The effects of software quality on the adoption of computer-assisted instruction in postsecondary education.

Abstract

Concern about the quality of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) software has dramatically increased as the number of computers on college campuses has grown. This concern is based on the belief that CAI adoption increases as software quality improves. This study investigated the relationship between the quality of one CAI software and the extent to which it was actually used for teaching. The software studied was a typical commercially published set of simulations and tutorials for introductory undergraduate psychology courses. Hypotheses predicted that adoption intensity should be positively related to the users' assessments of software quality. Quality was defined as having operations, design and content attributes. Measures were derived from the evaluation instrument used for the EDUCOM/NCRIPTAL Annual Software Awards Contest. Adoption intensity was defined on a continuum ranging from marginal to extensive use. Measures were derived from teaching routines such as the degree of student involvement and the extent that the software was integrated into the syllabus. Data were gathered from the entire population of faculty who received the software. One hundred and eleven recipients were interviewed. Twenty six faculty had adopted the software. The study found two distinctly separate user subgroups: low-intensity and high-intensity adopters. High-intensity CAI adopters were significantly sensitive to software quality and the degree of use. These users comprised half of the adopters and a fifth of all faculty capable of adoption. Differences between institutions where the software was received and where it was used were insignificant. Adoption may hold value for less empowered groups of faculty. Slightly larger percentages of women, minorities, and professors with lower rank adopted the software in comparison with all recipients. Faculty expertise with computers may not be a good predictor of adoption. The adopters were about as familiar with computing as all recipients. Faculty who did not use the software rejected it primarily because of disinterest in the technology, the nature of available resources, or the time of receipt. Rejections due to the software's assessed quality were quite rare.