You are here:

CBR and CBT: A Comparative Research Study
PROCEEDINGS

, University of illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-64-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This proposed study will examine two approaches to computer training: Computer-Based Reference (e-manual computer program) and Computer-Based Training (tutorial computer program). Two learning theories (R. Mager, 1988, and A. Miller, 1960) and a critique of two existing transfer research will be reviewed to examine the two approaches. Since “time” is a major concern for teachers to learn computers on their own, the result of the study will help trainers make use of the most effective instructional tools for users to be used for self-paced training.

Citation

Jean-Charles, A. (2008). CBR and CBT: A Comparative Research Study. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2008--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3789-3791). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Anderson, J., Boyle, C., Farrell, R. & Reiser, B. (1987). Cognitive principles in the design of computer tutors. In P. Morris (ed.), Modeling Cognition. NY: John Wiley.
  2. Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
  3. Baldwin, T.T. & Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of Learning: A Review and Directions for Future Research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105.
  4. Bixler, B. (1999). Guide to Selecting and Implementing Computer-based Training. Online: http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/b/x/bxb11/CBTGuide/Medium/Medium.htm
  5. Jonassen, D.H. (1990). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist view of instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(9), 32-34.
  6. Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., and Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers (NCES 1999-080). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
  7. Mager, R. & Pipe, P. (1984). Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna (2nd Edition). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.
  8. Mager, R. (1975). Preparing Instructional Objectives (2nd Edition). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.
  9. Mager, R. (1988). Making Instruction Work. Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.
  10. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
  11. Miller, G.A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K.H. (1960). Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
  12. Newell, A. (1990). Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  13. Scandura, J.M. & Scandura, A. (1980). Structural Learning and Concrete Operations: An Approach to Piagetian Conservation. NY: Praeger.
  14. Shiffrin, R.M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic information processing II. Perceptual learning, automatic attention and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
  15. Simon, S.J., & Werner, J.M. (1996). Computer training through behavior modeling, self-paced, and instructional approaches: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 648-659.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.