differential branching to other segments of instruction or to drill-and-practice routines. Although this basic behavioral model continues to dominate mainstream educational applications of computers such as integrated learning systems( Bailey, 1992), interactivity in some of today’ s most innovative applications, such as constructivist learning environments( Wilson, 1996), is based upon advances in cognitive psychology and constructivist pedagogy( Coley et al., 1997)( see Section Three of this report).
Research Results
The good news is that even with a primarily behavioral pedagogy, computers as tutors have positive effects on learning as measured by standardized achievement tests, are more motivating for students, are accepted by more teachers than other technologies, and are widely supported by administrators, parents, politicians, and the public in general( Coley et al., 1997; President ' s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, 1997). These conclusions about the effectiveness of computers in classrooms in the USA are in agreement with the conclusions of similar reports in Australia( Directorate of School Education, 1994), Canada( Bracewell & Laferriére, 1996), and the United Kingdom( Department for Education and Employment, 1996, 1997). Regrettably, the impacts of CBI in countries such as Brazil( Chaves, 1993), Chile( Oteiza, 1993), China( Makrakis & Yuan-tu, 1993), and Malaysia( Shahdan, 1993) are less clear.
Meta-analyses of research examining the effectiveness of computers in schools have illuminated their advantages and limitations( Kulik & Kulik, 1987, 1991). Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure that allows researchers to synthesize the results of numerous research studies comparing different treatments( e. g., CBI versus teacher-centered instruction) by reducing the results to a common“ effect size”( Hunt, 1997). Although some proponents of computer-based instruction have promised a 2.0 effect size( representing an improvement of two standard deviations between CBI and traditional instruction), a more reasonable expectation is in the range of 0.5 to 1.0. The results of meta-analyses for computer-based instruction show an interesting pattern, as illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1. Effect sizes for CBI computed from meta-analysis studies. Academic Level Effect Size Source Elementary School 0.47( Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1985) Secondary School 0.36( Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik, 1985) College and University 0.26( Kulik & Kulik, 1986) Adult Basic Education 0.42( Kulik, Kulik, & Schwab, 1986)
As indicated in Table 1, the effectiveness of CBI over traditional teacher-centered instructional methods appears to decline as the level of education increases with
11