Content deleted Content added
+ a bit +refs |
+ a bit +refs |
||
Line 44:
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 programed learning II: data and directions''. Washington D.C. National Education Association of the United States.</ref>
== 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> Also influenced was 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>
== Learning or training? ==
==Examples==▼
The terms "programmed learning" and "programmed training" were interchangeable, because the methods were almost identical. 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 naturally 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>
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. 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, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CTvgSf2H8GQC&pg=PA105 page 105], ISBN 0-7619-4697-7</ref>
| |||