Readings in Psychological Foundations of Education
READINGS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION
WALTER H. MacGINITIE SAMUEL BALL
Teachers College, Columbia Universit y
McGraw-Hill Book Company New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, Toronto, London, Sydney
4
LEARNING
TEACHING MACHINES
$
We shall see, however, that Wohlwill finds a basis for challenging Skinner 's application of this second principle to human conceptual learning . The article on teaching machines reprinted here from Science was important in bringing Skinner 's views on education before scientists of many fields at a time when they were becoming interested in and involved with the way their own disciplines were being taught at the elementary and secondary levels. This article restates Skinner 's earlier stand and contains in addition a discussion of some intervening developments. Whatever your own current view of programmed instruction, you will find that Skinner 's article raises a number of important questions for education. First, it is an interesting proposition that it is impossible for a teacher alone to reinforce any but a tiny proportion of the hundreds of thousands of appropriate responses made by a class of children in the course of the academic year. 1. Does this proposition seem reasonable? Assuming that these responses should be reinforced, are there any ways of accomplishing this other than by machine? 2. If a machine is used, how should the programs be selected for each child? Skinner contends that a device is necessary "if each student is to have individual attention." 3. A program can be selected by the teacher specifically for the individual student, but to what extent does a program give the student individual attention? 4. We continually urge students to organize material in order to remember it. Do different students have different ways of organizing, and will the organization inherent in a particular program work well for all ? Skinner suggests that, with programmed instruction, all students can get an A
WALTER H. MacGINITIE SAMUEL BALL
Teachers College, Columbia Universit y
McGraw-Hill Book Company New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, Toronto, London, Sydney
4
LEARNING
TEACHING MACHINES
$
We shall see, however, that Wohlwill finds a basis for challenging Skinner 's application of this second principle to human conceptual learning . The article on teaching machines reprinted here from Science was important in bringing Skinner 's views on education before scientists of many fields at a time when they were becoming interested in and involved with the way their own disciplines were being taught at the elementary and secondary levels. This article restates Skinner 's earlier stand and contains in addition a discussion of some intervening developments. Whatever your own current view of programmed instruction, you will find that Skinner 's article raises a number of important questions for education. First, it is an interesting proposition that it is impossible for a teacher alone to reinforce any but a tiny proportion of the hundreds of thousands of appropriate responses made by a class of children in the course of the academic year. 1. Does this proposition seem reasonable? Assuming that these responses should be reinforced, are there any ways of accomplishing this other than by machine? 2. If a machine is used, how should the programs be selected for each child? Skinner contends that a device is necessary "if each student is to have individual attention." 3. A program can be selected by the teacher specifically for the individual student, but to what extent does a program give the student individual attention? 4. We continually urge students to organize material in order to remember it. Do different students have different ways of organizing, and will the organization inherent in a particular program work well for all ? Skinner suggests that, with programmed instruction, all students can get an A
References: and Notes Menger, K., "New approach to teaching intermediate mathematics," Science, 127, 1320 (1958). Pressey, S. L., School and Society, 23, 586 (1926). ,ibid.,36,934 (1932). Skinner, B. F., "The experimental analysis of behavior," Am. Scientist, 45, 4 (1957) . Verbal Behavior (Appleton-Ceutury-Crofts, New York, 1957). "The science of learning and the art of teaching," Harvard Educational Rev., 24,2(1954). Science and Ilunian Behavior (Macmillan, New York, 1953). Dr. Homme prepared sets of frames for teaching part of college physics (kinematics), and Mrs. Meyer has prepared and informally tested material in remedial reading and vocabulary building at the junior high school level. Others who have contributed to the development of teaching machines should be mentioned. Nathan H. Azrin cooperated with me in testing a version of a machine to teach arithmetic. C. B. Ferster and Stanley M. Sapon used a simple "machine" to teach German [see "An application of recent developments in psychology to the teaching of German," Harvard Educational Rev., 28, 1 (1958)]. Douglas Porter, of the Graduate School of Education at Harvard, has made an independent schoolroom test of machine instruction in spelling [see "Teaching machines," Harvard Graduate School of Ethic. Assoc. Bull., 3, 1 (1958) ]. Devra Cooper has experimented with the teaching of English composition for freshmen at the University of Kentucky. Thomas F. Gilbert, of the University of Georgia, has compared standard and machine instruction in an introductory course in psychology, and with the collaboration of J. E. Jewett has prepared material in algebra. The U.S. Naval Training Devices Center has recently contracted with the University of Pennsylvania for a study of programs relating to the machine instruction of servicemen, under the direction of Eugene H, Calanter.