UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Noun modifier production in a comparison of graphic and non-graphic computer-assisted instruction Long, Gayle E. 1983

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

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1983_A8 L64.pdf [ 3.22MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0055126.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055126-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055126-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055126-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055126-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055126-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055126-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

NOUN  MODIFIER  COMPARISON  OF  PRODUCTION  GRAPHIC  AND  COMPUTER-ASSISTED  IN A  NON-GRAPHIC  INSTRUCTION  by  GAYLE B.  A  E.  Sc., University  THESIS THE  SUBMITTED  of Washington,  IN PARTIAL  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  MASTER in  LONG  OF  THE  1966  FULFILLMENT DEGREE  OF  OF  ARTS  the Department of  Curriculum  and I n s t r u c t i o n  Faculty  We  accept  this  thesis  THE  as  of  Education  conforming  UNIVERSITY  OF  April,  Studies  to the required  BRITISH 1983  Gayle E. Long, 1983  COLUMBIA  standard.  In p r e s e n t i n g  this  thesis i n partial  fulfilment of the  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  freely  a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study.  agree that p e r m i s s i o n f o r extensive for  copying of t h i s  understood that for  financial  copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s  gain  Department  of  Education  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main M a l l V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3 t  e  April ?5,  It i s thesis  s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  a  thesis  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f my  department o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  D  I further  Columbia  written  ABSTRACT The  problem  determine  i f  augmenting sentence  under  investigation  identifying them  with  writing  the  components  appropriate  program  experiences  would  writing.  versions  the  (Pencil/Paper, and  produced  Text/Computer,  by  focussed  on  sentences.  All  the  three  and  hypothesized  that  drill the  and  groups practice  total  various  levels.  differences  would  control  group  writing  and  of  56  It  also  occur  among noun  compositions.  The  6  use  students  assigned  within  and  testing  procedures,  post-  using  words  control  from  group  their  the  instruction  The  Pencil/Paper  was  class  no the  group  s e c t i o n s of  the  Spelling  received  correct  by  study the to  was  the  additional same  for  received  in  ii  and  drill  in  the  or  for  groups  with  and  a  sample  Students In  10  The  in  the  sentence  were  the  pre-  sentences  text  treatment  instruction  the  significant  compositions.  instruction. three  three  complete  groups.  two  was  the  post-test  wrote  in and  It  no  school. four  the the  to  that  a l l students list,  program  program,  conducted  same  The  modifiers  treatment  modifiers  designed  responses  students  three  with  were  between  the  a  student  sections.  of  and  Programme  tutorial,  hypothesized  from  randomly  noun  occur  required  was  of  would  number  of  grade  for  use  CAI  improved  study.  (writing)  production  time  this  to  produce  Elaboration  contained  differences  or  lapsed  for  student  the  in  to  was  students  Graphics/Computer),  versions  for  order  provided  Sentence  production no  study  effective  in  result  experimenter  increasing  practice,  treatment  of  this  of  graphics  which  semi-concrete Three  in  The of  groups. an  oral  presentation received  to  the  the whole  scores groups  sentences,  use  and  the had  of  the  highest  use  f o r  graphics use  the  modifiers  i n student  Test  of Basic  the  among  lapsed  Spelling  result  compositions.  S k i l l s  a  and  and  pre-test among  covariate, groups  practice,  the The also  f o r the  section  and  to complete  the addition  i t se f f e c t i v e n e s s . increase  i n  of  group  i n increasing  sentences,  i n an  the  Spelling  Pencil/Paper  time  of  score.  practice  The  The  indicated  mean  as  e f f e c t i v e  d i d not increase  d i d not  means  the most  was  and  post-test  .the t r e a t m e n t  time.  groups  addition  differences  highest  f o r d r i l l  required  i n  group  i n the d r i l l  program  to the program  modifiers  the  the  CTBS  i n  CTBS* scores  score  group  of the program  *Canada  total  mean  Although  o f noun  using  responses  Graphics/Computer program.  of  differences  correct and  modifiers  achieved  of covariance,  program  using  significant  computer  microcomputers.  covariance,  noun  group  on  included  revealed  of  significant  number  both  i n s t r u c t i o n  examination  Text/Computer  found  of  covariates, f o r  analysis  group  Analysis  as  while  i n s t r u c t i o n individually  Graphics/Computer graphics.  group,  the the the of The noun  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  To the I  my  husband,  program, wish  b u t who  to  have  my  His  standards support would I Roland my  been  advisor  years.  I  never  allowed  patience  not only  this  me  encouraged  t o doubt  study.  and love  I  His  are unequalled  me  to  could  start  f i n i s h ,  unselfishness, by anyone I ' v e  known. I  as  who  dedicate  understanding, ever  Fred,  and chairman  advice  he I was  would  behalf  and were  able  to attain  thought  also  i n  order  o f my  high  t o have  committee have  but a level  Westrom  f o r the past  been  with  D r . Marv  invaluable.  h i s encouragement  of expertise  and  Dr. Marshall  Arlin  three The and  knowledge  possible.  l i k e  f o r t h e time  fortunate  counsel  set  n o t have  Gray  extremely  to  thank  and e x t r a  f o r  me  effort  to complete  graduation.  iv  that  they  my  thesis  and Dr.  expended i n f o r Spring  TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION  ,  1  Statement of the Problem  4  Statement of Purpose  6  Statement of Hypothesis  7  REVIEW OF THE  LITERATURE  Background  8  Research  13  Use of Graphics i n CAI  13  CAI i n Subject Areas  24  Summary DESIGN AND  42  PROCEDURES  46  Hypothesis  47  Program  48  Description  Tests  49  Covariates  49  Post-Test Measures  51  Statistical  52  Procedures  Research Design  53  Control Group  53  Pencil/Paper Group  54  Text/Computer  54  Group  Graphics/Computer Group  55  Procedures  56  ANALYSIS OF THE DATA  60  Post-Test  1 (Use of Noun M o d i f i e r s i n S p e l l i n g  Sentences)  62  Post-Test 2 (Use of Noun M o d i f i e r s i n Compositions). .  62  Drill  63  and P r a c t i c e  Production  ( W r i t i n g Sentences That Conformed to the  Model)  63  Time  63  Observations  64  Summary  66  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS  67  Use of Noun M o d i f i e r s i n S p e l l i n g Sentences and Compositions  67  The Sentence E l a b o r a t i o n Programme: D r i l l Production and Lapsed Time Suggestions f o r Further Study BIBLIOGRAPHY  . . .  and P r a c t i c e , 68 70 72  vj  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE  I  II  III  IV  CONTENTS  PAGE  S i x Levels of the Sentence E l a b o r a t i o n Programme  Mean CTBS T o t a l Language S k i l l s  Scores by Group  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s  Summary of A n a l y s i s of Covariance of Noun 61  Summary of A n a l y s i s of Covariance of D r i l l and P r a c t i c e Scores, P r o d u c t i o n Scores, and Lapsed Time  VI  50  60  M o d i f i e r Use i n S p e l l i n g Sentences and Compositions  V  48  Number of Students W r i t i n g Sentences Which the Model Sentence, by Group and L e v e l  Vlt  62  Matched 64  CHAPTER  I  INTRODUCTION  Since the  the  use  of  early  areas  and  industrial  programs  and  which  year-long  educators  Computer-Assisted  subject in  1960's,  grade and  range  into  military  curriculum  two  for  been  Instruction  levels,  from  have  post  (CAI)  drill  subjects  across  secondary  training.  week  investigating  education  Studies  and  include  practice  such  as  the  units  Reading  to and  Mathematics. Harold  Shane  agreement  among  are  and  best  emphasized  that  Genetic  as goals  with  a  to  developers  possible  spending  five  Epistemology, children  development Papert  then  opportunities the  the  as  major  which  of of  methods  education CAI  what  problem of  lack  of  instruction  should  must  is  the  balance  educationally  be.  He  what  is  desirable  1982).  After  that  educators what  technically (Shane,  identified  concrete The  of  Seymour  must  order"  proposed  level  that  explore in  educational  at  the  in  presenting  example  in  Math,  endorsed  natural  may  and  theory  encourage  (Eisele,  1982).  children  not  for  with  available  at  environment.  in  begin 1  Piaget's  provide  concepts  utilizes  content  Centre  which  cognitive skills  ideas  children  Piaget's  stimuli  computers  system  approach  Jean  Papert  encounter  "higher  to  years  a  concrete  various by  subject  to  abstract  areas.  manipulating  For  counters  (beans,  buttons,  addition allows when  and  etc.) i n  subtraction.  children studying  order  to  establish  Using  the  the b a s i s f o r  computer, f o r example,  to q u i c k l y move or separate o b j e c t s i n t o p a r t s fractions,  or to watch counters/numbers  regroup  i n a d d i t i o n and s u b t r a c t i o n problems. In in  Science,  order  and  conduct  experiments  to achieve an understanding  processes.  simulations much  students  or  laboratory  are  too  setting.  manipulate  of more a b s t r a c t concepts  With the computer, students are able to conduct  of experiments  time,  i n laboratories  many  which are too dangerous, r e q u i r e too costly  These  parameters  to  be  programs in  conducted allow  in a real  students  order to observe  to  their various  e f f e c t s i n the experiment. Teachers etc.  to  provide  historical allow  use  explorers; or  a  basis  field for  trips  the  to museums,  development  of  S o c i a l s t u d i e s programs f o r the computer  to  trading  pictures,  concrete  concepts.  students  etc.,  movies,  simulate of  identifying  the  experiences  of  the  early  f u r s f o r food, n a v i g a t i n g by the s t a r s , geographic  areas  based  on a number of  climatic conditions. In  Reading,  relationship sentences. concrete words,  between Again,  or  teachers  the  objects computer  semi-concrete  sequencing  begin  pictures  with p i c t u r e s to e s t a b l i s h a and  words,  and  words  and  allows c h i l d r e n a v a r i e t y of  experiences:  matching p i c t u r e s and  to match sentence  order, observing  changing the  the  concept  of  While, process of  a l l  writing  s k i l l s  produce to  order  series  of  students  sentence  to  One  each  of  Using  by  only  peruse  Educators, computers  primarily  to  simulation teacher basi3,  parts word  present  thereby  visualization  of  stick  the  chased  explore  tree  to  teachers  how  of  which  on  of  speech  providing changes  children  i n or  ideas  sentences "The  3  boy  use been  adjective,  graphic  should a  with  the  and/or  enable  a  semi-concrete a  (e.g."The chased  the  punctuation,  the  on  Computer  has  nouns,  microcomputer  manipulate  publish  that  CAI  and  a  MICROWARE,  to  However,  S t i l l  diagramming.  realize  (identifying  which  within  MicroSIFT,  lessons  a  "connect  words  (EVALUATIONS:  to  i n  sentence.  publications  Exchange,  use  writing  to  s k i l l s  the  a  techniques shown  and  students  through  structure  Teacher)  ideas  teach  some  longer  software  teaching  the  writing-related  of  dog."  ,  are  one  processing.  capability  to  to  the  develop  attempt  and  the  teaching  limited  and  using  Computing  s k i l l s ,  relationship  Information  The  i n  capitalization, etc.)  the  other  Products  order  concrete-to-abstract  students  into  educational  Educational  in  combining  sentences  demonstrate  need  reviews  guide  sentences  teachers  an  logically  sentence  two  the  students In  thoughts  use  the  story  conceptual  that  which  given  combine"  other  requires  their  are  a  use  level  w r i t t e n word.  Others  in  subjects  higher  pictures  process.  of  the  events  order.  these  develop  how  of  logical  to  then  or  sequence  p i c t o r i a l boy  with  the  dog  with  the  stick . ) n  The  problem  If  one  augments in  of  stated  follows:  identifies  them  order  students  i s  Statement  with  to  the  a  Problem  components  appropriate,  produce  with  as  the  effective  sentence  semi-concrete  of  w r i t i n g  effective graphics  CAI  or  and  visuals  program  which  provides  w i l l  student  w r i t i n g  experiences,  improve? Francis discussed  M.  realism  dimension  of  and  allow  completion drawings  were  f a c i l i t a t i n g among  about  the  review  of  use  visuals  or  the  subject  of  most  the  literature  and  program be  time  4  for of  for  w i l l  computer  that  objectives, to  visual  the and line for  differences  levels.  that  researchers proposed  convey the  simple  of  reducing  programs  must  information,  literature  type  i f  content  processing  the  show  they  the  of  difference  necessary  information.  clarify  concluded  and  that  learning,  effective  individual  in  proposed  amount  review  a l l  on  He  d e t a i l ,  Dwyer  learning,  concrete-to-abstract  appropriate  extensive  graphics  visual  improve  achievement  focus  the  adequate  single  of  The  should  the  on  1978). to  studies,  student  students  graphics  an  several  and  amount  student  After of  handbook  were  right  contain  the  information.  who  the  presented,  a  (Dwyer,  materials  exactly  being  in  theories  learning  visualization provide  Dwyer,  that  information  processing  of  In not  a  a l l  discussion programs  learners  and  designing Morgan  also  that  CAI  One  instance  would  designing  that  programs a  contained  tutorial  2.  a  and  to  drill  practice  sented 3.  the  a management  student  them  of  of  areas  suggested  to, rather  who  than  the  have and  as  most  the  in  presented  Literature of  the  and  allowed  enabled  which  students  were  pre-  section, scored  appropriate  5  student  levels, review.  and  been each  will  effective  information,  necessary  f o r teacher  a  basis for  components:  s e c t i o n which  which  when  Catherine  she  programs,  Review  skills/concepts  system  records  1982).  rationale  subject  when  with, a l l  considered  educators CAI  the  tutorial  to  be  that  1978).  