Computer-assisted instruction in an elementary college economics course

Compur. & E&x., Vol. 4. pp 259 lo 267 0 Pergamon Press Ltd 1980. Printed in Great Britain

0360. I

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION ELEMENTARY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DONALD W. University

IN AN COURSE

PADEN and MICHAEL D. BARR

of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign,

IL 61801, U.S.A.

Abstract-The ingredients involved in the computer component of a cost effective college course in economics are examined in some detail in this article. As measured by increased student achievement and by favorable student reaction to the instruction the course is a success. The main computer ingredients used with the course consist of a series of seven instructional lessons of a review and expository nature, three hour examinations with multiple forms administered by the computer, a sophisticated record-keeping system and a note-writing capability enabling students and instructors to communicate with each other via the computer. In addition a study management system which research has demonstrated improves cognitive achievement was available but was not used in the experiment reported upon here. During the 1979 fall semester roughly 1000 students at the University of Illinois used the ‘economic supplementary package’-available world-wide through CDC. On the average students finishing the complete package spent somewhat less than one hour per week at the computer terminal. Off the computer students used different text books depending upon the lecturers teaching the various sections of the course. The author feels that instructors in other disciplines might benefit from knowing the peculiar combination of inputs which lead to favorable student acceptance of CA1 instruction in economics and to statistically significant improvements in outcomes.

of the gradual evolution of a successful course in economics and the use of the computer in this course may be of interest to individuals in other disciplines. This paper reviews the historical development of the course, describes various components of the instruction, and documents the academic achievements and attitudes of students exposed to the course of study. Hopefully, the experience at the University of Illinois in economics can provide useful tips for instructors elsewhere in courses with large enrollments, particularly for institutions with extensive computer facilities. An account

A BIT

OF

HISTORY

In the mid 1960s a grant from the Office of Education supported a project dealing with the application of the principles of programmed instruction to a first course in college economics[l]. This experiment forced the author to write detailed objectives for the course and to develop testing instruments for measuring student learning. In the late 1960s the University of Illinois awarded the author and another faculty member a summer instructional grant to develop a single lesson on macroeconomics using the computer. This was the first of seven such programs. In the early 1970s a fairly sizeable project funded by the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center and the Defense Advanced Research Project led to a CA1 ‘study management system’ (CAISMS) for the same course[2]. More recently, the Illinois Council on Ecopomic Education provided support for maintaining and extending what has come to be known as the ‘Economics Supplementary Package’ (ESP) for the first course in economics. Each of these projects contributed importantly to the success of the final project in ways suggested below. THE Objectives

VARIOUS

COMPONENTS

and testing instruments

The development of specific and detailed objectives for each unit of instruction helped in defining what was to be put on the computer and, to a degree, governed the language in which the instruction was couched. Consider the following simple example of one of the many objectives for the course in which it is specified that students understand the following: Resources are said to be eficiently allocated if any possible shift of land, labor, or capital from one use to another would decrease the value of the economy’s final product. This observation is subject to a number of important qualifications and assumes a given distribution

of income.

Objectives of this sort were instrumental

the basic concepts c

A.E

4,~.-

A

presented

in developing questions for testing student in the instruction and their qualifications. 259

understanding

of

DONALD W. PADEN and

260

MICHAEL D. BARR

One of the things which was most helpful about this experience was the notion that instructional sequences should be systematically tested with students, singly or in small groups, before committing the instruction to television, the lecture hall, or to the computer. While it is inevitable that instruction relies initially upon the classroom experience of the instructor, if the material is to be used with large groups of students, this is likely to be a wasteful and possibly a dangerous practice unless carefully pre-tested with students-for the same reason that it would be dangerous for automobile companies to rely solely on the experience and judgement of engineers before marketing their product, suns testing. Classroom instruction undoubtedly would be vastly different from what it actually is if instructors were legally liable for the quality of their product. ~~~gra~~ing

experience

The second project mentioned abov~involving the initiation of the author into the art of actually putting material on the computer-was a helpful experience in that it taught a painful lesson about the advantages of specialization. While some familiarity with the computer is probably essential, an author can succeed without doing the actual programming and, indeed, must minimize time spent programming if the project is of any size. The instructor’s energies are probably better spent in designing the instructional sequences: deciding what is to be included, planning the instruction, developing instruments to measure student performance and, in general, trying to improve on what ordinarily is done in the classroom, or with the printed page. A study management system

