Evaluating the Efficacy of and Preference for Interactive Computer Training with Student-Generated Examples

Aquino et al. (2024) tested a new computer lesson. Students made their own examples and shared them on screen.

The team asked: Do students like this more than plain videos or text? Does it help them score higher on quizzes?

They ran a single-case study with college students learning behavior-analysis terms.

Students picked the interactive module every time. They said it felt fun and personal.

Yet their quiz scores stayed flat. The fancy format did not beat video or text on learning gains.

Herzog et al. (2026) saw the same split. Kids liked computer math games, but brighter ones learned slower because the tasks were too easy for them.

Radley et al. (2019) showed that quick group polls match longer 1-to-1 preference tests. Aquino’s team used a short digital poll and got the same clear winner.

Wang et al. (2025) reviewed 15 studies of computerized cognitive training for youth with ASD. They found real skill gains. Aquino’s null score result looks like a contradiction, but the earlier work targeted different skills and added longer practice blocks.

Liking matters. If students hate the format, they drop out. Use interactive, student-made examples to keep them in their seats. Just do not expect higher test marks unless you add more practice and feedback loops. Pair the fun module with brief quizzes or fluency drills to turn preference into performance.