J _ ‘ A, . '22? H

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUALIZING INSTRUCTION BY THE
USE OF MULTI-SENSORY MULTI-MEDIA LEARNING
CENTERS 0N READING AND ARITHMETIC
ACHIEVEMENT OF INNER-CITY CHILDREN

by

Jasmine Fernando Jacob

The Purpose

 

The purpose of this study was to determine the
effects of an individualized instructional approach on
inner-city school children. More specifically, the study
attempted to determine what effect an individualized,
diagnostic, prescriptive instructional approach has on
achievement gains in arithmetic and reading and whether
children in such a program evidence greater independence
than children not in the program.

The content in both subjects remained the same
for the experimental and control students, only the
method of instruction was changed so the experimental
students learned through multi-sensory, multismedia,

learning centers.

The Hypothesis

 

The general hypothesis tested was that the
children who receive the experimental treatment in

reading and arithmetic will have higher achievement

Jasmine Fernando Jacob

scores on the California Achievement Test reading and

 

arithmetic batteries than the children who receive the
control treatment and that the experimental children will
evidence more independence as measured by a questionnaire.

The above general hypothesis was particularized
in the following statistical sub-hypotheses:

.. 1. There is no difference in achievement in read-
ing between the experimental and control groups.

2. There is no difference in arithmetic achieve-
ment between the experimental and control groups.

3. There is no difference in reading achieve-
ment between the girls and the boys in the two groups.

4. There is no difference in arithmetic achieve-
ment between the girls and the boys in the two groups.

5. There is no difference in reading achievement
between the high ability students or the low ability
students in the two groups.

6. There is no difference in arithmetic achieve-
ment between the high ability students or the low ability
students in the two groups.

7. There is no difference in the number of children

exercising self-direction and independence in the two groups.

Procedures

 

The sample selected for this study consisted of

211 inner-city fifth and sixth grade students from Seely

Jasmine Fernando Jacob
McCord and Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary Schools in
Benton Harbor, Michigan.

The design of the study was the non-randomized
control group pre-test, post-test design. This design
was used since the researcher was unable to achieve the
rigorously controlled design that requires the subjects
to be assigned to comparison groups at random; therefore,
equivalent pre-assembled groups were used.

The univariate analysis of covariance was applied

to the above statistical sub-hypotheses.

Findings

 

Using an analysis of covariance of the California

 

Achievement Test scores with the pre—test scores used as
the covariate and the post-test scores used as the dependent
measure it was found that:

l. The subjects in the experimental reading pro-
gram achieved significantly higher than the subjects in
the control program.

2. There was no significant difference between
the experimental and control groups in arithmetic achieve-
ment, however, high ability students in the experimental
arithmetic program achieved slightly more than the high
ability control students and the low ability control stu-
dents achieved slightly more than the low ability experi-

mental students in arithmetic.

Jasmine Fernando Jacob

3. The girls in the experimental reading program
achieved significantly higher than the girls in the control
program. The girls in the control program scored higher
than the boys in the control program.

4. Sex differences were not significantly related
to achievement in arithmetic for either of the groups.

5. High ability students in the experimental
reading program scored significantly higher than the high
ability control students.

6. The low ability students in the experimental
reading program achieved significantly higher than the low
ability control students.

7. An appreciably higher number of experimental
students displayed independence and self-direction than
the control students.

The conclusion is that individualizing instruction
for reading by the use of multi-sensory, multi-media
learning centers accounts for increased achievement gains

on the California Achievement Test and that individualizing

 

instruction in reading and arithmetic promotes self-
direction and independence as measured by a questionnaire,

observations, and general comments by students and teachers.

THE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUALIZING INSTRUCTION BY THE
USE OF MULTI-SENSORY MULTI-MEDIA LEARNING
CENTERS 0N READING AND ARITHMETIC
ACHIEVEMENT OF INNER-CITY CHILDREN
by

Jasmine Fernando Jacob

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University .
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

The Department of Elementary and Special Education

1976

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer expresses her deepest gratitude to the
chairman of her committee, who is also the chairman of the
dissertation committee; Dr. William K. Durr on whose kind-
ness and patience she has leaned not a little. His inter-
est, guidance, encouragement, and succinct criticism
throughout this study have been indispensable. Sincere
appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Louis Romano, Dr.
Perry Lanier and Dr. ChristOpher Sower for helpful sug-
gestions and encouragement.

The writer is deeply indebted to her colleagues
Barbara Pence and Pat Rodez for proofreading, Dr. Wahbah
Sayagh, and Gali Edon for statistical assistance, Mr.
Joseph Shurn, Mrs. Greeta Hines, and the teachers, Marcia
Goff, Kathy Hiler, Virginia Tilly, Mr. Brandon, Mrs. Reed
and Sherry Collins and all their students for their
cooperation and help in making this study a possibility.

The author also wants to thank Ernest and Savithri
Fernando, Andy and Wilma Moore and a host of other friends,
and relations,to list them all by name is of course beyond
possibility, and though here they must remain nameless, her

gratitude to them is nonetheless deep and sincere.

ii

Finally the writer wishes to express her deepest
and heartfelt thanks to her husband, Narasimiah, and
children Cheryl and Mark and her mother, Mrs. Prelenthina
Fernando for their sacrifices, encouragement, and under-

standing throughout the years of graduate study.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST CE TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM 1
Nature of the Problem 2
Need for the Study . . 4
Purpose of the Study . . 5
Design and Methodology . 6
Educational Implications 7
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . 9
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Overview . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . 11
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 12
Historical Background of
Individualizing Instruction . . . . . . 12
Criticisms of Contemporary Education . . . l8
Identifying and Influencing
Cognitive Processes . . . . . . . . . 25
Accommodating the Individual
Differences of Children . . . . . . . . 31
The Learning Center Approach to
Individualization . . . . . . 37
Current Research and Evaluation of
Cognitive and Affective Outcomes .
of Individualization . . . . . . . . . . 43
III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Identification of the Population . . . . . 51
Selection of the Schools . . . . . . . . . 53
Selection of the Students . . . . . . . . 53
Selection of the Teachers . . . . . . 54
Treatment of Experimental Teachers . . . . 54
Treatment of Control Teachers . . . . . . 58

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter . Page
III. (Continued)

Treatment of Experimental Students . . . . 59
Treatment of Control Students . . . . . . 61
Instrumentation . . . . . 62
Collection of Non- StatiStical Data . . . . 65
_ Collection of the Statistical Data . . . . 66
The DeSign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
IV. A CASE STUDY OF THE STAFF DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . 7l
In-Service Training . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Follow-up Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Teacher Resource Center . . . . . . . . . 83
Teacher Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Student Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
V. STATISTICAL FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Statistical Data . . . . ._. . . . . . . . 92
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . 110
Summary of the Design . . . . . . . . . . 110
Statistical Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Non-Statistical Findings . . . . . . . . . 114
Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . 115
Implications for Future Research . . . . . 117

Implications for Implementation
in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . 118
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

4.10
4.11

4.12

LIST OF TABLES

Analysis of Variance Between Teachers

‘.ANCOVA Reading Experimental Versus

Control .
Reading Mean Scores .

ANCOVA Arithmetic Experimental
Versus Control . .

Arithmetic Mean Scores
ANCOVA Reading According to Sex .

Reading Mean Scores for the Boys
and the Girls

ANCOVA Arithmetic According to Sex

Arithmetic Mean Scores for the
Boys and the Girls

ANCOVA for Reading, Ability
Versus Instruction

Reading Means High and Low Ability

ANCOVA for Arithmetic Ability
Versus Instruction

Arithmetic Means, High and Low Ability
Pupil Responses to the Questionnaire

Cumulative Percentages of Responses

vi

Page
55

72
73

74
74
75

76
77

78

79
8O

81
82
83
87

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

_. Nan has witnessed a series of startling scientific
breakthroughs that have led to a renewed faith in his in-
tellectual potential. The explosion of knowledge chal-
lenges that potential while research on how learning takes
place has denied the notion that each student should learn
the same limited facts in the same, identifiable ways.

Education is in the process of changing its empha-
sis from content to abilities, from a selective mode to an
adaptive mode, from product to process, from group paced
to individual based, from the average child as the center
of the instructional program to the recognition of each
student as unique and in need of a curriculum geared to
his personal needs. Many types of grouping procedures
have been used to facilitate this change, but none has
proven completely acceptable. Educators are beginning to
recognize that perhaps the best way to provide needed
flexibility is to eliminate the lock-step graded structure
and to substitute an individualized, self-directed form

of instruction.

Nature of the Problem

 

This study is an attempt to evaluate one self-
directed, individualized form of instruction: Individual-
izing Instruction by the use of Multi-Sensory, Multi-media,
Learning Centers. Although there has been a proliferation
of approaches and models for individualizing instruction,
very few programs have been developed through Controlled
stages of refinement to a polished state, and very few,
if any, can be recommended on the grounds of proven, de-
sirable increments in student accomplishments.1

Most programs have limited options and allow only
minimal variations in the conditions under which individ-
uals are expected to learn. Therefore, the adaptability
of the programs to the individual needs of the students
are limited. Because of this. rigidity, most programs do
not lend themselves to true individualization.

Ideally, individualized instruction means an
arrangement that makes it possible at all times for each
student to be engaged in learning those things that are
most appropriate for him as an individual. This ideal
may never be reached, but we should move toward it.

"Individualized instruction is not a clearly defined point

 

1Maurice Gibbons, Individualized Instruction (New
York: Teachers College Press, 1971), p. 10.

 

3
at which we arrive in teaching as much as it is a target
at which we aim, and toward which we progress."1

Individualized instruction is not the same

thing as "teaching students individually." An
instructional system is individualized when the
characteristics of each student play a major

part in the selection of objectives, materials,
procedures, and time. It is individualized when
decisions about objectives and how to achieve them
are based on the individual student. One does not
simply say that a system is or is not individualized,
however, for it is not a black or white matter.
Rather one tries to identify the nature and degree
of individualization.

Individualization is not a method. It is a way to
manage a classroom so that each child has his share of the
teacher. Teaching is a human act. It fades away when it
is dehumanized. Children whose individual differences
are truly met will be better taught because of these
differences and not in spite of them.3

Individualization of instruction is consistent with
the basic American goal of helping each individual achieve
his full potential. The realization of that goal, however,
is complicated by the wide range of individual differences
among learners. These differences span ability, rate of

learning, learning style, level of motivation, linguistic

 

1Thorwald Esbensen, WorkinggWith Individualized
Instruction (Palo Alto, California: Fearon PubliShers,
1968), p. l.

 

21bid., p. vii.

3Gene E. Talbert, and Larry E. Frase, Individual-
ized Instruction (Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill Pub-
lishing Company, 1972), p. 92.

 

4

skills, learning environment, and the subject matter, to
‘mention a few. In order to accommodate these differences,
the teacher must know children as never before and provide
them with flexible alternatives from which to choose.

When instruction is individualized, the classroom
becomes the setting for an experience in cooperative
group living and learning. Children learn while working
alone, while working with others, or while working with
the teacher. The room is organized into learning centers
to allow for individual and group efficiency rather than
the traditional total class standard of quietness. And

children actively participate in their own learning.

Need for the Study

 

For some years now the academic achievement levels
in the Benton Harbor inner city schools have been deterior-
ating and disciplinary problems have been increasing. Many
attempts have been made to remedy these problems. For
example, differentiated staffing has been initiated,
curricula have been changed or modified to meet the needs
of the community, textbooks have been changed to be rele-
vant to the local population, and criterion referenced
measuring instruments have been developed. New programs,
such as Individually Guided Education, High Scope, Distar,
T.V. Reading, Project Conquest, Impact, and Soar were
implemented. None has been proven to lead to significant

changes in attitude or achievement.

5

In another attempt to turn the tide of academic
failure, a program of inservice training and follow-up,
called Staff Development, was initiated to help teachers
individualize instruction through multi-sensory, multi-
media learning centers. Since programs frequently come
and go without adequate evaluation, this is an endeavor
to evaluate that program to determine its effects on the

test scores and the attitudes of the students.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study is to determine some
of the cognitive and affective results of individualizing
instruction through multi-sensory, multi-media, learning
centers. This study is specifically, designed to answer
the following five questions:

1. Will Students who receive individualized in-
struction in reading and arithmetic have higher test

scores on the California Achievement Test than those whose

 

instruction is not individualized?

2. Will there be differences in achievement gains
in reading and arithmetic between boys and girls in the
two treatment groups. '

3. Will students with high cognitive ability who
receive individualized instruction have higher test scores
than their counterparts whose instruction is not indi-

vidualized?

6
4. Will students with low cognitive ability who
receive individualized instruction have higher test
scores than their counterparts whose instruction is not
individualized?
5. Will students who receive individualized
instruction be more self-directed and independent than

students who do not receive individualized instruction?

Design and Methodology

 

The sample for this study is taken from the Martin
Luther King and the Seely McCord Schools in Benton Harbor,
Michigan. Two hundred and eleven fourth and fifth grade
students from six classrooms constitute the experimental
and control groups.

The California Achievement Test batteries in

 

reading and arithmetic are used as pre- and post-tests.
The Lorge Thorndike Intelligence Test, multi-level edition,
non-verbal battery, is used to assess the cognitive abilities
of the students. The affective changes are assessed by a
questionnaire and an interview.

Three experimental classrooms provide individual-
ized learning experiences and continuous progress for
each child. In these classrooms pupil activity does not
revolve around the teacher even though the teacher is
still the most influential person in the classroom.

With the teacher's guidance, the students are encouraged

7
to set up their own goals and standards for classroom
behavior.

Flexible scheduling with large blocks of time
allow the children to become directly involved with
learning. Manipulative devices and games are used as
, primary learning materials rather than as supplementary
activities. In this flexible system of multiple
materials and procedures the student is given substan-
tial responsibility for planning and carrying out his
own organized program of Study with the assistance of his
teachers.

In the control classrooms, the teachers teach in
traditional settings with children sitting in neat,
straight rows and the teacher controlling the interaction.
The instruction is group paced, the children study the
same lesson from the same book, and they are expected to
do the same amount of work at the same speed. Textbooks
and lectures dominate the instruction. The students have
no choice of materials or content. The teacher is the
attendance taker, the lecturer, the assignment giver,
the test checker, the drill master, and the controller

of all interaction or the absence of it.

Educational Implications

 

It is the right of every individual to acquire

an education up to his own individual potential within

8
the school system. This means that the educational system
must be an adaptive rather than a selective one. In other
words, the system must adapt to the needs of children
rather than simply select the children who are most likely
to succeed in the educational system. It also means har-
nessing the available innovations and techniques of
modern, educational technology to assist the individual
toward self-development and self-fulfillment.

In order to reach the goal of self-fulfillment,
schools must produce self-directed citizens who have
learned how to learn, and can go on learning and adap-
ting themselves to new knowledge as it occurs. In other
words, schools must produce citiZens who accept the major
responsibility for their own learning.

Schools which do not produce self-directed
citizens have failed everyone-~the student, the
profession, and the society they are designed to
serve. The goal of modern education cannot be
achieved without self-direction. We have a world
in which there is no longer a common body of in-
formation which everyone must have. . . . This
calls for student cooperation and acceptance of
the major responsibility for his own learning.1

If a democracy like ours is to survive, Students
must be encouraged to question, to criticize, to make

choices, and to take the responsibility for those choices.

Students who have everything decided for them will lack

 

lArthur Combs, "Fostering Self-Direction," Edu-
cational Leadership, February 1966, pp. 373-376.

 

9
experience in making correct decisions; they will lack

experience in making any decisions at all.

Definition of Terms

 

Individualized Instruction is a system which

 

tailors learning in terms of learner needs and char-
acteristics.1 It is a flexible system of multiple
materials and procedures in which the student takes
substantial responsibility for his own learning.

Traditional Instruction is group paced, teacher
controlled, and based primarily on the textbooks and
lectures. Children generally sit in neat rows facing
the teacher and are expected to work quietly at their
desks.

Learning Style in individualized instruction
means those factors that ease and facilitate learning
for an individual student in a given situation.2 Does
he work best in a small group, large group, one-to-one,
or independently? Which sensory factors does he use
best? What is his learning tempo? How does he go about

solving problems?

 

1James E. Duane, Individualized Instruction Pro-
grams and Materials (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1973),
p. 26.

2William Bechtol, Individualizing Instruction and
Keeping Your Sanity (Chicago: FoIlett Publishing Company,
I973), p. 46.

10

Learning Rate is the speed at which an individual

 

accomplishes the task of learning. Each individual learns
at a different-rate, some needing less time than others
to learn a task.

Learning Environment is the aggregate of sur-

 

roundings, things, conditions, and influences that effect
learning.

Learning Center is a specific area in a classroom

 

where the necessary components for specified objectives
are located for students to use independently and con-
veniently.1

Multi-Sensory Materials are instructional

 

materials designed to facilitate learning through the
use of the senses, such as sand, clay, geometric objects,

pictures, records, and other materials.

