DOCUMENT RESUMEED 026 186 RC 003 129

Programmed English, Des Moines High School.New Mexico Western States Small Schools Project, Santa Fe.Spons Agency-Ford Foundation, New York, N.Y.Pob Date Nov 65Note- Ilp.EDRS Price MF-$0.25Descriptors-*English Instruction, Grammar, *Individualized Instruction, Literature, *Programed Instruction,*Program Evaluation, Secondary Grades, *Small Schools, Statistical Analysis

Identifiers-English 2600Programmed English instruction in small schools was designed to provide a wider

spectrum of curricular experiences to enhance the somewhat narrow offerings of theregular English curriculum. The specific course outline and evaluation of theprogrammed English instruction at Des Moines High School indicated that the projectin this New Mexico small school was feasible and successful. The programmed Englishinstruction allowed the students to work at their own rate and the teacher to providefrequent and almost immediate reinforcement on student assignments. (DK)

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE Of EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR 026211A110N ORIGINATING 11. POINTS Of VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE Of EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

_

NEW MEXICOWestern States Small Schools Project

PROGRAMMED ENGLISH

DES MOINES HIGH SCHOOL

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONSANTA FE

14,7

-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD3

PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIVES 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY5

PROGRESS REPORTS 5

ANALYSIS OF LEARNING8

PERTINENT CONCLUSIONS 11

/

ForewordThe purpose of this publication is to assist English teachers and ad-

ministrators contemplating the use of programmed English in their schoolsthrough 1964-65. We hope to assist by reporting the classroom experience,with programmed English in the 1962-63 and 1963-64 school terms, of Mrs.Cloe Click, who was then English teacher at Des Moines High School.

This study was conducted under the auspices of the New Mexico West-ern States Small Schools Project, a project directed by the New MexicoState Department of Education and financed by the Ford Foundation.

The consultants for the study were Dr. Henry E. Ellis, Associate Pro-fessor of Psychology, University of New Mexico; Henry Pascual, Special-ist, Modern Foreign Languages, New Mexico Department of Education;Paul Simpson, Specialist, English Language Arts, New Mexico Departmentof Education.

DAN D. CHAVEZ

Project Director

Problems and ObjectivesThe program of Des Moines School shall be

built around the needs of the individual student.The student shall not be programmed accordingto the confines of the schedule and the chains oftradition. This shall be accomplished by the fol-lowing objectives:

1. Providing an adequate faculty, plant, flex-ible schedule and materials center or li-brary.

2. A recognition by faculty members, admin-istrator, and board of education that edu-cation is a dynamic, changing process andmust be reflected by a changing and dy-namic curriculum.

3. A "spirit of research" among the schoolfaculty and administration.

4. Faculty members and the Administrationmust be dedicated to a new role of educa-tion. The role of "action research" in theclassroom.

5. A determination by all professional mem-bers of the school system to take steps toprepare themselves professionally for thechange.

6. The emergence of a mature, self-reliantstudent who is self-motivated to accom-plish individual projects and research.

OVERALL PROBLEMS:1. That Des Moines may offer capable col-

lege bound students an English curriculabeyond the four year system requirement.

2. That Des Moines may offer non-collegebound students a simplified literature orbusiness English course for the fourthyear English requirement.

SPECIFIC PROBLEMS:1. Inadequate time for planning and individ-

ual pupil aid2. Small class enrollment3. Small faculty, necessitating several prepa-

rations4. Inflexible scheduling5. Little provision for individual differences6. Time and energy of teacher spent in non-

teaching duties

4

GENERAL OBJErTIVES:1. To overcome some of the small schools

English limitations on the college boundstudent

2. To offer to non-college bound students asound English base curriculum.

3. To use teacher-aide3.1 Give immediate reinforcement by test

grading3.2 Free teacher for instruction3.3 Relieve teacher of clerical and moni-

tor duties

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES:-1. To encourage each student to accept per-

sonal responsibility2. To encourage individual creativity; to

stimulate participation in forensics, re-search, writing ,

3. To provide multi-class experience4. To adjust the English curriculum for the

college bound students to meet demandsas indicated by progress of former stu-dents at college freshman and sophomorelevels

