This author states that early man's fears and distrust of fellow man are basic phenomena, which he postulates were caused by lack of communication—a complex process requiring intelligence and understanding. Methods of classroom communication determine the amount of learning by students. Audiovisual materials used in conjunction with proven teaching methods interact with perceptor sensory mechanisms through which learning is accomplished.
Various kinds of audiovisual aids are compared and assessed: chalkboards, the overhead projector and programmed learning are discussed at length but author states much research is still needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McCloskeyGordon, Education and Public Understanding, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1959.
2.
Fowlkes, Gateway to Learning, Audio Visual Council on Public Information, New York 19, New York.
3.
JehringJ. J., “Visual Communication in the Classroom,”Vol. 75, February 2, 1952.
4.
WittichWalterSchullerCharles, Audio Visual Materials, Harper and Brothers, New York, Third Edition, 1962.
5.
GodfreyEleanor P., “A Survey of Audio-Visual Equipment and Materials in U.S. Public School Districts,”Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1931, p. 4.
6.
StrangRuthMcCulloughTraxler, The Improvement of Reading, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, Third Edition, 1961, p. 440.
7.
ReedmanFlorence R.BergEsther L., Classroom Teacher's Guide to Audio Visual Material, Chilton Company, Philadelphia, 1961, p. 80.
8.
ReedmanFlorence R.BergEsther L., Classroom Teacher's Guide to Audio Visual Material, Chilton Company, Philadelphia, 1961, p. 80.
9.
HarrisAlbert J., Effective Teaching of Reading, David McKay Company, New York, 1962.
10.
Time, March 24, 1958.
11.
WittyPaul, “Surveys of Television—1949–62,”School and Society, Vol. 91, No. 2, 1963, pp. 334–336.
12.
SilvermanR. E., “The Comparative Effectiveness of Animated and Static Transparencies.”Technical Report NAVTRADEVCEN, 78–1, U.S. Naval Training Devices Center, Office of Naval Research, Port Washington, L.I., N.Y., April 11, 1958.
13.
ChanceClayton W., “Experimentation in the Adaption of the Overhead Projector Utilizing 200 Transparencies and 800 Overlays in Teaching Engineering Descriptive Geometry Curricula,”Austin, the University of Texas, August 1960, 49 p. (USOE Project No. 243; University Microfilm Pub. No. 61-3610).
14.
StoryGeorge Olk, “The Overhead Promotes Early Love of Reading,”Audio Visual Instruction, Department of Audiovisual Instruction, NEA, April 1962, p. 216.
15.
PulaFred John, “A Comparison Between Projected Slides and Wall Map for Teaching Georgraphical Concepts,” Masters Thesis, University of Massachusetts, School of Education, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1963, pp. 14, 42.
16.
NeelyH. M., “Design and Development of Transparent Overlay Visual Aids for Teaching Basic Principles of Engineering Graphics.”Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, NSF Grant G9291, p. 48.
17.
ChurchJohn F., “A Study of the Effectiveness of Communications Media in Improving Science and Mathematics Instruction,” unpublished report. Albany, New York, 1961.
18.
SchrammWilbur, The Research on Programmed Instruction: An Annotated Bibliography, Washington, D. C.U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964, pp. 1–3.
19.
“Not From Teaching But From Questioning,”Carnegie Corporation of New York Quarterly, October 1961, p. 6.
20.
FinnJames D.PerrinDonald G., Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962, p. 18.
21.
RiegelP., “Programmed Learning and Reading,”Elementary English, March 1963, Vol. 40, pp. 251–254.
22.
RiegelP., “Programmed Learning and Reading,”Elementary English, March 1963, Vol. 40, pp. 251–254.
23.
TaylorStanford E., “University of Delaware Reading Conference,”Educational Developmental Laboratories, Huntington, New York, March 1962.
24.
McNeilJohn D., “Programmed Instruction as a Research Tool in Reading: An Annotated Case,”Journal of Programmed Instruction, 1, 1 (1962).
25.
McNeilJohn D., “Superior Reading Achievement of Boys Through Programmed Instruction versus Inferior Progress under Female Teachers,”Los Angeles: University of California, (undated—probably written in 1962).
26.
MarkleSusan M., Words: A Programmed Course in Vocabulary Development, Chicago, Science Research Associates, 1962.
27.
SchrammWilbur, The Research on Programmed Instruction: An Annotated Bibliography, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964, p. 5.
28.
FryEdward, “Teaching Machines and Reading Instruction,”The Reading Teacher, September 1961, Vol. 15, pp. 43–45.
29.
FryEdward, “Programmed Instruction in Reading,”The Reading Teacher, March 1964, Vol. 17, p. 459.
30.
DaleEdgar, Audio Visual Methods in Teorburg, Dryden Press, N.Y.1954.
31.
KincaidGerald, “Breaking the Learning Barrier,”Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 40, Jan. 1959, pp. 154–157.
32.
DaleEdgar, Audio Visual Methods in Teaching, Dryden Press, New York, 1954.
33.
FinnJames D.PerrinDonald G., Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.
34.
FinnJames D., Audio Visual Equipment Manual, Dryden Press, New York, 1957.
35.
HarrisAlbert J., Effective Teaching of Reading, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1962.
36.
MarkleSusan M., Words: A Programmed Course in Vocabulary Development, Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1962.
37.
McClosekeyGordon, Education and Public Understanding, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1959.
SchrammWilbur, The Research on Programmed Instruction: An Annotated Bibliography, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.
40.
SilvermanR. E., The Comparative Effectiveness of Animated and Static Transparencies, Technical Report NAVTRADEVCEN 78–1, U.S. Naval Training Devices Center, Office of Naval Research, Port Washington, L.I., New York, April 11, 1958. p. 25.
41.
StrangRuthMcCulloughTraxler, The Improvement of Reading, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Third Edition, 1961.
42.
WittichWalterSchullerCharles, Audio-Visual Materials, Harper and Brothers, New York, Third Edition, 1962.
43.
Carnegie Corporation, “Not From Teaching But From Questioning,”Carnegie Corporation of New York Quarterly, New York, October 1964.
44.
Fowlkes, Gateway to Learning, Audio Visual Council on Public Information, New York 19, New York.
45.
FryE., “Teaching Machines and Reading Instruction,”The Reading Teacher, Vol. 15, September 1961.
46.
FryEdward, “Programmed Instruction in Reading,”The Reading Teacher, March 1964, Vol. 17, p. 439.
47.
JehringJ. J., Visual Communication in the Classroom, Vol. 75, February 2, 1952.
48.
KincaidGerald L., Breaking the Learning Barrier, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 49, January, 1959, pp. 154–157.
49.
McNeilJohn D., “Programmed Instruction as a Research Tool in Reading: An Annotated Case,”Journal of Programmed Instruction, 1, 1 (1962).
50.
RiegelP., “Programmed Learning and Reading,”Elementary English, Vol. 40, March 1963.
51.
SleemanPhillip J., “Audio-Visual Materials as a Means of Communication and Learning in the Classroom,”The Catholic Educational Association of Pennsylvania Bulletin. pp. 13–17. Winter, 1964.
52.
SleemanPhillip J., “The Overhead Projector … A Review of Research,”Visucom Magazine, Vol. 2., No. 6, August, 1965.
53.
SleemanPhilip J., “Overhead Projectual Making … a lettering technique,”Reproduction Review, New York, June 1964.
54.
SleemanPhilip J., “A Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Overhead Projection, Teaching Programs, and Conventional Techniques for Dictionary Skills,”Reading Research Quarterly, William S. Gray Collection, University of Chicago, Summer 1966.
55.
SleemanPhilip J., “Photo-Diazo,”Reproduction Review, August 1964.
56.
StoryGeorge O., “The Overhead Projector Promotes Early Love of Reading,”Audio Visual Instruction, Department of Audiovisual Instruction, NEA, April 1962.
57.
StrangRuth, “Reactions to Research in Reading,”The Educational Forum, Vol. 26, January 1962.
58.
TaylorStanford E., “University of Delaware Reading Conference,”Educational Developmental Laboratories, Huntington, New York, March 1962.
59.
Time magazine, March 24, 1958.
60.
WittyPaul, “Surveys of Television-1949-62,”School and Society, Vol. 91, No. 2, 1963.
61.
ChanceClayton W., “Experimentation in the Adoption of the Overhead Projector Utilizing 200 Transparencies and 800 Overlays in Teaching Engineering Descriptive Geometry Curricula,”Austin, Texas, The University of Texas, August, 1960, p. 49 (USOE Project No. 243, University of Microfilm Publication No. 61-3610).
62.
GodfreyEleanor P., “A Survey of Audio Visual Equipment and Materials in U.S. Public School districts,”Washington, D.C., Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1931.
63.
NeelyN. M., “Design and Development of Transparent Overlay Visual Aids for Teaching Basic Principles of Engineering Graphics,”Kansas State University, Mahatten, Kansas, NSF Grant G 9291.
64.
ChurchJohn G., “A Study of the Effectiveness of Communications Media in Improving Science and Mathematics Instruction,” unpublished report, Albany, New York, 1961.
65.
McNeilJohn D., “Superior Reading Achievement of Boys Through Programmed Instruction versus Inferior Progress under Female Teachers,”Los Angeles: University of California, (Undated-probably written in 1962).
66.
PulaFred John, “A Comparison Between Projected Slides and Wall Map for Teaching Geographical Concepts,” Masters Thesis, University of Massachusetts, School of Education, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1963.
67.
SleemanPhilip J., “A Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Overhead Projection, Teaching Programs, and Conventional Techniques for Dictionary Skills,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University School of Education, May, 1966.