Limitations

 

The results from the study must be received in
light of several limitations:

1. The study was limited to one sample of ele-
mentary students which was not chosen randomly from all
elementary students. .

2. The study was limited to changes in instruc-
tional strategies and the result from those changes which

could be accomplished in a single year.

 

lIbid., p. 80.

ll
3. The study was limited to selected cognitive
and affective changes in students and did not encompass

all cognitive and affective changes which could occur.

Overview

 

Chapter II contains a review of the literature
related to this study.

A discussion of the methods and procedures used
in this study are found in Chapter III.

In Chapter IV a case study of the change process
from group paced to individual based instruction is
presented.

Chapter V contains the statistical findings.

Conclusions, implications and summary are pre-

sented in Chapter VI.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

..A1though many experiments in individualized instruc-
tion have been conducted, educators still disagree about
the best format, approach, and techniques of individual-
ization. The search continues as experimentation in indi-
vidualizing instruction broadens both in the number of
schools involved and in the types of individualized in-
struction available.

In this chapter an attempt is made to briefly look
at the history, philosophy, theory, practices,and research
of individualized instruction.

Historical Backggound of
Individualizing,Instruction

 

 

The recognition of, and the concern for, human vari-
abilities in the process of education at least dates back
to the time of Confucius, Plato,and Socrates.

Confucius adapted his teachings to the needs and
capabilities of individual students. Plato suggested that
the philosophers should attempt to educate each person

only as far as his limitations would permit. Socrates

12

l3

emphasized self-knowledge and he wanted people to live
meaningful lives within their own individual capacities.l

Jesus Christ in His teachings dealt with men indi-
vidually.

It was by personal contact and association that
He trained the twelve. It was in private, often
to but one listener, that He gave His most precious
instructions. To the honored rabbi at the night
conference on the Mount of Olives, to the despised
woman at the well of Sycher, He opened His richest
treasures; for in these hearers He discerned the
impressible heart, the open mind, the receptive
spirit. Even the crowd that so often thronged His
steps was not to Christ an indiscriminate mass of
human beings. He spoke directly to every mind and
appealed to every heart. He watched the faces of
His hearers, marked the lighting up of the counte-
nance, the quick responsive glance, which told that
truth had reached the soul.

During the Middle Ages it is said that Charlemagne
called a teacher to his high court to teach because he had
heard that this person paid particular attention to indi-
vidual differences.

During the Renaissance in Italy and the Reformation
in England, various individual interests of students were
recognized. Students were encouraged to do those things
for which they had a natural inclination. Although most
of the instruction of this period was group oriented, the

masters assigned work to students and then worked with

 

1Howard E. Blake and Ann McPherson, "Individualized
Instruction: Where Are We," Educational Technology
(December l969):63.

 

2Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, California:
Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1903), p. 231.

14

small groups of children in order to provide for indi-
vidual differences.

In the 17th century Comenius formulated rules for
teaching that suggested education should fit the compre-
hension level of the child and that children should learn
by doing.

.. Rousseau criticized teachers of his day for giving
the same exercise to all the children, thus destroying
any special individuality which might exist in the class-
room. Pestalozzi believed that each child possessed indi~
vidual power and capabilities and that the methods of
teaching were to be individualized to develop these cap-
abilities.

In the more recent past,educators like Alfred Binet
gave recognition to individual differences by his inven-
tion of a scale for measuring intelligence. He believed
that the aptitude of children was important to instruc-
tion and that children learned according to their indi-
vidual abilities and aptitudes.

Madam.Maria Montessori firmly believed that it was
the first duty of every human being to be himself and
that anything which checked this development did him
serious injury. She also encouraged children to work at
their own rates, to concentrate on what interested them,
and to use school materials in ways that they saw best.

She made every effort to adapt her teaching to the.needs

15

of each child and often taught pupils individually to get
the greatest pOssible adaptation for her technique.

As educational advantages became available to the
larger population,educators increasingly dealt with pupils
in groups or grade levels rather than individually.1

Then, the United States as the land of oppor-

tunity opened schools to every child regardless of
money or ability. Some of what had formerly been
packed into eight years was stretched out over
twelve to accommodate the slower learners. Stand-
ardization became the order of the day.

In the early decades of this century education in
the United States generally was reduced to detailed
formulas; it was mass produced for the masses. Every
subject had a textbook, and for every text there was a
firm order of learning. The basic assumption underlying
most textbook teaching is that children should be class-
ified into homogeneous groups and taught the material uni-
formly by standardized procedures. Thus American edu-
cation moved toward group instruction and away from pro-
viding for the individual differences of children. In a
sense, schools were being organized to get rid of individ-
ual differences, not to foster them.3 Soon the grade

standard became the goal for all children. -Each pupil

was expected to master the Skills and content outlined

 

1Blake and McPherson, pp. 63-65.

2John M. Lembo, Learning and Teaching in Today's
Schools (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Company, 1972), p. 258.

3Blake and McPherson, p. 64.

 

16

without too much consideration for his past experiences
or his intellectual capacity.

Sorting pupils into grades was a revolutionary
step in educational circles, but early educators
failed to see the unique nature of children. All
children were considered alike in capacity. Pupils
who failed to make progress were essentially fail-
ures because they would not behave or follow direc-
tions. Laziness or a lack of interest were frequent
excuses for failures. The diligent scholar would
succeed through.mere perseverance. There was little
recognition of the need.to vary the rate or method
of instruction for individual pupils. Since impar-
ting knowledge was the chief purpose of education,
textbooks became the driving force in the classroom.

. Success was measured in terms of the pupil's
ability to pass oral or written examinations.

Even as the mechanistic pattern of education devel-
oped, some educators were dissatisfied with one phase or
another. This dissatisfaction led to the introduction of
early procedures for individualizing such as the St. Louis
Plan, the Cambridge Plan, the Dalton Plan, the Winnetka
Plan,and Multitrack Grouping.

In 1916, psychologist Terman suggested a need for
differentiated courses of study to permit each pupil "to
progress at the rate which is normal for him, whether that
rate be rapid or slow." He proposed to teachers that they
measure out the work for each child in proportion to his

mental ability.2 Between 1900 and 1930 disciples of

 

1George Thomas and Joseph Crescimbeni, Individual-
izing Instruction in the Elementary School (New York:
Random House, 1967), p. 24.

 

 

2Lewis A. Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1916), p. 4.

17

Frederick Burk devised and implemented several laboratory
type plans for self instruction in the lower grades.
These were self pacing plans for the learner and demanded
a great deal of versatility on the part of the teacher.1

Since the 1930's, providing for variations in rates
of learning has continued to be the main interest of per-
sons advocating various plans for individualizing instruc-
tion. Many of the plans emphasize some form of homo-
geneous grouping, though this form of grouping has not
been found to be consistently effective.2 During the
1950's and even into the early sixties there was an in-
crease in grouping according to ability or achievement
levels, as reported by fifty-two per cent of the princi-
pals of large elementary school districts.3

Although many proposals for individualizing deal
only with varying the rate for mastering standard content,
educators have learned that rate of learning of prescribed
content should be only one of the considerations in indi-

vidualizing instruction.

 

1Madan Mohan and Ronald E. Hull, Individualized
Instruction and Learning (Chicago: Nelson Hall Company,
1974), p.68.

2Ruth B. Eckstrom, Experimental Studies of Homoge-
neous Grouping: A Review of the Literature (Princeton,
New Jersey: 1959).

3The Project on the Instructional Program of the
Public Schools, National Education Association, The
Principals Look at the Schools (Washington D.C.:——The
Association, 1962), p. 15.

18

. . Learning is personal, unique, unstand-
ardized. Furthermore, learning has numerous di-
mensions, and it is without limit.1
Providing only for variations in rates of learning
does not seem to be the total answer in how to best indi-

vidualize instruction.

Criticisms of Contemporary Education

In the last decade schools have come under severe
criticism from all segments of society. Educators have
become aware of, and are concerned about, the crisis in
our public schools. Much has been written about the
shortcomings of American education, and many solutions
have been suggested.

Some of the most scathing rebukes come from contem-
porary educators such as Paul Goodman, Jonathan Kozal,
Charles Silberman, John Holt, Edgar Friedenberg, David
Riesman, and others.

Silberman claims,

. . It is not possible to spend any prolonged
period visiting public schools without being appalled
by the mutilation visible everywhere; mutilation of
spontaneity, of joy in learning, of pleasure in
creating, of sense of self. . . . Because adults
take the schools so much for granted, they fail to
appreciate what grim, joyless places moSt American
schools are, how oppressive and petty are the rules
by which they are governed, how intellectually

sterile and aesthetically barren the atmosphere,
what an appalling lack of civility obtains on the

 

1Ronald C. Doll, "Fostering Student Individuality
in the Schools," JOhn R. Fitzsimmons, ed. Individualizing
Instruction for Individualized Learning (New York: Bess
House, HOfstra University, 1972), p. 11.

 

19

part of teachers and principals, what contempt they
unconsciously display for children as children.1

The atmosphere in many schools is more reminiscent
of some penal institution than a place devoted to learning.
Everyone is locked into position on a given signal such as
a bell. Not only is the atmosphere representative of penal
institutions but so are the structures and the rules.

John Goodlad, after visiting 100 elementary schools

in 13 states, says that the schools are " . anything
but 'places' of an affluent society.” On the contrary,
he says, they look ". . . more like the artifacts of a

society that did not really care about its schools, a
society that expressed its disregard by creating schools
less suited to human habitation than its prisons."2

Both students and teachers are victimized by the

way in which many schools are presently organized and run.
For instance:

The school board has no faith in the central ad-
‘ministration, the central administration has no faith
in the principals, the principals have no faith in the
teachers, an% the teachers have no faith in the stu-
dents.

The result of course, is that the classroom becomes

a battleground, with the students and the teachers devoting

 

1Charles E. Silberman, "How the Public Schools Kill
Dreams and Mutilate Minds," Learning and Teaching in To-
dayLs Schools, John M. Lembo, editor (Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1972), p. 3.

21bid., p. 17.
31bid., p. 12.

 

20
large amounts of energy to searching out ways to outwit
one another.
Charles Silberman concludes that, "the most important
characteristic that nearly all schools share is a preoccu-
pation with order and control."1

Even a cursory examination of the traditional
school shows the punitive uses of discipline. Co-
ercive grading systems, veiled threats, planned
failures, teacher-centered planning, meaningless
dull assignments, and social pressures based on the
belief that sutdents must be forced to remain active.2

Carl Rogers quotes Albert Einstein as having said:

. It is in fact nothing short of a miracle
that the modern methods of instruction have not
yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
inquiry; for this delicate little plant aside
from stimulation, stands mainly in need of free-
dom; withgut this it goes to wrack and ruin with-
out fail.

Stimulation and freedom to learn are sadly lacking

in our public schools. Carl Rogers further states:

. I want to speak to them about learning. But
not the lifeless, sterile, futile, quickly forgotten
stuff which is crammed into the mind of the poor
helpless individual tied into his seat by iron clad
bonds of conformity! I am talking about LEARNING--
the insatiable curiosity. .4

Carl Rogers goes on to explain that there are two

types of learning along a continuum of meaning. At one

 

11bid., p. 5.

2Jack D. Riegle, "Open Concept Education: A Human
Enterprise," NASSP Bulletin, January 1973.

3Carl R. Rogers, Freedom to Learn (Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company,l969), p. iv.

4Ibid., p. 3.

21
end is the type of learning exemplified by memorizing
nonsense syllables and on the other end is significant,
meaningful, experimental learning. He defines the latter
type of learning as having a quality of personal involve-
ment, self-initiated, pervasive, evaluated by the learner,
and its essence is meaning. He continues:

. . Yet in the vast majority of our schools, at
all educational levels, we are locked into a tra-
ditional and conventional approach which makes sig-
nificant learning improbable if not impossible.
When we put together in one scheme such elements as
a prescribed curriculum, similar assignments for all
students, lecturing as almost the only mode of in-
struction, standard tests by which all students are
externally evaluated, and instructor-chosen grades
as the measure of learning, then we can almost
guarantee that meaningful learning will be at an
absolute minimum.

 

 

 

 

To meet the educational needs of children, we must
free ourselves from the yoke of tradition and utilize re-
search findings to achieve the goal of providing each stu-
dent with a learning program appropriate for him.

The structure of present day public education
frequently makes it impossible for a youngster to take
responsibility for his own education. It makes the stu-
dent totally dependent upon the teacher. "Most schools
define education as something teachers do to, or for,

students, not something students do for themselves."2

 

1Ibid., p. 5.
2Lembo, p. 14.

22
Traditionally the teacher decides what the student
will learn and when. He also decides who will Speak, and
in what order; he decides who uses what materials, if any;
he assigns the jobs around the classroom; and he does most
of the talking and decision making. Students are expected
to be silent and motionless, in other words, passive.
Children must sit still at their desks and listen. Pas-
sivity and silence seems to be the hallmark of good
teaching.
In the United States, training in sitting still
begins in kindergarten, the function of which is, in
large measure, to instill the behavior patterns the rest
of the school demands.l
. A teacher will rarely, if ever, be called on
the carpet or denied tenure because his or her
students haven't learned anything; she most cer-
tainly will if her students are talking or moving
about the classroom, or, even worse, found outside
the room, and she may earn the censure of her
colleagues as well. Nor will teachers receive
suggestions from their supervisors as to how to
improve their teaching methods and materials;
they will receive suggestions for improving dis-
cipline. Thus, the vows of silence and stillness
are often imposed on teachers who might prefer a
more open, lively classroom.
Many schools operate as if children learn only by
listening. Children may learn by listening, but they are

more likely to learn by doing, talking, and teaching.

 

11bid., p. 14.
21bid., p. 19.

23
Learning rarely occurs by passive listening alone. More
often than not the children tune out the teacher who
possesses and recites the information. Learning re-
quires active participation in the learning process; the
learner must be aggressively involved in acquiring
knowledge.1

To meet the educational needs of eager active

learners, teachers must free themselves from the yoke of
tradition, and free the innate potential in the human
organism to explore, to question, to think, and to actively
participate in learning.

Teachers hold the key to a power of unpredic-
table proportions and dimensions--the key to human
potential, too few teachers use this key. They
conceal the key--the possibility of releasing human
potential-~by resorting to . . . group pacing; thus
preventing the student from experiencing and de-
veloping self-responsibility, self-direction, and
self-respect.

The tremendous advancement of science and tech-

nology now compel man to develop inner resources for con-
trolling an increasingly complex, dynamic, and stimulating

environment. Educators must realize that rote memorization

of facts and learning factual information alone is not

 

1Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn, Practical Approaches
to Individualizing Instruction: Contracts and Other Effec-
tive Teaéhing Strategies (West NyaEk, New York: Parker
Publishing Company, nc., 1972), p. 21.

 

2Gene Talbert and Larry E. Fraze, Individualized
Instruction (Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill Publishing
Company,1972), p. 118.

 

24
adequate to meet the challenges of a constantly expanding
cadre of knowledge.

Education must prepare man not just to earn a
living but to live a full, creative, humane, sensitive,
and productive life. The school must provide a liberal
humanizing education that will enable him to continue
learning.1

There is also a movement toward a fairer, more
humane, more kindly, more enlightened treatment of people.
There is a new tolerance of pluralism, divergent views,
and divergent life-styles.2

In view of these developments, education must be-
come a humane enterprise. Educators must emphasize the
human aspects rather than the organizational aspects.

The bright eyed, eager, happy kindergarten child can re-
main bright eyed, eager, and happy if he is exposed to
a theory of education where people believe that:

1. Students are not by nature passive, lazy, or
resistant to organizational needs.

2. Indifference expressed by students is a result
of negative experiences in the school organization.

3. It is the responsibility of teachers to make
it possible for students to develop their character for

themselves.

 

lLembo, p. 13.

2Phillip Jackson, "Trends Toward Individualization,"
Ipstructor, January 1975, p. 45.

25

4. The essential task of teachers is to arrange
organizational conditions and methods of operation so
that students can achieve their own goals.

5. The process of teaching must create many
opportunities, release potential, remove obstacles,
encourage growth, and provide guidance.

"Simple to state but difficult to achieve" seems
to summarize these five concepts of education. Teachers
must believe in the natural eagerness of students to
improve themselves. Teachers must totally commit them-
selves to allowing students opportunities to develop self-
control, self-direction, and individually-tailored edu-

cational experiences.1

Identifying and Influencing Cognitive Processes

New developments in learning theory, psychometrics,
developmental psychology, and educational technology have
contributed to new directions in educational thought.
These developments also suggest new directions for edu-
cational research and practice, such as adapting education
to meet the needs of each learner.

In 1925 Carleton Washburne stated:

the widespread use of intelligence and achieve-
ment tests has made every educator realize that

children vary greatly as individuals and, throughout
the educational world, there has therefore awakened

1Riegle, pp. 10-14.

26

the desire to find some way of adapting schools to
the differing individuals who attend them.1

Although half a century later we have still not
solved the problem of individualizing, we appear to be
on the threshold of a solution because the research in
human behavior over the past twenty years now points to
possible answers. Current research shows that we can
experimentally identify and influence a variety of
cognitive processes that are involved in learning.

