In the light of reports of bias, the present study investigated the hypothesis that administrative educational decisions assisted by Decision Support Systems (DSS) are characterized by different pedagogical and organizational orientation than decisions made without computer assistance. One hundred and ten high school teachers were asked to suggest solutions to problems that arose in two school incidents. After reaching decisions, respondents were asked to rank, in order of importance, the considerations that guided them. The data were processed by DSS software, which calculated the highest-scoring option for each incident. This option was compared with the one chosen by the respondents, taking into account variables of seniority, educational level, specialization, and self-efficacy. DSS-aided decisions promoted greater moderation and enhanced cooperation among interested parties in comparison to decisions made without computer aid. The implications of these findings for future division of decision-making tasks between people and computers is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhituvN.NeumanS. (1990). Principles of information system for management. New York: W. C. Brown.
2.
AmalbertiR.DeblonF. (1992). Cognitive modeling of fighter aircraft process control: A step towards an intelligent on-board assistance system. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36(5), 639–671.
3.
BanduraA. (1982). Self efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
4.
BanduraA. (1997). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
5.
BerardiC. B.BuyerL. S.DominowskiR. L.RellingerE. R. (1995). Meta-cognition and problem solving: A process oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21(1), 205–223.
6.
BorkowskiJ. G. (1989). General problem solving skills: Relations between meta-cognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(1), 57–70.
7.
ClawsonE. P. (1996). Increasing the computer literacy of preservice teachers through an applied integrated curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398872).
8.
ColbournM.McIeodJ. (1983). Computer guided educational diagnostic: A prototype expert system. Journal of Special Education Technology, 6(1), 30–39.
9.
DavidsonD.HundsonJ. (1988). The effect of decision reversibility and decision importance of children's decision making. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 46, 35–40.
10.
DruckenmillerD. A. (1991). Face to face group decision support system: A partnership between traditional group process methodologies and computer technology. Journal of IS Education On-line, 3(2), 1–8.
11.
FreyD.RoschM. (1984). Information seeking after decisions—The roles of novelty of information and decision reversibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 91–98.
12.
FriedL. (1987). The dangers of dabbeling in expert systems. Computerworld, 21(26), 69–72.
13.
FriedmanS. (1992). The effect of use of a decision support system on consistency in decision-making: Preliminary empirical evaluation of support in decisions with respect to punishment in traffic court. Unpublished master's thesis. Faculty of Communication System Administration, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
14.
GrabowskiB. L.HarknessW. L. (1996). Enhancing statistics with expert systems: More than an advisory system. Journal of Statistics Education, 4(3). (Electronic journal)
15.
HammondK. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
HammondK. R.McClellandG. H.MumpowerJ. (1980). Human judgment and decision making: Theories, methods and procedures. New York: Praeger.
17.
HardyJ. V. (1998). Teacher attitudes toward and knowledge of computer technology. Computers in the Schools, 14(3–4), 119–136.
18.
HartmanS. J.LundbergO.WhiteM. (1990). Effect of background and organizational position on executive planning. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 801–811.
19.
HartschuhW. (1990). Expert systems in education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329224).
20.
HerrE. L. (1977). Decision making and employability skills and the role of cooperative work experience. Technical Education News, 36, 9–11.
21.
HofmeisterA. M. (1991). Expert systems and decision support in special education: Results and promises. Educational Technology, 31(10), 23–28.
KleinJ. (1999). The relationship between level of academic education and reversible and irreversible processes of probability decision making. Higher Education, 37, 323–339.
24.
KotlarskyK. (1982). Thinking as solving problems. Neodidagmata, 15, 157–164.
25.
KyleJ. A. (1975). Educative discipline. In MonicaJ. T. (Ed.), Progress and problems in moral education. New York: Neer Publishing.
26.
LaffeyJ.MusserD. (1998). Attitudes of preservice teachers about using technology in teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(4), 223–241.
27.
LehmanR. L.LempertR. O.NisbettR. E. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American Psychologist, 43, 431–442.
28.
LillyE. R. (1986). Implementation of computer based management information systems: A behavioral perspective. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 275056).
29.
LippertR. C. (1989). Expert systems: Tutors, tools and tutees. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 16(1), 11–19.
30.
MartindaleE. S.HofmeisterA. (1988). An expert system for on site instruction advice. Educational Technology, 28(7), 18–20.
31.
OrdonezL.BensonL. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: How time constraint affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 71(2), 121–140.
32.
Pat ElL. (1998). The connection between the order of checking exams, the time spent checking the exams and the seniority of the teacher and between the grades given in a composition examination. Unpublished master's thesis. School of Education, Bar Ilan University, Israel.
33.
RomiszowskiA. J. (1987). Expert systems in education and training: Automated job aids or sophisticated instructional media. Educational Technology, 27(10), 22–30.
SimonH. A. (1982). Theories of bounded rationality. In SimonH. A. (Ed.), Models of bounded rationality (vol. 2, pp. 408–423). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
36.
SinghD. T.GinzbergM. J. (1996). An empirical investigation of the impact of process monitoring on computer mediated decision making performance. Organization Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 67(2), 156–169.
37.
SpragueR. H.Jr. (1987). DSS in context. Decision Support Systems, 3, 197–202.
38.
TelemM. (1995). Decision support systems in the service of an educational framework. In ChenD. (Ed.), Education toward the twenty-first century (pp. 527–548). Tel Aviv: Ramot.
39.
WilsonJ. M. (1996). Processes for resolving student disciplinary matters. New Directions for Student Services, 73, 35–52.
40.
ZakayD.WoolerS. (1984). Time pressure, training and decision effectiveness. Ergonomics, 27(3), 273–284.
