Computers are ideal for individualised instruction. When personal computers became more common and less expensive in the 1980s, many schools purchased them. Computers are used in Japan for individualised instruction, but it is questionable how effectively they are used.
In this paper, I have discussed differences between Japan and the U.S. in approaches to education. I have explained the reasoning behind individualised instruction--students' proficiency varies a great deal, their interests and goals are widely divergent, and the pace at which students work is different.
I also explained in detail what individualised instruction is and what areas of instruction can be individualised--objectives, methods, pace, content, and level of difficulty. I discussed the role of the teacher in individualised instruction, the effects of individualisation, the role that CAI can play, the advantages and disadvantages of CAI in individualised instruction, and the personnel, facilities and materials that are necessary for CAI.
In this paper, I will discuss the differences in approaches to instruction in Japan and the United States; the need to individualise English instruction; what individualised instruction is; necessary equipment, materials, and personnel for individualised instruction; individualising instruction using computers; and advantages and disadvantages of using computers in individualised instruction.
In contrast, classrooms in the United States are more individualised. All students expect that they will be treated as individuals. Instructors are expected to increase the abilities of individual students and help them with areas in which they are weak. When I taught in the United States, just taking attendance in the first class was chaos, because students told me whether to call them by their first names, nicknames, or middle names and corrected my pronunciation of their names. Even though the rules of the class were made clear, students brought many problems to me, and insisted that exceptions should be made for their situations. It was important to listen to them and handle each case separately, so I could not apply the rules the same way all the time.
Approaches and goals of classes in Japan and the United States also seem to be very different. In Japan, students are expected to learn the information from their textbooks and the teacher's lecture. This approach puts a great emphasis on memorisation and on knowing facts.
In contrast, in American education, developing creativity is more important than memorisation. More emphasis is put on enjoyable learning activities than in Japan. Students learn using games, simulations, and activities as well as textbooks and other traditional resources. When I was a graduate student, I tutored an elementary student in reading as a part of a class on teaching reading at the elementary level. I was told not to explain anything to the student but rather to prepare games or activities through which he could learn (Kitao, 1976).
Individualised instruction in foreign language teaching was the most observable trend in foreign language education in the United States in the 1970s (Altman, 1972), and, in part because of the approach to education that Americans take, Americans have been especially receptive to the idea of individualised instruction. Many articles and books were published on the subject, and many graduate students in the TESOL program in which I was enrolled in the mid- 1970s wrote master's theses on individualised instruction. In the 1980s, the growth of individualised instruction slowed, but there continued to be much interest in it, and in 1986, more than 100 American universities had individualised instruction programs, and 200 more were interested in developing them (Harlow, 1987).
Computers were considered ideal for use in individualised instruction. At the University of Illinois, a program called PLATO was developed. It included a huge amount of instructional material, and it was sold both in and out of the United States. However, computers were very expensive at that time, and so not many schools could afford to buy the hardware necessary to use it (Thrush and Thrush, 1984).
In the 1980s, personal computers became much more widely available and less expensive, and many schools purchased them for use in classes (Dunkel, 1987). The most common personal computers were the Apple series. Many educational programs were available, and there were also many programs made by instructors. Such teacher-made computer assisted instruction (CAI) programs were very popular at the TESOL conference in Toronto in 1983 (Kitao, 1983), and many teachers brought the programs they had made and demonstrated them.
In Japan, personal computers became more widely available in the latter half of the 1980s. Foreign language CAI became more common. However, it is questionable whether computers are being used effectively to meet individual students' needs.
College students' interests also vary a great deal. Whatever materials are used in a class, some students will not be interested in them. I have given students surveys of their interests, and the results indicated that their interests varied a great deal. When I asked students what kinds of materials they wanted to use in class, I could not find any single topic or skill most of them wanted to study. Thus, I have concluded that materials which include a variety of topics are good. In recent years, more textbooks have been produced which have different topics and types of readings in each chapter. In contrast, ten or fifteen years ago, the most common type of textbook was one with excerpts from a single British or American book. The number of textbooks with a variety of topics are increasing a great deal, and publishers have told me that they are in constant demand.
