PROGRAMMED ENSTRUCTION FOR GROUPS
OF TEACHERS 3N REMOTE LOCATIONS: PROTOTYPE
DEVELOPMENT

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MlCHlGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
HARRY A. PEARSON
1969

. . ..—-m~«wm-wn

-f»1E.‘.“3

0-169

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

5...: JAR/1R Y "‘
Michigan State
Univczsib;

szfl

       
   

PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION‘FOR GROUPS OF TEACHERS
IN REMOTE LOCATIONS: PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT

presented by

Harry A. Pearson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhoDo degree in Education

M (ALLOW 1

Major professor

Date®MQAMJ l - iciéOCt
6 I

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION FOR GROUPS OF TEACHERS
IN REMOTE LOCATIONS: PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT

By

Harry A. Pearson

The problem of providing adequate education for all
children is acute throughout the world. With rapid
increases in knowledge and populations this situation is
likely to become more acute.

One solution to the problem may be to use programmed
materials by which new information can be presented to
students or to teachers. Through these materials the
number of students working independently under one teacher
may be increased or the in-service training of teachers
may be more effective.

Towards this goal, there is a need for a "package"
of short training sessions for training teachers as potential
users or writers of programmed materials for all grade
levels and all subject areas.

As a result of these sessions, an international
cadre of programmers could be developed whose members
would prepare instructional materials for use in their

own country and, at the same time, make adaptations of

Harry A. Pearson

programmed materials from other countries. In this way

some repetition of programming tasks could be avoided.
Procedure

A prototype training experience, called an InGrouP
session, was developed to train science-oriented secondary-
level teachers as potential users and writers of programs.

The session was divided into two sections, each
requiring approximately three hours. The first section,
the program section, contained programmed materials on the
techniques and rationales used in programs and the
characteristics of programs. Consideration was also
given to the evaluation of frames and programs. In the
second, the simulation section, participants were given
the opportunity to write three series of frames. Each
series was evaluated in the training session. Three
methods of evaluation were simulated.

The instructional techniques used included varieties
of programmed instruction, workshop and simulation pro-
cedures, and the instructional method could be described
as variable group interactive self—instruction in programmed
instruction. The term InGrouP was adopted for this method
from instruction for gzggps: Programmed.

Two instruments were developed. A twenty item
Likert-type attitude scale was developed and used to measure

changes in reported attitudes towards programmed instruction.

Harry A. Pearson

A test booklet of three subtests was developed and used

to measure changes in knowledge and skills. It measured
changes in knowledge of the techniques used in programs

and the characteristics of programs, in the ability to
evaluate single frames and program sequences, and in the
ability to recognize an acceptable program-writing sequence
and the ability to write a short series of frames.

An independent pretest and posttest groups design
was used in which participants were randomly assigned to
treatment groups.

Three training sessions were held to detect patterns
of change. In the third session an attempt was made to
measure the independent effects of the program section

and the simulation section.

Findings
At p<0.05, a significant improvement was found in

knowledge of techniques and the rationales underlying their
use, and of the characteristics of programs as a result

of completing the training session. Also, at the same
significance level, improvement occurred in the ability

to recognize an acceptable program-writing sequence and

to write a series of frames. The training session produced
no significant change at p<0.05 in the ability to evaluate
frames and program sequences nor was there a significant

Change in attitude towards programmed instruction.

Harry A. Pearson

In one session the program section produced signi-
ficant improvement at p<0.05 in the ability to evaluate

frames and programs.

Conclusions

 

Although no long-term study of the effects of the
InGrouP sessions was made, there is evidence that within
the six-hour period the knowledge that a participant has
about the basis of programmed instruction, and his ability
to write a series of frames can be improved. This method
of instruction shows promise for the training of teachers
in programmed instruction. As such, it may help to over-
come the problem of providing adequate education for all

children.

PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION FOR GROUPS OF TEACHERS

IN REMOTE LOCATIONS: PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT
By

Harry A. Pearson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1969

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his gratitude to
the members of his guidance committee, Dr. Richard L.
Anderson, Dr. Norman T. Bell and Dr. Carl H. Gross for
their assistance. To his committee chairman, Dr. Ted W.
Ward must go a special thanks for his untiring efforts,
encouragement, and good humor at all times.

His thanks also go to the members of the Office
of Research Consultation for their suggestions.

To his wife, Audrey and to their daughters, Anne,
Fiona and Heather, the writer wishes to record his

appreciation for their tolerance and enthusiastic support.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . .

Chapter
I.

II.

III C

THE PROBLEM. . . . . . .

Possible Solutions to the Problem.

The Purpose of the Study

Definition of Terms. .

Statement of Aims. . . .
Limitations of the Study
Summary. . . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .

The Structure of the InGrouP

On Programmed Instruction.

On Workshops . . . . . .
On Attitudes . . . . . .
On Simulation. . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . .
About InGrouP. . . . . .

DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENTS

Booklets for the Program
Booklets for the Simulation Section.

Session

Section .

Development of the Booklets.

Attitude Scale . . . . .
Test Booklet . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . .

111

Page
ii

vii

H

HPJFJH
-q-qv1:wo~aouu

l9

19
28
30

36
37

AA

HA
“5
A8
A9
52
5M

IV.

V.

VI.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . .

The Sample . . . . .
The Measures . . '.
The Design . . . . .
Testable Hypotheses.
The Analysis . . . .
Summary. . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS. . . . . . . . .

Knowledge of Techniques and
Characteristics. . . . . . . . .
Evaluation of Frames and Programs.
Ability to Write a Series of Frames
Attitude to Programmed Instruction
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

smary O O O O O O O O O O O I 0
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications for Further Research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES.

iv

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.

Page
57

57
59
59
62
66
69

71

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page

2.1 Entries in the Education Index Relating
to Programmed Instruction. . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.2 Entries in the Psychological Abstracts

 

Relating to Programmed Instruction . . . . . . 22
2.3 Programs Available for Purchase. . . . . . . . . 22
3.1 Attitude Scale Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2 Subtest Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

A.l Differences between Means for Pretest Leavers
and Non-leavers o o o o o o o o o o o o c o . . 67

5.1 Effects of the Trial InGrouP Sessions on
Mean Scores for Knowledge of Techniques and
Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.2 Effects of the Simulation Section and the
Program Section on Mean Scores for Knowledge
of Techniques and Characteristics. . . . . 73

 

5.3 Effects of the Trial InGrouP Sessions on
Mean Scores for Evaluating Frames and
Programs.... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 73

5.A Effects of the Simulation Section and the
Program Section on Mean Scores for Evaluating
Frames and Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7“

 

5.5 Effects of the Trial InGrouP Sessions on Mean
Scores for Writing a Series of Frames. . . . . 76

5.6 Effects of the Simulation Section and the
Program Section on Mean Scores for Writing
a series or Frames.. 0 o o c c c o c o o o O 0 77

TABLE
5.7

5.8

5.9

D.3

D.“

D.5

13.6 ‘

D.7

F.l

 

 

 

Page

Effects of the Trial InGrouP Sessions

on Mean Scores for the Attitude Scale. . . . 77
Effects of the Simulation Section and the

Program Section on Mean Scores for the

Attitude Scale.. . . . . .-. . . ... . . . . 78
Summary of the Rejections of Hypotheses for

the Components of the Trial InGrouP Session. 80
Discriminative Indices of the Original Fifty

Items for the Attitude Scale . . . . . . . . 171

 

Score Weights Assigned to Attitude Scale
Items 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A V 178

 

Face Validities of Attitude Scale Items. . . .' 180

Criterion Correlations and Difficulties of
Test Booklet Items ... . ... . . . ... . . .' 188

Face Validities of Test Booklet Items. . . . . 189

Summary of Demographic Data from Trial‘
InGrouP Session 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Raw Scores and Analysis for Trial InGrouP
86881011 1. I O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0 O 0 - J>9l4

Summary of Demographic Data from Trial '
InGrouP Session 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 198

Raw Scores and Analysis for Trial InGrouP
83881011 2. o o o o o o c o o c o o o o o o o. 199

Summary of Demographic Data from Trial
InGrouP Session 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Raw Scores and Analysis for Trial InGrouP
3e881on 3. O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 20“

Summary of the Demographic Data from All
Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Responses to Attitude Scale Items. . . . . . . 212

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

A.

InGrouP Materials. . . . . . . . . . .

Booklet l.
Booklet 2. .
Booklet 3. . .
Bookletgfi. . .
Sppervisor's Manual. . . .

 

 

O O O O O
O
O

Attitude Scale . . . . . . . . . . . .
TeSt BOOklet O 0 O O O 0 O O O I O O 0

Notes, Demographic Data and Raw Scores
three Trial InGrouP Sessions . . . .

Trial InGrouP Session 1. . . . . . . .
Trial InGrouP Session 2. . . . . . . .
Trial InGrouP Session 3. . . . . . . .

Survey of Reasons Why Participants did
complete the Trial InGrouP Sessions.

Responses to Attitude Scale Items. . .

vii

Page
98

98,,

129
140
157
160
171

181

190
190
197
201
208

211

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

In a world in which the increase in population and
the increase in knowledge have been described as explosions,
the problem of providing adequate educational opportunities
becomes more and more acute. Especially in the "developing
nations" education is seen as probably the greatest single
factor essential for progress towards full development.

But in these countries, the provision of education for all
is not possible at the present time using existing methods.

In all nations, the logistic difficulty of updating
teachers on new techniques and information in their fields
of competences is a growing problem. More pronounced in
developing nations, is a shortage of trained teachers or
personnel suitable for training as teachers. Any expansion
of teacher training programs requires a pool from which
new teachers may be drawn. .In developing countries, an
adequate pool rarely exists.

Economic factors are also serious. Even when a
large number of potential teachers is available, the expense
of training them and providing them with the environment
in which they would Operate as trained teachers may be
beyond the financial capacity of the nation or district at
the time.

In Australia, the problem of providing adequate
education for all has a geographical component. With a
population density of a large part of the continent
averaging less than two persons per square mile, conven-
tional classroom teaching for all is not feasible. At
the present time, lessons are mailed to and from students
in remote areas, constituting a correspondence course
program operated from certain central offices. Some
interaction occurs between teacher and student by two-
way radio. Augmenting these procedures, an itinerant
teacher visits each student at least once during the school
year. In 1968, about ten thousand children were receiving
their formal schooling in this way.1 Howeverbased on
data from Western Australia, the total number of people
receiving instruction by correspondence is probably about

one hundred thousand. Most of these people are adults.2

Possible Solutions to the Problem

 

The problem can probably be attacked from two direc-
tions although there is interaction and overlap between

the two approaches.

 

lFrom correspondence with the education departments
in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
Tasmania, and Western Australia, February - April, 1969.

2H. W. Dettman, Director General of Education,
Education Department, Perth, Western Australia, February
21, 1969 (letter).

There is a need for a concerted effort to update a
range of courses in education, strengthening the academic
preparation of teachers, and sharpening their professional

3 Vaizeyu considers that the need is urgent in

skills.
underdeveloped countries. To be effective, massive
in-service programs would be.required to update the large
number of teachers involved. In the United States, the
National Science Foundation attempts to do this through
summer institutes and academic year institutes, but the
proportion of the total number of teachers these courses
reach is small. Any in-service program within the
existing framework of the school year must also be limited.
To produce effective teachers, these in-service programs
must contribute to the teachers' knowledge of subject
matter and their expertise with new equipment and
instructional materials.

In India, some emphasis is being placed on programmed

instruction as a method of reaching large numbers of

students when an adequate number of teachers is not

 

3B. Freeman Butts, "Teacher Education: A Focal
Point," in Education and the Development of Nations, ed. by
John W. Hanson and Cole S. Brembeck (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1966), p.375.

"John Vaizey, "Priorities within Education," in
Education and the Development of Nations, ed. by John W.
Hanson and Cole S. Brembeck (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1966), p.370.

available.5 For India, Arthur Clarke6 considers that
the presentation of televised lessons using communications
satellites may be a feasible solution in the future.

In Australia, the use of programmed materials should
produce more effective instruction for those students in
the remote areas, and the same materials could be used
to supplement conventional teaching methods to improve
instruction in the conventional classroom learning
situation.

It seems that programmed materials have a wide range
of uses from updating teachers to providing educational
experiences for children who cannot be taught in the
conventional way whether the presentation be by book,
machine or by television. In addition, programmed materials
can provide more effective and efficient learning because
of the features of the materials which allow for individual
progression, active responding, and immediate knowledge

of.results.

 

5From correspondence with Dr. S. S. Kulkarni,
National Institute of Education, New Delhi, India, April
1969.

6Arthur Clarke on "The Epic Journey of Apollo 11,"
C.B.S. Telecast, July 20, 1969.

However the preparation of programmed materials is

expensive and time consuming. Meacham7

reports that it
requires about one hundred hours to prepare a program for
one hour of instruction. For this reason, most of the
writers of programs are attached to large commercial
organizations. This distribution of writers may have
serious consequences as the organizations would tend to
control the curriculum and Cox,8 writing of this corporate
monopoly, considers that if total control passed into the
hands of these organizations it would be tragic for
education.

Training experiences are needed to help teachers
themselves learn to evaluate programs and to write
programmed materials to meet the needs of their own
students. There is a need for teacher-programmers in
all grades and in all subjects. However this need is not
restricted to one country but is seen as a world-wide
need. With the availability of proper training experiences,
a country could develOp a group of programmers who could
prepare materials for their own country and translate and

modify programs from other countries to meet their own

 

7Joe D. Meacham, "Programmed Instruction and Teaching
Machine Technology," National Societ for Programmed
Instruction, 3(9), November 196“, p.l .

8Helen H. Cox, Education U.S.A.: A S ecial Re ort
1961 (Washington, D.C.: NatIonal SchooI PuElIc Relations

Association, 1967), p.17.

needs. In this way, duplication of effort would be
reduced in the production of materials which have already
been develOped elsewhere.

These groups together might constitute an inter-
national cadre of programmers for the exchange of programmed

materials and reSearch findings.

The Purpose of the Study

This study was directed at the development and
evaluation of one prototype training experience as a
model--a training session or InGrouP sessioné-for science-
oriented teachers at the secondary level.

Science and mathematics were selected as the areas
from which examples used in the training session would be
taken because the rapid expansion of knowledge and the
shortage of teachers trained in a number of fields of
science were probably greater than in other subject areas.
Also, the majority of commerical programs available are in
these areas.

The purpose of the training session is to acquaint
teachers with the techniques and rationales inherent in
instructional program design and use, and the general
characteristics of the standard programs that are available

commercially. Also the session is to provide training in

 

aFrom Ipstruction for Groups: Programmed.

the evaluation of programmed materials from the structure
of the frames, the sequencing of frames, and from test
results obtained when the programs have been used. In
addition, the session is to provide an opportunity to write

series of frames and to have these evaluated.

The Structure of the InGrouP Session

The training session uses a number of the instruc-
tional techniques drawn from a variety of types of in-
service programs. It uses programmed instruction, some
of the features of workshops, and instructional simulation.
In Chapter II these features are outlined.

To the overall design of the InGrouP session, five
constraints were applied so that the applications of the
prototype could be as diverse as possible. These
constraints follow.

(1) The training session should be restricted
to one working day, or two half—days. This
constraint was considered desirable so that
the session could be used within the existing
framework of in-service training through
"professional development days." Longer
training sessions would be less likely to
be used as they would require a greater
disruption of school organization, and the
motivation of the participants would likely

be less intense.

(2) The training session should be as inde-

pendent of expert supervision as possible.

It was felt that if expert supervision

were required, broad-scale utility would be
greatly reduced. While it was realized that
supervisors could be trained, this additional
requirement would restrict its use and its
impact. Further, uncontrolled biases would
be introduced.

(3) The equipment for the training session should
be as simple as possible. This contraint
was considered important so that no school
district, school, informal group, or individual
would be prevented from using the experience
because of shortages of equipment such as
projectors, teaching machines, or computers.

(A) The materials and procedures should be such
that they could be used equally well with
small groups and large groups.

(5) At the completion of the training session,
participants should be able to take away the
materials they have used.

Although this prototype training session was developed
for teachers in the United States, it was felt that these
constraints were even more appropriate for countries such
as Australia and India where expert supervision and equip-

ment may be more difficult to provide.

The training session, or InGrouP session, is
divided into two sections. For the first section, the
program section, the training materials are self-instruc-
tional: the participant is presented with the techniques,
rationales, and characteristics of programs, and a guide
to evaluating frames and programs. The second section,
the simulation section, provides the participant with the
opportunity to write a series of frames and to have it
evaluated for weaknesses.

The overall procedure is a combination of self-
instruction and interaction among members of small groups
structured within the larger group of the participants.
The generic name, InGrouP, has been adopted for this

method of training.

Definition of Terms

 

Some of the terms used have a variety of meanings
in the literature of education; others are peculiar to
the procedures of the study. The following explanations of—
terms give the meaning applied to each term as it has
been used in this dissertation. The terms have been

arranged alphabetically.

Attitude Scale
A specific attitude scale developed for this study,
and used to measure the changes in stated attitudes of the

Participants towards programmed instruction.

lO

Booklet 1

One of the training materials used in the first
section of the training session. It is self-instructional,
and contains information about the characteristics of
programs, techniques used in programs, and some of the
features of good frames and programs. It is used in

conjunction with booklet 2.

 

Booklet 2

A training material used in the first section of
the training session. It is a confirmation booklet for
booklet l, and it contains tables which are to be filled
in by the participant. These tables act as a summary of

the major ideas presented in booklet l.

Booklet 3

One of the training materials used in the second
section of the training session. Essentially it contains
directions for writing series of frames and specific
instructions for the participant so that the series of

frames will be evaluated and returned to the writer.

Booklet A
A training material for the second section. It is
a workbook in which the series of frames are written by

the participant.

ll

Characteristics of programs

These are the features common to programs of a
particular type. They are the result of the techniques
used in the program. For example, error rates, frame
lengths, and advantages and disadvantages of constructed

response, or multiple choice programs.

InGrouP

A generic name adopted for a method of training
teachers as users and writers of programmed materials.
The method used variable group interactive self-instruction,

and the name was taken from Ipstruction for 929333: Programmed.

InGrouP materials

The materials used in this particular InGrouP
session on programmed instruction for science-oriented
secondary-level teachers. These materials were printed

and required active responses from the participants.

InGrouP session

A training session which uses variable group inter-
active self—instruction as the medium of instruction to
teach teachers about programs and programming. This is
a group of sessions for all subjects and for all grades.
The trial InGrouP session in this study is one particular
research session belonging to the whole group of InGrouP

sessions.

12

Programmed Instruction

 

A presentation of instructional materials in a
logical sequence of steps. The participant is required
to respond actively to the materials, and he receives

immediate feedback to confirm his responses.

Program Section
The first of two sections which make up the training
session, or InGrouP session. The materials are presented

in booklets l and 2 as programmed materials.

Simulation Section
The second section in the InGrouP session. The

instructional materials are in booklets 3 and 3.

Standard Pro rams

Conventional programs such as are available commer-
cially. The two main types are the constructed response
program made up of short frames through which all students
work in the same sequence, and the multiple choice program
with longer frames, providing opportunity for branching
so that different students may progress through different

sequences depending on their needs.

Subtest l

The first eleven items in the test booklet. These
items relate to the techniques used in programs and the
rationales underlying their use, and the characteristics

ofqprograms.

13

Subtest 2
Items 12 through 20 in the test booklet. These nine
items relate to the evaluation of frames, and programs

from their structure and test findings.

Subtest 3
Items 21 and 22 in the test booklet. These test
the ability to recognize an acceptable program-writing

sequence, and the ability to write a series of frames.

Supervisor

An arrangements manager responsible for distributing
the training materials, introducing the various parts of
the training session, assisting individuals, and leading

the discussions.

Techniques Used in Programs

Those devices used by the programmer to ensure effec-
tive and efficient learning. They include cues, prompts,
response styles, branching, and lines under or around

frames.

Test Booklet
An instrument containing three subtests which were

used to measure the effectiveness of the training session.

1“

Trial InGrouP Session

An InGrouP session used to evaluate the effec—
tiveness of the materials. In addition to InGrouP
materials, the attitude scale and the test booklet were

used during the session.

Statement of Aims

 

The aim of the study was to conceptualize, develop
instrumentation, field test, and evaluate procedures
suitable for in-service teacher training utilizing the
InGrouP model.

Trial InGrouP sessions were used to investigate the
following general statements. The testable hypotheses
are given in Chapter IV.

1. Teachers who participate in an InGrouP session
will be more able to identify the techniques used in
programs and the rationales underlying their use, and the
characteristics of standard programs, than those teachers
who have not participated. ,

2. Teachers who participate will be more competent
to evaluate frames and programs, than those who have not'
participated.

3. Teachers who participate will be more able to
recognize an acceptable program—writing sequence, and to

write a series of frames, than those who have not

participated.

15

A. Teachers who participate in an InGrouP session
will have an attitude more favorable to programmed instruc-

tion than those who have not participated.

Limitations of the Study

By imposing the constraints on supervision and
equipment, the limits of the applications of the training
session for the training of teachers in programmed
instruction have been reduced.

However the limitations due to the research nature
of the study still exist. Initially it was hoped that all
aspects of the InGrouP session could be tested on one
group of teachers at one time. With the random assignment
of teachers to treatment groups, many of the factors
affecting internal validity would have been well controlled,
with differences between pretest groups and posttest
groups being attributable to the treatments.

By repeating the InGrouP session on a number of
occasions, comparisons between them cannot be drawn with-
out risking invalidation due to factors characteristic of
a particular session. Within each InGrouP session, the
number of participants available restricted the research
design so that factors such as history, maturation, and

9

mortality must be considered as rival hypotheses- These
possible sources of invalidity are considered in relation

to the study in Chapter IV.

 

9
Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Experi-

mental and ngs-Experimental Designs for Research Chicago:
Rand McNally, 19 3 , p.5.

 

16

Some limitations which appear to be of importance
are related to the measuring devices used. In this study,
the participants' attitudes to programmed instruction
are considered to be of particular importance; these
were measured using a Likert-type attitude scale.
However there is always some doubt as to what such a
scale actually measures. At best, it can only measure
the expressed reaction of the participant to written
statements. The relationship between this expressed
reaction and the true attitude is not known.

Another limitation of measurement is that, while
the knowledge of the participants about programmed
instruction can be measured quantitatively, their skill
at writing a series of frames can only be measured
qualitatively.

All measurements of attitudes, knowledge and skills
are related to the context of the trial InGrouP session
in which they were made. No investigation or estimates
were made of residual attitudes, the degree to which
programmed materials were subsequently employed or the
number of programs written by participants after the
InGrouP session. Therefore no statement can be made
about the effect of an InGrouP session on attitudes or

behavior over a long time interval.

17

Summary

This InGrouP session to train science—oriented
secondary-level teachers as users and writers of programs
is seen as a prototype for a group of training experiences
which use variable group interactive self—instruction.

Such sessions on all subjects at all grade-levels are
seen as essential for rapidly updating teachers so that
programmed materials may be used more widely, and flexi-
bility in curricula will be maintained.

Programmed instruction may lead to the solution of
the problem of providing adequate education for all in
both developed and developing countries as it provides
logical presentation of subject matter, opportunity
for active responding, and immediate knowledge of results
with minimum teacher participation.

With widespread application of training experiences
similar to the InGrouP sessions in a number of countries,
the development of an international cadre of programmers
is a possible consequence. A cadre of this sort, if
properly organized and trained, could lead to more effective
and efficient education by reducing the time spent repeating

programming activities already performed in other countries.

Overview
In Chapter I, the problem has been outlined and
the importance of this study in relation to the problem

has been stated. The development of the attitude scale

18

and the test booklet for use in the trial InGrouP

sessions is described in Chapter III. In Chapter IV,

the design of the study and the hypotheses tested are

given, while Chapter V contains a discussion of the analyses
of the data obtained from the trial InGrouP sessions.
Conclusions and implications of this study are given in
Chapter VI. In the next chapter, some relevant comments

and research findings about the components of InGrouP

are outlined.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

InGrouP, or the method developed for this training
experience, uses components from three modes of instruc-
tion; programmed instruction, workshops, and simulation.
In this chapter, relevant literature relating to these
three methods is cited. Since the effect of the InGrouP
session on the attitudes of the participants is important,
a discussion of the literature on attitudes and the
changing of attitudes is included.

Finally, these four aSpects of learning are related
specifically to the prototype InGrouP session developed
in this study.

On Programmed Instruction
Although good teachers have used the principles of
programmed instruction for centuries, the modern concept
of programmed instruction probably originated from the
time that the first patent for a teaching machine was
taken out in the United States in 1866.1 Some impetus

was given to the movement in World War I, when the military

 

1William A. Deterline, An Introduction to Programmed
.Ingtrugtign (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
1962), p.9.

19

20

used programmed instruction techniques to train soldiers.2

In the second decade of this century, Pressey developed
and used programmed materials and considered that this
method of instruction could revolutionize teaching, but
this method of instruction did not gain popular support.3
Kimmel, while recognizing the importance of Skinner's
work in this field in the 1950's, attributes the rise
of the programmed instruction movement to the flight of
Sputnik."I The impact of this technological display
caused serious concern about the effectiveness of the
existing educational methods, and money was made available
by the government and by private organizations for improving
instruction.

The development of programmed instruction seems to
have followed the pattern shown by many new technologies.
It is characterized by an initial rapid rate of develop—

ment, or "oversell" phase, followed by a gradual decline

which has been termed the "disillusionment" phase.

 

2Peter Kimmel, "Der Programmierte Unterricht in
den U.S.A.," Erziehung und Unterricht, 3 (March, 1968), p.289.

3Robert M. W. Travers, An Introduction to Educational
Research (New York: Macmillan, 196A), p.69.

“Kimmel, "Programmierte Unterricht," p.290.

21

5

Corey cites evidence indicating that both these phases
have existed for programmed instruction. He used the
number of entries in the Education Index 1959-65, and

the entries in Psychological Abstracts 1961-65 relating

to programmed learning and teaching machines as indicators.
His results are given in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 respectively.
Using the number of commercial programs available for

purchase, De Cecco6 is able to support this analysis.

TABLE 2.l.--Entries in the Education Index Relating to
Programmed Instructiona

 

1959-61 1961-63 1963—65

 

Programmed Learning 51 321 313

Teaching Machines 79 119 29

 

aStephen M. Corey, "The Nature of Instruction,"
ProgramediInstruction, Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II
(Chicago: The Society, 1967), p.25. '

 

5Stephen M. Corey, "The Nature of Instruction,"
Programed Instruction, Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II
(Chicago: The Society, 1967), pp.25—6.

6John P. De Cecco, Psychology of Learning and
gpd Instruction: Educational Psychology (New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1968), p.525.

22-

TABLE 2.2.--Entries in Psychological Abstracts Relating
to Programmed Instructiona

 

1961 1962 1963 196A 1965

 

Programmed Learning - 5 A3 63 26
Teaching Machines 15 22 2A 22 IA

 

aStephen M. Corey, "The Nature of Instruction,"
Programed Instruction, Sixty—sixth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: The
Society, 1967), p.26. '

TABLE 2.3.--Programs Available for Purchasea

 

1962 1963 1965

 

Number Available 122 352 291

 

aJohn P. De Cecco, Psychology of Learning and
Instruction: Educational Psychology (New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1968), p.525.

Criticism could be leveled against using these as
indicators of trends as there is no evidence of the
significance of the studies reported to the advancement
of programmed instruction as an accepted technology.
Similarly, the availability of a program is no indication
of its worth, or to the extent to which it is used.

Each set of data indicates an increase followed by
a decline. The agreement in patterns from these researchers

probably indicates that the phases of oversell and

disillusionment have existed.

23

Evidence of the present position of the movement

7

is not known. However, Mager concludes that the develop-
ment of programmed instruction is moving quietly towards
becoming a mature technology and that its phases of
oversell and disillusionment have concluded. If it
follows the pattern of other technologies, its develop-
ment will increase again, and it might be expected to
rise rapidly because Gleason8 considers that:

Programmed instruction has been accepted by

educators more rapidly than any other innovation

in history.
However the rate of increase depends on the acceptance
of programmed instruction by the teachers, and the
number of persons available to write programs relevant
to the school situation. Lindvall and Bolving consider
that the slow acceptance up to the present time may be
due to a misunderstanding of the purposes of programmed

instruction so that many teachers may be biased against

it.

 

7Robert F. Mager, "President's Page," Journal of
the National Society for Programmed Instruction,
V(January, 1966), p.3.

8Gerald Gleason, "Will Programmed Instruction
Sefive People?" Educational Leadership, XXIII(March,l966),
p. 71.

 

90. M. Lindvall and John O. Bolvin, "Programed
Instruction in the Schools: An Application of Programing
Principles in Individually Prescribed Instruction,"
Prqgrameqflnstruction, Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: The
Society, 1967), p.220.

2“

Perhaps its ultimate acceptance will reflect the
characteristics of programmed instruction in general rather

10 states that

than as a medium for instruction. Whalley
it is based on the same principles as good classroom
teaching; thus emphasis on programmed instruction may,
in turn, improve conventional teaching. Programmed
instruction takes advantage of the basic human drive for
success,11 and students are found to learn as much and
score as well using programmed materials as using
conventional methods; but in terms of time expended
the former can save as much as fifty percent.12
Numerous studies have been made comparing programmed
methods with conventional methods, and between the various
forms of programmed materials. For example, Lacknerl3

reports on current research in programmed instruction.

 

10Noel Whalley, A Guide to the Preparation of
Teaching Programmes (Bristol, Eng.: Teaching Programmes
Ltd., 1966), p.1.

11James E. Espich and Bill Williams, Develgping
Programmed Instructional Materials (Palo Alto, Calif.:
Fearon, 1967), p.7.

l2Francis Mechner, "Behavioral Analysis and
Instructional Sequences," Prggramed Instruction, Sixty-
sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II (Chicago: The Society, 1967), p.7.

13Lois M. Lackner, "Current Research in Programmed
Texts and Self-Instructional Learning in Mathematics
and Related Areas," AV Communications Review, 15(Summer
1967), pp.181-98.

25

He cites the work of Brown, and Dobyns, and Kellems that
found programmed instruction to be superior to conventional
methods and the combination of programmed materials with
the direct teacher contact to be even more superior. Most
of the studies have used college students of mathematics
as the population.
Andersonlu sums up the position by stating:

The results have generally tended to favor

programmed instruction when compared with

conventional instruction. Although the

differences are not great, it is generally

concluded that programmed instruction is at

least as good as conventional instruction when

testing conventional outcomes of information

and understanding, and perhaps more signifi-

cant for the curriculum worker, that it takes

less time and that it is better than no

instruction at all.
This has special implications for societies which endeavor
to provide a wide range of subjects for their students,
and where the advance of knowledge can not be paralleled
by an equivalent advance in teacher preparation, and in
countries in which, because of geographical problems or
teacher shortages, trained teachers are not available to

give direct teaching to children.

 

1“Vernon E. Anderson, Principles and Procedures of

Curriculum Improvement (New York: Ronald Press, 1966),
13-373.

 

26

Studies comparing presentation methods indicate the
same general pattern. Eigen and collaborators15 find that
teaching machines require more time than programmed texts

but both produce equal learning. Andersonl6

states that
there is no significant difference between teaching
machines and programmed texts when the amount of learning
is measured.

At the present time, there seems to be a trend away
from teaching machines in favor of programmed texts, and

17 states that the programmed text will probably

De Cecco
survive the teaching machine.

Research has given inconclusive results as to the
effectiveness of the techniques used in programs.

Goldstein18

states that there are no clear-cut results
as to the effects of variations in step size, knowledge

of results, and response modes.

 

15L. D. Eigen and others, "A Comparison of Modes of
Presenting a Programmed Instruction Sequence," Prggramed
Instruction, 1(A), February 1962, p.2.

l6Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum
Improvement, p.373.

 

17John P. De Cecco, Readings in Programmed Instruction
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 196A), p.A33.

18Leo S. Goldstein, "Research in Programmed Instruc-
tion," in Trengs in Programmed Instruction, ed. by G. D.
Ofiesh and W. C. Meierhenry (Washington, D.C.: Department
of Audiovisual Instruction, National Education Association
and the National Society for Programmed Instruction, 196A),
pp.220-3.

27

Different writers have summarized the usefulness

of programmed instruction in a number of ways. Stolurow19

states that in spite of "no significant difference"
studies, research indicates that, in general, students

learn. Blyth,20 Fry,21 2“

Schramm,22’23 Deterline, and
Lindvall and Bolvin25 write more enthusiastically about

the efficiency and effectiveness of programmed instruction.

 

19Lawrence Stolurow, "Implications of Current Research
and Future Trends in Educational Technology," in Readin s
in Programmed Instruction, ed. by John P. De Cecco (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 196A), p.A36.

20John W. Blyth, "Teaching Machines and Human
Beings," in Teachingachines and Programmed Learning:
A Source Book, ed. by A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser
(Washington, D.C.: Department of Audiovisual Instruction
and the National Education Association, 1960), p.AOA.

21Edward B. Fry, Teaching Machines and Programmed
Instruction: An Introduction (New York: McGraw Hill,

1963). p-2-

22Wilbur L. Schramm, Prggramed Instruction: Today
and Tomorrow (Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1962),
p.12.

 

23Wilbur L. Schramm, The Research on Programmed
Instruction, U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Office of Education Bulletin 35 (Washington,
D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 196“).

zuDeterline, An Introduction to Programmed
Instruction, p.vii.

25Lindvall and Bolvin, "Programed Instruction in the
Schools," pp.217-236.

28

26 27

Cartier and Lange consider that perhaps some
of the impact of programmed instruction may be its effect
on other instructional elements resulting from the

production concepts which are characteristic of programming.

On Workshops
The term "workshop" has been used in a number of

ways by different writers. Kelley28 lists nine purposes
of workshop experiences. These center on participation,
growth, and co-operation to develop learning methods and
techniques which can be used in a classroom. He considers
that a workshop must be for a minimum of two days as
planning and evaluation will take one day.29 O'Rourke and

30 doubt whether a workshop on any significant

Burton
problem can be organized and run in less than three or

four days.

 

26Francis A. Cartier, "After the Programming Fad
Fades, Then What?" AV Communications Review ll(2),1963,
p.7.

27Phil C. Lange, "Future Developments," Prpgramed
Instruction, Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: The Society,

1967), p.291.
28

Earl C. Kelley, The Worksho Wa of Learning
(New York: Harper and Row, 1951), pp.7-11.

291b1d, p.137.

 

 

30Mary A. O'Rourke and William H. Burton, Workshops
for Teachers (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957),
p.2.

29

31 considers that

On in-service training, Flanders
it can provide conceptual and procedural tools necessary
for teachers to experiment with their own teaching
methods, and that the methods used in a training experience
should be consistent with the principles of teaching
that are learned.

Workshops on programming have been conducted, but
most of these have been oriented towards business and
industry. The Resources Development Corporation course
in 1966 was of five days duration.32 Although Brethower's
"Practicum" is not intended to be used in a workshop, it
uses programmed instruction to teach programming. The
working time for this book is reported to be up to twenty-
four hours excluding the time required to write the

33

actual programs. In both the Resources Development
Corporation workshop and Brethower's book there is no
indication given that the attitudes of the participants

were considered.

 

31Ned A. Flanders, Helping Teachers Change Their
Behavior (Washington D.C.: U. S. Office of Education,

19537, Do?-

32Resources Development Corporation, R. D. C.
Seminar: Theory and Practice of Programed Learning
(East Lansing: The Corporation, 1961, pamphlet).

 

33Dale M. Brethower and others, Programged Learning -
A Practicum (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Publishers,

1965;: poiv.

30

On Attitudes
Allport3u has defined an attitude in the following
way:

. . . a neural state of readiness organized
through experience, asserting a directive or
dynamic influence upon the individual's

response to all objects and situations with
which it is related.

Katz and Stotland35 consider that attitudes have three
major components. The information component forms the

foundation on which the attitude is built. The affective

component involves feelings, and it is this component

which attitude scales attempt to measure. The third

component, the action component, represents the extent to

which the attitude has habits of action associated with it.
To bring about a change in behavior, that is the

36 consider that a

action component, Espich and Williams
change in attitude is necessary. This implies that the
affective component must be altered. In other words, the
feelings that a person has about a particular object

must be altered.

 

BuW. Gordon Allport, "Attitudes," in A Handbook of
Social Psychology, ed. by Carl Murchison (Worchester,
Massachusetts: Clark University Press, 1935), p.810.

35Daniel Katz and Ezra Stotland, "A Preliminary
Statement to a Theory of Attitudinal Structure and Change,"

 

in P3 cholo : A Study of a Scienpg, ed. by S. Koch
(New York: McGraw Hill, 1959), p.399.
36

Espich and Williams, Developing Programmed
Instructional Materials, p.A.

31

On attitudes to programmed instruction, O'Toole37

states that there is some evidence that attitudes will
be a strong factor in the adoption and successful
implementation in the school setting.

As in other aspects of programmed instruction,
there are conflicting views as to the polarity of the

38 39

attitudes of teachers. Lackner, Stolurow, and

Tobias“O indicate that teachers tend to have negative
attitudes to programmed instruction. This is probably
due to misconceptions of the role of programmed instruc—
tion in the teaching situation. On the other hand,

A1 “2

O'Toole and Lange report favorable attitudes among

teachers.

 

37John F. O'Toole, Jr., "Teachers' and Principals'
Attitudes," AV Communications Review, 12(Winter 196A),
p.A3l.

38
p.181.

Lackner, "Current Research on Programmed Texts,"

A A 3gstolurow, "Implications of Current Research,"
p. 3 .

noSigmund Tobias, "Lack of Knowledge and Fear of
Automation as Factors in Teachers' Attitudes towards
Programmed Instruction and Other Media," in AV
Communications Review, 1A(Spring 1966), p.99.

Al
p.A36.
A2

O'Toole, "Teachers' and Principals' Attitudes,"

Lange, "Future Developments," p.311.

32

However there is some evidence to suggest that
attitudes to programmed instruction can be changed. Eichholz
and Rogers“3 indicate that teachers familiar with the
developments in the field would have more favorable
attitudes. Flandersuu indicates that learning new ideas
about teaching evokes emotional reactions and shifts in

attitudes. Nagay,”5

reporting on experiments in Norway
in which programmed materials were used, states that
promising results were obtained on the degree of teacher
and student acceptance of the materials as a result of
the experiments.
The importance of the teacher's attitude towards

instructional programs is stressed by Susan l‘llarkletu6

There is little doubt that the teacher's

attitude towards the materials is a signifi-

cant factor in both student attitudes and
student performance.

 

u3Gerhard Eichholz and Everett M. Rogers, "Resistance
to the Adoption of Audiovisual Aids by Elementary School
Teachers," in Innovations in Education, ed. by Matthew B.
Miles (New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia
University, 196A), pp.299—316.

lmFlanders, Helping Teachers Change Their Behavior,
p.2.

uSJohn A. Nagay, Programmed Instruction in rNorway,
Sweden, and Denmark, Office of Naval Research, Technical
Report ONRL-6-66(London, Eng: 3 March 1966), p. 2.

u6Susan Markle, "Empirical Testing of Programs,"
Programed Instruction, Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II
(Chicago: The Society, 1967), p.136.

 

33

This statement stresses the importance of the teacher
as a user of programs. Argyris,”7 although not referring
specifically to program writing, says that values rarely
follow skills, but rather that skills follow values.
So it would seem appropriate that a training experience
on program—writing should try to change attitudes if
it is to be an effective instrument in producing program
writers.

On the measurement of attitudes, Allportl48 considers
that each person may possess many conflicting attitudes
so that his mental set at the moment of responding to an'
attitude scale may tell only part of the story. Ration—
alization and deception on the part of the respondent
may occur. He states that attitude scales should be
regarded as the roughest approximation of the way in which
the attitude really exists. Eichholz and Rogersug
consider that deception may play an important role in the
way a person responds to an attitude scale. They consider

that teachers would be unlikely to eXpress an attitude

reflecting the belief that audiovisual aids might replace

 

u7Chris Argyris, Personalit and Organization
(New York: Harper and Row, 19575, p.135.

uaAllport, "Attitudes," p.832.

ugEichholz and Rogers, "Resistance to the Adoption
of Audiovisual Aids," pp.299-316.

3“

teachers as this overt expression would be in conflict
with their professional goals.

Probably the two most commonly used attitude scales
are the Likert and the Thurstone scales. The Likert
scale has some advantages over the Thurstone scale in
that it is easier to construct and score. Although
comparison studies of these two types are difficult to
carry out, one study indicates that both scales have
similar reliabilities.5O Goode and Hatt51 give guide-
lines which may be used for constructing and validating
a Likert-type scale. They suggest that from fifteen to
eighteen items should be used and that half of these
items should reflect an attitude favorable towards the
attitude being measured. They suggest that the validity
of the scale may be assessed by using the responses from
pro- and anti-groups, and that the validity may be
increased by weighting the items. The selection of the

items may be based on the discriminating power of each item.

On Simulation

 

With recent emphasis on simulation of space explora-
tions, simulation methods have received wide publicity.
Although less well known, their use in education has also

increased.

 

50Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Atpitude Scale
Construction (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957),

pp.167-8.

51William J. Goode and Paul K. Hatt, Methods in
Social Research (New York: McGraw Hill, 1952),pp.275-6.

35

Morgenthaler52

defines simulation as a means by
which the essential features of a system or activity may
be duplicated without actually attaining reality itself.
Simulation is used to create facsimiles of the features

of the system in an artificial situation.53

In this
way a wider array of types of interaction feedback cues
can be provided. By simulation the richness of an
experience can be enhanced by increasing the represent-
ational value of the experience with a decrease in
dependence on verbal or symbolic representations.

The uses of simulation are varied: it may be used_
to save expense, or time, or to reduce danger, or to

create enthusiasm.5u’55

It may be used to analyze on-
going systems, or to develop and evaluate new designs,

or to train humans.56

 

526. W. Morgenthaler, "The Theory and Application
of Simulation in Operations Research," in Progress in
Operations Research, ed. by R. L. Ackoff (New York:
John Wiley, 1961), p.367.

 

531bid.. pp. 373-5.

51'Phi Delta Kappa, Phi Delta Kappa Symposium on
Educational Research: Simulation Models for Education
TIndianapolis: Phi Delta Kappa, November 1962), p.17.

 

 

55Cleo H. Cherryholmes, "Some Current Research on
the Effectiveness of Educational Simulation: Implications
for Alternative Strategies," American Behavioral Scientist,
10 (2), 1966, p.5.

56Donald D. Bushnell, "Computer Based Simulation:
New Technology for Education," AV Communications Review,
11, 1963, p.AS.

 

36

Possibly the greatest advantage of simulated experi—
ences is that the learner can obtain immediate knowledge

of the effects of his actions.57’58

Summary

There is evidence to show that programmed materials
can produce learning, and that they tend to save time,
when compared with conventional methods. There are no
clear-cut findings indicating that one method of presenta-
tion is superior to another. However the present trend
seems to favor programmed texts as a medium of presentation.
It is considered by some that the real value of programmed
instruction may be in its effect on other aspects of
teaching.

Workshops stress participation, growth and co-
operation. Generally it seems that at least two days are
required for an effective workshop. In any workshop, the
instructional techniques used should be parallel or at
least compatible with the techniques being taught.

Attitudes are complex phenomena which are difficult
to measure because of conflicting attitudes. In responding
to attitude scales, subjects often rationalize and carry
out deceptions. Attitudes can be changed although there

is some evidence that information, though basic to the

 

57Ibid., p.u8.

58Paul A. Twelker, "Classroom Simulation and Teacher
Preparation," The School Review, 75 (2), 1967, p.201.

37

formation of an attitude, may not be very effective in
bringing about a change. Favorable attitudes are seen
as being vital to writers and users of programs. A
favorable attitude on the part of the teacher is seen as
essential if programmed instruction is to be successful
with the students.

For reasons of time, expense, or danger, simulation
techniques may be the only way to provide experiences.
Simulations can duplicate the essential features of a
situation, and as a result stimulate interest. They are
useful as a means of giving immediate knowledge of the

effects of decisions.

About InGrouP

 

Literature relating to three of the components of
the prototype training session and the importance of
attitudes has been reviewed. The next section contains

references to the method used in this study.

The Need for InGrouP
If schools are to make use of programming techniques,
specific steps will have to be taken to acquaint teachers

with the characteristics of the method.59 Cox60 indicates

 

59Lawrence M. Stolurow, "Implications of Current
Research and Future Trends," Journal of Educational

32mm, 55 (9). June-July 1962. p.519.

60Cox, Education U. S. A., p.9.

38

that with the rapid advances made in knowledge and
instructional materials, the schools have a shortage of
personnel capable of translating these new materials into
something that can be handled in the classroom. Moreover

Margolis61

quotes Schramm as saying that there is no
widespread movement to eliminate this shortage. Any
change which is to occur will require a retraining of
the teachers.62

Stolurow63 predicts that special institutes and
regular courses will have to be organized to meet the
need for trained teachers to use and write programs.
It is through these training sessions that more teachers
will become familiar with programs and write more programs.
As an outcome of an increased awareness, the development
of programmed instruction will be stimulated so that the
part of the development curve representing the "maturity"
phase will rise more sharply.

As acceptance of new techniques is closely

related to teacher involvement,6u acceptance

 

61Richard Margolis, "Programed Instruction: Miracle
or Menace?" in Revolution in Teaching: New Theory,
Technology, and Curricula, ed. by Alfred de Grazia and
David A. Sohn (New York: Bantam Books, 196A), p.119.

62Phil C. Lange, "Administrative and Curricula
Considerations," Programed Instruction, Sixty-sixth Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II
(Chicago: The Society, 1967), p.156.

63Stolurow, "Implications of Current Research and
Future Trends in Educational Technology," p.A35.
6A

p.A38.

O'Toole, "Teachers' and Principals' Attitudes,"

39

and involvement seem imperative if the control of
educational policy is to remain with the educators and
not pass into the control of the large corporate producers.
Also, there is reason to believe conventional
teaching methods will also be improved if teachers study
programmed instruction; the basic principles underlying
programmed instruction are extensions of the principles

0f learning.65:66s57

The Nature of InGrouP

The underlying principle was that the methods used
in the InGrouP session should be similar to the skills
being taught. Therefore, where possible, the materials
were programmed, and the teachers were given experience
in writing and evaluating programs. Welch68 considers

that, up to a point, training for program writing and

 

65Carlton B. Downing, "Programmed Instruction in
Perspective," in Trends in Programmed Instruction, ed. by
G. D. Ofiesh and W. C. Meierhenry (Washington, D.C.:
Department of Audiovisual Instruction, National Education
Association and the National Society for Programmed
Instruction, 196A),p.32.

66Norman Wallen and Robert M. W. Travers, "Analysis
and Investigation of Teaching Methods," in Handbook of
Research on Teaching, ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1963), pp.A6A-5.

67William A. Deterline, "Problems in Program Produc-
tion," Programedglpstruction, Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II
(Chicago: The Society, 1967), p.201.

68Don Welch, "Teaching Machines and Programmed
Instruction: What is in Store for Us?" Programmed
Instruction, 1 (6), June 1962, p.5.

 

A0

training for using programs run parallel. The writing
of frames gives a teacher a deeper understanding of the
subject matter and how children learn.

Because of the constraint imposed by the present
policy on professional development days, some selection
of materials was required for inclusion in the InGrouP
session so that the total experience could be offered in
a period of about six hours. The materials were limited
to those aspects of programmed instruction which were
considered necessary for developing an understanding of
the rationales and the features which are commonly found
in programs at the present time or may become more common

69

in the future. Espich and Williams state that:

A basic understanding of the principles on
which programming techniques are based will
make it easier for the programmer to grasp
the concepts of programming and to vary the
techniques where required.

The frame-writing section was limited to the preparation
of several short series of frames, each of about eight
frames on a specific aspect of a tOpic area. By this
method the participants would not get experience in

70 71

writing long programs but Downing and Deterline

 

69Espich and Williams, Developing Programmed
Instructional Materials, p.3.

70Downing, "Programmed Instruction in Perspective,"
p.31.

71Deterline, "Problems in Program Production," p.185.

Al

consider that modular programming is preferred to long
programs, and that teachers prefer to write short programs.

Green72

states that perhaps the most pressing need of the
neophyte programmer is for specific directions on how to

write frames.

The Method of Presentation

The materials were presented in book form. This
mode of presentation would provide for maximum flexibility
with the minimum amount of equipment and so would reduce
restrictions on the use of the training session caused by
the absence of trained personnel to supervise, or the
absence of equipment. Espich and Williams73 consider
that all programs begin on paper, and this is supported
by statements by Lindvall and Bolvin-7u Espich and
Williams75 also consider that the majority of programs

available are of the pencil-and-paper type.

 

72Edward J. Green, "Process of Instructional
Programing," Programed Instruction, Sixty-sixth Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education,
Part II (Chicago: The Society, 1967), p.63.

73Espich and Williams, Developing Programmed
Instructional Materials, p.16.

7”Lindvall and Bolvin, "Programed Instruction in
the Schools," p.219.

75Espich and Williams, Developing Programmed
Instructional Materials, p.16.

A2

As about eighty percent of the programs currently
available are of the constructed-response type, the main
part of the programmed section was written in this form.76
However both horizontal and vertical formats were used to
illustrate that constructed-reSponse programs can be
written in several ways. Some emphasis was given to
branching sequences as there is some experimental evidence
to support both types of sequencing.

A number of books contain sections on the character-

istics of good frames. Those by Espich and Williams,77

and Susan Markle78

were used as guides for the preparation
of the programmed materials used in this InGrouP session.
The use of a separate booklet (booklet 2) for the
confirmation of frames requiring longer responses or
comments, and for review tables used by the participants
to test their progress and to provide summaries follows

79 80

from the examples given by Markle, and Bell and Hunt.

 

76Ibid., p.u9.

77Ibid., p.131-136.

78Susan Markle, 999d Frames and Bad (New York:
John Wiley, 196A), pp.227-8.

79Ibid., p.237.

80Norman T. Bell and James C. Hunt, Self-Instructional
Pro am in Ps cholo (Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman
and COO, 19 7 , pp.256-6ll.

“3

In the program-writing and evaluation of programs
parts of the training materials, the principle of
mathetics, or "backward fading" was used as there is
strong experimental and theoretical evidence to support
its use,81 For example, by this technique, as the
participant works through frames illustrating a particular
sequence of programming, the frames become progressively
less complete. By responding to each frame, the partici-
pant always sees the complete sequence to the point at
which he is able to write out the complete sequence by
himself.

The pattern used for the analysis of the topic
area to be programmed was adapted from those used by

82

Brethower and others, and by Mager.83 'The sequences

for writing frames and their evaluation were modified

8A and from those

from those suggested by Brethower,
suggested within the Learning Systems Institute at
Michigan State University.

In the next chapter, the components of the InGrouP

materials and the test instruments and procedures followed

to develop these are described.

 

81Mechner, "Behavioral Analysis and Instructional
Sequences," p.91.

82Brethower and others, Programmed Learning - A
Practicum, pp.53-8A.

83Robert F. Mager and Kenneth Beach, Jr., Develo in
Vocational Instruction (Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon, 1967),
pp.7,10,25 and 2 .

8“Brethower and others, Programmed Learning - A

CHAPTER III
DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENTS

The materials used in the trial InGrouP sessions
were developed to present the characteristics of programs,
the techniques used in programs, and to provide a guide
to the selection of good frames and programs. Also,
they provided an opportunity to write series of frames
and to have these evaluated.

These components were written so that the InGrouP
sessions would be as independent as possible of the need
for expert supervision and supplementary equipment.

Copies of all instruments are included in Appendix A.

Booklets for the Program Section

The program section concentrated on the features
of programs and on how to select good frames and good
programs. The materials were programmed but additional
material was included to explain some of the rationales
operating. ‘The materials were presented in two booklets,
booklets l and g, which were used simultaneously by the
participants. The second book was used to illustrate
that programmed material does not necessarily have to be

restricted to one book but that the student may be

run

A5

directed out of the main programmed sequence to other

activities.

Booklet 1

This booklet contained the program through which
the participants worked. It contained series of frames
illustrating the principles of programmed instruction,
most of the confirmations of responses, and related
comments. A bibliography was included to be used by

the participants outside the training experience.

Booklet 2

This booklet was divided into two parts. In the
first, confirmations were given to some of the frames in
booklet l which required longer responses. The second
part contained review tables which were to be completed
by the participants at several stages in the program
sequence. These tables also served as a summary and

integrating agent for the participants.

Booklets for the Simulation Section
The materials for the simulation section were written
in two booklets. These provided instructions for writing
three series of frames and instructions for having them
evaluated within the InGrouP session. The material
included in them built on the knowledge and skills developed

in the program section.

A6

Booklet 3

 

This booklet contained the instructions for
writing three series of frames. The first series was to
be written to teach a specific topic area which was
defined for the writer. The writer was given a partly
completed analysis of the problem. After completing it,
he was requested to write a series of about eight frames
to teach to the weakness indicated by the analysis of
the problem.

The second and third frame-writing experiences
were in a topic area of the participant's choice. Some
twenty suggested areas were given but the participant
could program outside those suggested. The third series
of frames was written after an evaluation of the second
series had been made. This evaluation was used to improve
the series for the third writing experience.

In all, three evaluation procedures were used.

(1) a "face-to-face interview" situation was
simulated to represent the type of evaluation which would
result from conducting an actual field testing interview
with a typical student for whom the frames were designed.
The participants worked in pairs with one member assuming
the role of a "typical student," the other acted as the
programmer and conducted the interview. The programmer

evaluated his own program, and then the pair reversed

A7

roles so that the program written by the other member
of the pair was evaluated. This method of evaluation
was used for the first experience in writing frames.

(2) a "no feedback mail" technique was used in
which mailing out a program to respondents who have no
personal contact with the programmer was simulated. The
completed programs were identified by number only. Then
they were placed in a pile and each member of the
training session took one to work through. He added
responses and comments about the program which he
considered appropriate. Then each program was returned
to the writer.

(3) a "feedback mail" technique was also used.

The procedure used was similar to that used for the "no
feedback mail" method except that the frames contained
the correct responses.

Participants could select which of the second and
third methods they would use first to evaluate their
program on the topic of their choice. However they were
instructed to use the alternative method for the final
rewrite of their program. In this way all participants

used all three evaluation methods.

Booklet A
This was essentially a workbook in which the programs
were written. Pages were provided for each writing

experience. For the first experience, the first page

A8

contained some of the information which the programmer
could assume was available to the typical student. The
pages for the second and third writing experiences were
blank except for the cover page which provided space for
the identification number and the method of evaluation
being used.

This format provided an example of "backward
fading," and also meant that a "package" of the four
booklets would provide all the materials required with

the exception of a pencil or pen.

Development of the Booklets

For purposes of refinement before the trial
sessions, the booklets were given to four teachers of
junior high school science who were asked to work
through the materials by responding to each frame and
adding comments on sequencing, terminology, and the time
taken. To test the wording of the frames and the develop-
ment of the concepts, three of the teachers were given
booklets which did not contain confirmations of the
responses. This was done in an attempt to control any
tendency to look ahead to the correct answer before
writing in the response. From their responses some changes

were made in terminology and sequencing.

A9

The revised forms of the booklets were administered
to a new group of six teachers of junior high school
science under the conditions to be used in the InGroup
sessions. All participants used booklets containing
confirmations.

From the results and comments, the materials were
revised to give the final forms. Two major changes were
made in the procedures to be used. Firstly, because of
differences in the times required to write the series
of frames, it was apparent that time limits would have
to be imposed in the writing parts of the training session
or else the exercises would not be completed in the time
available. To make this possible, the participants had to
be instructed to program only one specific aspect of
the topic they selected. The other change eliminated
excessive movement between booklet 3 and booklet A.
Originally, instructions for writing the frames were given
in both booklets. As a result of this trial, all
instructions were placed in booklet 3, and booklet A
became a workbook in which the series of frames were

written. There were no major changes in overall content.

Attitude Scale
Fifty statements about programmed instruction were
selected from research papers and articles. Where

necessary, these were shortened to contain no more than

50

about twenty words. The polarities of some were changed
so that half the statements reflected an attitude in

favor of programmed instruction.

Item Validipy

 

The scale was given to a group of graduating
students in education. The group consisted of twenty-
eight students who had expressed an attitude favorable
to programmed instruction, and twenty-eight who indicated
an attitude against.

Each item response was weighted from 0 through A
for responses of "strongly disagree" through "strongly
agree." From these results a discriminative index was
calculated for each item. The computation was made
using a modification of the method suggested by Goode

and Hatt.1 The formula used was:

where: D.I. is the discriminative index.

Wf is the sum of the weighted responses
on an item made by those in favor
of programmed instruction.

Wa is the sum of the weighted responses
on an item made by those against
programmed instruction.

n is the number of respondents in one

polar group (na 8 nf = 28)

 

1Goode and Hatt, Methods in Social Research, p.275.

51

The modification gave a maximum discriminative index of
1.00 and a minimum of 0.00. The discriminative index
for each item is given in Table 8.1 in the appendix.
Twenty items with discriminative indices at least
four time that suggested as minimal by Goode and Hatt2
were selected and used in the final form of the attitude
scale. Ten of these reflected a negative attitude to
programmed instruction and ten reflected an attitude
favorable to it.
The face validity of each item and the whole scale
was estimated by asking three persons with experience
in programmed instruction to rate the face validity of
each item and the whole scale on a five-point scale
from 0 for "no apparent validity" through A for "very
high face validity." An index for each part was calculated
by adding all ratings for the part and dividing by twelve.
Thus the maximum face validity index possible was 1.00
and the minimum was 0.00. These indices are given in
Table B.3 of the appendix.
The overall face validity index was 0.750.

Attitude Scale Reliability
The scale was given to 119 junior high school science
teachers, secondary science method students and practicing

teachers, and the results were analyzed by the RAVE method

 

2Ibid., p.276.

52

of reciprocal averages given by Wright and Porter.3 This
procedure gave an optimum weighting scale for each item
from 0 through 5. The assigned weights are given in
Table 3.2. Using these weights, the reliability coefficient
was 0.8759 and the standard error was 3.8056.

Table 3.1 contains the statistics of the attitude

scale obtained from the sample.

 

 

TABLE 3.l.--Attitude Scale Statisticsa (n = 119)
Mean 63.613A
Standard deviation 11.0393
Reliability coefficient 0.8759
Standard error 3.8056

 

aCalculated using the RAVE program.

Test Booklet
One booklet was developed to test three aspects of
the trial InGrouP sessions. Therefore, in effect, the
test booklet contained three subtests although the items
were numbered sequentially. All items except the last
were multiple choice items to which the participants were

asked to select the best answer.

 

3David J. Wright and Andrew C. Porter, An Adaptation
of Frank B. Baker's Test Analysis Package, Occasional Paper
No. 1 (East Lansing: Office of esearch Consultation,
Michigan State University, 1968), p.13.

 

53

Subtest 1 (Items 1 through 11)

This contained statements about the characteristics
of programs, techniques used in programs and the rationales
underlying their use. Each item was scored 1 for a

correct response so that the maximum score possible was 11.

Subtest 2 (Items 12 through 20)
This subtest contained questions about frames,
program sequences, and statements taken from test findings

of programs. Participants could score a maximum of 9.

Subtest 3 (Items 21 and 22)

Item 21 contained four program-writing sequences
from which the participants were asked to select the best.
In Item 22, participants were asked to write a short
series of frames to teach the topic given in the item.

The maximum scores were 1 for Item 21 and 10 for Item 22.

The test booklet was given to each person in the
groups used in the development of booklets l-A. Some
minor changes in terminology were made as a result of

their comments.

Subtest and Item Validities

A panel of three persons involved with programmed
instruction were asked to rate each item and each subtest
on a five-point scale from 0 for "very low or zero face
validity" through A for "very high face validity." From

these ratings, a validity index for each item and each

5A

subtest was calculated. An index of 1.00 indicated
that all three judges considered that the item,hadw
very high face validity, whereas an index of 0.00
indicated that all members of the panel agreed Ahat the
item had very low or zero face validity.

The indices for the items are given in Table C.2
of the appendix. Those for the subtests have been

included in Table 3.2 below.

Subtest Reliabilities

Two reliability coefficients for subtests 1 and
g were calculated. One, of Hoyt's reliability coefficient
equivalent to a Kuder Richardson #20 split half reliability
was found using the GITAP program, the other used these
coefficients to calculate a reliability coefficient for
the whole subtest by the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula.

These coefficients are given in Table 3.2.

Summary

Two instruments were developed to measure the effec-
tiveness of the trial InGrouP sessions. The twenty item
Likert-type attitude scale was developed from a pool of
fifty items about programmed instruction. The final
selection of items for inclusion in the actual attitude
scale was based on the discriminative index of each item
calculated from responses.from biased groups. Half of

those selected expressed an attitude in favor of programmed

55

TABLE 3.2.--Subtest Statistics

 

Subtest l Subtest 2 Subtest 3

 

 

Face Validity (na3)a 0.667 0.667 0.833
Overall Reliability (n=53)b 0.792 0.A26 —
Hoyt Reliability (n=53)° 0.650 0.271 -
Standard Error 1.335 1.2AA -

 

aComputed from ratings made by a three-member panel
using a five-point scale with 0 for very low or zero face
validity and A for very high face validity. The formula
used was:

Validity = 2r

2
where: Zr is the sum of the three ratings.

bComputed from the Hoyt Reliabilities using the
Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula [Source: Allen L. Edwards,
Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, (New York:

0 , ne art and nstOn, l9 1 , p.177.

cComputed by analysis of variance with the GITAP
program.
instruction. The possible responses to the items were
weighted to increase the reliability. These weightings
were used in the research design. A panel of three judges
was used to estimate face validity.

The second instrument, the test booklet, consisted
of twenty-two items to form three subtests. Subtest l

was developed to measure knowledge of techniques used in

programs and the characteristics of programs. Subtest 2

56

was developed to measure the ability of the subject to

evaluate frames and programs, and subtest 3 to measure

 

the ability to write a series of frames. The reliabilities
of subtests were found using the participants of the trial
InGrouP sessions. The validity of each subtest was found

using the same panel of judges as for the attitude scale.

 

In Chapter IV, aspects of the research design, the
sample, and the testable hypotheses are presented. These
are followed by an analysis of the data obtained from the

three trial InGrouP sessions.

CHAPTER IV
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

To test the effects of the prototype InGrouP
materials in an InGrouP session, it was necessary to
develop a research design to measure the changes in
attitudes, knowledge of programmed instruction, the
ability to evaluate frames and program sequences, and
the ability to write a series of frames.

In this chapter, the sample used in the trial
InGrouP session is defined as representative of a larger
population of science-oriented secondary-level teachers
with similar characteristics. The measures used and the
actual research design are outlined and the objectives
of the trial InGrouP session are stated as testable hypoth-
eses. Finally the methods used to analyze the data are
discussed.

In all, three trial InGrouP sessions were held so
that patterns of changes could be detected. It was felt
that reoccurring patterns would add more certainty to any

conclusions drawn from any one training session.

The Sample

 

In all three trial InGrouP sessions the participants

were volunteers. They were not required to pay a fee for

57

58

the session nor were they paid in any way for attending.
Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that all partici-
pants were interested (at least curious) to some degree in
programmed instruction before the commencement of the
training sessions.

The first trial InGrouP session was held on Saturday,
May 2A, 1969. The teachers of secondary—level science
in the public and parochial schools within a radius of
about seventy miles of the Michigan State University campus
were invited to attend. Letters and telephone calls to
the school principals constituted the invitations.

The second session was held on Saturday, June 21,
1969. The teachers of secondary-level science and mathe-
matics who were attending National Science Foundation
Summer Institutes at Michigan State University and also
those attending curriculum courses in the College of
Education were invited to attend.

Participants for the third session on the evenings
of Thursday, June 19, and Tuesday, June 2A, 1969 were
drawn from the same population as that for the second
session. In this case the materials were presented in
two three-hour periods. In the first, the program section
was given, while the simulation section was given on the

second evening.

59

Table D.7 in the appendix summarizes the demographic
data on the participants. It gives geographical locations,
teaching experiences, and sex differences of the partici-

pants in all three trial InGrouP sessions.

The Measures

 

Because of the short time required for the training
session, and the problem of developing two parallel forms

of the attitude scale and the test booklet, all partici-

 

 

pants were given the same two measuring instruments. Some
participants were pretested, the others posttested. The
demographic data about the participants were obtained from
a checklist on the registration card given to each partici-
pant as he entered the room prior to the commencement of

the training session.

The Design
The basic design used independent pretest and post-

test groups. It could be represented as:

R AT PS
R PS AT

where: R indicates random assignment of partici-

pants to treatments.

A indicates administration of the attitude
scale.

T indicates administration of the test
booklet.

P indicates)the program section (bloklets
l and 2 .

S indicates the simulation section (ploklets
3 and A):

 

60

With a larger number of participants in the third
session, this design was expanded in an attempt to measure

the effects of the program and simulation sections

 

separately. The design for trial InGrouP session 3 was:

R AT PS
R PS AT

R P AT S

Campbell and Stanley1 consider that the basic design
used here controls for all factors likely to reduce
internal validity except mortality, history, and matura-
tion. In this application of the design, differences
in the previous histories of the participants were
accounted for by the random assignment to treatment groups.
The time lapse between pretesting and posttesting was
probably not sufficient to permit significant differences
to occur between groups. The effect of maturation would
also be slight because of the short time lapse, but any
effect would probably be one of fatigue which would tend
to lower the scores for the posttest group.

The same instructional materials and measures were
used in all trial InGrouP sessions.

After a brief introduction by the supervisor to
explain the components of the session, participants used

booklets l and g for the program section. As the partici—

 

1Campbell and Stanley, Egperimental and Quasi-
Experimental Designs for Research, p.A0.

61

pants worked through the materials at their own rates,
they finished at different times.

The simulation section takes about three hours to
complete and the participants worked through this part
of the training session after completing the program
section. This section was introduced by the supervisor
who presented a brief overview of the evaluation procedures.
More specifically, the task required of the participants
was explained in some detail, and the places in the room
to which completed programs should be taken for evalua-
tion were indicated. Placing the programs in piles
simulated mailing the programs. Some control of the time
available for each part of this section was exercised by
the supervisor. He allocated time and gave participants
warnings five minutes before the expiration of time.

At the conclusion of the simulation section a
discussion was held to consider some of the major contro-
versies on programmed instruction. The basis of the

discussion was the four questions given in booklet 3.

 

However questions and answers were elicited from members
of the group before opinions were put forward by the
supervisor.

As a result of the experience with the first trial
InGrouP session, the supervisor included a short discussion
session after the first writing and evaluation exercise.

In this, some of the common errors made by the participants

were mentioned and discussed, and the steps required for

62

the next two writing and evaluation exercises were outlined.

These points are given in the supervisor's manual in

 

Appendix A. This additional discussion session was used in
the second and third sessions. Otherwise the formats
were the same in all trial InGrouP sessions.

A variety of commercial programs were available so
that the participants could see how some of the techniques
illustrated in the InGrouP materials were incorporated into
larger programs. Participants were not required to look

at these, but they were told that they were available.

Testable Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tested for all
three trial InGrouP sessions.
HO: There is no difference between mean
scores for subtest l for volunteers who

complete the trial InGrouP session and
for those prior to the session.

1

 

2H0: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 2 for volunteers who complete
the trial InGrouP session and for those
prior to the session.

H : There is no difference between mean scores for
subtest 3 for volunteers who complete the
trial InGrouP session and for those prior

to the session.

 

”H0: There is no difference between mean scores
for the attitude scale for volunteers who
complete the trial InGrouP session and for
those prior to the session.

 

In symbolic form, all null hypotheses that apply to
all InGrouP sessions could be represented by the general

equation:

63

Mx = Mx
posttest pretest

where: M is the mean score for the posttest
posttest
treatment group in any trial
InGrouP session for the aspect
(x) being considered.
Mx is the mean score for the pretest
pretest
treatment group in the same trial
InGrouP session for the same

aspect (x).

The alternate hypotheses were:

1H1: Volunteers who have completed the trial
InGrouP session have a higher mean score
for subtest 1 than volunteers prior to
the session. '

 

2H : Volunteers who have completed the trial

InGrouP session have a higher mean score
for subtest 2 than volunteers prior to
the session.

 

3H1: Volunteers who have completed the trial
InGrouP session have a higher mean score
for subtest 3 than volunteers prior to
the session.

Volunteers who have completed the trial
InGrouP session have a higher mean score
for the attitude scale than volunteers
prior to the session.

These alternate hypotheses could be represented by

the general equation:

M > M
xposttest xpretest

In addition, the following null hypotheses were

tested in the third trial InGrouP session only.

6A

5H0: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 1 for volunteers who complete
the trial InGrouP session and for volunteers
who complete the program section only.

 

There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 2 for volunteers who complete
the trial InGrouP session and for volunteers
who complete the program section only.

H : There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 3 for volunteers who complete
the trial InGrouP session and for volunteers
who complete the program section only.

 

There is no difference between mean scores
for the attitude scale for volunteers who
complete the trial InGrouP session and for
volunteers who complete the program section
only.

 

In symbolic form, these could be presented by:

M = M

xposttest Xmidtest

The alternate hypotheses were:

Volunteers who have completed
InGrouP session have a higher
for subtest 1 than volunteers
completed the program section

 

Volunteers who have completed
InGrouP session have a higher
for subtest 2 than volunteers
completed the program section

 

Volunteers who have completed
InGrouP session have a higher
for subtest_3 than volunteers
completed the program section

Volunteers who have completed
InGrouP session have a higher

the trial
mean score
who have
only.

the trial
mean score
who have
only.

the trial
mean score
who have
only.

the trial
mean score

for the attitude scale than volunteers
who have completed the program section

only.

These alternate hypotheses could be expressed as:

65

M > M
xposttest xmidtest

To determine the effect of the program section,

the following null hypotheses were tested in the third

trial InGrouP session.

H

90‘

10 0‘

11

12 0‘

03

There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest l for volunteers who complete
the program section only and for those
prior to the trial InGrouP session.

 

There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 2 for volunteers who complete
the program section only and for those
prior to the trial InGrouP session.

There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 3 for volunteers who complete
the program section only and for those
prior to the trial InGrouP session.

There is no difference between mean scores
for the attitude scale for volunteers who
complete the program section only and for
those prior to the trial InGrouP session.

Expressed as an equation:

M M
3midtest xpretest

The alternate hypotheses were:

H

91‘

10 1‘

ll 1‘

Volunteers who complete the program section
only have a higher mean score for subtest l

 

than volunteers prior to the trial InGrouP
session.

Volunteers who complete the program section
only have a higher mean score for subtest 2

 

than volunteers prior to the trial InGrouP
session. .

Volunteers who complete the program section
only have a higher mean score for subtest
than volunteers prior to the trial InGrouP
session.

66

12H1: Volunteers who complete the program
section only have a higher mean score
for the attitude scale than volunteers
prior to the trial InGrouP session.

These could be represented as:

Mx > Mx .
midtest pretest

The Analysis
As the attrition rate between the beginning and the
end of each training session was high, it was considered
desirable to test differences in performance between those
who completed the session and those who left early, as
some common confounding effect might have been operating.
If significant differences were found, then only the
results from those who completed the trial InGrouP session
could be used. This would seriously reduce the number of
cases for whom data would be available.
The following null hypothesis was formulated and
tested:
There is no difference between mean scores for
those in the pretest groups who completed the
trial InGrouP sessions and those in the pretest
groups who left before the session was completed.
As accepting this null hypothesis when in fact it
was false could seriously affect the validities of the
analyses of data using all test scores, the level of
significance was set at 0.10 to reduce the chance of
making a Type II error.

The hypothesis was tested with a 3 test for each set of

data, and a summary of the results is given in Table A.1.

67

.somoonm mo
mooswmo mm and: oa.o u a pm cosmoHMchHm sow confisums ma mon.a no capes p «m

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I I I afloa.ovoocm0Hmastm
aeo.o HOH.H mee.o 330.0 oaoca.m
emm.a mas.o Hem.o mme.m /., noses onscreen

mo.o I mm.o oe.o ea.o I AHvssozIAcvssoz

ms.m mm.z mm.s mm.oe Amauav moossoascoz

mm.m 0a.: mm.m ee.oe Amaucv ecossoHIeoecsoa
mamom

m omooosm m oaooosm H omooomm

 

oosoaoo<

 

mso>mmHIsoz ummuosm csm mso>mmq pmmpmsm pom memos consume moosOhomanII.H.= mqm<a

68

Therefore for all pretest scores, the null hypothesis
must be accepted that there are no differences between
mean scores for those who completed the training session
and those who left early. As a result of this finding,
the analyses of the data from the trial InGrouP sessions
used all available test scores, irrespective of whether
the participant completed the session or not.

As three training sessions were conducted at
different times and randomization of the participants
to treatment groups across all sessions was not possible,
the data from each trial InGrouP session were analyzed
separately.

In the first and second trial InGrouP sessions, the
comparisons between means were made using 3 tests for
means of independent samples. As the alternate hypotheses
were directional, one-tailed tests were applied.

As three comparisons between means were required in
the third session, the data were analyzed by one-way
analysis of variance techniques.2 For significant F ratios,
the actual locations of the differences within the
analysis of variance table were found using the Scheffé

method.3

 

2William L. Ruble, Donald F. Kiel and Mary E. Rafter,
One-way Analysis of Variance_with Unequal Number of Replica—
tions Permitted, STAT Series Description No. 13 (East
Lansing: Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State
University, November 1968).

3William L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists (New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963), p.A8A.

69

All differences between means were tested at the
0.05 level of Significance. This level was considered
appropriate because the consequences of making a Type I
error were considered to be less important than the
consequences of making a Type II error. The reasons
behind this decision were that the InGrouP session
required a relatively small commitment of time on the
part of the participants, and the materials were relatively
inexpensive, but at the same time the contribution of
the training session to the use and preparation of
programmed materials in the school, and the effect on

conventional teaching might be considerable.

Summary

Four aspects of using and writing programmed
materials were considered for those teachers of secondary-
level science and mathematics who volunteered to attend.
The aspects considered were:

(1) in subtest 1, knowledge of the techniques used

 

in programs and the rationales underlying their
use, and the characteristics of programs;

(2) in subtest 2, the ability to evaluate single

 

frames, program sequences, and programs from
test findings;

(3) in subtest 3, the ability to recognize an

 

acceptable program-writing sequence, and the

ability to write a series of frames; and

70

(A) in the attitude scale, the expressed attitudes

 

of the participants towards programmed
instruction.
The design required the random assignment of the
participants to treatment groups. The control groups

were pretested with the attitude scale and the test

 

booklet. The experimental groups were posttested with
the same instruments.

Three separate trial InGrouP sessions were run,
and the data from these were analyzed separately using
3 tests and one—way analysis of variance methods where
applicable. The level of Significance was set at 0.05.
There was found to be no difference at p<0.10 for mean
scores for the pretest participants who completed the
session and the mean scores for participants who left
before completing the session.

In Chapter V, the results of the analysis of the

data are presented.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The actual scores obtained by the participants in
the control and experimental groups are listed separately
for each trial InGrouP session in Appendix D.

The following results were obtained when the null
hypotheses given in the preceeding chapter were tested
for all three trial InGrouP sessions at a significance

level of 0.05.

Techniques and Characteristics of Programs

 

lHO: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest l for volunteers who complete
the trial InGrouP session and for those
prior to the session.

 

The results for testing this hypothesis with either
a 2 test or an F test are summarized in Table 5.1.
TABLE 5.1.--Effects of the Trial InGrouP Sessions on Mean

Scores fOr Knowledge of Techniques
and Characteristics

 

 

Session 1a Session 2 Session
Posttest Mean 8.60 9.00 10.00
Pretest Mean A.A6 5.71 5.22
MeanpOSt-Meanpre 3.98 3.29 A.78
Significance Sign. Sign. Sign.

(0.05)

 

aSession = trial InGrouP session.
71

72

Therefore, at p<0.05, the null hypothesis of no

difference between means for subtest 1 must be rejected

 

and the alternate hypothesis, accepted.

1H1:
The effect of the simulation section in changing

 

knowledge of techniques and characterisitics was tested
by comparing the mean of the midtest group with the
mean of the posttest group in the third session.
The null hypothesis tested was:
5HO: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest l for volunteers who complete

the trial InGrouP session and for volunteers
who complete the program section only.

 

The effect of the program section of the trial
InGrouP session was tested by comparing the mean score
of the pretest group with the mean score of the midtest
group in the third training session.
The null hypothesis was:
9H0: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest l for volunteers who complete

the program section only and for those
prior to the trial InGrouP session.

 

The results of testing Hypothesis and Hypothesis

5H0
9H0 by one-way analysis and the Scheffé method of comparison
are given in Table 5.2. Both results have been combined

in the one table. Therefore could not be rejected at

5H0
p<0.05 and the conclusion drawn that the simulation section

did not alter the test performances for the knowledge of

techniques and characteristics. However could be

9H0
rejected at that level of significance and the alternate

hypothesis, 9H1,accepted.

73

TABLE 5.2.—-Effects of the Simulation Section and the
Program Section on Mean Scores for Knowledge
of Techniques and Characteristics

 

 

 

 

Simulation Program
Section Section
Posttest Mean 10.00 -
Midtest Mean 8.30 8.30
Pretest Mean - 5.22
Difference of Means 1.70 3.08
Significance - sign.

(0-05)

 

Evaluation of Frames and Programs

 

The following null hypothesis was tested using the

results from three training sessions:

2HO: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 2 for volunteers who completed
the trial InGrouP session and for those
prior to the session.

 

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 5.3
in which the term "session" refers to the trial InGrouP
session.

TABLE 5.3.——Effects of the Trial InGrouP Sessions on Mean
Scores for Evaluating Frames and Programs

 

 

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3
Posttest Mean 5.60 5.71 5.50
Pretest Mean A.82 A.57 A.22
Mean -Mean 0.78 1.1A 1.28

post pre
Significance(0.05) — - -

 

7A

Therefore the null hypothesis, 2HO, could not be
rejected at p<0.05.

The separate effects of the simulation section and

 

the program section on the ability to evaluate single
frames and programs were tested using the results obtained
from the participants in the third trial InGrouP session.

The null hypotheses were:

6HO: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 2 for volunteers who complete
the trial InGrouP session and for volunteers
who complete the program section only.

10HO: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 2 for volunteers who complete
the program section only and for those
prior to the trial InGrouP session.

The results are summarized in Table 5.A.
TABLE 5.A.--Effects of the Simulation Section and the

Program Section on Mean Scores for
Evaluating Frames and Programs

 

 

 

 

Simulation Program

Section Section
Posttest Mean 5.50 -
Midtest Mean 6.00 6.00
Pretest Mean - A.22
Difference of Means - 0.50 1.78
Significance(o.05) — sign.

 

Therefore Hypothesis 6HO could not be rejected at

p<0.05. Hypothesis lOHO can be rejected at that level and

the alternate hypothesis accepted.

75

Writing a Series of Frames

 

The null hypothesis tested was:

3HO: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 3 for volunteers who complete
the trial InGrouP session and for those
prior to the session.

 

This was tested in three training sessions and the

results are given in Table 5.5.

TABLE 5.5.—~Effects of the Trial InGrouP Sessions on Mean
Scores for Writing a Series of Frames

 

 

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3
Posttest Mean 3.80 8.00 7.75
Pretest Mean 2.A5 3.1A 1.33
Meanpost-Meanpre 1.35 A.86 6.A2
Significance(O 05) — Sign. Sign.

 

The results obtained from the three sessions were
not consistent. In the first trial InGrouP session, there
was no significant difference between pretest and posttest
means for the ability to write a series of frames. However,
in both the second and third sessions, the differences
were significant at p<0.05.

The effects of the simulation section and the

 

program section on the mean scores for writing a series

of frames were tested by the following null hypotheses:

76

7HO: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 3 for volunteers who complete
the trial InGrouP session and for volunteers
who complete the program section only.

llHO: There is no difference between mean scores
for subtest 3 for volunteers who complete

the program section only and for those prior
to the trial InGrouP session.

The results are summarized in Table 5.6.
TABLE 5.6.——Effects of the Simulation section and the

Program Section on Mean Scores for
Writing a Series of Frames

 

 

 

 

Simulation Program

Section Section
Posttest Mean 7.75 -
Midtest Mean 5.00 5.00
Pretest Mean - 1.33
Difference of Means 2.75 3.67
Si i _ _

gnif cance(0.05)

 

Therefore neither 7H0 nor llHO could be rejected at

p<0.05.

Attitude to Programmed Instruction
To assess the effectiveness of the trial InGrouP
session in changing attitudes to programmed instruction,

the following hypothesis was tested:

AHO: There is no difference between mean scores
for the attitude scale for volunteers who
complete the trial InGrouP session and for
those prior to the session.

77

The results are given in Table 5.7.

TABLE 5.7.——Effects of the Trial InGrouP Sessions on
Mean Scores for the Attitude Scale

 

 

Session 1 Session 2 Session

 

Posttest Mean 75.80 69.28 72.00
Pretest Mean ' 72.82 72.28 67.00
MeanpOSt-Meanpre 2.98 - 3.00 5.00
Significance(O 05) - - -

 

The null hypothesis that there is no difference

between mean scores on the attitude scale for the pretest

 

and the posttest groups could not be rejected at p<0.05.

The midtest scores obtained in the third trial
InGrouP session were used to test the effects of the
simulation section and the program section. The null
hypotheses were:

8H0: There is no difference between mean scores
for the attitude scale for volunteers who
complete the trial InGrouP session and for
volunteers who complete the program section
only.

 

l2HO: There is no difference between mean scores
for the attitude scale for volunteers who
complete the program section only and those
prior to the trial InGrouP session.

The results are given in Table 5.8.
Therefore neither 8HO nor 12HO could be rejected at
p<0.05.

78

TABLE 5.8.—-Effects of the Simulation Section and the
Program Section on Mean Scores
for the Attitude Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simulation Program
Section Section
Posttest Mean 72.00 -
Midtest Mean 66.30 66.30
Pretest Mean — 67.00
Difference of Means 5.70 - 0.70
Significance(0.05) - -
Summary

The data from the attitude scale and the test

 

booklet were analyzed using 3 tests for the first and
second trial InGrouP sessions, but 3 tests had to be
used for the analysis for the third session because of
multiple means.

Four null hypotheses were tested in each of the
three sessions to measure the effects of the total trial
InGrouP session on the development of knowledge of tech-
niques used in programs and the rationales underlying
their use, and the characteristics of programs; on the
ability to evaluate frames and programs; and on the
ability to write a series of frames. Changes in attitudes
to programmed instruction were also measured as indicated

by changes in attitude scale scores.

79

Another four hypotheses were tested to evaluate
the effects of the program section only, and four more

were tested to evaluate the effects of the simulation

 

section. These eight hypotheses were tested using the
data from the third trial InGrouP session.

All hypotheses were tested at the 0.05 level of
significance. This was considered to be an appropriate
level for the type of equipment required and the possible
consequences of the InGrouP session on the subsequent
behavior of the participants.

The findings are summarized in Table 5.9 in which
the symbols for the hypotheses correspond to the symbols
used on Pages 62 to 66.

Therefore it is concluded that the following state-
ments are supportable:

l. the combination of the program section and the

simulation section causes significant gains in mean

 

scores for knowledge of the techniques used in programs
and the characteristics of programs, (1H1);
2. the combination of the program section and the

simulation section causes significant gains in mean

 

scores for the ability to write a series of frames if a
short discussion is held after the first writing and
evaluation exercise, (3H1);

3. the program section alone causes significant gains
in mean scores for knowledge of the techniques and character-
istics of programs, (9H1); and for the ability to evaluate

frames and programs, (10H1)°

80

 

.COHpomm coapmaseflm one ou mummos m
.zaco coapoom Emswosm one Op whomop m
.COHmmmm msososH Hmfisp HmDOD one on mammms m + m

o

.QOHmmmw mSOcHUCH Hmflhp mflmmfi :COmemm:m

 

cofiposspmsH meEmsmosm
I oo oosoaooa as someone

 

omm omm moEmsm mo moanom m

I I cosmos sconce I coat: oo essence

omoa newswosm new moEmsm

I cosmos I I I oossficem oo soeaaoa

0mm oma oma oma mOHpmHLOQOmnmno can

I Domnms Doohos Downms pommos mmsvflsnooe no owUDHZQCx

aaco m saoo m m + a m + a mm + a

m cofimmom m coammom ma soammmm

 

Amo.ouov .COHmmmm
Hmfise one no monocooEoo one now mommnpommm

mSOhUCH

co ncoaooohom one so aoeessmII.m.m mamas

81

In Chapter VI, a summary of the development of
this study is presented and the previous statements are
discussed in more detail. Conclusions are then drawn
and some implications of this study for further research

are outlined.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary
The Problem

 

The problem underlying this study was the need to
deveIOp training sessions by which teachers may becOme
more actively involved in using and writing programmed
materials. Although programmed instruction has been
generally accepted as a method of instruction, there are
indications that it has not been used as extensively
as it might. At the same time, the present trend seems
to be towards large corporate organizations controlling
the production of programmed materials. In that it
could tend towards less flexibility (attention to
individual and localized needs), corporate monopoly
of the development of instructional programs constitutes
a potential hazard.

The need for writers of programs and knowledgable
adaptive users becomes more acute as the accumulation of

knowledge expands and the population of the world increases.

82

83

A Training Session

 

The prototype session developed in this study
represents an attempt to provide training for potential
users and writers of programs in a situation in which
five constraints were operating. These constraints
required minimizing the participation of the supervisor
and the quantity and elaborateness of the equipment
needed. Also, the procedure provided flexibility so
that the training could be used with groups of varying
Sizes and the session could be completed in one day or
two half-days. The materials were contained in booklets
which could be retained by the participants for reference
purposes.

Such a training session, or InGrouP session, could
form part of a battery of sessions by which the involve-
ment of teachers with programmed instruction could be
increased. The battery is visualized as providing training
for teachers of all subject areas in all grades. The
battery could be expanded to provide training for teachers
in other countries. In this way, an international cadre
of programmers could be formed to share programs and
research findings. The members of the cadre could write
programs for their own country and modify other programs
from other countries to meet the objectives and character-
istics of their own culture. This would lead to a wider
acceptance and efficient use of programmed instruction as

a medium for presenting materials in a logical sequence,

8A

for providing individual instruction with active responding
and for immediate knowledge of results. Some of the burden
of preparing programs could thus be reduced through sharing

effort and costs.

The Study

 

The prototype InGrouP session was prepared for
science—oriented secondary-level teachers. The examples
used in the materials were taken from science and mathe-
matics at approximately the junior high school level.

The materials were used in two sections. The first,
or program section, used self—instructional materials to
present the techniques used in programs and the rationales
underlying their use, and the characteristics of programs.
In addition, the features of good frames and good programs

were outlined. The second section, or simulation section,

 

gave participants the opportunity to apply the principles
considered in the previous section when writing three
cseries of frames. These series of frames were evaluated
by simulating three evaluation procedures.

The method of instruction incorporated features
from programmed instruction, workshops and simulation.
Participants worked individually, in small groups and in
large groups at various times throughout the session.

For research purposes, the basic structure of the
InGrouP session was modified to include the administration

of two instruments to measure the effects of the procedure.

85

These instruments were developed to measure changes in
four factors:

1. knowledge of techniques, rationales and character-
istics of programs;

2. ability to evaluate frames, programs and program
sequences;

3. ability to identify an acceptable program-
writing sequence, and to write a series of
frames; and

A. expressed attitude to programmed instruction.
The two instruments, a twenty item Likert—type attitude
scale and a test booklet containing three subtests, were
used with all participants. Each instrument was developed
using respondents and procedures similar to those to be
used in the research sessions.

In addition, qualitative information was sought to
indicate the appropriateness of the method and the
materials for teachers of the type who participated.

Three trial InGrouP sessions were conducted to which
secondary-level science and mathematics teachers were
invited to attend. The first session was attended by
science teachers from an area of Michigan within a radius
of about seventy miles of the university. At the second
and third sessions, the majority of the science and
mathematics teachers were from outside Michigan. In all
sessions, the participants were volunteers and they

received no payment for attending. The medians for the

86

categories of length of experience in science teaching
and total teaching experience differed slightly between
sessions. However the medians for the number of periods
per week in which programmed materials were used in the
68/69 school year were identical.

A total of sixty-seven teachers attended the
sessions although only slightly less than half completed
both sections. As some of those who did not complete
the session were pretested, some data were available
from more than three-fourths of the total.

Two trial InGrouP sessions were each completed
in a day, whereas the third session was presented in two
three—hour periods on separate evenings.

In each session, the participants were randomly
assigned to control and experimental groups. All control

groups were pretested with the attitude scale and the

 

test booklet. In the first two sessions, the experimental
group was posttested using these instruments. In the

third session, one experimental group was tested after
completing the program section while the other experimental

group was posttested after completing both program and

 

simulation sections of the training session.

Findings

Comparisons between pretest and posttest means
indicate that, for teachers who participated in the trial

InGrouP sessions, the following conclusions are supported

 

87

by analyses significant at p<0.05:

1. a gain in mean scores for the knowledge of
techniques used in programs and the rationales under-
lying their use, and the characteristics of programs
(1H1);

2. no gain in mean scores for the ability to
evaluate single frames, programs and program sequences
(2H0);

3. a gain in mean scores for the ability to
recognize an acceptable program-writing sequence, and
to write a series of frames when a discussion session
was included in the training session at the completion
of the first writing and evaluation exercise (3H1);
and

A. no gain in mean scores for the attitude scale

 

on programmed instruction (AH0)°

Analyses of data from the program section of the
third session indicate the following conclusions supported
by analyses significant at p<0.05:

5. a gain in mean scores for the knowledge of
techniques used in programs and the rationales underlying
their use, and the characteristics of programs (9H1);

6. a gain in mean scores for the ability to evaluate
single frames, programs and program sequences (loHl);
7. no gain in mean scores for the ability to

recognize an acceptable program-writing sequence, and to

write a series of frames (llHO); and

88

8. no gain in mean scores for the attitude scale (12H0)°

 

Also, data from the simulation section at the third

 

session indicated the following:

9. no gain in mean scores for any of the four
areas considered (5HO—8HO).

Some participants had difficulty in assuming the
role of a typical student and with the subject matter in
the first frame writing exercise. One suggestion put
forward was that the supervisor Should evaluate a series
of frames presented to the group by overhead projector.
While this method of instruction appears to have obvious
merit, to incorporate it would require the removal of
one of the constraints. A supervisor with some expertise

in programmed instruction would be required to make the

evaluation.

Conclusions

Although the findings were based on data obtained
from fifty-three participants who attended one of the
three trial InGrouP sessions, the patterns of findings
indicate that, in general, the effects were the same in
all three sessions.

The only difference between the trial InGrouP
session and the general application of the materials in
InGrouP sessions is the administration of the attitude
ppglg and the test booklet. From comments made by some

participants, elimination of these instruments is more

89

likely to improve performance than to decrease it. Without
these instruments the attrition rate would probably be
lower. There is no reason to assume that the materials
would produce results differing from those found in the
research sessions.

Therefore it may be concluded that for secondary-
level science and mathematics teachers similar to those
who attended the trial InGrouP sessions, the complete
training session produces significant gains in mean
scores for knowledge of program techniques and for the
ability to write a series of frames.

The program section produces significant gains in
the mean scores for knowledge of techniques used in
programs and for the evaluation of programs but does not
produce significant gains in mean scores for the ability
to write programs.

No part of the InGrouP session, nor the whole
session produces significant gains in attitude within
the brief time frame required by this prototype.

No statement about the long-term effects of the

InGrouP session can be made.

Implications for Future Research
There are a number of areas related to this study
into which research could be extended.
Probably the most important next step is to seek

some evaluation of the effects of the InGrouP session

90

over an extended. period of time. Such evaluation
could focus on both the theoretical involvement in
programmed instruction of the teachers as measured by
paper-and-pencil type instruments such as the attitude

scale and the test booklet used in this study and the

 

practical involvement of the teachers with programmed
materials in their schools.

As the examples from science and mathematics used
in the materials in this study are secondary to learning
about programs and programming, research could be done to
investigate the effectiveness of the existing materials
with teachers from other subject areas and from other
grades. An alternative would be to develop parallel
forms of the materials for teachers in other subject
areas, other grades and other cultures.

Finally, there is some indication from comments
made by participants in this study that the program
section which is self-instructional may be better worked
outside the group situation. Such a change would reduce
the time required for the training session to about three
hours. However it is not certain whether participants
left to work through the materials on their own would

enter the simulation part of the training session

 

adequately prepared. Research in this area may prove

fruitful.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Articles

 

Allport, W. Gordon. "Attitudes." A Handbook of Social
Psychology. Edited by Carl Murchison. Worchester,
Mass.: Clark University Press, 1935.

 

 

Anderson, Vernon E. Principles and Procedures of Curriculum
Improvement. New York: Ronald Press, 1966.

 

Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York:
Harper and Row, 1957.

 

Bell, Norman T. and Hunt, James C. Self-Instructional
Program in Psychology. Glenview, 111.: Scott,
Foresman and Co., 1967.

 

 

Blyth, John W. "Teaching Machines and Human Beings."
Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source
Book. Edited by A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser.
Washington, D.C.: Department of Audiovisual
Instruction, National Education Association, 1960.

Brethower, Dale M., Markle, David G., Rummler, Geary A.,
Schrader, Albert A., and Smith, Donald E. P.
Programmed Learning: A Practicum. Ann Arbor:

Ann Arbor Publishers, 1965.

 

Bushnell, Donald D. "Computer Based Simulation: New
Technology for Education." AV Communications Review,
11 (2), 1963.

Butts, R. Freeman. "Teacher Education: A Focal Point."
Education and the Development of Nations. Edited
by John W. Hanson and Cole S. Brembeck. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental
and Quasi—Egperimental Designs for Research. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1963.

 

 

Cartier, Francis A. "After the Programming Fad Fades,
Then What?" AV Communications Review, 11 (3), 1963.

 

91

92

Cherryholmes, Cleo H. "Some Current Research on the
Effectiveness of Educational Simulation: Implications
for Alternative Strategies." American Behavioral
Scientist, 10 (2), 1966.

 

 

Clarke, Arthur. on "The Epic Journey of Apollo 11," C. B. S.
Telecast, July 20, 1969.

Corey, Stephen M. "The Nature of Instruction." Programed
Instruction. Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago:
The Society, 1967.

 

 

Cox, Helen H. ed. Education U. S. A.: Technology in
Education -— A Special Report. Washington, D.C.:
National School Public Relations Association, 1967.

De Cecco, John P. Psychology of Learning and Instruction:
Educational Psychology. New York: Prentice Hall,
1968.

 

De Cecco, John P. ed. Readings in Programmed Instruction.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 196A.

Deterline, William A. An Introduction to Programmed
Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Prentice
Hall, 1962.

 

Deterline, William A. "Problems in Program Production."
Programed Instruction. Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II.
Chicago: The Society, 1967.

 

Downing, Carlton B. "Programmed Instruction in Perspective."

Trends in Programmed Instruction. Edited by

G. D. Ofiesh and W. C. Meierhenry. Washington, D.C.:
Department of Audiovisual Instruction, National
Education Association and the National Society for
Programmed Instruction, 196A.

Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1961.

Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude chle Construction.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.

93

Eichholz, Gerhard and Rogers, Everett M. "Resistance to
the Adoption of Audiovisual Aids by Elementary
School Teachers." Innovations in Education.

Edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York: Bureau of
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University,

 

196A.

Eigen, L. D., Filep, R. T., Goldstein, L. S., and Angalet,
B. "A Comparison of Modes of Presenting a Programmed
Instruction Sequence." Programed Instruction.

 

New York: Center for Programmed Instruction,
February 1962.

Espich, James E. and Williams, Bill. Developing Programmed
Instructional Materials. Palo Alto, Calif.:
Fearon, 1967.

 

 

Flanders, Ned A. Helpinngeachers Change Their Behavior.
Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1963.

 

Fry, Edward B. Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruc-
tion: An Introduction. New York: McGraw Hill, 1963.

 

Gleason, Gerald. "Will Programmed Instruction Serve
People?" Educational Leadership, XXIII, March 1966.

Goldstein, Leo S. "Research in Programmed Instruction."
Trends in Programmed Instruction. Edited by G. D.
Ofiesh and W. C. Meierhenry. Washington, D.C.:
Department of Audiovisual Instruction, National
Education Association and the National Society for
Programmed Instruction, 196A.

 

Goode, William J. and Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social
Research. New York: McGraw Hill, 1952.

 

Green, Edward J. "Process of Instructional Programing."
Programed Instruction. Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II.
Chicago: The Society, 1967.

 

Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

 

Katz, Daniel and Stotland, Ezra. "A Preliminary Statement
to a Theory of Attitudinal Structure and Change."
Psyphology: A Study of a Science. Edited by
S. Koch. New York: McGraw Hill, 1959.

Kelley, Earl C. The Workshop Way of Learning. New York:
Harper and Row, 1951.

 

9A

Kimmel, Peter, "Der Programmierte Unterricht in den
U. S. A." Erziehung und Unterricht, 3, March 1968.

Lackner, Lois M. "Current Research on Programmed Texts
and Self-Instructional Learning in Mathematics and
Related Areas." AV Communications Review, 15,
Summer 1967.

Lange, Phil C. "Administrative and Curricula Considerations."
Programed Instruction. Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II.
Chicago: The Society, 1967.

Lange, Phil 0. "Future Developments." Programed
Instruction. Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago:
The Society, 1967.

 

Lindvall, C. M. and Bolvin, John O. "Programed Instruction
in the Schools: An Application of Programing
Principles in Individually Prescribed Instruction."
Prpgramed Instruction. Sixty-sixth Yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education,

Part II. Chicago: The Society, 1967.

Mager, Robert F. "President's Page." National Society
for Programmed Instruction, V, January 1966.

 

Mager, Robert F., and Beach, Kenneth M. Jr. Developing
Vopgtional Instruction. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon,
1967.

 

Margolis, Richard. "Programed Instruction: Miracle or
Menace?" Revolution In Teaching: New Theory4
Technology, and Curricula. Edited by Alfred de
Grzfiia and David A. Sohn. New York: Bantam Books,
19 .

Markle, Susan. "Empirical Testing of Programs." Programed
Instruction. Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago:
The Society, 1967.

 

Markle, Susan. Good Frames and Bad. New York: John
Wiley, 196A.

Meacham, Joe D. "Programmed Instruction and Teaching
Machine Technology." National Society for Programmed
Instruction, III (9). November 196A.

95

Mechner, Francis. "Behavioral Analysis and Instructional
Sequences." Programed Instruction. Sixty—sixth
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II. Chicago: The Society, 1967.

Morgenthaler, G. W. "Theory and Application of
Simulation in Operations Research." Progress in
Operations Research. Edited by R. L. Ackoff.
New York: John Wiley, 1961.

 

Nagay, John A. Programmed Instruction in Norway, Sweden
and Denmark. London, Eng.: Office of Naval Research,
Technical Report ONRL-6-66, March 1966.

 

O'Rourke, Mary A. and Burton, William H. Workshops for
Teachers. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.

 

O'Toole, John F. Jr. "Teachers' and Principals' Attitudes
towards Programed Instruction in the Elementary
School." AV Communications Review, 12, Winter 196A.

Phi Delta Kappa and Indiana University. Fourth Annual
Phi Delta Kappa Symposium on Educational Research:
Simulation Models for Education. Indianapolis:
The Society and the University, November 1962.

 

Pressey, Sidney L. "Teaching Machines (and Learning
Theory) Crisis." Readings in Programmed Instruction.
Edited by John P. De Cecco. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 196A.

 

Resources Development Corporation. R D C: Seminars -
Theory and Practice of Programed Learningo, East
Lansing: The Corporation, 1966}

Ruble, William L., Kiel, Donald F., and Rafter, Mary E.
One-way Analysis of Variance wiph Unequal Number
of Replications Permitted. STAT Series Description
No. 13. East Lansing: Agricultural Experiment
Station, Michigan State University, November 1968.

 

Schramm, Wilbur L. Programed Instruction: Tooay and
Tomorrow. Fund for the Advancement of Education,
1962.

 

Schramm, Wilbur L. The Research on Programmed Instruction.
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Office of Education Bulletin 35. Washington, D.C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 196A.

96

Stolurow, Lawrence. "Implications of Current Research
and Future Trends." Journal of Educational
Research, 55 (9), June 1962.

Stolurow, Lawrence. "Implications of Current Research
and Trends in Educational Technology." Readings
in Programmed Instruction. Edited by John P. De Cecco.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 196A.

Travers, Robert M. W. An Introduction to Educational
Research. New York: Macmillan, 196A.

Tobias, Sigmund. "Lack of Knowledge and Fear of Automation
as Factors in Teachers' Attitudes towards Programmed
Instruction and Other Media." AV Communications
Review, 1A, Spring 1966.

Twelker, Paul A. "Classroom Simulation and Teacher
Preparation." The School RevieW, 75 (2), 1967.

Vaizey, John. "Priorities within Education." Education
and the Development of Nations. Edited by John W.
Hanson and Cole S. Brembeck. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

Wallen, Norman E. and Travers, Robert M. W. "Analysis
and Investigation of Teaching Methods." Handbook
of Research on Teachingo, Edited by N. L. Gage.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

Welch, Don. "Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction:
What is in Store for Us?" Programed Instruction,
1 (6), June 1962.

Whalley, Noel. A Epide to the Preparation of Teaching
Programmes. Bristol, Eng: Teaching Programmes
Ltd., 1966.

Wright, David J. and Porter, Andrew C. An Adaptation of
Frank B. Baker's Test Analysis Paogoge, Occasional
Paper 1. East Lansing: Office of Research Consulta-
tion, Michigan State University, January 1968.

Other Sources

Brooks, F. H., Director General of Education, Education
Department, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, February
2A, 1969 (letter).

97

Dettman, H. W., Director General of Education, Education
Department, Perth, Western Australia, February 21,
1969 (letter).

Kulkarni, S. 8., Reader, National Institute of Education,
New Delhi, India, April 1A, 1969 (letter).

Murphy, G. K. D. , Director General of Education, Department
of Education, Queensland, Australia, February 25,
1969 (letter).

Nicholas, R. J., Education Officer: External Studies,
Education Department, Adelaide, South Australia,
March 11, 1969 (letter).

Nicholls, H., Deputy Director General of Education,
Education Department, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia,
February 17, 1969 (letter).

Yelland, O. V., Director General of Education, Department
of Education, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia,
April 2, 1969 (letter).

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

INGROUP MATERIALS

Registration 130 .

lame

 

BOOKLET l

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROGRAMS

AITD TECHIIQUJS U83 IE? PROGRAMMING

This booklet is part of a workshop experience
developed to give you a basis fOr understanding
and assessing programs, and to give you
experience with some of the techniques used

in programs.

You will be asked to make responses to a
number of questions throughout the program.
These responses should be written in the

space provided after the question. Generally,
confirmation of your answer is given
immediately below the line under your response.
Some confirmations are given in Booklet 2.

All responses will be treated as confidential.

SSCTIOI: 1 4 Tscmriquss 0330 III PROGRAIIS

After selecting the topic area for which a teacher wishes to use a
program, specific behavioral objectives should be prepared. Those are
the goals which the student should reach after working through the
program, and these should be the same as the goals of the program to be

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

used.
F. TE 1 Which of the following sets of behavioral objectives better
describes the objectives of this fibrkshop?
Set A Set B
At the conclusion of the At the conclusion of the
workshop, you will : workshop, you will :
l. have seen a number of 1. be able to name
programming techniques, programming techniques,
2. have been presented with 2. be able to state the
the characteristics of characteristics of
programs, programs,
3. be able to read research 3. be able to assess a program
findings meaningfully. from research findings.
(lame the set)
Confirm your answer with the one given in Booklet 2.
FRAME 2 All programs have three characteristics.
The first characteristic is that the material is presented in
a series of logical steps. By working through these steps, the
student is led from simple known facts into the information to
be learned. In an attempt to assess the quality of a program,
a teacher should examine the logical sequence of
presented.
steps
FRAME The second characteristic of a program is that the student is
required to respond, just as you have done in the previous
frames of this program.
Because of this, programmed instruction has advantages over
many other methods of teaching because a student is required
to make r at frequent intervals.
responses
SHARE 4 Uhen a response is written it is called an overt response.

When the response is selected but not written, it is called
a(n) response.

 

v7— --.. 0.. . .¢-. ... -

if

-2-
covert
This means that the response is made internally, or in other
words, the student actually works out the answer but is not

required to write it down. Covert is the opposite to overt.

Research shows that covert responding saves time when it is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

used in a program but that responding probably
leads to better learning.
overt

FRANZ However, some research results indicate no difference
between and responding when the
effectiveness of instruction is measured.
(Either order) overt, covert

FRAME 7 In this program you have been making responses.
overt

SO far you have worked through seven frames. A frame is a step in a

program.

The length of frames or steps can vary greatly from only a

few words to one which may take a page in a book.

FRAME 8

FRAIE 2

...4. ..., .. .. ..-m..-..-_--c--.—.

The third characteristic of a program is that the student
receives immediate information as to the correctness of his
response.

This immediate knowledge of results is
called f_._._ b .

 

feedback

This is a term borrowed from electronics. There it is used
fer the effect of one action altering subsequent actions.

Feedback is considered essential for effective learning
because it gives information on

 

 

 

(Your words) correctness of responses, or progres .

In most of this booklet, the correct answers have been placed below
the frame. Many programs have them to the right of the frame or to
the right of the following frame.

In the next frame, the correct response has been placed to the right
of the frame.

-3-

 

F '3 10 The three characteristics of all I’ (Your words, any order)
programs are : ‘ l. logical seqpence of
steps. ‘
1. 2. active respondingy(but

 

 

not necessarily overt).
3. immediate feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No matter where the programmer thinks that the correct answers should
be placed, he should be consistent throughout the entire program. In
this booklet, the answers have been placed in various positions to show
you some of the possibilities commonly used. It's not good programming
to change in the middle of a program:

By the way, let's pause for a moment. Have you found that you have
tended to glance down at the answer before you made your response?
(Io response necessary, but be honesté)

Most people tend to do so.

Research has given mixed results on the importance of peeking. Some
say that it saves time. Others say that peeking reduces correct recall
later on. Its effect on learning probably depends on when the peeking
occurs. If the student thinks out his own response first, then confirms
his covert response before writing, then probably nothing is lost.
However, if he just copies down the correct response, than he probably
does not learn too much.

There are several ways to reduce peeking One way is to "conceal" the
answers haphazardly throughout the text. But this is time-consuming
and annoying. Another way is to use a cover or slide which is moved
down the page to uncover the answer only after the response has been
made. This requires willpowcri If the answers are given to the side
of the frame then the cover is used to conceal the answer strip down
the side of the page.

In Booklet 2, the last page has been left blank so that you may
detach it and use it as a cover for the remainder of the program.

UOrk through the next sequence of frames and notice how peeking
is reduced. The answers are given in the margin to the left of the
frame which follows.

-A-

PEAK: 11 To find the mean of a set of scores, first find
the sum of the scores by adding all the scores
together.

For this set of scores (2, 3: 5, 6, 9) the sum
is .

(The next frame is at the top of the next page,
sum: TO me: 5 are CCIITIITUE.)

 

Answer to Frame 12 FLAEE 1 row the next step in finding the mean is to
count up the number of scores in the set.
X I How many scores are there in this set?

 

(TU?"L ” PAGE 6.)

Answer to Frame 15 FRAIE 16 Iow apply this fermula to the data.
2;” The mean of the scores (2; 3: 5, 6, 9) is
N feund by dividing the number by the number

(TUE? 'I‘O PAC.) 6.)

 

 

 

10
BERKS 20 Ubuld you call the arrangement of the last nine frames
(Frames 11-19) a horizontal or a vertical fermat?

 

 

horizontal format (because you worked through pages horizontally
rather than working vertically down each page).

Uhen this horizontal format is used, it is used through the entire
book so that a double page from a book may look like this:

-- "fl" ”"H'v'g—H

. "~, '9" _1 \
a— “\-i ' k f ‘“~ ..
“(u-1t? .3, ,:_h,.u/:E ‘! uRAME 30 x.
. 'Mtfl F J., ‘
:‘inu‘w ' .. -- - .. .- -- .. ... 37'
57“ ,m ’ -. .4 fl: Ffiflkt ‘ {I}
H a; ,anxfi-IUZ ~*‘ 5 9: “H
"' 7 «K ' ' WC- p
‘9 .\.‘\ “ l r o "
".‘ o ” "‘.i»'“"“- ’
. 214 I S -' C< - “ \ )'
z? , , ,. ”we w, ”w dz
§))P~3\JK‘ [:1- ‘ ~ 1 5'.
'. .. " ‘Ij-~~-\~. ‘, ‘ [git .1.“ ‘rfi‘\ -, ..
l :32 791’..- ~~ , ”33> ’ ”r ”hithr-h’
A ! '.‘

"ow continue through the program with Frame 21 which is just below the
double line on the next p ge.

-5-

Answer to Frame 11 Ffiflhj 12 To generalize, a statistical shorthand may be

used to represent the computation you have just
lg2_ carried out. If the Greek letter, sigma (z) is
used to represent “the sum of”, and X is used to
stand for each score, then the computation may be
written in statistical shorthand as

 

(TUBE: BACK TO PAGE A)

. ...—...,u- a- .... ..., ... . --—-- ‘ 0“ -~ .. -a-

 

 

 

Answer to Frame 14 PRAISE 15 To find the mean, divide the sum of the scores by

the number of scores. In statistical shorthand,
= V this operation could be written as

 

(TURI: BACK TO PAGE 1.)

.----..vu— .- .-.“ ..- — 9.... ......-.__.. .... “‘4'”. -.- . . --~.-—-—.~‘

 

—— _—.--- .

 

Answer to Frame l7 FRAhE 18 In_§tatistical shorthand, the mean is written

as K. 50 the equation for finding the mean
5 is = o

 

 

(TUBE TO PAGE 6)

- --.u— .---.... ... -.-...-—..—.. -. .- .. .-_—.-~..»_.-.——.- .-.. --. ...-..

 

F: 23 21 What advantage does this horizontal format have over
a vertical format?

 

W

(your words) more difficult to_peek.

It is harder to peek but if you really wanted to do so it can still

be done. In book fbrm, the horizontal format is not quite as messy

as it was here because the student works through the book reading the
top frame on all the right-hand pages, then the middle frame on the
right-hand pages and so on until all the pages on the right have been
worked. Then he starts again at the front of the book and works through
all the left-hand pages.

FRAME 22 What disadvantages does the horizontal format have?

1.

 

2.

 

Confirm your responses.

Frame 23 is just below the double line on the next page.

-6-

 

Answer to Frame 13 FRAME 14 A shorthand way of writing the number of scores
in a set is to use U as the number of scores.
.2.
Therefore, in your example :
5 = ___
(TURF BACK TO PAGE 5)
Answer to Frame 16 NAIL-J 17 The mean of the scores (2, 3, 5, 6, 9) is
g); by 2 (Tum: BACK TO PAC; 5)

 

.knswer to Frame 18 FRAEJ 12 what is the mean of the fbllowing set of scores?
X = EX Scores 6,7,8,1l,13,15.

T
hean .

(TURII BACK TO mes 4 Ali-D COIITIIiUE UITH FRMLJ 20)

 

 

 

FTmHE 23 The fermat used for the first part of this program
(Frames l-lO) was

 

 

W

vertical (format)

Just a thought in passing; How does the use of the Confirmation
section in Booklet 2 affect peeking?

to overt response necessary but it might be worth a thought as a
technique to reduce peeking. However one essential feature of
programmed instruction is that feedback must be immediate to provide
reinfbrcement. The effect of reinfOrcement is probably more
important than any undesirable effects caused by peeking. So if

a programmer eliminates peeking; at the expense of immediate
feedback then the efficiency of the program has suffered.

Should all answers be given in a confirmation section? Probably
not as this would make it very easy to peek. Which answers should
go there?

As review, turn to Page 7 of Booklet 2 and complete Tables 1 - 3.

This is probably an appropriate point to take a short break if
you feel you need one.

-7.
SECTIOH 2 - SOhE KORE TECHNIQUES AND PROGRAfi TIPES
hany programmers favor putting the frames in boxes. In this way the
student's attention is fecussed on the contents of the box and the

contents are separated from the correct answer.

The frames on this page have been written in boxes.

 

 

r; '3 24 O

‘l The oboso is unusual because
) it does not .

 

 

Ho confirmation yet, although this is contrary to gpod programming.

Ky guess would be that, from the information in Frame 24 ( and the
sketch may be considered relevant from a certain angle ), few of you
have given the correct answer because you are not sure what an

oboso is. In fact, I'm not sure either.

Try the next frame.

 

 

 

Frame 25 r
<71 ;W\ The oboso is an unusual bird
1;»! “ because, although it has wings,
,. ~. it cannot .
\ \_J
“L-,:

 

 

I would hazard a guess that even without the sketch of the mythical
oboso, most people would be able to give the correct response - _;y.
The sentence context "leads" you to only one logical answer, although
the answer did not occur anywhere in the frames.

Programmers say you were "prompted“ to make the correct response.
If a prompt is to be successful, the student must have the correct
answer in his vocabulary. Programmers also use another technique
which maximizes the chances of students making the correct response.

Try the next four frames.

 

 

Photosynthesis is the process by which green plants
make carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water in the
the presence of chlorophyll and sunlight.

It is this process of
plants produce food.

by which

 

 

 

,photosynthesis
Easy wasn't it?

FRALE 27 One major difference between plants anf animals is
that plants are able to make carbohydrates
(i.e. food) from raw materials by the process
called photo _________ .

 

photo §Iy n t h e s i s.

 

SHAKE 28 The reaction : ' ifi’ohl
carbon dioxide + water as
carbohydrate + oxygen
represents the chemical process of ph .

 

 

photosynthesis

.23é22_§2 Plants produce oxygen and carbohydrates by

 

 

,photosynthesis

In the last four frames (Frames 26-29) you were “led" to make the
correct response. You were not prompted because you did not arrive
at the correct answer by the context of the sentence, but rather
by the content. In other words , the sentence actually contained
the word which was the coriect response. After the first frame
you were "led" by parts of the answer appearing in the frame.

Such leads are "cues".

The first frame (Frame 26) required direct copying. This technique
should be avoided where possible as a correct response does not
guarantee that any learning has occurred. However; in some cases
such as spelling programs, or when introducing new terms in science,
there may be no satisfactory alternative. You could, however,
pre-test by giving the student the last frame (Frame 29) only, then
modify the sequence of frames depending on whether he knew the word
"photosynthesis" or not.

In the four frames on photosynthesis, the amount of cuing was
progressively reduced. This is sometimes called "fading“.

IflUUEE 29

-9-

Look back at the series of frames 2 through 8.
In which were you cued by the contents of the frames
themselves?

 

Confirm.

 

Let's look at some of the other features of programs

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRAME 1 A. -; ‘ I» meniscus B.
1
' ’ 60
k . 50
i .' 40
r;)~vrw 6’ 30
“5”," ,2 20
‘: Zwater'l‘
These are magnified views of the surface of water in two
tubes or containers.
In Tube A, the reading of the level of water is 30.
What is the reading in Tube 13?
.49.
PRAISE 32 C.;§ A,” meniscus D. a; 2*.-- meniscus
33 ,/ #80
It» .’I !60
‘15-]! . / :50
h' 1;, ’ ,40
-- mercury
The reading of the level of mercury in Tube C is 70.
The level of mercury in Tube D is .
100
FRAHB 3. .1
.I r ' I I I {/77;~'fi.-
llCl'LIid ' la/l’f 1‘

’l’4 _——--~...

 

WIILL ’

12‘3‘f56789Lf0

 

The reading of the level of liquid in Tube 3 is .

-.:..v-

.5.
FEE 2Q Compare Frames 32 and 33.

1. Which one would you call a teaching frame?

 

2. Suggest a name for the other frame.

 

 

1. Frame 20
It may be considered to be a teaching frame because it
contains sufficient information to enable the student
to work out the correct response without reference to
any other frame.

2. (Your words) testin , or criterion frame.
To respond correctly the student would have to have prior
knowledge of the subject matter.

Criterion frames are used to test the effectiveness of teaching.
Often they are used in a program some distance from the teaching
frames to which they are related. This then presents a better
testing situation.

FRANZ 5 How could the sequence of the series of frames on
liquid levels (Frames 31’33) be improved?

 

 

4...“ A
_4-‘ A- A

(Your words) separate the criterion frame from the
teaching frames.

FRAHJ 6 Suggest reasons why criterion frames are probably more
effective if placed away from their teaching frames.

1.

 

2.
Confirm.

 

 

—— T v v

FRAME 27 The free surface of a liquid is called the .

a;
”*‘-_--. ‘— v———— v

meniscus

Hotice that this term was not taught but there is a fair chance
that the correct response will be made because it was cued by having
the word "meniscus" in Frames 31 and 32.

EEKME 38 Give a rule for reading the level of any liquid in a
tube or container.

-11-

(Your words) the reading is taken from the center of the

meniscus.
FRAHE Look at this series of frames again (Frames 31 - 33 and'38).
A(n) (example/rule) was presented first

 

in the series.

 

exam le

FRAHE 40 In the last frame of the series, you were asked to give
a(n) (example/rule).

 

rule
SHAKE 41 This series would, therefore, be known as an EGRUL3 sequence.

This term was derived by programmers by combining
BXAIIPLZJ (3G) with .

RULE

SCRULE is one sequence used in programming a series of frames. It may
be used to sequence information within a frame also. Look at the
next frame.

 

 

2

ram 42 X . x3 = :5
K3 . K5 = 38
.,a .,b
A o .1 =
a+b

 

This last frame may be considered to be an EGRULJ frame because two
examples are given first, then a rule was asked for. Perhaps
mathematicians would argue that K3 . Kb is another example. It
probably doesn't matter much. The point is that examples are used
first in the frame. In other words, the student is required to
generalize. In the last frame, instead of giving Xa . Kb =
the student could have been asked to express the rule in words.

 

How work through the next series of frames.

-12-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRAME 4 Changing the temperature of a substance tends to change
its size (or volume). The volume tends to increase as
the substance is heated but it will tend to
when the substance is cooled.

(Your words) decrease, or diminish, or get smaller.

FRAHE 44 You probably made the correct response in Frame 43
because you were
prompted

FRAKE 45 'You were prompted to make the correct response in Frame 43 by :
l.

2.
Confirm.
FRAME 46 If a balloon containing cool air, is placed in front of a

source of heat, the size of the balloon will

 

 

ERRHE 47

increase

  

I.
'7

,,e stopper

7},

” '~‘\ / flask

.I‘.

The flask was completely filled with
water at room temperature.

On heating, the stoppered flask may
break or the stopper may be forced
out because

 

the water in the flask to

 

 

*1
t
.

IE

48

'RAI

(Your words) heating

Uhich of the following sequences best represents the order
of presentation of the frames in the last series (Frames 43,

46,

l.
2.

3.
[to

expand

47)?

rule then examples
examples then rule
only examples
mflyrfles

 

 

-13..

‘1. (rule then examples)

FRAHE 42 Suggest a name for this sequence of presenting frames

in a program.

 

 

 

 

RULE

FRAHE O This is derived from RULE and EXAHPLE (30).
Both EGRULE and RULES sequences have been used in this
program on programmed instruction.
Which sequencing technique do you consider to be better?
Confirm.

FRAKE 51 So far you have all worked through all the frames in this

program.

Below.a circle represents a frame (or a series of franes)
and arrows represent the direction of movement from one
frame (or series) to the next.

Which diagram best represents this program, so far?

A. -O-O-O-O-O+ C o ~O-O-O-O-O-IO-fl7
/ \ + /
050
0/
B. -O-O’ D. ~O"*—jr—--«O-O—1r
o. O-O-Q-O

 

 

FRAHE 52 All the participants have worked through all the frames

in the same order.

Which of the following terms best describes this type
of program?

A. Branching
B. Forked

C. Complete
D. Linear

 

. 1.3.394
”WW"
5

Y “'13:... u

‘0 a
'fi. ,0

“" ‘figgrq-u‘

.- “has

_pp; (linear)

All participants followed the same path or line from
start to finish.

FRAKE 53 A disadvantage of a linear program is that

 

 

Confirm.

 

FRAEE 24 Does a linear program allow for individual differences?

 

 

X.§fi

Students can work at different rates so a linear program does allow
for differences in reading rates and rates of learning.

There are ways of allowing for other individual differences otherfthan
just rates.

For example, in a program to teach graphing scientific data, after

a series of frames on how to actually make a graph, the following
frame could be given.

mun: 55 (1:0 asseors: Itscsssmti)
Graph the following laboratory results.

~ '“v‘ai'.:e‘. --.. --.;

.... J... - -- ---- lf‘"""*""‘ --.. ,, ,__s__, __
{.3 readings l l 2 l 3 -Tfi‘é ‘
1' readings ; 1 T I. 9 5 16 Q

J

 

 

 

 

Which of the following graphs looks most like your graph?

1'). . Co

 

a. D.

E. hone of the above.

 

Turn to the page indicated for your particular response.

Response A. Turn to Page 2, Confirmation Booklet.

B. Page 2.
C. Page 3.
D. Page 3.
E. Page 3.

(Select one of the responses in Frame 55 and follow through
how the programmer handles the problem. Then try another
until you see the range of options available to the
students who might make these responses.)

 

FRAME 56 What would be the effect of placing Frame 55 BEFORE the
hypothetical series of frames on graphing?

 

 

— -..-u

Confirm.

 

FRAHE 57 What would be a suitable name for a program implied by
the teaching graphing sequence and Frame 55?

A M

 

(Your word) branching

 

It is a branchin;;program in which the individuals may proceed through
different series of frames depending on their response to Frame 55.

FRAJE 58 Which of the following diagrams best represents the implied

 

graphing sequence? 0;.
0,0
A. -O-O-O-O-O-Oa ,0’
Co ‘O—O~ O

D 0.0, O-
B o ‘02 - ...--....." O—O.., 9

O-O+O-O

Confirm

 

Branching programs allow for individual differences other than just
rate. However they are more difficult to write. As all students
will not work through the same set of frames, on re must be

taken that all information considered essential to the development
of all students is placed in the main stream, not in one of the
branches.

-16-

FBAHE 52 Remedial loops and accelerating loops can be built into a
branching program to meet the needs of the students.

For remedial work, which of the following sequences do
you consider to be more desirable?

A. -o—o --.-_ >— C~t~ a. -0-0-0—0-0— —o.>
cool I: -

(l) __
13m? (2) -1 -_

 

Confirm.

 

FRAHE 60 If you were giving a series of frames on measuring the
levels of’liquids (similar to Frames 31-33) suggest some
improvements you would make.

can ...-.0-

 

 

 

(Your opinion) Here are some suggestions:
1. pretest and then provide branching.

2. separate the criterion frame. from the teaching_frames.
3. use actual equipment for the criterion test.

Working through a program does not mean that you are restricted to

the book, machine or computer which contains the program. Recent
trends suggest that programs should be used in conjunction with texts,
laboratory experiences, diagrams, charts, etc. These materials are
“built into" the program only in as much as the student is referred
to them for some part of the program. On completion of the "outside"
assignment, the student will return to the program and continue.

how turn to Page 8 in Booklet 2 and complete Tables 4-6.

If you need a break, this is a good time for one. You are over half
way through the program.

-17-
SECTIOP 3 - CHARACTERISTICS OF PROGRAES
Frames may vary greatly in length and content. For example, some
are short, others long; some verbal, others may be essentially
pictorial.

The programmer should aim to maximize brevity and clarity.

FRAME 61 Suggest two cases where short frames are probably superior
to long frames.

 

l. VIOV-A-m-I rvmw-~~.vm-* W w

2.

 

 

(Your opinion) Here are some suggestions.
1. for students with low readinggability.
2. teaching factual material.

3. where a short frame is sufficient.

FRAKE 62 Suggest two reasons why a programmer might prefer
pictorial frames.

1.

 

2. .

 

 

(Your opinion) Three possible reasons are:
1. save words.

2. clari ty.
3. create interest bygproviding variety.

 

Generally, diagrams are placed to the left of the written material
or above it unless the diagrams represent a number of possible
alternatives from which the student may select a response. Then the
diagrams are placed at the end of the frame. Some programmers
consider that a diagram must be relevant to the subject matter

in the frame.

In Frames 24 and 25, which were about the oboso bird, one could
argue that the diagrams did not help in making the correct response.
Should they have been included? (PO RESPOPSE KECESSARY). However,
in the series on reading the level of a liquid in a container, the
diagrams were the key to the frame. It would be extremely difficult
to write the frames without diagrams.

How does a programmer control the responses made by the student?
There are two ways commonly used in programs. Zen have seen b th
of these already.

FRAME 63 Some frames were constructed so that, by cuing or prompting,
you made the correct response. Which term do you think
best describes that response pattern?

Tested response
Constructed response
Overt response
Objective response.

.15me
o o o

 

 

2. constructed response

Would it have been easier if Frame 63 had been cued by underlining
"constructed”? (IO OVERT RESPOISE REQUIRED).

FRAME 64 When a number of possible alternatives were given, and

you were asked to make a choice, the response pattern
is called:

 

 

—-—u --.—.....~.—.—-..

 

(Your words) multiple choice

Here, rather than cue the frame, I relied on your past experience
(entering behavior) with multiple choice tests in your school.

There are two schools of thought on which type of program is the
better. Skinner, who first developed constructed response type
programs, and his followers believe that.by using the constructed

response technique,errors are kept to a minimum so that the students
only see correct answers.

Crowder and his followers believe that the multiple choice type
program is superior because learning occurs even when errors are

made, prpviding feedback isoimmediate. They argue that the ability
to discriminate and generalize can only be earned using multiple
choice type programs.

 

 

FRAME 65 Iultiple Choice type programs naturally include branching.
Can a constructed response type program use branching?
Confirm.

F 'KE 66

The number of errors made in a constructed response type

program will be (greater/less) than the
number made in a multiple choice program.

— ...-A-vwmw - .

_.L7_

less

 

If its a good constructed response program, the number of errors
is kept low by cuing and prompting.

 

 

 

 

 

FRANE 67 What type of frame was Frame 66?
(Your words) multiple choice, or forced choice, or criterion.
FRAI- 68 Imagine that you have tried three multiple choice and

two constructed response programs with your class (or classes
just like your class) and you have analysed the .errors
made 1p each program.

In the chart below, what conclusions can you make about the
suitability of each program for your class?

 

a-.. .....- --.1..fl‘- >300 -T..-- -.-....-.—--p.~-- . -m‘l- .. ....- -—...- —< .. ~H..-. ......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Type No. of errors Conclusion(s)
multiple none
choice
r
multiple -Tc ' medium
choice
multiple very many
choice I
+_
I
constructed 3 very few
response ,
i .-
constructed f many
response %
9
Confirm.

 

 

w.- - ....-~.—- .. -..-.4--. ._..._.

Wow imagine that you have written several programs, tried
them out with your classes, and analysed the results
obtained gpbthe program, and on a post-test after the
program.

For the cases given in the chart at the top of the next
page, what conclusions would you make about each program?

(ILC = multiple choice
CR = constructed response)

-20-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: Type 1 Errors 1* Post-test‘ Conclusions (
' ' . in program” errors " J;}
I, *' “new "r'n'c'n'e'ww‘ "' many I
paw"-.. ...; -..— w ’ ..- 'F'j‘f‘“"-'
hC ' some .' none
- s
si-.«uii¢-1_r-__il--ii---
CR 2 many i none
1
1 CR l few many
Confirm.

 

Some writers use one type of frame only in a program. Others
use both types to give a mixed program.

The trend at present is towards mixed programming when the
learning situation warrants the use of a program. In this way,
large pieces of subject matter may be presented in the traditional
ways, but programs are used in areas where there is:

1. high factual content

2. a wide range in entering behavior

3. a chance that many errors will occur when taught by traditional
methods

4. need for individual or home learning

5. need for a change in method.

This blend of the traditional teaching methods with short programs
has been called adjunct autoinstruction by Pressey.

The choice of a program depends on the nature of the subject
matter and the abilities and entering behaviors of the students.

3"!

:T'TE 70 There are three distinct methods of presenting programmed

material. These are:

l. textbook
2. mechanical machine
3. computer .

 

Which of these can effectively control peeking?

 

w *

2 and 3

Both the computer and most mechanical machines do not reveal the

correct answer until the student has made his response. Then the
device makes it so that the answer can not be altered before the

correct answer is uncovered.

A programmer can reduce peaking in a textbook program, but it is
very difficult to control it completely.

.. 21..

FRAME 71 Complete the following chart.

 

Method of Advantage(s) ‘ Disadvantage(s)
presentation

 

 

.-- ——.~.« ---fl...-.——.--—.—" -....-

Textbook

 

Kachine

 

Computer

 

 

 

 

 

Confirm.

 

FRARE 72 One of the disadvantages of many programmed textbooks
is that they can only be used once. In a school setting,
this may be expensive. Suggest a way to make programmed
texts reusable.

 

 

 

(Your words) ,prepare a "resppnse booklet" so that
responses are not made in the text.

Wany programs use this device, or the classroom teacher can
prepare his own.

FRAKE 73 Suggest an advantage in using separate response
booklets, other than making the texts reusable.

 

 

 

Q‘.-s,.-.,,-—--_---- _ ._. - ...—5, _

 

(Your opinion) completed pages can be removed from
time to time to assess progpess without
interrupting the work of the student.

You are almost there now. Complete Tables 7 and 8 in Booklet 2.

.. 22..

w What are some of the advantages of having you complete
the Tables in Booklet 2?

l. . s

2. .“-

3- --

(Your words, any order) here are some possible gains.
1. Link together related aspecgs.

2. IIakes a reference summagy.

3. Consolidates learning by revision.

llow is a good time to have a short break if you feel like one.

-23-
SECTIOE: ”‘4 - .‘ISLJSSELEITT or PROGRAIZS

Good programs and good teaching have the following common
features:

1. specific behavioral objectives

2. logical sequence of presentation

3. student motivation

4. repetition

5. immediate feedback

6. provision for individual differences.

FRAKE 75 Which two of these are most often missing in the
traditional classroom situation?

1. -

 

2. ._ -

 

 

(Your opinion) probably (5) immediate feedback and
(6) provision for individual differences
are the most difficult to provide.

 

Assessing the suitability of a program to meet specific needs
requires a detailed analysis of the situation in which it is
intended to use the program.

This analysis can then be compared with the characteristics of the
situation for which the program was intended. If these two sets
of characteristics agree then the program can be expected to
besmtafle.

The analysis requires three stages:

1. A definition of the specific topic to be treated by the
program.

2. An analysis of the characteristics of the students who
will take the program.

3. A clear statement of the goal(s) or behavioral objectives
to be achieved by the program.

FRAHE 76 Give two reasons why a teacher might consider it
desirable to use a program for a particular topic.

1. ...--

 

2.

 

Confirm.

- ...-...... , _. ‘ j .. - . . -.
.. ... duo—‘— ~- .. .- ... "“ H u. - ‘7‘ ... ‘ "F

 

-24—

FEQE 77 Which of the three stages in the "analysis" step
gives the best indication of "entering behavior"?

 

 

2

There are a number of ways of completing the analysis. however,

there are some advantages in having a systematic approach. One
approach which has been used by program writers (and is suitable

for a user's analysis) is given below.

This Analysis Report has been completed for you.

 

Analysis Report

physical science block.
Behavioral analysis
Common errors:

1. looking at an angle to the 1.
surface of the liquid.

2. reading at the point where 2.
the liquid touches the side

3. not having the scale vertical 3.

4. taking only one reading 4.

Behavioral objective

 

Topic area Reading levels of liquids in wide containers.

Population Average 7th grade students taking a

Population should:

look parallel to the
surface of the liquid
read from the middle
of the free surface
have the scale vertical
take several readings,
and average.

The students will be able to make accurate readings of
the levels of liquids in wide containers.

 

hote that the behavioral objective would become the aim or
objective of the program, but the comments under "Population
should . ." indicate‘ the points to which a program should be

directed.

 

-25-

FRAHE 78 Complete the following Analysis Report by selecting
the best behavioral objective from the four alternatives
given. The behavioral objective selected will depend
on the statements made in the remainder of the report;
read right through it before making your decision.
Cross through the objectives you would not use.

Analysis Report
Tgpic area Kultiplication of like terms in Algebra.
Population High school students of average ability
who are taking "Introductory Algebra".
They have learned how to express multiples

using the index notation.

Behavioral analysis

Common errors: Population should:

1. multiplying the indices 1. add indices
together

2. adding indices of 2. add indices of like
unlike terms terms only

3. A . A5 = A5 3. add 1 to the indices

when one term has no
index given.

Behavioral objective

1.. the students will be able to identify like terms.

3.: the students will not attempt to multiply
: unlike terms together.

the students will be able to multiply like terms with
indices greater than zero.

 

Behavioral objective

1. is too restrictive; it represents only a small
part of the total process.

2. is too specific; it is a specific case.

3. does not define what the student lg expected
to do.

4. is the best objective offered in this report.

- 26-

FRAhE 72 Here is another Analysis Report. This one is only
partly completed. Read right through the report, then
complete it by crossing through the alternatives you
would not use in the Population and Common Errors .c'
sections. Write a Behavioral objective.

 

Analysis Report

Topic area Filling out forms to report research
projects for a computer data bank.

 

 

Population a. r ---------------------------------------- 1
I Researchers who will fill out the forms..
I _________________________________________ J
v- ---------------------------------------- -.

I . .
. researchers who will be responSible for 1
; the research project. :

. ----------------------------------------- +

Behavioral analysis

Common errors: Population should:

1.5 Forms are carelessly 1. Complete the forms so
. filled out that the information
. ------------------------ 4 can be read easily.

I '1

Forms are illegible ,

2.: hot all available 2 2. Complete every item
. information is supplied : for which there is
3 ------------------------- ' information.
:- ----------------------- :
: Spaces are left on the g
. form :
l- ——————————————————————— .4

Behavioral objective

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Confirm.

ww-

In the three Analysis Reports that have been given, after the student
makes his response, he always sees a complete Report. A parallel in
learning poetry would be to learn the last few lines first, then work
back. There is evidence that this process, called mathetics, is effective.

-27_

Before going further, fill out the “Analysis“ box in Table 9
on Page 10 of the Confirmation Booklet.

FRAME 80 What parts of an actual program would give you the

best indication of the objectives of the program?

 

 

.- WM.-- - .

(Your words) criterion frames

Often this is the only guide that you have to the actual objectives

program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

__-.- “...... _ J“-

 

of the program. You might be lucky enough to find a statement of
the objectives of the program in supplementary information for
teachers. Usually this report will include test results, etc.
Criterion frames follow directly from the behavioral objective(s),
and they form the skeleton on which the programmer builds the
FRAME 81 Suggest a criterion frame for the objective you
prepared for "researchers filling in research project

reports for a computer data bank“ (Frame 79).

(Your opinion) As the objective is stated in behavioral
terms, the criterion frame should ask for
some activity. Two suggestions are:

Sort these project reports (provided for
the student) into two categoriesig those

 

correctly filled out, and those not.

Better - Using this information (provided),

fill out the report forms (provided).

 

The second criterion frame is preferred because it tests the
capacity to actually do the task which has been taught.

 

There are a number of ways of preparing a program. hany

Analysis

 

 

writers suggest starting with the ”Analysis Report”
similar to thecane that has been used here.

 

 

 

After completing the analysis, the programmer
will write the frames.

Frame I
writing

j

I

 

FRAKE 82 Which type of frame would be written first?

 

Evaluation

 

 

 

 

--'~v--’.~V~. ‘ --....

-28—

criterion frames

1
I

 

After writing the criterion frames, the writer | Analysis 1
completes the program by writing the teaching "-**"“““”‘
frames. 1......-

t Frame
The completed program is usually tested extensively. 1 writing '
These tests provide information about difficulty :""}“””“”“

and sequencing. This information is then used to

 

 

improve the program through a series of Evaluation.
revisions. l
The research data obtained from tests of the final 4

form of the program should be included in the

supplementary literature which should be available
to users.

FRAHE 83 What information about the program do you
consider should be included as a
supplement to the program?

 

 

 

 

 

Confirm.

 

.M..

331113 84 At the top of this page and on the previous page,
there has been an outline “model” of the
sequence followed by many programmers. This

technique could be extended to include more pages,
or different models.

Suggest how this technique assists learning.

 

..-Q— ...- .-__

-;.-_ *. ...... - _... ..-- , -_-_

(Your opinion) reinforces learning, or, links
related-at.e_2s.t .0 get. her -

In this Workshop, a number of the techniques used in programs

and the characteristics of the more common types of programs
have been given to you.

As revision, complete the final frame on the next page.

-29-

"RENE 85 Hatch each term with the phrase which best describes
it. Place the letter of the phrase in front of the
term's number.

’1

l. branching program A. is one which is made
but not recorded.

2. covert response B. guides the student to
the correct response
by the structure of
the sentence.

3. cue C. provides for individual
differences other than
reading rate

4. diagram D. makes a correct response
most likely by including
part of the response in
the frame itself.

5. linear program E. is used above or to the
left of the text of the
frame to explain it

6. prompt F. makes all students
move through all frames

 

.Q “ 13 .A - 23 ,2 - 3; .E - 4; .F - 5; B - 6.

Computers, teaching machines and programmed textbooks are just
media for presenting a program. All three have their advantages
and disadvantages. However, no matter which medium is used, the
techniques used in the programs are essentially the same.

Also, the preparation of a program for presentation by any one of
these media is basically the same. The programmer will go through
the steps outlined here, or through some similar routine. The
techniques used in the program itself will be similar to those
presented and used in this program.

Generally the expected responses are clear—cut, but as in this
program some responses depend on opinions. The fact that no clear—-
cut answer can be given does not mean that programming techniques

cannot be used.

It has been said that there are probably no restrictions on what
can be programmed other than the skill of the programmer.

Return this booklet and Booklet 2 to your supervisor, and ask him
about the next stage.

(see over)

-30-

If you.would like this reference list, please detach.

Lange, Phil 0., (editor), Programmedfilnstruction; Yearbook of the
Rational Society for the Study of Education; Volume 66, Part II;

Lumsdaine, A.A., Robert Glaser, Teaching Kachines and Programmed Learning;
A Source Book; Washington, D.C.; Department of Audio-Visual Instruction,
National Education Association; 1960

Glaser, Robert, (editor), Teaching Kachine§:and Programmed Learning II:
Data and Directions; Washington, D.C.; Englewood Cliffs; Prentice Hall;
1963.

Fry, Edward B., Teaching_fiachines and Programmed Instruction: An.
Introduction; Hew'York; thraw Hill; 1963.

DeCecco, John P., (editor), Implications of Current Research and Future
Trends in Educational Technology: Readings in Programmed Instruction;
Ifew York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

Green, Edward J., The Learning_Process and Programmed Instruction,
flew York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.

Thomas, C.A., I.K. Davies, D.Openshaw, and J.B. Bird, Programmed Learning
in Perspective: A Guide to Programme Writing; Barking, Essex, England;
The Adelphi Press, 1963.

Espich, James 3., and Bill Williams, Developing Programmed Instructional
IIaterials; Palo Alto, California: Fearson, 1967.

 

harkle, Susan W., Good Frames and Bad; Hew‘York; John Wiley, 1964.

Whalley, Ioel, A Guide to the Preparation of Teaching_Programmes;
Bristol, England; Teaching Programmes Ltd., 1966.

Wager, Robert F., and Kenneth R. Beach Jr, Developing Vocational
Instruction; Palo Alto, California; Fearson, 1967.

Brethower, Dale W., David G. harkle, Geary A. Rummler, Albert A. Schrader,
and Donald 3.P. Smith; Programmed Learning - A Practicum; Ann Arbor;
Ann Arbor Publishers, 1965.

Hendershot, Carl H., Programmed Learning;_A Bibliography of Programs
,gpd Presentation Devices; Bay City, kichigan; Hendershot.

Registration K0.

Kame

 

BOOKLET 2

COIFIRHATIOE OF RESPOYSES AID

REVIEW TABLES

Confirmations Page 1
Review Tables Page 7

This booklet is designed to supplement
Booklet 1. It provides a summary and an
opportunity to "leave” the booklet on

programming.

The last page of this booklet has been
left blank, and can be detached as indicated

in Booklet 1.

All responses will be treated as confidential.

COI‘TF'IRI' IATIOI-E

FRAEE 1 You were asked which set of statements better describes the

22

FRAME

" 3O

FEARS

45

behavioral objectives of this workshop. To be behavioral,

the objectives must state a definite performance to be
attained. They lead to the direct measurement of

achievement, whereas non-behavioral objectives, such as Set A,
do not permit direct measurement.

Set B is a set of behavioral objectives based on the
introductory paragraph.

(RJTURH TO FR.13 2)
(Your opinion) here are a few thoughts:

1. Time consuming.
2. Frustrating because of the continual page turning.
3. A little more difficult to organize for printing.

(RETURN TO FEARS 23)
By the actual content of each frame, you were cued in:

Frame 2. The word ”step” was underlined.

Frame 3. The first letter of the correct response was
underlined.

Frame 4. Underlining “overt" could probably be considered
as a cue; “overt” itself is not a cue.

Frame 8 Giving the first and fifth letter, and the number
of letters required is a form of cuing.

(You were prompted by the context or sentence structure in:

Frame 4. “But“ implies an opposite.
Frame 5. "But“ again. )

(Iour words, any order) Some possible responses are:

1. Better test of recall because of the intervening time
lapse between the teaching frames and the testing
situation.

2. A student is less likely to refer back to the teaching
frames.

(Iour words, any order)

1. ”Increase"
2. "But"

FLAIE 50

FRAKJ i

FEEL.) 55

fi'fi. "“'\ r
3.9L; )5

2-2

SGRULE seems to be favored by most programmers. Theory of
learning experts are divided. Probably both methods should
be used depending on the material to be programmed, the
entering behavior of the students, and whether a change of
presentation would lead to increased interest.

(Iour words) All students work through the same sequence of
steps, irrespective of prior learning or learning processes.

 

 

 

Response A You did not plot the points correctly. The
Response 3 stages in the drawing should be:
: l
Stage 1. . Stage 2. .
' I
I ., .
s 1- o
I I
. I
V} “l_._..hv__n l
I ‘-; I .
. I I .C
_. L .... -4? .-
Stage 3. Stage 4. I
/.
Y m - I,
.1.

 

 

N ----—o-—-.-
A

I .r
A .5

K etc..

The correct response was C. Iow plot the following points

 

values

I rea‘ings 'll“ 2 i 3 g 4
. , § .

!
(DO TOT DO THIS. A series of frames on graphing would
follow. If the student performed successfully, he
would be referred back to the main program. If not
successful, then a second series of remedial frames
could be used.)

'. 5
A ‘5 . 6 i

4. . ‘.

F4.
’1 1
Q
9’ :
' Q...
P. .
:3
C"?
C)
N)
\A)

( Tum: BACK TO FREE 55 furs CCITTIZTUJ.)

Response 3 Tour graph is not correct if you plotted I-values
along the I—axis, and I-Jalues alang the I-axis.
Check back to Frame 55 to see whether you mixed up the axes.

However, your graph would be acceptable if you had named the
axes on the graph to SUiU your method of plotting.

Baeo:rect-re.srqge was '3-

 

 

:j'rum: BACK TO FRAIZS 55 MD com? 7:3. )

FRAHE 55

PRAISE 55

' ' 56

a
(A

c:‘.
i J
\n
to

 

FRAEE 5?

2-3
Response C Iou were correct. Although the values were
whole numbers, the procedure would be the same
for any set of values. Good work.

(TURII BACK TO ram: 55 are COITTIliUJ.)
Response D Your response is not correct. Although you may
have plotted the points correctly, you forgot to
draw a smooth curve touching as many points as possible.
Check back to Frame 55 to see which graph you would get if
you had drawn a smooth curve. Select another response after
you have smoothed out your curve.

(TU.T BACK TO FRALS 55 AID COITIKUE.)

4‘

Response ; Iou are not correct. Return to Frame 55, and
check through your working. If you end up with
the same graph as befOre, ask your teacher for assistance.
(TURII BACK TO :7?ou 55 AID COITTIITULJ.)

(Your words) Placing Frame 55 before the sequence on graphing
would mean that it would act as a pretest.

Once you do this, the linear type of program is not the best.

.A represents a linear program; lg represents a sequence of
frames not normally considered in the programming of a
specific topic as students should come together at the end
to achieve common behavioral objectives.
Response B is correct. This is a branched program.
) Response A. Psychologists probably favor this one because:
) (Iour words) As the student moves through the loop in
sequence A, he is :
(a) still moving "forward" in the program,
(b) working through a new set of frames. After all, he
has failed the original set once, so why force him
to work through them again.

(1
(2

Zes. The instruction can be given that if a frame is
answered correctly, then the student should jump to a
frame farther on in the program. The other alternative
is that if the student is incorrect, he should work
through a remedial set of frames elsewhere in the

program or in another program.

Thus while constructed response frames are typical of a
linear program, some branching may occur within the program.

FRAILS 68 (Your words)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 H" ,ml.uw.ml__lu.w..m,ll.li
)Type to. of errors Inference
rum---m—qp .... .. . —-. .... ., .-. . . - ~-— -- -.- "7v .-- —- ---4----v - arr-«u Mar.’ 2.9.7. .-w-~‘1R--rrrwmw-rmwv~ =1
1 LC none itoo easy,or students already knew
I ithe material, etc.
4 ~.-..,..‘.J.-_. .. «v» -.- --- -.~-- ---- .... _*‘ -—.e ~ --—-—«-—.~. fi—z—z-u e-r: ~°-°-.->-?+"::'.—' ':’.-.'-°..— m-~—- -.
i U .
' LC medium (suitable
3-“ j I lrllgl. lwn_l .lWWlWl-_. "finlfll
I .- ' . .
1 LC ! very too hard, or poorly written, etc.
i 3 many , g
% -.—., m-:_. ills;
} CR 3 very 5(5uitable
j 1 few %
i -..... .. 4.... .-.-.. q,fi__ ...-7...“.-z--.vv___._.-___. Fr? --.. , 1 1-“ --., _-.—-r_-‘-:.-r-—-—:-,-°v‘ ~45
; CR ' many .too hard, or poorly written, etc.
i m“-flnm_, " fiTml New“,
FRALE 62 (Tour words)
iType Errors in Post- test Conclusions 9
‘ program , errors . ?
..___l__._ml.c__.__-_.iLH __-_ll_ln 2
2
KC none many a program too easy, or :
I unrelated to post-test. '
L«_-___ ; ..le- _ i
. hC F medium none good program j
' i u". : . 7 i
3 CR ; many ~ none poorly written and i
i i probably knew the y
t . ; i material in any case
L ? k l; -M
C“ ? few 5 many i Start again: If the
t i 5 post-test was a good one
I = 3 the progrmm does not
i g i teach what you thought
' i , it ‘IOfldo

 

FI'UE 71 (Your words)

-fi.-~_- \ . . -

? hethod

3 Textbook: l.

i '2.

‘ 3.
i4.

9

rflrl_u

.74... . .

hachine :1.

.-.—..fl. -

—._.~—~_-—..
I
...—.

a Computer

FRAhE 76 (Your opinion)

.
-I-. .
e

. --Q- .--- _-...______- -*,_.-.

Advantage(s)
available to all
portable
relatively

inexpensive
some flexibility

peeking eliminated

_m',

peeking eliminated

may be very flexible

immediate feedback
initially
motivating

—-———

 

Disadvantage(s)

possible to peck ;
less motivating E
may be consumable '

__ _. ...- -- .- .____
...7._-__ .. ....--. .--~..-.’ ....

all students

not very portable !
subject to mechanicali
failure i
reasonably inflexible;

i
not available to g

...... ...—...
—-_....- —---—_ -... -u—o- - “ ..AA-O‘ ‘M

not available to 5

all students
expensive

 

l. Inadequate textbook

2. Hide range of entering behaviors

3. Hide range of learning rates

4. Wide variety of errors made by students on
traditional methods

5. Hide range of interests

etc.

Here are some suggestions:

60—._ ..--

 

 

Population
a. f - ~ - - - - - - ~ - 1 In this analysis, we
I Q are concerned with the
L _ — — — — — - - - - J filling out of the
Fllf"‘;;>’l mm&
: ><xl I
5" {:2 .— — . -— - ... - :‘;“u
Common errors
1, p\:_ -------- ,3," we are concerned with
I \ ../’ I . o .
“\A. ,/~' legibility
I - I '
I / MRK‘NE I
L. :2: ...... X-u
5 ----------- '1
. I
I I
I I
2. . ----------- 7 If no information is
i . available, then it
' i may be necessary to
------------ leave an item blank.
r~:p ------ :M:w1
‘ \ ‘ \.- ’,./ "If I
I /)\ :
Er .. ... ______ ”\4

Behavioral objective (Your words) The objective
should indicate some activity.
Here is one:

Researchers responsible for filling out the_project
report formsliwill be able to complete them legibly
to the extent of the infermation available.

FRARE 83 (your opinion) Here are some suggestions:

1.
2.
3.

[In

5.
6.

Purpose or objectives

Assumed entering behavior

Brief description of the program including supplementary
equipment required

Sample post-test

Error rates on program and post-test

‘iiorking time

REVIEW

SBCTIOI? 1 (follows Frame 23)
TABLE 1 Characteristics of Programs

1.

 

 

 

(Frames 2, 3, 8—lO)

TABLE 2 Printed Formats

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Type 4 Advantage(s) I Disadvantage(s)
y.wnm-.r.. f . “_um"---n_mv-gg, ___
I . . 5 .
'horizontal I 'v
I I
“- -—.-- « ’-_. -... __ A ,, _ I- , ... .... . ... . ...m-._v._.-__ ..h -- , m-o- _-,,__ —v7v-—-'- ~—--1
i I
I a I
(Frames ll—23)
TABLE 3 Types of Responses
‘Type i Definition Advantage(s) ' Disadvantage(s)
+._'_.—--. -.-} -1"... -..- , -..... -.-____.II......__ ... ‘ ..
. g g
I I
I
L——.mw. 5” - .._A _ ' ._~—-—~_

 

 

 

(Frames 4—7)

TURI' TO FRAI-LJ 24, BOOKLET 1 AITD COITTIITUE.

2-7

SECTION 2

(follows Frame

TABLE 4

Types

-. ”~OO--r-x~~.- a: .. <

60)

of "Leads“

,... ..... .-.... M-n ... - -. -.. -~ - _- v... ».,,.-..-r .4...-.. ..- _, . -—.~—m-__ _,,.-.»--

I Example I Type

 

 

 

The capital of France is P—-—-—-—l
{All men are mortals but not all
mortals are .
An apple is a
: - I
(pome/achene)

 

 

._.._._ .--—... .-.—.—-o--—-- ...o M W“...

 

E. 4-..— ....-- ' —~m.v-o-O.' ~— ~- "."

(Frames 24-29)

TABLE 5 Types of Frames

 

fExample ! Type Characteristics

- it -———-- o-<-—.---—-.~.—.—ua--- -—-»-

7; -1=&,C

..- .. .. ...... ., ... -....- ..-—. ,.,_-.,-.___.V- ___. .--- 7w - ~ - .‘V

3 _ v5; i

I
I

I
..-..——-—-—.A—--A

. ...... ...- w~-.~p—“o‘--w -.—_— ..

I ...: f
" ”h)§"
o
.A‘.
I
r

O
..-—---.l. -. --

 

 

 

m- ...r .. - -...

(Frames 34-35)

T;3L3 6 Types of Programs

.. .. . ... . . ..._ -.

Advantage(s) i Disadvantage(s)

Sketc

.
.. .-..-.- ......L. -l...” .... ----.. ..

 

I
.c 7.... ...—.o—unn- .. ~z-ww—o {___. “_mr

 

(Frames 51—59)

TURI TO SECTIOI 3, PAGE 17 I: BOOKLET l.

—. .--- “-..-.- ...------—~-—.

I
A mum.~wnfl - ‘r -——--v--——'

2-9

SECTIOZ? 2 (follows Frame 73)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7 Generalizations about Programs
l””'”‘ I T I
Fame of 'Suggested Length of 5 Error rate Post-test 5
program type by frames ‘ in program error rate;
i I
Constructed ; 1
response I j
I
I
Pressey 1 variable
(Frames 61, 63-69)
TABLE 8 hethods of Program Presentation
: te each method on each criterion using 2
K - high
h - medium
L - low
j
=Textbook Lachine Computer
1
flexibility i
in program :
I
I
Expense
ContrOl of
peeking
t
I
Portability;
I

 

 

 

(Frames 70-72)

TUPLT TO amt: 74 1:: BOOKLET 1 AID cozr'rlruz.

2-10
SECTIOI.’ 1. (follows Frame 79)

TABLE 2 hodel for Program writing

)7

Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frame
wri tin g

Evaluation 4

V (Frames 75-79)

 

 

 

 

 

TURIT TO ERNIE 80

Registration Io.

Fame

 

BOOKLET 3

SIILULATED PROGRAlI YIRITIITG AITD

EVALUATIOK

This booklet provides simulated program
writing experiences, and several
evaluation procedures within this
Workshop on Programmed Instruction.

This booklet should be used in
conjunction with Booklet 4.

All responses will be treated as confidential.

WRITING A PROGRAH

In the first part of this werkshop, programs were looked at from
a user's point of view. This part considers programs from a
writer's standpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The approach to program writing which has been I Analysis )
suggested consists of three parts: ‘~w——~T“~~-“
1. Analysis : Frame
2. Frame writing : writing I
3. Evaluation T I
Each one of these can be broken down into a number [Evaluation:
of stages. a__ , I
FRAHE 1 “Analysis” may be divided into three $
stages. These, in order, are:
l. ..-..-....-._--_....- --.._...-,--_--__-
2. --------—--— ~--. 0. '-
3. --. -- ___...- .--.-.._.__......-.“

 

 

 

 

(Your words) 1. Definition of a specific topic.
2. Characteristics of the students.
3. Statement of behavioral objective.

 

 

The “Frame writing” part can be divided into two stages. host
writers consider that the criterion frames should be written first
to provide the skeleton.

FRAME 2 Criterion frames follow logically from the

 

 

 

~.—..-- - .-.... . . ...... --. _ .. . .- _ . f. _ _ . p . . , --

Behavioral objectives

Then the teaching frames are writhni to lead up to the criterion
frames.

 

I I K . , II In
I “ ( ' \.
'<\\ w rm
I”). ‘ I, r.
l t 'L II ; hex i I
\ ! \‘\ I : E I‘TE q "OF
[ E \ \r ’ I ‘\ |\t\‘- ‘\\\'
$2 ‘0 / f \\\—\V . \ j ‘ I
\ ' \' “~-" \ ... ‘ ' ‘x
\\ ‘ I fix Qfi\ ' I
\‘\w / l .' ‘l'\.‘l_“ \v \ : l o .
/ ‘ ' Q‘EJ.‘ ! Kklj‘ng‘ . ‘- .
'\ ‘ I’ ’ A 4Q“ (‘1‘). l‘ ' 3 I ‘
l‘ \ ,. (LI. ‘- . I - x l
‘ f I I ”o . ~ I I i _ \
/,» i z 'I ‘
I \\ : .‘ ‘ 4“ i
I / \\ ‘\ » Q
\ "’

It is at the writing stage that the various techniques mentioned in the
earlier part of this Jerkshop are incorporated.

3-1

3—2 J

 

 

 

Just as in good classroom teaching, a program should Analysis—I
be evaluated a number of times, and revisions made to l __E '
improve the pro gram. Frame '

writing $

One sequence of testing is:

l.

 

I

 

 

 

Individual testing using persons considered to be Evaluation?
typical of the population who will eventually use r -J
the program. This is repeated a number of times, 1

and three methods are commonly used. \‘

a. “Face-to-face interview“ in which the student is asked to
work through the program in the presence of the programmer.

The student is asked to verbalize his “feelings“ as well as
record his responses.

However the programmer must be extremely careful not to bias
the student by his questioning techniques, facial expressions,
etc.

b. ”Io-feedback mail” technique in which the program (without
correct answers) is sent out to persons typical of the
population. The student is asked to respond to the frames,
and write in comments on the frames as he works through the
program.

0. “Feedback mail” technique in which the program (with correct

answers) is sent out to persons typical of the population.
As fer the l‘no-—feedback mail“ method, the student is asked
to respond to the frames, and to add comments.

Of course, it is not necessary to use all three of these evaluation
methods on any one program. Each method has its own strengths and
weaknesses. The choice depends on the programmer, but often two
methods may be used at the same time.

FRAHE 3 Of the three methods of individual testing, which would you

consider to be:

a. the most time consuming?

 

b. the most likely to be biassed by peeking?

 

 

 

a. Tace-to-face is very time consuming as results can be
obtained from only one person at a time.
b. ”Feedback mail" because there is no control on peeking.

Information received from individual testing is used as a basis for
revision of the program until the programmer is satisfied that the
program is doing what it was intended to do.

3—3

2. Field testing in which the program, in its final form, is given
to larger groups of students.

From the results of the field testing, the programmer should
compile characteristics of the program. These characteristics
should be available to persons,such as teachers,who wish to use
the program in their classes.

FRAfiE 4 Complete the following model for writing a program.

”......

 

- -..--. - .- .. '

Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.
2.
i
i
‘ Frame writing
i 1.
l 20
i e
I
I
5 ‘ i
3 Evaluation 0
i 1.
!
’ a. :
1
% b. t
I
, c.
g 2. i
J]

 

-..v ...“ .. — -... - . “s— - . . —..-.- .- - -9... ...-.-.- -..... ...-V ...—.-. ~—-.-m~.--._

 

Analysis 1. Definition of topic
2. Characteristics of students.
3. Statement of behavioral objectives.
Frame writing I. Criterion frames.
2. Teaching frames.
Evaluation 1. Individual
a. ”Face-to-face.
b. “Io-feedback mail”.
0. "Teedback mail”
2. Field testing.

 

 

3-4
SIHULATED PROGRAM WRITIEG AID EVALUATIOK

In this part of the Workshop, you will have an opportunity to write
two short programs, and to evaluate them using the three methods
suggested for individual testing.

This will involve ”simulation“. By simulation, we mean that the
essential elements of the task are reconstructed and used in a
situation other than the I‘real thing“. Simulation techniques are often
used to reduce time, or expense, or danger. In our case, we are
concerned with saving time but, at the same time, giving you the
experience necessary to do the I'real thing".

As is often the case in simulation, you will be required to assume
certain roles. In this workshop, there are two roles which you will
assume from time to time.

1. Role of the programmer
2. Role of the “typical student“.

In the role of the student, you will be expected to perform as a
student, typical of the population for whom the program has been
written.

Booklet 4 is a workbook for this part of the workshop, and it should
be used in conjunction with this one.

Instructions for preparing the programs and their evaluation are on
the pages which follow.

3-5

HRITIKG EXPERISICS I - "FACE-TO-FACE IKTERHIEN".

(about 30 minutes)

In this, you are required to write a program for more able Junior High
School physics students to teach them how to recognize the resistance
of a resistor.

Work through the following steps.

1.

 

.l..._...__.-

Background information

‘7‘
9

.....—...._..~-...-.» ”m. «I

 

,,_~- ... —-., .—

..... .— ..__- -—-~.._..__ _V

Read through the information given about resistors.

....

 

Some of your more able students in a
science club wish to make their own
simple wireless circuits using non-wire wound resistors:
However, they are not able to identify the resistances of the:
resistors in the spare parts boxes.

.— ...—a

You wish to write a short sequence of frames which will 4
enable them to identify resistances using the standard
color-coding of the resistors.

 

 

--.

The following information about color-coding is taken
from a book of Chemical and Physical Tables.

Standard color-coding
around the resistor.

uses four colored bands painted

 

W’:“

\

u ‘ ‘3"
. .

f?
!

 

5:4 ' resistor

.‘I'SA
/4‘
/ I

_.__ -..—.—

terminal

"first significant figure of the

“second significant figure of the

'L; ~—-'-— » 1 i ' f"
*1, fly $2 I
Band , l 2 3 4
Band fl indicates the
resistance?.
Band f2 indicates the
resistance".
Band E3 indicates the “multiplier".
Band }4 indicates the “tolerance".

The colors used are:
figures (Bands 1 a 2)

Black
Brown
Red
Orange
Iellow
Green
Blue
Purple
Gray
fihite

q «DeaxiowirxtoA)rJC>

Kultiplier (Band 3)

 

Black
Brown
Red
Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue

Silver
Gold

x 1

x10

x102
x103
x10!+
x105
x106

x.Ol
x.l

Tolerance (Band 4

 

Silver E 105
Gold — 5S

 

2.

For example:

 

 

 

-_.—_-.—_. d \‘3 T333 Fm
\JVZ’JEI -3 17. m.
browntl/l 1 'Blue ’
'\ zed ; i Silver
\ 3 ‘ *6 &
Resistance = l 2 x10 i 10$
= 12000000 i 10; ohms.
Or -—-~~--———-——~* "'""""'“T*‘**"" ~~~~-----~—1
“7' I 1; l 2 __ 4 .3: 4 ;
Resistor fl Gray

filued Silver , Gold 0.86 i fifl —]

 

i
, l . ...---i-.- gill“...

I

 

ReSiStOT $2: Yellow . white! Orange iSilver 49000 i 10; i
. - _-..._.-_-_...‘ , l .

 

--.—...----...—_ ......—

Read through, and complete the following Analysis Report.

 

. u... ...-......— ”— --.....~. _M- _ -..M.—-—.—r~.-.o _

““isaijs{§“§oooss

 

tolerance, resistance and resistors.
The students have access to the color-code
chart (given on the previous page)

Behavioral analysis
Common errors: Population should:

1. students read bands
starting from the
wrong end of the
resistor.

2. in the sequence in
which the bands are
“read".

 

1 Behavioral objective

Topic area The resistance of non-wire wound resistors.

Population here able Junior High School physics students
interested in learning color-coding of non-wire
wound resistors. They are familiar with index
notation (i.e. powers of ten), the concept of

I ,. . .. . .1 r.” . .- -- . .--... .---.--¢- .—.—.—.—-. ...... fl-fiu—I—wo—ru. .- ...-o

 

 

4.

3—7

Write a criterion frame on the basis of the information in the
Analysis Report and the Background Infbrmation.

Criterion Frame

Prepare a series of frames which "lead“ to the criterion frame.
This should be a short series of‘less than 8 frames.
The last part of Booklet 4 contains blank pages which may be used.

Urite out your complete series on the sheets provided in Booklet 4.
The first page of your program should be Page 1 in Booklet 4.

:VALUATIOI: 1 -"I?\.C3-TO-F.‘.C3 IITTZRVIEU“ (about 30 minutes)

To evaluate your program by the'Tace-to face interview” method, work
through the following steps, assuming whichever role is required.

1.

’7
‘4.

Pair up with another person who has a completed program.

As a team, decide which of the programs will be evaluated first.
(Both will be evaluated eventually.) The writer of the program to
be evaluated assumes the role of ”programmer”. The other member
of the team assumes the role of a “typical student”.

Conduct an interview in which the program is discussed.

During the interview, play the role you have adopted.

As a programmer:

Conduct the interview with your “student”.

Introduce the “student” to the program, and ask him to work through
the frames responding either orally or by writing down his responses.
Ask for any comments he may have about relevance, difficulty, etc.

Be careful not to bias the “student's“ responses and comments.

When the “student“ has completed the program, fill in the
“Programmer's Evaluation Form'on Page 9 of this booklet.

As a "typical student”:
You are to assist the programmer in evaluating his program. He has
selected you because you are typical of the students who will use

his program.

Act like a student; Respond to his program, and make comments about
the frames as they would appear to a typical student.

when you have completed his program, complete the “Student's Evaluation
Form" on Page 10 of this booklet.

Compare evaluations. When you have finished, the programmer should
have his program and two evaluation forms; one written by the “student”
and his own.

Change roles and evaluate the other program by working through Steps 3
and Z again. This time the programmer in the last interview situation
will be the "typical student“, and the writer of the second program
will conduct the interview.

At the conclusion of this writing and evaluation session, each programmer
will have his own program and two evaluations of it.

The second writing experience starts on Page ll of this booklet.

3-9
PROGRAIIIBR'S EVALUATIOI.’ FORE: FOR TEE “FACE-TO;FACE IITTERVIEI‘W'
As a result of the "Face-to-face interview”, check the appropriate

boxes below. (Ignore your feelings about your program from befbre
the interview situation.)

1. Here the frames written in terms appropriate for "more able"
Junior High School students?

 

yes {fi—tno

 

 

 

2. Did any frames contain unnecessary words or diagrams?

I 1 3
yes i Inc

If “yes“, which frames?

 

3. Uhat was the “student's“ error rate (approximately)?

LEGS; D1023 [320:3 [330:3 Umbre than 3073

4. Do you feel that this series of frames would lead to the
achievement of the behavioral objective?

yes I lno

5. Has your criterion frame stated in behavioral terms?

[1 yes B110

6. Do you feel that you biassed the “student‘s“ responses or
comments?

yes I [no

If “yes“, in what way?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. what changes would you make to your program as a result of
the interview?

 

 

 

- ---. ......

 

3-lO

STUDDIfT'S EVALUATIOII 50m; ma “FACE-TO-FACZ‘. IIITERVIEE-J“

Check the appropriate boxes for the program you have just worked.

1.

2.

7.

Here the frames written in terms appropriate for “more able“
Junior High School students?

4B yes D110

Did any frames contain unnecessary words or diagrams?

[3... D...

If “yes“, which frames?

 

 

what was your approximate error rate?

DOC? D1033 E'2OSS D3053 (D405 or more

Do you feel that this series of frames could teach color-coding
of non-wire moand resistors?

C'yes Dno

Did the frames form a logical sequence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes no

 

 

Do you feel that the programmer biassed your responses or
comments?

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

yes no

 

 

If “yes", in what way?

 

 

 

What suggestions for improvement can you make to help the
programmer?

 

 

 

 

(After you have compared your evaluation with the one made by the
programmer, give this evaluation sheet to him. It may help him.)

3.11
narrate EXPERIJZICE 11.x. (about 30 minutes)

In this section, you will write a program and have it evaluated by
both the “no-feedback mail" and the “feedback mail“ methods.

To simulate mailing, the programs will be placed in “mailing piles"
indicated by the supervisor. Zach program will then be collected

by another member of the Ubrkshop who will work through it without
contacting the programmer. If possible, programmer and "student"
should not know the identity of the other. Therefore, it is essential
that your registration number should be placed at the top of the
program. Then this will approximate the conditions when a publisher
mails programs throughout the United States.

After being worked, your program will be ”mailed back“ to the worked
pile indicated by the supervisor.

As a programmer, work through the following steps:

1. From the fellowing list of topics, select one for which you will
write a short program.

a. Structure of the atom.

b. Acids and bases give salts and water.

c. Color changes of indicators in acid/base.

d. Geological faults.

e. Factors preventing soil erosion.

f. Determination of the sequence of sedimentation from fessils.

g. Conservation of energy.

h. Concept of momentum.

i. Relationship between current, resistance, and voltage.

j. Balance between gravity and forward velocity to produce a
circular orbit of a space vehicle.

k. Stages in the germination of a seed.

1. Parts of a flower, and their fUnctions.

m. Life cycle of the mosquito.

n. Simplified circulation of blood in a mammal.

0. Structure of a typical insect.

p. (Your choice)

2. Select one specific aspect of the topic you have selected.
The program you are about to write should have not more than
about 8 frames. Be specific as there is a time limit on this
part of the Workshop.

3. After you have selected a specific aspect of the topic, complete
the Analysis Report on the following page.

lake any reasonable assumptions about the students who will use
your program. Define these clearly as these will affect the
writing of the program; and the “student“ who will evaluate your
program will need to know what these assumptions are.

3-12

Analysis Report IIA

Topic area (select one small aspect of the total topic area.)

Population (make any reasonable assumptions, but define them clearly.)

Behavioral analysi 5

Common errors: Population should:

Behavioral objective

 

[to

8.

3-13

EJrite a criterion frame for your program.

Decide whether you will evaluate your program using the ”feedback
mail“ method or the ”no-feedback mail" method. If you are
evaluating by the “feedback mail“ method, then your program must
have the correct answers to the frames somewhere in the program.

write out your program on pages from Booklet 4. Leave a large margin
so that the “student“ can add comments about the francs.

Complete Page 16 at the back of this booklet and use it as a cover
page fer your program. It will provide the “student“ with enough
information to adopt an appropriate role.

Staple your pages together and then place them in the place
indicated by the supervisor. That is, if you have written a
program to be evaluated by the “no-feedback mail“ method (i.e.
without correct answers written in), place it in the “no-feedback
evaluation“ pile.

Take a progrmm, other than your own, from the programs in one
of the evaluation piles.

EVALUATIOIT IIA (about 15 minutes)

a “student“, work through the following steps:

 

3.

.15

Kerk through the program you have just collected from one of the
evaluation piles. Lake the necessary responses, and add any
comments you consider appropriate.

then completed, return the program to the place indicated by the
supervisor for workedgprograms.

Collect your own worked program from the worked programs pile.

a UFO grammer:

From the comments, and the responses made by the "student",
evaluate your program.

3-14

'E-IRITIEIG 3‘ 3; 31: 2. IIB (about 15 minutes)

As agprogrammer;

l.

2.

Incorporate any improvements you consider desirable as a result
of the comments and responses you received in Evaluation IIA.

Rewrite the program you used fer Evaluation IIA using pages from
Booklet 4. This time, write it so that it will be evaluated by
the other “mail“ method. For example, if your program was
evaluated by the "feedback mail" method last time, write it now
so that it will be evaluated by the “no-feedback mail” method.

 

Your program will need a cover page giving your registration
number, and assumptions about the population so that the “student“
can evaluate it meaningfully. The cover page you used last time
may do.

3. Staple the pages together, and place them in the appropriate pile
as indicated by the supervisor.

4. Take a program, other than your own or the one you worked through
last time. hake sure the program has been written to be e
evaluated by the alternative method to the one you used last
time. (In this way, you will be the ”student” fer a program
written for “feedback mail“ evaluation and for a program written
for “no-feedback nail“ evaluation.)

EVALUATIOI 113 (about 15 minutes)

As a"student”, work through the following steps:

Kerk through the program making responses and adding comments
where appropriate.

Hhen completed, return the worked program to the worked_programs
pile.

 

Collect your own worked program from the worked program pile.

 

As a programmer:

'I

..nu.

Read through your worked program, and evaluate it.

—1-\ ~-
i1.J\iL

3 5 Uhich evaluation method do you consider to be the most
a 119
usefL .

 

Zhy?

 

 

3-l5

(Your opinion) The "Face-to-face interview“ method depends
on good rapport; under ideal conditions a programmer can get
very useful infermation by this method; easily biassed.

The ”feedback mail" method can be used for
large samples so that the analysis of results is probably
more likely to give results similar to those of the
population who will use the program; may be biassed by
peeking; some may not return the programs so that another
bias may have to be considered.

The “no-feedback mail" method is not likely
to be biassed by peeking, but students may feel disappointed
as there is no confirmation of results.

How you have used three methods to evaluate your programs. As a
result of evaluations similar to these, the programmer would revise
and retest his program until he was satisfied that it was, in fact,
doing what it was intended to do.

After this, the program would be “field tested” using a large
representative sample of the population working through the complete,
final form of the progrmn.

"

 

 

 

 

 

 

T—-——~t————1_ 4‘ l
2 no no _m~___~__.‘
~ - - -- ‘ ... “4”} 1;""3‘: ":‘1 “" ‘ . ° .
. . 2 am no cu - 2 old Co . al
Analy51sus”- F .e K+.1I lV1, ahyes-a.‘ “1 , yes mmer01 .4»-
writingj ‘ testing. Ltesting product

 

 

Analysis of results from the field test would supply useful
infermation fer the teacher who was considering using the program
with his class. This infermation should be available in printed
form.

DISCUSSIOI QUESTIOIS
I. Are there any aspects of learning which cannot be programmed?

2. Uhat devices (or techniques) can be used to prevent a student
from becoming bored by a program?

3. Shoulclall three evaluation methods,indicated in this Nerkshop,
be used for the individual evaluation phase of program writing?

4. Uhat are the strengths and weaknesses of this Ebrkshop on
Programmed Instruction?

Registration kc.

COVER PAGE FOR.TH3 "MAIL EVALUATIOK“ PROGRAKS.

(The programmer should complete the following, so that the ”student"
may adopt a role appropriate for the program.

i‘ '44...

(Check one)
“PO-FEEDBACK kAIL"

&

kethod of evaluation ""“TDBACK xAIL" 2:;

Topic area (Rewrite the topic area you have selected to program. Do
not write in your behavioral objective.)

 

Population (Define grade level, abilities, specific skills, etc.,
which you assume your students possess.)

3-16

Registration ho.

Name

 

BOOKLET A

HORKBOOK FOR.SIKUL.T3D PRCGRMI

WRITIIG AID JVALUATIOK

This booklet provides materials
needed to prepare and evaluate
programs as directed in Booklet 3.

All responses will be treated as
confidential.

Registration K0.

 

COVER PAGE FOR THE FACE-TO-FACE IKTSRVISN PROGRAM

Population

You are a more able Junior High School student
interested in making wireless circuits as an activity
in the science club.

You are familiar with the index notation, the concept of
tolerance, resistor, and resistance.

During your club activities, you have access to the
following chart on color-coding of resistors.

Figures (Bands 1 8 2) Multiplier (Band 3) Tolerance_(Band 4)

 

Black
Brown
Red
Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue
Purple
Gray
Eflmte

PROGRAH

0 Black x 1 Silver 2‘- 10:5
1 Brown xlO Gold at 5,.
2 Red x102

3 Orange x103

4 Yellow x104

5 Green x102

6 Blue x10

7

8 Silver X-Ol

9 Gold x.l

4-1

SUPERVISOR'S KAEUAL

WORKSHOP 01' ENGRAMSD IZTSTRUCTIOZI

Sections marked with an asterisk (*) have been
added as a result of three trials in which this

herkshop was evaluated.

IIITRODUCTIOZT

This Supervisor's hanual has been developed to assist
supervisors in conducting the workshop on Programmed
Instruction.

The workshop has been divided into two parts, each of which
requires approximately three hours to complete.

The first part uses self-instructional materials to give an
overview of the features of programs. It is designed for
potential users of programs

The second part, when used after the first, is for potential
writers of programs as it gives participants an opportunity to
write and evaluate frames.

In its development, the following constraints were applied.

1. It should be of one working day, or two half
days duration.

2. It should be as independent of expert supervision
as possible

3. The equipment used should be as unsophisticated
as possible.

4. The materials and procedures should be equally
useful for small groups or large groups.

5. At the completion of the workshop, participants
should be able to take away any materials used.

This kanual outlines the requirements for a workshop, the

role of the supervisor, time requiremnts, and field test
results.

TABLE OF COITZITS
Part I : “Program“ Section . . . . . . . . H-Z
Part II : “Simulation“ Section . . . . . . . I-8

Attitude Scale and Test Booklet . . . . . . . h-ll

lL—l

PART I : "PROGRAH" SECTIOY

General Description This part of the workshop is for potential

users of programs, but at the same time it
presents examples of frames and programs for those who wish to
write programs.

Participants use self-instructional materials contained in
Booklets l and 2. Both booklets are used simultaneously. Booklet 1
presents factual material about programs, whereas Booklet 2 is used
for the confirmation of these frames which require longer answers,
or where some discussion of the confirmation is required, and it
contains review tables to be completed by the participant. This
second booklet illustrates how a student may be referred out of the
main program.

 

Behavioral Objectives The following are the objectives for which
the “Program“ section of the workshop was
designed.

At the completion of the workshop, participants will :

1. be able to identify techniques used in programs and the
ratuonales underlying their use, and the characteristics
of programs.

2. be able to evaluate single frames, a program sequence,
and programs from exerpts from test findings.

3. have a more favorable attitude towards programmed
instruction.

Requirements Each participant will require copies of Booklets l
and 2, and a pen or pencil.

* writing tables should be available rather than tablet chairs.

It is suggested that the supervisor make available commercial
programs of different types. Although these do not form an integral
part of the workshop, they may be used by participants as examples
to illustrate features mentioned in Booklet 1.

Presentation The supervisor should briefly introduce the workshop

 

by indicating that :

I. this part of the workshop gives participants background
information about the types of programs commonly used.
This information is presented as selfzinstructional
material.

2. the second part of the workshop gives the participants
an opportunity to apply this information in several
frame writing exercises. The series of frames are also
evaluated.

iI—2

3. "Rest pauses" have been written into the program but
participants should feel free to rest at any stage.

4. If commercial programs are available, an announcement to
this effect should be made.

5. The supervisor should be available to assist with
individual questions.

Each participant should be given Booklets l and 2.

* Time Reguirement The average working time for this part is
two hours and ten minutes, and the range is
from one hour and thirty minutes to three hours and five minutes.

* grgsults of Field Testing As a result of individual testing, small
group testing, and three workshops
involving a total of sixty-three participants, the following
conclusions can be dram :

1. significant gains occur in knowledge of techniques and
the rationales underlying their use, and the. characteristics
of programs.

2. there is conflicting evidence as to the change produced
in the ability to evaluate.

3. there is no significant change in the attitudes of the
participants over the three hour session.

* Some suggestions As Booklets 1 and 2 require concentrated effort,
it may be advisable to use Part I and Part II on
separate days, or Part I could be worked independently by the
participant before coming to the workshop. Then only Part II
would be presented in the workshop situation.

Answers to tho Tables in Booklet 2 Some answers are based on

opinion, and some are
generalizations. The answers, with response percentages obtained
in the field test workshops, are given on Page 11-4.

* The first percentage after each answer is the percentage answering
correctly. The percentage in parenthesis is the percentage of the
total who answered incorrectly.

Percentage omitting the item - 100 - (R + II)

where R is the prrcentage correct
I! is the percentage incorrect.

12-3

SECTION 1 (follows Frame 23)

TABLE 1 Characteristics of Programs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l. ngical sequence of steps 91 (O)
2. Active responses 88 (2)
3. Immediate feedback 91 (O)
(Frames 2, 3, 8-10)
TABLE 2 Printed Fermats
Type Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)
Herizontal Reduces peeking Frustrating,
84 (5) Time consuming 86 (4)
Vertical Saves time, more Peaking possible
immediate feedback
58 (0) 58 (2) 60 (5)
(Frames 11-23)
TABLE Types of Responses
Type Definition ' Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)
Overt Responses are Probably better Time consuming,
recorded learning occurs consumes programs
86 (2) 79 (4) 82 (4) 70 (7)
Covert Internal Saves time, does Less effective
responses, not not consume the learning, no
recorded. program record.
84 (2) 67 (12) 72 (9) 7D (2)

 

 

 

 

 

(Frames 4-7)

1-1—4

 

SECTIOH 2 (fellows Frame 60)

.ZdBLE 4 Types of ”Leads"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example Type
The capital of France is E...._._ cue
53 (28)
All mean are mortals but not all
mrrtals are . prompt
" '”' 47 (30)
An apple is a . prompt
(pome/achcne) 28 (28)
(Frames 24-29)
TABLE 5 Types of Frames
Example Type Characteristics
X5. X6 = ? Criterion 68 (5) A testing frame, requires prior
knowledge 54 (4)
x2. x3 = X5 '

 

l 9 9 Frame contains enough infbrmation
X . K“ = X“ g Teaching 67 (2) fer student to work out the

correct response. 56 (4)
v5 v6 ?

‘L . ‘L .-

 

 

 

 

 

(Frames 34-35)

TABLE 6 Types of Programs

 

Type Sketch Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)

 

Linear O-O-O-O-O- Easier to write, All students work
easier to follow" through same frames
irrespective of ability

 

67 (5) 67 (4) 60 (A) 58 (2)
Branching Allows for ind. IZore difficult to
O-O—-——— -O differences write and follow.
6-0—0-
67 (5) 58 (7) 60 (2) 42 (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Frames 51-59)

.v
3:5

SECTIOE Q (follows Frame 73)

TABLE I Generalizations about Programs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

flame of Suggested Length of Error rate Post-test
program. by Frames in program error rate
type
1

Constructed Skinner short low low
response 32 (0) 40 (16) 44 (7) 44 (0)
Multiple Crowder medium - medium low
choice long

61 (5) 26 (2) 40 (4) 42 (4) 40 (2)
Adjunct Pressey variable variable variable
auto-instruct

30 (9) 7 12 (12) 23 (4)

 

(Frames 61, 63-69)

TABLE 8 Kethods of Program Presentation

Rate each method on each criterion using :

 

 

 

 

 

H - high
H - medium
L - low
Textbook Machine Computer
Flexibility H L H
in program 63 (21) 67 (16) 72 (12)
Control of L H H
peeking 79 (5) 77 (5) 77 (7)
Portability H H L
‘ 84 (o) 84 (o) 75 (7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Frames 70-72)

IL~6

 

SECTION 4 (follows Frame '79)

TABLE Model for Program Writing

 

Analysis
1. Definition of topic 46 (5)
2. Characteristics of population
54 (4)
3. Behavior analysis 51 (7)

 

 

 

 

 

. Frame
'r writing

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation

 

 

 

(

(Frames 75-79)

1:..7

PART II : “SIKULATIOE" SECTIOT

General Descriptigp This part of the workshop was developed

for potential writers of programs.
Participants should have either worked through Part I , or have
a good background in program techniques.

Booklet 3 presents instructions for three writing experiences
in which series of frames are written, and procedures for the
evaluation of the three series.

Booklet 4 is a workbook. Both books should be used
flmfltammml*.

Behavioral Objectives. At the completion of both parts of the
workshop, participants will :

1. be able to identify techniques used in programs
and the rationales underlying their use, and the
characteristics of programs.

2. be able to evaluate single frames, program
sequences, and programs from test findings.

3. be able to identify an acceptable program-writing
seq ence, and be able to write a series of frames.

4. have a more favorable attitude towards programmed
instruction.

Requirements Jach participant will require copies of
Booklets 3 and 4, and a pencil and eraser.

The supervisor should provide at least one stapler for the
group, and place cards labelled 2 ” To Feedback Evaluationt,

.-‘

“Feedback evaluation“, and “worked Programs“.

Presentation The supervisor should give a brief overview of
the three writing experiences, and the three

evaluation energizes, In addition, he should :

1. indicate the time allocation fer eaxh phase of the session,
and the need for this restriction. Some suggested times
are given in the section headed 'Time Requirement' below.

2. emphasize that, in the color-coding exercize, participants
must limit themselves to frames as indicated by the Analysis
Report which has been partly completed for them.

3. The nature of "role playing“.

4. provide assistance where possible.

L~8

At the completion of the “face-to-face interview“ evaluation
experience, he should discuss difficulties and errors which he may

have observed.

a.

f.

Some of the following may be relevant :
long complicated frames

attempting to teach material not required by the
analysis of the problem.

difficulty in expressing how the resistor should
be oriented.

the final criterion frame should be behaviorally

oriented. For example a frame such as this might

be suitable : Take a resistor from the spare-parts
box. What is its resistance?

(Check your result with your teacher)

linear v. branching series.

use of diagrams, representation of colors in black
and white programs.

At the completion of the discussion, the supervisor should
explain that the place cards indicate where programs should be
placed after being written, and after being worked by another

member of the

group.

The final discussion should permit a free flow of ideas between
participants and with the supervisor. The questions listed in

Booklet 3 may

provide a guide for discussion, but they are not

intended to be restrictive. Some points which the supervisor may
wish to add are given below.

Question 1 :

3“)

Question

Question 3 3

Opinions differ, but probably anything that does

not require the interaction of two or more people can
be programmed. The limit is probab y the skill of
the pro grarmer .

Boredom may be reduced or eliminated by a number of
factors. Here are some :

a. use programs matched to the ability of the
student.

0. use prograns interspersed with conventional
teaching.

0. use various types of programs, and programs
which employ a variety of techniques.

Jach evaluation method has its own merits. taximum
information is probably derived from using all three
methods.

ELJe Requirements The following is a suggested schedule :

Introduction . . . . . . . . . 10 minutes
writing Experience 1 . 30 minutes
Face-to-face Evaluation . . . . 20 minutes
* Discussion .'. . . . . . . . . 10 minutes

* Introduction . . . . . . . . . 5 minutes
Kriting prerience 2A . . . . . 30 minutes
Evaluation 2A . . . . . . . . . 1 minutes

writing Experience 2: . . . . . 15 minutes
Evaluation 23 . . . . . . . . . 15 minutes

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 20 minutes
TOTAL TIES 2 hours 50 minutes
* Results of Field Testing Both parts of the workshop produce :

1. significant gains in knowledge about the techniques
used in programs, and the characteristics of
programs.

2. no change in the ability to evaluate single
frames, program sequences, and programs from
test findings
significant gains in the ability to recognize
a program-writing sequence, and in the ability

to write a series of frames.

4. no change in attitudes over a sixehour period.

L-lO

APPENDIX B

ATTITUDE SCALE

APPENDIX B

ATTITUDE SCALE

TABLE B.l.--Discriminative Indices of the Original Fifty
Items for the Attitude Scale

 

Item Discriminative Index

If a workshop on writing step- 0.616
by-step programs was offered,
I would volunteer to attend.

Programmed instruction is 0.675
based on the same principles
as good classroom teaching.

9. By using programmed materials, 0.630
the teacher has more time to
give to the individual needs
of the student.

Teaching machines teach all 0.A86
children fairly.

Programmed instruction can 0.261
reduce the teaching load
for each teacher.

Programs force all children 0.171
to go through the same
learning steps.

A. Programmed instruction hinders -0.5A9
the social development of
'the student.

Almost any tOpic can be 0.A23
programmed.

7. Programmed instruction supple- 0.623
ments and complements the
teacher's efforts.

 

8indicates the item number in the final form of the

attitude scale.
171

172

TABLE B.1.—-continued

 

12.

20.

Item

Teachers can build a strong
case against programmed
instruction.

The advocates for programmed
instruction should press
harder for its adoption.

Only mathematics and science
can be effectively taught
by programmed instruction.

Research into programmed
instruction will lead to
new theories of learning.

Programs encourage the
students to cheat.

A program consists of a large
number of trivial steps which
are repeated over and over
again.

Programmed instruction
liberates the individual.

Most commercial programs are
not appropriate for the
classroom.

Using programmed instruction
techniques dehumanizes
teaching.

I would volunteer to try
out a program with my class.

Programmed instruction can
develop problem-solving
techniques.

Writing programs is very
difficult.

Discriminative Index

 

—0.59U

0.702

-0.207

0.333

-0.522

—0.729

0.648

-0.702

0.720

0.639

0.117

173

TABLE B.l.--continued

 

Item

I would like to try writing
a program for my class.

It is very difficult to
recognize a good program.

Programmed instruction
techniques will untimately
allow one person to control
another.

Workshops to teach programming
to teachers should be
available.

By using programs, a student
can only learn bits of
factual information.

Teaching machines will
replace teachers.

Using programmed materials
will make education more
expensive.

All programmed instruction
devices will be replaced by
computers.

Widespread adoption of
programmed instruction will
mean that fewer teachers
will be employed.

A student using a teaching
machine can concentrate on
learning for the sake of
learning.

A good program uses the
results of research in
human learning.

Discriminative Index

0.567

-0.171

-0.387

0.558

-0.5u9

-0.090

-0.369

—0.117

—0.315

0.672

0.32“

17”

TABLE B.1.-—continued

 

17.

16.

15.

19.

13.

Item

Adopting programmed instruc-
tion requires the teacher to
radically change his teaching
style.

Working through a program is
boring.

Commercial programs are
thoroughly tested prior to
publication.

Programmed instruction is
not as effective as other
instructional techniques.

The only future for programmed
instruction is in industry.

Programs threaten the
teacher's role.

Programmed instruction
techniques save time over
other methods.

Programmed instruction allows
for individual differences.

The first step in making
a program is to define
specific objectives.

If programs were available
in my school, I would not
volunteer to use them.

Programmed instruction has
not been widely accepted in
education because teachers
are reluctant to change their
practices.

Discriminative Index

 

—0.3&2

-0.7M7

0.297

-0.6u8

-0.U23

—o.50u

0.A05

0.702

0.153

—0.783

0.162

175

TABLE B.1.—-continued

 

18.

1A.

11.

10.

Item

Programmed instruction is
not needed for efficient
education.

Programmed instruction allows
the more able student to
progress faster than would
be possible in a traditional
course of instruction.

By using programmed instruc-
tion, a teacher will probably
become a better teacher.

Current hostility among
teachers to programmed
instruction is due to
misconceptions of its
purpose.

Programs should be written
by psychologists rather than
teachers.

Programs can use the best
instructional techniques
available.

Teachers will find programmed

instruction techniques success—

ful.

Discriminative Index

 

—0.585

0.AU1

0.6H8

0.A1A

0.126

0.657

0.801

 

Registration Ho.

Lame

 

ATTITUDE SCALE

'.."OR1"{SI{OP OI? PROGRAIZED
IISTRUCTIOI

In this Attitude Scale, the term 'Programmed
Instruction' refers to a method of instruction in
which the subject matter is presented in a sequence
of steps; the person being instructed is required
to make responses as a result of which he receives
immediate feedback. The subject matter may be
presented in textbooks, by teaching machines, or
by computer.

There are 20 statements about Programmed Instruction.
Consider each statement separately and indicate the
extent to which you agree (or disagree) with it by
circling the appropriate symbol to the right of the
statement.

The symbols used are: SA — strongly agree
A — agree
I - no opinion
D - disagree
87)— strongly disagree

All responses will be treated as confidential.

‘lo

2.

3.

8.

9.

10.

12.

13.

14.

15.
16.

20.

Programmed instruction can develop problem-solving
techniques.

Programs encourage the students to cheat.

Programmed instruction is based on the same principles
as good classroom teaching.

Programmed instruction hinders the social development
of the student.

workshops to teach programming to teachers should
be available .

The advocates for programmed instruction should
press harder for its adoption.

Programmed instruction supplements and complements
the teacher's efforts.

Teachers can build a strong case against programmed
instruction.

By using programmed materials, the teacher has more
time to give to the individual needs of the student.

Teachers will find programmed instruction techniques
successful.

Programs can use the best instructional techniques
available.

A program consists of a large number oe.trivial
steps which are repeated over and over again.

If programs were available in my school, I would not
volunteer to use them.

By using programmed instruction, a teacher will
probably become a better teacher.

Programs threaten the teacher's role.

Programmed instruction is not as effective as other
instructional techniques.

Nbrking through a program is boring.

Programmed instruction is not needed for efficient
education.

Programmed instruction allows for individual
differences.

Using programmed instruction techniques dehumanizes
teaching.

1.

2.

3.

8.

9.

10.

12.

13.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

>1,
4- -4

l‘#
I I

r-v
’0

0’7)
I. 0

b-i
'4

h:
o I

I}

N

K

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

178

TABLE B.2.--Score Weights Assigned to Attitude Scale Items

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

Item

Programmed instruction can develop
problem-solving techniques..

Programs encourage the students to
cheat. -

Programmed instruction is based
on the same principles as good
classroom teaching.

Programmed instruction hinders the
social development of the student.

Workshops to teach programming
to teachers should be available.

The advocates for programmed
instruction should press harder
for its adoption.

Programmed instruction supplements
and complements the teacher's
efforts.

Teachers can build a strong case
against programmed instruction.

By using programmed materials, the
teacher has more time to give to
the individual needs of the
student.

Teachers will find programmed
instruction techniques successful.

Programs can use the best
instructional techniques available.

A program consists of a large
number of trivial steps which
are repeated over and over again.

If programs were available in my
school, I would not volunteer to
use them.

 

Weights
SA A N D SD
A A 3 1 O
0 l 2 A 5
5 LI 3 2 2
1 2 3 A 5
A 3 2 2 1
S 14 3 1 0
A 3 l l 0
1 3 14 5 5
5 3 2 2 2
5 LI 3 1 0
5 ll 3 2 1
1 l 2 A 5
1 1 2 3 5

179

TABLE B.2.--continued

 

1A.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Item

By using programmed instruction,
a teacher will probably become a
better teacher.

Programs threaten the teacher's
role.

Programmed instruction is not as
effective as other instructional
techniques.

Working through a program is
boring.

Programmed instruction is not
needed for efficient education.

Programmed instruction allows for
individual differences.

Using programmed instruction
techniques dehumanizes teaching.

 

Weights
SA A N D SD
5 5 3 2 1
0 1 3 3 A
1 2 3 A S
l l 2 A 5
2 2 3 A 5
5 A 3 l 1
1 2 3 A 5

 

180

TABLE B.3.--Face Validities of Attitude Scale Itemsa

 

 

 

Item Face Item Face
Number Validity Number Validity
1 0.583 11 0.667
2 0.750 12 0.583
3 0.667 13 0.833
A 0.750 lA 0.833
5 0.917 15 0.833

6 0.583 16 0.500
7 0.833 17 0.667
8 0.667 18 0.667
9 0.833 19 0.750
10 0.500 20 0.750
Overall 0.750

 

aCalculated from rating by three persons on a
five—point scale with a validity index of:

1.000 = very high face validity
0.750 = high face validity
0.500 = medium face validity
0.250 = low face validity

0.000 = very low face validity.

APPENDIX C

TEST BOOKLET

 

Registration rumber

tame

 

TEST BOOKLET

ZIORKSEZOP OI? PROGRAI 3 L3
IISTRUCTIOK

From the choices given, select the
BJST answer to each of the fellowing
questions. Place the appropriate
number in the box to the right of the
question.

All questions refer to Programmed
Instruction.

All responses will be treated as
confidential.

P]

1.

All programs have the following three characteristics:

immediate feedback.

2. immediate feedback, a series of short frames,

active responding.

linear progression.

4. a series of short frames, branching sequences,

negli gible error rate .

Covert responding has an advantage over overt responding

because it:

1. gives a record of progress.

2. leads to more effective learning.
3. takes less time.

4. reduces peeking.

Feedback is:

. branching back in the program.

. knowledge of results.

. reference to another section of the program.
. another name for overt responding.

meI-J

Which of the fbllowing statements about “cues and prompts"

is not true?

. They are the same thing.

. Both reduce error rate.

. Both serve the same function.

. They can occur in the same frame.

waH

Another name for “testing frame” is:

l. discrimination frame.
2. production frame.

3. criterion frame.

4. teaching frame.

Ihich of the following diagrams best represents a

remedial branch? (A circle represents a frame, and
an arrow represents the direction of working through

,o/D-OI“

the frames.)
1. -i~——*_*-T-O-O> 3. -O-O-O\8

-O-(-O-O

2. 40-0—0-03-09 4. —o_i——>——p-o->

a logical sequence of steps, active responding,

a negligible error rate, a logical sequence of steps,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H

 

 

 

 

 

O\

H

 

10.

ll.

T—2

Skinner and his followers advocate using:

1.
2.
3.
4.

constructed response programs.
"scrambled book“ programs.
covert response programs.
multiple choi ce pro grams .

Uhich of the following statements is true?

1.

2.

Only linear programs allow for individual
differences.

All programs allow for some individual
differences.

Only branching programs allow for individual
differences.

Ieither linear nor branching programs allow
for individual differences.

A line is used to separate the frame from the correct
answer in most programs because it:

compartmentalizes the page.
has aesthetic appeal.

is traditional.

acts as a visual barrier.

Research has shown that peeking in a textbook
program has undesirable effects:

1.
2.
3.
4.

if done before making an overt response.

if done before making a covert response.

if done after making either kind of response.
on the time taken.

In general, a good program is superior to traditional
teaching because it has:

immediate feedback, provision for individual
differences.

a logical sequence of steps, student motivation.
specific behavioral objectives, repetition.
provision fer individual differences, a logical
sequence of steps.

 

 

H

 

 

 

 

 

 

[l

T-3

12. The report of test results for a multiple choice
program states that:
"while working through the program, students
made very few errors."
"on a post-test, the error rate was high."
Which of the following condlusions would you be
justified in making on that information alone?

1. Probably a good program.

2. The post-test was probably too dil ficult.
3. The program did not teach well.

4. tone of the above.

13. The research report for a constructed response
program gave the following data:
“Program error rate = 5'3"
“Post-test error rate = L "
On this information, which of the following
conclusions should you make?

1. A good program for your class.
2. The pos t—test was too easy.

3. The program worked well.

A. The program was too easy.

14. Uhich of the following frame layouts is considered
the best? (Lines represent the text, and the
triangles represent diagrams illustrating the text.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lo 3. ‘ _W.._

*‘“ " 1:515

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A...

15. Programs can be tested by giving the program to
subjects either with the correct answers in it
(i.e. feedback) or without the correct answers
in it (i.e. no-feedback).
Probably the major disadvantage of the "feedback"
method of evaluation is that:

 

 

 

 

 

l. the programmer gets unwanted feedback.
2. it takes longer to work.

3. the student does not learn as much.

A. the results may be inflated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16.

17.

T-A

Which of the following is the best criterion frame
fOr a series of frames on setting up a simple
electrical circuit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l. iDraw a diagram of the 7 2. ‘Describe the circuit
gcircuit you would use )you would use to show
:to show - - - - (etc). !- - - - (etc).
1 »»—~~w.v , fi,,,11:"3
L-Mflfl-'/ NV,
3. The diagrams below 4. [Connect up the circuit
represent the parts gthat you would use to
.you would need to :show - ~ - - (etc).
show - - - (etc). i *
§(Parts supplied)
Draw lines to show [_‘mm ’///,~' """ '
how you would connect .%~_“’M,/
up the parts.
(Diagrams supplied) .3 (
\ // r— — I. I
-\M-w/

For a group of students with a wide range of abilities and
previous knowledge, which programming sequence would be
preferred? (All frames mentioned refer to one specific
topic. Broken lines indicate other frames not in the “
series, unbroken lines indicate alternative paths students
may take.)

!

' I
10 V 2. V

 

criterion frame 1 criterion frame 1
-iliilil.-- Ll
teaching frames teaching frames

1

i

3 F

criterion frame 2 y i
c criterion frame 2

i
J“ A 4; é

 

30 v Z}. 5
teaching frames teaching frame
!
i - _ - _
criterion frame .
; criterion frame

1' l :—

 

 

18.

19.

20.

T-5

Which of the following frames is considered the best
for a multiple choice program? (Lines represent text,
and triangles represent diagrams of possible
alternative choices.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lo 5 2. ' .__.—......“-
-—--—- 0 i . I ')\..\ L.\
I“). A; I .__.... I) 41‘
g 4:». /: I
3.
1}. I ."\ I \
1;.[l> .__. ‘ ZCX £21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Li [:1 5 f
_. : ___.... * i

Imagine that you are considering using a program with

your class. You have only one copy of the program and

no supplementary information about the objectives, test
results, etc.

Using the program as the only guide, which of the following
would give you the best indication of how suitable it

would be for your class?

 

 

1. Format.

2. Criterion frames.

3. Title.

4. Length of the frames.

 

 

 

 

Iou have assessed a program as being excellent for your
class.

However, as your students work through the sequence, most
of them fail, for various reasons, on one particular
frame.

Hhich of the following proposals seems the best for
future classes?

1. Wait until the next class has difficulty, then
teach the point causing trouble.

2. Do nothing, and let the class skip the frame.

3. Discard the program as a failure.

4. Prepare a supplementary branching program to
overcome the problem.

 

 

 

 

21.

22.

T-6

Which of the following is the generally recommended
sequence through which a programmer would go in
writing a program?

1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

state objectives

define the population
prepare teaching frames
write criterion frames
test.

state objectives

write cri terion frames

prepare teaching frames
test

define the population.

and entering behaviors.

2.

a.
b.
c.
d.

e.

a.
b.

1

9.

define the population
state objectives

write criterion frames
prepare teaching frames
test.

define the population
write criterion frames
prepare teaching frames
test

state objectives.

 

 

 

Iou have a group of students with similar abilities

Hrite a short linear program to teach finding the square

of a number.
sixteen, or in other words, 42

(For example, four squared is equal to
= 16.)

Write your program on this page and the next.

188

TABLE C.l.--Criterion Correlations and Difficulties of
Test Booklet Items

 

 

 

 

 

Item Criterion Difficultyb
Number Correlationa
Subtest 1
1 0.659 0 962
2 0.860 0.A72
3 0.75A 0.8A9
A 0.800 0.566
5 0.800 0.566
6 0.622 0.509
7 0.551 0.5A7
8 0.57A 0.717
9 0.117 0.60A
10 0.612 0.3A0
11 0.725 0.755
Subtest 2

12 0.523 0.132
13 0-379 0.5A7
1A 0.A15 0.509
15 0.A56 0.679
16 0.699 0.A15
17 0.5A3 0.A91
18 0.518 0.660
19 0.635 0.736
20 0.6A0 0.962

 

aComputed by the GITAP program with n = 53.

bComputed from the number of correct responses
(n = 53). If all participants correctly answer the item
then the difficulty index is 1.000.

189

TABLE C.2.--Face Validities of Test Booklet Itemsa

 

 

Subtest 1 Subtest 2 Subtest 3

Item Face Item Face Item Face
Number Validity Number Validity Number Validity

1. 0.750 12. 0.583 21. 0.750
2. 0.833 13. 0.750 22. 0.917
3. 0.917 1A. 0.583

A. 0.667 15. 0.667

5. 0.917 16. 0.750

6. 0.833 17. 0.750

7. 0.750 18. 0.667

8. 0.667 19. 0.750

9. 0.583 20. 0.833
10. 0.583
11. 0.750

 

8Calculated from ratings by three persons on a five-
point scale. A validity index of:

1.000 = very high face validity
0.750 = high face validity
0.500 = medium validity

0.250 = low face validity

0.000 = very low face validity.

-5_m'lI ... '11,! “T
E.-

711371.31' 57;? ‘ fit .

U

%_W

APPENDIX D

NOTES, DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND RAW SCORES
FROM THREE TRIAL INGROUP SESSIONS

8E“. 3.

 

APPENDIX D

NOTES, DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND RAW SCORES FROM
THREE TRIAL INGROUP SESSIONS

In this appendix, each trial InGrouP session is

_N! .1 I-v LI-I-‘W

discussed separately giving the research design,

demographic data, raw scores and comments. Some of

yeums‘..ar.. r -
‘r.
‘58”. ‘7.

this information also appears in the text but as grouped

data.

Three trial InGrouP sessions were conducted. For

reference purposes these have been numbered sequentially.

Trial InGrouP Session 1

Science teachers from 126 junior high schools and
parochial elementary schools within a radius of about
seventy miles of Lansing were invited by letters through
their school principals to attend a training session
at Michigan State University on Saturday, May 2A, 1969.
Superintendents and curriculum coordinators were asked
to follow-up the letters.

In all, thirty-nine teachers indicated that they

would attend. Reminder notes were sent to these.

190

 

191

By thirty minutes after the scheduled starting time,
twenty-two teachers had started the program. Two more
did not participate because they had expected a workshop
.on how to teach science.

Of the twenty-two who started, only fourteen returned
after the lunch break for the second part. Some of

those who left explained that as it was a very busy time

(i.e.-K y‘ame ‘
' _ ‘ . ID '1‘
I
.9

of the school year, they could not afford any more time.

Procedure and Research Design

a Emmi-Ava A). ~. .

V'
‘is' I!

With twenty—two participants, the following research

design was used:

 

R AT PS (1100 series)a
R PS AT (1200 series)
where: R indicates random assignment of partici-
pants to treatment groups.
A indicates administration of the attitude
scale.
T indicates administration of the test
booklet.
P indicates the program section (booklets
l and g).
S indicates the simulation section (booklets
3 and A).

The participants were assigned to the treatment groups
by the registration numbers on cards they received as
they entered the room. These cards had been arranged so

that the numbers were in random order.

 

3Each participant was assigned a unique number. The
first digit from the left indicates the trial InGrouP session
number, the second digit indicates the treatment group,
and the remaining numbers are unique for a particular
participant.

192

Demggraphic Data and Raw Scores
Table D.l contains demographic data about the
participants. This information was collected from a
checklist on the back of the registration card.
Table D.2 contains the test scores from the

attitude scale and the test booklet. It also contains

 

an analysis of the results.

Comments and Observations

In the discussion session at the conclusion of

the simulation section, the following comments were made:

“(1) As it was a training session on programmed
instruction, the materials should be programmed where
possible.

(2) The program section was a good section.

(3) The attrition rate would have been higher if
the subject matter had been presented as a lecture.

(A) Perhaps there could have been more discussion
at the "breaks" indicated in the booklets. However the
critic realized that this may not be possible as the
participants were working through the materials at their
own rates.

(5) If the materials were made available, one
participant wanted to try out the training session in

his own school.

.3 .w'a—

" If...

‘i‘w—r—,——.-— -

193

TABLE D.1.-—Summary of Demographic Data from Trial InGrouP
Session 1

 

 

Characteristic Pretest Posttest
(n = 11) (n = 5)a
Male 3 3
Female 8 2
From Lansing 8 3
From Michigan outside Lansing 3 2
Total Teaching Experience
1 - 2 years 1 0
3 - A years 1 2
5 - 6 years 1 2
7 - 8 years 2 0
More than 8 years 6 1
Science Teaching Experience
0 years 3 _ 0
1 - 2 years 2 3
3 - A years 2 l
5 - 6 years 1 0
7 - 8 years 1 0
Grades Taught 68/69 Yearb
5 2 0
6 A 1
7 2 2
8 A 3
9 1 0
10 l 0
ll 1 0
l2 1 0
Average Use of Programmed
Materials 68/69 Year
0 periods/wk. 8 A
l period/wk. l 1
3 periods/wk. 2 0

 

aOf the eleven teachers assigned to the posttest group,
only five completed the session.

bA number of teachers reported teaching more than one
grade during the 68/69 school year.

FL AQ?
_ ,vrwrmzP

 

1%., ' .
i~._'1__

19A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mfl
pmom
om.m oe.m oe.m om.me
mH mm me mem
n u m an mmomH
H m m mm anomH
: m OH zw *momH
e e OH we *momH
H e m mm *HomH pmtppmom
me.m mm.e ee.e mm.me tee
em mm Hm Hom
H m e we *HHHH
o m m we *OHHH
o e e we QOHH
o z 5 mm *mOHH
m m 2 mm *NOHH
m n m mm *mOHH
o m e we *mOHH
m m m we #:OHH
H e m me AMOHH
o m e ma NOHH
w m m es HOHH petemsm
mHmom monssz
n peerage m petseem H remorse tespaepa coaemwemawtm

 

H GOHmmom msopmcH HMHAB mom mHmszc¢ one mohoom 3mmuu.m.o mam<s

.Hw~.H mH N no osHm> oopHsoom one
.Eocoomm mo mmomwmo :H ceHs mo.o u a pm mocmoHMstHm mo umop coHHmquco m homo

.COHmmmm on» oouoHano pcmaHoHpmwa esp page mopmoHccH
*

 

195

 

 

 

 

I I .cme I mAmo.oVoochHMchHm
mee.o OHm.o mmm.e mmm.o OHemw m
ee.H em.o mm.o mm.m totem cementum
mm.H me.o mm.m mm.m teeter: I Amongst:
mmmmm
m emteesm m rmeeesm H sarcasm teapHpee

 

UmncdeOOII.N.Q mqm¢B

196

(6) One member asked where the coffee urn was (!).

(7) The participants worked harder than was
customary in a workshop.

The supervisor noticed that the participants became
tired towards the end of the session, indicating that
there may be some justification for dividing the materials
into two parts to be treated in two separate sessions.

The attrition rate was attributed to the concentrated
nature of the session and that at the end of spring term
teachers are busy and perhaps not as highly motivated a
would be expected earlier in the school year. This was
supported by responses to a questionnaire sent out to
those who had left early.

When tablet chairs were used, many of the participants
experienced some difficulty when working through two
stapled booklets at the same time. Those participants
who were using tables did not seem to experience this
problem.

In the simulation section in which time restrictions

 

were imposed by the supervisor, some confusion occurred
when changing from the "face-to—face interview" evaluation
exercise to the "mailing" exercises. Instructions for

the second and third exercise could be given at the
completion of the first exercise to overcome this problem

leading to a smoother transition between exercises.

A 3A»! 1 a blue-“r
l .
.LZHLEL‘I’V

“'M‘lM-ht ...' I > I.‘ I- . '

‘EQ

-
-.-1.. ‘

197

Trial InGrouP Session 2

Approximately 200 teachers of science and mathematics
at the secondary school level were invited to attend
either this trial InGrouP session or the third one.
The teachers were attending National Science Foundation
summer institutes or curriculum courses at Michigan State
University.

Although twenty-seven teachers indicated that they
would attend this session only fourteen started on

Saturday, June 21, 1969. Only eleven completed the session.

Procedure and Research Design

The design was the same as that used in the first
session except that a short discussion session was held
at the completion of the first evaluation exercise.
The pretest group were given registration numbers in the

2100 series and the posttest group in the 2200 series.

Comments and Observations

In the discussion session, the following comments
were made by participants:

(1) The subject area for the writing experience
in the "face-tOrface interview" exercise was too difficult.

(2) Materials used to teach programmed instruction
should be programmed.

Some questions were asked about the answers to some
parts of the review tables in booklet 2. In all cases the

answers to these questions were contained in the explanatory

‘9‘ :1 fill-i

An;- ' ‘1'- nMn\r.be.h'

198

TABLE D.3.--Summary of Demographic Data from Trial InGrouP

 

 

Session 2
Characteristic Pretest Posttest
(n=7) (n=7)
Male 2 1
Female 5 6
From Lansing l 2
From Michigan outside Lansing l 1
From Out-of-state 5 A
Total Teaching Experience
1 - 2 years 1 2
3 - A years A 3
5 - 6 years 1 1
More than 8 years 1 1
Science Teaching Experience
0 years 1 5
1 - 2 years 2 0
3 - A years 3 1
More than 8 years 0 1
Grades Taught 68/69 Yeara
5 1 O
6 1 2
7 2 3
8 A 2
9 A 2
10 2 2
11 0 2
Average Use of Programmed
Materials 68/69 Year
0 periods/wk. 6 6
3 periods/wk. 0 1
More than 3 periods/wk. l 0

 

aA number of teachers reported teaching more than on
grade during the 68/69 school year.

‘MH

‘23 _.;

 

199

umoa

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.x He.m oo.m mm.me eat:
em or mm mm: Hence
HH m OH Hm *eomm
m m m cm *momm
w w m m» mmomm
w m e an meomm
m m m as emomm
m e a He emomm
m H OH we eHomm emteemoe
eH.m em.e HA.m mm.me teasers
mm mm or mom Heeoe
H m e we AAOHN
H a m mm *mon
H m m so mOHm
HH m m on eOHm
o m m mm MOHN
m m m mm *NOHN
o m m ee AHOHm peerage
II onom nonesz
m petersm m peteesm H peteesm teseHeee eOHeeepmeem

 

 

m :OHmmom msouucH HmHme mom mHmmHmc< cam mouoom samuI.:.n mamda

200

 

.mm>.H mH M mo osHm> ooHHsuom on»
.Eocmmmm mo moemwmo NH ceHz mo.o n a pm cosmoHMchHm mo peep ooHHmpIoco m Home

.COHmmom one oopoHQEoo pcmoHOHpmma one page mopmoHo:H
A

 

 

 

 

 

.cme I .cme I «Amo.ovoocm0HMchHm
$6.... oemH HHm.m mmmé 633 m
mw.H 35.0 wm.o m:.m momhm vhmocmvm
Q Q
mm.z :H.H mm.m oo.m I on com: I pmo new:
onOm
m emtpesm m emtsezm H emteesm ...IIIIIIteSHfie

 

vmzcdpcooll.:.n mqm4B

201

portions in the booklets, not in the parts presented
as programmed materials. This seems to indicate that
the participants may tend to skip over the explanatory
notes between frames.

Only a few members of the group (less than twenty
percent) looked through any of the commercial programs
available on the supply trolley.

In this session only writing tables were used.

The tables seemed to overcome problems experienced with
handling two stapled booklets at the same time on a
tablet chair.

The discussion and orientation session held at the
completion of the first writing and evaluation exercise
seemed to produce a smoother transition into the remainder
of the simulation section. It appeared to overcome the
difficulty experienced in the first trial InGrouP session,

and gave the participants a short break.

Trial InGrouP Session 3
Sixty-five secondary—level teachers from the
summer institutes and from curriculum courses indicated
that they would attend this trial InGrouP session which
was to be held in two parts on Thursday, June 19, and
Tuesday, June 2A. from 7pm to 10pm. Of these, thirty-one

attended but only eleven completed the session.

Procedures and Research Design
The participants were randomly assigned to three

groups. The control group of nine was pretested with

 

202

the attitude scale and the test booklet. One experimental
group of ten was tested after completing the program
section and was known as the "midtest group.V The other
experimental group was tested at the completion of the

simulation section.

 

The research design was: F5
R AT PS (3100 series)a i
R PS AT (3200 series) A
R P AT S (3300 series)
where: R indicates random assignment to treatment
groups.
A indicates administration of the attitude
scale.
T indicates administration of the test
booklet.
P indicates the program section.
S indicates the simulation section.

 

As in the second session, a short discussion and
orientation session was held after the first writing and

evaluation exercise.

 

3The first digit from the left indicates the trial
InGrouP session number, the second digit indicates the
treatment, and the remaining numbers (represented by 0
here) were assigned to give a unique number of each
participant.

203

TABLE D.5.--Summary of Demographic Data from Trial InGrouP
Session 3

 

Characteristic Pretest Midtest Posttest
(n = 9) (n = 10) (n = A)

 

Male 5 6 2
Female u A 2
From Michigan outside Lansing A A 3 SA
From Out-of—state 5 6 l g i
Q
Total Teaching Experience 5
l - 2 years 0 1 l g
3 — A years 0 l 2 I
5 — 6 years 5 A l
7 - 8 years 1 l 0
More than 8 years 3 3 0
Science Teaching Experience
0 years 2 3 2
l - 2 years 1 2 1
3 - A years 2 1 O
5 - 6 years 1 3 1
7 - 8 years 1 O 0
More than 8 years 2 0 0
Grades Taught 68/69 Yeara
7 A 5 2
8 3 5 2
9 l l l
10 3 A 1
11 1 1 1
l2 1 2 1
Average Use of Programmed
Materials 68/69 Year
0 periods/wk. 7 9 A
2 periods/wk. l 0 0
More than 3 periods/wk. l l 0

 

aA number of teachers reported teaching more than one
grade during the 68/69 school year.

20A

1
.Auflkrfei. . In. 'lfir

I“I 'M'il.ciui " ‘11

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.m oo.m om.m om.mm oHecmoz
om OO mO MOO Hepoe
0H s w 5w 0Hmm
o m m mm momm
m m m mm mmomm
m w m Hh muomm
o m m um momm
0H m m mm *momm
m m N m: :omm
OH e HH me momm
m a m we momm
m m w ms *Homm

mm.H mm.e mm.m OO.eO magnet:
NH Om we MOO Heeoe
H m m mm *mOHm
m z 5 mu *mon
o a m mm *NOHm
O e O HO OOHm
O m O NO mOHm
m m e ea eOHm
m m e em mOHm
H m m mm NOHm
O m m He HOHm

onom monesz
m emeeesm m seepage H sternum teseree cOHemsemHmmm

peteeHz

umopopm

 

 

m :onmom muonusH HmHHB mom mHmmHMQ¢ new momoom 3mMII.m.Q mqm<a

205

mo Occurs w.WOmo£om wch: oocHEmopoO mm: oHnmp on» canHz ochOHMchHm

I I .... IIIAI Eu

.conmom one OopoHQEoo pcmmHOHpmwd one heap momeHoch

.mcmoe mo mcomHanEoo
o

.mO.O u a pm cosmOHchme mom

OomHsuom mH m:.m gasp Hopmmmw OHpmm m cm .Eoooomm mo moomwoo ON cam m cszm

 

 

 

 

 

 

.cmHm I .cme I pmoppmoa I pmopomm
I I I I emmepmoa I emtpeHz
I .cmHm .CMHm I pmouOHE I umopomm
nHmO.Ovoocm0Hchme
eHm.m ONO.m mem.em mem.O AOHeet m
C 3
OMH.HH Omm.H mme.H mOO.HMH HeeH museum set:
C m
mOH.Om OAO.A HHO.Om Oee.me were preteen est:
a
me.e om.m OO.OH OO.ON see eats
Hm mm o: OON Hmeoe
O O OH NO *zomm
m m OH mm *momm
O O HH NO *NONm
m m O OO AHONm emeeemom
oHMom gonadz
m petersm m esteesm H petensm mespHpea eOHeeeemetm

 

etsereooII.O.o mqmae

206

Elw‘nlk

0..”

J. . . .1
rf... F‘ I‘ll—€151.31 ...5.,1Hl\ {film-41L,

 

OH O O

mH OH O

mm mm O

mH me O

me me e:

we Om mm

O Hm Om

O u mH
memo» OIm memom :Im mmwom OIN

Om OO O

O: OH Hm

O Hm mm

a: mu NO

Om mm mm
Hmm I 2O .HeH I av HOH I av
m conmom m COHmmom H COHmmom

namow mo\OO pawsme mevmnw
cchoS

mocoHpoaxm wcfinomoe Hmuoe
mummeHOIpso Eomm
wCHmcmH oOHmpso cme£OHz Eomm
wchcmH Eomm

coHnmooH 0anmmwooo

onEom
mez

cOHAseHeemHO new

 

mfimowmpceoeoa mmv mConmom HHO Bonn mama

oanmawoeon one no mamassmII.~.n mqm<a

207

wchso oommw

.pmem Hoocom OO\OO one

oco can» egos wchomop ooumoaom mmmnomop no access <9

.mmocezc eHonz on abandon one mowwpcoomoo HHHHm

 

 

.xexmee O .x3\mee O .esxmee O emHetz
meow Hoonom mm\mm mHmHmopmz
omEEmnwomm no em: owwnm><
Hmm I ev AOH I re HOH I av
m conmom m COHmmom H GOHmmom

 

omscducooll.w.a mqm<9

Reasons for not completing the Trial InGrouP Sessions

(In all three trial InGrouP sessions there was a
high attrition rate.

Although not basic to this study, the causes of 9.
this high drop-out rate were of interest and may be
important in the overall plan to develop a number of
InGrouP sessions for teachers of all grades in all subjects
and in a number of countries. _;

To determine the reasons why participants did not
complete the sessions, a questionnaire was developed. The
items on the questionnaire were written to be approximately
equally unattractive, and a second section was included
as a check to the responses made in the first section.

Finally space was provided for general comments on how
the trial InGrouP session could be improved.

Twenty-eight questionnaires were mailed out with
stamped, return addressed envelopes to the addresses
given by the participants on the registration cards.

Twenty-two were returned.

The number of responses made to each item have
been placed in the box to the left of the item and the
general comments have been grouped into categories, and
the number of responses in each category appears in

parenthesis.

208

APPENDIX E

SURVEY OF REASONS WHY PARTICIPANTS

DID NOT COMPLETE THE TRIAL INGROUP SESSIONS

3— ifihl

 

. .H Iii-"'QJi

‘a_ -...__H

 

Section 1 1.

Section 2

General

ONUT

N

210

Comments

Conflicting assignments, other work.
Recruited under false pretences.

Reward not commensuate with time spent.
Information available elsewhere.

No purpose in continuing.

Too long.

Thought it was something different.

Explanation of long range aims.
Not so long.

Improve the "atmosphere".

Warn that tests would be given.
Shorten the program.

Make the session practical.

Schedule at another time (daytime, year).

Prior preparation by participants.
Give assistance to flounderer.

Learn science, use programs.

(A)
(2)
(3)
(l)
(2)
(1)
(3)

(3)
(l)
(1)

(5)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(l)
(1)
(2)

APPENDIX F

RESPONSES TO ATTITUDE SCALE ITEMS

 

TABLE F.l.—~hesponses to Attitude Scale Items

 

212

 

 

 

Item All iretest All Posttest
Eesponses a Responses
SA A X D JD SA A N D SD
1. Programmed instruction can develop ’
problem—solving techniques. 6 -7 A o 0 5 9 l 0 1
2. Programs encourage tne students to
cheat. 1 5 ~ 1“ 3 0 3 A 6 3
3. Programmed instruction is based or
the same principles as good class- ,
room teaching. 3 l? T Q 0 c 10 O 0 O
A. Programmed instruction hinders the "
social development of the student. 0 3 t -~ 2 0 6 5 3 2
5. Workshops to teach pregramming t: _ /
teachers should be available. lb 10 1 C O o 9 l 0 O
6. The advocates for programmed
instruction should press harder ‘
for its adoption. 3 7 l; S 0 3 3 8 2 0
7. Programmed instruction supplements ,
and complements the teacher's efforts. 9 18 O O 0 6 10 0 O 0
8. Teachers can build a strong case 1
against programmed instruction. 3 A 10 t 2 0 5 A 5 2
9. By using programmed materiais,
the teacher has more time to give
to the individual needs :f the
student. ‘3 -A l ' n 6 7 2 l 0
10. Teachers will find programmed
instruction techniques successful. 3 l? 7 2 3 3 10 2 l 0
11. Programs can use the best instruc-
tional techniques available. 2 ;9 6 0 O A 9 l 2 0
12. A program consists of a large
number of trivial steps which
are repeated over and over again. 0 S 2 1L 2 0 2 3 6 5
13. If programs were available in
my school, I would not volunteer
to use them. 1 l . 1A 9 0 l 1 10 1A
1A. By using programmed instruction,
a teacher will probably become a
better teacher. 3 1A 9 l 0 3 2 A 2 O
15. Programs threaten the teacher's
role. 1 0 0 l8 8 0 0 2 7 7
16. Programmed instruction is not as
effective as other instructional
techniques. 0 2 9 12 A 0 2 6 6 2
17. Working through a program is boring. 0 2 7 l7 1 0 A 3 7 2
18. Programmed instruction is not
needed for efficient education. 0 6 ll 8 2 0 5 2 7 2
l9. Programmed instruction allows
for individual differences. 7 1A A 2 7 8 0 l 0
20. Using programmed instruction
techniques dehumanizes teaching. 0 3 5 1A 0 3 2 8 3

 

aResponses from 27 pretested participants.

bResponses from 16 posttested participants.