LIBRARY OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAICN 
 
 no 
 
 510.84 
 
 XMor 
 
 .74G-75I 
 
 cop. 2 
 
The person charging this material is re- 
 sponsible for its return to the library from 
 which it was withdrawn on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
 are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
 result in dismissal from the University. 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 1 2REC0 
 
 r| 
 
 L161 — O-1096 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 
 
 http://archive.org/details/cs103platoexperi746mont 
 
JZJ 6^ UIUCDCS-R-75-7 1 ^ 
 
 he 7</t 
 
 -^ 
 
 f 
 
 CS 103 FIATO EXPERIMENT, FALL 197^ 
 
 by 
 
 Richard G. Montanelli, Jr. 
 
 IHE LIBRARY Of 
 
 SI l' R 1975 
 
 UNIVi 
 
 July 1975 
 
UIUCDCS-R-75-7 1 ^ 
 
 CS 103 PLATO EXPERIMENT, FALL ISTjk 
 
 hy 
 Richard G. Montanelli, Jr. 
 
 Department of Computer Science 
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 
 Urbana, Illinois 6l801 
 
 This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation 
 Grant No. US NSF-EC-Ul-511. 
 

 Table of Contents 
 
 
 1. Introduction 1 
 
 2. Method 6 
 
 3. Results 7 
 
 a. Questionnaire 7 
 
 b . Drop rates 11 
 
 c. Achievement 12 
 
 d. PLATO usage 13 
 
 e. Course evaluation questionnaire 15 
 
 k. Discussion 17 
 
 References 21 
 
 Appendix A Attitude toward computers questionnaire 22 
 
 B CS 103 Biographical questionnaire 23 
 
 C Questionnaire 2k 
 
 D PLATO usage statistics 26 
 
 E Computer Science course evaluation questionnaire 
 
 and results 28 
 
1. Introduction 
 
 For the past several years, the Department of Computer Science 
 of the University of Illinois at Urb ana-Champaign has been developing 
 computer software for the PLATO Computer-Aided- Instruction (CAI) system 
 (Alpert and Bitzer, 1970) to aid in teaching introductory computer science 
 courses (Nievergelt, 1975). This author has been responsible for designing 
 and coordinating the development of a series of PLATO lessons to teach 
 the computer programming language FORTRAN. The series consists of about 
 15 lessons (only 12 of which were completed in time for use in this experiment, 
 see Table l) and a student should spend an average of 1+0-50 minutes using 
 each lesson. The lessons consist of displays, diagrams, textual material, 
 and quizzes, and the students interact with the lessons to learn the material 
 and are typically quizzed over it during the lesson, so they can check out 
 their understanding. 
 
 The lessons were initially written mainly by students for 
 class and independent study projects, and were revised and improved by 
 members of the staff. Thus the lessons do not follow a particular 
 teaching method or style, but each covers the assigned material in its 
 own way. Examples of displays from lessons are presented in Figures 1 and 2. 
 
 Figure 1 is taken from lesson fortintro, which students took 
 during the first week of class. In it, the student gets a problem, and he 
 constructs a flowchart using natural English (actually the small but 
 usually sufficient subset which the program understands), with the 
 
 The author would especially like to thank Dr. H. G. Friedman, Sandra Leach, 
 and Jeffrey Barber for their invaluable help in this area. 
 
Week 
 
 Lesson 
 
 Name 
 
 Table 1 
 PLATO Lessons Used 
 
 Author ( s ) 
 
 Brief Description 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 k 
 
 csintro P. Kimble Introduction to computers 
 fortintro R. Montanelli Introduction to programming 
 fortarith J. Barber FORTRAN arithmetic 
 fortfmtl G. Strass Simple FORTRAN print formats 
 fortarrayl H. G. Friedman One dimensional FORTRAN arrays 
 K. Levin, J. Fill 
 
 FORTRAN IF statements 
 
 FORTRAN DO loops 
 
 Sorting algorithms 
 
 Two dimensional FORTRAN arrays 
 
 Advanced FORTRAN formatting 
 
 5 
 
 fort if 
 
 G. 
 
 Strass 
 
 7 
 
 fort do 
 
 B. 
 
 Barta 
 
 8 
 
 sorting 
 
 J. 
 
 Cupec 
 
 9 
 
 fortarray2 
 
 L. 
 
 Kawell 
 
 10 
 
 fortfmt2 
 
 D. 
 
 Dodgson, 
 
 
 
 A. 
 
 Papamarcos , 
 
 
 
 N. 
 
 Klein 
 
 11 
 
 fortsubl 
 
 K. 
 
 Slaughter 
 
 13 
 
 fort char 
 
 V. 
 
 Guarna 
 
 FORTRAN subroutines 
 FORTRAN character handling 
 
Figure 1 
 PLATO Display from Lesson fortintro 
 
 Print title 
 
 Print column headings 
 
 Set number to 1 
 
 What should the computer do next? 
 
 » 
 
 Calculate number squared 
 
 Calculate number cubed 
 
 Press ( help) for a general hint. 
 Use l EPfiSEj to change an answer. 
 Press f c'ftTft ) to see computer printout 
 Press ( me xt] to check your answer. 
 
computer's help. The problem is to create a table of the numbers 
 from 1 to 25 inclusive, with their squares and cubes. Students are first 
 shown a description of the problem and a copy of the computer output. 
 Then they try to answer the questions to create the flowchart. The 
 answer to the question in Figure 1 is "Print number, square, and cube", 
 but the program can accept a reasonable range of correct answers, like 
 "The computer should output the number and its square and cube.". This 
 is possible mainly through the use of synonyms and ignorable words. Some 
 incorrect answers like "Print number" are answered by a suitable response 
 "The computer prints an entire line at a time. Something else should be 
 
 on the line, also. Press ERASE and try again." After each incorrect 
 answer whether understood or not, the student gets a more detailed hint, 
 until finally the answer is given. 
 
