Programmed instructional materials—past, present, and future

Author(s): JACK E. FORBES

Source: The Mathematics Teacher, Vol. 56, No. 4 (APRIL 1963), pp. 224-227
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27956797
Accessed: 13-02-2019 16:59 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The Mathematics Teacher

This content downloaded from 200.17.112.161 on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:59:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Programmed instructional materials?
past, present, and future"
jack e. forbes, Britannica Center, Palo Alto, California.
What is the future for the use of programmed materials
Programmed materials have had a rela
tively short, but colorful, history. This
history has included both charges and
claims almost beyond belief! At times, it
seemed that this instructional tool was
destined to become so deeply embroiled in
controversey that it would have little op
portunity to make its contribution to the
education of children. However, it has
survived, and is quite healthy. One reason
for its survival and health is the early inter
est shown in programming by people who
are primarily interested in the education of
children; people who recognize the im
portance of the underlying psychological
research involved in program construction
but who are neither involved nor inter
ested in the conflict among the psycholo
gists who did this research; people who
can, therefore, look objectively at the
results of the psychological experimenta
tion and "go on from there" to modify and
adapt these results to classroom situations.
Unfortunately, the stormy origin of
programming has left its mark?not so
much on the materials themselves as on
what people believe about programmed
materials. From the past, then, I would
like to clarify some terms and present some
explanation of what I believe to be the
basic principles involved.
First, I am sure that much of the con
troversy among those involved in pro
gramming today is not controversy con
cerning program construction ("linear"
* A paper presented at the meeting of the NCTM,
Madison, Wisconsin, August, 1962.
224 The Mathematics Teacher | April, 1963
This content downloaded from 200.17.112.161 on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:59:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
in mathematics teaching?
versus "branching/ ' "constructed re
sponse" versus "multiple choice," etc.)
but rather controversy of a much more
basic nature which is reflected in program
construction, as in all other methods of in
struction! This is the controversy over
how learning takes place ! There seem to be
three major points of agreement concern
ing the learning process.
1 Learning is an active rather than a
passive process. Hence, an effective
learning situation must provide for ex
tensive interaction between the learner
and the material to be learned.
2 Learning progress is improved when the
learner "knows how he is doing"; that
is, when he is provided with regular re
inforcement of correct responses and
immediate "blocking" of incorrect re
sponses.
3 An efficient learning situation is one in
which well-defined goals are established.
These goals are necessarily behavioristic
in nature, for generalities, such as
"understanding," "appreciation," etc.,
can only be deduced from observed be
havior! (If we wish to know if a student
understands some concept we ask him
questions, record his responses, and de
cide [i.e., deduce] whether or not under
standing exists.)
Beyond these points of agreement there
is a decided "split." This "split" is not
new, nor is it a product of programming.
Many of you will recall words, such as

