Computers in Human Behavior, Voh 2, pp. 235-238, 1986 0747-5632/86 $3.00 + .

00
Printed in the U.S.A. All rights reserved. Copyright © 1987 Pergamon Journals Inc.

Book Review

Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development. S. M. Alessi and S. R. Trol-

lip. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985, xiii + 418 pp., $25.95, paperback.

T h e history of c o m p u t e r s has been traced to various origins, but E N I A C (Electronic

N u m e r i c a l I n t e g r a t o r and C o m p u t e r ) is a good c a n d i d a t e for the distinction of first elec-
tronic, general purpose computer. W h e n it was activated in F e b r u a r y of 1946, it occupied
15,000 square feet of floor space and had to be rewired literally every time it was to per-
form a new function. A b o u t twenty years later, I B M touted the "360" as its flagship main-
frame. It featured 256K "core m e m o r y " and cost the m o d e r n equivalent of $800,000.
A n o t h e r 20 years has put c o m p u t e r s with m o r e power and m o r e versatility on desktops
at prices below $2,000.
T h e c o n t i n u i n g evolution of "smaller and better" c o m p u t e r technology is the stuff of
science fiction and is enough to m a k e anyone w o n d e r where it will lead. C o r p o r a t i o n s ,
universities, and school districts are particularly interested in the future of classroom com-
p u t i n g and m a n y are betting that it will prove to be more fact than fiction. Apple, C o m -
m o d o r e , T a n d y / R a d i o Shack, and I B M are investing great efforts to capture parts of the
educational market estimated to be worth more than $2.3 billion dollars over the next four
years in h a r d w a r e alone (Reinhold, 1986).
Despite the willingness of some to make these large investments, others suspect the com-
p u t e r will have no more success in the schools than did other m u c h - h e r a l d e d technologi-
cal innovations, such as, the p h o n o g r a p h , television, and teaching machines. T h o u g h the
p h o n o g r a p h and television have found wide acceptance in A m e r i c a n society, they have
never been widely used devices for school instruction. Recent surveys have shown that
schools will f'requently teach about computers, but less frequently teach with computers
(Becker, H. J . , 1983; C o r p o r a t i o n for Public Broadcasting, 1986).
P e r h a p s the greatest threat to the acceptance of c o m p u t e r - b a s e d instruction is the lack
of a d e q u a t e software. A n assessment project which surveyed h u n d r e d s of p r o g r a m s rec-
o m m e n d e d only 30 % to 40 % for use and found only 5 % to be of truly high quality. O n l y
20 % of the p r o g r a m s had been pilot tested with learners d u r i n g d e v e l o p m e n t (Komoski,
1984, p. 247). H a r d w a r e can only be as good as its software. In the educational arena,
new fleets of powerful m i c r o c o m p u t e r s look like fine ships sent to sea without pilots.
It is in this context that the book Computer-Based Instruction. Methods and Development is
presented. T h e authors express their legitimate concern over the poor quality of typical
instructional software and offer detailed advice from their own experience with p r o g r a m
d e v e l o p m e n t as a contribution to the necessary remediation. In three sections, the authors
touch on all the m a j o r themes relevant to c o m p u t e r - b a s e d instruction: hardware, instruc-
tional design, and software d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e meat of the book is in the second section
and it consists of meticuluous descriptions of and prescriptions for effective tutorials, drills,
simulations, instructional games, and c o m p u t e r - b a s e d testing. T h e first section gives cur-
sory sketches of the c o m p u t e r ' s history in and out of the classroom and of h a r d w a r e and
software that developers should know about. T h e third section concerns the processes
related to software development, such as, flowcharting and p r o g r a m m i n g . O n e good fea-
ture of this section (and the whole book) is that it is not machine- or l a n g u a g e - b o u n d . T h e
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s are generic and do not p r e s u m e a familiarity with any p a r t i c u l a r com-
p u t e r or p r o g r a m m i n g language.
T h e strategy of empowering novice developers with explicit rules for the creation of effec-
tive software is an a p p e a l i n g one. Local software d e v e l o p m e n t could be m o r e responsive

235
236 Book Review

to the specific needs of a particular school district, school, class, or even student. Program-
m i n g instruction could clarify the content and methods of instruction for teachers, par-
ents, and students, and could help in isolating especially effective and especially weak
c o m p o n e n t s of a course or a c u r r i c u l u m . Finally, the same standards that Computer-Based
Instruction r e c o m m e n d s for developers could be b o r r o w e d by users and purchasers of soft-
ware to sift the wheat from the chaff.
W h a t should developers and evaluators attend to if they are to i m p r o v e the quality of
instructional software? A n d does Computer-Based Instruction provide the necessary directicm?
I think developers and, perhaps even more, evaluators of instructional software would do
well to e x a m i n e this book. Its consideration of different software types is thorough and
detailed and even experienced p r o g r a m m e r s will p r o b a b l y be led to consider software fea-
tures that they had i n a d v e r t e n t l y neglected in the past. T h e book's great virtues are its
thoroughness and detail; its great d r a w b a c k s are that it seems somewhat dated and con-
servative in its conception of software development.
Section 1, "Computers and Their Applications," is probably the weakest part of the book.
T h e historical b a c k g r o u n d and discussion of differences in c o m p u t e r h a r d w a r e is superfb
cial and has the quality of being an afterthought. In the discussion of h a r d w a r e , Apple's
discontinued Lisa computer is pictured, as is a discontinued Texas Instrument's home com-
puter. It is unclear whether the authors purposefully chose these representatives or pub-
lication delays r e n d e r e d some of this section obsolete. T h o u g h these discontinued models
are included, no m e n t i o n is m a d e of Apple's Macintosh. T h e Macintosh's uniquely user-
friendly c o m b i n a t i o n of m e n u - d r i v e n , icon-based, mouse-controlled p r o g r a m s complete
with w i n d o w i n g functions makes it a c o m p u t e r that simply cannot be ignored in a book
discussing instructional computing. Mice and Macintoshes are not the only items miss-
ing from the discussion of hardware. M o d e m s , conferencing and networking, hard disks,
and other devices never m a d e it to the text.
H i s t o r y and h a r d w a r e are tangential to the m a i n purpose of this book. But other sec-
tions of the book are w e a k e n e d when they do not elaborate on the relationship between
development issues and hardware. For example, under what educational conditions would
a joystick be preferred to, say, a light pen? Nor does the book consider novel integrations
of new and old instructional systems. For example, how could a "traditional" c o m p u t e r -
based tutorial be e n h a n c e d by allowing c o m p u t e r conferencing while the lesson is in
progress?
Section 2, " M e t h o d s of C o m p u t e r - B a s e d Instruction," classifies instructional software
into five groups: drills, tutorials, simulations, instructional games, and testing programs.
These seem to be fair and well-defined distinctions. T h e authors rightfully qualify their
t a x o n o m y , suggesting that some software will combine elements of more than one of these
types, such as, a tutorial interspersed with short simulations. Unfortunately, the book does
not examine how such combinations could work and I suspect the average reader will finish
the book conceiving of software in just five categories.
The second section is eminently practical, often suggesting what to do without explaining
why it should be done this way. T h o u g h this a p p r o a c h will help developers get into pro-
duction right away, the dearth of theory m a y be a mistake for the long haul. W h e n a
p r o g r a m m e r is faced with a novel p r o b l e m or wishes to set out on some untraditional
course, he or she would still want to g r o u n d a new p r o g r a m in some set of principles that
are p r e s u m e d to be true of instruction and l e a r n i n g generally. Such principles are rarely
discussed in the book and, when they are, they are often not related to the specific recom-
m e n d a t i o n s offered.
T h a t ' s not to say that the book has no guiding models. T h e ones that arc given seem
highly indebted to the behavioristic tradition. T h e instructional model, for example, bor-
rows four of nine instructional events proposed by Gagn~ (Gagnd, 1970; Gagn~, W a g e r ,
& Rojas, 1981). T h e authors believe all good instruction must present intbrnmtion, guide
the student, provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s tbr practice, a n d assess student learning. These arc,
 Book Review 237

of course, alternative descriptors for a shaping process using cycles of stimulus-response-

reinforcement.
Gagnfi's instructional events are a good place for a designer to start, but they are not
without their shortcomings. First, they are vague and often cannot give clear direction.
T o say that instruction m e a n s p r o v i d i n g information, guiding the student, etc., almost
begs the question. Now we must ask what it means to provide information, guide the stu-
dent, etc. Also, the book's model implies a lock-step approach to instruction, that one must
first present information, then guide students, then provide practice, etc. U n d e r some cir-
cumstances, it m a y be desirable to change the o r d e r of events. In fact, in some circum-
stances, it m a y be desirable to withhold some of the events. It m a y be instructionally sound,
for example, d e p e n d i n g on the students and the content to be learned, to not present infor-
m a t i o n but require students to discover it tbr themselves.
In section three, Cornputer-Based Instruction introduces a model of software d e v e l o p m e n t
that would be useful for novice developers and those who are dissatisfied with their cur-
rent methods. Like the instructional model, the d e v e l o p m e n t model has a behavioristic
flavor. Its eight steps can be described in three parts: the organization of ideas, produc-
tion of instructional materials, and evaluation of the product. T w o c o m m e n t s should be
m a d e about the model.
T h e first part of the d e v e l o p m e n t model, the organization of ideas, is very similar to
m e t h o d s tor the d e v e l o p m e n t of behavioral objectives. T h e authors do well to explicitly
direct developers to review the available resources, including previous programs in the area,
and to use b r a i n s t o r m i n g techniques to generate ideas for the instructional p r o g r a m . T h e
authors also discuss "conceptual analysis" as an alternative or supplement to "task analysis."
P r o g r a m m i n g , and instruction generally, would i m p r o v e if all teachers would be so
explicit in creating their lessons. But what's missing from this approach is attention to the
cognitive processes that learners can be expected to engage in when presented with particu-
lar elements of' p r o g r a m s . A n o t h e r way of designing instruction then would m e a n begin-
ning with clear statements of the kinds of mental processes, strategies, skills, and procedures
we wish our students to acquire d u r i n g our instruction. If we wish to only convey infor-
mation, we could do the intbrmation processing for the students, thereby "short-circuiting"
their own mental activity. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , most instructional software is of this "short-
circuiting" type. If we think that our students either already have the skills we want to
teach and simply need to refine them or are gifted enough to invent them on their own,
we can provide "activating" tasks, complex tasks that require students to exercise the skills
we wish to teach. Finally, we can use the c o m p u t e r to "model" mental activities tbr the
student, giving them a clear e x a m p l e of how p a r t i c u l a r mental strategies can help resolve
difficult p r o b l e m s ( C o r n o & Snow, 1986). I hope that consideration o f " s h o r t - c i r c u i t i n g , "
" m o d e l i n g , " and "activating" mental strategies becomes as much a part of instructional
design as p e r f o r m a n c e and content analyses should also be.
The second part of the development model described in Computer-Based Instruction involves
the production of instructional materials. This section is good, though one caution should
be added. T h e model advocates the use of storyboards, separate sheets of p a p e r represent-
ing individual displays that learners will see. T h o u g h this would be useful for simple pro-
grams, s t o r y b o a r d i n g will almost inevitably result in p r o g r a m s r e s e m b l i n g what t b r m e r
Secretary of E d u c a t i o n T. H. Bell called "electronic p a g e - t u r n i n g , " and this is especially
true for novice developers. Granted, the computer will be able to "turn pages" quickly and
in complex ways, but we should be able to expect more from such sophisticated devices.
S t o r y b o a r d i n g can be especially c u m b e r s o m e if not impossible to use when the p r o g r a m
involves complex animation, or when users have control over the appearance of the screen,
as in the multiple w i n d o w capacity of the A p p l e M a c i n t o s h .
F o r a book that is m e a n t to help software developers and users i m p r o v e on the poor
showing of instructional p r o g r a m m i n g to date, it is strange that the authors do not expound
on how the efforts to date have failed. T o change the way they work, designers and
238 Book Review

p r o g r a m m e r s need both an ideal to pursue and a clear conception of what to avoid, of

what has been tried a n d what needs to be improved. Bork (1984) gives a helpful list of
13 factors that characterize poor instructional software. These include "failure to make use
of the interactive capabilities of the computer, failure to make use of the capabilities of
the computer to individualize instruction, too-heavy reliance on text, treatment of the com-
puter screen as though it were a book page, content that does not fit anywhere in the cur-
riculum, and use of long sets of instructions at the b e g i n n i n g of programs that are difficuh
to follow and difficult to recall" (p. 241). A list like this would be a good place to start a
book on i m p r o v i n g instructional software, and I'm afraid that the present book does not
examine these problems in much detail.
For developers and evaluators of instructional software, Alessi and Trollip's book
Computer-Based Instruction is a good book to have on hand. It gives a h a n d y reference to
criteria tot evaluating instructional software and is full of tips for software development,
the kind of tips that one discovers only after years of work in the area. But readers are
also advised of its limitations. It is short on theory, a little outdated in places (something
that is ahnost unavoidable in such a fast-changing field), and somewhat conserwttive in
its conception of computer-based instruction.

Robert L. Bangert-Drowns
C e n t e r tbr Research on L e a r n i n g and T e a c h i n g
University of Michigan
A n n Arbor, M I

REFERENCES

Becket, H.J. (1983). &hool uses ofmicrocornputer~, issue no. l. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Orga-
nization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University.
Bork, A. (1984). Computers in education today--And some possible thturcs. Phi Delta Kappan, 66,
239-243.
Corno, L., & Snow, R.E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual difterences among learners. In
M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teachin& New York: Macmillan.
Corporation tor Public Broadcasting. (1986). A national study of the educational uses of telecom-
munications technology in America's colleges and universities. Research Notes, No. 21. Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
Gagn~, R.M. (1970). 7"he conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
GagnG R.M., Wager, W., & Rojas, A. (1981). Planning and authoring computer-assisted instrut tion
lessons. Educational Technology, 21, 17-21.
Komoski, P.K. (1984). Educational computing: The burden of insuring quality. Phi Delta Kappan,
66, 244-248.
Reinhold, F. (1986). Micro marketers: How hardware vendors plan to woo schools. Electronic Learning,,
6, 30-36, 83-84.