-
The Independent Learning Behaviors of Preadolescent 
Students Using the Problem Approach 
by 
Virginia Hatcher ,.P,i lato 
)1 CA. 'r I J!_ o. nJ 
L] 
313/ 
#M70~ 
,?f~to> 
V.H. 
f o L ?1') 
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School 
of the University of Maryland in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 
1984 
Cof~ l 
APPROVAL SHEET 
Title of thesis: The Independent Learning Behaviors of Preadolescent 
Students Using the Problem Approach 
Name of candidate: Virginia Hatcher Pilato 
Doctor of Philosophy, 1984 
Thesis and Abstract Approved: 
Dr. Bruce W. B~i gham 
Associate Professor 
Department of Curriculum 
and Instruction 
Date Approved: 
ABSTRACT 
Title of Dissertation: The Independent Learning Behaviors of Preadolescent 
Students Using the Problem Approach 
Virginia H. Pilato, Doctor of Philosophy, 1984 
Dissertation directed by: Dr. Bruce W. Brigham, Associate Professor, 
Department of Curriculum and Instruction 
The purpose of this research was to observe the independent learning 
behaviors of preadolescent students who experienced the Problem Approach, 
an instructional approach intended to help students develop independent 
learning behaviors and improved thinking skills. A behavior observation 
checklist, divided into the categories of Questioning, ~lanaging, Planning, 
and Evaluating, was used to record the frequency, the directionality 
(initiates versus responds), and the social contexts of independent 
learning behaviors. 
A single case experimental design with four parallel applications 
was used. The subjects were four sixth grade students (boy and girl 
middle achievement level; boy and girl low achievement level). The 
research was conducted in the students' reading class where the subjects, 
along with all the other members of the class, participated in the Problem 
Approach. A team of trained observers collected focused observation data 
for ten weeks, which included pre-treatment, treatment, and post-treatment. 
Upon completion of the observations, the data were analyzed. Visual 
inspection of graphed data, as well as the sign test and the binomial test, 
clearly revealed large increases of independent learning behavior during 
treatment compared to pre-treatment and post - treatment. The high level s 
of independent learning behaviors during treatment, however , were not 
maintained during post-treatment. In Questioning, Managing , and Evaluating 
categories, most post-treatment frequencies were somewhat higher than they 
were during pre-treatment. Only the Planning category failed to ac hieve 
a post-treatment level higher than the pre-treatment level. All four 
subjects increased their proportion of initiating behaviors to responding 
behaviors during and after treatment compared to before treatment. The 
vast number of behaviors occurred when students spoke to one another, not 
to the teacher. Moreover, the highest frequency of independent learning 
behaviors occurred when students worked with one another in cooperative 
small groups. 
This research has numerous implications . An implication for theory 
is that the psychological conditions of a setting may influence human 
change as much as direct instruction . Implications for research indicate 
the need for replication. Implications for practice indicate the need 
for using the Problem Approach in classrooms and in teacher education to 
assist students in becoming independent . 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
Numerous people have contributed to this study. To all who have 
helped, I express my gratitude. 
My advisor, Dr. Bruce W. Brigham, guided my study and nurtured my 
independent learning behavior. A special thanks is extended to him, as 
well as to the other members of my research committee, Drs. Linda B. 
Gambrell, Nancy R. King, Jessie A. Roderick, and Robert M. Wilson, whose 
probing questions and suggestions directed my efforts. Thanks are also 
extended to my mentor Shirley Mccann. 
I am indebted to the principal and staff of the school where the 
study was conducted. Their support and encouragement were invaluable. 
I appreciate the assistance of Anne Faffley. I also thank the sixth 
grade students whose class I observed. 
To my friend, Emily Guard, I offer my deepest gratitude for her 
technical assistance, creative problem solving, and moral support. 
To my husband, sons, and parents, I am sincerely grateful. They 
inspired, they waited, they helped. A special thanks is extended to 
my father, Dr. Nolan C. Hatcher, for his support and technical assistance .. 
I am thankful for the professional support of my friend and typist 
Bobbie Gownley. 
ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? . . . ii 
Chapter 
I INTRODUCTION .. 1 
Purpose. 2 
Justification. 3 
Problem .. 7 
Rationale .. 8 
Research Hypotheses .. 9 
Delimitations .. . . 10 
Assumptions 10 
Limitations . . . 10 
Definitions . . 12 
Methodo 1o gy. . . 15 
Sample and Sampling Procedures 15 
Procedures ..... 16 
Staff Development ... . 16 
Teacher-Centered Instructional 
Situation ... . 16 
Data Generation Procedures 17 
Display of Quantitative Data. 22 
Interobserver Reliability. . 22 
Analysis of Data .. . 22 
Summary. . . . . 23 
iii 
II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 24 
Active Involvement. 25 
Problem Solving. . . 29 
Steps of Problem Solving 29 
The Importance of Active Involvement 30 
The Importance of the Knowledge/Skill Base 32 
Problem Solving in Cooperative Small Groups 36 
Processes. . 36 
Outcomes . 40 
Developing Independence in Learning 44 
The Educational Aim of Autonomy. 44 
Processes Which Facilitate Independence ... 45 
Categories of Independent Learning Behavior. 47 
Student-Centered Instruction. 49 
Hi stori ca 1 Origins . . 49 
More Recent Forms of Student-Centered 
Instruction. 51 
Summary. . 55 
III METHODOLOGY .. 56 
General Design. 56 
Sample and Sampling Procedures. 57 
Teacher-Centered Instructional Situation. 58 
Research Procedures . . 63 
Teacher Training . . .. 63 
Treatment Procedures . 64 
The Problem Approach. 65 
iv 
-~--- ------~ 
Implementation of the Problem Approach. 66 
Data Collection Procedures . . . . 83 
Direct Classroom Observation. 83 
Observation Instrument .. 87 
Reliability ..... . . . 88 
Interrater Reliability .. 89 
Data Analysis Procedures . . 91 
Summary 92 
IV RESULTS ... ? ? ? 93 
Individual Behavioral Descriptions. 94 
Student #1, a Low Achievement Boy. . 94 
Baseline. . 94 
Treatment 99 
Return to Baseline Conditions .102 
Evaluation of Frequency Data. .103 
Student #2, a Low Achievement Girl . .104 
Baseline. . . 104 
Treatment . l 05 
Return to Baseline Conditions ? 112 
Evaluation of Frequency Data .. . . . 113 
Student #3, a Middle Achievement Boy . 114 
Baseline. . . . 114 
Treatment . . . 115 
Return to Baseline Conditions . 124 
Evaluation of Frequency Data. . 125 
V 
Student #4, a Middle Achievement Girl. . 126 
Baseline. 126 
Treatment . 127 
Return to Baseline Conditions 135 
Evaluation of Frequency Data. . . 136 
Summary. . . . . . . . . l 36 
Independent Learning Behavior Data Aggregated 
on Four Subjects ..... . ? . 137 
Independent Learning Behavior Data Aggregated 
on Four Subjects for Directionality and 
Social Context. . . . . . . . . . . ., 139 
Directionality of Independent Learning 
Behaviors ................. 140 
Social Contexts of Independent Learning 
Behaviors. . . . 142 
Students' Evaluation. 145 
Teacher's Evaluation. 146 
What the Teacher Liked Best. . 146 
Other Areas of Interest ... 147 
What the Teacher Liked Least ? 148 
Will the Teacher Use the Problem Approach 
Again? 148 
Summary ... 149 
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . 150 
Summary . . . . 150 
Purpose. 150 
vi 
Problem ...... . . . . . 151 
Research Hypotheses. 151 
Design and Procedures. 152 
Findings 153 
Conclusions . 154 
Independent Learning Behavior in Four 
Categories . 154 
Limitations. 158 
Directionality (Initiates versus Responds) 
and Social Contexts. . 160 
Directionality. 160 
Socia 1 Contexts 160 
Implications ... . 161 
Implications for Theory. . 161 
Implications for Research. 163 
Implications for Practice. . 164 
Classroom Instruction 164 
Professional Development .. 167 
Summary .. 168 
APPENDIX A: Applying the Problem Approach. 169 
APPENDIX B: Behavior Observation Checklist 172 
APPENDIX C: Parental Permission Letter .. 173 
APPENDIX D: Raw Frequency Counts of Observed Independent 
Learning Behavior. . 174 
APPENDIX E: Committee Planning: How to Analyze Our 
Subtopic . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 175 
vii 
APPENDIX F: Individual Sign-up Sheet ?? 176 
APPENDIX G: Cammi ttee ~fork 177 
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . ? 178 
viii 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table Page 
l Schedule for Observing Groups of Five to 
Six Students .... 18 
2 Schedule for Observing Students Not Working 
in Small Groups ... 19 
3 Independent Learning Behavior Data Aggregated 
on Four Subjects (Weighted for Equivalency 
of Observation). . . . . . . ... . . 138 
4 Directionality: Ratios (Percentages) of 
Initiates to Total Independent Learning 
Behaviors. . . . . . 141 
5 Social Contexts and Verbal Communication Objects 
of Independent Learning Behaviors ... 143 
ix 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure Page 
1 Sample Characteristics ..... 58 
2 Teacher Observation Checklist. 60 
3 Student-Generated Questions and Topics 68 
4 Student-Organized Categories ..... . 70 
5 Categories for Committee Investigation . . . . 73 
6 Student-Generated Resources .. 74 
7 Student-Generated Presentation Forms 77 
8 Independent Learning Behaviors in Four Categories 
for One Student ( #1) . . . . 97 
9 Combined Independent Learning Behaviors for 
One Student (#1) ..... 98 
10 Combined Average Independent Learning Behaviors 
for One Student (#1) (Equated for Common 
Time Units) ..... 99 
11 Independent Learning Behaviors in Four Categories 
for One Student (#2) .... 106 
12 Combined Independent Learning Behaviors for 
One Student (#2) . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . 107 
13 ? Combined Average Independent Learning Behaviors 
for One Student (#2) (Equated for Common 
Time Units) .... . . . . . . 108 
14 Independent Learning Behaviors in Four Categories 
for One Student (#3) .... ? ? ? . . .. 116 
X 
15 Combined Independent Learning Behaviors for 
One Student (#3) ............ . . 117 
16 Combined Average Independent Learning Behaviors 
for One Student (#3) (Equated for Common 
Time Units) ..... 118 
17 Independent Learning Behaviors in Four Categories 
for One Student (#4) . . . . . . . . 128 
18 Combined Independent Learning Behaviors for 
One Student (#4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 
19 Combined Average Independent Learning Behaviors 
for One Student (#4) (Equated for Common 
Time Units) ..... ? . ? 130 
xi 
CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 
Assisting students in developing thinking skills is a high priority 
in American education for the 1980 1 s. The Association of Supervision and 
Curriculum Development (ASCD) recently found that 82% of its members 
surveyed rated the teaching of thinking skills as their major concern 
for the next five years (ASCD Update, June 1983). The Joint Council on 
Economic Education (1982) urges educators to develop reasoning as the 
fourth R, saying that individual decision making requires reasoning skill 
together with skills in reading, writing, and calculating. The National 
Science Board ( 1983) al so calls for expanding the 11 basi cs II to include 
higher level problem solving skills. 
Developing thinking skills has been a commonly stated educational 
goal for many years. Gagne (1980) finds that educators and other 
investigators of human cognition currently accord high priority to rational 
thinking and problem solving as if it were a new thought. Gagnf (1980) 
concurs with this high priority on developing thinking skills, even though 
the focus is not so new. In the 1980 1 s, just as in 1910 when Dewey 
published Hov, We Think, 11 the main office of education is the Training of 
the Mind 11 (Dewey, 1910, p. 28). 
How to facilitate the development of thinking skills is the issue 
schools face. Research indicates the importance of students? active 
involvement in their learning (Barnes, 1979; Berman & Roderick, 1977; 
Berman, Roderick, Browner, & Lee, 1976; Bloom & Broder, 1950; Coleman, 
2 
1976; Combs, 1981; Gish, 1979; Kolb & Fry, 1975; Roderick, 1972, 1973; 
Wittrock, 1979). Educational literature also indicates the importance 
of educating students for independence (Hedin & Conrad, 1980; Herber, 1978; 
McCann, 1982; Niebuhr, Jr., 1981; Slavin, 1981; Treffinger, 1975). Current 
research on human cognition is providing an increasingly detailed under-
standing of thinking processes and characteristics (Anzai & Simon, 1979; 
Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980; Lochhead, 1981; Newell & Simon, 
1972; Papert, 1980, Piaget, 1974; Rothman & Potts, 1977; Scandura, 1977a, 
1977b, 1980; Tuma & Reif, 1980). With increased knowledge of students' 
thinking abilities and learning needs, educators may better advance 
students' thinking abilities and more realistically promote their 
independence. 
Purpose 
The purpose of this study was to observe the independent learning 
behaviors of sixth grade students. The researcher trained and used 
a sixth grade teacher to teach her reading class using an instructional 
procedure known as the Problem Approach. The researcher used a single 
case study design (Hersen & Barlow, 1978; Huck, Cormier, & Bounds, 1974) 
1tJith four parallel applications to determine if the Problem Approach 
facilitates the development of independent learning behavior. Using 
this schedule enabled the researcher to compare students' learning 
behaviors during the treatment phase with their learning behaviors both 
before the treatment began and later when the treatment had been 
withdrawn. The specific independent learning behaviors studied in this 
investigation are grouped in these categories: Questioning, Planning, 
3 
Managing, and Evaluating. Data collected also provided information about 
the social contexts in which the independent learning behaviors occurred. 
Data generated and analyzed in this research have the additional purpose 
of extending the knowledge base of the Problem Approach and independent 
learning behavior as described by Mccann (1982). 
Justification 
\t,Jith the expression "lifelong learning 11 now in popular usage, our 
language is reflecting the view that learning is indeed a lifelong 
activity. Life 1o ng 1e arning, though, is not a new concept. Dewey ( 1916) 
explained that the result of the educative process is capacity for further 
education. Dev1ey 1 s concern was lifelong learning. 
Schubert (1981) points out that the learner is a participant in 
curricula both in school and out of school. He says that education is 
more pervasive than schooling; it permeates all of life, and life teaches 
the art of using knowledge. Using knowledge is a lifelong process involving 
all aspects of living, including schooling. 
Our culture attempts to direct learning through the institution of 
school. Formal schooling enters the life of the child and becomes a 
major force. The influence may be productive and assist the child in being 
and becoming a self-fulfilled, independent person. The influence, on the 
other hand, may be damaging and limiting, a source of emotional and 
intellectual barriers. The responsibility of schooling is to facilitate 
learning during school years and to enhance the capacity for independent 
lifelong learning. 
4 
It is important for schools to use instructional methods which allow 
students to learn to perform independently. Beeler (1979) believes that 
schools do not encourage students to explore problems and to inquire into 
unknown areas. Children learn in the earliest grades that teachers set 
goals for them, direct their activities, and then tell them how well they 
have met these goals. Too often children do not recognize their personal 
relationship with goals, goal-setting, and goal-attainment. When training 
students to develop their independence as learners, schools are responsible 
for helping students learn through practice how to become self-directive 
and self-evaluative. 
Treffinger (1975) notes a paradox of schooling. Schools talk about 
educating children for independence but provide forms of instruction which 
only reinforce dependence (Treffinger, 1975). He recommends a systematic 
approach to leading gifted children in becoming self-directed. Procedures 
useful with gifted students are usually appropriate for others as well. 
Niebuhr, Jr., (1981) believes that schooling must provide an adequate 
basis for the development of a coherent and balanced way of life. He says 
schools must train students in using the tools necessary for handling 
freedom and choice, lest freedom and choice become onerous burdens. He 
urges that institutional processes in schools be adjusted to support 
self-directed development. 
Helping students become better thinkers and problem solvers is a 
widely held and currently stressed educational goal. More than a decade 
ago educators articulated the goal of building thinking skills because of 
the impact of rapid social and technological change. Snygg (1972) has 
said we cannot teach our children answers to future problems because we 
5 
cannot even anticipate the problems. According to Snygg, we need 
instructional models which assist our children in becoming creative, 
adaptive citizens. 
Gagne (1980) is concerned with the theme of educating students to 
think well and become better problem solvers. He explains that we have 
three kinds of human capabilities involved in problem solving--intellectual 
skills, verbal knowledge, and cognitive strategies. Intellectual skills 
are our capabilities for "knowing how" to perform operations. Verbal 
knowledge is our knowledge of the world; it is specific and general and 
organized in various ways. Cognitive strategies enable us to exercise 
control over our own learning and thinking processes. Cognitive strategies 
control such processes as attention, perceiving, encoding, and retrieval 
of prior knowledge. Gagne explains that cognitive strategies are task 
strategies concretely and specifically related to problems. Such methods 
are stored in memory. Gagne says problem solving methods may be taught 
directly. They may also be learned through discovery, but he is not an 
opponent of direct teaching of strategies. 
He identifies another type of cognitive strategy, which he calls an 
"executive strategy." Executive strategies are thinking strategies which 
enable problem solvers to review the cognitive strategies they have, select 
and reject them appropriately, and persist in searching for the best means 
of solving the problem. Executive strategies facilitate rapid strategy 
shifting. Gagne is doubtful that such executive strategies can be taught, 
,,, 
though they are essential for effective problem solving. Gagne says that 
executive strategies appear to result from problem solving experience and 
reflective thought. He stresses that education for improved thinking skills 
... 
6 
must provide opportunities for gaining experience in problem solving which 
will lead to the development of executive problem solving strategies. 
Bruner's theory (1973) about problem solving is related to Gagne's. 
Bruner also stresses the importance of practice. He says that it is 
through the exercise of problem solving that students learn to generalize 
what they have learned into a style of problem solving or inquiry that 
serves well in most situations. Bruner says that through practice 
students learn the working heuristic of discovery. 
A curricular focus on developing independence in problem solving is 
particularly appropriate for preadolescents. During late childhood and 
preadolescence, children characteristically have strong interest in and 
curiosity about their physical and social world (Perkins, 1975). Their 
increased social activity facilitates the growth of their social cognition 
and their general cognitive development, including objective thinking 
(Sutton-Smith, 1973). They begin to experience sharp differences between 
peer and adult codes and values (Perkins, 1975). They begin to assert 
their independence from adults. When classrooms limit students' oppor-
tunities for becoming responsible and independent learners, preadolescents 
are often inadequately prepared for real world situations (Snyder, 1971). 
The Problem Approach (Brigham, 1961, 1974, 1975, 1979; Brigham & 
Pilato, 1980, 1981, 1982; Dudley, Pilato, & Brigham, 1982; Mccann, 1982) 
is an instructional approach which motivates students to become independent 
learners. Participation in the Problem Approach provides students with 
opportunities for problem solving practice, as ca 11 ed for by Gagne ( 1980) 
and Bruner (1973), and with opportunities for developing and reflecting 
upon the thinking skills called "executive strategies" by Gagne (1980). 
7 
Students set their own goals, determine how to achieve their goals, 
participate in activities related to their goals, present their outcomes, 
and evaluate their products and their processes. Problem Approach 
teachers assist students in focusing on and achieving their goals. Since 
the Problem Approach includes group as well as individual activities, it 
promotes social learning, which is critical for success in real world 
situations (Slavin, 1981; Snyder, 1971; Sutton-Smith, 1973). 
Problem 
Will instruction using the Problem Approach with male and female, 
middle and low scholastic achievement level preadolescents, lead to a 
greater frequency of independent learning behaviors, observed in described 
social contexts, during and after the treatment phase, than during periods 
of instruction which are more teacher-directed? 
Rationale 
Independent learning behavior should be an outcome of all educational 
programs. While it is important for students to acquire a wide breadth 
of knowledge, it is also important that they learn to function in accord 
with, but independently of, teacher direction. With appropriate student-
centered class work, students can develop improved motivation for learning, 
as well as improved thinking skills. Independent reasoning needs to be 
viewed as a basic skill along with reading, writing, and calculating. 
Students need to know how to determine goals, how to initiate questioning, 
how to evaluate their processes and their outcomes and the processes and 
8 
outcomes of their peers. Research on the effects of instructional methods 
generally focuses on students? academic achievement. Research attention 
has generally not been given to the acquisition of independent learning 
behavior. The research of McCann (1982), however, is a descriptive study 
which had the purpose of observing independent learning behavior of a 
group of seventh grade academically able students before and after they 
experienced ten weeks of Problem Approach instruction. Mccann 11 probed 
the significance?? (Ericson & Ellett, Jr., 1982) of the Problem Approach 
in her study. The research task now is to supplement her interpretations 
(Ericson & Ellett, Jr., 1982) through systematic changes in research 
design and sample selection. Rather than study the outcomes of teaching 
with the Problem Approach as Mccann did when she looked at post-treatment 
effects, the present study observed subjects? behaviors during the 
process of the treatment. Additionally, like McCann 1 s research, this 
research observed pre- and post-treatment behaviors. Because McCann 1 s 
study observed academically able preadolescents, this study focused 
on middle and lower achieving preadolescents and not high achieving 
preadolescents. To provide additional descriptive information about 
students manifesting independent learning behaviors, this research 
observed the direction of the behaviors, noting whether the student 
initiates independent learning behavior or responds with independent 
learning behavior. To further supplement McCann 1 s study, this research 
observed and coded the social contexts in which independent learning 
behaviors occurred~ It was generally hypothesized that the preadolescent 
students in this study would show increases in their independent 
9 
learning behaviors (observed in described social contexts) during and 
after the student-centered treatment known as the Problem Approach 
compared to before the use of the Problem Approach. 
Research Hypotheses 
Specifically, it was hypothesized that the male and female, middle 
and low scholastic achievement preadolescents involved in the research 
would manifest a greater frequency of independent learning behaviors 
(observed in social contexts) during and after treatment using the 
Problem Approach compared to periods of instruction which did not use the 
Problem Approach. Hypotheses regarding four categories of independent 
learning behavior are as follows: 
a. It was hypothesized that during and after participating in the 
Problem Approach subjects would manifest more questioning behavior than 
they did prior to treatment. 
b. It was hypothesized that during and after participating in the 
Problem Approach subjects would manifest more managing behavior than they 
did prior to treatment. 
c. It was hypothesized that during and after participating in the 
Problem Approach subjects would manifest more plannin[ behavior than 
they did prior to treatment. 
d. It was hypothesized that during and after participating in the 
Problem Approach subjects would manifest more evaluating behavior than 
they did prior to treatment. 
10 
Delimitations 
The following delimitations indicate the scope of this research. The 
assumptions pertain to the frame of reference of the researcher. The 
limitations pertain to the possible weaknesses or threats to generalizability 
inherent in the research design. The definitions are conceived as 
operational definitions necessary for assuring precise language in the 
exposition of the study. 
Assumptions 
a. Preadolescent students need to participate in an instructional 
program which improves independent learning. 
b. Preadolescent students should be actively involved in the 
instructional program. 
c. Cooperative small group learning activities facilitate social 
learning. 
d. The primary function of a teacher is to assist students in 
becoming independent learners. 
Limitations 
Context. In addition to the treatment variable, other events occurring 
inside or outside of the classroom could have had effects on independent 
learning behavior. Frequently scheduled observation points occurring 
throughout both baseline and treatment phases were planned as a control. 
Moreover, data were collected daily over a ten-week period. 
Maturation. Preadolescents characteristically are rapidly maturing 
individuals. The frequent observations for data collection during both 
baseline and treatment phases attempted to control for the threat of 
maturation. Moreover, data were collected over a ten-week period. 
11 
Instrumentation. Observers' interobserver reliability was high 
(between 0.79 and 1.00 using Pearson's Product Moment Correlation). To 
minimize the threat of instrumentation, observers were trained with the 
observation instrument. Reliability was computed during practice 
observations in the classroom and again during both baseline and treatment 
phases of the research. The original data collection instrument, which 
WilS expanded for this research, was field tested and validated through 
previous research which had treatment variable and dependent variables 
identical to this research (Mccann, 1982). A limitation of the data 
collection instrument in its original form is that it permitted observation 
along only a set of twelve specified dimensions. To compensate for the 
limitation of the original form of the instrument, it was expanded to 
permit observations of the social contexts within which independent 
learning behaviors occur. 
Population Validity. Generalizability of this study is limited to 
preadolescent ele1nentary school students who have characteristics similar 
to the subjects of the research. To enhance genera 1i  zabil i ty, subjects 
were a boy and a gi r 1 in the mi dd 1e  achievement range and a boy and a 
girl in the low achievement range. Levels of achievement were determined 
by California Achievement Test scores obtained when students were in the 
fifth grade, by grades in school, and by reading group level. California 
Achievement Test scores for students in the middle achievement group 
ranged from the 57th to the 87th percentile. California Achievement 
Test scores for students in the low achievement group ranged from the 
19th to the 54th percentile. 
12 
Definitions 
Behavior Observation Checklist--the instrument used to measure the 
dependent variable. It was developed, field-tested, validated, and used 
in research by McCann (1982) (see Appendix B). The checklist is divided 
into four independent learning behavior categories: Questioning, Planning, 
Managing, and Evaluating. Each category is divided into three specific, 
non-overlapping behaviors. The instrument was altered in two ways for 
this research. (1) Wording of several items was revised so that all items 
are expressed as observable behaviors. (2) Additional space, with direc-
tions for use, was added for collecting data on social contexts, on the 
dimensions of directionality (initiates independent learning behavior 
versus responds with independent learning behavior~ and group size where 
independent learning behavior occurs. Two students may be observed at 
one time using the checklist adapted for this research. Data collected 
with this instrument were supplemented by daily notes recorded to give 
additional information about subjects? appearance and behavior and social 
contexts. 
Dependent learner--one who relies on the teacher for processing 
information. 
Evaluating--an independent learning behavior observed as appraisal 
of group and individual (including self) work. In evaluating, verifiable 
facts are used as evidence. Evaluating is of oral and/or written expression. 
Linguistically, evaluating remarks refer to events performed in the past. 
Heterogeneous group--a group of students different from one another 
(along such dimensions as sex, race, ethnic background, age, birth order, 
13 
parents? occupations, school achievement, intelligence) assigned to the 
same sma 11 group or to the same c 1a ss. 
Independent learning behavior--action indicating that a learner is 
processing information on his or her own without direct assistance from 
the teacher. The specific dimensions of independent learning behaviors 
in the study are: questioning, planning, managing, and evaluating. 
Involvement--behavior of a learner indicative of emotional and/or 
intellectual participation in learning activities. Involvement may be 
seen as active or passive with 11 actively involved 11 students demonstrating 
more involvement than passive students. 
Managing--an independent learning behavior observed as time schedul-
ing and use, meeting deadlines, personal and/or group record-keeping, 
participating in decision making. Managing is also seen as facilitating 
group discussions. Linguistically, this observation category relates 
only to events occurring in the present. 
Problem Approach--an instructional strategy which places the student 
in the role of an active learner and the teacher in the role of an active 
resource. The process comprises sequential steps moving from goal-setting 
to presenting of final products. The process emphasizes students? experi-
ences and interests. The learner participates in independent and small 
group activities. Learning processes include brainstorming, categorizing, 
labeling, prioritizing, planning, questioning, organizing, researching, 
specific skill development, compiling, evaluating, and presenting. All 
four elements of language--reading, writing, speaking, and listening--
are included in the process (see Appendix A). 
14 
Planning--an independent learning behavior observed as long and 
short term goal-setting (verbalized) for collecting and presenting infor-
mation. Planning is also seen as organizing and developing strategies 
(verbalized) for goal-attainment. Linguistically, planning verbalizations 
are expressed in the future tense. 
Preadolescent--an eleven to thirteen-year-old child in the sixth 
grade. 
Questioning--an independent learning behavior observed as student-
initiated inquiry. The student is seeking to learn the 11 how 11 and 11 why 11 
of events. In this study questioning may relate to subject content and 
to classroom procedures. 
Social Context--the learning environment in which students and teacher 
interact with one another and with information, materials, and instruction. 
Student-centered instruction--students set learning objectives and 
purposes, direct their learning activities, and evaluate their products 
and processes. Students? learning is assisted by the teacher who serves 
as the primary facilitator. 
Teacher-centered instruction--teacher sets learning objectives and 
purposes, directs learning activities, and evaluates students? products 
and processes. The teacher is the ultimate source of information and the 
primary decision maker in the class . 
.. 
15 
Methodology 
Sample and Sampling Procedures 
Sixth grade students in a suburban public school had been distributed 
among three sixth grade classes for the 1983-1984 school year. Students 
in the class where the research was conducted were within a range of 
academic achievement, as determined by the California Achievement Test 
(reading vocabulary and comprehension), from high achievement to low 
achievement. The class range for reading vocabulary was from the 19th 
percentile to the 99th percentile. The class range for reading compre-
hension was from the 33rd percentile to the 99th percentile. The class 
was racially mixed. Eighteen students were white, eight students were 
black, and two students were Asian. The class was comprised of 17 boys 
and 11 girls. 
Single case study research design provides for data collection and 
analysis for one subject with parallel applications. In this study four 
students were selected as subjects. 
Prior to the first baseline phase of the research, subjects were 
selected. A boy and a girl in the middle achievement range on the 
California Achievement Test and in their sixth grade academic performance 
were selected. A boy and a girl in the low achievement range and in their 
fifth grade performance were selected. All four subjects were the same race, 
for the purpose of holding the variable of race constant. When more than 
one student was eligible to be included in the study, frequency counts of 
independent learning behavior collected during practice observations were 
16 
used to avoid selecting high independent learning behavior students. The 
purpose of this procedure was to control for a regression to the mean 
threat to validity. When more than one student was still eligible, random 
selection was used. 
Procedures 
Staff Development. Two training programs were conducted by the re-
searcher. Prior to data collection the researcher trained two other 
individuals to assist with classroom observations. The other observers 
assisted the researcher with the data collection on a schedule. One of 
the other observers had used the observation instrument in previous research. 
The training included one week in the classroom as practice and to allow 
students to become acclimated to the presence of observers. Interobserver 
reliability was assessed in the final two days of practice observations. 
The second training program was conducted at the conclusion of the 
first baseline phase of the data collection and in preparation for the 
treatment phase. During this time the researcher trained the classroom 
teacher and a substitute teacher in the use of the Problem Approach. The 
training consisted of role playing, discussion, lecture, and a series 
of videotape presentations of the Problem Approach. The training phase 
also included planning for the teacher to meet with the researcher after 
school on a weekly basis so that the researcher could monitor the treatment. 
Teacher-Centered Instructional Situation. Prior to baseline data 
collection, the researcher followed an observation schedule of six obser-
vations in the classroom for the purpose of being able to describe the 
teacher-centered instructional situation in her reading class. The 
17 
researcher also discussed with the teacher pertinent details about her 
teaching style. As a way of focusing the description of her teaching 
style, the researcher developed and used a two-part checklist which 
contrasts student-centered teaching (as prescribed by the Problem Approach) 
with teacher-centered teaching. The checklist and the written description 
provided an account of the teacher-centered instructional situation. 
This account is necessary for understanding students' behaviors in her 
class, during baseline and treatment phases. Students' classroom behaviors 
interact with teachers' behaviors. 
Data Generation Procedures. Data were collected by classroom 
observation Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday each week during 
three phases of research. Data ~I/ere al so co 11 ected on Tuesdays many 
\'Jee ks, though the researcher usually did not know in advance if Tuesdays 
would be appropriate days to observe. Other sixth grade activities 
sometimes were held instead of reading class on Tuesdays. An A1-B-A2 
data collection schedule was used. Two outside observers assisted the 
researcher in performing the classroom observations. Subjects were 
observed for 20-mi nute periods every day of data co 11 ecti on. Observers, 
including the researcher, arrived in the classroom on or before 9:20 each 
morning and remained for a minimum of 5 minutes following scheduled 
observations. The additional 20 minutes in the classroom before and 
after observing were used for recording relevant information about subjects' 
appearance and behavior and about the social context of the classroom 
that morning. 
Two observation schedules were used. During all three phases of 
research, subjects participated in small group activities and in whole 
class activities. The following schedule was used when subjects were 
18 
working in small groups (five to six students per group) during the 
treatment phase. When students were in small groups during treatment, 
dummy observations were conducted of groups not having subjects. On 
Mondays and Thursdays the researcher used a co-observer to provide a 
reliability check on her data collection. On Wednesdays and Fridays the 
outside observers did not co-observe with the researcher; instead they 
performed dummy observations. The researcher also performed dummy ob-
servations. When observations were held on Tuesdays, the researcher 
alternated between the fvlonday and Wednesday observation schedules. 
Table l 
Schedule for Observing Groups of Five to Six Students 
Group Monday Wednesday Thursday Friday 
Group A R + o1 R R + o2 R 
Ss l & 3 9:35 - 9:55 9:55 - 10:15 9:35 - 9:55 9: 55 - 10: 15 
Group B R + o1 R R + o2 R 
Ss 2 & 4 9:55 - l O: 15 9:35 - 9:55 9:55 - 10:15 9:35 - 9:55 
Group C E R + o2 01 
No Ss 9:35 - 9:55 l O: 15 - 10: 35 9: 55 - 10: 15 
Group D E 02 R + o2 R + o1 (alt. weeks) 
No Ss 9:55 - 10:15 9:35 - 9:55 l O: 35 - l O: 50 l O: l 5 - l O: 35 
Group E 02 01 
No Ss 9:55 - 10:15 9:35 - 9:55 
(alt. weeks) 
R + o1 
l O: 35 - l O: 50 
R = Researcher o2 = Outside Observer #2 
o1 = Outside Observer #1 E = Person used only as dummy observer 
19 
The following schedule was used when subjects were not in small 
groups (five to six students per group) during the treatment. This schedule 
was used to observe whole class activities and to observe reading group 
instruction. (The teacher had three reading groups). With this schedule 
observers could observe students in groups and at their desks doing seat 
work. This schedule also was used during treatment at all times that 
students were not in small groups. 
Table 2 
Schedule for Observing Students Not Working in Small Groups 
Students Monday Wednesday* Thursday Frida.v* 
Ss 1 & 2 9:35 - 9:55 9:55 - 10:15 9:35 - 9:55 9:55 - 1O : 15 
Ss 3 & 4 9:55 - 10: 15 9:35 - 9:55 9: 55 - 10: 15 9:35 - 9:55 
(High Read- ( alternate 
ing Group) ( 10: 15  - 10: 45) weeks: 
10: 15 - 10: 45) 
*Researcher+ Co-Observer 
During Phase I (A1) baseline data were collected indicating the 
frequency, the direction (initiates versus responds) and the social context 
(group size) of independent learning behavior prior to treatment. In Phase I 
the teacher used the teacher-centered instructional style, as described 
by the researcher prior to Phase I. 
Phase I classwork consisted of instruction in reading and spelling. 
Reading instruction was in two areas: (1) comprehension and skill build-
ing exercises accompanying basal reader assignments and (2) work on students' 
outside reading unit, a five-week reading, writing, and project unit on the 
20 
literary theme of fantasy (including science fiction). The teacher worked 
with students in reading groups. When she taught a reading group, she sat 
in a rocking chair, while the students sat all around her on a carpet on 
the floor. She asked and they answered inferential and factual compre-
hension questions. They also went over skill building exercises completed 
as homework. She also assisted students in working on their fantasy unit. 
Some students worked informally in dyads or triads with their fantasy 
reading and project assignment. 
There were some similarities and some differences between the fantasy 
project work and the project work during the treatment phase. The reading, 
writing, and project work that students participated in during the fantasy 
unit was similar to work they did during the treatment phase because they 
made decisions about the form and content of their work. Another similarity 
was that some students worked jointly on projects. Moreover, during both 
the project work of baseline and the project work of treatment, students 
had to manage their time well to complete their work. 
Several major differences distinguished the treatment project work 
from the baseline project work. Among these differences were: 
1. The project work during baseline could be a joint effort of 
several students; during treatment the work definitely was a joint effort 
of groups of students. 
2. During baseline high achievement level students were given 
opportunities to work in the media center without supervision while other 
students remained with the teacher. During treatment, on the other hand, 
small groups were comprised of students from all three achievement levels, 
so that special privileges were not given to one achievement group over 
the others. 
21 
3. During baseline, students chose their project description from 
a teacher-prepared list. During treatment the teacher did not provide 
project description choices. Instead, the teacher elicited from students 
areas of interest related to the curriculum unit and assisted students in 
discovering for themselves how they would like to present information they 
collected. 
4. The teacher used grades to motivate students during the fantasy 
unit of baseline. During the treatment phase the teacher did not use 
grades to motivate students. She, instead, helped students to use their 
own interests as motivation. 
Phase I (A1) was comprised of eight observation points. The determina-
tion to move on to the treatment phase was made when subjects? behaviors 
had evolved into generally stable patterns. Behaviors which occurred in 
patterns during baseline facilitated the drawing of inferences when the 
data of Phases II and III had been collected. 
Before entering Phase II, the treatment phase, the teacher was 
trained in the use of the Problem Approach. A volunteer substitute 
teacher was also trained so that she was prepared to teach using the 
Problem Approach if the regular teacher was absent during the treatment 
phase. 
During Phase II (B) treatment data were collected indicating the 
frequency, the direction (initiates versus responds), and the social 
contexts of independent learning behavior while subjects are experiencing 
the Problem Approach. Phase II lasted six weeks, giving subjects 
sufficient time to experience all parts of the Problem Approach before 
it was withdrawn. 
22 
During Phase III (A2) baseline data again were collected for four 
to seven days. The Problem Approach was withdrawn during this phase to 
provide a second occasion for demonstrating the effects of treatment. 
Display of Quantitative Data. Since the research design ~'las a single 
case study with parallel applications, data were displayed separately for 
each subject. Each subject had graphs displaying frequency of behaviors 
along each of the following dimensions: Questioning, Planning, Managing, 
and Evaluating. Each subject also had a graph displaying the total of 
the four dimensions. This graph displayed the independent learning 
behaviors for the subject. 
Interobserver Reliability. Assessments of observers? consistency in 
use of the data collection instrument were checked during practice prior 
to A1 and during A1 and B. 
Analysis of Data. Analysis of the data for each subject focused on 
measuring the difference between the treatment and the first baseline 
(i.e., between Band A1) and between the two baselines (i.e., A2 and A1). 
Visual inspection of graphed data is the primary method of evaluating 
single case data. 
Performing statistical analysis in addition to visual inspection of 
graphic representation of data is controversial in the literature of single 
case experimental designs (Kazdin, 1978; Huck, Cromier, & Bounds, 1974). 
Kazdin (1978) states that the dominant position in single case research 
is against the use of statistics. Additionally, he points out that most 
of the available statistical procedures have not been widely used in 
single case studies. Kazdin (1982) explains that statistical tests are 
used only to supplement data evaluation by visual inspection. 
23 
Data collected in this research were evaluated in two ways. First, 
graphed data were inspected visually. Second, the sign test and the 
binomial test were used. 
Summary 
The purpose of this research was to observe the independent learning 
behaviors of sixth grade students who experienced an instructional approach 
intended to help students develop independent learning behaviors and improved 
thinking skills. Justification has been provided to establish the 
curricular need for helping preadolescents develop independent learning 
behaviors and improved thinking skills. The Problem Approach has been 
identified as a teaching procedure which provides for this curricular need. 
It has been established that the present research will expand the knowledge 
base of the Problem Approach and independent learning behaviors as 
described in the earlier research of Mccann (1982). A single case design 
was proposed as the methodology of this research. Four students (boy and 
girl middle achievement level; boy and girl low achievement level) became 
the subjects of the research, which was conducted in a sixth grade class 
with all 28 students participating. A team of trained observers collected 
focused observation data over a period of ten weeks. The sixth grade 
teacher taught using the Problem Approach during the intervention phase 
of the research. Delimitations of the research as well as a description 
of the methodology have been provided to explain in detail the scope of 
the research. A description of the Problem Approach and the observation 
instrument are among the documents in the Appendices. 
,"  
24 
CHAPTER II 
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 
In Western Civilization concern with thinking skills has its 
historical antecedents in ancient Greece. Indeed, an early philosophic 
saying was that of Anaxagoras: "All things were in chaos when Mind arose 
and made order" (Hamilton, 1964). The mind, then, was an active participant 
in the Greek world. For the ancient Greeks, awareness, or thinking about 
oneself, was the highest form of heroism (Beye, 1975), exemplified by 
Achilles whose actions in the Iliad "created meaning in a meaningless world" 
(Beye, 1975, p.69). Fifth century B. C. Sophists led pupils to think, to speak, 
to act, to participate in the spirit of free inquiry (Swain, 1950). Socrates 
sought to arouse men to become discoverers of truth (Hamilton, 1964; 
Swain, 1950) . 
In the area of thinking skills the line of descent has not been a 
direct one from the ancient Greeks to modern times. Throughout history 
numerous influences from philosophy and psychology have affected educational 
theory and practice. In the 17th century John Locke's tabula rasa (blank 
tablet) theory of the mind influenced education (Bigge, 1964). With this 
outlook the mind of the learner was seen as a passive receptacle (Bigge & 
Hunt, 1968). Moreover, teachers were thought of as "architects and 
builders" (Bigge & Hunt, 1968, p. 279) of children's minds. From the 
early 19th century until more recently in the 20th century, the psychology 
of learning developed by Johann Friedrich Herbart heavily influenced 
educational practices (Bigge, 1964). Herbart's view of the mind was 
25 
that it is neutrally passive, awaiting the storage of ideas (Bigge, 1964). 
His view of instruction was that it has the job of implanting knowledge 
and inner discipline in the mind of the student. In contrast with Socratic 
teaching, v1hi ch draws i nforrnati on from students, Herbarti an teaching did 
not a11ow teachers to enter into debate with students (Bigge, 1964). 
John Dev1ey (1916) criticized Herbartianism for giving students minimal 
opportunities for active participation, for independent thinking. John 
Goodlad (1983a; 1983b; 1984), a modern observer of educational practices, 
criticizes American education for failing to bring students into active, 
intellectual, creative involvement with learning activities. 
The line of reasoning to be developed in this chapter is that 
educational literature points to the responsibility education has for 
assisting students in actively developing their thinking skills. Dewey 
(1910) points out that training the mind is the highest responsibility 
of education. Thelen (1960) says the task of education is to supervise 
natural inquiry and make it educative. This chapter vii 11 review literature 
in the areas of activJ involvement, problem solving, cooperative small 
group learning, and developing independence in learning. Finally, student-
centered instruction will be discussed as a means of assisting students 
in becoming active, independent thinkers and learners. 
Active Involvement 
The literature of active involvement in learning processes is full 
of action verbs. Po 1a nyi says that educators rely on students 1 11 i nte 11 i gent 
co-operation for catching meaning 11 (1966, p. 5). He also says that 
learners 11 dwel 111 in things to understand them. Pears ( 1971) portrays 
26 
the confident and active learner as one so involved that his or her mind 
is like a recording instrument which applies itself again and again to 
its own results. Wittrock (1979) says that in the cognitive approach 
to instruction learners may construct their own realities. Gottshalk 
(1969) explains that awareness has a directional structure. He says 
there is movement toward a goal, which springs from an internal impulse 
and is directed toward an outcome. Both Royce (1964) and Frankl (1967) 
stress the importance of searching for meaning. The language, then, of 
active involvement literature is active. This section presents a brief 
review of educational literature which points to the need for having 
students actively involved in learning processes. 
Hullfish and Smith (1961) write that meanings develop because people 
are active beings. They say that precision and consistency of meaning 
develop when individuals actively enter into transactions with inita11y 
puzzling environments. They say that individuals construct and continually 
reconstruct knowledge. Active, responsible thinkers develop networks of 
information, concepts, and values which are unique. Hullfish and Smith 
complain that too often schools put educational practices which would 
nurture thinking into competition with other needs and procedures. In 
the end, too many students have to learn to think after school (Hullfish 
& Smith, 1961). 
Hart (1975), in his book about how the brain functions to make people 
learn and behave in certain ways, explains that the brain has to be active. 
He says that the brain aggressively explores the environment, asking 
questions and ana 1yzi ng answers. He says the brain is an instrument for 
perceiving, evaluating, and dealing with whole events. "Humans in good 
27 
health vigorously probe for the information they need to live by" (Hart, 
1975, p. 104). 
Hart approves of learning by doing, which makes use of cross-modalities. 
Experiential learning also involves the discovery and use of patterns of 
meaning which help to make learning more "intricately textured" (1975, 
p. 160; 1983). More access channels of the brain are involved with 
complex learning experiences (Hart, 1975). Hart (1975; 1983) also insists 
upon supportive, non-threatening learning environments. 
Barnes (1979), also favoring active involvement of students, explains 
that the curriculum is a form of communication. He identifies closed and 
open formats of communicating knowledge. In closed forms the teacher 
exercises tight control over content and has the attitude that knowledge 
must be imparted to the learner. In this form the learner is a passive 
recipient and has only limited interaction with content. In open forms 
of learning environments, the teacher is able to relinquish this type of 
tight control over content and allow learners to participate actively in 
the shaping of meaning. 
Barnes reco1TU11ends instructional procedures which allow students in 
small groups to informally explore meanings so that they actively interpret 
content. He recommends f o1 1 owing the informal exploratory phase with a 
formalizing phase which tightens students? thinking. He sees that a 
process-orientation to acquiring knowledge assists students in translating 
school knowledge into "action knowledge." Action knowledge for Barnes 
is knowledge which takes on personal meaning because students have had 
active involvement in acquiring it. Content, then becomes a part of the 
student. 
28 
Involvement is an active engagement with content and with context. 
Coleman (1976) explains that emotional involvement in an interpersonal 
setting increases students? motivation to learn and provides "an associative 
structure of events in memory that helps insure that whatever has been 
learned is not lost" (1976, p. 60). Fletcher (1978) writes that we do 
not know much about the way experience is stored. He believes we need 
to explore how the pattern of emotional organization affects learning 
and recall. Johnson and Johnson (1978) say that students see themselves 
as actively involved in their learning environment when the environment 
uses a cooperative goal structure. 
The literature suggests that learners need to become aware of the 
active nature of learning. Brown, Campione, and Day (1981) say that 
students must develop some of the same understanding psychologists have 
if they are to become expert learners. Students need to learn about 
their own cognitive characteristics, their own thinking skills, the 
demands of various learning tasks, and the structure of the material 
they use. Students must learn to adjust their activities to the demands 
of these forces which partly comprise the learning situation. They must 
develop sufficient rules and strategies for learning, and they must 
develop adequate background knowledge. They must actively learn how to 
learn (Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981). 
Smith (1977) reports on the relationship he found between critical 
thinking and processes that occur in college classes. He says that student 
participation, faculty encouragement and use of students? ideas, and peer-
to-peer interaction emerged as possibly related to change in critical 
29 
thinking and critical thinking behavior. Smith concludes that efforts 
at encouraging student involvement have cognitive, as well as affective 
benefits. 
Berman and Roderick (1977) explain that knowledge resulting from 
personal involvement is individualized and is useful in helping a person 
feel in control of his or her life. They say that involvement leads to 
knowledge which is open, or still being developed, changed, or revised. 
Berman and Roderick stress the importance of making learners actively 
involved. They conclude that learning is minimal where involvement is 
!~ 
I'~ 
mini ma 1. 
Problem Solving 
Theory and research on human cognition point out the relationship 
between thinking processes, in the form of problem solving, and learning. 
Barell (1983) recommends viewing students as thinkers, not just as 
information consumers, and helping them develop abstract thinking skills. 
Bode defines thinking as 11 the finding and testing of meanings 11 (1940, 
p. 251). Salomon (1983) explains that problem solving involving complex 
mental activity improves students? recall, comprehension, and inference-
making. Hock (1958) says that the essence of learning is problem solving. 
Gagne (1964) says that problem solving, requiring prior learning, is 
itself a form of learning. This section reviews problem solving literature 
in the following areas: (1) steps of problem solving, (2) the importance 
of active involvement, and (3) the importance of the knowledge/skill base. 
Steps of Problem Solving 
Two problem solving sequences are given here. Gagne (1970) identifies 
the following, which he references to Dewey 1 s How We Think (1910): 
30 
(1) presentation of the problem, (2) definition of the problem by 
i 
ascertaining essential features of the problem situation, (3) formulation 
of hypotheses which may apply to a solution, and (4) verification of a 
hypothesis or of successive hypotheses until a solution is found. 
Johnson (1955) provides a similar set of steps: (1) preparation, 
(2) production, (3) judgment. His discussion of the earliest phases of 
problem solving suggests the active level of involvement of the problem 
solver. Johnson says surveying a problem situation, in preparation for 
solving a problem, leads to the structuring of the problem. He says that 
when problem solvers respond to a problem by surveying and structuring 
they are in fact organizing the problem. They produce subproblems. 
Solving one subproblem leads to formulating the next subproblem. This 
discussion of problems within problems, all to be solved, suggests the 
importance for educators to provide opportunities for complex problem 
solving in schools. 
The Importance of Active Involvement 
Bigge and Hunt (1962) say that the psychological element of uncertainty 
provides the problematic aspect of the problem situation. Uncertainty is 
the initial point of the problem solver's active involvement. The next 
step of involvement is the individual 1s realization that he or she has 
a problem. Hullfish and Smith assert that a problem is always a personal 
affair, 11 as teachers would do well to remember 11 (1961, p. 107). 
Bloom and Broder (1950), in a study of good and poor problem solvers, 
found that good problem solvers are more active than poor problem solvers. 
Good problem solvers bring more relevant information to bear on the problem. 
Bloom and Broder characterize poor problem solvers as passive receivers of 
information. 
31 
In research with 116 college students, Wicker, Weinstein, Yelich, 
and Brooks (1978) trained one group to solve insight problems (problems 
based on an assumption which has to be overcome) by reformulating their 
initial perception of the problem. They trained another group to form 
detailed visual images to achieve clarity of their comprehension of the 
problem. The results of their study indicated that the reformulation 
training was effective, while the visualization training was not. The 
writers suggest that subjects? set toward flexible thinking was more 
useful than a set toward detail and clarity. Another conclusion to be 
dravm from this research is that the elaborative thinking of reformulation 
may be superior to mental imaging because reformulation is a technique 
which more actively involves the problem solver. 
Verbalization is a means by which problem solvers become actively 
involved in problem solving. When Gagne (1970) stresses the importance 
of acquiring organized intellectual skills, he says that verbal instructions, 
including verbalizing to oneself, is important. Lochhead and Clements 
(1979) also say that science learners must search for ways of putting 
formal descriptions of laws into their own words. Others concerned about 
using verbalization to intensify learners? involvement and self-awareness 
(Whimbey & Lochhead, 1980; Schoenfeld, 1979) use think-aloud protocols. 
With this verbal procedure students have to monitor their own thinking 
before taking action. Bartlett (1978) recommends using think-aloud 
protocol analysis to teach creative problem solving. He says this method 
is itself an expression of creative problem solving. 
Webb (1982) studied peer interaction in cooperative small groups of 
seventh and eighth grade mathematics students. She found high achievement 
32 
test performance was related to the frequency with wh? h t 
explanations to peers and to the frequency of receivi?nic  s udents.  gave 
response to their questions and errors. Webb reasoned gt he xp
1 
t  an.a.t ions in 
a giving 
explanations benefitted students because they were generating associations 
"'hen they exp 1a i ned information to other students. G 
.. enerating explanations, 
or elaborations, is a form of active involvement with infor t? ( . 
1979). ma ion Wittrock, 
Bruner (1966) and Gagne (1966) both identify discovery learning as 
useful instruction for assisting students in becoming effective problem 
solvers. Bruner says that the ability to transfer new information and 
skills is increased when students have opportunities to learn new information 
and skills by discovery instead of by rote. For Gagne discovery learning 
is valuable because the learner is expected to generate new combinations 
of previously learned principles. Gagne says that problem solving requires 
discovery. 
More recently Papert (1980) has advocated having children learn to 
program computers using LOGO, a computer language appropriate for young 
children. He says that children?s awareness of their thinking or problem 
solving is heightened when they learn to 11 debug 11 their programs. He says 
children learn to think about th.inking. They actively learn to examine 
and correct their own reasoning strategies. 
The Importance of the Knowledge/Skill Base 
A major point Gagne (1970) makes regarding problem solving is the 
requirement for learning to have occurred prior to the new problem. The 
literature provides various labels for elements of the knowledge/skill 
base. Gagne says that problem solving is a process by which a learner 
33 
discovers previously acquired rules and then uses them in new combinations 
appropriate to a problem situation. Others use the term 11 rules 11 similar 
to Gagne (Houtz & Speedie, 1978; Landa, 1976; Scandura, 1977a; 1977b; 
1980). The term 11 representations 11 is used by other writers (Larkin, 1980; 
Lochhead, 1981; Newell & Simon, 1972). Larkin, McDermott, Simon, and 
Simon (1980) call mental patterns used in problem solving 11 pattern-indexed 
schmata. 11 Reif and Heller (1982) present a model comprised of (1) small 
chunks of information in an overlapping network and (2) ancillary knowledge 
used to interpret concepts and relationships and to apply relationships 
in problem solving. All of these theorists and researchers agree on the 
importance of the knowledge/skill base represented in awareness of con-
ceptual patterns, sets of relationships, and interactive processes in 
problem solving. 
Concerned with the processes of problem solving and how they may be 
distinct from divergent thinking, Houtz and Speedie (1978) conducted 
factor analytic research. They found that among the 91 fifth grade 
students in their study a problem solving factor was distinguished as 
one involving the ability to identify and evaluate information or problem 
elements in terms of given rules and conditions for the purpose of reaching 
a goal. 
Newell and Simon's research (1972) with expert and novice chess 
players produced findings regarding the importance of efficient representa-
tions. They say that experts group data with very efficient representations 
which help them focus on key features of the problem. Novices find these 
representations too complicated to learn with ease. 
34 
Larkin, McDermott, Simon and Simon (1980) have findings similar to 
Newell and Simon (1972). Larkin et al. have used think-aloud protocols 
and computer simulations to observe expert and novice problem solving 
in chess and physics. Their research indicates that experts have 
considerable knowledge stored as rich schemata. Novice problem solvers, 
on the other hand, have a notable lack of knowledge available to them. 
Reif and Heller (1982) say that problem solving in physics depends 
on the content and structure of the knowledge about a particular domain. 
Reif and Heller say that experts in physics problem solving use sequential 
steps to (1) describe a problem, (2) break a problem into successive 
subproblems, (3) consider methods of solution, and then (4) apply their 
method and describe their results. They use these sequential steps 
repeatedly while pinpointing problems. 
The literature states that having cognitive flexibility is a 
necessary feature of effective problem solving in addition to having an 
adequate knowledge/skill base. In discussing the difference between 
having understanding and having rote recall, Lochhead (1981) says that 
effective problem solvers are able to move flexibly among different 
representations. In discussing mathematical problem solving, Scandura 
(1977a; 1977b; 1980) says that learners switch goals when they fail to 
find rules to achieve problem solutions. Their goal-switching directs 
their search for higher order rules which produce other potential 
solution rules. 
Flexibility is a useful attribute of young problem solvers. In 
research with young elementary school students, Resnick (1981) found that 
children may be able to apply addition and subtraction rules effectively, 
35 
but they do not necessarily understand connections between the two rule 
systems. Resnick says the key to understanding is being able to move 
flexibly between the two different representations. 
In other research with children, Rothman and Potts (1977) used a 
picture comparison task with 90 children. They found that fourth graders 
used information that was presented for the purpose of testing multiple 
interpretations, while second graders showed surprise and confusion. 
A conclusion of this finding is that, at least in this situation, the 
0 l der students showed greater fl exi bil ity, and fl exi bi l i ty was required 
for effectiveness. 
For education to assist students in developing cognitive flexibility, 
as well as building a strong knowledge/skill base, opportunities for 
practicing problem. solving are required. Gagne? ( 1980) notes that schools 
can directly teach cognitive strategies. However, he explains that 
opportunities for developing and reflecting upon "executive strategies 11 
are also important. He explains 11 executive strategies" as strategies 
which direct flexible shifting from rule to rule, in order to discover 
the appropriate combination for problem solving. Gagne does not believe 
that 11 executive strategies" can be taught directly. Practice in appropriate 
environments is essential. 
In conclusion, this review of the literature on problem solving points 
to the need for schools to provide opportunities for students to practice 
problem solving. As indicated in this section, practice in problem 
solving in schools should assist students in becoming actively involved 
and in making use of their knowledge/skill base. 
36 
Prob1em So1ving in Cooperative Sma11 Groups 
students are stimu1ated to think when they confront the thinking of 
their peers (Kamii, 1984). ltJhen they think, speak, and act with peers, 
students may have to coordinate their viewpoints and "mobi1ize their 
inte1ligence" (Kamii, 1984, p. 414). Prob1em so1ving in cooperative sma11 
group situations is used to bring peers together in c1assrooms. This 
section reviews the 1iterature of sma11 group instruction, focusing on 
processes and on outcomes. 
.\\: 
:)1 
Processes 
Gorman (1974) distinguishes "aggregates" from "groups". He exp1ains 
that peop1e coming together for the first time are aggregates. On1y when 
an aggregate has deve1oped a process of communicating with one another 
and has begun to deve1op group norms does it become a group (Gorman, 1974). 
Gibb (1968) says that in groups patterns of inf1uence, of ta1k, and of 
perception begin to occur, and ro1e systems deve1op. He says that the 
group begins to deve1op as a group as members deve1op interdependencies. 
Thomas (1957) exp1ains that groups high in interdependence common1y function 
effective1y and offer mutua1 benefit to members. 
Crockenberg and Bryant (1978) point out that schoo1 chi1dren may 
have initia1 difficu1ties in 1earning how to cooperate in group experiences. 
Many chi1dren are unfami1iar with the new ro1es they have in cooperative 
groups. These authors suggest that teachers deve1op ski11s for facilitating 
students? movement into cooperative functioning. 
The literature on group problem solving suggests the importance of 
avoiding dominance of groups by authority figures or speakers of the 
37 
majority opinion. Gordon (1955) says that the dominance of a group leader 
inhibits the participation of other members. Hoffman, Harburg, and Maier 
(1962) say that a dominating member interferes with the free expression 
of differing opinions and reduces possible emergence of creative problem 
solutions. Maier and Solem (1952) explain that discussion leaders have 
the important function of protecting minority opinions from pressure 
from the majority. Hoffman et al. ( 1962) and Mai er and Sol em ( 1952) add 
that minority points of view often improve the quality of group thinking 
by introducing conflict. 
Cooperative group functioning requires understanding of roles. 
Schmuck and Schmuck (1974) say that educational research usually assumes 
that the classroom is comprised of two-person units, with the teacher 
usualJy determining his or her interaction with each student. These 
writers say that classrooms experience much more complex interpersonal 
processes when teachers alter their roles and serve more as mediator and 
member than as controller of interactions with students. Lippitt (1968) 
says that teachers need to help students learn membership and leadership 
roles. 
In her process-outcome analysis of learning in small groups and in 
individual settings, Webb (1980) explains that what goes on in a learning 
setting is critically important.? She asserts that the specific learning 
experiences are more important than the type of learning setting. She 
says, for example, that in small groups where only a few students assume 
all the responsibility for completing the work, the situation is detrimental 
to the remaining students. Furthermore, she says that small group situa-
tions in which all members work on activities are beneficial to all 
38 
members. Johnson (1980) suggests the optimal size of small groups is 
four to six members. Webb remarks that teachers should encourage students 
in small groups to help one another and to participate fully. 
When students confront one another with their ideas, they provide 
one another with opportunities to see another point of view (Johnson ' 
1980; Johnson & Johnson, 1978; Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson ' 
1976). Inquiry within groups helps people find out who they are when 
they see themselves projected against the views of others (Thelen, 1960). 
Johnson (1980) maintains that providing students with opportunities for 
"perspective-taking" (taking another person's point of view) is one of 
the most valuable purposes of small group instruction. Johnson (1980) 
cites Piaget when he says that perspective-taking is one of the most 
important competencies for cognitive and social development. Johnson 
(1980) says that perspective-taking is related to effective presentation 
and comprehension of information, constructive resolution of conflicts, 
willingness to be open with others, effective group problem solving, 
cooperativeness, and intellectual, cognitive, and social development. 
Johnson (1980) says that cooperative small groups promote perspective-
taking. 
Tjosvold and Johnson (1977; 1978) used controversy and non-controversy 
intervention conditions to study perspective-taking among 30 college 
students who participated in decision-making during hypothetical moral 
dilemmas. Subjects were paired with confederates who had been trained 
to either take the same positions as subjects or to take different 
positions from subjects. Tjosvold and Johnson found that subjects in the 
controversy condition were more accurate in understanding their confederate's 
39 
reasoning than subjects in the non-controversy condition. They found, 
however, that subjects in the non-controversy condition rated that they 
believed they understood the confederate's reasoning more than subjects 
who were in the controversy condition. The researchers conclude that 
controversy leads to more accurate perspective-taking than does lack of 
controversy. They explain that the controversy condition motivated 
subjects to seek understanding. The researchers also conclude that 
people who share the same opinion may often have the illusion of under-
standing that which they do not truly understand. Small group problem 
solving provides students with opportunities to see issues from other 
students' points of view. 
Falk and Johnson (1977) used perspective-taking and egocentrism as 
forms of group processes in their study of processes which affect 
problem solving. Their research used 90 college students. Perspective-
taking subjects were requested to attempt to understand viewpoints of 
other group members by asking questions to explore their viewpoints, 
paraphrase their viewpoints, and then incorporate these new ideas into 
their own viewpoints. Egocentric-presentation subjects were told to 
present their own ideas forcefully and to evaluate openly the amount of 
agreement other members' viewpoints had with their own. The task was to 
rank 15 items which would be important for survival on the moon. Results 
indicated that perspective-takers, in comparison with egocentric-presenters, 
had better understanding of other members' information, more effective 
presentation of problem solutions, more cooperative groups, more creative 
solutions, better utilization of resources, greater commitment to group 
solutions, and greater trust in group members. Falk and Johnson conclude 
40 
that perspective-taking is an important aspect of cooperative problem 
solving. They also conclude that perspective-taking in groups is likely 
to promote positive information exchange and high quality outcomes for 
groups and individuals. 
In summary, this section has examined some of the processes 
experienced by participants of small groups. Group formation, roles 
and role relationships, and the importance of perspective-taking have 
been discussed. 
Outcomes 
Research on problem solving in cooperative small groups generally 
points to achievement gains for groups and/or group members (Webb, 1983). 
On another theme Wynne (1983) stresses the importance of cooperative 
group work for socializing students in preparation for their adult lives. 
Johnson (1980) lists numerous benefits of small group work which has a 
cooperative goal structure. This section reviews literature which 
indicates achievement as an outcome of small group work. It presents 
Johnson 1 s list of benefits (1980). Finally, it suggests an area for 
further research. 
Related to achievement is productivity. Deutsch (1949) found 
greater group productivity resulting from cooperative group interactions, 
compared to competitive interactions. Hudgins (1960) found greater 
productivity among fifth-grade mathematics students who had solved word 
problems in small groups compared to those who had worked alone. 
Laughlin (1978) presents research conducted by Laughlin and others 
(Laughlin, Branch, & Johnson, 1969; Laughlin & Branch, 1972; Laughlin, 
Kerr, Davis, Halff, & Marciniak, 1975) which investigated the relationships 
41 
between 528 college students? ability and their group problem solving 
performance. A pretest-posttest design was used. Achievement was 
measured by performance on the Terman Concept Mastery Test. Problem 
solving groups were comprised of three, four, and five subjects. Findings 
indicate that general performance was proportional to the number of high 
abi 1i  ty group members. A1 1 subjects benefi tted from working with one 
or more high ability subjects. Medium and low ability subjects did not 
I 
benefit from working with comparable group members. With the three sizes 
of groups, high ability subjects increased their performance with increases 
in group size. This research suggests, for high achievement, the importance 
of heterogeneous composition of cooperative small groups. 
Slavin and Karweit (1984) studied effects of four instructional 
conditions in elementary school mathematics classes. Team Assisted 
Individualized (TAI) Instruction rated highest on both achievement and 
effective measures when compared to results from instruction which did 
not place students in cooperative small groups. TAI consisted of (1) 
teachers teaching concepts, (2) students in four-member heterogeneous 
groups practicing application of concepts, (3) teachers providing direct 
instruction when groups needed help, (4) students managing the administra-
tion, scoring, and record-keeping of practice tests, and (5) teachers 
administering final tests. Both researchers and the teachers in the 
study saw the efficiency of delivery of instruction with TAI as a major 
plus. Slavin and Karweit conclude that the high structure associated 
with efficient student management produced high achievement effects for 
TAI Instruction. 
42 
Johnson, Johnson, and Scott (1978) studied the effects of cooperative 
and individualized instruction on student attitudes and achievement. Their 
subjects were 30 fifth and sixth grade mathematics students. Students 
in the cooperative condition were instructed to work together as a group 
with all students giving suggestions and ideas and seeking help from each 
other rather than from the teacher. The teacher praised and rewarded groups 
as a whole. Students in the individualized condition were told to work 
on their own, avoiding interaction with other students and seeking help 
from the teacher. The teacher gave praise and rewards individually. 
Students worked in committees of four. Achievement was defined as per-
formance on computational and thinking skills materials. Johnson et al. 
report that the achievement level of cooperative group students was higher 
than the achievement level for students in the individualized condition 
in two of the three final tests and much higher on the retention test. 
Johnson et al. also report that the cooperative group members were faster 
and more accurate in their daily work than students in the individualized 
condition. Cooperative group students had higher self-esteem, more positive 
attitudes toward conflict, fellow group members, and the teacher than 
students in the individualized condition. 
Johnson, Johnson, and Skon (1979) studied student achievement on 
different types of tasks under cooperative, competitive, and individualized 
conditions. Subjects were 64 children between five and seven years of 
age. Subjects in the three conditions were required to perform a variety 
of tasks im mathematics, reading, and spatial reasoning. The results 
show that cooperative groups performed higher on all tasks. Johnson et al. 
43 
explain that these findings indicate the usefulness of cooperative small 
groups for the performance of problem solving and conceptual learning. 
Lucker, Rosenfield, Sikes, and Aronson (1976) studied the performance 
of fifth and sixth graders in cooperative learning groups. Students 
participated in problem solving activities in which group members each 
had information other members needed and did not have. Groups had to 
work together to accomplish tasks. Results show that high and low ability 
students benefitted. Minority students (black and Mexican-American) 
benefitted from heterogeneously organized groups which included 11 Anglos 11 
who possessed superior 11 schoo1 ski11s 11 ? 
Seeking information is a necessary behavior for high achievement in 
learning activities. Johnson (1980) says that students demonstrate 
information-search behavior when they participate in cooperative small 
groups. Research of Crawford and Haaland (1972) indicates that working 
toward a group goal is motivating to members of cooperative problem 
solving groups. Compared with information-seeking by subjects in a 
non-cooperative group condition, students in a cooperative group condition 
sought more information in predicting the outcome of their problem, 
whether a light would be on or off. 
Johnson (1980) identifies interpersonal processes as outcomes of 
cooperative group conditions which affect learning. Among these he names 
high levels of the following: interaction, divergent thinking, trust, 
acceptance and assistance by peers, emotional involvement, and use of 
resources. Addi tiona 11y, he i nc1 udes effective communication, conf1 i ct 
management, and decreased fear of failure as outcomes of cooperative group 
conditions. 
44 
Independent learning behavior, as an outcome of cooperative small 
group instruction, is not commonly reported in the literature. McCann's 
research (1982), however, focuses on independent learning behavior as an 
effect of small group instruction using the Problem Approach. Her mixed 
findings, discussed more fully in the Student-Centered Instruction section 
of this chapter, suggest the need for further research. 
In summary, achievement gains are a frequently discussed benefit 
of cooperative small group instructional conditions. The literature 
suggests numerous other outcomes. Further research is needed for greater 
understanding of independent learning behavior as an outcome. 
Developing Independence in Learning 
With improved thinking abilities students may become more independent. 
This section reviews the literature on independent learning behaviors. 
The areas related to this topic and presented here are: the educational 
aim of autonomy, processes which facilitate independence, and categories 
of independent learning behavior. 
The Educational Aim of Autonomy 
Thelen asserts that the quest for autonomy is "the most fundamental 
human need" (1960, p. 27). On the same theme, Kagan says that one of 
the most valuable statements schools must teach children to believe about 
themselves is, "I am able to think autonomously" (1966, p. 159). 
Kamii (1984) criticizes American education at all levels for under-
emphasizing thinking. She says that university teacher education programs 
have failed to teach secondary teachers methods of teaching students 
to think logically. She concludes that if students do not succeed 
45 
in becoming logical thinkers they certainly cannot become critical or 
autonomous thinkers. Kamii defines autonomy as being governed by oneself. 
In writing about autonomy, Kamii 1s objective was to "clarify Piaget's 
ideas about education" (1984, p. 410). Kamii says that autonomy should 
be the aim of education. 
Kamii discusses adult practices which affect children's development 
toward autonomy. She says that rewards and punishments are symbols of 
adults? power over children. Rewards and punishments discourage autonomy. 
Kamii says that adults encourage autonomy when they exchange points of ''Ii:i'  
,111 
view with children and when they assist children in interacting with their 
environment. These practices enable children to construct their own 
knowledge and their own moral values. "According to Piaget, a child 
acquires knowledge just as he or she acquires moral values: by constucting 
it from within, not by internalizing it directly from the environment" 
(Kamii, 1984). Kamii stresses that social interaction is essential for 
constructivism to occur. She adds that honest exchanges of points of 
view are bound to lead eventually to autonomy. 
Processes Which Facilitate Independence 
The literature identifies group learning activities and cooperative 
multi-task classroom conditions as two situations which facilitate 
independence. Martin (1980) says that a sense of belonging to a group 
allows students to help one another and solve many of their own problems 
without reliance on the teacher. Similarly, Slavin (1981) says that 
cooperative learning structures promote independence because students 
become less dependent on the teacher. Implications of a two-year field 
study by Bossert (1979) indicate that cooperative multi-task classroom 
46 
conditions may lead to independence. Bossert says that multi-task 
activities may teach children to be cooperative and self-directed 
because they require children to work together and organize their own 
projects without constant supervision from the teacher. Thelen (1981) 
says the dominant purpose of the classroom teacher is to facilitate 
students? growth toward whatever self-realization and effectiveness 
for which they are ready. 
The literature also identifies the development of self-confidence 
and self-reliance as factors leading to independent learning behavior. 
Sarason (1962) comments on the beginning of the movement toward inde-
pendence. He says teachers should expect students to experience a 
struggle. He says that learning to think independently, particularly 
when previous instruction has placed students in a passive-receiver 
role, is never easy. 
Gorman (1974) says that students need to gain increasing information 
on who they are and what they are worth and in the process develop greater 
self-confidence and self-reliance. Students need to see the relevance 
of schooling in their present lives. They wi11 become more self-directing 
in the process. 
?Classroom climate is seen as nurturing independence. Bayles (1960) 
says that in a problem-solving atmosphere where students are thoughtfully 
carrying out their investigations, students progressively learn how to 
be self-reliant and independent. Gibb (1968) also says that autonomy 
develops in supportive climates where self-initiated activity occurs 
readi 1y. 
~) 
47 
Categories of Independent Learning Behavior 
Mccann (1982) investigated the relationship between independent 
learning behaviors and participation in a student-centered instructional 
approach known as the Problem Approach. She operationalized the construct 
of independent learning behavior by dividing it into four observable, 
discrete categories. In the research of Mccann, then, independent 
learning behavior was observed as questioning, managing, planning, and 
evaluating behaviors which were manifested voluntarily by seventh grade 
subjects. McCann's research is reviewed in the next section. li'1":~1l 
Iii 
Questioning is a behavior inaividuals manifest when they are engaged 
in the process of becoming informed. Dervin (1976) explains that most 
of the recent work in the field of communication views information as 
aescriptions of reality which allow people to move through reality more 
effectively. She stresses, though, that people will make their own 
11 personal sense 11 out of objective information. They will ask a large 
variety of questions ( Dervi n, 1976), the 1a nguage of which reflects their 
efforts to make 11 sense 11 ? For Herber (1978) an objective of instruction 
is for students to reach a level of independence at which they demonstrate 
competence in asking questions. 
Managing people and information is a behavior people exhibit when 
they are seeking goal-attainment. In explaining the rationale for Team 
Assisted Individualized (TAI) Instruction which has students manage the 
mathematics materials, practice tests, and record-keeping, Slavin (1984) 
says students' abilities to manage for themselves are being recognized. 
He says that children manage much better than adults give them credit 
for. In describing students working in cooperative small groups, 
48 
Johnson (1980) says that students working cooperatively manage information 
more effectively than students working competitively. 
Planning is also a behavior people exhibit when they are seeking 
goal-attainment. Hock (1958) says that students? involvement is 
enhanced when they are placed in the active role of researcher. In this 
role students are planners of the large problem to be investigated as 
wel 1 as subtopics to be handled by committees. She recommends that all 
students share in the planning of the overall aims of their small group 
work. Whiteside (1978) points out that planning the scope of the problem 
11 
11: 
solving often has more instructional value than finding the problem 
solution. 
,,1 
Evaluating is a behavior which requires that individuals review "' 
either processes or content and then make judgments based on either 
implicit or explicit criteria. In the factor analytic research of Houtz 
and Speedie (1978) which studied processes underlying divergent thinking 
and problem solving, evaluative reasoning was found to be an important 
dimension of the problem solving process. Festinger (1954) says that all 
people are motivated to evaluate themselves. He says people seek cues 
from their environment and they ask others for feedback. Festinger 
explains that evaluation is a natural need. Sharan (1980) recommends 
that students evaluate their own processes and products when they culminate 
group investigation learning activities. 
Goodlad (1983a; 1983b; 1984) says that American schools do not 
provide students with sufficient opportunities to demonstrate effects 
of intellectual curiosity, initiative, planning, and evaluating. He 
complains that schools do not place a premium on democratic processes, 
49 
independent thinking, creativity, persona1 autonomy, and 1earning for 
the sake of 1earning. A1though the 1iterature contains abundant information 
on schoo1 achievement, there appears to be a paucity of information on 
independent 1earning behavior. Moreover, schoo1s appear to provide 
insufficient nurturing of independent 1earning behavior. Research with 
imp1ications for practice is needed in this area. 
In conc1usion, this review of the 1iterature on deve1oping independence 
in 1earning points to the need for autonomy to become the aim of education. 
students may ref1ect on their deve1oping autonomy as they become increasing1y 
more se1f-confident and se1f-re1iant. To observe the deve1opment of 
independent behavior, researchers and teachers can 1ook for evidence of 
vo1untary questioning, managing, p1anning, and eva1uating behaviors among 
students. 
Student-Centered Instruction 
This section reviews the 1iterature of student-centered instruction. 
Historica1 origins and more recent deve1opments are presented. 
Historica1 Origins 
Joyce and Wei1 (1980) trace student-centered approaches to Dewey, 
who was interested in using the democratic process in the c1assroom. 
Dewey made democratic, prob1em-so1ving processes centra1 in his conception 
of education (Joyce &W ei1, 1980). 
Bay1es (1960) gives further insight into Dewey's phi1osophy of 
education. He says that for Dewey individua1s are neutra1-interactive, 
meaning that they have neither comp1ete se1f-determinancy nor comp1ete 
outside-determinancy. For Dewey teachers and students shou1d have an 
50 
interactive relationship during the 11purposing~1 planning, executing, and 
evaluating activities of learning (Bayles, 1960). 
Dewey (1938) explained that his focus was on learning through 
experience. He said it is the teacher's responsibility to see to it 
that experience is educative. Dewey said that rules and authority should 
derive from group needs and activities. The teacher should see to it that 
the structure and materials of the classroom do not impose too much on 
the students. The teacher should also see to it that the internal 
conditions, or inclinations and feelings, of students do not disrupt 
educative processes. Dewey said that students should plan methods of 
action. Teachers should guide intelligent interaction. 
Kilpatrick, a follower of Dewey's (Bayles, 1960) developed the 
"project method" (1919). Kilpatrick said the unifying principle of his 
concept is purposeful activity in a social environment. 
Alberty 1 s explanation of Kilpatrick 1 s project method is that 
it is based on the purposeful planning of children. He says the project 
method "bridges the gap between school and life" (1927, p. 15). It avoids 
imparting organized knowledge to the minds of children. Alberty says 
the project method is "a point of view in dealing with the child" (p. 16), 
not simply a teaching procedure. He says the child builds logical 
organizations of knowledge. 
Alberty provides an explanation for the history of the project 
method. He says it dates back to 1908 when it was used in Massachusetts 
to help farmers learn about agriculture through concrete and practical 
instruction. The farmer had to become an.intelligent.worker and director 
of his own work. Alberty notes that the project method soon gained 
51 
acceptance outside of agriculture. Dewey became the notable advocate 
who stressed that children should be at the center of their learning 
(A 1 berty, 1927) . 
More Recent Forms of Student-Centered Instruction 
Bayles (1960) became a follower of Dewey. In Democratic Educational 
l!.1eor1 he presents his method of democratic instruction. In his method, 
11 reflective teaching, 11 learners are maneuvered into a problem situation. 
The first step of reflective teaching is problem raising. The second 
step is problem solving. The role of students is to actively think the 
problem through to its conclusion. The teacher's role is leader of a 
group of investigators. Bayles says that students and teachers cooperate 
as a team. Bigge and Hunt (1962) observe that reflective teaching is 
problem-centered. Additionally, Bi gge and Hunt comment that problems 
students face in reflective teaching must really matter to them so that 
they are sufficiently motivated to seek information. 
Thelen (1960) recommends the Group Investigation approach to inquiry 
teaching. Similar to reflective teaching, Group Investigation includes 
having students stimulated by confrontation with a problem. Thelen says 
knowledge results from inquiry. Moreover, the social process of group 
involvement enhances inquiry (Thelen, 1960). Students identify and 
formulate problems and pursue their solutions. In this approach the teacher 
is counselor, consultant, and friendly critic. 
Joyce and Weil (1980) say that Group Investigation blends goals of 
academic inquiry, social interaction, and social process learning. Group 
Investigation 11 replicates the negotiation pattern of society 11 (Joyce & Weil, 
1980). 
52 
Sharan and Sharan (1976; 1979; 1980) also recommend the Group 
Investigation instructional approach. Sharan (1980) says that this 
cooperative group approach emphasizes data gathering by students, inter-
pretation of findings through group discussion, and synthesis of individual 
contributions into group products. He lists the following sequence of 
steps: 
1. Selection by students of specific subtopics within a general 
problem area. Students then organize into small heterogeneous groups. 
2. Cooperative planning by students and teacher of specific procedures, 
tasks, and goals appropriate to the subtopics of Step 1. 
3. Students carry out the plans of Step 2. Learning should involve 
wide variety of activities and skills with resources both inside and 
outside of school being used. The teacher follows progress closely and 
assists when students require assistance. 
4. Students analyze and evaluate data gathered in Step 3 and plan 
presentations to classmates. 
5. Groups present to class to help class achieve broad perspective 
of topic. 
6. Evaluation by students and teacher of each group's contribution 
to the work of the whole class. 
Sharan and Sharan (1976) say that cooperation and communication 
among students is the primary vehicle of the educational process of Group 
Investigation. They assert that with this approach social contact is not 
treated as a peripheral phenomenon of school life, as it is in traditional 
education, but as a powerful tool fostering learning. 
53 
Sharan, Lazarowitz, and Ackerman (1979) used the Group Investigation 
approach to study learning in small groups and academic achievement of 
elementary school children. Their comparison group study used 217 subjects 
in grades two through six. Subjects were in five traditional teacher 
presentation-student recitation classes and five small-group classes 
using Group Investigation. Content matter was the same for both groups 
but different by grade level. The researchers measured achievement using 
achievement tests with high and low cognitive level categories. They 
also measured communication patterns as a function of classroom social 
organization using a classroom social organization category system. 
Results of the study indicate that in three out of five grade levels, 
students in Group Investigation classes received higher scores on the 
high cognitive level questions than the students from the presentation-
recitation classes. On the lower cognitive levels there were no significant 
differences for most groups. At the second grade level presentation-
recitation stuaents scored higher at both cognitive levels. The authors 
point out that one of the Group Investigation teachers whose students did 
not score higher on higher level questions did not succeed in using the 
techniques of Group Investigation. Results on the social processes 
dimension indicate that social processes in the Group Investigation classes 
were more complex than in presentation-recitation classes. 
Slavin (1980) remarks that Group Investigation emphasizes creativity, 
inquiry, and complex thinking. He finds the approach particularly 
appropriate for subjects requiring divergent thinking, especially social 
studies, literature, and related subjects. In comparison with other 
cooperative small group procedures, Slavin concurs with Sharan et al. 
54 
(1979) that Group Investigation produces higher achievement scores on 
high cognitive levels than other small group approaches. 
The research of Mccann (1982) used the Problem Approach to study 
independent learning behavior. The Problem Approach is similar to the 
Group Investigation approach, differing primarily in the provision of 
steps which increase structure and more fully define the teacher?s 
responsibilities. For example, the Problem Approach specifies the manner 
in which the teacher facilitates students? generation and categorization 
of subtopics. 
Mccann used the Problem Approach in a pretest-posttest observation 
study using subjects as self-controls. Subjects were identified as 
academically able seventh graders. Because the treatment was administered 
during an extended day enrichment program, students were able to determine 
the overall content of their work. They chose the area of health. An 
observation instrument using the categories of Questioning, Managing, 
Planning, and Evaluating was used to record subjects? independent learning 
behaviors before and after treatment. Results indicate that subjects 
manifested more independent learning behaviors in Questioning and Planning 
categories but not in Managing and Evaluating categories. Results also 
indicate significant differences in independent learning behaviors by 
sex, age, and heterogeneous grouping in competitive and cooperative (use 
of the Problem Approach) groups. However, no distinct patterns emerged 
to indicate a relationship with treatment. 
Further research using the Problem Approach to study independent 
learning behavior is indicated. Specifically, research should focus 
- ---------, 
\ 
55 
upon the process by which students develop independent learning behaviors 
during participation in the Problem Approach. Furthermore, additional 
research with academically average and below average preadolescents is 
indicated to supplement McCann 1 s research with academically able pre-
adolescents. 
In conclusion, the movement toward student-centered education 
originated with Dewey. Various forms of instruction have evolved this 
century f o1 1 owing the genera 1 pri nci p1 e s of De\'Jey. However, American 
education has been criticized recently for not making students have a 
more active part in their schooling and for not helping them develop 
higher level thinking skills. Instructional forms, such as Group 
Investigation and the Problem Approach, have been used to provide for 
these needs. 
Summary 
This chapter reviewed literature in the areas of active involvement, 
problem solving, problem solving in cooperative small groups, developing 
independence in learning, and student-centered instruction. The literature 
points to the responsibility of education for helping students develop 
thinking skills so that they might become autonomous. It appears that 
research is needed in the areas of independent learning behavior and 
student-centered instruction. 
56 
CHAPTER III 
METHODOLOGY 
This chapter describes the general design, the sample and sampling 
procedures, the teacher-centered instructional situation, and the research 
procedures. The section on the research procedures includes descriptions 
of teacher training, treatment procedures, data collection procedures, 
and data analysis procedures. 
General Design 
The purpose of this study was to observe the independent learning 
behaviors of sixth grade students before, during, and after their participation 
in a student-centered instructional procedure known as the Problem Approach. 
The class used for the study was a sixth grade reading class of 28 students 
in a suburban public elementary school. The school draws its enrollment 
from several different neighborhoods of diverse ethnic, racial, and 
socio-economic composition. Though all 28 students participated in the 
Problem Approach and the class activities which the researcher observed 
before and after the Problem Approach, four students were selected to be 
subjects of the research. Only the researcher and the others on the 
research staff knew the identity of the subjects. 
The researcher used a single case study design with four parallel 
applications to determine if the Problem Approach facilitated the develop-
ment of independent learning behaviors. The Problem Approach was used 
for a period of six weeks and took the place of the teacher 1 s usual 
57 
reading instruction. The specific independent learning behaviors which 
were studied in this investigation were grouped in the following categories: 
Questioning, Managing, Planning, and Evaluating. A Behavior Observation 
Checklist, developed by Mccann (1982) and expanded by the investigator, 
was used to record the frequency of the four subjects' independent learning 
behaviors before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment. Visual 
inspection of graphed data supplemented by two statistical procedures, the 
sign test and the binomial test, were used to analyze the data. 
Sample?and Sampling Procedures 
The sixth grade class from which the sample was selected was 
heterogeneously mixed along several traits of interest to the researcher. 
The class contained students whose academic achievement level, as deter-
mined by the California Achievement Test, ranged from the 1st to the 4th 
quartiles in reading vocabulary and comprehension. The students took the 
test in the fifth grade, just prior to this research. The students were 
in three reading groups with basal reader materials for reading levels 
4-5 through 6-7. The class was racially mixed, with 18 white students, 
8 black students, and 2 Asian students. There were 17 boys and 11 girls. 
Some students participated readily in class activities, and some partici-
pated in the class only when invited by the teacher. 
Prior to the pre-treatment, or baseline, phase of the research, 
the researcher selected four subjects. The criteria were: parental 
permission (Appendix C), boy and girl of the middle achievement level, 
boy and girl of the low achievement level, and white, to hold the variable 
of race constant. Additionally, the researcher sought individuals whose 
58 
California Achievement Test scores and reading group were of a comparable 
level. The researcher also sought individuals whose amount and types of 
formal and informal interactions in the class appeared appropriate with 
the visible classroom norms, or standards of behavior. In other words, 
desirable subjects were students who were neither unusually disruptive 
nor unusually reticent. They appeared socially acceptable to other 
people in the classroom. They performed school work when others worked. 
They socialized when other people socialized. 
California Achievement Test 
Standard Percentile Stanine 
Score 
Cl. C C C 
::'I 
+> 0 .,
0.. . .,0.. . .,0.. . 
C ~ t> (/) t> (/) >, (/) Q) (!) C C ~ C 
E ctl Q) ctl Q) ctl Q) 
+> Q) .-- 01.--- CJ").-- 01..C:: 01.--- 01..C:: CJ").-- 01..C:: 
C > Q) C a, C ::'I C
Q) Q) > .,... > .,... ..Cl .,...
  a, C ::'I C a, C ::'I C a, ~ .,... ..Cl .,... ~ .,... ..Cl .,... ~ 
-0 .,... Q) -0 a, -0 ctl u -0 Cl. -0 ctl -0 Cl. 
-o m -0 0. 
::'I X ..c:: __J ctl __J ctl ctl E ctl u ctl E ctl u ctl E 
+> Q) u Q) Q) 0 Q) 0 Q) 0 Q) 0 Q) 0 Q) 0 
(/) (/) <C 0::: 0::: > 0::: u 0::: > 0::: u 0::: > 0::: u 
#1 M Low 5 436 442 33 33 4 4 
#2 F Low 5 464 442 53 33 5 4 
#3 M Mid 6 486 478 69 54 6 5 
#4 F Mid 6 470 498 58 66 5 6 
Figure 1. Sample Characteristics 
Teacher-Centered Instructional Situation 
Prior to data collection, the researcher followed an observation 
schedule of six observations in the classroom for the purpose of being 
able to describe the baseline teacher-centered instructional situation. 
... 
59 
The researcher also discussed with the teacher ~ertinent details about 
her teaching style to clarify the observations. As a way of focusing 
the description of her teaching style, the researcher developed and used 
a two-part checklist which contrasts student-centered instruction (as 
prescribed by the Problem Approach) with teacher-centered instruction 
(Figure 2). No other measures were used at this time. The checklist 
and the following written description provide en account of baseline 
instruction. The account is necessary for understanding students? 
behaviors in her class. 
The reading class met from 9:00 until 10:20 on mornings the students 
had physical education (Monday, Wednesday, and every other Friday). On 
other mornings the class met from 9:00 until 11:00. 
The routine procedure for a reading period was for two reading groups 
to work on independent work at their desks while one reading group met with 
the teacher. Independent work was assigned on the blackboard, different 
work for different reading groups. Some activities were highly structured, 
such as fill-in-the-blank assignments. Other activities were not highly 
structured, such as story-writing. Though the teacher identified seat 
work as 11 independent, 11 she a1lm"ied students to assist one another. To 
facilitate students' helping one another, the teacher used a seating 
arrangement which mixed students of the three reading groups. 
When the teacher taught a reading grou?, she sat in a rocking chair 
with the students all around her on a carpe:. She usually led the group 
in discussion of a classwork or homework assignment by asking questions 
from the teacher's manual which accompanies the reading text. The usual 
procedure was for the teacher to ask and tte students to respond. Students 
60 
Figure 2. Teacher Observation Checklist 
Teacher-Centered Teaching: 
check if 
appropriate: behavior: 
X 1. Tells students what content they will cover. 
X 2. Expresses judgment of students? behavior or performance, 
either verbally or with facial expressions. 
X 3. Alters students? language by putting students? remarks 
into teacher's own language. 
X 4. Tells students the order of their work. 
X 5. Uses purposes and objectives which do not come 
directly from students? involvement. 
X 6. Plans lessons without using students? input. 
X 7. Analyzes topics for students. 
X 8. Selects students to serve in group leadership and 
support roles. 
X 9. Assigns all learning activities. 
X 10. Performs all record-keeping responsibilities for class. 
X 11. Teaches skills when teacher sees the need for skills 
instruction or when skills instruction is appropriate 
for administrative reasons. 
X 12. Tells students what the form and content should be 
for project work. 
X 13. Evaluates students? learning processes and products. 
Remarks, including comments about teacher's efforts to make his/her 
teaching less teacher-centered: 
I ~~;7 --.....;.;--;=-~ =? ?~?~:-t.:?-,,;:;,;i;;.-?> ... :,; ~~~~~~.- ._:.;:.,., .. ;.,;; ...... ?? ... 
61 
Figure 2 (continued). Teacher Observation Checklist 
Student-Centered Teaching (based on the Problem Approach): 
check if 
appropriate: behavior: 
1. Asks students what they want to learn about in a particular 
2. Aunccite.p ts every response without showing judgment. 
3. Records responses in students' language. 
4. Asks students to categorize topics. 
5. Asks students to determine their own priorities for 
what topic or problem to study first, second, third. 
6. Asks students to analyze (break down topic into 
questions and/or subtopics). 
7. Asks students to evaluate their plans and decisions 
each session. 
8. Assigns students to small heterogeneously organized 
committees. 
9. Assigns each committee a subtopic. 
10. Asks committees to select chairperson and recorder. 
11. Facilitates* chairpersons in developing resource plan 
of how com1;1ittees will explore their subtopic or problem. 
12. Facilitates committees in making individual assignments 
of work to be done. 
13. Provides group with materials necessary for group record-
keeping (folders, record-keeping forms) and facilitates 
committees in doing their own record-keeping. 
14. Facilitates committees in collecting the information 
they need and in experiencing the activities they plan. 
(Teacher facilitates when groups realize the need). 
15. Asks who, what, why, where, how questions to committees 
to help them see their need for careful and thorough work. 
16. Asks committees to plan for final presentation (in a 
form and with content determined by committees). 
17. Facilitates committees in meeting their objectives for 
their final presentations. 
18. Asks committees to evaluate their own presentations and 
the presentations of the other committees. 
19. Inductively leads students to see that evaluation in-
cludes the following questions: 
- What have we learned? 
- was it worth learning? 
- How might we use it? 
- What additional questions do we have? 
- What was the best thing about the way the 
ideas were presented? 
*facilitates_ an inductive process the teacher uses to stimulate 
responsible participation on the part of the students. 
62 
rarely spoke to one another. The teacher often departed from the teacher?s 
manual to provide skill-building lessons based on her perception of 
students' needs. She often used questions intended to facilitate students? 
critical thinking about their reading lessons. 
When the teacher taught the whole class, students often participated 
voluntarily by elaborating upon her points of discussion. The researcher 
observed that nearly all of this type of voluntary class participation 
was by boys in the class, boys from all three reading achievement levels. 
The only type of unsolicited responses from girls were procedural questions, 
such as 11 How long do we have to do the work?" "How many pages do we have 
to do?" "Will I get half credit for my answer? 11 During observed lessons, 
high achievement girls did not initiate any kind of interaction with the 
teacher prior to treatment. The researcher did not infer causes for what 
appeared to be a male dominated climate, which was the usual situation 
when the teacher interacted with the whole class prior to treatment. The 
researcher was able, however, to note differences in the climate regarding 
the sexual dominance during the treatment. 
In spite of the fact that the teacher 1 s reading program appeared to 
be highly structured, adaptability and sensitivity to students? needs 
were personal traits of the teacher which were evident each day of 
observation. She managed to find private time with boys and girls who 
needed her. She took time to help students discover their own errors and 
find more effective means of completing their work. Most importantly, 
she sought to participate in the research for the purpose of learning ways 
to be "less directive" with her students, she said. To participate in 
the research she agreed to discontinue her reading program for the duration 
of the treatment. 
63 
In summary, this section provided a description of the baseline 
teacher-centered instructional situation. The two-part checklist 
(Figure 2.) indicated that the style is teacher-centered, particularly 
as it is compared to the student-centered style of the Problem Approach. 
The written description depicted the teacher's style as responsive to 
students' needs but teacher-centered. 
Research Procedures 
Teacher Training 
The teacher training component had three phases. The first phase 
consisted of two meetings which included the school principal. These 
meetings were held prior to the researcher's entry into the teacher's 
sixth grade class. On these occasions the researcher provided a general 
overview of the research and began to establish a rapport with the teacher 
in whose class the research would be conducted. The researcher explained 
that during the pre-treatment observation period the teacher would use 
her usual teaching style and her usual materials and assignments. The 
teacher was requested not to try instructional innovations during this 
time. 
The second phase consisted of a series of training sessions intended 
to prepare the teacher for her implementation of the Problem Approach 
during the treatment portion of the research. The training sessions 
occurred during the week preceding treatment. A research assistant was 
also trained in these sessions. Her presence helped provide a group 
atmosphere for the teacher to learn about the students' roles and her 
role in the Problem Approach. The research assistant in the teacher 
64 
training was also being prepared to teach using the Problem Approach if 
the teacher required a substitute during treatment. The training con-
sisted of role playing, discussion, lecture, and two videotape presentations 
of the Problem Approach. 
The third phase of the teacher training was the researcher 1 s weekly 
monitoring of the treatment in after-school meetings with the teacher. 
In these weekly meetings, the researcher answered the teacher 1 s questions, 
supported her in her new role as a Problem Approach teacher, and assisted 
her in making decisions about implementing the Problem Approach. As non-
participant observation research, the design precluded interaction between 
the teacher and researcher during class time or in the presence of students. 
Moreover, the training program with the teacher prepared her to implement 
the Problem Approach with minimal assistance from the researcher. The 
final monitoring meeting with the teacher, held at the conclusion of the 
treatment, was an evaluation session. The teacher evaluated her use of 
the Problem Approach. Her evaluation is presented in Chapter Four. 
Treatment Procedures 
This section describes the treatment procedures. First, the Problem 
Approach is overviewed. Next, the Problem Approach is presented as it 
was implemented in the classroom. Minor deviations from the description 
of the Problem Approach in Appendix A were consistent with the purposes 
of the procedure. The treatment affected the diverse multicultural norms 
operating in the classroom and the familiar teacher-class authority 
structure and resulted in new role relationships and new behaviors. The 
treatment, therefore, was comprised of the twelve steps of the Problem 
Approach plus the behaviors of the class in response to the twelve steps. 
65 
For this reason, the following account of the treatment procedures includes 
each of the twelve steps plus the behavior of the class in response to 
each step. This use of descriptive data provides a view of the Problem 
Approach classroom within which the four subjects were observed. 
The Problem Approach. The Problem Approach is an instructional 
strategy which places the student in the role of an active learner. The 
purpose of using this strategy is to assist students in developing inde-
pendent learning behaviors so that ultimately they might become self-
directed, independent learners. Throughout the procedure participating 
students have opportunities to question, to manage information and people, 
to plan, and to evaluate. These active behaviors are the behaviors of 
self-directed independent learners. 
The instructional approach comprises sequential steps moving from 
goal-setting to the presenting and evaluating of final products. The 
steps fall into three phases: (1) identification of the problem or 
topic, (2) planning and carrying out the plan for solving the problem 
or studying the topic, and (3) presenting and evaluating findings. 
Learning processes include brainstorming, categorizing, labeling, 
prioritizing, planning, questioning, organizing, researching, specific 
skill development, compiling, presenting, and evaluating. All four 
language modes--listening, speaking, reading, and writing--are practiced 
throughout the procedure. In all of the processes here named, the 
students are actively involved. 
The Problem Approach emphasizes students? experiences and interests. 
It involves them in the pursuit of knowledge and/or skills they say they 
would like to acquire. They work on independent tasks. They also 
66 
participate in small group problem solving which heightens their active 
involvement with instructional content and processes. These situations 
highlight student strengths, promoting positive self-concepts and peer 
instruction. At the same time, instrumental decision-making responsibility 
is practiced by the students. 
The teacher 1 s role is to direct students in following the basic 
steps of the Problem Approach (Appendix A). Throughout the procedure 
the teacher helps students focus on their learning objectives. The 
teacher is the pri rnary f acil i ta tor. /lh ~ ! 11 11 ::l:.f a,111 
Implementation of the Problem Approach. The researcher gave the 
teacher a choice regarding topic selection. The teacher could begin by 
leading her class to determine the content area they would study. She 
could, on the other hand, select the topic herself and then lead the 
class to decide on specific areas of the topic they wanted to study. She 
chose to give her class the broad topic of American Indians. 
The day before beginning the Problem Approach, the teacher announced 
to her class that they would begin a research unit on American Indians. 
She asked them to tell what they already knew about American Indians. 
She wrote their responses on the board and said she wanted them to get 
used to thinking about the topic. The next day she began the Problem 
Approach. The students had no way of associating their study of American 
Indians with the researcher, who had observed in their class every morning 
for the previous four-and-a-half weeks. 
The following is a step-by-step description of the Problem Approach 
as it was implemented in this research: 
67 
Step One 
The teacher asked the students, "What do you want to learn about 
American Indians?" She recorded students' responses exactly as she 
heard them. She continued writing responses until students had 
filled available space on blackboards. Step one required almost an 
hour of class time. 
Behavior of Class: 
Many students volunteered topics and questions. The first partici-
pants were all high achievement students. After five minutes, 
1!11111 
'1:.1 :1~, 
students from all three achievement levels began to participate. 
IIIJ 1~P 
;,M nt,1 
Several students whom the researcher had never seen participate in 11,111, 
a class discussion voluntarily offered topics for the teacher to 
write on the board. Several students did not participate at all. 
Before step one ended several students were standing or were on 
their knees in their chairs. Their hands were in the air. When 
the 43rd topic was written on the board, the teacher told the class 
she was running out of board room and they would have to stop soon. 
A student said, 11 Don 1 t stop now! We're on a roll ! 11 At the 49th 
topic the teacher said, 11 That 1 s all. There's no more room. 11 A 
student who, by the teacher's account, had never volunteered in 
this class before this activity stood and said, 11 What sacrifices 
did Indians make? 11 He wanted one more topic to go on the board. 
He walked to the board and found a space where the teacher could 
write his question. His question was the last. The questions 
and topics the students generated are listed in Figure 3. 
68 
Figure 3. Student-Generated Questions and Topics 
1. How about their religions--what gods they worshipped. 
2. How many tribes were there and what were their names. 
3. Where did certain tribes live? 
4. Different types of weapons. 
5. How they made their weapons. 
6. What kind of food they planted. 
7. vJhat they ate. 
8. How did the different tribes go about capturing animals? 
9. What were their laws and rules? 
10. How did they harvest their food? 
11. How did they prepare it? 
12. What were some of the names of famous Indian chiefs and 
what were their backgrounds? 
13. What sort of structures did the different tribes build 
and live in? 
14. What type of weapons did the Indians hunt with? 
15. What did they build their tepees out of? 
16. What were some of their clothes made out of? 
17. How did they make their clothes? 
18. What did they make their shoes out of? 
19. How well did tribes get along with other tribes? 
20. What were some of their holidays? 
21. What kind of names did they have? 
22. What kind of games did they play? 
23. What were some of the names of the Indians who helped the 
early settlers? 
24. What were their different forms of education? 
25. What were the major reasons that the Indians had for either 
fighting against the white men or cooperating with them? 
26. What was their transportation? 
27. What kind of tools did they have and how did they make them? 
28. How did they cook their food? 
29. How did they punish law breakers? 
30. What was their currency? 
31. What pets did they have? 
32. How did they go about picking a chief? 
33. What were some of their leisure time activities? Hobbies? 
34. What were some of the things that some tribes traded? 
35. How did they get an education? ? 
36. When they died, how were they treated? 
37. Who were the great Indian war chiefs and how did they 
make themselves great? 
38. How did the tribes communicate with each other? 
39. What were the names of some important battles? 
40. What were some of the medicines they used for treating sickness? 
69 
Figure 3 (continued). Student-Generated Questions and Topics 
41. Where did they come from? 
42. When the first settlers landed, were the Indians they met 
friendly? 
43. How did the Indians treat the landscape? 
44. What were some things that the Indians and the settlers 
traded? 
45. What did the Indians drink and what did they drink out of? 
46. What were some of the great inventions made by Indians? 
47. What were some of the most famous art works? 
48. How did the Indians get along with the wildlife? 
49. What were some of the furnishings inside their houses? 
50. What sacrifices did Indians make? 
Step Two 
The teacher told the class to group their questions and topics in 
"categories." She told them to name each category and give a state-
ment or question which best expressed the ideas in each category. 
Just as she had done in Step One, the teacher took students' exact 
dictation. Step Two required two class periods. When the class 
had to return to this step on the second day, the teacher began by 
having students review their work of the previous day. To help 
them review and evaluate their work, the teacher gave the students 
typed copies of their topics and categories. She asked, "Is this 
what you said? Do you want to make change,s or additions?" The 
teacher recorded students? responses. 
Behavior of Class: 
The behavior of the class was characterized by a sustained involve-
ment in the activity of Step Two by all members. Some members were 
more active than others. Interestingly, several of the verbally 
and/or physically active participants were students whose typical 
behavior was more reticent. Several students moved spontaneously 
70 
to blackboards near their desks and took over responsibility for 
marking off topics as they were used in the categorizing. These 
volunteers, boys and girls, were from the high and low achievement 
groups. The categorizing step continued without interruption until, 
finally, a student noticed the class had gone overtime by five 
minutes, and they were late for physical education. The class more 
typically finished its work five minutes before physical education. 
The 15 categories the students organized are listed in Figure 4. 
The numbers in parentheses correspond to the numbered topics from 
Step One. 
Figure 4. Student-Organized Categories 
I. Religion 
In their religions, what did the gods do? What kinds of 
holidays, sacrifices, celebrations, and rituals did they 
have? (1, 50, 20, 36, 40) 
II. Weapons and Tools 
Describe the different types of tools, weapons, and inventions 
and tell what they were used for and how they were made. 
(4, 5, 14, 27, 46) 
II I. Clothes 
How did the Indians make the things that they wore and out 
of what? (16, 17, 18) 
IV. Food 
Tell what the Indians .ate, how they got it and how they 
prepared it. ( 6, 7 , 8, 10, 11 , 28, 45) 
V. Housing 
How and where did they build their houses and how did they 
furnish them? (13, 15, 49, 3) 
71 
Figure 4 (continued). Student-Organized Categories 
VI. Edu ca ti on 
How did the Indians get an education and what was their 
education like? (35, 24) 
VI I. Tri bes 
(2, 12, 21, 23, 3, 41) 
VIII. Famous Indians 
Who were the famous Indians and what did they do? 
(32, 12, 37, 23, 21) 
h JI JI I 
IX. Trading and Foreign Relations 1:1: UJI 
What did the Indians trade with other tribes and settlers? 1111 ,11,M Ml ttll 
How did the Indians get along with other tribes and the 11,,1 w1 
early settlers and what were the reasons for their actions? 
(44, 34, 30, 19, 25, 23, 39) "H'I'I  ,11.11?  1111 u??i 
.. ,1 '~" 
11.,1 11:t~ 
X. Law 
What were their rules and laws and how did they punish the 
law breakers? (9, 29) 
XI. Communications 
What kind of communications did they use? (38) 
XII. Transportation 
What kinds of transportation did they have? (26) 
XIII. Leisure 
What specific games, hobbies, and art work did they do in 
their leisure time? What pets did they keep, if any? 
(22, 33, 20, 31, 47, 46) 
XIV. Environment 
How did the Indians treat the landscape and get along with 
its wildlife? (43, 48) 
XV. Occupations (46) 
72 
Step Three 
The teacher asked the class to examine all of their categories and 
vote on the categories they would like to study. She told the class 
she would place them in five committees and each committee would have 
a subtopic of American Indians. Step Three required about 45 minutes. 
Behavior of Class: 
Several students said they did not want to eliminate any categories. 
After several opinions had been expressed, a student led the class 
in voting. The vote was unanimously in favor of keeping all topics. 
A speaker from the group told the teacher they should organize the 
categories so that each committee would have three related categories. 
The class agreed. The grouping of categories was a continuation of 
the highly active student involvement begun in Step One. Differences 
of opinion were expressed, debated, and resolved. Resolution usually 
occurred through student-initiated voting. Many students who rarely 
participated verbally offered their points of view. Contributions 
to discussion came from all achievement groups. One student (not a 
subject) who had manifested far more independent learning behaviors 
than anyone else prior to treatment, a middle achievement boy, con-
tinued to manifest independent learning behaviors. He evaluated, 
hypothesized, suggested, planned, disagreed, agreed, questioned, 
categorized. He manifested more variety of independent learning 
behaviors than anyone else in the class. His participation stimulated 
discussion among members of all three achievement groups. Interestingly, 
this boy was thought of as troublesome by other teachers. 
73 
The class produced the following groups of categories, which 
would be assigned to the five committees: 
Group Categories 
l Clothes, Food, Housing 
2 Religion, Education, Environment 
3 Tribes, Law, Famous Indians 
4 Weapons and Tools, Communications I~ I q1,I 
Trading and Foreign Relations 111 Hll 
5 Leisure, Transportation, Occupations 111'1011 
I?! I 'il'II 
?,1~ 1' u.i1 
Figure 5. Categories for Committee Investigation 
Step Four 
The teacher asked the class to name resources they could consult 
to learn about American Indians. Step Four lasted about half 
an hour. 
Behavior of Class: 
Naming resources stimulated verbal participation by some students 
who had not contributed during the previous steps. The new 
contributors showed the same high level of enthusiasm that other 
contributors had in previous steps. The class named the following 
resources: 
?--?-?-?-?------- -??-?-------------- ---------- ----?-?-?----? 
74 
Places to get information: 
museums--Smithsonian and National Geographic 
Archives 
library: encyclopedia, dictionaries, books, 
biographical dictionary, atlas, 
filmstrips, films, records 
maps 
tapes 
social studies book 
newspapers 
National Geographic 
addresses of people who know about Indians 
pamphlets 
People: l ~ I , JI 1\1' ,,,11 11111 
librarian 
teacher 
archaeologist 
archaeological society 
Ask an Indian 
a student in the other sixth grade class who 
is part Indian 
Bureau of Indian Affairs 
Figure 6. Student-Generated Resources 
Step Five 
The teacher assigned students and categories of topics to committees. 
Students were placed in heterogeneous small groups, according to the 
guidelines of the Problem Approach (see Appendix A). The Direct 
Classroom Observation section later in this chapter explains how 
these committees were organized. Before announcing students? names, 
however, she told them the procedures the groups would follow in 
their first meetings. She introduced three forms (Appendices E, F, G) 
they would complete. She told them they would elect chairpersons and 
recorders and that these positions would change each week. She 
75 
finally told them which students comprised each group and assigned 
categories to them. 
Behavior of Class: 
Students moved quickly into committees. The researcher did not 
observe students demonstrating negative reactions to group member-
ship. They attended to committee business immediately. One group 
chose its officers through volunteering. One group chose through 
drawing names from a student 1 s pocket. Three groups elected their 
officers through nominating and voting procedures. 
?step Six 
The teacher distributed record-keeping forms and folders to each 
group. Recorders would write their questions and suggested resources 
on the committee planning form (Appendix E). When they were ready 
to make individual assignments of questions, recorders would fill in 
the appropriate information on the individual sign-up sheet {Appendix F). 
Also on this sheet, individuals would initial their assignments when 
they were completed. Each day at meetings, the recorder would complete 
the information on the committee work form (Appendix G). This form 
was comprised of a checklist, which would be used to monitor each 
phase of a group meeting, and a section for writing the minutes. The 
teacher told the class that groups would begin each meeting by using 
the completed committee work form (Appendix G) from the previous day 
to review. The teacher gave each group a folder of a different 
color for keeping track of group work. Each group would be identified 
by the color of its folder. The teacher showed the class the file 
drawer where the folders and the extra forms would be kept and told 
76 
them that groups were responsible for taking care of their own 
materials. All folders and forms were to be kept in the drawer 
when not being used. 
step Seven 
The teacher told the class that chairpersons would lead their groups 
in developing their resource plans. A resource plan consisted of 
the categories with the questions and suggested resources that a 
group planned to investigate. The class met in the media center. 
Most groups required about 45 minutes. 
Behavior of Class: 
At first the groups remained at media center tables. The recorder 
of each group wrote questions and suggested resources on the committee 
planning form (Appendix E). After they had copied questions and 
resources that had come from steps 1-4, they named a few other questions 
they had. When thinking of new questions, several students used 
media center materials. 
step?E;ght 
In a whole group meeting after the committee work of step seven, the 
teacher told the class their work would eventually lead to group 
presentations to the class. She said their presentations could 
cover their information in whatever way they felt most suitable. 
They would, she added, evaluate their own work and the work of their 
peers. She asked them to brainstorm again to generate a list of 
the kinds of presentations they might have. She said that many 
possibilities existed. TheY would choose the form best suited to 
their information, their skills, and their interests. This activity 
lasted 10 minutes. 
77 
Behavior of Class: 
The class generated the following list: 
reports 
projects 
time lines 
oral presentations 
plays or skits 
bring in an Indian 
field trip arranged by students 
take pictures 
videotape 
home movies . ', ,. 11,~ ,; 111111 
Figure 7. Student-Generated Presentation Forms 
step Nine 
The teacher provided sufficient time, support, and instruction for 
committees to investigate their topics. The teacher facilitated 
students? learning processes (1) by helping them locate and manage 
materials, ( 2) by reflecting their ideas back to them for further 
thought, (3) by challenging them to reconsider issues, (4) by asking 
questions (how, what, where, who, when, why) to help them be more 
concrete and focused, and (5) by providing specific skill development 
when instruction was sought by students. The students used a 
variety of resources. This step lasted for two weeks before the 
majority of students began to work on projects for final presenta-
tions. This two-week period was spent in the media center. 
Behavior of Class: 
Committees assigned tables to themselves in the media center. They 
began meetings by reviewing the previous meeting and planning the 
78 
current meeting. They helped themselves to materials and equipment. 
Some group members worked at their committee table, while some worked 
in other parts of the media center. Group members worked independently, 
in dyads and triads, and sometimes as a whole committee. Students 
worked predominantly within their groups, though some out-of-group 
mixiny occurred. They sought help from one another, and they gave 
help to one another. Giving and receiving assistance were thoroughly 
mixed by race, sex, and achievement level. Some committees had a 
high level of cooperation among members, while others did not. 
Though some off-task behavior cccurred, the two weeks of 
information gathering in the media center was characterized by 
sustained active involvement with the subject of American Indians. 
Many students spoke at once, but the volume was sufficiently subdued 
to allow non-class members to work in the media center without 
distraction. Students showed responsibility for media center equip-
ment and materi a 1s  by a lvrnys returning what they had used at the end 
of each session. Students showed responsibility to their committees 
by returning to their tables at the end of each session to evaluate 
their meeting and plan for the next session. 
Committee work benefited by the variety of learning activities 
students pursued. The language activities of listening, speaking, 
reading, and writing were practiced daily by most students. Students 
discovered that regional and tribal differences among Indians made 
their research far more complex than they had anticipated. They 
found that maps and charts and discussions with committee members 
helped them reorganize and increase their knowledge about Indians. 
79 
When a committee brought a guest speaker to school, the entire class 
followed him from classroom to schoolyard and back, listening intently 
and asking questions while he demonstrated the making of arrowheads 
11 
and spoke about 11 reconstructive archaeology.
Groups and individuals monitored their own work. In many cases 
students monitored their meeting time without requiring rerrrinders 
from the teacher. Self-monitoring also occurred in the way individuals 
pursued their work. For example, they used diverse resources without 
being directed, and they increased their work to catch up to other 
students without being told. 
During this step students first experienced sustained group 
authority rather than teacher authority. Behavior that had appeared 
typical when the teacher exerted the authority did not remain typical. 
Students whose usual behavior was either highly active or highly 
passive no longer appeared to behave at such extremes. Students 
who were usually not well-accepted by their peers socially entered 
fully into group activities. Girls entered as fully into group 
1 
activities as boys, in contrast to the girls behavior observed prior 
to treatment when the class had appeared to be male dominant. (See 
Teacher-Centered Instructional Situation above). 
When the teacher directed the class or spoke extensively (five 
minutes or more) to a committee, students stopped their independent 
or group activities and appeared to listen. Usually, they did not 
elaborate on the teacher?s ideas or ask her questions. They resumed 
their individual or committee work when she stopped talking. 
80 
Step Ten 
The teacher provided sufficient time, support, and instruction for 
committees to prepare for their final presentations. The teacher's 
role remained that of a facilitator. Most of the committee preparation 
for final presentations occurred in the classroom. Some individual 
projects and some committee work were accomplished in students' 
homes. The majority of the class used two-and-a-half weeks to 
prepare for the presentations. 
Behavior of Class: ,II .jl II fi (,J.',11,' 
Project work of many forms occupied all available space in the 
classroom and consumed all of the students' class time. Students 
worked on the floor and at desks. They brought in art work and 
construction projects which appeared on walls and shelves. They 
used audio-visual equipment to evaluate their work and the work 
of peers. At one point in a meeting of the whole class, students 
spontaneously brainstormed to develop a new list of presentation 
forms. Once they had begun, the teacher recorded for them. They 
improvised resourcefully, using a TRS-80 computer monitor as a 
filmstrip screen. A low achievement girl with high organizational 
skills stood to direct her committee. In another committee a 
middle achievement boy working on his art project exercised leader-
ship while lying flat on his stomach. Two high achievement boys 
well-known in the school for their verbal skills worked on art 
projects assisted by low achievement students. The roles reversed 
on a later day when the low achievement students received assistance 
with reading and writing activities from the high achievement boys. 
81 
A low achievement girl became a primary resource to all students 
working on art projects or using audio-visual materials. While 
many students in all five committees talked to one another about 
their work, others continued their reading and writing activities, 
undistracted by their peers. 
Step Eleven 
The teacher called upon the committees to present their final 
presentations. Four class periods were required for the presentations. 
(Though student evaluation occurred after each presentation, evalua-
tion is presented here as Step Twelve). 
Behavior of Class: 
Students performed as presenters and as audience during this step. 
The class as audience appeared to be split in half between those who 
became physically and/or verbally involved and those who sat quite 
still. The students who were physically and/or verbally involved 
often stood at their seats or walked to different parts of the class-
room to better see presentations. Several students moved to the 
front of the room and stood or sat very near the presenters. Several 
students voluntarily assisted with audio-visual equipment. Numerous 
students participated verbally by elaborating on information pre-
sented. Their sources usually were their own research findings. A 
few students asked questions of presenters. Presenters, who were 
demonstrating models and art work, performing skits, and delivering 
oral reports, responded to students' questions just as they did to 
the teacher's questions. Presenters sometimes engaged in extensive 
82 
discussions with the class arising out of questions from the audience. 
Most students who did not participate verbally or physically appeared 
to listen and watch the presentations. A few students appeared 
inattentive. They found other acti vi ti es that did not re 1a te ,to 
the topic of American Indians. 
Step Twelve 
The teacher told the committees to evaluate their presentations 
immediately after they presented. She also asked the audience to 
participate in evaluating presentations they had just observed. She 
told them that when they evaluated they would tell what was good and 
why, what needed work and why, and what they still wanted to know. 
Behavior of Class: 
Committees evaluated at the conclusion of their presentations. When 
they finished, members of the audience voluntarily pointed out their 
criticisms. Sometimes the remarks from the audience were in the form 
of questions, which then led the presenters to offer further informa-
tion. After one presentation when the audience had only accepting, 
non-critical remarks, one high achievement boy pointed out that the 
committee should have tried a variety of presenting forms to be more 
interesting. As soon as he finished speaking, two other students 
had critical points to make. The presenting committee then re-evaluated 
its work, saying what they could have done to improve their quality. 
The critical thinking of one student speaking to the class led to 
deeper inspection of work by many students in the class. 
Summary. This section first described the Problem Approach as an 
instructional approach used to place students in the role of active 
83 
learners. The procedure was next described in detail according to how 
it was implemented in this research and how the class behaved. The 
Problem Approacb was described as providing an educational setting in 
which students were actively involved in achieving the learning goals 
they set for themselves. Students? level of involvement was seen to 
lead them into new role relationships and new learning behaviors. Describing 
the behavior of the class at each step was a useful way of providing the 
social framework within which the subjects behaved and were observed. 
Data Collection Procedures 
This section describes the observational methods by which data were 
collected. The observational instrument is explained. Reliability, 
including interrater reliability, is discussed. 
Direct Classroom Observation. The process of acquiring independent 
learning behaviors was the focus of this study. Data were collected 
through direct classroom observation, as recommended by Medley and Mitzel 
(1963). Direct observation, as a method of naturalistic inquiry, is a 
superior way to study processes (Guba, 1978). 
The researcher was a non-participant in the classroom. Gold (1969) 
identifies this research role as that of the 11 complete observer, 11 while 
Schwartz and Schwartz (1969) identify the role as 11 passive participant 
observer. 11 An observation instrument was used to simplify (Huck, Cormier 
& Bounds, 1974) and focus the data collection. Descriptive notes were 
taken to provide a context for the data. 
The researcher spent three weeks in the classroom observing prior to 
beginning the data co 11 ecti on. The purposes of these pre 1i  mi nary obser-
vations were (1) to observe the teacher 1s usual teaching style, (2) to 
84 
train the other observers, (3) to practice with the observation instrument, 
and (4) to allow the students and the teacher to acclimate themselves to 
the presence of the researcher and other observers. During the preliminary 
observations, the researcher established several locations in the classroom 
for watching classroom interactions. Developing an observation routine 
prior to data collection prevented students from realizing when the actual 
research began. 
The researcher sought to become familiar with the setting and the 
participants before collecting data on students? behaviors. Familiarity 
helped reduce errors in observations. Miller and Buckhout say that on 
11 
unfamiliar ground, 11 We hesitate, look several times, and make mistakes
(1973, p. 188). 
An A -s-A data collection schedule was used. The A1 phase, or 
1 2 
pre-treatment observation, was a two-week period which yielded eight 
observations points (20-minute time periods) for each subject. Two 
subjects were observed for 20 minutes, then the other two subjects were 
observed. The order in which a pair of subjects was observed alternated 
with the other pair each day. The subjects, along with the rest of the 
1
class, participated in the routine activities of the teacher s reading 
class, as described in the Teacher-Centered Instructional Situation 
above. In addition to activities described in the Teacher-Centered 
Instructional Situation, one class period was used for students 
to present reports to the whole class. All subjects were observed 
participating in whole class activities and in small group activities. 
During all three phases of the data collection, the researcher and 
co-observers sat in the proximity of subjects being observed. During 
85 
non-data collection intervals, they sat elsewhere in the room, giving 
the appearance of having other subjects of their observations. The class 
met in the classroom all days but one; the exception was a meeting in the 
media center. Even though the class was in the media center, the teacher 
followed her routine of directing one small group while others worked at 
tables. She even sat in a rocking chair in the media center and had the 
students all around her on a carpet, just as she did in the classroom. 
Thoughout the study, the researcher arrived in the classroom early 
enough and remained long enough each day to record field notes (Agar, 
1980; Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) focused on the subjects? appearance and 
behavior and on the social context of the classroom that morning. This 
practice of collecting pertinent descriptive data helped ground the inde-
pendent learning behavior frequency counts in the reality of the rich 
social context of the classroom. 
The B phase, or treatment, was a six-week period which yielded 20 
observation points for one subject, 17 for two subjects, and 16 for one 
subject. The observation procedures established during A1 were followed. 
The first three days of treatment, as well as three subsequent days, 
were predominantly whole group meetings. During all other class periods 
of treatment, students met in small groups (five to six students). The 
researcher and co-observers observed the class in the classroom, in the 
media center, in the copying room next to the school office, and in the 
yard just outside of the classroom. The duration of the treatment 
extended beyond the proposed four weeks because of the need expressed by 
students for completing their projects. At the end of treatment students 
86 
presented their group reports to the whole class. Unlike several single 
case designs described by Hersen and Barlow (1978), treatment was not 
withdrawn for several observation points and then restored. In this 
study, treatment was withdrawn and the teacher returned to her usual 
teaching procedures at the conclusion of the instructional period being 
studied. 
The grouping of subjects was an important consideration during 
treatment. Once the treatment reached the point of small group work, the 
researcher, with the cooperation of the teacher, placed all the students 
in the small groups. (Students remained unaware of the researcher's 
contribution to their procedures.) The small groups were heterogeneously 
composed a 1o ng the fo 11 owing traits: race, sex, and reading achievement 
level; Additionally, friendship lines were broken, distributing friends 
among several groups. Organizing small groups in this manner follows 
the guidelines of the treatment procedures (Appendix A). To facilitate 
the data collection, the researcher placed two subjects in one group 
and the other two subjects in another group. Three other groups did not 
include any subjects. subjects were placed in the five-member groups 
rather than in the six-member groups to enhance their opportunities for 
participation. so that subjects would be observed in new social contexts 
during treatment, the researcher separated the two low achievement 
subjects from one another and the two middle achievement subjects from 
one another in the small groups. In other words, Subjects #1 (low 
achievement boy) and #4 (middle achievement girl) were in one group, 
While #2 (low achievement girl) and #3 (middle achievement boy) were in 
another group. 
87 
The A2 phase, or post-treatment )bservation, was a two-week period 
which, like the pre-treatment phase, 1ielded eight observation points. 
All class meetings were in the classroom. The teacher followed her usual 
routine, as described in the Teacher-Centered Instructional Situation. A 
minor departure from A was that she did not take the class to the media 
1 
center. The researcher did not feel this deviation from A1 would introduce 
significant error variance into the data because the teacher had conducted 
the class in the media center during A1 the same way she routinely taught 
in the classroom. During A2, just as in phases A1 and B, students 
presented reports to the whole class. 
In summary, the researcher trained a classroom teacher to use a 
teaching strategy which enhances the development of independent learning 
behaviors (Mccann, 1982). Through direct classroom observation, the 
researcher and co-observers recorded the frequency of the subjects? 
independent learning behaviors before, during, and after treatment. 
Several classroom experiences, including working in small groups, meeting 
as a whole class, and giving oral presentations, occurred during all three 
phases. At the conclusion of the classroom research, descriptive data 
made it evident that at the withdrawal of treatment the teacher returned 
to her usual teaching style, as was required by the research design. 
Observation Instrument. The Behavior Observation Checklist, developed 
by Mccann (1982) was adapted and expanded for this research. The instru-
ment measures independent learning behaviors divided into four categories--
Questioning, Managing, Planning, and Evaluating. Each category consists 
of three specific, discrete, observable behaviors. The researcher 
using this instrument collects frequency data. 
88 
McCann's Behavior Observation Checklist meets the criteria stipulated 
by Weich (1968) for precise measures which do not sacrifice naturalness 
in naturalistic inquiry. Among these criteria for dependent variables 
are: They are plausible response measures within the setting, discrete 
from other behaviors, easy to observe and score, compatible with other 
measures, and they are sensitive to variations in the independent 
variables. The Behavior Observation Checklist meets recommendations by 
Weick (1968) for two other reasons: (1) it uses multiple measures, a 
feature of research instruments which often improves validity. (2) It 
provides composite scores for each of the four categories, which often 
provide greater inference value than single scores. 
The Behavior Observation Checklist was altered somewhat for this 
research. Some items were re-written so that all items were expressed 
as observable behaviors. An example was added to one item to improve 
clarity. The Checklist was also expanded. In the form used in this 
research (Appendix B), additional space, with directions for use, was 
added for collecting data on the directionality of the independent 
learning behaviors. Directionality here refers to behavior that is 
initiated in the setting versus behavior that is in response to the 
specific stimulus of another individual's remarks or behavior. Additionally, 
this expanded form provides a coding system for labeling group size 
Where independent learning behaviors occur. The expanded Checklist may 
be used to observe two subjects simultaneously. The initial format 
used by Mccann was used for as many as five subjects at once. 
Reliability. The data collection procedures of this study included 
two features which maximized reliability. First, the observation instrument 
89 
was found to have high reliability 1t1ith i nterrater reliability scores 
ranging from 0.88 to 0.99 in similar research conducted previous to this 
study (Mccann, 1982). The reliability of the instrument was enhanced by 
the precision with which it met the criteria for dependent variables 
identified by Weick (1968). See Observation Instrument above. 
Second, the researcher was assisted in conducting the observations 
by two trained observers, one with a background in secondary reading and 
computer-assisted instruction and the other with a background in speech 
therapy. The researcher and one of the other observers had used the 
instrument in its original form in previous research. These individuals 
practiced with the expanded form of the instrument in the setting of the 
present research for the week preceding the A1 phase. The third observer 
was trained with the instrument prior to and during the week of practice 
in the classroom. A procedure the researcher used during practice to 
train the co-observers was to focus on students who clearly manifested 
the independent learning behaviors identified by the instrument. In 
practice, then, observers had opportunities to see the behaviors they 
would be looking for during the actual data collection. They practiced 
discriminating between initiated behaviors and responding behaviors, 
and they practiced identifying the social contexts of the behaviors. 
Interrater Reliability. Interrater reliability was estimated by 
using Pearson's Product Moment Correlation (r). The correlation, r, 
was computed as: 
~XY - ~X~Y 
r = ------2---
n -----
- (~X) ) (~y2 _ (z.Y) 2 ) 
n n 
90 
During practice the four students were not the same four who were 
selected as subjects. They are distinguished here as Students A, B, C, 
and D. The students selected as subjects are distinguished here and 
throughout this document as Students, or Subjects, #l, #2, #3, and #4. 
In computing reliability, the directionality (initates versus responds) 
and social context were not considered. The categories of Questioning, 
Managing, Planning, and Evaluating were used as measures. 
At the end of the practice phase, interrater reliability was estimated 
on two days of joint observing. There were, therefore, 8 measures con-
sidered. The following results of the practice data are provided: 
Student A, r = 0.97 
Student B, r = 0.79 
Student C, r = 0.99 
Student D, r = 1.00 
During the pre-treatment, or Al'phase, there were five days of joint 
observing, with 20 measures considered. The following resOlts of th~ 
pre-treatment phase are provided: 
Student #l, r = 0.96 
Student #2, r = 1.00 
Student #3, r = 0~97 
Student #4, r = 0.99 
During the treatment, or B, phase, the researcher was joined by a 
co-observer nine times. Thirty-six measures were considered. The following 
are the interrater reliability correlations of these observations: 
.~:,;"1!1;~,t~-~."""""?"'"'. . -?Oftl--U)''U?E~. . . .m. mm.c...,.m.m1Srnrmsaaw1 ~~~~mmr&iSil9kllif&1?iiWWW-WWW? ... h 
91 
Student #1, r = 0.94 
Student #2, r = 0.97 
Student #3, r = 0.95 
Student #4, r = 0.95 
In summary, interrater reliability correlations are extremely high. 
They are high resulting from the precision of the observation instrument 
and from the preparation of the observers. 
Data Analysis Procedures 
Because this study used single-case methodology, visual inspection 
of graphed data for each subject was the primary procedure for evaluating 
the data. Visual inspection, as the primary means of evaluating single-case 
study data refers to reaching judgments about the treatment effects by 
visually examining graphed data (Kazdin, 1982). Using visual inspection 
to evaluate data is a way of emphasizing potent treatment effects. 
To supplement visual inspection, two statistical procedures were 
used. The sign test (Huck, Cormier, & Bounds, 1974; Jenkins & Hatcher, 
1976; Siegel, 1956) was used to indicate directionality of the data. The 
basic operation was to obtain differences between paired scores. In this 
study where the treatment period was longer than the baseline and return 
to baseline periods, the raw scores were weighted. A plus or minus sign 
indicated directionality. The number of plus or minus differences were 
totaled separately. (When a difference score of zero occurred, 0.5 was 
attributed to the plus total, and 0.5 was attributed to the minus total). 
The binomial table (Jenkins & Hatcher, 1976; Siegel, 1956) was entered 
with the smaller of the two frequencies, either plus or minus, obtained 
from use of the sign test. If the value were less than .05, the decision 
was that the behaviors were unlikely to have occurred by chance. 
92 
The judgment to use the sign test and the binomial test derived from 
the type of data collected in the research. First, the Data in this 
single-case study is derived from methodology which used each subject as 
his or her own control? Second, the data are simply frequency counts, 
a type of nominal data (Siegel, 1956) without measurement of any qualita-
tive differences. For frequency counts tests of consistency, rather than 
of magnitude, are appropriate (Jenkins & Hatcher, 1976). Jenkins and 
Hatcher (1976) explain that the sign test and the binomial test are 
appropriate analytic tools when the data have these characteristics. 
1 I ii. 
1,1,111, 
Summary 
This chapter presented the methodology of the study. The content of 
the chapter falls into two broad categories: (l) what the researcher did 
to generate, collect, and analyze the data and (2) what the classroom I 1:IW~i 
t1,1(!11l 1 
??JII''' 
teacher and class did as participants in the study. Specific activities 1;111:1 '\1'l,'?,I,,/1'''.'l'i  
1,1,:lll( 
and behaviors of the class concretely illustrate the implementation of 1:,1?1111J: 
,''.1, '!'l1'jj','11  
i,I 
the Problem Approach as the treatment of the research in the sixth grade 1111;:tl11.: 
class. 
Direct, non-participant observation with a focused observation 
instrument enabled the researcher to collect data with minimal interaction 
with the teacher and the students. What little interaction occurred was 
generally incidental and not visibly related to the behaviors being observed. 
No one outside of the observation team was aware of the identity of the 
subjects. Moreover, the students were not informed that their 11 research 
unit 11 --the study of American Indians--was an experimental intervention. 
93 
CHAPTER IV 
RESULTS 
The purpose of the study was to observe independent learning behaviors 
of four subjects before, during, and after their participation in the 
Problem Approach. The subjects were male and female, middle and low 
scholastic achievement level students. Independent learning behaviors 
were observed in the categories of Questioning, Managing, Planning, and 
Evaluating. The null hypotheses are as follows: 
a. It is hypothesized that during and after participating in the 
Problem Approach subjects will not manifest more questioning behavior 
than they did prior to treatment. 
b. It is hypothesized that during and after participating in the 
Problem Approach subjects will not manifest more managing behavior 
than they did prior to treatment. 
c. It is hypothesized that during and after participating in the 
Problem Approach subjects will not manifest more planning behavior 
than they did prior to treatment. 
d. It is hypothesized that during and after participating in the 
Problem Approach subjects will not manifest more evaluating behavior 
than they did prior to treatment. 
The null hypotheses are rejected if (1) treatment effects are clearly 
apparent through visual inspection of graphed data for single subjects, 
and (2) if the probability that treatment effects occurred by chance was 
less than .05, as estimated by using the sign test and the binomial test 
for aggregated data. 
94 
This chapter provides results of the study. First, findings for 
each of the four subjects are presented separately with behavioral 
descriptions, derived from field notes and the observation instrument, 
and graphic presentations of independent learning behaviors in the categories 
of Questioning, Managing, Planning, and Evaluating. Second, the results 
of the data aggregated on the four subjects are provided along the 
dimensions of the four independent learning behavior categories. Third, 
the results aggregated on the four subjects along the dimensions of direc-
tionality (initiates versus responds) and social context are presented. 
Finally, this chapter presents the outcomes of the students' evaluations 
of their experiences with the Problem Approach and the teacher's evaluations 
of her use of the Problem Approach. 
Individual Behavioral Descriptions 
~tudent #1, a Low Achievement Boy 
Baseline. Prior to treatment the behavior of Student #1 can be 
generally described as academically unsuccessful. In his low achievement 
level reading group, he was observed as a poor reader who read haltingly 
and in a monotone when reading aloud. He used his finger to point at 
words as he read. He occasionally exhibited behaviors which appeared to 
annoy the teacher so much that she scolded him. He always sat apart from 
other students in his group. He rarely interacted with the others. He 
was observed to participate without distraction only in highly structured 
reading d' . ns of homework assignments in which the teacher 
group 1 scuss 1 o 
asked literal questions, 
95 
When Student #1 was at his desk his performance was also observed to 
be academically unsuccessful. He avoided performing reading and writing 
tasks when they were assigned. Instead of working on assignments, he 
walked around the room, sat without books in the rocking chair, stared 
into space, talked to other students, or played with small toys at his 
desk. He repeatedly exhibited behaviors which resulted in the teacher 
stopping her own activity to scold him. He sometimes sought assistance 
from the teacher. She complied when he simply stated, ''I think I need 
help." His assigned seat was next to a high achievement boy with whom 
he socialized frequently. On numerous days during baseline Student #1 
appeared intent upon avoiding his own work and on distracting his high 
achievement level seatmate from completing his. Occasionally he asked 
the seatmate for help with an assignment. 
In the eight days of baseline observations, Student #1 manifested 
independent learning behavior in the four categories of Questioning, 
Managing, Planning, and Evaluating. On the day of his highest frequency 
of independent learning behaviors, Student #1 manifested two Questioning 
behaviors, two Managing behaviors, two Planning behaviors, and no 
Evaluating behaviors. Only on one day during baseline did he have no 
independent learning behaviors. See the graphs for Student #1--Figures 
8, 9, and 10--to visually inspect the frequency of his independent learning 
behaviors during baseline. (In all four individual behavioral descriptions, 
the first and second figures of graphs present graphed raw frequency counts; 
the third figure presents averaged independent learning behaviors equated 
on a one-week time unit base. The markers in the third figures denote the 
average number of independent learning behaviors per week in each phase of 
the study.) 
9 fi 
Return to 
Baseline Treatment Baseline 
18 
16 
en 
C 14 
?r-
C 12 
.,0.. . 
.? 1() 
U) 
a, 8 
::,: 
CY 6 
4 
2 
0 L-.6.l-:_j..i.:...-:....-~~--l----t-----l>-
U) 18 
~ 
.,0. . 16 
> 
Ctl 14 
..c: 
Q) 12 
c:c 
10 
O"> 
.,C...  B 
C: 
~ 6 
co 
Q) 4 
..J 
.? 2 0 L.L::::_:~i-=--------r_,__  _,_ 
C: 
Q) 
"'O 
C: 
a, 16 
n. 
Q) 16 
"'O 
..C... . 14 
12 
4-
0 .,.. 10 
C: 
c C re 8 
C ,--
Q) Cl.. 6 
:J 
O" 
Q) 4 
~ 
I.J.. 2 o b..-1-\.--~~.-J....-,L.--r---
,a 
16 
14 
0) 
.,C..  12 
.? 
Ctl 10 
::,: 
,-
co 8 
> 
l.i.J 6 
4 
2 
2 4 l t:l 
u 2 4 ti 6 10 12 14 ,1, 
0 2 4 (, ..., 
Observation Periods 
Behaviors in Four Categories for 
?.igure 8. Independent Learning 
(h,o C:t11dent ( #1) 
97 
Return to 
Baseline Treatment Baseline 
50 
48 
46 
44-
42 
40 
38 
V1 
.,2..5.  36 
> 
nj 34 
...c: 
Q.J 
c:c 32 
CJ) 
.,s.:.:.  30 
s:: 
~ 28 
Q.J 
_J 26 
+-> 
~ 24 
-0 
~ 22 
0.. 
-& 20 
s:: 
- 18 
4-
0 16 
Gs::  1 4 
Q.J 
S- 12 
Q.J 
tZ 10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 i6 2 4 6 8 
Observation Periods 
Figure 9. Combined Independent Learning Behaviors For One Student (#1) 
98 
60 
58 
56 
54 
52 
50 
48 
46 
44 
V) 
s.. 42 
.,0.. . 
> 40 
r.j 
..c 
Cl.I 38 A 
co 
rn 36 
.,C..:.  
C: 
s.. 34 
(tj 
Q) 32 
...J 
.? 30 
C: 
Q) 
-0 28 
C: 
a, 
0. 26 
Cl) 
-0 
C: 24 
t-1 
4- 22 
0 
u::,,. , 20 
C: 
Q} 18 
::, 
O" 
CJ 
s.. 16 
LL. 14 
12 
10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
Averaged on a Return to 
one-week time Baseline 
Treatment Baseline 
unit base 
l:jgure 10. Combined Average Independent Learning Behaviors for One Student ( #1) 
(Equated for Common Time Units) 
99 
Treatment. The description of Student #1 1s behaviors during treatment 
is presented according to the three major phases of the Problem Approach: 
(1) topic identification, (2) planning and implementation, (3) presentation 
and evaluation. The first phase, topic identification, and the third 
phase, presentation and evaluation, occurred with the teacher directing 
the whole class. The second phase, planning and implementation, occurred 
primarily with students working with one another in committees. 
During topic identification Student #1 appeared to be involved 
throughout. Data collected during this phase are represented on the 
graphs as the first three observation points of treatment. He offered 
a question about American Indians in the first five minutes of Step One. 
He continued asking questions. He exhibited managing behaviors in the 
following ways: He remarked that the class was developing a set of 
questions they would have to answer. He asked other students for clarifi-
cation. He elaborated upon other students.? ideas. He took notes 
voluntarily. Though he exhibited no planning behavior, he was the first 
student in the class to evaluate the class 1s efforts. His evaluative 
remark about the categorizing process stimulated a discussion at the 
beginning of a class period. 
During the planning and implementation phase Student #1 remained 
involved. Data collected during this phase are represented on the graphs 
as the 4th through 15th observation points of treatment. He asked 
numerous questions, usually inquiring 11 how 11 11, why 11 11, or what does it mean 11 ? 
He learned, through trial and error, to ask concrete, content-related 
questions. When he appeared helpless, the high achievement boy in his 
group ignored Student #1. (The high achievement boy in his committee 
100 
was not the same high achievement boy who sat next to Student #1 before 
and after treatment.) When Student #1 read from a source first and wrote 
a paragraph to read to the boy, then asked for help for a specific problem, 
the high achievement boy helped him. Student #1 repeatedly succeeded 
with this method of receiving peer assistance. 
Student #1 1 s frequent managing behaviors during the planning and 
imp 1e mentati on phase were usually manifested as facilitation of group 
learning processes. In his committee he gave advice and directions, 
checked on the progress of his group members, addressed his whole 
committee in ways that stimulated group cooperation, attempted to alleviate 
inter-personal conflicts within his group. Though he did not serve as 
chairperson of his group, he often manifested leadership behaviors. 
During the planning and implementation phase, Student #1 manifested 
most of his planning and evaluating behaviors when his group was preparing 
for the final presentations. He planned both art work and written work 
for his part of the group presentation. Until Student #1 spent extensive 
time (30 minutes) working on an art project, he did not exhibit many 
planning and evaluating behaviors, and he avoided reading and writing 
activities. Moreover, he was easily distracted by students around him 
working on art projects. After he worked on his own art project, however, 
he planned and evaluated. He helped other students with their art projects. 
He also spent uninterrupted time reading about Indians and taking notes. 
His highest frequency of evaluating behaviors occurred during the time 
that he gave art assistance to the high achievement boy, who had given 
him frequent assistance with his reading and writing activities. It 
appeared that the interdisciplinary nature of project work allowed 
101 
Student #1 to perform in areas of both his strengths and his weaknesses. 
Moreover, it appeared that working first in his area of strength--art--
helped him move next to areas of weakness--reading and writing. 
The final phase of the students' research unit on American Indians 
was the presentation and evaluation phase. Data collected during this 
phase are represented on the graphs as the last observation point of 
treatment. Student #1 appeared involved, as he had in earlier phases. 
When his group presented, he gave a brief oral report and showed 
transparencies he had made. When other groups presented, he managed 
equipment by voluntarily assisting with audio-visual machines and materials, 
and information, by elaborating upon the content in other students' 
reports. He asked questions and made evaluative remarks to presenters. 
In one instance, Student #1 demonstrated so much interest in another 
committee's presentation that he moved gradually from his seat in the 
back of the room to the front of the room. He then stood two feet from 
the overhead projector screen, the focal point in the classroom. 
During the treatment Student #1 manifested independent learning 
behaviors in the categories of Questioning, Managing, Planning, and 
Evaluating (FigurelO). His frequency counts for Questioning and Managing 
were highest when he served as recorder during the planning and imple-
mentation phase. His Planning count was highest when he was helping his 
committee prepare for its final presentation. His Evaluating count was 
dramatically highest when he assisted a committee member with an art 
project. The evaluative remarks Student #1 made then related to the art 
project and to the preparations all of the committee members were making 
for the final presentation. The only observation periods Student #1 's 
102 
frequency count of independent learning behaviors was at his baseline 
level were observation periods when the teacher directed the whole class 
(Figure 9). 
Return to Baseline Conditions. At the conclusion of treatment, 
classroom instruction was returned to the baseline conditions of teacher-
centered instruction. Once again, Student #1 experienced teacher-directed 
reading group instruction among students who, like himself, were placed 
in the low reading achievement group. When Student #1 sat in the circle 
on the carpet with his reading group, he always sat apart from other 
students, just as he had prior to treatment. He volunteered answers to 
literal questions which he had prepared as homework. He occasionally 
elaborated upon the teacher 1 s remarks. Once he corrected a mistake the 
teacher made, but the teacher told him he was wrong. When these group 
facilitation behaviors were unsupported by either the teacher or peers, 
he attempted fewer group facilitation behaviors. Volunteering answers 
,, 
to direct questions was not considered independent learning behavior in '" 1:: 
111 
this study, but group facilitation behaviors were considered independent 
learning behaviors in the Managing category. 
During the return to baseline Student #1 once again had daily 
opportunities to attend to teacher-directed independent work at his 
desk. He sat next to the high achievement boy he had sat next to prior 
to treatment. Again he socialized frequently vJith this boy and occasionally 
asked for his assistance with assignments. He also asked for assistance 
from the teacher. In spite of being told by a peer and by the teacher 
how to complete his work, Student #1 avoided completing reading/writing 
assignments. Student #1 resumed his baseline behavior of being easily 
103 
distracted from reading/writing activities. His avoidance of these 
activities was so consistent that he was observed to be reading to himself 
on only one occasion. Moreover, he attempted a writing assignment on only 
one occasion. 
The attention Student #1 gave to the one writing assignment was 
remarkable because of its timing. One day when the whole class had a 
complicated word puzzle to solve, Student #1 brought together five students 
to work together. (The group formed informally without the direction or 
intervention of the teacher.) With Student #1 in this group were high 
and middle achievement, black and white, boys and girls, a group similar 
to but not the same as his Problem Approach committee. Following the 
completion of the task, student #1 performed the writing assignment from 
the previous day. student #1 1s bringing together of a problem-solving 
group was the only strong, immediate transfer effect of treatment that 
he demonstrated during observation periods. 
See the graphs for student #1--Figures 8, 9, and 10--to visually 
inspect the frequency of his independent learning behaviors during the 
return to baseline ?conditions. 
Evaluation of FregueQ.SY Oat~. Through visual inspection of the 
graphed frequency counts, it is clear that student #1 manifested much 
more independent learning behaviors in all four categories during treatment 
than in observation periods before and after treatment. Differences 
between pre-treatment and post-treatment are strong only in the category 
of Questioning (Figure s), The null hypotheses, then, are rejected 
regarding the comparison of treatment behaviors with pre-treatment and 
104 
post-treatment behaviors. The null hypothesis regarding the comparison 
of pre-treatment and post-treatment behaviors is rejected in the Question-
ing category. 
Student #2, a Low Achievement'Girl 
Baseline. Prior to treatment the most observed behavior of Student #2 
was her consistent attention to teacher-directed tasks. In small reading 
group meetings with the teacher, Student #2 always followed directions and 
sometimes volunteered to answer literal questions. (She did not volunteer 
answers to inference questions.) During oral reading lessons she skipped 
ahead of the group to practice reading her paragraph in preparation for 
her turn. She usually did not interact with other members of her group. 
II 
When Student #2 was at her desk she usually showed consistent attention u 
11 
II 
to teacher-directed tasks. Only during students' oral reports to the 
whole class did she appear inattentive. Then she colored pictures. She 
did not participate in whole class discussions. As long as she had assigned 
lessons to complete, she worked without being distracted. She gave assistance 
to other low achievement group girls when they came to her for help. When 
Student #2 needed help, she asked the middle achievement girl sitting 
next to her. She sometimes commented to the girl next to her that she 
had completed a lot of her work. (This was the only type of evaluative 
remark she made prior to treatment.) She always returned to her assignment 
after brief interactions with other students. She never left her desk 
to ask for help from either the teacher or another student. 
In the eight days of baseline observations, Student #2 manifested 
independent learning behavior in the four categories of Questioning, 
Managing, Planning, and Evaluating. However, in the categories of 
105 
Questioning, Planning, and Evaluating, she exhibited independent learning 
behavior only once in the baseline phase. She demonstrated managing 
behaviors six of the eight days with a total count of 11 behaviors. See 
the graphs for Student #2--Figures 11, 12, and 13--to visually inspect 
the frequency of her independent learning behaviors during baseline. 
Treatment. The description of Student #2 1 s behaviors during treatment 
is presented according to the three major phases of the Problem Approach: 
(1) topic identification, (2) planning and implementation, (3) presentation 
and evaluation. The first phase, topic identification, and the third ,,,I  
phase, presentation and evaluation, occurred with the teacher directing 
the whole class. The second phase, planning and implementation, occurred 
primarily with students working with one another in committees. 
During topic identification, Student #2 appeared to listen. Data 
11' 
collected during this phase are represented on the graphs as the first 11' 1I 1' I 
11' 
three observation points of treatment. On the first day of the Problem 11' 
ii? 
Approach Student #2 attempted to work on her math homework while listening. 11: 
111 
She offered one question for the teacher to write on the board. ? Her 
question was a follow-up to a question just asked by another low achievement 
girl. On succeeding days she appeared to listen and took notes voluntarily. 
In the first three days of the Problem Approach, she asked one question 
each day, and she .exhibited only one or two managing behaviors each day. 
She did not demonstrate any independent learning behaviors in the areas of 
Planning and Evaluating. (See Figure 11.) 
During the planning and implementation phase Student #2 became 
actively involved in group processes. Data collected during this phase 
are represented on the graphs as the 4th through 16th observation points 
106 
Return to 
Baseline Treatment Baseline 
1t3 
IC:, 
en 14 
..i.:.:  12 
i:: 
..0. . 10 
.? 
V) 8 
a, 
::, 6 
Cl' 
4 
2 
0 
18 
(,/') 
..s..... 
16 
0  14 
> 
C'tl en 12 1.J 
...c ..i.:.:  1,I a, 10 
c:::::i en 
C'tl 
C'l i:: 8 1,1 
..i:..:  C'tl l'J :E: 6 1?1 
i:: 
s... 
C'tl 4 
a, ' 1:1 
_J 2 1;\ 
1 I 
.? 0 1,I 
i:: 
a, 1e 
-0 
i:: 1 ?I 
.,a...,.  16 1'1 
a, 14 1:; 
-0 111 
..i.:.:.  en 12 1?' 
..i.:.:  10 1:1 4-
0 i:: i I 
i:: 8 :I 
>, r.:l 
u 1:I r- 6 
i:: 0.. 
a, 
::, 4 
er 
a, 2 
s... 
LJ.. 0 
18 
16 
en 14 
..i.:.:  12 
.? 
C'tl 
::, 10 
r-
C'tl 8 
w>  6 
4 
2 
0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2 4 6 8 
Observation Periods 
Figure 11. Independent Learning Behaviors in 'Four Categories for 
One Student (#2) 
l 07 
Return to 
Baseline Treatmerit Baseline 
50 
48 
46 
44 
42 
40 
U) 
..2..;.  38 
> 
m 36 
.c 
a, 
co 3,4 
c:n 
..C..:.  32 
C: 
S-
m 30 I? 
Q) ,I 
.....J 28 ,I 1? 
.? 
C: 26 
Q) 
-0 
C: 24 
Q) 
0. 
Q) 22 
-0 
..C...:.  20 
4-
0 18 
~ 
C: 16 
Q) 
::s 
CJ"' 14 
Q) 
S-
LL. 12 
10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2 4 6 8 
Observation Periods 
Figure 12. Combined Independent Learning Behaviors For One Student (#2) 
l 08 
60 
58 
56 
54 
52 
50 
48 
46 
44 
(/) 
~ 
0 42 
?r-
> 
<tS 40 
.c 
(l) 
co 38 
u) 
c::: 36 
?r-
c::: 
~ 34 
m 
(l) 
....J 32 
+' 
c::: 30 
(l) 
-0 
c::: 28 
Q) 
:::l.. 
(l) 26 
-0 
..c.:.:.:.  24 
4- . 
0 22 
~ 20 
C: 
(l) 
::i 
c:r 18 
(l) 
~ 16 
LL. 
14 
12 
10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
Averaged on a 
one-week time Baseline Treatment Return to 
unit base Baseline 
Figure 13. Combined Average Independent Learning Behaviors for One Student (#2) 
(Equated for Common Time Units) 
109 
of treatment. Most days Student #2 asked numerous questions. As recorder 
during the planning stage, she asked members to participate. She asked 
for clarification when they suggested questions or resources. She asked 
group members to elaborate upon their ideas. As she began to implement 
her part of the group plan, she asked the teacher for assistance with 
materials and equipment. She also asked other group members for assistance 
when she worked on reading/writing aspects of her research. 
During this phase of the Problem Approach Student #2 was observed 
frequently to be managing people or information. In her committee she I / I _jl 
assumed a leadership role as the first recorder of her group. Even though 
she never became chairperson, she was the only group member who had 
. JI 
I ? 
sufficient leadership skills to stimulate communication among all group 1 Ii I 'j! 
I )I 
members on issues important to the group. She spoke to everyone asking 
that all members decide on questions and resources so she could record 
the business of the group. She elicited participation by the one other 
girl, who was too reticent to participate voluntarily. She stimulated 
interaction between the boys and the girls of the group by asking the 
boys direct content-related questions and making specific content-related 
remarks. She sometimes argued with one or more boys in her group, using 
evidence to support her viewpoints. Without her efforts at whole 
committee interaction, it appeared the boys would not speak to the girls. 
During the planning and implementation phase, Student #2 did not 
demonstrate frequent planning behaviors which could be recorded by the 
use of the observation instrument. The instrument is sensitive only to 
verbalized planning. Student #2 was highly active with her reading/writing 
110 
and art projects, but she was not often observed to verbalize her plans 
for these activities. Her highest planning count occurred when her committee 
planned the specific questions they wanted to answer and the resources 
they would use. Her next highest planning count occurred when her committee 
had its last planning for presentation. 
During this phase Student #2 was observed to be evaluating her work 
and the work of her classmates every day that she worked predominantly 
in her committee. When she worked predominantly alone or when the teacher 
directed the class, she was not as verbal, and evaluating behavior was not 
observed. Her highest evaluating count occurred just before final 
presentations when students in her committee and out of her committee 
sought her opinions, primarily of their art work. 
An interesting aspect of Student #2 1 s behavior during the planning 
and implementation phase was the manner in which she rose from the whole 
class to become the primary art and audio-visuals resource person in the 
class. She had initiated the art work in the class and received considerable 
attention from students in all the committees. Her project included the 
use of a filmstrip projector and filmstrips, as well as art supplies. 
Other students watched while Student #2 worked. They praised her work. 
Soon they asked her to help with their art projects and with their use of 
audio-visual materials and equipment. Throughout this phase of the Problem 
Approach, Student #2 helped numerous students with their work. In the 
media center and in the classroom she traveled from committee to committee 
giving assistance and evaluating their progress. 
During the final phase--presentation and evaluation--Student #2 did 
not continue to manifest her high level of active involvement. Data 
111 
collected during this phase are represented on the graphs as the last 
observation point of treatment. Dissension had occurred in her committee, 
and she and the other girl had withdrawn from a skit the three boys planned. 
The committee presentation, therefore, was fragmented, and Student #2 
appeared minimally involved. The boys presented their reports and then 
their skit. Next Student #2 presented her report with her posters and 
her transparencies. In Student #2 1s evaluation of the project work she 
said she had worked hard and the boys had been difficult to work with. 
Also, she said she was pleased with her art projects and her report. 
Throughout the other committees' presentations, Student #2 did not 
participate actively through commenting or questioning, though she 
appeared to listen. 
While Student #2 was in the audience for other committees, she 
participated in an interaction which appeared to have been influenced 
by dynamics of the Problem Approach. She used several opportunities 
between reports to plan an art project for a hall bulletin board with 
two other girls from different Problem Approach committees. Student #2 
assigned tasks to the high achievement girl sitting on one side of her 
and to the low achievement girl sitting on the other side of her. A 
conflict arose between Student #2 and the other low achievement girl, 
who, like Student #2, had practiced and developed leadership behaviors 
in the Problem Approach activities. In the end, Student #2 had her way 
with the two girls and the bulletin board was decorated according to 
Student #2 1s plan. The three girls remained friends. 
During the treatment Student #2 manifested independent learning 
behaviors in the categories of Questioning, Managing, Planning, and 
112 
er requency count was highest for Questioning 
Evaluating, (Figure 11 ). H f 
when she wa s prepari.n g for the comm. ittee presentation. In the Managing 
category her independent learning behaviors peaked at high levels three 
wens e planned and implemented prior to presentations. In the. 
times h h 
Plan ning category she was not often observed to be verbalizing plans, so ? 
her count was generally low. In the Evaluating category her highest count 
occurred when she was helping numerous classmates prepare their art 
projects for final presentations. Student #2's frequency count of inde-
pendent learning behaviors was at her baseline level only when the teacher 
directed the whole class, when Student #2 worked alone during an observation 
period, and during the final presentations and evaluations. (See Figure 12.) 
Return to Baseline?condition2 . At the conclusion of treatment, 
classroom instruction was returned to the baseline conditions of teacher-
centered instruction. once again, student #2 experienced teacher-centered 
student #2 volunteered answers to the teacher's 
read'i ng group instruction. 
literal questions. She followed directions and ignored distractions which 
interferred with the work of others in her group. She helped another 
girl in her group. She volunteered her opinions to classmates regarding 
their assignments. Volunteering opinions and communicating readily with 
other students appeared to have transferred from treatment. These 
behaviors were not observed prior to treatment. 
During the return to baseline student #2 again had daily opportunities 
to complete teacher-directed assignments at her desk. She worked without 
distraction. She asked questions when she needed help. She traveled to 
several students in the room and eventually to the teacher to seek 
This traveling in the classroom appeared 
clar1' f',c ation of assignments. 
113 
to have transferred from the treatment when Student #2 was observed to be 
one of the most mobile students in the class. During baseline observations 
she never got up from her desk except when the class routine specified 
movement. 
Similar to Student #1, Student #2 participated in an informally 
formed problem-solving group to work on an assigned word puzzle. Similar 
1
to e group that Student #1 joined, Student #2 s group was five students 
th
(boys, girls; white, black, Asian; high, middle and low achievement), just 
as two of the Problem Approach committees had been. As in the case of 
udent #1, this group formed without the direction or the intervention 
st
of the teacher. The phenomenon appeared to be a strong and immediate 
transfer effect of the Problem Approach. 
See the graphs for Student #2--Figures 11, 12, and 13--to visually 
inspect the frequency of her independent learning behaviors during the 
return to baseline conditions. She manifested independent learning 
behaviors in all categories but Planning. Inspection of graphed frequency 
counts in the Evaluating category gives the impression that Student #2 
learned to exhibit evaluating behavior during treatment. Clear transfer 
effects are evident in the return to baseline data. 
Evaluation of Freguen~? Through visual inspection of the 
graphed frequency counts (Figures 11, 12, and 13) it is clear that Student #2 
manifested much more independent learning behaviors in all four categories 
during treatment than in observation periods before and after treatment. 
ol? fferences between pre-treatment and post-treatment are strong in the 
categories of Questioning and Evaluating. The null hypotheses, then, 
are rejected regarding the comparison of treatment behaviors with 
114 
The null hypotheses regarding 
pre-tre at  ment and post-treatment behaviors. 
behaviors are rejected 
the con ipar?, son of pre-treatment and post-treatment 
in the Questioning and Evaluating categories. 
student #3, a Middle Achievement Bo}'.'. 
Baseline. Prior to treatment the behavior of Student #3 can be 
generally described as socially inactive in teacher-dominated situations 
In his 
and socially active in situations not dominated by the teacher. 
ac ,evement reading group, he was consistently observed as socially 
middle h" 
inactive. While group members usually formed a single circle on three 
sides of the teacher, student #3 sometimes sat behind another student. 
When he did not sit behind someone, he sat on a side of the teacher where 
she would have to turn around to see him. During observed lessons, 
udent #3 did not respond to any inference questions, and he responded 
St 
iteral questions only when the teacher called on him. He appeared 
to 1? 
,sten to all reading group discussions. He showed involvement by 
to 1 ? 
occasionally smiling at story content and making private remarks to 
himself. He did not address single students, the teacher, or the group. 
When Student #3 was at his desk, his performance was in marked 
contrast to his reading group behavior. The key difference for Student #3 
appeared to be the presence of the teacher. During most periods of seat 
work, the teacher was either directing a reading group on the other side 
of the classroom from student #3, or she was at her desk, which was also 
on the other side of the room. During most observed periods of seat work, 
Student #3 worked on assigned class work and interacted with numerous 
other students. He frequently traveled to four other boys in his reading 
group in other parts of the room to give and receive help with reading 
. -?' .. - ~-" - ... ~~ __ , __ -__.:...-"' 
115 
1 ns w1 1s rea 1ng group male 
and writing activit1?es. These 1?nteract?o 'th h' ct? 
Following each excursion 
peers often appeared to be related to class work. 
of the room, Student #3 returned to his desk 
to a f ri.e nd in another part 
a worked on his assignment. He also interacted frequently with his 
nd 
seatmates. These interactions usually appeared to be more social than 
academic. The seatmates were a high achievement boy and a middle 
ach?i evement girl. Student #3 usually appeared to control the amount of 
his off-task behaviors so that he had adequate class time for completing 
his class work. Though he was one of the most gregarious students in 
e class during baseline observations, he never appeared to distract the 
th
teacher from her activities. 
In the eight days of baseline observations, Student #3 manifested 
i?ciependent learning behaviors in the three categories of Questioning, 
Managing, and Evaluating. On the day of his highest frequency of 
i ependent learning behaviors, Student #3 manifested three Questioning 
nd
behaviors, two Managing behaviors, and one Evaluating behavior. His 
independent learning behaviors during baseline were observed during 
pe r1?o ds of independent seat work when he interacted  with other students. 
His two observed evaluating behaviors were remarks he made to himself 
regarding the quality of his class work. He did not exhibit independent 
learning behaviors during observed reading group meetings with the teacher. 
(See the graphs for student #3--Figures 14, 15, and 16--to visually inspect 
the frequency of his independent ]earning behaviors during baseline.) 
Treatment. The description of student #3's behaviors during treatment 
is presented according to the three major phases of the Problem Approach: 
(1) topic identification, ( ) planning and implementation, (3) presentation 
2
116 
:Return to 
Baseline Treatment Baseline 
18 
16 
c:n 14 
.,C..:  12 
C: 
.,0. . 10 
+,) 
Ill 8 
a, 
::s 
cr 6 
4 
2 
0 1----------6.----
18 
Ill 
s.. 16 
.,0. . 
> 14 
rtl 
..c c:n 12 
a, C: 
c:c .,.. 
c:n 10 
::;, rtl 
C: C: 8 
.,.. rtl 
C: :E 6 
s.. 
rtl 
a, 4 
....J 2 
~ o~-~,..........,~----------1--~--
QJ 
-0 18 
C: 
~ 16 
~ 14 
C: 
c:n 12 
?4-
0 .,C..:  10 
C: 
Q C: 8 rtl 
C: 6 
CJ 
::s 
O"' 4 
CJ 
s.. 2 
LL. o>--...___.. ......- 1. .....- -,1--~--- ---+<---?1'---""-
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8 
6 
4: 
2 
. o 2 4 6 a 2 4 6 a 10 12 1.; 16 1e 20 2 4 6 a 
Observation Periods 
Figure 14. Independent Learning Behaviors in Four Categories for 
One Student (#3) 
117 
Return to 
Baseline Treatment Baseline 
50 
48 
46 
44 
42 
40 
V) 
s.. 
0 38 ,,- 
> 
rel 36 
.c 
a, 
C:::l 34 
O') 
C: 32 
.,-
c:: 
s.. 30 
Q 
a, 
-' 28 
.? 
C: 26 
a, 
-0 
C: 
a, 24 
Cl. 
a, 22 
-0 
C: 
1-C 20 
t+-
0 18 
Q 16 
C: 
a, 
::I 
c- 14 
a, 
s.. 12 
LL. 
10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 ,s 20 2 4 6 8 
Observation Periods 
Figure 15. Combined Independent Learning Behaviors For One Student (#3) 
z a a a ?53 .a_amamn iKWJ ?.#J4AIAS.twit4ti&CSZI JJU,.J.t.l&Ji&t?AKM ... UA&CIWk.i-?.&llifi&W.4.&Qii.&i&Uttezw&&W)??&WiAA&WWW WWW 
118 
60 
58 
56 
54 
52 
50 
48 
46 
44 
Vl 
s.. 42 
..0.. . 40 
> 
r,t.S..  
a, 38 ,, 
c:l 1.? 
36 
0) 
..C...  34 tj C I' 
s.. 
32 '1.i rtS a, 
.....I 
.? 30 
,~1i 
:I,! 
C 
a, 28 'ld';I'  
"O 
C 
a, 26 
Cl. 111 
a, 
-0 24 1'~ C 1.fj 
t-t 1,f 
22 
'+- A i'i I~ 
0 :,J,I>, 20 ,
  
u 111/ 
C 18 I~, a, 1,11 
::l 
O" 
OJ 16 
s.. 
LI- 14 
12 
10 
.8 
6 
4 
2 
Averaged on a 
one-week time Baseline Treatment Return to 
unit base Baseline 
Figure 16. Combined Average Independent Learning Behaviors for One Student (#3) 
(Equated for Common Time Units) 
and evaluation. The first phase, topic identification, and the third 
phase, presentation and evaluation, occurred with the teacher directing 
the whole class. The second phase, planning and implementation, occurred 
primarily with students working with one another in committees. 
During topic identification Student #3 appeared at first simply to 
listen. On the second day he voluntarily took notes, a managing behavior. 
On the third day he made a contribution to class discussion which, though 
he laughed when he made it, was taken seriously by the teacher and the 
students. His suggested resource-.!'Ask an Indi an 11 --stimul ated discussion 
in the class on the same topic., Student #3 appeared to notice the effect 
of his contribution. He then started naming Indian artifacts he could 
bring to class. He offered more suggestions about how to make studying 
Indians fun. From this point on in the Problem Approach, Student #3 
remained a major contributor. Data collected during the topic identi-
fication phase are represented on the graphs (Figures 14 and 16) as the 
first three observation points of treatment. The graphs indicate 
Student #3 1 s surge of independent learning behavior in the areas of 
Questioning and Managing which occurred on the third day when he began 
to contribute to the naming of resources. He did not show any planning 
behavior. He made evaluative remarks at the rate of one each observation 
period during topic identification. 
During the planning and implementation phase Student #3 remained 
actively involved in group processes. Data collected during this phase 
are represented on the graphs as the 4th through 19th observation points 
of treatment (Figures 14 and 15). Most days Student #3 asked numerous 
questions. When his committee developed its lists of questions and 
120 
, e presented bursts of questions, one right after another. 
resources h 
beyond the immediate discussion, particularly 
He verbalized possibilities 
was interpreting pictures of Indians and when he was planning for 
when he . 
up s skit. He asked "how", "why", and "what does it mean" questions. 
his gro , 
solutions to problem situations, particularly 
He also asked about alternative 
when he >1as assisting the two high achievement boys in his group in using 
non-print resources. 
During this phase of the problem Approach Student #3 was frequently 
observed to be managing information, materials, and people. His handling 
of information and materials often appeared so enthusiastic that his 
interest in American Indians seemed to heighten the interest in Indians 
among the other boys in his group, He showed the other two boys pictures 
of Indians and interpreted what he saw. He read captions and portions of 
text aloud to the other boys. He influenced another boy to join him in 
While studying pictures and texts, 
acti?n g out scenes from pictures. the boys in the group could make. He 
student #3 talked about projects He brought Indian artifacts to committee 
took notes from book after book. 
He appeared to immerse himself in project work in the 
meetr? ngs to share. 
areas of developing visual aids for his report and developing a skit for 
members of his group to perform, ouring the observation periods in 
which he developed intricately detailed transparencies, he lay on his 
stomach and drew, moving about only to retrieve marking pens from other 
students. During observation periods in which he developed a skit with 
members of his group, he dictated what the skit would be about, what 
props, costumes, and make-up they would use, and what characters would say. 
While attending to his own work, he also took responsibility for finding 
ZLtii&&ti?& 
121 
er,als and equipment for other students and for explaining, in even 
mat ? 
greater detail than the teacher, how to perform certain tasks, such as 
maki? ng transparencies. 
Student #3 was also highly active in managing people. He served as 
erson 1n the last week of committee work, but he demonstrated 
chairp . 
leadership among the boys of his group throughout committee work,.while 
appearing to exc 1 ude the two gi r 1 s. ( In the same committee with Student 
# , Student #3 usually interacted with the girls only when Student #2 
2
addressed him directly.) He convinced a reluctant high achievement boy 
is group to be recorder. He brought the teacher to his committee's 
in h. 
work area and told her she needed to help one of the male committee 
members prepare for a telephone 1? nterv1?e w. Aft er t a l k1 ? ng w?1 t h the teacher, 
udent #3 took over the responsibility of helping prepare the boy for 
st
e telephone interview. He also followed up with the boy after the call 
th
to find out if the call went well. While planning and writing the skit, 
udent #3 used a meeting when assertive Student #2 was absent to virtually 
st
rite Student #2 and the other girl out of the skit, causing both girls 
w . 
to drop out of the skit. student #3's planning and writing of the skit 
consisted of giving specific directions to the other two boys, both high 
achievement level. With the bOY who still had a Jot of reading and 
notetaking to do, student #3 insisted that the boy sit nearby and work on 
his report not on the skit- student #3 dictated the skit, telling the 
other boy to write everything down. The high achievement boy, who often 
disagreed with student # , asked many questions but generally complied 
3
With Student # ? Student #3 clarified and elaborated upon his ideas to 
3
answer the questions of the other boy and to maintain his leadership in 
the skit preparation. 
122 
During the planning and implementation phase, most of Student #3 1 s 
planning and evaluating occurred when he and his committee were preparing 
projects for final presentation. He demonstrated planning behavior in 
proposing to two other committee members that they seek information from 
out-of-school resources by telephoning. The skit planning showed evidence 
of independent learning behavior because it provided a strategy for 
presentation of information i'lhi ch vJas beyond the usual reading/reporting 
mode. He frequently demonstrated evaluating behavior by verbalizing 
his opinions based on evidence he cited and by verbalizing his judgment 
of his own and/or peers? work. He, for example, criticized Student #2 
for doing an art project that he thought was not sufficiently relevant 
to their group 1 s content area. Occasionally he criticized misleading, jfl JI!: 
,'I II' 
biased, or inaccurate use of information. Once he criticized a male 
group member for a racial slur toward a girl in their group. He said, 
11 That I s not nice. Don I t talk like that to her 11 when the group member 
said, 11 We don 1 t want to go to her neighborhood for a meeting. 11 
An interesting aspect of Student #3 1 s behavior during the planning 
and implementation phase was the manner in which he gradually isolated 
himself from the out-of-group male friends with whom he had socialized 
so frequently during baseline. In the first weeks of committee work, 
Student #3 traveled to the committee tables of out-of-group friends off 
and on during each committee meeting. In the second week of committee 
work, Student #3 did not travel to anyone else 1 s table, but out-of-group 
friends came to his table to visit. Friendly reciprocal interactions 
occurred, just as they had the previous week. At the end of the second 
week, Student #3 was observed saying, to no one in particular, 11 This is 
123 
fun ? regarding his reading and notetaking activities. He was the 1ast 111 ? 
o eave the media center that morning. During the succeeding 
student t 1 
comrrn ttee work, Student #3 ignored out-of-group friends when they 
weeks of . 
