The Effect of Computer-Assisted and Computer Programming Instruction On the Computer Literacy of High Ability Fifth Grade Students

649

The Effect of Computer-Assisted andComputer Programming InstructionOn the Computer Literacy ofHigh Ability Fifth Grade Students

Michael T. BattistaKathleen J. Steele

The use of computers has become sopervasive that computer literacy hasbecome a legitimate instructionalgoal for our schools. Indeed, theNational Council of Supervisors ofMathematics has listed computerliteracy as one of the ten basic skillareas in mathematics instruction(1978). And the National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics, in itsAgenda for Action, has recom-mended that "a computer literacycourse, familiarizing the studentwith the role and impact of the com-puter, should be a part of the educa-tion of every student" (1980, p. 9).

However, even though almosteveryone agrees that students shouldbecome computer literate, there isno agreement among educatorsabout the definition of computer

literacy. Both the above-mentioned organizations have taken a broad,comprehensive view of computer literacy. Similarly, Moursund

School Science and MathematicsVolume 84 (8) December 1984

650 Computer Literacy

(1975) has defined computer literacy to be knowledge of the non-techni-cal and low-technical aspects of the capabilities and limitations of com-puters, and of the social, vocational, and educational implications ofcomputer use. Johnson, Anderson, Hansen, and Klassen (1980) have de-veloped a similar definition, along with a broad set of objectives thatdeal with computer literacy in both the affective and cognitive domains.The Minnesota Computer Literacy and Awareness Assessment(MCLAA) is the testing instrument they developed to measure attain-ment of these objectives (Anderson, Hansen, Johnson, and Klassen,1979).

<(. . . there is also a lack of knowledge of the effects of giv-ing students hands-on experience with computers.M

Luehrmann, on the other hand, has defined computer literacy as "theability to do computing" (1981, p. 683), by which he presumably meansthe programming computer. He discounts the value of the objectivescovered by the MCLAA and claims that most of the items that requirestudents to actually "do" something can be answered correctly by stu-dents after only a few hours of hands-on computer experience. Ander-son, Klassen, and Johnson (1981) disagree with the latter contention andcite empirical evidence to refute Luehrmann’s claim.

Thus, not only is there disagreement about the definition of computerliteracy, there is also a lack of knowledge of the effects of giving studentshands-on experience with computers. In order for educators to be fullyaware of the consequences of utilizing different definitions of computerliteracy, and in order for developers of computer education curricula tobe able to design instruction to match a given set of computer-related ob-jectives, it has become extremely important to document the effects ofdifferent types of computer-based instruction on students’ feelings andknowledge about computers. Hence, the purpose of the present studywas to investigate the effects of two commonly used types of computer-based instruction, CAI and computer programming instruction, on thefeelings and knowledge students have about computers.More specifically, the present study investigated the following two

questions:(1) How do computer-assisted instruction in mathematics and com-

puter programming instruction affect the computer literacy of high abili-ty fifth grade students in both the affective and cognitive domains?


Computer Literacy 651

(2) Do students involved in computer programming instruction learnabout the capabilities and uses of computers if these topics are not ex-plicitly dealt with in instruction?

In order to examine as many computer-related effects on students aspossible, the definition of computer literacy utilized in the study was thebroad, comprehensive one proposed by Anderson, Klassen, and John-son.

Procedure

The subjects for the study were 72 fifth grade students taken from threemidwestern elementary schools. The Control group and the ComputerAssisted Instruction (CAI) group consisted of students who participatedin the study by Steele (1981). The top 24 students from each of the twogroups in that study were selected for the present study on the basis oftheir IQ scores. The Programming group consisted of all 24 of the fifthgrade students who participated in the study by Battista (1981). Theywere selected by the fifth grade teachers and the administration of theschool, based on their high academic performance.The mean IQ scores of the Control and CAI groups as measured by the

California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity were 121 and 118, re-spectively. The mean IQ score for students in the Programming groupwas 121 as measured by the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. Sincescores on these two IQ tests are comparable in this range, there is no rea-son to believe that the three groups differed in intellectual ability(Hieronymus and Stroud, 1969).

Students in the CAI group used Math Sequences (Milliken PublishingCo., 1980), a commercially available computer-assisted drill and practiceseries designed for microcomputer use. Based upon the research andcomputer-assisted instructional programs designed by Patrick Suppesand others at Stanford University, the series included problems in theareas of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, laws of arith-metic, negative numbers, fractions, decimals, and percents. Each studentstarted at the first level of difficulty and proceeded automatically tohigher levels of difficulty at a rate determined by his performance andthe criteria programmed into the computer. The students were scheduledto work with the microcomputer for 10 minutes, two times a week, forthe entire 1980-81 school year (36 weeks).

