This article reviews the five basic features of PSI courses and then assesses the relative importance of each in contributing to students' success. Some of the relevant research findings are cited to provide support for the conclusions regarding each feature. In addition, a number of concerns are presented which should be considered by instructors and instructional designers before implementing a personalized system. While PSI may not be appropriate for all instructional settings, the system is based on some tenets of sound teaching practice: high student involvement, immediate feedback, and mastery orientation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KellerF. S., Goodbye, Teacher…, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, pp. 79–89, 1968.
2.
RobinA. L., Behavioral Instruction in the College Classroom, Review of Educational Research, 46, pp. 313–354, 1976.
3.
SembG., Personalized Instructions: The Effects of Grading Criteria and Assignment Length on College Student Test Performance, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, pp. 61–69, 1974.
4.
JohnstonJ. M. and O'NeillG. W., The Analysis of Performance Criteria Defining Course Grades as a Determinant of College Student Academic Performance, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, pp. 261–268, 1973.
5.
JohnstonJ. M.O'NeillG. W. and RasheedJ. A., The Measurement Analysis of College Student Study Behavior: Tactics for Research, in Behavior Research and Technology in Higher Education, JohnstonJ. M. (ed.), Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1975.
6.
BloomB., Human Characteristics and School Learning, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.
7.
PhillipsT. W. and SembG., Quizzes, Lecture Attendance, and Remediation Procedures in a Contingency-Managed University Course, in Behavior Research and Technology in Higher Education, FraleyL. E. and VargasE. A. (eds.), Society for Behavioral Technology and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1976.
8.
FarmerJ.LachterG. D.BlausteinJ. J. and ColeB. K., The Role of Proctoring in Personalized Instruction, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, pp. 401–404, 1972.
9.
JacobsR. L. and GedeonD. V., The Relationship of Cognitive Style to the Frequency of Proctor/Student Interactions and Achievements in a PSI Technology Course, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 19: 2, pp. 18–26, 1981.
10.
JacobsR. L. and GedeonD. V., Behavioral Instruction in a Technology Course, Technology Today, pp. 12–17, September-October, 1977.
11.
ShermanJ. G., A Permutation on an Innovation, in Personalized System of Instruction: 41 Germinal Papers, ShermanJ. G. (ed.), W. A. Benjamin, Menlo Park, California, 1974.
12.
JohnsonK. R. and Sulzer-AzaroffB., The Effects of Different Proctoring System upon Student Examination Performance and Preference, in Research and Technology in College and University Teaching, JohnsonJ. M. and O'NeillG. W. (eds.), Society for Behavioral Technology and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1975.
13.
KozmaR. B.KulikJ. A. and SmithB. B., Guide for PSI Proctors, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1977.
14.
ColdewayD. O. and SchillerW. J., Training Proctors for the Personalized System of Instruction, in Personalized Instruction in Higher Education: Proceedings of the First National Conference, RuskinR. S. and BonoS. F. (eds.), Center for Personalized Instruction, Washington, D.C., 1975.
15.
BornD. G., Exam Performance and Study Behavior as a Function of Study Unit Size, in Behavior Research and Technology in Higher Education, JonstonJ. M. (ed.), Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1975.
16.
GagneR. M. and BriggsL. J., Principles of Instructional Design, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.
17.
CoreyJ. R. and McMichaelJ. S., Retention in a PSI Introductory Psychology Course, in Personalized System of Instruction: 41 Germinal Papers, ShermanJ. G. (ed.), W. A. Benjamin, Menlo Park, California, 1974.
18.
MorrisC. and KimbrellG. M., Performance and Attitudinal Effects of the Keller Method in an Introductory Psychology Course, The Psychological Record, 22, pp. 523–530, 1972.
19.
CronbachL. J. and SnowR. E., Aptitudes and Instructional Methods, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1977.
20.
BornD. G. and WhelanP., Some Descriptive Characteristics of Student Performance in PSI and Lecture Courses, The Psychological Record, 23, pp. 145–152, 1973.
21.
RootJ. R. and GallM. D., Interactions between Student Achievement Orientation, Locus of Control, and Two Methods of College Instruction, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29: 3, pp. 139–146, 1981.
22.
JacobsR. L., “The Social Behaviors of Field Independent and Field Dependent Students in a Personalized System of Instruction Course,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1980.
23.
FernaldP. S. and DuNannD. H., Effects of Individualized Instruction upon Low-and-High-Achieving Students, Study Behavior and Students' Evaluation of Mastery, Journal of Experimental Education, 43, pp. 27–34, 1975.