 Figure 2 shows a drill from the 2-dimensional array lesson 
 fortarray2. After some introduction to 2-dimensional arrays, the 
 student is expected to enter the appropriate subscript at the arrow 
 (in cell 3,3 in the figure) which is flashed on and off to get the 
 student's attention. Each student responds to five (or more if he 
 wants) of these subscript pairs. 
 
 In order to study the effectiveness of these lessons in teaching 
 FORTRAN, an experiment was designed, using CS 103, an introductory computer 
 programming class for students in the behavioral and social sciences. 
 Since about 1/2 of the class time is spent on FORTRAN, it seemed ideally 
 suited for the experiment. 
 
Figure 2 
 PLATO Display from Lesson fortarrayl 
 
 To set up this table we have used the following 
 
 statement: • REAL RAT (8, 4) 
 
 Imagine that each block in the table represents 
 
 a variable in this array. (The name of the variable 
 
 is at the top of each block.) 
 
 What integer should 
 be inserted at the 
 arrow ? 
 
 Examp 1 e 1 
 
 WEIGHT 
 
 
 AGE 
 
 
 SEX 
 
 
 LENGTH 
 
 RAT( , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , ) 
 
 10.6 
 
 
 50. 
 
 
 1 . 
 
 
 11.7 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RAf C , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , ) 
 
 14.3 
 
 
 48. 
 
 
 2. 
 
 
 9. 4 
 
 RATC , 
 
 9.3 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 45. 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 T 
 
 2. 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , ) 
 12.3 
 
 RAT( , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ). 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , ) 
 
 11.5 
 
 
 52. 
 
 
 1 . 
 
 
 10.5 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , ) 
 
 12.0 
 
 
 55. 
 
 
 2. 
 
 
 11.8 
 
 RAT( , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 FrlTC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , ) 
 
 13.2 
 
 
 60. 
 
 
 1 . 
 
 
 10.5 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , ) 
 
 15.8 
 
 
 49. 
 
 
 1 . 
 
 
 12.2 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RAT C , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , 
 
 ) 
 
 RATC , ) 
 
 11.7 
 
 
 51. 
 
 -**- 
 
 i. . 
 
 
 10. 9 
 
2. Method 
 
 CS 103 is ordinarily taught with 2 lectures and 1 discussion 
 meeting per week. The lectures bring all the students (56 in this case) 
 together, and they are split into k groups of 10-20 students each for discussions 
 with a teaching assistant at the end of the week. For this experiment, 1/2 
 of the students were randomly selected to attend a one-hour PLATO session 
 instead of one of the ordinary lectures. This was done by assigning 
 students with odd computer numbers to the PLATO (p) group. The computer 
 numbers were handed out as students entered the classroom on the first 
 day. The remaining students (the non-PLATO or NP group) acted as a control 
 group and were taught in the traditional manner, without PLATO. 
 
 The two groups of students were kept separate for the entire 
 semester, using the following procedures: 1) Students were fully 
 informed about the nature of the experiment and were assured that if 
 the two groups demonstrated significantly different levels of achievement, the 
 group achieving the poorer record would have its grades raised to match those 
 of the better group. 2) The PLATO terminals were reserved for 9:00 am. 
 Wednesday morning, the same time as the lecture met. Thus, it was 
 impossible for a student to attend the lecture and the scheduled 
 PLATO session. Although a student could try to take his PLATO lesson 
 at some other time, due to the heavy scheduling of terminals and the 
 shortage of ECS (computer secondary memory), it was very difficult for 
 a student to take a lesson at some other time. 3) The lessons were 
 restricted so that no one except students in CS 103 and a few people on 
 our staff could execute them. 
 
Throughout the semester, the students were compared on various 
 measures of achievement (computer programs, two hour exams, and the final 
 exam) and on interest and satisfaction questionnaires. 
 
 3. Results 
 
 a. Questionnaires On the first day of class, the students completed 
 two questionnaires (biographical data and attitude toward computers, see 
 appendices A and B). In order to make sure that the two groups did not 
 
 differ on any relevant variables, they were compared on the following 
 
 2 
 variables from the above questionnaires, using t-tests or x s where 
 
 appropriate: age, sex, year in school, grade point average, number of 
 
 hours of college math, number of hours of statistics, computer experience, 
 
 and various attitudes toward computers. None of these variables indicated 
 
 a significant difference between the two groups. 
 
 Six weeks into the semester, after the first hour exam, students 
 
 were asked for their opinions on the course (appendix C). Forty-four 
 
 students responded when asked if they would like to switch to the other 
 
 group. The responses were: 
 
 don ' t don ' t 
 yes no know care 
 
 P 
 
 NP 
 
 Responses of the non-PLATO group to the questions about their smaller lecture 
 and of the PLATO group about the PLATO lessons are presented in Tables 2 and 
 3. To summarize, the NP group thought that the class atmosphere was somewhat 
 more casual and that they could get questions answered more easily in the 
 smaller lecture. The P group felt that the lessons were enjoyable, better 
 than lectures on the same topic, and that they learned something from them. 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 3 , 
 
 11 
 
 k 
 
 5 
 
Table 2 
 Responses of the NP Group to Questions 
 about Comparing Their Smaller 
 Lecture to the Large One 
 
 A. Keeping up with the lecture is: 
 
 easier (2) no difference (21) 
 
 B. Getting questions answered is: 
 
 much easier (l) easier (8) no difference (1^) 
 
 C. The atmosphere of the class is: 
 
 more casual (9) the same (l^) 
 
 D. If the entire class were together you would learn: 
 
 the same (17) less (6) 
 
 In the above table, only those responses used are listed, and the 
 number of students giving each response is given in parentheses. 
 