Students in the Control group used the Singer Individualized Mathe-matics Drill and Practice Kit (Suppes and Jerman, 1969) for indi-vidualized drill and practice over the same topics covered in the com-



puterized Math Sequences, The students were scheduled to work with thekit for 10 minutes, two times a week, for the entire 1980-81 school year.

^The computer sessions emphasized student exploration andproblem solving . . /?

Students in the Programming group received, on the average, one 37minute session per week of classroom instruction on microcomputers forapproximately 24 of the 36 weeks of the 1980-81 school year. (There wasa period of about 8 weeks after the midyear break when no university in-structor was available to teach the computer classes, and there were sev-eral weeks when the elementary school’s schedule did not permit instruc-tion.) The computer sessions emphasized student exploration andproblem solving, with students spending most of their time working atthe computers in pairs in order to create graphics displays and run and al-ter prewritten programs. Two examples of the activities used with thestudents are given in Figure 1. Although elementary BASIC commandssuch as LET, PRINT, INPUT, GOTO, FOR-NEXT, IF-THEN, and thegraphics command SET were explained to the students, little time wasspent on formal discussions of the BASIC language. The students alsohad limited access to a microcomputer in their regular classroom andwere supposed to teach what they had learned in computer class to theirclassmates.Note that, because of the nature of the study, it was not possible to

control for the difference in instructors in the three treatments. Hpw-ever, since the CAI and control treatments were completely individual-ized, students had little contact with instructors during the treatments.And since the programming treatment had students working at their ownspeed in pairs at the computers, it too was individualized, minimizingstudent contact with the instructor. Thus, although the instructor vari-able was not controlled in the study, the effect that this variable had onthe results of the study should have been minimal.At the end of the 1980-81 school year, students in the Programming

group were given a computer literacy and awareness assessment (CLAA)that consisted of 56 items selected from the Minnesota Computer Litera-cy and Awareness Assessment. Students in the Control and CAI groupswere given the full 83-item version of the MCLAA at both the beginningand end of the school year. Thus, post-test data was available for all



FIGURE imple Programming Activities

Activity 3

Type in Program 3.

10 CLS20 OVER-RNDCU?)30 DOWN-RND(47)40 SET(OVER.DOWN)50 GOTO 20

Change line 20 to look like this:

20 OVER=RND(63)

Run the new program. What happened?

How could you change the program so that only the bottom half ofthe screen becomes white? How about the bottom left fourth?

Activity 6

Type in Program 6.

10 CLS20 FOR 1=1 TO 4730 SET(64,I)40 NEXT I50 GOTO 50

What do you think would happen if line 50 were omitted? Try it.

Alter the program so that the vertical line segment is drawn some-where else on the screen.

Alter the program so that a horizontal line segment is drawn onthe screen.

Alter the program so that one vertical and one horizontal linesegment are drawn on the screen.

Can you write a program that draws a tic-tac-toe board on thescreen?

Can you write a program that draws a rectangle on the screen?How about a square?

three groups on the 56-item version of the test, and this version was usedas a measure of computer literacy for the present study.The CLAA used for the present study included items for assessing

both affective and cognitive objectives of computer literacy. The affec-tive subscale consisted of 20 items to be answered on a five-point Likert



scale with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.This subscale was designed to measure the following attitudes and valuesstudents had concerning computers: enjoyment, anxiety, efficacy (confi-dence), and educational computer support. The cognitive subscale con-sisted of 36 items. This subscale was designed to measure the knowledgestudents possessed about the following technical areas related to com-puters: hardware, software, programming, applications, and impact onsociety. The reliability of the 56-item version of the CLAA was estab-lished for the 72 students involved in the study using the Cronbach Al-pha. The reliability for the affective subscale was .87, for the cognitivesubscale .67, and for the total test. 84.

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations for Components of Computer Literacy

Component

Enjoyment (25)1

Anxiety (25)

Efficacy (25)

Education (25)

AffectiveTotal (100)

Hardware (5)

Software (7)

Applications (10)

Impact (10)

Programming (4)

CognitiveTotal (36)

TOTAL (136)

Cj

Mean

20.42

21.71

19.88

19.63

81.63

2.63

3.46

8.08

6.96

1.17

22.29

103.92

Ms.d.

( 4.34)

( 3.85)

( 4.82)

( 3.21)

(12.32)

( .71)

( 1.74)

( 1.82)

( 1.73)

( .82)

( 4.47)

(14.87)

Group

ProgramMean

22.88

21.71

19.96

20.54

85.08

2.58

3.96

7.08

5.58

.71

19.92

105.00

imirs.

(2

(3

(3

(3

(9

(

(1.63)

(1

(1

(

(3.57)

(9.91) 92.50

d̂.

1.35)

1.58)

1.53)

(.36)

1.33)

.83)

.38)

.38)

.75)

CcMean

18.08

19.25

17.83

18.21

73.38

2.29

3.71

6.25

6.17

.71

19.13

�ntrca

(4

(3

(3

(2

(11

(

( 1

( 1

( 1

(

( 4

(11.50)

>!i.d.

^69)

(.65)

1.29)

;.81)

.30)

.91)

.52)

.82)

.83)

.86)

.42)

Maximum score possible

There were 24 students in each group.



RESULTS

The means and standard deviations for the three groups of students onthe various components of computer literacy are listed in Table 1. It canbe seen from the table that the Programming group scored higher thanthe CAI group on the affective subscale of computer literacy, with mostof the difference accounted for by different scores in the enjoymentcomponent, whereas the CAI group scored higher than the Programminggroup on the cognitive subscale of computer literacy, with most of thedifference accounted for by different scores on the applications and im-pact components. In addition, since a score of 60 on the affective totalindicates neither a positive nor a negative attitude related to computers,while a score of 80 indicates a definitely positive attitude, the data indi-cates that both the CAI and Programming groups had positive attitudestowards computers. However, since a reasonable requirement for com-puter literacy on the cognitive total would be 29, or about 80% of the 36items correct, neither group could be considered computer literate in thecognitive domain.

Table 2AMOVAs for Affective and Cognitive Subscales of Computer Literacy

Subscale_______Source of variation df____MS_______F_____

Affective total Treatment 2 868.43 7.11**

Error___________69 122.22__________

Cognitive total Treatment 2 65.18 3.73*

________________Error___________69_____17.47__________

*p<. 05**p<.01

For both the affective and cognitive subscales of computer literacy, ananalysis of variance was completed to detect significant differences be-tween the groups. See Table 2. Significant differences between groupperformance were found on both subscales (p < .01 for affective, p < .05for cognitive). Given the overall significant F values on the affective andcognitive subscales, further post-hoc analysis was conducted to deter-mine exactly which group differences contributed most to the overall sig-nificant differences between the groups. Newman-Keuls tests of differ-



ences between group means indicated that both the Programming groupand the CAI group had significantly higher scores than the Controlgroup on the affective subscale (p < .05), and that the CAI group scoredsignificantly higher than the Control group on the cognitive subscale (p< .05). No other significant differences were detected.

<(. . . both the computer-assisted and computer pro-gramming instruction significantly improved students^ com-puter literacy in the affective domain . . .M

Discussion

Two questions were investigated by the present study. The first askedhow computer-assisted and computer programming instruction affectthe computer literacy of high ability fifth grade students. The results ofthe study indicate that both the computer-assisted and computer pro-gramming instruction significantly improved students’ computer literacyin the affective domain, but that only the computer-assisted instructionsignificantly improved it in the cognitive domain. Although the data sug-gested that the programming treatment improved the computer literacyof students more than the CAI treatment in the affective domain, andthat the CAI treatment was more effective in the cognitive domain,neither difference was significant. Furthermore, given the relatively lowreliability of the CLAA cognitive subscale and the fact that neither theCAI nor the Programming treatment seemed to develop an adequatelevel of computer literacy in the cognitive domain, the difference in theeffects of these two treatments seemed especially slight in the cognitivedomain.The second question investigated by the present study asked if students

involved in computer programming instruction learn about the capabili-ties and uses of computers if these topics are not explicitly taught. Anegative answer to this question was found. The results of the presentstudy suggest that neither treatment was effective in developing an ade-quate level of cognitive computer literacy and that only the CAI treat-ment significantly increased the cognitive component of computer litera-cy. Surprisingly, the programming treatment did not significantly im-prove the computer literacy of students in the cognitive domain. It wasthought that since students in the Programming group dealt with how tocommand a computer to do various tasks, they would be more attuned to



