Teaching machines and programmed instruction: Areas of application.

Leib, J. W.; Cusack, Julia; Hughes, Deanna; Pilette, S.; Werther, Jacqueline; Kintz, B. L.

doi:10.1037/h0020414

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These new machines that promised faster learning, while relieving some of the teacher’s burden, were met with an enthusiasm never experienced by Pressey. By 1962 there were 65 different teaching machines on the market, ranging in price from $20 to $6,500 (Kreig, 1961), and nearly 200 private companies were producing teaching machines, programmed texts, or both (Leib et al, 1967; “The Truth About,” 1962).…”

Section: Sidney Pressey’s Teaching Machinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A history of teaching machines.

Benjamin¹

1988

American Psychologist

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of teaching machines is traced from the patented educational devices of the 19th century through the initial teaching machines of Sidney Pressey in the 1920s to the machines invented by B. F. Skinner in the 1950s. The obscurity of Pressey's pioneering work in this field contrasted with the fame achieved by Skinner is discussed in a historical context. The final sections discuss the short-lived success and eventual failure of classroom teaching machines in the 1950s and 1960s.

show abstract

Section: Sidney Pressey’s Teaching Machinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1This historical account of teaching machines is restricted to their use in traditional classrooms and does not treat military and industrial applications of those devices. Reviews of some of the early usage in the military and industry can be found in Briggs (1959), Christian (1962), Leib et al (1967), and Silvern (1962).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A history of teaching machines.

Benjamin¹

1988

American Psychologist

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Skinner, 1961a, p. 92) Teaching skills to developmentally retarded children generally requires a significant amount of teacher in volvement in direct instruction. Automated instruction has been suggested as a possible strategy for making the teaching process more efficient (Leib, Cusack, Hughes, Pilette, Werther, & Kintz, 1967). Automated instruction could thus be a possible means to help reduce the gap between normal and developmentally retarded students (Bijou, 1963).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Automated and Human Instruction for Developmentally Retarded Preschool Children

Richmond

1983

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article Descriptorsautomated instruction; human instruction; discrimination training; developmental retardation; preschool classroom; preschool children More speculation than empirical data has been generated on the value automated instruction holds for special education. As automated technology advances, the possibilities for classroom instruction increase. The purpose of the present study was to compare automated instruction with human instruction to teach a visual discrimination.Twenty developmentally retarded preschool children were trained on two discriminations with automated instruction and two discriminations with human instruction. With trials to criterion as the dependent variable, the results showed human instruc tion significantly better than automated instruction (p = .0001). Nine children did reach criterion for both discriminations with automated instruction and therefore showed they could learn a discrimination without the necessity of human interaction. These results are discussed in terms of the value automated instruction may have for classroom instruction with the developmentally retarded student.

show abstract