You are here:

Improving Learning in Computer-based Instruction Through Question Type and Grouping Strategies

, , Arizona State University, United States

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 19, Number 1, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


This study investigated the comparative effects of adjunct questions, student self-generated questions, and note taking on learning from a multimedia database. High school students worked individually or in cooperative dyads on a computer-based multimedia unit using a study guide to answer either adjunct questions, generate self-questions, or take notes to accomplish a learning task.
There were two criterion measures, a posttest and an attitude survey. Other data collected included informal observations, student interviews and review of the student study guides.
The dependent variable was achievement as determined by posttest score. Analyses were conducted using both traditional Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) techniques as well as hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). Because of the dependency of scores of students working in pairs, it was determined that HLM techniques were more appropriate. Results of ANOVA analyses yielded significant differences, however, HLM analyses did not. The correlations of posttest scores of students working in pairs seemed to indicate possible levels of cooperation. Student interview responses and review of student study guides seemed to provide indications of how students utilized the questioning or note-taking strategies while working in this environment. Implications for the design of instruction are discussed.


Niemczyk, M. & Savenye, W. (2010). Improving Learning in Computer-based Instruction Through Question Type and Grouping Strategies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(1), 79-102. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research& Development, 48(3), 79-100.
  2. Cavalier, J., & Klein, J. (1998). Effects of Cooperative versus individual learning on orienting activities during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research& Development, 46(1), 5-17.
  3. Crooks, S., Klein, J., Jones, E., & Dwyer, H. (1996). Effects of cooperative learning and learner-control modes in computer-based instruction. Journal of Research on Com-Improving Learning in Computer-based Instruction 101
  4. Crooks, S., Klein, J., Savenye, W., & Leader, L. (1998). Effects of cooperative and individual learning during learner-controlled computer-based instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(3), 223-244.
  5. Dole, J., Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Pearson, P. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
  6. Dyer, J., Riley, J., & Yekovich, F. (1979). An analysis of three study skills: Notetaking, Summarizing, and rereading. The Journal of Educational Research, 73(1), 3-7.
  7. Fisher, J., & Harris, M. (1973). Effect of notetaking and review on recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(3), 321-325.
  8. Frase, L., & Schwartz, B. (1975). Effect of question production and answering on prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(5), 628-635.
  9. Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212-242.
  10. Hamilton, R. (1992). Application adjunct post-questions and conceptual problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 89-97.
  11. Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997) Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implication. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94-99.
  12. Hannafin, M., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167-202.
  13. Hill, J., & Hannafin, M. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the worldwide web. Educational Technology Research& Development, 45(4), 37-64.
  14. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1986). Computer-assisted cooperative learning. Educational Technology, 26(1), 12-18.
  15. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 1017-1044). New York: McMillan.
  16. Johnson, R., Johnson, D., & Stanne, M. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382-392.
  17. Kiewra, K. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 147-172.
  18. King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331-346.
  19. Kulhavy, R., Dyer, J., & Silver, L. (1975). The effects of notetaking and test expectancy on the learning of text material. The Journal of Educational Research, 68, 363-365.
  20. Land, S. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research& Development, 48(3), 61-78.
  21. Land, S., & Greene, B. (2000). Project-based learning with the worldwide web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research& Development, 48(1), 45-68.
  22. Land, S., & Hannafin, M. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research& Development, 44(3), 37-53.
  23. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support re-102 Niemczyk and Savenye
  24. McDonald, B., Larson, C., Dansereau, D., & Spurlin, J. (1985). Cooperative dyads: Impact on text learning and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 369377.
  25. Niemczyk, M., & Savenye, W. (2005). Self-regulation in a computer literacy course. Academic Exchange Quarterly (Winter 2005 Edition), 55-61.
  26. Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 207-212.
  27. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221.
  28. Saye, J., & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimediasupported learning environment. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(4), 472-504.
  29. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51-68.
  30. Schuerman, G., & Newmann, F. (1998). Authentic intellectual work in social studies: Putting performance before pedagogy. Social Education, 62(1), 23-25.
  31. Susman, E. (1998). Cooperative learning: A review of factors that increase the effectiveness of cooperative computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 303-322.
  32. Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73-87.
  33. Wong, B. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227-268.
  34. Wong, B., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact