Journal of instructional development

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 2–8 | Cite as

Presenting questions, processing responses, and providing feedback in CAI

  • Walter Wager
  • Susan Wager


There are two general categories of guidelines for presenting questions, processing responses and processing feedback in CAI: those related to proper and effective use of the computer medium (formatting guidelines), and those related to principles derived from learning theories and research (psychological guidelines). Presently, most CAI authoring guides deal primarily with formatting guidelines which embrace one overriding principle: make the computer as unobtrusive and easy to use as possible so as to avoid student confusion and frustration.

Formatting guidelines are certainly important and necessary, but not sufficient to guide the development of effective instructional software. In addition, instructional developers must focus on those guidelines which are based on current research and learning theories. This paper discusses some of the research on learning as it relates to the use of questions, response processing, and feedback in CAI.


Correct Answer Multiple Choice Question Instructional Development Teaching Machine Informative Feedback 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alessi, S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (1985).Computer based instruction: Methods and development. NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C. (1970). Control of student mediating responses during verbal learning and instruction.Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 349–369.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C., Faust, G. W., & Roderick, M. C. (1968). “Overprompting” in programmed instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bull, S. G. (1973). The role of questions in maintaining attention to textual material.Review of Educational Research, 43(61), 83–87Google Scholar
  5. Control Data Corporation. (1977). CDC Author Guide. Minneapolis, MN: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Crowder, N. A. (1960). Automatic tutoring by intrinsic programing. In A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.)Teaching machines and programed learning: A source book. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  7. Espich, J. E., & Williams, B. (1967).Developing programmed instructional materials: A handbook for program writers. CA: Fearon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Frase, L. T. (1970). Boundry conditions for matemagenic behaviors.Review of Educational Research, 40(3).Google Scholar
  9. Frase, L. T. (1971). Effect of incentive variables and type of adjunct question upon text learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friend, J., & Milojkovic, J. D. (1984). Designing interaction between students and computers. In Walker, D. F. & Hess, R. D. (Eds.),Instructional software: Principles and perspectives for design and use, (pp. 143–150). CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  11. Gagne, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning, (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  12. Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching.Review of Educational Research, 40(5), 707–721.Google Scholar
  13. Holland, J. G. (1965). Research on programming variables. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Teaching machines and programed learning II: Data and directions. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  14. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction.Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232.Google Scholar
  15. Kumar, V. K. (1971). The structure of human memory and some educational implications.Review of Educational Research, 41(5), 379–417.Google Scholar
  16. Ladas, H. (1973). The mathemagenic effects of factual review questions on the learning of incidental information: A critical review.Review of Educational Research, 43(1), 71–82.Google Scholar
  17. Markle, S. M. (1966).Good frames and bad: A grammar of frame writing. NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium, (1981).Designing instructional computing materials. Minneapolis, MN.: Author.Google Scholar
  19. Peters, H. J. & Johnson, J. W. (1978).Author’s guide, CONDUIT. Iowa: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  20. Rothkopf, E. Z. & Bisbicos, E. E. (1967). Selective facilitative effects of interspersed questions on learning from written materials.Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seiler, B. (Ed.) (1981).Guidelines for designing PLATO lessons. Delaware: University of Delaware, Office of Computer Based Instruction.Google Scholar
  22. Skinner, B. F. (1958, October). Teaching Machines.Science, 128.Google Scholar
  23. Suppes, P. & Ginsberg, R. (1962). Application of a stimulus sampling model to children’s concept formation with and without overt correction response.Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 30–36.Google Scholar
  24. Wager, S. U. (1982).The effect of immediacy and type of informative feedback on retention in a computer-assisted task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Wager
    • 1
  • Susan Wager
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational Research Development and FoundationsFlorida State UniversityTallahassee

Personalised recommendations