14-Appendices 01-08

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/14-appendices-01-08 1/34

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–6

discovering and developing worthwhile interests;developing respect for others, or intercultural relations;protecting and promoting health;developing wholesome home and family life (Other agencies must accept at least some of

the responsibilities formerly borne by the family. The school must study the problemintensively. It must experiment.);

developing wholesome habits and understanding of work;good members of society cannot be developed if they are ignorant of work and what goes

into it. In the years which lie ahead, it would appear that the school is the only agencywhich society has which can be expected to accept this responsibility.

IT MUST BE DONE. [emphasis in the original]developing understanding of economic principles and forces (Emphasis must be placed

upon the economic principles and forces which are operating at that time ratherthan upon those of the past.);

developing consumer competence… schools of the future must do much about suchthings;

developing vocational competence;developing social and civic competence—understand obligations as a member of the

group;… and to give wholeheartedly and unselshly service to his local, state, nationaland world government;

developing understanding of, and skill in, the democratic way of life;

developing knowledge, understanding of, and skill in, the creative arts;developing understanding of, and skill in, wholesome and worthwhile leisure activities (Muchdepends upon people discovering and practicing worthwhile leisure pursuits.);

developing a well-rounded emotional life with particular attention to moral and spiritualneeds. (A well-balanced emotional life is the nal test of a well-educated person.It is our belief that all people are religious, that religion nds expression in manydifferent ways. We do not believe in America that they should teach any particularkind or type of religion.)

Under “The Service Program” one nds Health and Medical Services. (In the school of the

future, provision must be made not only for children enrolled but to all people, young andold.) The list is endless and includes the following cradle-through-grave services: recreational,library, guidance and counseling, child care, demonstration and experimental services,planning and research, employment, audiovisual, social welfare, group meeting place,character-building services. The Plan [ Blueprint ] states further:

The end results are that the school makes itself indispensable to all phases of community life. In the future development of school programs, the service program willreceive increasing emphasis until the school becomes in fact the agency to which all thepeople in the community turn for assistance.

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–8

meet their special needs. (p. 5)

From “Results of Use of Machines for Testing and for Drill upon Learning in EducationalPsychology,” James Kenneth Little:

Previous investigations of college instructional problems had (the writer felt) emphasizedthe following relevant points: (a) the motivating effect upon the learner of knowledge of standing and progress; (b) the value, both for motivation and for guidance in learning,of informing students specically and immediately of their errors and their successes intheir work; (c) the value in the above (and other) connections of the frequent short test,as contrasted with less frequent longer tests or examinations; (d) the great importance

of continuous adjustment to individual differences not only in capacity but also inerror pattern and difculty; (e) the value, in all of these connections, of a consistentuse of the make-up test. (p. 59)

From Part III: “Skinner’s Teaching Machines and Programming Concepts”:

A comprehensive report of the work at Harvard on teaching machines and the programmingof materials used within them was prepared in 1958 as a report to the Fund for theAdvancement of Education. Skinner summarized the rst part of this report in a symposiumpaper at the 1958 meetings of the American Psychological Association and shortly thereafter

published it in Science [October 23, 1958 issue]. This major article, reproduced in full as thethird paper in Part III, attracted wide attention to the potentialities of “teaching machines.”It also focused attention on the “ programming ” of detailed, carefully ordered learningsequences by which complex behavioral repertoires could be shaped through successiveapproximations. (p. 96) [emphasis in original]

From “The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching,” B.F. Skinner:

Recent improvements in the conditions which control behavior in the eld of learning areof two principal sorts. The “law of effect” has been taken seriously; we have made sure that

effects do occur and that they occur under conditions which are optimal for producingthe changes called learning. Once we have arranged the particular type of consequencecalled reinforcement, our techniques permit us to shape the behavior of an organismalmost at will. It has become a routine exercise to demonstrate this in classes in elementarypsychology by conditioning such an organism as a pigeon. (pp. 99–100)

In all this work, the species of the organism has made surprisingly little difference. It istrue that the organisms studied have all been vertebrates, but they still cover a wide range.Comparable results have been obtained with rats, pigeons, dogs, monkeys, human children,and most recently—by the author in collaboration with Ogden R. Lindsley—with human

psychotic subjects. In spite of great phylogenetic differences, all these organisms showamazingly similar properties of the learning process. It should be emphasized that this hasbeen achieved by analyzing the effects of reinforcement and by designing techniques whichmanipulate reinforcement with considerable precision. Only in this way can the behaviorof the individual organism be brought under such precise control. It is also important tonote that through a gradual advance to complex interrelations among responses, the samedegree of rigor is being extended to behavior which would usually be assigned to such eldsas perception, thinking, and personality dynamics. (p. 103)

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–9

These requirements are not excessive, but they are probably incompatible with the currentrealities of the classroom. In the experimental study of learning it has been found that thecontingencies of reinforcement which are most efcient in controlling the organism cannotbe arranged through the personal mediation of the experimenter. An organism is affectedby subtle details of contingencies which are beyond the capacity of the human organismto arrange. Mechanical and electrical devices must be used. Mechanical help is alsodemanded by the sheer number of contingencies which may be used efciently in a singleexperimental session. We have recorded many millions of responses from a single organismduring thousands of experimental hours. Personal arrangement of the contingencies andpersonal observation of the results are quite unthinkable. Now, the human organism is, if anything, more sensitive to precise contingencies than the other organisms we have studied.We have every reason to expect, therefore, that the most effective control of human learningwill require instrumental aid. The simple fact is that, as a mere reinforcing mechanism,the teacher is out of date. This would be true even if a single teacher devoted all her time to asingle child, but her inadequacy is multiplied many-fold when she must serve as a reinforcingdevice to many children at once. If the teacher is to take advantage of recent advances in thestudy of learning, she must have the help of mechanical devices. (p. 109)

The important features of the device are these: Reinforcement for the right answer isimmediate. The mere manipulation of the device will probably be reinforcing enough tokeep the average pupil at work for a suitable period each day, provided traces of earlier

aversive control can be wiped out. A teacher may supervise an entire class at work on suchdevices at the same time, yet each child may progress at his own rate, completing as manyproblems as possible within the class period. If forced to be away from school, he mayreturn to pick up where he left off. The gifted child will advance rapidly but can bekept from getting too far ahead either by being excused from arithmetic for a time orby being given special sets of problems which take him into some of the interestingby-paths of mathematics. (p.110)

Some objections to the use of such devices in the classroom can easily be foreseen. The crywill be raised that the child is being treated as a mere animal and that an essentially human

intellectual achievement is being analyzed in unduly mechanistic terms. Mathematicalbehavior is usually regarded not as a repertoire of responses involving numbers andnumerical operations, but as evidence of mathematical ability or the exercise of the powerof reason. It is true that the techniques which are emerging from the experimental study of learning are not designed to “develop the mind” or to further some vague “understanding”of mathematical relationships. They are designed, on the contrary, to establish the verybehaviors which are taken to be the evidences of such mental states or processes. This isonly a special case of the general change which is under way in the interpretation of human affairs. An advancing science continues to offer more and more convincingalternatives to traditional formulations. The behavior in terms of which human thinking

must eventually be dened is worth treating in its own right as the substantial goalfor education. (p. 111)

From Part V: “Some Recent Work,” article entitled “Teaching Machines and HumanBeings,” John W. Blyth:

There is another less obvious but no less important advantage to be gained in exploitingthe teaching machine. The machine makes it possible to provide some of the conditionsthat we have long known to be necessary for effective learning. A savage instructing his son

Appendix II

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–10

in the use of the bow and arrow knew that the son needed plenty of practice and that hehad to see where the arrow went on each shot if he was to make any improvement on thenext. The importance of this immediate feedback was formulated years ago by Thorndike asthe “law of effect.” According to this law of learning, an action which leads to a satisfactoryresult tends to be repeated. In the contemporary terminology of B.F. Skinner, of HarvardUniversity, immediate reinforcement or reward is important in the learning process. Asfar as the application of this principle is concerned, we do a much better job of teachingrats, pigeons, and football players than we do in teaching mathematicians and physicists.Teaching machines designed for individual use make it possible to provide this immediatereinforcement for every student…. Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that the useof immediate reinforcement techniques is a very efcient way of training animals to makea discriminative response to selected stimuli. Rats and pigeons can be trained to perform awhole series of such responses in sequence. Their actions then form a complicated “chain”

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


Appendix III

Excerpts from Programmed Learning

Programmed Learning: Evolving Principles and Industrial Applications , Jerome P. Lysaught, Ed.

