“You can’t really know where you are going until you know where you’ve been.”
-Hitch
My initial response to the Audio-Tutorial model was that it seemed antiquated. The reference to audio tapes evoked a chuckle. After reading the article fully, the approach seemed to be a workable model. Much of both class and online courses today mimic the tiered interactions with instructors and peers that are laid out in the 1960s AT approach. The initial gathering of participants in a General Assembly format helps to set parameters and expectations for learning. Students are then able to work at their own pace in Independent Study Sessions, listening and reviewing information for understanding. Fast forward 50 years and we now have a broad range of technology tools available to adapt the audio tutorial approach, making it a much more substantive model. With the ability to move away from the study carrel to the limitless resources via the internet accessed from any location, students have the ability to engage well with the course material. I personally enjoy the interactions with peers and the ability to share ideas and challenge each other. The Small Assembly Sessions for peer review and assessment seemed like a great piece of the larger puzzle.
I think that we would be remiss to disregard the approach because elements of it are “dated.” Incorporating the use of internet components (images, vodcasts, virtual experiments, etc.) make the model workable in the 21st century. The whole group, individual, and small group elements provide a balance of instructional methods and accountability. In order to engage both the audio and visual learners, it would be imperative to include web tools and pictoral components.
I thought that the findings in the two articles to be interesting. While Kulik didn’t seem to capture any definitive benefits of the AT approach, the findings of Melca, Flocker, and Gould seemed to create a strong case for its effectiveness.
THE AUDIO TUTORIAL SYSTEM
“Melca (1968) found that his AT group scored higher than the traditionally taught group on a post-test, when there was no difference on pre-test scores for 3 measures: Scholastic aptitude test; College entrance exam; and an achievement test in genetics. Fisher and her colleagues (1975) made pre- and post-test comparisons in introductory genetics courses, using a video- based system of AT, and found the ‘video-autotutorial’ approach to be statistically superior.
4Flocker (1972) measured the motivational aspects of the AT approach when he gave 210 AT students an unannounced mid-term exam, which had been taken by 755 conventionally taught students on an announced basis. There was no difference in performance despite the difference in preparedness, demonstrating the highly motivating effects of AT.
Gould (1972) found that only 15% of grades were below ‘C’ for the AT students compared with 30% below ‘C’ in the conventionally taught group.”
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P.A. (1979). Research on audio-tutorial instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 321-341.
