ABSTRACT

The use of computers and the Internet to convey content tostudents is popular, but the amount of research relatingthe effectiveness of the technology to learning theinformation is relatively sparse. Data on examperformances and attitudes toward the use of technologywere collected from large enrollment, entry-levelGeoscience courses over a span of seven semesters. Thedata were examined to determine if the use of computersas a presentation tool and the incorporation of the Internetas a means to give students increased exposure to coursecontent (notes) increased exam scores and knowledge ofEarth Sciences.

Most students (80-86%) found the web-based notesuseful. Average exam scores improved by as much as 23%when the Internet was used to get information to the stu-dents in combination with computer-driven lectures, inclass discussions, and applied information reports. Com-prehensive final exam scores improved by an average of11%, suggesting better preparation for exams, and moreretention of course information when compared to a rep-resentative non-enhanced class. In enhanced classes, up to86% of the students passed, compared to only 57% of stu-dents in the class taught without the benefit of technology.

Keywords: Computers, Technology, Assessment,Teaching, Internet

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem - Higher education, includingthe geosciences, has embraced the use of technology(Childress, 1996; volume by Butler, 1997; Hall-Wallace,1999). Computers and the Internet, the primary advancediscussed in this paper, have changed the way manycolleges and departments approach education (e.g., seeRobin and McNeil, 1997; Young, 2001). Students oftenexpress frustration with juggling courses, workschedules, family, and social activities. Technology canassist both students and faculty, although datasupporting this assessment is sparse (e.g., Boyle et al.,1997; Renshaw and Taylor, 2000).

One of the important points about the Geosciences isthe visual component to the science. My contention isthat traditional lecture-style teaching methods thattypically provide students limited access to images ofgeological features can benefit from enhancements in

information access facilitated by computers and theInternet. The methods described combine a traditionallecture style with the use of computers and the Internetto deliver key ideas and images of important geologicalphenomena. This paper describes the use of computertechnology and the Internet to assist in deliveringcontent to students enrolled in large enrollmententry-level Geoscience courses. Data from student examscores, collected from 1997 through 2000, are interpretedand discussed. The research also compares exam scoresfrom a representative, non-enhanced course to theclasses that used technology.

I currently teach Earth Systems Science, a typicalentry-level Geoscience class with beginning enrollmentsof 100, to as many as 300 students per class. The studentsare almost all undergraduates, usually eitherunderclassmen, or upperclassmen who waited to fulfilltheir core science requirements for graduation until latein their academic careers. Most students are“traditional” in terms of their ages, although in at leastone evening class the number of non-traditionalstudents (older students who have been in theworkforce, or out of the academic realm for more than 5years) is notable. Grades are assigned based on thepercentage (90%, 80%, 70%, 60%) of points a studentacquires over the course of the term.

The traditional teaching elements of the class are the“lecture” component and a research report. The class hasno lab associated with it, and the large class sizes inhibitassigning extensive homework problems. I do presentthe opportunity for a few web-based exercises thatenhance topics like earthquakes, volcanoes, and rivers.Those exercises are counted as extra-creditopportunities, which may account for up to 5% of thetotal points.

My lectures describe and discuss relevant EarthScience information via images and text slides presentedusing a computer screen projection. I use presentationsoftware that facilitates the use of labeled digitizedphotographs and illustrations, animation, and digitalvideo in the lectures. Importantly, the media presentedin class on computer is transferred easily to the Internet,where students can get additional access to the slides attheir leisure. Students can then listen to the instructor inclass, and take notes on examples and analogies thatthey sometimes miss because they are too busy writingdown information presented on slides or overheads.

The “Real World” report assignment involvesstudents following a set of guidelines for a brief writtendiscussion of some aspect they observed that is relevantto the course content. The report must include

56 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, n. 1, January, 2002, p. 56-63

THE BENEFITS OF COMBINING COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND

TRADITIONAL TEACHING METHODS IN LARGE ENROLLMENT

GEOSCIENCE CLASSES

James M. Durbin Department of Geology, University of Southern Indiana, 8600 University Blvd.,

Evansville, IN 47712, JDurbin@usi.edu

photographs of relevant features and demonstrate goodwriting skills.

