MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
AN INSTRUCTIONAL THEORY: A BEGINNING
by Philip L. HOSFORD
Aslı Ülkümen *
Meltem Arslan *
*Ms Student at Curriculum & Instruction
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for EDS 544
Prof. Dr. Meral Aksu
April 16, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. THE IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION……………………………………………..….2
1.1. A Problem of Axiology..................................................................................................2
1.2. The Need for a Theory...................................................................................................3
1.3. Our Current Status..........................................................................................................4
2. THE VOCABULARY OF A THEORY OF INSTRUCTION…..........................................5
2.1. The Vocabulary Problem...............................................................................................5
2.2. On Instruction, Teaching, and Learning......................................................................11
3. CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND TEACHING......................................................12
3.1. Curriculum...................................................................................................................12
3.2. Instruction....................................................................................................................12
3.3. Teaching.......................................................................................................................13
3.4. Learning........................................................................................................................13
4. WHAT IS A THEORY OF INSTRUCTION? ....................................................................16
4.1. Special Versus General Theories..................................................................................17
4.2. Characteristics of a Theory of Instruction.....................................................................17
4.3. Five Criteria for a Theory of Instruction.......................................................................18
4.3.1. Definitions...........................................................................................................18
4.3.2. Boundries............................................................................................................19
4.3.3. Emprical Data.....................................................................................................19
4.3.4. Generalization Beyond the Data.........................................................................19
4.3.5. Non-Triviality.....................................................................................................19
4.4. Three Functions of a Theory of Instruction..................................................................19
4.4.1. Research and Development.................................................................................20
4.4.2. Curriculum Improvement....................................................................................20
4.4.3. Relevancy Definition...........................................................................................20
5. THE REFERENT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 21
5.1. The Rationale ................................................................................................................ 21
5.1.1. The Basic Structure ............................................................................................ 21
5.1.2. The Meaning of Intelligence .............................................................................. 22
5.2. The Relevant Package ................................................................................................... 22
5.2.1.The Postulates- Elements of the Theory.............................................................. 22
6. GENERATED HYPOTHESES AND THEIR COROLLARIES ........................................ 23
6.1. Hypothesis 1: Scholastic Achievement And Teachers .................................................. 23
6.1.1. A General Synthesis ........................................................................................... 24
6.1.2. A Recapitulation ................................................................................................. 25
6.1.3. Testing the Hypothesis ....................................................................................... 26
6.1.4. The Corollaries ................................................................................................... 26
6.2. Hypothesis 2- Other Components of IQ ........................................................................ 27
6.3. Hypohesis 3- The Effect of Broadening Curriculum .................................................... 28
6.4. Hypothesis 4- Measuring Teacher Effectiveness .......................................................... 28
6.5. Hypothesis 5 – Grading Problems ................................................................................. 29
6.6. Nine Additional Hypotheses. ........................................................................................ 29
7. VALIDATING THE THEORY ........................................................................................... 30
7.1. Meeting the Criteria ...................................................................................................... 30
7.2. Generating three types of Hypotheses ........................................................................... 31
7.3. Serving the prescribed Functions .................................................................................. 31
8. TEACHING AND ITS PURPOSE ...................................................................................... 32
8.1. The Purpose of Teaching.............................................................................................. 32
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………...…...34
1
AN INSTRUCTIONAL THEORY – A BEGINNING
This report on Philip L. Hosford focuses on his instructional theory in the framework
of his only book, An Instructional Theory – A beginning. In his book, Hosford mainly
concentrates on a review of the significance of instruction in our lives, tries to define such
key terms as curriculum, instruction and teaching, develops a set of criteria and functions of a
theory of instruction, and proposes the Referent Theory of Instruction.
1. THE IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION
At the very beginning of his book, Hosford (1973) states that “Instruction is a glorious
word. It means many different things to many different people and yet the meanings have a
singular commonality” (p.3). Our differences, however, is clearly seen in axiology, which
refers to our philosophical theory of value.
1.1. A Problem of Axiology
As mentioned earlier, we differ in our value judgments. In this sense, it is apperant that
there are two questions that need to be answered:
–
What ought instruction to do?
–
Toward what ends should it be applied?”
In Western civilization today, there are two groups of thinkers who seem to divide
themselves according to their own choice of psychological base: objective or subjective.The
subjective-based theorists, who may be called self-theorists, field theorists, Gestalt theorists,
are those who insist that an intermediate variable is crucial between stimulus and response in
human behavior whereas the objective-based people are all those who may be considered
strict scientific behaviorists.
To be able to answer the “ought question” of instruction, if we look from the
perspective of objective psyhologists, one of them, Skinner, rejects the traditional concept that
man is free to choose among different courses of action and is in the long run captain of his
2
destiny. That is why, we should develop and apply a behavioral technology. On the contrary,
The subjective-based view, on of the leading figures of which is Paul Brandwein, answers the
“ought question” by claiming that man’s survival as species depends upon the extent to which
he frees himself from the domination of the stimulus and impulse.
1.2. The Need for A Theory
Instruction, then, is a process man has used throughout history to preserve and
improve culture. Yet, we have no theory of instruction- no theoretical base from which to
operate the one process man has always used and will continue to use.
Until today, societies have learnt much regarding the instructional process and its
products by trial and error, by observation and analysis, and by experimental testing.
Likewise, we have learnt a lot from objective psychology. We also have some well-developed
plans or methods of instruction designed for teaching special things to special groups that can
probably get the title of "Theory of Instruction" according to the criteria outlined in an
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) booklet. Unfortunately,
however, all these theories are too limited to have a general value. In brief, for all these
reasons, we desperately need a general theory of instruction which should meet the following
conditions:
A good theory of instruction should

provide the needed parameters,

help us plan good solutions to any instructional problem,

direct instructional proceedings regardless of goals,

prescribe the best in pedagogy to achieve the goals of objective or subjective
groups, or any other groups involved

prescribe procedures for fostering learning in the most efficient and effective
way.
3
In the light of all these, Hosford suggests that the facilitation of learning and
development in human beings is the main purpose of all instruction.
1.3. Our Current Status
Professional education, wieved as a discipline or as an activity, is noted for its popular
innovations such as homogeneous grouping, ability grouping, tracking, platooning,
nongrading, team teaching, unit work, the discovery method, programmed learning,
computer-aided instruction, learning centers, interest centers, individually prescribed
instruction, and performance contracting. In addition to that, we have got help from the audiovisual are and the industrial technology. Recently, such self-analysis techniques as microteaching and interaction analysis have been included in these innovations.
A sort of synthesis of these innovations is embodied in the current effort, which can be
classified under the general head-ing of the open classroom. An open classroom is based on
at least these four prepositions:
 children want to learn,
 learning styles differ,
 first-hand experience is best,
 the teacher is initially responsible for fostering the learning environment.
Moreover, the characteristics of an open classroom include:
(1) Reality of encounter,
(2) Emphasis on learning rather than teaching,
(3) An open-ended opportunity for learning in an environment that is rich in resources,
(4) School viewed as a continual part of the continuum of learning.
No matter how much emphasis is put on learning instead of teaching, Hosford puts
forward that the degree to which each criterion is achieved is clearly a function of what the
4
teacher does and how the teacher behaves. Thus, the teacher is still the very heart of the
instructional process, and must be the final concern of a theory of instruction while the learner
remains the central concern.
In such a system, therefore, the goal of a theory of instruction is to reduce the
randomness that occurs during instruction and come up with the most effective strategies of it
by providing a strong base for the defense of efficient instructional processes.
2. THE VOCABULARY OF A THEORY OF INSTRUCTION
Members of most professions develop specific terminologies largely meaningless to
outsiders; however, when it comes to education, this terminology issue is much more
important than any other profession because education process seems to be everybody's
business and everybody demands the right to place his own meaning on the terms educators
use. When the public calls upon educators for an accounting of their activities, it demands
explanations understandable to everyone. As a result, there should be a concensus in terms of
the meanings of significant vocabulary for the use of a precise vocabulary would eliminate
many misunderstandings too often provoked by the use of the same words with different
meanings.
2.1. The Vocabulary Problem
The word “curriculum” is a well-fit example for the above mentioned problem.
Meanings assigned to the word a century ago have been outgrown, yet the definitions have
remained the same in the dictionaries. To illustrate, in Webster dictionary, it is defined as “a
course of study, as in a college”. Similarly, Good’s dictionary of Education describes
curriculum as: “a systematic group of courses or sequences of subjects required for graduation
or certification in a major field of study”.
5
In his book, Hosford, categorizes different definitions of curriculum over the past 20
years into four groups:
Group 1: Beauchamp, 1964; Ragan, 1960; Spears.1951:
According to this Everything That Happens Group, as Hosford name them,

Curriculum is all of the experiences of children under the jurisdiction of the
school.

Curriculum is defined to include all of the experiences of children for which
the school accepts responsibility.

The curriculum of the school is something more than the classroom program.
The curriculum includes all the activities of the children that are carried
forward.
Group 2: Saylor, 1966; Crosby, 1964; Doll, 1961:
According to this Everything That is Offered Group,

Curriculum encompasses all the learning experiences provided by the school.

Curriculum may be defined as the sum total of all the experiences provided or
used by the school its education of children.

Curriculum is all the experiences which are offered to learners under the
auspices or direction of the school.
The fine line dividing Groups 1 and 2 can best be perceived by noting that some
experiences for which "the school is responsible" are not experiences "provided by the school
Group 3: Phenix, 1958; Krug, 1957:
According to this The Planned What and How Group,

Curriculum is the organized pattern of the school's education program and
describes the subject matter of instruction, the method of instruction and the
order of instruction—the what, how and when.
6

The curriculum consists of the means of instruction used by the school to
provide opportunities for student experiences leading to desired learning
outcomes.
Group 4: Johnson, 1967; Smith, et al., 1957:
According to this The Planned What Group,

Curriculum is a structured series of intended learning outcomes. Curriculum
prescribes or (at least anticipates) the results of instruction. It does not
prescribe the means.

Curriculum is a sequence of potential experiences set up in the school for the
purpose of disciplining children and youth in group ways of thinking and
acting.
The major difference between Groups 3 and 4 is that Group 3 includes the method
ofinstruction as a part of curriculum while Group 4 does not.
Moreover, Groups 3 and 4 are different from the first two in their division for planned
learning outcomes.
In order to see whether there is a consensus on the definitions of educational terms
among educators, a study was carried out in 1969. In this study, the participants of which
were from five different groups of people including randomly selected education students,
beginning graduate students (all experienced teachers), doctoral candidates, professors and
other professional people like staff of state departments of education, public school personnel
etc., the participants were asked to write their own definitions of six educational terms;
namely, learning, teaching, curriculum, instructional program, education, and educational
program.
This analysis yielded a number of key terms or phrases used in the definitions, which
are listed below:
7
 For Learning: Information, change in behavior, process, skill, permanency, fact or
knowledge, and concept.
 For Teaching: Guiding, explaining, process, facilitator, knowledge, skill, assisting
behavioral change, providing resources, and assisting learning.
 For Curriculum: Body of knowledge, learning experiences, organized information,
all that happens in school, structured knowledge and skills, organized experiences,
school-planned, and prescribed results.
 For Instructional Program: Formal process, method, subject matter, studies,
activities, same as curricula, systematized teaching and learning, organized setting
and materials, knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes.
 For Education: Process, learnings, sum total behavior change, knowledge, skills,
retention, acquisition, social competence and contribution, and optimum individual
attainment.
 For Educational Program: Formal approach, structure, total effect of instructional
program, curriculum, instruction, educational offerings, formal and informal
opportunities, school and non-school provided, and extracurricular opportunities.
In the book, these key phrases are synthesized into definitions as follows:
Learning - a process that results in changed behavior
Teaching - any assistance that facilitates learning
Curriculum - all available school-planned experiences
Instructional Program - synonymous with curriculum
Education - sum total of learning with both individual and social meaning
Educational Program - sum total of planned educational experiences within and outside of
school for which a community accepts responsibility.
8
In the book, a rather complicated model has been developed to bring understandings
of the definitions of these terms into closer harmony. The model is composed of four ovals as
shown in Figure 2-1.
The size of each oval is subject to the value judgments of the viewer in this model.
The purpose here is only to show what interactions exist in view of the definitions made
above.
The type of interaction that might occur in each numbered area of intersection is
briefly described below the model in Figure 2-2.
9
What the numbers in the model above is explained in detail as follows:
1. That part of the curriculum in the Educational Program which impinges on the learner
without teacher involvement. (Student use of materials.)
2. Teacher, student, curriculum interaction.
3. Student interacting with the Educational Program without teacher or curriculum
involvement. (The whispering on the playground.)
4. Spontaneous teacher-pupil interaction within the framework of the Educational Program.
(Cafeteria confrontation regarding student behavior.)
5. Teacher-curriculum interaction. (Planning-preparing for next day.)
6. Teacher-Educational Program interaction. (Ground-duty-schedule-committee work.)
7. Teacher behavior affecting the learner and outside the Educational Program. (Observed
teacher behavior outside school.)
8. All other teacher behavior. (Conventions, professional meetings, study.)
9. Curriculum in the Educational Program but not reaching learner. (A text, not read.)
10
10. Curriculum not in the Educational Program. (A text, not purchased.)
11. All other aspects of the Educational Program.
12. All learnings not attributable to the Educational Program.
One immediate value of this kind of model illustrating a particular set of definitions
was the number of hypotheses generated from it. One of these hypotheses can be illustrated as
“The ‘good’ thing to do for learners is to increase the percentage of area denoted by
intersections 1 and 2.” (Hosford, 1973, p. 29).
2.2. On Instruction, Teaching, and Learning
In this part of the book, Hosford combines a wide range of selected vocabulary
definition from the studies in the literature of education, and turns them into precise
definitions. Here is each of these definitions for the terms instruction, teaching and learning:

Instruction: It can be defined to to include the processes of giving directions
and orders for efforts to assist or shape growth. In all the literature, there seems to be solid
agreement that teaching is some sort of subset of instruction - that teaching is a principal
agent of instruction. That is to say, all teaching is instruction, but instruction is more than
teaching.

Teaching: It is inherently personal in nature and can be viewed so broadly as to
include the exercise of cultural, moral, and intellectual influence.

Learning: It can be defined as a change in the neurological system; a change in
behavior; or as a process, a product, a function, and a reorganization. According to Hosford,
the word learning is like the word love—one may use it but had best not try to define it. 
11
3. CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND TEACHING
Until this part, we are presented a large sample of definitions and meanings attached to
the four words curriculum, instruction, teaching and learning. In this part of the book, Hosford
feels the urge to give acceptable, congruent definitions himself.
3.1. Curriculum
Curriculum is the set of experiences planned to influence learners toward the goals of an
organization.
After making this definition, Hosford explains that the wording of the definition
permits almost universal input into curriculum-building since it is a well- known fact that the
curriculum, however developed, is somewhat changed by every teacher during the actual
teaching process. Final modification is then made by each learner. We all know that in the
real world, the teacher and learner are both important members of any "schooling"
organization, and they play leading input roles in the final curriculum development.
Furthermore, many unplanned experiences and learnings will result from the process of
curriculum implementation so that what a learner learns will seldom result from an
identifiable subset of the curriculum, but will reach beyond.
3.2. Instruction
Instruction is the process of influencing learners toward some goal.
According to Hosford, the processes of instruction and curriculum development are
parallel, complementary forces, each affecting the other. They are the elements of the same
molecule, yet the molecule is different from either of its elements just like water (It is neither
oxygen nor hydrogen but a special combination of the two). These two together form the
educational program.
12
It is also mentioned in the book that the process of instructional planning is a part of
curriculum planning. That is to say, all instructional planning is curriculum planning, but all
instruction is not planned. Indeed, much instruction is spontaneous and could never be
anticipated.
3.3. Teaching
Teaching is the attempt to influence learners toward some goal through personal
interaction.
Hosford (1973) states that teaching is a personal matter. That is to say, it is all about
personal interaction. To illustrate, a student interacting with a programmed text is being
exposed to instruction - not teaching.
Furthermore, teaching is a moral endeavour. Although we, teachers rarely talk about
this, it is known that there is a missionary feeling or motivation behind us.
Based on this idea, Hosford shows two extreme point of views in which some people
insist that teachers should concentrate on the humaneness of people whereas others feel that
the teacher should stick to the assignment of purveying knowledge. He, in the end, concludes
that the good or effective teacher must be more than just a supplier of knowledge or just
someone who is compassionate and understanding. The good teacher in both situations must
also be a demonstrator, confidante, adviser, reinforcer, manager, organizer, administrator,
and, in general, a person who arranges a variety of experiences for learners.
3.4. Learning
Learning is a process that results in a modification of performance potential.
This, however, does not mean that learning is the only cause of such modifications.
Such modifications may be resulted from maturation or even accidents.
13
3.5. A Model
In the light of the definitions he illustrated, Hosford proposes a model, which is based
on the conclusions he derived from the definitions such as:
 All teaching is instruction.
 Not all instruction is teaching.
 All instructional planning is curriculum planning.
 Not all instruction is planned.
 An educational program is the combination of curriculum and instruction: both are
essential.
To clarify his model, he demonstrates it in two diagrams showing the ideal and real
relationships between curriculum and instruction, which is illustrated below:
By looking at these figures, we can infer that in a real classroom setting, some planned
experiences fail to be implemented while the others, not planned, are implemented.
Another figure proposed by Hosford, which is shown below, puts forward the reality
that even if learners (A to G) are exposed to the same educational program (the shaded area),
they not only derive learnings from that educational program, but learn from each other or
from people out of the program, as well.
14
Finally, taking one of the learners from the figure above and examine him/her
seperately in a real world context, we obtain the figure below:
Below is the explanation for each number in the figure in the context of an
organization such as a public school:
Area 1. The educational program affects the learner. Planned experiences of the curriculum
are implemented with learner A.
Area 2. Teaching and other elements of instruction which were not planned by the
organization but do impinge on learner A.
Area 3. The educational program influencing other learners, but not learner A.
15
Area 4. That portion of the curriculum not implemented with any learner. (To insist that the
model should provide for some part of the organization's curriculum to bear upon the learner
outside of the instruction circle is tempting. Such an area is impossible, however, in view of
the definitions. Many learnings in A occur outside both the curriculum and instruction circles
and these learnings may or may not be in harmony with the goals of the given organization.
They could be credited to the educational program of some other organization.)
Area 5. Those influences not planned or in harmony with the goals of the organization and
impinging on some learners, but not learner A.
Area 6. All other stimuli impinging on learner A.
In short, according to Hosford, the best teaching is done by those who done make
almost all activities serve educational goals. That is to say, the personal interaction that
successfully influences learners toward valuing those social behavior patterns creating
maximum learning opportunities for all is a teaching activity of the highest order.
Furthermore, all teachers recognize that most elements of accountability will focus on Area 1;
however, a good teacher knows the value of Area 2, as well since it is a part of the educational
program that will never go away.
4. WHAT IS A THEORY OF INSTRUCTION?
According to Hosford, a theory is, after all, a guess or hypothesis. However, a good
theory has some significant features:
 A good theory promotes investigation.
 A good theory suggests relationships, consequences, or "facts" that go beyond
the known data but are in no discernible way in conflict with what is known.
16
 A good theory generates guesses that someday, somewhere, somehow will be
subjected to tests and thrown out, modified, or accepted as fact.
 Without theory, our learnings derive from the slow process of random
experimentation.In contrast, goood theory helps us obtain testable conclusions
that point our way to nonrandomized research and experimentation.
4.1. Special versus General Theories
How special or general a theory of instruction might depend on the variables that may
be held constant. For instance, a very special theory of instruction may deal with teaching
English as a second language to Spanish-speaking adults. A special theory may focus on
teaching a second language. A general theory, on the other hand, gives direction to both of
these projects and to many other instructional activities. To put in a nut shell, it can be stated
that special theories is limited to special learners, who learn special things for special reasons.
Besides, the fewer limitations defined, the more general the theory.
4.2. Characteristics of a Theory of Instruction
According to Jerome Bruner, there are seven characteristics of a theory of instruction,
which are listed below:
1. A theory of instruction is prescriptive: It describes the most effective procedures for
achieving a given goal.
2. A theory of instruction is normative: It sets up criteria having a high degree of generality,
and describes conditions for meeting them.
3. A theory of instruction must be congruent with those theories of learning and development
to which it subscribes.
4. A theory of instruction will specify experiences that will tend to make the learner willing
and able to master the curriculum.
5. A theory of instruction will direct the structuring of knowledge.
17
6. A theory of instruction will specify the most effective sequencing of experiences.
7. A theory of instruction will specify the nature and pacing of reinforcements in the process
of instruction.
Two years after this criteria of Bruner’s, the first criteria for a theory of instruction
were published. Here are the ten items of these criteria:
The statement of an instructional theory should
1. include a set of postulates and definition of terms involved in these postulates,
2. make explicit the boundaries of its concern and the limitations under which it is proposed,
3. have internal consistency,
4. be congruent with empirical data,
5. be capable of generating hypotheses,
6. contain generalizations that go beyond the data,
7. be verifiable,
8. be stated in such a way that it is possible to collect data to disprove it,
9. not only explain past events, but predict future events,
10. represent qualitative synthesis (for now) but ultimately express quantitative relationships
among variables.
4.3. Five Criteria for a Theory of Instruction
Hosford asserts that both of these lists include some of the major concepts; however,
he claims that only five criteria are sufficient for a theory of instruction. Below are these five
criteria proposed by Hosford, each of which is explained in detail:
4.3.1. Definitions: A theory of instruction must provide for careful definition of terms, and
these definitions must be internally consistent. Primitive terms must be identified, and
their usage must be avoided in stating underlying assumptions.
18
4.3.2. Boundries: All constraints limiting the theory must be clearly noted and their effects
acknowledged. If an instruction theory relates only to a given type of learner in a
special kind of situation and one particular goal, each of the elements must be clearly
described.
4.3.3. Emprical Data: A theory of instruction must be based on an efficient and sufficient
analysis of relevant empirical data. Nothing that is known and has direct bearing on
the theory may be overlooked. Nothing that is known and has direct bearing should be
included.
4.3.4. Generalization Beyond the Data: A theory of instruction must generalize beyond the
data. What is meant by this criterion is that a theory of instruction should
 explain all events within its defined universe whether past, present, or future,
anticipated or not;
 resolve all conflicting data through a new and valid deduction, or with some
ingenious inductive leap, or by calling into question some part of the
conflicting data that previously had been accepted as fact;
 generate some testable hypotheses.
4.3.5. Non-triviality: A theory of instruction must not be insignificant. If it is obviously
impossible to conduct any research to damage, modify, or disprove, it means this
theory is trivial. However, it is all too easy to dismiss a theory as trivial because we
think that it cannot be disproven. Hence, the difficulty with this criterion involves
knowing when something is "patently impossible" to disprove.
4.4. Three Functions of a Theory of Instruction
The value of any theory satisfying these five criteria can be best determined by
judging how well it serves three crucial functions.
19
4.4.1. Function 1: Research and Development
A valuable theory of instruction will stimulate and be of assistance to research and
instructional behaviour. That is to say, the more research promoted by the theory, the better it
is. Concurrent operational guidance is not what is meant by giving direction to instructional
behavior. What is meant here is that teachers do, and should, spend a great deal of time
thinking about their teaching before and after the actual teaching process. Nevertheless, what
makes the teacher feel good does not always yield the best instruction.In the light of all these,
it can be concluded that a good theory of instruction must reduce the randomness of
instructional experimentation. Furthermore, it should encourage teachers to test sub-theories
that are appropriate to their own specific situation.
4.4.2. Function 2: Curriculum Improvement
A valuable theory of instruction will stimulate and direct general curriculum
improvement. The experiences planned to influence learners toward particular goals are
always subject to change.
4.4.3. Function 3: Relevancy Definition
A valuable theory of instruction will define and relate relevant knowledge. To be
informed and up-to-date in the fields of psychology, educational psychology, professional
education, and at least one teaching field such as mathematics, history, or music, is too much
to expect of any teacher. That is why, a good theory of instruction should identify related
knowledge and experience.
Lastly, Hosford mentions the inputs for a theory of instruction, which are goal
establishment, the cultural setting, and all the things that are known from experience, research,
and history. Besides, critical elements include the physical setting, curriculum, teachers,
learners, pedagogy and evaluation. All these components must be sufficiently relevant, and
they must be combined together in order to come up with a good theory of instruction.
20
5. THE REFERENT STRUCTURE
5.1. The Rationale
The instruction can be defined as the process of influencing learners toward some
goals, thus it is an effort to influence change- an effort to play a role in the process of change,
which in itself is absolute. In other words, instruction is for change. Bruner focuses on the
importance of this chance with these word;
“I find myself forced to the conclusion that our suvival may one day depend
upon achieving a requisite mathematical literacy for rendering the seeming
shocks change into something that is continuous and cumulative.” (Bruner,
1963, p. 528).
5.1.1. The Basic Structure
Axiom: Change is the only absolute in education.
Four laws are developed from this axiom.
Law I: It is necessarily impossible to determine the absolute value of any instructional by any
experiment whatsoever.
Law II: It is necessarily impossible to determine an absolute set of instructional procedures
that will be “best” for different learners, or for different learnings by one learner.
Law III: Instructional events affect the pace and direction of change.
Law IV: Intelligence is a relative idea, gaining meaning only in relation to a given space-time
element.
From the first two laws result three rules;
Rule 1: The value of evey instruction procedure is relative.
Rule 2: In every case, a given instructional event will not be perceived congruently by two
observers.
21
Rule 3: There are as many evaluations of an instructional procedure or event as there are
learners.
These laws and rules reach the conclusion that instructional events affect the pace and
direction of change. Instruction is an effective tool for influencing change even though there
exists no one best way to teach something to two learners or to teach different things to one
learner. This brings the following rules.
Rule 4: Judgments regarding the value of a given instructional procedure will cluster about
the consensus eventuating from those most closely involved with the process.
Rule 5: In any cultural era, general intelligence will be comprised of several identifiable and
measurable components.
After these rules and laws the next step is to define “intelligence”.
5.1.2. The Meaning of Intelligence
Intelligence is defined by one’s ability to place himself accurately in the midst of
reality and to perform effectively in all situations, anticipated or novel.
5.2. The Relevant Package
The title of the theory is The Referent Theory of Instruction. The ingredients of the
theory are the laws and rules which are listed above.
5.2.1.The Postulates- Elements of the Theory
A. Information can only be registered by a learner through the filter of his own set of
experiences.
B. Learning is episodic. It can be linked to a small snowball being rolled into a large base
for snow man. It builds unevenly from the center out, bulging and droppin off here and
there, increasing in overall size at an uneven rate within a given cultural population.
C. The power to learn, to become more competent, to develop one’s intelligence can be
increased through instruction.
22
D. Learners have an intrinsic need to deal effectively with their environment over and
above primary drivers.
E. The instructional process can satisfy the learner’s need to seek and to test, enabling
him to revise his mental image of reality.
F. The instructional process is composed of a complex and dynamic set of vectors
bearing on each other.
G. The learning environment limits learners’ actions, but is broad enough to offer
choices, decisions, and activities.
H. Teachers affect or warp the space-time of learners.
I. Teachers live in a data-cluttered environment and constantly seek centrality.
J. Better ways to teach can be discovered during and from the act of teaching and the
best way is always changing.
K. Motivation is essential but not sufficient for a given learning.
L. Experience is always necessary for the development of intelligence.
M. Human intelligence is broader and more inclusive than that measured any combination
of tests available today.
6. GENERATED HYPOTHESES AND THEIR COROLLARIES
There are a set of hypothses drived from the theory.
6.1. Hypothesis 1: Scholastic Achievement And Teachers
Within any established, supervised instructional program inaugurated to implement
acknowledged curriculum, employing teachers who meet all necessary standards of the
organization, only a small part, if any, of differences among scholastic achievement scores
can be explained by differences in teachers.
23
6.1.1. A General Synthesis
Equation 1: SA = G X E
In this equation SA stands for Scholastic Achievement; G stands for Genetics and E
stands for Environment.
This equation means that Scholastic Achievement is the product of Genetics and
Environment.
Equation 2: E: aS + bF + cP + dO
In this equation;
E: Environment
S: Schooling
F: Family- Home
P: Peers
O: Other
The letters a,b,c,d, represent weighting coefficients for each of the variables.
Schooling: the S Variable:
The amount of study makes a significant difference on achievement test scores and the
amount of schooling, therefore, must be awarded some strong weighting in the determination
of E whenever the amount of schooling is significanty different between groups. Schooled
children even from different countries are more similar in scholastic abilities than are
schooled versus unschooled children from the same families.
Family-Home: the F Variable:
It can be said that the educational and occupational status of the father makes more
difference than everything we do in school put together. The most important attribute of the
child’s performance in school has to do with his own family background-essentially the
educational characteristics of that background. However, when comparing large groups of
24
schooled versus nonschooled learners, the school variable far outweighs that of Family-Home
in effect on scholastic achievement.
In short, once we agree that all children shall be schooled, then the remaining variance
of scholastic achievement attributable to environment can in some large part be explained by
the Family-Home variable.
Peer: the P variable:
The effect of peers on academic achievement increases as the human organism ages
from birth to maturity. Scholastic achievement is strongly related to the educational
aspirations and backgrounds of a student’s peers.
Others: The O Variable:
The O variable includes variables such as nutrition, the mass media and the impact of
local, national, and world events.
These variables lead to the following equation.
Equation 3: SA = G X (aS + bF + cP + dO)
This equation means that Scholastic Achievement is the product of Genetics and the
sum of Schooling, Family, Peer and Other effects.
The teacher behavior differences enter the equation only in S (Schooling). Teacher
differences in style, motivation abilities, open and closed personalities, all play a role. But in
any given school, teachers are alike in more of their behaviors than they are different.
One tentative conclusion can be that the presence of too many poor kids adversely
affects the performance of others in the school.
6.1.2. A Recapitulation
From the hypotheses it can be concluded that a teacher can contribute only one-fortieth
of the measurable differences between his learners and those of the teacher across the hall.
25
Morover hypothesis 1 says nothing about the effect of teacher differences on learner
recruitment, retention, general feelings of learners toward the school, and even the ultimate
success or failure of the business.
6.1.3. Testing the Hypothesis
Careful note must be taken on several things Hypothesis 1 does not say.
 It does not say that all efforts to improve the quality of teachers are in vain and
that we can employ just anyone to teach our children.
 It does not say that efforts to improve teaching and associated skills and
materials do not benefit us at all.
 It does not say that research is doomed to failure.
 It does not say that good teaching makes no difference.
Here are three major kinds of changes that support these clarifications.
1) Schooling Changes for the Better: As the amount of schooling increases, the norms of
scholastic achievement improves.
2) The Quality of Teaching Changes for the better: The researches show that people who are
warm, open, and emotionally healthy tend to make the best teachers. Morover, any student
can recall teachers who were, in his view, more kind, mean, gentle, loving, stern, hateful,
or helpful than others. To conclude, the professional educator’s role in teacher preparation
often proves to be a combination of academic, human relations, and teaching skills
screening processes.
3) Purposes of Schooling are Changing: Changes in culture triger the changes in society’s
expectations of the schools.
6.1.4. The Corollaries
The five corollaries of the Hypothesis 1 are listed below.
26
H1C1: Attempts to evaluate teachers on the basis of scores from present day achievement
tests administered to their students are a waste of time.
H1C2: Attempts to demonstrate the superiority of one organization techique for instruction
compared to another on the basis of present-day achievement test scores will continue to
produce conflicting conclusions or findings of “no significant difference”.
H1C3: Achievement scores in any one subject-matter area can be significantly raised by
significantly increasing the amount of time devoted to schooling in that subject.
H1C4: If total schooling time devoted to scholastic achievement remains unchanged,
composite achievement scores will not change significantly even though one subset shows a
significant gain.
H1C5: Differences in scholastic achievement scores between large given populations of
current learners ans similar given populations of twenty years ago will be significant and will
favor the current population; the major part of the differences will be explained by improved
teaching and schooling.
6.2. Hypothesis 2- other components of IQ
Physical abilities (PQ) and human relationship skills (HRQ) can be considered as the
other components of intelligence. This leads to the fourth equation;
Equation 4: GI= IQ + PQ + HRQ + ...
The equation 4 shows the relationship that the General Intelligence vector (GI) results
from the combination of the IQ, the PQ, and the HRQ. Subtest scores for the PQ included
those of coordination, strength, and endurance. Subtests suggested for HRQ included those of
cooperation, leadership and flexibility. The dots following HRQ leave room for other possible
vectors such as CQ (Creativity Quotient), SQ (Sensitivity Quotient).
27
6.3. Hypohesis 3- The effect of broadening Curriculum
As the opportunity for development in more and more vector areas becomes an
acceptable goal of schooling in a given society, goal achievements within that society will be
accelerated. This hypothesis leads to the corrolary that Significant differences in growth of
learners in any intelligence vector area can be explained by differences in teachers until such
time that the area goals are commonly accepted as elements of the curriculum.
6.4. Hypothesis 4- Measuring teacher Effectiveness
The most valid instruments for measuring teacher effectiveness can only be one that
records the degree of involvement of every learner in the room throughout a fair and adequate
time sample. The corollary in this hypothesis is that Teacher self evaluation and judgments of
learner involvement based on formalized data-gathering techniques will provide the most
effective and efficient means for improving instruction.
There are three domains while a learner is giving his attention to a particular task.
The three domains
(Minimum Learning)
(Maximum Learning)
28
These figures show that;
1) Openness to learning and learning residue are arithmetically proportional to the degree of
intersection of any two domains.
2) Openness to learning and learning residue are geometrically proportional to the degree of
intersection of the three domains.
3) The teacher can structure the environment of the learner to cause a change in any type of
intersection.
6.5. Hypothesis 5 – Grading Problems
Regardless of who does the grading or how it is done, problems generated by formal
recorded grading of learners will never go away.
6.6. Nine Additional Hypotheses:
1. Differences in teachers will explain a significant portion of learner differences in
the “non-content” areas of improved self-concept, desire for learning, and respect
for others.
2. A forced Q-Sort of objectives of public schools will rank “non- content” area goals
as equal to or more important the R’s.
3. An Observation Involvement Scale for noting kind and degree of involvement of
learners (in the style of Flanders procedures) can be developed to form the basis
for a system of learner involvement analysis.
4. A System of Learner Involvement Analysis will prove valuable as a research tool
in testing comparative effectiveness of different teaching strategies.
5. A System of Learner Involvement Analysis will prove useful and valuable in
teacher self-appraisal and pre-service training.
6. Tests of self-concept, dogmatism, helping relationship skills, and other “noncontent” areas will be added to the field. Those teachers who score high on all
29
such tests will be the best judges of the value of proposed instructional
innovations.
7. The X quality that marks the fine teacher and the Y quality that marks the poor
teacher are most easily observed in the process of human interaction commonly
recorded in a micro-teaching situation. Techniques and procedures of microteaching can be used for purposes of selective retention in teacher preparation
programs.
8. The videotape equipment and micro-teaching procedures can be used by public
school learners to effectively increase growth in the “non-content” areas with no
corresponding reduction in achievement test scores.
9. The silent curriculum (that which is created in the process of instruction) becomes
less “silent” and more reliable with increased teacher knowledge of and practice in
interaction areas.
7. VALIDATING THE THEORY
7.1. Meeting the Criteria
The first criterion necessitated a careful, internally consistent definition of terms and
the identification of any primitive words used. This criterion is met in the theory.
The second criterion demanded that the nature and number of constraints limiting the theory
be identified. In this theory the explained limitations are these;

The theory holds for teaching toward any goal except one- the production of
irrational behaviour.

The theory is expounded as particularly applicable in any organized effort to
provide instruction to groups of learners in our Western culture.
30
The third criterion seeks an efficient and sufficient presentation of what is known and
relevant. To meet this criterion there is also detailed description of laws, rules and postulates.
The fourth criterion required that a theory generalize beyond the data in three ways;
1) explaining events
2) resolving conflicting data
3) generating testable hypothesis
However it is a fact that no theory can be proven capable of explaining all events.
7.2. Generating three types of Hypotheses
Here are three additional hypotheses to illustrate the generating power of the theory.
A large general hypothesis;
The more open the society, the higher will be the general intelligence of its population.
A small specific hypothesis;
Teacher-made tests designed to measure learning are valid only if learners have
established relationships of content to reality and the tests permit learner demonstration of the
relationships.
An easily tested hypothesis;
A significant positive correlation will be found between teachers with high selfconcept and teachers identified as “good” teachers.
7.3. Serving the prescribed Functions
Here are the three functions required of any theory of instruction.
Function 1: Guiding research and Instruction: A valuable theory of instruction will stimulate
and give direction to research and instructional behavior.
This theory provides limitless direction for research. Most of the hypotheses and the
Equation 3 raise questions that need answering. Hypothesis 1 demands a new research
approach in the field of performance contracting.
31
Function 2: Guiding Curriculum Improvements: A valuable theory of instruction will
stimulate and direct general curriculum improvement.
Only history can record the degree to which the Referent Theory of Instruction may
stimulate and direct curriculum improvement.
Function 3: Defining Relevant Knowledge: A valuable theory will define and relate relevant
knowledge.
In the theory, there are 133 postulates to present the relevant knowledge.
8. TEACHING AND ITS PURPOSE
Teacher have goals and their goals have much to do why they do, which in turn may
affect what they do just as much as does any theory of instruction.
8.1. The Purpose of Teaching
 The purpose of teaching is to facilitate the learners’ transformation of
egocentric assimilation into true deduction; to help him adjust his perceptions
to reality, attaining harmony between internal organization and external
experiences.
 The purpose of teaching is to help students become better thinkers and doers.
People certainly cannot become very good thinkers if we fail to give them
something to think about.
In these purposes the word “doer” include the people living successfully, living
happily, and living to one’s fullest.
Teaching must ...
 Involve more than just purveying konwledge.
 Give authenticity from teachers regarding their belief in live to learners.
 Supply some sort of valid reason for learning what is taught to the learners.
32
 Help learners form the habits of reasoning, which set aside their personal
biases.
 Help learners find ways of behaving that enhance their learning
 Help learners learn how to use their knowledge intelligently.
 Help students see that not all facts are pleasant- they may not like some at all,
but they are real and must be assimilated if deductions are to be valid and true.
33
REFERENCES
Bruner, J. S. (1963). Needed: A Theory of Instruction. Educational Leadership, 20(8), 523532.
Hosford, L.P. (1973). An instructional theory: A beginning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
34