Programmed learning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:13, 7 May 2021

Latest revision as of 04:52, 24 June 2025

(9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Use of programmed texts or teaching machines}}

'''Programmed learning''' (or '''programmed instruction''') is a research-based system which helps learners work successfully. The method is guided by research done by a variety of [[Applied psychology|applied psychologists]] and educators.<ref name=Lums>Lumsdaine A.A. 1963. Instruments and media of instruction. In N.L. Gage (ed) ''Handbook of research on teaching''. Chicago: AERA and Rand McNally, 583–682.</ref>

Line 8 ⟶ 9:

Thorndike, however, did nothing with his idea. The first such system was devised by [[Sidney L. Pressey]] in 1926.<ref>Pressey S.L. 1926. A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores {{ndash}} and teaches. ''School & Society'' '''23''', 373{{ndash}}6.</ref><ref>Pressey, S.L. 1927. A machine for automatic teaching of drill material. ''School & Society'' '''25''', 544–552.</ref> "The first... [teaching machine] was developed by Sidney L. Pressey... While originally developed as a self-scoring machine... [it] demonstrated its ability to actually teach."<ref>Hilgard E.R. 1966. Learning & the technology of instruction. Chapter 16 in Hilgard E.R. & Bower G.H. 1966. ''Theories of learning''. 3rd ed, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, p554{{ndash}}561 Programmed learning.</ref>

== Later developments of programmed learning ==

In [[World War II]], with largely [[conscription|conscript]] armies, there was great emphasis on [[training]]. What was learnt influenced education and training after the war. One of the main methods was the use of [[film]] as a group training method. Research on the effectiveness of training films was done extensively.<ref>Lumsdaine A.A. 1947. Experimental research and the improvement of teaching films. ''Educational Screen'' '''26''', 254/5.</ref><ref>Hovland C.I; Lumsdaine A.A. & Sheffield F.D. 1949. ''Experiments on mass communication''. Princeton University Press.</ref><ref>Lumsdaine A.A. 1953. Audio-visual research in the U.S. Air Force. ''AV Communication Review'' '''1''', 76–90.</ref><ref>May M.A. & Lumsdaine A.A. 1958. ''Learning from films''. Yale University Press.</ref> In one account, [[Arthur A. Lumsdaine|Lumsdaine]] comments that research on films went on "from about 1918 to the present" (meaning 1962).<ref name=Art>Lumsdaine A.A. 1962, published 1965. Experimental research on instructional devices and materials. In Glaser R. (ed) ''Training research and education''. New York: Wiley, 252; 256.</ref>

Line 32 ⟶ 33:

#The materials are self-paced or presented in a manner which suits the learner.

A helpful discussion of the different programming techniques was given by Klaus.<ref>Klaus D.J. 1965. An analysis of programming techniuestechniques. In Glaser R. (ed) 1965. ''Teaching machines and programmed learning II''. Washington D.C. Department of Audiovisual Instruction, National Education Association of the United States.</ref>

=== The two main systems of programmed learning ===

Although there were three or four other systems proposed, we discuss here the two best-known methods.

One was by [[Norman Crowder (psychologist)|Norman Crowder]], a psychologist with the [[U.S. Air Force]]. He had been asked to investigate the training of aircraft [[wikt:maintain|aircraft maintenance]] men.<ref name=Derek>Rowntree D. 1966. ''Basically branching''. London: Macdonald, p5 & examples in text.</ref> Crowder's system was to set multiple choice questions in the text, and provide feedback for each of the alternatives.<ref>Crowder N. [1954]. ''Intrinsic programming''. U.S. Industries.</ref><ref>Crowder N. 1959. Automatic tutoring by means of intrinsic programming. In Galanter E.H. (ed) ''Automatic teaching: the state of the art''. New York: Wiley, 109{{ndash}}116.</ref><ref>Crowder Norman A. 1960. Automatic tutoring by intrinsic programming. In Lumsdaine A.A & Glaser R. (eds) 1960. ''Teaching machines and programmed learning I: a source book''. Washington D.C. National Education Association of the United States.</ref> Examples of this method show that the alternatives offered in questions were chosen to cover mistakes which students were likely to make.<ref name=Sue>Markle S.M. 1969. ''Good frames and bad: a grammar of frame writing''. 2nd ed, New York: Wiley, Chapters 1 & 4.</ref><ref name=Derek/> Crowder's system, which he called "intrinsic programming", was better known as "branching programming" on account of its multiple-choice alternatives.

Much better known was the other style of programmed learning, as proposed by the [[behaviourist]] [[B.F. Skinner]]. Skinner made some very effective criticisms of traditional teaching methods.<ref>Skinner B.F. 1965. ''The technology of teaching''. Appleton-Century-Croft. Includes reprints of his papers on programmed learning.</ref> His scheme of programmed instruction was to present the material as part of a "schedule of [[reinforcement]]" in typical behaviourist manner. The programmed text of Skinner's theory of behaviorism is the most complete example of his ideas in action.<ref>Holland J.G. & Skinner B.F. 1961. ''The analysis of behavior''. New York: McGraw-Hill.</ref> Skinner's system was generally called "linear programming" because its activities were placed in otherwise continuous text. Skinner was a wonderful publicist for his own ideas, as can be seen from this passage:

Line 48 ⟶ 49:

Many of these ideas were picked up and used in other educational fields, such as [[open learning]] (see the [[Open University]]) and [[computer-assisted learning]].<ref name="Pritchard-24">Pritchard, Alan 2009. ''Ways of learning: learning theories and learning styles in the classroom''. London: Taylor & Francis, 2nd ed. {{ISBN|978-0-415-46608-0}}</ref><ref>Rowntree D. 1990. ''Teaching through self-instruction: how to develop open learning material''. London: Kogan Page, 2nd ed. {{ISBN|1-85091-957-7}}; USA: {{ISBN|0-89397-356-4}}</ref>

Programmed learning ideas influenced the [[Children's Television Workshop]], which did the [[R&D]] for ''[[Sesame Street]]''. The use of developmental testing was absolutely characteristic of programmed learning. The division of the individual programs into small chunks is also a feature of programmed learning.<ref>Lesser, Gerald S. 1974. ''Children and television: lessons from Sesame Street''. New York: Vintage Books. {{ISBN|0-394-71448-2}}</ref><ref>Fisch, Shalom M. & Bernstein, Lewis 2001. Formative research revealed: methodological and process issues in formative research". In Fisch, Shalom M. & Truglio, Rosemarie T. (eds) ''"G" is for Growing: thirty years of research on children and Sesame Street''. Mahweh, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 40. {{ISBN|0-8058-3395-1}}</ref>

Even more is this true of ''[[Blue's Clues]]''.<ref name=Tracy>Tracy, Diane. 2002. ''Blue's Clues for success: the 8 secrets behind a phenomenal business''. New York: Kaplan Publishing. {{ISBN|0-7931-5376-X}}</ref><ref name=Anderson>Anderson, Daniel R. ''et al.'' 2000. Researching Blue's Clues: viewing behavior and impact. ''Media Psychology'' '''2''' (2): 179–194. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0202 4</ref> Unlike ''Sesame Street'', which tested a third of its episodes,<ref name=Gladwell>Gladwell, Malcolm 2000. ''The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference''. New York: Little, Brown, 125/7. {{ISBN|0-316-31696-2}}</ref> the ''Blue's Clues'' research team field tested every episode three times with children aged between two and six in preschool environments such as [[Head Start Program|Head Start]] programs, public schools, and private day care centers. There were three phases of testing: content evaluation, video evaluations, and content analysis.<ref name=Anderson/>¹⁸² Their tests of the pilot, conducted throughout New York City with over 100 children aged from three to seven,<ref name=Tracy/>²¹ showed that the attention and comprehension of young viewers increased with each repeat viewing.<ref name=Gladwell/>

== Learning or training? ==

Line 57 ⟶ 58:

Many accounts used either or both terms according to which interest was paying for the work. Sometimes researchers used both terms as explicit alternatives.<ref>Lumsdaine A.A. 1964. Educational technology, programmed learning and instructional science. In Hilgard E.R. (ed) ''Theories of learning and instruction: the 63rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education''. NSSE, p382.</ref> Some surveys standardised on using just one of the terms.<ref>Hanson L.F. & Komoski P.K. School use of programmed instruction; and Shoemaker H.A. & Holt H.O. The use of programmed instruction in industry. In Glaser R. (ed) 1965. ''Teaching machines and programmed learning II: data and directions''. Washington D.C. National Education Association of the United States.</ref>

Perhaps the only distinction was the way the "terminal behaviours" (the final test demonstrating what the learner had learnt) were arrived at. In training, the goals were decided by a process called [[task analysis]],<ref>Miller, Robert B. 1962. Analysis and specification of behavior for training. In Glaser R. (ed) ''Training research and education''. New York: Wiley, 31–63.</ref> or [[critical incident technique]]. This was based on the key activities which a trained person should be able to do. In educational work, deciding on the terminal test was not so securely grounded. One school of thought, probably the majority, decided to turn the rather vague statements of educational aims into full-fledged behavioural statements of the kind "At the end of this program, students should be able to do the following...".<ref>Popham W.J. & Baker E.L. 1970. ''Establishing instructional goals''. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.</ref> A pamphlet by [[Robert Mager]] was influential because it showed how to do this.<ref>Mager, Robert F. 1962. ''Preparing instructional objectives''. Palo Alto CA: Fearon; 1997 edition by Atlanta, GA: The Center for Effective Performance. {{ISBN|1879618036}}</ref> This worked well with some subject matters, but had its limitations.<ref>Macdonald-Ross M. 1973. Behavioural objectives – a critical review. ''Instructional Science'' '''2''', 1–52.</ref> In general, educators have reservations as to how far a list of behaviours captures what they are trying to teach. Subjects differ greatly in their basic aims, but where programmed learning suited a topic, most field trials gave positive results.

== Examples ==

''Daily Oral Language'' and the ''[[Saxon (teaching method)|Saxon method]]'', a math programme, are specific implementations of programmed instruction which have an emphasis on repetition.<ref>Jones, Susan J. (2003) ''Blueprint for student success: a guide to research-based teaching practices, K-12'' Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, California, [https://books.google.com/books?id=CTvgSf2H8GQC&pg=PA105 page 105], {{ISBN|0-7619-4697-7}}</ref>

Well-known books using programmed learning include the [[Lisp (programming language)|Lisp]]/[[Scheme (programming language)|Scheme]] text ''The Little Schemer'',<ref>Friedman, Daniel and Felleisen, Matthias (1996) ''The Little Schemer'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, {{ISBN|0-262-56099-2}}</ref> ''[[Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess]]'',<ref>[[Bobby Fischer|Fischer, Bobby]]; Margulies, Stuart and Mosenfelder, Donn (1966) ''Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess'' Bantam Books, New York, {{ISBN|0-553-26315-3}}; and various editions since</ref> ''Engineering Mathematics'',<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stroud |first=K. A. |date=1987 |title=Engineering Mathematics |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-349-12153-3 |journal=SpringerLink |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-1-349-12153-3|url-access=subscription }}</ref> by [[Ken Stroud]], and ''Laplace Transform Solution Of Differential Equations: A Programmed Text'', by Robert D. Strum and John R. Ward of the [[Naval Postgraduate School]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Strum|first1=Robert D.|last2=Ward|first2=John R.|title=Laplace Transform Solution Of Differential Equations: A Programmed Text|date=1968|publisher=Prentice-Hall|___location=Englewood Cliffs, N.J.|isbn=9780135228050}}</ref> Several available foreign language reading textbooks also use programmed learning.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Tatham|first1=Karl C. Sandberg, Eddison C.|title=French for reading|date=1972|publisher=Prentice-Hall|___location=Englewood Cliffs, N.J.|isbn=9780133316032|url=https://archive.org/details/frenchforreading00sand_0}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Wendel|first1=John R.|last2=Sandberg|first2=Karl C.|title=German for reading : a programmed approach for graduate and undergraduate reading courses|date=1973|publisher=Prentice-Hall|___location=Englewood Cliffs, N.J.|isbn=9780133540192}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Franco|first1=Fabiola|last2=Sandberg|first2=Karl C.|title=Spanish for reading : a self-instructional course|date=1998|publisher=Barron's Educational Series|___location=Hauppauge, N.Y.|isbn=9780764103339}}</ref>

Recently, the application of programmed instruction principles was applied to training in computer programs.<ref>{{cite journal | author= Emurian H.H. | title= Programmed instruction for teaching Java: consideration of learn unit frequency and rule-test performance | journal= The Behavior Analyst Today | volume= 8 | issue= 1 | pages= 70–88 | year= 2007 | url= http://www.baojournal.com/BAT%20Journal/VOL-8/BAT%208-1.pdf | format= PDF | type= entire issue | doi= 10.1037/h0100103 | access-date= 2015-09-10 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141106234945/http://www.baojournal.com/BAT%20Journal/VOL-8/BAT%208-1.pdf | archive-date= 2014-11-06 | url-status= dead | hdl= 11603/276 | hdl-access= free }}</ref><ref>{{Citation | lastauthor = Emurian H.H. | date = 2009 | contribution = Teaching Java: managing instructional tactics to optimize student learning | title = International Journal of Information & Communication Technology Education | volume = 3 | issue = 4 | pages = 34–49 | publisher = UMBC | url = http://userpages.umbc.edu/~emurian/cv/Emurian_2009_ch14.pdf}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | lastauthor= Emurian H.H; | author2= Holden H.K. &| author3= Abarbanel R.A. | date = 2008. | name-list-style= amp | contribution = Managing programmed instruction and collaborative peer tutoring in the classroom: applications in teaching Java | title = Computers in Human Behavior | volume = 24 | issue = 2 | pages = 576–614}}.</ref>

==See also==

* [[Socratic method]]

==References ==