Robert Silberman
SUNY at Cortlond Cortlond, New York 13045 and Bruce Parker Syracuse University Syracuse, New York 13210
I I
I
Student Attitudes and the Keller Plan
This article, unlike others in this Journal that have discussed the Keller Plan, is primarily concerned with student attitudes toward the plan. In the fall of 1972 we taught two 40-student sections of general organic chemistry. One section was taught using a Keller Plan format and the other using the standard lecture system, i.e., 3 lectures a week. Unfortunately, because the course makeup was known to the students before registration, completely random assignment of students to each section was not possible. However, student aptitude was approximately the same in hoth sections, as judged by previous course grades. Although hoth the lecture section and the Keller Plan section were taught hy the same instructor, it is probably unrealistic to consider the instructor-incentive to be the same for both course sections. Undoubtedly an instructor shows more interest and enthusiasm for a project that seems to be fulfilling expectations. The details of the setup of the Keller Plan have been discussed in recent paper~.~ Most users of the Keller Plan (self-paced instruction) have modified Keller's original plan. In our version of the method a one semester time limit was imposed, rather than allowing the student unlimited time to complete the course. Student grades were determined by the number of units mastered by the end of the semester, with mastery of 12 units out of 19 as the passing performance. Mastery of all 19, as demonstrated by passing all unit quizzes with a t least 90% proficiency was considered an A for the course. The lowest number of units completed was 13, while 21 out of 39 students completed all the units. We began our study hy gathering data on seven student variables. These variahles included reading comprehension and speed of reading comprehension as measured by the Davis Reading Test (Form lo), general chemistry grade point average, and the four personality factors of responsibility, sociability, ascendency, and emotional stahilitv as measured hv the Gordon Personal Profile. Our intent was to determine if any of these variahles would interact with instructional treatment. The seven student variahles employed in this study were carefully selected. Reading speed and reading comprehension were included because of the Keller Plan format's stress on the written word in student-teacher communication. Responsibility was included because of its ~reviouslvdemonstrated correlation to success in other independent study college science courses where activitv is student initiated.2 Sociability was included because of Keller's hypothesized increased social interaction through the use of student tutors in his instructional system. Past college chemistry 'Lewis, D. K., and Walk, W. A., J. CHEM. EDUC., 50, 51 (1P7RI ~--.-,. a Bigelow,
G. S. and Egbert. R. L., "Personality Factors and Independent Study,"J. Edue. Res., 62 ( I ) , 31-39, (1968). Borieh, G. D., "Homogeneity of Slopes Test for Multiple Regxssion Equations with Reference to Aptitude-Treatment Interactions." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City, February 1971.
(general) grades were included to determine if the Keller Plan presents a truly alternative instructional mode. A high positive correlation hetween general chemistry grades and organic chemistry grades had been observed at Cortland in the past. This correlation was observed when both chemistry courses were taught via a lecture format. I t seemed reasonable to expect that if the Keller format presented a truly alternative instructional mode, past student achievement in lecture format chemistry courses should show a positive correlation with achievement in a Keller format. The data was processed using a modified version of the multiple regression homogeneity of slope technique described by Borich3 in order to determine the interaction of the variables. Achievement was measured by administering to hoth course sections a final exam prepared by selecting questions from standard ACS exams in organic chemistry. Only questions related to specific course content were included. The identical final exam was given to hoth sections a t the same time. It was difficult to compare final grade scores in the parallel sections, because different grading procedures were used in each section. Students in the Keller Plan had much less incentive to study for the final exam than those in the traditional section because the final exam grade did not affect the final grade in the course. In spite of this, the mean final exam grade for the students in the traditional standard lecture course was slightly lower than the mean grade for the students in the Keller Plan, hut not significant a t or = 0.05. However, hecause of the differences in grading for the course, and the absence of random selection, we hesitate to draw any conclusion from this observation. Past college chemistry grades were seen to he significantly (a = 0.05) correlated to achievement (r = 0.69) within the lecture section. For the Keller section, none of the measured aptitudes was significantly correlated to achievement. Past chemistry grades accounted for only 9% (r = 0.29) of the achievement score variance as compared to 4990 for the standard lecture course. This seems to indicate that the Keller format does provide truly alternative forms of chemistry instruction. Our data indicate that students who have previously exhibited poor achievement in lecture chemistry courses can he predicted to perform poorly in future lecture courses, but no such predictions can he made for future Keller courses. Using final exam score as the criterion variable, only reading comprehension was observed to interact with the method of instruction, as shown in Figure 1. Students with poor reading comprehension scores performed poorly in the Keller section. I t should he stressed that this interaction was only significant a t the 0.08 level. At the completion of the course each student was asked to complete a 29 question attitude survey. The survey was scored for internal consistency by the coefficient alpha technique (a = 0.93). The survey consisted of 29 statements to which the student responded with one of five choices ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The survey was carefully validated and analogous forms Volume 51, Number 6.June 1974 / 393
I
10
I
15 20 25 30 Readmg comprehension Score
I
35
10
0
Figure 1 . Graphical representation of the interaction of reading comprehension with the method of instruction.
