A Comparison of Computer Aided Instruction Versus Traditional Instruction in an Elementary Algebra Course

Seyed Ebrahim Taghavi


The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of computer assisted instruction versus traditional laboratory instruction for educating freshman college students (n=174) about elementary algebra.  The study treated computer testing and tutorial simulated instruction and traditional instruction as independent variables and learning outcome and attitude, based on posttest scores, as the dependent variables.  The findings indicated that sequence of the both methods of instructions was a significant factor.  Students learned more mathematical concepts when they utilized the traditional method of instruction and then used computer laboratory instruction (MyMthLab).


instruction; Mathematics; attitudes; MyMathLab.

Full Text:



Aiken, R.L. (2000). Psychological Testing and Assessment, 10th Ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A Synthesis of Empirical Research on TeachingMathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103,1, 51-73.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational Research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Chang, K. E, Sung, V. F., & Lim, S. F. (2006). Computer Assisted Learning For Mathematical Problem Solving. Computers & Education, 46(2), 140 – 151.

Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W. M. (1998). Lecturing graphing: What features of lectures contribute to student difficulties in learning to interpret graphs?Research in Science Education, 28, (1), 77-90.

Diem, D.C. (1982). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in college algebra. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34 05A.

Dreyfus, T. (1993). Didactic design of computer-based learning environments. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning from computers:Mathematics education and technology. 101-130, New York: SpringerVerlag.

Fey, James T. (1982). Mathematics education. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (5th), 3, pp1166-1180. New York: Free Press

Mathews, J. Maryland and Virginia are Rated Tops in Preparing Students For Advanced Placement Exams (2009). [OnLine].



Ganguli, A.B. (1990). The microcomputer as a demonstration tool for instruction in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 154-159.students’ attitudes of the computer as a teaching aid. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 611-618.

Graff, L. G. (1987). Computer managed learning evaluated in a test project with adult mathematics learners. In Proceedings, International Conference on CAI in Post-Secondary Education 275-277. Calgary: University of Calgary.

Reed, S. K. (1984). Estimating answers to algebra word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 778–790.

Taghavi, S.E. & Colen, C. Jr. (2009). Computer Simulation Laborator Instruction Versus Traditional Laboratory Instruction in Digital Electronics. Journal of Information Technology Impact 9, 1, 25-36.

Tilidetzke, R (1992). A Comparison of CAI and Traditional Instruction in a College Algebra Course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, v11 n1 p 53-62.

Vosniadou, S. & Verschaffel, L. (2004) (eds.). The Conceptual Change Approach to Mathematics Learning and Teaching. Learning and Instruction 14, 5, 445–548.

Yushau, B. (2006). The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast. The Effects of Blended E-Learning on Mathematics and Computer Attitudes in Pre-CalculusAlgebra, 3, 2, 176-183.


  • There are currently no refbacks.





About IJSBAR | Privacy PolicyTerms & Conditions | Contact Us | DisclaimerFAQs 

IJSBAR is published by (GSSRR).