Given a choice between five instructor- and five self-set deadlines, more students in a self-paced developmental psychology course chose the former. Students in the two conditions did not differ on a measure of academic performance or the number of testing days used to complete the course. Students who chose to set their own deadlines missed fewer deadlines, showed accelerated pacing, and rated the opportunity to choose more favorably than did those in the instructor-set deadline condition. Most students indicated that, if given the choice again, they would make the same decision, but a higher percentage of students who chose instructor-set deadlines would reverse their choice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GlickD. M.SembG. B. (1978a). Effects of pacing contingencies in personalized instruction: A review of the evidence. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 36–42.
2.
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, 131–137.
3.
KellerF. S. (1968). “Good-bye, teacher.”Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 78–89.
4.
LloydM. E.ZyllaT. M. (1981). Self-pacing: Helping students establish and fulfill individualized plans for pacing unit tests. Teaching of Psychology, 8, 100–103.
5.
RobertsM. S.SembG. B. (1980). Daily testing: A consequence for not meeting deadlines in a PSI course. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 4, 67–69.
6.
RobertsM. S.FultonM.SembG. (1988). Self-pacing in a personalized psychology course: Letting students set the deadlines. Teaching of Psychology, 15, 89–92.
7.
SembG. B.ConyersD.SpencerR.Sanchez-SosaJ. J. (1975). An experimental comparison of four pacing contingencies. In JohnstonJ. M. (Ed.), Behavior research and technology in higher education (pp. 348–368). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
