), and the Portable Rod and Frame Test (PRFT) measured orientation tasks, and tests such as the Embedded Figures Test (EFT), Childrens Embedded Figures Test (CEFT), and the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) measured a b i l i t y to complete embedded figures tasks. o The l i t e r a t u r e also showed that f i e l d dependent subjects compensated f o r t h e i r difference in a b i l i t y to complete orientation tasks and embedded figures tasks through d i f f e r e n t learning s t y l e s . The learning s t y l e s associated -with d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of f i e l d independence included differences in hypothesis testing strategies (Goodenough, 1976), reliance on external referents and s o c i a l frames of reference (Adcock & Webberley, 1971; Fitzgibbons et a l . , 1965), and use of mediators such as structuring (Fleming, 1968; Koran, et a l . , 1971; Schwen, 1970; Renzi, 1974). The l i t e r a t u r e also reported that differences i n learning effectiveness resulted from differences in a b i l i t y to complete embedded figures tasks and from differences in a b i l i t y to perceive the upright. For example, Oickstein (1968) showed that f i e l d independent subjects were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f i c i e n t in concept attainment tasks as measured by number of choices to solution, number of incorrect verbalizations, and by thoroughness with which attributes were tested. There were other studies showing that f i e l d independent subjects were better at concept 48 attainment: some of these studies were l i s t e d in a paper written by Goodenough (1976). However, reports i n the l i t e r a t u r e by some authors hypothesized that the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d dependent subjects was only lower in more complex situ a t i o n s . For example, Robinson & Bennink (1978) reported that in low information load conditions no differences were found between the performance of f i e l d independent groups and f i e l d dependent groups: conversely, i n high information load conditions, these same authors found that f i e l d dependent subjects made more errors i n d i g i t r e c a l l and took longer to perform d i f f i c u l t semantic modifications. In another example, the r e s u l t s of a concept learning study reported that as the complexity of a given stimulus increased, the f i e l d dependent subject were at a disadvantage, and implied that o v e r a l l effectiveness was dependent on the s i t u a t i o n (Nebelkopf & Dreyer, 1973). In summary, the l i t e r a t u r e reported that f i e l d dependent subjects and f i e l d independent subjects d i f f e r e d i n performance on embedded figures tasks and orientation tasks, had d i f f e r e n t learning s t y l e s , and under c e r t a i n circumstances had differences in o v e r a l l performance. It was t h i s conclusion arrived at through an examination of the l i t e r a t u r e that motivated the author to design a study to confirm t h i s conclusion in a task associated with computers. The assumption in undertaking t h i s study was that, i f f i e l d 49 dependent students had more d i f f i c u l t y with computer tasks si m i l a r to the perceptual tasks associated with the f i e l d independence construct, then educators must re-evaluate the influence of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) containing computer graphics on the learning process. 50 CHAPTER III METHOD OF STUDY 1.0 Experimental Design 1.1 Population Target Population: In general terms, the target population in t h i s study was a l l students who interact with the computer. However, because of l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by the subjects who were available f o r t h i s study, and because of li m i t a t i o n s imposed by the design of the study, and consequently, because of the i n a b i l i t y to generalize the res u l t s of t h i s study to t h i s broadly defined target population, a narrower view of the target population was applied. This narrower view of the target population permitted the generalization of the r e s u l t s to t h i s r e s t r i c t e d target population. Although t h i s l i m i t e d target population was l i k e l y representative of a broader population, any further generalization to a broader population would require larger samples, d i f f e r e n t sampling techniques, a dif f e r e n t research design, and d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l analysis procedures. For the purposes mentioned above, the target population in t h i s study was considered to be the boys from grade ten 51 (10) English classes at one of the secondary schools in the Peel Board of Education, a school board located in Mississauga, Ontario. This school was chosen because i t offered a cross-section of secondary school programs, and because representatives of t h i s school board were supportive of t h i s research study. At the time of t h i s study, Mississauga, the c i t y in which the study was conducted, was a moderately affluent community of 400,000 people, and contained commercial, r e s i d e n t i a l and l i g h t manufacturing areas. The c i t y had grown rapidly over the years preceeding the study. Its residents represented a cross section of economic, c u l t u r a l , and occupational groups. The Peel Board of Education, the school board in which t h i s study was conducted, at the time of the study, was one of the largest school boards in Ontario, was situated on the westerly side of Toronto, and was responsible for the education of approximately eighteen thousand (18,000) boys and eighteen thousand (18,000) g i r l s . This school board offered three main l e v e l s of high school programs to students from grade nine (age 13) to grade thirteen (age 18). Advanced l e v e l programs were offered f o r students intending to enter university, general l e v e l courses ware available f o r students intending to enter college, and basic l e v e l courses were organized f o r students planning to complete a two year high school program. There were also programs fo r exceptional 52 students (eg. physically handicapped, mentally handicapped, g i f t e d students etc.) offered by the school board. At the time of the study, the school selected f o r t h i s study was one on the largest secondary schools in the Peel Board of Education, had an enrolment of approximately eighth hundred and f i f t y (850) boys and eight hundred and f i f t y (850) g i r l s , and offered a cross-section of a l l courses offered by the Peel Board of Education. Accessible Population: Male student volunteers from grade ten (10) English classes at the secondary school selected for t h i s study were the accessible population. These volunteers represented seventy-four percent (74 %) of boys in the target population (Table 3). A l l of the accessible population completed a paper and pencil t e s t to assess t h e i r l e v e l of f i e l d independence. Thirty individuals from the accessible population (the sample) also participated in the Training Session and the Microcomputer Exercise. The Training Session and the Microcomputer Exercise followed ten days afte r the administration of the paper and p e n c i l t e s t . 1.2 Sample and Sampling Procedures The sample in t h i s study was f i f t e e n f i e l d independent subjects and f i f t e e n f i e l d dependent subjects, homogeneous with respect to grade, age, sex, and English achievement. This sample represented twenty-one percent (21 H) of the 53 target population, and twenty-eight percent (28 %) of the accessible population. The sample was selected by f i r s t administering the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) to a l l members of the accessible population. The procedures f o r administering t h i s test are recorded in the Procedures f o r the Group Embedded Figures Test (Appendix A). This t e s t was administered by four research assistants from Mohawk College of Applied Arts & Technology. The subjects with the f i f t e e n lowest scores on the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) were i n i t i a l l y designated as the f i e l d dependent subjects who would complete the Training Session and the Microcomputer Session. The subjects with the next ten lowest scores on the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) were designated as alternates should any of the i n i t i a l f i f t e e n f i e l d dependent subjects not be available for the remainder of the study. These alternates were placed i n a l i s t in ascending order according to t h e i r scores. The subject with the lowest score in t h i s group of alternates became the f i r s t f i e l d dependent alternate. Correspondingly, the subject with the highest score i n t h i s group of alternates became the l a s t f i e l d dependent alternate. Students in t h i s group of f i e l d dependent alternates with i d e n t i c a l scores were positioned in the l i s t of f i e l d dependent alternates along with other subjects with the same score by means of a random number table. 54 The subjects with the f i f t e e n highest scores on the Group Embedded Figures Test <GEFT) were i n i t i a l l y designated as the f i e l d independent subjects who would complete the Training Session and the Microcomputer Session. The subjects with the next ten highest scores on the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) were designated as alternates should any of the i n i t i a l f i f t e e n f i e l d independent subjects not be available for the remainder of the study. The subject with the highest score i n t h i s group of alternates became the f i r s t f i e l d independent alternate. Correspondingly, the subject with the lowest score in t h i s group of alternates became the l a s t f i e l d independent alternate. Subjects in t h i s group of alternates with i d e n t i c a l scores were positioned in the l i s t of f i e l d independent alternates along with other subjects with the same score by means of a random number table. One week following the administration of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), the t h i r t y subjects selected for the Training Session and Microcomputer Session were assembled. The f i e l d dependent alternates and the f i e l d independent alternates were also assembled with the t h i r t y subjects selected f o r the data c o l l e c t i o n . The t h i r t y subjects were seated in an amphitheatre according to a predetermined s t r a t i f i e d random assignment. The seating arrangement placed f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects i n alternate seats: determination of the 55 seat location f o r each of the f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects was accomplished p r i o r to the day of the data c o l l e c t i o n with the assistance of a random number table. One subject from the o r i g i n a l l i s t of f i e l d independent subjects, and four subjects from the o r i g i n a l l i s t of f i e l d dependent subjects were absent on the day of the data c o l l e c t i o n and consequently were replaced according to the following procedure. The f i e l d independent subject absent on the day of the data c o l l e c t i o n was replaced by the f i r s t subject on the l i s t of f i e l d Independent alternates: the four f i e l d dependent subjects absent on the day of the data c o l l e c t i o n were respectively replaced by the f i r s t four subjects on the l i s t of f i e l d dependent alternates. The subjects substituting for members of the o r i g i n a l group of f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects were assigned to the location assigned to the person they were replacing. 1.3 Variables The variables studied in t h i s thesis are l i s t e d in Table One (1). The instrument used f o r assessing l e v e l of f i e l d independence, the independent variable, i s described in the instrumentation section of t h i s chapter. The categories of dependent variables and the d e f i n i t i o n s of the dependent variables in each category were: 56 Table 1 LIST OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES Independent Variables Level of F i e l d Dependence/Field Independence Dependent Variables Category A: Decoding B: F i e l d s of Reference C: Points of Reference D: Learning Style E: Overall Performance # Dependent Variables 1. T r i a l Errors 2. T r i a l Response Accuracy 3. T r i a l Error Frequency 4. T r i a l Orientation Errors 5. T r i a l Point of Reference Errors 6. T r i a l Overview Requests 7. Average Overview Time 8. T r i a l Overview Frequency 9. T r i a l Assistance Level 10. T r i a l Time 11. T r i a l Moves 12. T r i a l Responses 13. T r i a l Economy of Moves 14. T r i a l Move Frequency 57 A: Decoding of Three Dimensional Representations 1. T r i a l Errors: T r i a l Errors was operationally defined as a measure of the t o t a l Errors committed by a subject in a Computer Maze. 2. T r i a l Response Accuracy: T r i a l Response Accuracy was operationally defined as a measure of the precision of computer graphics interpretation by a subject during a Computer Maze. I t was calculated by expressing the number of forward moves completed by a subject in a Computer Maze as a percentage of the T r i a l Errors of a subject in the same Computer Maze. 3. T r i a l Error Frequency: T r i a l Error Frequency was operationally defined as a measure of the average length of time between Errors during a Computer Maze. I t was calculated by d i v i d i n g the T r i a l Time by the T r i a l Errors, and was measured in seconds elapsed/Error. B: Determining F i e l d s of Reference 4. T r i a l Orientation Errors: T r i a l Orientation Errors was operationally defined as a measure of a subject's a b i l i t y to adapt to changes i n F i e l d of Reference in a Computer Maze, and was the sum of the Orientation Errors committed by a subject during a Computer Maze. C: Determining Points of Reference 5. T r i a l Point of Reference Errors: T r i a l Point of Reference Errors was operationally defined as a 58 measure of a subject's a b i l i t y to adapt to changes in Point of Reference in a Computer Maze, and was the sum of the Point of Reference Errors committed by a subject during a Computer Maze. Learning Styles 6. T r i a l Overview Requests: T r i a l Overview Requests was operationally defined as a measure of a subject's l e v e l of assistance from the Overview, and was the sum of the Overview Requests by a subject during a Computer Maze. 7. Average Overview Time: Average Overview Time was operationally defined as a measure of the average duration of Overviews requested by the subject in"a Computer Maze. I t was measured in seconds/Overview and was calculated by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l time engaged by a subject i n examining the Overviews from a single Computer Maze by the T r i a l Overviews by the subject in the same Computer Maze. 8. T r i a l Overview Frequency: T r i a l Overview Frequency was operationally defined as a measure of average length of time between requests for Overviews in a Computer Maze. I t was calculated by d i v i d i n g the T r i a l Time by the T r i a l Overviews, and was measured in seconds elapsed / T r i a l Overview. 9. T r i a l Assistance Level: T r i a l Assistance Level was operationally defined as a measure of the l e v e l of 59 Overview assistance requested by the subject during a Computer Maze in r e l a t i o n to t o t a l moves completed. It was calculated by expressing the T r i a l Overviews as a percentage of the T r i a l Moves. Overall Performance 10. T r i a l Time: T r i a l Time was operationally defined as a measure of the t o t a l time required by a subject to complete a Computer Maze. I t was calculated by accumulating the t o t a l time a subject was engaged i n a Computer Maze and was measured in seconds. 11. T r i a l Moves: T r i a l Moves was operationally defined as a measure of the t o t a l number of Moves required by a subject i n completing a Computer Maze. A subject executed a Move i f he pressed one of the four control keys on the microcomputer (go forward, turn around, turn l e f t , turn right) and i f an Error did not occur as a r e s u l t of the subject pressing the key. 12. T r i a l Responses: T r i a l Responses was operationally defined as a measure of t o t a l number of Responses i n i t i a t e d by a subject during a Computer Maze. It was measured by adding a subject's T r i a l Moves, T r i a l Overviews, and T r i a l Errors in a single Computer Maze. 13. T r i a l Economy of Moves: T r i a l Economy of Moves was operationally defined as how closely a subject followed the shortest path to the end of a Computer 60 Maze. It was calculated by expressing the minimum number of Moves required to complete a Computer Maze as a percentage of the T r i a l Moves required by a subject to complete the same Computer Maze. 14. T r i a l Move Frequency: T r i a l Move Frequency was operationally defined as a measure of the average length of time elapsed between Moves by a subject i n a Computer Maze. I t was calculated by dividing the T r i a l Time of a subject i n a Computer Maze by the T r i a l Moves of the same subject in the same Computer Maze, and was measured i n seconds elapsed between T r i a l Move. 1•4 Instrumentation Two instruments were used in t h i s study: the Group Embedded Figures Test (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971) and four modified versions of a computer maze program c a l l e d "Ratrun" (Nadovich, 1979). The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was administered to volunteers from the target population to determine t h e i r l e v e l of f i e l d independence. The four modified versions of the maze program "Ratrun" were required to f a c i l i t a t e the c o l l e c t i o n of data i n t h i s thesis. Group Embedded Figures Test The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was an adaptation of the i n d i v i d u a l l y administered Embedded Figures Test £1 (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971), and was administered to the accessible population as a group test. This test contained twenty f i v e questions divided into three sections. Each question tested a subject's a b i l i t y to f i n d simple figures within a complex background. The f i r s t section of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) consisted of seven questions: these questions . provided an opportunity for the subject to learn the nature of the task he was required to complete i n the l a s t two sections of the test: the subject's answers to t h i s section were not used i n ca l c u l a t i n g a subject's f i n a l score. Each of the l a s t two sections of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) consisted of nine question. By accumulating the number of correct answers in these l a s t two sections of the t e s t , a subject's score was calculated. The internal v a l i d i t y of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was reported through c o r r e l a t i o n s between the nine item second section scores of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the nine item t h i r d section scores of the Group Embedded Figures Test (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971). The c o r r e l a t i o n between the scores of subjects on the two sections of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was reported as .82. This s t a t i s t i c indicated that the internal v a l i d i t y of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was r e l a t i v e l y high. This r e s u l t compared favorably with the internal v a l i d i t y reported for the Embedded Figures Test 62 (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971). Estimates of the external v a l i d i t y of t h i s test were reported through correlations between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and e a r l i e r measure of f i e l d independence (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971). Included i n the correlations were comparisons between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Embedded Figures Test (EFT), between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Rod and Frame Test (RFT), and between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Portable Rod and Frame Test (PRFT). These correlations were reported f o r male and female undergraduates. Correlations were higher f o r males than females. Only the correlations f o r males were important to t h i s study since the population in the study were male. For males, the co r r e l a t i o n between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) was reported as -.82, indicating that there was a high negative correlation between the scores on the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the scores on the Embedded Figures Test (EFT). Both the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) measured a b i l i t y to locate simple figures in a complex background. Consequently, the high correlation between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) confirmed the external v a l i d i t y of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) f o r tasks associated with the location of simple figures in a complex 63 background. For males, the corr e l a t i o n between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Rod and Frame Test (RFT) was reported as .71, and the corr e l a t i o n between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Portable Rod and Frame Test {PRFT) was reported as -.39. These two correlations indicated that there was some rel a t i o n s h i p between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Rod and Frame Test (RFT) and some relationship between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Portable Rod and Frame Test (PRFT), but the relationships were r e l a t i v e l y small. The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) measured a b i l i t y to location simple figures i n a complex background, while the Portable Rod and Frame Test (PRFT) and the Rod and Frame Test (RFT) measured perceptions of the upright (orientation s k i l l s ) . Consequently, the r e l a t i v e l y low corr e l a t i o n s between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the two tes t of orientation (Rod and Frame Test, and Portable Rod and Frame Test) suggested that the external v a l i d i t y of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) f o r tasks associated with orientation was r e l a t i v e l y low. The r e l a t i v e correlations between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the three e a r l i e r measures of f i e l d independence mentioned e a r l i e r (Embedded Figures Test, Rod and Frame Test, and Portable Rod and Frame Test) were s i m i l a r for women. These correlations were reported as -.63, .55, 64 and -.34 respectively. These correlations were lower than the s t a t i s t i c s for males, however, these s t a t i s t i c s did tend to confirm that f o r women a s i m i l a r but much weaker relationship existed between the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the other measures of f i e l d independence. Consequently, the external v a l i d i t y of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) fo r female populations was not strongly confirmed for tasks associated with a b i l i t y to locate simple figures in a complex background, and was very weak for tasks associated with orientation. Data on the internal or external v a l i d i t y of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) with the target population in t h i s study was not available. However, the writer had no reason to suspect that the v a l i d i t y of the r e s u l t s for the target population was d i f f e r e n t than the r e s u l t s for male undergraduates since the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) relationships were generally considered to be stable over d i f f e r e n t age groups. The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) norms for college males and females (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971) are summarized in Table Two (2). Norms were not available f o r grade ten boys. However, norms f o r grade ten boys were expected to be l e s s than the norms for college students since l e v e l of f i e l d independence generally increases u n t i l age 25. This prediction was supported by the mean Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) 65 scores of the accessible population reported i n t h i s study (Table 4). Table 2 SUMMARY OF GROUP EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST (GEFT) NORMS for COLLEGE MALES AND FEMALES Category N Mean S.D. Men 155 12.0 4.1 Women 242 10.8 4.2 In summary, the internal v a l i d i t y of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was r e l a t i v e l y high, the external v a l i d i t y of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) for" males was r e l a t i v e l y high f o r tasks associated with locating simple figures in a complex background, and the external v a l i d i t y of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) f o r males was r e l a t i v e l y low f o r tasks associated with orientation s k i l l s . Similar, but weaker relationships existed f o r females. Norms were available for college males and females, but not for the target population i n t h i s study. Maze Programs As stated e a r l i e r , four versions of a computer maze program c a l l e d "Ratrun" were created f o r t h i s study. "Ratrun" was a maze program written for the PET Commodore microcomputer. This program u t i l i z e d a random number 66 generator to create a new maze each time the program was loaded into the computer, and each time the operator of the computer asked f o r another maze. Version I of the maze program saved the random numbers required f o r reconstructing any maze created by the o r i g i n a l version of the maze program. Using t h i s version, diagrams of f i f t y mazes and the information necessary to re-create the f i f t y mazes were printed on paper. The modified version of the program "Ratrun" c a l l e d Version I and a sample of the information generated by the program Version I are printed in Appendix I. One maze with the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was selected by the author from the f i f t y mazes generated by the program Version I: s t a r t i n g position located near the bottom r i g h t hand corner of the maze, f i n i s h i n g p o s i t i o n near the top l e f t hand