Table 3 
 Student Reactions to PLATO Lessons 
 
 A. Compare the lesson with how a lecture might teach the same topic. 
 
 The lesson was a. much 
 
 
 
 better 
 
 1. 
 
 csintro 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 algolingo* 
 
 
 5 
 
 fortintro 
 
 k 
 
 k. 
 
 fortarith 
 
 5 
 
 5. 
 
 fortfmtl 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 fortarrayl 
 
 2 
 
 7. 
 
 fort if 
 
 2 
 
 b. better c. equal d. worse e. much 
 
 worse 
 
 7 
 2 
 
 9 
 7 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 1+ 
 
 6 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 7 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 omits 
 
 1+ 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 k 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 B. How helpful was the lesson for the exam? 
 
 a. extremely b. very c. somewhat d. not at e. harmful 
 
 all 
 
 1 
 
 csintro 
 
 1 
 
 1+ 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 algolingo* 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 
 3 
 
 fortintro 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 k 
 
 fortarith 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 
 5 
 
 fortfmtl 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 
 6 
 
 fortarrayl 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 fortif 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 omits 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 k 
 
Table 3 (cont'd) 
 
 C. How much did you learn from the lesson (whether the material was on the 
 exam or not ) ? 
 
 
 i 
 
 i. very 
 much 
 
 b . quite 
 a bit 
 
 c. some 
 
 d. very 
 little 
 
 e . nothing 
 
 1 
 
 csintro 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 
 2 
 
 algolingo* 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 3 
 
 fortintro 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 
 k 
 
 fortarith 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 if 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 fort flat 1 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 fortarrayl 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 fort if 
 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 
 omit 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 k 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 D. How much did you enjoy the lesson? 
 
 
 
 a. very 
 much 
 
 b . quite 
 a bit 
 
 1 
 
 csintro 
 
 k 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 algolingo* 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 fortintro 
 
 h 
 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 fortarith 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 fortfmtl 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 fortarrayl 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 fort if 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 c. very d. not e. hated 
 little at all it 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 4 11 
 
 4 11 
 
 omit 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 * optional lesson 
 
 10 
 
b. Drop rates Although 56 students actually attended at least 
 one class session and thus were assigned to a group, only ^7 remained 
 at the end of the semester. Of the other nine students (see Table h) 
 two were never actually enrolled and three others never even turned in 
 the first homework problem which was due the second week of class and was 
 basically only a keypunching exercise. Thus of 51 students who actually began 
 the course, only four dropped. The comparable figures for fall 1973 were 
 "that 73 students began the course and 12 dropped. These two sets of 
 figures are not significantly different, and any trend toward fewer 
 drops in fall 197^ is undoubtably due to the fact that the experiment itself 
 helped maintain student interest. 
 
 Comparisons between the two groups in fall 197^ are equally non- 
 significant. Of the four students who dropped after doing some work, two 
 were from each group. Although four of the five other students were 
 in the NP group, it would be extremely difficult to attribute these losses 
 to anything other than chance. 
 
 Table k 
 Analysis of Drops 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 
 
 Student 
 
 ;s 
 
 Group 
 
 1 
 
 
 NP 
 
 1 
 
 
 NP 
 
 3 
 
 
 IP, 2NP 
 
 3 
 
 
 2P, INP 
 
 1 
 
 
 NP 
 
 met one class, never enrolled 
 
 auditor, did no work 
 
 did no work 
 
 dropped after first exam (6 weeks) 
 
 dropped after second exam (11 weeks) 
 
 11 
 
c. Achievement Grades in CS 103 are based on four components: 
 machine problems (computer programs), two hour exams, and a final exam. 
 Means and standard deviations for the two groups on these four variables 
 are presented in Table 5- Although the NP group did better on all three 
 exams, the multivariate test for differences between the two groups was not 
 significant (F = 1.5^ with h and 39 degrees of freedom). This test was 
 based on the hk students who took all three exams (Of the ^7 students who 
 finished the course, two skipped the final exam and failed the course, 
 while one had an excuse from the second hour exam.). 
 
 Table 5 
 Means and Standard Deviations of the 
 Two Groups on the Achievement Variables 
 
 
 
 Machine 
 
 Hour 
 
 Hour 
 
 Final 
 
 
 
 Problems 
 
 Exam 1 
 
 Exam 2 
 
 Exam 
 
 PLATO 
 
 means 
 
 152 
 
 67 
 
 5^ 
 
 lM 
 
 
 SDs 
 
 28.3 
 
 15.9 
 
 18.0 
 
 33-0 
 
 non- PLATO 
 
 means 
 
 152 
 
 !k 
 
 67 
 
 153 
 
 
 SDs 
 
 23-9 
 
 13.^ 
 
 17.1 
 
 26.0 
 
 Univariate analyses of variance for these same four variables are 
 
 presented in Table 6, for two reasons: First, to include each student who 
 
 took any particular exam (or worked on several machine problems) in the 
 
 analysis for that variable; and secondly to point out the near significant 
 
 results (at the .05 level) on the two hour exams. Although these results 
 
 do not show significant differences between the two groups in knowledge 
 
 gained in the course, they indicate a possible problem which should be 
 
 watched in the future. 
 
 12 
 
Table 6 
 Univariate Analyses of Variance 
 on the Achievement Variables 
 
 
 Mean 
 
 Degrees 
 
 of Freedom 
 
 
 
 Variable 
 
 square 
 
 num 
 
 denom 
 
 F 
 
 p 
 
 Machine problems 
 
 51 
 
 1 
 
 i+9 
 
 .03 
 
 .85 
 
 Hour exam 1 
 
 799 
 
 1 
 
 1+9 
 
 3.89 
 
 .05^ 
 
 Hour exam 2 
 
 1527 
 
 1 
 
 ^5 
 
 3.81 
 
 • 057 
 
 Final exam 
 
 2195 
 
 1 
 
 ^3 
 
 2.33 
 
 .135 
 
 It should also be mentioned here, that after the first exam, 
 the author speculated that the fact that he made up the exam might have 
 had some effect on the results. So for the second exam, two other 
 professors in the department made up the exam from the textbook, using 
 the course syllabus. Since this procedure had no noticeable effect on 
 the results, it was abandoned for the final exam. 
 