(Foundation for Research on Human Behavior: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1961).

Business organizations, as well as educational institutions, have an increasing demandfor training, improved skills and more effective teaching methods. In October 1960,businessmen and social scientists met together to discuss programmed learning, someof its current applications in business, and the outlook for the future. This is thereport of their meeting.

About This Report…The increased demand for training, improved skills and better education in industry

has stimulated some business organizations to explore the possibilities of programmedlearning with the aid of devices which include automated teaching machines. The earliestteaching machines, developed several decades ago by S.J. Pressey who was the rstpsychologist to see “the coming industrial revolution in education” were designed forself-scoring, not for programmed instruction in the present sense. The appropriate currentemphasis, reected in the seminar, is on the concepts and principles of programmedlearning, and on the translation of learning theory into the programming of instructionor teaching. Mechanical devices used should thus reect the desired methods of teachingand learning, not determine them….

In planning the seminar held in October, 1960, Eastman Kodak and IBM representativesagreed to present and develop and use programmed instruction in their training programs.They shared the Foundation’s conviction that a major emphasis on programming principles,learning theory and research, rather than on teaching machines themselves, would providethe most practical guidelines to other companies and to educational institutions interested inexploring programmed learning to increase the effectiveness of their training and education.Consequently, in addition to the two industry experiences, a large portion of the seminarwas devoted to theory, principles, and the results of experimental studies in universities.The three social scientists from academic institutions who led these discussions at the

A–11

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–12

seminar are pioneers and distinguished leaders in this eld. It became very clear thatprogrammed learning is an area in which the research and experience of practitioners inuniversities and in industry can be of great mutual benet. The speakers and discussionleaders at the seminar included the following:

Dr. B.F. Skinner, Professor of Psychology, Harvard UniversityDr. Arthur A. Lumsdaine, Professor of Education, University of California, Los

Angeles, and Research Advisor for Education Media to the American Institutefor Research

Dr. Robert Glaser, Professor of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, and ResearchAdvisor, American Institute for Research

…The seminar was part of the Foundation’s continuing program to bring the results of social science research to the businessmen who can use them.

From the “Introduction,” by Thomas H. Miller:

In recent months the professional journals and some popular publications have hadmuch to say about research on teaching machines and programmed learning. Becausemost of this research has been limited to a few specic experiments and because eldapplication has generally been in elementary and secondary schools, very little has been

said of applications to adult learning. It was our feeling, and this is why we are so pleasedto cooperate with the Foundation in the holding of this seminar, that more of us shouldbe exploring more fully the relevance and importance of programmed instruction to adultlearning in general, and to business and industrial education in particular.

First, I should emphasize that we here at Kodak are quite serious about this matter of programmed learning. We attempt to keep abreast of signicant developments in learningtheory and education because we are responsible for seeing that each one of our menand women receives the best possible training for his work in the company. We arecondent that programmed learning will have great implications for our future efforts,and we look forward to providing better, more individualized instruction for our people

as a result of this development.Secondly, I want to explain that our feelings about programmed learning result from

two factors: the result of our own initial efforts at instructing by means of this system,and the inherent characteristics of programmed learning which will give strength to anyindustrial training experience. With programmed learning we can adapt instruction to theindividuality of each student. Each student works at his own personal speed throughoutthe learning experience. Each student is constantly active, interacting with the program,concentrating on the task of learning. Each student can trace his own progress, and receivetimely, individual reinforcement for correct work.

To introduce the subject, we would like to have each of you work through the rst

lesson of Dr. B.F. Skinner’s course in psychology. We would hope, incidentally, that aportion of the material is somewhat new to you so that some learning will actually takeplace in your encounter with the subject matter. Further, we hope it will demonstratecertain phenomena that will be spoken of repeatedly today, such as effective reinforcementof the learner and progress at the individual rate.

Imagine yourself to be a freshman student at Harvard. You are taking, for therst time, a college course in psychology. This is your rst day in that course. Yourintroduction to the course consists of the presentation of the programmed learningsequence on the next pages.

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–13

The directions are simple. You should read the rst stimulus item, S-1, consider it, andthen construct in your own words the best possible answer. As soon as you have done this,turn the page and compare your answer with the answer listed at R-1, the rst responseitem. Proceed through the program, going on to S-2 on the next page, turning the page toR-2 and comparing your response; proceeding to S-3 below, turn back a page to compareyour response to R-3, and so on. You will be reading back and forth, turning a pageeach time to nd the response item.

FIRST LESSON IN PSYCHOLOGY

S-1. A doctor taps your knee (patellar tendon) with a rubber hammer to test your“_____ .”

R-4. Hammer (or mallet)S-5. The stimulus which elicits a knee jerk is the _____ delivered by the so-called

“stimulus object” or hammer.R-8. ElicitsS-9. To avoid unwanted nuances of meaning in popular words, we do not say that a stimulus

“triggers,” “stimulates,” or “causes” a response but that it _____ a response.R-12. LatencyS-13. The weakest stimulus sufcient to elicit a response marks the “threshold” of the reex.

A tap on the knee will not elicit a kick if it is below the _____.

R-16. LatencyS-17. A forceful tap elicits a strong kick; a tap barely above the threshold elicits a weak kick.Magnitude of response thus depends on the intensity of the _____.

R-20. (1) Response (2) Stimulus (3) ReexS-21. If a sip of very weak lemonade does not cause salivation, the stimulus is said

to be below _____.

The following responses are on the turned page:

R-1. Reexes

S-4. The stimulating object used by the doctor to elicit a knee jerk is a(n) _____.R-5. Tap (or blow)S-8. Technically speaking, a reflex involves a process called elicitation: A stimulus

_____ a response.R-9. ElicitsS-12. The time which elapses between the onset of the stimulus and the onset of the

response is called the “latency.” Thus the time between tap and kick is the _____of the knee jerk reex.

R-13. ThresholdS-16. The fraction of a second which elapses between “brushing the eye” and “blink”

is the _____ of the reex.R-17. Stimulus (tap)S-20. When a person is startled by a loud noise, his sudden movement is his (1)_____

to the noise, which has acted as a (2)_____. The two together are called a(n)(3)_____ .

R-21. Threshold

From “Principles of Programming” by Robert Glaser:

Appendix III

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–14

(This article was prepared under U.S. Ofce of Education Research Contract SAE–8417 #691.This is a preliminary version of a forthcoming book chapter.)

