Effects of practice in a linear and non-linear web-based learning environment

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 81-93

  Martin, Florence ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Instructional elements; Linear and non linear; Navigation; Practice; Web based instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149343307     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the Impact of an Animated Agent's Voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 117-139
2. Boechler, P.M, & Dawson, M.R.W. (2002) Effects of navigation tool information on hypertext navigation behavior: a configurai analysis of page-transition data. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11, 2 2002. 95-115
3. Chung, J. & Reigeluth, C.M. (1992). Instructional prescriptions for learner control. Educational Technology, 32, 10, 14-20
4. nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall.
5. Dee-Lucas, D., & Larkin, J.H. (1995). Learning from electronic texts: Effects of interactive overviews for information access. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 3, 431-468.
6. Delgado, A. R. & Prieto, G. (2003). The effect of item feedback on multiple-choice test responses. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 73-85.
7. Depover, C. E & Quintin, J. J. (1992). Learner control versus computer control in professional training context. In M. Giardina (ed.), Interactive Multimedia Learning Environments: human factors and technical considerations on design issues. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 234-247.
8. Dias, P., & Souza, A.P. (1997). Understanding navigation and disorientation in hypermedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 2, 173-185.
9. Dick, W., Carey, L. M., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The Systematic Design of Instruction, (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
10. Freitag, E & Sullivan, H. (1995). Matching Learner Preference to Amount of Instruction: An Alternative Form of Learner Control. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 43, 2, 5-14
11. rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
12. Foshay, W. R., Silber, K. H., & Stelnicki, M. B. (2003). Writing training materials that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
13. st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
14. Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
15. Gagne, R.M. (1988). Mastery Learning and Instructional Design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1, 1
16. Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design (4th Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.
17. Gagne, R. M., Wager, W.W., Golas, K.C., & Keller, J.M. (2005). Principles of Instructional Design. (4th Ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
18. Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development 7(3), 6-10
19. Hannafin, M. (1987). The effects of orienting activities, cueing and practice on learning of computer based instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 48-53
20. Hannafin, M., Philips, T., Rieber, T., & Garhart, C. (1987). The effects of orienting activities and cognitive processing time on factual and inferential learning. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 35, 75-84
21. Hammond, N & Allinson, L. (1989) Extending Hypertext for Learning: An Investigation of Access and Guidance Tools. A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay(Eds.) People and Computers V, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 293-304
22. Klein, J.D & Pridemore, D.R. (1994) Effects of Orienting Activities and Practice on Achievement, Continuing Motivation, and Student Behaviours in a Cooperative Learning Environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 4, 41-54
23. Klein, J. D., Spector, J. M., Grabowski, B., & de la Teja, I. (2004). Instructor competencies: Standards for face-to-face, online, and blended settings. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
24. Kruse, K. & Kevin, J. (1999).Technology-based Training: The Art and Science of Design, Development and Delivery. Jossey Bass publication
25. Kopcha, T.J. (2005). Learner preferences, prior knowledge, and learner control over practice and examples in computer-based instruction. Paper presented at the Association of Educational Communications and Technology.
26. Ku, H.Y & Sullivan, H.J (2002) Student performance and attitudes using personalized mathematics instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 1, 21-34
27. Kulhavy, R.W. (1977) Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1, 211-232
28. Kulhavy, R., White, M., Topp, B., Chan, A., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 285-291
29. Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279-308.
30. rd Edition). Center for Effective Performance: Atlanta, GA.
31. Martin, F., Klein, J.D. & Howard, S. (2007). The impact of instructional elements in computer-based instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 4, 623-636
32. Martin, F., & Klein, J.D. (2008). Effects of Objectives, Practice, and Review in Multimedia Instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 171-189
33. Mattiske, C. (2001). Train for results: Maximize the impact of training through review. Warriewood, Australia: Business and Professional Publishing.
34. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. (1998). Spatial versus conceptual maps as learning tools in hypertext. Journal of Educational Hypermedia and Multimedia, 8, 1, 43-64.
35. Merrill, M.D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning. Computers and Education, 4, 77-95.
36. Merrill, M. D. (2002) First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 4359.
37. Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B.L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 18(3), 99-105.
38. th Ed.), New York: John Wiley.
39. Philips, T., Hannafin, M., & Tripp, S. (1988). The effects of practice and orienting activities on learning from interactive video. Educational Communication and Technology, 36, 93-102.
40. Reiser, R. A. (2002). A history of instructional design and technology. In Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, P. (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall, 26-53.
41. nd Ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
42. Richey, R. (2000). The Legacy of Robert M. Gagné, Syracuse, NY: Eric Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.
43. Schankenberg, H.L., Sullivan, H.J., Leader, L., & Jones,E.K. (1995) Matching learner preference to preferred amount of Instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
44. Shneiderman, B. & Kearsley, G. (1989) Hypertext Hands On! An Introduction to a New Way of Organizing and Accessing Information, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
45. Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: a literature review, 1977-88. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117-24.
46. Su, Y., & Klein, J. (2006). Effects of Navigation Tools and Computer Confidence on Performance and Attitudes in a Hypermedia Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 15(1), 87-106.
47. rd Ed.), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
48. Sullivan, H. J. & Higgins, N. (1983). Teaching for competence, New York: Teachers College Press.