 d. PLATO usage Students in the PLATO group entered k3 separate 
 lessons (programs) on PLATO, during the course of the semester. The lessons 
 could be roughly classified as required (12 of these, see Table l), optional 
 (7, FORTRAN or FORTRAN-related) , system (k, routing and messages), and others 
 (20 computer science lessons unrelated to CS 103). Some PLATO usage statistics, 
 divided according to these four categories, are presented in Table 7« The 
 most interesting statistics are that on the average, students entered 9»9 
 of the 12 required lessons and spent 184.5 minutes in required lessons. 
 Although the first figure is accurate, the second is actually a minimum, 
 due to the following three problems. First, time was not properly recorded 
 for lesson sorting, which showed 89 uses and only a total of five minutes 
 
 13 
 
spent in it, and for some other lessons which were not part of the course. 
 Second, if the system went down or in some cases if the student quit in the 
 middle of a lesson, no time was recorded. Finally, due to an unknown error, 
 in some cases no time was recorded in a lesson even though the student 
 entered the lesson one or more times. Thus, while the average student 
 spent about 10 hours at the terminal (this data recorded independently by 
 the PLATO system), only about 3 1/2 hours of that was properly assigned 
 to individual lessons. A table of these statistics by individual lesson 
 is presented in Appendix D. 
 
 In order to discover the relationship between time spent on the 
 required PLATO lessons and course grades, these two variables were correlated. 
 The resulting correlation of .58 which accounts for about 3M& of the variance 
 and is significant at the .005 level indicated a strong, positive relationship 
 between time spent on the relevant PLATO lessons and course grade. (The 
 correlation with total time from all lessons was .kh and with total time 
 on PLATO was .18.) In order to discover if this correlation might be an 
 artifact due to brighter students working harder, the correlation was 
 recomputed, partialling out GPA. The resulting partial correlation of .55 
 indicated that the relationship between hours on PLATO and course grade was 
 not due to students with higher GPAs working harder on PLATO. 
 
 Ik 
 
Table 7 
 
 Summary of PLATO Lesson 
 
 Usage per Student 
 
 Lesson type 
 required optional system other TOTALS 
 
 Number of 
 times entering 
 
 Time spent (in 
 minutes) 
 
 Number of 
 lessons 
 
 32.6 
 
 184.5 
 
 9-9 
 
 3.2 
 
 6.1 
 
 1.5 
 
 15.2 
 
 12.6 
 
 2.6 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.0 
 
 53.0 
 
 k.G 207.8 
 
 15 
 
 e. Course evaluation questionnaire The Computer Science Department 
 routinely administers a standardized course evaluation questionnaire 
 (Appendix E) in each of its courses, near the end of the semester. Although 
 the questionnaires are administered anonymously and thus could not be 
 separated into PLATO and non- PLATO groups, it was thought that some 
 comparisons might be made with results from the previous year (fall, 1973) > 
 and that some comments about PLATO might be made in response to the open- 
 ended questions on the back of the questionnaire. 
 
 The h-2 objective questions were scored on a h, 3> 2, 1 scale 
 (for responses A, B, C, and D) , and analyses of variance were performed for 
 each question between the two semesters. Results are in appendix E. Even 
 if one tried to interpret all of the significant results (which would be a 
 very questionable statistical procedure, due to the correlations between the 
 questions, and the pure probabilities which state that about 2 of h-2 such 
 tests would be significant at the .05 level by chance), nothing of interest 
 
 15 
 
is found. Most of the results appear to be unrelated to the experiment, 
 such as the 1973 group reporting that the instructor's voice was more 
 animated and that he varied the pace of lecturing more than the 197^ 
 lecturer or the 197^ group saying that grading of machine problems was 
 more fair or that TAs were better supervised. (The author was the 
 instructor in both cases.) Others were related, but unimportant, (i.e. 
 The 1973 lectures were more related to the reading assignments, because 
 the PLATO lessons essentially replaced the lectures which would have 
 gone over the reading material.) 
 
 Of the 29 students who completed the questionnaire, 6 mentioned 
 PLATO on the back. While one of these was from a student who had wanted 
 to get a chance to use PLATO (presumably from the NP group!), the other 
 five were critical to varying degrees. A couple made general comments 
 like "it was frustrating" or the lessons were "too philosophical", while 
 two others suggested that PLATO should be eliminated or improved. 
 
 These sentiments were basically repeated in responses to the 
 question "How woiild you improve the course" which was part of a short 
 questionnaire attached to the final exam. Additionally, three students 
 mentioned that they needed more time on PLATO. 
 
 16 
 
U. Discussion 
 
 There were three interesting results of the study. First, 
 although students seemed reasonably satisfied with PLATO early in the 
 semester, the comments made at the semester's end indicated some 
 dissatisfaction. Four possible explanations are: l) early in the 
 semester students find PLATO new and interesting, but the novelty 
 wears off by the semster's end, 2) students are more concerned with 
 grades at the end of the semester, 3) earlier lessons were in better 
 shape than later ones, and k) ECS problems were worse later in the 
 semester. Undoubtably each of these explanations played some part 
 in student attitudes, and of course little can be done to change the 
 effect of the first two. However, it was the case that some of the 
 earlier lessons were better tested than some of the later ones. Thus 
 some additional improvements for these lessons might be indicated. 
 Finally, the shortage of ECS could have had a larger effect at the end 
 of the end of the semester, because as students fall behind or need to 
 review, they create a demand for many lessons at the same time, and 
 that wasn't possible. However, added ECS in January, 1975 removed this 
 problem. 
 
 The most encouraging result was the strong relationship between 
 the amount of time spent in the required PLATO lessons and the course 
 grade. If this is a cause and effect relationship, it illustrates the 
 usefulness of the lessons. 
 
 The final interesting result was the lack of a significant 
 difference between the two groups on achievement variables. With 
 some of the problems encountered, this result was good, in spite of the 
 
 17 
 
fact that the observed differences favored the NP group. 
 
