University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The interactive effects of computerized social reinforcement and sociability of students during computer assisted instruction

(USC Thesis Other)

The interactive effects of computerized social reinforcement and sociability of students during computer assisted instruction

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL
REINFORCEMENT AND SOCIABILITY OF STUDENTS
DURING COMPUTER ASSISTED INSTRUCTION
by
William Herbert Sacks
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
December 1975
UMI Number: DP24167
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI DP24167
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
Copyright by
W illia m H erbert Sacks
19 75
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007
P K . D -
t . 4
' 7 6
S I 2 I
This dissertation, written by
......Wi 11 i.am _ Herbe_rt Sack_s........
under the direction of h?:^.... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
/ C
Dean
DISSgRy ATION jpOMM ^T TE E
^ ^ a irm a n
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B LE S ............................................... îv
LIST OF F I G U R E S ............................................................... v
Chapter
I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
Background to the Problem ..................................... 3
Statement of the Problem , ........................... 7
Questions to be Answered ................................ 7
Hypotheses to be Tested ..................................... 9
D e f i n i t i o n of T e r m s ............................................................11
The Learning T a s k .................................................................15
D e l im it a t i o n s ............................................................................15
L i mi t a t i o n s ..................................» .........................................16
O rg a n iza tio n of the Remainder o f
the D i s s e r t a t i o n ............................................................16
I I LITERATURE R E V I E W ...................................................................... 18
Part 1
A p titu d e Treatment In te r a c tio n
R e s e a r c h .................................................................................19
Part 2
Man-Computer In t e r a c t io n ................................ 41
Pa rt 3
Combination o f ATI and Man-Computer
In t e r a c t io n ........................................... . . . . . 55
I I I DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................67
Research Design ................................ 67
Subjects and S a m p l i n g ................................................ 67
In stru m e n ta tio n . . . . . . ................................ 69
P r o c e d u r e ...................................................................................... 71
Computer F a c i l i t i e s ..................................................... 72
Null H y p o t h e s e s .......................... 73
S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis ................................................ 75
Page
IV R E S U L T S ..........................................................................................76
Acceptance and R eje c tio n of Null
Hypotheses on S p e llin g Achievement . . 76
Acceptance and R e je c tio n o f Null
Hypotheses on A t t it u d e Toward the
Computer as a C o m m u n i c a t o r ...................................79
V S U M M A R Y ..........................................................................................8 7
Flndlngs . . . . . . . . . . 89
Cone lus Ions........................................................................ . 90
Discussion and Recommendations ....................... 91
BIBLIOGRAPHY . 94
A PPEN D IX..............................................................................................................105
A High Social Computerized R eln fo rc e rs (HSCR) 107
B Medium Social Computerized R eln fo rc e rs (MSCR)113
I I I
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS FOR POSTTEST ACHIEVEMENT
SCORES AMONG COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL
REINFORCEMENT GROUPS ........................................... . . . 77
2 TWO WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR POST
TEST ACHIEVEMENT SCORES FOR
SOCIABILITY AND COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL
REINFORCEMENT GROUPS .......................................................... 78
3 DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS FOR POSTTEST ACHIEVEMENT
SCORES AMONG COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL
REINFORCEMENT GROUPS .......................................................... 80
4 DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS, STANDARD
DEVIATIONS AND NUMBER OF CASES FOR
SPELLING ACHIEVEMENT ON POSTTEST . . . . . . 81
5 DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS FOR POSTTEST ATTITUDE
SCORES AMONG COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL
REINFORCEMENT GROUPS ..................................... 82
6 TWO WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR POST
TEST ATTITUDE SCORES FOR SOCIABILITY
AND COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT
GROUPS....................................................................................................84
7 DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS FOR POSTTEST ATTITUDE
SCORES BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW
SOCIABILITY GROUPS ................................................................ 85
8 DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS, STANDARD
DEVIATIONS AND NUMBER OF CASES FOR
ATTITUDE POSTTEST.........................................................................86
I V
LIST OF FIGURES
F ig u re Page
1 2 BY 3 FACTORIAL D E S IG N ....................................................58
PAGE
CHAPTER I
I NTRODUCTION
I The c o n tr ib u tio n of computer a s s is te d in s tr u c tio n
(CAI) to the i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n of education has been a
major fa c to r in its growth and apparent success. Along w ith
g re a t prospects fo r improved achievement has been a good
deal of apprehension. Educators are concerned w ith the
possible dehumanizing, d e p e rs o n a liz in g and boring fe a tu re s
of the computerized process. While they b e lie v e computer
a s sis te d in s tr u c tio n is f u l f i l l i n g it s e a r ly promise of
increases in achievement, a concern toward nonacademic
a f f e c t s has been re ve a le d . The social in fluences of CAI are
now being in v e s tig a te d .
A major d i f f i c u l t y with CAI as in education is that
e x c e lle n c e most o fte n requires p r iv a t e and s e clu s iv e
behavior on the part of the le a r n e r . Humans are b a s ic a lly
s o c ial crea tu re s and do not p r e fe r to exclude themselves
from social contact f o r prolonged periods of time in order
to a t t a i n an in ta n g ib le o b je c t (Knowledge) which is
supposed to b e n e f it them in the f a r o f f f u t u r e .
To date computer as sis te d in s tr u c tio n has done l i t t l e
to remedy th is problem. Being, too concerned w ith s u rv iva l
of the f i e l d , the designers have not had time to consider
the human as the most important component of the system.
PAGE
The social and behavioral responses of the in d iv id u a l in a
CAI environment are only now being examined. In these
in v e s tig a tio n s one f a c to r c o n t in u a lly stands o u t. The
machine has the a b i l i t y to adapt; a l l we need to do is
u t i l i z e i t .
In order to put into o p e ra tio n th is adaptive
c a p a b i l i t y , educators must change t h e i r in s tr u c tio n a l goals
to a s l i g h t degree. Where i t is customary to th in k of the
outcome of education in terms of achievement, i t is now
necessary to consider the social consequences o f the
exper ience.
The computer can provide s o cial s tim u li to which the
student can respond. I t can f o r instance adapt its
pseudohuman p e r s o n a lity to th a t which is optimum fo r a
given student under a c e r t a in set of c o n d itio n s . This can
then be m anipulated to provide a more p e rso n a lized
in t e r a c t io n with the in s t r u c t io n a l medium.
To date, the rules which govern the a d a p t a b i l i t y of
th is medium to a human have not been d e fin e d . The primary
focus of th is d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l be to i d e n t if y the
in flu e n c e of computerized s o cial s tim u li on humans during
le a r n in g . To l i m i t the problem to one of manageable
proportions only one social stim ulus w i l l be in v e s tig a te d :
The e f f e c t of computerized social reinforcem ent.
The r e s u lt of th is in v e s tig a tio n w i l l be a set of
PAGE
Tes which w i l l s p e cify the a p p ro p ria te a l l o c a t i o n of
social reinforcem ent by computer to students with d i f f e r e n t
I
p e r s o n a lity t r a i t s .
' BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM
j
S u tte r and Reid (1969) s ta te th a t a pressing need
e x is ts to devote more research a c t i v i t y to the in te r a c tio n
between the co n d itio n s of in s tr u c tio n and the nature of the
(learner. T h e ir research centers on the social in te r a c tio n
I
and the e f f e c t s of in d iv id u a l d iffe r e n c e s on performance
jduring CAI, They s p e c i f i c a l l y compared the no ninterpersonal
c o n d itio n (working alone) o f CAI with an in terp e rso n a l
Condition (working w ith a p a r tn e r ) and its in flu e n c e on
s tu d e n t’ s achievement and a t t i t u d e s . The p e r s o n a lity t r a i t s
!
s p e c ifie d wer-e te s t a n x ie ty , s o c i a b i l i t y , and dominance.
Th eir re s u lts in d ic a te th a t lack of in terp e rs o n a l contact
can hamper le a rn in g when in d iv id u a l d iffe r e n c e s are
Considered, For students with high t e s t a n x ie ty , however,
I
the non in terp e rs o n a l c o n d itio n was more conducive to
le a rn in g than the in terpersonal c o n d itio n . Presumably,
working alone lessened the ego th r e a t presented by working
w ith a p a r tn e r . Students w ith high s o c i a b i l i t y performed
b e tte r in paired (in te r p e r s o n a l) c o n d itio n s . Students w ith
low s o c i a b i l i t y achieved b e t t e r working alone at the CAI
PAGE
te r m in a l. They concluded th a t the e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f CAI in
teaching a course in problem solving is dependent on the
jin d iv id u a l d iffe r e n c e s of the student and, as such, w i l l
ia ffe c t his performance and a t t i t u d e toward the computer
|assisted s e t t i n g .
! S u tte r and Reid overlooked an important f e a tu r e of the
j i n t e r a c t iv e computer. The computer i t s e l f can present a
jpseudohuman person with which the student can in t e r a c t . To
I
jdescribe th is second case la b e ls of personal (a computer
'
jwith pseudohuman c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) and nonpersonal (a
computer w ith o u t pseudohuman c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) can be used,
jübviously, the non in terp e rs o n a l c o n d itio n of S u tte r and
Reid is s im il a r to the nonpersonal c o n d itio n being
discussed here, Obviously a personal computer e x h ib its
isocial beh a v io r.
Hess and Tenezakis (1970, 1971, 1973) in computer
a s s is te d in s tr u c tio n sessions w ith elem entary school
c h ild re n observed a phenomenon which deals w ith th is so
c a lle d personal and nonpersonal fe a tu re o f the computer,
iThey discuss the computer as being given a pseudohuman role
jand a t t r i b u t e d to it a long la s tin g q u a l i t y o f charisma.
iTheir f u r t h e r in v e s tig a tio n of the educational s it u a t io n
has led them to the conclusion th a t the computer plays the
ro le of a s o c i a l i z i n g agent. The student is manipulated
iboth p s y c h o lo g ic a lly and s o c i a l l y during his i n s t r u c t io n .
PAGE
The computer is viewed in th is case as a social .
communicator. As such its e ffe c tiv e n e s s as a communicator
jis c o n tin e n t upon the way i t is evalu a te d by the message
ire c e iv e r, in th is case the student. They th e o riz e th a t the
^source c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which in flu e n ce the human-human
I
I n t e r a c t i o n w i l l b a s ic a lly be s i m i l a r f o r human-computer
I
ii nte ract i ons .
The Hess and Tenezakis study not only lay a foundation
f o r the study of the computer as a pseudohuman te a c h e r, but
more im p o rta n tly as a pseudohuman communicator posessing
jhuman source c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . They note th a t no one has
made a study of the use of "humanizing" techniques in CAI
programs. Yet the procedure has been d e l i b e r a t e l y
'incorporated into CAI because o f its presumably
I
f a c i l i t a t i n g impact on the human,
F e jf a r (1970) attempted to determine i f students given
p ra is e and reproof as s o c ia ll y r e in f o r c in g treatm ents would
a f f e c t t h e i r achievement. He concluded th a t "These s p e c if ic
fa c to rs need not be considered as v a r ia b le s in the f u t u r e , "
Xp. 11)
iviajer, Hansen and Dick (1971) took advantage o f the
social stim ulus of the computer as a communicator by
i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g p o s it iv e feedback. T h e ir re su lts suggested
th a t the amount of time to complete the program can be
S i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced i f verbal p ra is e is given as
PAGE
fe e d b a c k ,
The studies of F e j f a r , and M a je r, Hanson, and Dick
jhave two serious fla w s . F i r s t the F e j f a r study dismissed
I the e f f e c t s of social feedback based on short term
j
jachievement of the s tudent. He was, however, c le a r in
I
no ting th a t students were showing some a t t i t u d t n a l changes.
;However, he did not measure a t t i t u d e of the students. He
I noted th a t given a longer study his re s u lts might have
'd i f f e red .
M a je r, Hansen, and Dick who did not dismiss the
v a r ia b le s as being i r r e l e v a n t also e rro re d by not ta k in g
I
a t t i t u d i n a l measures. They expected achievement gains on a
s o cial or a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e .
The c u rre n t study in v e s tig a te s the computer as a
communicator. The computer re fe rs to i t s e l f and dispenses
i
social r e in fo r c e rs which r e s u lt in fo s t e r in g an
in terp e rs o n a l r e la t io n s h ip w ith the student. By being given
s a r c a s tic personal remarks the student w i l l fe e l a sense of
in t e r a c t io n in the r e l a t i o n s h i p . These fa c to r s w i l l in turn
[modify the student b e h a v io r.
I
I
, i t is q u ite p o ssib le to give a computer p e r s o n a lity
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which match a s tu d e n t's social needs, the
d e sired r e s u lt being optimal achievement and a t t i t u d e s . I t
is probable th a t a social c o n d itio n of CAI w i l l a f f e c t
^achievement and a t t i t u d e s of students d i f f e r e n t i a l l y from a
■PAG'Ë ■ 7l
nonsocial c o n d itio n , i t is expected th a t a social c o n d itio n
can be created by a llo w in g the computer to a d m in is te r
p o s it iv e and n e gative reinforcem ent to the human.
I t is also expected th a t an in t e r a c t io n e x is ts between
the degree of computerized social reinforcem ent and the
social needs o f the human. When these two premises are
considered te n a b le , i t w i l l then be po ssib le to f u r t h e r
study the a p p ro p ria te a l l o c a t i o n of social or nonsocial
le a rn in g co n d itio n s to in d iv id u a ls ,
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The major purpose of th is study is to in v e s tig a te the
i n t e r a c t io n of computerized social reinforcem ent and
s o c i a b i l i t y of students during computer a s s is te d
i n s t r u c t io n . I t is designed to study the in flu en c e o f th is
in t e r a c t io n on achievement and a t t i t u d e s during a s p e llin g
1esson,
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The computer can be given hum an-like p e r s o n a lity
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which w i l l in fluence students' social
p erception of the computer.
PAGE
In essence the p e r s o n a lity given to the computer is
expected to in t e r a c t w ith the s o c i a b i l i t y o f the s tu d e n t,
jit is probable th at a h ig h ly social computer a f f e c t s
a t t i t u d e s and achievement of students d i f f e r e n t i a l l y from a
low social computer. To v e r i f y th is hypothesis three le v e ls
iof social reinforcem ent were used, (H ig h ly s o c ia l, medium
's o c ia l, and low social computer re in fo rc e m e n t). The low
I
social also serves as a c o n t r o l. The high and low
I
's o c i a b i l i t y of the students was expected to in t e r a c t w ith
!the high, medium, and low s o c i a b i l i t y o f the computerized
rein fo rc e m e n t. These in te r a c tio n s are expected to be of an
iATl type where one kind of treatm ent is found to be
{Superior to o th e rs ,
j The fo llo w in g questions are stated as being under
'in v e s t ig a t io n ,
Ach ievement
(1) Is there a d i f fe r e n c e in achievement f o r c o lle g e
undergraduates r e c e iv in g d i f f e r e n t computerized social
|re inforcement during computer a s s is te d in s tr u c tio n ?
I (2) Is there a d if fe r e n c e in achievement between
undergraduates of high and low social need during computer
a s s is te d in s tr u c tio n ?
(3) Is there an in t e r a c t io n between social need and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------p a g e 9^
computerized social co n d itio n s as measured by achievement :
f o r c o lle g e undergraduates?
I
i A t t it u d e Toward the Computer as a Communicator
I
i
! (4) Is there a d iffe r e n c e in a t t i t u d e toward the
[computer as a communicator f o r c o lle g e undergraduates
^receiving d i f f e r e n t computerized social reinforcem ent?
(5) is there a d i f fe r e n c e in a t t i t u d e toward the
I
^computer as a communicator f o r c o lle g e undergraduates of
Ihigh and low social need during computer a s sis te d
I
in s tr u c t i on ?
( b) Is there an in te r a c tio n between social need and
computerized social c o n d itio n s as measured by a t t i t u d e
'toward the computer as a communicator?
HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED
I R e la tiv e to the research problem o f determ ining the
; in t e r a c t ion e f f e c t s of computerized social co n d itio n s and
s o c i a b i l i t y of s tu d e n ts , the fo llo w in g nu ll hypotheses were
form u1 a ted :
I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 10
I Achievement
I HypothesIs 1
I There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s in mean p o s tte s t
i
(achievement scores among the high, medium, and low
I
icomput e rize d social reinforcem ent groups,
i
I
' Hypothes i s 2
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s in mean p o s tte s t
[achievement scores between the students o f high and low
'social need.
; Hypothesis b
I
' There are no s i g n i f i c a n t in te r a c tio n s in mean p o s tte s t
achievement scores between computerized social
reinforcem ent and social need.
A t t it u d e Toward the Computer as a Communicator
Hypothes i s 4
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s in mean p o s tte s t
a t t i t u d e scores among the high, medium, and low
computerized social reinforcem ent groups,
Hypothes i s 5
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s in mean p o s tte s t
a t t i t u d e scores between the students of high and low social
PAGE 11:
need .
^ HypothesIs d
j There are no s i g n i f i c a n t in te r a c tio n s in mean p o s tte s t
■ a ttitu d e scores between computerized s o cia l reinforcem ent
:and social need.
! DEFI N IT1ON OF TERMS
1
; D e f i n i t i o n of terms used in th is study are presented
j as f o i l o w s ;
I Personal Computer Communications:
I A computer with human c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . V^ihen an attem pt
is made by the author or programmer to introduce humanlike
remarks into a computer program.
Types of computerized social communication
( Va r i a te #1 )
Computerized Social Reinforcement (GSR) is a computer
communication w ith a human in which the computer s o c ia ll y
r e in fo rc e s a human. The c u rre n t research requires th a t these
communicative acts occur on an o n - l i n e i n t e r a c t i v e
computer. An a d d itio n a l r e s t r i c t i o n is th a t the response
I time of the computer be. less than one second,
!
Three classes of communication p re s en tin g d i f f e r e n t
I verbal reinforcem ent were developed f o r experim ental
PAGE 12
comparison. These were r e fe r r e d to as fo llo w s :
I High Social Computerized Reinforcement (HSCR);
I
i
! A computer communication in which the computer uses
!
h ig h ly p o s i t iv e and negative social r e in fo r c e r s such as:
I
I
I P o s itiv e Re in fo rc e rs
I
i
lYOU ARE FANTASTIC!
I
I YOU ARE REALLY A GENIUS!
Î I GUESS YOU ARE REALLY INTELLIGENT.
;YOU'RE REALLY SMART.
: CONGRATULATIONS.
(OUTSTANDING.
SENSATIONAL!
FANTASTIC!
THAT WAS EXCEPTIONAL.
;SUPER!
!
' Negative Re in fo rc e rs
i
(WHERE DID YOU EVER GET A STUPID IDEA LIKE THAT?
YOUR LAST ANSWER DEMONSTRATES AN INABILITY TO COMPREHEND,
i
