Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reports a theoretical examination of several parallels between contemporary instructional technology (as manifest in one of its most current manifestations, online learning) and one of its direct predecessors, programmed instruction. We place particular focus on the unterlying assumptions of the two movements. Our analysis suggests that four assumptions that contributed to the historical demise of programmed instruction—(a) ontological determinisms, (b) materialism (c) social efficiency, and (d) technological determinism—also underlie contemporary instructional technology theory and practice and threaten its long-term viability as an educational resource. Based on this examination, we offer several recommendations for practicing instructional technologists and make a call for innovative assumptions and make a call for innovative assumptions and theories not widely visible in the field of instructional technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvesson, M. (2002).Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashcraft, M. H. (1998).Fundamentals of cognition. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bork, A., & Gunnarsdottir, S. (2001).Tutorial distance learning: Rebuilding our educational system. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 46–73). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casas, M. (1997).The history surrounding the use of Skinnerian teaching machines and programmed instruction (1960–1970). Unpublished Dissertation, Harvard University, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, B. E. (2000).Teaching with the Internet: Strategies and models for K-12 curricula. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E. (1967). Historical setting of programed instruction. In P. C. Lange (Ed.),Programed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the national society for the study of education, part II (pp. 28–54). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R. S. (2003). Learner intent and online courses.Journal of Interactive Online Learning,2(1). Retrieved February 25, 2004, from http://www.ncolr.org /jiol/archives/2003/summer/4/index.asp.

  • Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective.Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delprato, D. J., & Midgely, B. D. (1992). Some fundamentals of B. F. Skinner's behaviorism.American Psychologist, 47, 1507–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vaney, A., & Butler, R. P. (1996). Voices of the founders: Early discourse in educational technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 3–45). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916).Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2000).Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edling, J. V., Foshay, A. W., Ginther, J. R., Herbert, J., Schramm, W., & Thelen, H. (1964).Four case studies of programmed instruction. New York: Fund for the Advancement of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, J. H. (1994).Education on the Internet: A hands-on book of ideas, resources, projects, and advice. Indianapolis: SAMS Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, A. (1999).Distance learning: Promise or threat? Retrieved December 11, 2002, from http://www-rohan. sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/TELE3.HTM.

  • Fry, E. B. (1963).Teaching machines and programmed instruction: An introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1965). The analysis of instructional objectives for the design of instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Teaching machines and programmed learning II: Data and directions (pp. 21–65). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, E. (1959). The ideal teacher. In E. Galanter (Ed.),Automatic teaching: The state of the art (pp. 1–11). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. L. (1966).Programed instruction. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1964). Programed instruction: A behavioral view. In D. A. Sohn (Ed.),Programs, teachers, and machines (pp. 86–99). New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotkin, L. G., & McSweeney, J. (1967). Learning from teaching machines. In P. C. Lange (Ed.),Programed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the national society for the study of education, part II (pp. 255–283). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, C. D. (2000). Dispelling the “mystery” of computational cognitive science.History of Psychology, 3, 62–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, E. J. (1967). The process of instructional programing. In P. C. Lange (Ed.),Programed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the national society for the study of education, part II (pp. 61–80). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R. (1995). The proper study of instructional technology. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past present, and future (pp. 61–83). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, R. H. (1965). Automation and culturally deprived children. In J. S. Roucek (Ed.),Progammed teaching: A symposium on automation in education (pp. 115–132). New York: Philosophical Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. G. (1962). New directions in teaching-machine research. In J. E. Coulson (Ed.),Programmed learning and computer-based instruction (pp. 46–57). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G. (1983). Overprompting science students using adjunct study questions.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(3), 195–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, G. S., & Conway, C. G. (1986). Can there be an empirical science of volitional action?American Psychologist, 41, 1241–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1956). The dilemma of determinism (pp. 145–183). In W. James (Ed.),The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy (pp. 145–183). New York: Dover Publications. (original work published 1897)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearsley, G. (2000).Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaus, D. J. (1964). Programing: A re-emphasis on the tutorial approach. In A. de Grazia & D. A. Sohn (Eds.),Programs, teachers, and machines (pp. 137–145). New York: Bantam Books. (original work published 1961)

    Google Scholar 

  • Koetting, J. R. (1996). Philosophy, research, and education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1137–1147). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A. (1982). Individualized systems of instruction. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.),Encyclopedia of educational research (5th ed., pp. 851–858). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., Cohen, P. A. & Ebeling, B. J. (1980). Effectiveness of programmed instruction in higher education: A meta-analysis of findings.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(6), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J., Levin, S. R., & Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education.Journal of Research in Computing in Education, 32, 256–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lublin, S. C. (1965). Reinforcement schedules, scholastic aptitude, autonomy need, and achievement in a programed course.Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(6), 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumsdaine, A. A. (1960). Teaching machines: An introductory overview. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.),Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book (pp. 5–22). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumsdaine, A. A. (1965). Assessing the effectiveness of instructional programs. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Teaching machines and programmed learning II: Data and directions (pp. 267–320). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysaught, J. P., & Williams, C. M. (1963).A guide to programmed instruction. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald-Ross, M. (1973). Behavioural objectives-A critical review.Instructional Science, 2, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. In P. C. Lange (Ed.),Programed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the national society for the study of education, part II (pp. 104–138), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M. (1969).Good frames and bad: A grammar of frame writing (2nd ed.), New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001).Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mechner, F. (1967). Behavioral analysis and instructional sequencing. In P. C. Lange (Ed.)Programed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the national society for the study of education, part II (pp. 81–103), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellan, I. (1960). Teaching and educational innovations. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.),Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book (pp. 265–274). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States. (original work published 1936)

    Google Scholar 

  • Misa, T. J. (2003). The compelling tangle of modernity and technology. In T. J. Misa, P. Brey & A. Feenberg (Eds.),Modernity and technology (pp. 1–30), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, P. (2000). The promise-and potential pitfalls-of cyberlearning. In R. A. Cole (Ed.)Issues in Webbased pedagogy (pp. 281–296). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (2000).Designing Web usability. Indianaplis: New Riders Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (1989). From teaching machines to microcomputers: Some milestones in the history of computer-based instruction.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21(3), 263–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordberg, R. B. (1965). Teaching machines-six dangers and one advantage. In J. S. Roucek (Ed.),Programmed teaching: A symposium on automation in education (pp. 1–8). New York: Philosophical Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osguthorpe, R. T., Osguthorpe, R. D., Jacob, W. J., & Davies, R. S. (2002).The moral dimensions of instructional design. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Osguthorpe, R. T., & Zhou, L. (1989). Instructional science: What is it and where did it come from?Educational Technology, 29(6), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padwa, D. J. (1964). Dimensions of the need. In A. de Grazia & D. A. Sohn (Eds.),Programs teachers, and machines (pp. 271–273). New York: Bantam Books. (original work published 1962)

    Google Scholar 

  • Plattor, E. E. (1965). Teacher education and teaching machines. In J. S. Roucek (Ed.),Programmed teaching: A symposium on automation in education (pp. 23–39). New York: Philosophical Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne, D. (1983).Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, D. (1972). Up the programmer: How to stop PI from boring learners and strangling results.Educational Technology, 12(8), 14–17).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, S. L. (1960a). A machine for automatic teaching of drill material. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.),Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book (pp. 42–46). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States. (original work published 1927)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, S. L. (1960b). A third and fourth contribution toward the coming “industrial revolution” in education. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.),Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book (pp. 47–51). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States. (original work published 1932)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, S. L. (1960c). Development and appraisal of devices providing immediate automatic scoring of objective tests and concomitant self-instruction. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.),Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book (pp. 69–88) Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States. (original work published 1950)

    Google Scholar 

  • Principles of online design: Instructional design. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2003, from http://www.fgcu .edu/onlinedesign/designdev.html.

  • Robinson, D. N. (1985),Philosophy of psychology, New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Powelson, C. L. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental to motivation and education.Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rychlak, J. F. (1979).Discovering free will and personal responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rychlak, J. F. (1991).Artificial intelligence and human reason: A teleological critique. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rychlak, J. F. (1994).Logical learning theory: A human teleology and its empirical support, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saettler, P. (1990).The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sappington, A. A. (1990). Recent approaches to the free will versus determinism issue. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schramm, W. (1962).Programed instruction: Today and tomorrow. The Fund for the Advancement of Education.

  • Schramm, W. (1964a).The research on programed instruction: An annotated bibliography (No. OE-31034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schramm, W. (1964b).What is programed instruction? An introduction for the layman. Palo Alto: Stanford Institute for Communication Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1959). The programming of verbal knowledge. In E. Galanter (Ed.),Automatic teaching: The state of the art (63–68). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1960). The science of learning and the art of teaching. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.),Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book (pp. 99–113). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States. (original work published 1954)

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1965). Reflections on a decade of teaching machines. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Teaching machines and programmed learning II: Data and directions (pp. 5–20). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1968).The technology of teaching. New York: Meredith Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1986, October). Programmed instruction revisited.Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slife, B. D. (1993).Time and psychological explanation. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slife, B. D., Yanchar, S. C., & Williams, B. (1999). Conceptions of determinism in radical behaviorism: A taxonomy.Behavior and Philosophy, 27, 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995).What's behind the research: Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, F. (1999). When irresistible technology meets irreplaceable teachers.Language Arts, 76(5), 5–99, 414–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2001). Philosophical implications for the design of instruction.Instructional Science, 29, 381–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, A. L. (1960). Certain special factors involved in the law of effect. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.),Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book (pp. 89–93). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States. (original work published 1953)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, C. (1999)High-tech heretic: Why computers don't belong in the classroom and other reflections by a computer contrarian. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolurow, L. M. (1961).Teaching by machine (No. OE-34010). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, D. (1964). The machine teacher and the human learner. In A. de Grazia & D. A. Sohn (Eds.),Programs teachers, and machines (pp. 300–309). New York: Bantam Books. (original work published 1957)

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. T. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it.The Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wescott, M. (1988),The psychology of human freedom: A human science perspective and critique. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, D. A., & Edwards, E. K. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning.The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 31(1), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. N. (1987). Can cognitive psychology offer a meaningful account of meaningful human action?The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 8, 209–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. N. (1992). The human context of agency.American Psychologist, 47, 752–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (1997).The postmodern paradigm. Retrieved March 31, 2003, from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/bwilson/postmodern.html.

  • Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 112–142). New York: Simon & Schuster Mac-Millan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Psychology and Technology Department at Brigham Young University, UK

    Jason K. McDonald (doctoral candidate), Stephen C. Yanchar (Assistant Professor) & Russell T. Osguthorpe (Professor)

Authors
  1. Jason K. McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen C. Yanchar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Russell T. Osguthorpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McDonald, J.K., Yanchar, S.C. & Osguthorpe, R.T. Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology. ETR&D 53, 84–98 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504867

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504867

Keywords

Search

Navigation