ABSTRACT
The data that we have available after a level 1 analysis may help us to make some overall strategic decisions regarding the group structure of the instructional system that we plan to design. It may even force us to adopt certain overall grouping decisions, because of the existence of immutable constraints imposed by the wider system in which our problem is embedded. Some of the information we now have would concern the following.
Relation of objectives and learning group structure
The tasks or topics to be learned. Job analysis (or subject analysis) together with a gross analysis of the target population, its needs and present level of preparation, lead us to defining the tasks (or topics) that are ‘worth teaching’. The nature of these tasks and topics may suggest that certain methods of instruction and certain forms of learning group structure should predominate in the final instructional system. One may see the need for individual self-instruction, or for ‘group dynamics’ learning methods, or for a mixture of approaches to cater for different types of learning. Much basic learning of facts and concepts can be achieved in the individual self-instructional situation (indeed, in part at least, must be achieved by the individual on his own). However, the application of that knowledge to the development of skilled activity often benefits from the group learning situation (indeed some skills can only be learned under group learning conditions). Thus, the nature of the final objectives may indicate the types of learning structures that should, in general, be employed.
Relation of the target population to the choice of learning group
The analysis of needs (that is the quantitative aspect of the gross target population analysis) also provides much information regarding the geographical location of the target population (concentrated or scattered), distribution according to needs (large groups at a given time of year or a constant dribble of trainees) and the life-style and preferred (customary) study styles of the potential students.
This information will possibly impose some constraints on the type of grouping that is economically or practically feasible. The seasonal output of the traditional school system forces the designer of an industrial training system (for craft apprentices) to think in terms of groups, whereas the content of training (learning to operate a series of specialist machines of which the company has one of each type for training purposes) would rather suggest an individualized approach, with intake spread out during the year. The constant turnover at unpredictable moments of the sales staff of a chain of department stores suggests the adoption of an individualized self-instructional system, which is in opposition to an extent to the needs for group learning activities in order to master the interpersonal skills of salesmanship. Groups of learners brought up in verbally delivered group learning may not be well-suited to a print based self-instructional system.
Practical and economic constraints
The analysis of the wider system should have given a clear picture of the scale of resources that are available for the design and implementation of the system with which we are concerned. This may impose obvious constraints on the approaches that we may economically adopt. Large scale use of pre-prepared materials may be out of the question, because of cost limitations or insufficient time for development. There may be limits imposed on the minimum staff/student ratio to be employed in our system, imposed either by economic or by legal factors. A combination of such factors may limit severely the use that our system can make of individualized or of small group working methods, despite the possible desirability of the use of such techniques being suggested by the objectives and content of the proposed instruction.
Traditions and philosophy of the wider system
The philosophical viewpoints (and traditions) of the wider system may create obstacles to the adoption of certain course structures. For example, the limits of the staff/student ratio could be ameliorated by the use of other, non-traditional human resources in our system (eg the parents, teacher’s aids, the students themselves through a monitorial system, etc), but cultural, legal or trade union objections render these options difficult or impossible to implement.
