Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2:
Chapter 3: Treatment
Chapter 4: Proposed Research Methodology
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement
Intended Audience
The audience for this CD-ROM course would be individuals who have
some swimming experience, but who want to improve their stroke.
The audience will need access to a computer with CD-ROM player,
and will need access to a video camera and VCR to view their video.
They will need to ask someone to video tape them as they swim
to capture clips of the stroke components in which they want to
improve.
The age of this audience can range from high school age on up.
The level of swimming is open from beginning to expert, depending
on the level of improvement the participant wishes.
This course will introduce the student to a way of self-improvement,
through the Movement Design Swimming Protocol. This learning will
assist the student in many areas of study beyond the scope of
this project.
Significance of the Project
Movement Design Swimming: A Self-Directed Multimedia Course
for the Front Crawl on CD-ROM is intended to introduce this
type of self-directed and interactive learning to other biomechanic
activities, as well as swimming. The Movement Design program at
CSU, Chico includes classes in swimming, softball, volleyball,
and basketball. Washington State University is interested in expanding
this program to include other sports as well, such as golf.
After participating in this CD-ROM course the user will see how
this medium can be used for other interactive learning. And it
is hoped that this protocol and methodology will be viewed as
a model from which other sports or activities can be employed.
Project Limitations
Although this project is a stand-alone course, it requires the
students to find their own access to video camera and VCR equipment.
The current classes utilizing this methodology at CSU, Chico offer
the students access in class to the video recording, editing,
and play-back equipment, so that students learn how to shoot,
edit and digitize their video clips for playback on the computer,
rather than viewing on a VCR at home. This learning takes place
in the classroom and is demonstrated by the instructor. For the
purpose of learning with this CD-ROM course, students will not
glean the benefit of that additional learning that takes place
at CSU, Chico in the Movement Design Program.
This Movement Design Swimming course on CD-ROM is a simplified
version of that course.
Return to Table of Contents.
Perhaps the best source for the dynamics of competitive swimming is found with Ernest W. Maglischo (1982) in his book, Swimming Faster, A Comprehensive Guide to the Science of Swimming. His book was studied extensively to prepare this self-directed course for one to improve the front crawl. Another good source studied for this project The New Science of Swimming, by James E. Cousnilman and Brian E. Counsilman. Both will be referenced in this literature review.
To be able to improve one's stroke, it is imperative that one studies the mechanics of the stroke. Then one can understand language used to discuss various components of the swimming stroke, the front crawl.
Maglischo (1982) focuses on the dynamics and aerodynamics of the stroke. Some of the terminology used will be defined and discussed for the user to better understand the front crawl. Counsilman and Counsilman simply explain the physical laws that affect stroke mechanics. They state that there are "two major forces involved in swimming . . . resistance of the water to forward progress (passive drag) . . . and resistance against which the swimmer exerts force (active drag) . . . (1994, p. 3). They explain "propulsion is achieved by moving the arms and legs so resistance of the water and inertia of the body are overcome. Inertia is the tendency of a body to remain in one state, either in motion or rest" (1994, pg. 3).
Counsilman and Counsilman believe that Newton's Third Law of Motion is important. "It states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction" (1994, p. 8). For example, when a swimmer pushes backward with his hands the resulting force drives him forward.
Maglishco (1982) looks at the mechanics of swimming in a slightly different way. Aerodynamic lift/drag force is described as such: lift force can be exerted in any direction that is perpendicular to the direction in which drag force is occurring. Swimmers use the principles of aerodynamic lift by shaping their hands like wings and moving them rapidly to create lift force. By carefully regulating the pitch of their hands and feet throughout the propulsive phases of each stroke, swimmers can achieve the most effective angle of attack, thereby increasing lift.
"The word lift implies work against gravity; it follows that it may be construed as applying only to upward movements . . . lift is a force which can be exerted in any direction..." Counsilman & Counsilman, 1994, p. 10).
"There are several reasons why lift-dominated propulsion is superior to drag propulsion." (Maglishco, 1982, p. 20) The pitch, or direction of inclination, of the hands and feet is an important to efficient propulsion as moving the limbs in the proper direction. "Feel for the water" is to find proper angles of attack during each phase of the stroke. Study the swimming experts by looking for:
"Swimmers use the edges of their hands and feet as propeller blades, pitching them at the correct angle of attack moving in such a way that water is deflected" (Maglischo, 1982, p. 26) backwards gradually from leading to trailing edge. If you notice air bubbles, it indicates turbulence, which is less efficient. This increases drag, which reduces forward velocity.
Velocity: Propulsive force is increased by increased limb speed, when limbs are pitched correctly (Maglishco, 1982, p. 28-29).
Rather than refer to the stroke as pull or push, the word sweep is used to describe lift-producing, propeller-like lateral and vertical motions. The four sweeping motions used are: outsweep, downsweep, insweep, and upsweep.
The front crawl uses downsweep to begin the underwater armstroke. The hand is directed downward and slightly outward in a curvilinear path. Hand should be pitched downward, outward, and backward. Water should sweep diagonlly upward and inward past your hand from the fingertips on the little finger side toward the wrist on the thumb side.
The downward sweep ends as the hand reaches its deepest position. Then the arm begins an insweep cupping the hand during downsweep improves airfoil shape, increasing propulsive force.
Insweep direction is inward, upward and backward. It ends as the hand reaches the midline of the body. Hand remains cupped to maximize lift force.
Upsweep follows the insweep. Two parts: initial outward, backward movement, followed by an upward, outward and backward sweep. Upsweep ends as your hand passes the anterior portion of your thigh.
Most front crawl swimmers use angles of attack between 20 and 40 degrees. It is generally recommended that front crawl swimmers use 30-40 degree angles.
When the hand in the upsweep reaches the thigh, release pressure by turning the hand palm toward the thigh. This reduces surface area and drag force. Otherwise counterforce is the reaction which causes the hips to submerge, decelerating your forward speed. (Maglischo, 1982, p. 40)
Circular patterns in the stroke conserve momentum and are more efficient.
Being taught to push water backwards like paddles, have in mind perpendicular movements to the direction of motion. This results in little lift force, and drag force created disrupts body alignment which decelerates forward speed.
Swimmers "find" correct angles move quickly when taught to visualize water being deflected backward by their hands and feet.
Drag is resistance to forward motion. Reducing drag that retards forward motion is as important to efficient swimming as increasing propulsive force. How to reduce drag? Maglishco (1982) recommends that one streamline the body for minimal disturbance (p. 46).
There are five mechanics to the stroke, the front crawl:
ARMSTROKE
Downsweep, insweep and upsweep are used in the armstroke of the front crawl. These are referred to by Maglishco (1982) as entry, catch, stretch and recovery. (p. 53)
The front crawl uses downsweep to begin the underwater armstroke. The hand is directed downward and slightly outward in a curvilinear path. The hand should be pitched downward, outward, and backward. In the water the hand should sweep diagonally upward and inward past the hand from the fingtertips on the little finger side twoard the wrist on the thumb side.
The downsweep ends as the hand reaches it deepest position. Then the arm begins the insweep. Cupping the hand during downsweep improves airfoil shape increasing propuslive force.
The insweep direction is inward, upward, and backward. It ends as the hand reaches the midline of the body. The hand remains cupped to maximize lift force.
The upsweep follows the insweep. It consists of two parts; initial outward, backward movement, followed by an upward, outward, and backward sweep. The upsweep ends as the hand passes the anterior portion of the thigh.
Most front crawl swimmers use angles of attack between 20 and 40 degrees. It is recommended that crawl swimmers use 30-40 degree angles. (Maglischo, 1982, p. 39)
When the hand in the upsweep reaches the thigh, one can release pressure by turning the hand palm toward the thigh. This reduces surface area and drag force. Otherwise couterforce is the reaction which causes the hips to submerge, decelerating forward speed.
Circular patterns in the stroke conserve momentum and are more efficient. Being taught to push water backwards like paddles, brings to mind perpendicular movements to the direction of the forward motion. This results in little lift force, and drag force created disrupts body alignment which decelerates forward speed. (Maglishco, 1982, p. 45)
Swimmers find correct angles more quickly when they are taught to visualize water being deflected backward by their hands and feet.
Drag is resistance to forward motion. Reducing drag that retards forward motion is as important to efficient swimming as increasing propulsive force. How does one reduce drag? Streamline the body for minimal disturbance.
There are five mechanics to the front crawl swimming stroke:
The underwater armstroke consists of the downsweep, insweep and upsweep. These three are talked about within the specific parts of the armstroke: entry, catch, stretch and recovery. by Maglischo (1982, p. 53).
The entryshould be made forward of the head with the arm slightly flexed. The hand should slip into the water with the palm facing outward, for minimal drag.
A common error is overreaching. It can pull the hips out of alignment from reaching across the head too far. Underreaching reduces forward speed. Smashing the hand down on the water increases surface turbulence and wave drag.
After entry the arm is extended forward under the surface of the water, called the stretch. The arm slides forward gently as the stroking arm does its job. As the stroking arm releases pressure on the water, the stretching arm makes a "catch." The wrist is flexed downward and rotated outward, which creates lift force on the hand. The elbow flexes to stabilize the hand. Force is transfered to the body, and head and shoulders move forward over the arm. As the elbow flexes the most propulsive phase of the underwater stroke begins.
The downsweep occurs when the had sweeps down and out in a curvilinear path, naturally as the shoulder rolls into the stroke. As the arm strokes down, the hand slides outward automatically.
At the deepest point, the downsweep rounds of into an insweep. The hand sweeps under the body to a point near the midline of the body. Pitch of the hand is rotated inward, upward, and backward. The transitition between sweeps is propulsion drag dominated.
The upsweep occurs when the hand passes under the head. From there, it is a push directly backward from chest to waist. From the hips, the hand motion changes and accelerates outward, as well as upward, until it reaches the thigh. At this time the palm is rotated inward to slide out of the water with minimal drag.
Recovery places the arm in position for another stroke. Most front crawl swimmers prefer the high elbow recover, as it doesn't waste effort or disturb the alignment of the body. The elbow breaks the surface of the water moving forward while the hand is completing the upsweep.
The elbow moves upward and forward with the forearm and hand following. Palm rotates inward as it leaves the water, so the hand slides out, little finger first, with minimal drag. The arm travels upward, outward, and forward in the first part of recover. As the hand passes the shoulder, it begins reaching forward for entry. Arm begins extending and continues extending until it enters the water in front of the shoulder.
Recovery should be linear, to reduce lateral movement. Don't rush the arm over the water, as it wastes energy.
Instructions for teaching the sweeps of the front crawl: (Maglischo, 1982, p. 76)
Flutter Kick
The flutter kick is comprised of two movements, a downbeat and an upbeat (Maglischo, 1982, p. 78). The downbeat begins before the preceding upbeat is finished. As the heel nears the surface of the water, the hip joint begins flexion. This causes the thigh to begin downward, as as the lower leg flexes at the knee and continues upward. The thigh continues downward until the knee reaches a depth of about 8-10 inches. Then the knee joint is forcefully extended and the lower leg moves downward, until the leg is fully extended at the knee. The foot will be about 12-14 inches deep.
The upbeat overlaps the downbeat. Simultaneously extend your hip joint and knee joint, so the thigh begins upward movement while the lower leg completes the downward sweep. The upbeat ends when the foot comes near the surface of the water. Then the hip is flexed and downbeat begins.
There is lateral motion to legs, as well as vertical, during the flutter kick. Lateral motion serves to stabilized the body as it rolls from side to side.
The timing of the arms and legs can vary. The number of kicks per arm stroke cycle can vary from two, four, and six beats. The six beat seems the most popular.
"Kick down with the left leg during the downsweep of the left arm. Kick down with the right leg during the insweep of the left arm. Kick downward with the left leg once again, as the left arm executes the upsweep. Kick down with the right leg during the downsweep of the right arm. Kick down with the left leg during the insweep of the right arm. Kick down with the right leg as the right arm executes the upsweep." (Maglischo, 1982, p. 80)
There are mixed opinions about the flutter kick being propulsive. Some say it is a stabilizing force only. Others say it is both propulsive and stabilizing.
The front crawl requires the swimmer to continually rotate the body on the longitudinal axis. The roll is an indispensable aid to maintaining lateral body alignment and reduce drag.
The roll should be 45 degrees to the side, however, on the breathing side it may be more, and on the non-breathing side it may be less.