Computer and Internet enhancement of the course issimilar to that described by other researchers (e.g., Gore,1996; 1997; Butler, 1997; Mantei, 2000) and includes:

1) Use of computer-driven presentations in whichphotographs and drawings could be clearly labeled,and key concepts and definitions written down forthe students;

2) Incorporation of digital photographic media, video,and animation into the lectures to illustrate howvarious geological phenomena change over time;

3) Use of the Internet to give students moreopportunities to access the syllabus, instructions,course content, and e-mail communication; and

4) Use of the Internet to provide access to a wider rangeof experiences, thereby increasing the opportunityto practice recognizing geological features andconcepts presented during the lectures.

The rationale behind the methods employed, andexam performance data is discussed to assess theeffectiveness of the enhanced teaching methods ascompared to non-technological means of informationacquisition. Qualitative observations and comments onstudent attendance, student opinions of the text andcomputer-assisted teaching style, and studentperformance prior to 1997 are described.

Rationale - I initially acquired previous lecture-basedteaching experience while a graduate student at theSouthern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC), andat nearby John A. Logan Community College (JALC) inCarterville, Illinois. While at SIUC, I taught entry-levelGeoscience lab courses and lectured as a substitute forvarious professors. At JALC, I taught severallecture-based physical geology courses at that time aswell. I did not track student progress at that time, but Idid notice too many students were not doing well in theclass (no data, but my recollection was between 30-35%F/D-rates). I was concerned, but I assumed that I wouldbecome a more proficient instructor with time, and thatstudent performance would improve as I gained moreteaching experience. I taught using a lecture-based stylefor four semesters over three years at three differentinstitutions (JAL, SIUC, and University ofNebraska-Lincoln UNL). Student evaluations weregood (e.g., “Jim is an enthusiastic teacher who makesscience interesting for people who aren’t scientists byshowing how it relates to everyday life”), but I was stilldismayed at the poor performances of my students. Ibegan tracking student exam scores while at UNL in1997, knowing that I would be changing my method ofinformation transfer, I just wasn’t sure how. I beganemploying technological enhancements in the Fall of

1997, after the Spring 1997 term yielded the highestpercentage of F and D grades that I could remember.

The addition of computer-driven presentations andclassroom web pages to an otherwise standard lectureformat came about as a potential solution to theaforementioned poor student performance, anunwillingness to “dumb-down” the content, and anumber of perennial student complaints that recurredon student evaluations and in discussions with students,prior to implementing technology. Some of the studentissues included:

1) How am I supposed to keep track of the imagesshown in class (for exam purposes) when they areonly on the screen for a short time?

2) How do I listen to the instructor, and write down theinformation on the slides, and keep track of imagesat the same time? and

3) How does this “Geoscience stuff” relate to me whenmy major is ___________ (fill in blank with anymajor!)?

The simple answer to the first question is to use onlyimages from the textbook. To do so is too limiting fromthe perspective of both educators and students. ManyGeoscience educators have dozens of slides and picturestaken with the intent of using them as teaching tools. Theinstructor may possess many appropriate slides tosupplement information presented only verbally in thetext. The Internet contains thousands of such images.Written comments from student course evaluationssuggest photographs from private collections areperceived as both beneficial and problematic. Studentslike looking at places that they have never seen, but theydislike that images presented in class for only a fewminutes may appear on an exam. Nearly all studentresponses on course evaluations, suggest access tocourse slides outside of the lectures is beneficial.

From the student’s perspective, classes may becometedious when the images shown in lectures areexclusively those they have already viewed in atextbook. The images from the students’ textbook areimportant, and are usually adequate, especially thosewith illustrations that show the geological items clearlylabeled alongside an actual photograph of the feature.However, students often do not recognize similargeological features from other photographs, or moreimportantly, when they travel the world. Arguably, thebest way to facilitate students learning the concepts andbeing able to apply what they have learned is to let themsee a wide variety of images illustrating the pertinentgeological feature, and let them see them as often asnecessary until they can recognize the features.

The second question relates primarily to note-takingskills, and the tremendous amount of information thatstudents must learn in many entry-level Geoscience

Durbin - The Benefits of Combining Computer Technology and Traditional Teaching Methods 57

58 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, n. 1, January, 2002, p. 56-63

courses (or any of the physical sciences). Very often, astandard geology lecture will have:

1) A written component with notes, an outline, or keyterms and ideas presented on a chalkboard,overhead projector, or handout;

2) Images shown via a slide projector, either from theprofessor’s personal collection, or provided by thetextbook company; and

3) Information conveyed by the instructor that is notrepeated in the text, such as analogies, examples, orcase studies.

