You are here:

Evaluating the Quality of Current Online CBI Applications for K-12 Learners
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Nevada, Reno, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Antonio, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-61-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This paper evaluates the quality of 900 Web delivered computer based instruction (CBI) programs (tutorials, drills, games, and tests) used by K-12 teachers and students over a seven-year period from 1999 to 2006. The quality of an online application was measured with four variables: (a) quality of information, (b) quality of technology (c) instructional design, and (d) usability. There are two parts of this study. In the first part, the four quality variables are compared by the types of the applications. Results indicate that quality of different types of online applications differs in the four design variables, and they all have strength and weakness. In the second part, the author finds that the four quality variables can be used as the predictors to students' perception and the teachers' perception about using such applications in learning.

Citation

Liu, L. (2007). Evaluating the Quality of Current Online CBI Applications for K-12 Learners. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 871-876). San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Aviv, R., & Golan, G. (1998). Pedagogic communication patterns in collaborative telelearning. Journal of Education Technology Systems, 26(3), 201-201.
  2. Barker, S., Winterstein, A.P., & Wright, K.E. (2004). Tools for creating e-learning: Learning objects. Athletic Therapy Today, 9 (1), 10-15.
  3. Barnard, J. (1997). The WorldWide Web and higher education: The promise of virtual universities and online libraries. Educational Technology, 37(3), 30-35.
  4. Berge, Z. (1997). Computer conferencing and the on-line classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 3 (1), 3-21.
  5. Boer, W.D., & Collis, B. (2001). Implementation and adaptation experiences with a WWW-based course management system. Computer in the Schools, 17(3/4), 127-146.
  6. Brem, S.K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32(2/ 3), 191-213.
  7. Coombs, S.J., & Rodd, J. (2001). Using the Internet to deliver higher education: A cautionary tale about achieving good practice. Computers in the Schools, 17(3/4), 67-90.
  8. Cunningham, C.A., & Billingsley, M. (2003). Curriculum Webs. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
  9. Jafari, A. (2002). Conceptualizing intelligent agents for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, No. 3, 28-34.
  10. Green, S.B., & Salkind, N.J. (2005). Using SPSS: Analyzing and understanding data (4th Ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
  11. Johnson, D.L., & Liu, L. (2000). First steps toward a statistically generated information technology integration model. Computers in the Schools, 16(2), P. 3-12.
  12. Leshin, C.B. (1998). Internet adventures: Integrating the Internet into the curriculum. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  13. Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J.B., & Mizell, A.P. (2005). Teaching and learning with technology. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
  14. Liu, L. (2001). On-line delivery of multimedia courseware: Issues and effects. In J.D. Price, D.A. Willis, N. Davis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology& Teacher Education Annual 2001 (pp. 1126-1131).
  15. Liu, L., & Velasques-Bryant, N.J. (2003). An information technology integration system and its lifecycle: What is missing? Computers in the Schools, 20(1/2), P. 93-106.
  16. Maddux, C.D., Ewing-Taylor, J., & Johnson, D.L. (2002). The light and dark sides of distance education. Computers in the Schools, 19(3/4), 1-7.
  17. Murphy, E. (2004). Moving from theory to practice in the design of Web-based learning using a learning object approach. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 7 (1). Retrieved March 10, 2004, from http://www.usq.edu/electpub/e-jist/ Owston, R.D. (2000). Evaluating Web-based learning environments: Strategies and insights. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3 (1), 79-87.
  18. Shackelford, J. (1999). Assessing the strengths and limits of websites: The web form in action. Feminist Economics, 5 (1), 78-90.
  19. Shelly, G.B., Cashman, T.J., Gunter, R.E., & Gunter, G.A. (2003). Teacher discovering computers: Integrating technology in the classroom (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Course Technology.
  20. Torgerson, C.J., & Elbourne, D. (2002). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of information and communication technology on the teaching of spelling. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(2), 129-143.
  21. Tsai, M.J., & Tsai, C.C. (2003). Information searching strategies in Web-based science learning: The role of Internet self-efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(1), 43-50.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.