Since the early seventies, many leaders in second-language education, as well as in education in general, have been promoting individualized instruction as the solution to current problems in education. The major professional journals have contained a steady stream of articles highly supportive of this approach, and administrators have encouraged teachers to experiment with and to establish individualized programs.
What are some of the reactions on the part of both teachers and students to individualized instruction? Some teachers wax eloquent and enthusiastic, recounting how the new approach has revitalized their teaching. This is the type of teacher who appears at local, state, and national meetings. Teachers who have negative reactions or who have had unsuccessful experiences with individualized instruction have not made their feelings and opinions so widely known. Student reaction parallels that of the teachers. Some are fired up; others are turned off. In this sense, the early years of individualized instruction are similar to the initiation phases of most other movements. The appearance of negative reactions follows a few years behind the initial promotion.
At the present time, even the most avid proponents of individualized instruction are cautious. Griffin (1974) candidly admits his surprise at the "unbridled hostility" toward individualized instruction of teachers taking his graduate class of applied linguistics. He summarizes their negative reactions to concepts of individualized instruction as follows:
Proponents of individualized instruction were unfair in making the following statements:
1. "Individualized instruction is a new and improved approach." In the teachers' opinions, good teachers have always responded with concern and extra help for the individual in each of their classes.
2. "Teaching to the middle of the class is wrong." The teachers' response is that the teacher should teach to the middle of the group while at the same time providing for extra help for the slower students and extra credit work for the faster students. They say that most of the students can follow a middle-of-the-road pace. Provision should be made for those students who cannot.
3. "The total stress in the classroom should be placed upon the individual." The teachers' reaction is that both the individual and the social aspects of second-language learning should be emphasized in the classroom. In other words, although the individual should not be ignored, neither should the social interaction among and between students and students and teachers.
4. "Mediocrity and failure should be eliminated from the classroom." The teachers' position is that failure is a part of life and should be recognized as such. Too, they point out that failure can have beneficial effects upon the individual.
Proponents of individualized instruction were unrealistic in making the following proposals:
1. "Teachers should prepare behavioral objectives for every learning activity in the classroom." The teachers' reaction was that the implementation of such a requirement would take too long to be practical.
2. "Teachers should prepare individual learning programs corresponding to the interests and goals of each student." The teachers said that attempting to implement this goal would involve an enormous amount of repetitive effort on the part of the teacher. Implementing individual learning programs that foster learning in isolation would also seriously impair the needed communicative exchanges in the second-language classroom.
3. "Learning should be student-centered, permitting the students to decide upon their own goals and learning procedures as well as to evaluate their own progress and achievement." As highly desirable as such a situation might be, the teachers described the students in their own schools as lacking "the maturity, ambition, and willpower to embark on such a self-propelled project."
4. "Anyone can individualize." The teachers replied that new programs require (a) appropriate physical facilities, (b) flexible scheduling, (c) additional personnel, and (d) extra funds. All or some of these may be unavailable to the teacher.
5. "The teacher's role is to act as a 'resource person' or a 'learning facilitator.'" The teachers replied that all the outstanding teachers in their own backgrounds had been warm, humane individuals as well as superb organizers of classroom activities. They felt that teachers should be able both to relate to individuals and to manage group situations.
Overall, these teachers considered that individualized instruction was inappropriate for the average teacher in the average school district. They were also afraid that such a do-it-yourself climate might lead to a state of confusion, disorganization, and later to discipline problems. On the other hand, the teachers agreed that it was a good idea to provide for individual differences among students.
Following are additional criticisms of individualized instruction not mentioned in Griffin's summary. (It must be recognized that many of these criticisms are refuted by proponents of individualized instruction.)
1. LAPs are satisfactory for drill and reinforcement, but not for the presentation of concepts. It should be recognized that LAPs do not constitute a total program of instruction, although they have been used in this manner. Too, the preparation of a LAP for every topic is impossible (Krulik, 1974).
2. Serving as a "resource person" may not be acceptable to a "center stage" teacher (Miller & Gonyar, 1974). 1
3. Using LAPs as a means of instituting an accountability program may cause concern among teachers (Miller & Gonyar, 1974). 2
4. Grading and the granting of credit present new and difficult problems to
’A "center stage" teacher is one who insists upon being the center of all classroom activity. 2 Accountability means that the teacher is held responsible for student achievement of objectives stated at the beginning of instruction.
solve for teachers, students, parents, and schools long accustomed to the traditional procedures (Miller & Conyar, 1974).
5. Individualized instruction is almost impossible to implement without a resource center (Miller & Conyar, 1974).
6. Individualized instruction supposes that the students have the ability to make wise decisions. There is some evidence to indicate that students choose grading systems rather than learning processes (Baker, Bakshis, & Tolone, 1974).
7. If, as the proponents suggest, the students choose their own goals and activities, their choices may merely correspond to present strengths and continue to overlook weaknesses. (Baker, Bakshis, & Tolone, 1974).
8. In individualized programs many students do not become a part of the learning process just as many do not in a traditional class. These uninspired students need more help and more direction. Giving them the responsibility for structuring what they are to do makes them uncomfortable (Walters & Sieben, 1974).
9. Teachers do not have the time to prepare the LAPs. Too, the preparation of good LAPs is no easy task even if the teacher has the necessary time (Groff, 1975).
10. Although individualized instruction has been characterized by a preponderance of A's and B's, there has also been an increase in the number of withdrawals, an increase in the tendency toward procrastination, and a trend toward low scores on comprehensive examinations (Newman et al., 1974).
11. Much of the organization of programmed materials and individualized programs implies that second-language learning is a linear process. This assumption may not necessarily be a valid one.