Who Else Wants To achieve success With COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY

Comparisons of one CBL format to another are important, and if properly designed and conducted will produce results that can be applied (generalized) to other settings and thus enable the most effective use of this powerful teaching tool. As well, CT showed larger effects on the mathematics achievement of special need students than that of general education students, the positive effect of CT was greater when combined with a constructivist approach to teaching than with a traditional approach to teaching, and studies that used non-standardized tests as measures of mathematics achievement reported larger effects of CT than studies that used standardized tests. For face-to-face teaching, for example, configurations include lecture, small-group discussion, problem-based learning, and bedside teaching. CBL configurations often parallel those of face-to-face settings. CBL research has an advantage here over many other educational interventions. Examples of media-comparative research in CBL abound,5 and I have been guilty of reporting such comparisons.9 However, I have come to believe in the accuracy of previous proposals that media-comparative research be abandoned. However, although the clinical research paradigm does apply to education research, most media-comparative research does not appropriately fall into this rubric.

Note, however, that the levels of this hierarchy have nothing to do with the relative importance of the design components. To this end, there appear to be three variables (other than the medium) relevant to the design and research of CBL programs: configuration, instructional method, and presentation. Interestingly research has proven that computer games have been an exemplary tool to solve problems like confining spaces, heights as well as phobia. But this is not just standard station surfing of course, as it can be on line so you have the technology getting state to you of the-art television in a comfortable and easy to use way. Some other cost clarifications can be about the minimum cost charges if there are any. There is a natural order or nesting (see Figure 1), such that defining an intervention at an earlier level (to the left in Figure 1) will constrain the implementation and options at later levels. At first glance, it seems natural when evaluating a new educational intervention to compare it to another method to establish superiority or at least equivalence.

To answer this question I will first present a framework for systematic, meaningful comparisons of computer-based instructional design, and then outline additional interventions and outcomes that merit rigorous CBL-CBL research. The difficulties with variation in participants (including unequal enthusiasm for the interventions) in large comparative trials in medical education have been discussed elsewhere.8 Bias in the outcome measure is a third potential source of variance in education research.1 Although participants and outcomes can potentially dominate the effects of the educational intervention, they can be addressed in the study design. In this article, I reiterate the argument that media-comparative research is futile, and propose in its place a novel framework for research into computer-based instructional design. Media-comparative research seeks to make comparisons between different media formats such as paper, computer, and face-to-face. While comparisons among media are confounded (results are susceptible to multiple interpretations), the same is not necessarily true of CBL-CBL comparisons that evaluate specific features. Comparisons of this type are analogous to comparing treatment of myocardial infarction with aspirin and nitroglycerin to treatment with low-molecular weight heparin, primary angioplasty, beta-blockade, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, HMG-CoA-reductase inhibitor, clopidogrel, and folate-all at once. Thus, comparing a new CBL program to, say, the old paper syllabus seems to be a good idea.

This po st was done  with GSA Content​ Gen erator  D​em ov ersi on.

Consider, for example, the comparison of a Web-based program to a paper equivalent. A review of WBL research6 found 35 evaluative studies, eight of which compared Web-based interventions to interventions using other media, while none compared different CBL formats. Such research would require, as Clark put it, “a uniform medium such as ‘computer’ which can be compared with some other uniform medium such as ’teacher.’”2 Such uniformity does not exist. Found that only 1% of those studies compared one CBL format to another. ”1 What studies should be done in CBL? What, then, should be the direction of further CBL research? Norman8 proposes two factors that distinguish the kind of medical education research that is likely to provide meaningful results. Such investigations cannot be reliably generalized-taken from the context in which they were studied and applied to a new setting-because the multifactorial intervention cannot be replicated precisely, and implementation of only a subset of factors may or may not be effective. After all, this appears to be what we do in clinical and biomedical research when we evaluate a new intervention. With a college degree, software developers, computer network architects, and computer information research scientists can earn six-figure salaries. To avoid confounding, research is best done within rather than between levels in this hierarchy.

Leave a Comment