INTRODUCTION

To begin with, the rationale used for the seeking of an

attitude change towards teaching should be understood.

One of the major movements in education today is towards
the individualization of instruction. In practice, however,

it appears that this concept is much easier to talk about

than to implement.

(Powell; 1971)

The essential problem seems to be that many current

practices mask the need for change.

The reason for proposing

this change arises out of the wide range of differences generally found among children and within particular children
when standardized tests are administered.

Teachers seem to look at pupils on a category basis.

These categories may be based on (1) simply a "pass-fail" dichotomy, or, (2) a somewhat more elaborate system of letter

grades and the related Grade Point Average (GPA).

The distribution of the pupils' marks is generally

exnected to approximate the symmetry and proportions of the Gaussean Curve. One-track-teaching, where the teacher treats

each child as being identical with all others and expects a

"normal" distribution of marks to result, seems to be the

most effective method of producing mark distributions which meet the expectations built upon the Gaussean Curve. This

use of the Gaussean Curve produces a consistent percentage of

letter grades (including failures) regardless of the abilities

of the pupils. Thus, the variability among the pupils tends

to be accepted by the teacher as a reasonable expectation.

2.

She does not usually individualize her teaching (cf. Adams &
Biddle; 1970) and may not see the need in this context to
systematically adapt her teaching procedures to meet these
differences. The possible exception is that of "failures."

Since the marks for each subject are usually scaled indepen

dently, much of the evidence for within-child-variability may be absorbed in the scaling procedures.
in current vogue,

With these practices

it is not surprising that the need for the

individualization of pupil instruction is not generally

evident to the classroom teacher.

Student teachers, whose most recent learning experiences

in the classroom have probably been based on this one-track-

teaching approach, and who would seem to have had their own
academic success based upon the selective factors caused by

the marking procedure just discussed, may consider present

practice to be the most appropriate instructional strategy.

On the basis of these arguments an introduction to the

area of special education (where individualized pupil

instruction is strongly emphasized) should begin with an

attempt towards attitude change on the part of the student
teacher. This report gives an account of such an attempt.

TEACHING PROCEDURES

The approach started with the assumption that students in this class had had little, if any, experience with an

individualized approach to instruction, and saw little need

for such an approach.

These 87 students were in their second

3.

(professional) year of a two-year program.

few of them had had teaching experience.

At this point,
Halfway through the

course, the class spent two weeks in the field "practice

teaching."

The major objective of the course was to produce a shift in attitude away from "one-track" instruction towards

"individualized" instruction as an expressed objective of the

students. To accomplish this objective a favorable

disposition towards "individualized" instruction was assumed by the instructors. Since both seminar leaders were

therapists by training and experience, and myself, as lecturer, a "special" class teacher, such an attitude did

not represent a departure from our own basic approach to

teaching.

Major Features of the Course

The major features of the course were designed to

facilitate attitude change.

lecture time was devoted to

(1) About 40 per cent of the

the needs of the exceptional

child and other theoretical justifications for an individ

ualized approach to instruction.

the lecture time was devoted to

(2) Another 40 per cent of

demonstration of materials

and procedures which might assist the teacher to use an

individualized approach.
time was devoted to

(3) The balance of the lecture

to assist the teacher in

procedures

identifying exceptionality.

In addition to the lectures, the text used (McLeod;1968)

4.

was admirably suited to the same end.

It was readable,

stressed theory somewhat more than the lectures did and,

because of its emphasis upon the situation in Australia,

could be used as a basis for student assignments with a view to helping them to understand their own local scene through comparison.

The major drawbacks of the text were:

(1) it inferred

the relationships rather than bridging the gap between theory

and practice, and, (2) it contained a somewhat clinical

orientation. That is, the text tended to stress "individ

ualization" from a treatment (one-to-one) point of view

rather than from an adaptive programming (many-to-one) point

of view so that some of the suggestions tended to be rather difficult to implement in a classroom setting. To bridge

this gap, and to provide the students with a continuing source

of reference materials which were more dependable than the

usual lecture notes, a set of student handout material was

developed.

The concepts in these handouts were presented to

the class as demonstrations of how these concepts can be

applied rather than being repeated in detail as a lecture.

In order to allow for closer contacts between

instructors and students,

the three hours per week of class

time was subdivided:

(1) the class met in two roughly equal

sections for two hours, and, (2) further subdivisions for

seminars of about fifteen students each were provided on a

one-hour-per-week basis.

To complete the package, the

5.

students were given two small-group assignments, the writing

of an individual paper, a set of optional assignments, and a
set of guide questions related to the text.
examination also had some unique features.

The final

The first of the two small-group assignments involved

the administration of the Peterson Kit (1970) to a pre-school

child by one student while three others observed, so that

approximately 20 Kits were administered.

For comparison

they were shown a video tape of the same survey being

administered by myself.

The purpose of this procedure was twofold:

first, to

give the students firsthand contact with a child rather than

facing a classroom of pupils, and, second, it gave them the

visual experience of watching another child experience the
same Kit . The intention was to show them by comparison the

individual differences exhibited by children.

The second small-group assignment involved an attempt to

subdivide a class of forty children (reported in the McLeod

Text; pp. 20-21) into five instructional groups based upon

their chronological age, or their age norm scores on two
aptitude dimensions, or on some combination of five
achievement dimensions. The students were then to select

appropriate materials which might be used in teaching these groups and present the results of their deliberations to
the rest of the class. The use of standardized tests

reported in age norms avoided the complications which can

6.

arise concerning comparability of scores without having to

resort to normalized transformations. Thus, the variability

among children and within children was preserved in the data. The individual assignment was to produce a short
critical review of a set of text books in a subject area of

their choice (which they might expect to use in a classroom)

for a particular age group of children. This assignment
In

proved to be too much like the small-group assignment.

future, it will be changed,

(possibly to a "case study"

using a set of anonymous files compiled from the records of

children who have been tested).

Marking the Class on Assignments

The administration of the Peterson Kit was not marked

because for many of these young students this was their first contact with young children in an educational setting.
The individual paper and the final examination were

weighted equally,
value.

the two representing the bulk of the course

The second small-group assignment was given a token mark

with every member in the work group receiving the same mark.
There was provision within the marking scheme, as well, for the completion of two optional assignments, but no lower
or upper limit was set for the number of optional assignments

to be submitted and accepted.

Marking of the optional

assignments were on an "all or nothing" basis.

The purposes

of the optional assignments involved:

(1) the removal of

7.

pressure to obtain marks on the final examination for those

students who wanted to practice a "self-starting" approach to

learning, (2) to provide a practical demonstration of one

method of individualizing instruction, and, (3) to provide an

illustration of marking on the basis of performance rather
than the G-aussean Curve.

There were no marks given in connection with the guide

questions, although a seminar session was devoted to a

discussion of their effectiveness. These questions were

designed to illuminate the text, and to illustrate some of the

types of questions which might be asked of pupils in a guided

study program (another method of "individualization").

Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) was used in the preparation of these
questions.
Marks were cumulative, rather than scaled, to demonstrate

the "mastery" approach to performance evaluation.

Minor Features

of the

Course

Several features of the course were designed specifically

for their psychological impact.

The first lecture used a

number of audio-visual devices and optical illusions designed

as a confrontation to illustrate the psychological problems which perceptual confusion can generate. This was done to

introduce college students, who are in general effective learners, to the "feel" of the problem from the point of view
of the child who is not yet an effective learner.
The next two lectures were devoted to a somewhat

technical discussion of the first handout.

This handout

(Powell; 1970) was a copy of a paper delivered to a

professional seminar.

The model presented is a convincing argument in favor of

"individualization" but its technical content Dlaced it over

the heads of second year students.

The idea behind the

presentation of this particular model was to lay the theoretical framework for the course, and at the same time to
provide for the disorientation which seems to be a second

necessary precursor to attitude change,

(Hovland et al; 1953).

The expectation was that this course of action would produce

a high degree of polarity in the class. To have continued

this procedure for more than two lectures might have meant
loss of contact with the class, but the course came quickly

down to earth because the next item on the agenda was the

first small-group activity:

the testing of a child.

It

The third item was also designed for impact.

involved an interview with a parent of an exceptional child.

Teachers quite often have difficulty understanding the

parent's point of view because in the parent-teacher
interview the teacher often feels professionally threatened
by the remarks of an upset parent. The reason for intro

ducing this problem within the context of this course was to illustrate, in a situation which was nonthreatening to the

students, the justifiable complaints which parents of

exceptional children often express about the one-track

9.

school system. Following this event the students devoted most of the

balance of their time before the practice teaching break to

the grouping of the class already mentioned (see: p. 5,

paragraph 3).