corner of the maze, short a l t e r a t e paths i f the subject digressed from the most d i r e c t route from the s t a r t of the maze to the end of the maze, and equal number of l e f t turns and r i g h t turns. The locations of the s t a r t and f i n i s h in t h i s maze were chosen to maximize the distance between the s t a r t i n g position and the f i n i s h i n g position. Minimizing the alternate paths confined subjects to the same general area within the same maze. Selecting a maze with the same number of l e f t and right turns minimized the e f f e c t of "type of turn" as a factor a f f e c t i n g performance in the maze. 67 A second maze from the f i f t y mazes generated by the program Version I was selected at random f o r the paper and pencil maze test i n Part I of the Training Session. This maze was referred to as Maze #3. A copy of Maze #3 i s printed i n the Student Training Manual (Appendix G). Version II of the computer maze program was a modification of the program Version I. This program created the second maze presented to the subjects in the study. To create the program Version I I , the program Version I was changed to f i x the s t a r t i n g and f i n i s h i n g positions in the same spots as the s t a r t i n g and f i n i s h i n g positions in Maze #1. From t h i s modified version of the program Version I, a series of new mazes were generated. One of these mazes was selected because of i t s s i m i l a r i t y to Maze #1. This new maze, referred to as Maze #2 was selected because i t had similar number of l e f t turns, r i g h t turns, decision points, and minimum moves. A copy of the program Version II and a copy of Maze #2 are reprinted in Appendix I and Appendix H, respectively. The program Version III was also a modified version of the program "Ratrun". This version was created f o r the purposes of data c o l l e c t i o n . When a subject ran the program ca l l e d Version III he was presented with Maze #1 on the computer screen followed by Maze #2. While the subject completed each maze, Responses by the subject were automatically recorded in the memory of the computer. After 68 completion of Maze #1, data c o l l e c t e d while the subject was completing the f i r s t maze was recorded on a tape positioned in advance i n a tape recorder attached to the microcomputer. After the subject completes Maze #2, the data accumulated while the subject was completing his second maze was recorded on the same tape following the data from Maze #1. The program referred to as Version III i s reprinted in Appendix I. Version IV was also a modified version of the program "Ratrun". This version analysed and printed the data collected on each subject in the Microcomputer Session. After the data c o l l e c t i o n was complete, the information recorded on each subject's tape was entered as data into the program Version IV from a tape recorder attached to the computer. From t h i s data a report on each subject's performance was generated and printed. The program c a l l e d Version IV and a sample printout of the data analysed and printed by t h i s program are reprinted in Appendix I. 1.5 Rationale for Design The factors considered when designing t h i s causal comparative study included the elimination of major extraneous variables, the importance of maximizing the differences between comparison groups, the siz e of comparison groups given the number of subjects in the available population and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of microcomputers, the size 63 of comparison groups which would generate s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s , the intent of the author to study f i v e categories of variables i d e n t i f i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e , and the resolve of the author to determine i f the differences i d e n t i f i e d i n the f i r s t Computer Maze completed by the two comparison groups were also present in a second Computer Maze completed by the two comparison groups. The e f f e c t of these factors on the internal v a l i d i t y of the design are discussed in the next section of t h i s chapter. Age, sex, language, school differences, and academic achievement were the major extraneous variables to be controlled in t h i s study. Only English speaking boys from grade ten (10) English classes at the same school were selected f o r the study in order to eliminate sex, language, and differences in school populations as factors contributing to the differences between the comparison groups in the study. The ages of the two comparison groups, and the English marks of the two comparison groups at the end of the semester when the data was c o l l e c t e d , were analysed to control for age, and academic achievement. The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are reported i n Chapter Four (4). To maximize the differences hypothesized to be dependent on l e v e l of f i e l d independence, the accessible population was administered the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), and only students plus or minus one standard deviation on the te s t were considered for the Training Session and Microcomputer 70 Session. Three factors determined the siz e of the f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent comparison groups in the Training Session and the Microcomputer Session: the number of grade ten male student volunteers at the school selected f o r t h i s study, the number of microcomputers available for the Microcomputer Session, and the necessity f o r a l l subjects in the study to complete the Training Session and the Microcomputer Session at the same time in order that differences in Training Sessions and Microcomputer Sessions would not contribute to differences in the study. The combination of these three factors r e s t r i c t e d the siz e of the f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent comparison groups to f i f t e e n . The si z e of the comparison groups, given the r e s t r i c t i o n s mentioned i n the previous paragraph, influenced the nature of the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. The e f f e c t of the size of comparison groups on the choice of s t a t i s t i c a l measures i s explained l a t e r in t h i s chapter. To analyse dependent variables according to categories i d e n t i f i e d in the l i t e r a t u r e , dependent variables were divided into f i v e categories: a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations on a computer screen, s k i l l in locating the correct position f o r completing turns, proficiency in adjusting to changes in F i e l d of Reference, variations in learning s t y l e , and differences i n o v e r a l l 71 performance. These categories represent categories of variables reported in the f i e l d independent l i t e r a t u r e . Subjects completed two Computer Mazes i n sequence to determine i f the relationships found in Maze #1 were also found in Maze #2. 1.6 Internal V a l i d i t y of Design Eight major variables would p o t e n t i a l l y threaten the internal v a l i d i t y of t h i s causal comparative study. These variables are outlined below along with the procedures adopted in t h i s study to reduce the e f f e c t s of these variables on the v a l i d i t y of the study: a) Sex and School: Boys from one school were selected. b) Age: The ages of the f i e l d independent comparison group were compared to the ages of the f i e l d dependent comparison group. The r e s u l t s of t h i s comparison are summarized in Chapter Four <4): t h i s analysis suggested that the ages of the two comparison groups did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r at the time of the study. c) Achievement: The English grades of the f i e l d independent comparison group at the time of the study were compared to the English grades of the f i e l d dependent comparison group at the time of the study. The r e s u l t s of t h i s comparison are summarized in Chapter Four (4): t h i s analysis suggested that the English grades of the the two comparison groups did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r at the 72 time of the study. d) Language and Culture: To reduce language as a possible source of error, only students registered in a grade ten (10) English class at the time of the study were selected for the study. To further reduce language and also culture as a possible source of error, students with s i g n i f i c a n t English language d e f i c i e n c i e s and recent immigrants were eliminated from the l i s t of Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) scores before the sample of t h i r t y subjects for the Training Session and Microcomputer Session was drawn. The students removed from the l i s t were selected by the guidance department of the school hosting the study. e) Training and Microcomputer Procedures: To eliminate differences i n t r a i n i n g procedures and differences in the Microcomputer Session as a threat to the internal v a l i d i t y several strategies were adopted. F i r s t , Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) te s t i n g , t r a i n i n g procedures, and microcomputer procedures were read from a prepared text, by a reader who was not f a m i l i a r with the study. Second, research assistants without knowledge of the study assisted the reader with the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) test i n g , the Training Session, and the Microcomputer Session. Third, a l l subjects received the same Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) test i n g , Training Session, and Microcomputer Session. Fourth, 73 f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects were randomly assigned to alternate positions in the Training Session, and in the Microcomputer Session. F i f t h , a l l interaction during the microcomputer exercise was between the subjects and the same two Computer Mazes. In summary, as a consequence of the design of the study, and the analysis of the data, the two comparison groups were assumed to be homogeneous with respect to the important variables of age, sex, school, language, culture, and tr a i n i n g and microcomputer procedures, and to d i f f e r in l e v e l of f i e l d independence: consequently, the internal v a l i d i t y of the study was assumed to be high, and any difference i n the performance of the subjects in the Computer Mazes was associated with l e v e l of f i e l d independence. This l a s t statement must cautiously be interpreted since analysis reported in Chapter Four (4) of t h i s study suggested that the two comparison groups were not necessarily homogeneous with respect to t r a i n i n g and microcomputer experience: the interpretation of t h i s f inding i s reported in Chapter Five (5) . 1.7 External V a l i d i t y of Design Five f a c t s added strength to the external v a l i d i t y of the design of t h i s causal comparative study. F i r s t , the sample, the accessible population, and the target population 74 were a l l males. Second, the accessible population from which the two comparison groups were selected represented seventy-four percent (74 H) of the target population. Third, the English marks of the accessible population at the time of the study and the English marks of the subjects who did not volunteer for the study were si m i l a r to the English marks of the target population at the time of the study (Table 3). Fourth, the mean, standard deviation, and variance of the ages of the two comparison groups, and the mean, standard deviation, and variance of the English achievement of the two comparison groups were s i m i l a r (Table 4). And f i f t h , the ages of the two comparison groups, and the English grades of the two comparison groups, did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y (Table 13). These facts add strength to the external v a l i d i t y of the design by supporting the assumption that the sample was representative of the target population. The f a c t that the target population was a l l males eliminated gender as a possible threat to external v a l i d i t y of the study. The second f a c t showed that the accessible population represented most of the target population, and consequently, supported the assumption that the accessible population was representative of the target population. The t h i r d f a c t showed that the English marks of the accessible population, and the English marks of the students in the target population who did not volunteer, were s i m i l a r to the English 75 marks of the target population: t h i s f a c t , along with the fourth and f i f t h f a cts which showed that the two comparison groups were homogeneous with respect to age and English grades, suggested that the accessible population, the target populations, and the comparison groups were homogeneous with respect to age and English grades, and consequently added strength to the assertion that the sample was representative of the target population. 1.8 Method of Analysis There were f i v e d i f f e r e n t aspects in t h i s study which required analysis. Analysis was completed to determine i f the assumptions associated with parametric s t a t i s t i c s were violated, to determine i f the two comparison groups i n t h i s study were homogeneous with respect to age and English achievement, to determine i f the performance of the two comparison groups in the Training Session were d i f f e r e n t , to determine i f the performance of the f i e l d independent subjects in the Computer Maze was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than the performance of the f i e l d dependent subjects in the Computer Maze, and to determine i f the previous exposure of the two comparison groups to computers was s i m i l a r . Each analysis was completed for a s p e c i f i c reason. The assumptions associated with parametric s t a t i s t i c s were tested to determine the appropriateness of using parametric s t a t i s t i c s . The homogeneity of the comparison groups on age 75 and English achievement were tested to demonstrate that there was a low probability that age and English achievement could account f o r the differences in performance on the dependent variables in the study. The performance of the two comparison groups in the Training Session was compared to ascertain that the two comparison groups equally understood the directions presented to the subjects p r i o r to the Microcomputer Session. The performance of the two comparison groups on the dependent variables was analysed to demonstrate that there were significance differences between the two comparison groups on measures related to l e v e l of f i e l d independence. The previous exposure of the two comparison groups to computers was analysed to demonstrate that there was a low probability that differences in exposure to computers could account f o r the difference i n performance of the comparison groups on the dependent variables. Non parametric s t a t i s t i c s were chosen f o r each of the analyses: three factors determined t h i s choice of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. F i r s t , v a l i d i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y and power of a multivariate study are somewhat questionable with comparison groups of f i f t e e n . Second, t h i s investigation was an exploratory study which did not imply that the dependent variables ware separate factors accounting f o r the differences in performance of f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects. Third, tests of the assumptions associated with parametric s t a t i s t i c s and observations of the 77 nature of the data revealed that there were frequent severe vi o l a t i o n s of the parametric assumptions. Appropriate non parametric s t a t i s t i c s were chosen f o r each analysis. The L i l l i e f o r s Test (Iman & Conover, 1983) was selected to test the normality of d i s t r i b u t i o n of the data. The Test f o r Homogeneity of Independent Variances (Bruning & Kintz, 1977) was used to test the dependent variables for homogeneity of variance. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (Ferguson, 1981) was chosen to demonstrate that the two comparison groups were homogeneous with respect to age and English achievement, and to analyse the performance of the two comparison groups on the dependent variables. The Chi-square s t a t i s t i c (Ferguson, 1981) was selected to analyse the responses of the two comparison groups to questions from the Training Session and to questions at the end of the Microcomputer Session. A follow-up analysis comparing the performance of the f i e l d independent subjects who had taken computer courses with the performance of the f i e l d independent subjects who had not taken computer studies courses was also completed: t h i s analysis involved the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test to determine i f difference in exposure to computers in the form of computer studies courses influenced the r e s u l t s of t h i s study. 1.9 Research Hypotheses The s p e c i f i c hypotheses given in Chapter One (1) were 78 stated i n the form of research hypotheses as follows: A: Decoding of Three Dimensional Representations When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing the a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations in a Computer Maze, the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d independent subjects would be d i f f e r e n t than the sum of the rank scores f o r f i e l d dependent subjects. The scores (dependent variables) representing the a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations in a Computer Maze were: 1) T r i a l Errors, 2) T r i a l Response Accuracy, and 3) T r i a l Error Frequency. B: Determining F i e l d s of Reference When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing the a b i l i t y to choose a Response which points i n the di r e c t i o n towards the end of a Computer Maze, the sum of the rank scores f o r f i e l d independent subjects would be d i f f e r e n t than the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d dependent subjects. The score (dependent variable) representing a b i l i t y to choose a Response which points in the d i r e c t i o n towards the end of a Computer Maze was 4) T r i a l Orientation Errors. C: Determining Points of Reference When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing the a b i l i t y to select the correct Point of Reference i n a Computer Maze to execute a turn, the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d independent subjects would 79 be d i f f e r e n t than the sum of the rank scores f o r f i e l d dependent subjects. The score (dependent variable) representing a b i l i t y to select the correct Point of Reference in a Computer Maze to execute a turn was 5) T r i a l Point of Reference Errors. D: Learning Styles When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing learning s t y l e s , the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d independent subjects would be d i f f e r e n t than the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d dependent subjects. The scores (dependent variables) representing learning s t y l e s were: 6) T r i a l Overview Requests, 7) T r i a l Overview Time, 8) Average Overview Time, and 9) T r i a l Overview Frequency. E: Overall Performance When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing o v e r a l l performance, the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d independent subjects would be d i f f e r e n t than the sum of the rank scores f o r f i e l d dependent subjects. The scores (dependent variables) representing o v e r a l l performance were: 10) T r i a l Time, 11) T r i a l Moves, 12) T r i a l Responses, 13) T r i a l Economy of Moves, and 14) T r i a l Move Frequency. 80 2.0 Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n 2.1 Training Procedures A l l subjects were trained at the same time. The Training Session consisted of three parts and was organized and executed by the same students who administered the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). Anecdotal records were kept during the Training Session. In Part I of the Training Session subjects completed a paper and pencil maze as evidence that they understand the nature of a paper and pencil maze, and that they could complete the sequencing tasks required i n a paper and pencil maze. The paper and pencil maze used in Part I of the Training Session was selected at random from the f i f t y mazes generated by Version I of the "Ratrun" program, and contained s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to the mazes in the data c o l l e c t i o n procedures. The procedures for Part I of the Training Session i s located in Appendix B, and a copy of the maze used in Part I of the Training Session i s located in the Student Training Manual (Appendix G). During Part II of the Training Session the changing Points of Reference and F i e l d s of Reference in a Computer Maze were explained to the subjects by a seri e s of s l i d e s of actual corridors and by a s i m p l i f i e d f l o o r p l a n of an exis t i n g building displayed on overhead transparencies. Part II of the Training Session consisted of three sections. In section one of Part I I , subjects were shown a series 81 of s l i d e s on a s l i d e projector and a corresponding series of overhead transparencies of the f l o o r plan of an existing building. This section i l l u s t r a t e d that as a person walks from one location in a building towards another location in the same building that the person's Point of Reference and F i e l d of Reference changed. In section two of Part I I , subjects were shown a sequence of s l i d e s and transparencies very s i m i l a r to the sequence of s l i d e s and transparencies shown to the subjects in section one. However, the s l i d e s , the overhead transparencies, and the dialogue were s l i g h t l y modified to closely simulate the computer maze task, with one important exceptions s l i d e s of actual corridors replaced the three dimensional interpretations of corridors used in the Computer Maze. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s change i s explained in Chapter Five <5). In section three of Part I I , subjects answered fourteen questions. These questions v e r i f i e d seven points concerning the maze task and the graphics representations in the maze task: 1. An arrow was situated on the Overview at the subject's present position in the maze. The d i r e c t i o n the arrow points indicated the d i r e c t i o n the subject was facing in the maze corridor. 2. Pressing the "go forward" key changed the subject's Point of Reference and F i e l d of Reference by one position in 82 the d i r e c t i o n the arrow was pointing. 3. Pressing one of the orientation keys (turn l e f t , turn r i g h t , turn around) changed the subject's F i e l d of Reference correspondingly. However, pressing one of the orientation keys did not change a subject's Point of Reference. 4. A l i g h t square and a dotted square on an Overview represented the s t a r t i n g and f i n i s h i n g position in the maze respectively. 5. A l i g h t square and a dotted block on the f l o o r of a maze corridor represented the s t a r t i n g and f i n i s h i n g position in the maze respectively. S. Pressing the question mark (?) key during a Computer Maze displayed the Overview of the maze on the computer screen. 7. Pressing the Y(es) key while an Overview was on the screen of the computer returned the subject to his present position in the maze. The questions in Part II of the Training Session also v e r i f i e d that subjects could cor r e c t l y interpret s l i d e s of h a l l s and corridors s i m i l a r to the graphic representation of h a l l s and corridors in the Computer Maze. A summary of the Transparencies and Slides f o r the Microcomputer Training Session f o r Part II (Appendix D), the Microcomputer Training Session Transparencies f o r Part II 83 (Appendix E), the Instructor's Training Manual f o r Part II (Appendix B), and the Student Training Manual f o r Part II (Appendix G) are located in the Appendices. During Part III of the Training Session, the subjects learned the meaning of the six symbols used to construct the three dimensional graphics interpretations on the computer screen. After explaining the meaning of each symbol, subjects were shown an overhead describing the six symbols. However, the diagrams of the six symbols were not shown on the screen. Using these descriptions, students were asked to match the descriptions of the six symbols with diagrams of the six symbols which were recorded in t h e i r Training Manual in random order. The procedures f o r Part III (Appendix B), the descriptions of the six graphics symbols shown to the subjects on the screen (Appendix E), and diagrams of the six symbols (Appendix E) are reproduced in the Appendices. Student Training Manuals were c o l l e c t e d at the end of the Training Session, marked for accuracy, and analysed for differences between the two comparison groups. 2.2 Method of E l i c i t i n g Observations Observations were automatically co l l e c t e d by the computer while subjects completed the microcomputer assignment on PET Commodore microcomputers (Model 4016). Each subject completed Maze #1 followed by Maze #2. During each Computer Maze a series of computer graphics displays assisted 84 the subject i n navigating through the maze. These displays were interpreted as three, dimensional pictures by the subject, and represented the subject's changing Point of Reference and F i e l d of Reference as he simulated a walk through the imaginary corridors of a Computer Maze. Sample diagrams of the graphics designs and t h e i r interpretation are included i n Appendix H. By requesting an Overview, the subject viewed a diagram on the computer screen i l l u s t r a t i n g h is present position in the maze, the st a r t i n g point in the maze, the location of the end of the maze, the pattern.of corridors between the s t a r t of the maze and the f i n i s h of the maze, and the locations of Point(s) of Reference the subject had passed i n the Computer Maze. Subjects could request an Overview at any time during the Computer Maze by pressing the "?" key on the computer. The Overviews of the two mazes in t h i s study are reprinted in Appendix H. Subjects returned to t h e i r present location in the maze corridors by responding Y(es) to the question "Do you wish to continue?". This question was printed at the bottom of the Overview. Subjects were instructed in a Training Session to complete the two mazes as quickly as possible. When the subject reached the end of Maze #1, the data from Maze #1 was saved on a tape previously positioned i n a tape recorder attached to the microcomputer. After the r e s u l t s of Maze #1 were recorded on tape, Maze #2 was automatically re-created 85 and presented to the subject on the computer screen. After completion of Maze #2, the data from Maze #2 was saved on the same tape following the data from Maze #1. Subjects were allowed a maximum of t h i r t y minutes to complete both mazes, a maximum of two hundred Responses i n each Computer Maze, and could stop at any time during the t h i r t y minutes. 2.3 Method of Data Co l l e c t i o n The f i f t e e n f i e l d independent subjects and f i f t e e n f i e l d dependent subjects operated t h i r t y microcomputers. An instructor answered any technical questions. However, question which required interpretation of the graphics displays by the assistants were not answered. If the subject asked questions of t h i s kind, assistants were instructed to say "follow the procedures explained i n the tr a i n i n g procedures to complete the two mazes". A l l subjects in the data c o l l e c t i o n period began the Microcomputer Session simultaneously. While the subjects proceeded through each Computer Maze, the sequence of Responses, the time to generate each three dimensional interpretation ( F i e l d of Reference), the time between each Response, the location of each Error, and the position and duration of each Overview, were stored by the microcomputer. After completion of each Computer Maze, the T r i a l Errors, the T r i a l Response Accuracy, T r i a l Error Frequency, 86 T r a i l Overview Requests, Average Overview Time, T r i a l Overview Frequency, T r i a l Assistance Level, T r i a l Time, T r i a l Moves, T r i a l Responses, T r i a l Economy of Moves, and T r i a l Move Frequency were calculated and stored by the microcomputer. If the subject did not complete the two Computer Mazes in the time allocated, the information accumulated at the termination of the Computer Maze was saved by the computer on tape. 2.4 Microcomputer Session Questionnaire After completing the two Computer Mazes, subjects answered a one page questionaire to determine the amount of exposure the subject had had to computer mazes and to computers in general. The student questionnaire i s reprinted in the Student Training Manual (Appendix G). 2.5 Data Accumulation Procedures After completion of a l l t e s t i n g , the information concerning each subject was r e c a l l e d from tape, and loaded into the computer program Version IV. This program analysed the subject's Responses, printed an analysis of each subject's Responses, and l i s t e d the sequence of Responses completed by each subject. A sample of the l i s t i n g generated by the computer program Version IV i s reproduced i n Appendix I. From the diagrams of the Overviews, and from the l i s t i n g s 87 of the sequence of Responses by each subject, the sequence of graphics displays observed by each subject were i d e n t i f i e d , the T r i a l Orientation Errors f o r each subject were determined, and the T r i a l Point of Reference Errors for each subject were calculated. 88 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 1.0 SUMMARY OF THE DATA 1.1 Population Characteristics Table Three (3) describes the English marks of the target population, of the accessible population, and of the students in the target population who did not volunteer for the study. This table summarizes the mean, standard deviation, and variance of the English marks of the accessible population. This table also summarizes the mean, standard deviation, and variance of the English marks of the target population. And f i n a l l y , t h i s table l i s t s the mean, standard deviation, and variance of the English marks of the students in the target population who did not volunteer f o r the study. Ten (10) members of the accessible population moved from the school d i s t r i c t before the end of the semester when the Microcomputer Session was completed. Consequently, the English marks at the end of the semester f o r these students were not available: the author had no reason to believe that the marks of these ten members of the assessible population 89 TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF THE ENGLISH MARKS OF THE TARGET POPULATION, THE ACCESSIBLE POPULATION, AND THE STUDENTS IN THE TARGET POPULATION THAT DID NOT VOLUNTEER FOR THE STUDY CATEGORY TARGET ACCESSIBLE NON VOLUNTEERS FROM POPULATION POPULATION THE TARGET POPULATION N 146 <100H) 108 (74H) 28 (26H) Mean 61.42 61.59 61.75 S.D. 14.61 13.83 14.50 Variance 213.38 191.27 210.19 would s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r the descriptive s t a t i s t i c s associated with the English marks of the assessible population. These s t a t i s t i c s suggested that a large portion of the target population (74H) was represented by the accessible population, that the English marks of the target population, of the accessible populations, and of the students from the target population who did not volunteer f o r the study were sim i l a r . The author inferred from t h i s information that since a substantial percentage of the target population was represented by the accessible population, and since the English marks of the target population, of the accessible population, and of the students from the target populalation who did not volunteer f o r the study were si m i l a r , that the res u l t s of t h i s study could be generalized to the target population with reasonable certainty. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF THE AGE, ENGLISH MARKS, AND FIELD INDEPENDENCE TEST SCORES OF THE ACCESSIBLE POPULATION, AND OF THE TWO COMPARISON GROUPS STATISTIC ACCESSIBLE COMPARISON GROUPS POPULATION FIELD FIELD DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT SUBJECTS SUBJECTS FIELD INDEPENDENCE TEST SCORES N 118. 15. 15. Mean 10.58 2.93 17.4 S.D. 5.15 1.67 .51 Variance 26.57 2.78 .26 Median 11. 3. 17. Maximum 18. 5. 18. Minimum 0. 0. 17. Age N 117. 15. 15. Mean 15.64 15.63 15.44 S.D. .64 .74 .42 Variance .41 . 55 .18 Median 15.58 15.50 15. 33 Maximum 17.58 16.83 15.83 Minimum 14.75 14.83 14.83 English Marks N 108. 14. 13. Mean 61.59 63.14 70.23 S.D. 13. 83 12.58 8.46 Variance 191.27 158.29 71.53 Median 67. 65. 70. Maximum 88. 82. 87. Minimum 30. 30. 55. 91 1.2 Age. Achievement, and F i e l d Independence Test Scores Table Four (4) shows a summary of the f i e l d independence test scores, the ages, and the English marks of the accessible population. The age of one of the members of the accessible population, and the English marks of ten of the accessible population were not available. This information was not available since one of the volunteers in the accessible population did not volunteer his age, and as noted e a r l i e r , the English marks of ten of the assessible population were not available since these students moved from the school d i s t r i c t before the end of the semester when the Microcomputer Session was completed. The author had no reason to suspect that the omission of t h i s information s i g n i f i c a n t l y altered the descriptive s t a t i s t i c s associated with the ages and English marks of the assessible population. Therefore the author assumed that the s t a t i s t i c s reported on Table Four (4) ref l e c t e d the f i e l d independence te s t scores, the ages, and the English marks of the assessible population. Table Four (4) also shows the f i e l d independence test scores, the ages, and the English marks of the comparison groups. The English mark of one of the students in the f i e l d dependent comparison group and the English mark of two of the students in the f i e l d independent comparison group were not available. This information was not available since these three subjects did not complete Training Session and Microcomputer forms corr e c t l y : consequently i t was not 92 possible to trace the English marks of these three subjects. The author had no reason to suspect that the omission of t h i s information s i g n i f i c a n t l y altered the descriptive s t a t i s t i c s associated with the English marks of the comparison groups. Therefore the author assumed that the s t a t i s t i c s reported on Table Four (4) r e f l e c t e d the f i e l d independence.test scores, the ages, and the English marks of the comparison groups. The information in Table Four (4) i l l u s t r a t e d the s i m i l a r i t y of the ages and the English marks of the accessible population and the two comparison groups. This information also indicated that the Variances associated with the ages, the English marks, and the f i e l d independence test scores of the f i e l d dependent comparison group were larger than the variances associated with the ages, English marks, and f i e l d independence test scores of the f i e l d independent comparison group. These differences in variances suggested that the variances associated with the dependent variables i n t h i s study were not homogeneous. Further support for t h i s claim i s outlined in the analysis section. 1.3 Summary of Training Session Results Table Five (5), Table Six (6), Table Seven (7), and Table Eight (8) show a summary of the responses of the subjects to Part I, Part I I , and Part III of the Training Session. The questions to which the subjects responded are outlined in the Microcomputer Training Manual (Appendix B) 93 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF TRAINING SESSION RESULTS (PART I) ERROR COMPARISON GROUPS FIELD FIELD INDEPENDENT DEPENDENT SUBJECTS SUBJECTS Number of errors committed by subjects while completing the paper and pencil test 2 2 TOTAL 2 2 and the Student Training Manual (Appendix G). The r e s u l t s of Part I showed that the two comparison groups generally were capable of the sequencing tasks associated with a paper and pencil maze. This assertion was made since the number of errors committed by both f i e l d independent subjects and f i e l d dependent subjects was the same. A diagram showing the error committed by two f i e l d independent subjects and two f i e l d dependent subjects i s reproduced in Appendix K. The responses of the subjects to Part II and Part III of the Training Session i l l u s t r a t e d that the two comparison groups responded s i m i l a r l y to these parts of the Training Session with the possible exception of differences i n responses to items #2, #8, and #11 in Part II (Table S & Table 7>. Further s t a t i s t i c a l analysis i-s included in the 94 analysis section of t h i s chapter: the significance of the single s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference in performance in Part II of the Training Session i s explained in Chapter Five (5). TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF TRAINING SESSION RESULTS (PART II - FIELD INDEPENDENT SUBJECTS) QUESTION RESPONSE CORRECT NO. RESPONSE (a) <b) (c) (d) <e) 1. _ 15 _ C 2. 11 - 3 1 - A 3. - - 15 - - C 4. - 13 - - 2 B 5. - - - - 15 E 6. - 14 1 - - B 7. 2 - 10 1 2 C 8. - - - - 15 E 9. 1 14 - - - B 10. 15 - - - - A 11. 2 8 - 1 4 B 12. - - - 15 - D 13 - 1 14 - - C 14. 15 D 31 50 58 33 38 1.4 Dependent Variables Table Nine (9), and Table Ten (10) show the summary of the descriptive s t a t i s t i c s f o r the dependent variables from Maze #1 in t h i s study. The tape of the r e s u l t s for one 95 TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF TRAINING SESSION RESULTS (PART II - FIELD DEPENDENT SUBJECTS) QUESTION RESPONSE CORRECT NO. RESPONSE (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) r ,„ ,, , ,_ -1. 1 _ 14 _ C 2. 8 - 5 1 1 A 3. - - 14 1 - C 4. - 12 - - 3 B 5. - - - 1 14 E 6. 1 14 - - - B 7. - 3 10 - 2 C 8. 5 - - - 10 E 9. - 15 - - - B 10. 14 1 - - - A 11. - 5 2 1 7 B 12. - - 1 14 - D 13 - - 15 - - C 14. 15 D 29 50 61 33 37 s s s s s s s s s s s :===== ========= member of the f i e l d dependent comparison group was damaged during the data c o l l e c t i o n : consequently only the r e s u l t s for fourteen f i e l d dependent subjects were coll e c t e d . The unequal variances in t h i s data, the skewed d i s t r i b u t i o n s in t h i s data, the discontinuous nature of some of t h i s data, and the differences in variances reported e a r l i e r in t h i s chapter (Table 4), suggested to the author that the assumptions associated with parametric s t a t i s t i c s had been violated, and that further analysis of the parametric assumptions was necessary: t h i s analysis i s reported i n the analysis section 96 of t h i s chapter (Table 12). The descriptive s t a t i s t i c s f or the dependent variables in Maze #2 of t h i s study are reported in Appendix J. . These s t a t i s t i c s indicated that the performance of the two comparison groups in Maze #2 were s i m i l a r . Because of the s i m i l a r i t y of the performance s t a t i s t i c s of the two comparison groups in Maze #2, the author did not complete further analysis of the data from Maze #2, and concluded that there was no difference i n the performance of the two comparison groups in Maze #2. TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF TRAINING SESSION RESULTS (PART III) QUESTION RESPONSES NO. FIELD INDEPENDENT COMPARISON GROUP CORRECT INCORRECT FIELD DEPENDENT COMPARISON GROUP CORRECT INCORRECT 1. 14 1 12 3 2. 14 1 13 2 3. 12 3 14 1 4. 15 0 12 3 5. 13 2 13 2 6. 14 1 12 3 TOTAL 82 8 76 14 97 TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF THE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES - MAZE #1 - FIELD DEPENDENT SUBJECTS DEP. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS VAR. < N = 14) NO. MEAN S.D. VAR. MEDIAN MAX. MIN. Decoding 1. 8.07 12.66 160.35 2.00 45. 00 0. 00 2. 81.14 23.58 556.04 90.90 100.00 28. 57 3. 1.59 1.86 .03 .62 5.11 0. 00 Fields of Reference 4. 2.50 2.69 7.25 20.09 8.00 0. 00 Points of Reference 5. 1.71 2.76 7.63 1.00 10.00 0. 00 Learning Styles 6. 10.50 7.59 57.68 8.50 29.00 0. 00 7. 9.94 3.22 10.37 10.43 14.57 0. 00 8. 2.93 1.45 .02 3.25 6.43 0. 00 9. 20.71 15.51 240.57 20.09 64.86 0. 00 Overall Performance 10. 341.13 180.60 32618.06 312.32 880.98 114. 15 11. 58.14 28.59 817.55 44.50 126.00 32. 00 12. 67.53 27.99 783.44 72.36 100.00 25. 40 13. 6.25 2.20 4.83 6.14 10.19 2. 86 14. 76.71 43.73 1912.20 60.50 200.00 36. 00 NOTE: For the purposes of reporting, the data f o r Variable #3 and f o r Variable #8 was transformed by cal c u l a t i n g the inverse of each s t a t i s t i c and multiplying the r e s u l t by one hundred. The transformed data was not used f o r the non parametric analysis of t h i s data i n the analysis section of t h i s chapter. 98 TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF THE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES - MAZE #1 - FIELD INDEPENDENT SUBJECTS DEP. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS VAR. < N = 15) NO. MEAN S.D. VAR. MEDIAN MAX. MIN. Decoding 1. 2.00 4 -.61 21.29 0.00 18.00 0. 00 2. 94.51 10.01 100.10 100.00 100.00 63. 27 3. .54 1.05 .01 0.00 3.92 0. 00 Fields of Reference 4. .86 1.81 3.27 17.65 7.00 0. 00 Points of Reference 5. 1.14 1.25 1.55 1.00 5.00 0. 00 Learning Styles 6. 7.50 4.58 20.96 7.00 18.00 0. 00 7. 11.04 3.86 14.92 11.28 16.86 0. 00 8. 2.88 1.04 .01 3.05 3.94 0. 00 9. 18.32 8.62 74.34 17. 65 32. 50 0. 00 Overall Performance 10. 243.07 92.20 8501.35 217.89 458.61 34. 21 11. 40.21 11.11 123.45 38.00 77.00 32. 00 12. 83.55 14.99 224.60 82. 05 100.00 41. 56 13. 6.10 1.59 2.52 5. 59 8.67 3. 49 14. 49.71 18.83 354.63 17.65 113.00 37. 00 NOTE: For the purposes of reporting, the data f o r Variable #3 and f o r Variable #8 was transformed by cal c u l a t i n g the inverse of each s t a t i s t i c and multiplying the r e s u l t by one hundred. The transformed data was not used for the non parametric analysis of t h i s data i n the analysis section of t h i s chapter. 99 TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES BY THE COMPARISON GROUPS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AT THE END OF THE MICROCOMPUTER SESSION QUESTION RESPONSE NO. FIELD DEPENDENT SUBJECTS FIELD INDEPENDENT SUBJECTS (Y) <N) (Y) (N) 1. 13 2 15 0 2. 2 13 1 14 3. 6 9 10 5 4. 5 10 3 12 5. 10 5 11 4 6. 14 1 15 0 7. 14 1 7 8 8. 4 11 6 9 TOTALS 68 52 68 52 NOTE: For the purposes of t h i s summary, in question #4, the "never" and "seldom" responses were combined under column (Y), and the "occasionally" and "very frequently" responses were combined under column (N). 1.5 Microcomputer Session Questionnaire Table Eleven (11) summarizes the frequency responses to the questionnaire completed by the participants at the end of the Microcomputer Session: t h i s questionnaire was completed by each subject in the comparison groups afte r completion of the microcomputer assignment. This information showed that for f i e l d independent subjects and for f i e l d dependent subjects the re s u l t s of t h i s questionnaire were si m i l a r with the exception of the responses of the comparison groups to question #7. The s t a t i s t i c a l analysis supporting t h i s claim 100 i s reported in the analysis section of t h i s chapter: further analysis and the interpretation of t h i s information i s reported in Chapter Five (5). 2.0 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 2.1 Summary of Violations of Parametric Assumptions The observations and tests* of the parametric assumptions for Maze #1 are summarized in Table Twelve (12). The normality of d i s t r i b u t i o n , and the homogeneity of variance were tested by the L i l l i e f o r s Test for Normality (Iman & Conover, 1983), and by the Test f o r Homogeneity of Independent Variances of Two Independent Samples (Bruning & Kintz, 1977), respectively. Because of the frequency and severety of the v i o l a t i o n s of the parametric assumptions re f l e c t e d i n Table Twelve (12), and in order to be conservative in the claims of t h i s study, non parametric s t a t i s t i c s were used f o r the remainder of the analysis in t h i s study. 2.2 Homogeneity of Comparison Groups To further determine i f the two comparison groups were homogeneous with respect to age and English marks, the mean and sum of the ranks of these variables were computed, and t h i s information was analysed by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (Ferguson, 1981). The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are reported in Table Thirteen (13). Since no s i g n i f i c a n t differences 101 TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS OF PARAMETRIC ASSUMPTIONS (MAZE #1) DEPENDENT SKEWED DISCON- * ** VARIABLE RESULTS TINUOUS UNEQUAL NON-NORMAL NO. DATA VARIANCES DISTRIBUTION Decoding 1. X X X X 2. X - X -3. X - - X Fields of Reference 4. X X - X Points of Reference 5. X X X X Learning Style 6. - X X 7. -8. -9. -Overall Performance 10. X 11. - X X X 12. -13. -14. - X X X - Vi o l a t i o n of Assumptions * - L i l l i e f o r s Test for Normality (Iman & Conover, 1983), ** - Test f o r Homogeneity of Independent Variances of Two Independent Samples (Bruning & Kintz, 1977). 102 TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF THE WILCOXON RANK SUM TESTS OF THE AGES AND ENGLISH MARKS OF THE COMPARISON GROUPS STATISTIC AGE ENGLISH MARKS FIELD FIELD FIELD FIELD DEP. INDEP. DEP. INDEP. SUBJECTS SUBJECTS SUBJECTS SUBJECTS No. of Cases 15 15 14 13 Sum of the Ranks 228 237 164 150 Mean of the Ranks 232.50 182.00 C r i t i c a l Value 192 147 were found for either variable, the author concluded that there was a high probability that the s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two comparison groups in t h i s study were not due to age or l e v e l of English achievement. 2.3 Analysis of Training Session Results 2 X 2 chi-square analyses were performed to affirm that the Training Session r e s u l t s of the two comparison groups were i d e n t i c a l . Part I did not require s t a t i s t i c a l analysis since the performance of the two comparison groups in Part I was i d e n t i c a l . Individual chi-square tests were performed on each question in Part II and Part I I I . The re s u l t s of t h i s analysis are summarized in Table Fourteen (14) and Table Fifteen (15). 103 TABLE 14 2 X 2 CONTINGENCY TABLES FOR CORRECT AND INCORRECT RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS IN PART II OF THE TRAINING SESSION QUESTION RESPONSES NO. FIELD INDEP. SUBJECTS FIELD DEP. SUBJECTS CORRECT INCORRECT CORRECT INCORRECT x 2 1. 15 _ 14 1 1. 03 2. 11 4 8 7 1.29 3. 15 - 14 1 1. 03 4. 13 2 12 3 .24 5. 15 - 14 1 1. 03 6. 14 1 14 1 . 00 7. 10 5 10 5 . 00 8. 15 - 10 5 6. 00* 9. 14 1 15 0 1. 03 10. 15 - 14 1 1.03 11. 8 7 5 10 1. 22 12. 15 - 14 1 1. 03 13. 14 1 15 - 1 . 03 14. 15 — 15 — .00 189 21 174 36 ===== ===== * P<.05 The chi-square tests on the responses of the two comparison groups to the individual question in Part II of the Training Session showed that the only s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference in responses to Part II of the Training Session was the difference in responses to question #8 ( x 2 = 6.00, p<.05). The chi-square test on the responses of the two comparison groups to Part III of the Training Session compared the number of correct and incorrect responses of the 104 TABLE 15 2 X 2 CONTINGENCY TABLES FOR CORRECT AND INCORRECT RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS IN PART III. OF THE TRAINING SESSION QUESTION RESPONSES NO. FIELD INDEP. SUBJECTS FIELD DEP. SUBJECTS CORRECT INCORRECT CORRECT INCORRECT X 2 1. 14 1 2. 14 1 3. 12 3 4. 15 0 5. 13 2 6. 14 1 12 3 1.15 13 2 .42 14 1 1.54 12 3 3.33 13 2 .00 12 3 1.54 82 76 14 f i e l d independent subjects to the number of correct and incorrect responses of the f i e l d dependent subjects. This analysis showed that the responses of the two comparison groups in Part III did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ( v 2 = 1.86). In summarizing the analysis of the responses to the Training Session, the author concluded that the two comparisons groups responded in a s i m i l a r fashion to the questions in the Training Session with the exception of the responses to question #8 in Part I I . The explanation of the importance of t h i s difference i s reported in Chapter Five (5) . 105 2.4 Null Hypotheses The research hypotheses, as given in Chapter Three <3) and corresponding to the s p e c i f i c problems stated in Chapter One (1), were restated below as n u l l hypotheses to be tested: A: Decoding of Three Dimensional Representations When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing the a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations in a Computer Maze, there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d independent subjects and the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d dependent subjects. The scores (dependent variables) representing the a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations in a Computer Maze were: 1) T r i a l Errors, 2) T r i a l Response Accuracy, and 3) T r i a l Error Frequency. B: Determining F i e l d s of Reference When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing the a b i l i t y to choose a Response which points i n the dir e c t i o n towards the end of a Computer Maze, there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the sum of the rank scores f o r f i e l d independent subjects and the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d dependent subjects. The score (dependent variable) representing a b i l i t y to choose a Response which points in the di r e c t i o n towards the end of a Computer Maze was 4) T r i a l Orientation Errors. 106 C: Determining Points of Reference When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing the a b i l i t y to sel e c t the correct Point of Reference in a Computer Maze to execute a turn, there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d independent subjects and the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d dependent subjects. The score (dependent variable) representing a b i l i t y to select the correct Point of Reference in a Computer Maze to execute a turn was 5) T r i a l Point of Reference Errors. D: Learning Styles When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing learning s t y l e s , there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d independent subjects and the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d dependent subjects. The scores (dependent variables) representing learning s t y l e s were: 6) T r i a l Overview Requests, 7) T r i a l Overview Time, 8) Average Overview Time, and 9) T r i a l Overview Frequency. E: Overall Performance When comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores representing o v e r a l l performance, there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d independent subjects and the sum of the rank scores for f i e l d dependent subjects. The scores (dependent variables) representing o v e r a l l performance were: 10) 107 T r i a l Time, 11) T r i a l Moves, 12) T r i a l Responses, 13) T r i a l Economy of Moves, and 14) T r i a l Move Frequency. 2.5 Summary of Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests For Maze #1, the sum of the rank scores f o r the f i e l d independent comparison group were compared separately against the sum of the rank scores f o r the f i e l d dependent comparison group by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (Ferguson, 1981). For each dependent variable, the si z e of the comparison groups, the mean rank, the sum of the ranks f o r each comparison groups, and the c r i t i c a l value are reported in Table Sixteen (16). These r e s u l t s showed that the three dependent variables in the variable category of Decoding of Three Dimensional Representations ( T r i a l Errors, T r i a l Response Accuracy, and T r i a l Error Frequency, res p e c t i v e l y ) , the dependent variable in the Determining F i e l d s of Reference category ( T r i a l Orientation Er r o r s ) , and two of the dependent variables in the Overall Performance category ( T r i a l Time, and T r i a l Responses, respectively) were s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05). These r e s u l t s did not show s i g n i f i c a n t differences in the four variables i n the variable category of Learning Styles ( T r i a l Overview Requests, Average Overview Time, T r i a l Overview Frequency, and T r i a l Assistance Level, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the dependent variable in the category of Determining Points of Reference ( T r i a l Point of 108 TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF WILCOXON RANK SUM TESTS FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLES (MAZE #1) DEP. MEAN CRITICAL VAR. N OF THE SUM OF THE RANKS VALUE NO. RANKS FIELD FIELD FIELD FIELD INDEP. DEP. INDEP. DEP. SUBJECTS SUBJECTS SUBJECTS SUBJECTS Decoding 1. 