Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of instructional psychology for the design of educational television

  • Articles
  • Published:
ECTJ Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the implications of a cognitive model of learning for the design of educational broadcast television. Specifically examined are research studies with instructional implications for such functions as pacing, cueing, modeling, and transformation of the television presentation.

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

  • Anderson, D., Alwitt, L., Lorch, E., & Levin, S. (1979). Watching children watching television. In G. Halee & M. Lewis (Eds.),Attention and cognitive development. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D., & Levin, S. (1976). Young children’s attention to “Sesame Street.”Child Development, 47, 806–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D., Lorch, E., Field, D., & Sanders, J. (1981). The effects of TV program comprehensibility on preschool children’s visual attention to television.Child Development, 52, 151–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R., & Hidde, J. (1971). Imagery and sentence learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(6), 526–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. (1975). Mnemonics in second language learning.American Psychologist, 30, 821–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R., & Shiffrin, R. (1968). Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In G. Bower & J. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S., & Bogatz, G. (1970).The first year of Sesame Street: An evaluation. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S., & Bogatz, G. (1973).Reading with television. An evaluation of the Electric Company. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogatz, C., & Ball, S. (1971).A summary of the major findings in the second year of Sesame Street: A continuing evaluation. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovy, R. (1981). Successful instructional methods: A congnitive information processing approach.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(4), 203–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. (1982). CLTV: Collaborative learning television.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(1), 26–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, I. (1983). An information processing approach to a theory of instruction.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 31(2), 91–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, S., Huston, A., Watkins, B., & Wright, J. (1982). The relation between selective attention to television forms and children’s comprehension of content.Child Development, 53, 601–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case, R. (1980). Implications of neo-Piagetian theory for improving the design of instruction. In J. Kirby & J. Briggs (Eds.),Cognitive development and instruction. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, G., & Schramm, W. (1974).Learning from television: What the research says. (Rev. ed.), Washington, DC: National Association of Educational Broadcasters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1984). Clark’s reply.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32(4), 238–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P., Ebling, B., & Kulik, J. (1981). A meta-analysis of outcome studies of visual-based instruction.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(1), 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T., Appleton, H., Conner, R., Shaffer, A., Tamkin, G., & Weber, S. (1975).Sesame Street revisited. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, R., & Hedley, R. (1969).The medium may be related to the message. Eugene, OR: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, M., & Levie, H. (1978).Instructional message design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, L., & Stein, A. (1975). Prosocial television and young children: The effects of verbal labeling and role playing on learning and behavior.Child Development, 46, 7–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R., & Briggs, L. (1979).Principles of instructional design. (2nd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design.Review of Educational Research, 46, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, A., Holyoak, K., & Santa, J. (1979).Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. (1980). Psychology of learning, 1960–1980: One participants’ observations.American Psychologist, 35(8), 713–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Swanson, R., & Zimmerman, B. (1975). Inquiry response induction in preschool children through televised modeling.Developmental Psychology, 11(4), 523–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamison, D., Suppes, P., & Wells, S. (1974). The effectiveness of alternative instructional media: A survey.Review of Educational Research, 44(1), 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. (1977). The influence of research on education practice.Educational Researcher, 6(8), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky, R. (1980).Human memory: Structures and processes. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krendl, K., & Watkins, B. (1983). Understanding television: An exploratory inquiry into the reconstruction of narrative content.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 31(4), 201–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krull, R., & Husson, W. (1979). The effects of form and content on children’s attention: The case of TV viewing. In E. Wartella (Ed.),Children communicating: Media and development of thought speech and understanding. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesser, G. (1974).Children and television: Lessons from Sesame Street. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, P., & Norman, D. (1972).Human information processing. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, E., Anderson, D., & Levin, S. (1979). The relationship of visual attention to children’s comprehension of television.Child Development, 50, 722–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. (1976). Psychology in America’s bicentennial year.American Psychologist, 31 (12), 819–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1980). Imagery as a private audiovisual aid.Instructional Science, 9, 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, E. (1978, June).A pedogogical analysis of recurrent formats on Sesame Street and Electric Company. Paper presented at the International Conference on Children’s Educational Television, Amsterdam.

  • Petkovich, M., & Tennyson, R. (1984). Clark’s “Learning from media”: A critique.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32(4), 233–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1978). On the future of media research.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 26(1), 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1979).Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1981, September). Introducing AIME: The assessment of children’s mental involvement with television. In H. Kelly & H. Gardner (Eds.),New directions for child development: Viewing children through television (no. 13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. (1980). The power and limitations of television: A cognitive-affective analysis. In P. Tannenbaum (Ed.),The entertainment functions of television. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, R. (1977). Individual differences and instructional theory.Educational Researcher, 6(10), 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steingart, S., & Clock, M. (1979). Imagery and the recall of connected discourse.Reading Research Quarterly, 15(1), 66–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres, J. (1984).The impact of overt response and feedback on learning during children’s viewing of the Electric Company. Paper presented at AERA national meeting, New Orleans.

  • Wakshlag, J., Reitz, R., & Zillman, D. (1982). Selective exposure to and acquisition of information from educational television programs as a function of appeal and tempo of background music.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 666–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, B., Calvert, S., Huston-Stein, A., & Wright, J. (1980). Children’s recall of television material: Effects of presentation mode and adult labeling.Developmental Psychology, 16, 672–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilgosh, L. (1975). Effects of labels on memory for pictures in four-year-old children.Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(3), 375–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1982). Visualization in learning and instruction: A cognitive approach.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(1), 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H., Moore, C., Goodenough, D., & Cox, P. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications.Reviews of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J., & Huston, A. (1982).The information processing demands of television and “medial literacy.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meeting, New York.

  • Wright, J., & Vlietstra, A. (1975). The development of selective attention: From perceptual exploration to logical search. In H. Reese (Ed.),Advances in child development and behavior. (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Robert B. Kozma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Robert B. Kozma is Associate Professor at School of Education, Associate Research Scientist at the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, and Project Director, National Center for Research to Improve Post Secondary Teaching and Learning, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kozma, R.B. Implications of instructional psychology for the design of educational television. ECTJ 34, 11–19 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02768358

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02768358

Keywords

Search

Navigation