Yesterday, October 16, was the ofcial publication date of the book Teaching Machines

and Programmed Learning which Dr. Lumsdaine and I have edited, and which you havereceived for this seminar. It is indeed true that this book would never have been conceivedwithout the well-known and perhaps undying work of Professor Skinner, and I would liketo take this opportunity—what I consider to be a rather momentous occasion for both ArtLumsdaine and myself—to present Fred with a copy of the book at this time. It is largelythrough Professor Skinner’s work that all this theory and excitement about teaching machinesand programmed learning has come about. (Presentation to Professor Skinner).

Most recently, and actually in the course of preparing this volume, I have completed orcompiled what appears to me to be the major ideas being expressed in the eld of teachingmachines and programmed learning. The basic notions have been developed from researchndings in the experimental study of learning and have been expressed by a number of men in the eld, and to a large extent by the speakers at this platform. However, sincethe use of teaching machines is in its Kitty Hawk stage, and since the application of the science of learning to the development of a technology of training and education isalso in its childhood, I should like to set these notions down for your consideration anddiscuss each point rather briey....

Evoking Specic Behavior The essential task involved is to evoke the specic forms of behavior from the student andthrough appropriate reinforcement bring them under the control of specic subject matterstimuli. As a student goes through a learning program, certain of his responses must bestrengthened and shaped from initial unskilled behavior to subject matter competence.Programming rules are concerned with how one goes about doing this.

Our present knowledge of the learning process points out that through the process of reinforcement, new forms of behavior can be created with a great degree of subtlety. Thecentral feature of this process is making the reinforcement contingent upon performances of the learner. (Often the word “reward” is used to refer to one class of reinforcing events.) By

differentially applying reinforcement to relatively minute behavioral changes, it is possibleto progress from the initial behavior of the learner in small steps through the development of more complex behaviors. This progression can take place by small enough steps so that thestudent’s progress and motivation is not jeopardized by frequent failures.

Since a great deal of teaching and learning is needed for acquiring complex behavioralrepertoires, such as a new language or calculus operation, the number of reinforcementsand the subtleties of reinforcements required to establish such complicated behaviorover-taxes the skill of the most efcient instructor, especially within the limits of his timeand usual classroom organization.

…The term “programming” refers to the process of constructing sequences of

instructional material in a way that maximizes the rate of acquisition and retention, andenhances the motivation of the student....

Dening the Desired Behavior…The rst step in programming is to dene the eld. This means that the programmer mustoutline precisely the behavior he wants the student to perform at the end of the programand must specify the kinds of stimulus material that a student will have available in thecourse of this performance. A primary purpose of instruction is to provide the student witha behavioral repertoire called knowledge of the subject matter....

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–15

Reinforcement a Central ProcessA central process for the acquisition of behavior is reinforcement. Behavior is acquired as aresult of a contingent relationship between the response of an organism and a consequentevent. In order for these contingencies of reinforcement to be effective, certain conditionsmust be met. Reinforcement must follow the occurrence of the behavior being taught. If this is not the case, different and perhaps unwanted behavior will be learned. In addition,a sufcient number of reinforcements must be given so that the desired behavior isstrengthened and its probability of occurrence for a particular student is high in appropriatesituations. As has been said, in progressing from the initial repertoire to the terminalrepertoire, the student is reinforced for minute changes in behavior which bring himcloser and closer to skilled performance. And these minute changes are brought about bysuccessive steps in the program. In most instructional programs, the reinforcing agent forthe students is “knowledge of results,” that is, knowledge about whether or not the responsehe performs is the result considered correct. Failure to provide adequate reinforcement andhence failure to strengthen the behavior of the student with respect to the subject matteroften results in the student showing a lack of interest. This means that his interest is shiftedto other activities for which sufcient reinforcement is provided....

The Principle of Gradual ProgressionMy third point is gradual progression to establish complex repertoires. In getting the studentfrom his initial repertoire to the terminal repertoire, it has been indicated that an important

principle is that of gradual progression. We do not wait for the student to emit complexbehavior in the course of trial and error and then reinforce correct performance. In fact, hemay never emit the skillful behavior we require. When developing complex performance werst reinforce any available behavior which is the slightest approximation to the terminalbehavior. Later we use this behavior in the next step to reinforce a small change which is inthe direction of the terminal repertoire. The program moves in graded steps working fromsimple to higher and higher levels of complexity.

The principle of gradual progression serves to make the student correct as oftenas possible and is also the fastest way to develop a complex repertoire. It is difcultto see how complex behavior can appear except through the specic reinforcement of

members of a graded series. It seems that this is an important principle in the rapidcreation of new patterns of behavior.At each step, the programmer must ask what behavior must a student have before he

can take this step. He must ask what principles or interverbal relationships will facilitatethis sequence of steps that form a progression from initially assumed knowledge to thespecied nal repertoire. No step should be encountered before the student can take it

with a high probability of success....

Eliciting Available Responses and Controlling Error The next point that I want to make is called “emitted behavior and prompting”. This

concerns making the desired behavior more probable. A student is assumed, as I have said,to possess some initial related behavior in the subject matter before he starts the course.The behavior available must be specied, and the programmer can, at the beginning,appeal only to those available responses. How then do we get the students to emit theseavailable responses? Before behavior is reinforced, it must be emitted and instructionalmaterial must be designed to elicit the correct and appropriate behavior which can thenbe appropriately reinforced. A major portion of what we call the rules of programming isconcerned with evoking behavior, that is, concerned with techniques for getting the studentsto emit new or low strength responses with a minimum of errors.

Appendix III

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–16

The occurrence of behavior in a program is made more probable if the materials aredesigned so that each frame makes the correct answers in the next frame more likely. Theprobability of success is increased by the use of formal hinting and coaching techniquesbased upon what we know about verbal behavior....

Putting the Student on His OwnThe next point is called “fading or vanishing.” Thus far it has been indicated thatprogramming techniques utilize the principle of reinforcement, the principle of prompting.The next one we come to is the principle of fading or vanishing. This principle involvesthe gradual removal of prompts or cues, so that by the time the student has completed thelesson, he is responding only to the stimulus material which he will actually have availablewhen he performs the “real task.” He is on his own, so to speak, and learning crutcheshave been eliminated. Fading can then be dened as the gradual withdrawal of stimulussupport. The systematic progression of programmed learning is well set up to accomplishthis. It is always to be kept in mind that these principles are quite in contrast to “rotelearning” or drill. In rote learning, many wrong responses are permitted to occur, and thestudent eventually learns to develop his own prompts often to a relatively unrelated seriesof stimuli. Programmed learning, on the other hand, is designed to take advantage of theinherent organization of the subject matter or of the behavior of the subject in relation to the

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


Appendix IV

Excerpts from A Plan for Evaluating the Quality of Educational

Programs in Pennsylvania

A Plan for Evaluating the Quality of Educational Programs in Pennsylvania: Highlights of a

Report from Educational Testing Services (Princeton, NJ) to the State Board of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, June 30, 1965.

BACKGROUNDThe planning project reported in this document had its inception in a mandate fromthe General Assembly of Pennsylvania. The mandate is to be found in Section 290.1of the Act of August 8, 1963, P.L. 564 (Act 299, The School District Reorganization Act

of 1963). It reads as follows:

Educational Performance Standards—To implement the purpose of this

subdivision, the State Board of Education, as soon as possible and in any eventno later than July 1, 1965, shall develop or cause to be developed an evaluationprocedure designed to measure objectively the adequacy and efciency of theeducational programs offered by the public schools of the Commonwealth.The evaluation procedure to be developed shall include tests measuring theachievements and performance of students pursuing all of the various subjectsand courses comprising the curricula. The evaluation procedure shall be soconstructed and developed as to provide each school district with relevantcomparative data to enable directors and administrators to more readily appraisethe educational performance and effectuate without delay the strengthening of

the district’s educational program. Tests developed under the authority of thissection to be administered to pupils shall be used for the purpose of providing auniform evaluation of each school district and the other purposes set forth in thissubdivision. The State Board of Education shall devise performance standardsupon completion of the evaluation procedure required by this section.

