Recent surveys of school applications of computers show that in contradiction to early expectations, the availability of microcomputers in schools does not have substantial impact on traditional teaching. In this article we identify conditions necessary for teachers to adopt changes in their instruction, and specifically to adopt technological innovations. We argue that the CAI—the use of computers for individualized learning or drill and practice—which is the most common application of computers for teaching and learning, does not satisfy most conditions necessary for teacher adoption. This may explain why the “microcomputer revolution” has not materialized. Finally, we suggest another type of microcomputer applications: Computer-Guided-Teaching, which satisfies most conditions for wide adoption by teachers, and which has potential for substantial teaching improvement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerH. J., School Uses of Microcomputers: Report of a National Survey, Center for Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, p. 1, 1983.
CanningC. L. and SwitzerT. J., First Report of a Longitudinal Study of the Implementation of a Microcomputing Program Across a K-12 Curriculum, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1985.
4.
MeisterG. R., Successful Integration of Microcomputers in an Elementary School, Program Report No. 84-A13, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, Stanford University, Stanford, 1984.
5.
CanningsT. R.McManusJ. F., and McCallC. H., Using the Computer as a Tool in the Secondary Curriculum—Seven Case Studies, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1985.
6.
WalkerD., quoted in CanningsT. R.McManusJ. F., and McCallC. H., Using the Computer as a Tool in the Secondary Curriculum—Seven Case Studies, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1985.
7.
RagostaM.HollandP. W., and JamisonD. T., Computer-Assisted Instruction and Compensatory Education: The ETS/LAUSD Study, Project Report Number 20, the Educational Testing Service, Princeton, 1982.
8.
PoulsenG. and MacKenE., Evaluation Studies of CCC Elementary-School Curriculum 1975–1977, Computer Curriculum Corporation, Palo Alto, California, 1978.
9.
LinnM. C. and FisherC. W., The Gap Between Promise and Reality in Computer Education: Planning a Response, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, 1983.
10.
CubanL., How Teachers Taught. Constancy and Change in American Classrooms 1890–1980, Longman, New York and London, 1984.
11.
ZumwaltK. K., Research on Teaching: Policy Implications for Teacher Education, in Policy Making in Education. Eighty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, LiebermanA. and McLaughlinW. (eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982.
12.
AndersonL. M.EvertsonC. M., and BrophyJ. E., An Experimental Study of Effective Teaching in First-Grade Reading Groups, in Policy Making in Education. Eighty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, LiebermanA. and McLaughlinW. (eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982.
13.
DoyleW. and PonderG. A., in Policy Making in Education. Eighty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, LiebermanA. and McLaughlinW. (eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982.
14.
WalbergH. J., Improving the Productivity of America's Schools, Educational Leadership, 41: 8, pp. 19–27, 1984.
15.
TyackD. and JamesT., Learning From Past Efforts to Reform the High School, Kappan, 64, 1983.
16.
KolataG. B., Aftermath of the New Math: Its Originators Defend It, Science, 195: 4, pp. 854–856, 1977.
17.
GageN. L., Teacher Effectiveness and Teacher Education. The Search for a Scientific Basis, Pacific Books Publishers, Palo Alto, California, 1972.
18.
GagneR. M., How Can Centers for Educational Research Influence School Practices, Organizations for Research and Development in Education, Phi Delta Kappa, Bloomington, Indiana, pp. 21–31, 1966.
19.
TyackD. and HansotE., Futures That Never Happened: Technology and the Classroom, unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, 1984.
20.
WalkerD., Teachers and Technology, unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, 1984.
21.
Van WychW. F., Reducing Teacher Resistance to Innovation, Audiovisual Instruction, 16: 3, pp. 90–91, 1971.
22.
RossiP. H. and BiddleB. J., Educational Media, Education and Society, in The New Media and Education, RossiP. H. and BiddleB. J. (eds.), Anchor Books, Garden City, New York, pp. 23–25, 1967.
23.
PurdyL., Community College Instructors and the Use of New Media: Why Some Do and Others Don't, Educational Technology, 15: 3, pp. 9–12, 1975.
24.
JacksonP. J., The Teacher and the Machine, Horace Mann Lecture, Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh, 1967.
25.
AquinoC. C., Teacher Attitude Toward Audiovisual Instruction as They are Influenced by Selected Factors Within Teaching Environments, AV Communication Review, 8: 2, pp. 187–195, 1976.
26.
HeinichR., Technology and Teacher Productivity, Audiovisual Instruction, 16: 1, pp. 79–82, 1971.
27.
MooreD. M. and HuntT. C., The Nature of Resistance to the Use of Instruction Media, British Journal of Educational Technology, 11: 2, pp. 141–147, 1980.
28.
BeckerH. J., School Uses of Microcomputers: Report of a National Survey, Center for Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, p. 2, 1983.
29.
ShrockS.MatthiasM.VenselC., and AnastasoffC., Microcomputer and Peer Interaction: A Naturalistic Study of an Elementary Classroom, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1985.
30.
GraysonL. P., Instructional Technology: On Diversity in Education, AV Communication Review, 24: 2, pp. 117–134, 1976.
31.
HativaN., Teacher-Student-Computer Interaction: An Application That Enhances Teacher Effectiveness, in Computers in Mathematics Education, HansenV. P. and ZwengM. J. (eds.), National Council for Teachers of Mathematics 1984 Yearbook, The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp. 89–96, 1984.
HativaN., Computer-Guided Teaching: An Effective Aid for Group Instruction, Computers and Education, 8: 3, pp. 293–304, 1984.
34.
GagneR. M. and BriggsL. J., Principles of Instructional Design, 2nd edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1979.
35.
HativaN., “Factors of Organization and Clarity in Mathematics Lessons,” doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2583A (Microfilm No. 83-01, 223), 1982.
36.
BloomB. S., The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring, Educational Researcher, 13: 6, pp. 4–15, 1984.
37.
HativaN., Designing Flexible Software for the “Electronic Board,”AEDS Journal, 18: 1, pp. 51–62, 1984.
38.
HativaN. and HaertelE. H., Effects of High-quality Computer-Guided Teaching on Levels of Concept Attainment in Geometry, paper submitted for publication, 1985.
39.
HofferA., Geometry is More Than a Proof, The Mathematics Teacher, 74, pp. 11–18, 1981.
40.
UsiskinZ., Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982.
41.
BaldridgeJ. V. and DealT. E., Overview of Change Processes in Educational Organizations, in Managing Change in Educational Organizations, BaldridgeJ. V. and DealT. E. (eds.), McCutchan Publishing Corporation, Berkeley, California, 1975.
42.
DealT. E.MeyerJ. W., and ScottW. R., Organizational Influences on Educational Innovation, in Managing Change in Educational Organizations, BaldridgeJ. W. and DealT. E. (eds.), McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1975.
43.
HoltJ. C., How Chidren Fail, Pitman, New York, 1964.
44.
LortieD. C., Observations on Teaching as Work, in Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, TraversR. M. W. (ed.), Rand McNally, Chicago, 1973.
45.
MeyerJ. W. and RowanB., The Structure of Educational Organizations, in Environments and Organizations, M. W. Meyer and Associates (eds.), Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1978.