15 14 210 178.5 163. 5 171 * 2. 15 14 210 166.0 269.0 171 * 3. 15 14 210 160.5 262. 5 171 * Fields of Reference 4. 15 14 210 162. 5 184.0 171 Points of Reference 5. 15 14 210 199.5 235.0 171 Learning Styles 6. 15 14 210 183.5 198. 5 171 7. 15 14 210 180.0 255.0 171 8. 15 14 210 201.5 216.5 171 9. 15 14 210 194.0 209.0 171 Overall Performance 10. 15 14 210 164.0 179.0 171 * 11. 15 14 210 181.5 196.5 171 12. 15 14 210 166. 0 181.0 171 * 13. 15 14 210 200.5 234.5 171 14. 15 14 210 206. 0 221.0 171 * p<.05 109 TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF THE 2 X 2 CONTINGENCY TABLES OF THE RESPONSES OF THE TWO COMPARISON GROUPS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AT THE END OF THE MICROCOMPUTER SESSION QUES- RESPONSES TION NO. FIELD DEP. SUBJECTS FIELD INDEP. SUBJECTS (Y) (N) (Y) (N) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 13 2 6 5 10 14 14 4 2 13 9 10 5 1 1 11 15 1 10 3 11 15 7 6 0 14 5 12 4 0 8 9 14 37 13 68 68 10 78 60 68 52 68 52 * p < .05 Reference Errors), and no s i g n i f i c a n t differences in three of the variables in the category of Overall Performance ( T r i a l Moves, T r i a l Economy of Moves, and T r i a l Move Frequency, respectively). The explanation of these findings are reported in Chapter Five (5). 2.6 Microcomputer Session Questionnaire The summary of responses to the questionnaire completed by each subject in the comparison groups (Table 17) indicated 110 that the t o t a l Y(es) and the t o t a l N(o) responses of the f i e l d dependent subjects were i d e n t i c a l to the t o t a l Y(es) and the t o t a l N(o) responses of the f i e l d independent subjects, respectively. This information indicated that the o v e r a l l exposure of f i e l d dependent subjects to computers was very similar to the o v e r a l l exposure of f i e l d independent subjects to computers. The individual chi-square analysis of each question in the questionnaire revealed that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the responses of the two comparison groups to individual questions except f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the responses of the two comparison groups to question #7. This s i g n i f i c a n t difference indicated that, compared to f i e l d dependent subjects, s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s f i e l d independent subjects had taken computer courses. This information suggested that the f i e l d independent subjects had l e s s opportunity to work with computers in a school environment than f i e l d dependent subjects. To assess the influence that differences in exposure to computer studies courses had had on the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests were performed to compare the performance of f i e l d independent subjects who had taken computer studies courses with the performance of f i e l d independent subjects who had not taken computer studies courses. The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are reported in Table Eighteen (18). I l l TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF WILCOXON RANK SUM TESTS COMPARING THE PERFORMANCE OF FIELD INDEPENDENT SUBJECTS WITH COMPUTER STUDIES TRAINING WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF FIELD INDEPENDENT SUBJECTS WITHOUT COMPUTER STUDIES TRAINING VARIABLE FIELD INDEPENDENT FIELD INDEPENDENT NO. STUDENTS WITHOUT STUDENTS WITH COMPUTER TRAINING COMPUTER TRAINING N SUM OF N SUM OF THE RANKS THE RANKS Decoding 1. 2. 3. 8 8 8 Fiel d s of Reference 4. 8 Points of Reference 5. 8 Learning Styles 6. 7. 8. 9. 8 8 8 8 Overall Performance 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 8 8 8 8 8 56.0 72.0 57.0 50.0 44. 0 44.0 62.0 57.5 48. 0 42.0 50.0 48.0 78.0 46.0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 64, 48, 63, 59.5 76.0 * 76.0 * 70. 0 62.5 72.0 78, 70, 72, 42, 74, 0 * 0 0 * 0 0 * MEAN OF THE RANKS =56 CRITICAL VALUE = 41 p < .05 112 The r e s u l t s of t h i s follow-up analysis of f i e l d independent subjects revealed several s i g n i f i c a n t differences. F i e l d independent subjects with computer studies t r a i n i n g committed more Point of Reference Errors (Variable # 5), needed l e s s T r i a l Overview Requests (Variable #6), completed the Computer Maze more quickly (Variable #10), required more T r i a l Responses (Variable #12), and i n i t i a t e d Moves les s frequently (Variable #14). The importance of these findings are reported in Chapter Five (5). 3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS The r e s u l t s of t h i s study can best be summarized as answers to the s p e c i f i c problems stated in Chapter One (1). A: Decoding of Three Dimensional Representations Given the task of interpreting a screen of computer graphics in a Computer Maze, f i e l d independent subjects, when compared to f i e l d dependent subjects, 1) committed l e s s Errors, 2) perpetrated fewer Errors in proportion to forward moves, and 3) spent more time between Errors. B: Determining F i e l d s of Reference Given the task of following a path through a Computer Maze, f i e l d dependent subjects 4) chose a Response which pointed away from the end of the maze more often than f i e l d dependent subjects. C: Determining Points of Reference Given the task of selecting the correct Point of 113 Reference in a Computer Maze f o r each l e f t or r i g h t turn, f i e l d dependent subjects 5) did not turn too soon more frequently than f i e l d independent subjects. D: Learning Styles Given the option of consulting a two dimensional Overview of a Computer Maze in addition to the three dimensional interpretations of the corridors of a Computer Maze, f i e l d independent subjects 6) did not view the two dimensional Overview more times than f i e l d dependent subjects, 7) did not pause longer than f i e l d dependent subjects each time they viewed an Overview, 8) did not spend more time between requests f o r the two dimensional Overview, and 9) in r e l a t i o n to t o t a l moves completed, did not request more assistance from the two dimensional Overview. E: Overall Performance F i e l d independent subjects, when compared to f i e l d dependent subjects, 10) completed the Computer Maze more quickly, and 11) required l e s s Responses. However, they 12) did not require l e s s Moves, 13) did not follow the shortest possible path towards the end of the Computer Maze more clos e l y , and 14) did not move more frequently. The s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l performance r e s u l t s must be interpreted with caution. This point i s further c l a r i f i e d in Chapter Five (5). 114 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 Conclusions and Implications This study summarized se l e c t i v e information from the educational computing and the educational psychology l i t e r a t u r e , and reported on a study of the performance of two comparison groups in a Computer Maze. The review of the educational computing l i t e r a t u r e revealed an increasing interest in the use of computers in the classroom, and confusion over the role of computers in education. The author stated that t h i s confusion was routed in the imprecise understanding of the educational process. As a means of better understanding the educational process associated with computers, the author applied information from the psychological construct of f i e l d independence to the study of certain perceptual tasks involved with the interpretation of a computer graphics screen. This study demonstrated that, independent of English achievement, when two comparison groups were selected on the basis of l e v e l of f i e l d independence, that the performance of f i e l d dependent subjects in a Computer Maze was d i f f e r e n t than the performance of f i e l d independent subjects in the same Computer Maze. The difference in performance of f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects was analysed under 115 f i v e categories of variables. The difference in performance of f i e l d independent and f i e l d dependent subjects in each of these categories of variables i s outlined below. The significance of any differences in performance of the two comparison groups in the Training Session, and the significance of any differences between the two comparison groups reported by the questionnaire at the end of the Microcomputer Session are also stated below. 1.1 Decoding of Three Dimensional Representations This study showed that, when decoding three dimensional representations in a Computer Maze, f i e l d dependent subjects 1) committed more Errors, 2) committed Errors more frequently, and 3) committed more Errors in proportion to forward moves. The author concluded from these findings that, independent of English achievement, the s k i l l s associated with the interpretation of the three dimensional diagrams in the Computer Maze were related to l e v e l of f i e l d independence as measured by the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), and related to the s k i l l s associated with interpreting the diagrams in the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). The implication of t h i s f i nding was that f i e l d dependent subjects may have d i f f i c u l t y with computer tasks which required the s k i l l of interpreting combinations of symbols on a computer graphics screen. 116 1.2 Determining F i e l d s of Reference This study showed that in a Computer Maze f i e l d dependent subjects 4) committed more Orientation Errors than f i e l d independent subjects. The author concluded from t h i s finding that the orientation s k i l l s associated with a Computer Maze were related to the s k i l l s associated with l e v e l of f i e l d independence, and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , were related to the s k i l l s associated with interpreting the diagrams in the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). However, since the comparison groups for t h i s study were selected on the basis of the r e s u l t s of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), and not on the basis of a perception of upright test such as the Rod and Frame Test (RFT), and since there was a r e l a t i v e l y low c o r r e l a t i o n between tests of embedded figures and tests of perception of upright, t h i s study did not imply that the orientation s k i l l s associated with a Computer Maze were necessarily related to the orientation s k i l l s associated with perception of the upright. Further studies would be required to c l a r i f y t h i s point: f o r example t h i s study could be repeated, using the Rod and Frame Test (RFT) as the instrument for selecting the comparison groups. The implication of t h i s information was that, independent of English achievement, when f i e l d dependent students were required to complete educational tasks on a computer which required the student to change F i e l d s of Reference, they may have more d i f f i c u l t y than f i e l d independent students, and 117 t h i s d i f f i c u l t y in adjusting to changes in F i e l d of Reference may interfere with the i n s t r u c t i o n a l process associated with the task. 1.3 Determining Points of Reference This study did not show that f i e l d dependent subjects 5) had greater d i f f i c u l t y in adjusting to changes in Point of Reference in a Computer Maze. The author concluded from t h i s r e s u l t that adjusting to changes in Point of Reference in a Computer Maze was not a factor associated with l e v e l of f i e l d independence as measured by the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). This information implied that adjusting to changes in Point of Reference was not a factor associated with the s k i l l of interpreting embedded figures. The implication of t h i s f i nding to psychologists and educators was that the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of one's Point of Reference was not a factor associated with l e v e l of f i e l d independence. 1.4 Learning Styles This study did not show that, when completing a Computer Maze, f i e l d dependent subjects depended more on the Overview than f i e l d independent subjects. Dependence on an Overview was measured in terms of 6) T r i a l Overview Requests, 7) Average Overview Time, 8) T r i a l Overview Frequency, and 9) T r i a l Assistance Level. The author concluded from these results that differences in learning s t y l e s which were 118 reported in the f i e l d independence l i t e r a t u r e were not manifested in a Computer Maze as a greater dependence on the Overview. The implication to t h i s f i n d i n g was that f i e l d dependent students did not demonstrate a preference for r e l y i n g on the two dimensional Overview in a Computer Maze rather than re l y i n g on the representations of the corridors in the Computer Maze which contained a t h i r d dimension. 1.5 Overall Performance The o v e r a l l performance of the f i e l d dependent subjects in t h i s study, as measured by T r i a l Time, and T r i a l Responses (dependent variables #10 & #12, re s p e c t i v e l y ) , was le s s than the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent subjects. There was no difference in the T r i a l Moves (dependent variable #11), the T r i a l Economy of Moves (dependent variable #13), and the T r i a l Move Frequency (dependent variable #14) of the two comparison groups. These r e s u l t s suggested that the ove r a l l performance of the subjects in the Computer Maze was associated with l e v e l of f i e l d independence, and implied that the difference in o v e r a l l performance of the two comparison groups in the Computer Maze was related to the difference in a b i l i t y to decode the three dimensional representation in the Computer Maze. However, these conclusions must be cautiously interpreted since analysis of the questionnaire completed by the subjects at the end of the Microcomputer Session indicated an alternate explanation for the difference in 119 ov e r a l l performance of the comparison groups: Section 1.7 of t h i s chapter further c l a r i f i e s t h i s l a s t point. 1.S Training Session The Training Session r e s u l t s indicated that the two comparison groups responded i n a s i m i l a r fashion to the Training Session. However, there was one notable exception: f i v e of the f i e l d dependent comparison groups had greater d i f f i c u l t y interpreting a s l i d e i l l u s t r a t i n g a wall d i r e c t l y in front of the subject's Point of Reference (s l i d e #28 -Appendix D). This finding was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . This information was important f o r two reasons. F i r s t , the s l i d e in the Training Session which the f i e l d dependent subjects had d i f f i c u l t y interpreting had minimal v i s u a l clues compared to other s l i d e s presented in the Training Session. Second, one of the three dimensional representations which the subjects were asked to successfully interpret in the Microcomputer Session to avoid "bumping into a wall" was i l l u s t r a t e d in the Training Session by the s l i d e which the f i e l d dependent subjects had d i f f i c u l t y interpreting. These two points suggested that f i e l d dependent subjects had d i f f i c u l t y with s l i d e s from the Training Session which had minimal vis u a l clues, and also with computer graphics from the Microcomputer Session which had minimal v i s u a l clues. The implication to t h i s finding was that f i e l d dependent subjects may have d i f f i c u l t y with i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks on computer 120 which have minimal vis u a l clues. This finding was contrary to other studies that suggested that as the complexity of a given s i t u a t i o n increases, the effectiveness of f i e l d dependent subjects decreased (Nebelkopf & Dreyer, 1973). Further studies would resolve these issues. 1.7 Microcomputer Session Questionnaire The analysis of the responses of the two comparison groups to the questionnaire completed at the end of the Microcomputer Session indicated that the responses of the two comparison groups were sim i l a r with one exception: the f i e l d dependent comparison group had s t a t i s t i c a l l y more experience with computers in the form of computer studies courses. The author completed a follow-up analysis of the r e s u l t s from Maze #1, comparing the performance of the f i e l d independent subjects with computer studies t r a i n i n g to the performance of the f i e l d independent subjects without computer studies t r a i n i n g . The purpose of t h i s follow-up analysis was to determine i f the difference in exposure to computers in the form of computer studies courses may have contributed to the difference i n o v e r a l l performance of the two comparison groups in the Computer Maze. The r e s u l t s of the analysis of the performance of the two f i e l d independent groups which d i f f e r e d in computer studies t r a i n i n g showed that experience with computers in the form of computer studies courses was not related to the 121 decoding of three dimensional graphics variables and not related to the F i e l d of Reference variable <ie. the f i e l d independent group with computer studies t r a i n i n g did not have s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher T r i a l Errors, T r i a l Response Accuracy, T r i a l Error Frequency, and T r i a l Orientation Errors, compared to the f i e l d independent group without computer studies t r a i n i n g ) . However, the res u l t s of t h i s analysis did show that experience with computers in the form of computer studies courses was related to the Point of Reference variable, to one learning s t y l e variable, and to three o v e r a l l performance variables ( i e . the f i e l d independent group with computer studies t r a i n i n g had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher Point of Reference Errors, T r i a l Overview Requests, T r i a l Time, T r i a l Move Frequency, and Total Responses than f i e l d independent subjects with no computer studies t r a i n i n g ) . These r e s u l t s suggested that experience with computers in the form of computer studies courses did not contribute to a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations i n a Computer Maze. The author concluded from t h i s information that the difference in experience with computers in the form of computer studies courses did not influence the reported differences i n performance of the two comparison groups on decoding of three dimensional representations variables. However, these r e s u l t s did show that more experience with computers in the form of computer studies courses could 122 have contributed to the difference in o v e r a l l performance of the two comparison groups in t h i s study. The lower o v e r a l l performance i n the Computer Maze by the f i e l d independent subjects with computer studies t r a i n i n g suggested that i f a l l the f i e l d independent subjects had had experience with computer studies courses that the o v e r a l l performance of the f i e l d independent subjects in the Computer Maze would l i k e l y have been lower. Since a l l the f i e l d dependent subjects in the study had had experience with computers in the form of computer studies courses, and since only some of the f i e l d independent comparison group had had experience with computers in the form of computer studies courses, the author reached.two conclusions. F i r s t , the author concluded .that the o v e r a l l performance of the f i e l d independent comparison group may have been lower i f a l l the f i e l d independent subjects had had experience with computers in the form of computer studies courses. And second, the difference in ove r a l l performance of the two comparison groups in t h i s study may have been le s s i f a l l the f i e l d independent subjects in t h i s study had had computer experience. These two conclusions implied that the strength of the relationship between o v e r a l l performance in the Computer Maze and l e v e l of f i e l d independence was l i k e l y lower than suggested by the res u l t s of t h i s study: however follow-up studies would be necessary to c l a r i f y t h i s issue. For t h i s reason, the author concluded that the difference in o v e r a l l performance of the 123 two comparison groups in t h i s study was not necessarily related to l e v e l of f i e l d independence, and was not necessarily related to a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations in a Computer Maze. However, the evidence did suggest some l e v e l of relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence, a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations in the Computer Maze, and o v e r a l l performance in the Computer Maze. The implication to t h i s statement was that in a computer studies class, the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d dependent students, independent of English achievement, may be lower than the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent students for certain i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks requiring the decoding of three dimensional representations. In summary, t h i s study concluded that the interest in computers i n education was escalating, that the r o l e of computers in education was not well understood, that examination of comparison groups selected on the basis of psychological tests as the groups interacted with computers under controlled conditions would increase educators' understanding of the interaction between students and computers, that a b i l i t y to decode the three dimensional representations in the Computer Maze was related to l e v e l of f i e l d independence as measured by the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), that a b i l i t y to decode the three dimensional representations in a Computer Maze was related to a b i l i t y to 124 complete embedded figures tasks, that a b i l i t y to adjust to changes in F i e l d of Reference in a Computer Maze was related to l e v e l of f i e l d independence as measured by the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), that a b i l i t y to adjust to changes i n F i e l d of Reference in a Computer Maze was related to a b i l i t y to complete embedded figures tasks, that the performance of f i e l d dependent subjects in a Computer Maze as measured by variables associated with a b i l i t y to decode three dimensional representations on a computer screen was lower than the performance of f i e l d independent subjects as they interpret the same three dimensional representations on the computer screen, and that the performance of f i e l d dependent subjects in a Computer Maze, as measured by variables associated with a b i l i t y to adjust to changes in orientation, was lower that the performance of f i e l d independent subjects in the same si t u a t i o n . 2.0 Recommendations There were ten recommendations a r i s i n g from t h i s study. Completion of the studies suggested in these recommendations would refi n e educators' understanding of the relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and the performance of students i n a Computer Maze, would elucidate the nature of the relationship between embedded figures tasks and perception of upright tasks, would explore the relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and the performance of 125 students in a computer assisted i n s t r u c t i o n exercise, would determine i f l e v e l of f i e l d independence was a factor in the performance of students in a computer studies c l a s s , and more generally, would c l a r i f y educators' understanding of the role of computers i n education. 1. This study should be modified and repeated to eliminate differences i n performance of the two comparison groups in the Training Session. Completion of t h i s modified study would ascertain i f differences in performance of the two comparison groups in t h i s study accounted for the difference in performance of the two comparison groups in the Microcomputer Session. 2. This study should be modified and repeated to eliminate differences in exposure to computer studies courses as a factor. Completion of t h i s modified study would determine i f difference in exposure of the two comparison groups to computer studies courses accounted f o r the difference in performance of the two comparison groups in t h i s study. 3. Follow-up studies should be designed and administered to further elucidate the reasons why f i e l d dependent subjects had more d i f f i c u l t y with the interpretation of the three dimensional interpretations in the Computer Maze. Studies of t h i s nature would id e n t i f y the factors which contributed to lower performance of f i e l d dependent students as they interacted with a computer graphics 126 screen. Follow-up studies should be designed, administered, and reported to explain the reasons why f i e l d dependent subjects had more d i f f i c u l t y with adjusting the changes in orientation i n the Computer Maze, and to determine i f adjusting to changes in orientation in the Computer Maze was associated with perception of the upright. These studies would identi f y the s k i l l s required for adjusting to changes in orientation in a Computer Maze, and would c l a r i f y the confusion in the l i t e r a t u r e over the relationship between embedded figures tasks and perception of upright tasks. This study should be repeated with other grade ten populations to determine i f the r e s u l t s of t h i s study could be generalized to a more broader defined target population. The relationship between l e v e l of f i e l d independence and performance of students when they are engaged in Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) with computer graphics should be studied. Studies of t h i s kind would determine i f the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d dependent subjects when engaged in Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) with computer graphics was l e s s than the o v e r a l l performance of f i e l d independent subjects when engaged in Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI), and i f the lower performance of f i e l d dependent subjects in t h i s s i t u a t i o n was 127 independent of English achievement. These studies are recommended by the author since t h i s study suggested that the perceptual d e f i c i t s of f i e l d dependent subjects may interfere with t h e i r a b i l i t y to engage successfully with Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI). 