Bennett Susan MP

CAI Effect on Rural Algebra I Students 1
THE EFFECTS OF COMPUTER ASSISTED INSTRUCTION ON RURAL ALGEBRA I

STUDENTS
by
Susan M. Bennett
SUBMITTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION
AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
July 29, 2012
APPROVED BY: _____________________________
Dr. Frances O’Neill

July 29, 2012
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................4
Chapter I: Introduction ...........................................................................................................5
Statement of Problem .................................................................................................6
Research Question .....................................................................................................7
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................7
Chapter II: Review of Literature ............................................................................................9
History of Integration of Computers and Computer Assisted
Instruction into Education…………………………………………….……………9
Design Considerations ...............................................................................................10
Implementation ..........................................................................................................11
Impact on Learning ....................................................................................................11
Teacher Involvement .................................................................................................15
Critics of Computer Assisted Learning......................................................................16
Case Studies ...............................................................................................................18
Plato as a CAI ................................................................................................18
Renaissance Learning Systems ......................................................................19
Kentucky implements CAI in Rural Schools .................................................20
CAI Impact on Learning and Attitude About Mathematics...........................22
Louisiana Algebra I Online Project ...............................................................23
Chapter III: Results and Analysis Relative to the Problem ...................................................26
Chapter IV: Recommendations and Conclusion ....................................................................27
Recommendation .......................................................................................................27
Areas for Further Research ........................................................................................28
Summary and Conclusion ..........................................................................................28
References ........................................................................................................................30
Abstract
The purpose of this review of literature was to describe the effects of computer-assisted
instruction on rural high school students taking algebra courses. Michigan has a high
population of students in rural communities and strategies need to be implemented to
increase the probability of success for these students to learn algebra content. The literature
reviewed included studies utilizing meta-analysis of computer-assisted instruction in
different learning environments, with a focus on Algebra I students in rural settings. Results
and conclusions from the studies indicated computer-assisted instruction may be beneficial
for rural algebra students and may provide an equitable education compared to students in
other settings. Recommendations for improving the effectiveness of computer-assisted
instruction include providing teachers with professional development, encouraging
interaction in classes incorporating computer-assisted instruction, providing students with
suitable technology, and selecting students with skills to work independently.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Approximately 29% of Michigan high school taking the 2012 Michigan Merit Exam
(MME) earned a passing score in mathematics, a 3.4% increase from 2008. Of these same high
school students, only 33% were considered ready for a college mathematics based on the ACT’s
College Readiness Standards and only 17.7% of all graduating seniors were considered college
ready in all subject areas. Then take into account that just 74.3% of Michigan students are
graduating in four years and the dropout rate is 11.1%. With all of these statistics, it appears that
Michigan high students are leaving school with without the necessary background knowledge
recommended to be successful in tomorrow’s workforce.
Michigan’s elementary children are not faring much better before entering high school. In
third grade only 36% were considered proficient in mathematics, fourth and fifth, 40%
proficient, and in eighth grade, 29% proficient on the 2012 Michigan Education Assessment
Program (MEAP) test. This suggests that 60-70% of students are progressing into a new grade
level with less than adequate skills (www.michigan.gov).
Michigan has been trying to raise the mathematical literacy of students in K-12 for many
years. In 2004, Michigan released K-8 Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCE) in response
to No Child Left Behind (NCLB). These expectations were a guiding force in development of
MEAP tests for students in kindergarten through eighth grade. The year 2009 brought about
more changes when the Michigan Department of Education, with assistance from Michigan
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, reorganized mathematics expectations to correlate with the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 2006 Focal Points. The goal was to help teachers
focus instruction, make MEAP tests a reasonable length, and still assess key concepts
(www.michigan.gov).
That same year, Michigan signed into law new high school graduation requirements,
known as the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) to support the intent of NCLB and help
students increase their knowledge base in core content areas. The educational goals for these
courses became known as the High School Content Expectations (HSCE) and Michigan
instituted a new testing recommendation that high school students demonstrate mastery on end-
of-course assessments in core subjects: language arts, mathematics, science and social studies
(www.michigan.gov). From these initiatives, it was anticipated there would be an increase in
MME and ACT scores, which did occur. Over a five year span, 2006 - 2011, the average ACT
composite score rose from 18.6 to 19.7 and the percentage of students achieving a proficient
level on the MME increased 2.6% (www.mischooldata.org).
In June of 2006, the Common Core Standards (CCS) were released by the National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) for Mathematics and English Language Arts. Michigan adopted the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010 for students in grades K-12 and since then, the
State of Michigan has been modifying the K-8 GLCEs and HSCEs to reflect the CCSS. Testing
for these new standards is expected to take place in Spring 2015.
Statement of the Problem
Over the last several years, Michigan’s educational system has been in a constant state
of change, moving from the Benchmarks and Standards to the Grade Level and High School
Content Expectations and now, the Common Core Standards. Not only has the content become
more rigorous and standardized, but the achievement level has also been raised for students.
Mathematics and English Language Arts are the two content areas under the most
scrutiny in this transformation. Of these two, for many students mathematics is intimidating,
challenging, and confusing. For these reasons mathematic educators have a daunting task to
assist their students in comprehending the content using a method of delivery that research
supports as an effective technique. These same teachers also have to find ways to overcome
students’ phobias and negative attitudes about math, both of which can hinder a child’s success
in the mathematics classroom. With one of the largest populations of rural students in the nation
accounting for 19.8% of the students and more than twice the amount of the median number of
rural students in the nation (Rural School and Community Trust, 2012), Michigan must find a
way to address the needs of these students too.
Research Question
What are the differences in comprehension of algebraic concepts and rural high school
students’ attitudes towards mathematics between algebra instruction through an online learning
environment and a traditional teacher-led classroom?
Definition of Terms
Computer-assisted instruction.
The use of computers as an educational tool has continued to grow rapidly as a new way
to teach. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is an instructional method that has been
developing for over 40 years (Liao, 2004). This idiom equates with other modern terms such as
computer-based instruction (CBI) (Hannafin & Foshay, 2006), computer-based learning
environment (CBLE) (Moos & Azevedo, 2009), or computer-aided learning (CAL) (Santally,
Boojawon, & Senteni, 2004). CAI, “defined as the use of a computer to provide instructional
contents” (Seo & Bryant, 2009), allows for interaction between user and computer with
immediate feedback. Some CAI programs adjust for student’s ability levels and others limit
advancement until skill mastery is achieved. Instruction may involve using stand-alone software
or more advanced applications that deliver an entire course. Some situations involve a blended
model, incorporating face-to-face instruction, referred to as teacher directed, and CAI (Graham,
2005). Regardless of delivery method, CAI is a means to mesh technology and learning. This
paper will look at CAI as an instructional method to increase students’ learning and test scores
on assessments for students taking algebra courses.
Rural
As defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, rural refers to the county or agriculture,
not urban (www.merriam-webster.com). In reality, this term is much more complicated to
define; for years, even the U.S. Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) could not agree on a definition (www.hrsa.gov). The inability to clearly define rural has
hindered educational research as well as how to award state and federal funding for education
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010). The National Center for Education Statistics along
with the U.S. Census Bureau and the OMB and decided in 2006 to work together to develop a
three part definition that better fit the needs of schools and education (http://nces.ed.gov).
Rural
Fringe
Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an
urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from
an urban cluster.
Distant
Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or equal to
25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5
miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster.
Remote
Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area
and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster. (www.whitehouse.gov)
Chapter 2 - Literature Review
The purpose of this literature review is to look at an overview of the introduction of CAI
into education and the impact of CAI has on learning and more specifically, on students learning
in algebra in rural schools.
History of Integration of Computers and Computer Assisted Instruction into Education
The idea of using technology to enhance education has been around for a long time.
Back in 1928, courses began being offered through radio. These classes were for enrichment or
credit and were centered in Ohio and Wisconsin (Clark, 2003). With the introduction of
television, in 1932 the University of Iowa began experimenting with offering classes using this
technology. Several years later in 1944 computers made their first appearance with the invention
of the MARK I; a large mainframe used primarily in perform math and science calculations.
Using television as an educational tool slowly began to grow and in the 1950s, seventeen
educational programs started using television as a way to reach their students and twenty-two
years later there were at least 233 educational stations. Throughout this time period, computers
began to filter more into the education world and in 1959 at the University of Illinois the first
large scale use of a computer assisted instruction (CAI) system, PLATO, was introduced
(Molnar, 1997).
Technology transitioned in the early seventies and universities began installing
microwave networks to create close-captioned classes for students at remote locations. CAI
systems continued to be developed throughout this time period, but lessons were dull and
uninspired (Minoli, 1996) and 50% to 60% of the material in the lessons was extraneous
(Saettler, 2004, p. 403-406). For this reason, even through the eighties, about 95% of public
television stations and one third of universities continued to offer distance learning courses
through the Adult Learning Service (ALS) using television. Still, the use of computers continued
to grow and by 1975, 23% of schools were using them for educational purposes and 55% of
schools at least had access to them (Molnar, 1997).
It was not until the nineties, when computers took on a newer, more efficient structure,
became faster and more multifunctional (Harting & Erthal, 2005), did society really began to
consider their potential in education. During this period, schools purchased around two million
computers, resulting in almost 100% of educational institutions using this technology in their
buildings (Cotton, 1991). Out of need, the Virtual High School Global Consortium was created
in 1996, and by 2009 over 1,000,000 students were enrolled in at least one online class.
(Picciano, Seaman, Shea, & Swan, 2012). By the beginning of the twenty-first century,
computers were fully implemented into schools and being utilized in a variety of ways.
Design Considerations
Development of CAI software needs to take into account many factors. One factor,
control over pacing of lessons, known as interactivity effect was suggested by Park, Gyumin, and
Kim (2009). By allowing students to proceed at their own pace, more comprehension was able
to take place (Park, Gyumin, & Kim, 2009; Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000). Another
component, worked out examples, contributed to more effective learning too (Park, Gyumin &
Kim, 2009; Martin & Sullivan 2006). Higher test scores were achieved by students with worked
out examples than students using the same application minus worked out examples (Martin &
Sullivan 2006). CAI software needs to provide different levels of interactivity: low, self-pacing
and student control over pages and high, hypothesizing and testing by multiple interactions.
In a study involving seventy-two fifth grade students in Korea, higher learning efficiency
and low cognitive load were observed with students having high prior knowledge using software
with high interactivity. Students having low prior knowledge using software with low
interactivity also exhibited higher learning efficiency and low cognitive load. In addition,
students with low prior knowledge scored better on tests with low interactivity and students with
high prior knowledge scored better on tests with high interactivity (Park, Gyumin, & Kim, 2009;
Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000).
Humans can only accommodate seven pieces of information (plus or minus two) at a time
(Miller, 1956). This concept is commonly referred to as chunking and is another important
consideration in the design of CAI. Chunking facilitates learning by allowing time for students to
process information and reduces cognitive load (Park, Gyumin, & Kim, 2009; Chalmers, 2003;
Hung, Monsicha, & Crooks, 2008). When more than seven pieces of information are presented
at a time, CAI users can get overwhelmed and forget what they are trying to learn.
Nine key components of effective CAI design were identified by Crew (2004): (1)
seamless integration, (2) sequenced and directed learning objectives, (3) practice, (4) assessment,
(5) feedback, (6) support for learning, (7) focused cognitive effort, (8) personalization, and (9)
learner oriented. Screen design also needs to be a concern along with factors such as spatial
layout, organization, color, simplicity and brightness to make successful CAI programs
(Chalmers, 2003; Rambally & Rambally, 1987).
Implementation
The latest statistics from the 2012 Building a Grad Nation: Progress and Challenge in
Ending the High School Dropout Epidemic state that 75% of our nation’s students are graduating
from high school, an increase of 3.5% from 2001 to 2009. However, the other side of this
statistic is that one in four students in the United States are dropping out of school. With
implementation of NCLB and almost all states adopting the CCSS, a graduation rate of 82% is
projected for 2014 and a method to help reach that goal is CAI. One way CAI is being utilized is
response to intervention (RTI), a tiered approach to maximize students’ learning
(www.rti4success.org). CAI helps struggling students by providing individualized instruction
that adjusts to new levels as mastery occurs. Another use is for remediation. Students needing
reinforcement on specific benchmarks or standards can use CAI to build their skills and
knowledge. CAI is also a way to assist students in credit recovery. The course can be worked at
anytime, so work can be completed without a student falling farther behind in their current
studies. A relatively new application is arising for students who are involved in Seat Time
Waiver programs. This new philosophy allows students to creatively schedule their education
and allow for options not available as part of a traditional school day. Students choose when and
where learning is convenient. Another application, perhaps a more predominate use, is that CAI
is being incorporated into the general education classroom as a means of deepening and
expanding students’ understanding of the material or as stand-alone classes. Lastly, CAI is being
implemented into rural schools to expand current offerings for students and to provide core
curriculum classes when unavailable due to local issues.
Impact on Learning
A goal of education is to help students learn and to measure this learning, assessments are
commonly used. Several studies have been done to determine if a relationship exists between
CAI and learning (test scores) and long term retention. One such study involved 11 and 12 year
old students using an interactive algebra program (Thomas & Tall, 2005). One year after
completing the study, both experimental and control groups were retested using the original
posttest. Students who used CAI scored significantly higher than students in the control group
supporting other research studies (Barrow & Markman, 2009; Burch & Kuo, 2010). Conflicting
evidence has been presented in other studies that students who used CAI either had no significant
difference in posttest scores or scored lower than students receiving traditional lessons (Linden,
2008; Santally, Boojawon, & Senteni, 2004) and no significant difference in long term retention
was determined (Cannon, 2005).
Research conducted with 12 and 13 year old children by Thomas and Tall (2005)
involved fifty-seven matched pairs of students in mixed ability classes were split into two
groups. The experimental group completed a dynamic algebra module and the control group
learned by teacher directed instruction. Students in the control group scored higher on skill-based
questions, while students using CAI scored better on higher level thinking questions. The impact
of interactive CAI on higher level thinking has been supported in other research (Wenglinsky,
1998). In one study involving 33 college students, both control and experimental groups had
similar mean test scores, but students working with interactive CAI scored higher on tests
involving transfer of concepts (Evans & Gibbons, 2007). A different experiment split 115 third-
grade students into two groups to learn about fire safety (Chaung & Chen, 2009). The control
group was exposed to text-based instruction on a computer, while the experimental group played
a real time computer game with identical information. While no significant difference was
observed on matching questions between experimental and control groups on the posttest, the
experimental group scored significantly higher on multiple choice and application questions.
Raised cognitive levels appeared to be a result of CAI with high interactivity in the form of a
computer game (Chaung & Chen, 2009; Squire, DeVane, & Durga, 2008). Regardless of age or
education level, high interaction between user and computer seems to increase differentiation
and recall, promote problem solving skills, enhance comprehension and encourage higher level
cognitive thinking (Chaung & Chen, 2009).

A meta-analysis on CAI was done by noted researchers, Kulik and Kulik (1991). For this
meta-analysis, 254 studies were evaluated to insure each fit four criteria: (1) each study had to
have taken place in a real classroom, (2) both control and experimental groups had to have been
evaluated using the same quantitative measure, (3) no methodological flaws could be apparent,
and (4) the studies had to be obtainable from select sources. The studies involved a wide range of
learners, from kindergarten to adult, and were organized into similar groups; effect sizes for each
group were analyzed. Students using CAI (referred to as CBI in this study) had assessments
scores increase from the 50th to the 62nd percentile or typically by about 0.30 standard
deviations. Another positive aspect found was CAI users used one-third less instruction time
compared to students not exposed to CAI. Duration of use also had an effect on test scores.
Students working with CAI four weeks or less had a standard deviation of 0.42, while extended
use lowered the standard deviation to 0.26. A meta-analysis by Liao (2004) done 13 years later
involving 52 studies of Taiwanese students found comparable results. The average mean of
study-weighed effect size was 0.552 for approximately 5000 students with 81% of the studies
showing positive effects of CAI use.
In addition to improved test scores and learning, CAI has impacted students in
unexpected ways. Users of CAI demonstrated increased computer self-efficacy, an individual’s
perception of their computer skills and knowledge (Moos & Azevedo, 2009; Chapman, 2000),
raised self-regulatory skills (Shen, Lee, & Tsai, 2008) and increased motivation (Macaruso,
Hook, & McCabe, 2006; Hannafin & Foshay, 2006; Santally, Boojawon, & Senteni, 2004).
Mathematics is considered the most difficult subject to learn out of all core classes. Some
think this is because math is not considered natural or intuitive , so any method to make learning
mathematics less intimidating would result in students’ learning more material (Aliasgari, 2010).
CAI has helped accomplish by promoting higher level thinking skills (Wenglinsky, 1998),
making math less of a memorization task, especially with regard to formulas (Hale, 1985),
developing links between abstract and non-abstract concepts (Lei, Joon, & Shaffer, 2003) , and
even more so for high school students than elementary (Wenglinsky, 1998). Even adding
multimedia to CAI has proven to have a positive impact on learning mathematics and problem
solving skills for high school students (Shyu, 2000; Chuang & Chen, 2009).
Some benefits of CAI show up in students’ attitudes towards learning math, even when
no differences can be found in academic achievement. Four high schools participated in a study
to see if students using a CAI, Learning Logic, would have better scores the following year in
Algebra II as compared to students taught in a traditional class setting. A total of 233 students
participated, but no correlation was found in academic achievement from Algebra I to Algebra II
between students that used CAI and the control group. However, all students that used Learning
Logic enrolled in Algebra II, but not all students taught using traditional methods, suggesting
CAI gave students a more positive outlook about algebra (Carter & Smith, 2002).
Teacher Involvement
Teachers have an impact on the effectiveness of CAI on students learning content in the
classroom. Solely using technology as a tool to deliver information will “not influence student
achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes change in nutrition”
(Clark, 1983). “Yet, our nutrition can be damaged by a bad choice in delivery methods (Li &
Ma, 2010).” To be effective teachers, educators must use research to understand the link
between technology and how students learn mathematics. (Ozel, Yetkiner, & Capraro, 2008).
Wenglinksky (1998) found a positive relationship between student achievement in mathematics
and the amount of professional development teachers received centered on incorporating

technology into the mathematics classroom to increase higher level thinking skills. Not only does
professional development need to be available, but teachers need to be active participants to
make CAI effective for their students (Cavalluzzo, Lowther, Mokher, & Fan, 2012)
Connell (1998) conducted a study over a period over one year in two rural elementary
classes. The traditional teacher centered class used technology solely as a presentation tool,
while the student centered classroom used technology to encourage math exploration. Both
classes scored higher than other students in their school and state. However, students using
technology as an exploration tool, scored significantly higher than the class using technology as
a presentation tool. This idea was supported in a meta-analysis done by Li and Ma (2010) in
which 85 independent effect sizes were analyzed from 46 studies. A positive correlation (0.79
standard deviations) was found between using computer technology as a learning tool to teach
mathematics as opposed to a presentation tool. Haas (2005) conducted a meta-analysis to
determine the effect of integrating technology into algebra classrooms and found a strong effect
size of 1.42 for advanced algebra students and a smaller one of 0.63 for algebra students. The
meta-analysis included 35 studies at the secondary level between 1980 and 2002 with a focus on
students taking algebra. In the study, six different teaching methods were scrutinized.
Technology as a stand-alone tool was the least effective of all methods, but the effectiveness
increased when combined with direct teacher instruction
Critics of CAI
Not all people concur with studies attributing higher test scores and acquisition of higher
level thinking skills to CAI. William Rukeyser, founder of Learning in the Real World, an
organization that examines “the costs and benefits of education technology”
(www.realworld.org), and writers Jane M. Healy and Todd Oppenheimer are critics of CAI. All
three believe educators are putting too much emphasis on computers resulting in unbalanced
education for children (Chapman, 2000). Critics attribute some success of CAI to the Hawthorne
Effect: students do better when using computers because of increased attention. Another shared
concern is that computers drain financial resources from other aspects of education, such as
highly qualified teachers or availability of elective courses. A fear that students will develop
short attention spans, devalue books, and have imposed boundaries on inquiry has also been
voiced (Chapman, 2000). The U.S. Department of Education sponsored the 2008 Final Report of
the National Mathematics Advisor Panel. In this report, writers suggested insufficient research
has been done to determine if CAI has had a conclusive impact on students’ learning.
Wenglinksy (1998) stated three concerns expressed by critics in the report Does It
Compute? The Relationship Between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in
Mathematics. First, historically teachers have been resistant to change, especially with regards to
technology. Critics acknowledge that CAI could benefit students, just as any other teaching
strategy, but if teachers are unwilling to use technology, then it is worthless (Cuban, 2003; Li &
Ma, 2004; Brown, 2006). Secondly, the cost of implementing computers in a school outweighs
the effect CAI might have on a student’s learning. Lastly, students do not learn by exposure to
content alone, but also by the dynamic socialization between teacher – student and student –
student interactions. These same ideas were mirrored fifteen years later in Andrew J.
Rotherham’s 2012 editorial Can Computers Replace Teachers? (http://ideas.time.com/2012).
Rotherham summarized his views with, “American education desperately needs an overhaul that
goes far beyond upgrading computers in the classroom. It’s the last major American field
relatively untouched by technology.”

Samuel G. Sava, past director of the National Association of Elementary Principals
(NAESP), presented a speech in 1997 to the NAESP State Leaders Conference. He made a
strong argument against CAI by pointing out that of the seven countries scoring higher than
U.S.A on the Third International Math and Science Study, five seldom, if ever, used computers,
and yet, even with CAI available, American children are still behind in math and science.
Case Studies
Plato as a CAI
A case study to determine the effects of Plato, a CAI (referred to as CBI in this study),
on students’ performance on an end-of-year state assessment was conducted by Hannafin and
Foshay (2006). The participating high school had test scores second to last out of 16 regional
schools. Goals were set to increase the number of students passing the state test.
In 1999, teachers were instructed in curriculum alignment, standards-based instruction,
and strategies to help low achievers. The following year, 87 tenth graders identified as high risk
were enrolled in a class that incorporated Plato as the instructional device; 39 students were not
classified as high risk and were included in the non-CAI group. Only students having both eighth
and tenth grade state assessments in their file were included in the study. High risk students had
an average score of 215.7 and non-CAI students had an average of 234.2 on eighth grade state
assessments; scores below 220 were considered failing.
The study started in fall of 2000. High risk students used Plato four class periods a week
and received study skill instruction for one class period. The study cumulated with all
participants taking end-of-year state assessments in math and reading in May of 2001. Test
scores showed both groups had significant increases in learning. At risk students had an average
of 234.2 while non-CAI students, 245.4. CAI students had a size effect of 1.27, which translated
to a gain score of 20.4 on the state test as opposed to a gain score of only 11.2 for non-CAI users.
The teacher directly involve with the high risk students felt Plato was a key component to the
success of the students involved.
Hannafin and Foshay concluded that higher test scores most likely could not be attributed
only to CAI, but CAI was a large contributing factor. Teacher direction, remediation, and the
Hawthorne Effect may all have played a roll in the results.
Renaissance Learning Systems
A second case study looked at a different approach to CAI, a blended model. In attempt
to raise scores on the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) test, two Arizona high
schools implemented a blended model approach incorporating Accelerate Math by Renaissance
Learning Systems and individualized tutoring (Springer, Pugalee, & Algozzine, 2007). A passing
score on AIMS is required for students to graduate and in 2006 only 39% of Arizona’s 10th
grade students had passed.
Accelerated Math is a CAI that provides customized worksheets based on a student’s
skill levels. For this study, a team from participating schools and Renaissance Learning worked
together to insure core standards were incorporated into the software. Students were required to
complete multiple choice problem sets by means of paper and pencil and then scan answers into
a computer; immediate feedback was printed out for students. To progress, 80% mastery was
required on a skill level and students had to achieve 75% mastery on periodic review problem
sets. Instructors and tutors were available to provide assistance, but help was automatically
provided if a student failed to master a problem set after three attempts.
Twenty-eight eleventh grade students, who failed the AIMS mathematics competency
test, were paired based on AIMS test scores earned as tenth graders. Control and experimental
groups were each randomly assigned 14 students. For one school year, the experimental group
experienced CAI in a blended model approach for five class periods a week. Control group
students received regular supplementary instruction. Two weeks before students retook AIMS,
both groups received identical systematic review.
Using AIMS as pretest and posttest, students participating in the experimental group had
a significant increase (t = -6.46) from pretest to posttest; the control group did not (t = -1.39). In
a comparison of posttest scores for both groups, an effect size of 0.88 – 1.00 was found towards
the experimental group. Using simple percentages, a more straightforward impact of using CAI
in the blended approach could be seen. Only 14 % of the control group passed AIMS while 57%
of the experimental group passed.
Another interesting part of this study was that both experimental and control were given
incentives to participate and pass AIMS. Before the study started, volunteers were offered the
privilege of leaving campus one day a week at lunch time, something normally reserved for
seniors. Two days before AIMS was administered, students were informed that each would
receive $50 if a passing score was earned.
Kentucky implements CAI in Rural Schools
In Kentucky, 47 schools volunteered to participate in a two year study to determine the
effects of CAI on ninth grade Algebra I students; 13 treatment schools and 12 control schools
participated the first year and 11 of each in the second (Cavalluzzo, Lowther, Mokher, & Fan,
2012). Thirty of these schools were in rural communities accounting for 61.4% of the total 6098
students participating. Low performance schools were targeted where a maximum of 60% of
students were considered proficient in math.

Schools were randomly assigned as either a treatment school or control, but classes were
not mixed within a school. All teachers in treatment schools were offered professional
development targeting algebra content and blended classroom instruction the summer before
CAI was implemented as well as throughout the school year. Classroom instruction in treatment
schools consisted of 60% teacher directed and 40% online using an Algebra I program provided
by Kentucky Virtual High school. Students’ scores on the Grade 8 Kentucky Core Content Test
and the pre-algebra/algebra strands of the ACT’s EXPLORE test given in eighth grade were used
as baseline measures. The pre-algebra/algebra strands of the ACT’s PLAN test was used as a
posttest. Teachers were also asked to complete a questionnaire in the spring detailing their
perceptions of students’ learning during the school year. The questionnaires were identical
except for modified terminology reflecting a teacher’s use of CAI or traditional teaching. In
addition, attempts were made to observe each teacher in the study for at least one hour using the
School Observation Measure and the Algebra I Quality Assessment as observation tools.
Analysis of results from the two year study indicated that using CAI in a blended
classroom did not impact rural (difference of -0.01 scale points) students any more or less than
non-rural (difference -0.74 scale points) students (p = 0.07). There was also no significant
difference between rural (probability of control group, 0.88; treatment group, 0.90) and non-rural
(probability of control group, 0.82; treatment group, 0.81) students with respect to enrollment in
a tenth grade or higher math course; 86% of both groups enrolled. Considering all students in
the study, based on a 95% confidence interval using a two-tailed test, neither the treatment group
nor the control group scored significantly better on the pre-algebra/algebra scores of the PLAN
test or in regards to enrolling in a math course in grade ten.
From this study, Cavalluzzo, Lowther, Mokhe and Fan concluded that CAI had neither a
positive nor negative effect on math achievement in Algebra I or on students’ attitudes concerning
future math courses. Even when they examined different subgroups in the study, gender, enrollment
cohort, and rurality, they found no significant impact of CAI. Several factors may have influenced
the results of this study. Approximately one-third of teachers (20 out of 63) in the treatment
group either did not attend any of the offered professional development, use the online learning
component in class or their school withdrew from the study. Of teachers participating for the
entire study, less than 50% attended professional development on a fairly regular basis and of
those, 20% to 30% were considered minimally engaged. Another contributing factor was that
65% of students assigned to schools using CAI study either did not use the Kentucky Virtual
Schools’ online Algebra I component or used the CAI program on an infrequent basis.
CAI Impact on Learning and Attitude About Mathematics
Aliasgari, Riahinia and Mojdehavar (2010) conducted a study to determine if CAI had an
effect on the attitudes and learning of high school students studying mathematics. Two schools
were randomly chosen from a selection of five in the city where the study took place; both
schools had similar socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. A classroom of 23 students
was designated as the control group in one school and a class of 27 students in the other school
as the test group. The study took place towards the end of the school year so students could not
be randomly assigned since classrooms had already been established.
Over a four week period, the test and control groups covered identical content. The
control group was taught using traditional teacher centered instruction and the test group used
CAI with support from the teacher as needed by students. The CAI was a software program
provided by the Department of Educational Technology that allowed students to direct their
learning.
The same ten question pre-test and post-test, developed by the teachers, was given to
students to assess mathematics content knowledge. The test was determined reliable based on
Spearman-Brown formula (reliability of 0.74). A pre-test and post-test was also given to
evaluate students’ attitudes about math with a reliability of 0.82 determined by Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient. The twenty question test used a Likert scale, with five questions having possible
negative response values.
On the math content pre-test, both groups demonstrated no knowledge of the material,
but on the post-test, a t-test was performed on the difference of the mean scores and a t value of
3.41 (p = 0.002) showed a significant difference in favor of the test group. The control and test
groups did not score significantly different on the pre-test (t = 1.356) concerning attitude towards
mathematics, however on the post-test, a calculated t value of 9.472 showed the test group had a
significant positive change about their feelings towards mathematics.
The authors of this experiment concluded that CAI could be beneficial in improving
students’ content knowledge and attitude towards math over teacher directed instruction. Even
though the experiment was limited in scope, it did support other research studies identifying CAI
as a positive influence of learning mathematics.
Louisiana Algebra I Online Project
Faced with the problem of not enough highly qualified mathematics teachers in rural
communities, Louisiana instituted a quasi-experiment (O’Dwyer, Carey, & Kleiman, 2007).
The goal of the experiment was to determine if students taking an online Algebra I course could
receive the same quality of education as students in a teacher directed classroom. The
experiment, known as the Louisiana Algebra I Online project, was designed to provide students
with access to a highly qualified teacher at a remote site and a teacher not qualified to teach math
in the classroom. In addition, the highly qualified teacher mentored the classroom teacher on a
regular basis. Online teachers were expected to carry out all of the normal duties of a classroom
teacher while the local teachers’ duties consisted of classroom management, proctoring
assessments, assisting students and working closely with the highly qualified teacher. The
National Council of Teachers and Louisiana’s benchmarks and standards were used to align the
course, which was delivered through the Louisiana Virtual School. Both the classes using CAI
and those receiving direct teacher instructions used the same textbooks and content material.
Teachers in the control group were not asked to alter their teaching methods in any way.
Schools qualified for the experiment by demonstrating a shortage of highly qualified
mathematics teachers, showing the school was set in a rural community, and the desire to
provide professional development for teachers interesting in becoming highly qualified in
mathematics.
For the one year quasi-experiment, six school districts and two private schools
participated and within these, eighteen classrooms were designated as treatment classes.
Students in each class met at the same time each day and were provided with the necessary
technology for taking a class online. Students with good communication skills and thought to
have the ability to work independently along with taking algebra for the first time, were chosen
for the study. From the treatment classes, 231 students completed the entire study, and from the
control classes, 232 students.
All students took a 25 question, multiple choice pre-test to evaluate math skills and
comprehension; the test had a reliability of 0.70 based on Cronbach’s alpha estimate. The post-
test had a Cronbach’s alpha estimate of 0.81 and consisted of 25 multiple choice questions
aligned to Loiusiana’s Grade Level Expectations and the Algebra I content. Scores from both
tests were considered valid after they were correlated with standardized tests students had taken;
Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (grade 8) and the Iowa Test of Educational
Development (grade 9). For the pre-test, there was no significant difference between the
treatment and control groups (t = 0.27, p = 0.788) as well as on the post-test, in which treatment
group’s mean score was less than one point higher than the control group.
A post-test survey was also given to all 463 students to evaluate students’ perceptions on
their method of instruction and attitude towards algebra. Students in the treatment group took a
38 question survey on the computer while students in the control group were administered a 10
question survey using pencil and paper. When asked how students felt about their algebra and
technology skills, 67.8% of the control group responded with confident or very confident while
only 49.8% of the treatment group responded in these categories. Students were also asked to
consider if their course was a good learning experience. For the responses yes and satisfactory,
93.7% of the control groups’ responses fell into these categories and 79.3% of the treatment
groups’.
From this study, O’Dwyer, Carey, and Kleiman observed that CAI, in this case an online
algebra course, did not give students an advantage in learning algebra. However, an interesting
analysis was noted; students taking an online algebra course in rural communities could receive
an education equitable to a traditional teacher directed classroom. Also pointed out was, that
even though the treatment groups’ perceptions of their algebra skills was lower than the control
groups’, both groups had about the same mean post-test scores.
These case studies provide evidence that CAI can have positive effects on a student’s
learning, and more specifically learning algebra. More importantly, they illustrate that a
student’s learning is not diminished when exposed to CAI, but can provide an alternative way to
help a student learn.

Chapter III – Results and Analysis Relative to Problem
CAI has been suggested as one means to assist students in learning algebra in rural
schools and to change students’ attitudes about algebra in a positive direction. Several studies
imply a positive correlation between CAI and learning mathematic (Hartley, 1977), however
researchers insinuate many other factors may contribute to this improvement and none
conclusively state CAI as the sole reason (Hannafin & Foshay, 2006). Educators’ active
participation in professional development around mathematics and integration of technology
(Forgasz, 2006) appear to influence the impact of CAI on students’ learning mathematics as does
having teachers available to interact with students and give timely feedback. For CAI to be
effective a third consideration is the ability of students to work independently. The impact of
CAI diminishes when students do not take a dynamic role in the process.
Regardless, CAI seems to have several effects on students: decreased learning time,
increased knowledge acquisition and a positive outlook towards instruction and algebra in
general. Even with positive research in support of CAI, Samuel G. Sava’s (1997) pungent
statement concerning Americas’ use of computers in education and the less than stellar standing
this country has compared to others on the TIMSS assessment can not be taken lightly.
When evaluating research on CAI, one thing to be considered is the rapid evolution of
computers and technology in general in a relatively short time period. Studies done before 1999
show a much higher impact of CAI on students’ learning than from 2000 to the present (Li &
Ma, 2010), so careful consideration needs to be taken into account when reviewing CAI
research. Many research studies try to corroborate work done when computers were a novelty,
slow, and physically cumbersome, possibly leading to antiquated theories for CAI today. At one
time computers were considered technology, but now, for many, computers are transparent tools
in the educational process. As computers become more prevalent in education, the Hawthorne
Effect should become non-existent over time. Future studies should focus on the impact of CAI
with regard to applications and software (Chaung and Chen, 2009) rather than on computer
usage. Additionally, more research should be conducted to determine if traditional learning
theories are indeed transferable to CAI (Chalmers, 2003) and to determine the impact of age,
educational level, and duration of use on CAI.
Whether or not research demonstrates CAI to raise mathematics achievement for
students, educational institutions are moving towards CAI as an alternative to teacher directed
instruction. Rural communities’ inability to attract and retain highly qualified mathematics
teachers leaves schools no choice but to pursue CAI to meet the needs of their students and state
and federal mandates. For these educational institutions, CAI is not being examined so much as
a way to improve mathematics learning, but as a means provide equitable learning opportunities
for students.
Chapter IV - Recommendations and Conclusion
Recommendation
As of 2009, the percent of rural students in the United States was 20.2% and these
students resided in one-third of our nations’ schools; this was a 22% increase over the last nine
years with the growth expected to surpass the growth rate in non-rural communities (Rural
School and Community Trust, 2012).
Education must find a way to accommodate students in these rural communities.
Computer-assisted instruction appears to be a reasonable and cost effective way to provide
algebra students, as well as others, with a quality education. Caution must be taken though,
because “simply handing a computer to an unmotivated learner or hungry child from a broken
home will do nothing for her intellect” (Pullman, 2011). Providing ample professional
development, a teacher willing to learn and work with students, and up-to-date technology are
factors that influence the success of students in rural schools learning using CAI (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2010). These can seem insurmountable given budget restrictions, but
considering students must have a solid foundation in algebra (NCLB, 2002) to move onto higher
level mathematics courses, and that one in four rural children do not graduate, schools must do
what is necessary to make their students successful in today’s global economy.
Areas for Further Research
Little research has been done to determine if CAI alone has had an impact on
academic achievement of algebra in rural schools and much research pertaining to CAI is based
on older studies, not taking into account the rapid progression of technology. Since many rural
schools in Michigan are transitioning to CAI, because of need difficulties in recruiting and
retaining highly qualified teachers and financial reasons, research needs to be carried out to
specifically target students taking algebra and other math courses using CAI. This research
should target rural students and non-rural students using CAI as the sole means of content
delivery. Changes in should be educationally sound, not made because of necessity alone.
Summary and Conclusion
Michigan has many academic challenges facing it in the next decade. In the United
States, Michigan ranks third in the area of underperforming students compared to the diversity of
the states’ population and a disproportionate number of students in urban settings (Rural School
and Community Trust, 2012) overshadows its large rural population. This leaves rural students’
needs underserved the state. One method suggested by research to help students and teachers
meet these challenges is with computer-assisted instruction. Analysis of research studies suggest
that CAI may have a positive impact on students learning algebra in high school, but more
importantly, it has been suggested by researchers that CAI does not appear to diminish the
quality of a student’s education or comprehension of algebra concepts and it improve students’
attitudes about algebra. Educators need continue to transition CAI from a stand-alone platform
to an integrated problem solving and analysis tool to help rural students meet the necessary goals
to graduate from high school.

