Faculty Attitudes toward Computer-Based Education Max D. Larsen Research Center, Inc., Lincoln, NE 68510
SRI
T o assess chemistry faculty perceptions about and experience with comonter-based education. Control Data Cornoration engaged SRI Research Center of Lincoln, ~ e b r a i k a , to conduct an attitude survey of faculty members. This paper provides chemists with an overview of attitudes of chemistry faculty members, both users and nonusers, regarding their expectations from compnter-based education. Computer-based education (CBE) is a multi-media interactive approach t o instruction using a computer to provide immediate feedback to student responses. The computer tracks student progress and assists the instructor in record keeping. Compnter-based education involves tutorial and drill exercises, but it does not necessarily include programming or simulation. CBE is teaching with a computer-not teachingabout a comouter. Random s'amples of 100 four-year institutions with freshmen engineering enrollments of 50 or more and 100 two-year schools witb a preengineering enrollment of 50 or more were selected. From each of the schools selected, a faculty member was chosen a t random. Respondents were screened so that onlv facnltv members familiar with the freshman chemistrv course werk interviewed. All interviews were conducted by telephone from the SRI Research Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, during the spring semester of 1982-83 by full-time professional interviewers. Ten percent of all interviews were validated by supervisory caUbacks. Completed questionnaires were edited and coded independently. At the 95% level of confidence, the maximum expected error range for a sample of 200 is f6.9% and for a sample of 100 is f9.8%. In addition to the 200 chemistry faculty members interviewed, SRI Research Center also interviewed faculty members from other disciplines--from 4-year institutions, 100each in physics, mathematics, and computer science, and from 2-year institutions, 100 in the mathematical sciences area. Chemistry Faculty Attitudes t o w a r d Educatlon
T o ascertain general opinions among chemistry faculty members about education, each respondent was asked to inTable 1.
E x p e r i e n c e w i t h Computer-Based Education
Faculty Oplnlons about Educatlona
Statement Students would learn more if they could be made to "participate" in lhe exposition. Students do nm read the textbwk carahllly in most beginning chemistry classes. Students studying on their own and passing a standardized exam over a regular course do not do as well in subsequent courses as &dents who anend c1asses. Carefully written muniple choice testing can measure elfectiveiy what studems have learned in a chemishy ciass. Less capable Studenk wouid benefit from being able to learn at their own rates. Graphsand tables wouid be more ellective if lhey would be developed step by step rather man showing the student a completed graph. The tenbook is not very usehrl in teaching chemisby.
-X
4.39
s 0.84
4.03
1.10
3.70
1.13
3.60
1.23
3.58
1.25
2.80
1.16
1.51
dicate if he or she agreed completelv, agreed somewhat, neither agreed not disagreed, disagreed somewhat, or disagreed completely with each of seven stntrments read bv the interviewer. By assigning 5 = agree completely, 4 = &gee somewhat, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree somewhat, and 1= disagree completely and then dividing by the number of respondents expressing an opinion, mean scores have been computed to permit comparison of results. The mean scores and standard deviations are shown in Table 1. The statement witb which there was the stroneest aeree"~~~ ~~"~~~ ment was the one regarding the advantages to student learning if the students participate in the exposition. Although faculty members expressed reasonably high agreement witb the statement that students do not read textbwks carefully in most beginning chemistry courses, there was strong disagreement that the textbook was not useful in teaching chemistry. I t may be that the use of the textbook as a source of examples, exercises, or tables of reference make the book useful even though students do not read it carefully. There was only slight agreement (3.60 on the scale) regarding the effectiveness of multiple-chnice testing. Anticipating that the testing issue would bea critical one, the survey investigated the type of testing procedures currently nsed ih freshman chemistry courses at the institutions sampled. Table 2 summarizes the results. Three-quarters (76%) of the schools in the sample used objective tests in their freshman chemistry courses. Also, 88% nsed tests graded by the major instructor. Since there is obviously some overlap between these areas, either the major instructor is grading objective questions on tests or tests contain objective questions in addition to other kinds of questions that are graded by the major instructor. Two out of five (39%) of the respondents indicated that comDuter gradingof tests is currenily used in their freshman chemistry course. Half (50%)the chemistrv facultv at four-vear institutions use computers for grading tests.. Use of standardized tests, objective tests, and computer grading of tests was higher among chemistry faculty than among faculty from the other disciplines interviewed.
0.86
Mean saneand sm&rd deviationmmplted using 5 = w e e m p l e t e i y . 4 = -, 3 =neither agree mn dioagree, 2 = disagree. 1 = disagree mmpletely.
T o discover awareness of CRt3 capabilities, each respondent was asked ahout his or her experirncr and familiarity with CRE on three leveh-used b\. the resoondtmt as an instmctrgr. nsed by another instructor k t h i n his or her own university: and nsed by another instructor at another university. The responses to these questions are summarized in the following paragraphs. T o provide a common understanding of terms, the interTable 2.
Testing Procedures Currently Used in Freshman Chemistry C o u r n s Percent Using Procedure
Procedure Objective (multiplechoiceor rme/lalse) tests Tests graded by lhe major instructor Tests graded by a teaching assistant Computer grading ol tests Standardized tests
Volume
62 Number 5
76 88 32 39 32
May 1985
415
viewer explained that computer-based education (CBE), refers to "use of a computer to deliver instructional materials and is synonymous with computrr-assisted instruction or CAI. Cl3E does not deal with computrr literacy, nor does it involve or perform comthe use of the computer to Bo~ve putation." One qusrter (25%) of the respondents had, as an instructor, used CBE where it provided a portion of the instruction in a course. The listing below indicates the percentage of those respondents who had used CBE as an instructor who used i t in the mode indicated. Percent "Yes" 44 T o provide the equivalent of homework for the student 18 T o replace lecture portions of the course, using the instructor to answer students' questions As supplemental material for students who choose to 86 use it
Two-thirds (68%) of the respondents were familiar with a C B E course as an instructor, in another department within their university, or in another university. Familiarity with CBE as an instructor or as an obsewer was higher for chemistry faculty than for faculty in the other disciplines. Important Attributes of CBE Respondents were asked to assume that there is a freshman-level CBE chemistrv course that utilizes a textbook, a microromputrr, and H student guide for a total course. The instructor's role, it was explained, would br limited to anTable 3. Imporlance of Varlous Attrlbutes in Adbptlon of CBE cn,,.se
*
Attribute It me testing asrociated with the CBE chemistry course would analyze student errors and suggest appropriate materials tor study r the computer record-keeping would idenlily students who are falling behind or performing unsatisfactorily It the CBE chemistry course would use a textbook as an integral part of the instruction If Vle CBE chemistry students would be examined using the same tests as nan-CBE students If me chemistry content of the CBE course was as high or highel than lhe standard lecture course If the computer would provide records that show studenls' progress an a weekly basis It the CBE chemistry course would use mastery testing that would prevent studems from continuing until in~tructor-setp e f i o m n c e standards had been met If the computer would be able to analyze student work so mat partial credit could be awarded It the CBE chemistry could be taught side-by-side with a traditional chemistry course so students could transfer back and forth If the students felt the CBE couse war more challenging If the CBE chemistry course would use the same textbwk as the noffiBE course It the cost per credit hour for the CBE c o u m would be lower man the current methad of instruction Ifme students were required to spend the same amount 01 time to score as high on tests 11me CBE chemistry c a u w would have its own testing svstem lhat would redace auizzes and homework It Uw CBE chemistry course would have Its own standalone testing system that would repiace our exams and the final exam 5 =very impm?ant.
416
. . . .I= not at all important
Journal of Chemical Education
swering individual student's questions. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each of several attributes in terms of adoption of a CBE course in their department. By assigning values 5 = very important,. . .1 = n o t at all important, and dividing by the number of respondents expressing an opinion, mean scores and standard deviations have been com~utedto nermit comnarisons. The results are summarized in able 3. Two categories of factors stand out as beine the most important in t e k s of adoption of a CBE course. Eve of the eight items rated most important deal with effective use of the computer in individuaiizing the instruction. Analyzing student errors and suggesting appropriate materials for study use were rated the most important, followed closely by using the computer to keep records so that students who are falling behind or performing unsatisfactorily would he identified. The first of these is incorporated in the student feedback aspects of interactive CBE. Also, CBE is usually keyed to learning ohjectives, and failure to perform adequately on a particular objective will indicate to the student that more work in that area is needed. The record-keeping ca~abilitvof most CBE programs adequately identifiesst"denk who-are falling behind or performing unsatisfnrtor~lyif the instructor uses the to provide options-that are &ailable. ~ s i n g ~ t h computer e records that show students' progress on a weekly basis and using mastery that pre\,ents students from rontinuing until inatructor-set performance standards are met can also be inroroortt.d in most sonhisticated CRE cuurses. using the compute; to award partial credit can he addressed hv askine students to enter their answer to a com~licated problem or exercise and then, in subsequent questions, examining the nortions of the student's work that are correct. Three factors rated important in the decision to adopt a CBE course deal with making the CBE course as much like the "standard" course as possible. I t is important that the CBE course use a textbook as an integral part of the instruction. The content of the CBE course should be as high or higher than the standard lecture course. The CBE students should he examined using the same tests as non-CBE students. While importance is placed on effective use of the computer in keeping records and individualizing instruction, the use of CHK testine to renlacr "standard" tvstine was rated imv in terms of importance. The items rated lowest in importance were that the CBE course would have its own stand-alone testing system that would replace hour exams and the final exam and that a CBE testing system that would replace quizzes and homework. There were several factors iudeed not to he verv imnortant that could he described as "a>ce&ahle d i f f e r e n c k between CBE and the current method of instruction. Respondents placed low importance on the fact that students be required to spend the same amount of time on a CBE course as on a reg& course in order to score as high on tests. In other words, A
-
Table 4.
-
Llkellhood of Use of CBE on Varlous Componentsa Component
FW remedial work for studems who need additional help AS additional material in a resource center FOThighly motivated students as a means of accelerating their
.
Drwram " AJ a supplement to IecNres n lieu of ree tatton secloons TO provide ~ S V Jon C not ~ nnmai y available Vlrough class offerings Fw OW-campusshrdents who have scheduling problems with Usual OWeringS AS a complete course using an instructor t w individual questions 5
= veryiMeiy..
..
.
1 = notatall likely
-X
s
4.37 1.02 3.99 1.22 3.98 1.27 3 60 1 24 3 59 1 31
3.15 1.47 2.62 1.32
it is acceptable for CBE to he a more efficient way for students to learn. Low imnortance was nlaced on the CBE murne heine more challenging. It ISnot necessary for the cost per student cred~thour for the C R E course to he lower than the current method of instruction. I t is not important that the CBE course use the same textbook as a non-CBE course nor that the content in the CBE course be as high as in the other course. There was little variation across disciplines in the ranking of items in terms of importance for adoption decisions. Faculty have clear ideas about the effective role for the computer in CBE and hold for themselves the testing and evaluation functions. Table 4 summarizes the likelihood that chemistry faculty members would use CBE courseware in various modes, provided effective CBE courseware were available to them. The mean scores were computed by assigning 5 = very likely,. . . , and 1= not at all likely. The most likely use of effective CBE material, according to the responses summarized in Table 4, is for remedial work for students who need additional help. Next in likelihood of use of CBE was for highly motivated students as a means of accelerating their program or for additional material in a resource center. All three of these deal with student individual differences and make use of the one-on-one format inherent in CBE. The least likely uses of CBE are to extend the curriculum ~
~~
by providing instruction not normally available through class offerings (however, presumably, if the instruction not normally available through class offerings was remedial or for highly motivated students, the likelihood of use would be high) or as a complete course using an instructor only for individual questions. Respondents were asked what sources of information they used or are most likely to use to learn about new developments in teaching chemistry. The interviewer probed for two responses. Over half (56%) mentioned that the JOURNAL OF CHEMICALEDUCATIONwas the source used most. Threequarters (76%) of the faculty from four-year schools and 36% of the faculty from two -year schools named the JOURNAL OF CHEMICALEDUCATION. Summary Experience with computer grading of tests and use of obiective tests, cou~ledwith the fact that two-thirds of thefach t y member3 inierviewed have direct or indirect experience with CBE, indicate a base uf knowledee that is conducive to use O~CBE. Adoption of a CBE course &I depend on effective use of the comnuter for manaeement. record-keenine. and individualizing~instrurtion.~ h C' R E kourse must'n&tuin the "standards" of r e a l m courses. The most likely use uf CBE is as supplemental-material rather than as atand-alone courses.
