Search

The transition from paper-based tests to corresponding computer-administered tests allows for the incorporation of improved interfaces that support response making. The main research question is whether innovative interfaces affect test response time and/or response accuracy. This study compared performance on banked cloze tests using a conventional interface (based on paper-based formats for responding by writing a number in a box) versus cloze tests with improved interfaces (based on computer-based affordances such as dragging and dropping responses to fill in a blank). In a banked cloze test, the left side of the page shows a text with words deleted and replaced with blanks that are numbered, and the right side shows the word list with a space to write in the corresponding number. In Experiment 1, 56 fourth graders in the conventional group responded more slowly but just as accurately, and spent more time looking at the word list on the right of the screen but spent equivalent time looking at the text as compared to a group that took the test with an improved interface. In Experiment 2, the same pattern of results was replicated with 148 sixth graders and for each of three versions of improved interfaces as compared to the conventional interface. Results support the idea that the improved interface affected the response execution phase but not the response development phase of performance on the cloze test.

Fourth graders were asked to read a text and either to fill in a compare-and-contrast graphic organizer, answer a set of structured questions, take notes, or simply read the text. Both the graphic organizer and questioning groups outperformed the read-only group on a comprehension test (d = 1.24 and 1.22, respectively) and a memory test (d = 0.54 and 0.53, respectively). No significant differences were found between the notetaking and read-only groups on the comprehension test (d = 0.30) or the memory test (d = 0.20). Results showed more integrative eye movements between paragraphs for the graphic organizer (d = 1.53) and the questioning groups (d = 1.90) than the read-only group, but not for the notetaking group (d = -0.06). On all three measures, the graphic organizer group and the questioning group exhibited a generative learning strategy, whereas the notetaking and read-only groups exhibited a linear learning strategy.

This study examines the effects of including interactive graphic organizers into a whole-class PowerPoint lesson as an instructional approach intended to improve student engagement and generative learning in schools. A software application was developed and integrated into PowerPoint that makes it possible for the instructor to fill in empty graphic organizers during PowerPoint projection mode. The participants were 152 fourth-grade students selected from three schools that were grouped in four classrooms. Each classroom was divided in two groups--graphic organizer and content-based. The graphic organizer group was taught using an 11-slide PowerPoint presentation on a social study topic that included two empty graphic organizers plus two additional slides explaining how to make a comparison. The content-based group was taught using the same presentation but without these additional slides plus a set of questions students had to answer as a class activity. The lessons were recorded and the verbal statements between instructor and students examined using the Flanders Interaction Analysis System. Results indicated significant differences in how instructors and students interacted in each group, including more questions asked by teachers (d = 1.99) and more students participating in the classroom discussion in the graphic organizer group (d = 1.76). Learning outcomes showed that the graphic organizer group outperformed the content-based group on a memory test (d = 0.45) and a comprehension test (d = 0.44). These results encourage the use of graphic organizers as an instructional approach, and are consistent with a generative theory of learning.

This article examines the effectiveness of a software that supports formative assessment in real-time of learners' vocabulary knowledge through an interactive highlighting method. Students in a classroom are given a passage on their computer screen and asked to highlight the words they do not understand. This information is summarized on the instructors' screen by highlighting in red the words most highlighted, in orange the second most highlighted, and in yellow the third most highlighted, with a superscript showing the number of students who selected each word. The instructor projects this summary on a screen for the whole class and use it to guide activities on how to comprehend the passage. In Experiment 1, college students who learned with interactive highlighting in a single-session study scored higher on a vocabulary test (d = 1.14) but not on a comprehension test as compared to a control group that studied the same passage without interactive highlighting. In Experiment 2, high school students who learned with interactive highlighting across a 10-week program scored higher on a standardized reading comprehension test as compared to a control group that studied without interactive highlighting (d = 1.60 in school 1, d = 1.17 in school 2).