Programmed Instruction

Abstract

The programmed instruction movement was developed by American psychologist B. F. Skinner during the 1950s. Programmed instruction, modeled after the scientific method, arose as a response to teacher shortages and to increasing student populations. It automates instruction through breaking up curriculum into small, self-contained, manageable frames that are then logically sequenced in a systematic manner and presented through technological devices. Ultimately, the goal of programmed instruction is to control learning through measuring observable outcomes and through devising precise methodologies of teaching that are guaranteed to work. Programmed instruction has been extinguished as a movement, but its influences form the foundation for much of modern education. Systematization of instruction through codified objectives, evaluation methods (especially through standardized testing), and techniques of teaching that emphasize a back to the basics, step-by-step approach are, for example, some of the ways in which programmed instruction influenced the educational field as it is understood in the present.

Overview

Programmed instruction is a pedagogical approach that views curricula as a sequence of organized frames that guide a student through the learning process. Rooted firmly in the theoretical foundations of science, programmed instruction is based on the assumption that learning occurs best when material is broken up into small, logically sequenced individual units. Another assumption of programmed instruction, one rooted not specifically in science itself, but in B. F. Skinner's interpretation of it, is that learning occurs best when learners succeed frequently. Hence, in programmed instruction courses, students are tested after each small part of material, called a frame, is presented; their success on these assessments is virtually guaranteed by following a classical linear model of instruction (Skinner, 1958). Developed in the 1950s, programmed instruction enjoyed less than two decades of popularity before losing favor in the field of education theory, and is now largely defunct as a pedagogical method.

The move toward programmed instruction was ignited by Sidney Pressey (1888-1979), an educational psychologist who developed the first "teaching machine," which he called a "simple apparatus which gives tests, scores, and teaches" (1926, p. 549). The field was not given shape, however, until American psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) provided a theoretical foundation. Skinner proposed his model for "teaching machines" out of a concern for increasingly large student-teacher ratios and as a solution for addressing individual differences in students at a time when it was unclear that overworked teachers were able to do so (Pocztar, 1972). Skinner wrote that, "in any other field a demand for increased production would have led at once to the invention of labor-saving capital equipment," that education was not in step with developments in automation that had taken place since the Industrial Revolution (Skinner, 1958, p. 969). An efficient and effective pedagogy was called for: one modeled on the structure of science itself.

How Programmed Instruction Works. Programmed instruction theoretically claims to be more efficient and effective than more traditional modes of pedagogy. Lessons are implemented through instructional frame sequences. A sample sequence of six frames is presented in Figure 1 below. This sequence was adapted from Skinner's example (1958) and if implemented, would be part of a spelling lesson consisting of several hundred frames. The student would walk through the sequence frame by frame (without having access to later frames, as in Figure 1 below). The example given here is called a linearly programmed sequence because each student proceeds from step one through step six in exact sequence, without deviations. In a branching program, the assessment on each frame is in the form of a multiple choice question, instead of in the form of a constructed response. Each multiple choice option sends the student to a different frame: if they are incorrect, they are told to either restart, to take some extra steps, or to repeat the previous frame and try again. If they are correct, they progress sequentially without deviations from the linear path.

Figure 1: Sample Frame Sequence that Teaches How to Spell "Transmission"

This example is adapted from B. F. Skinner's frame sequence on how to spell manufacture (Skinner, 1958).

Objective: learn how to spell "Transmission"--A Sequence of Six Frames

1. Transmission means to send a message. Copy the word here: ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
2. Note that part of the word is like mission. When you transmit a message, you are going on a mission to relay your message. Fill in the blanks: Trans‗‗‗‗‗‗‗.
3. The other part of the word is like trans. This is the same prefix as in transatlantic, or "to the other [side of the Atlantic]". When you transmit something, you send a message trans--to the other. Fill in the blanks: ‗‗‗‗‗mission.
4. The same letter is missing all three places. Fill in the blanks: Tran‗mi‗‗ion.
5. Unscramble the following: a i i m n n o r s s s t--Fill in the blanks here: ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗.
6. Now, write the word here that means to send a message: ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗.

