■X I B R.AHY 
 
 OF THE 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 510.84 
 U6r 
 
 no. 257-264 
 cop. 2 
 
CENTRAL CIRCULATION AND BOOKSTACKS 
 
 The person borrowing this material is re- 
 sponsible for its renewal or return before 
 the Latest Date stamped below. You may 
 be charged a minimum fee of $75.00 for 
 each non-returned or lost item. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, or defacement of library materials can be 
 causei for student disciplinary action. All materials owned by 
 the University of Illinois Library are the property of the State 
 of Illinois and are protected by Article 16B of Illinois Criminal 
 law and Procedure. 
 
 TO RENEW, CALL (217) 333-8400. 
 University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign 
 
 JUN 2 8 1999 
 
 When renewing by phone, write new due date 
 
 W .-.1 .-, i«t r.i-ai'iAii r< /Ilia /Infa II rSV 
 
 below previous due date 
 
 L162 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 
 
 http://archive.org/details/teachingmachines260nord 
 
r/o. *r 
 
 u Report No 
 
 260 
 
 ~yvitiJt£ 
 
 te>f 
 
 2. 
 
 TEACHING MACHINES AND PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION: 
 An Introduction and Review* 
 
 by 
 
 B, J. Nordmann, Jr. 
 
 April 22, 1968 
 
Report No, 260 
 
 TEACHING MACHINES AND PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION: 
 An Introduction and Review* 
 
 by 
 Bo J . Nordmann , Jr . 
 
 April' 2?, 1968 
 
 Department of Computer Science 
 University of Illinois 
 Urbana, Illinois 618OI 
 
 "Supported in part by Contract AT(.ll-l)-10l8 with the U,S, Atomic Ener^ 
 Commission and the Advanced Research Projects Agency. 
 
I , HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 In the last two decades with the school-age population expansi 
 sorely testing the American egalitarian ideal of universal education, 
 increasing attention has "been devoted to the techniques of instruction. 
 One technology resurrected as a result of this al ' < n Lon has been the idea 
 of the teaching machine. This device, it was hoped, would relieve th< 
 classroom teacher of the teaching drudgery and allow the teacher to spend 
 more time helping pupils on an Individual basis. 
 
 The first serious attempt to use a teaching machine was made by 
 S.L. Pressey, During the 1920' s Pressey published numerous papers about a 
 machine he had developed. This machine was about the size of a typewriter, 
 was capable of asking multiple choice questions and could grade the answers. 
 [60, 6l, 62] . Prior to this time many other teaching devices had been 
 patented (over 600 between 1809 and 1936) but no investigator had tried to 
 interest the public in these devices. Although Pressey spent much of the 
 next 30 years trying to gain public acceptance of his ideas, it remained for 
 B, F. Skinner to actually get educators stirred up over the teaching 
 machine concept . 
 
 B. F. Skinner, who developed the "Skinner Box" and used it in his 
 investigation of animal learning, felt that the same techniques which he 
 employed in the laboratory on animals could also be used in the schools on 
 people [79] • Using these techniques he developed a teaching machine which 
 would display the material to be learned in small segments called "frames". 
 These frames were ordered in a logical sequence and each contained some 
 statement with blanks or a question which required the student to construct 
 a written response. As soon as the student finished writing the answer to 
 the frame he was given the correct answer for comparison purposes, The 
 frames were written so that using knowledge from previous frames and cues 
 from the present one, the student was almost certain to get the right answer. 
 
 -1- 
 
This correct response was intended to reinforce the learning of that particular 
 frame 
 
 An alternative to Skinner's method came from N, A. Crowder who felt 
 tha+ Skinner's method was too inflexible in its handling of the student .[19] . 
 He de^elcped some programs which branched depending on the answer the student 
 made to the last question, A wrong answer to a question caused a branch to 
 a special sequence of frames which dealt with the specific mistake made by 
 the student. A correct answer, on the other hand, led to the next instructional 
 item. This method of programming is known as branching or intrinsic programming 
 as opposed to Skinner's linear programming in which there is only one path 
 through the program- Crowder hoped that by using branching, the advanced 
 students who learned more quickly would be able to skip the more rudimentary 
 material incorporated for the less well-prepared or slower-learning students. 
 
 The branching program represenx-s a completely different concept of 
 the teaching (learning) process from Skinner's linear program: Skinner 
 viewed the teaching machine as a means of conditioning a student to emit the 
 appropriate response (answer) when faced with a given stimulus (question). 
 Crowder, on the other hand, felt that the educational process was basically 
 a feedback situation in which a teacher presents new material to the student 
 and then determines if he has learned it, If not the teacher reviews the 
 material or presents a corrective sequence before going on. 
 
 A third programming method, called adaptive programming , usually 
 involves the use of a computer or other complex electronic device, In this 
 method the machine takes into account various individual characteristics such 
 as pers r y (aggressiveness, shyness, etc. )> IQ and also student behavior 
 on previous questions to decide the type of" sequences to present to the 
 student. Gordan Pask of Great Britain helped design one such machine, SAKI. 
 Another, SOCRATES, has been programmed on a computer at the Illinois Training 
 Research Laboratory [36]. 
 
 -2- 
 
Adaptive programming is sometimes also i aJ Led extrinsic since 
 uses information external to the program, (IQ, personality scores, apti- 
 tudes, etc.) in making its sequencing decisions; this is in opposition ' 
 branching or intrinsic programming, which only uses the response to the 
 last question [20, 25]. 
 
 When Skinner began advocating his machine the economic situation 
 and the teacher shortage caused immediate interest to develop. Cons ible 
 >arch was started to determine the best types of teaching programs and to 
 compare the amount of learning produced by this technique with that found in 
 the ordinary classroom situation. At the same time the educational press 
 became interested and many articles were written both pro and con [ 1 k , 32, 
 33, h6, 55, 56, 92, 93], Partly as a result of this publicity there was a 
 spurt in the actual production of machines despite the fact that the theory 
 of these had not been completely worked out , W. L. Ross et-al. 1 69] list 
 some UO teaching machines in their buyer's guide published in 1962- Finn 
 and Perrin [31] , also in 1962, list almost 100. These machines ranged 
 in price from $1 to $1600 with one machine priced at $5000. The machines 
 consisted of everything from manual crank devices which contained the program 
 on a strip of paper, to complex devices which showed slides and played 
 recorded instruction via tape recorders. 
 
 It scon became apparent, however, that without good programs these 
 machines were not appropriate for large-scale school use. Although many 
 programs were produced, the overall quality was not always good and the 
 measurement of program quality became an important, topic [U, 15, ^0, kQ , 58, 
 183]. This, coupled with the high cost of the machines in many instances 
 and the fact that changes in programming theory or technique quickly made 
 machines obsolete, took the bloom off the rosy expectations that the 
 manufactures had had for the middle and late 1960's, Although school 
 systems have indeed become interested in programmed learning, their plans 
 for large scale integration of teaching machines still appear to be a few 
 years in the future, [28], 
 
 -3- 
 
During the late 1950 's the computer industry "became interested in 
 programmed instruction. A variety of "computer aided instruction" (CAI) 
 projects were begun to utilize the high-speed computer as an instruction 
 control device 
 
 As early as 1958 the IBM Research Laboratories began a project 
 tc teach binary arithmetic using an IBM 650 computer and typewriter console 
 [65, 17*0 • The computer was programmed to give problems to the student and 
 then grade his answer, On the basis of the correctness of the answer the 
 somputer would then generate another problem. Later the IBM group built an 
 arithmetic tutor for 6th grade students. This project in turn led to 
 further experiments in teaching a broader range of courses such as steno- 
 typmg, statistics and German reading [9, 17^, 196]- Eventually in 19&5 
 IBM announced the development of a compiler-like language, called COURSEWRITER 
 [36] , which allowed a teacher to program a computer to teach his own subject. 
 
 In early i960 the Systems Development Corporation began work in 
 automated teaching using a Bendex G-15 computer [il6, 117, 119» 123] > They 
 experimented with various parameters and this eventually led to their develop- 
 ment of CLASS (Computer-Based Laboratory for Automated School Systems), an 
 educational facility designed to explore the potential of a fully integrated 
 classroonic This scheme combined automated instruction with other instruc- 
 tional methods such as films, TV, lectures and textbooks [9, 117 » 123]. 
 CLASS is designed to accommodate as many as 20 students in a variety of 
 modes, Its main purpose is to test the new techniques in an integrated 
 manner similar to the way they might eventually be used in a regular 
 classroom- 
 
 Also in i960 the PLATO project (Programmed Logic for Automatic 
 Teaching Organization) at the University of Illinois was begun,, [98 s 99, 
 100, 10 1 , 103] ■ Under the direction of D. L. Bitzer and P„ G. Braunfeid, 
 its original purpose was to investigate student behavior when in contact 
 with a teaching machine. It began with two terminals attached to the 
 
 
 -k- 
 
Illiac I computer, Today after extensive modifications the system uses a 
 CDC l60U and controls 20 consoles Each console has a TV device which can 
 display slides or computer generated output - all under control of the 
 computer The student is equipped with a television monitor, a typewriter 
 key set and certain other control "buttons with which he can "talk" to the 
 computer. A wide variety of courses have been programmed and taught to 
 students . 
 
 A good example of a computer oriented adaptive system is the 
 SOCRATES II system (System for Organizing Content to Review and Teach 
 Educational Subjects) [23, 36, 193]. Built by the Illinois Training 
 Research Laboratory, the system controlled several teaching machine 
 stations. The system is initially provided data on each student's IQ, 
 aptitude scores, personality traits and other relevant information- Using 
 this it determines the strategy of instruction to give to each student 
 
 There are various other computer systems including COBIS (Computer 
 Based Instructional System) at the Decision Sciences Laboratory at Hanscom 
 Field, the TRW MENTOR which uses films and audio magnetic tape recorders 
 [9> 13], and the Stanford I, built at Stanford University to control audio 
 and video stimuli by computer [200]. One other example of an automated 
 teaching system, which shows another direction of research, is an earlier 
 project at the Decision Sciences Laboratory [159] . This project developed 
 at about the same time as the beginning of the IBM project but it was 
 oriented on a more pragmatic basis . In this case the basic, idea was to 
 use an existing large-scale computer system to help teach its potential 
 users how to employ it. A combination of programmed text and computer 
 teaching was used without human intervention. 
 
 In the next section we will go back to the early cont oversies 
 between linear and branching programming advocates. Although this contro- 
 versy is currently dying out because of the willingness of present day 
 programmers to use whatever is best for a given application [5^ 5 56] , it 
 is still important historically since it led to a great deal of research 
 effort on the part of the various advocates. Although much of this research 
 gave conflicting results it represents the inaugeration of a large-scale 
 effort to discover the effective variables in programmed learning, 
 
 -5- 
 
II. PAST CONTROVERSIES 
 
 Previous to the development of programmed instruction research, 
 the field of psychology had done a significant amount of work on learning, 
 memory, and other related areas. However no unified theory was generally 
 available. The result of this lack was that a considerable argument arose 
 over the desirable characteristics which a teaching machine program should 
 have . 
 
