Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment Programme: Important Issues in Research and Evaluation

Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment Programme: Important Issues in Research andEvaluationAuthor(s): Robert BurdenSource: European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 2, No. 1 (MARCH 1987), pp. 3-16Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23422032 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 08:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European Journal ofPsychology of Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.97 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:26:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23422032?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


European Journal of Psychology of Education 1987, Vol. II, n.° 1, 3-16 © 1987, I.S.P.A.

Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment Programme:

Important Issues in Research and Evaluation

Robert Burden Exeter University, England

The key elements underlying Feuersteiris Instrumental Enrichment Programme are described together with the pro gramme's aims. Suggestions are made as to appropriate ways of evaluating the programme's effectiveness and a summary of most of the available large and small scale research prior to 1986 is given. This research is itself evaluated in the light of previous suggestions and found to be deficient cm a number of counts. Nevertheless, a degree of cautious optimism with regard to the potential effects of FIE is considered warranted. Suggestions are made as to how future research might over come the pitfalls of earlier studies by the application of alterna tive evaluation strategies.

Introduction

The work of Reuven Feuerstein and his colleagues (Feuerstein et al, 1979, 1980) has aroused considerable interest amongst psychologists and educators in recent years, particularly with regard to the curriculum programme known as Instrumental Enrichment. This programme, which is essentially geared towards

helping slow-learning and low achieving adolescents become effective learners and problem solvers, has received acclaim from such well known special edu cators as Hobbs (1980), Haywood (1981) and Passow (1980) and has been singled out by the cognitive psychologist Sternberg (1984) as an exemplary programme for improving intellectual functioning.

It is difficult to ascertain where Instrumental Enrichment (often referred to as FIE) is currently being carried out, but there is evidence to suggest that its use has long been prevalent in Israel, subsequently spread to Canada and the United States and is currently practised in at least fifteen countries across the world and more than twenty local Education Authorities in the United Kingdom.

Instrumental Enrichment is described as «a strategy for the redevelopment of cognitive structure in the retarded performer... designed as a direct and focused attack on those processes that... are responsible for poor intellectual

performance.» (Feuerstein et al., 1980, p. 1). Underlying this definition are a belief system about the possibility of lifelong cognitive change and development, a unique, interactionist theory of learning and an analysis of deficient thinking processes that are presumed to lead to poor academic performance. Of additional



R. BURDEN

significance are the precise use of terms such as «retarded performer», «cognitive

modifiability», «cultural deprivation» and «learning potential» which play an important part in both the underlying theory and practice of FIE.

The main components of the belief system are that anyone can be helped to become a more effective learner at any age, no matter what the cause or

degree of their retardation. An allied assumption is that few people — even

apparently «gifted» — ever realise their full learning potential. By helping people

to realise this potential, Feuerstein also considers that actual structural changes

to the brain can be brought about.

This notion of «structural cognitive modifiability» is based upon an inter

actionist theory of learning referred to as mediated learning experience (MLE) which focusses upon the role of adults in shaping children's ability to learn.

«By mediated learning experience (MLE) we refer to the way in which

stimuli emitted by the environment are transformed by a 'mediating' agent, usually a parent, sibling or other caregiver. This mediating agent, guided by his intentions,

culture and emotional investment t selects and organises the world of stimuli for

the child. The mediator selects stimuli that are most appropriate and then

frames, filters, and schedules them; he determines the appearance or disappearance of certain stimuli and ignores others. Through this process of mediation, the

cognitive structure of the child is affected. The child acquires behaviour patterns

and learning sets, which in turn become important ingredients of his capacity

to become modified through direct exposure to stimuli.» (Feuerstein et al., 1980,

p. 16) A great deal of the Israeli team's work has been geared towards an explication

of the necessary and sufficient conditions under which mediated learning occurs.

A list of at least fifty different aspects of mediation has been produced at the

time of writing. At the same time, a number of important determinants of a lack

of mediated learning experience have also been identified.

Absence of, or inadequate mediated learning experience is alleged to give rise to any one or combination of a number of deficient cognitive fonctions.

These deficient functions are categorised within the «phase» aspect of a so called

«cognitive map». (Feuerstein et al., 1980, pp. 71-113). The latter is essentially a

hypothetical model consisting of seven parameters by which any mental act

can be analysed, categorised and ordered. It forms the basis for both the dynamic

approach to assessing retarded learners known as the Learning Potential Assess

ment Device (LPAD) (Feuerstein et al., 1979). and the cognitive development

programme known as Instrumental Enrichment.

Thus it can be seen that the work of Feuerstein and his colleagues encom

passes at least five different but interlocking areas: — a belief system about

lifelong possibilities for cognitive development and change in retarded learners,

an interactionist theory of learning, a model of cognition, a dynamic approach

to assessment and an intervention programme designed to remediate deficient

cognitive functions.

The Instrumental Enrichment Programme

The programme itself consists of more than 500 pages of paper-and-pencil

exercises, divided into 14 different «instruments». This term is used deliberately

as they are intended to serve as content-limited means by which the process of

effective learning and problem solving can be made explicit. As such, FIE can

be viewed as an example of a «metacognitive» approach to learning (Brown,

et al., 1983).



