This study examined the effects of computer-based instruction (CBI) versus print-based instruction (PBI) on motivation, continuing motivation and content recall. A total of fifty-two 11th graders were randomly assigned to either a CBI group or a PBI group. The CBI and the PBI groups studied Lincoln's Decisions on the computer screen and in print text, respectively. After motivation and continuing motivation in both groups were measured with the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey, the immediate and delayed recall was measured with sixteen multiple-choice items. As expected, the results indicated that the CBI group showed significantly higher motivation and higher scores in the immediate recall over those of the PBI group, but the results of delayed recall were not significant between the two groups, and continuing motivation was difficult to interpret. These findings are discussed in terms of the motivational function of computers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WilliamsC. J. and BrownS. W., A Review of the Research Issues in the Use of Computer-Related Technologies for Instruction: What Do We Know, International Journal of Instructional Media, 17: 3, pp. 213–225, 1990.
2.
KulikJ. A. and KulikC-L. C., Review of Recent Research Literature on Computer-Based Instruction, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, pp. 222–230, 1987.
3.
KulikC-L. C. and KulikJ. A., Effectiveness of Computer-Based Instruction: An Updated Analysis, Computers in Human Behavior, 7, pp. 75–94, 1991.
4.
NiemiecR. and WalbergH. J., Comparative Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Synthesis of Reviews, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3: 1, pp. 19–37, 1987.
5.
HativaN., Computer-Based Drill and Practice in Arithmetic: Widening the Gap Between High- and Low-Achieving Students, American Educational Research Journal, 25, pp. 366–397, 1988.
6.
KulikJ. A.KulikC-L. C., and CohenP. A., Effectiveness of Computer-Based College Teaching: A Meta-Analysis of Findings, Review of Educational Research, 50, pp. 525–544, 1980.
7.
MagidsonE. M., Trends in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Educational Technology, 18: 4, pp. 55–63, 1978.
8.
TennysonR. D., Computer-Based Enhancements for the Improvement of Learning, ERIC reprint ED 285–522, pp. 22–34, 1987.
9.
HannafinM. J. and PeckK. L., The Design, Development, and Evaluation of Instructional Software, MacMillan, New York, 1988.
10.
ClarkR. E., Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, Review of Educational Research, 53, pp. 445–459, 1983.
11.
TasiS. and PohlN. F., Students Achievement in Computer Programming: Lecture vs. Computer-Aided Instruction, Journal of Experimental Education, 46: 2, pp. 66–70, 1978.
12.
ClarkR. E., Evidence for Confounding in Computer-Based Instruction Studies: Analyzing the Meta-Analyses, Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33, pp. 249–262, 1985.
13.
HativaN., CAI versus Paper and Pencil-Discrepancies in Students' Performance, Instructional Science, 17, pp. 77–96, 1988.
14.
BrownJ. W., Some Motivational Issues in Computer-Based Instruction, Educational Technology, 26: 4, pp. 27–29, 1986.
15.
SwensonR. P. and AndersonC., The Role of Motivation in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Creative Computing, 10, pp. 134–139, 1982.
16.
LepperM. R., Microcomputers in Education: Motivation and Social Issues, American Psychologist, 40, pp. 1–18, 1985.
17.
BrightG. W., Explaining the Efficiency of Computer-Assisted Instruction, AEDS Journal, 16: 3, pp. 144–153, 1983.
18.
BrophyJ., Teacher Praise: Functional Analysis, Review of Educational Research, 51, pp. 5–32, 1981.
19.
ClementF. J., Affective Considerations in Computer-Based Education, Educational Technology, 21: 10, pp. 28–32, 1981.
20.
KulikJ. A.BangertR. I., and WilliamsG. W., Effects of Computer-Based Teaching on Secondary School Students, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, pp. 19–26, 1983.
21.
WaldropP. B., Behavior Reinforcement Strategies for Computer-Assisted Instruction: Programming for Success, Educational Technology, 24: 9, pp. 38–41, 1984.
22.
HannafinM. J., Guidelines for Determining Locus of Instructional Control in the Design of Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Instructional Development, 7: 3, pp. 6–10, 1984.
23.
GoodT. L. and BrophyJ. E., Educational Psychology: A Realistic Approach, Longman, New York, 1986.
24.
MaehrM. L., Continuing Motivation: An Analysis of a Seldom-Considered Educational Outcome, Review of Educational Research, 46, pp. 443–462, 1976.
25.
MosleyM. D.HaasN. S., and StoryN. O., Computer-Assisted Instruction and Continuing Motivation, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, Texas, January 1984.
26.
SeymourS. L.SullivanH. J.StoryN. O., and MosleyM. L., Microcomputers and Continuing Motivation, ECTJ, 35, pp. 18–23, 1987.
KellerJ. M., Instructional Materials Motivation Survey, Unpublished Material, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1988.
29.
CohenJ., Statistical Power Analysis for Behavior Sciences (2nd Edition), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1988.
30.
DenceM., Toward Defining the Role of CAI: A Review, Educational Technology, 20: 11, pp. 50–54, 1980.
31.
Bangert-DrownsR. L.KulikJ. A., and KulikC-L. C., Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12: 3, pp. 59–68, 1985.
32.
AllenJ. R., Current Trends in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Computers in the Humanities, 7, pp. 47–55, 1972.
