Effects of Presentation Timing and Learner Control on Effectiveness and Efficiency on Learning Statistics Skills

Use of real, authentic whole tasks in training has been the focus of current instructional theories and practical educational approaches (Merrill, 2002; Reigeluth, 1999; van Merrienboer & Kirschner, 2001). However, teaching authentic tasks poses challenges because of the complex nature of these tasks and the limited capacity of working memory. To overcome these challenges, van Merrienboer and Paas (1996) proposed the Four Components of Instructional Design (4C/ID) model to teach authentic complex skills without overloading the working memory. The model has four components: learning tasks, supportive information, procedural information, and part-task practice. Basing the 4C/ID model, Kester et al. (2001) suggest that presenting supportive information before and supportive information during the task practice would lead to more effective and efficient instruction than presenting the procedural information before and supportive during the practice tasks. Even though the ‘supportive before, procedural during’ information presentation format has been hypothesized to be superior to the other information presentation formats (i.e., supportive before, procedural before; supportive during, procedural before; supportive during, procedural during), not all empirical studies and findings confirm this particular hypothesis (Kester et al., 2001; Kester, Kirschner, & van Merrienboer, 2004a; Kester, Kirschner, & van Merrienboer, 2006). To explain these conflicting findings, differences in the degree to which learners were allowed or not allowed to review information presented prior to the practice session (learner control) was tested in this study. The purposes of this study were to (a) investigate the effects of the information presentation format on practice tasks, posttest, transfer test, mental effort, instructional efficiency, and performance efficiency, (b) investigate the effects of the learner control on practice tasks, posttest, transfer test, mental effort, instructional efficiency, and performance efficiency, (c) reveal the interaction effects, if there is, between the information presentation format and learner control on the practice tasks, posttest, transfer test, mental effort, instructional efficiency, and performance efficiency, and (d) assess the students’ attitudes toward the instructional modules. To accomplish these purposes, the study used 2x2 (n=4) factorial design to compare the effects of presenting supportive information before procedural information during the practice tasks with learner control (PS_L); presenting supportive information before procedural information during the practice tasks with system control (PS_S); presenting supportive information before procedural information during the practice with learner control (SP_L); and presenting supportive information before procedural information during the practice tasks with system control (SP_S). The dependent variables were practice task scores, post-test, transfer test, mental effort, time-on-task, instructional efficiency, and performance efficiency. The students completed a demographic survey, two modules with practice tasks, post-test, transfer test, and an attitude survey. The learner control group was enabled the students to go back and review supportive information during task practice within the entire course while the system control group were not able to go back to review the procedural information they receive prior to starting the task practice. Overall, ninety-hundred participants from a southern city in the United States are assigned to one of four conditions. The results revealed that students in the PS group performed significantly better on the practice tasks and posttest than students in the SP group; students in the learner control group performed significantly better than students in the system control group on the practice tasks and posttest. Even though no interaction found between the timing of information presentation format and learner control on the dependent variables, the post hoc results showed that presenting procedural information before the practice tasks with learner control led to a greater performance on the practice tasks, posttest, and instructional efficiency. Regarding to the post study learners’ attitude survey, the SP_L group showed more positive attitude toward the instruction than the other groups even though the PS_L group performed significantly better than the other groups. Overall, the study found some evidence that presenting procedural information before practice task was more effective and efficient than presenting supportive information before practice task when given learner control. In cases where it is possible to provide learner control (such as an online self-paced instructions), the findings in this study suggest that instructors use the PS presentation format. Considering the limitations of this study, the findings in this study are not conclusive.