Programmed instruction courses can be implemented using various technologies. One premise of programmed instruction is that it automates the presentation of curricula, increasing efficiency so that teachers have time to pay more attention to students' personal needs--hence the need for technology. Technology does not refer to specific machine-driven processes, but rather to a structure of organization that imposes order and control. For example, a programmed course can be implemented through the technology of a book, as Robert Mager illustrates in Preparing Objectives for Programmed Instruction (1962). During the 1950s and 1960s, when programmed instruction was enthusiastically supported, it was implemented primarily through a combination of books, simple automated machines that recorded answers, and teachers' input. Computers had not yet entered a public awareness that was still fascinated by the new invention of the television set--although the integrated circuit, the precursor to the modern computer, was invented in 1958, the same year Skinner published his Teaching Machines. As technology advanced, programmed instruction methods were utilized in various smartphone applications and computer programs that promoted education and learning through retention and habit formation (Feeney, 2017).

Decrease in Popularity. Support and implementation of programmed instruction courses cooled in the late 1960s due to the method's high costs, concerns about student boredom, and an increasing awareness that research was not able to conclusively prove that programmed instruction was indeed more efficient or effective than other types of instruction (Kulik, 1982; McDonald, 2005). In the 2000s, certain premises of the field have resurfaced within computer-assisted instruction, though most of the original assumptions of programmed instruction have been modified to reflect changing attitudes and research. For example, the number of steps in a programmed course has been significantly reduced, reflecting research on the effects of overprompting (Holliday, 1983). Not all learning that occurs with the assistance of a computer, however, falls in the category of programmed instruction. Many online courses, for example, allow students to take quizzes and tests and submit assignments using a computer but do not purport to "teach" material in step-by-step lessons broken up into individual, logically sequenced parts. The field of computer-assisted instruction is thus similar to programmed instruction in that it aims to automate parts of teaching so that it can educate more learners, but differs in its core assumptions and approach.

Contextual Dimensions Philosophical & Scientific Dimensions. Scientific undertakings aim to understand processes of nature through empirical observation and through systematic analysis of experimental results. Methodologically, science proceeds through logical, self-contained, reproducible steps as it makes observations and subsequently derives laws. It seeks to break up experience into measurable parts, to organize them in a systematic manner, and ultimately, to control and predict experience through its implementations. This approach differs greatly from other ways of imagining or understanding the world. It is generally accepted, for example, that what characterized human consciousness prior to the rise of rationalism was a "mythological" or "poetic" essence (Eliade, 1998). Many educational theorists believe, for example, that breaking down fluid, complex phenomena into small, rational parts ultimately disturbs or does violence to those phenomena and does injustice to learning (Aoki, 2004).

Programmed instruction was imagined by Skinner as the full implementation of these scientific aims and premises in the realm of education. Programmed instruction was not formulated as just another teaching methodology, pedagogical philosophy, or educational implementation. Rather, it was the very embodiment of science in all aspects of the field of education. Programmed instruction breaks up the field of education into small, self-contained, manageable parts that it then logically sequences in a systematic manner. Ultimately, the goal is to control learning through measuring observable outcomes and through devising precise methodologies of teaching that are "guaranteed" to work (Skinner, 1958)--even relationships between students and teachers are codified and explained in terms of behavioral objectives and laws of communication and learning. In mechanical ways of learning, "communication [was] conceived as the transmission of information from one place (the sender) to another place (the receiver) through a medium or channel" (Vanderstraten et al., 2006, p. 165).

Determinism. Programmed instruction is thus grounded in assumptions of determinism (McDonald et al., 2005)--the view that we can predict future events (or behaviors, in the case of programmed instruction) based on current knowledge of "laws" that are "true." For example, proponents of programmed instruction posited that if students followed through such a course completely, they would be "guaranteed" to show improved scores on their evaluations. This "guarantee" stems from the conviction that programmed instruction is modeled after science, which is itself backed by truth, and that therefore, an implementation of fundamental, scientific learning "laws" in curricula would be guaranteed to produce learning. According to McDonald et al. (2005), "Programmers believed that an effective instructional product was the sum of its constituent parts, and that if all the factors were presented in the correct order, students would succeed" (p. 87). Laws of learning, according to Skinner and the proponents of programmed instruction, dictated that curricula be implemented by systematically dividing material into in small, logical, linearly-sequenced parts. McDonald et al. wrote that the assumption of determinism manifested in programmed instruction is in the form of less responsibility for students. Because steps were so small (in order for learning to be "guaranteed"), students often got bored, motivation became a problem, and less "genuine exploration" occurred in classrooms (McDonald et al., 2005, p. 89). Further, this assumption implies that aptitude and skills are irrelevant to success in school. The scientific method, as applied to education in the form of programmed instruction, theoretically works each and every time, with all students.

Materialism. Programmed instruction is also grounded in the assumption of materialism (McDonald et al., 2005). Materialism is the view that only observable things can be manipulated by scientific methods. Thus, all aspects of programmed instruction are centered upon observable behavior and specific content that can be broken up into learning objectives. Education is seen as a process that produces terminal outcomes in students--defined in terms of "what will be accepted as evidence that the learner has achieved the [learning] objective" (Mager, 1962, p. 12). The implications of this assumption are that programmed instruction courses were often found to distort material in order to make it conform to a measurable format (McDonald et al, 2005). For example, history is taught as a list of important dates and people; English as grammar, syntax, and composition rules; and mathematics as a rigid step-by-step process (Calvin et al., 1969).

The theoretical underpinnings of science (and consequently, of programmed instruction) did not prove effective or practical as applied to education, and by the mid to late 1960s the movement had started to lose supporters. Many schools found that the rigid step-by-step process not only did not cater to student differences as claimed by theorists, but ignored them (see, for example, Edling et al., 1964). The attempt to break down student behaviors into observable behavior was initially theoretically promising and had much support from a world fascinated by new technologies and scientific developments. However, in practice, the creative, "mythopoetic" element of education, the process through which students explore their worlds in a non-linear, exploratory fashion seemed lost and contributed to the relatively quick demise of programmed instruction (Slattery, 2004).

Historical & Socio-Cultural Dimensions. An interest in increasing the efficiency of education arose late in the nineteenth century within the work of educational philosophers Franklin Bobbitt (1918), W. W. Charters, and David Snedden (Drost, 1967), among others. Inspired by engineer F. W. Taylor's theories on scientific management, these pedagogues' work helped establish a scientific approach to educational theory and practice geared toward increasing efficiency of learning through training learners for their "future lives in the workplace, . . . without any extra, useless education" (Goodson et al., 1998, p. 52). With the advent of technological discoveries such as Pressey's apparatus and Skinner's learning machines, the social efficiency movement took a different shape: instead of stripping content material to the barest essence needed for the workforce, it was able to claim such an efficient methodology that content did not have to be sacrificed. However, the premise of "just the basics" remained a guide for planning programmed instruction materials. "Programmers" suggested that each frame be presented in its simplest form, without extra, "distracting" material (Skinner, 1958).

Foundations in Psychology. Within the sciences, programmed instruction was developed initially from within the field of psychology. Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), a Russian psychologist, prepared the stage with his research on conditioned reflexes. Pavlov belonged to the behaviorist school of psychology, a branch concerned with explaining behavior. He was able to program the reflexes of dogs so that they would respond not only to natural stimuli such as food, but to conditioned stimuli such as noises. Programmed instruction would take from Pavlov the idea that the behavior of students could be conditioned to elicit appropriate responses when prompted by environmental stimuli (Pocztar, 1972).

Edward Thorndike (1874-1949), an American psychologist, provided the next layer of the foundation for programmed instruction through his research on cats and his subsequent discovery of the "law of effect." The law of effect states that responses that are reinforced following appropriate stimuli are imprinted in the behavior of the subject. Reinforcement in this sense is said to have a feedback effect: the results from previous experiences "feed back" into the subject's knowledge and affect future behaviors. In programmed instruction courses, reinforcement in the form of a question/answer after each frame is thought to provide feedback to the learner and thus to ensure the imprinting of desirable behaviors.

John B. Watson (1878-1958), another American psychologist and a student of Thorndike's, rejected explanations for behavior in terms physiological functions that could be conditioned. Both Pavlov and Thorndike explained behavior in terms of internal processes of chemistry or brain function. Watson, however, proposed that only what is observable is scientifically measurable and can be manipulated. He did not reject that brain processes affect behavior, just that brain processes cannot be directly observed and thus form a "black box," a component that cannot be studied. Watson thus started a new movement within the psychological school of behaviorism known as pure, or materialistic, behaviorism. Pure behaviorism influenced programmed instruction as it came to be defined only in terms of observable behavior. Thus, students' internal, emotional, or psychological states were ignored by programmers as irrelevant to learning. Only overt behavior was measured and was considered superior to covert behaviors such as psychological responses as an indication of learning (Miller et al., 2006).

