ABSTRACT
PORTABLE RESPONSIVE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS 1957 TO 1982: A HISTORICAL CONTENT ANALYSIS USING FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS
Bettylynne F. Gregg, Ed.D. Department of Educational Technology, Research and Assessment Northern Illinois University, 2015 Rebecca Butler, Director
This historical content analysis study examined portable responsive instructional materials used by United States teachers and students in primary, secondary, and higher education instructional settings for the period of 1957 through 1982—the beginning of the space race with the stimulus of educational funding from the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) to the introduction of classroom computers into the mainstream education population. During this period, a plethora of instructional materials was implemented in classrooms, which supported the audiovisual movement to improve performance and knowledge. This study focused on the pedagogical and functional uses of instructional materials from the specified period of history.
Instructional materials included in this qualitative study provided a response from or feedback to the participant through some form of communication—a screen, display, or other mode of communication. The physical nature of the studied instructional materials was small, lightweight, and portable, and each was used collaboratively or individually for instructional purposes in an educational environment. With this definition in mind, certain materials that were
important to the audiovisual movement, such as movie projectors and cameras, were not included in this study. Instructional materials from corporate training were not included in this study with the exception of materials that crossed over from the corporate arena to the educational environment.
Pedagogical and functional frameworks of identified instructional materials from 1957 to
1982 provided a foundation from which to compare contemporary instructional materials and devices to those of the past, to predict pedagogical purposes, and to support current integration of instructional materials such as handheld devices into the classroom based on historical information gathered in this study.
Analysis of the instructional materials was based on audiovisual codes found in the literature of the time. To further analyze the data gathered, a failure mode and effect analysis
(FMEA) method was adapted and applied to determine the success or failure of specified functionality of the identified instructional materials.
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY DEKALB, ILLINOIS
AUGUST 2015
PORTABLE RESPONSIVE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS 1957 TO 1982: A HISTORICAL CONTENT ANALYSIS USING FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS
BY
BETTYLYNNE F. GREGG © 2015 Bettylynne F. Gregg
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENT
Doctoral Director: Rebecca Butler
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am very grateful to many people who helped me through my dissertation journey and encouraged my desire for learning. I am thankful to my husband and life partner, Jim, for his support and reassurances that empowered me to complete my educational endeavors. My children, John and Julie, have supported me through the dissertation process in ways they may never realize. I hope, through my experience, they learn to be life-long learners and to develop a
“can do” attitude.
My committee chair, Dr. Rebecca Butler, provided support and encouragement throughout this historical research project. Our meetings were always informative, fun, and enlightening. I appreciated her ideas, resources, and support. Dr. Rhonda Robinson provided insight and historical perspectives that enhanced this research. Dr. Darryl Draper encouraged adapting the failure mode and effect analysis as an analytical tool used in this study. I appreciate my committee’s willingness to teach and learn with me.
A special thank you goes to my classmates Stacey and Catherine for reading, proofing, listening, sharing, and for being my “end of the semester celebration” cohorts. I am thankful for knowing Brian Szymanski and for his positive energy and encouraging words when classes were demanding.
Special thanks to Gail Jacky, at Northern Illinois University’s Writing Center, for ongoing support, writing ideas, and quick turnarounds for editing suggestions. Her assistance has made me a stronger and a more confident writer. Thank you to Ro Maresh, a true friend, who read each chapter thoroughly for content and understanding. Her attention to details impressed
iii me, as she always found detail that needed revising. Lastly, I am grateful to Carol Abrahamson for her role in the final edits and formatting of this study.
DEDICATION
I dedicate this study to my parents, Ernest and Meryle Fincher, for all their love and support, for inspiring me to do my best, and teaching me that I “can do” anything that I set my mind to. For my dad, who taught me how to use a slide rule and encouraged curiosity. For my mom, who by her example, taught me to be a life-long learner. My parents instilled in me the importance of education from early preschool through college and beyond; for that I am thankful.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………. xii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………..…………………. xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES…………………………………………………...………………. xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………...………. xvii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….…… 1
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………..…………. 6
Terms and Definitions……………………………………………………...………. 8
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………….………. 18
Background of the Study………………………………………………..…………. 18
Research Questions………………………………………………………...………. 20
Significance of the Study………………………………………..…………………. 22
Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………. 22
Theoretical Framework………………………………………………….…………. 24
Organization of the Dissertation………………………………………...…………. 26
2. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………….... 29
Content Analysis……………………………………………………………...……. 31
Content Analysis Approaches………………………………………………...……. 34
vi
Chapter Page
The Content Analysis Process………………………………………………..……. 37
Content Analysis Process as Applied to This Study……………………….………. 40
Content Analysis Concerns……………………………………………………...…. 45
Use of Images as Data…………………………………………………………...…. 47
Content Analysis—Working with the Data……………………………..…………. 48
Historiography…………………………………………………………………..…. 52
Ethical Considerations………………………………………………..……………. 54
Data Collection…………………………………………………………….………. 56
Primary Sources……………………………………………………………. 57
Secondary Sources…………………………………………………………. 59
Procedures for Validity…………………………………………………….………. 61
External and Internal Criticism……………………….……………………. 62
Authenticity and Accuracy…………………………………...……………. 64
Tools……………………………………………………………………………….. 65
Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………. 66
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis…………………………………………………. 68
Summary…………………………………………………………………...………. 69
3. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY—THE PAST……………………….…….………. 70
History of Audiovisual Instruction/Communications: A Precursor to Educational Technology……………………………………………………………………...…. 72
History of Educational Technology through Early 1980s………..…..……………. 78
History of Professional Journals………………………………………………...…. 81
vii
Chapter Page
Professional Journals—Audiovisual……………………………….………. 81
Professional Journals—Educational/Instructional Technology………....…. 82
Summary……………………………………………………………………...……. 83
4. HISTORICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS……………………….……. 84
Education Interviewee Information………………………………………..………. 85
Interactive, Real Objects, and Transparencies Codes………...……………………. 87
Interactive Code………………………………………………..……..……. 88
Interactive—Programmed Instruction Category…………...………. 88
Programmed Instruction—Audio Card Readers Subcategory……………………….………………………. 92
Programmed Instruction—Craig Readers Subcategory...... 102
Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices Subcategory……………………………………….………. 104
Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices Subcategory…………………………………………….…. 109
PRIM ’57-’82 Programmed Instruction Summary……..…. 131
Interactive—Learning Materials Category…………………...……. 131
Interactive—Instructional Kits Category………………………..…. 137
Interactive—Learning Games Category……………………...……. 140
Interactive—Response Systems Category…………………………. 146
Interactive—Instructional Systems Category…………………...…. 157
Interactive—Computers Category…………………………………. 167
Real Objects Code……………………………………………………….…. 169
viii
Chapter Page
Real Objects—Slide Rules Category………………………………. 169
Real Objects—Time/Clocks Category…………………....…..……. 172
Real Objects—Calculators Category……………………...…….…. 175
Real Objects—Telephone Packages Category………………...... …. 178
Transparencies Code…………………………………………………….…. 179
Summary………………………………………………………………………...…. 183
5. FUNCTIONAL FEATURES OF PRIM ’57-’82 OBJECTS…………………….…..…. 185
Administration…………………………………………………………………..…. 190
Collaborative……………………………………………………………….………. 192
Learning Games Category…………………………………………………. 192
Instructional Systems Category……………………………………………. 194
Curriculum—General, Mathematics/Arithmetic, and Reading………...…………. 195
Curriculum—General…………………………………………………...…. 196
Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices Subcategory……. 196
Programmed Instruction – Game-Like Devices Subcategory…..…. 197
Instructional Kits Category…………………………………...……. 198
Curriculum—Mathematics/Arithmetic………………………….…………. 198
Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices Subcategory…..…. 199
Learning Materials Category………………………………………. 201
Instructional Kits Category…………………………………...……. 202
Curriculum—Reading…………………………………………………...…. 203
ix
Chapter Page
Programmed Instruction—Audio Card Readers Subcategory…..…. 204
Programmed Instruction—Craig Readers Subcategory……………. 206
Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices Subcategory..…. 206
Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices Subcategory…..…. 208
Instructional Systems Category……………………………………. 210
Data Collection……………………………………………………………….……. 212
Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices Subcategory………..……. 213
Response Systems Category…………………………………………….…. 215
Microworld……………………………………………………………………...…. 216
Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices Subcategory……………. 216
Slide Rules Category…………………………………………………….…. 218
Time/Clocks Category……………………………………………..………. 219
Calculators Category……………………………………………….………. 221
Telephone Packages Category………………………………..……………. 223
Presentation……………………………………………………………………...…. 224
Summary…………………………………………………………………...………. 229
6. FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS………………………..………………. 231
Historical Aspects of Instructional Materials Evaluations…………………………. 232
Historical Information—Failure Mode and Effect Analysis………………………. 236
Using a FMEA Analysis in a Qualitative Study………………………...…………. 239
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Procedures…………………………..…………. 240
x
Chapter Page
PRIM ’57-’82 Adaptations of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis…………………. 244
Using the PRIM ’57-’82 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Template……………. 249
PRIM ’57-’82 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Discussion……………..………. 258
FMEA—Administration Functionality……………………………….……. 258
FMEA—Collaborative Functionality……………………………...………. 261
FMEA—Curriculum Functionality………………………………...………. 263
FMEA—Data Collection Functionality……………………………………. 266
FMEA—Microworld Functionality………………………..………………. 268
FMEA—Presentation Functionality…………………….…………………. 271
PRIM ’57-’82 Failure Mode Effect Analysis Results Summary………..…………. 273
7. DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS………………………..…. 276
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………….……. 276
Research Questions……………………………………………………...…………. 277
Summary of the Study…………………………………………..…………………. 277
Importance to the Educational Technology Field……………….…………………. 278
Methodology Summary……………………………………………………………. 282
Educational Technology Definitions Summary……………………………………. 282
PRIM ’57-’82 Historical and Pedagogies Summary………………………………. 283
Importance to History and Pedagogies of PRIM ’57-’82 …………………………. 284
PRIM ’57-’82 Functional Summary…………………………………..………...…. 288
Importance of This Study to the Functionality of Instructional Materials…………. 289
xi
Chapter Page
PRIM ’57-’82 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Summary………………………. 291
Importance of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis to Educational Technology……. 292
Relating PRIM ’57-’82 to Today’s Classrooms……………………………...……. 293
Directions for Future Research…………………………………………….………. 297
Summary……………………………………………………………………..….…. 301
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………….……. 304
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………….……….………. 347
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Audiovisual Terms and Category Resources………………………………………. 44
2. PRIM ’57-’82 Definition Keyword Analysis……………………………...………. 50
3. Functional Classifications of PRIM ’57-’82 ………………………………………. 188
4. Functional Classifications of PRIM ’57-’82 by Codes and Categories……………. 189
5. August 2014 Search Strategies—Transparencies……………………….…………. 227
6. PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 1…………………………………….……. 245
7. PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 2……………………………….…………. 246
8. PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Failure Modes……………………….………………..……. 247
9. Identifying PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA…………………………………………….……. 250
10. PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 3…………………….……………………. 252
11. PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 4…………………….……………………. 253
12. Examples of FMEA Causes………………….………………………………….…. 255
13. PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 5………………………….………………. 256
14. PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 6……………………….…………………. 257
15. PRIM ’57-’82 Functional Classifications Comparisons………...…………………. 295
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Inductive category development in Qualitative Content Analysis ……………...…. 36
2. Bell and Howell Company, Audio Card Reader, 1957………………….…………. 93
3. Craig Research, Inc., Craig Reader, 1962…………………………………….……. 103
4. Electronic Futures Inc., Audio Notebook, 1963……………………...……………. 105
5. Pionier Konstruction, Piko dat Learning Machine, 1969………….………………. 112
6. Enrichment Reading Corp. of America, Tutorgrams, 1971……………..…………. 116
7. Texas Instruments, Speak & Spell, 1978…………………………..………………. 122
8. Strathmore, Magic Slate, 1957………………………………..……………………. 132
9. Ideal School Supply Company, Pupil’s Fraction Kit, 1957……………..…………. 138
10. School Service Company, Learning Games, 1957……………...…………………. 142
11. Shaw Laboratories, Inc., Rapid-Rater, 1962…………………….…………………. 148
12. Reactive Systems, Voter 30, 1982…………………..………………………..……. 156
13. Audio Visual Research, Reading Rateometer, 1962………….……………………. 159
14. Toshiba, Memo Note 30, 1978……………………………………………….……. 168
15. Slide Rule from the Lee and Lida Cochran AECT Archives, Item #147…….……. 171
16. Carson-Dellosa Publishing, Judy Clock, 1961……………………………….……. 172
17. Texas Instruments, TI-2500, 1972………………………………...………….……. 177
18. Reba Poor Associates, Telephone Conference, 1980…………..………………….. 180
xiv
Figure Page
19. Hubbard, Overhead Transparencies, 1965……………………………..……..……. 181
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
A. PERMISSION FOR MAYRING FIGURE……………………………………..…. 348
B. JOURNALS REVIEWED FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS……...………. 350
C. AUDIOVISUAL CODES AND CATEGORIES…………………….……………. 352
D. TEACHING MACHINE RESOURCES………………………………………..…. 355
E. DATA SOURCES FOR PRIM ’57-’82 OBJECTS……………………..…………. 358
F. INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS BY YEAR……………………………………. 365
G. PRIM ’57-’82 CODES, CATEGORIES, AND SUBCATEGORIES……..………. 367
H. AUDIOVISUAL CATEGORY TIMELINE………………………………………. 369
I. RESEARCH PARTICIPATION REQUEST: INFORMED CONSENT FORM.…. 371
J. HUMAN PARTICIPANT PROTECTION CERTIFICATE………………………. 376
K. POSSIBLE JOURNALS TO REVIEW……………………………………………. 378
L. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEFINITIONS RESOURCES………………. 380
M. PIKO DAT LEARNING MACHINE TRANSPARENCIES AND CUTOUT SHEET……………………………………………………………………….….…. 384
N. PATTEN, SÁNCHEZ, AND TANGNEY’S PEDAGOGICAL AND FUNCTIONAL FRAMEWORK……………………………………………………………………. 386
O. PRIM ’57-’82 FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS: ADMINISTRATION TEMPLATE EXAMPLE……………………………………….……………….…. 388
P. FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS RESOURCES……………...……. 390
xvi
Appendix Page
Q. “FMEA+EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY” 2014 SEARCH RESULTS………. 393
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AECT Association for Educational Communications and Technology
DAVI Department of Audiovisual Instruction of the National Education Association
EFI Electronic Futures Inc.
ESL English as a second language
FMEA Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
NDEA National Defense Education Act
NEA National Education Association
NIU Northern Illinois University
PRIM ’57-’82 Portable Responsive Instructional Materials 1957 to 1982
TI Texas Instruments
TTC Teaching Technology Corporation
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“History is reflected in today’s political, social, cultural, conceptual, ideological—and not least—scientific developments.”1 As Rohstock suggests, history is part of the present-day, it is always “present in the past,” and it can help provide new insights for future developments.2 My educational technology interests lie in the historical aspects of instructional materials used in an educational setting, specifically in the kindergarten through higher education arena. Providing information on how these materials have been used in the past will help educational technologists and educators understand the use of such instructional materials and devices for current educational purposes, how instructional materials were used as curricular aids, and how to use historical information to influence the acceptance of current devices into the classroom through a failure analysis.
Recent instructional focus on the use of handheld devices has been to increase student engagement, collaboration, and motivation to learn.3 In an educational evaluation program, Palm
1 A. Rohstock, “The History of Higher Education,” in Education Systems in Historical, Cultural, and Sociological Perspectives, eds. D. Trohler and R. Barbu (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011).
2 Rohstock, "History of Higher Education."
3 E. Soloway et al., “Log On Education: Handheld Devices Are Ready-at-Hand,” Communications of the ACM44, no. 6 (June 2001): 15-20.; G. Zurita and M. Nussbaum, “A Constructivist Mobile Learning Environment Supported by a Wireless Handheld Network,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, no. 4 (August 2004): 235- 243.; C. Dede, “Planning for ‘Neomillennial’ Learning Styles: Implications for Investments in Technology and
2 Education Pioneers (PEP) handheld computers were distributed to one hundred teachers in the
2001-2002 school year.4 The research conducted learned about K-12 classroom usage and integration of handheld devices into classroom activities. Benefits discovered in the PEP study showed that teachers using handheld devices for instruction allowed for student collaboration, increased student engagement, and increased student initiative to learn and explore lessons.5
Learning with handheld devices included the use of these collaborative communication tools conducive to improving performance. As early as a decade ago, the importance of studying handheld devices was shown in educational technology trends. Donald Ely, a prominent researcher and educational technologist as shown through his research and publications in the fields of audiovisual, instructional, and educational technology,6 identified two trends that pertain to handheld devices. The first trend was the new dynamic growth of delivery systems in educational technology including wireless devices such as laptops and handheld devices.7 Ely
Faculty,” Chap. 15 in Educating the Net Generation, eds. D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (Louisville, CO: Educause, 2005), 15.1-15.22, accessed January 8, 2015, http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101o.pdf: 15.9.
4 D. Tatar et al., “Handhelds Go to School: Lessons Learned,” Computer 36, no. 9 (September 2003): 30- 37.
5 Tatar et al., “Handhelds Go to School.”
6 D. Ely, The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, Monograph No. 1 of the Technological Development Project of the National Education Association (Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1963), 1-148.; D. Ely, “Toward a Philosophy of Instructional Technology,” Journal of Educational Technology 2, no. 1 (May 1970): 81-94.; D. Ely, “Defining the Field of Educational Technology,” Audiovisual Instruction 18, no. 3 (March 1973): 52-53.; D. Ely, “Conditions That Facilitate the Implementation of Educational Technology Innovations,” Research on Computing in Education 23, no. 2 (1990): 298-305.; D. Ely and T. Plomp, Classic Writings On Instructional Technology (Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1996).; R. Reiser and D. Ely, “The Field of Educational Technology as Reflected through Its Definitions, “Educational Technology Research and Development 45, no. 3 (September 1997): 63-72.; D. Ely, “New Perspective On the Implementation of Educational Technology Innovations” (Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Conference, Houston, TX, February 1999).; D. Ely, “Toward a Philosophy of Instructional Technology: Thirty Years On,” British Journal of Educational Technology 30, no. 4 (October 1999): 305-310.; D. Ely, Trends in Educational Technology, 5th ed. (Washington, DC: ERIC Publications, 2002).
7 Ely, Trends in Educational Technology.
3 mentioned as the second trend, the “insistence that teachers must become technologically literate.”8 In his same book, Ely advocated the need to prepare teachers to be able to use technological devices.9 In addition, Zurita and Nussbaum found that students who used handheld devices were more motivated to learn than the control group who used traditional paper and pencil activities.10 The current use of handheld devices in classrooms also enriches students’ exposure to a variety of authentic resources. Examples of current uses include the internet and databases as well as wikis and blogs for collaboration.11
How did instructional materials evolve into multimodal, portable, effective educational tools? In my study, I researched the foundations of current handheld devices through a historical approach that considers the uses of classroom instructional materials in the past. Particularly, I was interested in discovering how selected portable responsive instructional materials influenced instruction from 1957 to 1982. These dates were significant as they are bound by the start of the space race in 1957 and the acceptance of the classroom computer in 1982. Educational computers existed prior to the 1980s, especially for programmed instruction, as seen in Wittich’s
1973 research.12 The introduction date of classroom computers varies from the Osborne Personal
Computer in 1981,13 to the introduction of the Apple IIe in 198214 or the International Business
8 Ely, Trends in Educational Technology, 39.
9 Ely, Trends in Educational Technology.
10 Zurita and Nussbaum, "Constructivist Mobile Learning Environment."
11 M. McCaffrey, “Why Mobile Is a Must,” T. H. E. Journal 38, no. 2 (February 2011): 21-22, accessed February 8, 2012, http://thejournal.com/articles/2011/02/08/why-mobile-is-a-must.aspx.
12 W. Wittich and C. Schuller, Instructional Technology: Its Nature and Use, 5th ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
13 Osborne Computer Corporation, “Going to Work with an Osborne Personal Business Computer,” Computer History Museum, January 24, 2006, accessed February 4, 2014, http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Osborne/Osborne.Osborne1.1981.102646263.pdf.
4 Machines’ personal computer for office, home, and classroom in 1983.15 A 1983 report shows that computers were used for instructional purposes in more than 75% of secondary schools and up to 40% at the elementary level.16 For the purpose of this study, the year 1982 was used to mark the general acceptance of classroom computer use. My study was an exploration of instructional materials for the specified twenty-five-year period to learn what influences these devices had on instruction both functionally and pedagogically as well as to conduct a failure analysis. A failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) technique was used for determining the possible failures of devices by examining potential problems and issues as a unique analysis tool in the educational technology field. FMEA is recognized as an analysis tool in the engineering and manufacturing fields.17 FMEA is discussed as an analysis tool that provided a unique analysis to this research in Chapter 6.
Instructional technologists seldom refer to what has happened in the past.18 However, it is important to study history because it explains human behavior.19 As a framework for this study, a
14 D. Pett and S. Grabinger, “Instructional Media Production,” in Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future, ed. G. Anglin (Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995), 308.; Apple Inc., “Apple IIe,” Computer History Museum, January 6, 2006, accessed February 14, 2014, http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Apple/Apple.IIe.1982.102646266.pdf.
15 International Business Machines Corporation, “IBM Personal Computers: For the Office, Home, Classroom,” Computer History Museum, January 6, 2006, accessed February 4, 2014, http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/IBM/IBM.PC.1983.102646177.pdf.
16 Center for Social Organization of Schools, School Uses of Microcomputers. Reports from a National Survey, Issue No. 1 (Baltimore: Center for Social Organization of Schools, John Hopkins University, 1983), 4.
17 F. Boylan, “Beg, Steal or Borrow? The Challenges Faced by Borrowing the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Method to Elicit the Unintended Consequences of Implementing E-Learning in the Higher Education Context” (International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, March 9-11, 2009), 1-9.
18 S. M. Ross, G. R. Morrison, and D. L. Lowther, “Educational Technology Research Past and Present: Balancing Rigor and Relevance to Impact School Learning,” Contemporary Education Technology 1, no. 1 (January 2010): 17-35.
5 historical content analysis was used to learn about historical experiences with instructional materials for the designated period. Ultimately, learning from the past creates an understanding of how society has evolved.20
In explaining human behavior from a historical perspective, trends in educational technology were identified in this study. In the 1920s, when Pressey’s teaching machine was first introduced as a mechanical device, educational theory began being applied to programmed instruction. As instructional materials evolved, so did instructional theory to include program- based instruction such as Thorndike’s 1912 Law of Effect and Skinner’s 1930s operant conditioning.21 Through progression, instructional theory has evolved to include the current trend of mobile learning (m-Learning)—that is, learning achieved through portable, personal devices.22
As seen in research by Skinner, Dieterle and Dede, and Zurita and Nussbaum as well as others, these learning theories continue to be used in educational environments.23 To use a historical analogy, based on the fictional story of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Glaser discussed Pressey’s
19 P. Stearns, “Why Study History?,” American Historical Association, July 11, 2008, accessed March 17, 2012, http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm.
20 J. R. Fraenkel and N. E. Wallen, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1996).
21 S. Shrock, “A Brief History of Instructional Development,” Chap. 2 in Instructional Technology: Past, Present and Future, ed. G. J. Anglin (Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995), 11-19.
22 J. Traxler, “Defining Mobile Learning” (IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2005, Helsinki, Finland, 2005), 261-266.; C. Norris and E. Soloway, “Handhelds: Getting Mobile,” District Administration (July 2008), accessed April 9, 2011, http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1638&p=3.
23B. F. Skinner, About Behaviorism. (New York: Vintage Books, 1974).; Zurita and Nussbaum, "Constructivist Mobile Learning Environment."; J. Roschelle, “Unlocking the Learning Value of Wireless Mobile Devices,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19, no. 3 (September 2003): 260-272.; E. Dieterle and C. Dede, “Straightforward and Deep Effects of Wireless Handheld Devices for Teaching and Learning in University Settings” (Report from American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, 2006), 1-24.; B. Patten, I. Sánchez, and B. Tangney, “Designing Collaborative, Constructionist, and Contextual Applications for Handheld Devices,” Computers and Education 46, no. 3 (April 2006): 294-308.
6 1920s research as “Christmas Past,” Skinner’s as having the role of “Christmas Present,” and
Ramo’s 1959 research on upcoming trends to represent “Christmas to Come.”24 In the past ninety years since Pressey’s teaching machine, much has changed in the educational uses of instructional materials, and the role of “Christmas to Come” has evolved from Ramo’s 1959 prediction of using electronics to enhance instruction to the reality of electronic devices for classroom instruction. Because instructional materials have evolved through history, as seen from the first teaching machines to the current tablet and smartphone technologies, it was important to consider and to support such changes for classroom instruction and to facilitate specific products to enhance learning environments.25
Statement of the Problem
Educational technologists need to consider how instructional materials have been used in classroom situations to better understand instructional pedagogies and functions. How have hands-on activities such as Froebel’s set of twenty objects created for kindergarten students26 evolved to be manipulative devices with which to instruct? In addition, how has the use of such devices influenced learning behaviors? As shown in Thorndike’s Law of Effect which proposed that practice produces learning, the more a student practices and receives feedback, the greater
24 R. Glaser, “Christmas Past, Present, and Future: A Review and Preview,” in Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book, ed. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser (Washington, DC: Department of Audio- Visual Instruction, National Education Association, 1960), 23.
25 D. W. Surry and D. Ely, “Adoption, Diffusion, Implementation, and Institutionalization of Educational Technology,” Chap. 11 in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, eds. R. Reiser and J. V. Dempsey (Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006), 104-111.
26 P. Saettler, The Evolution of American Educational Technology (Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2004).; E. F. Provenzo, “Friedrich Froebel's Gifts: Connecting the Spiritual and Aesthetic to the Real World of Play and Learning,” American Journal of Play 2, no. 1 (Summer 2009): 85-99.
7 the retention of the information and the more behaviors are weakened or reinforced.27
Thorndike’s experiment with hungry cats showed that the cats learned how to escape from the box to receive a fish as their reward; thus through repeated attempts, the cats learned.28
Thorndike’s experiments regarding stimulus-response theories led to future theories such as
Skinner’s operant conditioning and behaviorism.29 As Thorndike contended in 1912, “the best teacher uses books and appliances” to enforce his/her point; teachers should use tools that will save time and effort.30
Heinich called attention to the need to study historical origins of instructional devices.31
He compared technological devices’ initial startup such as the Gutenberg press, the railroad, and automobiles, which were all considered failures in the beginning—as there was no obvious improvement to the hand-written manuscripts and use of horses for transportation of the time.32
The historical study of instructional materials provides insight on how to use and integrate modern and ever-changing current devices as well as informs the future of educational environments.
27 E. Thorndike, The Elements of Psychology (Syracuse: The Mason-Henry Press, 1905).; J. A. Pershing, Handbook of Human Performance Technology, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2006), 161.
28 R. C. Richey, J. D. Klein, and M. W. Tracey, The Instructional Design Knowledge Base: Theory, Research, and Practice (New York: Routledge, 2011), 52.
29 S. A. McLeod, “Edward Thorndike - Law of Effect,” SimplyPsychology, 2007, accessed January 27, 2014, http://www.simplypsychology.org/edward-thorndike.html.; R. C. Richey, J. D. Klein, and M. W. Tracey, The Instructional Design Knowledge Base, 52.
30 E. Thorndike, Education: A First Book (New York: Arno Press, 1912), 167.
31 R. Heinich, “The Proper Study of Instructional Technology,” in Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future, 2nd ed., ed. G. Anglin (Englewood: Libraries Unlimited Inc., 1995), 76.
32 Heinich, "Proper Study Instructional Technology," 76.
8 Terms and Definitions
To help readers understand and interpret terms used in this study, the following definitions are provided. I have chosen to provide this information early in the dissertation to clarify terms used in this chapter as well as throughout this study. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the following definitions are used:
Audience: Audience is defined as United States students and teachers participating in primary, secondary, and higher education classes for instruction and learning purposes. The words students, learners, instructors, and teachers are used to represent this audience.
Audiovisual instruction (audiovisual communications): As defined by Dorris in 1928, learning enhanced by visual experiences involved the use of “flat pictures, models,
…stereographs, stereopticon slides, and motion pictures.”33 By 1947, the definition expanded to include the wide use of teaching materials to complement the textbook, such as radio and
“synthetic training devices.”34 By 1963, the National Education Association’s (NEA)
Department of Audiovisual Instruction (DAVI) coined the term audiovisual communications to represent “a branch of educational theory and practice concerned primarily with the design and use of messages which control the learning process.”35 Historically, the term audiovisual was written as audio visual, audiovisual, or AV. More recently, the word media is used, which implies
33 A. V. Dorris, Visual Instruction in the Public Schools (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1928), 6.
34 E. G. Noel and J. P. Leonard, Foundations for Teacher Education in Audio-Visual Instruction (Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1947), 1.
35 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process.
9 instructional content delivered via computers, the internet, and mobile applications.36 This study uses the word audiovisual throughout.
Computer-assisted instruction (CAI): Based on Skinner’s behaviorist and teaching machine research, early use of CAI included drill and practice activities as well as instructor- directed tutorials. CAI became prominent in the 1950s and 1960s as computer manufacturers realized the potential profit in the educational markets.37
Educational technology: The current definition, as defined in 2007 by the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), states, “Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological process and resources.”38 The committee that formed the 2007 definition spent much time discussing the word choice of educational over instructional.39 The 2007 AECT definition uses the term educational, as the committee incorporated instruction as a subset of education and wanted to include part of the association’s name—educational—within the definition.40 The 2007 AECT definition covers a broad view of educational technology—a definition that allows practitioners and researchers a variety of options. More information about educational technology and its impact on this study is included
36 R. Reiser, “Audiovisual Instruction,” in Encyclopedia of Terminology for Educational Communications and Technology, ed. R. C. Richey (New York: Springer, 2013), 16.
37 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.
38 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “Definition” in Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary, eds. A. Januszewski and M. Molenda (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007), 1.
39 A. Januszewski, “Afterword,” in Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008), 345.
40 Januszewski, "Afterword," 345.
10 in Chapter 3. For the purpose of this study, the term educational technology is also representative of instructional technology. Terms used match their usage in the referenced materials.
Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA): FMEA is a “technique used to define, identify and eliminate known and/or potential failures, problems, errors…from the system, design, process and/or service.”41 FMEA classifies the potential failure by assigning a severity code.42
Although used primarily in engineering, production, and manufacturing, as applied to instructional materials, FMEA provides a unique perspective as an analysis tool for this study.
Feedback: Feedback is responses issued to monitor and evaluate progress of an objective or goal.43 Many instructional scholars believe feedback is necessary to advance learning.44 Berlo perceived the role of feedback as an essential part of the model of communication that named the source, the message, the channel, and the receiver (SMCR) as its key components. Berlo used channels to represent various transmitters of the message such as feedback by the person or by an audiovisual method.45 Feedback can motivate and improve performance by increasing students’ desire to learn.46
41 T. P. Omdahl, ed., Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Dictionary (Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1988), 4.
42 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis: Military Standard (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 1980).
43 J. Spector et al., eds., “Glossary of Terms,” in Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd ed. (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008), 820.
44 B.F. Skinner, The Technology of Teaching (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968).; J. Hattie and H. Timperley, “The Power of Feedback,” Review of Educational Research 77, no. 1 (March 2007): 81-112.
45 D. K. Berlo, The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (New York: Rinehart and Winston, 1960).
46 E. Mory, “Feedback Research,” Chap. 32 in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, ed. D. H. Jonassen (New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1996), 919-956.
11 Handheld device(s): The physical nature of a handheld device is small, personal, and portable, a device that is lightweight so it can be held comfortably. Handheld devices are used in instructional settings to improve performance and knowledge. The device can be collaborative or individual in its functionality and/or can provide an answer or can support classroom activities.
Handheld devices can be electronic or mechanical-powered by battery or other electric source or manipulated by hand. Learning with handheld devices is described as communicative and computational without regard to location.47 Handheld devices are associated with m-Learning— learning wherever and whenever.48 Examples of handheld devices are smartphones—a mobile phone with computer-like capability—tablets, and classroom response systems. For the purpose of this study, handheld devices is a contemporary term for instructional materials that are portable and responsive. The spelling hand-held is used as an alternative in this study to match the spelling in referenced materials.
Instructional materials 1957-1982: In an educational setting, instructional materials are used to improve performance and knowledge; they include categories such as audio, motion and still film, projectors, cameras, field trips, and television.49 For the purpose of this study, the instructional materials used from 1957 to 1982 allow some type of response or feedback either to
47 Y. Park, “A Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning: Categorizing Educational Applications of Mobile Technologies Into Four Types,” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12, no. 2 (February 2011): 78-102.
48 M. van't Hooft et al., “What is Ubiquitous Computing?,” in Ubiquitous Computing in Education: Invisible Technology, Visible Impact, eds. M. van't Hooft and K. Swan (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007), 6.
49 Dorris, Visual Instruction Public Schools.; E. Dale, Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching (New York: The Dryden Press, 1946).; E. Dent, The Audio-Visual Handbook (Chicago: Society for Visual Education, Inc., 1946).; W. H. Allen, “Audio-Visual Materials,” Review of Educational Research 26, no. 2 (April 1956): 125-126.; W. Wittich and C. Schuller, Audiovisual Materials: Their Nature and Use, 4th ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1967).; V. Gerlach and D. Ely, Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980).
12 or from the participant from a display, screen, or other form of communication between the participant and the material. The participant may be a student or a teacher. The physical nature of the instructional materials is small, lightweight, and portable so it can be held comfortably. They can be collaborative or individual in their functionality, can serve to solve a problem, and/or can provide an answer in supporting classroom activities. Instructional materials can be electronic or mechanical. Examples of instructional materials that meet the definition set for this study include, but are not limited to reading accelerators, response systems, slide rules, and calculators.
Many types of instructional materials used during this period are not included due to the specific definition used for this study. For example, cameras and video equipment are not included in this study, as the participant does not respond directly using the equipment. This study focused on instructional materials used in education rather than corporate settings but included any device that crossed over from corporate to the educational realms. Other terms used to describe instructional materials are instructional aids,50 audiovisual materials,51 audiovisual equipment,52 instructional media,53 and handheld devices.54 Portable and responsive instructional materials used from 1957 to 1982 is abbreviated to PRIM ’57-’82 .
50 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 54.
51 C. W. Erickson, Fundamentals of Teaching with Audiovisual Technology (New York: Macmillan, 1965).; H. W. Wilson Company, Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature March 1982-February 1983 (Minneapolis: H. W. Wilson Company, 1983).
52 H. W. Wilson Company, Reader’s Guide 1982-1983.
53 R. C. Richey, ed., Encyclopedia of Terminology for Educational Communications and Technology (New York: Springer, 2013).
54 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 148.; Viewlex, “Right for Filmstrip Previewing,” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 6 (June 1963): 440. [Advertisement]; Highsmith, “A Greater Dimension in Learning...from Highsmith,” Instructional Innovator 27, no. 3 (March 1982): 2. [Advertisement]; K. Montor, “Feedback, an Aid to Teaching,” Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 5 (May 1970): 89-90.; Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.; Centre for Computing History, “The Hand-Held Pocket Calculator was Invented at Texas Instruments in 1966,” Centre for Computing History, n.d., accessed April 22, 2013,
13 Instructional media (educational media): In a 1963 task force position paper for the
AECT, Morris described instructional media as “tools for teaching and avenues of learning,” which included items that could be heard, seen, read, listened to, and manipulated with.55
Gerlach and Ely further classified media as “any person, material or event that establishes conditions which enable the learner to acquire knowledge, skills and attitudes.”56 Reiser and
Gagné defined instructional media as any manner or method used to deliver instruction other than the textbook, the classroom board (chalk or white), or the teacher.57 Lastly, the 2013
Encyclopedia of Terminology for Educational Communications and Technology definition of instructional media refers the reader to audiovisual instruction, as the term has evolved. Based on these definitions of media, the term instructional materials is a subset of instructional media.
Instructional technology: As defined in 1994, instructional technology is “the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management and evaluation of processes and resources for learning.”58 With this definition, instructional materials were considered a resource used for learning. The word instructional incorporates both the traditional classroom as well as learners in a corporate environment. Instructional technology has been a field that has evolved, through definition and redefintion over the past century, while reflecting changes in roles and
http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/5535/The%20hand- held%20pocket%20calculator%20was%20invented%20at%20Texas%20Instruments%20%20in%201966.
55 B. Morris, ed., “The Function of Media in the Public Schools-A Task Force Position Paper,” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 1 (January 1963): 11.
56 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1980), 282.
57 R. Reiser and R. Gagné, Selecting Media for Instruction (Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1983).
58 B. Seels and R. C. Richey, Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field (Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1994), 1.
14 functions of the profession. Refer to Chapter 3 for additonal information concerning the history of educational/instructional technology and its impact on this study.
Knowledge: Knowledge is the constructive interaction of a person with subject materials based on previous experiences resulting in an improved understanding of the instructional materials.59
Learning: Learning is the change in a person’s knowledge or behavior based on experiences.60 Learning is a process through which a person gains new skills and knowledge through study.61
Media: See Instructional Media.
m-Learning (mobile learning): m-Learning is described as learning achieved with a personal, portable, multimodal, and constructive device to assist in real-world simulations.62 For my purpose, m-Learning also includes ubiquitous learning (u-Learning) and electronic learning
(e-Learning), although there are variations as defined in the literature resources for this study.63 e-Learning is a term that became prominent as early as 2003.64
59 M. L. Bigge and S. S. Shermis, Learning Theories for Teachers, 6th ed. (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 1999), 137.; M. Gredler, Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice (Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1997), 362.
60 R. C. Richey, J. D. Klein, and M. W. Tracey, The Instructional Design Knowledge Base, 19.; J. O. Cook, “Research in Audiovisual Communication,” in Research, Principles and Practices in Visual Communication, eds. J. Ball and F. Byrnes (Washington, DC: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 1960), 91-106.
61 Gredler, Learning and Instruction.
62 C. Norris and Soloway, “Handhelds: Getting Mobile.”; Traxler, "Defining Mobile Learning."
63 J. Keengwe, D. Pearson, and K. Smart, “Technology Integration: Mobile Devices (iPods), Constructivist Pedagogy, and Student Learning,” Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) Journal 17, no. 4 (October 2009): 333-346.; J.-L. Shih, C.-W. Chuang, and G.-L. Hwang, “An Inquiry-Based Mobile Learning Approach to Enhancing Social Science Learning Effectiveness,” Educational Technology and Society 13, no. 4 (October 2010): 50-62.
64 R. C. Clark and R. E. Mayer, E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer, 2003).
15 Programmed instruction: Programmed instruction tends to use a linear or branching logic for an individual learner.65 It is initially thought of as an instructional system using a variety of media for instruction.66 Foundations of programmed instruction, written by Comenius in the
1600s, were thought to be that no student should proceed until he/she understands the objective.67 Thorndike prescribed this same thought in the early 1900s as programmed instruction become an intructional method.68 Markle, in 1963, described programmed instruction as the use of “programed [sic] materials to achieve educational objectives.”69 Furthermore, in the early 1960s, the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) publication, Studies on Intelligence, described programmed instruction as an “attempt to apply the science of learning to the art of teaching.”70
Response: A response is a psychological term used to label a behavior to a stimulas as a verbal, such as answering a question, or a non verbal reaction, such as making a selection or pushing a key.71 Skinner further defined response as being to write an answer or push a button or as being a principle of reinforcement, such as feedback made while using a teaching machine or
65 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational, 294.
66 R. Heinich, Technology and the Management of Instruction (Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1970), 123.
67 Skinner, Technology of Teaching, 61.
68 Skinner, Technology of Teaching.
69 S. Markle, “Programed Instruction and Teaching Machines,” in The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, Monograph No. 1 of the Technological Development Project of the National Education Association, ed. D. Ely (Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1963), 86. The spelling of “programed” includes only one m in this publication.
70 J. Fulcher, “Comes the Teaching Machine,” Studies in Intelligence 6 (Winter 1962): A5-A20. Central Intelligence Agency, accessed February 15, 2013, http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000609009.pdf.
71 Markle, "Programed Instruction and Teaching," 133.; S. Markle, Good Frames and Bad (New York: Wiley, 1964).
16 other instructional devices.72 Cook believed that unless a student made some form of response in the learning process, learning had not taken place.73 Additonal information about instructional materials that allow a response are discussed in Chapter 4.
Space race (race for space): Spurred on by the Cold War between the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR) and the United States of America (USA), the race for space was started with the Soviets’ launching of Sputnik 1 in 1957 and the first Soviet-manned flight in
1961. The Cold War and the launching of Sputnik prompted the creation of the National Defense
Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, which advanced math, science, and technology education through grants for research on audiovisual aids and training for teachers for classroom use of these tools, as well as for providing a network to disseminate research information through catalogs, reviews, and advisements.74 President Kennedy, in a special message on September 12,
1962, announced, “We choose the moon,” which placed additional emphasis on educational preparation in American schools and provided funding to send a man to the moon.75
Smartphone: A smartphone is a communication device with features such as internet access, location awareness, word processing, referential and data access, calendaring, and
72 Skinner, Technology of Teaching.
73 Cook, “Research in Audiovisual Communication.”
74 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.
75 J. F. Kennedy, “Address at Rice University in Houston, Texas on the Nation's Space Effort” [Video], September 12, 1962, accessed October 6, 2012, http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-127- 002.aspx.
17 collaboration abilities.76 Ericsson, a telecommunications manufacturer, first used the term smartphone in describing the GS88 telephone developed in 1997.77
Teaching machine: A teaching machine is an instruction-providing device that requires an active response or interaction with the machine. The response time allows for individualized student instruction. In addition, the device must provide immediate feedback on student-provided responses.78
Tool: A tool is an instructional material used to improve learning and to assist in instruction as based on Taylor’s 1980 concept of computers as tools.79
Although this is a comprehensive list of definitions, it is meant to be a starting point. As seen throughout audiovisual and educational technology history, definitions and contexts change and evolve. Providing context aids in the understanding of the events and instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 and is provided throughout this document in reference to these definitions.80
76 G. Clough et al. “Informal Learning with PDAs and Smartphones,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, no. 5 (October 2008): 359-371.; Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist."
77 Eri-No-Moto, “Ericsson GS88 Preview,” Eri-No-Moto, 2006, accessed January 25, 2014, http://pws.prserv.net/Eri_no_moto/GS88_Preview.htm.; Stockholm Smartphone, “History - Stockholm Smartphone,” Stockholm Smartphone, 2010, accessed September 5, 2014, http://www.stockholmsmartphone.org/history/.; T. G. Meyer, “Path Dependence in Two-Sided Markets: A Simulation Study on Technological Path Dependence with an Application to Platform Competition in the Smartphone Industry” (PhD diss., Freie University, 2012), 323.
78 A. Lumsdaine, “Teaching Machines and Self-Instructional Materials,” AudioVisual Communication Review 7, no. 3 (Summer 1959): 163-181.; E. Fry, “Teaching Machine Dichotomy: Skinner Vs. Pressey,” Psychological Reports (Southern Universities Press) 6, no. 1 (1960): 11-14.
79 R. Taylor, The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee (New York: Teachers College Press, 1980).
80 A. DeVaney and R. Butler, “Voices of the Founders: Early Discourses in Educational Technology,” Chap. 1 in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, ed. D. H. Jonassen (New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1996), 3-45.
18 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to develop a knowledge base for the educational technology field regarding a subset of instructional materials used from 1957 to 1982. This study looked at the materials that met the specified requirements as outlined in its Terms and
Definitions section—materials that are portable and responsive. As Heinich suggests, technology needs to be reviewed not just from the beginning performance but also as a whole.81 Establishing a clearly defined set of instructional media used during this time allows me to apply FMEA to the specifically identified instructional materials of the period and to establish a framework designating pedagogical and functional implications of the designated tools.
Background of the Study
Instructional materials described in this study are small, portable, and responsive materials or devices that can be used in a learning environment. In the period between 1957 and
1982, the concept of instructional materials was established through the audiovisual movement.
A current term as used in this study to describe instructional materials is handheld devices. From a historical perspective, the use of handheld in reference to a handheld viewing device was found in the literature as early as 1963.82 In Rosenberg and Feinstein’s 1976 edition of Dictionary of
Library and Educational Technology, the term hand viewer was present, but the terms handheld, tool, or device were not represented.83 Apple introduced the first personal digital assistants
81 Heinich, "Proper Study Instructional Technology," 76.
82 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 52, 82.
83 K. C. Rosenberg and P. T. Feinstein, Dictionary of Library and Educational Technology, 2nd ed. (Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1983).
19 (PDAs) in 1993, yet it was not until approximately 2001, with the influx and increased demand for PDA functionality, that the word handheld was used in the educational technology field.84
Making the association between instructional materials and handheld devices assists in making connections between the contemporary and historical uses of these types of tools in education. It is important to establish the evolutionary progress between instructional materials and handheld devices to show the connection of the past to the present.
My definition of instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 assisted in refining the research process of identifying educational tools. Thus, my research included a subset of the instructional devices available during the specified twenty-five-year period.
My content analysis historiography of instructional materials fills a gap in the available research on instructional tools from 1957 to 1982. Saettler, a well-recognized historian in the educational technology field, provided information on the beginning of media research starting with the 1937 Rockefeller Foundation study at the University of Wisconsin and continuing through later projects on radio and instructional film. According to Saettler, research evolved to include behavioral objectives, teaching machines, and programmed and computer-aided instruction.85 In addition, in 1958, Skinner identified the need to provide a historical comparison of his 1950s teaching machine to Pressey’s 1920 machine, thus underlining the importance of historical research.86
Benjamin provided a historical perspective regarding teaching machines used in education from the 1920’s introduction of Pressey’s teaching machine to Skinner’s 1953
84 T. P. Moran and P. Dourish, “Introduction to This Special Issue on Context-Aware Computing,” Human- Computer Interaction 16, no. 2 (December 2001): 87-95.
85 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.
86 B. F. Skinner, “Teaching Machines,” Science 128, no. 3330 (October 1958), 969-977.
20 reintroduction of that machine. Included in Benjamin’s perspective is evidence of the increasing use of programmed instruction from the 1920s as well as its decline in the 1960s.87 While
Benjamin published an in-depth study on teaching machines used throughout the period, he did not address other instructional devices used during this time. My interest in studying instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 is due to the lack of research available on other devices, such as reading machines, slide rules, and calculators within this period. In my efforts to explore instructional materials used in the twenty-five-year period between 1957 and 1982, I provide similar historical information as Benjamin provided on a single instructional device type.
My study includes the period of the teaching machine’s rise and fall as a major device and system in education, but due to its size and lack of portability, it was excluded from this study.
Instead, I focus on small and responsive devices used for instructional purposes.
Research Questions
Instructional materials have evolved over centuries. For example, instructional materials trace back to the Orbus pictus, a visual aid used by Comenius in the
1650s; to Froebel’s gifts in the 1830s; and to the stylus used in sand to instruct in nineteenth- century Lancasterian classrooms.88 Current handheld devices in the classroom include personal response systems, smartphones, and iPads/tablets. My research evolved as I discovered PRIM
’57-’82 and found connections between historical uses from the beginning of the space race through the introduction of the classroom computer—a time span of twenty-five years.
87 L. T. Benjamin, “A History of Teaching Machines,” American Psychologist 43, no. 9 (September 1988): 709-710.
88 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.
21 My interest in the historical uses of instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 that were chiefly small, portable, and responsive devices and their applications in education raised several questions that guided this research. Dieterle suggested in 2005 conference proceedings that
“substantial work is needed in developing strategies for design implementation” to recognize the potential of handheld devices in instruction.89 Through this historical approach, perhaps educational technologists can learn from previous work such as by finding a similar device or purpose to use in building new strategies. The following questions guided my research. Given the time period of 1957 to 1982,
What educational pedagogies became prevalent through the use of instructional
materials from 1957 to 1982 as defined by this research?
What were the educational functions of instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 as
defined by this research?
How was the functionality of instructional materials as defined by this research
considered a success or a failure as related to present-day portable and responsive
devices?
What were the life cycles of instructional materials as defined by this research in the
educational process?
The use of instructional materials, such as response systems and testing instruments has advanced to current educational tools that promote interaction, collaboration, and at-hand information for a mobile learning society.90 Using my research questions, I sought to contribute
89 E. Dieterle, “Handheld Devices for Ubiquitous Learning and Analyzing” (National Educational Computing Conference, Philadelphia, 2005), 13.
90 M. El-Hussein and J. Cronje, “Defining Mobile Learning in the Higher Education Landscape,” Educational Technology and Society 13, no. 3 (July 2010): 12-21.
22 to the field of educational technology, to fill a gap in the literature regarding the history of instructional materials, and to positively impact future applications of handheld devices in instructional fields.
Significance of the Study
Continued study of instructional materials is important because learning opportunities that seemed impossible five to ten years ago are now possible with handheld devices such as tablets and smartphones. Students ten years ago carried heavy and expensive textbooks back and forth to class. However, with mobile technologies, such as the variety of e-readers currently on the market, students can access textbook content through a device that weighs far less than the print version. Handheld devices continue to be developed and enhanced with functionality as well as infrastructure advances such as 4G, the fourth generation of standards for mobile phone communications, that provide internet access and unlimited and more affordable data plans. The ongoing evolution of handheld devices creates the need for further research of their educational potential.
Limitations of the Study
As with most historical research, a constraint of this study is the availability of primary sources and, of particular consideration, the location of the sources. Although I was willing to travel and locate resources for this research, I had a specific budget dedicated to this endeavor.
Another limitation is the availability of internet research and library resources such as databases from the period selected for this research. Whereas resources are available for contemporary studies, most journal articles from 1957 to 1982 have not been archived electronically.
23 Fortunately, the Northern Illinois University (NIU) library archived education journals from this period in a physical format, as did other libraries in Missouri and Texas.
A scarcity of actual artifacts is also a limitation of this study. From my research already initiated, I had found photographs of devices used during the period. I explored and recorded artifacts found in the Lee and Lida Cochran AECT Archives located on the NIU campus.
Although this is a national collection, I needed to evaluate how representative this collection is to the whole United States. Through several virtual museums, such as the Smithsonian
Institute - National Museum of American History Collection, the Computer History Museum, and the Joel and Irene Benedict Visual Literacy Collection, I was able to collect imagery of artifacts relevant to my study. Although I researched many avenues to collect data, I was not able to explore all of the aforementioned educational museums for artifacts, which placed a limitation on my study.
Once instructional materials were identified as part of my study, I faced the challenge of exploring their purposes and functions in an instructional setting. Limitations on identifying these characteristics were in the location of instructors and students who had had experiences with a specific device of the time as well as in the manufacturers of identified devices. Use of oral history interviews as a primary source was minimal due to accessibility difficulties of potential interviewees.
Using a FMEA may have had limitations in its use for this study due to the lack of essential information needed to conduct the analysis. FMEA is generally a quantitative tool to analyze failures in products by determining causes and offering solutions or adaptations. A template was created by me to conduct a FMEA with the realization that not all required components of the FMEA were available. Another limitation is that the FMEA conducted using
24 PRIM ’57-’82 data was completed by an individual instead of a team. FMEAs led by one person must identify any biases regarding the data collected.
Lastly, a limitation that exists with any historical research is the awareness of one’s own biases and experiences. I needed to keep in mind that as a student during this time period, I experienced the race to space in my classrooms, and the impact of the NDEA on science and math education was evident in the teaching of “new math” in the early 1960s. I needed to validate the authenticity and reliability of information without bringing my experiences into the process. Methods described in the Methodology chapter were established to validate and authenticate artifacts.
Theoretical Framework
My historical content analysis study is rooted in poststructural theory. Poststructuralism examines the social discourses that influence the shape of individuals’ stories91 and can be engaged to “examine any commonplace situations, any ordinary event or process to think about it differently.”92 As Foucault initially explained, “we have to dig deeply to show how things have been historically contingent.”93 Poststructural strategies require an author to rethink all past history and to create his/her version of the historical events.94 For example, St. Pierre suggests an
91 E. K. Klose, “Our Journeys: A Narrative Inquiry Into the Experiences of Students from Working Class Backgrounds as They Pursue Higher Education,” (PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2011), 121.
92 E. A. St. Pierre, “Poststructural Feminism in Education: An Overview,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: An Overview 13, no. 5 (September 2000): 478.
93 M. Foucault, Foucault Live: Interviews 1966-1984, ed. S. Lotinger, trans. J. Johnson Foreign Agents Series (New York: Semiotext(e), 1989), 192.
94 St. Pierre, "Poststructural Feminism in Education," 500.
25 author has the ability to “analyze, contest, and change practices that are being used to construct ourselves and the world.”95 Thus, the reader creates meaning by interacting with the text.96
Discourse is critical to the poststructural technique. Bové explains poststructuralism as organized and regulated forms of language.97 Language is governed by constructed rules that allow some statements to be made and others not; in other words, it allows discourse to “fit into
…its own history and conditions of existence.”98 Discourse is useful in poststructural approaches, as it allows a change in the way we think of language—auditory or visual languages—and how it operates in finding information.99 With this in mind, Van Djik describes discourse as a social interaction between the participants.100 As further clarification, Van Dijk explains discourse as communication to obtain knowledge.101 Discourse, simply stated, is not just verbal; it organizes information from a way of thinking into a way of acting.102
As a theoretical framework for this study, poststructuralism is effective in that it offers new ways to read, both literally and visually, information concerning instructional materials from
95S. Sim, “Lyotard and the Politics of Antifoundationalism,” Radical Philosophy 14 (Autumn 1986), 10.; St. Pierre, "Poststructural Feminism in Education," 493.
96 A. DeVaney, “Reading Educational Computer Programs,” in Computer in Education: Social, Political and Historical Perspectives, eds. R. Muffoletto and N. Knupfer (Cresskill: Hampton Press, 1993), 181-196.
97 P. Bové, “Discourse,” in Critical Terms for Literary Study, eds. F. Lentricchia and T. McLauglin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 54-55.
98 M. Barrett, The Politics of Truth: From Marx to Foucault (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971), 126.
99 M. Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, trans. R. Swyer (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).; St. Pierre, "Poststructural Feminism in Education," 484-485.
100 T. A. van Dijk, “Introduction: The Study of Discourse,” Chap. 1 in Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (London: Sage, 1997), 3.
101 van Dijk, "Introduction Study of Discourse," 3.
102 St. Pierre, "Poststructural Feminism in Education," 485.
26 1957 to 1982.103 It additionally allows me to have a deep understanding of the data as a reader participating in my own experiences104 because poststructural researchers are “highly self- conscious” in order to prevent the distortion of research experiences.105 Similar to Foucault view, everyday experience and language are used to define knowledge.106 Thus, this study examining the historical context of portable and responsive instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 is viewed through a poststructural lens.
Organization of the Dissertation
The following chapters are relevant to the research that I conducted on instructional materials from 1957 to 1982.
The introductory chapter provides background about the problem, key definitions and terms used throughout the study, and the research questions that guided this study.
The methodology plan is discussed in Chapter 2. The methodology applied in this study was a qualitative content analysis using written text descriptions and images of instructional materials while applying a poststructural theory as a framework.
A literature review is incorporated throughout the dissertation. An integrated literature review illustrates the use of instructional materials in the classroom and ties research about instructional materials of the past to similar devices used currently in K-16 classrooms. A
103 B. Aggar, “Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance,” Annual Review of Sociology 17 (August 1991): 120.
104 Aggar, “Critical Theory, Poststructuralism,” 120.
105 G. Marcus and M. Fischer, “Ethnography and Interpretive Anthropology,” Chap. 2 in Anthropology as a Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 23.
106 Aggar, “Critical Theory, Poststructuralism,” 117.
27 separate literature review chapter was not created, as the pertinent literature information was included as part of the story of the instructional materials that met this study’s instructional materials definition: portable and responsive, and used to improve classroom performance during the 1957 to 1982 period. An extensive search was conducted for portable and responsive instructional materials, which included books, peer-reviewed journal articles, images, advertisements, interviews, and artifacts.
Additional chapters discuss selected instructional materials’ pedagogies and functions from 1957 to 1982. This study’s organization by material types, pedagogies, and functions— rather than by decades—allows for connections to the past as well as to the future. Chapters based on a particular period or decade would limit the ability to make these types of connections to present-day devices. Specific codes, categories, subcategories, and groups as determined in this study are used to define the organization of the findings. When these organizational features refer to the entire PRIM ’57-’82 group of objects, title case is used. For example, if I am referring to the Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices as a set, italicized title case is used, and when referring to generic audio-based devices, then sentence case is used.
After a discussion of instructional materials types, pedagogies, and functions, a findings chapter is provided. In this chapter, I provide a functional framework derived from the available instructional materials for the specified period, which is similar to Patten, Sánchez, and
Tangney’s framework on mobile devices.107 Similar to the identification of codes and categories mentioned above, title case is used in reference to this study’s functional classifications (i.e.,
Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation).
107 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist."
28 A chapter to explain how the specified instructional materials from the twenty-five-year period were analyzed by using a FMEA illustrates possible failures that could have been overcome by the invention and adaptation of devices in the current day.
The final chapter provides conclusions and a summary of the research. Included is information about specifically defined instructional materials used in classroom instruction, including classroom functions of the materials and the FMEA conducted on the functionality of
PRIM ’57-’82 objects.
CHAPTER 2
METHOODOLOGY
The methodology for this study was a qualitative perspective in the form of a content analysis and a historiography to address the aspects of instructional materials used in education from the launching of Sputnik 1in 1957 to the introduction of the classroom computer in 1982.
Reasons for choosing a content analysis for my dissertation are based on discovering new information about uses of instructional materials and to identify any possible relationship between the past and present uses of these materials in education as well as to establish a framework of pedagogical and functional uses of the instructional tools found through the research process. The narrative format of a historiography allows the information to be formulated into an analytical story, to share the knowledge gained, to enlighten the reader to new data, and to contribute to the educational technology field. Failure mode and effect analysis
(FMEA) was used to analyze the functional success or failure of the instructional materials identified for this study. The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:
What educational pedagogies became prevalent through the use of instructional
materials from 1957 to 1982 as defined by this research?
What were the educational functions of instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 as
defined by this research?
30 How was the functionality of instructional materials as defined by this research
considered a success or a failure as related to present-day portable and responsive
devices?
What were the life cycles of instructional materials as defined by this research in the
educational process?
Eisele and Eisele explain the importance of historical educational technology documents.
The authors contend, “people think of educational technology as microcomputers in education, with no significant precedents.”1 They also state that perhaps mistakes or ill-advised decisions can be avoided by looking at past events; additionally, looking into the past may assist in planning for successful implementation of instructional materials in education.2 Furthermore,
Willis contends that historical research is underutilized and stresses the significant contribution that Saettler and Anglin have made to the history of educational technology.3 To answer research questions in a historical content analysis, rigorous research methodology using historical documents, articles, advertisements, and other sources of images should be employed.4 Content analysis and historiography as well as an “at large” literature review were utilized to answer the research questions for this study.
1 J. Eisele and M. Eisele, Educational Technology: A Planning and Resource Guide Supporting Curriculum (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1990), 13.
2 Eisele and Eisele, Educational Technology.
3 J. Willis, Qualitative Research Methods in Education and Educational Technology (Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2008).
4 C. Calorusso, Rethinking the Role of the Landscape in Historic Interpretation: A Constructivist Design Approach to Interpreting Slavery in Appalachian Virginia (Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, 2002), 49.
31 Content Analysis
Content analysis is defined as a research method for creating “replicable and valid inferences from text (or other meaningful matter) to the context of their use.”5 Holsti defines content analysis as a technique for “making inferences by systematically and objectively identifying specified characteristics of the message.”6 Furthermore, Berelson (1952),
Krippendorff (1980), and Weber (1990), recognized leaders in the development of content analysis, use words such as objective and systematic to define content analysis.7
Content analysis, used as an empirical inquiry for communications, is approximately sixty to seventy years old as a research tool—yet historically it has been found in the 1600s when studying European theology in nonreligious publications that were viewed as a threat to the
Church’s authority.8 Again used in the eighteenth century, content analysis was significant in the research of 90 hymns published in the Songs of Zion, a collection of hymns thought to be subversive to the church clergy.9 By the early twentieth century, newspapers, textbooks, and print advertising were evaluated using content analysis methodology.10 Media were used as data
5 K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2004), 18.
6 O. R. Holsti, J. K. Loomba, and R. C. North, “Content Analysis,” Chap. 16 in The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1967), 601.
7 B. Berelson, Content Analysis in Communications Research (New York: Free Press, 1952), 18.; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004).; R. P. Weber, Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 1990), 9.
8 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 3.
9 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 4.
10 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 6.
32 in a propaganda content analysis study conducted initially by Lasswell in 1927.11 In fact, content analysis was useful in the study of World War II propaganda, revealing the power of mass communications.12 After World War II, content analysis was used as an interdisciplinary method by psychologists, anthropologists, and historians.13As discussed by Holsti, Krippendorff, and
Prasad, content analysis relies on three basic principles. First, the researcher follows established rules to remain objective in the data collection and findings processes. Second, content analysis is a systematic approach to data analysis; in other words, the data selected to be part of a study must meet specific criteria. Finally, the principle of content analysis is generalization: the results of a content analysis study can be applied to other similar situations.14 Furthermore,
Krippendorff explains that content analysis is a research method that enables the researcher to study beyond the impressionistic observations, to research in an unobtrusive manner, and to be context-sensitive.15 Content analysis is considered a safe analytical method as it allows researchers to review or return, as needed, to observe and analyze the data repeatedly.16 Content analysis is labor-intensive in collecting, reviewing, and analyzing the data.17 Content analysis is
11 H. Lasswell, Propaganda Techniques in the World War (New York: Knopf, 1927).; J. Macnamara, “Media Content Analysis: Its Uses; Benefits and Best Practice Methodology,” Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal 6, no. 1 (2005): 1.
12 W. H. Allen, “Instructional Media Research: Past, Present, and Future,” AudioVisual Communication Review 19, no. 1 (Spring 1971): 8.; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 8.
13 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 13.
14 Holsti, Loomba, and North, "Content Analysis," 598.; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004).; B. D. Prasad, “Content Analysis: A Method in Social Science Research,” Chap. 10 in Research Methods for Social Work, eds. D. K. Lal Das and V. Bhaskaran (New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 2008), 175.
15 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 40.; Prasad, "Content Analysis A Method," 174.; E. Babbie, “Unobtrusive Research,” Chap. 11 in The Practice of Social Research, 13th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 330.
16 Prasad, "Content Analysis A Method," 180.
17 Prasad, "Content Analysis A Method," 179.
33 suitable for working with large amounts of data and, with modern computer systems, large amounts of data can be analyzed efficiently.18 Transana Software, a software package created for qualitative researchers to analyze video, audio, and still images, is a program considered to be helpful in managing large amounts of data.19 Other computer programs that assist in content analysis include word counts, dictionary-based programs, and platforms that develop an environment from the data.20 For this research, the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program was used to categorize, sort, and analyze the portable and responsive instructional materials 1957-
1982 (PRIM ’57-’82) data that were collected.
Chapter 1 presents the poststructural framework and the use of discourse to analyze the data for this study. Discourse is used as one approach in content analysis. Discourse as defined by Krippendorff is the “text above the level of sentences.”21 As Foucault theorized, discourse allows the researcher and the reader to think differently from each other.22
18 Prasad, "Content Analysis A Method," 180.
19 Transana, “Transana,” Transana, 2014, accessed May 13, 2014, http://transana.org/.
20 R. P. Weber, “Computer-Aided Content Analysis: A Short Primer,” Qualitative Sociology 7, no. 1/2 (Summer 1984): 126-149.; W. Lowe, “Software for Content Analysis – A Review,” 2002, accessed May 13, 2014, http://kb.ucla.edu/system/datas/5/original/content_analysis.pdf.
21 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 16.
22 Foucault, Order of Things.
34 Content Analysis Approaches
There are two established approaches for conducting a content analysis: deductive category applications and inductive category development.23 A deductive content analysis may involve retesting existing data relating to new concepts or categories or working with theories or categories previously formulated.24 An inductive content analysis evolves from codes and categories generated by the researcher through the examination of the data,25 moving from specific to general ideas.26 For this study, an inductive category development was used as a qualitative method. Information concerning the inductive category development approach is provided in the next section.
In an inductive approach, the researcher examines messages without any preconceived categories or ideas.27 It is important to formulate the categories from the material studied in order to develop an interpretation close to the data collected.28 The researcher, in an inductive
23 P. Mayring, “Qualitative Content Analysis,” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1, no. 2 (June 2000): 3, accessed March 26, 2014, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385.; C. Spannagel, M. Gläser-Zikuda, and U. Schroeder, “Application of Qualitative Content Analysis in User-Program Interaction Research,” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6, no. 2 (May 2005): 3, accessed April 15, 2014, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/download/469/1005.; S. Elo and H. Kyngäs, “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process,” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62, no. 1 (March 2008): 109.
24 Mayring, "Qualitative Content Analysis," 3-4.; N. Kondracki, N. Wellman, and D. Amundson, “Content Analysis: Review of Methods and Their Applications in Nutrition Education,” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 34, no. 4 (July/August 2002): 225.; Spannagel, Gläser-Zikuda, and Schroeder, "Application of Qualitative Content," 3.; S. Elo and H. Kyngäs, “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process,” 111.
25 B. Johnson and L. Christensen, Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, 4th ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2011).
26 Elo and Kyngäs, "Qualitative Content Analysis Process," 109.
27 Kondracki, Wellman, and Amundson, “Content Analysis,” 225.
28 Mayring, "Qualitative Content Analysis," 3.
35 approach, may shift direction or categories as the data evolve and develop into categories.29 Data begin as specific instances, while the categories create a larger general statement.30 Elo and
Kyngäs suggest the use of inductive content analysis for cases in which previous studies are scarce or fragmented.31 Mayring provides the model in Figure 1 for using inductive category development.
Using Figure 1, I started with the research question, then a determination was created for the selection process. In this study, the determination was the use of instructional materials from
1957 to 1982 that were portable and responsive as described in the Terms and Definition in
Chapter 1. This determination was helpful in limiting the data from all of the instructional materials used during this timeframe, thus narrowing the data to be analyzed. Once the data were selected using the definition criteria, categories were determined as tentative, reworked and reviewed with reliability checks in order to formulate the results.32 Reliability was attained through consistency in classifying the discovered data.33 Reliability also, as applied to content analysis, was reproducible and accurate.34 I formed categories from the portable and responsive instructional materials I found in use from 1957 to 1982.
29 Kondracki, Wellman, and Amundson, "Content Analysis," 225.; Elo and Kyngäs, "Qualitative Content Analysis Process," 109.
30 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 36.; Elo and Kyngäs, "Qualitative Content Analysis Process," 109.
31 Elo and Kyngäs, "Qualitative Content Analysis Process," 113.
32 Mayring, "Qualitative Content Analysis," 3.
33 G. H. Stempel, “Content Analysis,” Chap. 7 in Research Methods in Mass Communications, eds. G. H. Stempel and B. H. Westley (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981), 132.
34 K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980), 130-154.; Weber, Basic Content Analysis, 17.
36
Figure 1. Inductive category development (Mayring 2000) in Qualitative Content Analysis. Permission received April 14, 2014, from Katja Mruck. (See Appendix A.)
37 The Content Analysis Process
Certain processes or steps were essential to complete this study. The recognized steps in conducting a content analysis qualitative research study begin with locating the data and move to the analysis and finally, to publishing the results. Additional information provided in this chapter concerns the specific techniques used for this study based on these steps. As described by prominent content analysis researchers, such as Collier, Krippendorff, Neuendorf, Prasad, and
Stempel, the six steps are as follows:
1. Unitizing—relying on specified definitions; in other words, making decisions about what
data is to be collected for the study.35
2. Selection or Sampling—relying on sampling plans that answer the research questions. As
with statistical methodologies, there are several types used in a content analysis such as
random, systematic, or stratified relevance as well as other types.36 Relevance or
purposive sampling is selecting articles, data, and text from key media sources.37
3. Recording/coding—relying on coding instructions when used in gathering the data. The
recording of the information is subject to the researcher’s interpretation as well as to the
coding of that information. Coding also exists of interviews, text, and images used in
content analysis.38
35 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (1980), 52.; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 97.
36 J. Collier, Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), 70.; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (1980).; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004).; Prasad, "Content Analysis A Method," 181.
37 Macnamara, “Media Content Analysis,” 13.
38 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (1980).; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004).
38 4. Reducing data—relying on methods to consolidate the data to manageable
representations, e.g., removing duplicate data and recognizing commonalities between
the data collected.39 Data reduction may be statistical, or data may be eliminated due to
irrelevance.40
5. Inference—relying on constructs or models to derive conclusions, yet knowing that
inference cannot provide knowledge with absolute certainty.41 Inference is subject to the
researcher’s knowledge and interpretation.
6. Narrating and analyzing the data collected—answering the research questions and relying
on discursive conventions established to convey the results.42 Several methods to analyze
the data or narrate the results are available such as frequency analysis, correlations,
clustering, and contextual classifications.43 Although beyond the scope of this study,
many techniques exist to assist in the quantitative analysis of data, including word
counters, computers, and software programs.
Notice the similarities of Mayring’s inductive approach, shown in Figure 1., to these generalized steps for conducting a content analysis, e.g., the comparison of the determination of categories of the inductive approach to the general concept of unitizing. Mayring further conveys the idea of conducting a qualitative content analysis while preserving the advantages of a
39 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004).
40 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (1980), 55. 41 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (1980), 99.; Prasad, "Content Analysis A Method," 180.
42 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (1980), 52.; Stempel, "Content Analysis," 124-136.; K. Neuendorf, The Content Analysis Guidebook (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2002).; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 83.; Prasad, "Content Analysis A Method," 181.
43 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (1980), 117-119.
39 quantitative content analysis.44 Four points are stressed, including fitting the materials into a model of communication for establishing the inferences driven by the data, the rules of analysis in which the data will be investigated, maintaining the categories as the center of the analysis, and finally, the reliability and validity of the data gathered.45 A quantitative content analysis generally collects data and counts keyword-in-context (KWIC) frequency,46 with the results being an objective and systematic analysis of the content.47 Content analysis, from a social science perspective, tends to use a hybrid of both qualitative and quantitative analysis, with each technique making a significant contribution as a research method.48 Furthermore, Neuman discusses the use of qualitative content analysis as an essential and interpretative approach favored by feminist and social science researchers.49
Newbold, Boyd-Barrett, and Van den Bulck contend that conducting a qualitative media content analysis may have effects on the interpretation of the data. Newbold et al. point out that the analysis of data collected in a qualitative approach may be subject to credibility perceptions of the media; for example, a professional journal may be more credible than a public publication.
The second point is the context in which the media is published (e.g., an article proposing improvement in school performance using a particular device just prior to high-stakes testing).
44 Mayring, "Qualitative Content Analysis."
45 Mayring, "Qualitative Content Analysis," 2.
46 Macnamara, “Media Content Analysis,” 4.
47 P. Shoemaker and S. Reese, Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content, 2nd ed. (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1996), 30.
48 Stempel, "Content Analysis," 126.; Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message, 29.
49 W. Neuman, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Needham Heights, MA: Allen and Bacon, 1997), 273.
40 The third effect is the audience characteristics, such as age, sex, and education level, which will affect the interpretation of the media content.50
Refer to the Content Analysis Concerns section for a discussion of the content analysis process and concerns as applied to this study.
Content Analysis Process as Applied to This Study
To apply the content analysis steps listed above to my study of PRIM ’57-’82, I offer the following methods.
1. Unitizing or units of measure were developed from images and text associated with the
audiovisual and instructional/educational fields. Broadly based on the instructional
materials 1957-1982 definition as provided in Chapter 1, I began reviewing books,
journals articles, textbooks, and images that qualify for inclusion in this study. Over six
hundred images were recorded, and hundreds of articles were collected for analysis. The
unitizing theme was the definition of instructional materials 1957-1982 of portable and
responsive devices.
2. Sampling was developed through collecting data for further analysis in preparation for
the coding. The sampling used in this study is a relevance sample, one of many sampling
techniques used in content analysis. Relevance or purposive sampling collects all data
that relate to the research questions; in other words, the sampling is based on the
researcher’s decision of what to include or exclude from the study.51 Books, audiovisual
50 C. Newbold, O. Boyd-Barrett, and H. Van den Bulck, The Media Book (London: Arnold, 2002).
51 D. Riffe, S. Lacy, and F. Fico, Analyzing Media Messages: Quantitative Content Analysis (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998), 86.; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 119.
41 journals, textbooks, advertisements, and other media were reviewed and selected based
on my opinion that each was the best representation of instructional materials 1957-
1982. Refer to Appendix B that highlights the journals used during this sampling process.
After researching many types of available data collection resources, I decided that the
Audiovisual Instruction journal provided the best information and images concerning the
use of instructional materials in educational settings. In this relevance sampling, I
reviewed the twenty-five-year period of this study, for all issues of Audiovisual
Instruction/Instructional Innovator,52 recording articles and images that may fit into my
unit of measure—PRIM ’57-’82—that is portable and responsive instructional materials
1957-1982.
3. Coding of the data was established though the use of categories of audiovisual terms and
categories in the field. The resources listed in Table 1 were used to determine audiovisual
terms, codes, and categories for this study. As a method to gather instructional materials
codes and categories for this content analysis, Table 1’s resources were read and
reviewed, gathering audiovisual categories used in the publications. The table’s resources
were chosen for the determination of the coding categories because its authors were
frequently cited in audiovisual literature. As this is a poststructural document, the
selection was mine to determine the inclusion or exclusion of a resource. The
accumulated codes for each source were compiled and analyzed to ascertain a list of
instructional materials categories to determine the coding of Steps 1 and 2 listed above.
The codes used were audio, films-motion, films-slide, films-strips, images non-projected,
52 Audiovisual Instruction was published from 1956 to 1980. The name of the journal was then changed to Instructional Innovator in 1980. More information about educational technology journals is provided in Chapter 3.
42 programmed instruction, simulation, miscellaneous, projection, demonstration, real
objects, transparencies, television, video, furniture, production equipment, and
interactive. I created the Interactive code to combine several key terms into one area, as
these instructional materials did not fit into the other categories as established by the
resources reviewed. Interactive, for the purpose of this study, includes instructional kits,
teaching machines, games, and instructional systems. Refer to Appendix C for the PRIM
’57-’82 codes, the years in use, and categorical examples listed in this study as derived
from the above listed resources. The categories used in this study may not include all
instructional materials categories used during the twenty-five-year period. Other
resources, not referenced in this study, may offer different and additional categories. The
recording and coding of data were the researcher’s responsibility. The interpretation was
the researcher’s responsibility and fell into the poststructural framework. Recording and
coding was completed in relation to images as well as interviews conducted for this
study.
4. To reduce the data to manageable numbers, I took the original 646 items collected from
books, journal articles, textbooks, advertisements, and images and then applied the codes
and categories listed in Step 3 above. I also applied the definition of instructional
materials 1957-1982 to the list to narrow down the results by showing only the portable
and responsive, electronic/mechanical, and individual/collaborative categories. Refer to
the instructional materials 1957-1982 definition found in Chapter’s 1 Terms and
Definitions section. I found that all 646 items collected met the criteria to improve
instruction and to support classroom activities. Once this analysis was complete, the list
of original data was reduced to 149 instructional devices. Examples of data that did not
43 meet the stated instructional materials definition 1957 to 1982 used in this study included
projectors, movie cameras, slide viewers, tape recorders, and other audio equipment.
Several devices were not portable or responsive and, therefore were excluded from this
study. As mentioned in Chapter 1, teaching machines met the instructional materials
1957-1982 definition for this study but have been researched extensively by Thorndike,
Pressey, Fry, Skinner, Benjamin, and others.53 In addition to these recognized experts on
teaching machines, the Association of Educational Communications and Technology’s
(AECT) Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning 1, which contained the
formative work of Pressey, Gilbert, Skinner, and Finn, was considered a “Germinal
Source Book.”54 For a listing of resources found as part of this study regarding teaching
machines, refer to Appendix D. Due to the research already conducted on teaching
machines, I excluded these devices from this study. By eliminating teaching machines
from this study, ninety-eight PRIM ’57-’82 items were discovered, representing twelve
categories. For example, the audio card reader is shown multiple times during the twenty-
five-year period; therefore, it is represented multiple times in the listing of instructional
materials but only once as a subcategory type. Refer to Appendix E for a complete listing
of PRIM ‘57-’82 objects included in this study with the corresponding code and category
of each object as well as source information.
53 Thorndike, Education.; Skinner, "Teaching Machines."; E. Fry, “Teaching Machines: The Coming Automation,” Phi Delta Kappan 41, no. 1 (October 1959): 28-31.; S. L. Pressey, “Teaching Machines and Language Laboratories,” Theory into Practice 1, no. 1 (February 1962): 30-37.; Benjamin, “History of Teaching Machines.”
54 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “Here Today. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning I,” Audiovisual Instruction 18, no. 2 (February 1973): 53. [Advertisement]
44 5. Inferences were made in an inductive approach to the data collected, taking the PRIM
’57-’82 data. In Step 5, the data moved from specific types to broader categories, with the
goal to make inferences to the pedagogical and functional uses based on the broad
categories. As with the categories created in Step 3, these labels assisted in developing
broad categories to classify instructional materials’ uses for instruction and for
pedagogical purposes.
6. Narrating was used to answer the research questions, and I relied on discursive
conventions to convey the results. Chapter 4 provides discourse on the types of
instructional materials discovered in the data collection process. Chapter 4 is arranged by
instructional materials types rather than chronologically to promote the relationship to
similar devices used in current instructional settings.
Table 1
Audiovisual Terms and Category Resources
Year Author Title 1928 Dorris, A. V. Visual Instruction in the Public Schools 1946 Dent, E. The Audio-Visual Handbook 1949 Dale, E. Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching 1956 Allen, W. H. Audio-Visual Materials 1965 Erickson, C. Fundamentals of Teaching with Audiovisual Technology 1967 Wittich, W., Schuller, C. Audio-Visual Materials: Their Nature and Use 1971 Gerlach, V., Ely, D. Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach Equipment Directory of Audiovisual, Computer, and Video 1988 Williams, K. Product 1988-1989 Equipment Directory of Audiovisual, Computer, and Video 1990 Williams, K. Products1990-1991
45 Content Analysis Concerns
Throughout the historical use of content analysis, several concerns were apparent.
Kippendorff suggests the following four general concerns about content analysis.
The content used for analysis is read or interpreted by the researcher and may not be the
same or even similar to a different population.
Content analysis infers or predicts from messages that are not entirely visible to the
researcher.
Messages need to be within context to the environment from which they were taken to be
meaningful and analyzable.
Content analysis is not readily usable for quantitative analysis due to the interpretation of
the researcher.55
For my study, I addressed the first two concerns by utilizing a poststructural framework, notifying the readers ahead of time that the research and results would be perceived through my point of view. The third concern regarding the context of the message was handled by the sampling technique. By using the major publication of the audiovisual field’s prominent organizations, National Education Association’s (NEA) Department of Audiovisual Instruction
(DAVI) and the AECT, the context of the environment was maintained, is meaningful, and is measurable. The fourth point Krippendorff raises will not influence my study, as I am conducting a qualitative research study and, therefore, do not need to address the quantitative interpretation issue.
55 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 10.
46 The media content analysis concerns that Newbold et al. raised concerning credibility of publication, context, and audience characteristics56 were addressed in the following manner. In the selection of the data sources, I collected data from professional journals, both practitioner- and research-based, to provide additional credibility to the information as well as from museum collections and manufacturers’ brochures and websites. Consideration was given to the context in which the data were published. For example, in a press release from Texas Instruments, I considered the authenticity of the information and found additional verifying information to confirm the press release. The third point made by Newbold et al. raised the question of the effect of audience characteristics on the interpretation of the media. Macnamara contends that the effect of audience characteristics (i.e., age, gender, education) of media is polysemic, that is, the interpretation is open to multiple meanings for different readers.57 For this study using a poststructural framework, the interpretation of the audience characteristics of the media selected is from my perspective. For example, I found that gender was a factor in my interpretation of a
1968 advertisement that showed an image of a woman and used the headline, “Give Her the
Moon!”58 During the late 1960s in the United States, the race to space did not include women astronauts,59 yet this advertisement was promoting a female teacher using a response system, presumably giving her the moon through the use of “audio-visual instructional equipment.”60
56 Newbold, Boyd-Barrett, and Van den Bulck, Media Book.
57 Macnamara, “Media Content Analysis,” 13.
58 ComTech Corporation, “Give Her the Moon!,” Audiovisual Instruction 13 (October 1968): 924. [Advertisement]
59 S. Garber, “Women in Space,” September 17, 2012, accessed November 16, 2014, http://history.nasa.gov/women.html. The first United States female astronaut in space was Sally Ride on STS-7 from June 18-24, 1983. She was the third woman in space, as the Soviet/Russian program had sent women previously into space—once in 1963 and again in 1982.
60 ComTech Corporation, "Give Her the Moon!." [Advertisement]
47 Use of Images as Data
The research in this study was derived from many sources including books, journal articles, textbooks, advertisements, and images. Books and journal articles are widely accepted as reliable and valid sources for conducting a content analysis. Other sources, such as advertisements and images, are also used as data in a qualitative content analysis study.61 The principal emphasis in content analysis has been the reading of text in which the interpretation lays with the researcher, but the use of images is reliable as a “direct shot of reality.”62 The process of coding raw data may be derived from many sources, including visual images and illustrations.63 Wheelock, Haney, and Babell contend the definition of content analysis is not limited to textual analysis and can be applied to other areas such as drawing
.64 The use of visual images, in this study, provided information for the content analysis methodology.
As Robinson points out, there are “fluid lines” in conducting qualitative research between the methods and techniques used.65 For example, some studies conduct a literature review prior
61 P. Bell, “Content Analysis of Visual Images,” Chap. 2 in The Handbook of Visual Analysis, eds. T. Van Leeuwen and C. Jewitt (London: Sage Publications, Inc., 2001), 15.
62 Collier, Visual Anthropology, 3.; Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message, 34.
63 P. Bell, “Content Analysis of Visual, 15.; Kondracki, Wellman, and Amundson, "Content Analysis," 224.; J. Wagner, “Visible Materials, Visualised Theory and Images of Social Research,” Visual Studies 21, no. 1 (April 2006): 55-69.
64 A. Wheelock, W. Haney, and D. Babell, “What Can Student Drawings Tell Us About High-Stakes Testing in Massachusetts?,” Teachers College Record (November 2, 2000), accessed April 17, 2014, http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10634.
65 R. Robinson, “Qualitative Research - A Case for Case Studies,” Chap. 30 in Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future, ed. G. Anglin (Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995), 336.
48 to the data collection; it is also appropriate to research the literature after the content analysis categories have been determined.66
Images derived from the data collected were also used to elicit thoughts and memories of experiences with PRIM ’57-’82 as well as to make connections to handheld devices used currently in education. In Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method, Collier contends that images make durable, visual records of culture.67
Content Analysis—Working with the Data
The content analysis data were collected through a variety of sources. The major resources used to collect the images and the written descriptions of PRIM ’57-’82 were
Audiovisual Instruction/Instructional Innovator journals as well as many textbooks and museum and digitalized website collections.
Through the data collection process, I discovered over six hundred instructional materials. Each item was given a unique identifier to help organize the data. The timespan of the original data collected for this study was from 1623, through a slide rule invented by Oughtred,68 to the 2012 AECT newsletter that featured the Poken, a small USB device to share contact information.69 In the collection process, I purposefully tracked items that existed prior to my study’s twenty-five-year period and that continued past my end date of 1982 to help set the
66 Robinson, "Qualitative Research," 336.
67 Collier, Visual Anthropology.
68 Centre for Computing History, “Slide Rule Invented by William Oughtred,” Centre for Computing History, n.d., accessed May 21, 2014, http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/5922/Slide%20Rule%20invented%20by%20William%20Oughtred.
69 M. Childress, “President-Elect's - Convention Update: What's Poken?,” AECT Newsletter (September 2012): 4.
49 foundation for the research question concerning the life cycle of instructional materials. I choose to extend the period studied to include data from before and after my study’s time period to view the development of the audiovisual categories through time. I also collected any instructional materials that would possibly fit into my specific definition for PRIM ’57-’82. For example, I did not exclude teaching machines or other large instructional materials at this point, as I wanted the data to lead this research as part of the poststructural process. For information regarding the number of instructional materials found by April 21, 2014, refer to Appendix F. Considering the instructional materials by each year data assisted in the determination that enough data had been collected to conduct a content analysis.
The next step was to generalize and group the data as outlined in the content analysis process. As a method to delineate the instructional materials data, specific types of items were not included in this study, such as cameras and video equipment, as initially described in the instructional materials 1957-1982 definition in Chapter 1. After completing this step, there were
420 data points that met the requirement of use within the twenty-five-year span of my study.
To reduce the data in my content analysis, keywords from the instructional materials
1957-1982 definition were used: collaborative, electronic, improve performance/knowledge, individual, mechanical, response/feedback, small/portable, solve/answer, and supports classroom activities. Through this process, all of the remaining 420 instructional materials were found to be supportive of classroom activities and to improve performance and knowledge. I refined the data further by adding another qualifying keyword: direct interaction with device. Eliminating projectors, movie cameras, slide viewers, tape recorders and other audio equipment, instructional materials that did not require a response or provide feedback, and any large instructional materials not deemed portable, and adding the direct-interaction qualifier, reduced the data
50 further. This list provided information about instructional materials that were portable and provided interaction between the materials and the student, teacher, or both. Refer to Table 2 to view the analysis of the data using the instructional materials ’57-’82 definition keywords.
Table 2
PRIM ’57-’82 Definition Keyword Analysis
Characteristics from instructional materials 1957- 1982 (PRIM ’57-’82) definition as provided in Quantity Chapter 1 found Collaborative 24 Direct interaction with device * 142 Electronic 98 Improve performance/knowledge 142 Individual 142 Mechanical 50 Responsive/feedback 142 Small/portable 142 Solve/answer 142 Support classroom activities 142 * added as qualifier in analysis phase
I sorted and organized the data and realized that similar materials were not labeled the same or were duplicated within the same year. For example, I had several types of response systems and combined those items into one value. Using the coding analysis associated with conducting a content analysis70 provided commonalities between the data and the instructional materials codes/categories as referenced in Appendix C. This analysis eliminated the
70 Collier, Visual Anthropology.; Krippendorff, Content Analysis (1980), 124-136; Neuendorf, Content Analysis Guidebook, 173-193.
51 duplications and yielding 142 remaining objects. Through the interview process, an additional seven instructional materials were discovered thereby creating 149 items. Teaching machines were still included in this quantity of items. However, due to previous research explaining the purposes and functional uses of teaching machines by such authors as Thorndike, Pressey, and
Benjamin, I choose to remove the teaching machine category from my study, leaving ninety- eight data points. Refer to Appendix D for additional resources that were reviewed about the teaching machine category and that assisted in my decision to delete the category from my study.
The remaining PRIM ’57-’82 items included, but were not limited to, the following types: audio card readers, learning systems, manipulatives, response systems, rateometers, and slide rules. I corrected the naming conventions and removed any duplicates, which resulted in twelve categories of instructional materials that met the requirements for inclusion in this study. For a complete catalog of PRIM ’57-’82 codes, categories, and subcategories see Appendix G.
As further analysis, a timeline of the PRIM ’57-’82 categories used in this study is shown in Appendix H. It was important to study the categories or label used in the audiovisual field in order to determine the life cycle and the creation of new categories through time. For example, the timeline of PRIM ’57-’82 categories shows that audio extended from 1928 to 1990 as an instructional material label, whereas the category of films-strips was used from 1946 to1971. The coding or categories selected for this study were limited to the resources used to determine these labels. Refer to Appendix C for a listing of the resources used to create the instructional materials codes and categories used in this study.
Once it was determined that sufficient data had been collected to cover the twenty-five- year period, I conducted interviews with teachers and students who had experienced using PRIM
’57-’82 in classroom settings. Interviews were completed face-to-face, by mail, and by an Adobe
52 Connect digital conferencing session. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, an additional seven devices were discovered from the interviewees’ participation, although not all seven items fit into the PRIM ’57-’82 definition and, therefore, were not used in this study. I interviewed five individuals with student experiences ranging from 1956 to 1982 and teaching experience from
1965 to 2007. The information gained about after 1982 helped establish connections from the
PRIM ’57-’82 objects to current applications. The qualitative information obtained from these interviews is included in the next chapter.
Historiography
Historical research is an analytic process to define relationships.71 Historiography is a method of critical study of events and experiences of the past that considers the validity of information as well as the interpretation of the data.72 Merriam describes qualitative research as being built through human interaction with the world and the researcher’s interpretation of that experience.73 The historiographical process includes identifying the questions, collecting data, evaluating materials, synthesizing data, and reporting findings. This process is similar to other qualitative research such as is found in an ethnography or case study.74 Sax extends qualitative research to include demonstrations that show the relationships between educational practices,
71 G. Sax, Foundations of Educational Research (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979).
72 F. N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research. Pedagogical and Psychological Research (Prague: Academia, 1972), 673.
73 S. B. Merriam, Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009).
74 Fraenkel and Wallen, How to Design.; J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2009).; Merriam, Qualitative Research (2009).
53 especially to show those that are innovative.75 In addition, it is important when writing historical documents to consider the researcher’s point of view—to realize that the researcher chooses which events to share and determines what is significant from the past to bring into the present through the writing process.76 Furthermore, Howell and Prevenier state that history is created by writing about events from the past.77
The challenges in conducting this historical research study included the amount of time it took, the narrowing of the scope of this particular history, and the educational tools studied. An additional challenge was to locate, document, and analyze historical data as artifacts are not always recorded and the historical significance of an item tends to disappear.
Instructional materials have been an interest of mine since my discovery of the Rapid
Rater in the Lee and Lida Cochran AECT Archives collection. Over the summer of 2012, I constructed an inventory of artifacts from this collection and realized the need to narrow the scope of my study to a more specific period. There were over 290 objects with many functional uses listed in this inventory. Through my definition of PRIM ’57-’82, the data was manageable.
The period from 1957 to 1982 is of interest because of the influx of funding from the United
States government into education caused by the space race beginning in 1957 and the National
Defense Education Act of 1967. To illustrate the influx of funding, Clifford states that the funding from the United States Office of Education (USOE) in the years 1966 through 1968
75 Sax, Foundations of Educational Research.
76 Sax, Foundations of Educational Research.
77 M. Howell and W. Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001).
54 equaled 75 percent of funds ever made available.78 Additionally, the significant growth in educational technology as a recognized field of study and the introduction of classroom computers in 1982 make this an exciting period to research. The introduction of classroom computers was purposefully selected as the ending period for this study because pedagogy and functional uses of PRIM ’57-’82 in the classroom began to change, adapting to new technologies.
Ethical Considerations
An Institutional Review of Research Involving Human Subject form (IRB) was submitted to the Northern Illinois University’s (NIU) Office of Research Compliance and Integrity following approval of this research’s proposal. The IRB allowed interviews of contributors found in the data collection process. An audio/video recording consent was included in the IRB approval process (Appendix I). Through the Internal Review Board of NIU, my study was approved as in the Exempt category. NIU’s Office of Research Compliance and Integrity defines
Exempt as “Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings…
Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records...”79 Strategies for gathering rich and descriptive data included interviewing students, teachers, and others, such as representatives from manufacturers that operated from 1957 to 1982 who have had experiences with the identified instructional materials of this period. Interviews enriched the data collected through personal stories and perceptions of the actual users of the instructional
78 G. J. Clifford, “A History of the Impact of Research on Teaching,” in Second Handbook of Research On Teaching, ed. R. Travers (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1973), 1-46.
79 Office of Research Compliance and Integrity, “Administrative Review (Exempt) Categories,” Northern Illinois University, July, 1998, accessed May 14, 2014, http://www.niu.edu/orci/human_research/review/exempt.shtml.
55 materials. Firsthand experiences of the interviewees were perceived to be accurate and reliable.80
As suggested by Johnson and Christensen, I was aware that the interviewees might have biases, memory lapses, and failure to remember all of the details from the selected period of use.81
I followed the American Psychological Association’s ethical principles for conducting research with human subjects.82 I conducted this research to contribute to social and human sciences as suggested by Fraenkel and Wallen.83 I also completed the National Institute of
Health’s Human Participants Protection Education for Research Teams certification on July 9,
2002, (Appendix J) as part of my master’s degree in education program as well as the NIU
Dissertation Writers’ Workshop in July 2012. Through coursework at NIU and research training programs, I learned to conduct my research with three basic ethical principles: respect for the contributors, beneficence, and justice.84 Respect for the contributors of this study is represented by the voluntary and informed consent of participation. For this study, consent forms were signed prior to the interview process for both participation in the study as well as consent to record the conversation (Appendix I). Persons of interest gave their written consent to participate in the study using a signed consent form. Beneficence refers to “do no harm” by respecting decisions made by the contributors. As part of the interview and in the consent form, contributor were informed of their right to withdraw from this study at any time—either during the interview
80 Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
81 Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
82 American Psychological Association, “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,” American Psychological Association, June 1, 2010, accessed November 21, 2012, http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf.
83 Fraenkel and Wallen, How to Design.
84 Office of the Secretary, “The Belmont Report,” Health and Human Services, April 18, 1979, accessed May 14, 2014, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html.
56 process or afterwards and prior to publication of my dissertation. The third ethical consideration is justice—the sense of fairness so that all people are treated fairly. In this study, I interviewed people through a “snowballing” process, asking each interviewee to suggest other contributors who he/she felt would add to my study. I also had several people approach me to be included in this study due to discussions they had with other interviewees. All people, including those who I did not specifically seek out, were considered fairly for their participation in this study.
Interviews were conducted to gather further information on students’ and teachers’ experiences with instructional materials during 1957 to 1982. Because I consider the privacy of the individuals as a paramount ethical requirement in conducting my research, the interviewees were given a choice to remain anonymous or to be recognized as a contributor to the field. All interviewees associated with this study choose to be recognized as a contributor to this research.
An anonymity process was therefore not instituted for this study, although the possibility of the interviewees’ privacy had been planned for in the IRB process.
Data Collection
Data were collected from primary and secondary sources, the studied artifacts, and rich and descriptive information obtained through interviews. Data collection continued until I had exhausted available resources, i.e., the travel expenses and time budgeted for this process. As
Kaestle suggests in his 1992 article titled “Standards of Evidence in Historical Research: How
Do We Know When We Know?,” challenges exist for knowing when a researcher has enough information to begin the analysis of the data.85 I faced that challenge by working with my
85 C. F. Kaestle, “Standards of Evidence in Historical Research: How Do We Know When We Know?,” History of Education Quarterly (History of Education Society) 32, no. 3 (Autumn 1992): 361-366.
57 dissertation committee members. Due to the open nature of historical dissertations, it was the dissertation committee’s and my responsibility to decide when sufficient data had been gathered.86 Once all twenty-five years of Audiovisual Instruction/Instructional Innovator issues had been reviewed and data were collected, it was decided that enough data had been gathered to proceed with this study.
Primary Sources
Primary sources were sought for data and analysis. Sources such as artifacts, journal articles, manufacturer advertisements, and government documents (including NDEA research from the period under study) provided initial research. Artifacts, such as those found in The Lee and Lida Cochran AECT Archives, the Blackwell History of Education Museum and Research
Collection at Northern Illinois University, the Joel & Irene Benedict Visual Literacy Collection at Arizona State University, and the Missouri Historical Society, were primary resources and served as an initial listing of instructional materials for this study. In addition, other devices discovered from personal collections, museums, school libraries and even dusty technology equipment closets were primary sources considered for this study.
As mentioned in the limitations of this study in Chapter 1, artifacts and journal articles from this period are not typically available in an online format. Time was expended in libraries such as NIU’s Founders Memorial Library, the Perry-Castañeda Library at the University of
Texas, the Lyons Memorial Library at College of the Ozarks, and the Duane G. Meyer Library at
Missouri State University. To save travel time and expense, online searches for artifacts were
86 S. E. Baker and R. Edwards, How Many Qualitative Interviews Is Enough? Expert Voices and Early Career Reflections on Sampling (Southampton: National Centre for Research Methods, 2012), 1-42, accessed February 22, 2013, http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf.
58 conducted from the Memorial Library at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; the Palmer
Museum in Davenport, Iowa; and the Hornbake Library in College Park, Maryland, along with many other online resources. As part of the process for gathering data, I reviewed actual journals, which allowed me to locate manufacturers’ advertisements, conference reviews, and other information provided about instructional materials of this period. One benefit of locating the archived printed journals is that, typically, advertisements are not included in an online database.
The descriptions in advertisements provided pedagogical and functional clues for one or more specific devices or information that was generalized toward a specific category of device. After evaluating many educational journals available about this period, I decided Audiovisual
Instruction provided the information needed for this content analysis. This decision was based on the quality of information regarding instructional materials from this peer-reviewed practitioner journal for classroom instruction as well as the advertisements and images that met the definition of instructional materials for this study—portable and responsive materials.
Initial research in The Lee and Lida Cochran AECT Archives, located at NIU, allowed me to start an inventory of objects from the collection. I analyzed my listing of that inventory and continued to add to it by using research from journal articles and exploring other museums for educational artifacts that met the requirements set in my definition of instructional materials: portability, response-driven, problem-solving, and ones that could be used collaboratively or individually.
59 Secondary Sources
Secondary sources were used as resources in two approaches. The first was to locate journal articles, both refereed and practitioner-based, that mentioned the specifically identified devices during the period. These sources provided guidance about pedagogical and functional uses of the devices from a student’s and/or a teacher’s perspective.
Another approach in the use of secondary sources was to use the references or bibliographic information provided in books and educational journals that led to additional sources—either primary or secondary. Resources were readily available in the literature for current and theoretical perspectives on the use of instructional materials in education.87 For example, electronic databases have contemporary research in which to locate pedagogical and functional information on a variety of instructional devices. Researching the historical aspects of instructional materials required a reverse-chronological approach to finding existing literature. I used current articles to find historical information and then used those references to explore history. To access historical research on instructional materials, I used interlibrary loan options, visited other institutional libraries, and/or utilized other methods such as contacting manufacturers or interviewing audiovisual coordinators, to find the resources needed.
Although film was frequently used during this period as professional development for instructing teachers on uses of new technologies, 88 film was not researched and reviewed for this study.
87 Roschelle, "Unlocking the Learning Value.”; Zurita and Nussbaum, "Constructivist Mobile Learning Environment," 235-243.; Park, "Pedagogical Framework for Mobile," 78-102.
88 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.; R. Reiser, “A History of Instructional Design and Technology,” Chap. 3 in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 2nd ed., eds. R. Reiser and J. Dempsey (Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, 2007), 19.
60 A tentative list of professional publications as well as educational technology journals as suggested by Anglin and the NIU Faculty Development Center is found in Appendix K.
Although this listing was a starting point of available sources, I did not expect that it would be all-inclusive or that each of these journals would be used as a resource for this study. The listing has been provided to illustrate the variety of resources possible. Further research was conducted to validate the appropriateness of a resource toward the research questions posed.
I reviewed many, but not all, educational journals as listed in Appendix K and also from NIU’s
Gable Learning Center and found that the audiovisual-based journals were essential in locating articles and advertisements of PRIM ’57-’82 items. For a complete list of the journals and specific years reviewed, refer to Appendix B. After much gathering and analyzing of data, it was determined that the Audiovisual Instruction and Instructional Innovator journals published by the AECT were the most beneficial resources for my study. All volumes and issues of these specific journals were reviewed for the entire period from 1957 to 1982 to gather instructional materials both illustrative and written. Other journals supported the search for instructional materials as shown in Appendix B and the data found were included in the data collection process. In addition, PRIM ’57-’82 data were collected from other resources such as textbooks, museums, websites, and libraries as noted in the Bibliography section.
The approach for a reverse-chronological search strategy to find historical articles and information was a challenge. Through the process of gathering data, I particularly noted resources used in current and more recent articles that cited resources written during the 1957 to
1982 time period of this study. I then searched for those particular resources for images and
PRIM ’57-’82 information to add to data already collected for analysis. I accumulated
61 information and evaluated, analyzed, and made connections between the information, the artifacts, and the teaching and learning methods used during the period.
Procedures for Validity
Qualitative research studies face the challenge of validity of information.89 I recognized the need for validity of information as mentioned by several prominent interdisciplinary qualitative research professionals.90 Validity in conducting a content analysis ensures that the closest possible truth is told.91 Personal biases and collection methods may create a picture of the period that is not complete.92 Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals for persuasion ethos—credibility of the speaker, logos—the logic behind the claim, and pathos—the emotional or motivational appeal were all used to ensure the story was represented ethically and authentically.93 To ensure validity, Johnson and Christenson suggest the following three questions: Does the content-related evidence represent the definition? Have you, as the researcher, excluded any data that may be important to the study? Are any irrelevant items included in the study?94Although every attempt was made to overcome biases, I acknowledged their existence and strove to remain objective in
89 Robinson, "Qualitative Research," 336.
90 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (1980).; Stempel, "Content Analysis."; S. B. Merriam, Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 199.; Creswell, Research Design, 185.; Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
91 Riffe, Lacy, and Fico, Analyzing Media Messages, 150.
92 Fraenkel and Wallen, How to Design.
93 M. J. Killingsworth, “Rhetorical Appeals: A Revision,” Rhetoric Review 24, no. 3 (July 2005): 249-263.; J. D. Ramage and J. C. Bean, Writing Arguments, 4th ed. (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1998).
94 Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research, 153.
62 analyzing the data. Procedures to strengthen the research and the evaluation process included external and internal criticisms as described in the next section.
External and Internal Criticism
Information and data collected in a historical research study must be evaluated for its accuracy and authenticity to prevent prejudices and biases.95 External and internal criticism explores the context of the data collected to create a clearer understanding of the context and historical accuracy of the data.96 External criticism refers to the determination of authenticity and trustworthiness of the source document or artifact, which can involve where and when the item was produced.97 Ultimately, a researcher wants assurance that the document or artifact is genuine.98 Johnson and Christensen state that for most cases, the sources used by educational researchers are authentic; therefore, little of the researcher’s time is expended on external criticism.99
The next process after documents and artifacts were proven authentic through external criticism was internal criticism, which focuses on the information contained within the source such as the author’s competency to give an accurate report, whether the author included fictional
95 Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
96 C. D. Hale and D. Astolfi, “Evaluation Research Design: Options,” Chap. 8 in Evaluating Education and Training Services: A Primer, 2nd ed. (St. Leo: St. Leo University, 2011), 380.; Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research, 419.
97 R. Marius and M. E. Page, A Short Guide to Writing About History, 7th ed. (New York: Longman, 2010), 49.; Hale and Astolfi, "Evaluation Research Design," 380.
98 Fraenkel and Wallen, How to Design.; J. W. Best and J. V. Kahn, Research in Education, 8th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998).; W. Wiersma and S. Jurs, Research Methods in Education: An Introduction (Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 2009).
99 Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research, 419.
63 or exaggerated details, or to discover any biases in the author’s personal accounts of events.100
An example of internal criticism is to compare a personal story or image to one about the same event found in a newspaper or journal to check for accuracy. The process of internal criticism included positive criticism, awareness of vagueness, and negative criticism as a validation process. Each term is briefly described below:
Positive criticism is a technique to ensure that statements made and the meaning
conveyed are truthful and correct; it is used to further validate the data. Interpretation
of words and terms used in historical documents must be in context, which is often
difficult, as words or phrases change over time. This difficulty may be caused by
vagueness.101
Awareness of vagueness refers to the unclear meaning of words or phrases used in the
source document. The researcher may not interpret the context as originally
intended.102 Kaestle used an example of the term industrialization and stressed that
definitions be given to make meaning clear, therefore eliminating any vagueness
associated with a term.103
Negative criticism is conducted after the researcher has completed the positive
criticism process. Negative criticism refers to the validity and consistency of the
content of the documents and artifacts used by the researcher. It is the most difficult
100 Fraenkel and Wallen, How to Design.; Wiersma and Jurs, Research Methods in Education.; Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
101 Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
102 Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
103 C. F. Kaestle, “Recent Methodological Developments in the History of American Education,” in Complementary Methods for Research in Education, 2nd ed., ed. R. M. Jaeger (Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1997), 119-129.
64 of the three aspects of internal criticism to complete due to the interpretation and
judgments the researcher must make concerning the data collected.104 Furthermore,
Johnson and Christensen contend that, typically, historiographers make every attempt
to avoid making erroneous reports when using negative criticism.105
Authenticity and Accuracy
Wineburg, in his analysis of how a researcher completes an internal criticism, concluded that three procedures were further necessary to provide authenticity and accuracy to the source materials. Corroboration, sourcing, and contextualization are additional processes for historical data.106
Corroboration, or cross-referencing, is one of several processes used to establish accuracy of information.107 This process identifies any discrepancies between sources as well as confirms the authenticity or invalidity of the source. I used corroboration as a process to raise questions about information, realizing that the data in one document do not establish the truth in another.108
One purpose of the cross-reference technique in my study was to indicate that one or multiple sources might have differences that would need to be researched further.
104 Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
105 Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
106 S. Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001).
107 R. Shafer, A Guide to Historical Method, 3rd ed. (Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1980).; Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other.
108 Wiersma and Jurs, Research Methods in Education.
65 Sourcing information is a technique to locate the author, date, and place the data created.
Sourcing assisted me in determining trustworthiness and accuracy by providing information that could be further validated.109
Contextualization in my study involved identifying each artifact’s place and time to provide the context in which it was experienced—in other words, the location at which each device was used for instruction as well as the specific time in history.110
Tools
Instructional tools aided in the collection of data for this study. Early in the research process, a spreadsheet was created to record and categorize instructional materials found in a variety of sources, including journals and museum collections. As the research continued, this listing evolved into a worksheet for identifying the specific devices that met the requirements.
Another tool, FMEA, was utilized during the research process to determine the success or failure of the functional use of device categories during the specified period. Additional information is provided in Chapter 6 about the FMEA process using PRIM ’57-’82 objects in this study.
Digital tools including a voice recorder, camera, computer, iPad, scanner, and smartphone were incorporated to document resources such as journal articles, artifacts, and images as well as product advertisements in educational materials. These tools increased my productivity as well as ensured an accurate representation of the information on PRIM ’57-’82 objects. A voice recorder also allowed for transcription of the interviews. A narrative historical
109 Krippendorff, Content Analysis (2004), 325.; Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
110 Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other.; Johnson and Christensen, Educational Research.
66 method and a coding process for commonalities and generalizations established the interviewees’ stories, events, and environments surrounding their experience with the instructional materials.111
Limitations of the Study
As mentioned in Chapter 1, there were several limitations of this study, including the availability of sources, locating artifacts of the period, and locating possible interviewees.
As described earlier in this chapter, accessibility to archived journals may have been a limitation of this study. Many libraries across the United States, including in Illinois, Missouri,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin were receptive and responsive to my requests for information and access to materials. I found continued support of my research as I located other resources from institutions, school districts, museums, manufacturers, and other sources of information throughout the research phase.
I had access to two museums dedicated to educational technology: the Lee and Lida
Cochran AECT Archives and the Blackwell History of Education Museum and Research
Collection on the NIU campus. My physical location allowed access to these museums, whereas other excellent educational technology museums were not as easily available due to time and budget constraints. Fortunately, libraries and museums are beginning to digitize their collections for easier long-distance access, including the Joel and Irene Benedict Visual Literacy Collection located on the Arizona State Campus in Tempe, Arizona, and the Missouri History Museum in
St. Louis, Missouri, which houses part of the St. Louis Educational Museum’s collection.
111 D. J. Clandinin and F. M. Connelly, Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000).
67 Digitized materials allowed me to expand the locations for data collection as well as save travel time and expenditure.
Although it was my intention to reach out to students and teachers from 1957 to 1982, I had difficulty locating interviewees due to their age, locality, and lack of information about who used the specified instructional materials or specific device category. I reached out to twenty-one individuals who had experiences in an education environment through a snowballing technique.
Of the twenty-one educators, only five met the requirements to be interviewed—that of being a student or teacher during the specified twenty-five-year period with experiences using portable and responsive instructional materials.
In consideration of the life cycle of instructional materials of the period, many manufacturers had merged or were no longer in business, which made discovering the pedagogical and functional uses of some instructional materials difficult. This limitation created challenges regarding the validity of information as well as in the location of artifacts. Although this limitation was difficult, the validity of the data was proven through the selection of textbooks, journal articles, and the other authentic and primary sources used in this content analysis.
Conducting a content analysis also presented several limitations. As the researcher, I chose the data to be collected and interpreted for this study, especially the use of the twenty-five years of Audiovisual Instruction/Instructional Innovator as the primary source for images, and historical events within the audiovisual field as well as articles pertaining to specific instructional materials. Many textbooks and resource books, such as audiovisual dictionaries and encyclopedias in addition to journal articles, were obtained in the data collection process to guide this study and to assist in locating additional resources. I also chose to focus on the
68 audiovisual/educational technology field for information rather than including corporate or education for special needs students, each of which would have supplied a different analysis of the data for this study.
Lastly, personal biases and experiences are a limitation. I am aware that my experiences have affected my interpretation of the data. Using external and internal criticism, I worked to overcome any personal biases.
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
As a unique perspective for this educational technology study, I explored the use of
Stamatis’ (1995) ideas on FMEA.112 As defined by the American Society for Quality Control
Statistics Division (ASQC), FMEA is an analysis method used to identify known and/or potential failures, for example, difficulties in using a product such as instructional materials or processes.113 Working with categories similar to Patten, Sanchéz, and Tangney’s framework, I sought to discover commonalities between device types to which I could then apply FMEA.
Through this analysis, I discovered modes that identified possible failures of some devices and innovations and adaptations of that device. I did not find evidence of FMEA specifically used to analyze instructional materials in educational situations, although Boylan adapted FMEA to a study on higher education.114 Most FMEA studies involved manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and engineering products. Additional information on FMEA is provided in Chapter 6.
112 D. H. Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1995).
113 American Society for Quality Control Statistics Division, Glossary and Tables for Statistical Quality Control, 2nd ed. (Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1983).
114 Boylan, "Beg, Steal or Borrow," 1-9.
69 Summary
As an interpreter of the data in this content analysis historiography, I used the data collected as ethically and nonbiased as possible while realizing that the interpretation is from my point of view. Primary and secondary data were collected and reviewed from a variety of sources including journals, artifacts, interviews, images, museum collections, and digitalized collections.
Objectivity and validity were achieved using the implementation of external as well as internal criticism techniques as outlined earlier in this chapter. Coding was used to narrow the focus from over six hundred instructional materials to ninety-eight entries, which then were generalized into twelve categories of portable and responsive instructional materials from 1957 to 1982.
Information on the quantity of instructional materials by year and the categories to show the specific terms used during the study’s timeframe was provided in a timeline format (Appendix
H). A narrative historical approach to relay the information found through this content analysis is discussed in the next chapters, beginning with the history of educational technology.
CHAPTER 3
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY—THE PAST
This chapter reviews the history and significance of educational technology definitions in establishing a historical perspective up to 1982. Research over the years has delivered many articles, books, and website resources about the history of educational technology; however, it is my objective to provide an overview of the educational technology field from 1928 to 1982 rather than an exhaustive history. Additional information is provided in the last chapter, which will continue the history as defined by educational technology definitions related to small, portable, and responsive instructional materials.
Resources such as Dorris’ 1928 Visual Instruction in the Public Schools;1 Hoban, Hoban, and Zisman’s 1937 Visualizing the Curriculum;2 and Dale’s 1946 Audio-Visual Methods in
Teaching3 provide a foundation of the educational technology field through the exploration of visual and audiovisual instruction and audiovisual communications. The Educational Screen journal, published from 1922 to 1956, provides articles and background information about the growth of audiovisual instruction.
1 Dorris, Visual Instruction Public Schools.
2 C. Hoban, C. Hoban, and S. Zisman, Visualizing the Curriculum (New York: The Cordon Company, 1937).
3 Dale, Audio-Visual Methods.
71 In 1963, Ely’s The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education described historical aspects of audiovisual definitions as well as the move to create new terminology to better represent this ever-changing educational field.4 Saettler contends that this was a “turning point in the audiovisual instruction movement” by introducing a name change from audiovisual instruction to audiovisual communications.5 In addition, Hyer’s 1965 historical review of the
NEA’s Department of Audiovisual Instruction6 and Finn’s 1965 article “Instructional
Technology”7 as well as numerous editorials and articles in Audiovisual Instruction over the years have provided excellent historical information on the evolution of the audiovisual field into educational technology.
The resources listed above were created by just a few of the many distinguished professionals in the educational technology field and are meant to be a representation of the literature available. The historical change in the naming conventions (i.e., visual, audiovisual, instructional, and educational) of the field can be observed through the titles of these resources as well as journals published to inform the profession. A select listing of resources representing the evolution and change in the definition of educational technology used in this study is in
Appendix L.
4 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process.
5 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational, 278.
6 A. Hyer, “A Backward Glance,” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 202.
7 J. D. Finn, “Instructional Technology,” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 192-194.
72 History of Audiovisual Instruction/Communications: A Precursor to Educational Technology
A collection of audiovisual resources was displayed at the World’s Fair in St. Louis,
Missouri, in 1905 in the effort to “Bring the world to the classroom.”8 Although the original collection was disassembled in 2003, the 1905 World’s Fair collection included items such as stereoscopes, magic lanterns, and still and motion picture projectors and formed the basis for the
St. Louis School Museum.9 Reiser provides historical information about instructional media in school museums, such as the St. Louis location, as well as the school museums in Reading,
Pennsylvania, and Cleveland, Ohio.10 As further support, Saettler states that these museums served as a distribution point of supplemental instructional materials—audiovisual aids to instruction.11
Dorris provides an early definition of visual instruction as “enrichment of education though the ‘seeing experience’”— an experience that included visual aids such as field trips, models, maps, graphs, slides, and projection.12 Dorris recognized that the problem in visual instruction was the perpetual introduction of new materials as well as the improperly placed emphasis on the material rather than the importance of the student using the instructional aid.
8 F. D. McClusky, “A-V 1905-1955: How Audio-Visual Was Born and Grew Up,” Educational Screen 34, no. 4 (April 1955), 160-162.; P. C. Reed, “Salute to Pioneers,” Educational Screen 34, no. 4 (April 1955): 159.; M. Molenda, “Historical Foundations,” Chap. 1 in Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, eds. J. M. Spector et al. (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008), 3-20.
9 McClusky, "A-V 1905-1955," 160-162.; J. A. Allen, “St. Louis Educational Museum: A Centennial Commemoration,” TechTrends 49, no. 2 (March 2005): 22-26.
10 R. Reiser, “A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part 1; A History of Instructional Media,” Educational Technology, Research and Development 49, no. 1 (March 2001): 53-64.
11 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.
12 Dorris, Visual Instruction Public Schools, 6.
73 Dorris warns that although new theories and devices are exciting, it is the student to keep in mind.13
As additional support to the audiovisual education movement, organizations were formed. Organizations during the early 1920s included the National Academy of Visual
Instruction (NAVI) and the Visual Instruction Association of America (VIAA).14 In 1923, the
NEA’s Department of Visual Instruction (DVI) was created to meet the needs of educators and was perceived as a foundation for the current AECT organization.15 In the “coalition of 1932,” these organizations combined into one, as it was difficult to maintain three separate entities.16
As audio became available in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the term visual instruction was adapted to include audio (e.g., audiovisual).17 Early definitions of audiovisual instruction included the use of visual and auditory aids for instruction (e.g., using both still and motion pictures, sound recordings, projection of images including opaque and classroom projectors). In short, a learning experience could include both sight and sound.18
Hoban, Hoban, and Zisman, in the 1937 publication of Visualizing the Curriculum, prioritized visual aids to instruction through the creation of categories such as objects, films, slides, maps, and words.19 Their book was recognized as one of the most important audiovisual
13 Dorris, Visual Instruction Public Schools, 9.
14 M. Molenda, “AECT History in the 20th Century: A Brief History,” Indiana University, August 12, 2003, accessed February 22, 2012, http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/AECT%20History.pdf.
15 Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century.”
16 Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century.”
17 R. Reiser, “Instructional Technology: A History,” Chap. 2 in Instructional Technology: Foundations, ed. R. M. Gagnè (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987), 11-48.
18 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 36.
19 Hoban, Hoban, and Zisman, Visualizing the Curriculum, 23.
74 textbooks during the 1930s.20 These authors believed that visual instruction increased the experiences in the listed categories and created real experiences, concrete experiences.
Edgar Dale is a recognized pioneer in visual learning and later in audiovisual education.21
In his 1946 seminal work reported in Audiovisual Methods in Teaching, Dale identified ten categories from concrete/real to abstract/symbols to explain the relationship between audiovisual materials and the learning process. His “Cone of Experience” categories began with the most concrete at the base of the cone and moved upward to the more abstract and symbolic. Dale’s original categories were Direct, Purposeful Experiences; Contrived Experiences; Dramatic
Participation; Demonstrations; Field Trips; Exhibits; Motion Pictures; Radio-Recordings-Still
Pictures; Visual Symbols; and Verbal Symbols.22 Over the course of time and editions of his book, Dale revised the categories to include educational television, showing the change in technologies used for educational purposes. Dale theorized that learners retain more information through active participation, which is “doing” instead of “hearing or reading.”23 This learning by doing later developed into active learning or experiential learning.24
In addition, a major impact in the use of audiovisual media was the need for military training in World War II. The impact of World War II on the field of audiovisual instruction is best represented by the design of training for American military preparing for quick deployment
20 Ely, "Toward a Philosophy," (1970), 84.
21 F. M. Dwyer, Strategies for Improving Visual Learning (State College, PA: Learning Services, 1978).; M. Molenda, “Cone of Experience (Draft for Publication),” 2003, accessed February 8, 2014, http://www.coachesbc.ca/pdfs/lfs/cone%20of%20experiencetext.pdf.
22 Dale, Audio-Visual Methods.
23 Dale, Audio-Visual Methods.
24 H. M. Anderson, “Dale's Cone of Experience.” East Tennessee State University: Undergraduate Education. n.d. accessed February 8, 2014, http://www.etsu.edu/uged/etsu1000/documents/dales_cone_of_Experience.pdf.
75 to the war. Thousands of troops needed skills for war support and survival skills in foreign lands.25 Audiovisual aids were used extensively for training the troops as an efficient and effective method during the 1940s.26 Saettler contends that the use of motion films and simulation-based learning supported war effort and placed an emphasis on instructional media, which brought awareness to educators to apply learning theories to instruction.27 Programmed instruction as used in the war training efforts, was adapted and applied to media and used to create systems of instruction.28 The movement into educational systems brought forth personnel and ideas that carried into the next several decades to establish a “legitimate academic discipline.”29 Furthermore, Molenda describes the post-World War II changes as a communications movement.30
In 1947, the DVI changed the name of the association to Department of Audiovisual
Instruction as well as updated the mission of the association.31 Professionals in the field began to recognize the importance of communicating the instructional message while other professionals in the field contended that audiovisual methods conveyed instruction effectively.32 Attention to these movements within the DAVI fragmented the association, leading to the “first of several
25 Shrock, “A Brief History of Instructional,” 14.
26 Reiser, “History of Instructional Design,” 53-64.
27 P. Saettler, A History of Instructional Technology (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1968), 180.
28 Heinich, Technology and the Management.; J. R. Olsen and V. B. Bass, “The Application of Performance Technology in the Military: 1960-1980,” Performance and Instruction 21, no. 6 (July/August 1982): 32-36.
29 R. M. Morgan, “Educational Technology–Adolescence to Adulthood,” Educational Communication and Technology Journal 26, no. 2 (Summer 1978): 142.
30 Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century,” 8.
31 Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century,” 9.
32 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 15.; Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century,” 10.
76 ‘identity crises’ in years to come.”33 By 1956, the controversy within the DAVI continued as discussion at the national meeting focused on changing audiovisual programs into instructional materials centers—perhaps the beginning of the connection of the school library to technology.34
Finn, another recognized leader in the audiovisual field, has been credited with initiating the development of the instructional technology field.35 As early as 1953, he noted the need for a definition of the audiovisual profession and recognized the necessity of a label that would incorporate more than audiovisual.36 Finn realized that new media, which in the 1950s included television and language labs, would not be contained by the label audiovisual, noting the field was much broader than hardware.37
The audiovisual movement was significant to the learning process for educators and students in K-12 classrooms during the 1950s and 1960s, especially with the influx of motion pictures, television, and teaching machines into classrooms. In addition, audiovisual communications included the practice of learning with materials or a system of messages deployed by humans or by machines.38 By 1954, the audiovisual communications definition had evolved to include “an extensive variety of devices” (e.g., radio and filmstrips) to share ideas and
33 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process.; Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century,” 10.
34 V. McKown, “Choice of Title Provokes Brisk Comment,” Instructional Materials 47, no. 1 (March 1956): 43.
35 C. Hoban, “A Memorial Tribute to James Donald Finn.” AudioVisual Communication Review 17, no. 2 (Summer 1969): 135.
36 J. D. Finn, “Professionalizing the Audio-Visual Field,” AudioVisual Communication Review 1, no. 1 (Winter 1953): 6-17.
37 Hoban, "Memorial Tribute to James," 135.
38 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 36.
77 experiences through sight and sound.39 Kinder and McClusky provided further historical evidence in the publication of The Audio-Visual Reader concerning the needs of administrators, educators, and students on how types of audiovisual communications can benefit each role.40
In a special report of the NEA of the United States and the United States Department of
Education, The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education defined audiovisual communications as a branch of “educational theory and practice” with messages and designs for learning purposes.41 This report provides a historical perspective of terms and definitions used for audiovisual instruction and educational technology, including a review of audiovisual developments from the mid-1930s to the 1960s.42
Audiovisual instruction, including the use of instructional materials, became controversial during the 1960s. Ultimately, the instructional purpose of audiovisual materials became a motivational and inspirational tool for learning rather than a tool for only providing information.43 The shift from audiovisual instruction to educational technology was apparent in journal reading and conference proceedings leading to a change in terminology as further discussed in this chapter.
39 F. D. McClusky, “A Definition,” in The Audio-Visual Reader, eds. J. S. Kinder and F. D. McClusky (Dubuque: W. D. Brown Co., 1954), 4.
40 J. S. Kinder and F. D. McClusky, The Audio-Visual Reader (Dubuque: W. D. Brown Co., 1954).
41 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 36.
42 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process.
43 E. D. Partridge, “Are There Any Questions,” Audiovisual Instruction 5, no. 2 (February 1960): 43.
78 History of Educational Technology through Early 1980s
Many definitions, as well as labels, for this field have existed throughout the history of educational/instructional technology. The first definition was developed under the leadership of
Finn, Dale, and Ely in 1963 and was based on an audiovisual communications perspective.44
Through Finn’s leadership, the Commission of Definition and Terminology was supported by the
United States Office of Education to develop a definition of educational technology as well as provided key terminology of the field.45 The commission report published as The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education, and later as a single issue of the AudioVisual
Communication Review (AVCR), stated the definition was “a branch of educational theory and practice concerned primarily with the design and use of messages which control the learning process.”46 This definition shows the initial movement to include the use of audiovisual equipment in the study of educational technology.47 The definition also included the learning process, use of messages and media, and the use of learning theory and communications. In
1963, instructional devices such as a slide rule, a handheld calculator, and a teaching machine could illustrate the messages and media component of the definition. Teaching machines were also at the height of their use in classrooms during the early 1960s, as shown in available research on teaching machines during the period of 1960 to 1964.48
44 Reiser and Ely, “Field of Educational Technology,” 65.
45 Reiser and Ely, “Field of Educational Technology,” 65.
46 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 18.; Reiser and Ely, “Field of Educational Technology,” 65.
47 A. Januszewski and K. Persichitte, “A History of the AECT's Definitions of Educational Technology,” Chap. 10 in Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary, eds. A. Januszewski and M. Molenda (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008), 259-282.
48 Benjamin, “History of Teaching Machines,” 703-712.
79 From the 1970s to 1990s, differences arose in the research of audiovisual aids’ instructional effectiveness, with a focus on the attributes of the media.49 In the 1970s, Heinich, as editor of AudioVisual Communication Review, realized the need to address the differences arising from the ongoing controversy regarding audiovisual, technology, and development showing an emphasis on the design of instruction and communication of the messages being what Molenda refers to as an identity crisis. Heinich recommended that the journal title as well as the name of the DAVI organization contain the words communication and technology.50
During Heinich’s role as editor, AVCR became Educational Communication and Technology: A
Journal of Theory, Research and Development, and the organization became the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, which accomplished Heinich’s recommendations.51
In 1972, the definition was adapted and changed to represent educational technology as a major component, as the term audiovisual communications did not cover all aspects.52 Silber added to the 1972 definition the concept of a “learning system.”53 As observed in conference proceedings, Galanter discussed the importance of teaching machines as a learning system for
49 W. H. Levie and K. E. Dickie, “The Analysis and Application of Media,” in Second Handbook of Research On Teaching, ed. R. M. Travers (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973), 858-882.; W. Schram, Big Media, Little Media: Tools and Technologies for Instruction (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977).; R. E. Clark, “Media Will Never Influence Learning,” Educational Technology Research and Development 42, no. 2 (June 1994): 21-29.
50 Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century.”
51 Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century.”
52 Januszewski and Persichitte, “A History of AECT’s,” 259-282.
53 K. Silber, “The Learning System,” Audiovisual Instruction 17, no. 7 (September 1972): 10-27.
80 facilitating instruction.54 Historically, learning systems were represented by teaching machines, card readers, and other programmed instructional devices.55
By 1977, the field description continued to evolve from the term audiovisual communications to educational technology. The 1977 version tried to differentiate between the role of educational technologies and instructional technologies, but in many cases, the version was too broad as it tried to consider all aspects of educational technology. The first sentence in the 1977 sixteen-statement definition identifies “educational technology as a complex, integrated process.”56 This definition adds, “instructional technology is a sub-set of educational technology.”57 Saettler identified the 1977 definition as one that compiled all definitions into one to satisfy the needs of all instructional technologists.58 In addition, Torkelson uses the phrase
“educational/instructional” to describe the field and contends that the label is a dilemma not yet resolved.59
The 1977 definition remained in effect until 1994 when the educational technology definition was updated. The definitions of the educational/instructional field have continued to
54 E. Galanter, “Teaching Machines Permeate Convention Session,” Audiovisual Instruction 6, no. 6 (June 1961): 254.
55 G. Baker and I. Goldberg, “The Individualized Learning System,” Educational Leadership 27, no. 8 (May 1970): 775-780.
56 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, The Definition of Educational Technology: AECT Task Force On Definition and Terminology (Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1977), 1.
57 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Definition of Educational Technology (1977), 3.
58 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.
59 G. Torkelson, “AVCR: One Quarter Century; Evolution of Theory and Research,” AudioVisual Communication Review 25, no. 4 (Winter 1977): 318.
81 evolve, changing to fit the needs of the educators and professionals of the time, including new definitions in 1994 and 2007.
History of Professional Journals
Professional journals in these fields provide another method for looking at the history of audiovisual communications and educational technology. The information provided in the following sections is a selected list of the journals to show how they evolved and adapted to meet the needs of the changing profession.
Professional Journals—Audiovisual
Journals to support the audiovisual communications movement in classrooms included
Educational Screen, published from 1922 to 1955 and later published as Educational Screen and
Audiovisual Guide until 1971.60 Another journal, Instructional Materials, was published in 1956 for a few months before changing its name to Audiovisual Instruction until 1980. To better represent the audience for its published content, Audiovisual Instruction was changed to
Instructional Innovator (1980-1983). Within a few years, this publication would again transform, into the current TechTrends, published 1983 to the present by the AECT. As stated in
TechTrends, one purpose of the publication is to link research and practice to a broad audience of professionals including researchers and practitioners.61 An evolution of terms is evident regarding the audiovisual communications field as was foretold by a footnote in the 1963 The
60 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.
61 Association for Educational Communications and Technology ,“TechTrends–Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning,” Association for Educational Communications and Technology, n d., accessed March 29, 2014, https://aect.site-ym.com/?techtrends.
82 Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education report which mentioned “another designation may evolve…it should then be substituted.”62
Through the next fifty years, the terminology used most frequently to identify the field was educational or instructional technology. The history of the field as reflected by professional journals continues in the next section.
Professional Journals—Educational/Instructional Technology
As research in the educational technology arena became more important, professionals within the field recognized the need for research-based journals. The DAVI began publishing
Audio-Visual Communication Review in 1953, which later became AudioVisual Communication
Review through 1977.63 This publication was retitled by the AECT to Educational
Communication and Technology Journal (ECTJ) from 1978 to 1988, and evolved into the current Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D) in 1989.64 Other educational technology journals existed but are not included in this brief analysis of titles.
This concise historical overview of audiovisual instruction/communication, instructional technology, and educational technology definitions was provided as a foundation of the period of this study. Additionally, Appendix L has a listing of educational technology definition resources found during the research process, which is not intended to be an all-inclusive listing.
62 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 18.
63 Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century.”
64 G. Torkelson, “A History of AECT from a Personal Perspective,” TechTrends 43, no. 1 (February 1988): 47-50.; Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.
83 Summary
During the twenty-five-year period from 1957 to 1982, the field evolved as its leaders identified with various roles within the educational realm as they positioned the field as a profession. Identifying the trends and changes in the history and definitions is important to understanding the relationship from the past instructional materials to the current devices used for instruction.
In the next chapters, content analysis of the data as well as the pedagogical and functional uses of portable and responsive instructional materials 1957-1982 are discussed as found in the research conducted. The information is presented historically, grouped by PRIM ’57-’82 codes and categories to tell the story of these devices as used in education.
CHAPTER 4
HISTORICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Pedagogy is the principle of effective teaching and how students learn; in other words, the art of teaching. From an etymological definition, pedagogy represents adults leading and teaching children.1 For this study, pedagogical styles of teaching include individual or collaborative learning and curricular uses of the PRIM ’57-’82 items for classroom use.
Of the ninety-eight PRIM ’57-’82 items discovered in the data collection process and in the creation of the PRIM ’57-’82 codes, I found three codes that met the criteria to be included in this study. Instructional materials that I sought for inclusion in this study were small, portable, and responsive. I grouped the items by the PRIM ’57-’82 codes that are in listed Appendix C.
The audiovisual codes and categories were determined by reviewing research from the following authors: Dorris (1928), Dale (1946), Dent (1946), Allen (1956), Erickson (1965), and Gerlach and Ely (1971).2 As the content analysis of this study progressed, I found that the ninety-eight
PRIM ’57-’82 objects fit into three codes: Interactive, Real Objects, and Transparencies. Thus, these are the only codes used from this point on in this study because other codes discussed in
Chapter 2 did not apply to the data collected for this study. In the content analysis of the data, I
1 M. van Manen, “Phenomenological Pedagogy,” Curriculum Inquiry 12, no. 3 (Autumn 1982): 285.
2 Dorris, Visual Instruction Public Schools.; Dale, Audio-Visual Methods.; Dent, Audio-Visual Handbook.; Allen, “Audio-Visual Materials.”; Erickson, Fundamentals of Teaching.; V. Gerlach and D. Ely, Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971).
85 discovered twelve categories of PRIM ’57-’82. Refer to Appendix G for a listing of the codes, categories, and subcategories. Each category is discussed in this chapter concerning the pedagogical uses and teaching practices with descriptions provided of the devices.
Although these codes, (Interactive, Real Objects, and Transparencies) were initially in the content analysis portion of this study, I use a historiography method, a critical study of influences and experiences of the past, to tell the story of the PRIM ’57-’82 items in this chapter.
Qualitative information gathered through interviews of five education professionals are woven into the descriptions of the PRIM ’57-’82 codes.
Education Interviewee Information
Through the data collection process as outlined in the Methodology chapter, interviews were used to collect additional qualitative information about the types of PRIM ’57-’82 items. I interviewed five female individuals from a possible twenty-one male and female contacts. The five interviewed met my study’s requirements and needs as initially established in the approved
IRB from Northern Illinois University. Each interviewee agreed to allow her last name to be used in this study instead of a pseudonym assigned to insure anonymity.
Each interviewee had educational experiences both as a student and as a teacher during the twenty-five-year period of this study. Student experiences ranged from 1956 to 1982, teacher experiences ranged from 1965 to 2007. All five interviewees had received advanced educational degrees, one with an EdD degree, three with a master’s degree, and one with additional coursework equivalent to a master’s degree.
The following is provided to give a brief description of each interviewee and are listed in chronological order to parallel the forthcoming discussions of PRIM ’57-’82 devices.
86 Van Hooser taught English and art in Missouri and Kansas from 1965 to 1998.
She graduated from high school in 1953. Van Hooser was one of the older interviewee and had thirty-five years of teaching experience in public schools.
She remembers “teachers having to go to class to learn how to use technology.”3
Beeler graduated from high school in 1958 and attended several universities across the
United States, graduating in 1965. Her teaching experiences were in Missouri and spanned 1965 to 2000. Her passion for teaching stemmed from instructing young students to read. She is a third generation teacher and continues to work in a local preschool even after retirement from a public school district.
Knott graduated from high school in 1969, providing her with student experiences for the first twelve years of my study period. Knott attended universities located in Texas, completing her undergraduate education degree in 1973 and her master’s degree in 1988. Her teaching experiences ranged from 1974 to 2007, with breaks during the years due to family needs and career choices. She taught math and served in the role of technology specialist for a middle school.
Rundel graduated from high school in 1976 and was a school librarian in public schools from 1980 to 2004. She had two years of teaching experience in Missouri public schools during the time period established for my study. Rundel provided information about what happened with technology from a teacher’s perspective for the time beyond my study period as well as what it was like to be a student in a Missouri high school during the period of this study.
Edmondson graduated from high school in 1982, providing information about twelve years as a student. Edmondson earned an EdD from a Missouri university in 2003 and at this
3 P. Van Hooser, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 28, 2014.
87 writing is currently an associate professor and an interim director of the School of Education and
Child Development at a Missouri university. Although her teaching experiences were beyond the study’s twenty-five-year period, they added valuable information about the use of technology in current classrooms.
Additional qualitative information was provided in the discussion of the twelve PRIM
’57-’82 categories throughout this chapter as these five interviewees shared their student and teaching experiences.
Interactive, Real Objects, and Transparencies Codes
In the data collection, as mentioned in Chapter 2—Methodology, I found ninety-eight items that met the overall definition of PRIM ’57-’82 for this study. Of the ninety-eight items, eighty items were included in the Interactive code. The Real Objects code included sixteen items, and the Transparencies code contained two items.4 I created categories within the
Interactive and Real Objects codes based on the PRIM ’57-’82 to further categorize the items for discussion.
One limitation of this study was that only audiovisual-based books, journal articles, and other resources were used to gather data. A poststructural approach determined what was selected and used in this study to meet the instructional materials 1957-1982 definition established in the Terms and Definitions section in Chapter 1: portable and responsive
4 When the discussion is about the PRIM ’57-’82 codes, categories, subcategories, and groups, title case and italics are used to signify these items. In some cases, an individual object may be labeled similarly. For example, an audio-based device as an item is written in lower case but if it is meant to be the code, category, subcategory, or group, it is written as Audio-Based Devices.
88 instructional materials from 1957 to 1982. PRIM ’57-’82 was designated to represent the ninety- eight identified items used in this study.
Interactive Code
After analysis of the eighty items within the Interactive code, several categories were created to separate the items into manageable sections for this study. The Interactive code includes seven categories with the quantity of items shown in parenthesis: Programmed
Instruction (35), Learning Materials (7), Instructional Kits (3), Learning Games (1), Response
Systems (27), Instructional Systems (6), and Computers (1). Each category is discussed in chronological order based on the initial dates found in the data collection process. For example, items in the Programmed Instruction category were recorded from 1957 and are discussed first in this section, whereas the Computers category dated 1982, therefore it is discussed last.
Relevant literature is discussed within each category.
Interactive—Programmed Instruction Category
The Programmed Instruction category appeared thirty-five times in my research relating to the eighty items in the Interactive code, so subcategories were created to help in the sorting and grouping of the content analysis process. In the Programmed Instruction category, four subcategories were needed to describe the types of items found: Audio Card Readers (thirteen items), Craig Readers (three items), Audio-Based Devices (five items), and Game-Like Devices
(fourteen items).
89 Programmed instruction can be traced back to the dialectic or Socratic method of teaching.5 The definition of dialectic method is based on a discourse between two or more people in search for knowledge—a question-and-answer discussion.6 Thorndike, in the early 1900s, foresaw the use of programmed instruction through a book that could be arranged for individual instruction.7 Thorndike continued this idea with, “A human being should not be wasted in doing what forty sheets of paper or two photographs can do.”8 For the time period of my study, programmed instruction was defined in the 1963 report, The Changing Role of the Audiovisual
Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, as the use of programmed materials to meet educational objectives. Interestingly, this publication did not provide a definition of programmed materials.
A section entitled “Programed Instruction and Teaching Machines” is included in The
Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related
Terms.9 This section provides definitions for key words and phrases of this 1960s educational trend.10 An important term in programmed instruction is response. This term is an integral component of programmed instruction, as a response is branched or linked to the students’ next lesson based on completion of the previous steps.11 Reinforcement, as another component of
5 J. S. Kinder, Using Instructional Media (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1973), 208.
6 M. Meyer, “Dialectic and Questioning: Socrates and Plato,” American Philosophical Quarterly 17, no. 4 (October 1980): 287.
7 Thorndike, Education, 165-167.; Kinder, Using Instructional Media, 208.
8 Thorndike, Education, 167.
294 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 38.
10 Markle, "Programed Instruction and Teaching," 129-135.
11 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 38.
90 programmed instruction, is defined as a “stimulus presented after a response … which increases the probablity that the response will recur when the situation recurrs.”12 Markle described key terms in the “Programed Instruction and Teaching Machine” section, including synonyms such as auto-instructional methods and automatic tutoring.13
Gerlach and Ely describes programmed instruction as a controlled method—usually small steps that required an active response from the learner in which the students can work at their own pace and are notified of correctness of their response.14 Advantages of using programmed instruction includes logical sequencing, pretested content to ensure maximum learning, that programmed instruction is effective for factual learning, and that a wide variety of media can be used in the lesson.15 Two limitations mentioned by Gerlach and Ely are that programmed instruction may be dull, especially for the “brighter students,” and the preparation of locally produced programmed instruction is often difficult to write, prepare, and test for effectively.16
As defined in 1972, programmed learning is a “sequential presentation of material… designed as to lead the user step-by-step to an understanding of the subject.”17 Kinder notes that early in the programmed instruction days, programmed was spelled with only one m.18 Also
12 Markle, "Programed Instruction and Teaching," 132.
13 Markle, "Programed Instruction and Teaching," 129.
14 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 373.
15 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 373.
16 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 373.
17 W. Quinly et al., Standards for Cataloging Nonprint Materials (Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1972), 1-68, accessed July 7, 2014, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED063779.pdf, 29.
18 Kinder, Using Instructional Media, 206.
91 notice only one m in the word programmed in the section of The Changing Role of the
Audiovisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms written by
Markle. This is important to note, as internet-based searches produce different results depending on the spelling used. For example, a JSTOR search conducted on July 26, 2014 for “programed instruction” yielded 1,269 results from 1961 to 2010, whereas a search for “programmed instruction” displayed 3,088 results from 1960 to 2013. JSTOR is a database that has archived scholarly periodical literature from as early as 1872.
Programmed learning materials, according to Kinder in 1973, included not only machines such as the teaching machine, autotutors, and self-instructional devices but also scrambled books and tutortexts.19 Kinder adds that programmed instruction must be self-sufficient: the learner must produce a reaction to the content by pressing a button or lever or through a written or verbal response, and the unit holds the learner’s sustained attention.20
As a general topic, programmed instruction was discussed in the interviews conducted for this study. Beeler, Knott, and Rundel mentioned programmed instruction in the form of learning packets. Beeler specifically remembered the paper booklet but not that any machine or electronic device was used in programmed instruction.21 Knott remembered an open classroom in which the student would take the programmed instruction packet “to a corner” to work on and then check the work either as part of a student group or with the teacher.22 Rundel and Knott also
19 Kinder, Using Instructional Media, 206.
20 Kinder, Using Instructional Media, 207-208.
21 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
22 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
92 remembered the reading laboratory kits such as those produced by Science Research Associates
(SRA) as an individualized reading instruction.23
Programmed Instruction—Audio Card Readers Subcategory. Of the thirty-five PRIM
’57-’82 Programmed Instruction items, thirteen items were found to fit in the Audio Card
Readers subcategory. These thirteen items were found in, journal articles, textbooks, and advertisements dated from 1957 to 1980. The time span of the audio card reader found in this study was twenty-three years. These PRIM ’57-’82 items all provided basic recording and playback but had an advantage over a cassette tape player in that an image was simultaneously shown to the student, so students heard the sound or word and saw a correlated image.24 The audio card readers were operated by placing a card with a magnetic strip in the machine, and then the prerecorded sound would be played while the student could observe an image, if desired. Both the teacher and student could record on the card in separate areas, which allowed playback for review, comparison, and evaluation.25 The audio cards could be replayed multiple times as needed for improving skills or understanding.26 In my data collection, I found references to audio card readers and audio cards, and further research revealed a similar device referred to as “audio flashcards.”27 Shown in Figure 2 is an audio card reader. The Audio Card
23 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.; B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
24 Wittich and Schuller, Instructional Technology, 328.
25 J. Brown, R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad, A-V Instruction: Materials and Methods (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1959), 222.
26 D. Ely, Instructional Hardware: A Guide to Architectural Requirements (New York: Educational Facilities Labs, 1970), 46.
27 Ely, Instructional Hardware, 46.; S. Levine, Appendixes to the Final Technical Report of the Great Lakes Special Education Instructional Materials Center: Volume 4 Report of Auditory Learning (East Lansing: Michigan State University; Regional Instructional Materials Center for Handicapped Children and Youth, 1974), 1- 349, accessed July 1, 2014, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED100077.pdf, 9.