This committee on Quality Education sought the advice of experts in the behavioralsciences. These experts constituted a Standing Advisory Committee for the project.… It [theCommittee] concluded that an educational program is to be regarded as adequate only if it

A–17

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–18

can be shown to contribute to the total development of pupils.... The Committee recognizesthat many of the desirable qualities that schools should help pupils acquire are difcultto dene and even more difcult to measure. It feels, nevertheless, that any evaluationprocedure that leaves these qualities out of account is decient as a basis for determiningwhether the program of any school district is educationally adequate. Having in mind thisview of education and its evaluation, the Committee requested the Educational TestingService [Note: federally-funded, ed.] of Princeton, N.J. to assist in the development of a plan for the implementation of Act 299…. What follows gives the highlights of thethree-volume report entitled A Plan for Evaluating the Quality of Educational Programs

in Pennsylvania.

PROPOSED GOALS OF EDUCATIONThe rst step in judging the quality of educational programs is to decide on the purposes of education. What should children be and do and know as a consequence of having gone toschool? What are the goals of the schools? These questions have been high on the agenda of the Committee on Quality Education. Its members wanted a set of goals that would reectthe problems society faces in the world today…. Available measures of the factors areuneven in their development. Some of the measures are considerably more valid, precise,and interpretable than others. Measures of conventional academic achievement, forinstance, are at a more advanced stage of development than measures of attitude andvalues. This unevenness poses a difcult, but not an insoluble, problem in designing

an evaluation program of the kind we are proposing, In a nutshell, the current situationis as follows:

1. All of the ten goals of education stated above are to be regarded of prime importancein education of high quality. Any educational program that neglects any of thegoals is to be regarded as less than adequate. [The Ten Quality Goals are listedbelow under California’s Plan which lists Pennsylvania’s Ten Quality Goals asthose to be used by California, ed.]

2. Measures of progress toward the ten goals are unequally developed. Some are moredependable and valid than others. For example, tests of reading comprehension

are relatively well developed and reasonably well understood, while tests of such qualities as self-understanding and tolerance are less well developed andpoorly understood.

3. Nevertheless, the evaluation of pupil performance in all areas is critically importantas a means of keeping educational programs in balance.

4. Work should therefore begin on evaluating progress toward all ten goals to theextent that this is possible.

5. Where the available measures are clearly inadequate, intensive research anddevelopment should be undertaken immediately to bring them to the point wherethey can have full effect in the evaluation program.

6. Where the available measures are adequate, studies should be undertakenimmediately to use these measures in the development of appropriate criteriafor assessing school programs.

ILLUSTRATIVE STUDIESDuring the past year, we conducted two studies involving ve school systems for thefollowing purposes: (1) to identify specically the practical problems that would beencountered in studies to develop performance criteria for school programs, (2) to seewhat usable measures might be obtained for measuring the kinds of output called for by

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–19

the ten proposed goals of education, (3) to see what usable measures might be available formeasuring input and the variables that condition output, (4) to see how the several measuresmight be related and combined to produce the necessary performance criteria.

The outcomes of these studies suggest (1) that good cooperation can be expectedfrom the school systems in conducting such studies in the future, (2) that reliable measuresof some aspect of each of the ten kinds of output implied by the ten goals is possible,(3) that the validity of many of the available measures, however, is open to question,(4) that there are many measures still to be developed if all the most important aspectsof educational output are to be effectively appraised, (5) that it is feasible to expressperformance criteria in a form which takes into account conditions under which schoolswork and which at the same time constitute a challenge to the majority of schools toimprove their programs.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIAOut of the work of the two illustrative studies a design for a study to develop performancecriteria has emerged. It has ve characteristics as follows:

1. It would provide multiple performance objectives for schools of any given type.2. It assumes that pupils at seven different grade levels will be tested twice, two years

apart, rst, to establish levels of input and second, to establish levels of output.[This was, for many years, the NAEP schedule, ed.]

3. It envisages a testing program which consists of a core program made up of tests which have already been proved to be dependable and an experimentalprogram made up of tests to be developed to a state of dependability in thecourse of the study.

4. It would be carried out on a ten per cent sample of the schools of the Commonwealthand would probably involve about 7,000 classrooms and 200,000 pupils. [This isthe NAEP sampling method used for many years, ed.]

SUPPORTING RESEARCHAt all stages of this planning study it has become increasingly apparent to us that any

program to evaluate the quality of education in Pennsylvania which was unaccompanied bya strong program of research would be sterile. Two kinds of research are essential:

• Research specially designed to invent, develop, and validate the measures neededby the evaluation program—especially measures of the kinds of educational outputassumed by such goals as self-understanding, tolerance, citizenship, attitude towardschool and learning, and creativity.

• Research to identify those educational processes and those modiable conditionsof learning that hold the greatest possibilities for improving the educational outputin schools of varying types.

…The four studies were concerned (a) with measures of the ways children think

and solve problems, (b) with the test-taking motivation of students in culturally deprivedareas, (c) with the measurement of creativity, and (d) with the attitudes of primaryschool pupils toward school.

What have the studies shown?

• They have shown that ordinary achievement tests leave untouched many importantintellectual qualities of students, but that with a concentrated program of researchit should be possible to develop measures of these qualities.

Appendix IV

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–20

• They have shown that youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds do not

usually try as hard on tests as their more favored classmates, but that they canbe motivated to do so.

• They have shown that it is possible to get a rough measure of the degree towhich students bring a creative approach to the arts, the sciences, and theproblems of human relations.

• They have shown how the attitudes of primary school children toward their teachers,their school, their classmates may be developing and have suggested how importantthese attitudes can be in conditioning the children’s further education.

Finally, these studies have shown that much more research needs to be done onhow to assess the output of the schools and how to develop procedures for strengthening

their programs. We are convinced by our work this year that such research will be fruitfuland should be energetically pursued.

RECOMMENDATIONS1. General policies:1.2. The evaluation program should avoid any suggestion of a policing operation

to see where schools are meeting minimum regulations. It should encourage,not inhibit, experimentation with (a) new curricula, (b) new administrativearrangements, (c) new approaches to instruction….

1.3. The State Board of Education should rely upon the Superintendent of Public

Instruction for developing and executing the evaluation program, it beingunderstood, however, that where appropriate he may delegate parts of thework to universities or to other competent agencies outside the Departmentof Public Instruction….

2. Procedures. The following procedures are recommended as constituting theessentials of an educational evaluation program for the Commonwealth….

2.2. A General Panel of Review consisting of educators, behavioral scientists, andrepresentatives of the general public should be appointed to review the system of tests and measures to be used to ascertain how well pupils are progressing towardthe educational goals and to advise on research and development leading to new

and improved means of assessing progress toward the goals.2.3. For each of several areas of educational output, there should be a Sub-Panel

of Examiners drawn from the General Panel of Review, with additional numbersdrawn from among appropriate specialists in education and the behavioral sciences,to consider in detail the tests and measures related to the area of their concernand to advise the General Panel of Review regarding the quality of the tests andmeasures and the means for their improvement.

