Computer Assisted Learning

Schär, Schluep, Schierz and Krueger (2000) at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland investigated the effect of the computer user-interface on learning performance. Five experiments were performed in order to investigate the effect. The theoretical motivation was to validate the relevance of a cognitive theory about two modes of learning in a human-computer interaction (HCI) context. In all the experiments factors estimating the theoretical principles were compared with factors estimating heuristic measures of user-friendliness. The experiments showed consistently that the two learning modes can be induced by different user-interfaces, and that the induced learning mode has an effect on the learning performance. Further, this research

There were suggestions that CAI provides students with the "why" behind health-related fitness, since it provides unlimited practice, review, and remediation and so students stay actively involved. So far there had been little investigation into the effectiveness of IMM in physical education instruction in schools. Previous studies in physical education had shown that Computer Assisted Instruction is not consistently superior to the traditional forms of instruction.

Christmann, Badget and Lucking (1997) conducted a meta-analysis on the effect of CAI in secondary education for the years of 1984 to 1995. They selected only those studies which were correlative, quasi experimental or experimental in design and concluded that CAI had a greater effect size in the 1980s that it did in 1990s. Their research indicated that for the 12 years period (1984 to 1995), secondary students exposed to CAI showed higher academic achievement that 57.2% of those students exposed to traditional

• Computer-based education (CAI and other computer applications) produce higher achievement than conventional instruction alone.

• Students’ use of word processors to develop writing skills leads to higher-quality written work than other writing methods (paper and pencil, conventional typewriters).

• Students learn material faster with CAI than with conventional instruction alone.

• Students retain what they have learned better with CAI than with conventional instruction alone.

• The use of CAI leads to more positive attitudes toward computers, course content, quality of instruction, school in general, and self-as-learner than the use of conventional instruction alone.

• The use of CAI is associated with other beneficial outcomes, including greater internal locus of control, school attendance, motivation/time-on-task, and student-student cooperation and collaboration than the use of conventional instruction alone.

• CAI is more beneficial for younger students than older ones.

• CAI is more beneficial with lower-achieving students than with higher-achieving