THAT ANSWER SHOWS BAD JUDGMENT ON YOUR PART.
'THAT WAS NO WAY FOR A COLLEGE STUDENT TO ANSWER A QUESTION.
PAGE 13
BELOW JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL!
,YOU ARE A STUPID MORON.
|yOUR error was VERY SERIOUS. PAY MORE ATTENTION.
I
jTHAT WAS VERY FOOLISH!
'THAT WAS DISGRACEFUL!
THAT WAS REALLY VERY BAD.
I
I And, provides p o s it iv e and n e g a tiv e feedback, (R efer
to Appendix A)
I
I
I
Medium Social Computerized Reinforcement (MSCR):
A computer communication in which the computer uses
medium p o s i t iv e and n eg ative social r e in fo r c e r s such as:
P o s itiv e R einforcers
FINE
YOU ARE DOING VERY WELL.
RIGHT
NICE WORK.
CORRECT, KEEP IT UP.
t
1
■ Negative Re in fo rc e rs
THAT IS NOT VERY GOOD.
i
[THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER
PAGE 14
ERROR. TRY AGAIN,
YOU ARE NOT DOING VERY WELL.
THINKI
I And/ provides p o s it iv e and n e g a tive feedback. (R efer
,to Appendix B)
I
I
j Low Social Computerized Reinforcement (LSCR):
I A computer communication in which the computer
■administers p o s i t iv e and n e g a tiv e feedback,
i In each of the above cases the computer is
ia d m in is te rin g some degree o f social re in fo rc e m e n t. This
v a r i a b le is on a continuum. As such even when no "h ig h ly
I loaded" social r e ln fo r c e r s are adm inistered to the s tu d e n t,
'Some social re inforcem ent comes into p la y . The computer
i t s e l f is a "s o cia l being" w ith which the student is
i n t e r a c t i n g . I t is c o n t i n u a ll y p re sen ting e v a lu a tio n s of
‘the s tu d e n t's competence, mastery, and s o cial worth whether
jthe student wants them or not.
I
I
i S o c i a b i l i t y of the student ( V a r ia t e #2)
Two le v e ls (High and Low) of s o c i a b i l i t y were measured
ifo r experim ental comparison. The G u ilfo r d Zimmerman
PAGE 15 I
Temperament Survey (G u ilfo r d and Zimmerman, 1949) v/as used!
I to dichotom ize the two groups. High and low s o c i a b i l i t y
jwere defined as fo llo w s :
High S o c i a b i l i t y (HS): Scores 16 to 30 on the
I
{ S o c i a b i l i t y scale (So) o f the GZTS,
Low S o c i a b i l i t y ( I S ) : Scores 1 to 15 on the
j S o c i a b i l i t y scale (So) o f the GZTS,
; THE LEARNING TASK
I
I The task which the students worked on was d ic ta te d by
I
; the educational s e t t i n g . In s tr u c to r s f o r the English 46 A
and 46 B courses were asked which concept they would most
l i k e to be taught by the computer. They se le c te d a s p e ll in g
!
{concept many students have tro u b le w ith , the "doubling of
the f i n a l consonant,"
Courseware was developed and te s te d f o r one 40 minute
.i n s t r u c t i o n a l lesson to be a d m in is te re d by the computer.
jWhen students p a r t ic ip a t e d in the in s tr u c tio n they were
; taught in a t u t o r i a l type of manner,
! '
DELIMITATIONS
1. The study was lim it e d to students e n r o lle d in
.English 46A,46B, and 4BA a t Santa Monica C o lleg e, Santa
PAGE 16
Monica, C a l i f o r n i a .
2. The study concerned i t s e l f only with the s p e ll in g
I
jConcept on doubling the fin a l consonant,
; 3, A ll in s tr u c tio n discussed in th is study was
presented v ia computer,
! LIMITATIONS
!
I
1 1, The r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the achievement
i -
jte s t ( S p e ll in g , ACH) instrum ent designed and used in th is
Istudy a f f e c t e d the outcome,
' 2, The r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the a t t i t u d e te s t
'( A t t i t u d e toward the computer as communicator, ACC)
instrum ent designed and used in th is study a f f e c t e d the
»
I outcome,
3. Sample s ize was 6Ü stu d e n ts .
4. The in v e s tig a to r was required to work with e x i s t i n g
groups f o r a sample,
o r g a n iz a t io n of THE REMAINDER
OF THE DISSERTATION
Chapter II presents a review o f selected l i t e r a t u r e
I
p e r t in e n t to th is study in c lu d in g th a t research which
explores A p titu d e Treatment in t e r a c t i o n , Man-comput e r
PAGE 17
In t e r a c t i o n s , and the r e la t io n s h ip of AT I w ith modes o f
'p ers o n a lized CAI,
I
j Chapter I I I describes the experim ental design, sample
jp o p u la tio n , experim ental v a r i a b l e s , development of
'm a te r ia ls , dependent v a r i a b l e s , f i e l d procedures, data
I
,c o l l e c t i o n , and s t a t i s t i c a l design.
I Chapter IV reports the re s u lts of the data c o l l e c t i o n ,
j an a n a ly s is of d a ta , and a discussion o f data r e l a t i v e to
!
I the stated hypotheses and questions to be answered,
I Chapter V reviews and summarizes the study problem,
jdraws conclusions from the f in d in g s , and makes
i
recommendations regarding f u t u r e study.
PAGE 18
j CHAPTER I I
i LITERATURE REVIEW
' The review of l i t e r a t u r e surrounding th is study has
I
'been lim it e d to th a t research which supports the notion
! th a t the p e r s o n a lity v a r ia b le s of the student s i g n i f i c a n t l y
j i n t e r a c t with s p e c i f i c modes of Computer A ssisted
I n s t r u c t io n , This is an A p titu d e Treatment In te r a c tio n ,
j
I ( A T I ) , The computer is viewed as a communicator and is
I d ivid e d in to three modes. (1) H igh ly social re in fo rc e m e n t,
' ( 2 ) medium social reinforcem ent and (3) low social
I
; reinforcem ent which is d ire c te d toward the student during
CAI ,
1 The s p e c i f i c o b je c t iv e of th is chapter is to review
the l i t e r a t u r e which e s ta b lis h e s a r e la t io n s h ip between the
*
s o c i a b i l i t y of the student and the dialogu e of a man
computer i n t e r a c t i o n , or the computer as a communicator. In
order to accomplish th is o b je c t iv e the chapter has been
divid e d in to three p a r ts . The f i r s t p a rt in v e s tig a te s the
l i t e r a t u r e on re s u lts of A p titu d e Treatment In t e r a c t io n
I
I which is broken into four s e c tio n s . (1) D e f i n i t i o n of A TI,
' ( 2 ) A Model of A T I, (3) P e r s o n a lity V a ria b le s (Class 1
v a r i a b le s ) in Mediated In s t r u c t io n a l S e ttin g s and (4)
P e r s o n a lity V a ria b le s (Class 1) in a Computer A ssisted
I In s tr u c tio n S e t t in g , The second p a rt considers the
PAGE 19
man-computer in te r a c tio n and is subdivided into three
s e c tio n s , (1) Man-Computer i n t e r a c t io n Emphasizing the
I
Ihuman, (2) Man-Computer In t e r a c t io n as a Dialogue and (3)
1
iComputers as Social Communicators.
i
! The f i n a l p a r t , combines the ATI w ith the modes of CAI
I
; to e s t a b lis h t h e i r r e la t io n s h ip which serves as a r a t i o n a le
; to conduct th is study.
I PART 1
' A p titu d e Treatment In t e r a c t io n Research
I
; i t has taken educators a remarkable amount of time to
come to the conclusion th a t a person learns more e a s i ly
,from one method than another and th a t these methods d i f f e r
from student to s tu d en t. The problem fa c in g in s t r u c t io n a l
designers co n sists o f d e term ining the most e f f e c t i v e method
f o r teaching a s p e c i f i c a p p l ic a t io n to a s p e c if ic
in d iv id u a l under a s p e c if ic set of circum stances. I t is
commonly accepted th a t both the le a r n e r and the
in s t r u c t io n a l system s i m i l a r l y w i l l b e n e f it from such an
i n t e r a c t i o n . However, w h ile the need has been well
documented" and the ideal has been expressed, l i t t l e has
I been done in any fo rm a l, system atic way toward the
Ii nd i V i dual i za t i on o f the in s t r u c t io n a l process. I t seems
: p o s s ib le a t the present time to develop educational
procedures s e n s it iv e to in d iv id u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , but to date
PAGE 20
such procedures have not m a t e r i a l i z e d .
Gagne (1 9 6 7 ), Bloom (1 9 6 8 ), Cronbach (1 9 > 7 ,1 9 6 7 ),
G la s e r (1967) and Jensen (1 967 ,19 6 8 ) have a l l suggested th at
no s in g le in s tr u c tio n a l process provides an optimal means
of le a rn in g f o r a l l s tu d e n ts . And, f o r a common set of
io b je c t iv e s , d i f f e r e n t i a l in s t r u c t io n a l dynamics w i l l
jenhance the achievement of students w ith d i f f e r e n t a p titu d e
land p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
A wide range of In s tr u c tio n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s must be
in corporated into the research designs in order to
determine the s p e c i f i c treatm ents which are b e n e f ic i a l f o r
! ,
a p a r t i c u l a r le a r n e r . Given a set o f le a rn e r
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , what is the best method to t a i l o r
in s t r u c t io n to his p a r t i c u l a r needs? This need to consider
the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the le a r n e r , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the
in s t r u c t io n a l method, the c o n te n t, and the environment has
been expressed by Frederiksen (1 9 7 2 ), Goldberg (1 9 6 9 ), Hunt
(1 9 7 1 ), Pervin (1968) and o th e r s . Cahen ( 1 9 6 9 ), Cronback
(1 9 7 5 ), Cronback and S now (1 9 6 9 ), Brach (1 9 7 0 ), D iv e s ta ,
Sander, S c h u ltz , and V/eener (1971) who r e fe r to th is as
A p titu d e Treatment In t e r a c t io n ( A T I) , This term can be
equated to the T r a it - T r e a t m e n t In t e r a c t io n (T T I) used by
H i l l s (1971) and B e r lin e r and Cahen (1 9 7 3 ). But, Tobias
(1969) p r e fe rs to use the term A t t r i b u t e Treatment
I n t e r a c t i o n .
y
A
PAGE 21
Section 1
I Def in i t ion of AT I
I
For the present study, ATI w i l l r e f e r to "A p titu d e
Treatment i n t e r a c t io n . " And, f o r d e f i n i t i o n sake they w i l l
be o p e r a t io n a l ly d efin e d as equal to T r a i t Treatment
I I n t e r a c t io n and A t t r i b u t e Treatment I n t e r a c t i o n .
j
I B e r lin g e r and Cahen (1973) suggest th a t each o f these
i
! terms has advantages and disadvantages. They b e lie v e the
I
'word " t r a i t " to be less r e s t r i c t i v e than the o th e r s . Under
i t they include p e r s o n a li t y , s ta tu s , a t t i t u d e , and in te r e s t
v a r i a b l e s . The label given to th is in t e r a c t io n is of
minimal importance. What is of importance is the idea th a t
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the student a f f e c t s his response to a
given treatm ent (Cronbach, 19 7 5 ).
In these studies researchers are looking f o r
d is o r d in a l and o rd in a l in te r a c tio n s between le a r n e r
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and tre a tm e n ts . An o rd in a l in t e r a c t io n is
d e tected when a te s t of p a r a l l e l i s m of regression slopes is
jr e je c t e d and the regression lin e s do not cross, B e lin g e r
and Cahen (1973, p . 61) s ta te " i t should be noted th a t we
b e lie v e o rd in a l as w ell as d is o rd in a l in te r a c tio n s can be
used to advantage in" ATI research. A d is o rd in a l
in t e r a c t io n is detected when a t e s t of p a r a l l e l i s m o f
PAGE 2 2
regression slopes is r e je c te d and the regression lin e s
cross w ith in the range of the measured t r a i t . The p a tte rn
I
jof d is o rd in a l In t e r a c t io n takes the shape o f an X when
p lo t t e d and in d ic a te s th a t a student w ith a s p e c if ic t r a i t
would p r o f i t more from one trea tm en t than another. The
d is o rd in a l in t e r a c t io n is a t the crux o f the ATI problem,
iAn o rd in a l In t e r a c t io n provides th a t one treatm ent is
[Superior to the o th e r on a l l po ints o f the regression
I
I s 1 op e.
The d is o r d in a l and o rd in a l e f f e c t s in research have
received l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n in the pa s t, t h i s l i m i t a t i o n
has re s u lte d in b locking main e f f e c t s when in f a c t there
were s u b tle d iffe r e n c e s due to the independent v a r i a b l e s .
: Cronbach and Snow, (1969, p. 6) have s ta te d the
A ptitud e Treatment I n t e r a c t io n problem as fo llo w s :
Assume th a t a c e r t a in set of
outcomes from an educational program is
d e s ire d . Consider any p a r t i c u l a r
In s t r u c t io n a l tre a tm e n t. In what manner
do the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of le a rn e rs
a f f e c t the e x te n t to which they a t t a i n
the outcomes from each of the
treatm ents th a t might be considered?
Or, c o n s id e rin g a p a r t i c u l a r le a r n e r ,
which treatm ent Is best f o r him?
A p t i t u d e s , T r a i t s , and Status
ATI is an approach to research r a th e r than a c l e a r l y
j PAGE 23
I
I
[defined research area. It Is concerned with the s p e c ific
I
in te ra c tio n between individual a p titu d e whether it be
p e r s o n a lity , a b i l i t y , or status, and s p e c ific treatments.
The s e le c tio n of aptitudes fo r ATI research has d i f f e r e d
[among researchers working in the area, B erlinge r (1973)
I
reports that some researchers feel that p e rs o n a lity t r a i t s
[such as: Anxiety (Tallmadge and Shearer, 1971), social
needs (Doty, 1967), independence or conformance (Domino,
1971), a u th o rita r ia n is m (Weiss, Sales, and Bode, 197Ü),
[compulsion (Grimes and All insmith, 1962 ) provide promising
fleads. Other researchers feel that learning a b i l i t i e s are
the c rucial in t e r a c tiv e v a r i a b l e . I n t e l lig e n c e (K e is ta r and
jStern, 1970), verbal a b i l i t y (Krumbotz and Y a broff, 1955),
c o g n itiv e s ty le (Coop and Brown, 1970), memory (Hoi 1 en
1971), reading a b i l i t y (S t a lli n g s and Keepes, 1970)
divergence and convergence (Reuss, 1969), conceptual level
(Hunt and Handt, 1967), and c r e a t i v i t y (Yamamoto, 1963),
Another dimension of t r a i t s worthy of in v e s tig a tio n
includes learner status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This is thought to
[be more a physical and environmental f a c to r than c o g n itiv e .
Age (Lucas, 1970), Sex (Rosenthal, 1966), Socio Economic
Status (SES) (Bhushan, 1971), and Racial (Eagle and H a r r is ,
1969). These three areas were proposed to serve as a basis
fo r grouping a p titu d e s . In some cases they are not mutually
exclusive and the area into which they f a l l is uncl^ear. For
PAGE 24
d e s c rip tiv e purposes they w i l l be c a lle d : Class 1
( P e r s o n a lit y ) , Clas^Z ( A b i l i t y ) , and Class 3 ( S ta tu s ).
The aptitudes investigated under ATI are rather well
s p e c ifie d in comparison to the larger problem of
treatments. T echnically speaking treatments can include any
stimulus s i t u a t i o n in which a student is placed. As is
evidenced by B e rlin e r and Cahen*s (1969) review of
l i t e r a t u r e , representative treatments involve s e ttin g s
which maximize a p a r t i c u l a r stimulus; inductive or
deductive-, structured or unstructured, p a r t i c u l a r subject
matter, concept learning, s t r a t e g i e s , or programmed
I
in s tr u c tio n . These treatments are more re p res e n ta tiv e of
Educational Psychology.
ATI in Educational Psychology and
In s tru c tio n a l Technology
Two schools of thought employ the concept of ATI:
Educational Psychology and In s tr u c tio n a l Technology. Each
takes a d i f f e r e n t approach to the problem when applying the
ATI paradigm. Educational Psychologists tend to stress
Dersonality and behavioral v a ria b le s (A p titu d e s ), wh i 1e
lessening the impact of treatment e f f e c t s . Allen (1970) is
re p res e n ta tiv e of the f i e l d of In s tru c tio n a l Technology--
4e groups treatment variab les into a more categorical
scheme. Here the stress is on the environmental E component
of the B-P-E model. At the same time he notes learner
PAGE 2 5
characters I tic s (P) he d elineates f i v e other categories
which play a part in the in s tru c tio n a l system. These are
(1) type of o b j e c t i v e , (2) content of the m a t e r i a l , (5)
media presentation techniques, (4) design f a c t o r s , (5) and
environmental s it u a t io n ,
! One would expect a core theory which is a p p lic a b le and
independent across content areas. But this has not been the
case. Cronbach and Snow (1969, p. 279) c h a r a c te r iz e the
| f ie ld of ATI as "a f i e l d where in ve s tig ato rs are ju s t
jlearning to c r a w l , ” Even though th is is no excuse in i t s e l f
jfor an unstructured theory I t does provide some r a tio n a le
fo r the state of confusion and a lack of c o n t in u ity which
e x is t s .
Section 2
A Model of ATI
Educational psychologists Hunt • and S u lliv a n (1974)
have made the attempt at theory s ta n d a r d iz a tio n . They
propose the use of Kurt Lewin's (1936) B=f(P,E) paradigm.
Behavior (B) is seen as a function of the person (P) and
the environment (E ). This B-P-E formula serves as a
i
coordinating system f o r considering psychological and
'educational th e o rie s . I t stresses the reference to the
PAGE 26
person and to the kind of behavior observed. The
environment is thought of as being constant and as s u c h , !
serves as a r a tio n a le fo r expecting d i f f e r e n t behavior from
d i f f e r e n t in d iv id u a ls . I f the behavior is a function of the
|person ( P) and we assume people are d i f f e r e n t , there is no
reason to conclude that the same environment w ill produce
i
lequivalent behavior fo r d i f f e r e n t people. When we consider
the conclusions from research such as "Praise f a c i l i t a t e s
'learning more than c r i t i c i s m " (Hunt and S u lliv a n , 1 9 7 4 ,p,
:7) we need to ask, "For Whom?" Taking into account the
person (P) may lead to a d i f f e r e n t r e s u lt, "Praise is more
I
(e ffe c tiv e than c r i t i c i s m f o r in tro v e rts while c r i t i c i s m is
more e f f e c t i v e than praise fo r e x tr o v e r ts " (Thompson and
Hunicutt, 1944), Viewed in B-P-E terms the praise ( E or
treatment) results in a d i f f e r e n t behavior B fo r person 1
I
I(PI) and person 2 ( P2) due to t h e i r s p e c ific pe rs ona lity
a p titu d e s . Thus P1+E=B1 while P2+E=B2, This is a typical
Aptitude Treatment In te r a c t io n , Hunt and S ullivan (1974)
view the ATI as an educational version of the B-P-E, and
jthat it is more an a r b i t r a r y s t a t i s t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n than a
I
I way of th in k in g ,
' This d is s e r t a t i o n w i l l use the B-P-E paradigm fo r
discussion. I t is one model that meets the c r i t e r i a of
content independence and takes an o b je c t iv e view of the»
in s tru c tio n a l in te r a c t io n .
PAGE 27
In the fo llo w in g section ATI Involving Perso nality
v a riab les (Class 1 v a ria b le s ) w i l l be In v e s tig a te d . These
variab les need be considered as they r e la t e to the
computerized and a u t o - I n s t r u c t I o n a 1 environments. An
attempt Is made to e s ta b lis h who would or would not b e n e fit
from a computer assisted In s tru c tio n s e t ti n g , and then of
these In divid uals what t r a i t s allows them to achieve b e tte r
with s p e c ific environments.
This part of the l i t e r a t u r e review w i l l describe the
p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r is t ic s of the student and modes of
In s tr u c tio n , An attempt is made to e s ta b lis h the
r e la t io n s h ip between the degree of social reinforcement the
In s tr u c tio n a l media e x h ib its as I t re la tes to the
In d iv id u a ls ' s ty le of learning. Typical In s tr u c tio n a l modes
are le c tu r in g , f i l m , PI, book, and CAI,
An attempt Is made to r e la t e the kinds of
In s tr u c tio n a l media which are appropriate fo r s p e c if ic
In d iv id u a ls ' styles of learning.
F i r s t the l i t e r a t u r e surrounding p e rs o n a lity variab le s
(Class 1 variab le s ) In a mediated and li v e In s tru c tio n a l
s e ttin g w i l l be In ve s tig ate d . Then a turn toward the
p e r o n a llty v a riab les In CAI w i l l be considered.
"PAÜ E 2 8 '
Section 3
Personality Variables
(Class 1 v a ria b le s ) in Mediated In s tr u c tio n a l Settings
j Beach (1960) conducted a research project to study the
re la tio n s h ip of a p e rs o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , s o c i a b i l i t y
(or social i n t rove rs ion-ext rove rs i o n ) , and academic
achievement in an advanced educational psychology course.
■In e s t a b lis h in g the various types of learning s i t u a t io n s ,
an e f f o r t was made to devise s itu a tio n s representing
(various degrees of student in t e r a c t io n , lecture section,
jlow social (Group A), an i n t e r a c t iv e discussion, medium
social (Group B), no in s tru c tio n small group, high social
(Group C) , and independent study, very low social (Group
D ) , I t was expected that the more sociable student would
[achieve more under conditions p e rm ittin g maximal student
I
in te r a c tio n (as in in te r a c tiv e discussion classes (B) or in
small group study (C) than less sociable students. The
less sociable student was predicted to achieve more under
conditions of minimal student in te r a c tio n (as in a le c ture
section (A) or in t o t a l l y independent study (D).'.
i The results indicate that in learning s itu a tio n A (A
■lecture section ) less sociable students had g re a te r
I
^achievement than more sociable students. In s itu a t io n C
Î
(Small group with no in s tr u c to r ) the more social student
achieved more than low sociable, A problem was discovered
iwith treatment B ( i n t e r a c t i v e c la s s ) . It was expected that
