In this article, the author seeks to describe and evaluate the effectiveness of automated instruction by stressing the need for education to take a new look at technology. Following a definition of instructional technology, the author discusses the problem of reading and automation as one of perspective. Additional research evidence is presented and definition and utilization problems are discussed as support for consideration of automation as part of our educational program.
References
1.
BriggsL. J.Intensive classes for superior students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1947, 38, 207–215.
2.
DetambelM. H.StolurowL. M.Stimulus sequence and concept learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, 51, 34–40.
3.
EstesW. K.Learning theory and the new mental chemistry. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 207–223.
4.
FersterC. B.SaponS. M.An application of recent developments in psychology to the teaching of German. Harvard Educational Review, 1958, 28, 58–69.
5.
GagneR. M.Military training and principles of learning. American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 83–91.
6.
GlaserR.HommeL. E.EvansJ. L.The Ruleg (rule example) system for the construction of learning programs. Research Report under the Cooperative Research Program of the U.S. Office of Education at the Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, 1960.
7.
HommeL. E.GlaserR.Relationships between the programmed textbook and teaching machines. Automatic Teaching: The State of the Art. (Edited by GalanterE. H..) New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.
8.
JensenB. T.An independent-study laboratory using self-scoring tests. Journal of Educational Research, 1949, 43, 134–137.
9.
JonesR. S.Integration of instructional with self-scoring measuring procedures. Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations, 1954, 65, 157–165.
10.
LittleJ. K.Results of use of machines for testing and for drill upon learning in educational psychology. Journal of Experimental Education, 1934, 3, 45–49.
11.
McmurrinS. M.To improve learning. A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States by the Commission on Instructional Technology. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
12.
OrdahlL. E.OrdahlG.Qualitative differences between levels of intelligence in feeble-minded children. Journal of Psycho Asthenics, 1915, 1, 1–50.
13.
PorterD.Some effects of year long teaching machine instruction. Automatic Teachings The State of the Art. (Edited by GalanterE. H..) New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.
14.
PorterD.Teaching machines. Harvard Graduate School of Education Association Bulletin, 1958, 3, 15.
15.
PresseyS. L.Development and appraisal of devices providing immediate automatic scoring of objective tests and concomitant self-instruction. Journal of Psychology, 1950, 29, 417–447.
16.
PresseyS. L.A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores and teaches. School and Society, 1926, 23, 373–376.
17.
PresseyS. L.A machine for automatic teaching of drill materials. School and Society, 1927, 25, 549–552.
18.
SilbermanH. F.CoulsonJ.A draft summary of findings in an exploratory teaching machine study. Automated Teaching Bulletin, 1959, 1, 35–37.
StegDEffects of individual programmed instruction on initial reading skills and language behavior in early childhood. International Reading Association Conference Proceedings, 1969, 13 (1), 614–617.
