UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The success of limited learners in attaining general science concepts through programmed instruction Dow, Michael Alan 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 D69.pdf [ 5.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095132.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095132-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095132-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095132-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095132-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095132-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095132-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095132-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095132.ris

Full Text

THE SUCCESS OF LIMITED LEARNERS IN ATTAINING GENERAL SCIENCE CONCEPTS THROUGH PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION B.Sc, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 19 75 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty of Education, Science Education Department) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1982 fc} Michael Alan Dow, 19 82 by MICHAEL ALAN DOW MASTER OF ARTS in In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of &3>LlCrf~7/6/J The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the use of a programmed i n s t r u c t i o n booklet, as the basic i n s t r u c t i o n a l material, could be considered as more appropriate for li m i t e d learners than t r a d i t i o n a l teaching methods. An attempt was made to measure the success that l i m i t e d learners have i n atta i n i n g general science concepts through programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . The study c o l l e c t e d evidence to show i f there was any s i g n i f i c a n t difference between normal learners and l i m i t e d learners i n academic science achievement (as measured by pretest and posttest r e s u l t s ) , when taught using t h i s methodology. The in v e s t i g a t i o n provided evidence to support increased development and use of programmed materials for modified and regular science classrooms. To assess the achievement i n general science concepts, an author-developed examination was implemented as a pretest and l a t e r as a posttest following the experimental treatment. The mean scores i n achievement were calculated for d i s t i n c t groups thus enabling a comparison of gains i n achievement. A non-equivalent control group with a fixed e f f e c t s f a c t o r i a l design was used i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The fixed e f f e c t s analysis of covariance, using the pretest as the covariate, permitted the separate analysis of learning a b i l i t y , methods of i n s t r u c t i o n and a two-way i n t e r a c t i o n between these variables. The analysis of covariance produced s i g n i f i c a n t differences for the two main e f f e c t s . In terms of learning a b i l i t y normal learners achieved higher than lim i t e d learners and the difference was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 l e v e l . For the methods of i n s t r u c t i o n , students using programmed i n s t r u c t i o n scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those students taught with the t r a d i t i o n a l approach. Since there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference for programmed in s t r u c t i o n and no int e r a c t i o n between learning a b i l i t y and i n s t r u c t i o n mode, i t follows that programmed in s t r u c -tion was better for both groups of students. The results of the study are that both l i m i t e d and normal learners were more successful, i n terms of acqui-s i t i o n of science knowledge, with programmed i n s t r u c t i o n than with t r a d i t i o n a l teaching i n terms of posttest mean achievement scores. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND 1.00 Statement of the Problem 1.10 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 1.11 T r a d i t i o n a l Teaching 1.12 Programmed Instruction 1.13 Limited Learners 1.14 Normal Learners 1.15 Regular Classroom 1.20 Population of Limited Learners 1.30 Basic Premise 1.40 Present Conditions 1.41 B.C. Science Assessment 1.50 Rationale for Programmed Instruction 1.60 The Learner as an Individual 1.70 A Summary of Personalized Education 1.80 Compendium i v CHAPTER TWO; LITERATURE REVIEW3 Page 2.0 Introduction 2 3 2.1 Causes for Underachievement 24 2.2 Present Q u a l i t i e s Perceived 26 2.30 General Teaching Strategies and Suggestions 30 2.31 General A c t i v i t i e s 30 2.32 Communication 31 2.33 Textbooks 31 2.34 Tests 32 2.35 A t t i t u d i n a l Objectives 32 2.4 Program Designs for Modified Science 33 2.50 Pr i n c i p l e s of Programmed Instruction 34 2.51 Behavioral Analysis 36 2.52 Effectiveness of Programmed Instruction 40 2.6 Progress with Limited Learners 4 3 2.70 Designing a Programmed Instruction 46 2.71 Branching and Linear Programs 46 2.72 Concrete Materials 4 7 2.73 Advance Organizers 4 8 2.74 Vis u a l I l l u s t r a t i o n s 50 2.75 Inductive and Deductive Programs 51 2.76 S p e c i f i c Review and Question Complexity 52 2.8 Place i n Curriculum 54 2.9 Implications from Research 5 8 v CHAPTER THREE: THE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Page 3.0 Introduction 60 3.1 Description of Sample 61 3.2 School and Teacher Background 6 3 3.30 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Limited Learners 64 3.31 Former Evaluation 65 3.32 Current Evaluation 6 7 3.40 Instrumentation 70 3.41 The Programmed Booklet 71 3.42 Opinionnaire 72 3.4 3 Administration 73 3.5 Design of Study 75 3.6 Data Analysis 77 3.7 P i l o t Study Results 77 v i / "CHAPTER FOUR: THE ANALYSIS OF DATA Page 4.0 Introduction 80 4.1 General Achievement Results 81 4.2 Analysis of C e l l Samples 84 4.3 Analysis of Covariance 86 4.4 A t t i t u d i n a l Survey Analysis 88 4.5 Opinionnaire Comments 90 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 5.0 Introduction 9 3 5.1 Synopsis of Study 94 5.2 Results 94 5.3 Limitations of the Study 9 7 5.4 Implications 99 5.5 Recommendations for Future Research 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY 102 APPENDIX A A t t i t u d i n a l Survey Responses 109 APPENDIX B Copy of the Posttest 112 APPENDIX C Item Analysis of Posttest 117 APPENDIX D Behavioral Objectives 118 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Various Student Labels 6 2. Q u a l i t i e s Perceived 2 7 3. Behavioral Objectives 39 4. Summary of Research 59 5. Characteristics of the Five ClusterfSamples 62 6. C.T.B.S. Total Scores 67 7. V.S.B. Science Survey Results 69 8. General Summary of Achievement Tests 81 9. General Summary of D i s t i n c t Group Means 84 10. Summary of C e l l Sample Means 85 11. Summary of Analysis of Covariance of 87 Achievement Posttest Scores v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the members of the thesis committee, Prof. D.C. G i l l e s p i e , Dr. H. Ratzlaff and Dr. R.W. C a r l i s l e , for t h e i r invaluable advice, assistance and encouragement throughout the thesis. The author wishes to thank his wife Theresa, for her patience and proofreading and would l i k e to recognize Mr. R. Fearn as the "other" teacher i n this study. F i n a l l y , the author wishes to thank the Educational Research In s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia for t h e i r generous support of the study. i x - 1 -CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND 1.0 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The purpose of /this study was to determine how success-f u l l i m i t e d learners were i n atta i n i n g general science concepts through the use of a programmed i n s t r u c t i o n a l unit. The study c o l l e c t e d evidence to show i f there was any s i g n i -f i c a n t difference between normal learners and l i m i t e d learners i n academic science achievement (as measured by pretest and posttest results).;,; when taught using this methodology. The invest i g a t i o n provided evidence to support increased develop-ment and use of programmed materials for modified and regular science classrooms. From three years experience i n teaching modified science, i t was suspected that li m i t e d learners can be r e l a t i v e l y successful when compared with normal students, a l l instructed by a programmed unit. Due to a li m i t e d learner's weak language arts s k i l l s and previous lack of success, i t was assumed that they would not a t t a i n the same achievement l e v e l as the regular students. The research question becomes one of r e l a t i v i t y as to how successful can these l i m i t e d learners be. The s p e c i f i c questions: 1. Are li m i t e d learners as successful, i n terms of a c q u i s i t i o n of science knowledge as-the normal learners? - 2 -2. Is programmed i n s t r u c t i o n as successful, i n terms of ac q u i s i t i o n of science knowledge as t r a d i t i o n a l teaching? 3. Is there any co r r e l a t i o n between the mode of in s t r u c t i o n used (programmed or t r a d i t i o n a l ) and learning a b i l i t y (normal or limited)? After summarizing the results of previous rel a t e d studies, no conclusive evidence was obtained regarding programmed i n s t r u c t i o n and lim i t e d learners. Therefore, i n t h i s study the research hypotheses were stated i n n u l l form, corresponding to the research questions. Each one of the hypotheses was tested for a c q u i s i t i o n of science knowledge. The comparison of two independent variables (learning a b i l i t y and i n s t r u c t i o n mode), was ca r r i e d out looking for what e f f e c t they have on achievement and ac-q u i s i t i o n of science concepts. The dependent variable was measured i n terms of mean performance on posttest r e s u l t s . The three n u l l hypotheses, corresponding to the research questions are: 1. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n mean performance i n science achievement between limi t e d and normal learners. 2. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n mean performance i n science achievement between programmed i n s t r u c t i o n and t r a d i t i o n a l teaching. - 3 -3. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t c o rrelation between the mode of i n s t r u c t i o n used and learning a b i l i t y . As t h i s study was more explorative than d e f i n i t i v e , the .05. l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e (ai.) was used to te s t each hypothesis. 1.10 DEFINITION OF TERMS The following subsections discuss the intended meanings of the important, relevant terms used throughout t h i s invest-i g a t i o n . 1.11 TRADITIONAL TEACHING The terms, conventional or t r a d i t i o n a l teaching include the following i n s t r u c t i o n a l procedures and materials: textbook study, written exercises, lectures, discussions, demonstrations, experiments, chalkboard drawings1, f i l m presentations and overhead projection transparencies. The i n s t r u c t o r s involved i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n employed a l l of these methods during normal, group-paced, classroom sessions. 1.12 PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION In any programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , the materials are designed - 4 -so that the learner i s required to make a series of responses to a series of problems, e i t h e r by w r i t i n g an answer or per-forming some physical task. In a Skinnerian-type l i n e a r pro-gram, the statements are given responses. Immediate confirm-ation of the answer's correctness i s a main feature of t h i s technology. The learner may assess personal performance, then repeat or change responses as necessary without requiring the teacher's assistance. In the generic sense of the term, Ausubel (196 8) described programmed i n s t r u c t i o n as: ... an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d form of s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n i n which emphasis i s placed on sequentiality, l u c i d i t y and graded d i f f i c u l t y i n the presentation of learning tasks, on confirmatory and corrective feedback, and on consolidation and subject-matter readiness. An attempt i s made to manipulate as optimally as possible a l l practice, task and transfer variables that are relevant for the a c q u i s i t i o n and retention of content :(p. 348) . A programmed i n s t r u c t i o n i s usually found at the center of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d or personalized programmes. The main ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of programmed i n s t r u c t i o n (Cohen, 1964 p. 7 ;) include: 1. b r i e f presentation of new information or materials 2. a high degree of redundancy and prompting 3. inducement of the correct response 4. checking the response a. ) i f correct . . . serves as a reward b. ) i f incorrect . . . i n d i c a t i o n of a faulty program Another d e f i n i t i o n , given by Schramm Q962) , stated that by programmed i n s t r u c t i o n we mean the kind of learning exper-- 5 -ience i n which a "program" takes the place of a teacher/tutor for the student. The "program" leads them through a set of s p e c i f i e d behaviors designed and sequenced to make i t more probable that they w i l l behave i n a given desired way i n the future. For the purpose of t h i s study, a modified Skinnerian programmed i n s t r u c t i o n was developed and used by the i n v e s t i -gator. The modification consisted of presenting a choice of answers to the learner i n some questions. P i l o t study results and suggestions from the current Science eight textbook author, (Mr. J . Petrak) indicated that variety i n the program s t y l e enhances the learners i n t e r e s t . The programmed i n s t r u c t i o n  was developed outside of the thesis. The investigation explores the success that l i m i t e d learners experienced using t h i s . methodology. A d i s t i n c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n and programmed i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l avoid confusion. Individualized i n s t r u c t i o n aims to provide a complete i n s t r u c t i o n a l program designed e x p l i c i t l y for each i n d i v i d u a l taking into account personal background experience, i n t e r e s t , and c a p a b i l i t i e s (Carin and Sund, 1975) . Programmed in s t r u c t i o n i s i n d i v i d -ualized i n the sense that i t i s one to one i n s t r u c t i o n where students proceed at independent rates through an e x i s t i n g program. - 6 -1.13 LIMITED LEARNERS In t h i s study, lim i t e d learners were defined as those students whose academic achievement was considered to be a s i g n i f i c a n t deviation from the normal. This was indicated by previous grade performance, (low C-, D and E) combined with l i m i t e d achievement leve l s (the lowest 18%) on the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s (C.T.B.S.). A diverse l i s t of synonyms for lim i t e d learners exists i n the l i t e r a t u r e (see Table 1). These terms are often used interchangeably without clear reference to what c r i t e r i a were used to determine the l a b e l . Table 1. Various Student Labels Adjustment C u l t u r a l l y deprived Dull normal Dumb Educationally disadvantaged Exceptional I n t e l l e c t u a l l y backward Limited learners Limited success Low educational attainment Marginal Non-Academic Non-Achiever Reluctant learners Slow learners Stupid Terminal Underachievers - 7 -Merle B. Karnes (19 70), defines slow learners as those children who learn at a less rapid rate than:"normal but not as slowly as the educable mentally retarded. He states an I.Q. for slow learners to range from 75 to 90. These figures correspond with those given by Oxenhorn (1972)j to define what he c a l l s the "true low achiever" (p. 38).. The fundamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of these students i s t h e i r low mental capacity. Conversely, Oxenhorn continues to describe underachievers as>those who show I.Q: scores well within the "normal" range above 90, as high as 110 and i n a s i g n i f i c a n t minority of cases, even well above 110. These pupils have the innate a b i l i t y but are not academically successful i n school. Utley (1961) , reports that slow learners cannot learn as f a s t as t h e i r peers. This does not mean that they cannot learn, but require s p e c i a l considerations of i n s t r u c t i o n a l methodologies. Limited learners are neither mentally retarded nor average but are often treated as one or the other. Limited learners cannot be i d e n t i f i e d by the blank expressions on t h e i r faces or t h e i r slow movements. There i s a trend to unravel some of the above confusion. Healy (19 78) , makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between the underachiever, slow learners and disadvantaged students. Each of these labels'i'is then q u a l i f i e d by a substantial l i s t of character-i s t i c s . - 8 -In7summary, lim i t e d learners were defined as under-achievers regardless of mental capacity, classroom e f f o r t or socioeconomic background. The students i n the i n v e s t i -gation that are c l a s s i f i e d as li m i t e d learners were i d e n t i -f i e d by four c r i t e r i a (section 3.3). 1.14 NORMAL LEARNERS For the purpose of t h i s study, normal or regular learners are those students who have not been screened out of the student population for s p e c i a l treatment. These students ra r e l y achieve f a i l i n g l e t t e r grades and are i n the top 82% of the class as indicated by the C.T.B.S. r e s u l t s . 1.15 REGULAR CLASS ROOM The words; regular, normal, t r a d i t i o n a l , or conventional, when applied to a classroom describe the most common sit u a t i o n f o r student i n s t r u c t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia (B.C.). Students are selected by t h e i r age and assembled together for the purpose of group-paced i n s t r u c t i o n . 1.2 POPULATION OF LIMITED LEARNERS There are s i g n i f i c a n t numbers of students i n secondary schools who have had limi t e d learning success. Estimates of the extent of low attainment among pupils vary with the c r i t e r i a used to define i t . Many writers, while not using the term li m i t e d learners conclude that some form of sp e c i a l - 9 -educational provision i s necessary for at least 15 to 20 percent of a school population (Ferguson 1961, G u l l i f o r d 1975, Jenkins 1973, Oxenhorn 1972, Page 1968). In New York C i t y , the grade 8 science curriculum guide indicates that 20% of a l l students have achieved l i m i t e d understanding when compared with each other. This large figure i s found i n many in n e r c i t y schools as well as sub-s t a n t i a l numbers i n suburban schools. Although, there has been no attempt to measure the number of li m i t e d learners i n B.C., i t seems reasonable to suspect that there e x i s t s a s i m i l a r population. Therefore, with a current secondary school population of 19 8,025 (19 81), there must be approximately 29,700 to 39,600 (15 to 20%) li m i t e d learners. 1.3 BASIC PREMISE Science educators are committed to provide secondary school i n s t r u c t i o n at a l l l e v e l s of student a b i l i t i e s . This p o s i t i o n i s based upon the b e l i e f that science i n s t r u c t i o n i s an e s s e n t i a l part of the education of any c i t i z e n . The value of science education for a l l students i s r e f l e c t e d i n a statement by Fischer (1960): - 10 -Because we are a democracy, whose c i t i z e n s are fche ultimate p o l i c y makers, large numbers of us must be educated to understand, to support and when necessary, to judge the work of the experts. The public school must educate both the producers and the consumers of s c i e n t i f i c services (p.23). Education i n a democratic, enlightened society i s grounded on the assumption that we expose a l l our children, within t h e i r own c a p a b i l i t i e s , to a l l the primary d i s c i p l i n e s of knowledge, Oxenhorn (19 72), extends t h i s assumption to a far-reaching educational goal: S c i e n t i f i c L i t e r a c y . This term implies the possession of a basic core of learning i n the f i e l d of science including knowledge, attitudes, s k i l l s , and secondly, an a b i l i t y to increase t h i s possession and become more l i t e r a t e i n the sciences. Oxenhorn, concludes that S c i e n t i f i c Literacy i s not only for the i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e l i t e but for the under-achiever as well, i n that they too w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n the democratic process. In her work with young children (k-3) Mclntyre (1973) , asserts that i f we accept the premise that a l l children have unique and s p e c i a l needs, by meeting those needs posi t i v e results can be attained i n our relationship with a l l children; no progress i s made without t r y i n g . This t r y i n g can be linked to working through the phases of a science experiment. One goal of science education i s to meet the needs of students at a l l l e v e l s of a b i l i t y . Ideally, t h i s goal could be achieved through some form of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n , that would - 11 -personalize the learning process of each student. The sum of the viewpoints above can be concluded with a quote from John W. Gardner, (in Oxenhorn, 19 72): The t r a d i t i o n a l democratic i n v i t a t i o n to each i n d i v i d u a l to achieve the best that i s i n him requires that we provide each youngster with the p a r t i c u l a r kind of education which w i l l benefit him. This i s the only sense i n which equality of opportunity can mean anything. The good society i s not one that ignores i n d i v i d u a l differences but one that deals with them wisely and humanely (p. 2). 