Computer-assisted instruction of stimulated clinical endodontic problems is superior to a slide-tape presentation for test selection but not for diagnosis and treatment planning. 2. The lack of a difference in diagnosis is likely due to the already superior performance of students in diagnosis at the University of Kentucky without computer assistance. A study with students of less background might reveal a difference in presentation methods. 3. Students with high GPSs score higher on a written test of endodontic clinical judgment. 4. Reliable results on the effects of a human tutor's supplementing machine instruction were not obtained. 5. Students felt that the problems presented in this study were useful in preparing for clinical treatment of patients. 6. After some exposure to machine methods of instruction, students divided into three sizable groups, one preferring a human teacher, another preferring a machine, and the third having no preference. The decision to use only machine or human instruction cannot then be made from student attitudes. 7. Students liked the active participation and immediate responses of the computer but not the time necessary to complete the problems. 8. Students liked the self-pacing, speed, and convenience of the slide-tape method but not the incompleteness of the problems presented by this method. 9. It appears that there is some justification from this study for offering both slide-tape and computer-assisted presentations to students.