EVALUATION OF FEUERSTEIN'S INSTRUMENTAL ENRICHMENT

Each instrument addresses itself to a particular aspect of cognition that is

considered to be essential within the learning-to-learn process (e. g. spatial relations,

analytic perception, comparisons), but is also designed to tackle different aspects

of the cognitive map in a unique way. The instruments themselves are broken

down into a carefully selected series of small steps which are designed to lead

the participant from a simple introductory level to complex higher-order thinking.

Thus, there is a progression both within and between instruments over the two

to three years of one hour lessons (i. e. 400 to 500 hours) that it takes to complete

the full programme. One major goal and six subgoals of FIE are presented in the 1980 text.

«The major goal of Instrumental Enrichment is to increase the capacity

of the human organism to become modified through direct exposure to stimuli

and experiences provided by the encounters with life events and with formal

and informal learning opportunities». (Feuerstein et al., 1980, p. 115)

The six subgoals can be summarised as follows:

1. To correct weaknesses and deficiencies in cognitive functions.

2. To teach the basic concepts, labels, vocabulary, operations, and relat

ionships which function as prerequisites for representational, relational

and operational thinking.

3. To produce intrinsic motivation to learn through the formation of

appropriate habits.

4. To produce reflective and insightful thought processes.

5. To provide tasks that are in themselves intrinsically motivating such that

they provide both enjoyment and a feeling of success in their completion. 6. To transform poor learners from passive recipients and reproducers of

information into active generators of new information.

Some important conceptual issues in the evaluation process

As yet little published evidence exists with regard to attempts to evaluate

the effectiveness of FIE. This is not to say that attempts have not been made, rather that their results have not been widely available. Apart from the data

provided by the Israeli team (Rand et al., 1979; Feuerstein et al., 1980, 1981), a

few articles have appeared in the USA (Arbitman-Smith & Haywood, 1980; Narrol, Silverman & Waksman, 1982), Australasia (Howie et al., 1985) and England

(Weller & Craft, 1983). Most of the research in this area has otherwise been

reported at conferences and in higher degree theses.

It is clear from the introduction that for FIE to be effective certain

essential conditions must be met. The programme must be delivered by specially trained teachers with a thorough grounding in the underlying theory to carefully selected groups of adolescents under optimum conditions. These conditions

would minimally involve a positive introduction of the programme into the school

curriculum and a supportive milieu which provided maximum opportunity for

«bridging» (i.e. transferring acquired strategies) into other subject areas. Very few of the available research studies spend any time at all in considering these

conditions. We are informed in the 1980 text that Feuerstein and his colleagues did so, but most other studies tend to follow a traditional research design where the reported emphasis is upon product variables only rather than upon aspects of procedure. Moreover, in many instances little consideration seems to have

been given to formative aspects of evaluation to the extent that the reviewer is

often left in the position of questioning the appropriateness of outcome measures

employed.



R. BURDEN

If we consider the goals of FIE, appropriate criteria for successful outcomes

might take the following form:

1. A measure or measures of whether the recipients had become better

learners in a general sense than they had been prior to the introduction

of the programme. 2. Clear indications of positive cognitive functioning in previously diagnosed

areas of weakness.

3. Appropriate use of concepts, vocabulary and general thinking and problem

solving strategies where these had previously been lacking or absent.

4. An indication of high level of motivation to succeed on cognitive tasks

where previously this had been low.

5. Evidence of reflective and insightful thought processes. 6. An indication that the students had enjoyed partie pating in the programme

and had been motivated to succeed on the tasks presented. 7. A more positive presentation of themselves by the students which might

be reflected in enhanced self-esteem.

Some of these criteria are obviously more difficult to operationalise than

others. Within the research literature (1) has tended to be tackled by the appli cation of attainment tests of various kinds and (2) by the application of IQ tests.

(3), (4) and (5) have largely been ignored whilst (6) has been reported on in

one or two studies. There has been a tendency to approach (7) by means of

self-esteem inventories and observations of classroom behaviour. Almost all of

the more widely reported research has dwelt upon such outcome measures.

Only in higher degree theses is it possible to find adequate description and

consideration of process variables, but even here the connection between the two

is rarely drawn. This point will be discussed in greater depth later in the article.

Initial evaluation

The first evaluation study of a two year FIE programme was produced by Feuerstein and his associates in 1979 and elaborated in greater depth in their

1980 text. This described a matched pairs experiment involving 114 low achieving

pupils (average IQ = 80) from culturally and economically deprived backgrounds,

aged between twelve and fifteen. The experiment was made more complex by

the introduction of day care vs residential settings as an additional variable,

but as this appears not to have any significant effect it will not be mentioned

further. Intensive preliminary and ongoing training was provided for the teachers

involved.

Although very positive claims are made by the researchers in support of the

effects of FIE, the results of this study need to be treated with caution. Despite

a previous dismissal of conventional IQ tests (Feuerstein et al„ 1979), the main

criterion measure used in the pre-post experimental design with the matched

groups was the Thurstone Scale of Primary Mental Abilities — a conventional

group IQ test. It is difficult to interpret the tables in the original text (Feuerstein

et al., 1980, pp. 358-364) but a reanalysis of the data by Shayer and Beasley

(Beasley, 1984) confirms that the experimental group showed statistically signi

ficant improvement over the control group on the average overall PMA score

(p < . 01) and four of the eight subtests. However, out of twelve attainment tests,

statistically significant improvement (p < . 05) was shown on only two — Bible

studies and geometry. Significant differences in favour of the experimental

group were also found on Witkin's Embedded Figures Test (i.e. more Field




Independent) and on measures of positive classroom participation. However, no

significant improvement in self-concept was evident in either of the groups.

An often overlooked but important description of the process of this

experiment is also provided in the 1980 text (pp. 343-352). A number of problems

incurred in implementing the programme were identified and a description

is given of how these were tackled. A qualitative evaluation of the process of

implementation was also obtained by means of weekly and monthly teacher

reports, daily annotated logs of teachers and observers, transcripts of staff meetings

and questionnaires and interviews with students and teachers. From an initial

position of ambivalence on the part of both teachers and students, several shifts

in attitude were reported over the two year period. In the final analysis all FIE

teachers reported «great satisfaction» in their work, expressed a willingness to

continue teaching FIE in non-research settings and felt that their students had

benefited from the programme. They reported increased student motivation, alertness and intellectual curiosity, a readiness to work independently and an

increased sense of personal responsability. At the same time, it is clear that

student attitudes and motivation fluctuated and differed both between students

and within the same student as a función of insight, particular instrument,

period in the research programme and teaching approach.

A devastating critical appraisal of this early study has been presented by

Bradley (1983) who compares FIE with the now discredited ability training movement of the 1970s (Ysseldyke & Salvia, 1974; Hammill & Larsen, 1974;

Newcomer et al, 1975). Although expressing a good deal of support for the aims

and approach of Feuerstein and his colleagues, Bradley points to a number of

weaknesses in the statistical analysis of the original research data even to the

extent of questioning the meaningfulness of the significant differences in the

final PMA scores. He also questions the value of the achievement tests employed and suggests that the likelihood of a chance factor playing a part in at least

one of the two significant findings here must be great. Furthermore, he quite

appropriately dismisses the reasons offered by Feuerstein et al. for the lack

of more significant results.

Bradley goes on to make twenty suggestions to researchers involved in

developing and evaluating educational interventions in the cognitive domain, which he considers necessary in order to provide worthwhile data of a kind

«likely to convince us sceptics» (Bradley, 1983, p. 89). Of particular relevance

to the evaluation of FIE are the following:

1. Further evidence is needed that cognitive processes can be taught. 2. The selection of appropriate dependent variables is essential.

3. Consideration needs to be given to the measurement of mental processes rather than, or as well as, products of learning.

4. Better ways of measuring motivation and attitudes and statistical analysis are strongly recommended.

5. Alternative explanations for research findings should be considered and

reported.

6. Detailed analysis of research outcomes which goes beyond the mere

reporting of group means and tests of statistical significance is essential.

7. Any differences found should be psychologically as well as statistically

meaningful. 8. Evaluation studies must include measures of improved cognitive capa

bilities in school subject areas and daily living skills.

9. Provision should be made for evaluating long term as well as short

term effects.



R. BURDEN

We shall consider next how far these recommendations have been met by

subsequent research on the effects of FIE.

Results of reported studies

By far the largest body of data on the effects of FIE has been collected

on the North American continent from five main centres by two researchers,

Haywood and Arbitman-Smith. Unfortunately, the results of this research have

tended largely to be reported at conferences rather than in widely available

journals. As far as it is possible to tell, at least 1000 students have been involved

since the late 70's to whom a variety of different test batteries have been

administered.

The most accessible data has been colected in Louisville and Nashville over

a number of years since 1977 (Haywood et al., 1981, 1982; Arbitman-Smith, 1980).

At least four different types of students were involved; Educable Mentally

Retarded (EMR), Learning Disabled (LD), Behaviourally Disordered (BD) and an

undiagnosed group of poor learners referred to as Varying Exceptionalities (VE).

All came from low socio-economic status background and the greater proportion

were black. Similar aspects of cognitive development to the Israeli study were

investigated, though some different tests were used.

It can readily be seen that the results of this research are inevitably highly

complex in that they provide data gathered over several years in different

settings on at least eight different types of measure on pupils grouped in four

different categories. The interested reader is referred to Beasley (1984) for a

detailed analysis of this data. Only a summary of the major findings will be

attempted here.

It transpires that significant differences emerged in the results obtained

with different cohorts of pupils tested at different times in different centres.

Whilst this is perhaps hardly surprising, it does make both description and inter

pretation exceedingly difficult. One consistent finding, however, is that on at

least four different measures of intelligence (Thurstone PMA, Lorge-Thorndike,

Woodcock-Johnson, Raven's Matrices) pupils who had received FIE for varying

degrees of time produced significantly higher IQ scores than matched controls.

Of particular interest is the findings (Haywood et al, 1982) that such effects were

most dramatic in two centres (Phoenix and Louisville) where small samples (nine

and twelve children respectively) were employed. For these two samples, average

gains of 15 IQ points were reported and, in the case of the Phoenix sample, more

than 30 points improvement on Raven's Matrices compared with the control group's

gain of an average five correct items. Against this, it must be noted, however,

that in at least one instance (Nashville, 1981-82) no significant improvements in favour of the IE group were found on any of the criterion measures employed.

The outcome has not been nearly as positive with regard to measures of

academic achievement. In the earlier cohorts no significant gains were found on

achievement test measures, though in a later report (Haywood et al., 1982)

absolute gains were shown on all subtests of the California Test of Basic Skills

which proved statistically significant in two areas (language and social studies).

Dissatisfaction with the 'crudeness' of existing assessment techniques of

classroom functioning led Arbitman-Smith in particular to explore ways of

providing a more fine-grained analysis of possible changes in the kinds of areas

of cognitive development predicted by the theory upon which IE is based. These

include criterion referenced tests and domain specific and independent measures

of transfer («bridging» in IE terminology) (Arbitman-Smith, 1980; Arbitman-Smith




et al., 1982). Evidence in support of 'transferability' effect appears to have been

found (Haywood et al., 1982). Whilst nothing like the same magnitude of study has been reported else

where, there have been several smaller scale investigations which have produced in some respects more interesting results. One big advantage of smaller-scale

studies is that they allow for much closer scrutiny to be given to process variables

and to an assessment of the effects on individual participants. One of the most impressive, small-scale, in-depth studies was reported by

Brainin (1982). This study is notable for both its tight experimental design and

its description of the processes involved in setting up and evaluating a short-term,

intensive IE project. 49 Canadian sixth graders (average age 11.5 yrs), two years or more retarded in reading, were randomly assigned to four remedial classes.

The teachers of two of the classes were given special instruction in IE and were

then required to teach this for up to one hour per day over nine months. In all, 59 hours of IE instruction were given, covering the 4 first year Instruments.

The two control groups (n = 22 compared with the experimental groups n = 27)

received conventional remedial instruction during this time.

Brainin describes how careful consideration was first given to the aims

of IE and how special attention was paid to (a) selecting appropriate assessment

procedures related to those aims and (b) finding ways of «bridging» (i. e. trans

ferring) what was learned in IE lessons to other aspects of the curriculum.

The study provides a model for the way in which evaluative research has taken

into account the underlying theory upon which this intervention programme is

based.

Pre and post testing was carried out with both groups on the non-verbal

intelligence scale of the Thorndike and C.A.T,, a specially designed criterion

referenced test, a comprehensive reading test and the Devreux Elementary School

Behavioural Rating Scale. The teachers were also requested to keep a regular

log of any changes that occurred in their classes throughout the period of

the project. The results showed no statistically significant differences between the pre

and post CAT scores of the combined experimental groups compared with the

controls. However, a significant improvement was shown within the experimental

group over the time of intervention (p < . 005). Moreover, a significant im

provement in favour of the IE group was found on the criterion referenced test.

(The 10 point difference in favour of the experimental group was significant at p. < . 005). Contrary to the findings of most other studies, the reading achieve ment of the IE group improved significantly (p < . 05) more than that of the

controls, although they had begun the project at a slightly lower level. Differences

on the behavioural rating scale scores did not appear to be attributable to the IE

programme, but teacher comments were very positive in their estimation of its

value for student learning and their own professional growth. A comparable British study is that of Beasley (1984), who worked for two

or three IE lessons per week over eighteen months with six 12 to 13 year old retarded adolescents attending a day school for educationally subnormal children. A randomly assigned control group of six pupils from the same class worked

intensively with their teacher on the latter's own cognitive training programme for the same period. Pre and post testing was carried out by means of a Piagetian battery of tests, the Primary Mental Abilities test used in the original Israeli and American studies, Raven's Progressive Matrices and a variety of achievement tests (Neale, NFER Maths, Richmond). An additional procedure of great interest and potential significance was the use of Feuerstein's Learning Potential Assess ment Device (LPAD) as part of the assessment.



10 R. BURDEN

Beasley took the innovative step of dividing her assessment procedures into

those that measured aspects of «fluid» intelligence (Matrices, Piagetian battery) as compared with those that measured more «crystallised» intelligence (Thur stone's PMA). Whilst the two groups had performed at a very similar level on all

tests prior to intervention, at the project's conclusion the IE group performed

significantly better on the Piagetian tests (p < . 001), Raven's Matrices (p < . 01) and PMA word reasoning {p. < ■ 001). No significant differences were found on

most of the tests of crystallised intelligence or on the achievement measures.

When translated into mental age scores, the Piagetian test results represent an

average increase of 20 months for the IE group compared with less than

2 months for the control group. The Matrices scores of the experimental group increased by an average of 23 months compared with 11 months for the

control group. The LPAD was found to be extremely difficult to administer, score and

interpret. Nevertheless, Beasley seems to have found its inclusion to have been

of both interest and benefit as part of her assessment procedure. There appears to have been evidence of greater modification occurring within the experimental

group and an application of the findings to the «phase» parameter of Feuerstein's

«cognitive map» indicated positive change in all but one instance in favour of

that group. However, these findings cannot be taken as hard evidence of any

kind and as yet must be regarded as little more than speculative. A number of other small scale studies have produced interesting and relevant

findings, but some caution needs to be taken in accepting their results uncriti

cally since most are noticeably lacking in important aspects of key background

and/or process data. They will be reported here in summary form, but not

analysed in detail.

