Mastery: The Essential Essential in PSI

Caldwell, Edward; Bissonnettee, K.; Klishis, M. J.; Ripley, Matthew; Farudi, P. P.; Hochstetter, G. T.; Radiker, J. E.

doi:10.1207/s15328023top0502_1

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is equally likely that the student IS also shaping the proctor's behavior" (p. 62). Contrary to previous studies, Caldwell et al (1978) found no evidence that having student proctors improved student performance. A major difference between their study and other studies was that their proctors did not have the power to accept approximations to the answer nor could the students defend their answers (quizzes were all multiple-choice).…”

Section: Student Proctors and Cheatingcontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…A major difference between their study and other studies was that their proctors did not have the power to accept approximations to the answer nor could the students defend their answers (quizzes were all multiple-choice). Caldwell et al (1978) argued further that "an alternative interpretation a5 to why proctoring in these other studies reduced the number of tests taken is that the student shaped the proctors to accept approximations to the correct response rather than only correct responses" (p. 62). Further evidence comes from a study concerned with the effects of self-grading.…”

Section: Student Proctors and Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Proctors may compromise the standards of a course wittingly or unwittingly. Caldwell, Bissonnettee, Klishis, Ripley, Farudi, Hochstetter, and Radiker (1978) argued that, although the assumption in PSI is that the proctor shapes and maintans appropriate student responding during the quiz-grading process, such a "one way view of proctor-student relationship may be ex tremely naive. It is equally likely that the student IS also shaping the proctor's behavior" (p. 62).…”

Section: Student Proctors and Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a variation of a PSI course (see Caldwell et al, 1978) the beh:avior of several tutors illustrates the extent to which they can be influenced by other students. (The term "tutor" is used here rather than "proctor" since no "grading power" is enjoyed by them.)…”

Section: Student Proctors and Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dangers of PSI

Caldwell

1985

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PSI (personalized system of instruction) has produced very significant changes in classroom instruction in higher education. A great deal of research evaluating PSI and its component parts has been generated. Study questions and proctors are two essential features of the system. This paper raises concerns regarding both of these features. STUDY QUESTIONS AND LEVEL OF CONTENTIn a vicious, if not particularly useful, attack on the PSI approach, Meek (1977) argued that (at least for the humanities and social sciences) the PSI approach does not even attempt to teach important goals. He attributes this failure to the demand by advocates of PSI that instructors use clearly specified and measurable course objectives. Meek says that:The primary goals of such courses should invole an attempt to develop the ability of the student to think critically, to sort, to order, to choose among, to evaluate, and to interrelate competing ideals and ideas. The student must learn how to learn, how to evaluate ideas and data, and how to relate information acquired to her or his own values and those that are present in the larger society. (p. 115) low-level content in PSI courses often lies not in using objectives, but rather in not using them.It is true that the PSI approach forces the instructor to determine in advance what the students are to learn in the class because quizzes must be available for those who progress rapidly through the course. It is also true that communicating this "what the student is to learn" information to the students before they take a quiz is an important feature of the approach. According to PSI proponents this can be done by using study questions rather than objectives. Whereas some PSI courses employ behavioral objectives, proponents of PSI generally tend to downplay behavioral objectives in favor of study questions. Contrary to what Meek says, this paper challenges that PSI courses which do not use behavioral objectives and rely solely on study questions are much more likely to teach low-level content than those that employ objectives. Study questions are much more likely to be "book-specific" or "book-bound" than objectives are. That is, unless the student has read the book from which the study questions were written, he or she often is not likely to be able to answer them correctly. Because quiz questions are typically only a variation of the studv auestions, quizzes also tend to measure low-level con-, .Most would agree that these are important goals. And most tent. For in a a few ago One of the would agree with Meek when he says, "It is basic nonsense leaders of the PSI movement indicated that ure should not to talk about the degree of cmastery, of such goalsn (p. 16).feel bad if we could not remember the answers to quiz quesBut it is also very certain that Meek does infer that he is cations from year to year. He said he had to look up answers pable of measuring the degree of mastery of these goals evto questions on an old quiz himself. This was for an introery time he assigns a student a grade. ducto...

show abstract

Section: Student Proctors and Cheatingcontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Student Proctors and Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Student Proctors and Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Student Proctors and Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dangers of PSI

Caldwell

1985

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…written objectives, and mastery criteria are most important, and that proctors are considerably less important (Caldwell et al, 1978;J. A. Kulik et al, 1976;Williams, 1976).…”

Section: Proctorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A computer-based Personalized System of Instruction course in applied behavior analysis

Crosbie

Kelly

1993

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microcomputer laboratories are becoming more common in psychology departments because they provide an alternative instructional medium and a resource to help combat decreasing funding and increasing student:teacher ratios. By using microcomputers to perform the testing, we were able to conduct a Personalized System oflnstruction course for 51 students, without the five proctors that would normally be required. Students had low rates of procrastination and positive attitudes toward the course, and none of the students dropped out. This paper describes how the course was organized and the hardware and software employed. Difficulties arising in the course and how they might be overcome are also discussed.A few years ago, we decided to develop a new undergraduate course in applied behavior analysis. We wanted to use the best educational techniques given our resources, and we therefore developed the course with two main components: (1) it was based on Keller's Personalized System ofInstruction (PSI; Keller, 1968); and (2) microcomputers performed much of the work traditionally done by student proctors, which were not available at our university. This paper describes how computers can be used to run such a course and, hence, complements recent examples of computer assistance in teaching methodology (Cohen, 1991;Perone, 1991).

show abstract