personalized system of instruction (psi) - DigitalCommons@University ...

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), or Keller Plan, Materials

Instructional Materials in Physics and Astronomy

1975

PERSONALIZED SYSTEM OF INSTRUCTION (PSI): AN ALTERNATIVE James G. Buterbaugh University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Robert Fuller University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/physicspsikeller Part of the Physics Commons Buterbaugh, James G. and Fuller, Robert, "PERSONALIZED SYSTEM OF INSTRUCTION (PSI): AN ALTERNATIVE" (1975). Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), or Keller Plan, Materials. 3. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/physicspsikeller/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Instructional Materials in Physics and Astronomy at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), or Keller Plan, Materials by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

PERSONALIZED SYSTEM

OF INSTRUCTION (PSI): AN ALTERNATIVE JAMES G. BUTERBAUG H ROBERT G. FULLER

62

Buterbaugh and Fuller dIscuss the Personalized System of l nstmctionwhat it is, how it can (o r cann ot) be evalua ted, and some probLems wh ich may be encountered w ith its use. the leClu re-taught course has inI rstructors meeting the students as adversaries, contin ually a nswerin g redundant questions , haggling over ha lfcredit for ha lf-correct a nswers, a nd gene ra ll y findin g most students being inhibited by the loc k- step timing of a lecture course, then PS I is an altern ative . Exten sive accep ta nce and emp loyment of th is alternative mode of instruct io n shou ld cause instructiona l developers to take another look at the essential fe atures of the system . PS I has been w idel y employed by in structional developers in the physics field. Other discipl ines w here PS I ha s been adapted and classroom tested include art, history, astronomy , anthropo logy, med ici ne , nu rses tra ining, geology, religion , and phi losophy. PSI (also known as the Keller Pl an) is selfpaced , mastery-oriented , student-tutored for jun ior college or univers ity instruction , w ith classes of all sizes. This rel at ivel y low cost system h as a lso been tested at the h igh schoo l level. \Vhile the element s of PS I va ry from list to list, most autho rs will agree that severa l points const itute the essent ial aspects of PS I. Even w ider variat ion exists amo ng lists of learning princip les prepa red by vario us psycho logists. ~'\(h.~le so me arbitra r iness is inevitaDle, the princ ipl es offered in support of each element of t he PS I approach were c~osen in an attempt to represent at least a modi cu m of co nsens us among psychologists concerni ng the way humans learn. These principl es are offered here primar il y as a mean s of showin g how the Keller Plan (PSI ) incorporates so me of the basic concepts of learning. First, PS I is a self-paced program. Sharing w ith the student responsibi lit y for lea rning increases his invo lvement in the learnin g process. The student has a large part of the responsibilit y for learnin g in PS I; if he docs not com plete a un it, the co urse does not move ahead a utomat icall y as is the case in the trad itional a pp roach. The more sim ilar the learning situat ion resembles the si tuation in which the learning is to be used, the more likel y the st udent is to trans fer his learning. The self-pa ced , individua ll yinitiated PS I course resembles more AUDIOVISUAL INSTRUCTION

closely the situations an adult will lY Pically encounter than does the traditional lecture co urse. Learning progresses more ra pidly when up to 80 percent of the learner's time is spent reciting what he has read or heard. The self-paced features, as well as others in PS I, place emphas is on the learner's demonstrating his sk ill / knowledge rather than on his passivel y ass imilating information. The student is expected to master 700 percent of the content on the exam ination signalling completion of each unit. To facilitate maximal learning, rewards should be presented in a variet.y of forms. One of the most important of those forms seems to be the sense of satisfaction achieved by mastering a test or problem. Next , lectures and other techniques are used as vehicles of motivation rather th an as sources of critical information. Reward s are most effective when they follow directl y the actions they are meant LO reinforce. Group discussions and other program experiences recogni zing student achievement are employed after the student has completed one o r more units. The next major element involves p roctors, usually st udents who have recen tl y mastered the course units in an exemplary manner. Proctors administer tests, provide tutoring ass istance, and are ava ilable for personal sessions with the students. Feedback, or the knowled ge of results of one's performance, is an essential ingredient in the learning process. T he proctor makes frequent feedback feasible. The final basic element in PSI st resses the written word. Establishment w ith the individual of objectives for his learning can facilitate his lea rning. Each written unit begins with an explicit stateme[\t of the objecti ves for that unit. Both recall of learning and insight into new ideas are facilitated by organi zation of facts and concepts within the larger framework. The explicit presentation in writing of the material LO be learned in unit form proJides a coheren t organizationa l scheme in wh ich to place the learning. Again ' in this feature, as well as in the first one, the simila rity to the most typi cal ad ult learn in g situation increases the likelihood that the learning habit will be continued in adult life. Since a large percentage of adult learning centers on the written word, PSI should enhance the transfer.

