While reading educators repeatedly call for individualized instruction, little thought seems to have been directed at questions of how one determines which instructional treatment is best for whom. The author argues that the Trait by Treatment Interaction model, now primarily used as a research design, offers an effective scheme through which instructional decision makers can collect and evaluate data on the relative effectiveness of alternative forms of reading instruction for individuals of differing predispositions. Further, an example of the types of questions that might be asked is provided.
References
1.
BerlinerD. C.CahenL. S.Trait-treatment interactions and learning. In KerlingerF. (Ed.) The Annual Review of Educational Research. Itaska, Illinois: F. E. Peacock, 1973.
2.
BrachtG. H.Experimental factors related to aptitude-treatment interaction. Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40, 627–645.
3.
CahenL. S.LinnR. L.Regions of significant criterion differences in aptitude-treatment interaction research. American Educational Research Journal, 1971, 8, 521–530.
4.
CarverR. P.Reading progress scale. Silver Springs, Maryland: Revrac Publications, 1971.
5.
Comprehensive Test Of Basic Skills. Monterey, California: Del Monte Research Park, McGraw-Hill, 1971.
6.
CronbachL. J.Two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 1957, 12, 671–684.
7.
CronbachL. J.How can instruction be adapted to individual differences? In GagneR. M. (Ed.) Learning and individual differences. Columbus Ohio: Merrill, 1967.
8.
CronbachL. J.SnowR. E.Individual differences in Learning ability as a function of instructional variables. Standford University, 1969, Contract OEC 4–6–0161269, United States Office of Education.
9.
GagnéR. M.The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
10.
IngersollG. M.Individual differences in learning by reading: implications for research. Viewpoint: Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, 1972, 48, (5), 59–76.
11.
IngersollG. M.JohnstonP.Individual differences and reading comprehension. In preparation.
12.
JensenA. R.Varieties of individual differences in learning. In GagneR. M. (Ed.) Learning and individual differences, Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1967.
13.
LubinA.The interpretation of significant interaction. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 1961, 21, 807–817.
14.
SalomonG.Heuristics for the generation of aptitude-treatment interaction hypotheses. Review of Educational Research, 1972, 42, 327–343.
15.
TylerR.Investing in better schools. In GordonK. (Ed.) Agenda for the Nation. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1965.
