The Influence of Student Computer-Ownership and in-Home Use on Achievement in an Elementary School Computer Programming Curriculum

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of home computer ownership and use on achievement. Ninety-six second graders and seventy-nine fifth graders were taught BASIC programming with homework for three marking periods, and Logo programming without homework for one marking period. Pretests were given in both BASIC and Logo. Posttests were administered at the end of BASIC and Logo instruction. Questionnaires were issued to assess computer use in homework completion. Students were grouped by ability, sex, and computer ownership. Posttest scores for BASIC and Logo and BASIC homework score averages were analyzed using ANOVA and ANCOVA (with pretest scores as the covariate). Fifth grade computer owners had significantly (p = .02) higher mean homework scores than nonowners. Among high ability fifth graders, owners outperformed the nonowners on both BASIC and Logo posttest scores. Computer use in homework assignments was not as important to achievement as ownership.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Becker

, Instructional Uses of School Computers: Reports from the 1985 National Survey, Issue No. 1, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 1986.

Mandell

, Computers in Education Today, West Publishing Company, New York, 1989.

Bigham

, Equity for Breakfast, The Computing Teacher, 16, pp. 11, 56, 1985.

Widmer

Parker

, A Study of Characteristics of Student Programmers, Educational Technology, 25, pp. 47–50, 1985.

Linn

Dalbey

, Cognitive Consequences of Programming Instruction: Influence of Instructional Setting, Student Access, and Student Ability (grant no. 400-83-0017), Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkley, California, 1985.

Smith

, Have We Closed the GAPS in Student Computer Use? The Computing Teacher, 17, pp. 37–39, 1989.

Wadsworth

, Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development, Longman, Inc., New York, 1979.

Lockard

Abrams

Many

, Microcomputers for Educators, Scott Foresman and Co., Glenview, Illinois, 1990.

Simonson

Thompson

, Educational Computing Foundations, Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1990.

10.

Papert

, Mindstorms, Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1980.

11.

Arends

, Learning to Teach, Random House, Inc., New York, 1988.

12.

Slavin

, Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement, Educational Leadership, 45, pp. 31–33, 1988.

13.

Slavin

, Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement, in School and Classroom Organization, Slavin

, (ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1989.

14.

Slavin

, Research on Cooperative Learning: Consensus and Controversy, Educational Leadership, 47, pp. 52–54, 1990.

15.

Hunter

, Mastery Teaching, TIP Publications, El Segundo, California, 1982.

16.

Webb

N. M.

, Microcomputer Learning in Small Groups: Cognitive Requirements and Group Process, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 1075–1088, 1990.

17.

Barba

, Examining Computer Configurations: Mini-labs, The Computing Teacher, 17, pp. 8–10, 1989.

18.

King

, Verbal Interaction and Problem-Solving Within Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning Groups, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, pp. 1–15, 1989.

19.

Winer

, Statistical Principles of Experimental Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.

20.

Egan

Archer

, The Accuracy of Teachers' Ratings of Ability: A Regression Model, American Educational Research Journal, 22, pp. 25–34, 1985.