PAGE 2 9
I it would be a medium social treatment but was found to be
11ow soc i a l .
From these results it appears that A ( le c t u r e ) was
.perceived as a nonsocial in t e r a c t io n , B ( i n t e r a c t i v e
I le c tu re ) was perceived as a nonsocial in t e r a c tio n . C the
Ismail group with no in s tru c to r was viewed as social and D
I the independent study group as a nonsocial a c t i v i t y .
; There was no v a lid a t i o n of the social stimulus, a
s i g n i f i c a n t flaw in this research. It was assumed that the
;A,B,C, and D treatments were perceived as being social by
1
'the students; in r e a l i t y they were not as p re d ic ta b le as
expected and fo r this reason confound the r e s u lts .
Traweek (1964) investigated the re la tio n s h ip between
programmed in stru c tio n and p e r s o n a lity v a r ia b le s . The
C a l if o r n i a Test of P e rso na lity (CTP) was used to measure
s e l f re lia n c e , withdrawal tendencies, and nervous symptoms,
Sarason’ s Anxiety Test (SAT) was used to measure general
anxiety and t e s t- t a k in g a n x ie ty . And, the C a l if o r n i a
Short-Form Test (CSFT) was administered with respect to
imental m a tu rity . Results indicated successful learners
[d iffe re d from unsuccessful learners on c r i t e r i o n measures
■of p e rs o n a lity and i n t e l lig e n c e . The successful students
were found to be more te s t anxious, more withdrawn and less
s e lf r e l i a n t than unsuccessful students,
; Doty and Doty (1964) reported that achievement through
PAGE 30
programmed in s tru c tio n appeared to be re la ted to
pe rs o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . No s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was
found between general achievement and learning from t h e ir
program. They also reported a high p o s itiv e c o r r e l a t i o n
( .7 1 for g i r l s but .40 fo r both sexes) between grade point
average and a t t i t u d e toward P I , but no s i g n i f i c a n t
c o r r e l a t i o n between achievement and a t t i t u d e .
Snow, T i f f i n , and S e ibe rt (1965) investigated the
in s tr u c tio n a l e ffe c ts of f i l m and li v e presentations and
how they in t e r a c t with personality, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . No
s i g n i f i c a n t in te ra c tio n s were found. Students c h aracterized
as a c t iv e , s e l f assured, a s s e r tiv e , and independent tended
to perform at a higher level in a l i v e condition.
Conversely, passive students, are described as observers
rather than p a r t ic ip a n t s , lack s e lf confidence, are
follow ers and dependent on others, tended toward higher
performance in the f i l m condition.
Nobel (1967) compared the e ffe c ts of programmed
in s tru c tio n used by an individual for s o l i t a r y study with
small group use. Early research comparing " p a ir e d ” and
" in d iv id u a l" learning showed pairs doing b e t t e r alone than
in groups of three. Using the comparison of one c h ild at a
machine to two c hildre n at a machine resulted in no
s i g n i f i c a n t a t t i t u d e d i f f e r e n c e , but a trend in favor of
working alone was observed.
PAGE;
Lubîn (1965) reported that college students In
Introductory psychology who scored low on autonomy
jperformed b e tte r In PI than those with high autonomy,
j KIght and Sassenrath (1956) reported that high
I achievement motivated students performed b e t te r on three
c r i t e r i a than did students with low achievement m otiv a tio n .
jlhe c r i t e r i a were: time to complete the program, number of
I
e r r o r s , and short term retention score. High t e s t - a n x l e t y
subjects worked fa s te r and made fewer errors than low
I
anx ie ty subjects, but f a i l e d to e x h ib i t higher re te n tio n
, SCO res ,
’ Woodruff, F a l t z and Wagner (1966) c o rre la te d scores on
; two p e r s o n a lity te s ts , Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
I
I (EPPS) and the Gordon P e rso n a lity Inventory (GPI) with the
number of c o rrec t response on programmed In stru c tio n
frames. S i g n i f i c a n t l y c o rre la te d with performance were:
achievement ( r = . 5 3 ) , motivation ( r = , 5 3 ) , cautiousness
. (r = .S Ü ), o r ig in a l thinking ( r = , 7 4 ) , personal re la tio n s
' (r = .8 1 ) and IQ ( r = , 7 5 ) ,
j Haskel (1971) Investigated the r e la tio n s h ip between
selected p e rs o n a lity v a ria b le s of learners and t h e i r
I
; academic performance under Programmed in stru c tio n (P I) and
T r a d itio n a l In s tru c tio n ( I I ) . The question asked was "’What
!
c h a r a c t e r is t ic s of the le arner could be I d e n t i f i e d to match
I learners to optimal In stru c tio n a l methods?"
PAGE 32 :
The G u ilfo rd Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS) was
used to obtain measures fo r each subject on ten p e rs o n a lity
jfa c to rs . The analysis of covariance Indicated that when
jadjustment was made fo r e x is tin g d iffe re n c e s In general
l a b i l i t y , two of the p e r s o n a lity v a riab le s (general a c t i v i t y
I
|and f r ie n d l in e s s ) were found to In te r a c t with method of
jInst ruction. The programmed learning environment tended to
jfavor those who were Inclined to be slow and methodical
(low general a c t i v i t y ) and/or who could be c h a ra c te rI zed as
iagreeable and easy to get along with (high f r i e n d l i n e s s ) ,
wh11e those who were more l i k e l y to be cha racte rI zed as
aggressive (low f r i e n d l i n e s s ) appeared to perform b e t te r
under more conventional types of In s tr u c t io n .
The In te ra c tio n between In s tru c tio n a l method and
igeneral a c t i v i t y and fr ie n d l in e s s suggest that the
e ffe c tiv e n e s s of In s tru c tio n a l method varies asa fu n c tio n
of student p e r s o n a lity . Programmed le a rn in g , which occurs
In an e s s e n t i a l l y s o l i t a r y environment, is nonsocial. This
Is contrasted with conventional In stru c tio n which permits a
considerable amount of student-teacher In t e r a c tio n ,
requiring students to perform In fr o n t of t h e i r classmates
I
;whlch Is a highly social a c t i v i t y ,
' Davis, Marzoco, and Denny (1970) In two studies
compare Individual diffe re n c e s with modes of presenting
i
^programmed In s tru c tio n . They contend that there are no
PAGE 3 3
d iffe re n c e s between the d i f f e r e n t teaching technologies,
and as such, the respective benefits from each are equal, A
wide range of individual d iffe r e n c e measures were
col 1e c t e d ,
In the f i r s t experiment subjects completed an algebra
program using d i f f e r e n t modes of p resen tation: overt versus
covert responding and constructed responses versus m u ltip le
choice. Some subjects were allowed to choose the mode of
program p re s en tation. No s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s were
found.
In a second experiment students in an introductory
psychology course were placed in "feedback," or "no
feedback," treatments. The modes of presenting programmed
in s tru c tio n did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t learning outcomes.
The subjects were allowed to se le c t t h e i r own treatments
'and did not do s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than subjects whose
treatments were prescribed by the experimenters,
' Sect ion 4
.!
I Pe rs o n a lity V ariables (Class 1)
! In a Computer Assisted in s tru c tio n S e ttin g '
I
I
■ This part of the l i t e r a t u r e review focuses on the:
i
Aptitude Treatment In te r a c tio n in a CAI s e tt i n g .
i Leherissey (1972) reports that a learner:
PAGE 54
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of importance f o r optimal learning is
c u r i o s i t y . The type of c u r i o s i t y most relevant to learning
jis epistemic of knowledge seeking (Ce), which is related to
i
thinking and problem solving and can lead to permanent
storage of information. However a f a c to r detrim ental to
c u r i o s i t y is anxiety (A o ), Research indicates an inverse
j
[re la tio n s h ip between c u r i o s i t y Co and Ao, Thus, one means
ifor reducing the d is r u p tiv e e f f e c t s of a n xiety (Ao) on
performance (Po) may be to stim ulate c u r i o s i t y (Ce) in a
CAI task. Thus the g r e a te r the a n x ie t y ,(A o ) the lower the
j
^performance (Po). Leherissey contends that ^ g re a te r
c u r i o s i t y (Ce) w i l l reduce anx ie ty (Ao) and increase
performance (Po),
An approach Leherissey does not consider is the
re-education of anxiety (Ao) d i r e c t l y . Showing some
d i f f i c u l t y with g e ttin g the in s tru c tio n a l treatments to
have e f f e c t , she found that when attempting to put students
in high c u r i o s i t y s itu a tio n s and low c u r i o s i t y s itu a tio n s
a l l the students reacted as if they were in high c u r io s i t y
.'treatments. Her treatments did not a llo w fo r the novelty of
the CAI fo r the students. I t was found that manipulation of
I
: c u r i o s i t y p r io r to a novel learning s itu a tio n may not be
s u f f i c i e n t to maintain c u r i o s i t y throughout the task.
Although no main e ffe c t s of the in stru c tio n a l conditions
.were found/ there were several in teractions with respect to
PAGE 35(
I
p o stte s t performance. For low curious students high in
a n x ie ty , there was a cumulative e f f e c t of improving
jperformance.
I
Lesherissey, O’N e il and Hansen (1971) reported on the
I
'r e la tio n s h ip between a n x ie ty and memory support on a
complex computer assisted learning task fo r persons with
I d i f f a r i n g t r a i t a n x ie ty . Students high in anxiety seem to
j be n e g a tiv e ly influenced by the temporary stimulus o f the
'CRT d isp la y . They report that learning m a te ria ls presented
on a cathode ray tube (CRT) re su lt in more errors fo r the
jhigh a n x ie ty students than hard copy terminals (IBM 2741),
jfhe ty p e w r ite r terminals provide a p r in to u t which allows
I rev lew of past re s u lts . The CRT erases immed ia%ly a f t e r the
istudent responds. Based on the assumption that high anx ie ty
'students s u ffe r from heavy memory load they were given
memory support.
An ordinal in te r a c tio n was found between levels of
state anxiety and type of memory support. Memory support
was found to reduce errors made by high anxiety students
Ibut did not a f f e c t them enough to bring t h e i r e r r o r rate
I
jdown to th a t of low anxiety students.
, They conclude that providing memory support w i ll
increase performance of students with high levels of sta te
a n x ie ty . However the results suggest that it may not be
memory support per se that reduces the undesirable e f f e c t s .
i PAGE 36 '
i
I
I
jBy providing the support, other v a riab le s may be Influenced
with re su lt In the desired e f f e c t of less e r r o r . To date
these other v a ria b le s have not been Indent I f l e d ,
i in a keynote piece of research B l i t z (1973)
^sp ec ific ally studies Aptitude Treatment In te r a c tio n
p e rs o n a lity v a ria b le s In a computer assisted in stru c tio n
^environment. He Investigates whether p e r s o n a lity
jcharact e r I st I cs of dental students (oral pathology) have a
jbearlng on an I n d iv id u a l's success with p a r t i c u l a r modes of
I In stru c t Ion.
I Aptitude p e rs o n a lity measures were the Dental Aptitude
I
[Test (DAT), the Otis Quick Scoring Mental A b i l i t i e s Test
(Gama,IQ), and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
(EPPS). Interviews a f t e r the In struc tio n were conducted to
v e r i f y results and provide f u r t h e r insight Into the
In t e r a c tio n s . Seven out of the f i f t e e n v a ria b le s measured
on the EPPS were found to have an e f f e c t on student
behavior to varying degrees,
Deference--H I gh deference students found the mechanics
of CAI (Noise, watching the typing IBM b a l l , and w a itin g
fo r the CAI responses) to be both annoying and f r u s t r a t i n g .
I
CAI was considered cold, r i g i d , and lacking In
understanding. Instead of conforming to the CAI, the
students were overcome by the novelty and unconventional
In s tru c tio n a l s e t ti n g . In d iv id u a ls lower In deference.
however, tended to enjoy the novelty and challenge of CAI
and viewed the pressure of CAI as a f a c t o r in keeping them
jinvolved and moving along. These students adapted more
e a s i 1 y to the newer mode of in s tru c tio n ,
Order--The results on order indicated a disordinal
i n t e r a c t io n . High order students were found to score high
|in CAI and low in PI, The reverse was true fo r the low
jorder students. In the PI treatm ent, students were required
I
I
'to arrange a great deal of the m a t e r i a l , including s lid e s .
iThe o rd e rly individual had a d i s t i n c t advantage over the
1
;less o rd e rly because he was good at f u l f i l l i n g the "house
I
c le a n in g ” fu n c tio n . People who scored low on order
icomrnented that Pi was dry, boring, and lacking in
I
s u f f i c i e n t o r g a n iz a tio n . These same in d iv id u a ls often like d
the no v e lty , challenge and "ch attine ss " of CAI.
Endurance--Results of the study concerning endurance
indicated th a t CAI was b e tte r f o r low endurance students
and PI was b e tte r fo r high endurance students. The novelty
of CAI tended to increase low endurance students' a t t e n t io n
iand in te r e s t in the m a te r ia l. However students did report a
'good deal of t h e i r energy was wasted in j u s t coping with
I
the mechanics of CAI. The high students could apply t h e i r
g re a te r endurance to the rather passive PI,
Autonomy--The results concerning autonomy were both
iinconsistent and n e g l i g i b l e . The more autonomous students
PAGE 38
p re fe r the obi i g# 11 on of keeping appointments f o r CAI as
compared to doing Pi whenever they wanted to. The more
r ig id s tru c tu re of CAI was not perceived as a th re a t to the
I'students. B l i t z indicates that they may have viewed t h e i r
jresponses to CAI questions as autonomous because it
I
jinvolved a c tiv e i n i t i a t i v e and had impact; the computer
!
Responded to them,
j Succoranc8"~Bl i t z reports th a t the analysis o f data
idid not re su lt in an ATI f o r succorance. The CAI dialogue
was so r ig i d and unlike human conversation that succorant
I
jpersons did not associate this with f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r needs,
and thus did not aid t h e i r performance.
I B1 it z concluded that the c r i t i c a l f a c t o r in
determining ATI e f f e c t s was based upon the extent to which
'each mode of in stru c tio n aided the students learning s ty le
by f u l f i l l i n g his p e r s o n a lity needs. The key to p re d ic tin g
whether a student w i l l learn more from CAI or PI Is not his
academic a p t itu d e , but more l i k e l y the in te r a c tio n between
his p e r s o n a lity aptitudes and the s p e c ific learning
env i ronment.
! Nurturanee--Nurturanee ( g iv in g ) acts as a good
I
[variable in p r e d ic tin g ATI e f f e c t s , CAI scores with high
I
and low nuturance did not vary. In P I, the highs and lows
did vary. This being or not being n u rtura nt is not a fa c to r
in learning from CAI but its with PI
PAGE 39
i
People who are nu rturant did not tend to get involved^
with the dialogue. They viewed the computer as ju s t a'
jmachine and did not give it the " a l i v e " q u a l i t y others did,
j Highly nurturant students can get bored by the
I
^mechanics of CAI. P I, however, provided the nurturant
student with his own m a t e r i a l , something he could keep with
jhim and deal with in his own s ty le . I f he desired to study
I
jwith other students he could. It was more f l e x i b l e to his
own needs ,
; Aggression-“The p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
'aggression showed ATI e f f e c t s . The results were disordinal
;i n that high aggressives did b e tte r with CAI and worse with
PI, And, low aggression students did b e t t e r with PI and
worse with CAI, An aggressive student functions b e tte r in
an in t e r a c t iv e environment, one in which he could respond
to and vice versa. This type of s itu a tio n allows him to
f u l f i l l his needs of being a c tiv e and h o s t i l e .
P I, which provides a more passive learning s itu a tio n
Ion the whole lends i t s e l f b e tte r to the individual who does
I
'not require a c tiv e social exchange. Whereas the less
jaggressive students p referred the PI, the high aggressive
Istudents found it boring and dry,
I
' Majer (1970) investigated the in d iv id u a ls ' p e r s o n a lity '
1
c h a r a c t e r is t ic s and found them d i f f e r e n t f o r CAI and
Ï
( t r a d itio n a l modes of physics in s tr u c t io n . The results
r
PAGE 1*0 :
indicate th a t students who are less mature in t h e i r
I
academic s t y l e , who are more s e n s itiv e and who are not
' s c i e n t i f i c a l l y oriented have a b e t t e r chance fo r success if
'they take t h e i r in s tru c tio n via the CAI course. On the
lother hand, persons who are more autonomous, are
independent th in k e r s , have s c i e n t i f i c in te r e s t s , and who
have a mature s c i e n t i f i c a l l y oriented method o f inquiry,
Iwill have a g re a te r chance of success if they take the
t r a d i t i o n a l mode of in s tr u c tio n . \
An emphasis in CAI has been to fin d what p e r s o n a lity
c h a r a c t e r is t ic s would do b e tte r or worse with CAI or some
other mediated in s tr u c tio n . While th is is a worthy goad
there is another topic to be considered: given a s p e c ific
/
in d iv id u a l, how can CAI be modified to adapt ^o his
! \
individual s ty le of learning and his personal needs? jl f we
recognize the fa c t that c e r ta in in divid uals dô~nôt li k e it
I
or find it d i f f i c u l t to use, how can it be modified to
reduce such f r i c t i o n or negative impact? One topic of
I
j common a tta c k is that the method is cold, d i s t a n t , and
jnonresponsive to the in d iv id u a l. In order to design an
in s tr u c tio n a l system to e x h ib i t human-like q u a l i t i e s of
warmth, charisma, e t c . , we must in ve s tig ate what it is that
i
'w ill have the desired e f f e c t s .
j ■
I I t is fo r this reason that the l i t e r a t u r e review w i ll
I turn to man-machine in t e r a c tio n s . The man-machine
PAGE 41 I
I
In te r a c tio n Is much lik e a human-human communication. We
I
w i ll f i r s t give the communication model to be used in the
discussion and then review the l i t e r a t u r e from that vantage
p o in t.
PART 2
I Man-Compute r in te r a c tio n
j
Sect Ion 1
I Man-Cornputer In te r a c tio n Emphasizing the Human
I
; Much work has been done in the area of man-computer
icommunications and the development of optimal
'configurations. However, th is work has had one major
lemphasis: the maximization of mechanical components (the
computer) to meet a s p e c if ic a p p l ic a t io n . A s p e c if ic \
c o n fig u ra tio n is designed around the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the j
imachine. I t is only recently that emphasis is being s h ifte d \
;to the human component in man-computer in te r a c tio n s ,
Sackman ( 1 9 7 0 ,p . 45 and 54) indicated how everyone
jtalks about the computer user, but v i r t u a l l y no one has
studied him In a systematic, s c i e n t i f i c manner. "The human
f o r a l l intensive purposes is f o r g o t t e n , "
Martin ( 1 9 7 3 ,p. 3) states that "man must become the
prime focus of system design," The computer is there to
PAGE 42
serve him, to obtain information f o r him, and to help him
do his jo b . To be e f f e c t i v e , systems w ill have to be
designed from the o u ts ide , in. The terminal or console
!
io pe ra tbr, instead of being a peripheral con s id e ra tio n , w i ll
I become "the t a i l ' that wags the whole dog."
Dave (1972) stressed how the system should perform in
I an adaptive manner to meet human needs. It should promote,
! encourage, and f a c i l i t a t e in te r a c tio n dialogue rathrer than
hinder i t ,
I Bennett (1972) discusses a new stage o f ' man»-compute r
[in te r a c tio n s which is beginning. Social facto rs are forcing
I
ithe consideration of the human component. Because of the
I increasing base of novice users who are using computing
. powe I? . a l t e r n a t e means of in te r a c tio n need be developed,
; Consideration of behavioral patterns is becoming an
important element in the design of the in te rfa c e fo r the
non-computer s c i e n t i s t ,
Grace (1970) suggested that the human facto rs
d i s c i p l i n e is best suited to d e lin e a te human v a ria b le s of
the man-computer in te r a c t io n . The fa c t that the information
^processing is not t o t a l l y in the machine or t o t a l l y in the
human provides a problem which requ i res a humanist's
background, Grace urges that human-factors people master
the computer descipline in order to provide needed guidance
to a f i e l d which has not yet c l e a r l y understood human
PAGE 43
factors requirements.
Nickerson (1969, p. 235) concluded a f t e r a careful
Isearch, that " . . . t h e r e Is remarkably l i t t l e evidence of
i
{research undertaken fo r the express purpose e i t h e r of
I
increasing our understanding of man-compute r in te r a c tio n or
:of providing information that w i l l be useful in the
development of systems that are o p tim a lly suited to user's
needs." While f r e e l y expressing the d i f f i c u l t y of such work
'he suggests th a t three areas deserve f u r t h e r in v e s tig a tio n :
