Advertisement

AV communication review

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 171–183 | Cite as

Generating meaningful hypotheses with aptitude-treatment interactions

  • Perrin E. Parkhust
Articles
  • 20 Downloads

Keywords

Individual Difference Variable NDEA Educational Task Educational Practitioner Facilitate Student Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramson, T., & Kagen, E. Familiarization of content and different response modes in programmed instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975,67, 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bracht, G. H. Experimental factors related to aptitude-treatment interactions.Review of Educational Research, 1970,40, 627–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broadbent, D. E.Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon, 1958.Google Scholar
  4. Broadbent, D. E. Information processing in the nervous system.Science, 1965, 3695, 457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckland, P. R. The response in a linear program: Its mode and importance.Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 1967,4 (February), 47–51.Google Scholar
  6. Campeau, P. L. Level of anxiety and presence or absence of feedback in programmed instruction. USOE, NDEA Title VII Project No. 1155. Palo Alto, Calif.: American Institutes for Research, February 1965.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, C. R. A theoretical orientation for instructional film research.A V Communication Review, 1953,1, 38–52.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, J. C., Jr., & Gaeth, J. H. Interactions of modality with age and with meaningfulness in verbal learning.Tournai of Educational Psychology, 1967,58, 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronbach, L. J. How can instruction be adapted to individual differences? In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Learning and individual differences. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1967. Pp. 23–29.Google Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. Individual differences in learning ability as a function of instructional variables. Final Report, USOE Contract No. OEC4-6-061269-1217. Stanford University, 1969.Google Scholar
  11. Dale, E.Audio-visual methods in teaching. New York: Dryden, 1946.Google Scholar
  12. Doty, B., & Doty, L. A. Programmed instructional effectiveness in relation to certain student characteristics.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 334–338.Google Scholar
  13. Dwyer, F. M. Adapting visual illustrations for effective learning.Harvard Educational Review, 1967,37, 250–263.Google Scholar
  14. Dwyer, F. M.A guide for improving visualized instruction. State College, Pa.: Learning Services, 1972.Google Scholar
  15. Gibson, J. J. A theory of pictorial perception.AV Communication Review, 1954,2, 2–23.Google Scholar
  16. James, N. E. Personal preference for method as a factor in learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962,53, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knight, H. R., & Sassenrath, J. M. Relation of achievement motivation and test anxiety to performance in programmed instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966,57, 14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lublin, S. C. Reinforcement schedules, scholastic aptitude, autonomy need, and achievement in a programmed course.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965,56, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, N. E. (Ed.) Graphic communication and the crisis in Education.AV Communication Review, 1957,5 (3), 1–120.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, J. W., Smith, W. I., & Teenan, R.Motivation variables in programed learning, NEM 795, 1965.Google Scholar
  21. Morris, C. W.Signs, language, and behavior. New York: Prentice Hall, 1946.Google Scholar
  22. Pascal, C. E. Individual differences and preference for instructional methods.Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 1973,5, 253–262. Also, Montreal: McGill University, 1971. (ED 059 971.)Google Scholar
  23. Pascal, C. E., & McKeachie, W. J. Offering course options: Personality, option preference, and course outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Minneapolis, March 1970.Google Scholar
  24. Rhetts, J. E. Attribute-treatment interactions and individualized instruction: A conceptual framework and example from the project PLAN. In L. Sperry (Ed.),Learning, performance and individualized differences: Essays and Readings. Glenview, I11.: Scott Foresman, 1972. Pp. 269–285.Google Scholar
  25. Rhetts, J. E. Task, learner, and treatment variables.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974,66, 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skanes, G. R., Sullivan, A. M., Rowe, E. J., & Shannon, E. Intelligence and transfer: Aptitude by treatment interactions.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974,66, 563–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Snow, R. E., & Salomon, G. Aptitudes and instructional media.AV Communication Review, 1968,16, 341–357.Google Scholar
  28. Snow, R. E., Tiffin, J., & Seibert, W. F. Individual differences and instructional film effects.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965,56, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tobias, S., & Abramson, T. Interaction among anxiety, stress, response mode and familiarity of subject matter on achievement from programmed instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971,62, 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Travers, R. M. W.Man’s information system. Scranton, Pa.: Chandler Publishing, 1970.Google Scholar
  31. Travers, R. M. W., McCormick, M. C., Van Mondfrans, A. D., & William, F. E.Research and theory related to audiovisual information transmission. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Bureau of Education Research, 1964.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Perrin E. Parkhust
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Instructional SystemMcDonnell Douglas CorporationDenver

Personalised recommendations