Natural Sciences and Mathematics || Programed Instruction in Science and Mathematics

Programed Instruction in Science and MathematicsAuthor(s): Leslie J. Briggs and David AngellSource: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, Natural Sciences and Mathematics(Jun., 1964), pp. 354-373Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1169411 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 13:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Review of Educational Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.52 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:33:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1169411?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CHAPTER IX

Programed Instruction in Science and Mathematics LESLIE J. BRIGGS and DAVID ANGELL

IN THIS chapter, research in programed instruction in the areas of science and mathematics is reviewed primarily for the period from October 1, 1960, to October 1, 1963, although there is one article that appeared as late as December 1963. No general review of the history and nature of programed instruction is presented; general familiarity with programed instruction on the part of the reader is necessarily assumed. The reader who is not acquainted with programed learning and teaching machines should consult a basic text, such as the volume edited by Lumsdaine and Glaser (1960).

In Programs, '63 (Hanson, 1963), 69 programs in the natural sciences and 123 programs in mathematics are listed. This compilation represents about 55 percent of the total number of programs developed in all subject matter areas. Although some aspects of almost any academic subject can be programed, science and mathematics are numerical leaders of the field. To a great extent, this frequent use of programed instruction in science and mathematics is reflected in the amount of research in these disciplines.

It is not a purpose of this chapter to survey developments in the curriculum of science and mathematics. However, in some of the experiments in programed instruction to be reported, investigators employed programs based on the new developments in curriculum; in other experiments, conventional materials were used. Purely theoretical or expository papers concerning programed instruction are excluded from this chapter.

Coverage of the experimental literature is divided into two major sec- tions: (a) presentation of results of what may be termed methods studies, in which the practical effectiveness of programed instruction is compared with that of conventional methods of teaching, and (b) the description of findings in experimental studies in which some of the issues in the theory and technique of effective programing have been explored. In this chapter, the contributions of the latter group are termed analytical studies. As one might expect, some investigations to be reviewed touch both upon methods and upon analyses.

The first group of studies is generally concerned with the practical value of programed instruction as a classroom procedure and with the role of the teacher in such procedures; the second group of investigations pertains to experimental attempts to identify factors that make programed instruction effective and workable. For the latter group of investigations, special emphasis is placed upon improvement of programing theory and techniques.

354



PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

Comparisons of Programed Instruction with Conventional Methods

Of the 19 methods studies, in which the effectiveness of programed instruction was compared with conventional teaching procedures, 5 were concerned with the subject matter of science and 14, with mathematics.

These studies, as a group, were not characterized either by sophisticated experimental design or by scrupulous control of extraneous variables. However, the majority of investigators did employ some form of statistical test to assess the significance of differences among groups on criterion test scores. Findings of "no significant differences" were reported more often than were significant differences. A wide variety of factors was named in the subjective or observational evaluations of the effects of programed instruction.

Science

The main concern of the methods studies in science was to evaluate the effectiveness of a "package" of programed instruction. The five studies described below are a gross underrepresentation of the number of such investigations that have been performed. These five contributions, however, serve (a) to illustrate the several different types of research studies which have been conducted, (b) to show instances of both positive and negative results, and (c) to include research done at the elementary, secondary, and college levels.

In a series of studies, Klaus (1961) investigated the effectiveness of programed instruction in physics under various conditions. In the first study, students in some of the 15 different participating classes were given 3,000 frames of programed material on direct current, optical reflection, and optical refraction. These students, as well as others who were not given the programed texts, continued to receive instruction in physics through lectures, through daily televised lessons, and through reading assignments. From the scores on tests based solely on the content of the televised programs, it was found that students who had had access to the programed texts performed significantly better than those who had depended entirely upon the more conventional instruction. A variation of this procedure was employed in the second study, in which students in 10 physics classes participated. Some students received conventional classroom instruction in addition to using the autoinstructional material; others depended entirely upon the programed texts. Since the groups performed similarly on a criterion test, there was an indication that the classroom instruction had not imparted subject matter knowledge beyond that provided by the programs.

McNeil and Keislar also performed several "feasibility" demonstra- tions. These researchers wished to determine whether scientific principles could be taught by programing to very young children. McNeil and Keislar

355

June 1964



(1962a) gave instruction in molecular concepts to six first graders. First, the investigators showed picture cards to the pupils; next, they read pas- sages about the illustrations to them; finally, they either gave a direction or asked a question that required each child to make a multiple-choice response to some aspect of the picture. The program consisted of about 500 cards, presented at the rate of about 40 per day for 13 days. The program covered the molecular properties of liquids, gases, and solids. In addition to presenting theoretical principles that are concerned with molecular speed, temperature, and attraction, the program related the action of molecules to incidents of evaporation and condensation. At the end of the instruction, the six experimental subjects and six matched control subjects who had not received the instruction were individually interviewed and asked to explain instances of evaporation and condensation, including some instances which had not been described in the program. The inter- viewers were strangers who had not participated in the study. The evaluation, which consisted of an interview as a testing experience, revealed that the experimental subjects were able to answer questions with content similar to that of the instructional materials-a task that the uninstructed control subjects could not achieve (as would be expected). However, the experimental subjects were not able to generalize their knowledge of the theoretical principles to examples that had not been used previously in the program.

In an earlier but related investigation, Keislar and McNeil (1961) described another feasibility test, in which a somewhat different version of a molecular theory program was presented by a teaching machine rather than by the experimenter. The Videosonic Tutor projected a slide upon an individual viewing screen, broadcast a taped commentary about the slide, and asked a question or gave a direction. The subject pressed one of three buttons either to answer the question or to follow the direction. If the correct button was pressed, the next slide appeared and the next commentary was broadcast. If the subject's first response was wrong, he tried again. The program, which contained 432 frames (slides and commen- taries), was presented in 13 daily lessons.

