Socioeconomic Status, Aptitude, and Gender Differences in CAI Gains of Arithmetic

This study examined the effects of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in relation to students’ socioeconomic status (SES), aptitude, and gender. The population consisted of 99 disadvantaged and 112 advantaged students of three cohorts in two schools. All students used the same CAI system for drill-and-practice programs in arithmetic. I collected reports of CAI performance from 3rd through 6th graders at the beginning and end of each school year. Results of a repeated-measure design analysis showed performance at higher grade-equivalent CAI levels and larger gains from the CAI work, which were statistically significant, for advantaged over disadvantaged students, for high achievers over low achievers, and for boys over girls. Interactions of SES and aptitude indicated that those who benefited most from the CAI work were the high achievers in the advantaged population. “The belief that computers can provide benefits and the optimistic expectation that they are supplying these benefits has fueled a tremendous growth in the use of computers in schools” (Becker, 1987, p. 162). The most frequently used application of computers in elementary schools (in use for over 50% of the computer time) is the computer-assisted instruction (CAI) with drill and practice or tutorials (Becker, 1987). The fact that many schools in the United States provide CAI solely for Chapter 1 students¹ serves as evidence that CAI is expected to benefit particularly the weaker population of students-those of low SES or of low academic achievement. Many studies have examined the benefits of using CAI. Those summarized by meta-analysis techniques (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik, 1985; Burns & Bozeman, 1981; Hartley, 1977; Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1985; Niemiec & Walbert, 1985; Samson, Niemiec, Winstein, & Walberg, 1985) have indicated that computer-based drill and practice that complements class instruction subsequently raises achievement scores. This occurs primarily in mathematics and less frequently in language learning (Becker, 1984, p. 30; Jamison, Suppes, & Wells, 1974; Ragosta, Holland, and Jamison, 1982).