following  practice  i n the  branched  the  remediation pacing,  should  supplement  quote  s e c t i o n which  student  a  different  the  effective  (Pritchard,  (Morgan,  However,  across  provided  as  to  a  be  cautioned  e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; however,  development find  Pritchard  or  styles  effective  programs.  show  1.  on  continue  the  to,  programs  for, instruction  in  CAI  be  could  William  learning  focussed  involved  also  CAI,  appeal  assigning  must  substitute  may  that  and  of  responses, provided  Statement of Purpose Having  identified  t h i s study was t h r e e f o l d , 1»  and studied the problem, the purpose of namely:  to design and produce each tice,  three v e r s i o n s of a program,  of which contained t u t o r i a l ,  drill  and p r a c -  and management components, and whose o b j e c -  t i v e was to i n c r e a s e the use of noun m o d i f i e r s in  sentences:  Version  1 - presented by experimenter paper  with  pencil/  p r a c t i c e e x e r c i s e s , no p i c t u r e s or  graphics, V e r s i o n 2 - e n t i r e l e s s o n presented on a m i c r o computer, no p i c t u r e s or g r a p h i c s , V e r s i o n 3 - e n t i r e l e s s o n presented  on a micro-  computer with a n i m a t i o n / g r a p h i c s  used  i n the t u t o r i a l . 2.  to f i e l d  test  the v a r i a t i o n s of the program with an  a p p r o p r i a t e student p o p u l a t i o n . 3.  to analyze the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the v a r i a t i o n s of  the program i n terms of student performance the program and on completion measures .  6  during  of the p o s t - t e a t  HVDothftgp.g  Given  three  pencil/paper, to  a  no  treatment  1.  There  be  no  groups  for  a.  the  number  of  asked  the  group; who  and  were  a  pre-  s i g n i f i c a n t difference  four  There  Elaboration  graphics/computer,  but  the  the  Sentence  Programme;  each  control and  presented group  who  post-tested  with  groups:  will  of  the  treatment  treatment  the  b.  of  text/computer,  different  received  2.  versions  to  will  three  of  words be  noun  write  number 100  the  no  ten  each  dependent  variables:  modifiers  used  students  modifiers at  when  sentences used  i n  at  two  were  post-test;  compositions  post-test.  s i g n i f i c a n t difference  treatment  between  following  individual  noun  (OC=.05)  groups  for  the  (cx=.05)  following  between  dependent  variables: a.  the  number  practice b.  the  c.  correct  section  number  level  of  of  which  of  the  amount  of  the  tutorial  time and  written  matched  required  d r i l l  i n  the  d r i l l  by  students  and  program;  sentences  correctly  the  responses  and  program.  7  by  the  model  students  practice  at  each  sentence; to  sections  complete of  the  CHAPTER REVIEW  II  OF THE LITERATURE Background  Dr.  Marv  Westrom,  University  of  Instruction  ( C A I ) as  is  the  the  following  1)  who  British  instructor.  He  categories  suggests  Laboratory U s e . as  Games  .  CAI i n  •subject  simulation  in  the  computer.  Drill  and  Practice already  Advantages  of  .  immediate  students  many h o u r s  CAI  is  especially  to  which be  the  computer  divided  (but  setting  and may  current  category  Students  CAI d r i l l  the  Computer-Assisted  CAI can  support'  learned  at  into  1980):  interaction  programming, for  that  in  a laboratory  this  and the  with  material  defines  appropriate  Programs  Computing S t u d i e s  technique  (Westrom,  investigations  (3)  Columbia,  a teaching  classified  (2)  teaches  of  drill not  lessons.  involve  several  players  and  include  exercise.  8  when  practice  mastered).  reinforcement,  applicable  involve  usually  and p r a c t i c e  of  may be  rote  and use This  ease  of  by many  form  of  learning  is  emphasized as opposed to a c q u i s i t i o n of  Tutorial/Dialogue  . In t h i s type of i n s t r u c t i o n  computer a c t s as an i n t e l l i g e n t t h e i r way  through  concepts.  Students  work  tests. If their  response  i s a c c u r a t e , the computer presents the next  subtest.  An i n c o r r e c t student  criterion  tutor.  the  response  to be branched  tutorials  to r e m e d i a t i o n .  response  i n f o r m a t i o n necessary  opportunity.  and  to provide any  f o r the completion  of the  Not  a l l students have to do the same Good t u t o r i a l s  are  to produce because programs must be more  than textbook  pages or worksheets r e q u i r i n g m u l t i p l e  choice responses.  A sophisticated  a n a l y s i s of  answers r e q u i r e s complicated  tutorials  additional  i n terms of content, r a t e and  l e s s o n at the same time.  student  Good  T u t o r i a l s allow i n s t r u c t i o n to be  individualized  difficult  the  are able to d i s c r i m i n a t e the " c o r r e c t n e s s "  of a student  question.  to a q u e s t i o n causes  programming  capable of p r o v i d i n g a v a r i e t y  r e m e d i a t i o n and  enrichment  and  of  lessons can become very  large.  Simulation real  . S i m u l a t i o n i s used  or a r t i f i c i a l  systems.  to provide models of  It i s especially  advantageous not  in  otherwise  expansion, danger  be  avoidance  extremely  motivating  but  i t is  produce.  Possible  carefully  so  in  views  the  to  create  may  printers  should  be  a  be to  as  and  feedback is  difficult  to  researched  replicated  For  or  an  as  of  He  suggests  student  problem  and  She  solving  types  approaches and  recorders,  that  d e c i s i o n must  the  of  rearrange  1980).  opportunity  0  for  microcomputers tape  tutorials  information.  stories  multi-sensory  with  that  various  (Thompson,  provide  A  additional  opportunity  example,  a p p l i c a t i o n s of  i n which  process  interfaced  settings.  the  suggests  outcomes  that  of  instruction  1  \  and  simulators),  be  be  review  may  paragraphs  computerized.  must  can  instruction,  predict  considered.  instructional  in  quizzes  advises  compression  Simulation very  would  possible.  computer  edit,  Kehrberg  and  reality  Students  information,  programs  programmed  reviews,  experiences.  terminals  as  reading  directed,  be  that  Thompson,  request  should  of  time  training), why).  computers  sentences  (medical  instruction  (flight  and  Barbara  also  avoidance  how  accurately  can  where  p o s s i b l e ; eg.,  expense  (explanations  provide  situations  be  for not made  a l l  CAI  computer  video more  as  to  discs varied  experiences to  the  best  mode a  of  presentation  swinging  providing  pendulum the  pendulum  for may  child  using  the  lesson.  not  with  be  an  string,  paper  Melmed,  an  A  as  program  which  meaningful  opportunity clips  to  to  and  simulates  the  build  washers  child  as  his  own  (Kehrberg,  1979). Arthur of  S.  Education,  schools.  He  extensively the  discusses  effectiveness  suggests the  that  zero  of  learning  practice  in  such  as  s t a t i s t i c s  of  interactive  machines  to  Newton's  i n t u i t i v e  how  to  no  precedent  weak  or and  control  movements  Melmed  of  formal  require  Mathematics in  their  radioactive  simulations  understanding  i s  on  who  learn  of  based  deliberately  must  change.  u t i l i z i n g  more  who  Law  i s  on  Melmed  precedes  astronauts  learn  have  population  education  been  data  lacking.  understanding  proceed  States  have  empirical  s t i l l in  Institute  United  simulations  i s  intuitive  children  which  in  services,  examples  order  and  concepts  an  as  National  understanding  must  cites  the  technology  simulations  where  experiences,  1 982)  of  Therefore,  He  developing  simulations  use  gravity,  Science  military  i n t u i t i v e  carefully.  in  the  with  though  that  non-existent,  substantial  that  by  the  premise  knowledge.  information  states  studied  advisor  a  phenomena  l i f e  decay  proposes  provide  and  or that  method  of  (Melmed,  . Related  graphic graphic  to  displays displays  the i n  use  of  simulations  instructional may,  i n  fact,  1 1  programs. be  i s In  the  inclusion  of  some  instances,  simulations.  However,  graphics  may  t u t o r i a l s range  also  and  from  line  Joseph  proposed not  reasons  for  attention  be  convey  emphasis  i n  this  in  of  stimulate  example learn  the  Melmud'3  to  i e .  by  Melmed  proper  high  school  workings  that  information  and  to  those  about  reward  have _  of  d e s c r i p t i o n  an his  n  and  weaponry  the  image are  Lutz  external  enter  as  suggest  images result  s i t u a t i o n s  may  i n  the  Their  service i s  a  stated  1974).  systems  The  external  and  Lutz,  are  the  Rigney  who  which  on  terms.  learning  12  and  and  that  i s  external  processing  have  subject.  which  valid  must  imagery  an  would  means  matter  (Rigney,  complex  the  levels  the  California  features  and  at  displays  subject  and  graduates  of  CAI  of  this  about  describe  the  work  students  graphic  processing  cognitive images  graphic  suggest  verbal  appropriate  internal of  may  animated  may  their  students  authors  about  opposed  the  necessary  to  they  University  information  various The  i n  the  They  a r t i c l e  propositions  providing  Lutz  showing  the  between  as  graphs  mentioned  at  directed  imagery.  visual  that  Labs  processing  to  set  as  Kathy  e f f e c t i v e .  supposed  internal  and  simply  must  relationship  presentations  simple  or  programs,  simulations.  that very  practice  primarily motivational;  such  Technology  be  and  Graphic  responses,  purpose  Rigney  Behavioral  d r i l l  and/or  be  correct  instructional of  may  in  games.  drawings  They  for  discussion  included  educational  simulations. systems  be  and  must  similar  to  involving  astronauts visual  and  children.  analogies  changes  in  may  events Rigney  the  which  material,  seem  be  and  these  examples,  to communicate  might Lutz  require  to result  of  able  which  descriptions. procedures  In each  require  submit  that  the student  in better  animated  the  nature  complicated inducing  to r e a l l y  of  verbal  imagery process  and the  l e a r n i n g and r e t e n t i o n .  Research  Use  of Graphics  Martha the  Moore  Behavioral  instructional for  i n CAI  and  and  on  what  she  on  enhance  learning.  often  important  an  systems  the  because  supplement  Army  Sciences  described  as  Moore factor  o f an  and  of  levels She lack  of  CAI  that  of  textual review  graphics.  no  existing  which  and  empirical  the  displays for this  are thought  to  capabilities  are  selection  literature  on  for  systematic  instructional  Therefore,  IS  t h e need  presentations.  of  revealed  of graphic  graphics  intrinsic  Institute  research  based  i n the d e s i g n  assumed  Institute had  said  Research  initiated  a  characteristics  instruction  effectiveness  t h e Army  instruction.  to a u r a l  Research  non-CAI  at  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of three  research  a  Social  computer-assisted  study  others  on  value  However, graphics  evidence  Moore  of  of  proposed  CAI as the in the a  systematic computer as  research  graphics  well  tasks  as  and  data  as  in  stated  and  computer  focus  function  on  of the  to  the  type  various  effectiveness of  of g r a p h i c s employed,  subject  matter,  learning  characteristics. purpose  comparing  graphics  a  to  relation  learner  The  program  for this  particular  study  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of various to  explore  graphics  the i n t e r a c t i o n  with  identifiable  was  levels  effects  learner  to  of  obtain  computer  of levels  aptitudes  of and  tasks. The the  authors  psychophysiology  level  of  graphics  Another  version  defined  as  used and  developed  low  level  boxed  graphics  to  32  from A l l  90 the  The  and  a medium third  programs.  randomly  to  of  was  each the  level  version  lesson  used  line  a  on  high  drawings. of  graphics  of the  lesson  representations  sections,  constituted  an  of  for  high  a  Thirty groups.  through  total  instructional  of unit.  14  School  school  graphics  linearly  personnel,  Engineering  three  level  proceeded  enlisted  were  training  four  version  animations used  only.  advanced  Students  One  o f a CAI  c o n s i s t i n g of schematic  were  School.  groups  as  the l e s s o n  drawings  subjects  17  Mapping  audition.  described  of  versions  alphanumerics.  The from  line  of  three  ranging and  graduates  subjects The  only  used the  lessons  153  Defense  who  were  were  the  third  i n  assigned between  programs.  which  frames.  Every  the  variable  in  i n age  contained  Each frame  frame was  followed which  by  a  had  to  continue. achieve  forced-choice be  Each 85?  on  correctly  section  was  the  review  section.  immediately  preceeding  the  completion  following  of  five  in  Students  the  order  followed  resulted  frame  in  at  by  lesson,  the  a review.  repeating  could  any  for  question  the  choose  to  student  to  Failure  to  immediately repeat  an  time. performance  criteria  included  measures:  1.  Total  2.  F a c t s T e s t c o n s i s t i n g o f 20 t r u e / f a l s e a n d m u l t i p l e choice questions to check the subject's knowledge of qualitative and quantitative modifiers described in the l e s s o n ,  3.  Terminology T e s t c o n s i s t i n g o f 13 m a t c h i n g i t e m s t o the subject's knowledge of the f u n c t i o n of the o f t h e e a r and the t e r m s u s e d i n t h e l e s s o n ,  4.  Identification Test consisting of 14 multiple questions designed to evaluate knowledge l o c a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e o f p a r t s o f t h e e a r ,  5.  Principles Test comprised o f 21 t r u e / f a l s e a n d m u l t i p l e choice q u e s t i o n s to c h e c k k n o w l e d g e o f p r i n c i p l e s and theories.  Four  time  constructed-answer  answered  preceeding  At  or  raters  knowledge  and  to  complete  judged when  the  all  lesson,  test  items  disagreements  as  to  occurred,  check parts  choice of the  category items  of  were  eliminated. Moore taken  to  difference one-way  reported  that  complete among  analysis  the of  a one-way  analysis  of  the  lesson  indicated  three  groups,  F(2,87)  variance  on 15  the  content  variance no  on  time  significant  = .02.  Results  of  tests  revealed  no  significant  difference  for  level  of  graphics:  Facts Test F ( 2 , 8 7 ) = .44 T e r m i n o l o g y T e s t F ( 2 , 8 7 ) = 1.20 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n T e s t F ( 2 , 8 7 ) = .42 P r i n c i p l e s Test F ( 2 , 8 7 ) = 1.07.  Moore effect be  concluded  on f i n a l  sufficient Moore  for  of  Initially the  might  no  stands,  Moore  is  evidence  Kathy  A. at  University. of  have  Results  instruction  left on the  Lutz the She  for  with  her  initial  conducted  a study  Computer-Based stated  (KR),  has  and  CAI  that been  without  16  no g r a p h i c  graphics or of  may  Moore may graphics.  