Student Variables Related to Rates of Pacing in Self-Paced Instruction

A trend current in mass education efforts has been the expanding utilization of individualized instructional methods to accommodate individual differences among learners. The development and improvement of educational technology allows the application of individually tailored programs in an efficient, cost-effective, pedagogically sound, and even pleasant manner. Chief among these technological innovations have been the teaching machine (Skinner, 1968), Keller's (1 968) Personalized System of Instruction, and Postlethwait's (1969; c.f. Mintzes, 1975) Audio-Tutorial approach. A complete review of the characteristics and evidence supporting these procedures are available in a recent book by Cross (1 976). A prime component of each of these systems is opportunity for the student to proceed through the course material and demonstrate its mastery at his own pace. As content mastery is frequently held constant, typically it is the rate of mastery that is expected to be the sole difference among students. Several advantages are thought to derive from this approach. Primarily, it is expected that the student who is unencumbered by an externally-imposed lecture and study schedule will beable tospend less timeand effort on familiar content while being free to allocate relatively more energy for new or difficult material. Since students differ in their prior preparation for a course, an instructor-selected pace, no matter what it may be, would be inappropriate or boring for a large proportion of the class. At the same time, it allows the instructor to identify and attend to slower learners In a self-paced system, students are often allowed to master and exit the course early, an opportunity that serves as an incentive for active and rapid learning. Students are also able to temporarily defer study in a self-paced course in order to devote extra time to other courses when they require it. Thus, the student can attend to his self-paced course when he is most likely to learn it and not be diverted by other course deadlines. In addition, the assumption of the responsibility for pacing one's own learning is thought to be avaluable goal in itself as a part of teaching the student how to learn (Leuba & Flammer, 1975). Both the benefits and disadvantages of the self-pacing component have been the object of extensive research. Kulik, Kulik, and Carmichael (1974) found self-pacing to be an element highly preferred by students in PSI courses. Allen, Giat, and Cherney (1974) reported that the number of days a student required to complete his first unit (latency) was the best predictor of his final grade, with latency being negatively correlated with the final grade. Student selfpacing was found to be responsible for increased academic performance and improved course evaluations in a study by Fernald, Chiseri, Lawson, Scroggs, and Ridell (1975). However, in courses which allow the removal of typical time constraints, students are encountered who tend to be poor self-pacers and who, consequently, may be more inclined to withdraw from the course (Born, Note 1) or receive a poor grade (Leidecker, Note 5). Procedural modifications often suggested to remedy this difficulty include imposed deadlines (which seems to obviate the label "self-paced") and posted cumulative records (Hess, Note 4), as well as a recommended optimal pace, a decrease in the length of each unit with an increase in their total number, and reinforcement of rapid progress with desirable lectures or the opportunity to complete exams early (Kulik et al., 1974). For example, Semb, Conyers, Spencer, and Sanchez Sosa (1974) and Bijou, Morris, and Parsons (1976) have successfully manipulated and compared course contingencies to increase student progress rates. Other experimenters have approached the procrastination problem from a different perspective by attempting to identify characteristics which describe students who pace theirwork poorly and which differentiate them from their more successful peers. Student locus of control scores were found to be unrelated to their grades, attendance, or progress rates (Johnson & Croft, 1975). Allen et al. (1 974), however, found student locus of control scores and grade point averages best predicted their latency, or time of completion of the first unit. In addition, Henneberry (Note 3) reports students measuring highly internal were more likely to attain their expected grades and to take advantage of rapid pacing and early testing opportunities. Progress rates in an advanced psychology course were positively related to student motivation and the number of previous psychology courses taken, in a study by Calhoun (1975). However, in another study by the same author, psychology course background, as well as student class, major, sex, age, and transfer status, were not related to rates of progress, though grade point average and expected grade were (Calhoun, in press). Obviously, some previous findings are inconclusive and inconsistent. The current study is afurther attempt to investigate the manner in which student characteristics might be related to rates of progress in a self-paced course. Individualized teaching formats are designed to accommodate individual differences among learners and it is appropriate to investigate whether this objective is actually being accomplished in current programs. If some per-