This article examines the evolution of awareness regarding the importance of organizational characteristics on the success of CAI projects. A list of twelve organizational factors are described that institutions of higher education need to consider in planning CAI projects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The Fourth Revolution: Institutional Technology in Higher Education, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972.
2.
KulikJ.KulikC., and CohenP., Effectiveness of Computer-based College Teaching: A Meta-analysis of Findings, Review of Educational Research, 50: 4, pp. 525–544, 1980.
3.
HartigG., Implementing CAI in a University Learning Center, Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 11: 4, pp. 113–116, 1974.
4.
SchlossP.SchlossC., and CartwrightG., Efficacy of Four Ratios of Questions and Highlights to Text in Computer-assisted Instruction Modules, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11: 4, pp. 103–106, 1984.
5.
SeidelR. and WagnerH., Management, in Computer-Based Instruction: A State-of-the-Art Assessment, O'NeilH.Jr. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1981.
6.
BundersonC. V., Justifying CAI in Mainline Instruction, paper presented at the National Science Foundation Conference on Computers in the Undergraduate Curriculum, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1970.
7.
LykosP., The Computer in Higher Education: A Position Based on Personal Experience, in Computers in Instruction: Their Future for Higher Education, LevienR. (ed.), The Rand Corporation and the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Washington, DC, 1971.
8.
PoundsW., How Will Higher Education Be Affected by the Use of Computers? in Computers in Instruction: Their Future for Higher Education, LevienR. (ed.), The Rand Corporation and the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Washington, DC, 1971.
9.
LevienR. (ed.), Computers in Instruction: Their Future for Higher Education, The Rand Corporation and the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Washington, DC, 1971.
10.
BorkA., Learning With Computers—Today and Tomorrow, in Computers in Education, LecarmeO. and LewisR. (eds.), North-Holland Publishing Company, New York, 1975.
11.
AllenM., Computer Managed Instruction: A Definitive Design, in Computers in Education, LecarmeO. and LewisR. (eds.), North-Holland Publishing Company, New York, 1975.
12.
LeiblumM., Factors Sometimes Overlooked and Underestimated in the Selection and Success of CAL as an Instructional Medium, in Computers in Education, LewisR. and TaggD. (eds.), North-Holland Publishing Company, New York, pp. 277–283, 1981.
13.
HolmesG., Computer-assisted Instruction: A Discussion of Some of the Issues for Would-Be Implementors. Educational Technology22, pp. 7–13, 1982.
14.
SinclairA. and DennisJ., Computer-based Education in a Developing University in a Developing Community—A Cursory Overview. AEDS Moniter20, pp. 17–21, 1982.
15.
RussellW., Stages of Computer-assisted Instruction in Improving University Teaching. In Vol. III of the contributed papers from the International Conference on Computers in Education, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 676–684, 1983.
16.
NolanR., Managing the Crisis in Data Processing. Harvard Business Review17, pp. 115–126, 1979.
17.
NelsonR. and ErwinT. D., An Evaluation of the PLATO Pilot Project at Texas A&M University (Tech. Rep. No. 23). College Station, Texas: Measurement and Research Services, Texas A&M University, 1984.
18.
HollanderP., An Introduction to Legal and Ethical Issues Relating to Computers in Higher Education. Journal of College and University Law11, pp. 215–232, 1984.
