See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292006959

Behaviorism and Instructional Technology

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS
85 7,131

3 authors, including:

John K. Burton David M. Moore

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
105 PUBLICATIONS   1,200 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   745 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gamification in Learning and Education: Enjoy Learning Like Gaming View project

Disseration, VPISU View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John K. Burton on 18 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

BEHAVIORISM AND INSTRUCTIONAL

TECHNOLOGY

John K. Burton
Virginia Tech

David M. (Mike) Moore

Virginia Tech

Susan G. Magliaro

Since the first publication of this chapter in the previous edition data, make hypotheses, make choices, and so on as the mind
of the Handbook, some changes have occurred in the theoret- was once said to have done” (p. 86). In other words, we have
ical landscape. Cognitive psychology has moved further away seen a retreat from the use of the term “mind” in cognitive
from its roots in information processing toward a stance that psychology. It is no longer fashionable then to posit, as Gardner
emphasizes individual and group construction of knowledge. (1985) did, that “first of all, there is the belief that, in talking
The notion of the mind as a computer has fallen into disfavor about human cognitive activities, it is necessary to speak about
largely due to the mechanistic representation of a human en- mental representations and to posit a level of analysis wholly
deavor and the emphasis on the mind–body separation. Actu- separate from the biological or neurological on one hand, and
ally, these events have made B. F. Skinner’s (1974) comments the sociological or cultural on the other” (p. 6). This notion of
prophetic. Much like Skinner’s discussion of use of a machine mind, which is separate from nature or nurture, is critical to
as a metaphor for human behavior by the logical positivists who many aspects of cognitive explanation. By using “brain” instead
believed that “a robot, which behaved precisely like a person, of “mind,” we get the appearance of avoiding the conflict. It is, in
responding in the same way to stimuli, changing its behavior fact, an admission of the problem with mind as an explanatory
as a result of the same operations, would be indistinguishable construct, but in no way does it resolve the role that mind was
from a real person, even though,” as Skinner goes on to say, meant to fill.
“it would not have feelings, sensations, or ideas.” If such a robot Yet another hopeful sign is the abandonment of generali-
could be built, Skinner believed that “it would prove that none ties of learning and expertise in favor of an increased role for
of the supposed manifestations of mental life demanded a men- the stimuli available during learning as well as the feedback
talistic explanation” (p. 16). Indeed, unlike cognitive scientists that follows (i.e., behavior and consequences). Thus we see
who explicitly insisted on the centrality of the computer to the more about “situated cognition,” “situated learning,” “situated
understanding of human thought (see, for example, Gardner, knowledge,” “cognitive apprenticeships,” “authentic materials,”
1985), Skinner clearly rejected any characterizations of humans etc. (see, for example, Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave,
as machines. 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Resnick, 1988; Rogoff & Lave, 1984;
In addition, we have seen more of what Skinner (1974) called Suchman, 1987) that evidence an explicit acknowledgment that
“the current practice of avoiding” (the mind/body) “dualism by while behavior “is not ‘stimulus bound’. . . nevertheless the en-
substituting ‘brain’ for ‘mind.” Thus, the brain is said to “use vironmental history is still in control; the genetic endowment of

3
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

4 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

the species plus the contingencies to which the individual has dualism” (p. 91); that the “person” or mind is a “ghost in the
been exposed still determine what he will perceive” (Skinner, machine.” Current notions often place the “ghost” in a social
1974, p. 82). group. It is this “ghost” (in whatever manifestation) that Wat-
Perhaps most importantly, and in a less theoretical vein, has son objected to so strenuously. He saw thinking and hoping as
been the rise of distance learning; particularly for those on the things we do (Malone, 1990). He believed that when stimuli, bi-
bleeding edge of “any time, any place,” asynchronous learning. ology, and responses are removed, the residual is not mind, it is
In this arena, issues of scalability, cost effectiveness, maximiza- nothing. As William James (1904) wrote, “. . . but breath, which
tion of the learner’s time, value added, etc. has brought to the was ever the original ‘spirit,’ breath moving outwards, between
forefront behavioral paradigms that had fallen from favor in the glottis and the nostrils, is, I am persuaded, the essence out
many circles. A reemergence of technologies such as person- of which philosophers have constructed the entity known to
alized system instruction (Keller & Sherman, 1974) is clear in them as consciousness” (p. 478).
the literature. In our last chapter we addressed these models and The view of mental activities as actions (e.g., “thinking is talk-
hinted at their possible use in distance situations. We expand ing to ourself,” Watson, 1919), as opposed to their being consid-
those notions in this current version. ered indications of the presence of a consciousness or mind as
a separate entity, are central differences between the behavioral
and cognitive orientations. According to Malone (1990), the goal
1.1 INTRODUCTION of psychology from the behavioral perspective has been clear
since Watson:
In 1913, John Watson’s Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it
put forth the notion that psychology did not have to use terms We want to predict with reasonable certainty what people will do in
such as consciousness, mind, or images. In a real sense, Wat- specific situations. Given a stimulus, defined as an object of inner or
son’s work became the opening “round” in a battle that the outer experience, what response may be expected? A stimulus could
behaviorists dominated for nearly 60 years. During that period, be a blow to the knee or an architect’s education; a response could
behavioral psychology (and education) taught little about cog- be a knee jerk or the building of a bridge. Similarly, we want to know,
given a response, what situation produced it. . . . In all such situations
nitive concerns, paradigms, etc. For a brief moment, as cogni-
the discovery of the stimuli that call out one or another behavior should
tive psychology eclipsed behavioral theory, the commonalties
allow us to influence the occurrence of behaviors; prediction, which
between the two orientations were evident (see, e.g., Neisser, comes from such discoveries, allows control. What does the analysis of
1967, 1976). To the victors, however, go the spoils and the rise conscious experience give us? (p. 97)
of cognitive psychology has meant the omission, or in some
cases misrepresentation, of behavioral precepts from current Such notions caused Bertrand Russell to claim that Watson
curricula. With that in mind, this chapter has three main goals. made “the greatest contribution to scientific psychology since
First, it is necessary to revisit some of the underlying assump- Aristotle” (as cited in Malone, 1990, p. 96) and others to call
tions of the two orientations and review some basic behavioral him the “. . . simpleton or archfiend . . . who denied the very ex-
concepts. Second, we examine the research on instructional istence of mind and consciousness (and) reduced us to the status
technology to illustrate the impact of behavioral psychology on of robots” (p. 96). Related to the issue of mind/body dualism
the tools of our field. Finally, we conclude the chapter with an are the emphases on structure versus function and/or evolution
epilogue. and/or selection.

1.2.1 Structuralism, Functionalism, and Evolution

1.2 THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM
The battle cry of the cognitive revolution is “mind is back!” A great new
The western mind is European, the European mind is Greek; the science of mind is born. Behaviorism nearly destroyed our concern for
Greek mind came to maturity in the city of Athens. (Needham, 1978, it but behaviorism has been overthrown, and we can take up again
p. 98) where the philosophers and early psychologists left off (Skinner, 1989,
p. 22)
The intellectual separation between mind and nature is trace-
able back to 650 B.C. and the very origins of philosophy itself. Structuralism also can be traced through the development
It certainly was a centerpiece of Platonic thought by the fourth of philosophy at least to Democritus’ “heated psychic atoms”
century B.C. Plato’s student Aristotle, ultimately, separated mind (Needham, 1978). Plato divided the soul/mind into three
from body (Needham, 1978). In modern times, it was René distinct components in three different locations: the impul-
Descartes who reasserted the duality of mind and body and sive/instinctive component in the abdomen and loins, the
connected them at the pineal gland. The body was made of emotional/spiritual component in the heart, and the intellec-
physical matter that occupied space; the mind was composed tual/reasoning component in the brain. In modern times, Wundt
of “animal spirits” and its job was to think and control the body. at Leipzig and Titchener (his student) at Cornell espoused
The connection at the pineal gland made your body yours. While structuralism as a way of investigating consciousness. Wundt
it would not be accurate to characterize current cognitivists as proposed ideas, affect, and impulse and Titchener proposed
Cartesian dualists, it would be appropriate to characterize them sensations, images, and affect as the primary elements of con-
as believers of what Churchland (1990) has called “popular sciousness. Titchener eventually identified over 50,000 mental
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 5

elements (Malone, 1990). Both relied heavily on the method attributes causality to the stimuli that are antecedent to the be-
of introspection (to be discussed later) for data. Cognitive havior, the latter to the consequences that follow the behavior.
notions such as schema, knowledge structures, duplex mem- Methodological behaviorism is in this regard similar to cognitive
ory, etc. are structural explanations. There are no behavioral orientations; the major difference being that the cognitive inter-
equivalents to structuralism because it is an aspect of mind/ pretation would place the stimulus (a thought or idea) inside the
consciousness. head.
Functionalism, however, is a philosophy shared by both cog-
nitive and behavioral theories. Functionalism is associated with
John Dewey and William James who stressed the adaptive nature 1.2.2 Introspection and Constructivism
of activity (mental or behavioral) as opposed to structuralism’s
attempts to separate consciousness into elements. In fact, func- Constructivism, the notion that meaning (reality) is made, is
tionalism allows for an infinite number of physical and mind currently touted as a new way of looking at the world. In fact,
structures to serve the same functions. Functionalism has its there is nothing in any form of behaviorism that requires real-
roots in Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1859), and Wittgen- ism, naive or otherwise. The constructive nature of perception
stein’s Philosophical Investigations (Malcolm, 1954). The ques- has been accepted at least since von Helmholtz (1866) and his
tion of course is the focus of adaptation: mind or behavior. notion of “unconscious inference.” Basically, von Helmholtz be-
The behavioral view is that evolutionary forces and adaptations lieved that much of our experience depends upon inferences
are no different for humans than for the first one-celled organ- drawn on the basis of a little stimulation and a lot of past expe-
isms; that organisms since the beginning of time have been vul- rience. Most, if not all, current theories of perception rely on
nerable and, therefore, had to learn to discriminate and avoid von Helmholtz’s ideas as a base (Malone, 1990). The question
those things which were harmful and discriminate and approach is not whether perception is constructive, but what to make of
those things necessary to sustain themselves (Goodson, 1973). these constructions and where do they come from? Cognitive
This, of course, is the heart of the selectionist position long psychology draws heavily on introspection to “see” the stuff of
advocated by B. F. Skinner (1969, 1978, 1981, 1987a, 1987b, construction.
1990). In modern times, introspection was a methodological cor-
The selectionist (Chiesa, 1992; Pennypacker, 1994; Vargas, nerstone of Wundt, Titchener, and the Gestaltist, Kulpe (Ma-
1993) approach “emphasizes investigating changes in behav- lone, 1990). Introspection generally assumes a notion espoused
ioral repertoires over time” (Johnson & Layng, 1992, p. 1475). by John Mill (1829) that thoughts are linear; that ideas follow
Selectionism is related to evolutionary theory in that it views each other one after another. Although it can (and has) been
the complexity of behavior to be a function of selection con- argued that ideas do not flow in straight lines, a much more
tingencies found in nature (Donahoe, 1991; Donahoe & Palmer, serious problem confronts introspection on its face. Introspec-
1989; Layng, 1991; Skinner, 1969, 1981, 1990). As Johnson and tion relies on direct experience; that our “mind’s eye” or inner
Layng (1992, p. 1475) point out, this “perspective is beginning observation reveals things as they are. We know, however, that
to spread beyond the studies of behavior and evolution to the our other senses do not operate that way.
once structuralist-dominated field of computer science, as ev-
idenced by the emergence of parallel distributed processing The red surface of an apple does not look like a matrix of molecules
theory (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1986; Rumelhart & McClel- reflecting photons at a certain critical wavelength, but that is what it is.
land, 1986), and adaptive networks research (Donahoe, 1991; The sound of a flute does not sound like a sinusoidal compression wave
Donahoe & Palmer, 1989)”. train in the atmosphere, but that is what it is. The warmth of the summer
The difficulty most people have in getting their heads around air does not feel like the mean kinetic energy of millions molecules, but
the selectionist position of behavior (or evolution) is that the that is what it is. If one’s pains and hopes and beliefs do not introspec-
tively seem like electrochemical states in a neural network, that may
cause of a behavior is the consequence of a behavior, not the
be only because our faculty of introspection, like our other senses, is
stimulus, mental or otherwise, that precedes it. In evolution,
not sufficiently penetrating to reveal such hidden details. Which is just
giraffes did not grow longer necks in reaction to higher leaves; what we would expect anyway . . . unless we can somehow argue that
rather, a genetic variation produced an individual with a longer the faculty of introspection is quite different from all other forms of
neck and as a consequence that individual found a niche (higher observation. (Churchland, 1990, p. 15)
leaves) that few others could occupy. As a result, that individual
survived (was “selected”) to breed and the offspring produced Obviously, the problems with introspection became more
survived to breed and in subsequent generations perhaps even- problematic in retrospective paradigms, that is, when the
tually produced an individual with a longer neck that also sur- learner/performer is asked to work from a behavior to a thought.
vived, and so forth. The radical behaviorist assumes that behav- This poses a problem on two counts: accuracy and causality. In
ior is selected in exactly that way: by consequences. Of course terms of accuracy, James Angell stated his belief in his 1907 APA
we do not tend to see the world this way. “We tend to say, of- presidential address:
ten rashly, that if one thing follows another that it was probably
caused by it—following the ancient principle of post hoc, ergo No matter how much we may talk of the preservation of psychical dis-
propter hoc (after this, therefore because of it)” (Skinner, 1974, positions, nor how many metaphors we may summon to characterize
p. 10). This is the most critical distinction between method- the storage of ideas in some hypothetical deposit chamber of mem-
ological behaviorism and selectionist behaviorism. The former ory, the obstinate fact remains that when we are not experiencing a
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

6 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

sensation or an idea it is, strictly speaking, non-existent. . . . [W]e have consideration is that this view presupposes three things: (a) a
no guarantee that our second edition is really a replica of the first, we stimulus object in the external world, (b) a sensory registering
have a good bit of presumptive evidence that from the content point of of that object via some modality, and (c) the internal representa-
view the original never is and never can be literally duplicated. (Herrn- tion of that object as a sensation, perception or image, different
stein & Boring, 1965, p. 502) from (b) above. The first two are physical and the third, pre-
sumably something else” (Moore, 1980, p. 472–473).
The causality problem is perhaps more difficult to grasp at In Skinner’s (1964) words:
first but, in general, behaviorists have less trouble with “heated”
data (self reports of mental activities at the moment of behaving)
The need for something beyond, and quite different from, copying is
that reflect “doing in the head” and “doing in the world” at the
not widely understood. Suppose someone were to coat the occipital
same time than with going from behavior to descriptions of lobes of the brain with a special photographic emulsion which, when
mental thought, ideas, or structures and then saying that the developed, yielded a reasonable copy of a current visual stimulus. In
mental activity caused the behavioral. In such cases, of course, many quarters, this would be regarded as a triumph in the physiology
it is arguably equally likely that the behavioral activities caused of vision. Yet nothing could be more disastrous, for we should have to
the mental activities. start all over again and ask how the organism sees a picture in its oc-
A more current view of constructivism, social construc- cipital cortex, and we should now have much less of the brain available
tivism, focuses on the making of meaning through social in- from which to seek an answer. It adds nothing to an explanation of how
teraction (e.g., John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). In the words of an organism reacts to a stimulus to trace the pattern of the stimulus into
the body. It is most convenient, for both organism and psychophysiol-
Garrison (1994), meanings “are sociolinguistically constructed
ogist, if the external world is never copied—if the world we know is
between two selves participating in a shared understanding”
simply the world around us. The same may be said of theories accord-
(p. 11). This, in fact, is perfectly consistent with the position ing to which the brain interprets signals sent to it and in some sense
of behaviorists (see, for example, Skinner, 1974) as long as this reconstructs external stimuli. If the real world is, indeed, scrambled
does not also imply the substitution of a group mind of rather in transmission but later reconstructed in the brain, we must then
than an individual “mind.” Garrison, a Deweyan scholar, is, in start all over again and explain how the organism sees the reconstruc-
fact, also a self-proclaimed behaviorist. tion. (p. 87)

Quite simply, if we copy what we see, what do we “see” the

1.3 RADICAL BEHAVIORISM copy with and what does this “mind’s eye” do with its input?
Create another copy? How do we, to borrow from our informa-
Probably no psychologist in the modern era has been as mis- tion processing colleagues, exit this recursive process?
understood, misquoted, misjudged, and just plain maligned as The related problem of mentalisms generally, and their admis-
B. F. Skinner and his Skinnerian, or radical, behaviorism. Much sion with the dialog of psychology on largely historical grounds
of this stems from the fact that many educational technology was also discussed often by Skinner. For example:
programs (or any educational programs, for that matter) do not
teach, at least in any meaningful manner, behavioral theory and Psychology, alone among the biological and social sciences, passed
research. More recent notions such as cognitive psychology, through a revolution comparable in many respects with that which was
constructivism, and social constructivism have become “fea- taking place at the same time in physics. This was, of course, behav-
tured” orientations. Potentially worse, recent students of ed- iorism. The first step, like that in physics, was a reexamination of the
ucational technology have not been exposed to course work observational bases of certain important concepts . . . Most of the early
that emphasized history and systems, or theory building and behaviorists, as well as those of us just coming along who claimed some
theory analysis. In terms of the former problem, we will devote systematic continuity, had begun to see that psychology did not require
our conclusion to a brief synopsis of what radical behaviorism the redefinition of subjective concepts. The reinterpretation of an es-
is and what it isn’t. In terms of the latter, we will appeal to the tablished set of explanatory fictions was not the way to secure the tools
then needed for a scientific description of behavior. Historical prestige
simplest of the criteria for judging the adequacy and appropri-
was beside the point. There was no more reason to make a permanent
ateness of a theory: parsimony. place for “consciousness,” “will,” “feeling,” and so on, than for “phlogis-
ton” or “vis anima.” On the contrary, redefined concepts proved to be
awkward and inappropriate, and Watsonianism was, in fact, practically
1.3.1 What Radical Behaviorism Does Not Believe wrecked in the attempt to make them work.
Thus it came about while the behaviorists might have applied Bridg-
It is important to begin this discussion with what radical behav- man’s principle to representative terms from a mentalistic psychology
iorism rejects: structuralism (mind–body dualism), operational- (and were most competent to do so), they had lost all interest in the
matter. They might as well have spent their time in showing what an
ism, and logical positivism.
eighteenth century chemist was talking about when he said that the
That radical behaviorism rejects structuralism has been dis-
Metallic Substances consisted of a vitrifiable earth united with phlo-
cussed earlier in the introduction of this article. Skinner (1938, giston. There was no doubt that such a statement could be analyzed
1945, 1953b, 1957, 1964, 1974) continually argued against the operationally or translated into modern terms, or that subjective terms
use of structures and mentalisms. His arguments are too nu- could be operationally defined. But such matters were of historical in-
merous to deal with in this work, but let us consider what is terest only. What was wanted was a fresh set of concepts derived from
arguably the most telling: copy theory. “The most important a direct analysis of newly emphasized data . . . (p. 292)
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 7

Operationalism is a term often associated with Skinnerian be- the same analyses should be applied to private events as public
haviorism and indeed in a sense this association is correct; not, ones. Obviously, some private, or covert, behavior involves the
however, in the historical sense of operationalism of Stevens same musculature as the public or overt behavior as in talking
(1939) or, in his attacks on behaviorism, by Spence (1948), or to oneself or “mental practice” of a motor event (Moore, 1980).
in the sense that it is assumed today: “how to deal scientifically Generally, we assume private behavior began as a public event
with mental events” (Moore, 1980, p. 571). Stevens (1951) for and then, for several reasons, became covert. Moore gives three
example, states that “operationalism does not deny images, for examples of such reasons. The first is convenience: We learn to
example, but asks: What is the operational definition of the term read publicly, but private behavior is faster. Another case is that
“image?” (p. 231). As Moore (1981) explains, this “conventional we can engage in a behavior privately and if the consequences
approach entails virtually every aspect of the dualistic position” are not suitable, reject it as a public behavior. A second reason
(p. 470). “In contrast, for the radical behaviorist, operational- is to avoid aversive consequences. We may sing a song over and
ism involves the functional analysis of the term in question, that over covertly but not sing it aloud because we fear social disap-
is, an assessment of the discriminative stimuli that occasions proval. Many of us, alone in our shower or in our car, with the
the use of the term and the consequences that maintain it” negative consequences safely absent, however, may sing loudly
(Moore, 1981, p. 59). In other words, radical behaviorism re- indeed. A third reason is that the stimuli that ordinarily elicit an
jects the operationalism of methodology behaviorists, but em- overt behavior are weak and deficient. Thus we become “un-
braces the operationalism implicit in the three-part contingency sure” of our response. We may think we see something, but be
of antecedents, behaviors, and consequences and would, in fact, unclear enough to either not say anything or make a weak, low
apply it to the social dialog of scientists themselves! statement.
The final demon to deal with is the notion that radical behav- What the radical behaviorist does not believe is that private
iorism somehow relies on logical positivism. This rejection of behaviors cause public behavior. Both are assumed to be at-
this premise will be dealt with more thoroughly in the section tributable to common variables. The private event may have
to follow that deals with social influences, particularly social some discrimination stimulus control, but this is not the cause
influences in science. Suffice it for now that Skinner (1974) felt of the subsequent behavior. The cause is the contingencies of re-
that methodological behaviorism and logical positivism “ignore inforcement that control both public and private behavior (Day,
consciousness, feelings, and states of mind” but that radical be- 1976). It is important, particularly in terms of current contro-
haviorism does not thus “behead the organism . . . it was not versy, to point out that private events are in no way superior to
designed to ‘permit consciousness to atrophy’” (p. 219). Day public events and in at least one respect important to our last
(1983) further describes the effect of Skinner’s 1945 paper at the argument, very much inferior: the verbal (social) community
symposium on operationalism. “Skinner turns logical positivism has trouble responding to these (Moore, 1980). This is because
upside down, while methodological behaviorism continues on the reinforcing consequence “in most cases is social attention”
its own, particular logical-positivist way” (p. 94). (Moore, 1980, p. 461).
The influence of the social group, of culture, runs through all
of Skinner’s work (see, e.g., Skinner, 1945, 1953b, 1957, 1964,
1.3.2 What Radical Behaviorism Does Believe 1974). For this reason, much of this work focuses on language.
As a first step (and to segué from private events), consider an
Two issues which Skinnerian behaviorism is clear on, but not example from Moore (1980). The example deals with pain, but
apparently well understood but by critics, are the roles of pri- feel free to substitute any private perception. Pain is clearly a
vate events and social/cultural influences. The first problem, case where the stimulus is only available to the individual who
radical behaviorism’s treatment of private events, relates to the perceives it (as opposed to most events which have some ex-
confusion on the role of operationalism: “The position that ternal correlate). How do we learn to use the verbal response
psychology must be restricted to publicly observable, inter- to pain appropriately? One way is for the individual to report
subjectively, verifiable data bases more appropriately charac- pain after some observable public event such as falling down,
terizes what Skinner calls methodological behaviorism, an in- being struck, etc. The verbal community would support a state-
tellectual position regarding the admissibility of psychological ment of pain and perhaps suggest that sharp objects cause sharp
data that is conspicuously linked to logical positivism and oper- pain, dull objects, dull pain. The second case would involve a
ationalism” (Moore, 1980, p. 459). Radical behaviorism holds as collateral, public response such as holding the area in pain. The
a central tenet that to rule out stimuli because they are not ac- final case would involve using the word pain in connection with
cessible to others not only represents inappropriate vestiges of some overt state of affairs such as a bent back, or a stiff neck. It
operationalism and positivism, it compromises the explanatory is important to note that if the individual reports pain too often
integrity of behaviorism itself (Skinner, 1953a, 1974). In fact, without such overt signs, he or she runs the risk of being called
radical behaviorism does not only value private events, it says a hypochondriac or malingerer (Moore, 1980). “Verbal behavior,
they are the same as public events, and herein lies the problem, is a social phenomenon, and so in a sense all verbal behavior, in-
perhaps. Radical behaviorism does not believe it is necessary cluding scientific verbal behavior is a product of social–cultural
to suppose that private events have any special properties sim- influences” (Moore, 1984, p. 75). To examine the key role of
ply because they are private (Skinner, 1953b). They are distin- social cultural influences it is useful to use an example we are
guished only by their limited accessibility, but are assumed to be familiar with, science. As Moore (1984) points out, “Scientists
equally lawful as public events (Moore, 1980). In other words, typically live the first 25 years of their lives, and 12 to 16 hours
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