More time probably went into the development of a ‘study management system’ than into the rest of the project combined[3-51. In this experiment students signed on the computer. were given an assignment in a standard textbook and were automaticaIly signed off. After having been given time to read the material. students were asked to return to the computer terminal and answer a number of questions over the assignment. If the student achieved a predetermined score on the questions answered, he or she was given another assignment in the same format, and so on. Students could proceed through the course, with some constraints, pretty much at their own pace*. CAISMS was actually designed by instructors in educational psychology, with assistance from the authors. The actual questions for the computer quizzes, however, were written by teaching assistants in education (rather than in economics). In the opinion of the author the quality of the questions was such that they could not be incorporated into the Economics Supplementary Package without more revision than the author was willing to undertake. As a result CAISMS was not a part of the experiment described below. Three comments about CAISMS are in order. First, it was successful in improving student performance. It seems clear that the inclusion of the CAISMS material would have significantly raised the scores of students participating in the experiment. Second CAISMS was reasonably economical of student and computer time. Third, provision probably should have been made for good students (who did not really need to be ‘managed’) to pursue alternative assignments. In the future, authors of textbooks will undoubtedly offer such computer ‘study management systems’ to accompany their books, along with the usual package of work-books, instructor manuals. test questions, transparency masters and so on. Although the idea of maintaining a high level of student attention by asking intermittent questions was certainly not very original, it proved to be a predictably effective and well-researched method for improving student learning[7]. A record keeping system

The most recent addition to the Economics Supplementary Package was a record keeping system, funded in part by the Illinois Council on Economic Education. Students are shown their grades on both ~~st~ctional sequences and hour exa~nations as soon as they have finished with the instruction. Their scores are then automatjcally entered in the computer’s record keeping system. Scores on pencil and paper quizzes, midterm and final examinations are entered on the computer by the teaching assistant as they are completed during the semester. At the end of the semester all of the grades are automatically weighted and summed to obtain the semester grade?. The records kept on the computer are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2. Students are able to see questions missed on the hour * This technique resembles another successful CA1 effort in economics developed by Professor Allen Kelley called TIPS. In this program students take ‘surveys’ and on the basis of their performance on these unweighted quizzes are told what to do next [6]. t The average quiz grades for the various sections were ‘standardized’ in order to discourage teaching assistants from giving easy quizzes. In doing so the average grade for each section was arbitrarily raised to 85 (or higher, if necessary).

89.3 9.1 28.0

Mean score Standard dev. N (Sample size)

90.2 6.6 28.0

c 15 C + 79 91 6 28

82 79

92 80

Exam mean

6.6

Mean Standard dev. N (Sample size) 3.6 28.0

15.1 I I.2

Stein W. Woodard

G.

IO.9 4.2

Hours (0)

Etc

95 5 28

83 100

81 88

1st

keeping:

91 6 28

42 79

92 80

Exams (0.15)

93 14 28

83 100

83 46 Etc

keeping:

96 6 28

83 100

80 96

Micro 2nd

96 6 28

79 100

19 85

3rd

78 11 28

72 62

78 60

Midterm (0.25)

96 6 26

83 100

83 0

1st

lessons

89 15 28

67 83

80 86

Quizzes (0.15)

grades

Instructional

and lessons*

course

examinations

Lessons (0.15)

Table 2. Record

100 0 28

100 100

100 100

Intro

1. Record

Anderson B. Porter C.

after deadlines

92.5 4.0 28.0

[A 953 [B - 821

taken

Name Weights

3rd

[A 951 [B - 821

exams

B + 89 [C 753

2nd

are for examinations

c 75 c 75

Stein W. Woodard G.

* Scores in brackets

A - 92 [B - 821

1st

Anderson B. Porter C.

Names

Computer

Table

82 II 27

77 82

67 70

Final (0.30)

95 8 26

70 100

81 0

2nd

= = =

= =

= =

=

Macro

84 12 28

76 79

78 68

(1.w

Course

96 8 26

83 100

83 0

3rd

grade

95 7 26

80 98

80 0

4th

96 28

28

83 100

83 92

Completed

grades

93

83 100

83 46

Over-all

Average

DONALD W. PADEN and MICHAEL D. BARR

262

the day after taking the examination. Instructionul sequences can be repeated as many times as the student wishes, with the highest grade being recorded. The records are available for student inspection at any time.

examinations

A communications

network

Students are able to write notes, using the computer, to their teaching assistants, and vice versa. The student’s name automatically appears on the note. Originally, students were able to write notes to each other but this was discontinued because of occasional abuses. Conceivably, such misuse of the system could be controlled by allowing students to specify from whom they would receive messages (i.e., from no one except their instructor, from everyone in the course, or only from specified individuals). Ideally, it should be possible for the person in charge of the course to write notes simultaneously to all of the students in the course (rather than to specific individuals) on topics such as hour examinations, assignments, speakers on the campus, comments about coming events, and so on. Obviously, such a communication network influences student performance only insofar as it facihtates the prompt answering of questions and to the extent that it improves student’s attitudes toward the course. Lesson set-up

In order to use the Economics Supplementary Package the person in charge of the course is asked to answer a number of questions about how the system is to be used. These questions include information about the course syllabus, deadlines for taking the hour examinations (after which students must get permission to take examinations from their teaching assistant). weights to be used in computing semester grades and whether students may take more than one form of each examination and if so, whether the first grade, the second grade or the highest grade is to be recorded. All of this takes perhaps 20 min. The instructor is also given the option of listing in the Main Index additional lessons developed by the instructor, or possibly other lessons already on the system but which are not currently part of the course. These are then available for student use. Inasmuch as weights of zero can be assigned to various examinations and instructional units, a good deal of versatility is built into the system. For example, by using only relevant lessons and examinations. the package can be used for either one semester or for two semester courses. The record keeping system can be used in whole or in part and additional lessons can be added at the user’s discretion. Unfortunately, due to copyright restrictions the material is not freely available to the profession. The mechanics of the numerous displays also means that the material cannot be translated into other computer languages without difficulty. EXPERIMENTAL

OUTCOMES*

During the Fall of 1977 semester, roughly 400 students in two lecture sections of principles of economics were exposed to the instruction just described. The material on the computer consisted of three components: a series of seven review and expository lessons. each taking from 30 to 50 min for students to complete; three multiple-choice hour examinations each with multiple forms; and a record-keeping system for tallying such information as the time spent by students on the system, numerical scores on the lessons, and scores and letter grades on the hour examinations. The package was delivered by PLATsthe University of Illinois’ version of Computer Assisted Instruction. PLATO consists of a display panel similar to a television screen, a typewriter-like keyset, and a computer. Students communicate with the computer by using the keyset. The computer presents material to students, asks them questions, judges their answers and responds to their errors on the display panel, and stores information about their responses. As many students can work simultaneously on a single lesson (or lessons) as there are terminals. Responses from the computer are displayed almost instantaneously for the student to read and respond to. The system provides students working on lessons with a measure of animation in visual material impossible with the printed page and gives them some control over graphs and charts. An index for each lesson permits skipping around within lessons. A general index is available for selecting other options such as review sequences, announcements, asking questions, seeing grade distributions, and writing notes to the instructor. The student is also given access to the computer for making computations and, upon occasion, for solving equations with values supplied by the student. Thus, PLATO is used to insure the interaction of students with lesson material and, in a more general sense, provides another option * This material is from Paden and Barr[X]

