Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview of innovations in organization for learning

  • Innovations in Learning and Processes of Educational Change
  • Organization for Learning
  • Published:
Interchange Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Five approaches to organization for learning are reviewed: student grouping practices, nongrading, individualizing instruction, departmentalization in the elementary school, and cooperative teaching. The review relates these approaches to the accomplishment of eight basic instructional aims in the cognitive and affective areas. The critical review of each type of organizational plan considers problems of design, implementation, and evaluation. The general conclusion reached is that, while several of the approaches hold considerable promise for improving instruction, there usually are serious shortcomings in program design and implementation that prevent determining their potential contributions.

Résumé

Cinq voies d'accès à l'organisation de l'instruction sont passées en revue: techniques de groupement d'élèves, non-gradation, instruction individualisante, mise en départements en école élémentaire, et enseignement co-opératif. L'étude rapporte ces approches à l'accomplissement de huit buts fondamentaux d'instruction sur les plans cognitifs et affectifs. L'examen critique de chaque type de plan d'organisation considère les problèmes de dessin, d'exécution, et d'évaluation. La conclusion générale atteinte est, bien que plusieurs approches s'annoncent très bien pour améliorer l'instruction, on trouve presque toujours de sérieux défauts dans le dessin et l'exécution des plans d'études qui empêchent de définir leur apport potentiel.

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

  • Ackerlund, G. Some teachers' views on the self-contained classroom.Phi Delta Kappan, 1959,40, 283–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, W. M.. The middle school movement.Theory into Practice, 1968,7, 114–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, W. M., Williams, E. L., Compton, M., Hines, V.A., Prescott, D., & Kealy, R.The emergent middle school. (2d ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. H.Teaching in a world of change. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bair, M., & Woodward, R. G.Team teaching in action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, I. L., & Mitroff, D. D.The rationale and design of a primary grades reading system for an individualized classroom. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research & Development Center, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. W. Incorporating the products of educational development into practice.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1970,3, 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackie, J.Inside the primary school. New York: Schocken, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. Learning for mastery. InHandbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Pp. 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, W. R.Ability grouping in the public schools. (2d ed.) Madison, Wis.: Dembar Educational Research Services, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. F.The nongraded high school. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. F.The appropriate placement school. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, R. N., & Allen, D. W.A new design for high school education: Assuming a flexible schedule. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, R. F. A comparison of graded and nongraded elementary schools.Elementary School Journal, 1961,62, 82–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N. D. The PLAN operating environment. In R. A. Weisgerber (Ed.),Developmental efforts in individualized learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, 1971, Pp. 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L.Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperative teaching.National Elementary Principal, 1965,44(3), 8–84.

