An Analysis of Programmed Instruction

Notes

• B. F. Skinner , “The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching,” Harvard Educational Review 24 ( Spring 1954 ): 86 – 97
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michael Scriven , “The Case For and Use of Programmed Texts,” in Programmed Instruction: Bold New Venture , ed. Allen D. Calvin ( Bloomington , In. : Indiana University , 1969 ), pp. 3 – 36
   Google Scholar
• B. F. Skinner , “Why We Need Teaching Machines,” Harvard Educational Review 31 ( Fall 1961 ): 377 – 98
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• For a review of relevant studies, see Clive J. Lawless , “Conditions of Learning and Response Mode: An Experiment Using Programmed Learning Materials in an African Secondary School,” Programmed Learning and Educational Technology 12 ( January 1975 ): 1 – 11 Writing out answers has been found to improve learning only when the terms used are novel or technical. Cf. Theodore Abramson and Edward Kagen, “Familiarization of Content and Different Response Modes in Programmed Instruction,” Journal of Educational Psychology 67 (February 1975):83–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cf. B. F. Skinner , “Teaching Machines,” Science 128 (October 24, 1958 ): 969 – 77 “Why We Need Teaching Machines,” Harvard Educational Review 31 (Fall 1961):377–98; “Reflections on a Decade of Teaching Machines,” Teachers College Record 65 (November 1963): 168–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cf. Ronald E. Hull , “Selecting an Approach to Individualized Education,” Phi Delta Kappan 55 ( November 1973 ): 169 – 73
   Google Scholar
• Cf. Anthony Oettinger and Sema Marks , “Educational Technology: New Myths and Old Realities,” Harvard Educational Review 38 ( Fall 1968 ): 714 . Albert J. Taylor, “Those Magnificent Men and Their Teaching Machines,” The Educational Forum 36 (January 1972): 239–46, also criticizes the “strange, unusual, and limited use” of the term “individualization” in programmed instruction.
   Google Scholar
• Ronald T. Hyman , “Individualization: The Hidden Agenda.” The Elementary School Journal 78 ( May 1973 ): 413 – 23
   Google Scholar
• Cf. D. Barry Lumsden , “Individualizing Instruction Through the Use of Programmed Instruction,” The Educational Forum 38 ( January 1974 ): 145 – 52 Also see James Hartley, “Factors Affecting the Efficiency of Learning from Programmed Instruction,” A V Communication Review 19 (Summer 1971): 133–48; and Rudi Dallas, “Programmed Learning and Personality: A Review and a Preliminary Study,” Programmed Learning and Educational Technology 12 (January 1975): 12–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen D. Calvin , “The Teacher's Role in Programmed Instruction,” in Programmed Instruction: Bold New Venture , ed. Allen D. Calvin ( Bloomington : Indiana University , 1969 ), pp. 37 – 54 Attempts have been made recently to “humanize” programmed instruction by having a tutor (a) determine an individual student's entry level of proficiency, (b) reward him verbally for progress, (c) assess his achievement, and (d) provide remedial activities when needed. But this does not amount to personalizing knowledge, because the tutor must follow the strict guidelines prescribed in the program. Cf. Nina L. Ronshausen, “Programmed Tutoring: An Instructional Method for Primary School Mathematics,” Educational Technology 15 (January 1975): 22–27.
   Google Scholar