Computer-assisted

instruction in an elementary

college economics

course

263

to enhance the study of economics (along with conventional texts, programmed material, lectures, quiz sessions, films, workbooks, tutors and television). In addition, the computer serves as a servomechanism in monitoring and recording student performance and as a medium for communication between students and instructors. Design of the experiment

One large group of students took only the hour examinations on PLATO while attending two lectures and two quiz sessions each week. This was designated as the non-PLATO or control group. The other large group of students also attended two quiz sessions but went to only one lecture each week-substituting roughly an hour on PLATO for an hour of lecture. This constituted the PLATO or experimental group. There were ten quiz sections taught by five teaching assistants. Roughly half of the students in the second group were intermingled in quiz sections with students from the first group and thus were exposed to the same teaching assistants. The lecturer, textbook assignments, and outside readings were the same for all students. The remainder of the students in the second group was handled in quiz sections taught by the lecturer and the PLATO programmer. These were labelled other-PLATO students, and although exposed to the same instruction as the PLATO students, did not share common quiz instructors with the control group. Although the students were not assigned randomly to the two treatments, there is no obvious reason to suspect bias. Performance

on the jnal

examination

The results of the final examination groups indicated above. Table

3. Performance

Non-PLATO (control) PLATO (experimental) Other-PLATO * Significant

are shown in Table 3, where students

of PLATO and non-PLATO examination

II

Mean scores

206 124 106

52.08 53.28 52.49

at the 104,; level when compared

students

Differences

are classified by the three

on

final

Standard deviation 7.06 5.8 I 7.13

I .20* 0.4 I with the control

the

group.

The mean score on the final examination for students who studied content material on PLATO was significantly higher than for the non-PLATO students. The mean score of the other-PLATO students (who worked the PLATO lessons but did not share common teaching assistants with the control group) was also higher than the non-PLATO students, although the difference was not statistically significant. These results agree generally with three other studies in which the author has participated-reviewed above and reported upon elsewhere by Paden, Dalgaard and Barr[9]. In these studies PLATO students have also generally out-performed non-PLATO students, but not always by a statistically significant amount-at least as measured by scores on the final examination. In light of this generally favorable background, the evidence provided by the present experiment inclines one to believe that for this one-semester micromacro introductory course, PLATO made a difference. Remembering that computer-assisted instruction was substituted for only one of the four contact hours normally involved in the course and only one out of a total of seven hours spent on the course each week by the average student, the improvement looks not only statistically significant. but quantitatively important. In evaluating this gain it should be remembered that three of the ten hours spent on PLATO in the present study consisted of answering examination questions (rather than working on content instruction) and that both groups were exposed to those examinations. Time spent on the course

At the time of the final examination, students were asked the amount of time they spent studying economics, excluding class time or time on PLATO. Averages for the three groups are shown in Table 4. Taking the figures at face value and accumulating the saving for the semester, the two PLATO groups responded that they spent almost six and seven hours less time, respectively, on the ,course during the semester than the non-PLATO group-probably as much time as most students spend studying for the final examination in economics*. Not only did PLATO students get better grades in * In comparing the number of students in these groups with those in Table 3, it is apparent some non-response and some group misidentilication which could not be tracked down.

that there was

DONALDW. PADENand MICHAELD. BARR

264

Table 4. Time spent studying economics per week, excluding class time and time on PLATO Mean time (h) Non-PLATO (control) PLATO (experimental) Other-PLATO

222 104 100

3.72 3.30; 3.26t

Standard deviations (h)

I .88 1.65 I.53

* Significant at the 10% level when compared with the control group. t Significant at the 5% level when compared with the control group.