For example, William Rohwer found that, when we
provide children with freedom and encouragement, they be-
gin to generate their own forms of mental elaborations
which they can use to enhance their own learning.2

Kagan and Kagan studied the influences of indi-
vidual differences in non-cognitive domains that have a
bearing on the cognitive processes. Their research in-
cludes studies on the effects of cultural background on
the dominance of visual, auditory, and tactile sense
modalities, the relationship between anxiety and the
quality of immediate memory, the ability to hold changing
images in memory, called "levelling and sharpeningfl'and

the degree to which an individual pauses to evaluate the

 

1Robert Glaser, "Individuals and Learning: The New
Aptitudes," Individualized Instruction and Learning, Madan
Mohan and Robert E. Hull, eds. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Co.,
1974). p. 85.

2Ibid., p. 59.

27

quality of cognitive products in the course of problem
solving.1

There have been some interesting attempts to
modify cognitive style. Studies done by Yanda and Kagan
show that when first grade children were placed in classes
with experienced teachers who have a reflective Style,the
children became more reflective during the school year
than children who were placed with impulsive teachers.2

Suchman investigated the effects of cognitive
style on inquiry and concluded that a child high on
cognitive control, impulsivity, and autonomy will be a
more effective inquirer than a child who is low on any
ione of the three.3

Over a period of years, Suchman has tried to
identify the necessary conditions for inquiry to occur in
classroom settings. The conditions are essentially these:

. first, we find that the children need some kind

of focus for their attention, some kind of problem.
. Secondly they need the condition of freedom.

. . The third condition is what 0. K. Moore calls
the "responsive environment." These, then, are three

 

1J. Kagan and N. Kagan, "Individual Variation in
Cognitive Process," P. H. Mussen, ed. Carmichael's Manual
of Child Psychology (Palo Alto: Annual Reviews,‘1972),
pp. 207-276.

 

2R. M. Yanda and J. Kagan, "The Effects of Teacher
Tempo on the Child," Child Development, 1968, pp. 27-34.

3Richard J. Suchman, "The Illinois Studies in
Inquiry Training," Richard Ripple and Verne Rockcastle,
eds. , Piaget Rediscovered, A report of the Jean Piaget
Conferences at CornelI University and the University of

California, 1964, p. 108.

23

conditions for inquiry; the focus, the freedom to

operate, and the responsive environment. If we pro-

vide these conditions we find that children inquire

at the elementary school age, and that inquiry will

progress at a rate that is far in excess of what

would happen if one didn't have these conditions.1

In order to be pedagogically sound and successful
school must provide for these needs of inquiry. Many
schools are set up at present to stifle curiosity and
inquiry. Suchman found that "as children move from the
first grade to the sixth grade, they become less empirical
and base more hypotheses and tests of hypotheses on con-
clusions of authorities and less on their own empirical
operations."2
The work and theories of Jean Paiget also support

and influence individualized instruction. The stages of
cognitive development described in the Piagetian theory
of intelligence are thought to make major qualitative
changes in the modes of thinking available to the child.
These, in turn, effect the kinds of specific learnings
of which the child is capable. Therefore, these stages
provide individual modes of performance available to
different children which would have to be considered in

educational design.3

According to Piaget:

 

11bid., pp. 105, 106.
21bid., p. 105.
3Glaser, p. 97.

29
. Children go through certain stages of intellec-
tual development from birth through adolescence.
These stages materialize, fully constructed, when
their time has come, and there is little we can do
to advance them. What we must do in education is to
realize the limits of children's understanding at
certain ages, and plan our teaching so it falls
within these limits.1
If children must go through the stages of develop-
ment that Piaget describes, it is no use trying to teach
them something for which they are not ready. Again, indi-
vidualization is the answer.
Research on the variables of learning done by
John Carroll and supported by others such as Bruner, Glaser,
Morrison, and Goodlad, makes it clear that if the students
are normally distributed with respect to aptitude for any
subject, and they are provided with exactly the same in-
struction in terms of quantity, quality, and time, the end
result will be a normal distribution on achievement. Con-
versely, if the students are normally distributed with
respect to aptitude, but the kind and quality of instruction
and the time available for learning are made appropriate to
the characteristics and needs of each individual child, the
majority of the students may be expected to master the sub-

ject. Given enough time all students can attain mastery

of a learning task.2

 

1Ripple and Rockcastle.
2John B. Carroll, pp. 33-49.

30

The concept of nongrading evolved from an accep-
tance of the notion that there is no such thing as a
total class of students at one level of learning.

In a fully graded plan, all children in a given grade
are expected to do the same work in a year's time,
while in a nongraded program each child works at the
level in each subject for which he is ready.1

Studies of non graded programs have shown positive
results in achievement. Generally, students in nongraded
programs have been doing as well as or better than their
peers in the graded programs--usually better, according
to several comparative studies. In all cases where students
were matched for IQ, the non graded achievement scores were
Significantly higher.2

Nongraded programs generally provide for individ-
ualization only in one respect; pupils proceed through the
same materials in much the same way, except that they do
so at their own rate.

The collective insights or research seem to indi-
cate that when instruction is adapted to the needs of the
individual,or,in other words,when accommodative teaching
takes place,that the levels of cognitive achievement tend

to increase.

 

1Lyn S. Martin and Barbara N. Pavan, "Current Re-
search on Open Space, Nongrading, Vertical Grouping, and
Team Teaching," Phi Delta Kappan, January 1976, p. 311.

21bid., p. 312.

31

Accommodating the Individual
Differences of Children

We reap insufficient results when we neglect indi-
vidual differences in children, when we ignore their
strengths, highlight their weaknesses, and try to force
them to fit into the mold of traditional education.

. . Group oriented instructional programs and
materials of a past age are no longer appropriate
or effective in meeting the needs of today's young-
sters. Professionals equipped with methods and
techniques designed only for group consumption in
the conventional self-contained classroom.must be
retrained in order to provide appropriate instruc-
tional alternatives for the individual as a unique
creative entity. Conventional educational programs
are inadequate and obsolete when we consider the
diversity of skills, conceptual developments, atti-
tudes and values and capabilities required and
rightfully demanded by students for survival in our
complex technological society.1

we know now that learning is a personal matter that
varies for different children, it proceeds at many different
rates, and develops best when children are actively en-
gaged in their own learning. Learning also takes place
in a variety of setting, in and out of school, and it gains
in intensity in an environment where children and childhood
are taken seriously.2

Since learning is such a personal matter, it is

the right of every individual to acquire an education

 

lLoyd K. Bishop, Individualized Educational Systems
(New York: Harper and Row PuElisfiers, 1971), p. ix.

2Vito Perrone, Open Education: Promise and Problems
(Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Education Founda-
tion, 1972), p. 37.

32
within the school system in his own way and at his own
rate. This means that the school must adapt its system
to the individual rather than the individual to the
system. It also means harnessing all the techniques of
modern education and communication and technology avail-
able to assist the individual toward self-development,
self-fulfillment, and self—direction.
Schools which do not produce self-directed citizens
have failed everyone--the student, the profession
and the society they are designed to serve. The
goals of modern education cannot be achieved with-
out self-direction. . . . This calls for student
cooperation and acceptance of major responsibility
for his own learning.

The world we live in demands self-starting, self-
directing citizens capable of independent action. Our
world is changing so fast, we cannot hope to teach each
person what he will need to know in twenty years. Our
only hope to meet the demands of the future is the pro-
duction of intelligent, independent peOple.2

We cannot be simply satisfied by teaching the
basic skills. To be practical, an education must prepare
men for jobs that haven't been discovered as yet. This

can be done only by teaching people how to learn, by

giving them the kind of intellectual discipline that will

 

1Arthur Combs, "Fostering Self-Direction," Edu-
cational Leadership, February 1966, p. 373.

2Virgina M. Howes, Individualization of Instruc-
tion (London: The Macmillan Company, 1970), p. 31.

33
enable them to apply man's accumulated wisdom to new
problems as they arise.

Education should prepare people not just to earn
a living but to live a life, a creative life. This means
that the school must provide a liberal humanizing edu-
cation.1

In recent years instructional methods and organi-
zational patterns have reflected a strong desire to develop
more effective techniques for coping with the individual
differences and individual needs of students.

One of the most pervasive themes dominating American
education during the last decade has been the concept of
individualization of instruction.

Individualized instruction is no one way of

conducting education, nor any one special program.

It is the process of custom-tailoring instruction

so it fits a particular learner. An individualized
program is not necessarily different for each learner,
but must be appropriate for each.

The challenge of individualizing instruction is
that of finding the best fit for each child. No single

method can be considered the best method, just as no

method can be categorically labeled inappropriate.

 

1Lembo, p. 4.

2Sidney Rauch, "Individualized Reading Programs,"
John R. Fitzsimmons, ed., Individualizing Instruction for-
Individualized Learning: Proceedings of a conference at
Hofstra University (Hempstead, New York: The Bureau of
Educational Studies and Services, Bess House Hofstra Uni-
versity, 1972), p. 25.

 

 

34

Our commitment to individualized instruction is

based on the following hypotheses about children and

learning:

1. There are many patterns of learning and no one
teaching method meets the varied needs of all children;

therefore it is vitally important to provide alternatives

in the educational program.

2. Learning is an active not a passive process
and must involve participation in a task rather than mere
absorption of information. As a result of learning, there

should be a change in pupil behavior or no learning has

taken place .

3. The teacher cannot tell a child how to think,
but must provide him with the freedom, the encouragement,

and the opportunity to do so.

4. Children are consistent in their need for
Success experiences, but vary greatly in their levels and

rates of achievement.

5. Discovering and developing uniqueness in indi-
viduals is a major goal not to be thwarted by ignoring or

minimizing differences .

6. Children bring to each new experience varying
atnounts of information and misinformation, which may

clarify or distort concept formation.

7. Setting goals and evaluating progress are the

privilege and responsibility of the child, and are

35
essential to long-term learning. Teachers must not let
a marking system distort evaluation.

8. The unstructured and inductive experiences
which occur in a child's life are often the most pro-
found and influential activities of childhood.

9. Children learn from.each other, through ob-
Servation, imitation, and cooperative consideration of
a mutually challenging task.

10. Learning is both positive and negative. When
the activity does not fit the child's unique personal need,
negative learning is certain to occur.

11. It is more important for children to apprec-
iate and practice self control than to be controlled by an
adult authority figure.

12. Intrinsic motivation makes children capable
‘of meaningful self-selection and self correction of
appropriate learning activities.1

In order to capitalize on this available knowledge
of children and learning we need to have a flexible school
environment which encourages greater interaction between
students and their peers. This environment should elimin-
ate the conventional grouping of students by chronological
age into arbitrary grade levels and allow for large group,

small group or individual interaction and learning.

 

1Dona Kofod Stahl and Patricia Murphy Anzalone,
Individualized Teaching in Elementary Schools (West Nyack,
New York: Pafker Pfiblishing Company, 1970), p. 24.

36

Multiple interaction and multiple instructional
exposure play a major part in an individualized edu-
cational set up.

Thus, individualization requires an organization
which allows the Student to engage in activities
uniquely appropriate to his own style and rate of
learning. In this type of organization, instruction
promotes independence, provides opportunities for
study beyond the regular curriculum, and permits
maximum use of instructional resources.

Therefore,an instructional model which includes
specifications for a nongraded,continuous progress based
on behavioral objectives with pre- and post- tests to mea-
sure student competencies, complete with multi-sensory,
multi-media instructional resources, must be available.

Many attractive alternative models that offer new
approaches to student learning which can provide almost

all students with rewarding school experiences have been

developed. For example, Individually Prescribed Instruction

 

(IPI),2 Program for Learning in Accordance with Needs
(PLAN), Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI), and ladi-
vidually Guided Education (ICE), are some of the major
models in existence. These and others represent Signifi-
cant steps toward improving learning by individualized

instruction. They strive to actively involve the student

 

1Bishop, p. 5.

2William W. Cooley and Robert Glaser, "The Computer
and Individualized Instruction," Robert A. Weisgerber, ed.,
Developmental Efforts in Individualized Learning (Palo
Alto, California: P. E. Peacock PuBlishers, Inc., 1971),
pp. 92-168.

37
in the learning process, allow students in the same class
to be at different points in the curriculum, and permit
the teacher to give more individual attention to the
students.

The Learning Center Approach to
Individualization

 

 

One of the most exciting ideas for individualizing
instruction is the learning center approach. It is a
creative way of teaching which provides an invitation to
learn, to explore, to share and to discover. It is de-
signed to encourage self-selection, self-direCtion, and
self-motivation.

By definition,a learning center is a designated
area organized and set up to allow students to work inde-
pendently, in small groups or individually, on tasks re-
lated to specific curriculum goals. A learning center
provides a variety of learning activities using many
different kinds of materials. It may include directions
and a built-in management and evaluating system.1

For the purpose of this study a learning center
is neither an interest center, a media center, a materials
center, nor a learning package, which is sometimes re-
ferred to as a learning center. The words "station" and
”center" are used interdhangeably, and the working defini-

tion remains as stated above.

 

11bid., pp. 80-81.

38

Learning centers are designed to provide for a
better organization of resources and materials to enhance
learning opportunities for more individual Students whose
learning rates and learning modes or styles differ.

The development and use of learning centers is
only one method for individualizing learning. They
provide a beginning point but are not intended to
be the only source of individualizing instruction.
Learning centers become the vehicles for moving
students away from teacher dominated learning ex-
periences and toward student selected learning
activities. Learning centers organize and direct
learning experiences for students by allowing free-
dom while providing structure.

In other words learning centers are designed to
individualize instruction for more effective education
for children. They deserve to exist only if evaluation
shows that more effective education does result. Indi-
vidualized instruction requires continuous diagnosis and
continuouS-modification of programs to meet the diagnosed
need.

Individualizing learning and teaching with stations
is an alternative to the traditional concept of seatwork,
in which children stay at their desks all or most of the
time using ditto sheets or working from the chalkboard.

The learning center approach gives some choice of activi-

ties each day. Children assume more responsibility for

 

1Sandra Nina Kaplan, Jo Ann Butom Kaplan, Sheila
Kunishima Madsen, and Bette K. Taylor, Change for Children:
Ideas and Activities for Individualizing Learning (Pacific
Palisades, CalifOrnia: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc.,
1973), p. xv.

 

39
self-direction which includes recording and evaluating
their own progress when the activities are completed. In
such a flexible environment, children's enthusiasm is
reflected in their attitudes and in their work.

The students function better in a less restricted,
pressure free atmosphere, which also frees the teacher to
work with small groups and individuals while the other
students are involved in meaningful activities. Such an
environment also promotes a more positive attitude toward
school. The school becomes an exciting part of living
rather than just a place where one has to be from nine to
three.

In order to promote excitement and positive atti-
tudes the school must provide for the individual needs of
students. A varied educational diet is essential to pro-
mote individual growth and satisfaction. Multi-media,
multi-sensory equipment and materials provide the variety
and extend considerably the range of possible approaches
to learning. Adapting audio visual material for direct
and developmental instruction will involve careful organi-
zation and training.

Stahl and Anzalone states:

You will employ a multisensory approach to learning
with far more varied materials designed to stimulate
visual, auditory, and tactile responses. Many children
will use manipulative devices and games as primary

learning materials rather than as supplemental active-
ities. .

 

1Stahl and Anzalone, p. 27.

40
According to Loyd Bishop, individualization requires
an organization which allows the student to engage in activ-
ities uniquely-appropriate to his own mode and rate of
learning. In this type of organization, instruction pro-
motes independence, provides opportunities for study be-
yond the regular curriculum, and permits maximum use of
instructional resources. Therefore,the curriculum must
be designed to meet the individual requirements of each
child at his own particular level of ability, achievement,
progression, and style.1
According to Culver and Lieberman we need to
believe:
that children have a natural style of learning,
a style that fits their condition, their ways. We
need to allow children to work more independently,
seek their own levels of understanding, and use and
improve the style of thinking and learning which is
natural to them.2
If this is true, then these learners will function
better in a less-restricted, pressure free atmosphere
where there is a wide choice of stimulating, multisensory,
attractively packaged, meaningful activities that are self-
managed by the learner himself.

The learning center integrates and embodies these

characteristics in a systematic organized manageable way.

 

1Bishop, p. 4.

2David A. Shiman, Carmen M. Culver, and Ann
Lieberman, Teachers on Individualization: The Way We Do
I; (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1974); p. 98.

41
It frees the teacher to give individualized attention and
instruction to the students.
. . . The teacher's task in the classroom is to
facilitate learning. It might be pointed out that
students actually do not learn from teachers; they
learn from materials. In much the same way, Sick
peOple do not get well from doctors but from.medi-
cation. The doctor,however, is important in pre-
scribing and facilitating the proper kind of medi—
cation, just as the teacher is very important in
facilitating learning through the proper utilization
of instructional materials in the classroom.

The teacher must also become a specialist in child
to child, child to teacher, and child to learning relation-
ships. By interacting with students while promoting
learning, the teacher becomes the intermediary between
the child and his environment. The teacher must question,
conference, encourage, and share in the activities of
learning. In this way he will help to make the environ-
ment useful for the student. Although the teacher's age,
experience, and training are the basis for his authority
in the classroom, he must exercise it to make learning
available to students rather than to impose it on them.2

Some of the more obvious advantages for setting up
learning centers are flexibility, variety, and the organ-

ization that such an arrangement provides. The variety

of centers provides diverse settings in which pupils can

 

lBishop, pp. 41-42.

2Sandra Kaplan, Jo Ann Kaplan, Sheila Madsen and
Bette Taylor, Change for Children (Palisades, California:
Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc., 1975), pp. xiii, xiv.

 

42

work autonomously or in small groups and have the Oppor-
tunity to make choices.

Some specific advantages of learning centers in-
clude:

l. A relaxed and happy atmosphere with open-
ness in pupil-teacher relationships.

2. Increased opportunities for flexible grouping
to meet individual needs.

3. Children find more satisfaction in learning.

4. Children develop a sense of responsibility and
greater self-discipline.

5. The development of a more positive self con-
cept.

6. Emphasis on learning rather than teaching.

7. Creativity is enhanced.

8. Increased opportunities for diagnosis, pre-
scription and evaluation of individual learning needs.

9. Less competition and more cooperation among
students.

10. More human interaction.

11. Classroom living based on real-life processes.1

Individualizing learning does not imply that the
teacher will abdicate the responsibility for making some

decisions and directing some learnings for the student.

 

lLee L. Smith, Jack Out of the Box (West Nyack,
New York: Parker PubliShing Co., 1974), p. 197.

 

43
Neither does it mean that the teacher will allow or accept
anything Students do. The goal of individualized in-
struction is to create new standards for learning and
behavior, not to abolish or disregard all standards. AS
the adult, facilitator, friend, and teacher, the teacher
is still accountable for the behavior and performance of
his students.

Teacher accountability assumes a different di-
mension in the individualized classroom. Although not
accountable for teaching all the students the same body
of knowledge and skills, he is accountable for teaching
each student how to direct his own learning in relation-
ship to his own individual learning style and needs. In
an individualized classroom the major emphasis in eval-
uating students is on the process of learning, not on the
product.1
Current Research and Evaluation of

Cognitive and Affective Outcomes
ofiIndividuaIization

 

 

 

As already indicated, there is a widespread in-
terest in individualizing instruction in the United States
today. What are some of the educational or pedagogical
reasons for encouraging individualized instructional
methods? The strongest reason to support individualized

instruction is the increasing awareness of educators that

 

1Kaplan, Kaplan, Madsen and Taylor, p. xiv.

44
each child learns differently at different rates. The
shift is from the average child as the center of the
instructional program to that of recognizing each Student
as unique and in need of a curriculum geared to his
personal needs.

There is now some convincing evidence that it is
possible to teach children the basic academic Skills
(the 3 R's) by the application of intensive drill and
traditional instruction. But the need today is not just
the acquisition of skills. At the same time children
need to strengthen and enhance their feelings of self-
respect, self-responsibility and a sense of dignity. In-
dividualized instructional methods promise the achievements
of academic, intellectual and personal growth.

Does individualized instruction really work?
Research evidence is not in complete agreement, but
there is some evidence supporting it.

Rothrock, in 1968, reported a survey of teachers
from five states to determine how widely individualized
reading was used and how teachers who were using it or
had used it felt about the program. Of those who had
participated in individualized reading programs, eighty-
six per cent were continuing to do so. Fourteen per cent
had discontinued the program.

The theoretical base of individualized instruction

'was generally supported by the teachers Rothrock surveyed.

45
He found pupils' reactions to be highly favorable. Indi-
vidualized instruction was perceived as fostering self-
respect and giving a sense of security to slower learners.
Several teachers reported positive effects of individual
attention and close pupil-teacher interaction.

Rothrock, also found that time, class size, in-
adequate preparation of teachers, and insufficient
materials for independent use were frequently mentioned
problems when individualizing.1

Joyce Epstein and James McPartland studied more
than 7,200 students in individualized and traditional
schools in grades 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12. The individualized
school program had a positive effect on student academic
achievement in grades 5 and 12, a negative effect in
grade 9, and no significant effect in grade 7. However,
in every grade studied, the students in the individualized
schools had higher average scores on self-reliance,
greater satisfaction with their school experiences, and
more positive actions toward their teachers than Students
in nonindividualized schools.2

Glass and Yager, in a study of individualized
science instruction, found that students who dealt with
scientific problems individually or in small groups showed

a significantly greater understanding of science and of

 

1Talbert and Frace, pp. 141, 142.
2Ibid., p. 63.

46

scientists as a group than those students who encountered
the problems and solved them as a class.1

Shavelson and Munger found that biology students
in a self-paced program demonstrated higher achievement
in less class time than those who received group in-
struction.2

Eisman carried out a three-year study of the
effects of self-paced learning in spelling. He concluded
that learning is most successful when the learner is
allowed to proceed at his own rate.3

Bigelow and Egbert reported no significant differ-

ences in personality characteristics, as measured on the

California ngchological Inventory, between individualized

 

and traditional groups of students. However, within the
individualized study groups, successful students scored
significantly higher on responsibility and intellectual
efficiency than non-successful students. Students were
considered successful if their grades in the course were
equal to or higher than their cumulative grade point
averages prior to taking the course in which the study

was conducted.4

 

1Ibid., p. 144.
2Ibid.
31bid.
41bid.

47

In a PREP (Putting Research into Educational
Practice) study, the U.S. Office of Education reviewed
current developments in individualized instruction. The
study looked at forty-Six schools around the country and
concluded that while there is little objective evidence
concerning the impact of individualization on learning,
there are strong indications that the results are highly
positive. About half of the forty-six schools with indi-
vidualized instruction programs studied by PREP had no
formal evidence of success or failure in learning achieve-
ment. Seventeen schools had test results which, in most
cases, showed academic success. Many others used question-
naires, attendance rates, dropout rates and data on dis-
ciplinary problems in reviewing results.1

Parkside Elementary School, Murray, Utah, has
sought to document learning achievements of individual
children. They report gains of from two to four years
within a single school year, based upon standardized test
results in an individualized program. The data, however,
have not been treated statistically and there is no firm
proof of such achievement.2

Contrary to this, Duluth, Minnesota, Public

Schools using the Iowa Test of Basic Skills had found no

 

 

1Individualization in Schools: The Challenge and
the Options (A Publication of the National School Public
Relations Association, Washington, D.C., 1971), p. 4.

2Ibid.

 

 

48

greater gains from individualized instruction than from
traditional instruction. The superintendent has ex-
plained that the "overall objective in the whole program
is attitude change, and we don't have the kinds of in-
struments for an evaluation of that objective."1

Wilson Elementary School, Jamesville, Wisconsin,
administered standardized tests seven months apart.
Their results showed that all of the different levels
grew a year in reading comprehension after individualiza-
tion. In spelling,the pattern averaged 1.2 years for
one 7-month period.2

PREP found that the reaction to individualized
systems were mostly favorable. Teachers, students,
parents,and school board members generally have Shown
favorable reaction to programs of individualized instruc-
tion. Teachers report that while the program involves
more work than is required in the traditional classroom,
they obtain far greater satisfaction from the job and
find it more stimulating. A few teachers, however, are
uncomfortable in an individualized setting and request to
go back to traditional classrooms because they are less
demanding.

PREP studied pupil surveys and concluded that

students are unanimous in their support of the program.

 

11bid., p. 8.
2Ibid., p. 13.

49

The initial parent reaction tended to be skeptical.
But this attitude quickly faded after children began to
reflect enthusiasm for the program.

PREP found that individualized instruction tended
to reduce disciplinary problems in the schools. School
officials in general had kind words for the resulting
improvement. They reported that truants and dropouts
declined significantly following the introduction of
individualized instructional programs.

In most of the schools observed by PREP, emphasis
continued to focus upon traditional Skills and subject
matter, but the trend was toward permitting the children
to practice decision making by choosing alternatives and
noting the results of their decisions.

Twenty per cent of the schools Studied stress the
development of lifelong independent learning.

PREP concludes that individualization is not a
magic cure for the ills of education. But schools which
have adopted the technique generally agree they will
never return to the traditional classroom.1

Individualized instruction is many things to many
peOple. It is not one program or kind of program. It
is a movement, a liberal movement, with a spectrum which

stretches from.simply doing away with mass teaching to

 

11bid., pp. 12-17.

50
complete emancipation of the student from the constraints
of education planned by others.
This study is an attempt to evaluate the affective
and cognitive outcomes of one program of individualizing

instruction.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This report of methods and procedures includes a
description of the population, of methods used for selec-
ting the sample, of the instruments used, of the kinds of

data collected, and of the methods of analyses selected.

Identification of the Population

 

The investigation reported in this study was con-
ducted in the Benton Harbor Area Schools in Benton Harbor,
Michigan.

The twin cities of Benton Harbor and St. Joseph
are located on the Southwestern corner of Lake Michigan.
Benton Harbor's origins date back to the early 1800's
when it was known as Bronson's Harbor. In 1869 it was
incorporated as a village, and at this time the name was
changed to Benton Harbor.1

Today, Benton Harbor has a pOpulation of approxi-

mately 16,500. It is located in Berrien County, which

is known as "the buckle of the fruit belt."

 

lCatherine Moulds, Chips Fell in the Valley
(Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andiews University Press,
1963). P. 28.

 

51

52

This twin cities area is the home of more than 250
diversified industries. It is located approximately 90
miles east of Chicago, 184 miles west of Detroit, 47
miles west of Kalamazoo, and 35 miles north of South
Bend, Indiana.

Benton Harbor is the home of Lake Michigan Junior
College and extension centers of Western Michigan Uni-
versity and Michigan State University. Within fifteen
miles of Benton Harbor is Andrews University, and within
forty miles are the University of Notre Dame, St. Mary's
College, and the University of Indiana at South Bend.

The Benton Harbor Area Schools include a high
school, Continuing Education Center, Skill Center, Tech-
nical Center, three seventh and eighth grade centers, and
twenty-three elementary schools. The racial make-up of
the district is 60 per cent black, 7.2 per cent Indian
and Spanish, and 32.3 per cent white and oriental. The
school district encompasses 56 square miles with a total
population of 42,037 people. The State Equalized Val-
uation per child is $18,976.00.

The two schools in which the study was conducted
are Martin Luther King, Jr., Elementary School and Seely
McCord Elementary School. Both schools are located in
the inner city of Benton Harbor, a very low socio-economic
area. The majority of the students live in project housing

in crowded living quarters, usually with a single parent

53
or guardian who maintains a large family on a meager

earned income or some form of social aid.

Selection of the Schools

 

Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School and
Seely McCord Elementary School were selected for this
study on the basis of their Similarities. (1) Both
schools are participating in an Individually Guided
Educational Program (ICE). (2) The children who attend
the two schools live in the same neighborhood, within
walking distance of the schools which are located across
the street from each other. (3) Both schools have the
same Staff Development consultant who did the training
and the follow-up. (4) Both principals supported the
Staff Development Program enthusiastically.

Seely McCord Elementary School has an enrollment
of approximately five hundred students and a faculty of
twenty-one regular classroom teachers who teach classes
ranging from kindergarten through the sixth grade. Martin
’ Luther King Elementary School has an enrollment of approxi-
mately four hundred fifty students and seventeen regular
teachers teaching classes ranging from fourth to Sixth

grades.

Selection of the Students
Fifth and sixth grade students from the two schools

were selected for the study. The general practice of

54
regrouping students in the ICE concept posed a problem.
In order to eliminate this problem the teachers who
were participating in the study were asked to keep the
same group for the entire year.
As reading and mathematics were the two areas of
individualization for the first year, the students in

these classes were chosen as the subjects for this study.

Selection of the Teachers

 

The three experimental teachers, one from Seely
McCord and two from.Martin Luther King School, were chosen
on the basis of their advanced progress in individualiz-
ing instruction of reading and mathematics.

The three teachers for the control classes, one
from Seely McCord and two from Martin Luther King Schools,
were chosen on the basis of the subjective judgment of
the principals and fellow unit members who considered
them to be good teachers.

An analysis of covariance of class gain scores
for the previous two years showed no significant differ-
ence in the academic growth of the Students taught by
the two groups of teachers. The results of this analysis

are shown in Table 3.1.

Treatment of Experimental Teachers

 

The three teachers in the experimental class-

rooms were given a three day inservice workshop in

55
TABLE 3.1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN TEACHERS

 

 

Source ‘ MS df F P
Experimental Time '73
and Control .0833 1 -1328 -725
Group
Time '74
.2977 1 .8548 .382
w .627733
”rr°r .348258 8

 

individualizing instruction and management of behavior
and materials. The in-service workshop was a practical,
individualized attempt to help teachers learn how to make
the transition from a group paced to an individually paced
approach to instruction.

The in-service lab was set up like a model class-
room with multi-sensory, multi-media learning centers.
The material was organized into modules called Behavioral
Skills Labs (BSLs). Each BSL hadpre- and post-tests and
multi-sensory multi-media materials.

The in-service program consisted of thirteen BSLS.
The first eight numerically listed BSLS dealt with pupil-
teacher interaction. The last five alphabetically listed
BSLS dealt with instruction.

The first eight provided learnings on pupil-teacher

interaction in the areas of punishment, reinforcement,

56
incompatible behavior, categories of reinforcement, direct
and indirect reinforcement, schedules of reinforcement,
contracts, and indirect reinforcement systems.

The next five modules provided learnings dealing
with instruction in the areas of individualizing in-
struction, pre- and post-tests, behavioral objectives,
sequencing of objectives, and Bloom's Taxonomy of cog-
nitive abilities.

Besides the individualizing instruction in the
thirteen Behavioral Skills Labs, the trainess experienced
five management systems ranging from total trainer con-
trol to total trainee control.

In the first management system the trainees ex—
perienced a totally trainer controlled lecture session
with minimal trainee participation.

The second management system consisted of small
groups moving from center to center with the movement
controlled by a timer. The trainer prepared the materials
and controlled the time; the trainess controlled the inter-
action within the group. These two management systems
covered the first five modules. A diagnostic test covering
the material of all thirteen BSLS was administered to the
participants before the end of the first day.

On the second day the trainees were grouped
according to their achievement on the diagnostic test.

Management system three was group paced; the group had

57
to stay together, work together, and move together as a
group from center to center and module to module. Move-
ment was determined by task completion and mastery of
the post-test.

Management system four was experienced during
the second half of the second day. This was individually
paced. The trainees decided which centers to use and
when to take the post-test.

Management system five was experienced in the
morning of the third day. This was a completely individ-
ualized system. The trainee decided which BSL to work
on, what centers to go to, whether to ask for direct
instruction from the trainer, and when to take the post-
test. The trainees kept individual records of their
growth while peer checkers kept the cumulative growth
charts. The trainer assigned peer checkers, gave direct
instruction when asked to, and attended to the general
welfare of the classroom while interacting with the
trainees, encouraging, praising, reinforcing, listening,
observing, and, in general, acting as a guide to the
trainees in their efforts to increase their knowledge of
the given subject matter.

After each management system, the trainer dis-
cussed the feelings of the trainees in a large group
direct instructional setting. The purpose of this dis—
cussion was to help the trainees understand the frustra-

tions of their students in similar circumstances.

58
During the second half of the third day the trainees
were introduced to the follow-up procedures and available
resources. Teachers were encouraged to use the resources
available and individualize instruction in their class-
rooms. The services of the trainer and the Teacher Re—

source Center were available to all teachers.

Treatment of Control Teachers

 

The three control classroom teachers were scheduled
to attend the three day in-service training session during
the month of April 1974. It was felt that the in-service
training at such a late date would not affect the teaching
style of the teachers enough to make a significant dif-
ference for the students involved in the study. The
teachers were not urged to make any changes for that school
year; they were asked to plan for the next school year.

The control teachers had access to the Teacher
Resource Center and to the same trainer as the experi-
mental teachers; however, since they had not had the in-
service training, they did not make much use of either
the center or the trainer. The trainer visited their
rooms at regular intervals, the teachers were content
with their performance and did not seek to change their

mode of instruction.

59

Treatment of Experimental Students

 

The experimental classrooms were set up with at
least five learning centers, with multi-sensory,multi-
media materials for reading and mathematics. The ABC

Read System and it's objectives published by the American

 

Book Company provided the structure for the reading,

while Silver Burdett Mathematics provided the structure

 

for mathematics.

Each center was designed with comfort, efficiency,
and desirability in mind. Partitions provided privacy
and storage of materials. All materials were color coded
to objectives for easy retrieval and most of the materials
were self checking. Each center was identified by a
symbol and rules for the use of the center were posted.

Initially the students had to be taught to use
the equipment and to care for it properly. Rules and
procedures for general classroom conduct and management
were set. A system was designed to take care of routine
emergencies and anticipated needs of the students.

After the classroom routines were established,
the children were arbitrarily grouped and assigned to
centers for scheduled periods of time. When the test
taking, record keeping, self-checking and orderly movement
from center to center were established, the time element
was removed and the grouping was eliminated. This grad-

ually eased the children out of the original groups and

60
other groups were formed and dissolved as the teacher saw
fit for purposes of direct instruction. Whenever the
need arose, the whole group met together to discuss a
problem for enrichment or for direct instruction at the
teacher's discretion.

The children were encouraged to make decisions
and choices. They were responsible for the upkeep of the
classroom, for keeping their own growth charts and folders
up to date, for keeping conference appointments with the
teacher, and for managing their time wisely. A few
children required either behavior or learning contracts
to help them manage themselves.

The teachers and the paraprofessionals made sure
that the materials were reusable so that when one child
completed a segment of the program, new materials would
not have to be made for other children using that segment.
Any piece of material that was not needed at the center
was taken to a review center for future use or stored
away. Cumulative growth charts were maintained 80 teachers
would know what each child was or should be doing at any
given time. As the teachers became more at ease with the
procedures, more centers were set and some Optional centers
were provided for purposes of enrichment.

The students in the experimental classrooms were
free to learn as fast as they were able to learn. They

followed sequentially through a continuum of objectives,

61
but, in order to master an objective, they could choose
from a number of options. Pre- and post-tests were used
to guide selection of learning, which was diagnostic and
prescriptive in nature. Immediate feedback was provided
by self-checking materials. The students actively

participated in making decisions about their own learning.

Treatment of Control Students

The three control classrooms were generally set
up with the desks in neat rows, with the teacher's desk
in the middle front of the room. Each child had an
assigned seat and he was expected to be in his seat.

At the beginning of the school year an ABC Read
System book and a Silver Burdett Mathematics book was
assigned to each child. The teacher taught every new
mathematics lesson to the whole class at the same time
by the use of the chalkboard and the textbook. After the
lecture session, textbook pages were assigned for the
children to complete and hand in to be checked by the
teacher or the aide. The teacher spent much of the mathe-
matics period disciplining students or trying to help
slow learners catch up with the rest. When the majority
of the students had turned in the assigned work, they
went to the next lesson. The brighter students were
assigned the enrichment pages at the end of the unit or
they were given more duplicated worksheets to do. Very

few visual aids were used to supplement the textbook.

62

In reading, the teachers had two reading groups,
each in a different bOOk. Each morning the teacher
assigned some boardwork and workbook pages or duplicated
worksheets to both groups. The teacher worked with one
group by introducing the lesson and listening to them read
or by teaching them reading skills while the other group
was doing assigned work. Then the groups were switched
and the process was repeated. Very few audio visual
material were used to supplement the textbook.

In the control classrooms, learning was group
paced. No pre- and post-tests were used systematically
to determine levels of competency. Objectives were not
specified in detail. There was no wide variety of
materials. The teacher was the primary source of knowl-
edge. No provision was made for student variables.
There was no immediate feedback and learning did not

progress continuously.

Instrumentation

 

The California Achievement Test, 1970 Edition,

 

was designed for the measurement, evaluation, and
analysis of school achievement. The standardization
of this test was accomplished in late February and
March of 1970 on a nationwide sample of approximately

203,684 students.1

 

1Ernest W. Tiegs and Willis W. Clark, Examiner's
Manual: California Achievement Tests (USA: OTB/McGraw
Hill, 19705. p. 5.

 

63

The emphasis of the California Achievement Test

 

is upon content and objectives in the basic curricular
areas of reading and mathematics. The intended measure-
ment is one of performance in these curricular areas.1
In developing the California Achievement Test,
the most important consideration was the analysis and
selection of content. This was accomplished by a thorough
review of reading and mathematics curricula and by a
study of the recommended curricular objectives and courses
of study in states representing all sections of the country.2
The test generally measures the following areas:
1. The ability to understand the meaning of the
content of material presented.
2. The performance of the student in applying
rules, facts, concepts, conventions, and principles of
problem solving in the basic curricular materials.
3. The level of performance of the student in
using the tools of reading and arithmetic in increasingly

more difficult situations.3

Level 2 of the California Achievement Test was

 

selected as the measuring instrument for the_pre- and
post-test examinations of the experimental and control

groups.

 

1Ibid., p. 7.
2Ibid., p. 5.
31bid., p. 6.

64

All students were given the Cognitive Abilities

 

Test, Nonverbal Battery. The Cognitive Abilities Test

 

was normed jointly with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills

 

(grades 3-8) and the Test of Academic Progress (grades

 

9-12). The reliability for the Cognitive Abilities Tests

 

are currently based on data from a single testing with
the first form of the test.1

The Cognitive Abilities Test has evolved from

 

the well-accepted Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test series.

 

The test provides a set of measures of the individual's
ability to use and manipulate abstract and symbolic re-
lationships. Three main types of symbols play substantial
roles in the thinking of students and adults: symbols
representing words, symbols representing quantities, and
symbols representing spatial, geometric, or figural
patterns. Three separate batteries have been developed
to test student competence in working with each of the
three types of symbols: a verbal battery, a quantitative
battery, and a non verbal battery.2

The nonverbal battery consists of three subtests:
figure analogies, figure classification, and_figure syn-
thesis. The items in this subtest involve no words or

numbers and the figural elements used in this subtest

 

1Robert L. Thorndike, and Elizabeth Hagen, Examin-

er's Manual Cognitive Abilities Test (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1971): p. 5}

21bid., pp. 3, 4.

 

65
bear little direct relationship to formal school instruc-
tion. The subtest emphasizes discovery of, and flexi-
bility in manipulating, relationships expressed in
figural symbols or patterns.

The nonverbal battery measures more nearly what
has been called "fluid intelligence;" that is, ability
not bound by normal school instruction.1

The nonverbal battery was chosen specifically to
provide an opportunity for students with good reasoning
abilities but poorly developed reading and quantitative

skills to have an equal chance.

Collection of Non-Statistical Data

The non-statistical data were collected in two
ways. First, a stratified sample of students was given
a questionnaire consisting of twenty multiple choice
test items (Appendix A), administered to small groups of
five to eight students. The questions were read to the
group and each child responded by circling his answer.
The second type of non-statistical data was collected by
an interview questionnaire consisting of twelve items
(Appendix B) administered to a random sample of the
students. .The interviews were taped and then transcribed

for analysis.

 

11bid., p. 4.

66

Collection of the Statistical Data

 

To test hypotheses concerning improvement of two
groups under different treatments, it was necessary to
have a base line measurement which was not affected by
the treatment on the subjects in each group. The pupils
of both the experimental group and the control group were

administered the California Achievement Test as a pre-

 

test in September,1974.

The pupils in the experimental group were sub-
jected to an experimental period from.November,l974,
through April,1975. The experimental group was exposed
to individualized reading and/or mathematics instruction,
while the control group was exposed to traditional reading
and/or mathematics instruction from September to April.

Students in both groups were given the California

 

Achievement Test of reading and arithmetic as the post-
test during the last two weeks of April. The results
of the post-test were subjected to an Analysis of co-
variance with the pre-test scores as the covariate and
the post-test scores as the dependent measure.

In preparing the data for analysis, computer
cards were punched for each pupil in the study, experi-
mental and control. The FINN program was employed to
compute the data on the CDC computer located on the

Michigan State University Campus.

67
The Design

 

The design of this study is the "non-randomized

control-group pre-test-—post-test design,’ as defined
by Van Dalen.l This design is utilized when the re-
searcher is unable to provide full experimental control
through randomization. In this study the researcher was
unable to achieve the rigorously controlled design that
requires the subjects to be assigned to comparison

groups at random; therefore, preassembled groups for

the experimental and control subjects had to be used.

Treatment of Data

 

The test score data which were collected were to
be used in determining pupil achievement during the time
of participation in the study. Inasmuch as the experi-
mental and control classes represented naturally pre-
assembled groups, an analysis of covariance was used to
insure the necessary adjustment for initial differences
in ability and achievement. Pre-test scores on Th2
California Achievement tests of reading and arithmetic
served as the covariate and the post-test scores were
used as the dependent measure. The univariate analysis
of covariance was used to determine if differences

existed.

 

1Deobold B. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational
Research (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1966), p. 275.

 

 

68
The univariate analysis of covariance was applied

to the following null hypotheses:

Total experimental versus total control.

. 1. There is no significant difference in reading
achievement between the experimental group and the control
group.

2. There is no significant difference in arith-
metic achievement between the experimental group and the

control group.

Sex

3. There is no significant difference in reading
achievement between the girls and the boys in the experi-
mental group and the girls and the boys in the control
group.

4. There is no significant difference in
arithmetic achievement between the girls and the boys in
the experimental group and the girls and the boys in the

control group.

Ability

Reading

5. There is no significant difference in reading
achievement between the high and low ability experimental

group and the high and low ability control group.

69
Arithmetic
6. There is no significant difference in
arithmetic achievement between the high and low
ability experimental group and the high and low ability

control group.

Affective

7. There is no appreciable difference in the
number of children exercising self-direction and inde-
pendence between the experimental group and the control
group.

The level of significance chosen for all F-ratios

in the study was set at p < .05.

Summary

This experimental study was designed to investi-
gate the reading and mathematics achievement of two groups
of students, one taught by the traditional method and the
other taught by individualizing instruction through
learning centers. Two hundred and eleven students
participated in the study; one hundred and fifteen in
reading and ninety-six in mathematics.

The techniques of measurement involved using the
California Achievement Test, and the Lorge Thorndike
Cognitive Abilities Test, Multi-level Edition, Form 1,

levels B and C of the Nonverbal Battery.

70
The data were treated statistically by methods
explained in this chapter. In Chapter IV a case study
of the change process from group paced to individual
based instruction is presented. The presentation of the
findings and analysis of data are included in Chapter V.
The conclusions and recommendations are presented in

Chapter VI.

CHAPTER IV

A CASE STUDY OF THE STAFF
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

The Staff Development Program, which is an in-
service and follow-up model funded by Title I, was first
introduced to Benton Harbor Area Schools by the Assistant
Superintendent of Instruction, Mr. Edward Parpart.

In May 1974, a team of three administrators visited
the Houston, Texas, Schools to observe the program in
operation and to participate in the three day inservice
training session. They were favorably impressed by what
they saw and experienced and recommended that the pro-
gram be adopted by the Benton Harbor Area Title One
Schools. On the basis of their recommendation, a budget
of $69,000 was approved and the materials that consti-
tuted the program were bought from Houston. These
materials included filmstrips and cassette tapes,
games, problem cards, readings, Show and tell charts,
transparencies, a movie film and script, pre- and
post-tests for each of the BSL'S (Behavioral Skills Lab),
a diagnostic test, management systems, and KIT (Keeping

In Touch) box.

71

72

In August, Dr. Robert Howell, a former teacher of
the Western Michigan University Special Education Depart-
ment, was hired as the coordinator for the program. He
had the task of hiring three teacher-trainers and lo-
cating and organizing the Staff Development Center,
which consisted of the training center and the teacher
resource center. Since neither the coordinator nor the
trainers were familiar with the program, Susan Dollar,
who was instrumental in the organization and implemen-
tation of the program in Houston, was hired for a three
day inservice program to prepare the trainers. After the
initial program to train the trainers, they spent two
weeks practicing and refining their own presentations with
each other and with volunteer college students.

There were obstacles to overcome before the pro-
gram could actually be implemented in the classroom. As
in many educational bureaucracies, the interpersonal re-
lationships between the administrators and the teachers
were strained. For example, mutual distrust, concern over
unsettled contracts, and teacher unhappiness because pro-
grams were added without teacher consultation created a
general feeling of dissatisfaction and unrest among
teachers.

To ease this dissatisfaction and because the
principal is the instructional leader in the school, it

was decided to train all the principals and the other

73

administrators first. This move ultimately helped to
ease the teacher tension.

Although the principals were initially skeptical
of the new program and did not appreciate attending a
three day inservice session, most left with positive
feelings and some were even enthusiastic about the
implications of the program for the instruction in their
buildings. Most principals were eager to have their
teachers participate in the inservice training and to have
the teacher-trainers follow-up and help the classroom
teacher evaluate her teaching techniques and procedures
and make the changes necessary to individualize instruction.

Several steps were taken to win the confidence of
the teachers. They were given the choice of participating
in the inservice training. Rumors were stopped by telling
the facts officially. The teacher-trainers tried to
accommodate the teachers' needs. Positive publicity
was encouraged.

In addition, steps were taken to ease the burden
of the classroom teachers. For example, teachers in one
building had not been allowed to use any of the office
machines such as the duplicator, 3M copier, or the
laminator. Teachers were irritated because they had to
turn their work into the office and wait up to a week
to get it back. The coordinator found that the principal's

reason for this reservation was his belief that the

74

teachers did not know how to use the equipment. An in-
service session for the teachers in the use and care of
the equipment saved face for the principal and gave the
teachers the freedom to use the machines. In another
building the teachers were reluctant to use the audio-
visual equipment for the program because they had to
check it out every morning and check it in every evening
to the principal's office where it was locked for the
night. A conference with the principal resulted in the
equipment being locked in the individual rooms each night.

As the news of these changes spread, the confi-
dence of the teachers began to grow so much that the pro-
gram came to be nicknamed "The Staff Deliverance Program."
It took a long time and considerable effort to gain the
faith and trust of most of the teachers, but it was worth
the effort.

As the credibility of the program grew, most
teachers were eager to come to the training sessions, a
few took a non-committal attitude, and only two refused
to participate. These two were retiring the following
year and did not feel the need. The majority of the
teachers attended the three day in-service sessions eagerly
and returned to their classrooms with good intentions of

making individualization work.

75

In-Service Trainipg

 

The training session consisted of three full days
of training that dealt with knowledge and skills related
to behavior management and management of instructional
materials.

The training center was located in a classroom
in the old building of the Seely McCord Elementary
school. The room was set up to simulate a classroom
environment which provided a variety of options to
meet the varied and individual needs of the students.

Seven multi-sensory, multi-media centers were
set up to organize the material and to provide for an
orderly progress of learning. The centers were: direct
instruction center, reading center, problem solving center,
games center, visual center, audio center, and show and
tell center. Each center was located in a well defined
area with an identifying symbol such as a red triangle
or a picture of an apple, a set of rules that governed
the use of the center, and materials for each of the thir-
teen BSLs arranged and stored for easy retrieval.

The content of the training sessions were organ-
ized into BSLS (Behavioral Skills Labs) or modules con-
sisting of a number of objectives on a topic suCh as
punishment or reinforcement. Each center contained
material for each of the BSLS that was appropriate for

that center. For example, if the BSL was on punishment

76

there was a game to teach the content of the BSL in the

games center, there was a film on the subject in the

visual center, there were problems on punishment to

solve at the problem solving center, and so on.

The BSLS were organized numerically and alpha-

betically.

Numbers referred to the BSLS that dealt with

the management of behavior and the letters referred to

the BSLS on instruction. The following is a list of the

thirteen BSLS:

BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL

:1 (3 1w b: a: ~q as Ln -> u: no 1--I

E

Punishment

Reinforcement

Incompatible Behaviors
Categories of Reinforcers
Direct and Indirect Reinforcers
Schedule of Reinforcement
Contracts

Indirect Reinforcement Systems
Variables of Individualization
Behavioral Objectives

Pre- and Post-tests

Sequencing skills or Objectives

Bloom's Taxonomy

Multi-sensory, multi-media materials for each of

the above BSLS was organized at each of the learning

centers. The progression of the trainees through the

learning centers was facilitated by the use of management

77
systems. Management systems are merely ways of informing
the trainees of what they are to do and where available
learning resources are found.

Between fifteen to eighteen teachers from the
Title One schools were scheduled to attend the three day
in-service session at one time. The teachers were noti-
fied of the training dates by letter. The Staff Develop-
ment personnel secured the substitutes for the teachers.
The in-service sessions maintained the regular working
hours of teachers.

As the teachers (referred to as trainees) came
in on the first day, they were greeted by their trainer,
and each one was given a manila folder with his or her
name on it. In the folder were some blank sheets of
paper for note taking, a name tag, and a management system
form (See Appendix C) on which they were to analyze the
five management systems they were about to experience.

In the first session they experienced the first
management system, which consisted of a large group lecture
session where the trainer controlled the interaction, the
materials, and the movement. The trainees made no de—
cisions, they experienced a totally trainer controlled
lecture session with minimal trainee participation.

At the end of each management system a discussion
was held to talk about the feelings of joy and frustration

that were felt during the management system, in the hope

78
of exposing the trainees to some of the joys and frus-
trations that their students might experience under similar
situations.

In the second management system the trainees were
arbitrarily grouped into small groups of four or five
people. Each group moved from center to center on a
timed schedule which was controlled by a bell-timer.

The trainer chose the material and controlled the time

and movement while the trainees controlled the interaction
within the group. These two management systems covered
the first five BSLS.

At the end of the first day a diagnostic test was
given to all the participants. The test covered the con-
tent of all thirteen BSLS. The results of this test
were used to group the trainees for the second day. Other
reasons for administering the test were to let the
trainees experience some of the tensions and frustrations
of test taking which might be experienced by their stu-
dents and to exemplify the use of a diagnostic test to
diagnose and prescribe instruction.

On the second day the trainees were grouped
according to their achievement on the diagnostic test.
Management system number three was group paced. The
groups stayed together and worked together, moving only
as a group. Movement from center to center was deter-

mined by task completion and movement from BSL to BSL

79
was determined by mastery of the post-test. At the be-
ginning of this session the trainer assigned a few
centers that were compulsory and the trainees chose to
go to any of the others. The trainer checked all post-
tests and the trainees checked the pre-tests for each
BSL. The trainer maintained a cumulative growth chart
and the trainee maintained individual growth charts
(See Appendix D).

Management system four was experienced during the
second half of the second day. Each management system
progressively freed the trainee to be more responsible
for his own learning. This management system was indi-
vidually paced. The trainee was free to work alone or
with a friend, to choose the centers he wanted, to take
the post-test when desired, and to maintain his own
growth chart. The trainee had to progress through the
BSL'S sequentially, to ask the trainer to check the post-
test, and to follow the trainers schedule for direct in-
struction.

Management system five was experienced on the
morning of the third day. This management system freed
the trainees to be responsible for their own learning to
a large extent. The trainees still continued to work
on the BSLS they had not mastered in sequence. They
could work individually or choose to work with others.

Peer-checkers, provided with guide sheets or keys to the

80

tests, were assigned to check some of the post-tests.

The trainees requested direct instruction if they felt

a need by signing up for it. The trainer decided the

time to give direct instruction. The trainee controlled
the learning resources, learning style, the amount of time
they spend at each center and on each BSL, the interaction
with the peers, when to ask for direct instruction, and
when to take the post-test. In other words, a large part
of the responsibility for his own learning was borne by
the trainee.

By exposing the trainees to a gradually sequenced
progression for making the change from a group paced to
an individual based system of instruction, it was hoped
that they would see the importance of making the changes
in their own classrooms, to release the human potential
locked up in their students, and to give them the joy of
learning, of making decisions, and of being responsible
for their own learning.

The second half of the third day was spent in dis-
cussing the follow-up procedures and getting acquainted
with KIT (Keeping In Touch). KIT is a body of printed
material organized in a box which serves as the guidance
system for change. The purpose of KIT is to provide
additional information about the important variables which
influence the teacher's achievement of an individualized

classroom.

81

The organization of the program materials in KIT
enables the teacher to move in small steps from the
current level of individualization to a more complex
and efficient level of instructional management. Thus,
the KIT represents a continuum of Skills through which
teachers progress on an individual basis.

The KIT materials cover four major strands of
variables which account for many of the differences
about how children learn and teachers teach. Each of these
variables is presented in a concept strand. They are:
learning environment, learning rate, learning style, and
learning content. Each strand includes task cards, flow
charts, problem cards, and magazine articles (See Appendix
E). Task cards are different colored cards, each color
indicating a different level of difficulty, on which there
are step-by-Step activities for the teacher to follow.
Flow charts illustrate the movement through the various
steps from the point of entry into a Specific flow chart
to the point of exit into another flow chart and serve as
progress records. Problem cards contain problems en-
countered by other teachers in various stages of indi-
vidualization and are presented as helps in solving
similar problems. Magazine articles that correlate to
the strands are provided to strengthen the theoretical
base of individualization. KIT also contains a built-in

reinforcement system of bonus passes that teachers can

82

earn when they reach certain points on the flow charts.
A bonus pass is a certificate that provide the teacher
a half-day substitute so that she can spend that time

in the Teacher Resource Center preparing materials for

her centers.

Follow-up Procedures

 

Follow-up may be defined as the interaction or
activities of the teacher-trainer with school personnel
following Staff Development training.

A severe weakness of most training and in-service
programs is insufficient or lack of follow-up. In-service
programs frequently end with the consultant leaving with
a fee and the teacher left excited with no specific plan
V to implement change. Unlike most in-service training
programs, this program has a built-in follow-up system
to support the teachers in classroom performance.

The purpose of the follow-up program is to en-
sure that teachers have the support necessary for imple-
menting change in the classroom. The framework for the
follow-up is KIT.

Each teacher was assigned to a teacher-trainer
so that she might be assisted in using KIT to individ-
ualize instruction. The teacher-trainer visited teachers
on a regular basis and was also available on call through-
out the school day. The trainer provided the following

supportive services:

83
Assist in interpreting and following KIT.
Demonstrate teaching techniques.
Assist in setting up the classroom environment.
Aid in developing teaching materials.
Help set up management schedules.

Assist in setting up contracts.

\JO‘UI-L‘UJNH

Aid in correlating instructional materials
to sequenced objectives.

8. Assist in procuring needed equipment and
materials.

9. Act as general problem solver or trouble
Shooter.

10. Act as a rewarder and reinforcer of teacher

behavior.

Teacher Resource Center

 

Individualization of instruction requires new
materials or requires the reorganization of materials
presently on hand. In the initial stages of the Staff
Development Program it became evident that teachers
were in need of resources to assist them in altering
their classroom programs and instructional strategies.

For this reason the Teacher Resource Center was developed.

The Teacher Resource Center is a vacant classroom
adjoining the training center classroom in the old build-

ing of Seely McCord Elementary school. It is set up to

84

accommodate fifteen to twenty teacher at one time. The
center is equipped with work tables, paper cutters,
laminators, a ditto machine, a 3M copier, a Thermofax
machine, and other miscellaneous equipment. The soft
ware and other sundry expendable supplies necessary to
‘make multi-sensory, multi-media, instructional materials
are provided.

The purpose of the Teacher Resource Center is
to provide the necessary support for teachers as they
progress in individualizing instruction. As teachers be-
gan initiating change in their respective classrooms,
they needed materials such as games, charts, tapes for
listening centers, and various self-checking materials
correlated to objectives. The technical help and the
materials to meet this need were provided in the Teacher
Resource Center.

The Resource Center was manned by a consultant,
a paraprofessional, and a secretary who were available
to the teachers at all times.

There were numerous ways of gaining access to the
Center. One was by earning a bonus pass; another was to
arrange with the unit lead-teachers for released time to
go to the Center. Teachers could also come after school
or during the lunch break.

A strong follow-up program by the trainer, coupled

with the assistance of the Teacher Resource Center, made

85
it possible for every teacher to individualize instruction.
Many teachers took advantage of the opportunity and made
significant amounts of change, although some individualized
in just one subject area and some individualized only
moderately. Overall, however, almost every teacher who
participated in the in-service program made some visible

changes in the classrooms.

Teacher Reactions

 

Change does not come easily. Many interested,
dedicated teachers and paraprofessionals put in many
hours of tedious work setting up and organizing the
materials into multi-media, multi-sensory learning centers,
changing learning environments to give the students more
options from.which to choose, and setting up management
and record keeping systems.

In addition to reorganizing the classrooms, it
was also necessary to retrain the students to be more
involved in their own learning. They had to be taught
to operate the equipment, move around quietly in the
classroom, complete a task before taking on another
task, keep accurate records, check their own work, and
be responsible and self-reliant. This was a slow and
gradual process that called for patient, unending
attention.

Teachers had a lot of learning and adjusting

to do themselves. They had to learn to step back and

86
let children learn, let children make decisions and mis-
takes, and forget the urge to lecture at the children.
They had to learn new skills or sharpen dormant skills,
such as questioning, conferencing, analyzing, evaluating,
and problem solving. Some of these same skills had to
be taught to children to some degree of sophistication
so that they could pursue their own learning.

Once the initial adjustments were well under way
and the stage was set for learning, the teachers felt
the joy of accomplishment and a new zest for teaching was
awakened. The following are some comments made by
teachers:

"I am so pleased with the way my children are
learning."

"I'll never be able to teach everybody the same
thing again."

"The children are so motivated to learn, they
don't even want to go our for recess any more."

"I have to work harder than ever before, but I
don't mind it because the reward of seeing children
learn happily and eagerly is worth it all."

"There is more satisfaction in teaching."

"Students have a renewed interest in academic
activities and in school in general."

"I have more time to give individual attention to

children."

87

"My fast group just took-off and covered so much
material I could hardly believe it."

"At first I was worried that the children might
be careless in their work. It was not so. As long as I
set the standard, they turned in good work.”

"A few find it difficult to make the transition,
and perhaps may never make it completely. These few need
a lot of teacher attention and I can give it to them."

"Children like what they do."

"Here it is the last day of school and these
children have not slowed down yet. To them it is as
important as the first day of school. I don't know what

it is that makes them want to work and work."

Student Reactions

 

By the same token, the children in the experi-
mental classrooms seemed happier and more relaxed than
the children in the control classes. They seemed to be
more actively involved in their own learning and seemed
to feel less threatened by tests. Test taking was part
of the normal day's activities and the children used the
test results to either find out what skills needed more
work or to see if they could advance to the next ob-
jective. Tests were more of a goal to achieve than a
threat to avoid.

The experimental classrooms provided the children

with many attractive and exciting alternatives to choose

88

from. They enabled the learner to gain knowledge and
information from multi-sensory, multi-media materials.
This made learning more enjoyable and successful, which,
in turn, produced happier learners with more positive
self-concepts.

The following are some children's comments about
the change:

"We learn by ourselves."

"I like to learn by myself."

"I can choose to work with my friends."

”I don't have to sit at the same desk all the
time."

"Other children help me learn."

"We are not bored; boardwork is so boring."

"Our teacher doesn't put any boardwork anymore."

"When you learn from a book it is not fun, but
when you learn from a machine it is fun."

"The teacher runs around too much, the tape will
stay and help you many times without fussing."

"The tape doesn't yell at me when I make mistakes."

"I like learning centers because if I can read
better I can learn faster; I don't have to wait for anybody."

"We like reading this year because we can learn
at centers."

"If I don't like to do worksheets, I can go to a

center that doesn't have worksheets."

89

"Centers are more fun than staying in one place
and doing the same thing all the time."

"I can.1earn more at learning centers."

"When the teacher puts a lot of work on the board
you may not have time to do it all. At the center you
can take your own time to do it."

"I like some of the centers and I don't like
some of them. I don't like the problem solving center,
it is too hard."

”I like the games center the best, because I can
learn by playing games."

"I like games they are fun."

"Centers are good because we have more fun."

"Centers are fun because we learn alone."

"The teacher works with me privately, I like that."

"I like taking the test by myself when I am ready."

"I like to do the test without the teacher holler-
ing at me."

"I like contracts, they help me control myself."

"I have a contract to reduce fighting and talking
too much but do more work; if I don't fight I get a
piece of candy."

"I like contracts because it helps me be good."

"I like to know exactly what I have to do."

"I like contracts because we get candy bars,
free time, we get to paint, make tapes, and even put on

puppet shows."

90

"Contracts help me to do my work better."

The largely positive reactions of both the stu-
dents and the teachers spoke well for the experimental
method. It was felt that the intrinsic affective re-
sults of the experimental program.were quite marked.

The observations of the teachers in terms of pupil
motivation, self-direction, independence, and stimulation
of learning made for a more effective teaching-learning.
Situation. Therefore, the advantages of individualizing
instruction through multi-sensory, multi-media learning

centers cannot be denied. (See photographs in Appendix F.)

CHAPTER.V
STATISTICAL FINDINGS

The results of the statistical tests on the null
hypotheses and the responses to the general questionnaire

are presented in this chapter.

Introduction

 

In studies of learning such as the present one,
interest is centered in improvement or change in per-
formance as a result of instruction. The basic idea of
research design where control and experimental groups
are used is to control extraneous differences and vary
the experimental group's treatment while the control
group's treatment is held constant. Post-test means
are computed on all groups. The greater the difference
between the means, the more the experimental treatment
can be presumed to have operated. If there is little or
no difference between means, then the presumption must
be that the experimental treatment has had little or
no effect.

A comparison of pre-test and post-test measures
was made to see if there were differences in mean scores

between the two groups. Since the basic difference

91

92

between the two groups was the treatment, it-was presumed
that differences in performance were basically due to the

experimental treatment.

Statistical Data

 

Conclusions concerning "Significant achievement
gains" were based upon the establishment and testing
of null hypotheses.

The first hypothesis tested in the present study
for differences due to treatment was:

Null Hypothesis 1. There is no significant
difference in achievement in reading as measured by Th3
California Achievement Reading Test between the experimental

group and the control group.

TABLE 4.1
ANCOVA READING EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL

 

 

Source df MS F P
Instruction 1 1004.27 10.04 .002
Error 110 99.99

 

Table 4.1 illustrates the analysis of covariance
for The California Achievement Reading Test scores, using
the pre-test scores as the covariate and the post-test
scores as the dependent measure. According to this anal-

ysis, there is a significant difference between the

93
experimental group and the control group in reading
achievement as indicated by p<< .002, far beyond p.:_.05
chosen for the study. The experimental group performed

significantly better than the control group.

TABLE 4.2
READING MEAN SCORES

—
~— .f

 

Pre-test Post-test
Source N Mean Mean Difference
Control 58 27.46 35.50 8.04
Experimental 57 23.67 37.84 14.17

 

Table 4.2, the table of means for the California

 

Achievement Reading Test scores, shows the pre-test means,
the post-test means, and the gain in reading achievement
made by each group during the experiment.

On the basis of the statistical findings, it can
be said that the experimental group benefited more from the
instruction they received in reading than the control group
and that the null hypothesis is rejected.

Null Hypothesis 2. There is no significant dif-
ference in achievement in arithmetic as measured by Th9
California Achievement Arithmetic Test between the experi-
mental group and the control group.

Table 4.3 illustrates the analysis of covariance

for The California Achievement Arithmetic Test scores,

94
TABLE 4.3
ANCOVA ARITHMETIC EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL

 

 

Source - df MS F P
Instruction 1 27.456 .4145 .52
Error 91 66.23

 

using the pre-test scores as the covariate and the post-
test scores as the dependent measure. According to this
analysis, there is no significant difference between the
experimental group and the control group in arithmetic
achievement since p< .52 is more than p < .05, the
level of significance chosen for this study. The experi-
mental group did not perform significantly better than the
control group.

Table 4.4, the table of means for the California

 

Achievement Arithmetic Test, shows the pre-test scores,
the post-test scores, and the gain in arithmetic achieve-

ment made by each group during the experiment.

TABLE 4.4
ARITHMETIC MEAN SCORES

- — 1

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-test Post-Test
Source N Means Means Difference
Control 43 35.60 42.79 7.19

Experimental 53 28.47 36.56 8.09

 

95

On the basis of the statistical findings, it can
be said that the experimental group did not benefit more
from the instruction they received in arithmetic than the
control group and that the null hypothesis cannot be re-
jected.

Null Hypothesis 3. There is no significant

 

difference in achievement in reading between the boys and
the girls in the experimental group and the boys and the

girls in the control group.

TABLE 4.5
ANCOVA READING ACCORDING TO SEX

 

 

Source df MS F P
Sex 1 590.40 5.907 .016
Error 110 99.99

 

Table 4.5 illustrates the analysis of covariance

for The California Achievement Readinngest scores for the

 

variables sex versus instruction using the pre-test scores
as the covariate and the post-test scores as the dependent
measure. According to this analysis, there is a signifi-
cant difference between the girls and the boys in reading
achievement as indicated by p.< .016, is less than p41 .05,
the chosen level‘of Significance for this study. The
girls in the experimental group did significantly better
than the boys in either group or the girls in the control

group.

'96
Table 4.6, the table of means for reading scores
for the boys and the girls for the experimental and con-
trol groups, shows the pre-test means, the post-test
means, and the gain in reading achievement made by the

groups during the experiment.

TABLE 4.6
READING MEAN SCORES FOR THE BOYS AND THE GIRLS

 

Pre-test Post-test

 

Treatment N Sex Means Means Difference
Control 25 B 30.88 34.36 3.48
Control 33 C 25.67 36.36 10.69
Experi-

mental 25 B 23.08 35.80 12.72
Experi-

mental 32 G 24.13 39.44 15.31

 

On the basis of the statistical findings it can be
said that the experimental girls benefited more from the
instruction they received than the control girls, and the
experimental boys benefited. more from the instruction they
received than the control boys. In addition, the post-test
means for the girls were higher than the postFtest means
for the boys in each of the two groups. Therefore the
null hypothesis is rejected.

Null Hypothesis 4. There is no significant dif-

 

ference in achievement in arithmetic between the girls

97

and the boys in the experimental group and the girls and

the boys in the control group.

TABLE 4.7
ANCOVA ARITHMETIC ACCORDING TO SEX

 

 

Source df MS F P
Sex 1 14.282 .2156 .64
Error 91 66.23

 

Table 4.7 illustrates the analysis of covariance

for The California Achievement Arithmetic Test scores for

 

the variables of sex versus instruction using the pre-

test scores as the covariate and the post-test scores as
the dependent measure. The F-ratio for the data was not
significant at the chosen level of p4 .05. This indicates
that sex differences were not significantly related to
achievement in arithmetic.

Table 4.8, the table of means for arithmetic
scores for the boys and girls in the experimental and
control groups, shows the pre-test means, the post-test
means, and the gains in arithmetic achievement made by
the groups during the experiment.

The control boys made greater gains in arithmetic
than the experimental boys and the experimental girls made
greater gains in arithmetic than the control girls. How-
ever, because differences were not statistically signifi-

cant the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

98

TABLE 4.8
ARITHMETIC MEAN SCORES FOR THE BOYS AND THE GIRLS

 

 

Pre-test Post-test

 

Treatment N Sex Means Means Difference
Control 19 B 35.89 44.00 8.11
Control 24 C 35.37 41.83 6.46
Experi-

mental 22 B 28.86 36.72 7.86
Experi-

mental 31 G 28.32 36.45 8.13

 

Null Hypothesis 5. There is no significant dif-

 

ference in reading achievement between the experimental
group and the control group for the high ability students
or for the low ability students.

For the purpose of this study any child who
attained an adjusted raw score of 100 or above on the
Lorge Thorndike Cognitive Abilities Test, non-verbal
battery, was considered to be of high ability. Any child
whose adjusted raw score was 99 or less was considered to
be of low ability.

Table 4.9 illustrates the analysis of covariance
for The California Achievement Reading Test scores for
the variables ability versus instruction. The pre-test
scores were used as the covariate and the post-test scores
were the dependent measures. According to this analysis

there is a significant difference between the high ability

99

TABLE 4.9
ANCOVA FOR READING, ABILITY VERSUS INSTRUCTION

 

 

Source ' df MS F P
Instruction 1 654.51 6.47 .0124
Ability 1 774.91 7.66 .0067
Inst. X Ability l 14.72 .1456 .7035
Error 110 101.098

 

experimental group and the high ability control group.
However, there seems to be no significant interaction be-
tween ability and instruction, which means that there are
some common elements between both groups and that they are
completely independent of each other.

The difference between the experimental treatment
and the control treatment is significant at the p.: .01
level which is far beyond the pic..05 level chosen for
this study, which indicates that the high ability students
in the experimental group achieved much higher scores than
the control group.

Table 4.10, the table of means for the reading
scores for the high and low ability experimental and
control groups, shows the pre-test means, the post-test
means, and the gains in reading achievement made by the

groups during the experiment.

100
TABLE 4.10
READING MEANS HIGH AND LOW ABILITY

 

 

 

 

Pre-test Post-test

Instruction N Means Means Difference
Control - High 11 30.45 40.90 10.45
Experimental -

High 18 26.94 44.44 17.50
Control - Low 47 27.31 34.23 6.92
Experimental -

Low 39 22.15 34.79 12.64

 

On the basis of the statistical findings, it can
be said that the experimental group benefited significantly
more from the instruction they received in reading than the
control group regardless of ability and the null hypothesis
must be rejected.

Null Hypothesis 6. There is no significant dif-

 

ference in arithmetic achievement between the experimental
group and the control group for the high ability Students
or for the low ability students.

Table 4.11 illustrates the analysis of covariance

for The California Achievement Arithmetic Test scores for

 

the variables ability versus instruction. The pre-test
scores were used as the covariate and the post-test scores
were the dependent measures. According to this analysis
there is no significant difference between ability and

instruction, however, there seems to be significant

101

TABLE 4.11
ANCOVA FOR ARITHMETIC ABILITY VERSUS INSTRUCTION

 

 

Source . df MS F P
Ability 1 139.83 2.37 .127
Instruction 1 24.35 .413 .5222
Ability X

Instruction 1 341.25 5.786 .0182
Error 90 58.978

 

interaction between ability and instruction, p.c_.018 which
is less than p¢: .05 level chosen for this study. Which
means that there are some common elements between both
groups and that they are not completely independent of

each other.

Table 4.12, the table of means for the arithmetic
scores for the high and low ability experimental and con-
trol groups, shows the pre-test means, the post-test means,
and the gains in arithmetic achievement made by the groups
during the experiment.

On the basis of the findings, it can be said that
the high ability experimental group benefited-more from
the instruction they received in arithmetic than the con-
trol group. The low ability control group benefited more
from the instruction they received in arithmetic than the
low ability experimental group. However, since no statis-
tical significance was found between ability and instruc-

tion the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

102
TABLE 4.12
ARITHMETIC MEANS, HIGH AND LOW ABILITY

 

Pre-test Post-test

 

Instruction N Means Means Difference
Control - High 16 37.81 43.25 5.44
Experimental -

High 12 32.50 44.75 12.25
Control - Low 27 34.29 42.51 8.22
Experimental -

Low 40 28.07 35.03 6.96

 

Hypothesis 7. There is no appreciable difference
in the number of children exercising independence and self—
direction between the experimental group and the control
group.

The reSponses to the questionnaire administered
to a stratified random sample of 84 students, 42 in the
control group and 42 in the experimental group, is tabu-
lated in the following pages, after which a table of
cumulative percentages will further summarize the re-

sponses to the questionnaire.

103
TABLE 4.13

PUPIL RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

Items

Pupil Responses

 

What happens when you:

1.

Need books or other materials?
a. Teacher passes them out?
b. Go to the shelves and get them.

Want to know what to do next and the
teacher is busy?

a. Wait until the teacher isn't busy
and ask him.

b. Take out a contract and decide
which activity to work on.

Want to know what you will be doing
in the next period?

a. Ask the teacher
b. Plan my work for the next period
Are finished with a book or material?

a. Wait until the teacher calls for
it to be passed in.

b. Return it to the shelf.

Come into the room in the morning,
at noon, or after recess?

a. Sit down and wait until the
teacher starts the class.

b. Start work.

Cont.

98%

2%

100%

0%

99%
1%

76%
24%

95%
5%

Exp.

0%
100%

2%

98%

5%
95%

2%
98%

2%
98%

 

 

l!|i.l

 

104

TABLE 4.13 Continued

 

Items

Pupil Responses

 

10.

'11.

Need help on your work?

a. Raise my hand and wait for the
teacher.

b. Find someone to help me.
See that materials have been left out?

a. Leave them until the teacher says
to put them away.

b. Put them away.
Need to discuss a question with others?
a. Ask the teacher if we can?

b. Ask several others to have a
discussion with me.

See that someone needs help?

a. Wait to see if the teacher
will help him.

b. Offer to help.

Want to use an audio, tape, record,
or other machine?

a. Ask the teacher if I can use it.
b. Use it.

Want to write a story about some
thing that happened to you?

a. Ask the teacher if I can.

b. Write it.

Cont.

98%
2%

90%
10%

86%

14%

30%
70%

100%
0%

100%
0%

Exp.

167. ‘
84%

0%
100%

12%

88%

0%
100%

20%
80%

4%
96%

 

105

TABLE 4.13 Continued

 

Items

Pupil Responses

 

12.

13.

14.

15.

Want to work with another student?
a. Ask the teacher if I can.

b. Ask the other student if he will
work with me.

Think you are ready to take the
test on math problems you have
studied?

a. Take the test when the teacher
passes it out.

b. Take the test when you are ready.

Would rather see a film strip than
read about the topic.

a. Ask the teacher if I can look
at it.

b. Look at the filmstrip.

Don't know when you are supposed
to have task finished?

a. Ask the teacher.

b. Decide when I want to finish it.

How do you decide:

16.

Where to sit when you study?

a. Sit at my desk or ask the
teacher if I can move.

b. Sit in the area where the
materials are or where I want.

Cont.

90%

10%

100%
0%

95%
5%

98%
2%

100%

0%

Exp.
15%

85%

0%
100%

0%
100%

5%
95%

4%

96%

 

106

TABLE 4.13 Continued

 

Items

Pupil Responses

 

17. If you need to continue working
on a lesson?

a. Ask the teacher.

b. Check to see if I've learned
enough to master the objectives.

18. If you are ready to take a test?
a. Ask the teacher.

b. Review the activity to see if I
can master it.

19. What objective to work on the
first thing in the morning.

a. Ask the teacher.

b. Look to see what I need most
work on.

20. If you can make a project that occurs
to you when you are reading.

a. Ask the teacher if I can.

b. Look for the materials I need
to start it.

Cont.

100%

9%

95%

5%

96%

4%

100%

0%

Exp.

14%

86%

2%

98%

0%

100%

13%

87%

 

The following table summarizes the responses to

the twenty questions in the questionnaire.

The cumulative percentages Show that there is an

appreciable difference between the number of children

showing tendencies of independence in the experimental

group and the number of children showing tendencies 0f

independence in the control group. A much larger

107

TABLE 4.14
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES OF RESPONSES

 

 

Experimental Control
Dependent 6% 91%
Independent 94% 9%

 

percentage of children in the experimental group indicated

a willingness to act independently.

Summary

The California Achievement Test of reading and
arithmetic was administered to the students in order to
determine whether or not the students in the experimental
program made significant academic gains in reading and
arithmetic. In the analysis of covariance the pre-test
scores were used as the covariate and the post-test
scores were used as the dependent measure.

A statistically significant difference in achieve-
ment gains was found for the experimental group in read-
ing. There was no significant difference in achievement
in arithmetic.

In evaluating reading achievement according to sex,
the girls had higher scores than the boys. The experi-
mental girls were higher than the experimental boys and
the control girls were higher than the control boys. The
experimental boys and girls scored higher than the control

boys and girls.

108

In evaluating arithmetic achievement according to
sex, there was no significant difference in achievement
by either the boys or the girls of either group. Both
boys and girls seem to perform equally well in arith-
metic under both treatments.

The Lorgg Thorndike Cognitive Abilities Test was

 

used to categorize the students into high and low ability.
When the analysis of covariance was applied to the test
scores of these two groups, significantly different
achievement gains were found in reading for both the ex-
perimental high ability and the low ability groups. There-
fore, we may conclude that, regardless of ability, the
students benefited from the experimental treatment.

In the analysis of covariance for arithmetic no
significant differences were found between the experimental
and the control groups for either the high or the low
ability students. However,there was significant inter-
action between ability and instruction, which means that
there are some common elements between both groups and
that they are not completely independent of each other.
Therefore we may conclude that the high ability Students
in the experimental group benefited more from the experi-
mental treatment than the high ability students in the
control group. The reverse was true for the low ability,
the low ability control group benefited Slightly more from
the control treatment than the low ability experimental

group.

109
In general we may conclude that the experimental
reading program was beneficial to all the students re-
gardless of sex or ability, that the students in both
groups performed equally well in arithmetic, and that
the experimental program was conducive to growth in in-

dependence and self-direction.

 

I 5 l III-l III. I II." I ll

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter a brief summary of the effects
of individualizing instruction through a multi-sensory,
multi-media learning centers approach will be pre-
sented, together with the outcomes and conclusions that
were arrived at by an objective analysis of the data
collected. The implications of the study and recom-

mendations for future studies are also made.

Summary of the Design

 

This study examined the effects of individual-
izing instruction by the use of multi-sensory, multi-
media learning centers on fifth and sixth grade inner-
city students at Seely McCord and Martin Luther King
Elementary Schools in Benton Harbor, Michigan.

The study consisted of three experimental classes
and three control classes containing two hundred and
eleven students. The control classes were conducted in
the traditional manner of large group paced and teacher
controlled instruction. The experimental classrooms
were set up in multi-sensory, multi-media learning centers

110

 

I . l‘ I II 1 ll:..lllvx III‘ III“ I: II. III 1

 

111
with instruction individually diagnosed and prescribed
according to the needs of each child. Children had a
variety of alternative materials and methods to choose
from and an attempt was made to let each child learn in
his own style and at his own rate.

The purpose of the Study was to determine some of
the affective and cognitive outcomes of individualizing
instruction through a multi-media, multi-sensory learning
centers approach. It was designed specifically to answer
the following questions:

1. Will students who receive individualized
instruction in reading and arithmetic have higher test
scores on the California Achievement Test than those whose
instruction was not individualized?

2. Will there be differences in achievement
gains in reading and arithmetic between boys and girls
in the two treatment groups?

3. Will students with high cognitive ability in
the experimental treatment have higher test scores than
those in the control treatment group?

4. Will students with low cognitive ability in
the experimental group have higher test scores than those
in the control group?

5. Will students who receive individualized
instruction be more self-directed and independent than
those students who do not receive individualized in-

struction?

. .l.glI

 

8 l‘ N." ll. ii I i .4 I'll-Ill .III III In.

112

Tests, a questionnaire, and an interview were
employed to find the answers to the above questions.
The subjects were pre-tested in reading and arithmetic
by the California Achievement Test in September and
post-tested by the same test in April. The nggg
Thorndike Cognitive Abilities Test was administered in
May. A stratified random sample of the students received
a questionnaire and a random sample of the Students was
interviewed.

The California Achievement Test scores for the

 

pre and post-tests were subjected to an analysis of
covariance to compare scholastic achievement of the two
groups. The Cognitive Abilities Test scores were used

to categorize the students into high and low ability
groups. The interview and the questionnaire.were used to

determine other effects of the treatment.

Statistical Findingg

 

The achievement test results were treated with an
analysis of covariance with the pre-test scores used as
the covariate and the post-test scores used as the de-
pendent measure. 1

The achievement scores in reading for the ex-
perimental group were significantly higher than the achieve-
ment scores in reading for the control group. There were
no significant differences in achievement in arithmetic

between the groups; both groups performed equally well.

113

In evaluating reading achievement according to
sex, the girls were superior to the boys in both groups;
however, the girls in the experimental group were superior
to the girls in the control group and the boys in the
experimental group were superior to the boys in the
control group.

In arithmetic there was no significant difference
in achievement by either the boys or the girls of either
the control or the experimental groups. Both boys and
girls seem to perform equally well under both treatments.

Significantly higher achievement gains were found
in reading for both the experimental high ability and the
experimental low ability groups; therefore, we can say
that both the high and the low ability students in the
experimental group seem to have benefited from the treat-
ment. In the analysis of covariance for arithmetic no
significant differences were found for either the high or
low ability groups of the two treatments; however there
was significant interaction between ability and in-
struction. Therefore we conclude that the high ability
students benefited slightly more from the experimental
treatment and that the low ability students benefited
Slightly more from the control treatment.

In general we conclude that the experimental
reading program was beneficial to all the students re-

gardless of sex or ability, and that the students in

114
both treatment groups performed equally well in arithmetic.
The experimental program was conducive to promoting in-

dependence and self-direction in students.

Non-Statistical Findings

 

The non-statistical data were collected in two
ways. A stratified random sample of the students was
given a questionnaire consisting of 20 multiple choice
test items, and a random sample of the students was
interviewed. The interviews were taped and later tran-
scribed for analysis.

By the use of the above mentioned instruments and
periodic visits to the classrooms it was found that stu-
dent reactions to individualized instruction was highly
favorable. The students seemed to have gained self-
.respect and a sense of security and confidence. These
were especially evident in the slower learners. Indi-
vidualized instruction permitted self-pacing and better
met the demands of individual differences among students.
Closer pupil teacher interaction was also reported by
teachers.

The attitudes of the experimental students toward
school and learning were positive; children freely ex-
pressed their enjoyment of school by their words and
actions. Many students did not want to stop long enough

to take a recess. Even on the last day of school, the

115
children in the experimental rooms were working as hard

as if it were the first day of school.

Interpretation of Results

 

The results of this study suggest several impli-
cations. The raw score data show that, although all the
children benefited from the experimental treatment in
reading, the more able students seem to benefit more
from both the reading and the arithmetic.

In the normal, traditional classroom, especially
in the inner-city, teachers are often concerned more with
teaching the majority of the learners who tend to be
shxn the more able child is neglected and consequently
bored. When the more able child is given structure and
materials and released from the bonds of the group, he
can learn as fast and as far as he is able.

There was increased evidence of intrinsic moti-
vation in both the cognitive and affective domains. The
students were relaxed, task oriented, and displayed
pleasure in learning. Decision making, organizing their
own learning activities, acquiring skills of independent
inquiry, and the sheer of joy of learning were markedly
noticeable. These humanizing variables may have a dynamic
function in a relevant experiential learning process;
therefore,a program that fosters such qualities as these

is of great value to education.

116

The low ability control students benefited slightly
more from the control treatment in arithmetic than the
experimental low ability students did from their treatment.
This may be due to many factors, such as the nature of
the subject, the needs of the slow learners, or general
exposure to wider areas of the subject matter. In order
to arrive at more conclusive understanding of the impli-
cations the duration of the treatment must be continued
over a longer period.

Instructional materials played an important role
in the experimental treatment. The lack of high quality
multi-sensory, multi-media material specially designed
for independent use was keenly felt. Commercial
materials tended to deal excessively with low level
cognitive development. Much of the teachers' time was
Spent in preparing material to meet the needs of the

students.