Howie et al (1985) worked with eight mildly retarded children attending

special classes in two inner city schools in New Zealand. Five first year instruments

were taught for a total of 158 hours at the end of which a mean gain of 10 points

on the WISC-R was found. Positive changes were also evident on teachers'

ratings on a classroom participation questionnaire and four of the children

showed greater than expected gains in word recognition after the I.E. programme

had finished. Raziel (1981) (summary only in English) investigated the effects of FIE on

cognitive achievement (as measured by Raven's Matrices), locus of control and

self-esteem in 80 seventh and eighth grade Israeli pupils defined as «disadvantaged,

with low learning achievements». An interesting aspect of this well controlled

study was the variable lenght of time — from 3 hrs. to 3 months — that FIE was

administered. An increase in cognitive achievement was found but this was not

related to lenght of involvement in IE. However, a greater significant positive

relationships was shown between the time spent on IE lessons and growing

internality of locus of control and of increased self-esteem. Graham (1981) carried

out a controlled, experimental study lasting seven and a half months within

which one remedial and two regular classes of ninth graders (n = 78) were

provided with 3 x 45 minute periods of IE per week, together with two periods of an English course. The first six of the fourteen instruments were completed. A same-aged control group (n = 72) were taught English for five periods per

week over the same period. At the end of the experimental period, the IE group

displayed statistically significant improvement (p < . 05) on a non-verbal IQ test

(Lorge-Thorndike) and on a criterion referenced test of writing (p.< 001). The

control group did not display any more advanced language or reading skills,

despite having received three more periods of English per week. No significant

differences in self-concept were found between the two groups at the end of the



EVALUATION OF FEUERSTEIN'S INSTRUMENTAL ENRICHMENT 11

intervention but there was agreement between the teachers, the consultant and

visitors to the school that the climate of the FIE classrooms and the atmosphere created by the teachers employing the programme was far superior to that of

the average classroom in the school.

The work of Martin (1982, 1984) is also worth brief mention, despite the

fact that it seems only to be available in the form of internal reports. This work

is of particular interest because it describes the implementation of Instrumental

Enrichment with (a) deaf adolescents attending a special school and (b) hearing

-impaired teachers in training. In both instances small experimental groups

(n = 12; n = 24) were compared with controls and both quantitative and qualitative assessment procedures were employed. As far as can be judged, little significant evidence was produced from either study to reveal cognitive development in the

experimental groups. However, a good deal of qualitative evidence was forth

coming in support of the effects of IE on motivation, approaches to problem

situations, impulsivity, vocabulary usage and positive response to criticism.

An early British study on the application of IE was carried out by Royal

-Dawson in a school for moderately educationally-subnormal pupils. The study

is seriously flawed on a number of counts, but does highlight several fascinating

issues. The unavailability of commercially produced materials led to Royal-Dawson

producing his own lesson plans with the 1980 text as a guide. A class of 15 pupils,

aged between 13 and 14, with average reading ages of 8.2 years, were taught

according to the principles of FIE and in line with the general content areas

of the first three Instruments (Dots, Orientation in Space and Comparisons)

for 45 minutes every school day over a ten week period. In all, 33 IE lessons

were presented, adding up to 29 out of 166 classroom hours. A comparison was

made with the before and after scores on Raven's Progressive Matrices of a

parallel class of similar age, sex ratio and reading ability. Whilst the experimental group improved their RPM scores by an average

of 10 months (and considerably more in one or two instances), the control group

improved no more than 1 month on average over the 10 week period. Striking

improvement on predicted subtests of the Thorndike and Hagen Cognitive Abilities Test was also claimed for the experimental group, though it must be

said that the statistical treatment of results here is open to criticism. One

further finding of interest was that not all of the experimental group improved their cognitive abilities; some improved remarkably whilst others fell even

further behind.

One of the very few good qualitative studies is provided by the Schools

Council publication «Making Up Our Minds» (Weller & Craft, 1983) which describes

the introduction of FIE into schools in five English local authorities following the first English- training course involving 30 teachers in 1981. This report is

little more than a description of a series of exploratory studies, despite the

appointment of a number of local evaluators. No worthwhile 'hard' data transpired,

mainly because of the inappropriate selection of cognitive assessment techniques.

However, as a description of the process of setting up and attempting to evaluate

an IE programme, this document is invaluable.

It shows, for example, that few of the original teachers had been interested or involved in work on children's cognitive development prior to attending the first IE training course, Whilst more than two thirds went on to find IE work

enjoyable and professionally rewarding, they were far less sure about the benefits to their pupils. Less than half were sure that the pupils enjoyed IE work and

only a quarter were reasonably convinced of any carry-over effects into other

subjects. Comments from the pupils themselves (n = 217) were generally favour

able, however. About 70 % found the work interesting, useful and within their



12 R. BURDEN

capabilities, but only half considered that it had helped them with their other

lessons.

Weller and Craft were able to draw together comments from teachers, pupils and evaluators from all five centres, thereby providing a great deal of illuminative

data about both the costs and benefits, of introducing IE into relatively unpre

pared normal and special schools. Despite a number of negative comments about

the «evangelical» nature of the introductory training course, the expense,

apparent unattractiveness and inconvenience of the materials, the inadequacy of

the instructional manual and the lack of any hard evidence of cognitive change in the pupils, the majority of teachers, pupils and evaluators remained remarkably

enthusiastic about the potential benefits of IE after two years.

Long-term effects

The long-term effects of any adolescent intervention programme like Instru

mental Enrichment are notoriously difficult to measure once the 'captive' school

population has moved on. There is just one reported instance, however, where

this has been possible. In two separate papers, Feuerstein and his co-workers

report what may be one of the most significant and impressive findings of any IE evaluative study (Feuerstein et al., 1981; Rand et al., 1981). Quite fortuitously, the Israeli research team were offered the opportunity of reassessing a compa

ratively large number of their former subjects two years after the completion of IE training on their entry into the army. As part of their army induction

process 97 IE trained subjects and 90 original controls were administered an

intelligence test known as DAPAR (similar to the American Army Alpha test).

Highly significant differences (p < . 001) were found in favour of the IE group,

displaying cumulative gains over time, in contrast with the reported long-term effects of most intervention studies. It must be noted that the statistical treatment

of the data obtained is open to criticism. However, if it could be repeated, this

kind of information would offer strong support for Feuerstein's claim that IE

effects structural cognitive changes, thereby enabling the recipient to continue

to learn and become modified by direct exposure to the environment.

Discussion

Two major issues need to be considered before any conclusions can be drawn

about the current status of FIE as a result of evaluative studies carried out thus

far. Firstly, how far do the available research studies go towards Bradley's

(op. cit.) suggestions. Secondly, and more specifically, how well do the measures

employed by various researchers assess the stated aims of FIE as outlined earlier

in this paper. It is clear that multivariate research designs and statistical analysis have

not as yet been employed in any study. It would need a large-scale study with

substantial financial backing to make this possible, a condition which is difficult

to envisage in the current world economic climate. However, there is evidence

from the studies cited to show that most of Bradley's other pertinent suggestions

have been taken into account in one way or another.

Of more immediate concern is the issue of appropriate outcome measures —

also one of Bradley's key points. The tendency for researchers to assess improved

learning ability by reference to attainment test scores has not, on the whole,

produced much in the way of positive results. Apart from Brainin's unpublished




results and one or two others of questionable validity, groups receiving FIE show

no evidence of improving their academic skills by the end of the intervention

period any more than do comparable control groups. However, the question needs to be asked whether this is an appropriate way of measuring (a) the key

dependent variable, or (b) the process of learning. A much fairer measure of

the effect of IE on learning-to-learn would be to assess the comparative responses of IE trained and control group students to novel learning tasks introduced

after the completion of IE training. Alternatively, far more attention needs to be

given to the 'bridging' aspects of mediation in schools, as was the case in Brainin's

study (1982). A substantia] number of both large and small-scale studies have shown

that performance on a wide variety of norm-referenced intelligence tests can

be significantly improved as a result of training in FIE. There would appear to be some evidence also that such effects are maintained for at least two years after the cessation of the programme. However, FIE has been criticised by

Campione et al. (1982) for being too close to a teach-to-test programme even

though Feuerstein and his colleagues have consistently decried the continuing use of IQ tests. There would now seem to be little point or value in including IQ

test measures as dependent variables in future IE evaluation studies. Of greater value is likely to be the criterion-referenced type of approach pioneered by Arbit

man-Smith (1980 1982), Haywood et al. (1982) and Brainin (1982). At the same time, Beasley's (1985) use of the LPAD and Piagetian measures, and her claim

that measures of «fluid» intelligence are more likely to be affected by FIE than

«crystallised» intelligence certainly warrant further investigation. Studies incorporating measures of self-concept have shown little, if any,

positive effects of FIE. It may be, as Graham (1981) has suggested, that such

measures as the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale are too global and insensitive

to pick up changes in motivation and academic self-esteem. Alternatively, it

might be more reasonable to consider improved self-esteem as a long-term aim

of FIE which is likely to follow on from the short-term effects of improved

learning-to-learn strategies. This hypothesis would appear to fit in with the

available qualitative information on the response to the FIE programme of both

teachers and students which clearly indicates that the former find it stimulating but difficult to implement whilst the latter find it intrinsically motivating but

need the full two year programme in order to fully appreciate its wider

implications. The issue of 'optimum engaged time' is not one which has received much

attention from researchers despite the fact that it is obviously unrealistic to

expect to bring about fundamental cognitive changes by short-term, piecemeal interventions. As a result of their review of the literature on improving learning ability, Derry and Murphy (1980) conclude that the improvement of learning ability is an important and viable goal. However, «a theme that emerges repeatedly in our review is that executive learning skills cannot be trained easily or by direct instruction alone, but must be developed gradually and automated over an extended period of time... (Moreover)... genuine improvement of academic

aptitude is not likely to result from anything less than a thoughtful, systematic curriculum that complements direct training in learning strategies, and thereby 'engineers' the gradual evolution of important executive control skills». Derry and Murphy (1980, p. 1). The recommended period of instruction in FIE is between 400 and 500 hours. Any intervention providing less than 400 hours instruction in the programme cannot therefore be considered to have done it

justice. Studies claiming highly positive results as a consequence of even one

year's introduction to FIE must be treated with a degree of scepticism.



14 R. BURDEN

Suggestions for future research

It may be that one of the greatest obstacles to progress in this area stems

not so much from the unavailability of appropriate assessment techniques as

from the inadequacy of traditional, laboratory-based, experimental design metho

dology when applied to complex, real-world interventions. Within the present

context, there is some reason to doubt, for example, whether the true effects

of I E have as yet been fully investigated. Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment

is a two-to-three year programme consisting of sets of activities based upon an

interactionist theory of learning requiring a high level of teacher commitment

and expertise and at least reasonable support for the school system into which

it is introduced. Information is just not available from most published studies

as to whether even these basic minimum criteria have been met — nor would a

traditional research design necessarilly take them into account.

Bradley's (1983) suggestion that multivariate research designs can overcome

this kind of problem offers one possible way forward, at least in so far as it

gives due recognition to the complexity of the issues involved, but would require

large samples and a wide variety of measures. What is needed is a totally

different approach to evaluation — one which reflects a growing trend in evaluat

ing curriculum innovations. The «illuminative»» approach advocated by Macdonald

(1975), Hamilton (1976) and others offers one worthwhile avenue for exploration, but it is perhaps within the CIPP model of Stufflebeam (1971) where most

promise lies. Emphasising, as it does, the setting of objectives within a clearly

delineated context, the prediction of potential obstacles at the input phase,

a detailed recording of the process of intervention and an examination of how

far the product can be directly attributable to each of these preceeding sets of

variables, the CIPP model provides a far more suitable framework for examining the complexities of mediated learning than do more traditional designs. Early

reports from the Somerset I E evaluation project (Blagg, 1985), which has

taken such an approach, would appear to reinforce this view. The introduction of

FIE into four Comprehensive schools in one Somerset town has enabled Blagg to

gather data which should make possible an examination of the effects of school

centred and teacher centred variables as well as of pupil centred variables on

the implementation of I E and vice versa. The use of CIPP as an evaluative

model has begun to make clear that none of the four schools in question intro

duced I E to its pupils in the same way, nor could the pupils themselves be

considered part of any homogeneous sample. An important question raised here

about the meaning that adolescent pupils attribute to the introduction of this

strangely different, subject in place of one of their more usual curriculum subjects,

has rarely been examined in the research literature, yet it clearly has a profound

effect upon pupil motivation and learning. At the same time, the choice of

teachers to be trained as IE vanguard workers and the nature of the training

they receive can also make-or-break a controversial programme of this kind.

Moreover, the kind of support on offer from both within the school and an

external adviser skilled in the theory and practice of Mediated Learning and IE

are essential factors in maintaining enthusiasm and preventing «washout» effect.

What is highlighted by this kind of evaluative approach is that chosen

outcome variables are likely to be as affected by the constraints operating

within any particular context as by the introduction of any specific programme

like I E. Unless we can obtain more information about how these variables

interact within the process of implementation and long-term maintenance, we

shall not be in a position to comment knowledgeably on the effects of this

or any other similar programme.




At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the Instrumental Enrich

ment programme arose out of attempts to meet the specific needs of individual

adolescents, as assessed by a carefully designed dynamic process based upon

Feuerstein's notion of a «cognitive map» (Feuerstein et al., 1980, p. 105). Encourage ment and close scrutiny should therefore be given to more intensive, small-scale

studies (viz. Beasley, 1984) which examine closely the effects on individuals

exposed to specially selected aspects of the I E programme as a direct result

of such previously identified needs.

References

Arbitman-Smith, R. (1980). New developments with Instrumental Enrichment: a vehicle for the study of cognitive development. In P. Mittler (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of the International Association of the Scientifique Study of Mental Deficiency. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Arbitman-Smith, R., & Haywood, H. C. (1980). Cognitive education for learning-disabled adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 51-64.

Arbitman-Smith, R., Haywood, H. C., & Bransford, J. D. (1982). Assessing cognitive change. In C. M. McCauley, R. Sperber & P. Brooks (Eds.), Learning and Cognition in the Mentally Retarded. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Beasley, F. (1984). An evalution of Feuerstein's model for the remediation of adolescents' cognitive deficits. PhD. Thesis, Chelsea College, University of London.

Blagg, N. (1985). Introduction of Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment Programme into four Bridgwater Secondary Schools. Focus — Somerset Education Magazine (3)

Bradley, T. B. (1983). Remediation of cognitive deficits: a critical appraisal of the Feuerstein model. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 27, 79-92.

Brainin, S. S. (1982). The effects of Instrumental Enrichment on the reasoning abilities, reading achievement and task orientation of 6th grade underachievers. Ed. D. thesis. University of Toronto, Ontario.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In Mussen, P. (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Volume III (pp. 77-166). Chichester: John Wiley.

Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1982). Mental retardation and intelligence. In R. I. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

Derry, S. J., & Murphy, D. A. (1980). Designing systems that train learning ability: from theory to practice. Review of Educational Research, 50, 275-290.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman M. B. (1979). The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: the Learning Potential Assessment Device, theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: an inter vention programme for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Miller. R., Hoffman, M. B., Rand, Y., Mintzker, Y., & Jensen, M. (1981). Cognitive modifiability in adolescence: cognitive structure and the effects of intervention. Journal of Special Education, 15, 269-387.

Graham, E. E. (1981). Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment used to change cognitive and verbal behaviour in a city-core, multi-ethnic, Toronto Secondary School. Ed. D. Thesis. University of Toronto, Ontario.

Hamilton, D. (1976). Curriculum Evaluation. London: Open Books.

Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1974). The effectiveness of psycholinguistics training. Exceptional Children, 41, 5-14.

Haywood, H. C., & Arbitman-Smith, R. (1981). Modification of cognitive functions in slowJearning adolescents. In P. Mittler (Ed.), Frontiers of Knowledge in Mental Retardation. Vol. 1. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Haywood, H. C., Arbitman-Smith, R., Bransford, J. D., De Icios, V., Towery, J., Hannel, L. I., & Hannel, M. V. (1982). Cognitive education with adolescents: evaluation of Instrumental Enrichment. Paper presented at 6th International Symposium of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. Toronto (August).

Howie, R., Thickpenny. J. P., Leaf, C., & Absolum, M. (1985). The piloting of Instrumental Enrich ment in New Zealand with eight mildly retarded children. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 11, 3-16.



16 R. BURDEN

Macdonald, B. (1975). In D. Tawney (Ed.) Curriculum Evaluation Today: Trends and Implications. London: Macmillan.

Martin, S. D. (1983), Cognitive education for the hearing-impaired adolescent. Internal report; School of Education and Human Services, Gallandet College, Washington DC.

Martin, S. D. (1984). Thinking skills for teachers: infusing cognitive strategies into preparation programs. Internal report; School of Education and Human Services, Gallandet College, Washington DC.

Narrol, H., Silverman, H., & Waksman, M. (1982). Developing cognitive potential in Vocational High School students. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 107-112.

Newcomer, P., Larsen, S., & Hammill, D. (1975). A response. Exceptional Children, 42, 144-148.

Passow, A. H. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: redeveloping cognitive structure. The Educational Forum, 44. 393-400.

Rand, Y., Mintzker, Y., Miller, R., Hoffman, M. B., & Friedlender, Y. (1981). The Instrumental Enrichment Program: immediate and long-term effects. In P. Mittler (Ed.), Frontiers of Knowledge in Mental Retardation, Vol. 1, (pp. 141-152). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Raziel, S. (1981). Effects of mediated learning experience on cognitive modifiability, locus of control and self-esteem. M. Phil thesis, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Royal-Dawson, C. A. (1981). Something happened. Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment in a Bucks E.S.N. (M) school. Dissertation for Diploma of Professional Studies, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford.

Sternberg, R. (1984). How can we teach intelligence? Educational Leadership (September) 38-47.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). Educational Evaluation and Decision Making. F. E. Peacock, Itasca, Illinois

Weller, K. & Craft, A. (1983) Making Up Our Minds: an exploratory study of Instrumental Enrichment. London: Schools Council.

L'Instrumental Enrichment Programme de Feuerstein: recherches et évaluation

Les conceptions sous-jacentes à V«Instrumental Enrich

ment Programme» de Feuerstein et les objectifs de ce pro

gramme font l'objet d'une description qui en dégage les élé

ments clés. L'auteur fait des suggestions sur les méthodes les

plus adaptées à l'évaluation des effets du programme et passe en revue la plupart des travaux disponibles antérieurs à 1986.

Ces travaux font eux-mêmes l'objet d'une évaluation critique à la lumière des suggestions de l'auteur. Il apparaît néanmoins,

qu'à condition d'être prudent, on peut accorder une relative

confiance aux effets de FIE. Des suggestions sont faites, dans

la perspective des recherches futures, afin de surmonter les

difficultés antérieures rencontrées par un renouvellement des

stratégies d'évaluation.

Key words: Instrumental Enrichment, Evaluation.

Received: September 1986 Revision received: January 1987

Robert Burden. School of Education, University of Exeter, EX1 2LU Exeter, England.

Current theme of research:

The evaluation of the effectiveness of Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment Programme in transform

ing low achievers into effective learners.

Most relevant publications in the field of Educational Psychology:

Burden, R. L. (1985). Instrumental Enrichment: a new initiative in the education of less academic

pupils at the Secondary stage. Remedial Education, 20 (2).



Documents

Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment Programme: Important Issues in Research and Evaluation