|(1) conversational languages, (2) the e f f e c t s of computer
I
(system c h a r a c t e r is t ic s on user behavior and (3) the problem
'of describing or modeling man-computer in te r a c tio n .
Waksman (1974, p. 235) c ha ra c te rize s the man-computer
in te r a c tio n as being influenced by a m ultitu d e o f fa c to r s .
For instance , "the q u a l i t y of the in te r a c tio n is affe c te d
by even small changes, such as the speed at which the
computer response is printed out. The d iffe r e n c e in
p rin to u t between 10 characters a second and 30 characters a
second in its simplest case" w ill influence the degree to
which a person can w ait fo r the information. He notes that
(there is l i t t l e conclusive data on what facto rs a f f e c t the
q u a l i t y of the in te r a c tio n .
Anderson and Sibley (1972, p. 1) b e lie v e that the
man-computer in t e r a c t iv e systems are inherently
^multidimensional. By this they mean that the basic problem
\
PAGE 44
is recognizing patterns of events that occur over " m u ltip le
channels in both time and space." The man-computer
in terfaces are viewed as t r a d i t i o n a l l y d i f f i c u l t to b u ild ,
"However, the computer systems that in te r a c t with humans
must be f l e x i b l e and adaptive to meet the changing
requirements of various users."
The most e f f e c t i v e approach f o r the fu tu re requires
jemphasis of the human in order to make his in te r a c tio n more
I e f f e c t i v e .
! Malia and Dickson (1970) indicate that it is important
I to r e a l i z e that humans and computers are in some aspects
! d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed. I t is fo r this reason that at some
point in time one must drop the emphasis on one component
of the system and stress another. This in e v ita b ly
necessitates s a c r i f i c i n g consideration of the machine. As
the computer becomes less expensive, the stress on cost of
hardware and operation become less important and the
accentuation of human operations can take a dominant role
I
in the system. Hammer (1971) suggests that cost reductions
I per operation are reported throughout the l i t e r a t u r e .
I
|Levien (1971) believes that network costs w i l l drop to a
I level where s i t t i n g in our homes we could have at our
ifin g e r tip s a l l the reference m aterial of the e n t i r e world,
■The impact on research and the a b i l i t y of the average man
I to keep himself informed is beyond imagination. Man would
PAGE 45
be able to switch from one national tim e-sharing network to
: another as e a s ily as changing a channel on his TV set.
I
I Section 2
- Man-Compute r In te r a c tio n as a Dialogue
I
I
i Ambrozy (1971, pp. 376-377) estab lished a model of
I
I man-compute r In te ra c tio n based on Turing (1963). This has
I Importance because of his emphasis on the man and the
computer In a dialogue s i t u a t io n .
Using eight components: (A) Organism A,man; (B)
Organism B, machine; (E) A common environment to both A and
B; (Ea) an environment unique to A; ( Eb) an environment
unique to B; (P) t h e i r physical environment; (Ma) a set of
I mapping functions of A*s perception of the s i t u a t i o n ; and
(Mb) a set of mapping functions of B’ s perception. He
es tab lis he s three general conditions of conversation. (1)
There e x is ts a part of the environment, which Is known to A
i
! or B or both. (2) There Is a common part of the environment
'to both A and B. In the course of the dialogue e i t h e r some
icomnpn elements of Ea and Eb become parts of E, or some
I common elements of Ea and Eb become parts of E or both
I events occur.
The resu lts of the dialogue a re always the
! Incrernenta 1 on of E, Ambrozy defines a communication as "a
PAGE 46
dialogue when the number of communications partners is at
le a s t two and where at le a s t one of them sends a meaningful
i
jmessage to the other and at least one of them receives this
I
'message.
in the above d e f i n i t i o n it is possible to have a
i
monologue which can be considered a communicative act in
which B does not acknowledge the message or provide
ifeedback to the sender. it does however assume that the
.
message was received and decoded. \
Another modeling system is th a t of Pask, Scott and
.Kallkourdis (1973), They have developed what may be
considered the most comprehensive model of a theory of
conversation between man and machine. The human is
icharact e rized as a psychological individual (P in d iv id u a l)
and the machine as a mechanical individual (M i n d i v i d u a l ) .
Sets of rules have been defined which e s ta b lis h the
I
components of conversation based on o b je c tiv e rather than
s ubjec tive measures. The Course Assembly System and
T u to ria l Environment (CASTE) Is a working theory which
jexernpl i f ies how the conversations operate.
I They go on to describe a metalanguage developed
independently of content areas and based on the concept of
a dialogue. And, s p e c i f i c a l l y d e lineate re la tio n s h ip s
between communicative e n t i t i e s . While the comprehensive and
Icomplex features of the models are obvious it remains to be
PAGE 1+7
seen what e f f e c t and value this p a r t i c u l a r model w i l l have
on the design of man-ma ch/me -eommunXcajtXons .
I Waksman (1974) c h a ra c te rize d the man-computer
'in te r a c tio n as being e q u ita b le to the human-human
I
‘communications only it is r e s t r ic t e d to an in te rfa c e
device. Computer communication is formal and stru ctu red and
I
fallows l i t t l e de v ia tio n as do normal human communications.
|He notes th a t "human communication is charact e rized by
I in te r r u p t ions, by a great many e r r o r s , and by no apparent
|grammatica1, s y n ta c tic or semantic rules. Furthermore in
face to face communication more than a single channel is
!
I involved" (p. 235).
i Mart i n (1973) describes 18 d i f f e r e n t categories of
Iman-computer dialogue. Some are easy to use whereas others
I
require months of experience and much s k i l l . Each
i
in te r a c tio n is described through a human fa c to rs approach
of careful consideration of Important c o n s tra in ts on the
system. He proposes l i s t s of v a ria b le s which need to be
taken into consideration in the design of an a ppropriate
|man-computer dialogue. However, no real rules fo r
'a p p lic a tio n or making s e le c tion decisions are provided.
I The emphasis of his book on man-computer dialogues is
'on the ease of use of man-computer dialogues and only
I
[ b r i e f l y considers t h e i r psychological and social e f f e c t s .
: Kennedy (1974) discusses some ground rules f o r the
PAGE 48
I
jdevelopment of "well-behaved" conversational systems. The
lenvironment of man-computer communication is defined as the
I
■"sphere of in te r a c t io n ," Within th is sphere one is
iconcerned with the a b i l i t y of man and computer to
I
communicate messages in a manner o p tim a lly e f f i c i e n t to the
human. The p r a c t ic a l experience in the design of data entry
systems is examined and it is suggested th a t an i n t e r a c t iv e
I
jsystem should be "simple and natural in s t r u c tu r e , even if
|it may involve extensive programming" on the part of the
jcreators. (p. 309)
I Katzer, (1972) in an attempt to q u a n tify some of these
■ $
'c h a r a c t e r is tic s developed a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l with the
;purpose of id e n t if y in g those dimensions applied by a user
(toward an on lin e user o rie n te d reference r e t r i e v a l system
I
I(SPARS). The SD allowed the d e lin e a tio n of three
: independent dimensions.
Factor I was labeled " e v a l u a t i v e - s p e c i f i c . " I t seems
to r e f l e c t the c a p a b i l i t y of the system tp make j udgnen t
and to function as i t is expected. In essence it is the
: human's general e v alua tion of the system.
I Factor II was c a lle d " d e s i r a b i l i t y , " The p o s itiv e
[effects of the system or the degree to which it is viewed
as a p o s itiv e or negative e n t i t y .
Factor I I I was "en orm ity," r e f l e c t i n g such ideas as
jcomplexity, weight, seriousness, and s iz e .
PAGE 49
Katzer discusses his Instrument In terms of a r e l i a b l e
useful tool to measure a t t it u d e s toward an Information
r e t r i e v a l system. He concludes from the development of this
tool that r e p lic a t io n of his re su lts are necessary In order
to more o b je c t i v e l y define mans perception of the computer.
Chapanis (1975) discusses " u n i d i r e c t i o n a l ” and
" I n t e r a c t i v e " communications. He I d e n t i f i e s the
e ffe c tiv e n e s s of u n id i r e c t io n a l modes of communication such
as "highway signs, books, lectures and t e le v is io n
programs," in " U n i d ir e c t io n a l " communication, the person
receiving the message Is a passive re ceiver and does not
provide feedback to the sender. "Nothing he does or says
a f f e c t s the communicator, the communication process or the
content of the message." (p. 56)
He views I n t e r a c t i v e communication as having at least
two p a r t i c i p a n t s . Man-computer communication Is i n t e r a c t i v e
communication where one of the p a r tic ip a n ts Is a machine.
I t can never the less carry on a dialogue with a human.
Section 3
Computers As Social Communicators
The attempt by researchers to measure reactions and
In te r a c tio n s of humans toward computers Is form ulatin g a
theory which rests h e a v ily on human-human social
PAGE 5 0
in t e r a c t i o n . The attempt to c l e a r l y specify the dimensions»
of the "interperson al r e la tio n s h ip " between the man and the \
computer requires acceptance that the machine can \
communicate as a human. A conversational computer can be
programmed to converse as a human which to some extent
forces the man-computer in te r a c t io n to be equated to the
human-human social in te r a c t io n . \
\
Orcutt and Anderson (1974) discuss the in te r a c tio n
between humans and computers in terms of "conversational
computers which can be programmed to present the appearance
of responsiveness to human inputs in sequential d ia lo g u e s ." /
/
(p. 219) They studied the im plications of human-compute r
r e la tio n s h ip s during a pris o n e rs ' dilemma game in an
experimental s e t t i n g . Subjects were led to be lie ve that
they played some games against a human opponent and other
games against a computer opponent. They were in every case
in te r a c t in g with a computer. The researchers used
human-human in te r a c tio n fo r a comparative baseline.
The resu lts of the prisoners'.dilem m a game as measured
by a L l k e r t scale indicate that the subjects did not form
jextreme reactions to e it h e r the human or computer in the
Igaming s i t u a t i o n . Subjects did/ however/ show a tendency
!toward the human opponent as more responsive than the
I computer.
I
I Another measure of the experiment was that of a
PAGE 51
semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l (a less structured measure) which
resulted in the human as being rated more fa v o rab ly in a l l
27 I terns being measured. The computer opponent was
I
jperceived by the subjects to be more depersonalizing and
imore powerful than was the human opponent,
j
' The t h i r d measure (open ended quest i ona i r e , t o t a l l y
i
I
junstruetu red) showed that almost h a lf of the subjects found
j i t more d i f f i c u l t to communicate or come to an agreement
with the computer than the human. Orcutt and Anderson
'suggest that th is is due to the d i f f i c u l t y or im p o ssiblity
of ” t a k i n g - t h e - r o l e - o f - t h e - o t h e r " in a human-compute r
i n t e r a c t io n . "interperson al in te r a c t io n is premised on the
p o s s i b l i t y of role taking, where p a rtie s to an in te r a c tio n
mutually a n t ic ip a te the responses of others, a t t r i b u t e
consensual meaning to those responses a n df§ r r i v e at a common
d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n " (p. 222), Confronted with
in te r a c tio n with the computer, which has no "social s e l f "
and cannot share a meaningful d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n ,
the subjects seemed to perceive th a t a basic assumption of
j the p o s s i b l i t y of role taking had broken down,"
I
I Marshall and Maquire (1971) studied the computer as a
jsocial pressure. I t is based on C rutchfield's (1955) model of
.group pressure. The study shows the e f f e c t s of peer group
jopinion on an in d iv id u a l's reported perception of his
I
i env i ronmen t .
PAGE 52
S p e c i f i c a l l y the purpose of the study was to r e p lic a te
the C ru tc h fie ld study by introducing the computer as an
a u t h o r i t y which simulated social pressure.
The resu lts indicate th a t perceptual judgment can be
!
iswayed by fa ls e information presented in a CAI s it u a t i o n .
,But, the students were not permanently influenced by the
I compute rs f a u l t y communications. Once the pressure was
'removed/ the subjects seemed to t r u s t t h e i r own senses and
: r e tu rn to normal judgments. Because of this Marshall and
Maguire suspect th a t the students yielded only b e h a v io ra lly
I
land not c o g n it iv e ly to the computer pressure,
i Schoen (1972) has compared in s tr u c tio n a l treatments
;wh i ch d i f f e r e d in the degree of i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n and
p e rs o n a liz a tio n in a computer as sis te d in s tru c tio n a l
s e t t i n g . Concerning in d iv id u a liz a tio n ^ i t was found that
there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s in the type of
i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n given. He did f ind^ however, that the use
of s t u d e n t ’ s f i r s t name seemed not only pleasing to the
1s tu d e n t, but th a t i t may enhance achievement.
! M i l l e r and Hess (1972) conducted a study to id e n t if y
t
j the engaging c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of computer assisted
I in s tr u c t ion and to determine why engagement with CAI
j programs remains so high. They have i d e n t i f i e d that CAI can
,provoke c u r io s ity ^ and state that students in computer
I
{'assisted a r it h m e t ic programs develop p o s itiv e a t t it u d e s
PAGE 5 3
toward the computer, "Students approach the computer room
e a g e rly , and they appear to l i k e working with the
computer." (p. 41)
I L i c k l i t e r (1963) was one of the e a r l y in ve s tig ato rs to
! use the pseudohuman s ty le (a social v a r i a b le ) during a
iterminal in t e r a c t io n . He found such comments as "good,
; poor, wrong, try again, or you're a moron" have r e in fo r c in g
i
Ip rope rt i e s . He views them as c l e a r l y separate from the
program i t s e l f but strong enough to c a rry the student
j th rough to a mastery of a p a r t i c u l a r l y useful amount of
I mate r i a l . He s tates:
i t seems p o ss ib le , by e x p lo i t in g
the computer's constant c a p a b i l i t y for
quick responses and reinforc e m e nt, to
develop techniques of in s tru c tio n and
i n t e l l e c t u a l e x p lo ra tio n that w i ll
" tra p " the a t t e n t io n of students, and
d i v e r t t h e i r energies from amusements
and other less c o n s tru c tiv e pasttimes
to education, (p. 35)
Feldman and Sears (1970) explored the e ff e c t s of CAI
on the class room behavior of young c h ild r e n . The study was
I
i a imed at comparing t r a d i t i o n a l in s tr u c tio n with computer
j ass i s ted in s tr u c tio n concerning changes in class room
Ibehaviors, Factor analysis supported the p r e d ic tio n that
!academ i c and social behavior were being influenced by CAI.
Depending on the kind o f ed ucatio n al tre a tm e n t a child
[ was_._get,tlng, syLs.temat.i_c_.d iffé r e n c e s. _i.n . .behavior were being
PAGE 5k
produced. Children in the CAI treatment became more
academically orie n te d and less a c tiv e s o c i a l l y . Children in
a non-CAI condition were more stable academically and less
stab 1e soc i a 11 y .
I
: The resu lts can be in terp re te d as in d ic a tin g that a
decrease in social behavior can be expected in CAI
I
Ic 1 ass rooms. "The decrease in social behavior does suggest
j that c r i t i c s may have some j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r suggesting
I that CAI leads to more sedentary^ c o n s tric te d be ha v io r."
j(p. 14)
j Martin (1973) discusses the man-compute r dialogue
Id u r i n g CAI,
I t has been used fo r a wide
v a r i e t y of people and a wide range of
subject m a tte r. The design of the
compute r-pup i 1 dialogue is the key to
its success, When the system is well
designed the pupils are c a p tiv a ted by
the term inals; they learn at a fa s t
rate with a high level of re te n tio n and
f in i s h each session with a sense of
accomplishment. The computer is
programmed to respond to them s ensibly,
with i n f i n i t e patience, and with timing
designed to maximize the reinforcement
of the information in t h e i r minds. The
pupils leave the terminals stim ulated
and mentally fa tig u e d , ( p .409)
Bork (1 9 7 1 ,p . 7) states that w r itin g a student computer
dialogue is a l i t t l e understood process. The dialogue
should resemble a conversation in some way. "The model of a
PAGE 5 5
human dialogue suggests that the computer dialogue s t y l e
should be more like that of a conversation and less lik e
th a t of a book. Talking is more informal than w r i t i n g and
o fte n more redundant. "Humor and l i g h t touches are
d e s ir a b le and welcome." He i d e n t i f i e s another issue of
dispute which has l i t t l e empirical evidence. This is the
question of f i r s t person s t y l e . "Most of the dialogues
developed at the U n iv e r s ity of C a l i f o r n i a at Ir v in e have
used the f i r s t person s t y l e , while most of those from
Berkeley have n o t." (Bork, 1 9 7 1 ,p . 8)
PAftT 3
Combination of ATI and Man-Computer In te r a c tio n
The previous two parts have presented two components
to the discussion. Part 1 provided the background to ATI
and e s tab lished the Class 1 p e r s o n a lity v a ria b le s . The
purpose of th is was to e s ta b lis h a foundation fo r t h e i r
in te r a c tio n with the social charact e r i s t i c s of the
computer. Part 2 the man-computer dialogue e stab lishes that
the machine is indeed able to provide social stim u1 us to
which humans respond.
The curren t p a r t. Part 3, brings together the AT I
research with the computer as a social communicator. From
this p e rs p e ctiv e, the fe a tu re s of the computer which allow
PAGE 56
i t to adapt to the individual can s t a r t to be delineated.
S p e c i f i c a l l y the s o c i a b i l i t y of the student as it relates
jto a social r e î nforcement dispensed by the computer, it
I
iwill be seen that the l i t e r a t u r e concerning s o c i a b i l i t y and
I
j c A l is sparse. And, that the research which has
|investigated th is problem have been poor attempts at
[measuring social f a c to r s . ^
j Social reinforcement by the computer haè been reported
l b y Orcutt and Anderson (1 9 74 ), Marshal and Maqu i re (1971), i
land Bo rk (1 9 71 ), I f indeed the computer has the a b i l i t y to
I
js o cially re in fo rc e student behavior then it can be
jeon t ro lled fo r individual d i f fe r e n c e . Let us f i r s t
■investigate some research which stresses the social
jin te ra c tio n of students in a CAI in t e r a c t io n . Social in
th is context refers to two human's in te r a c tio n at one
computer terminal not the computer as a social e n t i t y in
i t s e l f ,
Of these S u tte r and Reid (1969) report on the
r e la t io n s h ip of learner v a ria b le s and interpersonal
[Conditions in computer assisted in s t r u c t io n . They stress
that more research needs to be devoted to the in te r a c t io n
jbetween the c o nd itio ns of in s tru c tio n and the nature o f the
ilearner. ^ The study compares the achievement and a t t it u d e s
I
of students who took a CAI problem-solving course with a
Ipartner (social condtion) and those who took the course
PAGE 57
alone (nonsocial condition more ty p ic a l of CAI).
It was hypothesized that the social condition of CAI
would a f f e c t the performance and a t t i t u d e s of students
I
' d i f f e r e n t i a l l y from those working under interpersonal
jconditions only when s p e c if ic p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
jof the students were taken into cons id e ra tio n . The
I
jpersona1 i ty aptitu des under in v e s tig a tio n were; test
a n xiety (Sarason^s Test Anxiety^ TA s c a l e ) , s o c i a b i l i t y (Sy
iscale of the C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory, C P I), and
jdorn i nance (Do scale of the C PI),
I When p e r s o n a lity v a ria b le s are considered, social
I
versus nonsocial in s tru c tio n conditions do seem to a f f e c t
ilearning as well as a t t i t u d e .
Test A n x ie t y - - High test anx ie ty was associated with
negative a t t i t u d e s toward CAI in both the social and
nonsocial treatm ents. A s i g n i f i c a n t in te r a c tio n was
obtained between te s t anxiety and achievement fo r the two
groups. Students high in te s t anx ie ty achieved b e t t e r
iworking alone. Those low in te s t anxiety achieved b e t t e r
;with a p a r tn e r .
j Presumably working alone lessens ego th re a t presented
I
jby the pressure of a p a r tn e r . The student can concentrate
on his task and reduce i r r e le v a n t responses during
in s t r u c t io n . The student is free to focus on the task at
[hand and operate in a reduced a n xiety s t i t u a t i o n .
PAGE 58
S o c i a b i l i t y - - Students with high s o c i a b i l i t y performed
b e t t e r In paired ( s o c i a l ) conditions than working alone,
Istudents low In s o c i a b i l i t y performed b e t t e r working alone,
I
[The pa I red condition forces a social In te r a c t io n to take
I
Iplace, As such, students low In social tendencies operate at
I
I
a disadvantage. But, s o c i a b i l i t y did not seem to a f f e c t
i
ia t titu d e toward CAi,
!
I Dominance-- Dominance was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e la te d
iwlth achievement. However the dominant In divid ual In a
^social treatment was n e g a tiv e ly Impressed with CAI while
I the more submissive students were p o s i t i v e l y Impressed.
I t should be noted th a t the analysis of variance to
\
■determine d iffe re n c e s In means among the alone, p a ire d , and \
control groups revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe r e n c e s . I t was }
|on1 y when the s p e c if ic p e r s o n a lity v a r ia b le s were f
cons I de red that a t t i t u d e and achievement showed t h e i r j
i
e f f e c t s . S u tte r and Reid suggest th a t the p r e s c r lp t1 ons of /
social learning condltons under which students with c e r t a i n /
p e r s o n a lity t r a i t s w i l l show g r e a te s t achievement requires I
I the Ir study In an In t e r a c t iv e manner. By emphasizing CAI
iwhlch takes Into cons I dera11 on the In d iv id u a ls p e r s o n a lity 1
' j
jc h a r a c te r Is t Ic s we Induce g r e a te r learning and improved '
a t t I t u d e s on the part of the student,
I Reid, Palmer, Whitlock and Jones (1973) In an
I
{extension of the S u tte r and Reid (1969) work. Investigated
PAGE 59
the in ter re Tati onships of te s t anxiety and sex f o r
achievement and a t t i t u d e toward CAI and dominance. College
|s tudents paired on the basis of sex and te s t a n xiety
I
lundertook a CAI p ro je c t to teach s c i e n t i f i c notation and
exponentiation. Performance was evaluated in terms o f
achievement and time to complete the course,
I
, Test A n x ie t y - - Low anxiety pairs learned f a s t e r than
I
high anxious p a i r s , But the level of achievement was
I
!equivalent. The expectation th a t high te s t a n x ie ty would
have a negative e f f e c t on achievement was not confirmed.
|Mixed pairs tended toward lesser achievement than
I
homogeneous p a ir s .
Ma 1e pairs mixed on a n xiety learned f a s t e r when they
;had strong a t t i t u d e s toward CAI and high anxious pairs with
lach ievement m otivation were p a r t i c u l a r l y marked in female
I
:Pa i r s ,
S o c i a b i l i t y - - One of the more in te r e s tin g re su lts
indicated that pairs high in s o c i a b i l i t y show superior
achievement^ an e f f e c t that has not been shown to occur
iwhen subjects work alone at the te rm in a ls . Evidently the
jpaired social in t e r a c tio n s a t i s f i e s social needs of the
|s tuden ts ,
I Vlh i 1 e there were no s i g n i f i c a n t e ffe c ts when
I
sociabil i ty was taken as the dependent v a r i a b l e , there was
|an o v e rall negative c o r r e l a t i o n between t e s t anxiety and
I
PAGE 60.
I
SOC iab Î1Î t y ,
S o c i a b î l î t y was expected to be more re la te d to
I performance measures in s itu a t io n s where subjects v/ork
I together than alone. There no c o r r e l a t i o n between
[
s o c i a b i l i t y and the p re te s t but the o v e ra ll c o r r e l a t i o n of
f
s o c i a b i l i t y with p o stte s t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y p o s i t i v e ,
, Dominance-- There was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e la tio n s h ip
: between dominance and any of the performance measures,
I
I A ttitu d e s Toward CA1-- There was no general
■relationship between a t t it u d e s p r i o r to CAI and
j
Sperformance. Posttest measures y ie ld the same conclusions.
However fo r mixed te s t anxiety male pairs with p o s itiv e
■attitudes completed the program in less time ( r = ,9 0 p less
I than a 02).
I The curren t fin d in g s suggest th a t one manner of
I
1
: i n d i v i d u a l I z i n g the in s tr u c tio n process is by p a irin g
subjects with optimal individual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , They
concluded that p a ir in g of subjects should be encouraged so
ithat students can provide mutual assistance. The grouping
: based on p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t e n t a t i v e l y suggests^
Ithat homogeneous groups w ill lead to b e tt e r performance.
I A l i m i t a t i o n of the two previous studies is that the
social c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the computer were not considered.
The computer was not considered as a source of social
I reinforcement in i t s e l f . While the students were dispensing
PAGE 61
social communications the computer was also presenting
p o s itiv e and negative reinforcement to the students. In
iessence i t was taking part in the conversation. What was
being studied was not a dyadic r e la tio n s h ip between two
humans. But instead a t r i a d between two humans and a
computer. When you compare th is t r i a d to the dyad of the
second case (working alone) there is l i t t l e reason not to
expect d if fe r e n c e s ,
A number of researchers have considered the e f f e c t s of
I
Ithe computer as a social stimulus in the sense we mean it
I
I he r e .
' Maj e r , Mansen and Dick (1S71) took advantage of the
;social stimulus of the computer in t h e i r research on the
j e ffe c t s of i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g p o s itiv e feedback in computer
ass is ted learning programs.
i t was hypothesized that no
s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s in performance
would be a t t r i b u t e d to any of the
fo llo w in g feedback c o n d itio n s . (1) a
random v a r i e t y of pleasing words; (2) a
prefered l i s t of words chosen by each
student; (3) words chosen by each
student to have l i t t l e pleasing q u a l i t y ;
(4) abscense of verbal feedback; and (5)
p o s i t iv e verbal feedback contingent upon
c o r r e c t l y responding 4 (or 5) times in
success io n . ( p . 217)
The resu lts suggest that b r ig h te r students had b e t t e r
I
I SCO res took less to ta l learning time and made fewer e r r o r s .
PAGE 62
However only one s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t was a t t r i b u t e d to
the type of feedback. The amount of time to complete the
program can be s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced I f verbal praise Is
given as feedback. The re su lts show no s i g n i f i c a n t Improved
learning when persona11 zed, p o s i t i v e l y r e in fo r c in g comments
are provided over simple knowledge of re s u lts during CA!,
The only gain observed was the reduced time to complete the
t a s k .
In a s im ila r manner, F e jf a r (1970) sought to determine
I f dominance charact e r 1s t 1cs of fourth graders would be
e ffe c te d by social r e ln fo r c e rs during CAI. High and low
dornlance students (determined by the ! PAT childrens
P e rso n a lity Clues 1 1 ona 1 re (COQ) were given praise and
reproof or reproof only as s o c i a l l y r e in f o r c in g treatments.
Exemplary phrases are : "Good, Fine, You are doing very
w e l l . This Is not very good, 15 Is the rig h t answer. Try
Again," (p. 3)
The social re ln fo rc e rs were found not to e f f e c t
achievement of the students. F e jfa r (1970) concludes that
"these s p e c i f i c facto rs need not be considered as v a ria b le s
In the f u t u r e , " (p, 11) He did In d ic a te however that
student comments of some In d iv id u a ls were showing negative
a t t i t u d e s developing. And, th a t a study of g re a ter duration
might have produced d i f f e r e n t r e s u lts .
The only students who had higher po stte s t scores were
PAGE 63
high dominates who received both praise and reproof.
This is reported as in d ic a tin g that the type of
I
re i nfo rcement had a favorable e f f e c t on the a t t i t u d e s of
ithis p a r t i c u l a r type of c h ild and th a t they were motivated
I /
to keep learning even a f t e r the CAI experience,
’ An obvious f a u l t of th is research is the lack of
jrelevance of the dependent v a r i a b le . It is evident that any
changes in achievement may occur independent of a t t i t u d e and
I
that diffe re n c e s in achievement should not be expected in
I
Isuch a short study with such innocuous treatm ents,
I
i In the second place the e f f e c t the research should be
looking fo r needs to be a change in a t t i t u d e f i r s t and
achievement second. As such both measures need to be
observed with a t t i t u d e being stressed. This study has a
iflagrant flaw in this respect. While no s i g n i f i c a n t
d iffe r e n c e s were reported on achievement one is almost sure
to fin d a t t i t u d e d iffe r e n c e s with proper treatm ents.
The study by F e j f a r is the only study to have a c t i v e l y
in vestig ated the praise and reproof v a ria b le s as they
;related to p e r s o n a lity in a CAI s e t t i n g . There are as
jnentioned major problems in his approach. The study
conducted in th is d is s e r t a t i o n investigates the e f f e c t s of
social re i nfo rcement dispensed by the computer and observes
its e f f e c t s on s o c i a b i l i t y of the student instead of
domiance which has been reported to have l i t t l e e f f e c t .
PAGE 64
Hess and Tenezakis (1970) the la s t study to be reviewed
is probably the most comprehensive in v e s tig a tio n of the
social e f f e c t s of the computer. They studied the computer as
ia s o c i a l i z i n g agent and report on some s o c i o - a f f e c t i v e
I
I
loutcomes of CAI with elementary school c h ild r e n . The
jcomputer is re fe rred to as possessing the communicator
jcha racte r i s t i cs supported by the previous s tu d ies . Here the /
jcomputer is considered as having communicator
|cha racte r i s t i cs ,
I They report on the "properties of CAI as a s o c i a l i z i n g
,agent." This is broken into f i v e c a te g o rie s ,
: "1, C a p a b ility fo r i nte ract i o n --"
i Perhaps the fe a tu re which con trib u te s most to the
i
machine's p o te n tia l function as a s o c i a l i z i n g agent is its
I
' a b i l i t y to f a c i l i t a t e in te r a c t io n between a human and the
|1 nfo rrna t i on stored in i t by other humans, who no longer
p a r t i c i p a t e in the actual exchange."
"2, The computer as a r e in fo r c in g a g e n t - - "
The computer as a r e in fo r c in g e n t i t y allows fo r the
IS tuden t to respond to it as an a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e , it is in
Isome respects capable of c o n t r o l l i n g the learnin g s itua tio n^
I
land as such is an a c tiv e p a rtn e r in the social i n t e r a c t io n ,
I "3, The computer as a pseudbhuman t e a c h e r - - "
; The computer is seen as designed to supplement a number
jof social functions in the class room, They c it e the
PAGE 65
personalized verbal communications such as "Goodbye, Jane,
i t ' s been nice i n t e r a c t in g with you," or the machine's
I " ■ ■ ■ ■
saying "Merry Christmas," which may encourage students to
"humanize" the computer, "Perhaps one of the most important
q u a l i t i e s of the machine is the fa c t that It does not
accompany its verbal messages with subtle nonverbal cues of
Approval or disapproval th a t are l i k e l y to be present in;
I
almost any human in t e r a c t i o n , " (p, 10)
"4, M o tiv a tin g and engaging featu res of C A I--"
I
I Aside from the c a p a b i l i t y of i n t e r a c t io n , reinforcement
i
and pseudohuman q u a l i t i e s , the m otivating and engaging
fe a tu re s of CAI may be a function of the unique in te r a c tio n
which is produced between an individual student and an
individual machine, "New information is generated which is
p a r t i c u l a r to th a t exchange." (p, 11) The new information
informs the student of his "competence" and "mastery."
! "5, The computer as part of the a u t h o r i t y s tru c tu re of
I
the school
The computer is seen here as capable of modifying the
jsocia 1 iz a tio n process. Whereas the teacher was the sole
I
a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e , the computer may compete f o r this
jstanding. The degree o f c r e d i b i l i t y which a computer has
I
w i l l d i r e c t l y influence the e f f e c t it w i l l have on the
students. This then is seen to possibly generate a
r e la tio n s h ip which is d i f f e r e n t from the t r a d i t i o n a l teacher
PAGE 66
student I n t e r a c t io n .
I t Is Hess and T e n e za k ls ’ s fo llo w in g statement that may
have the most relevance to th is l i t e r a t u r e review.
No one has made a study of the use
of "humanizing" techniques In CAi
programs and In supervising the
c h il d r e n 's work at the computer
console. Observations during the
present study suggest, however, that
this Is a procedure d e l i b e r a t e l y
Incorporated Into CAI because of Its
presumably f a c i l i t a t i n g Impact on the
c h i l d ' s contact with the computer or on
his readiness to learn from It * I t was>
Indeed, such examples of
pseudo-personal messages that I n l t a l l y
a t t r a c t e d the In v e s tig a t o r s ' a t t e n t i o n
to the p o s s i b i l i t y that the computer
might be e x e rc is in g a s o c i a l i z i n g role
as well as one of Imparting Information
and academic s k i l l s . Some of these
pro p ertie s bring to mind the Idea of
charisma, but It Is not c le a r how this
applies to CAI, (Hess and Tenezakis,
1970, p. 10)
PAGE 67
CHAPTER f I I
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DES!GN
! The present study u t i l i z e d two Independent 2 by 3
f a c t o r i a l designs. In each case two treatment v a ria b le s were
^considered, computerized social re Info rcemen t (CSR) and
s o c i a b i l i t y of the student. There were three levels of
computerized social reinforcement, (high social^ medium
jsocial, and low s o c ia l) and, two levels of student
|soclab 11 Ity (high social students and low social s tu d e n ts ).
The design Is I l l u s t r a t e d In Figure i .
! SUBJECTS AND SAMPLING
1
I The s ubjec ts , 6Ü In t o t a l , represented three f i r s t year
English classes a t Santa Monica Community College, Students
e n ro lle d In English 46 A and 46 B must attend the learning
center for six hours during the summer semester. The
compute r assisted In s tr u c tio n served as one hour of the s ix .
Subjects were randomly a llo c a te d to treatments on the
basis of a random number c a lc u la te d by the computer.
PAGE 6 8
FIGURE 1
2 by 3 F a c to r ia l Design
COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL
REINFORCEMENT
H i gh Medi urn Low
:
See Î a 1 Soc i a 1 Soc Î a 1
IC
ll
H Î gh XI X2 X3
lA
}B
■ 1
'L
1
Low X4 X5 X6
1
T
PAGE 69
INSTRUMENTATI ON
Three measurement tools were used in th is experiment.
(1) The G u ilfo rd Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS),
(G u ilfo r d and Zirrmerman, 1949), (2) a s p e l l i n g achievement
te s t (SAT), and (3) an a t t i t u d e t e s t to measure student
a t t i t u d e toward the computer as a communicator (ACC),
(Sacks, 1974).
The G u ilfo rd Zimmerman Temperament Survey
The standarI zed version of the GZTS was used. Question
booklets and answer sheets were obtained from the p u blish er.
The te s t was administered to determine s o c i a b i l i t y of the
student. While the e n t i r e te s t was given to the students the
major scale , of i n t e r e s t was the So scale , s o c i a b i l i t y . I t
served as scale to d iv id e students into high and low groups.
he test was administered in a group environment and
Students were given approximately 1 hour to f i n i s h t h e i r
ests. Results of the te s t were not used to place the
student in e i t h e r the high, medium or low social computer
rea tments.
PAGE 70
The S p e llin g Achievement Test(SAT)
One dependent v a r i a b le , achievement was measured by
number of c o rre c t answers to a 20 question p o s tte s t
administered by the computer. The post test measured the
students a b i l i t y to learn the s p e ll in g subject m a tte r.
A t t i t u d e t e s t to measure a t t i t u d e of computer as a
communicator (ACC)
The measurement of the students social perception of
the pseudohuman c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the computer was via an
Osgood Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Scale. I t was developed by the
experimenter based on a te s ti n g tool of G u rln 's . The scale
had been used In a previous CAI p r o je c t (Sacks, 19 74)
Subjects responded to the 18 Item te s t as part of the on lin e
t e s ti n g . They responded by e n te r in g the number which best
represented t h e i r opinion on a scale from 1 thru 9. The
lower the score the more p o s i t iv e t h e i r a t t i t u d e .
To reduce response set, the content of some questions
was reversed. Those reversed were randomly s e le c te d . The
questions forced the student to In t e r p r e t each question
In d i v i d u a l l y and not f a l l Into any p attern of answering. The
questions which were reversed were then reversed again for
s t a t i s t i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,
PAGE 71
The Computer Assisted In t e r a c tio n Program (CAIP)
A computer Assisted In t e r a c tio n Program (CAIP) v/as
w r i t t e n which served as the stimulus to the students. I t
Incorporated computer assisted In s tr u c tio n m a te r ia ls and two
of the measures mentioned above (The S p e llin g Achievement
Test (SAT) and the A t t it u d e Test (ACC)). The program was of
a branching v a r i e t y with minimal remediation and
In s tr u c tio n a l lo gic . I t evaluated student responses to
Insure t h e i r Inclusion of the proper program parameters.
The program consisted of four p a rts .
Part 1 An In tro d u c tio n (5 minutes)
Part 2 S p e llin g Lesson (45 minutes)
Part 3 S p e llin g Test (SAT) (5 minutes)
Part 4 Opinion of the Computer (ACC) (5 minutes)
The lesson was designed to teach the student when to
double the f i n a l consonant. The student was told not to
c a p i t a l i z e his responses, to wait fo r the computer to
respond, to type slowly, and the d i ffe r e n c e between the
number 1 and the l e t t e r 1,
PAGE 72
PROCEDURE
The study had two I d e n t i f i a b l e p a rts . F i r s t the
a d m in is tr a tio n of the GZTS and second the CAIP.
The students were administered the GZTS in t h e i r normal
classroom environment as a group a c t i v i t y . They were then
scheduled to attend a CAI session at the te rm in a l. I t was
l e f t up to them when they would a tte n d . The Learning Center
was open from 8:30 to 10:00 Monday through Thursday, 8:30 to
5:00 Friday, 9:00 to 12:00 Saturday, and closed Sunday
Students entered the learning center and were met by one of
the learning center s p e c i a l i s t s who sat them down a t the
computer te rm in a l. The s p e c i a l i s t s ta rte d the a pprop riate
computer program and l e f t . No questions were answered u n til
a f t e r the program execution was completed.
All computer communications were typed via a D ig ilo g
Model 33 CRT.
Since the terminal disp la y is on a video monitor
measures were stored on disk and r e tr ie v e d by the
experimenter at a l a t e r date.
The experimental environment consisted of a soundproof
recording room in the learning c e n te r.
At the end of the experiment the student was thanked by
the computer and asked to c all the a d iv s o r. The subject was
then thanked by the advisor and sent on his way.
PAGE 73
COMPUTER FACi LIT! ES
The computer f a c i l i t i e s consisted of a D ig i t a l
Equipment Corporation PDP-10 computer. The computer is
housed at the U n iv e r s ity of Southern C a l i f o r n i a Engineering
Computer Laboratory. I t is operational 2k hours per day.
Dialup c a p a b i l i t i e s allow in t e r a c t i v e computing from remote
lo ca tio ns .
The computer terminal used was a D ig ilo g Model 33 CRT.
Only one terminal was used throughout the experiment. The
D ig ilo g places alphanumeric characters on any TV monitor or
normal TV set. A S e t c h e l1- C a r 1 son Model 2100SD TV monitor
was used and connected to the terminal by coxial cable. The
screen size was 22 inches on the diagonal. Eighty columns by
f i f t e e n rows can be displayed on the mon i to r ma in ta i n i ng
acceptable re s o lu tio n . This type of terminal types at 30
characters per second and is s i l e n t .
NULL HYPOTHESES
The fo llo w in g null hypotheses were tested:
Ach i evement
Hypothes i s 1
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s in mean post test
PAGE 74
achievement scores among the high, medium, and low
computerized social reinforcement groups.
t
I
I
I
Hypothes i s 2
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s in mean po stte s t
achievement scores between the students of high and low
!
social need.
I
j
I Hypothesis 3
I
j There are no s i g n i f i c a n t in te r a c tio n s in mean p o s tte s t
achievement scores between computerized social reinforcement
and social need.
A t t it u d e Toward the Computer as a Communicator
Hypothes Î s 4
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s in mean po stte s t
a t t i t u d e scores among the high, medium, and low computerized
social reinforcement groups,
Hypothes is 5
I
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s in mean po stte s t
a t t i t u d e scores between the students of high and low social
need.
PAGE 75
Hypothes î s 6
