The surface features of four commercial microcomputer reading programs-those produced by Scott Foresman, Random House, Control Data Corporation, and Basic Learning Systems-were examined in this study using the Bradley Inventory of Reading Comprehension Software (BIRCS). All of the programs scored high in terms of their surface features with the Scott Foresman program receiving a significantly higher score than the other three programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GlasserW., Address delivered in Annapolis, Maryland November 5, 1981.
2.
GleasonG. T., Microcomputers in Education: The State of the Art, Educational Technology, 21: 3, pp. 7–18, March 1981.
3.
HintonJ. R., Individualized Learning Using Microcomputer CAI, Cabrillo College, Aptos, California, March 15, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 196 409).
4.
MrvavetzP., The Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction on Student Self-Concept, Locus of Control, Level of Aspiration, and Reading Achievement, doctoral dissertation, University of Akron, 1980.
5.
FletcherJ. C. and AtkinsonR. C., Evaluation of the Stanford CAI Program in Initial Reading, Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, pp. 597–602, 1972.
6.
CarverR. P. and HoffmanJ. V., The Effect of Practice through Repeated Reading on Gain in Reading Ability Using a Computer-Based Instructional System, Reading Research Quarterly, 16: 3, pp. 374–390, 1981.
7.
CarverR. R., The Relationship between Reasoning Ability and Gain in Reading Ability, Final Report, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia, Personnel and Training Research Programs Office, Missouri University, Kansas City, August 1977.
8.
GreenD. R., Learning to Recognize Words and Letters on a CAI Terminal, paper presented at International Reading Association Conference, Boston, April 24–27, 1969. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 207 177).
9.
BrebnerA.HallworthH. J.McIntoshE., and WontnerC., Teaching Elementary Reading by CMI and CAI, Faculty of Education Computer Applications Unit and Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Calgary, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 198 793).
10.
LitmanG. H., Relation between Computer Assisted Instruction and Reading Achievement among Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Grade Students, doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1977.
11.
CaldwellR. M., The Effects of Selected Strategies for Teaching Reading to Non-Literate Adult Learners Using Computer Based Education, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California, April 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 176 206).
12.
StrongM. W., Student Self-Tracking with a Microcomputer: The Incentive Effect upon Reading Attitude and Work Produced, doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 1981.
13.
GagneR. M., The Conditions of Learning (3rd edition). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1977.
14.
GagneR. M.WagerW., and RojasA., Planning and Authoring Computer-Assisted Instruction Lessons, Educational Technology, 23: 9, pp. 17–26, September, 1981.
15.
WilsmanT. W., Cognitive Theory and the Design of Instruction, Educational Technology, 23: 7, pp. 14–20, July 1981.
16.
FlemingM., Characteristics of Effective Instructional Presentation: What We Know and What We Need to Know, Educational Technology, 2: 7, pp. 33–38, July 1981.
17.
WinnW., The Meaningful Organization of Content: Research and Design Strategies, Educational Technology, 2: 8, pp. 7–11, August 1981.
18.
AndersonR. C.SpiroR. J., and AndersonM. C., Schemata as Scaffolding for the Representation of Information in Connected Discourse (Tech. Rep. No. 24), University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading, Urbana, March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 236).
19.
SmithF., Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read (2nd edition). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1978.
20.
MizendoA. J. and EvansA. A., An Instruction Model for Computer Assisted Instruction (Tech. Report 71–2), U.S. Army Signal Center and School, Forth Monmouth, New Jersey, May 1971.
21.
CaldwellR., Guidelines for Developing Basic Skills Instructional Materials for Use with Microcomputer Technology, Educational Technology, 20: 10, pp. 7–12, October 1980.
22.
RoblyerM. D., When Is It “Good Courseware”? Problems in Developing Standards for Microcomputer Courseware, Educational Technology, 2: 10, pp. 47–54, October 1981.
23.
Nievergelt, A Pragmatic Introduction to Courseware Design, Computer, pp. 7–20, September 1980.
24.
DennisJ. R., A Teacher's Introduction to Educational Computing, The Illinois Series on Educational Application of Computers, College of Education, Department of Secondary Education, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1979.
25.
JeldenD., The Microcomputer as an Interactive Instruction System in the Classroom, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 194 710).
26.
Microcomputer Resource Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1980.
27.
KanskyB.HeckW., and JohnsonJ., Getting Hard-Nosed about Software: Guidelines for Evaluating Computerized Instructional Materials, The Mathematics Teacher, 74: 8, November 1981.