1s work area. During the time Student #3 appeared to be engrossed 
came t 0 h. 
proJect work--art and skit-writing--his out-of-group friends stopped 
in h1 ? 5 . 
co m.i ng to him to visit. 
During the final phase--presentation and evaluation--Student #3 did 
not continue to manifest his high level of active involvement. Data 
collected dur,? ng thi s phase are represen t ed  on th e grap hs  as th e l ast 
I:, 
observation point of treatment (Figures 14 and 15). As a presenter ;ii 
udent #3 joined the other two boys in his coTI111ittee in giving a report 
st
1sual aids and in presenting a skit which inclu ed props, costumes, 
With v? d 
a memorized lines. As a member of the audience for other presentations, 
nd 
Student #3 0?1 ? d not often appear interested. Muc h of  th e t 1? me he played 
With modeling clay and talked quietly to students sitting nearby. As an 
evaluator, he said he liked his skit and should have worked harder on 
report, but he did not contribute to any evaluation discussions with 
h1. 5 
0ther committees. 
During treatment student #3 exhibited independent learning behaviors 
in the categories of questioning, Managing, Planning, and Evaluating. His 
frequency count was highest for questioning during an observation period 
in which he participated in selecting new committee officers, in drawing 
h. transparencies, and in using pri.n ted resources. Hes ho we d frequent 
15 
questioning behavior when hi? committee planned its lists of questions 
when he spent extensive time (20 minutes or more) inter-
and resources, . d when he planned and dictated the skit. In 
preting Indian pictures, an 
)>!) .-~?-? .. ?~--.-~ ..... ---.?,,? .... : 
124 
ca egory his independent learning behaviors peaked the same 
the Managing t 
, that his Questioning behaviors reached their highest 
observation per1'od 
His other high points in Managing occurred when his group collected 
level. 
,a ion and when it prepared for its presentation. In the areas of 
inform t? 
ning and Evaluating, Student #3 showed increases, including peaks, 
Plan ? 
' ependent learning behavior during observation periods when his group 
of ? nd
vo ved 1n preparing for the final presentation. Student #3's 
was in l . 
frequency count of independent learning behaviors was at his baseline 
level only when the teacher directed the whole class and during the final 
1: 
presentations and evaluations (Figure l:J 15). 
Return to Baseline conditions. At the conclusion of treatment, class-
,;..::_.;--
room i nstruction was returned to the baseline con d1' t1?o ns of  teacher-centered 
Once again, student #3 experienced teacher-centered reading 
instruct?, on. 
group instruction. Just as he had prior to treatment, Student #3 sat 
always to the side of the teacher or slightly behind another student. This 
time in,the reading group, though, he was observed to exhibit independent 
learning behaviors in the Managing category. He directed group facilitation 
remarks to students sitting near him- Prior to treatment he had not 
exhibited independent ]earning behaviors in small group settings. The 
managing behaviors that he showed in the two observation periods immediately 
after treatment were at the same level as his treatment behaviors for the 
The treatment level dropped, however, in 
Preced1? ng three observations. From this point on, his managing 
the th?i rd return to baseline observa t?,o n. 
behaviors were at their baseline 1evel- The instructional conditions of 
the return to baseline did not appear to support treatment-level managing 
behaviors. 
125 
During the return to baseline Student #3 again had daily opportunities 
to attend to teacher-directed assignments at his desk. He traveled to 
several other students in the room, the same students he had frequently 
conversed with in similar instructional situations during baseline. He 
asked questions about assignments, and he facilitated other students with 
their class work. Unlike his observed behavior during baseline, he now 
returned to his desk with advice, information, and evaluative remarks for 
the high and middle achievement seatmates which derived from his meetings 
with students in other parts of the room. He appeared to exercise greater 
leadership within his social network than he had prior to treatment. 
During the return to baseline conditions, he exhibited independent learning 
behaviors at higher than baseline levels in all four categories. See JI 
lj ' 
the graphs for Student #3--Figures 14, 15 and 16--to visually inspect the 
frequency of his independent learning behaviors during the return to ~ 
1 
baseline conditions. ~ i d 
11 I 
Evaluation of Frequency Data. Through visual inspection of the graphed d J 
,i ' 
II I 
frequency counts (Figures 14, 15 and 16) it is clear that Student #3 mani-
fested much more independent learning behaviors in all four categories 
during treatment than in observation periods before and after treatment. 
Differences between pre-treatment and post-treatment are strong in the 
categories of Managing and Evaluating. The null hypotheses, then, are 
rejected regarding the comparison of treatment behaviors with pre-treatment 
and post-treatment behaviors. The null hypotheses regarding the comparison 
of pre-treatment and post-treatment behaviors are rejected in the categories 
of Managing and Evaluating. 
~...,,..__.,.,._,.. 
.,.,,. ,, ..... ~-?-:??----~ '~:"'.''~-...,......,....._~;:;;.~ ~ ~---,.,. ...... ,-. -__ .~..__ ...;..----
126 
Student #4 , a M. iddle Achi.e vement G.i rl 
Prior to treatment Student #4 appeared to have only 
Baseline. 
ia involvement in her class work. In her middle achievement 
superfic' 1 ? 
reading group, she was not observed to volunteer any verbal responses to 
She appeared to carry out the teacher's directions but without 
lessons. 
c ions with the teacher, She was not with any girls from her social 
intera t? 
group. She always sat next to the only other girl in the group, but she 
speak to this girl or to any of the boys in the group during any 
did not 
She usually kept her eyes on her materials 
of the observed lessons. 
u ook1ng at anyone in the group. She did not exhibit any independent ,,, 
wi tho t l . fi/' 
n,ng behaviors during observed reading group meetings of baseline. 
lear ? 
When Student #4 was at her desk she showed more involvement with her 
peers but still appeared to be involved with class work at only a surface ,JI 
:",:i I 
level. She sat next to a high achievement girl in her social group. :1 
ii 
One day each week during baseline and three weeks into treatment Student 
# , the girl seated next to her, and one other girl wore clothing that 
4
matched, During each observation the high achievement girl worked 
ouring all observations in which Student #4 
steadi' l Yon her assignments. 
and her high achievement seatmate were seated next to one another, 
udent #4 repeatedly asked for help from the other girl. She asked the 
st
other girl to give approval of her work, she asked the other girl if her 
work was "neat". During one observation, student #4 appeared to be imita-
ting the other girl's behaviors while working on a workbook assignment. 
Student # d . h ny with the other girl, moving her head and 
move in sync ro 
body, read4.  . . - ng and turning pages when the other gi r 1 
did. . 1ng, writ1ng, pau 
51
t?on,  student #4 persuaded her seatmate to 
0 ur1ng another observa 1 , 
127 
1
She then copied her seatmate s responses. 
do her assignment for her. 
en the seatmate was not next to her, Student #4 did not attempt 
Once wh 
ss work throughout an observation. During oral reports on the last 
any c1 a 
asel1ne, Student #4 read her report to herself, as though 
day of b ? 
while another student reported, but she did not volunteer 
rehearsing, 
She chatted with a middle achievement boy sitting nearby. 
to report. 
appear to listen to any of the reports. 
She did not 
In the eight days of baseline observation, student #4 manifested 
en ent learning behaviors in the categories of Questioning, Managing, 
indep d 
uat1ng. Her levels of performance 1n these areas were extremely 
and Eva1 ? ? 
low. See the graphs for student #4--Figures 17, 18 and 19--to visually 
frequency of her independent ]earning behav1ors during 
inspect the . 
baseline 
Treatment. The description of student #4's behaviors during treatment 
presented according to the three major phases of the Problem Approach: 
is 
op1c 1dentification, (2) planning and implementation, (3) presentation 
( 1 ) t . . 
a evaluation. The first phase, topic identification, and the third 
nd 
Phase, presentation and evaluation, occurred with the teacher directing 
The second phase, planning and implementation, occurred 
the wha le class. 
primarily with students working with one another in comittees. 
During topic identification student #4 appeared to listen. Data 
collected during this phase are represented on the graphs as the first 
three observation points of treatment (Figures l 7 and 18). On the first 
day of the Problem Approach student #4 attempted to work on homework while 
listening. Fifteen minutes into the listing of topics, she voluntarily 
contr'b on the second day she voluntarily 
t
1 uted a question to the liS ? 
)---~--~.. -=:: :~~=-:':=::;:;=:::;='"?-''-? ---~?.:.;~: ;?~ ~'-;;.~;,:..;;.._.. ..,'.?.?~??'-----~----~-?':.~. ...~ ::.:.-.~-~~-- -::-. 
128 
Return to 
Treatment Baseline Baseline 
'8 
16 
en 14 
?Cc  12 
.,0.. . 
+-> 
U) 
QJ 
::, 
Cf 
4 
2 
0 
18 
U) 
s.. 16 
.,0.. . 14 
> 
(0 
..s:: en 12 
QJ .,Cro ...  10 
cn 
en (0 8 
.,C...:  C (0 
C: 6 
s.. :E 
(0 
QJ 4 
_J 2 
+-> 
C: 0 
QJ 
-c:, 18 
C: 
QJ 16 
0... 
QJ 
-c:, 14 
,_C.:  12 
en 
4- .,C.. . 10 0 
C: 
Q C 
6 
(0 
C .-
QJ 0.. 
::, 4 
CT" 
QJ 
s.. 2 
LL 
0 
18 
16 
14 
en 
.,C.. . 12 
+-> 
(0 10 
::, 
.- 8 
ro 
w>  6 
4 
2 
0 2 4 b B t 4 b 8 10 1, 14 1, 2 4 ' 8 
observation Periods 
Independent Learning Behaviors in four Categories for 
One Student (#4) 
129 
Return to 
Baseline 
Treatment 
Baseline 
50 
48 
46 
44 
42 
40 
t/1 
s... 
0 38 .,... 
> 
rtS 36 
..c 
Q) 
co 34 
0) 
.,C...  32 :I r i 
C 
s... 30 
rt:l 
Q) ,\ I 
-.J 28 
11 I 
.? 
C 26 ! I 
Q) 
"Cl 
C 24 :i I 
Q) ! I 
0.. 
Q) 22 II I 11 
"Cl 11 I 
C I I 
'-i 20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2 4 6 8 
Observation Periods 
4
Combined Independent Learning Behaviors or One student (# ) 
-Fl'9 ure 18. ? F 
-?~?, :_ _, ....., _::,..::::-'"~?- ,, .. , -----
130 
60 
58 
56 
54 
52 
50 
48 
46 
44 
<.n 42 
s... 
0 
.,- 40 
m>  
..c: 38 
a, 
co 36 
::::n 
C 
.,- 34 
C 
s... 
m 32 : : 
a, I 
-' 30 
.f-) 
C 
a, 28 I 
-0 
C 
a, 26 I i 
0. 
a, I I 
-0 24 I I 
..C... . I 
22 I I I 
4- I I 
0 I 20 
a 
C 
a, 18 
::::l 
Ci 
a, 16 
s... 
LL. 14 
12 
10 
$ 
6 
4 
2 
Return to 
Treatment Baseline 
Baseline 
4
~- Combined Average Independent Learning Behaviors for One Student (# ) 
F? 
(Equated for common Time Units) 
131 
? a managing behavior. Periodically she glanced at the notes 
took notes 
gh ach1evement fem~eseatmate and then adjusted her ~n notes 
of her hi . 
HSh e did not contr1. bute any further to the topic identification phase. . 
1ndependent learning behaviors was quite low compared to 
er level of . 
ehavi ors in the other three categories. (Figures 17 and 18.) 
her b 
ur,ng the planning and implementation phase student #4 became 
D . 
lVely involved in group processes. Data collected during this phase 
act? 
epresented on the graphs as the 4th through the 16th observation 
are r 
She became the first recor er o er group. As 
points of treatment. d f h 
recorder she left her group to ask the high achievement girl she sat 
during baseline hOW to be a recorder. In the next two days she 
next t 0 
opped asking her baseline seatmate for help, but repeatedly asked the 
st
c 1evement girl in her group if she were record1ng correctly and if 
high ah" . 
ecord-keeping looked neat. once student #4 began using media center 
her r . asked how to 1n 1n orma 1 n, ease a out the 
materials. she often f" d ? f t?o Sh k d b 
ng of information in books and in charts, She asked for help in 
meani . 
ng paragraphs in her report, She asked a c~~ttee member with 
Writi 
istic ability to help her draw a poster, Aside from asking for help, 
art? 
she also asked others in her committee to report information for her to 
record. 
Student #4's frequent requesting of assistance was an interesting 
aspect f f hr Moreover. her behavior over t,?me 
treatment observations o e ? , 
was sim0i lar to the behavior of student #1, who also frequently sought 
help and learned to become specific in stating his needs, Student #4's 
early attempts to enlist help were often non-specific complaints, such 
as' "I just don't know hOW to do this" and "Can you help me? I don't 
132 
In the first two weeks the high achievement girl in her group 
know how.,. Sometimes the 
udent #4 even when she simply appeared helpless. 
helped St 
girl and the low achievement boy in the group performed 
high achievement 
Eventually, the high achievement girl began 
student #4's work for her. to hep her t 1n about her problems. Finally, 
asking student #4 quest,?ons 1 h. k 
in e fourth week the high achievement girl ignored Student #4's requests 
th
Student #4's requests were non-specific. Student #4 then 
for help 1" f 
a more successful way to communica e er needs. She 
seemed to ct,? scover . t h 
n asking for he 1p  with this type of wording: "Here is what I have 
bega . 
itten so far. I'm telling about the cooking tools the Plains Indians 
wr? 
ow can you help me write the ending?" Then she received help 
used. N i 
from the high achievement girl- It appeared that peers in Student #4's 
mittee learned to be Jess manipulated by an overly dependent member, 
com ? 
en learned to be Jess manipulative and Jess depen ent. Interestingly, 
Who th d 
When Student #4 appeared to become more independent with her academic 
tasks , she began helping other students w?i th the?i rs. 
Student #4's frequent managing behaviors during the planning and 
implementation phase were usually observed as facilitation of group 
discussions. She was the first member of her committee to consult media 
center materials to help expand the committee's list of questions and 
resources. She made recommendations about resources to others in the 
group, and then they too consulted available materials- During the week 
that Student #4 was recorder, she helped all other members assign questions 
to themselves. She checked on their progress- she told two of the boys 
to work harder. When her committee began compiling information for 
reports and b 1; zed her own ideas, extended the 
art projects, she ver a 
~:c----~---
133 
ers, evaluated ideas, and spoke to all members, stimulating 
ideas of oth 
Later when her committee was ready to plan 
cohesive ness 1. n her group. 
presentation, Student #4 was the first member to 
the format of their 
accept the responsibility for coordinating individual efforts to produce 
a group presentation. 
The leadership Student #4 showed in helping her group plan its 
Presentation provided the opportunity for her to demonstrate numerous 
n ent learning behaviors in all four categories, including her 
indepe d 
ent peaks in Planning and Evaluating. Her first efforts to coordi-
treatm 
projects were unsuccess u, owever. , 1le her 
nate the ,? nd,? v,? dual f l h 1.1h ? 
committee worked on art projects and reports, she suggested they perform 
a skit. The other students in her group ignored her. She seemed to give 
up her planning efforts. However, in 15 minutes she returned to the 
r of her committee's work area and told the others they should have 
cente 
sua 1 presentation. TheY would use the transparencies and filmstrips 
av?1  
ey were making, and theY would give oral reports, she said. The other 
th
udents agreed with her plan- She then assigned four students to two-
st
member teams and left out the middle achievement boy who usually worked 
by himself. She told them to "get busy'' on their reports. When student 
# appeared to realize she did not know how to begin the presentation, she 
4 
and her partner sought the advice of the teacher. After ]earning about 
an introduction from the teacher, student #4 returned to the committee 
and explained how they would introduce the?i r presenta t ,?o n. 
Though student # demonstrated her highest frequency of evaluating 
4 
behaviors when she led her conunittee in planning for the final presentation, 
she revealed meaningful self-evaluating behaviors when she began assigning 
134 
As recor er, she took responsibility for 
research tasks to herself. d 
seeing that each member selected research questions, but she did not 
In the second week when she was no 
select any assignments for herself. 
she appeared to discover that she was not doing as much 
longer recorder, 
11 1
work as other committee members. She said, I m not doing this right. 
ave to catch up." She then assigned work to herself and appeared 
Now I h 
to be come more involved in information gathering. 
The final phase of the students' research unit on American Indians 
was the presentation and evaluation phase, Data collected during this 
are represented on the graphs as the last observation point of 
phase 
treatment. Student #4 did not remain as actively involved as she had 
been while she worked in her committee. As a presenter she gave a brief 
report, showed the poster she had colored, and helped show the filmstrip 
she had made with the high achievement girl, She did not give credit to 
e boy who had drawn most of her poster. As an audience she did not 
th
appear to listen to any other presentations, She colored pictures, and 
she cleaned out her desk. She evaluated her own work by saying she liked 
her filmstrip. She did not tell whY she liked it when a student from 
another connnittee asked, She did not make evaluative remarks to any 
0ther presenters. 
During the treatment student #4 manifested independent learning 
behaviors in the categories of Questioning, Managing, Planning, and 
Evaluating (Figures , and 19), Her frequency count was highest 
17 18 
for Questioning when, as recorder, she helped her committee develop its 
lists of research questions and resources and when she helped her committee 
Prepar f t? Her frequency counts were highest for 
e or its final presenta 10n. 
135 
, anning, and Evaluating when she helped her committee prepare 
Managing Pl . 
s nal presentation. student #4's frequency count of independent 
for it f.1 
9 ehav1ors was at her baseline level only when the teacher directed 
learnin b . 
e whole class and during final presentations and evaluations. 
th
Return to Baseline Conditions. At the conclusion of treatment, 
om 1nstruction was returned to the baseline conditions of teacher-
classro ? 
Once again, Stu ent experience teacher-centered 
centered instructi?on. d #4 ? d 
lng group instruction. In contrast to her initial baseline behavior, 
react? 
when she appeared generally uncommunicative, she volunteered answers to 
e teacher's literal level questions. (She still did not verbally respond 
th
lnference level questions.) She also frequently spoke to the other 
to ? 
n her group, whom she had not spoken to during initial baseline 
girl 1? 
,1 
observat?i ons. ii 
During the return to baseline conditions student #4 again had daily :1 
.11 
opportunities to complete teacher-directed assignments at her desk. Her :I 
,1 
11 
v,or seemed quite similar to initial baseline behavior. Similar to 
beha . 
her performance during initial baseline, she asked her high achievement 
seatmate to help her with assignments- Her question each time was, "How 
do y ou do this?" once after being helped, she was ab 1e  to complete a 
lesson more quickly than the middle achievement boys sitting near her. 
She bragged to them about bein9 so far ahead of them. 
Similar to her initial baseline performance, she appeared to be only 
superfi? ? 1 s work ouri ng several observations 
cially involved with her c as ? 
she worked on highly structured workbook lessons briefly (5-10 minutes) 
and then stared into space and played with objects at her desk. She 
rarely showed sustained invoJve?nt (attention to an assign?nt for at 
136 
least 15 minutes without interruption) even though peers of all achievement 
levels were showing sustained involvement. 
Similar to initial baseline and treatment performances, when Student 
#4 had an opportunity to be an audience for oral presentations by peers, 
she appeared inattentive. Remarkably, the presentation during the return 
to baseline which she was observed to ignore was a puppet show with sound 
effects. 
See the graphs for Student #4--Figures 17, 18, and 19--to visually 
inspect the frequency of her independent learning behaviors during the 
return to baseline conditions. She manifested independent learning 
behaviors in all categories except Planning. Inspection of graphed 
frequency counts in the Managing category gives the impression that 
Student #4 experienced some transfer effect from treatment. 
Evaluation of Frequency Data. Through visual inspection of the 
graphed frequency counts (Figures 17, 18, and 19), it is clear that 
Student #4 manifested much more independent learning behaviors in all 
four categories during treatment than in observation periods before and 
after treatment. Differences between pre-treatment and post-treatment 
are strong only in the category of Managing. The null hypotheses, then, 
are rejected regarding the comparison of treatment behaviors with pre-
treatment and post-treatment behaviors. The null hypotheses regarding 
the comparison of pre-treatment and post-treatment behaviors are rejected 
in the Managing category. 
Summary 
Individual behavioral descriptions of each of the four subjects were 
provided. Details of subjects? questioning, managing, planning, and 
137 
evaluating behaviors were given corres~onding to baseline, treatment, 
and return to baseline phases of this study. In all cases behaviors in 
these four categories increased extensively during treatment, in comparison 
1tdth baseline and return to baseline observations. Frequency counts of 
independent learning behaviors during treatment dropped to baseline levels 
only when either the teacher or a group of students directed the class or 
when a subject worked predominantly alone. Transfer effects of treatment 
to post-treatment situations were evident, though not extensive in one or 
more categories for each subject in return to baseline observations. 
Independent Learning Behavior Data Aggregated on Four Subjects 
The results of the aggregate data on the four subjects are provided 
in Table 3 along the dimensions of the four independent learning behavior 
categories. The categories are Questioning (Q), Managing (M), Planning (P), 
and Evaluating (E). While the number of observations in the pre-treatment 
and post-treatment phases was consistent for each student (eight in each 
phase), the number of observations in the treatment phase varied (Student 
#1: 16; Students #2 and #4: 17; Student #3: 20). Therefore, the raw 
frequency counts have been weighted in the following ways: 
Student #1 : treatment values VJere divided by 2. 0 
Student #2: treatment values were divided by 2.125 
Student #3: treatment values were divided by 2.5 
Student #4: treatment values were divided by 2.125 
Table 3 presents weighted frequency counts. 
The sign test and the binomial expansion were used to analyze the 
aggregate data on the four subjects. First, differences between paired 
138 
Table 3 
Independent Learning Behavior Data Aggregated on Four Subjects 
(Weighted For Eguivalency of Observation) 
Baseline to Treatment to Return Baseline to Return 
Treatment to Baseline to Baseline 
Student #1 
Q 6.00 ( +) 27. 00 27.00 (-) 17.00 6.00 ( +) 17. 00 
M 8.00 ( +) 48.00 48.00 ( - ) 10.00 8.00 (+) 10.00 
p 3.00 ( +) 15.50 15.50 ( - ) 0.00 3.00 ( - ) 0.00 
E 3.00 (+) 23.50 23.50 ( - ) 5.00 3.00 ( +) 5.00 
Student #2 
Q 1.00 ( +) 31. 53 31.53 (-) 9.00 1. 00 (+ ) 9.00 
M 11. 00 (+) 32.94 32.94 ( - ) 15.00 11. 00 (+ ) 15.00 
p 1.00 ( +) 7.53 7.53 (-) 0.00 1. 00 (-) 0.00 
E 1.00 ( +) 20.24 20.24 (-) 16.00 1.00 (+) 16.00 
Student #3 
Q 7.00 ( +) 30.80 30.80 (-) 11. 00 7.00 ( - ) 11. 00 
M 7.00 ( +) 58.00 58.00 (-) 19.00 7.00 ( +) 19.00 I[! ti I, 
p 0.00 (+) 20.80 20.80 (-) 4.00 0.00 (+) 4.00 1:l'I 
E 2.00 ( +) 28.40 28.40 (-) 9.00 2.00 ( +) 9.00 
Student #4 
Q 4.00 (+) 24.47 24.47 ( - ) 5.00 4.00 ( +) 5.00 
M 4.00 (+) 46.59 46.59 (-) 15.00 4.00 ( +) 15. 00 
p 0.00 ( +) 8.47 8.47 (-) 0.00 0.00 (NC) 0.00 
E 2.00 ( +) 18.82 18.82 ( - ) 6.00 2.00 (+) 6.00 
Sign Test: 
16 (+ ) of 16 measures 16 (-) of 16 measures 13.5 (+) of 16 measures 
Binomial Test: 
p = .00002 p = .00002 p = .0175 
Significant if p ~ . 05. 
Q = Questioning M = Managing P = Planning E = Evaluating 
NC= No Change 
139 
values were obtained with plus and minus signs used to indicate the 
direction of change. Second, the number of plus and minus signs were 
totaled separately. Third, a binomial expansion table was entered with 
the smaller of the two frequencies, either plus or minus. The value 
found in the table indicates the probability (p) of behaviors occurring 
by chance. In this study, significant was set as .05. 
Table 3 indicates that in the comparison of baseline to treatment 
the four subjects had higher frequency of independent learning behaviors 
during treatment in 16 out of 16 measures. The probability of this result 
occurring by chance is .00002. In the comparison of treatment to return 
to baseline, the four subjects had lower frequency of independent learning 
behaviors during return to baseline in 16 out of 16 measures. Again, the 
probability of this result occurring by chance is .00002. In the comparison 
of baseline to return to baseline, the four subjects had higher frequency 
of independent learning behaviors during return to baseline in 13 out of 
16 measures with no change on one measure. The probability of this result ,\i j 
111,11 
1.1111 
occurring by chance is .0175. The null hypotheses are rejected, therefore, 
because the probability that treatment effects occurred by chance during 
and after treatment was less than .05 for aggregated data. 
Independent Learning Behavior Data Aggregated on Four Subjects 
for Directionality and Social Context 
The primary objective of this study was to observe independent 
learning behaviors in the categories of Questioning, Managing, Planning, 
and Evaluating. Additional information was collected to enhance the 
observations of independent learning behaviors. The secondary objective, 
140 
then, of this study was to observe the directionality (initiates versus 
responds) and the social contexts of independent learning behavior. 
Directionality of Independent Learning Behaviors 
The results of the directionality data aggregated on the four subjects 
are provided in Table 4 along the dimensions of the four independent 
learning behavior categories. The categories are Questioning (Q), 
Managing (M), Planning (P), and Evaluating (E). The directionality of 
independent learning behaviors refers to initiated versus responsive 
behaviors. In Table 4 raw values for 11 initiates 11 versus 11 responds 11 have 
been converted to ratios (percentages) of initiated behaviors out of total 
behaviors for each measure. Raw Frequency counts of independent learning 
behaviors by the four categories and by the 11 initiates 11 and 11 responds 11 
dimensions are presented in Appendix D. In Table 4 an asterisk (*) denotes 
situations in which initiates-versus-responds relationships cannot be 
presented because initiated behaviors were not observed. This situation 
occurred five times in baseline. Directionality can be deduced even 
though a ratio for the baseline measures cannot be mathematically computed. 
The sign test and the binomial expansion were used to analyze the 
aggregated data on the four subjects along the dimension of directionality. 
First, differences between paired percents were obtained with plus and 
minus signs used to indicate the direction of change. Second, the number 
of plus and minus signs were totaled separately. Third, a binomial 
expansion table was entered with the smaller of the two frequencies, either 
plus or minus. The value found in the table indicates the probability (p) 
of behaviors occurring by chance. In this study, significance was set 
as . 05. 
141 
Table 4 
Directionality: Ratios (Percentages) of Initiates to Total Independent 
Learning Behaviors 
Baseline to Treatment to Return Baseline to Return 
Treatment to Baseline to Baseline 
Student #1 
Q 0.50 (+) 0.56 0.56 (-) 0.82 0.50 ( +) 0.82 
M 0.13 ( +) 0.52 0.52 ( - ) 0.50 0. 13 ( +) 0.50 
p 0.67 (+) 0.78 0.78 (-) 0.00 0.67 ( - ) 0.00 
E * (+) 0.74 0.74 (+) 1.00 0.25 ( +) 1.00 
Student #2 
Q * ( +) 0.80 0.80 (+) 1. 00 0.50 ( +) 1.00 
M 0.09 (+) 0.56 0.56 (-) 0. 40 0.09 ( +) 0.40 
p 1.00 (-) 0.88 0 . 88 ( - ) 0 . 00 1.00 ( - ) 0.00 
E * ( +) 0.56 0.56 {+) 0.75 0.50 ( +) 0.75 
Student #3 
Q 0.43 ( +) 0.46 0. 46 (+ ) 0. 82 0.43 (+) 0.82 
M 0. 14 ( +) 0.34 O. 34 (+ ) 0. 42 0.14 (+) 0.42 
p 0.00 (+) 0.54 0.54 (-) 0.52 0.00 ( +) 0.50 ::1 
E 0.50 ( - ) 0.34 0.34 (+) 0.67 0.50 ( +) 0.67 :,I' 
Student #4 
Q 1.00 ( - ) 0.68 0.68 ( +) 1.00 1.00 (NC) 1.00 
tvl * ( +) 0.46 0.46 ( - ) 0.33 0.20 (+) 0.33 
p 0.00 ( +) 0.58 0.58 (-) 0.00 0.00 (NC) 0.00 
E * ( +) 0.66 0.66 (+) 1.00 0.33 (+) 1.00 
Sign Test: 
13 ( +) of 16 measures 9 (+) of 16 measures 13 (+) of 16 measures 
Binomial Test: 
p = .011 p = .402 p = .011 
Significant if pc:::. .05 
*=No initiated behaviors NC= No Change 
142 
Table 4 indicates that in the comparison of baseline to treatment 
the four subjects showed increases in the percent of initiated behaviors 
in 13 out of 16 measures. The probability of this result occurring by 
chance is .011. Therefore, the higher percentage of initiated behaviors 
is significant. In the comparison of treatment to return to baseline, 
the four subjects had higher percentages of initated behaviors during the 
return to baseline in 9 out of 16 measures. The probability of this 
result occurring by chance is .402, which is not significant. In the 
comparison of baseline to return to baseline, the four subjects had 
higher percentages of initiated behaviors during the return to baseline 
in 13 out of 16 measures. The probability of this result occurring by 
chance is .011. Therefore, the higher percentage of initiated behaviors 
is significant. 
In summary, use of the sign test and the binomial expansion to 
analyze directionality enhances the analysis of independent learning 
behaviors when student-centered instruction (based on the Problem Approach) l'li 
:1i1l: 
is compared to teacher-centered instruction. It appears that subjects 
took more initiative in learning activities during and after participating 
in the Problem Approach than they did prior to participating in the 
Problem Approach. 
Social Contexts of Independent Learning Behaviors 
The results of the social contexts data on the four subjects are 
provided in Table 5. The data are from all three research phases--baseline, 
treatment, and return to baseline. Since this aspect of analysis is 
concerned only with social contexts, data are not separated into the 
143 
Table 5 
Social Contexts and Verbal Communication Objects of Independent Learning 
Behaviors 
Predominant Instructional Situations in Terms 
... of Social Contexts 
1 , 2 
Inde- Peer Large Whole Teacher Total 
pendent Smal 1 Groups Class with 
. Activity Groups with with Individ-
Verbal (4-6) Teacher Teacher ual 
Communi- (7-15) 
cation 
Objects (29)* (50)* (24)* (35)* (O)* (135)* 
Self 1 30 1 6 38 
(0.03) (0.60) (0.04) (0.17) (.28) 
Peer Dyad/ 78 690 40 53 861 
Triad (2.69) (13.80) ( 1 . 67) (1.51) (6.4) 
Peer Small 
Group 159 159 
(4-6) (3.46) (1.18) 
:.,I 
Large :!! 
Group with 10 10 
Teacher (0.42) ( 0. 07) 
(7-15) 
Whole 
Class with 23 23 
Teacher (0.66) (0.17) 
Individual 
with 7 36 30 22 95 
Teacher (0.24) (0.78) ( 1. 25) (0.63) (0.70) 
Total 86 915 81 104 1186 
( 2. 97) ( 18. 30) (3.38) (2. 97) (8.79) 
1 = raw frequency count * Observation Periods 
2 = (average number of independent learning 
behaviors per observation period) 
144 
three research phases. Instead, the social context data on the four subjects 
are aggregated according to the following dimensions: (1) predominant 
instructional situations in terms of social contexts, and (2) verbal 
communication objects, referring to the audience for subjects' communi-
cation. 
Table 5 illustrates the relationship between the social contexts of 
instructional situations and the verbal communication objects of subjects' 
independent learning behaviors. In the total 135 observation periods, 
1186 independent learning behaviors were recorded. Because observation 
periods were not equal in number for each instructional situation, 
average numbers of independent learning behaviors per observation period 
are given in parentheses in the table and in this analysis. Of the 1186 
independent learning behaviors (an average of 8.79 per observation period), 
861 (an average of 6.4 per observation period) occurred when a subject 
interacted with one or two other students ("dyad/triad") without the 
teacher participating. Moreover, 690 (an average of 13.80 per observation 
period) of these interactions with just one or two other students occurred 
when the predominant instructional situation was small groups without the 
teacher participating. Additionally, 915 independent learning behaviors 
(an average of 18.30 per observation period) of the observed 1186 independent 
learning behaviors occurred while students participated in small groups. 
Independent learning behaviors were observed with considerably less 
frequency when subjects participated in independent instructional 
activities (86, an average of 2.97 per observation period) and when they 
participated in large groups (81, an average of 3.38 per observation period) 
and in whole class activities (104, and average of 2.97 per observation 
145 
period). Interestingly, of the 1186 observed independent learning 
behaviors (an average of 8.79 per observation period), only 95 (an average 
of 0.70 per observation period) occurred when the teacher was the object 
of subjects? verbal communication. 
It appears from these results that small group instructional 
situations, without the participation of the teacher, maximize opportunities 
for students to manifest independent learning behaviors. Small group work 
is the predominant instructional situation of the Problem Approach. 
Students? Evaluation 
At the conclusion of this study, the class was asked to complete a 
non-formal self-evaluation form. To the question 11 What did you like best 
about the American Indians research unit? 11 many students, including 
Student 114, reported they liked learning nevJ information and/or sharing 
information in their committees. Many other students, including Students 
ill and 112, identified a specific topic they had liked most. Student 113 i,11 
!111 
and several others liked the guest speaker best. Making art projects was 
also named by several students as a well-liked part of the unit. 
The class responded to 11 ~Jhat did you like least about the American 
Indians research unit? 11 The two most frequently given answers were "the 
written work" and a specific topic about Indians. Student ill named a 
specific topic that he did not like to study. Student 112 did not like 
having to use so many resources. Student i/3 did not like working in the 
media center. Student #4 said she did not like not being able to select 
her own research questions. (What occurred in her committee was that the 
146 
other committee members selected their questions first, and Student #4 
accepted those questions which were left over.) 
A third general question the class answered was "What vrns most 
interesting to you and why?" More than half the class, including Students 
#1, #2, #3, and #4, identified a part of their own project as most interesting. 
Several students said that information or art from someone else's presentation 
was most interesting. 
The last question asked was 11 Is there something about American 
Indians you would still like to knov,? What?" One-third of the class, 
including Student #4, gave a specific question they would like answered. 
Student #3 responded to this question by saying, 11 I want to be an Indian." 
Teacher's Evaluation 
At the conclusion of the study, the researcher conducted a taped 
interview with the teacher. Her evaluation of her first implementation 
of the Problem Approach is provided here. At the time of the interview, 
the teacher did not know the identities of the four subjects. 
What the Teacher Liked Best 
The teacher observed that her favorite part of the Problem Approach 
was the way students who had not had opportunities to demonstrate leadership 
before now were in leadership positions. "Some have shown rather outstanding 
abilities," the teacher said. She liked seeing leadership abilities develop 
among students of all achievement levels in the heterogeneously organized 
groups. The mixed groupings, she said, were "marvelous," because they 
allowed people to see that it is not just the Talented and Gifted students 
VJho do good work. She said she saw students take responsibility for 
147 
information, materials, and one another without being told what to do. 
She said she saw students teaching one another effectively. 
Another aspect of the treatment the teacher liked was seeing students 
develop self-confidence. The teacher thought that many students discovered 
they were more competent than they realized. She noticed students trying 
activities which they formerly would not have attempted voluntarily. She 
said she saw students move from being highly dependent on a friendship 
group to being more dependent on themselves. She observed that students 
appeared to trust one another more. 11 This trust in a room with such 
diversity is superb, 11 the teacher said. 
Other Areas of Interest 
Numerous outcomes of the six-week treatment interested the teacher. 
She noticed that students? worthwhile contributions to the class seemed 
to improve their social acceptability among their peers. Regarding the 
depth that students studied American Indians, she said that some students 
skimmed the topic, while others studied so deeply that 11 they are still 
down there. 11 She was impressed by the levels of involvement, including 
physical involvement and amount of time on task, that she saw students 
demonstrate. She said the reading levels of materials some students were 
using were higher than their normal classroom materials. Some books were 
college material, she said. 
The teacher noticed transfer of more independence and assertiveness 
by many students during activities that did not relate to the study. She 
also noted that some students? appearance changed somewhat during treatment. 
She thought that low achievement students no longer 11 looked 11 like they were 
in a low group. Among the group of girls VJho had often dressed alike, 
148 
the teacher began to see more individuality in their clothing. She said 
that some students were just beginning to manifest behavioral changes at 
the conclusion of the Problem Approach. She was referring to improved 
self-esteem and independence. 
The teacher was impressed with what she saw as a transfer effect 
frorn treatment to another situation. Several days after treatment she 
gave the class a "free period." She said she saw them use 11 free time" 
with more maturity and self-discipline than she had ever seen demonstrated 
by a class before. The researcher was present for this "free period" 
during a non-observation period and savJ that students voluntarily moved 
into pairs and small groups while some students worked independently. 
All students were busy, some with art, some with spelling, some with math, 
some with word puzzles. 
What the Teacher Liked Least 
The teacher mentioned that the students needed more time and they 
needed to use more outside resources. Her major criticism, though, was 
that the final presentations did not adequately demonstrate the 11 tremendous 
amount of work" students had put into their preparations for final presenta-
tions so their efforts would have had polish. She complained that she 
"would like to have been more actively involved in their work. 11 
Will the Teacher Use the Problem Approach Again? 
The teacher ended the interview saying she would use the Problem 
Approach again. She said, "Yes, I must keep these new skills and new 
behaviors going. We can't stop it now!" 
149 
Summary 
This chapter presented the results of this study. First, individual 
behaviora1 descriptions of each of the four subjects were presented with 
graphs of independent learning behaviors. Second, resu1ts of independent 
1earning behavior data aggregated on the four subjects were explained and 
i11ustrated in a tab1e. Third, the results aggregated on the four subjects 
along the dimensions of directionality (initiates versus responds) and 
socia1 context were presented. This chapter concluded with the students? 
and the teacher's evaluations of their participation in the Problem 
Approach. 
CHAPTER V 
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 
Chapter Five summarizes this research, draws conclusions, and 
suggeS s implications. The purpose, problem, hypotheses, design and 
t
, and findings are reviewed. Conclusions are then presented 
procedures 
as ey are drawn from the primary and secondary research objectives. 
th
Li .m.i tations of the study as they relate to the primary objective are 
inally, implications for theory, research, and practice 
Presented. F 
are suggested. 
Summary 
fgrpose 
The purpose of this study was to observe the independent learning 
v,ors of sixth grade students. Independent learning behaviors were 
beha ? 
observed in the following categories: Questioning, Managing, Planning, 
a Evaluating. The sixth graders were two middle achievement students, 
nd 
Y and one girl, and two low achievement students, one boy and one 
one bo 
Achievement level was determined by 5th grade California Achieve-
g; rl. 
ment Te s t scores and school performance. 
An instructional procedure known as the Problem Approach was 
used as treatment. As a student-centered instructional technique, 
the Problem Approach was experienced by students as a contrast to 
e more teacher-centered teaching that students experienced before 
th
151 
An observation instrument and field notes were used 
and after treatment. 
independent learning behaviors before, during, and 
to observe students? 
after treatment. 
To enhance findings about independent learning behavior, two other 
dirnensi? ons were observed. These dimensions are the directionality of 
indep en de nt learning behavior, referring to initiated and responsive 
, and the social contexts of independent learning behavior. 
behaviors 
froblem 
The literature indicates a need for schools to help students to 
ability to reason and to function as independent learners. 
develop their 
The Problem Approach is an instructional approach which has been used in 
practice and in research as a procedure for helping participants develop 
their rea son1? ng ability and their ability to funct1?o n as 1? n de pen de nt, 
,rected learners (Brigham, 1961, 1974, 1975, 1975, 1979; Brigham 
self-d? 
& p,? Jato, 1980, 1981, 1982; Dudley, Pilato & Brigham, 1982; McCann, 1982). 
e f allowing problem statement was investigated in this research: Will Th 
instr uct1on using the Problem Approach with male and female, middle and . 
scholastic achievement level preadolescents lead to a greater frequency 
low 
Of l?n dependent learning behaviors, observed in social contexts, during 
a after the treatment phase compared to periods of instruction which 
nd 
are mo re teacher-directed? 
~earch Hypotheses 
Specifically, it was hypothesized that the subjects of this research 
Would man?1 fest a greater frequency of indepen de n t l earn1?n g be  ha v1? ors 
ing and after treatment using the student-centered Problem Approach 
dur? 
comp ared to periods of teacher-centered instruction not us1.n g t he  Problem 
152 
Approach. Hypothesis statements were developed for each category of 
independent learning behavior--Questioning, Managing, Planning, and 
Evaluating. In the Conclusions section of this chapter, the specific 
hypothesis is provided to introduce the discussion of conclusions in 
each category. 
Design and Procedures 
The sixth grade reading class used for this research was located in a 
suburban public elementary school which serves numerous neighborhoods 
that are diverse according to their ethnic, racial, and socio-economic 
composition. Though the entire class of 28 students participated in this 
research, four students were observed as the subjects of the investigation. 
Only the research staff knew the identity of the subjects. 
The researcher used a single case study design with four parallel 
applications to observe the independent learning behaviors of the four 
subjects. Using this design, data collection observations were grouped 
into three separate phases: baseline, treatment, and return to baseline 
conditions. Baseline observations were recorded every reading class 
period for two weeks. Treatment observations were recorded every class 
period for six weeks. Return to baseline observations were recorded 
after treatment for two weeks. Data recorded during each of these phases 
included (1) frequencies of questioning, managing, planning, and evalu-
ating behaviors coded on an observation instrument for initiative versus 
responsiveness and for social contexts and (2) descriptive information 
observed by the researcher. The coded frequency counts were collected 
by the researcher and two co-observers. Descriptive information was 
recorded solely by the researcher. During the treatment phase the 
153 
her class using the Problem Approach which had been 
teacher conducted 
o m1n1m1ze et reat of the Hawthorne 
taught to her by the researcher. T ? ? ? th h 
not informed that their unit of study using the 
effect, students were 
Problem Approach was a research treatment. 
Upon completion of the observations, data were analyzed. Visual 
inspection of graphed frequency counts for each subject was the primary 
evaluating data. Individual behavioral descriptions enhanced 
means 0 f 
the mea n,ngfulness of the graphed data. A supplemental means of evaluat-. 
ing e data was the use of the sign test in combination with the binomial 
th
test ' which are nonparametric methods of analyzing data. 
f.indings 
In summary of the findings reported in Chapter IV, the null hypotheses 
ng the comparison of treatant behaviors to baseline and return to 
regardi 
ne behav1ors were rejected. some variation, however, existed from 
basel i . 
regarding the rejection o nu ypo ? eses com-
i ndi vi dual to ,? nd,? v,? dual . f 11 h th 
Transfer effects in 
paring ba sel1.n e and return to baseline behaviors. 
retur n t ? baseline conditions, though, were evident in one or more 
r es of independent learning behaviors for each subject. In the 
catego 1. 
1rectionalitY and social context, Chapter IV reported that 
areas 0 f d" 
SubJ. ects appeared to exhibit more initiative, compared to responsiveness, 
lng and after treatment compared to before treatment. Finally, findings 
dur? 
in Chapter IV indicated that in this research the social context of small 
group instructional situations maximized independent learning behavior. 
Research findings are presented with greater specificity in the 
following section of this chapter. In the remainder of this chapter, 
f"l ndings are treated as the bases for conclusions and implications. 
, "''"--:,;,.:,,:,:??-~ ...., . 
??.,tr:e:::::::.:..:::..::~~-::~?-?.. ...._.;..._ ????--?-------?-
??? --??"-'-=.c:~:;c;? . :,.~- ., -'?-"?. ,,.,c,~?-" .. ,., ~?""...  .,...::,,.;;,._.~. ...... =-c.~ 
154 
Cone 1u s ions 
Conclusions are presented here as they derive from research results 
or findings. ' 
They are grouped in two ways: (1) according to the primary 
ob? 
Jective of this research, the observation of independent learning behav-
ior in Q . . 
uest1on1ng, Managing, Planning, and Evaluating categories and 
(2) accord1? ng to the secondary objective, the observation of both direction-
ality ( 1? 1.. n t1ates versus responds) and social contexts. 
1-!]deoendr . t . . . 
~n Learning Behavior in?Four Categories 
~arch Hypothesis #1: It was hypothesized that during and after 
~ti~cinl;:in-tt?g  1. n the Problem Approach . subjec. ts would man.i fest more 
llestio ? 
ning behavior than they did rior to treatment. 
~: A11 four subjects exhibited much more questioning behavior 
dur? 
lng treatment than they did before and after treatment. In the com-
Petri son 
of baseline-to-return-to-baseline questioning behavior, the results 
Varied. 
Students #1 and #2 showed strong positive differences, indicating 
a transfer effect of treatment on subsequent behavior. Students #3 and 
#4 h 
' owever, showed positive but weak differences, not indicating a trans-
fer of 
questioning behavior under post-treatment conditions . 
.?2.Dclusion: It appears that the Problem Approach, as it was imple-
mented 1. n this research, provides conditions which enhance students' 
opportunities to manifest questioning behavior. However, it appears that 
When th . 
e instructional conditions of the Problem Approach are removed and 
them 
ore teacher-centered conditions of baseline are restored, students' 
0
PPortunities to question are lessened. While some students may demonstrate 
an immediate transfer effect of the Problem Approach on their questioning 
155 
behavi 
or, others do not. Since the post-treatment observation period was 
only two w k . 
. ee sin length, it is not known if transfer effects on question-
ing beh ? 
avior would vary further over a 1onger time period. The overal1 
concl us? ? 
ion is that student-centered instruction, such as that provided by 
the Probl 
em Approach, is useful for helping students develop questioning 
behavior 
~earch Hypothesis #2; It was hypothesized that during and after 
artici atin in the Problem A roach subjects wou1d manifest more 
E.@naoin,-, . 
~ behavior than they did prior to treatment. 
~: All four subjects exhibited much more managing behavior 
dur? 
lng treatment than they did before and after treatment. In the com-
Parison 0 f baseline-to-return-to-baseline managing of people and informa-
tion th 
, e results varied. Students #3 and #4 showed strong positive 
differe .. 
nces, 1nd1cating a transfer effect of treatment on subsequent 
behavior. Students #l and #2, however, showed positive but weak differ-
ences .. 
'not 1nd1cating a transfer of questioning behavior to return to 
baseline cond1? ti?o ns. 
~: It appears that the Problem Approach, as it was imple-
mented in this research, provides conditions which enhance students' 
Opportu n1.  t 1. es to exhibit managing behav.i or. However, 1. t appears tha t 
When the instructional conditions of the Problem Approach are removed 
nd 
a the more teacher-centered conditions of baseline are restored, students' 
0PPort un?i ti?e s to manage people and information are Je ssened.  Wh 1?  l e some 
st
Udents may demonstrate an immediate transfer effect of the Problem 
Approach on their managing behavior, others do not. Since the post-
treatment observation period was only two weeks in length, it is not known 
156 
1" f 
transfer effects on manag1?ng be h a v1? or wou 1d vary f urt he r over a longer 
Period oft? 
ime. The overall conclusion is that student-centered instruc-
t? 
lon, such as that provided by the Problem Approach, is useful for helping 
student s de velop managing behavior. 
B.esearch Hypothesis #3: It was hypothesized that during and after 
in the Problem A roach subjects would manifest more 
~: All four subjects exhibited much more planning behavior 
dur? 
ing treatment than they did before and after treatment. In comparison 
of base11? ne-to-return-to-baseline planning behavior, the results varied. 
Three of the four students did not manifest any planning behavior after 
treatment. Student #4 had not exhibited any planning behavior before 
treatment. In this case the result of the comparison of baseline to return 
to bas e l.ln e was no change. The other two students who had not exhibited 
Planning after treatment and exhibited a few (Student #1 had three; Student 
#2 had one) planning behaviors before treatment. In these two cases, then, 
th
e result of the comparison of baseline to return to baseline was weak 
negative. Only Student #3 demonstrated a positive difference in planning 
beha vi? or when return to baseline was compared to baseline. The difference 
Wast 00 weak to indicate a transfer effect of treatment . 
.??!:iclusion: It appears that the Problem Approach, as it was imple-
mented i?n  th1? s research, provides cond1? t1?o ns wh  1? c h en h ance s t ud e nt s 1 
0
PPortunities to manifest planning behavior. However, it appears that 
When the instructional conditions of the Problem Approach are removed 
and the more teacher-centered conditions of baseline are restored, 
student s ? opportunities to plan are , lessene d ? On the variable of planning 
157 
o treatment were not observed for any of the four 
transfer effects f 
subjects It appears, then, that the teacher-centered conditions of 
baseline ' be fore and after treatment in this study, were not conducive 
to stud ents , demonstrating independent planning behavior. With the 
absence of any transfer effect in this category and with the absence 
of planning behavior post-treatment in three of four cases, it appears 
of teacher-centered instruction may mitigate against 
that condi t,?ons 
student planning. Unlike questioning, managing, and evaluating, planning 
a behavior that students frequently see modeled by teachers. Since 
is not 
the t reatment period was only six weeks in the lives of students who had 
expe ri?e nced schooling for at least five preceding years, it is not known 
1. f the Problem Approach would eventually lead to a transfer effect of 
Planning behav,?or if it were extended or repeated.  Th e overa 11 cone l usion 
a student-centered instruction, such as that provided by the Problem 
is th t 
, is useful for helping students develop planning behavior during 
Approach 
student-centered instruction. 
Research Hy atheSis #4! It wash othasizld that dorin and after 
artic,? at,?n in the Problem A raach subJ? ects w? ou?  ld m? an ife s t more eva 1u -
-a-lt_?n g behavior than theY did prior J2 tre~? 
Result: All four subjects exhibited much more evaluating behavior 
duri? ng treatment than they did before and after treatment. In the com-
Parison of baseline-to-return-to-baseline evaluating behavior, the results 
varied. Students #Zand # showed strong positive differences, indicating 
3 
a transfer effect of treatment on subsequent behavior. Students #1 and 
# , however, showed positive but weak differences, not indicating a trans-
4
fer of evaluating behavior to return to baseline conditions. 
158 
Conclusion: It appears that the Problem Approach, as it was imple-
mented i?n  thi. s research, provides conditions which enhance students' 
evaluating behavior. However, it appears that 
opportunities to mani'fest 
When th e i.n structional conditions of the Problem Approach are removed 
and the more teacher-centered conditions of baseline are restored, stu-
dents? opportunities to question are lessened. While some students may 
an immediate transfer effect of the Problem Approach on their 
demonstrate 
evaluating behavior, others do not. Since the post-treatment observation 
two weeks .in length, it is not known if transfer effects 
period was only 
on evaluating behavior would vary further over a longer period of time. 
erall conclusion is that student-centered instruction, such as 
The ov 
that prov1. ded by the Problem Approach, is useful for helping students 
develop evaluating behavior. 
Limitations. When evaluating results of this study in the four 
n ent learning behavior categories, several limitations of this 
indepe d 
invest1. 
gat1.o n become apparent. First, the data collection schedule 
ed ten weeks of daily observation of subjects, but it also had 
Prov1?d  
limitat? ons. A six-week treatment is a brief period in the 11? ves of 1
students who over several years have become conditioned to the WiJI/S of 
teacher-centered schools. Therefore, the demand on a student-centered 
uct1onal approach, such as the problem Approach, to produce strong 
instr . 
tra nsfer effects after treatment is t,eavy indeed. Furthermore, the 
return to baseline conditions lasted just two weeks. This limitation 
of time leads to two questions: (1) Jf the return to baseline conditions 
hact been longer, would evidence of immediate transfer effects diminish 
__ ,_ ____ _ 
159 
s memories of treatment experiences faded? (2) If the return 
as subject ? 
to bas e l.,n e conditions had been longer, would latent, rather than immediate 
transfer effects appear? ' 
Next the data collection instrument used in this study has limitations. 
Because ?t i. s sens.i tive only to the frequency of behaviors, it does not 1 
make any qualitative distinctions. Jn other words, all of the identified 
indepe nd e nt learning behaviors are equal in weight. Furthermore, the 
not sensitive to sustained independent learning behavior. 
instrument ,? s 
in practice, then, is that a student engaged in a sustained 
What occurs . 
learning behavior, such as viewing a filmstrip, receives less 
independent 
or observed independent learning behavior than another student 
credit f 
Who verbalizes one question or statement after another. The instrument 
is ' as another limitation, far more sensitive to verbalized behaviors 
than to any other kind of behavior. 
A final limitation to be considered when drawing conclusions from 
results is that the small number of subjects precludes any examina-
the 
treatment interactions with sample traits. For example, finding 
tion 0 f 
transfer effects in post-treatment questioning behavior of the low achieve-
s udents (Students #1 and #2) does not indicate a treatment inter-
ment t 
acti?o n with the low achievement trait. Also, finding transfer effects 
OS -treatment managing behavior of the middle achievement students 
in p t
(S udents #3 and # ) does not indicate a treatment interaction with the 
t 4
middl e achievement trait. 
The limitations identified here are important considerations when 
conclusions are drawn from the major findings of this investigation. 
These limitations are considered again in the implications for further 
research. 
160 
-Dire c t?1_ 0n_a.l ..i:..t.:y:;_ ,L(_ ~I~n~i~t~i~a~te~s~v~e_!:r~su ~s0R~e~sp ~o~n~d~sl) _..!a~n~d~S~oc~,?~a ~l_QCoQ_!n~t~e~x~ts 
of this research was to observe independent 
The primary objective 
learning behaviors in four categories. As the secondary objective 
analyzed to enhance the independent learning behavior 
additi anal data were 
The directionality (initiates versus responds) and the 
observations. 
so . of independent learning behaviors were observed. c1al contexts 
Directionality. Results of data collected on directionality indicate 
that subjects took more initiative in learning activities during and after 
they did before treatment. It is to be concluded from 
treatment than 
th. that the Problem Approach provides instructional conditions is finding 
in whi? ch students learn to take more initiative in their learning. They 
' ere fore, seen as becomi?n g more ac t 1? ve 1y  1? nvo 1v e d 1? n se 1f  -ques t 1? oning, are th 
managi ng, planning, and evaluating activities. 
Social Contexts. Results of data collected on social contexts 
indl? cate that small group instructional situations, without the partici-
opportunities for students to demonstrate 
Pation of the teacher, maximize 
n ent learning behaviors. It appeared that most independent learn-
indepe d 
ing behaviors occurred when subjects communicated with one or two other 
st"dents. The instructional situation which provided the opportunity for 
the dyadic/triadic peer communication observed as independent 
most of 
ng behavior was peer small groups of 4-6 students. Students were 
learn; 
en observed to be exhibiting independent learning behaviors when 
not oft 
they were in direct verbal communication with the teacher. 
It is to be concluded from these findings that small group instruc-
a situations provide students with opportunities to demonstrate inde-
t; on 1 
Pend ent learning behaviors. Moreover, students having opportun.i ties to 
161 
an rios o peers may e more 1ike1y to demonstrate 
communi?  cate i.n  pairs d t ? f b 
indep en de nt learning behaviors than students who do not. Within sma11 
group i?n S ructional situations, students' opportunities to communicate t A 
in p may be enhanced, as they were in this research. ai? rs and trios 
research is that the Problem Approach is a va1uab1e 
conc1u si.o n of this 
instr uc t?io nal approach because it places students in direct contact with 
all students having responsibilities for both group 
one another, with 
and indi. vi.d ual learning. 
-Implication-s 
This research was based on the assumption that developing independent 
learni ng behav.i or is critically important in the educati.o nal development 
of you ng students. Research findings Jed to conclusi.o ns that the Problem 
ach facilitded the development of independent learning behaviors 
Appro 
by the s u Jects in this study, The conclusions describe d i?n  this chapter b ? ? 
lead t i.m plications for theory, further research, and practice. 0 
~-ications for Theory 
The broadest implication for theory is the relationship this research 
' th what Dewey saw as the main responsi bi l ;ty of education, the 
has 11? 
ming of the mind" (1910, p. 28), Generally, an implication for 
"t ra ? ? 
ry from this research is a further examination of how the use of a 
theo 
ent-centered instructional approach, such as the Problem Approach, 
stud 
facilitates the training of the mind. 
A more specific way to Jook at the relationship between the Problem 
Approach and the main responsibility of education, as seen by Dewey, is 
to examine how participation in the problem Approach over time can prepare 
162 
Dewey expressed 
students with thinking skills for lifelong learning. 
to result in the capacity for further education. 
then ee d for education 
need to examine how experience with Problem Approach 
Learni? ng theorists 
instruct,?o n can support self-directed development, an educational goal 
expressed by Beel er ( 1979), Niebuhr, Jr. , ( l 98ll and Treff i nger ( 197 5) . 
An even more specific way to look at the relationship between the 
Probl em Approach and the training of the mind is to see how repeated 
expe ri?e nces with Problem Approach instruction provide important practice 
Both Gagnf (1980) and Bruner (1973) stress the importance 
opportunities. 
of practice for developing thinking and problem solving skills. Learn-
ing eorists need to study the relationship between students' Problem 
th
experiences and their development of what Gagne calls an "execu-
Approach . 
problem solving strategy. Gagne says that people have many cognitive 
tive" 
gies related to specific types of problems. These strategies can 
strate . 
irectly. The "executive strategy" is the way peop e select 
be taught d. 1 
pr,ate cognitive strategies to fit specific tasks. Gagne explains 
appro ? 
e "executive strategy" is ]earned through practice in situations 
that th 
encourage its development. A question for learning theorists, 
Which 
' is: Do repeated experiences in problem Approach instruction lead 
then . 
11 
to th e development of 11 executive strategies?
Another implication for theory is an exploration of this apparent 
Paradox: Participation in cooperative small group learning leads to 
greater independent learning behavior. While Aaronson (1972)and Deutsch 
(l ) identify cooperative behavior as interdependent, Bossert (1979), 
949
Sharan and Sharan , ), Slavin (1981), and Thelen (1960; 1981) focus on 
1976
cooperative group work as promoting self-reliance. This research supports 
the latter point of view. 
163 
P ,cation for theory relates to the categories of Questioning, 
A final im 1? . 
M. anaging, lanning, and Evaluating studied in this investigation. The P 
1mp1? is or theorists to explore qualitative differences among ,cation ? f 
these categories of independent learning behavior and to expand upon this 
list. 
-Impl ,?c ations for Research 
Conclusions from this research lead to several implications for 
Primarily, replication and partial replication studies are 
research 
The following list identifies a number of replication studies: 
suggested. 
Replication of procedures with the same students to note differ-
a. 
in independent ]earning behaviors during and after treatment after 
ences . 
experi? encing a practice effect with the treatment. 
b. Replication of procedures with.different students, having (1) the 
general traits as the subjects of this research and (2) different 
same 
trai? ts, such as grade in school, race, achievement level. The purpose 
e replications would be to observe similarities with the findings 
of thes . 
study and to discover differences from the findings of this study. 
Of this 
c. Replication of procedures using observation techniques which 
e sensitive to qualitative differences in independent learning 
would b 
rs e.g., sustained self-assigned reading and note-taking compared 
behavi o ( . . 
to ask?i ng a single question), 
Partial replication of procedures with increased baseline and 
d. 
n to baseline phases to study transfer effects more thoroughly. 
retur 
Another suggestion for further research is a deeper examination of 
oc,al contexts of independent learning behavior during student-centered 
the s . 
ruction which uses cooperative small groups. First, a study could 
inst 
164 
,ous social contexts in three research phases for comparison 
observe var? 
of treatm ent behaviors with pre-treatment and post-treatment behaviors 
of pre- and post-treatment behaviors. Social context 
anct for compar,?son 
study was not analyzed according to the three research phases. 
data in this 
study could observe the social contexts of independent learn-
Second, the 
ing be  ha viors in terms of initiated versus responsive behaviors. 
A final suggestion for further research is the expansion of the 
re design to include a large number of subjects. With an enlarged 
resea h 
e ree new directions could be taken: (1) Independent learning behaviors 
scop th
of experi menta 1 and contra 1 groups could be compared. (2) Treatment 
,ans with sample traits (e.g., sex, academic achievement level, 
interact? 
econom, c status, age, race) cou 1d  be studied. (3) Achievement 
socio- . 
effect s of experimental and control groups could be compared. 
~?,c ations for Practice With the extensive demonstration of independent 
Classroom Instruction. 
behaviors during treatment, the major implication for practice is 
learning 
assroom use of the problem Approach. Wide individual variations 
for cl 
ln results in the expected direction indicate that the treatment is 
With? 
?veto individual differences. other implications for practice 
sens it. 
follow. 
Even when the Problem Approach is not being used in its entirety, 
teach ers can provide opportunities for students to pract1. ce some of the 
beha Vl?  ors they deve op during Prob ]em Approach experiences. Te achers 
1 
can facilitate self-questioning, managing of people and information, 
Planning of activities, and evaluating of processes and products by 
students. 
165 
implication for teachers is to recognize that they are important 
An ? ? 
model s of learning behavior. They model questioning, managing and 
almost daily basis, but perhaps they do not model planning 
evaluating on an 
Perhaps th,e reason subjects in this study -did not 
behaviors as often. 
planning behaviors during the return to baseline as a 
demonstrate 
of treatment is that they had not observed planning of 
transfer effect 
activities sufficiently. students require opportunities to 
learning 
1n p ann1ng 1 ey are o ecome more 1nvolved 
obse rve and to part,?c,?pate ? l ? "f th t b ? 
in l earning activities. 
To assist students further in learning how to Keep records and take 
' eachers can provide record-Keeping forms for both Problem Approach 
notes t 
gs, as they were provided here (Appendices E, F, G), and other Kinds 
meetin 
It appeared in this research that using record-Keeping 
Of Stud e nt meetings. 
ur,ng Problem Approach small group meetings facilitated planning 
forms d . 
anct evaluating of learning activities. 
To assist students further in ]earning leadership behaviors, teachers 
v, e opportunities for students to serve as chairpersons and recorders 
can pro ?ct 
s meet1ngs and/or discuss1ons. To improve students understanding of clas . . 
of the responsibilities of these roles, teachers will often need to 
e 1nstruction in leadership behaviors. The teacher of this class 
Provid . 
role-playing and class discussion to improve students' understanding 
Used 
Of l eadersh1? p. 
An implication for heterogeneously organized classrooms is for 
teachers to recognize the value of mixing students according to their 
lffere ct? nces, not always according to the1
? r s1?m 1? 1 ar1? t?, es, f or some of  
thei r 1e arning activities. The teacher and the researc he r ob s erve d 1? n 
166 
hat mixed groupings seemed to help students develop self-
this study t 
confid ence and leadership. 
verbalized plans for contacting numerous 
students in th,?s research 
resources. They succeeded in using several out-of-school 
out-of-sch 00 l 
resources ? . nclud1.n g a guest speaker who demonstrated the making of 1
? They failed, however, to consult as many resources as they 
arrowhead 5
led, and they failed to travel beyond the school building as 
had ident1? f? 
c ass, as they had considered doing. The imp 1i cati on for practice 
a Whole 1 
teachers need to use direct and leading questioning to help 
here is that 
rema1n aware of their suggestions, particularly their suggestions 
students . 
on-traditional learning experiences. The effective student-centered 
for n 
e ps students realize the worth of their own planning. 
teacher h l 
The teacher in this research stated in her interview that she had 
ustrated by groups' "Jack of polish," or planning, for their 
been fr 
presentations. When the researcher questioned the teacher about 
final 
e could have improved the situation, the teacher said she could 
how 5 h 
met with each group when they planned their presentations and asked, 
have 
11 at are you planning to do? How are you planning to do it? Can you Wh 
of a way you could make it better, more interesting?" The teacher 
think 
t unsure of her role when students planned their group presenta-
had fel 
tions ? so she did not assist groups as much as she desi.r ed. These ques-
? articulated by the teacher at the conclusion of the study, are 
tions 
ent examples of direct and Jeading questions teachers can use to 
excell 
facilitate students' planning. 
Another implication for practice deduced from the classroom obser-
vation 1? s that teachers should be aware of the bene f?1t  of  1? n t er d1' sc1?p  1, ?n ary 
5 
167 
learning act? v1.t.1 es, particularly for reluctant learners. For a number 1
research, including all four subjects, opportunities 
of students in this 
top of choice, particularly in the area of art, led to pur-ursue tasks 
s . Y choice which were more often avoided, such as reading and u1 ng tasks b 
writing. 
From the f1? nc t1? ngs about the 1? ncrease d amount of  1? n1? t1? at1?v e students 
ayed during and after the Problem Approach, an implication for prac-
displ 
e drawn. Teachers should use student-centered instructional 
tice may b 
, such as the Problem Approach, to help students learn to take 
techniques 
more l?n l.  ti at1? ve in their learning activities. 
A final implication for classroom teaching regards the social contexts 
Of l?n S ructional situations. Based on findings of this study, helping t
contact with one another during learning activities appears 
students have 
m,ze 1ndependent learning behavior. Teachers should plan to use 
to maxi . . 
ructional situations which bring students together for instructional 
inst 
purposes. 
Professional Development. For classroom teachers to nurture independent 
behavior, they must have appropriate professional development 
learning 
expe ri.e nces. Two objectives of their professional development are 
erl? tical: (1) They must be aware of and accept the value to students 
of develop1? ng 1. ndependent 1earn1? ng behav1? or. (2) Th ey mus t 1e arn ho w t o 
appropriate instructional methods, such as the Problem Approach. Their 
use 
,ng must prepare them for experiencing a movement from teacher-centered 
train? 
instruction. Role shifts are often fraught with 
to stud  ent-centered 
and anxiety. since both teachers and students experience 
frustrat?1 0n 
take over more responsibility for their 
ro1e shifts when students 
ng, teachers need to be supported during periods of frustration. 
1e arni 
Teachers need to suppor t t,~1 e1? r s t ud e nt s whe n th ey are f rus t ra t ed.  Both 
ained teachers and students feel personal satisfaction when students 
tr ? 
become more independent. 
~ummar.>:'. 
Implications of the findings for theory, research, and practice 
een presented. These implications result from conclusions from 
have b 
c findings regarding independent ]earning behaviors demonstrated 
resear h 
by subjects who had participated in a student-centered treatment known 
as th e Pr ob1em Approach. 
169 
APPENDIX A 
Applying the Problem Approach 
~ 
APPL YI NG THE PROBLEM APPROACH 
Bruce W. Brigham 
PURPOSES AND PROCESSES 
ACTIVITIES *l. Explicit use of student interests 
-stud~nts practice purpose-setting 
1. ~sk students what the; would ;os t 1i ke behavior. 
o 1e arn about -stu?!~nts ~re giv"n responsibility 
-reco rd responses on chalkboard in for direction ~nd nature o[ the 
!~udent language (use silence and a:, content of their learnings; 
pectant attitude to stimulate -teacher acts as resource person. 
;esponses; try for at least one idea 
rom each student) *2. Students practice categor1zing/ 
classifying skills in relation 
2. ~sk students which ideas seem to go to topical similarities and 
~~~ehther, which ones include others, 
',c are different from the rest differences. 
-;ecord gradual organization processes 
~ ~roup, developing sets of general 
op,cs and i~dividual questions. *3. Decision-making skills, including 
making judgements, plus explicating 
3, Ask students what they wish to learn ? justifications and criteria are 
~bout~. second, etc., and their being practiced. ' 
ea son. Votesar"etaken on their 
preferences and priorities, *4. Students practice analyzing a 
problem and organizing its 
4. Draw from students additional components. 
oue~tio~s they may hove about 
their. first .choice toric. thereby 
breaking the ~ain topic into 
several sub-topic>? ?s. Students are given practice in evaluating their own organization 
5. The master plan is copied from the of their own ideas in their own 
board, typed and run off. lt becomes language. Again, students are 
!he material for reading the next day: asked to responsibly apply their 
s this just what you decided to do? own knowledge without dependence 
1s
1 this the best way to do it? Are upon the teacher. 
there ways in which you rnaY wish to 
change it? How might these ideas be 
Slateq more clearly?" ? ? *6. Committee memberships are made as deliberately heterogeneous as 
6. The teacher assigns a student ? possible to give peer leadership 
committee of either 3 or (preferrably) a chance to operate, to break up 
cliques, and to take advantage of 
5 to each .sub-topic. differences in talents, backorounds 
and interests in working through and 
completing a task. 
?I~ all of these ste/ isi  st.u dents ,,e bein9 asked to use and ?!PlY a wide ,a~ge of >nking-la ~ n ocal situation. Th?Y ace ceouiced to be actwe, ~thesponsiblenguagt~ 1 ts ~n tahe ;nstructional situations. Implicitly the instructor 
i. ndicatingp abr e,lciiepfa nin  s th,ne  wocth..  of?  each student ,.n  t h,' s mannec. 
15
:Y,"-'~~ 
I -,.::,"'Z'"~ <=-.-..... h, ;e::_,-_. ...... ~?~?w-~?;-~~?==~? - .-_ -, ,,_ :w~:-;,.O,~'""',',:..,.,,.,<. ,~ ~ ?~ .. -?.. ,;-?, -._ -?"' _,..., 
 
170 
7. Students practice exercising 
7. respo~sib~lity in small group aEnadc h a com' m1 'tt ee elects a chairperson org~n~zat1on. Varying their 
spokesrecorder, and perhaps a positions allows them to 
of th pe~son for liaison with the rest experience diverse sucial/ 
posit~oc ass and the instructor. These 
. ns may be rotated. language roles. 
It is assumed that some resource 
8. information will be available 
8 ? CRhesaoiruprec rs~ns lead comm~ttees to develop from the student's experiences? 
in loci e lans. Questions are arranged this tactic implicitly conveys' 
elicit ~al sequence. New questions are the expectancy that students have 
Co1m1ite and placed in sequence. some usable skills and knowledge 
consul~eesAde~elop lists of resources to Specific practice in planning ? 
Everyon ? . ss,gnment of questions: decision-making and responsibility-
questi e wi~l work on one or more taking is extended. 
grou ons different from others in the 
at P, and each may be responsible for 
1ea5t one common question. This maintains a record of the 9. organizational structure being 
9? Ereacho  cdo  mm. ,ttee has i? ts own planning- used, for use by students and 
for ;a ~older, with copies of each item teacher, The minutes are for 
each c ~ember. At the beginning of both review and oral language 
over ~~et,ng, work is reviewed by going reading practice, The natural 
Th<>se e notes of the preceding rneeting. integ~ation of.thought, ~istening, 
re~~rdnotes have been taken by the speaking, reading and writing 
wri tt ers ? typed exactly as they \,ere proces~es is further reinforced . 
lncluen and duolicated by the teacher. 
accomde~ are the purposes of the meeting, 
. quest~ol,shments, evaluation and remaining 
~nd PAl; n csnes , steps occur, theY demonstrate to.students t\e interdependence of purpose !)!!. plantnh\ng, oral and written 1,nguage co""un,cat>on, th,nk,ng, do>n9, and evalu,tion. 
'mp 1e men~'"~ steps a re reeorded, as are a 11 act i vi tY s tePS? GradUO 11Y, P1 a ,ni ng and 
ation are integrated toward student-meaningful outcomes, 
2& :;,each stage, thinking-language-organizational s?ills are developed!!_ (and 
the ins students evidence a specific need for them. s,,11s a:? !!21 developed at 
? tructor's convenience, but onlY as obvious student read,ness occurs, 
10. Skills are developed in the 
service of student problem 
10. Rreess our,c e 1 ,? sts are expanded and solving needs, 
re ~~rces tapped. Often this will 
leit re t~e.development of ski11S in 
int er_wr,t,ng, telephoning techniques: 
erv,ew methods and field trip planning. 11. Use of as many interests and 
skills of the students as 
11, dEaactha  c. oflll~l ?t tee decides upon what of  ,?ts possible is encouraged. 
Ev ,twill use in what form, 
foentually a format must be decided upon 
ofrt~resentation of findings to the rest 
fonn e clas_s. The latter maY be in the 
of one or more of? a "t.V, news 
are  podr t" or other video ? tape producti? on, 
pl:o.el _or.construction project, a role-
Pr ~,ng skit, a slide-and-audio tape 
. OJect, etc. The presentations are 
gl ven. 
12. Critical thinking is further 
12. The whoie group evaluates each developed. Focus remains on 
presentation after it is given, using content, skills, and self-
these questions: resconsibility. A questioning attttude is reinforced at the end 
( 1' What have we learned? of the Problem Aporoach, just as 
(2) Was it worth learning? Why? it was aroused in the beginning. 
(3) How might we use it? 
(4) What additional questions do 
we have? 
( 5) What was the best thing about 
the way the ideas were presented? 
172 
APPENDIX B 
Behavior Observation Checklist 
Ob i:ierver: BI::HAV10R OBSERVATIO!l CHF.Cl<LIST 
Phase (circle one): A. B A D~s -------
Tice (circle one): 9:35 9:55 of cription Date:_ ____  
Activity: ------- predominant situation: 
Circle the letter of d = intcrcediate (7-15) 
a= individual e = whole class 
b = dyed/triad f = subject with teacher 
c = scall group (4-6) 
names: 
the student voluntarily: 
V:rbalizes possibilities beyond the iccediate 
1. discussion ("ls it possible that,,,?" Could 
we say that,,,?") 
Asks "how," "why," ??what does it znean" 
2. 
c;uestic?nS. 
Asks about alternative solutions to problem 
3. 
situations. 
Verbalizes decisions when given a choice of events 
4. ("I choose the,,,," "l have decided to,,,"), 
Keeps written records of work related to class 
5. activities and aesignznents (lists, charts, notes:) 
Facilitates group discussion clarifies and or 
6. suzn.mari~es, attends to order of group processes, 
elabora tee upon or extends group discussion). 
Proposes short and or long term goals for completing 
7. tasks ("This is what I want to accomplish today," 
"This i, what I in tend to "'"opliOh in two ? .,., ? ?) 
Proposes etrategieB for collecting research data 
8. from a variety of sources ( "l plan to oe.ll, 
interview, preview, visit, read, etc,~). ? 
Proposes strategies for claes presentations which 
9, exclude and/or 60 beyond the usual reading/report 
mode, 
l, Verbalizos opinions and points-of-view based 
upon justifiable evidence, 
2. Verbalizes judgement of own and or peers' work 
("Your project was outstanding because,??"), 
~--?---
---~-=~~~=--=--=-=-v=,.. =z:::ss-~v~~ - rrn:rr --??-? .,...,,.s..1="",'"n"--="' ."-=ff ~~--
173 
APPENDIX C 
Parental Permission Letter 
September 26, 198} 
Dear l'a .rent / Guardian: 
boon ? M tl El??"'"" Sohool pamt, ror "" pa,t t;o y,,re I h&" 
of thoI  ;ru n a? =r-Voluutoor in th? prlm<n' gr?d??? "'1? f?ll, vith th? po"'1??ion 
Hra, "' of llduontion .,,, I vill b? eonducting ro???"h in 
0
1:1ixth gn,do l11nt,,uage artll claos. 
of Hnryl,nd m 1o for ., dootor?l .,,,ortotion 1? nduootio? ,t th? Uoim?itY 
>ill dThoer i ree' e Thh?  ,,p,rimon< 1? nn oboor,,?tioo ,tudy, Th? dot? to b? ~,lyood 
tnn >ook/" from ,1,,,room ob?""'""'' Tb? r"""h vill 1,ot ,ppro>imotoly 
roqu,!t;hould lik? your youngotor to particiP,,t? io tb? otudy nod .. horovitb 
P?=i, :? '""'""" from Y'" for your ,o,/d?usbt" to partic1P?t?, With your 
Achin: on, I ?ill h.v? """"' to you< ,on/d""gth"'' fifth grod? c,liforni? 
>ill ,;mont Toot ,,or?, P.rtic1P""'? iu th? otudY vill oot b? "'"""""? nor 
1t! school, and all rouul ta will remuin ano11yinou1J. 
in ,.1 'l ???? eomph to th? fo,?m u t th? bottom of U>i? lo ttor ,od ,,tum it to ?? 
tho '"re  of Mr o, J,I s,,,.,,ur_$'? To di"U" ,??"'"" you ??Y h "' ? b out 
etiarch, you cu;y ro11,ch we 1,1t iny'ho1Dt1 phontt 
U~J /JJ,sL,-
v1rginia H. Pilato 
APPROVED: 
Principal 
?~????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???? your naJIIO, and date your eigna.t.u.r e.) 
( Place a check in ono of tho boxes, sign 01Dll1 particiJJa te 
My --------------0 11wynot eon/daughter 
in M. ,. Pilato'e.  reaeurch. 88 
I would li'~?a  ~" copy of the diouortation abstract, .L-.---J1  ? 0 No 
date 
Si gnu tu re, Paren t/Guardillll 
RF OCT - 16.d n?m:nnz - /pl rw::rrn la:hiM :orerrm . 
174 
APPENDIX D 
of Observed Inde endent Learnin Behavior 
Return to Baseline 
Treatment 
Baseline Initiates Responds 
Responds 
Initiates Responds Initiates 
.?1.uctent #l 3 14 5 
Q 24 3 5 3 30 
M 47 
0 
p l 7 
49 0 
24 7 
0 
2 l 5 
E 27 0 3 20 
0 
9 
10 9 6 
0 l 57 0 
l 10 42 
28 0 
1 4 
l 12 0 15 26 17 0 l 
~ 2 9 
33 11 
Q 44 8 3 4 61 84 
2 
M 2 l 17 3 p 6 6 
0 
E 0 
35 
31 44 l l 
0 
~ 5 
14 10 
Q 4 38 
5 0 
M 0 0 4 49 
50 0 0 
p 7 
0 0 11 
6 
12 
E 0 2 28 
Q ::: Q p == planning uestioning 
M::: M E == Evaluating a naging 
175 
APPENDIX E 
Committee Planning: How to Analyze Our Subtopic 
Topic: ____________________________  
Subtopic for our group: ____________________  
Question: Where to qet answer: 
-
176 
APPENDIX F 
Individual Sign-up Sheet 
Topic: ____________________  Date: 
Recorder's Name: ----------------
Subtopic group is responsible for: _________________  
Question Source: Date for Member's Initial 
(Tell where you wil1 look Reporting Name When 
and when you wi 11 do it.) to Group Completed 
l. where: when: 
2. where: when: 
3. where: when: 
4. where: when: 
5. where: when: 
6. where: when: 
7. where: when: 
177 
APPENDIX G 
Committee Work 
(f i 71 e d . 
1 
n by recorder) 
Date: 
iv/ embe-rs ----- Our Subtopic: ______________  
Present: Chairperson: 
-----
Recorder: 
I. Meet. -------
~: 
Check When 
~: ~tiV"it,t: 
------ 7. Review last meeting (using Part from II of work sheet last meeting) 
2. 
------------ Plan today's meeting 3. Follow today's plan 4. Evaluate today's meeting (What worked? What didn't 
II W-
----------- work so we11?) 5. Plan our next meeting  
?~= 
Toda 
Y We plan to: _____________________  
Here i 
s What we have accomplished today: 
In our 
next meeting we plan to:: _______________  
178 
REFERENCES 
Agar, M. H. 
Albert (J 9Bo). The professional stranger. New York: Academic Press. 
y' H?  B?  (1 92 7) . A study of the project method in education. 
Columbus OH? 
Anz . ' ? The Ohio State University Press. 
a1, y 
., & Simon. H. A. (1979). Th th f 1 . b d . 
~hoJnn., n- .. ~, e eory o earn1ng y 01ng. 
B ' 86, 124- 140. 
are11 -
' J ? ( 1983). Reflections on critical thinking in secondary schools. 
Educational L 
B eadershi , 40, 45-49. arnes 
' D 0 979). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, 
Ml" ddJesex 
8 ' England: Penguin Books Ltd. artlett, s 
? 0978). Protocol analysis in creative problem solving. 
JournaJ 
8 of Creative Behavior, .Ji., 181-193. ayJes ? 
' ? E?  ( 19 60) ? Democratic educational theorx, New Yo rk:  Ha rper 
& Brat'n 8 ers . 
eeJer, K. 
D. (1979). Student self-directed learning: an essential goal 
in ed  B ucation ? Humanistic Educator, Jl, 20-27. 
ernian l 
' ? M., & Roderick, J. A. (1977). Curriculum, teaching the what, 
ho w 
' and wh of Jivin . Columbus, 0/-1: Charles?. Merri11 Publishing 
Company, 
Berrnan 
'L. M., Roderick, J. A., Browner, S., & Lee, D. (1976). A study 
E..f..~Jhe icn,,- t of specially designed sett1. ngs on ch1? 1dren I s involvement: 
13 ~~ lot >w,~~, ..  Mary 1a nd State Department of Education? 
eye, c. . 
R. (1975). Ancient Greek literature and soc1etx_. Ga rden City, 
Ny. 
? Anchor Books, Anchor Press/Doubleday. 
179 
Bigge, M. L. (1964). Learning theories for teachers. New York: Harper 
& Row, Publishers. 
Bigge, M. L., & Hunt, M. P. (1962). Psychological foundations of education. 
New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. 
Bloom, B. S., & Broder, L. J. (1950). Problem solving processes of college 
students: an exploratory investigation. Chicago: The University of 
Chicago Press. 
Bode, Boyd H. ( 1940) . How we learn. Boston: D. C. Heath & Company. 
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: 
an introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 
Bossert, S. T. (1979). Tasks and social relationships in classrooms. 
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 
Brigham, B. W. (1961, January). Strengths and weaknesses in a clinical 
approach: an example. Paper presented at the Eighteenth Annual Reading 
Institute at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. 
Brigham, B. W. (1974). The Problem Approach and adult literacy. Paper 
presented at the World Conference of the International Reading Association, 
Vienna, Austria. 
Brigham, B. W. ( 1979). The Problem Approach: introductory stage with 
a single adult. Audio-videotape, University of Maryland. 
Brigham, B. W., Dahlberg, C., Loudermilk, G., Moxey, M., & Smith, L. (1979). 
Applying the Problem-Experience Approach. Audio-videotape, University 
of Maryland. 
Brigham, B. W., & Pilato, V. H. (1980). A heuropractic strategy in adult 
programs. University of Maryl anci Reading Center Monographs, ~. 
180 
Brigham, B. W., & Pilato, V. H. (1981, Fall). A psychoeducational 
procedure for teaching handicapped adults. Journal of Exceptional 
Adult Education, 19-24. 
Brigham, B. W., & Pilato, V. H. (1982, Fall). Learner-centered instruction 
for exceptional adults. Journal of Exceptional Adult Education, 7-11. 
Brovm, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: 
on training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, l.Q_, 
14-21. 
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Some elements of discovery. In L. S. Shulman and 
E. R. Keislar (Eds.), Learning by discovery: a critical appraisal. 
Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. 
Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given. New York: W.W. 
Norton & Co. 
Coleman, J. S. (1976). Differences between experiential and classroom 
learning. In M. T. Keeton and Associates (Eds.), Experiential learning. 
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers. 
Combs, A. W. ( l 98 l ) . What the future demands of education. Phi Del ta 
Kapp an, 369-372. 
CravJford, J. & Haaland, G. (1972). Predecisional information seeking 
and subsequent conformity in the social influence process. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology,~. 112-119. 
Crockenberg, S., & Bryant, B. (1978). Socialization: The "implicit. 
curriculum" of learning environments. Journal of Research and 
Development in Education, .:!1_, 69-78. 
Dawson, G. G. (Ed. ) ( 1982). Developing reasoning as the fourth R. 
New York: Joint Council on Economic Education. 
181 
Dervin, B. (1976, December). Information for sense-making. Paper 
presented at the Symposium of the Committee on Public Information in 
the Prevention of Occupational Cancer of the Assembly of Life Sciences 
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C. 
Deutsch, M. ( 1949a). An experi mental study of the effects of cooperation 
and competition upon group process. Human Relations, I, 199-232. 
Deutsch, M.A. (1949b). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human 
Relations, _g_, 129-152. 
Dev,ey, J. ( 1910). How we think. Boston: Heath. 
Dewey, J. ( 1916). Democracy and education. New York: MacMi 11 an. 
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. 
Dudley, J., Pilato, V. H., & Brigham, B. W. (1982). Little children 
think big. Audio-videotape, University of Maryland. 
Ericson, D. P., & Ellett, Jr., F. S. (1982, Summer). Interpretation, 
understanding, and educational research. Teachers College Record, 
497-513. 
Falk, D. R., & Johnson, D. W. (1977). The effects of perspective-taking 
and egocentrism on problem solving in heterogeneous and homogeneous 
groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 63-72. 
Festinger, L.A. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human 
Relations,_?_, 117-140. 
Fl etcher, J. L. ( l 978). The outer limits of human educability: a 
proposed research program. Educational Researcher, 13-18. 
Gagne, R. M. ( 1964) . Problem Solving. In A. ~J. Melton (Ed. ) , Categories 
of human learning. New York: Academic Press. 
182 
Gagne, R. Iv!. (1966). Varieties of learning and the concept of discovery. 
In L. S. Shulman and E. R. Keislar (Eds.), Learning by discovery: a 
cri ti cal appraisal . Chicago: Rand McNa l ly & Company. 
Gagne, R. M. (1970). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, 
Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 
Gagne, R. M. (1980). Learnable aspects of problem solving. Educational 
Psychologist, E, 84-92. 
Gibb, J. R. (1968). Sociopsychological processes of group instruction. 
In National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral 
Science, Human forces in teaching and learning. 
Gish, G. L. (1979). The learning cycle. Synergist, Spring, 2-6. 
Gold, R. L. (1969). Roles in sociological field observations. In 
G. J. HcCall and J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in participant observation: 
a text and reader. Reading, MS: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 
Goodlad, J. I. (1983a). A study of schooling: Some Findings and 
hypotheses. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 465-470. 
Goodlad, J. I. (1983b). ~lhat some schools and classrooms teach. Educational 
Leadership, 40, 8-19. 
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Gordon, T. ( 1955). Group-centered 1e adership: a way for re 1e asing the 
creative power of groups. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 
Gorman, A.H. (1974). Teachers and learners: the interactive process of 
education. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 
Gotshalk, D. W. (1969). The structure of awareness. Urbana, IL: 
University of Illinois Press. 
183 
Guba, E.G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in 
educational evaluation. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of 
Evaluation. 
Ha1,1i lton, E. ( 1964). The Greek way. New York: The Norton Library. 
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 
Hart, L. A. (1975). How the brain vmrks. New York: Basic 8ooks, Inc. 
Publishers. 
Hart, L. A. ( 1983) . Programs, patterns and downs hi fti ng in l earni n9 
to read. The Reading Teacher, If_, 5-11. 
Hedin, O., & Conrad, D. (1980). Study proves hypothesis and more. 
Synergist, 2., 8-14. 
Herber, H. L. ( 1978). Teaching reading in content areas (2nd ed.). 
Enylewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Hersen, M., & Barlow, D. H. (1978). Single-case experimental designs: 
strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press. 
Hock, L. E. (1958). Using committees in the classroom. New York: 
Rinehart & Company, Inc. 
Hoffman, L. R., Harburg, E., & Maier, N. R. F. (1962). Differences and 
disagreement as factors in creative group problem solving. Journal 
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 206-214. 
Houtz, J.C., & Speedie, S. M. (1978). Processes underlying divergent 
thinking and problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 
848-854. 
Huck, S. ~J., Cormier, W. H., & Bounds, Jr., W. G. (1974). Reading 
statistics and research. New York: Harper &R ow, Publishers. 
--?---- -?------??-~-... -----?? 
184 
? on individual problern 
Hu dgi ns, B. ( 1960). Effects of group expen ence 
37 42
solving. Journal of Educational Psycholog.z, g, - ? 
the method 
H l1f" (1961 ). Reflective thinking: u 1sh, G. H., & Smith, P. G. 
of education. New York: Dodd, Mead, & Company. 
Je k" ( ). The design of behavioral 
n ins, W. 0., & Hatcher, N. C. 1976
experiments. Un?ublished manuscript. 
New York: 
Johnson, D. M. The psychology of thought and judgment. (1955). 
Har?er. 
influences of student-student 
Johnson, o. vJ. ( 1980). Group processes: 
interactions on school outcomes. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), The social 
Q_sycho logy of school learning. New York: Academic Press? 
Johnson, o. w., & Johnson, R. (1978). cooperative, competitive, and 
individualistic learning. Journal of Research and Development in 
Education, g, 3-15. 
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Johnson, J., & Anderson, D. (1976). The 
effects of cooperative versus individualized instruction on student 
prosocial behavior, attitudes toward learning, and achievement. 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 446-452. 
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Scott, L. (1978). The effects of 
coo?erative and individualized instruction on student attitudes and 
achievement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 207-216. 
Johnson, D. vJ., Johnson, R. T., & Skon, L. (1979). Student achievement 
on different types of tasks under cooperative, competitive, and 
individualistic conditions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 
99-106. 
185 
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1980). Models of teaching, (2nd ed.). Engle~vood 
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 
Kagan, J. (1966). Learning, attention and the issue of discovery. In 
L. S. Shulman and R. Keislar (Eds.), Learning by discovery: a critical 
appraisal. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. 
Kamii, C. (1984). Autonomy: The aim of education envisioned by Piaget. 
Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 410-415. 
Kazdin, A. E. (1978). Statistical analyses for single-case experimental 
designs. In M. Hersen and D. H. Barlow, Single case experimental design: 
strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press. 
Kazd in, A. E. ( 1 982) . Sing 1e -case research designs. New York: Oxford 
University Press. 
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1919). The project method. New York: Teachers 
College Press. 
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). TovJard an applied theory of experiential 
1e arning. In C. Cooper (Ed. ) , Theories of group processes. New York: 
John ~Ji 1e y and Sons. 
Larkin, J. (1980). Teaching problem solving in physics. In D. Tuma & 
F. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and education: issues in teaching and 
research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, M.A. (1980). Expert 
and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 
1335-1342. 
Laughlin, P. R. (1978). Ability and group problem solving. Journal of 
Research and Development in Education, g, 114-120. 
Laughlin, P. R., & Branch, L. G. (1972). Individual versus tetradic 
performance on a complementary task as a function of initial ability 
level. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,~' 201-216. 
-- -- ---~--~-----? --~? ---- ........ ........_ -.-.--?~?-~,.- ~------ ----?- _.. . ~ 
186 
LauVgherlsinu s' P. R., Branch ' L?  G., & Johnson, H. H. (1969). Individual 
a unidimensional complementary task as 
a f triadic performance on 
level. Journal of Personality and 
s u. ncti? on of 1. m . t,.  al ability 
---o-=c-1a1 P laughli-- sychol 0 9l', .!1., 144-150. 
(197 ) ' ? L, Davis, J. H., Halff, H. M., & Marciniak, K.A. 
n, p ? R. , Kerr N 
int s1Ze ? member ability, and social decision schemes on an 
5 ? Group ? 
22- Journal of Personalit and social Ps cholo , 1)., 
e1le ctive task. 
5 535 
LipTpriatitn, inR . The learner and the classroom group. In Nation~ ( 1968). 
Hum ,es Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 
g Laborator? 
Oc~hheact  f orces i n t eachi ng and 1e a0i')9.? 
L leact Research synthesis on problem solving. Educa~ ~-
' J ? ( 1981) . 
Lochh ' 39 , 68-70. 
Pheial ct, J ., & Clement, J. (Eds.). (1979). 
LU cker, aGde lph", a: Fr ankl1?n  Institute press . 
in th . n 1e  1d , D., Sikes, J., & Aronson, E. (1976). Performance 
. W., Rose f" 
R e ependent classroom: A field study. ~American E ~ e int rd?search 
Ma;~' 13 115-123, 
etor , t N? ' & So em, A-. ' ( l 952). The contri buttons of a discussio1n  leader 
1 
Opinh? e quality f group thinking: the effective use of m?1 nor ?tY  0 
Englewood Cliffs, 
Hart; n ioRn s Human Re 1a ti on~, ?_, 277-288, 
' . J ? ( 1980) . 
NJ: 
~lee Prent? aancna : S. J. , ce(-lH 9a8 121)  ,?  I Anc .s tud of the inde endent Jearnin behavtors of 
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 
~ically able learners. 
Unl? Versity of Maryl and. 
--- - ... 
187 
Medley, D. M., & Mitzel, H. E. (1963). Measuring classroom behavior by 
systematic observation. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on 
teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. 
Miller, G. A., & Buckhout, R. (1973). Psychology: the science of mental 
life, (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. 
National Science Board, ( 1983). Educating Arneri cans for the 21st century. 
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. 
Ne1t1ell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood 
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Niebuhr, Jr., H. ( 1981). Teaching and learning in the eighties: the 
paradigm shifts. Phi Delta Kappan, 367-368. 
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. 
New York: Basic Books. 
Perkins, H. V. (1975). Human development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 
Publishing Company, Inc. 
Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MS: Harvard 
University Press. 
Reif, F., & Heller, J. I. (1982). Knowledge structure and problem solving 
in physics. Educational Psychologist, ..!Z_, 102-127. 
Resnick, L. B. (1981). Syntax and semantics in learning to subtract. 
In G. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & T. Moser (Eds.), Addition and Subtraction: 
developmental perspective. Hi 11 sda1 e, NJ: Lawrence Er1baum Associates. 
Rist, R. (1978). The invisible children. Cambridge, MS: Harvard 
University. 
Roderick, J. A. (1973). Identifying, coding, and rating nonverbal behaviors 
that appear to be related in involvement: project on involvement interim 
report no. 2, University of Maryland: Center for Young Children, 
Occasional Paper Number Twelve. 
188 
Roderick, J. A., & Littlefield, B. (1972). The project on involvement: 
an interim report. Center for Young Children Occasional Paper Number 
Four. University of Maryland. 
Roth man, B. S., & Potts, M. (l 977 ). Children?s search behaviors and 
53 1061
strategy choices in problem solving. Child Development, 
48 , io - ? 
Princeton, NJ: o. Van Nostrand 
Royce, J. R. ( 1 964) . The encapsulated man. 
Company, Inc. 
Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in 
learning from different sources. Educational Psychologi st ' ..12., 42 -50 ? 
Sarason, s. B., Davidson, K., & Blatt, B. (1962). The preparation of 
teachers. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 
Scandura, J. M. ( 1977). Prob 1e m so 1v i ng: a structura 1/ process approach 
with instructural implications. New York: Academic. 
Scandura, J. M. ( 1977) . Structura 1 approach to i nstructiona 1 prob 1e ms. 
American Psychology, 32, 33-53. 
Scandura, J. M. (1980). Theoretical foundations of instruction: a systems 
alternative to cognitive psychology. Journal of Structural Learning, 
?_, 347-393. 
Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P.A. (1974). A humanistic psychology of 
education: making the school everybody 1 s house. Palto Alto, CA: 
National Press Books. 
Schoenfeld, A. (1979). Can heuristics be taught? In J. Lochhead & 
J. Clement (Eds.), Cognitive Processes of Instruction. Philadelphia: 
Franklin Institute Press. 
Schubert, W. H. ( 1981). Knowledge about out-of-school curriculum. The 
Educational Forum, 185-198. 
____________ .,------- -?-
189 
Sch\'rnsret zrv, aMt?.  S? ' Schwartz, c?  G?  (l 969). Problems in participation & 
~Ob t. . ? J ? Mc Ca 11 and J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues ; n ~ ion. In G es]  1c1pant ? a ted and reader. Reading, M~S: Addiso n-observation? 
W 
Sharan ey Publish'i  ng Company. 
of re Cooperative learning in teams: A critical review 
' S ( 1 980) . 
relat? a effects on achievement, attitudes, and race/ethnic 
cent methods nd 
sh aran, Sio ns ? Revi ew of Educati ona 1 Res~? 29., 241-272 ? 
sma ? R?  , & Ackerman, A. (1 979) . Learning in cooperative 
., Lazarowit 2 
Jour academic achievement of e 1e mentarY schoO 1 children. 
11 groups and 
Sha-r..a;.: n.:_,  n xperimental Education 48 125-129. Sa  l of E _, _, 
NJ: Ed?  ' & Sharan ' y ? (1976). ~- , , ~,,.1i"11m tneacJ:0.!!9, . . Englewood Cliffs, 
s?l ege] S. ucationa1 Te chnology Publications. 
New y ? Non arametri c stat; st i cs: for the behavioral sciences. 
' (1956) 
Slav;n ork??  McGra w- H1' 11 Book Company. 
in ? February). Coo erative learnin individualized 
' R. (19 84
at ion, a abilit rou in: recent research. paper presented 
struct? nd 
av; n ? Education Co 11 oqui m, Uni versitY of MarY land, Co 11 ege park, MD. 
Sl College f Cooperative learning in teams: state of the art. 
' R. E. ( 1980) . 
~Edtuci onal Psychologist, .l?_, 93-111, 
Slav? (1 gSl l ? A po 1i cy choice: cooperative or competitive in ' R.  E. 
learn? 
Slavin ing C thre . ?' haracter, 2, 1-5. & Karwei t, N. ( 1984). Mathematics achievement effects of 
' R. E 
incti e . levels f i.n d1. vidualization: whole class, abilit 0 
ized instruction. Manuscript sub~tted for publication. 
-.:::..:..Y.:!,dual ? 
190 
College classroom interactions and critical thinking. 
Smith' D G. ( 1977). 
~al of Educat,?  ona 1 Psycho 1o gy_, ~' 180-190 . New York: Alfred A, Knopf, 
Snyder' B.  R. ( 1971 ) ? The hidden curr1? cul um. 
Snyga nct J A cognitive field theory of learning. In R. M. 11nson g' D. ( 1972). 
Columb. u Geyer ( Eds.), Readin s for dia nostic and remedial readin. 
E. Merrill Publishing company. 
Utt s' OH.?  Ch arles Child psychol.Qfil,'.? New York: Appleton-Century-
S on-sm1? th, B. (1973). 
Crofts 
Swa; . The ancient world: Vol. 1. New York: Harper & 
n, J . W. (1960) 
Row Pub . . 
Th l1shers. Education and the human uest. NeW York: Harper 
elen ' H. A. ( 1960). 
&R ow 
Thel ' Publishers , I nc. The classroom societ: the construction of 
en  ' H.  A. ( l 981 ) . 
en ence. New York: Ha 1s tead Press, John Wi 1e y & sons? 
ectucat? 
Th. , ona l exp ? 
1J nukn; en)g  ' achievement ranked high in ASCD p1  anning survey. (1 983, Ski 11 S 
Th ma . -ASCD UP d a te, PEPf?f e2c-t3s . of facilitative role interdependence on 
0 5 ' E.  J ? (1957) 
J grouT? osvo]d
p  f . unction?i ng. Human Relat~? .lQ, 347-366-
cogn. . ohnson' o. W. (1 977l. The effects of controversY on 
, D & J 
67g lti Ve persepctive-taking. 
-685 
Tj or c ' D? ' & Johnson, D. w. (1 978). controversy within a cooperati.v e osvolct 
ompet i t . ---? omnor "!1'. 
Educ ive context and cognitive perspective-taking-~
? . a prioritY 
9
Tr effin ational Ps cholo , 3, 376-386-for self-directed 1earn11n9 . 46-59, 
fortg er 0 1 ' . J ? (1975). TeachTinhge  Gifted Child uarter '_, 
he gifte d and talented, 
191 
issues 
Tuma Problem solvin and education: 
i ' D. T. , & Reif ' F?  ( 1980H) .i llsdale, NJ: L?ence Erlbaum Associates. 
~Jeb-bD .... teachi ng and research. 
A process-outcome analysis of learning in group 
, N fvl ? ( 1980) . 
and i nd.1 vidual settings. 
\.Jebb Peer interaction and ]earning in cooperative small 
' N. M. ( 19 82) . 
groups. Jou-r-n~a~l ~o~f~ E~dPusc~aty,?~oncahl ~o~1E_gl, ]J_, 642-655. 
Webdb 33-41, 'e fNin. ? M. Predicting ]earning from student interaction: ( 1983) . 
Weick ing the?i nteraction variables. 
&E  ). Systematic observational methods- In G. Lindsey 
K. E. ( 1968
R . Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social 
eact; ng' MS? Add. -~:.::.::-:.:....:::..:._:~~~~,:;.:::..:~i.:.-_:..::~-
Wh; rnb ? 1 son-Wes 1e y. 
~a h t ey' A. , & Lochhead, J. (1980). 
~p~ro~b~le~m~~ ~so~liv::i;n. ..::;,.;_:;.;..;.:....-C--
F ana lyti cal reasoJ]i na (2nd ed.). Phil ad? lphil' 
course 1. 0 
rank11?n 
\.Jhit Inst,? 
~ 
tute PrIens sp. raise of irrelevance and other unpopular 
eside, M. (1978). 
Wicnkoert ions ? Journal of Creative sehavi or, 11, 153-157. 97
Prob, ] F. W? ' Wei.n S ein, c. E., Y=elich-, c. -A., & Brooks, J. o. th (l s)9.  
pr em-ref 
t
orrnulation training and visualization trainin9 w,? ,?n s?? ht 
3 7
WittroOcbkle 'm Ms ?.  cJ ournal of Educational Ps cholo , ]..f l, . 372- 7 ??  Educat_iE!0 
R ? ( 79). The cognitive movement 1 n 1 nstruction. =-
19
? ? no 1 ta ~' .?.1, 
Wyn~n  '8, 5-11. 
e, E. A. Teaching about cooperation. ~ ( 1983). 
497-499