Talk:Teaching machine

Learning by doing

This is the actual phrase used by Skinner. I have not linked it to the more grandiloquent term experiential learning because I rather think he would have thought that term too broad. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with 21st century computer-assisted learning

It would be great if we could find the references to add a section about how these teaching machines eventually (perhaps indirectly) influenced modern computer-based instruction such as Khan Academy's exercises and how they compare in effectiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcor84 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What made them effective was the process of developing the teaching material, not the machine itself. Only with the original Pressey machine was the machine essential. In that case there was no direct teaching material, just the tests. With teaching machines and programmed learning there were many tests of their effectiveness. With educational web pages there are virtually no independent tests or measures of their effectiveness. Wikipedia is a good example of this! There are reasons for this, of course. Basic to programmed learning was the idea of a target audience, who the material was designed for and tested on. The web sites are mostly smorgasboards - you just take what you want. Because the users can't be randomly sampled and tested, and because their identity is hidden, the identification of what and how they learnt is almost impossible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Falcor84. This appears to be directly relevant to modern computer based instruction. DevilTrombone (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)