2.4. A broad program of research should be initiated forthwith for the purpose of (a)improving the educational output, especially those that have to do with the personaland social qualities of pupils and for which in many cases no satisfactory measuresnow exist, and (b) discovering those processes of education and conditions of learning that will maximize the quality of educational output under a varietyof circumstances. This program of research should take full advantage of theoutcomes of similar research being done elsewhere by adapting these outcomesto the needs of Pennsylvania.

2.5. In those cases where a school system, after applying the appropriate criteria,is dissatised with the level of performance of its pupils, such school systemsshould have the advice and assistance of the Department of Public Instruction indetermining what changes in educational processes and/or in the conditions of

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–21

learning would be most likely to bring about improvement.

Proof that Pennsylvania’s goals were the model for the nation is found in the CaliforniaState Plan, Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act , P.L. 89–10, as Amendedby P.L. 90–247, 1970, which states on page 2, (6/9/69 revised):

These Ten Goals were generated in the Study of Quality Education initiated by thePennsylvania State Board of Education in response to a mandate from the PennsylvaniaGeneral Assembly. The Ten Goals provided a classication system simple enough (in termsof the number of categories) to work with and yet comprehensive enough in scope toinclude almost any educational objective, whether cognitive, affective [attitudes, values,

ed.] or psychomotor. These Ten Goals are listed below:

1. Quality education should help every child acquire the greatest possibleunderstanding of himself and appreciation of his worthiness as a member of society (Self-Understanding).

2. Quality education should help every child acquire understanding and appreciationof persons belonging to social, cultural, and ethnic groups different from hisown (Tolerance of Others).

3. Quality education should help every child acquire to the fullest extent possible forhim mastery of the basic skills in the use of words and numbers (Basic Skills).

4. Quality education should help every child acquire a positive attitude toward schooland toward the learning process (Attitude Toward School).

5. Quality education should help every child acquire the habits and attitudes associatedwith responsible citizenship (Citizenship).

6. Quality education should help every child acquire good health habits and anunderstanding of the conditions necessary for the maintenance of physical andemotional well being (Health).

7. Quality education should give every child opportunities in one or more eldsof endeavor (Creativity).

8. Quality education should help every child understand the opportunities open to

him for preparing himself for a productive life and should enable him to take fulladvantage of these opportunities (Vocational Preparation).

9. Quality education should help every child to understand and appreciate as muchas he can of human achievement in the natural sciences, the social sciences, thehumanities, and the arts (Intellectual Achievement).

10. Quality education should help every child prepare for a world of rapid changesand unforeseeable demands in which continuing education throughout his adultlife should be a normal expectation (Life-Long Learning).

[Ed. Note: Anita Hoge’s successful complaint against the Pennsylvania Department of

Education’s Educational Quality Assessment (EQA), led under the federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment , exposed the extent of federal involvement in curricula, testingand evaluation primarily designed to change children’s attitudes, values, and beliefs. Theseare the areas to which parents most vociferously object. In the mid-1970s the Pennsylvaniachapter of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union sided with parents regarding theirobjections; i.e., invasion of privacy, etc.

All state and local school district goals, standards, competencies, outcomes, results, etc.,developed from this time on across the nation were based primarily on these Pennsylvania

Appendix IV

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–22

goals. It is interesting to note that the plans for national assessment were in progress several

years prior to passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This Act signied the end of local control due to its call for the installation of an accountability systemin each of the state departments of education applying for federal assistance.

It should be noted that included on the Standing Advisory Committee and its pool of “experts” in the behavioral sciences were: David R. Krathwohl (co-author with Benjamin

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


Appendix V

Comments on and Excerpts from Behavioral ScienceTeacher Education Program (BSTEP)

Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (BSTEP), 1965–1969, funded by the U.S.Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, was initiated at Michigan State University.Its purpose was to change the teacher from a transmitter of knowledge/content to a socialchange agent/facilitator/clinician. Traditional public school administrators were appalledat this new role for teachers. Long-time education researcher Bettye Lewis provided acapsule description and critique of BSTEP in 1984. Her comments and verbatim quotesfrom BSTEP follow:

Objectives of BSTEP are stated as follows:

Three major goals:

1. Development of a new kind of elementary school teacher who is basically welleducated, engages in teaching as clinical practice, is an effective student of thecapacities and environmental characteristics of human learning, and functionsas a responsible agent of social change.

2. Systematic use of research and clinical experience in decision-making processesat all levels.

3. A new laboratory and clinical base, from the behavioral sciences, on which tofound undergraduate and in-service teacher education programs, and recycleevaluations of teaching tools and performance.

…The BSTEP teacher is expected to learn from experience through acyclical style of describing, analyzing, hypothesizing, prescribing, treating,and observing consequences (in particular—the consequences of the treatmentadministered)….

The program is designed to focus the skills and knowledge of Behavioral

A–23

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–26

In order to implement this training and to make sure that future elementary teachersaccept the “right attitudes” and “behavioral objectives,” the use of computers and thecollection of information are stressed. The “Central Processor” or the computer programmedto accept or reject on the basis of behavioral objectives, will be the “judge and the jury”as to who will and who will not be the future teachers. For anyone who loves individualfreedom, who desires it for their own children, and prays for a future America withindividual freedom held sacred—BSTEP has to be a most frightening and devastating plan.

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


Appendix VI

Excerpts from Education for Results

Education for Results: In Response to A Nation At Risk, Vol.1: Guaranteeing Effective

Performance by Our Schools by Robert E. Corrigan, Ph.D., and Betty O. Corrigan (SAFELearning Systems, Inc.: Anaheim, CA, 1983). This particular paper was published in 1983 forthe Reagan Administration’s use, and actually served as a springboard for implementing OBE.Most of the experimentation history (pilot OBE/ML/DI) programs, including one in Koreadiscussed in this paper, were implemented in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Education for Results Project, which basically called for using Corrigan’s Model(mastery learning/outcome-based education/management information systems) had thesupport of the following twenty key education change agents:

DR. LEON LESSINGER, Superintendent, Beverly Hills School District, Beverly Hills, CA; DR.

JACK WARD

, Associate Superintendent, Mendocino County, CA;DR. ROBERT KANE

, Consultant,Teacher Preparation & Licensing Committee, State of California; DR. NOLAN ESTES, Professorof Education, University of Texas; DR. JAMES MCPHAIL, Chairman, Department of EducationalAdministration & Supervision, University of Southern Mississippi; DR. HOSEA GRISHAM,Superintendent, North Panola County School, Mississippi, President, Mississippi Associationof School Administrators; DR. HINES CRONIN, Superintendent, Moss Point School District,Moss Point, MS; DR. MEL BUCKLEY, Superintendent, Newton Public School, Newton, MS; DR.

ROBERT MORGAN, Director, Learning Systems Institute, Florida State University, Tallahassee,FL; DR. ROGER A. KAUFMAN, Professor of Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee,

FL;DR. HOMER COKER

, Teacher Corps Program, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA;DR.

