The Rise and Decline of Individualized Instruction.

What is the status of individual ized instruction? Has interest peaked and is it now declining? Will interest surge again in the late 80s? In order to gauge the state of practice in individualized instruction, I scanned commercial advertisements in an educa tion magazine, examined entries on the topic in Education Index and ERIC, polled experts in the field, and surveyed teachers regarding their familiarity with and use of individualization. A spot check of advertisements in In structor showed that interest peaked in September and October 1973 with II ads in each month. Commercial compa nies in the education field were trying to sell individualized products in media, spelling, activity books, reading, rec ords and cassettes, furniture, handwrit ing, geography, mathematics, linguistic phonic kits, reading centers, library kits, and the like. Interestingly enough, five years later some of the same products were still being advertised although the term “in dividualized” was no longer used. One ad states, “In 1969 educators could choose from dozens of individualized basic skills programs. In 1979 one out standing program remains ” Only one ad was found in each of the March 1978, 1979, and 1980 issues of Instruc tor. While this survey is hardly statisti cally significant, it is a sensitive barom eter of the education climate. No com pany selling educational materials will stay in business if it ignores what is going on in schools. On this basis the term “individualized” is nearly extinct in educational advertising. 1 also examined the listings on indiDaylon Rothrack is Head, Education De partment. McPherson College. McPherson. Kansas vidualized instruction. Individually Guided Education, and individualized math and science in Education Index. The number of entries on these topics for the years 1910 through 1981 is shown in Figure I. Several observations regarding this data are relevant. First, increases in later years are related to the tremendous increase in publications on ail topics during these years. Second, the reader should note that volumes of Education Index cover three-year periods from 1910 to 1953 and two-year periods from 1953 to 1981. Students of the topic are well aware of the movement in the late 1920s led by Parker, Packhurst, Washburne, and others. The concepts are not dead; published research indicates strong interest, although Education Index entries dropped from a high of 134 in 1977-l979to 108 in 1979-1981. ERIC listings indicate that the indi vidualized instruction movement peaked in the mid 70s (Figure 2). You simply weren’t with it then as a teacher, a writer for government projects, or a professor of education if you didn’t speak the I.I. language It should be noted, though, that research is pub lished several years after it is done. A surge of ERIC listings during any year might actually indicate earlier interest I next polled 30 authorities on indi vidualized instruction who had adminis tered programs, done research, written or lectured on the topic, or who were known in the field Approximately 50 percent responded to my questions: Had it all been for naught 0 Was individuali zation the impossible dream of the 60s? Had there been spinoff from the move ment? (Figure 3. p. 530) The experts agreed that computerassisted instruction and the student con tract have had little positive influence Only homogeneous grouping, nongraded elementary schools, and individ ualized reading have had much impact. It should be noted that John Goodlad. a”nong others, objected to including homogeneous grouping because he be lieves it works exactly opposite to indi vidualizing. Authorities believed that most other individualized approaches were not widely used, with the exceptions of learning centers and games and boxed laboratory materials. These materials and activities permit students to work at their own pace, whether or not they se lect the actual project. Comments by these experts were re vealing. For example, in response to the question, “Why does individualized instruction seem to be in difficulty and perhaps on the decline’1 “, several wrote that to individualize from a humanizing approach is too demanding, too costly, too difficult (Harriet Talmage, Wayne Otto. John Goodlad) John Thomas noted that “we do not always attract committed and capable enough teachers who can successfully individualize, nor do their administrators adequately sup port them.” Vincent Rogers thought the movement was poorly conceptualized: “We moved too quickly without offer ing the necessary staff development for teachers, preparation for students in areas of self-discipline, self-direction. .” Others indicated that teachers did not fully understand what they were doing. Or, as Samuel Postlethwait, an early leader in the individualized laboratory at the college level said. “In the U.S. we have developed a long history of how learning occurs in the master teacher tradition and this will not be overcome very quickly just because the new learn ing system is ‘right.’ ”