93 Reader shown in Figure 2 is an example of PRIM ’57-’82 Audio Card Readers as discussed in this section.
Figure 2. Bell and Howell Company, Audio Card Reader, 1957.28
The Language Master, by Bell and Howell Company, was an audiovisual system that coordinated an image with sound. I found this item shown in the reviewed literature from 1957 to 1973. The teacher would use blank cards to create his/her own teaching program or special vocabulary words. It was used effectively for language programs, speech therapy, adult literacy,
English as a second language (ESL), and remedial reading.29 In an image found during the data collection process, children are working in a group with an audio card reader; the author states that the students created audio cards for each other to learn from and in doing so, created a very personal learning experience.30 Finn, a leader in audiovisual instruction, explains how to use the
28 J. D. Finn, The Audio-Visual Equipment Manual (New York: Dryden Press, 1957), 349.
29 W. Powell and E. Kinne, “News and Notes,” Journal of Reading 10, no. 4 (January 1967): 272.
30 Wittich and Schuller, Instructional Technology, 38.
94 Language Master audio card reader in his 1957 publication, Audio-Visual Equipment Manual.31
Brown, Lewis, and Harcleroad, in a discussion about new audio equipment, project that the
Language Master and similar devices would be expected to improve foreign-language instruction as well as speech and hearing therapy.32 As one of the advertisements states, students could work independently because the “cards function as tape reels, eliminating winding and rewinding.”33
The use of audio card readers facilitated learning, including in special education classrooms. As the Language Master evolved from its original model, it was recommended as a special education learning aid in a 1983 Indiana State Department of Public Education report in the Speech Hearing Language (Communication Handicapped) section for primary to senior high school students.34
According to an Otto and Houston review by, Bell and Howell Company offered the
Language Master for $250.00.35 In 1967, supplemental materials for the Language Master were the programmed instruction series such as Vocabulary, Word-Picture series, English
Development set, and Phonics for $35.00 for two hundred prerecorded cards.36 Also available for
$6.00 per hundred cards were blank recording cards for teacher- or student-created materials.37
31 Finn, Audio-Visual Equipment Manual, 349.
32 Brown, Lewis, and Harcleroad, A-V Instruction (1959), 284.
33 W. Otto and C. Houston, Mechanical Aids in the Teaching of Reading (Madison: Research and Development Center for Learning and Re-education, 1967), 13.
34 P. Ash, ed., Educators' Guide to Effective Special Education Materials: 1983-1984 (Indianapolis: Division of Special Education Indiana State Department of Public Instruction, 1983), 20, 28.
35 Otto and Houston, Mechanical Aids Teaching Reading, 13.
36 Otto and Houston, Mechanical Aids Teaching Reading, 13.
37 Otto and Houston, Mechanical Aids Teaching Reading, 13.
95 I found several patents for audio card reading devices such as U.S. Patent No. 3,712,973 by F. G. Karl, filed in 1970 for the Bell and Howell Company. The device is described as a “dual speed machine handling magnetically striped cards.”38 Interestingly, the patent documentation refers to the Language Master as a “teaching machine,” yet the Language Master is not mentioned in Benjamin’s extensive 1988 article, “A History of Teaching Machines.”39
I was not able to find a vintage Language Master or any audio card reader for sale on eBay when I searched on June 26, 2014.
Electronic Futures Inc. (EFI) also produced an audio card reader found in a 1959
Audiovisual Instruction advertisement. EFI’s device was similar to the Language Master, as it used audio cards to record and play back sounds from prepurchased content or teacher- student- created materials. In a 1959 audiovisual textbook by Brown, Lewis, and Harcleroad, the authors contend that an advantage of the audio card reader, such as the EFI model, was that it allowed
“listening while observing or reading” in addition to the recording and playing back of students’ responses.40
In a 1974 study by Fleming, students responded favorably by using the EFI audio cards to create a story, yet the author explains this may be due to the “gadgetry of the audio flashcard reader” as well as the lesson being presented in a nonthreatening format.41 Fleming further recommends additional research about the connection of audio with visual stimuli.
38 F. Karl, “Dual Speed Machine Handling Magnetically Striped Cards and Cards Therefor [sic]. Patent 3,712,973. August 27, 1970,” accessed June 26, 2014, https://www.google.com/patents/US3712973.
39 Benjamin, “History of Teaching Machines,” 703-712.
40 Brown, Lewis, and Harcleroad, A-V Instruction (1959), 222.
41 J. Fleming, “Audio/Visual Tell a Story,” in Final Technical Report of the Great Lakes Special Education Instructional Materials Center Report On Auditory Learning: Volume 4, ed. S. Levine (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1974), 324, accessed July 1, 2014, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED100077.pdf.
96 A study by Wood in 1974 observed student behaviors with educational media in special education classrooms. The EFI card reader was included in Wood’s study. One teacher commented, “the EFI card reader had not been successful” after several attempts to train a student to use the media.42 The students in this classroom were not able to use the card reader without supervision, so the card reader was not used.43 Another teacher in the study had similar experiences with not being able to use the prepared audio cards yet found the audio card system added value as a “practice of verbal behavior” when students recorded their own responses in an unstructured environment such as free time.44
Teaching Technology Corporation (TTC) improved on the audio card readers in 1968 through its adaptation of the playback system. TTC introduced a model in which the card did not slide through the machine; instead the audio card was static, and the player head moved over the magnetic tape.45 This adaptation may have solved a durability issue of the audio card readers that moved the card through the machine. A 1968 advertisement lists a suggested school price of
$225.00.46 In an email from June August, a vice president of TTC during the time period of this study, August confirms that the function of the card reader was to reinforce the concept independently as well as to provide a kinesthetic/auditory experience.47 August taught sales
42 P. Wood, A Study of Teacher-Pupil Interactions Involving Individualized Media Resources: Observation Report No. 746, Syracuse City School District (Washington, DC: Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, 1974), 1-17, accessed July 1, 2014, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED092111.pdf, 11.
43 Wood, Study of Teacher-Pupil Interactions, 12.
44 Wood, Study of Teacher-Pupil Interactions, 12.
45 Teaching Technology Corporation, “A Magnetic Card Reader,” Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 1 (January 1968): 84. [Advertisement]
46 Teaching Technology Corporation, “A Magnetic Card Reader.” [Advertisement]
47 June August, emailed to author, Lampe, MO, July 21, 2014.
97 teams the “key technical phrases” for reading improvement so that the sales force would be able to sell the device to school districts.48 August remembered that when the card reader worked properly, it was useful, students enjoyed using it, and teachers were free to give one-on-one instruction to more needy students. As a final comment in her email, August felt that the card reader’s demise was based on the incoming technology: computer-assisted instruction.49
Another advertisement in Elementary English, November 1968, promotes the TTC magnetic card reader as a “Multi-Media Program” for reading.50 The TTC multimedia reading program consisted of three levels. The magnetic card reader was used for reinforcement in Level
1of the TTC multi-media phonics and word phrases curriculum; Level 2 included the magnetic card reader along with a workbook; Level 3 added taped materials to complete the reading program.51
The TTC Audio Q Motivator, as one of several brands of audio card readers that included the Language Master, was recommended by Cayton and Brewer in 1973 as part of the
Individualized Reading Instructional System (IRIS).52 The IRIS system used published reading materials for independent, individualized learning, including reusable programmed instruction materials. Cayton and Brewer further recommended that a reading lab should have two audio card readers available for a lab of fifteen students.53
48 June August, emailed to author, Lampe, MO, July 21, 2014.
49 June August, emailed to author, Lampe, MO, July 21, 2014.
50 Teaching Technology Corporation, “Multi-Media Reading Programs,” Elementary English 45, no. 7 (November 1968): 951. [Advertisement]
51 Teaching Technology Corporation, “Multi-Media Reading Programs.” [Advertisement]
52 P. Cayton and N. Brewer, Individualized Reading Instructional System (IRIS) (Montgomery: Rehabilitation Research Foundation, 1973), 8.
53 Cayton and Brewer, Individualized Reading Instructional System, 8.
98 The Tutorette Audiocard System by Audiotronics, another item in the Audio Card
Readers subcategory, was found to exist toward the end of the twenty-five-year period of this study. This system was found in advertisements from 1974 to 1980 and was referenced in
Heinich, Molenda, and Russell’s 1985 textbook, Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction.54 Information on the “Tutorette” trademark # 72078417 was filed on July 27,
1959, with a registered renewal date of August 29, 2000.55
The Tutorette system promoted “a system that satisfies each student’s individual modality strength—visual, auditory, or kinesthetic.”56 Similar in operation to the Language
Master, students would insert an audio card into the reader, observe the given visual, listen, and then respond through the Tutorette recording system to “hear-read-feel-record-and learn.”57 An advertisement suggests using Tutorette programs for basic reading, ESL, spelling, math, or for creating one’s own instruction using blank cards. A 1974 advertisement further explains the
Tutorette concept as a multisensory approach to an individualized student-based and self-pacing learning system.58
In 1974, another Tutorette advertisement had a price of $189.95 for a dual system, record and playback, and $169.95 for a playback-only model.59 The advertisement described the
54 R. Heinich, M. Molenda, and J. Russell, Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley, 1985).
55 Trademarkia, “Tutorette - Reviews & Brand Information,” Trademarkia, July 27, 1959, accessed June 27, 2014, http://www.trademarkia.com/tutorette-72078417.html.
56 Audiotronics, “The Multisensory Tutorette Audiocard System,” Instructional Innovator 25, no. 5 (May 1980): 48. [Advertisement]
57 Audiotronics, “Multisensory Tutorette Audiocard System.” [Advertisement]
58 Audiotronics, “There's Only One Practical Audiocard System, the Tutorette,” Audiovisual Instruction 19, no. 9 (November 1974): Back Cover. [Advertisement]
59 Audiotronics, “There's Only One Practical.” [Advertisement]
99 following special features: an audio-active feature that allowed students to hear themselves and others, a built-in microphone, color-coded controls for easy identification, and push-button controls for fast, simple operation. An additional feature of this model was compatibility with other audio card devices. As support for the teachers to create their own instructional materials, a
Materials Development Kit was available. Pricing for the Tutorette reader had declined from the
1974 price to $149.95 in 1976 for the teacher- and student-record deluxe model and it included an additional feature of “super-speed repeat.”60 The standard model, in 1976 was advertised for
$99.95, a savings of $70.00 from the 1974 version.61
I was able to find three vintage Audiotronic Tutorette Card Readers for sale on eBay in
2014. Prices ranged from $19.95 to $45.99, with only one of the three offerings in working order and programmed instruction or blank audio cards in the purchase.62
To illustrate the lengthy lifecycle of the Tutorette, I found other uses of the Tutorette occurred after my twenty-five-year research period. Research showed use of the device for ESL and foreign language learning. For example, in a Los Angeles Times article dated September 2,
1986, Audiotronics collaborated with a firm in Japan to teach English with the Tutorette.63 To
60 Audiotronics, “$99.95,” Audiovisual Instruction 21, no. 10 (December 1976): Back Cover. [Advertisement]
61 Audiotronics, "$99.95.” [Advertisement]
62 dbate33950, “Audiotronics Tutorette 800SA Language Master Math English Spelling Tutoring,” eBay, 2014, accessed June 27, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Audiotronics-Tutorette-800SA-Language-Master-Math- English-Spelling-Tutoring-/281369217956?_trksid=p2054897.l4275.; enscashkingdom, “Vintage Audiotronics Tutorette Card Reader 810A,” eBay, 2014, accessed June 27, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE- AUDIOTRONICS-TUTORETTE-CARD-READER-810A-JAPAN- /261508600288?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3ce32091e0.; giftsandjazz, “Vintage Japan Audiotronics Tutorette Card Reader,” eBay, 2014, accessed June 27, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-JAPAN- AUDIOTRONICS-TUTORETTE-CARD-READER- /191220127619?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c859b9783.
63 “Audiotronics Partnership,” Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1986, accessed June 27, 2014, http://articles.latimes.com/1986-09-02/business/fi-13695_1_joint-venture.html. [Newspaper]
100 guarantee success of this partnership, Audiotronics provided training and support for additional programmed instruction units.64
In collecting data about audio card readers, I found four major manufacturers of this device: Bell and Howell Company (1957), Electronic Futures Inc. (1959), Teaching Technology
Corporation (1968), and Audiotronics (1974). The four companies produced similar features: record and playback, prepurchased content and teacher- student-created content, and portability and color-coding for ease of use.
The Audio Card Readers subcategory generated many responses from the interviewees of this study. Van Hooser used an audio card reader as a tool to teach English classes, but when a foreign language teacher needed the audio card reader for instruction, the principal gave Van
Hooser’s device to the foreign language lab. When asked how the students felt about losing the audio card reader, Van Hooser stated that she was mad because the principal had the power to take this instructional device away from her successful teaching strategy. Van Hooser also reflected that the audio card reader was later located permanently in the library and that the students could not access the device due to lack of staff in the library facilities.65
Beeler, an interviewee who taught from 1965 to 2000, reflected that the audio card readers were used in third grade but were not well liked by the teachers. The audio card readers, in her experience, were used primarily for special education when the instructor could work more one-on-one with the student. The card readers were used in classrooms and found to be a sturdy device, but the audio cards would malfunction and wear out. Most frustrating for the instructors and students was that the audio cards easily became mixed up, or out of order. From
64 Los Angeles Times, “Audiotronics Partnership.” [Newspaper]
65 P. Van Hooser, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 28, 2014.
101 Beeler’s point of view, the lack of sequencing of the audio cards did not prove to be effective instruction, as instruction was not presented in the proper order to build knowledge.
Knott, a teacher from 1974 to 2007, reflected on educational uses of the audio card readers. The Language Master images in the slideshow presented during the interview prompted remembrances from the 1970s of the Language Master as a device used as a special education resource or a tool used for remedial instruction. Knott recalled that the audio cards became warped, destroyed, or scratched, which made them inoperable after many uses. Knott kept control over the audio cards in her classroom to prevent damage to the cards and to preserve their correct order. The audio card reader could be checked out of a central location, the library by the teacher, for a period of a year. When Knott started teaching in a classroom midyear, she was not familiar with the audio card reader. Another teacher trained Knott about the proper use of the audio card reader, after which Knott used the device for vocabulary, basic sight words, and reinforcement for spelling. At the time Knott was using the audio card reader, images were not associated with the audio cards used for instruction.
Programmed Instruction—Craig Readers Subcategory. The Craig Readers, discovered during my data collection process, were used from 1961 to 1963 and were found in Audiovisual
Instruction. These PRIM ’57-’82 items were advertised to provide a “fully-integrated reading improvement program” for individual instruction.66 The Craig Reader was a desk-size device consisting of a screen to display filmstrips, a cassette player/recorder, and worksheets and/or workbooks. The teacher could also purchase a specific instructional system from Craig
Education that provided fifteen-minute lessons with stated performance objectives to be achieved
66 Craig Research, Inc., “Now Give Individual Attention to Reading Improvement with Craig Reader Program, “Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 4. [Advertisement]
102 by the student before advancing. In addition, the Craig Reader also offered alternative learning strategies if the lesson was not accomplished in the time allotted.67 Otto and Houston describe the Craig Reader as a “near-point tachistoscopic and pacing device.”68 The Craig Reader shown in Figure 3 is an example of PRIM ’57-’82 Craig Readers as discussed in this section.
Geerlof and Kling, in a 1968 study of 181 responses on current reading practices, found the Craig Reader was used with other machines such as tachistoscopes and reading accelerators in reading instruction at colleges and with adult learners, yet it was never used alone as an independent teaching device.69 Tachistoscopes are projector-like devices that display an image for a specific time period, primarily used to improve word recognition and to improve reading speeds.70 Reading accelerators are instructional aids used to train students to read faster by having a mechanical component control the words viewed on a page. Both the tachistoscope and the reading accelerator are discussed in this study’s Interactive—Instructional Systems section.
67 S. Haffen, “The Craig Reader, Recorder and Programs. Applied Learning Systems, Primary Reading Program (K-3),” The Reading Teacher 28, no. 7 (April 1975): 688.
68 Otto and Houston, Mechanical Aids Teaching Reading, 13.
69 M. Geerlof and M. Kling, “Current Practices in College and Adult Developmental Reading Programs,” Journal of Reading 11 no. 7 (April 1968): 570.
70 E. Godnig, “The Tachistoscope: Its History,” Journal of Behavioral Optometry 14, no. 2 (2003): 39-42.
103
Figure 3. Craig Research, Inc., Craig Reader, 1962.71
A review by Haffen, published in The Reading Teacher, states that the Craig Reader was a systematic program with small-step progressions of programmed learning.72 The system could be used as an independent activity, as a reinforcement to coordinate with other learning programs, and as a remedial program for “the student who is singled out because of a special learning problem.”73
Otto and Houston stated, in 1967, the price of the Craig Reader system was $229.50, with additional reading programmed instruction sets from $30.00 to $35.00 each.74 Haffen found the price in 1975 was $378.50 for the complete reading system, with additional components available from $12.50 to $189.50.75
A JSTOR search, conducted on July 29, 2014, for scholarly articles using “Craig Reader” as the search request resulted in fifty-two references from 1957 to 1982, including many
71 Craig Research, Inc., “Now Give Individual Attention.” [Advertisement]
72 Haffen, "Craig Reader, Recorder," 687.
73 Haffen, "Craig Reader, Recorder," 688.
74 Otto and Houston, Mechanical Aids Teaching Reading, 13.
75 Haffen, "Craig Reader, Recorder," 687.
104 advertisements in the front matter and back matter of The Reading Teacher and the Journal of
Reading. No results were found for the same request for the years 1983 to 2014.
The Craig Corporation, manufacturer of the Craig Reader, is apparently no longer a supplier of instructional materials. The location shown in the advertisements is currently owned by the City of Los Angeles through a sale completed in April 1977.76 I was not able to access history of the corporation’s address prior to 1977. I assume that the Craig Corporation is no longer in business due to the lack of publicity of its products and lack of any articles written in scholarly journals since 1983.
No additional qualitative data on the use of the Craig Reader during the period studied were obtained through the interview process because the interviewees were not familiar with the
Craig Reader either during their time as a student or as a teacher during the study’s twenty-five- year period.
Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices Subcategory. Five PRIM ’57-’82 items were designated to belong in the Audio-Based Devices subcategory; they were found used from
1963 to 1982. Items were found in journal articles, advertisements, and textbooks. In this section, the features of portability and the need for a teacher or student response are the focus of the discussion rather than the audio instruction, as that is beyond the scope of this study.
Instructional materials established from PRIM ’57-’82 data were called Audio Notebooks, found twice in the literature reviewed, the Wireless Audio Learning System, the Listen and Read
Literacy Programme, and the Audio Educational System. All items were small and portable with
76 Find the Best, “3410 S. La Cienega,” Find the Best, n.d., accessed June 26, 2014, http://commercial- properties.findthebest.com/l/5989353/3410-S-La-Cienega-Blvd-Los-Angeles-CA-90016.
105 the student answering through a voice response. The Audio Notebook shown in Figure 4 is an example of PRIM ’57-’82 Audio-Based Devices as discussed in this section.
Figure 4. Electronic Futures Inc., Audio Notebook, 1963.77
The Audio Notebook was the earliest of this type of instructional material found through my collection process; it was found in the literature in 1963 and again in 1967. The Audio
Notebook advertisement promotes improvement in language, speech, and reading skills for an individual learner. The manufacturer, EFI, indicates in the advertisement that the product was designed and produced following “strict pedagogical requirements of audio learning.”78 This
PRIM ’57-’82 item was used for independent study by children and adult learners, but in 1967,
77 Electronic Futures Inc., “New Language and Tape Learning Systems by EFI,” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 1 (January 1963): 8. [Advertisement]
78 Electronic Futures Inc., “New Language Tape Learning.” [Advertisement]
106 Hafner stated that the effectiveness of this device had not been proven with any validity.79 Ely describes the Audio Notebook as a “compact, desk-top unit…may be carried about easily” with a
1970 cost of $240.00 but does not discuss its effectiveness.80
A July 26, 2014 search on eBay produced a set of three vintage headsets that appear similar to those photographed with the Audio Notebook, for a price of $59.00.81 I was not able to find any vintage Audio Notebooks for sale but did find an antique radio forum in which the participant, Tube Radio, wanted more information about the Audio Notebook and provided a detailed description.82
Another item studied was the Wireless Audio Learning System; it was found in a review of new audiovisual materials in Audiovisual Instruction, October 1970. The review states that this system was a convenient method of instruction.83 The image shows a student using an instruction booklet, a small battery-operated listening station, and a headset. There is not any price listed in the review article.
In my attempts to learn more about the Wireless Audio Learning System, I searched the
Northern Illinois University educational technology, research, and assessment databases through
NIU’s Founders Memorial Library in June 2014. Searches for "Wireless Audio Learning
79 L. Hafner, “What Materials Should Be Used in College Reading Courses” (International Reading Association Conference, Seattle, WA, May 6-7, 1967), 1-29, accessed June 25, 2014, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED013709.pdf.
80 Ely, Instructional Hardware, 7, 46.
81 not2bright!, “Lot of 3 Vintage Electronic Futures Inc., EFI Headsets Head Phones,” eBay, 2014, accessed June 25, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lot-of-3-Vintage-Electronic-Futures-Inc-EFI-Headsets-Head- phones-Sonic-/191193198354.
82 Tube Radio, “Antique Radio Forums-Vintage Audio Equipment,” Antique Radios, November 14, 2006, accessed June 25, 2014, http://www.antiqueradios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=63493.
83 Systems for Education, “Wireless Audio Learning System,” Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 7 (September 1970): 95. [Advertisement]
107 System" did not yield any results for this device using an ERIC (via EBSCO) or JSTOR database search. I was not able to find any other information about the Wireless Audio Learning System.
The third item in the subcategory, the Listen and Read Literacy Programme, was found in
Instructional Innovator, February 1982. It was reviewed in the New Projects section of the journal. The item was used with nonreaders of the English language to teach reading and writing skills. As a form of programmed instruction, the Listen and Read Literacy Programme consisted of pictorial worksheets and eight audiocassettes that combined “phonic and sight word” teaching methods.84 An image of the product showed an individual middle school or high school student working with a tape recorder, cassettes, and a workbook. An interesting option of this literacy program was that the pictorial guide was compatible with an Apple microcomputer, as all graphics could be converted to on-screen images. There is no price included in the review, and I was not able to find further information about this product.
The fourth item the Audio-Based Devices subcategory is the Audio Educational System by Sylvania Information Systems. I included this item in the study, because it was small, portable, and required the student to make a response. The item was found in an advertisement in
Audiovisual Instruction, October 1968, proposing that a student could turn the cafeteria into a classroom in one second.85 The system consisted of an FM receiver, and a cassette tape player, four headphone jack inputs, and headphones. The advertisement states an advantage to this system was that “any area could be turned into an audio classroom” using the FM audio classroom setup. The instructor would mount the specially embedded wires onto the walls to set
84 Instructional Innovator, “How to Read,” Instructional Innovator 27, no. 2 (February 1982): 45.
85 Sylvania Information Systems, “In One Second He Can Turn This Cafeteria into a Classroom,” Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 8 (October 1968): 903. [Advertisement]
108 up the FM receiver, which allowed an individual student, or a group of up to four students, access to lessons through a radio signal. Other features included an adjustable listening speed to fit the students’ learning styles and a pushbutton feature that made programmed instruction possible from prepared cassette tapes. It was battery operated, so it was portable and could be taken where it was needed. The item’s 1968 advertisement suggests that it was a low-cost way to give a school “newer electronic educational aids.”86
Further searching for current types of audio education systems led me to streaming media and audio books used for educational purposes. I was not able to find any similar devices for sale on eBay or other internet resources in July 2014. I searched for “audio instructional” and found many articles referring to distance education opportunities through the use of an “audio instructional system.”87 Many articles were listed in a search for “radio+audio instruction” using
Google Scholar on June 25, 2014, an online search tool for scholarly literature, and in using
NIU’s databases.88 The results offered information on educational radio, which is beyond the scope of this study. This search phrase led to a discussion by Tripp and Roby about
Postlethwaite’s audio-tutorial instruction (ATI) that was used with biology students at Purdue
86 Sylvania Information Systems, “In One Second He.” [Advertisement]
87 A. Batey and R. Cowell, Distance Education: An Overview. Information Analyses (Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1986).; U. Demiray and A. Isman, “History of Distance Education,” in Online Distance Education Book, eds. A. Isman, M. Barkan, and U. Demiray (Sakarya: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2003), 1, accessed June 25, 2014, http://www.tojet.net/e- book/ebook.htm.
88 Database and internet search results may vary depending on the use of special symbols such as the plus sign. The databases such as Google Scholar, JSTOR, and NIU’s databases support the use of special systems. In this study, the use of the plus sign is used without a space before or after the search words used. Examples: “radio+audio instruction,” and “FMEA+educational technology.” The search string is placed inside quotation marks to show the exact phrase used.
109 University in the early 1960s.89 The audio-tutorial instruction appears to be similar to Sylvania
Information Systems’ Audio Educational System although no research was found to substantiate that observation. The ATI method was thought to be effective but has limited empirical research about it.90
Through the interview process, the five interviewees revealed their work with audio instruction in a lab setting, but none of the interviewees had used or seen these particular items in their student or teaching experiences.
Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices Subcategory. Through the data collection process, fourteen items were found to belong in the Programmed Instruction—Game-Like
Devices subcategory, the fourth of the programmed instruction subcategories. The PRIM ’57-’82
Game-Like Devices found are dated from 1969 to 1982. Items were collected from journal articles, advertisements, and audiovisual textbooks as well as from the internet, for example, The
Computing History and Datamath Calculator Museum websites.
One of the earliest records I found about educational games was in a 1907 article called
“Games of Music,” in which the author states that “the instructive game has become a prominent feature in our modern education” and includes “all branches of knowledge” such as language, history, science, and the fine arts.91 In a later study, Schubert outlines procedures and the selection processes of using reading games in education. The recommendations include choosing purposeful games that did not have many rules, using games that were versatile, playing games
89 S. Tripp and W. Roby, “Auditory Presentations and Language Laboratories,” Chap. 28 in The Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, ed. D. H. Jonassen (New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1996), 824.
90 S. Sain, “Filebox/assignment,” December 20, 2001, accessed June 25, 2014, http://filebox.vt.edu/s/ssain/itfiles/digaud/assignment1.doc.
91 B. Harrison, “Games of Music,” The Musical Times 48, no. 775 (September 1, 1907): 589.
110 in groups or individually as well as selecting games that were self-competitive so as to not rely on group competitions.92 The guidelines established by Schubert are the earliest selection criteria that I found in researching effective game choices for educational purposes.
Interestingly, the terms games and educational games are not included in the 1963 Terms and Definitions of The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education.93 Yet, twelve years later, in 1975, the New York State Education Department defined games as having
“specific rules of play, which involve intellectual or physical activity.”94 In addition, in a 1975 directory of sources for people who are handicapped, there are ten listings of suppliers with
“game” in their company name: e.g., Educational Games (New York), Games Research
(Boston), and U.S. Games Systems (New York).95
Gerlach and Ely described games in 1971 as a “simplified operational model of a real-life situation.”96 Advantages of using games for educational purposes are explained by Gerlach and
Ely to be that the student was involved with and sought to solve a problem.97 Furthermore, the authors note that a full range of media could be incorporated into games, which generated a high degree of interest.98 Some disadvantages are that games could distort contexts and are time-
92 D. Schubert, “Reading Games: Why, How, When,” Elementary English 36, no. 6 (October 1959): 423.
93 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process.
94 New York State Education Department, Publisher Source Directory: A List of Where to Buy or Rent Instructional Materials and Other Educational Aids, Devices, and Media Including More Than 1,600 Publishers and Producers in the U.S. Canada, and Europe. (Columbus: National Center on Educational Media and Materials for the Handicapped, 1975), 1-86, accessed July 3, 2014, http://http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED119399.pdf, vi.
95 New York State Education Department, Publisher Source Directory, 1-86.
96 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 340.
97 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 340.
98 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 341.
111 consuming.99 Gerlach and Ely also contend that games were a growing area in education and that resources were difficult to keep track of due to the rapid growth.100
In a closer look at the fourteen items discovered during the data collection process, three groupings of Game-Like Devices were created to further describe this subcategory of
Programmed Instruction. The groups are Matching Devices, Multiple-Choice Devices, and
Educational Toys.
Through my poststructural process, the Piko dat Learning Machine and the Matchmaker were two items categorized in the Matching Devices group. These two devices were similar in that they used a mode of linking to connect ideas and concepts that facilitating learning through a matching process. Both instructional materials used a pointer or stylus on a response board, and when linked to the correct, predetermined answer location on the board, the student would receive feedback.
The Piko dat Learning Machine, also referred as the Piko dat, first sold in 1969, was one of the earliest programmable computers available to the general public and was promoted as a
“play and learn” educational tool for students.101 It was described as an educational computer for teaching the basics of programming and programming games.102 The Piko dat operated by connecting wires through a button slot to one of thirteen lights. When a connection was created correctly, a light would illuminate, giving the student feedback that a correct answer had been
99 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 341.
100 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 373.
101 Centre for Computing History, “Piko dat Toy Learning Computer,” Centre for Computing History, n.d., accessed April 22, 2013, http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/28654/Piko-Dat-Toy-Learning-Computer/.
102 J. Parikka, “Winky Dink Avantgarde at the Game Museum, Berlin,” Media Cartographies, March 21, 2011, accessed July 3, 2014, http://mediacartographies.blogspot.com/2011/03/winky-dink-avantgarde-at-game- museum.html.
112 selected. With further research on the Piko dat, I found the device was sold in Germany and used to program model trains as well as a tool to learn programming.103 The Piko dat Learning
Machine was manufactured in East Germany by Pionier Konstruktion. The Piko dat Learning
Machine shown in Figure 5 is an example of PRIM ’57-’82 Matching Devices as discussed in this section.
Figure 5. Pionier Konstruktion, Piko dat Learning Machine, 1969.104
The Piko dat Learning Machine is no longer in production, but through correspondence with Damman, a Piko dat subject matter expert, I learned that a Piko dat had sold in 2009 for
€65.00 or approximately $88.00.105 Through email communications with Damman on July 3,
2014, I also received a German language copy of the Piko dat manual and a copy of the original
103 Centre for Computing History, "Piko dat Toy Learning."
104 Centre for Computing History, "Piko dat Toy Learning."
105 B. Damman, “Piko dat, The Electromechanical Computer of the People of the DDR, 1969,” 2009, accessed April 22, 2013, http://bramdamman.nl/piko/.; Bram Damman, emailed to author, Lampe, MO, July 3, 2014.
113 transparencies and cardboard cutouts used as programmed learning tools with the device.106 The manual contains twenty-nine program lessons from mathematical programs to “quiz master” games.107 Refer to Appendix M for Piko dat Learning Machine example activities using transparencies and cardboard cutouts.
A parameter for this study was United States instructional materials, but I chose to include this device, even though it was manufactured in Germany, due to comments made in the interview with Beeler about matching instructional materials, which is discussed later in this section.
The second item, the Matchmaker by Aim Industries, was found in the September 1970
Miscellaneous section of Audiovisual Instruction. The Matchmaker was described as a “battery- operated device for learning” used for recognition and matching of shapes by young students.108
The review explained the operation of this device as using a pointer placed on one object from the display board that when linked to the matching object, would cause a green light to flash. The image in the review of the Matchmaker showed math fractions as the programmed instruction content being taught. Other overlays available for purchase were colors, object groupings, numbers, and simple arithmetic lessons. Also available were blank overlays for custom-designed content. The Matchmaker utilized a game-like interface and rewarded players by flashing a green light for correct answers as well as providing “self-remediation and learning by self-
106 B. Damman, emailed to author, Lampe, MO, July 3, 2014.
107 Damman, "Piko Dat, Electromechanical Computer."
108 Audiovisual Instruction, “Miscellaneous,” Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 7 (September 1970): 120.
114 discovery.”109 The 1970 article further stated the Matchmaker was priced at $35.00 and came in a carrying case.110
I also found, in an annotated mathematics bibliography, a similarly described device to the Matchmaker called the Tabletamer from Aim Industries. The Tabletamer, effective for instructing grades two through six, was described as “highly motivating.”111 Additional research for the Tabletamer did not yield any other educational purposes or functional information.
The Minnesota Business & Lien System shows that Aim Industries filed to become a business corporation on February 5, 1970.112 The same state system shows that Aim Industries filed for dissolution on October 7, 1991. Attempts to locate supplementary information through
Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Northern Illinois University’s educational technology, research and assessment searches for the Matchmaker or the Tabletamer were unsuccessful.
During an interview conversation, Beeler, from a teacher’s perspective, reflected on using a device that consisted of wires, on which the teacher placed one end of the wire in prescribed locations to match the content to be taught. This description reminded me of the Piko dat and the
Matchmaker instructional materials found in PRIM ’57-’82. The student then had to put the other end of the wire into the correct location in order to receive feedback—an illuminated light bulb indicating the correct answer had been selected. In discussing this further with Beeler, I established that this was a homemade machine from a cardboard box, a battery for power, and
109 Audiovisual Instruction, "Miscellaneous," 120.
110 Audiovisual Instruction, "Miscellaneous," 120.
111 J. Schussheim, “A Mathematics Laboratory, Alive and Well,” The Arithmetic Teacher 25, no. 8 (May 1978): 20.
112 Minnesota Business and Lien System, “Business Filing Details - Aim Industries, Inc.,” Minnesota Business and Lien System, 2011, accessed July 7, 2014, http://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/SearchDetails?filingGuid=4a5636aa-a0d4-e011-a886-001ec94ffe7f.
115 light bulbs. She had made and used this device in her classrooms in the 1960s.113 In another interview session, Knott stated that she used something similar to the Piko dat and Matchmaker devices; the students found these instructional materials to motivate their learning. In the late
’50s and ’60s, Knott remembered a similar instructional material made from a cardboard box, from which students enjoyed receiving some form of immediate feedback or response.114
Although not found in my data collection process, I discovered in the research process items such as Electric Board and Buzz Board that were similar to the Piko dat and Matchmaker devices. These similar instructional materials used an electric current to activate a buzzer, bell, or light when the correct contacts were created.115
The second group Game-Like Devices—Multiple-Choice Devices identified for this study includes instruction provided through multiple-choice questioning. Two devices were found in three sources—one journal article, a textbook, and one advertisement. The instructional materials were the Tutorgrams from 1971 and the Telor from 1973 and 1974. Each device used programmed instruction to deliver content to individual students. The Tutorgram shown in
Figure 6 is an example of PRIM ’57-’82 Multiple-Choice Devices as discussed in this section.
The Tutorgram by Enrichment Reading Corp. of America (ERCA) was found in an advertisement in the June/July 1971 issue of Instructor. The advertisement promotes the
Tutorgram as a “new electro-visual teaching aid” for development of reasoning and memory in children ages three to eleven.116 Educators hired by ERCA developed programmed instruction
113 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
114 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
115 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 46.
116 Enrichment Reading Corp. of America, Inc., “New Electro-Visual Teaching Aid - Tutorgrams,” Instructor 80, no. 10 (June/July 1971): 38. [Advertisement]
116 for the Tutorgram in the following areas: preschool awareness, social studies, science, math, and language arts. The Tutorgram included a small, portable electro-visual instrument with a pointing device. The student would insert one of the fifty-four multiple-choice cards included in the instructional set. Using the pointer, the student would see a light and hear a buzzer sound signifying a correct answer if the pointer were placed in the appropriate location on the card. The
Tutorgram advertised “learning becomes a game” as the feedback provided the student with a sense of accomplishment.117
Figure 6. Enrichment Reading Corp. of America, Tutorgrams, 1971.118
The second instructional material included in the Multiple-Choice Device group is the
Telor by Enrich. It was found in a textbook as well as in a mathematics article. The Telor is described as a programmable learning aid and is made of hard, durable plastic with four multiple-choice buttons. Cartridges consisting of forty frames each provided the instruction. The
117 Enrichment Reading Corp., “New Electro-Visual Teaching.” [Advertisement]
118 Enrichment Reading Corp., “New Electro-Visual Teaching.” [Advertisement]
117 cartridge would not advance until the correct answer was selected.119 Schulte, in a review of the
Telor, felt that the format was useful for drill and practice, and materials were presented in a
“tell-and-do” format.120 As shown in the 1973 and 1977 A-V Instruction: Technology Media and
Methods textbook by Brown, Lewis, and Harcleroad, the Telor was a simple handheld device used by an individual which featured four sliding buttons labeled A, B, C, and D to select the answer.121
The Telor is described as a “hand-manipulative, non-electric [sic] learning aid” used for instant reinforcement of selecting the correct answer.122 Programmed instruction cartridges included anatomy, physiology, 123 and mathematical and metric sets with prices of $76.00 to
$110.00 per set,124 and an arithmetic involvement series for basic mathematic operations for prices of $24.95 to $37.50.125
119 A. Schulte. A review of “Telor. Programmed Cartridges and Hand-Held Device,” by J. Baldwin. The Mathematics Teacher (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) 67, no. 2 (February 1974): 151.
120 Schulte, “Telor. Programmed Cartridges,” 151.
121 J. Brown, R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad, AV Instruction: Technology, Media and Methods, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), 417, 445.; J. Brown, R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad, AV Instruction: Technology, Media and Methods, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977), 377.
122 Quinly et al., Standards for Cataloging Nonprint, 30.
123 Quinly et al., Standards for Cataloging Nonprint, 30.
124 K. G. Beam, The Metric System: A Bibliography of Instructional Materials (Indianapolis: Indiana State Dept. of Public Instruction, Indianapolis, IN: Wayne Township Metropolitan School District, 1975), 20.; G. Bitter and C. Geer, Material for Metric Instruction. Mathematics Education Report (Washington, DC: ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, August 1975), 1-85, accessed July 7, 2014, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED115488.
125 Schulte, “Telor. Programmed Cartridges,” 151.
118 The Telor trademark, number 963,514 was registered on April 28, 1971, and further described its components as “hand held programmed learning aids” using quiz frames and a
“manually operated answer selecting key.”126 The trademark expired on March 31, 1983.127
The third group of Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices is the Educational
Toys. This group includes ten PRIM ’57-’82 objects that provided programmed instruction through a toy-like interface. Within the ten items, nine objects dated from 1976 to1982.
Early educational toys are linked back to Comenius’ (1592-1620) use of everyday objects as learning aids, such as the picture book Orbus pictus.128 Froebel’s gifts are considered an early version of educational toys, as the gifts were used in a prescribed sequence.129 Froebel believed that through play, a child would construct knowledge.130
Educational toys became prevalent after World War II, as young parents realized the need for education as a method to ensure success for their children. The home became a supplemental source for education, and the growth in the educational market became a major industry.131 The purpose of a toy was to offer an educational advantage rather than mere play value.132 A 1957 article has an anecdote about a parent buying a toy that was thought to be very complicated for a
126 Inovia, “Trademark 'Telor' owned by 'Enrich',” Inovia, n.d., accessed July 7, 2014, http://www.inovia.com/products/directory/trademarks-number-72390530/telor-trademark-owned-by-enrich.
127 Inovia,"Trademark ‘Telor’ owned."
128 B. Lewis, “Antique Toys: Vestiges of Childhoods Past,” Children's Environments Quarterly 1, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 5.; Saettler, Evolution of American Educational, 31.
129 Lewis, "Antique Toys," 3-6.; E. Weber, “Play Materials in the Curriculum of Early Childhood,” Children's Environments Quarterly 1, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 10.
130 F. Froebel, The Education of Man, trans. J. Jarvis (New York: A. Lovell & Company, 1885).
131 H. E. Bernstein, “Boredom and the Ready-Made Life,” Social Research (The New School) 42, no. 3 (Autumn 1975): 531.
132 Bernstein, "Boredom Ready-Made Life," 531.
119 three-year old. The salesperson replied, “This is an educational toy that is supposed to help the child meet the problems of today’s world.”133 Furthermore, authors Hewitt and Roomet define educational toys through a historical perspective from the 1800s to 1979 as moving from any toy that provided “cognitive development” to the 1979 definition that a toy was considered
“educational or instructive” by experts, designers, teachers, or other persons of authority. The authors felt that the influx of educational toys in the 1880s was due to the change in society allowing children more time to play rather than supporting the family economically, e.g., working on the family farm.134
The earliest educational toy classified in this study’s content analysis was the Little
Professor by Texas Instruments (TI). It was TI’s first introduction onto the consumer educational toy market in 1976. The first Little Professor sold for $19.95 and was a small calculator used to teach mathematical skills to the students age five to nine.135 In a 1980 advertisement, it is described as a “unique electronic learning aid.”136 The Little Professor was a preprogrammed calculator-like instructional material in which the student would select one of four basic mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division) and then select a difficulty level. The Little Professor provided a ten-question set from an available sixteen
133 H. K. Mackintosh, “The 1957 World of the English Teacher,” Elementary English (National Council of Teachers of English) 35, no. 3 (March 1958): 151.
134 K. Hewitt and L. Roomet, Educational Toys in America: 1800 to the Present (Burlington, VT: Robert Hull Fleming Museum, 1979), 1-2.; Lewis, "Antique Toys," 3-6.
135 J. Woerner, “Professor-76,” January 13, 2001, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.org/Edu/Professor-76.htm.; L. Shu, “Gifts of Holiday Past: Speak,” Digital Trends, December 20, 2012, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/gifts-of-holiday-past-speak-and- spell/#!bcVx0F.
136 Foulkes Marketing, “The Little Professor: A Unique Educational Aid,” Mathematics in School 8, no. 2 (March 1979): 18. [Advertisement]
120 thousand questions.137 The student then would enter an answer using the number pad on the device.138 If correct, the complete equation was displayed and the next question would appear. If incorrect, the student was given another opportunity to answer, and after a third attempt, the correct answer was provided.139 The Little Professor was thought to be a reverse calculator, that is, instead of providing an answer, the device posed questions.140As feedback, the Little
Professor showed the number of correct answers for a set on the display screen.141 In a 1980 study by Lumb, the author found the Little Professor to be effective in reinforcing arithmetic skills.142
A similar device to the Little Professor was Math Magic introduced by TI in 1977. This item was found when I was looking for information about another instructional material by the same name (which is discussed in the Interactive—Learning Materials section of this study). The
TI Math Magic prompted the student to enter the entire mathematical equation and provided a display of “EEE” as feedback for an incorrect answer. A flashing display of the equation was
137 Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Calculators for Students: From Kindergarten to Career (Cb- 272) (Dallas: Texas Instruments, 1976), 1-8, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.net/Leaflets/CB- 272_US.pdf.
138 Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Calculators for.; Woerner, "Professor-76."
139 D. Lumb, “Mathematics and the Less Gifted Child in the Middle Years,” Mathematics in School 9, no. 3 (May1980): 9.
140 Computer History Museum, “Electronic Calculators - CHM Revolution,” Computer History Museum, 2014, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/calculators/1/60.
141 A. Straker, “Getting the Boredom Out of Practice,” Mathematics in School 8, no. 1 (January 1979): 31.; Lumb, "Mathematics Less Gifted Child," 9.
142 Lumb, "Mathematics Less Gifted Child," 9.
121 provided when it was correctly entered. The TI Wiz-A-Tron quickly replaced the TI Math Magic in the same year; it operated with an identical method but offered a different keyboard cover.143
Speak & Spell, another item in the Education Toys group, found in the 1985 Instructional
Media and New Technologies book by Heinich, Molenda, and Russell, is described as a “hand- held microprocessor game.”144 TI introduced Speak & Spell in 1978 with a price of $50.00.145
This product was created from TI’s research on speech synthesis and was aimed to help students age seven or older to learn two hundred commonly misspelled words, working much like a parent would in practicing for a spelling test.146 Speak & Spell was the first mass-produced device that used electronic speech.147 An advantage of Speak & Spell was its ability to generate random exercises based on a student’s successes or failures.148 According to TI, the creation of
Speak & Spell was the first time a human voice was duplicated onto a silicon chip.149 Speak &
Spell would say the word, the student would spell it using the keyboard, and then feedback was provided on the success or failure of spelling the word correctly. In TI’s educational product leaflet, the company contends that a student would learn using Speak & Spell by hearing,
143 J. Woerner, “MathMagic,” December 5, 2001, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.org/Edu/MathMagic.htm.; J. Woerner, “Wizatron,” December 5, 2001, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.org/Edu/WizATron.htm.
144 Heinich, Molenda, and Russell, Instructional Media (1985), 361.
145 J. Woerner, “Speaknspell,” Datamath Calculator Museum, December 5, 2001, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.org/Speech/SpeaknSpell.htm.
146 Texas Instruments, “1978 Speak & Spell Introduced,” Texas Instruments, 2008, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/timeline/eps/1970/docs/78-speak-spell_introduced.htm.
147 G. Frantz, “The Chip Collection – TI Speak and Spell Learning Aid,” Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History, 2000, accessed July 7, 2014, http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/texas/t_074.htm.
148 G. D. Peters, “Hardware Development for Computer-Based Instruction,” College Music Symposium (College Music Society) 21, no. 2 (Fall 1981): 19.
149 Texas Instruments, "1978 Speak."
122 spelling, and seeing the word. The product also provided valuable feedback as to the student’s progress.150 The Speak & Spell shown in Figure 7 is an example of PRIM ’57-’82 Educational
Toys as discussed in this section.
Figure 7. Texas Instruments, Speak & Spell, 1978.151
In an interview conducted by Remacle, Frantz, one of the creators of Speak & Spell, stated that the Little Professor, discussed earlier in this section, was a predecessor to Speak &
Spell.152 Frantz reflected on showing the initial Speak & Spell at the Consumer Electronics Show in Chicago in June 1978. A leading educator (unnamed in the interview) suggested that there
150 Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Educational Products 1982 (Dallas: Texas Instruments, 1982), accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.net/Leaflets/CL-525D_US.pdf, 6.
151 Heinich, Molenda, and Russell, Instructional Media (1985), 361.
152 G. Frantz, interviewed by R. Remacle, May 8, 2009, interview X5314.2009, transcript, Oral History of Gene Frantz, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA, accessed July 28, 2014, http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Oral_History/Frantz_Gene/102702085.05.01.acc.pdf, 12.
123 were several production issues with using this device to teach spelling. These suggestions included using words that did not follow conventional spelling rules; using lowercase letters, as students do not learn to spell in all capital letters; and adding some “play value” to the device.
With these improvements over the initial device, the educator thought Speak & Spell would
“actually increase the IQ of the student.”153
Speak & Spell was discontinued by TI in 1995 but remains an important artifact of educational technology, as it earned a place in the Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of
American History Collection.154 The importance of the technology is the speech synthesizer used in Speak & Spell, which is called digital signal processing (DSP). This technology began research growth in speech synthesis that we currently see in military, industrial, and consumer applications such as sonar and radar signal processing, wireless communications and cell phones, digital televisions, and voice-assisted navigation systems.155 The Computer History Museum states that since the DSP technology was not available in any other device than Speak & Spell, some “hobbyists purchased the $50 machines just to extract the DSP for use in other projects.”156
Texas Instruments worked with educators throughout the world to develop classroom technology through its education technology group and felt that educator involvement with product development allowed for better functionality and met the needs of teachers for classroom
153 G. Frantz, interviewed by R. Remacle, May 8, 2009.
154 Frantz, "Chip Collection -TI Speak."; Shu, "Gifts of Holiday Past."
155 Texas Instruments, "1978 Speak."; Brewer, N. (Administrator1), “Milestones: Speak and Spell, The First Use of a Digital Signal Processing IC for Speech Generation,” Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ETHW), February 25, 2015, accessed March 28, 2015, http://ethw.org/Milestones:Speak_&_Spell,_the_First_Use_of_a_Digital_Signal_Processing_IC_for_Speech_Gener ation,_1978.; G. Frantz, interviewed by R. Remacle, Mountain View, CA, May 8, 2009.
156 M. Richards, “Gallery of Games and Consoles - CHM Revolution,” Computer History Museum, 2014, accessed July 14, 2014, http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/computer-games/16/210.
124 use.157 Knott, an interviewee, participated as an educator in helping to develop mathematics products through this group from the late 1980s to early 1990s.
Comments by Knott, during our interview, revealed use of Speak & Spell as a home- education tool in approximately 1984.158 In an interview, Rundel, a media specialist, reflected that instructional materials such as Speak & Spell and Spelling B, which is discussed in the next paragraph, were commonly listed as aids for learning in library science literature.159
The TI Spelling B, a device similar to Speak & Spell, was introduced in 1978 and provided spelling practice through different games for $30.00.160 Differences between Speak &
Spell and Spelling B, besides the lower price of Spelling B, were that Spelling B generated a random number that the student used to look up a corresponding image in a program booklet.
The student then spelled the name of the image and received feedback in the form of a buzzer- generated sound. Spelling B, as part of the TI Learning Center’s product offerings, was a silent spelling learning aid; it did not read the word to the student.
Information found concerning spelling instructional materials included a Texas
Instruments patent dated April 28, 1978, for a speech synthesis circuit, which shows an illustration of Spelling B.161
157 Woerner, D., and J. Woerner. “Texas Instruments - Education Technology Overview.” Datamath Calculator Museum, October 14, 2007, accessed May 15, 2014, http://datamath.org/Story/TI_ET.htm.; Texas Instruments Education Technology, “Calculators and Education Technology,” Texas Instruments Education Technology, 2014, accessed June 17, 2014, http://education.ti.com/en/us/home.
158 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
159 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
160 Texas Instruments, “TI Talking Learning Aid Sets Pace for Innovative CES Introductions Press Release June 11, 1978,” Datamath Calculator Museum, 2007, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.org/Story/TI_PRESS.htm#PRSpeakSpell.
161 G. Brantingham, “Parameter Interpolator for Speech Synthesis Circuit. US Patent 4189779 A. April 28, 1978,” accessed July 22, 2014, http://www.google.com/patents/US4189779.
125 TI continued developing educational toys with several other versions of speech synthesizer technologies. What began with the TI Speak & Spell evolved into other curricular areas such as math, reading, and music using similar speech technologies. Although these adaptations of the Speak & Spell device are not included in this study, key information is available online at http://datamath.org, an online calculator museum.
By 1978, Touch & Tell, for children age two to five, was offered by TI and used speech synthesizer technologies. This device included a position-sensitive keyboard in which a two- sided panel was placed in a frame on the front and as a learning module. Touch & Tell would then ask a random question based on the content of the panel, asking the student to point to the correct answer. By pressing the correct space, students gained discrimination and literacy skills.162 Musical sounds and special sounds were used to engage students while answering the questions.163 In 1981, the Touch & Tell panels sold for $17.95 for programmed topics such as the alphabet, numbers, animals, and transportation. 164 As motivation for learning, in 1982, E.T The
Extra-Terrestrial, a popular movie, was offered as a Touch & Tell module using E.T.’s voice to combine sight, sound, and touch to assist in language/vocabulary development and visual discrimination.165
Like Speak & Spell, the Touch & Tell panel is part of the TI collection at the
Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History—in the integrated circuit
162 Heinich, Molenda, and Russell, Instructional Media (1985), 361.
163 J. Woerner, “Touchntell,” Datamath Calculator Museum, December 5, 2001, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.org/Speech/TouchnTell.htm.
164 Woerner, “Touchntell.”
165 Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Learning Center: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Dallas: Texas Instruments, 1982), accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.net/Manuals/TT_ET_OVL_US.pdf.
126 technology exhibit.166 The panel consisted of the images for programmed instruction, which were placed in Touch & Tell frame. The Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American
History Collection exhibit does not display the learning module, although it is an integral component in the operation of Touch & Tell.
Another TI educational toy, the Speak & Read, an electronic learning aid, was found on the Datamath Calculator Museum website and in a 1982 Instructional Innovator advertisement.
This device, introduced in 1980, promoted the use of “programmed activities to help children build reading skills.”167 TI rated this educational toy for children in prekindergarten to third grade. The original price was regularly $74.90 and on sale for $64.90.168 In an advertisement found for this study, the Speak & Read touts that students were “learning with hand-held computers and calculators.”169 Word-cartridge libraries were used along with a sixty-four-page activity book to guide the student through several topics covering basic words, compound words, contractions, prefixes, consonant blends, and silent letters.170 Most word cartridges had three levels of challenges to keep a student motivated to learn.171 The activity book prompted students to fill in a sentence with the appropriate word that matched the images shown. Other sections of the book provided a story for a student to read and activities to reinforce the specific skills for
166 Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History, “The Chip Collection - TI Touch,” Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History, 2000, accessed July 13, 2014, http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/texas/t_454.htm.
167 J. Woerner, “Texas Instruments Speak & Read Type 1,” Datamath Calculator Museum, December 5, 2001, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.org/Speech/SpeaknRead.htm.
168 jaikarate4, “Speak and Spell by Texas Instruments - 80s Commercials,” YouTube, June 1, 2014, accessed July 11, 2014, http://youtu.be/Wmetz1vnc4M?t=20s.
169 Highsmith, "A Greater Dimension in Learning." [Advertisement]
170 Woerner, "Texas Instruments Speak & Read."
171 Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Educational Products, 10.
127 that library. Each word cartridge expanded the built-in library by 120 to170 words.172 In another advertisement, Scott, Foresman and Company promotes a supplemental reading package—Speak
& Read Module Package, which included six Speak & Read learning aids, headphones, and six libraries.173
TI published a 1982 brochure on its educational products featuring many devices that are discussed in this section. In this brochure, TI described its educational products as electronic learning aids that helped to “further a child’s learning skills,” rather than as electronic toys.174
A search on eBay on July 11, 2014, using “Texas Instruments Speak & Read” yielded nineteen results ranging in price from $10.50 to $55.00 for the machine and prices ranging from
$5.99 to $14.99 for the cartridges and activity books. Many other TI educational toys were available on eBay, including Speak & Spell and Speak & Math.
Searches for “Speak & Read” on Google Scholar and JSTOR were not productive in June
2014 due to the combination of the words speak and read. These words commonly showed up in results for learning how to speak or learning how to read and did not refer to the Texas
Instruments educational learning aids. Research using NIU’s databases such as ERIC (EBSCO) and ERIC (Ovid) had similar search issues in June 2014 for “speak & read” queries.
Another item in the Educational Toys group of this study is Coleco’s Quiz Wiz—The
Computer Answer Game. The Quiz Wiz from 1980 was initially found on the Computing
History’s website. Coleco, in a 1980 brochure, promotes the Quiz Wiz as a “proven winner
172 Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Speak & Read Educational Product (Dallas: Texas Instruments, 1984), accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.net/Manuals/SpeakRead_PG_US.pdf.
173 Scott, Foresman and Company, “Let Pupils Help Themselves to Better Reading Skills,” The Reading Teacher 35, no. 6 (March 1982): 707.
174 Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Educational Products, 2.
128 electronic play and learn category” providing over 1,001 questions with a programmed book/cartridge and electronic lights and sounds as feedback.175 Each quiz book edition came with a corresponding programmed cartridge. The learner selected a question and then entered the code for that question from the quiz book. Once the Quiz Wiz was set for a specific question, the learner would select from the A, B, C, or D keys on the device and then press the Answer key.176
The Quiz Wiz generated a green light and an electronic beep for all correctly answered questions. Feedback for a wrong answer was a red light and, as described in the brochure, a
“raspberry” or buzzing sound.177
According to the 1980 Coleco brochure, the price was $18.95 for the Quiz Wiz and included one cartridge/book set with additional cartridge/book sets for $3.95.178 Educational topics covered sports, math, places, oceans, and music; topics such as trivia, movies and TV, and superheroes appeared to be for play and pleasurable activities.
A patent search for the Quiz Wiz found U. S. Patent No. US4164078 with the inventor being Adolph Goldfarb. The patent has a filing date of February 21, 1978.179 The patent describes the Quiz Wiz as a “multiple-choice response evaluating apparatus,” unique in its ability to answer nonmathematical questions. The Quiz Wiz was able to generate questions from the cartridges based on multiple-choice answers.180 Also found was patent number US4303398, filed
175 Coleco Industries, Inc., “1980 Coleco Toys and Games Catalog,” Internet Archive, n.d., accessed July 13, 2014, https://archive.org/details/1980-coleco-catalog:12.
176 A. Goldfarb, "Electronic Quiz Apparatus. U. S. Patent Us4164078. February 21, 1978," accessed July 13, 2014, http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US4164078.
177 Coleco Industries, Inc., "1980 Coleco Toys," 12.
178 Coleco Industries, Inc., "1980 Coleco Toys," 48.
179 Goldfarb, "Electronic Quiz Apparatus."
180 Goldfarb, "Electronic Quiz Apparatus."
129 on June 28, 1978, with a credit for invention to Mark Yoseloff of Coleco Industries, Inc. and a reference to Goldfarb’s earlier patent.
Conducting a Google Scholar search, in July 2014, for “Quiz Wiz” revealed several results. Wright, in a 1980 discussion paper, listed the Quiz Wiz as providing potential educational value.181 Mason, in 1983, suggested the Quiz Wiz was a “super-small single purpose computer” and an alternative to a stand-alone computer such as the Timex-Sinclair ($49.95) or the Commodore VIC ($84.00) due to lower pricing.182 According to Mason, the Quiz Wiz was an effective device for improving reading skills.183
Quiz Wiz Challenger, a later version that was introduced in 1981, included speech synthesis to read the question to the learner rather than the learner needing reading skills prior to using the device. The Challenger also allowed up to four players to create a competitive, electronic game and its cartridges were compatible with the original Quiz Wiz.184
Searches on eBay, on July 13, 2014, provided a variety of prices and components of the
Coleco Quiz Wiz. Prices ranged from $4.99 to $27.99 for the device, one book, and a cartridge with 1,001 questions.
Another PRIM ’57-’82 item grouped with Educational Toys was found in a 1981
Instructional Innovator. It is called the Alphaspell by Centurion Industries. In a review, the
Alphaspell is called the “newest microcomputer” at a price of $359.95 for thirty-five lessons in
181 A. Wright, Low-Cost Microtechnology Learning Aids in the Classroom (British Columbia: Ministry of Education, 1980).
182 G. Mason, “The Printout: Which Computer Teaches Reading Best?,” The Reading Teacher 37, no. 1 (October 1983): 104.
183 Mason, “Printout: Which Computer Teaches,” 105.
184 Coleco Industries, Inc. “Manuals/Coleco-QuizWizChallenger.” Handheld Museum. 1981, accessed July 13, 2014, http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Manuals/Coleco-QuizWizChallenger.pdf.
130 nine content areas.185 Alphaspell was eight inches in diameter, had a keyboard for student input, and provided exercises for improving spelling skills.186 In a separate review, Ahl contests the label of microcomputer, since the Alphaspell was used for educational drill and practice and had no other programmable attributes.187
In a 1987 Ohio State University study, the Ohio Hi-Point Joint Vocational staff recognized the Alphaspell as a device to improve basic adult education and ESL skills.188
The patent information for products by Centurion Industries describes devices that produced a “self-generated program” and had the ability to “improve keyboard dexterity.”189
Ahl lists three other “alpha” devices manufactured by Centurion Industries: Alphamaster (Grades
K-5) at a price of $359.50, the Alphatutor II (Grades 3-5) for $299.50, and the Alphadrill (upper elementary) for $319.50.190 The trademark for Alphaspell, serial number 73302968, was filed on
March 27, 1981.191
185 Instructional Innovator, “Mastery Spelling,” Instructional Innovator 26, no. 7 (October 1981): 45.
186 D. H. Ahl, “Centurion Educational Computers: Ten Grapefruit-Sized Computers Provide Drill and Practice on Everything from Math to English,” Creative Computing 9, no. 10 ( October 1983): 48, accessed July 13, 2014, http://archive.org/stream/creativecomputing-1983- 10/Creative_Computing_v09_n10_1983_October#page/n47/mode/2up.
187 Ahl, “Centurion Educational Computers,” 48.
188 R. E. Campbell and J. A. Sechler, “Adult Literacy: Programs and Practices. Research and Development Series No. 265A” (Columbus: Ohio State University. National Center for Research in Vocational Education, 1987), 1-107, accessed July 13, 2014, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED284979.pdf, 49.
189 J. C. Meyer and J. A. Tillotson, “Teaching Device Having Means Producing a Self-Generated Program US Re31070 January 10, 1980,” accessed July 13, 2014, https://www.google.com/patents/USRE31070, 1-2.
190 Ahl, “Centurion Educational Computers,” 48.
191 J. Tingley, “Trademark Status and Document Retrieval - SN 73302968,” United States Patent and Trademark Office, July 13, 2014, accessed July 13, 2014, http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73302968&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=documentSearch.
131 When looking at the Math Professor and the Quiz Kid images during our interview,
Beeler thought the devices looked like they would engage the student but said she did not have any student or teacher experiences with either device.192
Conducting a Google Scholar search on July 28, 2014 for “educational toy” yielded 105 articles, not including patents and citations, for the twenty-five-year period of this study. A similar search for the time of 1983 to 2014 generated 924 articles, showing the growth in this topic in scholarly publications. A JSTOR search conducted the same date provided twenty-seven articles for the period of 1957 to 1982 and forty articles for the time of 1983 to 2014. Several articles found in these search results were used as resources in this study.
PRIM ’57-’82 Programmed Instruction Summary. Thirty-five PRIM ’57-’82 items were found in four subcategories of Programmed Instruction: Audio Card Readers, Craig Readers,
Audio-Based Devices, and Game-Like Devices. Information provided about these PRIM ’57-’82 devices includes empirical literature, manufacturers’ statements about their products, and other research pertinent to the specific item.
Interactive—Learning Materials Category
Learning Materials, as a category of the PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive code used in this study includes seven items from 1957 to 1977 that were included in my study because they were portable and promoted a response from the student. Learning materials are aids used to promote learning and to improve skills and understanding. The purpose of learning materials is to create interesting lessons, to make learning easier for the students, and to assist the teacher in the
192 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
132 successful delivery of his/her lessons.193 The Magic Slate shown in Figure 8 is an example of a
PRIM ’57-’82 Learning Materials device as discussed in this section.
Figure 8. Strathmore, Magic Slate, 1957.194
One item in the Learning Materials category is the Magic Slate. It was seen in a 1957
Instructor advertisement that promotes the Magic Slate as a “fine visual aids and manipulative
193 D. Chanda et al. “Teaching and Learning Materials Analysis and Development in Basic Education” (Paris: ENESCO Basic Education Division, 2001), 2-3, 27, accessed June 11, 2014, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001320/132019eo.pdf.
194 redboilersfan, “2 Vintage 50s Strathmore Magic Slate Number Practice Books Collectible,” eBay, 2014, accessed October 30, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Vintage-50s-Strathmore-Magic-Slate-Number-Practice- Books- Collectible/151453534691?_trksid=p4069.c100039.m2059&_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED% 26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140107094819%26meid%3D00677f3570224aa3868596996118fbc6%26pi.
133 objects aid” and states that students “respond to its invitation to learning.”195 The advertisement suggests the Magic Slate Number Practice offered opportunities for practice, testing, and exchanging with other students. Another advantage of this learning material was the ability to adapt for “fast” or “slow” students.196 The price is advertised as $.20. I was able to find a vintage
Magic Slate through an October 2014 eBay search with a sold price of $7.50.197 The Schylling
Company, in June 2014, offered a similar item also called the Magic Slate, but it was merely a write-on, lift-off board for $2.99 without any specific curricular content.198 Another related device available in England in 2014 is the Printator.199 In a 2014 search for more information about the Magic Slate, I used an alternative search terms of “practice addition and subtraction online” which yielded over 2.5 million results.200
The Magic Slate Number Practice was similar in features to the Mystic Slates written about by Freud in 1925.201 Freud describes a slate comparable to ancient writing styles using a
195 Strathmore, “Magic Slate,” Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 78-79. [Advertisement]
196 Strathmore, “Magic Slate.” [Advertisement]
197 redboilersfan, “2 Vintage 50s Strathmore.”
198 Schylling, “Magic Slates,” Schylling, 2014, accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.schylling.com/p/magic- slates.
199 S. Freud, “A Note upon the ‘Mystic Writing Pad,’” Chap. 13 in General Psychological Theory: Papers on Metapsychology (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), 209.
200 Google, “Practice Addition and Subtraction Online,” accessed June 11, 2014, https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=practice+addition+and+subtraction+online&revid=880193708.
201 S. Freud, A Note Upon “The Mystic Writing Pad,” Standard ed., 19th ed. (London: Hogarth Press, 1925).
134 clay or wax tablet.202 In a 2013 article, Rosen contends that Freud might have predicted tablets similar to the iPad.203
Other Interactive—Learning Materials found were the Math Magic produced by Cadaco-
Ellis in 1958 and Math Magic by Pressogram in 1977. (Math Magic devices discussed in the
Learning Materials section are different from the TI Math Magic discussed in the Educational
Toys section.)
Math Magic by Cadaco-Ellis was a game-like learning tool for students from nine to fourteen years old.204 It was a game, available in 1958, about “Ways to Better Math” as stated on its rulebook. Equalize, Analyze, and Minimize were three games included that promoted skills in addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division by manipulating numbers. It is currently listed as a math resource in the Janesville, Wisconsin, public schools as part of the Lincoln Family
Resources collection.205
I found in June 2014 a vintage copy of Math Magic by Cadaco-Ellis for sale on eBay in
June 2014 for $95.00.206 The price, as found in a 1958 article, was listed at $3.00.207
202 Freud, "A Note upon the," 209.
203 R. J. Rosen, “The 'Mystic Writing Pad': What Would Freud Make of Today's Tablets?,” The Atlantic, January 25, 2013, 1, accessed January 11, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/the-mystic- writing-pad-what-would-freud-make-of-todays-tablets/272512/.
204 D. Johnson, “Commercial Games for the Arithmetic Class,” The Arithmetic Teacher (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) 5, no. 2 (March 1958): 71.
205 “Janesville Public Schools - Lincoln Family Resources,” Janesville Public Schools, n.d., accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.janesville.k12.wi.us/Portals/15/documents/LincolnFamilyResourcesWeb.pdf.
206 atrunner_(2363), “Vintage Math Magic 3 Modern Games 1958,” eBay, October 16, 2013, accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-MATH-MAGIC-3-Modern-Games-1958-CADACO-ELLIS-INC-Very- Nice-Y17-/130843847146?pt=Games_US&hash=item1e76e6a9ea.
207 D. Johnson, “Commercial Games,” 71.
135 The Pressogram Math Magic item was described as an “interactive learn-and-play” mat with a self-check option that created interest while “encouraging children to learn.”208 This item was discovered while conducting research on the Math Magic discussed earlier in the Game-Like
Devices category, as they are identically named. With the Pressogram Math Magic item, students responded by entering their answer to questions on a mat and received feedback from the mat through a heat-sensitive area that exposed the correct answer. As found in an internet search on
June 11, 2014, the Pressogram Math Magic is available for use in several curricular areas, including phonics as well as mathematics.209 The price shown on the Prodesign website, a supplier of the Pressogram Math Magic is €4.95, which converted to $6.70 U.S. dollars on June
11, 2014. I was unable to find a 1977 price for the Pressogram Math Magic.
Other Learning Materials items used during PRIM ’57-’82 were math manipulatives found in Instructor, September 1957, and in Audiovisual Instruction, November 1958. Items include relationship cards, number-grouping disks, place-value sticks and cards,210 and a variety of blocks, wheels, and objects used as a “partial answer to visualizing math.”211 The items in the
Learning Materials category are all related to mathematics education. Items are described as teaching faster and working with more ease. Key phrases include “learn quickly,”
“visualization,” and “discovery through manipulation.” 212 In a discussion about math manipulatives used in the late 1950s, Brumfield suggested that every effort was made to
208 Prodesign, “Presso,” Prodesign, n.d., accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.prodesign- uk.com/english/presso.html.
209 Prodesign, “Presso.”
210 Ideal School Supply Company, “Teach Arithmetic Faster,” Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 113. [Advertisement]
211 N. Brumfield, “Model for Math,” Audiovisual Instruction 3, no. 8 (November 1958): 235-239.
212 Ideal School Supply Company, “Teach Arithmetic Faster.” [Advertisement]
136 incorporate a “model or moveable device” to demonstrate new ideas and complicated concepts, and Brumfield felt that audiovisual aids were not limited to elementary grades.213 Brumfield further discussed that student or teacher-created learning materials aided in the learning process by providing another method to learn—that of stimulating the imagination.214
In my interview with Beeler, she remembered another similar math manipulative, the
Cuisenaire rods. She loved using these in her classroom to help teach fractions. Cuisenaire rods were invented in the 1920s and were designed to help learn mathematics in a visual and creative way.215
The learning materials shown in the 1957 Ideal School Supply Company’s advertisement price from $1.00 to $3.00 per set and were developed for use in Grades 1-8. I found the Ideal
School Supply Company’s items that were described as “Vintage 1988 Relationship Cards” available for $9.99 as a starting bid or $24.99 as a “Buy it Now” eBay option on June 12,
2014.216 In looking at how math manipulatives have evolved since 1982, I found that the physical objects have become brighter and more colorful and include the use of animals or characters to attract young learners—products with more visual appeal than the original 1957 offerings.
Experiences discussed through the interview process show that all interviewees remembered using some form of learning materials as a student or as a teacher. The Magic Slate
213 Brumfield, “Model for Math,” 235.
214 Brumfield, “Model for Math,” 235.
215 C. Sheedy, “Icons in the Beginning....,” Sun Herald (Sydney), November 30, 2008, accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.subtraction.com.au/subtraction-articles/2008/11/30/icons-in-the-beginning/.html. [Newspaper]
216 auntbeasspecialty(2550), “Vintage 1988 Ideal School Supply Co. New Math Relationship Cards No. 7790,” eBay, June, 2014, accessed June 12, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1988-Ideal-School-Supply-Co- New-Math-Relationship-Cards-No-7790-/181432703506?pt=Educational_Toys_US&hash=item2a3e3b5a12.
137 and the write-on boards were familiar and useful for drill and practice activities both at school and at home. Beeler thought that these learning materials showed that manufacturers were beginning to listen to the teachers’ needs and were producing instructional materials to fill those needs.217
Learning Materials items found in this study were used to improve instruction through hands-on activities and to improve understanding of complex concepts such as place value, fractions, and more advanced geometric concepts such as those studied in high school geometry.
The focus of the PRIM ’57-’82 Learning Materials on mathematics may be related to the influx of funding for instruction from the space race during the late 1950s. As seen through the improvement and evolution/adaptation of these items found in my study, the use of learning materials still serves as an important pedagogy in classrooms today.
Interactive—Instructional Kits Category
As part of the Interactive code created from the PRIM ’57-’82 coding, Instructional Kits were found in audiovisual resources from 1957 to 1973 and were included because of the portable and responsive nature of the entire kit. In this study, I found three instructional kit references. A kit was defined, in 1963, as a collection of items gathered together to help teach a specific curricular need or instructional unit.218 In many instances, a kit was used as self- instruction for individual students and as a resource for teachers to incorporate into their instruction a variety of audiovisual aids such as slides, motion pictures, still images, and 3-D
217 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
218 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 55.
138 models.219 The Pupil’s Fraction Kit shown in Figure 9 is an example of PRIM ’57-’82
Instructional Kits device as discussed in this section.
Figure 9. Ideal School Supply Company, Pupil’s Fraction Kit, 1957.220
In 1957, two kits were advertised by Ideal School Supply Company in the Instructor journal.221 The first item, the Pupil’s Fraction Kit, was geared toward Grades 5-8. Each kit price
$0.30, includes an instruction manual, and was an individual self-study instructional material. An image shows a flat, one-dimensional product with a student manipulating colorful circles to represent various fractions from one-twelfths to one-halves. The advertisement promotes this
219 P. Seely and G. White, “The Audiovisual Kit,” Audiovisual Instruction 6, no. 9 (November 1961): 440.
220 Ideal School Supply Company, “Teach Arithmetic Faster.” [Advertisement]
221 Ideal School Supply Company, “Teach Arithmetic Faster.” [Advertisement]
139 item as teaching in a “modern method” but does not explain the method.222 Through further research, the method appears to be “New Math.”223
The second kit advertised is a Pupil’s Multiplication and Division Kit, which price was
$0.20 and was designed for individual use by fourth to sixth graders. The student interacted with the colored sheets and disk to group multiplication/division facts together.