Breathing
The easiest time to breathe is when the opposite side arm enters the water, which rotates the body toward the breathing side. The face returns to the water as the body rolls. One should begin to exhale as soon after inhaling, in a slow and controlled manner.
Some swimmers prefer alternate breathing, although it isn't recommended. Alternate breathers inhale twice during every three-stroke cycle, versus inhaling during every stroke. Lack of oxygen may induce early fatigue in alternate breathing.
Return to Table of Contents.
Self-Directed Learning and Computer-Assisted Instruction
Introduction
Education has gone through some changes in the past, and is going through some major ones now. Computers, and communication and information technology, are creating a tidal wave for traditional education methodologies. What once was thought of as a traditional classroom experience with a teacher at the front of the class acting as the sole source of authority, is drastically changing to involve students in that authority and include them in more self-directed learning. To prepare for the future educators must pay attention to the signs pointing toward self-directed, learner-controlled instruction. Many of the methodologies to include students in self-directed learning will be accommodated by the computer and interactive programming. The days of the instructional dictator are over. Future educational environments will see students acting more on their own, with teachers acting more as facilitators or coaches. This evolution will create life-long learning, rather than learning to know something right now.
For centuries the role of education has been to produce knowers instead of learners (Laszlo & Castro, 1995). The times called for individuals, workers who knew a lot. Specialists were revered. Education did not prepare students for learning for life. Integrating-skills were not taught. Social and affective areas of education were not covered. The main concern was for producing industry and factory workers. The world has evolved beyond that industrial age and now embraces globalization of communication and information processing. Social interaction becomes essential. New ways of thinking are required.
"We have to reconstruct the cognitive map of education so that it will be compatible with the current stage of societal evolution" (Laszlo & Castro, 1995, pg. 9). Learning orientation must prepare for change on a daily basis. Laszlo & Castro (1995) suggest the educational paradigm must be inverted, so that a learning environment could be created by individuals.
This creates a never-ending process of living and learning that develops individual human potential. Interactive learning environments allow one to learn at one's own pace and level. Through them learning is simple and fun, stimulating the individual to want to learn more.
This change in learning environment requires a new instructor, a "learning facilitator" so that learning becomes learner-driven (Laszlo & Castro, 1995). A risk is mentioned with this move to learner control. Individualism, competition, and combative instinct can come into play. To avoid this direction, cooperative and collaborative learning environments can and should be fostered. A new learning facilitator can be a partner to promote positive group interaction as a source of motivation--not of knowledge--for the self-development of the learner.
How can education change to accommodate the move toward interactive learning as well as collaborative learning for adult learners? To date this question remains unanswered. This study will address it and propose an answer.
This study will introduce some concepts in learning in the areas of self-directed learning, individualized instruction, learner control, collaborative learning, and computer-assisted learning. This will lay foundation for reviewing literature in two primary areas: self-directed learning, and computer assisted instruction. Also presented will be a brief review in research instruments available for measuring student's interest in computer-created, and interactive curricula. Research questions will be posed at the end of this study that relate to the literature reviewed and foundation laid, incorporating self-directed learning and computer assisted instruction by looking at a specific content area, movement design of swimming.
Cognitive apprenticeships are suggested as a modern approach to preparing students for tomorrow's needs, according to Jonassen (1995). He offers the social constructivist perspective to communities of learners, which emphasizes these learning qualities: active, intentional, conversational (dialogical social process), contextualized, and reflective. The characteristics are interrelated, interactive and independent. Combining these three characteristics with the seven qualities results in greater and more meaningful learning.
Jonassen (1991) says that we must reform our conceptions of learning.
Productive and meaningful uses of technology engage learners in:
knowledge construction, not reproduction; conversation, not reception;
articulation, not repetition; collaboration, not competition;
and reflection, not prescription.
There are two dominant theoretical frameworks in adult education.
They are self-directed learning and critical thinking according
to Garrison (1992). Self-direction has been associated primarily
with an external management function and critical thinking has
been referred to as an internal cognitive process.
Self-directed learning(SDL) has been heralded as the ideal form of learning for adults. Candy (1987) conducted a thorough review of the literature on self-directed learning, and concluded that "the lack of internal consistency precludes the possibility of developing a coherent theory of self-direction," according to Garrison (1992, p. 140). Confusion exists due in part to conflicting definitions of the term "self-directed learning." It may refer to an independent pursuit of learning, a way of organizing instruction, or a personal attribute. Self-direction is a matter of degree. The learner has some control in the education process, as does the instructor.
To find some working definitions for the terms found in the literature, Knowles' book, Self-Directed Learning is referenced. "Pedagogy" or teacher-directed learning comes from the Greek word PAID meaning child, and AGOGUS meaning guide. "Andragogy" or self-directed learning comes from the Greek word ANER meaning adult, and AGOGUS meaning guide.
To better understand these terms, comparison of assumptions and processes of teacher-directed (pedagogical) learning, and self-directed (andragogical) learning, may help. For example: orientation to learning is subjected-centered with teacher-directed learning; and task or problem-centered with self-directed learning. Motivation is found in external rewards and punishments for teacher-directed learning, and in internal incentives and curiosity for self-directed learning.
Most process elements of teacher-directed learning are created primarily by the teacher, such as climate, planning, diagnosis of needs, goal setting, learning activities, and evaluation. The same elements are mutually agreed upon, or are participative and collaborative, in self-directed learning.
Garrison describes SDL is a collaborative process between teacher
and learner. SDL is comprised of both internal and external processes
and
activities. It requires a learner to take responsibility for constructing
meaning (constructivism). Garrison (1992) states a learner must
be self-directed psychologically to be in control.
Morris and Huffman (1994) looked at self-directed learning in adult education. According to them, most learners in the USA were taught according to an education model whereby learning was a passive activity. Since the mid-1960s adult learners have been distinguished from younger learners. An "andragogical model" has been identified for adults (Knowles, 1984; Knox, 1986). The underlying assumptions in andragogy are: the adult learner is self-directed; adults have a greater volume and different quality of experience than younger learners; adults are ready to learn when they need to know something; adults enter an educational activity with a life-centered, task-centered, or problem-centered orientation to learning; although adults respond to external motivators (higher salary, better job), the more potent motivators are internal (self-esteem, recognition, increased confidence).
According to Hiemstra and Sisco (1990), the best way to instruct adults is through an individualizing process, to help learners assume more responsibility for their own learning. They argue, "Effective instructors of adults are those who help learners become more self-sustaining, more intellectually curious, and more capable of learning by themselves" (p. 37).
Hiemstra and Sisco (1990) suggest a six-step process for individ-ualizing instruction. Discussing some of them will help one see a connection to effectiveness of self-directed instruciton.
First is to prepare activities prior to the first session. Second is to create a positive learning environment, third is to develop an instructional plan, and fourth is to identify learning activities. The fifth is to put learning into action and to monitor its progress. Sixth is to evaluate individual learning outcomes.
In step two the three R's are stressed. They are: relationships with each other, relationship with the instructor, and relationship with the content of the learning experience. Step three involves conducting a needs assessment process with all students. In step five, formative evaluation is stressed, enabling learners and the instructor to monitor progress and exchange feedback.
The underlying intent is to promote good educational process, taking into account individual differences, experiences, and different learning needs. The instructor's role becomes one of facilitating the learning process. These steps help lay foundation for looking at computer-assisted instruction.
"Most educators agree that we must help students learn to think for themselves and to solve problems." (Nix & Spiro, 1990, p. 115.) Emphasis on thinking and learning, rather than memorizing or knowing, has prompted educators to focus on process, rather than only content of thought. The challenge is for educators to teach relevant content in a manner that facilitates thinking.
Nix and Spiro (1990) call this Anchored Instruction. This model of instruction helps students develop useful knowledge rather than inert knowledge by emphasizing the importance of creating a focus (anchor) that generates interest in students. The major goal is for students to experience changes in their perception and understanding of the anchor as they begin to view situations from new perspectives.
Grow (1991) presents a model Staged Self-Directed Learning (SSDL) that shows teachers how to equip students to become more self-directed in their learning. It is an idea of progressing from dependency to self-direction. The four stages of staged self-directed learning are: dependent, interested, involved, and self-directed. Grow says it is a teacher's purpose to match the learner's stage of self-direction and prepare the learner to advance to higher stages of self-direction.
The first stage learner requires the teacher to be an authority and coach, such as in formal lectures or structured drills. In the second stage learners respond to motivational techniques. The instructor brings enthusiasm to the class and is supportive to students to begin two way communication. Grow mentions Robin Williams' character in Dead Poet's Society as an example.
In stage three learners begin to identify and value their own experiences in life. The teacher becomes a facilitator, almost a participant in the student's learning experience. They share decision-making. Stage four sees students setting their own goals and standards as self-directed learners. Teachers take the role of delegator, consultant, or mentor. Internships or independent studies are seen at this stage of learning. The ultimate task of the teacher at stage four is to become unnecessary.
Grow presents this model "not as a definitive thing, but as another statement in the ongoing conversation of those who encourage self-directed, life-long learning" (p. 147).
Tennant (1992) responds to Grow's Staged Self-Directed Learning (SSDL) model by agreeing with the "overall thrust of the article" (p. 164), but has problems with some of Grow's views on teaching styles and descriptions of the them. His claims are not well founded in this author's point of view.
Guglielmino (1977) developed a study consisting of two major parts: a survey of respected authorities on self-direction in learning and the construction of the "Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale" (SDLRS, 1977). The content of the scale was based on the results of the survey of the authorities. To quote Guglielmino's definition: "A highly self-directed learner, based on the survey results, is one who exhibits initiative, independence, and persistence in learning; one who accepts responsibility for his or her own learning and views problems as challenges, not obstacles; one who is capable of self-discipline and has a high degree of curiosity; one who has a strong desire to learn or change and is self-confident; one who is able to use basic study skills, organize his or her time, and set an appropriate pace for learning, and to develop a plan for completing work; one who enjoys learning and has a tendency to be goal-oriented." (Guglielmino, 1977/1978, p. 73)
Bonham (1991) examined Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) and determined that there are two possible opposites of readiness for self-directed learning. One is the preference for someone else planning one's learning, and the other is dislike for and avoidance of all learning. Bonham raises the possibility that low SDLRS scores indicate dislike for any kind of learning. "If this is true, a person with a low score is not motivated to learn in self-directed ways, or in other-directed ways" (p. 98).
Eight factors from the factor analysis of SDLRS are described by Bonham (1991). They are: openness to learning opportunities, self-concept as an effective learner, initiative and independence in learning, informed acceptance or responsibility for one's own learning, love of learning, creativity, positive orientation to the future, and ability to use study and problem-solving skills.
Upon examination of the structure, validity and reliability of Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale, Field (1989) concludes that the scale has strong reliability. Cronbach's coefficient alpha was .89. However its validity was questionable. The available evidence suggests that this construct is not readiness for self-directed learning, but does appear to be related to love of and enthusiasm for learning (Field, 1989). Field goes on to point out that Guglielmino failed to define or clarify the meaning of key terms resulting in a conceptual framework he feels is unsound. Readiness was not defined and self-directed learning was not defined. Another criticism of Guglielmino's work by Field is that it is unclear whether readiness for self-directed learning is a single homogeneous construct or a multifactorial construct.
Field determined that the SDLRS does not measure a multifactorial
construct. Of the eight factors sought, only four could be interpreted.
He therefore explored the possibility that SDLRS was homogeneous.
The results of this exploration revealed that the SDLRS measures
a homogeneous construct not closely linked to readiness of self-directed
learning, but love of, and/or enthusiasm for, learning.
In spite of these criticisms the SDLRS has a high level or reliability and has been used repeatedly. According to Brookfield (1984, p. 205), ". . . this does not mean that the scale should not be used. It means that we now have a better idea of what groups to use it with and for what purpose."
As literature is reviewed surrounding the topic of self-directed
learning (SDL), computer-assisted instruction (CAI) becomes more
prevalent. As
a methodology for SDL, CAI is gaining in popularity and will continue
to move in that direction. CAI is a term used to broadly cover
any instruction that uses a computer as an aid in learning. It
refers to computerized instruction that could focus on program-control
or learner-control. (Learner-control learning is self-directed
learning.)
Computer-assisted instruction is now a quarter century old. "CAI is a synthesis of technology, theory, and practice" says Steinberg (1991, p. 6). Her working definition of CAI is "computer-presented instruction that is individualized, interactive, and guided" (p. 2). She goes on to say it is designed to limit a student's incorrect learning as interpreted by Sullivan (1994).
The computer can serve as a tutor for an individual and as an instructor for a group. CAI involves two-way communication between a learner and a computer system. Some elements are guided-instructions. Computers are an instructional medium. CAI is not a method of instruction, although many methods are implemented in CAI, including direct and exploratory simulations and lessons.
In respect to CAI, it would be beneficial to look at two learning theories, by Gagné (1977) and Bransford (1979). This aids understanding of computer-assisted instruction as used concurrently with self-directed learning. Gagné (1977) groups learning outcomes into five categories: intellectual skills, verbal information, cognitive strategies, motor skills, and attitudes. Elements affecting learning are internal and external. He believes both attributes of the learner and events in the environment contribute to learning. Bransford (1979) emphasizes interaction among four components: learner characteristics, criterial task, nature of materials to be learned and the nature of learning activities. The more one understands the attributes of the learner, and how one learns, the more effective instruction can be.
The CAI framework encompasses four components central to learning, according to Steinberg (1991). These four components are important to Gagné (1977) and Bransford (1979) also. They are: who is learning (target population), what they are supposed to learn (goals), materials and skills involved (tasks), and externally planned activities (instruction). As instruction is designed it is important to review these learning components and assess the best methods to use. Self-directed learning may be the best choice or it may not. As the instructional designer prepares instruction for adults, SDL is often selected, although goals and tasks, are also considered before a decision is made.
Kinzie (1990) reviews other literature to answer a question posed by Carrier (1984) regarding students' incapabilities to make sound choice about their own learning. Kinzie refers to Clark (1984) who indicates that instruction in a behaviorist design is highly directed and is most commonly seen in our schools. By contrast, instruction in a cognitive design allows students some control over direction and monitoring the learning process, which promotes long range achievement and continuing motivation. Highly directed instruction such as in behaviorist designed instruction is "near transfer" and provides short-term achievement (Kinzie, 1990). This is objectivist in nature. (An argument between constructivism and objectivism could enter here, but suffice it to say that in this study constructivism is more desirable.) Kinzie goes on to say that "single-minded instructional emphasis on higher achievement alone may damage students continuing motivation to learn" (p. 11).
Other reasons for learner control variance may be due to age, maturity, student's prior knowledge and abilities. Inexperienced learners can become lost in interactive learning experiences if they aren't familiar with the system.
Studies show that learners want to exercise learner control in free-choice situations (Kinzie & Sullivan, 1989). Learner control accounts for reduced levels of student anxiety, and results in more intrinsic motivation for instructional activity. As students obtain learner control and learn self-management skills, "they become more independent, purposeful and attentive, and they exhibit higher rates of on-task behavior" (Kinzie, 1990, p. 15).
Continuing motivation can be attributed to "locus of control" which indicates the degree to which individuals believe that events and outcomes are a result of their own behavior and control. Students classified as having external locus of control are passive, inattentive and non-experimental; whereas students classified with internal locus of control are excited about learning, assertive and active in learning. Students with an internal locus of control may prove to be more adaptable to CAI and SDL, which may be another useful study to explore.
Kinzie (1990) raised the question: "How can we best prepare learners for this interactive-instructional experience?"
The computer and multimedia have introduced interactivity (Dockterman, 1995). This is new in education. Prior technologies were passive. The new technologies boast of activity, and interactivity. Dockterman suggests that interactivity is the key to new technologies in the classroom. "It's not how many buttons students can push, but whether we can use technology to spark thoughtfulness and interaction" (p. 59). Much more will be written in future articles regarding the topic of interactivity in the classroom. Interactivity is only just beginning to find its place in education.
Computer-assisted instruction can be either direct or indirect instruction. An example of direct instruction is a tutorial, whereby the participant is told what to do each step of the way (program-controlled). Indirect instruction is exploratory, where the participant is allowed freedom to make her/his own choices in the instruction process (learner-controlled).
Two important issues with computer-assisted instruction are: 1) the way computers are used as a vehicle of instruction; and 2) the way CAI lessons are implemented in instructional environments.
According to some literature, CAI is not always effective. Self-directed learning is called to question when students are given control over their learning according to Gay, Trumbull and Smith (1988). "In most studies of interactive learning programs students have actually learned less when they have been provided choices that would allow them more control over their own instructional strategies and forms of presentation" (p. 31). They offer explanations such as; students do not make effective use of control options available to them, they don't use good judgment, and they don't know what is best for them.
Gay, Trumbull and Smith did a study, Perceptions of Control and Use of Control Options in Computer-Assisted Video Instruction (1988). In looking at undergraduates from Cornell University, a group was given a pretest, then assigned an interactive videodisc program, then given a posttest. The method used was an interactive videodisc program entitled "Field Identification of Waterfowl." The purpose of the disc was to help students learn to identify seven different kinds of waterfowl. The system was designed to query learners, provide feedback, allow students to practice, and in general allow students to move around in the program (self-directed learning).
The study looked at students' perceptions of four categories of learner control. They are: "a) getting around in the lesson structuring and sequencing their content, b) examining things more carefully, c) exploring the speed and direction of the images, and d) online help and glossaries" (Gay, Trumbull & Smith, 1988, p. 32).
Results concluded that students must understand their own learning process before fully utilizing their control options in interactive learning. "Analysis of the data indicated that the use of control options correlated highly with previous experience with computers (r=.988). Students perceptions (expectations) of control also correlated with their total use of control options in the program (r=.986)" (Gay, Trumbull & Smith, 1988, p. 32). Students who perceived they would have control, did. Those students who felt they would not have control did not explore options to improve their performance. They seemed reluctant to use options, as if they "might get lost." Learner orientation to computers was a factor. The findings of this study indicated that more preparation and orientation is required on interactive learning lessons for those students not familiar with CAI.
The use of the microcomputer for delivery of instruction has made learner control more achievable. The control that a learner can exercise in computer-assisted instruction can range from a single aspect to complete control. Controllable components are: pace, sequencing, branching, difficulty and amount of practice (Kinzie & Sullivan, 1989).
Kinzie and Sullivan (1989) conducted an experiment with students
in
an interactive CAI. Students were randomly assigned to two groups:
learner-controlled and program-controlled. The content area of
the study was on solar energy. Both groups were allowed
to proceed through the computer program at their own pace, answered
practice questions, and were given feedback on the correctness
of their answers. All subjects received feedback as to whether
they answered correctly or incorrectly. In the learner-control
group if they answered incorrectly they were given the option
of reviewing a topic before trying to answer the question again.
In the program-control group they weren't given that choice, but
the topic was automatically reviewed for them. Each group had
three tries to answer correctly. A posttest was administered covering
the same content as the computer generated questions. Results
calculated via Kuder-Richardson formula 20 was .71 reliability.
Upon finishing this lesson, students were asked to answer another questionnaire to rate their continuing motivation for the subject and the method of instruction. The questions were, "Would you prefer to:
A multivariate analysis of variance was used to test for overall difference between treatments in responses to these five questions. Five students did not miss any practice questions and were excluded from the analysis. Results of this posttest showed that students preferred lessons available on the computer versus traditional, and students preferred learner control over program control. There was no significant score difference between the two groups. The mean scores were 77% for the program control and 72% for learner-control. Results revealed a strong positive effect of computers on continuing motivation (Kinzie & Sullivan, 1989). Two conclusions reached through this study show that providing learner control will motivate students and student motivation is enhanced by subject matter being made available on the computer. "A significant MANOVA effect, F (5,53) = 6.69, p < .001, was obtained in the multivariate analysis for differences in continuing motivation on the five questionnaire items by type of instructional control" (p. 9). Univariate analyses revealed a difference between treatments only on the final questionnaire item. 79% in the learner-control group chose to return to learner control, but only six of 31 in the program-control group chose to return to program control. Overall, 47 of 59 subjects (80%) chose learner control. Results were: F (1,57) = 30.78, p <.001.
If learners are adequately prepared they will be able to regulate and control their own learning and be motivated from within to continue learning in interactive environments. According to Kinzie (1990), students are capable of managing their own learning, given learner control. To be effective, learners must make appropriate choices regarding instruction. Interactive instruction can provide learners with those kinds of choices.
Attitude toward learning is as important as learning skills are. Kinzie refers to Keller (1983) for instructional components linked to motivational outcomes. They are the promise of competence or self-efficacy, the perception of personal control, the perception of relevance, and the stimulation of curiosity (Kinzie, 1990).
Loyd and Gressard conducted a study to help evaluate student attitudes toward computer-related programs. As the role of computers expands, it is important to observe the attitudes with which students receive computers into their educational environment. Their study shows that the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) is an effective and reliable instrument for measuring student attitudes toward learning about and using computers.
The CAS subscales, computer liking, computer confidence, and computer anxiety, were examined for reliability and factorial validity. The CAS is a Likert-type instrument with thirty items. The coefficient alpha reliabilities were .86, .91, .91, and .95 for computer anxiety, computer liking, computer confidence, and total score, respectively.
Attitude change is an important index of the effectiveness of "computer-based instruction" (CBI), according to Bear, Richards, and Lancaster (1987). Upon review of the few existing instruments measuring attitudes in computer-based instruction, the authors developed their own measure of student's attitudes toward computers. Their scale is called the Bath County Computer Attitudes Scale (BCCAS).
Their instrument initially consisted of thirty-eight three-choice Likert-type items designed to assess attitudes in five areas. They are: general computer use, computer-assisted instruction, programming and technical concepts, social issues surrounding computer use, and computer history. A revised survey was constructed from twenty-six items with alpha reliability of .94. Two other instruments were used to validate this study: a survey of computer experience and usage, educational and career plans, and favorite school subjects; and a measure of attitudes toward school subjects. The conclusion of the authors was that this scale is valid. It is uni-dimensional and internally consistent.
Attitudes toward computers must be monitored if the computer as a learning tool is to be maximized. Woodrow raises the issue of attitudes toward computers as being critical in the evaluation of computer courses and in developing computer-based curricula. Woodrow's study (1991) empirically compared four computer attitude scales for reliability and factorial validity. They are: Steven's Computer Survey, Reece and Gable's Attitudes Toward Computers, Gressard and Loyd's Computer Attitude Scale, and Griswold's Computer Use Questionnaire.
All four scales were compared using a single population sample. The three dimensions measured were: computer anxiety, computer liking, and social and educational impact on computers. While all four were found to be reliable, only two sampled all three dimensions. They are the Computer Survey and the Attitudes Toward Computers. Based on the conclusions drawn in this study, the Attitudes Toward Computers scale is probably the most suited for continued study, and the most practical for comparison to this proposed field experiment.
Computer-assisted instruction provides pragmatic learning, and allows adult learners to have control over their level and pace of learning. CAI for adults have proven to empower the learner according to Finnegan and Sinatra (1991). Adult learners accept responsibility for educating themselves and controlling the pace and level of program accomp-lishment. This empowerment and success in learning computer skills brings adults into the world of the future.
Finnegan and Sinatra (1991) recommend giving students choices which foster motivation. They support forming partnerships between adults and computers in a collaboration-education program.
Sullivan (1994) looks at computer-based education as a way to
strengthen collaborative learning of writing. She points out that
most electronic writing education favors individual instruction
and educational software has been traditionally developed to facilitate
individualized learning. Most commercial word processing software
was developed for office work, not instruction. The
gap between collaborative writing software and traditional word
processing software will push development towards educational
software, and fill this gap.
Sullivan's (1994) view is based on three premises. First, computer support for collaborative learning in college should have collaborative learning, not individual learning, second the transfer of pedagogy from traditional to electronic classrooms requires complex adjustments, and third because computer support for collaborative learning is relatively new it does not always provide an integrated environment for the use of those tools.
Software designed to aid in collaborative learning originates from conceptualizations of group learning. Traditional software originates from conceptualization of individual learning. Sullivan (1994) mentions Koshmann's (1992) work in showing the necessity for computer support of collaborative efforts in many curriculum areas.
Sullivan (1994) discusses eight modes of delivery and interaction that Makrakis (1988) combined as looking at the computer as a device for individualized instruction and as a medium of interaction. They are: drill and practice, tutorial, instructional games, simulation, problem-solving, spreadsheet, word processing, and data base management (Sullivan, 1994).
