In two separate studies, we permitted students to set their own deadlines for nine or five course tasks. Student-set (SS) deadline conditions were compared to instructor-set (IS) deadline conditions. Results indicated that students in the nine SS deadline condition demonstrated greater compliance to schedule and more frequently completed the third review exam as scheduled than did students in the IS deadline condition. Students in the SS deadline conditions missed more deadlines than did students in the IS deadline conditions. Pacing conditions produced no differences in academic performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BornD. G.HerbertE. W. (1971). A further study of personalized instruction for students in large university classes. Journal of Experimental Education, 3, 30–35.
2.
BornD. G.WhelanP. (1973). Some descriptive characteristics of student performance in a PSI and lecture course. The Psychological Record, 23, 145–152.
3.
DixonW. J. (1977). BMDP statistical software.Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
FernaldP. S.ChiseriM. J.LawsonD. W.ScroggsG. F.RiddellJ. C. (1975). Systematic manipulation of student pacing, the perfection requirement, and contact with a teaching assistant in an introductory psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 2, 147–151.
5.
FersterC. B., (1978). Individualized instruction in a large introductory psychology course. The Psychological Record, 18, 521–532.
6.
GlickD. M.SembG. (1978a). Effects of pacing contingencies in personalized instruction: A review of the evidence. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 36–42.
7.
GlickD. M.SembG. (1978b). Instructor-set pacing contingencies versus the absence of such contingencies in a personalized univeristy course. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 131–137.
8.
LloydK. D.KnutzenN. J. (1969). A self-paced programmed undergraduate course in the experimental analysis of behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 125–133.
9.
LloydM. E.ZyllaT. M. (1981). Self-pacing: Helping students establish and fulfill individualized plans for pacing units tests. Teaching of Psychology, 3, 100–103.
10.
MawhinneyV. T.BostowD. E.LawsD. R.BlumenfeldG. J.HopkinsB. L. (1971). A comparison of student studying behavior produced by daily, weekly, and three-week testing schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 257–264.
11.
PowersR. B.EdwardsK. A.HoehleW. F. (1973). Bonus points in a self-paced course facilitates exam-taking. The Psychological Record, 23, 533–538.
12.
RobertsM. S.FultonM.SembG. (1988). Self-pacing in a personalized psychology course: Letting students set the deadlines. Teaching of Psychology, 15, 89–92.
13.
SheppardW. C.MacDermot, (1970). Design and evaluation of a programmed course in introductory psychology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 5–11.