Both of these Ideal School Supply Company kits provided specific curricular content or instructional units for individual students, although if multiple kits/classroom sets were purchased, small group or whole class instruction would be possible.224
Seely and White contend that instructional kits offered a collection of audiovisual aids that would strengthen lessons for an inexperienced teacher while providing flexible resources for the innovative, experienced teacher.225
In a 1973 Association for Educational Communications and Technology publication, instructional kits were ranked as third in a list of top-selling media formats.226
Through further research, I found mathematical kits reviewed in 1977. Kits included audiotapes, placement tests, and master drill and practice sheets along with a large progress chart. Prices for the classroom kits ranged from $99.00 to $180.00. The reviewer states that one
222 Ideal School Supply Company, “Teach Arithmetic Faster.” [Advertisement]
223 Copyright Encyclopedia, “New Math Relationship Cards,” Copyright Encyclopedia, 2014, accessed June 18, 2014, http://www.copyrightencyclopedia.com/new-math-relationship-cards---x-division-life-year-inside/.
224 Ideal School Supply Company, “Teach Arithmetic Faster.” [Advertisement]
225 Seely and White, “Audiovisual Kit,” 440.
226 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “Top Selling Media Formats in 1973,” Association for Educational Communications and Technology, n.d., accessed June 20, 2014, http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aect.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/about_pdf/top1973.pdf.
140 issue with the kits was the time, effort, and cost of reproducing the activity sheets from the masters included in the kit.227
Interview comments about instructional kits showed that Van Hooser, Beeler, and Knott used both personally created kits as well as purchased kits. A purpose of using instructional kits was the convenience of having a set of instructional materials ready to use for curricular needs.228 Although, as pointed out by Beeler, pieces could be lost or worn, making the kit no longer an effective teaching aid.229 Knott remembered creating materials for classroom use but referred to them as a portfolio instead of a kit.230
Interactive—Learning Games Category
As asserted by Plato, games can help accomplish learning, and teachers must provide children with tools to “channel their pleasures and desires towards the activities they will engage in when they are adults.”231 Active participation, “the actual doing by the student,” is the key to learning with games.232 Johnson, in a 1958 article about commercial games, offers the following reasons to use games for classroom instruction: building confidence and attitudes, providing a
227 T. Denman, “Introduction to Fraction Concepts,” The Arithmetic Teacher 24, no. 3 (March 1977): 224- 225.
228 P. Van Hooser, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 28, 2014.; J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.; B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
229 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
230 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
231 Plato, The Laws, trans. T. Saunders (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1970), 643.; D. Johnson, “Commercial Games.”
232 J. Butler, “Games and Simulations: Creative Educational Alternatives,” TechTrends 33, no. 4 (September 1988): 23.
141 child-parent activity that supports education, and making practice a pleasant experience.233 To ensure the success of games in the classroom, researchers suggest that games should be selected to meet the needs of the students, that all students are able to participate, and that follow-up activities should be implemented to emphasize the learning gained from the game.234 In addition,
Johnson notes that not all games were commercially produced, as some well-designed games were created by teachers for their own classroom use.235
As early as 1967, Kristy foretold computerized instruction using games as a method to
“stimulate and motivate” learning.236 Kristy contended that by 1977 to 1982, computers would
“revolutionize education.”237
In the collection of data for this study, one data item was labeled specifically as a learning game. The items advertised by School Service Company, in the September 1957
Instructor, were called Learning Games but also advertised were other games for arithmetic and reading.238 The Learning Games shown in Figure 10 is an example of a PRIM ’57-’82 Learning
Games device as discussed in this section.
233D. Johnson, “Commercial Games,” 69.
234 D. Johnson, “Commercial Games,” 72-73.; Butler, "Games and Simulations," 20-23.
235 D. Johnson, “Commercial Games,” 69.
236 N. Kristy, “The Future of Educational Technology,” The Phi Delta Kappan 48, no. 5 (January 1967): 242.
237 Kristy, “Future of Educational Technology,” 241.
238 School Service Company, “Timely Teaching Aids,” Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 4. [Advertisement]
142
Figure 10. School Service Company, Learning Games, 1957.239
The learning games, as advertised in 1957, were promoted as instructional materials. The items in the School Service Company’s advertisement show games for educational purposes, important information given the 1957 date. To help demonstrate the importance of games during the 1957 to 1982 period, games and manipulatives were ranked as sixth on the 1973 AECT top- selling media formats list.240 This information may be significant to others conducting game- based research.
Learning games in the 1957 advertisement include lotto and bingo games with themes such as the ABCs, animals, American history, and geography. The price advertised for the learning games section is $1.25 to $4.00. The ABC Lotto game is described as being for up to six students with the purpose of identifying a pictured object and then showing the first letter of the object on a printed card.241 Outcomes of playing the ABC Lotto game that were identified in a
239 School Service Company, “Timely Teaching Aids.” [Advertisement]
240 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “Top Selling Media Formats.”
241 D. L. Jesser, Promising Practices for Improving Classroom Atmosphere and Pupil Motivation for Learning, Volume I: Language Arts (Carson City, NV: Western States Small Schools Project, 1967), accessed June 14, 2014, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED058242.pdf.
143 1967 Nevada study were that the students “loved the ABC Lotto game” and they retained the sounds learned.242
Other games available from the School Service Company provided content in relation to arithmetic topics, including the four basic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) as well as fractions and time. From the advertisement, the price ranged from $1.00 to
$2.75.243 The image in the advertisement shows flat paper objects used in the games.
Another arithmetic game promoted for Grades 1-4 was the Quizmo244 series from Milton
Bradley. This learning game originally sold in the early 1960s.245 It consisted of bingo-like cards based on instructional concepts such as addition/subtraction, alphabet, and time.246 The Quizmo series of learning games provided group instruction through a game interface. Quizmo learning games are currently offered in the marketplace. For example, a Tell Time Quizmo was found with a 2014 liquidation sale price of $5.45 for a classroom set,247 with other titles available through Amazon.com.
Also included in the selection from the School Service Company were reading games such as picture word cards, sight phrase cards, and group word teaching and sounding games.
Prices in 1957 for these games ranged from $1.00 to $1.95. These games were marketed for
242 Jesser, Promising Practices for Improving, 10.
243 School Service Company, “Timely Teaching Aids.” [Advertisement]
244 In searching for information about the Quizmo games, results were also found under Quizno. When looking at images associated with the Quizno results, I could see that the items showed Quizmo.
245 Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History, “Quizmo,” Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History, n.d., accessed January 27, 2015, http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1292833.
246 Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History, “Quizmo.”
247 Direct Advantage, “Tell Time Quizno Class Set,” Direct Advantage, 2014, accessed June 12, 2014, http://www.directadvantage.com/group/TELL-TIME-QUIZNO-CLASS-SET.htm.
144 Grades 1-6. The reading games were based on the Dolch word list, which is a list of frequently used English words compiled by Edward W. Dolch in 1948.248 Sight words, which could not be sounded out, made up fifty to seventy percent of an elementary school book.249 In an interview with Beeler, an early elementary reading teacher, she said she had used Dolch words and, in fact, had created many sets of flash cards to improve instruction. In a search for vintage Dolch word games, I found, in June 2014, a set called the “Popper Words” that promoted “Learn the Play
Ways,” available for $19.95.250
Knott, an interviewee, did not remember any of the games that I found in the data collection process, but she recalled using a lotto game as a student. Her parents were strong advocates of supporting education in their home and purchased the lotto game to increase their children’s memory and to create fun, interactive family time. In research articles about using lotto games for educational purposes, the lotto game was described as a simple matching game and could be compared to Bingo.251 Muri, in a 1996 research article, explains that teaching with a lotto-like game could increase cognitive and premath skills as well as help students distinguish categories of objects.252
248 E. W. Dolch, Problems in Reading (Champaign: Garrard Press, 1948).
249 Enfield KITE, “Sight Words,” Enfield KITE, 2010, accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.enfieldkite.org/sightWords.htm.
250 parentsofsadie, “Vintage Dolch 1953 Basic Sight Vocabulary Word Cards Learn the Play Way,” eBay, 2014, accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Dolch-1953-Basic-Sight-Vocabulary-Word-Cards- Learn-The-Play-Way-/261505630529?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3ce2f34141.
251 C. Vukelich, “Parents Are Teachers: A Beginning Reading Program,” The Reading Teacher 31, no. 5 (February 1978): 524-527.; S. A. Muri, “Multicultural Education through Child-Constructed Games,” Early Childhood Education Journal 23, no. 4 (Summer 1996): 212.
252 Muri, “Multicultural Education through Child-Constructed,” 211-214.
145 As a category of PRIM ’57-’82, Learning Games is only a small portion of the total items found that met the portable and responsive requirements of this study. Although it would have been easy to overlook this category and these items, it was important to establish a foundation for games as used in educational settings. A limitation of this study is the twenty-five-year period used. I began looking for items with a beginning date of 1957. This is not to say that learning games began in 1957 but that I found an advertisement for learning games as early as 1957.
Gredler contends that although games entered the educational environs in the late 1950s, it was not until the 1970s that instructional design became fully integrated into games’ product development.253
Research on learning games has grown exponentially, as illustrated through a Google
Scholar search conducted on June 16, 2014. In a search for scholarly information from 1957 to
1982, the results showed 876 listings. In conducting a “learning games” search with dates from
1983 to 2014, the results were ten thousand seven hundred. Using ProQuest Digital Dissertations to search for “learning games,” I found 148 dissertations/theses for the 1957 to 1982 period and
1508 results for the 1983 to 2014 period. Note in both the Google Scholar and the ProQuest
Digital Dissertations search results, duplicate records of the same source existed.
Learning games in the early 1980s began to be created as computer software. Oregon
Trail, developed in 1982 by MECC, was a popular simulation of early pioneer days in America.
Oregon Trail, used in schools and in homes, taught life skills such as resource management,
253 M. Gredler, “Educational Games and Simulations: A Technology in Search of a (Research) Paradigm,” Chap. 17 in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, ed. D. H. Jonassen (New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1996), 521.
146 planning, and coping with stressful situations such as “Betty has cholera.”254 Oregon Trail software, fifth edition, is available for individual and school lab use for prices ranging from
$9.98. In addition, Oregon Trail is currently available as a downloadable application for iPads for a price of $4.99.255 A similar free, online game, The Oregon Trail: Settler, is available for
Android devices as found in a search of Google Play on August 11, 2014. 256 Google Play is an online digital distributor of applications for Android device.
Learning Games as a category for instructional materials was evident during the twenty- five years of this study. The importance of games in education has evolved and adapted to meet the needs of teachers and students, yet the basic principles of participation, emphasis on learning, and versatility as outlined by Johnson in 1958 and Schubert in 1959 as discussed earlier in this chapter, still hold true today.257
Interactive—Response Systems Category
In the data collection process of this content analysis on PRIM ’57-’82, I found twenty- seven items in articles, textbooks, and advertisements for the Response Systems category.
Instructional materials that fit into the poststructurally designed category of Interactive—
Response Systems ranged in dates from 1962 to 1982. Refer to Appendix E for a complete listing of PRIM ’57-’82 in this category including source information.
254 B. Edwards, “10 Educational PC Games of the 1980s,” PC Magazine, January 22, 2012, accessed July 23, 2014, http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/293124/10-educational-pc-games-of-the-1980s/.
255 Gameloft, “The Oregon Trail,” Gameloft, October 13, 2011, accessed August 14, 2014, https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/oregon-trail-american-settler/id460062770?mt=8.
256 Gameloft, “The Oregon Trail: Settler,” Google Play, August 6, 2014, accessed August 11, 2014, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gameloft.android.ANMP.GloftTOHM&hl=en.
257 D. Johnson, “Commercial Games,” 69-73.; Schubert, "Reading Games," 423.
147 As defined earlier in the Chapter 1’s Terms and Definition section, response is a term used to label a behavior relative to a stimulus by making a selection or pushing a key.258 A response, as defined by Skinner, is to write an answer or push a button, serving as a principle of reinforcement, and receiving feedback from a teaching machine or other instructional device.259
The term response is also discussed, from a programmed learning perspective, earlier in the
Programmed Instruction section of this chapter.
The earliest PRIM ’57-’82 item to be included in the Response System category is the
Rapid-Rater by Shaw Laboratories. The Rapid-Rater is an artifact located in the Lee and Lida
Cochran AECT Archives of Educational Communications and Technology collection on the NIU campus and is described in a 1962 Audiovisual Instruction advertisement. The advertisement promotes the Rapid-Rater as “a simple and inexpensive tester-teacher” that increased student interest and was used for classroom quizzes, self-testing, and systematic learning.260 The Rapid-
Rater shown in Figure 11 is an example of a PRIM ’57-’82 Response Systems device as discussed in this section.
The Rapid-Rater was produced from 1961 to 1981 as a device used by individual students. Using a stylus, students would answer up to eighty multiple-choice questions by pressing through a paper sheet that was placed between two scoring plates.261 Using a set of questions with the preset scoring plates in the Rapid-Rater, the student would proceed to answer
258 Markle, "Programed Instruction and Teaching," 133.; Markle, Good Frames and Bad.
259 Skinner, Technology of Teaching.
260 Shaw Laboratories, Inc., “Rapid-Rater,” Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 44. [Advertisement]
261 B. Gregg, “The Rapid-Rater: What Happened to the Teaching Machines?,” TechTrends 55, no. 2 (March/April 2011): 24.
148
Figure 11. Shaw Laboratories, Inc., Rapid-Rater, 1962.262
the specific numbered questions in the appropriate place on the device by pressing the stylus through the A, B, C, or D hole. If the student answered correctly, the stylus would punch through the answer sheet, providing feedback about a successful answer. If incorrect, the student would see a small mark on the paper but would not feel the stylus go through the paper.
Knott, in an interview for this study, suggested a similarly named device existed called the Rapid Grader, which assisted teachers in grading. I was unable to find any additional information on the Rapid Grader System, although Knott recalled it looking similar to the Rapid-
Rater.
An item called the Student Response Monitor, manufactured by Aircraft Armaments, was discussed in professional reports and publications from 1962 to 1970.263 This system consisted of an individual control unit with three push buttons labeled A, B, and C placed on a student’s desk.
The teacher’s station had the capability of gathering input from up to fifty students through a
262 Shaw Laboratories, Inc., “Rapid-Rater.” [Advertisement]
263 J. Cox, “Evaluation of Student Response Monitor (SRM),” in Bibliography of Publications and Presentations: From July 1971 Through December 1981 (January 1992): 1-15, accessed November 7, 2013. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a130219.pdf.; J. Brown, “Student Response Systems,” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 4 (April 1963): 216.; Montor, "Feedback, an Aid To," 89-90.
149 series of red, green, and yellow lights. The teacher, by asking a multiple-choice question with three possible answers, could tell at a glance how many students pressed which button. The system provided a meter dial that showed the percentages of responses for each choice.264 The system also tracked which answer was given by each student, allowing the teacher to see any students’ need for remediation. The student’s unit displayed feedback as a glowing light.
Brown, in a 1963 review of several response systems, contends that response systems help the teacher improve instruction. Response systems included in Brown’s study are the Edex
Teaching System, the Tele-Test Communications System, the Tele-Quest/TV
Intercommunication System, and the Teleprompter Classroom Responder. The feedback to and responses from students made the teacher aware of students’ active participation with all of these devices. This feedback allowed the teacher to identify specific individuals who might need extra attention in a focused content area. However, since some response systems allowed for anonymity, the students felt comfortable participating, whereas they might not have otherwise.265
One of the response devices reviewed in the 1963 Brown article, is the Edex Teaching
System, which incorporated a slide projector and an audio tape console with a metered panel to collect student responses from ten to forty student stations. In this system, students’ control units offered four choices.266 The Edex Teaching System was used to teach music, as discussed in a
1966 study that provides detailed instruction on how to set-up the system and prepare the music lessons.267 In the 1966 study, Weiscerber and Rasmussen demonstrate that students could be
264 Brown, “Student Response Systems,” 216.
265 Brown, “Student Response Systems,” 214.
266 Brown, “Student Response Systems,” 219.
267 R. Weiscerber and W. Rasmussen, “A Teaching System for Music Listening,” Audiovisual Instruction 11, no. 2 (February 1966): 106-109.
150 motivated by using a system such as the Edex Teaching System.268 In November 1972, the Edex
Teaching System was reviewed in the New Products section of Audiovisual Instruction as a modular system that allowed for customization of the system through which the instructor or school could determine the audiovisual needs and purpose of the response system. Student control units, in 1972, were available in a pushbutton style and as a rotary unit. Both types of response control units were compatible with a computer for gathering data.269
Corrigan and Associates of California developed the Tele-Test Communications System that was reviewed by Brown as a response system.270 Its student consoles, called Record-o-Paks, consisted of a red and green light and an IBM card that recorded the students’ choices. The system used a television to transmit the lesson to the student; in other words, the teacher was not necessarily in the same classroom or building but could be transmitting the lesson via a closed- or an open-circuit television. The instructor was able to collect the information for each student’s
IBM card to review all responses for any additional teaching needs. The collected IBM cards were also used as an evaluation tool for student performance regarding the lesson.271 In a 1962 study, Corrigan, Gluth, and Deutsch found that teaching with the Tele-Test Communications
System saved half of the time to teach a programmed section; what had previously taken two hours took one hour, with the advantage being that students achieved 25-percent higher grades.272
268 Weiscerber and Rasmussen, "Teaching System for Music," 108.
269 Audiovisual Instruction, “New Products,” Audiovisual Instruction 17, no. 9 (November 1972): 98.
270 Brown, “Student Response Systems,” 218.
271 Brown, “Student Response Systems,” 218.
272 R. Corrigan, “Student Response Systems: A Defense of the Concept,” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 8 (October 1963): 600.; R. Corrigan, “Programmed Instruction as a Systems Approach to Education,” in Trends in
151 The Tele-Quest/TV Intercommunication System developed by the Pennsylvania State
University was also reviewed by Brown in 1963 as a two-way audio intercommunication system.
A course was presented over a closed-circuit television system that provided immediate two-way communication between the teacher and the students. The teacher had control over the microphone and could call upon any student. The system required extensive hardware, including a television, a microphone and amplifier, an instructor console, relays, and a power supply.273
Although the hardware for the Tele-Quest/TV Intercommunication System was not small or portable, the function of the response system allowed students to respond to a teacher similar to other response systems discussed in this section.
The final response system that Brown reviewed is the Teleprompter Classroom
Responder. It was in the early stages of development in 1963 and used teletype punch tape at each student’s workstation. This format was designed to capture student responses for grading purposes and allowed the students to progress at their own pace. This response system was capable of recording numerical responses as well as multiple-choice answers.274
In a 1965 issue of Audiovisual Instruction, a simple Trainer-Tester Response Card is advertised. This Response Systems category item was used with printed programmed instruction such as booklets or corresponding questions to textbook exercises. The Trainer-Tester Response card was “simple” to operate using a pencil to fill in the appropriate bubble.275 Each paper card
Programmed Instruction: Papers from the First Annual Convention of the National Society for Programmed Instruction, eds. G. Ofiesh and W. Meierhenry (Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1964), 42.
273 Brown, “Student Response Systems,” 217.
274 Brown, “Student Response Systems,” 218.
275 Van Valkenburch, Nooger, and Neville, Inc., “Simple!,” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 174. [Advertisement]
152 had up to thirty answers with three choices labeled A, B, and C or 120 questions with four choices. Advertised prices were $6.95 for one hundred three-choice response cards or for seventy four-choice response cards. In many ways, this system is similar to Scantron Score Forms used in current practices.276
As a tie-in to the space race, another item advertised in a 1968 Audiovisual Instruction publication states, “Give Her the Moon!” to describe the ComTech Corporations’ Student
Response System.277 ComTech Corporation states in the advertisement, “audiovisual instructional equipment will play a big part in her life,” emphasizing the importance of instructional materials for learning.278 This response system was capable of simplifying teaching tasks, such as grading, yet was versatile enough to be a language lab or a programming tool for visual and audio aids.279 Each Student Response System was customized to the needs of the purchaser. During an interview conducted for this study, Edmondson noticed the use of a woman and the reference to the space race and moon in the advertisement. She thought that was the company reaching out to teachers, specifically women, in the use of this technology.280
In 1968, a Mediated Interaction Visual Response (MIVR) system was an improvement over the one-way communication response systems developed earlier in the 1960s. The MIVR, according to Wyman, was a means to offer a visual response mode to a group of students.281 The
276 Scantron, “Overview - Scantron,” Scantron, accessed July 29, 2014, http://www.scantron.com/scanners- forms/forms/omr-forms/overview.
277 ComTech Corporation, “Give Her the Moon!.” [Advertisement]
278 ComTech Corporation, “Give Her the Moon!.” [Advertisement]
279 ComTech Corporation, “Give Her the Moon!.” [Advertisement]
280 L. Edmondson, interviewed by author, Springfield, MO, April 16, 2014.
281 R. Wyman, “A Visual Response System for Small-Group Interaction,” Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 9 (September 1968): 714-715.
153 traditional methods of teaching were employed, but the MIVR added an interactive component using individual overhead projectors. A trial, conducted by Wyman, included eight students, each with an overhead projector. Each student made an immediate active response by pointing, writing, underlining, or coloring on his/her overhead transparency.282 Issues with this mediated visual response system included excessive light and heat from the overhead projectors as well as the difficulty of providing power to all the students’ projectors.283
Response devices continued to grow and adapt during the 1970s. In a 1972 newspaper article, the Shenendehowa Township in New York State announced a partnership with General
Electric’s Research and Development Center to use an Audiovisual Responses System 400 designed with Education System Package (ESP) technology.284 The purpose of ESP technology was to enable communication between students and teachers independent of the location or size of the class. The system allowed media control by the teacher, including many types of multimedia, a response system as an evaluation component, a communication system for group and individual studies, an optical card reader used as a data system to relieve the burden of paperwork, and finally, a programmed language system that consisted of over three hundred filmstrips about which the students were required to respond. No prices were listed in the article, and further research yielded no other results on the Audiovisual Response System 400 with ESP technology.
282 Wyman, "A Visual Response System," 715-716.
283 Wyman, "A Visual Response System," 717.
284 Schenectady Gazette, “Triple I to Introduce Education System” October 4, 1972, accessed December 11, 2013, http://www.fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%208/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette %201972%20Grayscale/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette%201972%20b%20Grayscale%20-%200475.pdf. [Newspaper]
154 Another device found, as advertised in the 1974 June/July issue of Audiovisual
Instruction, is the Ektagraphic Responder. As part of a coordinated study of Eastman Kodak and the AECT, interested educators could receive thirty responders and a free copy of Learning
Resources (May 1974) published by the AECT. The Ektagraphic Responder was a cardboard wheel that spun in a frame. The wheel was divided into large color-coded areas, each with a unique letter. The students were asked a question and given an opportunity to select a color- coded area or letter and then hold up the Ektagraphic Responder. The teacher could easily view the results of the question by viewing the students’ responses. As part of the interview process,
Beeler said she used something similar to this type of responder, but it used a true/false format.
Beeler also found that students felt pressured to answer based on what their friends and other classmates sitting close to them had answered. Beeler did not feel that the responder gave accurate feedback to the instructor.285
The 1980s brought in a new generation of response devices—ones that included video and “active participation.”286 In a 1980 Instruction Innovator review, the Response-A-Matic 7
(RAM 7) is described as an “audiovisual device with sync/stop pulse for 3/4” or 1/2” videocassette players.287 A 1981 advertisement contends that the RAM) 7 was easy and inexpensive with no difficult programming needed. It had an advertised price of $289.95.288 In an article, Emmens felt that interactive videos were a teaching tool that combined computer and
285 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
286 Instructional Industries, Inc., “Interactive Video Now,” AudioVisual Directions 3, no. 1 (January/February 1981): 25. [Advertisement]
287 Instructional Innovator, “RAM 7 Solid State Responder,” Instructional Innovator 25, no. 6 (September 1980): 48.
288 Instructional Industries, Inc., “Interactive Video Now.” [Advertisement]
155 video technologies. One of the RAM 7 interactive video’s features required the viewer to respond, which established an individualized path through the program.289 The RAM 7 devices could handle multiple-choice and true/false questioning and were used with slide projectors, audio recorders, and videotape.
Another response device in the Interactive—Response Systems category is the Voter 30 by Reactive Systems. This PRIM ’57-’82 item was found in a 1982 Instructional Innovator’s
New Products section that describes the response system as a hardware/software package.290 The
Voter 30 connected up to thirty responders to a single Apple II computer.291 The purpose of the
Voter 30 was to collect data from classroom quizzes and surveys and then, to use a computer to tabulate the results by producing a bar graph of the results, which was projected through the computer’s monitor. The Voter 30’s price was $595.00 for a set of thirty responders; the polling stations were $125.00.292 In a 1982 COMDEX computer dealers’ exhibit, the product summary guide listed the Voter 30 as a “response tabulating system,” with most of the other products listed in the guide being microcomputers, systems, printers, and other computer-related products.293 In addition, the Voter 30 response system was connected to a computer in the early
1980s, whereas previous response systems found in this study required a proprietary console to collect data—one that was specifically designed to work with only the corresponding responder
289 C. Emmens, “Interactive Video: Pay Attention. You Will Be Tested,” Audio Visual Directions 3, no. 1 (January/February 1981), 24.
290 Instructional Innovator, “Instant Answers,” Instructional Innovator 27, no. 7 (October 1982): 38.
291 Instructional Innovator, “Instant Answers.”
292 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “IEEE Micro Product Summary,” IEEE Computer Society, November 1982, accessed July 22, 2014, http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/mi/1982/04/04070859.pdf: 88.
293 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “IEEE Micro Product Summary,” 88.
156 unit. The Voter 30 shown in Figure 12 is another example of a PRIM ’57-’82 Response Systems device as discussed in this section.
Figure 12. Reactive Systems, Voter 30, 1982.294
In the interviewing process, I learned that all five interviewees had had some experiences with response systems similar to those described in this section. Van Hooser remembered the use of paper response systems.295 Beeler had used a nonelectronic response system in the classroom through the use of dry erase boards—similar to the Ektagraphic Responder discussed in this section.296
Edmondson talked about current teacher preparation for using classroom response systems. In the interview, Edmondson said it was important to prepare classroom teachers to use
294 Instructional Innovator, “Instant Answers.”
295 P. Van Hooser, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 28, 2014.
296 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
157 this type of device and more importantly, the information obtained from the feedback.297
Edmondson felt that technologies, such as response systems, assisted classroom teachers in analyzing each student’s needs or any deficiencies that required extra instruction.
Both Rundel and Edmondson were surprised that response systems dated back to the
1960s, feeling that this type of system was much more current and trendy.298
Knott reflected on her uncle, L. C. Billingsley, as an educator and school superintendent who created instructional and educational devices that helped students learn and progress.299 She remembered her uncle creating a response device that teachers could use with students who needed extra assistance.300 Billingsley’s patent information US3541707A, dated April 18, 1968, stated the invention was an educational device for teaching fundamental arithmetic to elementary-grade students.301 Knott confirmed that was one of many educational devices invented by her uncle. According to Knott, Billingsley developed the educational device to
“hone in on those that needed extra help.”302
Interactive—Instructional Systems Category
An instructional system, as defined in The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in
Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, refers to instructional media.
297 L. Edmondson, interviewed by author, Springfield, MO, April 16, 2014.
298 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.; L. Edmondson, interviewed by author, Springfield, MO, April 16, 2014.
299 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
300 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
301 L. Billingsley, “Educational Device. US Patent 3541707. April 18, 1968,” accessed July 22, 2014, http://www.google.com/patents/US3541707.
302 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
158 Instructional media, in the 1963 publication, was described as “a device which presents a complete body of information and are [sic] largely self-supporting.”303 In this study, four types of items are included as Instructional Systems dating from 1960 to 1970. The four items are reading rateometers, reading rate controllers, tachistoscopes, and telephone conferencing equipment.
Reading improvement devices included in the Interactive—Instructional Systems category are rateometers, accelerators, and controllers. I found these items dating from 1962 to
1965 in a journal article, advertisements, and a textbook. The advertisement states that the reading rateometer “has led all reading aids since 1953.”304 The rateometer was a form of reading accelerator designed to improve reading speed. The reading rateometer consisted of a sliding scale that was set to the reading speed desired for an individual student. A T-shaped pacing bar protruded from the device that was mechanically moved down the page at the set rate. A student would read the line of text just below the bar as it moved down the page, which guided the student’s focus.305 If the student read slower than the rate set, the pacing bar would cover over the words, and through this mechanical feedback, the student would know immediately if he/she did not read at the expected speed set.306 An example of a PRIM ’57-’82 Instructional Systems is shown in Figure 13. The Reading Rateometer shown in Figure 13 is an example of a PRIM ’57-
’82 Instructional Systems device as discussed in this section.
303 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 86.
304 Audio Visual Research, “Compare!...See for Yourself,” Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 185. [Advertisement]
305 E. V. Dechant, Improving the Teaching of Reading (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964).; Otto and Houston, Mechanical Aids Teaching Reading, 1.
306 Erickson, Fundamentals of Teaching, 85.
159
Figure 13. Audio Visual Research, Reading Rateometer, 1962.307
A standard Reading Rateometer, Model A, advertised in 1962, had a range of 70 to 2500 words per minute (wpm).308 Also shown in the advertisement is Model B, a slower-range model,
20 to 500 wpm, as well as Model C, a faster-range model that was 140 to 5,000 wpm.309 The
1962 advertised pricing ranged from $39.95 for the standard and slower-range models, while the faster-range model priced at $42.95 with discounts available for purchase of five or more and ten or more units ranging from $4.00 to $6.00 for each unit.310 The images show students, approximately first-grade through high school levels, working at their desks, each with a rateometer and an open book.311 The Reading Rateometer was used individually in a classroom or lab setting. Each student worked independently and at his/her own rate.312 Taylor, in a 1962 study, found that reading accelerators, such as the Reading Rateometer, were most successful
307 Audio Visual Research, “Compare!...See for Yourself.” [Advertisement]
308 Audio Visual Research, “Compare!...See for Yourself.” [Advertisement]
309 Audio Visual Research, “Compare!...See for Yourself.” [Advertisement]
310 Audio Visual Research, “Compare!...See for Yourself.” [Advertisement]
311 E. Kennedy, “No Non-Readers Here: With AV, The Classroom Becomes a Reading Laboratory,” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 8 (October 1963): 586-588.; Erickson, Fundamentals of Teaching, 85.
312 A. Gelzer and N. Santore, “A Comparison of Various Reading Improvement Approaches,” The Journal of Educational Research 61, no. 6 (February 1968): 268.
160 with competent readers at the junior high level or above.313 To work most effectively, students needed to start training with the accelerator below their actual instructional levels and then build upon their competence.314 In a 1968 study by Gelzer and Santore, they contend that the students working with the rateometer improved their reading speed during the study, but in a retest after eleven months, the increase in speed had diminished slightly.315 The authors suggest that the students tested at an “artificially stimulated rate” at the end of the course versus the final retest scores.316 The manufacturer, Audio Visual Research, contended that reading speeds would double after ten to twenty half-hour sessions using the Reading Rateometer.317
Geerlof and Kling conducted a study of reading program practices in college and adult programs by reviewing materials of the study’s respondents using reading programs.318 Findings reported that accelerators, such as the Audio Visual Research Reading Rateometer, were most commonly used with other machines and not as stand-alone teaching strategies.319 The authors compare use of reading devices from their 1968 study to Taylor’s 1962 instrument use report and contend that accelerators were trending up in use from 13 percent of institutes in 1962 to 31 percent in 1968.320
313 S. Taylor, “Reading Instrument Usage,” The Reading Teacher 15, no. 6 (May 1962): 453.
314 Taylor, “Reading Instrument Usage,” 453.
315 Gelzer and Santore, “Comparison of Various Reading” 270.
316 Gelzer and Santore, “Comparison of Various Reading,” 270.
317 Audio Visual Research, “Compare!...See for Yourself.” [Advertisement]
318 Geerlof and Kling, “Current Practices in College,”
319 Geerlof and Kling, “Current Practices in College,” 570.
320 Geerlof and Kling, “Current Practices in College,” 573.
161 Three of my interviewees reflected on their experiences with the rateometer’s use in education. Van Hooser, who had taught in public schools from 1965 to 1998, remembered using something like a speed reader. Described as a small six-inch by nine-inch booklet, the speed reader would be utilized by the students in groups or individually, and then the students would participate in a discussion led by the teacher. Van Hooser reflected on finding a speed reader in a closet, but she noted that no one in the school knew how to use the device. The principal researched the device and then shared the functional and pedagogical uses with the school’s staff. Van Hooser recalled the speed reader was predominantly used with remedial students in the summer term, as there was “more time and more relaxed sessions.” She noted that the students had pride in their use of the speed reader and improved their speed over the course of the summer session.321
Knott, an interviewee, said she had experienced the rateometer for home use as well as in a reading lab at school. Knott remembered the schools used the rateometer as a self-check tool during her seventh-grade speed reading class.322
Edmundson, a reading specialist and university professor, felt that the rateometer was used for reading assessments, although she thought the device would not work well for her style of learning.
In a JSTOR database search, in June 2014, using “reading rateometer” as the search term,
I found sixty-eight articles. The oldest article was written in 1955, with the newest “reading
321 P. Van Hooser, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 28, 2014.
322 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
162 rateometer” article published in 1976. I found a vintage reading rateometers for sale on eBay in
June 2014 for $49.99, which included the “faster and better reading” manual.323
Another reading improvement device found in the data collection process was the tachistoscope, dating in this research from 1965 to 1970. Information provided in a review states that most tachistoscopes were placed on the individual student’s desk or table at a “comfortable eye position.”324 The review explains that when a lever was pressed, the coded cards advanced at various exposure rates or shutter speeds from one/one hundredth of a second to one second in length by using an “accurate electronic flash timing device.”325 The coded cards were illuminated through a special Plexiglas viewing area that reduced eye fatigue and allowed for longer practice sessions.326 The tachistoscope, mentioned in the review article, was manufactured by Lafayette
Instrument Company and sold for $159.00 in 1970. It included coded cards for five levels of reading: general words, more difficult common words, numbers, critical reading words, and recognition words.
Taylor, in a 1962 study about reading instruments, found that tachistoscopes were predominately used from fourth grade to high school rather than at the college level or in Grades
1-3. Taylor suggests that tachistoscopes were effective at all grade levels to increase recognition skills but noted that they should especially be used for training in the first eight years of
323 rb7549, “Vintage AVR Rateometer,” eBay, 2014, accessed June 23, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-AVR-RATEOMETER-AUDIO-VISUAL-RESEARCH-ESTATE-FIND-TR- /301188248692.
324 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “Tachistoscope,” Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 7 (September 1970): 121.
325 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “Tachistoscope,” 121.
326 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “Tachistoscope,” 121.
163 schooling.327 Kinder argues that tachistoscopes were useful to reading specialists and suggests that other types of teachers would not use this apparatus.328
In Geerlof and Kling’s 1968 study of reading program practices, they found that the tachistoscope was used as a stand-alone tool for reading improvement of college students in only six cases, whereas it was used with other machines such as rateometers, films, and pacers 115 times.329 The authors also compare their usage data with that in a 1962 study by Taylor and found that tachistoscopes were trending down in classroom use for reading. Taylor’s study found tachistoscope usage at 39 percent of schools, whereas the Geerlof and King study found usage at
28 percent.330
Further research on educational tachistoscopes found references to a similar system used in training, which was “flash recognition training” (FRT).331 Patent research found that a patent was filed for on March 23, 1954 for a flash recognition training device.332
A Google Scholar search for “tachistoscope” in July 2014 revealed over forty-three hundred search results between 1957 and 1982, with 4,830 results for the period of 1982 to 2014 showing an increase in documents available. On July 29, 2014, I conducted a JSTOR search for
“tachistoscope,” yielding 495 articles, books, or pamphlets with references to the tachistoscope during my twenty-five-year period. Using the period of 1983 to 2014, a similar JSTOR search
327 Taylor, “Reading Instrument Usage,” 450-451.
328 Kinder, Using Instructional Media, 80.; Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “Tachistoscope,” 121.
329 Geerlof and Kling, “Current Practices in College,” 570.
330 Geerlof and Kling, “Current Practices in College,” 573.; Wyman, "Visual Response System," 717.
331 Godnig, “Tachistoscope,” 42.
332 S. Warren, “Flash Recognition Training Device. US Patent 2791843 A. May 14, 1957,” accessed June 20, 2014, http://www.google.com/patents/US2791843.
164 revealed 119 search results. The JSTOR search results show a decline in research conducted using the keyword “tachistoscope” which supports comments gathered in the interviews conducted for this research as discussed in the next paragraph.
Van Hooser, an interviewee, also remembered a similar device being used by a group of students but stated that it was projected on a green chalkboard, which made the images/words unclear or hard to read.333 Beeler stated that a tachistoscope was located in the library for student practice. It was not used in classrooms and could not be checked out of the library. Students could choose to use the tachistoscope as an activity during library time.334 Knott, another interviewee, remembered using a tachistoscope not only as an individual device to improve reading skills but also for group instruction. The classroom teacher had the tachistoscope timed to run automatically for group instruction, and since it was automatic, the teacher did not have to move the screen.335 Although Edmondson had not seen a tachistoscope, she could imagine how the flashing of words would be helpful to readers, as a teacher would want students to recognize the words as quickly as possible.336
The telephone conference is designated as an Instructional Systems category item because it was an equipment system that allowed for communication between multiple participants. In a 1972 advertisement from AT&T and the local Bell Telephone Company, a telephone conference was encouraged for educational purposes.337 It advertises bringing “a
333 P. Van Hooser, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 28, 2014.
334 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
335 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
336 L. Edmondson, interviewed by author, Springfield, MO, April 16, 2014.
337 United States telecommunications in the 1970s were operated by twenty-two local Bell Telephone companies until 1984 when due to monopoly control, the local Bell Telephone companies were divided into seven
165 senator, a banker or a space-age physicist” into the classroom.338 AT&T and the local Bell
Telephone Company, as stated in the advertisement, believed that this technology was “better than a field-trip.”339 The conference phone hardware permitted two-way communication between the guest speaker and the students in the classroom with the push of a button, which allowed the teacher to control the conversation. The conference phone was plugged into any telephone jack340 and the price was $10.00 to $15.00 per month.341 Beeler, an interviewee did not remember having any telephone jacks in her classrooms until her last year of teaching in 2000.342
A 1970 report by Ely describes an educational communication system (ECS), produced by General Telephone and Electronics, as a “blackboard-by-wire.”343 Furthermore, because the
ECS-100 Educational Communication System was transmitted over telephone lines, it allowed verbal and visual communication and permitted up to six classroom locations to receive a message.344 The instructor wrote on a six-inch by eight-inch graphic transmitter or writing frame with an electronic pen and used a telephone to transmit audio for conducting a lesson.345
regional Bell Operating Companies. Information is derived from “History of the Bells,” TeleTruth, 2002, accessed March 30, 2015, http://www.teletruth.org/History/bbells/bb_history.html.
338 AT&T and the Bell Company, “With This Phone, a Class Can Visit a Senator, a Banker, a Space-Age Physicist,” Audiovisual Instruction 17, no. 7 (September 1972): Inside Front Cover. [Advertisement]
339 AT&T and the Bell Company, “With This Phone.” [Advertisement]
340 The telephone jack, also known as a RJ-11, is an electrical interface used to connect a telephone handset to a telephone network, generally attached to a wall, to provide connectivity for telephone communications. Although common in classrooms of the 2000s, a telephone jack was not a standard installation in 1970s classrooms.
341 AT&T and the Bell Company, “With This Phone.” [Advertisement]
342 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
343 Ely, Instructional Hardware, 8.
344 Ely, Instructional Hardware.
345 Ely, Instructional Hardware.
166 Fundamentals of distance education were seen through the AT & T and the General
Telephone and Electronics communication devices described above. Distance education is defined as instruction to learners who are physically separated from teachers, in other words, not in the same location or space.346 These two Instructional Systems items described above from the
PRIM ’57-’82 research illustrate a form of distance education used in the 1970s.
Only one of the interviewees related her educational experience with the telephone conferencing format. Knott remembered an assignment in college in the 1970s in which the students created a video of an instructional method to share with other classmates. Knott was not sure how the videos were shared, but she reflected that the professor was teaching the use of video, as it was becoming a more common format for sharing information. In researching the topic of conferencing, I found references to an AT&T Picturephone that was shown in exhibits at the 1964 New York World’s Fair.347 It appears that Knott’s experience was an early attempt to use this new medium, conferencing, for educational purposes.
Instructional devices such as the instructional systems discussed in this section were perceived as playing an important role in education, with the rateometer/accelerator and tachistoscope being especially effective for reading improvement. Taylor felt that instructional materials filled the need to “provide more content in less time” so the student could progress to his/her full potential.348
346 D. Ely et al., “Trends in Educational Technology 1991,” Chap.4 in Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future, ed. G. Anglin (Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995), 43.; United States Department of Education, “Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006-2007,” Institute of Education Sciences, December 2008, accessed August 7, 2014, http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009044. 347 D. Hernandez, “April 20, 1964: Picturephone Dials up First Transcontinental Video Call,” Wired, April 20, 2012, accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.wired.com/2012/04/april-20-1964-picturephone-dials-up-first- transcontinental-video-call/.; AT&T, “AT&T Labs - Innovation - Technology Timeline - Picturephone,” AT&T, 2014, accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/70picture.html.
348 Taylor, “Reading Instrument Usage,” 454.
167 Interactive—Computers Category
There was one instructional material coded as Interactive, within the Computers category: the Toshiba Memo Note 30, described as a portable calculator with advanced programmability that included note and phone number storage.349 This item, also known as
Model LC-836MN, was initially discovered in the Datamath Calculator Museum—a virtual museum. Another online museum, the Computer History Museum, described the Memo Note 30 as the first handheld computer and categorized it in its collection in Mobile Computing:
“Handhelds & Tablets.”350 Toshiba licensed the patent as an “electronic pocket directory” after a print organizer company, Rolodex, showed no interest in the item.351 The Toshiba Memo Note
30 was the first integrated organizer and was considered one of the first personal digital assistants in 1978.352 The original pricing for the Memo Note 30 was approximately $80.00 for a unit that stored thirty pairs of names and numbers.353 Although not currently in production, several vintage Memo Note 30s were available for sale on eBay on June 3, 2014, pricing from
$8.99 to $49.99. The Memo Note 30 shown in Figure 14 is an example of a PRIM ’57-’82
Computers device as discussed in this section.
349 R. Prasad, “Handheld Devices,” in Anesthesia Informatics, eds. J. Stonemetz and K. Ruskin (London: Springer, 2009), 409-424.; M. Richards, “LC-836 Memo Note 30,” Computer History Museum, 2014, accessed June 3, 2014, http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/mobile-computing/18/318/1739.
350 Richards, “LC-836 Memo Note 30.”
351 Richards, “LC-836 Memo Note 30.”
352 R. Molina, “Fundamentos Matemáticos de los Dispositivos de Cálculo Modernoa (Mathematical Foundations of Modern Computing Devices),” Journal of Teaching - Digital Journal of Education 1, no. 8 (October 2007): 1-6, accessed June 13, 2014, http://www.st2000.net/cdocencia/numero008/art00808.pdf.; J. Woerner, “Toshiba LC-836MN Memo Note 30,” Datamath Calculator Museum, July 3, 2002. accessed June 3, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Related/Toshiba/LC-836MN.htm.
353 S. Walton, “Electronic Mini-Marvels: Big Performance in Tiny Packages,” Popular Mechanics 150, no. 4 (October 1978): 210.
168
Figure 14. Toshiba, Memo Note 30, 1978.354
The reason this instructional material, the Memo Note 30, is included in this study, while other computers are not, is that this device was small, portable, and required some feedback or response to or from a teacher. Although I have found many articles about its functionality as a note taker, calculator, and phone directory, I did not find any direct classroom use, which suggests it was an administrative tool rather than designed for classroom use in the late ’70s.
As computers became more prominent in classroom use in the 1980s, I chose 1982 as the end of my study’s research period. Computers were used, however, in education prior to 1982. In fact, Monograph No. 2 of the 1963 Technological Development Project, published as a special supplement to the AudioVisual Communication Review, devoted the entire issue to computers and their impact on education. Monograph No. 2 was devoted to a discussion of information processing and information control using computers related to teaching practices.355 Many resources, such as Becker, Reiser, and Murdock cited here, are available to provide additional
354 Richards, “LC-836 Memo Note 30.”
355 D. Bushnell, “Monograph No. 2 of the Technological Development Project,” AudioVisual Communication Review 11, no. 2 (1963): viii.
169 historical information about computer use in education from the early 1950s up to July 24,
2014.356
Real Objects Code
Real Objects is the second code of PRIM ’57-’82 items in the content analysis conducted in this study. Real Objects were found from 1959 to 1980. The Real Objects code was organized into four categories: Slide Rules, Time/Clocks, Calculators, and Telephone Packages. Each of these categories fits into the PRIM ’57-’82 definition as being portable and responsive instructional materials. Refer to Appendix G to view the codes, categories, and subcategories found through the content analysis. Each Real Objects item is discussed chronologically based on the initial dates found in the data collection process. Relevant literature is discussed within each category.
Real Objects—Slide Rules Category
Slide rules were used in teaching mathematics and engineering from their invention in
1623357 through the mid-’70s. Based on my findings, PRIM ’57-’82 slide rule items were found from 1959 to 1974. The slide rule was small, portable and provided a response in the form of an answer to a problem. Students and professionals carried slide rules on their belts or in their shirt
356 J. Becker, “Who's Wired and Who's Not: Children's Access to and Use of Computer Technology,” The Future of Children (Princeton University) 10, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2000):44-75.; Reiser, “History of Instructional Design: Part 1,” 53-64.; Murdock, E. “History of Computers in Education,” California State University Long Beach/~Murdock, 2014, accessed July 24, 2014, http://www.csulb.edu/~murdock/histofcs.html.
357 Centre for Computing History, “Slide Rule Invented By.”
170 pockets during the 1960s and 1970s.358 High school slide rule clubs, as seen in the 1958 yearbook of Carrollton High School, Carrollton, Texas, were established to support students interested in this tool. 359 Furthermore, slide rules played an important part in the race for space, not only in the engineering of the spacecraft but also as a tool for the Apollo space astronauts.360
In July 1968, Schmidt and Busch predicted the demise of the slide rule, as the new
Electronic Digital Slide Rule (EDSR) was smaller, easier to operate, and more accurate than a slide rule. The U. S. Patent No. US3676656, states that the EDSR was a “hand-carried” calculator.361 Schmidt and Busch contend that the slide rule industry should have paid attention to the new calculators appearing on the market as competition to the standard slide rule.362
Vintage slide rules were available for purchase from eBay in July 2014 and other online sites; they ranged in price from $1.99 to $647.00. As part of my collection of over six hundred items, I discovered a seven-foot long demonstration slide rule used in classrooms for instruction.
This item, however, is not included in my study because it was not portable, but it did support
358 C. O. Harris, Slide Rule Simplified. 2nd ed. (Chicago: American Technical Society, 1961, 5.; R. Butler, “The History Corner,” TechTrends 51, no. 3 (May/June 2007): 14.
359 Carrollton High School, “Slide Rule Museum,” 2013, accessed June 12, 2014, http://sliderulemuseum.com/Ephemera/CarrolltonHS_TX_1958_SlideRule_Clubs_Pg080-2.jpg.
360 Smithsonian Institute - National Air and Space Museum, “Slide Rule, 5-Inch, Pickett N600-ES, Apollo 13,” Smithsonian Institute - National Air and Space Museum, n.d., accessed June 14, 2014, http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19840160000.
361 H. Schmidt, “Electronic Digital Slide Rule. United States Patent US 3676656 A.” Google. June 30, 1969, accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.google.com/patents/US3676656.
362 H. Schmidt and D. Busch, “An Electronic Digital Slide Rule – If This Hand-Sized Calculator Ever Becomes Commercial, the Conventional Slide Rule Will Become Another Museum Piece,” The Electronic Engineer 27, no. 7 (July 1968), 54.
171 classroom instruction. I found several demonstration slide rules for sale in a June 12, 2014 eBay search ranging in price from $846.95 to $1,249.99.363
Although the slide rule is not a currently used instructional material, comparison to other instructional materials that had the purpose of the slide rule can be seen in the 1970s’ transition to the calculator. In fact, only one of the interviewees, Knott, a math specialist, remembered using slide rules for educational purposes, yet all interviewees remembered the calculator.364 The
Slide Rule shown in Figure 15 is an example of a PRIM ’57-’82 Slide Rules device as discussed in this section.
Figure 15. Slide Rule from the Lee and Lida Cochran AECT Archives, Item #147.365
363 taylorrae(9205), “Vintage Giant Metal Slide Rule,” eBay, June 12, 2014, accessed June 12, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Giant-Metal-School-7-Foot-Slide-Rule-Measurement-Ruler-84-Calculator- /201107118227?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ed2eb1893.
364 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
365 The Lee and Lida Cochran AECT Archives is currently part of the Blackwell Museum of Education on the Northern Illinois University campus, DeKalb, Illinois.
172 Real Objects—Time/Clocks Category
As part of the PRIM ’57-’82 items found in this study, the second category in Real
Objects is Time/Clocks that includes four listings from 1961 to 1980. Three devices, each used to teach time to prekindergarten to third-grade students, were found in the data collection process.
The items were used in classroom settings as group demonstration aids and as an individual learning tool. The Judy Clock shown in Figure 16 is an example of a PRIM ’57-’82 Time/Clocks device as discussed in this section.
Figure 16. Carson-Dellosa Publishing, Judy Clock, 1961.366
The Judy Clock was found in the 1961 Classroom Teacher's Guide to Audio-Visual
Material book by Freedman and Berg.367 In this reference, an image showed two young students working with the clock independently, perhaps demonstrating to the class how to move the clock
366 F. Freedman and E. Berg, Classroom Teacher's Guide to Audio-Visual Material (Philadelphia: Chilton, Co., 1961), 104.
367 Freedman and Berg, Classroom Teacher's Guide, 104.
173 hands.368 The wooden Judy Clock used real gears to maintain the correct hour- and minute-hand relationships while not being a working clock.369 The clock used five-minute intervals to show the value of the minutes on the clock face. The Judy Clock patent USD166239 S lists Hymie
Berman as the inventor, and was filed on February 5, 1951.370 The Judy Clock was named after
Berman’s daughter.371
Conducting a Google Scholar search for “Judy Clock” in June 2014 I found seven articles published from 1957 to 1982 in The Arithmetic Teacher, Childhood Education, and Intervention in School and Clinic. Using the same search term, a Google Scholar search was conducted for the period 1983 to 2014 that yielded thirty results, including several mathematics instruction books and ESL guides. In another search strategy, using the JSTOR database on June 18, 2014, I found a 1952 listing of the Judy Clock that describes it as “an attractive addition to any teaching collection and very practical.”372
Searching for a vintage Judy Clock, I found a classroom set that includes one large demonstration clock, eighteen miniature Judy Clocks, and a teaching guide. It was offered on eBay on July 31, 2014 for an opening bid of $9.99.373
368 Freedman and Berg, Classroom Teacher's Guide, 104.
369 Carson-Dellosa, “Judy Clock,” Carson-Dellosa, 2013, accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.carsondellosa.com/cd2/Products/JudyClock/Clock/0768223199.
370 H. D. Berman, “Toy Clock. Patent USD166239 S. February 5, 1951,” accessed August 8, 2014, http://www.google.com/patents/USD166239.
371 Simplemary, “How Did the Judy Clock Get It's Name?,” Answers, n.d., accessed August 8, 2014, http://www.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_Judy_Clock_get_it%27s_name.
372 H. Syer and C. Johnson, “Aids to Teaching,” The Mathematics Teacher 45, no. 8 (December 1952): 624.
373 jjsatten, “Judy Clocks Teach Time 18 Mini 1 Big Clock,” eBay, July, 2014, accessed July 31, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Judy-Clocks-Teach-Time-18-Mini-1-Big-Class-Kit- /251602080508?pt=Educational_Toys_US&hash=item3a94a712fc.
174 Four of the interviewees remembered using time and clocks instructional materials, such as the Judy Clock, to aid in instruction in their classrooms. Beeler, a teacher from 1965 to 2000, talked about the use of the Judy Clock in her classrooms and said she continues to use a similar- style clock today in a preschool classroom.374 Knott, a math specialist interviewed, liked that the student had to manipulate the hands on the clock, with the gear showing how minutes advance the hour hand. Knott used the Judy Clock in 1986 as an instructional aid.375 Rundel and
Edmondson, in interviews, also remembered using this instructional device as part of their teaching strategy for time.376
Another item, the First Watch by TI, was introduced in 1978 and provided both “big- hand, little-hand” time as well as digital time. TI predicted, in 1978, that digital time was here to stay but felt students still needed to learn to read conventional time as shown in the First Watch manual’s section titled “How to Tell Time Both Ways.”377 The First Watch combined both practices of telling time, analog and digital, into one device. This time-teaching device was a working model marketed as a learning aid for five- to seven-year- olds and sold with an instructional activity/teaching manual for the teacher and student at an introductory price of
$19.95.378
374 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
375 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
376 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.; L. Edmondson, interviewed by author, Springfield, MO, April 16, 2014.
377 Texas Instruments, “How to Tell Time Both Ways (1978),” Datamath Calculator Museum, June 22, 2013, accessed June 21, 2014, http://www.datamath.net/Manuals/FirstWatch_US.pdf.
378 J. Woerner, “First Watch,” Datamath Calculator Museum, December 23, 2008, accessed May 15, 2014, http://datamath.org/TI_Stuff/First-Watch.htm.
175 Another item in the Time/Clocks category is the Time Teacher clock from Prodesigns. It was found to be available from 1980 to 2014. The Time Teacher clock is similar to the Judy
Clock, yet it offers students additional hands-on activities. Learning activities include placing six-sided cubes into the appropriate minute slots on the clock to using a picture side of a cube to determine when events happen throughout the day (e.g., what time is dinner, what time to wake up) as well as teaching Roman numerals, digital time, and the 24-hour clock.379
Real Objects—Calculators Category
Calculators of many sizes, shapes, and functionality have existed since the first calculating machine was invented in 1623 by Wilhelm Schickard.380 In a 1952 reference, the
Ken-Aid Pocket Adding Machine, also called a calculator, is described as small, approximately
2.5 inches by 5 inches by ½ inch with a price of $6.95.381 In the Appraisal section of Syer and
Johnson’s article, the calculator is viewed as a practical device useful for not only teaching addition but also as a place-value aid.382 The authors further recommend that a few calculators should be available for use in secondary grades.383 As time progressed, calculators moved from being large, desk-size machines to pocket-size, as observed in the images collected for this study.
379 Prodesign, “Time Teacher,” Prodesign, n.d., accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.prodesign- uk.com/english/timeteacher.html.
380 Centre for Computing History, “Wilhelm Schickard Invented a Calculating Machine,” Centre for Computing History, n.d., accessed June 4, 2014, http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/5921/Wilhelm%20Schickard%20invented%20a%20calculating%20machin e.; The Wilhelm Schickard Museum of Computing History, “Wilhelm Schickard,” The Wilhelm Schickard Museum of Computing History, n.d., accessed June 4, 2014, http://www.cs.cuw.edu/museum/Schickard.html.
381 Syer and Johnson, “Aids to Teaching,” 624.
382 Syer and Johnson, “Aids to Teaching,” 624.
383 Syer and Johnson, “Aids to Teaching,” 624.
176 With each change or version of the calculator, additional features were added. In the mid-1960s, a basic calculator performed four functions: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. It was labeled a “hand-held pocket” calculator.”384 Thus, the term handheld was used to describe instructional materials as early as 1963.385 Notice the spelling of hand-held was hyphenated in these resources in the early 1960s. By 1975, the calculator had additional features to include scientific functionality. In a 1976 review of computing devices, National Semiconductor produced a checkbook-size calculator that provided instruction and feedback and was considered an educational toy.386 PRIM ’57-’82 items in the Real Objects—Calculators category ranged in dates from 1968 to 1975.
From the interviewees’ experiences, three specifically remembered using calculators during their student years. General thoughts were that calculators were expensive, reflecting that a basic, four-function calculator cost approximately $100.00. For example, the original TI-2500, in 1972, had a reported price of $149.95.387 The TI-2500 Calculator shown in Figure 17 is an example of a PRIM ’57-’82 Calculator device as discussed in this section.
384 Texas Instruments, “1967 Electronic Handheld Calculator Invented,” Texas Instruments, 2008, accessed June 4, 2014, http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/timeline/eps/1960/docs/67- handheld_calc_invented.htm.; Centre for Computing History, "Hand-Held Pocket Calculator Was."
385 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 52, 82.
386 L. Leake and T. Rowan, “Computing Devices,” The Mathematics Teacher 69, no. 5 (May 1976): 423.
387 J. Woerner, “Texas Instruments TI - 2500 / Datamath Pre-Series,” Datamath Calculator Museum, 2001, accessed August 18, 2014, http://www.datamath.org/BASIC/DATAMATH/ti-2500-PS.htm.
177
Figure 17. Texas Instruments, TI-2500, 1972.388
In an interview, Beeler was shocked that a calculator could be used on a test, feeling that a student should do the mathematics manually. When looking at the Math Professor image during an interview, Beeler thought it looked like it could engage a student.389 Rundel, another interviewee, considered a calculator a luxury item.390
Similar to the slide rule club discussed earlier in this chapter, I found a calculator club, formed in 1982, dedicated specifically to Hewlett Packard’s handheld calculators.391
388 Woerner, "Texas Instruments TI-2500 /."
389 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
390 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
391 HPCC, “HPCC: Handheld and Portable Computer Club,” HPCC, May 7, 2014, accessed June 12, 2014, http://www.hpcc.org/.
178 Real Objects—Telephone Packages Category
A telephone training package or a consultation package offered by Reba Poor Associates was found in the PRIM ’57-’82 collection process. This item is included in the PRIM ’57-’82 category of Real Objects because it was an item used in a real-world application, but it was adapted to an educational purpose. I found the Reba Poor Associates advertisement in the
February 1980 issue of Technology Review.392 Further research revealed the same advertisement in the Princeton Alumni Weekly (1979), Lewiston Journal (1981), Harvard Magazine (1986), and in an Indiana Gazette (1998) article.393 I included the telephone training package in the Real
Objects code because it was real-world equipment used to transmit a message, and it was useful to more than one occupation including the training of teachers.
Reba Poor Associates’ advertised that the training package was for many types of professionals including professors and scientists. The rate per hour for consultation was $150.00 and the associates kept a timer by the phone to provide accurate bills to their clients.394 The advertisements offer the telephone time package as a solution for “if you live at a distance” but were able to make a phone call.395 I found the reference to distance to be an important factor in its inclusion since one of my research questions was “What educational pedagogies became
392 Reba Poor Associates, “2 Days That Will Change Your Life...,” Technology Review 82, no. 4 (February 1980): 82. [Advertisement]
393 “She's an Off-Beat 'Problem-Solver',” Lewiston Journal Lewiston-Auburn, ME, January 26, 1981, accessed June 16, 2014, http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1899&dat=19810126&id=LthGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uPMMAAAAIBAJ&p g=1307,3770935. [Newspaper]; Reba Poor Associates, “Whatever Your Problem, I'll Solve It,” Harvard Magazine 89, no. 1 (September/October 1986): 10. [Advertisement]; “Off-Beat Problem Solver Earns Big Checks,” Indiana Gazette Indiana, PA, October 28, 1998, accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/33713649/. [Newspaper]
394 Lewiston Journal, “She's an Off-Beat ‘Problem-Solver’." [Newspaper]
395 Reba Poor Associates, "2 Days That Will.” [Advertisement]
179 prevalent through the use of instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 as defined by this research?” Distance education has been observed in the Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based
Devices and the Interactive—Instructional Systems category discussed earlier in this study.
An internet search for “telephone time package” in June 2014 did not produce any results, but it did lead me to the other historical advertisements mentioned above. The phone number listed in the advertisement was not working, and no forwarding number was provided.
An example of the PRIM ’57-’82 Telephone Conference is shown in Figure 18. The telephone conference by Reba Poor Associates shown in Figure 18 is an example of a PRIM ’57-’82
Telephone Conference device as discussed in this section.
Transparencies Code
Transparencies, as the third PRIM ’57-’82 code identified in this study, includes two items recorded during the twenty-five-year period. The two transparency items were found in advertisements. The Hubbard Overhead Transparencies shown in Figure 19 is an example of a
PRIM ’57-’82 Transparencies device as discussed in this section.
The first transparency item, advertised in 1965, was the Hubbard Overhead
Transparencies that consisted of moveable parts or overlays.396 Prepurchased content that correlated with specific science textbooks was available for classroom instruction. In consideration of the correlation with the textbooks, this item could also be part of the
Programmed Instruction section described earlier in this chapter. I chose to include this in the
Transparencies category, because it was a unique item, given the manner in which the content was presented to a student. The Hubbard Overhead transparencies included several layers to
396 Hubbard Scientific Company, “Hubbard Overhead Transparencies.” [Advertisement]
180
Figure 18. Reba Poor Associates, Telephone Conference, 1980.397
397 Reba Poor Associates, "2 Days That Will.” [Advertisement]
181
Figure 19. Hubbard, Overhead Transparencies, 1965.398
allow the teacher to construct knowledge-building by adding pieces as a discussion progressed.
The example pictured in the advertisement shows how a volcano developed and erupted by adding each colored transparent layer to the base layer. The transparencies were displayed from an overhead projector. Hubbard Scientific Company promoted the “how and why by showing” in the use of this instructional material.399 The price for a Hubbard Scientific Company set of 4 to
18 transparencies ranged from $22.50 to $87.00 in 1965.
The second item included in the Transparencies category is the 1980 Instant Slide distributed by Highsmith. It was advertised as a 2” by 2” reusable slide that would fit into any projector or viewer and was priced at $10.50 for one hundred slides.400 This format allowed a teacher to create instructional materials by writing, typing, or drawing on the slide to fit his/her curricular needs. In researching this item in June 2014, I was not able to find any currently
398 Hubbard Scientific Company, “Hubbard Overhead Transparencies Build Understanding in Earth Science,” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 7 (September 1965): 583. [Advertisement]
399 Hubbard Scientific Company, “Hubbard Overhead Transparencies.” [Advertisement]
400 Highsmith, “Instant Slides,” Instructional Innovator 25, no. 5 (May 1980): 49. [Advertisement]
182 available Instant Slides such as a clear, reusable slide that is customizable by an instructor. The lack of availability of the Instant Slide was confirmed in an email conversation with Anita Burke, a Demco (formerly doing business as Highsmith) product specialist, on June 12, 2014.401
As I researched educational contexts of transparencies, I found AECT documentation that lists transparencies as the eighth most sold audiovisual media format in a 1973 survey.402 In addition, a set of thirty-seven layered transparencies that were used as an instructional material for drafting education are available in the AECT Archives, located on the Northern Illinois
University campus.403
All five interviewees remembered either having been taught with transparencies as a student or using this form of instructional materials as teachers in their own classrooms. Beeler remembered removing pictures from magazines and, using some form of transfer agent, copying them onto transparencies for use on an overhead projector. The transfer process was done on the teacher’s own time, as there were no parent volunteers or school staff available to complete the task. This was an important part of her teaching strategy for reading, as the young students needed an image to relate to each word. Beeler further explained that premade transparency sets were available, but they were expensive, and they were limited and did not always offer the images needed for instruction. Knott and Rundel remembered the layered transparencies used for instruction by their teachers.404 Rundel was surprised to learn, through the interview process, that
401 A. Burke, emailed to author, Lampe, MO, June 12, 2014.
402 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “Top Selling Media Formats.”
403 K. Taylor, “AECT Archives: Overhead Transparencies Used for Drafting Education,” Audiovisual Instruction 55, no. 4 (July/August 2011): 10.
404 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.; S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
183 transparencies were not “ancient,” realizing that school use of transparencies came about in the
1960s.405
In looking at the pedagogy of transparencies in education, this format sourced from the similar features in the use of pencil and paper and chalk and the chalkboard to the instruction method of using transparencies on overhead projectors.406 Although overhead projectors are not part of my PRIM ’57-’82 definition, the innovation of transparencies as a portable and response- driven instructional material is included. Transparencies are very similar in educational uses and functions to the magic lanterns used in the late 1920s. The transparencies offer the additional pedagogy of interactivity with students, allowing the teacher to ask and present materials on-the- fly rather than as the flowing script of a filmstrip, for example; in other words, they have the ability to reflect to student questions in the teachable moment.
Summary
In the collection process of finding the ninety-eight PRIM ’57-’82 items represented in this research, many types of instructional materials were discovered. Through a poststructural process, I determined twelve categories and then divided them into three major codes based on historical labels used in the audiovisual field: Interactive, Real Objects, and Transparencies. Due to the number of items found, it was necessary to divide these three codes further by grouping similar items together into categories, subcategories, and groups. Each category was discussed by providing a brief history of the item, the location of where it was found in the content analysis
405 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
406 J. Wisco, “Necessity Is the Mother of Educational Innovation: A Journey of Discovering and Developing Electronic Pedagogical Tools for Gross Anatomy and Histology,” Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 28, 215.2, no. 1 (April 2014).
184 conducted for this study, and other pertinent information as researched. Not all PRIM ’57-’82 revealed the same type of information. Pedagogies were explained, if available, and types of classroom uses were discussed. All PRIM ’57-’82 items were portable, responsive, used to improve instruction either individually or in groups, and supported the classroom teacher.
The functionality of the PRIM ’57-’82 categories is discussed in Chapter 5 as related to six functional characteristics determined through research and a poststructural analysis of the data.
CHAPTER 5
FUNCTIONAL FEATURES OF PRIM ’57-’82 OBJECTS
To further analyze the portable responsive instructional materials (PRIM ’57-’82) , I took the twelve categories and looked for common functionalities based on Patten, Sánchez, and
Tangney’s 2006 study on handheld devices.1 The purpose of Patten et al.’s research was to explore applications used with handheld devices to facilitate learning. Patten et al. developed seven functional categories for the mobile devices framework used in their study:
Administration, Referential, Interactive, Microworld, Collaborative, Location Aware, and Data
Collection. Refer to Appendix N to view Patten et al.’s examples of each functional framework.
Another reason to adapt Patten et al.’s framework, as discussed in Chapter 1, is that their research provides functional commonalities between PRIM ’57-’82 items used in this study that are discussed in the next chapter on failure mode and effect analysis. In addition, the study by
Patten et al. helps relate PRIM ’57-’82 items to more current handheld devices, as seen in the functional classifications established in this study. To demonstrate the connections between the
PRIM ’57-’82 objects and current functionality in education, additional information is provided on similar devices and/or similar purposes used after the twenty-five-year period established for this study.
1 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist."
186 Patten et al.’s study built on Roschelle’s review of three handheld device applications’
(classroom response systems, participatory simulations, and collaborative data gathering) simulations2 and on Dieterle and Dede’s use of Perkin’s 1991 etic codes3 communicators (email, instant messengers, and video conferencing), construction kits (prefabricated parts, probeware), information banks (databases, dictionaries), phenomenaria (simulated environments), symbol pads (productivity software), and task managers (feedback, scaffolding providers).4 Etic codes are derived from field research from the perspective of the subject and from the perspective of the observer.5 Patten et al. synthesized the work of previous researchers into categories and applications that include a pedagogical overview of handheld devices, providing an expanded view of instructional materials such as handheld devices.6
Applying Patten et al.’s categories (Administration, Referential, Interactive, Microworld,
Collaborative, Interactive, Location Aware, and Data Collection) to my PRIM ’57-’82 data, I found that the Referential category (word processing, e-books, and online dictionaries) as explained by Patten et al. did not apply to the PRIM ’57-’82 data since computer-based technologies and the internet were not included in this study. Another category, Location Aware, did not apply to my data, as those technologies (Global Positioning Systems, museum guides, and augmented environments such as Second Life) were not available during the twenty-five- year period of my study. Also, since all of the PRIM ’57-’82 items, as defined in the Terms and
2 Roschelle, "Unlocking the Learning Value," 263-266.
3 D. Perkins, “Technology Meets Constructivism: Do They Make a Marriage?,” Educational Technology 31, no. 5 (May 1991): 18-23.; Dieterle and Dede, "Straightforward and Deep Effects."
4 Perkins, "Technology Meets Constructivism," 18-23.
5 T. Schwandt, The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, 4th ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2015), 83.
6 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist."
187 Definitions section of Chapter 1 of this study, were interactive, i.e., instructional materials that required a response, I found I needed to create functionality categories more specific to the PRIM
’57-’82 items and to the period studied. With that in mind, the Curriculum (General,
Mathematics/Arithmetic, and Reading) and Presentation functional classifications were created for this study. Therefore, as a poststructural study, the functional classifications used in my study were Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum (General, Mathematics/Arithmetic, and
Reading), Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation. Refer to Table 3 for functional classifications of the ninety-eight PRIM ’57-’82 items discussed in this study.
Another way of looking at the functional analysis of PRIM ’57-’82 is by viewing the
PRIM ’57-’82 codes, categories, functional classifications, and the number of each. I used the data shown in Table 3 and reorganized the data by codes and categories. In Table 4, information is provided by Interactive, Real Objects, and Transparencies codes and the corresponding categories and provides the number of items in each area. For example, Table 4 shows that the
Data Collection functional classification includes Game-Like Devices and Response Systems instructional materials with a total of twenty-nine PRIM ’57-’82 items. For additional information concerning the PRIM ’57-’82 codes and categories, refer to the discussion in
Chapter 4.
The following sections describe each functional classification used in this study
(Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation) including examples of PRIM ’57-’82 items that belong in a defined functional classification. In addition, the discussion includes examples of PRIM ’57-’82 items from each classification as well as connections, if any, of PRIM ’57-’82 items to current portable and responsive instructional materials with similar functionality. Examples given were derived from personal
188 Table 3
Functional Classifications of PRIM ’57-’82
Functional Total Classification PRIM ’57-’82 Subcategories Administration Computers (1) 1 Learning Games (1) 2 Collaborative Instructional Systems (1) Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices (1) Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices (6) 8 Curriculum - General Instructional Kits (1) Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices (2) Curriculum— Learning Materials (7) 11 Mathematics/Arithmetic Instructional Kits (2) Programmed Instruction—Audio Card Readers (13) Programmed Instruction— Craig Readers (3) Programmed Instruction— Audio-Based Devices 27 (2) Programmed Instruction—Game-like Devices (4) Curriculum - Reading Instructional Systems (5) Programmed Instruction— Game-Like Devices (2) 29 Data Collection Response Systems (27) Programmed Instruction— Audio-Based Devices (2) Slide Rules (4) Time/Clocks (4) 18 Calculators (7) Microworld Telephone Packages (1) Presentation Transparencies (2) 2
189 Table 4
Functional Classifications of PRIM ’57-’82 by Codes and Categories
PRIM ’57-’82 PRIM ’57-’82 Categories— Codes Subcategories Functional Classification Count Programmed Instruction— Audio Card Readers Curriculum—Reading 13 Programmed Instruction— Craig Readers Curriculum—Reading 3 Curriculum—General 1 Programmed Instruction— Audio-Based Devices Curriculum—Reading 2 Microworld 2 Curriculum—General 6 Curriculum— Programmed Instruction— Mathematics/Arithmetic 2 Game-Like Devices Curriculum—Reading 4 Data Collection 2 Collaborative 1 Learning Materials Curriculum— Mathematics/Arithmetic 7 Curriculum—General 1 Instructional Kits Curriculum— Mathematics/Arithmetic 2 Learning Games Collaborative 1 Response Systems Data Collection 27 Collaborative 1 Instructional Systems Curriculum—Reading 5 Interactive Computers Administration 1 Slide Rules Microworld 4 Time/Clocks Microworld 4 Calculators Microworld 7 Real Objects Telephone Packages Microworld 1 Transparencies Transparencies Presentation 2
190 experiences, from interviewee comments, and knowledge gained through the research process; they are a sampling of similar functionality or devices and are not intended to be an all-inclusive listing.
