Many Paths
There are many ways to get an education. Here we will look at the reasons why different people need different ways.
|
|
MANY PATHS -- ONE GOAL:
INDIVIDUALIZING THROUGH ALTERNATIVES
(A modified version of this piece appeared in Focus on Learning, v7, #1, 1980
under the title "Four Categoies of Educational Alternatives.)
Robert L. Fizzell
Western Illinois University
Some people were headed from Chicago to San Francisco. Ms. Business Exec jumped on a plane; and by the time she had looked through some papers, listened to some music, and napped a bit, she was there. Mr. and Mrs. Newlywed took AMTRAK and had three days of enjoying each other’s company while seeing some great scenery. John Doe and family spent six days driving, getting to know the country, and sharing the good times.
Obviously, they each went “the right way” for themselves, and they all got where they were going. But, there is also no doubt that it was three different experiences.
In most of life, we expect and even accept such choice. Yet, in education we have decided in the past thirty years that there is only one way: Schooling. This information would come as a shock to many of our grandparents who found other ways.
Now we talk of “individualizing”, trying to push and pull those students through who don’t seem to travel with the group. What we will see here, however, is that most of these students would be able to find their own way if we only let them travel other routes. Sometimes they will take a bit longer to get there; some may find shortcuts; many will find cheaper means; but, they can all reach the destination of becoming educated.
Some people who have long believed that traditional schooling with “individualized” help for “problem students” is the only way, may feel that something is being lost when we provide alternative routes. That can only be a problem if we lose sight of our goals. As long as we clearly define what we want to accomplish, then we can take whatever steps are necessary to insure that it is done.
The other side of the problem is much more serious. What happens to the students who do not become well educated in the traditional program? The current conception of individualization frequently means reduced goals. Further more, it means that the student is given intensive support and assistance. Seligman’s study, Helplessness (1975), indicates that this process might be very detrimental. It is all too likely that such students will be learning that they are incompetent to control their own destinies. If, instead, we were to make the student a partner in the process, we would permit him or her to maintain a sense of self-determination and an identification with the outcome.
In addition, the present approach is very expensive. It frequently relies on the use of much special curricular materials, high per pupil space costs, and a staffing ratio of approximately 7:1. In a day of scarce resources, such expenditures - often 50% to 100% greater than for other pupils - must be justified. It must be possible to show that the process does, in fact, help the students become educated, and that this is the only way that goal can be achieved. Such evidence seldom is available.
To avoid these problems, many school districts have instituted alternative education programs.
Before we look at the use of these programs, however, a word of caution is necessary. The term “alternative education” has become quite popular in the past decade. As such, it has been applied to many programs which would not serve the purposes described here and would not avoid the problems just mentioned. Therefore, we shall agree at the outset that the term has very specific meaning here.
An alternative education program is any full service program which meets at least all of the academic/developmental objectives and requirements of a traditional school of the same developmental level, but which differs from the traditional program in environment, structure and/or learning style.
While providing a complete basic education program, many alternative schools may also have special functions and constituencies. An alternative education program may not, in and of itself, be a full service program if it serves a special curricular function within a full service program. Alternative schools may be housed within the traditional school, in separate facilities from the traditional school or in shared facilities. They must have a voluntary or open enrollment policy.
Public alternative education programs serve to ensure that every young person may find a path to the educational goals of the community. Programs focus on what they can offer the student, not on what problems the student has had in the past.
Notice that there are three critical components to this definition:
1. Equal Goals
2. Choice
3. Offering a Unique Situation
These must constantly be kept in mind, or the outcomes sought below will not follow. Needless to say, many programs which call themselves alternatives do not have these characteristics. To that extent, such programs will not provide for maximizing educational achievement and self-determination while minimizing costs.
Now, let us look at the alternative programs to see how they can provide for individualization.
The Factors
Over the past eight years, I have been investigating the question of which differences in students really make a difference in how well they do in a particular type of school. Through a process of elimination, many factors have been looked at, and a few have consistently shown themselves to be important. The pattern that has emerged clearly validates the idea of educational alternatives. That is, the traits that are associated with success in one type of school may be associated with failure in another.