  • Daniels, J. C. Effects of streaming in the primary school: II. A comparison of streamed and unstreamed schools.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961,31, 119–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, S. A.Elementary school organization and administration. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewar, J. A. Grouping for arithmetic instruction in sixth grade.Elementary School Journal, 1963,63, 266–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, J. W. B.The home and the school: A study of ability and attainment in the primary school. London: MacGibbon, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durrell, D. D., Scribner, H. B., Manning, J. C., & McHugh, W. J.. Adapting instruction to the learning needs of children in intermediate grades.Boston University Journal of Education, 1959,142, 1–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichhorn, D. H.The middle school. New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Findley, W. G., & Bryan, M. M.Ability grouping: 1970. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Center for Educational Improvement, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. Individualizing education. In R. A. Weisgerber (Ed.),Developmental efforts in individualized learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, 1971. Pp.4–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. S., Hurley, B., Keliher, A. V., & Manolakes, G. Reactions to the dual progress plan.Educational Leadership, 1960,18, 92–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibb, E. G., & Matala, D. L. Study on the use of special teachers of science and mathematics in grades 5 and 6.School Science and Mathematics, 1962,62, 565–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. Adapting the elementary school curriculum to individual performance.Proceedings of the 1967 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1968. Pp.3–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, M. L., Passow, A. H., & Justman, J.The effects of ability grouping. New York: Teachers College Press, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J. I. Classroom organization. InEncyclopedia of educational research. (3d ed.) New York: Macmillan, 1960. Pp.221–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J. I., & Anderson, R. H. Educational practices in nongraded schools: A survey of perceptions.Elementary School Journal, 1962,63, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J. I. & Anderson, R. H.The nongraded elementary school. (Rev. ed.) New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J. I., Von Stoephasius, R., & Klein, F.The changing school curriculum. New York: Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grannis, J. C. Team teaching and the curriculum. In J. T. Shaplin, & H. F. Olds, Jr. (Eds.),Team teaching. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W., & Rehwoldt, W. By their differences they learn.National Elementary Principal, 1957,37, 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heathers, G. Research on team teaching. In J. T. Shaplin & H. F. Olds, Jr. (Eds.),Team teaching. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Pp.306–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heathers, G.Organizing schools through the dual progress plan. Danville, Ill.: Interstate, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heathers, G. Grouping. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.),Encyclopedia of educational research. (4th ed.) New York: Macmillan, 1969, Pp.559–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertzberg, A., & Stone, E. F.Schools are for children. New York: Schocken, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillson, M., & Bongo, J.Continuous-progress education. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science Research Associates, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, K. D., Oldridge, O. A., & Williamson, M. An empirical comparison of pupil achievement and other variables in graded and ungraded classes.American Educational Research Journal, 1965,2, 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, J. H. Multi-grade teaching.Nation's Schools, 1958,6, 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husén, T., & Svensson, N. E. Pedagogic milieu and development of intellectual skills.School Review, 1960,68, 36–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illich, I.De-schooling society. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klausmeier, H. J., Morrow, R. G., Walter, J. E., & Way, R. S. Individually-guided education in the multiunit elementary school—guidelines for implementation. Madison, Wis.: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozol, J.Free schools. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindvall, C. M., & Bolvin, J. O. Programed instruction in the schools: An application of programing principles in individually prescribed instruction. InProgramed instruction. 66th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Pp.217–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, T. O. Evaluation of the IPI project.Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 1971,17, 255–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Education Association.The principals look at the schools. Washington, D. C.: NEA Center for the Study of Instruction, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, H. J.Current practices in the organization of elementary schools. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., & Wang, M. C. Approaches to the validation of learning hierarchies. Paper read at the 18th Annual Western Regional Conference on Testing Problems, San Francisco, May 1969.

  • Rhodes, F. Team teaching compared with traditional instruction in grades kindergarten through six.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971,62, 110–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, M. T. A comparative study of departmentalization.Elementary School Journal, 1946,47, 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaplin, J. T., & Olds, H. F., Jr. (Eds.)Team teaching. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, C. E.Crisis in the classroom. New York: Vintage Books, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, E. R. (Ed.)The self-contained classroom. Washington, D.C.: NEA Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, E. S.Intraclass grouping of pupils for instruction in arithmetic in the intermediate grades of the elementary school. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1958. No. 58-5635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivak, M. L. Effectiveness of departmental and self-contained seventh- and eighth-grade classrooms.School Review, 1956,64, 391–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squire, J. R. National study of high school English programs: A school for all seasons.English Journal, 1966,55, 282–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, G. D.The dual progress plan. New York: Harper & Row, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, H. A.Classroom grouping for teachability. New York: Wiley, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trump, J. L., & Baynham, D.Focus on change: A guide to better schools. New York: Rand McNally, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. C., Jr. Can large group instruction provide for individual differences?National Elementary Principal, 1965,44(3), 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. C., Resnick, L. B., & Boozer, R. F. The sequence of development of some early mathematics behaviors.Child Development, 1971,42, 1767–1778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washburne, C. W., & Marland, S. P., Jr.Winnetka: The History and significance of an educational experiment. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, L.The English infant school and informal education. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisgerber, R. A. (Ed.)Developmental efforts in individualized learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. L. (Ed.) The middle school.Theory into practice, 1968,7(3).

  • Willig, C. J. Social implications of streaming in the junior school.Educational Research, 1963,5, 151–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodring, P. Reform movements from the point of view of psychological theory. In E. R. Hilgard (Ed.),Theories of learning and instruction. 63rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, A. (Ed.)Grouping in education. New York: Wiley, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA

    Glen Heathers

Authors
  1. Glen Heathers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heathers, G. Overview of innovations in organization for learning. Interchange 3, 47–68 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02137635

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02137635

Keywords

Search

Navigation