Abstract
The
purpose of this study was to examine the effects of computer assisted
instruction on academic achievement. The participants were 138 graduate
students enrolled in a beginning level counselor education course (12
men and 126 women with ages ranging from 25 to 45 years). Students' pre-
and post-test exam scores were used to assess the effects of instruction
(either computer-assisted or non computer-assisted). Additionally,
attitude toward computer-assisted instruction and academic achievement
were assessed. The results of this study found that a statistically
significant difference existed between students' academic achievement
and mode of instruction (either Computer-Assisted or Non
Computer-Assisted).
The use of and increasing growth of
technology in the classroom
provides new opportunities for delivering
instruction. The widespread use of technology and the Internet by
students has also increased the demand of universities to offer
computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in the classroom. Educators
utilizing technology and multimedia enhanced instruction have increased
in number across a variety of disciplines and their methods have been
proven to be effective (Morrell, 1992;
Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1980).
However, the use of technology in the classroom in counselor education
courses (versus physical sciences or technical courses) is still in its
earliest stages. Empirical research focusing on the use of technology in
counselor education is of major importance to the field.
A growing body of research indicates that
technology in the classroom can be useful in pedagogy management (Hayes
& Robinson, 2000;
Morrell, 1992) and an effective teaching enhancement
(Rota, 1981;
Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1980). The emergence and widespread
use of technology has created a different atmosphere in the classroom.
Educators are required to incorporate new methods of teaching in the
classroom in order to properly challenge and stimulate students. Faculty
are introducing technology into their courses through the use of
computer-assisted instruction, web enhanced courses and multimedia
enhanced presentations (Hayes & Robinson, 2000;
Passey, 2000;
Sales,
1999; Cairo & Kanner, 1984;
Hoffman & Waters, 1982;
Lawton & Gerschner,
1982). Many universities are now offering courses with computer-assisted
instruction and many courses are offered by web-based instruction in a
variety of fields. Several studies exist on the use of CAI in other
educational programs (Janda, 1992;
Jones & Smith, 1992;
Poirot, 1992).
However, little is known about its use in counselor education programs.
Very few empirical studies exist regarding counseling students and the
use of technology relating to counseling skill development (Hayes,
Robinson, Taub & Sivo, 2003;
Hayes & Robinson, 2000).
When computer technology was first advancing
in America, articles began appearing in counseling-related journals and
publications addressing the use of computer applications in counseling
and counselor education (Celotta, Jacobs, &
Keys, 1986;
Chubon, 1986;
Hesketh, Gleitzman, & Pryor, 1989;
Lambert,
1988). During this time it was argued that for counseling to
survive, a correct balance between "high touch" (empathic interpersonal
skills) and high technology would be essential (Harris-Bowlsbey, 1984).
Additionally,
Engles, Caulum and Sampson (1984) state that the potential
benefits from computer-based capabilities are too great for counselor
educators to ignore. Other disciplines are increasing the use of
technology in the classroom including web-based instruction,
computer-assisted instruction and the use of the Internet (Offir, 2000;
McIssac & Blocher, 1998;
Cohen, 1999;
Gray, 1998;
Hartley, 1999;
Berge,
1998;
Johnson, 1998;
Kahn, 1998). Counselor education programs should be
making every effort to include these methods of teaching.
Engles et al.
(1984) suggest that computer capabilities related to counselor education
should be seen as continuous efforts to improve the professional
practices, teaching services and research of counselor educators.
Engen,
Finken, Luschei and Kenney (1994) agree by stating that it is the task
of counselor educators to continue to improve instruction in training
counselors and other helping professionals. Clearly there is a need for
counselor educators to embrace technology and begin incorporating this
powerful mode of instruction into the classroom.
Granello and Hazler
(1998) frame it effectively by suggesting that it is time for the
profession to take a more formal stance and give more emphasis to the
process of teaching, rather than just the content (p. 103).
A host of empirical evidence is available on
the successful use of technology in the classroom in a variety of
disciplines (Ehrmann, 1997;
Janda, 1992;
Jones & Smith, 1992;
Poirot,
1992). Few research studies have been carried out to test the efficacy
of the delivery of instruction in counseling related courses (Hayes,
1996;
Hayes & Robinson, 2000;
Human & Kilbourne, 1999). Much more
remains to be empirically studied regarding the effects of
computer-assisted instruction in counselor education.
The purpose of this study was to investigate
whether the use of computer assisted instruction impacted academic
achievement. For this study, computer-assisted instruction and non
computer-assisted instruction are defined in the section “Definition of
Instructional Environments” of this article. For a virtual tour of the
computer assisted instruction classroom, go to;
http://www.fctl.ucf.edu/aboutus/classrooms/220.htm#floorplan
The research question examined whether a
difference existed in mean gain scores of students who learned in a
computer-assisted instruction environment versus those who learned in a
non computer-assisted instruction environment. Additionally, attitude
toward computer-assisted instruction and academic achievement were
assessed.
Methodology
Subjects
The subjects were graduate students enrolled
in an introductory course in a counselor education program at a major
southeastern university. A total of 136 students participated in the
study, 12 men and 126 women, with ages ranging from 25 to 45 years. The
data were collected over four semesters from Fall, 2000 to Spring, 2002.
Each course delivered the same information using the same textbook. The
Non-CAI environment consisted on 51 females and 7 males. The CAI
environment consisted of 75 females and 5 males. Subjects were enrolled
in the Mental Health Counseling program, the School Counseling Program,
the School Psychology Program or the Student Personnel Services program.
Definition of Instructional Environments
The computer-assisted instruction
environment is defined as course material delivered in a multi-media
enhanced classroom with computers placed at each learning station.
Computer-Assisted Instruction Environment
A learning station is a table allowing six
students to share two computers. The students had access to the Internet
and each computer program the instructor used during class time. The
instructor was equipped with a variety of multimedia programs and
computer packages to deliver the course information. The media enhanced
room was equipped with online access, computer access with multi-media
programs such as Inspiration (a visual concept mapping tool), Microsoft
Power Point, Macintosh M-Power, Video Player, DVD player, Audio
equipment, LCD projector & Screen. The course material was generally
presented in a collaborative learning style while using the multimedia
equipment to deliver the information. Most lectures were enhanced using
the multimedia equipment by incorporating either Power Point slides,
laserdiscs of popular movies or DVD segments, quick time video clips, or
other multimedia-enhanced material.
The non computer-assisted instruction
environment is defined as a traditional or conventional classroom
setting where students and lecturer come together to dialogue about the
material to be learned.
Non-Computer-Assisted Instruction
Environment
The instructor typically uses didactic
lecture as the primary source or teaching modality. Discussion during
class focuses around the assigned text reading material and assigned
supplemental reading material. The traditional class or non
computer-assisted instruction environment did not have access to
computers or multimedia equipment during class time to deliver
information or course material. Collaborative learning stations were not
assigned and lectures were not enhanced with multimedia equipment or
other multimedia-enhanced materials. The information was restricted to
verbally presented material. The students were presented with the
opportunities to participate in role-playing exercises and other
interactive activities; however, they were restricted to verbal
interaction without the use of multimedia equipment.
Instruments
Subjects were pre-tested at the beginning of
the term and post-tested at the end of the term on their knowledge of
the content of the course with a 100 item multiple-choice exam. The exam
was drawn from the textbook the instructors used in the class and
developed by a counselor education professor uninvolved in the study.
Subjects were also pre-tested at the
beginning of the term and post-tested at the end of the term with the
computer-assisted instruction survey developed by Patricia Morell from
the University of Washington and used with her written permission. This
survey captures the students’ attitude towards computer-assisted
instruction. The survey consisted of 20 responses to be answered on a
Likert scale of 1 to 5, with choices ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree, respectively.
Results
The first data set analyzed was
the Fall, 2000 semester where two sections of the course ran
concurrently. The Fall, 2000 non computer-assisted instruction class
consisted of 26 subjects (22 female, 4 Male) and the Fall, 2000
computer-assisted instruction class consisted of 30 subjects (28 female,
2 male). The research question examined was whether or not a
statistically significant difference existed between the mean gain test
scores of the students in the computer-assisted instruction classroom
and the mean gain test scores of the students in the non
computer-assisted instruction classroom. A statistically significant
result was found (t= 2.380, df=54, p<.05).
The second data set analyzed was
the Fall, 2000 Non CAI class (26 subjects; 22 female, 4 male) and Fall,
2001 Non CAI class (30 subjects; 28 female, 3 male) compared to the
Fall, 2000 CAI class (31 subjects; 29 female, 2 male) and Spring 2002
CAI class (28 subjects; 27 female, 1 male). One research question
examined was whether or not a statistically significant difference
existed between the mean gain test scores of the students in the
computer-assisted instruction classroom and the mean gain test scores of
the students in the non computer assisted instruction classroom. A
statistically significant result was found, (t=5.141, df=113, p<.05).
Additionally, students’ attitudes toward
computer-assisted instruction were assessed and analyzed. The Fall 2000
computer assisted instruction environment class correlation coefficient
was .314 and not significant. The correlation
coefficient of the relationship between mean gain test scores and
computer assisted technology instruction for the Fall 2000 non
computer-assisted instruction class did demonstrate statistical
significance (r = .524; p<.05). The Spring 2001 computer-assisted
instruction environment class correlation coefficient was .182 and not
significant.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate
whether the use of computer-assisted instruction impacted academic
achievement. The results of the data analyzed are indicative that
computer-assisted instruction does enhance academic achievement. The
significant t-tests confirm what the mean gain scores indicated. In
examining the three computer-assisted instruction environments, the mean
gain scores for the exams were 26, 24 and 17 compared to the two non
computer-assisted instruction environment mean gain scores on the exams
which were 19 and 12. This may indicate that learning in a
computer-assisted instruction environment takes place more effectively
than in a non computer-assisted instruction environment. These results
are consistent with previous research reviewed earlier (Morrell, 1992;
Rota, 1981;
Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1980).
The research question examined was whether
or not a statistically significant difference existed between the mean
gain test scores of the students in the computer- assisted instruction
classroom and the mean gain test scores of the students in the non
computer-assisted instruction classroom. A statistically significant
result was found (r = .524; p<.05).
CAI Attitude
The Fall 2000 computer-assisted instruction
environment class correlation coefficient was .314 and not significant.
The Fall 2000 non computer-assisted instruction class correlation
coefficient was .524 and was significant, p<.05. Interestingly, the
Fall 2000 non computer-assisted instruction environment class indicated
by the CAI attitude survey results that their attitude of CAI increased
over the non-CAI course. One would assume that in a small face-to-face
class, that CAI attitudes would go down because of the cohesiveness you
would expect to develop in a small class. However, this class
demonstrated their attitudes increased. This may be unique to this study
due to the fact that this class did have access to communicating with
the CAI class that was meeting concurrently. The two classes were more
than likely sharing information about the class activities and the non
CAI class may have perceived the CAI class as more involved, more
exciting and more interesting due to the nature of the multimedia class
activities. This may be controlled for in future studies and data may
change regarding their attitudes.
Limitations of the Study
Several limitations of this study need to
be considered. The principal limitations are that each course was taught
by a different professor and the professors ranged in age, gender and
ethnicity. Additionally, the courses were taught at different times of
the year, in different buildings or areas of the campus, and at
different times of the day. Although these may seem like minor
influences, they may have an impact on the results of this study.
Although each professor was informed of the study and advised on
remaining neutral, the other variables could not be controlled for and
could potentially have influenced the data.
An additional limitation that may have
influenced the outcome of the study is how fluent the instructors were
at handling the technology in the classroom. The multimedia programs
were quite advanced and state of the art, which could have intimidated
the instructors had they not been prepared to properly use the
technology. Even though the instructors were trained to use the
equipment, the complexity of the technology could have intimidated the
instructors from taking full advantage of the potential benefits.
Future Considerations
Although this study was geared towards
detecting a difference in general learning environments, future research
identifying which computer programs or which multimedia programs were
most effective in enhancing academic achievement could be beneficial.
Educators could then use the class time and multimedia programs most
efficiently. Matching computer programs with specific learning styles or
specific processing skills would be another area of important
investigation.
Additionally, learning styles matched with
particular computer or multimedia programs would be an area of interest
to research. This would be an extremely important area for those with
learning disabilities or delayed processing skills. Computer-assisted
instruction may help those challenged with these disorders and continue
to help make gains in education-related research.
References
Berge, Z. L. (1998). Guiding principles in web-based instructional
design. Educational Media International, 35, 72-76.
Cairo, P. C., & Kanner
M. S. (1984). Investigating the effects of computerized approaches
to counselor training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 24(2),
213-220.
Celotta, B. J., Jacobs, G., & Keys, S. G. (1996). Program development,
management, and evaluation: A computer-assisted approach.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 19(1),
38-47.
Chubon, R. A. (1986). Genesis II: A computer-based case management
simulation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 30,
25-32.
Cohen, A. C. (1999). Instructional technology
and distance learning through the internet. Educational Media
International, 36(3),
218-229.
Ehrmann, S. C., (1997). The flashlight project: Spotting an elephant in
the dark. Assessment Update (9)4, 3-4.
Engels, D. W., Caulum, D., & Sampson, D. E.(1984).Computers in counselor
education: An ethical perspective. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 24(2),193-203.
Engen, H. B., Finken, L. J., Luschei, N. S., & Kenney, D. (1994).
Counseling simulations: An interactive videodisc approach. In H.
Resnick (Ed.), Electronic tools for social work practice and education
(pp.283-298). Bington, New York: The Haworth Press.
Granello, D. H., & Hazler, R. J. (1998). A developmental rationale for
curriculum order and teaching styles in counselor
education programs. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38,
89-105.
Gray, S. (1998). Maintaining academic integrity in web-based
instruction. Educational Media International, 35 186-191.
Hall, K. A. (1971).Computer-assisted instruction: Problems and
performance. Phi Delta Kappan, 52, 628-631.
Harris-Bowlsbey, J. (1984). High touch and high technology: The marriage
that must succeed. Counselor Education and Supervision, 24,
6-16.
Hartley, K.W. (1999). Media Overload in Instructional web pages and the
impact on learning. Educational Media International, 36(2),
145-150.
Hayes, B. G., (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of computer-assisted
instruction in teaching communication skills to counselor education
students at a beginning graduate level. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 58, 3-A.
Hayes, B. G., Robinson, E. H., Taub, G., & Sivo, S. (2003). An empirical
investigation of the efficacy of multimedia instruction in
counseling skill development. Counselor Education and Supervision (42),
3, 177.
Hayes, B. G., & Robinson, E. H., III, (2000). Assessing counselor
education student’s attitudes toward computers and multimedia
instruction. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development.
Herbert, E. L. A., & Williamson, L. (1998). Teachers' and teacher
education students' sense of efficacy: Quantitative and qualitative
comparisons. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31,
214-225.
Hesketh, B., Gleitzman, M., & Pryor, R. (1989). Tailoring computerized
interventions to client needs. British Journal of Guidance
& Counseling, 17, 19-33.
Hoffman, J.L., & Waters, K. (1982) Some effects of student personality
on success with computer-assisted instruction. Educational
Technology, 22, 20-21.
Human, S. E., Kilbourne, L. M. (1999). Using web-enhanced instruction in
an interpersonal skills course. Journal of Management
Education (23)5, 584-607.
Janda, K. (1992). Multimedia in political science: Sobering lessons form
a teaching experiment. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia, 1, 341-354.
Johnson, E. (1998). The world wide web, computers and teaching
literature. Educational media International, 35(3), 203-215.
Jones, L.L, & Smith, S. G. (1992). Can multimedia instruction meet our
expectations? Educom review. 27, 39-43.
Khan, B. H. (1998). Web-based instruction: An introduction.
Educational Media International, 35(3), 63-71.
Kulik, J., Kulik, C., & Cohen, P. (1980).Effectiveness of computer-based
college teaching: A meta analysis of findings. Review of
Educational Research, 50, 525-544.
Lambert, M. E. (1988). Computers in counselor education: Four years
after a special issue. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 28, 100-109.
Lawton,
J. & Gerschner, V. T. (1982). A review of the literature on attitudes
toward computers and computerized
instruction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16,
50-55.
McIsaac, M. S., & Blocher, J. M. (1998). How research in distance
education can affect practice. Educational Media
International, 35, 43-47.
Morrell, P. D. (1992).The effects of computer-assisted instruction and
students’ achievement in high school biology. School Science and
Mathematics, 92(4), 177-181.
Offir, B. (2000). Map for decision making in operating distance learning
systems, research results. Educational Media
International, 37(1), 9-15.
Passey, D. (2000). Developing teaching strategies for distance (out of
school) learning in primary and secondary schools. Educational
Media International, 37(1), 45-57.
Poirot, J. L. (1992). Assessing and evaluating student gains. The
Computing Teacher, 20, 30-32.
Rota, D. R. (1981).Computer assisted
instruction, lecture, instruction, and combined
computer-assisted/lecture
instruction: A comparative experiment.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Sales, G. C. (1999). Creating effective multimedia instruction.
Educational Media International, 36(4), 263-270.
Authors' Biography
Christine Karper,
Ph.D.
joined the
Department of Educational Research, Technology, and Leadership (ERTL) at
the University of Central Florida in September of 2005 as a Faculty
Administrator. She also teaches graduate-level courses in counselor
education. Her research has focused on the use of technology in
counselor education, innovative treatments of anxiety, and adventure
based counseling. Correspondence regarding this article can be directed
to Dr. Karper at
ckarper@netzero.net.
Edward H.
Robinson, III Ph.D. N.C.C. (Mike) has been a Counselor Educator for
the past 25 years. In fall of 2002 he was appointed The Robert N.
Heitzelman Eminent Scholar Chair. His current research areas include
issues of counselor training , childhood fears, social and character
development of children and adolescents with a particular focus on
altruism. He is currently Program coordinator for the Ph.D. programs in
the College of Education at the University of Central Florida.
Montserrat Casado-Kehoe,
Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Counselor Education in the
Department of Child, Family and Community Sciences at the University of
Central Florida (UCF) in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Casado-Kehoe is a
licensed marriage and family therapist and registered play therapist.
She is the Play Therapy Coordinator at UCF. Her research has focused on
family therapy, play therapy, supervision and the integration of
technology in counseling.
