instructional media research: past, present, and future

Instructional Media Research: Past, Present, and Future

W I L L I A M H. ALLEN

William H. Allen was Editor of AVCR from its inception in i953 to I969. He was, therefore, responsible for making AVCR into a highly respected research journal. In this article, Dr. Allen looks back on those years and gives u; the benefit of his perspective on research and research programs during that time.---Editor.

When Hoban and van Ormer's comprehensive review of instructional film research appeared in 195o, educational television was still a dream, the term programed ins,truction was not even coined, and such esoteric instructional forms as simulations, games, and computer-assisted instruction were beyond comprehension. The name of the game then was "evaluation"--how film use compared with some intangible entity called "conventional instruction."

In the last two decades, both the state of the art of mediated instruction and the research with such media have matured. And this journal has spanned the greater part of the change, serving as a transmitter and interpreter of that knowledge. It may be helpful to review what has happened during the past 2o years,

William H. Allen is professor of education and director of cinema research at the University of Southern California. He was editor of AV Communica- tion Review from its inception in ~953 through z969.

VOL. 19, NO. I , SPRING 2971 5

A V C O M M U N I C A T I O N R E V I E W : 6

BEFORE 1950

to assess the present state of research, and to make some projec- tions into the future. With some notable exceptions, instructional media research prior to 195o was characterized by a preoccupation with what Lums- daine (i963) called "evaluative" comparisons. In other words, learning from some unspecified film or other medium was compared with learning from some unspecified presentation by an instructor or other medium. This was the predominant type of research for over 30 years, and the results of hundreds of such studies furnished the base upon which the entire audiovisual movement was justified (Hoban& van Ormer, 195o; Allen, ~96o; Saettler, 1968 ). For the results of these studies showed, almost without exception, decided advantages for films and other audiovisual materials over the usual kinds of classroom instruction. Even though this research is of questionable value, the reasons for conducting such studies at the time (and their counterparts with television and programed instruction in more recent times) are apparent: the educational establishment demanded proof of the effectiveness of these innovative techniques, and the baseline for comparison was clearly the current teaching practices. As a consequence, the general perception of instructional media research even today is in these terms.

But some important exceptions to this research pattern existed in the early days. As a matter of fact, the first respectable study to be conducted (Lashley & Watson, i922 ) set a standard for the conceptualization of research variables that was not to be dupli- cated until recently. Similarly, the research conducted by F. Dean McClusky (Freeman, I924) investigated theoretical variables that were not to surface again for several decades. But these types of studies proved to be but historical forerunners of a research direction that was to arise much later and even then independently of its precursors.

Several other strands of research effort began in this earlier period, but their influence on the main thrust of instructional media research is uncertain. The first of these was research with educational radio, which was largely evaluative in the earlier period and later merged with communication research in its concern with listener measurement problems. By the end of World War II instructional radio research was virtually dead. A second strand was the broad field of communication research, centering largely on propaganda studies, public opinion polling, content analysis,

INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA RESEARCH : 7

THE MILITARY STUDIES

and audience measurement. Social psychologists played a dis- tinctive role in these studies as the psychological and persuasive aspects of communication were emphasized. Somehow the results of this research never became integrated with the main- stream of instructional media research, and to this day these two related disciplines are taking different routes. A third strand of research was associated with investigations of reading skills and included studies of readability, vocabulary difficulty, and typog- raphy as they related to textbook writing.

In retrospect, it is tempting to point up the inadequacies of much of the early research and to deplore the failure of the different communication disciplines to unify their findings. Yet this criticism hardly does justice to the intensity of effort expended and the residue of results that affect current instructional practices.

The first 3 ~ years of instructional media research made a number of contributions. First, evaluative and nonscientific though the research may have been, it focused the attention of educators and the public on instructional media as legitimate and viable channels for the transmission of educational content and confirmed their overall effectiveness. Second, it supplied a base of suppositions and hypotheses regarding the unique attributes of instructional media which can be studied under controlled experimental conditions. Third, by trying many forms of presentation and organization it revealed the richness and diversity of the utilization of media. Fourth, a body of measurement, audience-learner analysis, and content analysis techniques evolved out of communication research. Fifth, a beginning was made toward the understanding of the persuasive and motivational aspects of communications.

