Individualizing Secondary School Chemistry Instruction

Gerald H. KrockoverAssistant Professor of Education, Purdue University

Lafayette, Indiana

Although research in individualized instruction is prevalent inother fields, until recently very little has been reported in scienceteaching. According to OToole [14], an individualized instructionapproach in the teaching of science seems to be feasible and manyscience educators provide philosophical support for this method ofinstruction. However, the small number of experimental studies thathave been conducted have been at the elementary school level andindicate that "children make significant gains through an individual-ized approach or at least achieve as well as the more conventionalteacher centered approach" [14]. Furthermore OToole [14] foundthat the new science curriculum study materials such as: Science�AProcess Approach, Science Curriculum Improvement Study, and Ele-mentary Science Study readily lend themselves to an individualizedapproach with modifications.

Richard [19] found that BSCS Green Version can be successfullyindividualized. During the first year of the study there was no signifi-cant difference between the means of the individualized class and thenational means on the BSCS Achievement Tests. Students involvedduring the second year of the individualized program showed a gain inmeans on the BSCS Achievement Tests when compared to the na-tional mean.Both (VToole and Richard use the term "individualized instruc-

tion" differently. Before we proceed, let us define individualizedinstruction as, "an attempt to provide a complete instructionalprogram designed explicitly for each individual, taking into accounthis background experience, interests, and ability" [18]. This articlewill use the term "individualized instruction" in the manner previ-ously defined.The Chemical Bond Approach (CBA) chemistry materials readily

lend themselves to individualized instruction. The course developsthe student’s critical thinking ability by presenting the student withexperiments instead of exercises in the laboratory and much of hissuccess depends upon what he thinks and where he looks for sug-gestions [11]. Westmeyer [25] states that CBA is predominantly athinking course rather than a memory course. The CBA laboratoryinvestigations have to be designed and carried out by the studentsthemselves. To further allow for individual differences, the problemsencountered in the CBA textbook, Chemical Systems [6], are graded asto level of difficulty. In addition, many of the laboratory investiga-

518

Individualizing Chemistry 519

tions are designed for individual work. Extensions are provided forthe able student and are included to promote individual investiga-tions.During the 1967-68 school year 27 students enrolled in CBA

chemistry at University High School, Iowa City, Iowa; were exposedto CBA chemistry under the group method of instruction recom-mended in the Teachers Guide for Chemical Systems. The entire groupworked on the same laboratory investigations at one time andproceeded through the materials on a group basis. All discussions andevaluation sessions were handled on a group basis.

TABLE 1

SAMPLECBA CHEMISTRY SUGGESTED SCHEDULE

THREE WEEKS"Chemical and Electrical Structures"

Read Chapter 7, pp. 229-281

Problems: Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

7-1 7- 5 7-277-2 7- 67-3 7- 77-4 7- 8

7- 97-107-117-127-137-147-157-167-177-187-197-207-217-227-237-247-257-267-287-29

Experiment 16, pp. 40-41 (after p. 248 in text)Experiment

Problems: 16-1 16-2Experiment 17, pp. 42-43 (after p. 276 in text)

ExperimentProblem: 17-1Film: "Chemical Bonding"�16 minutes�color (after reading Chapter 7)

520 School Science and Mathematics

Using the same instructor, 32 students enrolled in CBA chemistryduring the 1968-69 school year at University High School wereallowed to utilize the CBA chemistry materials on an individualbasis. No large group discussions were held, but small group dis-cussions involving two or three students were utilized upon studentrequests. Laboratory assignments, problems, quizzes, and testingwere handled on an individual basis. Each student in the individual-ized class utilized a suggested schedule and specific objectives (Tables1 and 2) in defining his particular goals for each section of the CBAchemistry course.

TABLE 2

SAMPLECBA CHEMISTRYChapter Seven

Experiments 16, 17"Chemical and Electrical Structures^

Objectives

At the end of this section you should be able to:1. Construct an atomic model for the atom based on the five assumptions listed

on p. 238 and a sixth assumption listed on pp. 242-243 of your textbook.

2. Distinguish between the terms: angstrom, kernel, isoelectronic, bond length,bond angle, acid, base, chemical reaction, bond, ionic bond, covalent bond,and metallic bond by writing a short statement defining each term in yourown words.

3. Demonstrate the use of Lewis and Couper structures in place of the chargecloud model by drawing the structures of five or more representative mole-cules.

4. Identify the five factors, listed on p. 278, for describing how to build modelsfor arrangements of atoms in molecules or crystals that have a chance ofexisting in nature.

5. Demonstrate the relationship between a geometrical charge cloud model andan electrical charge cloud model. This will be accomplished by obtaining datafor various arrangements of spheres representing a geometrical charge cloudmodel and comparing this data with that related to an electrical charge cloudmodel.

6. Demonstrate qualitatively and quantitatively whether proton transfer occurswhen ammonia water is mixed with hydrochloric acid and compare this evi-dence with predictions made by using charge cloud models.

The ability of the two groups was not significantly different asmeasured by the sample theory statistic, ^t^ at the 0.05 level in theareas of: (1) IQ (Henmon-Nelson), (2) Science Background (Iowa

Individualizing Chemistry 521

Tests of Educational Development-ITED), (3) Quantitative Think-ing (ITED) and (4) ITED Composite Score. Additional backgroundinformation was obtained for each student from the Iowa CardpacSystem of Educational Accounting. The results of this informationindicated that the two groups were nearly identical in backgroundsand opinions.

Using a variety of standardized measures including the ACSCooperative Examination, Test on Understanding Science, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Prouse Subject PrefefenceSurvey, CBA Standardized Achievement Tests, and a Teacher Per-formance Scale; the analysis of student outcomes based on analysis ofvariance and covariance designs indicated that students enrolled in anindividualized CBA chemistry class do equally as well or significantlybetter at the 0.05 level, than students enrolled in a group instructionCBA chemistry class.Most important are the students^ opinions and attitudes about the

individualized chemistry class. Most students stated that the greatestsource of pressure in an individualized class was themselves \ Further-more, almost all students responding (92%) stated that the indi-vidualized chemistry course gave them more responsibility forlearning than their other high school classes. In addition, moststudents stated that they received more personal attention from theirchemistry teacher than from teachers in their other high schoolclasses. Students stated that they worked harder in an individualizedchemistry class, but could have worked even harder since the coursewas easier to put off since it was individualized. Almost all students(94%) stated that they could have gone further in the course.The results of this study support the studies of (VToole [14, 15] and

Amaria [1]. More important than the statistical results is the fact thatstudents like an individualized class. The student can pursue his owninterests in an individualized class and does not always have toproceed with the group. The slow learner does not have to keep upwith the rest of the class and continually compete with his intellectualsuperiors. Equipment and supply demands are much less. Instead oftwenty sets of equipment, fewer sets can be used since not all studentsare doing the same experiment at the same time. The role of theteacher in an individualized class is one of an individual guide ratherthan a lecturer or science expert. His role is much more complex andhis responsibilities are much greater due to the many activitiesoccurring at the same time. In an individualized class the teacherknows his students and their individual needs much better than withgroup instruction. In an individualized class, teacher assistance isimperative in the form of a teacher-aide or assistant teacher. Further-

522 School Science and Mathematics

INDIVIDUALIZED CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTION�A TYPICAL CLASS PERIOD

Many different exper-iments. ...

. . . going on at thesame time. . . .

using a variety ofequipment and ma-terials.

Individualizing Chemistry 523

SOME STUDY

OTHERS DISCUSS

more class sizes must realistically fit the classroom in order to providemeaningful student experiences. In addition; study, audio-visual,discussion, and laboratory areas must be readily available for studentuse.Much more research is needed with individualized instruction in

order to specifically identify those areas of student growth that are oflong range value. It is proposed that additional student growth areasbe identified and standardized test measures developed to analyze thelong range implications of individualized instruction. Furthermore,the amount of time required by the learner to attain mastery of alearning task needs to be investigated. In addition, emphasis on theevaluation of student growth in the affective domain needs to bepursued [6]. Make sure you plan your approach carefully before youjump on the individualized instruction bandwagon.

524 School Science and Mathematics

SELECTED REFERENCES[1] AMARIA, RODA P., BIRAN, L. A., AND LEITH, G. 0. M., "Individual versus

Cooperative Learning." Educational Research, XI (February, 1969), 95-103.[2] ASHMORE, P. G., "On Teaching High School Chemistry." Science, CXLVII

(June 4, 1965), 1312-14.[3] BENNETT, LLOYD M., AND PIKE, BARBARA KINNARD, "A Discussion of the

New Chemistry Programs (Chems and CBA) and the Traditional Pro-grams in High School." School Science and Mathematics, LXVI (December,1966), 823-30.

[4] Chemical Systems. St. Louis: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.[5] COOLEY, W. W., AND KLOPFER, L. E., Test Manual for Test on Under-

standing Science. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1961.[6] DECECCO, JOHN P., The Psychology of Learning and Instruction: Educational

Psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.[7] LIVERMORE ARTHUR H. AND FERRIS, FREDERICK L. JR. "The Chemical

Bond Approach in the Classroom." Science, CXXXVIII (December 7-1962) 1077-80.

[8] LIVERMORE, ARTHUR H. AND STRONG LAURENCE E., "A Writing Con-ference for CBA High School Chemistry Project." Journal of ChemicalEducation XXXVII (April, 1960), 209-11.

[9] MARKS, RONALD L., "CBA High School Chemistry and Concept Forma-tion." Journal of Chemical Education, XLIV (August, 1967), 471-74.

[10] MONTAGUE, EARL J., AND WARD, RAY M., "The Development of ProblemSolving Abilities in Secondary School Chemistry." Journal of Research inScience Teaching V No. 4 (1968), 354-57.

[11] MONTEAU, JOHN J., COPE, RUTH C., AND WILLIAMS, ROYCE, "An Evalua-tion of CBA Chemistry for High School Students." Science Education,XLVII (February, 1963), 35-43.

[12] MORLAN, GORDON E., "Experiences with the CBA Chemistry Course."School Science and Mathematics, LXV (May, 1965), 425-31.

[13] OSBORN, GERALD, "Chemistry in the Secondary Schools of America."School Science and Mathematics, LX (November, 1960), 621-25.

[14] O’TOOLE, RAYMOND J., "Individualized Elementzry School Science."Science Education, LII (October, 1968), 376-80.

[15] O’TOOLE, RAYMOND J., "The Effectiveness of Individualized ElementarySchool Science." Science Education, LII (October, 1968), 381-84.

[16] PROUSE, HOWARD L., Prouse Subject Preference Scale. Iowa City: The Uni-versity of Iowa, 1964.

[17] RAMSEY, GREGOR A., AND HOWE, ROBERT W., "An Analysis of Research onInstructional Procedures in Secondary School Science: Part I�Outcomesof Instruction." The Science Teacher, XXXVI (March, 1969), 62-70.

[18] RAMSEY, GREGOR A., AND HOWE, ROBERT W., "An Analysis of Researchon Instructional Procedures in Secondary School Science: Part II�In-structional Procedures." The Science Teacher, XXXVI (April, 1969), 72-81.

19] RICHARD, PAUL W., "Experimental Individualized BSCS Biology." TheScience Teacher, XXXVI (February, 1969), 53-54, 70.

[20] Teachers’ Guide to Chemical Systems. St. Louis: McGraw Hill Book Com-pany, 1964.

[21] Teachers^ Guide to Investigating Chemical Systems. St. Louis: McGraw HillBook Company, 1964.

[22] TROXEL, VERNE AUBRY, Analysis of Instructional Outcomes of Students In-volved with Three Courses in High School Chemistry. Iowa City: Universityof Iowa, 1968.

[23] WALKER, NOOJIN, "Chem Study, CBA, and Modem Chemistry: A Com-parison." School Science and Mathematics, LXVII (October, 1967), 603-09.

[24] WATSON, GOODWIN, AND GLASER, EDWARD M., Manual for Watson CloserCritical Thinking Appraisal. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.,1964.

[24] WESTMEYER, PAUL, "The Chemical Bond Approach to Introductory Chem-istry." School Science and Mathematics, LXI (May, 1961), 317-22.