No matter what textbooks are used, if they are chosen by the teacher, the students feel that they do not have control, and this reduces their motivation to study (Kitao, 1989; Kitao, Yamamoto, Kitao, and Shimatani, 1990). One study used graded readers that students could choose from the library, allowing students to pursue topics that they themselves chose. The results indicated that the students enjoyed reading for this assignments since they could choose books themselves rather than reading one that was chosen by the teacher (Kitao, 1989; Kitao, Yamamoto, Kitao, and Shimatani, 1990).
The amount of time required to read a given passage or do a given set of exercises varies more than the English proficiency of the students (Kitao and Miyamoto, 1982; Kitao and Miyamoto, 1983; Kitao and Yoshida, 1985; Kitao, Kitao, Yoshida, and Yoshida, 1985; Kitao, Yoshida, and Yoshida, 1986; Yoshida and Kitao, 1986). When students enter Doshisha University, their reading speed is between 50 and 100 words per minute. In my CAI classes, I keep records of students' scores and the time they spent on each exercise, and those records indicate that the slower students spent three times as much time as the faster students. In some cases, the slowest student in a class would spend ten times as long as the fastest student. Therefore, if we do exercises in class, the fast students have to wait a long time and the slow students have to hurry to finish. This is not conducive to learning. Students should work at a little faster than their normal pace to improve their fluency.
In general, Japanese students just follow their teachers' instructions and do not study English independently. They just come to class, sit down and do whatever their teacher tells them to do. They need to be more actively involved in their own learning and to take more responsibility for themselves. If they are responsible for whatever they have to do, they do fairly well.
As I have discussed, each class has a variety of levels of English proficiency, a variety of interests, and a variety of paces of studying. It is difficult or impossible to adapt English classes to the students' varied levels of English proficiency, interests, and pace. In addition, students tend to be passive. For these reasons, we need to both individualise the study of English and make students take more responsibility for their learning in order to get more effective results.
Altman (1972) discusses three areas of individualising instruction: objectives or goals of learning, method and pace. These three areas can be combined to different degrees in different classroom situations (Logan, 1980).
Objectives. Individualising objectives is the most extreme form of individualisation, because the objectives that students have will influence every area of learning, including the methods that students use and the pace at which they study. Instead of all of the students working toward the same goal using the same method at the same pace, all of these will be different for each student. The teacher would essentially be a tutor to each of the students.
Method. Individualising a method of study also has great effects on the classroom. If methods are individualised, students use different materials in class. Students might use only tapes, only books, or both. Students who are using books might use different types of books.
Pace. Individualising pace of learning is probably the easiest of these three. Students who work quickly can go on to more difficult levels of materials, work on parallel materials of the same level to reinforce what they have learned, or work on materials related to different content. Slow students can study at their own pace and make sure that they are learning the material thoroughly. It is relatively easy to individualise pace, but extra materials are necessary.
Content. In addition to these three areas of individualisation, I propose two more: content and levels of difficulty. If content is individualised, students have a choice of the content of the material that they study. Within the general area of American culture, for example, some students might be interested in studying American history, and others might want to study daily life in the United States.
Level of difficulty. When level of difficulty is individualised, students with a high level of English proficiency can use more difficult materials, while students with a lower proficiency can use easier materials. If there are various levels of difficulty for parallel materials, students can choose the best level for themselves-- material that is slightly higher than their level of proficiency (Skinner, 1968). In order to provide this, a great deal of material is necessary. Students can choose the level of material that is suitable for them rather than having to struggle with material that is far too difficult or skimming quickly over material that is far too easy.
The objectives of individualised instruction are not determined by students' needs, interests or hopes alone. The goals are agreed on in consultation with the teacher, as the student and the teacher together decide what the student should learn and ascertain how the student's goals can best be achieved (Jenks, 1981). For example, low level students may want to try difficult material, and the teacher needs to decide whether that is feasible. The method and content have to be discussed between the student and the teacher in order to find the best way of reaching the student's goals. The teacher has to check what each student is doing, and as necessary, reconsider with the student the goals, methods, content, level, and pace. Thus individualised instruction is not totally independent. If it were, students could just study by themselves, as in a study hall. Teachers and their assistants have the responsibility to help each student find the best way to learn, to help them with their work, to check their work, and to guide them to more effective learning (Benmaman, Moore, Morgan and Rowe. 1982).
When students have individualised objectives, they learn how to learn a foreign language. They have to make their own goals and decide, along with the teacher, what to study in order to reach these goals. Thus each student has to actively participate in reaching his/her goal. Students cannot just sit in the class and kill time or passively listen to a lecture. They have to discover the learning style that suits them, and they have to take responsibility for setting goals, determining how to meet those goals, working toward their goals using that learning style, and measuring their progress against the goals that they have set.
When objectives are individualised, learning is student- centered, and the teacher assists the students in pursuing their goals. Both the student and the teacher need to be aware of the student's goals, method, content, and pace of learning. Both the student and the teacher need to understand that this type of class is different from a traditional one. Otherwise individualised instruction will not be effective.
When objectives are individualised, affective aspects of learning also need to be considered. Students need to feel security and satisfaction in learning. Without considering this security and satisfaction, students cannot achieve all that is possible (Brown, 1991).
As I have explained, individualisation is not a method or technique but a philosophy of education. Rather than educating all the students in a class in the same way, it involves letting individuals decide, in consultation with the teacher, what is best for them. As teachers, we need to find the best methods for managing or administering courses that use individualised instruction. There is probably no single "best" method, so we need to find out how individualised instruction works in different types of classes and with different types of students.
Giving immediate feedback is an important aspect of computer-assisted instruction, since it allows students to evaluate their answers while the questions are fresh in their minds. It helps prevent them from repeating the same mistakes until they get teacher feedback. Computers are always available, while the student is working, to give feedback, while a human teacher has to attend to other students and other tasks and may be tired or distracted (Church, 1986).
Computer programs have become very sophisticated and flexible. They can control the presentation of the materials according to the program, for example, by limiting the time available to read a text or answer a question. They can control other equipment, such as CDs and laser discs, and present the students with letters, sound, and visuals.
Computers can be a resource for studying, research and communication. They can be connected to databases, and students can get various types of information from the databases. In a sense, students have access to their own library through their computers. Computers can also be connected to the computer networks through which students can communicate with others and exchange information. Students can also work on projects with people on the computer network, even if they are far apart.
Computers can keep records of scores, time spent on the computer, and the files students have worked on. Students can see the results of their work. Teachers can also see what individual students and entire classes are doing. They can use this information to determine the course of future instruction and see the problems that students are having.
Using the records computers keep, it is easy to evaluate individual students and the class as a whole, using statistical analyses. It is possible to see class average, ranking of the students, difficulty levels of questions, types of questions students have difficulty with, etc. These results are very useful for class instruction as well as for guiding individual students.
Using computers, a teacher can establish a learning environment where there is one tutor with one student. It is simpler and more economical than hiring the large number of teachers that would be necessary for such individualised tutoring. As computers continue to get cheaper, and more teaching materials are developed for the computer, individualised instruction will become even more economical and efficient.
We do not yet know the best way to individualise instruction through CAI. Teachers are still looking for good ways to administer it. It is also necessary to train teachers to teach individualised CAI courses and make manuals for them to carry on classes. If teachers expect that computers will do all their work, the classes will not be successful.
Appropriate and well-organised materials are absolutely vital to individualised instruction, and these may not be available, requiring the teacher to develop materials. When teaching an English course through CAI using individualised instruction, it is necessary to have a variety of materials on different topics and of different levels, making use of different methods. Finding or developing these materials and organising them so that students can easily find those that are appropriate to their interests, goals and levels of proficiency take time and effort.
Content. Teaching materials should cover a variety of content areas to meet students' needs and appeal to their interests. Some areas they might cover include daily life and culture in the United States and Britain, history, social problems, biography, geography, and various literary forms of English. Materials should be labeled clearly according to their content, so students can easily get access to the materials they need.
Levels. Materials should be available for different levels of difficulty. If possible, similar content should be available in materials for students of different levels of English proficiency. Students can choose one level, and if it is not appropriate, they can try easier or more difficult materials. Another possibility is to have students try samples of different materials to find out what level is best for them. Again, the materials should be organised in such a way that students can easily find the level they are looking for.
Important characteristics. Since students work independently, it is necessary that the materials have clear instructions. Good examples are also useful in helping students understand what is expected of them. If students do not understand the instructions, they obviously cannot work effectively.
