Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Computer-managed instruction (CMI) systems exist in various forms. Their origins appear to be due in part to existing resources and funding. Changes to these systems have not necessarily been made with regard to existing resources, but more often with regard to cost considerations. Brigham Young University has maintained an off-line testing component within CMI. Florida State University has abandoned on-line testing. Control Data Corporation has implemented a CMI System, on-line for both authors and students via PLATO computer terminals. The Air Force Human Resources Laboratory has been employing off-line testing, but is confident that an inexpensive “microterminal” will provide adaptive testing capabilities for less than the present form of testing. The opposing directions of CMI for these organizations is partially a function of available funding, but also a function of differing views as to the cost savings technology can bring.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mitzel

H. E.

, Conference proceedings, An Examination of the Range Potential of Computer-Managed Instruction, Conference sponsored by National Institute of Education, NIE-C-74-0091, November 1974.

Payne

W. S.

and Oosterhof

A. C.

, Cost-Efficient Assessment of Student Achievement Over Large Sets of Specific Behavioral Objectives, Tech. Rep. No. 3, Florida State University, Center for Educational Development, Tallahassee, Florida.

Kalisch

S. J.

, Implementation of Computer-Managed Instruction at Florida State University, Paper presented at the meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Tampa, Florida, 1973.

Wood

L. J.

, Establishing a CATC System: Where to Begin, CATC-2: 1975, Conference proceedings, Atlanta Public Schools, Atlanta, Georgia, 1976.

Lippey

, A Review of ExistingCATC Systems, CATC-2: 1975, Conference proceedings, Atlanta Public Schools, Atlanta, Georgia, 1976.

Green

B. F.

, Proceedings of the First Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing, Comments on the Proceedings, United States Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C., p. 120, March 1976.

Wood

L. J.

, Brigham Young's SCOUT, CATC Digest, 2: 1, p. 2, 1977.

Lippey

, Observations, CATC Digest, 2: 1, p. 3, 1977.

Kalisch

S. J.

, The Use of a Modular Programming System Adaptable to Various Instructional Needs, Paper presented as part of the Symposium, An Approach to Computer Support of Instruction Which is Applicable to a Majority of Institutions, at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1974.

10.

Oosterhof

A. C.

, Personal communication, December 1977.

11.

Control Data Corporation, A Report on PCMI — PLATO Computer-Managed Instruction, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Author.

12.

Lamos

J. P.

and Waters

B. K.

, A Low Cost Terminal Usable for Computerized Adaptive Testing, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing, In Press.

13.

Waters

B. K.

, Personal communication, December 1977.

14.

Ferguson

, A Model for Computer-Assisted Criterion-Referenced Measurement, Education, 91, pp. 25–31, 1970.

15.

Ferguson

, Proceedings of the Second Conference of Computerized Adaptive Testing, In Press.

16.

Kalisch

S. J.

, A Tailored Testing Model Employing the Beta Distribution and Conditional Difficulties, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 1, pp. 22–28, 1974.

17.

Kalisch

S. J.

, The Comparison of Two Tailored Testing Models and the Effects of the Model's Variables on Actual Loss, Unpublished dissertation, Florida State University, 1974.

Some Directions of Present and Future Computer-Managed Instruction Systems — Why the Differences?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References