This article describes a program of Individualized Instruction in an introductory chemistry class, a three quarter sequence covering inorganic, organic, and biochemistry offered primarily for nursing students, and analyzes the results of the program based on standardized test scores. Individualized Instruction (11) differs from Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) methods, such as the Keller Plan, in that i t offers students a choice of methods by which to master the ohjectives and, in our application, a more rigorous testing program. Having a variety of methods available for students to choose from is a significant improvement over the common applicatwn of PSI since nll students do not prosper equnlly wdl with the same method. In the program reported herr all students receive objectives, which along with directional and study helps amount t o about 32 pages of material for each quarter. In order to master the objectives the students may choose any combination of the following three methods. 1) Use audiotutorial (AT) materials consisting of a tape and study guide, prepared hy the author, specific&y for this class to provide students with tutorial-like help at a pace they can control. 2 ) Attending lectures; one lecture is given on each unit (about one week's work). 3) Studying textbook; this becomes a more viable method than usual since for everv five to six oaees . .. studied there is one page of objectives to direct that st~ldy. An intrrrnl nart of indi\.idualized instructiun is the technique of mastery teaching, which as applied here allows students to take UD to three tests over each unit. Contram to the common practice of PSI, repeat tests are different tests coverine the entire unit and students must vass review tests covering half to all of a quarter's work (si'x to eight units). Grades are based on a students' best effort on each unit with no penalty for having repeated tests. Typical standards for arades are; A. 96%. B. 91%: C. 85%. and D. 77%. These standards mayappear high for an introductory class, but with the help available and the opportunity to repeat tests many students score quite high &indicated hy the following typical made distribution: A, 45%;B, 25%; C, 17%;D, 4%; NC, 3%, and about 2-8% drop before the end of the term. Since grades themselves do not reflect the amount of learning achieved, the ACS Standardized Exam was given at the end of each quarter. The table summarizes the results of one typical class. Equally significant with the high average is that so few students scored low. Credit for the small number of low scores belongs, I believe, to the AT materials which allow a slower-learning but well-motivated student to be successful and to the mastery teaching which encourages
- .
$L With AT
d.
6
....
2
lL
3
o
Mean (166)
...---.\ .---._..._._ -.
.. l .i ..
/
180
175
170
165
160
155
150
Total Po~nts(180 possible) Comparison of total points earned lor quarter for class wilh AT available and for class without.
of Class Standardized. Exam--- Results . .-.-on.Part A of ACS -
'"organic ",y.,,,,r;
A :-...-
Biochemistry
Number of
Average
Students
score
percentile
Fraction below 50 percentile
73
21.3
73.5
26%
-' ,80
"" LO.,
7
21.7
?"
,o
65
",
a ~m
26%
students to restudv points thev missed initiallv. An evaluation o? ihe e t t c t i h e s s of the AT materials is oossible bv comvnrinr! the verformnnce of the cla%sthe year AT was f i k t used to that df the year before, since the s a n e obiectives, lectures, and tests were used both years. The figure compares the two elasses by showing total po& for a qu&r versus frequency. The effectiveness of the AT materials may he even greater than the data in the figure indicates since less than half of the students used them. In subsequent years greater usage was made of AT by the students. Two different times during the seven year development of the program student opinion was measured by means of a questionaire. The results revealed that students found the objectives "very helpful," that they were very enthusiastic about being allowed to repeat tests, but only moderately happy about being required to repeat tests. Most students reported that they learned "some" material other than that which was required by the objectives. Compared to their other classes they felt that they learned "somewhat more" in their chemistry class, "definitely" spent more time studying it, and enjoyed it "slightly more." Of 39 students who had previously taken college chemistry courses taught in a conventional manner, 34 felt they had learned more with the I1 method and 32 said they enjoyed the I1 method more.
Volume 55, Number 6, June 1978 1 378
