An Investigation of ‘Teaching Machine’ Variables Using Learning Programs in Symbolic Logic

Conditions of Learning and Response Mode: an Experiment Using Programmed Learning Materials in an African Secondary School

“…The overall finding that different response modes did not produce significant differences in learning follows the general findings of Coulson and Silberman (1960), Evans (1960a), Challinor (1964), Hough (1962), but contrasts with the general tendency, reported by Grundin's (1969) survey of 47 studies for the constructed response to be superior when programs are over 100 frames in length, as the four programs in the present study taken together certainly were. The present findings follow the only other study of the effects of the response mode in Africa, that of Roebuck (1968Roebuck ( , 1970 who found over several schools no consistently significant differences attributable to the response mode.…”

Research on Programmed Learning

“…The former was found to give higher mean scores on a test but was slower to work through. The same conclusions were reached by Evans, Glaser and Homme (33). Goldbeck and Campbell (34) made differences in step size by varying the amount of cueing and had each programme learned by overt, covert or reading response modes.…”

The Influence of Programmed Instruction upon Learning in Educational Psychology

“…On the basis of the data obtained and within the limitations of the population, time, materials, and other factors involved in this study, it appears that: 1) programmed methods of instruction yield significantly greater gains in learning for identified school achievers than regular classroom methods of instruction, 2) while achievers using programmed materials gain significantly more from pre-test to post-test, there selfinstructional devices do not result in greater retention, 3) underachievers perform equally as well on achievement measures regardless of teaching method employed, 4) programmed methods of instruction did not produce a greater amount of retention for underachievers than classroom methods of teaching, and 5) the amount of time spent by subjects using programmed methods of instruction is significantly less than the time normally spent by students in the regular classroom, while the resultant learning and retention is similar. The significant differences in gains made by the experimental achiever subjects do not appear to offer sufficient empirical support for the superiority of programmed methods of instruction.…”

“…A number of investigations by Briggs (1), Evans (3), Ferster and Sapon (5), and Hough (7) indicate that these teaching devices promote fast and efficient learning.…”