7. Several f i e l d dependent subjects displayed Repetitive Move Errors. This type of performance suggested possible i n t e l l e c t u a l or perceptual d e f i c i e n c i e s which could be i d e n t i f i e d and studied through the use of Computer Mazes. Students who exhibit t h i s performance should be studied to determine the reason f o r t h i s behavior. 8. Further studies should be completed to determine i f the perceptual d i f f i c u l t i e s of f i e l d dependent students, as i d e n t i f i e d in t h i s study, would i n t e r f e r with the achievement of f i e l d dependent students in a computer studies class. There are implications to the selection of students f o r computer studies courses i f studies should show that f i e l d dependent students have greater d i f f i c u l t y with certain perceptual tasks associated with the operation of computers. 9. Further studies should be undertaken to determine i f the perceptual d i f f i c u l t i e s of f i e l d dependent students, as i d e n t i f i e d in t h i s study, contribute to a bimodal d i s t r i b u t i o n of achievement in a computer studies class. This was one of the questions which motivated the author to begin t h i s study. 1Z8 10. This study should be repeated with a larger sample and larger comparison groups in order that multivariate analysis techniques can be applied. Multivariate analysis would determine i f the decoding of three dimensional representations variables were associated with £he same factor, and i f the decoding of three dimensional representations factor(s) was d i s t i n c t from another factor which includes the F i e l d of Reference variable. Correlations between embedded figures tests (eg. GEFT) and perception of upright test (eg. RFT), and f i e l d independence l i t e r a t u r e at the time of the study suggested that the relationship between the s k i l l s required f o r these tests was not c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d , and required further study. 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abelson, H., & diSessa, A.A. (1980). Turtle Geometry. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Adcock, C.J., & Webberley, M. (1971). Primary mental a b i l i t i e s . Journal of General Psychology, 84, 229-243. AEDS. (1976, May). Computer Assisted Instruction. Instructional papers presented at the AEDS Annual  Convention. Phoenix, Arizona. Ahern, J.T., (1982). Computers in Perspective for Education. Educational Technology, 11, 18-19. Aiken, R.M., & Braun, L. (1980). Computer Science Education in the 1980's. Computer. 13(1) . 41-46. Anderson, B. (1980). Programming in the home of the future. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12, 341-364. Anderson, J.A. & The Center for Neural Studies (1977). In D. LaBerge & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aquirre, J. (1981). Students' Preconceptions of Three Vector Quantities. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Bick, R.D., & Kolakowski, D. (1973). Further Evidence of Sex-Linked Major-Gene Influence on Human Spatial V i s u a l i z i n g A b i l i t y . American Journal of Human  Genetics, 25, 1-14. Bjorum, W. (1982). A Plan for Introducing Microcomputers into Instruction. The Computing Teacher, 3, 52-53. Bock, R.D. & Kolakowski, D. (1973) Further Evidence of Sex-Linked Major-Gene Influence on Human Spatial V i s u a l i z i n g A b i l i t y . American Journal of Human  Genetics. 25, 1-14. Borton, T. (1970). What's Left When School's Forgotten?. Saturday Review. 53(14). 69-71. Braden, R. (1982). Instructional Design: the Microcomputer Connection. Educational Technology, 11, 30-31. 130 Broverman, E.L., Kobayashi, V., & Vogel, W. <1368). Roles of Activation and Inhibit i o n in Sex Differences in Cogitive A b i l i t i e s . Psychological Review. 75, 23-50. Bruning, J.L., & Kintz, B.L. (1977). Computational Handbook  of S t a t i s t i c s (Second E d i t i o n ) . Qlenview, I l l i n o i s : Scott, Foresman and Company. Burke, R.L. (1982). CAI Sourcebook. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Camstra, B. (1977). Make Computer Assisted Instruction Smarter. Computers & Education, 1., 177-183. Dargel, R., & Kirk, R.E. (1971). Manifest anxiety, f i e l d dependency, and task performance, Perceptual & Motor  S k i l l s . 32, 383-393. Dawson, J.L. (1972). Effects of Sex Hormones on Cognitive Style in Rats and Men. Behavior Genetics, 2, 21-42. Daykin, P. et a l . (1975). Computer Managed Study f o r Small Computer Systems. Educational Technology, 15(3), 46-50. Devine, M.D., & Kumin, H.J. (1976). A time-sharing interactive program f o r class scheduling. Computers &  Education. I., 33-38. Dickstein, L.S. (1968). F i e l d independence in concept attainment. Perception & Motor S k i l l s . 27, 635-642. Dutton, P.E. (1971). Computer Page. Mathematics i n School, 1, 28-29. EDRS. (1966). Educational Implications of Technological Change. Technology and the American Economy (Appendix, Volume IV). Washington D.C: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Prin t i n g O f f i c e . Estes, W.K. (ed.) (1975). The Information-Processing Approach to Cognition: A Confluence of Metaphors & Methods. In W.K. Estes (ed.), Handbook of Learning and  Cognitive Processes (Volume 5): Human Information  Processing (pp. 1-18). H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Ferguson, G.A. (1981). S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis in Psychology and Education ( F i f t h E d i t i o n ) . New York: McGraw-Hill. F i t z p a t r i c k , M. & Howard, J.A. (1977). U t i l i z a t i o n of Educationally Oriented Microcomputer Based Laboratories. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 3(4J_, 123-125. 131 Fitzgibbons, D. et a l . (1965). F i e l d dependence and memory for incidental material. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 21, 743-749. Fleming, M.L. et a l . (1968). Message design; The temporal  dimension of message structure. F i n a l Report. Bloomington, Indiana University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 023294). Gaines, R. (1975). Developmental Perception and Cognitive Styles: From Young Children to Master A r t i s t . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 40, 983-998. Goodenough, D.R. (1976). The Role of Individual Differences in Learning and Memory. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 83(4), 675-694. Hooper, R. (1978). Computers in Science Teaching - an Introduction. Computers & Education, 2(1), 1. Iman, R.L., & Conover, W.J. (1983). A Modern Approach to  S t a t i s t i c s . New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kessler, H.E. (1974). Education, Computing and Networking: A Review and Prospect. Educom, 9(1). 2-8. Klahr, D. & Wallace, J.G. (1976). Cognitive development. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Knechtel, J.D., & Purdy J. (1983, May). The Implementation of Computer Technology into School Programs: A Diffusion Model. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 9, 64-69. Komnenich, P., Lane, D.M., Dickey, R.P., & Stone, S.C. (1978). Gonadal Hormones and Cognitive Performance. Physiological Psychology. 6., 115-120. Koran, M.L. et a l . (1971). Teacher aptitude and observational learning of a teaching s k i l l . Journal of  Educational Psychology, 62, 219-228. Levy, J. (1969). Possible Basis f o r the Evolution of Lateral Spec i a l i z a t i o n of the Human Brain. Nature, 224, 614-615. Liana J r . , A. (1969). Computer Time Sharing - A P r a c t i c a l Approach to Computers in Education. College and  University, 45(1), 55-62. Malone, T.W. (1981a). What Makes Computer Games Fun. Byte. 12, 258-275. Malone, T.W. (1981b). Toward a Theory of I n t r i n s i c a l l y Motivating Instruction. Cognitive Science, 4., 333-369. McKenzie, J. (1978). Interactive Computer Graphics for Undergraduate Science Teaching. Computers & Education. 2, 25-48. Montague, W. et a l . (1983). Quality CBI depends on quality i n s t r u c t i o n a l design & quality implementation. Journal  of Computer-based Instruction. 10(3) & 10(4). 90-93. Mulgrave, N.W. (1966). An investigation of the cognitive factor structure of two types of concept attainment tasks and two tests of cognitive s t y l e (Doctoral di s s e r t a t i o n , University of Pittsburgh, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts International . 27, 1283B (University Microfilms No. 66-8158). Nadovich, C.T. (1979, September). Ratrun [Computer program]. Cursor Magazine, 13. Nasman,. L.Q. (1978). A Contemporary Parable: W i l l Technology Revolutionize Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(4). 294-296. Nawrocki, L. & Winner, J. (1983). Videogames: Instructional Potential & C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Journal of Computer-based  Instruction. 10(3) & 10(4) . 80-82. Nebelkopf, E.B., & Dreyer, A.S. (1973). Continuous-discontinuous concept attainment as a function of individual differences in cognitive s t y l e . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 36. 655-662. Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Nilson, J. (1981). Classroom of the Future. Microcomputing, 5(9), 36-40. O'Connor, J. (1943). Structural V i s u a l i z a t i o n . Human Engineering Laboratory, Boston. Oehmke, T., & Swigger, K. (1976). Scoring Interactive Student Responses. Educational Technology, 16(10) , 51. Oettinger, A.G., & Marks, S. (1968). Educational Technology: New Myths and Old R e a l i t i e s . Harvard University Program  on Technology and Society, (Reprint No. 6). Oltman, P.K. (1968). A Portable rod-and-frame apparatus. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 26, 503-306. 133 Papert, S. (1980). MINDSTORMS: Children. Computers, and  Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Parker, L. & Denk, J. (1974). A Network Model for Delivering Computer Power and Curriculum Enhancement for Higher Education: The North Carolina Educational Computing Service. EDUCQM. 9(1). 24-30. Pogrow, S. (1980, Winter). A LEAP ( L o g i s t i c a l l y E f f i c i e n t Approach) to State Implementation: A Micro Technology-based Strategy f o r Technical Assistance. AEDS  Journal. 13(2). 133-143. Renzi, N.B. (1974). A study of some e f f e c t s of f i e l d dependence-independence and feedback on performance achievement (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Hofstra University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International. 35, 2059A. (University Microfilms No. 74-21, 8G1). Robinson, J.A., & Bennink, CD. (1978). F i e l d A r t i c u l a t i o n and Working Memory. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 439-449. Robinson, J.H. (1977). A computer based economic game & i t s evaluation. Computers & Education. 1,, 211-217. Roblyer, M.D. (1980). Investing in the Future: Computers in F l o r i d a Education. F l o r i d a Vocational Journal, 5(9), 18-21. Sands, W. & Gade, P. (1983). An Application of Computerized Adaptive Testing In U.S. Army Recruiting. Journal of  Computer-based Instruction. 10(3) & 10(4). 87-89. Schwen, T.M. (1970). The e f f e c t of cognitive s t y l e s and i n s t r u c t i o n a l sequences on learning a h i e r a r c h i c a l task (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Indiana University, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International. 31, 2797A-2798A. (University Microfilms No. 70-23,380). Science Council of Canada. (1981, December). Policy Issues in Computer-Aided Learning. Proceedings of a Workshop  sponsored by the Science Council of Canada Committee on  Computers and Communication. Ottawa, Canada: The Publications O f f i c e , Science Council of Canada. Seidel, R. (1974). Obstacles to Widespread Use of Computer-Based Curriculum Innovations: A Review. Journal of  Computer-based Instruction, 1(1). 28-31. 134 Shapson, S.M. (1969). Influence of f i e l d independence -f i e l d dependence and sex on the effectiveness of verbal  reinforcement combinations. Unpublished masters thesis, York University, Toronto. Shapson, S.M. (1973). Hypothesis te s t i n g and cognitive s t y l e in children. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , York University, Toronto. Stafford, R.E. (1961). Sex Differences in Spatial V i s u a l i z a t i o n as Evidence of Sex Linked Inheritance. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 13, 428. Stahl, R. (1979). Tomorrow's Education (Whether Your're Ready or Not. Audio Visual Instruction, 24(8), 21-21. Taylor, R. (ed.) (1980). The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press. Townsend, J.T. (1974). Issues and models concerning the processing of a f i n i t e number of inputs. In B.H. Lantowitz (ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials  in performance and cognition, (pp 133-185). H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Turkle, S. & Sudnow, P. (1982, May). They Zap, Crackle & Pop, but video games can be powerful tools for learning. People. 74-80. Waber, D.P. (1977). Sex Differences in Mental A b i l i t i e s , Hemispheric L a t e r a l i z a t i o n and Rate of Physical Growth at Adolescence. Developmental Psychology. 13, 29-38. Waksman, A. (1974). The Introduction of Programming to Prospective Authors of CAI Programs. Educational  Technology. 14(5), 33-34. Westrom, M. (1981). Instructional Uses of Microcomputers. Unpublished document: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver,B.C. Witkin, H.A. (1948). The E f f e c t of Training & of Structural  Aids on Performance in Three Tests of Space Orientation. C i v i l Aeronautics Administration Division of Research, Washington, D.C. Witkin, H.A. (1949). Perception of body position and the position of the v i s u a l f i e l d . Psychological Monographs, 63 (Whole No. 302), 1-46. 135 Witkin, H.A. (1950). Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19, 1-15. Witkin, H.A. & Asch, S.E. (1948). Studies in Space Orientation I I I . Perception of the Upright in the Absence of a Visual F i e l d . Journal of Experimental  Psychology, 38, 603-614. Witkin, H.A., & Berry, J.W. (1975). Psychological D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Journal  of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 4-87. Witkin, H.A., Dyk, R.B., Faterson, H.F., Goodenough, D.R., & Karp, S.A. (1974). Psychological d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n :  Studies of development. Potomac Md.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ( o r i g i n a l l y published, 1962). Witkin, H.A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1982). Cognitive Styles: Essence And Origins. New York: International Un i v e r s i t i e s Press, Inc. Witkin, H.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Oltman, P.K. (1979). Psychological D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n : Current Status. Journal  of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1127-1145. Witkin, H.A., Moore, CA., Goodenough, D.R., & Cox, P.W. (1977) Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications. Review of  Educational Research, 47, 1-64. Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). Manual for the Embedded Figures Test, Children's  Embedded Figures Test, Group Embedded Figures Test, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, C a l i f o r n i a . APPENDIX A PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE PROCEDURES FOR THE GROUP EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST FALL 1983 PRINCIPAL'S LIST OF IDENTIFICATION MMBE8S NAME EFT « PROCEDURES FOR THE GROUP EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST Materials required: Group EFT Test Booklets - each booklet must have a covering pag« attached to the front of tbe booklet, and an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number which agrees with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number on the covering page. public address system pencils and erasers f i l e folder Principal's L i s t of Identification Numbers (blank forms) PROCEDURES AI Before the students enter the testing room, position the booklets i n numerical order throughout the room, and instruct the assistants to position themselves uniformly throughout the room. B: As the students enter the room, instruct the students to s i t down at one of the test booklets, and not to open the test booklet u n t i l a l l atudents are seated and the instructions are explained. Cs Read the following introduction to students: The test to be completed today measures a b i l i t y to find a simple form when i t i s bidden within a complex pattern. The results of th i s test and the microcomputer assignment next week are part of a study of grade ten students. Tbe results of th i s study w i l l help educators to understand bow to use computers in education. To protect the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of each student participating i n the study, the covering page of the test booklets containing your name w i l l be removed from the booklets and retained by the school. For the purposes of analysis, participants i n the study w i l l only be i d e n t i f i e d by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. Researchers w i l l not have access to student names. Results w i l l be analysed without reference to student names, and w i l l be reported without reference to student names or to student numbers. Grades at school are not influenced in any way by the results of th i s study. Withdrawl from the study i s permitted at any time. CO 0: Instruct students to wr i t * their name on the covering paga of the booklet. E: Insttuct atudants to turn to the f i r s t paga of tha booklet and write tha date, their age, and their birthday (not their name). ti Follow direction* on page 127 - 128 of tha/.EFT manual. G> After completion of the testing. Instruct student* to remain quietly in their seats u n t i l a l l test booklets are collected. H: ask the assistants to check that tha covering page and page one of eacb test booklet are complete, and to c o l l e c t a l l booklets. It After a l l booklets are collected, instruct students to return to their class. J : Sort test booklets into numerical order. K: Remove the covering paga from each teat booklet. ts Complete the Principal's L i s t of Identification Numbers from the coveting pages of the test booklets. Ms Place the Principal's L i s t of Identification Numbers i n a f i l e folder . N: Deliver tha foldar to the principal for future reference and safekeeping. APPENDIX B PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE MICROCOMPUTER TRAINING MANUAL (INSTRUCTOR'S VERSION) FALL 1983 INSTRUCTOR'S LIST OF IDENTIFICATION BOMBERS EFT MICROCOMPUTER MACHINE TEST ASSIGNMENT NUMBER FAST I Materials required: overhead projector pencils student training manual - part 1 Transparency #1 water soluble magic marker PROCEDURES At Read the following instructions to students: placa transparency I I on the overhead The f i r s t training exercise tests s k i l l in solving a paper and pencil maze. In thi s exercise begin at the arrow, point to the st a r t of the maze on the overhead and draw a continuoiM l i n e to a pltce of creese at the m i of the maze. The piece of cheese i s represented by a dotted square. point to cheese (the dotted square) on the overhead Shortly I w i l l Instruct you to turn to a paper and pencil maze on page one of the manual, and to draw a l i n e with your pencil from tha beginning of the maze to the cheese. Backtrack i f you reach a dead end but do not remove your pencil from the page u n t i l you reach the cheese. Complete the maze as quickly as possible. When your pencil reaches the cheese, close your manual and wait for further instructions. - i l l u s t r a t e training exercise t l on the overhead projector Bote: i n t e n t i o n a l l y f o l l o w the wrong path into a dead end B: Answer any questions concerning Fart I of the training exercises? C: Whan a l l questions are answered: a) Remind students of the procedures, i e . - turn to page one. - complete the maze. - close the training manual - remain quietly in your seat u n t i l a l l students complete this part of the training session. b) Start the exercise. D: Proceed to Part II of the training manual. PAJt? I I - BXPUM&TIOH Material esquired: overhead projectors (2) transparencies 12 - 121 carousel projector slides I I - 124 water soluble magic marker PROCEDURES A. Bead tbe following instructions to the students: The microcomputer maze i s different than a paper and pencil mass. By means of transparencies and slides projected on the screens at the front of the room, the difference between a paper and pencil mare and the microcomputer maze w i l l be c l a r i f i e d . place transparency 12 on tbe overhead The microcomputer maze resembles a walk through a large building i n an attempt to find a friend: a map in yout hand acts as your guide. However, rather than walking through the corridors of an actual building, you w i l l press certain keys on the keyboard of the computer. In response to the keys you push, the computer w i l l project a series of diagrams on the computer screen. These diagrams represent the halls and corridors within your view as you proceed through the imaginary building. For example, i f you are i n the position marked by the arrow on this map, point to tbe arrow on tbe overhead and i f you face i n the direction Indicated by the arrow, you w i l l see this scene : project s l i d e t l psuse for 11 seconda If you turn around and look in the opposite direction, placet transparency 13 on the over bead display elide 12 you w i l l see the entrance to Audio Visual Services. pause for IB seconds If you turn around again, plaoe transparency 14 on the overhead display s l i d e 13 you w i l l see the corridor leading away from the Audio Visual Services again. pause fos 10 seconds Presume you must meet e friend at the post o f f i c e . point to tbe post office) on tbe overhead As you walk down the h a l l s , the walls and corridors within your view w i l l change. place) transparency #5 on the o vox bead project slides 14 Notice tne cnange i n the position of tne arrow, indicating your movement down the h a l l . point to tbe arrow on tbe overbead pause for IB seconds placet transparency #6 on the overhead project s l i d e IS pease for IB seconds At the f i r s t corner, point to tbe arrow on tbe overhead i n order to proceed toward the post o f f i c e , you must compltte a ninety degree turn. place transparency 17 on tbe overhead display s l i d e 16 After completing the turn, tbe corridor resembles thi s s l i d e . pause for 18 seconds If you turn around and look i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n , placet transparency 18 on tbe overhead display s l i d e 17 these coat racks are i n your view. point to tbe coat racks on tbe map paose for 19 seconds If you turn around again. place transparency #9 on the overhead display slide 18 the corridor leading toward the post o f f i c e i s v i s i b l e again. pause for 13 seconds If you continue down the corridor toward position 13, place transparency 110 on the overhead display s l i d e «9 pause for 10 seconds place transparency i l l on the overhead display s l i d e #10 pause for 10 secoods and i f you turn right at the corner, place transparency it 12 on the overhead display s l i d e #11 the post o f f i c e i s within your view. pause for 10 seconds By taking a few more steps toward position 14, place transparency #13 on the overhead display s l i d e 112 you are standing in front of the post o f f i c e pause for 10 seconds Remove transparency from overhead advance projector to clear screen (carousel position #13) B> Answer sny questions concerning the proceeding procedures. Ct Bead the following Instructions to the students. With the aid of the map on the overhead projector and a series of slides I have Illustrated a walk from Audio Visusl Services to the post o f f i c e . In order to successfully navigate through the computer maze you must interpret similar information on the computer screen. Just as the slides depicted our passage through the corridors of'a real building, a series of diagrams on the computer screen portray the corridors within an imaginary building. This imaginary building i s called a computer maze. Pour keys on the keyboard control progress through the computer maze. project keyboard transparency on second overhead To move forward one position i n the maze push the "move forward" key. point to "move forward" key on the keyboard transparency To turn ninety degrees to the l e f t push the "turn l e f t " key. -point to "tarn l e f t " key on the keyboard transparency To turn ninety degrees to the r i g h t , push the "turn r i g h t " key. point to "turn r i g h t " key on the keyboard transparency To turn around i n preparation for walking i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n , push the "turn around" key. point to "turn around" key on the keyboard transparency I t i s important to rea l i z e that the turn l e f t , turn r i g h t , and turn around keys do not change your location in the mazet these three keys change the direction you are facing. request assistant to face the front wall For example, pushing the "turn l e f t " key i s equivalent to turning 90 degrees to the l e f t : I l l u s t r a t e t h i s movement with the assistant. Simultaneously, point to the "turn l e f t " key on the transparency of the keyboard. Pushing the "turn r i g h t " key i s equivalent to turning 90 degrees to the right. I l l u s t r a t e t h i s movement with the assistant. Simultaneously, point to the "turn r i g h t " key on the transparency of the keyboard. « Pushing the "turn around" key i s equivalent to turning around and facing the opposite direction: I l l u s t r a t e t h i s movement with the assistant. Simultaneously, point to the "turn around" key on the transparency of the keyboard. Pushing the "move forward" key i s equivalent to moving one s t e p ^ forward. ^ ro I l l u s t r a t e tbis movement with tbe assistant. Simultaneously, point to tbe "move forward" key on tbe transparency of tbe keyboard. Please note, tbe only key which changes your location i n the maze i s the "move forward" key. The other three keys