8 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

per day thereafter, in the lay community” (p. 61). Through the doctoral dissertation research on the knee-jerk (patellar) reflex
process of social and cultural reinforcers, they become accul- involved alerting his subjects with a bell that a hammer was
turated and as a result are exposed to popular preconceptions. about to strike their patellar tendon. As has been the case so
Once the individual becomes a scientist, operations and contact many times in the history of the development of behavioral the-
with data cue behaviors which lead to prediction and control. ory (see, for example, Skinner, 1956), something went wrong.
The two systems cannot operate separately. In fact, the behavior Twitmeyer sounded the bell but the hammer did not trip. The
of the scientist may be understood as a product of the conjoint subject, however, made a knee-jerk response in anticipation
action of scientific and lay discriminative stimuli and scientific of the hammer drop. Twitmeyer redesigned his experiment
and lay reinforcer (Moore, 1984). Thus, from Moore: to study this phenomenon and presented his findings at the
annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in
Operations Outcomes 1904. His paper, however, was greeted with runaway apathy
and leading to and it fell to Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) to become the “Father
contacts prediction of Classical Conditioning.” Interestingly enough, Pavlov also be-
with and
gan his line of research based on a casual or accidental obser-
data control
vation. A Nobel Prize winner for his work in digestion, Pavlov
noted that his subjects (dogs) seemed to begin salivating to
the sights and sounds of feeding. He, too, altered the thrust of
his research to investigate his serendipitous observations more
Behavior thoroughly.
Operant or instrumental conditioning is usually associated
with B. F. Skinner. Yet, in 1898, E. L. Thorndike published a
monograph on animal intelligence which made use of a “puz-
Social Outcomes leading zle box” (a forerunner of what is often called a “Skinner Box”)
and to social
to investigate the effect of reward (e.g., food, escape) on the
cultural and cultural
stimuli reinforcers behavior of cats. Thorndike placed the cats in a box that could
be opened by pressing a latch or pulling a string. Outside the
box was a bowl of milk or fish. Not surprisingly, the cats tried
Although it is dangerous to focus too hard on the “data”
anything and everything until they stumbled onto the correct
alone, Skinner (1974) also cautions against depending exclu-
response. Also, not surprisingly, the cats learned to get out
sively on the social/cultural stimuli and reinforcers for explana-
of the box more and more rapidly. From these beginnings,
tions, as is often the case with current approaches.
the most thoroughly researched phenomenon in psychology
evolves.
Until fairly late in the nineteenth century, very little was known about
the bodily processes in health or disease from which good medical Behavioral theory is now celebrating nearly a century of con-
practice could be derived, yet a person who was ill should have found tribution to theories of learning. The pioneering work of such
it worthwhile to call in a physician. Physicians saw many ill people and investigators as Cason (1922a, 1922b), Liddell (1926), Mateer
were in the best possible position to acquire useful, if unanalyzed, skills (1918), and Watson and Rayner (1920) in classical condition-
in treating them. Some of them no doubt did so, but the history of ing, and Blodgett (1929), Hebb (1949), Hull (1943), and Skin-
medicine reveals a very different picture. Medical practices have var- ner (1938) in operant conditioning, has led to the development
ied from epoch to epoch, but they have often consisted of barbaric of the most powerful technology known to behavioral science.
measures—blood lettings, leechings, cuppings, poultices, emetics, and Behaviorism, however, is in a paradoxical place in American ed-
purgations—which more often than not must have been harmful. Such
ucation today. In a very real sense, behavioral theory is the basis
practices were not based on the skill and wisdom acquired from contact
for innovations such as teaching machines, computer-assisted in-
with illness; they were based on theories of what was going on inside
the body of a person who was ill. . . . struction, competency-based education (mastery learning), in-
Medicine suffered, and in part just because the physician who talked structional design, minimal competency testing, performance-
about theories seemed to have a more profound knowledge of illness based assessment, “educational accountability,” situated cog-
than one who merely displayed the common sense acquired from per- nition, and even social constructivism, yet behaviorism is no
sonal experience. The practices derived form theories no doubt also longer a “popular” orientation in education or instructional de-
obscured many symptoms which might have led to more effective skills. sign. An exploration of behaviorism, its contributions to re-
Theories flourished at the expense both of the patient and of progress search and current practice in educational technology (despite
toward the more scientific knowledge which was to emerge in modern its recent unpopularity), and its usefulness in the future are the
medicine. (Skinner, 1974, pp. x–xi)
concerns of this chapter.

1.4 THE BASICS OF BEHAVIORISM 1.4.1 Basic Assumptions

Behaviorism in the United States may be traced to the work Behavioral psychology has provided instructional technology
of E. B. Twitmeyer (1902), a graduate student at the Univer- with several basic assumptions, concepts, and principles. These
sity of Pennsylvania, and E. L. Thorndike (1898). Twitmeyer’s components of behavioral theory are outlined in this section
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 9

(albeit briefly) in order to ensure that the discussion of its ap- Of particular importance to instructional technology is the
plications can be clearly linked back to the relevant behavioral need to focus on the individual in this learning process. Contin-
theoretical underpinnings. While some or much of the follow- gencies vary from person to person based on each individual’s
ing discussion may be elementary for many, we believed it was genetic and reinforcement histories and events present at the
crucial to lay the groundwork that illustrates the major role be- time of learning (Gagné, 1985). This requires designers and de-
havioral psychology has played and continues to play in the velopers to ensure that instruction is aimed at aiding the learn-
research and development of instructional technology applica- ing of the individual (e.g., Gagné, Briggs, & Wager, 1992). To
tions. accomplish this, a needs assessment (Burton & Merrill, 1991)
Three major assumptions of selectionist behaviorism are di- or front-end analysis (Mager, 1984; Smith & Ragan, 1993) is con-
rectly relevant to instructional technology. These assumptions ducted at the very beginning of the instructional design process.
focus on the following: the role of the learner, the nature of The focus of this activity is to articulate, among other things,
learning, and the generality of the learning processes and in- learner characteristics; that is, the needs and capabilities of indi-
structional procedures. vidual learners are assessed to ensure that the instruction being
developed is appropriate and meaningful. The goals are then
1.4.1.1 The Role of the Learner. As mentioned earlier in written in terms of what the learner will accomplish via this
this chapter, one of the most misinterpreted and misrepresented instructional event.
assumptions of behavioral learning theory concerns the role of The material to be learned must be identified in order to
the learner. Quite often, the learner is characterized as a passive clearly understand the requisite nature of learning. There is
entity that merely reacts to environmental stimuli (cf., Ander- a natural order inherent in many content areas. Much of the
son’s receptive–accrual model, 1986). However, according to information within these content areas is characterized in se-
B. F. Skinner, knowledge is action (Schnaitter, 1987). Skinner quences; however, many others form a network or a tree of
(1968) stated that a learner “does not passively absorb knowl- related information (Skinner, 1968). (Notice that in the behav-
edge from the world around him but must play an active role” ioral views, such sequences or networks do not imply internal
(p. 5). He goes on to explain how learners learn by doing, ex- structures; rather, they suggest a line of attack for the designs).
periencing, and engaging in trial and error. All three of these Complex learning involves becoming competent in a given field
components work together and must be studied together to for- by learning incremental behaviors which are ordered in these
mulate any given instance of learning. It is only when these three sequences, traditionally with very small steps, ranging from the
components are describable that we can identify what has been most simple to more complex to the final goal. Two major con-
learned, under what conditions the learning has taken place, and siderations occur in complex learning. The first, as just men-
the consequences that support and maintain the learned behav- tioned, is the gradual elaboration of extremely complex pat-
ior. The emphasis is on the active responding of the learner—the terns of behavior. The second involves the maintenance of the
learner must be engaged in the behavior in order to learn and behavior’s strength through the use of reinforcement contin-
to validate that learning has occurred. gent upon successful achievement at each stage. Implicit in this
entire endeavor is the observable nature of actual learning pub-
1.4.1.2 The Nature of Learning. Learning is frequently de- lic performance which is crucial for the acknowledgment, veri-
fined as a change in behavior due to experience. It is a func- fication (by self and/or others), and continued development of
tion of building associations between the occasion upon which the present in similar behaviors.
the behavior occurs (stimulus events), the behavior itself (re-
sponse events) and the result (consequences). These associa- 1.4.1.3 The Generality of Learning Principles. According
tions are centered in the experiences that produce learning, to behavioral theory, all animals—including humans—obey uni-
and differ to the extent to which they are contiguous and con- versal laws of behavior (a.k.a., equipotentiality) (Davey, 1981).
tingent (Chance, 1994). Contiguity refers to the close pairing In methodological behaviorism, all habits are formed from con-
of stimulus and response in time and/or space. Contingency ditioned reflexes (Watson, 1924). In selectionist behaviorism, all
refers to the dependency between the antecedent or behav- learning is a result of the experienced consequences of the or-
ioral event and either the response or consequence. Essential ganisms’ behavior (Skinner, 1971). While Skinner (1969) does
to the strengthening responses with these associations is the acknowledge species-specific behavior (e.g., adaptive mecha-
repeated continuous pairing of the stimulus with response and nisms, differences in sensory equipment, effector systems, re-
the pairing consequences (Skinner, 1968). It is the construc- actions to different reinforcers), he stands by the fact that the
tion of functional relationships, based on the contingencies of basic processes that promote or inhibit learning are universal
reinforcement, under which the learning takes place. It is this to all organisms. Specifically, he states that the research does
functionality that is the essence of selection. Stimulus control show an
develops as a result of continuous pairing with consequences
(functions). In order to truly understand what has been learned,
. . . extraordinary uniformity over a wide range of reinforcement, the pro-
the entire relationship must be identified (Vargas, 1977). All cesses of extinction, discrimination and generalization return remark-
components of this three-part contingency (i.e., functional re- ably similar and consistent results across species. For example, fixed-
lationship) must be observable and measurable to ensure the interval reinforcement schedules yield a predictable scalloped perfor-
scientific verification that learning (i.e., a change of behavior) mance effect (low rates of responding at the beginning of the interval
has occurred (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987). following reinforcement, high rates of responding at the end of the
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

10 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

interval) whether the subjects are animals or humans. (Ferster & Classical conditioning is a very powerful tool for entraining
Skinner, 1957, p. 7) basic physiological responses (e.g., increases in blood pressure,
taste aversions, psychosomatic illness), and emotive responses
Most people of all persuasions will accept behaviorism as (e.g., arousal, fear, anxiety, pleasure) since the learning is paired
an account for much, even most, learning (e.g., animal learn- with reflexive, inborn associations. Classical conditioning is a
ing and perhaps learning up to the alphabet or shoe tying or major theoretical notion underlying advertising, propaganda,
learning to speak the language). For the behaviorist, the same and related learning. Its importance in the formations of biases,
principles that account for simple behaviors also account for stereotypes, etc. is of particular importance in the design of
complex ones. instructional materials and should always be considered in the
design process.
The incidental learning of these responses is clearly a con-
1.4.2 Basic Concepts and Principles cern in instructional settings. Behaviors such as test anxiety
and “school phobia” are maladaptive behaviors that are often
Behavioral theory has contributed several important concepts entrained without intent. From a proactive stance in instruc-
and principles to the research and development of instructional tional design, a context or environmental analysis is a key com-
technology. Three major types of behavior, respondent learning, ponent of a needs assessment (Tessmer, 1990). Every feature of
operant learning, and observational learning, serve as the orga- the physical (e.g., lighting, classroom arrangement) and support
nizer for this section. Each of these models relies on the building (e.g., administration) environment are examined to ascertain
associations—the simplest unit that is learned—under the con- positive or problematic factors that might influence the learner’s
ditions of contiguity and repetition (Gagné, 1985). Each model attitude and level of participation in the instructional events.
also utilizes the processes of discrimination and generalization Similarly, in designing software, video, audio, and so forth, care-
to describe the mechanisms humans use to adapt to situational ful attention is paid to the aesthetic features of the medium to
and environmental stimuli (Chance, 1994). Discrimination is the ensure motivation and engagement. Respondent learning is a
act of responding differently to different stimuli, such as stop- form of methodological behaviorism to be discussed later.
ping at a red traffic light while driving through a green traffic
light. Generalization is the act of responding in the same way to 1.4.2.2 Operant Conditioning (Selectionist or Radical
similar stimuli, specifically, to those stimuli not present at time Behaviorism). Operant conditioning is based on a single,
of training. For example, students generate classroom behavior simple principle: There is a functional and interconnected
rules based on previous experiences and expectations in class- relationship between the stimuli that preceded a response (an-
room settings. Or, when one is using a new word processing tecedents), the stimuli that follow a response (consequences),
program, the individual attempts to apply what is already known and the response (operant) itself. Acquisition of behavior is
about a word processing environment to the new program. In viewed as resulting from these three-term or three-component
essence, discrimination and generalization are inversely related, contingent or functional relationships. While there are always
crucial processes that facilitate adaptation and enable transfer contingencies in effect which are beyond the teacher’s (or
to new environments. designer’s) control, it is the role of the educator to control the
environment so that the predominant contingent relationships
1.4.2.1 Respondent Learning (Methodological Be- are in line with the educational goal at hand.
haviorism). Involuntary actions, called respondents, are Antecedent cues. Antecedents are those objects or events
entrained using the classical conditioning techniques of Ivan in the environment that serve as cues. Cues set the stage or
Pavlov. In classical conditioning, an organism learns to respond serve as signals for specific behaviors to take place because
to a stimulus that once prompted no response. The process such behaviors have been reinforced in the past in the pres-
begins with identification and articulation of an unconditional ence of such cues. Antecedent cues may include temporal cues
stimulus (US) that automatically elicits an emotional or phys- (time), interpersonal cues (people), and covert or internal cues
iological unconditional response (UR). No prior learning or (inside the skin). Verbal and written directions, nonverbal hand
conditioning is required to establish this natural connection signals and facial gestures, highlighting with colors and bold-
(e.g., US = food; UR = salivation). In classical conditioning, faced print are all examples of cues used by learners to discrim-
neutral stimulus is introduced, which initially prompts no inate the conditions for behaving in a way that returns a desired
response from the organism (e.g., a tone). The intent is to consequence. The behavior ultimately comes under stimulus
eventually have the tone (i.e., the conditioned stimulus or CS) “control” (i.e., made more probable by the discriminative stim-
elicit a response that very closely approximates the original ulus or cue) though the contiguous pairing in repeated trials,
UR (i.e., will become the conditional response or CR). The hence serving in a key functional role in this contingent rela-
behavior is entrained using the principles of contiguity and tionship. Often the behavioral technologist seeks to increase or
repetition (i.e., practice). In repeated trials, the US and CS are decrease antecedent (stimulus) control to increase or decrease
introduced at the same time or in close temporal proximity. the probability of a response. In order to do this, he or she must
Gradually the US is presented less frequently with the CS, being be cognizant of those cues to which generalized responding is
sure to retain the performance of the UR/CR. Ultimately, the desired or present and be aware that antecedent control will
CS elicits the CR without the aid of the US. increase with consequence pairing.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 11

Behavior. Unlike the involuntary actions entrained via clas- consequence follows the behavior, such as ignoring an unde-
sical conditioning, most human behaviors are emitted or volun- sirable behavior, ensuring that no attention is given to the mis-
tarily enacted. People deliberately “operate” on their environ- deed, the undesirable behavior often abates. But this typically
ment to produce desired consequences. Skinner termed these is preceded by an upsurge in the frequency of responding until
purposeful responses operants. Operants include both private the learner realizes that the behavior will no longer receive the
(thoughts) and public (behavior) activities, but the basic mea- desired consequence. All in all, the use of each consequence
sure in behavioral theory remains the observable, measurable requires consideration of whether one wants to increase or de-
response. Operants range from simple to complex, verbal to crease a behavior, if it is to be done by taking away or giving
nonverbal, fine to gross motor actions—the whole realm of what some stimulus, and whether or not that stimulus is desirable or
we as humans choose to do based on the consequences the be- undesirable.
havior elicits. In addition to the type of consequence, the schedule for
Consequences. While the first two components of operant the delivery or timing of those consequences is a key di-
conditioning (antecedents and operants) are relatively straight- mension to operant learning. Often a distinction is made be-
forward, the nature of consequences and interactions between tween simple and complex schedules of reinforcement. Sim-
consequences and behaviors is fairly complex. First, conse- ple schedules include continuous consequation and partial or
quences may be classified as contingent and noncontingent. intermittent consequation. When using a continuous sched-
Contingent consequences are reliable and relatively consistent. ule, reinforcement is delivered after each correct response.
A clear association between the operant and the consequences This procedure is important for the learning of new behav-
can be established. Noncontingent consequences, however, of- iors because the functional relationship between antecedent–
ten produce accidental or superstitious conditioning. If, per- response–consequence is clearly communicated to the learner
chance, a computer program has scant or no documentation through predictability of consequation.
and the desired program features cannot be accessed via a pre- When using intermittent schedules, the reinforcement is de-
dictable set of moves, the user would tend to press many keys, livered after some, but not all, responses. There are two basic
not really knowing what may finally cause a successful screen types of intermittent schedules: ratio and interval. A ratio sched-
change. This reduces the rate of learning, if any learning occurs ule is based on the numbers of responses required for consequa-
at all. tion (e.g., piece work, number of completed math problems).
Another dimension focuses on whether or not the con- An interval schedule is based on the amount of time that passes
sequence is actually delivered. Consequences may be posi- between consequation (e.g., payday, weekly quizzes). Ratio and
tive (something is presented following a response) or negative interval schedules may be either fixed (predictable) or variable
(something is taken away following a response). Note that pos- (unpredictable). These procedures are used once the functional
itive and negative do not imply value (i.e., “good” or “bad”). relationship is established and with the intent is to encourage
Consequences can also be reinforcing, that is, tend to main- persistence of responses. The schedule is gradually changed
tain or increase a behavior, or they may be punishing, that is, from continuous, to fixed, to variable (i.e., until it becomes very
tend to decrease or suppress a behavior. Taken together, the “lean”), in order for the learner to perform the behavior for an
possibilities then are positive reinforcement (presenting some- extended period of time without any reinforcement. A variation
thing to maintain or increase a behavior); positive punishment often imposed on these schedules is called limited hold, which
(presenting something to decrease a behavior); negative rein- refers to the consequence only being available for a certain pe-
forcement (taking away something to increase a behavior); or riod of time.
negative punishment (taking away something to decrease a be- Complex schedules are composed of the various features of
havior). Another possibility obviously is that of no consequence simple schedules. Shaping requires the learner to perform suc-
following a behavior, which results in the disappearance or ex- cessive approximations of the target behavior by changing the
tinction of a previously reinforced behavior. criterion behavior for reinforcement to become more and more
Examples of these types of consequences are readily found in like the final performance. A good example of shaping is the
the implementation of behavior modification. Behavior modifi- writing process, wherein drafts are constantly revised toward
cation or applied behavior analysis is a widely used instructional the final product. Chaining requires that two or more learned
technology that manipulates the use of these consequences to behaviors must be performed in a specific sequence for conse-
produce the desired behavior (Cooper et al., 1987). Positive re- quation. Each behavior sets up cues for subsequent responses
inforcers ranging from praise, to desirable activities, to tangible to be performed (e.g., long division). In multiple schedules,
rewards are delivered upon performance of a desired behav- two or more simple schedules are in effect for the same be-
ior. Positive punishments such as extra work, physical exertion, havior with each associated with a particular stimulus. Two or
demerits are imposed upon performance of an undesirable be- more schedules are available in a concurrent schedule proce-
havior. Negative reinforcement is used when aversive condi- dure; however, there are no specific cues as to which schedule
tions such as a teacher’s hard gaze or yelling are taken away is in effect. Schedules may also be conjunctive (two or more
when the appropriate behavior is enacted (e.g., assignment behaviors that all must be performed for consequation to oc-
completion). Negative punishment or response cost is used cur, but the behaviors may occur in any order), or tandem (two
when a desirable stimulus such as free time privileges are taken or more behaviors must be performed in a specific sequence
away when an inappropriate behavior is performed. When no without cues).
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