B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) was a pure behaviorist significantly influenced by Watson. His well-known pigeon experiments led to his formulation of programmed instruction as a process of shaping through the "successive approximation" of behavior (see, for example, Deterline, 1962, p. 11). Skinner observed that pigeons could be trained to distinguish between colored dots when presented with food as they pecked at the "correct" color. Skinner's pigeon experiments strengthened the position of "pure" (or materialist) behaviorists that insisted on measuring only observable behaviors without relating them to bodily chemistry, as Pavlov's school did. This observation further grounded the assumption of programmed instruction that claimed "guaranteed comprehensibility" and guaranteed learning for all students, regardless of mental capacity, ability, or skill (Scriven, 1969, p. 5). Without assuming anything about the physiological aspects of a learner, programmed instruction guarantees the same results for all students.

Skinner's development of programmed instruction "ushered in the era of the industrialization of teaching and educational research" (Pocztar, 1954, p. 9). Initial observations of the scientific laws of learning applied in the laboratory suggested that successive approximations of behavioral patterns conditioned through reinforcement would lead to more efficient and effective learning. Systematic classification and organization could now be applied to the study of behavior in order to derive precise laws of learning that theoretically promised to work for all learners. In practice, the behavior of students proved much more complex than pigeons' responses to Skinner's experiments, however, and ultimately resisted the reductionism and systematic breaking-down of programmed instruction's methodologies (McDonald, 2005).

Applications

Implementations with Specific Academic Subjects. Programmed instruction has been found experimentally to be more effective in some disciplines than others (Zendler & Reile, 2018). Specifically, studies have shown that students who take programmed instruction courses in the humanities or social sciences have higher scores on assessments than those in regular classrooms. However, when programmed instruction was used to teach mathematics or the physical sciences, students did not perform better on assessments than those in regular classrooms (Kulick et al., 1982). One possible reason for these results is that within the physical sciences and mathematics, curricula were already implemented in a linear sequence of progressively complex material. Mathematics and the physical sciences already defined their objectives in terms of broken-down, simple components, while material in the social sciences and humanities tended to be taught in a multi-perspective fashion, through creative exercises and explorations of material.

These results do not imply, however, that programmed instruction should be used exclusively in the teaching of humanities or social sciences. Rather, the results that showed a high correlation between student outcomes on final examinations and the use of programmed instruction are thought to be explainable by the way in which students were tested during these experiments. In regular humanities courses, for example, students were not accustomed to exercises and examinations that objectified their learning and broke down their responses in multiple choice or short answer fashion. However, programmed instruction courses in the same field were designed specifically to train students to answer the kinds of questions asked as part of the experiments (Kulick et al, 1982). Both groups of students were given the same tests based on programmed instructions' goals and objectives. So the only conclusive result of these studies was that students trained in answering multiple choice questions did so better than those trained in a regular classroom through more diverse methods.

Classroom & Lesson Configurations. Programmed instruction courses are designed for individual learners. There is no cooperative aspect to programmed instruction other than teacher feedback on student responses. Therefore, the programmed instruction classroom is divided into independent units (desks, cubicles, computers/machines) at which students work alone. Each student works at her or his individual pace, while the teacher walks around the classroom attending to individual learners' questions and concerns. Programmed instruction lessons are designed with several principles to guide them. The following principles are taken from Pocztar (1972) but are present in many programmed instruction books and manuals as guides to building programmed instruction curriculum materials:

Step-by-Step. The first such guideline is the "step-by step" principle that states that student learning is more effective when correct behavior is reinforced often. Therefore, programmed instruction lessons are broken up into hundreds of frames. After each frame, students are asked a question they must reply before moving on. These responses are thought to "feed back" into the students' behavioral patterns and to reinforce correct behavior.

Active Learning. Another principle of programmed instruction is that students are thought to be active, not passive learners. The process of answering a question after each frame is thought to engage students in active behavior, rather than allowing them to be passive receivers of information. The underlying assumption is that overt behavior (such as answering a question) is an indicator of activity, while covert behavior is relegated to the realm of passivity. From this viewpoint, a student who reads an essay without answering questions or who listens to a lecture without engaging in discussion is a "passive" learner. Other forms of active learning include technology-based answer systems, such as clickers, and student discussion groups. Active learning has proved to help improve student engagement in programmed instruction methods (Walker et al, 2018).

Success. Students should be given a chance to succeed as often as possible. Behavior is thought to be imprinted regardless of whether the response is correct or not, so incorrect responses and "error" are considered detrimental to learning because they are thought to reinforce incorrect behavior. Questions presented after each frame are thus typically low in difficulty, assuring that most students succeed on the first try.

Immediate Feedback. The immediate feedback principle is based on Pressey's discovery that immediate feedback "teaches" students. Pressey first designed his "apparatus that gives tests and scores" as a multiple choice machine: students pressed one of four buttons that represented possible answers to the question posed. Pressey discovered that his machine not only gave tests and scored, but also taught students. Because students received immediate feedback after each response, they were found more likely to remember and internalize their mistakes.

Sequence. Programmed instruction is also based on the principle that learning progresses logically--and linearly. Therefore, sequence is thought to be of critical importance especially to subject materials that rely significantly on the buildup of previous knowledge versus on a specific skill set (Payne et al., 1967).

Individual Pace. Finally, the principle of individual pace assures that programmed instruction is implemented in a way that accommodates all learners. Because there is no cooperative aspect to programmed instruction and because each student works independently, programmed instruction material should be designed to be accessible to all learners through its logical sequence. Each student should be able to follow the material independently and proceed at a comfortable pace.

Development of Programmed Instruction Material. Mager (1962) suggests the following steps for the development of programmed instruction material:

• [identifying] terminal behavior;
• [defining] desired behavior through describing conditions necessary for it to occur; and
• [specifying] criteria for acceptable performance (p. 12).

First, the behavior that is expected must be systematically analyzed and codified in objective terms. Then, conditions necessary to the learning of the behavior are determined, and lastly, criteria for evaluation are established.

Bullock (1978) defines four steps in the creation of programmed instruction material:

• Training needs assessment,
• Task analysis,
• Target audience analysis, and
• Objective and criterion tests.

First, the practical needs of students are considered and what needs to be "conditioned" (trained) is defined. Second, task analysis breaks down the training defined into small, sequential, manageable parts. Target audience analysis provides the programmer with information about the level at which material should be presented. Finally, tests are designed to determine if the objectives initially defined were met.

Types of Responses. Each frame in a programmed instruction sequence is followed by a question that prompts a response. Types of responses fall into two categories: constructed responses, used in linear programming (such as entries in charts, short answer, or fill-in-the-blank responses) and discrimination responses, used in branching programs such as multiple choice questions, grids, ordering or ranking questions, or matching activities (Bullock, 1978). There is some debate in the programmed instruction community as to which method is more effective--a linear, constructed response implementation or a branching, multiple choice implementation (Miller et al, 2006).

Types of Feedback. After a student provides a response to a question, feedback is provided. This can take several forms. Jaehnig et al. (2007) classify all feedback into five general types:

• Knowledge of response: The student receives immediate feedback on whether they responded correctly or incorrectly. However the correct result is not given and an explanation is not provided. This type of feedback has been found to have limited usefulness and is not recommended.
• Knowledge of correct response: Similar to knowledge of response feedback with the added benefit that students are told what the correct answer is.
• Elaboration feedback: Not only gives the correct answer but reinforces it through extra explanations.
• Delayed feedback: Refers to answers provided at the end of a course instead of throughout a sequence of frames and is not recommended by programmed instructors as it does not conform to the step-by-step principle of reinforcement.
• Review feedback: Students are asked to repeat an incorrect response until they perform correctly.

Measuring Effectiveness. Kulick et al. (1982) conducted a meta-review of programmed instruction studies, which revealed four categories of programmed material evaluation (1982). Two ways in which the effectiveness and efficiency of programmed material is tested are through student performance on final exams and through performance on retention exams (given after a period of time has passed since the course). A way to test the accuracy of programmed instruction courses is through aptitude-achievement correlations (that relate how well a student does to "objective" measures of their aptitudes). Finally, attitudes of students in programmed instruction courses should be gauged for motivation and other psychological factors. Kulick et al. state that in programmed instruction this is done through scores on attitude measures--again, through a multiple choice survey (1982).

When to Use Programmed Instruction. Programmed instruction is useful when a high level of recall is desired. Because material is repeated so often (after each frame), recall is thought to improve. Programmed instruction is also useful when "significant shaping" and practice are needed when active processing is required, when "validated instruction" is needed, and when "de-centralized instruction" is called for (Bullock, 1978, p. 13-14). Programmed instruction is also useful when attention to detail is necessary. Because each frame holds only the minimal information necessary to answer the question presented at the end of the frame, students are required to understand all material and pay attention to all the details before being able to answer correctly and move on.

Influences of Programmed Instruction. Programmed instruction as theoretically described by Skinner and as implemented in the 1950s and 1960s has been extinguished as a movement, but its influences form the foundation for much of modern education. Pedagogy has entered the realm of the "social sciences" and as such embodies many of the scientific assumptions and implications of programmed instruction. Systematization of instruction through codified objectives, evaluation methods (especially through standardized testing), and techniques of teaching that emphasize a back to the basics, step-by-step approach are, for example, some of the ways in which programmed instruction influenced the educational field as as a whole (Slattery, 2004).

Terms & Concepts

Behaviorism: A school of thought in psychology that aims to understand behavior through internal, bodily mechanism, overt responding, or a combination of both. Programmed instruction was proposed from within a behaviorist tradition.

Conditioning: The process of learning; in psychology, conditioning refers to the process of reinforcement through feedback and the subsequent imprinting of correct behavioral patterns.

Constructive Responding: After each frame in a programmed instruction sequence is presented, a response is elicited from the student in order to reinforce learning. Constructive responding refers to answers that are provided by the student, for example, short answer or fill-in-the-blank.

Discrimination Responding: Discrimination responding occurs when students are presented with possible answer choices and have to choose the correct answer, as in multiple choice questions.

Feedback: Feedback is the process through which responses are reinforced based on the previous experiences of students.

Frame Sequence: Programmed instruction material is presented through a frame sequence, logically (sequentially) organized. Reinforcement through soliciting of responses and subsequent feedback occurs after every frame.

Instructional Frame: An instructional unit that is self-contained, small, and free of extra, distracting information. Frames are organized in sequences to form a lesson; a lesson can have hundreds of frames.

Overt Responding: Overt responding occurs when response behavior can be observed. Programmed instruction is based on the assumption that overt responding is active, versus covert responding, which cannot be observed.

Pure Behaviorism: A branch of behaviorism that disregards internal, bodily mechanisms in explanations of behaviors and relies instead on observing overt behaviors.

Reinforcement: Reinforcement occurs after the presentation of a stimulus elicits a response that results in an increased response rate, or learning.

Bibliography

Aoki, T. (2004). Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Brette, O. (2003). Thorstein Veblen's theory of institutional change: beyond technological determinism. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought , 10 , 455-477.

Bullock, D. (1978). Programmed instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Calvin, A. (1969). The Teacher's Role in Programmed Instruction. In A. Calvin (Ed.), Programmed instruction: Bold new venture (pp. 37-54). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Deterline, W. (1962). An introduction to programmed instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Drost, W. (1967). David Snedden and education for social efficiency. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

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

Eliade, M. (1998). Myth and reality. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press.

Emurian, H. (2005). Web-based programmed instruction: evidence of rule-governed learning. Computers in Human Behavior , 21 , 893-915.

Epperson, D., & Schmuck, R. (1962). An experimentalist critique of programmed instruction. Educational Theory, 12, 247-254.

Feeney, R. (2017). Old tricks are the best tricks: repurposing programmed instruction in the mobile, digital age. Performance Improvement, 56(5). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=123107438&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Fernald, P., & Jordan, E. (1991). Programmed Instruction Versus Standard Text in Introductory Psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 18 , 205-212. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6382315&site=ehost-live

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

Genovese, J. (2005). Why educational innovations fail: An individual difference perspective. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal , 33 , 569-577. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18276402&site=ehost-live

Goodson, I., Anstead, C., & Mangan, J. M. (1998). Subject knowledge: Reading in the study of school subjects. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Greer, N., & Blank, S. (1977). Cognitive style, conceptual tempo and problem solving: Modification through programmed instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 14 , 295-315.

Hartley, J. (1974). Programmed instruction 1954-1974: A review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 11 , 278-291.

Hedlund, D. (1967). Programmed Instruction: Guidelines for Evaluation of Published Materials. Training & Development Journal, 21 , 9-15. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7454583&site=ehost-live

Holland, J. (1967). A quantitative measure for programmed instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 4 , 87-101.

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

Individualized instruction: A recurrent theme. (2012). TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 56 , 12-14. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=82763730&site=ehost-live

Jaehnig, W. (2006). Audio narration and reading ability in programmed instruction. ProQuest Information & Learning: UMI Disseration.

Jaehnig, W., & Miller, M. (2007). Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review. Psychological Record, 57 , 219-232. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24658186&site=ehost-live

Kang, H., & Zentall, S. (2011). Computer-generated geometry instruction: A preliminary study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59 , 783-797. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67318192&site=ehost-live

Kaufman, R. (2004). Development of Systems Applications: the Systems Approach to Programming. In G. Ofiesh (Ed.), Trends in the programmed instruction: Papers from the first annual convention of the national society for programmed instruction (pp. 33-35). Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, Department of Audiovisual Instruction.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Leh, J. M., & Jitendra, A. K. (2013). Effects of computer-mediated versus teacher-mediated instruction on the mathematical word problem-solving performance of third-grade students with mathematical difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36 , 68-79. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87368875&site=ehost-live

Lysaught, J., & Williams, C. (1963). A guide to programmed instruction. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Mager, R. (1962). Preparing objectives for programmed instruction. San Francisco: Fearon Publishers, Inc.

McDonald, J., Yanchar, S., & Osguthorpe, R. (2005). Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53 , 84-98. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17029263&site=ehost-live

Miller, M., & Malott, R. (2006). Programmed Instruction: Construction Responding, Discrimination Responding, and Highlighted Keywords. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15 , 109-117. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21541197&site=ehost-live

Nash, A., Muczyk, J., & Vettori, F. (1971). The relative practical effectiveness of programmed instruction. Personnel Psychology, 24 , 397-418. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=pbh&AN=6267912&site=ehost-live

Olsen, F. (1969). Programmed Instruction in the Nongraded School. In A. Calvin (Ed.), Programmed instruction: Bold new venture (pp. 181-192). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Payne, D., Krathwohl, D., & Gordon, J. (1967). The Effect of Sequence on Programmed Instruction. American Educational Research Journal , 4 , 125-132.

Pocztar, J. (1972). The theory and practice of programmed instruction: A guide for teachers . Paris: UNESCO.

Pressey, S. L. (1926). A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores-and teaches. School & Society , 23 , 549-552.

Scriven, M. (1969). The Case for and Use of Programmed Texts. In A. Calvin (Ed.), Programmed instruction: Bold new venture (pp. 3-36). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. (1958). Teaching Machines. Science, 128 (3330), 969-977.

Slattery, P. (2004). Understanding Curriculum as Institutionalized Text. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Understanding curriculum (pp. 661-790). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Talyzina, N. (1981). The psychology of learning. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Thorndike, E. (1912). Education: A first book. New York: MacMillan Co.

Tudor, R., & Bostow, D. (1991). Computer-programmed instruction: The relation of required interaction to practical application. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis , 24 , 361-368.

Vanderstraeten, R. (2006). How is Education Possible? Pragmatism, Communication and the Social Organization of Education. British Journal of Education Studies, 54 , 160-174.

Walker, R. J., et al. (2018). Comparing active learning techniques: the effect of clickers and discussion groups on student perceptions and performance. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=131028742&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Zendler, A., & Reile, S. (2018). The effect of reciprical teaching and programmed instruction on learning outcome in computer science education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=131071632&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Suggested Reading

Green, E. (1962). The Learning Process and Programmed Instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Hof, B. (2018). From Harvard via Moscow to West Berlin: educational technology, programmed instruction and the commercialisation of learning after 1957. History of Education, 47(4). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=129998876&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: the trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Kulik, C.-L., Schwalb, B., & Kulik, J. (1982). Programmed Instruction in Secondary Education: A Meta-Analysis of Evaluation Findings. Journal of Educational Research, 75 , 133-139. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from EBSCOhost Research Databases: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4904939&site=ehost-live

Moore, J. (2013). Three views of behaviorism. Psychological Record, 63 , 681-691. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89562036&site=ehost-live

West, R., & Hamerlynck, L. A. (Eds.). (1992). Designs for excellence in education: The legacy of B. F. Skinner. Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc.