Skip to main content
Log in

Is the self-paced instructional program, via microcomputer-based instruction, the most effective method of addressing individual learning differences?

  • Articles
  • Published:
ECTJ Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the canons that guides the design of microcomputer-based instructional programs is to use a self-paced instructional method. However, there has been some indication that moderate levels of external pacing may prove to be more effective for overall learning, in terms of amount of content acquired and level of competency achieved with that content. Hypotheses derived from this idea were tested using three types of pacing. Learning was evaluated using five achievement tests ranging in difficulty from memorizing facts to problem solving. Experimental results supported the hypothesis favoring moderate levels of external pacing and found that the common principle of using self-paced instructional methods as the best style for all types of microcomputer instruction is an incorrect assumption.

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

Access this article

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

  • Atkinson, R. C. (1968). Computerized instruction and the learning process.American Psychology, 23, 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. H. (1971).Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, C. (1984). Do learners make good choices?Instructional Innovator, 29(2), 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning.Teachers College Board, 64, 723–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, P. K. (1976).Accent on learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1967). How can instruction be adapted to individual differences? In R. M. Gagne (Ed.)Learning and individual differences (pp. 23–29). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1969).Individual differences in learning ability as a function of instructional variables. Stanford, CA: Stanford School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCecco, J. P. (1963).Human learning in the school. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, F. M. Jr. (1967). A study of the relative effectiveness of varied visual illustration (Project #6-8840, Grant #OEG-107-068840-0290). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1968). Adapting the elementary school curriculum to individual performance.Proceedings of the 1967 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 3–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropper, G. L. (1964). The influence of external pacing on learning from programmed instruction (Report 2), InStudies in televised instruction, individualizing group instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institute for Research in Behavioral Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, D. E. (1973, August). Person-environment interaction: A challenge found wanting before it was tried. Invited address for the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Quebec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J., Moss, H. A., & Sigel, I. E. (1963). Psychological significance of styles of conceptualization. In J. C. Wright and J. Kagan (Eds.).Basic cognitive progresses in children. New York: Society for Research in Child Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. (1974). The basic system. In F. S. Keller and J. G. Sherman (Eds.)PSI-the Keller plan handbook: Essays on a personalized system of instruction. Menlo Park, CA: W. A. Benjamin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postlethwait, S. N. (1974). Minicourses: A concern for individualization.Proceedings of the National Conference on Open Learning in Higher Education, Lincoln, NE: State University of Nebraska.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (1984). Reducing student procrastination in a personalized system of instruction course,Educational Communications Technology Journal, 32, 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines,Science, 128, 969–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travers, R. M. W. (1972).Essentials of learning. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1979). The Cognitive movement in instruction,Educational Researcher, 8, 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Belland, J.C., Taylor, W.D., Canelos, J. et al. Is the self-paced instructional program, via microcomputer-based instruction, the most effective method of addressing individual learning differences?. ECTJ 33, 185–198 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769159

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769159

Keywords

Navigation