Administration
Administration functionality is related to devices that promoted note taking and served as organizers for contact and calendar information. Patten et al. defined administration functions as information storage, grading, and scheduling on a small, portable device.7 As discussed in
Chapter 4, the Memo Note 30 is an example of an administration device used during the twenty- five-year period studied for this dissertation. Through the data collection process, the Memo
Note 30 is the only item of the PRIM ’57-’82 that was determined to be an administration device.
Administration examples with the functionality similar to that of the Memo Note 30 which existed after the twenty-five years of this study include the Linus’ Write-Top (1987), the
GRiD’s GridPad (1989), the Apple’s Newton MessagePad (1991), personal digital assistants
(1993), and the 2010 introduction of the iPad by Apple for $499.00.8 The functionality of the
Memo Note 30 evolved, for example, with Apple’s introduction of the Newton MessagePad in
1991 at a price of $699.00, and by 1992, Apple proclaimed its version of a personal digital
7 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist," 297.
8 Apple, “Apple - Press Info - Apple Launches iPad,” Apple Inc., January 27, 2010, accessed August 27, 2014, https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/27Apple-Launches-iPad.html.; J. Bort, “History of the Tablet,” Business Insider, June 2, 2013, accessed July 25, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-tablet-2013- 5?op=1.
191 assistant as the “future of computing.”9 After six years, Apple ceased production due the Newton
MessagePad’s high costs, large size and issues with the handwriting recognition feature, but
Apple used what had been learned about personal computing during the product’s development to help define future products.10 The real success of personal devices in an educational setting was the use of the Palm Pilot in the early 2000s. As early as 2001, handheld devices were viewed as tools for education—touted as replacements for an expensive computer through an inexpensive learning device such as a PDA.11A feature of PDAs, such Palm Pilots, was the handwriting feature that transferred written messages to text. Although handwriting recognition technology was thought to be new and innovative, as seen with the Palm Pilot (1996) and earlier with the Apple’s Newton MessagePad (1991), the technology existed in 1888 with a
Telautograph device, patented by Gray, which captured the written word and sent it via a telegraph.12 Administration devices shown in pop-culture in the 1966 Star Trek television show, a popular science fiction program, include a Personal Access Display Device (PADD) with features such as a touchscreen, writing stylus technologies, and audio/visual communications.13
The PADD, in images reviewed, resembled the look, size, and functionality of Apple’s iPad introduced some forty years later. As this functionality progressed in portable and responsive
9 P. Atkinson, Computer (London: Reaktion Books, 2010), 126.; B. Edwards, “Remembering the Newton MessagePad, 20 Years Later,” Macworld, August 27, 2013, accessed August 7, 2014, http://www.macworld.com/article/2047342/remembering-the-newton-messagepad-20-years-later.html.
10 P. Atkinson, Computer.
11 E. Soloway et al., “Log on Education,” 15-20.
12 E. Gray, “Telautograph. US Patent 386815. July 31, 1888,” Wired, accessed July 25, 2014, http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/07/us0386815.pdf.; R. Lammle, “Tablet History: 14 Device That Laid the Groundwork for the iPad,” Mashable, February 3, 2012, accessed July 25, 2014, http://mashable.com/2012/02/03/ipad-history-devices/.
13 C. McLellan, “The History of Tablet Computers: A Timeline,” ZDNet, March 3, 2014, accessed July 25, 2014, http://www.zdnet.com/the-history-of-tablet-computers-a-timeline-7000026555/.
192 devices, the introduction of Apple’s iPad brought desktop computing functionality to a mobile device with the ability to connect to the internet.14
Collaborative
The Collaborative functional classification, as used by Patten et al., includes tools that shared information between learners through the use of specific devices.15 In the same sense, I elected to use the Collaborative functional classification to represent PRIM ’57-’82 items through which students worked together to complete a lesson taught with a particular device.
Although many PRIM ’57-’82 items could be used in a group or collaborative setting, two items were determined to be collaborative for this study: the School Service Company’s games in the
Learning Games category and the telephone conference in the Instructional Systems category.
Historical information is provided in Chapter 4 concerning these PRIM ’57-’82 categories.
Learning Games Category
Learning Games, as represented by the 1957 School Service Company advertisement, includes bingo-like games and lotto games based on curricular topics, including mathematics, biology, and reading. Research for similar learning games in current use led to games using a
Dolch list of sight words as evidenced through documents,16 videos,17 and other resources
14 K. Melhuish and G. Falloon, “Looking to the Future: M-Learning with the iPad,” Computers in New Zealand School: Learning, Leading, Technology 22, no. 3 (2010): 1-16.
15 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist," 299.
16 J. L. Johns, “The Dolch Basic Word List–Then and Now,” Journal of Literacy Research 3, no. 4 (December 1970): 35-40.
193 available on the internet.18 A 2013 creator of YouTube videos wrote about the Dolch videos as
“another tool… for me to use in teaching sight words with my ESL students.”19 Sets of basic sight cards ranging in price from $7.99 to $19.9920 are available from many resources online as are free online card sets that a teacher may print for his/her own classroom use.21
In looking for items similar to the Service School Company’s products, I found over eight million results in a June 2014 Google search for “collaborative learning games.” I narrowed these results by adding a specific curriculum (e.g., math, punctuation) or age group
(e.g., elementary, middle school) to the search queries. Realizing that the Google search engine provided results of a broad nature, I then conducted a Google Scholar search and found seventy- nine articles written about “collaborative learning games” for the period from 1983 to 2014 but only one article written during the twenty-five years studied in this research.
University courses are available to teach students about learning games, such as Northern
Illinois University’s ETT 592 Games and Simulations in Education (Fall 2006), ETT 490/530
Introduction to Educational Game Programming (Spring 2014), and ETT 490/590 Games and
Learning (Summer 2014). As further support for collaborative learning games, a 2012 report by
17 QuizTree, “Dolch Sight Words HD, First Grade. Part 1,” YouTube, May 27, 2013, accessed June 16, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh6NWxyUyQU.; Neon Tiki Tribe, “Kindergarten Dolch Words,” YouTube, July 16, 2013, accessed June 16, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtxdQThvqmE.
18 Neon Tiki Tribe, “The Ultimate Dolch Sight Word List Resource,” Neon Tiki Tribe, 2013, accessed June 16, 2014, http://neontikitribe.com/dolch-sight-word-list/.; DolchSightWords, “Dolch Sight Words,” DolchSightWords, 2014, accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.dolchsightwords.org.; Quiz-Tree, “Free Sight Words Games.” Quiz-Tree, 2014, accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.quiz-tree.com/Sight-Words_main.html.
19 N. Jacobs, “Nancy Jacobs” [Video], 2013, accessed June 16, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/user/nancykjojo.
20 Google Search, June “dolch basic sight words flash cards,” Google Search, June 16, 2014, accessed June 16, 2014, https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=dolch+basic+sight+words+flash+cards&tbm=shop.
21 B. B. Lee, “Dolch Sight Words Flash Cards,” Learning Ability Books, n.d., accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.gate.net/~labooks/Dolchflash.html.
194 Best Colleges Online, declared Northern Illinois University was one of the ten best colleges for game-based learning.22
Instructional Systems Category
An instructional system found in the PRIM ’57-’82 data included in the Collaborative functional classification is the AT&T telephone conference. As its advertisement suggests, a lesson was taught collaboratively by using a special “portable conference telephone.”23 Patten et al. define the collaborative classification as encouraging learners to share knowledge.24 The
AT&T conferencing phone allowed for sharing information from and with a variety of learners and guest speakers.
Telephone conferences are used in classrooms today, as many telephones have capability for allowing multiple users to connect at the same time without any special equipment or services. An adaptation and evolution of the telephone conference, an audio transmission, now includes video so that the participants can hear and see each other. Two examples of online video conferencing collaboration used at Northern Illinois University are Adobe Connect25 and
Blackboard Collaborate,26 which are both fee-based software packages—in other words, the
22 Best Online Colleges, “10 Best Colleges for Game-Based Learning,” Best Online Colleges. July 8, 2012, accessed August 26, 2014, http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2012/07/08/10-best-colleges-for-game-based- learning/.
23 AT&T and the Bell Company, “With This Phone.” [Advertisement]
24 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist," 299.
25 Adobe Systems Incorporated, “Elearning Software, Mobile Learning, Virtual Classes, On-Demand Courses,” Adobe Connect, 2014, accessed August 16, 2014, http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect/elearning.html.
26 Blackboard, Inc. “Blackboard Online Collaboration Platform,” Blackboard, 2014, accessed August 16, 2014, http://www.blackboard.com/Platforms/Collaborate/Overview.aspx.
195 university pays a subscription fee for the software. Other examples of video collaborative conferencing include FaceTime for Apple devices,27 Google+ Hangout28 for Android telephones, and Skype,29 a multiplatform application that allows both audio and visual images to be transmitted. An August 2014 Google Scholar search for “telephone conferencing” produced
3,220 results for the period of 1983 to 2014, with only 166 results displayed from 1957 to 1982 illustrating the growth in research conducted on collaborative conferencing devices and applications.
Curriculum—General, Mathematics/Arithmetic, and Reading
Curriculum functionality was a classification that I created poststructurally, as many of the instructional materials found in this study functioned as aids for teaching a variety of subjects in the classroom. Three areas (General, Mathematics/Arithmetic, and Reading) were chosen to further delineate this functional grouping, as many of the PRIM ’57-’82 were designed for teaching one specific topic, yet a few PRIM ’57-’82 items were appropriate for general use. The functionality of these PRIM ’57-’82 objects was to improve instruction in the classroom either individually or in groups and to aid in teaching defined content areas. The Curriculum functional classification is represented by seven PRIM ’57-’82 areas as discussed in Chapter 4. Included are four subcategories of the Programmed Instruction category (Audio Card Readers, Craig
Readers, Audio-Based Devices, Game-Like Devices) as well as objects in the Learning
27 Apple Inc., “Apple-iOS 7 - FaceTime,” Apple Inc., 2014, accessed August 16, 2014, http://www.apple.com/ios/facetime/?cid=wwa-us-kwg-features-com.
28 Google+ Features, “Google Hangouts,” Google, n.d., accessed August 16, 2014, https://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/.
29 Skype. “Free Calls to Family and Friends,” Skype, 2014, accessed August 16, 2014, http://www.skype.com/en/.
196 Materials, Instructional Kits, and Instructional Systems categories. Each of these seven categories is discussed in the following sections.
Curriculum—General
The Curriculum—General functional classification includes items from three PRIM ’57-
’82 categories: Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices, Programmed Instruction—
Game-Like Devices, and Instructional Kits. These instructional materials were not specific in their curriculum content and were used to teach a variety of content areas. Historical information is provided on these three PRIM ’57-’82 categories in Chapter 4.
Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices Subcategory
The Audio Educational System by Sylvania Information Systems, from the Programmed
Instruction—Audio-Based Devices category has been included in the Curriculum—General classification for this study. The Audio Educational System instructed students by using cassette tapes, either teacher-created or purchased content, for a specific lesson and was not limited to a particular subject area. The advertisement promotes the portability of conducting a lesson anywhere—including in the cafeteria.30
Current items similar to the Audio Educational System in the Curriculum—General classification include many devices with audio and recording capabilities, such as tape cassette players and CD-ROM and DVD disks that can provide information about a variety of curricular areas.
30 Sylvania Information Systems, “In One Second He.” [Advertisement]
197 Rundel, an interviewee, remembered the LaserDisc as a format that provided higher- quality video and audio for classroom use. She also recalled that this type of technology was not well received by the teachers in her building due to the high cost to purchase the LaserDisc machine and because the individual discs had limited content available.31 Rundel stated that teachers preferred the use of a VHS tape format for ease of use and the diversity of topics.32
For additional connections to the Audio-Based Devices category, refer to the discussion in the Curriculum—Reading section in this chapter.
Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices Subcategory
Five PRIM ’57-’82 objects were included in the Programmed Instruction—Game-Like
Devices category in the Curriculum—General functional classification: the Piko dat Learning
Machine, the Matchmaker, Tutorgrams, Touch & Tell, and the Quiz Wiz. Descriptions of these
PRIM ’57-’82 items were included in the Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices section in Chapter 4. These items provided instruction and were not limited to one curricular area but were instead universal in content application.
To learn about further connections to the Game-Like Devices category, refer to the discussions in the Curriculum—Mathematics/Arithmetic and Curriculum—Reading sections where examples are given of curricular-specific instructional materials found after the twenty- five-year period of this study.
31 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
32 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
198 Instructional Kits Category
The third category of PRIM ’57-’82 to be included in the Curriculum—General functional classification is Instructional Kits, as these were created or purchased to support the needs of specific topics and subjects as well as to fit the classroom or teacher’s curricular requirements. Instructional kits contained an assortment of audiovisual materials to support a particular unit of study.
Instructional kits have been used in classrooms beyond the 1982 end-date of this study, especially the teacher-created materials, yet research on that type of instructional materials is not widespread. Instructional kits investigated using JSTOR in August 2014 resulted in twenty-one references from 1983 to 2014, with the last article written in 2007. Google Scholar had 103 links to scholarly articles from the same period, yet when I searched for “instructional kits” on
Google, I found over thirteen thousand five hundred results. The Google search results included many sites that offered retail products and, for example, a school district’s 2013 guide to the
“Selection of Instructional Materials” that includes references to instructional kits.33
Additional information concerning Instructional Kits is provided in the Curriculum—
Mathematics/Arithmetic section.
Curriculum—Mathematics/Arithmetic
The Curriculum—Mathematics/Arithmetic functional classification includes eleven items within three PRIM ’57-’82 categories: Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices, Learning
Materials, and Instructional Kits. The inclusion of these instructional materials in the
33 Spearfish School Board, “Selection of Instructional Materials,” Spearfish School District40-2, 2013, accessed August 19, 2014, http://spearfish.k12.sd.us/District/Policies/6000/6205.pdf.
199 Curriculum—Mathematics/Arithmetic classification was determined by the limited subject matter the PRIM ’57-’82 items used in the instructional process. All items in this classification are limited to mathematics/arithmetic instruction. Each category is examined in the following sections.
In interviewing Beeler, she remembered using the Cuisenaire rods as a math manipulation in her classrooms. This learning material is currently available from several suppliers such as Cuisenaire Company, Hand2Mind, and Learning Resources.34 Hand2Mind, an online retailer, is selling a kit of six Cuisenaire rod sets (74 rods per set), overheads, posters, and instructional masters for $174.95.35 Also available is a free online interactive Cuisenaire rod activity adapted for third to fifth grade by the WGBH Educational Foundation for PBS Learning
Media.36
Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices Subcategory
The PRIM ’57-’82 category Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices is included in the Curriculum—Mathematics/Arithmetic classification through two items: the Little Professor and Math Magic, as they both performed calculator functions by using a game-like interface.
Similar to the Instructional Kits and Learning Materials included in the functional classification,
34 Education Solutions, “International Set Plastic Cuisenaire Rods,” Education Solutions, 2014, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.cuisenaire.co.uk/index.php/shop/mathematics/international-set-plastic-cuisenaire-rods- detail.; Hand2Mind, “Subtraction and Fractions,” Hand2Mind, 2014, accessed June 19, 2014, http://www.hand2mind.com/item/cuisenaire-rods-kit-for-addition-subtraction-and-fractions/1346.; Learning Resources, “Connecting Cuisenaire Rods Multi-Pack,” Learning Resources, 2014, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.learningresources.com/product/connecting+cuisenaire--174-+rods+multi- pack.do?sortby=bestSellers&sortby=&&from=Search.
35 Hand2Mind, “Subtraction and Fractions.”
36 PBS Learning Media, “Modeling Fractions with Cuisenaire Rods,” PBS Learning Media, 2014, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/rttt12.math.cuisenaire/modeling-fractions-with- cuisenaire-rods/.
200 these PRIM ’57-’82 devices could be used in mathematics instruction and did not lend themselves to any other curricular content. Supplemental information on these two devices is provided in the Interactive—Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices section in Chapter 4.
Texas Instruments manufactured the Little Professor and Math Magic as part of their education division.
The Little Professor, originally introduced in 1976, has evolved and is currently available as the Solar Little Professor for $17.50. The power source has changed from a 9-volt battery to solar power, and it now provides five levels of difficulty and displays a visual reward after five problems are solved correctly.37 I found an online emulator of the Little Professor, which promoted it as a way to practice math.38 An emulator is defined as a software or hardware solution that duplicates another system; in other words, one that imitates.39 The Little Professor emulator is a free Google play application, which according to a reviewer’s comment is “just like the one I had as a kid.”40 Although other educational mathematical emulators were found for the iPad/iPhone, only the Google play version matched the Little Professor in appearance and operability. Many other emulators, simulations, and virtual mathematical games are available online. For example, using Google I found twenty-seven links in July 2014 with the search query of “little professor emulator.”
37 Texas Instruments, “Elementary: Solar Little Professor,” Education Technology Store by Texas Instruments, 2014, accessed July 11, 2014, https://epsstore.ti.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?section=11451&sitex=10023:22372:US.
38 Grebulon, “Little Professor Math for Kids,” Grebulon, April 13, 2014, accessed July 11, 2014, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.grebulon.littleprofessor&hl=en.
39 P. Christensson, “Emulation,” Tech Terms.com, June 26, 2008, accessed July 7, 2014, http://www.techterms.com/definition/emulation.
40 S. Dillhunt, “Little Professor Math for Kids,” Google Play, 2014, accessed July 11, 2014, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.grebulon.littleprofessor&hl=en.
201 I looked for game-like devices currently available by conducting a Google search in July
2014 for “Texas Instruments games." I found many resources discussing games available to install/download onto a TI calculator, yet none were as elementary or entertaining as the original
Little Professor or Math Magic.
Learning Materials Category
The second category, Learning Materials, in the Curriculum—Mathematics/Arithmetic functional classification includes seven objects from this study. The selected PRIM ’57-’82 items in this classification were limited to the teaching of mathematics/arithmetic and could not be adapted to other curricular areas. PRIM ’57-’82 objects were math manipulatives, place-value cards and sticks, number group disks, flash cards, Magic Slate, and the Math Magic by
Pressogram. Please refer to the Interactive—Learning Materials section in Chapter 4 to review historic information concerning these seven PRIM ’57-’82 objects.
Currently, math manipulatives similar to these PRIM ’57-’82 objects are available for purchase from a variety of resources. For example, an August 2014 Google search for “math manipulatives” on the Lakeshore website found 189 items for sale, ranging from $6.99 to
$379.00, and included over sixty-four types of place value cards/sticks.
Curriculum—Mathematics/Arithmetic classification also has many resources similar to those offered by Ideal School Supply Company (relationship, number cards, and place value cards) available for retail sale and are currently available in physical, hands-on formats.41 A
Google search in June 2014 for “math manipulative” found over three million results showing
41 eNasco, “Math Search Results for ‘Math Manipulatives’.” eNasco, 2014, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.enasco.com/action/solr/select?q=math+manipulatives&x=12&y=10.
202 both real, hands-on products as well as virtual manipulatives available as software programs and online, internet-based activities for grades prekindergarten to twelve.42 The internet-based math manipulative activities and computer software programs vary in price. Many online virtual manipulatives are available on the internet for no cost to the teachers or students, whereas some software-based math manipulatives are subscription services or have individual licensing prices per title. A Google search for “math manipulatives online" produced over forty-six thousand links to resources on August 16, 2014. One of the links found through this search query was the
Computing Technology for Math Excellence website on which Deubel provides information concerning the use of online math manipulatives and offers a listing of online tools from textbook publishers (e.g., Glencoe/McGraw, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and Key Curriculum
Press) as well as many other hyperlinks to online virtual math manipulatives.43
Instructional Kits Category
The third PRIM ’57-’82 category, Instructional Kits, is included in the Curriculum—
Mathematics/Arithmetic classification. These kits were assembled of audiovisual materials for teaching specific multiplication and fractions topics. Further description of these objects is provided in Chapter 4—Instructional Kits.
Current products with similar functionality to the PRIM ’57-’82 multiplication and fractions instructional kits (advertised by Ideal School Supply Company in 1957) are available
42 Utah State University, “National Library of Virtual Manipulatives,” Utah State University, 2014, accessed June 12, 2014, http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/vlibrary.html.; Glencoe, “Virtual Manipulatives,” Glencoe, n.d., accessed June 12, 2014, http://www.glencoe.com/sites/common_assets/mathematics/ebook_assets/vmf/VMF- Interface.html.; McGraw-Hill Education, “The Geometer's Sketchpad,” McGraw-Hill Education, 2014, accessed June 12, 2014, https://www.mheonline.com/program/view/2/16/2647/00000SPAD/.html.
43 P. Deubel, “Math Manipulatives: Virtual Manipulatives on the Web,” Computing Technology for Math Excellence, 2014, accessed August 16, 2014, http://www.ct4me.net/math_manipulatives_2.htm.
203 online. For example, a “Working with Fractions TEKS Instructional Kit” is available from
Lakeshore for a price of $199.00 in 2014. The kit includes a teacher’s guide, activities based on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) state standards, and computer software, and math manipulatives such a blocks, color wheels, and tent cards.44 A Google search for
“"instructional kits"+mathematics” yielded 1,760 results on August 16, 2014. Additionally, many teachers create their instructional kits specific to their teaching needs; these were not recorded as part of this study. For example, Knott, an interviewee, remembered assembling her own kits for mathematical instruction.45
Curriculum—Reading
The Curriculum—Reading functional classification includes twenty-seven PRIM ’57-’82 items from the Programmed Instruction category (Audio Card Readers, Craig Readers, Audio-
Based Devices, and Game-Like Devices) as well as three types of items in the Instructional
Systems category (rateometers, reading rate controllers, and tachistoscopes). All PRIM ’57-’82 objects listed in the Curriculum—Reading functional classification supported instruction for the improvement of reading skills such as word recognition and reading speed. Each PRIM ’57-’82 category is discussed in the following sections.
44 Lakeshore Learning Materials, “Working with Fractions TEKS Instructional Kit,” Lakeshore Learning Materials, 2014, accessed August 16, 2014, http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C928%2 C193&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmUID=1408222299071.
45 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
204 Programmed Instruction—Audio Card Readers Subcategory
The Audio Card Readers category includes thirteen PRIM ’57-’82 objects in the
Curriculum—Reading classification. Items include the Language Master, Tutorette, and other audio card readers manufactured by Teaching Technology Corporation and Electronic Futures
Inc. Audio card readers were used to improve word recognition and pronunciation. With later models, such as the Multisensory Tutorette advertised in 1980, the audio card reader coordinated a visual image with the verbal recording on the audio card.46
Audio card technology is currently available in the educational market. I found in June
2014 a similarly functioning device, called the Language Tutor Audio Card Reader, currently for sale at Lakeshore for $129.00.47 It is described as a brightly colored device that plays prerecorded audio cards with images and allows the students to record their responses—features similar to other audio card readers discussed in this study.48 In addition, in July 2014 Drake
Educational Associates offers a current version of the Language Master without a price listed on the webpage. Drake Educational Associates also offers several coordinating sets of audio cards
(24 cards) available to use with the Language Master for $52.00 per set.49
While searching for a “language master machine,” I viewed other devices such as electronic speech translators (converts spoken words into another language) and electronic
46 Audiotronics, "Multisensory Tutorette Audiocard System.” [Advertisement]
47 Lakeshore Learning Materials, “Language Tutor Audio Card Reader,” Lakeshore Learning Materials, 2014, accessed June 26, 2014, http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C923%2 C669&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmUID=1409069489005.
48 Lakeshore Learning Materials, "Language Tutor Audio Card."
49 Drake Educational Associates, “Card Reader,” Drake Educational Associates, n.d., accessed July 1, 2014, http://www.drakeed.us/group.php?rec=1.
205 dictionaries (pronounces the word and provides a definition), yet these devices did not use a card for transmission. Instead, a keyboard or voice recognition was used.
Rundel reflected, in her interview, that she used similar curricular functionality to improve reading using a portable device called a Playaway—the All-in-One Audiobook.50 This portable device looked similar to an iPod or MP3 player and allowed students to listen and/or read along with the book. Each Playaway contained one audio book. Rundel recalled the
Playaways helped bridge the digital divide between the “haves and the have nots” in her school.51 Students checked out a Playaway from the school’s media center. The price of a
Playaway was dependent on the title of the book, ranging from $25.00 to $60.00.52 In 2009, impressed with the durability and functionality of the Playaways, a Virginia elementary school applied for a grant to purchase Playaways to enhance their library collection.53 Currently, a search query of “playaway digital audio” on PrairieCat, Illinois’ interlibrary loan system, resulted in over three thousand Playaways available for checkout in public libraries.54
50 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
51 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
52 Playaway, “Playaway for Libraries,” Playaway, 2014, accessed August 19, 2014, http://library.playaway.com/playaway.
53 S. Van Pelt, An Audio Book Collection to Enhance Learning at the Stratford Landing Elementary School Library: Grant Proposal. December 6, 2009. (Alexandria, VA: Stratford Landing Elementary School Library, 2009), 1-10, accessed April 23, 2014, http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~smv36/eport/eportdocuments/VanPeltGrant.pdf.
54 PrairieCat, “Encore - 'playaway digital audio, '” PrairieCat, 2014, accessed August 24, 2014, http://search.prairiecat.info/iii/encore/search/C__S%22playaway%20digital%20audio%3A%22__Orightresult__U1? lang=eng&suite=cobalt.
206 Programmed Instruction—Craig Readers Subcategory
Craig Readers are also classified in the Curriculum—Reading functional group because they taught students to increase reading speed and comprehension. I did not find any current devices similar to the Craig Reader. However, similarities exist in 2014 between the functionality provided by the Craig Reader and current software, applications, and course offerings used to improve reading speed and comprehension. An August 2014 Google search for
“improve reading comprehension and speed” yielded over nine hundred thousand results that included online reading software, YouTube videos, and many other reading solutions.
Additionally, I found a free online reading speed test to predict individual reading efficiency and comprehension. This online reading test resource also offers a fee-based software solution to improve reading skills.55
Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices Subcategory
The Audio-Based Devices category includes two items in the Curriculum—Reading functional classification. The Listen and Read Literacy Programme and the Wireless Audio
Learning System are included in this functional classification due to their use in teaching reading. Although not much information was provided concerning these two devices in the journals researched for this study, the images included with the commentary show students using a listening and playback device, such as a cassette player, and a corresponding workbook.
Current products that offer similar functionality to the PRIM ’57-’82 Audio-Based
Devices are textbooks that have an audio component. For example, textbooks often supplement
55 Reading Soft, “Speed Reading Test Online,” Reading Soft, March 2014, accessed August 17, 2014, http://www.readingsoft.com.
207 content by providing a CD-ROM or DVD, and in many cases, the entire textbook (eTextbook) is available in an audio format. These current types of products, such as e-books and audio books, augment the students’ reading experiences by utilizing multiple senses visually, auditorily, and vocally.56 (An example of a textbook that included a CD-ROM is one that I used in graduate school. It was Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning by Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino and was published in 1999.) Assistive technologies, such as Text to Speech, also incorporate the same reading functionality. Additionally, many computers offer adaptive technologies such as Microsoft’s Narrator and Apple’s VoiceOver to assist in reading digital text. In fact, many websites offer the option to have the webpage read to the viewer, particularly those websites that comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).57 An example of a website with audio capability is the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) website’s discussion of improving learning outcomes with audio.58 The speech function on this website is powered by ReadSpeaker and provides options, such as highlighting a word and sentence, only a sentence, or only a word as the text is read aloud.59
56 National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), “Can Audio And/or Digital Books Improve Your Child's Learning Outcomes?,” National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014, accessed August 17, 2014, http://www.ncld.org/students-disabilities/assistive-technology-education/audio-digital-books-improve-childs- learning-outcomes.
57 Public Law 101-336, “ADA Tool Kit: Website Accessibility under Title II of ADA,” Public Law 101- 336.108th Congress, 2nd session (July 26, 1990), May 7, 2007, accessed August 17, 2014, http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm.
58 Assistive Technology, “Free or Low-Cost Audiobooks - Understood,” Assistive Technology, 2014, accessed August 17, 2014, https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/assistive-technology/finding-an-assistive- technology/where-to-find-free-or-low-cost-audiobooks.
59 ReadSpeaker, “Online Text to Speech-Readspeaker Enterprise Highlighting,” ReadSpeaker, n.d., accessed August 20, 2014, http://www.readspeaker.com/readspeaker-enterprise/.
208 Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices Subcategory
The fourth PRIM ’57-’82 category, Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices, contributes four devices to the Curriculum—Reading functional classification with objects such as Spelling B, Alphaspell, Speak & Spell, and Speak & Read. These items are described in the
Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices section of Chapter 4. Each of these devices was used to improve reading skills and was not adaptable to other subjects due to the preprogrammed nature of the device.
Examples of more current products in the Curriculum—Reading classification of this study are online learning materials. Several Speak & Spell simulations are available online that replicate the original Speak & Spell. One example of a Speak & Spell emulator was created in a
2002 class as an assignment to learn Adobe’s Flash animation software program.60 This emulator provides Speak & Spell features with audio feedback, although one should note that this example is not affiliated with TI.61 To use the online simulation, the student clicks “Play” and turns “On” the emulator, and then the website displays a word to spell. If the student spells it correctly, the emulator provides feedback both verbally and visually. If the word is spelled erroneously, the student is told the spelling was incorrect and another word appears. As computers became more prevalent in the classroom in the late ’70s and early ’80s, software, such as Reader Rabbit developed by The Learning Company in 1986, was used as an “education mini-game” for teaching spelling and reading.62
60 J. Smith, “Speak & Spell Texas Instruments Simulator,” Speaknspell, 2002, accessed July 7, 2014, http://www.speaknspell.co.uk/.
61 Smith, "Speak & Spell Texas Instruments."
62 Edwards, “10 Educational PC Games.”
209 TI introduced a later version of Spelling B in 1987 for $40.00 with over 250 images in a booklet. The manual included six types of activities: Spell It, First Letter, Missing Letter,
Mystery Word, and Scramble, with Spelling B pictures in a separate publication.63 Example words to spell from the images, shown in the 1987 booklet, included cat, nail, cheese, window, and castle. As I reviewed the images, the spelling appeared to progress from easier words to more difficult ones, as illustrated in the examples listed above from the 1987 booklet. I did not find any verification in the program booklet of my observation that images seemed to become more difficult to spell.
In 1988, a Super Speak & Read from TI was available for $59.50, with software expansion packs called libraries priced at $17.95 each.64 Super Speak & Read combined the features of Speak & Read and Touch & Tell into one device and was presented in a book-like format with carrying handles. Over the six-year period from the introduction of Speak & Read, the device evolved and adapted to provide reading instruction and reinforcement to young readers. The Super Speak & Read is no longer available in retail stores, yet it was found on online auction sites such as eBay and Craig’s List in August 2014.
The second PRIM ’57-’82 object, Alphaspell, included thirty-five lessons in a small handheld device. Research shows its trademark was canceled on September 10, 1988.65 Similar reading drill and practice functionality can be found through online resources as well as software
63 Texas Instruments, “Spelling B 1986 Manual US,” Datamath Calculator Museum, June 22, 2013, accessed July 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.net/Manuals/SpellingB_1986_Manual_US.pdf.
64 J. Woerner, “Texas Instruments Super Speak & Read,” Datamath Calculator Museum, December 5, 2001, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.datamath.org/Speech/SuperSpeaknRead.htm.
65 Tingley, "Trademark Status and Document."
210 and mobile applications. An August 2014 Google search for “site:edu “spelling online””66 generated 241 results from educational institution domains, which included online activities similar to the Alphaspell’s as well as text-based information. The “Kids Can Spell” application is one of twenty applications using the Apple iPad for improving reading skills recommended by
TeachThought, an online resource whose mission is to optimize learning.67 Although Alphaspell is no longer in production, the functionality of developing spelling skills is evident in many current similar products.
Instructional Systems Category
The Curriculum—Reading functional group includes five objects in the PRIM ’57-’82
Instructional Systems category: a reading rate controller, two reading accelerators, and two tachistoscopes. These PRIM ’57-’82 items are included in this functional classification because their use was limited to improving reading.
The purpose of the rateometers and the reading rate controllers was to improve reading speed through a mechanical device. I did not find any current products called reading rateometers. Although, when I searched for “improve reading speed,” I found several online options, including free applications to download on an iPad or iPhone called Acceleread Speed
66 Conducting a domain-specific search focuses the results to a single type of domain such as .gov, .edu, .org. In my example, I wanted to find only information that originated from an .edu domain for “spelling online” using the quotes around the terms to signify a phrase search and not individual words. To conduct a domain-specific search, enter the text string “site:” (without quotes) and then the search term, i.e., site:edu “spelling online.” Note there is not a space between the colon and the domain. To learn more, view Google Tips and Tricks: Domain- Specific Search, a video reference for using Google as a search tool (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP- FTV4ANzU). Google also has an advanced search page, which offers the same functionality as a text string search but in a user-friendly interface (http://www.google.com/advanced_search).
67 TeachThought, “20 iPad Apps to Teach Elementary Reading,” Te@chthought, September 12, 2012, accessed August 18, 2014, http://www.teachthought.com/apps-2/20-ipad-apps-to-teach-elementary-reading/.
211 Reading Trainer by BananaBox and Skim by Apptility Limited.68 Both of these applications were described as improving reading speeds and were self-paced for a personalized program. In a cursory look through the over thirty-six thousand results in a June 2014 Google search, it seemed that most reading speed improvement products were online or software-related and not actually a device or machine similar to the rateometer. I used Google as the search engine because I was looking for retail solutions for improving reading speeds, rather than just scholarly articles.
As another PRIM ’57-’82 item, the tachistoscope has been adapted and changed from an educational purpose to other professional uses. Godnig suggests the tachistoscope as a viable training tool for military, police, and sports performance training. Godnig compared a 1985 study by the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy that showed improvement of 60 percent over baseline testing for the quick identification of objects to Shole’s 1959 study, which showed similar results of object recognition in officer training. 69
Searching for current tachistoscopes revealed optometric tachistoscopes used in vision exams. One result resembled the tachistoscopes I found in my data collection, but the newer versions were computer driven. The projected images were timed, similar to the models available in the 1960s and 1970s, and could be words, images, or Dolch sight words—a list of frequently used English words. The current price for the optometric Supertach by Bernell, a CD-ROM of
68 Banana Box, Inc., “Acceleread Speed Reading Trainer,” iTunes, October 9, 2013, accessed June 23, 2014, https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/acceleread-speed-reading-trainer/id528963250?mt=8.; Apptility Limited, “Skim - Improve Your Reading Speed,” iTunes, March 21, 2014, accessed June 23, 2014, https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/skim-improve-your-reading/id838550003?mt=8.
69 Godnig, “Tachistoscope,” 42.
212 words and images, was $18.95 in June 2014 with five different disks available.70 This price did not include the computer or device to project the images. I did not find any educationally based tachistoscopes for purchase on eBay on June 23, 2014. I contacted the Lafayette Instrument
Company, manufacturer of the 1960s model, to see if tachistoscopes were still being produced but did not receive any response from the company regarding my request.
A JSTOR search in June 2014 presented 108 scholarly references to “tachistoscope” from
1983 to 2014. Most of these search results were historical articles that referred to how tachistoscopes had been used in the past. As discussed in Chapter 4, a JSTOR search conducted using a 1957 to 1982 time frame led to 495 articles, books, or pamphlets. The results of the two searches showed the decline in the use of the tachistoscope from the period of my study to June
2014.
Data Collection
Data Collection functionality includes the ability to record data such as student progress and responses to information given by the instructor while, in many cases, receiving direct feedback. The identified PRIM ’57-’82 items allowed for communication, feedback, and computational measurements, particularly from the response data.71 The Data Collection classification contains two objects from the Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices category and twenty-seven items from the Response Systems category. These PRIM ’57-’82 items are discussed in Chapter 4 from a historical viewpoint.
70 Bernell, “Tachistoscope - Supertach™,” Bernell - Vision Training Products, 2014, accessed June 23, 2014, http://www.bernell.com/product/2719/967.
71 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, “Designing Collaborative, Constructionist,” 299.
213 Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices Subcategory
Other PRIM ’57-’82 objects included in the Data Collection functional classifications were from the Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices category. References to the Telor by Enrich were found in 1973 and 1974. The Telor operated by using programmed cartridges to deliver specific content to the individual student through a multiple-choice format. The student’s responses were captured for further review by the student and the teacher.
Research about the Telor device for the period after this study reveals that the Telor was recommended in 1983 by the Indiana State Department for Instruction for use in special education.72 The Telor was suggested for specific areas of disability, such as “Trainable Mentally
Retarded—Primary and Intermediate, Learning Disabled—Primary and Intermediate, Junior and
Senior High, and Deaf and Hearing Impaired.”73
In searching for vintage Telor devices, I found in July 2014 a set of Arithmetic
Involvement Division cartridges for use in a Telor device available for purchase for $9.99.74 I was not able to find a Telor in which to insert the cartridges.
Strategies used to find information about similar educational data collection devices led to 270 references in an August 2014 JSTOR search using the key words of ““data collection”+handheld +education” with the years limited to 1983 to 2014. Using the same query with Google Scholar, I found over sixteen thousand results on August 18, 2014, including articles, patent information, and citations.
72 Ash, Educators' Guide to Effective.
73 Ash, Educators' Guide to Effective, 15, 23, 28, 31.
74 oceanslide, “Telor Learning Cartridges Arithmetic Involvement,” eBay, March 13, 2014, accessed July 7, 2014, http://www.ebay.com/itm/TELOR-LEARNING-CARTRIDGES-ARITHMETIC-INVOLVEMENT- ENRICH-DIVISION-E03-VISUAL-/350907949554?pt=Educational_Toys_US&hash=item51b3be61f2.
214 Although the Telor device is not currently in production, many similar game-like handheld devices such as the Nintendo Gameboy and the Leapfrog’s LeapPad learning tablet provided similar data collection functionality for the period after my study. In this section, I am providing a couple of examples, realizing that many additional devices and resources exist for game-like instructional materials that would also meet the requirements to be in this study’s Data
Collection functional classification. The examples given are ones that I have personally used for educational purposes.
The Nintendo Gameboy was introduced in 1989, with advanced versions that provided smaller, lighter, and more portable features being released in 2001 and 2003.75 When introduced, the Gameboy was similar in operation to the Telor device—that of inserting a cartridge for delivery of the content—and both items were small and portable. In an August 2014 Google
Scholar search for articles, patents, and citations for the period of 1983 to 2014, I found 2,420 results for “Nintendo gameboy+data collection.” I searched in JSTOR using the same search query and found twelve references but in further review of the results, found only a few references that contained information about the Nintendo Gameboy.
The Leapfrog LeapPad, another example, currently offers over seventy-four skill-based learning games to be used with LeapPad tablet products.76 The original Leapfrog products used cartridges to deliver content, but versions that are more current have some downloadable features
75 Nintendo, “Nintendo - Corporate Information: Company History,” Nintendo, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://www.nintendo.com/corp/history.jsp.
76 Leapfrog, “Best Educational Toys: Kids Tablets, Handheld Games, Learning Systems.” Leapfrog, 2014, accessed August 17, 2014, http://www.leapfrog.com/en-us/store/c/_/N-1z141p6Z1z141odZ1z141wc.
215 to access additional content, such as over one thousand applications and games on a variety of topics searchable by age, subject, and skills.77
Response Systems Category
In this study, all objects in the Response Systems category described in Chapter 4 met the requirements to be included in the Data Collection functional classification, as the devices provided feedback from a responsive device that also had the ability to measure the results electronically or visually. Twenty-seven PRIM ’57-’82 items are contained in the Data
Collection functional classification. Examples include the Rapid Rater and EDEX Student
Response Systems as well as other response systems that transmitted over closed- or open-circuit television. For a review of the information provided on PRIM ’57-’82 response systems, refer to
Chapter 4 in the Interactive—Response Systems section.
Response systems are used in current classrooms and provide similar functionality to those found in this study by engaging students through a physical response device to record input. In this section, connections from the PRIM ’57-’82 devices to the current response systems are based on general functionality or response instead of by each PRIM ’57-’82 response system item. Rather than attempting to find systems that relate to each of the twenty-seven PRIM ’57-
’82 items, I have grouped the Interactive—Response Systems category together in the Data
Collection functional classification. Many of the early response systems discussed in Chapter 4 are predecessors of the current personal response systems, also known as “clickers.” As seen in a
Google search for “clickers+response systems” on July 29, 2014, there were over twenty thousand results showing a connection between clickers and response systems. Modern systems,
77 Leapfrog, "Best Educational Toys."
216 such as the Classroom Performance Systems or Turning Technologies response systems, are used at Northern Illinois University and K-12 public schools in that area.78
Microworld
The Microworld category, as defined by Patten et al., allows learners “to construct their own knowledge” using simulations and tools from the real world.79 The Audio Notebook system is included in the Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices as part of the Microworld classification. The Microworld classification also includes sixteen PRIM ’57-’82 items categorized in the Real Objects section of Chapter 4 (Slide Rules, Time/Clocks, Calculators, and
Telephone Packages). All items in the Microworld functional classification were used in real- world situations or were used in simulations of actual experiences. The PRIM ’57-’82 objects that meet the Microworld classifications are discussed in the next sections.
Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices Subcategory
The Audio Notebook was a small and portable storage and retrieval system used for individual student instruction.80 The Audio Notebook is no longer available, but there are several devices similar in functionality—devices used in the real-world that can store and retrieve information. Examples given in this section represent only a few of many devices or software
78 Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center, “Using Clickers (Student Response System) with Blackboard,” NIU Teaching with Blackboard, February 24, 2014, accessed July 14, 2014, http://niu.edu/blackboard/assess/clickers/index.shtml.; T. J. Lynd, “Mr. Lynd - Technology / Technology in the Classroom,” North Elementary School, n.d., accessed July 14, 2014, http://www.syc427.org/Page/297.
79 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist," 298.
80 Electronic Futures Inc., “New Language Tape Learning.” [Advertisement]; Wittich and Schuller, Audiovisual Materials: Their Nature, 488.
217 solutions that are a small, portable storage device. A current version of a similar device is a pocketsize voice recorder: a device used to record and play back verbal notes, conversations, interviews or any other sounds. An advantage of using a voice recorder is the ability to refer to and play back the notes or conversation as many times as needed. (I used the voice recorder technology in graduate classes, interviews, and as reminders.)
In addition, as a more contemporary function of the Audio Notebook, most computers have speech-to-text features such as Speech Recognition for Windows and Dictation for Apple products. Speech-to-text functionality is an improvement to the Audio Notebook because it allows the learner to think aloud, record thoughts, and then the device or software converts the speech to a text-based file. I also found in April 2015 two applications for the iPad that allow the learner to record audio for the same purposes as the voice recorder but also adds the ability to use speech-to-text capabilities: Nuance Communications’ PaperPort Notes,81 a free app, and Audio
Notebook produced by Qrayon, LLC82 at a price of $2.99. (I used PaperPort Notes while doing research for this study as a quick and convenient method to track resources and to make notes while reading.) The advantage of these note applications is that you can send the file electronically to anyone, including yourself, as the start of an electronic, searchable note file.
81 Nuance Communications, “PaperPort Notes on the App Store,” iTunes, March 27, 2014, accessed April 20, 2015, https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paperport-notes/id476134017?mt=8.
82 Qrayon, LLC, “Audio Notebook: All-Day Sound Recorder, Widescreen Notepad, and Color Coded Note Organizer,” iTunes, January 23, 2015, accessed April 20, 2015, https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/audio-notebook-all- day-sound/id720435172.
218 Slide Rules Category
The slide rule is included in the Microworld functional classification because it was used in real-world situations, including classrooms, space exploration, and many other engineering and scientific environments. Slide rules are found four times in the collection of PRIM ’57-’82 data. The slide rule was used as a computational device in mathematics instruction and in the real world, e.g., in engineering fields. As mentioned in Chapter 4, slide rule clubs existed in 1958,83 and this type of organization still exists in schools, but now the clubs meet virtually instead of face-to-face.84
I did not find any current manufacturers of slide rules, only resellers, and found that the remaining stock of slide rules manufactured by Faber-Castell were available for international and online purchases with prices ranging from €22.00 to €198.00.85 Given the conversion rate from the Euro to U.S. currency in June 2014, this was approximately $30.00 to $268.00. Vintage slide rules are available for purchase from eBay in June 2014 ranging in price from $1.99 to $647.00.
The slide rule evolved into the calculator, which provides more accurate computations than a slide rule as well as additional functions such as scientific notation. PDAs and smartphones also contain calculator functions and much more. The functionality of PDAs was discussed in relation to the Administration functional classification earlier in this chapter, as this
83 Carrollton High School, “Slide Rule Museum.”
84 T. Liu, “CHHS Math Club - Calculator,” Colleyville Heritage High School, 2014, accessed June 12, 2014, http://chhsmathclub.wikispaces.com/Calculator.; Maryville Schools, “Clubs,” Marysville Schools, 2014, accessed June 12, 2014, http://www.marysville.k12.oh.us/Club.aspx.
85 Rechenschieber (Slide Rule), “Rechenschieber (Slide Rule),” Faber-Castell Shop, n.d., accessed June 12, 2014, http://service.de.faber-castell- shop.com/epages/es117781.sf/de_DE/?ObjectPath=/Shops/es117781_ServiceParts/Categories/Faber- Castell/FaberCastell_Rechenstaebe.
219 handheld device offers many more features than a calculator. The smartphone technology is not included as part of this study, but it also offers features similar to the functionality of the slide rule. Calculators are discussed later in this section of Microworld functionality as it relates to
PRIM ’57-’82 data.
Time/Clocks Category
Time/Clocks as a PRIM ’57-’82 category have four entries in the Microworld functional classification. Time/Clocks items used for instructional purposes were either real or nonworking models of clocks that meet the requirements to be included in the Microworld functional classification. PRIM ’57-’82 items include the Judy Clock, the First Watch, and the Time
Teacher. The Time/Clocks category of instructional materials has remained constant through its use in education, but many updates have occurred to include products with digital time, bright colors, and animated characters (e.g., Mickey Mouse, Barbie, and Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles). As mentioned by Beeler in our interview, the Judy Clock is used currently at the preschool at which she works.86
The Judy Clock (for ages 5-8) is available as of June 2014 from Carson-Dellosa for
$25.99.87 As a contemporary solution to teaching about time, Myers created a free online version called the Jude e-Clock, which displays time increments similar to the original Judy Clock and
86 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
87 Carson-Dellosa, “Judy Clock.”
220 has additional features such as digital time and the option to change the clock face to different styles.88 Note the online version is not affiliated with the original Judy Clock.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, the First Watch from TI was a working watch for children ages five to seven. Although the First Watch is no longer produced, current products similar to the First Watch emphasize teaching time through a real product. One such watch is the Flik Flak by Swatch, which illustrates time with large numbers and colorful character-based hands and includes a booklet to help teach time.89 The Flik Flak watch is available in many colors and characters with prices of approximately $40.00 to $45.00 in June 2014. In Rein’s review of children’s watches, the Flik Flak models included an educational booklet;90 however, in my research, the booklet is no longer available. As an alternative, Timex offers an analog-time teaching watch, in its “Time Teacher” series, for approximately price in June 2014 of $15.00; the watches are brightly colored in both the boy’s and girl’s versions. Digital children’s watches are available from a variety of other retailers with a range of prices to fit any budget.
Another PRIM ’57-’82 item in the Time/Clocks category with Microworld functionality is the Time Teacher clocks.91 It is available online from Prodesigns and operates differently from the Timex “Time Teacher” series discussed in the previous paragraph. The clock sells for approximately $67.00, based on conversion from Euros in June 2014. It is an instructional material created in Europe with features similar to the Judy Clock, but it allows for additional
88 N. Myers, “Jude e-Clock,” Mr. Myers' Classroom - Math Mania, 2005, accessed August 8, 2014, http://www.mrmyers.org/Math_Mania/Math_Games/Jude_e-Clock/clock.htm.
89 S. Rein, “Children's Watches,” Article Insider, 2013, accessed June 18, 2014, http://www.articleinsider.com/education/child-education/childrens-watches.
90 Rein, “Children’s Watches.”
91 Prodesign, “Time Teacher.”
221 manipulation of the clock components, such as using blocks to learn about daily activities (wake up, lunch) that the Judy Clock does not offer. For further information about the Time Teacher clock, refer to the Time/Clocks section in Chapter 4.
Calculators Category
Calculators are identified with the Microworld functional classification, as used by
Patten et al., because of their use in the real world and in educational environments.92 Over the time period of this study, 1957 to 1982, calculators evolved, became more sophisticated with advanced features, and allowed connectivity to computers and other devices. PRIM ’57-’82 items include seven calculators. For the purpose of this Microworld functionality, PRIM ’57-’82 calculators are grouped together and discussed as a single object. Early models of calculators performed four basic functions (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) and were remembered to be an extravagance by Rundel, an interviewee.93 Currently a TI standard calculator (Model TI-530 SV) is available for $3.00 to $5.79 and includes not only the four basic functions but also square root, positive/negative numbers, and memory recall functions.94 In looking for an item priced comparable to the calculator with a 1972 price of $149.95, I found in
August 2014 an advanced graphing calculator with “Computer Algebra System for Physics and
92 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, “Designing Collaborative, Constructionist,” 298.
93 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
94 Texas Instruments Education Technology, “TI-503 SV Calculator,” Texas Instruments Education Technology, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://educationti.links.channelintelligence.com/pages/prices.asp?sSKU=TI-503%20SV.
222 Engineering” for prices ranging from $133.99 to $149.99.95 This comparable calculator, the TI-
89 Titanium model, includes preloaded applications, a built-in USB port for data transfer, plus many mathematical and engineering functions. The advanced features of the TI-89 Titanium model can be used for Advanced Placement tests, as stated on the TI educational technology website, although this model is not allowed when taking the American College Testing (ACT) exam.96 This is one example of how calculators have evolved over time as related to PRIM ’57-
’82 data.
TI, manufacturer of one of the earliest calculators, continues to support education through its education division with links to activities, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) initiatives, Common Core resources, summer workshops, and available online learning opportunities on its website.97 Furthermore, TI is the primary sponsor of T3, Teachers Teaching with Technology, which provides worldwide professional development programs for mathematics and science teachers in the appropriate use of handheld devices.98 In the United
States and Canada, support from TI is available through online courses, webinars, and tutorials as well as workshops, calculator loan programs, and area workshops.99
95 Texas Instruments Education Technology, “TI-89 Titanium Graphing,” Texas Instruments Education Technology, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://educationti.links.channelintelligence.com/pages/prices.asp?sSKU=TI89T.
96 Texas Instruments Education Technology, “TI-89 Titanium - Features Summary,” Texas Instruments Education Technology, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://education.ti.com/en/us/products/calculators/graphing-calculators/ti-89-titanium/features/features- summary.
97 Texas Instruments Education Technology, “Calculators and Education Technology.”
98 Texas Instruments Education Technology, “T3 Organization by Texas Instruments,” Texas Instruments Education Technology, 2013, accessed February 13, 2013, http://education.ti.com/en/us/pd/community/t3-ww.
99 Texas Instruments Education Technology, “Professional Development by Texas Instruments - US and Canada,” Texas Instruments Education Technology, 2013, accessed February 13, 2013, http://education.ti.com/en/us/pd.
223 Calculators have also evolved from the small, portable instructional materials found in this study to newer and even smaller devices such as on a smartphone or PDA. In many instances, the calculator function is an application installed on those devices. In addition, many online calculators are available on the internet, such as the conversion calculator used to convert
Euros to dollars for this study.100 Conducting a Google domain-specific search for “online calculator” within only .edu domains, I found over seventy-five hundred results and narrowed the results by adding the type of calculator (scientific, fractions) into the search query.
The availability of calculators seems endless, while at one time, it was a very elite possession. As I look at the items I can currently see on my desk that have calculator functionality, I find a handheld calculator, a program on my computer that provides both basic and scientific functions, a smartphone, an iPad, and from the Internet connections available on these devices, I can find an abundance of online calculators.
Telephone Packages Category
One item in the PRIM ’57-’82 data is considered a Microworld functional item for this research. The telephone package or consulting time, as advertised in 1980 by Reba Poor, is an example of an instructional material used in the real world. As discussed in Chapter 4, Real
Objects—Telephone Packages, this item suggests an early distance education environment, i.e., being in a different place than the instructor with communications by means of a telephone to facilitate the content.
100 X-Rates, “Currency Calculator,” X-Rates, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://www.x- rates.com/calculator/.
224 Although I did not find any references to Reba Poor’s training package being currently available, telephone training, such as seen in the PRIM ’57-’82 Telephone Packages category, is available. Communications can be conducted via phones, smartphones, and computers, or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) with not only voice but also video availability. Communicating information over telephone lines is very similar to the discussion in the functional classification
Collaborative—Instructional Systems section presented earlier in this chapter. I separated the telephone PRIM ’57-’82 items into two categories because the Instructional Systems item
(conference calls) is an equipment and telephone technology-based system, whereas the telephone training package used real objects and was found in more than one professional field
(e.g., education, audiovisual, and local publications).
Presentation
Presentation, as a functional classification for this study, was created in my poststructural analysis of the PRIM ’57-’82 items and is represented by the Transparencies category. The term presentation—a function of an audiovisual system, as defined in The Changing Role of the
Audiovisual Process in Education in 1963 consisted of five elements: messages, media- instrumentation, men, methods, and environment.101 For this study, media-instrumentation, defined as the “transmission systems (the materials and devices),” is used to represent the PRIM
’57-’82 items in the Presentation functional classification.102 The Presentation classification is
101 Ely, Changing Role Audiovisual Process, 24.
102 Definition and Terminology Commission (D & T Committee), The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, Monograph No. 1 of the Technological Development Project of the National Education Association (Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1963), 86.
225 limited in this study by my definition of PRIM ’57-’82 , as it does not include items such as slide and motion projectors or overhead projectors. The Presentation functional classification includes two Transparencies category items: a layered transparency version that allowed a teacher to build the content or construct knowledge through a classroom presentation and the Instant Slide, a 2” by 2” customizable slide. Refer to the Transparencies section in Chapter 4 for historical and classroom use information about these two items.
In researching the layered transparences, I found current layered transparencies are available from American Educational Products, LLC (AMEP). Hubbard Scientific Company, the manufacturer of the layered transparencies described in this section is now a nonoperating subsidiary of AMEP. For a price comparison, a set of nine meteorology transparencies in 1965 were priced at $34.50, whereas a current set of six meteorology slides are advertised on the
AMEP website in June 2014 for $60.00.103
Classroom presentations have moved from the use of a chalkboard to overhead projectors with transparences, and more currently presentation aids have evolved into electronic modes such as whiteboards and presentations facilitated by computer software.104
The electronic interactive whiteboards such as those produced by Smart and Promethean provide a collaborative interface for a teacher and students to learn together. Although the Smart and Promethean examples are not portable, a MimeoTeach interactive whiteboard system, manufactured by Mimeo, offers a portable whiteboard-like interface for an estimated educator
103 American Educational Products, “AMEP - Earth Science,” American Educational Products, 2014, accessed June 10, 2014, http://www.amep.com/cat_earthsci.asp?cid=13.
104 M. DenBeste. “PowerPoint, Technology and the Web: More than Just an Overhead Projector for the New Century?,” The History Teacher 36, no. 4 (August 2003): 501.; R. Moturi, “The Emerging Scenario of E- Learning,” International Journal of Innovative Research and Studies 2, no. 12 (December 2013): 31-46.
226 price of $799.00.105 The MimeoTeach device is small, portable, and easy to attach to an existing whiteboard for classroom use.
In researching the use of transparencies in education, both a JSTOR and a Google
Scholar search found results that also included the transparency (openness to information) of organizations and were not specifically related to the transparencies used on an overhead projector. I changed the search query to be ““overhead projectors”+education” and found the results to be relevant to my research. Although overhead projectors were excluded from this study by the definition of portable responsive instructional materials (PRIM ’57-’82), I found it important as a search term to limit the results. For example, an August 19, 2014 JSTOR search yielded 506 articles for the period of the study and approximately half as many (262) for the time after 1982. Google Scholar results were similar with many more results in the twenty-five years covered in this study (eighty-four hundred) and approximately 16 percent as many (1,390) from
1982 to August 2014. These search results illustrate the decline in research completed on overhead projectors, indicating a decline in the importance and use of overhead projectors and, therefore, of transparences in education. Refer to Table 5 for search queries used on August 19,
2014, in the research of current uses of transparencies in education.
105 Mimeo, “Interactive Whiteboard - MimioTeach,” Mimeo, 2014, accessed August 19, 2014, http://www.mimio.com/en-NA/Products/MimioTeach-Interactive-Whiteboard.aspx.
227 Table 5
August 2014 Search Strategies—Transparencies
Search terms JSTOR JSTOR Google Google 1957-1982 1983-2014 Scholar Scholar 1957-1982 1983-2014 transparencies+education 1,909 2,640 7,130 16,600 “overhead projectors”+education 506 262 8,400 1,390 “electronic presentations”+education 2 15 9 1,490 PowerPoint+education 0 2,332 940 292,000 PowerPoint+education-“download” 0 2,105 0 345 “slide projectors”+education 185 165 1,090 2,860 “slide projectors”+education- 146 125 0 1 “powerpoint”
As a different method to show the evolution of transparencies as used in education, I conducted similar searches on JSTOR and Google Scholar for various related terms including
“electronic presentations,” and “PowerPoint.”106 Refer to Table 5 for search queries used and the results. In these search results, I found the earliest mention of “electronic presentations” in
Becker’s 1961 article on the use of television in classrooms.107 In 1976, Fredrickson also mentioned “electronic presentations” as used in open space education—that is, flexible educational facilities.108 As a current type of presentation software, Microsoft’s PowerPoint creates and displays visual images and text through a computer monitor and can be presented with an audio component. I added the “PowerPoint” term to my search query as it had similar
106 As PowerPoint is also a generic term for electronic presentations, I searched using both the proper noun, PowerPoint, and powerpoint (no capitalization). The results shown in Table 5 are for the term powerpoint, although in testing the same search queries using the proper noun, PowerPoint, the results were the same. Most major search engines, including Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Google are not case sensitive.
107 S. Becker, “Teaching of English in the Mass Media,” Elementary English 38, no. 4 (April 1961): 254.
108 J. Fredrickson, “The Rationale Behind Open Space Education” (Annual Guidance Meeting of the University of Wisconsin, Stout, WI, February 12, 1976), 9.
228 functionality in the classroom to transparencies —the ability to present information to a group of students collectively. Although the term PowerPoint has become synonymous with the term presentation (much as the word Kleenex is to a tissue),109 PowerPoint is actually proprietary presentation software launched in 1990 by Microsoft. 110 However, early development of presentation software was built on a program from Forethought, Inc. called Presenter, which was purchased by Microsoft in 1987.111 Due to PowerPoint’s launch date of 1990, I did not expect to find results in my search queries using the term PowerPoint in the 1957 to 1982 period.
Surprisingly, in the August 2014 Google Scholar searches, I found 940 references to PowerPoint in that twenty-five-year period, which made me delve into why these results were appearing. In a review of many of these search results links, I discovered that PowerPoint slides could be downloaded as part of the link since many of the articles provided supporting presentation materials. This realization caused me to remove all references to “download.” Using this search query, as I had expected, I found no articles between 1957 and 1982 that referred to PowerPoint.
The second item, the Instant Slide, is classified in the Presentation functional area, as it was an instructional aid that needed to be used with a slide projector. Although the slide projector was delimited from this study, the small, portable, and customizable nature of the
Instant Slide allowed this item to be included. Slide projectors have been replaced by presentation software and equipment as discussed in the above paragraphs (e.g., about
109 Ask MetaFilter, “Synonyms for 'PowerPoint',” Ask MetaFilter, August 5, 2005, accessed August 19, 2014, http://ask.metafilter.com/22196/Synonyms-for-PowerPoint.; A. Hesseldahl, “Okay, Okay It Was Keynote, Not PowerPoint,” Business Week, March 29, 2007, accessed August 19, 2014, http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-03-28/okay-okay-it-was-keynote-not-powerpoint.
110 D. Austin, T. Rudkin, and R. Gaskins, Presenter Specifications (Sunnyvale: Forethought, Inc., 1986).
111 R. Gaskins, Sweating Bullets: Notes About Inventing PowerPoint (San Francisco: Vinland Books, 2012), 205.
229 PowerPoint and MimeoTeach). In researching current uses of slide projectors in education, I found 146 links to information in an August 2014 JSTOR search for ““slide projectors”+education-“PowerPoint”” for the period of this study, 1957 to 1982, with 125 results for the time after 1982 to present-day. Looking through several of the more current articles, I found slide projectors, and therefore slides, used to view historical and archived slides but not used as a present-day format for creating or delivering presentations.
Examples given in this section, to show Presentation functionality, are just a few of the many items currently on the market. As seen in the search queries discussed earlier in this chapter (Table 5), there were over fourteen hundred links associated with ““electronic presentations”+education”, whereas there were only nine articles found during the period of this study.
The examples selected to represent the functional Presentation classification were derived from personal experiences and findings from the research conducted for this study. Many other current presentation aids (document cameras, handheld wireless presentation devices, and software solutions such as Prezi and Articulate) are available for educational purposes, but since this study was limited by device size and portability, those examples are not described in the discussion.
Summary
The functional classifications used for analyzing PRIM ’57-’82 for this study are based on Patten et al.’s research on handheld devices and their functions in classroom settings. Of the seven categories outlined by Patten et al., four categories were transferable to the data used in this study: Administration, Collaborative, Data Collection, and Microworld. The Location
230 Aware and Referential categories from Patten et al.’s research are not incorporated in this study because the technologies (e.g., global positioning systems, computers, internet) used to support these categories were not available during this study’s time frame. Due to the types of PRIM ’57-
’82 devices found in this study, it was necessary to create the Curriculum and Presentation functional classifications through a poststructural analysis. A discussion of each functional classification and current examples are contained in this chapter.
Using the six functional classifications, a failure mode and effect analysis was conducted.
Results of that analysis are discussed in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 6
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS
In addition to the content analysis of the PRIM ’57-’82 items, a different method, failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) was incorporated into this study to analyze the data. As discussed in Chapter 1, FMEA is a method used to identify known or potential failures in products.1 Industries using a FMEA for analysis of product failures have included manufacturing, chemical, pharmaceuticals, and aerospace areas in which failures would typically cause harm, unfavorable effects, or risks to users.2 FMEA is a quantitative tool, usually a spreadsheet application, that identifies problems with or failures in products and the impact of these failures.
For this study, ninety-eight portable and responsive instructional materials (PRIM ’57-
’82) items were classified into Interactive, Real Objects, and Transparencies codes. Twelve categories (e.g., Programmed Instruction, Response Systems, Slide Rules, and Calculators, etc.) were then created within the three codes by grouping similar items as described in Chapter 4.
In Chapter 5, functional classifications were created through a poststructural process to further analyze the PRIM ’57-’82 items. The six PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications
1 American Society for Quality Control, Glossary and Tables For.; Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 33.; M. Johnson, Using Process FMEA in an Aeronautical Engineering Technology Capstone Course (Louisville: American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), 2010), 2.
2 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 25.; Quality-One International, “FMEA - Failure Modes and Effects Analysis,” Quality-One International, 2011, accessed August 13, 2014, http://quality-one.com/fmea/.
232 Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation were used to apply FMEA processes in order to determine modes, if any, that led to the PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications’ failures in classroom environments. Based on existing FMEA templates, a PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template was created for this poststructural study with details discussed later in this chapter. Refer to Appendix O for an example of the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA
Administration template used in this study. Resources used to create the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template are listed in Appendix P (e.g., textbooks, military standards documentation, and online resources).
A brief history of evaluating instructional materials to ensure effectiveness and appropriateness for classroom use is included in this chapter to set the foundation for using a
FMEA as an analytical tool in educational environments. In this chapter, a brief history of
FMEA, the practice of using a FMEA in the educational technology field, and the results of the
FMEA conducted on the six functional classifications established in Chapter 5 (Administration,
Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation) are discussed.
Through FMEA, I discovered seven failure modes that influenced the failure of PRIM ’57-’82 objects, which are discussed in the next sections.
Historical Aspects of Instructional Materials Evaluations
Evaluation of instructional materials was an important part of the audiovisual movement during this study’s twenty-five-year period due to the abundance of instructional materials introduced for classroom teaching.3 Early in the audiovisual movement, product evaluation was accomplished through many means. For example, a series of checklists ensured that films met
3 Kinder and McClusky, Audio-Visual Reader.
233 instructional needs, as seen in Lemler’s 1938 article titled “A Critical Evaluation of Teaching
Films.”4 Later, Hoban outlined the need for instructional material evaluations through research using prerelease evaluations, cooperative planning, participation in evaluations, and communication of the results to build a bridge between research and application.5 Steps outlined by Sanders and Cunningham in 1973 in a model for instructional materials evaluation include four stages of evaluation: predevelopment, evaluation of objectives, formative interim evaluation, and formative product evaluation.6 As evaluation of instructional materials evolved,
Larson defined formative product evaluation as “descriptive and judgmental information regarding the worthiness of an instructional experience.”7 Furthermore, Larson stated that both descriptive and judgmental evaluations are useful in making decisions about the design and use of instructional materials.8 Product evaluation became a practice in purchasing instructional materials, as seen in a 1981 study by Evans on the comparison of forty-five instructional material evaluation forms and the creation of a model evaluation form that, although based on film evaluations, could be used for other media.9 Key features of Evans’ 1981 evaluation include
4 F. L. Lemler, “A Critical Evaluation of Teaching Films,” Education 58, no. 8 (April 1938): 479-83.; M. Cambre, “Historical Overview of Formative Evaluation of Instructional Media Products,” Educational Communication and Technology 10, no. 1 (Spring 1981): 4.
5 C. Hoban, “Research and Reality,” AudioVisual Communication Review 4, no. 1 (Winter 1956): 17-18.
6 J. Sanders and D. Cunningham, “A Structure for Formative Evaluation in Product Development,” Review of Educational Research 43, no. 2 (Spring 1973): 218.
7 T. E. Lawson, Formative Instructional Product Evaluation: Instruments (Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1974), xiii.
8Lawson, Formative Instructional Product Evaluation.
9 A. Evans, “An Evaluation Form that Makes Sense,” Instructional Innovator 26, no. 3 (March 1981): 33.
234 rating five components: technical quality, content (accuracy, currency, and coverage), design features (cues, repetition, participation, and feedback), acquisition, and qualitative input.10
Another means for evaluating instructional materials is Wittich and Schuller’s
“Contributions of Audiovisual Instructional Materials to Learning” found in their 1967 edition of
Audio Visual Materials: Their Nature and Use.11 Wittich and Schuller’s table includes several audiovisual codes, such as motion-picture films, slides, programmed learning, and television, as shown in the content analysis portion of this study (Appendix C). Three key factors in Wittich and Schuller’s table are visual (natural color, recreated situations, or dimensional aspects), audio, and utilization (fixed or flexible organization, control of time, and production factors); these three became the basis of a matrix about the instructional materials types.12 Likewise, Gerlach and Ely created a matrix for evaluating instructional materials for classroom use based on audiovisual codes (real things; representations such as images, audio, programs; and simulations) with selection factors including appropriateness, cost, availability, and quality as well as the functional purpose to identify, describe, construct, or build skills.13 Furthermore, Gerlach and
Ely created a Media-Subject Area Matrix that lists major content areas (e.g., art, civics, geography, history, and mathematics) with specific learning objectives corresponding to the instructional materials discussed in their book.14 Eight learning objectives are in the matrix: constructing, describing, identifying, naming, and ordering objectives as well as affective, motor,
10 Evans, "An Evaluation Form That," 33.
11 Wittich and Schuller, Audiovisual Materials: Their Nature (1967), 482.
12 Wittich and Schuller, Audiovisual Materials: Their Nature (1967), 482.
13 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 292.
14 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 393-395.
235 and unclassified objectives.15 For example, if a teacher wants to find a game/simulation instructional material for teaching history, the Media-Subject Area Matrix indicates “I225” that refers to an “identifying objective” on page 225 in Teaching and Media: A Systematic
Approach.16
Another evaluation approach is discussed in Romiszowski’s 1981 book, Designing
Instructional Systems.17 Romiszowski discusses several factors, such as number of students and staff, frequency of use, and quantity of materials, which assist in identifying problems or failures in instructional design. In addition, Romiszowski uses criteria such as design, production, implementation, and revision as applied to instructional design in the evaluation process.18
Another reason Romiszowski’s research was selected to be used in this study it that it a system- based approach to analyzing instructional design systems, particularly why projects fail. As stated earlier, research using a FMEA is not readily available for educational technology projects, but Romiszowski’s chapter “Why Projects Fail” contains key points to consider about possible failure mode causes.
A limitation of this method of analysis is that FMEA was not found to be readily applied to the educational technology field but is recognized as an effective tool in many other diverse industries in which product failure could cause harm or injury. The development of FMEA which coincided with the period of this study, along with the race-to-space influences on
15 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 393-395.
16 Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971), 393-395.
17 A. Romiszowski, Designing Instructional Systems: Decision Making in Course Planning and Curriculum Design (New York: Nichols Publishing Co., 1981).
18 Romiszowski, Designing Instructional Systems, 384.
236 education, made its use an analytical tool an interesting and challenging method and a unique approach for this study.
Historical Information—Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
The United States Department of Defense in the 1949 Military Standard MIL-STD-1629 document made the initial reference to failure mode and effect criticality analysis (FMECA).19
Reams confirms that FMEA was a product of the United States military, although the title and abbreviation Reams used varied slightly.20 Bean as well as Breiing and Kunz gives credit to the
National Aeronautics Space Agency (NASA) in the early 1960s for the modification of the abbreviation from FMECA to FMEA.21 During this time, NASA found it imperative to produce high-quality products without design failures as the race to space was pursued by the United
States.22 As provided in the Terms and Definitions section of Chapter 1, FMEA is a method to identify and evaluate known and/or potential problems of a design or a process.23 In most instances, the FMEA method is characteristic of the engineering and scientific fields.24 Failure modes are identified as the parts of the system/product/process evaluation that could possibly fail
19 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis: Military Standard (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 1949).
20 J. Reams, “Making FMEA Work for You,” Nursing Management 42, no. 5 (May 2011): 18-20.
21 R. A. Bean, Modes of Failure Analysis Summary: Nerva B-12 Reactor (Pittsburgh: Astronuclear Laboratory Westinghouse Electric Company, 1962), 1-34, accessed January 5, 2013, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760069385_1976069385.pdf.; A. J. Breiing and A. M. Kunz, “Critical Consideration and Improvement of the FMEA.” (Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering Conference, Wuhan, China, April 22-26, 2002), 519-530.
22 Breiing and Kunz, "Critical Consideration and Improvement," 519.
23 Omdahl, Reliability, Availability, 4.; Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 25.
24 Boylan, "Beg, Steal or Borrow," 1-9.
237 and on effect analysis is the consequences of failure on the entire system/product/process.25
Stamatis suggests that FMEA is a “dynamic tool of improvement,” as this analytical tool is used to improve a system, product, or service.26
Stamatis outlines four types of FMEA: system, design, process, and service.27 Breiing and Kunz explain the first type of FMEA, the system FMEA, that focuses on the “systematical context between a product and its integration into a system.”28 A design FMEA analyzes products by focusing on deficiencies of the design, whereas a process FMEA focuses on how the procedures were conducted.29 The fourth type, a service FMEA, analyzes services before they reach the customer and usually is more complicated than the other three types of FMEA due to the interactions between labor, materials, production, and delivery.30 For this study, a system
FMEA was adapted to analyze the functional classifications (Administration, Collaborative,
Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation) of the PRIM ’57-’82 data.
Many articles are available that researched the FMEA method as applied to manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, or engineering, yet only a few articles existed about using the
FMEA method for instructional tools, handheld devices, or educational technology. A Google
Scholar search conducted on September 15, 2014, found 9,880 scholarly references to “failure mode and effect analysis” with a date range of 1960 to 2014. No scholarly articles with a publication date prior to 1960 were found using Google Scholar. When the criteria “educational
25 Reams, “Making FMEA Work,” 18.
26 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 30.
27 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 46-49.
28 Breiing and Kunz, "Critical Consideration and Improvement," 519.
29 Reams, “Making FMEA Work,” 18-20.
30 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 187.
238 technology” was added to the search query, eleven results were found written in the English language. Refer to Appendix Q for a listing of this Google Scholar search string of
“FMEA+educational technology.” Using the same search queries in JSTOR on September 15,
2014 the results were thirty-eight articles about FMEA and none including any reference to
“failure mode and effect analysis” and “educational technology.” Stamatis’ work provides a comprehensive guide for experts, or for novices, in the process of conducting a FMEA.31 Boylan uses an interdisciplinary approach to solve the problem at hand, borrowing the FMEA methodology from the scientific field to explore the unplanned consequences of implementing an e-Learning program in higher education.32 Although a FMEA is typically conducted by a committee or group,33 Boylan worked as an insider—that is, as a researcher who was an integral part of the study.34 Another educational technology study, conducted by Johnson, utilized a process FMEA for the aeronautical industry as an instructional tool with real-world applications.35 Johnson’s findings discuss the students’ use of FMEA in an educational setting.36
Examples in the Johnson study illustrate the students’ FMEA assessments, listed risks, and suggested improvements as a result of the analysis.37
31 FMEA Info Centre, “FMEA Books and Literature,” FMEA Info Centre, n.d., accessed January 12, 2013, http://www.fmeainfocentre.com/literature.htm.
32 Boylan, “Beg, Steal or Borrow,” 1-9.
33 Reams, “Making FMEA Work,” 18-20.
34 Boylan, “Beg, Steal or Borrow,” 1-9.
35 Johnson, Using Process FMEA.
36 Johnson, Using Process FMEA.
37 Johnson, Using Process FMEA.
239 Known issues regarding FMEA result from the human aspects of evaluation. In FMEA procedures, it is recommended to brainstorm potential risks and possible failures; this process is limited to a team’s ability to discover or document these ideas, which may or may not be accurate or complete.38 The U. S. military standard document (MIL-STAD-1629A) states that the limitation of time and the isolation of failures are recognized as potential issues in conducting a FMEA.39
The next section discusses FMEA as it applies to this study’s qualitative content analysis of PRIM ’57-’82.
Using a FMEA Analysis in a Qualitative Study
In borrowing FMEA from other disciplines as an evaluation method for this study, it is necessary to understand how FMEA procedures and processes are adaptable to an educational technology perspective. Boylan suggests that the researcher must keep an objective and unbiased view about the data identified and observed.40 In addition, the researcher must not influence the analysis of the data.41 Objectivity and neutrality are qualifications for conducting a content analysis historiography, as explained in Chapter 2—Methodology. Furthermore, I am an insider in this investigation of PRIM ’57-’82 data. The poststructural approach taken in this study
38 J. Terninko, “Reliability/Mistake-Proofing Using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)” in ASQ's 57th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings - Expanding Horizon: Global, Personal, Tools, Networking, Solutions. Kansas City: Quality Congress (2003): 515-526.; Reams, “Making FMEA Work,” 18-20.; Resource Engineering, Inc., “Pitfalls and Limitations of FMEAs,” QualityTrainingPortal, 2012, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.qualitytrainingportal.com/resources/fmea/fmea_pitfalls.htm.
39 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), iii.
40 Boylan, “Beg, Steal or Borrow,” 1-9.
41 Boylan, "Beg, Steal or Borrow," 1-9.
240 allowed my personal connections to the data collected, as well as my insights and analysis, to be a component of this analysis.
Another challenge of using a FMEA in a qualitative research study is the method in which the FMEA is conducted. FMEA is generally a quantitative methodology using measures, rankings, and ratings rather than qualitative options such as opinions, perceptions, and feelings.42
Adaptations made during in this study were revising the typical FMEA evaluation, maintaining
FMEA reliability, and adapting quantitative FMEA data to a qualitative method. Boylan contends that to “steal or borrow” FMEA from other disciplines, such as engineering and manufacturing, allows the researcher to adapt processes and models that suit the requirements of the data analyzed.43
In the next sections, procedural information to conduct a basic FMEA and the adaptations for the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA are discussed. The steps may be similar to past instructional materials evaluations used in the 1950s to 1980s, with the ultimate goal being to find the potential failures of the PRIM ’57-’82 functionality classifications (Administration,
Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation).
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Procedures
In reviewing the four types of FMEA (system, design, process, and service), I found several common steps used in conducting a FMEA. The following steps were used in this study to determine how PRIM ’57-’82 objects functionality was considered a possible failure, as presented in Chapter 1—Research Questions.
42 Boylan, "Beg, Steal or Borrow," 1-9.
43 Boylan, "Beg, Steal or Borrow," 2.
241 A FMEA analysis perspective was kept in mind when these data were collected. PRIM
’57-’82 details were recorded. Information collected consisted of item characteristics, longevity, adaptation or product enhancements, and other pertinent information deemed important for this study.
Several resources identified the steps for conducting a FMEA, including the U. S. military standard (MIL-STD-1629A), Stamatis’ formative publication Failure Mode and Effect
Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution in 1995, and contemporary publications. In addition, many online FMEA tools are available. In creating the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template for this study, I reviewed many formats from online resources as well as textbooks (see Appendix P).
Below are the steps identified for conducting a FMEA on the PRIM ’57-’82 classifications of this study.
1. Gather information to identify purposes, similar products, and potential causes of
failure of the items.44 For this study, information was collected concerning
educational purposes, individual or collaborative use, electronic or mechanical in
nature, and other relevant components as found in my research. Refer to the
Instructional Materials 1957-1982 definition in the Terms and Definitions in Chapter
1 for additional information. For this study, a FMEA was applied to the six functional
classifications discussed in Chapter 5 (Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum,
Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation).
44 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980).; Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect.; Breiing and Kunz, “Critical Consideration and Improvement.”; Quality-One International, “FMEA."; Reams, “Making FMEA Work,” 18-20.; Institute for Healthcare Improvement, “Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Tool,” Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2014, accessed September 4, 2012, http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/FailureModesandEffectsAnalysisTool.aspx.
242 2. Assemble a team to conduct the FMEA.45 Stamatis recommends creating a team from
the departments or individuals involved with the design, system, process, or service to
be analyzed.46 Creating a team filters out individual biases and allows for a
community of knowledge to contribute to the analysis.47 However, Boylan contends
that a single person is acceptable to conduct a FMEA, but he/she needs to be aware of
biases.48
3. Determine potential failure modes for the systems identified in Step 1.49 Failure
mode, as defined in U. S military standards (MIL-STD 1629A), is usually described
as the manner or method in which the failure might occur.50 Failure modes could
include requirements, needs and desires, and characteristics of the product.51 In this
study, each of the six functional classifications identified in Chapter 5
(Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and
Presentation) were examined for potential failure modes.
45 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 33.; G. Forrest, “Quick Guide to Failure Mode and Effects Analysis,” iSixSigma, December 31, 2010, accessed August 13, 2014, http://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/fmea/quick- guide-failure-mode-and-effects-analysis/.; Resource Engineering, Inc., “Assembling an FMEA Team,” QualityTrainingPortal, 2012, accessed August 13, 2014, http://www.qualitytrainingportal.com/resources/fmea/fmea_team.htm.; Institute for Healthcare Improvement, “Failure Modes and Effects.”
46 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 33.
47 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 33.
48 Boylan, "Beg, Steal or Borrow," 1-9.
49 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), 9.; Quality-One International, “FMEA.”; Reams, “Making FMEA Work.”
50 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), 4.
51 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 26, 109.; Quality-One International, “FMEA.”
243 4. Record the severity of failure mode and the identified cause of failure identified.
These data can include past failures and events in which the items failed.52 Severity
rankings are created, usually in a numerical format to aid in prioritizing actions.
Numerical rankings generally are rated on a scale from one to ten, with ten as the
most severe or dangerous, a value of six to represent a moderate risk, and the lowest
value of one that represents no risk to users. Four textual values were used in MIL-
STD-1629A (Category I- Catastrophic, Category II-Critical, Category III-Marginal,
and Category IV-Minor), which represents a qualitative approach.53
5. Record actions and design review based on failure mode, severity, and cause,
recorded in Step 4.54 In this step, improvements were identified and adaptations
recorded for future use. For this study, improvements and adaptations were
considered as enhancements of similar items in the functional classification of PRIM
’57-’82. Examples of similar PRIM ’57-’82 functionality described in Chapter 5
established information for the FMEA process. These examples were not all-inclusive
but provided contemporary instructional material objects in each functional
classification for FMEA consideration.
52 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), 9.; Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect.; Resource Engineering, Inc., “Generic Severity Rating Scale,” QualityTrainingPortal. 2004, accessed August 22, 2014, http://www.qualitytrainingportal.com/resources/fmea/form_46a_app4mod.htm.; Quality-One International, “FMEA.”; Institute for Healthcare Improvement, "Failure Modes and Effects."
53 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), 10.
54 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), 9.; Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect.; Quality-One International, “FMEA.”
244 6. Evaluation and closure of the FMEA. This step was completed when corrections to
the identified failure modes were addressed and reviewed for completeness.55
The six steps outlined in this section of the FMEA process were applied to the PRIM ’57-
’82 functional classifications Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection,
Microworld, and Presentation. Results from the FMEA process are discussed later in this chapter.
PRIM ’57-’82 Adaptations of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
The PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template established the criteria and coding used to complete the failure analysis on the PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications. In order to follow the six
FMEA steps outlined in the previous section, it was necessary to adapt this primarily quantitative tool to a qualitative tool for use in this study of PRIM ’57-’82 objects. As Boylan contends, borrowing FMEA from other disciplines allowed me to adapt the FMEA framework to correspond with the needs of the data analyzed.56
In conducting this PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA, procedures required in Step 1 are similar to a traditional FMEA process that gathers data, interviews, and research to be used in the analysis.
As an adaptation, the methodology (Chapter 2) and the discussions of the findings (Chapter 4 and Chapter 5) were used as sources for gathering data for the FMEA. This information is referenced in Step 1 on the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template as a reminder about how the
55 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), 10.; Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect.; Institute for Healthcare Improvement, “Failure Modes and Effects.”
56 Boylan, "Beg, Steal or Borrow," 1-9.
245 information was derived for this study. Step 1 of the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template is shown in
Table 6.
Table 6
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 1
Information was gathered from the collection of data for this Step 1 Gather Information. dissertation. Refer to the PRIM ’57-’82 study in Chapter 2, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5.
For this study, I adapted Step 2—assembling a team to conduct a FMEA. As outlined by
Stamatis, a team is essential for conducting a traditional FMEA to allow for various backgrounds and skills to contribute to the analysis.57 However, for this study, I conducted the FMEA by myself and used information gathered from interviews and research to assist in the analysis, with that information providing information that a team might. The PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA is from my perspective, and a precedent was set by Boylan with her advice that if a FMEA is conducted by an individual, he/she must be aware of any biases.58 I addressed possible biases in this study by using external criticism, authenticity of the information, and internal criticism to establish the accuracy of the person reporting the information. A note is included in Step 2 of the PRIM ’57-
’82 FMEA template on conducting this analysis as a one-member team comprised of myself.
Refer to Table 7 to view Step 2 of the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template.
57 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect, 33.
58 Boylan, "Beg, Steal or Borrow," 1-9.
246 Table 7
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 2
I am the sole member of the FMEA team. Using a poststructural theory, the findings are based on Step 2 Assemble Team research and knowledge learned through the dissertation process.
Using Step 3 for identifying failure modes required adapting a primarily quantitative
FMEA to a qualitative format. FMEAs are used to discover potential events that may cause harm, bodily injury, or risks to users by discovering the potential failures and causes.59 To establish failure modes, a unique failure definition specific to the FMEA being conducted is required for consistency within the analysis.60 As described in the U. S. military standard (MIL-
STD-1629A), a failure definition identifies “what constitutes a failure” for the project analysis.61
Failure, for this study, is defined for the PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications (Administration,
Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation) that were not adapted or evolved into newer technologies that were introduced after 1982.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, Romiszowski uses several factors for evaluating instructional design failures, such as number of students and staff, the frequency of use, and the quantity of materials.62 For this study, these factors were considered for an instructional materials evaluation through the FMEA method in determining failure modes in Step 3. In
59 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect.
60 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), 7.
61 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), 7.
62 Romiszowski, Designing Instructional Systems, 382-384.
247 addition, I used the following criteria for the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA, as adapted from Evans’ 1981 research on media evaluation forms: technical quality, content, design, acquisition, and if any, qualitative input. The qualitative input factor allows for adding other possible failure modes that are not prompted by the specifically listed factors. As a component of Evans’ evaluation, I implied prices as part of the acquisition criteria. Although prices were not stated explicitly in
Evans’ model, I decided it would be a factor, i.e. failure mode, in the failure of portable and responsive instructional materials. In the following sections, these criteria are identified by using a descriptive as well as the step-identifying label from the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template. For example, if Number of students was identified as a failure mode, then “(3a)” appears after the description: Number of students (3a). Refer to Table 8 for a listing of the FMEA failure modes used in this study.
Table 8
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Failure Modes
Label Failure Modes 3a Number of students 3b Number of staff 3c Frequency of use 3d Quantity or variety of materials 3e Technical quality (Picture, Sound, Overall) 3f Content (Accuracy, Coverage, Currency, Objectivity) 3g Design (Pace, Vocabulary, Organization, Effectiveness, Scope) 3h Acquisition (Availability, Cost, Recommendations) 3i Qualitative input (Remarks, Impressions, Overall rating, Pupil interest or reactions)
248 Several severity codes were adapted from the military and audiovisual fields for the
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Step 4—Severity and Causes. As part of the adaptation of a FMEA to this study, I needed to create qualitative rankings for the severity codes rather than the traditional numerical values. For determining PRIM ’57-’82 qualitative severity codes, I reviewed the MIL-
STD1629A, Romiszowski, and Evans text-based descriptors for the severity labels used in evaluation processes. The MIL-STD 1629A used qualitative terms such as catastrophic, critical, marginal, and minor, setting precedents for using qualitative data in a FMEA.63 Romiszowski used the codes small, medium, and large as a scale in considering the student or staff populations, frequency of use, and quantity of materials factors in his determining why instructional design projects failed.64 Evans, whose research compared forty-five instructional materials evaluation forms, used both a numerical ranking in the form of a five-point Likert scale
(1=low, 5=high) and qualitative comments (none, low, moderate, and high) in the review of instructional materials evaluations.65 Based on these sources, the severity rankings in this study were designated none, low, moderate, and high. These qualitative codes were chosen based on the examination of FMEA severity codes and audiovisual evaluation research in order to create a qualitative perspective for this study’s FMEA.
Step 5 of FMEAs, action and review, did not require any adaptation for use in this study.
The procedure to review the data gathered concerning failure modes, severity, and causes was conducted in the same manner as for other FMEA projects. In this study, PRIM ’57-’82 information was gathered for the historiography and pedagogical uses discussed in Chapter 4 and
63 Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1949).; Department of Defense United States of America, Procedures for Performing (1980), 10.
64 Romiszowski, Designing Instructional Systems, 381.
65 Evans, "An Evaluation Form That," 33.
249 the PRIM ’57-’82 functional connections discussed in Chapter 5. The information was used to record the actions taken during the twenty-five-year period of this study and the functional adaptations made.
The final procedure, Step 6, of a FMEA is closure or, if needed, to restart the FMEA procedure in order to find additional causes and effects of failure. In this study, as related to the definition of failure for this specific FMEA, closure was determined when the functional classification had adapted or evolved from the original PRIM ’57-’82 to current portable and responsive instructional materials. No adaptation was required for Step 6, as this is a universal procedure to complete a FMEA.
A possible limitation to this study, as discussed in Chapter 1, is the lack of essential information needed to conduct a FMEA on PRIM ’57-’82. For this study, observations and events were limited to the twenty-five years between 1957 and 1982. Due the historical nature of the PRIM ’57-’82 research, failures, severity rankings, and causes may not be possible to determine because there may not be enough information available. In this study’s Methodology chapter, a possible limitation of conducting a FMEA on the PRIM ’57-’82 data was identified: the lack of evidence could impact the determination of failure of the selected instructional materials.
Using the PRIM ’57-’82 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Template
A FMEA using the PRIM ’57-’82 data was conducted for each of the six classifications identified in Chapter 5 (Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection,
Microworld, and Presentation).
250 In using the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template, Steps 1 and 2 were already precompleted for the process FMEA because the data are the same for all six classifications of this study. Step 1 was the collection of data, with Step 2 being team assembly, which in my study was a team of one—myself. Information is provided about these two steps in the FMEA Procedures section of this chapter. The FMEA results, as discussed in this section, begins with Step 3—Determine
Failure Modes through Step 6—Evaluation and Closure.
A PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template was created for each of the six PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications being analyzed. An area on each template identifies PRIM ’57-’82 examples and current similarly functioning devices for a quick reference to objects in the FMEA. Table 9 summarizes the data locations for conducting the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA as described above.
Table 9
Identifying the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA
PRIM ’57-’82 Functional classifications (Identified in Chapter 5) PRIM ’57-’82 Codes/Categories (Identified in Chapter 4) PRIM ’57-’82 Examples (Identified in Chapter 4) Current examples (Identified in Chapter 5)
The PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template was utilized for discovering failure modes (Step 3).
For each functional classification, failure modes were identified in Step 3 of the PRIM ’57-’82
FMEA process using nine factors based on Romiszowski’s and Evans’ research on instructional systems and media evaluations discussed earlier in this chapter. These evaluation factors are considered possible failure modes for the FMEA conducted on PRIM ’57-’82 objects. The nine
251 failure modes used in this study are number of students, number of staff, frequency of use, quantity or variety of materials, technical quality, content, design, acquisition, and qualitative input.
Each functional classification was analyzed for possible failures modes by reviewing the data gathered about PRIM ’57-’82 objects described in that specific classification in Step 3. For example, all Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices and Response Systems categories were reviewed in the FMEA of Data Collection, as these categories were classified with that functionality in Chapter 5. Failure modes were identified for PRIM ’57-’82 objects through research on specific instructional materials, using qualitative information from interviews and as obtained through product reviews and advertisements. In addition, brainstorming techniques, such as using mind-mapping software (e.g., Inspiration, gliffy.com), recording ideas on a portable digital recorder, and using PRIM ’57-’82 images to compare and contrast objects, were used to identify possible failure modes. Additional information obtained from the interviewees of this study, as well as from contacting manufacturers through phone and email concerning any specific PRIM ’57-’82 object, was used to assist in the identification of possible failure modes.
Notice in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template that failure modes (3e) through (3i) require additional qualitative information to be entered besides the Yes or No answer that describes the failure mode identified. For example, if Technical quality (3e) was determined to be a failure mode, then Yes and either Picture, Sound, or Overall would be recorded as part of Step 3. Refer to Table 10 to view Step 3 showing the nine failure modes and corresponding labels as used in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template.
252 Table 10
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 3
Determine Failure Modes Step 3 Step 3 Answer
Yes or No 3a Number of students 3b Number of staff 3c Frequency of use 3d Quantity or variety of materials Answer Yes or No. Identify
Failure Mode. Technical quality (Picture, Sound, 3e Yes, Overall Overall) Content (Accuracy, Coverage, 3f Currency, Objectivity) Design (Pace, Vocabulary, 3g Organization, Effectiveness, Scope) Acquisition (Availability, Cost, 3h Recommendations) Qualitative input (Remarks, 3i Impressions, Overall rating, Pupil interest or reactions)
Step 4 involved detecting the severity and possible causes of identified failure modes from Step 3. As outlined in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template, the codes of none, low, moderate, and high severity were used to rank severity of the identified failure modes for the first part of
Step 4. For example, if in Step 3, Design-Effectiveness (3g) was determined to be a failure mode, then in the severity column, a code of low, moderate, or high would be entered. If, in Step 3, the failure mode was determined to be nonexistent, then the severity code would be entered as none.
253 In this poststructural study, the severity ranking was based on my interpretations of the research, interviews, and advertisements gathered as well as equipment reviews. Notice that the failure modes are shown in Step 4 for a quick reference point in assigning the Severity and Causes to the
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template. Refer to Table 11 to view Step 4 of the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template.
Table 11
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 4
Severity and Causes Determine Failure Modes Steps Step 4 Step 3 Severity Causes If yes, use Low, If considered a failure mode, Record Qualitative Moderate, High. complete Step 4. Data If no, use None. 3a Number of students 3b Number of staff 3c Frequency of use 3d Quantity or variety of materials Technical quality (Picture, Sound, 3e Overall)
Content (Accuracy, Coverage, 3f Currency, Objectivity) Design (Pace, Vocabulary, 3g Organization, Effectiveness, Scope) Acquisition (Availability, Cost, 3h Recommendations) Qualitative input (Remarks, 3i Impressions, Overall rating, Pupil interest or reactions)
254 As the second part of Step 4, causes needed to be identified for each of the failure modes listed in Step 3; i.e., if in Step 3, Acquisition-Cost (3h) was identified as a possible failure, then in Step 4, the possible cause of that failure was listed. Possible causes of the failure modes were determined by research, interviews, and personal reflection. For example, through an interview with Rundel, she remembered that calculators were very expensive and that not many students owned such a device. Refer to Table 12 for examples of causes for the failure modes identified in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA.
Additional details about possible causes for failure of the six functional PRIM ’57-’82
FMEA classifications (Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation) are discussed in the upcoming sections.
Action and review procedures were completed in Step 5 for each of the identified failure modes of the PRIM ’57-’82 functional FMEA, with consideration of the data gathered in Step 3
(determining failures) and Step 4 (severity ranking and causes). Information from Chapter 5 concerning the adaptation or evolution of PRIM ’57-’82 functional categories (Administration,
Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation) is used in Step 5 of the FMEA conducted in this study. The research and discussion from the functionality analysis in Chapter 5 was used as a foundation to complete Step 5 of the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA. Items in each functional classification are shown to have evolved or adapted to newer technologies. This information demonstrated how specific current devices are similar in functionality to PRIM ’57-
’82 objects. At this stage in the FMEA, a comparison of PRIM ’57-’82 objects was made to current, similarly functioning devices already identified as well as deliberating about any other possible evolutions or adaptations of the functional classification. Information in Step 5 contains
255 Table 12
Examples of FMEA Causes
Mode Method Possible Cause Notes Design- Missing parts in instructional kits made them Effectiveness Interviewee-Beeler ineffective.66 (3g) Acquisition - An audio card reader was removed from her Availability Interviewee-Van Hooser classroom to be used specifically for foreign (3h) language, limiting her access to the device.67 Speak & Spell used all capital letters instead of lower Qualitative Research case in display, discovered through research on Speak input (3i) & Spell.68
Qualitative Research showed that the slide projector was replaced Research input (3i) by other presentation formats such as PowerPoint.69
I felt student-provided information in the Content (3f) Personal reflection Collaborative functionality could be inaccurate and therefore a possible failure mode.
qualitative information from interviews conducted for this study, research, and as this is a poststructural study, my thoughts and opinions. As the FMEA progressed, each step was built upon the identification of failure modes in Step 3; therefore as a reference point, those factors are displayed with each step on the FMEA template. Refer to Table 13 to view Step 5 of the PRIM
’57-’82 FMEA template.
66 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
67 P. Van Hooser, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 28, 2014.
68 G. Frantz, interviewed by R. Remacle, Mountain View, CA, May 8, 2009.
69 DenBeste, "PowerPoint, Technology and the Web" 501.
256 Table 13
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 5
Determine Failure Modes Action and Review Steps Step 3 Step 5
If considered a failure mode, Record Qualitative Data complete Step 5. 3a Number of students 3b Number of staff 3c Frequency of use 3d Quantity or variety of materials Technical quality (Picture, Sound, 3e Overall) Content (Accuracy, Coverage, 3f Currency, Objectivity) Design (Pace, Vocabulary, 3g Organization, Effectiveness, Scope) Acquisition (Availability, Cost, 3h Recommendations) Qualitative input (Remarks, 3i Impressions, Overall rating, Pupil interest or reactions)
Once all the data were entered on the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template, the last procedure was to determine whether the FMEA was closed. Step 6 in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA was dependent on the original failure definition set for the functional analysis. For example, it was shown in the FMEA conducted for the Administration functionality on PRIM ’57-’82 that objects had evolved into other similar devices after the end date of this study—1982. In this study, the failure definition relies on the evolution or adaptation of PRIM ’57-’82 functionality to devices created from 1982 to present-day. If in the action and review process in Step 5, it was determined
257 that the functional classification had evolved or adapted, then the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA was considered closed. If the action and review process did not find any evidence of changes in the functional classification’s PRIM ’57-’82 objects, then the FMEA would begin again at Step 3 with additional research, brainstorming, or problem-solving techniques employed to reassess the failure modes, severity, and causes. Refer to Table 14 to view Step 6 of the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template.
Table 14
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Template—Step 6
Evaluation and Determine Failure Modes Steps Closure Step 3 Step 6
If considered a failure mode, complete Answer
Step 6. Closed or No 3a Number of students 3b Number of staff 3c Frequency of use 3d Quantity or variety of materials Technical quality (Picture, Sound, 3e Overall) Content (Accuracy, Coverage, Currency, 3f Objectivity) Design (Pace, Vocabulary, Organization, 3g Effectiveness, Scope) Acquisition (Availability, Cost, 3h Recommendations) Qualitative input (Remarks, Impressions, 3i Overall rating, Pupil interest or reactions)
258 Data were entered in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template for each of the six functional classifications, and a synopsis is provided in the following sections.
PRIM ’57-’82 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Discussion
The PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template was used for each of the six functional classifications determined in the research discussed in Chapter 5 (Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum,
Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation). Appendix O illustrates the Administration functionality notes used for conducting the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA for this study. As discussed in the previous sections, six steps were completed in the analysis of these classifications including the identification of failure modes, severity and possible causes, and the actions and review procedures to either complete the FMEA as closed or to continue the process to identify other options. The following sections provide a discussion about each of the six functional classifications.
FMEA—Administration Functionality
The specific FMEA failure definition for this study was dependent on whether the functionality of the PRIM ’57-’82 objects had evolved or been adapted to newer technologies introduced after 1982. The Administration functional classification used in this study was from
Patten et al.’s research that categorized administration devices as small, portable educational tools capable of storing information such as an aid in grading or as a calendaring aid.70 A PRIM
’57-’82 example of Administration functionality is the Memo Note 30.
70 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist," 297.
259 Using the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template as adapted for this study using resources from the U. S. military, Stamatis’ Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, Romiszowski’s and Evans’ research on media evaluation, the analysis of the Administration functionality was conducted.
Steps 1 and 2 were already completed as explained earlier in this chapter for the entire procedure. For Step 3, three areas were identified as possible failure modes for this classification: frequency of use (3c), acquisition-cost (3h), and lack of professional development (3i).
Frequency of use (3c) was determined as a failure mode in the Administration functionality classification with a severity ranking of moderate. Small, portable administration devices were not readily used in education based on the PRIM ’57-’82 objects found in this study. The Memo Note 30 was the only PRIM ’57-’82 object documented that had administration operability.
The second failure mode identified in the Administration functionality of PRIM ‘57-’82 items was acquisition-cost (3h); it was given a high severity ranking. In the analysis, the 1978 price of the Memo Note 30 was approximately $80.00, which was identified as a possible cause for failure. According to the Digest of Education Statistics, the average teacher’s salary in 1978 was $15,032.00.71 The $80.00 price of the Memo Note 30 would have been approximately .5 percent of a teacher’s 1978 annual salary. To make the price, for example, relevant to today’s pricing, I used the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation calculator to estimate the cost in 2014 U. S. dollars. For the Memo Note 30, the equivalent price would be
71 United States Department of Education, “Table 90. Estimated Average Annual Salary of Teachers in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Selected Years, 1959-60 through 2011-12,” Institute of Education Sciences, May 2012, accessed August 27, 2014, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_090.asp.
260 $292.00 in 2014.72 In comparison to devices with similar functionality, the Newton MessagePad, introduced in 1991 for $699.00, would be equivalent to spending $334.92 in 1978, and for the
Apple iPad introduced in 2010 for $499.00 would be comparable to spending $149.00 in 1978.
The original Memo Note 30 had the ability to store only 30 names and numbers, whereas the
Apple iPad has the power and functionality similar to a desktop computer, yet when the introductory price of the iPad was converted to 1978 dollars, it cost only $70.00 more than the
Memo Note 30.
The third failure mode identified in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA is a qualitative entry in the other failure considerations’ criteria. In this area, I brainstormed, using my research, for other ideas that might have caused a failure mode for the Administration functionality classification.
Lack of professional development or training (3i) was identified as a failure mode with low severity. This consideration related closely to the frequency of use (3c) failure mode.
Professional development is not efficient or productive unless you have enough people needing the specific training. In this case, I did not find many educators using the functionality of the
PRIM ’57-’82 Administration classification, for example, the Memo Note 30.
Step 5 in the Administration FMEA was to take action regarding the identified failure modes and to review the results of those actions. In the 1983 to 2014 time period after this study, many PRIM ’57-’82 objects currently known as handheld devices evolved or were adapted. Step
5 in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template requires documentation of any adaptations or changes needed to address the failure modes discovered in Steps 3 and 4, such as information about similar functional devices. Current examples of devices with Administration functionality are
72 United States Department of Labor, “Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics,” United States Department of Labor, n.d., accessed August 27, 2014, http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
261 provided in Chapter 5 (i.e., Newton MessagePad, PDAs, iPad) that show how instructional materials in this classification have evolved or been adapted to more current educational purposes.
The final step in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA is to evaluate each identified failure mode and decide whether further analysis is needed, in which case the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA is not completed. If all items are labeled as closed, as the completion of Step 6, then the PRIM ’57-’82
FMEA is complete. For the Administration functional classification, all failure modes were labeled as closed; therefore, the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA is finished.
FMEA—Collaborative Functionality
Collaborative functionality, as adapted from Patten el al., is described as sharing knowledge between learners.73 In addition, Jonassen states that collaborative groups encourage and support knowledge construction, which supports learning.74 The purpose of this FMEA was to reveal any collaborative instructional materials that did not evolve or adapt to newer technologies introduced after 1982. The Collaborative functionality group includes PRIM ’57-
’82 items categorized in Interactive—Learning Games and Instructional Systems categories.
These PRIM ’57-’82 categories, discussed in Chapter 4, include bingo and lotto games, as well as the AT&T telephone conferencing equipment as advertised in 1972.
A PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA was conducted to discover failure modes in the Collaborative classification. Steps 1 and 2 were already completed as discussed earlier in this chapter.
73 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist," 299.
74 D. H. Jonassen, Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1996).
262 In Step 3, two possible failure modes were identified in the Collaborative classification.
The number of students (3a) contributed to failure but was given a low severity code. The cause
(Step 4) of this failure mode was determined in that it takes a group of students to collaborate, to learn, and to share information. In addition, a possible cause of this failure mode is the physical arrangement of the classroom that may prevent collaborative learning. Knott, an interviewee, remembered classrooms with open walls in the early 1960s that provided students the ability to find a place to work together.75 The open space classroom floor plan encouraged innovative learning activities.76 Examples in the PRIM ’57-’82 data, bingo-like games and the telephone conference equipment, would not be effective if a group of students were not sharing in the activity.
The second failure mode identified in the Collaborative function concerns the accuracy of the content (3f) in collaborative learning situations. The severity was ranked as low in Step 4, with the cause of the accuracy of the content (3f) failure mode placed on students’ roles in learning.
Students may not always have had a precise understanding of the materials and, therefore, may have misrepresented the information in a collaborative lesson.
In Step 5, the following review was completed to show evolution or adaptation of the
Collaborative functionality. The review included many contemporary devices and applications in both the Learning Games and Instructional Systems categories.
Collaborative functionality in current applications and devices similar to the PRIM ’57-
’82 objects include having found over eight million results for “collaborative learning games”
75 B. Knott, video conference with author, Houston, TX, April 2, 2014.
76 Fredrickson, “Rationale Behind Open Space,” 7.
263 using a June 2014 Google search on the internet. Also showing the growth in the Collaborative classification in educational settings is the number of university classes about learning games, such as those taught at NIU. Refer to the Collaborative—Learning Games section in Chapter 5 for information about university coursework.
PRIM ’57-’82 Instructional Systems such as telephone conference equipment has become more readily available because special telephone equipment is no longer necessary to conduct a conference call. As discussed in Chapter 5, free and fee-based software packages provide both audio and visual conferencing for collaboration through Adobe Connect, Blackboard,
Blackboard Collaborate, FaceTime, and Skype; furthermore, most current telephones have multicaller options.
Adaptations identified in Step 5, the availability of learning games for retail sale or download, and the adaptations of equipment for telephone conferences showed that Step 6 of the
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA for the Collaborative functionality was closed.
FMEA—Curriculum Functionality
The Curriculum (General, Mathematics/Arithmetic, and Reading) functional classification is discussed in this section without content specificity. Curriculum was a functional classification created through my poststructural process and is defined as instructional materials to improve instruction in specific classroom content areas. Refer to the information provided in the Chapter 5—Curriculum (General, Mathematics/Arithmetic, and Reading) section for further information about Curriculum functionality.
Using the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template, an analysis was conducted of the Curriculum functional classification. The PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA template includes the necessary steps and
264 directions for coding. A process FMEA was used to discover potential failure modes, causes, and actions taken as well as to evaluate or finalize the process analysis. Steps 1 (data collection) and
2 (team assembly) had already been completed for the FMEA functional classifications in this study. Curriculum was the third of six classifications to be considered in this analysis. Since the functional classification was curriculum-based, many PRIM ’57-’82 categories were included in this analysis, such as Programmed Instruction (Audio Card Readers, Game-Like Devices),
Learning Materials (math manipulatives), Instructional Kits, and Instructional Systems (reading rate controllers). The PRIM ’57-’82 Curriculum functional classifications are discussed in
Chapter 5.
In the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA process, three failure modes were identified through using the prompts provided in the template created for this study. As the first possible Curriculum failure mode of PRIM ’57-’82 objects, the content (3f) was given a severity rank of moderate specifically for coverage and currency of information. The second failure mode recognized in the
Curriculum functionality was design-effectiveness (3g); it was given a severity rank of high. The third failure mode identified was cost (3h); it was given a moderate severity rank.
In the Curriculum classification, content (3f) failures were identified on national products that may not have directly covered a teachers’ specific choice of curriculum. Classroom teachers had to adjust the content to meet their needs. Currency of information was also considered a failure mode because the content was static: once it was purchased, the content was current only up to that date.
In Step 5, the progression of PRIM ’57-’82 objects in the Curriculum functionality was researched for any evolution or adaptations that had occurred since 1982. Many examples of current devices, software, and applications are discussed in the Curriculum section in Chapter 5
265 concerning specific content areas. In an interview with Beeler, learning materials, such as flash cards, evolved from flimsy paper cards to a more durable plastic format.77 A few examples showing how curricular functionality has changed to include many online resources for improving instruction are the use of CD-ROMs and DVDs for instruction, Cuisenaire rods as math manipulatives, and online applications and simulations. One other current adaptation for keeping information relevant to the curriculum is how textbook companies provide instructional media on a supplemental CD-ROM or DVD that matches the curriculum exactly, therefore eliminating the content (3f) failure mode.
The second identified failure mode, design-effectiveness (3g), was included in the
Curriculum FMEA due to information gained through an interview. Beeler mentioned that in her use of instructional kits, over time, parts became worn or missing, which made the kits less effective for instruction.78
For reviewing the failure mode of acquisition-cost (3h), I used the Consumer Price Index inflation calculator to compare a known PRIM ’57-’82 cost to that of a similar current item. For example, the audio card reader, introduced in 1967 for $250.00,79 would cost $1,783.31 in 2014.
A current audio card reader offered by Lakeshore at a price of $129.00 would have cost approximately $18.00 in 1967 dollars. The price of instructional materials has decreased, while newer devices offer many more features than their predecessors. As audiovisual instruction became more important in education, budgets increased for the purchase of instructional materials, which I observed through my involvement in educational technology at a public
77 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
78 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
79 Otto and Houston, Mechanical Aids Teaching Reading, 13.
266 school district from 2000 to 2007. Additional information on current Curriculum functionality is provided in Chapter 5 in each of the Curriculum sections—General, Mathematics, and Reading.
Using the data from Step 5, the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA was completed in Step 6 by the closure of the content (3f) and acquisition-cost (3h) failure modes identified in the Curriculum functional classification.
FMEA—Data Collection Functionality
Data Collection was the fourth functional classification to be analyzed using the PRIM
’57-’82 FMEA template in this study. The Data Collection functionality classification includes two PRIM ’57-’82 categories. The first category is Programmed Instruction—Game-Like
Devices such as the Telor that used cartridges and a multiple-choice interface. The second category is Response Systems, which includes twenty-seven items. Refer to Chapter 5 for information about the Response Systems functionality classification.
The acquisition-cost (3h) failure mode was identified in Step 3 for the Data Collection functional classification and given a moderate severity rank. This failure mode was determined by my personal experience in purchasing student response systems for a K-12 public school from
2000 to 2007 and not from data collected from the study’s twenty-five-year period of 1957 to
1982. I was able to find the cost for one item in the Data Collection functionality classification— the Voter 30 response system with a price of $720.00 in 1980. Since I was not able to find additional pricing information for 1957 to 1982 period, I reflected on the expenditure of approximately $1,800.00 in 2005 for a set of 30 clickers for the district at which I worked and the justification for spending that amount for one set of clickers for classroom use as part of this failure mode.
267 The Acquisition-Cost (3h) failure mode was addressed by looking at the price for the
Voter 30 in 1980, which was $595.00 plus an additional $125.00 for the polling station receiver for a total of $720.00. Using the CPI inflation calculator, that amount would translate to
$2,081.80 in 2014. Through email communication with Turning Technologies, a current supplier of classroom response systems, I received pricing for a similar system of $1,695.00 for a set of
32 responders and the receiving station.80 In terms of buying power in 1980 to acquire that system, the cost would have been approximately $586.22.
Additional adaptations of PRIM ’57-’82 objects in the Data Collection functional group considered in Step 5 include current devices, such as the Nintendo Gameboy and Leapfrog systems, which are similar to the 1970s Telor by Enrich.
The analysis of the Data Collection PRIM ’57-’82 was not as difficult to complete as that of other functional classifications discussed earlier in this chapter. There are many devices currently in use that are similar to the PRIM ’57-’82 Data Collection functional items found for this study. Response systems were evident as early as 1959 in the PRIM ’57-’82 data and were found consistently throughout the twenty-five-year period of this study. Further support of adaptations of the Response Systems classification exists because they are currently marketed to the K-12 and higher education environments.81 Because of considerations found in Step 5, such as the availability of items similar to the Telor and response systems, Step 6 of the Data
Collection PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA was considered closed.
80 Lindsay Czopur, emailed to author, Lampe, MO, August 28, 2014.
81 Turning Technologies, “Response Technology for K-12 Students,” Turning Technologies, 2014, accessed August 28, 2014, http://www.turningtechnologies.com/response-technology-k12.; Turning Technologies, “Student Clicker Solutions for Higher Education,” Turning Technologies, 2014, accessed August 28, 2014, http://www.turningtechnologies.com/higher-education.
268 FMEA—Microworld Functionality
Microworld functionality, for this study, was based on Patten et al.’s categories used to identify devices that improved knowledge using tools from the real-world or that simulated real- world events.82 In the Microworld PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA process, categories included the
Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices in the Interactive code and Slide Rules,
Time/Clocks, Calculators, and Telephone Packages in the Real Objects code. Examples of PRIM
’57-’82 items are the Audio Notebook and all items in the Slide Rules, Time/Clocks, Calculators, and Telephone Packages categories. Refer to the information provided in Chapter 4 in the respective categories for historical information regarding these PRIM ’57-’82 items.
Functionality information is available for review in Chapter 5—Microworld section.
In the Microworld functionality of PRIM ’57-’82 items, the FMEA discovered that acquisition-availability and acquisition-cost (3h) were failure modes given a moderate severity ranking. As part of the qualitative information used in the FMEA, Rundel, an interviewee, remembered that calculators were an expensive educational tool and that not all students had access to one.83 Availability as a failure mode was associated with the price of the item. The
Microworld—Calculators section of Chapter 5 includes qualitative information on the expense of using calculators when they were introduced in 1972.
Kinder’s 1973 research on instructional media supports a failure mode for audio-based equipment such as found in the Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices category.
Kinder contends that audio-based equipment, such as learning labs, failed and were not effective
82 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist," 298.
83 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
269 because teachers were not prepared to use them in education.84 Furthermore, Kinder argues that the equipment was not integrated with the curriculum, learning materials, or other media and that extra support was needed for the teacher in the form of a specialist or technician.85 Kinder also states that the equipment was expensive and needed to be of a better quality and improved.86
Examples of PRIM ’57-’82 objects included in the Audio-Based Devices category are audio notebooks, wireless audio learning systems, audio educational systems, and the Listen and Read
Literacy Programmes. Review Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices in Chapter 4 for more information.
In Step 5, for the review of the Microworld functional classification, I compared prices using the CPI inflation calculator on the Texas Instruments calculator (TI-2500) that cost
$149.95 in 1972. This price equates to a buying power of $854.68 in 2014. A current basic calculator, similar to the TI-2500, discussed in Chapter 5, was inexpensive at a price of $3.00 to
$5.79 in August 2014 that equates to approximately $0.53 to $1.02 of buying power in 1978.
Another example is the Reba Poor Telephone Package that was $150.00 per consultation hour in
1980. Converting to 2014 dollars, the expense would be $433.71 per hour. Although a school district would usually absorb the cost of the training package, the expense for a two-hour session with Reba Poor would be approximately 1.7 percent of the average teacher’s salary in 1980 or
$300.00 of a $17,644.00 annual salary.87 In comparison, in 2012, a two-hour session at a cost of
84 Kinder, Using Instructional Media, 204.
85 Kinder, Using Instructional Media, 204.
86 Kinder, Using Instructional Media, 204.
87 U. S. Department of Education, “Table 90. Estimated Average.”
270 $835.90 would be 1.4 percent of a teacher’s average annual salary, which was $56, 643.00.88
These illustrations show that costs were lower in 2014 for similar items, which addresses the acquisition-cost failure mode.
With the introduction of the basic four-function calculator in 1972, more than forty years ago, TI realized that the educational community was ready to accept newer technologies as instructional materials.89 In Step 5, the review process, of the Microworld FMEA, the existence of the TI technology education division and the T3-Teaching with Technology organization, a provider of professional development, confirms the current educational evolution of calculators uses in the classroom.
The telephone consultation concept is associated with distance education in the discussion in the Microworld—Telephone Packages section of Chapter 5. With that concept in mind, qualitative data from an interview with Rundel helped support Step 5 in the FMEA process for the Microworld classification. Rundel remembered distance education labs in her school, as being one of the best educational technology experiences she had. These labs allowed not only high school students to attend more advanced classes than were offered in their school buildings, but also teachers could attend professional development opportunities. The distance education labs saved time for the students, because they did not have to ride the bus thirty to forty minutes each way to attend an advanced class. Rundel felt the distance education labs were cost- efficient.90
88 U. S. Department of Education, “Table 90. Estimated Average.”
89 Texas Instruments Education Technology, “T3 Organization by Texas.”
90 S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
271 One of the most dramatic evolutions observed in the Microworld PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA process is that of the slide rule. Although the slide rule is no longer in production, I found research that showed it evolved into the electronic slide rule, and as predicted by Schmidt and
Busch in 1968, the slide rule gave way to the calculator.91
The PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Microworld process is considered closed, as all identified failure modes showed evolution and adaptations, which meet the requirement of the PRIM ’57-
’82 failure definition established earlier in this chapter.
FMEA—Presentation Functionality
Presentation is the sixth functional PRIM ’57-’82 classification in the FMEA process.
This functional classification was created poststructurally, as explained in Chapter 5.
Presentation, based on “media-instrumentation” for this study, is defined as the materials and devices used for transmitting an educational message.92 For the FMEA of the Presentation functionality classification, all PRIM ’57-’82 objects were in the Transparencies category. Refer to Chapter 4 for historical information about transparencies. The two PRIM ’57-’82 items are layered overhead transparencies and the Instant Slide—a 2” by 2” customizable slide for use in a slide projector. As a limitation established in the PRIM ’57-’82 definition, projecting devices such as overhead and slide projectors, are not included in this study, although transparencies are included because of their portability and their ability to create responses.
Step 3 in the Presentation PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA procedure identified three failure modes.
The failure modes in the Presentation functionality classification are the variety of materials (3d)
91 Schmidt and Busch, “Electronic Digital Slide Rule,” 54.
92 Definition and Terminology Commission (D & T Committee), Changing Role of, 86.
272 that was given a severity rank of low, acquisition-cost (3h) that was given a severity rank of moderate, and qualitative input-outdated (3i) that was given a severity rank of moderate. The failure modes were derived from qualitative comments of an interviewee spoken to for this study. As part of Step 3, an interview with Beeler was used to determine two of the identified failure modes. Beeler stated that content-specific manufactured transparencies did not always have the variety of content she needed, transparencies were expensive, and funding was not always available.93 The third failure mode concerning the Instant Slides was based on qualitative input-outdated (3i). The 2” by 2” slide format for transmitting educational messages became outdated, as other media instrumentation was more convenient. Dinan, in a 2000 article about using technology in the classroom, argues that using newer technologies such as electronic presentations freed the instructor from dependence on the “audiovisual department to set up overheads, slide projectors, VCRs, or multiple screens.”94
The review conducted in Step 5 for the Presentation functionality FMEA revealed that newer technologies have evolved. Examples include presentation software such as Articulate
Storyline 2, Microsoft PowerPoint, and Prezi presentation software. Presentation equipment solutions include using interactive whiteboards as discussed in Chapter 5. In addition, layered slides are currently available from American Educational Products for $60.00 with much brighter colorization and clearer images.95 Using a Consumer Price Index inflation calculator, the 1965 layered transparencies price of $34.50 would equate to approximately $260.94 in 2014 buying power.
93 J. Beeler, interviewed by author, Lampe, MO, March 29, 2014.
94 S. Dinan, “Technology in the Classroom: Microsoft PowerPoint Slide Shows,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 31, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 454.
95 American Educational Products, “AMEP - Earth Science.”
273 As seen in the evolution of the slide projector into a portable or ceiling-mounted LCD projector, the Instant Slide as a PRIM ’57-’82 object evolved and disappeared as a current instructional material as listed in Step 5 of this FMEA review. Although regular use of slide projectors in educational settings is not commonplace, the equipment and, therefore, slides are still used in education. Through research discussed in Chapter 5, I found that slide projector usage is tied to displaying archived materials created in this older format and that more current instructional materials are produced in presentation formats such as electronic slide shows.96
In the Presentation PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA, all failure modes were determined to have evolved or adapted, which as the FMEA definition for my process stated, then considers them as closed in Step 6.
PRIM ’57-’82 Failure Mode Effect Analysis Results Summary
The use of a FMEA on the PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications proved to be an informative evaluation. The FMEA process began by using data collected throughout the dissertation process. I identified ninety-eight instructional materials (PRIM ’57-’82) and was able to provide historical information found in research, interviews, and advertisements. Using the
PRIM ’57-’82 data, I analyzed the items by functional classifications similar to those in Patten et al.’s handheld devices study. I then established the six functional classifications (Administration,
Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation) to be used in the
PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA process described in this chapter.
Looking at the overall results of the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA, I found seven failure modes.
The identified failure modes were number of students (3a), frequency of use (3c), variety of
96 DenBeste, “PowerPoint, Technology and the Web,” 501.; Moturi, “Emerging Scenario of E-Learning.”
274 materials (3d), content (3f), design-effectiveness (3g), acquisition-availability and cost (3h), and lastly, the open-ended qualitative input for other failure considerations (3i). The most common failure mode associated the FMEA conducted on PRIM ’57-’82 objects was the acquisition-cost
(3h) identified in the Administration, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and
Presentation functional classifications. Information was available historically on many of the
PRIM ‘57-’82 objects in these classifications, which assisted in identifying acquisition-cost (3h) as a failure mode. Research and interviews helped to establish some failure mode, but other failure modes were more difficult to determine due to the lack of available resources (e.g., number of staff (3b), and technical quality (3e). In some cases, the PRIM ’57-’82 items were no longer manufactured, so further information was not available from a production or sales force perspective. Although I was able to communicate with several manufacturers and company representatives, these individuals were not always knowledgeable about the products from 1957 to 1982 due to the historical nature of the items.
Using the functional framework established in Patten et al.’s research showed the evolution and adaptation of the items in the functional classifications from the twenty-five-year period of this study to current-day. The functional categories used from Patten el al.’s study in
2006 (Administration, Collaborative, Data Collection, and Microworld) led to four the six PRIM
’57-’82 functional categories chosen for this study. Items in these categories have evolved or adapted which allowed Step 6 of the process FMEA to be labeled as closed. Further research and qualitative information gained from interviews conducted was used in the FMEA process to close the Curriculum and Presentation functional classifications.
Two research questions were addressed in this study about the use of FMEA as an analytical tool. One question was, “How was the functionality of instructional materials as
275 defined by this research considered a success or a failure as related to present-day portable and responsive devices?” In the PRIM ’57-’82 data, items in each FMEA functional classification were determined to have evolved or been adapted to newer technologies. Discussions of the evolution or adaptation of devices in each of the six PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications
(Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation) are provided with examples of current instructional materials.
Another research question addressed by the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA was, “What were the life cycles of instructional materials as defined by this research in the educational process?” This question also refers to the PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications, to explain changes and adaptations of instructional materials. The results of the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA showed seven different failure modes that influenced the life cycle of the data gathered. These modes are listed in the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Results Summary section of this chapter and show that acquisition- cost (3h) was recognized as a failure mode in five of the six functional classifications. Only the
Collaborative functional classification does not show acquisition-cost (3h) as a failure mode.
In Chapter 7, a summary of this study is provided along with the historical significance of this research and suggestions for future studies based on the findings of PRIM ’57-’82 objects.
CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter includes a summary of the study of portable and responsive instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 (PRIM ’57-’82). It discusses the pedagogies and functionality of the
PRIM ’57-’82 devices and the implications from a failure mode and effect analysis on the instructional materials as defined for this study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to develop a knowledge base of specific instructional materials used from 1957 to 1982 as a contribution to the field of educational technology. Within this context, this study evaluated PRIM ’57-’82 objects as defined in the Terms and Definitions section in Chapter 1 throughout these approaches. Initially, the PRIM ’57-’82 data were organized by audiovisual codes and categories. The second approach was to determine the functionality of the PRIM ’57-’82 objects, and thirdly, a FMEA was conducted to determine the possible failures of the PRIM ’57-’82 objects.
A poststructural theory was used to examine individual stories and to create new interpretations of the verbal and visual PRIM ’57-’82 data gathered for this historical content analysis.
277 Research Questions
The research questions for this study were as follows:
What educational pedagogies became prevalent through the use of instructional
materials from 1957 to 1982 as defined by this research?
What were the educational functions of instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 as
defined by this research?
How was the functionality of instructional materials as defined by this research
considered a success or a failure as related to present-day portable and responsive
devices?
What were the life cycles of instructional materials as defined by this research in the
educational process?
Summary of the Study
Instructional materials were used for education as early as cave drawings, Comenius’
Orbus Pictus in 1657 as a precursor to audiovisual aids1, and Froebel’s gifts of the 1830s (twenty objects through which, when used sequentially, a young student could construct knowledge through play). Twentieth-century examples of instructional materials used in education include
Thorndike’s foundation for programmed instruction; Dorris’ visual instruction; Hoban’s, as well as Dale’s audiovisual instruction; and Skinner’s teaching machines and programmed instruction.
1 Saettler, Evolution of American Educational, 31.; L. Hanratty, “Learning from Comenius,” TEFL Ideas, May 14, 2011, accessed September 8, 2014, http://luansteflideas.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/learning-comenius/.
278 The twenty-five-year period chosen for this study was significant in that it was from the start of the space race in 1957 up to 1982, a date that marks acceptance of computers in the classroom. Resources were reviewed in the initial data collection process. Focus was on resources found in audiovisual-based professional organizations, such as the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, and virtual museums, such as the Smithsonian
Institute - National Museum of American History Collection and the Computer History Museum.
In addition, journals, such as Audiovisual Instruction, and audiovisual and educational technology textbooks were reviewed for data that met the specified definition to be included in this study: portable and responsive instructional materials used in education between 1957 and
1982.
Importance to the Educational Technology Field
Noted educational technology historians and researchers, such as Dale, Saettler, Heinich, and Molenda, have provided information on audiovisual instruments, devices, and materials through research and textbooks.2 My research conducted on portable and responsive instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 adds knowledge to the field by providing a close look at specific types of instructional materials used during the period under study. Several of these distinguished professionals have provided detailed articles or chapters in textbooks on the use of film-slide and film-motion, 3 teaching machines,4 and programmed instruction for learning.5 As an example, the
2 Dale, Audio-Visual Methods.; Saettler, History of Instructional Technology.; Heinich, Technology and the Management.; Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century.”
3 Dale, Audio-Visual Methods.; R. Heinich, M. Molenda, and J. Russell, Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction, 3rd ed. (New York: Macmillan, Inc., 1989).; Molenda, “AECT History - 20th Century.”
4 Fry, "Teaching Machines,” 28-31.; Skinner, "Teaching Machines."; Lumsdaine, "Teaching Machines and Self."; A. Lumsdaine, “Teaching Machines: An Introductory Overview,” Chap. 1 in Teaching Machines and
279 term responder appears in three editions of Instructional Media and the New Technologies of
Instruction and is described as a “device used with some audiovisual equipment to allow a student to respond.” 6 Although the term responder is included in these glossaries, there is no further mention made of this instructional material in these textbooks. My study focused on a small segment of instructional materials used from 1957 to 1982, which continued the work of these educational technology professionals and includes devices known as responders. Of the ninety-eight PRIM ’57-’82 objects used in this study, twenty-seven items are from the
Programmed Instruction—Response Systems category, which represented a majority of the items collected from any one category. As found in the functional and FMEA research completed in this study, response systems are currently used in education in the K-16 classroom environments.
Other examples of audiovisual discussions include Dale’s, who in 1946 provided evidence about audiovisual uses in the classroom and contended that schools have a “cafeteria of learning materials” including motion pictures, 3-D models, slides, and filmstrips.7 Saettler’s
Evolution of American Educational Technology contains informational sections on teaching
Programmed Learning: A Source Book, eds. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser (Washington, DC: Department of Audio- Visual Instruction National Education Association, 1960), 5-22.; B. Fine, Teaching Machines (New York: Bold Face Books, 1962).; Pressey, "Teaching Machines and Language," 33-37.; L. G. Dorsett, Audio-Visual Teaching Machines (Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1971).; Benjamin, “History of Teaching Machines,” 703-712.
5 Thorndike, Education.; Fine, Teaching Machines.; Markle, "Programed Instruction and Teaching," 129- 135.; J. P. DeCecco, Educational Technology Readings in Programmed Instruction (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964).; G. Ofiesh and W. Meierhenry, eds., Trends in Programmed Instruction: Papers from the First Annual Convention of the National Society for Programmed Instruction (Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1964).; Heinich, Technology and the Management.; Heinich, Molenda, and Russell, Instructional Media (1989).; Saettler, Evolution of American Educational.
6 Heinich, Molenda, and Russell, Instructional Media (1985).; Heinich, Molenda, and Russell, Instructional Media (1989), 442.; R. Heinich et al., Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning, 6th ed. (Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall, 1999), 409.
7 Dale, Audio-Visual Methods, 525.
280 machines, programmed instruction, and educational television.8 Molenda, in Historical
Foundations, discusses the history of visual media and the uses of educational radio and television as well as the more recent use of computers and distance education.9 In each of these examples, many instructional materials such as audio card readers, instructional kits, and teaching machines are discussed, but most of the PRIM ’57-’82 categories for the period of this study are not included in their discussions. For example, portable and responsive instructional materials such as learning games, slide rules, calculators, and transparencies are not found in the previously mentioned texts.
As support of historical research, Heinich states that the study of the “technological innovations would throw considerable light on the survival of inventions.”10 Through this functional study conducted on PRIM ’57-’82 objects, I provided insight into the technological innovations from 1957 to 1982—an important time in the history of audiovisual instruction, the space race, and the mainstreaming of classroom computers. Additionally, the failure mode and effect analysis I conducted conveyed knowledge of changes and innovation within each PRIM
’57-’82 category as related to its possible functional failures. Furthermore, Roblyer discusses the need for historical research to construct a foundation on which to “build even more successful and useful structures” in order to respond to modern education challenges.11 One of the purposes of this study was to provide a knowledge base on which to build a foundation such as suggested by Roblyer. The PRIM ’57-’82 knowledge base lists information on ninety-eight instructional
8 Saettler, History of Instructional Technology.
9 Molenda, "Historical Foundations," 7-11.
10 Heinich, "Proper Study Instructional Technology," 76.
11 M. Roblyer, Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, 4th ed. (Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2006), 6.
281 materials including details on classroom uses (i.e., individual or collaborative), approximate size, as well as applies the audiovisual codes, categories, and functional classifications established in this poststructural study.
Additionally, I examined interviews of AECT leaders and contributors to the field of educational technology from the History Makers project.12 In viewing videos from the History
Makers project, responses to the “Error! Bookmark not defined.” question include motion pictures (Wittich13, Molenda14), programmed instruction (Heinich15), and computers (Wittich16,
Heinich17). I do not find any instances of audio card readers, game-like devices, response systems, or any of the real objects found in this study, such as slide rules and calculators, discussed in the recordings. Heinich mentions concerns over distance education, but nothing was stated about the equipment that supported that technology such as telephone conferencing as found in the PRIM ’57-’82 Real Objects category. Building upon the foundational works of Dale,
Saettler, Heinich, and Molenda, Wittich, and others allowed my research to provide additional historical information about instructional materials. This study, therefore, fills an informational void concerning portable and responsive instructional materials from 1957 to 1982.
12 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, “AECT History Makers,” Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 2014, accessed October 31, 2014, http://www.aect.org/HistoryMakers.
13 W. Wittich, interviewed by B. Lockee. Interview with Dr. Walt Wittich, March 22, 2012.
14 M. Molenda, interviewed by G. Morrison. Interview with Dr. Mike Molenda, January 18, 2013.
15 R. Heinich, interviewed by B. Lockee. Interview with Dr. Robert Heinich, March 15, 2013.
16 W. Wittich, interviewed by B. Lockee. Interview with Dr. Walt Wittich, March 22, 2012.
17 R. Heinich, interviewed by B. Lockee. Interview with Dr. Robert Heinich, March 15, 2013.
282 Methodology Summary
A content analysis historiography with a poststructural theoretical framework was selected for conducting this study as described in Chapter 2. The qualitative content analysis is a systematic method of looking at the variety of data collected, which includes books, journal articles, textbooks, advertisements, images and interviews as well as personal experiences.
Within the historical period of the study, interpretations about instructional materials pedagogies, functions, and the possible failure modes of PRIM ’57-’82 objects are disclosed. A narrative format is used in this research to allow sharing of knowledge, provisioning of new perspectives, and contributing to the educational technology field.
Educational Technology Definitions Summary
Discussion in Chapter 3 provides historical information about the educational technology definitions from the early twentieth century’s use of audio and visual instructional equipment to the instructional materials used in the twenty-five years selected for this study. The definitions changed and evolved as instructional equipment became effective in education. For example, the progression of Dorris’ 1928 audiovisual instruction definition that uses instructional materials to enhance learning through sight and sound18 to the 1963 instructional media definition that incorporates not only equipment and materials but also any person who enables learning19 indicates how the definition of learning with instructional materials changed over time. Included in the period of my study was the 1977 educational technology definition that evolved from its
18 Dorris, Visual Instruction Public Schools, 6.
19 Morris, "The Function of Media," 11.
283 audiovisual predecessors and focuses on producing learning with resources such as “Messages,
People, Materials, Devices, Techniques, and Settings.”20 During the twenty-five-year period of this study, 1957 to 1982, the educational technology field evolved and changed, as did its definitions, to meet the various roles in education and to become a career. As the audiovisual/educational technology definitions evolved, so did instructional materials used in the classroom. In the 1960s, early instructional media definitions were inferred through the teacher, equipment, and materials used in classrooms. For example, Instructional Kits (e.g., fraction kits) and Instructional Systems (e.g., rateometers) involved both teachers and materials. Later in the twenty-five years studied, the influence of the 1977 definition (e.g., devices, people, and settings) is shown through the use of calculators, telephone conferencing, and the beginning of computer uses in classrooms.
PRIM ’57-’82 Historical and Pedagogies Summary
Content analysis was used to gain further insight into instructional materials that were portable and response-driven during the time of 1957 to 1982. PRIM ’57-’82 data were collected about instructional materials that met the criteria as outlined in this study’s instructional materials ’57-’82 definition. Requirements for inclusion in this study were that the instructional materials were small and portable, used in collaborative or individual activities, either electrical or mechanical, created some type of response or feedback and that they supported classroom activities. Using the study’s definition, ninety-eight instructional materials were found that met these criteria.
20 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Definition of Educational Technology (1977), 1.; Januszewski and Persichitte, “A History of AECT’s,” 270.
284 The ninety-eight PRIM ’57-’82 objects identified were then sorted into codes, categories, subcategories, and groups to aid in the discussion concerning the historical and pedagogical information about each object. Three codes (Interactive, Real Objects, and Transparencies) were established based on codes used historically in the audiovisual field to sort similar PRIM ’57-’82 objects into these three areas. It was necessary to separate the codes used in this study into further categories. Appendix H provides a timeline of audiovisual codes and categories used from the 1928 to 1990. I included the period prior to as well as after my twenty-five-year period to learn how the audiovisual codes and categories had developed through time.
The Interactive code includes seven categories that are discussed herein in chronological order of the PRIM ’57-’82 items used in this study (Programmed Instruction, Learning
Materials, Instructional Kits, Learning Games, Response Systems, Instructional Systems, and
Computer). The Real Objects code was organized chronologically into four categories (Slide
Rules, Time/Clocks, Calculators, and Telephone Packages). The third code, Transparencies, contains only two PRIM ’57-’82 items; therefore, it did not need any further division.
A discussion of the importance of the historical and pedagogical research of PRIM ’57-
’82 objects is provided in the next section.
Importance to History and Pedagogies of PRIM ’57-’82
In establishing the historical and pedagogical foundations of the ninety-eight PRIM ’57-
’82 items, it was determined that the historical information about the audiovisual categories was important to the educational technology field. The significance of the audiovisual categories is discussed in the next paragraphs.
285 The research on audiovisual categories, shown in Appendix C, helped identify specific categories, the years in which these terms were used for describing classroom aids as well as examples representing each category. This study’s PRIM ’57-’82 codes and categories were based on a chronologic literature review of noted authors such as Dorris, Dale, Dent, Allen,
Erickson, and Gerlach and Ely.21 These audiovisual categories were arranged in chronological order as shown in a timeline format. The Audiovisual Category Timeline (Appendix H) illustrates the rise or decline of the identified audiovisual categories. For example, the Real
Objects category is identified as an audiovisual category from 1928 to 1971 and is not found listed as an audiovisual category after 1971.
In my findings, the majority of PRIM ’57-’82 items are in the Interactive—Programmed
Instruction (35 items) and the Response Systems (27 items) categories. The remaining Interactive
PRIM ’57-’82 objects are categorized in Learning Materials (7 items), Instructional Kits (3 items), Learning Games (1 item), Instructional Systems (6 items), and Computer (1 item). These seven Interactive categories were created from the content analysis of audiovisual codes used from 1928 to 1990.22 The Interactive code includes over 80 percent of the total items collected for use in this study.
Within the Interactive code, the Programmed Instruction category contains thirty-five objects found from 1957 to 1982 and is subdivided into four areas (Audio Card Readers, Craig
Readers, Audio-Based Devices, and Game-Like Devices). This is the only category that spans the
21 Dorris, Visual Instruction Public Schools.; Dale, Audio-Visual Methods.; Dent, Audio-Visual Handbook.; W. H. Allen, “Audio-Visual Materials.”; Erickson, Fundamentals of Teaching.; Gerlach and Ely, Teaching and Media (1971).
22 I included audiovisual codes and categories used past the 1982 end date of this study to look for areas that may have been declining in use or categories that were beginning to develop.
286 entire twenty-five years of this study. It is not surprising to find that the items categorized in
Programmed Instruction are classified in the Curriculum functionality due to the use of programmed learning for teaching specific content. The Audio Card Readers (13 objects) and the
Game-Like Devices (14 objects) categories contain the majority of the Programmed Instruction items discovered in the content analysis. An Educational Toys subcategory, of Programmed
Instruction—Game-Like Devices, includes nine PRIM ’57-’82 objects and establishes the use of electronic games for learning as early as 1969 with the introduction of the Piko dat Learning
Machine.
The Response Systems category includes twenty-seven PRIM ’57-’82 objects dating from
1962 to 1982, the second longest-lasting category identified by this research—a period of twenty years. By using a visual analysis of Response Systems images, the evolution of response devices was observed. Discovered in the functional analysis and the FMEA that was conducted, current response systems are used in the K-16 learning environments and have evolved from simple systems to wired systems and currently to wireless response devices. The earliest Response
Systems device found in this research was a simple device that required a student to punch a response through paper as seen in the 1962 Rapid Rater. Responses systems continued to evolve from a low-technology solution offered by the Ektagraphic Responder in 1974 through the Voter
30 response system in 1980 that linked up to thirty students to an Apple II computer, enabling the teacher to view the response data. Data collected from the response devices about students’ understanding of the curriculum empowered the teacher to provide more individualized instruction as well as created an interactive classroom environment for the students.
The second code for sorting and organizing the PRIM ’57-’82 data is Real Objects, which includes items such as the slide rules, time/clocks, calculators, and telephone packages used in
287 authentic environments. Real Objects that met the portable and responsive criteria to be included in this study were found from 1959 to 1980. The Real Objects code includes sixteen objects. This accounts for 16 percent of the total PRIM ’57-’82 items discovered. Calculators are the largest group with seven items found in the time from 1966 to 1975. Slide rules are not found in the resources used for this study after 1974, which assisted in the confirmation of the slide rule’s transition to an alternative functional device such as the calculator.
The third code, Transparencies, contains two items but is included in the study because the objects elicited a response from the teachers or students. Transparencies were found as an audiovisual code from 1965 to 1980. The layered transparencies and the custom 2” by 2” slide set the foundation for electronic presentation tools such as Microsoft’s PowerPoint and other software packages whose function was to present information via projection.
As was discovered in this study through the content analysis conducted, two instructional areas, computers (especially small and portable versions) and teleconferencing, were in the early stages of development during the twenty-five period studied. Although this study did not focus on educational computers during the twenty-five-year period, I found one example of a portable handheld computer, the Memo Note 30. This small device was viewed as a predecessor to the personal digital assistants. Telephone conferencing was found in two types of objects. The first was a conference telephone as an instructional system used to bring guest speakers into the classroom in 1972. The second example showing telephone communication is the telephone training package by Reba Poor in the early 1980s, in which the telephone was used as a training and consulting tool to transmit educational messages.
Due to the diverse nature of the PRIM ’57-’82 items discovered in this study, the pedagogies were discussed specific to each item within each category. The common pedagogical
288 elements of the PRIM ’57-’82 objects were the response and feedback features and that the item was used to support classroom instruction either individually or as a group learning activity.
As a contribution to the educational technology field, the purpose of this study was to provide a knowledge base of the instructional materials from 1957 to 1982 that were portable and responsive and that fit the PRIM ’57-’82 definition as stated in Chapter 1. Data specific to the ninety-eight PRIM ’57-’82 objects used in this study, as well as information about each item’s code, category, and functionality, were instrumental in the analytical phases of this poststructural study. PRIM ’57-’82 objects were examined by many criteria established by the initial PRIM ’57-’82 definition that determined their suitability to be included in this study.
Examples included the decisions based on individual or collaborative/small group use, the devices being electronic or mechanical, and whether the student or teacher had direct interaction with the device. The information included in this knowledge base provides valuable evidence for specific years that PRIM ’57-’82 devices were used as well as the manufacturer of each device.
The content analysis conducted for this study of instructional materials captured approximately six hundred initial images and text-based references to instructional materials between 1957 and
1982. Sorting the data allowed for the identification of the ninety-eight items used for this study that met the definition established for PRIM ’57-’82.
PRIM ’57-’82 Functional Summary
In Chapter 5, the relationship between historical uses and present-day practices with instructional materials is addressed by comparing the functionality of PRIM ’57-’82 objects to current portable and responsive instructional materials. Building on the instructional materials codes, categories, and subcategories discussed in Chapter 4, the PRIM ’57-’82 data were divided
289 into six functional classifications. Four of the classifications (Administration, Collaborative,
Data Collection, and Microworld) are based on Patten et al.’s functional categories. Refer to
Appendix N for information on Patten et al.s’ functional framework.23 The two other functional classifications, Curriculum and Presentation, were created poststructurally based on the PRIM
’57-’82 data. These six classifications were used to sort and analyze the ninety-eight objects recorded as PRIM ‘57-’82 from a functional perspective. Discussion included instructional materials that had similar functions to devices, applications, and internet resources created after the 1982 end date of this study in order to establish a connection from past instructional materials to current devices that offer similar functionality.
Importance of This Study to the Functionality of Instructional Materials
The majority of the PRIM ’57-’82 objects were classified in the Programmed Instruction
(35 objects) and Response Systems (27 objects) categories and when analyzed by functionality, were classified in the Curriculum and Data Collection classifications respectively. These results were not surprising, as functionality was closely documented with each category but not always an absolute. For example, thirty-one Programmed Instruction PRIM ’57-’82 objects are catalogued in the Curriculum functional group, but four other Programmed Instruction objects are classified in other functional classifications. For example, the Data Collection and
Microworld functional classifications each have two Programmed Instruction PRIM ’57-’82 objects identified. All twenty-seven PRIM ’57-’82 objects in the Response Systems category are classified in Data Collection as well as two Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices.
Table 3, presented in Chapter 5, illustrates the functional framework of PRIM ’57-’82 objects
23 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist."
290 organized by functional classifications (Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data
Collection, Microworld, and Presentation). In reviewing Table 4, the PRIM ’57-’82 categories and the number of items are shown with references to the functional classification. For example, the Instructional Systems category (e.g., telephone conferencing and reading accelerators) is represented by PRIM ’57-’82 objects in both the Collaborative and Curriculum—Reading functional classifications.
