Document created: 28 October 2003
Air University Review, November-December 1973

 

The Changing Scene in Education

Major Charles W. Mitchell

There will always be a frontier where there is an open mind and a willing hand.
                                                                                             —Charles F. Kettering 

The instructor was perplexed:
New class—what now? . . . First exam shows distributed ignorance from 20% to 70%—average 50%—standard deviation 10%—A to C. . . . Can’t give an F since student failure is seen as teacher failure. . . . Question in review session—repeatedly stressed the answer in lectures since the second day. . . . Why don’t they learn? . . . What’s this? An article saying that in a lecture only 12% listen?¹ I don’t believe it!—must be an invalid experiment—Jones said he understood nothing from prerequisite course—need lectures to compensate for bungling of others. . . . Wait! Here’s an article on course design—make learning constant and time variable²—Ridiculous!—might find that we have only a two-year school. . . . Who left this book on my desk?—Conditions of Learning by Gagne³—learning theory—more unscientific bunk! I’m teaching science, not psychology. . . . Instructional objectives?—something about a book by Mager⁴— Why? My objectives are obvious from my lectures and exams—multiple testing on same material?—naïve. Everyone would get an A! . . . so what if all of my students are above average? . . . Someone has to get the low grades—After all, there’s the curve. . . . Individualize? Maybe that’s the magic word. It certainly is popular these days—But how?—can’t teach everything to everyone individually—How can they learn if I don’t teach them?—self-study?—reading?—self-pacing?—individually guided practice?—behavioral objectives?—What will they think of next?

This hypothetical mental monologue reflects some of the traditional views that continue to plague the educational system and professional educators, especially at the higher levels. In an attempt to overcome some of these traditional educational barriers, an experimental self-pacing program was introduced in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the United States Air Force Academy. It is felt that the findings of the program show potential for application beyond the Academy and even beyond the college level of instruction.

Before launching into the annotated case history, some perspective may be worth pursuing. Traditionally, instruction has been “teacher-centered”; that is, emphasis has been placed upon teacher rather than learner efficiency. It has been argued that the traditional instructor is likely to view society and education as static and authoritarian, the student as passive and receptive, the learning process as associative and additive, and the teacher as tasksetter and drillmaster. In contrast, a modern instructor is characterized as “learner-centered”; he will tend to assign more importance to the problems of learning than to the problems of teaching. A learner-centered instructor is thought to view society and education as dynamic and democratic, the student as a behaving and active participant in his own education, the learning process as interactive experience, and the teacher as a participating guide in the learning process.⁵ Obvious shades of gray exist between these extremes. It would be foolish to say that educators who tend to be traditional have no concern for learning. The distinction seems to lie in what they do about failure to learn. The traditional thinker tends to favor the lecture method and curve grading. He will therefore look to himself to improve the lecture, which he presumes will improve learning, and adjust the grading curve accordingly. The modern thinker may recall such words as “. . . The lecture is dead! Investigations show that information communicated verbally without involvement has a short retention span; students who attend lectures perform no better than students who do not; lecture classes fail because students are in a passive, nonparticipating role; and lectures in courses requiring higher cognitive skills are notably less effective.”⁶ The modern instructor will therefore seek improvement in the form of methods that demand interaction on the part of the learner. His preferred choice is not likely to be an improved lecture. In his deliberations he may also recall one of the professional educator’s clichés: “I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand.”

In the spring of 1971 the Department of Electrical Engineering at the Air Force Academy decided to test the claims of a growing number of educational innovators who advocate a learner-centered system of instruction called “self-pacing.”⁷ The method seemed to be a natural for a course on which much preliminary effort had been expended with only modest success. The basic problem, which persisted in spite of extensive attention, was that the core curriculum in electrical engineering continued to be viewed as demotivating or unreasonably difficult by the students and inefficient by both instructors and students. To understand the background for the decision to “self-pace” the course, it is necessary to review about five years of its development.

In 1966 one of the more serious departmental problems was what constituted appropriate content for the course. An effort was initiated then to develop the textbook that has emerged, after extensive and continuing revision, as the course content standard.⁸ In addition to prescribing course content, the text includes a three-level hierarchy of student activities at the end of each chapter: elementary “questions” (level 1), intermediate “exercises” (level 2), and relatively advanced “problems” (level 3). These activities suggest levels of achievement and, by implication, define behavioral objectives. Another problem existing in 1966 was an ineffective laboratory program. The traditional two-hour laboratory was eliminated from the electrical engineering core curriculum; the lock-step inflexibility of the lab program had proven to be demotivating. Instead, basic electronics equipment was placed in the existing 16-man classrooms (one setup for every two students); the result was a combined classroom-laboratory in which elementary laboratory activity was integrated into the theoretical discussions of the classroom. Instruction was planned so as to include use of the electronic equipment when it seemed pedagogically desirable.⁹ Thus, both a standard text and an integrated classroom-laboratory existed as initial conditions on the problem-solving process leading to the self-paced course. During the summer of 1971 the course was cast in the self-paced format and offered during the following semester. Because it was a first at the Air Force Academy, the course was dubbed “experimental.”

The course was divided into eleven units. Unit study guides were developed to direct the student efficiently to whatever level he chose (three possible levels, corresponding to the three levels of practice items outlined in the textbook). The essential contents of each study guide were the reading assignment, behavioral objectives for each of the three levels of achievement, suggested practice activities related to each behavioral objective, and appropriate self-demonstrations (equipment exercises). Guidelines for developing the behavioral objectives must be credited to R. F. Mager and R. B. Waina.¹⁰ Mager prescribes the basic content of behavioral objectives in an instructional setting, and Waina expands on the measurability of objectives, especially as it is affected by choice of verb. Waina also suggests a procedure for writing objectives in the form of “definitive problems,” i.e., required or suggested student activities in which specific objectives are embedded. Practice activities were specified by outlining a hierarchy of interrelationships among the various concepts and student activities involved and arranging them in an orderly fashion. Such learning structures obviously involve many trade-offs and overlaps and are therefore likely to be time-consuming and imprecise; however, the results were encouraging. The third element of each unit study guide was an appropriate set of self-demonstrations, or minilabs. These were the guidelines by which the contiguity of presentation of theoretical and practical concepts was assured. Their number depended upon the subject matter; the average time required for completion of each was 20 to 30 minutes.

Of the many ways to individualize instruction, self-pacing is among the more straightforward. Dr. Fred S. Keller, generally acknowledged as the originator of the method, identifies five features that seem to distinguish it most clearly from traditional teaching methods.¹¹ (In the following subparagraphs, the italicized sentence summarizes Keller’s basic feature; the remaining comments indicate alterations that were made for the experimental electrical engineering course and the constraints that prompted them.)

• Go-at-your-own-pace; the student moves through the course at a speed commensurate with his ability and other demands upon his time. Some deviation was felt necessary. Time constraints were imposed for each unit to insure acceptable student progress (upper time limit) and to insure administrative readiness (lower time limit). Constraints were administered by offering each of the 11 unit examinations only within a specified span of lessons; for example, the unit 4 examination was offered during lessons 9 through 14. Students were required to attend class, which was actually a study period with a tutor/proctor present, until all course requirements were met. Such constraints were imposed to minimize the threat of incompletes; more latitude would be appropriate as experience with the method is gained.

• Unit mastery must be demonstrated before advancing to the next unit. The majority of the students were not majoring in electrical engineering. Since their need for depth of understanding was not firmly established and since retention of the letter grading system was a specified constraint, a unit score of 60% was established as the minimum requirement for advancing to the next unit. Each unit examination could be taken as many as three times; only the highest score was recorded.

• Lectures and demonstrations should be used as motivators rather than sources of critical information. In the electrical engineering course no lectures were given. Demonstrations were limited to self-demonstrations, which were related directly to the reading material, implemented within the framework of equipment usage, and almost optional. Students were required to complete five self-demonstrations (30 to 40 were available) and demonstrate results to the tutor/proctor. Since they were not tested on the material, they did not consider them sources of critical information.

• The written word should be stressed in teacher-student communication. This was not emphasized; in fact, most communication was via the spoken word except for examinations. The immediate critiques of examinations were always conducted orally.

• Use proctors to facilitate repeated testing, immediate scoring, tutoring, and enhancement of the personal-social aspect of the educational process. All of these features were realized through the use of fully qualified instructors as proctors.

An underlying thought in developing the testing and grading system was that examinations should be designed to measure achievement of stated objectives rather than to discriminate among levels of student ability. In other words, student competition should be with the material and himself rather than with his peers. Further, examinations were to be aids to learning. Unit mastery examinations consisted of randomly selected test items based on the end-of-chapter practice items specified in the unit study guide. Test items were equally weighted and distributed in difficulty as follows: six at level 1, three at level 2, and one at level 3. Each individual in the course received a different examination, and all examinations taken by any one individual were also different. Computer-generated random numbers on standard IBM cards provided the mechanism for making the random choices of test questions; the questions themselves were contained in booklets. The grading system could loosely be called “contract grading.” The student could practice and continue taking tests, up to three times per unit within the time constraints, until he reached whatever level he chose; he was graded consistent with his effort.

So much for the composition of the course. Some have asked the question, “Did you really self-pace?” The answer was, “Yes, with realism.” In spite of somewhat rigid constraints, the students were indeed able to pace themselves by studying and testing when ready. The time constraints could very easily be removed, but until the remaining courses in the overall environment are offered in a similar format, the upper time limit of one semester would have to remain. Others have questioned the validity of the experiment on the basis of the relatively ideal conditions at the Air Force Academy; that is, excellent resources, maximum of 16 students with one instructor per section, above average motivation, etc. Although these conditions do prevail, it is not felt that they detract from the validity or the generality of the observed results.

Student reaction to the course was measured by questionnaire. All samples (116) were nonelectrical engineering majors since their reaction to the core course was of primary concern. (Responses were grouped for analysis and comment under headings indicated below. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percent.)¹²

• Course in general. The same or a more favorable attitude toward electrical engineering, compared to the beginning of the course, was indicated by 99% of the respondents; 60% increased and 49% showed a preference for further study in electrical engineering. Total study time per lesson was indicated as 1 to 2 hours by 72%; 81% admitted less study time than in other courses.

• Course material. Above average in interest: 72%. Above average in difficulty: 58%. Above average in practicality: 58%.

• Self-pacing method in general. A strong preference for self-paced study was indicated (90%), apparently based on the feeling that the material was made easier (58%), that the amount learned was greater (61 %), and that the autonomy offered by the method was appreciated (89%). Ninety percent felt that the course material was well suited to the self-paced method.

• Self-pacing—our version. Motivating factors were ranked as follows: multiple testing, finishing the course early, choosing grade by level of achievement, no lecture, and autonomy. Retesting was considered a significant aid to learning by 99%, which suggests a desire for self-improvement mechanisms. The data revealed that the upper and lower bounds on progress had little effect on their rates of progress. The absolute grading system was considered good to excellent by 90%, 78% indicating that they also felt it was a valid discriminator. Tests were rated as average in difficulty by 92%; also fair and representative by 85%. Study guides were rated very useful by 14%, useful by 44%, marginally useful by 30%. Unit behavioral objectives were rated very useful by 13%, useful by 32%, and of marginal value by 40%. Practice items specified in the unit study guides were found very useful by 21%, sometimes useful by 50%, and of marginal value by 19%.

• Integrated-classroom environment. Increased understanding was perceived by 86%. The integrated-classroom environment was preferred by 95% to the traditional classroom and laboratory environment.

• Grade distribution. A-57%. B-36%. C-7%. There were no D’s or F’s.

Instructor reaction to the course was varied, although the efficacy of the method was generally acknowledged, at least for basic courses. Some preferred the challenge of lecturing. Others welcomed the challenge of tutoring, which was limited by the practical necessities of testing, grading, and overall administration; it was felt that automation would be an invaluable aid in these latter areas. In general, instructors favored the method, especially if the administrative kinks could be worked out.

Conclusions about the program should be tempered with the recollection that the experiment was conceived and executed in a basically hostile environment. Although probably the most liberal of the service academies, the Air Force Academy is not a liberal institution. Caution was the rule; every move was carefully considered in light of the fact that this was the first self-paced course at the Academy. Some expected—perhaps even hoped—that it would fail and thus end such radicalism for some time to come; unnecessary constraints and limited goals were therefore practical ingredients in the planning process. Perhaps the most significant observation made was that the experiment was quite successful in spite of such rigid conditions. Student acceptance of the course was unprecedented in the electrical engineering core sequence. Instructors were enthusiastic in their attempts (for some, their first) to manage the learning process rather than direct it from the podium. Both student and instructor reactions to the increased personal-social aspects of the educational process were most encouraging. Finally, all of the results were generated with no increase in resources of any kind.

In addition to making the course more relevant, motivating, and reasonable, it was hoped that self-pacing might be more cost-effective, resulting in the same amount of learning with fewer instructors. A firm basis for such a hope did not emerge from the experience. Given excellent preparation and smooth administration, probably more students could be accommodated per instructor (tutor) than the usual 16 per section, but such saving is more likely to be achieved in basic courses than in advanced ones. There may be a point in course complexity beyond which self-pacing is not optimal, either in terms of learning or manpower.

Initial conditions are the best predictors of the effectiveness of a self-pacing experience. The reading materials should be the best possible, since they are the student’s primary source of information; poor materials are an imposition to both student and teacher. Extensive prior preparation, including well-written, measurable objectives and suitable practice materials, should be ready when the course begins. In a comparison of the self-pacing mode with the lecture environment, that time which would normally be devoted to lecture preparation throughout the semester should be expended on course preparation before the self-paced course begins.

Student accommodation to self-pacing was found to be especially sensitive to student background and experience. A student can survive in a lecture/grading-curve environment without understanding much, whereas in a self-paced situation, he must demonstrate mastery before proceeding. Those who were weak in prerequisite knowledge suffered (with the tutor) through a catch-up period. It is desirable, in the long run, that self-paced courses with absolute grading standards exist in harmony with other courses having similar standards, especially prerequisite courses. Extensive soul-searching and coordination on both interdepartmental and intradepartmental levels are necessary if self-pacing is likely to play an important role in an institution’s curriculum planning.

Finally, no evidence suggests that self-pacing is academically sterile or dehumanizing unless its planners make it so. There are ample opportunities for creativity and meaningful problem solving, both for the student and (especially) the instructor. When imaginatively designed and executed, it is an individually guided method that lends itself well to almost any instructional situation and any desired degree of administrative control. Assuming adequate preparation and reasonable objectives, its likely long-term benefits are increased cost-effectiveness through increased learning (assuming no increase of resources), greater fulfillment on the part of both students and instructors, and greatly improved study habits. Indeed, it may start the student on a lifetime of self-education.

Air Command and Staff College

Notes

1. L. Ludlow, “At a Lecture—Only 12% Listen,” San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, September 1, 1968.

2. G. H. Flammer, “Learning as the Constant and Time as the Variable,” Engineering Education, March 1971.

3. R. M. Gagne, Conditions of Learning (New York Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965).

4. R. F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives (Palo Alto: Fearson Publishers, Inc., 1962).

5. W. H. Burton, The Guidance of Learning Activities, 3d ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1962).

6. L. Harrisburger, “Self-Paced Individually Prescribed Instruction,” Engineering Education, March 1971.

7. The effort was initiated and guided by the Professor and Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering at the Air Force Academy, Colonel Roland E. Thomas. Course materials were researched and generated by Major Daniel W. Buehler, Major Richard N. Miller, and the author.

8. R. E. Thomas and D. W. Buehler, Signals and Systems, vols. I and II, USAF Academy, Colorado.

9. R. E. Thomas and C. W. Mitchell, “An Integrated-Classroom-Laboratory,” Educational Research and Methods (ERM), Publication of a Division of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), vol. 4, nr 1, October 1971.

10. Mager, op. cit. R. B. Waina, Evental Specification of a Curriculum: An Overview, RAND Document No. D-17822-PR, and Specification of Educational Objectives for System Evaluation, RAND Document No. D-17846-PR (Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation, September 27, 1968).

11. F. S. Keller, “Goodbye, Teacher, “Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Spring 1968. 

12. Comments on analysis of the experimental course are either quoted or paraphrased from a letter entitled “Evaluation of Self-Paced EE 351, Fall ’71,” addressed to DF (Dean of the Faculty, USAF Academy) and signed by Col. Roland E. Thomas, Professor and Head, Department of Electrical Engineering.

Contributor

Major Charles W. Mitchell (USMA; Ph.D., University of Denver) was assigned to the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, after graduation from Air Command and Staff College in 1973. He was Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, U.S. Air Force Academy. Other assignments have been with USAFE and AFCS in Germany, AFSC at Eglin AFB, USAFSS in Japan, two AFIT tours, and two Air Force technical schools.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor