Pergamon 0360-1315(95)01)1)48-8

Computers Educ. Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 151 162, 1995 Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0360-1315•95 $9,50 + 0.00

A D V A N T A G E S , D I S A D V A N T A G E S , F A C I L I T A T O R S , A N D

I N H I B I T O R S O F C O M P U T E R - A I D E D I N S T R U C T I O N IN

S I N G A P O R E ' S S E C O N D A R Y S C H O O L S

PIEN WANG ~ and PUI SAN CHAN 2 Department of Business Policy, Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore,

10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 0511 and 2 Housing Development Board, 18th Storey, 3451 Jalan Bukit Mera, Singapore 0315

Abstract -The Republic of Singapore initiated a project titled a Student's and Teacher's Workbench in secondary schools in 1993. The project planned to use computer-aided instruction (CAt) for enhancing students" self learning both in the classroom and from a distance. The successful implementation of CAI depends on the cooperation of teachers. Thus, it is important to understand teachers" attitude towards CAI. This study investigated two important issues: first, what the teachers perceived to be the major disadvantages and disadvantages of implementing CAl. Second, what they perceived to be the major facilitators and inhibitors of CA1 implementation. Usable responses were collected from 117 secondary school teachers. The respondents perceived that immediate feedback to students and provision of alternative teaching techniques are the major advantages of CAI, whereas isolation from human interaction and large capital investment are the major disadvantages. The respondents also felt that support from the Ministry of Education, availability of teachers' time and resources, as well as provision of administrative support facilitate CA1 implementation. On the contrary, lack of time, too few computers, and lack of teachers" experience and skills in education technology were considered to inhibit CAI implementation.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

The Republic of Singapore will probably be the first country in the world to have a national information infrastructure (NII) in operation in less than 10 years. In preparation for this event, the government outlined, in The IT2000 Report, the uses of NII to make Singapore an intelligent island [1]. In this report, education is considered as a major area of application.

Singapore is interested in educational technology support for several reasons: shortage of teachers, student attrition, improved teaching quality, and the recognition of the importance of education in general [2]. The government's philosophy is that the use of information, knowledge, and technology is the most important factor in a country's success.

To attain the government's objectives, a project titled a Student's and Teacher's Workbench (STW) was initiated in 1993 [2]. It was considered a bold initiative for preparing elementary and secondary school students for the future.

The STW is composed of three components: a learning material repository, student's workbench, and teacher's workbench. In the first two components, there is a planned use of computer-aided instruction (CAI) for enhancing self learning, both in the classroom and from a distance. In addition, CAI is viewed as helping in solving the problem of teachers' shortage [2].

Extensive experimentation regarding CAI is currently conducted by the National Computer Board, and by several universities and research institutions. The teachers involved in these experiments will soon teach science the new way in Secondary 1 classes. The teachers by attending training sessions in CAI conducted by the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore and the National Computer Board. They learn how to use computerized databanks, extract materials from various electronic sources and how to use multimedia to create lessons by mixing words, pictures, and sounds [2].

The STW project will be implemented in six secondary schools in 1996. Each school will receive up to US$140,000, with the flexibility of buying any computer they wish. An evaluation will be made later on whether the STW should be extended to more schools and to include more subjects.

The use of CAI is not new in Singapore's high schools. In 1986, a computer education program was started in one secondary school using a system of 22 networked microcomputers. The objectives of the program were to evaluate the implementation of various modes of CAI such as tutoring,

151

152 PIEN WANG and PUI SAN CHAN

simulation, and problem-solving, and to test the efficiency of the network as a CAI delivery mechanism [3].

Some research on the effects of CAI in Singapore schools has been reported [4-7]. On the whole, significant positive effects of CAI on students' learning of geography, mathematics, and geometry have been found. The use of CAI in geography classes was found to lead to substantial improvements in terms of achievement and attitudes especially of slow learners, as well as improvement in the classroom environment [7].

Most of the above investigations concentrate on testing the effectiveness of CAI. However, little attention was given to a simple, but fundamental issue: how the teachers feel about the use of CAI. This paper describes the results of a survey involving teachers in high schools in Singapore. Two major research issues were investigated. First, what did the teachers perceive to be the major advantages and disadvantages of implementing CAI. Second, what did they perceive to be the major facilitators and inhibitors of CAI implementation.

PRIOR RESEARCH

The following literature review corresponds to the items used in the survey, according to their rank order in Tables 11-14). Some items are without literature review, because they were proposed during the pilot testing.

Advantages of CAI (Table 11)

1. Immediate feedback to students. CAI provides the student with an immediate feedback. The student responds to questions relating to the class material, in this way learning difficulties can be discovered quickly. Student can rectify their mistakes immediately [8].