Materials seem to be more effective if they are in a series rather than being completely independent of one another. In my experience, students spend a lot of time when they first use new material, but over time, they become more accustomed to the material and spend less time while doing better work. A series of materials might be on different aspects of a related topic but have a gradually increasing level of difficulty.
The materials used for individualised instruction should allow the teacher to see how well and how fast students are learning, and they should also show the teacher what kinds of problems students are having. The types of exercises or questions that students are having difficulties with should give an indication of what their weak points are, and either the computer program or computer manuals should direct students to materials that can help them with these weaknesses. This type of self-diagnosis helps students work more independently.
As I have explained, it is absolutely necessary that materials be organised in a way that helps students easily find the ones that they need for their goals, interests, and English proficiency. Teachers will help students to choose the appropriate materials, but the students need to be able to understand what they should study, too. Thus, there should be a guide to the materials that indicates their purpose, content, English level, the number of questions, the content of the questions, answers, maximum time and minimum score allowed, etc. Using this guide, students, teachers and other personnel can understand what the materials are and which materials would be appropriate for students.
When students are working outside of class time, there should be someone in the computer room who can help them. He/she should know the materials, programs, and equipment well and know what students are doing in each class. In a large university, such coordination is not easy, so it is necessary to carefully consider the organisation of personnel. It is best if computer room staff members belong to the same department as the teachers who are teaching the classes. If they belong to other departments, they should have periodic committee meetings to coordinate and exchange information.
Now I have a very wide variety of materials to use for CAI *4, and I can give students materials with the same content but at different levels of difficulty. I have developed self-study programs, and students can adjust the materials so that they can study according to the conditions that suit them best, for example, by setting a minimum required score and the maximum time allowed, answering questions with or without hints and with or without being shown the correct answers after mistakes. If students are given choices, they feel more responsibility for their learning.
Using item analysis programs and error listing programs, I can find the problems that individual students and the class as a whole are having. I can give advice to students about their weaknesses. Since most of the class time is spent on students' individual learning, I am free to walk around the class, see how each student is doing, and give advice and encouragement. I have more personal contact with individual students in CAI classes than in ordinary English classes, and students are more satisfied with the CAI classes than with ordinary classes (Kitao, 1993b; Kitao, 1993c; Kitao, 1993d). I know most of the students in the CAI classes better than I know students in an ordinary class, and I get more feedback from them, too. Students also feel very close to me, and when former students see me on campus, they go out of their way to greet and talk to me.
So far I have been able to individualise CAI only partially, in the areas of content and pace. It is not easy to individualise objectives and study methods. It would be necessary to have teaching assistants and self-study rooms where assistants could work with the students. I also need to learn more about what kinds of help I should give to students, what advice I should give, and what the best way is to evaluate them in individualised CAI.
Evaluation does not just involve giving grades to the students. It should be a measure of how well they have learned, what problems they have, etc., and it should be used to help students adjust their learning in order to reach their goals (Logan, 1971). However, if individualised instruction is given as part of an academic course, the system requires that students be given grades.
It is not easy to grade students in an individualised instruction setting, since they may have different goals, methods, content, levels, and pace. It is necessary to find the best ways to evaluate such classes, but there is little consensus on the best way to do so (Logan, 1971). In fact, the act of giving a grade seems, in some ways, contrary to the idea of individualised instruction, since the point of individualised instruction is to have students do work that is appropriate for them. Some argue for giving partial credit, based on the amount of work accomplished (Logan, 1980); others argue for basing grades on the accuracy of the work; and still others argue that it would be in the spirit of individualised instruction to evaluate students on the consistency of their effort (that is, whether they are doing their best) rather than on the results (Logan, 1971). The drawback is that however attractive some of these proposals might appear theoretically, they are not necessarily practical.
Another possibility is to evaluate students according to how well they have done their work and how much they have improved. The contract method is good for this. In the contract method, students agree with the teacher in advance what they will accomplish, how well they will do, how much material they will cover, etc. The evaluation is based on how well students fulfil their contracts. This method would be one possibility, though some students may object if students who set low goals for themselves are evaluated better than students who set high goals for themselves, so the teacher still needs to maintain certain basic standards.
