who did not receive Computer Aided Instruction. In addition, Niemiec and Walberg (1987) also observed that students progress more quickly in their learning from CAI if they are: (1) elementary school students rather than high school students; (2) involved with "tutorials" versus "drill and practice"; and (3) low ability, remedial populations rather than "average" populations.
In one study of Computer Aided Instruction, Anand and Ross (1987) designed and evaluated a computer-based adaptive strategy for teaching mathematical rules to samples of fifth- and sixth-grade children. The authors reasoned that personalizing the arithmetic materials would lead to increased learning. Mathematical problems were personalized by incorporating information about children's friends, interests and hobbies into the context of the problem. Subjects in the study were randomly assigned to one of three context-treatment groups and one outside control group. Other treatment conditions included realistic but hypothetical problems in which nothing personal to the subjects was incorporated into problems. Anand and Ross (1987) reported that:
Experimental outcomes favored the personalized-context group over one or both of the other groups in solving standard problems and transfer problems (problems that assessed students' ability to apply what had been learned to new situations), in recognizing rule procedures, and in task attitudes. In supplemental analyses, we examined influences on achievement of gender, age and aptitude treatment interactions based on California Achievement Tests scores. Results are interpreted as suggesting the benefits of personalized examples for motivation and meaningful learning of problem-solving procedures. (p.72).
What is particularly interesting about the Anand and Ross study is that it not only demonstrates the efficacy of Computer Aided Instruction for the teaching of math, but it also shows that this efficacy can be ...