An analysis of intuitive and model-directed media-selection decisions

  • Norman Higgins
  • Ann Igoe


Media-selection decisions of 30 instructional development graduate students were studied under intuitive and model-directed decision-making conditions. Students were given three media-selection problems and were directed to select an appropriate medium for each problem and to write a rationale for the medium selected. The students used thier intuitions to select media for the first problem. They used a formal media selection process to select media for the other two problems. Results indicated that the proportion of students who made correct media selections when they used their intuition was not significantly different from the proportion who made correct selections the first time they used the formal selection process. The proportion of students who made correct selections the second time they used the formal process was significantly greater than the proportion who made correct selection decisions when using their intuition and when using the formal selection process the first time. Subsequent analysis, however, indicated that there was no correlation between the correct use of the formal selection process and making correct media-selection decisions. Implications for the design and use of formal media selection processes in instructional development are described.


Medium Selection Selection Process Graduate Student Formal Process Educational Technology 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, R. H. (1983).Selecting and developing media for instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  2. Braby, R. (1973).An evaluation of ten techniques for choosing instructional media. TAEG Report No. 8. Orlando, Florida: Training and Analysis Group.Google Scholar
  3. Branson, R., Rayner, G., Cox, J., Furman, J., King, F. and Hannum, W. (1975).Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. (5 vols.). TRADOC Pamphlet 350-30. Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.Google Scholar
  4. Briggs, L. (1970).Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. American Institute for Research, Monograph 4.Google Scholar
  5. Camilli, G. & Hopkins, K. (1978). Applicability of chi-square to 2 × 2 contingency tables with small expected cell frequencies.Psychological Bulletin, 85(1), 163–167.Google Scholar
  6. Department of the Air Force. (1978).Handbook for designers of instructional systems. (6 vols.). Air Force Pamphlet 50–58. Washington, EC: Headquarters U.S. Air Force.Google Scholar
  7. Glass, G. V., and Hopkins, K. D. (1970).Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Higgins, N., and Reiser, R. (1985). Selecting media for instruction: An exploratory study.Journal of Instructional Development, 8(2), 6–10.Google Scholar
  9. Reiser, R., and Gagné, R. (1982). Characteristics of media selection models.Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499–512.Google Scholar
  10. Reiser, R., and Gagné, R. (1983).Selecting media for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Romiszowski, A. (1974).The selection and use of instructional media. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  12. Romiszowski, A. (1988).The selection and use of instructional media (Second Edition). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman Higgins
    • 1
  • Ann Igoe
    • 1
  1. 1.the College of EducationArizona State UniversityTempe

Personalised recommendations