1.40 PRESENT CONDITIONS I t was perceived that i n many t r a d i t i o n a l classrooms, the student i s expected to f i t in t o a predetermined mold. Fai l u r e to reach a standard class l e v e l often results i n remedial work that some students may view as punishment. Despite most teachers' convictions that the pu p i l i s an i n d i v i d u a l , learns at his own rate, has a unique s t y l e or mode of learning, and has d i f f e r e n t topics of i n t e r e s t and motivation, the majority of science teachers continue with the t r a d i t i o n a l "class" approach to education. The in s t r u c t i o n given i s aimed at mythical "average student" who i s rar e l y present ( C a r d a r e l l i , 1972). She expresses strong opposition to the t r a d i t i o n a l approach, claiming that conventional teaching, "does a good job of preparing students for a t o t a l i t a r i a n state" (p. 28). - 12 -Her sentiments become clea r as she envisions a l l students studying the same page at the same time, l a t e r fumbling through homework, each student being spoon-fed the know-ledge a teacher wishes them to know, and each student t o t a l l y guided by teacher decision making. The t r a d i -t i o n a l approach to teaching, she contends, actually i n -habits the very i n i t i a t i v e , c r e a t i v i t y , independence and a b i l i t y to get along with others, that i s greatly needed i n today's society. In group-paced i n s t r u c t i o n , the teacher i s frequently aiming for the average or conforming student. Kapfer and Swenson (1968), discussed the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of providing for i n d i v i d u a l differences with a lesson plan geared for an average student using a single methodology and a common medium. They also acknowledged that even though students learn i n d i f f e r e n t ways and at very d i f f e r e n t rates, most-published c u r r i c u l a r materials are designed for group-paced i n s t r u c t i o n . In a t r a d i t i o n a l school set t i n g , student numbers and lack of i n s t r u c t i o n a l material often prevents teachers from reaching t h e i r ultimate goal. ( i . e . to meet the i n d i v i d u a l needs of each student). Students who are unable to respond p o s i t i v e l y to grouping or other t r a d i t i o n a l classroom techniques often f a l l f a r behind i n the primary grades and su f f e r from severe basic s k i l l deficiency by the time they have fin i s h e d elementary school. Walther (1975), reports T . . . - 13 -that t h i s lack of success engenders a loss of s e l f confidence as such students eventually experience great d i f f i c u l t y coping with learning situations i n general and with peer group pressure i n p a r t i c u l a r . "The most s t r i k i n g evidence of the f a i l u r e to adjust i n s t r u c t i o n for i n d i v i d u a l differences i s pro-vided by the low levels of reading a b i l i t y found and the assignment of inappropriate study materials", Flanagan (1971, p. 173)^ made the previous comment af t e r noting that 34 percent of grade twelve students have great d i f f i c u l t y i n comprehending assignments. I f educators accept the premise that a l l children should be exposed or challenged to the extent of t h e i r a b i l i t i e s , then t h i s objective i s not being f u l f i l l e d . Science education has t r a d i t i o n a l l y catered to the academic e l i t e , neglecting the slower learners that are always present. Hurd (1969), agreed that minimal pro-gress had been made when the majority of the new nation-wide science courses were developed for college prepara-tory students, e s p e c i a l l y the classes i n chemistry and physics and to a lesser extent, the biology courses. Since we are l i v i n g i n a s c i e n t i f i c age, every possible e f f o r t should be made to supply programs or materials at a l e v e l that i s commensurate with each - 14 -student's a b i l i t i e s . As science involves studying l i f e , a l l pupils regardless of mental capacity, experience natural phenomena. A l l children have innate c u r i o s i t i e s about: l i f e , the Universe, e l e c t r i c i t y , l i g h t , matter, heat, sounds, the Earth and weather. In e f f o r t s to adequately challenge average and superior students, Witty (1961), predicted the ever present threat that educators may overlook the lim i t e d learners. 1.41 B.C. SCIENCE ASSESSMENT In the Summary Report to the Ministry of Education ( B r i t i s h Columbia Science Assessment, 1978), junior secondary science teachers thought-that the provision of a wider s e l e c t i o n of printed materials and a complete r e v i s i o n of the junior science program would improve the q u a l i t y of science i n s t r u c t i o n . The teachers re-ported that there appears to be i n s u f f i c i e n t time to cover the prescribed course and that there i s l i t t l e provision i n science for i n d i v i d u a l differences i n student a b i l i t y . The 1978 Science Assessment l i s t e d the f i r s t major goal of science education as Understanding Concepts, followed by S k i l l s i n the Process of Science, Application, Safety, S c i e n t i f i c Literacy and Favorable Attitudes to  Science and S c i e n t i s t . General science assessment at the grade eight l e v e l was encouraging with student 15 -performance rated as s a t i s f a c t o r y or better on 70% of the survey questions. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n panel rated grade four and twelve at 84% and 30% respect-i v e l y . In the conclusions and recommendations section of the report, the learning assessment team suggests (p. 44) : 1. That the Ministry of Education e s t a b l i s h immediately a curriculum revi s i o n committee to carry out a major r e v i s i o n of the junior secondary science program. 2. That the Ministry of Education, as a p r i o r i t y item, increase the s e l e c t i o n of texts and supplementary reading materials available to teachers of the present junior secondary science curriculum as long as i t i s i n force. 3. That teachers widen t h e i r repertoire of methods of teaching science at the junior secondary l e v e l , and allocate some of the time now spent.on routine marking of laboratory reports to planning d i f f e r e n t approaches. They further recommended that a new junior science curriculum was c a l l e d for, and i n the interim, the provision of a wider range of printed materials for junior secondary science. Any new curriculum should be designed to appeal to g i r l s as well as boys,, and should be adaptable to the wide ranges both of a b i l i t y and i n t e r e s t i n science at the junior secondary l e v e l . - 16 -Teacher reports i n the Assessment indicated that there was l i t t l e provision i n B.C. science classes for i n d i v i d u a l differences of student a b i l i t y and 29% of junior secondary teachers reported no provision at a l l . The most common provisions at the junior secondary l e v e l were learning assistance classes (40%) and a b i l i t y grouping by classes (38%). In larger schools i t i s possible to i d e n t i f y and group modified science students. Throughout the province i n smaller communities, grouping i s not possible due to budget r e s t r i c t i o n s . Talented instru c t o r s can rearrange t h e i r own classes into groups, accommodating the slower learners, then attempt to teach each group. This method imparts extra work onto the teacher and only the most capable s t a f f members could continue t h i s arrangement over a longer period of time. Current junior science programs i n B.C. appear to be designed for the successful students, leading them into senior science and college courses. Most non-academic pupils are required to take science courses at l e a s t u n t i l grade 10, when t h e i r science careers may terminate and the M i n i s t e r i a l terms of science education have been met. Underachievers can now e i t h e r drop-out l e g a l l y , follow an i n d u s t r i a l - t e c h n i c a l program or search for a vocational trade. 1.5 A RATIONALE FOR PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION An educator cannot j u s t i f y spending extra time on the slower learners at the expense of normal and advanced students' needs. However, i t can be argued that success i n a modified science program i s more defensible than f a i l u r e i n an unattainable program (Oxenhorn, 19 72). A very successful technique for helping l i m i t e d learners i s to employ an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d program. Ausubel (1968) , states that programmed i n s t r u c t i o n i s " p o t e n t i a l l y the most e f f e c t i v e method for transmitting the established content of most subject-matter f i e l d s " (p. 348);. A p r i n c i p a l theme with program design that i s repeat-edly stressed i n a l l the l i t e r a t u r e for dealing with slower learners, i s involvement. The students that have had l i m i t e d success learn best when they come into d i r e c t contact with the subject matter and assume some role i n organizing the learning approach and sequence (Abraham, 1961) . In a survey conducted by Healy (1978), 74% of teachers reported that the texts and lab manuals i n use were only somewhat suitable to unsuitable f o r teaching science to l i m i t e d learners. The p r o v i n c i a l l y prescribed textbooks are described as being inadequate for underachievers mainly because of the students' i n a b i l i t y i n language arts s k i l l s . - 18 -The slower pupils are unable to comprehend major concepts unless the i n s t r u c t o r augments the lessons with s p e c i a l materials. More appropriate textbooks, worksheets, and modified materials are available to those teachers who search resource centres, locate and obtain these items to use i n the classroom; t h i s i s a very time consuming process. Healy (19 78), reports that 70% of teachers do not provide a s p e c i a l science course for l i m i t e d learners. Of those that do, 60% reported that they never used programmed learning while 28% used this approach at l e a s t once or twice a term. The 19 78 B.C. Science Assessment reported that only 22% of teachers noted the prescribed readers as s a t i s f a c t o r y , yet 57% of teachers indicated that they assign readings from the texts. The Science Assessment indicated that there i s need for the development of modified science materials that can be rea d i l y placed i n the teacher's hands. The items must be affordable, easy to implement, guarantee reason-able s a t i s f a c t i o n of educational objectives and compliment the e x i s t i n g curriculum. I t i s not necessary to discard the previous syllabus but rather to construct adjustments i n the methodology or process areas which lead to s i m i l a r conceptual development. Young (1967), proposed that an expedient method fo r i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g science courses i s by - 19 -designing programmed i n s t r u c t i o n a l units. A programmed i n s t r u c t i o n on the topic, "Light" was developed to augment the learning materials available to non-achievers i n B.C. science courses. The programmed i n s t r u c t i o n was designed to meet the needs of most lim i t e d learners at the grade eight l e v e l . The program developed follows the core c u r r i c u l a r materials and c r y s t a l l i z e s the main concepts presented. As homogeneous groupings of underachievers are not fea s i b l e i n smaller schools, a personalized programmed i n s t r u c t i o n could be issued or arranged for those i n d i v i d u a l s selected as being l i m i t e d learners. 1.6 THE LEARNER AS AN INDIVIDUAL The major problem of i n s t r u c t i n g today's students i s not the poor q u a l i t y of materials or inappropriateness of techniques but rather the f a i l u r e of educational systems to deal with d i f f e r i n g student a b i l i t i e s . A learner i s an i n d i v i d u a l and must be taught accordingly (Baker and Goldberg, 1970). As previously mentioned, some educators believe that i n an i d e a l society, i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n could maximize the learning process of most students. However, with the present f a c i l i t i e s and materials available, plus the c u r r i c u l a r organization and administrative - 20 -co n s t r i c t i o n s , Burns (19 71) relates the d i f f i c u l t y f or achieving i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n i n a t r a d i t i o n a l s e t t i n g . Burns' statement that i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n i s educationally desirable comes from the nature of mankind. Since no two l i v i n g organisms (pupils) are a l i k e , a re g i s t e r of variables concerning students was constructed examining the l o g i s t i c s of i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n . Burns (p. 55), l i s t s that no two learners: 1. achieve at the same rate 2. achieve using the same study technique 3. solve problems i n exactly the same way 4. possess the same repertoire of behaviours 5. possess the same pattern of inte r e s t s 6. are motivated to achieve to the same degree 7. are motivated to achieve the same goals 8. are ready to learn at the same time 9. have the same capacity to learn I f these nine assumptions are combined with d i f f e r e n t c i t y , home, and school environments, one must admit that learning i s a unique process. This indicates the d i f f i c u l t y of t r y i n g to f i n d one textbook or methodology to adequately serve a l l students i n a classroom. 1.7 A SUMMARY OF PERSONALIZED EDUCATION Personalizing a curriculum requires that provisions - 21 -be made for each person's strengths, weaknesses and current knowledge level in the content area being restructured (Carin and Sund, 19 75). In individualized instruction, one tries to provide learning opportunities that are in agreement with a student's needs, interests, and aptitudes. Sheehan and Hambleton (1977), stated that at present we lack sufficient theoretical guidelines and empirical results to know just how individualization can be done, results reported in the next chapter demonstrate many areas of success. Most definitions of personalized instruction specify a concept of instruction or program of study tailored to each student's needs based on their capabilities and characteristics of learning (Burns, 1971). Others imply that i t i s nothing more than applying logic to the learning act. Then, by carefully planning and organizing, provide an e f f i c i e n t method for learners to have the opportunity to acquire behaviors in their own way at their own rate. Kapfer and Swenson (1968), note the d i f f i c u l t y in trying to describe the term, personalized instruction. I t contains high level abstractions which sound good and contain current jargon but do not really offer any specific course of action. However, when individualizing a program, Bolvin (196 8) suggests the following goals. Each student should (p. 239): - 22 -1. make continuous progress towards mastery of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l content 2. continue t h i s mastery at t h e i r own rate 3. engage i n the learning process through active involvement 4. view the learning process as primarily s e l f - d i r e c t e d 5. be able to evaluate the q u a l i t y , extent and rap i d i t y of t h e i r progress towards mastery of successive areas i n the learning continuum. Bolvin concludes that i t i s only through the use of s e l f -i n s t r u c t i o n materials that personalization w i l l be manage-able within the context,of present school s i t u a t i o n s . 1.8' COMPENDIUM A synopsis of chapter one suggests that the i n v e s t i -gation of programmed i n s t r u c t i o n for l i m i t e d learners could provide information f o r teaching l i m i t e d learners. A group of students having d i f f i c u l t y i n school has been i d e n t i f i e d and an i n s t r u c t i o n a l methodology outlined. The research question concentrated on whether or not the li m i t e d learners are more successful with programmed i n s t r u c t i o n than with t r a d i t i o n a l teaching. In chapter two a l i t e r a t u r e survey provides a background of information on l i m i t e d learners and programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . An attempt was made to f i n d i n t e r a c t i n g a r t i c l e s that correspond with both of these subjects. - 23 -CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 INTRODUCTION The review of the l i t e r a t u r e focused on two regions, a p r o f i l e of the li m i t e d learner and research results of programmed i n s t r u c t i o n i n science education. Si-Most research-ers investigated one s p e c i f i c aspect of programmed instruc-tion and provide i n s i g h t for designing future programs. The meager selection of a r t i c l e s involving both the limited learners and programmed i n s t r u c t i o n does not provide clear answers to the research question. This section begins with an overview of the li m i t e d learner, revealing personal q u a l i t i e s that should be considered when developing program-med units for lim i t e d learners. - 24 -2.1 CAUSES FOR UNDERACHIEVEMENT "Underachievers are not born, they are made", claims Weider (1973, p. 19). This statement i s supported by the work of eight theorists who have associated an emotional sequence with low achievement. T h e f i isolation of causes for underachievement i s ', inherently d i f f i c u l t as the complexity of dealing with backgrounds, individual differences and a diversity of needs is enormous. Many researchers in their effort to generalize the causes have found similar explanations. Jenkins (1973), classifies these causes under five general headings which can be summarized as: 1. Intellectual Factors 2. Home Background 3. Personality Factor 4. Physical Factors 5. School Factors - Limited intellectual develop-ment due to genetics, injury or disease - home failed to provide adequate opportunities for language development - deviations from normal emotional and social development - prolonged i l l n e s s , and undernourishment impair learning efficiency - material f a c i l i t i e s , teaching staff characteristics and classroom procedures Oxenhorn (1972), approaches the factors related to underachievement by l i s t i n g blockages in a student's - 25 -p o t e n t i a l to perform. When these blocks; s o c i a l , economic, r a c i a l , physical, emotional or combinations of a l l these are removed or modified, the achievement l e v e l improves. A further discussion s p e c i f i e s the following causes (p. 37): 1. Previous Underachievement - former lack of success widens the gap with t h e i r peers 2. Reading Retardation - e i t h e r as a cause or e f f e c t of low a t t a i n -ment i s debatable 3. Low Personal Motivation - elusive factors due to fear, f r u s t r a t i o n , family or emotional problems 4. S o c i e t a l Problems - poverty, r a c i a l segre-gation, slum, etc. 5. School Factors - i r r e l e v a n t c u r r i c u l a , poor methodology, inappropriate school materials, mislabeling With the exception of the physical factors leading to low attainment, one must conclude that underachievers develop with respect to the detailed information outlined i n the l i t e r a t u r e . One further investigation to compliment this l i s t of causes was undertaken by Bingham (19 70). He claims that underachieving youth are a product of inadequate attention along three main li n e s of a c t i v i t i e s which have been shown to help a child's i n t e l l i g e n c e grow (p. 52 8). 1. Infancy Stimulation - parents unable to provide physical needs nor a stimulating environment - 26 -2. Language A c t i v i t i e s - minimal early conversation 3. Reading Preperation - hours of reading to, naming items i n the environment To conclude the causes for underachievement, Bruner (1960) predicted that improvements i n science teaching may accentuate the gaps already observable between talented, average and slow students i n the subject. A quotation from Tanzer (1960), ex-emplifies t h i s prediction and notes a concern. A major problem a r i s i n g from the current reappraisal of science education i s the danger that, i n our eagerness to raise standards for the average and above average student, we may lose sight of a large segment of our pu p i l population. Our slow learners are always with us (p. 181). 2.2 PRESENT QUALITIES PERCEIVED Aft e r examining the suggested causes for -underachievement, i t i s necessary to itemize certain q u a l i t i e s that allow an underachiever to be i d e n t i f i e d i n the average classroom. Teachers should be a l e r t for c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s exhibited by pupils that are summarized by the author i n Table 2 and as a generalized, comprehensive summary, not a l l learners possess these q u a l i t i e s . They can be considered i n diagnosing p o t e n t i a l candidates and subsequently planning i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs for these students. TABLE 2 QUALITIES PERCEIVED KARNES 1. Physical defects 2. $ Low academic progress 3. Poor reasoning a b i l i t y 4. Short "attention span 5. # Poor retention 6. No incidental learning 7. **Poor work habits and motivation 8. Gratification 9. * Communication "i 10. Personal adjustment 11. Confidence 12. Regimentation 13. Creativity 14. Home Life 15. Adult Outlook JENKINS 1. * Poor powers of reading and writing 2. * Vocabulary problems 3. # Poor retentive memories 4. **Limited powers of 5. Disorganization 6. Absence 7. $ Reassurance BINGHAM 1. Social product 2. # Experience 3. $ Inferior concep-tual development 4. * Communication 5. Culture of poverty 6. **Attitudes 7. Preferential treatment COMMON QUALITIES Language and Communication * Motivation ** Retention # Previous Success $ 0XENH0RN 1. Poor reasoning a b i l i t y 2. # Poor retention 3. * Communication s k i l l s weak 4. Low curiosity 5. $ Poor i n abstractions 6. Generalizing 7. Concept formation 8. Spaciai-relations 9. Low attention span 10. No incidental learning 11. Poor work habits 12. **Volunteers rarely 13. Cannot follow directions 14. Leaves work incomplete 15. A social isolate The table coordinates the common q u a l i t i e s perceived i n l i m i t e d learners by: Bingham (19 70) , Jenkins (19 73) , Karnes (.1970) and Oxenhorn (19 72). (NOTE: the coded markings indicate s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as l i s t e d by simultaneous authors). I t i s not su r p r i s i n g to note the s i m i l a r i t y between a l l the previously recorded causes for underachievement and the q u a l i t i e s perceived i n the classroom. To look at these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t perspective, Weider (1973), describes what the teacher observes: In the underachiever there appears to be no motivation, but only an apparent lethargy; eyes which gaze into deep wells of emptiness, an attitude of estrangement or a state of rebelliousness which evades productivity. Disengagement rather than involvement (p. 19). This i n t e r e s t i n g report states patterns which describe how the underachiever has formed. Weider provides a psychodynamic analysis of the underachiever which can be summarized as follows: 1. S e l f Concept - become overly i n t r o -spective 2. Personal Inadequancies - feels u n f u l f i l l e d , trapped, pessimistic, discouraged and confused 3. Adult Perception - more r e a l i s t i c , notes adult preaching at variance with actions 4. Needs - desires immediate g r a t i f i c a t i o n but has an unconscious need to f a i l , seeking parental rejection Weider concludes his a r t i c l e describing a syndrome of underachievement. The parents often do not know the p o t e n t i a l and capacities of t h e i r progeny. The student i s usually r e b e l l i n g against his parents to f i n d himself as an independent person. The successful r e b e l l i o n then takes the form of passive resistance rather than active agression. The youngster wants to get, "back at the parents through f a i l u r e " (p. 21) . - 30 -2.30 GENERAL TEACHING STRATEGIES AND SUGGESTIONS To cope with the complexity and m u l t i p l i c i t y of problems that the l i m i t e d learner brings into the class-room, sp e c i a l techniques and awareness should be employed by the teacher. Many authors have made suggestions to c l a r i f y a successful approach that increases the rate of progress. To a l l e v i a t e the persistent problems facing the underachiever, l i s t s of strategies have been compiled from Ar on s t e i n (1969), Bingham (1968), Holzberg (1976), Karnes (19 70) , Lombardi and Balch (19 76) and Weider (1973) . Since the l i t e r a t u r e i s expansive on t h i s topic, f i v e categories were used to summarize i t as follows: 2.31 GENERAL ACTIVITIES - use a multisensory approach, stress q u a l i t y not quantity - introduce concepts from previously acquired knowledge - teaching should proceed from the known to the unknown with emphasis on the child's d a i l y l i v i n g a c t i v i t i e s - experiments chosen and organized so that immediate application i s apparent and relevant - s e l e c t a c t i v i t i e s for immediate success i n the minimal amount of time - give immediate feedback, encouragement and progress reports - reinforce successful performance with praise - important learning must be systematically taught, following sequential, organized patterns of i n s t r u c t i o n - 31 -- experiences should require the manipulation of concrete materials to improve visual-motor co-ordination - s e l e c t learning experiences which promote active student involvement, encourage t h e i r hypotheses - the key i s adaption to the environment, not intimidation by i t - science experiences must be developed from the current, common in t e r e s t s of the learners and re s u l t i n an understanding of the basic p r i n c i p l e s - avoid teaching material on a highly abstract l e v e l , use concrete experiences - create i n t e r e s t through a humanistic approach by using d i f f e r e n t media sources - develop a home-science curriculum, coordinate learning at home with learning at school 2.32 COMMUNICATION - make a l l instructions short, s p e c i f i c and clea r - topics should furnish a basis f o r improving a l l language arts s k i l l s , e s p e c i a l l y reading and o r a l expression - increase vocabulary, greater f a c i l i t y of word use allows more e f f e c t i v e thinking - practise language, read student a c t i v i t y sheets together as a class - discuss outcomes to ensure precise concept for-mation - develop new language by using p a r t i c u l a r objects and events - have supplementary reading materials available with s i m i l a r conceptual schemes at appropriate reading levels - the emphasis of our educational system i s on reading, i f you cannot read, learning becomes formidable 2.33 TEXTBOOKS - should be at or below the student's reading l e v e l - 32 -- minimized emphasis on reading a b i l i t y through use of diagrams and i l l u s t r a t i o n s - contain a decreased vocabulary load, technical jargon used only when i t relates d i r e c t l y to the present experience - should provide written accounts of phenomena students have personally observed - avoid use of i r r e l e v a n t formulas, symbols and math - materials of high i n t e r e s t and low vocabulary may be taperecorded to ease comprehension 2.34 TESTS - should be replicas of a c t i v i t i e s performed i n class - evaluate general concepts i n the same s e t t i n g - s i t u a t i o n centered involving a l l s k i l l s taught - should not be a threatening authoritative demand but a natural culmination of work - employ a timing device so that the learner does not get bogged down on one question - a simple format w i l l avoid confusion or deception - write out model answers before the test - i d e a l l y , those with reading problems may be compensated through an o r a l exam - should be used primarily to promote learning 2.35 ATTITUDINAL OBJECTIVES - give an opportunity f o r students to f e e l important, become constructive helpers, not destructive delinquents - encourage creative a b i l i t i e s , questions, s e l f expression - focus on the p o s i t i v e with an emotional climate conducive to learning - the teacher accepts every response as a c o n t r i -bution to the development of a concept - student learns how to resolve f r u s t r a t i o n through a constructive means - underachievement i s se l f - d e f e a t i n g and that there are hidden causes f o r t h i s f a i l u r e - 33 -- overcome fears of school by working with conse-quent feelings of accomplishment - develop a mature attitude i n route to being a responsible adult - supply a l l basic emotional needs - an awareness of the complex in t e r a c t i o n between science, technology and society - develop the a b i l i t y to recognize a problem and the confidence to s e l e c t appropriate s k i l l s to solve i t - an unthreatening classroom atmosphere, structured to where the students know what i s expected of them 2.4 PROGRAM DESIGNS FOR MODIFIED SCIENCE To avoid a "watered down" curriculum, Oxenhorn (19 72) reveals that a careful analysis of any syllabus shows that i t can be adjusted according to the pupil's needs. I f instruc t o r s think more i n terms of content-adjusted and process-adjusted c u r r i c u l a , keeping r e a l i s t i c goals, they retain a l l the important concepts and arrive at a more meaningful, practicable and strengthened program. Oxen-horn also argues that success through a modified program i s more defensible than f a i l u r e i n an unattainable program. Most authors, including Lombardi and Balch (1976), report that since li m i t e d learners are not oriented towards abstract concepts, suitable programs must have a p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . This does not mean the elimination of theory, concepts or processes of science but that programs should provide the s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a c y to help pupils function i n our society. Modified science programs "should be - 34 -structured to permit easier comprehension and better retention. The nature of modification for science i n s t r u c t i o n designed f o r l i m i t e d learners has been mentioned by several educators. Abraham (1961) , notes that concreteness i s of utmost importance; materials that can be handled and manipulated should be used to make science more meaning-f u l . Johnson (196 3) and Anderson (1966), recommend a laboratory approach as both believe that science f o r lim i t e d learners should be taught as inquiry. This can be extended to an accumulation of discoveries as reported by Younie (196 7). Some successful programs for limited learners are described i n the l i t e r a t u r e by Bingham (196 8, 1970, 1973 and 1974), Milson (1973), Quayle (19 70) and Wheeler (1973). In B.C. ?the current modified science programs include the Pathways i n Science Series by Oxenhorn (196 8), Concepts and Challenges i n Science by Winkler et a l (19 74) and Invitations to Investigate Science by Wong (19 76) . 2.50 PRINCIPLES OF PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION Programmed i n s t r u c t i o n has been c a l l e d one of the most e x c i t i n g advances i n learning techniques during recent years (Anderson, 19 72) . Formerly recognized as a simple s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n method of shaping verbal behavior, i t - 35 -has become a process, an integrated i n s t r u c t i o n a l system of formulating objectives, and a diagnostic analysis of teaching techniques (Callender, 1969). The work of Skinner (1961), on the analysis of behavior based on experimental studies with animals, led to the conclusion that by the process of reinforcement the l i k e l i h o o d that a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y of an organism w i l l be repeated ViisL increased. Nothing i s new i n t h i s p r i n c i p l e except in, understanding how conditions of re-inforcement work best. Programmed i n s t r u c t i o n rests firmly on a behavioral-science base for i t s effectiveness. Glaser (1965), has outlined what t h i s base should be for any i n s t r u c t i o n a l design. He c i t e s diagnosing of p r e - i n s t r u c t i o n a l behavior as c r i t i c a l and gives p r e i n s t r u c t i o n a l variables which can determine course achievement. A l i s t of some conditions that influence the learning process such as; sequencing, stimulus and response factors, self-monitoring, i n t e r -ference, practice, and response contingencies i s also provided. A programmer's job i s to analyze the tasks to be performed, construct the sequence and then decide the mode of presentation. Whereas the onus of learning i s on the student, the onus of ensuring that the program teaches i s on the programmer (Callender, 1969) . To achieve t h i s , the writer must i d e a l l y carry out a behavioral analysis of s k i l l s to be learned before designing the i n s t r u c t i o n a l sequence. Limited learners need a gentle release from the teacher dominated classroom scene to a more open, exploratory atmosphere, featuring the student-centered approach (Nasca, 1965 and Walther, 1975). In personal-i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , the teacher's role becomes that of a manager of learning for i n d i v i d u a l students. The teacher monitors each student's progress, diagnoses learning problems, prescribes alternative learning materials, and a c t i v i t i e s to help solve problems and evaluates each student's progress i n achieving stated behavioral object-ives . 2.51 BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS The tasks to be learned should be defined and broken down into separate components, (a hierarchy of sub-object-ives) so that program objectives can be formulated. As prescribed by Gagne (19 70), a h i e r a r c h i c a l knowledge -structure can be written from these objectives by l o g i c a l reduction. The i n s t r u c t i o n a l sequence should arise from an educational need rather than a programmer's independent decision. The behavioral psychologists, from whom pro-grammed learning originated, have not developed theories but rather techniques (Callender, 1969). They claim that since l i t t l e i s known of the human mind's workings i t i s more useful to concentrate on teaching techniques which are seen to produce r e s u l t s . Komoski (196 3), states that educational psychologists believe the best learning environment i s one i n which f i v e factors are operative (p. 292): 1. The learner i s active 2 . The learner gets frequent uaijd and performance feedback. 3. Learning proceeds gradually from the less complex toward the more complex i n an orderly fashion. 4. The learner i s allowed to develop his own best pace of learning. 5. The teacher's stategies are constantly reappraised on the basis of an objective analysis of the learner's a c t i v i t y . I t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the program designer"to determine whether materials and procedures enable the student to reach the desired performance l e v e l i n a s p e c i f i c subject. In these terms, learning can be defined as a change of behavior that i s both observable and measurable (Callender, 1969). When l i s t i n g objectives, expressions such as: to know, understand or appreciate are vague and meaningless descriptions. They are not behavioral terms as they cannot be measured or observed without asking the learners to demonstrate certain actions. Therefore, a l l objectives must be described i n operational terms such as represented i n Table #2. This i l l u s t r a t e s - 38 -an extensive but not an exhaustive l i s t of behavioral objectives. At the preliminary stage of program construction, there i s a statement of general objective (Appendix D). This statement i s then broken down into a series of smaller objectives which specify what the learner w i l l be able to do at each stage of the program. A declaration of detailed objectives, p r i o r to w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l material, ensures exclusion of extraneous information and the i n c l u s i o n of every step and concept necessary towards attainment of the general objective. In summary, programmed i n s t r u c t i o n i s goal-oriented learning to help students acquire s p e c i f i c knowledge or s k i l l s . - 39 -TABLE 3 Behavioral Objectives Analyze Demonstrate Plan Answer Describe Portray Arrange Design Practise Assemble Develop Prepare Bring Discuss Present B u i l d Draw Question Calculate E d i t Read Catalogue Explain Recognize Check Express Record Choose Find Report C l a s s i f y Graph Research Compile Identify Select Compare I l l u s t r a t e Sketch Conduct L i s t Sort Construct Listen Tape Contrast Make T e l l Convert Organize Use Debate Outline View De c i de Pa r t i c i p a t e Write Note: Objectives state what the student w i l l be able to do or demonstrate after completing a given learning sequence or i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n . The objectives define exactly what the student must be able to do to attain the broader goals or understand the topics of the course. - 40 -2.52 EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION Evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e indicated that when com^ pared with conventional techniques, programmed materials consistently produced at least equal student performance of learning objectives, often i n shorter periods of time. In an analysis of research on i n s t r u c t i o n a l procedures i n secondary school science, Ramsay and Howe (1969) reviewed 16 reports on programmed i n s t r u c t i o n and have neatly sum-marized the r e s u l t s . For reports that show the pos i t i v e effectiveness of programming to impart content, these authors c i t e ; Besler (1966), Karnes (1966), Darnowski (1968), Sayles (1966), Young (1967), and Zesche (1966). In addition to imparting content, Young also concluded that students using programmed materials i n high school biology reached the same l e v e l of achievement as other students i n less time. Karnes, reports that higher achieve-ment l e v e l i s attained when compared with students taught by the t r a d i t i o n a l methods given equal time. After three years of work with programmed science experiences coupled with student performed a c t i v i t i e s , Hedges and Mac Dougall (1965) concluded that a programmed approach can be a valuable adjunct to modern school science. The i n v e s t i -gators note that this i s true i n the sense that students become highly motivated over longer periods of time because of the opportunity to proceed at t h e i r own rate doing many experiments by themselves. Another review of the l i t e r a t u r e conducted by Royce and Shank (19 75), summarized the results of 21 research papers on i n d i v i d u a l i z e d teaching and made conclusions about i t s usefulness and appropriateness i n science education. They indicated that l i t t l e difference was -?crm* found for achievement i n cognitive objectives, inquiry s k i l l s and c r i t i c a l thinking between i n d i v i d u a l i z e d and group paced i n s t r u c t i o n when measuring the understanding of science. S i m i l a r l y , Bard (19 75), attempted to develop a programmed, self-paced, variable step guide, and to de-termine i f this was as e f f e c t i v e as the t r a d i t i o n a l text-book method. An analysis of his results for a general science course f a i l e d to indicate any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e -rence i n achievement. Students also preferred the s e l f -paced study and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n learning a c t i v i t i e s of small groups over large. The effectiveness of an entire college science course taught by programmed i n s t r u c t i o n has been reported by Lagendijk (19 78) , and Balfour (1978) , i n separate studies. Both researchers indicated that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n achievement between students i n programmed classes and those i n conventional laboratory courses. They also found that these students were able to achieve these higher scores i n less time. Hedges (1978), while inv e s t i g a t i n g the long term e f f e c t s of programmed material - 42 -concurs with the above findings. He also noted that d i f € ferences i n achievement were attributed to the development of better study habits of the experimental students plus a student b e l i e f that they can learn more through a pro-grammed i n s t r u c t i o n . In a l i t e r a t u r e search comparing i n d i v i d u a l i z e d and conventional modes of i n s t r u c t i o n i n science, Marchese (1977) noticed that compared with other educational f i e l d s , very l i t t l e has been reported i n science. He c r i t i c i z e s the poor q u a l i t y of research methods used and only those reports applying acceptable research designs were selected for the review. Marchese, ci t e s Dutton (196 3), Peterson (1970), Williams (1969), Leo (1973) and Lewis (1974) as researchers who found that the achievement of students using programmed i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those taught by conventional methods. Williams, Leo and Lewis, also reported that not only was achievement higher, but retention was greater. Simi-l a r l y , students using an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d approach had a more pos i t i v e attitude towards the course. A p o s i t i v e outlook towards science education i s frequently associated with programmed in s t r u c t i o n and acknowledged i n other a r t i c l e s by Moriber (1967), Del Barto (1978) and Flowers (1977). - 43 -From a d i f f e r e n t perspective, only one study i n d i -cated that programmed i n s t r u c t i o n was less e f f e c t i v e than conventional methods. Eshleman (196 7), concluded that i n terms of immediate learning and i n measures of retention? the conventional method was more e f f e c t i v e . Both methods of i n s t r u c t i o n , however did produce s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n subject knowledge. As a synopsis of current research related to persona-l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n , Gabel, Kagen and Sherwood (19 80), con-cluded that (p. 456): 1. When methods such as audio-tutorial i n s t r u c t i o n , programmed i n s t r u c t i o n and learning a c t i v i t y package are used for i n s t r u c t i o n , studentAs attitudes toward the subject and/or method of i n s t r u c t i o n are generally p o s i t i v e . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to know whether this e f f e c t i s stable over time, or due to the novelty of using a new method. 2. Cognitive gains from i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n have been mixed. With audio-tutorial i n s t r u c t i o n and learning a c t i v i t y packages, cognitive gains are generally reported when the method i s used for a small number of units or over a short time span. Cognitive gains for programmed i n s t r u c t i o n have not been c l e a r l y established. 2.6 PROGRESS WITH LIMITED LEARNERS A report on the effectiveness of programmed ins t r u c -tion with disturbed students was conducted, by Eldred (1966). The main purpose of t h i s research project was to study e f f e c t s of programming upon the academic, therapeutic and - 44 -s o c i a l progress of children and adolescents i n a state mental h o s p i t a l . I t was l a t e r expanded to include limited learners or underachievers i n a public high school. Eldred, believed that programmed in s t r u c t i o n would provide a sense of worth and academic progress needed to prevent dropouts. Most importantly, he investigated and concluded that many limi t e d learners, regardless of t h e i r past experience with school, were able to learn under t h i s system. The results are not pe r f e c t l y clear as to benefits that the programmed method may provide over conventional teaching methods as there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences reported. A research study by Walther (19 75), reports on the effectiveness with which the New Educational Program, (a modification and refinement of the Job Corps programmed learning) can provide worthwhile learning experiences for underachieving adolescents. The program success was measured by achievement tests the q u a l i t y of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and other outcomes i n d i c a t i v e of success. On average, students gained three-fourths of a grade achievement l e v e l i n academic s k i l l s during three months. Walther concluded that programmed i n s t r u c t i o n was found to be an e f f e c t i v e educational component i n a variety of programs concerned with academic underachievers. - 45 -There seems to be some discrepancy i n the l i t e r a t u r e regarding li m i t e d and more able learners. H i r r e l (19 71) , found that high a b i l i t y l e v e l seventh graders have l i t t l e need for programmed i n s t r u c t i o n whereas at lower a b i l i t y l e v e l s , there i s a strong need for f u l l employment of such techniques. In terms of immediate learning and re-tention Eshleman (1967) , found s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n favor of t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n for below average students when compared with programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . A r l i n and West-bury (1976), reported that student-paced,-individualized science i n s t r u c t i o n using programmed materials resulted i n a higher mean learning rate for those students described as being more able of fast learners. They describe a phenomenon known as the " l e v e l i n g s e f f e c t " where teachers tend to focus on the needs of lower-a b i l i t y students. The teacher's attention, i n s t r u c t i o n and a press f o r greater achievement i s deflected from more able students by t h i s "steering c r i t e r i o n group". The suggestion i s that teacher-paced classroom i n s t r u c t i o n may s i g n i f i c a n t l y e f f e c t science achievement by l i m i t i n g the abler students. The evidence presented i n t h e i r study indicated that slow to medium learners achieve equally as well through programmed in s t r u c t i o n , whereas fast learners increased t h e i r learning rate very s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The researchers concluded that t h e i r finding should be viewed as an i n d i c a t i o n of the - 46 -powerful influence that an i n s t r u c t i o n a l methodology may have on a l l students. 2.70 DESIGNING A PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION The following subsections reveal s p e c i f i c research findings related to designing successful programmed mate-r i a l s . As the success of t h i s investigation could be i n -fluenced by the q u a l i t y of an author-designed programmed in s t r u c t i o n ; i t was es s e n t i a l to review a r t i c l e s that examined programming techniques. 2.71 LINEAR PROGRAMS Morley (19 70), reports that 90% of published program-med materials are of the l i n e a r format mainly due to t h e i r e f f i c a c y and simple construction. A study conducted by Crabtree (1967) on the r e l a t i o n -ship between scores, time, I.Q. and reading l e v e l for fourth-grade students using varied programmed science mate-r i a l s , revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the mean scores, I.Q.'s or the mean reading levels for any versions, but there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the mean times. By structuring the materials i n d i f f e r e n t ways, l i n e a r . versions seemed preferable to other program designs since the same amount of material was covered i n less time. I t was noted that those students who took less time to work - 47 -through l i n e a r programs tended to earn higher scores than those on other versions, even a f t e r I.Q. and reading l e v e l differences have been eliminated. This would indicate that time and score are not related. Crabtree explains the oddity by suggesting that the closer supervision of stu-dents using programmed materials was.needed. 2.72 CONCRETE MATERIALS Programmed i n s t r u c t i o n i n science does not rule out that laboratory a c t i v i t i e s such as experiments can be made an i n t e g r a l part of the program, i f they are highly struc-tured. In a study by Nasca (1965), an attempt was-made to determine how active involvement i n learning s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e s influences some s p e c i f i c student a b i l i t i e s . The student's involvement was assured through the use of pro-grammed materials accompanied by three methods of acquiring s c i e n t i f i c evidence to support new p r i n c i p l e s developed i n the program. The three methods of providing supplementary evidence were; seeing a teacher demonstrate 73 a c t i v i t i e s , personal active performance, and reading about new concepts. The results indicated that active p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n obtaining supportive evidence for s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e s was s i g n i -f i c a n t l y superior. The other two independent variables were about equal. Nasca, suggests that a programmed i n -- 48 -struction may be accompanied by a variety of materials supporting the verbal behavior being developed. State-ments within a program could d i r e c t students to p a r t i -cipate i n any number of a c t i v i t i e s related to the topic. Therefore, concrete materials could be used to support new concepts presented i n the program. 2.73 ADVANCE ORGANIZERS In an experiment designed to investigate i n d i v i -dual differences i n learning from programmed materials, Koran and Koran (19 73) preceded the materials with ad-vance organizers. The purpose of an advance organizer i s to provide some structure or "general idea s c a f f o l -ding" into which new concepts can be incorporated. I t has been reported that l i m i t e d and more able students benefit from t h i s technique. Zeaman and House (1967), suggest that i f lower a b i l i t y students are weak in attentional and discriminational s k i l l s , the structure provided by advance organizers may compensate for t h i s lack by means of attention d i r e c t i n g and c o n t r o l l i n g features. The results of the experiment conducted by the Korans, did not f i n d any s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n using advance organizers before programmed materials. They suggest that this e f f e c t may be attributable to the fact LEAF 49 OMITTED IN PAGE NUMBERING - 50 -that programmed i n s t r u c t i o n i t s e l f , with accompanying feedback following each frame, provided s u f f i c i e n t struc-ture to serve the needs of lim i t e d learners. 2.74 VISUAL ILLUSTRATIONS Dwyer (19 72) , reports that research has found that a l l types of v i s u a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s are not equally ef f e c -ti v e i n complimenting programmed materials. One of the reasons c i t e d for the phenomenon i s that additional s t i -muli contained i n more r e a l i s t i c i l l u s t r a t i o n s tends to d i s t r a c t a student's attention from the relevant learning cues. The purpose of Dwyer's study was to determine which types of v i s u a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s used with programmed instruc-tion were most e f f e c t i v e i n f a c i l i t a t i n g student achieve-ment. S p e c i f i c a l l y , eight types of visuals were used to determine t h e i r r e l a t i v e effectiveness. The amount of time students study t h e i r respective programs and the influence of color i n v i s u a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s was simultaneously explored as i n s t r u c t i o n a l variables for promoting student achieve-ment. The results indicated that a l l types of visuals are not equally e f f e c t i v e . An increase i n the amount of re-a l i s t i c d e t a i l i n i l l u s t r a t i o n s w i l l not a r b i t r a r i l y im-prove student achievement. Dwyer's suggestion, agrees with current opinions that i l l u s t r a t i o n s presented as - 51 -simple l i n e drawings (in color) are the most e f f e c t i v e for increasing studetftt»achievement. Success of simple l i n e drawings may be attributed to the fact that students could readily i d e n t i f y relevant i n s t r u c t i o n a l cues i n the dia-grams and learn from them. 2.75 INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE PROGRAMS In a comparison of inductive and deductive programmed materials, Sakmyser (1974), found no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the type of program used when teaching chemical equilibrium to high school chemistry students. S i m i l a r l y , there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference on the student's re-tention t e s t s . However, each program had s p e c i f i c bene-f i t s for indiv i d u a l s with certain personality t r a i t s or s k i l l s . For example, reading a b i l i t y had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the student's inductive program performance but those students with lower reading a b i l i t y were less successful on the deductive program than students with higher reading a b i l i t y . This difference may be explained by the fact that the deductive program required students to read and com-prehend large p r i n c i p l e s a l l at once at the s t a r t . The inductive program, requires comprehension of small pieces of knowledge b u i l d i n g towards larger concepts. The impli-cation drawn from the study indicates that programmers should follow an inductive programming scheme to minimize - 52 -d i f f i c u l t i e s i n reading a b i l i t i e s . The above research i s i n agreement with e a r l i e r work by Theofanis (1964), who compared two programs, one written inductively and the other deductively while covering the same topic. When investigating the corr e l a t i o n between i n s t r u c t i o n a l base and student mental a b i l i t y , he found that students of low and high mental a b i l i t y learned better inductively. The average students showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two methods. 2.76 SPECIFIC REVIEW AND QUESTION COMPLEXITY When comparing s p e c i f i c review against repeated pre-sentations, M e r r i l l (1970), concludes that when coupled with a correction procedure, the s p e c i f i c review technique increased learning e f f i c i e n c y . Apparently, receiving the review immediately following a series of presentation frames was better than having to wait for a c r i t e r i o n measuring question. I t was also reported that a summary presented at the end of a sequence increased student con-fidence i n the materials as they tended to spend more time with subsequent frames. A study e n t i t l e d , "The e f f e c t on learning of post-i n s t r u c t i o n a l responses to questions of d i f f e r i n g degrees of complexity", has been researched by Yost, A v i l l a and Vexler (19 77) . Their purpose was to determine the e f f e c t - 53 -on learning science content by having students overtly respond to questions of d i f f e r e n t complexity following segments of programmed materials. Those subjects who completed the program by responding to interspersed questions scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those who completed the program with covert responses. This phe-nomenon occurred regularly when a technical or s p e c i a l i z e d vocabulary was used with a time delay, between the instruc-tion and the c r i t e r i o n measure. These authors suggest (that as complexity of questions increases, achievement increased as did amount of time spent on the program. They therefore concluded, that by asking more complex questions as part of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l sequence, higher relevant and i n c i d e n t a l achievement oc-curred. This greater achievement was related to the ad-d i t i o n a l experience of practise students obtained through inspection behaviors. ( i . e . rereading, sorting, examining, and looking for other s t i m u l i ) . Yost, A v i l l a and Vexler, note the need for a greater understanding of the relationship that e x i s t between cha-r a c t e r i s t i c s of questions used to e l i c i t student responses and the amount of learning that occurs from those responses. They also report the work of Fraser (1970), and Rothkopf (1966), that questions placed e i t h e r before or after an i n s t r u c t i o n a l sequence have i n general, produced f a c i l i t a -- 54 -tive e f f e c t s on learning.'-2.8 PLACE IN CURRICULUM Personalized i n s t r u c t i o n provides an e f f i c i e n t method of learning s p e c i f i c content outcomes and has a d e f i n i t e place i n science education, but what that actual place i n the t o t a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l scene i s not completely clear. Ramsey and Howe (1969), found that research has been l a r -gely preoccupied with the nature of the effectiveness ;;of i n d i v i d u a l programs rather than how these may best be applied i n school s i t u a t i o n s . They suggest that each i n d i -vidual teacher and each school should make some evaluation on the role of personalized i n s t r u c t i o n , perhaps contribu-t i n g to the meagre l i t e r a t u r e on i t s e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n i n the classroom. Morrow (1965), also states that programmed materials w i l l d e f i n i t e l y serve a purpose i n the school system. He suggests th e i r greatest value would be as supplementary materials in a regular classroom s i t u a t i o n . S p e c i f i c pro-grams could be designed to expand on a single concept, presented i n a textbook, for the benefit of more able stu-dents. Other programs could be written for limited learners, giving them a "slower p i t c h " on some elusive topic. Morrow, summarizes that programmed materials should supplement, as enrichment for the able student and assistance for the slow learner, rather than replace present i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials. - 55 -S i m i l a r l y , Roucek (1969) suggest that personalized i n s t r u c t i o n be gradually introduced and used for s p e c i f i c purposes. These include developing short units to com-pliment, extend, remedy, and review other i n s t r u c t i o n modes. The f l e x i b i l i t y of this technology allows slower students additional time for review whereas faster stu-dents can eithe r work i n greater depth or explore new areas of i n t e r e s t . Often i n the past, words like"programmed i n s t r u c t i o n " or even worse, "teaching machines" have conjured up erro-neous notions about a package deal of instant education. Eldred (1966), s a r c a s t i c a l l y stated that you just add a student, l e t simmer for two semesters and presto.... an instant scholar! This i s not true as these programs w i l l be most e f f e c -tive when used by an experienced teacher with adequate t r a i n i n g and related background. I t i s not to disparage the claims of programmed i n s t r u c t i o n notes Eldred, but valuable learning can best occur using i t i n one small! subject area by one highly motivated i n d i v i d u a l . He recom-mends that teachers use t h i s technology as an aid to per-sonalize education. A s i m i l a r comment i s reported by Blake and McPherson (1969), to c l a r i f y an important point. They write that children cannot learn e f f e c t i v e l y via i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n - 56 -by simply being t o l d to proceed at t h e i r own pace through the study of t r a d i t i o n a l materials. Specially prepared materials are required at the beginning of the subject and should pro-ceed sequentially u n t i l a required l e v e l of competence has been completed. Programmed i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l not replace the classroom teacher, dehumanize learning, or increase the teacher's work load. Blake and McPherson, reported that programmed ins t r u c -tion can actually enhance learning. They predicted that the technique w i l l free teachers for various neglected dimensions of teaching ( i . e . by leading discussions, r a i s i n g challenging questions, diagnosing, working with i n d i v i d u a l s , conferences, examining alternate materials, planning,sand l i s t e n i n g to students). Sheehan and Hambleton (19 77) , state that no single i n -s t r u c t i o n a l process provides optimal learning for a l l students. Given predetermined educational goals, some students w i l l be more successful with one program whereas others are more successful with d i f f e r e n t methodologies. The teacher i s not i s o l a t e d from a student's progress, as programmed in s t r u c t i o n provides two constant gauges on learning a c t i v i t i e s . The number of errors and r e l a t i v e position i n the program indicates areas of d i f f i c u l t y or ease of progress and allow alternate planning of learning experiences to c l a r i f y s i t u a t i o n s . - 57 -Programmed learning should not be allowed to set the class scene or dictate teaching methods. Morrow (1965), agrees that programmed in s t r u c t i o n i s a bright t o o l whose uses and li m i t a t i o n s must be cautiously defined. S i m i l a r l y , Hedges and MacDougall (1965), have serious reservations about programmed materials constituting the t o t a l i t y of any school science program. They suggest a variety of ways in which short programmed units can become another facet of the balan-ced science program i n a modern school. Studies conducted by Woodruff (1965), and Sayles (1966), indicated that students enjoy the novelty of programming but can soon t i r e of i t when used to excess. Therefore, an at-titude problem could develop i f t h i s was the only or primary i n s t r u c t i o n mode. Most science courses already programmed seem to be con-cerned with subject matter outcomes, these being verbal i n nature. Techniques have apparently not been devised as yet for attaining the broad goals of science education. ( i . e . s c i e n t i f i c attitude, processes of science, etc.) Therefore teachers should be cautious i n employing programmed materials other than to supplement regular classroom procedures. - 58 -2.90 IMPLICATIONS FROM RESEARCH After summarizing research results (Table 4), the author considered the following suggestions when w r i t i n g the program. An extensive e f f o r t was made to write with an appropriate reading l e v e l as i t tends to provide the greatest "stumbling block" to underachievers. The format of the program was li n e a r and followed an inductive approach to learning. The presentation of an advance organizer may help some students conceptually arrange the new material. Visual i l l u s -trations i n the form of simple l i n e drawings were a valuable asset i n c l a r i f y i n g certain ideas, i n s t r u c t i o n s , and i n f o r -mation. A provision was incorporated for alternative a c t i -v i t i e s that included concrete materials to reinforce verbal behaviors and s k i l l s being taught. Ideally, personalized i n s t r u c t i o n could aid as an important supplement to routine classroom procedures adding variety to meet the required needs of each student. Personalized i n s t r u c t i o n i s not a panacea for a l l education. Astute observers have recognized both the positive attributes as well as some negative comments i n the l i t e r a t u r e . AUTHOR(S) Bard, Ramsey and Howe Barry Crabtree Dwyer Eldred, Walther Koran and Koran M e r r i l l Morrow Nasca Sakmyser A r l i n and Westbury Yost, A v i l l a and Vexler TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH:  PROGRAMMED RESEARCH AREA General effectiveness Advanced content Linear programs V i s u a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s Limited learners success Advance organizers Review c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Place i n curriculum Concrete materials Inductive and deductive programs Leveling e f f e c t Question complexity IMPLICATIONS equally successful as t r a d i t i o n a l teaching senior content can be designed f o r junior students l i n e a r programs are more e f f i c i e n t •simple l i n e drawings are most e f f e c t i v e Increased achievement f o r underachievers •some form of mental framework may help c e r t a i n students prepare f o r a program •present a summary a f t e r a short sequence •as a supplement to regular procedures •include lab a c t i v i t i e s to re i n f o r c e new s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e s or concepts •inductive programs favourable f o r l i m i t e d learners or those with lower reading a b i l i t y •bright students increase learning rate s i g n i f i c a n t l y -overt responses to complex questions increased achievement and higher concept development - 60 -CHAPTER 3. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 3.0 INTRODUCTION The following chapter describes the course of action taken to answer the research questions. I t covers: the background of the participants, a detailed description of how the li m i t e d learners were i d e n t i f i e d , the materials and instruments employed with the chosen design and con-cludes with previous p i l o t study r e s u l t s . The impetus for conducting this investigation was to explore the success of programmed materials for lim i t e d learners i n a regular classroom. - 61 -3.1 DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE The students involved i n this study were enrolled i n a regular science eight program at K i l l a r n e y Secondary School, i n D i s t r i c t #39, Vancouver. For most of these students, this was the f i r s t year of secondary education encompassing grades eight through twelve. The students came from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, including several single-parent and immigrant families. At K i l l a r n e y , students are heterogeneously grouped and assigned to classes by a computer program which i s considered to be equivalent to random se l e c t i o n . However, a small group of l i m i t e d learners (13 students) was previously screened from the population and placed i n a "Basics" program. This s p e c i a l group were not selected for the study, as the research question examines the r e l a t i v e performance of limited learners within a regular classroom s i t u a t i o n . A t o t a l of f i v e clusters of science eight classes (approxi-mately 120 students) were selected from a grade eight population of 310 students. The actual number of students who par t i c i p a t e d i n the study was 116. Four students were not included due to extended i l l n e s s e s when either the pretest or posttest was written. TABLE 5 Character i s t i c s of the Five Cluster Samples Class Size Normal Learners Limited Learners Teacher 1 1** 15 12 3 2* 24 21 3 Teacher 2 3 * * 29 24 5 4* 25 21 4 5* 23 19 4 116 97 19 •experimental treatment (n=72) **control groups (n=44) Cluster sampling assumes that a l l members of the selec-ted groups have s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Gay, 19 76). This means that rather than randomly s e l e c t i n g grade eight stu-dents, entire classrooms are randomly selected and a l l stu-dents i n the selected classrooms pa r t i c i p a t e i n the study. Therefore, some confidence must be placed i n the school's class selection format. Cluster sampling increases the chances of obtaining administrative approval due to selecting i n t a c t classes rather than randomly sel e c t i n g and removing a few students from each c l a s s . One drawbacktto c l u s t e r sam-pl i n g i s sele c t i n g a sample which i s not represent!ve, i n some way, of the population. This was compensated for by sele c t i n g a larger sample (five clusters) rather than one c l u s t e r . - 63 -The f i v e science eight classes were taught by two male science teachers, with the study carried out during the winter term i n January, 19 82. This allowed the previous months of "acclimatization" for these new students to adjust to a large secondary school system. A previous survey had indicated that most students had l i t t l e or no experience with programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . Therefore, i t was assumed that there were no confounding e f f e c t s due to previous learning experi-ences. The treatments were randomly assigned to the classes so that each teacher had at least one experimental and one control group. 3.2 SCHOOL AND TEACHER BACKGROUND KiHarney Secondary School i s located i n south-east Vancouver. The school population was 1665 students with a complement of 88 s t a f f members. The science eight program was a semestered course involving fi v e classroom periods of 59 minutes each, i n seven school days. Although the time allotment was below the p r o v i n c i a l l y recommended guidelines of 110 hours per subject, K i l l a r n e y students receive approxi-mately 130 hours of science i n s t r u c t i o n per year i n both grades nine and ten. The school administration i s aware of these discrepencies and timetables are being changed i n September 19 82 . One of the science teachers i n this study has been teaching for 29 years i n Vancouver at both the elementary and - 64 -secondary l e v e l s . For over the l a s t 15 years, this instruc-tor has been employed at K i l l a r n e y , working exclusively with the junior science program. The teacher does not r e c a l l i n s t r u c t i n g with programmed materials at any time i n his career but appeared'to show a genuine, professional i n t e r e s t i n being part of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The author, who was the second teacher, had,taught junior science at K i l l a r n e y for fiv e years. This experience includes three years of i n s t r u c t i n g l i m i t e d learners in s p e c i a l l y modified science classes. Both instructors followed s i m i l a r approaches i n t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n , (as de-fined i n section 1.11) and i d e n t i c a l approaches with the programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . Daily conferences were held between the two teachers to ensure that they f u l f i l l e d s i m i l a r i n s t r u c -t i o n a l techniques. At these meetings, films were exchanged, laboratory a c t i v i t i e s and the student's progress were discussed along with any problems encountered. Both science teachers have taught the current program eight times i n the previous four years. 3.30 IDENTIFICATION OF THE LIMITED LEARNERS A c r u c i a l stage i n the investigation was the appropriate designation of those subjects deemed as limited learners. The l i t e r a t u r e indicates that the proposed sample would pro-bably include 18 to 24 l i m i t e d learners, i n a population of 120 subjects (see section 1.2). Since a small group of the - 65 -t o t a l population had been placed i n the "Basics" program, the sample was l i k e l y to contain 14 to 20 l i m i t e d learners. In f i n a l s e l ection, 19 students were i d e n t i f i e d as l i m i t e d learners. To i d e n t i f y students as l i m i t e d learners, four c r i t e r i a were used. They were: 1. Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s (C.T.B.S.) results 2. grade seven f i n a l science l e t t e r grade 3. science eight f i r s t term l e t t e r grade 4. D i s t r i c t Science Survey examination score Using a combination of these assessments, the l i m i t e d learners were considered as those subjects who had consistently achieved low grades i n science during grades seven and eight and were presently experiencing l i m i t e d academic success. Each one of the four c r i t e r i a i s c l a r i f i e d i n the following subsections. 3.31 FORMER EVALUATION Each student's permanent record card was reviewed to pro-vide a grade seven f i n a l science evaluation. This l e t t e r grade yielded a recent performance l e v e l of science achievement. The C.T.B.S. was administered i n the spring of 19 81 to 101 of the subjects proposed for this study. Scores were not available for 15 students who recently moved into t h i s area from outside regions or did not write the examination. These - 66 -students were therefore i d e n t i f i e d as being l i m i t e d or normal learners on the three remaining c r i t e r i a . Of the 15 students, only one was i d e n t i f i e d as a limited learnerr.-The C.T.B.S. represents an appropriate assessment of comprehension i n four areas of evaluation: vocabulary, reading, math concepts and math problems. These C.T.B.S. tests are con-structed to f a c i l i t a t e i n d i v i d u a l testing of pupils, at d i f -ferent levels of development, i n the same classroom. The range of d i f f i c u l t y i n the test items provides a maximum e f f i c i e n c y e i n discriminating over the entire rangeof achievement i n the grade. (King, 19 77) . The C.T.B.S. results were recorded as stanines with the lowest four stanines corresponding to l e t t e r grades of C-, D, D- and E. Those subjects whose four stanine scores t o t a l 13 or less were considered limited learners i n th i s study. Of the 116 students i n the sample, 18 were i d e n t i f i e d as limited learners by the C.T.B.S. r e s u l t s . Table 6 C.T.B.S. Total Scores Score Interval 2-4 5-7 8-10 11-13 14-16 17-19 20-22 23-25 26-28 29-31 32-34 Frequency Cumulative Frequency 0 0 1 1 6 7 11 *18 18 36 13 49 15 6 4 17 81 10 91 7 98 3 101 • i d e n t i f i e d as lim i t e d learners 3.32 CURRENT EVALUATION As the research was conducted i n January 19 82, a l l students had received one of the two l e t t e r grades earned for the semestered course. This gave some i n d i c a t i o n of the immediate l e v e l of progress at which each student was developing i n the new environment. - 68 -The Vancouver School Board Program Resources Department, conducted a survey of science achievement among grade eight students i n Vancouver schools i n June 1980. A t o t a l of 2643 students took part i n the survey which was designed to assess the degree to which curriculum objectives were being attained i n the current program. The survey instrument was based on the science eight curriculum and contained 15 general science multiple-choice itemstt The l a t t e r multiple-choice items were written by a l l subjects to assess t h e i r performance i n the areas of: safety, metrics, s c i e n t i f i c method, simple formula calculations and interpretations of graph or lab data. A d i s t r i b u t i o n of achievement scores for students who wrote the general section provided median and mean scores, a standard deviation plus a cumulative percentage of student scores. Of the 25 80 students who wrote the subtest, 18% scored f i v e or less out of a possible 15 responses. In thi s study, 33 of the 116 students i n the sample who achieved a score of fi v e or less on the general science survey were considered to be possible l i m i t e d learners. - 69 -Table 7. V.S.B. Science Survey Results Score Interval Frequency Cumulative Frequency 0-1 0 c 0 2-3 10 10 4-5 23 * 33 6-7 26 59 8-9 31 90 10-11 16 106 12-13 8 114 14-15 2 116 • i d e n t i f i e d as lim i t e d learners For the purpose of t h i s i nvestigation, a student iden-t i f i e d as a lim i t e d learner^must meet the c r i t e r i o n i n at le a s t three of four defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In summary, the limited learners were i d e n t i f i e d as those subjects who: 1. inggrade seven achieved low science grades (C-,D and E) 2. i n grade eight achieved a low f i r s t term science grade 3. scored a stanihe t o t a l of 13 or less on the four C.T.B.S. subtests and 4. achieved a score of f i v e or less on the general science survey. - 70 -3.40 INSTRUMENTATION To assess achievement i n general science concepts, an examination was constructed by the investigator which con-tained 30 multiple-choice items referenced to the contents of the programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . The test items were then " compared with the material covered i n the t r a d i t i o n a l approaches. Content v a l i d i t y was established by having both teachers agree that the tes t items were reasonable with respect to the material covered i n the programmed and t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n . A copy of the test iss-included (Appendix B) . The author-developed test was used as a pretest and post-t e s t to measure gains i n achievement. Although i d e n t i c a l items appeared on both tests, a di v e r t i n g reconstruction was attempted on the posttest. The sequence of tes t items was randomly jumbled and the posttest printed on a d i f f e r e n t color of paper to create an i l l u s i o n of a d i f f e r e n t test, to reduce errors of t e s t - r e t e s t s e n s i t i v i t y and improve i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y of the study. Taking a pretest may improve performance on a posttest, regardless of whether there i s any treatment or i n s t r u c t i o n i n between (Gay, 19*76) . This threat to i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y i s more l i k e l y to be a problem when time between testing i s short or when tests measure factual information which can be re c a l l e d . - 71 -3.41 THE PROGRAMMED BOOKLET At present, there i s no readi l y available programmed in s t r u c t i o n that corresponds with the prescribed curriculum for the science eight syllabus i n B.C. Therefore, the pro-grammed booklet used for the study was designed by the author (outside of t h i s investigation) for a l l students enrolled i n grade eight. The booklet was written to accom-modate lim i t e d learners by using language at an appropriate l e v e l combined with r e p e t i t i o n of core curriculum concepts ( _P for the topic of LEGHT. Basic s k i l l s such as; completing diagrams, following i n s t r u c t i o n s , i n f e r r i n g and reviewing previous questions incorporated. The student's booklet contained 90 frames of information, questions, concepts, challenges and 17 opportunities for alternate a c t i v i t i e s . A^brief explanation for other teachers was also included covering the purpose, content, a c t i v i t i e s , some programmed i n s t r u c t i o n a l theory, suggestions for the implementation and use of the material. The booklet was written i n behavioral terms with at least one item to cover each of the unit objectives (Appendix D). The alternate a c t i v i t i e s help to achieve these objectives by rei n f o r c i n g the learning process. The author of the current science eight textbook on LIGHT, Mr. John Petrak, provided constructive c r i t i c i s m and suggestions - 72 -for improving the entire i n s t r u c t i o n a l unit. Revisions of the f i r s t d raft included: 1. providing more multiple-choice items, (a or b type) 2. a t t r a c t i v e l y spacing each frame and response, 3. focusing on the key idea being presented, 4. o f f e r i n g a variety of alternate a c t i v i t i e s . The booklet was presented to Mrs. Jackie Eccles, a reading s p e c i a l i s t employed by the Vancouver School Board. She con-ducted a r e a d a b i l i t y test, using the formula developed by Edward Fry (known simply as the Fry Readability System) . Two random samples were analyzed to be at the grade seven and ; grade two reading l e v e l s , respectively. Other comments were that the simple sentences, easy vocabulary and an a t t r a c t i v e format with good spacing would increase success for poorer readers. The i l l u s t r a t i o n s , taken mainly from the science eight textbook are cl e a r and uncluttered. Permission to use these diagrams was obtained from the edi t o r , Mr. Manfred Schmid. These diagrams correspond to simple l i n e drawings that current research l i t e r a t u r e (Dwyer, 19 72) indicates i s most e f f e c t i v e for increasing student achievement. 3.42 OPINIONNAIRE To obtain some general information on student attitudes towards programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , an opinionnaire was developed by the author to reveal the students 1 reactions. I t was - 73 -assumed that i f the subject's name did not appear on the survey sheets, there would be increased v a l i d i t y i n the responses. Students were encouraged to display t h e i r actual feelings towards the methodology as sincerely as possible i n a classroom s i t u a t i o n . 3.43 ADMINISTRATION The pretest was written i n conjunction with the 15 item multiple-choice general science survey, before beginning the new unit, LIGHT. This was more convenient than w r i t i n g two tests at d i f f e r e n t i n t e r v a l s . The students were shown the correct procedure for recording answers on computer cards to f a c i l i t a t e marking. The computer cards were checked for c l e r i c a l errors be-fore marking,"(appropriate darkness, sloppiness, e t c . ) . As a further check against errors, the posttest answers were also written on paper and subsequently marked by hand. There were few deviations i n achievement scores from the computer scores amounting to increasing and decreasing some scores by one or two marks. Writing time for the posttest was some 45 minutes. The experimental groups were t o l d that they are being taught by a d i f f e r e n t mode, programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , to determine i f i t was a worthwhile method for learning science. The LIGHT unit of the science eight program would "count" just as much as other topics towards t h e i r f i n a l l e t t e r grade. The students were reminded that they were accountable for anything i n the - 74 -programmed booklet and would write an important, comprehen-sive, f i n a l exam on the material covered. The posttest was written as a standard classroom exam when a l l subjects had completed the unit. I t was assumed that the above strategy would eliminate a "just-for-fun" attitude that some pupils acquire when trying something new and increase the seriousness of student p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study. However, the halo or Hawthorne e f f e c t may be present with some i f not most students. The opinionnaire was administered one week after the posttest. This allowed time for some r e f l e c t i o n and a better compa-rison with the t r a d i t i o n a l approach. In the investigation, a l l subjects were studying the topic, LIGHT, ath the same time. Those using programmed ins t r u c t i o n completed the booklet i n two weeks (10 to 12 hours) depending upon the amount of time spent on laboratory a c t i v i t i e s . The students following the t r a d i t i o n a l approach required more time (2 hours) to cover the same amount of material. The posttest was written as a group after a l l members of one s p e c i f i c group had completed th e i r i n s t r u c t i o n . Those students who completed the programmed in s t r u c t i o n before other students were encouraged to explore other areas of i n t e r e s t related to LIGHT i n t h e i r readers. ( i . e . lasers, telescope functions, lenses, mirages, e t c * ) . - 75 -A l l subjects absent for one or more periods during the study were required to work for an equivalent i n t e r v a l on t h e i r own time before w r i t i n g the posttest. This was ar-ranged with each teacher for early morning, lunch time, a f t e r school or as home study assignments. The teachers organized materials for absent students i n the t r a d i t i o n a l s e t t i n g when they returned, whereas a posit i v e feature of programmed' materials i s t h e i r f l e x i b l e use i n scheduling, requiring minimal preparation. 3.5 DESIGN OF STUDY A 2 X 2 X 2 quasi-experimental fixed e f f e c t s f a c t o r i a l design with a repeated measure on the t h i r d factor was used i n this study. Campbell and Stanley (1963), outlined a non-equivalent control group design that was followed to te s t the n u l l hypotheses between the means of li m i t e d learners, normal learners and the i n t e r a c t i o n of learning a b i l i t y with pro-grammed and t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n . The f i r s t factor (Factor A), the type of i n s t r u c t i o n has two l e v e l s , programmed and t r a d i t i o n a l . The second factor . (Factor B) , learning a b i l i t y has two l e v e l s , limited and nor-mal. The li m i t e d and normal learners were defined i n sections 1.13 and 1.14 respectively. The t h i r d factor, (Factor C) achievement has two l e v e l s , pretest and posttest scores which serve as a repeated measure. - 76 An i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h i s design i s drawn below with the size of each c e l l sample. Figure 1 C e l l Sizes i n F a c t o r i a l Design LEARNING ABILITY" Normal (n=96) Limited (n=19) T r a d i t i o n a l Programmed (n=44) (n=72) INSTRUCTION METHOD The reason for s e l e c t i n g t h i s design was to determine whether the e f f e c t s of the experimental variable (programmed instruction) were generalizable to a l l levels of the control variable (learning a b i l i t y ) or whether the e f f e c t s were s p e c i f i c to certain levels of the control variable. By using a f a c t o r i a l design, there was a chance to determine i f an i n t e r a c t i o n exists between the variables such that each i n s t r u c t i o n method was d i f f e r e n t i a l l y e f f e c t i v e depending upon the learning a b i l i t y of the students. F a c t o r i a l designs permit simultaneous testing of numerous hypotheses and provide answers to a number of questions within the framework of a single experiment. 3.6 DATA ANALYSIS The pretest was i n i t i a l l y used to determine i f the clust e r samples were the same oh the dependent variable. I f the results were s i m i l a r , posttest scores could be direc-t l y compared using an analysis of variance. Since the clus-ter samples were not s i m i l a r (random assignment does not guarantee e q u a l i t y ) , the posttest scores were analyzed using an analysis of covariance. Covariance adjusts the posttest scores for i n i t i a l pretest differences. The most appropriate way i n which data can be analyzed for f a c t o r i a l design interactions i s simply to compare post-test mean scores of the two groups with the treatment. How-ever, since the pretest results for each group were d i f f e r e n t , the posttest results were adjusted. By using the same items on the pretest and posttest, gains i n achievement were deter-mined for each group. The mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for a l l subjects writing both tests. To di s -play the raw score data, a frequency polygon was constructed to compare the pretest and posttest scores. An item analysis of the measuring instrument was conducted to determine-sthe d i f f i c u l t y and discrimination indexes for each t e s t item and a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t (Appendix C) . 3.7 PILOT STUDY RESULTS A p i l o t study using s i m i l a r instruments was conducted with a regular science eight class i n March 19 80. The group of 29 students contained f i v e l i m i t e d learners as indicated by previous achievement and l e t t e r grades. Classroom obser-vations revealed that most pupils successfully completed the booklet i n two periods as no lab a c t i v i t y was involved. An average student required 1.5 hours of continuous work to f i n i s h the program. This implied that a revision of the o r i g i n a l program should be undertaken before implementation as a complete unit for grade eight students. During the f i r s t booklet sessions, there was a d e f i n i t e atmosphere of d i l i g e n t student application within the class-room. Fewer than usual classroom disturbances were noted as each student was keen to work independently. The Hawthorne e f f e c t could be one explanation for these conditions. As a classroom a c t i v i t y , programmed i n s t r u c t i o n was a successful tool i n c o n t r o l l i n g undesirable behavior while productive, genuine learning appeared to be occurring. The s t a t i s t i c a l results from an examination showed the mode and median score both at 41 out of 50, whereas the mean score was 39. The range of scores went from 20 to 48. The high scores on thi s cognitive evaluation indicated that a desired core or basic comprehension l e v e l could be achieved for a l l students including l i m i t e d learners. An average student was very p r o f i c i e n t (80%) i n answering a l l t e s t questions while three of the five l i m i t e d learners achieved scores higher than 50% . An a t t i t u d i n a l evaluation provided a most i n t e r e s t i n g section of the p i l o t study. From a student's viewpoint, programmed i n s t r u c t i o n i s not currently used as a classroom a c t i v i t y . Most students (81%) were i n favor of and would enjoy working on a s i m i l a r i n s t r u c t i o n booklet at least once a month. When contrasted with other common classroom a c t i -v i t i e s , t h i s learning methodology seems very e f f e c t i v e and p r a c t i c a l . The results suggested that there should be; > greater research done and intense c u r r i c u l a r development of various programmed i n s t r u c t i o n a l units for science edu-cation . - 80 -CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.0 INTRODUCTION The results of the analyses described i n the l a s t chap-ter (section 3.6) are presented i n t h i s chapter. An over-view of the general achievement t e s t results are displayed f i r s t to provide a background of information for the t o t a l sample. Four d i s t i n c t groups (learning a b i l i t y X mode of instruction) were then examined and by using the pretest as a covariate, an analysis of covariance was generated. The chapter concludes with a summary of a q u a l i t a t i v e a t t i t u -d i n a l survey i n which the students were encouraged to ex-press opinions on the experimental teaching method. - 831 -4.1 GENE PAL ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS To obtain an overview of the general achievement results for the t o t a l sample, two frequency polygons have been con-structed for the pretest and posttest. In figure 2, the raw data for the pretest i s displayed for a l l 116 participants in the study. The pretest mean score was 14.88 (out of a possible 30) with a standard deviation of 3.71. The raw data for the posttest i s displayed i n figure 3, y i e l d i n g a mean score of 20.86 and a standard deviation of 3.47. In general terms, there was an o v e r a l l increase i n achievement as measured by these instruments. The average gain i n achievement scores for a l l students i n the i n v e s t i -gation was 5.9 8. A summary of these results i s displayed i n table 8. Table 8. General Summary of Achievement Tests Pretest Posttest Mean 14. 88 20. 86 Standard Deviation 3.71 3.47 Range 4-2 7 7-28 - 82 -Figure 2 Pretest Score Distribution (n=ll6) i 1 r 10 12 14 16 18 Score (out of 30) i—r 20 22 24 26 28 30 Figure 3 Posttest Score Distribution (n=ll6) 20.86 3.47 8 10 12^14 16 18 Score (out of 30) r—i—r 22 24 26 28 30 Each one of the factor l e v e l s : t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n , programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , normal learners and limited learners also y i e l d s a general mean for the d i s t i n c t group. In terms of learning a b i l i t y , the 9 7 normal learners scored a mean of 15.45 on the pretest and 21.55 on the posttest. The 19 stu-dents i d e n t i f i e d as l i m i t e d learners scored 11.94 and 17.37 as pretest and posttest means respectively. When only the methods of i n s t r u c t i o n are compared, the 44 students taught by t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n scored a mean of 14.13 on the pretest and 19.57 on the posttest. The 72 students taught by the experimental mode, programmed instruc-ti o n , scored a pretest mean of 15.33 and 21.65 on the post*') test. The largest gain i n achievement scores of 6.32 was rea-l i z e d by students using the programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . Tradi-t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n produced an average gain i n achievement scores of 5.44. The smallest gain i n mean achievement scores for a d i s t i n c t group was 5.43 obtained by the lim i t e d learners. Normal learners increased t h e i r mean achievement score by 6.10. A summary of these results i s displayed i n table 9. Table 9 General Summary of D i s t i n c t Group Means n Pretest Posttest Difference Grand Mean 116 14. 88 20. 86 5.98 Normal Learners 97 15.45 21.55 6.10 Limited Learners 19 11.94 17.37 5.43 T r a d i t i o n a l Instruction 44 14.13 19.5 7 5.44 Programmed Instruction 72 15.33 21.65 6.32 4.2 ANALYSIS OF CELL SAMPLES A model of the design used i n t h i s study was drawn i n section 3.5 as figure 1. Each factor, learning a b i l i t y and the method of ins t r u c t i o n had two separate l e v e l s . The mean scores i n achievement were calculated as pretest results for each group. Following the application of d i f f e r e n t treat-ments, mean scores i n achievement were obtained from the post-te s t r e s u l t s . The greatest posttest mean score of 22.10 was r e a l i z e d by the normal learners using the programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . Normal learners following a t r a d i t i o n a l approach were next with a posttest mean score of 20.61. The limi t e d learners on the programmed method obtained a posttest mean of 19.18 whereas those receiving t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n had a mean score of 14.88 on the posttest i n terms of achievement. When the differences between posttest and pretest mean scores are considered as gains i n achievement, a new group order develops. The limited learners taught by the program-med i n s t r u c t i o n had the greatest increase of 6.45 i n mean score achievement gains. The normal learners using t h i s experimental method had an average gain of 6.30 i n achieve-ment posttest scores. The smallest gain i n achievement scores of 4.02 was obtained by the limited learners following a t r a d i t i o n a l method of i n s t r u c t i o n . Normal learners r e c e i -ving t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n obtained a gain of 5.75 i n mean score posttest achievement. A summary of these results i s displayed i n table 10. Table 10 Summary of C e l l Sample Means (standard deviations) Learning A b i l i t y Instruction Method n Pretest Posttest Difference Normal T r a d i t i o n a l 36 14.86 ( 4.12) 20.61 ( .3.2 8) 5.75 Programmed 61 15.80 ( 3.69) 22.10 ( 3*6:3) 6.30 Limited T r a d i t i o n a l 8 10.86 ( 2.89) 14.88 ( 3.95) 4.02 Programmed 11 12.73 ( 3.16) 19.18 (. 2v95) 6.45 - 8 6— 4.3 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE The pretest was i n i t i a l l y used to determine the equi-valence l e v e l i n achievement scores before the application of treatments. By implementing the same measuring i n s t r u -ment as the posttest, gains i n achievement were recorded for each c e l l sample. In order to determine whether the differences i n mean score achievement on the posttest were due to learning a b i l i t y or the methods of i n s t r u c t i o n , a 2 X 2 X 2 fixed e f f e c t s analysis of covariance was per-formed using the pretest as the covariate. The analysis of covariance was conducted at the Edu-cational Research Service Centre (ERSC) using the S t a t i s -t i c a l Package for the So c i a l Sciences. The l e v e l of s i g -n ificance used for a l l analyses was the 0.05 l e v e l . The results of the analysis are displayed i n table 11. The analysis of covariance y i e l d s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences for the two main e f f e c t s . In terms of learning a b i l i t y , the normal learners achieved higher than limited learners and the difference was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 l e v e l . For the methods of i n s t r u c t i o n , students using programmed i n s t r u c t i o n scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those students taught with the t r a d i t i o n a l approach. The posttest achievement means corresponding to these factors were previously displayed i n table 10. Table 11 Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Achievement Posttest Scores Mean Source of Variance D.F. Squares F Pro b a b i l i t y Covariate Pretest 1 730.282 84.929 0.000 Main E f f e c t s Learning A b i l i t y (LA) 1 70.532 8.203 0.005 Instruction Mode (IM) 1 50.731 5.900 0.017 2-Way Interaction LA X IM 1 20.937 2.435 0.122 Residual 111 8.599 Total 115 15.876 To determine i f the programmed or t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t for a p a r t i c u l a r group of students (in terms of learning a b i l i t y ) , a 2-way int e r a c t i o n was performed. At the 0.05 l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e there was no in t e r a c t i o n between learniro.g a b i l i t y and the methods of i n s t r u c t i o n . A graphical analysis of the in t e r a c t i o n was constructed for a better i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t . In figure 4, the mean scores of the achievement posttest results were plotted against the i n s t r u c t i o n mode. The graphical analysis reveals a trend but there i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between learning a b i l i t y and mode of i n s t r u c t i o n with respect to achieve-ment on the posttest scores. - 88 -Posttest Mean Achievement Scores 30 —r 25-1 20 15"^ 10 5-i Figure 4 2-Way Interaction Normal Learners -Limited Learners T r a d i t i o n a l Programmed Instruction Mode 4.4 ATTITUDINAL SURVEY ANALYSIS The a t t i t u d i n a l survey was conducted to obtain further background information on the student's experience with pro-grammed in s t r u c t i o n and to provide a q u a l i t a t i v e evaluation of the experimental methodology. The results were based on a sample a t t i t u d i n a l survey (Appendix A). The to t a l s were converted to a percentage for the ensuing discussion. The survey indicated that 5 8% of students i n the experi-mental group claim to have never or were not sure i f they had ever worked on a programmed i n s t r u c t i o n task before. In de-termining how useful the booklet was i n helping students to learn about Light, 30% r e p l i e d with, "very h e l p f u l " while 9 8% responded i n the combined categories of, "h e l p f u l " and, "very 89 -h e l p f u l " . This figure corresponds with another question regarding the value of the programmed booklet. Only 2% reported that i t was, "useless" or, yof, "no value". As a classroom a c t i v i t y for one period, 26% of the stu-dents surveyed rated i t as being, "very good". The majority (66%) claimed the a c t i v i t y was, "average" whereas 8% thought i t was, "boring". When asked how often students would want to work on a programmed unit, 80% suggested at le a s t , "once a month" or more frequently while the majority (50%) , desired to work on programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , "once a week". An attempt was made to rate programmed i n s t r u c t i o n qua-l i t a t i v e l y with nine other methods of i n s t r u c t i o n . The most popular a c t i v i t y selected by the students was to, "watch a fil m " on the topic under study. The next most desirable met-hods were: to, "do an experiment themselves, watch the tea-cher perform a demonstration" and s t a r t , "a programmed book-l e t " . A c t i v i t i e s that were rated less desirable than working on a programmed i n s t r u c t i o n were: to, "write out notes, work on practise problems, l i s t e n to the teacher t a l k , begin a l i b r a r y project, write a t e s t and read from a textbook." When asked for what main use could be made of a set of programmed booklets, 49% of the students thought that the best use would be i n , "reviewing f o r a t e s t " . A substantial group (40%), indicated that they would use programmed book-- 90 -l e t s to, "locate information on topics that were not clearly-understood i n c l a s s " . Only a small group of 11% thought that they would use programmed i n s t r u c t i o n for, "advanced learning into other topics" or as a, "general study method for d a i l y assignments". On another question, 62% of the students i n d i -cated that they, "would l i k e to study another unit of science by using only programmed i n s t r u c t i o n " . The booklet was not thought to be more, " t i r i n g " by 85% of the students, than a normal class. To describe the booklet i n other terms, 40% described programmed i n s t r u c t i o n as, "fun or easy", 62% rated the booklet as, "in t e r e s t i n g " whereas 12% thought the material was e i t h e r , ' " d u l l or boring". Few students (10%) claim to never have looked ahead for answers while the majority of students did look at answers when unable to complete an item. In summary, 9 4% of students rated programmed in s t r u c t tion as a, "good way to learn about Light". 4.5 OPINIONNAIRE COMMENTS I t i s important to consider the students' opinions and attitudes when discussing experimental modes of i n s t r u c t i o n . The following are a c o l l e c t i o n of the d i r e c t quotations from students expressing additional comments on the experimental methodology. The l i s t s are organized into negative and pos i t i v e comments. Due to anonymity i n c o l l e c t i n g the survey data, comments given by l i m i t e d learners cannot be distinguished from normal learners. The survey results acknowledged many positive - 91 -features of programmed i n s t r u c t i o n and supplied suggestion for future booklet designs. The r a t i o of pos i t i v e to negative com-ments was greater than these l i s t s indicate, approximately f i v e to one. Negative Comments - I t was boring because a l l you do i s look at answers. - I think i t was a f a i r l y good book but I wouldn't want to learn out of i t for a l l subjects. - They should have the answers on the back of the sheet. - I t should be a l i t t l e tougher. - I didn't l i k e the a c t i v i t i e s because they were too short. - Should have sections where they t e l l you to copy notes. Positive Comments - The booklet was useful because i t describes things i n d e t a i l . - I would recommend this booklet for other students. - We should do t h i s on every topic. - The most i n t e r e s t i n g part i s when the a c t i v i t i e s came up. - Just when you're about to q u i t you get to do something fun. - I l i k e d i t because you don't have to mark i t a l l together. - I t was good because you could work at your own speed. - I think t h i s exercise should be used more often and I think you would f i n d the results on tests better. - I t was fun knowing what the answer was when you got yours wrong. - You have lots of time to do i t and work at your own speed without being bothered. - 92 -- The booklet was worthwhile because i t helped me and i t was easy to understand. - I t was fun because i t was d i f f e r e n t and e x c i t i n g . - The booklet was good because you could experiment and not ask the teacher for the answer. - I t was easy to understand and i t helped me get a b e t -te r mark. - No homework. I l i k e thatJ - 93 -CHAPTER 5 THE DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 5.0 INTRODUCTION The following chapter summarizes the purpose and development of the inv e s t i g a t i o n . The conclusions outlined are related to the data analyses displayed i n chapter four and concur with l i t e r a t u r e reports regarding learners i n general. A s p e c i f i c knowledge claim i s reported for l i m i t e d learners. The lim i t a t i o n s of the study are explored with various sources of possible error that may e f f e c t the o v e r a l l generali-z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s . The sig n i f i c a n c e of these results are discussed i n terms of the 19 78 B.C. Science Assessment and i n d i -cate s p e c i f i c areas where programmed materials could f i n d imme-diate a p p l i c a t i o n . In closing, several unexplored areas of programmed i n s t r u c -tion are presented i n which future research may y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t results to further the development of alternate programmed materials for lim i t e d learners. _ 94 -5.1 SYNOPSIS OF STUDY The purpose of t h i s study was to determine whether or not the use of a programmed i n s t r u c t i o n booklet, as the basic i n s t r u c -t i o n a l material, could be considered as more appropriate for l i m i t e d learners than t r a d i t i o n a l teaching methods. An attempt was made to measure the success that li m i t e d learners have i n attaining general science concepts through programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . To assess the achievement i n general science concepts, an author-'developed examination was implemented as a pretest and l a t e r as a posttest following the experimental treatment. The mean scores i n achievement were calculated for d i s t i n c t groups thus enabling a comparison of gains i n achievement. A non-equivalent control group with a fixed e f f e c t s f a c t o r i a l design was used i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The fixed e f f e c t s analysis of covariance, using the pretest as the covariate, permitted sepa-rate analysis of learning a b i l i t y , methods of i n s t r u c t i o n and a two-way int e r a c t i o n between these variables. The outcome of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n provided the ensuing d i s -cussion of results and conclusions that could be drawn from t h i s study. 5.2 RESULTS The results of analyses outlined i n chapter four provided s t a t i s t i c a l evidence to answer the research questions and n u l l hypotheses expressed i n the f i r s t chapter. As i n i t i a l l y i n d i -- 95 -cated, the p r i n c i p a l research question became one of r e l a t i v i t y as to how successful are l i m i t e d learners, i n terms of acquisi-tion of science knowledge with programmed i n s t r u c t i o n when i t i s compared with t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n . Previous studies have indicated that programmed in s t r u c t i o n consistently produced at least equal performance of learning ob-jectives when compared with the t r a d i t i o n a l methods (Ramsey and Howe 1969 , Marchese 1977, Royce and Shank 1975). There was i n -s u f f i c i e n t evidence to provide a substantial i n s i g h t to the success that l i m i t e d learners were having with programmed ins t r u c -tion i n a regular classroom. The f i r s t n u l l hypothesis s t a t i n g that there was no s i g n i f i -cant difference of mean performance i n science achievement be-tween lim i t e d and normal learners was rejected at the 0.05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The second n u l l hypothesis regarding no s i g n i -f i c a n t difference i n mean performance for i n s t r u c t i o n mode was also rejected. The programmed method of i n s t r u c t i o n was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than the t r a d i t i o n a l method of instruc-t i o n for both l i m i t e d and normal learners i n elevating the mean posttest achievement scores. These findings support the research of Dutton (1963), Leo (1973), Lewis (1974), Peterson (1970) and Williams (1969). - 96 -In terms of actual scores out of 30, the limi t e d learners receiving programmed i n s t r u c t i o n had a mean score gain i n achieve-ment of 6.45 from the pretest l e v e l of 12.73 to the posttest achievement mean score of 19.18. The normal learners receiving the experimental treatment had a mean score gain i n achievement of 6.30 from the pretest l e v e l of 15.80 to the posttest l e v e l of 2 2.10. These gains i n achievement are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and were displayed i n table 10 along with the mean score gains for t r a d i t i o n a l teaching. The t h i r d n u l l hypothesis s t a t i n g that there was no s i g n i f i -cant in t e r a c t i o n between the mode of in s t r u c t i o n used (programmed or t r a d i t i o n a l ) and learning a b i l i t y ( limited or normal) was not rejected. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between these variables at the 0.05 l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . There-fore, the n u l l hypothesis was accepted and for the purpose of th i s study there was no i n t e r a c t i o n between mode of i n s t r u c t i o n and learning a b i l i t y . In summary, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference for normal learners over l i m i t e d learners i n terms of posttest mean achieve-ment scores. A l l students receiving programmed i n s t r u c t i o n achieved s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores than students taught by t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n . Since there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference for programmed i n s t r u c t i o n and no int e r a c t i o n between learning a b i l i t y and i n s t r u c t i o n mode, i t follows that programmed ins t r u c -tion was better for both groups of students. The results of the study are therefore: - 97 -1. The limited learners were more successful, i n terms of ac q u i s i t i o n of science knowledge with programmed i n s t r u c -tion than with t r a d i t i o n a l teaching. 2. The normal learners were more successful, i n terms of acquisition of science knowledge with programmed i n s t r u c -tion than with t r a d i t i o n a l teaching. 3. There was no in t e r a c t i o n between the mode of in s t r u c t i o n used '(programmed or tr a d i t i o n a l ) and learning a b i l i t y (normal or limited) . 5.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The study did not attempt to investigate the long term effects of continued i n s t r u c t i o n through programmed materials on student attitudes or achievement l e v e l s . The experimental teaching method was used for three weeks, which represents 7% of the time the students are i n school each year. E a r l i e r references to the Hawthorne e f f e c t described how the halo e f f e c t may l i m i t these findings and caution should be used i n applying the results to other s i t u a t i o n s . The g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of res u l t s from the investigation should be used with some di s c r e t i o n . The study was conducted at the grade eight l e v e l and the e f f e c t s of programmed ins t r u c -- 98 -tion with learning a b i l i t y was not explored at other grade l e v e l s . S i m i l a r l y , the po s i t i v e attitudes expressed by grade eight sturfe dents may not be applicable to other age l e v e l s . The investigation occurred i n one Vancouver high school. The 116 participants i n the sample obtained a mean score of 7.3 (out of 15) on the d i s t r i c t science survey as compared with a mean score of 8.3 for 25 80 students tested i n 19 80. Whether or not s i m i l a r results for the programmed booklet would be found i n other high schools was not explored. The teacher factor was one variable assumed to be equivalent i n the inv e s t i g a t i o n . One teacher had no previous experience with programmed i n s t r u c t i o n whereas the author had developed the unit and taught With other programmed materials. Some possible error or experimenter bias may have been introduced at this un-explored l e v e l . The i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y was li m i t e d by the lack of random assignment of the subjects to the treatment. As discussed i n section 3.1, the sel e c t i o n of fi v e c l u s t e r samples was an attempt made to compensate for the random assignment. Campbell and Stanley (1963), acknowledge the use of naturally formed classes i n experiments as an acceptable procedure i n the s o c i a l sciences when the random assignment of subjects to treatment i s not possible. - 99 -5.4 IMPLICATIONS The results of the inv e s t i g a t i o n revealed s t a t i s t i c a l evidence to further support the use of programmed materials for i n s t r u c -t i o n a l purposes. S i g n i f i c a n t l y greater gains i n achievement were discovered f o r both the l i m i t e d and normal learners receiving programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . The difference i n mean scores indicated that programmed i n s t r u c t i o n should be considered as an alterna-tiv e to the t r a d i t i o n a l methods of i n s t r u c t i o n . Since there was no in t e r a c t i o n between the i n s t r u c t i o n mode and learning a b i l i t y , i t can be suggested that t h i s programmed unit of i n s t r u c t i o n benefitted a l l students regardless of t h e i r learning a b i l i t y l e v e l . The programmed method has not only been shown to be equivalent to the t r a d i t i o n a l approach but rather superior to, i n terms of gains i n posttest achievement scores. With regards to the B.C. Science Assessment (section 1.41), i t i s suggested that programmed i n s t r u c t i o n may meet both the needs of teachers and students. I t was recommended by the assess-ment team as a p r i o r i t y item that the Ministry of Education i n -crease the se l e c t i o n of texts and supplementary reading materials available to teachers of the present junior science curriculum. In the interim, they suggested a wider range of printed materials be designed that are adaptable to ranges i n both a b i l i t y and in t e r e s t at the junior science l e v e l . Programmed materials could s a t i s f y these suggestions and the recommendation that teachers widen t h e i r repertoire of teaching methods at the junior secon-dary l e v e l with these materials. - 100 -Teachers also reported that there appeared to be i n s u f f i c i e n t time to cover the prescribed course and that there was l i t t l e pro-v i s i o n i n science for i n d i v i d u a l differences i n student a b i l i t y . The programmed booklet used for t h i s investigation covered the content i n less time (section 3 . 4 3 ) and lim i t e d learners were more successful than with the t r a d i t i o n a l approach. 5.5.RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The l i m i t a t i o n s of the investigation provide i n s i g h t to other areas of research concerning l i m i t e d learners and program-r med i n s t r u c t i o n . For example, the study was lim i t e d to grade eight students which suggests the question of tra n s f e r to other age l e v e l s . Research may indicate that programmed i n s t r u c t i o n i s more appropriate for li m i t e d learners at a l l age levels rather than a s p e c i f i c age group. There was no attempt during t h i s study to measure the suc-cess of female versus male l i m i t e d learners. A further i n v e s t i -gation may indicate i f programmed materials are more suitable for one sex or the other i n enhancing science achievement. The study was limited to one topic i n science (Light). An analysis of programmed i n s t r u c t i o n i n t o other d i s c i p l i n e s of science may indicate i f some topics are more conducive to pro-gramming than others, for li m i t e d learners. S i m i l a r l y , other goals of science education besides achievement could be explored. There i s a need to discover the e f f e c t of programmed in s t r u c t i o n - 101 -on the retention of science knowledge, the processes of science and the s k i l l s or techniques developed. Student attitudes were c o l l e c t e d on an opinionnaire i n an attempt to gather some general responses towards programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . A longitudinal study where li m i t e d learners are taught exclusively by programmed materials may reveal d i s t i n c t a t t i t u d i n a l changes when expressed over the long term. Most students responded i n a p o s i t i v e manner to the a t t i t u d i n a l survey. An exploration could be undertaken to examine any s i g n i f i c a n t reasons for the favorable responses. The e f f e c t s on classroom management offers other areas of research. The teacher's workload, morale and rel a t i o n s h i p with the li m i t e d learners should be determined i f programmed ins t r u c -tion i s to become a substantial portion of the curriculum. The English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, appear to be de-f i c i e n t i n science materials. Programmed materials for limited learners may be of benefit for those students experiencing lan-guage d i f f i c u l t i e s . The amount of time required to complete programmed units as compared with t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c i t o n may y i e l d a more e f f i c i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n mode. Although time was not a f o c a l point of this investigation, i t was found that those students receiving pro-grammed in s t r u c t i o n required less time to complete the topic. A quantitative study could expand these findings to est a b l i s h the most expedient method of i n s t r u c t i o n . - 102 -SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Abraham, w i l l a r d A., "A Variety of Ideas Pertinent to the Slow Learner," Education, 81: 352-355, 1961. Anderson, H.O., "A Philosophy of Education for the Slow Learner in Science," The American Biology Teacher, 77-78, October 1969. , Toward More E f f e c t i v e Science Instruction i n Secondary Education, Macmillan and Company, 19 72. A r l i n , M. and Westbury, I., "The Leveling E f f e c t of Teacher Pacing on Science Content Mastery." Journal of Research i n Science  Teaching, 13 (3), 19 76 . Aronstein, Laurence W., "Two Strikes, Then You're Out," Science  Teacher, 77-78, October 1969. Ausubel, David P., Education Psychology - A Cognitive View, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1968. Baker, G.L. and Goldberg, I., "The Individualized Learning System." Educational Leadership, 2 7 (8), May 19 70 . Balfour, H.A., "Development and Evaluation of a Self-Paced Physics Course for Pharmacists." Dissertation Abstracts  International, 39 (4), October 19 78 . Bard, E.D., "Development of a Variable - Step Programmed System of Instruction for College Physical Science." Dissertation  Abstracts International, 35 (9), March. 1975 . Barry, R.J. , "Programmed Instruction: ,-,A Do-It-Yourself Example." Australian Science Teacher's Journal, 19 (4), December 19 73. Besler, R.A., "Programmed Instruction Should Be Used in Teaching Chemistry." Metropolitan Detroit Science Review, December 1966 . Bingham, N. Eldred, "A Demonstration of the Role of Science i n the Programs of Educationally Deprived Children i n Grades 7-9," Science Education, 52 (3): 246-255 , A p r i l 1968. , and Cronin, C. Hines, "A Success-Oriented Program for the Educationally Deprived,"" The Science Teacher, 35 (8), 38-41, November 196 8. , and Cronin, C. Robert, and Paulk, Larry J . , "DISCUS, A Demonstration of an Improved Science Curriculum for Underachieving Students," School Science and Mathematics, 70 (6): 527-542, June 1970. - 10 3 -15. Bingham, N. Eldred, and Bridges, CM., "Science for Under-achieving Youth I l l u s t r a t e d by the DISCUS Program," School Science and Mathematics, 74,: 389-395, May-June 19 74. 16. Blake, H.E. and McPherson, A.W., "Individualized Instruction -Where Are We?" Educational Technology, 9 (12), December 1969 . 17. Bolvin, J.O., "Implications of the In d i v i d u a l i z i n g of Instruction for Curriculum and Instructional Design." Audiovisual  Instructor, 13 (3), March 1968 . 18. Brudznski, A.J., "A Comparison Study of Two Methods For Teaching E l e c t r i c i t y and Magnetism with F i f t h and Sixth Grade Children," (M) 1966. 19. Bruner, J.S., The Process of Education, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1960 . 20. Burns, R.W., "Methods for Individualized Instruction," Educational Technology, 11 (6), June 1971. 21. Callender, P., Programmed Learning: Its Development and Structure, Longmans, Green and Company Ltd., 1969. 22. Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C , Experimentalaand Quasiexperimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, 1966. 23. C a r d a r e l l i , S.M., "The LAP - A Feasible Vehicle of I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n . " Educational Technology, 12 (3), March 19 72. 24. Carin, A.A. and Sund, R.B., Teaching Modern Science, Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Co., 19 75. 25. Carnes, P.E., "An Experimental Study in the Use of Programmed Materials for Seventh-Grade Open-Ended Labratory Experiences." University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1966. 26. Cohen, D. , "Programmed Instruction and Teaching Machines." Australian Journal of Education, 7, March 1964. 27. Crabtree, J.F., "A Study of The Relationship Between Score, Time, I.Q. and Reading Level Using Programmed Science Material." Science Education, A p r i l 196 7. 28. Darnowski, V.S., "Three Types of Programmed Learning and the Conventional Teaching of the Nuclear Chemistry Portion of the High School Chemistry Course." University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 196 8. - 104 -29. Del Barto, Douglas F., Attitudes and achievement i n t r a d i t i o n a l , i n d i v i d u a l i z e d and composite science sequences. C. 1 Dissertation Abstracts, 39, 1, 796-A, 1978. 30. Dutton, S.S., "An Experimental Study i n Programming of Science four the Fourth Grade," Doctorate Dissertation, U. of Va., 1963. 31. Dwyer, F.M., "The E f f e c t of Overt Responses i n Improving V i s u a l l y Programmed Science Instruction." Journal of Research In  Science Teaching, 1972 . 32. Eldred, D.M., ''The Use of Programmed Instruction with Disturbed Students." U.S. Department of Health, Education and  Welfare, May 1966. 33. Eshleman, Winston H u l l , A comparison of programmed in s t r u c t i o n with conventional methods for teaching two units of eighth grade science. Dissertation Abstracts, 28, 2, 535-A, 1967. 34. Ferguson, Donaldr?G., "Review of the Literature ort the Slow Learner.", Education 81, February 1961. 35. Fischer,,John H. , Rethinking Science Education, National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960 . fl 36. Flanagan, J.C., "Project Plan: Basic Assumptions, Implementation and Signifigance." Journal of Science Education, 46 (4), A p r i l 19 71. 37. Flowers, Emma Jean, A comparitive study of student change through programmed and t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n eighth-grade science. Dissertation Abstracts, 38, 5, 2655-A, 1977. 38. Frase, L.T., "Boundary Conditions for Mathemagenic Behavior." Review of Educational Research, 40, 1970. 39. Gabel, D.L., Kagen, M.H. and Sherwood, R.D., "A Summary of Research in Science Education." Science Education, 6 4 (4) , J3 September 19 80. 40. Gagne, R.M., The Conditions of Learning, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 19 70. 41. Gay, L.R., Educational Research, Charles E. M e r r i l l , 19 76. 42. Glaser, R., "Toward A Behavioral Science Base for Instructional Design." University of Pittsburgh Learning Research  and Development Centre, 1965. - 105 -43. G u l l i f o r d , Ron, "Slow Learners: Problems, Assessment and Resources.", Education 3-13, 3, October 19 75. 44. Healy, Peter S., "The Limited Success Student i n Science." Master's Thesis, U.B.C., 19 78<f, 45. Hedges, L., "Personalized Introductory Course: A Longitudinal Study." American Journal of Physics, 46 (3), March 1978. 46. Hedges, W.D. and MacDougall, M.A., "A Comparison of Three Methods of Teaching Elementary School Science Involving Programmed Learning." U.S. Department of Health,  Education, and Welfare, 1965. 47. H i r r e l , M.*A., "The USe of Non-Verbal Cultural Free Learning Materials in Determining the Value of Sequencing, Cueing, and IndividuallResponse i n Programmed Instruction For Three Levels of Learning A b i l i t y by Sex." Doctoral Dissertation, Catholic University of  America, 19 71. 48. Holzberg, Robert, "The Educable Retarded,"'Science and Children, 19, March 19 76. 49. Hurd, P.D., New Directions i n Teaching Secondary School Science, Rand McNalley, Chicago, 1969. 50. Jenkins, E.W., The Teaching of Science to Pupils of Low Education Attainment, The University of Leeds, 19 73. 51. Johnson, G.O., Education for the Slow-Learner, Prentice H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, 196 3. 52. K a r l i n , M.S., and Bergen, R. , Successful Methods for Teaching the Slow Learner, West Nyack (N.Y.),: Parker Publication Co. Inc., 1969. 53. Karnes, Merle B., "The Slow Learner...What Are His Characteristics and Needs," Todays Education 59, 42-44, March 1970. 54. King, E.M., Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s Teacher's Guide, Thomas Nelson and Sons (Canada) Ltd., 1977. 55. Kopfer, P.G. and Swenson, G.A., "Individualized Instruction for Self Paced Learning." The Clearing House-; 42, March, 196 8. 56. Komoski, K., "Programmed Instruction? A Prologue to What?" Phi Delta Kappa, 44, 292, 1963. - 106 -57. Koran, J . J . and Koran, M.L., " D i f f e r e n t i a l Responses to Structures of Advanced Organizers i n Science Instruction." Journal of Research in Science  Teaching, 10 (4), 1973. 58. Lagendijk, E., "Experiment With the Individualized Labratory System." American Foundation of Physics, 46 (12), December, 1978. 59. Leo, M.W., Chemistry: Teaching by the Ke l l e r Plan, Journal of Chem. Ed., January 19 73. 60. Lewis, D.K., K e l l e r Plan Introductory Chemistry, Journal of Chem. Ed. October 19 74. 61. Lombardi, Thomas P., and Balch, Patrick E., "Science Experiences and the Mentally Retarded," Science and Children, 20, March 19 76. 62. Marchese, Richard S., "A Literature Search and Review of the Comparison of Individualized and Conventional Modes of Instruction i n Science, " School Science and  Mathematics, 77, December 19 77. 63. Mclntyre, Margaret, "Science i s for a l l Children," Science and Children, 50-51, March 1976. 64. M e r i l l , M.D., "Specific Review Versus Repeated Presentation in a Programmed Imaginary Science Unit." Journal of  Education Psychology, 61 (5), 1970. 65. Milson, James L., "Science and the Below Average Student: The E f f e c t of Curricular Materials on Attitudes," Journal  of Experimental Education, 41, 37-4 8, September 19 73. 66. Moriber, George, The measurement of the effectiveness of programmed learning i n an area of chemistry i n a physical science course for non-science college majors. Dissertation Abstracts, 28, 4, 1348-A., C 1967. 67. Morley, B., "Programmed Learning i n the Teaching of Science." Australian Science Teacher's Journal, 16 (2), August 1970 . 68. Morrow, T.J., "Programmed Mathematics, Des Moines High School." U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, November, 1965. 69. Nasca, Donald, "Effect of Varied Presentations of Lab Exercises within Programmed Materials on S p e c i f i c I n t e l l e c t u a l Factors of Science Problem Solving A b i l i t y . " U.S.  Department of Health, Education and Welfare, December 1965 . - 10 7 -70. Nie , N.H.; H u l l , C.H.; Jenkins, J.G.; Steinbrenner, K.: and Bent, D.H., S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences. 2nd e d i t i o n . McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 19 75. 71. Oxenhorn, Joseph M., Teaching Science to Underachievers in Secondary Schools, Globe Book Company Itic. , 19 72 . 72. Page, William R., Instructional Systems for Students with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s ; Washington: ERIC Documentation Service, ED 035138, 1968. 73. Peterson, R., "Development and Evaluation of an Individualized Learning Unit i n Science for the J r . High School," U. of Utah, 19 70. 74. Quayle, Therald P., "Individualized Science for the Slow Learner, Todays Education, 59, 50-51, March 1970. 75. Ramsey, G.A. and Howe, R.W., "An Analysis of Research on Instructional Procedures i n Secondary School Science." The Science Teacher, A p r i l 1969. 76. Rothkopf, E.F., "Learning from Written Instructive Material." American Educational Research Journal, 1966. 77. Roucek, Joseph S., ed. The Slow Learner. New York: Phil o -sophical Library Inc., 1969. 78. Royce, G. and Shank, J . , "Scorecard for Individualized Instruction." The Science Teacher, 42 (9), November 1975 . 79. Sakmyser, D.D., "Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Programmed Instruction on Chemical Equilibrium for High School Chemistry Students." Journal  of Research i n Science Teaching, 11 (1), 1974. 80. Sayles, J.H., "Using Programmed Instruction to Teach High School Chemistry." Journal of Research i n Science  Teaching, 4 (40), March 1976. 81. Schramm, W., "Programmed Instruction: Today and Tomorrow." The Fund for the Advancement of Education, November 1962 . 82. Sheehan, D.S. and Hambleton, R.K., "Adapting Instruction to Student Differences i n an Individualized Science Program." Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 14 (1), 1977. 83. Skinner, B.F., "Teaching Machines." S c i e n t i f i c American, November 1961. - 108 -84. Skinner, B.F., "How to Teach Animals." S c i e n t i f i c American, December, 1951. 85. Tanzer, C , " U t i l i z i n g Our Total Education P o t e n t i a l : Science for the Slow Learner," School Science and Mathematics, 60: 181-186, 1960. 86. Theofanis , J.G., "A Comparison of Two Methods of Programmed Instruction of a Unit i n Magnetism and E l e c t r o -magnetism with 8th Grade Students." University  Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 196 3. 87. Utley, Ishmel, "The Slow Learner i n the Secondary School,;1; Education, 81, February, 1961. 88. Walther, R.H., "Demonstration Project on Educational Programming." Manpower Research Projects, U.S.  Department of Labor, May 1975 . 89. Weider, Arthur, "The Science Teacher Assays the Underachiever," The Science Teacher, 40: 19-21, January 19 73. 90. Wheeler, Elaine, St. Marks High School General Biology Course, Delaware State Dept. of Public Instruction, Dover, 1973. 91. Williams, W.W., "An Experimental Investigationoof Individualized Instruction i n the Teaching of Quantitative Physical Science," Duke University, 1969. 92. Witty, Paul, "Needs of Slow Learning Pupils," Education, 81, February, 1961. 93. Woodruff, A.B., "Methods of Programmed Instruction Related to Student C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . " National Cash Register  Company, Bethseda, Maryland, 1965. 94. Yost, M. , A v i l l a , L. and Vexler, E.B., "Effect on Learning of Post Instructional Responses to Questions of D i f f e r i n g Degrees of Complexity." Journal of Educational Psychology, 69 (4) , 1977. 95. Young, P.A., "An Experiment i n the use of Programmed Materials i n Teaching High School Biology." University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 196 7. 96. Younie, W.J., Instructional Approaches to Slow Learners, Teachers College Press, New York, 196 7. 97. Zeaman, D. and House, B.J., "The Relationship of I.Q. and Learning." i n R.M. Gagne Xed.), Learning and Individual  Differences, MerillFPublishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1967. - 109 -APPENDIX A PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION ATTITUDINAL EVALUATION DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON THIS PAPER 1. Have you ever worked on a programmed i n s t r u c t i o n before? 2. How useful was the booklet i n helping you to learn about l i g h t ? a. ) very h e l p f u l b. ) h e l p f u l c. ) useless 3. As a classroom a c t i v i t y for one period, how would you rate programmed instruction? a. ) very good b. ) average c. ) boring 4. Would you l i k e to study a unit.of science by using ONLY a programmed instruction? 5. How often would you want to work with a programmed ins t r u c -tion? a. ) once a week b. ) once i n 2 weeks c. ) once a month d. ) once i n two months e. ) never again 6. Describe the booklet you worked with by choosing one word from each group. a. ) no b. ) yes c. ) not sure How many times? a. ) yes b. ) no Why? - 110 -a. ) d i f f i c u l t b. ) average c. ) easy g. ) fun h. ) average i . ) d u l l d. ) in t e r e s t i n g e. ) average f. ) boring j.) valuable k.) average 1.) of no value You are now s t a r t i n g a new topic i n science. L i s t the a c t i v i t i e s (using #l-#8) i n order of what you think w i l l be the best way for learning about t h i s topic. w r i t i n g out some notes watching several films study a programmed booklet l i s t e n to the teacher talk read from the textbook watch the teacher do an experiment begin a l i b r a r y project do an experiment yourself You have 30 minutes l e f t i n your scienoE c l a s s . The teacher w i l l l e t you do any of the a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d below. For each, l i s t them i n order of what you would sel e c t i f given a choice. (Write 1 beside your f a v o r i t e , 4 next to the least desirable.) a. ) write out notes _^ .,„. . XJ. watch a f i l m ' . . . work on practise problems ~ a programmed booklet b. ) watch the teacher do a demonstration l i s t e n to the teacher talk do an experiment yourself work on a programmed i n s t r u c t i o n c. ) begin a l i b r a r y project write a t e s t read from the textbook ' s t a r t a programmed booklet I f our l i b r a r y had a set of programmed booklets on a l l subjects f o r what one main use could they be to you. a. ) reviewing for a t e s t b. ) advanced learning into other topics c. ) a general study method for d a i l y assignments d. ) locate information on topics that you did not c l e a r l y understand - I l l -10.- How manyvftimes did you look ahead for answers? a. ) never b. ) one to four times c. ) f i v e to ten times d. ) over ten times 11. Was working on the booklet more t i r i n g than a normal class? a. ) yes b. ) no Why? — 12. Was t h i s a good way to learn about l i g h t ? a. ) yes b. ) no COMMENTS: - 112 -APPENDIX B PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION LIGHT POSTTEST M. DOW INSTRUCTIONS; Select the best answer for each question by writing the CAPITAL LETTER ON YOUR ANSWER SHEET. 1.) An example of a NON-LUMINOUS object i s A. ) the sun B. ) the moon C. ) a l i t candle D. ) a star E. ) a fluorescent tube 2.) The speed of l i g h t i s kilometres per second, A. ) B. ) C. ) 300,000 3,000,000 30,000 D. ) 187,000 E. ) 1,870,000 3.) Materials that stop l i g h t from passing through them are: A. ) transparent B. ) translucent C. ) opaque D. ) so l i d s E. ) transmitters 4. ) You cannot see l i g h t i n a curved rubber tube because A. ) darkness absorbs l i g h t D.) detection i s too slow B. ) l i g h t goes i n st r a i g h t E.) both B and C li n e s C. ) l i g h t must enter your eyes i 5. ) Materials which allow a l l the l i g h t to pass through are A. ) transparent B. ) translucent C. ) opaque D. ) s o l i d s E. ) l i q u i d s 6.) Which of the following words means, "to glow with heat." A. ) incandescent B. ) fluorescent C. ) bioluminescent D. ) chemiluminescent E. ) i r r i d e s c e n t 7.) If a source of energy RADIATES, i t w i l l A. ) k i l l l i f e B. ) absorb l i g h t C. ) shine only i n one di r e c t i o n D. ) cause cancer E. ) spread out i n a l l di r e c t i o n s - 113 -PAGE 2 8.) Screen Pinhole The image created from the above arrangement is best described as A) real and upright. B) real and inverted. C) virtual and upright. D) virtual and inverted. E) none of the above. 9 . Pinhole images form because light A) reflects. B) refracts. C) travels in straight lines. D) is absorbed. E) is invisible. 10. What do you c a l l an image that i s upside down from an object? A. ) v i r t u a l B. ) i n r e a l C. ) inverted D. ) reversed E. ) illuminated 11. A Solar E c l i p s e happens every time the A. ) Moon i s between the Sun and the Earth B. ) Earth stops l i g h t from reaching the Moon C. ) Moon stops l i g h t from reaching the Earth D. ) Sun sends l i g h t to the Moon E. ) Both A and B 12. Consider the following objects: i) a campfire i i ) a b o l t of l i g h t n i n g i i i ) a desk iv) a plant Are any of the above luminous l i g h t sources? A. ) a l l of them B. ) none of them C. ) i i i ) only D. ) i ) and i i ) only E. ) i ) , i i ) , and iv) only - 114 -PAGE 3 13.) Light can do work and make plants A. ) i n v i s i b l e B. ) move C. ) dry out D. E. 14.) The wire inside a l i g h t bulb i s A. ) copper B. ) a fuse C. ) a filament D. E. 15.) Light made by people i s c a l l e d A. ) natural B. ) fluorescent C. ) synthesized D. E, 16.) Objects which produce l i g h t are A. ) transparent B. ) luminous C. ) opaque D. E. weak die c a l l e d aluminum lead l i g h t . a r t i f i c i a l bioluminescent nonluminous r e a l As the object distance DQ increases in the above diagram, the shadow on the screen A) becomes larger. B) becomes smaller. C) stays the same size. D) disappears. E) is none of the above. - 115 -PAGE 4 18. ) By changing the po s i t i o n of a l i g h t source, a shadow may have a d i f f e r e n t A. ) size D.) location B. ) shape E.) a l l the above C. ) darkness 19. ) In a bathroom mirror, your r e f l e c t i o n appears to be A. ) shorter D.) thinner B. ) the same height E.) wider C. ) t a l l e r Of the followi n g , which i s the corre c t image of the word P h y s i c * a s you would see i t r e f l e c t e d i n a plane mirror? A ) P h y s i c s B ) S O I S X U J C) SHyeiDe D) eo ieYr i 0 ! E) None of the above 21. ) Light i s a form of . A. ) heat D.) l i g h t n i n g B. ) e l e c t r i c i t y E.) energy C. ) sound 22. ) Without any source of l i g h t , a l l l i v i n g things would A. ) become deaf D.) move underground B. ) become dead E.) produce oxygen C. ) become cold 23. ) An image i s a r e a l object. A. ) the same siz e as D.) the opposite of B. ) a s i m i l a r likeness of E.) a negative r e f l e c t i o n of C. ) smaller than 24. ) A window that does not permit a cle a r view of objects on the other side i s A. ) luminous B. ) nonluminous C. ) transparent D. ) translucent E. ) opaque - 116 - PAGE 5 25.) Which of the following i s a r e a l image? A. ) a movie picture B. ) a tree C. ) a person D. ) a l i g h t e d bulb E. ) a desk 26.) A shadow i s A. ) an area where l i g h t i s blocked out B. ) an absence of l i g h t C. ) where l i g h t shines D. ) cast only by transparent objects E. ) both B and D 27.) During a solar e c l i p s e , the Earth, Sun and Moon a l l l i n e up. Which of these three i s i n the middle? A. ) the Sun B. ) the Moon C. ) the Earth D. ) the Earth or the Moon E. ) the Sun or the Moon 28.) Most l i g h t i n the Universe comes from A. ) the moon and planets D.) B. ) chemicals i n the earth E.) C. ) the sun and stars f i r e s l i g h t bulbs or candles 29.) A LUMINOUS object i s one that A. ) r e f l e c t s l i g h t D.) B. ) does not r e f l e c t l i g h t E.) C. ) absorbs l i g h t gives o f f l i g h t both B and C 30.) Light tr a v e l s A. ) through a l l s o l i d s B. ) through a l l l i q u i d s C. ) i n c i r c u l a r motions D. ) i n s p i r a l patterns E. ) i n s t r a i g h t l i n e s - 117 -APPENDIX C; ITEM ANALYSIS OF ACHIEVEMENT POSTTEST Test Item D i f f i c u l t y Index Discrimination Index 1 .684 0.25 2 .582 0.29 3 .959 0.13 4 .480 0.37 5 .602 0.10 6 .520 0.58 7 ,755 0.39 8 .520 0.36 9 .684 0.42 10 .796 0.51 11 .102 0.23 12 .867 0.27 13 .102 0.27 14 . .888 0.41 15 .806 0.39 16 .878 0.39 17 .439 0.55 18 .561 0.28 19 .776 0.32 20 .704 0.07 21 .929 0.25 22 .806 0.09 23 .673 0.26 24 .898 0.35 25 .643 0.38 26 .918 0.28 27 .898 0.15 28 .9 39 0.29 29 .908 0.20 30 .949 0.15 Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y = 0.66 Standard Error of Measurement = 2.08 - " I -APPENDIX D A PERSONALIZED INSTRUCTION  COURSE; Science 8 TARGET POPULATION: ages 12 through 15 years SECTION: Physics TOPIC: Light PROBABLE CLASS SIZE: 30 students SPECIFIC CONTENT AREAS COVERED: 1. describing l i g h t sources 2. transmission of l i g h t 3. shadows 4. introducing ray diagrams 5. formation of images PRE-INSTRUCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS: - a reading l e v e l of approximately grade 5 (C.T.B.S.) - an a b i l i t y to follow written instructions f o r s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES The following i s a l i s t of terminal behaviors that students w i l l possess at the completion of each section. The student w i l l be able to: PART A: Light Sources - describe l i g h t as a form of energy, - relate the importance of l i g h t to l i v i n g things, - l i s t d i f f e r e n t l i g h t sources and ways of producing l i g h t , - define the meanings of the words; incandescent, luminous, non-luminous, filament, a r t i f i c i a l , emit, and illuminate, - describe l i g h t sources by using the terms, point or broad, luminous or non-luminous, and natural or a r t i -f i c i a l , PART B: Transmission of Light - explain that l i g h t travels i n s t r a i g h t l i n e s i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s , - define what i s meant by the words; radiate, r e f l e c t , absorb, ray, opaque, translucent, transparent, i n v i s i b l e , and transmit, - recognize the speed of l i g h t as 30 0 000 km/s, - calculate simple problems using the speed of l i g h t , - describe the behavior of l i g h t when s t r i k i n g opaque, translucent and transparent objects, - c l a s s i f y materials by t h e i r a b i l i t y to transmit l i g h t , - 120 -PART C: Shadows - explain the formation of shadows, - describe that shadows can be made larger or smaller by moving the opaque object, - define the terms; shadow, umbra, penumbra, predict, and solar e c l i p s e , - draw a ray diagram of a l i g h t source, an opaque object and a screen, - i d e n t i f y and la b e l d i f f e r e n t types of shadows on ray diagrams and i n the r e a l world, - relate the circumstances required for a solar e c l i p s e to occur, PART D: Formation of Images - describe that an image looks l i k e something r e a l because of the way i t r e f l e c t s l i g h t , - i d e n t i f y r e a l images as those that can be projected on a screen, - define the terms; image, upright, inverted, r e a l image and v i r t u a l image, ri,use a ray diagram to explain the formation of images, - describe why a pinhole image on a screen appears upside down, - specify that v i r t u a l images as seen i n a mirror are upright but l a t e r a l l y reversed, - demonstrate how to make pinhole images larger or smaller on a screen. TASK ANALYSIS: size solar e c l i p s e \ I i d e n t i f i c a t i o n - umbra - penumbra SHADOWS / 4 d e f i n i t i o n s formation of shapes v i r t u a l or r e a l IMAGES inverted or upright DIFFERENT MATERIALS RAY DIAGRAMS opaque detection -drawing -explaining -predicting \ translucent transparent / TRANSMISSION radiates i n straight l i n e s travels at 300 000 km/s LIGHT defined as a form of energy related to other energy forms such as heat lanterns e l e c t r i c sun I I PRODUCTION METHODS ill u m i n a t i o n photography reading •communication •required -for l i f e DESCRIBING LIGHT SOURCES candles / I uminous or non-luminous natural or a r t i f i c i a l point or broad c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095132/manifest

Comment

Related Items