AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Journal of Law, Information and Science

Journal of Law, Information and Science (JLIS)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Journal of Law, Information and Science >> 1996 >> [1996] JlLawInfoSci 8

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Mason, Rosalind --- "Where Does Computer Aided Learning Fit in the Tertiary Education Equation" [1996] JlLawInfoSci 8; (1996) 7(1) Journal of Law, Information and Science 105

Where does computer aided learning fit in the tertiary education equation?

ROSALIND MASON[*]

Abstract

Given the dangers of being seduced by the glamour of new educational technology and the need to differentiate one’s product in a competitive tertiary education market, teachers and administrators need to consider carefully the evidence of educational gains to be made through the use of computers. They also need to have a clear sense of their institution’s goals and operational plan so as to place in context the relevance of developing and/or implementing computer aided learning programs. Being mindful of fundamental questions concerning teaching, learning and infrastructure support is important when considering the place of computer technology in the tertiary education equation.

1. Introduction

How might one formulate an equation for tertiary education in Australasia in the last decade of the twentieth century? The institutional framework (ignoring external stakeholders such as governments and employer lobby groups) might be represented as: Universities = Academics + Students + Administrators

Then, how might this be linked to tertiary education? Academics are typically involved in activities centred on teaching, research and community service. Clearly teaching is intended to have educational effects - and likewise research is said to contribute to education, particularly of post-graduate students. Students, inter alia, engage in learning activities while attending on-campus or studying by distance education. Administrators, a large component of any modern university community, contribute to education - whether as academic managers (at institutional or departmental level); administrators of the academic program (for example in student enrolment divisions); staff providing infrastructure support for student learning (such as librarians and computer technicians); and those undertaking essential administrative tasks (such as electricians, ground staff etc).

Drawing upon this amplification of the varied roles played by sectors within the university community, tertiary education may simplistically be described as the sum of teaching activity plus student learning supported by relevant administrative infrastructure. This article will address in turn the ways in which computer aided learning fits within the tertiary education environment from these three perspectives: teaching, learning and infrastructure support. As much as possible, examples and references will be drawn from the tertiary law teaching context.

The role of computers has been interpreted broadly in the context of curriculum however, in the remainder of the article, computer aided learning essentially comprises the three modes described by Kulik and Kulik [cited in Teich 1991, 495]: (i) computer-assisted instruction where the computer provides drill-and-practice exercises but not new materials, or tutorial instruction that includes new material; (ii) computer managed instruction where the computer evaluates student test performance, guides the student to appropriate instructional resources and keeps records of the student progress; (iii) computer enriched instruction (eg hypermedia) where the computer serves as a problem-solving tool, generates data at the student's request to illustrate relationships in models of social or physical reality, or executes programs developed by the student.

2. Teaching

The teaching processes involved in giving a particular course comprise planning, preparing, presenting, assessing (the students) and evaluating (the whole process). [Cox, 1994, 12 - 13] Essentially then, an academic’s teaching activity may be divided into three broad inter-related areas: curriculum development; instructional planning and assessment. What role may computers play within each of these?

2.1 Curriculum Development

Computer aided learning as such does not easily fit within the curriculum context. As computer technology rather than computers as a learning aid may have some impact, this modified interpretation of the topic will be briefly explored for the sake of completeness in examining the tertiary education equation.

Jones [1989, 249] describes two basic strands for syllabus comprising computers and the law. First, computers may be relevant as a specialist subject examining legal issues raised by the manufacture and use of computers for example as a separate topic in an Intellectual Property Law course or as a stand alone subject such as the University of Technology Sydney subject, 77014 Law and Computers. (The materials on Computer Crime for this subject may be viewed on the Internet at “http://austlii.law.uts.edu.au/au/other/crime/”.) There are also combined computer science and law degrees available, but rarely it seems is there any real integration of the two curricula in combined degrees.

A second strand is informatics or the use by lawyers of information technology. This is concerned with the collection, classification, storage, retrieval, manipulation and evaluation of information by means of computers. [Jones, 1989, 250] The recent advent of Legal Research as a subject in undergraduate and postgraduate law courses reflects the increasingly specialised skills required to access legal information and typically the subject incorporates instruction in retrieving information electronically stored. Clinical legal educators may also need to make decisions about what students will need to learn in order to operate in a modern technologically based law office.

If one considers curriculum as “a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities for persons to be educated” [Saylor et al, 1981, 39], this broadens the concept beyond lists of topics and checklists of competencies and objectives [Stewart, 1992] and leads on to the issue of instructional strategy or design.

2.2 Instructional Planning

The term, instructional planning, is used to differentiate the activity undertaken by law academics in devising instructional strategies within tertiary legal education (selecting particular types of learning opportunities to present to their students) from the specialised term, instructional design. Instructional design has been described as "a discipline concerned with understanding and improving the teaching/learning process. It is generally a systematic process where principles of learning and instruction are translated into plans for instructional materials and activities." [Reushle, 1995, 146]

Instructional design is founded on psychology and as Becker [1991, 1 - 2] writes: "Historically instructional design grew out of research on behaviour change and the study of higher cognitive processes, such as concept learning and problem-solving." While traditional methods of instructional design based on behaviouristic theories are adequate for acquiring procedural and psychomotor skills, when tasks involve problem-solving, large amounts of knowledge or high workload requirements, designers tend to rely more on cognitive-based theories of learning and instruction. [Reushle 1995, 147; also see McBeath and Atkinson, 1992] This has been my experience in working in multidisciplinary teams with instructional on distance education materials and educational technology projects. [Mason and Taylor, 1993]

The careful consideration of instructional design issues is crucial to the development of computer aided learning programs as "it is the instructional strategy not the technology that leads to improvements in learning." [Gibson, 1994, 277] (Indeed Clark [1994, 22] argues that instructional methods have been confounded with media and that it is methods which influence learning rather than the delivery media [cf: Kozma, 1991].) Following is a brief description of design principles underpinning computer aided legal instruction programs on which I have worked.

Knowledge Representation

Knowledge is seen as both substantive and procedural - knowing something and knowing how to use that ‘something’ in problem solving. Research into learning has shown that visual representation of knowledge to be acquired - its content and structure - improves the learner’s awareness of both the conceptual relationships and procedural requirements of that learning system. [Park and Hannafin, 1993, 78] Representing a particular knowledge domain requires fine grained analysis by the subject expert of the particular field of study in order to present it in the most useful manner possible to the novice student. [Mason and Taylor, 1993, 51-53]

In presenting knowledge about a particular area, it is useful for an expert initially to present the information at a high level of abstraction and in a manner which connects with the student’s current understanding. Thus, in the Commercial Law multimedia project with which I have been involved, one of the first screens describes in a storyline the types of issues addressed by the program and the next gives a conceptual overview of the subject matter reflecting the relationship between the topics. This overview is based on research into concept maps which have been described as “diagrams that indicate the organisation of lesson, unit or domain knowledge”. [Vargas and Alvarez, 1992 cited in Choi and Hannafin 1995, 66]

Applying Riegeluth’s elaboration theory [1983], each of the concepts on that map may be selected and a hypertext link takes the student down to the next level of elaboration of that concept. Students can see the linkages between the detail and the “big picture” or larger framework - especially as there is a facility on the screen cumulatively listing the titles of each level as they navigate 'down'. This gives them signposts to recall how they have reached the topic they are currently exploring. The signposts are also hypertext linked so that students can return quickly to a higher level of abstraction. Navigation has been highlighted as one of the major design issues in the hypertext environment. [Stanton, 1994, 284]

The innovation of hypertext technology is also beneficial in view of the research which shows that improved learning occurs where students are not mere passive recipients of knowledge but are actively engaged in the process of learning - in constructing their own world picture from experience. [Gibson, 1994, 270; Reushle, 1995, 147 - 148 discusses the constructivist/objectivist debate on content structure]

Learner control of the learning environment is an important instructional design feature of hypertext used in multimedia. In the late 1980s, I co-developed a computer program in which students were required to work through the program in the sequence I selected - with minimal exit points. [Mason and Taylor, 1989] The user freedom offered by hypertext appeals to me, as the longer I teach, the more I doubt my omniscience in selecting a particular path for students to follow. Yet the concern remains which are about providing adequate navigational assistance as well as about how much control to give to the learner. Tolhurst [1992 cited in Reushle 1995, 149] suggests that a program that is purely a discovery experience could cause the learner to become lost. Instead she promotes a ‘guided discovery’ environment which balances user freedom and user guidance. While the Commercial Law multimedia program offers hypertext links, they rely upon implicit structuring of content and selection of connections which are considered most helpful to students.

The instructional strategies available through use of computers are not limited to knowledge representation. Computers can provide more than data retrieval. They can also provide students with the opportunity to test their ability to apply knowledge.

Problem Solving Exercises

Computers may provide student with the opportunities to test their problem solving skills - their ability to make strategic use of otherwise inert knowledge acquired through the computer program or other sources. Some of the advantages identified by Jones [1989, 251] of the data banks of questions and answers in computer aided learning are that they may provide:

• the potential for self-pacing adaptive and individual tuition;

• instant feedback and correction; and

• sophisticated branching; as well as

• a challenge to teachers to carefully articulate questions, answers and responses thereby enhancing their own understanding of the subject matter.

However, the complexity of the subject matter and the potential range of interpretations of questions has led to criticism of computer based problem solving. It has been argued that the questions need to be routine and may tend to trivialise and oversimplify the law. [Jones, 1989, 251 and 253]

Nevertheless, a broad range of questions templates is possible [Park and McGregor-Lowndes, 1992, 130]. Questions need not only be yes/no and multiple choice. The Commercial Law multimedia program includes multiple answer questions, open ended questions requiring one or two word answers (admittedly on specific points) as well as a question template which requires students to rearrange issues. The latter requires students to construct their own heuristics - so that threshold questions and sequences are identified by them.

Strategies developed by others include the Critical Review Examination System (CRES) tutorials developed by Tyree and Rawson [1993]. These accept free form short answers following which students are asked a number of simple yes/no questions about the answer, in effect marking their own answer and facilitating the use of questions which have no ‘right’ answer. Also students may be asked open ended questions and then be required to write their own notes to save onto disc or to be printed [Jones and Snell, 1994, 63]. They can then mark the answers later individually or in a traditional tutorial setting - having first had to commit themselves to paper.

More generally, instructional planning requires consideration to be given to the rationale for students undertaking the problem-solving exercises at all. Park and McGregor Lowndes [1992] describe their use of such programs for students to learn basic principles as a necessary preparation to attending traditional tutorials. Precious class time can then be freed up for tackling more open ended problems. [Jones & Snell, 1994, 68 - 69] Computer aided learning of basic principles may be valuable in these days of burgeoning curricula and often larger classes. Problem-solving exercises may also be used for assessment purposes, the third aspect of teaching activity to be addressed.

2.3 Assessment

Despite student interest in, some might say obsession with, assessment, it is often the area of tertiary education in which procedures remain largely unchanged from year to year. There may be good reasons for this: for example institutional requirements that a certain percentage of assessment be examination based for quality control (ie to ensure that the student actually did the work). It might also be because of the cost implications of implementing innovative assessment items which require a significant amount of time marking - the cost to faculty of part time markers and/or the cost to the examiners by way of lost opportunities for research.

Yet assessment is important to student learning. The need to carefully consider this aspect of the teaching process is emphasised by Rowntree [1987, 1] who writes:-

If we wish to discover the truth about the educational system, we must look into its assessment procedures. What student qualities and achievements are actively valued and rewarded by the system? How are its purposes and intentions realised? To what extent are the hopes and ideals, aims and objectives professed by the system even truly perceived, valued and striven for by those who make their way within it? The answers to such questions are to be found in what the system requires students to do in order to survive and prosper. The spirit and style of assessment defines de facto curriculum.

So how do computer aided teaching/learning strategies impact on assessment? Adman and Warren [1994, 53] state that this remains a much neglected area and hypothesises that, while assessment is seen and treated as an activity to be performed separately and summatively, rather than being an instrumental and coherent part of learning, the full potential of computer-managed assessment is unlikely to be realised.

Thus, not only may computer based exercises be considered for summative assessment [Park and McGregor-Lowndes 1992; Tyree and Rawson, 1993], but they may also contribute to formative assessment with minimal effect on academic workloads once the questions and answers are written. A significant difficulty associated with using computers for assessment is the investment of time and effort in writing data banks of questions, particularly if a range of question types is used. The items need to meet the general criteria for assessment instruments of validity and reliability. They need to be unambiguous, capable of discriminating between high and low achievers and free from cues which might lead to response biases. [Inglis, 1995, 26] Recycling questions raises the possibility of students rote learning the answers, although randomisation may overcome this to a certain extent. [Park and McGregor-Lowndes, 1992, 130] More worrying is the possibility that questions may be directed at factual knowledge and not test higher order skills and objectives of the course. [Inglis, 1995, 26 - 27]

Yet, the more fundamental issue associated with using computer - aided learning programs (as opposed to problem-solving exercises) is their lack of integration into the assessment regime. Unless students can see that investing time in working through computer programs will improve their performance in formal assessment items such as assignments and examinations, then it is unlikely that they will make use of them - once the informal student network makes a negative assessment of their usefulness.

3. Learning

What insights into the place of computer-aided learning in tertiary education might be gained by examining student learning issues? In a general sense, computers may contribute to learning through word processing facilities (eg note compilation and assignment preparation) and electronic data-base searches. On the specific matter of student learning, there is some overlap (perhaps not surprisingly) with issues raised under the teaching activities already described.

An overview of principles derived from psychological, pedagogical and technological research and theory together with their implications for the design of interactive multimedia (and no doubt, other modes of computer aided learning) is contained in Park and Hannafin [1993]. Nevertheless, the amount of empiral data on the effectiveness of computer-aided learning programs in improving student learning is surprisingly small. One reason for this may be, as Clark [1983, 468] identifies, methodological problems, in particular associated with forming control groups who do not benefit from alternative forms of instruction.

Teich [1991, 490] reviewed works published between 1974 and 1989 on empirical studies on computer aided instruction at college or university level and found a substantial body of research indicating that:

• computer assisted instruction when employed in college classroom teaching may improve learning while significantly and consistently reducing the time needed for instruction;

• computer assisted instruction appeared to be reasonably well liked by students; and

• there is some limited evidence that it is most effective when used in conjunction with - rather than as substitute for - conventional instruction.

Inglis [1991, 25] refers to generally positive reaction from students using computer aided learning. Students appreciate:

• the anonymity, patience and politeness of the computer;

• the immediacy of the feedback;

• the specific guidance;

• being able to learn what they want to learn when they want to learn; and

• being able to choose their own rate of progress.

While such positive attitudes do not necessarily equal student learning, attitudes toward using computer technologies were found to be relevant to perceptions of competence (and thus student outcomes?). [Kinzie et al, 1994]

Negative comments on student learning via computer aided learning include the arcade effect (treating the exercise as a game rather than a serious academic activity) [Tyree and Rawson, 1993, 157]; and the fundamental problem of computers lacking ability to pass judgment upon student queries. [Korn, 1983, 482]

An additional use for computers in promoting student learning is that of computer mediated communication - not only for distance education students, but also for on campus students, to facilitate teacher - student and student - student interaction. [Adman and Warren, 1994, 53] For example, bulletin boards may outline recent changes in the law or address commonly identified problems experienced by students. If issues such as access to appropriate equipment can be solved, then this stream-lined system for meeting students’ needs is likely to receive increased institutional interest.

4. Infrastructure Support

Infrastructure support for teaching / learning in the university context covers a range of activities from adequate teaching space (with technological support such as whiteboards, audio / video facilities and computerised projections) through to facilities such as laboratories and libraries. Infrastructure support from the institution is particularly important for the development and implementation of computer aided learning programs given the multidisciplinary nature of development teams, their technological complexity (particularly for multimedia) and their consequential high cost in terms of time and resources.

4.1 Development

Development of learning materials occurs within an institutional framework. These may display attributes of managerialism “intent on packing in as ‘efficiently’ as possible as many students as possible and on implementing damage limitation ‘staff development’ plans to enable lecturers to cope without an increase in staffing levels or resources.” Buying in computer aided learning packages may be seen to meet such needs. At the other extreme (rare in these days of increasing accountability to government), an older collegial or ‘cybernetic’ approach may prevail in which the system is allowed to run itself - where there is a loose coupling between institutional goals and sub-units of the institution. [Fleming, 1993, 321] In this context, computer aided learning programs may ‘bubble-up’ from isolated enthusiasts within the faculties who themselves author programs to include within their subjects.

Project management issues arising from the development phase of computer aided instruction is described in a sobering article by Canale and Wills [1995, 84] on the production of professional interactive multimedia. They cite Brown (1991) who undertook an Australia wide survey of Computer Based Training (CBT) developers in industry and higher education. Those surveyed had estimated the development-time to run-time ratio as being about 100:1 ie 100 person hours to produce one hour of courseware. In fact the data collected found the ratio to be 217:1 (though less for long term projects resulting in more than 75 hours of CBT courseware).

Canale and Wills discuss the implications for producers of interactive multimedia in higher education with regard to realistic costing of project management - often an unfunded contribution ‘absorbed’ by academics (cf commercial operators). [Canale and Wills, 1995, 85] High development costs do not only relate to the project management. Individual authors must consider not only the investment of time in the initial program, but also in the ongoing revision and updating required by changes to the law. Jones and Snell [1994, 70] note the importance of teaching relief for academics undertaking the development of computer aided learning programmes - the need to be able to devote regular amounts of time to the project.

4.2 Implementation

Infrastructure support also involves implementation of computer aided learning programs. For example, does the institution have the capacity to deliver multimedia educational technology on campus once the programs are developed? When the Commercial Law CD-ROM project in which I was involved was ready to be implemented on campus, I discovered that, contrary to my expectations (an example of communication difficulties when non-technologists confer with technological advisers), our University's computer laboratories did not yet have the capacity to run CD-ROMs. While the program could be run on the network, that system was inadequate to deal with numerous students simultaneously accessing the video component. Fortunately, the Vice Chancellor, the Information Technology Section and the two Faculties whose students would use the program gave financial assistance to equip a laboratory in the library with the necessary CD ROM drives, sound cards and headphones. [Mason, 1995]

This anecdote no doubt has parallels (perhaps not all with a happy ending) throughout the tertiary sector. As Riegeluth [1983, 10] wrote “Design must take into account implementation needs whenever possible because innovative programs for instruction are usually very poorly implemented in existing environments.”

4.3 Integration

The final point on infrastructure support is in fact a threshold issue which should arise before any concerns about the costs of development and implementation. The degree of commitment of the University, the department, the teaching team to integrating the new technology, because it is an instructional strategy rather than an innovative instructional medium, is crucial.

Numerous commentators in the field have warned of the need to approach the issue of computer aided learning as part of an educational strategy - not as an end in itself. Laurillard [1993] has written a whole book on a framework for the effective use of educational - technology in university teaching. As Lesgold wrote in a 1986 OECD Report: “The reification of ineffective teaching practices into computer artefacts will not improve education.” [Jones, 1989, 251]

5. Conclusion

So, where does computer aided learning fit into the tertiary education equation? Evidence has been produced to show that computers per se, not just as the medium for computer aided learning , are having an impact on curriculum development, instructional planning and assessment, as well as on student learning. However, unless their incorporation is well planned and well supported for the right reasons, computer aided learning packages may well have a negative rather than positive effect on the tertiary education sum total.

References

Adman, P. and Warren, L. 1994, ‘A strategy for educational technology in higher education’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 10, pp. 50 - 54.

Becker, W.C. 1991, ‘Toward an integration of behavioural and cognitive psychologies through instructional technology’, The Australian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1 - 18.

Canale, R. and Wills, S. 1995, ‘Producing professional interactive multimedia: project management issues’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 84 - 93.

Choi, J.-I. and Hannafin, M. 1995, ‘Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures and implications for design’, Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 53 - 69.

Clark, R.C. 1983, ‘The rationale for computer-aided instruction’, Journal of Legal Education, vol. 33, pp. 459 - 471.

Clark, R.E. 1994, ‘Media will never influence learning’, Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 21 - 29.

Cox, B. 1994, Practical Pointers for University Teachers, Kogan Page, London.

Fleming, D. 1993, ‘A gradualist model for the development of a flexible learning framework’, Educational & Training Technology International, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 319 - 326.

Gibson, B. 1994, ‘“Multimedia drives education future" "Electronic classroom education's reality" :Superhighway - make or break education?" "Internet - school of the future”’, Journal of Law and Information Science, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 267 - 280.

Inglis, A. 1995, ‘Promises, promises ...’, Journal of Law and Information Science, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 19 - 34.

Jonassen, D.H. (ed) 1988, Instructional Design for Microcomputer Courseware, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Jones, P. and Snell, R. 1994, ‘Trials and tribulations of developing computer assisted learning in a small law school’, Journal of Law and Information Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 57 - 70.

Jones, R.P. 1989, ‘Computers assisting legal education’, Law Teacher, vol. 23, pp. 246 - 264.

Kinzie, M.B., Delcourt, M.A.B. and Powers, S.M. 1994, ‘Computer technologies: Attitudes and self-efficacy across undergraduate disciplines’, Research in Higher Education, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 745 - 768.

Korn, G.C. 1983, ‘Computer-assisted legal instruction: Some reservations’, Journal of Legal Education, vol. 33, pp. 473 - 488.

Kosma, R.B. 1991, ‘Learning with media’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 179 - 211.

Laurillard, D. 1993, Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology, Routledge, London.

Le Brun, M. and Johnstone, R. 1994, The Quiet Revolution, Law Book Company, Sydney.

Mason, R F 1995, ‘Development of multimedia materials in law’, Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching National Teaching Workshop, 1994 National Teaching Workshop Proceedings (http://uniserve.edu.au/caut/NTW1994/DevelopmentmmLaw.html).

Mason, R.F. and Taylor, J.C. 1989, ‘Computer Assisted Legal Instruction’, Paper presented at the Australasian Law Schools Association Annual Conference, Wellington, July.

Mason, R.F. and Taylor, J.C. 1993, ‘A knowledge engineering approach to representing curriculum structure in legal education’, The Law Teacher, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 48 - 57.

McBeath, C. and Atkinson, R. 1992, ‘Curriculum, instructional design and the technologies: Planning for educational delivery’, The Australian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 119 - 131.

Park, H. and McGregor-Lowndes, M. 1992, ‘A computer-aided strategy for teaching corporate law’, Australian Journal of Corporate Law, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 128 - 135.

Park, I. and Hannafin, M.J. 1993, ‘Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia’, Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 63 - 85.

Reushle, S.E. 1995, ‘Design considerations and features in the development of hypermedia courseware’, Distance Education, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 141 - 156.

Riegeluth, C.M. 1983, ‘The elaboration theory of instruction’ in Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status, (ed) C.M. Riegeluth, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilldale, New Jersey, pp. 335 - 381.

Rowntree, D. 1987, Assessing students: How shall we know them?, Kogan Page, London.

Saylor, J., Alexandar, W.& Lewis, A. 1981, Curriculum Planning for Better Teaching and Learning, 4th edn, Holt, Rinehardt & Winston, Fort Worth.

Stanton, N.A. 1994, ‘Explorations into hypertext: Spatial metaphor considered harmful’, Educational & Training Technology International, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 276 - 294.

Stewart, J.P. 1992, ‘Effective teaching / purposeful activity’, Paper presented at Annual Law for Non-Law Degree Workshop, Brisbane, July.

Teich, P.F. 1991, ‘How effective is computer-assisted instruction? An evaluation for legal educators’, Journal of Legal Education, vol. 41, pp. 489 - 501.

Tyree, A.L. and Rawson, S. 1993, ‘Cost-effective computer assisted learning’, Journal of Law and Information Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 155 - 161.


[*] Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Southern Queensland: rosmason@usq.edu.au

Based on Keynote Address presented at the Second Australasian Computer Aided Learning Conference, Sydney, 26 September 1995.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/1996/8.html