Mass vs. Individualized Instruction

One thing I think we need to keep in mind when looking back and analyzing/criticizing past methods of writing instruction is that, way back when, people were dealing with less than ideal conditions--just as we still are today. Maybe in some future more enlightened time, people will look back at the turn of the century and wonder how we could have allowed tutors unschooled in theory and lacking in serious credentials to work one-on-one with impressionable, vulnerable writers. Who knows what turns theorizing will take by then, much less what resources will be available or what demands will be made upon students and educational institutions? Especially when I see criticism of a "bad" method, I wonder, where is the evidence? Isn't it possible that "bad" methods might actually work for some people, particularly since we also like to claim that instruction should be individualized? Isn't it also possible that without what Frederic Burk calls "preposterous pedantry" (qtd. in Lerner 4), such as lecture, memorization, and recitation (Lerner 4), that masses of people would have been left with no instruction at all? Writing instructors have always had to balance what would be ideal with what is. Of course, what I'm saying here demonstrates the continued (and continual) need for research of teaching methods to justify writing instruction to all the stakeholders of our society.