The interactive videodisc player, managed by a microcomputer, combines the unique instructional qualities of video with the interactive flexibility of the computer. This article reports on the design considerations involved in the development of a series of eight interactive videodisc modules in pre-calculus mathematics. This system, entitled Preparing for Calculus, takes advantage of the unique attributes of each component of the system. The materials provide systematic instruction along dimensions that teachers often have difficulty implementing in classroom situations, but which have been demonstrated to be effective in mathematics instruction. Preliminary field test results indicate that the materials are highly effective, both for review and for initial learning of new concepts and operations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HendersonR. W. and LandesmanE. M., Student Preparation for the Study of Calculus, Technical Report No. 86-1. Group for Research in Mathematics and Science, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, 1986.
2.
University of California/California State University Joint Workgroup on Diagnostic Testing in Pre-Calculus Mathematics, Report to the Joint Projects Steering Committee, unpublished report, University of California, 1979.
3.
Ad Hoc Committee on Applied Mathematics Training, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council, The Role of Applications in the Undergraduate Mathematics Curriculum, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1979.
4.
American Council on Education, Higher Education's Agenda in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, statement to the United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology, 1983.
5.
California Postsecondary Education Commission, Promises to Keep: Remedial Education in California's Public Colleges and the University, California Postsecondary Education Committee, Report 83–2, Sacramento, CA, 1983.
6.
National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Report to the American People and the National Science Board, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1983.
7.
MolnarA. R., The Search for New Intellectual Technologies, Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 10: 1, pp. 104–112, 1982.
8.
ChuG. C. and SchrammW., Learning from Television: What the Research Says, National Association of Educational Broadcasters, Washington, D.C., 1967.
9.
BurnsP. K. and BozemanW. C., Computer-Assisted Instruction and Mathematics Achievement: Is There a Relationship?, Educational Technology, 21, pp. 32–39, 1981.
10.
HartleyS. S., Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Individually Paced Instruction in Mathematics, Dissertation Abstracts International, 38A–4004A, 1978.
11.
HendersonR. W.LandesmanE. M., and KachuckI., Video/Computer Instruction in Mathematics: Field Test of an Interactive Approach, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, pp. 207–224, 1985.
12.
JamisonD.SuppesP., and WellsS., The Effectiveness of Alternative Instructional Media: A Survey, Review of Educational Research, 44, pp. 1–61, 1974.
13.
KearsleyG.HunterB., and SeidelR. J., Two Decades of Computer Based Instruction Projects: What Have We Learned?, Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 3: 3–4, 1983.
14.
KulikJ. A.BangertR. L., and WilliamsG. W., Effects of Computer-Based Teaching on Secondary School Students, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, pp. 19–26, 1983.
15.
LinnM. C.LaymanJ. W., and NachmiasR., Cognitive Consequences of Microcomputer-Based Laboratories: Graphing Skills Development, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, pp. 244–253, 1987.
16.
VinsonhalerJ. F. and BassR. K., A Summary of Ten Major Studies on CAI Drill and Practice, Educational Technology, 12, pp. 29–32, 1972.
17.
BanduraA., Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
18.
HendersonR. W., Self-Regulated Learning: Implications for the Design of Instructional Media, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, pp. 405–427, 1986.
19.
RosenthalR. L. and ZimmermanB. J., Social Learning and Cognition, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1978.
20.
ZimmermanB. J., Social Learning Theory: A Contextualist Account of Cognitive Functioning, in Recent Advances in Cognitive Developmental Theory, BrainerdC. J. (ed.), Springer, New York, NY, 1983.
21.
ClarkR. E., Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, Review of Educational Research, 53, pp. 445–459, 1983.
22.
ClarkR. E., The Importance of Treatment Explication: A Reply to J. Kulik, C.-L. Kulik, and R. Bangert-Downs, Educational Computing Research, 1, 1985.
23.
GoodT. and GrouwsD., The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Project: An Experimental Study in Fourth-Grade Classrooms, Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, pp. 645–652, 1975.
24.
CornoL., The Study of Teaching for Mathematics Learning: View Through Two Lenses, Educational Psychologist, 23: 2, pp. 181–202, 1988.
25.
VygotskyL. S., Thought and Language, Wiley, New York, NY, 1956.
26.
WertschJ. V. and RogoffB., Editors' Notes, in Children's Learning in the “Zone of Proximal Development,”RogoffB. and WertschJ. V. (eds.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1–6, 1984.
27.
RogoffB. and GardnerW., Adult Guidance of Cognitive Development, in Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 95–116, 1984.
28.
HendersonR. W.LandesmanE. M., and KachuckI., The Interactive Videodisc System in the Zone of Proximal Development: Academic Motivation and Learning Outcomes in Precalculus, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 1988.
29.
HendersonR. W.LandesmanE. M., and KachuckI., Student Goal Orientation and Self-Selection of Academic Support During Videodisc Instruction, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 1988.
