Dr. V.K. Maheshwari, Former Principal
K.L.D.A.V(P.G) College, Roorkee, India
“Goodbye, Teacher . . .” Fred Keller’s 1968
The Personalized System of Instruction is an approach to classroom instruction designed to change the role of teacher from agent of information to the engineer or manager of student learning. Its workability has been instruction.
PSI was originally designed as a classroom-based method of instruction with the intention of improving student achievement and, at the same time, replacing the long tradition of punishment in education with the use of positive consequences for learning. The Personalized System of Instruction is a mastery learning model which seeks to promote mastery of a pre-specified set of objectives from each learner in a course. Students work through a series of self-paced modules
The Personalized System of Instruction fits into several paradigms, but is most closely aligned with direct instruction. It fits with direct instruction by requiring student to work on course modules independently. It fits slightly with social constructivism by also requiring students to meet weekly in peer teams with a proctor to answer questions and take a quiz on the content studied. Students do not engage in considerable team work as most social constructivist models advocate, rather, they only correct one another’s responses to proctor-led questions.
History and Overview
Fred Keller, Gil Sherman, Rodolpho Azzi, and Carolina Martuscelli Bori initially
developed PSI in 1963 while founding the department of psychology at the new University of
Brasilia (Keller, 1968, 1982a). Keller became the most ardent advocate of PSI, and the system is sometimes called “the Keller Plan” or “the Keller Method” in his honour. Dissatisfied with conventional teaching methods and well-trained in learning theory, the designers sought to create a system that rewarded students more than it penalized them, promoted mastery of the content, and increased the amount of interpersonal communication within the classroom.
Personalized Systematic Instruction (PSI) had its beginnings in 1963, at a
gathering of four psychologists in the home of Fred S. Keller and, in the spring of 1965, it
was incorporated in a series of applications at Arizona State University
Since then, its principles have been utilized with success in many
settings.
Personalized instruction, few years ago, was simply a scheme for teaching
an introductory course in the principles of behaviour, and was itself an application of
the principles that it taught, not unlike programmed instruction in its major
aspects. It called for a statement of the course’s goals, an analysis of the course’s
content, self-pacing by each student through a unit sequence, with mastery
required for every step, and for evaluations made by student aides, when their
competency permitted. It took little account, however, of the fine-grained nature of
the learning-teaching process, and had little direct dependence on the applied analysis of behaviour
.
Developed and introduced in the 1960s as an alternative to the dominant lecture-based
method of college teaching, PSI shares several features in common with other approaches to
mastery learning. Yet PSI is distinguished by the considerable flexibility with which the details of the system can be implemented and, more importantly, by the remarkable amount of research demonstrating its effectiveness in a variety of settings.
Defining the PSI Green has said “ The Personalised System of Instruction gets its name from the fact from each student is served as an individual by another person , face to face and one to one inspite of the fact the class size is large , It is suitable for courses in which the student is expected to acquire a well defined body of knowledge or skill. The PSI designer expects from all of his students to learn material well and in the class. He accepts the responsibility of meeting this goal with in normal limits of manpower , space and equipments “
As mentioned previously, the many different permutations of PSI can lead to some
difficulty in accurately defining and identifying what PSI is. The inherent flexibility of PSI is one of its primary strengths as a general model for course development, but it can also create
problems. These difficulties are illustrated in this warning by Sherman (1992): “A rigid
definition (of PSI) can freeze the method into a numbing formula and limit the audience… on the other hand, a very broad definition makes PSI so inclusive as to be meaningless” . Fortunately, the extensive research on the various components of PSI can be used to develop a list of empirically-derived core features that succinctly outlines the basic parameters of PSI.
Objectives of PSI
- To establish better personal-social relationship in the educational process.
- To provide frequent reinforcement to the learners.
- To provide increased frequency and quality of feedback to the designers with the consequent benefit of a basis for meaningful revision in programme . content structure and instructional procedures.
- To reduce the reliance of the lecture for presentation or critical information by employing different devices in the instructional procedures
- To evaluate the student’s performance as compared with other students.