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t in te ra c tio n s in mean post test
a t t i t u d e scores between computerized social reinforcement
and social need,
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Hypotheses 1,2 and 3 were analyzed using the analysis
of variance fo r CRF-23 design described in Kirk
( p p . 17 3-1 8 1 ). The ANOVA computer program from SPSS
( S t a t i s t i c a l Programs fo r the Social Sciences, Version 6)
a v a i l a b l e at the U n iv e r s ity of Southern C a l i f o r n i a Computer
Center was used to compute the analysis of variance.
Hypotheses 4,5 and 5 were also analysed using the
an alysis of variance fo r CRF-23 design. The SPSS ANOVA
computer program was u t i l i z e d , .
PAGE 76
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
ThLs' chapter has been organized In the fo llo w in g
manner. F i r s t , the re su lts of t e s ti n g the three null
hypotheses w i l l be presented fo r the achievement p o s tte s t on
s p e l l i n g . And second the three null hypotheses on the
a t t i t u d e toward the computer as a communicator w i l l be
r e p o r te d .
ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION OF
NULL HYPOTHESES ON SPELLING ACHIEVEMENT
Hypothesis 1
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s In mean posttest
achievement scores among high, medium, and low computer 1 zee
social reinforcement groups.
The mean scores fo r each of the the three treatments as
computerized social reinforcement may be seen In Table 1.
The d iffe r e n c e s between the means of 17.700, 17.900, and
18,150 were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the ,05 level
using analysis of variance (See Table 2 ), Null hypothesis
number one Is th e re fo re accepted.
Hypothes1s 2
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i ffe r e n c e s In mean posttest:
achievement scores between the students of high and low
PAGE 77
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR POST TEST ACHIEVEMENT SCORES AMONG
COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT GROUPS
; Type of
Computeri zed
1 Social
Rei nforcemen t
Treatment
Mean
Standa rd
Dev I at I on
'H 1 gh 17.700 2.958
iSoc 1 a 1
1
|Med ! urn 17.900 2.404
jSoc 1 a 1
Low 18 ,150 1.694
Soc1 a 1
i
PAGE 78
TABLE t
TWO WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR POST TEST ACHIEVEMENT
j SCORES FOR SOCIABILITY AND COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL
REINFORCEMENT GROUPS
Sou rce SS DF Mean
Squa re
F
Ra t i o
P
Student
S o c l a b i l i t y (HI)
4 .817 1 4,817 0.982 0.326
Computer ized
Soc i a 1
Reinforcement (HZ)
-2.033 2 1.017 0.207 0.813
in t e r a c tio n (H3) €0 .633 2 30.417 6.200 0 .0 0 4 *
With in(Residual) 264 .879 34 4.906
Total 332 .380 59 5.637
* S ig n ific a n c e at the .05 level or g r e a t e r .
PAGE 79
. social need.
The mean scores fo r high and low s o c i a b i l i t y students
may be seen in Table 3. The d i f fe r e n c e between the means of
18,200 and 17,633 was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the
.05 level using analysis of variance (See Table 2 ), Null
hypothesis number two is th e re fo re accepted.
Hypothesis 3
There are rro^ s i gn i f i cant in te r a c tio n s in mean posttest
achievement scores between computerized social reinforcement
and social need.
The mean scores f o r the s ix c e lls may be seen in Table
2 4. Main e f f e c t s are summarized by row and column. Table 2
shows that the d i f fe r e n c e among means of 19.400, 17.600,
17.600, 16.000, 18.200 and 18,700 were s i g n i f i c a n t at the
.004 le v e l. Hypothesis number three is th e r e fo re r e je c te d .
ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION OF NULL HYPOTHESES*0N
ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COMPUTER AS A COMMUNICATOR
Hypothesis 4
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s in mean po sttest
a t t i t u d e scores among the high, medium, and low computerized
social reinforcement groups.
The mean scores fo r the three treatments of
computerized social reinforcement may be seen in Table 5.
PAGE 80
TABLE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR POST TEST ACHIEVEMENT SCORES AMONG
COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT GROUPS
Type
Soc iab
of
n i ty
T reatment
M ea n
Standa rd
Dev Î at i on
H Î gh
Soc Î a 1
18.200 22.340
Low
SocI a 1
17.633 2.414
PAGE 81
TABLE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS
AND NUMBER OF CASES FOR SPELLING
ACHIEVEMENT ON POST TEST
COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT
H i gh Med Î urn Low
Soc i a 1 Soc i a 1 Soc i a 1
H i gh Mean 19 .400 17.600 17.600 18.200
Soc i a 1 SD 0,843 3.062 2.271 2.340
Student N (10) (10) (10) (30)
Low Mean 16.000 18.200 18.700 17.633
Soc i a 1 SD 3 .666 1.619 0.483 2.414
Studen t N (10) (10) (10) (30)
Mean 17,700 17,900 18.150 17,917
SD 2.958 2.404 1,694 2.374
N (20) (20) (20) (60)
IMean =Arithme11c Mean
SD=Standard Deviation
!N=Number of subjects
PAGE 82
TABLE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR POST TEST ATTITUDE SCORES AMONG
COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL RE INFORCEMENT GROUPS
Type of
Computeri zed
Soc i a 1
Re inforcement
T reatment
Mean
Standard
Dev I a 1 1 on
H i gh ÜG.200 23.377
Soc i a 1
Med i um 6 8.5 50 20.707
Soc i a 1
Low 77.550 20.216
Soc i a 1
PAGE 8 3
in Table 5, The d i f fe r e n c e s between the means o f
&6.200, 68.550 and 77.550 were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t
he .012 le v e l using a n a ly s is of v a ria n c e (See Table 6 ) .
N ull hypothesis number fo u r is t h e r e fo r e r e j e c t e d .
Hypothes i s 5
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe r e n c e s in mean p o s tte s t
a t t i t u d e scores between the students o f high and 1ow s o cial
need.
The mean scores f o r the high and 1ow s o c i a b i 1 i t y
students may be seen in Table 7. The d i f f e r e n c e between
70 . 833 and 84.033 was s t a t i sjt i ca 1 1 y s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .023
level (See Table 6 ) , N ull hypothesis number f i v e is
th e r e fo re r e je c t e d .
Hypothesis 6
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t in t e r a c t io n s in mean p o s tte s t
a t t i t u d e scores between com puterized s o c ia l re in fo rc e m e n t
and s o c ia l need.
The mean scores f o r the s ix c e l l s may be seen in Table
Main e f f e c t s are summarized by row and column. Table 6
fehows th a t the d i f fe r e n c e s among means of 7 0 .5 0 0 , 6 9 .5 0 0 ,
72. 000, 1 0 1 .9 0 0 , 67. 600 and 82 . 600 we re s i g n i f i c a n t a t the
,032 l e v e l . Null hypothesis number s ix is t h e r e fo r e
"ej e c t e d .
PAGE 84
TABLE 6
TWO WAY ANALYSIS -OF VARIANCE FOR POST TEST ATTITUDE
SCORES FOR SOCIABILITY AND COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL
REINFORCEMENT GROUPS
Source SS DF Mean
Squa re
F
R a tio
P
Student 2613.
1 Soc i ab Î 1 i ty (H4)
60 1 2613.600 6 . 773 0 .0 1 2 *
^Compute r i zed 3115.
Soc Î a 1
^Reinforcement (H5)
624 2 1557.812 4 .037 0 .0 2 3 *
In t e r a c t i o n (H6) 2844. 298 2 1422.149 3.686 0 .0 3 2 *
With in(Res id u a l) 20837 . 113 54 385.874
'Total 29410. 633 59 4498.485
* S ig n if i c a n c e a t the . 05 level o r g rea te r .
PAGE 85
TABLE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR POST TEST ATTITUDE SCORES BETWEEN HIGH
AND LOW SOCIABILITY GROUPS
1ype of G roup Standa rd
Soc i ab Î 1 i ty Mean Dev I a t I on
H 1 gh 70 .833 9,449
Social
Low 84.033 23.361
SocI a 1
PAGE 8 6
TABLE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS
AND NUMBER OF CASES FOR ATTITUDE POST TEST
COMPUTERIZED SOCIAL RE!NFORCEMENT
High Med ium , Low
Soc i a 1 Soc i a 1 Soc i a 1
High Mean 70.500 69.500 72.800 70.833
Soc Î a 1 SD 10.886 26.763 19.466 19.449
Student N (10) (10) (10) (30)
Low Mean 101,900 67.600 82.600 84.033
Soc i a 1 SD 22.078 13.672 20.668 23.361
Student N (10) (10) (10) (30)
Mean 86.200 6 8 .5 5 0 77.550 77.433
SD 23.577 20.707 20.216 22.327
N (20) ( 20) (20) (60)
M ean=A rIthm etIc Mean
substandard D e v ia tio n
N=Nurnber of s u b jec ts
PAGE 87
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
The prim ary purpose of th is study was to in v e s t ig a t e
the in t e r a c t i o n of computerized s o c ia l re i nfo rcement and
s o c i a b i l i t y of students d u rin g computer a s s is te d
i n s t r u c t i o n . The means of doing th is was to study the
in flu e n c e o f th is in t e r a c t i o n on achievement and a t t i t u d e s
of c o lle g e undergraduates d u rin g a s p e l l i n g lesson.
The types o f com puterized s o c ia l re in fo rc e m e n t under
in v e s t ig a t i o n were; (1) high s o cial computer re in fo rc e m e n t
(HSCR), (2) medium s o c ia l computer re in fo rc e m e n t (MSCR) and
(3 ) low so cial computer rein fo rc e m e n t (LSCR). A ll provided
i d e n t i c a l s p e l l i n g t e x t except fo r the p o s s i b i l i t y of
3 ranching through the t e x t r e p e a te d ly . Two levels of
•student s o c i a b i l i t y were high (MS) and low (LS) social
gro u p s .
A review of the l i t e r a t u r e re vealed th a t th e re was a
need fo r d e l i n e a t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the social
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a student and the com puterized s o cial
environment he is s u b jected to . In a d d i t i o n , the l i t e r a t u r e
re ve a le d th a t l i t t l e research has been done which measures
p t t i t u d e s toward the computer as a communi c a t o r .
A f a c t o r i a l design was u t i l i z e d having two sep a ra te
dependent v a r i a b l e s . One dependent v a r i a b l e measured
PAGE 88
s p e l l i n g achievement and the o th e r measured a t t i t u d e toward
the computer as a communicator. I t was proposed th a t th e re
would be s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe r e n c e s between mean scores f o r
main e f f e c t s and i n t e r a c t io n s f o r both o f the dependent
v a r i a b l e s .
Three p r e f i r s t year English classes a t Santa Monica
C ollege p a r t i c i p a t e d in the study. S ix ty students were
p re te s te d w ith the G u ilf o r d Zimmerman Temperament Survey
d u rin g the f i r s t week of the summer sem ester, 1975. From
t h i s students were c l a s s i f i e d in to high s o c ia l (US) or low
s o c ia l (LS) groups. The experim ent took fo u r weeks to
conduct. During th is time each s tudent completed one hour of
s p e l l i n g in s t r u c t io n v ia the computer. Included in the
computer p r e s e n ta tio n were h ig h ly so cial com puterized
re in fo rc e m e n t (HSCR), medium s o c ia l com puterized
re in fo rc e m e n t (MSCR) or 1ow s o c ia l com puterized
re in fo rc e m e n t (LSCR). Students were te s te d by the computer
f o r s p e l l i n g achievement and a t t i t u d e s toward the computer
as a communicator.
There were two b a s ic s t a t i s t i c a l analyses o f d a ta . The
f i r s t was an a n a ly s is of v a ria n c e of achievement measures
fo r the f i r s t three hypotheses. The second was a n a ly s is of
v a rian c e o f a t t i t u d e measures f o r the la s t th ree hypotheses,
jlhe ,05 le v e l of s ig n if ic a n c e was e s ta b lis h e d as the level
of r e j e c t i o n of the n u ll hypotheses. A ll s t a t i s t i c a l data
PAGE
were computer v ia S t a t i s t i c a l Packages f o r the Social
Sciences (SPSS) a t the U n iv e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Computer
C e n te r .
FINDINGS
Ach i evernen t
A nalysis of the data provided the f o l lo w in g f i n d i n g s :
Hypothesis 1
There were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in
achievement found among the high, medium and low
computerized s o cial re in fo rc e m e n t groups.
Hypothesis 2
There were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe r e n c e s in
achievement found between the students o f high and lov;
s o c ia l need.
Hypothesis 3
There were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t io n s in
achievement scores between com puterized s o c ia l re in fo rc e m e n t
and s o c ia l need.
PAGE 9C
A t t i t u d e toward the computer as a communicator
Hypothesis 4
There were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d if fe r e n c e s in
a t t i t u d e found among the high, medium and low computerized
s o c ia l re in fo rc e m e n t groups.
Hypothesis 5 There was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e in a t t i t u d e s found between the students o f high
and low s o c ia l need. .
Hypo th e s is 6
There were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t in t e r a c t io n s in
a t t i t u d e s scores between computerized s o c ia l rein fo rc e m e n t
and s o c ia l need.
CONCLUSIONS
The f o llo w in g conclusions may be drawn from the r e s u lts
8 f t h is study:
Ach i evement
(1) The type of computerized s o c ia l re in fo rc e m e n t does
n o t i n f l u e n c e achi evement in s p e l l i n g .
PAGE 91
(2) The s o c i a b i l i t y of students does not in flu e n c e
achievement in s p e ll in g *
(3) The type o f com puterized s o c ia l re in fo rc e m e n t and
s o c i a b i l i t y of the students do i n t e r a c t to in flu e n c e
achievement in s p e l l i n g .
A t t i t u d e toward the computer as a communicator
(A) The type of com puterized s o c ia l re in fo rc e m e n t does
in flu e n c e the s tu d e n t's a t t i t u d e toward the computer as a
commun i ca to r .
(5 ) The s o c i a b i l i t y o f the student does in flu e n c e
a t t i t u d e toward the computer as a communicator.
(6 ) The type of computerized s o c ia l re in fo rc e m e n t and
s o c i a b i l i t y o f the student do i n t e r a c t to in flu e n c e a t t i t u d e
toward the computer as a communicator.
Computerized s o c ia l re in fo rc e m e n t as o p e r a t i o n a l l y
d e fin e d does i n t e r a c t w ith s o c ia l need o f students to
in flu e n c e both t h e i r achievernent and a t t i t u d e s toward the
computer as a communicator. Achievement measures appear to
be less s u s c e p tib le to t h is i n t e r a c t i o n than a t t i t u d i n a l
measures. W hile both show some degree o f in flu e n c e
a t t i t u d i n a l measures are s u p e r io r f o r d i f f e r e n c e s .
PAGE 9 2
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I t was the purpose o f th is research to study the e f f e c t
of computer communications on s tu d e n ts . S p e c i f i c a l l y does
the personal or nonpersonal f e a tu r e of the computer have an
e f f e c t on his achievement and a ttitu d e s ? Since I t has been
shown th a t the types of s o c ia l re Inforcem ent dispensed by
the computer do have an In flu e n c e on a t t i t u d e s o f the
computer I t would seem computer a s s is te d In s t r u c t io n should
3e designed to take advantage of t h i s v a r i a b l e .
The Importance of these fin d in g s l i e In the f u t u r e ,
design o f computerized In s t r u c t io n a l systems. To date no
I n s t r u c t i o n a l systems are t o t a l l y a d a p tiv e to an In d iv id u a ls
needs. From the r e s u lts of th is study one can e s t a b lis h a
n e tte r case f o r the e x p e n d itu re o f time and e f f o r t In the
io n -c o n te n t o r ie n t e d f e a tu r e s of CAI, One can go one step
u r th e r by saying th a t the s o c ia l c h a r a c te r I s11 cs of the
computer need to be designed In to f u t u r e systems. Four
s p e c i f i c recommendations can be made. (1) In o rd e r to
Increase achievem ent, designers o f CA! should measure
s o c i a b i l i t y o f students and pro v id e a h ig h ly s o c ia l computer
to h ig h ly s o c ia l s tu d e n ts . Students o f low s o c i a b i l i t y
should be provided w ith a nonsoclal computer. (2) In order
to have the most p o s i t i v e o p in io n o f the computer as a
ommunlcator medium s o c ia l computers should be u t i l i z e d w ith
oth high and low s o c ia l s tu d e n ts , (3) Low s o c ia l students
PAGE 93
should not be given a h ig h ly s o c ia l computer. This w i l l
r e s u l t In n e g a tiv e a t t i t u d e s toward the computer as a
communicator. (4) Designers must be aware th a t high s o c ia l
students w i l l have a more p o s i t i v e o p in io n of the computer
as a communicator than low s o c ia l students no m a tte r what
type o f s o c ia l computer Is used. I t Is understandable th a t
the c u r r e n t CAI systems are nonadaptlve and Im personal.
Where systems are designed In such a nonadaptlve manner the
c u r r e n t fin d in g s w i l l have l i t t l e Im portance. As the
com plexity of the I n s t r u e t I o n a 1 in fo rm a tio n processing
in c re a s e s , as costs are reduced and degrees of freedom
Increased then these so c a lle d nonacademic v a r i a b le s can be
viewed w ith a higher degree of Importance.
A daptive I n s t r u c t io n can only be Implemented v ia a
jcomputer f o r I t re q u ire s massive moment to moment d e c is io n
jnaklng. In ord er to a llo w the in d iv id u a l to I n t e r a c t w ith an
adaptive automated In s t r u c t o r the computer must be m o d ifie d
to be f l e x i b l e to in d iv id u a l needs. The research presented
In th is study provides one v a r i a b l e to a llo w the computer to
adapt to the human. By using I t In c o n ju n c tio n w ith the
a p titu d e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the s tu d e n t, he may remain
angaged In the I n s t r u c t io n a l process f o r a longer p e riod o f
time and as a consequence learn more.
PAGE 94
BIBLIOGRAPHY
r ------ — ' PAGE 95
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A lle n ,W .H , " C a te g o rie s of i n s t r u c t io n a l media
1 r e s e a rc h ," V ie w p o in ts . B u l l e t i n o f the School
of Education Indiana U n i v e r s i t y . 1 9 7 0 , 4 6 ( 5 ) ,
I 1 -1 4 .
|Ambrozy,D. "On man-comput e r d i a l o g u e , " In t e r n a t Io n a l
I Journal of Man-Machine S t u d i e s . 1 9 7 1 ,3 ,3 75-383.
; Anderson,R.H, and S ib le y ,W .L , A new approach to programming
i man-machine I n t e r f a c e s . Technical Report Number
; R -8 76-ARPA. Santa Mon Ic a ,C a 1 I f .: Rand, March 1972.
i
Beach,L.R . " S o c i a b i l i t y and academic achievement In
v ario u s types of le a r n in g s i t u a t i o n s , " Journal of
Educational Psychology. 1 9 6 0 , 5 1 ( 4 ) , 2 0 8 - 2 1 2 ,
!
B e n n e t t ,J .L . "The us er ^In te rfa c e In I n t e r a c t i v e system s,"
In Cavadna,C.A. and Luke,A.W. ( E d s . ) , Annual
Review of in fo rm a tio n Science and Technology.
1 9 7 2 ,7 ,1 5 9 - 1 9 6 .
Berl In g e r , D , C. and C ahen,L,S, " T r a I t - t reatmen t
I n t e r a c t i o n and l e a r n in g ," In K e r1 In g e r , F, N. (E d .)
Review o f research In e d u c a tio n . I t a s c a , I l l i n o i s :
Peacock Pub 1 I s h e r s ,1 9 7 3 , 5 8 -9 4 .
Bhushan,V, An e x p lo r a t o r y study o f the e f f e c t s o f s o c io
economic s ta tu s on l e a r n i n g . Paper presented a t the
m eeting o f the American Educational Research
A s s o c ia tio n , New Y ork, February 1971.
B l i t z , A . and S m ith ,T . P e r s o n a lit y c h a r a c t e r I s11cs and
I performance In computer a s s is te d In s t r u c t io n and
I programmed t e x t s . Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Research A s s o c ia tio n ,
1973, ERIC (ED 074-750)
Bloom,B.S. S t a b i l i t y and change In human c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
; New Y o r k iW lle y , 1968.
:Bork,A,M. Jhe computer In le a r n in g . Advice to dialo g u e
w r i t e r s . I r v i n e , C a l i f . : U n iv e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a at
I r v i n e , Physics Computer Development P r o j e c t , May,
1971.
TAGE 96
B ra c h t,G .H , "E xperim ental fa c to r s r e la t e d to a p t it u d e
tre a tm e n t i nte r a c 1 1ons," Review o f Educational
Resea r c h . 1 9 7 0 ,4 0 , 627-645.
Cahen, L. S . Apt 1t u d e - t reatmen t 1n t e r a c 1 1o n s : some
conceptual and m ethodological cons 1 de r a t 1ons
Research B u l l e t i n 6 9 -9 6 , Educational T e s tin g
Ser v 1 ce, 1969 .
Chapan1s , A . " i n t e r a c t i v e human commun 1 c a t I o n , "
S c i e n t i f i c A m erican. 1 9 7 5 ,2 3 2 ( 3 ) ,3 6 - 4 2 .
Coop,R,H. and Brown,L.D. " E f fe c t s o f c o g n it iv e s t y l e and
teach ing method on c a te g o rie s o f a c h ie v e m e n t,"
Journal of Educational Psychology. 1 9 7 0 ,6 1 ,4 0 0 -4 0 5 .
Cronbach, L . J . "The two d i s c i p l i n e s o f s c i e n t i f i c
ps y c h o lo g y ," Amer 1 can Psyc_ho l_og Is t , 1 9 5 7 ,1 2 , 671-684 .
Cronbach, L , J . "How can In s t r u c t io n be adapted to
In d iv id u a l d i ffe r e n c e s ? " In Gagne,R. N. ( E d . ) ,
Learning and In d iv id u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Columbla,Ohlo:
M e r r i l l Books, 1 9 6 7 ,2 3 -3 9 .
Cronbach, L , J . and Snow,R. E. In d iv id u a l d i f f e r e n c e s In
le a r n in g a b i l i t y as a fu n c tio n o f In s t ru c tIo n a 1
v a r i a b l e s . F in a l R ep ort, USOE O EC 4-6-061269-1217,
S t a n f o r d , C a 11f .: S ta n fo rd U n i v e r s i t y , 1959.
ERlC (ED 0 2 9-001)
Cronbach, L . J . "Beyond the two d i s c i p l i n e s o f s c i e n t i f i c
psychology," American P s y c h o lo g is t. 1 9 7 5 ,3 0 ,1 1 6 -1 2 7 .
Crut c h f 1e 1d, R. S . "C on form ity and c h a r a c t e r , " Arne r 1 can
P s y c h o lo g is t. 1 9 5 5 .1 0 .1 9 1 -1 9 8 .
Dave,A. User requirem ents In man-machine I n t e r a c t i v e
s vs terns. P ro fe s s io n a l Paper 20, In g 1ewood, Ca1 I f . :
Southwest Regional Lab, 19 72. ERIC (ED 059-586)
D a v i s , R . H . , Marzo c c o , F , N. and Denny,M. R . " I n t e r a c t i o n