ANNETTE KEARNEY, Assistant Director, National Council for Negro Women, New York City;DR. JOHN PICTON, Beaverton, OR; DR. LOUIS ZEYEN, Deputy Executive Director, AmericanAssociation of School Administrators; DR. WILLIAM SPADY, Director, Center for the Improvementof Learning, Arlington, VA; DR. GENE GEISERT, Professor of Education, St. John’s University,

Jamaica, NY; DR. AL HOYE, Minneapolis Unied School District, MN; DR. WILFRED LANDRUS,Chapman College, Professor of Education, Orange, CA; DR. ROBERT CORRIGAN, Corrigan andAssociates, Anaheim, CA; and MRS. BETTY CORRIGAN, Corrigan and Associates, Anaheim, CA.Lessinger, Estes, Kaufman, Coker, Spady and the Corrigans are among the key proponents

A–27

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–28

of OBE/ML and have been involved for many years. The following are excerpts from

Education for Results:

PROLOGUE: Committing to the Feasible Delivery of Effective Educational Results, by NolanEstes, prior U.S. Commissioner of Education, University of Texas, Austin…. On April 26,1983, the National Commission for Excellence in Education presented to President RonaldReagan A Nation at Risk, a report on the status of quality education in the United States.This commission was formed by Secretary of Education Dr. Terrel Bell, in August 1981,to evaluate the current status of our national educational system in terms of its overallperformance effectiveness; and, where appropriate, to propose changes in policy, practices,and programs to increase the effectiveness of our schools….

The beginning of this reported decline in the performance effectiveness began in the1960’s. As a Commissioner of Education (1965–1969), along with other Commissioners,we made substantial investments in grants and programs to develop more effectiveprofessional practices to replace those then in operation. We concentrated our investmentsin two major programs, namely:

A. To increase learning effectiveness (mastery scores) for all learners; andB. To increase the management effectiveness of the delivery system to increase the

measured success for learners.

Several major multi-million dollar programs were initiated in the 1960’s consistentwith the achievement of the goals stated above. The major focus on development of moreeffective management-for-results practices and application was Operation PEP, State of California. This was a multi-year program involving several hundred senior educationaladministrators across the state. Dr. Robert E. Corrigan, as director of the training programs,offered to these administrators skills in management-for-results practices encompassedin his “Systematic Approach for Effectiveness” (SAFE). The acceptance of these practicesby these senior educational practitioners is evidenced by the fact that they were appliedby Title III management centers across the state of California after the federal fundswere removed.

A second key thrust by the Department of Education (1965–1968) was to support thedevelopment of new teaching practices which would prove more effective in the deliveryof success for learners. A major program was funded for the installation of a TeacherFellowship Program at Chapman College, Orange, California. This program was headed byDr. Robert E. Corrigan to develop a Masters Degree in Instructional Systems Design (ISD).This developing program focused on the design of a new learning-centered technologydeveloped by the Corrigans to assure predictable mastery by all learners of all relevantskills and knowledge in the curricula offered in our schools.

…In these two volumes presented herein by the Corrigans, you are offered thePROOF of these most effective results-focused practices by many school districts both

large and small, both urban and rural, in a variety of areas across our country over aperiod of 22+ years (1960–1983).

Since the 1960s, these effective management-for-results practices have expandedto include the required use of micro computer management systems to control forthe delivery of cost-effective results for learners, for the educational practitioners,and the taxpayers.

These publications (Volumes I and II) offer to all educational partners (includingteachers, learners, administrators, boards of education, parents, and the community at large)proven ways and means to deliver effective performance by our schools—a “business-like”

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–29

approach to manage the achievement of established priorities for action and the installationof these successful educational practices in the schools of America.

…We are required NOW to make only the necessary minimal investments in timeand/or money by each member of the educational partnership in order to turn ourcurrently reported mediocre performance effectiveness as presented by the Commissionon Excellence into a shining success story for all concerned, in particular for thefuture citizens of this nation and the survival and growth of our nation as a whole.[all emphases in original]

From Chapter 13: “Instructional Systems Development in Korean Educational Reform”by Robert M. Morgan:

A Systems Center Study of Korean Education—1970The aim of this study was an attempt by the Republic of Korea to determine if it might

be able to organize its educational resources in ways that would make its educationalprograms more responsive to the nation’s needs and, simultaneously, function moreefciently. The Korean Government invited the Florida State University to assist with theproject and an interdisciplinary study team was assembled. In the planning phase of theproject it was judged that a “systems approach” to the analysis of Korea’s educationalsector would be suitable.

The study team spent three months in Korea in 1970 gathering information about

the educational system, the economy, the nation’s needs and wants for its educationalprograms, and the resources available for potential improvement of the system. Membersof the study team visited schools at all levels throughout Korea and talked to hundredsof teachers, administrators and students. The team also worked with several Koreangovernment ministries.

…The data was analyzed in terms of future manpower needs and educationaloutput, estimated cost benets, strategies for appropriate introduction of innovationand technology into the system.

[Ed. Note: While reading the following, please keep in mind educational restructuring in the

United States to meet the demands of the global economy—the shift from academic educationto work force training, using Outcome-Based Education/ML/DI and TQM.]

Economic FactorsFollowing the Korean War the Korean economy experienced remarkable industrial progressand growth which was predicted to continue into the foreseeable future. The labor force wasincreasing steadily and the rate of unemployment, decreasing. However, a major problemwas anticipated from lack of congruence between the nation’s manpower requirements andthe projected supply of skilled technical labor. The only long-range solution to these problemswas a reordering of the educational priorities in the schools of Korea.

The Contemporary Korean School SystemThe educational goals that characterized the Korean elementary and middle schools

in 1970 were... restricted to the conventional academic domain. The student learningoutcomes at these levels fell almost exclusively into the informational and skill categories of education and was characterized by rote memorization of classically academic subjects withthe overriding objective of preparing students for the national competitive examinationswhich were used to select those students for entry to the next level of education.

The existing curriculum was not as relevant to preparing Korean children to live and

Appendix VI

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–30

prosper as adults as it could and should have been. While the study team did not attemptto specify educational objectives, it believed the curriculum could be broadened to includethe teaching of inquiry skills and problem-solving approaches and generally attend more toprocess objectives—and that these should not only be learning outcomes but also serve aseffective instructional means. It was also suggested that pre-occupational training would addto the graduates’ employability, retrainability and occupational mobility.

A Proposed New Educational Model—1971The study team suggested that a nine-year, free and compulsory educational program

was necessary to support Korea’s continuing economic expansion. (Systems Analysis

for Educational Change: The Republic of Korea by Morgan, Robert M. and Chadwick,C.B. [University of Florida Press: Gainesville, FL, 1971]). The vocational high schools of Korea were not effectively serving the purposes for which they were formed. Based uponassumptions about potential for improved academic accomplishment at the elementary-middle school level, the study team recommended that this training be directed exclusivelyto preparing people for specic jobs. The job training programs would be of variableduration, would be operated only as long as there were known manpower needsfor the jobs in question, and would be open to qualified citizens of any age level.[emphasis added]

…The new school proposed by the study team involved a number of changes from theexisting system. These included changing the basic instructional unit from its present class

size to a larger grouping, introducing individualized instructional concepts and associatedmaterials, modifying the role of the teaching staff, increasing the ratio of students toteachers, and using programmed instructional television and radio.

…A middle school… moved to a system of individualized instruction… would beperformance based, permit students to move at their own learning rate, and would placea larger measure of responsibility on the students for self-direction of their learningexperiences. It would also reduce reliance on direct teacher-to-student instruction. Thebasic instructional resource for that portion of the curriculum to be individualized wouldbe a “student-learning unit” prepared in modular form and packaged for ease of storageand retrieval by students. These units would be developed using the Instructional Systems

Design (ISD) approach. The student-learning unit would contain the behavioral objectivesfor the unit, critical instructional materials, directions to other learning resources, andcriterion-referenced test items which would permit the student to assess his own progressthrough the unit. The principles of programmed instruction would be employed inthe development of these units even though most of the instructional materials werenot programmed instruction per se.... The teaching team would operate under thedirection of a master teacher whose main job would be the management of the learningenvironment....

…It was estimated that a functional national educational television system could bebuilt which would be an integral component of the system of instructional resources….

It would be a form of programmed instruction developed to teach specic behaviors andwould call for active responses from the student. Auxiliary printed materials would bedeveloped to go with the ITV programs in which the students would write responses,solve problems and record reactions and questions. Student learning would be closelymonitored and the teacher would be furnished supportive and supplementary materialsto help her work individually with any students who experience difculty or who fallbehind in the televised instruction.

…The study team proposed an organization, which it labeled the Korean EducationalDevelopment Institute (KEDI), to design and try out the system and its components. KEDI

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–31

would reappraise the educational goals and objectives for the elementary-middle [E-M, ed.]schools. It would develop denitions of desired learning outcomes at the various levelsand then design and build the instructional programs to achieve these outcomes....Estimates were that it would take approximately four to ve years to build and test thenew system. The cost of development and installation on a national scale was estimatedto be approximately $17,000,000.

…During the last quarter of 1971 the KEDI staff focused on two major activities. Thesewere: (1) an intensive series of meetings with Korean educators on the E-M project, and (2)the writing of the International Loan Agreement. The rst of these activities was essentialto broaden the base of support and to respond to questions or criticisms and to secure thecooperation of educators throughout the nation....

…KEDI was the beginning of a competency-based program of student learning.…In the several tryouts since 1973—four small scale and four large scale—the

achievement levels have generally been higher for the demonstration students thanfor the comparison group.

…In 1978, the President of the Republic appointed an external commission to conductan independent evaluation of the new E-M program. This group assessed student andteacher attitudes toward the new program as well as community reaction. They also selected18 schools and directed that the new KEDI system be implemented in these schools forve months in six basic subject areas, and identied a group of traditional schools to serveas the control. They found that mean achievement across all subject areas was 24 percent

higher in the experimental group than in the control group, and that 30 percent moreof the experimental students achieved subject mastery. The commission recommendedan orderly implementation of the new E-M program in all of Korea’s schools. [allemphases in original]

Appendix VI

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


Appendix VII

Excerpts from Performance-based Teacher Education

Performance-based Teacher Education: What Is the State of the Art ?, Stanley Elam, Ed. (Phi

Delta Kappan Publications: Washington, D.C., 1971). Paper prepared for the Committeeon Performance-based Teacher Education of the American Association of Colleges forTeacher Education pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Ofce of Education through theTexas Education Agency, Austin, Texas.

The Association is pleased to offer to the teacher education community the Committee’srst state-of-the-art paper. In performance-based programs performance goals are specied,and agreed to, in rigorous detail in advance of instruction. The student must either beable to demonstrate his ability to promote desirable learning or exhibit behavior knownto promote it. He is held accountable, not for passing grades, but for attaining a general

level of competency in performing the essential tasks of teaching…. Emphasis is ondemonstrated product or output. Acceptance of this basic principle has program implicationsthat are truly revolutionary.

Probably the roots of PBTE [Performance-based Teacher Education, ed.] lie in generalsocietal conditions and the institutional responses to them characteristic of the Sixties.For example, the realization that little or no progress was being made in narrowing wideinequality gaps led to increasing governmental attention to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomicminority needs, particularly educational ones.

The claim that traditional teacher education programs were not producing peopleequipped to teach minority group children and youth effectively has pointed directly to the

need for reform in teacher education. Moreover, the claim of minority group youth that there should be alternative routes

to professional status has raised serious questions about the suitability of generallyrecognized teacher education programs.

Confronted with the ultimate question of the meaning of life in American society,youths have pressed for greater relevance in their education and a voice in determining whatits goals should be. Thus PBTE usually includes a means of shared decision-making power...[T]he student’s rate of progress through the program is determined by demonstratedcompetency rather than by time or course completion.... Instruction is individualized and

A–32

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–33

personalized.... Because time is a variable, not a constant, and because students may enterwith widely differing backgrounds and purposes, instruction is likely to be highly person-and situation-specic.... The learning experience of the individuals is guided by feedback....[T]eaching competencies to be demonstrated are role-derived, specied in behavioral terms,and made public; assessment criteria are competency-based, specify mastery levels, andmade public; assessment requires performance as prime evidence, takes student knowledgeinto account; student’s progress rate depends on demonstrated competency; instructionalprogram facilitates development and evaluation of specic competencies.... The applicationof such a systematic strategy to any human process is called the systems approach.... Wecannot be sure that measurement techniques essential both to objectivity and to validassessment of affective and complex cognitive objectives will be developed rapidly enoughfor the new exit requirements to be any better than the conventional letter grades of thepast. Unless heroic efforts are made on both the knowledge and measurement fronts, thenPBTE may well have a stunted growth.... To recapitulate, the promise of performance-basedteacher education lies primarily in: 1) the fact that its focus on objectives and its emphasisupon the sharing process by which those objectives are formulated in advance are madeexplicit and used as the basis for evaluating performance; 2) the fact that a large share of the responsibility for learning is shifted from teacher to student; 3) the fact that it increasesefciency through systematic use of feedback, motivating and guiding learning effortsof prospective teachers; 4) the fact that greater attention is given to variation amongindividual abilities, needs, and interests; 5) the fact that learning is tied more directly to the

objectives to be achieved than to the learning resources utilized to attain them; 6) the factthat prospective teachers are taught in the way they are expected to teach; 7) the fact thatPBTE is consistent with democratic principles; 8) the fact that it is consistent with whatwe know about the psychology of learning; 9) the fact that it permits effective integrationof theory and practice; 10) the fact that it provides better bases for designing researchabout teaching performance. These advantages would seem sufcient to warrant andensure a strong and viable movement.

From “The Scope of PBTE”:

Among the most difficult questions asked about the viability of performance-basedinstruction as the basis for substantial change in teacher preparatory programs are these:Will it tend to produce technicians, paraprofessionals, teacher aides, etc., rather thanprofessionals?… These questions derive from the fact that while performance-basedinstruction eliminates waste in the learning process through clarity in definition of goods, it can be applied only to learning in which the objectives sought are susceptibleof denition in advance in behavioral terms. Thus it is difcult to apply when theoutcomes sought are complex and subtle, and particularly when they are affective orattitudinal in character.

From “Philosophic Underpinning”:

Some authorities have expressed the fact that PBTE has an inadequate philosophic base,pointing out that any performance-based system rests on particular values, and themost important of which are expressed in the competencies chosen and in the designof the learning activities.

From “Political and Management Difculties”:

Appendix VII

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–34

...4) There are political aspects to the question of how far the professor’s academic freedomand the student’s right to choose what he wishes to learn extend in PBTE. 5) …The mereadoption of a PBTE program will eliminate some prospective students because they donot nd it appealing. The question remains: Will these be the students who should beeliminated?… 6) The PBTE movement could deteriorate into a power struggle over whocontrols what. 7) PBTE removes students regularly from the campus into eld settingsand emphasizes individual study and progress rather than class-course organization, thustends to isolate the people involved. We live in a period when such isolation is not apopular social concept, and since many aspects of the PBTE approach could be conceivedas Skinnerian, dehumanizing etc., it is important that programs be managed in such away as to minimize isolation?… 9) Finally, there is a need to overcome the apathy, threat,anxiety, administrative resistance, and other barriers that stand in the way of moving towardPBTE and toward performance-based teaching in the schools.

[Ed. Note: Over the years one has seen the departure of many talented teachers who have leftthe profession due to Skinnerian Performance-based Teacher Education.]

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


Appendix VIII

Excerpts from “The Field of Educational Technology”

“The Field of Educational Technology: A Statement of Denition,” by Donald P. Ely, Ed.

Published in Audiovisual Instruction (Association of Educational Computing and Technology:Washington, D.C.), October 1972 (pp. 36 ff).

There is no single author of this statement since the denition process involvedseveral hundred people over the period of one year. Kenneth Silber spent more time thanany other person and provided continuity through several drafts. Other writers includedKenneth Norberg, Geoffrey Squires, and Gerald Torkelson. Signicant contributions weremade by Robert Heinich, Charles F. Hoban, Jr., Wesley Meierhenry, and Robert Wagnerthrough discussion papers prepared early in the process. Reactions from related elds werehelpful—Desmond Cook (Educational Psychology), Keith Mielke (Telecommunications),

and Robert Taylor (Library and Information Science). Each reviewed an earlier draft of themanuscript and met to discuss it. Finally, credit should go to the more than 100 members of the Association of Educational Computing and Technology [AECT, spin-off of the NEA,ed.] who participated at the open hearings held during the Minneapolis convention. Andnow, the process must go on with each reader. May I have your reactions? Signed byDonald P. Ely, Editor, Chairman, Denition and Terminology Committee, AECT, Branch of the National Education Association.…

When scientic and experimental methods are applied in an orderly and comprehensiveway to the planning of instructional tasks, or to entire programs, this process is sometimes

known as “systems design,” or the “systems approach to instructional development.”Implicit in the systems approach is the use of clearly stated objectives, experimentallyderived, data to evaluate the results of the system, and feedback loops which allow thesystem to improve itself based on evaluation.

A systematic approach usually involves: needs assessment (to determine what theproblem really is); solution selection (to meet the needs); development of instructionalobjectives (if an instructional solution is indeed needed); analysis of tasks and contentneeded to meet the objectives; selection of instructional strategies; sequencing of instructional events; selection of media; developing or locating the necessary resources;

A–35

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–36

tryout/evaluation of the effectiveness of the resources; revision of resources until they areeffective; and recycling continuously through the whole process. The systems approachis basic to educational technology.

Individualized learning requires systematic planning because it may operate with littleor no direct intervention by the teacher. If the benets of individualized and personalizedlearning are to succeed, it will be necessary to make full use of appropriate technicalresources, to shift money saved by this approach into the development of more effectiveresources, and to make consistent and expanded use of experimental study and evaluationtechniques. All of these require the use of the systems approach to succeed.

The rationale for a unique eld of educational technology is its synthesis of threeconcepts: providing a broad range of learning resources, individualizing and personalizinglearning as a focus, and using the systems approach as an intellectual and operationalapproach to the facilitation of learning. The combination of these concepts in the broadercontext of education and society yields synergistic outcomes—behaviors which are notpredictable on the parts alone—but outcomes with extra energy which is created by theunique interrelationship of the parts….

Within the context of society, the purposes and means of the educational technologistcreate two value questions: are the means used by the educational technologist neutral,or do they have ends and values built in? Does a person concerned with the means of education also have to be concerned with the ends?… These questions and issues and theirresolution by each person in the eld is as much a part of the denition of the eld as the

functions the people in the eld perform.Is technology neutral?Theoretically, technology in the “pure” state is neutral in its operation, simply the

powerful and faithful servant of the society it serves but does not affect.But institutionalized technology in the real world is never that pure. Once embedded

in socioeconomic systems, it tends to become self-justifying and self-perpetuating anddoes indeed affect the society it serves.

Technology neatly separates ends from means, and attempts to become neutral bydivorcing itself from value-laden ends. However, if technology is independent of means,then its worth must be measured by the degree of success and the efciency with which

it achieves the goals set before it. Thus, the technological thrust in modern society is tocontinually rene and strengthen the means whatever the goal.The net result, which has been pointed out by many scholars of technology, is that

the means tend to become the ends. The means which sometimes serve as the end of technology are NOT neutral. As most critics of technology have pointed out, these meanshave effects—effects which are not neutral at all. Whether the effects are positive or negativeis a question for debate, but neutrality is a choice which does not exist.

For example, it is clear that technology has effects on man, but what are they? Oneposition is that technology exerts a subtle force to reduce human beings to standardizedcomponents which can readily be assimilated to whatever system is being served. It

absorbs them into man-machine systems by robbing them of their humanity and makingthem human machines.

The opposing position states that technology makes humaneness and differencepossible. It creates the options we need for true freedom, and creates a world whichallows divergent value systems.

The opposite of the neutral technician is what we might call the concentratedprofessional. This person realizes that the means make the ends possible, and thatcooperation or hindrance makes ends possible or impossible. The concerned professionalhas a point of view about the ends and then decides whether or not the work being done

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


A–37

will make possible positive or negative ends.If it is decided the work will bring about negative ends, the concerned professional

refuses to perform it. The scientist working on genetic selection and manipulation because “it can help

eliminate disease from the human race” and those who have quit working on it becauseit will “lead to totalitarian domination by a master race” are examples of concernedprofessionals. Regardless of their position, they have considered the ends of their work andmade a decision to work or not based on how they viewed those ends.

It should be clear that the concerned professional does not have to be a “liberal” ora “conservative.” The concerned professional must however, show moral sensitivity to theeffect of what he or she does. [emphasis in original]

It does not matter what position an individual comes to as long as it is not “I’lldo it because it can be done.”

We believe that in the American society of the 1970s and beyond the educationaltechnologist cannot afford to be a neutral technician. The field calls for concernedprofessionals. Some very hard questions must be raised about everything this person iscalled on to do. The concerned professional must ask how the resources produced or usedaffect all of society, as well as the scientist’s own life.

The concerned specialist must ask what to do if he/she disagrees with the messagesof the resources.

It is less important how an educational technologist answers these questions than

it is that they are asked, and that there is concern with the real end of the means.... Theeducational technologist is not the only person making decisions about the facilitation of learning through the identication, development, organization, and utilization of learningresources. The teacher, curriculum specialist, administrator, content specialist, librarianand the student are involved in the process, too.... It is, therefore, important for the eld of educational technology to recognize the “other people” context in which it operates.

Further, it is essential to ascertain what the relationship of the eld of educationaltechnology with these other elds will be. In a practical sense, the work relationship means“who will get to make the ultimate decisions about facilitating learning and how it is done?”There are at least ve types of alternatives for the facilitation of learning. They differ along

the dimension of formality, based on the compulsory nature of the institution, on the degreeof authority of those in charge, and on the range of resources available.The effects of technology cannot, therefore, be overlooked. They create serious

concerns for society as a whole. They are particularly important to a person involved in aeld like educational technology, since its effects help to shape human minds.

What are the effects of packaged learning [OBE/ML/DI, ed.], etc., on a person for18 years? Are we moving too fast technologically for people to cope with the changes?How do feeling and spontaneity t into a technologically-based system? Are we trying toprogram all connections between people?

The educational technologist, as a concerned professional, must study the

philosophical, psychological and sociological implications of how the technologistcan facilitate learning.

[Ed. Note: This paper was an attachment to an AECT proposal to develop Handbook X of the Educational Records and Reports Series for the National Center for Educational Statistics.AECT also received the Project BEST (Better Education Skills through Technology) contractfrom the U.S. Department of Education in 1982. The excerpts are very important as theyrelate to the concerns of leading educators in the eld of technology regarding ethical andprivacy issues surrounding the use of programmed learning (OBE/ML/DI) in conjunction

Appendix VIII

8/8/2019 14-Appendices 01-08


Documents

14-Appendices 01-08