The purpose of this study was to conduct formative and summative evaluation for Computer Integrated Instruction (CII), an alternative use of CAI. The Non-Equivalent Control Group, Pretest-Posttest Design was implemented with the class as the unit of analysis. Several of the instruments were adopted from existing computer-assisted instruction (CAI) evaluation studies, while some had to be developed specifically for this study. The findings were 1) that the teachers were reluctant users of the CII materials and 2) that there was a significant difference for mathematics achievement favoring the control group. A recommended model of separate, sequential formative and summative evaluations resulted from this study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerE. L. and AlkinM. C., Formative Evaluation of Instructional Development, AV Communication Review, 21: 4, pp. 389–418, Winter 1973.
2.
ClowerK., Introducing Technology Is as Simple as Boiling Water, Electronic Education, pp. 22–29, November 1981.
3.
DeVaultM. V. and ChapinJ. D., The Teacher Factor in the Supply and Demand Curve for Technology in the Schools, Educational Technology, February 1981.
4.
HallG. E., Concerns-Based Inservice Teacher Training: An Overview of the Concepts, Research, and Practice, paper presented at the Conference on School-Focused Inservice Training, Bournemouth, England, March 1978.
5.
LoukesS. F.NewloveB. N., and HallG. E., Measuring Levels of Use of the Innovation: A Manual for Teachers, Interviews, and Raters, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1975.
6.
AndersonR. E., The Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium Project on Computer Literary Instructional Modules (CLIM), paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota, June 1981.
7.
FeyJ. T., Mathematics Teaching Today: Perspectives from Three National Surveys, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, 1981.
8.
HouseE. R., The Politics of Educational Innovation, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, Berkeley, California, 1974.
9.
DaughdrillR. W., A Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction in College Algebra (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1978), Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 3431-A, 1978.
10.
HoffmanI. J., Effects of Computer Application on Generalization Skills and Achievement in a Second Year Algebra Course (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971), Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 2856-A, 1971.
11.
JhinK. R., A Statistical Comparison of the Effectiveness of Non-Tutorial Computer-Aided Instruction and Conventional Teaching of Algebra (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971), Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 5734-B, 1971.
12.
KatzS. M., A Comparison of the Effects of Two Computer Augmented Methods of Instruction with Traditional Methods Upon Achievement of Algebra Two Students in a Comprehensive High School (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971), Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 1188-A, 1971.
13.
MitzelH. E.HallK.SuydamM.JanssonL. C., and IgoR. V., A Commonwealth Consortium to Develop, Implement and Evaluate a Pilot Program of Computer-Assisted Instruction of Urban High Schools, Final Report, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 059 604), 1971.
14.
PayneC. I., The Effects of Computer Mathematics Instruction on Achievement, Problem Solving, and Attitudes in a Public School (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1979), Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 3850-A, 1980.
15.
RobitailleD. F.SherrillJ. M., and KaufmanD. M., The Effect of Computer Utilization on the Achievement and Attitudes of Grade Nine Mathematics Students, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1, pp. 26–32, 1977.
16.
SuydamM. N., Unpublished Instruments for Evaluation in Mathematics Education: An Annotated Listing, ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1974.
17.
RonanF. D., A Study of the Effectiveness of a Computer when Used as a Teaching and Learning Tool in High School Mathematics (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971–1972), Dissertation Abstracts International, pp. 1264–1265-A, 1972.
18.
SaundersJ., The Effects of Using Computer-Enhanced Resource Materials on Achievement and Attitudes in Second Year Algebra (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1978), Dissertation Abstracts International, p. 22, 1978.
19.
BeckJ. J., An Analysis of Student Attitude Toward Computer-Assisted Instruction in Nebraska Public High Schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1979), Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 3336-A, 1979.
20.
DeBlassioJ. K., Student Characteristics Associated with Attitudes toward Using a Computer in Selected High School Mathematics Courses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1978), Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 723-A, 1979.
21.
LippoldG. A., The Relationship of Personalization, Encouragement, and Humor to Student Attitudes and Posttest Performance on a Computer-Assisted Instructional Program (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1977), Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 4690-A, 1978.
22.
AnandamK. and KellyJ. T., Evaluating the Use of Technology in Education, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 10: 1, pp. 21–31, 1981–82.