turn you in your present position. Dt answer any question on the proceeding procedures. Bs Read the following Instructions to the students. i To i l l u s t r a t e the purpose of these four control keys and the j purpose of the *?" key I w i l l project the same sequence of slides you saw a moment ago. However, this time, imagine yourself i s i t t i n g i n front of the computer. The overhead of the keyboard I represents the keyboard of the computer: the slides and the other overhead represent images on the computer screen. Tbis slide represents your present position i n the computet maze. project s l i d e 114 on tbe screen Pushing the key labelled *?" any time during your assignment on the computer w i l l project an overview or sap of the maze on the screen: i Press tbe "7 s key on tbe keyboard transparency 1 project transparency »14 on the overhead Tbe arrow indicates the direction you are facing in the maze. paint to tne arrow on tbe overhead Tbe dotted square represents the destination (the cheese). point to tbe cheese on tbe overhead pause for IB seconds For the purposes of this training session, I am displaying botb the overview of the maze and the view from within the maze at tbe same time. However, when you are working on the computer, the computer screen w i l l display either the overview of the maze or the view from within the maze. Both perspectives w i l l not be available at the same time. If we respond to the question at the bottom of the map by j pressing the "y" key, we return to our present position i n the maze. Press tbe *y" key on tbe keyboard transparency remove tbe overhead f o i l To proceed through the corridors of the computer maze we press the four control keys. By pressing the "go forward" key we move toward the f i r s t corner. Each time we move we can check our new position by pressing the "7" key. I press the "go forward" key project s l i d e 115 press tbe "7" key on tbe keyboard transparency project transparency l i s on the overhead The change i n position of the arrow indicate that we have moved down the h a l l . point to the arrow on the overhead pause for IB seconds Notice that the o r i g i n a l starting position in the maze i s marked with a l i g h t square. point *3v tbe s t a r t position on tbe o^crvieii transparency pause for IB ioconrle To proceed we press the "y" key on the keyboard. press tbe *y* key on tbe keyboard transparency remove tbe overhead f o i l I f we turn around and look toward our starting position press tbe "turn around" key project s l i d e 116 press the "7" key on tbe keyboard project transparency 116 on tbe overhead we view the entrance to audio vi s u a l Services and a l i g h t square on the f l o o r . In the computer maze, once you have moved away from the s t a r t , a l i g h t square on the floor as well as the l i g h t square on the overview represent your o r i g i n a l starting position i n the maze. point to tbe l i g h t square on tbe floor of the corridor point to tbe l i g h t square on the overview pause for IB seconds To resume our t r i p to the post o f f i c e , we respond to the question at the bottom of the map by pressing the "y" key. press the "y" key on the keyboard transparency remove the overhead f o i l By pressing the "turn around" kay wa turn around and face down tha corridor toward the post office again. press the "turn around" key project s l i d e #17 press the *?" key on the transparency of the keyboard project transparency (17 on the overhead pause for 10 seconds To continue we oust respond to tha question at the bottom of the map by pressing the "y" key. press the "y" key on the keyboard transparency remove the overhead f o i l To move toward the f i r s t corner we press the "go forward" key on the keyboard. prase the "go forward" key on the keyboard transparency project s l i d e #18 eventually we arrive at the f i r s t corner. If we pteas the "7" key again, wa see our new location in the maze. project transparency #18 on the overhead pause 10 aecnndi He are now at the f i r s t turn and presently face the wall at the end of the b a l l . Notice the dot on the overview. point to the dot on the overview This dot represents a position in the mare that we have been positioned on during your t r i p toward your destination. In order to proceed toward tha post o f f i c e , we must turn. Consequently, we answer the question at the bottom of the screen by pressing the "y" key. press the "y" key on the keyboard transparency remove the overhead f o i l Then we press the "turn right" key. This change i n orientation turns us toward the post o f f i c e . display s l i d e (13 If we press the "7" kay again, we see that our orientation has changed! press tha "7" key on the keyboard transparency project transparency (19 on the overhead we are now facing down the h a l l toward the post o f f i c e . pause for 10 seconds By pressing the "y" key we return to the maze. press the *y" key on tha keyboard transparency remove the overhead f o i l I f wa continue down the b a l l by pressing the "go forward" key we arrive at the next turn. transparency transparency As I have just i l l u s t r a t e d , i t i s not necessary to examine the map after each move. I f you can interpret the diagrams on tha screen and i f you can remember where you are i n the maze, proceed d i r e c t l y through the maze without asking for the map. For example, i f we remember from the las t time the map was examined that wa must turn right at th i s point, we press the "turn rig h t " key without examining the map. I f we select the correct move, we w i l l face the corridor to the post o f f i c e . However, i f our choice i s incorrect, we must correct our error. press the "turn r i g h t " kay on the keyboard transparency display s l i d e #22 As this s l i d e indicates, we chose the correct turns the post o f f i c e i s one move in front of our present position. Note that in the computer maze, the cube on the floor of the corridor represents your destination (the cheese). pause for 10 •oconds In order to complete our walk to the post o f f l e a we press tha "go forward" key. presa the "go forward" kay on the keyboard transparency display s l i d e 123 This s l i d e indicates that we are in front of the post o f f i c e . Examination of the map confirms our observation. press "7" on the keyboard transparency project transparency (20 on the overhead press the "go forward" key on the keyboard display s l i d e (20 pause for 10 seconds press the "go forward" key on the keyboard display s l i d e #21 pause for 10 «acnm1g paua* for IB seconds advance s l i d * projector to clear screen (carousel position 124) To summarises 1. Toe "?* key places the overview or map of the maze on the screen of the computer. push the "?" key on tbe keyboard transparency project transparency 121 on tbe overhead When you are examining the overview or map of tbe mazes 1. The arrow on the overview represent your location and the direction you are facing in the maze. point to tbe arrow on tbe overhead transparency 2. The .light square represents the original starting position in the maze. point to the l i g h t square on the overhead transparency i t i s important to note that i f you press the "7" key at the beginning of a maze session, you are positioned d i r e c t l y over the li g h t square. Consequently, the li g h t squsre i s not displayed on the map. In t h i s s i t u s t i o n , the arrow indicates the original starting position in the maze and the direction you are facing-. 3. Tbe dotted square on the map represents the location of the cheese in the maze. poiut to tbe dotted square on tbe overhead transparency You must proceed to tb i s point as quickly as possible i n . order to complete the maze. 4. The single dots represent positions that you have attained during the maze t r i a l . point to the single dots on tbe overhead transparency When you are observing the graphic representations of the corridors in the maze (ie. you are "walking" in the maze): 1. The "move forward" key moves you forward one position i n the direction you are tr a v e l l i n g . point to the "move forward" key on the keyboard transparency i l l u s t r a t e a move forward on tbe overhead transparency 2. The turn right, turn l e f t , and turn around keys do not change your location i n the maze. These keys change your orientation. That i s , they change the direction you are facing in the maze. i l l u s t r a t e a change i n orientation on tbe overhead transparency 3. A cube positioned in the corridor of the maze represents the cheese. Xou must p o s i t i o n yourself d i r e c t l y over . this spot in the maze to complete the maze session. pause for IB seconds remove overview transparency from the overhead (do not remove tbe keyboard transparency) P: Proceed to the testing section of Part II of the Instructor's Training Manual. FAB* I I - TESTING Materials required! overhead projectors (2) carousel projector pencils and erasers Student Training Manual (Fart II) slides 125 - 138 transparencies 422 - 126 PROCEDURES At Read the following instructions to the students. In order to check your understanding of part II of the training exercises, please turn to page two (2) of the training mavuial. pause while stxtdanta locate paga (2 l a tha training manual In * moment I w i l l project a series of slides on the screen. Is each s l i d e l a displayed on the screen I w i l l read a question from your training booklet. Consider each question separately! there i s no relationship between the questions. After I have read each question, c i r c l e the correct response i n tha manual. For example, i f this slide was on the screen, display s l i d e I 23 and the question read " which key would you push to turn r i g h t , you would write the answer "sight". Do not answer any questions u n t i l you era instructed to do so. Sou w i l l have 30 seconds to answer each question. B Answer any questions. C Instruct students to turn to page 13 of the training aanual. 0 Read each of tha training questions to the students twice. After reading each question, allow the students t h i r t y seconds to c i r c l e their answer in the training manual. Q u e s t i o n s I. p r o j e c t s l i d * *26 on tha screen To sea the map or overview of th i s maze, which kay do you push?' a) turn l e f t b) turn r i g h t c) help (?) d) turn around a) cannot sea tha maze 2. advance the projector to c l e a r screen (sli d e position |27) project transparency 122 on tha overhead In the overview oc map on toe screen, which symbol represents your starting position? *) «-c) l i g h t square d) f e) dotted square project transparency 123 on the overhead On tha- overview or map on tha screen, which symbol represents your o r i g i n a l s tarting position.. e) «-b) -* c) . l i g h t square d) t e) dotted square *• In t h i s same overview or map, which symbol represents tha direction you are facing? a) -* b) «-c) l i g h t square d) dotted square el' none of the above 3. l a this sua* overview or nap on ens screen, which symbol Eaccusants yout finishing position? a) «-b) •+ c) l i g h t square d> t a) dottad squats 6. I f this same ovarviaw oc map i * on the scraan of the computer, which Way do you push in order to ra-entar and continue with tha. mass) a) oovs forward b» "y" (yes) key c) turn around d) "?" key el turn right 7. lesune transparency from tbe overhead project s l i d * 121 on tbe screen I f you1 are located at the position i l l u s t r a t e d in the s l i d e , i n which direction(s) can you turn and s t i l l have a corridor l a front of you after you complete the move? a) l e f t only b) right only c) both l e f t and tight d) forward and l e f t ei forward and right 8. Iff the maze Illustrated by this same s l i d e , i f you press the aovsr forward key, you wouldt a) proceed down a h a l l b) turn to the l e f t c) turn to the right d) turn and face the opposite direction e) bump into a wall 9. p r o j e c t s l i d * 129 on tbe screen In t h i s s l i d e , what does the li g h t square on the floor of the picture' represent} a) the end of the ass*. b) the- start of the mare. c) your present position in the maze. d) a hole In the floor of the corridor, a) none of the above. 18. p r o j e c t s l i d e 130 on the screen from the position i n tbe maze i l l u s t r a t e d by this s l i d e , which key would turn you around and face you in the opposite direction? a) turn around b) turn right c) turn l e f t d) move forward e) none of the above keys U . pr o j e c t s l i d * 131 on toe screen Iff you are located at the position i l l u s t r a t e d i n tbe s l i d e , which key(s) can yon push i n order to fallow the corridor? a) l e f t only b) . r i g h t only c) l e f t or right d> forward or l e f t e) forward or. r i g h t U . advance projector to c l e a r screen (slide position 132) project transparency 124 on tbe nsorhosd You are positioned at the arrow on the oapi the arrow points i n the direction you are facing. From this position you see tbe the scene displayed on the projector screen. project s l i d e #33 on the screen which key on the keyboard would, s t a r t you down the corridor toward your destination? a) turn^ around by turn r i g h t c> turn l e f t d) move forward a) none of the above) keys? 1J. I advance projector to c l e a r actoaa ( a l i a * position 134) project transparency 125 on tbe overhead Ton have moved to the position and orientation indicated by the arrow on the maps the arrow points In the direction you are facing. From this position you see the scene.displayed on tits projector screen. ' project slice) 133 on tbe screen Which key on the keyboard would you press to continue on toward your destination? a) torn, around b) tarn right . c) turn l e f t d) novo forward e) none of the above keys Hi odssnco projector to c l e a r screen { s l i d * position 136) project trazmzimreocy I 26 on the overhead You. have moved to the position and orientation Indicated by the- arrow on the mapi the arrow points in the direction you. are- facing. From this position you see this scene displayed on- the- projector screen. project slide) 137 on the irreeri Which key would yon push on the keyboard to continue on toward your, destination: (ie the cheese)?-a) , torn.- around I b) tarn eight c) turn l e f t d) move) forward. e) non* of the above keys advance projector to c l e a r screen ( s l i d * position 138) remove trsiispsr entiles- from both overhead projectors torn ott the second overhead projector (keyboard transparency projector) t Instruct students to turn to page- s i s («) of their training manual. I Refer to part l i t on the Instructor's training manual. P a i r i l l Materials required: overhead projector slides 139 - #44 carousel projector tranepazancies 127 - 128 pencils and erasers student training manual - part I I I PROCEDURES hi Bead the following information to the studentst In the third pert of the training exercise you w i l l , learn the symbols which create representations of h a l l s and corridors on the microcomputer screen. Here i s a summaryt - project trnnspatouuy 127 on the overhead a) - Symbol II represents a wall to your. l e f t . display s l i d e » 39 For example, the wall on the the l e f t side of this picture would be represented In the computer maze by symbol I I . point to the well on- the l e f t side of the s l i d * and to symbol I I b) Symbol 12 represents a wall to tha r i g h t . For example, the w a l l on the tha right side i n this same picture would be represented i n the computer maze by symbol 12. • point to the wall on the r i g h t side of the s l i d e and to- symbol 12 ek Symbol 13 represents a corridor Immediately to the l e f t . display s l i d e I 40 For example, the corridor on the l e f t side of this picture would be represented i n the computer maze by symbol 13. - point tor the corridor on the l o f t side of the s l i d e and to symbol 13 d) Symbol 14 represents a corridor immediately to the r i g h t . display s l i d * • 41 foreexaapiev t h * oorrlAar oa thef r i g h t s i d e of" this- pioture would be- represented i n the computet maze by symbol 14. poin t t o t h * oozTldor- oa> the s i g h * a i d * of tne s l i d * and to symbol 14 a) Symbol #5 represents a long corridor, display s l i d e » 42 Fot example, the long corridor in th i s picture would be represented i n the computer maze by symbol 13. t) Symbol 16 represents a wall d i r e c t l y in front of you. display s l i d e I 43 Foe example, tha wall in th i s picture would be represented In the computer maze by symbol #6. g) t t l a important to note that a l l the diagrams on tha microcomputer screen consist of combinations of these six symbols. paoee foe 10 seconds advance projector to clear screen (slide position 144) Lean ire transparency from overhead B t Answer any question* on tha s i r symbols. C t Bead tha following Instruction*, to tha studentst ah To test your knowledge and understanding of these s i s symbols, pleas* turn to page 17. in your training manual. b> On paga seven (7) of your training manual are the s i s symbols I have just explained. However, the symbol* are arranged In a different order. display trans patency 123 on tha overhead On tha overhead ate the descriptions, of the s i s symbols, also-In random order. In the space provided below the symbols In your training manual, write tha correct description of: each of tha six symbols. 0. Allow student* suf f i c i e n t time to- complete th i s exerciaa. E» Turn off overhead projector and carousal projector. r . Collect pact t , I I , and I I I of the training manual. C. Instruct students to report to- tha computer room: a 1th the Student Microcomputer Assignment Manual PART I I - TESTING Materials cacuired: . overhead projectors (2) carousal projector pencils and erasers Student Training Manual (Part II) slides }25 - }3S transparencies +22 - #25 PROCEDURES As Read the following Instructions to tha students. In order to check your understanding of pact II oi the training exercises, please turn to page f.;o (2) of the training manual. pause while student* locate paga #2 i n tha training manual In a moment I w i l l project a secies of slides on the screen. As each s l i d e i s displayed on the screen I w i l l read a question from your training booklet. Consider each question separately: there Is no relationship between the questions. After I have read each question, c i r c l e the correct response In tha manual. For example, i f this s l i d e was on tha screen, display s l i d e t 25 and the question read " which key would 7 0 c push to turn r i g h t , you would write the answer "rig h t " . 30 not answer any questions u n t i l you are instructed to do so. You w i l l have 33 seconds to answer each question. B Answer any questions. C Instruct students to turn to page »3 of the training manual. 0 Head each of the training question* to the students twice. After reading each question, allow the students t h i r t y seconds to c i r c l e their answer in the training manual. APPENDIX C PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE PROCEDURES FOR THE MICROCOMPUTER ASSIGNMENT (INSTRUCTOR'S VERSION) FALL 1983 PROCEDURES FOR THE MICROCOMPUTER ASSIGNMENT Materials required! 30 PET Commodore computers 3S- forty-five minute tapes Cor storing student data 5 copies of Ratrun (Version III) labels for the following keys on each machine! help, l e f t , right, turn around, forward, y (yes). labels to identify the seat location of each student participating in tha microcomputer exercise 30 tape drives method of preventing the break key and the return key from accldently being1 pushed during the maxe t r i a l . Student Microcomputer Assignment Manuals ADVANCE PREPARATION Before the students enter the microcomputer labt A. Load Ratrun (Version III) into each microcomputer. B. Indicate tha seating location of each subject completing the microcomputer assignment, by labelling each microcomputer with the appropriate microcomputer assignment number. C. Insert a blank tape into the tape recorder attached to each microcomputer. Match the microcomputer assignment numbers on the microcomputers with the microcomputer assignment numbers on the blank tapes. a j O T K t Tapes must be manually advanced u n t i l any leader at the beginning of the tape i s not showing. PROCEDURES A. As students enter the room, instruct the students not to touch the machines u n t i l the instructions are presented. B. instruct students to s i t in front of the microcomputer which have the same number as the number recorded on the. microcomputer assignment manual (training session and microcomputer assignment I ) . C. After e l l students are.seated In front of the correct machine, read the following instructions to the students: a) Do not touch the tape recorders. b) Enter the number from your microcomputer assignment manual and h i t the return key (The same number i s recorded on the front of the computer - NOT TOUR NAME). I c) After you are given the required signal to begin the I microcomputer exercise, the f i r s t diagram representing your starting position in the f i r s t computer maze w i l l automatically be presented to you on the screen of the computer. d) use the keys you learned in the training session to complete the f i r s t maze as quickly as possible. e) A maximum of two hundred responses i s allowed In a maze. f) After you have reached the cheese at the end of the f i r s t mazs (or you complete 200 moves), a second maze w i l l be offered to you. g) Complete the second maze as quickly as possible. h) After you have finished both mazes, or you wish to stop, c a l l a monitor. 1) 0 0 NOT push the "BREAK KEY" OR "RETURN KEY" at any time during the two mazes, j) If the words "BREAK IN — * appear on the screen at any time during the two mazes, rsise your hand and ask for assistance. k) After completion of the microcomputer assignment, answer the questionnaire Included i n your Student Microcomputer Assignment Manual. 1) Return the questionnaire to s monitor after i t i s finished. m) Remain seated quietly u n t i l instructed to return to your classroom. D. . Answer any questions. E. Remind students to complete both mazes as quickly as possible. F. Instruct the students to hold tha s h i f t key down and press the • key to start the f i r s t maze. G. Request: the assistants to assist with the collection of the microcomputer questionnaire. Follow the procedures l i s t e d beljwt - Remind each student after be completes the microcomputer assignment to complete the student questionnaire. - collect the student questionnaire from each student. H. Instruct students to return to their classroom after the microcomputer assignment, and the student questionnaire are complete. AFTER ALL STUDENTS HAVE COMPLETED THE TWO MAZES: I. Arrange the student questionnaires In numerical order according to microcomputer assignment I . J . Refer to tha Instructor's L i s t of Identification Slumbers to verify that a l l student questionnaires are returned. K. Rewind a l l tapes and place i n their protective holders. - cn L. Return the cover page to the Student Training Manual and the i - 1 Principal's L i s t of Identification Numbers to the principal for future reference and safekeeping. 1 5 2 APPENDIX D PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE SUMMARY OF TRANSPARENCIES AND SLIDES  FOR THE MICROCOMPUTER TRAINING SESSION FALL 1983 NOTE: Photographs of the s l i d e s from the Microcomputer Training Session are f i l e d in the Special C o l l e c t i o n Division of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Library. s t a r t p o t t o f f l e * *' b a 0VBBT1BH OF TRB COBBIOOBS OS ED l a TBS THAININO SBS3I0I TRAIBIMG 3ES3IOM SLIDES PART ,11 S l i d . . I I - 113 S l i d M i l l u s t r a t i n g th* corridors and walls between tha Audio Visual Services and tha peat Office. Transparencies 12 to 113 and these slides i l l u s t r a t e the changing pattern of corridors and walls within a person's view as he or she walks, through a building. S l i d * I P o s i t i o n O r i e n t a t i o n 1 11 facing position 12 2 I t facing end wall 3 11 ' facing position 12 * between 11 & 12 facing position 12 S 12 facing wall « 12 facing position 13 7 12 facing coat racks - », 12 facing position 13 » between 12 a 13 facing position 13 Iff 13 facing wall I t #3 facing position 14 12 14 facing post o f f i c e 13 blank; (to clear projection screen) Slides 114 - 124 Slides i l l u s t r a t i n g t h * corridors and walls- between t h * Audio Visual Services and the Post Office - Transparencies 114 to 121 and these slides i l l u s t r a t e the procedures each participant in- the study w i l l follow, while completing the computer mar*. SUd*_J. 14 15 16 IT 18 19 2d 21 22 23 24 p o s i t i o n #1 between I I « 12 between I I a #2 between I I 6 12 #2 #2 between 12 A 13 13 13 •4 Otl e h t a t i o n facing position 12 facing position 12 facing position I I (requires l i g h t square) facing position 12 facing wall facing position 13 facing position 13 facing wall facing 14 (requires cheese) facing post o f f i c e blank (to clear projection screen) i—> CO Slide 125 S l i d * i l l u s t r a t i n g an axampla of a question from pact t t of tha training manual., (poaltlon »4 - facing wall) Slldaa #26 - #38 These slldaa and ttanspacencias #22 - #26 foem tha basis of tha tasting i n Pact IX of tha training session. S l i d e I C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 26 i l l u s t r a t e tha function of the "7" key. (poaltlon A - facing 3) 27 blank (to clear projection screen) 28 i l l u s t r a t e s a choice of corridors, (position 3 - facing wall) 28 I l l u s t r a t e tha concept of barrier (position B - facing wall) 29: i l l u s t r a t e s tha l i g h t square on tha floor of a- corridor representing tha starting position i n the maze. (between #1 and #2, facing »l) 18 I l l u s t r a t e * tha function of the "turn around" key. (position #2 -facing coat racks).. 31 i l l u s t r a t e right turn, (position #4 - facing wall) 32 blank (to clear projection scraen) 33. i l l u s t r a t e sequencing. (between C t 0 - facing 0) 34 blank (to clear projection screen) 35 i l l u s t r a t e s sequencing, (position 9 - facing wall) 36 blank (to clear projection screen) 37 I l l u s t r a t e tha last forward Jove i n the (poaltlon' 0 - facing position E) 38 blank (to clear projection screen) PART III Slides #39 - #44 Transparencies 127 - 128 and these slides explain the meaning of the six. graphic* symbols that form tha three diaentional representstiona on the computer screen. S l i d * » C h a r a c t e r i s t i c * 39 wall to the l e f t 39 (position A - facing position a) wall to the right 40 (position A - facing position B) corridor to tha l e f t 41. (position (2 - facing coat racks) corridor to the right 41 (position 12 - facing position #3) long corridor 43v (position C - facing long corridor) barrier In front 44 (position 13 - facing wall) blank (to clear projection screen) cn 4s. TRAIBIBG 8 B S S I 0 H S T 8 A H S P A R E H C I E S PART X Transparency II Sample overhead view of a computer generated maze - thi s overhead, acquaints students with the symbol representing the beginning of the maze, and the symbol representing their present position and orientation in the maze. This a c t i v i t y also demonstrates the sequencing a c t i v i t y required i n completing a paper and pencil maze. PART XI Transparencies 12 - 113 Overhead of Mohawk corridors - labels include the start of the maze (Audio Visual Services), the end of the maze (the post o f f i c e ) , coat racks, and four corners. In addition to these labels, an arrow on each transparency i l l u s t r a t e s the orientation and position of the person in the maze. Transparency I P o s i t i o n O r i e n t a t i o n 2 11 facing position 12 3 #1 facing end wall 4 t l facing position #2 5 between II 4 12 facing position 12 « 12 facing wall 7 . t2 facing position 13 > 12 facing coat racks 9 12 facing position 13 10 between 12 a 13 facing position 13 11 • 13 facing wall 12 13 facing position 14 13 14 facing post o f f f l e a Transparencies 114 - 120 Overhead of Mohawk corridors - labels include "do you wish to continue?", the destination of the t r i p (a dotted square at position 14), the start of the maze (a light square at position II), an arrow indicating the position of the person i n the maze, and a series of dots indicating locations • that have been attained. Transparency I p o s i t i o n Orientation. 1* t l facing position 12 15 between II 4 12 facing position 12 16 between II 4 12 facing position #1 17 between II 4 12 facing position 12 18 *2 facing wall 19 12 facing position 13 20 14 facing post o f f i c e Transparency 121 Overhead of Mohawk corridors - labels include "do you wish to continue?", the destination of the t r i p (a dotted square at position 14), the beginning of the maze (a l i g h t square at position II), an arrow indicating the position of the person in the maze (between position 12 4 position 13 - facing position 13), and a series of dots indicating locations that have been attained. The various features of the computer maze are i l l u s t r a t e d with the aid of this s l i d e . Transparencies 122 - 126 overhead of Mohawk corridors - labels include "do you wish to continue?"', the st a r t of the maze ( l i g h t square at position A), the destination of the t r i p (a dotted square at position E), an arrow indicating the position of the person i n the maze, and a series of dots indicating locations that have been attained. Transparency I P o s i t i o n O r i e n t a t i o n 22 A facing position B 23 B facing wall 23 B facing wall 23 B facing wall 23 B facing wall 24 between C 4 D facing position D 25 D facing wall 26 D facing E PART III Transparency 127 Six graphic representation symbols. The walls and corridors of the computer maze are constructed from, combinations cf tht s i x symbols. An explanation of eech symbol i s written below each symbol. Transparency 128 The explanations of the six graphic representation symbols are l i s t e d i n random order. This l i s t w i l l help students answer part I I I of tha training manual. cn APPENDIX E PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE MICROCOMPUTER TRAINING SESSION TRANSPARENCIES FALL 1983 1 1 *_ n " i THAN3PAHKNCI #1 t u r n r l o h l y e s ( y ) KEXBOABD TBANSPAHEftCX K O T E I the s i x special keys Mere highlighted In red on the transparency. h e l p 5 168 m o v e f o r w a r d ? BielpJ t u r n l e f t l e f t f o r -ward ar ounc g h t t u r n a r o u n d T s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e THANSPARENCX #2 s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e THAN3PAHENCI #3 s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e TRANSPARENCY #V s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e 1 TRANSPARENCY. #5 s t a r t 1 p o s t o f f i c e 4 TRANSPARENCY #6 s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e • H I TRAK3PARENCI #7 s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e TRANSPARENCY #8 TRANSPARENCY #9 s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e TRANSPARENCY #10 TRANSPARENCY #11 s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e • 2 S u TRANSPARENCY #12 T s t a r t p o s t o f f i c e TRANSPARENCY #13 TRANSPARENCY #1<» TRANSPARENCY #15 t—* CM t d o y o u w i s h t o c o n t i n u e ? T R A N S P A R E N C Y # 1 6 l a d o y o u w i s h t o c o n t i n u e ? T R A N S P A R E N C X #17 TRANSPARENCY #18 TttANSPAHENCY #19 d o y o u w i s h t o c o n t i n u e ? THANSPAREHCl #20 THINSPAHENCY #21 TRANSPARENCY #22 TRANSPARENCY #23 cn CO TRANSPARENCY #24 m t • d o y o u w i s h t o c o n t i n u e ? TRANSPARENCY # 2 5 cn T • d o y o u w i s h t o c o n t i n u e ? TRANSPARENCY #26 1. w a l l t o t h e l e f t . w a l l t o t h e r i g h t . 4. c o r r i d o r t o t h * l e f t . c o r r i d o r t o t h e r i g h t . l o n g c o r r i d o r a h e a d . w a l l a h e a d . . TRANSPARENCY #27 L _ > O S Y M B O L S COBBIOOR TO TUB LEFT HALL AHEAD WALL TO THE RIGHT LONG CORRIDOR AHEAD WALL TO THE LEFT CORRIDOR TO THE RIGHT TRANSPARENCY #28 APPENDIX F PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE GROUP EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST (COVERING PAGE) FALL 1983 G R O U P E M B E D D E D F I G U R E S T E S T PALL 1983 LAST MAKE I FIRST UAHEt INITIAL (S) EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST • APPENDIX G PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE STUDENT TRAINING MANUAL (INCLUDING THE STUDENT MICROCOMPUTER ASSIGNMENT MANUAL) EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST tl EMBEDDED F I G U R E S T E S T • S T U D E N T T R A I N I N G x m m r S T O D S M T TRAININGS HAHTIH. LAST BAHS t F I R S T HAMCt « I , I U . < 5 > * « • 1 S 5 t E T 13^T IHSr SCHOOL* OATS • I DO BOX TBBaV TBS 9AGX DMTXX, IMSTBEOCXED 1 TRAIMIMG S E S S I O N AND HICBOCOMFUTER ASSIGNMENT »t TRAiaiMS S E S S I O N AMD wiatoajMWTta A S S I G N M E N T tt _____ TRAINING SESSION AND MICROCOMPUTER ASSIGNMENT » Mjcaoa>u?uTER T*>»TMTU^  SESSION PART I INAlHUCIIOMtl L. Place yeas pencil on th* heglnnlna, at too n n (th* arrow). I V Draw a orwflnuoue Una Cron tha heglmina ot th* max* to that and of tha ansa (th* aauara). NOTE! Do not, caaov* your pencil Cron tbe paper. Do not CXOM any Unas. J. B a i l training, annual and wait Cor further instruct! ona. TRAINING SESSION AMD . HICSOCOMPOTta ASSIGNMENT * n c M c o H r o n * T R A I N I N G S E S S I O N PART IX I JUT RUCTIONS! 1. l b * instructor w i l l peasant a series of s l i d e s and dlagrane s i m i l a r to tne pictures presented eat l i e s . 2. As each s l i d e and/or diagram l a displayed on the screen, the Instructor w i l l ask you to answer on* of tbe) questions on the following pages. 3. DO not answer any questions unless you are instructed to do so. 4'. Xou> w i l l , bsve t h i r t y j«ci«ds ts> an Mar eadv ^ n o s t l o a . I DO MOT TOM THE RAGS ONTIL INSTRUCTED ] TRAIUIUG SESSIOU AKO MICROCOMPUTER ASSIGNMENT t tUCBOCOMPOTBB TRAINING SESSION PART II QUESTIONSI 1. To M t the Mp or overview of this maze, which kay do you push? a) turn l e f t b) turn eight c) help (?) d) turn' around . e l cannot sea tha maze 2. In the overview or asp on. tha screen, which syabol represents your starting position?-•) *-b) ••*» c) ; l i g h t square d» r a)- dotted square 3. On the overview or asp on the screen,, which symbol represent* your o r i g i n a l starting position. •> «-b) • c) l i g h t square d) • a) , dotted square 4. In thi s same overview or map on the screen, which symbol represent* the direction you era facing? •1 • b) 4-c) l i g h t square . d) dotted square e) none of the above 3. In t h i s same overview or map on tha screen, which syabol represent* your finishing position? s). *• b) -»-c) l i g h t square d) t-e) dotted square 6. I f this same overview or map i s on the screen of the computer, which key do you push in order to re-enter and continue with the maze? j a) nave forward b) "y" (yes) kay c) turn around d) •?• ksy a) turn right 7. . I f you are located at the position i l l u s t r a t e d in tha s l i d e , i n which direction(s) can you turn and s t i l l have a corridor i n front of you after you complete the move? a) l e f t only b) right only c) both l e f t and r i g h t d) forward end l a f t a) forward and sight 8. In the maze i l l u s t r a t e d by t h i s same s l i d e , i f you press the' move forward key, you wouldi a) proceed down a h a l l b) turn to the l e f t c) turn to the t i g h t d) turn and face the-opposite direction - e) bump into a wall 9. l a th i s s l i d e , what doea the l i g h t square on the floor of the picture represent? a) the end of the mere. b) the beginning of the maze. c) your present poaltlon i n the maze. d) a hole i n the f l o o r of the corridor. e) none of the above.. 18. rroo the position in the maze i l l u s t r a t e d by this s l i d e , . which key would turn you around and face you In the opposite direction? . a) turn around — b ) turn t i g h t c) turn l e f t d> move forward a) none of the above keys 11. - If you at* located at tha poaltlon i l l u s t r a t e d In the s l i d e , which key(s) can you push in order to follow the corridor? a) l e f t only b) right only c) l e f t or right d) forward or l e f t e) forward or right 12. You- are positioned at the arrow on tha maps the arrow points i n tha direction you are facing. From this position you see the the scene displayed on the projector screen, llhich key on the keyboard would start you down the corridor towards your deatlnatloo? •>' turn around b) turn right cf tarn- l e f t d) - move forward eh none, of the above key* U.Xou- have moved to the poaltlon and orientation indicated- by the-arrow on tha maps the arrow point* i n tha direction you era* facing, from- this poaltlon you see the scene-displayed on the projector screen, tihich key on the keyboard would you. press to continue on towards your destination? a) turn around bfe turn right c) turn l e f t d l move forward e) - none of the above keys 14.You have moved to the poaltlon and orientation indicated by the arrow on the mapi the arrow points i n the direction you are facing. From this position you see this scene displayed .on the projector screen. Which key would you pusn on the keyboard to. continue towetda your destination (la the cheese)? a) turn around b), turn- right . ct turn l e f t d) move- forward' e) none of the above keys TRAINING SESSION AND MICROCOMPUTER ASSIGNMENT* M I C a O C O M F O T X a TRAINING SESSION PART U l t o o HOT TORSI ram PAGX ami ivsisdcod I ,4 • TOT" » / \ • • J STUDENT HICBOCOMPOTEB ASSIGNMENT HAHOAL THAIMING SESSION AND MICROCOMPUTER ASSIGNMENT f STDDENT OOtSTIONAIBg TRAINING SESSION AMD MICROCOMPUTER ASSIGNMENT • ______ (number recorded on tha front of your machina) " C i r c l e tha) a p p r o p r i a t e xeapoaaei 1. Did you cootplata both mazes on tha microcomputer 7 I T S MO 2. Have yoa playad t h i a computer game before 7 T E S NO 3. Bave yoa playad a compotes game s i m i l a r to. t h i s befoca 7 TO HO 4. BOM often do yoa play computes games 7 never / seldom / eccaalonally / very frequently 5. Have* yoa eves prograommed a computer 7 r » NO (. Have yea operated • computes before today 7 r s s NO 7.. Have yoa eves taken any computer courses 7 T E S NO I . Do yoa or anyone i s your family own a computer 7 ra • HO APPENDIX H PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE MICROCOMPUTER OVERVIEWS AND THREE DIMENSIONAL  GRAPHICS REPRESENTATIONS (MAZE #1 AND MAZE #2) FALL 1983 1 8 3 2a 2d Sample d i ag rams o f the t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e i m a g i n a r y c o r r i d o r s o f each Computer Maze : t h e d i ag rams i n t h i s a p p e n d i x i l l u s t r a t e the t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s v i ewed by a s u b j e c t when he f o l l o w s t h e s h o r t e s t pa th f rom the b e g i n n i n g o f each maze t o t h e end o f each m a z e . CO 1 8 5 1 8 6 1 8 7 1 8 8 1 8 9 1 9 0 . "3 o CM cr> ITIaia 2 M V n< j - ^ - r>h «a 11 a a 1.0 flu illlnUh 1 9 4 1 9 6 1 1 » i \ / \ -•a \ \ • ; > \ 1 9 7 1 9 8 T3 CO u T3 1 9 9 200 -a o o CM •a CO 2 0 1 APPENDIX I PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND SAMPLE COMPUTER PRINTOUTS FALL 1983 203 COMPUTER PROGRAM - VERSION I FIGURE 3 DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE GRID POSITIONS ON THE COMPUTER MAZE SCREEN 1,11 2,11 3,1 1 4,11 1 5,11 6,11 7,11 8,11 1 9,1110,1 1 11,1 12,1 1,21 2,21 3,2-1 4,21 1 5,2| 6,2| 7,21 8,21 1 9,2110,2 1 11 ,2 12,2 1,3| 2,3| 3,3 **** | 4,31 5,31 6,3| 7,31 8,3| 1 9,3110,3 1 11,3 12,3 1,41 2,41 3,4 1 4,41 1 5,41 6,4i 7,41 8,41 1 9,4|10,4 1 11,4 12,4 1,51 2,5 1 3,5 1 4,51 1 5,5| 6,5| 7,51 8,5| I 9,5 110,5 1 11,5 12,5 .1,61 2,61 3,6 1 4,61 1 5,6| 6,6| 7,61 8,6| 1 9,6110,6 1 11,6 ++++ 12,6 ++++ 1,71 2,71 3,7 1 4,71 1 5,7| 6,71 7,7| 7,7| 1 7,7110,7 1 11,7 12,7 ++++ st a r t i n g location in **** location of cheese in 12,6 Maze #1 & Maze #2 4,3 Maze #1 & Maze #2 ++++ **** X Axis - horizontal axis Y Axis - v e r t i c a l axis 2 0 4 FIGURE 4 CHART SHOWING SAMPLE INFORMATION GENERATED BY THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION I. THE VALUES LISTED BELOW WERE ORIGINALLY GENERATED BY THE PROGRAM VERSION I. THESE VALUES GENERATE MAZE #1. THE AUTHOR SELECTED THESE VALUES TO ENTER AS DATA STATEMENTS IN THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION III IN ORDER THAT MAZE #1 WOULD BE THE FIRST COMPUTER MAZE PRESENTED TO THE SUBJECTS IN THIS STUDY. RANDOM VALUES COMPUTER EXPLANATION SELECTED BY PROGRAM THE PROGRAM VARIABLE VERSION I 4(LINE 3(LINE 12<LINE 6<LINE 200) 200) 950) 950) REFER TO LINES 3030-3180 OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION III AND LINE 450 OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION I CX X AXIS LOCATION OF THE CHEESE CY Y AXIS LOCATION OF THE CHEESE SX X AXIS LOCATION OF THE START SY Y AXIS LOCATION OF THE START N RANDOM NUMBERS GENERATED BY THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION I - THESE NUMBERS WERE ENTERED INTO THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION III (ALONG WITH THE NUMBERS WHICH REPRESENTED THE LOCATIONS OF THE CHEESE AND THE START) AS DATA STATEMENTS IN ORDER THAT MAZE #1 WOULD BE THE FIRST COMPUTER MAZE PRESENTED TO SUBJECTS IN THE THE MICROCOMPUTER EXERCISE. to US 5 in 9 CO <o a> 8) o»>g{ i- 2 +38 am ./MO « — ( - N O a —— + T G o - - 3 •i±x«m * * -— — - - » i j + 3 8 • u iu iSoo <5 5555 555 HiSiHISSHSH 1 1 a) _ «M <•> •+ « <o f>. to • mi f\ — + 10 /•» (O g< 0 OJOJg 206 i I 1 I f ? s-» >' 2 firS £ 3 icIcSiBcic Ii?tS-?t I " a i s l e s iiiiilllililiiiililibii I i 4428 F0RI»lTO12*XL<e>:PRINT"_";;HEXT:COTO4398 4430 DN-VL<S):OOSU87100 4431 F0RI"IT03-S:PRINTTAB<XL<S>>" r:NEXT 4432 PRIHTTABCXL<S» SPRINT" I", :F0R1=XL<S)T017PRINT"--; NEXT^RINT" 4478 IFS<4THENFCIRI-tT0N2<S>:PRINTTAB<XL<S>>" f :HEXT 4488 PRINTTAB<XL<S))J=PRINT" r;:F0RI"XL<S>T0l7PRINT*_*i:NEXTPRIHT" 4483 F0RI-lT03-S'PRINTTflB<XL(S))" f :NEXT 4498 PRINT"* 4499 RETURN 4308 0N-VL<S>:G0SUB788a 4313 IFS»OTHENPRINTTAB<XL<S));"_" 432d IFS>0ANDS<4THENFORIMTO4-S:PRINTTAB<XL<S)>" r :NEXT 4343 IFS>OTHENPRINTTAB<XL<S>)LEFT*<" I ",6-S> 4363 IFS"4THENPRINTTAB<XL<S)>" I HW I T 4378 y«-»':lFS>OTHENQ«-HIM<"M>»l l",S> 4372 IFS<4THENF0RI T^0N2<S>*l:PRINnfiBO^ S>>" rO*:NEXT 4573 IFS>0THENPRINTTAB<XL<S>>LEFT*<" r—",6-S> 4395 lF»eflNBS<4THB<F0RI-lT04-S:PRINTTflB<XL(S)>" TNEXT 4596 IFS-0THENPRINTTAB<XL<S>>"~" 4397 PRINT"* 4399 RETURN 4780 DN-YL<S>:OOSUB7000 4713 IFS^THWRINnRB<XL<S>>i"\":00T04730 4720 FORI-tT05-SPRINTTflB<>0.<S>+I>"\" :K£XT 473a DH-N2(3)*2:005UB7ieO 4735 IFS-*THEHPRINTTAB<XL<S>>V":G0T04749 474B F0RI»0T04-S-PRINTTnB<XL<S>+5-S-I>'/":NEXT 4749 PRINT"*" 473a RETURN 4808 OOSUB4280 4815 DH-VL<S)+5-S:G0SUB788a 4820 PRINTTAB<20); 4825 IFS<4THENF0RI-1T0XR<S)-21: PRINT"— ; :NEXT 4830 PRINT""1M"; 4835 IFS<4THENF0RI»1T0N2CS>: PRINT" OBT; :NEXT 4840 PRINT"-Btr; 4830 IFS<4THEHF0RI-lT0XR<S)-28-l:PRINT"jai"; NEXT 4831 PRINT'M 4833 RETURN 4980 IFS-6THEHJ-3:0OTO4918 4902 j - a 4910 G0SUB4780 4913 DN-VL<S>«3-S:C0SUB7080 4920 PRIHTTAB<19>; 4923 IFS<4THENF0RI-lT018-)<L<S)-3+S+J;PRINT"Tfa"; :NEXT 4930 PRINT T I M " ; 4933 IFS<4THENF0RI>1T0N2<S> :PRINT"I Ml"; NEXT 4940 PRINT"L"; 4950 IFS<4THEHF0RI-1T018-XL<S>-S«S>J:PRINT*-";:NEXT 4951 PRINT"*) 4935 RETURN 5000 IFS*80RS-4THENR£TURN 5010 ON-10:GOSUB7080 3020 IFS«3THENPRINTTAB<20>;*rm 5030 IFS-2TH£NPRINTTAB<19>;" XTWUOkTi 3040 IFS-1THENPRINTTAB<18>;«* x A .•••- n r a | > , „ , w n w | , 5030 RETURN 3100 IFS-0ORSMTHENRETURN 5110 DN-20-G0SUB780e 5120 IFS>3TNENPRINTTAB(19>>".nrTTm>»nnfa>a 5130 IFS»2THENPRINTTftB<16>;"rm*' ^ 5141 IFSMlHENPRINTTAB<13>;"sr * 5142 IFS-lTHENPRINTTAB<12>;"ar 1 5150 RETURN 6000 T6-TI-T5 6001 K"T!:F0RI-lT025:POKa45,22:PRINT:PRINnM<15>"I^ ^ 6010 P0KE245,22:PRINT:PRINTTflB<15)" ":FORJ"1TO50^ NEXTJ,I , , U 0 W N f e * r j 6100 OOSUB10300:QOTO6110 »•«« i u u , i 6102 PRINT "HDO VOU MANT TO CONTINUE 7" 6104 GET T«: IF U - "V" THEN GOSUB12000:PRINT "3": GO TO 1030 6106 IF T* - "N" THEN GOSUB12000:GOSUB8000:GOTO6U0 6108 GO TO 6104 6110 PRINT "TOO VOU WANT ANOTHER MAZE " ; 6115 SU-l:TH-0 6120 GETT«: IFT«O""THEN6200 6130 1FTI>TNTHENPRINTHID*<"? ",SM»1);"U"; TM-TI+15SM-3-SH 6140 G0T06120 6200 IFT»*"V"ORT*^ «THENPRINT"VES":GOTO200 6210 1FT*-"N"THENEND 6220 GOTO6120 • 7080 PRINT"**; 7100 IFDN>0THENFOR2~1TODN:PRINT")I"; :NEXT 7110 RETURN 8800 REM 8881 REM:SET TIME.PRINT MAZE.PRINT DATA 8810 T6-TI-T5:S1^ 1^ 1^ :GOSUB1030ORETURH 8020 RETURN 9800 REM:COUNTER SI 9010 SKS1,2WI-T7:S1<S1;1>-I:S1«31*1 9050 RETURN 9999 REM 10300 REM PRINT OUT ON PAPER 10301 PRINT"3UH£N PRINTER IS gfbSADVI IB — PRESS 0SPACE BAR I* 10302 GETC«:IFC»-"THEN10302 10305 S1-S1-1-OPEN1,4,0 10310 0PEN2,4,2 10315 0PEN3,4.1 10317 0PEN6,4.6:PRINTi6,CHR«<24):CL0SE6 10320 PRINTil,"" 10323 PRINTil, • NAME MIN. NUMBER OF MOVES TRIAL MOVES TRIAL TIME (SECONDS) TRIAL OVERVIEWS TRIAL ERRORS AVERAGE OVERVIEW TIME TRIAL ECONOMY OF MOVES TRIAL MOVE FREQUENCY TRIAL ERROR FREQUENCY TRIAL OVERVIEW FREQUENCY TRIAL RESPONSE ACCURACY TRIAL ASSISTANCE LEVEL 10330 PRINTil,-10332 PRINTil." 10334 PRINTil," 10336 PRINTil*" 10330 PRINTil," 10340 PRINTil," 10342 PRINTil," 10344 PRINTil,* 10346 PRINTil," 10340 PRINTil,* 10350 PRINTil," 10352 PRINTil," 10330 PRINTil,"" 10359 6tJSUB138eeG0SUBlieiW0PEH6,4-6:PRINTCHR*<24) :CUJS£6:00SUB17888 o 18360 PRINTil," SEQUENCE UAS:* ^ :";S1* ";S2 ";si "; INT«T6/60)«100)/'100 •;m •;N2 » *;si/S2 ";S1/T6 •;N2/T6 •;N1/T6 ";N2/ 1 ";NI/SI 10361 OOSUB18800 16367 PRINTi2."999 A 99999 99999 A 99999" 16370 J-0:Il-|:FORI>lTO3e0 10379 IFI-c^ llTWENF0RI2-lT04PRINTil, *":NEXTI2:11-11*1 :GOSUB18800 10380 IFSl<I,l>-0AHMia.3>-0THENI-300:GOTO10490 10389 IFSia.i>-0THENJ«-"-" 10390 IFSKI.1>-2THENJ*-"T" 10400 IFS1<I.1>-4THENJ*-"L" 10410 IFSt<I,l>-6THENJ*»"Ra 10420 IFSia»l>">8THENJ*-"F" 10430 IFS1CI,3)-1THEHI«-"?" :J-J*1 10439 IFSl<I,3>-0THENI*-"-» 10437 IFS1<1.3>-2THENI*«"N":JW1*1 10440 PRINTB3* I-J-Jl>J*,CHW<29>Sl<I,2).Sl<r3>>I«.CHR*<29)SKI,4> 104S0 NEXTl:J-0:Jl-0 10900 II1-0:I2^ :CL0SEia0SE2:CL0SE3:R£TURN 11000 REM 11001 REM: PRINT MAZE ON PAPER 11010 PRINT'S "*:S2"0 11020 FORI-lTOH:PRINT" " ; NEXTPRINT'W" 11100 F0RJ-1T0V:PRINT» VU CM HUT; :F0RI-1T0H 11129 K»PEEK<V1*I*J»H1> 11130 PRIHTHIO*<". I I M*3*K,3>; 11140 IFK<^ THEHPRIHT*.TI CM Mf; 11200 PRINTarV; 11210 IFPEEK<W*I*JW1)-1THEHPR1MT"«.*; =S2-S2+1 11290 IFI-SXHNBJ-SVTHENPRIhT'lia • * ; 11260 IFI-CXflKXJ<VTHENPRlNT"Ui- i 11270 IFI-XAHW-VThEHPRINT"ir;MIM<-T>V<",i>l.l); 11280 PRIHT-MT; 11290 NEXT=PRIHT-MT = NEXT 11299 OETC* 11300 IFC*-"P"THEHOOSUBl3800 :GOTOU330 11310 G0T011299 11330 RETURN 12000 REM TIME FOR ? . 12010 S1<S1>4>-TI-T8:S1<31.3)-1:N1-N1*1S1«S1*1 12020 RETURN | 13000 REM: CALCULATE STATS 13010 PRINT1*anTHERE HILL BE A SLIGHT PAUSE FOR CALCULATIONS'" 13020 FORX1-1T09 13030 F0RY1-1T02 13040 A<Xl,VD-0:B<Xl,Vl>-0 13090 NEXTV1 13060 NEXTX1 13070 F0RZ-1T02 13080 A-0 13090 FORV1-1T04 13100 A-A*2 13110 IFZ-1TNENGOSUB14900 13120 1FZ-2THENGOSUB14730 1313d HEXTVt 13140 IFZ-1ANDA<9.2>O0THENA<9.3>-A<9<1VA<9,2> 13190 IF2-2ANDB<9,2>O0THENB<9.3>-B<9.1>/B<9,2> 13160 HEXT2 iSllS C?--iliAAA^ T3«l99 999 9999.99 99999 999 9999.99" 13192 PRINTi2. C* 13193 PRINTil,*" 13194 PRINTS!. "MOVE TURNIN8 TIMES OVERVIEW TIMES 13199 PRINTil, ' TOTAL NO. OF TIME TOTAL NO. OF TIME" 13196 PRINTil, " TIME RESPONSES TIME RESPONSES " 13197 PRINTil, " TURN TURN" 13198 PRINTil."" 13208 F0RX1-1T09 13202 IFX1-1THENI*-"AR0UND" 13203 IFX1-2THENI*-"LEFT" 13204 IFX1-3THENI«-"RI0HT" 13209 IFX1-4THENI*-"F0RWARD" 13206 IFX1«9THEHI*-"T0TAL" 13210 IFXl-3THENPRINTil>" 13220 PRINT*), I«CHR«<29>A<Xl,l>.A<X1.2>.A<X1.3).B(Xl.l>.B*:Xl/2>.B<Xt.3> 13230 NEXTX1 13290 RETURN 14300 REM RESPONSE STATS 14310 FORX1-1TO980 14320 IFSl<Xt.l)-8ANuSl<Xl<3>-0Tl^ ENXl«980--GOrO14940 14330 IFS1(XI,1>-ATHENACVl.1>-A<V1,1>+S1CXI.2>•A(V1,2>-A(Vl> 2>*1 14340 NEXTX1 14390 A<9.1>-A<9.1>*A<V1,1> 14360 A<9,2>-A<9»2>*A<V1,2> 14370 IFA(Vl,2>O0THENAm.3>-A(Vl/l>/A<Vl<2> 14388 RETURN 14790 REM ? STATS 14760 FORX1-1TO908 14770 IFS1(X1.1>-8ANDS1<X1<3>-0THENX1-900:OOTO14790 14780 IFS1 <X1.3>-lANDSl<X1*1.1 >-ATHENB(Vl, 1 >-B<Vl. 1 >*S1<Xl,4):B(V1.2>»B<Y1,2>*1 14790 NEXTX1 14808 B<9.1>-B<9.1>*B<V1<1> 14810 B<3.2>-B<9.2>*B<Vl>2> 14820 IFB<VI.2>O0THENB(VI.3>-B<Vl< 1 )/BCVI ,2) 14830 RETURN 19800 REM: COPY SCREEN TO PRINTER 19010 0PEN6.4.6:PRINT»6.CHR«<18):SVS32296 19020 CL0SE6:T7-TI:RETURN 16808 REM: PAUSE 16010 CETC*:IFC«-""THEN16010 16020 RETURN 17800 REM: ADJUST FOR TEXT FORMAT 17010 PR INT "3nPSSPLEASEB: SWITCH PRINTER SWITCH OFF - THEN ON AGAIN!" 17019 PRINT"* : ADVANCE PAPER TO NEXT SHEET." 17020 PRINT'WTHEN PRESS JSPACE BARB TO CONTINUE DM" 17630 GcTC*:IFC*-'"THEN17030 17040 RETURN 18800 REN: HEADER FOR PACE 18018 PRINTil* " NO. MOVE MOVE TIME OVERVIEWS OVERVIEW" 18828 PRINTil* " RESPONSE GENERATION • ERRORS TIME * 18030 PRINTil."" 18048 RETURN 19000 REM: COPY MAZE GENERATION STATISTICS 19818 0PEN1.4 19020 PRINTil."CHEESE STARTING POSITIONS - ";CX 19030 PRINTil." - ";CY o 19040 PRINTil."MAZE STARTING POSITIONS -*;I CO 19090 PRINTil." - "iJ 19033 PRINTil," - ";K / 19660 PRINTil,"RANDOM SELECTIONS* 19070 FOR X9-0T0N3STEP10 19080 FOR Y9-1T018 19090 PRIHTtl. S2<X9*V9>; 19100 HEXTV9 19U0 PRINT01."" 19120 NEXTX3 19130 K3»l:CLOSE 1 19132 PRINT"DO VOU MISH A SCREEN DUMP* 19136 0OSUB2eee-'GOSU626eed:SVS322S£:EHO:OOT01914a 19130 IFC*-"N"THEN 19140 19139 GOT019I34 19140 RETURN 20000 REM: GRAPHICS PRINT TO PRINTER 20010 OPE>46,4.6:PRINT«6.CHR«O0>:CIOSE6:R£TURN 90000 FORI-HL TO ML-M29:REflD DTPOKEKDTNEXTI RETURN 90010 DATA169,120.133.32/169.0/133.31.169,4.133,176,133.212.32,106,240 90011 DATA32,49.241,169.25.133,34.169.13.133,33.32.210,299,169,I1 90012 DATA174.76,232,224.13.288,2.169,149,32,210,259,160,0,177,31 90013 DATA41.127,170,177,31,69,33,16,11,177,31,133,33,41,128,73 90014 DATA46.32.210.2SS.130,201,32,176.4.9.64,208.14.201,64.144 90019 DATA10.201.96.176,4,9,128,200,2,73,192,32,210.259.200,192 50016 9ATA40,144,203,165,31,105,39,133,31,144,2,230,32,198.34.208 . 90017 DATA166.169,13,32,210,255,76,204.295,114,33.97,63.127.110,87,0,0 61995 REM 6200O PRINT*3r;TAB<9>. "CURSOR ";PG« 62010 PRINT"* COPYRIGHT <C> 1979 BV C. T. NAOOVICH 62020 FORI-ITO10-PRINT" " ; = NEXT-PRINT 62O30 PRINT-aFIND VOUR WAV THROUGH A PERSPECTIVE MAZE 62032 PRINT-kVOUR CONTROLS ARE-' 62034 PRINT"* 8 MOVES VOU FORWARD SOUES POSITION 62039 PRINT'* 4 TURN LEFT 90 DEGREES. 62036 PRINT-* 6 TURN RIGHT 90 DEGREES. 62030 PRINT"* 2 TURNS AROUND (180 DEGREES) 62040 PRINT** ? HELPI 62049 PRIHT'ttBXPRESS SKETURN* TO BEGIN 62050 G£TT*:IFT»-—THEN620S0 62060 CLR:QK>^ :CR4>O*M(13>:IFPEEK<50000>rHENQK-lS0 62070 PRINT-3" :GOT0168 READV. O 2 1 0 COMPUTER PROGRAM - VERSION II FIGURE 5 CHART SHOWING SAMPLE INFORMATION GENERATED BY THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION II. THE VALUES FOR CX, CY, SX, AND SY WERE ENTERED INTO VERSION II BY THE AUTHOR TO FIX THE STARTING POSITION AND CHEESE POSITION FOR ALL MAZES GENERATED BY THE PROGRAM VERSION II <THE SAME STARTING POSITION AND CHEESE POSITION AS MAZE #1). THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION II GENERATES THE VALUES OF N NECESSARY TO GENERATE A SECOND MAZE. THE AUTHOR SELECTED CERTAIN VALUES FROM VERSION II AS DATA STATEMENTS TO ENTER INTO THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION III IN ORDER THAT MAZE #2 WOULD BE THE SECOND COMPUTER MAZE PRESENTED TO THE SUBJECTS IN THIS STUDY. VALUES COMPUTER EXPLANATION FROM THE PROGRAM PROGRAM VARIABLE VERSION II 4(LINE 3(LINE 12(LINE 6<LINE 200) 200) 950) 950) REFER TO LINES 3190-3350 OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION III AND LINE 450 OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION II CX X AXIS LOCATION OF THE CHEESE CY Y AXIS LOCATION OF THE CHEESE SX X AXIS LOCATION OF THE START SY Y AXIS LOCATION OF THE START N RANDOM NUMBERS GENERATED BY THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION II - THESE NUMBERS WERE ENTERED INTO THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION III (ALONG WITH THE NUMBERS WHICH REPRESENTED THE LOCATIONS OF THE CHEESE AND THE START) AS DATA STATEMENTS IN ORDER THAT MAZE #2 WOULD BE THE SECOND COMPUTER MAZE PRESENTED TO SUBJECTS IN THE THE MICROCOMPUTER EXERCISE. j ^ % VIJ w u » w «v r~ ^ • A " i5 5*5 55 ^  fl^ ^ *^  ^ j3*tT ^ ***« B E w t i i ) i I £ ± M o » q - » K J « - _ * S ' L C l c y Z « OS 4498 PRINT'S 4499 RETURN 4380 DN=VL<S>:GOSUB7080 4313 IFS-0THENPRINTTAB<XL<S»;*_* 4320 IFS>0ANDS<4THENFC*I-1T04-S:PRINTTAB<XL<S>>* I" NEXT 4543 IFS>0THENPRINTTA8<XL<S>>LEFT*<" I «»6-S> 4363 IFS-4TH£NPRINTTAB<XL<S>>" I U U I P 4370 a*-**:IFS>0THENQ*-MID*<"tt»l P,S> 4372 IFS<4THENF0RJ«0TQN2CS>*1 :PRINTTAB<XL<S»* PQ*:NEXT 4573 IFS>0THENPRlNTTflB<XL(S>)LEFT*<" I *,6-S> 4395 IFS>0ANDS<4TH^ ORI-1TO4-S-PRINTTAB(XL<S>>' P:NEXT 4396 IFS-OTHENPRIHTTAB<XL<S>>"-* 4397 PRINT** 4399 RETURN 4700 ON-VL<S>:GO8UB7000 4715 IFS-0TH£NPRINTTAB<XL<S>>;*N":GOTO4730 4720 F0RI-1T0S-S:PRINTTAB<XL<S>*I>*\*:NEXT 4730 DH-N2<S>+2:6OSUB7100 4735 IFS-8THEHPRINTTflBCXL<S))•/- •00T04749 4740 FORI-0TO4-S:PRINTTflB<».<S>*3-8-I>*/^ :NEXT 4749 PRINT"*" 4730 RETURN 4880 OOSUB4200 4815 BH-VL<S>*3-S:OOSUB7000 4820 FRINTTA8<20)« 4825 IFS<4THENF0RI-1TDXR(S>-21 SPRINT""""; :NEXT 4830 PRINT'TW; 4835 IFS<4THENF0RI-1T0N2<S>:PRINT* Wi :NEXT 4848 PRINT* J"Jf" 4830 IFS<4THENFORI-lTOXR(S)-20-l:PRINT"_UB-; NEXT 4851 PRINT'S 4855 RETURN 4900 IFS-0THEHJ-3 • G0TO4910 4902 J-0 4910 OOSUB4700 4915 DH-VL<S>«5-S:COSUB7800 4920 PRINTTAB(19>; 4925 IFS<4THENF0RI-lT018-XUS>-5*S*J:PRIHTaT"r; :NEXT 4938 PRINTTW; 4935 IFS<4THENF0RI-1T0N2<S>:PRINT"I )0r;:HEXT 4940 PRINT'L*; 4930 IFS<4THEMF0RI-tT018-XL<S)-3+S>J:PRINT"_";:NEXT 4931 PRINT** 4935 RETURN 3800 IFS-0ORS-4THENRETURN 3810 ON-18:COSUB7080 3020 IFSx3THENPRINTTAB<20>i arm 3030 IFS«2THENPRINCTAB<19>;aCTTOrttM/ri 3040 IFS*1THENPRINTTA8<18>;*« _ J J U I H / I IIIIMIf— I •••••III— 3930 RETURN 3180 IFS»0ORS-4THENRETURN 5110 DH-20:GOSUB708O 3120 IFS-3THEWRINTTAB(19>;-rTTTTT5U»TUUfc« 5130 IFS-2THENPRINTTAB(16>;*rmr 1 3141 IFS-lTHENPRINTTA8<13>;"5r ^ 5142 IFS»lTHENPR!NTTAB<12);aar * 3150 RETURN 6000 T6-TI-T5 6081 K-TI :F0RI-1T023 P0KE243.22:PRINT PRINTTHB<13)'DEl.ICI0U3l" :F0RJ-':F0RJ-1TO30:NEXTJ, I 6010 P0KE243,22--PRINT:PRINTTAB<13)* 6100 OOSU8103OO:OOTO61ie 6102 PRINT "HBO VOU WANT TO CONTINUE ?" 6104 GET T*: IF T* * "V* THEN GOSUB12800: PR INT "3": GO TO 1030 6106 IF T* » *N* THEN GOSUB12000:GOSUB8OO0:GOTO6110 6108 GO TO 6104 6110 PRINT *TDO VOU WANT ANOTHER HAZE ' ; 6113 SU°l:TM*0 6120 GETT*: IFT*O""THEN6200 6130 IFTI>THTHENPRINTHID*<"? ",SW, 1>; "II"; :TM-TI*15:SW-3-SW 6140 GOTO6120 6200 IFT*-*V"ORT*"CR«THEHPRINTaVES":OOTO20O 6210 IFT«-*N*THENEND 6220 G0T06120 7000 PRINT"*", 7100 IFDN>aTHENF0R2»lT0DN:PRINT**"; NEXT 7110 RETURN 8080 REN 8001 REM:SET TIME/PRINT MAZE,PRINT DATA 8818 T6-TI-T5:S1-S1-N1-N2:GOSUB10300:RETURN 8820 RETURN 9000 REM:COUNTER si 9010 Sl<S1.2)«TI-r7:SK31,l)-I:Sl-Sl*l 9630 RETURN 9999 REM 10300 REM PRINT OUT ON PAPER 10301 PRINTVnUHEN PRINTER IS SREADV! Iff — PRESS 4SPACE BAR I* 16302 GETC<:IFC««**THEN10302 10305 S1-S1-1:OPEH1,4,0 10310 0PEN2,4,2 10315 0PEN3.4,1 10320 PRINTil,"" 10325 PRINTil, " 10330 PRINTil,* 10332 PRINTil,*' 10334 PRINTil,a 10336 PRINTil,* 10338 PRINTil,* 10340 PRINTil,* 10342 PRINTil," 10344 PRINTil,* 16346 PRINTil,* 10348 PRINTil,* 18338 PRINTil,* 10332 PRINTil,* 18358 PRINTil,*" 10359 GOSUB13080:GOSUB!ie00:GOSU817000 10360 PRINTil," SEQUENCE MAS:* ~ 10361 GOSUB1800O 16367 PRINTi2,'999 A 99999 99999 10370 J-0:U-l-FORI-lT030e 10375 IFI-60«IlTHENF0RI2-lT04:PRINTil, *":NEXTI2:11-11*1:OOSUB180OO 10380 IFSl<I,l>=flANDSl<T.3>«0THENI-300:GOTO10430 10385 IFSl<T,l)-OTHENJ«-*-» 18398 IFSKI,1>-2THENJ#-"T" ro 10400 IFS1U,1>-4THENJ*-"L" i-" 10410 IrSl<I.l>-6THENJ«-"R- OJ 10420 IFSl<I,l)-8THENJ«-"Fa 10430 IFSKI,3>-1THENI#-"?* NAME HIN. NUMBER OF MOVES TRIAL MOVES TRIAL TIME (SECONDS) TRIAL OVERVIEWS TRIAL ERRORS AVERAGE OVERVIEW TIME TRIAL ECONOMY OF MOVES TRIAL MOVE FREQUENCY TRIAL ERROR FREQUENCY TRIAL OVERVIEW FREQUENCY TRIAL RESPONSE ACCURACY TRIAL ASSISTANCE LEVEL :*;S18 *;S2 •;si *; INT«T6/60>*10O>/'1OO *JN1 *;N2 •a •;si/S2 *;S1/T6 *;N2/T6 "JN1/T6 •;N2/ l *;NI/SI 99999" J-J+l 18435 IFSKI.3>-0THENI*-"-" 1843? IFSI<I,3>=2THENI«-*N":,I1=J1*1 18448 PRINTB3, I-J-Jl. Jt.CHR*<29>Sl<I.2>.SKI.3). I*.CHR*(29>SKI.4> 18458 HEXTI:J"8:Jl-0 18588 lH^d-I2"6:CL0SE1:CL0SE2:CLOSE3'RETURN u e e a REM 11881 REM: PRINT MAZE ON PAPER 11010 PRINT'3 *;:S2«8 11820 FOR1-1TOH:PRINT" "J :HEXT:PRINT"]»r 11100 FORJ-ITOV:PRINT" f a l tH Wi :F0RI"1TGH 11125 K«P£EK<V1*I+J*H1> 11130 PRINTMIB*<" I I «.1*3»K.3>; 11140 IFK<2THENPRINT"m fTI DOT. I120O PRiNT'nr; 11210 IFPEEK<H+I+J»H1)-1THENPRINT"IL*; •S2»«2*l 11250 IFI-SXANDJ-SVTHENPRINT'U W, 11260 IFI<XANDJH^ rTHENPRINT*ltr; 11270 IFI=XANW-VTHENPRINT«r;MIM<"1!>V<"»IN-l.l>i 11260 PRINT-HT; 11290 NEXT PRINT"MT NEXT 11293 GETC* 11300 IFC»-"P"THENGOSUB13080:OOTO1133O 11310 G0T0U295 11330 RETURN 12000 REM TIME FOR 7 12010 Sl<Sl,4>-TI-T8:SKSl,3)-t:Nl-Nl*l:81«Sl*l 12020 RETURN 13000 REM: CALCULATE STATS 13010 PRINT"snTHERE MILL BE A SLIGHT PAUSE FOR CALCULATIONSI" 13020 FORX1-1TOS 13030 F0RV1-IT02 13040 R<Xl.Vt>-0:B<Xl.Vl>-0 13050 NEXTV1 13060 NEXTX1 13070 FORZ-1T02 13080 A-0 13090 F0RV1-IT04 13100 A-A+2 13110 IFZ*1THENG0SUB14500 13120 IFZ-2THENGOSUB147S0 13130 NEXTVI 13140 IFZ-1 ANDA<5.2>O0THENA<5. 3>-A<3. 1 >/A<3,2> 13150 IFZ«2AHDB<S.2>O0THENB<5,3>>B<S.1>/B<5'2> 13160 NEXTZ 13170 REM PRINT STATS 13190 C*»"AAAAAAA 99999 999 9999.99 99999 999 9999.99" 13192 PRINT.2, C* 13193 PRINTil."• 13194 PRINTil. "MOVE TURNING TIMES OVERVIEW TIMES 13195 PRINTil. " TOTAL NO. OF TIME TOTAL NO. OF TIME" 13196 PRINTil. • TIME RESPONSES TINE RESPONSES 13197 PRINTil. " TURN TURN* 13190 PRINTil."" 13200 F0RX1-1T05 13202 IFX!-1THENI*-"AR0UND" 13203 IFX1-2THEHI*-"LEFT» 13204 IFX1-3TH£NI«-"RIGHT" 13205 IFX1«4THENI«-"F0RUAR0" 13206 IFX1-5THENU--T0TAL" 13210 IFXl-5THENPRINTil,"" 13220 PRINTi3. I*CHR*<29)A<X1.1>.A(X1.2>.A(X1.3>.B<X1.1>>B(X1.2>,B(X1.3> 13230 HEXTX1 13250 RETURN 14S00 REM RESPONSE STATS 14510 FORX1-1TO300 14520 IFS1<X1.1>>0ANDSKX1.3>-0THENX1-500:GOTO14540 14530 IFSKX1.1 >-ATNENA<VI. 1 >-A<VI. 1 >+Sl <X1.2>:A<V1.2>-A<Vl. 2>*1 14540 NEXTX1 14550 A<5.0"A<5.1>*A<V1.1> 14560 A<5.2>-A<S,2)+A<V1.2> 14570 IFA<VI. 2)O0THENA(V1. 3>-A(VI. 1 >/H<VI. 2> 14580 RETURN 14750 REM ? STATS 14760 FORX1-1TO300 14778 IFS1<X1.I>»<ANDS1<X1.3>-*THENX1-500:GOTO14790 14780 IFS1 <X1.3>-1ANDS1 <X1*1.1 >«ATHENB<V1.1 >-B<Yl. 1HS1 <X1.4>:B<VI.2>-B(Vl.2)*1 14798 NEXTX1 14800 B<3,1>-B(3.1>*B<V1.1) 14818 B<5.2>-B<5.2>+8m.2> 14828 IFB<VI. 2)O0THENB<V1. 3>-B<yi. 1 >/B<Vl. 2> 14830 RETURN 13O00 REM: COPY SCREEN TO PRINTER 15828 CL0SE6: T7»TI '• RETURN 16O00 REM: PAUSE 16010 GETC*:IFC*«"-TKEN160ie 16020 RETURN 17000 REM: ADJUST FOR TEXT FORMAT 17010 PRINT"*»naPL£ASE|- SWITCH PRINTER SWITCH OFF - THEN ON AGAIN I* 17015 PRINT** : ADVANCE PAPER TO NEXT SHEET." 17020 PRINT"*BTHEN PRESS SSPACE BARB TO CONTINUEIW" 17030 GETC«:IFC«*>""THEN17030 17040 RETURN 18000 REM: HEADER FOR PAGE 18010 PRINTil. • N0. HOVE HOVE TIME OVERVIEWS OVERVIEW" 18020 PRINTil. " RESPONSE GENERATION • ERRORS TIME * 18030 PRINTil."" 18048 RETURN 19080 REM: COPY MAZE GENERATION STATISTICS 19020 PRINT"CHEESE START"JCX 19030 PRINT" ".CV 19040 PRINT'MAZE START";SX 19050 PRINT" ";SV 19060 PRINT"RANDOM SELECTIONS" 19070 FOR X9-0TON3STEP10 19080 FOR V9-1TO10 19090 PRINT S2<X9+V9>i 19100 NEXTV9 19110 PRINT 19128 NEXTX9:END 19130 H3-1 19132 GOSUB2000:GOTO1913O 19136 IFC<-*V"THENGOSUB2000:GOTO19130 ro 19130 IFC*-"N*TNEH 19140 >-19139 G0T019I34 19140 RETURN 19190 GETC*:IFC*-"PUTHENGOTO1900© 19159 IFC*»"R"THENRUN 19160 IFC*»*"THEH19150 20000 REM: GRAPHICS PRINT TO PRINTER 30000 FORI-ML TO ML+129'READ DT:POKEI,DT = NEXTI:RETURN 30010 DATA169,128,133,32,169,0,133,31,169,4,133,176,133,212,32,186,240 36011 DATA32,4S,241,169,29,133,34,169,13,133,33,32,210,253,169,11 30012 DATA174,76,232,224,13,208,2,169,143,32,218,233,160,0,177,31 30013 DATA41,127,178,177,31,69,33,16,11,177,31,133,33.41,128,73 38014 DATA46,32,218,299,138,281,32,176,4,9,64,208,14,201,64,144 98819 OATA10,201,96,176,4,9,128,208,2,73,192,32,210,259,200.192 30016 DATA40,144,203,169,31,109,39,133,31,144,2,230,32,198,34,208 30017 DATA166,169,13,32,218,233,76,204,253,114,33,97,63,127,118,87,8,0 39040 PRINT-MAZE START"JI 61999 REM 62800 PRINT"3M";TRBC9><° "CURSOR #*;NH*;" ",PO* 62010 PRINT"* COPYRIGHT <C> 1979 BY C. T. HADOV1CH 62020 FORI-1TO10:PRINT" ";:NEXT:PRINT 62830 PRIHT'MFINO YOUR MAY THROUGH A PERSPECTIVE MAZE 62032 PRINT"»VOUR CONTROLS ARE: 62034 PRINT"* 8 MOVES VOU FORWARD JONES POSITION 62833 PRINT"* 4 TURN LEFT 90 DEGREES. 62036 PRINT** 6 TURN RIGHT 90 DEGREES. 62038 PRINT** 2 TURNS AROUND (130 DEGREES) 62040 PRINT"* ? HELP I 62049 PRINT'WnPRESS aRETURNf TO BEGIN 62850 G£TT*:IFT*-"THEN62090 62060 aR:QK»323:CR^ 4>««(13>:lFPEEK(50O00)THENaK-158 62670 PRINT"3*:GOTO1O0 READY. 2 1 6 COMPUTER PROGRAM - VERSION III THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM PRESENTS MAZE #1 FOLLOWED BY MAZE #2 TO EACH SUBJECT IN THIS STUDY. THE DATA COLLECTED WHILE EACH SUBJECT COMPLETED THE TWO COMPUTER MAZES WAS ACCUMULATED DURING THE MICROCOMPUTER ASSIGNMENT BY THE MICROCOMPUTER. AFTER A SUBJECT COMPLETED EACH COMPUTER MAZE, THIS DATA WAS SAVED ON A CASSETTE TAPE WHICH WAS LOCATED IN A TAPE RECORDER ATTACHED THE MICROCOMPUTER. AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE MICROCOMPUTER SESSION, THE INFORMATION ON THESE CASSETTE TAPES WAS LOADED INTO THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION IV. • THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION IV ANALYSED AND PRINTED THE RESULTS FOR EACH PARTICIPANT IN THE MICROCOMPUTER EXERCISE. 108 REMC-APR16V83-A 118 0PEN1.1.1 120 PR INT" nUBBKENTERB FIRST NAME, INITIAL, 4 LAST NAME. -130 PRINT"* (THEN PRESS sRETURNB KEY.)" 140 INPUT"*";S1* 130 PRINT-SWBMPLEASE WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS*" 160 H2»1:S2»32 170 GETC*^  IFC*O"-"THENGOTO1?0 180 H-12:V»7:H1»H+1:W»634:V1»826 190 DIHXL<4>,H2<4>,YL<4>,XR<4>.Sl<280.5>.A<5.3>,B<5.3> 200 PRIHT-n 210 PRINT'MSETTING UP HAZE... "i 220 FORI-0TO4:READXL(I>,H2(I>,VL<I>,KR<I>:HEXTI 230 DATA0.20,-4,31,0,12.1.27,12,6,3.24,13.2,0,22,17,0.10,21 240 IFN2=2THENFORI1"1T0143:READR1:NEXTI1 250 READCX,CY 260 C-CX:R«CV:S»0:N1-0:N2>0:S1*1:T3«0 270 FORI-0TO<V>1)«H1:POKEW+I»0:POKEVH-I,0:NEXT 280 PRIHT'OmBETTIHO UP MAZE..."; 290 DA»0:N»0:AV-V1*C+R*H1 :AW-W-M>R»H1 :POKEAH, 1 -S-S+l: IFS>-H«VTHEHOOTO550 300 PRINTHID*(*dr,<SAHDl»l,l>;*Xsr; 310 IFC>1ANDPEEK<RU-1 >-0THENDA-DA+2:N=H+1 320 IFC<HANDPEEK<flM>l)=0THENDA=IA+l ;N=N+1 330 ire>lANDPEEK<AW-Hl>-0THEHDA"DA+8:H-N+l 340 IF<R<VANBPEEK<AlH-Hl>-0>THEHBA«l)A+4:H=N*l 350 READH 360 ONDA+1GOTO370,540,530,400.520.410.420,430.510,440,450,460,470.480.490.500 370 S-S-l 380 C-C+l •• IFOHTHENOl :R«R+1 = IFR>VTHEHR-1 390 ONPE£K<W*C*R»H1>+1GOTO380,290 400 ONNGOTO330.340 410 ONNGOTO520.540 420 ONNGOTO520.530 430 OHHGOTO520.530.540 440 ONHGOTOS10,540 . 450 ONNGOTOS10,530 460 ONHCOTOS10.S30,340 470 ONKOOTO510,S20 480 OKNOOTOS10.520.S40 490 ONNOOTO510.520,530 500 OHHGOTO510.520.S30.340 510 R-R-l:AV-AV-H1:POKEAV,PEEK(AV)ORl GOTO290 520 POKEAV.PEEK<AV>ORl=R=R+1:AV«AV+H1:OOTO290 530 C-C-l : AV-AV-1: POKEAV.PEEK<AV>0R2:G0T0298 540 POKEAV,PEEK<AV>0R2:CaC>l:AVaAV+l:00T0298 350 READSX,SV:X»SX:V-SV 360 T5-TI:PRIHT*3 370 FORI-UTOH><V+1>*H1:POKEI.0-NEXT 588 READS 590 T4-TI:T9«T4:POKE(W+X+Y*Hl>;l 600 T7-TI-GOSUB990 610 IFCX"XANDCWTHENGOTO2610 620 GETQ*:IFQ*»""THENGOTO620 630 IFS1-200THENGOTO2990 640 IFQ*-"/"ORQ*»,?"THENK"TI:Sl<S1.2>-TI-T7:OOSUB860-OOTO2680 650 I»VAL<Q*>:IFI«0THENOOTO620 660 IFI-2THEND=D+2:G0SUB2878 670 IFI«4THEKD»D-l:GOSUB2870 680 IFI«6THEND=D+t:G0SUB2878 690 IFD<0THEND=D+4 780 IFD>3THEND-D-4 710 IFIO8THENGOTO600 720 IFI-8THENM1«M1+1:GOSUB2870 1 730 AV-V1+X+V*H1'AW»U+X+Y*H1 740 ONDGOTO770,790.810 750 IFV>lAND<PEEK(AV-Hl>ANOl>THEHV>V-l:POKEAW-Hl.l:GOTO600 760 GOTO820 .770 IFX<HAND<PEEK(AV>ANO2>THENX-X>i:POKEAW>l.i:COTO600 780 GOTO820 790 IFY<VAND(PEEK(AV>AND1>THENY-Y+1:POKEAM+H1.1• GOTO680 : 800 GOTO820 810 IFX>lAHO(PEEK(AV-l>AHI)2>THEHX«X-l:POKEAW-l.i:GOTO600 820 BN»23:GOSUB2830 830 Sl<Sl-t,3>-2:N2-N2-+l 840 PRINTTAB<16>;* IMliBlBOSNO DOOKT = FORI- 1T01800:NEXT 858 PRlNTTfiB<16>J*n UIUIBU .T :T7»TI GOTO610 860 T8=TI:PRINT"3 " ; 870 FORI-1TOH:PRINT* ";:NEXT:PRINT"W 880 FORJ= 1TOV:PRINT" n i CIX MSB"; :FORI«1TOH 890 K=PEEK<V1+H-J*H1> 900 PRIHTMID*<" I I ".1+3*K.3>; 910 IFK<2THENPRINT"ni TO MM"; 920 PRINT".TI"; 930 IFPEEK<W+I+J*Hl)-lTHENPRINT"a*; ! 940 IFI=SXANDJ«SYTHENPRINT"Ua • " ; 950 IFI»CXANDJ=CYTHENPRINT"Ui"; 960 IFI«XANDJ»YTHENPRINT"U*;MID*<"t>V<".D+l.l>; 970 PRINT-IM"; 980 NEXT:PRINT"MM";NEXT:RETURN 990 S=0:PRINT"3* 1000 AV=V1+X+V*H1 1810 ONDGOTO1160,1300,1440 1020 IFSY=V-SANDSX»XTHENGOSUB2540 1030 IFCY=»Y-S8NDCX=XTHENC0SUB2480 1040 K=PEEK<AV-<S+1>*H1):IFK«0ORK»2THEN6OTO1110 1050 IFPEEK<AV-S»H1>AND2THENGOSUB1590:COTO1070 1060 OOSUB1710 1070 IFPEEK<AV-1-S*H1>AND2THENGOSUB2060:GOTO1090 1080 GOSUB2188 1090 S=S+1:IFS>4THENOOTO1380 ' * a i • i n _ +a <"n ( 0 / n <^ v ~ - x x l ^ l x M l S 1- Q _ 3 « a - • • O)M_;Q.MI»I • • H i 5 - E 1 < A#A/m **S \ a £ / % <i)»-wii)HA(/)»-<a SJ.S8E5S&S a. v a. a. ^ u, a. v g a (A a (A U J X 01 x 88338 3S£5§5£ CAM •• 0*-« /^S8^53. wi- n toac u cnae* Q C U l X U . O Z U . O C ( L K S M I L S H U , ! <"3 A *S O CD *® *9 C _ . 5»pN<55<r>3 — c x o * « - > < 3 f CO <S <3> -*f • t S S O n n a v ^ / s u o x o i i x n a u i u i o i a ) U.U.U.U.WU.U.U.U. »*M»*MCS*-*»*fr*M (9 9 O O O 9 ® A — a, _ a c - > 0 £ _ O I a C L ^ C L a /% •• pa •• -< fc N A « A N • X + (1)1-91 + 8 2 a O " - > l - ~ '-> W »- v , < J » C O C f | ~ a ai**^ —«tt fc-»—£•aip P •«S>«3t'«M.,o, o s g « < QC W • u> cooes to .LunAaAonyno • ttZCSSlllhCZCK • a I— r " I— — ZAZZZfrnZVZM: ) « I » H T H R Of MCAMQC* • . a H - r -Z Z ZhZ « ? O l O /s / \ / \ iftifttn b vuvh i ^ ^ x s g s s s i s e g i | 06 a. § u. N •-• i t •» u. 0 1 3 • X ^ *-• _ -"OO^n CO i t V x'f-.^J-x' wZWZv 1-4 ^  «-»»/•* M a. </>*-•</> a. L A O A O hfflL OA X & O I - t O J a H » a v ^ v jau.acsp CD 4D *9 **p 09 n v i o n i N s <T* ON <71 <7» Cft CA • ^  QJ ^  • m S « 5 _ l-IICI-II « X V Z M X KH|l|HO(H O0CU.QCOQC (9 *9 *9 OJ Qp *S CO CO CO CO w Silt y\ •» y% « * n O «-\ o i f S o t w o i 2 1 8 2168 IFS«4THENPRIHTTAB<XL<S)>" I UU I P 2118 Q*-"":IFS>0THENQ*=MIW<"»W P,S> 2126 IFS<4THENF0RI»0T0N2<S>+1:pRINTTAB<XL<S>>" rQ*=NEXT 2138 IFS>0THENPRINTTAB<XL<S>>LEFT*(" I ",6-S> 2148 IFS>0ANDS<4THENFORI-1TO4-S:PRINTTAB<XL<S>>* P-'NEXT 2156 IFS=0THENPRINTTAB(XL<S> >*~* 2168 PRINT"* 2170 RETURN 2180 BN«VL<S>:GO8UB2030 \ 2190 IFS*0THENPRINTTRB<XL<S)>;"\":GOTO2210 . 2200 F0RI»IT05-S:PRINTTfiB<XL<S)+I>*\":NEXT ! 2210 DN"N2(S>+2:GOSUB2040 ' 2220 IF3>0THENPRINTTAB<XL<S»"/":GOTO2240 ; 2230 FORI=0TO4-S:PRINTTflB<XL<S>+5-S-I>"/":NEXT 2240 PRINT"*" 2250 RETURN 2260 GOSUB1710 2270 DN=VL<S)+5-S:(J0SUB283a 2286 PRINTTA8<20>; 2296 IFS<4THENF0RI-lT0XR<S>-2l:PRINT"-";:NEXT 2300 PRINT—IM"; 2310 IFS<4THENF0RI"1T0N2(S>:PRINT" Ml"; NEXT 2320 PRINT"JM"; 2330 IFS<4THENFORI>>lTOXR<S>-20-i:PRINT*_Iir;:NEXT t 2340 PRINT"* 2350 RETURN 2360 IFS-0THENJ-5GOTO2300 2370 J«0 2380 GOSUB2180 2390 BN>VL<S>+S-S:<3OSUB2030 2400 PRINTTABU9); 2410 IFS<4THENF0RI-lT01S-XL<S>-5+S*j:PRINT"~lM"; :NEXT 2420 PRINTTIM"; 2430 IFS<4THEHF0RI-lT0N2<S):PRINT"l*ir;:NEXT 2440 PRINT'L". 2450 IFS<4THENFORI-1TO10-XL<S>-5*S*J:PRINT"_";:NEXT 2460 PRINT"* 2470 RETURN 2480 IFSJ»0ORS"4THENRETURN 2490 ON*10:COSUB2830 2500 IFS«3rHENPRINTTnB<20>;*rm. 2510 IFS=2THENPRINTTHB<19>;"X7^ rUO»Vri 2520 IF&=>1THEHPRINTTAB<10>;"* HUH/ A IIIIIHn I nmvmau 2530 RETURN 2540 IFS*80RS*4THENR£TURN 2550 DN-20:GOSU82830 2560 IFS»3THENPRINTTnB<19>;'rTTTriWllBM 2570 IFS»2TNENPRINTTHB<16) J "rrrisp* •% 2580 IFS-lTHENPRINTTRB<13>;"sr. ^ 2590 IFS-lTHENPRINTTAB<12>;"ar' "* 2600 RETURN 2610 T6-TI-T5 2620 K-TI:FORI-1T05:POKE245,22-PRINT:PRINTTAB(15>"DELICIOUSI":FORJ»1TO50:H£XTJ 2630 P0KE245,22=PRINT PRINTTAB<15>" ":FOR J=1TO50:NEXTJ,I 2640 PRINT"DtW0BB0BB0MMiPLEHSE MAITIB" = T*»"F" 2650 COSUB2920 2660 IFW2-2THENGOTO2810 2670 IFM2-1THENQOTO2730 2680 PRINT TBO VOU WANT TO CONTINUE ?* 2690 GETT*:IFT*»"Y"THENGOSUB2880:PRINT "3": COTO590 2700 IFT*-"N"ANDM2=» 1THENGOSUB2880• G0SUB2860• GOSUB2980• COSUB2920•'OOTO2730 2710 IFT*»"N"ANDM2=2THENGOSUB2880: GOSUB2860 GOSUB2980 • G0SUB2920 • G0T02810 2720 60 TO 2690 2730 PRINT "3D0 VOU UflNT ANOTHER MAZE?"; 2740 SM-i:TM=0 2750 0ETT*:IFT*O"*THENG0T02788 2768 IFTI>TNTHENPRINTMID*<"7 ",SM, l>i."U"; :TN»TI*15:SW-3-SM 2770 O0T02758 2730 IFT*»"V"THENRUN2960 2790 IFT*-"N"THENpOSUB2980:CLOSEl:GOTO2810 2800 GOTO2750 2810 PRINT"3»»OD0l0aiSTHMNKVOU FOR YOUR HELP TODAY.*" 2820 STOP 2830 PRINT"*". 2840 IFDN>0THENFORZ-1TODN:PRINT"*" i-NEXT 2850 RETURN 2860 T6=»TI-T5: RETURN 2870 SKS1. 2WI-T7: SI CS1,1 >-I = Sl-Sl+1 = T9»TI: RETURN 2880 SKSl,4)«TI-T8-H3.Sl<Sl/4)+n3:81<Sl,3)-l:Nl«Nl+l-Sl«Sl+l 2890 RETURN 2900 GETC*:IFC*-""THENGOTO2900 2910 RETURN 2920 Sl"Sl-l:PRINTil,T«:PRINTil,Sl* 2930 PRINT»1,S2=PRINTil,SI= PRINTil,T6=PRINTil,HI:PRINTil,N2 2940 PRINTil,H3:PRINTil,Ml 2950 F0RIl=lT0Sl:F0RJl-tT05:PRIHTil, Sl<11. JO :NEXTJ1 = NEXTII :CL0SE1 = RETURN 2960 H2=2•S2-35=GOSUB2980 = 0PEN1,1.1:GOTO180 2970 RETURN 2980 PRINT'OHttllSPLEASE UAITB" = RETURN 2990 GOSUB2980-PRINT"1HKKAXIMUM OF 200 RESPONSES ALLOWED)" 3000 C0SUB2888:G0SUB2868 • T*-"M"•60SUB2920 3010 IFM2=1TH£NGOTO2730 3020 IFM2-2THENG0T02818 3030 DATA4.3 3040 DATA2,3,3,2,1,2,2,2,1,2 3050 DATA1,3,2,1,2,1,1,3,2/1 3060 DATA1,3,2,1,3,3,2,2,1,2 3070 DATA2,2,2,1,1,2,1,2,1,1 3080 DATA1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2 3090 DATA1,2,2,1,1,2,2,2,1,1 r o i — • U3 3180 3118 3128 3138 3148 3158 3168 3178 3188 3198 3288 3218 3228 3238 3248 3238 3268 3278 3280 3298 3380 3310 . 3320 3330 3340 3350 READY. DATAl,1,1,1 DATA3,2,1,1 DATA2,1,1,1 DATA1,1,1,1 DATA1,1,1,1 DATA1,1,1,1 DATfll, 1,1,1 DATA1,1,1,1 DATA12,6,2 DATA4,3 DATA1,1,1,2, DATA3,2,1,2, DATA2,3,3,1, DATA2,2,2,2, DATAl, 1,2,2 DATA2,2,1,2, DATAl,1,1, DATAl, 1,1, DATAl,1,1, DATA2,1,1, DATAl,1,1, DATAl,1,1, DATAl, 1,1, DATAl,1,1, DATAl,1.1, DATA12,6,2 ,1,1,1,1,1,1 ,1,1,2,2,3,1 ,1,1,1,1,1,1 ,1,1,1,1,1,1 ,1,1,1,1,1,1 ,1,1,1,1,2,1 ,1,1,1,1,1,1 ,1,1,1,1 1,1,2 2,1,3, 2,2,1, 2,1,1, 2,1,3, 2,1,1, 1,1,1, 1,1,2, 1,1,1, 1,1,1, 1,1,1, 1,1,1, 1,1,1, 1,1,1, 1,1,1, 2,1,2 1,3,2 2,2,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 2,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1 ro o 2 2 1 COMPUTER PROGRAM - VERSION IV FIGURE 6 ILLUSTRATIONS OF SOME OF THE STATISTICS PRINTED BY THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION IV. THE SAMPLE DATA ON THIS PAGE ILLUSTRATES THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS PRINTED BY THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION IV, AND WHICH SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR COMPILING THE DATA FOR ELEVEN OF THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES IN THIS STUDY. THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE NUMBERS LISTED ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE CORRESPOND TO THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE NUMBERS LISTED IN TABLE 1. DEPENDENT 1 VARIABLE 1 NUMBER 1 COMPUTER PRINTOUT {FICTITIOUS DATA) ! NAME (SUBJECT NUMBER) 115 1 MIN. NUMBER OF MOVES 32 11 1 TRIAL MOVES 35 10 | TRIAL TIME (SECONDS) • 204. G9 6 I TRIAL OVERVIEWS 7 1 | TRIAL ERRORS 1 7 I AVERAGE OVERVIEW TIME (SECONDS) 11 . 09 13 1 TRIAL ECONOMY OF MOVES (PERCENT) 91. 43 14 | TRIAL MOVE FREQUENCY (SECONDS) 5. 85 3 I TRIAL ERROR FREQUENCY (SECONDS) 204. 7 8 I TRIAL OVERVIEW FREQUENCY(SECONDS) 29. 24 2 I TRIAL RESPONSE ACCURACY (PERCENT) 95 9 | TRIAL ASSISTANCE LEVEL (PERCENT) 20 222 FIGURE 7 ILLUSTRATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STATISTICS PRINTED BY THE COMPUTER PROGRAM VERSION IV. THE AUTHOR USED DATA SIMILAR TO THE INFORMATION ON THE NEXT PAGE TO MANUALLY CALCULATE THE THREE REMAINING DEPENDENT VARIABLES < TRIAL RESPONSES, TRIAL POINT OF REFERENCE ERRORS, AND TRIAL ORIENTATION ERRORS). THE "GENERATION TIME" COLUMN REPRESENTS THE TIME REQUIRED BY THE MICROCOMPUTER TO CREATE AND PRINT A GRAPHIC REPRSENTATION OF A FIELD OF REFERENCE ON THE COMPUTER SCREEN. THE SEQUENCE OF MOVES COMPLETED BY A SUBJECT .IS REPRESENTED BY THE T (TURN AROUND), L (LEFT TURN), R (RIGHT TURN), AND F (FORWARD MOVE) SYMBOLS IN THE "MOVE" COLUMN. THE "TOTAL RESPONSE TIME" COLUMN REPRESENTS THE TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN THE TIME THE MICROCOMPUTER BEGINS TO CREATE A COMPUTER GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF A FIELD OF REFERENCE ON THE COMPUTER SCREEN AND THE TIME THE SUBJECT PRESSES ONE OF THE CONTROL KEYS (FORWARD, LEFT, RIGHT, TURN AROUND, OR ?). EACH "?" REPRESENTS A POSITION IN THE MAZE WHEN A SUBJECT REQUESTS AN OVERVIEW. EACH "N" REPRESENTS A POSITION IN THE MAZE WHEN A SUBJECT COMMITS AN ERROR. THE "OVERVIEW TIME" COLUMN REPRESENTS THE TIME ELAPSED WHILE A SUBJECT IS VIEWING AN OVERVIEW. THE "NET TIME" COLUMN REPRESENTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE IN THE "TOTAL RESPONSE TIME" COLUMN AND THE VALUE IN THE "GENERATION TIME" COLUMN (THE TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN THE TIME WHEN A FIELD OF REFERENCE IS PRINTED ON' THE COMPUTER SCREEN AND THE TIME WHEN THE SUBJECT PRESSES ONE OF THE CONTROL KEYS. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 223 • FIGURE 7 < CONTINUED) SEQUENCE WAS <ALL TIMES ARE MEASURED IN 60TH OF SECONDS '. ) : ro. GENERATION MOVE TOTAL OVERVIEWS OVERVIEW NET TIME RESPONSE AND TIME TIME TIME ERRORS 113 — 1364 ? 1143 1251 r 73 T 112 - 39 2 71 L 263 - 192 3 32 R 171 - 139 4 70 F 111 - 41 5 40 L 84 - 44 5 78 206 709 128 6 78 F 120 - 42 7 40 L 74 - 34 8 105 F 199 - 94 9 81 F 118 - 37 10 42 R 168 - 126 10 109 - 137 7 458 28 11 109 F 141 - 32 12 78 F 110 - 32 13 42 R 93 - 51 14 85 F 151 - 66 15 41 L 77 - 36 16 85 F 149 - 64 17 33 T 193 - 160 17 102 - 191 832 89 18 102 R 133 - - 31 19 88 F 122 - 34 20 43 R 118 - 75 20 140 - 292 540 152 21 139 F 170 - 31 22 129 F 151 - 22 23 134 F 167 - 33 24 144 R 227 - 83 25 102 F 179 - 77 26 43 R 100 - 57 26 83 - 155 585 72 27 83 F 114 - 31 28 40 L 140 - 100 29 112 F 157 - 45 30 86 F 112 - 26 31 41 L 73 - 32 31 104 - 171 ? 391 67 32 104 F 108 - 4 33 79 F 81 - 2 33 42 F 44 N 2 34 R 99 - 99 35 100 F 143 - 43 108 CLR-REM: P-RPfi16/83 110 DEF FNA(X)-INT((X*100)+.3)/'100 120 OOSUB1680 130 END 140 REM AS OF 25 SEP 79 130 REM: SI*- NAME OF SUBJECT 160 REM: S2 - MINIMUM » OF MOVES 170 REM: SI - • OF MOVES MADE (TRIAL MOVES) 188 REM: HI - 8 OF PEEKS AT MAZE (TRIAL OVERVIEWS) 190 REM: H2 - • OF 'NO DOORS' (TRIAL ERRORS) 288 REM: T3 - START TIME FOR MAZE 210 REM: T6 - TIME TAKEN FOR MAZE (TRIAL TIME) 228 REM: T7 - START TIME FOR A MOVE 230 REM: T8 - START TIME FOR ? 248 REM-' T9 - START TIME FOR VIDEO PRINT 250 REM: S1(S1,1) - TYPE OF MOVE MADE 268 REM: SKS1,2> - TIME FOR HOVE 270 REM: SKS1.3) - OVERVIEW REQUIRED 280 REM-' SKS1.4) - TIME FOR HELP 290 REM: 81(St,3) - GENERATION TIME 300 REM: R3 - TOTAL OVERVIEW TIME 310 REM: Ml - NO. OF FORWARD MOVES 320 REM: H2 - t OF MAZES COMPLETED 330 REM PRINT OUT ON PAPER 340 PRINTTMPRESS SSPACE BARS WHEN PRINTER IS READYI" 358 GETC*:IFC*-""THEN350 360 OPEN1,4.0 378 0PEN2,4,2 388 0P£N3,4,1 398 PRINTil, 488 PRINTil, * NAME :";S1* 418 PRINTil,* MIN. NUMBER OF MOVES =*,S2 428 PRINTil," TRIAL MOVES :*;S1-N1-N2 438 PRINTil," TRIAL TIME (SECONDS) :*;INT«T6/60)«100)/100 440 PRINTil,* TRIAL OVERVIEWS :"JN1 430 PRINTil,* TRIAL ERRORS :*;N2 460 IFNl=0THENPRIHTil," AVERAGE OVERVIEW TIME (SECONDS)-'*i* NO OVERVIEWS* 470 IFN1»0THENGOTO300 488 X-(M3/60)/Nl 490 IFNlO0THENPRINTil, * AVERAGE OVERVIEW TIME (SECONDS)' *;FNA(X) 380 IFS1-N1-N2=0THEN1970 310 IF T*-"N*THENGOSUB2048:GOTO558 528 IF T*»"M"THENGOSUB2068:GOTO558 330 Xa(S2ASl-Nl-N2>)«108 548 PRINTil," TRIAL ECONOMY OF MOVES (PERCENT):*;FNA(X) 538 IFS1-N1-N2-0THEN2010 560 X-(T6/60V(S1-N1-N2) 570 PRINTil," TRIAL HOVE FREQUENCY (SECONDS):";FNA(X) 388 IFH2=0THEN2020 390 X»(T6/60)/'(H2) 600 PRINTil," TRIAL ERROR FREQUENCY (SECONDS):*;FNA(X) 610 IFN1-0THEN203O 620 X»(T6/60)AN1> 638 PRINTil," TRIAL OVERVIEW FREQUENCV(SECONDS):";FNA(X) 640 IFM1-OTHEN1990 630 X«((M1-N2)/M1)*100 660 PRINTil," TRIAL RESPONSE ACCURACY (PERCENT):*;FNA(X) 670 IF(S1-N1-N2)-0THEN1988 680 X«(N1AS1-H1-H2))»188 698 PRINTil,* TRIAL ASSISTANCE LEVEL (PERCENT)=";FNA(X> 788 PRINTil,"" 718 GOSUB980:GOSUB1320PRINTil, 720 PRINTil,"' SEQUENCE WAS (ALL TIMES ARE MEASURED IN 66TH OF SECONDS.)-" 730 PRINTil."" 740 GOSUB1600-730 PRINTi2,*' 999 9999999 A 9999999 A 9999999 9999999" 760 J=0: Jl»0:ll=t :F0RI=>lT05ea 770 IFI»S0*!1*1TKENGOSUB1320:GOSUB1600 788 IFSl(I,l)=8ANDSl(I,3>"0THENI«580:GOTO880 790 IFS1(I.D=0THEHJ*-"-" 808 IFSl(I,l)«2THENJ*="T" 810 IFS1(I,1)«4THENJ«»"L" 828 IFSl(I,l)=6THENJ$=»*R* 830 IFS1(I,1)«8THENJ«»*F" 848 IFS1(1,3)»1THENI*="?" :J-J+1 838 IFS1(I,3)»0THEHI*»"-" 860 IFSl(I-3)-2THENI«a"N":Jl-Jl*l 863 S9-S1(I,2)-S1(I,3> 870 PRINT83, I-J-J1.S1(I,5),J*,CHR*(29>Sl(I,2>.I$,CHR«(29)S1(I,4>,S9 880 NEXTI:J»0:JI«0 890 I1»8:I2=8:CLOSE1:CL0SE2:CL0SE3•RETURN 900 REM: CALCULATE STATS 910 PRINT" iTSOHB ' 920 PRINT"J THERE WILL BE A SLIGHT PAUSEI 930 PRINT*« 940 PRINT"** (I AM CALCULATING STATISTICS I ) • 950 FORX1-1T03 960 F0RV1-1T02 970 A(X1,Y1>«0:8(X1,VI)«0 980 NEXTV1 990 NEXTX1 1000 F0RZ-1T02 1010 A-8 1020 F0RV1»1T04 1030 A-A+2 1040 IFZ»1THENGOSUB1340 1030 IFZ=2THENGOSUB1430 1060 NEXTY1 1070 IFZ-1ANDA(3,2)O0THEHA(5,3)<*A(5,1)/A(S,2> 1080 IFZ»2ANDB(5.2)O0THENB(5,3>-B(5, 1 >/B(5,2> 1090 NEXTZ 1188 REM PRINT STATS 1110 C*»"AAAAAAA 9999999 999 9999999.99" 1128 PRINTi2, C* 1130 PRINTil.*" 1148 PRINTil. "MOVE TURNING TIMES" 1158 PRINTil, " TOTAL NO. OF TIME" 1160 PRINTil, * TIME RESPONSES " 1178 PRINTil. " TURN" 1188 PRINTil,*" 1198 F0RX1-1T05 1288 IFX1=1THENI*«*AR0UND" 1218 IFX1=2THENI»-"LEFT" rv> 1228 IFX1=3THENI**"RIGHT" rv) 1230 IFX1-4THEHI*«"F0RWARD" * * 1248 I FX t =»3THEH I * • "TOTAL " s A in § f 3 §85 82$ ;8S 2 2 5 CO A A A A L 1 111 > ^ « i i f Is. i i p > i APPENDIX J PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE ANALYSIS OF MAZE #2 FALL 1983 2 2 7 TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF THE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES - MAZE #2 - FIELD DEPENDENT SUBJECTS DEP. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS VAR. ( N = 12) NO. MEAN S.D. VAR. MEDIAN MAX. MIN. Decoding 1. 1.33 1.61 2.61 . 50 4. 00 0. 00 2. 89.89 18. 90 357.15 97. 92 100. 00 33. 33 3. .81 1.13 1.29 . 39 3. 39 0. 00 Fields of Reference 4. .67 . 49 . 24 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 Points of Reference 5. .33 . 65 . 42 .00 2. 00 0. 00 Learning Styles 6. 6.58 5.18 26. 81 6.00 20. 00 1 . 00 7. 8.92 2. 68 7.17 7.90 16. 25 6. 62 8. 3.47 1.65 2. 73 3.86 4. 63 85 9. 16.51 12.42 154.27 16. 47 27. 03 2. 44 Overall Performance 10. 168.11 60. 32 3639.04 160.55 281. 50 82. 40 11. 39.67 4.87 23.70 38.00 50. 00 35. 00 12. 46.75 7.53 56. 75 45. 00 65. 00 37. 00 13. 81.90 25.95 673.59 90. 91 100. 00 5. 40 14. 4.22 1.35 1.82 4.03 6. 70 2. 29 NOTE: Three f i e l d dependent subjects chose not to begin Maze #2. : For the purposes of reporting, the data for Variable #3 and for Variable #8 was transformed by ca l c u l a t i n g the inverse of each s t a t i s t i c and multiplying the res u l t by one hundred. 2 2 8 TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF THE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES - MAZE #2 - FIELD INDEPENDENT SUBJECTS DEP. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS VAR. < N = 15) NO. MEAN S.D. VAR. MEDIAN MAX. MIN. Decoding 1. 1.07 2. 34 5. 57 0.00 9. 00 0. 00 2. 96.82 5. 57 31.01 100.00 100. 00 79.55 3. .47 .84 . 71 0.00 3. 16 0. 00 Fie l d s of Reference 4. .67 1.11 1. 23 0. 00 4. 00 0.00 Points of Reference 5. .40 .91 . 83- 0.00 3. 00 0. 00 Learning Styles 6. 6.87 5. 34 28. 55 6. 00 19. 00 0. 00 7. 8.91 3. 53 12.44 9. 06 15. 11 0. 00 8. 3.61 1.65 2. 71 3. 54 6. 67 0. 00 9. 15.95 9.03 81.67 17.02 32. 20 0. 00 Overall Performance 10. 169.53 65.63 4307.59 165.25 312. 85 95.53 11. 40.33 8. 78 77.10 39. 00 62. 00 35.00 12. 48.27 15.56 242.20 43. 00 87. 00 37. 00 13. 89.72 14.64 214.38 94.59 100. 00 56. 45 14. 4.17 1.20 1 . 44 3. 84 7. 55 2. 53 NOTE: For the purposes of reporting, the data f o r Variable #3 and for Variable #8 was transformed by calcula t i n g the inverse of each s t a t i s t i c and multiplying the resu l t by one hundred. APPENDIX K PERFORMANCE IN A COMPUTER MAZE AS A FUNCTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE ERROR COMMITTED BY SUBJECTS IN PART I OF THE TRAINING SESSION FALL 1983 230 

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.831.1-0055093/manifest

Comment

Related Items