 As a result of their research, Skinner and his supporters 
 advocated a very specific instructional format in which small frames 
 requiring an overt response by the student were used. Cues to the 
 correct answer were gradually withdrawn in successive frames until the stu- 
 dent was on his own, A key point in writing the program was to keep the 
 error rate low, If boo many errors were made the reinformcement effect 
 due to the constructive response and the display of the correct answer 
 would weaken and the wrong answers might be remembered . For this reason, 
 Skinner advocated program testing and revision until the average error 
 rate was around 2-5%. 
 
 Crowder, on the other hand, used questions to determine how 
 much a student had learned, as well as for giving him practice and 
 reinforcement, Errors in questions would result in special remedial 
 sequences to help the student understand why the error he had made was 
 wrong, Correct answers would sometimes allow students to skip instruc- 
 tion which they already knew. Because of these features it was necessary 
 to have a higher error rate, As a result, Crowder typically considered 
 a 15% average error rate to be desirable. Skinner's adherents, however, 
 felt that if the student made too many errors, the wrong answers might 
 be reinforced 
 
 There has been an interesting rebuttal to this objection. It 
 has been argued that by getting a question wrong and then having to go 
 over the basic principles as a result, the student will end up with a 
 
 -6- 
 
clearer understanding bhe whol« idea [IT, ;,; |. The supporte] 
 
 this idea claim that LJ a s1 udi I t responds coi si I Lmi , h 
 
 will not be "set" to the question at all and will completely dismi 
 
 from his mind. This seems similar to the idea of Zeigarnik [202], who 
 
 noted a general tendency toward better recall of an unfinished task than a 
 
 finished one, 
 
 Another dispute over intrinsic programming devel' p d o*rcr the 
 fact that in order to be able to branch easily, Crowdez used multiple 
 choice questions [198] • This resulted in a problem of transference of 
 learning. It was argued that in the real world, the student will n 
 normally be presented with a limited number of solutions to a given 
 problem. Therefore multiple choice questions may not really prepare him 
 for reality. 
 
 Another problem is that the student may simply guess at the 
 answer , What Skinner wanted to reinforce is the process of constructing 
 the answer. By guessing, Skinner claimed that the student eliminated part 
 of the learning process, He also felt that merely seeing the wrong 
 answers with the correct one would tend to weaken the learning of the 
 correct response . 
 
 It should be noted that these objections to branching methods 
 can be partially relieved in some computer oriented machines by the use 
 of complex "judging" routines. In this case a multiple choice question 
 is not necessary, The judging routine determines the correctness of a 
 constructed answer and determines what corrective sequence, if any, 
 should be entered. The PLATO system, as an example, can be programmed 
 to classify errors and transfer to one of several sequences depending on 
 error type. It can also detect misspellings of the correct answer and 
 instead of a "wrong" reply it will return a "misspelled" reply 
 
 Another area of disagreement was the size of the frame [155, 
 185]. Skinner maintained that the frame should be small since a response 
 must be elicited from the student after each item to be learned. Since 
 Crowder was trying to present more complete items, his frames tend to be 
 longer. Other observers felt, that short frames were too restrictive for 
 
 -7- 
 
certain types of subject matter regardless of whether or not branching was 
 used. Smaller frames also sometimes tended to make the student take more time 
 to cover a given set of principles '[115] . 
 
 Another problem was whether or not the student really needed to make 
 an overt response in each frame '[190]. It was felt by certain groups that as 
 long as the student made some sort of covert response, learning would be able 
 to take place. It would also be much faster since there would be no need to 
 write the answer down. Of course occasional overt responses of some sort 
 would probably be necessary if only to make sure that the student was not 
 asleep. 
 
 In concluding this section, it should be noted that basically the 
 linear programming advocates used an operant conditioning model of learning 
 while the Crowder supporters used a more empirical one. They tried to give 
 the student the information to be learned in the most efficient method possi- 
 ble and left it up to him to learn it. There are several philosophical impli- 
 cations in these different techniques (see [993 fo r a discussion of linear 
 programming and determinism) . The main practical and theoretical differences 
 can be found in [l8, 20, 21, 25, 80, 88]. 
 
 -8- 
 
III. EXPERIMENTAL WORK 
 
 The result of these various theoretical controversies was a consider- 
 able increase in the amount of research on teaching machines and their effec- 
 tiveness. Various means "were used to display teaching machine programs. Due 
 to cost considerations, one of the most popular was a programmed text or 
 looseleaf notebook . These could be printed up or mineographed in quantities 
 suitable for experimentation at quite a reasonable price [kk] „ They considted 
 basically of sheets of paper with the frames printed on them,, In a linear- 
 program the next frame and the answer to the present one would be on the next 
 page. In a branching program, each multiple choice answer would direct the 
 student to the page number of the frame which he should go to next if he felt 
 that particular answer was right. In the branching program the frames were 
 scrambled in a random order which caused this type of programmed text to be 
 called a "scrambled took". Several publishers have begun printing texts of 
 these types [^1, k-2, 52] and they are presently one of the most popular forms. 
 
 One problem which may develop with scrambled texts particularly and 
 programmed texts in general is that they are bulky and can become expensive 
 when purchased in large amounts due tc the fact that many books would be 
 needed to cover, say, a year's work in high school. Since usually the student 
 must write his answers in the book, a. new text must be purchased for each stu- 
 dent. 
 
 Another type of machine which is often used in experiments is the 
 "crank" type in which the program is on a continuous roll of paper which the 
 student cranks or pulls out of the machine as he goes along. These are best 
 suited for linear programs . 
 
 A third machine which can be used is a computer generated display. 
 Due to its flexibility, an experimenter can make quick and easy changes to the 
 teaching program as soon and as often as he wants. The uses of computers in 
 programmed instruction will be discussed more fully in Section U. 
 
 .9- 
 
In general there have been four basic experiment types in the field 
 of programmed instruction (Pi): 
 
 1) Comparison studies between programmed instruction and conven- 
 tional teaching methods . 
 
 2) Parametric studies comparing different programming methods and 
 techniques, 
 
 3) Exploratory studies investigating new applications of programmed 
 instruction. 
 
 4) Implementation studies in which PI is incorporated in an actual 
 classroom on a. continued basis. 
 
 The results of these different types of experiments seem to vary ac- 
 cording to type. 
 
 Experiments of the first type were generally successful in that al- 
 most all showed an increase in learning and/or a decrease in time needed to 
 study when programmed instruction was compared to conventional methods [25, 
 107, 113, 128, 129, 130, 13*1-, 141, 142, 158, 167, 1.71, 173, 176] . There were 
 several exceptions to this [66, 10, 126, 135, 1**3, 1*1-7, 191] tut such results 
 were often due to poor experimental conditions . In one study there was very 
 Little control over the subject's behavior away from class and all subjects 
 went to the same lectures { 1*1-3] ° Tne only difference was that certain groups 
 were given extra time with programmed materials. Under the circumstances, it 
 is not surprising that no differences were measured in the various groups. 
 
 In another series of experiments conducted in Great Britain, an 
 American program. (Temac-First Year Algebra) was used by Scottish children who 
 did not understand some of the terms used. In still another experiment two 
 groups were used which had significantly different mean IQ scores [66] , An- 
 other reason for poor results was that often the PI sequences were much too 
 short for reliable results [13*1] . 
 
 -10- 
 
In general, though, programmed instruction proved itself to be at 
 
 least equal and often superior to more conventional learning methods. There 
 has been one argument against these comparison experiments, however, which has 
 so far been difficult to refute: the suggestion that the superior performance 
 of the students using programmed materials may be due to novelty or to the 
 ,: Hawthorne Effect" . These critics argue that once the novelty wears off and 
 students using programmed learning techniques are no longer considered "spe- 
 cial", the advantage of programmed instruction may lessen or disappear com- 
 pletely. Although some experimenters have tried to lessen these effects [i^l, 
 1^2] or to actually measure them [ 14-6, 170], only time and further experimen- 
 tation with large numbers of subjects over long periods of time will be able 
 to prove or disprove this objection. 
 
 Due to the generally satisfactory results of the first type of ex- 
 periment, research in this particular area has declined more recently. The 
 second type of experiment is a different story, however. The purpose of these 
 experiments was to determine those programming factors which led to the most 
 efficient learning for the student. Unfortunately there are so many possible 
 variables, and their interactions are so complex, that it has been very diffi- 
 cult to obtain coherent results. As a result these experiments seem, to have 
 generated more confusion than ever. Often when comparing various techniques 
 the experiments were not able to show any significant differences [102, 111, 
 124, 125, 137, 143, 153, 16'2, 179, I87, 192], or when they did, the results 
 were often in contradiction with some earlier experiment [ll8, I87] . 
 
 Eventually however it was realised that there were several de- 
 fects in the research, which had been reported. Since nobody was quite sure 
 which of the many variables in a teaching machine program were significant and 
 since it was difficult to obtain a, sufficient population of suitable subjects 
 in order to test all variables, mistakes were often made in the choice of per- 
 tinent variables. 
 
 ■11 • 
 
Some investigators, in an effort to control as much of the experiment 
 as possible and to test only a small number of variables at a time, tried to 
 write one program and then modify it slightly in order to compare different 
 programming variables [e.g., 12 k, lUO] . This is a reasonably sound procedure, 
 providing that the variables being measured and the variables held fixed have 
 independent effects on learning. Unfortunately this is generally not the case 
 in programmed instruction and the net effect of this type of experiment is to 
 show little or no effect on learning. What is more likely important is the 
 variation of combinations of variables so that if two programming techniques 
 3,re to be compared, the amount of learning which is produced by each should 
 first be optimized with respect to all of the other variables. Up to now, 
 however, there has not been enough time, money, or subjects to do anything like 
 this . 
 
 Another problem with programmed instruction research was the quality 
 of the programs used. It often turned out that the programs which were used 
 in the experimental research were not written in such a manner as to enable a 
 distinction to be made between two techniques. For example, in one test be- 
 tween linear and branching programs the lack of a difference in the amount of 
 learning was explained (by the experimenter) as being due to the unappropri- 
 ateness of the remedial branching sequences [187] ° Since the remedial se- 
 quences vere not very good, the students with branching learned no more than 
 those without it. 
 
 In support of this observation, J. L. Evans, et al° [12k] observed 
 that the relavence of any particular program variable in a frame was inversely 
 related to the probability of a correct response by the subject on that frame 
 J. G- Holland has developed a measure for the criticality of the stimulus ma- 
 terial in a frame [3, ^3] ■ This measure is called the black-out ratio and 
 represents the maximum ratio of the amount of material in a frame which can 
 be removed without affecting the student error rate, to the total amount of 
 
 -12 
 
material in the frame . He discovered that programs which had high black-out 
 ratios, i.e., those which contained much non-critical material, when used in 
 riments to compare overt and covert responding, constructed response vs. 
 multi-choice response, etc., showed no significant differences between the 
 variables being testedo Conversely programs with low black-out ratios were 
 able to show significant differences. 
 
 Sometimes the results of a programmed learning experiment were af- 
 fected by a lack of familiarity on the part of the subjects. In one case 
 Bivens and Cambell [102, 110] noticed that in a comparison between self -di- 
 rected and non-self -directed learning, students who have become accustomed to 
 the lecture method in school do not really know how to direct their own 
 studying. However after being given a coaching session in self -study methods 
 they were superior to a group using linear programmed instruction. 
 
 J. E. Coulson, et al. [119] have noticed this same factor in that 
 when they gave students the option of controlling their own branching in a 
 teaching program, they rarely took advantage of it. 
 
 In addition to this there were many other more standard types of 
 problems. It was often difficult to decide how to, measure the increase in 
 learning [68]. Poor pre- and post-testing of the subjects would often lead 
 to fairly useless results [l6U] . In some cases, where the experimenter,; were 
 using students in college classes there was often very poor control over the 
 kinds of learning the students acquired when away from the teaching programs 
 [96, l'-K3] • Then too, the students motivation often varied from group to group 
 L95J • 
 
 To conclude this discussion of the type two experiments, there is 
 now at least ' a body of knowledge which can be used to devise new experiments, 
 although there is still much which is unknown about the factors which cause a 
 program to teach efficiently. In the future more experiments will be needed 
 which try to impose some order upon this body of knowledge. One example of 
 
 -13- 
 
this type of experiment is Leigh's results [15,1] wnich were able to experimental- 
 ly show "why experiments by other researchers [104, 124, 133, 1^2, 148, 149, 198, 
 201] had been so confusing. 3y discovering that the effect of overt as opposed 
 to covert responses varied with the type of material being taught, Leigh was 
 able to explain the often-conflicting results of previous experiments „ 
 
 There are various examples of the third type of experiment [108, 112, 
 138, 139. 157, 160, 180, 184, 185, 189] • This type consists of various explor- 
 atory experiments which are aimed at finding qualitative results from various 
 extensions of programmed instruction. Most of the computer experiments which 
 will be described in Section IV are of type three. Other examples of this type 
 of experiment include one which tested the effect of problem setting questions 
 in a "conventional" linear program [137] > investigations into self -directed 
 programmed instruction [102, 110], and various investigations using adaptive 
 programming [154, l6l, 188, 193] ■ 
 
 The type four experiments, consist of implementations of what is al- 
 ready known. Their orientation is more practical than theoretical, for by the 
 time a school system makes up its mind to use programmed learning techniques, 
 it is no longer interested in detailed scores, learning curves, etc., but in- 
 stead wants to know the effects on teachers' loads, how big the classrooms 
 should be, the grading system to be used, and other mundane affairs which need 
 to be known to make a practical system. 
 
 In general there have not been too many large scale implementations 
 of programmed instruction. A primary reason for this is the lack of a coordi- 
 nated series of programs spanning several grade levels. Those implementations 
 that do exist, however, can be found in industry [lOf, l45, 163, 168, l69]j> 
 the government [121, 166], and the educational system [9h, ll4, 120, 122, 136, 
 182, 194] . In general these implementations have shown the following" 
 
 •14- 
 
1) Programmed instruction techniques are affective teaching methods. 
 
 2) Teachers must be instructed in the use of PI before a PI program 
 is begun at school. 
 
 3) Although often adaptable to individual student difference s } 
 teaching machine programs can be very inflexible when responding 
 to curriculum changes, 
 
 h) At the present time there is a chronic lack of good programs, 
 
 especially series of programs covering one subject through several 
 grade levels . 
 
 In the following section the application of computers to programmed 
 instruction will be described. 
 
 -15- 
 
IV. THE APPLICATION OF COMPUTERS TO PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION 
 
 When Skinner produced his first teaching machine, one of its impor- 
 tant characteristics was its simplicity and low cost. However, this simplicity 
 was also one of its major defects since the type of interaction between the 
 student and the machine was very limited. When Crowder introduced branching 
 programs, he was able to deal with students in a more flexible way with a 
 slight increase in complexity. With the advent of computer usage for automated 
 teaching systems, an even greater amount of flexibility became possible [1, 67] 
 but at a very high cost. As a result very few people could afford to investi- 
 gate the computer applications of teaching machines unless they already had a 
 computer available for other applications. This has meant that most of the 
 work in computer-assisted instruction ( CAI) has been done by computer-oriented 
 people and, as a result, the research in CAI has maintained a completely dif- 
 ferent flavor from other PI research. The CAI work has generally been carried 
 out on a very pragmatic basis. This may be due to the fact that most of the 
 people in this area were originally educated as engineers and not psychologists 
 At any rate these practitioners tend to think (and publish) in terms of appli- 
 cations ard not in theory. 
 
 The first CAI experiments were, done on free-standing machines where 
 only one student could use the machine at a time. This was fantastically ex- 
 pensive, however. Licklider, of Bolt, Beranek and Newman, estimates a cost of 
 $3?/^ r - or one student using a PDP-1 computer [156] ° When time sharing began 
 to develop, multiple-console systems were quickly developed so that many stu- 
 dents could use the same computer at the same time. 
 
 Although time-sharing allows the costs to be spread over many stu- 
 dents, it aggravates another problem. In this sort of system each person must 
 be equipped with their own input-output console. An electric typewriter is 
 usually a. good input device. Maximumly effective learning however, requires 
 that there must not be a long delay when material is being presented to the 
 student. This means that the output must be displayed by a fairly high speed 
 
 -16- 
 
device such as a slide projector, TV screen, or similar instrument, Unfortun- 
 ately a slide projector limits versatility since it must be pre-loaded with 
 slides and cannot be used to display computer -generated information- A TV dis- 
 play costs more money than can really be afforded, especially after the neces- 
 sary memory circuitry is added. 
 
 For the present time it appears that the average cost of such a TV- 
 typewriter console is on the order of $10,000. D« L. Bitzer [5] has estimated 
 that an economical automated instruction system (on the order of $.25/hr/ stu- 
 dent) could be built if the cost of the consoles can be cut to $1200. This in- 
 volves timesharing 4000 students on a CDC 6600 computer, the largest and fastest 
 computer available today. A recent breakthrough in panel display devices [6] 
 seems to indicate, according to Bitzer, that a reliable console with the needed 
 resolution and with an inherent memory capability, can indeed be built for this 
 price within 3 years. 
 
 With the advent of more sophisticated computer programming the amount 
 and type of control which the student may have over the instruction sequence 
 has engendered extensive discussion and experimentation [29, 102] . In a basic 
 Skinner or Crowder program the student has little conscious control over the 
 process, as he is only answering questions which are put before him by the 
 teacher -programmer . A more recent technique using computers involves a "so- 
 cratic" form of teaching. Swets and Feurzeig [85; 127 ] describe a program 
 which teaches medical diagnosis by setting up a basic case history and then 
 requires the student to request the proper information, to make the diagnosis. 
 The student may ask for laboratory data or initiate a more thorough "physical 
 examination" . If he asks for irrelevant information or makes a stupid diag- 
 nosis he is properly corrected. The complete interaction takes place in a 
 conversational mode. 
 
 Another example of this type of teaching is the PLATO inquiry logic 
 [99> 100] . In this mode of operation the computer shows the student an exper- 
 iment on the TV screen. The student must then answer a series of questions. 
 
 -17- 
 
In answering them, the student can ask various questions of the computer and 
 request the results of an experiment if some initial condition had been dif- 
 ferent- In this case the experiment is rerun using the new conditions. 
 
 In some experiments the student has been given sufficient control 
 over the learning process that the computer becomes merely a tool and is no 
 longer a teacher. This was done in one Boston school in which students were 
 given access to a time -shared computer with a very simple programming language 
 and were allowed to use it to solve any type of math problems they wanted [175] 
 
 In a student- controlled environment other than this extreme case,, 
 however, there are some severe problems concerned with understanding the stu- 
 dent input information. The computer must be able to interact in a conversa- 
 tional mode with the student and to some extent at least be able to "under- 
 stand" what he is saying. This area has been increasingly developed lately, 
 not only from the standpoint of teaching machine programs but also with man- 
 computer interactions in general [_'( , 8, 38, 6 ! 4, 79> 84] . As of yet no com- 
 pletely general solutions to this problem have been found. 
 
 There are other teaching situations however, which can be considered 
 to be student controlled which are not terribly difficult to achieve right 
 
 One is the educational game, Leonard and Wing describe a computer pro- 
 gram which is used to teach economics to children [152, 200] . The student is 
 put in a hypothetical situation such as being king of a mesopatanim kingdom. 
 As such, he must make economic decisions such as how much grain to plant and 
 ho- much to feed to his subjects. The results of his decisions are calculated 
 and given back to him (i.e., half your people have starved to death). At 
 first the decisions and their results are fairly obvious in order to teach the 
 
 ident the economic principle involved. As time goes by the problems become 
 more and more complicated until the student is making a variety of complex de- 
 Lons and in the process learning principles of economics. 
 
 -18- 
 
V. FUTURE PROSPECTS 
 
 At the present time the future of programmed instruction appears 
 fairly hopeful . There are many advantages in using PI, among them: 
 
 1) Providing immediate feedback to the student. 
 
 2) Allowing the teacher to determine exactly what part of the in- 
 struction sequence needs improving when the students do not 
 learn a specific item. 
 
 3) Providing more and better education for both advanced and re- 
 tarded students by allowing students to go at their own pace 
 with program sequences adjusted to their own level = 
 
 h) Reduction of the drudgery work for teachers. 
 
 In the next few years research will continue to investigate the 
 basic programming principles and search for less expensive hardware. In addi- 
 tion to this, however, a great deal of work will need to be done in the school 
 system in order to prepare for the large-scale changes of the next few years. 
 Not all of these changes, of course, will be due to programmed instruction but 
 PI will probably be involved in some major changes to come. 
 
 For one thing, although programmed lee.rr.ing will definitely not 
 eliminate the teacher from the classroom, it will significantly upgrade the 
 basic teaching task. L. F. Carter [11] mentions seven basic goals of the 
 American school system, including in them teaching socialization, developing 
 creativity, and encouraging physical development in addition to teaching basic 
 "fact" subjects. If teachers are able to use machine programs to teach the 
 more routine fact learning in the school curriculum, the teacher will become 
 more free to develop the students' thinking processes, discuss the relation- 
 ships between groups of facts, and stimulate creativity. 
 
 .19_ 
 
Another effect of extensive use of programmed instruction techniques 
 beaching will be to put an even greater strain on our school systems' at- 
 tempts to reta.in "che chronological grade format presently being used. Since 
 students will tend to move at their own pace, it is obvious that grouping stu- 
 dents into classes on the basis of chronological age will become very diffi- 
 cult. There have indeed been experiments in trying to accomplish group pacing 
 of students using programmed instruction [I31> 165], but these seem to work 
 best when the groups were selected on the basis of IQ, or achievement test 
 scores which means that the chronological age was not important . It appears 
 therefore that the socialogical implications of grouping students according to 
 mental age and interests, instead of chronological age, will have to be faced. 
 
 Systems have been suggested [39] i n which students spend part of 
 their time on "directed" work and part of their time exploring subjects of 
 their own choosing at whatever level of difficulty they can master. This in- 
 dividualized instruction could be done with programmed instruction, special 
 lectures or discussion groups or a combination of these. Note that with indi- 
 vidual programmed instruction the level of knowledge of a particular group of 
 students can be brought to a specified level before a specific lecture or dis- 
 cussion so that the students will all be able to get maximum benefit from the 
 activity. 
 
 Another administrative problem which will probably come under review 
 is the problem of grading. With the increase in individualization which a 
 large-scale integrated use of PI will bring, the problem of measuring relative 
 achievement will increase. Some advocates of PI have gone so far as to say 
 that the extensive use of PI will eliminate the need for grades since a good 
 teaching machine program will teach the required subject matter to everyone 
 who can complete the program. Tne fact remains however that different stu- 
 bs can and do learn different amounts from the same program, so some sort 
 of grading scheme may still be desirable. 
 
 -20- 
 
For the immediate future, Programmed Instruction presents a differ- 
 ent set of problems. In the research area more work must be done in ascer- 
 taining the exact characteristics which optimize learning in a teaching pro- 
 gram. This will take a period of extensive testing. There is also a need for 
 a low-cost flexible machine which can be easily updated as new research devel- 
 ops new techniques. Finally a large number of programs must be written and 
 pre-tested before being used in the school system. This is especially true 
 since the majority of programs and machines which were produced in the early 
 60's were not very useful for practical, large-scale teaching. 
 
 The main immediate goal for the teachers and administrators in the 
 school system will probably be twofold. First many more teachers and parents 
 will be taught the basic ideas and principles of programmed instruction. 
 Secondly, teachers themselves will need to enter the research activities in 
 programmed instruction and determine more precisely which areas of the curric- 
 ulum will benefit most from this new technique. As this is done implementing 
 programmed instruction into the school system will become practical and bene- 
 ficial. 
 
 -21- 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 General Works 
 
 1. Adams, E.N., "Computer-Assisted Instruction", Computers and Automation , 
 
 Vol. 15, No. 3, March 1966. 
 
 Describes the use of computers to provide "individualization 
 of instruction" as it cannot be given in today's classrooms; 
 Discusses IBM research. 
 
 2. Austwick, K. (ed. ), Teach ing Machines and Programming , The MacMillan Co., 
 
 New York, 196U - 
 
 A Collection of articles by British workers in the PI field. 
 Contains a very good introduction to teaching machines 
 detailing the early history and present points of contention. 
 
 3. Balabanian, N. , "The Educational Engineering Called Programmed Instruction 
 
 IEEE Transactions on Education , Vol. E-9 No. 2, June 1966, pps . U9-5T. 
 General summary of PI. Comments on effectiveness of some of the 
 early research. Illustrates characteristics of PI through 
 various examples . 
 
 h. Basecu, B. , "On Frames and on Editing and Revising Programmed Instruction", 
 from Filip ( 30 ) , 1963, pps., 116-123. 
 
 5. Bitzer, D.L., talk given to U. of 111. Student Chapter of the ACM, 
 
 October 5, 1967, Urbana, 111. 
 
 6. Bitzer, D.L. and Slcttow, H.G. , "The Plasma Display Panel - A Digitally 
 
 Addressable Display with Inherent Memory", Conf. Proc. - Fall 
 Joint Comp. Ccnf . , 1966 , Spartan Books, Washington, D.C., 1966, 
 pps, 5^1-5^7 • 
 
 J. Bobrow, D.G., "A Question Answering System for High School Algebra 
 
 Word Problems", Conf, Proc. Fall Joint Comp,, Conf,-196k , Vol. 26, 
 pps t 591-6l^. 
 
 8. Bobrow, D.G., "Problems in Natural Language Communication with Computers", 
 
 IEEE Trans, on H.F. in Elec , Vol . HFE-8 , No . 1 , March 196? , 
 pps. 52-55. 
 
 9. Bushnell, D.D. , "Computer-Based Teaching Machines", J. of Ed, Res . ? Vol. 55, 
 
 No. 9, June-July 1962, pps., 528-531, 
 
 Review of several papers presented at a 1961 conference 
 sponsored by the Off- of Nav. Res., and Sys. Dev. Corp. 
 Papers discuss PLATO, MENTOR, CLASS, and systems by IBM, 
 Carnegie Tech, and Bolt, Beranec and Newman. 
 
10. Carr, W.J. , "A Review of the Literature on Certain Aspects of Automated 
 
 Instruction" from Smith (8l), 1962, pps. 57-80. 
 
 Discusses in detail the background history, learning theory 
 and characteristics of automated instruction. Reviews some 
 of the pre-1960 work and presents a list of hypotheses to he 
 further tested. 
 
 11. Carter, L.F., "The Challenge of Automation in Education", from Coulson 
 
 (16), 1962, pps. 3-12. 
 
 Describes how automation can help achieve some of the goals 
 of our educational system. 
 
 12. Center for Programmed Instruction Inc., Programs '62; A Guide to 
 
 Programmed Instruction Materials Available to Educators by Sept . 
 
 1962 , United States Printing Office, Washington D.C. , 1962 . 
 An annotated listing of 122 programs. Includes program 
 samples, cost, etc. Also gives statistics for group as a 
 whole . 
 
 13. Chapman, R.L. and Carpenter, J.T., "Computer Techniques in Instruction" 
 
 from Coulson (l6), 1962, pps „ 240-253. 
 
 Describes the TRW MENTOR, an automatic tutoring device 
 utilizing film and magnetic tape. 
 
 Ik. Congreve , W.J., "Lets Not Say No to the Teaching Machine", Chicago 
 Schools Journal , Vol, 42, No. 2, Nov. i960, pps. 70-76, 
 
 15. Cook, D. "Studying the Performance of a Program" from de Grazia and 
 
 Sohn (24), 1964, pps, 126-137. 
 
 Demonstrates the types of information which teachers should 
 have in evaluating a program by describing the testing 
 procedures and results for a chemistry program. 
 
 16. Coulson, J.E. , Programmed Learning and Computer Based Instruction 
 
 John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962, 
 
 A Collection of articles oriented toward computer PI. 
 
 17. Cram, David, Explaining Teaching Machines and Programs , Fearon 
 
 Publishers Inc. g San Francisco, Calif., 196l. 
 
 18. Crowder, N.A. "Automatic Tutoring by Means of Intrinsic Programming", 
 
 from Gal ant er (35), 1959 , pps. 109-116. 
 
 19- Crowder, N.A. , "Intrinsic Programming: Facts, Fallicies, and Future", 
 from Filep (30), 1963, pps. 84-115. 
 
 Describes underlying rationale of intrinsic programming. 
 Emphasizes flexibility and lack of commitment to any 
 specific learning theory. 
 
20. Crowder, N.A. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Programming", from Coulson (l6), 
 
 1962, pps, 58-66. 
 
 21. Crowder, N.A. , "On the Differences Between Linear & Intrinsic Programming", 
 
 from de Grazia and Sohn (2U), 196U, pps . 77-85 . 
 
 Describes the differences in history, development and 
 technique between linear and intrinsic programming. 
 
 22. Davey, D.M. & McDonnell, P., Programmed Instruction , Institute of 
 
 Personnel Management, London, 196U. 
 
 Brief review of PI. Describes linear & branching programs , 
 advantages of PI, and how to introduce PI into a company 
 training program. Mentions several projects also discussed 
 in Hughes (H5 ) . 
 
 23. Davis, D.J., and Stolurow, L.M., "Computer Based Systems - The New 
 
 Research Aid", Training Research Lab,, U of 111., Tech, Rept . 
 
 No. 6, November I96U. 
 
 Describes the effect of PI on attention to individual 
 differences in education. Discusses SOCRATES Project. 
 
 2U. de Grazia, A., and Sohn, D.A. , Programs, Teachers, and Machines , Bantum 
 Bocks, New York, 196I+. 
 
 Collection of reprinted articles on PI including articles 
 by almost every major researcher in the field. Fairly 
 comprehensive . 
 
 25. Deterline, W,A. , An Introduction to Programmed Instruction , Prentice 
 
 Hall, Edgewood Cliffs, N.J. , 1962. 
 
 Contains an appendix on testing half written in "scrambled 
 book" form and half in linear form. 
 
 26. Epstein , S. , The First Book of Teaching Machines , Franklin Watts Inc., 
 
 New York, 1961. 
 
 27. Evans, J. L. , Glaser, R. , and Homme, L.E. , "The Ruleg System for the 
 
 Construction of Programmed Verbal Learning Sequences", from Glaser 
 
 (132), Oct. 1961, pps. 17-30. 
 
 Divides verbal subject matter into two classes, ru's (rules) 
 and eg's (examples) and establishes a procedure for writing 
 linear programs using this class division, 
 
 28. Everett, J.B., The Use of Programmed Instruction in U.S, Schools , 
 
 The Center for Programmed Instruction, Inc., New York, 1962. 
 
 Reports on the results of a survey made of 3000 school system 
 administrators about the use of PI in 1961-62. Gives statistics 
 on program types, no, of students, etc. 
 
29. Feurzeig, W. , "New Instructional Potentials of Information Technology", 
 
 IEEE Trans . on H.F. in Elec. Vol. HFE-8, No. 2, 1967 , pps . 8U-88. 
 Discusses computer-dominated vs. student-dominated instruction, 
 
 30. Filep, R.T. , Prosnectives in Programming . The MacMillan Co., New York, 
 
 1963. 
 
 31. Finn, J.D. and Perrin, D.C., Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning, 
 
 Office of Education, Dept. of HEW, Washington, B.C. 1962. 
 
 32. Fine, B. , Teaching Machines , Sterling Publishing Co., New York, 1962. 
 
 Very enthusiastic about the future of teaching machines. 
 Many examples of student opinions of TM's. Written at a 
 rather low level. 
 
 33. Fitzgerald, H.T., "Teaching Machines: A Demurrer", The School Review , 
 
 Vol. TO, No. 3, Autumn 1962, pps. 2U7-256 , 
 
 3^» Fry, E.B., Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction , McGraw Hill, 
 New York, 1963. 
 
 Discusses history, how to write programs, individual 
 psychological differences in students and techniques 
 for evaluating programs. 
 
 35. Galanter, E. , Automatic Teaching: The State of the Art , John Wiley 
 
 and Sons, New York, 1959. 
 
 36. Garner, W.L., Programmed Instruction , The Center for Applied Research 
 
 in Education, Inc. New York, 1966 , 
 
 A good summary of the PI field providing the reader already 
 has some familiarity with it. Discusses programmer training, 
 Stolurow's synthesis of programming elements, computer-aided 
 instruction and future trends. 
 
 37. Giaser, R,, Teach in g Machines and Programmed Learning II: Data and 
 
 Directions . National Education Association- Washington, D,C, 19^5 • 
 
 38. Green, B.F. Jr., Wolf, A.K. , Chomsky, C. and Laughery, K. , "BASEBALL: 
 
 An Automatic Question Answerer", Computers and Thought , E.A. 
 Feigenbaum and J, Feldman (eds,), McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 
 New York, 1963, pps, 207-216. Also in Proc . Wesx, Joint Comp . 
 Conf . . Vol. 19, 1961, pps, 219-22U, 
 
 39. Green, E.J., The Learning Process and Programmed Instruction , Holt, 
 
 Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1962 
 
 A philosophical introduction to PI emphasizing the problems 
 and principles of psychological research in general and 
 conditioning procedures in particular, 
 
UO. Hanson, L.F. , Programs '63, A Guide to Programmed Instructional 
 
 Material Available to Educators by September 1963 , Center for 
 Programmed Instruction, Inc., United States Printing Office, 
 Washington, D.C., 1963, 
 
 1963 version of (12). Contains 352 program descriptions. 
 
 Ul. Hoernes , G.E. and Heilweil, M.F., Introduction to Boolean Algebra 
 and Logic Design , McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, 196U. 
 
 An example of a programmed text. Contains appendices on 
 advanced topics in non-programmed form. Fairly good 
 program but hard to use as a reference. 
 
 1+2. Holland, J,G„ and Skinner, B.F., The Analysis of Behavior , McGraw- 
 Hill Co., New York, 1961. 
 
 A programmed text version of their original program. 
 
 U 3 « Holland, J.G. and Kemp, F.D. , "A Measure of Programming in Teaching 
 Machine Programs", Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 56, 
 No. 5 1965, pps. 26U-269 • 
 
 Defines the black-out ratio, a measure for determining 
 the amount of critical material in a frame. 
 
 kk. Homme, L.E. and Glaser, R. , "Relationships Between the Programmed 
 
 Textbook and Teaching Machines", from Galanter (35), 1959, pps 
 103-107. 
 
 U5. Hughes, J„L„, Programmed Learning: A Critical Evaluation , Aldine Pub 
 Co., Chicago, 111., 1963. 
 
 Contains 5 papers read at a 1962 conference prepared by the 
 Foundation for Research on Human Behavior. Each paper is 
 followed by a discussion. Very interesting and readable . 
 
 hG. Jordan, J>A. Jr., "Socratic Teaching?", Harvard Educational Review , 
 Vol., 33, No. 1, 1963, pps. 96-10U. 
 
 Attacks the claim that teaching machines use the 
 "Socratic Method". 
 
 U7, Lumsdaine, A. A, and Glaser (eds . ) , Teaching Machines and Programmed 
 
 Learning , Dept . of Audio-Visual Instruction, N.E.A., Washington 
 D.C. , I960. 
 
 48. Lumsdaine, A, A, , "Some Problems in Assessing Instructional Programs", 
 from Filep (30), 1963, pps . 228-262. 
 
 U9 . Lys aught, J. (ed), Programmed Learning: Evolving Principles and 
 Industrial Applications , Foundation for Research on Human 
 Behavior, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 196l. 
 
 50. Lys aught, J.P, & Williams, CM,, A Guide to Programmed Instruction , 
 John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 1963.. 
 
51. Margulies, S. , and Eigen, L.D, , Applied Programmed Instruction , John 
 
 Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 1962. 
 
 52. Markle, S.M. , Eigen, L.D. , and Komoski , P.K.. A Programmed Primer on 
 
 Programming , Center for Programmed INstruction, INc,, iMew York, 
 1961. 
 
 53. Markle, S.M. , Good Frames and Bad , John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 
 
 196U. 
 
 5^o Markle, S., "Individualized Programmed Instruction: The Programmer's 
 Part", from de Grazia and Sohn (2k), 1964, pps . IH5-I58. 
 
 Advocates a combination of Skinner's and Crowder's methods. 
 Uses branch-ahead features with constructed responses. 
 
 55. McNeil, J,D. , "Teaching Machines Can Help Improve Status of Teachers", 
 
 Chicago Schools Journal , Vol. k3, No. h, Jan, 1962, pps 178-180. 
 
 56. Nordberg, R.B. , "Teaching Machines-Six Dangers and One Advantage", 
 
 from Roucek (71), 1965, pps. 1-8. 
 
 The disadvantages seem to consist of generalized anti- 
 mechanistic fears, i.e., "Whatever lacks abstract intelligence 
 is not able to initiate, transmit, or receive ideas". Little 
 in the way of evidence although not all dangers can be 
 easily dismissed. 
 
 57. Phi Delta Kappan , Vol. hh , No. 6, March 1963. 
 
 A special issue devoted to PI. 
 
 58. Pipe, P., Practical Programming , Holt, Rienhart and Winston, Inc., 
 
 New York, 19 66. 
 
 Very readable book on writing programs-preparation, writing 
 techniques, testing and revision, and editing. Tends to 
 emphasize recent blurring of doctrine as a desirable effect. 
 
 59. Porter, D. , "A Critical Review of a Portion of the Literature on 
 
 Teaching Devices", Harvard Educational Review , Vol. 27 9 No. 2, 
 
 Spring 1957, pps. 126-147. 
 
 Reviews a series of immediate reinforcement teaching devices. 
 Contains a fairly long bibliography but most of the articles 
 mentioned are not concerned with what would today be called 
 teaching machines., A good source for the early articles on 
 TM's. 
 
 60. Pressey, S.L. , "Apparatus Which Gives Tests and Scores", School and 
 
 Society. Vol. 23, 1926, pps. 373-376. 
 
 Presents a machine which presents multiple choice questions 
 and scores the answers. 
 
61. Pressey, S.L., "A Machine for Automatic Teaching of Drill Material", 
 
 School and Society , Vol. 25, 1927, pps. 5^9-552. 
 
 A modification of the machine in (60) which allows the repeated 
 presentation of a group of questions until each is answered 
 twice in a row at which time the question is dropped. 
 
 62. Pressey, S.L., "A Third and Fourth Contribution Toward the Coming 
 
 'Industrial Revolution' in Education", School and Society , Vol. 
 36, 1932, pps, 668-672. 
 
 63. Provus , M. and Stone, D..C. Programmed Instruction in the Classroom , 
 
 Curriculum Advisory Service Inc., Chicago, 111., 1963. 
 
 Short book presenting PI to teachers. Presents two composite 
 case histories of PI use and discusses program selection and 
 use. Reviews ^9 programs available in 1963. 
 
 6k. Raphael, B. , "A Computer Program Which 'Understands'":. Conf. Proc. Fall 
 Joint Comp. Conf., 196U, Vol. 26, pp. 577-589- 
 
 Describes SIR (Semantic Information Retriever), a program 
 which can make relationships between various internal and 
 external data and answer questions related to this data. 
 
 65. Rath, G.J. , "The Development of Computer-Assisted Instruction" IEEE 
 
 Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics , Vol HFE-8, 
 No. 2, June 1967 , pps. 6C-63. 
 
 Gives 5 short histories of "che beginnings of CAI in the 
 
 period 1958-61. 
 
 66. Richmond, W,K,, Teachers and Machines , Collins Pub. Co., London, 
 
 England, 1965. 
 
 Describes the history and effect of PI on education in 
 Great Britain, Contains a program on the sonnet. 
 
 67. Rigney, J.W. , "Potential Uses of Computers as Teaching Machines", 
 
 from Coulson (l6), 1962, pps. 155-170. 
 
 Discusses the use of computers to compensate for individual 
 differences in students, Notes the need for a systematic 
 
 Lassification of individual differences, subject matter 
 presentation, and their interactions., 
 
 68. Roe, A., "Research in Programmed Learning", from Coulson (l6) s 1962, 
 
 pps., 1 J 3-119. 
 
 Discusses some difficulties of PI research, large number of 
 variables, performance criteria, etc. 
 
 69. Ross, W.L., et.al., Teaching; Machines: Industry Survey and Buyers Guide , 
 
 The Center for Programmed Instruction, New Ycrk,1962, 
 
TO. Roth, R.H. , "Student Reactions to Programmed Learning", from de Grazia 
 and Sohn (24), 1964 , pps. 281-286. 
 
 Describes some generally unfavorable reactions to Holland & 
 Skinner's, "The Analysis of Behavior". 
 
 71. Roucek, J.S. (ed. ), Programmed Teaching: A Symposium of Automation in 
 
 Education , Philosophical Liorary, New York, 1965' 
 
 A Series of articles from a teacher's point of view. Describes 
 PI use in certain areas of education. 
 
 72. Ryan, W.F. , A Handbook of Programmed Learning Information , University 
 
 of the State of New York, Albany, N.Y. , April 196U. 
 
 Produced for N.Y. State teachers, Contains large glossary 
 of terms, selected bibliography and a list of materials on PI 
 available from the State Education Dept, Presents guidelines 
 for PI introduction and a list of PI material manufacturers. 
 
 73. Schaefer, H. . "A Vocabulary Program Using Language Redundancy", from 
 
 Glaser ( 132) , 1961, pps, 151-162. 
 
 Describes a PI sequence used to teach reading German (see also 
 -- j) "by gradually substituting German vocabulary and word 
 order into English text, 
 
 74. Schaefer, H.H., "E. A. Poe as a Reinforcer", Psychological Repts .. Vol- I 
 
 No. 3, June 196l, p, 398, 
 
 Short note on a German language program (73) which used 
 partially translated stories by E„ A. Poe, 
 
 75. Schramm, W. A., Programmed Instruction - Today and Tomorrow , Fund for 
 
 the Advancement of Education, November 1962. 
 
 Reviews history and all experimental work in PI up to 1962 
 but no reference list. 
 
 76. Schramm, W.A,, The Research on Programmed Instruction; An Annotated 
 
 Bibliography ., Office of Education, Bulletin No, 35, U.S. Dept. 
 H.E.W. , Washington, D.C. 1964. 
 
 77, Silberman, H.F., "Self-Teaching Devices and Programmed Materials", 
 
 Review of Educational Research, Vol. 32, No, 2, 1962, pps. 179-193, 
 Good review of literature on PI and good bibliography. 
 
 78. Simmons, R,F. , "Answering English Questions by Computer: A Survey", 
 
 Comm. of the ACM . Vol. 8, No. 1, January 1965, pps . 53-70, 
 
 79, Skinner, B. F,, "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching", 
 
 Harvard Educational Review , Vol. 24, 1954, pps. 86-97- Also 
 
 in Smith (8l). 
 
 One of the first important articles on teaching machines, 
 Discusses lab work on learning and conditioning and compares 
 this with current educational systems. 
 
80. Skinner, B.F., , "Why We Need Teaching Machines", Harvard Educational 
 
 Review . Vol 31, No, 4', Fall 196l, pps . 377-398. Also in de Grazia 
 
 and Sohn 
 
 Very complete argument for linearly programmed teaching machines. 
 Presents the arguments against branching programming and the 
 "feedback" principles, 
 
 81. Smith, W.I. and Moore, J.W., Programmed Learning: Theory and Research , 
 
 D. Van Nostrand Co , Inc., Princeton, N,J\ , 1962. 
 
 82. Stolurow, L.M , Teaching by Machine , Cooperative Research Monography 
 
 No. 6, U.S. Dept HEW, CLE.-3U010 , 196l. 
 
 Excellent oA^erview of field, Describes machines in existence, 
 learning theory, programming techniques, and research up to 
 i960, A comprehensive set of references is included, 
 
 83= Stolurow, L.M. , "Principles for Programming Learning Materials in Self- 
 Instructional Devices for Mentally Retarded Children" Final Report 
 Cooperative Research Project No, 66l , SAE 8370, U of 111., 1963. 
 Contains 5 reports and an extensive bibliography. Concerned 
 with the effect of cueing and stimulus control, 
 
 8U. Stone, P.J. , Bales, R.F. , Namenwirth, J.Z., and Ogilvie, D.M. , "The 
 General Inquirer: A Computer System for Content Analysis and 
 Retrieval Based on the Sen. as a Unit of Information", 
 Behavioral Science, Vol, '( , October 1962, pps,, i+8'4-498. 
 
 
 85. Swets , J, A, and Feurzeig, W,, "Computer-Aided Instruction", Science, 
 
 Vol. 150, October 1965, pps 572-576,, 
 
 Describes conversational mode teaching using a Socratic-type 
 method, Discusses how to reduce rich materials to a step- 
 by-ster. exposi* ion 
 
 86. Taber, J.I, . Glaser, R., and Schaefer, H..H , Learning and Programmed 
 
 Inst r- ;c ~ .yen , Addi s on-We s 1 ey , Re adi ng , Mas s „ , 1 96 5 . 
 
 Discusses es and pn Lures in PI« Reviews definitions 
 
 I stim lus , response, reinf< rcement, extinction, etc, as they 
 P e 
 
 87. Teal, G.E. (ed. ) , Pr- 1 ^-"^mmed Ins t ro-t ion in Industry and Education , Public 
 
 Service Research. Inc., Stan , Conn, 1963. 
 
 Ti Lp1 of a '.962 institute on PI. Covers the field from 
 learning theory + ; programming methods tc evaluation. Hard 
 efei ' bi luse of dialog format, 
 
 88 ,, Thomas, C A, end Davies , I.K. , Programmed Learning m Perspective , 
 The Adelpbi Press, Barking, Essex, G.B. , 1963: 
 
 Approaches PI from systems viewpoint. Discusses program 
 
 Lng + he ruleg system - rule identification, matrix 
 , diagrams and frame writing. Two complete 
 examples 
 
89. Thornhill, P., "What Future has Programmed Learning in British Schools", 
 
 from Unwin (91), 1967, pps . 75-81 . 
 
 Overview of British PI field from a publisher's viewpoint. 
 Presents preliminary results of a 1964-65 survey. Suggests 
 that a vicious circle may develop in which a lack of good 
 integrated program series will stifle demand which, in turn 
 will restrict production. 
 
 90. Tompkins, H.E., "Programmed Instruction", Advances in Computers . Vol- 4, 
 
 F.L. Alt and M. Rubmoff (eds), Academic Press, New York, pps, 158-l6l 
 Quick review of the use of computers in PI. Contains a short 
 but good bibliography with comments. 
 
 91. Unwin, D. and Leedham, J., Aspects of Educational Technology , Methuen 
 
 and Co, , Ltd. , London, 'SCj '. 
 
 Contains 43 papers presented at a 1966 conference in 
 Loughborough, England. Concerned with production and use 
 of PI in Britain and Europe, 
 
 92. Winn, S. , "Programmed Instruction: Panacea or Plague?", Chicago 
 
 Schools Journal , Vol. 43, No. 3, December 196l, pps. 131-133, 
 
 93. Wohlwill, J.F., "The Teaching Machine: Psychology's New Hobbyhorse", 
 
 Teacher's College Record , Vol. 64 , No. 2, Nov, 1962, pps. 139-146. 
 
 Experimental Reports: 
 
 94. Barkus , D. , Hayman, J.L., and Johnson, J.T., "Programming Instruction 
 
 in Elementary Spanish", from de Grazia and Schn ( 22) ,1964 ,pps „ 226-232 
 Discusses Denver School System experiment with programmed 
 learning in Spanish (see 1.82) and presents some of the data, 
 
 95. Bartz, W.H„ and Darby, C.L., "A Study of Supervised and Ncnsupervised 
 
 Programmed Instruction in a University Setting", Journal of Ed . 
 Research . Vol. 58, No. 5. January 1965 
 
 96. Bartz, W.H. and Darby, C.L. , "The Effect of a Programmed Textbook on 
 
 Achievement Under Three Techniques of Instruction", Journal of 
 Experimental Education , Vol. 34, No= 3, pps. 46-52. 
 
 97. Beane, D,G,, "A Comparison of Linear and Branching Techniques of 
 
 Programmed Instruction in Plane Geometry", Journal of Educational 
 Research . Vol,, 58, No. 7, March 1965 , pps. 318-326, 
 
 98. Bitzer, D.L. et . al . "The PLATO System: Current Research and 
 
 Developments", IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics , 
 Vol. HFE 8, No- 2 5 June 1967 , pps. 64-70. 
 
 99- Bitzer, D.L, Lyman, and Suchman, "REPLAB - A Study in Scientific 
 
 Inquiry Using the PLATO System", U, of HI., Coordinated Science 
 Lab. Report R-260 , December 1965. 
 
100. Bitzer, D.L. , et.al., "The Uses of PLATO: A Computer Controlled 
 
 Teaching System", U. of 111, Coordinated Science Lab. Report 
 R-268, October 1965. 
 
 101. Bitzer, D.L. et. al. , "PLATO II: A Multiple-Student , Computer- 
 
 Controlled, Automatic Teaching Device", from Coulson (l6) s 1962, 
 pps. 205-206. 
 
 102. Bivens, L. W. Cambell, V.N- , and Terry, D.F., "Self Direction in 
 
 Programmed Instruction: Effects on Learning in Low-Ability 
 Students" American Institute for Research Report AIR-D10 -T163-TR , 
 July 1963. 
 
 103. Braunfeld, P.G. , "Problems and Prospects of Teaching with a Computer", 
 
 Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 55 > No. h t 1964, pps ; 201- 
 211. 
 
 Describes one of several informal experiments using the PLATO 
 
 II system. 
 
 10U, Briggs, L.J. et.al., "Experimental Results Regarding Form of Response, 
 Size of Step, and Individual Differences in Automated Programs", 
 from Coulson (l6), 1962, pps . 86-98, 
 
 105^ Briggs, L.J. et.al., "Investigations of Thinking via Self-Instructional 
 Programs", American Institute for Research, AIR-DU1-6/6U-FR , June 
 1964. 
 
 Describes in detail two experiments (106 , 111) with varying 
 formats and presentation techniques. 
 
 106, Brooks, L.O., "Laboratory Study of Individual Performances on Programmed 
 Learning Tasks", from Briggs (105), 196U, pps. 32-69 
 
 Investigates latency time as a measure of frame difficulty, 
 
 107 Bruce, J.S. "Applied Research on Programmed Instruction a"c the 
 
 Eastman Kodak Company", from Hughes (^5), 1963, pps, 59-110 
 
 Describes integrated use of PI in Kodak training programs. 
 
 108 Camb v.N , "Studies of Bypassing as a Way of Adapting Self- 
 
 Ir.str actional Programs to Individual Differences", American 
 Institute lor Research, AIR-CU.l-5.'62-FR, May 1962. Also reported 
 in J, of Ed. Psy. , Vol. 5^, No, 6, 1963, pps, 33 7 -3^5- 
 
 109- Cambell, V.N. et . al. , "Effects of Mathematical Ability, Pretraimng, 
 and Interest on Self-Direction in Programmed Instruction", 
 American Institute fox Research, AIR-D10-10/63-TR, Oct,. 1963. 
 
 110, Cambell, V.N , "Self-D Lon and Programmed Instruction for Five 
 Different Types of Learning Objectives", American Institute 
 for Research, AIR-D10-12/63-TR(b) , December 1963. 
 
 
111. Cambell, V.N. , "Learning to Solve Problems: A Classroom Experiment", 
 
 from Briggs (105), 196U , pps . 12-31. 
 
 Investigated the effects of various types of reviews after 
 studying a PI geography sequence, on the ability to solve 
 problems in geography. 
 
 112. Cambell, V.N., and Chapman, M. , "Degree of Student Control over 
 
 Programmed Instruction: Long Term Cummulative Effects on Problem 
 Solving and Transfer", American Institute for Research, AIR-E20- 
 12/65-TR, Dec. 1965 
 
 113. Cassel, R.N. and Ullom, W.L., "Preliminary Evaluation of Programmed 
 
 Instruction with Students of High Ability", Psychological Reports , 
 Vol, 10, No. 1, February 1962, pps. 223-228, 
 
 11^. Clarke, J., "The Development and Use of Linear Programmed Instruction 
 in a Rural Primary School", from Unwin (91), 1967, pps . UI-U9. 
 
 115. Coulson, J.E. and Silberman, H.F. , "Effects of Three Variables in a 
 
 Teaching Machine", Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol,. 51, No, 3, 
 
 I960, pps. 135-1^3. 
 
 Investigates the effects of multiple choice vs, constructed 
 response, size of the frame, and fixed sequences vs. branching 
 sequences . 
 
 116. Coulson, J.E. and Silberman, H.F. "Automated Teaching and Individual 
 
 Differences", from Smith (8l), 1962, pps . 207-217. Also in 
 Audio-Visual Communications Review , Vol. 9, 196l, pps. 5-15 » 
 
 Describes the System Development Corp, teaching system 
 
 using a Bendix G-I5 computer. 
 
 117. Coulson, J.E. , "A Computer-Based Laboratory for Research and Develop- 
 
 ment in Education" from Coulson (l6) 9 1962, pps. 191-20U. 
 
 Describes CLASS, an integrated approach to computer-aided 
 education, 
 
 118. Coulson, J.E, et , al. , "Non-Program Variables in the Appliance of 
 
 Programmed Instruction", System Development Corp,, TM-2176/201/00 , 
 
 July 1965. 
 
 Reports on two experiments in which the teacher augmented 
 ordinary PI or the students controlled their own branching. 
 
 119. Coulson, J.E., "Effects of Branching in a Computer Controlled Auto- 
 
 Instructional Device", Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol, U6, 
 No. 6, 1962, pps. 389-392, 
 
 120. Cowan, P„J,, "Autoinstructional Materials in Teaching Physics in 
 
 Small Schools", J, of Exp, Ed . , Vol. 36, No, 1, Fall 1967, pps . k6- 
 50. 
 
121= Davies, I.K., "Programmed Learning in the United States Air Force", 
 
 Programmed Learning, Vol. 1, No. 3, November 196U, pps . 113-123. 
 Describes a two-phase development program to implement 
 PI in the USAF (1961-1963). 
 
 122. Edling, J.V., "Programmed Instruction in a 'Continuous Progress' 
 
 School - Provo, Utah", from Schramm (l8l), 1964, pps. 66-94. 
 Reports on two years of use of PI at the Brigham Young 
 University Laboratory School, a "non-paced" school. 
 
 123. Englund, D.E. and Estavan, D.P. , "CLASS - The Automated Classroom", 
 
 Computer Applications 196l-Proeeedings of the 196l Computer 
 Applications Symposium , R.S. Hollitch and B, Mittman (eds.), 
 The MacMillan Co., New York, 1961, pps. 177-188. 
 
 124. Evans, J.L., Glaser, R. , and Homme, L.E, , "An Investigation of 
 
 'Teaching Machine' Variables Using Learning Programs in Symbolic 
 Logic", from Glaser (132), 1961, pps. 31-81. 
 
 125. Feldhusen, J.F. and Birt, A., "A Study of Nine Methods of Presentation 
 
 of Programmed Learning Material", J. of Educational Res ., Vol. 
 55, 1962, pps, h6l-k66. 
 
 126. Feldman, M.E. , "Learning by Programmed and Text Format at Three 
 
 Levels of Difficulty", Journal of Educational Psychology , 
 Vol. 56, No. 3, pps. 133-139. 
 
 127. Feurzeig, W. , et.al., "Computer-Aided Teaching in Medical Diagnosis", 
 
 J. of Medical Ed . , Vol. 39, August 196U, pps. 746-754. 
 
 128. Finelli, CM., "The Application of Programmed Learning Techniques to 
 
 Selected Material in a Professional Curriculum- A Study of 
 Retention Effects", from Glaser (132), 1961, pps. 115-133. 
 
 129. Flynn, J.T., "The Influence of Programmed Instruction Upon Learning 
 
 in Educational Psychology" Journal of Educational Research , 
 Vol. 59, Nco 9, 1966, pps. 387-391 . 
 
 130. Friedman, M.I., "The Effectiveness of Machine Instruction in the 
 
 Teaching of Second and Third Grade Spelling" , J. of Educ . Res . , 
 Vol. 60 , No, 8, April 1967, pps. 366-369. 
 
 Results tend to show PI better ax 3rd grade level but not 
 
 at 2nd grade level, 
 
 131. Frye, C.H., "Group vs. Individual Pacing in Programmed Instruction", 
 
 U.S. Dept. of H.E.W. , Report for Nat. Def. Ed. Act of 1958, 
 Grant No. 7-47-0000-158. 
 
132. Glaser, R. , Investigations of the Characteristics of Programme d 
 
 Learning Sequences . Programmed Learning Laboratory, U. of Pitt., 
 
 October 1961. 
 
 Reports on a series of experiments using linear programs 
 (73, 124, 128, 138, 179). Developes the ruleg system of 
 programming (27). Tested effectiveness, response mode, 
 prompts, reinforcement schedules, etc. 
 
 133. Goldbeck, R.A. and Cambell, V.N. , "The Effects of Response Mode and 
 
 Response Difficulty on Programmed Learning" Journal of Educational 
 Psychology , Vol. 53, No, 3, 1962, pps. 110-118. 
 
 134. Goldbeck, R.A. , et.al., "Integrating Programmed Instruction with Con- 
 
 ventional Classroom Teaching", American Institute for Research, 
 AIR-CU9-12/62-FR, December 1962. 
 
 135. Gulo, E.V. and Nigro, M.R, , "Classroom Learning as a Function of 
 
 Method of Presenting Instructional Materials", Psychological 
 Repts . . Vol. 19, No. 3, Part I, December 1966, pps, 971-977. 
 Compared the teaching efficiencies of PI, television, 
 and conventional texts. -Conventional text group 
 learned the most . 
 
 136. Herbert, J, and Foshay, A.W. , "Programmed Instruction in the Manhasset 
 
 Junior High School", from Schramm (l8l), 1964 9 pps, 18-27 > 
 
 Discusses the administrative problems and results involved 
 in the introduction of the programmed sequence English 2600 
 during 1960-63. 
 
 137- Herrick, M.C., "The Effect of Problem- Setting Questions en Rate and 
 Amount of Learning in Programming Teaching Machines", Office of 
 Education, U.S. Dept , of H.E.W., Rept „ on Grant 712130, May 1962„ 
 
 138. Hershberger, tf, , "Self-evaluational Responding and Typographical Cueing: 
 
 Techniques for Programming Self-Instructional Reading Materials", 
 Journal of Educational Psychology . Vol. 55, No, 5, 1964, pps, 288-296 
 
 139. Hershberger, W.A„ and Terry, D,F,, "Delay of Self-Testing in Three 
 
 Types of Programmed Text", Journal of Educational Psychology , 
 Vol. 56, No. 1, 1965, pps. 22-30* 
 
 140. Hessert, R.B. , "A Comparison of Three Methods cf Programming Subject 
 
 Material for Auto-Instruction", from Glaser fl32)„ 196l, pps, 97- 
 
 114. 
 
 Compared a linear program prepared by the ruleg method, 
 a prompting form of this program, and a third form in which 
 multiple choice questions were used which had to be answered 
 correctly before continuing, 
 

 lUl. Holt, H.O., "An Exploratory Study of the Use of a Self-instruction 
 
 Program in Basic Electricity" from Hughes (U5), 1963, pps . 15-58. 
 
 1^2. Hughes, J.L. , "Some Aspects of IBM Research on Programmed Instruction" 
 from Hughes (U5), 1963, pps. 161-197. 
 
 Describes some of the PI techniques used at IBM for employee 
 training. 
 
 lU3. Hunt, W.A. and Mathis ,, C, "The Use of Programmed Instruction in 
 
 Introductory Psychology for Teachers", Office of Ed., U.S. Dept. 
 of H.E.W., Report for Nat. Def. Ed. Act of 1958, Grant No. 7-23- 
 0790-207. 
 
 ikk. Huskey, H.D. , "Automatic Computers and Teaching Machines", from Coulson 
 (16), 1962, pps. 257-272. 
 
 Develops a compiler for computers for use in CAI. 
 
 IU5. Jeffels, A., "Programmed Techniques and Their Use in Apprentice Training" 
 from Unwin (91), 1967, pps. 135-1 1 49. 
 
 lh6. Kazmier, L.J., "Repeated Exposure to Programmed Instruction and 
 
 Student Attitude", Psychological Reports , Vol. 19, No, 3, Part I, 
 December 1966, pps. 985-986. 
 
 Repeated use increased probability of a favorable attitude. 
 
 1^7. Keislar, E.R. , "The Development of Understanding in Arithmetic by a 
 Teaching Machine", Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 50, 
 No. 6, 1959, pps. 2li7-253. 
 
 lU8 . Keislar, E.R, and McNeil, J.D. , "A Comparison of Two Response Modes in 
 an Autoinstructional Program with Children in the Primary Grades", 
 Journal of Educational Psychology . Vol. 53, No. 3, 1962, pps. 127-131. 
 
 1^9. Krumboltz, J.D. and Weisman, R.G. , "The Effect of Overt vs. Covert 
 Responding to Programmed Instruction on Immediate and Delayed 
 Retention", Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 53, No. 2, 
 1962, pps. 89-92. 
 
 150. Krumboltz, J.D. and Weisman, R.G., "The Effect of Intermittent 
 
 Confirmation in Programmed Instruction", Journal of Educational 
 Psychology , Vol. 53, No. 6, 1962, pps. 250-253. 
 
 151. Leith, G.O.M. , "The Role of Overt Responding in Programmed Learning", 
 
 from Unwin (91), 1967, pps. 503-513. 
 
 152. Leonard, J,M. and Wing, R.L. , "Advantages of Using a Computer in 
 
 Some Kinds of Educational Games", IEEE Transactions on Human 
 Factors in Electronics , Vol, HFE-8, No, 2, June 1967, pps. 75-81. 
 Believes computer is better than teacher in economics 
 oriented educational games. Describes two implementations. 
 
153. Levin, G.R. and Baker s B,L,, "Item Scrambling in a Self-Instructional 
 Program", Brown University Report, Providence, R.I,, 1961, Also 
 in Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 5^» No. 3, 1963, 
 pps. 138-1^3. 
 
 15^. Levis, B.N, and Pask, G. , "The Development of Communication Skills 
 Under Adaptively Controlled Conditions", Programmed Learning , 
 Vol. 1, No. 2, July 1961*, pps. 69-88, 
 
 155. Lewis, D.G. and Gregson, A,, "The Effect of Frame Size and Intelligence 
 
 on Learning from a Linear Program", Programmed Learning , Vol > 2, 
 No. 3, October 1965, pps. 170-175- 
 
 156. Licklider, J.C.R., "Preliminary Experiments in Computer- Aided Teaching", 
 
 From Coulson (l6), 1962, pps, 217-239 . 
 
 157. Mager, R.F. and Clark, D.C, "Normative Feedback in Automated Instruc- 
 
 tion", Psychological Reports . Vol. 13, No. 2, 1963, pps, 599-6l6. 
 Used PI to try to teach nonobjective subjects (judgement 
 of smoothness 1 ) by normative feedback, i.e. degree of 
 agreement of the learner's response with an averaged expert 
 opinion, 
 
 158. Malpass, L,F. et . al., "Programmed Instruction for Retarded Children", 
 
 from Roucek (71), 1965, pps, 169-179. 
 
 159. Mayer, S.R. & Moegan, R, , "Computer- Aided Programmed Techniques in 
 
 Support of Military Information Systems", Proc, ACM 20th Nat , 
 
 Conf . , August 1965, pps, 336-3^3 . 
 
 Reports on the use of a combination of Programmed text and 
 computer to instruct military staff personnel in the use 
 of a computer information system, 
 
 l60- Merrill, M.D, , "Transfer Effects Within a Hierarchial Learning Task as 
 a Function of Review and Correction on Successive Parts 9 Training 
 Res, Lab., U. of 111., Tech, Rept , #5, September 196U , 
 
 161, Mooney, P, , "Individualized Use of AUTHOR I: A Clinical Application 
 
 of a Computer-Prepared Program", from Stolurow (83), 1963 , 
 pps, 195-207, 
 
 Describes the computer preparation cf a program for a young 
 
 boy with a special learning problem. 
 
 162, Moore, J.W. & Smith, W,I, 9 "A Comparison of Several Types of 'Immediate 
 
 Reinforcement'", from Smith (8l), 1962, pps, 192-201, 
 
 Compared immediate knowledge of answer, immediate knowledge of 
 correctness, and immediate knowledge plus reward for multiple 
 choice and constructed response programs given by machine 
 and texts. 
 
l63. Morse, R.J. , "Programmed Training: An Industrial Tool" from Hughes (^5), 
 1963, pps. 198-238o 
 
 l6U. Newton, J.M. and Hickey, A.E. , "Sequence Effects in Programmed Learning 
 of a Verbal Concept", Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 56, 
 No. 3, 1965, pps, 1UO-IU7. 
 
 165. Noble, G. , "An Experimental Attempt to Integrate Programmed Instruction 
 
 ■with Classroom Instruction", from Unwin (91), 1967, pps . 107-118. 
 
 166. Normington, K. , Babb , Jowett , & Holroyd, "Programmed Learning in Local 
 
 Government - The Large-Scale Use of Programmed Learning in the West 
 Riding Fire Service" from Unwin ( 91) , 1967, pps. 159-165- 
 
 167. Oakes, W.F., "Use of Teaching Machines as a Study Aid in an Introductory 
 
 Psychology Course", Psychological Reports , Vol. 7, No. 2, October 
 I960, pps. 297-303. 
 
 168. O'Donnell, L.H. "Training of Plant Operators and Maintenance Personnel", 
 
 from Hughes (1+5), 1963, pps. 111-160. 
 
 Describes PI use at the DuPont Company. 
 
 169. Pollock, J.M. , "The Preparation of a Programme to Train Boiler Operators", 
 
 from Unwin (91), 1967, pps. 151-157- 
 
 170. Popham, W.J., "The Influence of Novelty Effect Upon Teaching Machine 
 
 Learning", San Francisco State College, report for Dept. H.E.W., 
 Grant No. 7-1^-1230-155 -0 , August 1962. 
 
 171. Porter, D. , "Some Effects of Year Long Teaching Machine Instruction", 
 
 From Galanter (35), 1959, pps. 85-90. 
 
 172. Pressey, S.L. and Kinzer, J.R. "The Effectiveness of Adjunct Auto- 
 
 Instruction", U. of Arizona, Comparative Res. Proj . #2306, 196U. 
 
 173. Price, J.E., "A Comparison of Automated Programs with Conventional 
 
 Teaching Methods as Applied to Teaching Mentally Retarded 
 Students", The Partlow State School and Hospital, Tuscaloosa, 
 Alabama, 1962. 
 
 17l+. Rath, G. Anderson, N.S. and Brainerd, R.C., "The IBM Research Center 
 
 Teaching Machine Project", from Galanter (35), 1959, pps. 117-130. 
 
 175- Richardson, J,0., "Teaching Mathematics Using a Time-Shared Computer 
 System", Computers and Automation , Vol. 15, No. 3, March 1966, 
 pp. lU-17. 
 
I'6. Ripple, R.E., "Comparison of the Effectiveness of a Programmed Text with 
 Three Other Methods of Presentation", Psychological Rents.. Vol. 12, 
 No. 1, 1963, pps. 227-237. 
 
 I'7. Roe, A,, "A Comparison of Branching Methods for Programmed Learning", 
 J. of Ed. Res . Vol, 55, No. 9, June-July 1962, pps, 407-416. 
 
 fB. Roe, K.V. , Case, H.W. , and Roe, A., "Scrambled vs. Ordered Sequence in 
 Autoinstructional Sequences", Journal of Educational Psychology , 
 Vol. 53, No. 2, 1962, pps, 101-104. 
 
 BP. Scharf, D.S., "A Study of the Effects of Partial Reinforcement on Behavior 
 in a Programmed Learning Situation", from Glaser, (132), 196l, 
 pps, 83-96. 
 
 BO. Schlesinger, L.E. , Fischer, E.H. and Cohen, S.L. , "The Effect of Relevant 
 Emotional Content on Performance and Learning in Programmed Instruc- 
 tion", George Washington Univ., Final Rept . Grant No. 7-18-OIOO-197, 
 
 February 1965. 
 
 Investigate fear arousing content to motivate students to learn 
 PI sequences on health and safety. 
 
 31. Schramm, W. , Four Case Studies of Programmed Instruction, Fund for the 
 Advancement of Education, New York, June 19 6 4, 
 
 Describes four case studies on the introduction of PI into a 
 school system, 
 
 32. Schramm, W. , "Programmed Instruction in Denver", from Schramm (l8l), 
 196U, pps. 29-40. 
 
 33. Schutz, R.E., Baker, R.L. and Gerlach , V.S., "Measurement Procedures in 
 Programmed Instruction", Arizona State University, Tempe , Arizona, 
 Final Rept, Grant No. 7-12-0030-160 , August 196U . 
 
 34. Senter, R.J, and Neiberg, A., "An Evaluation of Branching and Motivational 
 Phrases in a Scrambled Book", Programmed Learning ;, Vol, 1, No, 3, 
 November 1964, pps. 124-133. 
 
 85. Shay, C.B. , "Relationship of Intelligence to Step Size on a Teaching 
 Machine Program", Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol, 52, No. 2, 
 1961, 98-103.. 
 
 86. Short, J, & Haughey, B.E. , "An Experimental Study of Sequencing Strategies", 
 
 American Institute for Research, Final Rept. for Grant No, 0E-7-^8- 
 7670-259, December 1966,, 
 
 87. Silberman, H.F., et, al. 9 "Fixed Sequence vs. Branching Auto-Instructional 
 
 Methods", Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol, 52, No, 3, 196l, 
 pps, 166-172. 
 
188. Silberman, H.F. and Coulson, "Automated Teaching", Computer Applications 
 in the Behavioral Sciences , H. Borko , (ed. ), Prentice Hall, Engle- 
 wood Cliffs, N.Y., 1962, pps . 308-335- 
 
 Describes the use of computers in PI. Briefly mentions various 
 projects and then goes into detail on the SDC project in which 
 slides are presented on the basis of student errors and pre- 
 inserted information. 
 
 189- Silberman, H. , Coulson, J., et. al. , "Use of Exploratory Research and 
 Individual Tutoring Techniques for the Development of Programming 
 Methods and Theory", System Development Corp., TM - 895/200/00, 
 June 1964. 
 
 190. Silverman, R.E. and Alter, M. , "Note on the Response in Teaching Machine 
 
 Programs", Psychological Reports , Vol. 7, No. 3, December i960 , 
 
 p. U96. 
 
 Note on preliminary findings which seem to indicate that 
 covert responses produce more learning than overt. 
 
 191. Slaichert, W.M. and Stephens, M.L., "The Effectiveness of a Programmed 
 
 Text in Geometry", J. of Ed. Res . . Vol. 57, No. 10, 1964, pps. 5U2-5UU 
 
 192. Stolurow, L.M. , "The Effects of Sequence in Learning Complex Associative 
 
 Paradigms that are Taught in Both a Forward and a Backward Direction", 
 from Stolurow (83), 1963, pps. 61-108. 
 
 193. Stolurow, L.M. , "A Computer Assisted Instructional System in Theory and 
 
 Research", from Unwin (91), 1967, pps. 257-272. 
 
 194. Strum, R.D. and Ward, J.R. , "Some Comments on Computer-Assisted Instruc- 
 
 tion in Engineering Education", IEEE Trans, on Education . Vol. E-10 , 
 
 No. 1, March 1967, pps. 1-3. 
 
 Reports on a 1965 evaluation of the use of COURSEWRITER . 
 Authors felt system was not as good as programmed texts 
 because of high cost, large programming effort needed, 
 inability to interprete student answers and poor man/ 
 machine interaction. 
 
 195- Thelen, H. , and Ginther, J.R., "Experiences with Programmed Materials 
 in the Chicago Area", from Schramm (l8l), 1964, pps. hl-62 . 
 
 196. Uttal, W.R., "On Conversational Interaction", from Coulson (l6), 1962, 
 pps. 171-190. 
 
 Discusses 3 experiments using an IBM 650 RAMAC to teach 
 steno-typing, statistics, and German reading. 
 
197 • Wallis , D. and Wicks, R.,P., "The Royal Navy Study", Programmed Learning 9 
 Vol. 1, No, 1, May 196U, pps, 31-^7 . 
 
 Mark II autotudors were found to teach better than Tudor 
 texts and conventional instruction. They were also better 
 liked by the students. 
 
 198. Williams, J, P., "Comparison of Several Response Modes in a Review 
 
 Program", Journal of Educational Psychology ^ Vol. 5^ 5 No. 5 9 1963, 
 pps. 253-260. 
 
 199= Williams, J.P. , "Effectiveness of Constructed Response and Multiple- 
 Choice Programming Modes as a Function of Test Mode", Journal of 
 Educational Psychology , Vol. 56, No. 3, 1965, pps. 111-117. 
 
 200. Wing, R.L. , "Use of Technical Media For Simulating Environments to Provide 
 
 Individualized Instruction", The Board of Cooperative Educational 
 Services, Westchester County, New York, Report on Cooperative 
 Research Proj . No. 19^8, 1965. 
 
 Reports on computer simulation of a teacher. Summarizes work 
 on PLATO and at IBM, SDC , Stanford, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 
 and Michigan U. Mentions Moore's "talking typewriter". 
 
 201. Wittrock, M.C., "Response Mode in the Programming of Kinetic. Molecular 
 
 Theory Concepts", Journal of Educational Psychology s Volo 5^ s No. 2, 
 1963, pps. 89-93. 
 
 202. Zeigarnic, B. , "On Finished and Unfinished Tasks", A Source Book of 
 
 Gestalt Psychology . W.D. Ellis (ed. ), Harcourt, N.Y., 1938, 
 pps. 300-31U. 
 
JUN 2 < 1968 
 
J UN 2 01969