There was a small excursion into testing and

the interpretation of test results (with appropriate handout)

to act as a bridge between evaluation and prescription.

These three parts of the course (testing, seeing the parent's

point of view, and grouping a class) constituted the third
phase of sensitization.

Following the practice teaching break there were

demonstrations of materials and techniques suitable for

"individualization" with the class participating in some of

the demonstrations.

Also, there was a series of guest

there was

lecturers on specific applied topics, and finally,

a "bear-pit" session on the problems and the role of a teacher

as a change agent since "intervention" casts teachers into the

change agent role. Again, appropriate handouts were supplied.

These activities may be regarded as representing the

application part of the course. The final examination is worthy of note in that it was

a take-home paper consisting of both multiple choice and

optional short essay answers.

The students were to defend

each answer in the multiple choice part with a reason for its

choice if they wished to do so.

The alternatives for each

question in this part were made to be very similar and often

differentiated only by a matter of opinion. The idea, here,

10.

was to require a thorough understanding of the concepts of the

course. Keyed answers and well defended nonkeyed answers were
The function of this examination was for

given equal credit.

the consolidation of the attitude change.

Thus the entire course was a carefully interlocked set of

experiences specifically designed to bring about an attitude

change on the part of the students in the course. To

recapitulate,

the sequence of the attitude change aspects of

this course were:

(1) confrontation, (2) disorientation,

(3) sensitization, (4) application, and, (5) consolidation.

DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

In the absence of a carefully designed opinion survey

administered before and after this course was taught the

validity of the effectiveness of the procedures used had to be obtained by more indirect methods.

The direct methods used were:

(1) the impression of the

instructors at the outset,

(2) the way in which the students

wrote about individualization throughout the final examination;

and the indirect methods used were:

(1) a course evaluation

survey conducted by the Education Students' Society (ESS)

about midway through the course, (2) the general tone of the
students' answers to one of the short-answer questions on the

final examination, and, (3) an analysis of the content of this

same question on the final examination.

The ESS survey was collected anonymously and can be

regarded, therefore, as an independent source of data.

The

11.

questions on it were not strictly comparable to the examination question, nor were they directly related to the

individualization objective, hence changes must be inferred from the proportions since no correlations between this and
the other data sources were possible.

In order to further support the presence of attitude

change and to infer the point of change a careful analysis of

the students' answers to the final examination question was
made. If a student indicated, some discomfiture in the early

part of the course in his answer on the final examination that

student was included into an "initially negative" category.
If such students indicated a more favorable response at the

end of the course the point of attitude change was sought in their answer. If he specifically indicated this point, it

was used, otherwise the part of the course about which he was
most enthusiastic was taken as the turning point.

The direct methods used were both highly subjective in

nature. Any inference from these alone would be questionable.

It was assumed, therefore, that indication of attitude change

towards other aspects of the course or towards the instructor

himself, if these changes occurred in the same direction,

could be taken as indirect supportive evidence for the

primary attitude change objective.

RESULTS

AND DISCUSSION

The attitudes of the student teachers towards teaching methods was not pretested because of the absence of a

12.

suitable properly validated instrument.

Instead,

the

subjective impressions of the three instructors who

participated in the project were taken.

It was agreed that

for

the assumption that the students were disinclined, whatever reason,

towards individualization of teaching was,

in general, valid.

This observation gave us the baseline

from which attitude change was assessed.

The multiple choice part of the final examination was a

"good" examination in that the mean for 40 items was almost

exactly 20, and more than 30 items had point-biserial

correlations with the overall distribution significantly

different from zero.

The defence of the wrong answers and short essay answers

both clearly showed that nearly all students were explicitly favorable to individualization as a teaching strategy by the

end of the course.

However, without other evidence, this

could have been an attempt on the part of the students to say

what the instructors wanted to hear.

As indicated in the discussion of the teaching procedures

a degree of polarization of the students was expected as a

result of the teaching strategy. If this were to be supported

by the data, this polarization should be evident at the mid

point in the course. As one of many items, the ESS Survey

asked the following question:

"Would you rehire this professor?"
Yes No

13.

Why or why not?

This question is the one most relevant to evidence for

or against attitude change on the part of class members.
relates to attitude towards

It

the lecturer rather than towards

individualization and is, therefore, an indirect measure of

the attitude change objective. Table 1 summarizes the frequencies and proportions of
responses to this Question.

Insert

TABLE

here

As can be seen from the results given in Table 1 there

is clear evidence of polarization of the students at this

point in the course.

The split is about 2:1

favorable in the

survey.

The proportion of "No's" is substantially different

from zero.

The proportion choosing "Yes" is significantly greater than the proportion choosing "No", with an error "z" score

of 4.11 which is highly significant (p^.01).

A mix-up in the timetables led to only 63 out of the 87
students responding to this survey.
Thus far we have a subjective impression at the start

of the course,

in the negative, a subjective impression at and a more objective

the end of the course in the positive,

but indirect measure of the attitude change target in the

middle showing a 2:1 split in opinion.

source of data be found for the course?

Can a more objective

14.

The question on the final examination which was used in

this study was one of five of which the students were to

choose three. It read as follows:

How valuable has the course (Course Number) been to you,

and in what ways do you feel it could have been improved
to make it more useful?

The responses were judged into the following categories:

F - Tone of remarks generally favorable. -F - Tone of remarks generally not favorable.
U Tone of remarks undecided.

-A - Student did not answer question.

R Student said he would take more courses in

the same subject area (Recruitment).

Table 2 shows the frequency and proportion of these

categories.

Insert

TABLE

here

From Table 2 it is clearly evident that the polarizarion

of the class had disappeared in favor of a favorable reaction

by the end of the course. The amount of negative reaction

had reduced to insignificance, and the positive reaction had

grown from majority to consensus levels. It would be

possible to increase the negative group to one of significance

by including in this group those students who chose not to answer this question. Had this group been substantial, this

would have been the correct procedure since not answering

could then be taken as a refusal to answer. For so small a

group, however, the reasons could be too various to include

15.

with assurance this group among the negatives.

Also, such

a procedure does not greatly change the overall impression

of these data.

The impression gained from the way in which the students

answered the entire paper with respect to their attitude

towards individualization compared with their attitude to the
course, and the lecturer, all point in the same direction.

Apparently their attitude was consistently positive at the

end of the course.

The proportion indicating a recruitment factor operating

is small, but the employment situation for teachers with

more than minimal training could be a factor in producing

this small proportion.

The sequence of events in the course presented in

Table 3 follows the outline given above.

The inferences

made about points of attitude change are given in Table 3.

Insert TABLE 3 here

It

should

be noted that

the

students

seemed to

have

begun with about a 50-50 split.

By the time of the ESS

Survey, their statements as indicated in the final

examination has shifted to a 3:1 -positive.

This proportion

differs somewhat from the 2:1 reported on the ESS Survey. Unfortunately, the proportions cannot be compared but they

are:

positive .67, and negative .21, which do not seem to

1. If the 7

be verv different from those reported in Table

16.

"did not answer" students are included with the negatives

this proportion becomes .29 making both proportions almost

identical to those reported on the ESS Survey. Since these

were not included following Table 2, they should not be

included here either.

These findings seem to be sufficiently consistent with

the others reported, including an "independent" source, to

suggest that an attitude change did,

the direction intended from the

in fact,

take place in

outset.

It is also interesting to note that the shift frequencies at each point of the course when considered in sequence

resemble a typical learning (acquisition) or "growth" curve.

This observation gives further indirect evidence to support
the suggestion that attitude change occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

AND

IMPLICATIONS

The direct and indirect evidence presented suggests that a rather substantial change of attitude may have
occurred in this class in the direction which was intended.

In any case,

the evidence is sufficiently suggestive that

a replication of the study with a tighter design would seem

to be in order.

There is a small degree of contradiction between the 3:1

favorable reported for the middle point of the course^~-33f

the f-i-naiy and the 2:1 reported in the ESS Survey.

It is possible that a degree of memory failing, or a

delay in the full impact of the grouping assignment, or the

17.

somewhat negative tone of the ESS Survey or a degree of

classification error by myself, or a combination of these

factors could explain this difference.

The proportion of

positives are nearly identical (.65 to .67) with the main

difference being in the proportion of negatives (.30 to .21).

These differences may be insignificant. Further research is

needed to show that these procedures are consistently

effective. The dropping of specific components in subse

quent studies, such as the direct child contact, or the

disorientation aspect might be appropriate in an attempt to

determine the necessary and sufficient conditions for an

attitude change of comparable magnitude.