Let us now turn to that transitional period, when some of the old values of research were being discarded and new approaches and problems were being investigated. The ten-year period immediately following World War II was a pivotal one for instructional media research, and the lead was taken by the military services. Their research programs, two conducted during the war and two after, studied critical theoretical problems and made use of precise evaluative techniques. They heralded a new age of instructional media research and involved prominent experimental and educational psychologists.

The most extensive wartime study was conducted in the Army

AV COMMUNICATION REVIEW : 8

and reported in a series of studies by Hovland, Lumsdaine and Sheffield (1949). Not only did Experiments on Mass Communi- cation make intensive evaluations of the "Why We Fight" series of orientation films prepared to explain the background of the war, but it reported on an extensive group of studies employing controlled variation and investigating such problems as the short- time and long-time effects of such films, the effects of presenting one or both sides of a controversial subject, and the effects of audience participation upon learning. Aside from the reported findings from these studies, the program's greatest value was in its theoretical discussions of the factors involved in film effectiveness and the sophistication of the measurement techniques employed in the analyses. One of the authors, A. A. Lumsdaine, was to investigate some of these hypotheses and employ these techniques later in his research at Yale University (May & Lums- daine, 2958 ), and C. I. Hovland was to carry on the work in the Yale studies in attitude and communication (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 2953).

Another product of the Army's research efforts during the war was J. J. Gibson's Motion Picture Testing and Research (1947), a report of the Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology Program, in which studies were made of the motion picture medium for purposes of psychological testing, the problem of effective instruction by means of still and motion pictures, perceptual learning, and the representation of three-dimensional space by means of pictures. Out of the study emerged a number of generalizations relating to the characteristics of motion pictures as a method of instruction. This report, edited by one of the leading perceptual psychologists in the country, has been largely neglected, yet both the research reported and the theoretical insights discussed make a significant contribution to our knowledge of instructional media and their effects.

The first of the two major postwar military research programs was the Instructional Film Research Program conducted by C. R. Carpenter at Pennsylvania State University from 2947 to 2955 under the direction of the Navy's Special Devices Center (Carpen- ter, 2953; Carpenter & Greenhill, 2956 ). The results from this extensive program of instructional film research are too numerous to detail in this brief overview; however, over 8o studies dealt with many variables important to the production and use of instructional media: motor skill training with films, film utilization,

INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA RESEARCH " 9

"HE TELEVISION

R E S E A R C H

structuring attitudes, evaluational techniques, pictorial testing, techniques of film production, development and use of film research tools, and theoretical and practical considerations in film research and application. Some studies from this program are occasionally cited, but the full impact of the program has yet to be realized.

The second major postwar military research program was conducted by A. A. Lumsdaine for the Air Force Research and De- velopment Command from 295o to 1957, the major results of which were published in the symposium report, Student Re- sponse in Programed Instruction (Lumsdaine, ~96z). This series of film studies in such broad areas as learning complex sequential tasks, academic subject-matter learning, and paired-associate ma- terial was conducted by prominent experimental psychologists and had significant implications for the design of mediated instruction. The only attempt to integrate the results into a ration- ale for media use and design was by Lumsdaine (i963) himself.

The importance of these military studies should not be under- estimated. They constitute virtually the only attempts to approach problems in instructional media with a systematic pro- gramatic research effort. They dealt with a number of psychological, production, and utilization variables at a level of sophistication and precision. Yet, as Saettler (I968) pointed out, none of the results have been implemented in the instructional films produced by the military services, much less the commercial producers of instructional materials. This problem of translation of research findings into practice is one of the major problems need- ing solution in the future. The period from the mid-I95os to the mid-196os could be appro- priately labeled "the decade of educational television." With enactment of legislation allocating television channels to education, the emphasis in instructional media research switched dra- matically from film to television. And with this change the cycle of "evaluative" research was repeated; television researchers almost totally disregarded the findings from previous film research in their enthusiasm for the new medium. Leading this parade was the Ford Foundation's Fund for the Advancement of Educa- tion, which supported an extensive program of research of very dubious quality aimed at proving the value of TV as a substitute for conventional teaching. The emphasis was on development rather than research.

