A comparison of two response modes in an auto-instructional program with children in the primary grades.

Abstract

To test the value of overt responding with young children, a total of 198 primary grade children divided into 2 matched groups were individually taught, by a teaching machine, a 3-week unit in physical science. The overt response group was required to respond to each frame by selecting the correct answer before the program would advance. The nonovert response group merely observed the entire program as it was automatically presented. Both groups learned significantly more than an uninstructed control group, but the difference between nonovert and overt responders was not significant.

Research on Programmed Learning

“…The same point can be made from an experiment in which machines were used, one group choosing a multiple choice alternative by pressing a key, another being shown the answer without having to make a response (21). The programme had over four hundred frames and was given to six-to seven-year-old children using audio and visual presentation.…”

“…A summary of work done with extremely young children or with special groups may add to this conclusion. Some studies using preschool or infant level children have already been mentioned (21,37,38). In addition Hively (69) has taught perceptual relationships by machine to three-year-olds and reading and writing have been successfully acquired by children of this age (70).…”

The Development of Audio‐visual Programmed Instruction

“…Secondly, there are children who are too young to have learned to read. Keislar and McNeil (1962) in the U.S. have experimented at this level, giving oral instruction over headphones with a program on physical science for first-grade children. Thirdly, there are those people who have not had the opportunity to learn to read -and here one is thinking of the 50 per cent, of illiterate people in the world.…”

Effect of Vanishing Textual Stimuli on Memorization

“…Holland and Skinner, 1961. ) While the asumption behind this approach to teaching recently has been both questioned (e.g., Stolurow, & Walter, 1762; Keislar, & McNeil, 1962) and supported (e.g., Krumboltz, Weisman, 1962), the practice of omitting textual materials appears to have become an established characteristic of programmed texts and ocher ceaching materials.…”

“…Holland and Skinner, 1961. ) While the asumption behind this approach to teaching recently has been both questioned (e.g., Stolurow, & Walter, 1762; Keislar, & McNeil, 1962) and 'The investigator is grateful to Dr. Douglas T. Kenny of the Graduate School of Education, Harvard Universitv. for having asisted him in desienine this ex~eriment.…”