Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predicting individual success in programing self-instructional materials

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

Conclusions

In essence, this study has completed a triad of efforts to identify and weigh factors critical to the proper selection of individuals for training as self-instructional programers. It would now appear that we have reliable measures that can be used as guidelines. The most powerful of these selection criteria is the combined Otis IQ and Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking scores. It was found in the 1963 study that these two scores, working in concert, were more powerful and sensitive than either working alone. This result was confirmed in the present study with the finding of significance beyond the 001 level, indicating that the difference could be attributed to chance in only one case out of one thousand. In Figure 1, we find a representation of the utility of this predictor in assessing the success of programers in the upper and lower quartiles. Using figures to be explained below, we sought to determine whether a combined score of 187 or less would indicate failure while a combined score of 207 or more would indicate success.

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

  • Borg, W. R.Educational research: An introduction. New York: McKay, 1963. Pp. 270–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brink, R. O. Problems in developing a programming capability.NSPI Journal, 1963,2 (8), 12–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, D. H. An hypothesis about the training of instructional programers.Programed Instruction, 1965,5 (1), 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A. L.Statistical analysis. (Rev. ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964. Pp. 71–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. L.Programmed instruction for schools and industry. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysaught, J. P. Programed learning and teaching machines in industrial training. In S. Margulies & L. D. Eigen (Eds.),Applied Programed Instruction. New York: Wiley, 1962, 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysaught, J. P. An analysis of factors related to success in constructing programmed learning sequences.Journal of Programmed Instruction, 1963,2 (3), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysaught, J. P. Further analysis of success among auto-instructional programmers.Teaching Aids News, 1964,4 (19), 6–11. (a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysaught, J. P. Selecting auto-instructional programmers.Personnel Journal, 1964,43 (7), 382–385. (b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysaught, J. P. Inducing change in the classroom through the development of teacher-programmers. In J. Leedham & D. Unwin (Eds.),Aspects of educational technology. London: Methuen, 1967. Pp. 399–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysaught, J. P. Research on programmer training: What has been done; what needs doing.NSPI Journal, 1968,6 (5), 6–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lysaught, J. P., & Pierleoni, R. G. A comparison of predicted and actual success in auto-instructional programming.Journal of Programmed Instruction, 1966,3 (4), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F. Criteria for evaluation.Proceedings of the second Rochester conference on self-instruction in medical education. Rochester, New York: Rochester Clearinghouse, The University of Rochester, 1967. Pp. 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M. De-emphasis on dogma: Training for creative programing.Programed Instruction, 1965,5 (1), 1–9. (a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M. It figgers.NSPI Journal, 1965,4 (2), 4–5. (b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polin, A. T., Morse, R. J., & Zenger, J. H. Desirable experience for selecting instructional programmers from in-plant employees.Personnel Administration, 1962,25 (6). (a)

  • Polin, A. T., Morse, R. J., & Zenger, J. H. Educational criteria for selecting instructional programmers from in-plant employees.Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 1962,16 (9), 47–49. (b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Polin, A. T., Morse, R. J., & Zenger, J. H. Selecting programmers from in-plant employees.Personnel Journal, 1962,41 (8), 398–399. (c)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothkopf, E. Z. Some observations on predicting instructional effectiveness by simple inspection.Journal of Programmed Instruction, 19632 (2), 19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. E. P. Speculations: Characteristics of successful programs and programmers. In E. Galanter (Ed.),Automatic teaching: The state of the art. New York: Wiley, 1959, 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The College of Education and The School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Rochester, New York

    Jerome P. Lysaught (Professor of Education and Research Associate in Medical Education) & Robert G. Pierleoni (Assistant Professor of Education, Associate in Medical Education)

Authors
  1. Jerome P. Lysaught
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert G. Pierleoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The research reported herein was supported by the Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Cooperative Research Project No. OEC-1-7-068407-0286.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lysaught, J.P., Pierleoni, R.G. Predicting individual success in programing self-instructional materials. ECTJ 18, 5–24 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769439

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769439

Keywords

Search

Navigation