Students' preferences on web-based instruction: Linear or non-linear

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 122-136

  Cagiltay, Nergiz Ereil ^a   Yildirim, Soner ^b   Aksu, Meral ^b  

^a ATILIM UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Individual differences; Linear instruction; Non linear instruction; Web based course

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746868286     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (53)

1. Barker, P. (1997). Enhancing learning opportunities through electronic course delivery. Paper presented at the EDUTEC 97 Conference, University of Malaga, Spain, 26 October 1997.
2. Barker, P., Giller, S., Richards, S., Banerji, A., & Emery, C. (1993). Interactive Technologies for Language Learning. In Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA '93 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Florida, USA, 1993, 26-31.
3. Braswell, R., & Brown, J. (1992). Use of interactive videodisc technology in a physical education methods class. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, USA.
4. Brown, B. W., & Liedholm, C. E. (2004). Student Preferences in Using Online Learning Resources. Social Science Computer Review, 22 (4), 479-492
5. Chambers, A. (2001). Introduction. In Chambers, A. & Davis, G. (Eds.), ICT and language learning. A European perspective, Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
6. Chan, W. M., & Kim, D. (2004). Towards Greater Individualization and Process-Oriented Learning Through Electronic Self-Access: Project "e-daf". Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(1), 83-108.
7. Chang, C. (2003). Teaching earth sciences: should we implement teacher-directed or student-controlled CAI in the secondary classroom? International Journal of Science Education, 25 (4), 427-438.
8. Charney, D. (1987). Comprehending non-linear text: The role of discourse cues and reading strategies, Hypertext planning committee. In Proceedings of Hypertext '87, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina, 109-120.
9. Cho, Y. (1995). The nature of learner's cognitive processes in learner- and program-controlled hypertext learning environments. UMI, DAI-A 56/06, p. 2207, Publication Number, AAT 9534749.
10. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 813-834.
11. Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for Computer Assisted Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (2), 183-194.
12. Davies, G. (2001). New technologies and language learning: A suitable subject for research. In Chambers, A. & Davis, G. (Eds.), ICT and language learning. A European perspective, Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
13. Decoo, W. (2003). Language Methods and CALL: redefining our Relations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16 (4), 269-274.
14. Ellis, R. D., & Kurniawan, S. H. (2000). Increasing the usability of online information for older users - A case study in participatory design. Instructional Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12 (2), 263-276.
15. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of Multiple Intelligences, New York, USA: Basic Books.
16. Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 (3), 225-227.
17. Gilbert, J. E., & Han, C. Y. (1999). Adapting instruction in search of 'a significant difference'. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 22 (3), 149-160.
18. th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.
19. Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for determining locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7 (3), 6-10.
20. Hannafin, R. D., & Sullivan, H. (1995). Learner control in full and lean CAI programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43 (1), 19-30.
21. Hargis, J. (2000). The Self-Regulated Learner Advantage: Learning Science on the Internet. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 4 (4), retrieved June 30,2006, from, http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/hargis.html.
22. Hirata, Y. (2004). Computer Assisted Pronounciation Training for Native English Speakers Learning Japanese Pitch and Duration Contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(3-4), 357-376.
23. Hitendra, P. (1998). An Investigation of the Effect of Individual Cognitive Preferences on Learning Through Computer-Based Instruction. Educational Psychology, 18(2), 111.
24. Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive media: examining the potential of computers in education. Computers in Human Behaviour, 16 (5), 537-552.
25. Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (2003). Thirty-two Trends Affecting Distance Education: An Informed Foundation for Strategic Planning, retrieved April 13, 2006, from, http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/ fall63/howell63.html.
26. Kelley, T. M., & Stack, S. A. (2000). Thought recognition, locus of control, and adolescent well-being. Adolescence, 35, 531-551.
27. Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1994). Designing effective instruction, NY, USA: McMillan.
28. Kinzie, M. B., Sullivan, H. J., & Berdel, R. L. (1992). Motivational and achievement effects of learner control over content review within CAI. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8 (1), 101-114.
29. Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Association Press.
30. Koper, R., & Olivier, B. (2004). Representing the Learning Design of Units of Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 7 (3), 97-111.
31. Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In Baker, E. & O'Neil, H. (Eds.), Technology Assessment in Education and Training, Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Levy, M. (2001). Coherence and direction in CALL research: Comparative Designs CALL & The challenge of Change in Exeter, Elm Bank.
33. Lonfis, C., & Vanparys, J. (2001). How to Design User-Friendly CALL Interfaces. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14 (5), 404-417.
34. McManus, T. F. (1997). Self-regulated learning and web based instruction. In Carlson, P. & Makedon, F. (Eds); Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, VA, USA: AACE.
35. th Ed.), Addison Wesley.
36. McNeil, B. J. (1991). Meta-analysis of interactive video instruction: A 10-year review of achievement effects. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 18(1), 1-6.
37. Microsoft (2000). Microsoft's clip art gallery, retrieved April, 13, 2006, from, http://cgl.microsoft.com/clipgallerylive/.
38. nd Ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Merrill.
39. Santiago, R., & Okey, J. (1992). The effects of advisement and locus of control on achievement in learner-controlled instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 119 (2), 47-53.
40. Schank, R. C. (1993). Learning via multimedia computers. Technology in Education, 36 (5), 54-56.
41. Shin, E. C., Schauert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (1), 33-46.
42. Shoener, H. A., & Turgeo, A. J. (2001). Web-Accessible Learning Resources: Learner-Controlled versus Instructor Controlled. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 30, 9-13.
43. Shyu, H., & Brown, S. (1992). Learner control versus program control in interactive videodisc instruction: What are the effects in procedural learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19 (2), 85.
44. th edition, Software & Information Industry Association, Washington, DC, retrieved April, 13, 2006, from, http://www.sunysuffolk.edu/Web/Central/InstTech/projects/iteffrpt.pdf.
45. Silva, R. (1999). Computer-Aided Instruction of Foreign Languages: the case of Beginning Brazilian Portuguese. Paper presented at the National Association for Self Instructional Language Programs (NASILP) Conference, Washington D.C., USA, October 1999.
46. rd Ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
47. Sleight, D. A. (1997). Self-Regulated Learning during Non-Linear Self-Instruction, retrieved April, 13, 2006, from, http://www.msu.edu/~sleightd/ srl.html.
48. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jackson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31 (5), 24-33.
49. Stepp, J. (2002). Student Perceptions on Language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 165-180.
50. Stone III, T. T. (1996). The academic impact of classroom computer usage middle-class primary grade level elementary school children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57/06-A (Order No. AAD96-33809).
51. Volet, S. (1995). Process-oriented instruction: A discussion. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10 (4), 449459.
52. Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.) (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53. Wooyong, E., & Robert, A. R. (2000). The effects of self-regulation and instructional control on performance and motivation in computer-based instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27 (3), 247.