Content deleted Content added
→Learning or training?: +ref |
|||
Line 56:
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 programed 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{{ndash}}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 ==
| |||