TECHNIQUES AND METHODS:1. Pre-test

1.1 Iowa Tests of Education Develop-ment, Sept. 11, 1963

1.2 Pre-test at beginning of 2600

1.3 Pre-test at beginning at 3200

2. Post-test2.1 Iowa Tests of Education Develop-

ment, April 17, 19632.2 Post-test at the end of 26002.3 Post-test at the end of 32002.4 SCAT-April 23, 19632.5 STEP-April 26, 1963

3. Progress chart kept on each student daily,making it possible to group for lectures

4. Teacher-aide grades tests and makes nec-essary records on the permanent recordchart

5. Students are required to repeat frames ingrammar text where they show need forfurther teaching

6. Literature students permitted to self-pace7. Poetry taught in groups with teacher read-

ing orally, followed by group discussion

8. "Listening Center" used for hearing tapesand recordings, using individual head-phones

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LITERATURE

Scholastic Literature Units (State Adopted)

1. Family, Rockowitz2. Courage, Dunning and Barton3. Frontiers, Dunning and Lee4. Mirrors, Bennett5. Moments of Decision6. Survival, Squire7. Personal Code, Shafer

Readings in American and English literature canbe accomplished with existing materials. (Har-court-Brace Adventure Series)

READING

Advanced Reading Skills, Books 1 and 2 byGainsbury (MacMillan)

WRITING

Experiences in Writing (State Adopted) byMcKenzie and Olson

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

1. English 2600 Harcourt, Brace2. English 3200 Harcourt, Brace3. TMI Punctuation Grolier4. TMI Spelling Grolier5. Programmed English MacMillan

Progress ReportsThe first year of the project we taught under

near ideal situations: the hundred per cent back-ing of our administration, a full time teacher aideto assume clerical details, indi vidual carrels forevery student in the program, adjoining glass en-closed instruction room, special nongraded systemof reporting to parents with only one final gradeat the end of the course for the permanent recordand college transcript, plus the stimulation of do-ing something new and different.

The second year the physical situation re-mained the same from September to March. Butwe were in a building program which drainedaway much of the energy of our administration,and we lost the teacher aide. This cut back someon the efficiency of the program. In March wemoved into the new school plant, which still hada glass enclosed lecture room, but no individualcarrels. We found that students continued to learnunder these circumstances. We were furnishedstudent graders who were of some assistance withstraight objective tests, but were of little value ingrading essay tests. The special nongraded sys-tem of reporting to parents was continued. 1=1;,-

cause students who had completed the pro-grammed material were allowed to mcve on irtoliterature, we found the teacher's work multipliedmany fold. Students, progressing at their ownrate, had distributed themselves at many levels

5,

within the program itself besides the wide distri-bution now existing in the literature requirementfor the year. The program itself is easy to admin-ister and provide supplementary reinforcing exer-cises for, but the early completers presented theproblem of planning and finding time so the teach-er could work with them. We were able to allevi-ate this problem to a great extent by schedulingliterature in the fall semester. Those who com-pleted literature early were able to move on intotne programmed course and do additional reading.

The third year of the program presented somechanges and new problems. We had a new admin-istration and an all new faculty, except one otherteacher and myself. No one was familiar with theproject or in particular sympathy with it. Theroom designed in the new building for the pro-grammed instruction was assigned to the foreignlanguage and math departments. About Thanks-giving the English classes were moved into thespecially designed room with the glass enclosedlecture room. This change was suggested by Mr.Paul Simpsen and Mr. Dan Chavez from the StateDepartment of Education. Prior to this change theEnglish classes were meeting in a large singleroom which had a curtition. We found it imprac-tical to close the folding curtition because the stu-dents left in the section opposite where the teach-er was giving instruction were not mature

enough to carry on their work in an orderly andconstructive manner.

We had to work the plogram with no teacheraide, no student aide, and no outside assistance atall. It was a most difficult year from this stand-point, and the program of instruction was cur-tailed in exact proportion. The grading load isvery heavy in programmed instruction. For maxi-mum efficiency, a paper should be graded asquickly as possible after the test is taken. With ateacher aide this paper was usually graded withinfive minutes from the time the test was completed.Carrying a full teaching load, eight separate prep-arations for seven period days, I could only gradepapers at night and return them the next day.This is directly contrary for the psychology oflearning as Skinner and others found in their lab-oratory research that the more immediate the re-ward (grade) the greater the reinforcement oflearning. I certainly found this psychology heldtrue in the classroom. Much of the enthusiasmthat we had experienced from students in the pre-vious two years was lost by the long overnightdelay.

