http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-2.xsd
comparison of the effects of computer versus paper and pencil presentation modes on the attributions and behaviors of learning disabled and normally achieving students
The search for ways to increase learner motivation has provided the impetus for development of theories of motivation, instructional practices and educational technologies. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of paper and pencil presentation and computer presentation on the application of attribution theory to normally achieving (NA) and learning disabled (LD) subjects. Specifically, an attempt was made to determine whether significant differences were present between and within the means of the groups for attributions, expectancies, affective responses and persistence as related to mode of presentation. Junior high school male subjects were presented an easy and a difficult mathematics task in each of two presentation modes: paper and pencil and computer. Prior to the first task in each mode, subjects were asked to give an expectancy rating. Following each task, subjects were asked to respond to questions concerning their attributions, expectancies and affective responses. Time on task and number of items attempted were calculated as persistence measures. Data were analyzed for 35 NA and 35 LD subjects by means of a series of mixed model analyses of covariance or analyses of variance with repeated measures. The covariate was subjects' self-rating of performance. Alpha was established at .01. A number of significant findings resulted from these analyses. NAs rated both their global ability and specific mathematics ability higher than LDs. Within the groups, both NAs and LDs spent significantly more time on computer tasks than on paper and pencil tasks; and the mean affective ratings for both groups were higher for the computer mode. However, both groups achieved significantly higher scores for their performances on paper and pencil tasks than on computer tasks. The difficulty level of the tasks significantly influenced several variables. Both groups gave higher ratings for global ability, expectancy after tasks and affective responses in association with the easy problems. Scores were significantly higher for the easy set. Only the variable of task difficulty had a higher mean associated with the hard tasks.
"Major subject: Educational Psychology."
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 115-123).