Evaluation of the P.K. Yonge individualized chemistry curriculum field testing program in Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Evaluation of the P.K. Yonge individualized chemistry curriculum field testing program in Florida
Physical Description:
xi, 95 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Becht, Paul Anthony, 1941-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Chemistry -- Study and teaching (Secondary)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 90-92).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Paul Anthony Becht.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000163136
notis - AAS9488
oclc - 02737837
System ID:
AA00003521:00001

Full Text










EVALUATION OF THE P. K. YONGE
INDIVIDUALIZED CHEMISTRY CURRICULUM
FIELD TESTING PROGRAi
IN FLORIDA








By

PAUL ANTHONY BECHT


A DISSERTATION PRiE F' iLD TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1975

































COPYRIGHT BY

PAUL ANTHONY BECHT

1975



































Digitized by the Internet Archive
To SaWMlgCl(*1#1ffn ftbr
University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries with support from Lyrasis and the Sloan Foundation


http://www.archive.org/details/evaluationofpkyo00bech













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The writer wisces to express his appreciation to the mel'bers of

his Doctoral Committee, especially his chairman, Dr. Vynce A. Hines,

for his patience and assistance during the trying period of data analy-

sis. To Dr. William M. Alexander is extended appreciation of his

sincere effort that helped the writer through a difficult period of

study. Sincere thanks are expressed to Dr. N. E. Bingham without

whose help and efforts the writer would not be here today.

The writer is especially grateful to Dr. Donald P. Altieri,

co-author of the Individualized Chemistry Progiram, who greatly assisted

the writer during the early stages of the study and to Mr. Hart String-

fellow for his assistance with the computer analysis of the study.

Sincere thanks are expressed to the Science Department at P. K.

Yonge Laboratory School for their assistance and patience during the

study and especially to Dr. J. B. Hodges, Director of P. K. Yonge

Laboratory School for allowing the study to be carried out through

P. K. Yonge.

Gratitude is expressed to the Florida Educational Research and

Development Council for their assistance and grants without which the

study could not have been done.

Finally, the writer is particularly indebted to his wife, Sally,

for her support throughout the entire study and especially for her

efforts helping compile and write this study. The writer is also

grateful for the patience of his son, Scan, and daughter, Laura,

throughout the study.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

S '.;1 ,TS iv

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

ABSTRACT x


Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

I. Study Orientation 1
II. Ratio-'nle 1
III. Dcf in:in ,n Of Terms 2
IV. Historical Context 3
V. The P. K. Yonge Individualized
Chemistry Program 6
VI. Stateiaent Of The Problem 23
VII. Pilot Project And Study 23

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 31

III. DESIGN OF TIHE RESEARCH 37

I. Uypotheses 37
II. Research Design 37

IV. DATA ACQUISITION 41

I. Instrurmen L t ion 41
II. Sanmping 44
III. Data Collection 45
IV. Nethud Of Data Analysis 45










TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont'd.


Page

Chapter

V. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 47

I. Population 47
II. Analysis Of Covariance 48
III. Correlation 51
IV. Trend Analysis 57
V. Formative Evaluation 78
VI. Data Analysis Aud Discussion 81

VI. CO[:CL'USIONS AND FL:,',1', ": TONSIOS 85

I. Summary 85
II. Conclusions 86
III. Limitations 87
IV. Recommendations 87
V. Remarks 88


BIBLIOGRAPHY 90

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 93















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Analysis Of Covariance Using The ACS Pre-Tcst
And The STEP Pre-Tcst As Covariates With
The ACS Post-Test As The Fixed Variable 49

2. Analysis Of Covariance Using The ACS Pre-Test
As The Covariate With The Attitude Post-Test
As The Fixed Variable 52

3. Correlation Matrix For The Experimental Schools 55

4. Correlation Matrix For The Control Schools 56

5. First Factorial Design Using The STEP Test 60

6. Second Factorial Design Using The ACS Test 64

7. Third Factorial Derign Using The Attitude Test 69

8. Fourth Factorial Design Using The STEP Pre-Test 74


vii















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1. Stylized Model For individualizing Instruction 8

2. Outline Of Individualized Chemistry Program 9

3. Sample Guide Sheet 10

4. Flow Diagram Of Unit 1 12

5. Student Contract 13

6. Course Record Card 16

7. Student Inventory 17

8. Total Evaluation 18

9. Progress Report 19

10. Grade Report 20

11. Student Questionnaire 25

12. Any-School-Subject Attitude Test 42

13. ACS Pre-, Post-test Class Means 50

14. Attitude Pre-, Post-test Class Means 53

15. STEP Pre-, Post-test Class Means 54

16. 2 X 3 X 2 Model For The Factorial Design 58

17. STEP Test: Interaction Between Variable 2 (High,
Medium and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test) 61

18. STEP Test: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control) and Variable 3
(Pre-, Post-test) 62


viii









LIST OF FIGURES Cont'd.


Figure Page

19. STEP Test: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control), Variable 2
(High, Medium and Low) and Variable 3
(Pre-, Post-test) 63

20. ACS Test: Interaction Between Variable 2
(High, Medium and Low) and Variable 3
(Pre-, Post-test) 66

21. ACS Test: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control) and Variable 3
(Pre-, Post-test) 67

22. ACS Test: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control), Variable 2
(High, Medium and Low) and Variable 3
(Pre-, Post-test) 68

23. Attitude Test: Interaction Between Variable 2
(High, Medium and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-,
Post-test) 70

24. Attitude Test: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control) and Variable 3
(Pre-, Post-test) 71

25. Attitude Test: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control), Variable 2 (High,
Medium and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test) 72

26. 2 X 2 X 2 Model For The Factorial Design 73

27. Hypothesis 4: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control) and Variable 3
(Pre-, Post-test) 75

28. Hypothesis 4: Interaction Between Variable 2
(High and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test) 76

29. Hypothesis 4: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control), Variable 2 (High
and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test) 77

30. Student Questionnaire Indicating Question Means 79












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Craduate Council
of the University of Florida in Pa:rtial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degreee of Doctor of Philosophy



EVALIUAITIC: OF THE P, K. YONGE
INDIVIDUALIZED CHE1ISTRY CURRICULUM
FIELD TESTING PROGRAM
IN FLORIDA

By

PAUL ANTHONY BECHT

June, 1975

Chairman: Vynce A. Hincs
Major Department: Curriculum And Instruction

The problem investigated in this study was to determine the effect-

iveness of the P. K. Yonge Individualized Chemistry Program in selected

public schools in Florida.

The study used a pre-test/post-test control group experimental

design using classroom means from classes randomly selected as experimen-

tal and control. The study was carried out during a one-year period in

twenty-one Florida schools. This school population consisted of 305

experimental students from 13 different classrooms and 282 control stu-

dents from 8 different classrooms.

Four types of evaluation were used to determine the effectiveness

of the experimental program. They were:

1. The American Chemical Society (ACS) High School Chemistry Test,

2. The Sequential Test of Educational Progress (STEP) Reading Test,

3. The All-School-Subject Attitude Test,

4. An experimenter-designed Student Questionnaire for formative
analysis of the experimental program.









All these evaluations except the qujit:.ionnaire were administered

both prior to and after the study. Each test had tw:o equivalent fiJms

eliminating testing as a cause of inv.ldiiy.

The data analysis was done on an TBM-370 computer at the Univer-

sity of Florida using the Biomedical Statistical Programs. Data analy-

sis using analysis of covariance at the 10 percent level of significance

and analysis of variance of a factorial l;s'gIn at the 3 percent level of

significance indicated thi following re:~Jts:

1. A significant difference was found between the experimental
and control groups with respect to achievement in chemistry
in favor of the control group. Thc major source of the
difference was found to be in the high experimental group
which had a considerable regression in achievement in chem-
istry.

2. A significant difference was found between the experimental
and control groups with respect to attitude toward science.
A net overall gain in attitude was seen in the experimental
group.

3. No difference was found between the experimental and control
groups with respect to reading ability.

4. There was no difference found between high and low achievers
on the STEP Reading Test of either experimental or control
groups with respect to achievements in chemistry.

5. Evaluation of the Student Questionnaire indicated a favorable
attitude toward the Individualized Chemistry Program. Also,
indications of problem areas in the program were pointed out.
















CHAPTER I:T I

IN'I ODUCTI'ON

I. Study OrienLation


During the past six years the science faculty at P. K. Yonge Labo-

ratory School, University of Florida, have developed and field tested

and taught an Individual-ized Chenistry Program in the public school, of

Florida. This program: is designed to give the student a better under-

standing of basic chcra:cal concepts and relevant chemic-al applications

through more individual contact with the tc.' er.

This study is designed to answer the, followiing question: Can this

program be taught effectively by chemistry teachers found in public

schools in the state of Florida?



II. Rationale


For years many teachers have treated students as if they learned at

the same rate. Consider the average science class: The teacher stands

in front of a class of students lecturing for 50 minutes. A few bold

students ask questions, the rest remain silent listening or copying mate-

rial from the board. On another day in the same class, the students

perform the same experii:i:nt and are required to finish it by the end of

the period. This is the way many science courses are taught in high

schools in America and abroad. What happens to the student who does not

understand the material presented in the lecture? What about the slow

or reflective student who doesn't quite finish the experiment in the

required time?









If we look at these probl]emti from the s'-_udct's point of view, the

student is forced to "keep up the pace". The student who cannot learn

as rapidly as the average student in the class is considered a "failure".

We puinish a student for not learning as rapidly as we think he should

learn (1). Educationally we should recognize individual differences.

Self concept, the way we think of ourselves, is very important to a

student in high school. Piaget (2) said: "The gc.el. of education is not

to increase the amount of knowledge but to crcn, .i- posibilitiz- for a

child to invent and discover, to create men who are cap h.le of doing new

things."

Science education for many years has "turned off" many students in

the fields of science (3). The "turned off" appear to fall into two

groups: (a) some students do not learn as rapidly as others--the teacher

presents material faster than the students can comprehend and (b) some

students become bored (the bright ones) since the material is presented

in a dry and uninteresting fashion. Individl-alizing instruction may be

the solution for both groups. This is not a new concept; to individual-

ize or not to individualize has been discussed by many over the past

years (4-6).



III. Definition Of Terms


Attitude. A positive or negative reaction of feeling, believing or
thinking toward or about ideas, people, objects or organiza-
tions.

Self-Concept. How one perceives oneself

Individualized Instruction. Individualized Instruction means many
things to many people. For this study, the definition of
Individualized Instruction is not:









Study packets
Audio-tuto rial p; .,
Self-pacing
Systems approach
Instructional or behavioral objectives
But rather, Individualized Instriuction is:
1. Identifying the key concepts to be studied either
by the student or jointly by the instructor and
student.
2. Knowing the student well enough to determine his
cognitive style (i.e., how he learns) and his
affective style (i.e., his attitude toward learning).
3. Planning with tIhe student, those activities which
will cause him to achieve the objectives of the
course or program,
4. Evaluating the student in terms of his success or
ability to meet the stated objectives rather than
sotie mythical set of group norms.
5. The teacher is a resource person--not a lecturer.
6. The student pursues his study at his own rate using
any form of media available.
7. The student performs open-ended laboratory work.



IV. Historical Context


Individualized programs have been with us for many years and each

program has had its own -c-aning of individualizing. Aristotle individ-

ualized by involving his small group of students in what they were to

learn. The Parker Schools in Quincy, Massachusetts, and the Cook County

Normal School in Chicago, were centered around the child and his inter-

ests during the IS80's and 1890's. In the early 20th Century, John

Dewey said to bring education to the child, not the child to education.

To individualize in those days meant to try to meet the educational

needs of the students. But these needs were most often defined by

people who had little or no understanding of the many needs associated

with the various developmental levels and cognitive styles of students.

Thus programs that were designed met the needs of only a few, leaving

the rest to fair for themselves. From the success or lack of success










of these programs, educators began to learn about the varied educational

needs found in each classroom.

Many plans were designed to "individualize" the curriculum aid

break the academic lockstep such as project methods, homogeneous group-

ings, ability groupingiu, and integrated prog.:ras. Audio-visual aids,

libraries. guidance departments, lunches, recreation, transportation and

work cxperienr.ce program. were added to school systems to better take

care of student needs. Extensive testing programs were incorporated in

school systems to aid the process of assessing individual abilities and

setting standards of school achievement for various age and grade groups.

But all these attempts at individualization fell short of complete

success. The totally individualized classroom requires much more sup-

port and knowledge than is available even today. We still are groping

for a basic understanding of student learning behaviors and the tech-

niques for determining what the behaviors are and what they mean. Many

programs have recently come out using a multi-media approach toward

meeting the varied needs of students. These programs, along with team

teaching, open classrooil,. and learning modules, are a step in the right

direction toward a truly individualized program.

An example of an attempt at individualization is the Individualized

Chemistry Piogram, a self-paced, individualized approach to teaching

high school chemistry. This program, developed at P. K. Yonge Laborato-

ry School, University of Florida, utilizes many of the approaches dis-

cussed above along with some new techniques to try to meet the educa-

tional as well as the practical needs of a student wishing to learn

about chemistry. This progra-m was developed and evaluated in the class-

room with students providing formative evaluation to the materials.









The first major step in the development of an individual zed pro-

gram in chemistry at P. K. Yonge Laboratory School occurred during the

summer, 1969. Six graduate students involved in a clinical teaching

experience at P. K. Yonge, designed and imple.iieted an individualized

program in chemistry. Students from the Gainesville area volunteered

for the program. The teachers wanted to put into practice tlhe ideas

that they had read relative to individualizing instruction. They iden-

tified the concepts to be taught, pl.rnnied the usage of several strate-

gies for instruction, procured a wide variety of materials, and devel-

oped an elaborate procedure for evaluating student progress.

During the clinical teaching experience, video tapes were made of

the teachers and students. The actions of the teachers and students

were evaluated using four systematic observation instruments: Teacher

Practice Observation Record (TPOR), Reciprocal Categories System (RCS),

Florida Taxonomy of Cognitive Behavior (FTCB), and Taxonomy of Image

Provoking Behavior (TIPB). Some of the resulting research findings

were used as a basis for the design of the P. K. Yonge Individualized

Chemistry Program. For example, it was found that problem sessions,

where the teacher went over either homework or class problems, elicited

a rather low level cognitive behavior on the part of the students.

Based on this research finding, formal homework and problem sessions

were not included as a strategy in the Individualized Chemistry Program.

Instead, students in the Individualized Chemistry Program are encouraged

to work the problems assigned, check the answers themselves and then see

the teacher about those problems which they did not understand. The

instruments also indicated that straight lecture produced a rather low

level of cognitive behavior. Therefore, the formal lecture was de-









emphasized in the chemistry program. It was replaced with individual

and small group sessions with an occasional 'mini' lecture when a large

number of students wanted to know something about the same topic.

Many ideas and strategies were tested during the clinical teaching

experience such as team teaching and team planning, extensive use of

media, alternative laboratory experiences for a given concept, use of

oral quizzes, student self evaluation and project work (7).

This study provided the catalyst for the development of the

Individualized Chemistry Program at P. K. Yonge.



V. The P. K. Yonge Individualized Chemistry Program


Most schools have a set of general goals which represents the

philosophy of the school and provides the framework for the program of

instruction. The chemistry program to be described is based upon and

consistent with the following general goals for students at P. K. Yonge:

1. That each student develop increasingly positive
perceptions of himself.

2. That each student become an effective life-long
learner.

3. That each student accept increasing responsibility
for his own behavior and learning.

4. That each student develop those skills and attitudes
necessary for effective group living and democratic
interaction.

5. That each student learn to adapt to change and pos--
itively effect change.

6. That each student find real meaning for his life.

These goals were used as guidelines in developing the program.

In order to develop and maintain successful programs of science

there must exist a clear relationship among the stated goals of a school,









the instructional objectiv'7s:, of a given piorgraucm, and the activities uti-

lized to implemrent that program. This i!.-n ws kI,:. in mind as this

particular program was developed.

The program itself is patterned after a r.odl1 of instruction

developed at P. K. Yonge Laborato-y School ;which is used in science

courses at the school. The nuod-Il basically jllun.:rares that i.n an

individualized program there are id-' wi;t which all studCents should

come in contact, there are iJeac t'.L aie "n-ice to knoT,", and there are

skills necessary for the unders-.- n:,ing of the basic ideas (Figure 1).

Once the model was establishedt, the nert step was to organize the

content. Rather then scrappinf the existting cihei-.:Lry program, those

parts that were successful were pulled front it. The program was organ-

ized into one basic unit--Iutrodiution to Chemistry and four optional

units--Chemical Reactions and Energetics, Atom and Molecular Theory,

Biochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry (Figure 2).

Each of these units were further divided into a basic instructional

unit called a "Guide Sheet" (Figure 3). Each guide sheet consisted of

a series of questions which were designed to help the student clarify

and understand the concept or concepts related to that guide sheet. In

addition to the questions, there were problems to work and laboratory

experiments to be performed. Each guide sheet was developed around a

general instructional objective while each lab was developed on the

basis of its ability to produce a certain behavior. A behavioral ob-

jective was stated for each lab. An all--out effort was made to corre-

late the problems, questions and laboratories so that the student would

begin to formulate and acquire the concepts involved. The questions

were worded in such a manner that the student had to use more than one















Needed Skills
(Skill Area)


Ma in Stv'- rm.


Enrichment
Activities


Begin Study
f nit





Unit Desied Nooes
Unit Deiged No Student Have Skill
to Develop C;,, .1 to-
Needed Skill ,-Competencies R.lative to -
Needed Skill \ .
Conpe.tel ies I Understand-ing T
Competencies

Yes

Enrichment
~I Study of At t
Cc -Activity
Concept ---
II Relatcd to
I Concept 1







I II



End Study
of Unit
I I
Copyright: Wiley and Sons,
Science Education, Sept., 1972


Figure 1: Stylized Model for Individualizing Instruction















I. UNIT I: INTRODUCTION 'TO CHEMISTRY

Guide She, t 1: rMan and SciJnce
Guide S1ihet 2: Sand and Mortar- of Chemnistry
Guide Shee!t 3: Mendeleev's BrtrLn.rnhi Id
Guide Slieet 4: The Devious Mole
Guide Shi( t. 5: A Matter of Phasces
Guide Sheer 6: Nuclear Chemistry
Guide Sheet 7: Biochemistry

II. UNIT II: Ci;L 'ICAL REACTIONS AND TE 'RGETICS

Guide Sheet 1: Energy Effects and Rates of Reactions
Guide Sheet 2: Equilibrium in Ci:l.saii Reactions
Guide Sheet 3: Acids, Bases and Oxidation-reduction Reactions

III. UNIT III: A-iliC: AND MOLECULAR THEORY

Guide Sheet 1: The Atom
Guide Sheet 2: Quanta and Electron Orbitals
Guide Sheet 3: Bonding

IV. UNIT IV: BIOCiHEMISTRY

Guide Sheet I.: Carbon and His Buddies
Guide Sheet 2: Sugars and Carbohydrates
Guide Sheet 3: Proteins and Enzymes
Guide Sheet 4: RNA-DNA and Life

V. UNIT V: NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY

Guide Sheet I: Properties of the Nucleus
Guide Sheet 2: Natural Radioactivity and Fission
Guide Sheet 3: Fusion and Stellar Element Formation


Figure 2: Outline of Individualized Chemistry Program





10



UNIT I: INTRODUCTION TO Ch!-.'. :l

Guide Sheet 1: Man & Science

Objective:

You are to develop an awareness of the role of the scientisL in
society.

GUIDE QUESTIONS:

1. Without consulting any source of information, list what
you think are some characteristics of a scientist.

2. Do some reading about alchemy and the alchemists and
answer the following questions:
A. What was alchemy?
B. What was the alchemist trying to prove?
C. What influence did alchemy have on modern science?

3. Are scientists today any different than they were 100
or 200 years ago? Explain.

4. Are scientists today more 'in tune' with the world than
they were in previous times? Explain.

5. Can man be a scientist and be responsive to the society
at the same time? In what ways?

6. What is the difference between science and technology?

7. What are some of the problems supposedly created by
technology?

8. Who has the responsibility for finding solutions to
the major technological problems of today?

9. The following is a list of chemical narn-:s used in the past.
Write the modern name for each one listed.

A. Acid of Salt E. Aqua Regia
B. Phlogiston F. Oil of Vitriol
C. Dephlogisticated Acid of Salt G. Cinnabar
D. Aqua Fortis H. Mercurial Sublimate

PROBLEMS: LABS: REFERENCES:

No problems assigned. # 1 & 2 General chemistry books
Recent periodicals


Figure 3: Sample Guide Sheet









source of information. Students needc to use more than a single source

or text in order to bEcorme aa'-e of different ways of expressing ideas

and to learn not to rely on any one source a's providing the "whole

truth". The progri. i:; highly laboratory--o icnted. There are 36 lab-

oratories which are p;rt of the main stream and 10 option or enrichrent

laboratories (Figui.e 4.).

A contract for tjime '.as developed iicd was used by the studenLs (8).

Students want freedom btl at the same time they neodi some structure.

The contract for time was a comilprormise (igturee 5). It was found that

during the pilot sturly of this program students teund. to put off their

chemistry in order to do more pressing wo '., in other subjects. This

caused many students to lag behind thelc- potential work rate. It was

decided that many students, probably because of the nature of our educa-

tional system, were not ready to be totally independent and actually

requested that some means of pressure be exerted to help them keep up in

the course. The contract idea was thought to be the most fair and real-

istic solution to the problems. When the contract comes due for the

student, a one-week grace period remains. By the eCn of the grace peri-

od, the student must take the quiz or evaluation designed for that

guide sheet or be penalized. If minimum expectations are not attained

for the guide sheet, the student is recycled with a specific study plan

aimed at helping him understand the ideas which were not clear. Each

student should attain some basic level of understanding of each of the

concepts presented before proceeding. Hopefully, the student will ar-

rive at the end of the p'!ogramr with concepts that are relatively clear

and distinct in his mind.

Before the student can take the quiz associated with the Guide









Pre-Te-st iii


~uidr Shieet T
MLin and Scienri
-- IIILIT


t Yes
Guidc Sheet I" Enrichent
nd and Mortar aEnriachent
Sand and Mortar ---- Materials
^^ -~-i-T-._j-,


S Yes
Guide Sheet IV
The Devious Mol


Flow Diagram of Unit I


Figure 4:








INDIVIDUALIZED CHEMISTRY CONTRACT

NAME: DATE:

UNIT NUMBER __
GuIDE SHEET lRNU WER

I _____ WILL ENDEAVOR TO COM-
PLETE THE ABOVE MENTIONED GUIDE SHEET BY
I UNDERSTAND THAT IF I DO NOT COMPLETE THE MATERIAL BY THE
INDICATED DATE, I WILL BE GIVEN A ONE WEEK GRACE PERIOD IN
WHICH TO COMPLETE THE AFOREMENTIONED MATERIAL, ON OR BE-
FORE THE END OF THE GRACE PERIOD I WILL TAKE THE GUIDE SHEET
TEST COVERING THE CONCEPTS IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED GUIDE SHEET.
A TWENTY POINT BONUS WILL BE AWARDED IF WORK IS COMPLETED
BEFORE THE DEADLINE DATF, THERE WILL BE A PENALTY OF FIVE
POINTS FOR EACH DAY I EXTEND BEYOND GRACE PERIOD DEADLINE,

SIGNED:
WITNESSED: CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR
DATE:

CC: TO THE CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR


Figure 5: Student Contract










Sheet, he IlIust have all of this material checked and reviewed by the

teacher. Specifically, the teacher checks the guide questions and the

labs; the student checks his own problems noting the ones lie missed.

The teacher and student sit down and go ovcr all of this together clar-

ifying those points thar are unclear. At this point, the student takes

the quiz.

The system of evaluation consisted of a bank of quiz questions,

each of which was ou a "key-sort" card. There student is given the deck

and he selects however many questions as he needs to obtain 100 points.

Each question has been labelled according to Bloom's Taxonomy of Cogni-

tion; each level given a point weight: Level 1 worth 5 points, Level 2

worth 7 points, and so forth.