Our writing program also suffered greatly.This we have always cons;.dered to be one of mostimportant aspects of the program because it is thereinforcing experience that shows us whether thestudent is able to use what he has supposedlylearned from the program. There were not enoughhours in the day (and night) to grade all the pa-pers and give the instruction that would havemade a better program. When we worked with ateacher aide, she was able to grade all the pro-gram tests, but I have always graded all the themeassignments, both the original and the requiredrewrite. This facilitates a maximum efficiencyprogram. When one person is required to do allthe grading and all the teaching, he can only ex-pect a minimum efficiency of .the program.

We made another change this year which Ifeel may have been a step backward. We did awaywith the progress reports to parents and revertedto the old letter grades of A, B, C, D, F, and in-complete. This was much more simple than theindividual progress reports which were used inthe two previous years, but it was a definite con-cession to tradition and rigidly affixed standards.

Educators and our own State Department ofEducation have recommended that high schoolstudents be taught to write direct and accurateSENTENCES AND PARAGRAPHS. College English De-partments tell us they prefer to teach their stu-dents to write research papers and more elaboratestyles if high school teachers will only send themstudents who can write good sentences. Many

6

short writing experiences are of far greater valuethan a few long assignments. It has been our ex-perience that most term papers are gress exam-ples of plagarism with very little original studentwriting. About all the student does is organizematerial which is collected from a number ofsources! They may derive some benefit from theinformation read, but the value for writing originalcreative material is almost void. The papers I re-ceived this year substantiated my belief. I did re-luctantly require a research paper, and as higbschool research papers go they were good, if notbetter than average. But I feel that the studentswould have benefited far more had they spentthat time in many short writing experiences.

The first two years of the project I taughtonly the 2600 program published by HarcourtBrace. This year the 2600 program was taught byMrs. Willie Pearl Black. Because she had attendednone of our previous instruction and planningmeetings in preparation for teaching the course,we worked together some on the background ofthe program. She took it from there, did an excel-lent job, and found the program to be a very ef-fective way to teach grammar. She, too, recog-nized the heavy grading schedule required by theprogram. She had 25 students enrolled in the pro-gram. Her pre- and post-test scores will show thatlearning was achieved.

Mrs. Black also taught 2200 in junior high,and to Freshmen who failed to score above 60 onthe. pre-test in 2600. Freshmen who made below60 took the 2200; then took 2600. Those whotook 2200 first experienced no difficulty with 2600.Although most of these were students whose pre-vious records showed them to be of below averageability, they made average grades in 2600, andmany made the comment that they were glad theyhad taken 2200 first. And strange as it may seem,they did not seem to get bored or tired.

Fifteen eighth grade students took 2200, start-ing November 6, 1964 and finishing January 8,1965. The lowest final score was 88. One studentfinished in twelve days with a final score of 94with only one unit test below 83. Another studentfinished in 14 days with the same record. Therewere twenty-nine in the eighth grade class andthe other fourteen took regular class work. Thedetermining factor for selecting those who wouldcontinue with regular class instruction was this:if the student made less than 60 on the first unittest AFTER completing all the frames in that unit.

2200 has no pre-test for students and Mrs.Black gave none, so we have no measure by whichwe can show the rate of gain. Had we thought, wecould have given the post-test at the beginning

and at the end of the program. One student made100 on the final test; one student made 88, and allthe others made above 90. These results lead us tobelieve that much teaching was done by the pro-gram.

We use Practical English Magazine and Har-court Brace's Adventures in Appreciation in thesophomore year of English. The 3200 program isused in the junior year. I taught 3200 this year tofifteen students. As we have come to expect, theyquickly scattered themselves throughout the pro-gram. Again the program proved that it will teachwhat it is supposed to teach. The smallest numberof points gained was 13. This was by the studentwho scored highest on the pre-test. The largestnumber of points gained was 35. This was by stu-dents who showed much gain in maturity in manyrespects during this school year. All students'scores may be seen at the end of this paper.

We had a section of junior English composedof five junior boys who had Vocational Agricul-ture scheduled at the regular English III periodand one senior boy who was short one Englishcredit to graduate. These six boys worked withthe new English Syntax by Paul Roberts. It isstructural grammar and almost like a foreign lan-guage by way of comparison with traditional,functional grammar. These boys represented awide variety of ability. There was some resistanceto the complete change from all their previousgrammar experience. They felt that this shouldhave been introduced to them much earlier. Wedid not complete the course in the English III be-cause we started too late in the year.

I have been fascinated by this new approachto grammar and would like to give the new texta fair trial. I first presented the book to the col-lege prep seniors. They had already completed2600 and 3200 and felt that their grammar prepa-ration was adequate. Their resistance was so greatthat I finally gave up on them because they werenot disposed to learn for the sake of learning; theyfelt they were being "put upon" and weren't dis-posed to do one ounce beyond the required!!!! Theirony of it was that one of the boys in that classcame to me this spring and showed me that thecollege of his choice offers this ENGLISH SYN-TAX in its catalog.

One boy of above average ability did unusual-ly well on this program. His scores were 94 andabove. Students of less ability did not do so well,but they did show gain comparable to that of anyprevious work in English. The evidence is favor-able but not conclusive.

All classes in English met daily for 55 min-utes. This extra 10 minutes per day above the 45

7

minute periods we had last year allowed us tostep up our program. This is adequate to do maxi-mum work, yet not long enough for students tobecome bored. We did the 3200 first semester. Stu-dents were already widely scattered in literaturefrom the previous year so when we got to litera-ture we picked up at the farthest any student hadread and completed the text. Then we went backto the beginning and picked up those who had notstarted literature at all, while those who had com-pleted the required work for one credit in Englishstudied in the student edition of Readers' Digest.They filled out the written work and gave weeklyspeeches to the assembled class. We find the needfor such common gatherings to facilitate the feel-ing of class unity. All students were required togive some speeches.

I am 100 per cent sold on programmed in-struction when properly supplemented with manywriting experiences. Programmed instruction isone effective way of helping in the field of indi-vidual differences. Statistics show us that childrenentering kindergarten have a two year spread inability, but by the time they have been in schooltwelve years there is a spread of ten years. Ourgoals in the program have been to help studentsdevelop desirable work habits and develop himselfto his full capacity. Regardless of the number ofyears a student has spent in school, he is groupedwith others and taught according to ability ratherthan age. The teacher becomes a director andguide, not just a lecturer. The program helps usenrich our program for those thirty per cent ofthe gifted students who will not be financiallyable to go on to college. We strongly recommenda teacher's aide to supplement the trained teacher.One teacher with one teacher's aide, plus manysupplementary material aids, can handle a largenumber of studentsDr. Reed of BYU has esti-mated as many as sixty in a classroom of adequatesize. A good program is of inestimable value to ateacher in a small school where the number ofteachers is limited and every teacher has non-teaching extra-curricular activities. I do not hesi-tate to recommend programmed instruction as oneadequate method of teaching English grammar.

These have been three of the richest and mostrewarding years of my teaching career. Throughmy work with the project I have been brought incontact with so many intelligent and inspiringpeople. It has been a real source of pleasure to beassociated with these people. The project hasbrought me in contact with the latest materials inthe field and sent me to school to learn the latestthinking in the psychology of learning. In turn,students have benefited from this experience as Ibrought my newly acquired learning to the class-

room. I have been able to share this informationwith other teachers before whom I have had theprivilege of speaking, as well as with those whohave come to observe in my classroom. I haveprofited from the association with fellow teachersparticipating in the project, from State Depart-ment of Education personnel, many conferencesand visits to my classroom, particularly PaulSimpson and Henry Pascualspecialists who act-ed in an advisory capacityfrom the week work-shops conducted in Santa Fe in June of 1964 and1965, from the Regional workshop at Albuquerque

in October 1963, with teachers and directors fromUtah, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada, from thetwo workshops at Brigham Young University Lab,1962 and 1964, and last, but not least, from Mr.Dan Chavez, our Small Schools Coordinator whotied all these loose ends together to make one neatpackage. It is with much regret that I see the pro-ject come to the close but we certainly don't in-tend for this to be the end of our interest in pro-grammed instruction and other up-to-date innova-tions in the field of teaching.

Analysis of Learning ResultsThe results of eight different studies are an-

alyzed in this report. These results are based upondata reported by the following schools: Pojoaque,Des Moines, Dora, and Cloudcroft. Separate an-alyses are reported for each school, individually,and are appended to this report.

Overall Performances. An overall analysisof the results of programmed instruction in theseschools revealed substantial gains in learning inall instances. Employing the gain ratio, which isa comparison of the amount actually learned withthe amount that could possibly be learned (Ellis,1964) all schools studied showed at least highlyacceptable amounts of learning. The gain ratiosranged from a low of .49 to a high of .63 (.49, .50,.53, .59, .60, .61, .63. .63) which indicated that notonly were the students, on the average., learninghalf, or more than half of what they could possi-bly have learned, but that the different schools areremarkably comparable in the amount of gain inlearning. (In all instances such gain ratios mustbe interpreted conservatively since evidence re-garding comparability of the pre-tests and post-tests is unknown.)

Variability. No consistent changes in varia-

bility of achievement were noted. In some in-stances, an increase was noted and in others a de-crease was obtained. No apparent reason for thisinconsistency in change was evident.

General Conclusions. Based upon analysis oflearning data, these programs can be regarded aseffective teaching instruments. Post-test ceilingswere also high, ranging from a low of 46 to a highof 85.92 (46.82, 71.36, 79.10, 81.04, 82.80, 83.90, 85.00,and 85.92) which again indicates the comparabilityof the students. Why, of course, the students didnot achieve even hiaher scores is not known, butit is clear that the students are averaging about80% on the post-test, which is a substantialamount of achievement.

REFERENCESEws, H. C. Research designs in studies of pro-

grammed learn'.ng. National Society for Pro-grammed Instruction Newsletter. Vol. 1, No. 4,1962, Pp. 8-9.

ELLIS, H. C. Judging the teaching effectiveness ofa program. In Ofiesh, G. & Meierhenry, W.Trends in Programmed Instruction, NEA &NSPI, 1964, Pp. 207-209.

Teaching Effectiveness of English 2600The purpose of this report is to provide an

evaluation of the "teaching effectiveness" of Eng-lish 2600 used at Des Moines High School duringthe year 1963-64. This report will describe and an-alyze the basic data obtained in the study, DesMoines Public Schools Small Schools Progress Re-port, prepared by C. Click. This report will con-fine itself to an analysis of the data obtained by

8

administering pre-tests and post-tests as thesefindings permit assessment of the teaching effec-tiveness of the program. For additional details,one should examine the Mestas report.

MethodPrior to using the program, English2600, all students (n=120) in the study were givena pre-test prepared by Harcourt-Brace. The pre-test consisted of seventy-two items which were

Crcr

weighted so as to permit a total possible score of100. Following the pre-test, the students took theprogram, and upon completion of the program,they then took a final test. The final test was sim-ilar in structure to the pre-test and consistyl,again, of seventy-two items weighted so as to per-mit a total possible score of 100. The post-test em-ployed was the Harcourt-Brace final test. Al-though 127 students actually participated in thestudy, the data of only 120 were analyzed as bothpre-test and post-test scores were not available forseven students.

Learning Results.The basic results of thestudy can be. seen in Table 1. The students aver-aged 60.09 correct items (out of possible 100) onthe pre-test, indicating that they already knew aconsidenble amount of the material, or content,taught in English 2600. In turn, the students aver-aged 79.10 on the post-test, indicating at least areasonable amount of improvement followingpractice with the program. Caution must be madewith this interpretation (see conclusion 4) as thepre-tests and post-tests were not identical and evi-dence as to their comparability is unknown. (Theuse of the gain score is appropriate only withidentical tests or with equivalent forms). Theaverage gath in improvement was 19.88 items, again which was statistically significant beyond the.01 level of confidence as assessed by a "t" test:(1 = 17.45, df = 119, p .01). Thus, we can be con-fident that the students were actually learningfrom this program.

Although the students showed a gain of about20 points on the test, an interpretation of this gainis more easily made if we examine a ratio of actualgain compared with the amount of possible gain,a measure described by Ellis (1964). This measure,called the gain ratio, provides an estimate of the"power" or "teaching efficiency" of the program.Since the students gained an average of 19.88points, and they could have actually gained a totalof 39.91 points, the gain ratio was .498. In otherwords, the students were learning about half(50%) of what they could have possibly learnedfrom the program.

Va.riability in Performance. Although an an-alysis of the achievement test scores revealed thatthe students showed a F:Agnificant gain in achieve-ment following prog,:ammed instruction, an in-spection of Table I reveals that they are somewhatmore variable in performance after programmedinstruction than before. The standard deviation(SD) of the pre-test scores was 11.85. Althoughthis increase in variability, or individual differ-ences, is not great enough to be of much practi-

9

.0

cal significance, it is an increase which is satis-at the .05 level of confidence.

It is interesting to note in this connection thatone frequent claim of producers of programmedinstructional materials is that "PI" frequentlyleads to a reduction in individual differences. Justthe opposite occurred here, with a slight increasein performance variability.

Overall Performance. A picture of overallperformance can easily be seen by examiningFigure 1. This figure is a frequency distributionwhich shows the frequency with which studentsscore within certain intervals on the pre-test andpost-test. The figure reveals the marked shift inimprovement from pre- to post-test performanceas well as reveals that the variability in studentperformance is still relatively large after comple-tion of the program.

Conclusions. An analysis of the test data re-veals that:

(1) A significant amount of learning is pro-duced as a result of programmed in-struction with English 2600.

(2) The program is reasonably efficient inteaching as reflected in the gain ratio ofapproximately .50.

(3) No marked change in variability of per-formance resulted from the use of theprogram; in fact, there was a slight ten-dency for greater variability followinguse of the program.

(4) These conclusions must be temperedsomewhat since the pre- and post-testswere not identical. It is possible that hadthe same tests been used (say the post-test) that the actual gain could havebeen greater. In short. the pre-test couldhave been considerably easier than thepost-test, thus tending to make the stu-dents look better at the beginning.

REFERENCESEVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVE-

NESS OF ENGLISH 2600

a. Schoo/: Des Moinesb. Teacher: C. Clickc. Program: English 2600d. Sample: N = 25e. Summary Table of Results:

Pre-test Post-test Gain Possible Score

Mean 56.76 81.04 23.04* 100S. D. 14.00 9.84

20

15

PRE-TEST (MEAN 60.09)

POST-TEST (MEAM 79.10)

Figure 1

5

0

18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70 74 78 82 86 90

SCORES

DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON THE HARCOURT-BRACE PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST,SHOWING UPWARD SHIFT IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES AS A RESULT OF PROGRAMMEDINSTRUCTION.

10

94 98

f.

g-

*t = 2.10, df ="-- 24, p. < .05Gain Ratio: .53'Summary and Conclusions:Students showed a significant amount oflearning as a result of using English 2600.The average gain was 23 points, whichwas significant beyond the .05 level ofconfidence. Students learned 53% of whatthey could have possibly learned', basedon analysis of the gain ratio. Some reduc-tion in variability on the post-test wasnoted.

EVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVE-NESS OF ENGLISH 3200

a. School: Des Moinesb. Teacher: C. Clickc. Program: English 3200

d. Sample: N = 15e. Summary Table of Results:

Pre-test Post-test Gain Possible Score

Mean 61.47 85.00 23.53* 100

S. D. 10.47 7.80*t = 15.67, df = 14, p ( .01

f. Gain Ratio: .61crb- Summary and Conclusions:

Students showed a significant amount oflearning as a result of using English 3200.The average gain was 23.5 points whichwas significant beyond the .01 level ofconfidence. The gain ratio revealed thatstudents learned 61% of what they couldhave possibly learned. Some reduction invariability on the post-test was noted.

1 This must be interpreted conservatively, based uponcautions outlined in this report earlier.

Some Pertinent Conclusions1. Experimentation is exciting and opens up

many doors in education.2. The experimentation should be Action

Experimentation occurring in the class-room.

3. A dynamic faculty willing to experimentand change is a necessity.

4. The faculty must be given opportunity tobe flexible in their class situations andthe opportunities to attend specializedconferences and workshops.

5. Extra remuneration for workshops andconferences should be available to thefaculty.

6. Professional aides should be employed.7. Advanced salary schedules should be a

goal for the Master or Senior teacher.

8. A complete new conception of schedulingshould be involved.

9. The scheduling should be accomplishedthrough modules of times.

10. Each student should be scheduled indi-vidually according to his need based onfactual information.

11. Each student should be assured of a mini-mum amount of time for individualstudy.

11