o f In d iv id u a l d i f fe r e n c e s w ith modes o f p re s e n tin g
programmed 1ns t r u c t 1 o n ." Journal o f Educational
Ps v c h o lo g y . 1970, 61, 198-204.
D1v e s t a , F . J . , S a n d e rs ,N .M . , S c h u ltz ,C .B , and W ee n e r,P . D.
In s t r u c t 1on a1 st ra te g 1 es : mu 11 1 va rla b 1e s tu d ie s o f
PAGE 97
PS vchol Qjg ica 1 processes r e la t e d to i n s t r u c t i o n .
Annual Repo r t / Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania S ta te
U n i v e r s i t y , Advanced Research P r o je c ts Agency,
Order No, 1259, ONR C o n tra c t No NOO0 1 4 -6 7 - A - 0 385-0005,
July 19 71.
Domino,G. " i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s o f achievement ,"
JournaJ- of Educational Psvchologv. 1 9 7 1 ,6 2 ,4 2 7 -4 3 1 .
D o ty ,B .A , "Teaching method e f f e c t i v e n e s s in r e l a t i o n
to c e r t a i n student cha r a c t e r i st i c s ," Jou rn a 1
of Educational R esearch. 1 9 6 7 ,6 0 ,3 6 3 -3 6 5 .
D o ty , B. and D o ty ,L .A , "Programmed in s t r u c t io n a l
e f f e c t i v e n e s s in r e l a t i o n to c e r t a i n student
c h a ra c t e r i s t i c s ," Journal o f E ducational P svchologv.
1 9 6 4 ,5 5 ,3 3 4 -3 3 8 .
E agle,N . and H a r r i s , A . S . " i n t e r a c t i o n o f race and te s t
on reading performance s c o re s ," Journal o f
Educational Measurement. 1 9 6 9 ,6 ,1 3 1 - 1 3 5 .
Feldman,D.H. and S e a rs ,P .S . " E f fe c t s o f computer
a s s is te d in s t r u c t io n on c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v io r,"
E ducational Techno 1o ^ v . 19 7 0 , 1 0 ( 3 ) , 1 1 - 1 4 .
Fej fa r , J . L . A study o f the use o f c e r t a i n s o c ia l
r e in f o r c e r s in computer a s s is te d i n s t r u c t i o n .
U n iv e r s i t y o f Nebraska, 1970. ERIC (ED 045-454)
F r e d e r ik s e n , N. "Toward a taxonomy o f s i t u a t i o n s , "
American P s v c h o lo g is t. 1 9 7 2 ,2 7 ,1 1 4 -1 2 3.
Gagne,R.M. Learning and in d iv id u a l d i f f e r e n c e s .
Co 1umbus, Oh i o;Me r r i 11 Books, 1967.
G u i1f o r d , J . P , and Zimmerman,W.S. The G u ilf o r d
Zimmerman Temperament S u rv e v . B everly H i l l s ,
Ca1 i f . : Sheridan Supply Company, 1949 .
G la s e r,R . "Some im p lic a tio n s of previous work on
le a r n in g and in d iv id u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , " in
Gagne,R.M. ( E d . ) , Learning and in d iv id u a l
d i f f e r e n c e s . C o lu m b ia ,0 h io : M e r r i 11 Books,
1 9 6 7 ,5 2 -5 9 .
G oldb erg, L . R. "Student p e r s o n a li t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
op tim al c o lle g e le a r n in g c o n d it io n s ," OR I Research
PAGE 98
Monograph. U n i v e r s i t y o f Oregon and Oregeon
Research I n s t i t u t e , July 1 9 6 9 , 9 ( 1 ) .
G ra c e ,G. L. "P re fa c e to s p e c ial issue on in fo rm a tio n
processing system s," Human F a c t o r s . 1 9 7 0 , 1 2 ( 2 ) ,
1 61-164.
Gr imes,J.W. and A11 insm ith,A .W . " C o m p u ls iv ity , a n x ie t y ,
and school a ch iev e m e n t," In Rosenb1 ith. ; ,J . F »
and A ll i nsm i t h , A . W. ( E d s . ) , The causes o f
behavio r: readings in c h i l d development and
e d u c atio n a l o svchologv. Bos ton : A11yn and Bacon,
1962.
Hammer,C. "The f u t u r e ; i n t e r a c t i v e e l e c t r o n i c system s,"
in L e v in e ,R .E . (E d .) üomputers and i n s t r u c t i o n .
R-718-NSF/CCOM/RC, 1 9 7 1 ,3 -1 3 .
H a s k e l1,R.W. " E f f e c t o f c e r t a i n in d iv id u a l 1 ea rn er
p e r s o n a li t y d if fe r e n c e s on in s t r u c t io n a l m ethods,"
AV Communication R eview . 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 ( 3 ) , 2 8 7 - 2 9 7 .
H ess,R .D . and T e n e z a k Is , R. S . The computer as a
s o c i a l i z i n g agent: some soc i o a ffe e 1 1 v e outcomes
of C A I. TR-13. S t a n f o r d , C a l i f . : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y ,
Center f o r Research and Development in Teaching,
October 1970. ERIC (ED 044-942)
H i l l s , J . R . "Use o f measurement in s e le c tio n and p lac e m e n t,"
In T h o r n d ik e ,R . L. ( E d . ) , Educational Measurement.
Wash i n g to n ,D ,C .: Amer lean Council on Educatio n, 1971.
H o l l e n , T . T . " i n t e r a c t i o n of in d iv id u a l a b i l i t i e s w ith
the presence and p o s it io n o f ad ju n c t questio ns
in le a r n in g from prose m a t e r i a l s , " D.i s s e r t a t i on
A b s tra c ts In te m a t i on a1 . 1 9 7 1 ,3 lA , 5 84 7 ,
H o r n ,J .L . " 0 r g a n iz a tio n of data on l i f e - s p a n development
o f human a b i l i t i e s , " In G o u le t,L .R , and B a l t e s , P,B,
( Eds. ) , L ife -s p a n developmental psvchologv: research
and t h e o r v . New Y o r k : Academic Press, 1970,
H unt, D. E. Matching models in ed u catio n : the c o o r d in a tio n of
te a ch in g methods w ith student c h a r a c t e r I s t i c s .
(Monograph S e rie s No. 10) T o ro n to ,C a n a d a :O n ta rio
I n s t i t u t e f o r S tud ies in E ducation, 1971.
H u n t , D , E. and H a r d t,R .H , The ro le o f conceptual le v e l
PAGE 99
and ■B.mgJtiajrL._s t rue tu re_ in su mmex u pward bo u n d
program s. Paper presented a t the m eeting o f the
Eastern Psychological A s s o c ia tio n , Boston,^
Massachusetts, A p ril 1967.
H u n t,D .E , and Su1 1 i v a n , E , V , Between psychology and
educat i o n . I 11 i n o i s : H o i t , R ! nehart and Winston,
1974 .
Jensen,A .R . " V a r i t i e s o f in d iv id u a l d if fe r e n c e s in
le a r n i n g , " in Gagne,R.M, ( E d . ) , L e a rn in g and
in d iv idual d I f f e r e n c e s . C o lu m b la ,O h io :M e r ri11
Books, 1 9 6 7 ,1 1 7 -1 3 5 .
Jensen,A ,R . "S ocial c l a s s , r a c e , and gent i c s : im p lic a tio n s
f o r e d u c a tio n ," American Educational Research
Jou rna 1 . 1968, 5 ,1 -4 2 .
Ka tze r , J . "The development o f a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l
to assess u sers' a t t i t u d e s toward an o n - l i n e
i n t e r a c t i v e re fe re n c e r e t r i e v a l system ," AS IS
Journal f o r the American S o c ie ty f o r In fo rm a tio n
S c ie n c e . 1 9 7 2 , 2 3 ( 2 ) ,1 2 2 - 1 2 7 .
K e i s l a r , E . R . and S te r n ,C . " D i f f e r e n t i a t e d in s tr u c tio n
in problem s o lv in g f o r c h ild r e n o f d i f f e r e n t
mental a b i l i t y l e v e l s , " Journal o f Educational
Psycho 1o g y . 1970, 61, 445-450 .
Kemeny, J . B. "Large tim e -s h a rin g n e tw o rk s ," in
Gr e e n b e rg e r,M , ( E d . ) , Computers, communications
and the p u b lic i n t e r e s t . B a lt im ore,Ma ryland : Johns
Hopkins Press, 1 9 7 1 ,2 -3 6 .
K e n n e d y ,I.e . "The design of i n t e r a c t i v e procedures f o r
man-machine com m unication," The In te m a t i o n a 1
Journal o f Man-Mach ine S t u d i e s . 1 9 7 4 , 6 ( 3 ) , 3 0 9 - 3 3 4 .
K ig h t,H .R . and S a s s e n ra th , J .M . " R e la tio n s h ip s of
achievem ent, m o tiv a tio n and te s t a n x ie ty to
performance in programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , " Jou rn a 1
o f Educational Psychology. 1 9 6 6 , 5 7 ,1 4 - 1 7 .
K i r k , R . E . Exjpe r i men ta 1 desLgn: procedures f o r the
b e h a v io ra l s c ie n c e s . B e lm o n t ,C a lif .: B r o o k s /C o le
Pub 1 i sh i ng, 1968,
Krumbo 1t z , J . D. and Y a b r o f f ,W . W. "The com parative
PAGE 100
e f f e c t s o f in d u c tiv e and d edu ctive sequences in
in programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , " American E ducational
Research J o u r n a l> 1 9 6 5 ,2 ,2 2 3 -2 35.
L e h e r is s e y , BsL. " E f fe c t s of s t im u la t in g s t a te e p is te m ic
c u r i o s i t y on s ta te a n x ie ty and performance in
a complex computer a s s is te d le a r n in g t a s k , "
Proceedings o f the Annual Convention o f the
American P svchological A s s o c ia t io n . 1 9 7 2 , 7(PT . 1 ) ,
50 1-5 0 2 .
L e h e r is s e y ,B , L, , . 0 'N e i 1, H . F . and Hansen,D. N. " E f fe c t s
of memory support on s t a te a n x ie ty and performance
in computer a s s is te d l e a r n i n g , " Journal o f
Educat i onal Psvchologv> 1 9 7 1 , 6 2 ( 4 ) , 4 1 3 - 4 2 0 .
Lev i e n , R. E. Computers in i n s t r u c t i o n . Report R-718-NSF/
CCOM/RC. Santa Mon i c a ,C a 1 i f .; Rand, 1971.
Lew i n , K. P r in c i p le s of to p o lo g ic a l psvchologv. New
Yo r k :McG raw-H i l l , 1936.
L i c k l i d e r , J . C. " P r e lim in a r y experiments in computer aided
te a c h in g ," In Cou1 son, J . E. (E d .) Programmed le a r n in g
and computer based i n s t r u c t i o n . New Y o rk :W i1ey and
Son s, 1963 .
L u b in ,S .C . "R einforcem ent schedules, s c h o la s t ic
a p t i t u d e , autonomy need, and achievement in
a programmed c o u rs e ," Journal o f E ducational
Psvchnl o g y , 1 9 6 5 ,5 6 ,2 9 5 -3 0 2 ,
Lu cas,J.A . "L e arn in g e f f i c i e n c y o f students in
v a ry in g e n v iro n m e n ts ," Journal o f Experim ental
E d u c a tio n . 1 9 7 0 , 3 9 ( 1 ) , 6 3 - 6 8 .
M a je r ,K . "D i f f e ren t i a 1 r e la t io n s h ip s between p e r s o n a li t y
and performance under d i s s i m i l a r modes o f
i n s t r u c t i o n , " AV Communication R eview . 1 9 7 0 , 1 8 ( 2 ) ,
1 6 9 -1 7 9 .
M a j e r , K . , Hansen,D. and Dick,W. "Note on e f f e c t s of
i n d i v i d u a l i z e d verb al feedback on computer
a s s is te d le a r n i n g , " Psychological R e p o r ts .
1971, 2 8 ( 1 ) , 217-218 .
M a l i a , T . C . and Dickson,G.W. "Management problems
unique to o n - l i n e r e a l - t i m e system s," P roceed i ngs
PAGE 101
of the 1970 F a ll J o in t Computer C onference. 197 0.
M a rs h a l1 ,C . and MaquI r e , T .0 . "The computer as a s o c ia l
pressure to produce c o n fo rm ity In a simple
pe rc ep tu al t a s k , " AV Communication Review. 1971,
M a r t l n , J , Des 1gn o f man-comouter d i a l o g u e s . Englevmod
C lif f s ,N e w J e r s e y : P r e n t 1c e -H a 11, 1973.
M i l l e r , R . and Hess, R. D. The e f f e c t s upon students*
m o tiv a tio n o f f i t between s tu d en t a b i l i t y and
the lev e l of _dl f f 1 cu 1 tv of CA I Programs. RD- 84 .
S t a n f o r d , Ca11f . : S ta n fo rd U n i v e r s i t y , S ta n fo rd
Center fo r Research and Development In Teaching,
March 1972. ERIC (ED 062-831)
N1 e k e rs o n , R. S . "Man computer I n t e r a c t i o n : a ch a llen g e
f o r human fa c to r s r e s e a r c h ," IEEE Tra n s a ctio n s
on Man-Machine Systems. 19 6 9 ,MMS- 1 0 ( 4 ) , 1 6 4 - 1 8 0 .
Noble,G, "A study of d i f f e r e n c e s between pal red and
In d iv id u a l le a r n in g from a branching program,"
programmed.Learning and Educational Technology.
1 9 6 7 ,4 ,1 0 8 -1 1 2 .
0 rcu 1 1 , J . D. and Anderson,R.E. "Human-computer
re 1 a 1 1onsh1p s : In t e r a c t io n s and a t t i t u d e s , "
Behavior Research Methods and i n s t r u m e n t a t io n .
1 9 7 4 , 6 ( 2 ) , 2 1 9 - 2 2 2 .
P a s k ,G ., S c o t t , F . E. and Ka111k o u rd 1s , D. " A theory o f
c o n v e rsatio n s and In d iv id u a ls (E x e m p lifie d by the
le a r n in g process of CASTE)," i_n te rna 11 ona 1 Journal
o f Man-Machine S t u d ie s . 19 7 3 ,5 ,4 4 3 - 5 6 6 .
PerV1n , L . A. "Performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n as a fu n c tio n
o f 1nd 1V 1dua1- e n v 1ronment f i t , " Psvcho1o g 1c a 1
a u l l e t l n . 1 9 6 8 ,6 9 ,5 6 - 5 8 .
R e l d , J . B . , P a lm e r ,R .L ., W h i t lo c k ,J . and Jones,J,
"Computer a s s is te d In s t r u c t io n performance o f student
pa 1rs as r e la t e d to In d iv id u a l d 1f f e r e n c e s , "
Journal of E ducational Psychology. 1 9 7 3 , 6 5 ( 1 ) , 6 5 - 7 3 ) .
R e u s s ,R ,E ., M lllm a n ,J . and Glock,M ,D . "L e arn e r
c h a r a c t e r 1s 1 1cs and 1n s t r u c t 1o n a 1 mode : a
search f o r d ls o r d ln a l 1n t e r a c t 1ons," Jou rn a 1
PAGE 102
of Educational Psychology. 1 9 6 9 ,6 0 ,1 1 3 -1 2 0 .
R o s e n th a l,R , Experiment e r e f f e c t s in be h av io r
resea r c h . New Y o r k ; App1e t o n , Cent u r y , C r o f t s , 1965.
Sacks,W.H. Xhe_ef_fect of pseudo-human gender on male and
female col 1 ege. _f reshmen ' s s o c ia l p e rc e p tio n o f a
tim e -s h a re d computer as a communicator. Unpub 1 I shed
Masters T h e s is , Los Ange 1 e s , Ca1 1f : U nIvers 11y o f
Southern C a l i f o r n i a , School o f E ducation, 1974.
Sackman,M, "ExperIm ental 1n v e s t Ig a 1 1 on o f computer
user e f f e c t 1veness," In We 1nwurm,G, G, ( E d . ) ,
On., the management o f computer programming.
P r I n ce ton,New J e r s e y ; Auerbach, 1970 .
Schoen,H, A comparison of fo u r types of feedback to
student responses on a CAI u n it designed to te a c h
the concept of f u n c t i o n . Paper presented a t the
N atio n a l Council o f Teachers o f M athem atics,
Annual M ee tin g , A p r il 1972.
ShIbutan 1, T . S o c ie ty and p e r s o n a lit y ; an 1nt e r a c t 1 on 1 st
approach to s o c ia l psychology, Englewood C l i f f s ,
New J e r s e y : P r e n t 1c e -H a 11, 1961.
S m ith ,D .D . "A study of le a r n e r c h a r a c t e r 1s t 1cs and
computer a s s is te d In s t r u c t io n d e c is io n m a k in g ,”
D is s e r t a t io n A b s tra c ts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 1972,
3 2 ( 1 1 - A ) , 60 18 -6 0 19 ,
Snow ,R .E ., T i f f i n , J . and S e lb e r t ,W .F . " in d i v id u a l
d if fe r e n c e s and 1n s t r u c t 1ona1 f i l m e f f e c t s , ”
Journal o f Educational Psychology. 1 9 6 5 ,5 6 ,3 1 5 - 3 2 6 .
S t a 11in g s , J . A. and Keepes, B. B. Student a p titu d e s and
mejthods o_f_t.each 1 n^ beg Lnn.ln^ read 1 ng : a
p r e d i c t i v e l_ps trumen t f o r d e te rm in in g In t e r a c t i o n
p a t t e r n s . F in a l R ep o rt. C ontract No. O EG -9-70-0005,
P r o je c t No. 9 - 1 - 0 9 9 . U.S. O f f i c e o f E du catio n, 1970.
S t a n f o r d , G .H . ” R e la t 1onsh1ps between expectancy and
performance on a computer a s s is te d 1n s t r u c t 1onal
t a s k , ” D is s e r t a t io n A b s tra cts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 1972,
3 2 ( 1 0 - A ) ,5 6 2 2 -5 5 2 3 .
Sutter,. E.G. and R e ld ,J .B , "Learner v a r ia b le s and
1n t e rp e rs o n a 1 c o n d itio n s In computer a s s is te d
TOGE 10 3 1
I n s t r u c t i o n / ' .Journal o f E ducational Psychology.
1 9 69,60( 3 ) ,1 5 3 - 1 5 7 .
Tanm adge,G . K. and Shea re r , J . W. " i n t e r a c t i v e
r e la t io n s h ip s among le a r n e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
types o f le a r n in g in s t r u c t io n a l methods, and
s u b je c t m a tte r v a r i a b l e s , " Journal o f Educational
Psychologv. 1 9 7 1 ,6 2 ,3 1 -3 8 .
Thompson,G. C. and H u n i c u t t , C. W. "The e f f e c t o f repeated
p r a is e or blame on the work achievement o f
M n t r o v e r t s * and ' e x t r o v e r t s * , " Journal o f
Educat i o n a 1 Psychology. 1 9 4 4 ,3 5 , 25 7-266.
T o b ia s ,S . "Research s t r a te g y in the e f f e c t of in d iv id u a l
d i f f e r e n c e on achievement from programmed
i n s t r u c t i o n , " Paper presented a t the meeting o f the
American P s y c h o lo g ic a 1 A s s o c ia tio n , W ashington,D , C.,
September 1969.
Traweek,M . W. "The r e l a t i o n between c e r t a i n p e r s o n a li t y
v a r i a b le s and achievement through programmed
i n s t r u c t i o n , " C a l i f o r n i a Journal o f Educational
R esearch. 1 9 6 4 ,1 5 ,2 1 5 -2 20,
T u rin g ,A .M . "Computing machinery and i n t e l l i g e n c e , "
In Feigenbaum,E, A. and Feldman,J. ( E d s , ) ,
Computers and th o u g h t. New York,New York:
McGraw H i l l , 1963, 11-35 .
Waksman,A. "The in t e r f a c e problem in i n t e r a c t i v e
system s," Behavior Research Methods and
I nstrumen t a t io n . 1 9 7 4 , 6 ( 2 ) , 2 3 5 - 2 3 6 .
W e is s ,R .L ., S a le s ,S .M , and Bode,S. "Student
a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and teacher a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m as
f a c to r s in the d e te r m in a tio n o f student performance
and a t t i t u d e s , " Jo urna 1 of Experim ental E d u c a tio n .
1 9 7 0 , 3 8 ( 4 ) , 8 3 - 8 7 .
Wood r u f f , A .B , , Fa 1t z , C , and W agner,D. " E f fe c t s of
le a r n e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on programmed le a r n in g
p e rform an ce," Psychology in the S c h o o ls .
1 9 6 6 , 3 , 7 2 - 7 7 .
Yamamoto,K. " R e la tio n s h ip s between c r e a t i v e th in k in g
a b i l i t i e s of teach ers and achievement and
adjustm ent of p u p i l s , " Journal o f Experimental
TÂGE 1041
E d u c a tio n . 1 9 6 3 , 3 2 ( 1 ) , 3 - 2 5 .
PAGE 105
APPENDIXES
PAGE 106
APPENDIX A
PAGE 107
(APPENDIX A)
HIGH SOCIAL COMPUTERIZED REIMFORCERS
This appendix provides the f i f t y p o s i t i v e and f i f t y
n e g a tiv e s o c ia l r e in f o r c e r s a d m in is te re d by the computer in
the High S o c ia l tr e a tm e n t. High S o c ia l Computerized
R e in fo r c e rs were noted by the symbol HSCR. The o rd e r the
r e i n f o r c e r s appear is the o rd e r they were dispensed by the
compute r .
P o s it iv e Social R e in fo rc e rs
(1 ) YOU ARE FANTASTIC!
(2 ) YOU ARE REALLY A GENIUS!
(3 ) I GUESS YOU ARE REALLY INTELLIGENT.
(it) YOU'RE REALLY SMART.
(5 ) CONGRATULATIONS.
(6) YOU'RE RIGHT ON.
(7) ALL RIGHT.
(8 ) OUTSTANDING.
(9 ) YOU'RE RIGHT ON IT.
(1 0 ) OK.
(1 1 ) MOW YOU'RE TALKING.
(1 2 ) THAT'S THE BEST YOU'VE DONE YET.
(13) YOU SMARTY.
(lit) HORRAY FOR YOU!
PAGE 108
(15) REMARKABLE.
(16) EXCEPT!ONAL!
(1 7 ) REALLY GOOD!
(1 8 ) YOU DID FINE ON THAT ONE.
(1 9 ) YOU'RE SMART IF YOU GOT THAT ONE.
(2 0 ) YOU DID EXCELLENT.
(21) THAT WAS A GOOD ONE.
(22) GREAT!
(2 3 ) GRRRRRRRRRREAT!
( 24) EXCELLENT,EXCELLENT,EXCELLENT, JUST EXCELLENT!
(2 5 ) SENSATIONAL!
(26) SPLENDID.
(27) MAYBE YOU SHOULD TAKE THE ADVANCED PROGRAM.
(2 8 ) 1 WONDER ! F YOU HAVE EVER TAKEN THIS COURSE BEFORE.
(2 9 ) YOU DID THAT VERY NICELY.
(30) THAT WAS REALLY INTELLIGENT OF YOU.
(31) YOU REALLY GOT THAT RIGHT.
(32) GOOD WORK!
( 33) YOU DID FANTASTIC!
(34) 1 JUST CAN'T BEAT YOU.
(3 5 ) THAT WAS REALLY GOOD.
( 36) SUPPER!
(37) FANTASTIC!
(3 8 ) GOOD GOING.
PAGE 109
(3 9 ) RIGHT. NOW WASN'T THAT EASY?
(4 0 ) YOU REALLY GOT THAT ONE.
(4 1 ) THAT WAS UNBELIEVABLY GREATI
(42) THAT WAS SPECTACULAR I
(43) YOU DID EXCELLENT ON THAT ONE.
(4 4) THAT ANSWER WAS MAGNIF 1C I ENT.
(4 5 ) THAT WAS IN THE TRADITION OF EXCELLENCE.
(46) OUTSTANDING ANSWER.
(47) THAT WAS EXCEPTIONAL.
(48) RIGHT! GOOD GOING.
(49) WHAT A SPECTACULAR ANSWER.
(50) THAT ANSWER WAS WORTH A GOLD STAR. OR MAYBE EVEN TWO.
N eg ative Social R e in fo rc e rs
(1) WHERE DID YOU EVER GET A STUPID IDEA LIKE THAT?
(2 ) YOUR LAST ANSWER DEMONSTRATES AN INABILITY TO
COMPREHEND.
(3 ) THAT ANSWER SHOWS BAD JUDGMENT ON YOUR PART.
(4 ) THAT WAS NO WAY FOR A COLLEGE STUDENT TO ANSWER A
QUEST I ON.
(5 ) BELOW JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL!
(6 ) YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ CORRECTLY!
(7 ) YOUR ANSWER WAS BELOW AVERAGE. TRY HARDER.
(8 ) YOU ARE A STUPID MORON.
(9 ) YOUR ERROR WAS VERY SERIOUS. PAY MORE ATTENTION.
PAGE 110
(10) THAT WAS VERY FOOLISH!
(1 1 ) YOU FAILED THAT ONE!
(1 2 ) THAT WAS DISGRACEFUL!
(13) VERY SLOPPY...........
(1 4 ) CAN'T YOU DO BETTER THAN THAT?
(1 5 ) YOUR LAST ANSWER DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. TRY HARDER.
(1 6 ) THAT SHOWS FIFTH GRADE MENTALITY!
(1 7 ) COME ON ITS NOT AS HARD AS YOU’ RE MAKING IT.
(1 8 ) ARE YOU SERIOUS??????
(19) THAT SHOWS REAL INCOMPETENCE.
(20) IF THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO GO SEE YOUR INSTRUCTOR.
(2 1 ) THAT WAS REALLY VERY BAD.
(2 2 ) WHAT ARE YOU USING FOR BRAINS ANYWAY?
(2 3 ) HOW DID THEY LET YOU INTO COLLEGE ANYWAY?
(2 4 ) YOU REALLY AREN'T TRYING ARE YOU?
(2 5 ) THE ANSWER YOU JUST GAVE WAS VERY BAD!
(2 6 ) ARE YOU KlDDING?
(2 7 ) THAT'S JUST NOT GOOD.
(2 8 ) YOU MUST TRY HARDER, YOU DIDN'T TRY ON THAT ONE.
(2 9 ) THAT WAS A STUPID RESPONSE.
(3 0 ) KEEP YOUR MIND ON THE SUBJECT.
(31) YOU JUST AREN'T CONCENTRATING.
(32) YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.
(3 3 ) NEXT TIME TRY HARDER.
(34) NO WAY.
PAGE 111
(35) THAT WAS STUPID.
(36) NOPE.
(37) THAT'S TERRIBLE.
(3 8 ) THAT ANSWER WAS UNBELIEVABLY BAD.
(3 9 ) DISGRACEFUL!
(LO) ERROR!! ! ! ! !
( L I ) AN ANSWER LIKE THAT MEANS YOU REALLY NEED HELP.
(L2) THAT WAS A SIMPLE MINDED RESPONSE.
(L3) BAD, TRY HARDER.
(LL) THAT WAS REALLY A BAD ANSWER.
(L5) PEOPLE WHO GIVE ANSWERS LIKE THAT USUALLY FAIL
THE COURSE.
(L6) IN NO WAY WAS THAT ANSWER ACCEPTABLE.
(L7) YOU HAVE MADE TOO MANY ERRORS.
(L8) WRONG!! ! ! !
(L9) WHAT A POOR ANSWER.
(50) THAT WAS VERY DUMB.
PAGE 112
APPENDIX B
PAGE 113
(APPENDIX B)
MEDIUM SOCIAL COMPUTERIZED REINFORCERS
This appendix provides the e ig h t p o s i t i v e and e ig h t
h e g a tiv e s o c ia l r e in f o r c e r s adm i n i s te red by the computer in
[the Medium Social tre a tm e n t. Medium Social Computerized
R ein fo rc e rs were noted by the symbol MSCR. The o rder the
r e in f o r c e r s appear is not the o rd e r they were dispensed by
the computer. The computer randomly s e le c te d the r e i n f o r c e r
from e i t h e r the p o s i t i v e or n e g a tiv e l i st below.
Pos i 1 1ve Social R e in fo rc e rs
(1) GOOD
(2) FI NE
(3) YOU ARE DO 1 NG VERY WELL.
(4) Rl GHT
(5) VERY GOOD.
(6) NICE WORK.
( 7) CORRECT, KEEP IT UP.
(8) YOU ARE DOING VERY WELL.
Negat ive S ocial R ein fo rc e rs
(1) NOT RIGHT. TRY AGAIN.
(2) ERROR. TRY AGAIN.
PAGE i m
(3) THINK!
(A) THAT IS NOT VERY GOOD.
(5 ) THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER
(6) WRONG.
(7 ) WRONG, TRY AGAIN.
(8 ) YOU ARE NOT DOING VERY WELL.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Mouse vs. keyboard: Comparitive effectiveness with elementary-aged students using mathematics computer-assisted instruction

