Programmed learning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:45, 25 March 2017

Revision as of 23:46, 25 June 2017

Line 46:

== 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 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:

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> and ''[[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>

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}}</ref><ref>{{Citation | last = Emurian H.H 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 | last= Emurian H.H; Holden H.K. & Abarbanel R.A. 2008. | 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>