reducing student procrastination in a personalized system of instruction course

Reducing Student Procrastination in a Personalized System of Instruction Course

Robert A. Reiser

Robert A. Reiser is associate professor, Department of Educational Research, Development, and Foun- dations, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306.

This study examined the effects of three pacing procedures on student withdrawal rate, rate of progress, final examination performance, and attitude in a personalized system of instruction course. Undergraduate students [N = 100] who were enrolled in an introductory speech communication course were randomly assigned to either a reward, penalty, or control condition. Those students in the penalty group proceeded through the course at a more rapid pace than students in the control group. There were no significant differences in student withdrawal rate, final examination performance, and attitude. Final examination performance was not affected by the interaction between pacing procedures and student perception of locus of control. The benefits of reducing student procrastination, and appropriate means of doing so, are discussed in light of these results,

ECTJ, VOL. 32, NO. 1, PAGES 41-49 ISSN 0148-5806

Self-pacing has often been advocated as a feature that should be induded in instructional systems designed to promote mastery learning. For example, Bloom (1968) has indicated that permitting students to proceed through instruction at their own pace is one means of enabling most students to master a given learning task. And Keller (1968, 1974) has identified self-paring as one of the distinguishing features of the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), the mastery learning system he and his col- leagues developed.

When self-pacing is included as a feature in a mastery learning system, however, it often presents problems for some students. Studies of student performance in PSI courses have shown that many students tend to procrastinate when they are given the opportunity to pace themselves through a course (Miller, Weaver, & Semb, 1974; Morris, Surber, & Bijou, 1978; Powers, Ed- wards, & Hoehle, 1973; Reiser & Sullivan, 1977). Research indicates that students who procrastinate in PSI courses often perform more poorly on final examinations than students who progress at a rapid or steady pace (Allen, Giat, & Cherney, 1974; Hen- neberry, 1976; Santogrossi & Roberts, 1978). Furthermore, students who procrastinate are more likely to wi thdraw from PSI courses (Born & Herbert, 1971; Born & Whe- lan, 1973; Glick & Semb, 1978).

Self-pacing also presents some problems for instructors. Studies have indicated that, due to student procrastination, instructional facilities and staff are often used inef-

42 ECTJ SPRING1984

ficiently in self-paced PSI courses (Morris et al., 1978; Powers et al., 1973; Semb, Con- yers, Spencer, & Sanchez-Sosa, 1975); that is, during the early stages of the academic term, few students use the facilities or inter- act with the instructional staff. However, during the last few weeks of the term, the facilities are often overcrowded and the instructional staff is often overlooked with student requests for tests and instructional assistance.

In order to reduce student procrastination in PSI courses, thus overcoming some of the problems self-pacing presents, some instructors have modified the degree to which they allow students to pace themselves (Morris et al., 1978; Powers et al., 1973; Reiser & Sullivan, 1977; Semb et al., 1975). Modifications usually take one of two general forms. Students are given a schedule for passing each of the unit tests in a PSI course and either are rewarded for maintaining the schedule or penalized for failing to do so.

Several studies have compared the self- paced approach with either the reward or penalty approach. These studies have generally indicated that final examination performance is not affected by the type of pacing procedure employed (Calhoun, 1976; Morris et al., 1978; Reiser, 1980; Semb et al., 1975) and that the pace at which students pass unit quizzes is steadier when a reward or penalty approach is used (Miller et al., 1974; Morris et al., 1978; Reiser & Sullivan, 1977; Semb et al., 1975). Other findings, however, have not been as consistent. Sev- eral studies have indicated that modified pacing approaches result in fewer with- drawals than a self-paced approach (Reiser & Sullivan, 1977; Riedel, Harney, LaFief, & Finch, 1976; Semb et al., 1975), while several other studies have shown that withdrawal rate is not affected by the type of pacing procedure employed (Bijou, Morris, & Parsons, 1976; Calhoun, 1976; Morris et al., 1978; Reiser, 1980). In addition, some studies have indicated that student attitude is superior under a self-paced approach (Fernald, Chiseri, Lawson, Scroggs, & Rid- dell, 1975; Robin & Graham, 1974), while other studies have shown that attitudes do not differ across approaches (Calhoun,

1976; Morris et al., 1978; Reiser & Sullivan, 1977; Semb et al., 1975).

Since previous research did not clearly indicate whether a particular pacing procedure was superior to the others, further examination of this issue appeared necessary. Therefore, this study was designed to compare the effects of three pacing procedures--a self-paced procedure, a reward procedure, and a penalty procedure--on four dependent variables. These dependent variables were the percentage of students who withdrew from the course, the rate at which students passed unit quizzes, the attitudes students had toward the course, and the performance of students on a com- prehensive final examination. The com- prehensive examination was designed to measure the students' ability to identify and apply the concepts and principles taught in the course.

