FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W163998643> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W163998643 abstract "An instructional management system is described as an interim step to computer-assisted instruction. The rationale for the instructional management system stems from the consideration of several problems in using computers in education; problems of system development, cost, communication, system integration, and user acceptance are considered. November 18, 1966 3 SP-2545/002/0o Using Computers in Education: Some Problems and Solutions Harry F. Silberman System Development Corporation Santa Monica, California Almost every day we hear about the great benefits to be derived from the use of computers in education. Instant access to distant libraries, individualized instruction, and relief from the many clerical chores associated with school administration are among the advantages frequently listed. These are reasonable objectives, but the problems involved in realizing them are often ignored. This paper discusses six questions frequently asked about the use of computers in education. The first question is: How does one go about designing a com uterized instructional system? One popular approach to this problem is to copy what others are doing: Many who are planning new schools are hard at work collecting the latest information on computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and on flexible scheduling; they visit all the current sites in California, New York, and Florida on ''brainnicking expeditions and return reassured that their own plan has everything offered by the centers that were visited. Another approach to the design of an instructional system is to look to science for suggestions. Learning theorists and educational researchers have never been so popular. There is hardly an education conference these days that doesn't feature a main address by a prominent researcher describing his remedy for the ills of education and citing several research articles that support this remedy. Unfortunately, if the school designer reads the articles, he will often find that the experimental situations and objectives described have little in common with his own, or that the results obtained are not of sufficient significance to form the basis for practical decisions. A third approach involves de-emphasizing abstract models and innovations and concentrating on what one is trying to accomplish in the particular instructional system, adopting a cut-and-fit procedure to achieve the desired goals. This procedure can be illustrated by a brief description of our work at System Development Corporation. Approximately eight years ago, SDC started a project to explore programmed instruction technology. Our survey revealed that existing programs provided for individual differences in rate of learning but did not provide for differences in skill level during the course of instruction. That is, identical material was presented to all students; those who learned quickly finished the instruction sooner but they were not permitted to skip sequences on the basis of demonstrated November 18, 1966 SP-2545/002/00 proficiency. A computer-based teaching machine was therefore developed by project members to provide for individual differences in skill. The computer was tied to a rear-view random-access slide projector and an electric typewriter terminal. The student, seated at the typewriter, viewed the slides and typed his responses; the machine then evaluated his answers. The computer program permitted students who performed well on test items to skip instructional segments, while those having difficulty on particular concepts were branched to remedial segments. A number of institutions are now experimenting with similar forms of computerized instruction. Universities such as Stanford, Illinois, Pennsylvania State, and Pittsburgh, as well as private organizations such as IBM, Bolt Beranek and Newman, and System Development Corporation, are working in this area. Of course, the effectiveness of such Lystems depends mostly on the quality of the instructional materials programmed into the machine. Consequently, a good deal of activity is devoted to finding ways of developing better materials. In an attempt to design improved instructional materials, we have conducted a fairly extensive series of experimental comparisons. The most notable result of these comparisons was that only marginal statistical differences among experimental treatments were obtained. Different sequencing procedures, cueing techniques, and confirmation procedures had but limited practical effect on student" @default.
• W163998643 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W163998643 creator A5059791985 @default.
• W163998643 date "1966-11-18" @default.
• W163998643 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W163998643 title "USING COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION--SOME PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS." @default.
• W163998643 hasPublicationYear "1966" @default.
• W163998643 type Work @default.
• W163998643 sameAs 163998643 @default.
• W163998643 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W163998643 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W163998643 hasAuthorship W163998643A5059791985 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C110354214 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C2776505523 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C2776957806 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C2778348171 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C49774154 @default.
• W163998643 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C110354214 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C127413603 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C136764020 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C145420912 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C15744967 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C166957645 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C17744445 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C199539241 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C2776505523 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C2776957806 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C2778348171 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C41008148 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C49774154 @default.
• W163998643 hasConceptScore W163998643C95457728 @default.
• W163998643 hasLocation W1639986431 @default.
• W163998643 hasOpenAccess W163998643 @default.
• W163998643 hasPrimaryLocation W1639986431 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W1539882789 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W1995034282 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W2026014255 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W202644616 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W202786191 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W211977443 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W2135093963 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W2154757741 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W2177710552 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W231680457 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W250347295 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W2600324870 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W260947269 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W266896011 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W289639611 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W305146310 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W3094227891 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W349029583 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W53792041 @default.
• W163998643 hasRelatedWork W3108144677 @default.
• W163998643 isParatext "false" @default.
• W163998643 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W163998643 magId "163998643" @default.
• W163998643 workType "article" @default.