Davis, Robert L. and Kenneth M. Ragsdell, "Designing of an Effective, Web-Based, Global Learning Environments Using the Keller Plan", Director, Instructional Software Development Center, University of Missouri-Rolla, USA, http://www.umr.edu/~isdc
Kulik, James A., Kulik, Chen-Lin C., and Peter A. Cohen (1979).’Research on Audio-Tutorial Instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies’. Research in Higher Education. 11(4), 321-341
My first thoughts were, when viewing the sample projects was that the Audio-Tutorial Instruction (AT) project seemed harder to produce than the PSI. However, in reading both articles it seems as though the preference to one over the other will always be determined by the learner and his/her own learning style. According to my understanding, AT is a better means of studying topics of instruction that need step by step, smaller groups, and individualized learning. I think this approach is good for students on the go (working) to keep up with their lesson via audio tapes but still be able to meet with their class. PSI however, is good for the “self-pacing person” who is an independent learner but need the freedom to move and learn at their own pace. In the audio tutorial system paper, Kozma et al. concluded that no more than two-thirds of the students studied attributed superiority to the AT approach. Yet, similar results of other instructional methods showed across studies was the PSI, even though he cautions us on the statement. It was surprising to see that the AT and PSI ranked high in course quality, but when it came down to material for teaching, the PSI was shown to be more effective.
I would have thought the independent study session of A-T would lead to it being viewed as more effective by students. I was also surprised that neither the AT or the PSI method of individualized instruction was successful in showing the margin difference between low-performing and high-performing students.
Overall, I still believe that the process by which we learn will it going to be determined by who we are, how we learn, and the circumstance by which we live in. Just my opinion!
Aletha
I agree that different types of learners will prefer different forms of instruction. Therefore, it is always best to know what types of learners you have in your class so that you can provide instruction and assessments that meet their needs. I see benefits to both the AT and PSI theories, but I also see drawbacks. I believe there should be a variety of instruction to adhere to all students' needs and interests. I also believe that instruction should be interactive and engaging, which I don't think either of these models stress. I believe these models could be beneficial with some modifications. Thanks for your input!
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of providing a variety of instruction methods to adhere to students' particular needs, but isn't that just about impossible to do? It seems like it would create entirely too much work for the instructor.
ReplyDeleteGood point that the two approaches do not equally cater to all learner preferences. However, if we think about updating the A-T approach to include also visual media, which would be very easy to do with technology today (and not so easy back in the heyday of the A-T method), both of these approaches could be used with learners with different preferences. One thing I think these methods are not well suited for (in terms of learner profiles), though, has already been pointed out by quite a few of the blogs on this unit, and that's students who are not self-motivated and can't stay on top of the assignments without a lot of handholding.
ReplyDelete