Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Thomas J. Shuell is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Thomas J. Shuell.


Journal of Educational Research | 1981

Effects of Massed and Distributed Practice on the Learning and Retention of Second-Language Vocabulary

Kristine C. Bloom; Thomas J. Shuell

AbstractHigh school students enrolled in a French course learned vocabulary words under conditions of either massed or distributed practice as part of their regular class activities. Distributed practice consisted of three 10-minute units on each of three successive days; massed practice consisted of all three units being completed during a 30-minute period on a single day. Though performance of the two groups was virtually identical on a test given immediately after completion of study, the students who had learned the words by distributed practice did substantially better (35%) than the massed- practice students on a second test given 4 days later. The implications of the findings for classroom instruction and the need to distinguish between learning and memory are discussed.


Archive | 1992

Designing Instructional Computing Systems for Meaningful Learning

Thomas J. Shuell

The design of instructional computing systems is discussed within the context of current psychological theories of meaningful learning and teaching. It is suggested that twelve “learning functions” must be engaged by either the instructional agent or the student if effective learning is to occur and that each function can be elicited in a number of equally effective ways. Examples are provided of ways in which these learning functions can be incorporated into an instructional computing system, and the instructional design process as it relates to instructional computing is discussed.


Journal of Educational Computing Research | 1989

A Comparison of Software Evaluation Forms and Reviews

Linda M. Schueckler; Thomas J. Shuell

Various evaluation forms and reviews used to evaluate instructional software are compared with regard to the criteria employed in their assessments, and the usefulness and appropriateness of these criteria for making instructional decisions are discussed. Among the evaluation forms considered are those developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Science Teachers Association, and the Software Evaluation Project at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Software awards such as those sponsored by Classroom Computer Learning and reviews by monthly publications such as Teaching and Computers and Classroom Computer Learning are also considered. Although certain criteria are represented on nearly all of the evaluation forms and reviews, other criteria appear on a more limited basis. Differences between evaluation forms and reviews are discussed, and limitations in current approaches to software evaluation are identified — e.g., concern for valid principles of learning and teaching.


Journal of Educational Computing Research | 1989

Toward Evaluating Software According to Principles of Learning and Teaching

Thomas J. Shuell; Linda M. Schueckler

Sixteen software packages designed for classroom use were evaluated against nineteen criteria based on principles of effective teaching and learning. The programs were randomly selected from a software library containing over 1,100 items representing all grade levels and a variety of subject-matter areas, software types (tutorials, simulations, etc.), and publishers. Generally speaking, the programs were rated high with regard to 1) presenting material in appropriate steps or blocks, 2) consistency between program and stated objectives, 3) providing appropriate examples, and 4) opportunities for independent practice. The programs were rated low with regard to 1) informing students of instructional goal, 2) determining if students have necessary prior knowledge, 3) reviewing prerequisite knowledge, 4) reteaching information not known, 5) providing anticipatory set, and 6) providing for closure. Differences in ratings were obtained between subject-matter areas and program types, but these differences are difficult to interpret. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the development of effective instructional software and its use in the classroom.


Psychological Record | 1981

Distribution of practice and retroactive inhibition in free-recall learning.

Thomas J. Shuell

Two successive lists of words were learned under conditions of either massed practice (MP) where all six trials were presented on a single day or distributed practice (DP) where participants received two trials on each of 3 successive days. The two lists were learned under either the same or different conditions of practice; two control groups learned a single list by either MP or DP. Recall was 72 hr after completion of List-1 learning. DP on the first list improved recall of that list for all groups including the control groups. DP on the second list increased retroactive inhibition. Several possible interpretations of the results are discussed. It is suggested that the use of long (e.g., 24-hr) distribution intervals produces an effect different from the one encountered with short intervals (e.g., several min) and the spacing effect.


Intelligence | 1983

The effect of instructions to organize for good and poor learners

Thomas J. Shuell

Abstract Two studies are reported which investigate the possibility that instructing individuals to organize their recall will differentially facilitate the performance of “fast” and “slow” learners (defined in terms of performance on a pretest). Experiment I utilized alphabetic organization in the free-recall learning of a list of unrelated words; Experiment II used a categorized word list under similar conditions. In each study, half of the individuals in each ability group received instructions, prior to the first of six learning trials, that contained information about the respective nature of organization present in the list and encouragement to use this type of organization in learning the list. In Experiment I, instructions to use alphabetic organization facilitated the performance of both ability groups to about the same extent. In Experiment II, instructions to use categorical organization in learning resulted in a substantial facilitation of performance for “slow” learners and a slight decrement in performance for “fast” learners. The results from the two studies are discussed in terms of sources of individual differences in learning.


Educational Researcher | 1987

Book Reviews: The European Connection:

Thomas J. Shuell

with ideas from other fields. These comparisons were neither challenges nor smirks, but serious attempts to integrate ideas in order to develop better understanding of educational institutions, their processes and their effects. This book (and the editor) deserves credit for not glossing over the tensions, questions, and conflicts that are evident in the field. Rather, it makes them clearly evident and by doing this conveys some of the excitement in the possibilities of development in sociology of education. The chapters are, for the most part, theoretically rich and methodologically sophisticated. I would not have organized the book, however, quite the way the editor did, especially if I had a nonsociologist in mind as a reader. The introduction by the editor makes a number of interesting points, but it also attempts to tie current research with classical sociological theory. I suspect most nonsociologists (and perhaps some sociologists) will have little patience for this. For one thing, it seems forced, and for another, the ideas in the Handbook are interesting and alive in their own right and can get buried by belaboring linkages to


Educational Researcher | 1987

The European Connection@@@Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context: Volume 1

Thomas J. Shuell; Erik De Corte; Hans Lodewijks; Roger Parmentier; Pieter Span

Cognitive and Social Development. Potential and contributions of neo-piagetian theory to the art and science of instruction, R. Case. Development of problem solving skills in natural settings, F. Achtenhagen. An instructional strategy that activates preconceptions, K.S. Ali. A sociocultural approach to mental action, J.V. Wertsch. Planning comprehensible discourse and cooperative peer interaction, L. Lumbelli and G. Cavazzini. Linguistics Factors in Learning. Making sense of literacy in the home, D. Barton. The relation between phonemic awareness and reading and spelling of Greek words in the first school years, C.D. Porpodas. Text Comprehension. A theory of discourse comprehension: implications for a tutor for word algebra problems, W. Kintsch. Metacognition and reading comprehension: strategies for comprehension monitoring training, M. Mateos and J. Alonso. Childrens naive models and the processing of expository text, S. Vosniadou. Metacognition and reading comprehension: theoretical and methodological problems, M-F. Ehrlich. New Technologies and Instruction. Effects of word processing and writing aids on revision processes, A. Piolat and A. Blaye. Computer-assisted language learning: the learning of a foreign vocabulary, L.F.W. de Klerk. Thor-ombolo: expert system in the diagnosis of problems in text study skills in college and higher education, S. Castaneda and M. Lopez. Learning processes of students working with a computer simulation in mechanical engineering, M. Njoo and T. de Jong. Teaching and Learning. Researching teacher thinking: a personal construction, M. Pope. Development of reflection during teacher education, A. Jarvinen. Indices.


Contemporary Educational Psychology | 1988

The role of the student in learning from instruction

Thomas J. Shuell


Science Education | 1987

Cognitive Psychology and Conceptual Change: Implications for Teaching Science.

Thomas J. Shuell

Collaboration


Dive into the Thomas J. Shuell's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge