|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 47
Accelerated Learning
Robert E. Slavin
Johns Hopkins Univers ity
OCR for page 48
OCR for page 49
Over the past fifteen years there have been extraordinary gains made in
our understanding of the elements that constitute effective instruction.
One important source of information has been research on teaching, which has
studied the behaviors characteristic of teachers whose students make out-
standing learning gains (see, for example, Brophy & Good, 1986: Rosenshine &
Stevens, 1986). Another has been fundamental advances in psychology of
learning (e.g., Anderson, Spiro, & Montagne, 1977). A third source of new
information and perspectives has been experimental research on such inatruc-
tional methods as mastery learning (Bloat, 1976), cooperative learning (Sla-
vin, 1983a, b), computer-assisted instruction (Kulik, Bangert, & Williams,
1983), and Suggestive Accelerative Learning Techniques (Schuster & Gritt on,
1985) .
This paper represen~cs an ef fort to maria e the current status of
research on effective instruction. It presents a model of effective
instruction, discusses research on each of the elements of this model, and
uses the model to discuss research on specific instructional techniques.
The research discussed was almost all conducted in elementary and secondary
schools, but the implications of the review for military training are exa-
mined at the end of the paper.
Elements of Effective Instruction
In recent yearns research on teaching has made significan~c strides in
identifying teaching behaviors associated with high student achievement
(Brophy & Good, 1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). For example, research on
the presentation of lessons has examined such issues as type and level of
questionning (e.g., Winne, 1979; Redfield & Rousseau, 1981), lesson organi-
—1—
OCR for page 50
zation (e.g. ~ 8elgard. Rosenshine, & Gage, 1971), and transitions between
ideas (e.g., Smith & Cotton, 1980) .
However, ef fective instruction is not Just good teaching. Tf it were, we
could probably find the best lecturers, make video tapes of their lessons,
and show them to students. Consider why the video teacher would be ineffec-
~cive. First. the video teacher would have no idea what Students already
knew. A particular lesson might be too advanced for a particular group of
students, or it may be that some students already knave the material being
taught. Some students may be learning the lesson quite well, while others
are missing key concepts and falling behind because they lack prerequisite
skills for new learning. The video teacher would have no way to know who
reseeded additional help, and would have no way to provide it in any case.
There would be no way to question students to find out if they were getting
the main points and then to reteach any concepts students were failing to
grasp.
Second, the video teacher would hare no way to motivate students to pay
attention to the lesson or to reply try to learn it. If students were
failing to pay attention, the video teacher would have no way to do anything
about it. Finally. the video teacher would never know at the end of the
lesson whether or not students actually learned the main concepts or skills.
The cane of the video teacher illustrates the point that teachers must be
concerned with many elements of instruction in addition to the lesson
itself. Teachers must attend to ways of adapting instruction to students'
level ~ of knowledge, mo~civating students to learn, managing student behav-
ior, grouping students for instruction. and testing and evaluating students.
These are elements of classroom organization that are at least as important
—2—
OCR for page 51
as the quality of teachers' lessons.
A Model of School Learning
One of the most influential articles ever published in the field of edu-
cational psychology was a paper by John Carroll entitled "A Model of School
Learning" (1963). In it, Carroll describes teaching in terms of the manage-
ment of time, resources, and activities to ensure student learning. The
model proposes five elements that contribute to the effectiveness of
inst ruct ion: Apt i rude, abil ity to understand inst ruct ion, perseverance,
opportunity (time), and quality of instruction. Carroll discusses these
elements in terms of time needed to learn and time available for learning.
The higher are students' aptitudes, the better their abilities to understand
instruction, and the greater their perseverance, the less time it will take
to teach then a skill or concept. The higher the quality of instruction,
ache less time wil 1 be needed. On the other side of the balance sheet is
opportunity; there must be adequate time to teach a lesson.
Carroll' s model mixes two kinds of elements: Those that are directly
under the control of the teacher, and those that are characteristics of stu-
dents, which are difficult to change in the Short run. Quality of instruc-
tion and opportunity (time) are directly under the control of the teacher or
the school. Aptitude is mostly a characteristic of students over which
teachers can have little control in the short run. Ability to understand
instruction and perseverance are partly under the control of the teacher,
but partly characteristic of students. For example, ability to understand
instruction is partly a product of student ability, but is also a product of
what teachers do to make sure that students have all the prerequisite skills
and information they will need to successfully learn a new lesson. Persev-
OCR for page 52
erance results both from the motivation to learn that a student brings to
J school and from specific strategies a teacher or school might use to moti-
vate students to do thei r beat .
I have proposed elsewhere (Slavin. 1984; in press) a model of effective
instruction which focuses on the alterable elements of Carrollls model,
those which teachers and schools can directly change. The components of
thin model of alterable elements of effective instruction are as follows:
1. Quality of Instruction. The decree to which information or skill`:
are presented so that students can easily learn thee. Quality of
instruction is largely a product of the quality of the curriculum
and of the lesson presentation itself.
2. Appropriate Levels of Instruction: The degree to which the teacher
makes sure that students are ready to learn a new lesson (that is,
they have the necessary skills and knowledge to learn it) but have
not already learned the lesson. In other words, the level of
instruction is appropriate when a lesson is neither too difficult
nor too easy for students.
Incentive: The degree to which the teacher makes sure that students
are motivated to work on instructional tasks and to learn the mated
id being present ed.
4. Time: The degree to which students are given enough time to learn
the material being taught.
The four elements of this QAIT (Quality, Appropriateness, Incentive,
Time) model have one important characteristic: All four must be adequate
for instruction to be effective. Again, effective instruction is not just
good teaching. No matter how high the quality of instruction. students will
—4—
OCR for page 53
not learn a lesson if they lack the necessary. prior skills or information,
if they lack the motivation, or if they lack the time they need to learn the
lesson. On the- other hand, if the quality of instruction is low, then it
makes no dif ference how much students know, how motivated they are, or how
much time they hwe. Each of the elements of the QAIT model is like a link
in a chain, and the chain is only an strong as its weakest link.
Toward a Theory of Effective Classroom Organization
_
Most of the advances in recent research on teaching have come about as a
result of correlational process-product research, in which the practices of
instructionally effective teachers have been contrasted with those of leas
effective teachers, controlling for student inputs. In recent years, the
f indings of these process-product studies have been incorporated into cohe-
rent instructional programs and evaluated in field experiments. Other Cohen
rent instructional methods not based on the proce~s-product f indings. such
as mastery learning, cooperative learning, and individualized instruction
methods, have al so been evaluated in field experiments. Each of these
instructional methods is based on its own psychological or educational the'
ries. However, it is the purpose of thin paper to propose a theory to
encompass all potential forms of classroom organization. Given a relatively
fixed set of resource=, every innovation in classroom organization solves
some problems but also creates new problems which must themselves be solved.
Tradeoffs are always involved. Understanding the terms of these tradeof Is
is critical for an understanding of how to build effective models of class-
room organic ati on.
The QAIT model proposed above is designed primarily to clarify the trade-
offs involved in alternative forms of classroom organization. This paper
—5—
OCR for page 54
presents a perspective on what is known now about each of the QAIT elements
explores the theoretical and practical ramifications of the interdependence
of these elements for the design of effective instructional methods. and
applies the QAIT formulation to a discussion of effective models for class-
room instruction.
Qual itY O f In`:t rut t ion
Quality of instruction refers to the activities we think of first when we
think of teaching: Lecturing, discussing, calling on students, and so on.
When instruction is high in quality, the information being presented makes
sense to students, is interesting to them, is easy to remember and apply.
The most important aspect of instructional quality is the degree to which
the lesson makes sense to students. For example, teachers must present
information in an organized, orderly way (Belgard, Rosenshine, & Gage,
1971), note transitions to new topics (Smith & Cotton, 1980), use many vivid
images and examples (Anderson & Hidde, 1971), and frequently restate essen-
tial principles (Maddox & Hoole, 1975). Lessons should be related to stu-
dents ' background knowledge, using such devices as advance organiz ers (Ausu-
bel, 1960) or simply reminding students of previously reamed material at
relevant points in the lesson. Enthusiasm (Abram), Leventhal, ~ Perry,
1982) and humor (Kaplan & Pascoe, 1977) can also contribute to quality of
instruction.
Clear specification of lesson objectives to students (Delis, 1970) and a
substantial correlation between what is taught and what is assessed (Cooley
& Leinhardt, 1980) contribute to instructional quality, as does frequent
OCR for page 55
formal or informal assessment to see that students are mastering what is
being taught (Dunkin & Birdie, 1974: Peckham ~ Roe, 1977) and immediate
feedback to students on ache correctness of their performances (Barringer &
Gholson, 197 9) .
Instructional pace in partly an issue of quality of instruction and
partly of appropriate levels of instruction. In genera, content coverage
is strongly related to student achievement (Dunkin. 1978: Barr & Dreeben.
1983~. so a rapid pace of instruction may contribute to instructional qual-
ity. However. there is obviously such a thing as too rapid an instructional
pace. Frequent assessment of student learning is critical for teachers to
establish the most rapid instructional pace consistent with the preparedness
and learning rate of all students.
Appropriate petrels of Instruction
Perhaps the most difficult problem of school and classroom organization
is accommodating instruction to the needs of students with different levels
of prior knowledge and different learning rates. If a teacher presents a
lesson on equations in two variables to a heterogeneous class, some students
may fail to learn it because they have not mastered such prerequisite skills
as solving equations in one variable. At the same time. there may be same
students who know how to solve tw~variable equations before the lesson
begins, or learn to do so very rapidly. If the teacher sets a pace of
instruction appropriate to the needs of the students lacking prerequisit e
skills, then the rapid learners' time will be largely wasted. If the
instructional pace is too rapid, the students lacking prerequisite skills
wil 1 be lef t behind.
J
—7—
OCR for page 56
There are many colon means of attempting to accomodate instruction to
students' diverse needs, but each method has drawbacks that may make the
method counterproductive. Various forms of ability grouping seek to reduce
the heterogeneity of instructional groups. Between-class ability grouping
plans, such an tracking, can create low-ability classes for which teachers
have low expectations, maintain a slow pace of instruction, and dislike to
teach (Good & Marshall, 1984; Rowan & Miracle, 1983; Slavin, 1986a) . How
eve r, forms of abil ity grouping in which students are regrouped ac ros ~ grade
lines and instructional level is based on performance level rather than age
can be instructionally ef fective ~ Slavin, 1986a) . .
Mastery learning and individualized instruction are two widely used means
of accommodating instruction to students' needs. These are discussed later
in this paper.
Incent ive
Thomas Edison once wrote that "genius is one percent inspiration and
ninety-nine percent perspiration. " The same could probably be said for
learning. Learning is work. This is not to say that reaming must be
drudgery, but it is certainly the case that students must exert themselves
to pay attention. to study, and to conscientiously perform the tasks
assigned to them, and they must somehow be motivated to do these things.
This motivation may come from the intrinsic interest value of the material
being learned. or may be created through the use of extrinsic incentives,
such as praise, grades, specie privileges, and so on.
If students want to know seething, they will be more likely to exert the
necessary ef fort to learn it. This is why there are students who can rattle
—8—
OCR for page 57
off the names, batting averages, and other statistics relating to every
player on the Chicago Cubs, but do not know their multiplication facts.
Teachers can create intrinsic interest in material to be taught by arousing
student curiosity. for example by using surprising demonstrations, by relat-
ing topics to students' personal lives, or by allowing students to discover
information for themselves (Gregory, 1975; Berlyne, 1965~.
However, not every subJ ect can be made intrinsically interesting to every
student at all times. Most students need she sort of extrinsic incentive
to exert an adequate level of effort. For example, studies of graded versus
pass-fail college courses find substantially higher achievement in classes
that give grades (Gold, Reilly, Silberman, ~ Lehr, 1971: Hales, Bsin, &
Rand, 1971) . One critical principle of ef fective use of classroom incen-
tives in that students should be held accountable for everything they do.
For example, homework that is checked has been found to contribute more to
student achievement than homework that is assigned but not checked (Austin,
lg78). Also, questioning strategies that communicate high expectations for
students, such as waiting for them to respond (Rowe, 1974) and following up
with students who do not initially give full responses (Brophy & Evertson,
1974) have been found to be associated with high achievement.
Several methods of providing formal incentives for learning have been
found to be instructionally effective. Among these are strategies based on
behavioral learning theories which provide praise. tokens, or other rewards
contingent on students' classroom behavior (O'Leary & O'Leary, 1972). One
practical and effective method of rewarding students for appropriate, learn-
ing-oriented behavior is home-based reinforcement (Barth, 1979), provision
of daily or weekly reports to parents on student behavior. Another is group
_9_
OCR for page 70
Karweit (1984) found no significant advantage on standardized tests for ma8-
tery learning programs. However, in some studies instructional time was
increased by providing corrective instruction outside of class. I~i8
increased tote time for low achievers, who in same cases received as much
corrective inst ruction as initial instruction (doubt ing thei r total inst~c-
tional timed ~ and voided the problem of shunting high achievers aside to do
enrichment activities. Studies of this type here found consistent achieves
ment advantages for mastery learning an compared to traditional programs
(e.g., Arlin & Webster, 1983; Dillashaw & Okey, 1983; Swanson & Denton,
1977; Wentl ing, 197 3) .
lithe research on group~based mastery learning may support the prediction
of the QAIT model Chat attending only to appropriate level ~ of instruction
is not enough to significantly increase student achievement, but when a sec-
ond element is also increased (in this case time) . achievement is increased.
However, it may be that the increase in instructional time, not the mastery
learning program, is what accounts for the positive ef facts in the extra-
time studies. Obviously, students who receive Twice as much instruction
will learn more than other students. A critical assumption of mastery
learning theory is that because students always have prerequisite skills for
what they are to learn, the need for corrective instruction will diminish
over time. However, long-term research (e. g., Arlin, 1984) questions this
assumption.
Research on PSI (Keller Plan) is more consistently supportive of this
approach (Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1979~. In genera, students in PSI calsses
achieve at a higher level than those in traditional classes. PSI students
spend somewhat more time on thei r coursework than do other students, but
—22—
OCR for page 71
probably not enough to account for the effects. However, PSI students
perceive their courses as signif icantly harder and more time-consuming than
do traditionally taught students. and perhaps for that reason withdrawal
ret en for PSI courses are higher than for other courses.
One problem in all mastery learning research is that by its nature mas-
tery learning (whether grou~based or PSI) focuses students and teachers on
a narrowly defined set of objectives. When performance on those objectives
is assessed, it is hardly surprising that mastery learning students achieve
them better than other students. Even when mastery reaming and control
teachers agree on a common set of objectives and a common examination, it is
likely that the mastery learning teachers will focus on those objectives
more directly than will control teachers, who are much more likely to teach
additional material that will not be on the test. In practice, this means
that when there is a very specific set of objectives to be mastered and all
students must master them, mastery learning approaches are particularly
appropriate, but may be less appropriate when objectives are less concrete
and variations in outcomes are acceptable. For example, mastery learning
might be more appropriate in teaching the periodic table of the elements or
automobile mechanics, which have limited, easily specified objectives, than
in teaching the history of World War II or principles of evolution.
—23—
OCR for page 72
Peer Tutoring
Long ago, educators rem iced that students could help one another learn.
For example, the Lancastrian SystEm of the nineteenth century solved the
problem of a shortage of teachers for children of the poor by having older
students teach younger, less advanced students.
Peer tutoring usually involves older student tutoring younger ones
(called Cross-age tutoring). One reason for this is that students often
resent being tutored by a classmate. Research on cros~age tutoring has
found consistent positive effects on the achievement of the student receiv-
ing tutoring (the "tureen), and equally strong effects in many cases on the
achievement of the tutor, who apparently learns a great deal from the tutor-
ing experience (Devin-Sheehan, Feldman, ~ Allen, 1976; Cloward, 1967).
School s sometimes take advantage of this latter f inding by using as tut ore
older students who are having difficulties with basic skills themselves. By
having them tutor younger students, they must review the basic skills they
failed to master earlier in a Reacting that gives them high status.
Effects of peer tutoring are particularly strong when tutors are trained
in highly structured nprogrammed tutoring" methods (Ellson, 1976) which give
tutors step-by-step procedures to follow in instructing and praising their
tutees. As in the case of CAI and mastery learning, ef fects of peer tutor-
ing are particularly strong when tutoring is done in addition to, not
instead of, regular classroom instruction. However. peer tutoring does
still appear to be quite of fective when instructional time is held constant.
Peer tutoring is often used as part of other methods. For example, it is
a routine component of the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), or
—24—
OCR for page 73
Keller Plan, and is often used to provide corrective instruction in
grourbaset mastery learning. Informal peer tutoring is central to coopera-
tive learning. discussed in the following section.
In terms of the QAIT model, peer tutoring works because it impacts on
three (and usually four) of the QATT elements. Tt solves the problem of
providing appropriate levels of instruction by totally individualizing
instruction for each tutee. It increases incentive because students receive
the undivided attention of a trig - status individual whom they usually want
to please, because their learning efforts are closely monitored, and because
they receive frequent, immediate feedback on their work. Quality of
instruction is increased, particularly when tutors are trained in programmed
tutoring models, but also because the tutor can easily adjust the pace and
content of instruction to the tutee's needs and the tutee can ask questions
when he or she does not understand. Finally, when tutoring is done in addi-
tion to regular classroom instruction, allocated time for instruction is
increased. Even when this is not the case, time-on~task is likely to be
higher in tut oring than in what e-class instruction.
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning refers to instructional methods in which students
work in small, heterogeneous learning groups. It dif fers from peer tut oring
in several ways. First, students in cooperative learning are generally all
of the same age. and are learning the material together. There are high,
average, and low achievers in each group, but the high achievers are not
formally designated as tutors for the low achievers. Instruction in coopers
attire learning initially comes from the teacher. The learning group's task
—25—
OCR for page 74
is usually to master what the teacher has initially presented.
There are many forms of cooperative learning. but they can be grouped in
two major categories. In group study methods, all students are working
together to learn the Same content. In task specialization methods, each
group member is responsible for a different part of the group' 8 task.
Research on group study methods indicates that this form of cooperative
learning can be highly effective if two conditions are satisfied. Fist,
the groups must be working toward a valued group goal. such as a group
reward. Second. success in achieving this goal must depend only on the
individual learning of every member of the group (Slavin, 1983 a. b). For
example, in Student Te~g-Achievement Divisions or STAD, students are
assigned to four~member, heterogeneous teams. The teacher presents a les-
son, and then students study worksheets relating to the lesson, attempting
to ensure that all team members have mattered the concepts. Finally, the
students are individually quizzed, and teams are rewarded with certificates
or other recognition or rewards if their average scores exceed a pre-estab-
lished criterion. In this way, the only way for teams to succeed is to make
certain that their members have learned. Of thirty-five methodologically
adequate studies of group study methods which (like STAD) used group rewards
based on group members' individual learning, twenty-eight found signifi-
cantly higher achievement for cooperative than for control treatments (Sla-
vin, 1986c) .
In contrast, evaluations of group study methods which did not use group
rewards or based group rewards on the quality of a single team product have
not been more successful than traditional methods (Slavin, 1983 a, b). One
study done in a military training setting made exactly this comparison.
—26—
OCR for page 75
Ragman and Hayes (1985) conducted two experiments on teaching U.S. Army
Equipment Records and Parts Specialists supply-related tasks as part of
their Advanced Individual Training. In both experiments they found that
trainees who worked in four~member groups and were rewarded (with free time)
based on their group's average quiz scores performed significantly better
than did trainees who received free time based on thei r individual scores
only, regardless of whether or not they studied in groups. Chat is, in this
as in many elementary and secondary school studies, simply working in groups
was not enough; the group had to be rewarded based on the individual learn-
ing of its members.
Achievement ef fects of cooperative learning mode] 8 using task special iza-
tion are less clear cut. Consistent positive effects in social studies have
been found for one complex model of this kind, called Group Investigation
(Sharan, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Ackerman, 1980), but other methods, using task
specialization such as Jigsaw Teaching (Aron son et al., 1978) have been less
successful .
Cooperative learning impacts primarily on incentive to learn. By reward-
ing groups on the basis of theirmembers' learning, students encourage their
groupmates to exert maximum l earning efforts . This incentive system al so
motivates students to engage in effective peer tutoring, translating the
teacher's instruction into learners' language, thereby increasing quality of
instruction. However, the most effective of all cooperative learning meth-
ods are Ten Assisted Individualization in math~a~cics ~ Slain, 1985) and
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition in reading and writing (Mad-
den, Stevens, & Slavin, 1986). In addition to the incentive provided by
group rewards. scheme methods al so impact on appropriate levels of instruc-
—27—
OCR for page 76
Lion, as both combine individualization (or subgrouping) with cooperative
learning. Both methods have produced gains on standardized tests twice as
large as those produced by traditional methods of instruction.
Suggestive Accelerative Learning Techniques ( SAI`T)
Suggestive Accelerative Learning Techniques. or SALT, is an instructional
model derived from the work of Georgii Lozanov (1978), a Bulgarian psycholo-
gist. This approach is based primarily on the idea that by involving stu-
dents in relaxation exercises, teaching mental concentration, and presenting
information in a dynamic way, their capacity for learning will dramatically
increase. lathe method uses what is in essence a mild form of hypnotism to
increase receptivity to new information, and then uses methods similar to
those used in advertising to get across the instructional "message." A SALT
lesson begins with inducing relaxation, playing classical music, and then
presenting material in a dramatic, forceful way. Later the material is
reviewed and practiced independently or in small groups. Students may pare
ticipate in a play or psychodrama to act out the new information, and
quizzes are given frequently an self-assessments of learning.
Whil e there is a good deal of research on SALT, this research is of mixed
quality and is difficult to evaluate. Virtually all of it is published in
the Journal of Suggestive-Accelerative Learning and Teaching, and therefore
has not been subjected to the rigorous peer review typical of the journals
published by the American Educational Research Association or other scien-
tific organizations. The largest number of studies of SALT by far were
authored or co-authored by the editor of the Journal, Donald Schuster. Some
of the studies of SALT (e.g., Peterson, 1977 Schuster, 1976) compared SALT
—28—
OCR for page 77
to control methods, where the SALT students received half of the instruc-
tional time received by control students . Men the achievement res ul ts were
not significantly different, the the authors claimed that this showed SALT
to be twice as efficient as the control method. In fact, use of small 6am-
ples and measures of unknown reliability ensure that any observed differ-
ences will be non-significant. Other SALT studies (e.g., Schuster & Ginn,
1978) fail to hold content constant, comparing gains in SALT on a test
designed for the SALT teachers to gains in "similar" control classes which
may have been teaching different objectives. Most SALT studies are either
very brief or use very small samples, or both, and some had no control
groups.
With all of there reservations in mind, the sheer volume of te~&cimonzal
as wel l as scienti f ic (though flawed) evidence supporting the use of SALT
indicates that the method is at least worthy of independent evaluation. A
few studies of SALT did attend to problems of making experimental and con-
ttol groups comparable and holding both to the same objectives, and did find
small but statistically significant advantages for the method (Prichard,
Schuster, & Gensch, 1980: Schuster & Prichard, 1978) . However, even if the
effects of the method are taken at face value, it is by no means clear which
el ements of SAI T account f or it s ef feet s.
—29—
OCR for page 78
Applications _ Military 'reining
The theories and research presented in this paper are derived primarily
from studies done in ei ementary and secondary school s. TI2e settings in
which military training takes place differ in many ways from typical school
settings. Military trainees are not only older, but they may be more moti-
vated to learn, as there in likely to be a direct relationship between their
success in training and their success in the military. The objectives of
military training are often quite different from those typical of elementary
and secondary school a: f or example, many mil itary tasks require hands-on,
one-t~one training rather than classroom instruction. However, much of
ail itary training does involve instruction in classroom settings, and it is
to this setting that the research discussed in this paper applies most
directly .
The applicability of the specific methods discussed in the previous sec-
tion to military training depends on the training obj ectives and the situa-
tion in which training takes place. For example, if a training program had
clearly specified, easily measured objectives, then some form of mastery
learning might be appropriate. If resources were available to provide cor-
rective instruction outside of class to students who failed to achieve mas-
tery on a formative test, then grou~based mastery could be a very effective
strategy. If trainees had considerable leeway in how they used their time
outside of class. then the Personalized System of Instruction (Keller Plan)
might be used. If it is appropriate to allow all trainees to take as long
as necessary to master a set of information or ~kills, then some form of
individualizized instruction might be effective.
—30—
OCR for page 79
One program that has actually been evaluated and found to be effective in
ail itary training is cooperative learning (Hagman ~ Hayes, 1985) . Cooperate
Live learning lends itself well to the military environment, which already
emphasizes squad organization, cohesiveness building, and mutual interdepen~
dence. Cooperative reaming has been combined with individualized instruc-
tion (Slavin. 1985) and with mastery learning (Mevarech, 1985)> and the
results have been more positive than for either method ~ one, so it may be
that some for of cooperative learning could be incorporated with other
instructione1 formats in military training.
The usefulness of peer tutoring in military "raining would depend once
again on practical considerations. If more experienced or higher~ranking
individuals are available to provide one-to~one instruction to trainees.
this can be very effective. In particular, peer tutoring may be effectively
used an corrective instruction in mastery learning programs.
The appl icabil ity of SALT to mil itary training is uncertain. One study
(Peterson. 1977) did evaluate SALT in Navy ROTC naval science classes and
found results that were somewhat supportive of the method. However, the
author notes that "many ( students) would make fun of the ( SALT) exercise
before the lesson and distract those who were trying to concentrate. Some
of the students thought the method was a hoax and generally were the trou-
blemakers" (page 6). It is unclear that military trainees would take deep
breathing and Baroque music seriously, although it would be worth experi-
menting with.
Beyond the particular methods, the principles outlined in this paper do
apply just as well to military as to other instructional settings. Military
training must emphasize well-organized, cognitively sensible instruction, it
—3 1—
OCR for page 80
must take into account students' level 8 of prior knowledge and skill 6, it
must provide incentives for learning, and it must provide adequate learning
time. There is no magic in instruction. Producing ef fective. transportable
instructional models is a utter of analyzing instructional objectives and
mobil in ing training resources to provide high level ~ of instructional qual-
ity, appropriate levels of instruction, strong incentives to learn, and adept
quate time for learning. There are the raw materials of effective ins~cruc-
tion, and instructional design to meet any particular ob: entire and setting
is a question of engineering available resources to provide them
—3 2—
.
