Of course these things matter. The manner in which we deal with them will be critical to our ability to fulfill
our mission--even to what our mission will be. Despite the many criticisms today about our lack of mission and
the feeling that we have “lost our way,” we know our mission; it is stated clearly enough. We just aren't
delivering, well enough on it, thus throwing its worth and viability into question. Colleges have many success
stories; yet attrition rates are very high. We produce about as many losers as we do winners--if the student's
stated yoal is our measure of success. Why do we continue to settle for that level of success--especially when
there is evidence that it does not need to be that way? I believe it is because of the rampant cognitive disso-
nance in our colleges. We have rationalized our current behavior and settled for something far less than we
could be. We are simply not dealing with the inadequacies of a highly restrictive instructional methodology that
does not appropriately address an ever-expanding curriculum and a student body drawn from the general popu-
lation. Nor do I believe our future lies in a return to a restricted curriculum and more restrictive admissions--we
just need to get better at fulfilling the mission that has evolved for us.

Critical Problems of Group Instruction

Fred Keller, the grand old man of PSI (Personalized System of Instruction), recently addressed (in Psycholo-
gy Today) the major problems that cause traditional group instruction to fall short of meeting students’ learning
needs:

Learning is an individual thing, not a group phenomenon. Individual differences in ability, learning style, and
motivation are quite pronounced in a typical classroom, and yet the traditional group method assumes that all
students in a given class are much the same.

Students are generally very passive--they sit and listen. But Dewey was right; we learn by doing.

In most lecture halls there seems to be a rule of silence operating. Interaction with live people in the learning en-
vironment is important; the existence of bodies in one classroom does not guarantee personal contact or interac-
tion.

Units of instruction are usually far too big. A lot of ground is covered before students find out how they are
doing, and rewards for studying are simply too few and far between.

My analysis may sound as though I’m down on group instruction, but I’m not. For those students who
are yood at it, traditional group instruction is both efficacious and satisfying. Outstanding teaching can be seen
any day you step into a community college classroom. But the ability to teach is not in question; the learning
under the overwhelming commitment to this particular instructional method is.

Focusing on Learning

In my previous article, I attempted to make the case that community colleges must move ahead vigorously
with introducing alternative instructional methodologies. Customizing and individualizing learning, I argued,
would much better fit our diverse student body to our diverse curriculum. We must reduce our entrenched
commilment to the lock-step, time-defined group instruction that Pat Cross has criticized for years in favor of a
better mix of instructional methods. I went on to explain my belief that introduction of computer and telecom-
munication technologies offered a great opportunity to make a quantum leap toward that goal of customizing
and individualizing. I strongly support that view, but developing alternative learning systems is not simple.
We all know that our new tools, as sophisticated and as promising as they appear to be, don’t teach. It is our
instructional methodology that drives our learning system. Any new methods, whether Information Age tech-
nology or not, must increase our ability to customize and individualize.

Finally, | know that John Roueche would add that we need to personalize instruction. He has been such a
convincing spokesman for more personalization in our teaching that practitioners now heed his words in any
methodology we employ.

lt is time we connected our excellent teaching to some alternative learning systems so as not to become
dependent on one approach as we attempt to create winners out of ordinary people. I hope that customize, indi-
viduilize, and personalize will become three watch words as important to our movement as open access has be I
think we will find that our search for excellence demands it! |

DOUGLAS COLLEGE
A. Robert DeHart, President K ;
De Anza College ARCHIVES

tone

 

 

For turther information, contact the author at De Anza College, 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
95014.

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor
November 16, 1984, Vol. VI,.No. 32
INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, fexas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscriptions are available to nonconsortium members for $35 per year. Funding in part by the W/ K. Kellogg
Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation. Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and monthly during the summer.

‘) The University of Texas at Austin, 1984
Further duplication is permitted only by MEMBER institutions for their own personnel. ISSN O199-106X