Learner Preferences and Achievement under Differing Amounts of Learner Practice

This study examined the effects of program mode (i.e., a lean program version containing a basic amount of learner practice vs. a full mode containing expanded practice) and learner preference (matched or unmatched) for amount of practice on the achievement, timein-program, and attitudes of universi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Educational technology research and development 1998-01, Vol.46 (2), p.5-15
Hauptverfasser: Schnackenberg, Heidi L., Sullivan, Howard J., Leader, Lars F., Jones, Elizabeth E. K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 15
container_issue 2
container_start_page 5
container_title Educational technology research and development
container_volume 46
creator Schnackenberg, Heidi L.
Sullivan, Howard J.
Leader, Lars F.
Jones, Elizabeth E. K.
description This study examined the effects of program mode (i.e., a lean program version containing a basic amount of learner practice vs. a full mode containing expanded practice) and learner preference (matched or unmatched) for amount of practice on the achievement, timein-program, and attitudes of university undergraduate students. Subjects completed a 10-item Likert-type prequestionnaire to indicate the amount of practice they preferred, then were randomly assigned to either the type of program they preferred or to the opposite type. Subjects who used the full version of the instructional program scored significantly higher on the post-test than those who used the lean version. Matching subjects to their preferred amount of practice did not yield a significant achievement difference over assigning subjects to their less-preferred amount. Subjects preferred the lean version of the program over the full one, even though the full version produced better test performance.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/bf02299786
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_218046783</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ572204</ericid><jstor_id>30220200</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>30220200</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-353842c0f08d9185d63025c0f03820c2783d42747472a0f90bb6d6c656fcf73d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkM1LAzEQxYMoWKsXzwqLeBJWJ5NNNnustfWDQj3oeUmziW5pszXZFfzvTdlaM4dkeL95YR4h5xRuKUB-t7CAWBS5FAdkQDkXqeBAD-MbMkypwOKYnISwhHhyIQdkPjPKO-OTV2-s8cZpExLlqmSkP2vzbdbGtUnnqkg81DYStftIRuumc21IGpv8jyvd1tqckiOrVsGc7e4heZ9O3sZP6Wz--DwezVLNULYp40xmqMGCrAoqeSUYIN_2TCJozCWrMsyzWKjAFrBYiEpowYXVNmcVG5Kr3nfjm6_OhLZcNp138csSqYRMRIcI3fSQ9k0IccFy4-u18j8lhXKbV3k__csrwtc7RxW0WlmvnK7DfgIBikLQiF30WIxC79XJC88RIYvyZS8vQ9v4vR63Q4gW7BccsXp9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218046783</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Learner Preferences and Achievement under Differing Amounts of Learner Practice</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Schnackenberg, Heidi L. ; Sullivan, Howard J. ; Leader, Lars F. ; Jones, Elizabeth E. K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schnackenberg, Heidi L. ; Sullivan, Howard J. ; Leader, Lars F. ; Jones, Elizabeth E. K.</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined the effects of program mode (i.e., a lean program version containing a basic amount of learner practice vs. a full mode containing expanded practice) and learner preference (matched or unmatched) for amount of practice on the achievement, timein-program, and attitudes of university undergraduate students. Subjects completed a 10-item Likert-type prequestionnaire to indicate the amount of practice they preferred, then were randomly assigned to either the type of program they preferred or to the opposite type. Subjects who used the full version of the instructional program scored significantly higher on the post-test than those who used the lean version. Matching subjects to their preferred amount of practice did not yield a significant achievement difference over assigning subjects to their less-preferred amount. Subjects preferred the lean version of the program over the full one, even though the full version produced better test performance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1042-1629</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-6501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/bf02299786</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ETRDE5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Association for Educational Communications and Technology</publisher><subject>Academic Achievement ; Attitudes ; College instruction ; Computer Assisted Instruction ; Computer Oriented Programs ; Computer Software Development ; Educational research ; Educational sciences ; Higher Education ; Instructional Materials ; Learner Controlled Instruction ; Learning ; Learning styles ; Methodology ; Observation, experimentation ; Posttests ; Preferences ; Questionnaires ; Statistical mode ; Student Attitudes ; Student Reaction ; Students ; Teachers ; Teaching Methods ; Time on Task ; Undergraduate Students ; Universities</subject><ispartof>Educational technology research and development, 1998-01, Vol.46 (2), p.5-15</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1998 Association for Educational Communications and Technology</rights><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Association for Educational Communications &amp; Technology 1998</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-353842c0f08d9185d63025c0f03820c2783d42747472a0f90bb6d6c656fcf73d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-353842c0f08d9185d63025c0f03820c2783d42747472a0f90bb6d6c656fcf73d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30220200$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/30220200$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ572204$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2009961$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schnackenberg, Heidi L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Howard J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leader, Lars F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Elizabeth E. K.</creatorcontrib><title>Learner Preferences and Achievement under Differing Amounts of Learner Practice</title><title>Educational technology research and development</title><description>This study examined the effects of program mode (i.e., a lean program version containing a basic amount of learner practice vs. a full mode containing expanded practice) and learner preference (matched or unmatched) for amount of practice on the achievement, timein-program, and attitudes of university undergraduate students. Subjects completed a 10-item Likert-type prequestionnaire to indicate the amount of practice they preferred, then were randomly assigned to either the type of program they preferred or to the opposite type. Subjects who used the full version of the instructional program scored significantly higher on the post-test than those who used the lean version. Matching subjects to their preferred amount of practice did not yield a significant achievement difference over assigning subjects to their less-preferred amount. Subjects preferred the lean version of the program over the full one, even though the full version produced better test performance.</description><subject>Academic Achievement</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>College instruction</subject><subject>Computer Assisted Instruction</subject><subject>Computer Oriented Programs</subject><subject>Computer Software Development</subject><subject>Educational research</subject><subject>Educational sciences</subject><subject>Higher Education</subject><subject>Instructional Materials</subject><subject>Learner Controlled Instruction</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning styles</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Observation, experimentation</subject><subject>Posttests</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Statistical mode</subject><subject>Student Attitudes</subject><subject>Student Reaction</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Time on Task</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><subject>Universities</subject><issn>1042-1629</issn><issn>1556-6501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkM1LAzEQxYMoWKsXzwqLeBJWJ5NNNnustfWDQj3oeUmziW5pszXZFfzvTdlaM4dkeL95YR4h5xRuKUB-t7CAWBS5FAdkQDkXqeBAD-MbMkypwOKYnISwhHhyIQdkPjPKO-OTV2-s8cZpExLlqmSkP2vzbdbGtUnnqkg81DYStftIRuumc21IGpv8jyvd1tqckiOrVsGc7e4heZ9O3sZP6Wz--DwezVLNULYp40xmqMGCrAoqeSUYIN_2TCJozCWrMsyzWKjAFrBYiEpowYXVNmcVG5Kr3nfjm6_OhLZcNp138csSqYRMRIcI3fSQ9k0IccFy4-u18j8lhXKbV3k__csrwtc7RxW0WlmvnK7DfgIBikLQiF30WIxC79XJC88RIYvyZS8vQ9v4vR63Q4gW7BccsXp9</recordid><startdate>19980101</startdate><enddate>19980101</enddate><creator>Schnackenberg, Heidi L.</creator><creator>Sullivan, Howard J.</creator><creator>Leader, Lars F.</creator><creator>Jones, Elizabeth E. K.</creator><general>Association for Educational Communications and Technology</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980101</creationdate><title>Learner Preferences and Achievement under Differing Amounts of Learner Practice</title><author>Schnackenberg, Heidi L. ; Sullivan, Howard J. ; Leader, Lars F. ; Jones, Elizabeth E. K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-353842c0f08d9185d63025c0f03820c2783d42747472a0f90bb6d6c656fcf73d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Academic Achievement</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>College instruction</topic><topic>Computer Assisted Instruction</topic><topic>Computer Oriented Programs</topic><topic>Computer Software Development</topic><topic>Educational research</topic><topic>Educational sciences</topic><topic>Higher Education</topic><topic>Instructional Materials</topic><topic>Learner Controlled Instruction</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning styles</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Observation, experimentation</topic><topic>Posttests</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Statistical mode</topic><topic>Student Attitudes</topic><topic>Student Reaction</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Time on Task</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><topic>Universities</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schnackenberg, Heidi L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Howard J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leader, Lars F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Elizabeth E. K.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Educational technology research and development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schnackenberg, Heidi L.</au><au>Sullivan, Howard J.</au><au>Leader, Lars F.</au><au>Jones, Elizabeth E. K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ572204</ericid><atitle>Learner Preferences and Achievement under Differing Amounts of Learner Practice</atitle><jtitle>Educational technology research and development</jtitle><date>1998-01-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>5</spage><epage>15</epage><pages>5-15</pages><issn>1042-1629</issn><eissn>1556-6501</eissn><coden>ETRDE5</coden><abstract>This study examined the effects of program mode (i.e., a lean program version containing a basic amount of learner practice vs. a full mode containing expanded practice) and learner preference (matched or unmatched) for amount of practice on the achievement, timein-program, and attitudes of university undergraduate students. Subjects completed a 10-item Likert-type prequestionnaire to indicate the amount of practice they preferred, then were randomly assigned to either the type of program they preferred or to the opposite type. Subjects who used the full version of the instructional program scored significantly higher on the post-test than those who used the lean version. Matching subjects to their preferred amount of practice did not yield a significant achievement difference over assigning subjects to their less-preferred amount. Subjects preferred the lean version of the program over the full one, even though the full version produced better test performance.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Association for Educational Communications and Technology</pub><doi>10.1007/bf02299786</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1042-1629
ispartof Educational technology research and development, 1998-01, Vol.46 (2), p.5-15
issn 1042-1629
1556-6501
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_218046783
source Jstor Complete Legacy; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Academic Achievement
Attitudes
College instruction
Computer Assisted Instruction
Computer Oriented Programs
Computer Software Development
Educational research
Educational sciences
Higher Education
Instructional Materials
Learner Controlled Instruction
Learning
Learning styles
Methodology
Observation, experimentation
Posttests
Preferences
Questionnaires
Statistical mode
Student Attitudes
Student Reaction
Students
Teachers
Teaching Methods
Time on Task
Undergraduate Students
Universities
title Learner Preferences and Achievement under Differing Amounts of Learner Practice
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T15%3A42%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Learner%20Preferences%20and%20Achievement%20under%20Differing%20Amounts%20of%20Learner%20Practice&rft.jtitle=Educational%20technology%20research%20and%20development&rft.au=Schnackenberg,%20Heidi%20L.&rft.date=1998-01-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=5&rft.epage=15&rft.pages=5-15&rft.issn=1042-1629&rft.eissn=1556-6501&rft.coden=ETRDE5&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/bf02299786&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E30220200%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218046783&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ572204&rft_jstor_id=30220200&rfr_iscdi=true