Even the best students have trouble “multi-tasking”to record all of the information, and too often thestudents try to write down everything that is writtendown, while completely ignoring the images and/or theverbal examples given by the instructor. Later, thesestudents may not perform well on the exam, and mayargue that the information was never presented to them!

The use of computer-driven presentations facilitatesorganization of images and text, and the Internet allowsinstructors to put the lectures onto a class web page.Visuals posted to the web page enable students to usetheir often neglected listening skills in class by focusingtheir note taking on those items that are not writtendown on a slide or overhead projector. Students can thenget access to images and information written on slidesafter class, where they can examine the images, augmenttheir in-class notes, consult their textbook, andformulate questions about topics covered. Mostimportantly, students can get access to the informationat times that are convenient to them, allowing them towork around employment schedules, athletics, or otherextra-curricular activities. From the instructors’perspective, this method is advantageous as well(Mantei, 2000). Posting computer-driven lectures to aweb page requires much less time than re-showingslides in other class periods or during help-sessions, andit allows for many different images of similar features tobe shown. This method of re-showing builds on theadage “repetition, repetition, and more repetition”,without the inevitable time demands on teachers andstudents (Mantei, 2000).

The use of multimedia, animation, movies, andtraditional photographs and diagrams can enhanceideas, or illustrate complicated concepts. For example,movie clips demonstrating the development ofcross-beds in sediments as the result of sand barsmoving along a river bed drives home the point that barforms move, cannibalize part of their own form, andleave behind part of the bar form as the next form comesupon a given location. The same video can also showthat perspective affects the way cross-beds appear toobservers.

Many instructors in the sciences have had tocontend with the last question, the applicability ofinformation. Citing examples from the instructors

experiences during a discussion or lecture is a valuabletool in dealing with this question. To help students seethe relevance of Earth Science in their lives and providethem with an opportunity to apply their newly acquiredknowledge, they are required to write a “Real World”report. For the report, students must apply informationfrom the course to a situation that they observe andphotograph as they travel about the campus, city,region, or world. Technology can assist the students andinstructor with the report (e.g., Harris and McCartney,1999), although other techniques such as handouts orlibrary reserve materials may also be used.Underclassmen non-science majors often have limitedexperience writing a research paper (technical orotherwise), and are commonly unsure of whatinformation should be addressed in their report andhow to proceed. Instructions for properly referencingreports, for what types of references are appropriate, forillustrating what content is appropriate for the topic ofthe paper, and the preferred format for the paper arelisted on an example of a “Real World” report accessedvia the class web page. Report topics are not tightlyconstrained, and students are encouraged to choose atopic that is of interest to them. Once the students turn intheir reports with pictures they have taken, I scan someof the relevant photographs to supplement my teachingcollection before returning the papers to the students.

RESULTS

Data presented herein were acquired while instructingstudents as a Ph.D. candidate at the University ofNebraska-Lincoln (UNL), and while teaching at theUniversity of Southern Indiana (USI) as an AssistantProfessor of Geology. No quantitative data are availablefrom prior lecture-based teaching experiences atSouthern Illinois at Carbondale or at John A LoganCommunity College. For display purposes, data in thegraphs is always arranged from older to younger, withUNL data listed first, and USI data are listed second.

Quantitative data presented herein were analyzedusing descriptive statistics, primarily arithmetic means(averages) and skewness. Numeric tabulation of studentscores and grades earned are presented in graphicalform. The 1997 data (both Spring and Fall) are scoresfrom UNL, whereas the remaining data are from USI.The class population sizes shown in the figures (n) varyfrom 89 in Fall 1998b, to a maximum of 276 in the Spring2000 term.

Qualitative observations compiled from writtenstudent evaluations are placed into broad categories(Table 1), presented as numbers of students whoresponded and as percentages of the total respondents.Course evaluation information for the entire period ofdata acquisition are not available or are not applicablebecause the questions posed did not ask about the use oftext or technology. In the courses listed (Table 1),students were asked to “…discuss the use of the classweb page as it relates to the course. In addition, tell me

what you thought of the text as it relates to the course.”Some students used a numeric rating scale, whereasothers simply said the aspects in question were useful ornot helpful. Where applicable, student comments areincluded.