A Break with Tradition Since PSI involves a break with a MARCH

•

1975

I

tradition , some mean s should be developed to ex plain it 10 co lleagues. One approach is to combine two techniques: su ppl y information abo ut the co lleges that alread y use PS I, an d be a ble to di scuss the eval uation of PS I. PS I courses typica ll y have been evaluat ed in several ways: I. T he di str ibution of co urse grades is compa red wit h the di st ribution in the sa me co urse that is ta ught traditionall y. The typ ica l PSI grade distribution in cl udes a bout 50 percent As, a large number of incompletes, and small n umbers of Fs, Ds, and Cs. 2. The performance of st udents in the PS I courses is co mpared w it h the st ud ents in the tradit ionally taugh t course on a co mmon exam in atio n. 3. The st udents' own eva luat ions of the co urse are obta ined. 4. The pe rforma nce of PS I versus traditional students is examined in furth er course work in the same field. The best eval uation , of co urse, would entail all of the above points, plus oth ers. One of the obv ious diffic ulties in obtain ing methodo logically sound data o n which to base an evaluation of PS I has to do with the odds against gett ing

two cl asses in which the studen ts and the conditions are co mparable enough to pe rmi t a sound com par ison. This difficulty has not SlO pped instructOrs from trying 10 get whatever in fo r mati on is ava il able co ncern ing the performance of PS I stude nt s and to compare th e informat ion w ith data ga the red from more tr adit ional co urses. No r should the difficu h ies prevent the effort, in ou r view, 10 ap proximate as nea rl y as possible in rea l life the ideal sort of eva lu at ion one might li ke to see done w ith PS I. Because the instructional task s invo lved in PS I are q uite di fferent from those of the lecture method, a person will need to be reso urceful to make it succeed on the firs t attempt. Wh ile PS I has produced sufficien tl y co nsistent resu lts to assure man y observers th at it can be superior to mo re typical lecture courses, severa l factors wh ich are di ffi cult to co ntrol may contribute 10 the fa ilure of any particu lar PS I effort. The y incl ude : the instructor's lack of fami li ar it y wi t h the method ; inadeq uate advance plann ing so that a student does no t know what to expect; unclear instructions to st udents ; insufli cient or faulty examin ation questions; inordin ately large and difficult units. It is probabl y, un usua l if at least one of these facto rs is not ope rat ing the first time one does use PS I. Howeve r, by understanding the essent ia l features of PSI, an d by app ropr iate use of student feedback in managing a PS I course, one can turn ea rl y ind ications of potential Ja ilure into success. ' Altl\.ough PSI has met w ith a number successes, it is not heralded as the answe r to a ll of ed ucation 's ills, no r even as a pa nacea for any teac hing problems. Those who have tried it and li ke it may not be rel iable w itnesses. Professor B. A. G reen Jr.. a PS I ad· vocate, has wr itten w ith IOngue-in cheek a list of object ions to PSI: You should not use the Kell er Plan

of

if:

.... _ _ _ _ ___'"

64

#

""

•. ~

..'. '.

L-_-~"'---..:....

, 10

=::::::: .

f

1. M astery is not the objec t of yo ur course. 2. T here is no t adequa te text for your co urse. 3. Your su bject chan ges toO fast. 4. You have 500 st uden ts with no help and no t ime off to prepare ma te ri a l. 5. Your stud ents can ' t read, at least not well enough to do wi thout the lect ures. 6. You are legislati vely requ ired 10 lecture for a la rge nu mbe r of hours. 7. You don ' t ha ve the energy to try AUDIOVISUAL INSTRUCTION

Test scores* as a function of instructional method and retention interval

90

80 w

~

0

u

OJ>

70

~

PSI Group

~

OJ>

w

~

z

'"

60

w

le