12 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

In all cases, the schedule or timing of the consequation is initiation, monitoring, and refinement on the basis of feedback.
manipulated to fit the target response, using antecedents to sig- The behavior must be performed in order for cues to be learned
nal the response, and appropriate consequences for the learner and corrective adjustments made. The fourth component is
and the situation. motivation. Social learning theory recognizes that humans are
more likely to adopt behavior that they value (functional) and re-
ject behavior that they find punishing or unrewarding (not func-
1.4.2.3 Observational Learning. By using the basic con-
tional). Further, the evaluative judgments that humans make
cepts and principles of operant learning, and the basic defi-
about the functionality of their own behavior mediate and regu-
nition that learning is a change of behavior brought about by
late which observationally learned responses they will actually
experience, organisms can be thought of as learning new be-
perform. Ultimately, people will enact self-satisfying behaviors
haviors by observing the behavior of others (Chance, 1994).
and avoid distasteful or disdainful ones. Consequently, external
This premise was originally tested by Thorndike (1898) with
reinforcement, vicarious reinforcement, and self-reinforcement
cats, chicks, and dogs, and later by Watson (1908) with mon-
are all processes that promote the learning and performance of
keys, without success. In all cases, animals were situated in
observed behavior.
positions to observe and learn elementary problem-solving
procedures (e.g., puzzle boxes) by watching successful same-
species models perform the desired task. However, Warden and
colleagues (Warden, Field, & Koch, 1940; Warden, Jackson, 1.4.3 Complex Learning, Problem Solving,
1935) found that when animals were put in settings (e.g., and Transfer
cages) that were identical to the modeling animals and the ob-
servers watched the models perform the behavior and receive Behavioral theory addresses the key issues of complex learn-
the reinforcement, the observers did learn the target behav- ing, problem solving, and transfer using the same concepts
ior, often responding correctly on the first trial (Chance, and principles found in the everyday human experience. Com-
1994). plex learning is developed through the learning of chained be-
Attention focused seriously on observational learning re- haviors (Gagné, 1985). Using the basic operant conditioning
search with the work of Bandura and colleagues in the 1960s. functional relationship, through practice and contiguity, the
In a series of studies with children and adults (with children as consequence takes on a dual role as the stimulus for the subse-
the observers and children and adults as the models), these re- quent operant. Smaller chainlike skills become connected with
searchers demonstrated that the reinforcement of a model’s be- other chains. Through discrimination, the individual learns to
havior was positively correlated with the observer’s judgments apply the correct chains based on the antecedent cues. Com-
that the behavior was appropriate to imitate. These studies plex and lengthy chains, called procedures, continually incorpo-
formed the empirical basis for Bandura’s (1977) Social Learn- rate smaller chains as the learner engages in more practice and
ing Theory, which stated that people are not driven by either receives feedback. Ultimately, the learner develops organized,
inner forces or environmental stimuli in isolation. His assertion and smooth performance characterized with precise timing and
was that behavior and complex learning must be “explained in applications.
terms of a continuous reciprocal interaction of personal and en- Problem solving represents the tactical readjustment to
vironmental determinants . . . virtually all learning phenomenon changes in the environment based on trial and error experi-
resulting from direct experience occur on a vicarious basis by ences (Rachlin, 1991). Through the discovery of a consistent
observing other people’s behavior and its consequences for pattern of cues and a history of reinforced actions, individuals
them” (p. 11–12). develop strategies to deal with problems that assume a certain
The basic observational or vicarious learning experience profile of characteristics (i.e., cues). Over time, responses occur
consists of watching a live or filmed performance or listening more quickly, adjustments are made based on the consequences
to a description of the performance (i.e., symbolic modeling) of the action, and rule-governed behavior develops (Malone,
of a model and the positive and/or negative consequences of 1990).
that model’s behavior. Four component processes govern obser- Transfer involves the replication of identical behaviors from
vational learning (Bandura, 1977). First, attentional processes a task that one learns in an initial setting to a new task that has
determine what is selectively observed, and extracted valence, similar elements (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996). The notion of spe-
complexity, prevalence, and functional value influence the qual- cific transfer or “theory of identical elements” was proposed by
ity of the attention. Observer characteristics such as sensory Thorndike and his colleagues (e.g., Thorndike, 1924; Thorndike
capacities, arousal level, perceptual set, and past reinforcement & Woodworth, 1901). Of critical importance were the “gradi-
history mediate the stimuli. Second, the attended stimuli must ents of similarity along stimulus dimensions” (Greeno, Collins,
be remembered or retained (i.e., retentional processes). Re- & Resnick, 1996). That is, the degree to which a response gener-
sponse patterns must be represented in memory in some or- alizes to stimuli other than the original association is dependent
ganized, symbolic form. Humans primarily use imaginal and upon the similarity of other stimuli in terms of specific elements:
verbal codes for observed performances. These patterns must The more similar the new stimulus, the higher probability of
be practiced through overt or covert rehearsal to ensure reten- transfer. Critical to this potential for transfer were the strength
tion. Third, the learner must engage in motor reproduction pro- of the specific associations, similarity of antecedent cues, and
cesses which require the organization of responses through their drill and practice on the specific skills with feedback.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 13

1.4.4 Motivation research, are apparent. Nevertheless, the research is part of the
research record in instructional technology and is therefore nec-
From a behavioral perspective, willingness to engage in a task essary, and moreover, useful from an S-R perspective.
is based on extrinsic motivation (Greeno et al., 1996). The One of the distinctive aspects of the methodological behav-
tendency of an individual to respond to a particular situa- ioral approach is the demand for “experimental” data (manipu-
tion is based on the reinforcers or punishers available in the lation) to justify any interpretation of behavior as causal. Natu-
context, and his or her needs and internal goals related to ral observation, personal experience and judgment fall short of
those consequences. That is, a reinforcer will only serve to in- the rules of evidence to support any psychological explanation
crease a response if the individual wants the reinforcer; a pun- (Kendler, 1971). This formula means that a learner must make
isher will only decrease a response if the individual wants to the “correct response when the appropriate stimulus occurs”
avoid being punished (Skinner, 1968). Essentially, an individ- and when the necessary conditions are present.
ual’s decision to participate or engage in any activity is based
on the anticipated outcomes of his/her performance (Skinner, Usually there is no great problem in providing the appropriate stimulus,
1987c). for audiovisual techniques have tremendous advantages over other edu-
At the core of the behavioral view of motivation are the bi- cational procedures in their ability to present to the learner the stimuli
in the most effective manner possible. (Kendler, 1971, p. 36)
ological needs of the individual. Primary reinforcers (e.g, food,
water, sleep, and sex) and primary punishers (i.e., anything that
A problem arises as to when to develop techniques (in which
induces pain) are fundamental motives for action. Secondary re-
appropriate responses to specific stimuli can be practiced and
inforcers and punishers develop over time based on associations
reinforced). The developer of an instructional medium must
made between antecedent cues, behaviors, and consequences.
know exactly what response is desired from the students, oth-
More sophisticated motivations such as group affiliation, prefer-
erwise it is impossible to design and evaluate instruction. Once
ences for career, hobbies, etc. are all developed based on associ-
the response is specified, the problem becomes getting the stu-
ations made in earlier and simpler experiences and the degree
dent to make this appropriate response. This response must
to which the individual’s biological needs were met. Skinner
be practiced and the learner must be reinforced to make the
(1987c) characterizes the development of motivation for more
correct response to this stimulus (Skinner, 1953b). Under the
complex activity as a kind of rule-governed behavior. Pleasant or
S-R paradigm, much of the research on the instructional media
aversive consequences are associated with specific behaviors.
was based upon the medium itself (i.e., the specific technol-
Skinner considers rules, advice, etc. to be critical elements of
ogy). The medium became the independent variable and media
any culture because “they enable the individual to profit from
comparison studies became the norm until the middle 1970s
the experience of those who have experienced common contin-
(Smith & Smith, 1966). In terms of the methodological behav-
gencies and described this in useful ways” (p. 181). This position
ior model, much of the media (programmed instruction, film,
is not unlike current principles identified in what is referred to as
television, etc.) functioned primarily upon the stimulus compo-
the “social constructivist” perspective (e.g., Tharp & Gallimore,
nent. From this position, Carpenter (1962) reasoned that any
1988; Vygotsky, 1978).
medium (e.g., film, television) “imprints” some of its own char-
acteristics on the message itself. Therefore, the content and
medium have more impact than the medium itself. The “way”
1.5 THE BEHAVIORAL ROOTS OF the stimulus material (again film, television, etc.) interacts with
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY the learner instigates motivated responses. Carpenter (1962)
developed several hypotheses based upon his interpretations of
1.5.1 Methodological Behaviorism the research on media and learning and include the following
possibilities:
Stimulus–response behaviorism, that is, behaviorism which em-
phasizes the antecedent as the cause of the behavior, is gener- 1. The most effective learning will take place when there is
ally referred to as methodological behaviorism (see e.g., Day, similarity between the stimulus material (presented via a
1983; Skinner, 1974). As such, it is in line with much of experi- medium) and the criterion or learned performance.
mental psychology; antecedents are the independent variables 2. Repetition of stimulus materials and the learning response is
and the behaviors are the dependent variables. This transfor- a major condition for most kinds of learning.
mational paradigm (Vargas, 1993) differs dramatically from the 3. Stimulus materials which are accurate, correct, and subject
radical behaviorism of Skinner (e.g., 1945, 1974) which empha- to validation can increase the opportunity for learning to take
sizes the role of reinforcement of behaviors in the presence of place.
certain antecedents, in other words, the selectionist position. 4. An important condition is the relationship between a behav-
Most of the earlier work in instructional technology followed ior and its consequences. Learning will occur when the be-
the methodological behaviorist tradition. In fact, as we have havior is “reinforced” (Skinner, 1968). This reinforcement,
said earlier, from a radical behaviorist position cognitive psy- by definition, should be immediately after the response.
chology is an extension of methodological behaviorism (Skin- 5. Carefully sequenced combinations of knowledge and skills
ner, 1974). Although we have recast and reinterpreted where presented in logical and limited steps will be the most effec-
possible, the differences, particularly in the film and television tive for most types of learning.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

14 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

6. “. . . established principles of learning derived from studies no significant differences. Apparently pointing out correct an-
where the learning situation involved from direct instruction swers was enough and an overt response was not required.
by teachers are equally applicable in the use of instructional Pressey (1950) concluded that the use of his punch board cre-
materials” (Carpenter, 1962, p. 305). ated a single method of testing, scoring, informing students of
their errors, and finding the correct solution all in one step
Practical aspects of these theoretical suggestions go back to (called telescoping). This telescoping procedure, in fact, al-
the mid-1920s with the development by Pressey of a self-scoring lowed test taking to become a form of systematically directed
testing device. Pressey (1926, 1932) discussed the extension of self instruction. His investigations indicated that when self-
this testing device into a self-instruction machine. Versions of instructional tests were used at the college level, gains were sub-
these devices later (after World War II) evolved into several, rea- stantial and helped improve understanding. However, Pressey
sonably sophisticated, teaching machines for the U.S. Air Force (1960) indicated his devices may not have been sufficient to
which were variations of an automatic self-checking technique. stand by themselves, but were useful adjuncts to other teaching
They included a punched card, a chemically treated card, a techniques.
punch board, and the Drum Tutor. The Drum Tutor used in- Additional studies on similar self-instruction devices were
formational material with multiple choice questions, but could conducted for military training research. Many of these studies
not advance to the next question until the correct answer was used the automatic knowledge of accuracy devices such as The
chosen. All devices essentially allowed students to get immedi- Tab Item and the Trainer-Tester (Smith & Smith, 1966). Cantor
ate information concerning accuracy of response. and Brown (1956) and Glaser, Damrin, and Gardner (1954) all
found that scores for a troubleshooting task were higher for
individuals using these devices than those using a mock-up for
1.6 EARLY RESEARCH training. Dowell (1955) confirmed this, but also found that even
higher scores were obtained when learners used the Trainer-
1.6.1 Teaching Machines Tester and the actual equipment. Briggs (1958) further devel-
oped a device called the Subject–Matter trainer which could
Peterson (1931) conducted early research on Pressey’s self- be programmed into five teaching and testing modes. Briggs
scoring testing devices. His experimental groups were given (1958) and Irion and Briggs (1957) found that prompting a stu-
the chemically treated scoring cards used for self checking while dent to give the correct response was more effective than just
studying a reading assignment. The control group had no knowl- confirming correct responses.
edge of their results. Peterson found the experimental groups Smith and Smith (1966) point out that while Pressey’s de-
had significantly higher scores than the group without knowl- vices were being developed and researched, they actually only
edge of results. Little (1934), also using Pressey’s automatic attracted attention in somewhat limited circles. Popularity and
scoring device, had the experimental group as a test-machine attention were not generated until Skinner (1953a, 1953b, 1954)
group, the second group using his testing teaching machine used these types of machines. “The fact that teaching machines
as a drill-machine and the third group as a control group in a were developed in more than one content would not be par-
paired controlled experiment. Both experimental groups scored ticularly significant were it not true that the two sources rep-
significantly higher mean scores than the control group. The resent different approaches to educational design . . . ” (Smith
drill- and practice-machine group scored higher than the test- & Smith, 1966, p. 245). Skinner developed his machines to
machine group. After World War II additional experiments using test and develop his operant conditioning principles devel-
Pressey’s devices were conducted. Angell and Troyer (1948) and oped from animal research. Skinner’s ideas attracted atten-
Jones and Sawyer (1949) found that giving immediate feedback tion, and as a result, the teaching machine and programmed
significantly enhanced learning in both citizenship and chem- instruction movement become a primary research emphasis
istry courses. Briggs (1947) and Jensen (1949) found that self- during the 1960s. In fact, from 1960 to 1970, research on
instruction by “superior” students using Pressey’s punch boards teaching machines and programming was the dominant type
enabled them to accelerate their course work. Pressey (1950) of media research in terms of numbers in the prestigious jour-
also reported on the efficacy of immediate feedback in English, nal, Audio-Visual Communication Review (AVCR) (Torkelson,
Russian vocabulary, and psychology courses. Students given 1977). From 1960 to 1969, AVCR had a special section ded-
feedback via the punch boards received higher scores than those icated to teaching machines and programming concepts. De-
students who were not given immediate feedback. Stephens spite the fact of favorable research results from Pressey and his
(1960), using Pressey’s Drum Tutor, found students using the associates and the work done by the military, the technique
device scored better than students who did not. This was true was not popularized until Skinner (1954) recast self-instruction
even though the students using the Drum Tutor lacked overall and self-testing. Skinner believed that any response could be
academic ability. Stephens “confirmed Pressey’s findings that er- reinforced. A desirable but seldom or never-elicited behavior
rors were eliminated more rapidly with meaningful material and could be taught by reinforcing a response which was easier
found that students learned more efficiently when they could to elicit but at some “distance” from the desired behavior. By
correct errors immediately” (Smith & Smith, 1966, p. 249). reinforcing “successive” approximations, behavior will even-
Severin (1960) compared the scores of students given the cor- tually approximate the desired pattern (Homme, 1957). Obvi-
rect answers with no overt responses in a practice test with ously, this paradigm, called shaping, required a great deal of
those of students using the punch board practice test and found supervision. Skinner believed that, in schools, reinforcement
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 15

may happen hours, days, etc. after the desired behavior or similarities of the two media. The Air Force Film Research Pro-
behaviors and the effects would be greatly reduced. In addi- gram (1950–1957) was conducted under the leadership of A.
tion, he felt that it was difficult to individually reinforce a re- A. Lumsdaine (1961). The Air Force study involved the manip-
sponse of an individual student in a large group. He also believed ulation of techniques for “eliciting and guiding overt responses
that school used negative reinforcers—to punish, not necessar- during a course of instruction” (Saettler, 1968, p. 335). Both the
ily as reinforcement (Skinner, 1954). To solve these problems, Army and Air Force studies developed research that had major
Skinner also turned to the teaching machine concept. Skinner’s implications for the use and design of audiovisual materials (e.g.,
(1958) machines in many respects were similar to Pressey’s ear- film). Although these studies developed a large body of knowl-
lier teaching–testing devices. Both employed immediate knowl- edge, little use of the results was actually implemented in the
edge of results immediately after the response. The students production of instructional materials developed by the military.
were kept active by their participation and both types of de- Kanner (1960) suggested that the reason for the lack of use of
vices could be used in a self-instruction manner with students the results of these studies was because they created resentment
moving at their own rate. Differences in the types of responses among film makers, and much of the research was completed in
in Pressey’s and Skinner’s machines should be noted. Skinner isolation.
required students to “overtly” compose responses (e.g., writing Much of the research on television was generated after 1950
words, terms, etc.). Pressey presented potential answers in a and was conducted by the military because of television’s po-
multiple choice format, requiring students to “select” the cor- tential for mass instruction. Some of the research replicated or
rect answer. In addition, Skinner (1958) believed that answers tested concepts (variables) used in the earlier film research, but
could not be easy, but that steps would need to be small in or- the bulk of the research compared television instruction to “con-
der for there to be no chance for “wrong” responses. Skinner ventional” instruction, and most results showed no significant
was uncomfortable with multiple choice responses found in differences between the two forms. Most of the studies were ap-
Pressey’s devices because of the chance for mistakes (Homme, plied rather than using a theoretical framework (i.e., behavior
1957; Porter, 1957; Skinner & Holland, 1960). principles) (Kumata, 1961).
However, Gropper (1965a, 1965b), Gropper and Lumsdaine
1.6.2 Films (1961a), and others used the television medium to test behav-
ioral principles developed from the studies on programmed
The role and importance of military research during World War instruction. Klaus (1965) states that programming techniques
II and immediately afterward cannot be underestimated either in tended to be either stimulus centered on response centered.
terms of amount or results. Research studies on learning, train- Stimulus-centered techniques stressed meaning, structure, and
ing materials, and instruments took on a vital role when it be- organization of stimulus materials, while response-centered
came necessary to train millions of individuals in skills useful for techniques dealt with the design of materials that ensure ad-
military purposes. People had to be selected and trained for com- equate response practice. For example, Gropper (1965a, 1966)
plex and complicated machine systems (i.e., radio detection, adopted and extended concepts developed in programmed in-
submarine control, communication, etc.). As a result, most of struction (particularly the response centered model) to tele-
the focus of the research by the military during and after the war vised presentations. These studies dealt primarily with “tech-
was on the devices for training, assessment, and troubleshooting niques for bringing specific responses under the control of
complex equipment and instruments. Much of the film research specific visual stimuli and . . . the use of visual stimuli process-
noted earlier stressed the stimulus, response, and reinforce- ing such control within the framework of an instructional de-
ment characteristics of the audiovisual device. “These [research sign” (Gropper, 1966, p. 41). Gropper, Lumsdaine, and Shipman
studies] bear particularly on questions on the role of active re- (1961) and Gropper and Lumsdaine (1961a, 1961b, 1961c,
sponse, size of demonstration and practice steps in procedural 1961d) reported the value of pretesting and revising televised
learning, and the use of prompts or response cues” (Lumsdaine instruction and requiring students to make active responses.
& Glaser, 1960, p. 257). The major research programs during Gropper (1967) suggested that in television presentations it is
World War II were conducted on the use of films by the U.S. desirable to identify which behavioral principles and techniques
Army. These studies were conducted to study achievement of underlying programmed instruction are appropriate to televi-
specific learning outcomes and the feasibility of utilizing film for sion. Gropper and Lumsdaine (1961a–d) reported that merely
psychological testings (Gibson, 1947; Hoban, 1946). After World requiring students to actively respond to nonprogrammed stim-
War II, two major film research projects were sponsored by the ulus materials (i.e., segments which are not well delineated or
United States Army and Navy at the Pennsylvania State Univer- sequenced in systematic ways) did not lead to more effective
sity from 1947 to 1955 (Carpenter & Greenhill, 1955, 1958). learning (an early attempt at formative evaluation). However,
A companion program on film research was sponsored by the Gropper (1967) reported that the success of using programmed
United States Air Force from 1950 to 1957. The project at the instructional techniques with television depends upon the ef-
Pennsylvania State University—the Instructional Film Research fective design of the stimulus materials as well as the design of
Program under the direction of C. R. Carpenter—was probably the appropriate response practice.
the “most extensive single program of experimentation dealing Gropper (1963, 1965a, 1966, 1967) emphasized the impor-
with instructional films ever conducted” (Saettler, 1968, p. 332). tance of using visual materials to help students acquire, retain,
In 1954, this film research project was reorganized to include and transfer responses based on the ability of such materials to
instructional films and instructional television because of the cue and reinforce specified responses, and serve as examples.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

