Advertisement

AV communication review

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 227–241 | Cite as

An overview of problems encountered in aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) research for instruction

  • Karen Rosenkrantz Shapiro
Articles
  • 50 Downloads

Conclusion

Mindful of the problems encountered in ATI research and the political, economic, and technological context within which future work will be undertaken, we suggest a more deliberate path than has been pursued in the past. A concerted effort by ATI researchers which focuses on a few tasks rather than on the whole matrix is more likely to demonstrate whether this research has a significant contribution to make to instructional practices.

Drawing researchers together will encourage content and concept validation and conformity to methodological standards. The inclusion of individuals with diverse backgrounds and expertise will facilitate comparisons within and across treatments while maintaining aptitudes and tasks across researchers. The participation of practitioners can be increased as access to computer terminals in libraries and schools becomes more widespread.

If the trend toward the individualization of instruction for the student is to continue, it may be necessary for researchers to surrender a fraction of their own individuality to the team effort.

Keywords

Cognitive Style Mental Ability Instructional Treatment Instructional Task General Mental Ability 
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. Allen, W. H. Instructional media research: Past, present and future.AV Communication Review, 1971,19, 9–18.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, B., & Bogatz, G. A. A summary of the major findings in “The first year of Sesame Street: An evaluation.” Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1970.Google Scholar
  3. Bretz, R.A Taxonomy of communication media. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1971.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bulletin, 1959,56, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campeau, P. L. Selective review of the results of research on the use of audiovisual media to teach adults.AV Communication Review, 1974,22, 5–40.Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, J., et al.Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, 1966.Google Scholar
  7. Cronbach, L. J. The two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist, 1957,12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J.Essentials of psychological testing. (3rd ed.) New York: Harper and Row, 1970.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E.Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington, in press.Google Scholar
  11. Fleming, M. Classification and analysis of instructional illustrations.AV Communication Review, 1967,15, 246–258.Google Scholar
  12. Gagné, R. (Ed.)Learning and individual differences. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1967.Google Scholar
  13. Gropper, G. L. & Glasgow, Z.Criteria for the selection and use of visuals in instruction: A handbook. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. Guilford, J. P.The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
  15. Jamison, D., Suppes, P., & Wells, S.The effectiveness of alternative instructional media: A survey. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, The Graduate School of Business, 1973.Google Scholar
  16. Kagan, J., & Kogan, N. Individuality and cognitive performance. In P. Mussen (Ed.),Carmichael’s manual of child psychology. (3rd ed.) New York: John Wiley, 1970. Pp. 1273–1365.Google Scholar
  17. Koran, M. L., Snow, R., & McDonald, F. J. Teacher aptitude and observational learning of a teaching skill.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971,62, 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levie, H. W., & Dickie, K. E. The analysis and application of media. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.),Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973. Pp. 858–882.Google Scholar
  19. Liebert, R. M., Neale, J. M., & Davidson, E. S.The early window. New York: Pergamon, 1973.Google Scholar
  20. Lumsdaine, A. A. “Content” and the outcomes of educational programs. In W. Schramm (Ed.),Quality of instructional television. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1972.Google Scholar
  21. Merrill, M. D. Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions.AV Communication Review, 1975,23, (2), 217–226.Google Scholar
  22. Mielke, K. W. Asking the right ETV research questions.Educational Broadcasting Review, 1968,2(6), 54–61.Google Scholar
  23. Mielke, K. W. Media-message interactions in TV. In G. Salomon & R. E. Snow (Eds.),Viewpoints (Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University), 1970,46, 15–31.Google Scholar
  24. Rhetts, J. E. Task, learner and treatment variables in instructional design.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974,66(3), 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts, D. F. Communication and children: A developmental approach. In I. D. Pool & W. Schramm (Eds.),Handbook of communications. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1973, Pp. 174–215.Google Scholar
  26. Salomon, G. What does it do to Johnny? A cognitive-functionalistic view of research on media. In G. Salomon & R. E. Snow (Eds.),Viewpoints (Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University), 1970,46, 33–62.Google Scholar
  27. Salomon, G. Can we affect cognitive skills through visual media? An hypothesis and initial findings.AV Communication Review, 1972,20, 401–422.Google Scholar
  28. Salomon, G. What is learned and how it is taught: The interaction between media, message, task, and learner. In D. Olson (Ed.),NSSE yearbook: Media and symbols, the forms of expression, communication and education. Chicago: The University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  29. Schramm, W. What the research says. In W. Schramm (Ed.),Quality in instructional television. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1972.Google Scholar
  30. Snow, R. E. Research on media and aptitudes. In G. Salomon & R. E. Snow (Eds.),Viewpoints (Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University), 1970,46, 63–89.Google Scholar
  31. Snow, R. E., & Salomon, G. Aptitudes and instructional media.AV Communication Review, 1968,16, 341–357.Google Scholar
  32. Tosti, D. T. & Ball, J. R. A behavioral approach to instructional design and media selection.AV Communication Review, 1969,17, 5–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Rosenkrantz Shapiro
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Communication Research at Stanford University

Personalised recommendations