Our studies allowed students to set deadlines for course tasks, supplementing instructor-set deadlines, in a self-paced psychology course. In addition to instructor-set and student-set deadlines, two experimental procedures were evaluated in two studies. The first procedure required students to respond to a quiz question assessing compliance with their self-set schedules. The second procedure required students to meet deadlines that they had set for themselves. Results indicated that both procedures produced accelerated pacing rates and general schedule compliance. No differences were found among conditions for academic performance measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FersterC. B. (1978). Individualized instruction in a large introductory psychology course. Psychological Record, 18, 521–532.
2.
GlickD. M.SembG. B. (1978a). Effects of pacing contingencies in personalized instruction: A review of the evidence. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 36–42.
3.
GlickD. M.SembG. B. (1978b). Instructor-set pacing contingencies versus the absence of such contingencies in a personalized university course. Journal of Personalized instruction, 3, 131–138.
4.
KellerF. S. (1968). “Goodbye, teacher.”. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79–89.
5.
LazarR.SoaresC.TermanM. (1977). The interquiz interval: A measure of student self-pacing. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 2, 25–27.
6.
RobertsM. S.SembG. B. (1980). Daily testing: A consequence for not meeting deadlines in a PSI course. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 4, 67–69.