The 13 first grade students who participated in the program underwent a standardized "test" interview after they had completed the final lesson. Thirteen matched control subjects, who had not received the instruction, participated in the same evaluation exercise. Twelve of the 13 experimental subjects achieved higher criterion test scores than their matched control subjects. Average score for the experimental subjects was 66 percent correct; average score for the control subjects was 22 percent. Program errors were significantly related negatively to test scores; the fewer the program errors, the higher the level of test performance (p = -.60).

Geller (1963a) reported a field tryout of a chemistry program at the college level. Groups taught by the two methods performed nearly identi- cally on both immediate and six-week delayed tests. Details of the study are included in Chapter VII of this REVIEW.

356

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Volume XXXIV, No. 3




In order to assess subjects' attitudes toward chemistry and toward programed instruction, Geller (1963b) designed questionnaires and administered them at the completion of instruction. The attitudes of students in the programed and nonprogramed groups toward organic chemistry were similar. A number of subjects who had taken the automated course were disappointed in the experience. When the preinstruction and postinstruction attitudes toward programed learning were compared, it was noted that 60 percent of the subjects reported that they had liked the idea of automated learning but that they had not liked the experience. Almost 60 percent found that the machine itself was an obstacle to learning, and nearly 65 percent said that they would not have liked machine instruction any better even if the machine had worked better. (Approximately 35 percent of the machines used in the study developed serious malfunctions.)

Mathematics

The 14 methods studies in mathematics reported here range from fourth grade arithmetic to college algebra. In two studies, significant differences were cited in favor of programed learning. In one of these, devices for auxiliary drill in arithmetic were used rather than conventional instruction. In the other experiments, either significance tests were omitted, or the differences between groups were not significant. Although most of the studies took place during the regular school year with "normal" groups, there were a few studies that involved (a) remedial summer sessions, (b) superior learners, or (c) retarded learners. In one study, programed learning was compared with an independent study plan rather than with regular classroom instruction. Several investigators found that programed learning required less time than did traditional instruction, even when it was not superior to regular instruction relative to the criterion of the performance level of the students.

Banghart and others (1963) compared programed instruction in arithmetic with regular instruction; their criteria were problem-solving scores, comprehension scores, and total scores on the arithmetic examination of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests. For an entire school year, the arithmetic instruction was given each day for 30-40 minutes. The exercises of the programed text (requiring overt responses) had been placed in sequence on the basis of empirical tryouts. Statistically significant differences in favor of the programed instruction group were found with respect to both comprehension scores and total scores, but no significant difference was noted in problem-solving scores.

Smith and Quackenbush (1960) employed a mechanical device for pro- viding drill in arithmetic to 23 slow learners (mean IQ, 71; mean chrono- logical age, 17.7) in the Devereux schools. Teachers not only carried out the initial instruction of the arithmetic operations but also subsequently employed the teaching aid for supplementary drill. The students made responses to the drill items by placing a stylus in appropriate plugs; a light

357

June 1964



REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

or buzzer provided feedback. A control group was identified through study of records of comparable students in previous years.

Gains for both groups were computed in terms of grade norms furnished for the California Achievement Tests. With respect to the grade norm for arithmetic, the average growth over one year for the control group was .19; the corresponding gain for the experimental group was .51; the difference was significant at the .05 level. (Of course, less than a norm

year of growth would be expected of these students.) It was concluded that these teaching aids were useful and motivating for the experimental students.

Dessart (1962) employed two programs (linear and branching) combined with two study methods (one employing and the other excluding teacher aid). No significant differences were found among linear-program, branching-program, and teacher-taught groups. However, in progress per unit of study time, the programed group appeared more efficient than the traditionally taught class.

Kalin (1962) reported an experiment covering two weeks of instruction in equations and inequalities that were presented in terms of sentences and sets. Fifth and sixth grade pupils whose IQ's were over 115 were assigned at random to 10 groups, of which 5 were experimental and 5 were control samples. Pretests showed no prior knowledge of the topic. The experimental groups studied the program without aid; the control groups received instruction from teachers selected by their principals. Although no significant difference on test scores was found between teacher-taught and program- taught groups, the program groups did use 20-percent less study time than did the conventionally taught groups. Since mean test scores for both

groups were close to ninth grade algebra class means, there was the suggestion that bright fifth and sixth grade pupils can learn a particular advanced mathematics topic in less time from a program than from a teacher.

Reported next are four experiments at the high school level in which programs in algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus were employed.

Bell (1962) reported use of TEMAC programs (programed learning materials published by Encyclopaedia Britannica Films) in algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. In a trial of programed instruction, the school dis- trict of Weber County, Utah, doubled class sizes. In each class, the number of students was between 58 and 62. Secretarial assistants were employed to aid in giving and scoring individually administered tests as pupils finished each unit of the program at their own rates. Pupils worked in banks of study cubicles and reported to a central area for tests. In addition to consulting with individual pupils after tests were scored, teachers formed discussion groups of four to eight pupils who were advancing at similar rates. Remedial sequences were assigned as necessary. Bell observed that the procedure described kept 700 high school students working for 50 minutes each day and that some worked eight times as fast as others. Some students completed a year's work in one semester.

358

Volume XXXIV, No. 3




Henderson (1963) reported use of a program in Algebra II for selective remedial work that began three-fourths of the way through the course. Students were first tested to identify areas needing further study. Then small groups of individuals needing work on a given topic shared one copy of the program sequence on a "belt line" arrangement. The first student completed one page of the program, passed it on to the next student, and then took up the next page. This activity took place three periods per week, with instruction on new topics presumably occupying the remaining periods.

The teacher's evaluation of the trial of the programs pointed to the following changes in performance: (a) increase in ability to factor alge- braic expressions, (b) gains in reading and comprehension, and (c) improvements in use of precise mathematical nomenclature. The experimenter noted values for the slow learner; recommended using programs as aids, not as replacements, for normal procedures; and cautioned against monotony when programs are used nearly full time.

McGarvey (1962) reported impressions of TEMAC programs used in a summer algebra improvement class that had been conducted as a six- week remedial effort for two hours per day. Over-all results appeared to differ little from those of regular classes. At the end of the summer class, the Cooperative Algebra Test: Elementary Algebra Through Quadratics was administered. Thirteen of the "review students" had also taken the test at the end of the regular school year (ninth grade), before the summer session. The median score for these students rose from the fifty- ninth to the ninetieth percentile. (No estimate was given of amount of gain due to test-retest effects.) The experimenter reported that during the summer many students came to class early to start work on the programs. Moreover, there were no discipline problems. He observed that the programs helped to avoid not only unneeded explanations but also other problems typical of normal group instruction.

Three college-level experiments in teaching statistics were reported. Two compared programed with regular instruction (Gorow, 1961; Smith, 1962). Although both experimenters found no significant differences, they thought that class time could be saved through use of programs. Whitlock, Copeland, and Craig (1963) noted that an independent study group using a textbook and workbook could learn as well as a group studying by programed instruction.

In a broad range of developmental and experimental efforts over a three- year period, Carpenter and Greenhill (1963) compared programed instruction with other media and methods in college algebra and English. After consulting with mathematicians who were serving on the National Academy of Science Committee on Mathematical Films and Television, they outlined and defined the mathematics materials to be used. The content, which was modern, was influenced by materials of the School Mathematics Study Group. The materials were also acceptable to the Mathematics Department of the Pennsylvania State University for use in college algebra courses.

359

June 1964




The various course units, in programed instruction form, totaled 3,770 frames.

In one experiment, the programed materials were presented by (a) teaching machines, self-paced, (b) programed textbooks, self-paced, and (c) filmstrips, externally paced. An experienced teacher employed the lecture-discussion method to instruct the control group. There were no significant differences on unit tests or on end-of-course tests among the three programed presentations. However, on unit tests, the three programed groups combined scored significantly higher than the control group, and variance was lower in programed groups than in the control group. On the end-of-course test, however, only the variance difference remained.

In another experiment in the series, it was found that the programed material presented by filmstrips was equally effective whether self-paced or externally paced at the average rate used by students in self-pacing. In a third experiment, no difference was found in effectiveness between the externally paced presentation of the program by closed-circuit television and the self-paced presentation involving teaching machines. In a fourth experiment, one-half of the students worked individually on programs, while the other half worked in randomly assigned pairs to allow interaction between paired persons. There was no significant difference in effectiveness between the two procedures; however, in the paired group, the measure of verbal ability did account for more variance than did that of quantitative ability, whereas, in the groups made up of individuals working alone, the measure of quantitative ability was associated with more variance than was that of verbal ability.

Analytical Studies of Programing Techniques

The experiments in methods that have been reviewed were performed to compare the over-all effectiveness of particular programs with some conventional teaching procedure. Many other experiments have been carried out to examine specific factors in program effectiveness. These latter analytical studies are reviewed below in an attempt to assess their significance in terms of (a) contributions to learning theory, (b) value in choosing from among existing program techniques, and (c) implica- tions for improvement of programed instruction.

This review of analytical studies is restricted to those that have employed science or mathematics as their subject matter, and this chapter is not a definitive assessment of all these issues to date. However, since the number of experiments employing these materials is significant, this summary should be fairly consistent with the results of a summary not bound by these subject matter restrictions-at least to the extent that the inferred mental processes involved in mastery of science and mathematics represent the learning processes that are required for all academic disciplines. In the absence of a taxonomy of learning-process correlates of the gamut of

360

Volume XXXIV, No. 3




educational objectives, the extent to which the studies reviewed are repre- sentative of all such analytical studies must remain uncertain. A few studies outside science and mathematics are cited parenthetically in this chapter to complete some discussions.

Finally, the total research in the following list of issues in programed instruction will surely contribute, in the long run, to improvements in education, regardless of whether the conclusions from such studies are implemented by programed instruction or by other media and methods.

Teachers and experimenters who are exposed to the process of develop- ing, evaluating, and using programs are exposed, in fact, to a very detailed form of lesson planning which should bring added precision to educational efforts.

Ability

Many programers have said that, although ability is correlated with achievement in conventional learning because the learning effort depends largely upon the pupil himself, ability will not be correlated with learning through programed instruction because the steps are so easy to take and so well arranged that all students succeed. Dull students simply take longer than bright students. Evidence is divided concerning the relationship between ability and achievement which has been realized through the use of programed instruction.

Gagn6 and others (1962), whose highly significant contribution is described in considerable detail in Chapter IV of this REVIEW, found no

significant effect of ability upon success in the learning task. In their report of a contrary finding, Lambert, Miller, and Wiley (1962) observed that of those factors studied, intelligence was the most significant factor associated with immediate acquisition. However, it should be noted that, although these investigators exhibited great concern for proper experimental design and for the power of tests of significance used in learning research, in contrast to the previously cited study of Gagne and others, they displayed little interest in the anatomical study of the program itself. Coulson and others (1962) found no significant correlation between ability and performance either for linear or for branching programs in logic. The authors of this chapter conclude that the more closely a program resembles a textbook, the higher will be its correlation with intelligence.

Program Revision

Perhaps it should be axiomatic that a program is improved after empirical trial and revision-activities that are basic and routine in the work of programers. One might wish that textbook writers employed similar procedures.

Much has been said of programed learning as an application of the Socratic method. Cohen (1962) took a lesson from Plato's Meno and

361

June 1964




prepared a draft program (dealing with rectangles) to parallel Socrates' questions. Trying out the draft program first on 32 college undergrad- uates, he found that only 17 could pass the criterion test. After revising the program in key spots, he administered it a second time to 33 students and observed that there were 27 successful criterion solutions. It is apparent that empirical revision works, regardless of whether the program parallels the Socratic procedure.