 The above results suggest several improvements in the course. 
 First, one of the benefits of CAI is its self -pacing, self- scheduling 
 feature, and this was basically absent due to the lack of ECS, but this 
 problem has now been remedied. Secondly, efforts are being made to 
 improve the quality of many of the lessons. These mainly involve 
 increased use of animation, simulation, exercises, and other forms of 
 interactive material to help maintain student interest and allow 
 students to practice what they have learned. 
 
 An example of a new exercise appears in Figure 3- For this 
 experiment, the introductory formatting lesson fortfmtl consisted of 
 a lot of text with a fairly small number of exercises for the student. 
 In response to student comments that the lesson was dull and to complaints 
 that it didn't give students a chance to practice, three of these exercises 
 were added (for I, F, and E formats) and a simulator is being written. 
 The problems for the exercise are generated randomly (within some 
 constraints), and students type in answers in the boxes until they 
 achieve the criterion set by the instructor (5 correct in this example). 
 The computer keeps track of students' results, and lets them procede 
 when the criterion is met. 
 
 A third possible mechanism for improving student performance 
 would be through encouraging or forcing the students to take the PLATO 
 lessons. In CS 103, students were told to use the lessons, but apparently 
 some did not, although there were some problems with the timing data. 
 In any case, the CAISMS project (Anderson et al, 197^) using computer-managed 
 instruction showed that students performed better if they were forced 
 to study. Also, the correlation between course grade and time in the 
 required lessons in this study indicated that using the lessons improved 
 
 18 
 
Figure 3 
 PLATO Display from Lesson fortfmtl 
 
 PAGE 13. 
 
 EXERCISES IN I FORMATS 
 
 Below you will be given an INTEGER and a FORMRT 
 statement and then you are to show how 
 that number would be PRINTed. In this 
 exercise spacing is important and wi/11 be 
 checked in ' determining whether or not your 
 answer is correct. You must get 5 problems 
 correct to continue with this lesson. 
 
 To indicate that a number is too large for the 
 format use *'s to fill in the field. 
 
 INTEGER NUMBER -♦ -28 2 
 FORMAT SPECIFICATION -♦ 15 
 YOUR ANSWER fc 
 
 You now have 4 of 4 correct . 
 
 Press -STOP- to continue with the lesson 
 
 19 
 
grades. Perhaps some small amount of credit could be given to students 
 who complete lessons, in order to encourage them to do so. It should be 
 noted that the effect of PLATO on CS 103 (or perhaps any course) may be 
 greater than the simple substitution of 50 minutes of CAI material for 
 a 50 minute lecture. Students may be more likely to skip a PLATO lesson 
 than a lecture because they could do it later or because there is no 
 instructor to notice their absence. Additional work should consider 
 student motivation and attendance at PLATO and in lectures. 
 
 In summary, CAI materials can replace some lectures on the 
 FORTRAN language in an introductory computer science course. However, more 
 effort must be spent on lesson development and evaluation than was originally 
 suspected. 
 
 20 
 
References 
 
 Alpert, D. and Bitzer, D. L. Advances in Computer-based Education. 
 Science , 167, March 1970, 1582-1590. 
 
 Anderson, T. H. , Anderson, R. C, Dalgaard, B. R. , Wietecha, E. J., 
 Biddle, W. B. , Paden, D. W. , Smock, H. R. , Alessi, S. M. , 
 Surber, J. R. , and Klemt, L. L. A Computer-based Study- 
 Management System. Educational Psychologist , 197*+ > Vol. 11, 
 No. 1, 36-^5. 
 
 Nievergelt, J. Interactive Systems for Education - The New Look of 
 CAI. Invited paper. IF IP World Conference on Computer 
 Education, Marseilles, France, September, 1975. 
 
 21 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 QUESTIONNAIRE 
 Computer Science 103 
 
 USER number Signature Soc. Sec. No. 
 
 (h digits from upper 
 right of envelope) 
 
 Attitude toward Computers 
 
 Please check your degree of agreement or disagreement with each of the fol- 
 lowing statements: 
 
 STRONGLY STRONGLY 
 
 AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE 
 
 Computers are infallible 
 
 Computers are overrated 
 
 Computers dehumanize institutions 
 
 Computers are useful to society 
 
 Computers are often misused ■ 
 
 Their advantages outweigh their 
 
 disadvantages 
 
 Please check your familiarity with PLATO: 
 never heard of it heard about it tried it once or twice used it in a class 
 
 have programmed it 
 
 Familiarity with computers other than PLATO: 
 
 ran a program or 2 know a little FORTRAN had a course or 
 never used one (SOUPAC, for ex.) or some other language considerable experien 
 
 22 
 
APPENDIX B 
 
 CS 103 Biographical Questionnaire Fall 197I+ 
 
 In order to make some of the later machine problems more interesting, 
 the data obtained from this class, via this questionnaire, will be used. You 
 will be given copies of this data and asked to compute some statistics (all of 
 which will be explained in class) on it. Additionally, this information will 
 be used to examine the degree of variation in the backgrounds of the students, 
 so that the material presented will be at the appropriate level. 
 
 Please mark you answers in the space on the right. 
 
 1. Social Security number . 1 ■ 1 1 t , . , , 
 
 1 9 
 
 2. Sex (M or F) 
 
 3. Departmental abbreviation (eg. PSYCH, SOC, or NONE 
 
 if unassigned) 
 
 h. Age in years 
 
 10 
 
 • I L—l I I I 
 
 11 16 
 
 < t I 
 
 17 18 
 
 5. Year in school (1 for Freshman, 2 for Soph., 3 for 
 
 Jr., k for Sr., 5 for Grad. ) u _ 1 
 
 19 
 
 6. Height (feet and inches) t , ft. , , , in. 
 
 <-j> 
 
 7. Weight (pounds) 
 
 8. Approximate college GPA 
 
 9. Number of hours of college mathematics 
 
 10. Number of hours of statistics (any departments) 
 
 L_J L_J 
 
 25 27 
 
 I — UJ — 1 — 1 
 
 29 32 
 
 33^ 
 35~36 
 
 38 
 
 11. Computer experience none 
 
 1 a little 37 
 
 2 used SOUPAC 
 
 3 some knowledge of a language 
 k a lot (Why are you in CS 103?) 
 
 12. Expected grade in CS 103 (A, B, C, D, or E) 
 
 13. Place a 1 if you would object to the data on this 
 
 questionnaire being made available to the other 
 
 students in this class • t , 
 
 40 
 
 Ik. List the numbers of those questions whose responses you wish kept confidential. 
 
 15- Place a 1 if you would object to the data be inn, made available to the class, 
 anonymously (without soc. sec. nos.). 
 
 23 
 
 te 
 
APPENDIX C 
 10/7 M NAME 
 
 Computer Science 103 Questionnaire 
 
 This questionnaire is an effort to get your opinions about the experiment being 
 conducted in the class. Please take the time to carefully answer all questions 
 which pertain to your half of the experiment. Your comments will have no effect on 
 your grade, so please be candid and as critical as you wish. 
 
 I. EVERYBODY 
 
 A. Would you rather switch to the other section: Yes no don't know 
 
 don't care 
 
 B. Below, and/or on the back, please list any comments, suggestions, and 
 
 criticisms which you have of CS 103 this semester, especially any which 
 pertain to the experimental division of the class into 2 sections. Say 
 what you like and what you don't like about the course. 
 
 C. List any exam questions which you feel you were unprepared for, and say why. 
 
 D. Would you prefer to have the next exam in the evening? Yes No 
 
 E. IF (you're in the PLATO section) GO TO IV 
 
 II. REDUCED CLASS SIZE GROUP - In answering the following questions, compare the 
 smaller Wednesday lectures with the larger Monday lectures. 
 
 A. Keeping up with the lecture on Wednesdays is 
 
 a. much easier b. easier c. no difference d. harder e. much harder 
 
 B. Getting questions answered on Wednesdays is 
 
 a. much easier b. easier c. no difference d. harder e. much harder 
 
 C. The atmosphere in the class on Wednesdays is 
 a. more casual b. same c. less casual 
 
 D. If the entire class were together on Wednesdays, how much would you learn 
 a. a lot more b. more c. the same d. less e. much less 
 
 III. STOP, look up, yawn, and stretch to indicate you're finished. 
 
 2k 
 
APPENDIX C (cont'd) 
 
 IV. PLATO GROUP - You have had an opportunity to study the following 7 PLATO lessons 
 so far this semester: 
 
 1. csintro 2. algolingo 3« fortintro k. fortarith 5. fortfmtl 6. fortarrayl 
 7. fortif 
 
 Answer each question below, for each of the 7 lessons you have used. 
 
 A. Compare the lesson with how a lecture might teach the same topic. 
 
 The lesson was a. much better b. better c. equal d. worse e. much worse 
 1. 2. 3. ^. 5- 6. 7. 
 
 B. How helpful was the lesson for the exam? 
 
 a. extremely b. very c. somewhat d. not at all e. harmful 
 1. . , 2. 3. ^. 5. 6. 7. 
 
 C. How much did you learn from the lesson (whether the material was on the 
 exam or not)? 
 
 a. very much b. quite a bit c. some d. very little e. nothing 
 1. 2. 3. b. 5. 6. 7. 
 
 D. How much did you enjoy the lesson? 
 
 a. very much b. quite a bit c. very little d. not at all e. hated it 
 1. 2. 3. b. 5. 6. 7. 
 
 E. GO TO III 
 
 25 
 

 
 APPENDIX 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 
 PLATO Us; 
 
 ige 
 
 , 
 
 LESSON 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 NAME 
 
 TIMES USED 
 
 BAD EXITS 
 
 MINUTES 
 
 STUDENTS 
 
 csintro 
 
 V>- 
 
 7 
 
 680 
 
 23 
 
 fortintro 
 
 k 9 
 
 19 
 
 277 
 
 21 
 
 fortarith' 
 
 101 
 
 29 
 
 678 
 
 26 
 
 fortfmtl 
 
 96 
 
 53 
 
 137 
 
 23 
 
 fortarrayl 
 
 97 
 
 >+9 
 
 622 
 
 27 
 
 fort if 
 
 1A5 
 
 37 
 
 570 
 
 26 
 
 fort do 
 
 78 
 
 1+0 
 
 576 
 
 26 
 
 sorting 
 
 89 
 
 77 
 
 5 
 
 22 
 
 fortarray2 
 
 kQ 
 
 2h 
 
 276 
 
 23 
 
 fortfmt2 
 
 ^ 
 
 37 
 
 281 
 
 18 
 
 fort sub 1 
 
 62 
 
 16 
 
 539 
 
 20 
 
 fortchar 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 6k 
 
 5 
 
 fortfmt 
 
 16 
 
 J+ 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 fort sub 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 53 
 
 3 
 
 fortcomp 
 
 37 
 
 24 
 
 65 
 
 18 
 
 fortsubex 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 2 
 
 fortfunct 
 
 If 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 algolingo 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 flowchrt 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 csguide 
 
 217 
 
 17 
 
 212 
 
 26 
 
 cscomments 
 
 20 
 
 19 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 cslessons 
 
 161 
 
 3^ 
 
 116 
 
 27 
 
 26 
 
APPENDIX D (cont'd) 
 
 csr outer 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 fortxl 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 darwinl 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 numquad 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ik 
 
 1 
 
 root lab 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 machlang 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 cs 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 racetrack 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 100 
 
 2 
 
 basicintro 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 snobol 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 somaga 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 basicrefl 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 graphix 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 monte carlo 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 traffic sim 
 
 k 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 mazesearch 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 turing 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 kaids 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 cs scrap 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 snobolcomp 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 minie 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 TOTAIS 
 
 1418 
 
 5kK 
 
 5302 
 
 393 
 
 AVERAGES 
 
 3.6 
 
 1.4 
 
 13-5 
 
 
 Note: First twelve lessons were required, next seven were optional, 
 next four were system lessons, and last twenty were any others. 
 
