Computers are fast becoming an important factor in elementary school teaching. The number of computers in American elementary schools has increased by a factor of at least 10 during this decade, and the majority of schools now own them (Becker, 1983) . The use of computers in teaching is nonetheless a difficult subject to bring into focus. Researchers and developers disagree on some of the basic issues. Even the terminology in the area is open to dispute. The acronym CAI is often used, but it is variously interpreted as standing for computer-assisted instruction, computer-aided instruction, computer-augmented instruction, or computer-administered instruction. Other terms used in the area are computer-managed instruction, computerbased learning, and computer-based instruction. Computer-based education, or CBE, is becoming increasingly popular as a generic term for the area because it encompasses a broad spectrum of computer applications (Hall, 1982) . Researchers also differ in their opinions on the best way to subdivide the area. Early taxonomies of CBE usually distinguished between four uses of the computer in teaching (Atkinson, 1969; Watson, 1972) : (a) In drill-and-practice applications, the teacher presents lessons to pupils by conventional means, and the The material in this report is based upon work supported by a grant from the Exxon Education Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Exxon Education Foundation. The authors thank David Shwalb and Jolie Spring for their invaluable assistance in locating studies for the report. Requests for reprints should be sent to James A. Kulik, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan, 109 E. Madison St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Kulik, Kulik and Bangert-Drowns computer provides practice exercises as a follow-up; (b) in the tutorial mode, the computer both presents the concepts and provides practice exercises on them; (c) in dialogue mode, the computer presents lessons and practice, and the student is free to construct natural language responses, ask questions in unrestricted mode, and almost completely control the sequence of learning events; and (d) in computer-managed instruction, the computer evaluates students either on-line or offline, guides students to appropriate instructional resources, and keeps records. Recent taxonomies show that today's researchers have a broader conception of the role that computers can play in education. Taylor (1980) , for example, has described three uses of the computer in schools. First, as a tutor, the computer presents material, evaluates student responses, determines what to present next, and keeps records of student progress. Most computer uses described in earlier taxonomies involved the tutoring function of computers. Second, the computer serves as a tool when students use it fbr statistical analysis, calculation, or" word processing, such as when students use it as a calculator in mathematics classes, as a map-maker in geography, as a performer in music, or as a text editor and copyist in English. Third, the computer serves as a tutee when students give it directions in a programming language that it understands, such as Basic or Logo. Experts also differ in their assessment of the effects that CBE is likely to have on children. In Run, Computer, Run, tor example, Oettinger (1969) has argued that claims of positive benefits from CBE are grossly exaggerated. In Oettinger's view, schools are too conservative to make good use of teaching innovations, and computer-based teaching technology is too poorly developed to be of much use to schools. In Mindstorms, on the other hand, Papert (1980) has written glowingly of the effects that computation has on children. In Papert's view, computers can open up microworlds for children. In the simulated reality of these worlds, children learn to manipulate objects, to apply themselves to long-range projects, and to construct new symbol systems. They thereby gain a greater mastery of the world, a sense of the power of applied knowledge, and a realistic image of themselves as intellectual agents. Most educators and researchers can live with the differences in opinion about computer terminology and taxonomy. Although troublesome, such differences do not seriously affect their capacity to use computers. Differences in opinion about the effects of CBE on children are an entirely different matter. Such differences can affect planning for the future. Without knowing what CBE has already achieved, teachers and researchers cannot be confident in designing new instructional programs. To clear up uncertainty, researchers have therefore carried out numerous studies evaluating computer uses in schools. Some of their evaluation reports are impressionistic and of little scientific value. Other evaluation reports, however, describe controlled studies that merit serious attention. In a typical study of this type, a researcher divides a group of students into an experimental and a control group. Members of the experimental group receive part of their instruction with computer assistance, whereas members of the control group receive their instruction by conventional teaching methods. At the end of the experiment, the researcher compares responses of the two groups on a common measure. Such evaluation studies have been carried out often enough to give some indication of the overall worth of CBE. Reviews designed to integrate the findings from the evaluation studies are of two basic types: box-score tabulations and meta-analyses. Box-score reviews usually report the proportion of studies favorable and unfavorable to CBE, and often provide narrative comments about the studies as well. Reviewers using meta-analysis take a more quantitative approach to their task (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981) . They use (a) objective procedures to locate studies, (b) quantitative or quasi-quantitative techniques to describe study features and outcomes, and (c) statistical methods to summarize overall findings and explore relationships between study features and outcomes. The box-score reviews have produced a generally favorable picture of CBE effects. Vinsonhaler and Bass' (1972) review, for example, examined results from eight separate reports on computer-based drill-and-practice in elementary schools. The eight reports presented results from ten studies, three in language arts and seven in arithmetic. For language arts, the performance of CAI groups was between 0.1 and 0.4 school years beyond the performance of traditionally instructed groups, and all findings were positive. For arithmetic, most comparisons showed a statistically significant advantage in favor of the CAI group. Edwards, Norton, Taylor, Weiss, and Dusseldorp's (1975) box-score review covered a wider range of applications of CBE, including studies of computerbased drill-and-practice, tutorials, and simulations carried out in elementary schools, high schools, and colleges. Ten of the 27 reports that these investigators located described findings from elementary schools. These reports covered 12 separate sets of results. The reviewers considered 9 of these 12 sets of findings (or 75%) to be positive for CBE. Meta-analytic research by Hartley (1978) and Burns (1981) focussed on computer-based drill-and-practice and tutorials in elementary and secondary arithmetic. Hartley's analysis covered 22 studies and 89 separate results. A total of 81 of these 89 results were from grades 1 through 8. The average effect of CBE in these grades was to raise arithmetic achievement scores by 0.42 standard deviations. Burns (1981) located 32 separate documents for her meta-analysis. She coded approximately 400 results from these studies, and nearly 90% of these were from the elementary grades. The average effect of CBE in these grades was to raise arithmetic achievement by 0.37 standard deviations. The value of these early reviews is limited by several factors. First, the conclusions in the reviews are based mainly on studies published before 1975 of computer-based teaching of arithmetic. The reviews give too little attention to recent studies and to computer-based teaching in subjects other than arithmetic. None of the studies reviewed by Vinsonhaler and Bass (1972) , for example, was published after 1971; none of those reviewed by Edwards et al. (1975) was published after 1973, and only a handful of the studies of elementary school CBE reviewed by Hartley (1978) and by Burns (1981) were conducted during the past 10 years. All of the studies reviewed by Hartley and Burns, all but three of the studies reviewed by Vinsonhaler and Bass, and five of those reviewed by Edwards et al. focussed on the teaching of arithmetic. A second factor that limits the value of earlier reviews is their methodology. Early reviews of CBE effectiveness were written at a time when rapid progress was being made in the development of a methodology for research synthesis, and most of the reviewers were not able to incorporate the advances into their analyses. The reviews by Vinsonhaler and Bass (1972) and by Edwards et al. (1975) ,
A meta-analysis of comparative studies on computer-managed instruction (CMI) and interactive computer-assisted instruction (CAI) showed that computer-based education has generally had positive effects on the achievement of elementary school students REF .
Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education in Elementary Schools
Computers in Human Behavior
Psychology