“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.
I, too, thought the format was pretty interesting and seemed almost to run parallel with a typical online course at a university. Replace ISS with independent online activities, GSS with screencasts of lectures or Elluminate sessions, and SAS with a standard discussion forum or chat, and you have a modern version of the AT approach.
ReplyDeleteSo do you think the implication from the research finding on AT are applicable to today's online courses that follow a similar model? There is an interesting report that came out not long ago by the department of Ed implying that blended learning (face-to-face w/online components) is more effective than either face-to-face or online alone. EdWeek has a good summary here: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2009/06/blended_learning_more_effectiv_1.html
We had exactly the same first reaction to the AT theory! (We both even used the word "antiquated.") We both thought that incorporating video would enhance this technique today too.
ReplyDeleteJulie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. The A-T system really isn't "dated", we just need to find a way to make it work in the 21st century.
Shaun, I just came across that same report the other day as part of a workshop on universal design and online learning. As a meta-analysis, I thought it related well to this week's reading so I was thinking of sharing it with the class, but you beat me to it! One assessment that the report makes, that I thought was interesting to consider in light of the A-T System, was that "Elements such as video or online quizzes do not appear to influence the amount that students learn in online classes... Inclusion of more media in an online application does not appear to enhance learning..." (p.xvi) I'm not sure if that has been my experience, but given the limitations of the meta-analysis, perhaps some better studies are in order?
ReplyDeleteIn response to your point about mimicking - that's what I'm sort of picking up on too - I mean so far the two models we have read up AT and PSI have trickled into other pedagogical philosophies; and as you point out, I think because these models were birthed in the 1960s/1970s their models have been re-made over and over so that parts of them appear here and there in various/newer instructional models. I'm looking forward to reading up on some newer models in the next few weeks.
ReplyDelete