It should be interjected at this point that if one is committed

to a personalized, individualized program, class standards no longer

are valid. Therefore, it does not make any difference if one student

does five questions and another does 10 or that they both do not do the

same questions. What is important is that teachers try to provide in-

structional settings that are nonthreatening and that tend to enhance

the individual's concept. The teacher should try to have students see

the quizzes as a small part of the total program, a means of helping

them and the teacher to know if they can apply what they have learned.

Unit I and II contain a large number of one level and two level

questions but also contain questions from the three, four, five and six

levels. In Unit IIL, the number of one and two level questions is re-

duced and the number of three level questions is increased; the same

procedure is followed in Unit IV with the over-all level of questions

being higher than Unit III.









Students entering chemistry can be 1 ikclinc to stu'.eni ,,n ceiitur

a foreign language class. Both groups of students have a 5basc voc!tbu-

lary probleTm. Until the vocabulary acnd basic stri rtu-re of buth chem--

istry and a foreign language are mastered, no adva: .-d ,in standingg

or study can take place. Therefore, t hee ii' s need to le h .I the basic

facts, terminology and vocabulary in order to corll:.iui';tr. Once this

has been established the student can go on to build and ,-:.:-ire. concept:

and ideas. In terms of Bloom's Taxonory, che,.iittry s se-n at the ap-

plication level. Attempts have been iade to dc_,ign t!.e cognitive part

of the program in such a way that the student will. b oper_-t intg cogni-

tively at that level at the end of the progra-m.

Record keeping for this type of program is import rt and could be

very time consuming. One of the teachers testing Lft- ginor- sugg eted

using a card for each student. The student keeps trcck of what he has

done. This helps to keep him aware of where he is in the program

(Figure 6). Another teacher developed this idea into a strdecnt folder.

A file folder is set up for each student. The student keeps the folder

up dated and is responsible for keeping track of his progress. The

folder consists of the following to be used for each Guide Sheet:

1) Contract (Figure 5), 2) Student Inventory Sheet (Figure 7), 3) Total

Evaluation Form (Figure 8), and 4) Individualized Cheistry Progress

Report (Figure 9). Students were found to keep very accurate records.

At the end of each marking period, the student record, his progres- for

that period and the evaluation is sent home to his parents (Figure 10).

No longer are statements such as these heard: "What grade am I getting

this time" or "I don't understand why I got a C".

At this time formal affective objectives have not been stated other







16



















al
4-2



O c-
*H Z


W C | CM COO C OD c C


4 r-i re r-l r- i 'i
0 o D
u coo 0 oo | co oo o l



L-4-IL LII L- | L|A | -4 I
Er-O r | r r rr ~ f- ~ | r -I r [

0 -4 r-1 -r r- -- r-i -( |




o
0co 0n I 10 cQ | c I u I Cd l

O r | l C- r. :



H t-l rl r 1 r-1 r-i r I r-lt r--" |
0 1I M I co c o e 00 M











-c m jn cmn
-H:


S3- rl r l l r l |
r i i | O 01 c | o

SCO oCO QCOO 0 O








0 0 o 0 0 0
\o o o y 2 4o |I
NI N N N *-r
0H A m CL L H L C L H n 0 i CF
CY << oY ~-r | o4-

0CM C S CM CM CM CM CM CM






u ^4 1 u 0 1 U -1 u -
(w CC ci 0
no a o to o



** cu H e ** .
H 3 ? C 3 H W H 3 0) H P 13 -

?* U00 OLO UNO Om o -1 0[11U,- L
































o)










4~1


0




















0
u














oc





C)
U r-l
U 4











0
M 4
01




X3















0-














CI
0

o



>--1

0


CO





0
r-l







or








P<


71
0
4-1
r 1






4 -1 -
rtC,










4 e
a




t-7
0
4J

























C) (V
j C
















0
r0









0G





4-
az








0

a4 r-
u


0 g
u











Q0












0
O
0j
ZE
'0


T

i










TOfAL EVALUATION


Unic Guide Sheet

Contract Dead---ine Date


Points Maximum Points

Cuide Qu;estio- ____ 10

Problem: 10

Labora tory 20/lab.

Extra Guide Questions

Enrichmemtnt Met (er iails

Skills

Guide Sheet Quiz


Total


Final Grade


Figure 8: Total Evaluation










INDIVIDT/A. LD (.iu;M si ~ Pr~ ~2LL:? F


Name
Grade


Period

Instruct r


Letter Grade
Unit I: Introduction to Cli: 0 stry
Guide Sheet 1: Man n-md Science
Guide Sheet 2: San1 and Mti-r of Chemistry
Guide Sheet 3: Me leev's i.- nclid
Guide Sheet 4: Thi lcevi o'i-. M Iole__
Guide Sheet 5: A l,.tter of PihscesG
Guide Sheet 6: Nuclear Ci .r-isti::v
Guide Sheet 7: Bio ~cenmi t ry

Unit Grade
Unit II: Chemical Reat iou .s i:d EI Fnert, I s
Guide Sheet 1: Ener gy Effects; an;: RIPe: o
Reuctjon.;
Guide Sheet 2: Erqilihrium in Ciemical Reactionr;j
Guide Sheet 3: Acids, Es'.,-,s an Oxidation
Reduction Reactions

Unit Grade


Unit III:
Guide
Guide
Guide


Atomic and Molecular Theory
Sheet 1: The Ator
Sheet 2: Quanta and E lectron OrbiLcols
Sheet 3: Bonding

Unit Grade


Unit IV: Biochemistry
Guide Sheet 1: C
Guide Sheet 2: S
Guide Sheet 3: P
Guide Sheet 4: RI


arbon and His Budd i Ls
ugars and C:rbobydrates
roteins and Fn;'ymes
NA-DNA aind Ilfe


Unit Grade


Unit V: Nuclear
Guide Sheet
Guide Sheet
Guide Sheet


Chemis L ry
1: Properties of the Nucleus
2: Natural Radioactivity ar; Fission
3: Fusion and Stellar F1 oe:ent
Format iop


Unit Grade


Figure 9: Progress Report









Date P. K. Yonge Laboratory Scliool

INDIVIDUALIZED CHIEMISLR-;Y PP.rCOGSS REPORT

Natme _Grade

Advisory Group Leader: Chemistry Teacher:

Mr. P. A. EBcht


This year tl.c Chemistry Class is inv: ved in continuing a tested
concept of teaching individualizatLon. I' i c;. her words, they student
works at his o-wn rate using the teacher as a resource person. The
student is given "Guide Sheets" to assist him in obtaiining his goal -
the use and understanding of the basic concepts in chemistry.

The course is designed in five units: 1. Introduction to Chemis-
try, 2. Chemical Reactionz, 3. Atomic Thl-ory, 4. Biochemistry, and
5. Nuclear Chemictry. These five units arc broken into a series? of
guide sheets that assign specific tasks to the students. As a student
completes the tasks on the guide sheet, he becomes qualified to take
an exam covering the material on the guide sheet. The student is
given a specified number of points on completion of the guide sheet
and, when all the guide sheets for a unit have been completed, the
student will receive a letter grade for the unit. No letter grade
will be given to a student until the unit is completed. The reason
this procedure was adopted was to allow students to work at their own
pace toward completion of the guide sheets and the units. This means
that most students will be at different stages in their course work
and there will be no way to fairly evaluate the student with respect
to his progress and the rest of the class. Therefore, no letter grade
will appear on the report card until a unit is completed. Only "S",
"U" or "I" will be given indicating satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or
incomplete progress in the course.

In order for the student to receive credit in the course, he must
satisfactorily complete Unit I, and any two other units or an equiva-
lent two units as decided by the student and teacher.

So that you, the parent, may be aware of your son's/daughter's
progress, a dittoed sheet indicating units completed will be sent home
at the end of each grading period.


Figure 10: Grade Report










COMPLETED


I. Unit T: Introduction to Ch-eistry
a. Guide Sheet 1: Mian and Science
b. Guic Sh'eet 2: Sand and Moilter of Cheraistry
c. Gllitde Sheet 3: Mend lneva's Brainchild
d. Guide Sheet 4: The Devious Mole
e. Guide heet 5: A Mitter of Phases
f. Guide Sb~e' 6: Nuclear Chemistry
g. Guide Sheet 7: Biochemistry


II. Unit II
a. Guide


b. Guide
c. Guide


: Cheviical Reiactions and Energetics
Sheet J: Energy EffecLs and Rates of
Reactions
Sheet 2: Equilibrium in Chemiical Reactions
Sheet 3: Acids, Bases and Oxidation--
Reduction Reactions


III. Unit III: Atonic and Molecular Theory
a. Guide Shed. 1: The Atom
b. Guide Sheer 2: Quanta and Electron Orbitals
c. Guide Sheet 3: Bonding

IV. Unit IV: Biochemistry
a. Guide Sheet 1: Carbon and His Buddies
b. Guide Sheet 2: Sugars and Carbohydrates
c. Guide She lt 3: Proteinr, and Enzymes
d. Guide Sheet 4: RNA-DNA and Life


V. Unit V: Nuclear
a. Guide Sheet 1:
b. Guide Sheet 2:
c. Guide Sheet 3:


Chemistry
Properties of the Nucleus
Natural Radioactivity and Fission
Fusion and Stellar Element
Formation


Figure 10 (Cont'd.)









than in the general objectives, but there are many informal ways for de-

veloping positive attitudes toward science, learning in general, and the

importance of worthiness of each individual. This is demonstrated by

the responsibilities given to the student in this type of program.

First, recognizing that each person is unique and his patterns of learn-

ing are different, he is encouraged to proceed ui'ih his study of chem-

istry at the rate commnensu.rate with his background and for ier knowledge.

The student keeps his own records and haiS some choice over the kinds of

quiz questions which he takes. The student is encouraged to give feed-

back in terms of which laboratories helped the most and which helped

the least in understanding or learning a particular concept or idea.

The student is given the freedom to decide each day how he is to use his

time. Does he do a lab, work problems, ask questions or do nothing?

This type of program also helps to keep the student thinking posi-

tively about science and school in general. He does not get uptight nor

do the teachers if he is absent because of sickness, sports, or other

student activities. The student knows what is expected of him and can

proceed accordingly. No longer does the student ask: "What have I

missed?" or "What do I have to make up?" or "When can I come in to see

you about what I missed in class?".

Personal contact with the students in the class increases. Most

of the teacher's time in class is spent in a one-to-one ratio or small

group interaction with students. The teacher may go over the same idea

many times but goes over it when the student is ready rather than when

the teacher thought all students were ready.

These factors formulate the basis of the Individualized Chemistry

Program at P. K. Yonge Laboratory School. The program will constantly









be undergoing change and mod:ificatio.i If educators are co provide the

best education for student:, then any program which is to have survival

value must be of a dynamic nat'ire.



V]. Statement' Of The Probleom


The probleLl in this study is to determine the effectiveness of the

P. K. Yonge TInividualized Chemistry Prograii in selected public high

schools in Florida when taught by the chemistry teachers found in these

schools.



VII. Pilot Project And Study


In the fall of 1969, it was decided to bi:gin to design and imple-

ment an individualized program in chemistry as part of the science pro--

gram at P. K. Youge. Dr. D. P. Altieri and the writer began designing

by night and teaching by day. It would have been better to wait a year

and do some careful planning, but the frustration level with the teach-

ing of traditional chemistry was too high to combat. Three classes of

approximately 30 students each were involved in the study. Since the

course was being developed as the year progressed, the students were

encouraged to take part in the development. A graduate student in

chemistry education became interested in the project. She wanted to

become involved. The major need at this point was feedback from the

students relative to the effectiveness of the program. This student

designed and administered a questionnaire to the students in the pro-

gram and tallied the results. This became the first formative evalua-

tion and it was used to modify and strengthen the program. A modified









form of this questionnaire was used in subsequent field testing of the

Individualized i. r:'" try Program (Figure 11). Also a closer contact

with students provided the opportunity to discuss individual problem;L

about the course with the student. This forr'ative evaluation greatly

assisted the devclopi!cnt of the program. As the school year neared its

end, many studen-ts found thcciscelves behind in their work. Since indi-

vidual ization allows ene to work at his own rate with respect to certain

guidelines, the students found themselves behind because there was no

pressure to do certain assignments by a cert':Ln time as in other courses.

Many students put off chemistry until other pressing assignments were

out of the way. The contract idea developed out of this problem.

Another advant age of the pilot study was the assistance given by

the students toward the development of meaningful laboratory experiences.

From students' responses, experiments were eliminated that were only ex-

ercises and replaced with useful and practical. experiments that related

more directly to the topic under study.

At the beginning and the end of the year, the questionnaire and the

American Chemical Society (ACS) Chemistry E::.am was administered.

Many students did not complete the course during the year because

we had not used the contract idea and there was no immediate pressure to

complete any given amount of work in a given time. One of the strongest

comments on both questionnaires was the need to have some pressure to

force the student to work.

Major emphasis of the project during the first year included iden-

tifying content, developing a management system which included a system

for student evaluation, and coordinating laboratory activities.

Based on the feedback from the student questionnaires, the program









INDIVIDII' lZED CHEMISTRY QUESTIOlNNAIRE

PART A


Answer Part A only on the answer sheet provided. For each of the following
questions indicate your answer on the answer sheet co- respondir-, to tie
question number being answered. Use the following scale to code the answer
sheet.
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Don't Know
4 = Disagree
5 = Strongly Di,' ,ree
This is not a timed test. Take your time and when finished turn in both
the questionnaire and the answer sheet to your teaclier.

1. Performing experiments in class helps me understand the chemical
concepts I have been studying.

2. The results of my experiments make sense.

3. I have enough mathematical background to do the problems assigned.

4. I see a new value in studying chemistry I did not see before.

5. The pressure of other classes (having certain assignments ready at
certain times) cause me to "put off" doing chemistry.

6. I am satisfied with my progress in this class.

7. I plan the work I expect to cover in a week or contracted period of
time.

8. I feel that I can ask questions at any time.

9. I ask questions when I don't understand.

10. The tests are fair.

11. I look back every week (or some other period of time) and evaluate my
progress.

12. I think the tests really measure what I know.

13. Answering the questions on the guide sheets really helps me.

14. I chose to take this course.


Figure 11: Student Questionnaire










15. "Individualized Study" is the best way to study chemistry.

16. I am able to see a direction in what I am studying in Che~niist-ry.

17. I understand iud can explain the concepts I have studied in Chemistry.

18. As a result of this course, I now know how some of the great discover--
ies in science were mad .

19. As a result of this course, I plan to major in science or math in
college.

20. I feel confident that I can handle thli, subject on an "individual
study" basis.

21. I enjoy discussing this class at home.

22. I feel free to discuss chemistry (problems, experiments, etc.) with my
classmates.

23. I see relationships between what I am learning in Chemistry and what
I have learned in other science courses.

24. I am able to read and understand the textbooks I am using.

25. From what I have experienced in science, I think a scientist can be
creative.

26. I find science exciting.



PART B


Please answer the following in the space provided.

1. What unit and guide sheet are you working on at this time?


2. If other classes pressure you to put off chemistry, what can be done
about this problem?


Figure 11 (Cont'd.)










3. How do you plan your work week for chc'tni try?





4. Has this course been helpful to you? In what way?





5. What did you expect from this course when you signed up for it?
Are you getting wh1t you expected?





6. What do you find most rew-irding in this class?



7. What do you find least rewarding in this class?


8. How would you revise the set-up of this course to
rewarding for you?


make it more


9. Besides your tests and lab equipment, what other "aids" available
in your classroom have you used?



10. Please make any additional comments or suggestions which would make
the class a better "learning situation".


Figure 11 (Cont'd.)









was modified and updated during the summer of 1970. Because of gro''ing

interest in individualizing instruction, it was decided to begin a lim-

ited field testing operation.

The following year a small grant was received from the Florida

Educational Research an'd Development Council to field test the program

in the public school system of Florida. A research design was developed

and the program was implemented in seven schools in the state of Flor-

ida: Buchholz High School, Gainesville; GainesvilleI High School,

Gainesville; P. K. Yonge Laboratory School, Gainesville; Cedar Key High

School, Cedar Key; Newberry High School, Newberry; Lakeland Senior High

School, Lakeland; Paxton High School, Paxton. Because of limited fund--

ing, all the schools participated on a voluntary basis only. The

schools varied in size from a small rural type high school with only

seven students in the chemi:.try class to a large city high school with

eight classes of 30 students in each class. Students in these schools

represented a cross-section of different types of students in Florida

schools and therefore were a heterogeneous population. The student

population of the field study, including experimental and control stu-

dents was nearly 500.

Experimental and control groups were assigned in accordance with

the Non-equivalent Control Group, Design No. 10 of the Campbell and

Stanley design series (28).


01 X 02



03 04









This design has no control for external validity, but controls for

all sources of internal invalidity except rereresion effects and the in-

teraction of selection and maturation.

Selection of participating schools va :necessarily limited to those

few who were willing to cooperate on short notice, and with a min.i.mum of

control from the researchers. As a result, much valuable r'ata was lost

due to failure of some participating schools to fu-nish both pre-test and

post-test scores from their students. Thr failure of control group data

to be significantly large rendered the calculation of 't' tests imprac-

ticable in several instances.

Instruments used were tIh. ACS Chemistry Test, the Sequential Test of

Educational Progress (STEP) Reading Test, the All--School-Subjects Attitude

Scale, and locally prepared questionnaires for both teachers and students.

Hypothesis expressed in NULL FOI2'_I were:

1. There will be no significant difference betwo-n the experimen-
tal and control groups with respect to achievement in chemistry.

2. Experimental and control groups will show no significant chang-
es in attitudes towards science (and self).

3. There will be no significant difference between experimental and
control groups with respect to reading ability.

4. There will be no significant difference in achievement in
chemistry between slow and fast readers in the experimental
and control groups.

Evaluation techniques planned included use of the 't' tests for

population control, analysis of variance to control for differences be-

tween experimental and control groups in terms of the dependent varia-

bles, analysis of variance to test for differences in attitude and read-

ing ability, and use of a correlation matrix to study the relationship

between achievement and the variables of attitude and reading ability.










Results of the analysis of data were not considered reportabIc be-

cause of the lack of sufficient matched cld.ta from the field schools.

Unfortunately, many of the schools participating in the study had racial

problems during the last six weeks of school and many of the teachers

were not able to administer the post-tests to the students. With only

10 percent of the post-test data rcturncd, statistical results would

be invalid.

There was one bright spot that kept the study from becoming a

complete failure, most of the student and teacher questionnaires were

returned giving adequate formative data indicati-'g need for program

improvement.

Teachers and students were very favorable towards the course and

made many suggestions to help improve both the technique and subject

matter of the course. This formative evaluation and suggested improve-

ments helped to make the course more meaningful to the student and

more helpful to the teacher. Feedback from the classroom teacher is

necessary and important in curriculum development.

The field testing, which this dissertation describes, was de-

signed taking into account the information gained from the testing and

the formative evaluations in the pilot study. These evaluations indi-

cated to the researcher that the program was working and producing mean-

ingful results. Hypothesis were developed and the study undertaken in

the format discussed under the research design section.

















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITE',LTURE


For centuries teachers have been using mass instruction methods

based on a situation in the aicddle ages before the invention of print-

ing when the teacher-lecturer had the only book on thfe subject at his

school or university.

Today a complete restructuring of the basic teacher-pupil rela-

tionship is needed to take advantage of the many new materials and

methods available. This breakthrough is the individualizing of educa-

tion.

Individualizing education had its beginnings in the 1860's when

the "object method" of teaching and methods of nature study were intro-

duced according to the pattern of the Swiss educator Johann Heinrich

Pestalozzi. Edward A. Sheldon and the normal school at Oswego, N.Y.

were influential in spreading Pestalozzian ideas in America.

Another influential leader in making the child and his interests

the center of the educative process was Francis W. Parker in his schools

at Quincy, Mass., and the Cook County normal school in Chicago in the

1880's and 1890's. Further stimulus to modern educational methods came

from John Dewey through his experimental school at the University of

Chicago in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and through his writ-

ings on educational theory and practice.

The development of objective tests and measurements of scholastic

achievement aideJ the process of diagnosing individual abilities and









helped set standards of school achievements for th- various age and

grade groups. These objective tests helped educators to begin to look

at the individual needs and abilities of students in order to better

understand how to more personalize education (8,9).

Individualized instruction will have to take into account a tran-

sition from "How iL's done now", to "What will be done tomorrow". We

can use more than the printed page to break away from the lock-step,

every-one-d- th e-same-thing-at-the-same-time, method of teaching. And

this can be much more than just "enrichment" by adding on projects,

supplemental readings, "seminars", and field trips. We can individual-

ize the instruction without confining the instruction to any one device

which someone thinks is the universal panacea for all the ills of the

educational scene at the time even teaching machines and programmed

learning!

Glaser's (10) discussion about effective individualized education

listed a series of recommendations to use when individualizing instruc-

tion. They are: 1) redesign grade level boundaries and time limits

for subject matter coverage, 2)'well-defined sequences of behaviorally

defined objectives as study guides for students, 3) adequate evaluation

of a student's progress through a curriculum sequence, 4) instructional

materials appropriate for self directed learning, 5) professional train-

ing of school personnel in student evaluation and guidance, and 6) use

by teachers of student profiles, automation, and other special tech-

niques to design the individualized program. Glaser's recommendations

were recognized by the International Conference on Education in Chemis-

try in 1970 (11) that sent a directive to secondary schools to produce

materials for the study of chemistry from a humanistic point of view.









The conference said that the best way to iunlcmnnt the2ie recom-iendations

and to humanize the curriculum is to individualize. The theory and

philosophy of individualized instruction discussed by Glass (12), Ras-

mussen (13), McCarley (14) and Goodlad (15) agree with the outcome of

the International Conference on Education in Chemistry. They further

state that the teacher should become a partner, data source, observer

and diagnostician.

A literature search of current research in individualized instruc-

tion in the sciences revealed few such program in chemistry and none

that seemed to fit the writer's description of an individualized pro-

gram. Most programs were an elaborate self-pacing program usually de-

signed around a text book. Tucker (16) supports the writer's conclusion

that most individualized programs are self-pacing at different levels.

He says that commercial "individualized" programs concentrate on only

data input, primarily self-pacing with little effective evaluation to

determine how the data are processed. He also stresses the need of

teacher training and good teaching in order for individualizing to be

effective in the classroom.

Tolpin (17) supports Glaser's and Tucker's observations with a

survey study of high school chemistry students. From his studies, only

about 10 percent of the students taking chemistry are science oriented;

the other ninety percent of the students take the course for its educa-

tional value. A majority of the textbooks that discuss the procedures

and techniques of high school chemistry provide a firm education for

the college bound student. The average student that plunges enthusias-

tically into the subject quickly becomes perplexed and panics because

too many of the signposts are unintelligible to him.









The literorture search revealed only secn programs of individual-

ized instruction in chc;!ist::y. Only one of the seven programs wac

studied s ; J i; Lcailly.

Perkins (18), Dcnton (1) and DeRose (20, 23) all develop indi-

vidual Iii d program:.: around thie (.c i study (Chemical Education Material

Study) c.iurical n. The programs were all self-paced laboratory oriented

programs dc:'iged around a fo::'.at of (1) work guides, (2) behavioral

objectives, (') eva1un tion( on a poitL system, (4) task deadlines or time

contracts, (5) sm.ll group interaction and (6) an effective teacher--

pupil relationebiti. Hous. (22) used a similar format except he made

extensive use of multimedia and of experiment stations. The classroom

was redesigned to men- the needs of the program. Unfortunately, none

of tihe programs mentioCl'ed above went any further than the schools in-

volve d in the study.

Another type of program listed as individualized was developed by

Powell (23). This was an individualized programmed instruction packet

designed to provide a self-paced logical sequence of small steps and to

allow for immediate confirmation or correction in order to help solve

the problems created by the wide spread of abilities and interests

among high school chemistry students.

Shavelson (24) did more than develop and report on a program. He

carried out a study to compare the success of his individualized chemis-

try program with the tradi-ional classroom lecture method of instruc-

tion. His study was not a statistical study but his findings stated

that individualized instruction involving individual lectures and labs

with s[';all group discussions and self-pacing is superior to the tradi-

tional classroom lecture method.









