The criticisms presented in the preceding section of this chapter stem from reactions to individualized instruction. What do theorists have to say about the basic tenets of this widely discussed and implemented movement in education? Reviewing the data that has been collected regarding individualized instruction, Travers (1975, p. 3) sums up his general conclusions saying, "The results are disappointing, perhaps because the whole problem of individualizing instruction is much more complicated than naive enthusiasts believe it to be."
This comment leads to the first weakness of the movement as a whole—
the insufficient information available to educators regarding the immense complexity of individuality. In what specific ways are individuals different from each other? Once this problem has been sufficiently explored and empirical answers found, the question of how best to gear instruction specifically to these differences still remains. Neither question can be answered satisfactorily at the present time. Recent studies have made great strides in delineating various ways in which students are unique, and the ongoing research on aptitude-treatment interactions is beginning to uncover preliminary information as to the types of learning situations that seem most propitious for the vast number of individual differences in the cognitive and affective-social domains. (See chapter 4, "Research," page 91.) However, until that time when research is able to specify a more complete and total description of how learners are different and how best to handle these differences, efforts to deal with individualization of instruction can only be viewed as initial steps in the direction of a totally individualized program. On the other hand, the concept of individualization may be a self-destructing one as far as education is concerned. Suppose the investigations lead to the conclusion that each student is indeed completely different and must be given a unique, specially prepared teaching-learning program. Just how far are educators prepared to go with this process? Might the profession not reach the conclusion that the classroom can accommodate only a limited number of different types of learners and set a reasonable and workable limit on that number? At any rate, the knowledge available to education at the moment falls far short of either alternative.
The point being made here is that some educators have attempted to individualize in the absence of a sufficient body of data to delineate adequately the total range, breadth, and depth of individuality. The leaders in the movement did recognize that individualization involved at least three aspects of the learning process: (1) self-pacing, (2) mode of learning, and (3) goals (Altman, 1971). However, for the most part, self-pacing is the one component that has received attention as individualized programs have been implemented in the classrooms.
Prior to proceeding to an examination of the basic assumptions of individualized instruction, it should be made clear that as presently constituted individualized programs based primarily on behavioral objectives and mastery learning are external and mechanistic in nature. The objectives are prepared by the teacher, and the learner is to acquire the behaviors the teacher specifies. The teacher, via the LAP, outlines the objectives and attempts to shape selected student behaviors. Only in the area of the speed with which they complete the work do the students have any say in the learning process. Speed is the only aspect that is student-centered, or internal. The other components are external. Traditional, self-contained classrooms with a humane, consider-
ate, sympathetic teacher may be just as student-centered, and perhaps more so, if the teacher in an individualized program becomes so busy with the program that he has no time to devote to the students. The terms humanization and student-centered are not synonymous with individualized instruction. The description of Travers (1975, pp. 6-7) falls far short of being either humanistic or student-centered:
Much of it [individualized instruction] represents a drab mechanization of learning. Although the term may conjure up an image of one teacher interacting with one student, the more realistic image is that of one student interacting with one worksheet, his own, in the absence of the teacher. Although individualization of instruction has the potential for enhancing education, if enough money is available to provide an individualized teacher-pupil relationship, economic realities typically reduce individualized instruction to the worst form of mechanized routine.
The next important consideration underlying current practice in individualized instruction after that of external theories of learning is based on a behavioral, external view of aptitude. In his article, "A Model for School Learning," Carroll (1963) proposed a new working definition of aptitude. Prior to Carroll's revelation, aptitude had been defined as the student's facility or capacity for learning in any given area. Instead of stressing the amount of material learned, Carroll emphasized that aptitude is the "amount of time" required by the learner to attain mastery in a given learning situation. The underlying theory behind this definition is that learning is not based on internal processes and capabilities, but on the selection of behaviors, activities, and proper reinforcement of student response. That is, external factors are the crucial variable in learning, not the learner himself. The implication is that almost anyone can learn anything if he is given the time to do so. (Carroll does state that there may be some students who never learn the material.) The potential of such a proposal opens up the possibility of tremendous change in the instructional process. The first immediate classroom implication is that given the validity of this tenet most students can earn an A in any course. The obvious implication for curricular organization is that enough time be allowed for each individual to learn the material. This definition of aptitude has become the basic building block for individualized instruction as it is commonly implemented at present in the school situation.
The remainder of this discussion of the basic assumptions of individualized instruction will be devoted to an examination of Carroll's definition of aptitude , the component parts of LAPs, and the manner in which LAPs are used in the classroom. In order to permit the individual student to spend as much time as necessary to learn the material, most individualized programs utilize some form of LAPs. A LAP may be more or less elaborate, but the essential elements are (1) a listing of behavioral objectives, (2) specified activities for the
student to follow in order to attain the listed objectives, and (3) posttests to evaluate the student's success in achieving the objectives (Krulik, 1974).