While the number of computers in the classroom continues to increase and tremendous support for technology integration exists in government, business, and academia, a major discrepancy exists between the level of technology use expected of educators and the actual use and integration of technology in the classroom. This article examines barriers that impede the effective use of technology in education.

BackgroundA computer-based learning experience was developed using cognitive flexibility theory to overcome the pitfalls often encountered in existing medical education. An earlier study (not published) showed significant pretest-posttest increase in scores, as well as a significant positive correlation between choosing to complete the module individually or in pairs.MethodThis experience was presented as part of a second-year course in medical school with randomized assignment for students to complete the program as pairs or individuals.ResultsSixty-six scores of 101 medical students (31 from students working as singles and 35 from 70 working in pairs) were analyzed. Out of 47 possible points, the mean pretest score was 15.1 (SD = 6.4, range 13.7-15.9). The mean posttest score was 22.9 (SD = 5.2, range 21.1-24.2). Posttest scores were statistically significantly higher than pretest scores (p<.001, Cohen's d = 1.17, average gain 7.8 points). Both pairs and singles showed pre-to-post test score gains, but the score gains of pairs and singles were not significantly different.ConclusionThis learning module served as an effective instructional intervention. However, the effect of collaboration, measured by score gains for pairs, was not significantly different from score gains of students completing the assignment individually.

Background-A computer-based learning experience was developed using cognitive flexibility theory to overcome the pitfalls often encountered in existing medical education. An earlier study (not published) showed significant pretest-posttest increase in scores, as well as a significant positive correlation between choosing to complete the module individually or in pairs. Method-This experience was presented as part of a second-year course in medical school with randomized assignment for students to complete the program as pairs or individuals. Results-Sixty-six scores of 101 medical students (31 from students working as singles and 35 from 70 working in pairs) were analyzed. Out of 47 possible points, the mean pretest score was 15.1 (SD = 6.4, range 13.7-15.9). The mean posttest score was 22.9 (SD = 5.2, range 21.1-24.2). Posttest scores were statistically significantly higher than pretest scores (p<.001, Cohen's d = 1.17, average gain 7.8 points). Both pairs and singles showed pre-to-post test score gains, but the score gains of pairs and singles were not significantly different. Conclusion-This learning module served as an effective instructional intervention. However, the effect of collaboration, measured by score gains for pairs, was not significantly different from score gains of students completing the assignment individually.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching oiisting data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, John Robert Higgs, Jr. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)University of Colorado at Denver This study used a 2 X 2 experimental design. The two independent variables were program version and method of instruction. Two qualitatively different computer programs were used: a base program developed according to cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) and a generative program containing embedded generative learning strategies (explanation and summary cues). Students completed these programs either individually or collaboratively.One hundred and thirty-two second-year medical students participated in the study. The two treatment variables were randomly assigned to the students. Students This research suggests that advanced learners did not benefit equally from the two computer programs. Learners using the base computer program performed significantly better than students using the generative version on the posttest. Also, although the students felt there was an advantage to working with a peer, no significant advantage materialized. Recommendations for future research based on these findings are presented.This abstract accurately reflects the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. R. Scott Grabing^r

No abstract