The information in Table 1 indicates that studentslike the use of the web page to get access to theinformation. Typical comments from evaluations read,“The web page is wonderful.” In fact, 69% to 85% ofstudents perceived the web page as useful as, or betterthan the textbook. Access to these class “notes” via theweb page was helpful to 80 to 86% of students. Anumber of student evaluations each term claim, “ I nevereven opened the text. I only used the class web page.”The comments from evaluations are anonymous, so Icannot correlate exam performance with attitudes aboutthe text or web page. However, the informationcontained in the evaluations does provide some insightinto student attitudes needed for the interpretation ofother data.

Figure 1 shows average exam scores for each of fourtests given to my classes for the seven times the coursehas been offered. There is a noticeable jump in averageexam scores between Spring 1997 and Fall 1997,especially for the comprehensive final exam. The firstexam scores for each class with technology is higher thanthe representative non-technologic classes, with theexception of the Fall 1998b class.

The graph clearly shows that exam scores in thecourses with computer and Internet enhancements arehigher by as much as 23% compared to those without thebenefit of technology (e.g., Spring ‘97, Exam 2 comparedto Fall ‘97, Exam 2). Figure 1 also illustrates someinteresting trends between classes taught in the samesemester. The Fall 1998a class was a day section that metthree times a week. It was composed primarily oftraditional students, with a very small component ofnon-traditional students (~5%, or 7 of 151 students were

non-traditional students). The Fall 1998b class was anevening section that met once a week, and had arelatively high percentage of non-traditional students(~25%, or 22 of 89 students were non-traditionalstudents). The difference in the average score of the firstexams between the classes is interesting. The eveningsection (1998b) improved their class average by 11%between the first and second exams. The day section(1998a) only improved their average by 1%. The low firstexam score observed in the 1998b class (statistically thesame average as the non-technology class) may beattributable to a number of possible factors that cannotbe isolated given the data. Some of the possible factorsinclude: 1) The class met only once a week in theevening; 2) The class had a higher percentage ofnon-traditional students in the class; 3) The class wassmaller; and, 4) Students may have been surprised bythe content of the test. Many office-hour and in-classdiscussions with the students that year related to thepace of the lectures (too fast for the students to writedown all the information on the slides). Explanations asto how to adjust to this new means of note taking, andhow to get access to the information on the slides outsideof class resulted in students performing better on theother tests. Similar discussions about the nature andamount of information on the tests also occurred thatterm.

The final exam scores (Figure 1) show an averageimprovement of 10% with a range of increase from 5% to16% for sections that used technology compared to therepresentative class that did not use technology. Theaverage score for the final is consistently higher thanscores in the non-technologically enhanced class.

Figure 2 shows the average exam score for eachclass. This tally includes data from all students whocompleted all four exams in a particular term, and werecalculated from exams that had not been curved. Theaverage scores shown are the sum of all the exam scores

Durbin - The Benefits of Combining Computer Technology and Traditional Teaching Methods 59

Web Page Useful Web Page Not Useful Population Size Percent Year

61 14 75 83% F’98

85 21 106 80% Sp ‘99

79 13 92 86% Sp’00

Web is Better Text is Better Web and Text Equal Year

34 (45%) 15 (20%) 26 (35%) F ‘98

56 (53%) 19 (18%) 31 (29%) Sp ‘99

43 (47%) 29 (31%) 20 (22%) SP ‘00

Table 1. Data on the opinions of students on the use of the web and textbook as class resources acquired from

written evaluations.

60 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, n. 1, January, 2002, p. 56-63

for a given semester, divided by the total number ofstudents who took the exams in the term. An increase inthe average score occurs between Spring 1997 and Fall1997 semester.

I interpret the increase in exam scores shown inFigures 1 and 2 as evidence that students are learningand retaining information long enough so that they cananswer questions correctly on the exams, thanks in partto the use of technology. However, other reasons for thetrend observed in the data are possible, but are notsupported or verifiable with the available data.

The change in average scores between Spring 1997and Fall 1997 might be related to the quality of studentstaking the course, the experience of the instructor, orother factors such as the availability of exams.

My teaching experience could have played somerole in the increase in exam scores between Spring 1997and Fall 1997, although it is impossible to quantify towhat degree it affected the data. I can say that noconscious effort was made on my part to diminish myenthusiasm for teaching entry-level students, nor did Imake major adjustments in course content or the amountand application of geological information. My lecturestyle changed fundamentally between Spring 1997 andFall 1997 in that I switched from a combination of

lectures, slides, and overhead projections, to one thatused technology. The amount of information presentedremained unchanged, but was presented in a muchmore ordered and organized fashion via the technologicenhancements and verbal communication. In addition,the topics covered remained the same from year to year.

Once the change was made, familiarity with thetechnology became a possible factor affecting the data.When I came to USI in 1998, only a few faculty membersused computers and the Internet to present information.According to written student evaluations, students inthe enhanced courses were somewhat unfamiliar withthe recommended style of acquiring course content, andit took some time for them to adjust. This may accountfor the slight increase in exam score averages betweenexam 1 and exam 2 for Fall 1998 through Spring 2000(Figure 1), although statistically there is no differencebetween exam 1 and exam 2 for any class except for theFall 1998b class. Students’ familiarity with technologicalenhancements from one semester to the next is anotheridea that required investigation, as more courses at USIuse computers and the Internet in them. USI has recentlyimplemented use of server software (Spring 2001) toassist the large number of faculty (and students) oncampus who use technology to increase access to course

Figure 1. Average exam score for each of four exams given per semester. Data includes only those students

who completed the course. Sample populations per term is given as n = 126, etc.

Durbin - The Benefits of Combining Computer Technology and Traditional Teaching Methods 61

Figure 2. Average exam score per semester. UNL = University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and USI = University of

Southern Indiana. Sample population “n” includes all students who completed all exams that term.

Figure 3. Bar graph showing the percentage of students earning a given letter grade. The sample population

“n” is the total number of students who completed the course. The various patterns represent different

semesters. Note the average values for the technology enhanced courses as compared to the representative

unenhanced course and the skew (either right or left) for the various courses and the averages.

62 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, n. 1, January, 2002, p. 56-63

content and faculty/student communication. As the useof a technologically enhanced classroom has becomemore popular on campus, presumably students wouldbecome increasingly familiar with it. The observed trendin Figure 2 shows no statistical difference in averageexam score (for enhanced courses) from one semester tothe next, suggesting the students are familiar with usingtechnology when they get to class, or they are listeningto the suggestions on how to use the technologicalenhancements in the course.

Exams are returned to students each term (with theexception of the final exam), and students are almostcertainly using old tests to study for their exams. Theinfluence access to old exams has on the data isminimized somewhat because I write new exams eachtime I teach the class, and topics covered for each examvary slightly with each class.

Figure 3 shows the percentage of letter gradesearned by students for each semester. The letter gradesare assigned based on a percentage points accumulatedthroughout the semester, and the population sizesinclude only those students who actually completed thecourse. However, the calculation of grades did includestudents who may have only taken three of the fourexams, provided they took the final exam. Students whodid not complete the final exam, or who did not take at

two exams and the final were not included in theanalyzed data. The number of students excluded rangedfrom six to as many as 15. Obviously, inclusion ofstudents who did not complete the course would raisethe number of lower end students, skewing the datatoward the failing end of the grading scale.

Figure 3 illustrates the overall benefits of thetechnologically enhanced teaching methods. In all casesexcept for one (Fall ‘00), the distribution of grades intechnologically enhanced classes exhibits a left shift (astatistically negative skew of between –2.97 and -1.96),when compared to the grade distribution from thetraditionally taught class that exhibits a right shift (apositive skew of 1.77). The skew indicates that a largernumber of students are above the mean letter grade thanare below it.

Figure 4 shows the percentage of students passingthe class with a C or better, as compared to thosestudents who did not earn a passing grade (D or F). Animportant benefit illustrated by Figure 4 deals withthose students who would typically fail or get poorgrades. Whereas it is impossible to differentiate betweenstudents who try to learn and those who do not, thegraph (Fig. 4) shows that the number of students whodid fail decreases, suggesting the use of technology

Figure 4. Percentage of students passing (C or better) vs. Failing (D or F) per semester. See text for discussion

of data.

assisted students in achieving a passing grade, andpresumably learning the material.

Both figures (3 and 4) suggest the students arebenefiting from technology, at least long enough toperform well in the class.

DISCUSSION

Interpretations of data concerning the effectiveness ofexams as a measure of knowledge are problematic, inpart because standard testing formats do not measurehow well students can apply the methods andinformation to a given situation, but rather how wellstudents can decipher their instructors exams and/orcan memorize specific facts (Veronesi, 2000). However,some researchers say that exams can be effectiveassessment and learning tools if they ask the appropriatequestions and allow students to learn from theirmistakes without the harsh penalties usually associatedwith failure (e.g., Josephsen, 2000). My opinion is examscan be an effective as a measure of some of what thestudents have learned, for several reasons. First, I try tomake my exams more than an exercise in memorization.Students have to understand not only basic definitions,but how and when to apply those definitions in bothverbal exercises and image recognition. Second, I askshort essay questions which can have many correctresponses such that the students can use theirknowledge of the topics and logic to figure out how toarrive a correct response. Third, I tend to ask questionsthat force students to link aspects of the course contenttogether. Lastly, I give exams back to the students so thatthey may review and learn what questions they missed.Each semester new exams are written, and students canpractice on old exams, before their actual test.Additionally, answers to exam questions are posted afew days after the exams have been returned, so thatstudents can see where they made mistakes inpreparation for the comprehensive final exam.

CONCLUSIONS

Data collected from students enrolled in a largeenrollment entry-level Geoscience course includedwritten evaluations and exams. The data suggest severalstatements can be made concerning the use oftechnology in the classroom. First, students found theclass web page and computers convenient. The use of aclass web page to post notes, syllabi, instructions, andexamples, and the use of computer-driven slide showshas proven a useful tool to me and to my students.Second, students perform better in the class withtechnological enhancements. Average exam scoresincreased and comprehensive final exam scoresimproved with the introduction of technologicalenhancements. Lastly, fewer students failed the class,

and more students scored higher than the average examscore (negative skew). The last two items are interpretedas the results of students benefiting from technologicalenhancements to standard lecture class.

REFERENCES

Boyle, A. P., D. N. Byron, and C. R. C. Paul, 1997,Computer-based learning and assessment: apalaeontological case study with outcomes andimplications, in Butler, J. C. (ed.) Computers andgeosciences, Distance education and the Internet, v.23, p. 573-580.

Butler, J. C. (ed.), 1997, Distance education and theInternet, Computers and Geosciences, v. 23, p.495-608.

Childress, J. O., 1996, Teaching Geoscience on the web,Geotimes, v. 41, p. 10-11.

Gore, P. W., 1996, Georgia geoscience on-line; distancelearning using the World Wide Web, e-mail, andcompressed video technology, Abstracts withPrograms, Geological Society of America, v. 28, p.326.

Gore, P. W., 1997, Georgia geoscience On-line: Distanceeducation and the Internet in geology classes atDekalb College, in Butler, J. C. (ed.) Computers andgeosciences, Distance education and the Internet, v.23, p. 607-608.

Hall-Wallace, M.K., 1999, Integrating computers acrossa Geoscience curriculum through an applicationscourse, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 47, p.119-123.

Harris, C. D., and K. McCartney, 1999, Using the internetto prepare a term paper for a geology course, Journalof Geoscience Education, v. 47, p. 17-22.

Josephsen, S. A., 2000, Design your tests to teach, not justto test, The Education Digest, v. 66, p. 65-67.

Mantei, E. J., 2000, Using Internet class notes andPowerpoint in the Physical Geology lecture, Journalof College Science Teaching, v. 29, p. 301-305.

Renshaw, C. E., and Taylor, H. A., 2000, The educationeffectiveness of computer-based instruction, in J.Butler (ed.) Computers and Geosciences, The year2000 challenges, v. 26, p. 677-682.

Robin, B. and S. G. McNeil, 1997, Creating acourse-based web site in a University Environment,in Butler, J. C. (ed.) Computers and Geosciences,Distance education and the Internet. v. 23, p. 563-572.

Veronesi, P., 2000, Testing and assessment in ScienceEducation: Looking Past the Scoreboard, TheClearing House, v. 74, p. 27-30.

Young, J. R., 2001, Maryland colleges train professors toteach online, The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 47,p. A48.

Durbin - The Benefits of Combining Computer Technology and Traditional Teaching Methods 63