Key Features of PSI
The distinguishing features of PSI have been described as self-pacing, unit mastery
(Requiring the demonstration of mastery of each unit before proceeding to the next), the use of lectures and demonstrations for motivational purposes (rather than delivery of course content), an emphasis on the written word and textual materials (for delivery of course content), and the use of proctors for individual tutoring and assessment. Courses based
On PSI are also characterized by their use of specified instructional objectives, small-step
Sequenced materials, repeated testing, immediate feedback, and credit for success rather than
Penalty for errors,
All of the key components of PSI were derived from the overall goal of promoting
Mastery of the course content. Mastery of each unit is required because a full
understanding of material appearing later in a course is usually dependent upon mastery of the concepts, principles, facts, and/or skills appearing earlier in the course. Some degree of self pacing is required for any mastery-based teaching method because students learn at different rates, and there will be considerable variability in the amount of time it takes each student to master a unit. Lecturing, as a live performance designed to convey critical content, is impractical in such a course because it prevents the students from progressing through the material at their own pace. This leads to a reliance on textual materials, which can be accessed at the student’s convenience, as the primary vehicle for delivering the course content. Finally, proctoring was deemed necessary for PSI courses in order to administer the many assessments and, more importantly, to provide students with immediate feedback, additional tutoring or instruction, and some degree of social reinforcement for their performance.
Greer defines seven basic characteristics of the PSI.
1. The model focuses on the actions and reactions (behaviors) of the learner in
terms of the instructional objectives.
2. The learning tasks are analyzed behaviorally and categorically by hierarchies.
3. Learning rates and levels are systematically monitored and preserved in
numerical terms.
4. Strategies of teaching are based on scientifically derived principles of
learning.
5. Actual teacher techniques are derived from principles and systematically practiced by the teacher in the classroom and rehearsal hall.
6. Strategies, principles, and techniques, as well as student learning, are preserved systematically, and there is an explicit system of accountability.
7. The teacher is responsible, within her or his own power, for student learning .
Keller (1968) described the features of a personalized system of instruction as being self-paced, requiring mastery of each unit, using optional inspirational lectures, stressing the written word in student-teacher communication and employing student proctors for repeated testing, scoring, tutoring and enhancement. Keller has since rejected use of the lecture-as-reinforce and now recommends the implementation of other contingent rein forces.
The process for creating PSI
In the prototypical PSI course, students use a study guide and text book too individually
work through small units of material. When the student is ready, he or she will then complete an assessment, or test, based on the unit. The assessment often takes the form of a brief multiple-choice test, but virtually any format can be—and has been—used, including short-answer items, essay exams, interviews/oral assessments, problem-solving tasks, or a demonstration of skills.
Upon completing the assessment, the student immediately meets with a proctor for grading and feedback, discussion, and/or tutoring. If the student meets the mastery criterion for the assessment, he or she is free to continue on to the next unit; if not, then the assessment must be taken again later until mastery is achieved.
Students are allowed to retake the test as many times as necessary without penalty until their performance indicates sufficient mastery of the material. This cycle is repeated for each unit of material, with the student progressing through the course at his or her own pace. Lectures, demonstrations, laboratory exercises, and review assignments may also be incorporated throughout the course. The course is completed when the student meets the mastery criteria for all of the units.
Many PSI courses implement one or more of the key components somewhat differently
Common variations include the use of deadlines to reduce student procrastination and ensure timely completion of the course, the complete elimination of lectures, adjusting the criteria for mastery, modifying the size of the instructional units, using different student populations to serve as proctors, limiting the number of times a test can be retaken, altering the role of the proctor, eliminating proctoring, and using computers to deliver content, administer tests, and/or provide feedback. Determining exactly which features must be implemented—and how—in order for a course to be deemed a “PSI course” can be a troubling issue Guidance can be found in the empirical literature
Keller divided the process for creating PSI into the following steps:
Stress on the Written Word
Determine the material to be covered in the course. The go-at-your-own pace feature, which permits a student to move through the course at a speed commensurate with his ability and other demands of his time.
In a PSI course, the instructional content is presented in written form rather than via lectures. PSI teachers normally prepare a written study guide that is designed to assist students with learning. The study guide contains study objectives and questions that focus students’ attention on important material to be learned, and provide a clear indication of what students are expected to do. The study guide may also include instructor comments used to elucidate difficult points, exercises and practice problems to prepare students for the unit quiz, thought questions to stimulate students’ interest in the exploring the subject matter further, and a supplementary reading list. In addition to the study guide, PSI instructors also prepare a course policy statement or student manual containing an overview of the course, policies for such matters as essay expectations, deadline dates for exams, and instructor tips for good performance.
Unit Mastery Requirement
Unit mastery Students are required to demonstrate mastery of each unit before
proceeding to the next
Divide the material into self contained modules (segments). The unit-perfection requirement for advance, which lets the student go ahead to new material only after demonstrating mastery of that which proceeded
In a PSI course, content is separated into portions called units. To advance from one unit to the next, students must demonstrate that they have learned the unit’s material. In many PSI courses, students demonstrates unit mastery by taking a quiz that requires a minimum score of, for example, 80 percent or 90 percent. Students who fail the first attempt at the quiz are typically given at least two additional attempts to pass the unit by taking a different form of the unit quiz. When the course objectives require some kind of evaluation, other than a paper-and-pencil quiz such as an essay or demonstration of a physical skill), students are also given multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery. Providing remedial opportunities for students to learn substantially removes the stigma of failure. Remedial opportunities also transform the purpose of grades: grades are not used to rank students relative to each other, but are instead used as incentives to promote achievement. Unit mastery. The mastery requirement of PSI appears to be one of the most significant factors in determining student achievement. Research suggests that mastery criteria set at a high level (such as requiring 100% accuracy) may improve student learning
Student Self-Pacing
Flexible pacing Students proceed through the course at their own pace, but strategies to reduce procrastination are recommended. Allow learners to move from module to module at their own pace. The related stress upon the written word in teacher-student communication.
A system of individualized student pacing follows from PSI’s use of a unit mastery requirement. Because some students take more time to master individual units, students will thus progress through a PSI course at different rates. Some students finish a PSI course relatively quickly, while others require the total allotted time to finish the course. As such, once a PSI course has begun, students enrolled n the same course, will work on different units of the same course depending on their rate of progress. Unlike the lock-step model of traditional instruction, a self-paced model recognizes and accounts for differences among students in the rate at which they learn the course material and avoids grade penalties for students who require more time to learn. Although PSI can be used within conventional academic time units like semesters, PSI works especially well when an entire institution functions on a self-paced basis Flexible pacing. The self-pacing aspect of PSI can prove somewhat troubling and controversial A certain degree of self-pacing is necessary in order to allow students of varying abilities to each achieve mastery of the material, but research on the issue indicates that self-pacing in and of itself does not impact student learning (In fact, there is some evidence that mastery programs that limit self pacing may produce superior achievement).
Of course, the primary problem associated with total self-pacing is that of student
procrastination. When a student has complete control over when they study and take quizzes for a course, it is not difficult to understand how competing obligations with fixed deadlines can quickly take priority. Procrastinators can create logistical problems for themselves, their
instructors, and their institution’s administration), as well as get so far
behind that they “despair of catching up, and drop out, frustrated and demoralized” (Kulik et al., 1978, p. 9). Indeed, the self-paced nature of PSI is likely the primary reason some PSI courses have lower completion rates than conventional courses
Use of Proctors
The use of proctors, which permits repeated testing, immediate scoring, almost unavoidable tutoring, and a marked enhancement of the personal-social aspect of the educational process
PSI courses make use of course staff called proctors or tutors to help students learn the material, administer unit quizzes, provide feedback regarding unit quiz performance, and conduct certain administrative tasks such as maintaining student records. PSI proctors can be external or internal proctors. External proctors are former students who receive academic credit for proctoring a course. Internal proctors are students enrolled in the course, who have passed early units in the course, and are now assisting students with the units they have already mastered. Some PSI courses also make use of professional tutors or proctors who are paid for their work. In an online environment, tutors can have homepages that provide contact information and autobiographical sketches for students Peer tutoring. As originally conceived, proctors in a PSI course served to administer and score quizzes, provide feedback on student performance, and discuss the material with the student or provide tutoring. Even though some of these functions, such as quiz administration and the provision of feedback, can now be performed by computers, proctors still play an important in personalizing the student’s learning experience. Proctors can be the key to improving the individualization of instruction, increasing student motivation, and enhancing “the personal social aspect of the educational process”.
Proctoring is renamed “peer tutoring” here for two reasons. The first is that the term
“tutoring” seems to better reflect the most meaningful role of the PSI “proctor,” as the term
“proctoring” typically suggests merely the supervision and/or administration of exams. When
Keller & Sherman (1982a) describe the proctor as “the mediating figure, the bridge that helps to span the student-teacher gap of understanding”, they seem to be referring to far more than
just the proctor’s administrative skills. Further, proctors in PSI courses are usually fellow
students who have completed the course already (external proctors) or are currently enrolled in the course (internal proctors), making them true peers. An additional reason for using “peer tutoring” is to more directly connect PSI and its users to the substantial amount of educational research that now exists on tutoring and peer tutoring
Immediate feedback.
