Skip to main content

Presenting questions, processing responses, and providing feedback in CAI

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Alessi, S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (1985).Computer based instruction: Methods and development. NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. (1970). Control of student mediating responses during verbal learning and instruction.Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 349–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Faust, G. W., & Roderick, M. C. (1968). “Overprompting” in programmed instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 88–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, S. G. (1973). The role of questions in maintaining attention to textual material.Review of Educational Research, 43(61), 83–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Control Data Corporation. (1977). CDC Author Guide. Minneapolis, MN: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Espich, J. E., & Williams, B. (1967).Developing programmed instructional materials: A handbook for program writers. CA: Fearon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frase, L. T. (1970). Boundry conditions for matemagenic behaviors.Review of Educational Research, 40(3).

  • Frase, L. T. (1971). Effect of incentive variables and type of adjunct question upon text learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 371–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning, (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching.Review of Educational Research, 40(5), 707–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction.Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V. K. (1971). The structure of human memory and some educational implications.Review of Educational Research, 41(5), 379–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Markle, S. M. (1966).Good frames and bad: A grammar of frame writing. NY: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium, (1981).Designing instructional computing materials. Minneapolis, MN.: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. J. & Johnson, J. W. (1978).Author’s guide, CONDUIT. Iowa: University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler, B. (Ed.) (1981).Guidelines for designing PLATO lessons. Delaware: University of Delaware, Office of Computer Based Instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1958, October). Teaching Machines.Science, 128.

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wager, W., Wager, S. Presenting questions, processing responses, and providing feedback in CAI. Journal of Instructional Development 8, 2–8 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02906047

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02906047

Keywords

  • Correct Answer
  • Multiple Choice Question
  • Instructional Development
  • Teaching Machine
  • Informative Feedback