PSI System and Other Educational

¶ … PSI System and Other Educational Methods

Personal Statement

The Keller/PSI Concept

The Educational Benefits of Keller/PSI

The Problems Associated with Keller/PSI

Computer-assisted Personal System of Instruction (CAPSI)

Multiple Intelligences Theory

Hands-on, Inquiry-based Active Learning

Kolb's Learning Style Inventory

Conclusion and Implications for Future Avenues of Empirical Study

The Keller Personal System of Instruction (PSI) in education (also known as the Keller Plan) has been used with considerable success. A large volume of empirical research documents the relative effectiveness of the PSI approach to education in comparison with the more traditional approach used in contemporary academic education and professional training. The principle difference between the Keller/PSI method and traditional education methodologies is that the Keller/PSI method allows students to establish their own pace for completion; in its original formulation, it did away altogether with any requirement to complete course work within any specified time period.

In most cases, the Keller/PSI approach has been modified to the extent necessary to satisfy the more general requirements of educational institutions with respect to meeting course load and instruction hours-based requirements, as well as to allow courses to fit within the institutional curricula. Nevertheless, even the modified Keller/PSI approach increases learning and rates of course completion substantially.

Upon closer examination, it appears that the explanation for the ways that the Keller/PSI approach improves learning may relate more to other underlying aspects of learning to which the Keller/PSI method is more conducive to improving than necessarily to the Keller/PSI methodology in particular. While removing the external temporal pressures associated with traditional academic education and professional training definitely provides a measurable benefit, it is likely that it does so substantially indirectly, such as by allowing students greater flexibility in learning methods even though this is not one of the designed purposes of the PSI/Keller educational approach.

Chapter One

Introduction

The growth of the study of the biological roots of human psychology and behavior contributed to changing assumptions about human cognitive learning throughout the middle and late 20th century ( ). Skinnerian Behaviorism in particular generated interest in different approaches to academic instruction as well as adult learning such as in connection with vocational training. The Keller personal system of instruction (PSI) in particular, introduced a Skinner-based approach based on the importance of mastery of smaller "chunks" or "segments" of academic course material into smaller units capable of being presented, studied, and tested individually instead of within the framework of an entire course evaluated by performance on a final exam scheduled to coincide with a designated date of course completion. The Keller/PSI method also relies heavily on the use of teaching assistants (TAs) for supplemental instruction and student guidance for students ( ).

According to empirical research, the Keller/PSI approach to education and adult learning dramatically increases the course completion rates ( ) and also corresponds to higher rates of long-term subject matter retention ( ). On the other hand, the Keller/PSI method still relies heavily on reading material; meanwhile other modern educational theories strongly suggest that one of the keys to improving contemporary education is to expand the range of the types of delivery systems for academic material to include media that are more conducive to learning in students whose primary learning styles are not necessarily linguistic ( ).

Background of Study

There is also a volume of prior research establishing the educational value of adapting teaching methods to different types of learning styles ( ).

Specifically, Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory ( ), the Inquiry-based learning method ( ), and Kolb's Learning Style Inventory Model ( ) all increase learning by tailoring instructional methods to the natural strengths of learners. Therefore, while the Keller/PSI approach seems to improve learning, it may very well be that other modern theoretical approaches to teaching may explain some of the underlying ways that the Keller/PSI method actually increases learning more indirectly than directly.

The literature documenting the effectiveness of alternative educational approaches such as the Multiple Intelligence, Inquiry-based and the Learning Style Inventory concepts may provide evidence explaining the basis of the benefits associated with the Keller/PSI instructional method. In that regard, the computer assisted (CAPSI) version of the Keller method significantly improves learning over the original PSI method (

), conceivably, precisely because it expands the range of material presentation and review in comparison with passive lecture-based PSI programs of instruction.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to consider the ways that the benefits associated with the Keller/PSI approach to modern education might be indirect functions of the manner in which that system introduces fundamental elements of other educational concepts. To the extent those fundamental elements are responsible for the success of the Keller/PSI educational method, this study will enable educators to incorporate those elements without necessarily relying on implementing the Keller/PSI system.

Personal Statement

In my experience, the passive lecture and textbook-based learning model that has been the predominant educational method in American education since its inception more than two centuries ago is not conducive to maximizing learning for many students. It strongly favors those students whose principal intellectual strengths happen to lie within the linguistic areas to the comparative exclusion of many other students who learn more easily through different aspects of human intelligence.

