Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individualizing instruction in higher education: A review

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The salient characteristics of a variety of approaches to individualizing instruction are described and their respective merits with regard to higher education discussed. The review includes: programmed instruction, computer-assisted instruction and -management, information retrieval systems, audio-tutorial and modular instruction, contingency management and contracting, and personalized and individually prescribed instruction. While these approaches differ from each other in some respects, they all share an overriding concern for individual differences among students and seek to better adapt instruction to the learner.

A section on general issues regarding the degree of individualisation, the role of the professor, institutional support for improving instruction, the role of the student, content and method, evaluation, and the future of individualized instruction concludes the review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, L. T. and Yellon, S. L. (eds.) (1972) Instructional Developmental Agencies in Higher Education. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, F. B. (1971). “Computer-based Instructional Management Systems: a First Look,” Rev. Educ. Res. 41: 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, W. R. (1971). “The Minicourse - a Milestone on the Road to Better Teaching,” Brit. J. Educ. Techn. 2: 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Born, D. G. (1971). Proctor Manual and Instructor Manual for Development of a Personalized Instruction Course. Salt Lake City: Center to Improve Learning and Instruction, University of Utah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brethower, D.M. et al. (1967). Programmed Learning - A Practicum. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brick, E. M. (1971). “Learning Centers: the Key to Personalized Instruction.” In: R. A. Weissgerber (ed.), Developmental Efforts in Individualized Learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, pp. 192–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundy, R. F. (1971). “Computer-assisted Instruction - Where Are We?” In: R. A. Weissgerber (ed.), Perspectives in Individualized Learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, pp. 360–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, I. S., Gopnick, M., Southin, J. L. and Chambers, D. W. (1972). “A Summer Project on Modular Course Design.” McGill Conference on University Teaching and Learning, October 20–23, 1971. Complete papers for Part B: Recent Experiments in Teaching and Learning at McGill University. Montreal: McGill University, pp. 34–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1972). The Fourth Revolution: Instructional Technology in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, W. W. and Glaser, R. (1971). “The Computer and Individualized Instruction.” In: R. A. Weissgerber (ed.), Developmental Efforts in Individualized Learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, pp. 94–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corey, J. R. and McMichael, J. S. (1970). Using Personalized Instruction in College Courses, Meredith Corp.

  • Creager, J. G., and Murray, D. L. (eds.) (1971). The Use of Modules in College Biology Teaching. Washington: Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences, The American Institute of Biological Sciences. (March).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1971). “How can Instruction be Adapted to Individual Differences?” In: R. A. Weissgerber (ed.), Perspectives in Individualized Learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, pp. 167–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, W. K. (1971): “Student Choice of Means and Ends,” J. Nat. Soc. Progr. Instr., 10: 12–13, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desnoyers, L., Mergler-Racine, D., and Bhéreur, P. (1971). “AINVEQ: Une Méthode d'Apprentissage des Sciences par Investigation en Equipe,” Prospectives, 7: 275–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, P. (1971). “The Contract as an Academic Tool,” Improving Coll. & Univ. Teaching, 19: 110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duda, M. G. (1970), “A Critical Analysis of Individually Prescribed Instruction,” Educ. Technol., 10: 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. (1971). “Individualizing Education.” In: R. A. Weissgerber (ed.), Developmental Efforts in Individualizing Instruction. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, pp. 4–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (ed.) (1967). Learning and Individual Differences. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, A., Kohler, M. C. and Riessmann, F. (1971). Children Teach Children: Learning by Teaching. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis, G. L. et al. (1972). Designing More Effective College Instruction. Montreal: Centre for Learning and Development. McGill University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis, G. L. and Rogers, J. (1971). “Student Choice.” J. Nat. Soc. Progr. Instr., 10: 4–5, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1968). “Adapting the Elementary School Curriculum to Individual Performance.” In: Proceedings of the 1967 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, pp. 3–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmid, B. and Goldschmid, M. L. (1973). “Modular Instruction in Higher Education: A Review,” Higher Educ.2: 15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmid, M. L. (1970). “Instructional Options: Adapting the Large University Course to Individual Differences,” Learning and Devel., 1: 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmid, M. L. (1971). “The Learning Cell: An Instructional Innovation,” Learning & Devel. (Montreal: Centre for Learning and Development, McGill University) 2: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Ben A. (1971). “Physics Teaching by the Keller Plan,” Amer. J. Phys., 39: 764–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunselman, M. (ed.) (1971). “What are we Learning About Learning Centers? Oklahoma City: Eagle Media, Oklahoma Christian College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. A. (1971). “Computer-Assisted Instruction: Problems and Performance. Phi Delta Kappa, 52: 628–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrisberger, L. (1971). “Self-paced Individually Prescribed Instruction,” Engin. Educ., (March): 508–510.

  • Hendershot, C. H. (1967). Programmed Learning: A Bibliography of Programs and Presentation Devices, 4th ed. Bay City, Michigan: Carl H. Hendershot, with supplements to January 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, J. (1964). How Children Fail. New York: Dell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homme, L. et al. (1970). How to Use Contingency Contracting in the Classroom. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homme, L. and Tosti, D. T. (1971). Behavior Technology: Motivation and Contingency Management. San Rafael, Calif.: Independent Learning Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, B. J. (1971). “Personality, Choice, and Learning Outcomes,” J. Nat. Soc. Prog. Instr., 10: 10–11, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosticka, A. (1972). “IPI: A Program for Individualizing Elementary Mathematics Instruction.” Educ. Technol., 12: 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. R. and Johnson, R. B. (1972). Developing Individualized Instructional Material. Palo Alto, Calif.: Westinghouse Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. (1968). “Goodbye, Teacher ...,” J. Appl. Behav. Anal., 1: 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, A. C. (1968). “An Experiment with TIPS: A Computer Aided Instructional System for Undergraduate Education.” Amer. Econ. Rev., 58: 446–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, K. E. (1971). “Contingency Management in University Courses,” Educ. Technol., 11: 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, K. E. et al. (1972). “A Note on Some Reinforcing Properties of University Lectures,” J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 5: 151–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. L. and Dodge, R. A. (1971). “Audio-tutorial Packages at Columbia Junior College.” In: J. G. Creager and D. L. Murray (eds.), The Use of Modules in College Biology Teaching. Washington: Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences, The American Institute of Biological Sciences, pp. 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, E. J. (1971). “The Learning Center in the Seventies.” In: M. Gunselman (ed.), What Are We Learning about Learning Centers? Oklahoma City: Eagle Media, Oklahoma Christian College, pp. 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malott, R. W. and Svinicki, J. G. (1969). “Contingency Management in an Introductory Psychology Course for One Thousand Students,” Psychol. Rec., 19: 545–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. J. (1966). Good Frames and Bad: A Grammar of Frame Writing. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mawhinney, V. T. et al. (1971). “A Comparison of Students' Studying Behavior Produced by Daily, Weekly, and Three-week Testing Schedules,” J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 4: 257–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. K. (1970). “Token Economy for the University Classroom.” Paper presented at the 1970 American Psychological Association Conference.

  • Nichols, E. D. (1972). “Is Individualization the Answer?” Educ. Technol., 12: 52–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, L. D. (1970). “Remote Access Instructional Learning System (RAILS).” A. V. Instr., 15: 42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascal, C. E. (1971). “Offering Course Option: Personality, Option Preference and Course Outcomes.” J. Nat. Soc. Prog. Instr., 10: 8–9, 17–18, and 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascal, C. E. and Kaplan, L. (1972). “Experiential Learning,” Learning and Devel., 3: 1–4. (Centre for Learning and Development, McGill University, Montreal).

    Google Scholar 

  • Postlethwait, S. N., Novak, J. and Murray Jr., M. T. (1970). The Audio-tutorial Approach to Learning. Minneapolis: Burgess.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postlethwait, S. N. and Russell, J. D. (1971). “Minicourses” - the Style of the Future?” In: J. G. Creager and D. L. Murray (eds.), The Uses of Modules in College Biology Teaching. Washington D.C.: Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences, The American Institute of Biological Sciences, pp. 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Premack, D. (1959). “Toward Empirical Behavior Laws: 1. Positive Reinforcement,” Psychol. Rev., 66: 219–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research for Better Schools. (1971). “Individually Prescribed Instruction.” In: R. A. Weissgerber (ed.), Developmental Efforts in Individualizing Learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, pp. 114–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richason, B. F. (1971). “The Audio-Visual-Tutorial Method in Geography Instruction.” In: T. A. Weissgerber (ed.), Developmental Efforts in Individualized Learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, pp. 326–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, J. (1971). “Instructional Options in a Psychology Course,” J. Nat. Soc. Prog. Instr., 10: 6–7, 16, and 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, J. L. (1971). “Current Problems in CAI.” In: R. A. Weissgerber (ed.), Perspectives in Individualized Learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, pp. 376–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roid, G. H. (1972). “Systems Design for Course Evaluation.” Paper presented as part of the symposium “Research, Systems Design and the Future of University Course Evaluation” at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, J. G. (ed.) (1971–2). Personalized System of Instruction Newsletter. Washington, D.C.: Psychology Department, Georgetown University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, B. M. (1972). Microteaching: a Brief Review. Montreal: Centre for Learning and Development, McGill University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, I. J. (1970). “At Will and at Once: The Audio-Video Dial Access Information Retrieval System. In: S. G. Tickton (ed.) To Improve Learning: An Evaluation of Instructional Technology, New York: Bowker, Vol. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starks, D. D. (1971). “The Design of Two Courses Incorporating Student Choice.” J. Nat. Soc. Prog. Instr., 10: 14–15, 19, and 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. (1971). “Computer Technology and the Future of Education.” In: R. A. Weissgerber (ed.), Perspectives in Individualized Learning. Itasca. Ill.: Peacock Publishers, pp. 391–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosti, D. and Loehr, J. G. (1971). “Antecedents of Contingency Management,” Educ. Technol., 11: 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissgerber, R. A. (ed.) (1971a). Developmental Efforts in Individualized Learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissgerber, R. A. (ed.) (1971b). Perspectives in Individualized Learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whipple, G. M. (ed.) (1925). National Society for the Study of Education 24th Yearbook. Part II. Adapting the Schools to Individual Differences. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yellon, S. L. and Scott, R. O. (1970). A Strategy for Writing Objectives. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecole Supérieure de Commerce, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Barbara Goldschmid

  2. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Marcel L. Goldschmid

Authors
  1. Barbara Goldschmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcel L. Goldschmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Formerly, Centre for Learning and Development, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldschmid, B., Goldschmid, M.L. Individualizing instruction in higher education: A review. High Educ 3, 1–24 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00153989

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00153989

Keywords

Search

Navigation