As in any other program, much of the success of
this program depended upon the competence, enthusiasm,
and initiative of the individual teacher. Organization
and materials alone will not counteract poor teachers.
However, when teachers are provided with effective in-
service training and when that training results in in-
creased competence in providing for individual pupil
differences, the combination of factors can lead to

improved performance

117
teacher training by a competent trainer was invaluable to

the success of the program.

Implications for Future Research

 

The findings of this study point to the need for
replicating it. Since statistically significant dif-
ferences were identified in this particular situation,
further investigation could determine whether these
differences would be found in other situations. Does
individualized instruction through multi-sensory, multi-
media learning centers have a favorable effect on the
reading achievement and self-directing activities of
other inner-city children? Additional research might
answer this question.

It is also recommended that this study be repli-
cated with other than inner-city children. would this
experimental approach lead to greater reading achievement
for such children? Additional research might answer this
question.

Although the experimental treatment made statis-
tically significant differences in the experimental group,
we do not know yet what variables within the treatment
made the differences. It may be that the tota1,unified,
multi-faceted, multi-dimensional treatment accounted for
the differences or it may be that certain variables within

the treatment made the differences. Is there a finite

118
number of factors within the total experimental approach
which accounts .for the differences? Additional research
might answer this question.

Since this study did not investigate the
characteristics of the teacher in the process of indi-
vidualization, it is recommended that an investigation
be carried out to discover the teacher characteristics
vital to individualization. Are there certain character-
istics of teachers which are essential for successful
individualizing? Additional research might answer this
question.

Much research needs to be conducted to determine
the outcomes of individualized instruction. At present,
the shortage of valid instruments for measuring affective
learning limits the conclusions which can be drawn. Until
adequate assessment means are available, one can only say
that individualized instruction, properly implemented and
executed, holds its own in academic achievement and prom-
ises more in the development of personal characteristics,

such as self-direction, self-respect and responsibility.

Implications for Implementation
in Schools

 

 

Since the Staff Development Program may sound
complicated and expensive, educators who may wish to adopt
it could be discouraged from trying. However, large sums

of money are not needed for implementation. Teachers or

119
school districts may contact the Benton Harbor Area Schools
for necessary information or they can obtain information
about it from the literature in the field.

Most of the materials used in the program were
developed by teachers from everyday school supplies; other
materials were donated by area business people. Empty
ten-gallon ice cream cartons, discarded bricks, boards,
large card board boxes, and carpet samples were some of
the donated materials. The only equipment purchased was
a cassette player, a listening station (a set of eight
earphones on a rack), and an individual film strip viewer
for each teacher. No expensive or extravagent equipment
was involved. Committed, creative, and energetic teachers
can individualize instruction by using the available re-
sources in the school and community at a minimum expend-

iture.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE

What happens when you:

1.

10.

Need books or other materials?
A. Teacher passes them out.
B. Go to the shelves and get them.

Want to know what to do next and the teacher is busy?
A. Wait until the teacher isn't busy and ask him.
B. Take out a contract and decide which activity

to work on.

Want to know what you will be doing in the next period?
A. Ask the teacher.
B. Plan my work for the next period.

Are finished with a book or material?

A. Wait until the teacher calls for it to be
passed in.

B. Return it to the shelf.

Come into the room in the morning, at noon, or

after recess?

A. Sit down and wait until the teacher starts
the class.

B. Start work.

Need help on your work?
A. Raise my hand and wait for the teacher.
B. Find someone to help me.

See that materials have been left out?

A. Leave them until the teacher says to put
them away.

B. Put them away.

Need to discuss a question with others?
A. Ask the teacher if we can?
B. Ask several others to have a discussion with me.

See that someone needs help?
A. Wait to see if the teacher will help him.
B. Offer to help.

Want to use an audio, tape, record, or other machine?

A. Ask the teacher if I can use it.
B. Use it.

122

 

I II I III. III! II .II .. .

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

123

Want to write a story about some thing that happened
to you?

A. Ask the teacher if I can.

B. Write it.

Want to work with another student?
A. Ask the teacher if I can.
B. Ask the other stude-t if he will work with me.

Think you are ready to take the test on math problems
you have studied?

A. Take the test when the teacher passes it out.

B. Take the test when you are ready.

Would rather see a film strip than read about the

t0pic.
A. Ask the teacher if I can look at it.
B. Look at the filmstrip. ’

Don't know when you are supposed to have task finished?
A. Ask the teacher.
B. Decide when I want to finish it.

How do you decide:

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Where to sit when you study?

A. Sit at my desk or ask the teacher if I can move.

B. Sit in the area where the materials are or where
I want.

If you need to continue working on a lesson?

A. Ask the teacher.

B. Check to see if I've learned enough to master
the objectives.

If you are ready to take a test?
A. Ask the teacher.
B. Review the activity to see if I can master it.

What objective to work on the first thing in the
morning.

A. Ask the teacher.

B. Look to see what I need most work on.

If you can make a project that occurs to you when
you are reading.

A. Ask the teacher if I can.

B. Look for the materials I need to start it.

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

koooxloxuwb

10.
11.
12.

13.
14.

15.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
What is different about the things you are doing in
reading (arithmetic) class this year?
Why do you like learning at centers?
Do you like all the centers the same amount or do
you have some centers that you like better than
others?
How do you know which center to go to?
Do you like to have your own folder?
Why do you have contracts?
Why do you like making contracts with the teacher?
When you are done with your work, what do you do?
How do you know when to go to the next objective?
Do you like taking tests?

Who checks the test?

You don't have a desk of your own so how do you know
where to sit when you come to class?

Do you always get to work with your friends?

Which is the thing you like most about school this
year?

If there was one thing that you could change what
would it be?

125

APPENDIX C
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

 

III! I. .‘l‘ll .‘I II | I .II II- 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

F NLYMDVLM.

 

 

.200 Enigma. ozamwa grooms 355:: mmaoommom 9:808
so szooza. . sz§m>oa

m2mhm>m th2m0<z<E

 

 

 

'llllll!«lllllli Ill!

APPENDIX D
GROWTH CHARTS, CUMULATIVE AND INDIVIDUAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QQOUHM mmflflOOflm BZHBZOU

r c m w n . N a an;
.qmm Ame. Amman—Amman AmmF
<2 doombm

 

129

five/M flaw/xi} mm;

NAME

 

 

BEHAVIOR SKILLS LABS

Pm
Test

Tes

 

1

Punishment

 

Reinforcement

 

Incompatible Behaviors

 

Categories of Reinforcers

 

Direct 8: Indirect Reinforcers

 

Schedules of Reinforcement

 

Contracts

 

QQGU'IfiwN

Indirect Reinforcement Systems

 

Variables in Individualization

 

Behavioral Objectives

 

Pre and Post Tests

 

Sequencing Skills or Objectives

 

 

BJUOU3>

Bloom' 8 Taxonomy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

 

' 5 I‘ll- IIIII I I

APPENDIX E
TASK CARD, FLOW CHARTS , AND. STRAND CARD

I I .I II. I I‘ ll 1 [I In 015 5 III. ..

“To

(Q...

TASK CAAD
\5 CNN ....N - 0"“: .S AD PACC SEES". :0: A CHILD IS :8 "ARM
TASK CAPD .JCAL.

AFTER CDvPLETDN THIS TASK CARD.

I WILL IDENTIFY AMT SKILL (S) ARE COTNAENED 0:: DIFFERENT PAGES IN THE
{LXIBOUK

1:: 80:: 8:0 :8: TN: PTASTS AD: TDD/11.11288 W CNNEN:

 

\‘1..."w v- Or. I-- Hw- ‘ 1 , Oh ‘ I'Pq
ST-r l - GzT .AP; P0«.FDL10 C - 1. L13TSN :0 THE .APE.

 

r‘ 1 ‘A-wr'. a r—p-v- ATP-n H-s'v 0. v" “" ° .; t "T 5"“ Q
5 " i ‘01:} 2 ' SELL: A duos-cc: PRCA MAT YOU r/OULD UM: TO IT‘IUIVIUUALIZE
CILP 3 : LCOK A: THE PACE (S) IN THE TEXTBOCK THAT V00 HAVE SCHEDULED

Ch ‘T’OUR LESSC N PLAN FOR NE) {1' WEEK.

STEP ii - LOOK IN "(OUR TEAO-éER'S 8010:: AND TABLE OF CONTENTS :0 SEE WHAT
SRTLLS ARE TAUGHT 0.N HESE PAGES.

8 EP S - FOR SAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES IN NHICH THE SKILLS ARE IDENTIFIED
A3 BEHAVTDRS. SEE SHow AND TELL C - 1.

STEP 6 - IF YOU NDDLD LIKE PRACTICE 1N IDENTIFYING SKILLS. 00 ACTIVITY
SHEET C - 1.

TO 08:88:88 18:: L 0': . .L 88:58:88 :8: 60:11. OFTHIS TASt CAPD:

V'fCU 1H": HISH TO SELECT FRET-1 THE FOLLOWING FINPOli-TTS AND BEGIN CCUNTING. . .

132

 

' THE MMBER OF CORRECT STUDENT RESPONSES ON ACTIVITIES 0R TESTS
* THE NWBER 0F TIMES I TELL CHILDREN WICH SKILL THEY ARE LEARNING
Yw MY WISH TO HAVE THE STUDENTS COJNT...

’ THE NUNBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ON ACTIVITIES 0R TESTS

KNCN HA: I DISCOIEPED?
SITE PAGES TEACH NOPE THAI: 011E SKILL I

STEP 8 - INCLUDE THE SKILLS THAT YOU wILL BE TEACHING IN YOUR LESSON
PLAN BOOK.

 

STEP 9 - 11111511 YOU TEACH THE PAGES. LET THE CHILDREN KNON WHAT SKILL
THEY ARE LEARNING

IF YOU IDULD LITE TO TATE A

ER
LmK

 

133

LE-S

134

FOLLOW THE FLOW CHART. MARK OFF EACH BOX AS YOU COMPLETE THE SUGGESTED ACTIVITY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
      
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
nun 00: AT
"AD LB-S
TASK cm ._. —.> my yawn
m“ t “'5 races 5!
LEARNING
usouaczs.
O
mm HIV
sures
um To run m
so To us: run
um (mm
m Class-m
tucms:
SIT UP
YES
LIST”
Y m
C] 1.2-s»
LISTEN
To
U LIZ-SI
Io

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  
     
   

  

TIMES THEY
ME PLEASE
A80 DXSPLEASID

(Lt-M

 

 
   
     
 

TIMES THEY USE
EACH
SCHML CERT“

 

 

CORRECT IBM!“
Of “T!!!

WAN!) CART:

LEARNING 18 NE

 
 
 

  
 
   

IEFINITION. . .

 

 

THE WAY IN WICH A CHILD LEARNS

SELECT TIE PICTURE THAT BEST DEPICTS TIE WAY CHILDREN USE MTERIALS
IN YOJR CIASSRIII‘L AND BEGIN WITH THE CORRESPINJIMI TASK 0RD.

l, .
MOIILDRENUSE... INOTEORI‘DREOINTENIAREAS

2 BEGIN WITH TASK CARD 1

AS ENRICH‘ENT 03.th CONJINCTION

WITH
' BEGIN mm TASK CARD 2

 

“- mt. see-.5. 5 .
o‘empuses” amwmm d3 42 moreonmnecomemm
T“ 2 ' 5' ‘5‘ 3 ”In” 'BEGIN WITH TASK CARD 4

5' -'Q E? 3;! Is
EACH CHILD uses.. -Hflfldflddufl

E
I
1..., ‘2'1 2 '2

 

 

INOINEORI’ERECCNIENTWS

 

 

,w’ 3‘“

Q'a,"A ‘

' T ' ; O
,1
‘ .

  
   

CHILDREN MY CHIDSE DIFFEREI‘IT MTERIMS

Oll[(“lllll ‘III III ‘ I II I I l .I I ‘T i ll! Tl II.

APPENDIX F
PHOTOGRAPHS

I. I II I ll ' II I- I III ll.l' II I. III I ll .1 T

TEACHER RESOURCE CENTER

 

TEACHERS DEVELOPING INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIALS FOR THEIR ROOMS

I I I l l l i. l I l l l l I. .I .II I T I ll ‘ TI..VI ITII I I

IN—SERVICE TRAINING

 

LARGE GROUP SESSION

 

 

PROBLEM’SOLVING CENTER
138

 

EXPERIMENTAL CLASSROOM

139

SEGMENTS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL CLASSROOM

 

 

TEACHER HELPING AN INDIVIDUAL CHILD

140

 

I a‘ I .II

 

MANIPULATIVE GAMES CENTER

 

PROBLEM SOLVING CENTER

141

 

CHILDREN WORKING INDEPENDENTLY
AT A LISTENING CENTER

142

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bechtol, William. Individualizing Instruction and Keeping
Your Sanity. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company,
1973.

 

 

Bishop, Loyd K. Individualizing Educational Systems. New
York: Harper and Row PublisEers, I971.

 

Duane, James E. Individualized Instruction: Proggams and
Materials. New Jersey: Educational TecEnoIogy
Publication, 1973.

 

Dunn, Rita, and Dunn, Kenneth. Practical Approaches to
Individualizing Instruction. New York: Parker
Publishing Company, Inc., 1972.

 

 

Eckstrom, Ruth B. Experimental Studies of Homogeneous
Grouping: A Review of the Literature. Princeton,
New Jersey, 1959.

 

Esbensen, Thorwald. Working With Individualized Instruction.
Palo Alto, California: Pearon Publishers, 1972.

Fitzsimmons, John R. Individualizing Instruction for
Individualized Learning. New York: Bess House,
Hofstra University, 1972.

 

 

Gibbons, Maurice. Individualizing Instruction. New York:
Tdachers College Press, 1971.

 

Individualization in Schools. A publication of the National
School Public Relations Association, 1971.

 

Kaplan, Sandra, Kaplan, Nina, Madsen, Jo Ann 3., and
Taylor, Betty K. Change for Children: Ideas and
Activities for Individualized Learning. California:
Goodyear PubliEhing Company Ific., 1973.

 

 

Lembo, John M. Learning and Teaching in Today's Schools.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E.*Merrill Publishing
Company, 1972.

 

Mohan, Madan and Hull, Ronald E. Individualizing Instruction
and Learning. Chicago: Nelson Hall Company, 1974.

 

 

144

145

Moulds, Catherine. Chips Fell in the Valley. Berrien
Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press,
1963.

 

Mussen, P. H. ‘Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology.
Palo Alto, California: Annual Review, 1972.

 

Perrone, Vito. Open Education: Promise and Problems.
Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Edu-
cational Foundation, 1972.

 

Ripple, Richard and Rockcastle, Verne. Piaget Rediscovered.
New Ybrk: Cornell University, 1964.

 

Rogers, Carl R. Freedom To Learn. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969.

 

Shiman, David A.; Culver, Carmen M.; and Lieberman, Ann.
Teachers on Individualization: The Way to Do It.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974.

Smith, Lee L. Jack Out of the Box. West Nyack, New York:
Parker Publishing Company, 1974. ‘

 

Stahl, Dona Kofod and Anzalone, Patricia Murphy. Indi-
vidualized Teachingin Elementary Schools. West
Nyack, New York: Parker Publishing Company, 1970.

 

Talbert, Gene E. and Fra e, Larry E. Individualized
Instruction. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill
Publishing Company, 1972.

 

 

Terman, Lewis A. The Measurement of Intelligence. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1916.

 

The Project on the Instructional Program of the Public
Schools, National Education Association. TEE
Principals Look at the Schools. Washington, D.C.:
The AssociatiOn, I962.

 

Thomas, George and Crescimbeni, Joseph. Individualizing
Instruction in the Elementary School. New York:
Random HOuse Publishing Company, 1967.

 

Thorndike, Robert L. and Hagen, Elizabeth. Examiner's
Manual Cognitive Abilities Test. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971.

 

 

Tiegs, Ernest W. and Clark, Willis W. Examiner's Manual:
California Achievement Tests. USA: CTB7Mc-Graw
Hill Publishing Company, 1970.

146

Van Dalen, Deobold B. Understanding Educational Research.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966.

White, Ellen G. Education. Mountain View, California:
Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1903.

 

Articles

 

Blake, Howard E. and McPherson, Ann. ”Individualized
Instruction: Where are We." Educational
Technology, December 1969.

 

Combs, Arthur. ”Fostering Self-Direction." Educational
Leadership. February 1966.

 

Jackson, Phillip. "Trends Toward Individualization,"
Instructor, January 1975. .

 

Martin, Lyn S. and Pavan, Barbara N. "Current Research
on Open Space, Nongrading, Verticle Grouping and
Team Teaching." Phi Delta Kappan, January 1976.

Riegle, Jack D. "Open Concept Education: A Human Enter-
prise." NASSP Bulletin, January 1973.

Yanda, R. M. and Kagan, J. "The Effects of Teacher Tempo
on the Child." Child Development, 1968.

"IIIIIIT‘IIIINIT