Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 147–160

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

Development Article

Abstract

Patriot High School (PHS) adopted a remediation strategy to help its 10th-grade students at risk of failing the Math portion of MCAS, the state’s end of year competency exam. The centerpiece of that strategy was a computer-based instructional (CBI) course. PHS used a commercially available CBI product to align the course content with the competencies covered on the MCAS exam. This case study examines the overall effectiveness of the PHS strategies, and in particular, the role of CBI. Participant MCAS scores and CBI performance (measured by module-mastery data) are analyzed, and an interview with the course instructor is summarized. Finally, PHS scores were compared to the overall state MCAS scores for the same years. Overall scores of all 10th graders increased significantly compared to their 8th-grade scores, students who participated in the CBI course improved more than the students who did not. The passing rate at PHS improved from 40% in 1999 to 84% in 2001, compared to an improvement of from 47% to 75% statewide. A significant correlation was identified between the MCAS scores and the program usage data, with student CBI module mastery correlated with higher MCAS scores. Overall, the instructor was positive about the impact of the course and believed that the course gave many under-performers a chance to succeed when more traditional methods had failed. It seems likely that CBI contributed to PHS’s success. Although we report herein on just one case, we argue that CBI might play an important a role in the high stakes test environment in the USA and eleswhere.

Keywords

Computer based instruction High stakes tests Algebra Evaluation 

References

  1. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Foshay, W. R. (1998). Instructional philosophy of PLATO, Tech Paper #3. Bloomington, MN: PLATO Learning, Inc. Available at http://www.plato.comGoogle Scholar
  5. Foshay, W. R. (2000). Instructional models: Four ways to integrate PLATO into the curriculum. Technical Paper #6. Bloomington, MN: PLATO Learning, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Hannafin, R. D. (2002). Study on the effect of PLATO-supported instruction on NC competency test results of one NC high school. Unpublished evaluation report available at http://www.plato.comGoogle Scholar
  7. Hannafin, R. D. & Oppenheimer, D. (1999). Study on the effect of PLATO-supported instruction on standardized test performance and on the graduation rate of one Oregon high school. Unpublished evaluation report available at http://www.plato.comGoogle Scholar
  8. Hess, F. (2000). None of the above: Promise and peril of high stakes testing. The American School Board Journal, 187(1), 26–29.Google Scholar
  9. Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaged critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Kinzie, M., Sullivan, H., & Berdel, R. (1992). Motivational and achievement effects of learner control over content review within CAI. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(1), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kulik, J., Kulik, C., & Bangert-Drowns, R. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s role within constructivist classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  15. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Seymour, S., Sullivan, H., Story, N., & Mosley, M. (1987). Microcomputers and continuing motivation. Educational Communication and Technology, 35(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
  17. Sivin-Kachala, J. (1997). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 1990–1997. Software Publisher’s Association.Google Scholar
  18. Swenson, R., & Anderson, C. (1982). The role of motivation in computer-assisted instruction. Creative Computing, 8(10), 134–139.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© XXXXXXXXXX 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Texas Instruments, Inc.DallasUSA

Personalised recommendations