During the course of my educational career and professional training, I have had the opportunity to review the existing literature on the many different types of intelligence that are not adequately addressed by contemporary education. The empirical evidence is entirely consistent with my anecdotal experiences both as a student and as an educator. Specifically, it seems almost obvious, at least with the benefit of hindsight, that practical methods of instruction such as typically used in a more limited capacity in conjunction with the physical sciences would likely increase student interest and learning if they could be applied more generally to other academic subjects generally taught exclusively through the traditional passive lecture and textbook method of academic instruction.

My research into Gardner's Multiple Intelligences concepts revealed a conceptual similarity to other academic instructional methods that have also proven successful, such as the hands-on inquiry-based approach and the use of Kolb-like learning style inventories of preferred learning approaches. In that regard, the fact that adding the computerization component to the original Keller/PSI concept in CAPSI programs further increased the benefits associated with Keller/PSI only reinforced my belief that the principal benefits of the Keller/PSI method have as much to do with the way that broadening the range of teaching media (such as through computer simulations, mixed presentations of verbal narratives and visual representations, and one-on-one instruction from TAs) as they have to do directly with the design of the Keller/PSI method in particular.

Research Questions

1. Is the success of the Keller/PSI teaching method substantially attributable to the temporal aspect of eliminating firm deadlines or is it substantially attributable to the indirect changes in teaching and learning methods that are coincidental to the Keller/PSI approach?

2. Is it possible to identify the other specific elements of change associated with implementation of the Keller/PSI approach that could be replicated entirely outside of the main framework of the Keller/PSI concept?

3. How might the evidence of the ways that the Keller/PSI approach indirectly benefit students be incorporated into contemporary education more generally?

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study is that the Keller/PSI program is difficult to implement smoothly within the academic curricula requirements and term schedules of most higher institutions of education. If the underlying elements responsible for the success of Keller/PSI academic programs could be identified and incorporated into contemporary educational systems without the comparative difficulties of establishing a Keller/PSI program, those concepts could be use to improve the quality of instruction and contribute to more efficient learning and subject matter retention of students.

Limitations

The principal limitation of this study is the difficulty of differentiating the specific contributions of the temporal design focus of the Keller/PSI program of academic instruction from the other (non-temporal, incidental) contributions of other ways that the Keller/PSI approach changes lesson delivery. In that regard, the literature documenting the success of Keller/PSI programs only provides empirical evidence of the relative success of that model without any more detailed evidence of the ancillary benefits of the changes it introduces to the system of instruction in particular. Likewise, another limitation is the unavailability of empirical research into exactly how the Keller/PSI program works and the exclusive focus of prior literature about that system on the question of whether or not the Keller/PSI approach to education is beneficial to students.

Delimitations

This study consists only of a literature review of the success of the Keller/PSI education method and separate reviews of the literature documenting the importance of some of the other aspects of education that seem to be implicated in the possible underlying reasons that Keller/PSI-based programs improve learning and student performance. In the absence of empirical studies directly connecting Keller/PSI with Multiple Intelligence theory, hands-on inquiry-based learning, or Kolb-based learning style inventories, this study merely provides an independent examination of the factors responsible for the success of those educational approaches and concepts that could conceivably be identified as ancillary and unintended benefits of the Keller/PSI approach.

Summary

The Keller/PSI approach to academic and professional training has been documented to improve student performance as measured by course completion rates and subject matter retention among students. On the other hand, there are considerable practical and technical problems implementing the Keller/PSI approach within traditional educational institutions. Meanwhile, there is little if any empirical evidence suggesting precisely how the Keller/PSI model benefits learning outside of the focus on the reduced deadline orientation that is the hallmark of that teaching methodology.

Substantial evidence exists to suggest that the success of the Keller/PSI approach is actually attributable to other changes typically attributable to Keller/PSI, such as the broadening of the range of media of instruction, despite the fact that those changes are natural consequences of the Keller/PSI design rather than deliberately conceived components of the approach. The empirical evidence of the increased success of CAPSI programs further bolsters that argument.

A wealth of empirical studies have documented the benefits of other educational approaches that emphasize different learning styles and intellectual strengths outside of those typically rewarded by traditional approaches to academic education. In particular, Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory teaches that traditional educational methods largely exclude many students whose greatest capacity for learning lies outside of linguistic abilities. Studies of hands-on inquiry-based education and learning inventory-based programs reveal beneficial elements that could conceivably explain a large part of the success of Keller/PSI. By identifying those elements, educators could design educational methods that incorporate the most useful components of Keller/PSI without necessitating a full implementation of Keller/PSI programs where technical and practical considerations preclude doing so.

Chapter Two -- Review of Literature

Introduction

Since its introduction in the late 1960s by educational theorist Fred Keller, the personalized system of instruction (PSI) approach to academic instruction enjoyed short-lived popularity. Its failure to become a more general method of educational instruction is more a result of the technical and practical difficulties of incorporating it smoothly into exiting educational curricula than a function of its effectiveness ( ). In fact, the overwhelming weight of the empirical evidence documents that Keller/PSI is significantly better by measures of course completion rates ( ) and subject matter retention ( ).

Despite significant potential benefits, implementing successful Keller/PSI programs can be tremendously difficult within the traditional framework and limitations of the academic calendar and semester hour requirements ( ). Luckily, the empirical evidence suggests that some of the underlying reasons that Keller/PSI is often successful are merely coincidental components of Keller/PSI programs rather than directly contingent upon a Keller/PSI-type of design ( ). If those components could be identified and understood, it might be possible to derive some of those advantages without relying on a full-scale implementation of Keller/PSI.

In some respects, there are apparent parallels between the elements of Keller/PSI and concurrent unrelated research into learning theories and teaching methodologies. In its original form and design, Keller/PSI happens to implement several components that are completely consistent with Gardner's Multiple Intelligence and Kolb's Learning Inventory Model ( ) as applied to human learning.

However, one of the core Keller/PSI concepts imposes considerable administrative difficulty. Since its first use, Keller/PSI has also been implemented in various modified forms that featured certain components but limited or otherwise changed others. Most commonly, those variations imposed a firm requirement to complete a course by a specific time, even if they attempted to remain faithful to the other aspects of Keller/PSI ( ). The fact that those variations of Keller/PSI were equally successful ( ) provides some basis to deemphasize focus on the original Keller/PSI system and to narrow the focus to the identifiable components of Keller's original design that seem to be consistent with prior research of changes likely to benefit modern education programs.

The combined review of the evidence provides a basis to conclude that elements of Keller/PSI could be tremendously valuable to contemporary educational programs (

). On the other hand, the value of those elements is lost to the extent that complications in implementing full versions of Keller/PSI is a requirement to do so; for many academic institutions full Keller/PSI implementation is not an available option (

). Since volumes of literature document the value of several specific educational practices that are incidental specific benefits of Keller/PSI, there is considerable value in extracting those individual components and implementing them individually as well as in any practical combination where full Keller/PSI implementation is not possible.

The Keller/PSI Concept

The essential features of Keller's PSI are the segmentation of academic courses into smaller component learning units, instruction through TAs, schedule-free self-pacing, emphasis on written learning materials, and the decreased reliance on substantive lectures by professors ( ). More specifically, Keller/PSI is designed to promote "mastery" of course material by teaching and testing small units of material one at a time. Keller/PSI strongly deemphasizes the role of professors and the lecture method.

Instead of relying on substantive lectures, Keller/PSI uses lectures more for motivational purposes, planning, and coordination than for the delivery of substantive learning material ( ). Teaching assistants are trained to provide one-on-one supplemental instruction and guidance for students by scheduled request ( ). Similarly, because of the reduced role of the professor, Keller/PSI relies more heavily on written course materials than traditional lecture-based educational methods ( ).

The signature feature of Keller/PSI is the purposeful elimination of requirements to complete courses (or individual sub-units of courses) by any calendar schedule (

). Whereas traditional educational curricula require courses to be completed within a given semester, Keller specifically permits students to establish their own schedules independently. Generally, students must complete the necessary sub-units and pass unit tests on each of them to receive academic credit for the course; however, Keller/PSI allows students to determine when they are prepared to sit for unit tests.

Moreover, Keller/PSI is designed to promote and recognize the accumulation of knowledge and not to punish students for difficulties achieving subject matter mastery (

). Therefore, Keller/PSI does not penalize failing scores on unit tests except in that progression to the subsequent sub-unit cannot proceed until the student achieves a score demonstrating subject matter mastery.

The Educational Benefits of Keller/PSI

In traditional undergraduate and graduate-level American educational institutions, time management is typically one of the most difficult challenges for students (

). Generally, course grades measure time management skills almost as much as how much subject matter students can understand or retain. In fact, there is evidence that much of the benefit of traditional lecture-based instructional formats is lost because students rely on "cramming" before exams instead of on gradually absorbing and processing learning material at the approximate pace of its presentation in class (

Empirical studies have established that Keller/PSI is associated with higher course completion rates than traditional academic courses in which students may withdraw without penalty until a specific deadline ( ). Higher long-term retention rates among Keller/PSI students than those in traditional instructional designs are also evident in the literature ( ). In effect, the Keller/PSI enables students to avoid dropping courses if their initial difficulties present a risk that completing the course could adversely affect their grade point averages. Keller/PSI eliminates this risk and therefore increases course retention and completion rates ( ).

Other literature suggests that Keller/PSI is even more beneficial in terms of obviating the need for last-minute cramming before exams and thereby promoting more effective study methods from the perspective of long-term subject matter retention (

). It is well established both that cramming is a widely used study technique, especially among undergraduates ( ) and that long-term retention rates are significantly less after cramming than after gradual lesson assimilation at the approximate rate that it is presented in lecture-based academic courses ( ). In that regard, several studies have concluded that students given the option to postpone an exam until they can prepare more fully or to cram for the exam and get it over with more often choose to postpone the exam until they can prepare for it over a longer term (

While Keller/PSI decreases the role of the professor, it provides increased availability of supplemental one-on-one instruction and guidance from especially trained TAs. There is considerable reason to believe that Keller/PSI students benefit more from the latter than they suffer from the former ( ). That is likely a function of the fact that while many students in traditional academic programs never solicit supplemental from their instructors, Keller/PSI students tend to do so with much greater frequency ( ). Likewise, it is well established that one-on-one instructional sessions are more effective than group lectures ( ).

The Problems Associated with Keller/PSI

While there is no apparent empirical evidence in the literature to contradict those characterizing the educational benefits of Keller/PSI, there are studies documenting some of the specific problems encountered in Keller/PSI courses ( ), as well as difficulties implementing Keller/PSI within existing academic curricula ( ). First, there is evidence that Keller/PSI does not necessarily improve the chances of completion or improved study habits in some students ( ). Some students have the capacity to postpone self-scheduled unit tests virtually indefinitely, suggesting the need for the use of imposed limits in that regard, notwithstanding that this violates the original Keller/PSI design.

Partly for this reason, many educational institutions employing Keller/PSI have included maximum time periods in which courses can be completed for credit ( ). The other principal reason that educational institutions failed to incorporate Keller/PSI methods more widely is that they are extremely difficult to include within existing curricula and semester hour requirements. By definition, the original version of Keller/PSI allows courses intended for one semester to extend far beyond the original semester at the option or needs of students ( ). Invariably, Keller/PSI courses have the potential to disrupt scheduling, grading, and professors' commitments to subsequent classes ( ), and to adversely affect student performance in other courses in subsequent semesters into which Keller/PSI courses continue ( ).

Some professors have tried other mechanisms for incorporating the Keller/PSI concept of self-scheduling for unit tests in a manner that minimizes inappropriate procrastination. For example, Keller/PSI courses have used test schedules with various grace periods ( ), or with optional testing "windows" ( ), or by allowing extensions past those deadlines for unit testing under specific criteria but only on a case-by-case basis ( ).

There is also empirical research to establish that in some cases, Keller/PSI students still resort to cramming to prepare for unit tests, particularly in conjunction with Keller/PSI designs imposing firm deadlines such as described in connection with procrastination ( ). In those cases, Keller/PSI students simply exploited the available flexibility in scheduling before relying on their usual cramming efforts in the few days preceding their unit tests.

Computer-assisted Personal System of Instruction (CAPSI)

The computer-assisted personal system of instruction (CAPSI) version of Keller/PSI combines the original Keller/PSI concept with computer-based self-learning modules, integrated computer-based review modules, integrated computer-based unit tests, integrated computer-based unit test review modules, and computerized unit tests (

). The computerized unit tests allow students to sit for the unit test and then decide whether or not to submit the completed test for scoring; this element of the computerization of Keller/PSI further removes traditional impediments to testing. This is important because the evidence suggests that students are more likely to submit to unit testing sooner even when failed scores do not adversely impact their grades, primarily because of the human embarrassment factor with respect to the TAs ( ). The CAPSI unit testing capabilities minimize this issue.

However, according to several studies, there are several other specific potential benefits to students of CAPSI versions of Keller/PSI in particular. Those potential benefits generally have to do with the similarity of several Keller/PSI principles, CAPSI methods and materials, and volumes of available research establishing the way that some of those elements of Keller/PSI happen to coincide with recommendations from other areas of contemporary education research.

Multiple Intelligences Theory

Educational theorist Howard Gardner of the Harvard University School of Education identified six (and later, eight) specific areas of cognitive learning capacity besides the two that have been the primary focus of American education for centuries: verbal/linguistic and symbolic logic/mathematical abilities (Gardner, 2002). In addition to identifying the full range of human cognitive abilities that constitute intelligence, Gardner has implemented learning methodologies based on the philosophy that traditional educational methodologies substantially ignore the best educational interests of many of those students whose greatest potential for learning lie outside the narrow focus of traditional education on reading/writing and arithmetic (Gardner, 2002).

A review of the complete outline of the components of human intelligence provided by Gardner (below) reveals several specific areas that are readily compatible with Keller/PSI and CAPSI.

Intelligence Area:

Is Strong in:

Likes to:

Learns Best Through:

Famous Examples:

Verbal-Linguistic (Word Smart)

reading, writing, telling stories, memorizing dates, thinking words

Read, write, tell stories, talk, memorize, work at puzzles reading, hearing and seeing words, speaking, writing, discussing and debating

T.S. Eliot, Maya Angelou, Virginia Woolf, Abraham Lincoln

Math-Logic (Number Smart)

math, reasoning, logic, problem-solving, patterns solve problems, question, work with numbers, experiment working with patterns and relationships, classifying, categorizing, working with the abstract

Albert Einstein, John Dewey, Susanne Langer

Spatial (Picture Smart)

reading, maps, charts, drawing, mazes, puzzles, making images, visualization design, draw, build, create, daydream, look at pictures working with pictures and colors, visualizing, using the minds eye, drawing

Pablo Picasso, Frank Lloyd Wright, Georgia OKeeffe, Bobby Fischer

Bodily-Kinesthetic (Body Smart)

athletics, dancing, acting, crafts, using tools move around, touch and talk, use body language touching, moving, processing knowledge through bodily sensations

Charlie Chaplin, Martina Navratilova, Magic Johnson

Musical (Music Smart)

singing, picking up sounds, remembering melodies, rhythms sing, hum, play an instrument, listen to music rhythm, melody, singing, listening to music and melodies

Leonard Bernstein, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ella Fitzgerald

Interpersonal (People Smart)

understanding people, leading, organizing, communicating, resolving conflicts, selling have friends, talk to people, join groups

sharing, comparing, relating, interviewing, cooperating

Mahandas Gandhi, Ronald Reagan, Mother Theresa

Intrapersonal (Self Smart)

understanding self, recognizing strengths and weaknesses, setting goals work alone, reflect, pursue interests working alone, doing self-paced projects, having space, reflecting

Eleanor Roosevelt, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Merton

Naturalist (Nature Smart)

understanding nature, making distinctions, identifying flora and fauna be involved with nature, make distinctions working in nature, exploring living things, learning about plants and natural events

John Muir, Charles Darwin, Luther Burbank

(Gardner School of Multiple Intelligences, 2006)

In particular, Keller/PSI is extremely compatible with students who score high on measures of interpersonal aspect of intelligence because Keller/PSI accommodates their tendency and preference for working independently and establishing their own pace for progress and achieving objectives. Traditional education models stifle that tendency by penalizing the failure to conform to rigid schedules and deadlines. That is why students who score high on this aspect of intelligence as defined and measured by Gardner would tend to benefit from Keller/PSI courses ( ).

Students who score high on the spatial aspect of intelligence as defined and measured by Gardner would likely benefit considerably from many type of virtual lesson modules such as those used in CAPSI versions of Keller/PSI. While Keller/PSI emphasizes written course materials, the supplemental lesson module and review module CAPSI materials could easily be purposely designed to increase their appeal to students inclined to learn through spatial media rather than from traditional verbal lectures or written course materials ( ).

In fact, the CAPSI version of Keller/PSI also allows course designers to improve the ability of CAPSI lesson and lesson review modules to appeal to and benefit students whose ability to learn from auditory and/or visual repetition exceeds their ability to absorb academic information from written materials ( ). The CAPSI concept provides those students with considerably more flexibility to listen and watch lesson and review modules than traditional instructional methods. The effectiveness and successes that Gardner has demonstrated in connection with his teaching methodology at the Gardner School of Multiple Intelligences in Vancouver, WA in the last fifteen years should provide enough evidence as to the potential value of any teaching methodology that better serves the needs of at least three categories defined by Gardner.