One of the first clues to this pattern was discovered by Raymond Cattell in his research on the relation of personality to school success (Cattell and Cattell, 1969: 46ff). He found that there was a distinct personality pattern of students who did well in traditional schools. Following up on his research, I found that the personalities of students who did well in two different alternative schools were significantly different from each other and from students doing well in traditional school (Fizzell, 1975: 89).
In working with alternative school students and in investigating the problems of truant students (Report of the Commission on Truancy, 1975: 41ff), I further discovered that a variety of social factors are also differentially related to school success. Finally, parallel with the work of Hill (Radike, 1973), the Dunns (1978) and others, I looked at factors directly related to how the student learns.
From these investigations, it became obvious that there are about eight general factors which determine the type of program in which a student will succeed. My research on these led to the development of the “Schooling Style Inventory”, which is a brief instrument designed to assess the factors, which are listed in Table I. It is important to notice that the first half of these are related to social and personality characteristics. This is different from the work of most others in that it recognizes that an important aspect of school is the social and psychological environment. Just as many adults select a career or a job because of the working conditions, so also the student is affected by things aside from those factors directly related to learning. The second half of the factors is closer to the work of these others on learning styles.
|
While not all of these factors require comment, a few deserve special attention. The first - segmented vs. concentrated time - refers to the choice between changing activities according to a prearranged schedule or staying with an activity until the student feels some sort of closure has been reached. While school is normally structured on the former basis, with class periods, we find that many students are greatly frustrated by such an arrangement. I have seen many cases of students who felt they would rather not get involved in a class then face the frustration of being interrupted before things began to fit together or before they were satiated. Often they would go to several different classes while continuing to work on one topic, regardless of what everyone else was doing.
“Time of day” and “frequency of absences” often reflect the need for the student to attend to things before school. While I at first tried to assess all of those outside needs, it became evident that such was extremely difficult and was unnecessary. As far as school was concerned, their only impact was on attendance patterns, and perhaps on the need for emotional support -- counseling needs.
Social orientation refers to the type of social interaction in which the student seeks rewards and recognition. The child with particularly weak adult orientation does not respond well to the reward structure of traditional school. He or she may actually be a source of trouble or frustration when seeking peer recognition, or when independently pursuing his or her own interests.
Looking now at those factors which relate more closely to learning and instruction, we find that instructional mode is perhaps the most difficult factor to comprehend. A sample question from the survey instrument may make this clearer.
If you had to learn how to fix your bicycle so that you could take a trip that sounded like it would be fun, would you rather:
1. ask the man at the bike shop to show you?
2. get together with some friends who also want
to learn and work on it as a group?
3. get some tools and maybe a book and figure
it out for yourself?
4. take a short class from the ‘Y’ or the park
district on Bicycle Repair?
The four choices here represent, in order, the four predominant modes of instruction: tutorial, peer study group, self-instruction, and group instruction. Peer and group instruction are characterized by a hierarchical relationship of giver and receiver. They differ from each other in that one is largely one way and impersonal, while the other permits more questioning and is more private and personal. Self and peer are more learner controlled, while also differing from each other in the degree of personalization and privacy.
While we have long been familiar with these four processes, we have tended to assume that group instruction was the best and most efficient; tutorial was for “problem learners;” and self-instruction was for the gifted. In fact, none of these assumptions are true. No method is best for all students, and differences in ability are not related to method. While group instruction could be seen as the most economical, under current practice of limited class size, self-instruction is often just as cheap or cheaper. “Giftedness” has no relation to any of these. These are, in fact, equal and independent situations. Each is “best” for some students. None correlates very strongly with other student characteristics.
Curricular interests also have been erroneoulsy linked to ability in the past. While “special interests” might mean trade school in some cases, it also can be technical, business, or professional. We have tended to view Liberal Arts as being for "better students" and General Studies as for middle students. Again, such assumptions do not hold up in experience. It is possible for the focus to vary while all programs maintain equivalent standards for a core of requirements.
The Many Paths
Thus, we see that there are a variety of factors which affect how well a student will do in a particular type of program. To accommodate these differences, educational programs must vary in their temporal organization, social structure, and instructional methods. Based on these factors, we may envision different types of alternative educational programs, each of which is designed to meet some particular combination of the variables.
Since instructional mode sets the structure for so much of the school experience, we begin with it. For example, once we have decided that a program is going to be self-instruction, we will view scheduling in a very different light than if we had decided on group instruction. Interpersonal relations, curriculum and most everything else also has to follow. Therefore, the first breakdown in the classification is by predominant instructional mode.
Group Instruction
Peer Study
Self-Instruction
Tutorial
We say predominant mode, since it is expected that every program should permit the students some degree of flexibility.
If we have group instruction, several other things are necessary. Time is a given. We cannot have every student progressing at greatly varying rates. We lose individuality, but we gain efficiency of instruction, permitting students access to great resources and the opportunity to make rapid progress. To permit some variation in time structures, we can have traditional scheduling or “flexible” scheduling. Under the latter, not every day is the same. Sometimes called “modular” scheduling, the system permits the students to have some tightly structured group presentation time and some long periods for more self-scheduled, concentrated study.
The second consideration under group instruction is social environment. The most efficient group instruction model is the large, general purpose school advocated by Conant in the 50’s. Here we may bring together a wide variety of opportunities and resources - an educational shopping mall. Unfortunately, just as the crowds at the malls give me a headache, some kids are overwhelmed by the crowds and the impersonal atmosphere of the big school. This is often a hard dilemma. For me, I like the convenience of walking into one place and finding what I want. I also like the lower prices available in large marketing operations. However, my personal well being - maybe even my sanity - much prefers the friendly little ma and pa operations. I have met many students who feel the same way about school. The solution for some of my former students was to go to the small school for the primary part of their education, but to take an occasional class at the community college for specialized areas. To meet this need for a personalized atmosphere, we need some group instruction programs which are no larger than 100 students for elementary or junior high and 200 for high school. Larger schools for students who do not prefer the personalized environment could go up to 500 for elementary, 1,500 for junior high, and 6,000 for high school. Class sizes in the larger schools would also be greater, especially in the high school where some lecture classes of 100 students would be appropriate.
If either of these variables moves to the extreme of very personalized or strong need for concentrated time, we must move to much more radically modified forms of group instruction . For students who need a very personalized atmosphere with a few peers and a parent-figure
teacher, there is a self-contain classroom. While this is not uncommon in elementary and middle school.with a well educated teacher, this can also be provided in a high school. Some outside classes would probably be taken in the last two years. That is, not when the student is 17 years-old, but after he has reached the 10th or 11th grade developmentally. Before you start claiming that the teacher would have to be a genius, remember that it usually only requires that five to eight college courses be taken in a subject area to be certified to teach it at the high school level. Futhermore, minimal mastery through high school would typically not demand even that kind of knowledge. Three or four college courses in each major field and some good outside reading - which is nothing other than a liberal arts education - should be quite sufficient for one to run a self-contained high school classroom. As with any teacher, one must expect to make use of resources for assistance with new topics as they arise.
The final type of group instruction needed is the open classroom or open school. This serves the needs of the students who want an authoritative, teacher directed learning experience, but who also need maximum control over time structuring. While this structure has often been seen as a self-instruction program, it is only minimally so The learning centers are best used when the teacher has put much effort into designing and structuring the experience and when an instructor is available. The critical variable is the student’s control of time and initiative.
For Group instrruction, the other factors of schooling style need not be given much consideration as far as program design is concerned. Variations can be made within these structures to meet differences without putting any undue strain on the system or the teacher. It would be wise to make a variety of classes available at different times of the day and night rather then just nine to three, especially for high school. It is also necessary to ensure that developmental level is the basis for enrollment rather than age. That is to say, the program’s and community’s expectations must be such that you would never have a child in a class that was a year or more above his developmental level just because he was “too old” for a younger class. In support of this, it is important to note that children select playmates of their developmental level, not necesarily of their age level.
Grades, governance structure, and several other factors are of little importance. Grades in some form are necessary in group instruction as feedback to the students and family. Feedback in the form of grades is needed since time is a constant, and the student needs to know whether he is keeping up. This is a generally impersonal, mass processing system, and its strength lies in that fact. As such, its feedback is also somewhat impersonal. Also its governance is more bureaucratic. Our current system of managerial boards and professional administrators could be upgraded in quality, but is adequate in concept. Credits based on the Carnegie Unit were designed for this type of program, and the general idea is appropriate though the content of a credit should be better defined.
Our first group of schools, then, is the Group Instruction Programs:
1. Large traditional, regular schedule
2. Large, traditional, flexible schedule
3. Small traditional, regular schedule
4. Small traditional, flexible schedule
5. Self-contained classroom
6. Open classroom
The next group we may look at are the schools which are based on peer study. These are for the students who prefer to explore learning with their peers. The first requirement for such a program is that there be some agreement among the students as to the framework within which they are going to work. Basically, this means common curricular interests: Liberal Arts, General Studies, or Special Studies. A further breakdown by time structure preferences is possible also. Thus, we might bring together, for example, a group of students who have a common general studies orientation and a preference for concentrated time. They could then plan to spend one day each week, or even several weeks continuous studying one necessary topic such as the American Political System. Another program might bring together students interested in music and preferring segmented time. They could divide their days into time blocks in which they pursued their required studies sequentially while maintaining the thread of music throughout the day.
Other aspects of these programs will be determined by the participants - students, staff, parents, and community. For example, grades are not a necessity in the traditional form. While evaluation and feedback are necessary, the form can be developed to meet local interests. It will not greatly affect the program. Governance must certainly involve significant student input; these students expect that credits in the traditional sense will often be inappropriate as the student designed courses or projects will generally be interdisciplinary in nature. A catalogue of competencies will be a more appropriate guide.
Our second group of schools, therefore, is the Peer Study Schools:
7. Liberal arts, segmented time
8. Liberal arts, concentrated time
9. General studies, segmented time
10. General studies, concentrated time
11. Special studies
Next, we may look at the group of programs which represents the most radical departure from our usual conception of what school should be - the Self-Instruction Programs. These are fascinating in that they are an institutionalization of what has traditionally been noninstitutional activities. These are the things that people did to get an education when they did not go to school. This image must be kept in mind in considering these programs, because they are not like “schools”.
At least as far as learning is concerned, these are the people who say “I’d rather do it myself.” However, they may want certain types of social contacts which the “school” can provide. Thus, programs are divided by social environment. Also, they differ in the amount of direction they want in their learning experiences, so this must be considered.
We may begin with a program for students who want a personalized social environment. This is a small program with two or three teachers and 40 to 60 students. There is heavy emphasis on close friendships among students and teachers, who are parent figures. Individual student learning experiences are guided by contracts which are developed in relation to a catalogue of competencies and represent mutual agreements between students and teachers. The “teacher’s” role in that of academic advisor and evaluator with perhaps some tutoring and personal counseling. Students only come to school to meet with advisors or friends. Learning occurs elsewhere - at home, at the library, in the community. Therefore, the “school” is a lounge and a couple of offices. Only general resource materials are present - no sets of texts, no labs, no study halls.
A similar type of learning experience might be provided for other students, but in a very different social environment. This is for the students who have strong peer interaction needs and little interest in adult interaction. the teacher’s role is only academic. The “school” now becomes an important meeting place. More of a hang-out or drop-in center with a large lounge area, pool table, ping pong, other games, and music. These facilities, of course, could be shared with a local youth service group. Organized recreation and even returning to the community school’s competitive sports program are likely components. Structured group experiences with educational components such as outdoor survival programs are appropriate and very popular. Such a program is best when it involves five to eight teachers and 100 to 160 students, but it might be smaller.
In a large district, a third type of similar program can be supported. This is for the students who are more mature and have little need for school socially. They simply want to have assistance with their academic development and verification of achievement. For them all that is needed are advisors with whom they can check periodically. In a smaller situation, they may fit, quietly into one of the preceding programs.
For all three of these programs, grades are really not necessary. All should be based on mastery with certificates of completion when the advisor agrees the contract has been fulfilled. Governance of these programs is rather simple since they are rather mechanical and are based so strongly around the one to one relationship. Students should have a voice in policy making, but will show little interest most of the time.
Two other types of self instruction programs serve students who are more passive in their approach and seek more structured experiences. For these students, the self-designed contract is replaced by the programmed instruction unit. The relationship to the teacher may be of two types, yielding the two different programs. For the students who want more counseling and personal contact, there are teacher directed programs. These are isolated classrooms or “storefronts” where a parent-figure teacher supervises about 15 to 20 students who work individually at workbooks and programmed units.
For students who seek little contact with the teacher, there are machine instruction programs. The teacher’s role is diagnosis and prescription. The facility is typically a small, storefront operation where students can come in according to prearranged schedules as machines are available.
Both of these programs have no need for grades, requiring only certificates of completion or mastery. Governance of the machine instruction program is essentially by policy, since this is the simplest of all schools structurally. In fact, the examples of this with which I am familiar are actually business establishments were students simply go for a service. While to many of us this may sound inhumane, it is what the students choose. In fact, it is certainly more humane than forcing these students into an atmosphere in which they are uncomfortable or a school where they fail.
We now can add another group of programs to our classification, the Self-Instruction Programs.
12. Personalized Self Instruction
13. Self Instruction - Strong Peer Interaction
14. Self Instruction - Impersonal
15. Teacher Directed Programmed Instruction
16. Machine Instruction
Finally, we come to those programs for the students who prefer tutorial instruction. Since the form of instruction in this case is totally controlled on an individual basis, the variability in programs is entirely reflective of social environment differences. These parallel the variations for the first three self-instruction programs: Personalized, peer oriented, and impersonal. As with the self-instruction programs, the impersonal type might be absorbed to some extent by the other two without too much conflict. The three types correspond to some extent with social/emotional development, the impersonal being the most mature. To this extent, the three types of students do not get along well with each other. Older students seeking the personalized programs may be socially mature but emotionally insecure and dependent.
Also, within this group is a program type which has been with us for years, but mostly as a part of other programs: Peer Tutoring. While we often set these up in regular schools as a service by “good students” to “poor students,” it has functioned best as an informal arrangement among students who are similar in many characteristics except level of development on the particular subject or skill. It probably occurred most in one-room schools. The example I like best is the seventh grader who is functioning at the fifth grade level tutoring the fifth grader who is at the fourth grade level - both benefit.
The tutorial programs are staffed at a ratio of seven to one. The personalized one needs only up to about five staff and 35 students. The other two may run three to five times this size. Again, these are mastery type programs, and grades should play no role. Governance is rather simple. Student input plays little role, but should be sought for program evaluation.
Our final programs, therefore, are the Tutorial Programs:
17. Personalized Tutorial
18. Tutorial - Strong Peer Interaction
19. Impersonal;sonal Tutorial
20. Peer Tutoring
It should now be clear that if a school district were to set up a variety of programs, all with the same general goals and standards, we would have the opportunity to meet each student’s needs - to individualize. There would be three distinct advantages to this approach over current efforts at individualization. First, this actually provides many more options than does the common approach which rests so heavily on tutoring and/or programmed self-instruction (workbooks, etc.) Especially, it permits different social environments. Second, it can be much less expensive, since current efforts require staffing ratios of about 7:1. Only tutorial programs actually need this, the others being 20:1 or greater. My research indicates that only a small portion of the students who are having trouble in school actually require tutorial programs. Finally, as opposed to approaches such as Individually Guided Instruction, individualizing through alternatives does not create the conflicts and demands on the teacher that occur when one tries to treat each student differently within one setting.
From this we can see that it is possible to individualize effectively and inexpensively. Each student can find an educational environment in which he or she will feel comfortable and will be able to succeed. Clearly defined and carefully assessed objectives prevent such programs from becoming dumping grounds or sources of cheap diplomas. Teachers’ energies can be used most effectively since they aren’t faced with trying to adapt their programs to highly differing student needs. And, finally, through the opportunity for choice, students can become more involved in, and responsible for, their own educational welfare.
REFERENCES
1. Cattell, Raymond and Marg D. L. Handbook for the Junior-Senior
High School Personality Questionaire, Institute for Personality
and Ability Testing. Champaign, Illinois, 1969.
2. Dunn, Rita and Kenneth. Teaching Students Through Their
Individual Learning Styles. Reston Publishing Company, Reston,
Virginia, 1978.
3. Fizzell, Robert L. Reschooling Society. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor, 1975.
4. Radike, Floyd W., Ed. Handbook for Teacher Improvement Utilizing
the Educational Sciences. East Lansing, Michigan, 1973.
5. Report of the Commission on Truancy and Alternative Education.
Illinois, 1975.
6. Seligman, Martin E. P. Helplessness. W.H. Freeman and Company,
San Francisco, 1975.
|
|
