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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, W. H. Instructional media research: Past, present and future.AV Communication Review, 1971,19, 9–18.
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.
Bretz, R.A Taxonomy of communication media. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1971.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bulletin, 1959,56, 81–105.
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.
Coleman, J., et al.Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, 1966.
Cronbach, L. J. The two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist, 1957,12, 671–684.
Cronbach, L. J.Essentials of psychological testing. (3rd ed.) New York: Harper and Row, 1970.
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.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E.Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington, in press.
Fleming, M. Classification and analysis of instructional illustrations.AV Communication Review, 1967,15, 246–258.
Gagné, R. (Ed.)Learning and individual differences. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1967.
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.
Guilford, J. P.The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Jamison, D., Suppes, P., & Wells, S.The effectiveness of alternative instructional media: A survey. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, The Graduate School of Business, 1973.
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.
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.
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.
Liebert, R. M., Neale, J. M., & Davidson, E. S.The early window. New York: Pergamon, 1973.
Lumsdaine, A. A. “Content” and the outcomes of educational programs. In W. Schramm (Ed.),Quality of instructional television. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1972.
Merrill, M. D. Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions.AV Communication Review, 1975,23, (2), 217–226.
Mielke, K. W. Asking the right ETV research questions.Educational Broadcasting Review, 1968,2(6), 54–61.
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.
Rhetts, J. E. Task, learner and treatment variables in instructional design.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974,66(3), 339–347.
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.
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.
Salomon, G. Can we affect cognitive skills through visual media? An hypothesis and initial findings.AV Communication Review, 1972,20, 401–422.
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.
Schramm, W. What the research says. In W. Schramm (Ed.),Quality in instructional television. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1972.
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.
Snow, R. E., & Salomon, G. Aptitudes and instructional media.AV Communication Review, 1968,16, 341–357.
Tosti, D. T. & Ball, J. R. A behavioral approach to instructional design and media selection.AV Communication Review, 1969,17, 5–25.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shapiro, K.R. An overview of problems encountered in aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) research for instruction. ECTJ 23, 227–241 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02768380
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02768380