ECI 517: Unit 1 Blog

My initial reaction to the PSI and A-T models is that while they are relatively older instructional models (vintage 1960s), both have experienced continual interest and implementation, albeit with some modifications.  For a theory or model to persist in the field for nearly 50 years suggests that it has validity and usefulness.  Another initial reaction I had, particularly after reading Kulik et al. (1979) and Kozma et al. (1978), is how difficult it is to compare and assess the effectiveness of various instructional models (e.g., A-T vs. lecture-based instruction).  The Kulik et al. (1979) article points out how numerous studies comparing the same two instructional methods can have vastly different results, emphasizing the need to critically evaluate the literature before jumping to any conclusions about a particular theory or model.  This is striking because my experience is mostly in the biological/physical sciences where studies have a limited number of variables and can be very tightly controlled and hence such high variability is not as common.  Comparing two models of instruction is apparently very challenging due to the number of variables, etc.

The PSI and A-T models share many common characteristics including an individualized approach, self-paced instruction, clear learning objectives, breakdown of content into smaller units and upfront time and financial investments to develop materials.  Both models tend to be effective at conveying material but are not particularly suited for developing higher order analytical or critical thinking skills.  Both models seem very adaptable to a web-based system of instruction, particularly since instruction is divided into small units.

A significant barrier for both of these models would be student populations with lack of maturity, motivation and persistence.  For example, students who procrastinate may not be successful with an individualized / self-paced model of instruction.  Obviously, since the A-T model focuses on the audio modality for delivery of material, this model would not be suitable for hearing impaired students or students who have a strong preference for non-auditory styles of learning.

As for my own teaching, I do like the PSI model.  This model seems well suited for health science content such as pharmacology, because there is usually a large volume of material that can be readily divided into small segments.  The practice of breaking content into small chunks tends to improve comprehension and gives the perception that the subject is manageable as opposed to completely overwhelming.  Often pharmacology content requires solid comprehension of introductory concepts, and so the PSI principle of regular assessment to demonstrate mastery before progressing is particularly desirable.

I would not choose to use the A-T method, mainly because of my own personal bias (probably not a good reason).  Generally, I prefer non-auditory styles of learning.  Plus, my introductory biology course at Ohio State in the 1970s was taught by the A-T method (it was interesting to learn that the A-T method was initially developed for college biology instruction at neighbor Purdue Univ).  Although the course was very well done, my impression was that it was sort of a “discount” brand, providing a cheaper and more efficient way to teach the thousands of students needing Bio 101!  However, I do believe that elements of the A-T approach can be successfully incorporated into modern web-based instructional approaches.