Professional Documents
Culture Documents
George W. Bright
To cite this article: George W. Bright (1983) Explaining the Efficiency of Computer Assisted
Instruction, AEDS Journal, 16:3, 144-152, DOI: 10.1080/00011037.1983.11008339
Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 29 June 2016, At: 13:18
Explaining the Efficiency of Computer
Assisted Instruction
George W. Bright
Northern Illinois University
Abstract
Computer assisted instruction (CAI) frequently has been shown to produce
learning indistinguishable from that produced by traditional instruction, but CAI
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:18 29 June 2016
seems to accomplish this equivalent learning in less time than traditional instruc-
tion. The time-on-task hypothesis and the construct of academic learning time
(ALT) seem to provide a way to explnin the apparent efficiency of CAI. CAIpro-
grams seem to have been structured to increase ALT, and this increase may result in
improved efficiency. Further improvement of CAI programs may be possible by
focusing attention on greater increases in AL T. (Keywords: academic learning time,
computer assisted instruction.)
Computer assisted instruction (CAI) has been studied for more than two
decades. Frequently these studies show that the learning generated by CAI is
indistinguishable from that generated by other teaching techniques. However,
many of these studies also report that CAI seems to accomplish these learning
goals in significantly less time. The combination of these results-equal learn-
ing in less time-may be called the CAI phenomenon; it is an observation
about the efficiency of instruction.
The CAI phenomenon has typically been interpreted as an enigma; it has
been recognized as potentially important, but the lack of understanding of in-
struction has inhibited the development of reasonable explanations of its
causes. Recent research on the effectiveness of instruction, however, provides
a framework within which the CAI phenomenon can be explained and within
which further improvement of CAI might occur.
The CAI phenomenon is important for a variety of reasons. From a teach-
er’s perspective, efficiency in instruction even for a limited number of topics
would enable either more time to be devoted to complex topics or more
topics to be taught. In either case learning might be improved. For school ad-
ministrators, efficiency can improve productivity; that is, either more learning
is achieved in the same amount of time or less time is needed to achieve the
same learning. For curriculum designers, understanding the causes of the CAI
phenomenon might suggest ways to improve the productivity of other types
of curricula and instructional products. For researchers, such understanding
might result in a better grasp of how people learn or how teachers might be
more effective.
This article is an expanded version of a presentation made at the I982 Annual Meeting
of the Associotion for Educational Data Systems in Orlnndo.
2.25 hours per week and conventional students used 3.5 hours per week. The
conclusion was that “[t] here appears to be little doubt that students can be
taught with computers in less time than with conventional methods of college
teaching” (p. 537). Overton (1981) in a review of about 50 CAI studies in
mathematics noted that in two post-1975 studies CAI produced results faster
than regular instruction. In the other studies she reviewed, however, time dif-
ferences were not reported. Recently Jenson (1982) used microcomputers to
teach addition facts to first through third grade students, reported that time
savings occurred, and suggested that this was because of careful repetition
only of the problems that were causing difficulty.
The measure of time in all of these studies has been the total time that a
student is exposed to the instruction, rather than only the time a student is
working. Total time is a gross measure and does not give any indication of
the quality of the interaction between the student and the instruction.
Too, all of the studies to date have treated time as an interesting but not
theoretically important variable. One result of this approach has been that the
analyses of time data have been interpreted quite superficially. There has
been little attempt to understand either the causes or the implications of
efficiency.
Allocated Time
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:18 29 June 2016
Engaged Time
Medium Success
Low Success
I
Adapted from Romberg (1980)
learning.
2. The ratio of academic learning time to engaged time is positively asso-
ciated with learning.
3. The ratio of low success, engaged time to total engaged time is nega-
tively associated with learning.
4. Accuracy in diagnosing students’ skill levels is positively associated with
both achievement and the amount of academic learning time.
5. Prescription of appropriate tasks is positively associated with both
achievement and success rate.
6 . More substantive interaction (e.g., presentation of information, feed-
back) between the student and the teacher is positively associated with
high levels of student engagement.
Several patterns seem to emerge from these conclusions. First, academic
learning time seems to be a mediating variable for achievement. This has re-
sulted in the so-called “time-on-task” hypothesis; namely, “the more aca-
demic learning time a student accumulates the more the student is learning”
(Fisher, et al., 1980, p. 8).
Second, it is important both to assign academic tasks that can be per-
formed well by students and t o avoid academic tasks that students cannot
perform at all. This means that careful analysis of students’ responses, both
correct and incorrect, followed by appropriate task assignments should pro-
mote learning.
Third, substantive involvement of the student with the task should be
maintained throughout an instructional period. Highly motivational activities
which permit interchange of information would have these characteristics.
Contributor
Dr. George W. Bright is an associate professor in the Department of Mathe-
matical Sciences at Northern Illinois University. Dr. Bright received his B.A.
and M.A. degrees in mathematics from Rice University in Houston, Texas,
and his Ph.D. in mathematics education from the University of Texas at
Austin. His recent research interests include the use of games t o teach mathe-
matics to school children and understanding errors that students make in
applying fraction and algebra algorithms and procedures. (Address: Depart-
ment of Mathematical Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL
601 15.)
References
Beattie, I.D., Bates, T., Sherril, J . , & Owens, D. (Eds.). 1981 research mono-
graph: Research reports from the seventh national conference on diag-
nostic and prescriptive mathematics. Bowling Green, OH: Research Coun-
cil for Diagnostic and Prescriptive Mathematics, 1982.
Cody, R. Computers in education: A review. Journal o f College Science
Teaching, 1973,3,22-28.
Edwards, J . , Norton, S . , Taylor, S., Weiss, M., & Van Dusseldorp, R. How
effective is CAI-A review of the research. Educational Leadership, 1975,
33, 147-153.
AEDS JOURNAL 151
Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., & Brophy, J. E. Predictors of effective teach-
ing in junior high mathematics classroom. Journal f o r Research in Mathe-
matics Education, 1980.11, 167-178.
Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S., &
Dishaw, M. M. Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student
achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to
learn. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, 1980.
Jamison, D., Suppes, P. & Wells, S. The effectiveness of alternative instruc-
tional media: A survey. Review of Educational Research, 1974,44, 1-67.
Jensen, C. B. The enhanced CAI tutorial. In Proceedings of the National Edu-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:18 29 June 2016