economics, but there obviously was a trade-off between higher grades in their other courses and/or more leisure, depending on how they used the time saved. Of some methodological interest is another attempt to arrive at the time spent on the course. Instead of asking students directly how much time they spent studying economics, they were told that on the average their classmates spent roughly three hours taking examinations on PLATO. They were then asked to check, using the categories in Table 5, how the time they spent on the examinations compared with this average. Since the computer actually recorded the exact time each student spent on the examinations, it was possible to compute the averages shown in Table 5 for students who identified themselves as being in each group. Table 5. Estimated time and actual mean time spent on examinations by PLATO and non-PLATO students

Estimated time Consideraly Somewhat

more than 3 h

more than 3 h

About 3 h Somewhat less than 3 h Considerably less than 3 h

Non-PLATO (h)

Actual times PLATO (h)

Other-PLATO (h)

5.42

463

3.92

4.09 3.51 2.87 2.94

4.68 3.13 2.7 I 2.95

3.84 3.15 2.40 1.68

Next, students were told that on the average, their classmates spent roughly three hours per week studying economics, not including time spent in class or on PLATO. Again they were asked to check how this general average compared with their own study time outside of class-using the same five categories indicated in Table 5. After tabulating the information on the number of students in each category (Appendix 1) and using the time dimensions shown in Table 5 for considerably more, somewhat more, etc., an average amount of time was computed for each of the three groups of students. As was true when the students were asked directly, the average amount of time spent studying economics outside class was greatest for the non-PLATO group, next largest for the PLATO group and least for the other-PLATO students (3.61, 3.50 and 3.16 h, respectively)*. Unfortunately, the three hours specified for both the above questions was too low for all three groups and may have introduced a bias in the computed means. Under the circumstances the times calculated from the direct responses of students (Table 4) are thought to be the more meaningful of the two sets of estimates. Quite apart from their use in making the above estimates, the figures in Table 5 reveal surprising differences in the average time spent taking the PLATO examinations, ranging from roughly 3 to 5: h for non-PLATO students to 13 to 4 h for the other-PLATO students. Individual students undoubtedly differed much more than this. As an example, one A student spent only six hours on both the lessons and examinations combined. An examination of the questionnaires showing the time students spent studying economics outside of class revealed differences ranging from one to 14 h per week. * The time spent by students attending the two lectures (for the non-PLATO group) and the sum of the time spent attending one lecture and working on the computer (for the two PLATO groups) is thought to be roughly the same. Almost no student failed to finish the PLATO lessons. The non-PLATO students were coerced into attending at least one lecture each week by giving credit for attendance (balancing the credit given the PLATO students for working on the lessons). Although attendance was not taken in the quiz sections or in the other lecture, there is no reason to believe that absences were more numerous for one group than the others.

Computer-assisted Table 6. Student evaluation

of the course and the lecturer by non-PLATO responding)

Course in general Non-PLATO PLATO* Excellent Good Satisfactory Adequate Poor or worse

265

instruction in an elementary college economics course

4 39 39 II 7 100

Course content Non-PLATO PLATO* 5 48 35 8 4 IO0

16 (10) 45 (47) 24 (24) 10 (IO) 2 (4) 100

* Figures in parentheses are the other-PLATO

21 (18) 46 (45) 24 (25) 8 (9) J (3) 100

and PLATO

students

(%

Lecturer Non-PLATO PLATO* 13 36 30 9 12 IO0

16(12) 45 (46) 24 (28) 10 (7) 2 (8) 100

students

Student attitudes During the latter part of the semester a University of Illinois Course Evaluation Questionnaire was distributed to students during a lecture period. Responses to three relevant questions are shown in Table 6. A casual inspection of the figures indicates that students using PLATO tended to react more favourably to the course in general, to the course content, and to the lecturer than students who did not*. The responses to the questionnaires were also tabulated by anticipated grade. The results for the course in general are shown in Table 7. Again, from an inspection of the percentages in Table 7 it is apparent that when the responses are classified by anticipated grade, A and B students who had used PLATO were more favorably inclined toward the course than A and B students who did not. Although a sizeable proportion of the students received grades of C or less, the reluctance of students to admit this on the questionnaire before the end of the course resulted in too few students in this category. The interpretation of the figures for C students, therefore, is open to question. Although the table shows that superior students seemed to be more enthusiastic about PLATO than other students, the question of who benefited the most from using PLATO remains unanswered.

Table 7. Student evaluation for the

course

A Students Non-PLATO PLATO* Excellent or good Satisfactory Adequate or poor

in general by anticipated grade (% responding) B Students Non-PLATO PLATO*

C or less Non-PLATO PLATO*

53

78 (79)

43

58 (49)

50

29 (86)

32 I5

19 (14) 4 (7)

47 IO

30 (34) I2 (17)

33 17

43 (14) 28 (-)

100

100

IO0

* Figures in parentheses are for other-PLATO

100

100

100

students.

Other reactions to PLATO Student reaction to the use of PLATO was explored further through the items listed in Table 8. On the basis of the answers to Questions 1 and 2 PLATO students seemed to be satisfied with the quality of the lessons and the contributions the lessons made to the course. The PLATO lessons viewed as a supplement to the course were overwhelmingly endorsed by PLATO users (Question 4). Again, as judged by the last question, PLATO students seemed satisfied with their exposure to computer-assisted instruction while non-PLATO students would have opted for more. These same results have been true for other semesters and for other courses. Although the preference for PLATO could be due to the novelty of computer-assisted instruction, this is thought to be somewhat unlikely due to its widespread use on the University of Illinois campus. In interpreting these figures it should be remembered that all of the students in the course used PLATO at least for taking examinations. In stating their opinions, therefore, non-PLATO students were doing so on the basis of more than a minimum exposure to computer-assisted instruction. * Although student replies to the questionnaire were anonymous. they reflect only the opinions of those who attended the lectures on the day the forms were distributed to the two groups,

DONALD W. PADEN and

266

Table 8. Student

reaction

MICHAEL D. BARR

to PLATO

(% responding)

1. How much did PLATO contribute to course?

Non-PLATO PLATO

Very much 9 34

29 44

Non-committal 20 16

20 4

2. The overall quality of the PLATO material was:

Non-PLATO PLATO

Very high 10 26

30 54

Non-committal 43 16

8 3

3. Learning from PLATO in the course was:

Non-PLATO PLATO

Enjoyable 22 34

30 36

Non-committal 31 16

11 9

4. PLATO as a supplement to this course was:

Non-PLATO PLATO

Helpful 18 44

33 43

Non-committal 27 6

14 7

Of no help 9 0

5. Compared to learning by textbook, PLATO was:

Non-PLATO PLATO

Faster 16 35

26 36

Same 49 25

9 4

Slower 3 0

6. Compared to learning by lectures, PLATO was :

Non-PLATO PLATO

Faster 18 27

28 39

Same 47 28

6 6

Slower 3 0

7. The number of exercises on PLATO was:

Non-PLATO PLATO

3 16

About right 60 69

18 10

Too few 18 4

Too many 1

I

Very little 20 2 Very low 9

Unenjoyable x 3

Cost of instruction The estimated cost of instruction in the economics course in question (without PLATO) is shown in the first column of Table 9. The Computer-Based Education Research Laboratory has suggested a ball-park figure of $2.50 per student hour as representing the cost of PLATO instruction (Column 2). This includes such items as computer use, local communications, and depreciation on the terminal but does not include the cost of lesson development*. The additional cost of PLATO per hour is shown in the third column. Thus, if PLATO is used as a substitute for one lecture per week for 15 weeks, the additional cost is roughly $26 per student per semester; if substituted for one quiz session taught by a graduate teaching assistant, the additional cost is about $22. For a possible 2% gain in the average score of students on the final examination-plus improvement in student attitudes-this may seem unduly costly. On the other hand, if the six-hour saving of student study time per semester is reasonably accurate and if a value of $4 an hour is placed on the long-run opportunity cost of this time (possibly an underestimate), there is a small net gain from using PLATO as a substitute for teaching assistants in small classes. Given the nature of the above estimates and the likelihood of PLATO costs declining in the future, the figures are offered only as a matter of general interest. Table 9. Cost of instruction Classroom instruction Lecture Quiz sections

$075/h 1GO/h

PLATO instruction $2.50 2.50

Additional expense (per hour) (per semester) $1.75 1.50

$26.25 22.50

Conclusions The present study provides reasonably impressive evidence that students in a controlled situation who depended upon PLATO for roughly one-seventh of the input in the beginning course in economics scored higher on the final examination than those who did not use PLATO. Although the gain was certainly not spectacular, in the opinion of the authors the improvement was quantitatively important. In a somewhat less elegantly executed part of the study the evidence suggests that students who used PLATO spent less time on the course than other students. When this was taken into account, the opportunity cost of PLATO instruction compared favorably with that of traditional * Each lesson probably required from 100 to 300 h of preparation on the part of the authors mers. James H. Wilson and M. Eugene Moyer helped program some of the earlier material.

and program-

Computer-assisted

in an elementary college economics course

instruction

261

instruction. Finally, the study indicates that students who used PLATO felt better about the course than those who do not. The gains in learning and attitudes suggested above may be due to the care used in writing the seven instructional sequences or to the fact that computer-assisted instruction, via PLATO, required students to maintain a cognitive posture during most of the time they spent on the system. More subtle gains unique to the PLATO experience were more difficult to measure. On the one hand, the economics programs on PLATO encouraged an appreciation of the use of models, mathematics, and the computer. On the other hand, PLATO made possible tutorial sessions free of judgmental overtones which, for many students, tends to inhibit learning. The authors believe that these same quantitative and qualitative gains will be found to be true in other institutions. for instructors using similar textbooks, and teaching comparable courses*. REFERENCES of the Principles of Programmed Instruction 1. Tieman P. W., Paden D. W. and McIntyre C. J., An Application to a Televised Course in Colleae Economics. U.S. Deoartment of Health. Education. and Welfare. Research

Report (I 966). B. R., Paden D. W., Smock H. R., 2. Alessi S. M., Anderson R. C., Anderson T. H., Biddle W. B., Dalgaard Surber J. R. and Wietecher E. J., Development and Implementation of the Computer Assisted Instruction Study Management System (CAISMS). Naval Personnel Research and Development Center and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Technical Report (I 974). based study management system. Educ. Psycho!. 11, 36-45 (1974). 3. Alessi S. M. et al., A computer 4. Anderson T. H., Anderson R. C., Dalgaard B. R., Paden D. W., Biddle W. B., Surber J. R. and Alessi S. M.. An experimental evaluation of a computer based study management system. Educ. Psycho!. 11, 184 190 (1975). computer based course management system. Proceedings of the Second 5. Anderson T. H. et al., A multifaceted World Conference on Computers in Education, Amsterdam, I23- I30 (1975). instruction. Am. Econ. Rev. LXII, 422428 (1972). 6. Kelley A..C., TIPS and technical change in classroom I. Anderson R. C. and Biddle W. B., On asking people questions about what they are reading. Psychol. Learn. Motia.

8. Paden National

9. Paden

9, 89-I 32 (1975).

D. W. and Barr M. D., Computer Educational

Computing

D. W., Dalgaard

assisted

Conference

instruction

for large classes in economics. Proceedings of University of Iowa (1979). of computer assisted instruction. J. Econ. Educ. 9,

1979. pp. 227-232.

B. R. and Barr M. D., A decade

14-20 (1977).

APPENDIX Number

of students

by estimated

time spent studying Non-PLATO

Considerably more than 3 h Somewhat more than 3 h About 3 h Somewhat less than 3 h Considerably less than 3 h

*The lessons are currently being used in such colleges and home economics. They are suitable intermediate micro and macro courses.

26 40 62 63 21

1 economics

excluding PLATO 16 23 30 26 10

time in class and on PLATO Other-PLATO 10 27 38 22 6

widely differing institutions and programs as community for both three- and six-hour courses and for review in