PDF

The effects of teacher-student cognitive style similarity on performance evaluation, performance prediction, intelligence estimation and general preference

PDF

The effect of pseudo-human gender on male and female college freshman's social perception of a timeshared computer as a communicator

PDF

The interactive effects of cognitive style and selected instructional strategies on a complex psychomotor skill

PDF

Evaluation of an alternative school program: Affective change and cognitive achievements of eleventh and twelfth grade students

PDF

The effects of remotivation techniques and social reinforcement on verbalization and social interaction among chronic schizophrenics

PDF

An investigation into the relationship among intelligence, age of entry, length of remediation, progress during remediation, and post-clinical reading remediation in determining long-term post-cl...

PDF

An investigation of differences in collegiate academic progress among students participating and not participating in advanced placement

PDF

The relationship between the distribution of campus newspaper content and the college environment

PDF

The development and construct validation of the Primary Pictorial Self-Esteem Test

PDF

The effects of differential instruction treatments on the problem identification performance of field dependent-independent nursing students

PDF

An experimental study in the effects of varying types of peer group interaction upon growth in principled moral judgment of college students

PDF

The effect of response mode and feedback on learning and retention of elementary algebra

PDF

The effects of guided daydream experiences on level of self-esteem and depression in alcoholics

PDF

The evolution of consciousness as the foundation of meaning and its implications for education and counseling

PDF

The impact of computer-assisted instruction on the teaching of English as a Second Language: A survey study of post-secondary ESL programs in the United States

PDF

An investigation of computer use in Los Angeles County and Long Beach Unified School District during 1980-1981

PDF

Investigation of the effectiveness of reading workbooks at the elementary level

PDF

The effect of developmentally-sequenced instruction on learning rate by severely handicapped children

PDF

The effect of self-knowledge and career information on career maturity

Asset Metadata

Creator Sacks, William Herbert (author)

Core Title The interactive effects of computerized social reinforcement and sociability of students during computer assisted instruction

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, technology of,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-449508

Unique identifier UC11247167

Identifier usctheses-c26-449508 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24167.pdf

Dmrecord 449508

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sacks, William Herbert

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA