Programed instruction in the schools: Innovation and innovator

TEACHING MACHINES AND PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION

PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION IN THE SCHOOLS: INNOVATION AND INNOVATOR

LASSAR G. GOTKIN AND LEO S. GOLDSTEIN

The article which Jollows reports on a number of "controlled" utilization studies and is excerpted from a chapter o] a book, Innovation in Education, edited by Matt Miles and due Jor release in February 1964 by the Bureau of Pub- lications, Teachers College, Columbia University. The coauthors o[ this article have written, field tested, and conducted research in programed instruction while associated with the Center for Pro- grained Instruction, Inc., and are pres- ently involved in research activities related to programming at the Institute for Developmental Studies, Department oJ Psychiatry, New York Medical College.

Educators considering adopting programed instruction are interested in evidence indicating that programed instruction will produce better results than those they now obtain. Such interest has given rise to a host of studies com- paring "programed" with "conventional" instruction. The strategy of these studies has been to pit the classroom teacher against "the teacher in the program." Using the standard of the job being done in the schools, these studies (20) show

the teacher in the programed textbook, by and large, to be as effective as, and more efficient than, the classroom teacher: students learn as much in less time from programed instruction. These studies, however, though they have been necessary in the past and will be needed in the future, have three important limi- tations: (a) The results are not gener- alizable, since they depend on the particular program, the quality of classroom instruction, and the evaluative instruments used; (b) the results of such comparisons are group comparisons, and hide the failure of programs currently available for classroom use to really cope with individual differences; (c) in pitting "the teacher in the program" against the teacher in the classroom, to compare "programed" with "conventional" instruction, these studies have contributed to the practice of lim- iting the teacher's role in making use of programed materials to accomplish educational goals.

The role of the teacher has also been limited by the procedures employed in developing programed materials and in carrying out basic research. Gotkin and Goldstein have pointed out:

[277]

278 AV COMMUNICATION REVIEW

The procedure of developing, testing, and doing basic research with programed materials is, unhappily, devoid of teacher involve- ment except in the instances where teacher and programer are one and the same. In the creation of a program, sequences of frames are tested by administering them to individual students and, on the basis of student feedback, the sequences are rewritten and refined. Ideally, this process is repeated until a pol- ished, but not necessarily finished, product emerges. The program then undergoes field- testing in the classroom where teacher qua teacher participation is kept to a minimum, so that the program may be assessed on its own merits. Basic research investigating fac- tors of programed instruction such as response mode, amount of reinforcement, pacing, repetition, etc., can be studied best in a "teacher-less" environment.

TEACHER USE OF PROGRAMED

INSTRUCTION

What ought to be the relationship between "the teacher in the program" and the teacher in the classroom? While theorists are preoccupied with specula- tion concerning the ultimate "ought," schools and teachers are beginning to provide evidence of flexible uses of programed materials, in and out of the classroom setting. The use of programed instruction, itself an innovation, may be incorporated into the educational system without disrupting existing classroom practices; or, the introduction of programed instruction in a school system may effect a change in either curriculum or classroom structure.

Nondisruptive Use of Programed Instruction: Homework

A study done in Huntington, Long Island, with a spelling program found that students working at home made gains equivalent to those who worked on the program in school.

In New Rochelle, New York, a 365- frame sequence on the gas laws was given to high school students with in-

structions to go through the program at home, writing their answers on an accompanying sheet which was to be turned in five days later. At that time a written test was administered. Daniel Wagner, the supervising teacher, felt that valuable class time was saved and that students with a sound mathematics background did not need supplementary work on the program itself (although those without such a foundation required added instruction).

In Hillside, New Jersey, two classes used a grammar program in school, for 40-minute periods three days a week. Two other classes worked on the program at home three times a week, an- swering 50 to 100 frames per session, depending on the organization of the materials. The students who worked at home were given the entire program and told when each set was due. The paper on which the pupil had written his re- sponses (his homework) was submitted to the teacher on the day it was due. The few children who had not finished the assignment were required to do it that day in order to keep up with the rest of the class. Some resistance from the homework group had been antic- ipated. Walter Krumbiegel, the principal who supervised the experiment, reported that none materialized. Some of the students who worked on the program in school and did not have the opportunity for classroom discussion intimated that they would have liked the chance to discuss the material in class. Matched groups from the in-school use and homework classes achieved statistically equivalent results on the standardized criterion test. Classes that worked on the programs at home were able to cover other topics in class.

In Skokie, Illinois, a vocabulary- building program served as the textbook

TEACHING MACHINES AND PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION 279

for a summer course in vocabulary im- provement for bright fifth and sixth graders. Students were required to work in class on the program only five minutes a day, but had over-all weekly assignments to complete. Merrel Flair, coordinator of Special Services and Re- search, reported that the experiment with the children working on their own was a success. The teacher has developed supplementary exercises for classroom use, based on the program. A summary report is being prepared.

In teaching statistics, one of the present writers has found that approximately half the students are unable to complete textbook reading assignments--and that about half of those who can complete these assignments are unable to hold intelligent discourse about what they have read. Classroom teaching then be- comes a somewhat detailed presentation of the textual material at a rather low level. A most common report from students, indicating the ineffectiveness of this scheme, is, "I understood every- thing when it was presented in class, but when I looked it over at home, I couldn't understand it at all." With present use of programed instruction as homework material in statistics, the author finds students coming to the classroom with intelligent questions and ability to discuss concepts at a high level.

Silverman (21) has reported similar experiences, using the Holland and Skinner program in place of a textbook in an undergraduate course on the psychology of learning. Early in the course, the students (majors in psychology and education) went through the entire program as homework assignments. Post- tests indicated that the majority of the students had mastered the content. In- stead of spending time in class present-

ing the basic concepts, the instructor was able to begin with applications and then go into other learning theories. Sil- verman reported that spirited discussion made teaching a pleasure, and estimated that a 40 percent saving in class time resulted from use of the program.

These uses of programed instructional materials as homework indicate that it is possible to incorporate programed materials into the curriculum without bringing about radical changes in the operating arrangements of the school. In using programs as homework instead of class materials, the teacher is freed of the problems created by radical differences in the rates of progress among students. Teachers can exert practical controls over the use of programs by collecting answer sheets and testing periodically.

A most intriguing advantage of using programed materials at home rather than in class was offered by a youngster who commented that when working at home he had time to think. In school he hurried, trying to maintain the pace of the faster students; he reported that he spent twice as much time on lessons when he worked at home.

Social psychologists have long been interested in social facilitation, the influence of the group on individual progress. The effect of group pressure on individual rates, attention span, and achievement seems worthy of ex- ploration.

Programed Instruction as a Lever ]or Innovation

Programed instruction provides educators with a lever for uprooting traditional classroom procedures. Specu- lations about the potential impact of programed instruction on the educa-


tional system have ranged from the removal of illiteracy in underdeveloped areas (10) to the development of computer-based programs (5). Instead of speculating, let us offer some illustra- tions of uses of programed instruction that show, here and now, some aspects of its potential educational impact.

An Innovation in Classroom Struc- ture. John McGowan, a teacher in Man- hasset, Long Island, his principal, Henry Bruner, and the administration have used programed instruction to break the traditional classroom structure into a team approach that has resulted in more individualization. It is difficult to describe the Manhasset Plan, since each year the changes indicate further innovation.

This past year, 100 eighth graders (four classes), working at the same time in one room, used English 2600 (a grammar program) for three class periods a week. When a student completed a portion of the program, he took a test on that unit. While the test was being corrected by a participating teacher, the student began the next unit. Within a few minutes, the graded test was returned to the student. The teacher reviewed the student's errors with him. If the unit test achievement was below 80 percent, the student was required to repeat the unit. An equivalent form of the unit test was administered upon completion of the reviewed unit. The manda- tory achievement level had to be attained before the student was permitted to ad- vance in the program.

The content of English 2600 is equivalent to more than a year's work in English grammar at the eighth grade level in Manhasset. It was assumed that a student who completed the program with at least 80 percent proficiency for each unit had mastered the material.

Comparison with previous years' classes revealed a 10 percent increase in standardized test achievement for those using the program. The increase is statistically significant, and was achieved in less time.

The problem of differing rates was handled by placing students in individualized composition classes upon completion of the program. The first 25 students constituted the first class, the next 25 the second class, and so on. The principles of grammar which the students had learned from the program were then applied to English composition.

Reports of previous trials with Eng- lish 2600 suggest that brighter students have been bored with the program. No such reaction has been reported for the Manhasset students. Perhaps elements that contribute to "boredom" were counteracted by (a) permitting students to bypass units on the basis of pretest results; (b) using unit tests (for most students, seeing that their answers to individual frames are correct is of little consequence compared to obtaining scores that contribute to school grades); (c) providing the student with rapid feedback as to the results of unit tests, including individual explanation of the results; and (d) providing individualized instruction in composition upon completion of the program.

About 10 percent of the students found the program too difficult; they were placed in a special class in which the program was augmented with classroom instruction and a variety of supplementary teaching materials.

This year, following upon the innovations of last year, programed materials in vocabulary building and materials in spelling have also been adopted for use in the same over-all plan. Upon satisfac- tory completion of the spelling mate-


rials, students will be sent on to the grammar program, then to vocabulary building, and finally to individualized composition.

The implications of the Manhasset Plan are many, but what is most unique are the changes in the logistics of classroom practice and teacher behavior. In the near future, we can expect large numbers of investigations of the use of programed materials in educational set- tings. For want of another and better term, we have been referring to these as implementation studies. Such investiga- t ions -un l ike most current studies of programed materials--will include the teacher as a variable. In basic research investigating variables of programed instruction such as response mode, amount of reinforcement, pacing, and repetition, it is usually thought essential to keep the teacher's participation to an abso- lute minimum. But from the point of view of school usage, it is also important to investigate variables outside the program: not only the teacher's role, but the degree of administrative support, modifications of classroom structure, and procedures for coping with differences in individual rates.

The results of such studies will not finally define the parameters of programed instruction, but they will contribute to our scanty knowledge about the impact of programed instruction on the classroom.

Innovations in Curriculum

Discipline-Based Subiect Matter. In the summer of 1962, one of the authors supervised the field test of the first 27 units of a grammar program in English sentence structure (18) . The subject matter programed is based on Noam Chomsky's theory of linguistics, an ap-

proach to grammar rarely attempted until graduate school. In 20 to 25 hours, 10 sixth, seventh, and eighth graders proceeded through these units. Supervis- ing this field test was rather like being required to umpire a baseball game knowing only the rules of basketball. After a few days, the supervisor had the unnerving experience of being unable to answer questions posed by these junior high school students. Fortunately, their "managers" were not present to complain about the incompetence of the "umpire." The successful programming of such esoteric subject matter seems particularly relevant educationally in light of the currently increased concern with introducing children to modern curricula based on subject matter disciplines (16) and the problems this raises for the role of the teacher (11, 23).

In-Service Education for Teachers. Programed instruction offers a way of bringing new subject matter to teachers as well as to students. In the description below, the mathematics teachers in the Jefferson County, Kentucky, school system used programed instruction to study the modern mathematics they were to introduce into the curriculum.

The group with whom these materials were used was not typical of those for whom the [programed] texts were intended, since all were members of a teachers' study group which was preparing for the following year's work in ninth and tenth grade algebra. In no way did we attempt to evaluate the out- comes in terms of learning for ourselves . . . . For us the books were available, the content was similar to that we desired to teach, and the possibility of homework assignments of a different kind was evident.

The study group was composed of ten high school mathematics teachers who were charged with the responsibility of outlining a program in math for bright ninth and tenth grade pupils. All of us had obtained a bachelor's degree in mathematics, and all had attended institutes of various kinds during previous summers and academic years . . . .

All of the teachers had taught the Univer- sity of Maryland mathematics course for jun-


ior high school for 3 years and the SMSG geometry course for one year. Our next step was the preparation for our teaching SMSG algebra courses.

Our in-service work consisted of sessions of 21,~ hours on alternate weeks (excluding holidays), or 18 sessions in all, plus a three- week workshop held last June. During the June workshop, teachers were engaged for 6 hours each day, five days per week . . . the time spent on the Science Research Associates materials . . . was approximately half of the above time.

The teachers followed the course exactly as their pupils would have been required [ to] , using the answer booklets provided. Our pur- poses were slightly different, however. We assigned ourselves three jobs to have been done before each session: (1) to make an- notated references for each proposed lesson; (2) to suggest approximate length of all assignments to be made from the texts; (3) to note any errors in the content and to note content which would need to be taught prior to a pupil 's use of the texts. The teachers did have in their rooms ( thanks to National Defense Education Act) some fairly good references (from 50-70 volumes). Each "lesson" covered from 1-4 of the chapters in the ten books of the series?

Advanced Work for Gifted Children. In Farmingdale, Long Island, an explor- atory study (9) has demonstrated the potential of using programs to introduce advanced material for gifted elementary school children. The Farmingdale study also illustrates certain kinds of administrative problems that need to be faced in using programed instruction.

The auto-instructional program used was the first four books (10 chapters, 1,262 frames) of Susan M. Markle's Words (fifth experimental revision). The subject matter of the program might be labeled vocabulary building, or word attack skills, but is more ade- quately characterized by the author:

The verbal behavior that this program has attempted to produce as an end result might be called the ability to infer meaning. A student who has mastered such a skill can inspect an unfamiliar word, divide it into plausible units, search his own vocabulary

1Letter from Robert D. Neill to Lassar G. Gotkin, Feb. 6, 1963.

for words containing these units, arrive at an approximate definition of each unit, con- struct therefrom an approximate definition of the new word, and test this definition for its reasonableness in the context in which the word occurs (14).

While the findings of this study sub- stantiated the efficacy of using programed materials to present advanced subject matters to gifted children, the fourth and fifth graders failed to achieve the level of mastery obtained by eighth graders.

Possible explanations for the "failure" of these students to achieve a higher level of mastery fall into two categories, those of an administrative and peda- gogical nature and those intrinsic to the learner and the leaming process.

These were administrative and peda- gogical considerations:

1. Special classes were formed for the experiment, and more time was spent in moving from room to room than in the actual use of the materials.

2. The fourth and fifth graders were mixed in a single class; this seemed to influence the fifth graders nega- tively.

3. The time to complete the four books was compressed, especially at the end of the experimental period, when the work in the booklet was most difficult.

4. At the outset of the experiment, the teachers were not conversant with programed instruction.

5. The teachers were also not familiar with the content of the program; this was especially important for the teacher who was required to augment the program.

The main consideration related to the learner and the learning process was that the fourth and fifth graders lacked the "entry behavior" required for the


program. This entry behavior might be generally described as the three to four extra years of experience with language that an eighth grader has over a fourth or fifth grader. The eighth grader has encountered informally, and perhaps formally, a considerable number of words and word parts taught in this program. Learning the meaning of words and word parts that are somewhat familiar is quite different from learning completely new material.

To raise the level of achievement of these fourth and fifth graders on this subject matter, two similar strategies seem possible. Both depend upon analysis of the test results and error rates. The first strategy involves rewriting the entire program to make it appropriate for gifted fourth and fifth graders; the second requires supplementary instruction by the teacher on those aspects of the program which are found through item and error analysis to be inadequate.

The first strategy would be revealing, since it depends upon empirical identi- fication of the entry behavior required for learning from the program. How- ever, in terms of time, money, and talent, it represents an enormous programming commitment. The effects of the second strategy are currently being explored in Farmingdale. Preliminary analysis of the results for this year (with the teacher interacting with the program) shows that every student in this year's fourth grade class has achieved above the mean performance of last year's fourth and fifth graders. Mean performance last year of fourth and fifth graders was 69 percent; the lowest fourth grade score this year was 74 percent.

The Farmingdale study is of practical significance for educators concerned with improving the education of the academically talented. Bruner (2) has

suggested, "Experience over the past decade points to the fact that our schools may be wasting precious years by post- poning the teaching of many important subjects on the ground that they are too difficult." The content of the Words program represents innovation at the junior high school level, let alone at the elementary school level. The Commis- sion on English of the College Entrance Examination Board has recommended that the curriculum for coUege-prepara- tory high school students include sys- tematic instruction in vocabulary building and word derivation (6). However, few teachers possess the subject matter training or competence to teach this recommended subject matter--which is the content of the program.

Ideally, the first step in introducing the new curriculum would be to enable the teachers to learn the content by going through the program. However, if time for such preparation is not available, as was the case in Farmingdale, programed instructional materials offer the teacher the opportunity to proceed through the program a few steps ahead of the students. Thus, the first time the program is used, the teacher functions as a learner, as a supervisor, and as an observer. In these capacities the teacher has the opportunity to assess the problems inherent in the program and can formulate plans for remedying them.

The importance of the Farmingdale study extends beyond its relevance for introducing advanced subject matters early in the curriculum. The content of the Words program includes a method oJ inquiry for inferring and testing the meaning of unfamiliar words. What Dr. Markle is teaching is in harmony with Bruner's concern with the structure of knowledge.


There is at least one major matter that is left unsettled even by a large scale revision of curricula in the direction indicated. Mas- tery of the fundamental ideas of a field involves not only the grasping of general principles, but also the development of an attitude toward learning and inquiry, toward guessing and hunches, toward the possibility of solving problems on one's own (2) .

Three types of evidence were obtained that the students made gains in the ability to discover the formation and meaning of words:

1. The gains on the final test were pro- portionately greater for the section of the test requiring the construction of words.

2. Those students who achieved more on Books I and II scored higher on the pretest for Books III and IV, a result indicating transfer.

3. In a group meeting, subjects showed facility in deriving new words from unfamiliar roots.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND

PROGRAMED LEARNING

Ability and Achievement

The revolutionary promise of programed instruction has been that each student, proceeding at his own rate, would reach terminal behavior as long as he completed the program (22). Upon completion of the program, a class's range of performance would be narrowed radically. The correlations between intelligence and posttest performance would be low. But despite the en- couraging findings of time saved with equivalent and sometimes superior re- suits, little evidence has been obtained of the greater promise of "assuring mastery at every stage," with subject matter approximating any meaningful segment of the curriculum, across a grade level

of students with the usual range of abilities.

In Denver, where a grammar program was used with a single grade, no significant differences were found between gains made by the teacher-taught groups and the groups using the program (17). When the results were analyzed by three ability levels, the highest ability group, starting with the highest pretest scores, learned the most; the lowest ability group, which had the most to learn, gained least. The posttest achievement of the lowest group did not even surpass the pretest achievement of the middle ability group. Results such as these seem to be the rule rather than the ex- ception. (It should be mentioned that teachers were equally unsuccessful in coping with the lowest ability level.)

Boredom

One way to examine the failure of programed instruction to mitigate differences in achievement involves reference to the problem of boredom (Cf. 7). Low motivation to work at a learning task is a typical feature of any learning situation. Practicing before a football game, listening to a lecture, or reading a text may all evoke boredom from a learner. Widespread boredom in any learning activity is presumably an index of a failure at genuine individualization of instruction.

First, it is evidence that the innovation may not be evoking vigorous, goal- directed activity from the learner; we may thus have legitimate reservations about his learning (though learners can and do learn a great deal without being excited about it). Secondly, regardless of the learning problems associated with low motivation, the existence of boredom seems to be very crucial in affecting


the relative speed with which any innovation--programed instruction not ex- cepted---is likely to diffuse through school systems. Brickell (1) has pointed out how (in the absence of clear-cut criteria for evaluation) teachers tend to judge the efficacy of an innovation by whether the "kids are interested."

The single most common comment students make about programed instruction, after using it for a period of time, is that it is a boring way to learn. (Any- one wishing proof that there is some basis for such reports should try the Holland-Skinner program. But remem- ber: most students find textbooks boring, too.) Programmers have become increasingly sensitive about these reports. One of their favorite topics when they get together is, "How do you make programs interesting while insuring complete learning?"

To understand the meaning of reported boredom, we must recognize that the student is required to work when going through a program. In requiring the student to respond as he reads, the programmer is coercing the student; he does not permit the student the luxury of "tuning out," as is the case in classroom situations. When a student be- comes uninterested in a lecture or discussion, he merely lets his mind wander.

Fitting the Program to the Learner

It would seem that different students need quite different programs to cope with a given body of subject matter. The "headmaster" of a unique school being run in an Alabama prison has described (12) a system in which mathematics instruction is carried out through use of programs and supervised by in- mates of the prison. The inmate-coun- selor may approach McKee with, "Jack

is having trouble with the Temac algebra. I think his reading level is too low. Should he be shifted to the Grolier algebra?" McKee has discovered that his school does not need an algebra program; it needs algebra programs. His inmate-counselors have found that students who cannot learn from one program can cope with another.

What is being done here is far more radical than a Crowderian branch; learners are being branched onto an en- tirely different program. And examination of both programs suggests that neither would have much appeal for the above-average student. What is advo- cated here, then, is that the style of "the teacher in the program" must be matched with individual learning styles. It is time to give up the notion--often attributed to Skinner but not shared by him (22) that any single sequence is the optimal sequence for all learners. Otherwise, programed instruction will fall far short of its promise as an innovation.

Conclusion

Although evidence has already been provided in a limited number of areas that students using programed instruction learn as effectively and more effi- ciently, compared with conventionally taught students, there is little evidence that programs thus far written for classroom use really individualize classroom instruction. To pass through a single instructional path at one's own rate cannot be equated with the classical tutorial situation. To argue otherwise is to offer a naive notion of individualized instruction.

By enabling students to proceed in- dependently, and at their own pace, programed instruction does break the traditional lockstep of classroom pro-


cedure. In breaking the lockstep it makes an enormous stride forward in individ- ualizing instruction. But that is only one dimension of individualization. As Markle (13, 15) has illustrated in re- cent papers, imaginative programmers can do more to approximate the tutorial situation. And as McGowan and his associates at Manhasset have demonstrated, programed instruction can provide teachers with the opportunity to work with students individually. Imag- inative programmers and teachers will, hopefully, take advantage of the opportunity to bring the innovation of programed instruction to its full educational fruition.

REFERENCES

1. Brickell, H. M. Organizing New York State/or Educational Change. Albany, N.Y.: State Education Department, 1961.

2. Bruner, J. The Process o/ Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

3. Center for Programed Instruction, In- formation Division. Programs '63: A Guide to Programed Instruction Ma- terials. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1963(a).

4. Center for Programed Instruction, In- formation Division. The Use o] Pro- grained Instruction in U.S. Schools. Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1963(b).

5. Coulson, J. E., editor. Programed Learning and Computer-Based In- struction. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1962.

6. Fraser, D. M. Current Curriculum Studies in Academic Subjects. Wash- ington, D.C.: National Education As- sociation, 1962.

7. Gotkin, L. G. "Programed Instruction in the Schools: Individual Differences, the Teacher, and Programing Styles." Paper read at RCA Lecture Series, Camden, New Jersey, September 26, 1962.

8. Gotkin, L. G., and Goldstein, L. S. "School Utilization of Programed In-

struction: Implementation Studies." Programed Instruction 1: 3; February 1962.

9. Gotkin, L. G., and Massa, N. "Pro- gramed Instruction and the Academi- cally Gifted: The Effects of Creativity and Teacher Behavior on Programed Instruction with Younger Learners." Paper read at American Education Research Association Meetings, 1963.

10. Komoski, K. "An Immodest Proposal Concerning the Use of Programed In- struction in Emerging Nations." Paper read at American Management Asso- ciation Conference, New York, Au- gust 7, 1962.

11. Lindsey, M. "Decision-Making and the Teacher." Curriculum Crossroads. (Edited by A. H. Passow.) New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Col- lege, Columbia University, 1962. pp. 27-40.

12. McKee, J. "The Use of Programed Instruction in a Correctional Institu- tion." Paper read at American Psycho- logical Association Meetings, 1962.

13. Markle, S. M. "Adjusting a Program to Individual Differences." Paper read at RCA Lecture Series, Camden, New Jersey, September 26, 1962(a).

14. Markle, S. M. Teachers Manual /or Words: A Programed Course in Vo- cabulary Development. Chicago: Sci- ence Research Associates, 1962(b).

15. Markle, S. M. "The Lowest Common Denominator: A Persistent Problem in Programing." Programed Instruc- tion 2: 4-5; February 1963.

16. Phenix, P. H. "The Disciplines as Cur- riculum Content." Curriculum Cross- roads. (Edited by A. H. Passow.) New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer- sity, 1962. pp. 57-65.

17. Reed, J. E., and Hyman, J. L. "An Experiment Involving the Use of English 2600, An Automated Instruc- tion Text." Journal o[ Educational Re- search 55: 476-84; June-July 1962.

18. Rogovin, S. Modern English Sentence Structure: A Programed Textbook. New York: Random House, in press.

19. Schramm, W. Programed Instruction Today and Tomorrow. New York: Fund for the Advancement of Educa- tion, 1962.


20. Silberman, H. F. "Self-Teaching De- vices and Programed Materials." Re- view o] Educational Research 32: 179-93; April 1962.

21. Silverman, R. E. "Programed Instruc- tion in Higher Education." Paper read at Special Lecture Series, Teachers College, Columbia University, Janu- ary 9, 1963.

22. Skinner, B. F. "Teaching Machines." Science 128: 1-9; October 1958.

23. Wayland, S. R. "The Teacher as De- cision-Maker." Curriculum Cross- roads. (Edited by A. H. Passow.) New York: Bureau of Publications, Teach- ers College, Columbia University, 1962. pp. 41-52.

ADDITIONAL FRAMES FROM THE EDITOR

Two research reports were received recently which should be of great interest to those concerned with "new" uses for programed materials. One reports a provocative, serendipitous outcome of a study designed to explore Oral and Non- Oral Methods of Teaching Reading by an Auto-Instructional Device; the other, Comparative Research on Methods and Media for Presenting Programed Courses in Mathematics and English.

John D. McNeil and Evan R. Keislar of the University of California, Los Angeles, report in the first study that in the analysis of data, the following was found:

. . . kindergarten boys learned significantly more under programed learning conditions than girls, but the girls learned significantly more than the boys under instruction by female teachers; the boys' superiority in reading skills taught by auto-instruction was not maintained when they were placed under direction of female teachers.

Evidence obtained from ratings of class- mates showed that under ordinary classroom conditions boys were perceived as (a) re- ceiving more negative comments from their teachers and (b) given fewer opportunities to respond in their reading groups. The teachers themselves saw boys as less ready for reading.

We believe, therefore, that the findings suggest that inferiority of boys in learning to read may be attributable to social influences in the classroom. Because boys are less con- forming than girls, the attention given them by the teacher may be less educative than that offered girls. There was evidence that a positive relationship exists between the vari-

able of reading progress and children's percep- tion of (a) negative comments from teachers and (b) denial of opportunity to respond in the reading groups.

The purpose of this investigation has been to determine whether there exists any relationship between oral responding in learning to read and achievement in recognition and un- derstanding of written words and sentences. The technique of programed instruction was chosen for studying this subject. These were three aspects to the study: an experimental phase, a follow-up of the learners' progress, and an application of the auto-instructional program in the kindergarten.

This USOE Cooperative Research study points up the potential of using programs to explore many areas of the student's learning environment, after these instructional materials have been developed and validated.

Pe rhaps , p r o g r a m e d ins t ruc t ion ' s greatest contribution toward obtaining excellence in education will be the "mar- riage" it brings about, or forms, among the many disciplines in the educational arena. One may ask what other innovation in education has been able to bring together psychologists; audiovisual, curriculum, and subject-matter specialists; test, text, and machine producers; admin- istrators; and reading specialists--with the fervor and dedication which has been displayed to date over p rog ramming- - all in order to focus on and develop the

Documents

Programed instruction in the schools: Innovation and innovator