Achievement Gains of Low-Achieving Students Using Computer-Assisted vs Regular Instruction

1998 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 834-834
Author(s):  
L. David Weller ◽  
Shawn Carpenter ◽  
C. Thomas Holmes

One school used computer-assisted instruction for 63 low-achieving students in Grade 5. Another school used traditional instruction for 48 low-achieving students in Grade 5. Higher posttest scores for the former were attributed to daily computer-assisted instruction.

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Koufogiannakis ◽  
Natasha Wiebe

Objective - The objective of this review was to assess which library instruction methods are most effective for improving the information skills of students at an introductory, undergraduate level, using cognitive outcomes (measuring changes in knowledge). The study sought to address the following questions: 1) What is the overall state of research on this topic? 2) Which teaching methods are more effective? Methods - Systematic review methodology was used. Fifteen databases were searched for relevant articles retrieving 4356 potentially relevant citations. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance. Of those, 257 full articles were considered in-depth using a predetermined inclusion/exclusion form. 122 unique studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent an extensive data extraction and critical appraisal process. 55 of these studies met author defined quality criteria to provide information on the effectiveness of different teaching methods. Of these, 16 studies provided sufficient information to enable meta-analyses using standardized mean difference to be undertaken. Results - The overwhelming majority of studies were conducted in the United States (88%). 79 studies (65%) used experimental or quasi-experimental research methods. Teaching methods used in the studies varied, with the majority focused on traditional methods of teaching, followed by computer assisted instruction, and self-directed independent learning. Studies measured outcomes that correlated with Bloom’s lower levels of learning (Remember, Understand, Apply). 16 studies compared traditional instruction with no instruction, and 12 found a positive outcome. Meta-analysis of the data from 4 of these studies agreed with the positive conclusions favouring traditional instruction. 14 studies compared computer assisted instruction with traditional instruction. 9 of these showed a neutral result, and meta-analysis of 8 of these studies agreed with this neutral result. 6 studies compared self-directed independent learning with no instruction, and meta-analysis of 5 of these agreed that the result was positive in favour of self-directed independent learning. Conclusions - Based on the results of this meta-analysis, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that computer assisted instruction is as effective as traditional instruction. Evidence also suggests that both traditional instruction and self-directed independent instruction are more effective than no instruction. Additional comparative research needs to be done across different teaching methods. Studies comparing active learning, computer assisted instruction, and self-directed independent learning would greatly enrich the research literature. Further studies utilizing appropriate methodologies and validated research tools would enrich our evidence base, and contribute to the growth of knowledge about effectiveness of particular teaching methods.


1993 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zemira R. Mevarech

The purpose of the present study was to examine the differential effects of cooperative and individualized computer-assisted instruction (C-CAI vs. I-CAI) on mathematics achievement, amount of invested mental effort (AIME), academic recognition, and social acceptance of high and low achieving students. Participants were third grade students ( N = 110) who were randomly assigned to either C-CAI or I-CAI settings. Results showed that while high achievers benefited equally well in C-CAI and I-CAI settings, low achievers tended to progress faster and to expend greater AIME in C-CAI than in I-CAI settings. In addition, the study showed that interpersonal relationships relating to both academic recognition and social acceptance were more positive in C-CAI then in I-CAI settings. The theoretical and empirical implications of the results are discussed.


1995 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire M. Fletcher-Flinn ◽  
Breon Gravatt

There has been a long-standing dispute about the efficacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI) with regard to the interpretation of effect size estimates in reviews using techniques of meta-analysis. It has been claimed that the data used to calculate these estimates come from studies which are methodologically flawed. The aim of this study was to provide an updated meta-analysis on the learning effect of (CAI) over a broad range of study features with particular attention focused on the effectiveness debate. Using standard procedures, the results and estimates were similar to previous reviews and showed a learning benefit for CAI. The mean effect size for CAI was (.24) for the years 1987–1992, with more recent studies showing an average of (.33). Although moderate, these estimates tended to raise the average student from at least the 50th and 60th percentile. However, studies which controlled for teacher and materials, and were of longer duration, and studies using pencil and paper equivalents of CAI showed no learning advantage over traditional forms of instruction. It is suggested that what accounts for the typical learning advantage of CAI in this meta-analysis and others is the better quality instruction provided by CAI materials. These materials seem versatile enough to be used effectively over a broad range of subjects and educational settings. While the materials did not seem to improve substantially over the past two decades as reflected by effect sizes, these estimates did not include the newer multimedia technology. It is concluded that educational approaches should be judged by a number of criteria including achievement gains and when this is done CAI may far surpass other forms of instruction.


1997 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Christmann ◽  
John Badgett ◽  
Robert Lucking

This meta-analysis compared the academic achievement of students in grades six through twelve who received either traditional instruction or traditional instruction supplemented with computer-assisted instruction (CAI) across eight curricular areas. From the forty-two conclusions, an overall mean effect size of 0.209 was calculated, indicating that, on average, students receiving traditional instruction supplemented with CAI attained higher academic achievement than did 58.2 percent of those receiving only traditional instruction. The comparative effectiveness of CAI may be seen in the following descending order mean effect sizes: science, 0.639; reading, 0.262; music, 0.230; special education, 0.214; social studies, 0.205; math, 0.179; vocational education, −0.080; and English, −0.420.


2009 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 853-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aynur Bütün Ayhan ◽  
Neriman Aral

Effects of a 15-wk. computer-assisted course or regular instruction on concept development by 6-yr.-old kindergarten children in Ankara ( M age of sample = 66.0 mo., SD = 4.6; M age of girls = 65.0 mo., SD = 4.4; M age of boys = 66.0 mo., SD = 4.5). Children were assigned to two groups of 40 (Experimental group: 18 girls and 22 boys; M girls' age = 65.3 mo., SD = 3.7, M boys' age = 67.1 mo., SD = 4.1; Control group: 21 girls, 19 boys, M girls' age = 64.9 mo., SD = 5.01, M boys' age = 66.7 mo., SD = 5.1). All were given the Bracken Basic Concept Scale–Revised and a general information form. Mean posttest scores in concept development for the group given computer-assisted training were statistically significantly higher.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document