Immediate feedback on academic performance has always been an important characteristic of PSI. Typically, this function has been served by proctors, who would grade student quizzes immediately upon completion and provide written or oral feedback. In fact, the literature suggests that the provision of immediate feedback is the proctor function that has the most significant impact on student learning. Because feedback can also be delivered effectively via computerized means however, it seems useful to separate this component from other proctor functions. While proctors or other people can certainly still be used to provide feedback, using computers to do so can relieve some of the administrative stress associated with PSI and allow course personnel more time to engage in tutoring and discussion with the students. Of course, some forms of assessment may still require a human to evaluate and provide feedback. No matter what method is used to deliver the feedback, though, immediacy is important: research shows that “delaying feedback in PSI courses interferes with student retention of course material.
Lectures and Demonstrations as Motivational Devices
Create methods of evaluating the degree to which the learner has conquered the material in a given module. The use of lectures and demonstrations as vehicles of motivation, rather than sources of critical information.
With PSI’s emphasis on the written word, lectures tend to be de-emphasized. However, the founders of PSI also felt there was a place for lectures in order to stimulate the students’ interest in the subject matter, so occasional lectures were initially included as a feature of a PSI course. Unlike the other components of PSI, lectures have not been demonstrated to be effective in boosting student academic performance), and should be considered as an optional feature of the method, at best, that might be reserved for those rare spellbinding lecturers. Note that PSI is an evolving data-driven system, not an ideological model that asserts. priori definitions about what represents good instruction. The data dissuading teachers from lecturing illustrate that PSI is a model that is subject to alterations in accordance with new data.
Suggestions for Implementing a PSI Course
- Plan comprehensively before it is introduced.
- Choose quality instructional materials that are appropriate for your students’ comprehension level; empirically verified materials are preferable . Make the first units easy (and perhaps smaller) to build confidence; increase difficulty gradually
- Avoid including too much material in each unit; the units have to appear manageable to the students
- When possible, include review material in assignments, assessments, and other instructional activities
- Make assessments as comprehensive and consistent with unit objectives as possible, but also as brief as possible (some students will be taking them multiple times!) .\
- Make use of faster students within the class to tutor slower ones
- Encourage frequent feedback from students so that instructional materials and assessments can be revised and made more effective for future students
- Provide students with easy access to their course records; using a web-based course
management system, such as Blackboard or WebCT, may be a good solution
- Choose tutors carefully and reward them appropriately; explore different tutoring options and arrangements until you find one that works for your course
- Start small, and be prepared for a large initial expenditure of time developing
assignments and assessments; as with any course, future implementations should require less time,
- Orientation courses should be organised for teachers , to provide background of PSI system ,because introduction of PSI needs restructuring of present classrooms which requires great resource implications
Conclusion
It is likely that much of PSI’s popularity has been due to the inherent flexibility of the
system. From its inception, PSI was designed to provide a general framework for effective
teaching that would allow the instructor the option of using a variety of instructional materials or techniques within individual course lessons. The core unit of instruction in PSI is “more like the conventional home-work assignment or laboratory exercise” and “the use of a programmed text, a teaching machine, or some sort of computer aid within such a (PSI) course is entirely possible and may be quite desirable, but it is not to be equated with the course itself” (Keller, 1968). By employing this larger and more general unit of instruction and analysis, PSI grants the instructor considerable flexibility in utilizing other pedagogical tools within the course, and makes the system easier to implement with conventional instructional materials (such as textbooks and study guides). Evidence suggests that instructors can improve the quality of their courses by “simply” adopting the core elements of PSI, while still being able to incorporate whatever types of activities, assignments, assessments, and/or experiences they may value. This makes the model exceptionally accessible to a wide range of instructors, as its implementation requires neither an advanced degree in instructional design nor the use of a prescribed set of instructional materials.
Now a days, educators who wish to use PSI have several important advantages over their
counterparts from the previous century. Perhaps the most obvious is the potential that modern
information technology has for improving certain aspects of PSI courses. Computers and web based course management systems such as Blackboard and WebCT can easily be used to
administer and score examinations and certain practice activities Peer tutoring, proctoring,
and other collaborative activities can also be accomplished via a variety of computer-mediated means, such as email and synchronous or asynchronous online conferencing A reliance on textual materials is no longer needed either, as the multimedia capabilities of integrative technologies such as the world wide web can be utilized to deliver on-demand course content.
__________________________________________________________________________