16 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

He further suggests that students should make explicit (active) response (not overt). Cook, in an extensive review of practice in
responses to visual materials (i.e., television) for effective learn- audiovisual presentations, reported the effectiveness of students
ing. Later, Gropper (1968) concluded that, in programmed tele- calling out answers to questions in an audiovisual presentation
vised materials, actual practice is superior to recognition prac- to be effective (i.e., Kanner & Sulzer, 1955; Kendler, Cook, &
tice in most cases and that the longer the delay in measuring Kendler, 1953; Kendler, Kendler, & Cook, 1954; McGuire, 1954).
retention, the more the active response was beneficial. The be- Most studies that utilized overt written responses with training
havioral features that were original with programmed instruc- film and television were also found to be effective (i.e., Michael,
tion and later used with television and film were attempts to 1951; Michael & Maccoby, 1954; Yale Motion Picture Research
minimize and later correct the defects in the effectiveness of Project, 1947).
instruction on the basis of what was known about the learning A variety of film studies on implicit practice found this type
process (Klaus, 1965). Student responses were used in many of practice to be effective (some as effective as overt practice)
studies as the basis for revisions of instructional design and con- (i.e., Kanner & Sulzer, 1955; Kendler et al., 1954; McGuire, 1954;
tent (e.g., Gropper, 1963, 1966). In-depth reviews of the audiovi- Michael, 1951; Miller & Klier, 1953a, 1953b). Cook (1960) notes
sual research carried on by the military and civilian researchers that the above studies all reported that the effect of actual prac-
are contained in the classic summaries of this primarily behav- tice is “specific to the items practiced” (p. 98) and there ap-
iorist approach of Carpenter and Greenhill (1955, 1958), Chu peared to be no carryover to other items. The role of feedback
and Schramm (1968), Cook (1960), Hoban (1960), Hoban and in film studies has also been positively supported (Gibson, 1947;
Van Ormer (1950), May and Lumsdaine (1958), and Schramm Michael, 1951; Michael & Maccoby, 1954).
(1962). The use of practice, given the above results, appears to be an
The following is a sample of some of the research results on effective component of using audiovisual (film and television)
the behavioral tenets of stimulus, response, and reinforcement materials. A series of studies were conducted to determine the
gleaned from the World War II research and soon after based amount of practice needed. Cook (1960) concludes that stu-
upon the study of audiovisual devices (particularly film). dents will profit from a larger number of repetitions (practice).
Film studies that used a larger number of examples or required
1.6.2.1 Research on Stimuli. Attempts to improve learning viewing the film more than once found students faring better
by manipulating the stimulus condition can be divided into sev- than those with fewer examples or viewing opportunities (Bren-
eral categories. One category, that of the use of introductory ner, Walter, & Kurtz, 1949; Kendler et al., 1953; Kimble & Wulff,
materials to introduce content in film or audiovisual research, 1954; Sulzer & Lumsdaine, 1952). A number of studies were con-
has shown mixed results (Cook, 1960). Film studies by Weiss ducted which tested when practice should occur. Was it better
and Fine (1955), Wittich and Folkes (1946), and Wulff, Sheffield, to practice concepts as a whole (massed) at the end of a film pre-
and Kraeling (1954) reported that introductory materials pre- sentation or practice it immediately after it was demonstrated
sented prior to the showing of a film increased learning. But, (distributed) during the film? Most studies reported results that
Jaspen (1948), Lathrop (1949), Norford (1949), and Peterman there was no difference in the time spacing of practice (e.g.,
and Bouscaren (1954) found inconclusive or negative results by McGuire, 1953b; Miller & Klier, 1953a, 1953b, 1954; Miller et
using introductory materials. Another category of stimuli, those al., 1952a, 1952b). Miller and Levine (1952), however, found
that direct attention, uses the behavioral principle that learning results in favor of a massed practice at the end of the treatment
is assisted by the association of the responses to stimuli (Cook, period.
1960). Film studies by Gibson (1947), Kimble and Wulff (1953),
Lumsdaine and Sulzer (1951), McGuire (1953a), Roshal (1949),
and Ryan and Hochberg (1954) found that a version of the film 1.6.3 Programmed Instruction
which incorporated cues to guide the audience into making the
correct responses produced increased learning. As might be ex- Closely akin, and developed from, Skinner’s (1958) teaching ma-
pected, extraneous stimuli not focusing on relevant cues were chine concepts were the teaching texts or programmed books.
not effective (Jaspen, 1950; Neu, 1950; Weiss, 1954). However, These programmed books essentially had the same characteris-
Miller and Levine (1952) and Miller, Levine, and Steinberger tics as the teaching machines; logical presentations of content,
(1952a) reported the use of subtitles to associate content to be requirement of overt responses, and presentation of immediate
ineffective. Cook (1960) reported that many studies were con- knowledge of correctness (a correct answer would equal posi-
ducted on the use of color where it would provide an essential tive reinforcement (Porter, 1958; Smith & Smith, 1966). These
cue to understanding with mixed results and concluded it was programmed books were immediately popular for obvious rea-
impossible to say color facilitated learning results (i.e., Long, sons, they were easier to produce, portable, and did not require
1946; May & Lumsdaine, 1958). Note that the use of color in a complex, burdensome, and costly device (i.e., a machine). As
instruction is still a highly debated research issue. noted earlier, during the decade of the 60s, research on pro-
grammed instruction, as the use of these types of books and
1.6.2.2 Research on Response. Cook (1960) stated the machines became known, was immense (Campeau, 1974). Lit-
general belief that, unless the learner makes some form of re- erally thousands of research studies were conducted. (See, for
sponse that is relevant to the learning task, no learning will example, Campeau, 1974; Glaser, 1965a; Lumsdaine & Glaser,
occur. Responses (practice) in audiovisual presentations may 1960; Smith & Smith, 1966, among others, for extensive sum-
range from overt oral, written, or motor responses to an implicit maries of research in this area.) The term programming is taken
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 17

here to mean what Skinner called “the construction of carefully of results has shown conflicting results. Studies, for example,
arranged sequences of contingencies leading to the terminal per- by Holland (1960), Hough and Revsin (1963), McDonald and
formances which are the object of education” (Skinner, 1953a, Allen (1962), and Moore and Smith (1961, 1962) found no differ-
p. 169). ence in mean scores due the added feedback. However, Kaess
and Zeaman (1960), Meyer (1960), and Suppes and Ginsburg
1.6.3.1 Linear Programming. Linear programming in- (1962) reported in their research, positive advantages for feed-
volves a series of learning frames presented in a set sequence. As back on posttest scores. Homme and Glaser (1960) reported
in most of the educational research of the time, research on lin- that when correct answers were omitted from linear programs,
ear programmed instruction dealt with devices and/or machines the learner felt it made no difference. Resnick (1963) felt that
and not on process nor the learner. Most of the studies, there- linear programs failed to make allowance for individual differ-
fore, generally compared programmed instruction to “conven- ences of the learners, and she was concerned about the “voice
tional” or “traditional” instructional methods (see e.g., Teaching of authority” and the “right or wrong” nature of the material to
Machines and Programmed Instruction, Glaser, 1965a). These be taught. Smith and Smith (1966) believed that a “linear pro-
types of studies were, of course, difficult to generalize from and gram is deliberately limiting the media of communication, the
often resulted in conflicting results (Holland, 1965). “The re- experiences of the student and thus the range of understanding
strictions on interpretation of such a comparison arises from that he achieves” (p. 293).
the lack of specificity of the instruction with which the instru- Holland (1965) summarized his extensive review of litera-
ment in questions is paired” (Lumsdaine, 1962, p. 251). Like ture on general principles of programming and generally found
other research of the time, many of the comparative studies had that a contingent relationship between the answer and the
problems in design, poor criterion measures, scores prone to content is important. A low error rate of responses received
a ceiling effect, and ineffective and poor experimental proce- support, as did the idea that examples are necessary for com-
dures (Holland, 1965). Holland (1961), Lumsdaine (1965), and prehension. For long programs, overt responses are necessary.
Rothkopf (1962) all suggested other ways of evaluating the suc- Results are equivocal concerning multiple choice versus overt
cess of programmed instruction. Glaser (1962a) indicated that responses; however, many erroneous alternatives (e.g., mul-
most programmed instruction was difficult to construct, time tiple choice foils) may interfere with later learning. Many of
consuming, and had few rules or procedures. Many compara- the studies, however, concerning the effects of the linear pre-
tive studies and reviews of comparative studies found no signif- sentation of content introduced the “pall effect” (boredom)
icance in the results of programmed instruction (e.g., Alexan- due to the many small steps and the fact that the learner
der, 1970; Barnes, 1970; Frase, 1970; Giese & Stockdale, 1966; was always correct (Beck, 1959; Galanter, 1959; Rigney & Fry,
McKeachie, 1967; Unwin, 1966; Wilds & Zachert, 1966). How- 1961).
ever, Daniel and Murdoch (1968), Hamilton and Heinkel (1967),
and Marsh and Pierce-Jones (1968), all reported positive and sta- 1.6.3.2 Intrinsic (Branching) Programming. Crowder
tistically significant findings in favor of programmed instruction. (1961) used an approach similar to that developed by Pressey
The examples noted above were based upon gross comparisons. (1963) which suggested that a learner be exposed to a “substan-
A large segment of the research on programmed instruction tial” and organized unit of instruction (e.g., a book chapter) and
was devoted to “isolating or manipulating program or learner following this presentation a series of multiple choice questions
characteristics” (Campeau, 1974, p. 17). Specific areas of re- would be asked “to enhance the clarity and stability of cogni-
search on these characteristics included studies on repetition tive structure by correcting misconceptions and deferring the
and dropout (for example, Rothkopf, 1960; Skinner & Holland, instruction of new matter until there had been such clarification
1960). Skinner and Holland suggested that various kinds of cue- and education” (Pressey, 1963, p. 3). Crowder (1959, 1960) and
ing techniques could be employed which would reduce the pos- his associates were not as concerned about error rate or the lim-
sibility of error but generally will cause the presentation to be- ited step-by-step process of linear programs. Crowder tried to
come linear in nature (Skinner, 1961; Smith, 1959). Karis, Kent, reproduce, in a self-instructional program, the function of a pri-
and Gilbert (1970) found that overt responding such as writing vate tutor; to present new information to the learner and have
a name in a (linear) programmed sequence was significantly the learner use this information (to answer questions); then tak-
better than for subjects who learned under covert response ing “appropriate” action based upon learner’s responses, such
conditions. However, Valverde and Morgan (1970) concluded as going on to new information or going back and reviewing
that eliminating redundancy in linear programs significantly in- the older information if responses were incorrect. Crowder’s
creased achievement. Carr (1959) stated that merely confirming intrinsic programming was designed to meet problems con-
the correctness of a student’s response as in a linear program is cerning complex problem solving but was not necessarily based
not enough. The learner must otherwise be motivated to per- upon a learning theory (Klaus, 1965). Crowder (1962) “assumes
form (Smith & Smith, 1966). However, Coulson and Silberman that the basic learning takes place during the exposure to the
(1960) and Evans, Glaser, and Homme (1962) found significant new material. The multiple choice question is asked to find out
differences in favor of small (redundant) step programs over pro- whether the student has learned; it is not necessarily regarded
grams which had redundant and transitional materials removed. as playing an active part in the primary learning process” (p. 3).
In the traditional linear program, after a learner has written his Crowder (1961), however, felt that the intrinsic (also known
response (overt), the answer is confirmed by the presentation as branching) programs were essentially “naturalistic” and keep
of the correct answer. Research on the confirmation (feedback) students working at the “maximum practical” rate.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

18 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

Several studies have compared, and found no difference be- from behavioral psychology. For example, discriminations, gen-
tween, the type of constructed responses (overt vs. the mul- eralizations, associations, etc. were used to analyze content and
tiple choice response in verbal programs) (Evans, Homme, & job tasks. Teaching and training concepts such as shaping and
Glaser, 1962; Hough, 1962; Roe, Massey, Weltman, & Leeds, fading were early attempts to match conditions and treatments,
1960; Williams, 1963). Holland (1965) felt that these studies and all had behavioral roots (Gropper & Ross, 1987). Many of the
showed, however, “the nature of the learning task determines current instructional design models use major components of
the preferred response form. When the criterion performance methodological behaviorism such as specification of objectives
includes a precise response . . . constructed responses seems to (behavioral), concentration on behavioral changes in students,
be the better form; whereas if mere recognition is desired the re- and the emphasis on the stimulus (environment) (Gilbert, 1962;
sponse form in the program is probably unimportant” (p. 104). Reigeluth, 1983). In fact, some believe that it is this association
Although the advantages for the intrinsic (branching) pro- between the stimulus and the student response that character-
gram appear to be self-evident for learners with extreme indi- izes the influence of behavioral theory on instructional design
vidual differences, most studies, however, have found no ad- (Smith & Ragan, 1993). Many of the proponents of behavioral
vantages for the intrinsic programs over branching programs, theory, as a base for instructional design, feel that there is an
but generally found time saving for students who used branch- “inevitable conclusion that the quality of an educational system
ing format (Beane, 1962; Campbell, 1961; Glaser, Reynolds, & must be defined primarily in terms of change in student be-
Harakas, 1962; Roe, Massey, Weltman, & Leeds, 1962; Silberman, haviors” (Tosti & Ball, 1969, p. 6). Instruction, thus, must be
Melaragno, Coulson, & Estavan, 1961). evaluated by its ability to change the behavior of the individual
student. The influence of the behavioral theory on instructional
design can be traced from writings by Dewey, Thorndike and,
1.6.4 Instructional Design of course, B. F. Skinner.
In addition, during World War II, military trainers (and psy-
Behaviorism is prominent in the roots of the systems approach chologists) stated learning outcomes in terms of “performance”
to the design of instruction. Many of the tenets, terminology, and found the need to identify specific “tasks” for a specific
and concepts can be traced to behavioral theories. Edward job (Gropper, 1983). Based on training in the military during
Thorndike in the early 1900s, for instance, had an interest in World War II, a commitment to achieve practice and reinforce-
learning theory and testing. This interest greatly influenced the ment became major components to the behaviorist developed
concept of instructional planning and the empirical approaches instructional design model (as well as other nonbehavioristic
to the design of instruction. World War II researchers on training models). Gropper indicates that an instructional design model
and training materials based much of their work on instructional should identify a unit of behavior to be analyzed, the condi-
principles derived from research on human behavior and theo- tions that can produce a change, and the resulting nature of that
ries of instruction and learning (Reiser, 1987). Heinich (1970) change. Again, for Gropper the unit of analysis, unfortunately,
believed that concepts from the development of programmed is the stimulus–response association. When the appropriate re-
learning influenced the development of the instructional design sponse is made and referenced after a (repeated) presentation
concept. of the stimulus, the response comes under the control of that
stimulus.
By analyzing and breaking down content into specific behavioral ob-
jectives, devising the necessary steps to achieve the objectives, setting Whatever the nature of the stimulus, the response or the reinforcement,
up procedures to try out and revise the steps, and by validating the establishing stable stimulus control depends on the same two learning
program against attainment of the objectives, programmed instruction conditions: practice of an appropriate response in the presence of a
succeeded in creating a small but effective self-instructional system—a stimulus that is to control it and delivery of reinforcement following its
technology of instruction. (Heinich, 1970, p. 123) practice. (Gropper, 1983, p. 106)

Task analysis, behavioral objectives, and criterion-referenced Gropper stated that this need for control over the response
testing were brought together by Gagné (1962) and Silvern by the stimulus contained several components; practice (to de-
(1964). These individuals were among the first to use terms such velop stimulus construction) and suitability for teaching the
as systems development and instructional systems to describe skills.
a connected and systematic framework for the instructional de- Gagné, Briggs, and Wager (1988) have identified several
sign principles currently used (Reiser, 1987). learning concepts that apply centrally to the behaviorial in-
Instructional design is generally considered to be a sys- structional design process. Among these are contiguity, rep-
tematic process that uses tenets of learning theories to plan etition, and reinforcement in one form or another. Likewise,
and present instruction or instructional sequences. The obvi- Gustafson and Tillman (1991) identify several major principles
ous purpose of instructional design is to promote learning. that underline instructional design. One, goals and objectives
As early as 1900, Dewey called for a “linking science” which of the instruction need to be identified and stated; two, all
connected learning theory and instruction (Dewey, 1900). As instructional outcomes need to be measurable and meet stan-
the adoption of analytic and systematic techniques influenced dards of reliability and validity. Thirdly, the instructional design
programmed instruction and other “programmed” presentation concept centers on changes in behavior of the student (the
modes, early instructional design also used learning principles learner).
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 19

Corey (1971) identified a model that would include the above 4. Requests and opportunities for active student responding at
components. These components include: intervals appropriate to the sequence of steps in #3
5. Supplementary prompts to support early responding
1. Determination of objectives—This includes a description of 6. The transfer of the new skill to the full context of application
behaviors to be expected as a result of the instruction and (the facing of supporting prompts as the full context takes
a description of the stimulus to which these behaviors are control; this may include the fading of verbal behavior which
considered to be appropriate responses. has acted as part of the supporting prompt system)
2. Analysis of instructional objectives—This includes analyz- 7. Provision of feedback on responses and cumulative progress
ing “behaviors under the learner’s control” prior to the in- reports, both at intervals appropriate to the learner and the
struction sequence, behaviors that are to result from the in- stage in the program
struction. 8. The detection and correction of errors
3. Identifying the characteristics of the students—This would 9. A mastery requirement for each well-defined unit including
be the behavior that is already under the control of the learner the attainment of fluency in the unit skills as measured by the
prior to the instructional sequence. speed at which they can be performed
4. Evidence of the achievement of instruction—This would 10. Internalization of behavior that no longer needs to be per-
include tests or other measures which would demonstrate formed publicly; this may include verbal behavior that re-
whether or not the behaviors which the instruction “was mains needed but not in overt form
designed to bring under his control actually were brought 11. Sufficient self-pacing to accommodate individual differences
under his control” (p. 13). in rates of achieving mastery
5. Constructing the instructional environment—This involves 12. Modification of instructional programs on the basis of objec-
developing an environment that will assist the student to tive data on effectiveness with samples of individuals from
perform the desired behaviors as response to the designed the target population
stimuli or situation.
6. Continuing instruction (feedback)—This involves review- 1.6.4.1 Task Analysis and Behavioral Objectives. As we
ing if additional or revised instruction is needed to maintain have discussed, one of the major components derived from be-
the stimulus control over the learner’s behavior. havioral theory in instructional design is the use of behavioral
objectives. The methods associated with task analysis and pro-
Glaser (1965b) also described similar behavioral tenets of grammed instruction stress the importance of the “identification
an instructional design system. He has identified the following and specification of observable behaviors to be performed by
tasks to teach subject matter knowledge. First, the behavior the learner” (Reiser, 1987, p. 23). Objectives have been used by
desired must be analyzed and standards of performance spec- educators as far back as the early 1900s (e.g., Bobbitt, 1918). Al-
ified. The stimulus and desired response will determine what though these objectives may have identified content that might
and how it is to be taught. Secondly, the characteristics of the be tested (Tyler, 1949), usually they did not specify exact behav-
students are identified prior to instruction. Thirdly, the student iors learners were to demonstrate based upon exposure to the
must be guided from one state of development to another us- content (Reiser, 1987). Popularization and refinement of stating
ing predetermined procedures and materials. Lastly, a provi- objectives in measurable or observable terms within an instruc-
sion for assessing the competence of the learner in relation to tional design approach was credited by Kibler, Cegala, Miles, and
the predetermined performance criteria (objectives) must be Barker (1974), and Reiser (1987) to the efforts of Bloom, Engel-
developed. hart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956), Mager (1962), Gagné
Cook (1994) recently addressed the area of instructional ef- (1965), Glaser (1962b), Popham and Baker (1970), and Tyler
fectiveness as it pertains to behavioral approaches to instruc- (1934). Kibler and colleagues point out that there are many ra-
tion. He notes that a number of behavioral instructional pack- tional bases for using behavioral objectives, some of which are
ages incorporate common underlying principles that promote not learning-theory based, such as teacher accountability. They
teaching and student learning and examined a number of these list, however, some of the tenets that are based upon behav-
packages concerning their inclusion of 12 components he con- ioral learning theories. These include (1) assisting in evaluating
siders critical to instructional effectiveness. learners’ performance, (2) designing and arranging sequences
of instruction, and (3) communicating requirements and expec-
1. Task analysis and the specification of the objectives of the tations and providing and communicating levels of performance
instructional system prior to instruction. In the Kibler et al. comprehensive review
2. Identification of the entering skills of the target population, of the empirical bases for using objectives, only about 50 stud-
and a placement system that addresses the individual differ- ies that dealt with the effectiveness of objectives were found.
ences amongst members of the target population These researchers reported that results were inconsistent and
3. An instructional strategy in which a sequence of instructional provided little conclusive evidence of the effect of behavioral
steps reflects principles of behavior in the formation of dis- objectives on learning. They classified the research on objec-
criminations, the construction of chains, the elaboration of tives into four categories. These were:
these two elements into concepts and procedures, and their
integration and formalization by means of appropriate verbal 1. Effects of student knowledge of behavioral objectives on
behavior such as rule statements learning. Of 33 studies, only 11 reported student possession
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

20 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

of objectives improved learning significantly (e.g., Doty, stage. Another major feature is a task or logical analysis which
1968; Lawrence, 1970; Olsen, 1972; Webb, 1971). The rest of is used to establish behavioral objectives and serve as the basis
the studies found no differences between student possession for precise assessment of learner entry behavior. A third essen-
of objectives or not (e.g., Baker, 1969; Brown, 1970; Patton, tial feature is emphasis on meeting the needs of the individual
1972; Weinberg, 1970; Zimmerman, 1972). learner. In most of these models, instruction is self-paced and
2. Effects of specific versus general objectives on learning. designed based on learner’s mastery of the curriculum. When
Only two studies (Dalis, 1970; Janeczko, 1971) found that the instruction is not formally individualized (i.e., direct instruc-
students receiving specific objectives performed higher than tion), independent practice is an essential phase of the process
those receiving general objectives. Other studies (e.g., Lovett, to ensure individual mastery. Other common characteristics of
1971; Stedman, 1970; Weinberg, 1970) found no significant these models include the use of small groups, carefully planned
differences between the forms of objectives. or even scripted lessons, high learner response requirements
3. Effects on student learning of teacher possession and use coupled with equally high feedback, and, of course, data col-
of objectives. Five of eight studies reviewed found no sig- lection related to accuracy and speed. Each of these programs
nificant differences of teacher possession of objectives and is consistent with all, or nearly all, of the principles from Cook
those without (e.g., Baker, 1969; Crooks, 1971; Kalish, 1972). (1994) listed previously.
Three studies reported significant positive effects of teacher
possession (McNeil, 1967; Piatt, 1969; Wittrock, 1962).
4. Effects of student possession of behavioral objectives on 1.7.1 Personalized System of Instruction
efficiency (time). Two of seven studies (Allen & McDon-
ald, 1963; Mager & McCann, 1961) found use of objec- Following a discussion of B. F. Skinner’s Principles of the Analysis
tives reducing student time on learning. The rest found no of Behavior (Holland & Skinner, 1961), Fred Keller and his asso-
differences concerning efficiency (e.g., Loh, 1972; Smith, ciates concluded that “traditional teaching methods were sadly
1970). out of date” (Keller & Sherman, 1974, p. 7). Keller suggested
that if education was to improve, instructional design systems
Kibler and colleagues (1974) found less than half of the re- would need to be developed to improve and update methods of
search studies reviewed supported the use of objectives. How- providing instructional information. Keller searched for a way
ever, they felt that many of the studies had methodological prob- in which instruction could follow a methodical pattern. The
lems. These were: lack of standardization of operationalizing pattern should use previous success to reinforce the student
behavior objectives, unfamiliarity with the use of objectives by to progress in a systematic manner toward a specified outcome.
students, and few researchers provided teachers with training Keller and his associates developed such a system, called Person-
in the use of objectives. Although they reported no conclusive alized System of Instruction (PSI) or the Keller Plan. PSI can be
results in their reviews of behavioral objectives, Kibler and col- described as an interlocking system of instruction, consisting
leagues felt that there were still logical reasons (noted earlier) of sequential, progressive tasks designed as highly individual-
for their continued use. ized learning activities. In this design, students determine their
own rate and amount of learning, as they progress through a
series of instructional tasks (Liu, 2001). In his seminal paper
1.7 CURRENT DESIGN AND DELIVERY MODELS “Goodbye, Teacher . . . ‘’ (Keller, 1968), Keller describes the five
components of PSI, which are:
Five behavioral design/delivery models are worth examining in
some detail: Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), Bloom’s 1. The go-at-your-own pace feature (self-pacing)
(1971) Learning for Mastery, Precision Teaching, Direct Instruc- 2. The unit-perfection requirement for advancement (mastery)
tion, and distance learning/tutoring systems. Each of the first 3. The use of lectures and demonstrations as vehicles of moti-
four models has been in use for some 30 years and each share vation
some distinctively behavioral methodologies such as incremen- 4. The related stress upon the written word in teacher–student
tal units of instruction, student-oriented objectives, active stu- communication
dent responding, frequent testing, and rapid feedback. The fifth 5. The use of proctors for feedback
model, distance learning/tutoring systems, has grown rapidly
in recent years due to the extensive development and availabil- The first feature of PSI allows a student to move at his/her
ity of computers and computer technology. Increasingly, dis- own pace through a course at a self-determined speed. The unit-
tance learning systems are recognizing the importance of and perfection requirement means that before the student can move
adopting these behavioral methodologies due to their history of to the next unit of instruction, he/she must complete perfectly
success. the assessment given on the previous unit. Motivation for a PSI
Additional class features of behavioral methodologies are in- course is provided by a positive reward structure. Students who
herent in these models. First and foremost, each model places have attained a certain level of mastery, as indicated by the num-
the responsibility for success on the instruction/teacher as op- ber of completed units, are rewarded through special lectures
posed to the learner. This places a high premium on valida- and demonstrations. Communication, in classic PSI systems, re-
tion and revision of materials. In fact, in all behavior models, lies primarily on written communication between student and
instruction is always plastic; always, in a sense, in a formative teacher. However, the proctor–student relationship relies on
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 21

both written and verbal communication, which provides valu- procrastination. No significant differences were found between
able feedback for students (Keller, 1968). any groups on performance on exams or quizzes. Nor were
A PSI class is highly structured. All information is packaged there any significant differences between groups regarding stu-
into small, individual units. The student is given a unit, reads the dent evaluations (Semb et al., 1975).
information, proceeds through the exercises, and then reports In an almost exact replication of this study, Reiser (1984)
to a proctor for the unit assessment. After completing the quiz, again examined whether reward, penalty, or self-pacing was
the student returns the answers to the proctor for immediate most effective in a PSI course. No difference between groups
grading and feedback. If the score is unsatisfactory (as desig- was found regarding performance on the final exam, and there
nated by the instructor), the student is asked to reexamine the was no difference in student attitude. However, students in the
material and return for another assessment. After completion of penalty group had significantly reduced procrastination. The
a certain number of units, the student’s reward is permission to reward group did not show a significant reduction in procras-
attend a lecture, demonstration, or field trip, which is instructor- tination, which contradicts the findings by Semb et al. (1975).
led. At the end of the course, a final exam is given. The student
moves at his/her own pace, but is expected to complete all units 1.7.1.2 The Effect of Unit Perfection for Advancement.
by the end of the semester (Keller, 1968). PSI was widely used Another requirement for a PSI course is that the content be
in the 1970s in higher education courses (Sherman, 1992). After broken into small, discrete, units. These units are then mas-
the initial use of PSI became widespread, many studies focused tered individually by the student. Several studies have exam-
on the effect that these individual features have on the success ined the effect the number of units has on student performance
of a PSI course (Liu, 2001). in a PSI course. Born (1975) took an introductory psychol-
ogy class taught using PSI and divided it into three sections.
1.7.1.1 The Effect of Pacing. The emphasis on self-pacing One section had to master 18 quizzes over the 18 units. The
has led some PSI practitioners to cite procrastination as a prob- second section had to master one quiz every two units. The
lem in their classes (Gallup, 1971; Hess, 1971; Sherman, 1972). third section was required to master one quiz every three units.
In the first semester of a PSI course on physics at the State Uni- Therefore, each section had the same 18 units, but the number
versity College, Plattsburgh, Szydlik (1974) reported that 20/28 of quizzes differed. Surprisingly, there was no difference be-
students received incompletes for failure to complete the req- tween the three groups of students in terms of performance on
uisite number of units. In an effort to combat procrastination, quizzes. However, Section one students spent a much shorter
researchers started including some instructor deadlines with time on the quizzes than did Section three students (Born,
penalties (pacing contingencies) if the students failed to meet 1975).
the deadlines. Another study examined the effect of breaking up course
Semb, Conyers, Spencer, and Sanchez-Sosa (1975) conducted material into units of 30, 60, and 90 pages (O’Neill, Johnston,
a study that examined the effects of four pacing contingen- Walters, & Rashed, 1975). Students performed worst in the first
cies on course withdrawals, the timing of student quiz-taking attempt on each unit quiz when they had learned the material
throughout the course, performance on exams, and student from the large course unit. Students exposed to a large unit also
evaluations. They divided an introductory child development delayed starting the next unit. Also, more attempts at mastering
class into four groups and exposed each group to a different pac- the quizzes had to be made when students were exposed to
ing contingency. Each group was shown a “minimal rate” line a large unit. Despite these effects, the size of the unit did not
that was a suggested rate of progress. The first group received affect the final attempt to meet the mastery criterion. They also
no benefit or punishment for staying at or above the minimum observed student behavior and stated that the larger the unit
rate. The second group (penalty) was punished if they were the more time the student spent studying. Students with a large
found below the minimum rate line, losing 25 points for every unit spent more time reading the unit, but less time summariz-
day they were below the rate line. The third group (reward 1) ing, taking notes, and other interactive behaviors (O’Neill et al.,
benefited from staying above the minimum rate line by earning 1975).
extra points. The fourth group (reward 2) also benefited from Student self-pacing has been cited as one aspect of PSI that
staying above the minimum rate line by potentially gaining an students enjoy (Fernald, Chiseri, Lawson, Scroggs, & Riddell,
extra 20 points overall. All students were told that if they did 1975). Therefore, it could be motivational. A study conducted
not complete the course by the end of the semester, they would by Reiser (1984) found that students who proceeded through a
receive an Incomplete and could finish the course later with no class at their own pace, under a penalty system or under a reward
penalty. Students could withdraw from the course at any point system, did not differ significantly in their attitude toward the PSI
in the semester with a ‘withdraw passing’ grade (Semb et al., course. The attitude of all three groups toward the course was
1975). generally favorable (at least 63% responded positively). These
The results of the course withdrawal and incomplete study results agreed with his conclusions of a previous study (Reiser,
showed that students with no contingency pacing had the high- 1980). Another motivating aspect of PSI is the removal of the
est percentage (23.8%) of withdrawals and incompletes. The external locus of control. Because of the demand for perfection
second group (penalty) had the lowest percentage of with- on each smaller unit, the grade distribution of PSI courses is
drawals and incompletes (2.4%). With regard to procrastina- skewed toward the higher grades, taking away the external locus
tion, students in Groups 2–4 maintained a relatively steady rate of control provided by an emphasis on grades (Born & Herbert,
of progress while Group 1 showed the traditional pattern of 1974; Keller, 1968; Ryan, 1974).
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

22 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

1.7.1.3 The Emphasis on Written and Verbal Communi- 1.7.1.5 Performance Results Using the PSI Method. A
cation. Written communication is the primary means of com- meta-analysis by Kulik, Kulik, and Cohen (1979) examined 75
munication for PSI instruction and feedback. Naturally, this comparative studies about PSI usage. Their conclusion was that
would be an unacceptable teaching strategy for students whose PSI produces superior student achievement, less variation in
writing skills are below average. If proctors are used, students achievement, and higher student ratings in numerous college
may express their knowledge verbally, which may assist in im- courses. Another meta-analysis on PSI conducted more recently
proving the widespread application of PSI. The stress on the by Kulik, Kulik, and Bangert-Downs (1990) found similar results.
written word has not been widely examined as a research ques- In this analysis, mastery learning programs (PSI and Bloom’s
tion. However, there have been studies conducted on the study Learning for Mastery) were shown to have positive effects on
guides in PSI courses (Liu, 2001). students’ achievement and that low aptitude students benefited
most from PSI. They also concluded that mastery learning pro-
1.7.1.4 The Role of the Proctor. The proctor plays a pivotal grams had long-term effects even though the percentage of stu-
role in a PSI course. Keller (1968) states that proctors provide dents that completed PSI college classes is smaller than the
reinforcement via immediate feedback and, by this, increase percentage that completed conventional classes (Kulik et al.,
the chances of continued success in the future. The proctors 1990).
explain the errors in the students’ thought processes that led
them to an incorrect answer and provide positive reinforcement 1.7.2 Bloom’s Learning for Mastery
when the students perform well. Farmer, Lachter, Blaustein, and
Cole (1972) analyzed the role of proctoring by quantifying the 1.7.2.1 Theoretical Basis for Bloom’s Learning for
amount of proctoring that different sections of the course re- Mastery. At about the same time that Keller was formulating
ceived. They randomly assigned a class of 124 undergraduates and implementing his theories, Bloom was formulating his the-
into five groups (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%) that received different ory of Learning for Mastery (LFM). Bloom derived his model
amounts of proctoring on 20 units of instruction. One group for mastery learning from John Carroll’s work and grounded
received 0% proctoring, that is, no interaction with a proctor at it in behavioral elements such as incremental units of instruc-
all. The group that received 25% proctoring interacted with the tion, frequent testing, active student responding, rapid feed-
proctor on five units, and so on. They concluded that the amount back, and self-pacing. Carroll (as cited in Bloom, 1971) pro-
of proctoring did not affect performance significantly, as there posed that if learners is normally distributed with respect to
was no significant difference between students who received aptitude and they receive the same instruction on a topic, then
the different amounts of proctoring. However, no proctoring the achievement of the learners is normally distributed as well.
led to significantly lower scores when compared with the dif- However, if the aptitude is normally distributed, but each learner
ferent groups of students who had received proctoring (Farmer receives optimal instruction with ample time to learn, then
et al., 1972). achievement will not be normally distributed. Instead, the ma-
In a crossover experiment by Fernald and colleagues (1975), jority of learners will achieve mastery and the correlation be-
three instructional variables, student pacing, the perfection re- tween aptitude and achievement will approach zero (Bloom,
quirement, and proctoring, were manipulated to see their ef- 1971).
fects on performance and student preferences. Eight different Five criteria for a mastery learning strategy come from Car-
combinations of the three instructional variables were formed. roll’s work (Bloom, 1971). These are:
For example, one combination might have a student interact a
lot with a proctor, a perfection requirement, and use student 1. Aptitude for particular kinds of learning
pacing. In this design, eight groups of students were exposed 2. Quality of instruction
to two combinations of ‘opposite’ instruction variables sequen- 3. Ability to understand instruction
tially over a semester: a student receiving much contact, per- 4. Perseverance
fection, and a teacher-paced section would next experience a 5. Time allowed for learning
little contact, no perfection, and student-paced section (Fernald
et al., 1975). The first criterion concerns aptitude. Prior to the concept of
The results of this experiment showed that students per- mastery learning, it was assumed that aptitude tests were good
formed best when exposed to a high amount of contact with predictors of student achievement. Therefore, it was believed
a proctor and when it was self-paced. These results were un- that only some students would be capable of high achievement.
expected because traditional PSI classes require mastery. The Mastery learning proposes that aptitude is the amount of time
variable that had the greatest effect was the pacing variable. required by the learner to gain mastery (Bloom, 1971). There-
Student pacing always enhanced performance on exams and fore, Bloom asserts that 95% of all learners can gain mastery
quizzes. The mastery requirement was found to have no effect. of a subject if given enough time and appropriate instruction
However, the authors acknowledge that the perfection require- (Bloom, 1971).
ment might not have been challenging enough. They state that Secondly, the quality of instruction should focus on the in-
a mastery requirement may only have an effect on performance dividual. Bloom (1971) states that not all learners will learn
when the task is difficult enough to cause variation among stu- best from the same method of instruction and that the focus of
dents (Fernald et al., 1975). instruction should be on each learner. Because understanding
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 23

instruction is imperative to learning, Bloom advocates a vari- Hymel, 1987; McLaughlin, 1991; Zencias, Davis, & Cuvo, 1990).
ety of teaching techniques so that any learner can learn. These Often it has been limited to comparisons with designs using
include the use of tutors, audiovisual methods, games, and small- conventional strategies. It has been demonstrated that PSI and
group study sessions. Similarly, perseverance is required to mas- similar mastery-based instruction can be extremely effective
ter a task. Perseverance can be increased by increasing learning in producing significant gains in student achievement (e.g.,
success, and the amount of perseverance required can be re- Block, Efthim, & Burns, 1989; Guskey, 1985). Often PSI re-
duced by good instruction. Finally, the time allowed for learning search focuses on comparisons to Bloom’s Learning for Mas-
should be flexible so that all learners can master the material. tery (LFM) (Bloom, 1971). LFM and PSI share a few character-
However, Bloom also acknowledges the constraints of school istics among these are the use of mastery learning, increased
schedules and states that an effective mastery learning program teacher freedom, and increased student skill practice time. In
will alter the amount of time needed to master instruction. both systems, each task must be performed to a criterion de-
termined prior to the beginning of the course (Metzler et al.,
1.7.2.2 Components of Learning for Mastery. Block built 1989).
upon Bloom’s theory and refined it into two sections: precon- Reiser (1987) points to the similarity between LFM and PSI
ditions and operating procedures. In the precondition section, in the method of student progression through the separate sys-
teachers defined instructional objectives, defined the level of tems. Upon completion of each task, the student is given the
mastery, and prepared a final exam over the objectives. The choice of advancing or continuing work within that unit. How-
content was then divided into smaller teaching units with a for- ever, whereas PSI allows the student to continue working on the
mative evaluation to be conducted after instruction. Then the same task until mastery is reached, LFM recommends a “looping-
alternative instructional materials (correctives) were developed back” to a previous lesson and proceeding forward from that
that were keyed to each item on the unit test. This provided al- point (Bloom, 1971).
ternative ways of learning for learners should they have failed This similarity between systems extends to PSI’s use of pro-
to master the material after the first attempt (Block & Anderson, viding information to the learners in small chunks, or tasks, with
1975). During the operating phase, the teacher taught the ma- frequent assessment of these smaller learning units (Siedentop,
terial to the learners and then administered the evaluation. The Mand, & Taggert, 1986). These chunks are built on simple tasks,
learners who failed to master the material were responsible for to allow the learner success before advancing to more com-
mastering it before the next unit of instruction was provided. plex tasks. As in PSI, success LFM is developed through many
After all instruction was given, the final exam was administered opportunities for practice trials with the instructor providing
(Block & Anderson, 1975). cues and feedback on the task being attempted. These cues
In the most recent meta-analysis of Bloom’s LFM, Kulik et al., and feedback are offered in the place of lectures and demon-
(1990) concluded that LFM raised examination scores by an strations. Though Bloom’s LFM approach shares many similar-
average of 0.59 standard deviations. LFM was most effective ities with Keller’s design, PSI actually extends the concept of
when all five criteria were met. When the subject matter was mastery to include attention to the individual student as he or
social sciences, the positive effect that LFM had was larger. Sec- she progresses through the sequence of learning tasks (Reiser,
ondly, LFM had a more marked effect on locally developed tests, 1987).
rather than national standardized tests. However, LFM learn- Several studies have compared self-pacing approaches with
ers performed similarly to non-LFM learners on standardized reinforcement (positive or negative rewards) in a PSI setting.
tests. When the teacher controlled the pace, learners in an Keller (1968) has suggested that it was not necessary to pro-
LFM class performed better. Fourthly, LFM had a greater effect vide any pacing contingencies. Others have used procedures
when the level of mastery was set very high (i.e., 100% cor- that reward students for maintaining a pace (Cheney & Pow-
rect) on unit quizzes. Finally, when LFM learners and non-LFM ers, 1971; Lloyd, 1971), or penalized students for failing to
learners receive similar amounts of feedback, the LFM effect do so (Miller, Weaver, & Semb, 1954; Reiser & Sullivan, 1977).
decreases. That is, less feedback for non-LFM learners caused Calhoun (1976), Morris, Surber, and Bijou (1978), Reiser (1980),
a greater effect of LFM (Kulik et al., 1990). Additional conclu- and Semb et al. (1975) report that learning was not affected by
sions that Kulik et al. draw are: that low aptitude learners can the type of pacing procedure. However, Allen, Giat, and Cheney
gain more than high aptitude learners, the benefits of LFM are (1974), Sheppard and MacDermot (1970), and Sutterer and Hol-
enduring, not short-term, and finally, learners are more satisfied loway (1975) reported that the “prompt completion of work is
with their instruction and have a more positive attitude (Liu, positively related to achievement in PSI courses” (Reiser, 1980,
2001). p. 200).
Learning tasks are designed as highly individualized activ- Reiser (1984), however, reported that student rates of
ities within the class. Students work at their own rate, largely progress is improved and learning is unhindered when pacing
independent from the teacher. The teacher usually provides mo- with penalties are used (e.g., Reiser & Sullivan, 1977; Robin
tivation only through the use of cues and feedback on course & Graham, 1974). In most cases (except Fernald et al., 1975;
content as students progress through the unit (Metzler, Eddle- Robin & Graham, 1974), student attitudes are as positive with a
man, Treanor, & Cregger, 1989). penalty approach as with a regular self-paced approach without
Research on PSI in the classroom setting has been exten- penalty (e.g., Calhoun, 1976; Reiser, 1980; Reiser & Sullivan,
sive (e.g., Callahan & Smith, 1990; Cregger & Metzler, 1992; 1977).
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

24 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

1.7.3 Precision Teaching of performance, a goal at each level of a student’s progress.

Fluency (or automaticity or “second nature” responding) has
Precision teaching is the creation of O. R. Lindsley (Potts, Esh- been shown to improve retention, transfer of training, and “en-
leman, & Cooper, 1993; Vargas, 1977). Building upon his own durance” or resistance to extinction (Binder, 1987, 1988, 1993;
early research with humans (e.g., Lindsley, 1956, 1964, 1972, Binder, Haughton, & VanEyk, 1990). (It is important to note that
1991a, 1991b; Lindsley & Skinner, 1954) proposed that rate, fluency is not merely a new word for “overlearning,” or continu-
rather than percent correct, might prove more sensitive to mon- ing to practice past mastery. Fluency involves speed, and indeed
itoring classroom learning. Rather than creating programs based speed may be more important than accuracy, at least initially).
on laboratory findings, Lindsley proposed that the measurement Consistent with the findings that more difficult placement pro-
framework that had become the hallmark of the laboratories of duces bigger gains are the findings of Bower and Orgel (1981)
Skinner and his associates be moved into the classroom. His goal and Lindsley (1990b) that encouraging students to respond at
was to put science in the hands of teachers and students (Binder very high rates from the beginning, even when error rates are
& Watkins, 1990). In Lindsley’s (1990a) words, his associates and high, can significantly increase learning rates.
he (e.g., Caldwell, 1966; Fink, 1968; Holzschuh & Dobbs, 1966) Large-scale implementations of Precision Teaching have
“did not set out to discover basic laws of behavior. Rather, we found that improvements of two or more grade levels per year
merely intended to monitor standard self-recorded performance are common (e.g., West, Young, & Spooner, 1990). “The im-
frequencies in the classroom” (p. 7). The most conspicuous re- provements themselves are dramatic; but when cost/benefit is
sult of these efforts was the Standard Behavior Chart or Standard considered, they are staggering, since the time allocated to pre-
Celeration Chart, a six–cycle, semi-logarithmic graph for chart- cision teach was relatively small and the materials used were
ing behavior frequency against days. quite inexpensive” (Binder & Watkins, 1989, p. 82–83).

By creating linear representations of learning (trends in performance) 1.7.4 Direct Instruction

on the semi-logarithmic chart, and quantifying them as multiplicative
factors per week (e.g., correct responses × 2.0 per week minus errors Direct Instruction (DI) is a design and implementation model
divided by 1.5 per week), Lindsley defined the first simple measure of based on the work of Siegfried Engelmann (Bereiter & Engel-
learning in the literature: Celeration (either a multiplicative accelera- mann, 1966; Englemann, 1980), and refined through 30+ years
tion of behavior frequency or a dividing deceleration of behavior fre- of research and development. DI uses behavioral tenets such
quency per celeration period, e.g., per week). (Binder & Watkins, 1990, as scripted lessons, active student responding, rapid feedback,
p. 78) self-pacing, student-oriented objectives, and mastery learning
as part of the methodology. According to Binder and Watkins
Evidence suggests that celeration, a direct measure of learn- (1990), over 50 commercially available programs are based on
ing, is not racially biased (Koening & Kunzelmann, 1981). the DI model. The major premise of the DI is that learners
In addition to the behavioral methodologies mentioned in are expected to derive learning that is consistent with the
the introduction to this section, precision teachers use behav- presentation offered by the teacher. Learners acquire infor-
ioral techniques including applied behavior analysis, individual- mation through choice–response discriminations, production–
ized programming and behavior change strategies, and student response discriminations, and sentence–relationship discrimi-
self-monitoring. They distinguish between operational or de- nations. The key activity for the teacher is to identify the type of
scriptive definitions of event, which require merely observation, discrimination required in a particular task, and design a specific
versus functional definitions that require manipulative (and con- sequence to teach the discrimination so that only the teacher’s
tinued observation). Precision teachers apply the “dead man’s interpretation of the information is possible. Engelmann and
test” to descriptions of behavior, that is, “If a dead man can do Carnine (1982, 1991) state that this procedure requires three
it, then don’t try to teach it” (Binder & Watkins, 1990), to rule analyses: the analysis of behavior, the analysis of communica-
out objectives such as “sits quietly in chair” or “keeps eyes on tions, and the analysis of knowledge systems.
paper.” The emphasis of Precision Teaching has been on teach- The analysis of behavior is concerned with how the envi-
ing teachers and students to count behaviors with an emphasis ronment influences learner behavior (e.g., how to prompt and
on counting and analyzing both correct and incorrect response reinforce responses, how to correct errors, etc.). The analysis
(i.e., learning opportunities) (White, 1986). As Vargas (1977) of communications seeks principles for the logical design of
points out, “This problem-solving approach to changing behav- effective teaching sequences. These principles relate to the or-
ior is not only a method, it is also an outlook, a willingness to dering of examples to maximize generalization (but minimize
judge by what works, not by what we like to do or what we overgeneralization). The analysis of knowledge systems is con-
already believe” (p. 47). cerned with the logical organization or classification of knowl-
The Precision Teaching movement has resulted in some prac- edge such that similar skills and concepts can be taught the
tical findings of potential use to education technologists. For same way and instruction can proceed from simple to complex.
example, Precision Teachers have consistently found that place- Direct instruction uses scripted presentations not only to sup-
ment of students in more difficult tasks (which produce higher port quality control, but because most teachers lack training
error rates), results in faster learning rates (see e.g., Johnson, in design and are, therefore, not likely to select and sequence
1971; Johnson & Layng, 1994; Neufeld & Lindsley, 1980). Pre- examples effectively without such explicit instructions (Binder
cision Teachers have also made fluency, accuracy plus speed & Watkins, 1990). Englemann (1980) asserts that these scripted
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 25

lessons release the teacher to focus on: Johnson and Layng found that 20 to 25 hours of instruction
per skill using Morningside Model instruction resulted in nearly
1. The presentation and communication of the information to a two–grade level “payoff” as compared to the U.S. govern-
children ment standard of one grade level per 100 hours. Sixty hours of
2. Students’ prerequisite skills and capabilities to have success inservice was given to new teachers, and design time/costs were
with the target task not estimated, but the potential cost benefit of the model seem
3. Potential problems identified in the task analysis obvious.
4. How children learn by pinpointing learner successes and
strategies for success
5. Attainment 1.7.6 Distance Education and Tutoring Systems
6. Learning how to construct well-designed tasks
The explosive rise in the use of distance education to meet
Direct instruction also relies on small groups (10–15), uni- the needs of individual learners has revitalized the infusion of
son responding (to get high response rates from all students) behavioral principles into the design and implementation of
to fixed signals from the teacher, rapid pacing, and correction computer-based instructional programs (McIssac & Gunawar-
procedures for dealing with student errors (Carnine, Grossen, dena, 1996). Because integration with the academic environ-
& Silbert, 1994). Generalization and transfer are the result of ment and student support systems are important factors in
six “shifts” that Becker and Carnine (1981) say should occur student success (Cookson, 1989; Keegan, 1986), many dis-
in any well-designed program: overtized to covertized problem tance education programs try to provide student tutors to their
solving, simplified contexts to complex contexts, prompts to distance learners. Moore and Kearsley (1996) stated that the
no prompts, massed to distributed practice, immediate to de- primary reason for having tutors in distance education is to in-
layed feedback, and teacher’s roles to learner’s role as a source dividualize instruction. They also asserted that having tutors
of information. available in a distance education course generally improves stu-
Watkins (1988), in the Project Follow Through evaluation, dent completion rates and achievement.
compared over 20 different instructional models and found Di- The functions of tutors in distance education are diverse and
rect Instruction to be the most effective of all programs on encompassing, including: discussing course material, providing
measures of basic skills achievement, cognitive skills, and self feedback in terms of progress and grades, assisting students in
concept. Direct Instruction has been shown to produce higher planning their work, motivating the students, keeping student
reading and math scores (Becker & Gersten, 1982), more high- records, and supervising projects. However, providing feedback
school diplomas, less grade retention, and fewer dropouts than is critical for a good learning experience (Moore & Kearsley,
students who did not participate (Englemann, Becker, Carnine, 1996). Race (1989) stated that the most important functions
& Gersten, 1988; Gersten, 1982; Gersten & Carnine, 1983; of the tutors are to provide objective feedback and grades and
Gersten & Keating, 1983). Gersten, Keating, and Becker (1988) use good model answers. Holmberg (1977) stated that students
found modest differences in Direct Instruction students three, profit from comments from human tutors provided within 7–10
six, and nine years after the program with one notable excep- days of assignment submission.
tion: reading. Reading showed a strong long-term benefit con- The Open University has historically used human tutors in
sistently across all sites. Currently, the DI approach is a central many different roles, including counselor, grader, and consultant
pedagogy in Slavin’s Success for All program, a very popular pro- (Keegan, 1986). The Open University’s student support system
gram that provides remedial support for early readers in danger has included regional face-to-face tutorial sessions and a per-
of failure. sonal (usually local) tutor for grading purposes. Teaching at the
Open University has been primarily through these tutor marked
assignments. Summative and formative evaluation by the tutor
1.7.5 The Morningside Model has occurred though the postal system, the telephone, or face-
to-face sessions. Despite the success of this system (>70% reten-
The Morningside Model of Generative Instruction and Fluency tion rate), recently the Open University has begun moving to
(Johnson & Layng, 1992) puts together aspects of Precision the Internet for its student support services (Thomas, Carswell,
Teaching, Direct Instruction, Personalized System of Instruction Price, & Petre, 1998).
with the Instructional Content Analysis of Markle and Tiemann The Open University is using the Internet for registration, as-
(Markle & Droege, 1980; Tiemann & Markle, 1990), and the signment handling, student–tutor interactions, and exams. The
guidelines provided by Markle (1964, 1969, 1991). The Morn- new electronic system for handling assignments addresses many
ingside Model has apparently been used, to date, exclusively limitations of the previous postal system such as, turn-around
by the Morningside Academy in Seattle (since 1980) and Mal- time for feedback and reduced reliance upon postal systems.
colm X College, Chicago (since 1991). The program offers in- The tutor still grades the assignments, but now the corrections
struction for both children and adults in virtually all skill areas. are made in a word processing tool that makes it easier to read
Johnson and Layng report impressive comparative gains “across (Thomas et al., 1998).
the board.” From the perspective of the Instructional Technol- The Open University is also using the Internet for tutor–tutee
ogist, probably the most impressive statistic was the average contact. Previously, tutors held face-to-face sessions where stu-
gain per hour of instruction; across all studies summarized, dents could interact with each other and the tutor. However,
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

26 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

the cost of maintaining facilities where these sessions could favorable feedback from students on this method. However, ad-
take place was expensive and the organization of tutor groups vances in available technology have further developed the mi-
and schedules was complex. Additionally, one of the reasons stu- crocomputer as a possible tutor. Bennett (1999) asserts that
dents choose distance learning is the freedom from traditional using computers as tutors has multiple advantages, including
school hours. The face-to-face sessions were difficult for some self-pacing, the availability of help at any time in the instruc-
students to attend. The Open University has moved to com- tional process, constant evaluation and assessment of the stu-
puter conferencing, which integrates with administrative com- dent, requisite mastery of fundamental material, and providing
ponents to reduce the complexity of managing tutors (Thomas remediation. In addition, he states that computers as tutors will
et al., 1998). reduce prejudice, help the disadvantaged, support the more ad-
Rowe and Gregor (1999) developed a computer-based learn- vanced students, and provide a higher level of interest with the
ing system that uses the World Wide Web for delivery. Integral use of multimedia components (Bennett, p.76–119). Consistent
to the system are question–answer tutorials and programming across this research on tutoring systems, the rapid feedback pro-
tutorials. The question and answer tutorials were multiple vided by computers is beneficial and enjoyable to the students
choice and graded instantly after submission. The program- (Holmberg, 1977).
ming tutorials required the students to provide short answers Halff (1988, p. 79) identifies three roles of computers as
to questions. These questions were checked by the computer tutors:
and if necessary, sent to a human tutor for clarification. After
using this format for two years at the University of Dundee, 1. Exercising control over curriculum by selecting and sequenc-
the computer-based learning system was evaluated by a small ing the material
student focus group with representatives from all the levels of 2. Responding to learners’ questions about the subject
academic achievement in the class. Students were asked about 3. Determining when learners need help in developing a skill
the interface, motivation, and learning value. and what sort of help they need
Students enjoyed the use of the web browser for distance
learning, especially when colors were used in the instruction Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik (1982) examined 65 school tutor-
(Rowe & Gregor, 1999). With regards to the tutorials, students ing programs and showed that students receiving tutoring out-
wanted to see the question, their answer, and the correct an- performed nontutored students on exams. Tutoring also af-
swer on the screen at the same time, along with feedback as to fected student attitudes. Students who received tutoring de-
why the answer was wrong or right. Some students wanted to veloped a positive attitude toward the subject matter (Cohen
e-mail answers to a human tutor because of the natural language et al., 1982). Since tutors have positive effects on learning,
barrier. Since the computer-based learning system was used as they are a desirable component to have in an instructional
a supplement to lecture and lab sessions, students found it to be experience.
motivating. They found that the system fulfilled gaps in knowl- Thus, after over 25 years of research it is clear that behavioral
edge and could learn in their own time and at their own pace. design and delivery models “work.” In fact, the large-scale imple-
They especially liked the interactivity of the web. Learners did mentations reviewed here were found to produce gains above
not feel that they learned more with the computer-based system, two grade levels (e.g., Bloom, 1984; Guskey, 1985). Moreover,
but that their learning was reinforced. the models appear to be cost effective. Why then are they no
An interesting and novel approach to distance learning in longer fashionable? Perhaps because behaviorism has not been
online groups has been proposed by Whatley, Staniford, Beer, taught for several academic generations. Most people in design
and Scown (1999). They proposed using agent technology to have never read original behavioral sources; nor had the profes-
develop individual “tutors” that monitor a student’s participa- sors who taught them. Behaviorism is often interpreted briefly
tion in a group online project. An agent is self-contained, con- and poorly. It has become a straw man to contrast more appeal-
currently executing software that captures a particular state of ing, more current, learning notions.
knowledge and communicates with other agents. Each student
would have an agent that would monitor that student’s progress,
measure it against a group plan, and intervene when necessary 1.8 CONCLUSION
to insure that each student completes his/her part of the project.
While this approach differs from a traditional tutor approach, it This brings us to the final points of this piece. First, what do cur-
still retains some of the characteristics of a human tutor, those of rent notions such as situated cognition and social constructive
monitoring progress and intervening when necessary (Whatley add to radical behaviorism? How well does each account for the
et al., 1999). other? Behaviorism is rich enough to account for both, is histori-
cally older, and has the advantage of parsimony; it is the simplest
explanation of the facts. We do not believe that advocates of ei-
1.7.7 Computers as Tutors ther could come up with a study which discriminates between
their position as opposed to behaviorism except through the
Tutors have been used to improve learning since Socrates. How- use of mentalistic explanations. Skinner’s work was criticized
ever, there are limitations on the availability of tutors to distance often for being too descriptive—for not offering explanation.
learners. In 1977, Holmberg stated that some distance educa- Yet, it has been supplanted by a tradition that prides itself on
tion programs use preproduced tutor comments and received qualitative, descriptive analysis. Do the structures and dualistic
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 27

mentalisms add anything? We think not. Radical behaviorism and converse about human learning and behavior. Moreover,
provides a means to both describe events and ascribe causality. its assumptions that the responsibility for teaching/instruction
Anderson (1985) once noted that the problem in cognitive resides in the teacher or designer “makes sense” if we are to
theory (although we could substitute all current theories in “sell our wares.” In a sense, cognitive psychology and its off-
psychology) was that of nonidentifiability; cognitive theories shoots are collapsing from the weight of the structures it pos-
simply do not make different predictions that distinguish be- tulates. Behaviorism “worked” even when it was often misun-
tween them. Moreover, what passes as theory is a collection of derstood and misapplied. Behaviorism is simple, elegant, and
mini-theories and hypotheses without a unifying system. Cog- consistent. Behaviorism is a relevant and viable philosophy to
nitive theory necessitates a view of evolution that includes a provide a foundation and guidance for instructional technology.
step beyond the rest of the natural world or perhaps even the It has enormous potential in distance learning settings. Schol-
purpose of evolution! ars and practitioners need to revisit the original sources of this
literature to truly know its promise for student learning.
We seem, thus, to have arrived at a concept of how the physical uni-
verse about us—all the life that inhabits the speck we occupy in this
universe—has evolved over the eons of time by simple material pro- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
cesses, the sort of processes we examine experimentally, which we
describe by equations, and call the “laws of nature.” Except for one We are deeply indebted to Dr. George Gropper and Dr. John
thing! Man is conscious of his existence. Man also possesses, so most of “Coop” Cooper for their reviews of early versions of this
us believe, what he calls his free will. Did consciousness and free will
manuscript. George was particularly helpful in reviewing the
too arise merely out of “natural” processes? The question is central to
the contention between those who see nothing beyond a new materi-
sections on methodological behaviorism and Coop for his anal-
alism and those who see—Something. (Vanevar Bush, 1965, as cited in ysis of the sections on radical behaviorism and enormously use-
Skinner, 1974) ful suggestions. Thanks to Dr. David Jonassen for helping us in
the first version of this chapter to reconcile their conflicting
Skinner (1974) makes the point in his introduction to About advise in the area that each did not prefer. We thank him again
Behaviorism that behaviorism is not the science of behav- in this new chapter for his careful reading and suggestions to
iorism; it is the philosophy of that science. As such, it pro- restructure. The authors also acknowledge and appreciate the
vides the best vehicle for Educational Technologists to describe research assistance of Hope Q. Liu.

References
Alexander, J. E. (1970). Vocabulary improvement methods, college of programmed instruction in plane geometry (Technical Report
level. Knoxville, TN: Tennessee University Press. No. 1). Urbana: University of Illinois.
Allen, D. W., & McDonald, F. J. (1963). The effects of self-instruction Beck, J. (1959). On some methods of programming. In E. Galanter (Ed.),
on learning in programmed instruction. Paper presented at Automatic teaching: The state of the art (pp. 55–62). New York:
the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Wiley.
Chicago, IL. Becker, W. C., & Carnine, D. W. (1981). Direct Instruction: A be-
Allen, G. J., Giat, L., & Cherney, R. J. (1974). Locus of control, test anx- havior theory model for comprehensive educational intervention
iety, and student performance in a personalized instruction course. with the disadvantaged. In S. W. Bijou & R. Ruiz (Eds.), Be-
Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 968–973. havior modification: Contributions to education. Hillsdale, NJ:
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd Erlbaum.
ed.). New York: Freeman. Becker, W. C., & Gersten, R. (1982). A follow-up of Follow Through:
Anderson, L. M. (1986). Learners and learning. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Meta-analysis of the later effects of the Direction Instruction Model.
Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. (pp. 85–99). New York: American Educational Research Journal, 19, 75–93.
AACTE. Bennett, F. (1999). Computers as tutors solving the crisis in education.
Angell, G. W., & Troyer, M. E. (1948). A new self-scoring test de- Sarasota, FL: Faben.
vice for improving instruction. School and Society, 67(84–85), Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children
66–68. in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baker, E. L. (1969). Effects on student achievement of behavioral and Binder, C. (1987). Fluency-buildingTM research background. Nonan-
non-behavioral objectives. The Journal of Experimental Education, tum, MA: Precision Teaching and Management Systems, Inc. (P.O.
37, 5–8. Box 169, Nonantum, MA 02195).
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- Binder, C. (1988). Precision teaching: Measuring and attaining academic
tice Hall. achievement. Youth Policy, 10(7), 12–15.
Barnes, M. R. (1970). An experimental study of the use of programmed Binder, C. (1993). Behavioral fluency: A new paradigm. Educational
instruction in a university physical science laboratory. Paper pre- Technology, 33(10), 8–14.
sented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research Binder, C., Haughton, E., & VanEyk, D. (1990). Increasing endurance
in Science Teaching, Minneapolis, MN. by building fluency: Precision Teaching attention span. Teaching
Beane, D. G. (1962). A comparison of linear and branching techniques Exceptional Children, 22(3), 24–27.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

28 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

Binder, C., & Watkins, C. L. (1989). Promoting effective instructional ual differences: Studies of cueing, responding and bypassing. San
methods: Solutions to America’s educational crisis. Future Choices, Mateo, CA: American Institute for Research.
1(3), 33–39. Campeau, P. L. (1974). Selective review of the results of research on the
Binder, C., & Watkins, C. L. (1990). Precision teaching and direct in- use of audiovisual media to teach adults. Audio-Visual Communi-
struction: Measurably superior instructional technology in schools. cation Review, 22(1), 5–40.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(4), 75–95. Cantor, J. H., & Brown, J. S. (1956). An evaluation of the trainer-
Block, J. H., & Anderson, L. W. (1975). Mastery learning in classroom tester and punchboard tutor as electronics troubleshooting train-
instruction. New York: Macmillan. ing aids (Technical Report NTDC-1257–2–1). (George Peabody Col-
Block, J. H., Efthim, H. E., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Building effective lege) Port Washington, NY: Special Devices Center, Office of Naval
mastery learning schools. New York: Longman. Research.
Blodgett, R. (1929). The effect of the introduction of reward upon the Carnine, D., Grossen, B., & Silbert, J. (1994). Direct instruction to accel-
maze performance of rats. University of California Publications in erate cognitive growth. In J. Block, T. Gluskey, & S. Everson (Eds.),
Psychology, 4, 113–134. Choosing research based school improvement innovations. New
Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learn- York: Scholastic.
ing: Theory and practice. (pp. 47–63). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Carpenter, C. R. (1962). Boundaries of learning theories and media-
Winston. tors of learning. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 10(6), 295–
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2–Sigma problem: The search for methods of 306.
group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Carpenter, C. R., & Greenhill, L. P. (1955). An investigation of closed-
Researcher, 13(6), 4–16. circuit television for teaching university courses, Report No. 1.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, N. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
D. R. (Eds.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives—The Carpenter, C. R., & Greenhill, L. P. (1956). Instructional film research
classification of education goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. reports, Vol. 2. (Technical Report 269–7–61, NAVEXOS P12543),
New York: McKay. Post Washington, NY: Special Devices Center.
Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Carpenter, C. R., & Greenhill, L. P. (1958). An investigation of closed-
Born, D. G. (1975). Exam performance and study behavior as a func- circuit television for teaching university courses, Report No. 2.
tion of study unit size. In J. M. Johnson (Ed.), Behavior Research University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
and Technology in Higher Education (pp. 269–282). Springfield, Carr, W. J. (1959). Self-instructional devices: A review of current con-
IL: Charles Thomas. cepts. USAF Wright Air Dev. Cent. Tech. Report 59–503, [278, 286,
Born, D. G., & Herbert, E. W. (1974). A further study of personalized 290].
instruction for students in large university classes. In J. G. Sherman Cason, H. (1922a). The conditioned pupillary reaction. Journal of Ex-
(Ed.), Personalized Systems of Instruction, 41 Germinal Papers perimental Psychology, 5, 108–146.
(pp. 30–35), Menlo Park, CA: W. A. Benjamin. Cason, H. (1922b). The conditioned eyelid reaction. Journal of Exper-
Bower, B., & Orgel, R. (1981). To err is divine. Journal of Precision imental Psychology, 5, 153–196.
Teaching, 2(1), 3–12. Chance, P. (1994). Learning and behavior. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brenner, H. R., Walter, J. S., & Kurtz, A. K. (1949). The effects of in- Brooks/Cole.
serted questions and statements on film learning. Progress Report Cheney, C. D., & Powers, R. B. (1971). A programmed approach to
No. 10. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State College Instructional teaching in the social sciences. Improving College and University
Film Research Program. Teaching, 19, 164–166.
Briggs, L. J. (1947). Intensive classes for superior students. Journal of Chiesa, M. (1992). Radical behaviorism and scientific frameworks. From
Educational Psychology, 38, 207–215. mechanistic to relational accounts. American Psychologist, 47,
Briggs, L. J. (1958). Two self-instructional devices. Psychological Re- 1287–1299.
ports, 4, 671–676. Chu, G., & Schramm, W. (1968). Learning from television. Washington,
Brown, J. L. (1970). The effects of revealing instructional objectives on DC: National Association of Educational Broadcasters.
the learning of political concepts and attitudes in two role-playing Churchland, P. M. (1990). Matter and consciousness. Cambridge, MA:
games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California The MIT Press.
at Los Angeles. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Re-
culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. search Journal, 13(2), 237–248.
Burton, J. K. (1981). Behavioral technology: Foundation for the future. Cook, D. A. (1994, May). The campaign for educational territories. Pa-
Educational Technology, XXI(7), 21–28. per presented at the Annual meeting of the Association for Behavior
Burton, J. K., & Merrill, P. F. (1991). Needs assessment: Goals, needs, Analysis, Atlanta, GA.
and priorities. In L. J. Briggs, K. L. Gustafson, & M. Tillman (Eds.), Cook, J. U. (1960). Research in audiovisual communication. In J. Ball
Instructional design: Principles and applications. Englewood & F. C. Byrnes (Eds.), Research, principles, and practices in visual
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. communication (pp. 91–106). Washington, DC: Department of Au-
Caldwell, T. (1966). Comparison of classroom measures: Percent, num- diovisual Instruction, National Education Association.
ber, and rate (Educational Research Technical Report). Kansas City: Cookson, P. S. (1989). Research on learners and learning in distance
University of Kansas Medical Center. education: A review. The American Journal of Distance Education,
Calhoun, J. F. (1976). The combination of elements in the personalized 3(2), 22–34.
system of instruction. Teaching Psychology, 3, 73–76. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior
Callahan, C., & Smith, R. M. (1990). Keller’s personalized system of analysis. Columbus: Merrill.
instruction in a junior high gifted program. Roeper Review, 13, 39– Corey, S. M. (1971). Definition of instructional design. In M. D. Mer-
44. rill (Ed.), Instructional design: Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Campbell, V. N. (1961). Adjusting self-instruction programs to individ- Prentice-Hall.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 29

Coulson, J. E., & Silberman, H. F. (1960). Effects of three variables in Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles
a teaching machine. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 135– and applications (rev. ed.). Eugene, OR: ADI Press.
143. Evans, J. L., Glaser, R., & Homme, L. E. (1962). An investigation of “teach-
Cregger, R., & Metzler, M. (1992). PSI for a college physical edu- ing machine” variables using learning programs in symbolic logic.
cation basic instructional program. Educational Technology, 32, Journal of Educational Research, 55, 433–542.
51–56. Evans, J. L., Homme, L. E., & Glaser, R. (1962, June–July). The Ruleg Sys-
Crooks, F. C. (1971). The differential effects of pre-prepared and tem for the construction of programmed verbal learning sequences.
teacher-prepared instructional objectives on the learning of Journal of Educational Research, 55, 513–518.
educable mentally retarded children. Unpublished doctoral disser- Farmer, J., Lachter, G. D., Blaustein, J. J., & Cole, B. K. (1972). The role of
tation, University of Iowa. proctoring in personalized instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior
Crowder, N. A. (1959). Automatic tutoring by means of intrinsic pro- Analysis, 5, 401–404.
gramming. In E. Galanter (Ed.), Automatic teaching: The state of Fernald, P. S., Chiseri, M. J., Lawson, D. W., Scroggs, G. F., & Riddell, J. C.
the art (pp. 109–116). New York: Wiley. (1975). Systematic manipulation of student pacing, the perfection
Crowder, N. A. (1960). Automatic tutoring by intrinsic programming. requirement, and contact with a teaching assistant in an introductory
In A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and pro- psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 2, 147–151.
grammed learning: A source book (pp. 286–298). Washington, DC: Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New
National Education Association. York: Appleton–Century–Crofts.
Crowder, N. A. (1961). Characteristics of branching programs. In O. M. Fink, E. R. (1968). Performance and selection rates of emotionally
Haugh (Ed.), The University of Kansas Conference on Programmed disturbed and mentally retarded preschoolers on Montessori ma-
Learning: II (pp. 22–27). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Publi- terials. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kansas.
cations. Frase, L. T. (1970). Boundary conditions for mathemagenic behaviors.
Crowder, N. A. (1962, April). The rationale of intrinsic programming. Review of Educational Research, 40, 337–347.
Programmed Instruction, 1, 3–6. Gagné, R. M. (1962). Introduction. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.), Psychologi-
Dalis, G. T. (1970). Effect of precise objectives upon student achieve- cal principles in system development. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
ment in health education. Journal of Experimental Education, 39, Winston.
20–23. Gagné, R. M. (1965). The analysis of instructional objectives for the
Daniel, W. J., & Murdoch, P. (1968). Effectiveness of learning from a design of instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and
programmed text compared with a conventional text covering the programmed learning, II. Washington, DC: National Education As-
same material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 425–451. sociation.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural se- Gagné, R. M. (1985). The condition of learning and theory of instruc-
lection, or the preservation of the favored races in the struggle for tion (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
life. London: Murray. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principles of instruc-
Davey, G. (1981). Animal learning and conditioning. Baltimore: Uni- tional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
versity Park. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instruc-
Day, W. (1983). On the difference between radical and methodological tional design (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
behaviorism. Behaviorism, 11(11), 89–102. Galanter, E. (1959). The ideal teacher. In E. Galanter (Ed.), Automatic
Day, W. F. (1976). Contemporary behaviorism and the concept of in- teaching: The state of the art (pp. 1–11). New York: Wiley.
tention. In W. J. Arnold (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation Gallup, H. F. (1974). Problems in the implementation of a course in per-
(pp. 65–131) 1975. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. sonalized instruction. In J. G. Sherman (Ed.), Personalized Systems
Dewey, J. (1900). Psychology and social practice. The Psychological of Instruction, 41 Germinal Papers (pp. 128–135), Menlo Park, CA:
Review, 7, 105–124. W. A. Benjamin.
Donahoe, J. W. (1991). Selectionist approach to verbal behavior. Po- Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive
tential contributions of neuropsychology and computer simulation. revolution. New York: Basic Books.
In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior Garrison, J. W. (1994). Realism, Deweyan pragmatism, and educational
(pp. 119–145). Reno, NV: Context Press. research. Educational Researcher, 23(1), 5–14.
Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (1989). The interpretation of complex Gersten, R. M. (1982). High school follow-up of DI Follow Through.
human behavior: Some reactions to Parallel Distributed Processing, Direct Instruction News, 2, 3.
edited by J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & the PDP Research Gersten, R. M., & Carnine, D. W. (1983). The later effects of Direction In-
Group. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 399– struction Follow through. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
416. the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Doty, C. R. (1968). The effect of practice and prior knowledge of edu- Gersten, R. M., & Keating, T. (1983). DI Follow Through students show
cational objectives on performance. Unpublished doctoral disser- fewer dropouts, fewer retentions, and more high school graduates.
tation, The Ohio State University. Direct Instruction News, 2, 14–15.
Dowell, E. C. (1955). An evaluation of trainer-testers. (Report No. 54– Gersten, R., Keating, T., & Becker, W. C. (1988). The continued im-
28). Headquarters Technical Training Air Force, Keesler Air Force pact of the Direct Instruction Model: Longitudinal studies of follow
Base, MS. through students. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4),
Englemann, S. (1980). Direct instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educa- 318–327.
tional Technology. Gibson, J. J. (Ed.). (1947). Motion picture testing and research (Re-
Englemann, S., Becker, W. C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988). The port No. 7). Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology Program Research
Direct Instruction Follow Through model: Design and outcomes. Reports, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4), 303–317. Giese, D. L., & Stockdale, W. (1966). Comparing an experimental and
Englemann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction. New York: a conventional method of teaching linguistic skills. The General
Irvington. College Studies, 2(3), 1–10.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

30 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

Gilbert, T. F. (1962). Mathetics: The technology of education. Journal instruction. Report No. 3. Studies in televised instruction: The use
of Mathetics, 7–73. of student response to improve televised instruction. Pittsburgh,
Glaser, R. (1960). Principles and problems in the preparation of pro- PA: American Institutes for Research.
grammed learning sequences. Paper presented at the University Gropper, G. L., & Lumsdaine, A. A. (1961c, March). Issues in program-
of Texas Symposium on the Automation of Instruction, University ming instructional materials for television presentation. Report No.
of Texas, May 1960. [Also published as a report of a Cooperative 5. Studies in televised instruction: The use of student response to
Research Program Grant to the University of Pittsburgh under spon- improve televised instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institutes
sorship of the U.S. Office of Education. for Research.
Glaser, R. (1962a). Psychology and instructional technology. In R. Glaser Gropper, G. L., & Lumsdaine, A. A. (1961d, March). An overview. Report
(Ed.), Training research and education. Pittsburgh: University of No. 7. Studies in televised instruction: The use of student response
Pittsburgh Press. to improve televised instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institutes
Glaser, R. (Ed.). (1962b). Training research and education. Pittsburgh: for Research.
University of Pittsburgh Press. Gropper, G. L., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Shipman, V. (1961, March). Im-
Glaser, R. (Ed.). (1965a). Teaching machines and programmed learn- provement of televised instruction based on student responses to
ing II. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communica- achievement tests, Report No. 1. Studies in televised instruction:
tions and Technology. The use of student response to improve televised instruction. Pitts-
Glaser, R. (1965b). Toward a behavioral science base for instructional burgh, PA: American Institutes for Research.
design. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed Gropper, G. L., & Ross, P. A. (1987). Instructional design. In R. L. Craig
learning, II : Data and directions (pp. 771–809). Washington, DC: (Ed.). Training and development handbook (3rd ed.). New York:
National Education Association. McGraw-Hill.
Glaser, R., Damrin, D. E., & Gardner, F. M. (1954). The tab time: A tech- Guskey, T. R. (1985). Implementing mastery learning. Belmont, CA:
nique for the measurement of proficiency in diagnostic problem Wadsworth.
solving tasks. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 14, Gustafson, K. L., & Tillman, M. H. (1991). Introduction. In L. J. Briggs,
283–93. K. L. Gustafson & M. H. Tillman (Eds.), Instructional design. Engle-
Glaser, R., Reynolds, J. H., & Harakas, T. (1962). An experimental com- wood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
parison of a small-step single track program with a large-step Halff, H. M. (1988). Curriculum and instruction in automated tutors. In
multi-track (Branching) program. Pittsburgh: Programmed Learn- M. C. Polson & J. J. Richardson (Eds.), The foundations of intelligent
ing Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh. tutoring systems (pp. 79–108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodson, F. E. (1973). The evolutionary foundations of psychology: A Hamilton, R. S., & Heinkel, O. A. (1967). English A: An evalua-
unified theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. tion of programmed instruction. San Diego, CA: San Diego City
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and College.
learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of ed- Hebb, D. O. (1949). Organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
ucational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Simon & Schuster Heinich, R. (1970). Technology and the management of instruction
Macmillan. (Association for Educational Communication and Technology Mono-
Gropper, G. L. (1963). Why is a picture worth a thousand words? Audio- graph No. 4). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Commu-
Visual Communication Review, 11(4), 75–95. nications and Technology.
Gropper, G. L. (1965a, October). Controlling student responses during Herrnstein, R. J., & Boring, E. G. (1965). A source book in the history
visual presentations, Report No. 2. Studies in televised instruction: of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
The role of visuals in verbal learning, Study No. 1—An investiga- Hess, J. H. (1971, October). Keller Plan Instruction: Implementation
tion of response control during visual presentations. Study No. problems. Keller Plan conference, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
2—Integrating visual and verbal presentations. Pittsburgh, PA: nology, Cambridge, MA.
American Institutes for Research. Hoban, C. F. (1946). Movies that teach. New York: Dryden.
Gropper, G. L. (1965b). A description of the REP style program and its Hoban, C. F. (1960). The usable residue of educational film research. New
rationale. Paper presented at NSPI Convention, Philadelphia, PA. teaching aids for the American classroom (pp. 95–115). Palo Alto,
Gropper, G. L. (1966, Spring). Learning from visuals: Some behav- CA: Stanford University. The Institute for Communication Research.
ioral considerations. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 14: Hoban, C. F., & Van Ormer, E. B. (1950). Instructional film research
37–69. 1918–1950. (Technical Report SDC 269–7–19). Port Washington,
Gropper, G. L. (1967). Does “programmed” television need ac- NY: Special Devices Center, Office of Naval Research.
tive responding? Audio-Visual Communication Review, 15(1), Holland, J. G. (1960, September). Design and use of a teaching-
5–22. machine program. Paper presented at the American Psychological
Gropper, G. L. (1968). Programming visual presentations for procedural Association, Chicago, IL.
learning. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 16(1), 33–55. Holland, J. G. (1961). New directions in teaching-machine research.
Gropper, G. L. (1983). A behavioral approach to instructional prescrip- In J. E. Coulson (Ed.), Programmed learning and computer-based
tion. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and instruction. New York: Wiley.
models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Holland, J. G. (1965). Research on programmed variables. In R. Glaser
Gropper, G. L., & Lumsdaine, A. A. (1961a, March). An experimental (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II (pp. 66–
comparison of a conventional TV lesson with a programmed TV 117). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications
lesson requiring active student response. Report No. 2. Studies in and Technology.
televised instruction: The use of student response to improve tele- Holland, J., & Skinner, B. V. (1961). Analysis of behavior: A program of
vised instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institutes for Research. self-instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gropper, G. L., & Lumsdaine, A. A. (1961b, March). An experimen- Holmberg, B. (1977). Distance education: A survey and bibliography.
tal evaluation of the contribution of sequencing, pre-testing, and London: Kogan Page.
active student response to the effectiveness of ‘’programmed” TV Holzschuh, R., & Dobbs, D. (1966). Rate correct vs. percentage correct.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 31

Educational Research Technical Report. Kansas City, KS: University Kanner, J. H. (1960). The development and role of teaching aids in the
of Kansas Medical Center. armed forces. In New teaching aids for the American classroom.
Homme, L. E. (1957). The rationale of teaching by Skinner’s machines. Stanford, CA: The Institute for Communication Research.
In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.), Teaching machines and pro- Kanner, J. H., & Sulzer, R. L. (1955). Overt and covert rehearsal of 50%
grammed learning: A source book (pp. 133–136). Washington, DC: versus 100% of the material in filmed learning. Chanute AFB, IL:
National Education Association. TARL, AFPTRC.
Homme, L. E., & Glaser, R. (1960). Problems in programming verbal Karis, C., Kent, A., & Gilbert, J. E. (1970). The interactive effect of
learning sequences. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching responses per frame, response mode, and response confirmation
machines and programmed learning: A source book (pp. 486– on intraframe S-4 association strength: Final report. Boston, MA:
496). Washington, DC: National Education Association. Northeastern University.
Hough, J. B. (1962, June–July). An analysis of the efficiency and effec- Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education. London:
tiveness of selected aspects of machine instruction. Journal of Ed- Croom Helm.
ucational Research, 55, 467–71. Keller, F. S. (1968). Goodbye teacher . . . Journal of Applied Behavior
Hough, J. B., & Revsin, B. (1963). Programmed instruction at the col- Analysis, 1, 79–89.
lege level: A study of several factors influencing learning. Phi Delta Keller, F. S., & Sherman, J. G. (1974). The Keller Plan handbook. Menlo
Kappan, 44, 286–291. Park, CA: Benjamin.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton– Kendler, H. H. (1971). Stimulus-response psychology and audiovisual ed-
Century–Crofts. ucation. In W. E. Murheny (Ed.), Audiovisual Process in Education.
Hymel, G. (1987, April). A literature trend analysis in mastery learn- Washington, DC: Department of Audiovisual Instruction.
ing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa- Kendler, T. S., Cook, J. O., & Kendler, H. H. (1953). An investigation of
tional Research Association, Washington, DC. the interacting effects of repetition and audience participation on
Irion, A. L., & Briggs, L. J. (1957). Learning task and mode of oper- learning from films. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
ation variables in use of the Subject Matter Trainer, (Tech. Rep. American Psychological Association, Cleveland, OH.
AFPTRC-TR-57–8). Lowry Air Force Base, Co.: Air Force Personnel Kendler, T. S., Kendler, H. H., & Cook. J. O. (1954). Effect of opportunity
and Training Center. and instructions to practice during a training film on initial recall and
James, W. (1904). Does consciousness exist? Journal of Philosophy, 1, retention. Staff Research Memorandum, Chanute AFB, IL: USAF
477–491. Training Aids Research Laboratory.
Janeczko, R. J. (1971). The effect of instructional objectives and gen- Kibler, R. J., Cegala, D. J., Miles, D. T., & Barker, L. L. (1974). Objectives
eral objectives on student self-evaluation and psychomotor per- for instruction and evaluation. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
formance in power mechanics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kimble, G. A., & Wulff, J. J. (1953). Response guidance as a fac-
University of Missouri–Columbia. tor in the value of audience participation in training film instruc-
Jaspen, N. (1948). Especially designed motion pictures: I. Assembly of tion. Memo Report No. 36, Human Factors Operations Research
the 40mm breechblock. Progress Report No. 9. State College, PA: Laboratory.
Pennsylvania State College Instructional Film Research Program. Kimble, G. A., & Wulff, J. J. (1954). The teaching effectiveness of in-
Jaspen, N. (1950). Effects on training of experimental film variables, struction in reading a scale as a function of the relative amounts
Study II. Verbalization, “How it works, Nomenclature Audience Par- of problem solving practice and demonstration examples used in
ticipation and Succinct Treatment.” Progress Report No., 14–15–16. training. Staff Research Memorandum, USAF Training Aids Research
State College, PA: Pennsylvania State College Instructional Film Re- Laboratory.
search Program. Klaus, D. (1965). An analysis of programming techniques. In R. Glaser
Jensen, B. T. (1949). An independent-study laboratory using self-scoring (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II. Washing-
tests. Journal of Educational Research, 43, 134–37. ton, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technol-
Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier; ogy.
literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47(11), Koenig, C. H., & Kunzelmann, H. P. (1981). Classroom learning screen-
1475–1490. ing. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1994). The Morningside model of Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Downs, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of
generative instruction. In R. Gardner, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. A. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior Research, 60(2), 269–299.
analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1979). A meta-analysis of out-
(pp. 173–197). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. come studies of Keller’s personalized system of instruction. Ameri-
Johnson, N. J. (1971). Acceleration of inner-city elementary school can Psychologist, 34(4), 307–318.
pupils’ reading performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kumata, H. (1961). History and progress of instructional television
University of Kansas, Lawrence. research in the U.S. Report presented at the International Seminar
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning on Instructional Television, Lafayette, IN.
and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psycholo- Lathrop, C. W., Jr. (1949). Contributions of film instructions to learn-
gist, 31(3/4), 191–206. ing from instructional films. Progress Report No. 13. State Col-
Jones, H. L., & Sawyer, M. O. (1949). A new evaluation instrument. lege, PA: Pennsylvania State College Instructional Film Research
Journal of Educational Research, 42, 381–85. Program.
Kaess, W., & Zeaman, D. (1960, July). Positive and negative knowledge Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Boston, MA: Cambridge.
of results on a Pressey-type punchboard. Journal of Experimental Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
Psychology, 60, 12–17. participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kalish, D. M. (1972). The effects on achievement of using behavioral Lawrence, R. M. (1970). The effects of three types of organizing devices
objectives with fifth grade students. Unpublished doctoral disserta- on academic achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
tion, The Ohio State University. versity of Maryland.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