Concept to Learning accomplished
be learned at time ti < t,
where t is the time
necessary for learning
of the concept
Figure 1
"Thorndike," "Gestalt," etc., from your
courses in educational psychology, which
seem quite appropriate here. However,
since programming has again raised some
classical questions, I will present an over
simplified version of two views of the
learning process. The classification of these
and the terminology employed is my own.
Premise 1. Learning is linear in nature.
It is a "steady growth" process, which
proceeds in small steps with complete
mastery of each small step preceding prog
ress to the next step. Pictorially, this pre
mise is represented by Figure 1, where the
learning process covers the concept to be
learned in a steady, "start to finish"
manner. Graphically, this premise is illus
trated in Figure 2.
Thus, at time h<ty complete mastery of
part of the concept will have been at
tained, complete ignorance of the remain
der will exist. An attendant premise to
Premise 1 is that a learner "learns only
Acceptable
level of
learning
Learning accomplished
at time ti <t
Figure 2
Programmed instructional materials?past, present, and future 225
This content downloaded from 200.17.112.161 on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:59:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
what he is taught." This statement be
comes important in contrast to Premise 2.
Premise 2. Learning is a process of ir
regular growth in which the less difficult
aspects throughout the concept are learned
first. After the teaching-learning process
has proceeded to a certain point, this point
dependent upon the individual learner, in
sight is gained and the learner "fills in the
details" without further help. This prem
ise is illustrated pictorially in Figure 3,
graphically in Figure 4.
Concept to Learning accomplished
be learned at lime ti < t
(total necessary time)
Figure 3
Acceptable
level of
learning
t
Learning accomplished
at time ti <t
Figure 4
It is obvious that subscription to either
of these premises has great effect on pro
gram production or on classroom teaching
by any method. It is equally obvious that
many variations or combinations of parts
of these premises are possible and, quite
possibly, superior to either! The point to
be made is that effective program produc
tion and evaluation must be based on some
theory concerning the learning process;
although "catch-words," such as "con
 structed response," "branching," "cy
ling," etc., are important words in the
technical aspects of programming, they
can serve to obscure the paramount ques
tion: "What is the programmers' assump
tion concerning the learning process? Do I
agree with this?" My current assumption training institutions and departments are
is that basic, factual material is learned in making a start in the development of
a linear fashion, all else is not ! I am aware methodological training in program utili
of considerable experimental evidence both zation. Also, research in learning theory,
to support and to contradict this assump program construction, and program uti
tion. A major role of teachers, supervisors,
etc., is to establish their own position on
this subject and to evaluate materials in
light of their position!
The present position of programming is
a healthy one. More people with knowledge
of content and educational problems are
becoming involved in the production of
programs. More excellent teachers are
studying the problems of program utiliza
tion in order to establish effective means
of program-teacher interaction which will
enhance the usefulness of both in the over
all educational process. This latter point
is especially important since we have faced
three destructive attitudes:
1 A "hands off" attitude by some people
involved in programming.
2 An "It can replace me" attitude by some
teachers. Some of these have avoided
the use of programs. More seriously,
however, some others have not! They
have sought, I believe, to prove through
ineffective utilization that programs
"won't work."
3 A "head in the sand" attitude of many
who should have led in the study of this
instructional tool. They have ignored
programs, hoping they would "go
away," while the leadership that they
should have exerted has gone to others!
In the last year we have seen an increase
of the intelligent participation of excellent
teachers who view programs neither as a
panacea nor as a "tool of the devil" but as
a valid, useful educational tool which they
can adapt to their own classrooms to im
prove what goes on there! After a period of
either running from or cowering before
programs, teachers are "taking over" to
use programs as a new and useful instruc
tional tool.
Other encouraging signs are that teacher
lization is continuing and, what is en
couraging to me, expanding from the psy
chological to the mathematics education
research community.
However, not all of the present is en
couraging! While programming has be
come more mature in the hands of many,
it has also become a lucrative area for low
investment, fast-production, low-quality
commercial operators. While the best pro
grams have greatly improved in quality,
there are materials being produced of a
quality?or lack of quality?which is dif
ficult to describe. Some of these are not
only not good programs?they are not
programs at all, but inaccurate, poorly or
ganized "workbooks." These people in
tend to "cash in" on the success of serious
program producers and then "get out,"
before educators and the public under
stand the attributes of good programming
sufficiently well to discover their chican
ery! I suppose it would be naive to expect
otherwise ! These people exist in all areas?
but I feel that no report on the present
status of programmed material would be
complete without a mention of these activ
ities. Now, a bit about the future.
I do not believe that the great educa
tional "revolution" predicted by some
early proponents of programmed instruc
tion is about to occur. If this revolution
does occur, it will involve much beyond
programmed materials!
I do believe that programmed materials
have a significant future as an instruc
tional tool in the classroom and will be an
important part of an evolution to better
education.

226 The Mathematics Teacher | April, 1963

This content downloaded from 200.17.112.161 on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:59:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I believe that as teachers better define
the role?or rather roles?which programs
should play, special purpose programs will
be produced; that is, in addition to pro
grams to serve as the basic text material
for a course, we will have:
1 remedial programs,
2 enrichment programs,
3 programs to provide for student inter
action with material which has been ini
tially presented in the "impersonar'
manner of large class lectures or tele
vision lectures,
4 programs to provide an additional
learning experience for the "harder"
parts of traditionally presented courses.
I also believe that program quality?of
all types of programs?will continue to
improve substantially. If we were to draw
an analogy to air travel?many programs
which you have seen are of the "open
cockpit" variety! I believe we are now
producing in the "DC-3" stage. While we
are still a long way from the "jet age," we
are off the ground!

Letter to the editor

Dear Editor: Equation (3/) on page 43 should read:
The January 1962 issue of The Mathe T = TS+67 = k - T56 + 67.
matics Teacher contains a most interesting
article on the graphical method of Cremona
employed to determine the solution of many
rational integral functions. Lundin, Solution of
Equations by Means of Rectangular Circuits, pp.
39-43, accounts for the derivation and applica
tion of the Cremona method. Mr. Lundin's
work reveals that graphical analysis is a most
significant element in interpreting analytical
expressions and the principles of elementary
theory of equations.
I should like to point out that paragraph
two on page 41 is incorrect and Figure 4 is in
complete. The quartic
PA(x) = 6z4 + llz3-4z-l =0
possesses four (4) real roots. Certainly
x2+x-l = 0
has real roots! The correct Lill-Cremona graph
ical outline and circuits, with completed solu
tions, is shown in Figure 4a.
The line following the second paragraph is
also incorrect.

TJ
=- ( \?
I not-I
a \ ao /
Gus Mavrigian
TJ / TI\ Department of Mathematics
x%
ao ?- I not-J ?
\ ?o/ The Youngstown University
Youngstown, Ohio

Programmed materials?past, present, and future 227

This content downloaded from 200.17.112.161 on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:59:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms