Linda Heidenrich
SED 625
CE 3: Comparing the Impacts of a Computer-Assisted versus Direct Instruction
This study was conducted in Taiwan with 159 tenth graders who were taking a
mandatory earth science course. The study was conducted over a two week time frame in
which one group learned the content of debris flow hazards through a problem-based
computer program and the other group learned through direct instruction. The students
were tested before and after the experimental time frame through an Earth Science
Achievement Test. The test was thirty multiple choice questions long, validated by three
high school teachers and three professors, and consisted on questions from the first three
levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.
The results indicated the students who work on the
problem-based computer program scored significantly higher on the questions requiring
knowledge and comprehension, but both groups of students scored equally as poorly on
the application questions.
This study is an example of good research for several reasons.
First, the
researcher subjected both groups to computer usage “to control possibly extraneous
variables resulting from the computer-novelty effect (Chang, 2001, p. 150).” Also, the
researcher utilized previous research by Bransford (1979) on how students learn to create
his experimental design. Yet, this study could have been improved in its experimental
design. First, the researcher goes into great detail regarding each task the computerassisted students were assigned while explaining very little detail about the direct
instruction method. If students were asked to complete the same tasks regardless of
instructional method the study is more valid than if the direct instruction student group
never had the chance to problem solve or present their individual discoveries. In problem
solving and designing a presentation the computer-assisted student group were allowed to
develop their content knowledge in more depth therefore allowing the results to not be
related to instructional method, but instead the depth at which they explore debris hazards
and their effects. This question became more prevalent when analyzing the results
because both groups of students did equally well on the application questions presented
on the assessment. This would suggest both groups had access to problem solving and
application assignments but that is never explicitly stated. Another component of the
study, more specifically the publishing of the study, which could have been improved, is
the publishing of data. The researcher published only standard deviations for the scores,
but not the raw scores. This provides some insight regarding the components of the
assessment that were successful but it requires the reader to extrapolate the data for
themselves.
This year I have been committed to use computer programs as a more integral part
of my biology curriculum. In the age of MySpace and instant messaging, students are
much more involved with computers than they are with individuals. The connection
made between a student and a computer screen cannot be duplicated between student and
teacher. The computer allows for more exploration based on individual students’ needs,
a feat that cannot be matched by a teacher in a class of forty students. The problem I
have in my class when we go to the computer lab is the students rarely complete the
assignment required of them because they become so involved in the computer program
that they forget to complete the work. This complete engagement is exciting as a teacher
but I need the physical evidence of standards mastery so I often have to interrupt them as
the peak of their engagement to remind my students to complete their work.