The functional analysis in Chapter 5 shows how PRIM ’57-’82 objects have evolved into current educational devices. For example, in the discussion about Collaborative—Learning
Games, online sight-word games are shown to have similar functionality to the flash card games advertised by School Service in 1957. Another example, Programmed Instruction that saw its apex of instructional use in the 1970s,24 has had a resurgence in educational settings,25 as seen with self-teaching books and the use of instructional materials such as online emulators and programmed cartridges for Gameboy and Nintendo devices that have similar functionality.
Through this study, the contribution to the educational technology field is seen through the relationships established between each PRIM ’57-’82 object to one of the six functional classifications (Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and
Presentation). I expected to find many PRIM ’57-’82 objects related to the Curriculum functional classification, as this was an educationally-based study; in fact, over 46 percent (46 objects) of the PRIM ’57-’82 objects are classified with Curriculum functionality either as
General, Mathematics/Arithmetic or Reading.
24 Reiser, “Instructional Technology: A History,” 11-48.
25 H. Eyre, “Keller's Personalized System of Instruction: Was it a Fleeting Fancy or Is There a Revival on the Horizon?,” The Behavior Analyst Today 8, no. 3 (2007): 317.
291 The Data Collection functionality classification of PRIM ’57-’82 objects revealed some unexpected results including the reaction of two of the interviewees, Rundel and Edmonson.
They were both surprised to see the quantity of response devices found in the study’s time frame, and both thought that response systems were more recently added instructional materials to classroom technologies.26 With over 29 percent of the total PRIM ’57-’82 objects identified as response systems, there was a Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices (Telor) classified in the Data Collection functionality in this study. The Telor collected results from students’ attempts to answer the questions posed from the device and thereby was classified in the Data
Collection group.
By making comparison of similarly functioning devices, educational technologists can learn from how instructional materials were used during this study’s twenty-five-year period to integrate technologies into present-day classrooms. For example, the items in the Response
Systems category evolved over the time of this study from a visual response held up by a student to wired devices connected to a computer for recording multiple data about students’ performance and achievement.
PRIM ’57-’82 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Summary
As this study progressed, each analysis aided in the next phase. Initially ninety-eight items were classified that met the PRIM ’57-’82 definition. These items were sorted into twelve audiovisual-based categories, with a discussion of each group provided in Chapter 4. Next, the
PRIM ’57-’82 items were analyzed by function, with discussion provided about similarly
26 L. Edmondson, interviewed by author, Springfield, MO, April 16, 2014.; S. Rundel, interviewed by author, Kimberling City, MO, March 25, 2014.
292 functioning current instructional materials. As a final analysis of the PRIM ’57-’82 data, a process FMEA was conducted.
FMEA is primarily a quantitative tool that was adapted for this study to examine the possible failures of PRIM ’57-’82 functionality. As evidence of actions taken to correct identified failure modes, current products, revisions, or adaptations were described that have similar functionality to the PRIM ’57-’82 items. For example, the slide rule evolved into an electronic slide rule and finally into a calculator.27 For this study’s PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA, the slide rule was not considered a failure because it evolved into other devices that offered the same, and perhaps an enriched, purpose.
Importance of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis to Educational Technology
Seven failure modes are identified as causes for PRIM ’57-’82 failures are documented in this study from the FMEA conducted. The modes found in the FMEA of functional PRIM ’57-
’82 objects are number of students (3a), frequency of use (3c), variety of materials (3d), content
(3f), design-effectiveness (3g), acquisition-availability and cost (3h), and lastly, the open-ended qualitative input. The most common failure mode is acquisition-cost that was found in five of the six functional classifications (Administration, Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and
Presentation).
As derived from the FMEA conducted for this study, the six PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications analyzed (Adminstration, Collaborative, Curriculum, Data Collection,
Microworld, and Presentation) are considered a success. It was found that the functional classifications had evolved or changed based on the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA definition of failure—
27 Schmidt and Busch, “Electronic Digital Slide Rule,” 54.
293 i.e., if evolution or adaptation had occured, then the PRIM ’57-’82 functional classification was considered a success.
FMEA is important to the educational technology field, as it offers a different perspective in evaluating instructional materials in the classroom. The importance of evaluations of instructional materials and media is described through research discussed in Chapter 6—
Historical Aspects of Instructional Materials Evaluations. This section includes items such as motion film evaluations and checklists. Futhermore, as Hoban describes, it is necessary to build a bridge between practice and research.28 Furthermore, Orderinde explains different types of evaluations for use in the educational technology field including goal or objective oriented, level of sophistication, design variables, and personal assessments.29 Sharing information about using a FMEA in an educational study will allow other researchers to gain knowledge about this valuable evaluation tool.
Relating PRIM ’57-’82 to Today’s Classrooms
In consideration of discovering the pedagogical and functional uses of instructional devices of the twenty-five-year period studied, it is significant to look at how handheld devices function in current classrooms. Dorris, in 1928, commented on the functions of instructional materials: “after an educational tool or device has….been accepted…, the next logical step is to analyze the functions for which it is best adapted.”30 Dale, Lumsdaine, and others state that instructional materials must fulfill a purpose or fill a functional role in education to be
28 Hoban, “Research and Reality.”
29 N. Orderinde, “Instructional Material Assessment Tool,” Audiovisual Instruction 19, no. 3 (March 1974): 22-24.
30 Dorris, Visual Instruction Public Schools, 36.
294 effective.31 Roschelle discusses the challenges of creating solutions that are appropriate for educational purposes and was concerned about “a ubiquitous, mobile, personal teacher and learning platform that will run all the best pedagogical applications.”32 In this study, functions of portable and responsive instructional materials were examined as related to current functionality of handheld devices, which Patten et al. researched in 2006 (i.e., Administration, Collaborative,
Data Collection, and Microworld). Using these four functional categories along with two classifications created poststructurally, Curriculum and Presentation, the study showed that similar functionality exists between PRIM ’57-’82 objects and to those of present-day. Refer to
Table 15 to view examples from each PRIM ’57-’82 functional classification as compated to present-day objects.
The impact of instructional materials that are portable and responsive is seen in the implementation of learning initiatives using technology that K-12 school districts, both large and small, have instituted. A large school district example is Indian Prairie School District (IPSD), in
Aurora, Illinois, which had 28,435 students in 2013.33 IPSD began implementing a Bring Your
Own Technology (BYOT) initiative in 2012, which allows students to use their own tablets and smartphones in specific BYOT guest-networked classrooms.34 As another way to integrate
31 Dale, Audio-Visual Methods, 69.; A. Lumsdaine, “Assessing the Effectiveness of Instructional Programs,” Chap. 7 in Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning, II. Data and Direction, ed. R. Glaser (Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States, 1965), 267-320.; Roschelle, "Unlocking the Learning Value," 260-272.; Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist."
32 Roschelle, “Unlocking the Learning Value,” 270.
33 Illinois Interactive Report Card, “Indian Prairie CUSD 204,” Illinois Interactive Report Card, September 9, 2014, accessed September 10, 2014, http://illinoisreportcard.com/District.aspx?districtId=19022204026.
34 R. Witkowski, “Bring Your Own Technology Pilot,” April 10, 2012, accessed September 30, 2014, http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/newsfiles/news_51413_1.pdf.; Indian Prairie School District, “Indian Prairie School District: Bring Your Own Technology,” Indian Prairie School District, May 14, 2013, accessed September 10, 2014, http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/newsfiles/news_51413_1.pdf.
295 Table 15
PRIM ’57-’82 Functional Classifications Comparisons
Functional Classification PRIM ’57-’82 Categories Present-day Objects Administration Computers PDAs, iPads or similar tablets (storage, grading, (Memo Note 30 ) scheduling) Collaborative Learning Games, Online learning websites; (sharing information) Instructional Systems university courses to teach (Telephone Conferences) learning with games; telephone conferencing such as Adobe Connect, Google Hangout Curriculum Programmed Instruction, Reading improvment tools, (improve instruction) Learning Materials, online emulators, Cuisenaire Instructional Kits, rods, instructional kits Instructional Systems (Little Professor, Math Manipulatives, Multimedia Kits, Rateometers) Data Collection Programmed Instruction— Handheld gaming systems, (Communication, feedback) Game-Like Devices, response systems Response Systems (Telor, Response Systems) Microworld Slide Rule, Time/Clocks, Time/clocks, calculators, visual (real-world tools) Calculator, Telephone and audio packages for distance Packages, Programmed education, text-to-speech Instruction—Audio-Based devices/applications Devices Presentation Transparencies Layered transparencies, (transmission system) interactive whiteboards, applications such as PowerPoint
296 portable, responsive devices, Joliet Township High School District began a 1:1 computing initiative in 2012 for all ninth-grade students, and by the 2014-2015 school year, all six thousand high school students were eligible to receive a computing device.35 One-to-one (1:1) computing or learning initiatives refers to the amount of technology available to students and teachers: one device for each person.36 Reeds Spring, Missouri, a school district of 1,915 students in 2014,37 implemented a 1:1 learning initiative by providing laptop computers to 650 high school students and expanded the program to an additional 350 seventh- and eighth-grade students in January
2014.38 Learning initiatives, as seen in these three examples, also pose additional challenges for a school district, such as providing professional development for teachers, training for students, technical support, and integration into the curriculum for effective learning. Bebell and O’Dwyer contend in their 2010 research that additional examination is needed to ensure educational outcomes from using the variety of 1:1 computing initiatives.39
35 Joliet Township High School District 204, “1:1 Computing - Making JTHS a School of Choice,” Joliet Township High School District 204, 2014, accessed September 16, 2014, http://www.jths.org/district204/1-1- computing/1to1-computing/.
36 D. Bebell and L. O'Dwyer, “Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings,” The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 9, no. 1 (January 2010): 6.; W. Chen, C. Lim, and A. Tan, “From Many-to-One to One-to-Many: The Evolution of Ubiquitous Computing in Education,” Educational Technology 51, no. 1 (January-February 2011): 21.
37 Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, “District Report Card - Reeds Spring R- IV (104044),” Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2014, accessed September 9, 2014, http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/guidedinquiry/School%20Report%20Card/District%20Report%20Card.aspx?rp:SchoolYea r=2014&rp:SchoolYear=2013&rp:SchoolYear=2012&rp:SchoolYear=2011&rp:DistrictCode=104044#P2ecbbec74 4b44b4598b9c8989c616b77_2_88iT1.
38 Reeds Spring School District, “1:1 Learning Initiative,” Reeds Spring School District, n.d., accessed September 9, 2014, http://www.rs-wolves.com/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=197386&type=d.
39 Bebell and O’Dwyer, “Educational Outcomes and Research,” 5.
297 Directions for Future Research
For future studies, any of the three PRIM ’57-’82 codes of Interactive, Real Objects, and
Transparencies or any of the defined categories discussed in Chapter 4 (e.g., Game-Like
Devices, Response Systems, Learning Materials, Calculators) could be explored further for the
1957 to 1982 time frame. Of particular interest are the identified game-like instructional materials that were determined to be similar to current handheld devices in the FMEA that was conducted. This study included ninety-eight PRIM ’57-’82 objects in three identified codes and twelve categories, which was a broad perspective on instructional materials of the time period.
Future research could concentrate on one of these aspects of portable and responsive instructional materials from 1957 to 1982.
Working with instructional materials in education, another future research project is to conduct a historiography on the supporting role of computers in education based on Benjamin’s extensive analysis of teaching machines.40 Teaching machines, popular in education from the
1950s to the 1970s, were excluded from this study due to Benjamin’s extensive analysis but fostered the idea of conducting a similar to his study using computers instead of teaching machines. As further support of this type of research, the Monograph #2 from AudioVisual
Communication Review predicted in 1963 that computers would join communications between
“geographically separated computers…via land-lines and micro-wave facilities” just as easily as voice transmissions were communicated in 1963.41
40 Benjamin, “History of Teaching Machines,” 711.
41 Bushnell, "Monograph No. 2," 69.
298 Furthermore, the scope of this study was limited to instructional materials that were portable and response-driven. This limitation, as defined in Instructional Materials 1957-1982 in
Chapter 1, excluded cameras and video equipment. With the influx of digital cameras for recording and sharing information and the use of YouTube, TeacherTube, and GoPro cameras or other internet-based communications creating video for instruction, the need arises to find pedagogical and functional purposes for these types of messages, for example, studying short, single-concept films that pertain to specific curricular needs for classroom instruction. A future study on the pedagogical and functional use of subscription-based streaming video clips (e.g.,
Discovery Education’s or another similar supplier) would provide information on the integration and usability of short film clips in educational settings.
From a different perspective, a content analysis of handheld devices found in books, films and/or television shows, particularly in the science fiction genre, would be interesting as a means to predict the future of instructional materials. For example, the 1966 television show Star
Trek used a PADD that perhaps predicted the use of an electronic tablet for communication.42
Aldiss, a science fiction writer, predicted in his story “The Thing Under the Glacier” that the future would include wearable minicomputers with personal interfaces.43 In presentations at the
University of Nottingham, Sharples acknowledged a relationship existed between Aldiss’ prediction of a personal computing to handheld devices and mobile learning.44 Although it took
42 McLellan, “History of Tablet Computers.”
43 B. Aldiss, “The Thing Under the Glacier,” in Daily Express Science Annual, ed. C. Pincher (London: Beaverbrook Newspapers, 1963), 2:69-80.
44 M. Sharples, “Big Issues in Mobile Learning,” Learning Sciences Research Institute, 2006, accessed March 30, 2012, http://matchsz.inf.elte.hu/tt/docs/IADIS_2006_Big_Issues_in_Mobile_Learning_Sharples- Mike.pdf.; M. Sharples, A Short History of Mobile Learning (Nottingham, England: Learning Sciences Research Institute, 2007), 1-24, accessed September 10, 2014, http://www.slideshare.net/sharplem/history-of-mobile-learning- mlearn-2007-doctoral-consortium-oct-2007.
299 over forty years for these connections between fiction and reality to happen, it would be useful to learn what other connections from the past exist in the present.
The use of FMEA was a distinctive methodological perspective in this qualitative educational technology study. The results were based on functional classifications of the PRIM
’57-’82 data. It was a successful analysis, although it was limited by the historical nature of the objects and lack of information from actual users (e.g., teachers, students, and audiovisual directors/instructional technologists) as well as from manufacturer’s representatives. With these current resources, additional qualitative data would have enhanced the information gathered on portable and responsive instructional materials. For future uses of FMEA for educational technology studies, I recommend that current portable, responsive instructional materials items be used, which would allow additional information to be considered in the determination of failure modes. In addition, it would prove informative to conduct a FMEA on the PRIM ’57-’82 categories (i.e., Programmed Instruction, Learning Materials, Learning Games, Calculators) instead of on the PRIM ’57-’82 functional classifications (Administration, Collaborative,
Curriculum, Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation), as that would provide a different perspective and analysis of the possible failures of current instructional devices. By using current handheld devices instead of historical data additional resources and interviews of current students, teachers, and manufacturers could additional information to enrich the qualitative data gathered for the FMEA process.
Furthermore, the use of FMEA is an uncommon technique in the educational technology field for the analyzing data. FMEA is typically used in the fields of engineering, manufacturing, and pharmaceuticals as an analytical tool to discover, assess, and offer solutions for critical risks
300 issues—risks that could cause harm to individuals.45 In the few articles found with regard to
FMEA being applied to educational technology, I found only a few resources that used FMEA as an evaluation tool. In fact, Vesper, Reeves, and Herrington note the lack of literature on the use of FMEA as an evaluative instrument.46 Of the eleven sources found in Google Scholar using a search query of “failure mode and effect analysis”+“educational technology,” two of the studies were conducted on learning design using a FMEA as a quantitative tool,47 not as an analytical tool. I recommend using the FMEA method for future educational technology research for qualitative studies. FMEA, as an inherent quantitative tool, would also offer a unique perspective as an analytical instrument for the educational technology field.
Finally, from this study’s PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA, any one of the nine failure modes used as prompts for establishing possible failure modes (e.g., number of students or staff, content, design, or acquisition) could be used as a basis for an additional study. For example, one failure mode identified was the lack of professional development (3i) for integrating instructional materials into the classroom. Conducting a future study could show how professional development influences the life cycle and/or the possible failure modes of any given category or device.
45 Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect.; Boylan, "Beg, Steal or Borrow," 1-9.; Quality-One International, “FMEA."
46 J. Vesper, R. Reeves, and J. Herrington, “Using Preliminary Risk Assessment in a Formative Evaluation” (EdMedia 2013 World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, Victoria, BC, June 24-27, 2013), 407- 412, accessed October 30, 2014, http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/16225/.
47 Y. Reich, E. Kolberg, and I. Levin, “Designing Contexts for Learning Design,” International Journal of Engineering Education 20, no. 3 (2006): 489-495, accessed September 15, 2014, http://www.tau.ac.il/~ilia1/publications/designing-designers.pdf.; N. Alwi, “E-Learning Stakeholders Information Security” (PhD diss., Cranfield University-School of Applied Sciences, 2012).
301 Furthermore, as an active member of the AECT, I would like to see this historical study, and similar studies, embraced by the AECT History and Archives committee as a means of looking at the past in order to gain insights into the future. Additionally, the AECT Definition and Terminology Committee might also review the audiovisual codes and categories discussions to observe the movement of instructional materials through the twenty-five-year period of this study. I also encourage the educational technology community to use qualitative historical content analysis research, such as used in this study, to help other researchers and practitioners learn from past instructional materials experiences and move into the future. Furthermore,
FMEA provided a unique analytical lens in the research conducted for this study; a tool that can be adapted for the educational technology field for future research projects.
The future research suggestions listed above are only a few of the possible extensions of this content analysis about historical data using audiovisual codes, functionality, and failure modes analytical lenses.
Summary
Instructional devices, such as portable and responsive instructional materials, are under constant revision, improvement, and enhancement. This research helps prepare future educators and designers to adapt to these changes by understanding the foundation and history of small, portable devices used for instruction.
Furthermore, the contribution of the PRIM ’57-’82 knowledge base will aid other researchers on the history and functions of instructional materials that were portable and responsive during the period studied as well as possibly aid in the implementation of handheld devices into present-day classrooms. The PRIM ’57-’82 data collected includes information such
302 as the source of the artifact, manufacturer, pedagogical data, and the identified audiovisual codes and categories for each object. Historical analysis indicated relationships between instructional materials that were portable and responsive from the period 1957 to 1982 and current handheld devices as seen in the functional comparisons and the FMEA conducted. The correlation between
PRIM ’57-’82 and present-day portable and responsive instructional materials was realized through the study of functional purposes such as those used by Patten et al. in their study about mobile devices.48 Examples, such as in Data Collection (e.g., response systems) and Microworld
(e.g., calulators) devices, were provided to illustrate the link from the past functions of PRIM
’57-’82 objects to present use of portable and responsive devices—handheld devices. The FMEA discovered that all six functional classifications (Administration, Collaborative, Curriculum,
Data Collection, Microworld, and Presentation) had evolved or adapted. The FMEA also revealed seven failures modes: number of students (3a), frequency of use (3c), variety of materials (3d), content (3f), design effectiveness (3g), acquisition-availability and cost (3h), and lastly, the open-ended qualitative input (3i). The most frequent failure modes identified in this study include acquisition-cost (3h), frequency of use (3c), and professional development (3i), which affected the failure of instructional materials during the time studied. Several ideas for research were provided to inspired future studies, including an in-depth study of one of the audiovisual codes or categories, further study of instructional materials collected from present- day instead of a historically-based study, and conducting a FMEA based on audiovisual catetories instead of functions. In the spirit of sharing the knowledge gained in this study, PRIM
’57-’82 data souces (Appendix E) and an example of the PRIM ’57-’82 FMEA Administration template (Appendix O) is provided.
48 Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney, "Designing Collaborative, Constructionist."
303 “Understanding the past gives you a chance to actually have a future.”49
49 K. Burns, interviewed by M. Warner, September 17, 2014.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adobe Systems Incorporated. “eLearning Software, Mobile Learning, Virtual Classes, On- Demand Courses.” Adobe Connect. 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect/elearning.html. Aggar, B. “Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance.” Annual Review of Sociology 17 (August 1991): 105-131. Ahl, D. H. “Centurion Educational Computers: Ten Grapefruit-Sized Computers Provide Drill and Practice on Everything from Math to English.” Creative Computing 9, no. 10 (October 1983): 44-48. Accessed July 13, 2014. http://archive.org/stream/creativecomputing-1983- 10/Creative_Computing_v09_n10_1983_October#page/n47/mode/2up.
Aldiss, B. “The Thing Under the Glacier.” In Daily Express Science Annual. Edited by C. Pincher. Vol. 2, 69-80. London: Beaverbrook Newspapers, 1963.
Allen, J. A. “St. Louis Educational Museum: A Centennial Commemoration.” TechTrends 49, no. 2 (March 2005): 22-26.
Allen, W. H. “Audio-Visual Materials.” Review of Educational Research 26, no. 2 (April 1956): 125-156.
——. “Instructional Media Research: Past, Present, and Future.” AudioVisual Communication Review 19, no. 1 (Spring 1971): 5-18. Alwi, N. “E-Learning Stakeholders Information Security.” PhD diss., Cranfield University- School of Applied Sciences, 2012. American Educational Products. “AMEP - Earth Science.” American Educational Products. 2014. Accessed June 10, 2014. http://www.amep.com/cat_earthsci.asp?cid=13. American Psychological Association. “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.” American Psychological Association. June 1, 2010. Accessed November 21, 2012. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf. American Society for Quality Control Statistics Division. Glossary and Tables for Statistical Quality Control. 2nd ed. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1983. Anderson, H. M. “Dale's Cone of Experience.” East Tennessee State University: Undergraduate Education. n.d. Accessed February 8, 2014. http://www.etsu.edu/uged/etsu1000/documents/dales_cone_of_Experience.pdf.
305 Anglin, G., ed. Instructional Technology Past, Present, and Future. 2nd ed. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995. Apple Inc. “Apple IIe.” Computer History Museum. January 6, 2006. Accessed February 14, 2014. http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Apple/Apple.IIe.1982.102646266.pdf. ——. “Apple - Press Info - Apple Launches iPad.” Apple Inc. January 27, 2010. Accessed August 27, 2014. https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/27Apple-Launches- iPad.html. ——. “Apple-iOS 7 - FaceTime.” Apple Inc. 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. http://www.apple.com/ios/facetime/?cid=wwa-us-kwg-features-com. Apptility Limited. “Skim - Improve Your Reading Speed.” iTunes. March 21, 2014. Accessed June 23, 2014. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/skim-improve-your- reading/id838550003?mt=8.
Ash, P., ed. Educators' Guide to Effective Special Education Materials: 1983-1984. Indianapolis: Division of Special Education Indiana State Department of Public Instruction, 1983. Ask MetaFilter. “Synonyms for 'PowerPoint'.” Ask MetaFilter. August 5, 2005. Accessed August 19, 2014. http://ask.metafilter.com/22196/Synonyms-for-PowerPoint. Assistive Technology. “Free or Low-Cost Audiobooks - Understood.” Assistive Technology. 2014. Accessed August 17, 2014. https://www.understood.org/en/school- learning/assistive-technology/finding-an-assistive-technology/where-to-find-free-or-low- cost-audiobooks. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. “AECT History Makers.” Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 2014. Accessed October 31, 2014. http://www.aect.org/HistoryMakers.
——. “Definition.” Chap. 1 in Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. Edited by A. Januszewski and M. Molenda, 1-14. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
——. The Definition of Educational Technology: AECT Task Force On Definition and Terminology. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1977. ——. “Here Today. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning I.” Audiovisual Instruction 18, no. 2 (February 1973): 53. [Advertisement]
——. “Tachistoscope.” Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 7 (September 1970): 121. ——. “Techtrends–Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning.” Association for Educational Communications and Technology. n.d. Accessed March 29, 2014. https://aect.site-ym.com/?techtrends.
306 ——. “Top Selling Media Formats in 1973.” Association for Educational Communications and Technology. n.d. Accessed June 20, 2014. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aect.site- ym.com/resource/resmgr/about_pdf/top1973.pdf. AT&T. “AT&T Labs - Innovation - Technology Timeline - Picturephone.” AT&T. 2014. Accessed June 30, 2014. http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/70picture.html. AT&T and the Bell Company. “With This Phone, a Class Can Visit a Senator, a Banker, a Space-Age Physicist.” Audiovisual Instruction 17, no. 7 (September 1972): Inside Front Cover. [Advertisement]
Atkinson, P. Computer. London: Reaktion Books, 2010. atrunner_(2363). “Vintage Math Magic 3 Modern Games 1958.” eBay. October 16, 2013. Accessed June 11, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-MATH-MAGIC-3-Modern- Games-1958-CADACO-ELLIS-INC-Very-Nice-Y17- /130843847146?pt=Games_US&hash=item1e76e6a9ea.
Audio Visual Research. “Compare!...See for Yourself.” Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 185. [Advertisement] Audiotronics. “$99.95.” Audiovisual Instruction 21, no. 10 (December 1976): Back Cover. [Advertisement] ——. “The Multisensory Tutorette Audiocard System.” Instructional Innovator 25, no. 5 (May 1980): 48. [Advertisement]
Audiovisual Instruction. “Miscellaneous.” Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 7 (September 1970): 120.
——. “New Products.” Audiovisual Instruction 17, no. 9 (November 1972): 98. auntbeasspecialty(2550). “Vintage 1988 Ideal School Supply Co. New Math Relationship Cards No. 7790.” eBay. June, 2014. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1988-Ideal-School-Supply-Co-New-Math- Relationship-Cards-No-7790- /181432703506?pt=Educational_Toys_US&hash=item2a3e3b5a12. Austin, D., T. Rudkin, and R. Gaskins. Presenter Specifications. Sunnyvale: Forethought, Inc., 1986.
Babbie, E. “Unobtrusive Research.” Chap. 11 in The Practice of Social Research. 13th ed., 329- 57. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013.
Baker, G., and I. Goldberg. “The Individualized Learning System.” Educational Leadership 27, no. 8 (May 1970): 775-780.
307 Baker, S. E., and R. Edwards. How Many Qualitative Interviews Is Enough? Expert Voices and Early Career Reflections On Sampling. Southampton: National Centre for Research Methods, 2012. Accessed February 22, 2013. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf. Banana Box, Inc. “Acceleread Speed Reading Trainer.” iTunes. October 9, 2013. Accessed June 23, 2014. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/acceleread-speed-reading- trainer/id528963250?mt=8. Barrett, M. The Politics of Truth: From Marx to Foucault. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971.
Batey, A., and R. Cowell. Distance Education: An Overview; Information Analyses. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1986.
Beam, K. G. The Metric System: A Bibliography of Instructional Materials. Indianapolis: Indiana State Dept. of Public Instruction, Wayne Township Metropolitan School District, 1975.
Bean, R. A. Modes of Failure Analysis Summary: Nerva B-12 Reactor. Pittsburgh: Astronuclear Laboratory Westinghouse Electric Company, 1962. Accessed January 5, 2013. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760069385_1976069385.pdf. Bebell, D., and L. O'Dwyer. “Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings.” The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 9, no. 1 (January 2010): 1-16. Becker, J. “Who's Wired and Who's Not: Children's Access to and Use of Computer Technology.” The Future of Children (Princeton University) 10, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2000): 44-75.
Becker, S. “Teaching of English in the Mass Media.” Elementary English 38, no. 4 (April 1961): 250-258.
Bell, P. “Content Analysis of Visual Images.” Chap. 2 in The Handbook of Visual Analysis. Edited by T. Van Leeuwen and C. Jewitt, 10-34. London: Sage Publications, Inc., 2001.
Benjamin, L. T. “A History of Teaching Machines.” American Psychologist 43, no. 9 (September 1988): 703-712.
Berelson, B. Content Analysis in Communications Research. New York: Free Press, 1952.
Berlo, D. K. The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. New York: Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Berman, H. D. “Toy Clock. Patent USD166239 S. February 5, 1951.” Accessed August 8, 2014. http://www.google.com/patents/USD166239. Bernell. “Tachistoscope - Supertach™.” Bernell - Vision Training Products. 2014. Accessed June 23, 2014. http://www.bernell.com/product/2719/967.
308 Bernstein, H. E. “Boredom and the Ready-Made Life.” Social Research (The New School) 42, no. 3 (Autumn 1975): 512-537.
Best, J. W., and J. V. Kahn. Research in Education. 8th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. Best Online Colleges. “10 Best Colleges for Game-Based Learning.” Best Online Colleges. July 8, 2012. Accessed August 26, 2014. http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2012/07/08/10-best-colleges-for-game-based- learning/.
Bigge, M. L., and S. S. Shermis. Learning Theories for Teachers. 6th ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 1999. Billingsley, L. “Educational Device. US Patent 3541707,” Google Patents. April 18, 1968.” Accessed July 22, 2014. http://www.google.com/patents/US3541707.
Bitter, G., and C. Geer. Material for Metric Instruction. Mathematics Education Report. Washington, DC: ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education. August 1975. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED115488. Blackboard, Inc. “Blackboard Online Collaboration Platform.” Blackboard. 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. http://www.blackboard.com/Platforms/Collaborate/Overview.aspx. Bort, J. “History of the Tablet.” Business Insider. June 2, 2013. Accessed July 25, 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-tablet-2013-5?op=1.
Bové, P. “Discourse.” In Critical Terms for Literary Study. Edited by F. Lentricchia and T. McLauglin, 50-65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Boylan, F. “Beg, Steal or Borrow? The Challenges Faced by Borrowing the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Method to Elicit the Unintended Consequences of Implementing E- Learning in the Higher Education Context.” International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, March 9-11, 2009. Brantingham, G. “Parameter Interpolator for Speech Synthesis Circuit. US Patent 4189779 A. April 28, 1978.” Accessed July 22, 2014. http://www.google.com/patents/US4189779. Breiing, A. J., and A. M. Kunz. “Critical Consideration and Improvement of the FMEA.” Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering Conference, Wuhan, China, April 22-26, 2002: 519-530. Brewer, N. (Administrator1). “Milestones: Speak and Spell, the First Use of a Digital Signal Processing IC for Speech Generation.” Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ETHW). February 25, 2015. Accessed March 28, 2015. http://ethw.org/Milestones:Speak_&_Spell,_the_First_Use_of_a_Digital_Signal_Processi ng_IC_for_Speech_Generation_1978.
Brown, J. “Student Response Systems.” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 4 (April 1963): 214-219.
309 Brown, J., R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad. A-V Instruction: Materials and Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. ——. AV Instruction: Technology, Media and Methods. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.
——. AV Instruction: Technology, Media and Methods. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977.
Brumfield, N. “Model for Math.” Audiovisual Instruction 3, no. 8 (November 1958): 235-239.
Bushnell, D. “Monograph No. 2 of the Technological Development Project.” AudioVisual Communication Review 11, no. 2 (1963): i-x, 1-70.
Butler, J. “Games and Simulations: Creative Educational Alternatives.” TechTrends 33, no. 4 (September 1988): 20-23.
Butler, R. “The History Corner.” TechTrends 51, no. 3 (May/June 2007): 14.
Calorusso, C. Rethinking the Role of the Landscape in Historic Interpretation: A Constructivist Design Approach to Interpreting Slavery in Appalachian Virginia. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, 2002. Cambre, M. “Historical Overview of Formative Evaluation of Instructional Media Products.” Educational Communication and Technology 10, no. 1 (Spring 1981): 3-25. Campbell, R. E., and J. A. Sechler. “Adult Literacy: Programs and Practices. Research and Development Series No. 265A.” Ohio State University. National Center for Research in Vocational Education, Columbus, OH, 1987. Accessed July 13, 2014. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED284979.pdf. Carrollton High School. “Slide Rule Museum.” 2013. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://sliderulemuseum.com/Ephemera/CarrolltonHS_TX_1958_SlideRule_Clubs_Pg080 -2.jpg. Carson-Dellosa. “Judy Clock.” Carson-Dellosa. 2013. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.carsondellosa.com/cd2/Products/JudyClock/Clock/0768223199.
Cayton, P., and N. Brewer. Individualized Reading Instructional System (IRIS). Montgomery: Rehabilitation Research Foundation, 1973.
Center for Social Organization of Schools. School Uses of Microcomputers. Reports from a National Survey. Issue No. 1. Baltimore: Center for Social Organization of Schools, John Hopkins University, 1983.
310 Centre for Computing History. “The Hand-Held Pocket Calculator was Invented at Texas Instruments in 1966.” Centre for Computing History. n.d. Accessed April 22, 2013. http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/5535/The%20hand- held%20pocket%20calculator%20was%20invented%20at%20Texas%20Instruments%20 %20in%201966. ——. “Piko Dat Toy Learning Computer.” Centre for Computing History. n.d. Accessed April 22, 2013. http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/28654/Piko-Dat-Toy-Learning- Computer/. ——. “Slide Rule Invented by William Oughtred.” Centre for Computing History. n.d. Accessed May 21, 2014. http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/5922/Slide%20Rule%20invented%20by%20Wil liam%20Oughtred. ——. “Wilhelm Schickard Invented a Calculating Machine.” Centre for Computing History. n.d. Accessed June 4, 2014. http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/5921/Wilhelm%20Schickard%20invented%20a %20calculating%20machine. Chanda, D., S. Phiri, D. Nkosha, and G. Tambulukani. “Teaching and Learning Materials Analysis and Development in Basic Education.” Paris: ENESCO Basic Education Division, 2001. Accessed June 11, 2014. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001320/132019eo.pdf. Chen, W., C. Lim, and A. Tan. “From Many-to-One to One-to-Many: The Evolution of Ubiquitous Computing in Education.” Educational Technology 51, no. 1 (January- February 2011): 21-25.
Childress, M. “President-Elect's - Convention Update: What's Poken?” AECT Newsletter (September 2012): 4. Christensson, P. “Emulation.” Tech Terms.com. June 26, 2008. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www.techterms.com/definition/emulation.
Clandinin, D. J., and F. M. Connelly. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Clark, R. C., and R. E. Mayer. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer, 2003.
Clark, R. E. “Media Will Never Influence Learning.” Educational Technology Research and Development 42, no. 2 (June 1994): 21-29.
Clifford, G. J. “A History of the Impact of Research on Teaching.” In Second Handbook of Research On Teaching. Edited by R. Travers, 1-46. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1973.
311 Clough, G., A. C. Jones, P. McAndrew, and E. Scanlon. “Informal Learning with PDAs and Smartphones.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, no. 5 (October 2008): 359- 371. Coleco Industries, Inc. “1980 Coleco Toys and Games Catalog.” Internet Archive. n.d. Accessed July 13, 2014. https://archive.org/details/1980-coleco-catalog: 1-48. ——. “Manuals/Coleco-QuizWizChallenger.” Handheld Museum. 1981. Accessed July 13, 2014. http://handheldmuseum.com/Manuals/Coleco-QuizWizChallenger.pdf
Collier, J. Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Computer History Museum. “Electronic Calculators - CHM Revolution.” Computer History Museum. 2014. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/calculators/1/60. ComTech Corporation. “Give Her the Moon!” Audiovisual Instruction 13 (October 1968): 924. [Advertisement]
Cook, J. O. “Research in Audiovisual Communication.” In Research, Principles and Practices in Visual Communication. Edited by J. Ball and F. Byrnes, 91-106. Washington, DC: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 1960. Copyright Encyclopedia. “New Math Relationship Cards.” Copyright Encyclopedia. 2014. Accessed June 18, 2014. http://www.copyrightencyclopedia.com/new-math-relationship- cards---x-division-life-year-inside/.
Corrigan, R. “Programmed Instruction as a Systems Approach to Education.” In Trends in Programmed Instruction; Papers from the First Annual Convention of the National Society for Programmed Instruction. Edited by G. Ofiesh and W. Meierhenry, 36-45. Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1964.
——. “Student Response Systems: A Defense of the Concept.” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 8 (October 1963): 599-601. Cox, J. “Evaluation of Student Response Monitor (SRM).” in Bibliography of Publications and Presentations: From July 1971 Through December 1981 (January 1992): 1-15. Accessed November 7, 2013. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a130219.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2009.
Dale, E. Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching. New York: The Dryden Press, 1946. Damman, B. “Piko dat, The Electromechanical Computer of the People of the DDR, 1969.” 2009. Accessed April 22, 2013. http://bramdamman.nl/piko/.
312 dbate33950. “Audiotronics Tutorette 800sa Language Master Math English Spelling Tutoring.” eBay. 2014. Accessed June 27, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Audiotronics-Tutorette- 800SA-Language-Master-Math-English-Spelling-Tutoring- /281369217956?_trksid=p2054897.l4275.
DeCecco, J. P. Educational Technology Readings in Programmed Instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.
Dechant, E. V. Improving the Teaching of Reading. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Dede, C. “Planning for ‘Neomillennial’ Learning Styles: Implications for Investments in Technology and Faculty.” Chap. 15 in Educating the Net Generation. Edited by D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger, 1-15. Louisville, CO: Educause, 2005. Accessed January 8, 2015. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101o.pdf.
Definition and Terminology Commission (D & T Committee). The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, Monograph No. 1 of the Technological Development Project of the National Education Association. Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1963. Demiray, U., and A. Isman. “History of Distance Education.” In Online Distance Education Book. Edited by A. Isman, M. Barkan, and U. Demiray, 1. Sakarya: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2003. Accessed June 25, 2014. http://www.tojet.net/e-book/ebook.htm. DenBeste, M. “PowerPoint, Technology and the Web: More than Just an Overhead Projector for the New Century?” The History Teacher 36, no. 4 (August 2003): 491-504.
Denman, T. “Introduction to Fraction Concepts.” The Arithmetic Teacher 24, no. 3 (March 1977): 224-225.
Dent, E. The Audio-Visual Handbook. Chicago: Society for Visual Education, Inc., 1946.
Department of Defense United States of America. Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis: Military Standard. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 1949.
——. Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis: Military Standard. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 1980. Deubel, P. “Math Manipulatives: Virtual Manipulatives On the Web.” Computing Technology for Math Excellence. 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. http://www.ct4me.net/math_manipulatives_2.htm.
DeVaney, A. “Reading Educational Computer Programs.” In Computer in Education: Social, Political and Historical Perspectives. Edited by R. Muffoletto and N. Knupfer, 181-196. Cresskill: Hampton Press, 1993.
313 DeVaney, A., and R. Butler. “Voices of the Founders: Early Discourses in Educational Technology.” Chap. 1 in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. Edited by D. H. Jonassen, 3-45. New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1996. Dieterle, E. “Handheld Devices for Ubiquitous Learning and Analyzing.” National Educational Computing Conference, Philadelphia, 2005. Dieterle, E., and C. Dede. “Straightforward and Deep Effects of Wireless Handheld Devices for Teaching and Learning in University Settings.” Conference Proceedings from American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, 2006. Dillhunt, S. “Little Professor Math for Kids.” Google Play. 2014. Accessed July 11, 2014. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.grebulon.littleprofessor&hl=en.
Dinan, S. “Technology in the Classroom: Microsoft PowerPoint Slide Shows.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 31, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 453-455. Direct Advantage. “Tell Time Quizno Class Set.” 2014. Direct Advantage. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://www.directadvantage.com/group/TELL-TIME-QUIZNO-CLASS-SET.htm.
Dolch, E. W. Problems in Reading. Champaign: Garrard Press, 1948. DolchSightWords. “Dolch Sight Words.” Dolch Sight Words. 2014. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.dolchsightwords.org.
Dorris, A. V. Visual Instruction in the Public Schools. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1928.
Dorsett, L. G. Audio-Visual Teaching Machines. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1971. Drake Educational Associates. “Card Reader.” Drake Educational Associates. n.d. Accessed July 1, 2014. http://www.drakeed.us/group.php?rec=1.
Dwyer, F. M. Strategies for Improving Visual Learning. State College, PA: Learning Services, 1978. Education Solutions. “International Set Plastic Cuisenaire Rods.” Education Solutions. 2014. Accessed August 11, 2014. http://www.cuisenaire.co.uk/index.php/shop/mathematics/international-set-plastic- cuisenaire-rods-detail. Edwards, B. “10 Educational PC Games of the 1980s.” PC Magazine. January 22, 2012. Accessed July 23, 2014. http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/293124/10-educational- pc-games-of-the-1980s/. ——. “Remembering the Newton MessagePad, 20 Years Later.” Macworld. August 27, 2013. Accessed August 7, 2014. http://www.macworld.com/article/2047342/remembering-the- newton-messagepad-20-years-later.html.
314 Eisele, J., and M. Eisele. Educational Technology: A Planning and Resource Guide Supporting Curriculum. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1990. El-Hussein, M., and J. Cronje. “Defining Mobile Learning in the Higher Education Landscape.” Educational Technology and Society 13, no. 3 (July 2010): 12-21.
Electronic Futures Inc. “New Language and Tape Learning Systems by EFI.” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 1 (January 1963): 8. [Advertisement]
Elo, S., and H. Kyngäs. “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62, no. 1 (March 2008): 107-115.
Ely, D. The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, Monograph No. 1 of the Technological Development Project of the National Education Association. Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1963. ——. “Conditions That Facilitate the Implementation of Educational Technology Innovations.” Research on Computing in Education 23, no. 2 (1990): 298-305.
——. “Defining the Field of Educational Technology.” Audiovisual Instruction 18, no. 3 (March 1973): 52-53.
——. Instructional Hardware: A Guide to Architectural Requirements. New York: Educational Facilities Labs, 1970. ——.“New Perspective on the Implementation of Educational Technology Innovations.” Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Conference, Houston, TX, February 1999.
——. “Toward a Philosophy of Instructional Technology.” Journal of Educational Technology 2, no. 1 (May 1970): 81-94.
——. “Toward a Philosophy of Instructional Technology: Thirty Years On.” British Journal of Educational Technology 30, no. 4 (October 1999): 305-310.
——. Trends in Educational Technology. 5th ed. Washington, DC: ERIC Publications, 2002. Ely, D., A. Foley, W. Freeman, and N. Scheel. “Trends in Educational Technology 1991.” Chap. 4 in Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. Edited by G. Anglin, 34-60. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995. Ely, D., and T. Plomp. Classic Writings On Instructional Technology. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1996.
Emmens, C. “Interactive Video: Pay Attention. You Will Be Tested.” Audio Visual Directions 3, no. 1 (January/February 1981): 24-27, 56.
315 eNasco. “Math Search Results for ‘Math Manipulatives’” eNasco. 2014. Accessed August 11, 2014. http://www.enasco.com/action/solr/select?q=math+manipulatives&x=12&y=10. Enfield KITE. “Sight Words.” Enfield KITE. 2010. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.enfieldkite.org/sightWords.htm. Enrichment Reading Corp. of America, Inc. “New Electro-Visual Teaching Aid - Tutorgrams.” Instructor 80, no. 10 (June/July 1971): 38. [Advertisement] enscashkingdom. “Vintage Audiotronics Tutorette Card Reader 810A.” eBay. 2014. Accessed June 27, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-AUDIOTRONICS-TUTORETTE- CARD-READER-810A-JAPAN- /261508600288?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3ce32091e0. Eri-No-Moto. “Ericsson GS88 Preview.” Eri-No-Moto. 2006. Accessed January 25, 2014. http://pws.prserv.net/Eri_no_moto/GS88_Preview.htm.
Erickson, C. W. Fundamentals of Teaching with Audiovisual Technology. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
Evans, A. “An Evaluation Form that Makes Sense.” Instructional Innovator 26, no. 3 (March 1981): 32-33. Eyre, H. “Keller's Personalized System of Instruction: Was it a Fleeting Fancy or Is There a Revival on the Horizon?” The Behavior Analyst Today 8, no. 3 (2007): 317-324. Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center. “Using Clickers (Student Response System) with Blackboard.” NIU Teaching with Blackboard. February 24, 2014. Accessed July 14, 2014. http://niu.edu/blackboard/assess/clickers/index.shtml. Find the Best. “3410 S. La Cienega.” Find the Best. n.d. Accessed June 26, 2014. http://commercial-properties.findthebest.com/l/5989353/3410-S-La-Cienega-Blvd- Los-Angeles-CA-90016. Fine, B. Teaching Machines. New York: Bold Face Books, 1962. Finn, J. D. The Audio-Visual Equipment Manual. New York: Dryden Press, 1957.
——. “Instructional Technology.” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 192-194.
——. “Professionalizing the Audio-Visual Field.” AudioVisual Communication Review 1, no. 1 (Winter 1953): 6-17.
Fleming, J. “Audio/Visual Tell a Story.” In Final Technical Report of the Great Lakes Special Education Instructional Materials Center Report On Auditory Learning: Volume 4. Edited by S. Levine, 320-342. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1974. Accessed July 1, 2014. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED100077.pdf.
316 FMEA Info Centre. “FMEA Books and Literature.” FMEA Info Centre. n.d. Accessed January 12, 2013. http://www.fmeainfocentre.com/literature.htm. Forrest, G. “Quick Guide to Failure Mode and Effects Analysis.” iSixSigma. December 31, 2010. Accessed August 13, 2014. http://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/fmea/quick- guide-failure-mode-and-effects-analysis/.
Foucault, M. Foucault Live: Interviews 1966-1984. Edited by S. Lotinger. Translated by J. Johnson. Foreign Agents Series. New York: Semiotext(e), 1989.
——. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Translated by R. Swyer. New York: Vintage Books, 1971. Foulkes Marketing. “The Little Professor: A Unique Educational Aid.” Mathematics in School 8, no. 2 (March 1979): 18. [Advertisement]
Fraenkel, J. R., and N. E. Wallen. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1996. Frantz, G. “The Chip Collection - TI Speak and Spell Learning Aid.” Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History. 2000. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/texas/t_074.htm. Fredrickson, J. “The Rationale Behind Open Space Education.” Annual Guidance Meeting of the University of Wisconsin, Stout, WI, February 12, 1976: 1-10.
Freedman, F., and E. Berg. Classroom Teacher's Guide to Audio-Visual Material. Philadelphia: Chilton, Co., 1961.
Freud, S. A Note Upon “The Mystic Writing Pad.” Standard ed., 19th ed. London: Hogarth Press, 1925.
——. “A Note upon the 'Mystic Writing Pad.'” Chap. 13 in General Psychological Theory: Papers on Metapsychology, 207-212. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997.
Froebel, F. The Education of Man. Translated by J. Jarvis. New York: A. Lovell & Company, 1885.
Fry, E. “Teaching Machine Dichotomy: Skinner Vs. Pressey.” Psychological Reports (Southern Universities Press) 6, no 1 (1960): 11-14.
——. “Teaching Machines: The Coming Automation.” Phi Delta Kappan 41, no. 1 (October 1959): 28-31.
Fulcher, J. “Comes the Teaching Machine.” Studies in Intelligence 6 (Winter 1962): A5-A20. Accessed February 15, 2013. http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_00006090 09.pdf.
317 Galanter, E. “Teaching Machines Permeate Convention Session.” Audiovisual Instruction 6, no. 6 (June 1961): 254. Gameloft. “The Oregon Trail.” Gameloft. October 13, 2011. Accessed August 14, 2014. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/oregon-trail-american-settler/id460062770?mt=8. ——. “The Oregon Trail: Settler.” Google Play. August 6, 2014. Accessed August 11, 2014. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gameloft.android.ANMP.GloftTOHM &hl=en. Garber, S. “Women in Space.” September 17, 2012. Accessed November 16, 2014. http://history.nasa.gov/women.html.
Gaskins, R. Sweating Bullets: Notes About Inventing PowerPoint. San Francisco: Vinland Books, 2012. Geerlof, M., and M. Kling. “Current Practices in College and Adult Developmental Reading Programs.” Journal of Reading 11, no. 7 (April 1968): 517-520, 569-575.
Gelzer, A., and N. Santore. “A Comparison of Various Reading Improvement Approaches.” The Journal of Educational Research 61, no. 6 (February 1968): 267-272.
Gerlach, V., and D. Ely. Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971.
——. Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980. giftsandjazz. “Vintage Japan Audiotronics Tutorette Card Reader.” eBay. 2014. Accessed June 27, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-JAPAN-AUDIOTRONICS- TUTORETTE-CARD-READER- /191220127619?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c859b9783.
Glaser, R. “Christmas Past, Present, and Future: A Review and Preview.” Chap. 2 in Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Edited by A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, 23-34. Washington, DC: Department of Audio-Visual Instruction National Education Association, 1960. Glencoe. “Virtual Manipulatives.” Glencoe. n.d. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://www.glencoe.com/sites/common_assets/mathematics/ebook_assets/vmf/VMF- Interface.html.
Godnig, E. “The Tachistoscope: Its History.” Journal of Behavioral Optometry 14, no. 2 (2003): 39-42. Goldfarb, A. “Electronic Quiz Apparatus. US Patent 4164078. February 21, 1978.” Accessed July 13, 2014. http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US4164078.
318 Google. “Practice Addition and Subtraction Online.” June 11, 2014. Accessed June 11, 2014. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=practice+addition+and+subtraction+online&rev id=880193708. Google+ Features. “Google Hangouts.” Google. n.d. Accessed August 16, 2014. https://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/. Google Search. “dolch basic sight words flash cards.” June 16, 2014. Accessed June 16, 2014. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=dolch+basic+sight+words+flash+cards&tbm=s hop. Gray, E. “Telautograph. US Patent 386815. July 31, 1888,” Wired. Accessed July 25, 2014. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/07/us0386815.pdf." Grebulon. “Little Professor Math for Kids.” April 13, 2014. Accessed July 11, 2014. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.grebulon.littleprofessor&hl=en. Gredler, M. “Educational Games and Simulations: A Technology in Search of a (Research) Paradigm.” Chap. 17 in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. Edited by D. H. Jonassen, 521-540. New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1996. ——. Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1997. Gregg, B. “The Rapid-Rater: What Happened to the Teaching Machines?” TechTrends 55, no. 2 (March/April 2011): 24. H. W. Wilson Company. Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature March 1982-February 1983. Minneapolis: H. W. Wilson Company, 1983. Haffen, S. “The Craig Reader, Recorder and Programs. Applied Learning Systems, Primary Reading Program (K-3).” The Reading Teacher 28, no. 7 (April 1975): 687-690. Hafner, L. “What Materials Should Be Used in College Reading Courses.” International Reading Association Conference, Seattle, WA, May 6-7, 1967. Accessed June 25, 2014. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED013709.pdf.
Hale, C. D., and D. Astolfi. “Evaluation Research Design: Options.” Chap. 8 in Evaluating Education and Training Services: A Primer. 2nd ed, 354-397. St. Leo: St. Leo University, 2011. Hand2Mind. “Subtraction and Fractions.” Hand2Mind. 2014. Accessed June 19, 2014. http://www.hand2mind.com/item/cuisenaire-rods-kit-for-addition-subtraction-and- fractions/1346. Hanratty, L. “Learning from Comenius.” TEFL Ideas. May 14, 2011. Accessed September 8, 2014. http://luansteflideas.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/learning-comenius/.
319 Harris, C. O. Slide Rule Simplified. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Technical Society, 1961.
Harrison, B. “Games of Music.” The Musical Times 48, no. 775 (September 1, 1907): 589-592.
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77, no. 1 (March 2007): 81-112.
Heinich, R. “The Proper Study of Instructional Technology.” Chap. 5 in Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. 2nd ed. Edited by G. Anglin, 61-83. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited Inc., 1995. ——. Technology and the Management of Instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1970.
Heinich, R., M. Molenda, and J. Russell. Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1985.
——. Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan, Inc., 1989.
Heinich, R., M. Molenda, J. Russell, and S. Smaldino. Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall, 1999. Hernandez, D. “April 20, 1964: Picturephone Dials up First Transcontinental Video Call,” Wired. April 20, 2012. Accessed June 30, 2014. http://www.wired.com/2012/04/april-20- 1964-picturephone-dials-up-first-transcontinental-video-call/. Hesseldahl, A. “Okay, Okay It Was Keynote, Not PowerPoint.” Business Week. March 29, 2007. Accessed August 19, 2014. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-03-28/okay- okay-it-was-keynote-not-powerpoint.
Hewitt, K., and L. Roomet. Educational Toys in America: 1800 to the Present. Burlington, VT: Robert Hull Fleming Museum, 1979.
Highsmith. “A Greater Dimension in Learning...from Highsmith.” Instructional Innovator 27, no. 3 (March 1982): 2. [Advertisement]
Hoban, C. “A Memorial Tribute to James Donald Finn.” AudioVisual Communication Review 17, no. 2 (Summer 1969): 133-136.
——. “Research and Reality.” AudioVisual Communication Review 4, no. 1 (Winter 1956): 3-20.
Hoban, C., C. Hoban, and S. Zisman. Visualizing the Curriculum. New York: The Cordon Company, 1937.
Holsti, O. R., J. K. Loomba, and R. C. North. “Content Analysis.” Chap. 16 in The Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, 596-692. Cambridge: Addison- Wesley, 1967.
320 Howell, M., and W. Prevenier. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. HPCC. “HPCC: Handheld and Portable Computer Club.” May 7, 2014. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://www.hpcc.org/.
Hyer, A. “A Backward Glance.” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 202. Ideal School Supply Company. “Teach Arithmetic Faster.” Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 113. [Advertisement] Illinois Interactive Report Card. “Indian Prairie CUSD 204.” Illinois Interactive Report Card. September 9, 2014. Accessed September 10, 2014. http://illinoisreportcard.com/District.aspx?districtId=19022204026. Indian Prairie School District. “Indian Prairie School District: Bring Your Own Technology.” Indian Prairie School District. May 14, 2013. Accessed September 10, 2014. http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/newsfiles/news_51413_1.pdf. Inovia. “Trademark 'Telor' owned by 'Enrich'.” Inovia. n.d. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www.inovia.com/products/directory/trademarks-number-72390530/telor- trademark-owned-by-enrich. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. “Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Tool.” Institute for Healthcare Improvement. 2014. Accessed September 4, 2012. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/FailureModesandEffectsAnalysisTool.aspx. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). “IEEE Micro Product Summary.” IEEE Computer Society. November 1982. Accessed July 22, 2014. http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/mi/1982/04/04070859.pdf. Instructional Industries, Inc. “Interactive Video Now,” AudioVisual Directions 3, no. 1 (January/February 1981): 25. [Advertisement]
Instructional Innovator. “How to Read.” Instructional Innovator 27, no. 2 (February 1982): 45.
——. “Instant Answers.” Instructional Innovator 27, no. 7 (October 1982): 38.
——. “Mastery Spelling.” Instructional Innovator 26, no. 7 (October 1981): 45.
——. “RAM 7 Solid State Responder.” Instructional Innovator 25, no. 6 (September 1980): 48. International Business Machines Corporation. “IBM Personal Computers: For the Office, Home, Classroom.” Computer History Museum. January 6, 2006. Accessed February 4, 2014. http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/IBM/IBM.PC.1983.102646177.pdf. Jacobs, N. “Nancy Jacobs” [Video]. 2013. Accessed June 16, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/user/nancykjojo.
321 jaikarate4. “Speak and Spell by Texas Instruments - 80s Commercials.” YouTube. June 1, 2014. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://youtu.be/Wmetz1vnc4M?t=20s. Janesville Public Schools. “Janesville Public Schools - Lincoln Family Resources.” Janesville Public Schools. n.d. Accessed June 11, 2014. http://www.janesville.k12.wi.us/Portals/15/documents/LincolnFamilyResourcesWeb. pdf. Januszewski, A. “Afterword.” In Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary, 341- 350. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. Januszewski, A., and K. Persichitte. “A History of the AECT's Definitions of Educational Technology.” Chap. 10 in Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. Edited by A. Januszewski and M. Molenda, 259-282. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. Jesser, D. L. Promising Practices for Improving Classroom Atmosphere and Pupil Motivation for Learning, Volume I: Language Arts. Carson City, NV: Western States Small Schools Project, 1967. Accessed June 14, 2014. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED058242.pdf. jjsatten. “Judy Clocks Teach Time 18 Mini 1 Big Clock.” eBay. July, 2014. Accessed July 31, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Judy-Clocks-Teach-Time-18-Mini-1-Big-Class-Kit- /251602080508?pt=Educational_Toys_US&hash=item3a94a712fc.
Johns, J. L. “The Dolch Basic Word List - Then and Now.” Journal of Literacy Research 3, no. 4 (December 1970): 35-40.
Johnson, B., and L. Christensen. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2011.
Johnson, D. “Commercial Games for the Arithmetic Class.” The Arithmetic Teacher (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) 5, no. 2 (March 1958): 69-73.
Johnson, M. Using Process FMEA in an Aeronautical Engineering Technology Capstone Course. Louisville: American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), 2010. Joliet Township High School District 204. “1:1 Computing - Making JTHS a School of Choice.” Joliet Township High School District 204. 2014. Accessed September 16, 2014. http://www.jths.org/district204/1-1-computing/1to1-computing/.
Jonassen, D. H. Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1996. Kaestle, C. F. “Recent Methodological Developments in the History of American Education.” In Complementary Methods for Research in Education. 2nd ed. Edited by R. M. Jaeger, 119-129. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1997.
322 ——. “Standards of Evidence in Historical Research: How Do We Know When We Know?.” History of Education Quarterly (History of Education Society) 32, no. 3 (Autumn 1992): 361-366. Karl, F. “Dual Speed Machine Handling Magnetically Striped Cards and Cards Therefor. Patent 3,712,973. August 27, 1970.” Accessed June 26, 2014. https://www.google.com/patents/US3712973. Keengwe, J., D. Pearson, and K. Smart. “Technology Integration: Mobile Devices (iPods), Constructivist Pedagogy, and Student Learning.” Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) Journal 17, no. 4 (October 2009): 333-346. Kennedy, E. “No Non-Readers Here: With AV, The Classroom Becomes a Reading Laboratory.”Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 8 (October 1963): 586-588. Kennedy, J. F. “Address at Rice University in Houston, Texas On the Nation's Space Effort” [Video]. September 12, 1962. Accessed October 6, 2012. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-127-002.aspx.
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. Pedagogical and Psychological Research. Prague: Academia, 1972.
Killingsworth, M. J. “Rhetorical Appeals: A Revision.” Rhetoric Review 24, no. 3 (July 2005): 249-263.
Kinder, J. S. Using Instructional Media. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1973.
Kinder, J. S., and F. D. McClusky. The Audio-Visual Reader. Dubuque: W. D. Brown Co., 1954. Klose, E. K. “Our Journeys: A Narrative Inquiry Into the Experiences of Students from Working Class Backgrounds as They Pursue Higher Education.” PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2011. Kondracki, N., N. Wellman, and D. Amundson. “Content Analysis: Review of Methods and Their Applications in Nutrition Education.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 34, no. 4 (July/August 2002): 224-230.
Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980. ——. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2004.
Kristy, N. “The Future of Educational Technology.” The Phi Delta Kappan 48, no. 5 (January 1967): 240-243.
323 Lakeshore Learning Materials. “Language Tutor Audio Card Reader.” Lakeshore Learning Materials. 2014. Accessed June 26, 2014. http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2 C949%2C371%2C923%2C669&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113& bmUID=1409069489005. ——. “Working with Fractions TEKS Instructional Kit.” 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2 C949%2C371%2C928%2C193&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113& bmUID=1408222299071. Lammle, R. “Tablet History: 14 Device That Laid the Groundwork for the iPad.” Mashable. February 3, 2012. Accessed July 25, 2014. http://mashable.com/2012/02/03/ipad-history- devices/.
Lasswell, H. Propaganda Techniques in the World War. New York: Knopf, 1927. Lawson, T. E. Formative Instructional Product Evaluation: Instruments. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1974.
Leake, L., and T. Rowan. “Computing Devices.” The Mathematics Teacher 69, no. 5 (May 1976): 422-423. Leapfrog. “Best Educational Toys: Kids Tablets, Handheld Games, Learning Systems.” Leapfrog. 2014. Accessed August 17, 2014. http://www.leapfrog.com/en-us/store/c/_/N- 1z141p6Z1z141odZ1z141wc. Learning Resources. "Connecting Cuisenaire Rods Multi-Pack." Learning Resources. 2014. Accessed August 11, 2014. http://www.learningresources.com/product/connecting+cuisenaire--174-+rods+multi- pack.do?sortby=bestSellers&sortby=&&from=Search. Lee, B. B. “Dolch Sight Words Flash Cards.” Learning Ability Books. n.d. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.gate.net/~labooks/Dolchflash.html.
Lemler, F. L. “A Critical Evaluation of Teaching Films.” Education 58, no. 8 (April 1938): 479- 483.
Levie, W. H., and K. E. Dickie. “The Analysis and Application of Media.” In Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited by R. M. Travers, 858-882. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973. Levine, S. Appendixes to the Final Technical Report of the Great Lakes Special Education Instructional Materials Center: Volume 4 Report of Auditory Learning. East Lansing: Michigan State University; Regional Instructional Materials Center for Handicapped Children and Youth, 1974, 1-349. Accessed July 1, 2014. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED100077.pdf.
324 Lewis, B. “Antique Toys: Vestiges of Childhoods Past.” Children's Environments Quarterly 1, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 3-6. Liu, T. “CHHS Math Club - Calculator.” Colleyville Heritage High School. 2014. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://chhsmathclub.wikispaces.com/Calculator.
Lowe, W. “Software for Content Analysis – A Review.” 2002. Accessed May 13, 2014. http://kb.ucla.edu/system/datas/5/original/content_analysis.pdf.
Lumb, D. "Mathematics and the Less Gifted Child in the Middle Years." Mathematics in School 9, no. 3 (May 1980): 2-10.
Lumsdaine, A. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Instructional Programs.” Chap. 7 in Teaching Machines and Programed Learning, II. Data and Direction. Edited by R. Glaser, 267- 320. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States, 1965.
——. “Teaching Machines: An Introductory Overview.” Chap. 1 in Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Edited by A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, 5-22. Washington, DC: Department of Audio-Visual Instruction National Education Association, 1960.
——. “Teaching Machines and Self-Instructional Materials.” AudioVisual Communication Review 7, no. 3 (Summer 1959): 163-181. Lynd, T. J. “Mr. Lynd - Technology / Technology in the Classroom.” North Elementary School. n.d. Accessed July 14, 2014. http://www.syc427.org/Page/297.
Mackintosh, H. K. “The 1957 World of the English Teacher.” Elementary English (National Council of Teachers of English) 35, no. 3 (March 1958): 150-156. Macnamara, J. “Media Content Analysis: Its Uses; Benefits and Best Practice Methodology.” Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal 6, no. 1 (2005): 1-34. Marcus, G., and M. Fischer. “Ethnography and Interpretive Anthropology.” Chap. 2 in Anthropology as a Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. 2nd ed., 17-44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Marius, R., and M. E. Page. A Short Guide to Writing About History. 7th ed. New York: Longman, 2010.
Markle, S. Good Frames and Bad. New York: Wiley, 1964.
——. “Programed Instruction and Teaching Machines.” In The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, Monograph No. 1 of the Technological Development Project of the National Education Association. Edited by D. Ely, 129-135. Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1963.
325 Marysville Schools. "Clubs.” Marysville Schools. 2014. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://www.marysville.k12.oh.us/Club.aspx. Mason, G. “The Printout: Which Computer Teaches Reading Best?” The Reading Teacher 37, no. 1 (October 1983): 104-106.
Mayring, P. “Qualitative Content Analysis.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1, no. 2 (June 2000): 1-10. Accessed March 26, 2014. http://www.qualitative- research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385.
McCaffrey, M. “Why Mobile Is a Must.” T. H. E. Journal 38, no. 2 (February 2011): 21-22. Accessed February 8, 2012. http://thejournal.com/articles/2011/02/08/why-mobile-is-a- must.aspx.
McClusky, F. D. “A-V 1905-1955: How Audio-Visual Was Born and Grew Up.” Educational Screen 34, no. 4 (April 1955): 160-162.
——.“A Definition.” In The Audio-Visual Reader. Edited by J. S. Kinder and F. D. McClusky, 4-5. Dubuque: W. D. Brown Co., 1954. McGraw-Hill Education. “The Geometer's Sketchpad.” McGraw-Hill Education. 2014. Accessed June 12, 2014. https://www.mheonline.com/program/view/2/16/2647/00000SPAD/.html.
McKown, V. “Choice of Title Provokes Brisk Comment.” Instructional Materials 47, no. 1 (March 1956): 43. McLellan, C. “The History of Tablet Computers: A Timeline.” ZDNet. March 3, 2014. Accessed July 25, 2014. http://www.zdnet.com/the-history-of-tablet-computers-a-timeline- 7000026555/. McLeod, S. A. “Edward Thorndike - Law of Effect.” SimplyPsychology. 2007. Accessed January 27, 2014. http://www.simplypsychology.org/edward-thorndike.html.
Melhuish, K., and G. Falloon. “Looking to the Future: M-Learning with the iPad.” Computers in New Zealand School: Learning, Leading, Technology 22, no. 3 (2010): 1-16.
Merriam, S. B. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
——. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998. Meyer, J. C., and J. A. Tillotson. “Teaching Device Having Means Producing a Self-Generated Program US Re31070 January 10, 1980.” Accessed July 13, 2014. https://www.google.com/patents/USRE31070.
Meyer, M. “Dialectic and Questioning: Socrates and Plato.” American Philosophical Quarterly 17, no. 4 (October 1980): 281-289.
326 Meyer, T. G. “Path Dependence in Two-Sided Markets: A Simulation Study on Technological Path Dependence with an Application to Platform Competition in the Smartphone Industry.” PhD diss., Freie University, 2012. Mimeo. “Interactive Whiteboard - MimioTeach.” Mimeo. 2014. Accessed August 19, 2014. http://www.mimio.com/en-NA/Products/MimioTeach-Interactive-Whiteboard.aspx. Minnesota Business and Lien System. “Business Filing Details - Aim Industries, Inc.” Minnesota Business and Lien System. 2011. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/SearchDetails?filingGuid=4a5636aa-a0d4- e011-a886-001ec94ffe7f. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. “District Report Card - Reeds Spring R-IV (104044).” Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 2014. Accessed September 9, 2014. http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/guidedinquiry/School%20Report%20Card/District%20Report% 20Card.aspx?rp:SchoolYear=2014&rp:SchoolYear=2013&rp:SchoolYear=2012&rp:Sch oolYear=2011&rp:DistrictCode=104044#P2ecbbec744b44b4598b9c8989c616b77_2_88i T1. Molenda, M. “AECT History in the 20th Century: A Brief History.” Indiana University. August 12, 2003. Accessed February 22, 2012. http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/AECT%20History.pdf. ——. “Cone of Experience (Draft for Publication).” 2003. Accessed February 8, 2014. http://www.coachesbc.ca/pdfs/lfs/cone%20of%20experiencetext.pdf.
——. “Historical Foundations,” Chap. 1 in Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Edited by. J. M. Spector et al., 3-20. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. Molina, R. “Fundamentos Matemáticos de los Dispositivos de Cálculo Modernoa (Mathematical Foundations of Modern Computing Devices).” Journal of Teaching - Digital Journal of Education 1, no. 8 (October 2007): 1-6. Accessed June 13, 2014. http://www.st2000.net/cdocencia/numero008/art00808.pdf.
Montor, K. “Feedback, an Aid to Teaching.” Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 5 (May 1970): 89- 90. Moran, T. P., and P. Dourish. “Introduction to This Special Issue On Context-Aware Computing.” Human-Computer Interaction 16, no. 2 (December 2001): 87-95.
Morgan, R. M. “Educational Technology -Adolescence to Adulthood.” Educational Communication and Technology Journal 26, no. 2 (Summer 1978): 142-152. Morris, B., ed. “The Function of Media in the Public Schools - A Task Force Position Paper.”Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 1 (January 1963): 11.
327 Mory, E. “Feedback Research.” Chap. 32 in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. Edited by D. H. Jonassen, 919-956. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1996.
Moturi, R. “The Emerging Scenario of E-Learning.” International Journal of Innovative Research and Studies 2, no. 12 (December 2013): 31-46. Murdock, E. “History of Computers in Education.” California State University Long Beach/~Murdock. 2014. Accessed July 24, 2014. http://www.csulb.edu/~murdock/histofcs.html.
Muri, S. A. “Multicultural Education through Child-Constructed Games.” Early Childhood Education Journal 23, no. 4 (Summer 1996): 211-214. Myers, N. “Jude e-Clock.” Mr. Myers' Classroom - Math Mania. 2005. Accessed August 8, 2014. http://www.mrmyers.org/Math_Mania/Math_Games/Jude_e-Clock/clock.htm. National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). “Can Audio and/or Digital Books Improve Your Child's Learning Outcomes?” National Center for Learning Disabilities. 2014. Accessed August 17, 2014. http://www.ncld.org/students-disabilities/assistive- technology-education/audio-digital-books-improve-childs-learning-outcomes. Neon Tiki Tribe. “Kindergarten Dolch Words.” YouTube. July 16, 2013. Accessed June 16, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtxdQThvqmE.
——. “The Ultimate Dolch Sight Word List Resource.” Neon Tiki Tribe. 2013. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://neontikitribe.com/dolch-sight-word-list/.
Neuendorf, K. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2002.
Neuman, W. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allen and Bacon, 1997.
New York State Education Department. Publisher Source Directory: A List of Where to Buy or Rent Instructional Materials and Other Educational Aids, Devices, and Media Including More Than 1,600 Publishers and Producers in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Columbus, OH: National Center on Educational Media and Materials for the Handicapped, 1975. Accessed July 3, 2014. http://http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED119399.pdf.
Newbold, C., O. Boyd-Barrett, and H. Van den Bulck. The Media Book. London: Arnold, 2002. Nintendo. “Nintendo - Corporate Information: Company History.” Nintendo. 2014. Accessed August 18, 2014. http://www.nintendo.com/corp/history.jsp.
Noel, E. G., and J. P. Leonard. Foundations for Teacher Education in Audio-Visual Instruction. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1947.
328 Norris, C., and E. Soloway. "Handhelds: Getting Mobile." District Administration (July 2008): 1. Accessed April 9, 2011. http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1638&p=3. not2bright!. “Lot of 3 Vintage Electronic Futures Inc., EFI Headsets Head Phones.” eBay. 2014. Accessed June 25, 2014. http://www.eBay.com/itm/Lot-of-3-Vintage-Electronic-Futures- Inc-EFI-Headsets-Head-phones-Sonic-/191193198354. Nuance Communications. “PaperPort Notes on the App Store.” iTunes. March 27, 2014. Accessed April 20, 2015. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paperport- notes/id476134017?mt=8. oceanslide. “Telor Learning Cartridges Arithmetic Involvement.” eBay. March 13, 2014. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/TELOR-LEARNING-CARTRIDGES- ARITHMETIC-INVOLVEMENT-ENRICH-DIVISION-E03-VISUAL- /350907949554?pt=Educational_Toys_US&hash=item51b3be61f2. Office of Research Compliance and Integrity. “Administrative Review (Exempt) Categories.” Northern Illinois University. July 1998. Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.niu.edu/orci/human_research/review/exempt.shtml. Office of the Secretary. “The Belmont Report.” Health and Human Services. April 18, 1979. Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html.
Ofiesh, G., and W. Meierhenry, eds. Trends in Programmed Instruction: Papers from the First Annual Convention of the National Society for Programmed Instruction. Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1964. Olsen, J. R., and V. B. Bass. “The Application of Performance Technology in the Military: 1960- 1980.” Performance and Instruction 21, no. 6 (July/August 1982): 32-36.
Omdahl, T. P., ed. Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Dictionary. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1988.
Orderinde, N. “Instructional Material Assessment Tool.” Audiovisual Instruction 19, no. 3 (March 1974): 22-24. Osborne Computer Corporation. “Going to Work with an Osborne Personal Business Computer.” Computer History Museum. January 24, 2006. Accessed February 4, 2014. http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Osborne/Osborne.Osborne1.1981.1026 46263.pdf. Otto, W., and C. Houston. Mechanical Aids in the Teaching of Reading. Madison: Research and Development Center for Learning and Re-education, 1967, 1-15.