One factor not

stressed in the procedure was that the attitude change

sought was towards more realistic, critical, and accurate

observation and the application of better techniques once this increase in reality orientation was accomplished. The

moving of attitudes towards reality may be considerably

easier than moving them away from reality. be a researchable topic.
Another factor which the results of this study

This might also

illuminate is the problem of the possible use of student

evaluations and student expressions of dissatisfaction in

assessing the worth of an instructor or a course. It would

seem that the timing of the survey could be a critical variable if the instructor is pursuing a more complex set

of course objectives than the simnle dissemination of

18.

information.

Research into this problem could be useful.

Also bearing on the issue of researchable topics related to attitude change is the problem of how to assign
marks to a class in the context of this sort of objective.

This problem is important in the context of this sort of objective because of the many issues now being raised
concerning accountability in education. Attitude would seem

to be related to performance and when a positive attitude

shift occurs the resulting enthusiasm seems to make for high performance. This high performance may be related to
In such circumstances it would seem

the Hawthorne Effect.

reasonable for the marks awarded to the class to be

substantial.

Two problems arise.

First, without a clear

understanding of what has transpired the "high" marks of the

students in a class organized towards complex objectives
may seem unreasonable to a university administrator,
particularly to one who is wedded to the Gaussean Curve.

Second, if university instructors in general shifted their teaching strategy successfully towards more highly
motivating procedures and more complex objectives, would it
then be fair to the students to rescale their output with

the Gaussean Curve?

This rescaling would effectively

eliminate the benefits gained (in terms of awarded marks)

by the use of improved methodologies. What would be the

effect on the positive attitude changes gained of the

rescaling of these marks?

Should scaling be abandoned in

19.

favor of marking to performance criteria when more complex objectives are sought? Should instructors be permitted to

step on the tail of the Gaussean Curve without a squawk from

administrators
students?

if the

end result

is

beneficial

to

the

In conclusion, it is reasonable to propose that the

transition from naive adolescent to competent professional

involves some important attitude changes.

It may be

possible to encourage if not foster these changes by

instructional methods similar to the one elaborated here.

What factors most contribute to success and what types of

evidence should be accepted when evaluating such an
enterprise?

20.

Table

Student Response to
the ESS Survey

Response

Standard

Error

Statistical

Category

Frequency

Proportion

Error

"Z" Score

Significance

Yes

41 19 3

.65
.30

.06
.06

10.84
5.22

.01
.01
NS

No

Undecided

.05

.03

1.77

Totals

63

1.00

21.

Table

Student Reaction

to Course

on the Final Examination

Response

Standard

Error

Statistical

Category

Frequency

Proportion

Error

"Z" Score

Significance

72

.828

.040 .025 .025

.029

20.44

.01

_F

4
4

.046 .046
.080

1.87

NS

II

1.87
2.76

NS

-A

.01

Totals

87
11

1.000

.126

.036

3.55

.01

22
Table 3

Probable Attitude Change

During Course

Frequency Cumulative Cumulative

Topic Frequency Frequency

Stressed

Positive

Negative

Undecided

-A

Initial reaction

39

37

Points of change

1.

Working with
child

40

36

2.

Parent conference
4^

31

3.

Grouping a
class 13

58

L8

ESS Survey occurred at this point in course

4.

Techniques for
Individualiza
tion

65
68

II

5.
6.

Seminars
Guest lecturers

70

7.

Teacher

as

Change Agent
8. Final Exam

71
72

Final reaction

72

:>

REFERENCES

Adams, Raymond S; and Blddle, Bruce J. Realities of Teaching: Explorations with Video Tape. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.

Bloom, Benjamin S. Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay, 1956.

Handbook I:
Communication

Hovland, Carl I., Janis, Irving, L., and Kelley, Harold H. and Persuasion. New Haven, Yale, 1953.

McLeod, J. (Ed.), The slow learner in the primary school.

Novak, 1968.

Sydney,

Peterson, Wretha. A program for early identification of learning disabilities; Kit I - Educational evaluation. Seattle, Special Child
Publications, 1970.

Powell, J. C.

A communication model for instruction, Unpublished Paper; delivered to a seminar of the Faculty of Business Administration and Commerce, University of Alberta, March, 1970.

Powell, J. C.

Educational change in rural Alberta.

1971.

Unpublished Paper;

used as handout for course,