Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
|||
Line 4:
It is rather interesting that [[Edward L. Thorndike]] wrote in 1912:
"If, by a miracle of mechanical ingenuity, a book could be so arranged that only to him who had done what was directed on page one would page two become visible, and so on, much that now requires personal instruction could be managed by print".<ref>Thorndike E.L. 1912. ''Education: a first book''. New York: Macmillan, 165.</ref><ref>
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 ==
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>
A few conclusions stood out from the research. One was that films were great at giving overviews of a situation or an operation. However, they were less successful at getting over the details. Some general features of film (and, later, television) stand out. One is that a film goes at its own pace. Another is that no specific responses or activities are required from the viewer. A third is that the audience is varied, sometimes hugely varied. This gives clues to ways of improving instructional films.
In a 1946 experiment at [[Yale University]], questions for students were put between segments of a film on the [[heart]] and [[circulatory system|circulation]], with correct answers given after students had responded (knowledge of results). This added significantly to the amount learnt from the film. Lumsdaine commented that showing the version with questions and answers was as effective as showing the film twice, and faster.<ref name=Lums/><sup>612</sup><ref>Lumsdaine A.A; May M.A. & Hadsell R.S. 1958. Questions spliced into a film for motivational and pupil participation. In May M.A. & Lumsdaine A.A. ''Learning from films''. Yale University Press, 72–83.</ref>
The connections between this experiment and those of Pressey were obvious. Active responses by learners and helpful feedback on the activities were now seen as critical elements in any successful system of learning. Pressey's work had been half forgotten, but it was now recognised as significant.<ref>Pressey's work is reprinted in Lumsdaine A.A & Glaser R. (eds) 1960. ''Teaching machines and
== Programmed learning arrives ==
=== What is programmed learning? ===
If so much research had already been done on learning from films, what exactly did programmed learning add? The short answer is "[[stimulus (psychology)|stimulus]] control", by which is broadly meant the teaching material itself. Also, in programmed learning, a complete system was proposed which included these stages:
#The aims of the course are stated in terms which are objective, and can be measured.
#A pre-test is given, or the initial behaviour is stated.
Line 36 ⟶ 37:
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|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
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 42 ⟶ 43:
:"There is a simple job to be done. The task can be stated in concrete terms. The necessary techniques are known. The equipment can easily be provided. Nothing stands in the way except cultural inertia... We are on the threshold of an exciting and revolutionary period in which the scientific study of man will be put to work in man's best interests. Education must play its part. It must accept the fact that sweeping revision of educational practice is possible and inevitable...".<ref>Skinner B.F. 1954. The science of learning and the art of teaching. ''Harvard Educational Review'' '''24''', 86.</ref>
Both methods were originally presented in machines, and both were later presented in book form. Both systems were to an extent student centered. They were ways of teaching individual learners who worked at their own pace. Both systems (in different ways) used knowledge of results to promote learning.<ref name=Lums/><sup>p619</sup><ref>Annett J. 1964. The role of knowledge of results in learning: a survey. In ''Educational Technology'', De Cecco (ed), Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 279{{ndash}}285.</ref> In both systems the content was pre-tested to identify problems and iron them out. Both systems emphasised clear learning objectives. Progress in learning was measured by pre- and post-tests of equivalent difficulty. Many practical tests showed the effectiveness of these methods.<ref>Glaser R. (ed) 1965. ''Teaching machines and
== Later effects ==
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 to 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/><sup>182</sup> Their tests of the pilot, conducted throughout New York City with over 100 children aged from three to seven,<ref name=Tracy/><sup>21</sup> showed that the attention and comprehension of young viewers increased with each repeat viewing.<ref name=Gladwell/>
== Learning or training? ==
The terms "programmed learning" and "programmed training" were interchangeable, because the principles and methods were almost identical.<ref>Glaser, Robert 1964. Implications of training research for education. In Hilgard E.R. (ed) ''Theories of learning and instruction: the 63rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education''. NSSE, p153/181.</ref> If the target audience was industrial or military, researchers used the term programmed training, because training budgets supported the work. But in schools and colleges, the work was often described as programmed learning.
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
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.
Line 70 ⟶ 71:
==External links==
*[http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fretzin/EPL1q2programmed.htm Page at lrs.ed.uiuc.edu]
[[Category:Educational software]]
| |||