32 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

Layng, T. V. J. (1991). A selectionist approach to verbal behavior: Sources Mager, R. F., & McCann, J. (1961). Learner-controlled instruction. Palo
of variation. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal Alto, CA: Varian.
behavior (pp. 146–150). Reno, NV: Context Press. Malcolm, N. (1954). Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigation. Philo-
Liddell, H. S. (1926). A laboratory for the study of conditioned motor sophical Review LXIII.
reflexes. American Journal of Psychology, 37, 418–419. Malone, J. C. (1990). Theories of learning: A historical approach. Bel-
Lindsley, O. R. (1956). Operant conditioning methods applied to re- mont, CA: Wadsworth.
search in chronic schizophrenia. Psychiatric Research Reports, 5, Markle, S. M. (1964). Good frames and bad: A grammar of frame
118–139. writing (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.
Lindsley, O. R. (1964). Direct measurement and prosthesis of retarded Markle, S. M. (1969). Good frames and bad: A grammar of frame
behavior. Journal of Education, 147, 62–81. writing (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Lindsley, O. R. (1972). From Skinner to Precision Teaching. In J. B. Markle, S. M. (1991). Designs for instructional designers. Champaign,
Jordan and L. S. Robbins (Eds.), Let’s try doing something else kind IL: Stipes.
of thing (pp. 1–12). Arlington, VA: Council on Exceptional Children. Markle, S. M., & Droege, S. A. (1980). Solving the problem of prob-
Lindsley, O. R. (1990a). Our aims, discoveries, failures, and problems. lem solving domains. National Society for Programmed Instruction
Journals of Precision Teaching, 7(7), 7–17. Journal, 19, 30–33.
Lindsley, O. R. (1990b). Precision Teaching: By children for teachers. Marsh, L. A., & Pierce-Jones, J. (1968). Programmed instruction as an
Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 10–15. adjunct to a course in adolescent psychology. Paper presented at
Lindsley, O. R. (1991a). Precision teaching’s unique legacy from B. F. the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
Skinner. The Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 253–266. tion, Chicago, IL.
Lindsley, O. R. (1991b). From technical jargon to plain English for appli- Mateer, F. (1918). Child behavior: A critical and experimental study
cation. The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 449–458. of young children by the method of conditioned reflexes. Boston:
Lindsley, O. R., & Skinner, B. F. (1954). A method for the experimental Badger.
analysis of the behavior of psychotic patients. American Psycholo- May, M. A., & Lumsdaine, A. A. (1958). Learning from films. New Haven,
gist, 9, 419–420. CT: Yale University Press.
Little, J. K. (1934). Results of use of machines for testing and for drill Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem solving and transfer.
upon learning in educational psychology. Journal of Experimental In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
Education, 3, 59–65. psychology (pp. 47–62). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Liu, H. Q. (2001). Development of an authentic, web-delivered course McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Parallel distributed pro-
using PSI. Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Tech. cessing: Explorations into the microstructure of cognition: Vol.
Lloyd, K. E. (1971). Contingency management in university courses. 2. Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: Bradford
Educational Technology, 11(4), 18–23. Books/MIT Press.
Loh, E. L. (1972). The effect of behavioral objectives on measures of McDonald, F. J., & Allen, D. (1962, June–July). An investigation of presen-
learning and forgetting on high school algebra. Unpublished doc- tation response and correction factors in programmed instruction.
toral dissertation, University of Maryland. Journal of Educational Research, 55, 502–507.
Long, A. L. (1946). The influence of color on acquisition and reten- McGuire, W. J. (1953a). Length of film as a factor influencing training
tion as evidenced by the use of sound films. Unpublished doctoral effectiveness. Unpublished manuscript.
dissertation, University of Colorado. McGuire, W. J. (1953b). Serial position and proximity to reward as
Lovett, H. T. (1971). The effects of various degrees of knowledge of in- factors influencing teaching effectiveness of a training film. Un-
structional objectives and two levels of feedback from formative published manuscript.
evaluation on student achievement. Unpublished doctoral disser- McGuire, W. J. (1954). The relative efficacy of overt and covert trainee
tation, University of Georgia. participation with different speeds of instruction. Unpublished
Lumsdaine, A. A. (Ed.). (1961). Student responses in programmed in- manuscript.
struction. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National McIssac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance education. In
Research Council. D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational com-
Lumsdaine, A. A. (1962). Instruction materials and devices. In R. Glaser munications and technology (pp. 403–437). New York: Simon &
(Ed.), Training research and education (p.251). Pittsburgh, PA: Schuster Macmillan.
University of Pittsburgh Press (as cited in R. Glaser (Ed.), Teach- McKeachie, W. J. (1967). New developments in teaching: New dimen-
ing machines and programmed learning, II (Holland, J. G. (1965). sions in higher education. No. 16. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Research on programmed variables (pp. 66–117)). Washington, DC: McLaughlin, T. F. (1991). Use of a personalized system of instruction with
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. and without a same-day retake contingency of spelling performance
Lumsdaine, A. A. (1965). Assessing the effectiveness of instructional of behaviorally disordered children. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 127–
programs. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed 132.
learning, II (pp. 267–320). Washington, DC: Association for Educa- McNeil, J. D. (1967). Concomitants of using behavioral objectives in
tional Communications and Technology. the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Experimental
Lumsdaine, A. A., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1960). Teaching machines and Education, 36, 69–74.
programmed learning. Washington, DC. Department of Audiovisual Metzler, M., Eddleman, K., Treanor, L. & Cregger, R. (1989, February).
Instruction, National Education Association. Teaching tennis with an instructional system design. Paper pre-
Lumsdaine, A. A. & Sulzer, R. L. (1951). The influence of simple anima- sented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research
tion techniques on the value of a training film. Memo Report No. 24, Association, Savannah, GA.
Human Resources Research Laboratory. Meyer, S. R. (1960). Report on the initial test of a junior high school
Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. San Francisco: vocabulary program. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.), Teaching
Fearon. Machines and Programmed Learning (pp. 229–46). Washington,
Mager, R. F. (1984). Goal analysis (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Lake. DC: National Education Association.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 33

Michael, D. N. (1951). Some factors influencing the effects of audience Patton, C. T. (1972). The effect of student knowledge of behavioral ob-
participation on learning form a factual film. Memo Report 13 A jectives on achievement and attitudes in educational psychology.
(revised). Human Resources Research Laboratory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.
Michael, D. N., & Maccoby, N. (1954). A further study of the use of ‘Au- Pennypacker, H. S. (1994). A selectionist view of the future of behavior
dience Participating’ procedures in film instruction. Staff Research analysis in education. In R. Gardner, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper,
Memorandum, Chanute AFB, IL: AFPTRC, Project 504–028–0003. T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. A. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior
Mill, J. (1967). Analysis of the phenomena of the human mind analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction
(2nd ed.). New York: Augustus Kelly. (Original work published (pp. 11–18). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
1829). Peterman, J. N., & Bouscaren, N. (1954). A study of introductory and
Miller, J., & Klier, S. (1953a). A further investigation of the effects of summarizing sequences in training film instruction. Staff Research
massed and spaced review techniques. Unpublished manuscript. Memorandum, Chanute AFB, IL: Training Aids Research Laboratory.
Miller, J., & Klier, S. (1953b). The effect on active rehearsal types Peterson, J. C. (1931). The value of guidance in reading for information.
of review of massed and spaced review techniques. Unpublished Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 34, 291–96.
manuscript. Piatt, G. R. (1969). An investigation of the effect of the training of
Miller, J., & Klier, S. (1954). The effect of interpolated quizzes on learn- teachers in defining, writing, and implementing educational be-
ing audio-visual material. Unpublished manuscript. havioral objectives has on learner outcomes for students enrolled
Miller, J., & Levine, S. (1952). A study of the effects of different types in a seventh grade mathematics program in the public schools.
of review and of ‘structuring’ subtitles on the amount learned from Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University.
a training film. Memo Report No. 17, Human Resources Research Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. L. (1970). Establishing instructional goals.
Laboratory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Miller, J., Levine, S., & Sternberger, J. (1952a). The effects of different Porter, D. (1957). A critical review of a portion of the literature on
kinds of review and of subtitling on learning from a training film teaching devices. Harvard Educational Review, 27, 126–47.
(a replicative study). Unpublished manuscript. Porter, D. (1958). Teaching machines. Harvard Graduate School of
Miller, J., Levine, S., & Sternberger, J. (1952b). Extension to a new sub- Education Association Bulletin, 3,1–15, 206–214.
ject matter of the findings on the effects of different kinds of review Potts, L., Eshleman, J. W., & Cooper, J. O. (1993). Ogden R. Lindsley and
on learning from a training film. Unpublished manuscript. the historical development of Precision Teaching. The Behavioral
Miller, L. K., Weaver, F. H., & Semb, G. (1954). A procedure for maintain- Analyst, 16(2), 177–189.
ing student progress in a personalized university course. Journal of Pressey, S. L. (1926). A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores—
Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 87–91. and teaches. School and Society, 23, 35–41.
Moore, J. (1980). On behaviorism and private events. The Psychological Pressey, S. L. (1932). A third and fourth contribution toward the coming
Record, 30(4), 459–475. “industrial revolution” in education. School and Society, 36, 47–51.
Moore, J. (1984). On behaviorism, knowledge, and causal explanation. Pressey, S. L. (1950). Development and appraisal of devices providing
The Psychological Record, 34(1), 73–97. immediate automatic scoring of objective tests and concomitant self-
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems instruction. Journal of Psychology, 29 (417–447) 69–88.
view. New York: Wadsworth. Pressey, S. L. (1960). Some perspectives and major problems regarding
Moore, J. W., & Smith, W. I. (1961, December). Knowledge of results of teaching machines. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.), Teaching
self-teaching spelling. Psychological Reports, 9, 717–26. machines and programmed learning: A source book (pp. 497–
Moore, J. W., & Smith, W. I. (1962). A comparison of several types of “im- 505). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
mediate reinforcement.” In W. Smith & J. Moore (Eds.). Programmed Pressey, S. L. (1963). Teaching machine (and learning theory) crisis.
learning (pp. 192–201). New York: D. VanNostrand. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 1–6.
Morris, E. K., Surber, C. F., & Bijou, S. W. (1978). Self-pacing versus Race, P. (1989). The open learning handbook: Selecting, designing,
instructor-pacing: Achievement, evaluations, and retention. Journal and supporting open learning materials. New York: Nichols.
of Educational Psychology, 70, 224–230. Rachlin, H. (1991). Introduction to modern behaviorism (3rd ed.). New
Needham, W. C. (1978). Cerebral logic. Springfield, IL: Thomas. York: Freeman.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton– Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional-design theories and models.
Century–Crofts. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman. Reiser, R. A. (1980). The interaction between locus of control and three
Neu, D. M. (1950). The effect of attention-gaining devices on film- pacing procedures in a personalized system of instruction course.
mediated learning. Progress Report No. 14–15, 16: Instructional Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28, 194–
Film Research Program. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State Col- 202.
lege. Reiser, R. A. (1984). Interaction between locus of control and three pac-
Neufeld, K. A., & Lindsley, O. R. (1980). Charting to compare children’s ing procedures in a personalized system of instruction course. Ed-
learning at four different reading performance levels. Journal of ucational Communication and Technology Journal, 28(3), 194–
Precision Teaching, 1(1), 9–17. 202.
Norford, C. A. (1949). Contributions of film summaries to learning from Reiser, R. A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In R. M. Gagné
instructional films. In Progress Report No. 13. State College, PA: (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
Pennsylvania State College Instructional Film Research Program. baum.
Olsen, C. R. (1972). A comparative study of the effect of behavioral Reiser, R. A., & Sullivan, H. J. (1977). Effects of self-pacing and instructor-
objectives on class performance and retention in physical science. pacing in a PSI course. The Journal of Educational Research, 71,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. 8–12.
O’Neill, G. W., Johnston, J. M., Walters, W. M., & Rashed, J. A. (1975). The Resnick, L. B. (1963). Programmed instruction and the teaching of com-
effects of quantity of assigned material on college student academic plex intellectual skills; problems and prospects. Harvard Education
performance and study behavior. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Review, 33, 439–471.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

34 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

Resnick, L. (1988). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, source book. (pp. 678–680). Washington, DC: National Education
16(9), 13–20. Association.
Rigney, J. W., & Fry, E. B. (1961). Current teaching-machine programs and Sheppard, W. C., & MacDermot, H. G. (1970). Design and evaluation of a
programming techniques. Audio-Visual Communication Review, programmed course in introductory psychology. Journal of Applied
9(3). Behavior Analysis, 3, 5–11.
Robin, A., & Graham, M. Q. (1974). Academic responses and attitudes Sherman, J. G. (1972, March). PSI: Some notable failures. Paper pre-
engendered by teacher versus student pacing in a personalized in- sented at the Keller Method Workshop Conference, Rice University,
struction course. In R. S. Ruskin & S. F. Bono (Eds.), Personalized Houston, TX.
instruction in higher education: Proceedings of the first national Sherman, J. G. (1992). Reflections on PSI: Good news and bad. Journal
conference. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center for Per- of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(1), 59–64.
sonalized Instruction. Siedentop, D., Mand, C., & Taggart, A. (1986). Physical education:
Roe, A., Massey, M., Weltman, G., & Leeds, D. (1960). Automated teach- Teaching and curriculum strategies for grades 5–12. Palo Alto,
ing methods using linear programs. No. 60–105. Los Angeles: Au- CA: Mayfield.
tomated Learning Research Project, University of California. Silberman, H. F., Melaragno, J. E., Coulson, J. E., & Estavan, D. (1961).
Roe, A., Massey, M., Weltman, G., & Leeds, D. (1962, June–July). A com- Fixed sequence vs. branching auto-instructional methods. Journal
parison of branching methods for programmed learning. Journal of of Educational Psychology, 52, 166–72.
Educational Research, 55, 407–16. Silvern, L. C. (1964). Designing instructional systems. Los Angeles:
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its devel- Education and Training Consultants.
opment in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton.
Press. Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms.
Roshal, S. M. (1949). Effects of learner representation in film-mediated Psychological Review, 52, 270–277, 291–294.
perceptual-motor learning (Technical Report SDC 269–7–5). State Skinner, B. F. (1953a). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmil-
College, PA: Pennsylvania State College Instructional Film Research lan.
Program. Skinner, B. F. (1953b). Some contributions of an experimental analysis
Ross, S. M., Smith, L., & Slavin, R. E. (1997, April). Improving the aca- of behavior to psychology as a whole. American Psychologist, 8,
demic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success 69–78.
for All. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 171–180. Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching.
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1960). Some research problems in the design of ma- Harvard Educational Review, 24(86), 99–113.
terials and devices for automated teaching. In A. A. Lumsdaine & Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in the scientific method. American
R. Glaser (Eds.), Teaching machines and programmed learning: Psychologist, 57, 221–233.
A source book (pp. 318–328). Washington, DC: National Education Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Association. Hall.
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1962). Criteria for the acceptance of self-instructional Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128 (969–77), 137–
programs. Improving the efficiency and quality of learning. Wash- 58.
ington, DC: American Council on Education. Skinner, B. F. (1961, November). Teaching machines. Scientific Ameri-
Rowe, G.W., & Gregor, P. (1999). A computer-based learning system can, 205, 91–102.
for teaching computing: Implementation and evaluation. Computers Skinner, B. F. (1964). Behaviorism at fifty. In T. W. Wann (Ed.), Behav-
and Education, 33, 65–76. iorism and phenomenology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel distributed pro- Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
cessing: Explorations into the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 1. Prentice-Hall.
Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical
Ryan, B. A. (1974). PSI: Keller’s personalized system of instruction: An analysis. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts.
appraisal. Paper presented at the American Psychological Associa- Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
tion, Washington, DC. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
Ryan, T. A., & Hochberg, C. B. (1954). Speed of perception as a function Skinner, B. F. (1978). Why I am not a cognitive psychologist. In B. F.
of mode of presentation. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell Univer- Skinner (Ed.), Reflections on behaviorism and society (pp. 97–112).
sity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Saettler, P. (1968). A history of instructional technology. New York: Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 501–504.
McGraw-Hill. Skinner, B. F. (1987a). The evolution of behavior. In B. F. Skinner (Ed.),
Schnaitter, R. (1987). Knowledge as action: The epistemology of radical Upon further reflection (pp. 65–74). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
behaviorism. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.). B. F. Skinner: Consen- Hall.
sus and controversy. New York: Falmer Press. Skinner, B. F. (1987b). The evolution of verbal behavior. In B. F. Skinner
Schramm, W. (1962). What we know about learning from instructional (Ed.), Upon further reflection (pp. 75–92), Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
television. In L. Asheim et al., (Eds.), Educational television: The Prentice-Hall.
next ten years (pp. 52–76). Stanford, CA: The Institute for Commu- Skinner, B. F. (1987c). Cognitive science and behaviorism. In B. F. Skinner
nication Research, Stanford University. (Ed.), Upon further reflection (pp. 93–111), Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Semb, G., Conyers, D., Spencer, R., & Sanchez-Sosa, J. J. (1975). An ex- Prentice-Hall.
perimental comparison of four pacing contingencies in a personalize Skinner, B. F. (1989). Recent issues in the analysis of behavior. Colum-
instruction course. In J. M. Johnston (Ed.), Behavior research and bus: OH. Merrill.
technology in higher education. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Skinner, B. F. (1990). Can psychology be a science of mind? American
Severin, D. G. (1960). Appraisal of special tests and procedures used Psychologist, 45, 1206–1210.
with self-scoring instructional testing devices. In A. A. Lumsdaine & Skinner, B. F., & Holland, J. G. (1960). The use of teaching machines in
R. Glaser (Eds.), Teaching machines and programmed learning: A college instruction. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.), Teaching
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

1. Behaviorism and Instructional Technology • 35

machines and programmed learning: A source book (159–172). Thorndike, E. L. (1924). Mental discipline in high school studies. Journal
Washington, DC: National Education Association. of Educational Psychology, 15, 1–22, 83–98.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2000, April). Research on achievement Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improve-
outcomes of Success for All: A summary and response to critics. Phi ment in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions.
Delta Kappan, 82 (1), 38–40, 59–66. Psychological Review, 8, 247–261.
Smith, D. E. P. (1959). Speculations: characteristics of successful pro- Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional content:
grams and programmers. In E. Galanter (Ed.), Automatic teaching: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
The state of the art (pp. 91–102). New York: Wiley. Torkelson, G. M. (1977). AVCR-One quarter century. Evolution of theory
Smith, J. M. (1970). Relations among behavioral objectives, time of and research. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 25(4), 317–
acquisition, and retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni- 358.
versity of Maryland. Tosti, D. T., & Ball, J. R. (1969). A behavioral approach to instructional
Smith, K. U., & Smith, M. F. (1966). Cybernetic principles of design and media selection. Audio-Visual Communication Review,
learning and educational design. New York: Holt, Rinehart & 17(1), 5–23.
Winston. Twitmeyer, E. B. (1902). A study of the knee-jerk. Unpublished doctoral
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. New York: dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Macmillan. Tyler, R. W. (1934). Constructing achievement tests. Columbus: The
Spence, K. W. (1948). The postulates and methods of “Behaviorism.” Ohio State University.
Psychological Review, 55, 67–78. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction.
Stedman, C. H. (1970). The effects of prior knowledge of behavioral Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
objective son cognitive learning outcomes using programmed ma- Unwin, D. (1966). An organizational explanation for certain retention
terials in genetics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Uni- and correlation factors in a comparison between two teaching meth-
versity. ods. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 3, 35–
Stephens, A. L. (1960). Certain special factors involved in the law of 39.
effect. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.), Teaching machines and Valverde, H. & Morgan, R. L. (1970). Influence on student achievement
programmed learning: A source book (pp. 89–93). Washington, of redundancy in self-instructional materials. Programmed Learn-
DC: National Education Association. ing and Educational Technology, 7, 194–199.
Stevens, S. S. (1939). Psychology and the science of science. Psycholog- Vargas, E. A. (1993). A science of our own making. Behaviorology, 1(1),
ical Bulletin, 37, 221–263. 13–22.
Stevens, S. S. (1951). Methods, measurements, and psychophysics. In Vargas, J. S. (1977). Behavioral psychology for teachers. New York:
S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of Experimental Psychology (pp. 1– Harper & Row.
49). New York: Wiley. Von Helmholtz, H. (1866). Handbook of physiological optics
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem (J. P. C. Southhall, Trans.). Rochester, NY: Optical Society of America.
of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psy-
University Press. chological processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner,
Sulzer, R. L., & Lumsdaine, A. A. (1952). The value of using multiple & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
examples in training film instruction. Memo Report No. 25, Human Warden, C. J., Field, H. A., & Koch, A. M. (1940). Imitative behavior
Resources Research Laboratory. in cebus and rhesus monkeys. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 56,
Suppes, P., & Ginsberg, R. (1962, April). Application of a stimulus 311–322.
sampling model to children’s concept formation with and without Warden, C. J., & Jackson, T. A. (1935). Imitative behavior in the rhesus
overt correction response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, monkey. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 46, 103–125.
330–36. Watkins, C. L. (1988). Project Follow Through: A story of the identifica-
Sutterer, J. E., & Holloway, R. E. (1975). An analysis of student behavior in tion and neglect of effective instruction. Youth Policy, 10(7), 7–11.
a self-paced introductory psychology course. In J. M. Johnson (Ed.), Watson, J. B. (1908). Imitation in monkeys. Psychological Bulletin, 5,
Behavior research and technology in higher education. Spring- 169–178l
field, IL: Thomas. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psycholog-
Szydlik, P. P. (1974). Results of a one-semester, self-paced physics course ical Review, 20, 158–177.
at the State University College, Plattsburgh, New York. Menlo Park, Watson, J. B. (1919). Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviorist.
CA: W. A. Benjamin. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Tessmer, M. (1990). Environmental analysis: A neglected stage of instruc- Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.
tional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions.
38(1), 55–64. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1–14.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, Webb, A. B. (1971). Effects of the use of behavioral objectives and cri-
learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cam- terion evaluation on classroom progress of adolescents. Unpub-
bridge University Press. lished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee.
Thomas, P., Carswell, L., Price, B., & Petre, M. (1998). A holistic approach Weinberg, H. (1970). Effects of presenting varying specificity of course
to supporting distance learning using the Internet: Transformation, objectives to students on learning motor skills and associated cog-
not translation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), nitive material. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple Univer-
149–161. sity.
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of Weiss, W. (1954). Effects on learning and performance of controlled
the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review Mono- environmental stimulation. Staff Research Memorandum, Chanute
graph, 2 (Suppl. 8). AFB, IL: Training Aids Research Laboratory.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). The psychology of learning. Educational psy- Weiss, W., & Fine, B. J. (1955). Stimulus familiarization as a factor in
chology (Vol. 2). New York: Teachers College Press. ideational learning. Unpublished manuscript, Boston University.
P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM
PB378A-01 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls August 17, 2003 10:10 Char Count= 0

36 • BURTON, MOORE, MAGLIARO

West, R. P., Young, R., & Spooner, F. (1990). Precision Teaching: An Wittrock, M. C. (1962). Set applied to student teachings. Journal of
introduction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 4–9. Educational Psychology, 53, 175–180.
Whatley, J., Staniford, G., Beer, M., & Scown, P. (1999). Intelligent agents Wulff, J. J., Sheffield, F. W., & Kraeling, D. G. (1954). ‘Familiariza-
to support students working in groups online. Journal of Interactive tion’ procedures used as adjuncts to assembly task training with a
Learning Research, 10(3/4), 361–373. demonstration film. Staff Research Memorandum, Chanute AFB, IL:
White, O. R. (1986). Precision Teaching—Precision learning. Excep- Training Aids Research Laboratory.
tional Children, 25, 522–534. Yale Motion Picture Research Project. (1947). Do ‘motivation’ and ‘par-
Wilds, P. L., & Zachert, V. (1966). Effectiveness of a programmed ticipation’ questions increase learning? Educational Screen, 26,
text in teaching gynecologic oncology to junior medical students, 256–283.
a source book on the development of programmed materials Zencius, A. H., Davis, P. K., & Cuvo, A. J. (1990). A personalized sys-
for use in a clinical discipline. Augusta, GA: Medical College of tem of instruction for teaching checking account skills to adults
Georgia. with mild disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23,
Williams, J. P. (1963, October). A comparison of several response modes 245–252.
in a review program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 253– Zimmerman, C.L. (1972). An experimental study of the effects of learn-
60. ing and forgetting when students are informed of behavioral ob-
Wittich, W. A., & Folkes, J. G. (1946). Audio-visual paths to learning. jectives before or after a unit of study. Unpublished doctoral dis-
New York: Harper. sertation, University of Maryland.

View publication stats