The recent proliferation of time-shared terminals, computers, and instructional software is producing a dramatic change in undergraduate education in psychology. Although computers have been used for many years in research in psychology, their use as instructional alternatives only recently has been thrust upon the academic community, a development for which many faculty-even experienced computer users-are ill prepared. The use of computers and microcom puters in instruction can provide the instructor, and more importantly, the student, with an ef fective pedagogical tool. However, computers cannot be introduced into the curriculum in a piecemeal or haphazard fashion. In this paper, issues involved in the effective introduction and use of computers in teaching are outlined. There are now so many computer packages available for use in instruction in psychology that a faculty mem ber is faced with many choices. In reading the promo tional literature provided by publishers and enthusiastic authors, one has the impression that it is easy to introduce computer-based instructional materials into one's classes. Most of the documentation provided with software does little to alter that perception. However, the experience of hundreds of instructors in psychology (as well as many more in other disciplines) amply demonstrates that the path to effective integration of computers into course work is strewn with traps and pitfalls for the unwary. These problems have led to frustrating experiences for faculty and students alike and, surprisingly, often have led to the elimination of instructional computing in subsequent offer ings of the course. The purpose of this paper is to discuss ways of introduc ing instructional computing into courses which will en hance both teaching and learning. The curricular empha sis is on introductory and advanced substantive courses. The methods to be covered include: (1) surveying avail able software; (2) evaluating software for its suitability to a particular course; (3) determining the resources (hard ware, software, space, staff, etc.) needed to utilize in structional microcomputing; (4) modifying the course syl labus to reflect the new resources to be used; (5) monitoring microcomputer use during the course; (6) evaluating the effectiveness of the microcomputer in improving or enhancing the course; and (7) integrating software into the departmental curriculum. Although each of these tasks is important, and I have tried to order them in a logical sequence, circumstances at individual institutions may dictate different orders and