AV COMMUNICATION REVIEW : 10

RESEARCH ON

PROGRAMED

INSTRUCTION

Despite the fumbling of these early attempts to assess the values of instructional television (reported by Reid & MacLennan, 2967, and Chu & Schramm, 2967), some serious research attempts were being made to understand the nature of TV as an instructional tool. The series of studies conducted by Kanner and his associates (Kanner, 2957, ~958) probed in depth the use of TV in the Army; Carpenter and Greenhill (~955, 2958) investigated a number of instructional variables in a university setting;~ and Gropper and Lumsdaine (2962) studied the relationship of student response in a programed instructional mode to televised instruction.

The predominant finding from the hundreds of evaluative studies in instructional television is its overall equal effectiveness when compared with face-to-face instruction. That students learn from televised teaching cannot be doubted, but the conditions under which such learning takes place and the specific characteristics of televised presentations that bring this about are yet to be determined, and most research ignored such questions. When programed instruction burst onto the educational scene a little over a decade ago, the same "evaluative" research cycle was repeated, and promoted not only by educational proponents, but by commercial interests as well. However, programed instruction had the additional support of those educational psychologists who saw it as a tool for studying the learning process. Thus, while the more public aspects of the programed instruction boom came to flower and faded quickly, a base of solid research was being es- tablished, and many insights relating to the design, sequencing, and structuring of media emerged. Unlike research with other instructional media, some of the experimental results from pro- grained instruction are being translated into practice, and guide- lines for materials design have evolved (Lange, I967).

Perhaps the most important outgrowth of this research, however, is the impetus given to the study of the individualization of instruction. Whereas in the past, instructional media were usu- ally considered useful in one-way mass communication or for group instruction, attention has shifted to the use of media in individual teaching modes. The intensive studies of programed instruction, and the learning principles represented, are largely responsible for this change, with individual student response be- coming a key factor in the design of instructional procedures.

INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA RESEARCH : ~ I

FEDERAL

RESEARCH

SUPPORT

THE PRESENT

STATE-OF-THE- ART

With the enactment of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, and the provisions under Title VII of that Act, the most extensive support of instructional media research in the nation's history was instituted. For a period of over five years hundreds of media research studies were funded on a variety of topics, and attempts were made to disseminate research results.

When one evaluates the overall effectiveness of this program, however, no clear pattern of accomplishments emerges. What be- comes apparent is that many isolated and independent studies were conducted that made distinct contributions to our understanding of instructional media. Yet, the nature of the support program made it virtually impossible to carry out "program- matic" research that would have permitted the investigation of particular problems in depth, but instead required the precise specification of each analysis to be made in advance of funding. Consequently, generalization from one study to another, or to past research, is almost impossible. Except for an occasional grant (e.g., Gropper & Lumsdaine, ~96~; Carpenter & Greenhill, 2963 ; Schramm & Oberholtzer, 2964) , which permitted some flexibility in the research to be conducted, tight control was exercised over the design of the specific studies, and each stands as a unique experiment. Therefore, this mass of research, much of it worth- less, some of it highly significant, has yet to be synthesized with earlier efforts into a set of operational generalizations. Where does research on instructional media stand today? Fed- eral and foundation support has dried up. Interest in studying the effectiveness of television, programed instruction, and computer- assisted instruction as self-contained and exclusive instructional systems has declined. Educational voices are raised in lip service to the need for more research, but the words are backed by little overt effort to answer the need. The objective observer can't help but feel that media research today is in a state of tense suspen- sion, ready to move but lacking an activator. Yet some important efforts are being quietly made that may have some implications for future progress in the field.

There is a consistent attempt by a number of researchers and theorists to discover the unique attributes of instructional media and their relationships to the performance of particular psychological functions with different kinds of learners. The study of this three-way interaction of stimulus, task, and learner is ex-

A V C O M M U N I C A T I O N R E V I E W : 1 2

tremety complex, but some evidence is building up that could lead to a more precise understanding of the place of media in the instructional process. In particular, the discussions of this problem by Gagn6 (I965), Briggs, Campeau, Gagn6, and May (5967), Salomon and Snow (I968), Briggs (I97o), Allen (597oa), and Salomon (197o) have sharpened our appreciation of the implications of such research and some of its dimensions. The time is far off, if in fact it ever arrives, when we can identify an instructional problem and then faultlessly select the proper instructional mix to solve it. Yet the significance of the present research is that careful investigation of the design elements in mediated instruction are being made and that these searches are being conducted within a theoretical framework, thus laying a foundation for a theory of instructional media.

