edge to a common set of purposes. My second reason for outlining the concept is my personal belief that a development of this kind, while ambitious perhaps, is feasible, necessary, and overdue.

III. THE MEASUREMENT MAN'S FUTURE ROLE

In facing the issue of meeting education's measurement needs, I have chosen to look at two such needs in depth rather than to attempt a catalog of what ought to be done. Measurement needs are integral to education's needs. Increasingly, they will be met as we mount successful overall systems of educational reform in which the measurement component is embedded.

In this conception, measurement is not a self-sufficient act. It is part and parcel of efforts to effect educational change. And it is at the heart of many of these efforts. One might say, however, that the measurement person's job will become much harder as it becomes more central. This is so in two respects. First, as measurement assumes a central role in more sophisticated systems, we are going to see the fulfillment of E. B. White's prediction that there is a bright future for complexity. As complexity increases, the job of making the results of measurement readily understandable, and resistant to misunderstanding and misuse, will increase. This is an area where we have been less than resoundingly successful in the past and where redoubled effort will be essential. Second, a special obligation is placed on the measurement person if we say that the measurement job is not over until the results have been analyzed, simplified, interpreted and put to use. I believe there is no such thing as good measurement that has not been used.

Alfred North Whitehead said, "The vigor of civilized societies is preserved by the widespread sense that high aims are worthwhile." In meeting the measurement needs of education, if we aim high, we may be able to provide the ingredients that are critical in meeting some of the most important needs of education and in so doing help preserve the vigor of the larger society.

1 Whitehead, A. N., Adventures of Ideas (Cambridge University Press, or The Macmillan Co., New York, 1933) p. 371.

AN OVERVIEW OF INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION

By JACK V. EDLING

People differ in their abilities, interests, aptitudes, attitudes, values, achievements and personalities. They also differ in their physical size, energy, coordination, strength, aggressiveness, and health. Perhaps more important, they differ in their self-concept, desire to learn, cultural heritage, and view of the world. And new evidence indicates the degree of these differences greatly exceeds earlier estimates.

Yet most schools are organized as if the only educationally meaningful differences were age and perhaps sex. Teacher education institutions talk about individual differences, but most frequently all they suggest doing about them is to group children according to their "ability", and to urge teachers to have greater tolerance for those experiencing difficulties. Thus, many schools provide for learner differences in the lower grades by grouping "slow" readers, "fast" readers, etc., and in the upper grades by providing some curriculum choices such as home economics for girls and shop or mechanics for boys. All "complete" school in twelve years whether they read at the first grade level, or exceed in achievement a sizeable number of college graduates.

Today a growing number of educators believe that if our dreams for an optimum education for each child are ever to be realized, more consideration must be given to both objectives and methods of instruction for individual learners. In the recent past teachers and parents have believed that one teacher with twenty, thirty, or more pupils approximately of the same age, was precluded from anything but group instruction. Even when individual "projects" were assigned they were all due on the same date. After all, any other arrangement would be considered, if not un-American, at least unfair! However, it should be noted that an earlier situation created the belief that one teacher (in a one-room school) could and should handle all ages and subjects. It may be that the recent concern for individuals is the result more of new instructional capabilities than a new philosophy of education. There are new capabilities, capabilities greatly enhanced by federal programs which encourage experimentation and the more effective use of teaching personnel supported by the appropriate use of instructional technology. Characteristics of Individualized Instruction

While some observers will see nothing new in the individualization of instruction and think of it primarily as a return to the values and style of an earlier America, it really is very different. In the one room school the teacher, with very limited resources, tried to do the best he could to help each child learn basic skills for acquiring knowledge and solving problems as well as a number of "facts" considered useful. The present image of individualized instruction is

quite different with reference to both objectives and instruction methods. We now find young people programming computers, conducting advanced research in the physical, life and behavioral sciences, designing and producing advanced technological products, and discussing problems and developing proposed solutions to some of the most complex social issues. Instructional methods are as varied as technology itself, and are based on findings from advanced research on human learning and ecology.

Despite its complexity in actual practice, the principles of individualization are readily understandable. There are two basic characteristics of all individualized instruction which differentiates it from "group" instruction. First, the instruction is oriented (i.e., designed, planned, intended for, administered, etc.) for individuals, not groups. This orientation has many implications, but primarily it means many more small units, or modules, of instruction which can be organized in infinite variety. Second, the instruction is paced for individuals, not groups. This means in essence that to really learn something is more important than to adhere to a schedule. It does not mean that an individual can just "loaf on the job", rather it means that the time allocated to learn something takes into consideration the learner's ability and the other things he is trying to learn.

In addition to those two basic characteristics, there are different roles for teachers and learners to play in the instructional process which result in different kinds or types of individualized instruction. An easy way to understand these different types is to draw a distinction between what the school, or the teacher, on the one hand wants the young person to learn, as contrasted with what the young person himself wants to learn. This means that there are some objectives which the school believes all young people should learn, and there are some objectives which should be limited, or even unique, for learners with special abilities, interests, aptitudes or handicaps. In a similar distinction, the school believes that it should decide the best way to learn certain of those objectives, while in other instances it might be better and more efficient to give learners a choice! These distinctions can be seen in the following diagram:

Since these different types of individualized instruction each serve different purposes, a brief explanation of the nature of each type will be helpful in understanding the potentialities for individualized instruction to improve educational opportunities.

In type A, the school specifies what is to be learned and the methods which research or experience has shown to be most effective for most

people to learn. This type of individualized instruction is most frequently used by learners of average or below average ability for learning basic skills in language arts and mathematics. Each learner is diagnosed, i.e. tested or interviewed to learn his readiness to undertake a specific learning objective and is then prescribed, i.e. assigned the particular set of materials or learning tasks that will give him the explanation and practice he needs to demonstrate that he has, in fact, mastered the specific learning objective.

Type B may be called self-directed because the learner is provided a wide range of instructional media and materials and may use them as he chooses to learn. Again, this type of instruction is used frequently for learning basic skills in language arts and mathematics but more often by learners of above average motivation and ability. Experienced teachers believe that some children learn best by listening, others by seeing or reading; some learn best by working alone, others need companionship; some like long-term activities, others like a constant variety. These differences are called learning styles or strategies, and some teachers believe that when a child is not afforded the opportunity to develop his own learning strategy he is missing one of the most fundamental of all learning experiences. Learning how to learn by oneself, learning to be a self-directed learner, is as important to these teachers as is learning a particular skill or fact. But unfortunately it is not very effective for the child of low ability or motivation who needs, and wants, all the guidance and help he can get.

Type C may be called personalized because the learner selects learning goals which are more related to his values and needs. Here again, however, the school through the teacher provides considerable guidance and help to average or below average learners in how to reach those particular goals which have been selected. While this type of individualized instruction is most frequently found in elective subjects it is common in the social studies and sciences because these subjects are so comprehensive, and new knowledge is expending so rapidly, that there is little agreement even among experts as to what constitutes a "required" curriculum. By allowing students to select objectives the school has increased its relevance and effectiveness in teaching these subjects.

Type D represented a kind of ultimate in individualization and, in the minds of many educators, should be the goal of all education-to produce an independent, lifelong learner. In order to develop such a person there is a growing belief that the learner must have a very active role in his own learning processes. Again, experience has shown that both selecting objectives and determining the means to reach those objectives are not tasks for which all young people are qualified. But there are more capable and creative students available to learn such skills than are currently being afforded the opportunity to learn them. This tragedy has resulted in some of the most academically qualified young rejecting not only formal education but also the society which supports it.

In describing the four basic types of individualized instructional programs the impression may have been given that a particular school uses one type of program to the exclusion of others. This is not the case. The essential point is that there are several approaches to individualizing instruction and that each, and various combinations, have been implemented successfully in varying situations.

Evidence on the effects of individualization

One of the major tasks facing the profession of education is the development of valid cost-effectiveness evaluation methods and procedures. Current attempts leave much to be desired. However, within the limits of existing knowledge some rather extensive efforts have been made to determine the effects of individualization. These attempts may be classified under four general headings (1) formal test evidence, (2) participant reaction, (3) disciplinary records, and (4) truancy and drop-out rates. Each of these will be reviewed briefly.

Formal test evidence has one crucial disadvantage: the tests used to compare individualized programs with traditional group-oriented programs may not be directly related to what is taught in either program. The development of a standardized achievement test is a rather major project. It involves the identification of a body of knowledge and a population of learners, and representative samplings from both. The assumption must then be made that schools which use the resulting test(s) have taught the same body of knowledge and that their popu lation of learners is comparable to the sample used in developing the test. There are many other problems such as when the test is administered (i.e., have the learners had equal time to learn) and the conditions under which the test (s) are administered. Seldom are all assumptions met and conditions adequately controlled. Nevertheless, school administrators and boards need some evidence as to how well their students perform on these standardized measures of basic skills.

A summary of seventeen (17) studies reveals that in four (4) instances there were no statistically significant differences found in achievement between comparable individualized and traditional grouporiented programs. In thirteen (13) instances statistically significant differences were found, and all favored the individualized programs. From available evidence one would most likely conclude that there will be no loss in achievement as measured by standardized tests as a result of individualizing instructional programs and that in many instances there will be gains. However, it must be emphasized that in most individualized programs the objective was not to increase achievement as measured by these tests. Objectives ranged from increasing the scope of the curriculum in order to meet the needs of more young people, to promoting optimum individual development whether it be social, emotional, physical or just plain liking school and learning

more.

The more informal reactions of participants, i.e., teachers, learners, administrators and policy makers may be even less scientifically rigorous, but much more important politically in terms of support of schools. Teacher reaction, almost universally, is that there is more work involved in both initiating and maintaining an individualized instructional program. At the same time they report, almost universally, that they have never been more satisfied with what they are doing for their students, and that they could never, in good conscience, return to a traditional group-oriented instructional program. Yet, there are some teachers, especially those who have a strong subject-matter orientation, who do not feel comfortable with every student working on a different task. In fairness to these teachers it should be stated that had they been given additional training and support services and materials their reactions might have been different.