20
30
Question Figure 2. Graphical summary of the results of the attitude survey.
Survey Questions
Question 1. This organic chemistry course involves mostly memorization. 2. I would recommend the eourse I have just finished to a friend who must take organic chemistry. 3. Taking this organic chemistry course has increasedmy sense of responsibility for my ownlearning. 4. I feel, after taking this organic chemistry course, that understanding of organie chemistry is difficult. 5. I have learned very little from this course. 6. Taking this course has decreased my interest in organic chemistry. 7. The method of instruction used in this course is an effective way to teach organic chemistry. 8. The method used in teaching this course made me feel I was competing with my classmates. 9. I could not get help in the course when I needed it. 10. I found this organic chemistry course to be an unpleasant experience. 11. This course made me feel that I would like to learn more about organic chemistry. 12. The amount of organic ehemistry knowledge gained from this course was not worth the effortexpended. 13. After completing this course, I feel that organic chemistry is a n enjoyable subject. 14. All introductory science courses should be taught in a manner identical to this organic chemistry course. 15. If I had the choice to make over again, I would take this same organic chemistry course.
Mean Scare Mean Score Keller Lecture
Question 16. The method of instruction in this course made allowances for individual differences. 17. The method of instruction in this organic chemistry course is not a n effective way to teach organie chemistry. 18. I did not enjoy participating in this chemistry course. 19. This organie chemistry course was im-aersonal. 20. If I noticed an article oertaining to organic chemistry while browsing through a magazine I would want to read the article. 21. As a result of this course, I have no desire to learn anything more about organic chemistry. 22. My ability to grasp organic chemistry knowledge exceeded my expectations. 23. I would advise other students to avoid the organic chemistry course I have just taken. 24. This organic chemistry course sufficiently challenged my academic ability. 25. The objectives of this course were not made clear to me. 26. This oreanic chemistrv course was a boring experience. 27. I enjoyed participating in this organic chemistry course. 28. This organic chemistry course provided more personal attention than I generally receive in a class of this size (85). 29. I would prefer to take organic chemistry by some method other than that used in the course I have just completed.
* A positive attitude is one that shows disagreement with this statement. 394
/
Journal of Chemical Education
~
~
Mean Score Mean Score Keller Lecture
had been in use for several years a t the Science Education Department a t Syracuse University. The answers were tabulated on a scale of one to five. A score of one was assigned to a response that showed the most positive attitude. and a score of five to the most neeative attitude. The questions in the survey are listed in the table. A graphical summary of the results of the attitude survey is shown in Figure 2. The students in the Keller Plan had a mean score of 1.53 for the attitude survey; those in the traditional course had a mean score of 2.72. Clearly, the students in the Keller Plan course had a more positive attitude toward the course. This difference was significant a t the 0.05 alpha level. Two of the measured student characteristics, responsibility and sociability, were seen to significantly interact with instructional treatment a t the 0.05 alpha level. Responsibility was ohsewed to he directly related to attitude within the Keller section but inversely related to attitude within the lecture section. Student sociability showed almost zero correlation to attitude within the Keller section,
hut a high positive correlation to attitude in the lecture section. Students of both high and low sociability showed a positive attitude within the Keller section. Although these are interesting results, they seem to have little or no prescriptive value because the regression lines, using attitude as the criterion variable, never cross. A general summary of the attitude questionaire results indicates that students thought that they learned more, worked harder, liked the subject better, found the subject more interesting, found the course more rewarding, and enjoyed the course more if i t was taught using the Keller Plan. Certainly from the students' point of view, personalized instruction as exemplified by the Keller Plan is the preferred alternative to the traditional lecture course in organic chemistry. We can add that in general, the instructor for the course learned more, worked harder, liked the subject better, found the subject more interesting, found the course more rewarding, and enjoyed teaching the course more if he used personalized instruction as exemplified by the Keller Plan.
Volume 5 1 , Number 6. June 1974
/
395