There is a second related development, rising largely out of the research with programed instruction, that is contributing to our knowledge of the proper use of instructional media. This is the research on the structure and sequencing of instruction with particular emphasis on the hierarchical characteristics of the content, the use of advance organizers, the degree of control exercised over the presentation of content, and other factors relating to learner actions that lead to increased learning. The study of these variables is still in its infancy, but insightful reviews of the progress to date have been made by Briggs (5968), Gagn6 and Rohwer (5969), Frase (i97o), and Rothkopf (I97o).

We also know a great deal more than we did a decade ago about the individualization of instruction and the factors that are involved in it. As pointed out previously, one major focus of research with media today is on the relationships of stimulus and task to the characteristics of the learners. It would appear that this emphasis is a direct result of the developments in programed instruction and the consequences of such attention by investiga- tors into the psychology of learning and teaching. In a recent pa- per Snow and Salomon (I968) have considered the nature of learner aptitudes and its relevance for instructional media design and selection. Gagn6 (I967) has edited an important group of papers discussing the problem of individual differences as they relate to evidence from studies in different types of learning, problem solving, attention, and mental retardation. The present interest in individually prescribed instruction has centered more on development than on research, but the resultant attention has


opened up the possibilities of a more precise investigation of the variables identified by such efforts.

In another area, the perhaps promising current concern with the identification and preparation of instructional objectives by di- verse groups has resulted in both the accumulation of a vast amount of information about behavioral objectives and the emer- gence of a cult. The extensive literature on this topic has not been supported by research that probes the nature of the objectives and their application. Rather, their acceptance is one of faith and logic, and we might hope that this approval will be backed up with some disciplined analysis of the characteristics and effects of these objectives so that we will be able to predict their specific advantages when applied in particular instructional situations.

Some of the same observations may be made about the present enthusiasm for the systems approach to instruction. There. is much interest, many models and flow-chart representations, but little tangible systematic research. The very logic of the approach as a technique sanctions its use in education, and it has been widely embraced as the answer to how to solve almost any problem. Its latest manifestation, the concept of "instructional development" (wherein the technique is used by an instructional team to solve instructional problems, develop curricula, and mediate specific courses) is a potentially powerful tool (Briggs, i97o ). Yet apparently little effort is being made to submit the procedures evolved through verbal explication and practice to rigid and objective evaluation or to determine the effectiveness of alternative forms of the technique for particular problems or goals. Of course, the question of whether or not such techniques as the systems approach and the development of instructional objectives c a n be studied under such controlled conditions needs to be answered. It may be that they are not susceptible to this kind of assessment. The fact remains, however, that there is little evidence that such research is going on.

Finally, we need to look at the state-of-the-art of research on factors that are external to the direct instructional situation but which influence the overall impact of media in the schools--factors such as the administrative procedures used in the organization of the school itself and/or the media program within the school, cost-effectiveness benefit considerations, the nature of innovative practices and their effects, the applications of media to

AV COMMUNICATION REVIEW : 1 4

A LOOK AT THE FUTURE

teacher education, psychometric applications, and the design and development of equipment. With some notable exceptions, these areas have yet to be studied in a systematic way.

It is apparent that some sound foundations have been laid for future research efforts. Five decades of instructional media research have resulted in a mass of results still waiting for synthe- sis and interpretation and a knowledge about the media and their use that will be useful in accomplishing this task. Taken with the theories of learning and teaching that have evolved and the research in such areas as human information processing, perception, and human development it may be possible to evolve a true theory of instructional media. It is hazardous to try to look into the educational future. Too many unknown forces operate to make such predictions unreli- able. Yet there may be some trends in the present that point the way to future research approaches and developments. The possible directions and probable research needs are not necessarily compatible.

There is some indication that the current thrust of federal and foundation research funding will emphasize larger-scale applied and developmental projects at the expense of the more carefully controlled and circumscribed basic experimental studies (Allen, 197ob ). We might expect that these projects would be directed toward the solution of problems of a social rather than a theoretical nature in such high commitment areas as the preschool child, disadvantaged learner, reading, and vocational education. If it is true that "the research follows the money," this redirection of research emphasis could well take place. Such an occurrence would probably put more emphasis on teams of researcher-developers that would produce generalizations and products of immediate usefulness.