problem,  be have  As  it  a lack  of  graphics.  on m u l t i m o d e  Knowledge  of  evidence  at  feedback,  a reinforcer to  of  control  computer  type  as  the  discussed.  with  Laboratory  this  used  of  for  included a  course  level  effectiveness  was  e m p i r i c a l evidence  minimal  any  subjects,  control  she  CAI  of  content  substantiated  effect  no may  No m e n t i o n  was  of  Had  that  been  tests.  a lack  same  had  minimal graphics  course  graphics. the  graphics  1979).  nor  to  conclusion  significant  empirical  Results  her  al.,  performance  exposure  received  presentation,  found  of  computer  random a s s i g n m e n t  Moore i d e n t i f i e d  which  sufficient  et.  procedures  previous  effectiveness  group  and  of  therefore,  described  pretesting  possibility  level  and  CAI ( M o o r e ,  procedures  of  the  performance  carefully  treatment made  that  of  Illinois Knowledge  i n programmed support  its  effectiveness. Lutz (KR)  proposed  through  could  printed  respond  visual  than supply  or a u d i t o r y  with  display  included  that r a t h e r  messages alone,  appropriate  using  pictorial  Knowledge of  and  in  visual  display  computer  changes  animation.  a combination of p r i n t e d and/or a u d i t o r y  changes  the  interesting  or graphic  Results  KR  in  which  messages with  c o n s t i t u t e d multimode Knowledge of  Results . Lutz  designed  the  multimode  KR  a  involving  lesson  study  i s superior  to t r a d i t i o n a l l y  multimode  interest  and  attention  providing  only  fundamental  The drill  lesson  and  to i n v e s t i g a t e the  KR  better  format  involved  four magicians' hats,  letter.  The  children  correct, hat  to  were  its  the multimode KR  accompanied  by  response  resulted  received  an a u d i t o r y  Children received  v e r s i o n of the  a  familiarized  with  a in  included  a different  a phoneme a u r a l l y and  corresponding l e t t e r .  r e a c t i o n on  message. the  were  If a child  a bunny that hopped out audio  a  screen  was of a  An i n c o r r e c t but  the  child  message. no  training them  lesson  associations.  each c o n t a i n i n g  given  positive no  that  c h i l d r e n using  p r a c t i c e format to l e a r n l e t t e r - s o u n d  point  and  maintain a s t u d e n t ' s  kindergarten  saw  to  a  that  KR.  Children  asked  presented KR  would  than  premise  previous lesson  experience on  unrelated  with the machine. 17  The  to 32  the the  PLATO system study  which  c h i l d r e n were then  randomly  assigned  received  one  on  letter  audio  of  to  The format  four  four  naming  device  pointing  to  versions  using  and  a  answer.)  four  versions  the  the  touch  an  and  treatment  type  of  KR.  versions  permitted  responses  per  minute.  Two  change  Two  groups  groups five  in  received  the  and  Students  and  the  2  the x  2  type  of  time  spent  in  distracted  of  the  computer.  time  when  the  which  the  following of  presented  an  respond  by  type  maximum  of  rate  of  program  included  to  response  received  display  allowed an  when  the  15  display was  six  positive  held  correct audio  KR  a  correct  response.  five  letters  and  in  a  the  two  lesson adjusted total  pictorial  subject's  lesson of  on  the  (T1),  in  two  setting  of  total  time  variance  was  variables, dependent  of  time  The  commenced  by  the  used  to  assess  type  of  KR  variables:  distracted  (Tt=T1-T2)  directed  18  lesson  was  (Td=100(T2/T1)).  recorded head  the  session.  terminated.  four  amount  warm-up  when  independent  time was  minute  clock  analysis  format,  T2  a  internal  factorial  display  (T2),  simple  practice  child  in  subject  bunny.  clock  of  a  groups  stimulus  were  were  effects  lesson  a  started  stopped A  a  letters  carrots  computer  visual  (allows  Allowable  Each  and  system  only  a l l  a  IV  panel  constant;  and  drill  PLATO  differed of  a  groups.  and  T1  was  observer away  from  and total  from  percent recorded  the time by  and  included  the  screen.  In for  the  final  multimode  KR  statistically groups  Lutz  approached in  attending Lutz KR  format  had  while time be  to  task  must  be  have  two  attended  the  number  correct  head  percent information  of  on  scores  time on  audio  turned and  the  the  should of  first  effectiveness  Results.  19  (p<.01).  that  variables  (Lutz,  time from be  an  rather  than  attempt total  have  of A  the  graphics  may  would  number  per of  post-test time  some in  any  measured  adjusted  provided  Td  attempts  high  for  screen  It  which  higher  or  this  included  screen,  tests  of  the  reinvestigated.  valuable.  of  1973).  message  distracted the  found  results  auditory  number  with  may  of  She  criterion  been  correlated  distracted  more  portion  distracted.  responses,  have  be  students  than  device  away  that  groups  effective  only  Since  between  subjects  may  not  multimode  larger  i n t e r p r e t i n g the  receiving  correct  responses  KR  lower  were  the  indicated  other  less  when  results  would  did  dependent  the  skewed  of  etc.  performance  Knowledge  to  reporting  question,  the  messages.  dramatically that  on  groups  subject's  seem  than  are  for  significantly  multimode  careful  receiving a  (Td)  was  differences  difference  also  T2  and  greater  the  Results  students  effect  was  a  higher  the  that  spent  that  no  The  may  groups  because  One  KR  KR  suggests  simple  study.  reported  was  but Tt  significance.  multimode  time  conditions  significant.  and  T1  evaluation,  and  useful  multimode  William Research  A.  and  investigate concept  in  c o n j u n c t i o n with  Development  the  Centre,  possibility  learning.  the s i n e - r a t i o  He  produced  a  study  to  concept:  2.  v e r b a l text with s t i l l  3.  v e r b a l t e x t only five  students  School  randomly  post-tests  designed  Personnel  three v e r s i o n s of a l e s s o n on  v e r b a l text with animated  Electronics  the Navy  of combining text and g r a p h i c s f o r  1.  Forty  were  King,  at  the  assigned  were  the  from  graphics  graphics  the  Basic  Electricity  Naval T r a i n i n g Center  to the three treatment  same  except  that  and  i n San Diego  groups.• Pre and  the order of the four  p o s s i b l e choices f o r each q u e s t i o n was changed. Comparison  of  learning  occurred  had  highest  the  significant. required  the  and  each group.  mean  There  post-test  scores  indicated  The animated g r a p h i c s  group  scores but none of the d i f f e r e n c e s were  was  proposed  significant  no  difference  i n the amount of time  several  findings.  possible explanations A l l 45 students  f o r the l a c k  had been a t t e n d i n g  s c h o o l and may have a l r e a d y known much of the terminology.  Therefore, for  in  pre  for training.  King of  the  mental  they may have been accustomed images.  have been d i f f i c u l t King  said  He  also  suggested  to using v e r b a l  labels  that the task may not  enough f o r d i f f e r e n c e s to occur.  that  the two v e r s i o n s of the l e s s o n c o n t a i n i n g 20  graphics  were  verbal  text  "block  of  the  somewhat version.  text  screen.  time.  the  student  first  inclusion  of  attention  and  or  lead  between  groups  Considering author,  replicated of  the the  difficulty  different  to  Peters  part  to  are  using  students  students*  graphics at  the  the that  students'  lesson in  on  same  examine  the  a  with  less  performance  of  and  post-tests, equal  problems  with  all  Perhaps  if  an a p p r o p r i a t e  been  and  for  identified  previously a  system  groups,  by  King level  exposed, in  he would  which produce  a  National Science  to  determine  animation  in  if the  the  Foundation p r o j e c t ,  a study  using  and a l k e n e s . materials  H. J .  an i n t r o d u c t o r y The o b j e c t i v e  were  effective,  program s p e c i f i c a l l y  of and  contributed  learning.  Forty-six randomly  direct the  generate  suggested  difference  hadn't  study  to  to  King  through  material  the  of  whether  inconclusive.  and K . C . D a i k e r c o n d u c t e d  use  appeared  the  1975).  C h e m i s t r y p r o g r a m on a l k a n e s  the  "drew" the  helped  greater  CAI  if  able  than  results. of  was  to  not  first.  number and t y p e  was  was  decide  have  which  time  mode  and t e x t  text  a  (King,  study  some d e f i n i t i v e As  in  presentation  rather  students  results  pre  presentation  might  the  but  the  the  resulting  the  system  had  read  audio  in  graphics  then  confusion,  the  The  and g r a p h i c s "  Both  The  graphics  slower  students  assigned  to  who one  of  volunteered three  21  for  experimental  the  study  groups  or  were to  a  control  group.  approximately control  an  group  students  hour  on  worked  computer-based the  All  the  following  program  with  a  exercises.  G2)  brief verbal introduction, g r a p h i c s , a q u e s t i o n on t h e  G3)  brief verbal statement of  better  on  (23 /_iij  posttest  significance scores  two  than  percentage  +  of  the  on  points)  (z=1.69> the  control  Peters  and  Daiker  spent  a posttest.  element  game  The  for  their  treatment  groups  animated  illustration,  did  received  not  the  reach  students  mean  6  +  /  set  of  gain  a  scored scores  statistical  comparison,  were  after"  a  illustration,  experimental  By  group  and  animated  pretest,  p<0.1).  for  took  "before topic,  introduction, fact.  but  pretest,  sequences:  brief verbal introduction, q u e s t i o n on t h e topic,  all  and  three  G1)  Although  a  chemical  The  instructional  took  g  the  mean  gain  percentage  points.  among  the  between  treatment and  questions, the  reason  was  because  focussed the  fact  students  the  the  on  the  that  had  inferred  indicated  no  had  effect  have  been  This  interviews  22  the  sequences, they  should  difference congruence  objectives,  measurable  they  significant  re-examining  objectives.  informal that  no  instructional  animation  in  After  instructional  animation the  found  groups.  among  and  also  not  may  the  proposed on  test  more be  that  scores  carefully  supported  following made  test  the  the  by  test,  relevant  connections topic. to  between  Therefore  objectives  student's equally  the  tools  might  students  extended  treatment the  concluded  features and  larger  authors,  as  23  relating  of  the  animation  are  draw  animation to  be  a replication  of  from  well  should  results .  associated  sequences that  a group  treatment/control  time,  the  the are  effective  1982).  that  selected  that  animation  daiker,  suggest  randomly  students,  of  the  (Peters,  s e q u e n c e s and  interactive  graphics  also  Chemistry  suggestions  authors  to  necessary if  One  animation  and i n c l u d i n g  attention  instructional  using  the  of  group  as produce  the  study  introductory size,  and  implementing more  an the  definitive  CAI  in Subject  Areas  In  two  separate  on  the  CAI  reading  An  initial  teach  almost  dependence the  reading  on  program  this  in  concentrated would  line  strands  I  II  Ill IV  V  VI  the  central  links  to  in  1964  reading  successful,  from  CAI  1970 a  Fletcher,  housed  They  reported  that  though  cost  1972  at  The  six  reading  developing  CAI  in  initial  program  University  curriculum  Stanford  and  prohibitive.  Stanford  skills  i n copying, alphabet. of  sight  Phonics Strand: directed practice recognizing spelling patterns.  The  of  that  reading.  with  telephone  consisted of  six  1972):  development  Strand:  to  little  required  for  recognition  and  word  vocabulary.  Spelling Strand: r e c o g n i t i o n and r e c a l l r e g u l a t e d , m o n o s y l l a b i c w o r d s ( r a n , man,  Comprehension  attempted  c u r r i c u l u m was  w i t h manual computer.  Strand: practice of l e t t e r s of the  had  with  low-cost  terminals.  University.  computer  instruction  was  reported  the  the  to  new  classroom  practice w i t h the  Strand:  on  teaching.  extensive  student  Readiness: interaction  Word  developed  computer  (Atkinson,  Letter recall  program  developing  supplement The  Stanford  mind, on  Fletcher  by  initial  an  and  developed  been  such  Atkinson  program  classroom had  maintaining With  a l l  articles,  practice  strands  on  were  24  in  word  of g r a p h i c a l l y fan).  copying  and  meaning.  implemented  in  grades  K  through  3.  to  new  strands.  to  five  Student  strands  The  and  one  girls.  control  of  special  pairs  One  and  CAI).  (Metropolitan  Readiness  points  apart  (Fletcher,  matched  for  and  approximately 1970.  No  comparison California specifically  one  CAI  was  of  scores  Cooperative for  one  each  to  the  see  maximum  updated  for class  curriculum  strands,  the  areas  pair  item  and of  error  strength  and  with  no  two  Atkinson,  1972).  classrooms  with  of  on  on  grade  pairs  of  grade  end  Reading  scores  more  than  children of  group  two were  similar received  January  to  June  two. of  grade  Achievement  Test  the  pre-test  teachers  grade  the  (group  The  from  to  group  scores  Stanford  of  25  day  the  the  evaluation  per  during  at  Primary  of  assigned  experimental  CAI  that  was  matched  The  25  pairs  experimental  was  Test)  boys  fifty  pair  the  administered  reported  to  the  involved  grade  minutes  for  assistance.  ability.  ten  Fletcher  from  included  of  across  able  from  comparable  experience  of  of  one  Each  number  program  child  group  receiving  branching  drawn  continually reports  unit  were  the  25  were  working  Teachers  Evaluation children,  were  individualized  Teacher  was  needing  one  determined  student  highly  listings,  student  areas  success  each  histories  student  measures. the  for  purposes.  each  rate  was  Student  averages,  and  concurrently.  prescriptive  where  Lessons  program  progress.  placement  and  a  reading  test  one,  a  Test, written  curriculum,  significantly (Fletcher, Reading 5.05  favoured  Atkinson,  Test  indicated  Atkinson of  determine  stated  tests  if  grade  one  CAI.  These  any  was  Because  the  mean  group, girls  from  the  o f the was  gain  the  testing  through  and  at  inferred Initial  group  Primary  had  also  gained  end  two  at  difference  the  without  the  a  of grade  experimental at  by  team  reported that  the g r o u p s  the  group  conducted  the  boys i n t h e  scores  CAI  He  grade  showed  less  Cooperative  was  between  control  (p<.01)  group.  conducted  tests  group  experimental  treatments.  were  girls  Atkinson  the  difference  there  of  between  that  repeated  California  control  sustained  months ahead  scores  the  experimental  The  that  experimental  standardized  4.90  1972).  months more than  unaware  the  end  two  to  end  of  additional group  to  of grade  between  the  be  two.  the mean g a i n  experimental  group  of  girls  and  that  the  boys  benefitted  more  Program  (Atkinson,  Fletcher,  group  r e c e i v e d CAI  f o r only  Reading  boys i n the  than  control than  1972). The 6  fact  months  have  and  been  additonal reading  the  that  treatment  experimental  the  sustained  differences through  suggests  programs c o u l d have  Wilson CAI  that  and  Program  including  in  1970.  supplementary  the  that  dramatic  Fitzgibbon It  between g r o u p s following prolonged  consisted  26  year use  to  without  o f the  CAI  results.  r e p o r t e d on  materials  appears  for  the  Elementary  English  of  180  lessons  grades  core four,  five  and  six.  The  to  their  on  student For  five  teachers lesson  I.Q.  scores  that  tests  with  respect  were  and of  of  Achievement  The  the data to  these  1979  with  but  experimental  The  topics  daily  appropriate  and w e e k l y  of  and used  received  no  reports  form  English  group  students  I  This  among  were  the groups  pre-tested  in  of the Standard  post-tested  only  authors  for  instruction  received  (n=42) group  with  form  was  in  block  either  of  time  was  as an  of  and f i v e  description control for  the  located i n  instruction.  four  no  CAI i n  to serve  effect  traditional  provided  CAI i n b o t h  received  I I (n=77)  between g r a d e s  equal  reported  possible  Control  the  an  The a u t h o r s  subtest  (n=68)  the  setting.  and r e c e i v e d  f o r mean  of the i n s t r u c t i o n i n June.  Control  for  grade  rated  Students  x and were  and  Experimental,  were  differences  Language  four  groups,  groups  variables. the  grade  status.  not i n E n g l i s h .  school  distribution  three  three  showed  Battery,  control  school  discussed  I I .  Mathematics.  intermediate  another  and  intact  to  at the c o n c l u s i o n  and  Mathematics  evaluation,  assigned  Experimental  English  and r e c e i v e d  socioeconomic  Test  of the test  groups  of  I and C o n t r o l  February  the sequence  progress.  classes  programs  schemes  purposes  Control  w  selected  The  was n o t of  the  group.  A l l  Language  Arts  instruction.  for  The  post-test  scores  the  experimental  indicated  group  a mean  a n d a mean  27  gain  gain  of seven  of three  months  months f o r  each  of  the  the  H  value  the  H  value  that  there  control for  groups.  The  pre-test scores  for po3t-test scores were  a c t u a l gains  authors was  not  was  stated that  because  significant  significant  but  that  beyond p  <.05  f a v o u r i n g the e x p e r i m e n t a l  group  ( W i l s o n , F i t z g i b b o n , 1970). In  1970  project  Server  which  was  and  Stolurow  developed  development  psychologist,  consultant  psychologist  programmers. an  The  implemented classroom  by  (written)  theory  readability  a  CAI  by  a  to design  and  language  psychologist, a  instructional system  Laboratory  specialist  p r o j e c t was  Arts  Harvard  assessed  standardized was  instructional practice  and and  CAI create  program to  o f use  as an  grade  were  lists  incorporated constantly  updated  remediation  and  program  number  Student a  a  of t u t o r i a l reading  interest,  aid  be to  The  off-line  assessment  individualized and  drill  final  reading l e v e l ,  phase of the  monitoring  work  and  comprehension,  base f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t  teacher's  student  A l l the  produce  for  data  enrichment.  STUDENT,  to  developed  provided  for  instruments.  A  phonics.  level  o n - l i n e ( c o m p u t e r ) and  compiled  sequences.  and  by  testing  then  programs  spelling,  The  the  implemented  learning  Language  were  information  reading  a  a Harvard  teachers.  Students  and  and  g o a l of the  individualized  outlined  aid,  age of  program which  summaries,  assignments,  group of  low-achieving  enrichment. was  piloted  with 28  a  children.  Two  Achievement results  equivalent  Test  of  were  with  of  administered  VIPCON  correlated  forms  (on-line  the  the  California  on-line  visual  California  and  Reading  off-line.  The  discrimination  Reading  text)  Achievement  Test  results. The pilot  authors i d e n t i f i e d  study.  students for  They  d i d and  more  (Server, The  precise  purpose  investigation was  extensive  review  five  year  Education of  consisted  as of  evaluation  In summit  the  and the  The as  reports did  1975-76  No  in  the  what  the  identified  a  need  exercises  to  or to  be  of  served  any  statistical  Meyers  &  Hirschbuhl,  year,  Woodridge  Computer-Based  29  a  population The  the  article Network.  descriptions  findings  any  of  Computer-Based  using  complete  more  results  communities.  i f  later,  university  counties  of  literature.  the  Akron's a  a  i n the  University  determine  implemented  found  i f further  analysis  was  reported  include  school  nor  Hirschbuhl  several  not  ascertain  statistical  surrounding of  to  study  Network  the  (Hirschbuhl,  County  they  comprehension  was  the  program  of  reader  the  pilot  in  procedures  the  significant  this  Myers  the  reports  enable  of  well  i n determining  and  the  warranted.  Network.  24,000  These  of  study  of  encountered  1970).  reported  Hirschbuhl,  comprehend,  scoring  was  findings  problems  expressed d i f f i c u l t y  d i d not  Stolorow,  several  of  which  would  differences  were  1980). School  District  Education  (CBE)  in in  grades five  seven and  treatment in  January  groups  the program.  replicated  noted  from  September to June and i n grades to  June.  CBE  treatment  groups  two months growth f o r every month i n the program while  non-CBE  were  eight  s i x from  averaged  month  and  that  students  over  this  a  variety  serious and  only  1.5 months f o r every  Though the r e s u l t s were encouraging and  particular  with  experimental  averaged  of  grade l e v e l s ,  program  reading  control  was  i t must be  available  deficiencies.  groups  only f o r Both  the  were  receiving  remedial  CBE  experiences  i n two  School  utilized  instruction. Akron  Public  elementary students below on  schools. with  During  second  and  assessed  In the f i r s t  year,  and  and  mentally  the program  retarded  post-tested  comprehension  each  CBE f o r  to be one or more years concentrated  year, the enrollment was l i m i t e d  educable  pre-tested  vocabulary  skills  reading d e f i c i e n c i e s r e g a r d l e s s of mental  the  disabled  reported  Seiberling  reading  grade l e v e l .  extreme  were  Schools  to l e a r n i n g  students.  year  in  ability.  Children  the areas of  u s i n g the C a l i f o r n i a  Achievement  Test. At five sixth  the  students grade  conclusion showed mean at  gain  of a  the 1977-78 s c h o o l year, the grade  mean was  gain of 1.43 grade l e v e l s . 1.63 grade l e v e l s .  five  students  while  the grade s i x mean gain was 0.9 grade  In 1979 grade  p o s t - t e s t had a mean gain of 0.3 grade  30  level.  The  level  It  was  during  this  enrollment  in  identified  as l e a r n i n g  The  authors  The two  was  this  of  limited  disabled  suggested  Jackson  the  to only  and e d u c a b l e  i s reflected  Elementary  studies.  Elementary system  six  received fifteen  The  School  for  grade  used  Math  The  minutes  program those  that  students  mentally  retarded.  i n the lower  grade  six  mean  gain  Achievement  using  Test.  grade  The  levels  for  f o r the c o n t r o l  tests  o f s i g n i f i c a n c e were  School defines  Warner  also  Computer-Based the  student  predominately achievement, matched  goup  pairs.  1.6  Based  Subjects  on  31  control  Both  groups  of  school levels.  the  the  were  treatment year. No  The  mean  article. Elementary  as  average,  middle  on  overall  Warner  c l a s s and  aptitude  p r e and p o s t - t e s t e d  group  statistical  Jackson  t o math  pre  California  Project.  assigned  group  conventional  Mathematics  randomly were  six class)  i n the Hirschbuhl  reported  population  were  grade  reported  A  f o r t h e CBE  the 1978-79  Education  white. -students  was  gain  support  and an a d d i t i o n a l  only  forms  Jackson  as a  (grade  sessions.  curriculum.  i n  i n a self-contained  group  received  mean  that  Station  curriculum  alternate  gain  Thomas  treatment  CBE  i s reported  reports  and e n r i c h m e n t  class)  of the p r e s c r i b e d  project  Learning  Mathematics in  CBE  study  CBE  CBE  daily  post-tested  3.5  a  remediation  class.  instruction  School  Hirschbuhl  the p r e s c r i b e d  (another  and  class  year  f o r 1979.  scores  was  the  second  and  classes i n as  reported  in  the  grade  Hirschbuhl  level  on the  Rather  than  curriculum  texts, 15  minutes  reported  Hirschbuhl,  of  the  Warner  received  of  CBE  to  .10  of  CBE  daily.  The  content sequenced  pre-test branched  states  curriculum  sub-sections  objectives.  Students  a question  was  that  objectives,  group  specific  until  prescribed  identical  The t r e a t m e n t  and  immediately  by  instruction  c o n t r o l groups  down i n t o  pre-test  were w i t h i n  homework a s s i g n m e n t s .  hierarchical broken  averages  pre-test.  and  and  The c l a s s  conventional  as  experimental  study.  received  consisted which  were  proceeded  missed.  of  from  They  were that  to  an  individualized  t u t o r i a l for  test  was  a d m i n i s t e r e d at  completion of  objective . A  comprehensive  objectives student The  in  went  teacher  a  sub-section.  back  to  tutorials  received  detailed  objectives  passed  objectives  repeated  Warner  computation  the  first  at  that  Local  the  weekly  the  performance,  next  reports  a  sub-section.  on the  number o f  within sub-sections,  favouring  the  p<.002  levels of  the  CBE of  school  F o r two months  32  CBE  time-outs,  year  showed  for  both  1980).  during  grade  during  t values  group  (Warner,  evaluated  reading  beginning  semester.  on t o  test  i n d i v i d u a l l y computed  Schools  The  or  on  scores.  and a p p l i c a t i o n a t  year.  assessed  and t e s t  differences  Revere school  by p r e - t e s t s  reported  significant  Based  all  six  the  students  and a t  the  1977-78  the  second  were  end  of  semester  students the  received  same  both  post-test months than  All  the  Though  No  most  designs of  the  with  suggest  made  average, buy  the  then  the  would the  CAI  in  average  semester  the  of  2.4  with  CBE  Meyers  &  the  type  of  the  producing  1970's,  areas,  where  programs  from  their  School  33  were  students,  significance  If  School out  in  Boards.  one  definitive Project in  a l l  is the  Education  results. CAI  the  with Not  programs  United  achievement  grants  and  leaves  the  carried  funded  low-economic  special  the  Computer-Based  districts  for  seriously  Hirschbuhl,  conditions  school  eligible  by  of  positive  federally  for  Portage  experimental/control  Elementary  Akron  in  information  statistical  evaluations  U n i v e r s i t y of  early  or  report  using  some  were  growth  results.  Jackson of  be  in  Network  post-testing  positive  to  to  CBE  1 980) .  experimental  appear  available  Schools  were  term  (Hirschbuhl,  years  programs  and  of  on  of  1.5  tests  only  Warner  indicative  In  second  an  the  the  Hirschbuhl,  CBE  of  able  Network  materials  the  gained  CBE  in  schools  pre  reports  by  &  the  descriptions  counties,  had  and  of  additional statistics  of  explicit  report  involved  Meyers  a l . evaluated  to  end  without  approximately  readers.  absence  the  p r o f i c i e n c y during  schools  (Hirschbuhl,  group  at  students  semester  reported  cited  instructor  1980).  of  disabled  The  but  that  reading  the  Hirschbuhl,  et  in  during  CBE.  semesters  indicated  more  County  daily  were  States.  had  been  below  which  they  could  a l l schools  who  were  eligible  those The  who  for  such  programs  did, received f i f t e e n  courseware  included  took  t e r m i n a l s and  1971  seven  programs.  and  physically  five  were  students  one  reading  achievement  of  schools.  practice  in  Language  Arts  report  and  usually  (CCC)  were  these  for  the  the  CAI  utilizing  were elementary  education  of  the  years  day.  was  f o r the s p e c i a l programs i n ten minutes of d r i l l  Teachers  received  report.  differences the  annually.  program student  activities  No  difference  using  as  opposed to any  However,  the  and  Daily Class occurred  Comparisons  were  individualized,  procedures.  the in  a  Branching  other programs which i n c l u d e d  of  any  reports.  evaluated  prescriptive  toward  below grade l e v e l i n  ten minutes i n e i t h e r Mathematics or  programs.  programs.  of  received  based on student  evaluation  CAI  54  a monthly P e r i o d i c Gain  d i a g n o s t i c and  attitude  and  every  project  important  purchased  schools  one-half  Students  made with  An  and  qualified  reading  automatically The  Corporation  Chicago had  schools  line-printer.  Language A r t s .  59  Instruction;  but  handicapped.  Only  the  in  1977-78,  Computer-Assisted schools  schools  By  one  Computer Curriculum  m a t e r i a l s i n Mathematics, Reading and In  advantage of them  was  indicated attention  of noted  the  there to  various  task  or  in  i n achievement of p u p i l s  effectiveness ratio 34  no  specialized  of four other s p e c i a l i z e d  cost  were  reading  f o r CAI  was  high  enough  specialized of  the  to  be  student  a  factor  in  selecting  programs. ( H a l l w o r t h ,  evaluation  procedures  and  no  one  Brebner,  statistical  of  these  1980).  None  findings  were  reported. During  the  instituted The  and  federally  program  nine,  1974-75  WRITE  for  The  funded  consisted  Elementary  experienced  four  serious slow  acquisition  of  new  Reading  and  Language  eight  five  schools.  The  teacher  opportunity skills drill  for  to and  A  more  for  though  for  results  were  disadvantaged.  grades three  two  through  through  time) in  excellent  problems which  1976.  six,  the  but  schools  (ie..  system  culminated  The  a l l students  a p p l i c a t i o n and  complex  California  nine.  introduced the  the  grades  operational  for  Nietos,  new  in  program  grades  in  the  provided  four  through  concepts  and  provided  t r a n s f e r of  newly  acquired  concepts.  The  computer  provided  the  practice.  three  year  of  Basic  Skills  in  1974,  most  produced  Arithmetic Skills  system  Los for  response a  year,  programs  achievement  breakdown,  in  of  Reading  grades  early  school  the  longitudinal  with of  students  whom  following  mean  study who  remained gains  35  in  using  the  California  were  in  grades  in  the  study  grade  level  four  and  through  Test five 1977»  equivalents:  grade 4  1974  1 975  means  means  mean gains  Math Reading Language  3.4 3.0 3.2  7.5 6. 4 5.9  4.1 3.4 2.7  Math Reading Language  3.4 3.5 3.2  8.2 8. 0 7.5  4.8 4.5 4.3  grade 5  « grade  l e v e l e q u i v a l e n t mean  Unfortunately suggests been  the study  that  2.1  the  grade  gains  has no non-CAI gains  expected  level  mean  to r e p o r t and only  g a i n without  equivalent  for  the  CAI would have  two year  academic  period . Computers and  were  there  vandalism  was  drill  criterion  significant  Brebner,  and  Bass  reduction  evaluation  was  evaluated  measurement an  was  and  reviewed  the  grade  an  average  year  experimental  t h i s same time  in  truancy  and  a number of s t u d i e s u s i n g Mathematics. was  the  Achievement T e s t . gain  equivalent.  group 36  score.  The  Stanford  c r i t e r i o n measure f o r Language  the M e t r o p o l i t a n as  school  1980).  measure f o r Mathematics e v a l u a t i o n Test  and a f t e r  that d u r i n g  and p r a c t i c e i n Language A r t s and  Achievement  involved  a  (Hallworth,  Vinsonhaler  was  f o r use before  the r e p o r t made note of the f a c t  period,  CAI  available  Art3  Performance The  unit  of  Each of the s t u d i e s  r e c e i v i n g CAI and t r a d i t i o n a l  instruction  and  instruction. Hawthorne areas  control  group  Some  studies  controlled  Effect  by  p r o v i d i n g CAI  receiving  only  traditional  f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y of  experience  i n other  subject  for control subjects. The  three  California, the  a  Michigan  duration  gain  major  and  New  in  York.  Language The  Arts  were  ranging  between  experiment  from  from  samples were l a r g e  of the s t u d i e s spanned the s c h o o l year.  differences  positive,  studies  and  The  and mean  c o n t r o l groups were  .1 to .4 of a school year  i n favour  of  CAI . The  f o l l o w i n g s t u d i e s i n Math were r e p o r t e d : C a l i f o r n i a 1966-67 and 1967-68 M i s s i s s i p p i 1967-68 New York 1968-69 and 1969-70 Michigan 1968-69 and 1969-70.  The  duration  Mississippi  to  Michigan. 3500). for  of  the nine  These Most  CAI  programs and  ranged  from  three  ten months i n C a l i f o r n i a ,  studies also u t i l i z e d  instruction  New  l a r g e samples  comparisons of mean gain scores  plus t r a d i t i o n a l  months i n  and  York  and  (n=l82 to  showed advantages  most d i f f e r e n c e s were  significant. Vinsonhaler Instruction effective that  and than  other,  instruction  and  Bass  traditional  traditional  less should  concluded  be  instruction  instruction  expensive examined  that  alone  Computer-Assisted together but  they  methods f o r augmenting ( V i n s o n h a l e r , Bass,  F l e t c h e r , Suppes and Jameson evaluated 37  are  more  suggested  traditional  1972).  a Mathematics d r i l l  and  practice school  program year  f o r grades  i n Mississippi.  experimental  and c o n t r o l  ranged  .41  from  favoured Suppes  CAI  major  conceptual and  development  of  Part  practice f i r s t  By students were  i n  State  were  University  elementary During the  CAI  was  school the d r i l l  to  i n achievement s i g n i f i c a n t l y  (p<.01)  The  (Fletcher,  the  with  grade  of  CAI  of the terminals  the  d r i l l  i n s t a l l e d  and  and  i n  school  practice  f o r the into  two  of the d r i l l  and  they  program f o r detailed  i n the schools  year,  the  and a  more  than  1500  Bay  i n Mathematics.  Kentucky and  area Two  at the Morehead  one was  placed  i n an  Kentucky. year,  t h e number  program  38  divided  the SanFrancisco  practice  School  i n E l l i o t v i l l e , 1967-68  school  i n Morehead,  Laboratory  identified  data.  1966-67  schools  at  the t u t o r i a l  Together  o f the student  Instruction  bases  was  description  Mathematics.  of  Computer-Assisted  philosophical  I I described  analysis  introduction  associated  detailed  Part  extensive  Computer-Assisted  1966-68.  a  elementary  receiving  teletypes  from  an  t h e c u r r i c u l u m . The volume  analysis end  1967-68  assigned  and  level  published  i n  the operation  the  grade  the  randomly  quivalent  each  explained  I  and second  behavioural  at  were  The d i f f e r e n c e  grade  issues  program.  curriculum,  .88  Morningstar  University  parts.  groups.  programs  Instruction  Students  s i xduring  1972).  and  Arithmetic  Stanford  to  students  & Jameson,  Suppes the  one through  remained  of students constant  i n i n  California  but  part-time  instruction  Mississippi than  640  500  Kentucky the number had  students  students  partial  at  to  telephone  1966-67  first  grade  second  grade  California  tutorial  CAI  schools  and  Control  to  were  pre  were  examined  and  D.  daily  In  instruction  McComb, and more  Center i n Iowa were g e t t i n g  the  student  and  terminals  practice  were  program v i a  one  through  in  in  f o r School  A  increase  B  A at  the  evaluation process.  i n an Experimental School (A)  in  was grade C  Students  a l l s c h o o l s and the d i f f e r e n c e s versus School B, School C versus performance  f o r students i n the  significantly  g r e a t e r than f o r the  three.  showed  Grades  a  four  significant  and s i x of increase i n  over those i n School D.  was  was  by 53  year of the program four  (B) w i t h i n the same d i s t r i c t .  post-tested  School  1968  SAT  was being used  the number i n c r e a s e d to 73  the f i r s t  participated  School  Experimental  The  program  1967-68  of  School  School  performance  In  s i x were t e s t e d  The  Experimental  In  drill  conclusion  three  Control  Stanford  1500.  students.  Grades  School  A l l of  students.  the  a  received  to  links.  The  At  the  of students e n r o l l e d i n  increased  a Job Corps  instruction.  connected  groups  in  the  evaluation  administered  was conducted  as p r e - t e s t  s i x . The d i s t r i b u t i o n not  a  matched  and p o s t - t e s t  to grades  of c o n t r o l and experimental  comparisons 39  i n seven s c h o o l s .  model.  Some s c h o o l s  contained both  only  experimental  experimental  mixed  and  classes).  classes  and  Data  control  Analyses  separated from  the  students  a l l  grades  the  four  and  receiving  students  i n  applications  may  authors  have  had  (Suppes, The funding  of  an  In  CAI  Ontario  on  the  some  and  performance. students In in  the  used  i n  mixed  demonstrated  that  were  students  significant with  two,  f o r  separated more  three  grades  classes,  than  and  f o r  control  five  and  i n  the  was  for  Ontario  Ministry  style  Generally,  executed  a  1979,  10,000 two  year  and  the  reported  were  40  Education,  Education,  and  f o r  with  initiated  (CARE)  project  Pool  (OAIP).  Instrument  contained  individual  advanced  as  lessons,  levels  and  the  of  remedial  period.  a l ls t u d e n t s  schools  i n  Evaluation  strategy  during  participating  and  of  tutorial  Approximately  of  well  Studies  Assessment  were  branching  September  the findings.  Institute  courses  CARE  i n teaching  1972).  Ontario  tests  and  eg.,  control  v a r i a b i l i t y  of  program  a  CARE  than  significantly  that  Remediation  The  more  grades  Computer-Assisted of  classes  groups;  classes  schools  at  Stanford  Morningstar,  component  mixed  gained  indicated effect  the  from  f o r two  contained  grade s i x .  The  analysis  with  differences  computation at  schools  separated  done  gained  five.  students  were  school  experimental  three,  ( i n  some  classes.  the  but  students;  i n grades  given  a  7  paper  through and  10  pencil  test.  Of  CARE  2000 s t u d e n t s  the  Arithmetic  informal was  material.  comparison  43$.  students  The r e m a i n i n g  group.  There  were  assigned  1082 w e r e  tested,  The a v e r a g e no  t o CARE  students  test  significant  and those  selected served  score  as an  i n September  differences  assigned  to use  between  to the comparison  group . In  January  administered. of  32  1980, The  possible  time was f o u r  the  mean  topics  hours.  number  The  authors  improved  significantly  also  improved  significantly  (p<.001).  greater  the  differences  A  that  pre  non-CARE  topics and  CARE  exposure  students not  students  non-CARE  but they  i n t h e same  indicated  completed,  again  was 7 ( o u t  to post-test,  of percentages  of  CARE  completed  were  and t h e average  reported  over  tests  that  the  the greater  the  students  (Gershman,  1981).  Sakamoto,  Unfortunately, subjects  were  groups.  I t  Effect  of topics  from  table  proportion between  and p e n c i l  i n Mathematics)  only  schools  paper  or  the  assigned i s  teacher  subjects  or i fi n t a c t  s i g n i f i c a n t description  comprised  CARE  effect weakens  and  of  groups  project but  to  i fthere  effect  were  have  randomly  not clear  classes  The  authors  a  appears the  was a  the report.  41  of  assigned  lack  have  a  whether comparison  f o r Hawthorne not stated i f  treatment/comparison  to  have of  and  control  the authors  to  stated  treatment  mixture  were  not  treatment.  produced  a  strong  precise  procedural  Summary  Use  of  Graphics  Arthur precedent  an  light,  and  the  Rigney  analogies.  In  display  may  otherwise  and  text  in  cause  If the  be  necessary  student,  then  learning  may  talked the  be  intuitive  graphics  in  occuring  that  this  any at  similar  effective Melmed  the  form  concepts  of  of  in has  necessary visual  graphics  which  form  They  of  would  of  animation  on o b j e c t i v e s  the  has  may  abstract  is  suggest  visual  being  form  using  concepts  focussed  are  a more  42  a  animated  simply  understanding  images  slowly,  instances,  While  some  of  attention  internal  be  of  no  explanations.  carefully  the  be  using  learning.  between to  may  providing  about use  In  some  images.  presentation  improved  must  images  acquisition verbal  in  has  proceed  a concept.  for  proposed the  brought  however,  Lutz  the  relationship must  a vehicle  case,  Daiker  graphics to  external  learning  must  that  internal  extensive  animation/graphics  the  and  either  require  sufficient  as  one  of  proposed  valid  simplify  Peters  the  Lutz  simulations  where  experience,  necessary  experience,  that  understanding  appropriate  identified  that  life  intuitive  stimulating  and/or  suggested  real  Rigney  providing  CAI  Melmed in  building  in  stimuli  that and and  student.  been  achieved  processed be  not  by  superfluous  cognitive  and the and  level.  This  may  also  s i g n i f i c a n t  King  f o r  same  may  Lutz  multi-mode  she  or  children  learned  not  According for  used  to  p i c t o r i a l  bunnies  f o r and  mneumonics responded graphic d  a  was  and  i s correctly  could  were  verbal  would  i n a  have  similar  of pre-testing, the  on  of time  difference  message)  graphics  i n  attending  to  f o r multi-mode  i t does  difference  Lutz,  students  i n  not i n d i c a t e how  graphic  Instead  letters,  a  KR  hat,  d  much  on  correct  have  followed  43  have  the  reasons  features  should  Yet i n her study, unrelated of  a  to the  magicians'  the graphics  a  chosen).  must  graphic  the subject.  identifying  response  made  therefore,  and  with on  using  the graphics  based  any  recognition.  ( i e . h  been  school  retained.  about  settings  training  effectiveness  auditory  on t h e  study.  significant  information  carrots  by  i n her the  Rigney  information  presented  when  and/or  was  Results  and  there  processing  convey  found  of graphics  whether  true  the  subjects  mention  studies  of  i n CAI.  already  Moore's  no  of  of  therefore  f o r the lack  King  of graphics  have  and  evaluated  Knowledge  Though  (use  hold  and  because  Because and  explanation  Moore  may  images  situation,  Kathy  task.  that  mental  condition  the  levels  subjects  redundant.  training  KR  of various  h i s  alternate  i n  reported  programs,  been  an  findings  effectiveness  labels  provide  dog).  could  l e t t e r ,  an  (dog s i t s  up  letters  hats have  I f the  Lutz  or been  student  appropriate o r wags  t a i l  In produce  1.  summary, an  in  and  understood  by  Subject  was  a l l  deemed  students  of  the  13  one  no  gains  significant studies remaining  i n  involved  significance,  which  i t  focus  relationship  images,  or  previously  to  CAI  to  should:  on  the  the  visualization  program  text  i s  of  abstract  achieved,  information  studies was  study  based  did  student  about  the  student  while  subject.  using 11  i n  achievement.  which  an  to  low  44  program Did  the  6  regular not  achieving  gains  in  student  e v a l u a t i o n and  p<.05  did  the  CAI?  reported  from  not  performance.  report  from  of  or  not  ranging  limited  whether  achievement,  students 5  on  reviewed,  differences  studies, were  reviewed,  improve  differences  7  achievement,  i n  students,  studies  One  reported  animation/graphics  Areas  effective  the  the  additional  achievement.  found  not  significantly  Of  of  student  whose  internal  provide  In  in  objectives  concepts  CAI  use  animation/graphics  provide  3.  the  improvement  u t i l i z e  2.  i f  Of  the  studies to  11  only which  reported  p<.001.  A l l 6  classrooms.  The  include  tests  of  students.  Eight  of  the s t u d i e s used All  pre and  Language A r t s or Math.  Fletcher;  Wilson  Suppes  Jameson,  &  &  branching  practice daily  Ontario)  and/or  reported  increases  control  programs  in  content  drill  consistently  teachers.  and  tutorial,  The  practice. for  though  and  Fletcher, units  drill  and  drill  and  remaining  Of  treatment  with r e g u l a r c l a s s e s ,  8  these 8, 7 groups  over  However, of the  p r a c t i c e , and 4 reported  teacher  significant  groups.  the  presentation  i n these s t u d i e s v a r i e d  tutorial,  enrichment,  2 of these were s i g n i f i c a n t .  systems  summary,  for  drill  d i f f e r e n c e s i n favour of CAI In  and  achievement  utilizing  management  Stolurow;  contained e x t e n s i v e t u t o r i a l  reports  primarily  groups and  &  student management systems which provided  weekly  were  Server  remediation  s e c t i o n s , and  of three s u b j e c t a r e a s ,  Some of the s t u d i e s (Atkinson &  Fitzgibbon;  for  programs  5  procedures.  of the programs focussed on one  Reading,  with  post-testing  greatly,  p r a c t i c e , and  significant  format  and  those s t u d i e s u t i l i z i n g  management systems,  results  specific  in  improving  produced student  achievement. Therefore tutorial, graphics  the  drill which  program  and are  designed  p r a c t i c e , and utilized  are  directly  related  the  a b s t r a c t concepts,  for  t h i s study i n c l u d e s  management components.  