Most educators and business people agree that learning effectiveness is an important issue in both educational and business environments. Many agree that integrating information technology (computing and communication technologies) is critical to improving problem-solving skills. Alavi supports this author's belief that more research is needed to analyze the impact of emerging information and computer technology on the learning process.
Alavi's study (1994) investigates the effectiveness of "computer-mediated
collaborative learning" (CMCL). She names three attributes
to effective learning: 1) active learning and construction of
knowledge;
2) cooperation and teamwork in learning; 3) learning via problem-solving.
Active learning being assumed to be effective means learning is best accomplished when engaging students in constructing knowledge (constructivist approach) "by acquiring, generating, analyzing, manipulating and structuring information" (Alavi, 1994, p. 161).
Alavi (1994) focuses on one strategy of learning, collaborative learning. She cites many studies reporting effectiveness and benefits of collaborative learning in higher education. Her study questions whether the effectiveness of collaborative learning can be improved through the application of computer and communication based capabilities, in the form of group decision support systems (GDSS). GDSS refers to an integrated set of hardware, software, and communication capabilities aimed at improving group interactions and task performance during face-to-face meetings (p. 162). She hypothesized: "GDSS enhances the effectiveness of collaborative learning . . . by increasing group process gains and decreasing group process losses" (p. 163).
She conducted her investigation in a field setting. The dependent variable of the study was collaborative learning effectiveness measured in terms of students' perception of their learning and their evaluation of their classroom experience. Five-point Likert-type scales were used to measure the items. There were 28 items used to measure students' perceived learning and classroom evaluation. They were adapted from Hiltz' (1988) questionnaire which was developed to assess the relative effectiveness of an online course. Principal component analysis followed by varimax rotations resulted in the presence of five learning factors and three evaluation factors. After running alpha reliability, three scales were acceptable for learning, and two scales were acceptable for evaluation. The acceptable learning scales were: 1) perceived skill development; 2) self-reported learning; 3) learning interest. The acceptable evaluation scales are: 1) class evaluation; and 2) group case evaluation.
Three groups were given the same assignments of a collaborative nature. Two groups used VisionQuest (GDSS) electronic software in their assignments, one group did not have access to computer tools. Results of this study show that students who used the GDSS perceived higher levels of learning and interest in learning. Final course grades also showed significantly higher for the groups with GDSS over traditional.
The Internet is an example of interactive learning and computer-mediated communication (CMC). CMC encompasses both CAI and SDL. Interactions can be between student and teacher via e-mail, or broad-based participation with public postings and chat lines. Interactions can be individual links to other individuals, groups, businesses, educational institutions, non-profit associations, libraries, etc. Interactions can be didactic or interactive; individualized or collaborative. There is almost no end to the diverse interactions available on the Internet.
Many CMCs are considered collaborative. Collaborative learning is a major goal to involve students in active learning activities such as the Internet has to offer. The literature is not yet available which substantiates the success of CMC empirically. The author has searched diligently to produce quantitative research in this subject area, and has so far failed to do so.
Rationale for Future Research Questions
Self-directed learning, collaborative learning, and computer-assisted
instruction appear to be the direction of adult education. The
means of measuring success of CAI programs is difficult, and dependent
on the methodology and curriculum used. However, it is the opinion
of this author that the literature indicates that educational
environments will move toward computer-based instruction and more
individualized programming, as well as introducing collaborative
learning into the mix. It poses an interesting challenge. Pretesting,
instruction, and posttesting, can be used to determine the perceived
and actual achievements in certain instructional programs, such
as Alavi's GDSS study. However, the measurement must be custom-tailored
to each individual coursework. A challenge posed here would be
to create an instrument that can be used to measure the effectiveness
of interactivity in education across disciplines, and across mediums.
Most of the computer scales found for this literature review did
not measure interactive effectiveness. This author would propose
to develop an instrument that would measure effective interactive
learning across different content area. It could be on the Internet
or other computer multimedia. This challenge would provoke independent
learning, as well as collaborative learning.
Research questions that first came to mind as writing this study
were the following: 1) Is the Internet an effective source for
interactive learning? 2) Are interactive learning and collaborative
learning both achievable at the same time? 3) What forms of interactive
multimedia allow for collaborative learning and self-directed
learning to take place?
Upon further reflection and adding a content area into the mix,
the following research questions have come forward.
Return to Table of Contents.
How the Project was Executed
To be written:
Research and Writing
How I compliled my data and content as I researched and wrote
this coursework.
Conversion of RTF File to HTML File
Viewing HTML Files in Netscape
Refinement as Cohesive HyperText Documents
Editing and Modifying HTML Files
Creating and Linking Multimedia Examples
Burning the CD-ROM
Testing and Packaging
Return to Table of Contents.
The proposed research project to emerge from this literature review
is to conduct a field experiment whereby students who are taking
a semester-long movement design class in swimming will be introduced
to a multimedia computer-assisted and self-directed learning experience.
Early in the course they will be taught how to use the multimedia
program so that they can function independently to learn at their
own pace on the computer in the lab provided. They will be given
the opportunity to review video clips of an expert swimmer demonstrating
a swimming stroke. They will be videotaped swimming that same
stroke. The multimedia program will incorporate both video clips
so that the student has the control over watching them both simultaneously,
at normal speed and at a slower speed, and with the ability to
stop the video clips freeze-frame to optimize their feedback experience.
The learners will have the control to go their own speed, repeat
their feedback, go backward or forward in the program; and practice
their swimming stroke and get videotaped again to check for improvement.
This field experiment will involve conducting a pretest survey,
"SDL, CAI, Movement Design of Swimming (MDS) Scale"
(Appendix A). It will be administered before students try the
self-directed multimedia program. It will demonstrate their perception
of their swimming skill, level of computer competency, and attitude
about SDL/CAI using interactive multimedia. The instrument contains
30 five-scale Likert-type items.
During the semester the students will be given a skills-test before
the course begins, half way through the semester, and another
at the end of the semester. Also, a posttest survey "SDL,
CAI, Movement Design of Swimming (MDS) Scale" (Appendix B),
similar to the pretest, will be given to measure their perceived
self-improvement with this type of learning experience after the
course. The final course grade will be used for reference. A survey
of demographic items will be taken with the pretest for later
analysis.
The population for this field experiment will be the enrolled
students in the movement design of swimming class at CSU, Chico
for the fall semester of 1996. All students will be aware that
this swimming course involves computer-related activities. There
is no technological prerequisite for attending this course. There
is no minimum skill level of swimming required to take this course.
(Students are enrolled into one of three levels of swimming classes
concurrently. All levels of swimming are invited.) It is understood
by all enrolling students that movement design of swimming will
look at each individual's swimming stroke and his/her intent to
improve that stroke.
This course is designed with a self-directed learning model in
mind and uses computer-assisted interactive lessons. It is learner-controlled
instruction.
The first field experiment will be a pilot study. Upon analysis
of the data for reliability and validity using Cronbach's alpha
with SPSS, it will be determined if the results are reliable enough
to pursue further field experimentation with other movement classes.
Survey results will be compared to the demographic survey breakdown
by sex, age, grade level and major.
Movement design and this interactive multimedia format for self-directed
learning can be applied to virtually any subject area where multimedia
feedback can aid learning, such as in psychomotor skills classes.
This study looks at cognitive behavior as well as psychomotor
and affective domains.
Although there is no control group in this study, further research
could be done using a control group. The control group could be
given the same swimming activity and goals of improving their
swimming stroke without the aid of CAI and interactive multimedia.
Students could discover other ways of self-directed learning,
such as collaborating with each other to give one another feedback.
Another group could be given the video segments of the expert
swimmers, but without videos of themselves and without interactive
capability for comparison. There are a variety of ways this could
be conducted to test the factors of self-directedness and interactivity.
The independent variable being measured in this field experiment
is improved swimming. The dependent variables are self-directedness,
interactivity, motivation to improve, and motivation to use a
multimedia learner-controlled program.
Other research that could be suggested would be to compare these
survey results with correlation to Loyd and Gressard's Computer
Attitude Scale (CAS) which looks at three types of attitudes:
a) anxiety or fear of computers; b) liking of computers or enjoying
working with computers; c) confidence in ability to use or learn
about computers.
Another comparison study could be done with Guglielmino's Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) which tests four reliable factors:
a) love of and/or enthusiasm for learning; b) initiative and independence
in learning; c) facility with negatively phrased items; d) acceptance
of responsibility for one's own learning.
Return to Table of Contents.
Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An
empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, June 1994, 159-174.
Banathy, B.H. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be
planned for. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Bear, G.G., Richards, H.C., and Lancaster, P. (1987). Attitudes
toward computers: Validation of a computer attitudes scale. J.
Educational Computing Research, 3 (2), 207-218.
Bonham, L.A. (1991). Guglielmino's self-directed learning readiness
scale: What does it measure? Adult Education Quarterly, 41 (2),
92-99.
Brockett, R. G. (1985). Methodological and substantive issues
in the measurement of self-directed learning readiness. Adult
Education Quarterly, 36, 15-24.
Brookfield, S. (1984). Self-directed adult learning: A critical
paradigm. Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 59-71.
Candy, P.C. (1987). Reframing research into "self-direction"
in adult education: A constructivist perspective. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Clark, R. (1984). Research on student thought processes during
computer-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Development,
7 (3), p. 2-5.
Counsilman, J.E. and Counsilman, B.E., (1994). The new science
of swimming. Enlewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dockterman, D.A. (1995). Interactive learning: It's pushing the
right buttons. Educational Leadership, 53 (2), 58-59.
Finnegan, R. and Sinatra, R. (1991). Interactive computer-assisted
instruction with adults. Journal of Reading, 35 (2), 108-119.
Field, L. (1989). An investigation into the structure, validity,
and reliability of Guglielmino's self-directed learning readiness
scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 39 (3), 125-139.
Gagné, R.M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Holdt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Garrison, D.R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning
in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control
issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42 (3), 136-148.
Gay, G., Trumbull, D., and Smith, J. (1988). Perceptions of control
and use of control options in computer-assisted video instruction.
TechTrends, 33 (5), 31.
Grow, G.O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult
Education Quarterly, 41 (3), 125-149.
Guglielmino, L.M. (1978). Development of the self-directed learning
readiness scale (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia,
1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6467A.
Hiemstra, R. and Sisco, B. (1990). Individualized Instruction.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jonassen, D.H. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with
technology: a vision for integrating technology with learning
in schools. Educational Technology, July/August, 60-63.
Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design and instruction. In C.
M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models:
An overview of their current status, 383-434. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kinzie, M. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive
instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing
motivation. Educational Technology Research & Development,
38 (1), 5-21.
Kinzie, M.B. and Sullivan, H.J. (1989). Continuing motivation,
learner control, and CAI. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 37 (2), 5-14.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-Directed Learning. New York, NY: Association
Press.
Knowles, M.S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Knox, A. B. (1986). Helping adults learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Koschmann, T. (ed.). SIGCUE Outlook, 1992, 21 (3) (entire issue).
Laszlo, A. and Castro, K. (1995). Technology and values: Interactive
learning environments for future generations. Educational Technology,
March/April, 7-13.
Loyd, B.H. and Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial
validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 44, 501-505.
Maglishco, Ernest W. (1982). Swimming Faster, Mayfield Publishing
Co., Mountain View, CA.
Makrakis, V. (1988). Computers in school education: The cases
of Sweden and Greece. Stockholm: Institute of International Education,
University of Stockholm.
Morris, B.A. and Huffman, N.P. (1994). Self-directed learning
in adult education ASHA, 36 (6/7), 36-43.
Nix, D. and Spiro, R. (1990). Cognition, education and multimedia:
Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Steinberg, E.R. (1991). Computer-assisted instruction. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Sullivan, P. (1994). Computer technology and collaborative learning.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1 (59), 59-67.
Tennant, M. (1992). The staged self-directed learning model. Adult
Education Quarterly, 42 (3), 164-166.
Woodrow, J.E.J. (1991). A comparison of four computer attitude
scales. J. Educational Computing Research, 7 (2), 165-187.
Young, R.E. (1988). Critical teaching and learning. Educational
Theory, 38, 47-59.
Return to Table of Contents.
To contact the author of this project, e-mail Laura J. Sederberg at CSU, Chico.
TREATMENT
or not?
If research project is to be considered by another researcher
at a later time . . .
Proposed Methodology
Laura J. Sederberg