2. Provision of alternative teaching techniques. The computer can utilize a number of teaching methods and materials that may not be viable to use in a traditional setting. For example, a graphics display terminal using animated characters on a screen is a stimulating tool. Teachers can also use computer simulation, educational games, remote databases, and miscellaneous software to help students in solving problems and understanding abstract mathematics and science concepts [9].

3. Unlimited patience exhibited by the computer. Computers provide consistency in teaching and they are patient teachers; they can operate 24 hours a day; they will never openly embarrass the learner; and they are race and colour-blind [8, 10].

4. Individualized instruction. Learning is significantly more effective and efficient when instruction can be tailored to the unique needs of each learner. CAI enables students to go through specific lessons at their own pace [11]. The respondents in the study of Sullivan et al. [12] agreed that CAI would result in much greater individualization of instruction. Similarly, the findings of Swan and Mitrani [13] revealed that student-teacher interactions and learning were significantly more student- centred and individualized during computer-based teaching than during traditional teaching. In contrast, in a survey conducted by Woodrow [14], some teachers felt that computers reduced individualized instruction to students.

5. Abifity to conduct simulations. In a national survey on the use of CAI in Dutch institutions of higher education, de Jong et al. [15] found that the most popular form of CAI was simulation. One of the reasons that simulation is so popular could be that it is the only type of CAI in which the program adds something to the curriculum that a teacher cannot offer. Also, simulation offers a safe environment for practice; time scales of real life processes can be changed and hypothetical realities can be designed [16]. Another reason for the popularity of simulation could be that this type of environment fits in with the prevailing constructivist view on instruction and learning [17].

6. Providing instructions on demand. The computer can provide virtually unlimited accessibility to educational material. The computer's availability is not constrained by the same factors that place a limit on a teacher's time. Whereas a teacher is available only during specific hours, in a specific place, and usually for group lessons, a computer is available for use at all times and on an individual basis and in many places [8, 18].

7. Favourable attitude of students toward CA1. American college students were found to have

CAI in Singapore's secondary schools 153

more positive attitude toward computers as effective teachers, after completing a Sociology 100 (freshmen) course incorporating CAI in the classroom, as compared to their attitude prior to taking the course [19]. Similarly, Chinese high school students were found to like computer as a new media for delivering and assisting mathematics [20] and English [21] instructions.

Disadvantages of CAI (Table 12)

The following are the major CAI disadvantages cited in the literature: 1. Isolation from human interaction. Some people feel that if students spend the bulk of their

time interacting with a terminal, rather than with people, they can lose touch with what others are doing and feel isolated and alienated [8, 22]. In contrast, Vogler et al. [19] observed that students seem to feel more comfortable asking the instructor for individual attention in a CAI environment. The computer lab experience was viewed much more personalized than a lecture/ demonstration class.

2. Large capital investment. Even though the costs of hardware and software have significantly decreased in the last few years, an extensive capital investment is still required for implementing and using CAI [23].

Other disadvantages of CAI include denial of the teacher as a role model, usage of different commands in different CAI packages, lack of permanent records of lessons for the student, and non-transferability of computer programs between different machines [8].

Facilitators of implementing CAI (Table 13)

Of the many potential facilitators of CAI adoption, the following are of a special interest: 1. Support from the government. Press [24] emphasized that the government can provide leadership

and invest in technology like user-interface software and curriculum development. Once a critical mass of useful tools and services are available, expenses and capital will be justified by savings in traditional materials like textbooks.

2. Availability of teachers' time. Teachers' workloads and schedules are heavy. Therefore, they would not be able to work on CAI or attend in-service training classes during regular hours. Providing released time periodically for teachers to concentrate on learning CAI and taking time to practice with hands-on experience, are a must [25, 26].

3. Availability of resources. 4. Provision of administrative support. The attitude of the school principal is of great influence

with respect to the development of computer-based activities. Cox et al. [27] found that schools where the principal had a positive attitude for information technology in education, and where a commitment to the introduction of microcomputers throughout the school was made, showed marked differences from schools without the above. Thus, positive attitude of the principal is critical in encouraging the staff, which is essential if CAI is to become an integral part of the curriculum.

The most evident manifestation of the administrative leadership in instructional technology use is seen from how the administrators stipulate the policy pertaining to the plan of facility installation, procurement of software, guidelines for in-service education developments, and the development of a personnel support system [25].

5. Commitment by those who are involved. Commitment communicates support, and any in- dividual who is about to try a new material or procedure needs to know that there is support from higher levels [28].

6. Provision of information. 7. Teachers' knowledge and skills about information technology in education. The people who will

ultimately implement educational technology must possess knowledge and skills about it [29]. A teacher must posses sufficient competency to teach students the use of CAI [26].

8. Systematic planning for CA1. Planning for CAI involves determining the courseware most suitable for a particular course. In addition, careful planning is needed to co-ordinate the resources and efforts of the various personnel involved in the implementation [23]. Thus, both top-down and bottom-up planning are needed to successfully implement CAI [30].

9. Adoption of a whole school policy. The adoption of a whole school policy of microcomputer

154 PIEN WANG and PUI SAN CHAN

use is influential in developing a more positive attitude towards the technology amongst staff. Schools which have formalised a policy for microcomputer use have a higher rate of uptake of CAI than schools which have no formal policy [27].

10. Success of schools using CA1. 11. Integration of CA1. 12. Existence of a champion. One of the most frequently observed characteristics of successful

implementation is the presence of a person who is instrumental in implementing a particular innovation. A champion is an individual who actively and enthusiastically promotes an innovation. A large body of research asserts that one of the strongest links to successful implementation is the presence of such a champion. A champion has a vision that the technology can address some of the short term and long term problems that the educational system faces. Champions inspire others with their vision, and generate great enthusiasm [31].

Other facilitators include availability of resources [26], provision of hardware and technical support [32], and integration of CAI with school goals [33].

Inhibitors of implementing CAI (Table 14)

The following inhibitors were identified in prior research: 1. Lack of time. The results of several studies have shown that teachers lack time to get to

know CAI programs [27], prepare and integrate CAI [34], develop software, and set up or maintain equipment [35].

2. Lack of hardware. Lack of hardware was found to be a main barrier to implementing CAI in countries such as the U.S. [36], the Netherlands [37], and Taiwan [38]. Thus, some would argue that teachers would use more CAI if there were more computers. In contrast, Becker [39] found that in schools with more hardware (with 59 computers per school vs 26 of the U.S. national average), there was only about one teacher per school who had integrated the computer into his or her teaching (the same as in schools with less hardware). Therefore, Marcinkiewicz [40] suggested that simply having more hardware does not in itself persuade teachers to begin to use it.

3. Lack of teachers' experience and skills in educational technology. 4. Not enough space in the school for more CA1. 5. Problems of scheduling sufficient computer time for different teachers' classes. 6. Lack of training for teachers. Inadequate training of teachers has contributed to a lack of

computer use [35-36, 38, 44, 45, 46]. Training should not be about computer or technology alone but about how computers can help in teaching the subject matter [47]. Software has to be tested in real time, and explored in detail both for experts and novice learners. The only way for a teacher to determine a software's suitability for a particular educational purpose and teaching style is to run it and explore it thoroughly. Therefore, teachers training in software evaluation is essential for CAI adoption [48]. The best in-service training programs are planned and carried out with teacher participation from the beginning [25].

7. Rapid changes in hardware and software technologies. 8. Lack of appropriate software. Lack of software was found to inhibit the adoption of CAI in

the U.S. [10, 36], the U.K. [41], the Netherlands [37], and Taiwan [38]. Furthermore, according to Hammond et al. [35] and Dunkel [42], the instructional goals embedded within a piece of courseware often fail to match the goals of the course it purports to support. For instance, educational software for almost every subject in the curriculum is available in Japan, but its quality is poor [43].

9. lnadequatefinancial resources. A statewide survey of California public schools in 1989 revealed that the lack of funds was a major obstacle to the increased use of educational technology [46]. Similarly, in a survey conducted by Hammond et al. [35], many respondents quoted "lack of mgney" as a major barrier to use of computers in education. Funding problems include both initial capital funding and the ability to upgrade and expand equipment [49].

10. Teachers' resistance to change. A survey conducted by Plomp et al. [37] revealed that the resistance of teachers against computers was a constraining factor to implementing CA1. Adoption of CAI would permit, and also require, the teacher to take on new and challenging roles. Using

CAI in Singapore's secondary schools 155

computer as a tool for manipulating information, for coping with the fast-changing society, and for thinking, can scare teachers because it shakes up traditional roles [50].

Other barriers include scheduling sufficient computer time [38, 49], lack of teachers' experience and skills in educational technology [26], lack of space in the school for more CAI equipment, lack of information relating to the potential use of CAI [35], frequent upgrades of software [36], and scepticism concerning the effectiveness of CAI [51].

RESEARCH METH O D

Approach

A survey was conducted during January and February 1995, in public secondary schools in Singapore using a questionnaire which was administered by a personal interview with teachers.

Sample

A total of 7 public secondary schools were included in the sample (out of 145 in Singapore) [52]. The schools were selected at random.

Subjects

A sample of 130 teachers was randomly chosen from the selected schools. Questionnaires were administered to the entire sample. However, 13 returned questionnaires were disqualified because they were incomplete. The final number of responses used in the data analysis was therefore 117.

Instrument and pilot testing

A questionnaire was developed and pretested on 10 secondary school teachers. The questionnaire includes a list of advantages, disadvantages, facilitators, and barriers. The preliminary list was compiled based on the literature search. During the pretest the list was reduced (11 items were eliminated) while some items were added, so the total number of questions was reduced to 42.

Approval of the survey

The Ministry of Education in Singapore approved the survey and issued a letter to each secondary school in Singapore which directed the principal to grant approval to conduct the survey.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Demographics

Table 1 shows the distribution of 117 valid responses by academic discipline. The distributions of gender, age, and years of teaching experience are shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4.

Table 1. Participants' teaching subjects

Subjects No. of teachers % of total

Science 46 39.3 Mathematics 38 32.5 English 16 13.7 Chinese 8 6.8 Others 9 7.7

Table 2. Gender of teachers

Gender No. of teachers % of total

Male 35 29.9 Female 82 70.1

156 PIEN WANG and PUI SAN CHAN

Table 3. Age of respondents

Age No. of teachers % of total

21-30 41 35.1 31~,0 33 28.2 41-50 34 29.1 >50 9 7.7

Table 4. Number of years of teaching experience

Years of teaching No. of teachers % of total experience

1-10 62 53.0 11-20 23 19.7 21-30 26 22.2 >30 6 5. I

Table 5. Availability of computer at home (% of teachers)

Yes No

Do you have a computer at home? 79.5 20.5

Table 6, Involvement in computer education (% of teachers)

Yes No

Are you involved in teaching 21.4 78.7 computer awareness or in the use of computers in your school?

Table 7. Frequency of computer usage (% of teachers)

Frequently* Sometimest Rarely$

How often do you use computers? 39.3 39.3 21.4

* Frequently: >10 times per month. t Sometimes: 3-10 times per month. $ Rarely: <3 times per month.

Table 8. Perceived usefulness of CAI (% of teachers)

Not at all useful Somewhat useful Useful Very useful

To what extent do you think CAI is useful as a 2.6 36.8 50.4 10.3 teaching/learning tool

Use of computers

T h e ava i l ab i l i ty o f c o m p u t e r s at h o m e , the i n v o l v e m e n t in c o m p u t e r e d u c a t i o n , a n d f r e q u e n c y o f c o m p u t e r usage a re s h o w n in Tab les 5, 6 a n d 7.

The usefulness of CAI

Pa r t i c i pan t s were a sked to express an o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g the usefu lness o f C A l . ( " T o w h a t ex ten t

d o y o u t h ink C A I is useful as a t e a c h i n g / l e a r n i n g tool?") . M o s t subjec ts ind ica ted tha t C A I is useful to v e r y useful , as s h o w n in Tab le 8.

CAI in Singapore's secondary schools

Table 9. t-Test for gender against perceived usefulness

Independent Cases Mean SD t-value variables

Male 34 3~059 0.547 4.49*** Female 83 2,518 0.687

*** P<0.001.

157

Table 10. Results of ANOVA and Scheffe test for frequency of usage

Dependent variable ANOVA Scheffe

d.f. F ratio Frequentlyt Sometimes Rarelyt

Perceived usefulness 2, 114 4.87* 2.854 2.667 2.33

* P < 0 . 0 5 .

"t Teachers who frequently use computers perceived CAI more useful than teachers who rarely use computers (P<0.05).

Table 11. Perceived advantages of CA1

Rank Statements Mean* SD

1 Immediate feedback to students 4.12 0.88 2 Provision of alternative teaching techniques (e.g. simulation} 4.09 0.73 3 Unlimited patience exhibited by the computer 3.87 0.89 4 Individualized instruction 3.77 0,96 5 Ability of conducting simulations 3.76 0,88 6 Providing instructions on demand 3.73 1,19 7 Favourable attitude of students toward CAI 3.60 0.87 8 Provision of comprehensive student records 3.50 0.89 9 Release of time for teachers to deal with specific problems 3.22 0.91

* All statements are measured on a 5-point scale; 1 = not a major advantage, 5 = a major advantage.

Correlations and interactions

(1) Gender vs usefulness. Using the Student's t-test, male teachers were found to perceive CAI significantly more useful (P<0.01) than female teachers (see Table 9).

(2) Frequency of computer usage vs usefulness. Using one-way ANOVA and Scheffe tests, teachers who frequently use computers were found to possess more positive attitude toward the usefulness of CA! than teachers who rarely use computers (P<0.05) (see Table 10).

(3) Gender and frequency of computer usage interaction vs usefulness. Since both gender and frequency of use were found to be significantly associated with CAI usefulness, a two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if there is any interaction between the two independent variables. The results indicate that there is no interaction between gender and experience in computing.

(4) Age and years of teaching experience vs usefulness. One way ANOVA test failed to show any significant differences due to age or to years of teaching experience, regarding perception of usefulness of CAI.

The perceived advantages of CAI

The manner in which teachers ranked the perceived advantages of CAI is shown in Table 11.

Discussion of the major advantages

The respondents felt that CAI is most useful because of its ability to provide immediate feedback (rank 1). In a Singapore's newspaper report, some educators emphasized the immediate feedback as a major advantage of CAI [53]. The perception of the respondents in this study might have

158 PIEN WANG and PUI SAN CHAN

Table 12. Perceived disadvantages of CAI

Rank Statements Mean* SD

I Isolation from human interaction 3.73 1.15 2 Large capital investment 3.71 1.04 3 Denial of teachers as role models 3.59 1.27 4 Usage of different commands by different CAI packages 3.58 1.00 5 Poor software quality 3.50 1.04 6 Non-alignment with classroom time-table 3.38 1.10 7 Non-transferability of computer programs between different machines 3.29 1.11

* All statements are measured on a 5-point scale; 1 = not a major disadvantage, 5 = a major disadvantage.

been reinforced by the opinion of their fellow teachers expressed in the newspaper. The provision of alternative teaching techniques was perceived as a major advantage of CAI (rank 2). Since 1987, the pre-service and in-service teacher education programmes at the National Institute of Education (NIE) include a compulsory course in the use of computer applications software and CAI [53]. NIE's requirement probably has helped teachers to discover the potential of computers for providing alternative teaching techniques.

The finding regarding unlimited patience (rank 3) agrees with that of Telfer and Probert [8]. The result concerning individualized instruction (rank 4) is consistent with those studies conducted in the U.S. [12, 13]. Ability of conducting simulations (rank 5) supports the finding of de Jong et al. in the Netherlands [14], because in that study simulations was found to be the most popular form of CAI in science courses in Dutch higher education institutions. Instruction on demand (rank 6) can be achieved through the E-mail facility in the Student-Teacher Workbench project, which allows students to access teacher's lesson using computers at home. The finding showing favourable attitude of Singapore students toward CAI (rank 7) agrees with those of Chinese students [20, 21] and American students [19].

The perceived disadvantages of CAI

The major disadvantages and their ranking are presented in Table 12. Discussion of the major disadvantages. The respondents placed at the top of the list the perception

that CAI isolates the student from human interaction. This perception relates to the debate regarding the possible negative social and educational effects from using computers for educational purposes. Many people argue that the computer denies the student the opportunity to interact in a social environment [55]. However, greater knowledge and confidence about CAI may reduce this concern.

The large capital investment required for implementing CAI was perceived as the second most serious disadvantage. Schools contemplating the implementation of CAI must be prepared to pay for the development and expansion expenditure of acquiring hardware and software, servicing, maintenance, etc. The Singapore Totalisator Board helps to reduce schools' hugh capital burden by providing funds to meet 75% of the cost of computers, with schools paying the remaining 25%, [56]. Finally, teachers in the U.S. [57-58] shared the same concern with Singapore teachers that the implementation of CAI would deny teachers as a role model.

The perceived facilitators to CAI implementation

The major perceived facilitators of CAI implementation are listed in Table 13. Discussion of the major facilitators. The support from the Ministry of Education was perceived

as the most helpful in implementing CAI. To promote the STW project, the Ministry of Education offers teachers training sessions in CAI [2, 59] and financial assistance to the participating schools [561.

The respondents felt that the availability of time would facilitate the implementation of CAI (rank 2), The availability of resources (rank 3), which includes money and the provision of administrative support is also important in facilitating implementation. The result regarding administrative support is similar to that of Cox et al. [27], which showed that the attitudes of

CAI in Singapore's secondary schools

Table 13. Perceived facilitators to implementing CAI

159

Rank Statements Mean* SD

1 Support from the Ministry of Education 4.59 0.73 2 Availability of teachers' time 4.32 0.78 3 Availability of resources 4.27 0.81 4 Provision of administrative support 4.27 0.83 5 Commitment by those who are involved 4.18 0.73 6 Provision of information relating to hardware and software 4.02 0.73 7 Teachers' knowledge and skills about information technology in education 3.99 0.69 8 Systematic planning for CAI 3.91 0.86 9 Adoption of a whole school policy of computer use 3.85 0.91 10 Demonstration of success of schools using CAI 3.63 1.01 11 Integration of CAI with school goals 3.51 0.92 12 Existence of a champion 3.42 0.85

* All statements are measured on a 5-point scale; 1 =not a major facilitator, 5 =a major facilitator.

Table 14. Perceived inhibitors to implementing CAI

Rank Statements Mean* SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14

Lack of time 4.31 0.83 Lack of hardware 4.03 1.10 Lack of teachers' experience and skills in educational technology 4.01 0.85 Not enough space in the school for more CAI 3.95 0.96 Problems of scheduling sufficient computer time for different teachers' classes 3.83 1.06 Lack of training for teachers to use CA1 3.80 0.95 Rapid changes in hardware and software technology 3.75 1.02 Lack of appropriate software 3.74 1.04 Inadequate financial resources 3.72 1.25 Teachers" resistance to change 3.67 0.86 Lack of information relating to the potential use of CAI 3.61 0.87 Incompatibility of present teaching methodology with CAI 3.44 1.02 Scepticism concerning the effectiveness of CAI 3.30 0.90 Assumption that the computer demands a special curriculum and a special 3.29 0.96 teacher to teach it

* All statements are measured on a 5-point scale; l = not a major barrier. 5 = a major barrier.

school principals in the U.K. was of great influence to the development of computer-based activities

in the curr iculum.

The perceived inhibitors to CAI implementation

The major perceived barriers are listed by their degree of impor tance in Table 14.

Discussion of major inhibitors. In accordance with availabil i ty of time as the top facilitator, the respondents perceived the lack of teacher's free time, whether for evaluat ing software or for modifying courseware, as the top barrier. This is because most teachers are preoccupied with their usual course of duties. The U.S. and U.K. respondents in surveys conducted by D ' A m i c o [34], Cox et al. [27], and H a m m o n d et al. [35] also perceived the lack of time as one of the major barriers.

The respondents in this survey felt that the lack of computers was a major impediment to implement ing CAI (rank 2). The same observat ion was made in the U.S. [36], the Nether lands

[37], and Taiwan [38]. Lack of hardware could have s temmed from lack of financial resources to purchase more computers , or the lack of space to install the addi t ional hardware ( rank 4). The problem of scheduling sufficient computer time ( rank 5) also existed in Ta iwan [38].

Lack of staff's experience and skills in in format ion technology was perceived to be the third barrier. This is no t unexpected in Singapore, because, at present, the access to computer facilities is largely confined to teachers who are in charge of computer clubs or who teach computer applications. The lack of experience and skills may lead to further complicat ions such as the resistance to change ( rank 10) and scepticism concerning the effectiveness of CAI (rank 13).

CA£ 25-3.F

160 PIEN WANG and PUI SAN CHAN

CONCLUSIONS

As stated earlier, the increased use of various modes of CA1 is a governmental publicly stated goal in Singapore. To attain this goal it will be necessary to enhance the influence of the facilitating factors and to lessen the impact of the inhibitors. While this study provides the perceived ranking of such factors, additional research is needed to determine in a more exact manner, the relative importance of the factors (e.g. by designing a study to measure multiple regression and au- tocorrelations). Such a study may provide more accurate guideline as for priorities in handling the facilitating and inhibiting factors.

In addition to the ranking, the study revealed two interesting correlations. First, the gender issue needs to be verified by additional studies, and if found to be correct, the situation needs to be rectified (e.g. by using measures such as those proposed by Culley [60]).

The result also indicates that the frequency of computer usage makes a difference in the respondents' perception of the usefulness of CAI. The more frequently the respondents use computers, the more useful they perceive CAI to be. Thus, it may be deduced that one way to overcome teachers' resistance towards CAI would be to give them more computer experience.

Here are several potential courses of action for increasing the likelihood of successful CAI implementation:

(a) To avoid the pitfall of isolating the student, CAI could be used in conjunction with traditional classroom teaching. As its name suggests, CAI should be used to assist in teaching rather than to replace the teacher.

(b) The problem of cost is unavoidable. However, this problem can be alleviated if the government and the private sector provide financial assistance to schools.

(c) Time must be made available to teachers as they play a vital role in the implementation of CAI. Principals could relieve some responsibilities from those teachers who are involved in a CAI implementation process.

(d) The lack of hardware could have stemmed from the high capital outlay needed to acquire computers and networks. As noted by Abtan [61], the single most important obstacle to the use of computers in ASEAN schools is the hardware cost. Although rapidly declining, the cost of sufficient numbers of microcomputers is still prohibitive to many primary and secondary schools.

(e) Training teachers in computer applications is one avenue to give them more exposure to information technology. To prepare teachers for the information age, the NIE launched a comprehensive computer literacy programme in 1986. All pre-service and in-service teachers were required to attend a compulsory course in the use of computer application software and CAI courseware [54]. Despite the availability of such training, the respondents still perceive that there is a lack of experience and skills in information technology. Perhaps, what teachers need is a consistent and continued training to keep them in pace with developments in CAI, not just one-time course. Teachers could be given opportunities to attend technology and education related seminars or to access the computer facilities in schools. Constant exposure and training in information technology will allow teachers to cope with developments in this area and enable them to be more receptive towards such technology.

Most of the major barriers discussed here could be overcome more easily with assistance from the Ministry of Education. This is the sentiment expressed by most of the respondents. The Ministry could fully subsidise schools for the purchase of hardware, expansion of computer laboratories and provision of other resources. The Ministry could also help schools to set guidelines for the development or purchase of appropriate software. It could act as a central repository for the dissemination of information relating to hardware and to evaluation of software (e.g. what kind of hardware and software will be more appropriate and effective). This would provide directions to schools. Seminars could be held to update school administrators and teachers and give them more exposure in the area of information technology. In conclusion, the government can provide leadership and invest in technology like user-interface software and curriculum development to encourage advances in computer-based education.

CAI in Singapore's secondary schools 161

R E F E R E N C E S

1. National Computer Board, A Vision of an Intelligent Island The IT2000 Report. Singapore National Printers, Singapore (1992).

2. Hu R. and Hoon P. M., Student's and teacher's workbench. Inform. Technol. J. Singapore Computer Soe. 6, 91-96 (1994).

3. Yip S. K. and Sim W. K,, Evolution of Educational Excellence: 25 Years of Education in the Republic o[" Singapore. Longman Singapore, Singapore (1990).

4. Ong S. T. and Lee-Leck M. K., The effects of computer-assisted instruction on attitudes and achievement in mathematics on preservice primary school teachers. In Selected Proceedings of Educomp'86: Impact of Microcomputers in Education--Issues and Techniques (Edited by Yong Y. C., Loy W. S. and Lee C. K.), pp. 196 201. Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore (1986).

5. Low K. G., Investigation of various modes of computer-based learning for secondary schools. Singapore J. Echw. 9, No. 2, 27-32 (1988).

6. Woo-Tan L. B., Effects of computer-assisted instruction on the learning of transformation geometry. Unpublished Master's Dissertation. National University of Singapore (1989).

7. Fraser B. J. and Teh G. P. L., Effect sizes associated with micro-Prolog-based computer-assisted learning. Computers Educ. 23, 187-196 (1994).

8. Telfer R. and Probert P., For and against: the pros and cons of computer-assisted instruction. Educ. News 19. No. 9, 24 27 (1986).

9. Deaton W. L., CBT and high education: issues, barriers and solutions. In Problems and Promises o[ Computer-based Training (Edited by Shlechter T. M.), pp. 215-231. Ablex, Norwood, N.J. (1991).

10. Smith T. W. and Yellen R. E., Factors inhibiting the introduction of computer-assisted instruction. Collegiate Microcomputer. IX, 117-122 ( 1991).

11. Semb G. B., Ellis J. A., Montague W. E. and Wulfeck W. H., Self-paced instruction: perceptions, pitfalls and potentials. In Problems and Promises of Computer-based Training (Edited by Shlechter T. M.t, pp. 119 -137. Ablex, Norwood, N,J. (1991).

12. Sullivan H. J. et al., Perspectives on the future of educational technology. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 41, No. 2, 97 110 (1993).

13. Swan K., Mitrani M., The changing nature of teaching and learning in computer-based classrooms. J. Res. Comput. Educ. 26, 4t~54 (1993).

14. Woodrow J. E. J., Educators' attitudes and predispositions toward computers. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 6, No. 3, 27-37 (1987).

15. de Jong T. et al., Computer-assisted learning in higher education in the Netherlands: a review of findings. Computers Educ. 19, 381-386 (1992).

16. de Jong T., Computer simulations in an instructional context. Educ. Comput. 6, 9 15 (1991). 17, Jonassen D. H., Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educ. Technol Res.

De~: 39, No. 3, 5-14 (1991). 18. Stern N. and Stern R. A., Computers in Society. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff's, N.J. (1983). 19. Vogler C., O'Quin K. and Paterson W., Grade and knowledge improvement as a result of computer-assisted instruction.

J. l£duc. Teehnol. Syst. 19, 201-203 (1991). 20. Dong B. N., Liao M. and Zhu J. X., CAI in junior high mathematics instruction. Proceedings O[ the Fourth National

Cot!ference of the Chinese Association of Computer-based Education, Vol. 2 (1990). 21. Duan H. F., The experiment, research, and software development of CAI in English instruction. Proceedings ~f the

Fourth National Conference of the Chinese Association of Computer-based Education, Vol. 1 (1990). 22. Chambers J. A. and Sprecher J. W., Computer-assisted instruction: current trends and critical issues. Commun. /I CM.

23, 332 342 (1990). 23. Shlechter T. M. (Ed.), Promises, promises, promises: history and foundation of CBT. In Prohh'ms and Promises of

Computer-based Training, pp. 1 20. Ablex, Norwood, N.J. (1991). 24. Press L., Technotronics education: answers on the cultural horizon. Commun. ACM 36, 17 22 (1993). 25. Chin S. S-F. and Hortin J. A., Teachers' perceptions of instructional technology and staff development. J. Edu~.

Technol. Syst. 22, No. 2, 83-98 (1994). 26. Ely D. P., Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. J. Res. Comput. Educ.

23, 298 305 (1990). 27. Cox M., Rhodes V. and Hall J., The use of computer-assisted learning in primary schools: some factors affecting the

uptake. Computers Educ. 12, 173-178 (1988). 28. Chapman D. W., Monitoring implementation. In Improving Educational Qualio* (Edited by Chapman D. W. and

Carrier C. A.), pp. 195-216. Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn. (1990). 29. Verspoor A., Pathways to Change. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. (1989). 30. Branson R. K., Design, development, and technology transfer issues in the job skills education program. In Problems

and Promises of Computer-based Training (Edited by Shlechter T. M.), pp. 251 272. Ablex, Norwood, N.J. (1991). 31. Bishop-Clark B. and Grant R., Implementing computer technology in educational settings. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 19,

313-326 (1991). 32. MeDonough D., Strivens J. and Rada R., University courseware development: comparative views of computer-based

teaching by users and non-users. Computers Educ. 23, 211 220 (1994). 33. Nelson B. R. and Erwin D. T., Examining the organisational characteristics of CAI projects in institutions of higher

learning. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 14, 297-305 (1986). 34. D'Amico J. J., Three lessons I learned from a year of computer-based instruction. J. Comput.-based Instruct. 17,

103 109 (1990). 35. Hammond et al., Blocks to the effective use of information technology in higher education. Computers Edue. lg,

155-162 (1992).

162 PIEN WANG and PUI SAN CHAN

36. Mackowiak K., The effects of faculty characteristics on computer applications in instruction. J. Res. Comput. Educ. 23, 396-410 (1991).

37. Plomp T., Pelgrum W. J. and Steerneman H. M., Influence of computer use on schools' curriculum: limited integration. Computers Educ. 14, 159-171 (1990).

38. Wei C-L., Instructional uses of computers in boys', girls', and coeducational senior high schools in Taiwan, the Republic of China. J. Comput.-based Instruct. 20, 15-20 (1993).

39. Becker H. J., Microcomputers in the Classroom." Dreams and Realities. Centre for Social Organisation of School. The Johns Hopkins Unity, Report No. 319 (1982).

40. Marcinkiewicz H. R., Computers and teachers: factors influencing computer use in the classroom. J. Res. Comput. Educ. 26, 220-237 (1994).

41. Plowman L. and Chambers P., Working with the new generation of interactive media technologies in schools: CD-I and CDTV. Br J. Educ. Technol. 25, 125-134 (1994).

42. Dunkel P. A., Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and computer-assisted language learning (CALL): past dilemmas and future prospects for audible CALL. Modern Lang. J. 71, 250-260 (1987).

43. Santiago R. S., Japan: meeting the challenge of computers in education. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 41, No. 4, 111-114 (1993).

44. Scottish Education Department, Microcomputers and Secondary Teaching: Implications for Teacher Education. A report on an international seminar arranged by the Scottish Education Department in co-operation, with the OECD, Paris (1988).

45. McCarthy R., Making the future work: the road to curriculum integration. Electronic Learn. September, 42~46 (1988). 46. Main R. G. and Roberts L. Educational technology in the California public schools: a statewide survey. Educ. Technol.

30, No. 12, 7-19 (1990). 47. Brancum D., Educators used support to make computing meaningful. Macworld September, 83-88 (1992). 48. Johnston V. M., The evaluation of microcomputer programs: an area of debate. J. Comput.-assist. Learn. 13, No. 1,

8-17 (1987). 49. Sheingold K. and Hadley M., Accomplished Teachers: Integrating Computers into Classroom Practice. Bank Street of

College Education, Centre for Technology in Education, New York (1990). 50. Piller C., Separate realities. Macworld 9, No. 9, 218-231 (1992). 51. Brennan E. C., Improving elementary teachers' comfort and skill with instructional technology through school-based

training. Doctoral dissertation, Nova University, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339 348) (1991). 52. The Ministry of Education, Education Statistics Digest (1994). 53. Computers Help to Spark Students' Interest, Says Schools. The Straits Times 1 June (1994). 54. Chen A. Y., Applications-based computer learning: the Institute of Education experience. Paper presented at the

Symposium on Innovative Learning Systems and Technologies, Singapore Polytechnic (1987). 55. Pavri N. F., Technology and people: the importance of the human element. Paper presented at the Conference on

Information Technology and Singapore Society: Trends, Policies and Applications. Singapore, pp. 83-86 (1989). 56. Multi-media teaching for six schools next year. The Straits Times 4 February (1995). 57. Callister T.A. Jr, The effect of innovative technical change on an elementary school. (Doctoral Dissertation, University

of Utah). Diss. Abstr. Int. 47, 4067A (1986). 58. Moskowitz C. M., Reading teachers' reactions to a field test of computer-assisted instruction reading program in a

microcomputer laboratory setting in a middle school (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Doct. Abstr. Int. 45, 3118A (1984).

59. Sponder B. and Hilgenfeld R. M, Research in instructional technology at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 41, 115-118 (1993).

60. Culley L,, Girls, boys, and computers. Educ. Stud. 14, No. 1, 3-8 (1988). 61. Abtan P., It's time for technology to reach the educational world. Computing Canada 16, No. 18, 35, 44, 4 September

(1990).