 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Robert C. Butler, Jess G. Kohlert, Valerie E. McElrath, Kelci L. Wolfe, Gabriel G. Gross
Full-Text PDF
XML 2052 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5542/2015.05.006
King’s College, Wilkes-Barre, USA
Traditional lectures used in college might not challenge the brightest students and leave the weaker students behind. PSI (Personalized System of Instruction) is designed to adjust to each students’ needs so all students can master material. Numerous studies have supported that PSI may be more effective than traditional lectures (J. A. Kulik, C. C. Kulik, & Bangert-Downs, 1990). However, standard PSI does not fit a traditional academic calendar. A within subjects design was utilized to assess the effectiveness of a modified PSI designed to fit within a traditional academic calendar. Students in two introductory psychology courses were exposed to both a modified PSI and traditional lecture format. Academic performance and student satisfaction were assessed. Results indicate no significant differences in academic performance, course satisfaction, or motivation between PSI and lecture methods. Furthermore, the use of technological supplements available with PSI did not lead to more satisfaction with PSI. This study suggests that modifying PSI by adding time restraints might be detrimental to its increased effectiveness over traditional lecture. Although our study did not support PSI over traditional lecture overall, when students were forced to select a teaching method, 55.2% reported that they preferred PSI. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
PSI (Personalized System of Instruction), lecture, student learning, education
Robert C. Butler, Jess G. Kohlert, Valerie E. McElrath, Kelci L. Wolfe, & Gabriel G. Gross. (2015). Modified Personalized System of Instruction vs Traditional Lecture Method of Instruction Using a Within Design at a Small Liberal Arts College. Psychology Research, 5(5), 317-326.
Ainsworth, L. L. (1979). Self-paced instruction: An innovation that failed. Teaching of Psychology, 6(1), 42-46.
Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47-63). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Buskist, W., Cush, D., & DeGrandpre, R. J. (1991). The life and times of PSI. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(2), 215-234. doi:10.1007/BF00957005
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
Carver, R. P. (1974). Two dimensions of tests: Psychometric and edumetric. American Psychologist, 29, 512-518.
Chase, J. A. (2006). Differential effects of elaborate feedback and basis feedback on student performance in a modified PSI course (Unpublished masters thesis, The University of Nevada, Reno).
Crosling, G., Heagney, M., & Thomas, L. (2009). Improving student retention in higher education: Improving teaching and learning. Australian Universities’ Review, 51(2), 9-18.
Ediger, M. (2001). Learning opportunities in the higher education curriculum. College Student Journal, 35(3), 410.
Eyre, H. L., Parks, K., & Crone-Todd, D. E. (2006, October). Student unit test persistence in a mastery-based general psychology course. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Association for Behavior Analysis, Greenville, S.C..
Eyre, H. L. (2007). Keller’s personalized system of instruction: Was it a fleeting fancy or is there a revival on the horizon. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(3), 317-324.
Fox, E. J. (2013). Keller’s personalized system of instruction. In J. Hattie, & E. M. Anderman, International guide to student achievement. New York: Routledge.
Grant, L. K., & Spencer, R. E. (2003). The personalized system of instruction: Review and applications to distance education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1-12.
Guskey, T. R., & Gates, S. L. (1986). Synthesis of research on the effects of mastery learning in elementary and secondary classrooms. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 73-80.
Guskey, T. R. (2010). Lessons of mastery learning. Interventions That Work, 68(2), 52-57.
Heward, W. L., & Dunne, J. D. (1993). For students of behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 2, 341-345.
Hursh, D. E. (1976). Personalized systems of instruction: What do the data indicate? Journal of Personalized Instruction, 1(2), 91-105.
Johnson, C. M., Wambugu, P. C., & Wachanga, S. (2011). Investigations of student’ motivation towards learning secondary school physics through mastery learning approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1333-1350.
Keller, F. S. (1968). “Good-bye, teacher…”. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79-89.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265-299.
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, D.C.: Center for Personalized Instruction.
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(4), 307-318. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.4.307
Martinez, M. (2001). Key design considerations for personalized learning on the web. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 26-40.
Martinez, J. G. R., & Martinez, N. C. (1988). Hello teacher: An argument for re-emphasizing the teacher’s role in PSI and master learning. American Journal of Education, 97(1), 356-363.
Murry, J. P., & Murry, J. I. (1992). How do I lecture thee? College Teaching, 3(40), 109-113.
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing a ticket to work… or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. New York: College Board.
Pear, J. J., Schnerch, G. J., Silva, K. M., Svenningsen, L., & Lambert, J. (2011). Web-based computer-aided personalized system of instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 128, 85-94. Doi: 10.1002/tl.471
Rossi, A. (Producer & Director), & Novack, K. (Producer). (2014). Ivory Tower (Motion Picture). United States: Participant Media Paramount Pictures Samuel Goldwyn Films.
Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Psychology (2nd Edition). New York: Worth.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 36-40.
Svenningsen, L., & Pear, J. J. (2011). Effects of computer-aided personalized system of instruction in developing knowledge and critical thinking in blended learning courses. Behavior Analyst Today, 12(1), 33-39.
William, K. C., & Williams, C. C. (2011). Five key ingredients for improving student motivation. Research in Higher Education Journal, 26, 104-122.
Zencius, A. H., Davis, P. K., & Cuvo, A. J. (1990). A personalized system of instruction for teaching checking account skills to adults with mild disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 245-252.
Ziaee, V., Ahmadinejad, Z., & Morravedji, A. R. (2004). An evaluation on medical students’ satisfaction with clinical education and its effective factors. Medical Education Online, 9(8), 1-8.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 45(3), 206-216. doi:10.1002/pits.20291