“You expect me to remember what?”: Knowledge Retention in Computer-based Training with Adult Learners
PROCEEDINGS
Doug Reid, University of Wollongong, Australia ; D. Michele Jacobsen, Larry Katz, University of Calgary, Canada
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-57-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA
Abstract
The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of training and the effectiveness of different types of knowledge retention activities delivered by computer-based training programs. This study focused on a computer-based learning system called the Profound Learning Delivery System (PLS). This study used a pretest-posttest experimental design to compare adult learners' knowledge of Microsoft Outlook ("Outlook," 1997) before and after a computer-based training session. Participants were trained using two different computer-based instructional programs. This comparison involved three different formats for post-instruction retention activities that were; no review activities, user generated review activities, and program generated retention activities. Results indicate that despite random assignment, there was a significant difference between the groups 60 days after training. This result showed that PLS has potential worth exploring.
Citation
Reid, D., Jacobsen, D.M. & Katz, L. (2005). “You expect me to remember what?”: Knowledge Retention in Computer-based Training with Adult Learners. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2005--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1063-1069). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 27, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/21326/.
© 2005 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Baylor, A., & Chang, S. (2002, October). Pedagogical agents as scaffolds: The role of feedback timing, number of agents, and adaptive feedback. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle.
- Bjorner, J., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 913-933.
- Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
- Caple, C. (1996). The effects of spaced practice and spaced review on recall and retention using computer assisted Instruction. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
- Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory& Cognition, 20(6), 633-642.
- Clariana, R., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (1991). The effects of different feedback strategies using computer-administered multiple-choice questions as instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(2), 5-17.
- Collis, B., Boer, W.D., & Slotman, K. (2001). Feedback for web-based assignments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 306-313.
- Embretson, S. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 341-349.
- Fletcher-Flinn, C., & Gravatt, B. (1999). The efficacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(3), 219-242.
- Jackson, S. (2004). Ahead of the curve: Future shifts in higher education. Educause Review, 39(1), 10-18.
- Kneebone, R., Scott, W., Darzi, A., & Horrocks, M. (2004). Simulation and clinical practice: strengthening the relationship. Medical Education, 38(10), 1095-1102.
- Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79-97.
- Lieberman, D., & Linn, M. (1991). Learning to learn revisited: Computers and the development of self-directed learning skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(3), 373-395.
- Mathan, S. (2004). Recasting the feedback debate: Benefits of tutoring error detection and correction skills. Unpublished PhD, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA.
- Okolo, C., & Ferretti, R. (1996). Knowledge acquisition and technology-supported projects in the social studies or students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(2), 91-103.
- Profound Learning Delivery System. (2005). Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Profound Learning Systems, Inc.
- Sinclair, G., Healy, A., & Bourne, L. (1997). The acquisition and long-term retention of temporal, spatial and item information. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 530-549.
- Smith, F. (1998). The book of learning and forgetting. New York: Teachers College Press.
- Smyth, K. (2004). The benefits of students learning about critical evaluation rather than being summatively judged. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 369-378.
- Son, L. (2004). Spacing one’s study: Evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30 (3), 601–604.
- Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning and memory: The brain in action. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Streatmans, G., & Eggen, T. (1989). Computerized adaptive testing: What it is and how it works. Educational Technology, 38, 45-52.
- Theide, K., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1024-1037.
- Ware, J., Bjorner, J., & Kosinski, M. (2000). Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Medical Care, 38(9), 73-82.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References