focus on the program  objectives,  to  the t e x t , provide a v i s u a l i z a t i o n  and  provide a d d i t i o n a l  the s u b j e c t . 45  The  of  i n f o r m a t i o n about  CHAPTER I I I  DESIGN  In  order to t e s t  AND  PROCEDURES  the hypotheses  restated  below,  versions  of the Sentence E l a b o r a t i o n Programme  was  the  presented  exercises;  no  presented  or  presented also  a  of  systematic  or  and  with  I and three  (SEP). V e r s i o n 1  pencil  and  paper  V e r s i o n 2 was  i n c l u d e d the same t e x t ; no  In v e r s i o n 3, the l e s s o n was  and  animation/graphics SEP  and produced  p i c t u r e s were used.  were used.  microcomputers  included  designed  experimenter  microcomputer  pictures  on  objective  the  graphics  on  graphics  by  experimenter  as s t a t e d i n Chapter  included  the same t e x t , but  i n the t u t o r i a l  section.  The  was to provide students with v a r i a t i o n s of a  approach  to i n c r e a s i n g  the use of noun m o d i f i e r s i n  sentences. A three  control treatment  ascertain to  group,  the  groups,  i f any treatment  pre-testing  or  which was p r e - and p o s t - t e s t e d with the was i n c l u d e d i n the study i n order to  changes which occurred at p o s t - t e s t were due rather  other  than  curricula  non-treatment f a c t o r s , within  c o n t r o l group r e c e i v e d no a d d i t i o n a l  46  the  such as  classroom.  instruction.  The  Hypotheses  Given  three  pencil/paper, to  a  no  treatment  1.  There  be  no  groups  for  a.  the  number  of  asked  the  group; who  and  were  a  pre-  and  Programme;  each  control  presented group  who  post-tested  with  to  100  w i l l  three  noun  of  words be  the  write  number  (-*=.05)  s i g n i f i c a n t difference  four  There  Elaboration  g r a p h i c s / c ornpu t e r ,  but  the  of  Sentence  groups:  w i l l  the  the  treatment  treatment  the  b.  of  text/computer,  different  received  2.  versions  no  ten  each  following  dependent  variables:  modifiers  used  students  individual  noun  modifiers at  when  sentences used  i n  at  two  were  post-test;  compositions  post-test.  s i g n i f i c a n t difference  treatment  between  groups  for  the  ( 0 C = .O5)  following  between  dependent  variables : a.  the  number  practice b.  the  c.  correct  section  number  level  of  of  which  of  the  amount  of  the  tutorial  time and  written  matched  required  d r i l l  i n  the  d r i l l  by  students  and  program;  sentenc'es  correctly  the  responses  and  program.  47  by  the  model  students  practice  at  each  sentence; to  sections  complete of  the  Program D e s c r i p t i o n The levels the  Sentence (TABLE  form  clauses added an  I).  of  and  E l a b o r a t i o n Programme (SEP) In the  adjectives,  determiners  to the  noun  was  adjectives  were  added  these  two  levels  following  abbreviations  V = Verb, Adj.  in  phrases,  dependent  (an, many, most, some, the,  etc.) were  subject  to modify the o b j e c t was  f o r other  Determiner, DC  prepositional  of s i x  noun m o d i f i e r s  nouns.  added to the sentence and  modifiers  Noun,  four l e v e l s ,  sentences to modify the  object  of  first  consisted  to  than j u s t are  encourage the subject used  in  = A d j e c t i v e , PP  = Dependent Clause,  ON  in level  noun.  students of the  TABLE  The  6,  two  purpose,  to use  noun  sentence.  The  I:  = Prepostional = Object  In l e v e l 5  SN  =  Subject  Phrase, D =  Noun.  TABLE I. Six l e v e l s of the Sentence E l a b o r a t i o n Level  1.  Level 2 . Level  3-  Level  4.  Adj. - SN - V eg: F l u f f y Clouds  Programme  float.  Adj. - A d j . - N - V eg: B i g black bears growl. D - Adj. - Adj. - SN - PP - V eg: The strange spotted plant i n the bloomed .  corner  D - Adj. - Adj. - SN - DC - V eg: A bent o l d man who was wearing ragged clothes smiled.  L e v e l 5.  D - Adj. - Adj. - SN- DC - V - ON eg: Some black spotted bugs that l i v e garden eat l e a v e s .  L e v e l 6.  D - Adj. - Adj. - SN - DC - V - Adj. - Adj. - ON eg: The t a l l maple tree that grows i n the park l o s e s big dead l e a v e s .  48  i n the  In each  keeping  level  following  with  of  the  the  findings  Sentence  of  the  Review  Elaboration  of  Programme  the  Literature,  consisted  of  the  components:  Part  I  an  interactive  the  elaboration  when Part  II  a  student  drill  and  identified matching Part  III  a  tutorial  practice group  the  to  and  provided  were  review  incorrect,  section  of  demonstrated  in  words  as  which  the  matching  student  or  not  model,  production  asked  process  responses  a  which  section  write  five  in  which  the  sentences  student  conforming  was to  the  model .  Tests Covariates CTBS assignment Skills used which  Total of  raw to  determine  covariance  of  dependent  the  i f any  group  should  Total  to  from  interfere  Compilation  (CTBS)  students  scores  might  Language  be  Language  Skills control  Canada  entry with  and  Tests  .  of  differences  (TABLE with  Skills  the  scores  variables.  49  After  treatment Basic  II)  of  groups,  Canada  Tests  of  as  covariate  Language  the  post-test an  random  (CTBS)  across  indicated  a  the  Skills  existed  interpretation  means used  Score  were  groups  results.  analysis Basic for  of  Skills a l l  the  TABLE Mean  CTBS  Total  II.  Language  Skills  scores  Raw  Group  Pencil/Paper  (T1)  Text/Computer  (T2)  Graphics/Computer  Pre-Test prior ten  to  number The  Measure  instituting  spelling of  words  the  of  Pre-Test  for  Post-Test  Measure  to  instituting  write  two  compositions,  topic length account  composition  from of for  a  list  of  6.9  565  .6.2  547  6.2  Sentences) .  students wrote  1  were  five  of  which  students titles.  for in  given  a  week list  The  of  total  for  individual  students.  was  used  additional  as  an  1.  program,  each  One  sentences.  (Composition).  day,  change  681  recorded  Measure  the  compositions any  was  2  6.4  they  Measure  prior  each  program,  Equivalent  576  (Spelling  f o r which  modifiers  Pre-Test  On  1  noun  result  covariate  (T3)  group.  Grade  Score Control  by  In  a l l subjects were  50  two  the  pages  allowed  order  to  which  was  be the  might  two  were  were  a l l students writing  During  asked  in to  sure  to  length. select that  same, have  weeks  and  a the to  occurred  from  the  beginning  100  words  the  second  in  modifiers was  used  the  Post-Test  an  covariate  Measure  words  o f noun  write  two  100  Measure  a  first in  o f noun  they  100  first  words  number  Pre-Test  f o r Post-Test  of  in  noun  Measure  Measure  2  were  given  wrote  2  2.  o f SEP,  of five  100  words  the  second  were  As  i n the f i r s t  m o d i f i e r s was  composition compiled  5 1  list  were  pages  allowed  were  f o r each  total  the  two  asked  to  in length. to s e l e c t  i n the Pre-Test composition  of ten  students.  During  two  week  The  a l l s u b j e c t s were  of which  titles.  a new  for individual  the students  list  One  sentences.  (Composition) .  each  day,  Sentences).  recorded  completion  composition  words  number  total  student.  students  which  compositions,  from  the  the l a s t  The  (Spelling  m o d i f i e r s was  following  each  1  o f SEP, for  weeks  2,  used.  additional  Post-Test  topic  were  and  the  Measures  spelling  On  the c o m p o s i t i o n s ,  composition  f o r each  completion  number  of  compiled  Post-Test after  first  compositon were  as  t o t h e end  and  used. student.  a  Measure the  The  last total  Measure 3 ( D r i l l correct six  responses  l e v e l s of SEP  and  for was  Practice).  the  drill  recorded  which  l e v e l s of SEP  matched was  the  recorded  beginning  of  The  model  f o r each  Measure 5 (Time).  The  the t u t o r i a l  and  t o t a l number of  sentence  number  by student, and  of  minutes  for  levels  data ' from  analysis  practice  then a t o t a l  SEP  was  number  recorded  for  of  v a r i o u s measures were t r e a t e d as f o l l o w s ,  covariance  at  Research  S e r v i c e Centre.  the  Pre-Test  Post-Test  and  the  Procedures  program  and  from  students.  Statistical  The  of  .minutes  of the d r i l l  f o r each l e v e l  The  on each of the s i x  of  recorded  individual  sentences  student.  to the end  six  number of  student.  was  the  total  p r a c t i c e s e c t i o n s of a l l  f o r each  Measure 4 ( P r o d u c t i o n ) . written  The  1.  University The  was of  done u s i n g the SPSS computer British  Columbia  CTBS T o t a l Language S k i l l s  1 ( S p e l l i n g Sentences) were used The  CTBS  Education  Total  52  Language  scores  as c o v a r i a t e s f o r  Skills  scores  and  Pre-Test 2  (Composition)  (Composition).  used 4  2  The  were used as c o v a r i a t e s f o r P o s t - T e s t  CTBS  T o t a l Language S k i l l s  c o v a r i a t e s f o r Measure 3 ( D r i l l  as  ( P r o d u c t i o n ) and  basic  design  study.  The  divided  between two  in  North  subjects  of  this  were  56  classrooms  Vancouver,  British  students were randomly assigned  Control  Sentences) no  and  additional  Post-Test  1  Design investigation grade  six  i s a four group  students  who  were  at Burrard View Community  School  Columbia.  class,  to one  Within  each  of four groups.  (n=l4)  C o n t r o l Group The  P r a c t i c e ) , Measure  Measure 5(Time).  Research The  and  scores were  students Pre-Test writing  (Spelling  assignments with  completed  the  2 (Composition) instruction,  Sentences) and  the treatment  and  1  (Spelling  assignments, r e c e i v e d then  Post-Test 2  students.  53  Pre-Test  completed  the  (Composition)  Pencil/Paper Each the  Group  (T1)  morning  these  tutorial  on  followed an  The  "n"  "y"  words  matched  model  sentence  were to  scored  both  by  Room  begin.  exactly  the  Pencil/Paper used  i n  the  not  words. the  The words  the  screen  sentence  asked  to write  able  i fthe  to see the  time.  The  sheets  were The  asked  teacher  production).  text  Again,  no  "y" or  54  loaded  to type  by  the  pictures and  the model  the model  came  into  the names  program  teacher  sentence  were  section, and  "n" to indicate When  was  to the  or graphics  practice  sentence.  to the  i n their  of the t u t o r i a l  In the d r i l l  typed  students  was  presented  displayed  matched  were  practice,  the students and  ( T I ) .  students  graphics  p r a c t i c e ) was  to the model.  program  that  program.  or  the students  the Text/Computer  f o r  as  teacher  to indicate  a t one  then  where  (n=l4)  content  Group  microcomputer of  (T2)  ready  same  They  conforming and  were  of words  and  and  a  o f the model  Students  model.  ( d r i l l  where  The  ( d r i l l  Room  by  pictures  example  group  the teacher  presented  No  a l l ten problems  of four,  microcomputers, and  each  sentences  Group  an  of words.  sentence  and  groups  Resource  included  assignments  Text/Computer In  and  the  five  was  blackboard.  beside  collected write  a  ten groups  or  i n the Resource  recognition exercise  paper  by  met  of the lesson  using  used.  printed  students  portion  (experimenter) were  (n=14)  one  the group  whether  the answer  or was  correct, ("good  the work",  incorrect, model." group  the  of  number  model  the  was  of  students  each  the were  model.  Graphics/Computer As  program  was  students  type  of the t u t o r i a l  the  Pencil/Paper  difference  Graphics/Computer sentence "y" sure  or to  the group  and a g r o u p "n", check  and  and  their  file.  practice  Group  and  After sections,  conformed  microcomputers,  were  and b e g i n .  t h e same  and  were  to  the  where t h e  ready  f o r the  The c o n t e n t and  groups.  presented to  There  practice  was  sections  f o r the model  p r e s e n t e d ; the student  typed  The m o d e l  ("very  group.  no  The  feedback  55  Room  as t h a t  the Text/Computer  o f words  (T2),  to the Resource  names  drill  the model.")  by  At t h e  the l e v e l  s e n t e n c e s which  Text/Computer  received  The  the teacher/experimenter.  came the  and  text.  stored  the  while the  of the program  new  was  (n=l4)  program  and  between  by  to check  presented.  student's  Text/Computer  into  text  five  (T3)  students  in  the  drill  to write  the  loaded  to  and  scored  was  for  in  the answer  sure  of presentation ready  reinforcers  the screen  group  answers  Group  Graphics/Computer  on  the computer  were  with  a n d a hew  "Be  session,  asked  These  to  remained  when  tutorial  positive  In the event  asked  rate  bar  correct  completing  was  the  of five  etc.).  erased  space  of  one  sentence  controlled  conclusion  good",  student  words  pressing  received  "very  The  student  the  student  good",  sentence  e t c . o r "be  remained  on t h e  screen new  while  group.  on  five  were  of  computer  and  the  the  in  their  files  conformed  was the  and  modifiers  remain  (T2  were  and  to the  erased rate  and the  and  of  practice,  to  replaced  by  presentation,  the  they  level  were  model.  to  the  were  for  to  four  had  to  lines In  be  to  and  asked  These  place  a  and  number  to  were  write scored  sentence.  was at  a  versions  time, 3»  into  to  when 5  the  and  and  6,  more  noun  appeared  the  changing  the  text  still  the  presented  as  the  text  for  and  limit  used  animation  sentences  order  two  visualize  related  In  necessary  models  loaded  students  the  were  The  students the  for  graphics  graphics  computer  same  tutorial.  in  The  the  and  help  that  both  i t  (T3)  added.  changing'  was  animation  Group  ensure  same  program  T3)»  taking  nouns  graphics.  graphics  the  designed  animation/graphics, text  of  and  changes  simultaneously picture  text  Graphics/Computer  graphics  with  controlled drill  which  groups  descriptive  of  words  teacher/experimenter.  Although  in  of  the  stored  sentences  the  group  Students  completion  correct  by  the  to  utilize  presentation  in  conjunction  than  one  set  of  Table  of  program.  Procedures Two Random four  weeks  prior  Numbers, groups;  implementation  students  Control,  Graphics/Computer  to  (T3).  were  randomly  Pencil/Paper The  SEP,  using  assigned  (T1),  classroom  56  of  to  a  one  Text/Computer  teachers  were  of  the  (T2), given  or a  l i s t  of  five  teachers  asked  composition the  to  the  which  story  prior  composition  a  t i t l e  this  same  week,  which  contained The  with  single  Apple  school's  Resource  write  a  drives  and  Room other's  the students  to  and  have on  a  not necessary  themselves  with  Having Group  a c t i v i t i e s .  They  additional asked At  regular  received  to complete each  the  continued  exercises  9:15  using  way  11+  the  students During each  of  microcomputers  These,  along  were  set  that  tables,  with  up  students  the  i n the were  and/or  not  desks  Group. View  Community  the school's  basis time  (one week  PET  f o r at least  School  and  Apple  two y e a r s ,  f o r the students  to  have 11 +  so i t  familiarize  computers.  completed  students  been  a  ensure  composition.  Apple  Chairs,  i n Burrard  to allow  the  a  screens.  (to  week  asked  write  ten sentences,  monitors.  such  and  The  words.  three  All  of  page  drive/monitor, i n  next  again  wrote  borrowed  t i t l e  i n length  The  two  also  experimenter. a  pages  teachers  f o r the Pencil/Paper  microcomputers  were  two  provided  access  was  and  II+/disk  to see each  select  of ten spelling  disk  school's  able  o f SEP)  experimenter  the  100 w o r d s . )  students  one  by  to  at least  contain  t o commencement  select  were  students  was  would  t i t l e s  until  Pre-Test with no  morning  of  their  students  writing  the program,  57  the  regular  information  the  Post-Test  procedures,  and  from  Control classroom  performed  a l l four  no  groups  assignments. the fourteen  students  in  the  Pencil/Paper  teacher/experimenter tutorial  students  completion  d r i l l  and  student  the  as  the the  names  experimenter  d r i l l  f o r  and  tables  began  had  moved  arrived,  and  the  names all (T3)  into  the students  students routine  in  f o r  they  their  the  five  This  only  week  groups each  one each  started  procedure  the  following (Control,  of their  arrived.  They  lapsed  time  as  time  was  the t u t o r i a l  and  moved  next  to desks  or  When  a l l four  four  students  they  typed  their  i t s e l f  u n t i l  Graphic/Computer  lesson.  Because  day,  the  the  entire  f o r s i x days. completion T1,  T2,  ten spelling  58  their  The  per  on  to  repeated  level  time  rooms.  t h e same  as  the  sentences  at  (T2) and  day's  SEP day  the  questions.  five  sentences.  tables, was  to  returned  then  the  distributed  students  They  began  the lapsed  completed  The  portion.of the  to their  stopwatch.  as  completed  i t s e l f  the  a l l four  sentences  the  stopwatch  received  During  computer  room.  she  writing  (T1)  i n the Text/Computer  had  repeated  After  returned  sections.  to  recorded  the microcomputer  the computers.  groups  then  four  writing  students  as  i n response  Group  student  practice  and  and  started  each  hands  finished.  into  the  the interactive  students  f i r s t  to  the experimenter  Pencil/Paper  their  recorded  they  to the model,  classrooms, typed  papers  came  stopwatch  their  of the t u t o r i a l ,  papers  As  a  During  raised  practice  conforming  (T1)  started  presentation.  t u t o r i a l , On  Group  o f SEP,  the  students  T 3 ) , once  again  wrote  words  wrote  a  and  two  page  composition.  students  wrote  the  post-test  two  provided  to  Pre-Test  the  first  composition  their  the  the  During  classroom  composition  2  second  Post-Test  compositions  Measure  were  second  the  were  teacher  by  the  used.  59  last  following  SEP,  composition.  Titles  for  selected  a new  list  from  the experimenter.  (composition), and  week  the f i r s t 100  words  100  As i n  words  of the  of  second  CHAPTER ANALYSIS  Summaries The  o f Group means  Skills,  and  and  1  1  of  deviations  Covariance o f CTBS  Total  Sentence),  (Spelling  Drill/Practice  are presented  DATA  (Spelling  Post-Test  (Composition),  THE  Analyses  standard  Pre-Test  (Composition),  Time,  Means  OF  IV  score,  Language 2  Pre-Test  Sentence),  Post-Test  Production  score,  and  i n TABLE I I I .  TABLE I I I  STANDARD  Pencil/ Paper (TI  576' (160)  5.3 . (2.8)  parentheses)  3 Dr/Pr  Meas . 4 Prod .  Meas . 5 Time (Kin)  Meas .  Pre 2 Comp.  Pst 1 Spell  (  11.0 «.7)  5.3 (1.8)  (  11.3 5.9)  Pre 1 Spell  CTBS Control  MEANS DEVIATIONS ( i n  Pst 2 Coop .  )  681 (237)  1.6 (2.9)  (  12.8 5.2)  7.8 (6.8)  (  15.2 8.4)  53.4 (5.2)  15.2 (7.8)  2507 (207)  (T2)  565 (163)  4. 4 (3-2)  (  9.7 1.6)  9.9 (4.6)  (  14.7 8.7)  40.8 (8.7)  11.8 (8.8)  2669 (588)  Graphics/ Compu t e r ( T 3 )  516 (217)  2.9 (2.1)  (  12.7 5.7)  7.0 (3-6)  (  15.1 5.7)  44 . 9 (7.6)  15.4 (7-5)  3270 (568)  Teit/ Computer  The modifier  significance use  in  of  differences  Spelling  of  Sentences 60  . the  means  (Post-Test  f o r noun 1)  2  and  Compositions treatment CTBS  (Post-Test groups  scores  Pre-Test  as  1  Post-Test  was a  (Composition)  covariate  served The  degrees  are  summarized  with  an •.  for  the  using  also  o f freedom, IV.  of  the  three  residual  covariate  Significant  Post-Test  2  f o rPost-Test  2  ( d f ) , mean  mean  2.  as a c o v a r i a t e f o r  while  freedom  with  1 and P o s t - T e s t  served  Sentence),  degrees  and  analysis of covariance  as an a d d i t i o n a l  i n Table  control  f o rPost-Test  Sentence)  (Spelling  (Composition). residual  tested  (Spelling 1  2)  square,  F values  square,  and F  values  are indicated  TABLE I V . SUMMARY  OF A N A L Y S I S SPELLING  OF C O V A R I A N C E S E N T E N C E S AND  df  Mean Square  Residual df  Residual Mean Square  61 .4  50  15.7  1 .5  50  42.6  Noun M o d i f i e r s Spelling Sentences Noun M o d i f i e r s in Compositions  The mean and  significance  scores practice  sentences  section  of  and  of  the  written  (Production), analysis  for  OF NOUN M O D I F I E R COMPOSITIONS.  differences  number  of correct  o f SEP ( D r i l l which  the  covariance  total with  of  lapsed t h e CTBS  61  3-9  < 1  the treatment  responses  and P r a c t i c e ) ,  matched  the time scores  USE IN  i n the d r i l l t h e number o f  model were  group  sentences tested  using  as the c o v a r i a t e .  The  degrees  of  freedom  freedom,  residual  TABLE  Significant  V.  SUMMARY  ( d f ) , mean  mean F  square, values  and  residual  F values  are indicated  TABLE A N A L Y S I S OF C O V A R I A N C E PRODUCTION SCORES,  OF  square,  by  degrees  of  are reported  i n  an  *.  V. OF D R I L L AND P R A C T I C E AND L A P S E D T I M E .  df  Mean Square  Residual df  Residual Mean Square  D r i l l and Practice  2  413.5  38  47.8  Produc t i o n  2  52.4  38  55.7  Time  2  464 . 1  38  56 .0  1 , Use  Post-Test  The  o f Noun  analysis  of  differences  among  that  while  a l l three  noun  modifiers  Control  in Spelling  covariance  groups.  in  mean  remained  <1 8.291*  increased  constant.  significant  of Table  sentences  the g r e a t e s t  8 . 6 42*  indicated  groups  spelling  F  Sentences  Examination  treatment  (T2) demonstrated  I I I shows  i n number  at Post-Test, The  of the  Text/Computer  increase. Null  hypothesis  rejected.  Post-Test An  the  used  group  students 1 a was  Modifiers  SCORES,  2.  Use  o f Noun  analysis  differences  among  of  Modifiers  i n Compositions  covariance  groups  for  62  use  showed of  no noun  significant modifiers  i n  compositions .  D r i l l  and  Null  analysis  differences i n  in  I I I  Table  achieved  The  sentences  The  not  rejected.  that  the of  highest  Sentences  analysis  of  across  the  for  of  s i g n i f i c a n t  number  group  correct  on  the  of  means  Pencil/Paper  correct as  CTBS  shown  students  responses.  the 2b  was  Lapsed Time From and Practice).  of the  other  Conformed  (T2)  However,  scores.  i n  Null  group  Beginning  treatment (T3)  treatment  rejected.  63  the no  for  the  Model). s i g n i f i c a n t  the  number  production  of  sections  rejected.  covariance  three  two  groups  models not  to  indicated  treatment  matched  across  That  covariance  hypothesis  the  groups  examination  number  analysis  by  revealed  rejected.  Graphics/Computer  required was  was  Null  differences  An  also  (Writing  (Total D r i l l  treatment  d r i l l .  were  which  An  the  highest  2a  differences  SEP.  was  covariance  indicates  students  Production.  Time.  the  the  hypothesis  of  across  responses  of  1b  Prantins  The  these  hypothesis  of  Tutorial  indicated groups  required groups.  for more  Null  to  End  of  s i g n i f i c a n t lapsed time  time.  than  hypothesis  was 2c  Observations Although  the  significant sentences models, from  analysis  differences students  the  group  were  number to  of  between able  This  detected  groups  for  the  write  that  matched  to  of students  group.  covariance  who  produced  information  no  number  t h e SEP  the models  i s presented  of  varied  i n TABLE  VI .  TABLE V I . NUMBER  OF S T U D E N T S W R I T I N G S E N T E N C E S WHICH MATCHED S E N T E N C E , BY GROUP- AND L E V E L .  0  1  2  3  .4  5  THE MODEL  6  Levels  In  the  students production  Graphics/Computer  produced sections  produced  sentences  students  i n  the  sentences of for  group  for  the program at  the P e n c i l / P a p e r  Text/Computer  group  least group  (T3),  a l l s i x  models  and a t o t a l  o f 11  i n  the  students  five  models.  Only  (T1),  and t h r e e  students  i n  sentences  fora l l  s i x  ( T 2 ) , produced  64  s i x of the f o u r t e e n  three  models.  Seven  students  students  in  Text/Computer  at  least  the  the  five  number  in  group  the  than  were  noted. less  students  Room  During  production On  last  students the  were  room  visibly that  distracted,  these  for  the  the  lower models All  while  to  on  two  and  time  production 5  the  the  scores  to  primary  (T3)  come  Room.  primary  the  models  generally 5  the  than  working Resource  from  the  gym  activities.  the  same  began  seven  playing  students  the  in  were  experimenter  b a n d ) may  sentences  be took  6  and  were  to  The of  students  should  evening  opinion  House,  writing  more  models  band  in  significantly  students  the  Resource  (Open  students  came d i r e c t l y  for  the  for  groups.  f o l l o w i n g day,  a  i t is  spent  the  computer  computer.  Graphics/Computer carefully  T3)  sentences  and  f o r the G r a p h i c s / C o m p u t e r  account  therefore, group  (T3)  6.  and  of  students  when the  factors  reduced  on  the  six  which  students  preparing  disturbed  made  and  f o r more  treatment  when  group,  lesson  adjacent  day  a  sentences  were  (T1)  the  models,  sentences.for  seven  was 6  model  the  the  produce two  though produce  matching  Graphics/Computer  class  the  not  observations  the  their  that  did  other  group  ( t 2 ) produced  appears  to  the  (Graphics/Computer  where  to  able  models.  5,  model  It  Pencil/Paper  group  group  from  write  previous  on  the  to  the  sentences  other  Firstly, time  for  of were  Several  on  models.  Graphics/Computer  greater  in  read  the  treatment However,  students text  (T3)  when  65  students  attended  the  experimenter  did  not  remediation  appear  to  occurred  to  task  noted  that  take  time  following  an  error.  Instead,  cases  they  These  students,  graphics  they  continued  with  looked  without  also  at  reading  reacted  to  smiles, chuckles,  the  the  p i c t u r e and  the  accompanying  various  etc. during  the  i n some text.  animation  and  lesson.  SUMMARY  In following 1.  light  of  the  statements Although  results are  remained  constant,  modifiers 2.  3.  No  used  The  Pencil/Paper  Text/Computer students  group  treatment  of the  T h e r e was  no  (T1)  the  than  noun  sentences. between  groups  scored the  higher drill  than  and  the  practice  S e n t e n c e E l a b o r a t i o n Programme. d i f f e r e n c e between the  total  t h e model  number o f s e n t e n c e s  tutorial  and  d i d the o t h e r  treat-  written  sentences.  G r a p h i c s / C o m p u t e r group  complete  (T2)  compositions.  g r o u p s on  significant  which matched  o f SEP  Spelling  o f noun m o d i f i e r s i n  two  increased  C o n t r o l g r o u p mean  differences occurred  use  The  the  the  hypothesis.  g r e a t e s t mean number o f  ment g r o u p s f o r t h e  5.  the  the  g r o u p means  while  i n Post-Test  for  section 4.  the  significant  other  treatment  to Post-Test  demonstrated  a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e ,  made r e g a r d i n g  a l l three  from P r e -  o f the  (T3)  drill  r e q u i r e d more t i m e and  treatment  66  to  practice sections groups.  CHAPTER DISCUSSION  The  problem  identify  appropriate, writing  program  produce  The  which  i f any  noun  modifiers  were  program  f i n a l l y , enabled a  to the  regular  designed text  of An  would  to  of  Noun  a  teacher  examine  the  this be  to  was i n  cause  was  to  combined  with  study  would  study  produce  students  Then, students  model to  Programme  a  with  sentence  semi-concrete to  order  develop to  children  how  the  having  and  determine  to  use  to  more  setting.  program  The  difference to  The  two  changed  model  increase  the  through as  noun  changes,  pencil/paper without  using the  the  sentences,  computer  between  by  experience,  sentence  identify  the  designed  demonstrated  sentences.  present  the  was  semi-concrete  visualize  added.  produce  of  writing.  provide  required  order  program  Elaboration  could  I  could  the  such  their  i n  provide  animation/graphics i n  which  variations  classroom  with  modifiers  Use  to  Chapter  graphics  of  the  i n  students  modifiers the  of  CONCLUSIONS  i n  CAI  purpose  Sentence  experimenter which  which  variations  The  of  effective  experiences.  AND  identified  components  V  and  version  computers versions text  only  use  of  i n  were and noun  sentences.  Modifiers i n  examination  of  Spelling TABLE  Sentences  I I I shows  67  that  and  Compositions  a l l three  treatment  group  means  exceeded  importantly,  the  Pre-Test  Post-Test  means  a l l  with  use  to  increased  Text/Computer  No  significant  of  noun  of  the  instruction  took  Sentence being  analysis  to  of  place  because  use  noun  production  but  the  not  and  to  Post-Test.  Sentence  Production, Both the  and  the  Resource  found  Lapsed  than  within i n  noun  i n  not the  program  the  with  use  asked  not  sentences  for  However,  the  may  have  groups. no  A l l  carry  over  the  entire  s i x  and  without  days  The  fact  differences  i n to of  Spelling  among  use  the  time  the  D r i l l  for  that the  sentence  compositions  sufficient  Programme;  group  groups  design  between  single  length  was  among  compositions.  modifier  were  most.  from  completed  significant  use  the  Room  Students  Elaboration  computer  program  the  models  because  with  The  the  treatment  Spelling  research  differences  Programme  for  interacted at  the  More  unchanged  compositions.  of  modifier  students  compositions  occur  i n  found  means.  was The  increasing  Post-Test  lack  score  Post-Test  were  within  covariance  for  mean  assignments.  asked  groups  i n  group  writing. to  differences  Elaboration  mean  Pre-  group  the  classroom  group  from  program to  Control  sentence  modifiers  contributed  to  Control  the  use  the  may  models  be i n  students  differences  and  Practice.  Time  groups did  took  longer  the  to  complete  Pencil/Paper  68  each  group,  level with  of the  Graphics/Computer the  time  group  difference  animation/Graphics graphics  into  of  could  text  versions  responses  instructor  scored  computer  to  not the  were to  higher  on  they of  did the  significance  and  practice  considered clarify  with  if  the  alternative find  the  groups  with  all  ten  they  of  and  groups were  of  able  Both  lines  computer  all  questions  made  incorrect of  and  the who  therefore,  (T1) required  the  less  sections  significantly  better  models  of  words be  which  of  Perhaps  the  words to  four  section  practice  portion  may  words  the  because students  Pencil/Paper  actually  groups  of  they  the  load  only  answer  correct  score  the  were  explanation  that  to  graphics.  when  fact  of  time  than  the  higher  on  the  scores  on  the  program.  matched  ten  and  group  reservations.  which  examining  not  disk,  Part  concepts.  drill  matching  students  sentences  review  the  time  quickly  usually  time.  the  tutorial  moved  Pencil/Paper  section  The  The  lessons  in  to  information  most  more  the  students  review  have  the  with  questions.  groups,  production  the  answers  Although  paper,  presented  group  did  from  the  for  required  computer  be  to  volunteered  drill  the  requiring  accounted  version  and  non-computer  and  is  required  individually  (T3)  did  and  perform  69  not  the  the  able  recognize  to  whether " y V n "  match  multiple  should  testing  they  model  program  further  or for  that  group  they  be  would the were  patterns.  An  were  better  able  the  models  because  sentence  on t h e  comparisons  (as  to  same in  a  multiple (T1) the  choice  was  not  equally  program  students  format).  leads  were  able  The  fact  that  s u c c e s s f u l on  this to  the  the  experimenter  find  the  Pencil/Paper  production  to  section  conclude  sentences which  group  didn't  of  that  the  match  the  model. Suggestions A one  model  per  that  Evaluation student  week  of  the  writing  transference A  concepts  but  would  information.  use  by  remedial  and  the  produce of  review  treatments  might  effective  in  in  of  treatment  would  graphics.  If  loops  indicate initial  of  for  the  all  whether  to  sample  program, The  of  during directed  results. also  include  for  remedial  review  in  or  and  reverse,  computer  or  treatment of  treatments, text  a  presentation  operate the  presentation  a  program.  original  graphics  only  compositions.  include  the  might  receive  classroom  then  the  without  remedial  in  definitive  study  students  teacher/experimenter  commencement  the  text  the  could  more  graphics  which  models  completion  A second  followed  in  enable  to  after  uses  study  program  replication utilizes  the  prior  and may  Study  of  students  program,  which  Further  replication  require  the  for  the  text  records  all  a comparison  graphics  in  are  of  most  remedial/review  presentation. If week,  the it  post-testing  study would  is  replicated,  also  procedures  be to  presenting  enlightening determine  70  to if  only  one m o d e l  perform the  use  per  delayed of  noun  modifiers  in  classroom w r i t i n g s c o n t i n u e s to i n c r e a s e ,  constant or decreases over  time.  71  remains  BIBLIOGRAPHY Atkinson, R i c h a r d C. a n d F l e t c h e r , J o h n D. "Teaching C h i l d r e n t o Read w i t h a C o m p u t e r , " R e a d i n g T e a c h e r v o l . 2 5 , No. 4 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 2 ) , 319-327.  ,  Bowman, R i c h a r d F . , J r . "A * P a c - M a n ' T h e o r y o f M o t i v a t i o n : T a c t i c a l Implications f o r Classroom I n s t r u c t i o n , " E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 22, no.9 (September 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 14,16. Brod,  R. L . "The c o m p u t e r a s an a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e : some e f f e c t s o f C A I on s t u d e n t p e r c e p t i o n o f teacher a u t h o r i t y , " Technical Report. (ERIC, March 1973 ED 069 1 5 4 ) , 1972.  Brudner, Harvey J . " L i g h t On: Microcomputers, Special Education, a n d CMI," Educational Technology , v o l . no. 7 ( J u l y 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 25-28.  22,  C h a m b e r s , J a c k A. a n d B o r k , A l f r e d . "Computer A s s i s t e d L e a r n i n g i n U.S. Secondary/Elementary Schools," Computing T e a c h e r , v o l . 8, n o . 4 p p . 5 0 - 5 1 . "Developments i n L e a r n i n g Psychology, I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l D e s i g n ; and E f f e c t s o f C o m p u t e r T e c h n o l o g y on I n s t r u c t i o n a l D e s i g n a n d D e v e l o p m e n t , " Educational T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 2 2 , n o . 16 ( J u n e 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 11-15. Dimas, C h r i s . "A S t r a t e g y T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 18,  f o r D e v e l o p i n g CAI," Educational No. 4 ( A p r i l 1 9 7 8 ) , p p . 2 6 - 2 9 .  D w y e r , F r a n c i s M. Strategies Learning Services, State  f o r Improving V i s u a l Learning College, Pennsylvania, 1978.  E i s e l e , James E. " C o m p u t e r s and C o g n i t i v e Learning, " E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 2 2 , n o . 10, ( O c t o b e r 1982), pp. 33,34. F l e t c h e r , J . D. a n d A t k i n s o n . " E v a l u a t i o n of the S t a n f o r d CAI P r o g r a m i n I n i t i a l R e a d i n g , " J o u r n a l o f Educational Psychology , v o l . 6(1972), 597-602. F l e t c h e r , J . D. a n d S u p p e s P. "Computer A s s i s t e d I n s t r u c t i o n i n R e a d i n g : G r a d e s 4-6," Educational T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 12, ( A u g u s t 1 9 7 2 ) , p p . 4 5 - 5 9 .  72  ,  F l e t c h e r , J . D. a n d S u p p e s , P. a n d J a m e s o n , D. A Note on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n , " Stanford University ( E R I C , ED 071 4 5 0 , 1972). n  "Futures: Where W i l l C o m p u t e r - A s s i s t e d I n s t r u c t i o n ( C A I ) Be i n 1 9 9 0 ? " E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 18, n o . 4 (April 1978), pp. 60-63. Gershman, J a n i s and Sakamoto, Evanmak. "Computer-Assisted Remediation and E v a l u a t i o n : A CAI P r o j e c t f o r Ontario Secondary S c h o o l s , " E d u c a t i o n a l Technology , v o l . 21, no. 3 (March 1981), 40-43G l e a s o n , G e r a l d T. " M i c r o c o m p u t e r s i n E d u c a t i o n : The S t a t e of the A r t , " Educational Technology , v o l .21, no. 3 (March 1981), pp. 7-18. H a l l w o r t h , H. J . a n d B r e b n e r , A n n . Computer Assisted Instruction i n Schools: Achievements, Present Developments and P r o j e c t i o n s f o r t h e F u t u r e , A r e p o r t presented to Alberta Education. University of Calgary, June, 1980. H a y d e n , R o b e r t R., H e s s , D o n a l d E . , J r . a n d R i v e s t , E . Lloyd. "Computer A s s i s t e d D i a g n o s i s and E v a l u a t i o n of S t u d e n t s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r I n s t r u c t i o n , " E d u c a t i o n a l Technology Research , no. 53, 1973. H i r s c h b u h l , J o h n J . , M y e r s , C a r o l y n , and H i s c h b u h l , E. Katherine. "The U n i v e r s i t y o f A k r o n ' s Computer Based E d u c a t i o n Network: A R e p o r t on A c t i v i t i e s and R e s u l t s o f a F i v e Y e a r S t u d y , " 1980 C o n f e r e n c e Proceedings, A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e Development of Computer-Based I n s t r u c t i o n a l Systems , pp. 114-120. K e h r b e r g , K e n t T. "Microcomputer Software Development: New S t r a t e g i e s f o r a New T e c h n o l o g y , " A E D S J o u r n a l vol. 13, no. 1 ( F a l l 1979), pp. 103-110. King,  ,  W i l l i a m A. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f T h r e e C o m b i n a t i o n s o f Text and G r a p h i c s f o rConcept L e a r n i n g , " Technical Report 76-16. (ERIC, September, 1 9 7 5 ED 112 9 3 6 ) .  K n e i f e l , D a v i d R. a n d J u s t , S t e v e n B . . " I m p a c t o f M i c r o c o m p u t e r s on E d u c a t i o n a l Computer Networks," Journal , v o l . 13, no. 1 ( F a l l 1979), pp. 41-52.  73  AEDS  L e i b l u m , M. D. " F a c t o r s S o m e t i m e s O v e r l o o k e d and U n d e r e s t i m a t e d i n t h e S e l e c t i o n and S u c c e s s o f CAL as an I n s t r u c t i o n a l Medium," AEDS J o u r n a l , W i n t e r 1982, pp. 67Long,  S a n d r a M. . "The D a w n i n g o f t h e Computer Age: An I n t e r v i e w w i t h R o n a l d P a l a m a r a , " P h i D e l t a Kappan , v o l . 63. no. 5 ( J a n u a r y , 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 3 1 1 - 3 1 3 .  L u t z , K a t h y A. "Multimode- K n o w l e d g e o f R e s u l t s i n PLATO C o u r s e w a r e , " I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y ( E R I C , ED 124 1 3 9 , 1973 . )  Melmed, A r t h u r S. " I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y f o r U.S. S c h o o l s , " P h i D e l t a Kappan , v o l . 6 3 , no. 5 ( J a n u a r y , 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 3 0 8 - 3 1 1 . M o o r e , M. V. and N a w r o c k i , L. H. "The E d u c a t i o n a l E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f G r a p h i c D i s p l a y s f o r Computer A s s i s t e d Instruction. F i n a l R e p o r t , " Army R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e B e h a v i o r a l and S o c i a l S c i e n c e s ( E R I C , ED 169 917, 1978.) M o r g a n , C a t h e r i n e E. "CAI and B a s i c S k i l l s I n s t r u c t i o n , " E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 18, no. 4 ( A p r i l 1978) PP. 3 7 - 3 9 . N e i v e s - S q u i r e s , L e s l i e C.; and o t h e r s . "Computer G r a p h i c s and t h e E d u c a t o r : New Forms o f I n v o l v e m e n t f o r t h e P r a c t i o n e r . " A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e on V i s u a l L i t e r a c y , R o c h e s t e r , New Y o r k ( E R I C , ED 1 72 761 , 1 978 .) P a p e r t , Seymour. " C o m p u t e r s and Computer C u l t u r e s , " C r e a t i v e C o m p u t i n g , v o l . 7, no. 3 ( M a r c h 1 9 8 1 ) , pp. 82-92 P e t e r s , H. J . and D a i k e r , K. C. " G r a p h i c s and A n i m a t i o n as I n s t r u c t i o n a l T o o l s : A Case S t u d y , " P i p e l i n e , S p r i n g 1982,  pp.  11-13,  15.  Pritchard, William. " I n s t r u c t i o n a l Computing i n 2001: A S c e n a r i o , " P h i D e l t a Kappan , v o l . 6 3 , no. 5 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 3 2 2 - 3 2 5 . R a w i t s c h , Don G. " I m p l a n t i n g the Computer i n the Classroom: M i n n e s o t a ' s S u c c e s s f u l S t a t e w i d e Program," P h i D e l t a Kappan , ( F e b r u a r y 1981 ) , pp. 453-454 .  74  R i g n e y , J o s e p h W . , and L u t z , K a t h y R. "CAI and I m a g e r y . I n t e r a c t i v e Computer G r a p h i c s f o r T e a c h i n g About Invisible Process." T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t 74 ( E R I C , ED 097 8 3 3 , 1 9 7 4 . ) Roecks, Alan Journal  L. "The MICA P r o j e c t : , v o l . 13, n o . 1 ( F a l l  A F i n a l L o o k , " AEDS 1979), 146-153-  S e i d e l , Robert J . " I t ' s 1980: Do You Know Where Your Computer I s ? " P h i D e l t a Kappan , (March 1 9 8 0) , p p . 481-485. S e r v e r , B l a n c h e L . and S t o l u r o w , L a w r e n c e M . "ComputerA s s i s t e d L e a r n i n g i n Language A r t s , " E l e m e n t a r y English v o l . 47 (May 1 9 7 0 ) , p p . 6 4 1 - 6 5 0 . f  Shane, H a r o l d G . "The S i l i c o n Age and E d u c a t i o n , " P h i D e l t a Kappan , v o l . 6 3 , n o . 5 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . Southwell, Michael G. for Developmental pp. 80-90.  303-308.  "Using C o m p u t e r - A s s i s s t e d Instruction W r i t i n g , " AEDS J o u r n a l , W i n t e r 1 982,  Stevens, Dorothy J o . "How E d u c a t o r s i n the C l a s s r o o m , " AEDS J o u r n a l 1980), pp. 221-231.  P e r c e i v e Computers , v o l . 13, n o . 3 ( S p r i n g  Sturdevant, Rosemary. " M i c r o c o m p u t e r s and - C o p y r i g h t i n E d u c a t i o n , " P h i D e l t a Kappan , v o l . 6 3 , n o . 5 ( J a n u a r y 1982), pp. 316-317S u p p e s , P a t r i c k and M a c k e n , E l i z a b e t h . "The H i s t o r i c a l P a t h from R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t t o O p e r a t i o n a l Use o f C A I , " E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 18, n o . 4 ( A p r i l 1978), p p . 9-12. S u p p e s , P a t r i c k and M o r n i n g s t a r , Mona. Computer-Assisted I n s t r u c t i o n a t S t a n f o r d . 1966-68 : D a t a , M o d e l s and E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e A r i t h m e t i c Programs . New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1972. r  Thompson, B a r b a r a J . "Computers i n R e a d i n g : A Review o f A p p l i c a t i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s , " E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y v o l . 20, no. 6 (August 1980), p p . 3 8 - 4 1 .  ,  V i n s o n h a l e r , J o h n F . and B a s s , R o n a l d K . "A Summary o f Ten M a j o r S t u d i e s on CAI D r i l l and P r a c t i c e , " E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 12 ( J u l y 1 9 7 2 ) , p p . 2 9 - 3 2 .  75  Wall,  S h a v a u n M. and T a y l o r , N a n c y E . "Using Interactive Computer Programs i n T e a c h i n g H i g h e r C o n c e p t u a l S k i l l s : An A p p r o a c h t o I n s t r u c t i o n i n W r i t i n g , " Educational T e c h n o l o g y , v o l . 2 2 , n o . 2 ( F e b r u a r y 1982) p p . 13-17.  Warner, Thomas. "The J a c k s o n E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Computer B a s e d E d u c a t i o n M a t h e m a t i c s P r o j e c t , " 1980 C o n f e r e n c e P r o c e e d i n g s , A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Development of C o m p u t e r - B a s e d I n s t r u c t i o n S y s t e m s , 12 1 - 1 2 6 . Westrom, Marv. v o l . 1 , no.  " W h a t We C a n D o : CAI D e f i n e d , " M i c r o - s c o p e 3 ( S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 6 , 8 , 9 »17 -  W i l s o n , H. A . and F i t z g i b b o n , N o r i n n e H. " P r a c t i c e and P e r f e c t i o n : A P r e l i m i n a r y A n a l y s i s of Achievement D a t a from CAI E l e m e n t a r y E n g l i s h P r o g r a m , " E l e m e n t a r y E n g l i s h , v o l . 47 ( A p r i l 1 9 7 0 ) , p p . 5 7 6 - 5 7 9 Z u c k e r , Andres A. "The Computer i n the S c h o o l : A Case S t u d y , " P h i D e l t a K a p p a n , v o l . 63> n o . 5 ( J a n u a r y 1982), pp. 317-319.  76  ,  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items