Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 215–234 | Cite as

The life and times of PSI

  • William Buskist
  • David Cush
  • Richard J. DeGrandpre
Article

Abstract

This paper describes the essential features of the personalized system of instruction (PSI). Results from outcome research examining the effectiveness of PSI-based courses relative to traditional methods provide unequivocal support for the superiority of PSI. Parametric studies, or component analyses, show that the mastery requirement, immediate performance feedback, and review units are the key features underlying high quality student performances in PSI courses. The use of student proctors as peer-tutors, optional lectures, and selfpacing do not, in and of themselves, appear to be vital to student success in PSI courses. Despite its superiority, PSI has not supplanted traditional methods as the dominant pedagogical system in higher education. Difficulties inherent in overcoming the inertia of the lecture within our established instructional system, the implications of PSI for that system, and the Zeitgeist that permeates educational reform are the major obstacles to widespread adoption of PSI.

Key words

personalized system of instruction (PSI) mastery performance feedback review units peer-tutors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ainsworth, L. L. (1979). Self-paced instruction: An innovation that failed.Teaching of Psychology, 6, 42–46.Google Scholar
  2. Alba, E., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1972). Multiple change score comparison of traditional and behavioral college teaching procedures.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 121–124.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery.Evaluation Comment, 1, (Whole No. 2).Google Scholar
  4. Born, D. G., Gledhill, S. M., & Davis, M. L. (1972). Examination performance in lecture-discussion and personalized instruction courses.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 33–43.Google Scholar
  5. Born, D. G., & Moore, M. C. (1978). Some belated thoughts on pacing.Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 33–36.Google Scholar
  6. Bostow, D. E., & O'Connor, R. J. (1973). A comparison of two college testing procedures: Required remediation versus no remediation.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 599–607.Google Scholar
  7. Caldwell, E. C., Bissonnettee, K., Klishis, M. J., Ripley, M., Farudi, P. P., Hochstetter, G. T., and Radiker, J. E. (1978). Mastery: The essential essential in PSI.Teaching of Psychology, 5, 59–65.Google Scholar
  8. Caldwell, E. C. (1985). Dangers of PSI.Teaching of Psychology, 12, 9–12.Google Scholar
  9. Calhoun, J. F. (1976). The combination of elements in the personalized system of instruction.Teaching of Psychology, 3, 73–76.Google Scholar
  10. Corey, J. R., & McMichael, J. S. (1970).Using personalized instruction in college courses. New York, NY: Meredith Corporation.Google Scholar
  11. Fernald, P. S., Chiseri, M. J., Lawson, D. W., Scroggs, G. F., & Riddell, J. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research.Educational Researcher, 10, 3–8.Google Scholar
  13. Glick, D. M., & Semb, G. (1978). Effects of pacing contingencies in personalized instruction: A review of the evidence.Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 36–42.Google Scholar
  14. Henneberry, J. K. (1976). Initial progress rates as related to performance in a personalized system of instruction.Teaching of Psychology, 3, 178–181.Google Scholar
  15. Hobbs, S. H. (1987). PSI: Use, misuse, and abuse.Teaching of Psychology, 14, 106–107.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, W. G., Zlotlow, S., Berger, J. L., & Croft, R. G. F. (1975). A traditional lecture versus a PSI course in personality: Some comparisons.Teaching of Psychology, 2, 156–158.Google Scholar
  17. Keller, F. S. (1968). “Good-bye teacher...”.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79–89.Google Scholar
  18. Keller, F. S. (1970). A programmed system of instruction.Behavior Modification Monographs, 1, 1–23.Google Scholar
  19. Keller, F. S. (1974a). An international venture in behavior modification.Behavior Modification: Applications to Education, 1, 143–155.Google Scholar
  20. Keller, F. S. (1974a). Ten years of personalized instruction.Teaching of Psychology, 1, 4–9.Google Scholar
  21. Keller, F. S. (1977). Psychologists and educators. In F. S. Keller (Ed.),Summers and sabbaticals. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
  22. Keller, F. S. Obstacles to educational reform. Paper presented to the American Society for Engineering Education, 17 June 1985, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  23. Keller, F. S. (22 June 1990a). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  24. Keller, F. S. (28 October 1990b). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  25. Keller, F. S. (16 November 1990c). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  26. Keenan, J. B., Bono, S. F., & Hursh, D. E. (1978). Shaping time-management skills: Two examples in PSI.Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 46–49.Google Scholar
  27. Kulik, J. A. (1976). PSI: A formative evaluation. In B. A. Green, Jr., (Ed.)Personalized instruction in higher education: Proceedings of the second national conference. Washington, DC: Center for Personalized Instruction.Google Scholar
  28. Kulik, J. A., Jaksa, P., & Kulik, C. C. (1978). Research on component features of Keller's personalized system of instruction.Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 2–14.Google Scholar
  29. Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1979). A meta-analysis of outcome studies of Keller's personalized system of instruction.American Psychologist, 34, 307–318.Google Scholar
  30. Lamal, P. A. (1984). Interest in PSI across sixteen years.Teaching of Psychology, 11, 237–238.Google Scholar
  31. Lamwers, L. L., & Jazwinski, C. H. (1989). A comparison of three strategies to reduce student procrastination in PSI.Teaching of Psychology, 16, 8–12.Google Scholar
  32. McGovern, T. Undergraduate psychology and the new liberal arts. Paper delivered to the Eastern Conference on the Teaching of Psychology, 26 October 1990, Harrisonburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
  33. McMichael, J. S., & Corey, J. R. (1969). Contingency management in an introductory psychology course produces better learning.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 79–83.Google Scholar
  34. Morris, C., & Kimbrell, G. (1972). Performance and attitude effects of the Keller Method in an introductory psychology course.Psychological Record, 22, 523–530.Google Scholar
  35. Riedel, R. C., Harney, B., & LaFief, W. (1976). Unit test scores in PSI versus traditional classes in beginning psychology.Teaching of Psychology, 3, 76–78.Google Scholar
  36. Roberts, M. S., Fulton, M., & Semb, G. (1988). Self-pacing in a personalized psychology course: Letting students set the deadlines.Teaching of Psychology, 15, 89–92.Google Scholar
  37. Roberts, M. S., & Semb, G. B. (1989). Student selection of deadline conditions in a personalized psychology course.Teaching of Psychology, 16, 128–130.Google Scholar
  38. Ruskin, R. S. (1974). The personalized system of instruction: An educational alternative.ERIC/Higher Education Report #5, 1–44.Google Scholar
  39. Semb, G. (1974). Personalized instruction: The effects of grading criteria and assignment length on college student test performance.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 61–69.Google Scholar
  40. Semb, G., Spencer, R. E., & Phillips, T. W. (1976). The use of review units in personalized university course. In B. S. Green, Jr., (Ed.),Personalized instruction in higher education: Proceedings of the second annual conference (140–145). Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center for Personalized Instruction.Google Scholar
  41. Sheppard, W. C., & MacDermot, H. G. (1970). Design and evaluation of a programmed course in introductory psychology.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 5–11.Google Scholar
  42. Sherman, J. G. (1974). A permutation on an innovation-A new role for proctors. In J. G. Sherman (Ed.),Personalized System of Instruction: 41 Germinal papers. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin.Google Scholar
  43. Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American education.American Psychologist, 39, 947–954.Google Scholar
  44. Taveggia, T. C. (1976). Personalized instruction: A summary of comparative research, 1967–1974.American Journal of Physics, 44, 1028–1033.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Buskist
    • 1
  • David Cush
    • 2
  • Richard J. DeGrandpre
    • 3
  1. 1.Auburn UniversityAuburn
  2. 2.Experimental Analysis of Behavior ProgramAuburn UniversityAuburn
  3. 3.Psychology ProgramUniversity of VermontBurlington

Personalised recommendations