There is reason to expect that the present growing attention being given to the study of the unique attributes of instructional media and their relationships to the characteristics of the learner and the nature of the instructional task will be increased in the future. The folly of assigning generalized and all-inclusive attributes to specific classes of media (e.g., television, film, print, computer-assisted instruction) under all conditions is finally being appreciated, and we should observe more intensive research efforts to discover how to design and manipulate the media so as to enhance their effectiveness under specified instructional condi-

I N S T R U C T I O N A L M E D I A R E S E A R C H " "1" 5

tions. Such research will occupy our attention for some time, leading to the evolution of taxonomies of unique media effects so that we can predict that the use of a particular instructional medium will lead to specified learning outcomes with different kinds of learners.

Going hand in hand with such objectives will be research on the development of a theoretical framework that will concentrate on "laying the foundations for a theory of instructional media" (Salomon, z97o), or an "optimal way of presenting and arrang- ing information, which can be carefully controlled and man- aged." Lumsdaine (~963, ~968) has also made this point, stress- ing that the important problems of media research are the broad- er theoretically oriented problems that are closely related to research on learning and, thus, must become a part of that disci- pline. There is every indication that efforts toward this goal will be implemented in the future.

Somehow our research must be directed to the problem of how we put together optimum instructional systems for meeting different objectives. As noted earlier, we are advocating the use of something called "the systems approach," but this is still only a verbal construct of steps to be taken in the solution of problems. We need to find out the best ways of implementing this system so that the choices made at each decision stage are the proper ones. So far, researchers have not come to grips with this problem.

Finally, it appears that we will need to spend more time on the formulation of appropriate questions to ask and on the genera- tion of hypotheses to test. Too often our research is based on ex- pediency, the pursuit of a particular interest, or the attack on an inconsequential issue. Only by some systematic approach to the problem of what questions warrant research effort of what kind and with what payoffs can we best conserve and utilize our human research resources.

R E F E R E N C E S Allen, W. H. Audio-visual communication. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), En- cyclopedia of educational research. (3rd ed.) New York: Macmil- lan, 2960. Pp. 223-~3o.

Allen, W. H. Categories of instructional media research. In G. Salomon and R. E. Snow (Eds.), Commentaries on research in instructional media: An examination of conceptual schemes. Viewpoints" Bul- letin of the School of Education, Indiana University, ,97o, 46, 1-23. (a)

AV COMMUNICATION REVIEW : I 6

Allen, W. H. Trends in instructional technology--the ERIC at Stanford z97 o planning report. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Media and Technology, 197o. (b)

Briggs, L. J. Sequencing of instruction in relation to hierarchies of competence. Pittsburgh, Pa.: American Institutes for Research, I968.

Briggs, L. J. Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Pittsburgh, Pa.: American Institutes for Research, September I97o.

Briggs, L. J., Campeau, P. L., Gagn6, R. M., & M. A. Instructional media: A procedure for the design of multi-media instruction, a critical rev.iew of research, and suggestions for future research. Pittsburgh, Pa. : American Institutes for Research, 1967.

Carpenter, C. R. (Program Director). Instructional film research reports. Vol. I, NAVEXOS P-i22o (Technical Revort No. SDC 269-7-36 ). Port Washington, L.I., N.Y. : U.S. Navy, Special De- vices Center, 1953 .

Carpenter C. R. & Greenhill, L. P. (Program Directors). Instructional film research reports. Vol. II, NAVEXOS P-I543 (Technical Re- port No. SDC 269-7-6I). Port Washington, L.I., N.Y. : U.S. Navy, Special Devices Center, 1956.

Carpenter, C. R., & Greenhill, L. P. An investigation of closed-circuit television for teaching university courses. Report No. 2. Univer- sity Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, 1958.

Carpenter, C. R., & Greenhill, L. P. Comparative research on methods and media for presenting programed courses in mathematics and English. University Park Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, ~963.

Chu, G. C., & Schramm, W. Learning from television: What the research says. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University, Institute for Communication Research, 1967.

Frase, L. T. Boundary conditions for mathemagenic behaviors. Review of Educational Research, i97o, 4o, 337-347.