References
Aliasgari, M., Riahinia, N., & Mojdehavar, F. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction and student
attitudes towards learning mathematics. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary
Middle Eastern Issues, 3(1), 6-14. doi:10.1108/17537981011022779
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2010). Current Challenges and Opportunities in Preparing
Rural High School Students for Success in College and Careers: What Federal
Policymakers Need to Know. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org
Barrow, L., & Markman, L. (2009). Technology’s edge: The educational benefits of computer-
aided instruction. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1, 52-77.
doi:10.1257/pol.1.1.52
Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M., & Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in
support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research, 72,
101-130. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net
Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom:
Students' experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-612. Retrieved from
http://ezpolson.nmu.edu:5749/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA147205385&v=2.1&u=lom_nmichu
&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Burch, K. & Kuo, Y. (2010). Traditional vs. online homework in college algebra.
Mathematics and computer education (0730-8639), 44 (1), 53-63. Retrieved from
http://www.macejournal.org
Carter, C., & Smith, L. (2002). Does the use of learning logic in algebra I make a difference in
algebra II? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 157-161. Retrieved
from http://www.iste.org
Cavalluzzo, L., Lowther, D., Mokher, C., & Fan, X. (2012). Effects of the Kentucky Virtual Schools’
hybrid program for algebra I on grade 9 student math achievement. (NCEE 2012-4020).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Chalmers, P. (2003). The role of cognitive theory in human-computer interface. Computers in
Human Behavior, 19, 593-607. doi:10.1016.S0747-5632(02)00086-9
Chapman, G. (2000). Federal support for technology in K-12 education. Brookings Papers on
Education Policy 2000, 307-343. doi:10.1353/pep.2000.0001
Chuang, T., & Chen, W. (2009). Effect of computer-based video games on children: An
experimental study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 1-10. Retrieved from
http://www.ifets.info
Clark, E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445-459. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net
Cliff, Y. (2004). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on students’ achievement in Taiwan: A
meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 48, 216-233.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.12.005
Connell, M. (1998). Technology in constructivist mathematics classrooms. Journal of Computers
in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 17, 311-338. (EJ578235)
Cotton, K. (1991). Computer-assisted instruction (No. 10). The School Improvement Research
Series. Portland, OR: School Improvement Program of the Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., and Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high
school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 813-834. doi:10.3102/00028312038004813
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2008). National Summary: School to college.
Can State P-16 Councils Ease the Transition? Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/dc/2008/40sgb.us.h27.pdf
Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computer &
Education, 49, 1147-1160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.008
Ferdig, R., & Papanastasiou, E. (2006). Computer use and mathematical literacy: An analysis of
existing and potential relationships. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, 25(4), 361-371. Retrieved from
http://ezpolson.nmu.edu:5749/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA152514989&v=2.1&u=lom_nmic
hu&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Forgasz, H. (2006). Teachers, equity, and computers for secondary mathematics learning.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(5), 437-469. doi:10.1007/s10857-006-
9014-8
Graham, C. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions.
In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds). Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives,
local designs (pp. 3-21). Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Hale, M. (1985). Use of multimedia in mathematics education [Editorial]. The Mathematics
Educator, 4(1), 1-3. Retrieved from http://math.coe.uga.edu
Hannafin, R., & Foshay, W. (2008). Computer-based instruction's (CBI) rediscovered role in K-
12: An evaluation case study of one high school's use of CBI to improve pass rates on
high-stakes tests. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 56(2), 147-160.
doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9007-4
Harting, K., & Erthal, M. (2005). History of distance learning. Information,Technology,
Learning and Performance, 23(1), 35-44. Retrieved from http://www.osra.org
Hartley, S. (1977). Meta-analysis of the effects of individually paced instruction in mathematics.
University of Colorado at Boulder). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 134 p. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/302838465?accountid=2745
Haus, M. (2005). Teaching methods for secondary algebra: A meta-analysis of findings. National
Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 89, 24-46.
doi:10.1177/019263650508964204
Hung, J., Randolph-Seng, B., Monsicha, K., & Crooks, S. (2008). Computer-based instruction
and cognitive load. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 12(4), 207-213. Retrieved from
http://www.rapidintellect.com/
Kulik, J. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E.L. Baker
& H.F. O’Neill Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9-33).
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis.
Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75-94. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(91)90030-5
Lei, K, Joon, E. & Shaffer, S. (2003). Evaluation of multimedia representation tools in
mathematics. Paper presented at 2004 AECT (Association for Educational
Communications and Technology) International Convention, Chicago, IL, October 19-23.
doi:10.1108/17537981011022779
Li, Q. & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school
students’ mathematics learning. Education Psychology Review, 22, 215-243.
doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8
Liao, Y. (2004). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on students’ achievement in Taiwan: A
meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 48, 216–233.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.12.005
Linden, L. (2008). Complement or substitute? The effect of technology on student achievement
in India. InfoDev Working Paper 17. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Macaruso, P., Hook, P., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary
phonics programs for advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of
Research in Reading, 29, 162-172. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00282.x
Martin, F., Klein, J., & Sullivan, H. (2006). The impact of instructional elements in computer-
based instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 623-636.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00670.x
Miller, G.A. (1956). The Magic Number Seven, plus or Minus Two: Some limits on our
Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/cogloadtheory/index.htm
Minoli, D. (1996). Distance learning technology and applications. Boston: Artech House.
Molnar, Andrew S. (1997). Computers in education: A brief history. T H E Journal
[Technological Horizons in Education], 24(11), 63-68. Retrieved from
http://thejournal.com
Moos, D., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A
literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79, 576-
600. doi:10.3102/0034654308326083
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R.1), 107 Congress, 110 (2002) (enacted).
O'Dwyer, L., Carey, R., & Kleiman, G. (2007). A study of the effectiveness of the Louisiana
algebra I online course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 289-
306. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/274711061?accountid=2745
Ozel, O., Yetkiner, Z. & Capraro, R. ( 2008). Technology in K-12 mathematics classrooms.
School Science and Mathematics, 108(2), 80-85. doi:10.1111/j.1949-
8594.2008.tb17807.x
Park, S., Gyumin, L., & Kim, M. Do students benefit equally from interactive computer
simulations regardless of prior knowledge? Computers & Education, 52, 649-655.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.014
Picciano, A., Seaman, J., Shea,P., & Karen Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of
online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation, The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2).
doi:5296/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004
Pullman, J. (2011, December 23). Technology in schools: Not a one-time fix (Editorial). The
Heartland Institute. Retrieved from http://heartland.org/editorial/2011/12/23/technology-
schools-not-one-time-fix
Rambally, G., & Rambally, R. (1987). Human factors in CAI design [Abstract]. Computers &
Education, 11, 149-153. doi:10.1016/0360-1315(87)90009-1

Rotherham, A. (2012, January 26). Can computers replace teachers? (Editorial). Time Ideas.
Retrieved July 14, 2012 from http://ideas.time.com/2012
Rural School and Community Trust. (2012). Why rural matters 2011-2012: The condition of
rural education in the 50 states. Washington, D.C.: Rural School and Community Trust.
Retrieved from www.ruraledu.org
Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
Santally, M., Boojawon, R.& Senteni, A. (2004). Mathematics and computer-aided
learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 194-199. Retrieved from
http://www.rapidintellect.com
Sava, S. (1997). Electronic genie: Will computers serve schools, or run them? Vital Speeches of
the Day, 64(2), 55-57. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 22542368).
Schnackenberg, H., & Sullivan, H., (2000). Learner control over full and lean computer-based
instruction under differing ability levels. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(2), 19-35. doi:10.1007/BF02313399
Seo, Y., & Bryant, P., (2009). Analysis of studies of the effects of computer-assisted instruction
on the mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities. Computers &
Education, 53, 913-928. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.002
Shen, P., Lee, T., & Tsai, C. (2008). Enhancing skills of application software via web-enabled
problem-based learning and self-regulated learning: An exploratory study. International
Journal of Distance Education Technologies. 6(3), 69-74. Retrieved from
http://ezpolson.nmu.edu:5558/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE
Shyu, H. (2000). Using video-based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s
experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 57-69. doi:10.1111/1467-
8535.00135
Slavin, R., Lake, C., & Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school
mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 839-911.
doi:10.3102/0034654308330968
Springer, R., Pugalee, D., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Improving mathematics skills of high school
students. The Clearing House, 81, 37-45. Retrieved from http://www.heldref.org
Squire, K., DeVane, B. & Durga, S. (2008). Designing centers of expertise for academic learning
through video games. Theory into Practice, 47 (3), 240-251.
doi:10.1080/00405840802153973
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12(2), 257-285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Thomas, M., & Tall, D. (1998). Longer-term conceptual benefits from using a computer in
Algebra teaching. Proceedings of the 12th Conference of PME, Budapest, 601-608.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf
Ozel, O., Yetkiner, Z. & Capraro, R. ( 2008). Technology in K-12 mathematics classrooms.
School Science and Mathematics, 108(2), 80-85. doi:10.1111/j.1949-
8594.2008.tb17807.x
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and
student achievement in mathematics. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
(ED425191)

Bennett Susan MP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bennett Susan MP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAI Effect on Rural Algebra I Students 1

THE EFFECTS OF COMPUTER ASSISTED INSTRUCTION ON RURAL ALGEBRA I

SUBMITTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

July 29, 2012

APPROVED BY: _____________________________

Dr. Frances O’Neill

Chapter I: Introduction ...........................................................................................................5

Statement of Problem .................................................................................................6

Research Question .....................................................................................................7

Chapter II: Review of Literature ............................................................................................9

History of Integration of Computers and Computer Assisted

Instruction into Education…………………………………………….……………9

Design Considerations ...............................................................................................10

Impact on Learning ....................................................................................................11

Teacher Involvement .................................................................................................15

Critics of Computer Assisted Learning......................................................................16

Case Studies ...............................................................................................................18

Plato as a CAI ................................................................................................18

Renaissance Learning Systems ......................................................................19

Kentucky implements CAI in Rural Schools .................................................20

CAI Impact on Learning and Attitude About Mathematics...........................22

Louisiana Algebra I Online Project ...............................................................23

Chapter III: Results and Analysis Relative to the Problem ...................................................26

Chapter IV: Recommendations and Conclusion ....................................................................27

Areas for Further Research ........................................................................................28

Summary and Conclusion ..........................................................................................28

recommended to be successful in tomorrow’s workforce.

level with less than adequate skills (www.michigan.gov).

Council of Teachers of Mathematics, reorganized mathematics expectations to correlate with the

(www.michigan.gov). From these initiatives, it was anticipated there would be an increase in

level on the MME increased 2.6% (www.mischooldata.org).

for these new standards is expected to take place in Spring 2015.

Statement of the Problem

way to address the needs of these students too.

environment and a traditional teacher-led classroom?

to teach. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is an instructional method that has been

computer-based instruction (CBI) (Hannafin & Foshay, 2006), computer-based learning

on assessments for students taking algebra courses.

As defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, rural refers to the county or agriculture,

not urban (www.merriam-webster.com). In reality, this term is much more complicated to

Chapter 2 - Literature Review

in algebra in rural schools.

History of Integration of Computers and Computer Assisted Instruction into Education

Technology transitioned in the early seventies and universities began installing

schools at least had access to them (Molnar, 1997).

Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000).

(Chalmers, 2003; Rambally & Rambally, 1987).

response to intervention (RTI), a tiered approach to maximize students’ learning

(www.rti4success.org). CAI helps struggling students by providing individualized instruction

curriculum classes when unavailable due to local issues.

was determined (Cannon, 2005).

cognitive thinking (Chaung & Chen, 2009).

showing positive effects of CAI use.

unexpected ways. Users of CAI demonstrated increased computer self-efficacy, an individual’s

Wenglinksky (1998) found a positive relationship between student achievement in mathematics

and the amount of professional development teachers received centered on incorporating

professional development need to be available, but teachers need to be active participants to

mathematics as opposed to a presentation tool. Haas (2005) conducted a meta-analysis to

increased when combined with direct teacher instruction

organization that examines “the costs and benefits of education technology”

Compute? The Relationship Between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in

Rotherham’s 2012 editorial Can Computers Replace Teachers? (http://ideas.time.com/2012).

relatively untouched by technology.”

Samuel G. Sava, past director of the National Association of Elementary Principals