Darrell L. Cain, Paul E. Pitre


The trend toward increased technology in traditional higher education classrooms has been met with both optimism and criticism. One of the major criticisms of technology in the college classroom is that it does little, if anything, to improve student learning. Taking this view of technology into account, this study examined how the use of technology contributed to student learning outcomes after controlling for key student demographic variables. More specifically, this study investigated the use of computer mediated conferencing (CMC) tools (i.e., email and electronic discussion boards) and computer aided instructional (CAI) resources (i.e., the computer and Internet) to determine whether they contribute to student learning.
The sample utilized in this study consisted of 2000 college students, randomly drawn from the 2003 College Student Experience Questionnaire database. The survey included 53 Likert scale items with reliability ranges from .78 to .88 on each of the composite scales. The analysis of data consisted of four multiple regressions conducted on specific student learning outcomes. The student learning outcomes included four composite scales, measuring student 1) personal and social development, 2) general education gains, 3) intellectual development, 4) science and technology gains, and 3) vocational
After controlling for student's background variables, the findings of this study revealed that the use of technology in the college classroom does contribute to student learning. The model, including technology variables, explained 4% to 7% of the gains in student learning, while student background variables contributed an additional .03% to 2% of the gains. These findings, though modest, suggest that incorporating technologies in the college classroom can aid students in the learning process.


Learning Engagement,Computer Mediated Instruction,Higher Education,Instructional Technology,Learning Outcomes

Full Text:



Green, K. The 2000 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education. The Campus Computing Project, 2000.

Clark, R. E. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research 53: 445–459, 1983.

Vygotsky, L. S. Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Jonassen, D. Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, vol. II, 215–239. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.

Yu, F. and H. Yu. Incorporating e-mail into the learning process: its impact on student academic achievement and attitudes. Computers and Education. 38: 117–126, 2002.

Hu, S. and G. D. Kuh. Computing experience and good practices in undergraduate education: Does the degree of campus "wiredness" matter? Education Policy Analysis Archives. 9: 2001.

Flowers, L. and Y. Zhang. Racial differences in information technology use in college. College Student Journal 37: 235–241, 2003.

Woods, R. H. How much communication is enough in online courses? Exploring the relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learners' perceptions of and participation in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media 29: 377–395, 2002.

Haworth, B. An analysis of the determinants of student e-mail use. Journal of Education for Business 75: 55–60, 1999.

Gatz, L. B. and J. B. Hirt. Academic and social integration in cyberspace: Students and e-mail. Review of Higher Education 23: 299–318, 2000.

Dalton, D. and M. J. Hannafin. The effects of computer-assisted versus traditional mastery methods on computation accuracy and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research 82: 27–33, 1988.

Schacter, J. and C. Fagnano. Does computer technology improve student learning and achievement? How, when, and under what conditions? Journal of Educational Computing Research 20: 329–43, 1999.

Fletcher, J. D. The effectiveness of interactive videodisc instruction in defense training and education. Institute for Defense Analyses: Alexandria, VA, 1990.

Kini, A. S. Effects of cognitive style and verbal and visual presentation modes on concept learning in CBI. Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 1994.

Wells, J. G. Effects of an on-line computer-mediated communication course, prior computer experience and Internet knowledge, and learning styles on students' Internet attitudes. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 37: 22–53, 2000.

Yaakub, M. N. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in technical education and training. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1998.

Hays, R. T., J. W. Jacobs, C. Prince, and E. Salas. Flight simulator training effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Military Psychology 4: 63–74, 1992.

T., E. Kisling, W. Cai, B. M. Yu, F. Giles, and J. P. Brown. Impact of navigational models on task completion in web-based information systems. Indiana ED 436 141, 1999.

Koner, B. C., M. Lamsal, and B. D. Banerjee. Conventional teaching remains effective in teaching medical biochemistry in BPKIHS, Nepal, although students enjoy supplementary computer teaching. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 29(4): 137–141, July 2001.

Clarke, W. R. The effects of computerized instruction on the improvement and transfer of math skills for low-skilled and below average-skilled sophomore students, considering student gender, ethnicity, and learning style preferences. University of La Verne, 1993.

Astleitner, H. Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology 29: 53–76, 2002.

Sperling, R. A., M. Seyedmonir, and M. Aleksic. Animations as Learning Tools in Authentic Science Materials. International Journal of Instructional Media 30: 213–21, 2003.

Henderson, L., Y. Eshet, and J. Klemes. Under the microscope: factors influencing student outcomes in a computer integrated classroom. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 19: 211–236, 2000.

Thornburg, D. and R. Pea. Synthesizing instructional technologies and educational culture: Exploring cognition and metacognition in the social studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research 7: 121–164, 1991.

Tuovinen, J. E. Multimedia distance education interactions. Educational Media International 37: 16–24, 2000.

Cradler, J., M. McNabb, M. Freeman, and R. Burchett. How does technology influence student learning? Learning & Leading with Technology 2: 46–56, 2002.

Chan, M. No Talking, please, just chatting: Collaborative writing with computers. Presented at Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference, Innovative Instructional Practices, Honolulu, HI, 1997.

Hsiu-Mei, H. Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology 33: 27–37, 2002.

Warschauer, M. Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal 81: 470–481, 1997.

Henke, M. E. The Effects of Three methods of Computer-Based Instruction (CBI) On Psychomotor Performance of College Students. Dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997.

Cotton, K. Computer-Assisted Instruction. 1991.

Gonyea, R. M., K. A. Kish, G. D. Kuh, R. N. Muthiah, and A. D. Thomas. College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Norms for the Fourth Edition. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Policy, and Planning, 2003.

Bradley, C., K. A. Kish, A. M. Krudwig, T. Williams, and O. S. Wooden. Predicting faculty-student interaction: An analysis of new student expectations. Journal of the Indiana University Student Personnel Association: 72–85, 2002 edition.

Winteler, A. Differential validation of a path analytic model of university dropout. Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, 1986.

Ting, S. M. R. Predicting first-year grades and academic progress of college students of first-generation and low-income families. Journal of College Admission 158: 14–23, 1998.

Dunn, R. and K. Dunn. Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 7 - 12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1993.

Outcalt, C. L. and T. E. Skewes-Cox. Involvement, Interaction, and Satisfaction: The Human Environment at HBCUs, 2002.

Kekkonen-Moneta, S., and G. B. Moneta. E-Learning in Hong Kong: comparing learning outcomes in online multimedia and lecture versions of an introductory computing course. British Journal of Educational Technology 33(4): 423–33, 2002.

Kwok, R. C. W., and J. Ma. Use of a group support system for collaborative assessment. Computers & Education 32: 109–125, 1999.

Teague, M., J. Talbot, and A. M. Ward. Evaluation of a pilot project to use computers in a rural general practice term. Australian Journal of Rural Health. 8: 305–310, 2000.

Hinkle, S. E. The impact of e-mail use on student-faculty interaction. Journal of the Indiana University Student Personnel Association: 27–34, 2002.

Flowers, L., T. E. Pascarella, and T. C. Pierson. Information technology use and cognitive outcomes in the first year of college. The Journal of Higher Education 71: 637–666, 2000.

Simon, S. J. The relationship of learning style and training method to end-user computer satisfaction and computer use: A structural equation model. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 18: 41–59, 2000.

Zhao, Y. Design for adoption: The development of an integrated web-based education environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 30: 28–44, 1998.

Dick, W., L. Carey, and J. O. Carey. The systematic design of instruction, 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2001.

Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Kuh, G. D., and H. Shouping. The relationship between computer and information technology use, selected learning and personal development outcomes, and other college experiences. Journal of College Student Development 42: 217–232, 2001.


Copyright (c) 2019 Darrell L. Cain, Paul E. Pitre