329 parentsofsadie. “Vintage Dolch 1953 Basic Sight Vocabulary Word Cards Learn the Play Way.” eBay. 2014. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Dolch-1953- Basic-Sight-Vocabulary-Word-Cards-Learn-The-Play-Way- /261505630529?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3ce2f34141. Parikka, J. “Winky Dink Avantgarde at the Game Museum, Berlin.” Media Cartographies. March 21, 2011. Accessed July 3, 2014. http://mediacartographies.blogspot.com/2011/03/winky-dink-avantgarde-at-game- museum.html. Park, Y. “A Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning: Categorizing Educational Applications of Mobile Technologies into Four Types.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12, no. 2 (February 2011): 78-102.
Partridge, E. D. “Are There Any Questions.” Audiovisual Instruction 5, no. 2 (February 1960): 42-43. Patten, B., I. Sánchez, and B. Tangney. “Designing Collaborative, Constructionist, and Contextual Applications for Handheld Devices.” Computers and Education 46, no. 3 (April 2006): 294-308. PBS Learning Media. “Modeling Fractions with Cuisenaire Rods.” PBS Learning Media. 2014. Accessed August 11, 2014. http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/rttt12.math.cuisenaire/modeling-fractions- with-cuisenaire-rods/.
Perkins, D. “Technology Meets Constructivism: Do They Make a Marriage?” Educational Technology 31, no. 5 (May 1991): 18-23.
Pershing, J. A. Handbook of Human Performance Technology. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2006.
Peters, G. D. “Hardware Development for Computer-Based Instruction.” College Music Symposium (College Music Society) 21, no. 2 (Fall 1981): 15-21.
Pett, D., and S. Grabinger. “Instructional Media Production.” Chap. 27 in Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. Edited by G. Anglin, 305-313. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995. Plato. The Laws. Translated by T. Saunders. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1970. Playaway. “Playaway for Libraries.” Playaway. 2014. Accessed August 19, 2014. http://library.playaway.com/playaway. Powell, W., and E. Kinne. “News and Notes.” Journal of Reading 10, no. 4 (January 1967): 269- 273.
330 PrairieCat. “Encore - 'playaway digital audio.'” PrairieCat. 2014. Accessed August 24, 2014. http://search.prairiecat.info/iii/encore/search/C__S%22playaway%20digital%20audio%3 A%22__Orightresult__U1?lang=eng&suite=cobalt.
Prasad, B. D. “Content Analysis: A Method in Social Science Research.” Chap. 10 in Research Methods for Social Work. Edited by D. K. Lal Das and V. Bhaskaran, 173-193. New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 2008.
Prasad, R. “Handheld Devices.” In Anesthesia Informatics. Edited by J. Stonemetz and K. Ruskin, 409-424. London: Springer, 2009.
Pressey, S. L. “Teaching Machines and Language Laboratories.” Theory into Practice 1, no. 1 (February 1962): 30-37. Prodesign. “Presso.” Prodesign. n.d. Accessed June 11, 2014. http://www.prodesign- uk.com/english/presso.html.
——. “Time Teacher.” Prodesign. n.d. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.prodesign- uk.com/english/timeteacher.html. Provenzo, E. F. “Friedrich Froebel's Gifts: Connecting the Spiritual and Aesthetic to the Real World of Play and Learning.” American Journal of Play 2, no. 1 (Summer 2009): 85-99. Public Law 101-336. 108th Congress, 2nd session (July 26, 1990). “ADA Tool Kit: Website Accessibility under Title II of ADA.” May 7, 2007. Accessed August 17, 2014. http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm. Quality-One International. “FMEA - Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.” Quality-One International. 2011. Accessed August 13, 2014. http://quality-one.com/fmea/. Qrayon, LLC. “Audio Notebook: All-Day Sound Recorder, Widescreen Notepad, and Color Coded Note Organizer.” iTunes. January 23, 2015. Accessed April 20, 2015. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/audio-notebook-all-day-sound/id720435172.
Quinly, W., K. Clugston, A. Tillin, F. Lemler, and R. Hayes. Standards for Cataloging Nonprint Materials. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1972. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED063779.pdf. QuizTree. “Dolch Sight Words HD, First Grade. Part 1.” YouTube. May 27, 2013. Accessed June 16, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh6NWxyUyQU. Quiz-Tree. “Free Sight Words Games.” Quiz-Tree. 2014. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.quiz-tree.com/Sight-Words_main.html.
Ramage, J. D., and J. C. Bean. Writing Arguments. 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1998.
331 rb7549. “Vintage AVR Rateometer.” eBay. 2014. Accessed June 23, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-AVR-RATEOMETER-AUDIO-VISUAL- RESEARCH-ESTATE-FIND-TR-/301188248692. Reading Soft. “Speed Reading Test Online.” Reading Soft. March 2014. Accessed August 17, 2014. http://www.readingsoft.com. ReadSpeaker. “Online Text to Speech-Readspeaker Enterprise Highlighting.” ReadSpeaker. n.d. Accessed August 20, 2014. http://www.readspeaker.com/readspeaker-enterprise/. Reams, J. “Making FMEA Work for You.” Nursing Management 42, no. 5 (May 2011): 18-20.
Reba Poor Associates. “2 Days That Will Change Your Life....” Technology Review 82, no. 4 (February 1980): 82. [Advertisement] Rechenschieber (Slide Rule). “Rechenschieber (Slide Rule).” Faber-Castell Shop. n.d. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://service.de.faber-castell- shop.com/epages/es117781.sf/de_DE/?ObjectPath=/Shops/es117781_ServiceParts/Categ ories/Faber-Castell/FaberCastell_Rechenstaebe. redboilersfan. “2 Vintage 50s Strathmore Magic Slate Number Practice Books Collectible.” eBay. 2014. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Vintage-50s- Strathmore-Magic-Slate-Number-Practice-Books- Collectible/151453534691?_trksid=p4069.c100039.m2059&_trkparms=aid%3D111001 %26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140107094819%26meid%3D0067 7f3570224aa3868596996118fbc6%26pi. Reed, P. C. "Salute to Pioneers." Educational Screen 34, no. 4 (April 1955): 159. Reeds Spring School District. “1:1 Learning Initiative.” Reeds Spring School District. n.d. Accessed September 9, 2014. http://www.rs- wolves.com/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=197386&type=d. Reich, Y., E. Kolberg, and I. Levin. “Designing Contexts for Learning Design.” International Journal of Engineering Education 20, no. 3 (2006): 489-495. Accessed September 15, 2014. http://www.tau.ac.il/~ilia1/publications/designing-designers.pdf. Rein, S. “Children's Watches.” Article Insider. 2013. Accessed June 18, 2014. http://www.articleinsider.com/education/child-education/childrens-watches.
Reiser, R. “Audiovisual Instruction.” In Encyclopedia of Terminology for Educational Communications and Technology. Edited by R. C. Richey, 16-17. New York: Springer, 2013. ——. “A History of Instructional Design and Technology.” Chap. 3 in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. 2nd ed. Edited by R. Reiser and J. Dempsey, 17- 34. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, 2007.
332 ——. “A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part 1; A History of Instructional Media.” Educational Technology, Research and Development 49, no. 1 (March 2001): 53-64.
——. “Instructional Technology: A History.” Chap. 2 in Instructional Technology: Foundations. Edited by R. M. Gagnè, 11-48. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987. Reiser, R., and D. Ely. “The Field of Educational Technology as Reflected through Its Definitions.” Educational Technology Research and Development 45, no. 3 (September 1997): 63-72.
Reiser, R., and R. Gagné. Selecting Media for Instruction. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1983. Resource Engineering, Inc. “Assembling an FMEA Team.” QualityTrainingPortal. 2012. Accessed August 13, 2014. http://www.qualitytrainingportal.com/resources/fmea/fmea_team.htm. ——. “Generic Severity Rating Scale.” QualityTrainingPortal. 2004. Accessed August 22, 2014. http://www.qualitytrainingportal.com/resources/fmea/form_46a_app4mod.htm. ——. “Pitfalls and Limitations of FMEAs.” QualityTrainingPortal. 2012. Accessed August 11, 2014. http://www.qualitytrainingportal.com/resources/fmea/fmea_pitfalls.htm. Richards, M. “Gallery of Games and Consoles - CHM Revolution.” Computer History Museum. 2014. Accessed July 14, 2014. http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/computer- games/16/210.
——. “LC-836 Memo Note 30.” Computer History Museum. 2014. Accessed June 3, 2014. http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/mobile-computing/18/318/1739.
Richey, R. C., ed. Encyclopedia of Terminology for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Springer, 2013.
Richey, R. C., J. D. Klein, and M. W. Tracey. The Instructional Design Knowledge Base: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2011. Riffe, D., S. Lacy, and F. Fico. Analyzing Media Messages: Quantitative Content Analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998.
Robinson, R. “Qualitative Research—A Case for Case Studies.” Chap. 30 in Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. Edited by G. Anglin, 330-339. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995. Roblyer, M. Integrating Educational Technology Into Teaching. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2006.
333 Rohstock, A. “The History of Higher Education.” In Education Systems in Historical, Cultural, and Sociological Perspectives. Edited by D. Trohler and R. Barbu, 91-104. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011. Romiszowski, A. Designing Instructional Systems: Decision Making in Course Planning and Curriculum Design. New York: Nichols Publishing Co., 1981.
Roschelle, J. “Unlocking the Learning Value of Wireless Mobile Devices.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19, no. 3 (September 2003): 260-272.
Rosen, R. J. “The 'Mystic Writing Pad': What Would Freud Make of Today's Tablets?” The Atlantic, January 25, 2013. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/the-mystic-writing-pad-what- would-freud-make-of-todays-tablets/272512/.
Rosenberg, K. C., and P. T. Feinstein. Dictionary of Library and Educational Technology. 2nd ed. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1983. Ross, S. M., G. R. Morrison, and D. L. Lowther. “Educational Technology Research Past and Present: Balancing Rigor and Relevance to Impact School Learning.” Contemporary Education Technology 1, no. 1 (January 2010): 17-35. Saettler, P. The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2004. ——. A History of Instructional Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1968. Sain, S. “Filebox/assignment.” December 20, 2001. Accessed June 25, 2014. http://filebox.vt.edu/s/ssain/itfiles/digaud/assignment1.doc. Sanders, J., and D. Cunningham. “A Structure for Formative Evaluation in Product Development.” Review of Educational Research 43, no. 2 (Spring 1973): 217-236. Sax, G. Foundations of Educational Research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979. Scantron. “Overview - Scantron.” Scantron. Accessed July 29, 2014. http://www.scantron.com/scanners-forms/forms/omr-forms/overview. Schmidt, H. "Electronic Digital Slide Rule. United States Patent US 3676656 A.” Google. June 30, 1969. Accessed June 30, 2014. http://www.google.com/patents/US3676656.
Schmidt, H., and D. Busch. “An Electronic Digital Slide Rule - If This Hand-Sized Calculator Ever Becomes Commercial, the Conventional Slide Rule Will Become Another Museum Piece.” The Electronic Engineer 27, no. 7 (July 1968): 54. Schram, W. Big Media, Little Media: Tools and Technologies for Instruction. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977.
334 Schubert, D. “Reading Games: Why, How, When.” Elementary English 36, no. 6 (October 1959): 422-423. Schulte, A. A review of "Telor. Programmed Cartridges and Hand-Held Device," by J. Baldwin. The Mathematics Teacher (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) 67, no. 2 (February 1974): 151.
Schussheim, J. “A Mathematics Laboratory, Alive and Well.” The Arithmetic Teacher 25, no. 8 (May 1978): 15-21. Schwandt, T. The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2015.
Schylling. “Magic Slates.” Schylling. 2014. Accessed June 11, 2014. http://www.schylling.com/p/magic-slates.
Scott, Foresman and Company. “Let Pupils Help Themselves to Better Reading Skills.” The Reading Teacher 35, no. 6 (March 1982): 707.
Seels, B., and R. C. Richey. Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1994. Seely, P., and G. White. “The Audiovisual Kit.” Audiovisual Instruction 6, no. 9 (November 1961): 440. Shafer, R. A Guide to Historical Method. 3rd ed. Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1980. Sharples, M. “Big Issues in Mobile Learning.” Learning Sciences Research Institute. 2006. Accessed March 30, 2012. http://matchsz.inf.elte.hu/tt/docs/IADIS_2006_Big_Issues_in_Mobile_Learning_Sharples -Mike.pdf.
——. A Short History of Mobile Learning. Nottingham, England: Learning Sciences Research Institute, 2007. Accessed September 10, 2014. http://www.slideshare.net/sharplem/history-of-mobile-learning-mlearn-2007-doctoral- consortium-oct-2007. Shaw Laboratories, Inc., “Rapid-Rater,” Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 44. [Advertisement] Shih, J.-L., C.-W. Chuang, and G.-L. Hwang. “An Inquiry-Based Mobile Learning Approach to Enhancing Social Science Learning Effectiveness.” Educational Technology and Society 13, no. 4 (October 2010): 50-62. Shoemaker, P., and S. Reese. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences On Mass Media Content. 2nd ed. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1996.
Shrock, S. “A Brief History of Instructional Development.” Chap. 2 in Instructional Technology: Past, Present and Future. Edited by G. J. Anglin, 11-19. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995.
335 Shu, L. “Gifts of Holiday Past: Speak & Spell was Blowing Kids' Minds 24 years Before Siri.” Digital Trends. December 20, 2012. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/gifts-of-holiday-past-speak-and-spell/#!bcVx0F. Silber, K. “The Learning System.” Audiovisual Instruction 17, no. 7 (September 1972): 10-27. Sim, S. “Lyotard and the Politics of Antifoundationalism.” Radical Philosophy 14 (Autumn 1986): 8-13. Simplemary. “How Did the Judy Clock Get It's Name?” Answers. n.d. Accessed August 8, 2014. http://www.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_Judy_Clock_get_it%27s_name. Skinner, B. F. About Behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books, 1974.
——. “Teaching Machines.” Science 128, no. 3330 (October 1958): 969-977. ——. The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. Skype. “Free Calls to Family and Friends.” 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. http://www.skype.com/en/. Smith, J. “Speak & Spell Texas Instruments Simulator.” SpeaknSpell. 2002. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www.speaknspell.co.uk/. Smithsonian Institute - National Air and Space Museum. “Slide Rule, 5-Inch, Pickett N600-ES, Apollo 13.” Smithsonian Institute - National Air and Space Museum. n.d. Accessed June 14, 2014. http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19840160000. Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History. “The Chip Collection - TI Touch.” Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History. 2000. Accessed July 13, 2014. http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/texas/t_454.htm. ——. “Quizmo.” Smithsonian Institute - National Museum of American History. n.d. Accessed January 27, 2015. http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1292833. Soloway, E., C. Norris, P. Blumenfeld, B. Fishman, J. Krajcik, and R. Marx. “Log on Education: Handheld Devices Are Ready-at-Hand.” Communications of the ACM 44, no. 6 (June 2001): 15-20. Spannagel, C., M. Gläser-Zikuda, and U. Schroeder. “Application of Qualitative Content Analysis in User-Program Interaction Research.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6, no. 2 (May 2005): 1-17. Accessed April 15, 2014. http://www.qualitative- research.net/index.php/fqs/article/download/469/1005. Spearfish School Board. “Selection of Instructional Materials.” Spearfish School District 40-2. 2013. Accessed August 19, 2014. http://spearfish.k12.sd.us/District/Policies/6000/6205.pdf.
336 Spector, J., M. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, and M. Driscoll, eds. “Glossary of Terms.” In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 3rd ed., 817- 827. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. St. Pierre, E. A. “Poststructural Feminism in Education: An Overview.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 13, no. 5 (September 2000): 477-515.
Stamatis, D. H. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1995. Stearns, P. “Why Study History?” American Historical Association. July 11, 2008. Accessed March 17, 2012. http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm.
Stempel, G. H. “Content Analysis.” Chap. 7 in Research Methods in Mass Communications. Edited by G. H. Stempel and B. H. Westley, 124-136. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981. Stockholm Smartphone. “History - Stockholm Smartphone.” Stockholm Smartphone. 2010. Accessed September 5, 2014. http://www.stockholmsmartphone.org/history/. Straker, A. “Getting the Boredom Out of Practice.” Mathematics in School 8, no. 1 (January 1979): 28-31. Strathmore. “Magic Slate.” Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 78-79. [Advertisement] Surry, D. W., and D. Ely. “Adoption, Diffusion, Implementation, and Institutionalization of Educational Technology.” Chap. 11 in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Edited by R. Reiser and J. V. Dempsey, 104-111. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006.
Syer, H., and C. Johnson. “Aids to Teaching.” The Mathematics Teacher 45, no. 8 (December 1952): 622-626. Sylvania Information Systems. “In One Second He Can Turn This Cafeteria into a Classroom.” Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 8 (October 1968): 903. [Advertisement] Tatar, D., J. Roschelle, P. Vahey, and W. R. Penuel. “Handhelds Go to School: Lessons Learned.” Computer 36, no. 9 (September 2003): 30-37. Taylor, K. “AECT Archives: Overhead Transparencies Used for Drafting Education.” Audiovisual Instruction 55, no. 4 (July/August 2011): 10. Taylor, R. The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press, 1980. Taylor, S. “Reading Instrument Usage.” The Reading Teacher 15, no. 6 (May 1962): 449-454.
337 taylorrae(9205). “Vintage Giant Metal Slide Rule.” eBay. June 12, 2014. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Giant-Metal-School-7-Foot-Slide-Rule- Measurement-Ruler-84-Calculator- /201107118227?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ed2eb1893. Teaching Technology Corporation. “Multi-Media Reading Programs.” Elementary English 45, no. 7 (November 1968): 951. [Advertisement] TeachThought. “20 iPad Apps to Teach Elementary Reading.” te@chthought. September 12, 2012. Accessed August 18, 2014. http://www.teachthought.com/apps-2/20-ipad-apps-to- teach-elementary-reading/ TeleTruth. "History of the Bells." TeleTruth. 2002. Accessed March 30, 2015. http://www.teletruth.org/History/bbells/bb_history.html. Terninko, J. "Reliability/Mistake-Proofing Using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)" in ASQ's 57th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings - Expanding Horizon: Global, Personal, Tools, Networking, Solutions. Kansas City: Quality Congress, (2003): 515-526. Texas Instruments. “1967 Electronic Handheld Calculator Invented.” Texas Instruments. 2008. Accessed June 4, 2014. http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/timeline/eps/1960/docs/67- handheld_calc_invented.htm.
——. “1978 Speak & Spell Introduced.” Texas Instruments. 2008. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/timeline/eps/1970/docs/78-speak- spell_introduced.htm. ——. “Elementary: Solar Little Professor.” Education Technology Store by Texas Instruments. 2014. Accessed July 11, 2014. https://epsstore.ti.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?section=11451&sitex=10023: 22372:US. ——. “How to Tell Time Both Ways (1978).” Datamath Calculator Museum. June 22, 2013. Accessed June 21, 2014. http://www.datamath.net/Manuals/FirstWatch_US.pdf. ——. “Spelling B 1986 Manual US.” Datamath Calculator Museum. June 22, 2013. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.net/Manuals/SpellingB_1986_Manual_US.pdf.
——. Texas Instruments Calculators for Students: From Kindergarten to Career (CB-272). Dallas: Texas Instruments, 1976. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.net/Leaflets/CB-272_US.pdf.
——. Texas Instruments Educational Products 1982. Dallas: Texas Instruments, 1982. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.net/Leaflets/CL-525D_US.pdf. ——. Texas Instruments Learning Center: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Dallas: Texas Instruments, 1982. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.net/Manuals/TT_ET_OVL_US.pdf.
338 ——. Texas Instruments Speak and Read Educational Product. Dallas: Texas Instruments, 1984. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.net/Manuals/SpeakRead_PG_US.pdf. ——. “TI Talking Learning Aid Sets Pace for Innovative CES Introductions Press Release June 11, 1978.” Datamath Calculator Museum. 2007. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Story/TI_PRESS.htm#PRSpeakSpell. Texas Instruments Education Technology. “Calculators and Education Technology.” Texas Instruments Education Technology. 2014. Accessed June 17, 2014. http://education.ti.com/en/us/home. ——. “Professional Development by Texas Instruments - US and Canada.” Texas Instruments Education Technology. 2013. Accessed February 13, 2013. http://education.ti.com/en/us/pd. ——. “T3 Organization by Texas Instruments.” Texas Instruments Education Technology. 2013. Accessed February 13, 2013. http://education.ti.com/en/us/pd/community/t3-ww. ——. “TI-89 Titanium - Features Summary.” Texas Instruments Education Technology. 2014. Accessed August 18, 2014. http://education.ti.com/en/us/products/calculators/graphing- calculators/ti-89-titanium/features/features-summary. ——.“TI-89 Titanium Graphing.” Texas Instruments Education Technology. 2014. Accessed August 18, 2014. http://educationti.links.channelintelligence.com/pages/prices.asp?sSKU=TI89T. ——. “TI-503 SV Calculator.” Texas Instruments Education Technology. 2014. Accessed August 18, 2014. http://educationti.links.channelintelligence.com/pages/prices.asp?sSKU=TI-503%20SV. Thorndike, E. Education: A First Book. New York: Arno Press, 1912. ——. The Elements of Psychology. Syracuse: The Mason-Henry Press, 1905. Tingley, J. “Trademark Status and Document Retrieval - SN 73302968.” United States Patent and Trademark Office. July 13, 2014. Accessed July 13, 2014. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73302968&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=do cumentSearch. Torkelson, G. “AVCR: One Quarter Century; Evolution of Theory and Research.” AudioVisual Communication Review 25, no. 4 (Winter 1977): 317-358. ——. “A History of AECT from a Personal Perspective.” TechTrends 43, no. 1 (February 1988): 47-50. Trademarkia. “Tutorette - Reviews & Brand Information.” Trademarkia. July 27, 1959. Accessed June 27, 2014. http://www.trademarkia.com/tutorette-72078417.html.
Transana. “Transana.” Transana. 2014. Accessed May 13, 2014. http://transana.org/.
339 Traxler, J. “Defining Mobile Learning.” IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2005, Helsinki, Finland.
Tripp, S., and W. Roby. “Auditory Presentations and Language Laboratories.” Chap. 28 in The Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. Edited by D. H. Jonassen, 821-850. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1996. Tube Radio. “Antique Radio Forums - Vintage Audio Equipment.” Antique Radios. November 14, 2006. Accessed June 25, 2014. http://www.antiqueradios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=63493. Turning Technologies. “Response Technology for K-12 Students.” Turning Technologies. 2014. Accessed August 28, 2014. http://www.turningtechnologies.com/response-technology- k12. ——. “Student Clicker Solutions for Higher Education.” Turning Technologies. 2014. Accessed August 28, 2014. http://www.turningtechnologies.com/higher-education. United States Department of Education. “Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006-07.” Institute of Education Sciences. December 2008. Accessed August 7, 2014. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009044. ——. “Table 90. Estimated Average Annual Salary of Teachers in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Selected Years, 1959-60 through 2011-12.” Institute of Education Sciences. May 2012. Accessed August 27, 2014. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_090.asp. United States Department of Labor. “Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics.” United States Department of Labor. n.d. Accessed August 27, 2014. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Utah State University. “National Library of Virtual Manipulatives.” Utah State University. 2014. Accessed June 12, 2014. http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/vlibrary.html. van Dijk, T. A. “Introduction: The Study of Discourse.” Chap. 1 in Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 1, 1-8. London: Sage, 1997. van Manen, M. “Phenomenological Pedagogy.” Curriculum Inquiry 12, no. 3 (Autumn 1982): 283-299.
Van Pelt, S. An Audio Book Collection to Enhance Learning at the Stratford Landing Elementary School Library: Grant Proposal. December 6, 2009. Alexandria, VA: Stratford Landing Elementary School Library, 2009. Accessed April 23, 2014. http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~smv36/eport/eportdocuments/VanPeltGrant.pdf.
Van Valkenburch, Nooger, and Neville, Inc. “Simple!” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 174. [Advertisement]
340 van't Hooft, M., K. Swan, D. Cook, and Y. Lin. “What is Ubiquitous Computing?” In Ubiquitous Computing in Education: Invisible Technology, Visible Impact. Edited by M. van't Hooft and K. Swan, 3-17. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Vesper, J., R. Reeves, and J. Herrington. “Using Preliminary Risk Assessment in a Formative Evaluation.” EdMedia 2013 World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, Victoria, BC, June 24-27, 2013. Accessed October 30, 2014: 407-412. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/16225/.
Vukelich, C. “Parents Are Teachers: A Beginning Reading Program.” The Reading Teacher 31, no. 5 (February 1978): 524-527.
Wagner, J. “Visible Materials, Visualised Theory and Images of Social Research.” Visual Studies 21, no. 1 (April 2006): 55-69.
Walton, S. “Electronic Mini-Marvels: Big Performance in Tiny Packages.” Popular Mechanics, 150, no. 4 (October 1978): 93-95, 210-212. Warren, S. “Flash Recognition Training Device. US Patent 2791843 A. May 14, 1957.” Accessed June 20, 2014. http://www.google.com/patents/US2791843.
Weber, E. “Play Materials in the Curriculum of Early Childhood,” Children's Environments Quarterly 1, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 7-18. Weber, R. P. Basic Content Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 1990. ——. “Computer-Aided Content Analysis: A Short Primer.” Qualitative Sociology 7, no. 1/2 (Summer 1984): 126-149.
Weiscerber, R., and W. Rasmussen. “A Teaching System for Music Listening.” Audiovisual Instruction 11, no. 2 (February 1966): 106-109. Wheelock, A., W. Haney, and D. Babell. “What Can Student Drawings Tell Us About High- Stakes Testing in Massachusetts?” Teachers College Record (November 2, 2000). Accessed April 17, 2014. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10634.
Wiersma, W., and S. Jurs. Research Methods in Education: An Introduction. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 2009. The Wilhelm Schickard Museum of Computing History. “Wilhelm Schickard.” The Wilhelm Schickard Museum of Computing History. n.d. Accessed June 4, 2014. http://www.cs.cuw.edu/museum/Schickard.html.
Willis, J. Qualitative Research Methods in Education and Educational Technology. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2008.
Wineburg, S. Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001.
341 Wisco, J. “Necessity Is the Mother of Educational Innovation: A Journey of Discovering and Developing Electronic Pedagogical Tools for Gross Anatomy and Histology.” Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 28, no. 1, Supplement 215.2, (April 2014). Witkowski, R. “Bring Your Own Technology Pilot.” April 10, 2012. Accessed September 30, 2014. http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/newsfiles/news_51413_1.pdf.
Wittich, W., and C. Schuller. Audiovisual Materials: Their Nature and Use. 4th ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.
——. Instructional Technology: Its Nature and Use. 5th ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Woerner, D., and J. Woerner. “Texas Instruments - Education Technology Overview.” Datamath Calculator Museum. October 14, 2007. Accessed May 15, 2014. http://datamath.org/Story/TI_ET.htm. Woerner, J. “First Watch.” Datamath Calculator Museum. December 23, 2008. Accessed May 15, 2014. http://datamath.org/TI_Stuff/First-Watch.htm.
——. “MathMagic.” Datamath Calculator Museum. December 5, 2001. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Edu/MathMagic.htm. ——. “Professor-76.” Datamath Calculator Museum. January 13, 2001. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Edu/Professor-76.htm. ——. “SpeaknSpell.” Datamath Calculator Museum. December 5, 2001. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Speech/SpeaknSpell.htm. ——. “Texas Instruments TI - 2500 / Datamath Pre-Series.” Datamath Calculator Museum. 2001. Accessed August 18, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/BASIC/DATAMATH/ti- 2500-PS.htm. ——. “Texas Instruments Speak & Read Type 1.” Datamath Calculator Museum. December 5, 2001. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Speech/SpeaknRead.htm. ——. “Texas Instruments Super Speak & Read.” Datamath Calculator Museum. December 5, 2001. Accessed August 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Speech/SuperSpeaknRead.htm. ——. “Toshiba LC-836MN Memo Note 30.” Datamath Calculator Museum. July 3, 2002. Accessed June 3, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Related/Toshiba/LC-836MN.htm. ——. “TouchnTell.” Datamath Calculator Museum. December 5, 2001. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Speech/TouchnTell.htm. ——. “Wizatron.” Datamath Calculator Museum. December 5, 2001. Accessed August 11, 2014. http://www.datamath.org/Edu/WizATron.htm.
342 Wood, P. A Study of Teacher-Pupil Interactions Involving Individualized Media Resources: Observation Report No. 746, Syracuse City School District. Washington, DC: Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, 1974. Accessed July 1, 2014. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED092111.pdf.
Wright, A. Low-Cost Microtechnology Learning Aids in the Classroom. British Columbia: Ministry of Education, 1980.
Wyman, R. “A Visual Response System for Small-Group Interaction.” Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 9 (September 1968): 714-717. X-Rates. “Currency Calculator (Euro, US Dollar).” X-Rates. 2014. Accessed August 18, 2014. http://www.x-rates.com/calculator/. Zurita, G., and M. Nussbaum. “A Constructivist Mobile Learning Environment Supported by a Wireless Handheld Network.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, no. 4 (August 2004): 235-243.
343 Advertisements
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. “Here Today. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning I.” Audiovisual Instruction 18, no. 2 (February 1973): 53. [Advertisement] AT&T and the Bell Company. “With This Phone, a Class Can Visit a Senator, a Banker, a Space-Age Physicist.” Audiovisual Instruction 17, no. 7 (September 1972): Inside Front Cover. [Advertisement]
Audio Visual Research. “Compare!...See for Yourself.” Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 185. [Advertisement] Audiotronics. “$99.95.” Audiovisual Instruction 21, no. 10 (December 1976): Back Cover. [Advertisement] ——. “The Multisensory Tutorette Audiocard System.” Instructional Innovator 25, no. 5 (May 1980): 48. [Advertisement] ——. “There's Only One Practical Audiocard System, the Tutorette,” Audiovisual Instruction 19, no. 9 (November 1974): Back Cover. [Advertisement] ComTech Corporation. “Give Her the Moon!” Audiovisual Instruction 13 (October 1968): 924. [Advertisement] Craig Research, Inc. “Now Give Individual Attention to Reading Improvement with Craig Reader Program.” Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 4. [Advertisement]
Electronic Futures Inc. “New Language and Tape Learning Systems by EFI.” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 1 (January 1963): 8. [Advertisement] Enrichment Reading Corp. of America, Inc. “New Electro-Visual Teaching Aid - Tutorgrams.” Instructor 80, no. 10 (June/July 1971): 38. [Advertisement] Foulkes Marketing. “The Little Professor: A Unique Educational Aid.” Mathematics in School 8, no. 2 (March 1979): 18. [Advertisement]
Highsmith. “A Greater Dimension in Learning...from Highsmith.” Instructional Innovator 27, no. 3 (March 1982): 2. [Advertisement] ——. "Instant Slides." Instructional Innovator 25, no. 5 (May 1980): 49. [Advertisement] Hubbard Scientific Company. “Hubbard Overhead Transparencies Build Understanding in Earth Science.” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 7 (September 1965): 583. [Advertisement] Ideal School Supply Company. “Teach Arithmetic Faster.” Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 113. [Advertisement] Instructional Industries, Inc. “Interactive Video Now,” AudioVisual Directions 3, no. 1 (January/February 1981): 25. [Advertisement]
344 Reba Poor Associates. “2 Days That Will Change Your Life....” Technology Review 82, no. 4 (February 1980): 82. [Advertisement] ——. "Whatever Your Problem, I'll Solve It." Harvard Magazine 89, no. 1 (September/October 1986): 10. [Advertisement] School Service Company. “Timely Teaching Aids.” Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 4. [Advertisement] Shaw Laboratories, Inc., “Rapid-Rater,” Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 44. [Advertisement] Strathmore. “Magic Slate.” Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 78-79. [Advertisement] Sylvania Information Systems. “In One Second He Can Turn This Cafeteria into a Classroom.” Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 8 (October 1968): 903. [Advertisement] Systems for Education. “Wireless Audio Learning System.” Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 7 (September 1970): 95. [Advertisement] Teaching Technology Corporation. “A Magnetic Card Reader,” Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 1 (January 1968): 84. [Advertisement] ——. “Multi-Media Reading Programs.” Elementary English 45, no. 7 (November 1968): 951. [Advertisement]
Van Valkenburch, Nooger, and Neville, Inc. “Simple!” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 174. [Advertisement] Viewlex. “Right for Filmstrip Previewing.” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 6 (June 1963): 440. [Advertisement]
345 Interviews
Burns, K., interview by M. Warner. “Ken Burns Captures Complicated Portraits of 'High- Voltage' Roosevelts." PBS Newshour. Springfield, MO. (September 17, 2014). Frantz, G., interview by R. Remacle. Oral History of Gene Frantz, Mountain View, CA: Computer History Museum, (May 8, 2009). Accessed July 28, 2014, http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Oral_History/Frantz_Gene/102702085. 05.01.acc.pdf. Heinich, R., interview by B. Lockee. Interview with Dr. Robert Heinich (March 15, 2013). Molenda, M., interview by G. Morrison. Interview with Dr. Mike Molenda (January 18, 2013). Wittich, W., interview by B. Lockee. Interview with Dr. Walt Wittich (March 22, 2012).
346 Newspapers
Indiana Gazette. "Off-Beat Problem Solver Earns Big Checks." Indiana Gazette Indiana, PA, October 28, 1998. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/33713649/.html. Lewiston Journal. "She's an Off-Beat ‘Problem-Solver’.”Lewiston Journal. Lewiston-Auburn, ME. (January 26, 1981): 22. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1899&dat=19810126&id=LthGAAAAIBAJ&sj id=uPMMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1307,3770935. Los Angeles Times. “Audiotronics Partnership.” September 2, 1986. Accessed June 27, 2014. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-09-02/business/fi-13695_1_joint-venture.html. Sheedy, C. "Icons In The Beginning...." Sun Herald (Sydney), November 30, 2008. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.subtraction.com.au/subtraction-articles/2008/11/30/icons-in- the-beginning/.html. Schenectady Gazette. “Triple I to Introduce Education System.” Schenectady Gazette (October 4, 1972): 9. Accessed December 12, 2013. http://www.fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%208/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette/Schene ctady%20NY%20Gazette%201972%20Grayscale/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette%201 972%20b%20Grayscale%20-%200475.pdf.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
PERMISSION FOR MAYRING FIGURE
349
Research Question
Determination of category definition (criterion of selection) and Levels of abstration for inductive categories
Step by Step formation of inductive categories out of the material, regarding category definition and level of abstraction. Subsumption old categories or formulating new categories
Revision of categories after 10-50% Formative Check of the material of Reliability
Summative Check Final working through the data of Reliability
Interpretation of results - Steps of analysis
APPENDIX B
JOURNALS REVIEWED FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
351 Journal Name Years Reviewed American Child* 1927-1940 Audio Visual Directions 1981 AudioVisual Communication Review (AVCR) 1956, 1963, 1976, 1977 Audiovisual Guide 1948-1956 Audiovisual Instruction 1957-1980 1957-1980 Audiovisual Media 1967 Childhood Education 1958 Children’s Digest* 1955-1959 Child's Life* 1924-1934, 1957 Educational Communication and Technology Journal (ECTJ) 1978-1988 Educational Screen 1933, 1935, 1951-1956 Educational Technology 1960,1968,1972-1974 Educational Technology: Definitions and Glossary of Terms 1977 Forbes* 1919-1920 Grade Teacher* 1959 Humpty Dumpty's Magazine for Little Children* 1952-1954, 1957 Illinois Audiovisual Association Journal* 1975 Instructional Innovator 1980-1982 Journal of American History 1907-1907 Journal of Education (Boston) 1957-1958, 1961-1964, 1979 Northern Illinois University newsletters and publication* 1899-1923 Progressive Education* 1943-1956 Technocrat 1976-1978 Technology Forecasting and Social Change 1969-1979 Technology Review 1963, 1972-1973, 1979-1980 TechTrends starts in 1984 The Bookman* 1921-1928 The Instructor* 1956-1957,1971 Weekly Reader* 1966-1970 Workshop publications* 1936-1955
*Assorted volumes/issues located in Northern Illinois University's Gable Learning Center. Not all volumes or issues in the years were present in the collection.
APPENDIX C
AUDIOVISUAL CODES AND CATEGORIES
353
Audiovisual Codes and Categories Years in Use Examples
phonographs, recordings, radios, sound systems, tape recordings, disc recordings, audio programing, tape recorders, mixers, sound Audio 1928-1990 systems, record players Demonstration 1967-1971 community study, field trips, *see Real Objects
motion films, motion projectors, 16mm motion films, 35mm motion films, sound films, silent films, projectors, cameras, video cameras, Films-Motion 1946-1971 video equipment Slides, slide viewers, stereograph, stereopticon/lantern slides, stereo Films-Slides 1928-1991 slides, Vecto graph slides, slides with sound Films-Strips 1946-1971 film strips, film strip projectors, film strip viewers Furniture 1988-1990 carts, stands, tables, cases
still pictures, maps, graphic and pictorial charts, photos and prints, Images illustrations, graphic materials, nonprojected still images, flat Nonprojected 1928-1990 pictures, graphic symbols Interactive instructional kits, programmed instruction, teaching machines, (My poststructural learning materials, games and simulations, computer-generated term created to graphic systems, LCD panels, computer interfaces, graphics combine groups) 1965-1990 equipment, instruction systems, games Miscellaneous 1971-1990 no specific equipment, related equipment and accessories Production Equipment 1988 AV production equipment Programmed Instruction 1965-1990 *see Interactive projection apparatus, filmstrip viewers and projectors, screens, viewing equipment, slide projectors, lenses and pointing devices, Projection 1928-1990 overhead projectors, opaque projectors excursions, exhibits, specimens, models, objects, plays and Real Objects 1928-1971 pageants, 3-D materials, chalkboards, mock-ups, dioramas, Simulation 1971 *see Interactive Television (TV) 1956-1971 educational televisions Transparencies 1971-1990 opaque projectors, overhead projectors, *see Films-Slides Video 1988-1990 *see Films-Motion
354 Audiovisual Codes and Categories Resources
Allen, W. H. "Audio-Visual Materials." Review of Educational Research 26, no. 2 (April 1956): 125-156. Dale, E. Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching. New York: The Dryden Press, 1946. Dent, E. The Audio-Visual Handbook. Chicago: Society for Visual Education, Inc., 1946. Dorris, A. V. Visual Instruction in the Public Schools. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1928. Erickson, C. W. Fundamentals of Teaching with Audiovisual Technology. New York: Macmillan, 1965. Gerlach, V., and D. Ely. Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971. Williams, K., ed. The Equipment Directory of Audio-Visual, Computer and Video Products 1988-1989, 34. Fairfax, VA: International Communications Industries Association, 1988. ——., ed. The Equipment Directory of Audio-Visual, Computer and Video Products 1990-1991, 36. Fairfax, VA: International Communications Industries Association, 1990. Wittich, W., and C. Schuller. Audiovisual Materials: Their Nature and Use. 4th ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.
APPENDIX D
TEACHING MACHINES RESOURCES
356 Allen, W. H. "Audio-Visual Materials." Review of Educational Research 26, no. 2 (April 1956): 125-156. ——. “Teaching Machines in the Limelight.” Audiovisual Instruction 5, no. 6 (June 1960): 169. Benjamin, L. T. "A History of Teaching Machines." American Psychologist 42, no. 9 (September 1988): 703-712. Briggs, L. “The Probable Role of Teaching Machines in Classroom Practice.” Theory into Practice 1, no. 1 (February 1962): 47-56.
Casas, M. The History Surrounding the Use of Skinnerian Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction (1960-1970). El Paso: University of Texas, El Paso, 2002.
Cook, D. L. “Teaching Machine Terms: A Glossary.” Audiovisual Instruction 6, no. 4 (April 1961): 152-53.
Cram, D. Explaining “Teaching Machines” and Programming. San Francisco: Fearon Publishers, 1961.
Dorsett, L. G. Audio-Visual Teaching Machines. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1971.
Epstein, S., and B. Epstein. The First Book of Teaching Machines. New York: Franklin Watts, Inc., 1961.
Evans, J. L., R. Glaser, and L. Homme. An Investigation of “Teaching Machine” Variables Using Learning Programs in Symbolic Logic. Pittsburgh: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1960.
Feldhusen, J. F. “Taps for Teaching Machines.” Phi Delta Kappan 44, no. 6 (March 1963): 265- 267.
Fine, B. Teaching Machines. New York: Bold Face Books, 1962.
Fry, E. “Teaching Machines: The Coming Automation.” Phi Delta Kappan 41, no. 1 (October 1959): 28-31.
Glaser, R. “Christmas Past, Present, and Future: A Review and Preview.” Chap. 2 in Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Edited by A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, 23-34. Washington, DC: Department of Audio-Visual Instruction National Education Association, 1960.
357 Lumsdaine, A. “Teaching Machines: An Introductory Overview.” Chap. 1 in Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Edited by A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, 5- 22. Washington, DC: Department of Audio-Visual Instruction National Education Association, 1960.
Pressey, S. L. “Basic Unresolved Teaching-Machine Problems.” Theory into Practice 1, no. 1 (February 1962): 30-37.
Skinner, B. F. “Teaching Machines.” Science 128, no. 3330 (October 1958): 969-977.
Sturwold, V. G. “Teaching Machine Experts Visit Capital.” Audiovisual Instruction 5, no. 8 (October 1960): 254-255.
Thorndike, E. Education: A First Book. New York: Arno Press, 1912.
APPENDIX E
DATA SOURCES FOR PRIM ’57-’82 OBJECTS
359
Data Sources for PRIM ’57-’82 Objects (Appendix E) provides a list of objects used in this study by Code—Categories—Subcategories. Information includes the object’s name, manufacturer (if known), and source information. The list is in the same order as discussed in Chapter 4.
PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive—Programmed Instruction—Audio Card Readers 1957-1980
Audio Card Reader – Wittich, C., and C. Schuller. Instructional Technology: Its Nature and Use. (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1973), 328. Audio Card Reader EFI – Brown, J., R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad. A-V Instruction Materials and Methods. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), 222. Card Reader with Audio – Brown, J., R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad. A-V Instruction: Technology Media and Methods. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976), 222. Language Master Card Reader – Brown, J., R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad. A-V Instruction: Materials and Methods. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), 184. Language Master Card Reader – Brown, J., R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad. A-V Instruction: Materials and Methods. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), 222. Language Master Card Reader – Finn, J. Audio-Visual Equipment Manual. New York: Dryden Press, 1957, 349. Magnetic Audio Card Reader – Teaching Technology Corporation (TTC). Audiovisual Instruction 20, no. 1 (January 1968): 84. Tutorette Audiocard System – Audiotronics. Audiovisual Instruction 19, no. 9 (November 1974): Back Cover. Tutorette Audiocard System – Audiotronics. Instructional Innovator 25, no. 5 (May 1980): 49. Tutorette Audiocard System – Heinich, R., M. Molenda, and J. Russell. Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction. (New York: Wiley, 1985), 153. Tutorette Model 800 A – Audiotronics. Audiovisual Instruction 21, no. 6 (June/July 1976): Back Cover. Tutorette Model 810 – Audiotronics. Audiovisual Instruction 21, no. 6 (June/July 1976): Back Cover.
PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive—Programmed Instruction—Craig Readers 1961-1963
Craig Advanced Reader Program – Craig Corporation. Audiovisual Instruction 6, no. 8 (October 1961): Inside Back Cover. Craig Advanced Reader Program – Craig Corporation. Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 4. Craig Advanced Reader Program – Craig Corporation. Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 8 (October 1963): 586.
360 PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive—Programmed Instruction—Audio-Based Devices 1963-1982
Audio Educational System – Sylvania Information Systems. Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 8 (October 1968): 903. Audio Notebook – Electronic Futures Inc. (EFI). Audiovisual Instruction, 8, no. 1 (January 1963): 8. Audio Notebook – Wittich, W., and C. Schuller. Audiovisual Materials: Their Nature and Use (4th edition). New York: Harper & Row, 1967, 488. Listen and Read Literacy Programme – Instructional Innovator 27, no. 2 (February 1982): 45. Wireless Audio Learning System – Systems for Education. Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 7 (September 1970): 95.
PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive—Programmed Instruction—Game-Like Devices 1969-1982
Alphaspell – Centurion Industries. Instructional Innovator 26, no. 7 (October 1981): 45. Little Professor – Texas Instruments. Heinich, R., M. Molenda, and J. Russell. Instructional Media and the New Technologies. (New York: Wiley, 1985), 359 Matchmaker – Aim Industries. Audiovisual Instruction, 15, no. 6 (September 1970): 120. Math Magic – Johnson, D. “Commercial Games for the Arithmetic Class.” The Arithmetic Teacher 15, no. 2 (March 1958): 71. Math Magic – Texas Instruments. http://datamath.org/Edu/MathMagic.htm. Piko dat Learning Machine – Piko dat Toy Company. http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/28654/Piko-Dat-Toy-Learning-Computer/ Quiz Wiz – Coleco. http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/computer-games/16/210/867. Speak & Read – Texas Instruments. Instructional Innovator 27 no. 3 (March 1982): 2. Speak & Spell – Texas Instruments. Heinich, R., M. Molenda, and J. Russell. Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction. New York: Wiley, 1985, 360. Spelling B – Texas Instruments. http://datamath.org/Edu/SpellingB.htm. Telor Device – Enrich Corporation. Brown, J., R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad. A-V Instruction: Technology, Media, and Methods. (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), 445. Telor Device – Enrich Corporation. Mathematics Teacher 67, no. 2 (February 1974): 151. Touch & Tell – Texas Instruments. Heinich, R., M. Molenda, and J. Russell. Instructional Media and the New Technologies. (New York: Wiley, 1985), 361. Touch & Tell – Texas Instruments. http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/mobile- computing/18/318/1807. Tutorgrams – Enrichment Reading Corp. America, Inc. The Instructor 80, no 10 (June/July 1971): 38.
361 PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive—Learning Materials 1957-1977
Decimal Place Value Cards – Ideal School Supply Company. Instructor 67 no.1 (September 1957): 113. Magic Slate – Strathmore. Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 78-79. Math Magic – Cadaco-Ellis, Inc. Johnson, D. “Commercial Games for the Arithmetic Class.” The Arithmetic Teacher (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) 5, no. 2 (March 1958): 71. Math Magic – Pressogram. http://www.prodesign-uk.com/english/presso.html. Math Manipulatives – Audiovisual Instruction 3, no. 9 (November 1958): 239. Number Grouping Disks – Ideal School Supply Company. Instructor 67, no.1 (September 1957): 113. Place Value Sticks – Ideal School Supply Company. Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 113. Relationship Cards – Ideal School Supply Company. Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 113.
PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive—Instructional Kits 1957-1973
Multimedia Kits – http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aect.site- ym.com/resource/resmgr/about_pdf/top1973.pdf . Multiplication/Division Kit – Ideal School Supply Company. Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 113. Pupil’s Fraction Kit – Ideal School Supply Company. Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 113.
PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive—Learning Games 1957
Learning Games – School Service Company. Instructor 67, no. 1 (September 1957): 113.
PRIM ’57-’82—Response Systems 1959-1982
Audiovisual Response System 400 – Schenectady Gazette (October 4, 1972): 9. Ektagraphic Evaluators Responder – Eastman Kodak Ektagraphic. Audiovisual Instruction 19, no. 6 (June/July 1974): 109. Mediated Interaction Visual Response (MIVR) system – Wyman. “A Visual Response System for Small-Group Interaction.” Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 9 (September 1968): 714- 717. RAM 7 Interactive Video – Emmeus, C. “Interactive Video - Pay Attention.” AV Directions 3, no. 1 (January/February1981): 26.
362 RAM 7 Solid State Responder – Instructional Industries, Inc. Instructional Innovator 25, no. 6 (September 1980): 48. Rapid-Rater – Shaw Laboratories, Inc. Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 44. Remote Control Response System for Classroom Use – Tradowsky, M. https://www.google.com/patents/US3997981. Responder – Material Evaluators – Emmeus, C. “Interactive Video - Pay Attention.” AV Directions 3, no. 1 (January/February 1981): 25. Response System - Music – Audiovisual Instruction 11, no. 2 (February 1966): 108. Response System – EDEX. Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 1 (January 1968): 149-151. Response System Modular – EDEX. Audiovisual Instruction 17, no. 9 (November 1972): 98. Response-a-Matic (RAM) – Emmeus, C. “Interactive Video - Pay Attention.” AV Directions 3, no. 1 (January/February 1981): 26. Student Response Monitor – Aircraft Armaments, Inc. Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 4 (April 1963): 216. Student Response Monitor – Aircraft Armaments, Inc. Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 8 (October 1963): 601. Student Response Monitor – ComTech Corporation. Audiovisual Instruction 13, no. 8 (October 1968): 924. Student Response Monitor – U.S. Naval Academy. Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 5 (May 1970): 89. Teaching System – EDEX. Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 4 (April 1963): 219. Teaching System – Erickson, C. Fundamentals of Teaching with Audiovisual Technology. (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 263. Tele-Quest Intercommunication System – Community Engineering Corp. of State College (Penn State). Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 4 (April 1963): 217. Tele-Test Communication System – Corrigan and Associates of California. Audiovisual Instruction 8, no 4 (April 1963): 219. Teleprompter Classroom Responder – TelePrompter Corporation. Audiovisual Instruction 8, no 4 (April 1963): 218. Trainer-Tester Response Cards – Van Valkenburch, Nooger, and Neville, Inc. Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 174. TV Intercommunication System – Community Engineering Corp. of State College (Penn State). Audiovisual Instruction, 8, no. 4 (April 1963): 217. Voter 30 Instant Answers – Reactive Systems. Instructional Innovator 27, no. 7 (October 1982): 38.
PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive—Instructional System 1962-1972
Electro-Tach – Erickson, C. Fundamentals of Teaching with Audiovisual Technology. (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 86. Reading Rate Controller – Kennedy, E. "No Non-Readers Here: With AV, The Classroom Becomes a Reading Laboratory.” Audiovisual Instruction 8, no. 8 (October 1963): 587.
363 Reading Rateometer – Audio Visual Research. Audiovisual Instruction 7, no. 1 (January 1962): 185. Reading Rateometer – Erickson, C. Fundamentals of Teaching with Audiovisual Technology, (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 85. Selectro-Tach 40020V – Lafayette Instrument Company. Audiovisual Instruction 15, no. 7 (September 1970): 121. Telephone Conference – AT&T and the Bell Company. Audiovisual Instruction 17, no. 7 (September 1972): Inside Front Cover.
PRIM ’57-’82 Interactive—Computers 1978
Memo Note 30-LC-836 – Toshiba. http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/mobile- computing/18/318/1739.
PRIM ’57-’82 Real Objects—Slide Rules 1959-1974
Factorization Slide Rule – Schulte, A. A Review of "Telor. Programmed Cartridges and Hand - held Device” by J. Baldwin Mathematics Teacher (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) 67, no 2 (February 1974): 151. Slide Rule – Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) Archives, Northern Illinois University, Artifact #147. Slide Rule – Brown, J., R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad. A-V Instruction: Materials and Methods. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), 289. Slide Rule – Edwards, P. “The Giant Slide Rule.” Audiovisual Instruction 5, no. 1 (January 1960): 9.
PRIM ’57-’82 Real Objects—Time/Clocks 1961-1980
First Watch Learning Watch – Texas Instruments. http://datamath.org/TI_Stuff/First-Watch.htm. Judy Model Clock – Freedman, F., and E. Berg. Classroom Teacher's Guide to Audio-Visual Material.” (Philadelphia: Chilton Company, 1961), 104. Time Teacher – Prodesign. Email communications from prodeign.ls.de to author on 12/19/13
PRIM ’57-’82 Real Objects—Calculators 1966-1975
Calculator – Brown, J., R. Lewis, and F. Harcleroad. AV Instruction: Technology Media and Methods. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973) 445.
364 Datamath Calculator – Texas Instruments. https://plus.google.com/photos/+DavidDeubelbeiss/albums/5601784733057612529?. Desk Calculator P-9100 – Hewlett-Packard. http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/6181/Introduction-of-HP-9100-desk-calculator/. Hand-Held Pocket Calculator – Texas Instruments. http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/5535/The-hand-held-pocket-calculator-was- invented-at-Texas-Instruments-in-1966/. P50 Electronic Calculator – Commodore. http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/29896/Commodore-model-P50-Electronic- Calculator/. Quiz Kid Calculator – Maeroff, G. “About Education: Calculator Termed Good Tool for Pupils” New York Times, (December 24, 1975), 28. TI2500 Calculator – Texas Instruments. http://datamath.org/BASIC/DATAMATH/ti-2500- 0.htm.
PRIM ’57-’82 Real Objects—Telephone Packages 1980
Telephone Time Package Training – Riva Poor Associates. Technology Review, February 1980, Vol 4, 82.
PRIM ’57-’82 Transparencies 1965-1980
Instant Slides – Highsmith. Instructional Innovator 25, no 5 (May 1980): 49. Overhead Transparencies – Hubbard Scientific Company. Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 7 (September 1965): 583.
APPENDIX F
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS BY YEAR
366
APPENDIX G
PRIM ’57-’82 CODES, CATEGORIES, AND SUBCATEGORIES
368
PRIM ’57-’82 PRIM ’57-’82 Found in Subcategory Group Quantity Codes Categories Years Audio Card 1957-1980 13 Interactive Readers Craig 1961-1963 3 Interactive Readers Audio-Based 1963-1982 5 Interactive Programmed Devices Instruction Matching 1969-1970 2 Devices Multiple- Game-Like Interactive Choice 1971-1974 2 Devices Devices Educational 1973-1982 10 Toys Learning 1957-1977 7 Interactive Materials Instructional 1957-1973 3 Interactive Kits Learning 1957 1 Interactive Games Response 1962-1982 27 Interactive Systems Instructional 1968-1972 6 Interactive Systems Interactive Computers 1978 1 Real Objects Slide Rules 1959-1974 4 Real Objects Time/Clocks 1961-1980 4 Real Objects Calculators 1966-1975 7 Telephone 1980 1 Real Objects Packages Transparencies Transparencies 1965-1980 2 Total 98
APPENDIX H
AUDIOVISUAL CATEGORY TIMELINE
370
.
APPENDIX I
RESEARCH PARTICIPATON REQUEST: INFORMED CONSENT FORM
372 Working Study Title: Portable Responsive Instructional Materials: Functional and Pedagogical Applications - A Historical Content Analysis from 1957 to 1982 Researcher: Bettylynne F. Gregg Email Address: [email protected] Researcher Contact: 815-761-6100 Research Supervisor: Dr. Rebecca Butler Email Address: [email protected]
You are invited to be part of a research study. The researcher is a doctoral student in the College of Education at Northern Illinois University. The information in this form is provided to help you decide if you want to participate. The form describes what you will have to do during the study and the risks and benefits of the study. If you have any questions about or do not understand something in this form, you should ask the researcher. Do not participate in the study unless the researcher has answered your questions and you decide that you want to be part of this study.
WHAT IS THIS STUDY ABOUT? The researcher wants to understand the historical significance of educational devices used during the 1950s to 1980s, specifically handheld devices that are small, portable, and require the student to give a response or to receive a response from the device.
HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE IN THIS STUDY? Approximately 10-15 participants are estimated, but the exact number will depend on research found and availability of participants who experienced using a specific handheld device. Within the time period being studied, the exact number of participants is yet to be determined.
WHY AM I BEING ASKED TO BE IN THE STUDY? You are invited to be in the study because you: · Have prior experience with a specific handheld device that has been identified to be used in classroom instruction from the 1950s to 1980s. · Have experiences and/or information about how specific handheld devices were used as instructional tools during the 1950s-1980s. - Are at least18 years old. If you do not meet the description above, you are not eligible to be in the study.
WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS STUDY? The researcher is not receiving funds to conduct this study.
WILL IT COST ANYTHING TO BE IN THIS STUDY? You do not have to pay to be in the study.
HOW LONG WILL I BE IN THE STUDY? If you decide to be in this study, your participation will last approximately 30-45 minutes.
373 WHAT WILL HAPPEN DURING THIS STUDY? If you decide to be in this study and if you sign this form, you will do the following things: · Give personal information about yourself, such as your occupation, experience, and education level. - Share your experiences with specific handheld devices. - Share your insights with the researcher and your perceptions for success or failures of the specific handheld devices.
While you are in the study, you must · Follow the instructions you are given. · Tell the researcher if you want to stop being in the study at any time.
WILL BEING IN THIS STUDY HELP ME? While participating in this study will not help you, information from this study might assist other researchers in the future to understand the historical foundation of educational handheld devices.
ARE THERE RISKS TO ME IF I AM IN THIS STUDY? No study is completely risk-free. However, the researcher does not anticipate that you will be harmed or distressed during this study. You may withdraw from the study at any time if you become uncomfortable.
WILL I BE PAID? You will not receive any cash payment for participating in the study. As gratitude for your time, your name will be entered into a lottery-style drawing All participants will have an equal chance to receive one of two gift certificates, valued at $25.00 each, to a local bookstore valued to show appreciation for your time and willingness to share information.
DO I HAVE TO BE IN THIS STUDY? Your participation in this study is voluntary. You can change your mind about being in the study at any time. There will be no penalty to you. If you want to stop participating in the study, tell the researcher.
WHO WILL USE AND SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT MY BEING IN THIS STUDY? Any information you provide in this study that could identify you, such as your name, age, or other personal information, will be kept confidential. Your name and email address will be given a pseudonym code.
Pseudonym codes assigned to participants will be created in a document that is stored on a personal password-protected portable storage device such as a jumpdrive or external harddrive to which only the researcher has access. The storage device containing the assigned pseudonym codes will be locked in a fireproof safe located in the home to which only the researcher has access. For reporting purposes, no identifiable information will be used in the discussion, in
374 presentation of the findings, or in future publications. In any written reports or publications, no one will be able to identify you.
WHOM CAN I TALK TO ABOUT THIS STUDY? You can ask questions about the study at any time. You can call the researcher at any time if you have any concerns or complaints. You should call the researcher at the phone number listed on page 1 of this form if you have questions about the study procedures, study costs (if any), study payment (if any), or if you become hurt or sick during the study.
The Northern Illinois University Office of Research Compliance Board (ORC) has been established to protect the rights and welfare of human research participants. Please contact us at 1-815-753-8588 for any of the following reasons:
· You have questions about your rights as a research participant. · You wish to discuss problems or concerns. · You have suggestions to improve the participant experience. · You do not feel comfortable talking with the researcher.
You may contact the ORC without giving us your name. We may need to reveal information you provide in order to follow up if you report a problem or concern.
DO YOU WANT TO BE IN THIS STUDY? By completing the Consent below, you agree to the following statement: I have read this form, and I have been able to ask questions about this study. The researcher has answered all my questions. I voluntarily agree to be in this study. I agree to allow the use and sharing of my study-related records as described above.
I have not given up any of my legal rights as a research participant. I will request a copy of this consent information for my records, if so desired.
______Signature of Participant Date
375 Informed Consent for Audio/Video Recording Portable Responsive Instructional Materials: Functional and Pedagogical Applications - A Historical Content Analysis from 1957 to 1982
I, ______, agree to be interviewed by Bettylynne F. Gregg, a doctoral student in the College of Education at Northern Illinois University. I understand that the interview will be recorded using a digital voice recorder and/or a digital video camera and that information obtained during the interview may be used in her qualitative research dissertation.
______Signature of Participant Date
______Signature of Researcher Date
APPENDIX J
HUMAN PARTICIPANT PROTECTION CERTIFICATE
377
APPENDIX K
POSSIBLE JOURNALS TO REVIEW
379 Possible journals to gather data from, not limited to this listing suggested by Anglin, Willis, and the NIU faculty development website, are as follows:
o American Educational Research Journal o American Psychologist o Aspects of Educational Technology: Programmed Learning & Educational Technology o Audiovisual Instruction /TechTrends/Instructional Innovator o AV Communications/Educational Communications and Technology o Computers and Education o Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education o Curriculum and Instruction o Education and Computing: The International Journal o Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research and Development (ECJT) o Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D) o Educational Technology Journal of Computer Assisted Learning o Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education (EJITE) o Innovate: Journal of Online Education o Instructional Innovator o Journal of Applied Educational Technology o Journal of Computer-Based Instruction o Journal of Educational Technology & Society o Journal of Educational Technology Systems o Journal of Interactive Instruction Development o Journal of Research on Computing in Education o Journal of Special Education Technology o Journal of Technology and Teacher Education o Performance and Instruction Journal o Teacher Education o Teacher Education and Special Education o TechTrends
APPENDIX L
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEFINITIONS RESOURCES
381 Anglin, G., ed. Instructional Technology Past, Present, and Future. 2nd ed. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1995.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. The Definition of Educational Technology: AECT Task Force on Definition and Terminology. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1977.
——. “Knowledge Base.” 2001. Accessed February 15, 2012. http://www.aect.org/standards/knowledgebase.html Dale, E. Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching. New York: The Dryden Press, 1946.
Dorris, A. V. Visual Instruction in the Public Schools. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1928.
Ely, D. The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, Monograph No. 1 of the Technological Development Project of the National Education Association. Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1963.
Finn, J. D. “Instructional Technology.” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 192-94.
——. “Professionalizing the Audio-Visual Field.” AudioVisual Communication Review 1, no. 1 (Winter 1953): 6-17.
Gagnè, R. “Introduction.” Chap. 1 in Instructional Technology: Foundations, 1-10. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987.
Heinich, R. Technology and the Management of Instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1970.
Hoban, C. “A Memorial Tribute to James Donald Finn.” AudioVisual Communication Review 17, no. 2 (Summer 1969): 133-36.
Hoban, C., C. Hoban, and S. Zisman. Visualizing the Curriculum. New York: The Cordon Company, 1937.
Hyer, A. “A Backward Glance.” Audiovisual Instruction 10, no. 3 (March 1965): 202.
Januszewski, A. Educational Technology: The Development of a Concept. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 2001.
Januszewski, A., and M. Molenda, eds. Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008.
Kinder, J. S., and F. D. McClusky. The Audio-Visual Reader. Dubuque: W. D. Brown Co., 1954.
382 McClusky, F. D. “A Definition.” In The Audio-Visual Reader. Edited by J. S. Kinder and F. D. McClusky, 4-5. Dubuque: W. D. Brown Co., 1954.
McKown, V. “Choice of Title Provokes Brisk Comment.” Instructional Materials 47, no. 1 (March 1956): 43.
Molenda, M. “AECT History in the 20th Century: A Brief History.” Indiana University. August 12, 2003. Accessed February 22, 2012. http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/AECT%20History.pdf.
——. “Historical Foundations.” Chap. 1 in Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Edited by J. M. Spector et al, 3-20. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008.
Morgan, R. M. “Educational Technology - Adolescence to Adulthood.” Educational Communication and Technology Journal 26, no. 2 (Summer 1978): 142-152.
Olsen, J. R., and V. B. Bass. “The Application of Performance Technology in the Military: 1960- 1980.” Performance and Instruction 21, no. 6 (July/August 1982): 32-36.
Partridge, E. D. “Are There Any Questions.” Audiovisual Instruction 5, no. 2 (February 1960): 42-43.
Reiser, R. “A History of Instructional Design and Technology.” Chap. 3 in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. 2nd ed. Edited by R. Reiser and J. Dempsey, 17- 34. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, 2007.
——. “A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part 1; A History of Instructional Media.” Educational Technology, Research and Development 49, no. 1 (March 2001): 53-64. Reiser, R., and D. Ely. “The Field of Educational Technology as Reflected through Its Definitions.” Educational Technology Research and Development 45, no. 3 (September 1997): 63-72.
Robinson, R., M. Molenda, and L. Rezabek. “Facilitating Learning.” Chap. 2 in Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. Edited by A. Januszewski and M. Molenda, 16-48. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008.
Saettler, P. The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2004.
——. A History of Instructional Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1968.
383 Seels, B., and R. C. Richey. Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1994.
Spector, J. M. “Reflections On the Future of Instructional Design and Technology: Where Are We Going and How Will We Get There?” IDT Record (2005): 1-6. Accessed March 17, 2012. http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/IDTf_Spector.pdf.
Torkelson, G. “AVCR: One Quarter Century; Evolution of Theory and Research.” AudioVisual Communication Review 25, no. 4 (Winter 1977): 317-58.
——. “A History of AECT from a Personal Perspective.” TechTrends 43, no. 1 (February 1988): 47-50.
APPENDIX M
PIKO DAT LEARNING MACHINE TRANSPARENCIES AND CUTOUT SHEET
385
Example of Piko dat Learning Machine Transparency - Page 11. Original booklet included 32 pages of transparent papers for use with the Piko dat Learning Machine. This transparency file was received via email from Bram Damman on July 3, 2014.
Example of corresponding Piko dat Learning Machine Cutout Sheets. These cutouts were placed on the front of the Piko dat Learning Machine to guide the learner in the specific exercises. The cutout example was received via email from Bram Damman on July 3, 2014.
APPENDIX N
PATTEN, SÁNCHEZ, AND TAGNEY”S PEDAGOGICAL
AND FUNCTIONAL FRAMEWORK
387
Source: From Patten et al., “Designing Collaborative, Constructionist and Contextual Applications for Handheld Devices,” in Computers and Education, April 2006, Vol. 46, no. 3, 294-308. Permission obtained from RightsLink on December 1, 2012.
APPENDIX O
PRIM ’57-’82 FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS:
ADMINISTRATION TEMPLATE EXAMPLE
389
Description: Administration PRIM ’57-’82 Codes/Category: Interactive -- Computer Severity and PRIM ’57-’82 Causes Functional Step 4 Evaluation Gather Assemble Failure classification(s): Action and Review and FMEA Information Team Modes Administration) Step 5 Closure Steps Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 PRIM ’57-’82 examples: Step 6 Memo Note 30 Current examples: Newton MessagePad - 1991 $699.00, PDAs Severity Causes (Palm Pilots), iPad -2010 $399.00 Information was gathered from the collection of data for this dissertation. Step 1 Gather Information. Refer to the PRIM ’57-’82 study in Chapter 2, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5.
I am the sole member of the FMEA team. Using a poststructural theory, the findings are based on Step 2 Assemble Team research and knowledge learned through the dissertation process.
Step 3 Determine Failure Modes
If yes, use Low, Answer Answer Moderate, Step 3 Directions for 3a-3d Yes or Record Qualitative Data Closed or High. No No If no, use None.
3a Number of students no none none closed
3b Number of staff no none none closed
not found in 3c Frequency of use yes moderate educational closed environments
Quantity or variety of 3d no none none closed materials Answer Functionality of the Yes or Administration Answer No. classification evolved Step 3 directions for 3e-3i Closed or Identify into similar devices No Failure such as the Newton Mode. MessagePad, PDAs, and iPads.Using the Technical quality (Picture, PCI inflation 3e no none none closed Sound, Overall) calculator, found new devices such as 2010 Content (Accuracy, iPad was 1.5 time 3f Coverage, Currency, no none none more than the Memo closed Objectivity) Note 30 yet offered potential of desktop Design (Pace, Vocabulary, computer rather than 3g Organization, no none none just 30 closed Effectiveness, Scope) names/numbers.
cost of the Acquisition (Availability, Memo Note 3h yes high closed Cost, Recommendations) 30 was $80.00 in 1978 due to lack of Qualitative input yes, use in (Remarks, Impressions, training education, not 3i moderate closed Overall rating, Pupil and found in interest or reactions) usage educational environments
APPENDIX P
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANAYLSIS RESOURCES
391 Boylan, F. “Beg, Steal or Borrow? The Challenges Faced by Borrowing the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Method to Elicit the Unintended Consequences of Implementing E- Learning in the Higher Education Context.” International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, March 9-11, 2009. Breiing, A. J., and A. M. Kunz. “Critical Consideration and Improvement of the FMEA.” Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering (TMCE), Wuhan, China, 2002.
Department of Defense United States of America. Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis. Military Standard, Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 1980, 1-54.
Evans, A. “An Evaluation Form that Makes Sense.” Instructional Innovator 26, no. 3 (March 1981): 32-33.
Forrest, G. “Quick Guide to Failure Mode and Effects Analysis.” iSixSigma. December 31, 2010. Accessed August 13, 2014. http://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/fmea/quick- guide-failure-mode-and-effects-analysis/.
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. “Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Tool.” 2014. Accessed September 4, 2012. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/FailureModesandEffectsAnalysisTool.aspx.
Johnson, M. Using Process FMEA in an Aeronautical Engineering Technology Capstone Course. Louisville: American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), 2010.
Quality-One International. “FMEA - Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.” Quality-One International. 2011. Accessed August 13, 2014. http://quality-one.com/fmea/.
Reams, J. “Making FMEA Work for You.” Nursing Management 42, no. 5 (May 2011): 18-20.
Resource Engineering, Inc. “FMEA Analysis - Worksheet.” QualityTrainingPortal. 2004. Accessed August 21, 2014. http://www.qualitytrainingportal.com/resources/fmea/form_46a_app12amod.htm.
——. “Generic Severity Rating Scale.” QualityTrainingPortal. 2004. Accessed August 22, 2014. http://www.qualitytrainingportal.com/resources/fmea/form_46a_app4mod.htm.
Romiszowski, A. “How's the E-Learning Baby? Factors Leading to Success or Failure of an Educational Technology Innovation.” Educational Technology 40, no. 1 (2004): 5-27.
Stamatis, D. H. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1995.
392 Terninko, J. “Reliability/Mistake-Proofing Using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)” in ASQ's 57th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings - Expanding Horizon: Global, Personal, Tools, Networking, Solutions. Kansas City: Quality Congress, (2003): 515-526.
APPENDIX Q
“FMEA+EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY” 2014 SEARCH RESULTS
394 Alwi, N. “E-Learning Stakeholders Information Security.” PhD diss., Cranfield University- School of Applied Sciences, 2012. de Vries, M. “Design Methodology and Relationships with Science: Introduction.” In Design Methodology and Relationships with Science. Edited by A. Gordon, 1-14. Netherlands: Springer, 1993.
Hussein, M. A. “Development of a Computer Aided Decision Support Tool for Selecting Organisational [sic] Improvement Initiatives.” Master's thesis, Universiti Tun Hussein, Onn, 2014.
Illyefalvi-Vitez, Z., L. Golonka, P. Mach, and P. Svasta. “Networking the Electronics Packaging Education.” Electronic Components & Technology Conference - IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, 2000: 1008-1015.
Jee, T., K. Tay, and C. Ng. “A New Fuzzy Criterion-Referenced Assessment with a Fuzzy Rule Selection Technique and a Monotonicity: Preserving Similarity Reasoning Scheme.” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 24, no. 2 (February 2013): 261-279.
Lyons, M. “Towards a Framework to Select Techniques for Error Prediction: Supporting Novice Users in the Healthcare Sector.” Applied Ergonomics 40, no. 3 (May 2009): 379-395.
Reich, Y., E. Kolberg, and I. Levin. "Designing Contexts for Learning Design." International Journal of Engineering Education 20, no. 3 (2006): 489-495. Accessed September 15, 2014. http://www.tau.ac.il/~ilia1/publications/designing-designers.pdf.
Ryan, R. Winning Resumes. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
Shing, C. K., S. Nadarajan, and S. Chandren. “Scraps Management with Lean Six Sigma.” International Journal of Supply Chain Management 3, no. 3 (September 2014): 113-134.
Stamatis, D. Six Sigma and Beyond: The Implementation Process. 7th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2002.
Vesper, J., R. Reeves, and J. Herrington. “Using Preliminary Risk Assessment in a Formative Evaluation.” EdMedia 2013 World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, Victoria, BC, June 24-27, 2013. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/16225/.