1887

An Evaluation of Computer-Based Instruction in Microbiology

    Authors: SUSAN M. MERKEL1,*, LAURA B. WALMAN1,†, JEREMY S. LEVENTHAL1,††
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Microbiology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Microbiology, 111 Wing Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. Phone: (607) 254-2767. Fax: (607) 255-3904. E-mail: [email protected].
    • Present address: Washington and Lee University School of Law, Lexington, VA 24450.
      †† Present address: Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029.
    • Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2000 vol. 1 no. 1 14-19. doi:10.1128/154288100X14285805487315
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    83.49 Kb
  • HTML
    53.30 Kb
  • XML

    Abstract:

    There has been a tremendous increase in the availability of computer-based instructional (CBI) materials. Some studies have shown an improvement in learning when CBI is used. However, many researchers believe the current studies are inadequate. While CBI software should be thoroughly tested by developers, as educators, we should be concerned about whether or not the CBI materials we use are improving learning in our classrooms with our students. We present an evaluation of a computer-based hypermedia tutorial that was delivered over our General Microbiology website. We found that CBI was at least as effective as text-based material. However, of all students who used CBI, only those who explored most of the site benefited from using the site. Tracking each student’s use of the CBI was critical for understanding who was learning and why.

Key Concept Ranking

Lead
0.625
Respiration
0.5555556
Elements
0.4944847
0.625

References & Citations

1. ASM Biofilm Image Project 1998 copyright date [Online]. American Society for Microbiology. http://www.asmusa.org/edusrc/edu34.htm. [3 January 2000, last date accessed.]
2. Bio-Films: The Movies 1998 copyright date [Online] General Microbiology Course Site, Department of Microbiology, Cornell University. http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/biomi290/Horror/Biofilmmenu.html. [3 January 2000, last date accessed.]
3. Bloom BS, Hastings JT, Madaus GF 1971 Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning McGraw-Hill New York, N.Y.
4. Clark RE 1989 Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology Educ Technol Res Dev 37 1 57 66 10.1007/BF02299046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299046
5. Crosby ME, Stelovsky J 1995 From multimedia instruction to multimedia evaluation J Educ Multimedia Hypermedia 4 2/3 147 167
6. Gay G, Mazur J 1993 The utility of computer tracking tools for user-centered design Educ Technol 33 4 45 59
7. Gibbs WJ 1995 copyright date. [Online.] Multi-media and computer-based instructional software: evaluation methods. http://www.gettysburg.edu/ir/ascue/Proceedings/gibbs2.html. [24 February 2000, last date accessed.]
8. Hutchings GA, Hall W, Briggs J, Hammond NV, Kibby MR, McKnight C, Riley D 1992 Authoring and evaluation of hypermedia for education Comput Educ 18 1–3 171 177 10.1016/0360-1315(92)90051-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(92)90051-6
9. Jones TH, Paolucci R 1999 Research framework and dimensions for evaluating the effectiveness of educational technology systems on learning outcomes J Res Comput Educ 32 1 17 27
10. Kearsley G 1998 Educational technology: a critique Educ Technol 38 2 47 51
11. Kulik JA 1994 Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction, 9–27 Baker EL, O’Neil HF Jr Technology assessment in education and training L. Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, N.J.
12. Kumar DD, Hegelson SL, White AL 1994 Computer technology-cognitive psychology interface and science performance assessment Educ Technol Res Dev 42 4 6 16 10.1007/BF02298052 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02298052
13. Nicholls C, Merkel SM, Cordts ML 1996 The effect of computer animation on students’ understanding of microbiology J Res Comput Educ 28 3 359 371
14. Park O 1998 Visual displays and contextual presentations in computer-based instruction Educ Technol Res Dev 46 3 37 50 10.1007/BF02299760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299760
15. Regian JW, Shute VJ 1994 Evaluating intelligent tutoring systems 79 94 Baker EL, O’Neil HF Jr Technology assessment in education and training L. Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, N.J.
16. Reiber LP 1990 Using computer graphics in science instruction with children J Educ Pyschol 82 1 135 140 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.135 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.135
17. Reiber LP, Boyce MJ, Assad C 1990 The effects of computer animation on adult learning and retrieval tasks J. Computer-Based Instruct. 17 2 46 52
18. Reigeluth CM, Schwartz E 1989 An instructional theory for the design of computer-based simulation J. Computer-Based Instruct. 16 1 1 10
19. Rowland P, Stuessy CL 1988 Matching mode of CAI to cognitive style: an exploratory study J Comput Math Sci Teaching 7 4 36 40
20. Simonson MR, Thompson A 1994 Educational computing foundations 2nd ed. Merrill New York, N.Y.
21. Steinberg E 1991 Computer assisted instruction: a synthesis of theory, practice and technology L. Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, N.J.
22. Szabo M, Poohkay B 1996 An experimental study of animation, mathematics achievement and attitude toward computer-assisted instruction J Res Comput Educ 28 3 390 402
23. Teslow JL 1995 Humor me: a call for research Educ Technol Res Dev 43 3 6 28 10.1007/BF02300453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02300453
24. Weller HG 1996 Assessing the impact of computer-based learning in science J Res Comput Educ 28 4 461 487

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/154288100X14285805487315
2000-05-01
2019-01-22

Abstract:

There has been a tremendous increase in the availability of computer-based instructional (CBI) materials. Some studies have shown an improvement in learning when CBI is used. However, many researchers believe the current studies are inadequate. While CBI software should be thoroughly tested by developers, as educators, we should be concerned about whether or not the CBI materials we use are improving learning in our classrooms with our students. We present an evaluation of a computer-based hypermedia tutorial that was delivered over our General Microbiology website. We found that CBI was at least as effective as text-based material. However, of all students who used CBI, only those who explored most of the site benefited from using the site. Tracking each student’s use of the CBI was critical for understanding who was learning and why.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/1/1/jmbe-1-1-14.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/154288100X14285805487315&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error