Perpmu S0~0-1$1S(g6)0NiT..6 CompulersBAle. Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 103-113,1996 CopyrishtO 1996 Ebeviu ScialceLid Printedbe Grmt Britain. All rishtsreserved 0360-1315/96 SIS.00 +0.00 MEASURING LEARNING RESOURCE USE M. I. BROWN, 1 G. F. DOUGHTY, 2 S. W. DRAPER, ! F. P. HENDERSON l and E. MCATEER n nDepartment of Psycholofff, and 2Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland [ e - ~ . mag@psy.sla.ac.uk] (Received 7 Aufmt lgg$; accepted 26 Mardl 1996) Abstract--Contacttime is only part of a student's learnin8, especiallyin hiiOler education, and teachers and lab classes are only two of the resources students draw upon. Despite this, there is a prevalence of studies which appear to be evaluating a piece of conreeware in imlat/on. Lcarulng gains from a CAL packalle are important, but since acquisition and retention of knowiedle is really what is ultimately important and will depend on other learning experiences in the course, an additional question in any learning situation therefore i~ what resources is a student using? And, followingup on that, which are most useful, are some bett~ than others, or do they complement each other in essential ways?This paper describesthe dadsn and application of the Resource Questionnaire, the instrument we are developing in an attempt to gather information on the learning resources used by students. The remurees asked about may include not only lectures, tutorials end comzeware, but books, handouts, notes and discussions with other students. Some preliminm'y results are ¢hn~'ibedand the importan~ of this information to t~ching staff in asmsing and increasing the value of the resources to students by ensuring their effective integration into a course, is discussed. Copyrisht C 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd INTRODUCTION This paper reports the development of a questionnaire instrument designed to measure how a piece of CAL (Computer Assisted Learning) operates as part of a larger set of resources available to students. We have used this as part of a larger package of instruments in what we term "Integrative Evaluation" [1]. Here the focus is on how a piece of CAL relates to other aspects of a course. Though acquisition and retention of knowledge is what is ultimately important to a student~ not whether the source was CAL, and that in most cases learners have multiple resources to draw upon, many studies appear to be evaluating a piece of courseware, i.e. a CAL package, in isolation. A few authors have identified this: Laurillard [2] regards the integration of the CAL package into the course as a whole to be very important, and Blondel et al. [3] discussing computer-assisted language learning (CALL), state "since computers are not used in isolation, CALL should not be evaluated in isolation". Learning ~i~ from a package are important. In a controlled situation, e.g. in scheduled classes, pre- and post-tests may show learning gains. However, in an open access situation, which isihow much CAL material is used, if students do not use it, or cannot use it, then however good the package was shown to be in controlled trials, in these situations it will have no positive effect on student learning. Students may not have been able to access a CAL package due to a shortage of computers or computer lab hours, or they may lack the time or the motivation to attempt to rise it, or they may just not have been told about it. As Rowntree [4] emphasised in 1974, "Innovatior~ may appear ineffective but may in fact not be properly implemented". Thus effective integration of CAL or any other innovation into a course is essential otherwise no matter how good it is, it will not be of value to students. The CAL package is in general just one of many resources that is available to students and. like other resources may or may not be used, and may or may not be the one that matters for an individual student, just as some may doze through a lecture but then learn the material from a This paper describes work by the evaluation group within the TILT project (Teaching with Independent Lcprning Technoingies). Enquiries about this paper (and other evaluation work) should be smt to the first author at the above. Encluiries about TILT Smerully should be sent to the project director: g.donghty@elec.sla.ac.ukor G. F. Ddnghty, Robert Clark Centre, 66 Oakfleld Avenue, University of Glaspw, Glassow GI2 8LS, Scotland. 103