Although, in the past, programers tended to depend heavily upon the error rate in the program itself as a means of program revision, they have found from experience that a low program error rate does not necessarily guarantee a low criterion error rate. Recent methods of revision have stressed the importance of (a) intensive conferences with students on individual trials and (b) a critical as well as statistical examination of sequences within the program (Gagne and Paradise, 1961; Campbell, 1963).

Intensive, persistent examination and revision of the program also can change the result of analytical studies. In a series of experiments in which Coulson and others (1962) compared linear and branching programs, it was only in the later experiments, in which extensively revised programs were employed, that significant differences between treatments occurred.

Mode of Responding

Of all the technical issues in programed learning, the response mode has been most frequently explored. Skinner (1958) maintained that the learner must compose his responses and must record them in blank spaces, instead of selecting them from among several given alternatives. Other investigators, such as Crowder (1960), disagreed. They contended that responding to multiple-choice items was as appropriate and effective a mode of responding as was constructing responses. Still others were motivated to show that easy steps and constructed responses are not advantageously combined as conditions of learning (Goldbeck and Camp- bell, 1962).

In a discussion of the response-mode studies, it will be economical to state in advance some terminological conventions which are based upon similarities in treatments among the various experiments. Thus, when a response mode is described as overt, it will mean, unless stated otherwise, that the subjects composed written responses and recorded them in blank spaces in the program or on separate sheets. Covert responding will mean that the subjects actually thought of the responses which would fit in those same blank spaces, but did not record them. A reading mode will mean that the program did not contain any blank spaces into which answers could be written; answers were simply a part of the prose to be read. Those studies will be described first in which significant treatment effects were not evident.

362

Volume XXXIV, No. 3




Evans, Glaser, and Homme (1962) observed no differences in criterion performance between overt, covert, and reading modes with a program in symbolic logic. Alter and Silverman (1962), who used an 87-frame program on basic electricity, found no significant differences between overt written, covert, reading, overt spoken, and written plus spoken modes. In this same paper, Alter and Silverman reported for two other experiments that significant differences were not obtained between overt and reading modes, either self-paced or externally paced, on the electricity program or on a 90-frame program dealing with binary numbers. Stolurow and Walker (1962) obtained no differences between overt and covert modes with a program in descriptive statistics. Lambert, Miller, and Wiley (1962) noted that subjects who responded overtly or covertly to frames in an 843-item program on sets, relations, and functions did not differ in terms of criterion performance.

Keislar and McNeil (1962a, b) compared subjects who made overt responses by pressing buttons corresponding to slide pictures that appeared on a viewing screen with subjects who passively observed the slides. They found no differences in several replications of the experiment. The program, which dealt with molecular concepts, was given to first, second, and third graders.

Using the molecular theory program prepared by Keislar and McNeil as well as subjects comparable to those of the Keislar and McNeil studies, Wittrock (1963) compared an overt oral response mode with a reading mode. Although he found no significant effect that could be attributed to response mode, he reported a significant interaction between mental age (MA) and response mode. Children with average MA's performed more adequately when they used the active (overt) responding mode than they did when they employed the reading mode, whereas those with above- average MA's performed better with the passive (nonovert) responding mode than with the overt mode.

Wittrock's (1963) study was the only one reviewed in which results were obtained in favor of active responding, and in that experiment the overt response was not the traditional one of filling in blanks in a written program. It may be of interest to note that Krumboltz and Weisman (1962) performed a response mode study in which they used subject matter not in natural science or mathematics. In comparing the effectiveness of overt, covert, and reading modes on immediate and two-week delayed posttests, they found no differences on the immediate test, but a difference in favor of the overt group on the delayed retention test.

In one study, a significant difference was obtained in favor of a reading mode, at least on a delayed retention test. Using a short (32-frame) program in optics, Goldbeck and Campbell (1962) compared overt, covert, and reading modes as well as another treatment in which subjects wrote in answers only when certain of their correctness (option mode). There were no differences on an immediate test; but, on a 10-week retention test,

363

June 1964




subjects who had simply read the programs with the blanks filled in performed significantly better than other groups. (These results may be

compared with those obtained by Krumboltz and Weisman.) Simply reading a given amount of material, even if it is presented in

very short individual segments on different pages, obviously requires less time than reading plus filling in blank spaces in every short segment. Thus, when time to complete the program has been recorded and treated as a dependent variable in the response-mode studies, the reading mode has required shorter average completion times than have the active

approaches. If both instruction time and level of criterion performance are taken into account in evaluating the effectiveness of an instructional method, then differences between the various treatments may appear even when test-performance measures are virtually identical. In each of the following studies, the point was specifically made that in terms of efficiency (amount of material learned per unit of time), the reading mode was superior to overt responding modes: Evans, Glaser, and Homme (1962); Goldbeck and Campbell (1962); Lambert, Miller, and Wiley (1962); Stolurow and Walker (1962); and Wittrock (1963). As a separate matter, one should recognize that recording of responses during program tryouts is a valuable step in program development, even if recorded responses are not required on the final version of the program, as used in the classroom.

Although many details of the results of these studies have necessarily been omitted, these details do not change the broad picture, which is clearly revealed: Overt responding has not been shown to be a requirement for learning from autoinstructional programs.

The Linear-Branching Issue

Many have sympathized with the apparent logic of the proposition that branching programs should be more adaptable to individual differences than are linear programs, in which all students must take the same steps in a fixed sequence. This expectation seems especially sound when one considers (a) that there are many kinds of branching programs (forward branching, backward branching, and bypassing) to be adapted to various circumstances, (b) that suitable type and amount of feedback can vary with the type of branching, (c) that computers can make branching decisions of a more complex nature than can simpler machines, and (d) that students who typically enter a course vary in ability, motivation, and amount of prior knowledge about the subject. It thus appears quite reasonable to predict that branching programs, as compared to linear programs, would be more efficient in terms of saving time, if not more effective in yielding higher criterion scores.

Early research did not yield any such clear-cut findings concerning the superiority of branching over linear programs. At first, there was some confounding regarding the issue of multiple-choice responses versus con-

364

Volume XXXIV, No. 3




structed responses with the linear-branching issue, because of the tendency for many to perceive the constructed response as a necessary characteristic of linear programs and the multiple-choice response as a feature of branching programs.

More recently, however, researchers have sought ways to disentangle these variables. Thus, bypass programs have sometimes employed constructed responses (Campbell, 1963), and linear programs have sometimes called for multiple-choice responses. Furthermore, criterion tests have included both types of responding in order that interaction of learning- response modes with test-response modes might be tested.

In a lengthy series of experiments employing large numbers of subjects from the fourth to the twelfth grade with a program on set theory, Campbell (1963) failed to find his bypass programs superior to linear programs in test performance. His step sizes, in terms of size of reading unit in ratio to number of responses, were considerably larger than those that most programers employ.

Using a fairly simple type of branching program on elementary prob- ability theory with freshman engineering students, Roe (1962) found no significant difference on criterion scores between linear and branching groups. Moreover, there were no interactions of method with aptitude or with time for learning. Both groups showed gains in terms of pretest- posttest scores. Roe concluded that his findings with simple branching procedures should not discourage investigation of more elaborate branching methods.

In a series of branching studies, during which refinements in mechaniza- tion as well as improvements in branching technique and program content gradually were realized, Coulson, Silberman, and their associates, after initial failures to find branching programs superior to linear programs, finally realized significant differences in favor of branching. Summarizing an experiment conducted in 1959 in which elementary psychology materials were used, Coulson and Silberman (1961) found that the branching approach in comparison with the linear procedure took less time, but did not yield superior criterion scores. In the same report, they described a study conducted in 1960 in which they used a more complex mechanism composed of a computer, a random-access slide projector, and an electric typewriter. Again, there was no significant difference between linear and branching programs. The investigators attributed this finding to inade- quate branching and to poor remedial items in the program. However, in a subsequent experiment, reported in the same paper, they observed a type of optional branching to be significantly superior to a fixed sequence.

Employing a program in logic, Coulson and others (1962) matched two groups on the basis of The Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability. All individuals in one group took a fixed sequence of 233 items; each member of the other group received different numbers and sequences of items depending on his performance during the lesson. Branching decisions were based upon errors in program responses as well as upon the

365

June 1964




student's subjective evaluation of his understanding of each sequence. Posttest scores were significantly higher (at the .05 level) for the branching group than for the other group. The study-time difference between groups was not significant. The correlation of aptitude scores with criterion scores was not significant for either group or for the two groups combined.

A significant factor in the results reported by Coulson and others probably was the procedure by which the computer was programed to select item sequences in terms of three student-response criteria: (a) number of errors accumulated on a topic, (b) answers given to single questions when they revealed a particular erroneous conception of the topic, and (c) preference of the student to receive additional instruction or to move on to the next topic. Moreover, the great amount of careful revision of materials that arose from a detailed analysis of the performances of previous students undoubtedly constituted an important basis for the results obtained.

Although the gains obtainable by computer-controlled (branching) instruction must ultimately be weighed against costs, this consideration does not detract from the capability demonstrated in the study just cited.

Conditions of Prompting and Discovery In the older psychological literature dealing with methods of discovery

of correct responses in a learning situation, investigators tended to contrast learning by trial and error with learning by insight. In experiments concerned with either kind of learning, the subject did the actual work. The experimenter set the boundary conditions and defined the goal, but he carefully hid the cues from the learner. The task was to see how long or how many trials it took the learner to succeed and to record a series of observable events such as the number of blind alleys which the subject explored in the assigned activity.

The authors of this chapter feel that one of Skinner's most significant contributions has been his urging that learning not be left to chance (as it very much has been for many years) but that it be facilitated and fostered by logical arrangement of material and by use of prompts and cues to promote correct responding. Just what kind of arrangement of materials forms an optimal sequence and how strongly the experimenter should guide the response remain to be determined, but, once set, these sequential and guidance parameters probably will set the amount and kind of optimal feedback.

Although most authorities in programed learning now agree (a) that some form of cueing or prompting (response guidance) is needed and (b) that success in the task should be attainable in order to avoid the frustra- tion of failure, there is still disagreement concerning just how easy the responses should be. Although, in general, there is some consensus that cueing should be close to response threshold but not much stronger, cueing techniques still result in varying error rates and in varying degrees of

366

Volume XXXIV, No. 3




discovery effort on the part of the student. Skinner (1958) proposed that strong prompts be used early in instruction to assure correct responding but that the strength of those prompts be diminished progressively as the learner proceeds through the program. The technique, which is called vanishing, seems to be clearly related to cueing at threshold, though the "threshold" is, of course, an average one, not that of each individual learner. In general, Skinner's recommendation is an attempt to change cue strength as threshold changes.

Angell and Lumsdaine (1962) prepared two versions of a short (54- frame) program designed to teach a rule of arithmetic-one version in which cues were vanished and another in which they were not-in an effort to assess the effectiveness of the vanishing technique. Students who used the two versions performed comparably on an immediate posttest; however, on a retest two weeks later, individuals who had used the vanishing version of the program scored significantly higher than did those who had used the nonvanishing version.

McNeil and Keislar (1962b) tested the hypothesis that items presented as questions would provoke more overt verbal behavior and produce more learning that would items presented as statements. Using their molecular theory program with frames as questions or as statements, they found no differences in the performance of their first and third grade subjects under the two conditions.

An important difference could exist between optimal cueing in programs to transmit the culture-in programs aimed at teaching what is already known-as contrasted to education of students to solve the un- known problems of a new generation. This consideration may argue for combinations of methods of teaching in order to capitalize upon the merits which various methods may hold in the two cases. Stimulus-response theory may be a more adequate basis than cognitive theory for transmitting the known, whereas cognitive theory may offer more aid than could stimulus-response theory in preparation for newer problems (Snygg, 1962).

Structure and Sequence of Materials

The topic of structure and sequence of materials consists of two facets. One facet involves identification of the elements of knowledge necessary for adequate performance on the criterion tests. The other is concerned with discovering possible sequences of the elements which would be more effective than random sequences. The term random may have two mean- ings: (a) it may denote a chance order of items within a segment or topic, with the series of segments remaining in a logical order; and (b) it may pertain to a completely aimless ordering of all items in the program.

Levin and Baker (1963) compared standard and random orders of items within sequences on a simple geometry program for second graders. No significant differences were found in acquisition, retention, or transfer.

367

June 1964




(Studies in other subject matter areas have resulted in conflicting findings when complete randomization of items was involved.) Levin and Baker regarded their investigation as a study of the fine structure of the program (within segments). They pointed out that a similar study could be done to randomize segments in order to investigate the course structure of the program.

The present writers feel that the apparently conflicting findings in this area indicate mainly that materials vary in degree of independence among the elements or topics in the program. Moreover, program length, in a random-order program, influences the ease with which the student can recall items already studied when such recall would help him respond to the item on which he is then working.

Gagne and his associates took a more rigorous approach than did others to the general problem of how to identify, and how to form a sequence of, the elements of knowledge in a program. In a series of related studies, Gagn6 (1962), Gagne and Bassler (1963), Gagne and Brown (1961), Gagn6 and Paradise (1961), and Gagne and others (1962) investigated various topics in mathematics concerning the nature, structure, and sequence of subordinate knowledge requirements and the effects of ability, method of response guidance, and degree of repetition.

The general approach in these studies was to identify a criterion task, such as solving linear equations or adding integers, and then to ask, What subskills, if learned and retained, would enable the student to perform the task? For example, what kinds of subskills would transfer to the task? By repeatedly asking and answering this question, first for general subskills, then for specific subskills, and eventually for the level of basic known abilities of the students entering a course, Gagne and his associates developed a pyramid-shaped hierarchy of knowledge requirements. Once an appropriate sequence for the program was arranged, various conditions of practice could be investigated and compared.

An interesting finding of one of the experiments in this series (Gagne and Bassler, 1963) was that the criterion-task performance remained at a high level nine weeks after training, even though some of the subordinate knowledges were forgotten. This outcome does not mean that the subordinate knowledges were not necessary to master the task, but it probably does mean that a higher-order process of consolidation took place-a consolidation illustrating the principle that the criterion task itself is not necessarily the appropriate unit for teaching. Conversely, items needed for teaching purposes are not necessarily permanently retained even when it can be shown that the criterion of learning was reached.

In a study to test the system for defining the needed structure of the program for the task of solving linear equations, Gagne and Paradise (1961) first identified, through use of the process just described, a hierarchy of 22 learning elements in addition to 3 elements reflected in ability tests-number ability, symbol recognition, and integration. They predicted that, in going up the hierarchy from lowest to highest level, the amount of

368





correlation of these abilities with rate of learning should decrease, since such successive achievements come to depend upon transfer rather than ability. They predicted that correlations of general intelligence with attain- ment at each level in the hierarchy would be constant as well as moderately positive, since general intelligence was conceived to mediate general rather than specific transfer. Using 118 seventh graders in four classes, Gagne and Paradise tested and verified these predictions in their major aspects.

In their series of studies, Gagn6 and his associates thus tended to place great emphasis upon identifying the needed knowledge components, whereas many other investigators failed to examine systematically the program structure before they conducted experiments concerning the conditions of responding to the program. Significant research in programed instruction benefits from the skills of the expert programer, who typically studies his program minutely, and from the skills of the experimentalist, who typically designs and interprets experiments with competence. The series of studies by Gagn6 and his colleagues shows that both kinds of skill were exercised.

Mager (1961) also approached the problem of determining optimal arrangement of a sequence of topics in an autoinstructional program. He attempted to determine whether sequences devised by the learners them- selves bore any resemblance to each other or to instructor-determined sequences. To six subjects who were interested in learning about electronics, he gave control over the instructional situation. They initiated all the communications; the experimenter merely supplied information on request. All sessions were recorded and transcribed. Mager found that learner-generated sequences were quite different from instructor-generated sequences. The latter sequences were exemplified by eight different courses in basic electronics that were used in military and industrial training. Mager noted that there was a moderate degree of agreement between learners (who were working independently) with respect to (a) the point at which to start (with vacuum tubes), (b) the formulation of the sequence of the content (in the early sessions, at least), and (c) a concern with the concrete rather than with the abstract.

It is difficult to draw general conclusions from a study such as Mager's. The desire of the learners who controlled the sequence of instruction in electronics to know first about vacuum tubes-not magnetism, the topic with which most courses start-was both fairly predictable and fairly ungeneralizable. Nevertheless, the demonstration that learners approached the acquisition of information in a way describably different from that in which instructors typically present information may be valuable, if it is further shown that the learner-generated sequence does lead to more efficient learning than does an instructor-generated sequence.

In a follow-up study with engineer trainees in a manufacturing com- pany, Mager and Clark (1963) obtained some evidence on this point. They found that, when each student was given a detailed list of instructional objectives and then was permitted to control his own curriculum, training

369

June 1964




time was reduced by an average of 65 percent from the time required for the formal course.

Summary

The writers have reviewed the experimental literature in science and mathematics covering (a) comparisons of the practical effectiveness of programed instruction with other methods of instruction (both new and conventional) and (b) analyses of particular characteristics of various methods of programing.

When one considers that programed instruction is a relatively new teaching procedure and that the programs evaluated by the experiments cited are early models, the results to date are encouraging. In only a small number of experiments was programed instruction found to be superior to normal teaching methods on the basis of statistical tests of significant differences on criterion scores; however, in many other experiments, there was a lack of a demonstrated difference in either direction. In none of the investigations reviewed was programed learning shown to be significantly inferior to conventional methods. In these experiments, a supposedly new and unproved method was compared to "time-tested" conventional methods. If one may assume that programed instruction will continue to be improved, there should be increasing evidence in favor of this technique in another three years.

In a majority of the experiments, there was evidence in favor of the efficiency of programed instruction over regular group methods of teaching, either in terms of significant differences in study time or in the relatively more effective use of the teacher in helping individual students. With one or two outstanding exceptions, the subjective evaluations of teachers and students who have tried progiamed instruction are generally favorable to it.

Whether programs are of greater help to students of higher or of lower ability is still uncertain, although several marginally significant findings suggested greater benefits for groups at the lower end of the intellectual continuum. However, successful experiences have been had with groups of high, low, and heterogeneous ability. Programs can probably be tailored for any of these groups. There may be some slight edge in the instance of branching programs for the more heterogeneous groups. However, linear programs as well as branching programs have often failed to show correlations with ability. Highly motivated bright students can learn from the same programs that benefit slow learners. Computer-controlled branching procedures have shown more promise in being adaptable to individual differences than have manual branching procedures, although, admittedly, the most thoroughly revised programs may have been employed in the computer-controlled studies. Other than in computer studies, teaching machines have not been found to be superior to booklets.

370

Volume XXXIV, No. 3




In terms of analytical experiments, the factors that make programed instruction "work" have not been clearly identified. Constructed responses have not proved to be superior to covert responses or to reading the same material in frame-sized units. Overt responding has been more useful in program revision than in everyday classroom practice. However, recording of responses in some form is useful in planning remedial instruction.

A guided-discovery program in one topic in mathematics was seen to be superior to discovery or rule-example programs. A wide variety of illustration was found to be superior to a more restricted variety. A

technique was reported for verifying the knowledge structure required to master the criterion task. Correlations of ability and specific knowledges were established in terms of transfer to task performance. A technique was developed for computing the degree of interdependence of frames in a program; this index should be capable of helping to select situations in which bypassing or branching might be superior to linear presentation.

Much progress has been made through research in programed learning to illuminate further some of the complex problems associated with conditions for effective learning. The precise terms in which problems associated with programs can be scrutinized bodes well both for improved learning theory and for increasingly effective programs. Teachers and researchers who are experienced in the construction and in the classroom use of programs should be able to discriminate more accurately in their future work, regardless of the methods or media they choose for applying this experience.

Bibliography

ALTER, MILLICENT, and SILVERMAN, ROBERT E. "The Response in Programed Instruc- tion." Journal of Programed Instruction 1: 55-78; No. 1, 1962.

ANGELL, DAVID, and LUMSDAINE, ARTHUR A. Retention of Material Presented by Auto- instructional Programs Which Vanish and Which Do Not Vanish Verbal Cues. Research Report AIR-C14-8/62-TR. San Mateo, Calif.: American Institute for Re- search, 1962. 12 pp. (Mimeo.)

BANGHART, FRANK W., and OTHERS. "An Experimental Study of Programmed Versus Traditional Elementary School Mathematics." Arithmetic Teacher 10: 199-204; April 1963.

BELL, TERREL HOWARD. "Teaching Machines and Programed Learning in Weber County." Journal of Secondary Education 37: 108-11; February 1962.

CAMPBELL, VINCENT N. "Bypassing as a Way of Adapting Self-Instruction Programs to Individual Differences." Journal of Educational Psychology 54: 337-45; Decem- ber 1963.

CARPENTER, C. R., and GREENHILL, L. P. Comparative Research on Methods and Media for Presenting Programed Courses in Mathematics and English. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1963. 74 pp.

COHEN, IRA S. "Programed Learning and the Socratic Dialogue." American Psy- chologist 17: 772-75; November 1962.

COULSON, JOHN E., and SILBERMAN, HARRY F. "Automated Teaching and Individual Differences." AV Communication Review 9: 5-15; January-February 1961.

COULSON, JOHN E., and OTHERS. "Effects of Branching in a Computer Controlled Autoinstructional Device." Journal of Applied Psychology 46: 389-92; December 1962.

371

June 1964



CROWDER, NORMAN A. "Automatic Tutoring by Intrinsic Programming." Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. (Edited by A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser.) Washington, D.C.: Department of Audio-Visual Instruction, National Education Association, 1960. pp. 286-98.

DESSART, DONALD J. "A Study in Programed Learning." School Science and Mathe- matics 62: 513-20; October 1962.

EVANS, JAMES L.; GLASER, ROBERT; and HOMME, LLOYD E. "An Investigation of 'Teaching Machine' Variables Using Learning Programs in Symbolic Logic." Journal of Educational Research 55: 433-52; June-July 1962.

GAGNE, ROBERT M. "The Acquisition of Knowledge." Psychological Review 69: 355-65; July 1962.

GAGNE, ROBERT M., and BASSLER, OTTO C. "Study of Retention of Some Topics of Elementary Nonmetric Geometry." Journal of Educational Psychology 54: 123-31; June 1963.

GAGN?, ROBERT M., and BROWN, LARRY T. "Some Factors in the Programing of Conceptual Learning." Journal of Experimental Psychology 62: 313-21; October 1961.

GAGNE, ROBERT M., and PARADISE, NOEL E. "Abilities and Learning Sets in Knowledge Acquisition." Psychological Monographs: Vol. 75, No. 14 (Whole No. 518), 1961. 23 pp.

GAGNE, ROBERT M., and OTHERS. "Factors in Acquiring Knowledge of a Mathematical Task." Psychological Monographs: Vol. 76, No. 7 (Whole No. 526), 1962. 21 pp.

GELLER, MOLLY. "The Measurement of the Effectiveness of a Teaching Machine Program in the Organic Chemistry Area of First Year College Chemistry." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1: 154-61; Issue 2, 1963. (a)

GELLER, MOLLY S. "Pupils' Attitude Toward Programed Learning." Science Teacher 30: 41-42; March 1963. (b)

GOLDBECK, ROBERT A., and CAMPBELL, VINCENT N. "The Effects of Response Mode and Response Difficulty on Programed Learning." Journal of Educational Psychology 53: 110-18; June 1962.

GOROW, FRANK F. "Teaching Machine Theory Applied to Learning Statistics." Cali- fornia Journal of Educational Research 12: 67-71; March 1961.

HANSON, LINCOLN F., editor. Programs, '63: A Guide to Programed Instructional Mate- rials Available to Educators by September 1963. Bulletin 1964, No. 3. Prepared by the Center for Programed Instruction, Research Division, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Wash- ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1963. 814 pp.

HENDERSON, GEORGE L. "An Independent Classroom Experiment Using Teaching Machine Programmed Materials." Mathematics Teacher 56: 248-51; April 1963.

KALIN, ROBERT. "The Use of Programed Instruction in Teaching an Advanced Mathe- matical Topic." Arithmetic Teacher 9: 160-62; March 1962.

KEISLAR, EVAN R., and MCNEIL, JOHN D. "Teaching Scientific Theory to First Grade Pupils by Audio-Instructional Device." Harvard Educational Review 31: 73-83; Winter 1961.

KEISLAR, EVAN R., and MCNEIL, JOHN D. "A Comparison of Two Response Modes in an Autoinstructional Program with Children in the Primary Grades." Journal of Educational Psychology 53: 127-31; June 1962. (a)

KEISLAR, EVAN R., and MCNEIL, JOHN D. "Teaching Science and Mathematics by Autoinstruction in the Primary Grades: An Experimental Strategy in Curriculum Development." Programmed Learning and Computer-Based Instruction. (Edited by John E. Coulson.) New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1962. Part I, pp. 99-112. (b)

KLAUS, DAVID J. "Programming: A Re-Emphasis on Tutorial Approach." Audiovisual Instruction 6: 130-32, 148; April 1961.

KRUMBOLTZ, JOHN D., and WEISMAN, RONALD G. "The Effect of Overt Versus Covert Responding to Programed Instruction on Immediate and Delayed Retention." Journal of Educational Psychology 53: 89-92; April 1962.

LAMBERT, PHILIP; MILLER, DONALD M.; and WILEY, DAVID E. "Experimental Folklore and Experimentation: The Study of Programmed Learning in the Wauwatosa Public Schools." Journal of Educational Research 55: 485-94; June-July 1962.

LEVIN, GERALD R., and BAKER, BRUCE L. "Item Scrambling in a Self-Instructional Program." Journal of Educational Psychology 54: 138-43; June 1963.

372





LUMSDAINE, A. A., and GLASER, ROBERT, editors. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Washington, D.C.: Department of Audio-Visual Instruc- tion, National Education Association, 1960. 724 pp.

MCGARVEY, PAUL. "Programmed Instruction in Ninth Grade Algebra." Mathematics Teacher 55: 576-79; November 1962.

MCNEIL, JOHN D., and KEISLAR, E\VAN R. "An Experiment in Validating Objectives for the Curriculum in Elementary School Science." Science Education 46: 152-56; March 1962. (a)

MCNEIL, JOHN D., and KEISLAR, EVAN R. "Questions Versus Statements as Stimuli to Children's Learning." AV Communication Review 10: 85-88; March-April 1962. (b)

MAGER, ROBERT F. "On the Sequencing of Instructional Content." Psychological Re- ports 9: 405-13; October 1961.

MAGER, ROBERT F., and CLARK, CECIL. "Explorations in Student-Controlled Instruction." Psychological Reports 13: 71-76; August 1963.

ROE, ARNOLD. "A Comparison of Branching Methods for Programmed Learning." Journal of Educational Research 55: 407-16; June-July 1962.

SKINNER, B. F. "Teaching Machines." Science 128: 969-77; October 24, 1958. SMITH, EDGAR A., and QUACKENBUSH, JACK. "Devereux Teaching Aids Employed in

Presenting Elementary Mathematics in a Special Education Setting." Psychological Reports 7: 333-36; October 1960.

SMITH, NORMAN H. "The Teaching of Elementary Statistics by the Conventional Classroom Method Versus the Method of Programmed Instruction." Journal of Educational Research 55: 417-20; June-July 1962.

SNYGG, DONALD. "The Tortuous Path of Learning Theory." Audiovisual Instruction 7: 8-12; January 1962.

STOLUROW, L. M., and WALKER, C. "A Comparison of Overt and Covert Response in Programmed Learning." Journal of Educational Research 55: 421-29; June-July 1962.

WHITLOCK, GERALD H.; COPELAND, LEWIS C.; and CRAIG, ALBERT M. "Programming Versus Independent Study in Learning Elementary Statistics." Psychological Re- ports 12: 171-74; February 1963.

WITTROCK, M. C. "Response Mode in the Programing of Kinetic Molecular Theory Concepts." Journal of Educational Psychology 54: 89-93; April 1963.

373

June 1964



Documents

Natural Sciences and Mathematics || Programed Instruction in Science and Mathematics