Freeman, F. N. (Ed.) Visual education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I924 .

Gagn6, R. M. The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart Winston, ~ 965.

Gagn6, R. M. (Ed.) Learning and individual differences, Columbus, O.: Charles E. Merrill, 1967.

Gagn6, R. M., & Rohwer, W. D., Jr. Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 20. Palo Alto, Cal. : Annual Reviews, 1969.

Gibson, J. J., (Ed.) Motion picture testing and research. Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology Program Research Report No. 7. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947.

Gibson, J. J. A theory of pictorial perception. AV Communication Re- view, I954, 2, 3-23.


Gropper, G. L., & Lumsdaine, A. A. The use of student response to im- prove instruction: An overview. Report No. 7. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Metropolitan Pittsburgh Educational Television Stations, WQED-WQEX, and American Institutes for Research, ~962.

Hoban, C. F., & van Ormer, E. B. Instructional film research: I918- 195o. Technical Report No. SDC 269-7-29, Instructional Film Research Program. Port Washington, L.I., N.Y.: U.S. Navy, Spe- cial Devices Center, ~95o.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. Communication and per- suasion. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1953 .

Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1949.

Kanner, J. H. Future trends in television teaching and research. AV Communication Review, 2957, 5, 523-527 �9

Kanner, J. H. Teaching by television in the army--an overview. AV Communication Review, 1958 , 6, ~72-288.

Lange, P. C. (Ed.) Programed instruction. 66th Yearbook of the Na- tional Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ~967 .

Lashley, K. S., & Watson, J. B. A psychological study of motion pictures in relation to venereal disease campaigns. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Interdepartmental Social Hygiene Board, 1922.

Lurnsdaine, A. A. (Ed.) Student response in programed instruction. Publication 943. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sci- ences-National Research Council, i96I.

Lumsdaine, A. A. Instruments and media of instruction. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand Mc- Nally, 2963. Pp. 583-682.

Lurnsdaine, A. A. Instructional research: Some aspects of its status, de- fects, and needs. In H. J. Klausmeier & G. T. O'Hearn, (Eds.), Re- search and development toward the improvement of education. Madison, Wis.: Dembar Educational Research Services, 2968. Pp. 95-202.

May, M. A., & Lumsdaine, A. A. Learning from films. New Haven, Conn. : Yale University Press, z958.

Reid, J. C., & McLennan, D. W. Research in instructional television and film. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2967.

Rothkopf, E. Z. The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational Research, ~97o, 4o, 325-336.

Saettler, P. A history of instructional technology. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill, 2968.

Salomon, G. What does it do to Johnny? A cognitive-functionalistic view of research on media. In G. Salomon & R. E. Snow (Eds.), Commentaries on research in instructional media: An examination of conceptual schemes. Viewpoints: Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, 2970 , 46, 33-62.

AV COMMUNICATION REVIEW : I 8

Salomon, G., & Snow, R. E. The specification of film attributes for psychological and educational research purposes. AV Communi- cation Review, 1968, I6, 225-244.

Schrarnrn, W., & Oberholtzer, K. E. The context of instructional television: Summary report of research findings, the Denver-Stan- ford project. Denver, Col., and Stanford, Cal.: Denver Public Schools and Stanford University, I964.

Snow, R. E., & Salornon, G. Aptitudes and instructional media. AV Communication Review, I968, I6, 341-357 .

Special for educational media spe- c ia l is ts, l ibrar ians, purchasing agents who buy multimedia materials and equipment: the all-new, expand- ed 1971 edition of AUDIOVISUAL MARKET PLACE is your up-to-date, easy-to-use source for the names and addresses you need to use in your daily work.

AUDIOVISUAL MARKET PLACE provides company names, addresses, key personnel, and product lines for active producers/distributors of AV materials and manufactur- ers/distributors of AV hardware-- plus much more valuable information.

Edited by O/ga Weber. Paperbound. Postpaid price: $15 net in the U.S. and Canada; $16.60 elsewhere. Please add sa/es tax where appli- cable. 1971 edition, February. Order your on-approval copy today/

R.R. BOWKER COMPANY 1180 Avenue of the Americas New York, N.Y. 10036

Easy access to the sources of m u l t i m e d i a l ea rn ing m a t e r i a l s

instructional media research: past, present, and future

Documents