Skip to main content
Log in

The life and times of PSI

  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, L. L. (1979). Self-paced instruction: An innovation that failed.Teaching of Psychology, 6, 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery.Evaluation Comment, 1, (Whole No. 2).

  • 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 

  • Born, D. G., & Moore, M. C. (1978). Some belated thoughts on pacing.Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Caldwell, E. C. (1985). Dangers of PSI.Teaching of Psychology, 12, 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, J. F. (1976). The combination of elements in the personalized system of instruction.Teaching of Psychology, 3, 73–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corey, J. R., & McMichael, J. S. (1970).Using personalized instruction in college courses. New York, NY: Meredith Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research.Educational Researcher, 10, 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hobbs, S. H. (1987). PSI: Use, misuse, and abuse.Teaching of Psychology, 14, 106–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Keller, F. S. (1968). “Good-bye teacher...”.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. (1970). A programmed system of instruction.Behavior Modification Monographs, 1, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. (1974a). An international venture in behavior modification.Behavior Modification: Applications to Education, 1, 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. (1974a). Ten years of personalized instruction.Teaching of Psychology, 1, 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. (1977). Psychologists and educators. In F. S. Keller (Ed.),Summers and sabbaticals. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. Obstacles to educational reform. Paper presented to the American Society for Engineering Education, 17 June 1985, Atlanta, GA.

  • Keller, F. S. (22 June 1990a). Personal communication.

  • Keller, F. S. (28 October 1990b). Personal communication.

  • Keller, F. S. (16 November 1990c). Personal communication.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lamal, P. A. (1984). Interest in PSI across sixteen years.Teaching of Psychology, 11, 237–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Ruskin, R. S. (1974). The personalized system of instruction: An educational alternative.ERIC/Higher Education Report #5, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American education.American Psychologist, 39, 947–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taveggia, T. C. (1976). Personalized instruction: A summary of comparative research, 1967–1974.American Journal of Physics, 44, 1028–1033.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buskist, W., Cush, D. & DeGrandpre, R.J. The life and times of PSI. J Behav Educ 1, 215–234 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00957005

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00957005

Key words

Navigation