Computer-Assisted Instruction and Distance Education

The reluctance to introduce CALL into distance education is more easily understood when one recognizes that distance education in general has made little use of computer technology as a facilitator of the learning process. What is true of CALL and the teaching of languages at a distance is also true of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) and distance education in general.

Researchers in the 1980s continue to refer to the future of CAI and distance education (Kaufman, 1986; Bates, 1986); they find little to report about the present and past. (The British Open University, or BOU, which has used Computer Aided Learning [CAL] in many science, mathematics, and technology courses, is somewhat of an exception.) In fact, Laaser (1988) suggests that the two most significant ventures by distance education institutions into the field of CAI (the STEB-Project at the FernUniversität and the CYCLOPS project at the BOU) proved to be expensive add-ons which failed to live up to expectations.

Distance educators refer to three distinct applications of computers to the home-study environment. Since these will form the framework for examining possible applications of CAI to distance education, it is important that they be understood. These applications are Computer Managed Instruction, Computer Aided Learning, and Computer Conferencing. (For a more detailed discussion of computers in distance education, see Bates, 1986; Lampikoski, 1984; and O'Shea, 1984.)

Computer Managed Instruction (Cmi)

CMI focuses on the computer as a management tool which facilitates the administration of the learning process. It can enable (to name but a few features) the electronic counselling of students, on-line registration, institutional (registrarial) record keeping, tracking of student progress through a particular course, exam generation, testing, data banking, and so on.

In this regard, the needs of the institution involved in distance education are very similar to those of the campus-based organization. They may be more complex in cases where continuous year-round enrollment has to be accommodated, and it is true that the distance which separates the learner from the institution undoubtedly complicates all relationships and interaction between the learner and the administrative processes of the institution, but the functions are for the most part characteristic of both campus- and distance-based institutions. However, there is at least one particular use of CMI in distance education. Using the computerized printing process commonly known as desk-top publishing, courses can be produced much faster than was traditionally the case, and packages can be updated regularly.

Clearly, there is (and ought to be) little controversy about introducing CMI into the operational structures of distance education institutions. Decisions must be based on practical questions, most importantly cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency. A word of warning, however, is in order: all institutions operate within fixed budgets, and it is imperative that the advantages of investing in this area be weighed against cuts of restricted growth in others, for the decision to invest in one area automatically means failure to support or expand another. This is true not only of software decisions but also of hardware acquisitions, which, even though they may be presented as "donations" from established companies, nevertheless require considerable operating funds on an annual basis.