You are here:

The effect of program complexity on low-achieving students’ learning: 4th grade multiplication as an example
PROCEEDINGS

, , Department of e-Learning Design and Management, National Chiayi University, Taiwan, Taiwan

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-90-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This study aims to explore the differences between low and high achievers’ learning in computer-based environment. This is a small-scale pilot study involving 6 elementary school students. Students were assigned into 3 groups with different CAI programs, in which the interface varied from simple to complicated. Students in Group 1 were provided with a simple computer-based lecture program. Students in Group 2 were provided with the same lecture plus an interactive drill. Group 3 was provided with the same lecture plus an interactive game. Students’ pre- and post- test performance, learning perception, and program manipulation were recorded. This study found: 1) Low achievers had better learning improvement and perception toward programs with a simple interface; 2) Low achievers’ academic improvement occurred at a higher cognitive level; 3) Low achievers might engage more in a drill mode than in a game mode. Further research with more participants is necessary to confirm the results.

Citation

Wang, P.Y. & Lu, Y.H. (2011). The effect of program complexity on low-achieving students’ learning: 4th grade multiplication as an example. In C. Ho & M. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2011--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2103-2110). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 31, 2024 from .

© 2011 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1985, April). Effectiveness of computer-based education in secondary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, USA.
  2. Bottino, R.M., Ferlino, L., Ott, M., & Tavella, M. (2007). Developing strategic and reasoning abilities with computer games at primary school level. Computers and Education, 49, 1272-1286.
  3. Burns, P.K., & Bozeman, W.C. (1981). Computer assisted instruction and mathematics achievement: Is there a relationship? Educational Technology, 21, 32-39.
  4. Grimley, M., Green, R., Nilsen, T., Thompson, D. (2010, August). Computer Game or Traditional Lecture: The Effect of Delivery Mode on Experience Ratings for High and Low Achieving Students. Paper presented at the European Conference for Educational Research (ECER 2010). Helsinki, Finland.
  5. Hativa, N. (1988). Computer-based drill and practice in Arithmetic: Widening the gap between high-and low-achieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 366-397.
  6. Holschuh, J.P. (2000). Do as I say not as I do: High, average and low performing students’ strategy use in biology. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 31, 94-108.
  7. Hong, E., Sas, M., & Sas, J. (2006). Test-taking strategies of high and low Mathematics Achievers. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 144-155.
  8. Jamison, D., Suppes, P., & Wells, S. (1974). The effectiveness of alternative instructional media: A survey. Review of Educational Research, 44, 1-67.
  9. Kitsantas, A. (2002). Test preparation and test performance: A self-regulatory analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(2), 101–113.
  10. Kulik, J.A. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(1), 59–74.
  11. Middleton, J.A., & Spanias, P. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings, generalisations and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 65-88.
  12. Parham, S.D. (1997). The relationships between test-taking strategies and cognitive ability test performance. The Sciences and Engineering, 57, 72-60.
  13. Ragosta, M., Holland, P., & Jamison, D.T. (1982). Computer-assisted and compensatory education. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  14. Walker, E., & Azumi, J. (1985, April). The impact of computer assisted instruction on mathematics learning gains of elementary and secondary students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
  15. Zaini, Z.H., & Ahmad, W.F.W. (2010, June). A study on students’ motivayion in learning Mathmatics using multimedia course. Paper presented in International Symposium on Information Technology. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.-2110 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides

Also Read

Related Collections