Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What about classroom Communicators?

  • Articles
  • Published:
Audiovisual communication review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

Note that the comparisons presented in this paper serve only as a springboard in pointing out some of the advantages and limitations of the Classroom Communicator. Like the bicycle and the automobile, each serving a useful purpose under certain conditions, different types of teaching aids and teaching machines will find their use. Not many individuals will want to argue whether the bicycle or the automobile is better. One would hope that an out-of-context decision on the Classroom Communicator versus this or that teaching machine is not made. It is thought, however, that some empirical or logical decision might be made with respect to the use of the Classroom Communicator in the near future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Angell, G. W. “Effect of Immediate Knowledge of Quiz Results on Final Examination Scores in Freshman Chemistry.”Journal of Educational Research 42: 391–394; January 1949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bryan, G. L., and Rigney, J. W.An Evaluation of a Method for Shipboard Training in Operations Knowledge. Technical Report No. 18. Prepared for the Personnel and Training Branch, Psychological Sciences Division, Office of Naval Research, at the Department of Psychology, University of Southern California. Los Angeles: the University, 1956.

  3. Bryan, G. L., and Rigney, J. W.Current Trends in Automated Tutoring and Their Implications for Naval Technical Training. Technical Report No. 29. Prepared for Personnel and Training Branch, Psychological Sciences Division, Office of Naval Research, at the Department of Psychology, University of Southern California. Los Angeles: the University, 1959.

  4. Carpenter, C. R.., and others.The Classroom Communicator. Technical Report SDC 269-7-14. Port Washington, N.Y.: Special Devices Center, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carpenter, C. R., and others.The Film Analyzer. Technical Report SDC 269-7-15. Port Washington, N.Y.: Special Devices Center, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fattu, N. A. “Training Devices.”Encyclopedia of Educational Research. (Edited by C.W. Harris.) New York: Macmillan Co., 1960. pp. 1529–1535.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Finn, J. D. “Technology and the Instructional Process.”Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning. (Edited by A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser.) Washington, D.C.:National Education Association, 1960. pp. 382–394.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Finn, J. D., and Perrin, D. G.Teaching Machines and Programed Learning, 1962: A Survey of the Industry. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fletcher, R. M.Profile Analysis and Its Effect on Learning When Used To Shorten Recorded Film Commentaries. Technical Report SDC 269-7-56. Port Washington, N.Y.:Special Devices Center, 1955.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Gilpin, J. “Design and Evaluation of Instructional Systems.”A V Communication Review 10: 75–84; March-April 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hirsch, R. S.The Effects of Knowledge of Test Results on Learning of Meaningful Material. Human Engineering Report SDC 269-7-30. Port Washington, N.Y.: Special Devices Center, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kurpiewski, B. S.The Effectiveness of a Modified Classroom Communicator in the Study of Learning and Retention. Doctor’s thesis. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1958.

  13. Mowry, H. W.., and Webb, W. B. “Facilitation of Learning by the Classroom Communicator.”Studies in Air Technical Training. (Edited by H.W. Mowry;W. B. Webb; and E. A. Garvin.) Technical Report No. 2. Prepared for the Personnel and Training Branch, Psychological Sciences Division, Office of Naval Research, at the Department of Psychology, Washington University. St. Louis, Mo.: the University, 1955. pp. 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pressey, S. L. “Development and Appraisal of Devices Providing Immediate Automatic Scoring of Objective Tests and Concomitant Self-Instruction.Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning. (Edited by A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser.) Washington, D.C: National Education Association, 1960. pp.69–88.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rath, G.; Anderson, N. S.; and Brainerd, R. C. “The IBM Research Center Teaching Machine Project.”Automatic Teaching: The State of the Art. (Edited byE. Galanter.) New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959. pp. 117–130.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stolurow, L. M.Teaching by Machine. Cooperative Research Monograph No. 6. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stover, E., and Tear, D. G.Evaluation of Two Kinescopes. Technical Report SDC 269-7-38. Port Washington, N.Y.: Special Devices Center, 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Twyford, L. C.A Comparison of Methods for Measuring Profiles of Learning from Instructional Films. Doctor’s thesis. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1951.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Herbert P. Froehlich (Doctorate)

    Present address: Michigan State University, USA

Authors and Affiliations

    Authors
    1. Herbert P. Froehlich
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Additional information

    This article is adapted from a paper given by the author as part of a symposium on “Automated Instruction and Programed Learning,” Southeastern Psychological Association, Louisville, Kentucky. The opinions expressed are those of Herbert P. Froehlich, who from 1959 to 1962 was a research officer on the staff of the Chief of Naval Air Technical Training, Memphis, Tennessee, and are not necessarily shared by the Department of the Navy.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Cite this article

    Froehlich, H.P. What about classroom Communicators?. AVCR 11, 19–26 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02768402

    Download citation

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02768402

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation