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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Educational technology research and development 1998-01, Vol.46 (2), p.5-15 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2009961$$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 |