A causal model was developed to test the effects of scholastic ability, computing attitudes, and computing background on the use of a computer-assisted instruction (CAI) system called PLATO-LDEC, on attitudes about PLATO-LDEC, on computing attitudes after student's PLATO-LDEC experience, and on course grade. In general, the greater a student's ability as measured by the SAT, the less time the student spent using the PLATO-LDEC courseware. Students' prior attitudes about computers had an effect on how they perceived PLATO-LDEC and how they perceived computers after their CAI experience. Neither prior computing attitudes nor computing background had any effect on PLATO-LDEC usage, and only computing background had a small effect on course grade.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HirschbuhlJ. J., Futures: Where Will Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) Be in 1990?, Educational Technology, 18:4, pp. 62–63, 1978.
2.
WolfeL. M., Strategies of Path Analysis, American Education Research Journal, 17:2, pp. 183–209, 1980.
3.
MuirA. E., Causal Modeling for Indirect Cost Management at Universities and Colleges, Research in Higher Education, 12:4, pp. 291–300, 1980.
4.
WangM. C.WalbergH. J., Evaluating Educational Programs: An Integrative, Causal-Modeling Approach, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5:3, pp. 347–366, 1983.
5.
SplittbergerF. L., Computer-Based Instruction: A Revolution in the Making, Educational Technology, 19:1, pp. 20–26, 1979.
6.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The Fourth Revolution: Instructional Technology in Higher Education, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972.
7.
SchlossP. J.SchlossC. N.CartwrightG. P., Efficacy of Four Ratios of Questions and Highlights to Test in Computer Assisted Instruction Modules, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11:4, pp. 103–106, 1984.
8.
HartigG., Implementing CAI in a University Learning Center, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11:4, pp. 113–116, 1984.
9.
KulikJ. A.KulikC-L. C.CohenP. A., Effectiveness of Computer-Based College Teaching: A Meta-Analysis of Findings, Review of Educational Research, 50:4, pp. 525–544, 1980.
10.
JamisonD.SuppesP.WellsS., The Effectiveness of Alternative Instructional Media: A Survey, Review of Educational Research, 44:1, pp. 1–61, 1974.
11.
MurphyR. T.AppelL. R., Evaluation of the PLATO IV Computer-Based Educational System in the Community College, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1977.
12.
O'NeilH. F.Jr. (ed.), Computer-Based Instruction: A State-of-the-Art Assessment, Academic Press, New York, 1981.
13.
SteelyD., Instructional Design and CAI, in Run: Computer Education, HarperD. O.StewartJ. H. (eds.), Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Monterey, California, pp. 126–128, 1983.
14.
ClarkR. E., Confounding in Educational Computing Research, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1:2, pp. 137–148, 1985.
15.
ClarkR. E., The Importance of Treatment Explication: A Reply to J. Kulik, C-L. Kulik and R. Bangert-Drowns, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1:4, pp. 389–394, 1985.
16.
KulikJ. A.KulikC-L.Bangert-DrownsR. L., The Importance of Outcome Studies: A Reply to Clark, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1:4, pp. 381–387, 1985.
17.
CronbachL. J., Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests, Psychometrika, 16:4, pp. 297–334, 1951.
18.
OsgoodC. E.SucciG. J.TannenbaumP. H., The Measurement of Meaning, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 1957.
19.
BungeM., Causality, Chance, and Law, American Scientist, 49:4, pp. 432–448, 1961.
20.
RobinsonJ. E., Can “Soft” Data be Used to Evaluate Effectiveness of Educational Technologies?, Educational Technology, 23:6, pp. 17–18, 1985.
21.
ClarkR. E.LeonardS., Computer Research Confounding, paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 1985.
22.
LepperM. R., Microcomputers in Education: Motivational and Social Issues, American Psychologist, 40:1, pp. 1–18, 1985.