The statistical study was done by Krockover (25). This sLudy was

similar to the ones done by Perkins (18), Dent,.n (19), Denose (20,2L)

and House (22) except that the CBA (Chenmical Bon- Approaclh) cha!I.:i-sry

curriculum was used. His data indicated that the e:-per: i ental (in.iivid-

ualized) class did as well or significantly better (u~sic.; analysis of

covariance) at the 0.05 level than students enrolled i a group instruc-

tion CBA class as indicated on the ACS (American Chc.icjlJ. Society) Chem-

istry Test, TOUS (Test On Understanding Scicutce) iT'-, tlhe WaLson Glaser

Critical Thinking Test and CBA Standardized Achievximent Tet. He also

found the students said that the greatest source.' of prcss;vre to get work

done in an individualized class was themselves'. They work;,d harlder in

an individualized class but said that they liked the class. They also

indicated that the class also gave them more responsibility for learning.

Even though none of these programs was a true individualized pro-

gram, a real effort was made to meet the needs of the students through

the different attempts to cope with individual differences. All of

the programs indicated that the role of the teacher must change to that

of a resource person from that of a lecturer or "spoon feeder".

Changes in length of class periods, scheduling on the basis of

purpose and need, pupil programs based upon maturation, interest and

achievement, varied instructional tools and new physical arrangements

will not, themselves, bring about individualization of science instruc-

tion by teachers. However, they will provide teachers with the oppor-

tunity to better individualize and will facilitate its actual happening.

Such changes are making it possible for teachers to have the freedom to

organize their teaching for individuals and small groups. These innova-

tions have and will continue to make it possible for teachers to utilize









a problem-solving approach to scincne teacaring, anm allow for greater

involvement of students in the Leaching -learning aut. In so doing,

teachers will be providing greater opportunities fl,- students to exper-

ience success in school and to develop adequate concepts of themselves

as individuals (26).

In summary, the literature show much discus:?:':- about tbl. merits

of individualized instruction and how to individu. lize bui has essertial-

ly no sound evidence to indicate the effectiveness of an individualized

approach. In the field of chemistry, only one study was found that had

a supportable evaluation. But using the rijt.er's definition of individ-

ualizing, the study was done on a self-paced/indepe,-ndent study program.

Most of the articles regarding curricILuii studies are discussed from a

subjective point of view. Also, after the study wks completed, the

curriculum or program was not followed thronLugl and no further study was

done.

The lack of a thorough objective study of an individualized approach

toward instruction in the literature indicates a need for such a study.

Because of the current trend toward individualization of instruction,

there is a need for studies of this type in many different subject fields.

Therefore in view of the findings in the literature, the writer developed,

pilot studied and field tested an individualized program in chemistry.

The study is discussed in Chapters III through VI.

















CH'.PTER ITT
DESIGN OF TIHE RESEARCH

I. Hypotheses


Four hypotheses were designed to study -he effects of the Individ-

ualized Chemistry Program on high school students. They are stated in

the null form as follows:

1. There will be no significant difference between
the experimental and control groups with respect
to achievement in chemistry.

2. There will be no significant difference between
experimental and control groups with respect to
reported attitudes toward science.

3. There will be no significant difference between
experimental and control groups with respect to
reading ability.

4. There will be no significant difference between
high and low achievers on the STEP Reading Test
of either experimental or control groups with
respect to achievement in chemistry.



II. Research Design


Each hypothesis was chosen to demonstrate the effectiveness or

ineffectiveness of the Individualized Chemistry Program with respect to

the three main objectives of the course: (1) achievemen- in chemistry,

(2) attitude toward science courses, and (3) the slow student will

achieve as much as the fast student if given enough time. From experi-

ence and observations, it appears that many slow students are slow be-

cause of their reading ability. If this is the case, a test of reading









ability using experirv;nta] and control groups would confirm this

statement (27).

In the ca.;e of achievement, the, literature provided no tests

designed for individualized chemistry. The on ly criterion that could

be used was the national ACS Chemistry Examination, whb:.h could be used

to conip.::e Liotl groups, expeimcntal and control, to a national norm.

This test shouldd indicate t..o things: (1) the comparison of achievement

between group! (experiienf ; 1 and control) and (2) comparison to a

national norrL i based on a traditional approach toward chemistry.

The traditional science courses cause many students to dislike

scieiu. and to avoid scit.ce courses in college. This n(teative attitude

toward science in tundents, which may have an effect on the feeling

people hav: toward science, is used to indicate any affect the Individ-

ualized Chemistry course and the traditional course have on the attitude

of the student toverd science.

A student questionnaire is used as a formative evaluation of the

program. It will be used to help improve the program for use in the

future.

Because of the number of participating schools, randomization was

possible, both in the selection of schools as experimental or control,

and in the selection of classes within each school. Schools were

grouped into matched pairs, then randomly designated as experimental

or control.

This procedure approximates the Pre-test/Post-test Control Group

Design No. 4 of the Campbell and Stanley series (28) shown below:










R 0 X 0


R 0 0


It is assumed that tie control and exipriri-; al classes are very

similar because all the students are high school students in Florida

taking high school chemistry at the same time. If this assumption is

correct, the threats to internal validity due to history, maturation,

testing and instrumentation arc controlled.

The effect of regression on internal validity is eliminated because

the students were not chosen due to their scores on the pre-test.

Selection-maturation interaction is not controlled because the

students were not randomly selected and may not be equivalent. An

attempt to escape this problem was made by attempting to obtain experi-

mental and control classes at the same school or in the same area as an

attempt to obtain students from the same type of population. Also

because the classes were randomly selected to be experimental or control

--these included small rural schools to large city schools---the effect

of this source of internal invalidity can be decreased significantly.

Testing and X interaction as a threat to external validity does not

seem to be a threat since the amount of time testing, compared to the

amount of time X is in effect, is small so the student should remember

little of the tests.

The threat of selection and X inctraction is controlled since the

generalizations will be limited to the arce:s front which the schools are

located and by random selection of schools.

The effect of reactive arrangements on external validity should be

limited because most of the schools participating in the program only





40



have one cla"s of chemistry and the students should not be sensitive

toward th. experiTientat:io (29-31).

A statistical analysis, described in the data analysis section,

will be used to test the hypothesis and to check the content validity

of the study.
















CHAPTER IV
DATA ACQUISITION

I. Instrumentation


Three test instruments and one questionnaire are used for the

evaluation of the study. They are as follows:

1. ACS Cooperative Chemistry ExaminruiaOn.
This test is used to test the hypothesis regarding achieve-
ipent. No test had been found to evaluate the achievement
of a student's progress in an individualized chemistry
course. Since the course is deslned for a student who is
college bound, a final evaluation with that in mind was
needed. The ACS Examination was designed to evaluate a
student on what he should know in chemistry to enter col-
lege. This test will compare the experimer~tal and control
stlud..t with the national average of all his' school stu-
dents taking chemistry in America. The Kuder- Lichardson
Formula 21 reliabilities for the norms groups are in the
0.90's for this test (32).

2. Sequential Test of Educational Progress Reading Test.
This test is used to test the reading level of the student
in order to determine if he has a high or low reading abil-
ity. This information will be used to correlate with
achievement. The STEP Reading Test was chosen because of
its long-term use and accessibility. Using the Speaimen-
Brown formula, the reliability of the Form 3A Reading Test
ranges from 0.72 to 0.86 (33).

3. Any-School-Subject Attitude Test (Figure 12).
This test is used to determine the attitude of students
toward chemistry. Silance and Remmers (34) report equiva-
lent-forms reliabilities ranging from 0.81 to 0.90 using
both high school and college students and using different
school subjects asattitudinal referents. This scale has
been validated using criterion groups measured for interest
and values.









ATTIIT'DE TEST PRE
There are no right or wrong answers to thei.-, questions. People differ in
their opinions on them. Indicate your o pin ion L'y blacklig in with #2 pencil
the number on the answer sheet which correspondr most closely with your feelings.
1 A .-


1.
'"


Sisagre
iisagre-


37. Chemistry is not receiving its due in public high schools.
38. My parents never had chemistry; so I see no merit in it.
39. Chemistry saves time.
40. Chemistry will benefit only the brighter student.
41. Chemistry is not a bore.
42. I haven't any definite like or dislike for chemistry.
43. Chemistry is a good pastime.
44. I am careless in my attitude toward chemistry, but I would not like to
see this attitude become general.
45. I don't believe chemistry will do anybody any harm.


Figure 12: Any-School-Subject Attitude Test


No matter what happens, chemistry always comcs first. 2
I hate chemistry.
I would rather study chemistry than eat.
Chemistry is the most undesirable subject taught.
I love to study chemistry.
I detest chemistry.
Chemistry is of great value.
I look forward to chemistry with horror.
Chemistry has an irresistible attraction for mc.
Chemistry is disliked by all students.
I really enjoy chemistry.
It is a punishment for anybody -o take che:i.stry.
Chemistry is profitable to everybody who takes it.
Chemistry is a waste of time.
Chemistry develops good reasoning ability.
Chemistry is based on "fo.-.y" ideas.
Chemistry is very practical.
I would not advise anyone to take chemistry.
Any student who takes chemistry is bound to be benefited.
I have seen no value in chemistry,
Chemistry teaches me to be accurate.
I have no desire for chemistry.
Chemistry is a universal subject.
Chemistry reminds me of Shakespeare's play--"Much Ado About Nothing",
Chemistry is a good subject.
Chemistry is very dry.
All of our great men studied chemistry.
Chemistry does not teach you to think.
Chemistry is a cultural subject.
I am not interested in chemistry.
All lessons and all methods used in chemistry are clear and definite.
The minds of students are not kept active in chemistry.
Chemistry is O.K.
Mediocre students never take chemistry; so it should be eliminated
from schools.
I am willing to spend my time studying chemistry.
I could do very well without chemistry.


35.
36.









ATTITUDE TEST POST
There are no right cr i1:ong annixoera to thbse questions.
their opinions on then. Indicate your opinion by hbi.- : j,, in
the number on the answer shit-ct which corresponds most closely


Peo
wit
wit


I am "crazy" about chefm istry.
Chemistry is the worst subject taught in school.
The very existence of i.ii,.inity depends upon chemisi:ry.
Words can't exprecss a ry a aoniis toward chemistry.
If I had my vay, I would c.oupel everybody to study chemistry.
No sane person would take chemistry.


Chemist ry
Chemistry
I believe
Chemistry
Chemistry
Nobody li
Chemistry
Ci, ,,i -;try


ple differ in
h #2 pencil
h your feelings.
1 = Agree
2 = Disagree


is one of the most useful subjects I know.


is all bun1.
chemistry is the basic subject for all high school courses.
is more- like a plague than a study.
is one subject t hat all young A-ericans should know.
keo chemistry.
fascinates me.
has ro place in the modern world.


15. The merits of chemistry iar outweith the dJeects.
16. C'i, T,; try can't benefit rF .
17. Chemistry gives pupils the ability to interpret situations they will
meet in life.
18. All of the material in chemistry is very uninteresting.
19. Chemistry will help pupils socially as w~ll as intellectually.
20. The a...%r ir,. student gets nothing worth having out of chemistry.
21. Chemistry makes me efficient in school work.
22. Chemistry does not hold ; interest at all.
23. There are more chances for development of high ideals in chemistry.
24. Chemistry seems to be a necessary evil.
25. Chemistry is interesting.
26. Chemistry is dull.
27. Chemistry teaches methodical reasoning.
28. C,,.-i-'try interferes with developing.
29. Chemistry serves the needs of a large number of boys and girls.
30. Ch -. story has numerous limitations and defects.
31. All methods used in chemistry have been thoroughly tested in the
classroom by experienced teachers.
32. Chemistry does not motivate the pupil to do better work.
33. Chemistry has its merits and fills its purpose quite well.
34. No definite results are evident in chemistry.
35. Every year more students are taking chemistry.
36. To me chemistry is more or less boring.
37. Chemistry aims mainly at power of execution or application.
38. No student should be concerned with the way chemistry is taught.
39. Chemistry is not based on untried theories.
40. Ci-.:;.istry is all right, but I would not take any more of it.
41. I think chemistry is amusing.
42. My likes and dislikes for chemiistry balance one another.
43. Chemistry has its drawbacks, but I like it.
44. C[-- istry doesn't worry me in the least.
45. Chemistry might be worthwhile if it were taught right.


Figure 12 (Cont'd.)










4.' Student: Quei: ; i aire (F i,;ilre 11).
The qucstic -isi, ~u; ::-,ic, J by "i. Betl:oustiki, a gr duate
student in !Educaion pn at 1:icpatin, in the evalu nation of
the piloI: study of tn i progriaT (35). 1i.H reliability of
the quiietion'-i--e p ,rs to be sufficJent because the
pre- and post-it:;; rc.uItlt:. dtur:ing the pilot program and
first year of !io ld tle-ting ccre consistent. ,1. ques-
tionnaire i. valid becaut-s lie results were relevant to
the design of the questionnaire. This questionnaire will
be used only for formative evaluation.



II. Sampling


The sample for this study consists of 18 schools in the experimen-

tal program consisting of 849 students and 11 control schools consisting

of 703 students for a total student population of 1552. The control and

experimental classes were randomly selecteJ from the pool of schools in

the State of Florida that indicated a willingness to participate as an

experimental or control school in the Individualized Chemistry Program.

The pool of schools were selected from schools in 44 Florida counties

subscribing Lo t he Florida Educational Research and Development Council

(FERDC). '...-e counties range from the Panhandle to the Southern tip of

Florida and are representative of the State's population. With respect

to the threat of selection d non tnd ion to external validity, all.

schools who were contacted volunteered to participate in the program.

This threat .will be minimal because the universe of schools from which

generalizations will be made will only be the schools involved in the

study.

Thi thrcr- of reactive arrangements to rxt,:rnal validity may have

somne effect on the study becan.rc n:st of thb- teacher- participating

wanted Ut. r.-e an cf.'iaerIa! class. ;No all teachers were able to

:z. a:h an experimental class o0 both e'xperii:.e:tal and control classes due









to random selection of classes. The experimental teachers may be more

enthusiastic than teachers teaching the traditional course.

The Pre-test/Post-test Control Group Design was chosen because of

its ability to eliminate most restricting variables with respect to

internal validity. Since two equivalent and valid forms of each test

were available, pre- and post-testing was desirable because it would not

only give mean gains but also give information on achievement gains

that had been requested by many of the participating teachers. It also

presented less confusion for the teacher, hopefully eliminating data

mix-ups.



III. Data Collection


Data from each group are obtained during a pre- and post-testing

period. The teachers administer the tests to their classes following

a set of testing instructions. All testing was done within a week of

the testing date.

All data were returned to the research team and underwent eval-

uation. The results of the evaluation are discussed in Chapters V and

VI.



IV. Method Of Data Analysis


A statistical analysis of the data, using the IBM-370 computer,

will be done in the following manner:

1. Population Control:

I. T Test on pre-test ACS
II. T Test on pre-test Attitude
III. T Test on pre-test STEP Reading





46




2. Correlation matrix based on Pearson's Coefficient of
Correlation (r) to study the relationships between
achievement and the variables, attitude and reading
ability, on both experimental and control groups.

3. Analysis of covariance test for significant difference
between the control and experimental groups in terms
of the dependent variables, achievement in Chemistry,
attitude toward science and reading ability.
















CHAPTER V
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

I. Population


The population at the beginning of the study consisted of 29

schools: 18 experimental schools containing 849 students and 11

control schools containing 703 students. Pre-tests in all the evalu-

ations were given to the total population of 1552 students. At the

end of the study when the post-tests were returned, it was found that

only 587 students had matched test scores: 305 experimental students

and 282 control students. When this population was examined, it was

found that the 305 experimental students came from 13 different class-

rooms and the 282 control students came from 8 different classrooms

providing a total classroom population of 21 for the analysis of this

study.

The basic population used in this study is the classroom unit.

This unit was chosen because of the desirability of retaining the

normal classroom selection of students found in each of the study

schools. This requires discussion of results to be in terms of only

the population schools and classrooms and not in terms of the students.

Students were not randomly selected for the experimental and control

classrooms; but rather the classrooms were randomly selected to be

either experimental or control.

The experimental and control student population is used in part of

the analysis described later in this chapter. It is recognized that










these data were not randomly selected and are therefore to be inter-

preted with caution. These data are used only as a means to better

describe the interactions that were found to be significant.

Test for homogeneity of population was done using the "T" test

as discussed in Kirk (36). The "T" test was done on comparing the

experimental classes with the control classes. The "T" value was

found to be negative for all three tests; therefore, Ho : P1 = P2

for the study population is accepted.



II. Analysis Of Covariance


Hypothesis one was examined using the ACS Chemistry Test comparing

the post-test results of the experimental and control classes using

analysis of covariance. The level of significance chosen was the 10

percent level of confidence.

Analysis of covariance was done using the ACS post-test as the

fixed variable and the STEP pre-test and the ACS pre-test as covariates.

The "F" value for 1 and 17 degrees of freedom was found to be signifi-

cant beyond the 0.1 level (Table 1).

A plot of the ACS pre- and post-test class means was done to

indicate the direction of the significance (Figure 13). This plot

shows a net gain by both experimental and control groups but a signi-

ficantly greater net gain by the control group. Hypothesis one is not

accepted.

Hypothesis two was examined using the All-School-Subject Attitude

test in the same manner as with the ACS test. The test consists of 45

agree-disagree type statements, half of which are positive and the other









































0


C (o
a
u




0 >

re
00
o1 01





OU2
M CO


u a -H
E 0 E-






(U E


pi-



Or o
$ 4 0
0 w u










(E






'- I 1
CO0 U C


r-4 V-4


0

ao
3 h

en W

r/
0









s-I
0
QJ










CO
MU,

4(N


01 0
r-4 C4N


* 0


ft-
00


0

r4 E-4





4J
-C

co
*M

-4


4j



ca)

E-a .0


Sa)
co

'o
a 4

cE E
r1 Li


W -S
0 -A

-l 4

+












Pre

5.888

5.618


Pre


Figure 13:


Post

6.142

6.920


Post


ACS Pre-, Post-test Class Means
0 Experimental Group
0 Control Group


7.0








6.5


6.0


1 -


5.5 ^









half negative attitude statements. An agree score on a positive state-

ment received a plus one score, while an agree response for a negative

statement received a negative one score. A positive attitude was de-

termined as any positive score while a negative attitude was determined

by any negative score. Analysis of covariance was done using the

Attitude post-test as the fixed variable and the ACS pre-test as the

covariate. The "F" value for 1 and 18 degrees of freedom was found to

be significant beyond the 0.1 level (Table 2).

A plot of the Attitude test pre- and post-test means (Figure 14)

was then done to determine the direction of significance. The plot

showed an overall regression in both the experimental and control

groups with the greatest regression in the control group. Hypothesis

two is not accepted.

Analysis of covariance was also done to test hypothesis three

using the STEP post-test as the fixed variable and the ACS pre-test and

the Attitude pre-test as the covariates. The "F" test was found to be

not significant at the 0.1 level. A plot of the STEP test pre- and

post-test means (Figure 15) shows little difference in the gain of the

experimental and control groups. Therefore hypothesis number three is

accepted.



III. Correlation

A correlation matrix was done comparing the pre-test, post-test

and difference in the ACS, STEP and Attitude tests for both the experi-

mental and control (Tables 3 and 4). With a population of 305 students

in the experimental program and 282 in the control program, correlations






































CO 01


Cd












")










014
0

0 <













-I^


Ill
r-4
.0
(0




x


C1

-ii






4.J

0 )

04
c)















E-4
4
4-1






^;


C3$
04


Ec) 0
p +


*Uh
CC
a0 0
50 <
6 a
u 3

a) 4-


1-4 a0
-4 e' J


4c




C*






F4 E-4

4-1




-41
c0



cO
4


X)vf
uCJ

- e
00 ci

3 <
ria



Jcd
00 0)
C

U d
(0 Q
S0)
Ei E-i











Pre Post

0 5.736 5,592
[I 6.029 5.430










7.00







6.50





cd

6.00








5.50







I L
Pre Post

Figure 14: Attitude Pre-, Post-test Class Means
O Experimental Group
D Control Group
























Pre
0 24.916
[1 25.166


Post
28.393
29.311


I I






























Pre Post

Figure 15: STEP Pre-, Post-test Class Means
O Experimental Group
O Control Group


30.0



29.0


28.0



27.0


26.0



25.0













QOc)

lo c
3 0
4-J 4-4








-u



0
M 44i







U W
-d
1-4




Icm





4-O
0n-i


4-J


H,
4-1

(U 04




3 E-4
w I I




















En0
0
1 4-
U)
H I I
CJ)E-i









rUa)





0




04

i 0
o




P4


0

O
I o


0
0
O
S0

1-4

o r-


o r-
o C;
0o o

- O0


0

S1O 0

-4
O -




0 CM4
0 -3-
I I I C -.
0 Cl
-O
l O


OC


S I O

r-14


o n
OC m

o o


I I





0 0
o

I 0






O o
Lfn -3T
0O -3-
0 0

0 0





r- O-


0 0
C)

C;o


r-4 -z-

0 0C
O O

O O0
It








-4 V0
o O

0 0
-I






o N
0 o


-K


0 e

O u
0 Lt3
* *
0 0






C







T' I
0 0

0 0

0 0


cy>

o
CN
0


I



C

0
V 4-.

o








o
44

0 -













0
-C1
C l
* C
















I


-:3

0
ne



















0

















CD
-1
0
Cr








I
0
0














0



CN

0







O


0D 0) 0c
4-1 4-1 4-1 U r J u ( U
41 a) 4- w 0 4 a) 01 z)
0) 0) C 0 0 1 0C 3 00 En "0 ) (0
cn 0 ) 0) 0EE- 3 ) 3 EE-4 z 5 = H 4 4- w
U E4 U I W i 4- I U E-i a -r- WO
C4 1 -C 4-1 E-4 I p 43 -H I -H 4-1 -< '44 C/3 4-4 -W 4-4
0 )n U 3 E ) c/U ) 4-J a) 4iJ ) 4-4 4-1 41 44
p- 0 0 4-J i4 4-i 0 <- e
C14 O PA 04 4 :O -4
Pc P P PI

a)
-4
0
0



E-4
o







0

.-4





0






0
f-4








&-4


1-4
C
(1



0I
Ud












. d

7a)




a)
4J 4








E-4 a

4-4
-'u-
c








.4
S0)






4O I
44-1
Q4-









P-4

oi
01


4-l
4-w I
-4 4-1










140
4-1

tO






W E-i
FTI I










I-W
4-1
CO





a)





0I
<4-
E-i













4-i
CO
4)


I
CO


0

I O0
--




o r-
o0
O O




SO 0









0 0 0


0

o o o


I I I


o 0
O
o O
o 0
i-I C


O
O
I 0







O 0

O-4




r-4 VO
i-l CM







o a-4











r- -4
U, 0





uN 0
0 r-I
O *









0 0



O

O- O

o -



o o



I O
o o

I I


o co Au



I 4-4
1-4



* e
o 'o 1-I








0 0
dm O









a a
C O
o 0
























O O
S dI
cn CD

m o
d d









o o
0 0





o '.
o o
iI


ro co
0 0
O O

I


a) (U a)
4-W 41U UC C U
41 4 a) O 4 ) l 41 C a) C0
co u m c u "C m T (Q ) < 1 04 ) O a a)
En 0) ( 6-H ap a) P4 H- 3 0) E-Z cn >H C 1 :3 w
E- 0 U I E- I -E- 4-I 0 H a) 4.J (i
< 1 < 4-1 E6- I E-4 1 J l 4.iJ < 4-4 W 4-4 -H '4-4
a) tO uL aC c/n C 4-J) 4.3 M t4-i L"4 4J1 4-4
$ 4 0 0 4- 1 4-1o 0 -H -W -H
a aP api <44 -A i Q < C0


I I I








I I


-4l
0
0
u





U




E-4
0

r.4

x




-4




ca



o
rl










above 0.15 are significant. The correlation matrix was done in order

to better understand the interactions that caused the significance in

the previous analysis. Both correlation matrices show many correlations

between the pre- and post-test evaluations of all the tests and the

differences in all the tests (see the asterisk correlations). Because

of the difficulty in the interpretation of these correlations, an analy-

sis of variance using a factorial design was used to help determine the

interaction effects in this study.



IV. Trend Analysis


A three way factorial design was set-up as shown in Figure 16.

This design was chosen because it is sensitive to interactions and

could easily be used to compare the students in the high, medium and

low groups. As mentioned before the results of this analysis must be

treated with caution because the student population was not chosen ran-

domly. The main purpose of this evaluation is to generate information

that is helpful in analyzing interactions that could cause the signi-

ficant results reported earlier.

The analysis of variance by factorial design was done three times,

one each for the ACS pre- and post-tests, the STEP pre- and post-tests

and the Attitude pre- and post-tests. For each analysis, the data were

grouped into three equal groups, high, medium and low, based on the

pre-test scores. Since the program used could only handle equal "n's",

twenty-three students were randomly selected out of the experimental

and control groups to give each cell a population of twelve students, six

experimental and six control. Each cell block was cycled forty-seven
























































Experimental Control


Figure 16:


2 X 3 X 2 Model For The Factorial Design










times making the total population for the analysis five hundred and

sixty-four.

Interactions that received meaningful "F" values were checked,

using the Scheffe procedure, with confidence intervals. Then plots of

the cell means of the interactions were done to illustrate the behavior

of the three groupings of students.

The first factorial design used the STEP test (Table 5). Using

the Scheffe method for determining confidence limits, the high and

medium groups for the significant (2,3) interaction fell within the

confidence limit set at 99 percent. The low group fell outside of the

limit.

The pre- and post-test means were then plotted for the (2,3) inter-

action (Figure 17). As observed from the plot, the high and medium

group changed little with respect to the net difference between the

pre- and post-tests. The low group shows a disordinal interaction with

the medium group and indicates a large net gain over the medium group.

Pre- and post-test means for the experimental and control were

plotted for the (1,3) interaction in Figure 18. A slight disordinal

interaction is evident but both experimental and control show a net

gain from pre- to post-test. A plot of the (1,2,3) interaction between

experimental and control; high, medium and low; and pre- and post-test

means was done (Figure 19). This plot reflects the interactions shown

on Figures 17 and 18. It also shows a disordinal interaction between

the medium experimental and the medium control.

The second factorial design used the ACS test (Table 6). Using

the Scheffe method for all the significant interactions, the high

group in the (2,3) interaction and the (1,2,3) interaction fell outside



































0 i P.
-1 OL Lr

o N .

um r-.
r-
.
ONH (


o




O -
u-i




o r-




Co i-l





'4
O CO

CD
.-i


N N mC
ONCM






cri C4 0





i-4






Lr rn -It
co cn -4


r, r3 CM)
1 N rNM


-4


0
-q











0 o
c N
N CM


r- ,-4
3-~ CO

%C LO)
N N
u-l u-i
'MCM

a-)


N 0
-- CN -I NM i- CN n 'C0
LO V)


0 N N :3.




0



0 :0 0 0
S o u a
4 d 0 0 0


< 3 C C Ca



P- CO CO M



04 F-4 H 1-4
rl H H H m


a)
3 aN
cn






0)
S U




u -
0 C0



U 0
1-4 -1-

r C E
4-i 4.i Ei
U -
u u
C
H 3


4-

Fa
(a


E-4




oI
E4 g




00





co


-4





















Pre 27.777
Post 29.851


25.043
27.021


23.138
28.606


I I


--- ^ ---
































Pre Post
Figure 17: STEP Test:
Interaction Between Variable 2 (High, Medium
and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)
High, Medium, Low


30.0



29.0



28.0



27.0



26.0


25.0



24.0



23.0









Pre
0 25.553
] 25.085


Pre Post


Figure 18:


STEP Test:
Interaction Between Variable 1 (Experimental
and Control) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)
O Experimental Group, 0 Control Group


Post
28.284
28.702


30.0








29.0







28.0


27.0








26.0

















Pre 28.170
Post 29.915


30.0



29.0



28.0



27.0



26.0


25.0



24.0


23.0


27.383

29.787


25.149 24.936 23.340 22.936
26.404 27.638 28.532 28.681


- High Experimental
- Medium Experimental
- Low Experimental
- High Control
l Medium Control
S- Low Control


Pre Post
Figure 19: STEP Test: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control), Variable 2 (High,
Medium and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-,Post-test)


~~































4 *K

o en

04
NM O
,-


0CO O \O
O c> C 0

or-4 a %o 0


oo
a)






aa


a)
CU (U

a ) ?





E-4 C









cu
v1
U s







En
0b
CT


E-4
SO C CD








c)
60
43 10






"J 0
0 F


cd~





ar



CO


* 0"

4 N
N


C \




oo

0c





o Lo

-3
i-l


N 0Q


0
co o


C0
i-I CM r-4 "M r-4 CN N Ln
mA


-q CM4 n CM4

1-4

1-4
0
p 0


0
-4 -
(U (U

J H 0
SO M
) a4-1
4- I- 0
E a) o uW
p 0


M a
FL H


N N

-4


a) a)

4.1 4-1
a) a)

0 0



U U
CO (U
o o

4.l 4-)



C C
1- 1-


U,
m
a)
u
01
4-1
(d

U
i-'.
i-4
00
0) <
C H
0
- 6-1

"-4
:
C
u
3










the confidence limits. Plots.were done for interaction (2,3), inter-

action (1,3) and interaction (1,2,3) (Figures 20, 21 and 22). These

plots show two points clearly:

1. The high group in the experimental program had a net loss
between the pre- and post-tests.

2. The control group had a greater net gain between the pre-
and post-tests.

The third factorial design used the Attitude test (Table 7). The

Scheff& method for confidence levels showed no significance for inter-

action (2,3). A study of the plots in Figures 23, 24 and 25 shows:

1. A disordinal interaction between the high and medium group.

2. The experimental and control within the high, medium and
low groups show little net gain.

3. The experimental group shows a net gain over the control group.

The fourth factorial design (Figure 26) compared the high and low

reading achievers, as measured by the STEP pre-test, with their achieve-

ment in chemistry as measured by the ACS pre- and post-tests (Table 8).

Population for this design was 376 students: 138 experimental and

138 control. The Scheff._ method for confidence levels showed no signi-

ficance for interaction between experimental and control, and for inter-

action between the pre and post results. A study of Figures 27, 28 and

29 shows:

1. The high and low readers in the experimental and control groups
show nearly equal net gain in chemistry achievement.

2. There is little difference between the high and low reading
achievers on the ACS pre- and post-tests.

3. There is a slight disordinal interaction between the high
control group and the low control group.

Therefore, from these observations, hypothesis four is accepted.

















Pre 9.074 4.713 2.489
Post 7.500 6.798 5.702







9.0



8.0



7.0



S6.0



5.0



4.0



3.0



2.0




Pre Post

Figure 20: ACS Test:
Interaction Between Variable 2 (High, Medium
and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)
High, Medium, Low


















Pre Post
0 5.404 5.887
o 5.447 7.447











8.0







H 7.0







6.0






I I

Pre Post
Figure 21: ACS Test:
Interaction Between Variable 1 (Experimental
and Control) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)
O Experimental Group, O Control Group









[f Q


Pre 10.128 8.021
Post 7.000 8.000


4.340
6.106


5.085
7.489


1.745
4.553


10.0 r-


9.0 -_


3.234
6.851


f/ High Experimental
) Medium Experimental
S- Low Experimental
S- High Control
08 Medium Control
S- Low Control



Pre Post
Figure 22: ACS Test: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control), Variable 2 (High,
Medium and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)


4,0



3,0



2,0


1.0


~~---


































:r O\ '.0 O 0 0

0 L0 00 < ) -











3 0 c0 0 00 0 0 0


o -n


0 -


0 0 r
0. C ,
0 0 0
C o t


0 '0

0 0
) 0


H e -l q r-l CJ C14 Ul IO
n Ul 1


4-

3)

4-1

4-1
4"

0

E-4




00







rH
0 0





co


0)
1-4

T-4







4-4


n
CM


1-


a-
a aC
4 0"
4-i 4-i
a a,
m u
O-4

0 0
0
4-i E-i
U 0


Cu

H 3


C1 H n 0 n



0
C f C! C
0 4- 0 0 0
0 u > e 0 )
4 00 333
Cc u 4 41 4-i 41
U?(0 0 0

> ) 3 C C
4-1 --4 0 0 0
4-4 0 4J -4 i -i -r4

6 X o 0 Q u


0 4-1 4J 4-
0 0 C C 00






















Pre 0.565 0.460 0.379
Post 0.437 0.514 0.397







0.0-- -------------------



0.60








z 0.50








0.40









Pre Post
Figure 23: Attitude Test:
Interaction Between Variable 2 (High, Medium
and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)
High, Medium, 4 Low










Pre Post


0 0.468


0.452


D 0.467 0.446



I ---


Pre Post
Figure 24: Attitude Test:
Interaction Between Variable 1 (Experimental
and Control) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)
O Experimental Group, O Control Group


0.475


0.450


0.425


























0.562 0.466 0.453 0.370 0.387


0.432 0.515 0.513 0.400


0.394


- High Experimental
I (- Medium Experimental
- Low Experimental
B High Control
B Medium Control
S- Low Control


Post


Figure 25: Attitude Test: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control), Variable 2 (High,
Medium and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)


1e 1 c Qc i


0.568
0.443


Pre
Post





0.60


0.50


0.40


Pre



































Reading
High



122 -
Reading
Low


Experimental


2 X 2 X 2 Model For The Factorial Design


ACS
Post


11:


ACS
Pre


212









222





/


111 211





121 221


Control


2


Figure 26:






























-K

0
rN
mC

N
CM


I-1






E-l
04





0




r..J
-4




,a)
-4l
o co





-H
H C0



(U
4-






41



0
rX4


m wo -I o
-cr o

O -4 CD 0
# 0 0 0











C O D O n
c0 0 0






o ao o t- o*
1-r


r- \D ;T r- o0
(n CDo r o "M
m m in mn r-~


N 0 0 CD 0
i-4 0
'-T
cn


-4 r-4 "1 -4 V-1 r-H




(Nl CM N 1- M .

-4 C m

--0
0



U 4-1 4-1 4-.

* (0 O O
i-4

4- 0 0 0
r 4-1 H 1-
a) 0 w 4-1 4.1 4-i
0 u u u


S a0 0- 4- 4-
S- h hh
6f 1 -
P4 j~j


co r~



c n








M 0

-
0)

U a
4-1 4-1
a) (U

1-4


C .-
o o3
o 0



M -


















Pre Post
0 4.702 5.564
[] 6.053 7.043










7.0







6.0







5.0





1 1

Pre Post
Figure 27: Hypothesis 4:
Interaction Between Variable 1 (Experimental
and Control) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)
O Experimental Group, 0 Control Group





76














Pre 5.287 5.468
Post 6.181 6.426











6.50







S6.00







5.50









Pre Post
Figure 28: Hypothesis 4:
Interaction Between Variable 2 (High and
Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)
High, 0- Low


















E Q


Pre
Post


4.340


5.383


6.234 5.064 5.872
6.979 5.745 7.106


I I

- High Experimental
S- Low Experimental
H- High Control
B- Low Control


Pre Post
Figure 29: Hypothesis 4: Interaction Between Variable 1
(Experimental and Control), Variable 2 (High
and Low) and Variable 3 (Pre-, Post-test)


7.0 -


6.0 --


5.0










V. Formative Evaluation


An Individualized Chemistry Student Questionnaire was given to

305 experimental students. A forced-choice scale was used with five

choices, number one most positive and number five most negative. Num-

ber three was neutral. The questions are all positive response oriented

toward the Individualized Chemistry Program. A mean of one would

strongly favor the individualized program while a mean of five would

indicate a complete disagreement-with the program.

The mean for this evaluation was 2.60. The five most favorable

questions LC 1.9) were:

1. I feel that I can ask questions at any time.

2. Performing experiments in class helps me understand the
chemical concepts I have been studying.

3. I ask questions when I don't understand.

4. I chose to take this course.

5. I feel free to discuss chemistry (problems, experiments)
with my class mates.

The four questions equal to or greater than 3.2 were:

1. I look back every week (or some other period of time) and
evaluate my progress.

2. "Individualized Study" is the best way to study chemistry.

3. I am satisfied with my progress in this class.

4. I plan the work I expect to cover in a week or contracted
period of time.

The results of the questionnaire were primarily used to indicate needed

changes in the Individualized Chemistry Program. The questionnaire is

also a very valuable tool for the teacher to use to better understand

the student needs. Figure 30 shows the means for each of the questions.









INDIVIDUALIZED CHEMISTRY QUESTIONNAIRE
PART A

Answer Part A only on the answer sheet provided. For each of the follow-
ing questions indicate your answer on the answer sheet corresponding to
the question number being answered. Use the following scale to code the
answer sheet.
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
MEAN = 2,60 3 = Don't Know
4 = Disagree
5 = Strongly Disagree
This is not a timed test. Take your time and when finished turn in both
the questionnaire and the answer sheet to your teacher.

1,73 1. Performing experiments in class helps me understand the chemi-
cal concepts I have been studying.

2.13 2. The results of my experiments make sense.

2,20 3. I have enough mathematical background to do the problems as-
signed.

2,80 4. I see a new value in studying chemistry I did not see before.

2,56 5. The pressure of other classes (having certain assignments
ready at certain times) cause me to "put off" doing chemistry.

3.20 6. I am satisfied with my progress in this class.

3.20 7. I plan the work I expect to cover in a week or contracted
period of time.

1.66 8. I feel that I can ask questions at any time.

1,0 9. I ask questions when I don't understand.

2,86 10. The tests are fair.

3,56 11. I look back every week (or some other period of time) and
evaluate my progress.

2.96 12. I think the tests really measure what I know.

2,50 13. Answering the questions on the guide sheets really helps me.


Figure 30: Student Questionnaire Indicating
Question Means








1.83 14. I chose to take this course.

3.23 15. "Individualized Study" is the best way to study chemistry.

2,83 16. I am able to see a direction in what I am studying in chemistry.

2.80 17. I understand and can explain the concepts I have studied in
chemistry.

2,53 18. As a result of this course, I now know how some of the great
discoveries in science were made.

2,73 19. As a result of this course, I plan to major in science or math
in college.

2.83 20. I feel confident that I can handle this subject on an "individ-
ual study" basis.

3.16 21. I enjoy discussing this class at home.

1,83 22. I feel free to discuss chemistry (problems, experiments, etc.)
with my classmates.

2,43 23. I see relationships between what I am learning in chemistry and
what I have learned in other science courses.

2.43 24. I am able to read and understand the textbooks I am using.

1.96 25. From what I have experienced in science, I think a scientist
can be creative.

2,86 26. I find science exciting.


Figure 30. (Cont'd.)










VI. Data Analysis And Discussion


The data presented in this chapter do not follow a trend that

would normally be expected for this type of study. In order to look

carefully at the results, this section will be developed in context

with the stated study hypotheses.

Hypothesis one states that there will be no significant differ-

ence between the experimental and control groups with respect to

achievement in chemistry. This hypothesis was tested using analysis

of covariance and was not accepted. Looking at the trend on Figure 13

is somewhat confusing. Why was there a disordinal interaction to such

degree in favor of the control group? Figure 20 gives some insight

into the problem by indicating a regression with the high group.

Figure 21 indicates that the regression possibly is with the experimen-

tal group. Figure 22 gives a complete composite view of the interac-

tions. The significance of the data is most likely caused by the dis-

ordinal regressive interaction of the high experimental group. The

high control group regressed slightly.

A possible explanation is the difference in learning method within

the classroom and the fact that the ACS test is designed for students

coming from traditional classrooms and not from individualized class-

rooms.

The Individualized Chemistry Program uses inquiry and discovery

techniques in conjunction with many reinforcing laboratory activities

in a process oriented method to teach chemistry. Many traditional pro-

grams use the "facts only" lecture method of instruction with a few

"cookbook" laboratory activities for reinforcement. Since the ACS test

is primarily a factual test, the experimental students would probably









have a more difficult time obtaining the correct answers because of

lack of training and therefore score lower on the test.

Another possible effect could have been the riots during post-test

time. The students were probably more interested in the riots and could

care less about the test. If this is a correct assumption, the high

group of both the experimental and control group would seem to be more

involved in the riots than the medium or low groups.

Another possibility would be that of population mean. Since the

medium experimental and low experimental groups start low and end with

little net difference between them, the high experimental could have

been more careful on the pre-test and scored higher than their group

mean. The same could possibly be true with the high control group

because of the slight regression. Also note the differences among the

high, medium and low post-tests of both the experimental and control

groups. They are in a proper sequence for their group which possibly

indicates the pre-test was invalid for both high groups.

The second hypothesis states there will be no significant differ-

ence between experimental and control groups with respect to reported

attitudes toward science. This hypothesis was tested using analysis

of covariance and was not accepted.

Figure 14 shows a disordinal interaction with the experimental

and control groups. The interaction becomes more distinct on Figure 23

indicating a regression with the high group. Figure 24 shows a net

regression for both experimental and control groups. But the experimen-

tal group showed a net gain over the control group. This is further

clarified with Figure 25. Little net gain with the experimental and

control high, medium and low groups occurs. But the regression of the










high group is most likely the cause of the significance. One factor

that could be the cause of the regression is the situation of school

riots around the post-test times. Also, the high students could

possibly not be as successful as they would like and not be positive

toward the program. The medium and low groups possibly became more

successful during the year and were more positive to the program.

The third hypothesis states there will be no significant differ-

ence between experimental and control groups with respect to reading

ability. This hypothesis was tested using analysis of covariance and

was accepted. Figure 15 shows a slight net gain of the control group.

Figure 17 indicates a disordinal interaction of the low group with

the medium group. Figure 18 indicates little difference between the

experimental and control groups and a greater net gain for the control

group. A better understanding of the interactions is shown on Figure

19. The low groups of both the experimental and control groups did

measurably better with respect to net gains in reading. This would

indicate both the experimental and control schools in the study popu-

lation are effective in improving the reading ability in the low group.

The fourth hypothesis states that there will be no significant

difference between high and low achievers on the STEP Reading Test of

either experimental or control groups with respect to achievement in

chemistry. This hypothesis was tested using analysis of variance with

a factorial design to evaluate the study interactions. From the

analysis of the interactions and plots, the hypothesis was accepted.

Figure 27 shows equal net gains for the experimental and control

groups indicating a different average mean for each group. Figure 28

shows little net difference between the high and low groups with










respect to achievement in chemistry. Figure 29 indicates little

difference in the high and low control groups except for a slight

disordinal interaction. This interaction could possibly be due to the

large increase in the reading gains for the low control group. From

the indicated data, there seems to be little difference in chemistry

achievement caused by the difference in reading.

The overall evaluation of the Student Questionnaire indicated a

favorable response to the experimental program, It also indicated that:

1. Students feel a need for more pressure to complete
their work.

2. Students feel that they could do better if they tried.

3. Students don't think "Individualized Study" is always
the best type of program.

This evaluation also provides indications as to where improvements

are needed from the student's point of view.

















CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Summary


The problem in this study was to determine the effectiveness of

the P. K. Yonge Individualized Chemistry Program in selected public

schools in Florida.

The study used a pre-test/post-test control group experimental

design using classroom means from classes randomly selected as experi-

mental and control. The study was carried out during a one-year period

in twenty-one schools in Florida.

Four types of evaluation were used to determine the effectiveness

of the experimental program. They were:

1. the ACS Chemistry Test,

2. the STEP Reading Test,

3. the All-School-Subject Attitude Test,

4. a Student Questionnaire for formative analysis
of the experimental program.

All these evaluations except the questionnaire were administered

both pre and post to the study classes. Each test had two equivalent

forms eliminating testing as a cause of invalidity.

The data analysis was done on an IBM-370 computer at the University

of Florida using the Biomedical Statistical Programs. Data analysis

indicated the following results:









1. A significant difference at the 10 percent level was found
between the experimental and control groups with respect to
achievement in chemistry in favor of the control group. The
major source of the difference was found to be in the high
experimental group which had a considerable regression in
achievement in chemistry. The reasons for this regression
are possibly the test and the difference in population test
means.

2. A significant difference at the 10 percent level was found
between the experimental and control groups with respect to
attitude toward chemistry in favor of the experimental group.
Little overall interaction was shown but a net overall gain
was seen in the experimental group.

3. No difference was found between the experimental and control
groups with respect to reading ability.

4. There was no difference found between high and low achievers
on the STEP Reading Test of either experimental or control
groups with respect to achievement in chemistry.

5. Evaluation of the Student Questionnaire indicated a favorable
attitude toward the Individualized Chemistry Program. Also,
indications of problem areas were pointed out.



II. Conclusions


The following conclusions seem to be supported by the findings

from this study:

1. The control group showed a significantly greater gain
on the ACS test.

2. Achievement in reading is not related to achievement
in chemistry as measured on the ACS test.

3. The experimental group had significantly less regression
in attitude toward science during the year than the
control group.

4. Students in the Individualized Chemistry Program indicated
a positive feeling for the program. They also found the
Individualized Chemistry Program consistent with process
oriented chemistry programs.










III. Limitations


While the above conclusions appear to logically follow from the

data, certain limitations should be kept in mind:

1. The ACS achievement test was not designed for an individual-
ized type of program. It was designed for the traditional
type chemistry class.

2. All evaluations were administered by teachers. During post-
testing, many schools had problems with integration and had
riots throughout the post-testing period. This most likely
had an effect on post-testing and is probably reflected in
both the achievement in chemistry and attitude evaluations.

3. The data primarily used for the study were class means for
most of the evaluations. Random selection of the study
population was done by classes, not students. Some of the
data used were individual students. These data were used for
the trend interaction analysis and should be considered with
caution because of the population not being randomly selected.



IV. Recommendations


The Individualized Chemistry Program, as seen in this study, is a

functional program in chemistry and is as successful as most traditional

programs in chemistry for Florida schools. This study has raised many

questions as to the future of individualized programs in chemistry.

The data from this study clearly indicates the need for more studies

in this area. The following are suggestions for future research in

individualized chemistry:

1. Random selection of students rather than classes would allow
the researcher a greater freedom in the study by providing
a larger population and fewer limitations.

2. The development and evaluation of an achievement test to
measure the achievement in chemistry of a student in an
individualized program in chemistry would provide the
researcher with more positive knowledge of the trend in the
students' achievement. The instrument should be designed
to be consistent with the individualized program.









3. A content analysis of materials taught in both the Individual-
ized Chemistry Program and the traditional chemistry courses
would allow the researcher to incorporate 'content' weighting
factorsinto the course comparisons.

4. A study involving a test on reading speed and on comprehension
and a valid achievement test in chemistry would allow the
researcher to better determine interrelations among these
areas of student ability.

5. A study of the effectiveness of the Individualized Chemistry
Program versus the traditional chemistry program with educa-
tionally disadvantaged students would allow the researcher
to analyze from a different perspective the effectiveness of
the individualized type course. Also this would provide re-
search data for comparative analysis of the average student
versus the disadvantaged student in an individualized type
course as opposed to the traditional type course.

6. A study of the student-teacher interactions in the classroom
would allow the researcher to determine how effective the
individualized program personalizes and meets the needs of
the students. This data could be compared to similar data
obtained from a traditional chemistry classroom.



V. Remarks

The development of the Individualized Chemistry Program was an

attempt to personalize instruction in an abstract science subject such

as chemistry. The development, implementation and evaluation of the

program brought forth many problems with the technique of individuali-

zation. The first was the definition of individualization which was

discussed earlier in this study. The next problem was the preparation

of the students for an individualized program. Since most students

have never been allowed to progress at their own rate, how could one

expect a group of students thrown into an individualized class to

individualize? They could not be expected to do much more than become

frustrated. Hopefully this program would not allow this problem to


occur because of the initial self-pacing in the program.










But the greatest problem confronting the individualized program

was the teacher. Individualization requires more work than traditional

teaching but many teachers think it requires less work. This is

evident after the first few weeks of class as the teacher starts be-

coming frustrated because the students began asking too many questions.

All these problems and many others are present because individu-

alization is a new thing to our educational system and not well under-

stood. This is most likely the reason so many individualized programs

are unsuccessful.

This study was done to see if an individualized program could be

taught successfully and if not, why. One of the whys for this study

is teacher training. This researcher believes that for any individu-

alized program to be successful, the teacher has to be trained in the

individualized technique. The future of successful individualization

in the classroom is going to depend on the universities making avail-

able the proper training in the field and in the academic classroom to

prepare a teacher to be a competent and effective resource person in

an individualized classroom.