 27 
 
APPENDIX E 
 
 Items 1-2U describe various specific things that 
 
 A LECTURER MAY DO. BLACKEN THE LETTER ON EACH 
 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX LINE TO INDICATE HOW FREQUENTLY THE LECTURER 
 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX IN THIS COURSE DID EACH OF THEM. 
 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx USE THE CODE ON THE RIGHT 
 
 YOU CAN HELP PROMOTE GOOD INSTRUCTION DY GIVING 
 YOUR CONSIDERED EVALUATION OF CERTAIN ASPECTS Or 
 YOUR INSTRUCTOR AND THIS COURSE. PLEASE ANSWER 
 EACH QUESTION INDEPENDENTLY SO AS TO GIVE A 
 CORRECT ASSESSMENT OF WHAT YOU THINK ARE STRONG 
 AND WEAK POINTS OF THE COURSE. IF YOU CHOOSE 
 NOT TO ANSWER A QUESTION, PLEASE GIVE YOUR 
 REASONS ON THE BACK. 
 
 A = Almost Always 
 B = Often 
 C = Occasionally 
 D = Almost Never 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxx 
 
 1 . 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 u. 
 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
 8. 
 
 12. 
 13. 
 1U. 
 15. 
 16. 
 
 Acted interested in the material. 
 
 Was well prepared. 
 
 Acted relaxed. 
 
 Looked at the class while speaking. 
 
 Enunc i ated well . 
 
 Lectures seemed to go smoothly following a logical sequence of thought. 
 Used relevant examples. 
 
 Explained clearly and explanations were to the point. 
 9. Emphasized important points by raising voice, repeating, etc. 
 10. Made you interested in the material. 
 1. Lectured at the ability level of the class. 
 
 Lectures were related to the reading assignments. 
 Gave clear explanations of abstract ideas. 
 
 Made clear the objectives for each lecture or series of lectures. 
 Followed an outline. 
 
 Stimulated your intellectual curiosity. 
 17. Seemed to have very recent information on the subject. 
 xxxxxxx 18. Answers to questions were relevant. 
 xxxxxxx 19. Varied pace of lecturing. 
 
 xxxxxxx 20. Presented material not in the reading assignments. 
 xxxxxxx 21. Voice was animated. 
 xxxxxxx 22. Used humor effectively. 
 
 xxxxxxx 23. Answered all questions (or admitted didn't know the answer). 
 xxxxxxx 2U . Encouraged questions during the lecture. 
 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The remaining questions refer to other aspects 
 
 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 
 OF THE COURSE. USE THE SCALE ON THE RIGHT TO 
 EXPRESS YOUR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT 
 WITH EACH STATEMENT. 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXX 
 
 A = Strongly Agree 
 
 B = Agree 
 
 C = Disagree 
 
 D = Strongly Disagree 
 
 G = Not Applicable 
 
 25. Atmosphere of the class was cordial. 
 
 26. Lecturer was patient with students who did not understand the material. 
 
 27. Overall effectiveness of the instructor was good. 
 
 28. Instructor should be recommended to students taking a similar course. 
 
 29. Prerequisites stated in the course catalog were necessary. 
 
 30. Machine problems were worthwhile. 
 
 31. Grading of machine problems was fair. 
 
 32. Written homework was helpful. 
 
 33. Grading of writte- homework was fair. 
 
 3U . Examinations tested the course material. 
 
 35. Grading of examinations was fair. 
 
 36. Adequate arrangements were made when the professor was absent. 
 
 37. Audio-visual teaching aids were used effectively. 
 
 38. Reading material covered the course material. 
 
 39. t.a.s were well supervised. 
 U0. The textbook was good. 
 
 Ul. A lot was learned by taking this course. 
 
 U2. The course was enjoyable. 
 
 28 
 
APPENDIX E (cont'd) 
 
 please answer the questions and make comments about the aspects of the course indicated below. 
 Compliments of good aspects and criticisms of poor ones are all welcome. Your comments will help 
 your instructor interpret the results from the questions on the other side. remember, your instructor 
 will not see your completed evaluation until after final grades for this course have been turned in. 
 
 1. What grade do you expect to get in this course? 
 
 2. Comment on the amount of time required by this course compared with the credit given. 
 
 3. Comment on homework and machine problems (number, difficulty, relevance, grading, contribution 
 to final grade, etc.) 
 
 U. Comment on exams (length, difficulty, grading, contribution to final grade, etc.) 
 
 5. Please comment on course content and relevance to your area of study. 
 
 6. Name your principal instructor , TA 
 
 What are your general comments about the instructor(s) in this course? 
 
 7. General comments. Are you satisfied with what you got out of this course? 
 
 Was it a worthwhile educational experience? How would you improve the course? 
 
 8. What is your reaction to this questionnaire? What other questions should have been asked? Any 
 questions you did not like or could not understand? Please give reasons. 
 
 29 
 
APPENDIX E (cont'd) 
 Computer Science Course Evaluation 
 Questionnaire Results 
 
 riable 
 
 Means 
 1973 1974 
 
 df (denom. ) 
 
 F 
 
 P 
 
 1 
 
 3-57 
 
 3-41 
 
 71 
 
 .87 
 
 •35 
 
 2 
 
 3.76 
 
 3-79 
 
 72 
 
 .09 
 
 •77 
 
 3 
 
 3-07 
 
 3.34 
 
 71 
 
 I.78 
 
 .19 
 
 4 
 
 3.38 
 
 3-21 
 
 72 
 
 •99 
 
 •32 
 
 5 
 
 3.76 
 
 3.72 
 
 72 
 
 .08 
 
 .78 
 
 6 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.4l 
 
 72 
 
 • 67 
 
 .42 
 
 7 
 
 3.^9 
 
 3.24 
 
 72 
 
 2.39 
 
 .13 
 
 8 
 
 3.11 
 
 3-00 
 
 72 
 
 • 34 
 
 .56 
 
 9 
 
 3-00 
 
 2.71 
 
 70 
 
 1.89 
 
 .17 
 
 10 
 
 2.45 
 
 2.28 
 
 71 
 
 .68 
 
 .41 
 
 11 
 
 3.18 
 
 3.10 
 
 72 
 
 .16 
 
 .69 
 
 12 
 
 3-54 
 
 3- 07 
 
 71 
 
 7.66 
 
 .007 
 
 13 
 
 2.77 
 
 2.48 
 
 71 
 
 2.05 
 
 .16 
 
 14 
 
 3.36 
 
 3.14 
 
 72 
 
 1.21 
 
 .28 
 
 15 
 
 3.64 
 
 3-59 
 
 71 
 
 .11 
 
 .74 
 
 16 
 
 2.42 
 
 2.28 
 
 72 
 
 •37 
 
 • 54 
 
 17 
 
 3.29 
 
 3.15 
 
 70 
 
 •50 
 
 .48 
 
 18 
 
 3.36 
 
 3.31 
 
 72 
 
 .07 
 
 •79 
 
 19 
 
 2.36 
 
 I.72 
 
 71 
 
 11.54 
 
 .001 
 
 30 
 
APPENDIX E (cont'd) 
 
 20 
 
 2.18 
 
 1-93 
 
 69 
 
 1.70 
 
 .20 
 
 21 
 
 2.39 
 
 I.76 
 
 71 
 
 8.J+7 
 
 .005 
 
 22 
 
 1.76 
 
 1.52 
 
 72 
 
 1.82 
 
 .18 
 
 23 
 
 3.62 
 
 3.66 
 
 72 
 
 .05 
 
 .82 
 
 2k 
 
 3.27 
 
 3.34 
 
 72 
 
 .16 
 
 .69 
 
 25 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 70 
 
 0.0 
 
 1.00 
 
 26 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 72 
 
 0.0 
 
 1.00 
 
 27 
 
 3.H 
 
 2.93 
 
 72 
 
 I.02 
 
 .32 
 
 28 
 
 3.09 
 
 2.71 
 
 71 
 
 3.00 
 
 .09 
 
 29 
 
 2.89 
 
 2.60 
 
 k 9 
 
 1.23 
 
 .27 
 
 30 
 
 3.kh 
 
 3.^5 
 
 72 
 
 .00 
 
 .98 
 
 31 
 
 3.11 
 
 3.59 
 
 72 
 
 6.91 
 
 .01 
 
 32 
 
 2.63 
 
 3-00 
 
 7 
 
 .15 
 
 .71 
 
 33 
 
 2.56 
 
 3-00 
 
 10 
 
 1.05 
 
 .33 
 
 3^ 
 
 2.60 
 
 2.59 
 
 72 
 
 .00 
 
 .95 
 
 35 
 
 2.76 
 
 3.00 
 
 72 
 
 1.1*5 
 
 .23 
 
 36 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.56 
 
 32 
 
 .00 
 
 .98 
 
 37 
 
 2.17 
 
 2.29 
 
 2k 
 
 .08 
 
 .78 
 
 38 
 
 3.27 
 
 3-17 
 
 72 
 
 .k2 
 
 .52 
 
 39 
 
 3-33 
 
 3.68 
 
 68 
 
 5.81 
 
 .02 
 
 4o 
 
 2.60 
 
 2.97 
 
 72 
 
 2.84 
 
 .10 
 
 4i 
 
 3.31 
 
 3.07 
 
 72 
 
 1.45 
 
 .23 
 
 k2 
 
 2.61 
 
 2.55 
 
 71 
 
 .06 
 
 .81 
 
 31 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 
 SHEET 
 
 1. Report No. 
 
 UIUCDCS-R-75-7 1 ^ 
 
 4. Title and Subtitle 
 
 CS 103 PIATO EXPERIMENT, FALL 197^ 
 
 3. Recipient's Accession No. 
 
 5- Report Dste 
 
 July 1975 
 
 6. 
 
 7. Author(s) 
 
 Richard G. Montanelli, Jr. 
 
 §• Performing Organization Rept. 
 No. 
 
 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 
 
 Department of Computer Science 
 
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 
 
 Urbana, Illinois 6l801 
 
 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 
 
 11. Contract /Grant No. 
 
 NSF EC 1+1 511 
 
 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 
 
 National Science Foundation 
 Washington, D.C. 90550 
 
 13. Type of Report & Period 
 Covered 
 
 14. 
 
 15. Supplementary Notes 
 
 16. Abstracts 
 
 In order to determine the effectiveness of replacing a lecture on 
 FORTRAN with PLATO CAI material in an introductory computer programming 
 class, an experiment was conducted. The students in CS 103 were randomly 
 divided into two groups, with students in the PLATO (P) group getting a 
 PLATO lesson in place of 1 of the 2 weekly lectures, throughout the 
 semester. Results indicated that there were no significant differences 
 between the groups on achievement variables. Students in the P group 
 were initially happy and satisfied with the PLATO materials, although 
 there were a few complaints by the semester's end. These problems have 
 been fixed, and PLATO should be able to routinely substitute for one 
 lecture a week in introductory computer programming courses. 
 
 17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors 
 
 PLATO 
 
 CAI 
 
 Course evaluation ■ 
 
 Teaching computer science 
 
 Educational innovation 
 
 17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms 
 
 17e. COSATI Field/Group 
 
 18. Availability Statement 
 
 UNLIMITED 
 
 FORM NTIS-3S (10-70) 
 
 19. Security Class (This 
 Report) 
 
 ■ ■ . UNCLASSIFIED 
 
 20. Security Class (This 
 Page 
 
 UNCLASSIFIED 
 
 21. No. of Pages 
 
 32 
 
 22. Price 
 
 USCOMM-DC 40329-P71 
 
ft