how computers work and how they can be used in society. Although thelack of effect of the programming treatment within the cognitive domainof computer literacy is puzzling, it is consistent with the results reportedby Anderson et al. (1981). Perhaps one of the effects of teaching pro-gramming without discussing the nature of computers and how they areused in society is to narrow students’ focus on computers so that they be-come concerned only with learning how to control computers, not howthey are used. On the other hand, it is possible that students who are ex-posed only to CAI become interested in learning more about computersin general, and, over time, learn about computers from various mediasources and acquaintances. This would account for the significant in-crease in the cognitive aspect of computer literacy found for the CAIgroup. Although the increase in cognitive computer literacy for the CAIgroup may seem surprising, the finding is similar to the results from astudy by Battista and Krockover (1984) which found that preservice ele-mentary teachers exposed to a limited amount of CAI in a semester-longgeoscience course showed a significant increase in both the cognitive andthe affective domains of computer literacy (p < .001).Another point to consider in interpreting the lack of improvement of

the Programming group in the cognitive domain of computer literacy isthe definition of computer literacy used in the present study. Only fourout of 36 items on the cognitive subscale of the CLAA required studentsto "do computing" in Luerhmann’s terms. And these four items in-volved rather complicated LET statements that were algebraic in natureand that may have been a bit too complex for fifth graders to solve.Thus, although the test of computer literacy utilized in the present studyseemed to adequately measure students’ knowledge about computers,their applications and their impact on society, it may not have adequatelyassessed students’ ability to "do computing." Future comparisons of theeffects of CAI and programming instruction should measure computerliteracy in both the sense of Klassen et al. and Luerhmann. It would beespecially useful to researchers in this area if a testing instrument appro-priate for assessing students’ ability to "do computing" could be devel-oped.

In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that both CAIand programming instruction were effective in improving the computerliteracy of high ability fifth grade students in the affective domain, butthat only CAI improved it in the cognitive domain. However, neither theCAI nor the programming treatments were effective in developing anadequate level of the cognitive component of computer literacy in the



students. Furthermore, the present study suggests that if knowledgeabout how computers work, what types of tasks they can perform, andhow they are used in society are goals of instruction, they must be ex-plicitly taught�they will not occur incidentally during students’ expo-sure to computers. Thus, while programming instruction will almost cer-tainly improve the computer literacy of students according to Luehr-mann’s definition, it is doubtful that it will improve the cognitive com-puter literacy of students according to the definition of Anderson et al.Much more research is needed in this area to determine the effects ofvarious types of computer-based instruction on students’ knowledge andattitudes towards computers, and how these effects depend on age andintellectual ability. Such research is essential for quality curriculum de-velopment in the area of computer education.

Michael T. BattistaCollege of EducationKent State UniversityKent, Ohio 44242

Kathleen J. SteeleCommunity School CorporationCra\vfordsville, Indiana 47933

References

Anderson, R. E., T. P. Hansen, D. C. Johnson, and D. L. Klassen. Minnesota ComputerLiteracy and Awareness Assessment, Form 8. St. Paul, Minnesota: Special Projects, Min-nesota Educational Computing Consortium, 1979.Anderson, R. E., D. L. Klassen, and D. L. Johnson. In defense of a comprehensive viewof computer literacy�A reply to Luehrmann. Mathematics Teacher; 1981, 74, 687-690.Battista, M. T. Computer literacy of fifth grade students and preservice elementry teachersinvolved in computer programming instruction. The Computing Teacher, 1981, 9, 37-39.Battista, M. T. and G. H. Krockover. The effects of computer use in science and mathe-matics education upon the computer literacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 1984, 27, 39-46.Hieronymous, A. N., and J. B. Stroud. Comparability of IQ scores on five widely used in-telligence tests. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 1969, 2, 135-140.Johnson, D. C., R. E. Anderson, T. P. Hansen, and D. L. Klassen. Computer Litera-cy�What is it? Mathematics Teacher, 1980, 73, 91-96.Luehrmann, A. Computer literacy�What should it be? Mathematics Teacher, 1981, 74,682-686.Milliken Publishing Company. Math Sequences. St. Louis, Missouri: WICAT, 1980.Moursund, D. What is computer literacy? Oregon Council/or Computer Education, 1975,2,2.National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. Position statements on basic skills.Mathematics Teacher, 1978, 71, 147-152.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Agenda for Action. Reston, Virginia: Na-tional Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1980.Steele, K. J. The effect of computer-assisted mathematical instruction upon the computerliteracy of fifth-grade students using a microcomputer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1981.Suppes, P., and M. Jerman. Individualized Mathematics Drill and Practice Kit. New York,NY: L. W. Singer Company, 1969.


Documents

The Effect of Computer-Assisted and Computer Programming Instruction On the Computer Literacy of High Ability Fifth Grade Students