In my classes, what I have done is to measure what percentage of materials students have covered and how well they have done. I give extra credit work, and if they do that, they get extra points.
I have kept records of all the materials students use in my classes. I plan to use it as a basis for calculating the difficulty levels of materials. Based on this information about difficulty levels, students can make plans for which materials they will study, and I can make a contract with each and evaluate their work based on the contract.
Grading is very difficult, but it should be used to help students learn better. Teachers need to continue to investigate the best methods of grading for each situation.
Benmaman, V., Moore, S., Morgan, G., & Rowe, P. (1982). Individualised Spanish at an undergraduate institution: Implementation and evaluation. Modern Language Journal, 66, 150- 154.
Brown, H. D. (1981). Affective factors in second language learning. In J. E. Alatis, H. B. Altman, & P. M. Alatis (Eds.), The second language classroom: Directions for the 1980s (pp. 111-129). New York: Oxford University Press.
Church, D. M. (1986). Textbook specific computer exercises for elementary French students. Modern Language Journal, 70, 251- 257.
Dunkel, P. (1987). Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and computer assisted language learning (CALL): Past dilemmas and future prospects for audible CALL. Modern Language Journal, 71, 250-260.
Edasawa, Y., Ishihara, K., Kitao, K., Mine, H., Saeki, N., Yamauchi, N., Yoshida, H., & Yoshida, S. (1992). Hajimete no CAI: Yoriyoi eigo kyoiku o motomete [Introduction to CAI: Seeking better English education]. Kyoto: Yamaguchi Shoten.
Harlow, L. L. (1987). Individualized instruction in foreign languages at the college level: A survey of programs in the United States. Modern Language Journal, 71, 389-394.
Ishihara, K., Kitao, K., & Yamauchi, N. (1992). Doshisha daigaku no eigo CAI [English CAI at Doshisha University]. In Edasawa, Y., Ishihara, K., Kitao, K., Mine, H., Saeki, N., Yamauchi, N., Yoshida, H., & Yoshida, S. (Eds.), Hajimete no CAI: Yoriyoi eigo kyoiku o motomete [Introduction to CAI: Seeking better English education] (pp. 211-235). Kyoto: Yamaguchi Shoten.
Jenks, F. L. (1981). Learners' needs and the selection of compatible materials. In J. E. Alatis, H. B. Altman, & P. M. Alatis (Eds.), The second language classroom: Directions for the 1980s (pp. 211-226). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitao, K. (1976). Beikoku no shogakko ni okeru kokugo kyoiku [Language arts instruction at an American elementary school]. Eigo no Mado [Window of English], 157, 18-21.
Kitao, K. (1983). Saikin no eigo kyoiku no doko [Trends in recent English instruction]. JALT Newsletter, 7(6), 6-7, 11-12.
Kitao, K. (1989). Eigo no kobetsu dokkai shido: ESL kona no riyo [Individualized instruction of English: Using ESL corner]. Doshisha Studies in English, 49, 137-160.
Kitao, K. (1991). Eigo CBI no kaihatsu: Doshisha daigaku no baai [Developing English CBI: The case of Doshisha University]. Doshisha Studies in English, 54, 259-285.
Kitao, K. (1992a). Developing English CBI programs at Doshisha University. The Doshisha Business Review, 43, 451-484.
Kitao, K. (1992b). Doshisha daigaku ni okeru eigo kodoku CBI no koka [Results of English reading CBI at Doshisha University] (1). Doshisha Studies in English, 56, 358-393.
Kitao, K. (1993a). Doshisha daigaku ni okeru eigo kodoku CBI no koka [Results of English reading CBI at Doshisha University] (2). Doshisha Studies in English, 59, 87-142.
Kitao, K. (1993b). Gakushusha no CAI jugyo ni taisuru hanno [Responses of students to CAI classes] (1). LL Tsushin [LL Communications], 171, 14-17.
Kitao, K. (1993c). Gakushusha no CAI jugyo ni taisuru hanno [Responses of students to CAI classes] (2). LL Tsushin [LL Communications], 172, 15-17.
Kitao, K. (1993d). Gakushusha no CAI jugyo ni taisuru hanno [Responses of students to CAI classes] (3). LL Tsushin [LL Communications], 173, 16-18.
Kitao, K., Ishihara, K., & Yamauchi, N. (1992). Developing teacher- made computer-based instruction (CBI) courses at Doshisha University. In I. Shinjo, K. Landhl, M. Macdonald, K. Noda, S. Ozeki, T. Shiozawa, & M. Sugiura (Eds.), The proceedings of the second international conference on foreign language education and technology (pp. 115-124). Nagoya: The Language Laboratory Association of Japan and International Association of Learning Laboratories.
Kitao, K., Kitao, S. K., Yoshida, S., & Yoshida, H. (1985). Daigakusei no eigo dokkai sokudo no kenkyu [A study of college students' reading speed]. Chubu Chiku Eigo Kyoiku Gakkai Kiyo, 14, 168-174.
Kitao, K., & Miyamoto, H. (1982). Daigakusei no eigo dokkairyoku- -Chosa ni yoru ichi kosatsu [Japanese college students' reading ability--A study based on testing]" Doshisha Studies in English, 30, 135-165.
Kitao, K., & Miyamoto, H. (1983). Daigakusei no eigo dokkairyoku no mondaiten--Gotou no keikou to sui [Problems in college students' reading English--Trends and changes of errors]. Doshisha Studies in English, 32, 118-147.
Kitao, K., Yamamoto, M., Kitao, S. K., & Shimatani, H. (1990). Independent reading in English: Use of graded readers in the library English as a second language corner. Reading in a Foreign Language, 6(2), 383-398.
Kitao, K., & Yoshida, S. (1985). Daigakusei no eigo dokkairyoku to sono speed no kenkyu [A study of college students' English reading comprehension and speed]. Chubu Chiku Eigo Kyoiku Gakkai Kiyo, 14, 28-34.
Kitao, K., Yoshida, S., & Yoshida, H. (1986). Daigakusei no eigo dokkairyoku no mondaiten--Gotou no ruikei to genin [Japanese college students' problems in reading English--Tendencies and cases in errors]. Chubu Chiku Eigo Kyoiku Gakkai Kiyo, 15, 8-13.
Logan, G. E. (1971). Problems in testing, grading, and issuing credits in an individualized foreign language program. In H. B. Altman & R. L. Politzer (Eds.), Individualizing foreign language instruction: The proceedings of the Stanford Conference (pp. 225- 237). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Logan, G. E. (1980). Individualized foreign language instruction: American patterns for accommodating learner differences in the classroom.In H. B. Altman & C. V. James (Eds.), Foreign language teaching: Meeting individual needs (pp. 94-110). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Nozawa, K., Shimatani, H., & Yamamoto, M. (Eds.). (1993). Computer riyo no gaikokugo kyoiku: CAI no doko to jissen [Foreign language education using computers: Trends and practice in CAI]. Tokyo: Eichosha .
Olsen, S. (1980). Foreign language departments and computer- assisted instruction: A survey. Modern Language Journal, 64, 341- 349.
Otto, F. (1988). Using the computer. In J. B. Gleason (Ed.), You can take it with you: Helping students maintain foreign language skills beyond the classroom (pp. 70-91). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Thrush, J. P., & Thrush, R. S. (1984). Microcomputers in foreign language teaching. Modern Language Journal, 68, 21-27.
Yoshida, S., & Kitao, K. (1986). Stsu no dokkai test o riyoshita daigakukusei no eigo dokkai sokudo oyobi rikaido no kenkyu [Japanese college students' English reading ability and speed--A study based on five tests]. Chubu-Chiku Eigo Kyoiku Gakkai Kiyo, 15, 183-188.
*2 There was one session on changing English curriculum in college and eight cases were presented at thirty-second Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) conference held on September 8- 10, 1993.
*3 English reading CAI in 1991 is discussed in Kitao, 1992b and Kitao, 1993a.
*4 The list of CAI materials I developed before March, 1993, is on the floppy disks attached to Edasawa et al.,1992, and Nozawa, Shimatani, & Yamamoto, 1993.
Source:
Kitao, K., & Kitao, S. K. (1995). English teaching: Theory, research and practice. Tokyo: Eichosha. pp. 545-567. ISBN 4-268-00243-X C3082
If you find any problems, let me know.