Today, CAI lessons are being prepared mostly by educators alone or by computer professionals alone. Experience shows that while teachers alone or computer programmers alone can do the job, the resulting CAI lesson will not, on the average, be a very good product. This is reflected in the fact that the market today is full of inferior CAI products. This article considers the investigating of alternate methods and concludes that a team effort of experienced educators and highly skilled computer professionals is essential for the production of “better” CAI lessons. A model illustrating such a team effort for the development and production of high quality CAI material is presented and analyzed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FriedmanD., What Is Educational Computing?, Educational Computer, p. 33, December 1983.
2.
PoppJ., The Teachers Computers Will Replace, Educational Computer, pp. 24–35, July-August 1983.
3.
DouglassV. G., CAI in the Pocket, Senior Software Review, 2: 2, p. 73, June 1983.
4.
PriceR. V., Selecting Educational Computer Software, Educational Resources and Techniques, pp. 5, 7, Spring/Summer 1982.
5.
BraceyG. W., Computers in Education: What the Research Shows, Electronic Learning, November/December 1982.
6.
FisherG., Where CAI Is Effective: A Summary of the Report, Electronic Learning, pp. 82–84, November/December 1983.
7.
StarkweatherJ., A Common Language for a Variety of Programming Needs, Computer-Assisted Instruction—A Book of Readings, Academic Press, New York, 1969.
8.
WestromM., Summary and Current Status of NATAL-74, AEDS Journal, 10: 4, pp. 83–89, Fall 1977.
9.
BeebeT. H., How to Write Your Own Instruction Using A Computer Authoring System, Instructional Innovator, pp. 34–35, September 1983.
10.
GleasonG. T., Microcomputers in Education: The State of the Art, Educational Technology, p. 11, March 1981.
11.
BurkeR. V., If You're Thinking about Developing Your Own Software, Consider This …, Electronic Education, pp. 12, 37, December 1982.
12.
LewisR., Teachers, Pupils and Microcomputers, Technological Horizons in Education Journal, pp. 31–32, February 1983.
13.
WatsonD. M., A Model for the Production of CAL Material, Computers and Education, 7: 3, 1983.
14.
RoblyerM. D., The Case For and Against Teacher-Developed Microcomputer Courseware, Educational Technology, pp. 14–17, January 1983.
15.
KontosG., Authoring Quality Software for Education, Computer Education, February 1984.
16.
BakerF. T., Chief Programmer Team Management of Production Programming, IBM Systems Journal, 11: 1, pp. 56–73, January 1972.
17.
BohlM., Information Processing, 4th edition, SRA, Chapter 11, 1984.
18.
PrichardH.Jr., Instructional Computing in 2001: A Scenario, Phi Delta Kappan, 63: 5, pp. 322–325, 1982.
19.
CoatesB., Curriculum Development in CBL and the Impact on Teaching Styles and Methodology, Computers and Education, 41, 1982.
20.
WeldmanJ., The Future of Computers in Education: What Are the Right Questions?, T. H. E. Journal, pp. 147–148, September 1983.