Another independent variable examined in this study was student perception of locus of control of reinforcement. In a previous study (Reiser, 1980), final examination performance had been significantly affected by the interaction between pacing procedures and locus of control. Students who perceived rewards as being externally controlled (i.e., "external" students) performed better under a reward procedure and a self-paced procedure, whereas students who considered reinforcement to be contingent upon their own behavior (i.e., "internal" students) performed best under a penalty condition. This interaction had not been expected. Previous research had indicated that prompt completion of work was related to achievement in PSI courses (Allen et al., 1974; Henneberry, 1976; San- togrossi & Roberts, 1978). Therefore, it had been hypothesized that (a) internals, who were likely to complete work promptly, would perform well regardless of the treatment condition they were assigned to, and (b) externals in the reward and penalty condition would be encouraged to maintain a steady pace and thus perform better than externals in the control condition. Since the relationship that was found was not as expected, the interaction of locus of control and pacing procedures on final examination performance was examined again in the

REDUCING STUDENT PROCRASTINATION 43

present study, with no prediction being made regarding the findings.

Based upon previous research (Calhoun, 1976; Morris et al., 1978; Reiser, 1980; Semb et al., 1975), it was expected that the treatment conditions alone would not account for a significant portion of the variance in final examination performance. It was also hypothesized that student attitude toward the course would not differ among the treatment groups.

Although the treatment conditions were not expected to have an effect on performance or attitude, it was expected that they would significantly affect student rate of progress and withdrawal rate. It was hypothesized that the reward and penalty conditions would encourage students to maintain a steadier pace during the semester and therefore the percentage of students who withdrew from the course was expected to be less in these groups than in the control group.

METHOD

Sample

The subjects in this study were 100 undergraduate students enrolled in a 10-week introductory speech communication course at Florida State University. Of the 51 females and 49 males who participated in the study, 26 were seniors, 42 were juniors, 25 were sophomores, and 7 were freshmen. Forty- four of the students were majoring in communication.

Course Structure The course in this study incorporated many of the features typically found in PSI courses. Instruction in the course consisted of six self-instructional units. Each unit consisted of a list of 10 behavioral objectives and a series of readings chosen to enable students to attain the objectives. Tutors were also available to help students attain the objectives. Most of the objectives required students to identify examples of concepts or apply rules that had been discussed in the readings.

Multiple-choice tests were used to assess student attainment of the objectives. Each test consisted of 20 multiple-choice items, 2

for each of the 10 objectives in a unit. A student was considered to have attained an objective if the student was able to answer correctly both test items related to that objective. Most of the items described a situation involving communicat ion among a group of people and either required learn- ers to identify the concept involved in the situation or select the appropriate action to take, given the circumstances described. The types of learning outcomes measured by these items would be classified as de- f ined concepts and rules according to Gagn6's (1977) categorization scheme.

Students were given credit (points) for mastering a unit if they were able to attain at least eight of the objectives in that unit. If a student attained eight objectives, the student received 12 points. If a student attained more than eight objectives, the student received 14 points. If, after taking three versions of a test for a unit, a student was unable to attain at least eight objectives, the student did not receive any points for that unit but was allowed to proceed to the next unit. Of those students who completed the course, 74% were able to attain at least eight objectives for each of the six units in the c o u r s e .

The number of points a student earned on the unit tests was converted into a letter grade, which accounted for approximately 50% of the student 's grade in the course. The conversion of points to grades was as follows: 82 or more = A; 72-81 = B; 60-71 = C; 48-59 = D; less than 48 = F.

At the end of the quarter, a final examination consisting of 60 multiple-choice items (one item related to each of the course objectives) was administered to all students. Performance on this examination also accounted for approximately 50% of a student 's course grade.

Procedure

On the first day of class, all the students met in one classroom, and the course instructor provided the students with a brief overview of the course content and procedures. The students were also asked to respond to the Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, often referred to as the I-E scale (Rot- ter, 1966). The I-E scale measures individual

44 ECTJ SPRING1984

differences in generalized expectancy for internal versus external control of reinforcement. The higher an individual's score on the scale, the more external the individual. External individuals are those who usually perceive reinforcement as being externally controlled. Internal individuals are those who usually consider reinforcement to be contingent upon their own behavior.

On the second day of class, each student was randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups and was asked to go to a smaller room where special instructions were given to the members of that student's group. When they were in the smaller rooms, students in each of the three groups were given a schedule listing the suggested dates for mastering each of the six instructional units in the course. The schedule, which was the same for all three groups, also listed a mandatory deadline for mastering a prerequisite unit on how to use behavioral objectives. Students were required to master the prerequisite unit within a 2-week period (all of the students did so). Suggested deadlines for mastering the six instructional units were spread out evenly over the succeeding 6-week period.

Whereas the schedule each group received was the same, the consequences of following the schedule varied across groups. Students in one group, the reward group, received two additional points for each instructional unit they mastered by the suggested deadlines. Students in a second group, the penalty group, lost two points for each instructional unit they failed to master by the suggested deadlines. Students in the third group, the control group, were neither rewarded for mastering, nor penalized for failing to master, an instructional unit by a suggested deadline.

Although each group was told only of the consequences applicable to that group, the instructors did not attempt to prevent the students from discussing those consequences with other students in the class. Thus, it is likely that during the course of the semester, many of the students became aware of the conditions under which students in the other groups were working. It is difficult to judge accurately the effects such knowledge may have had on student

performance and attitude. In at least one respect, however, the effect seems to have been minimal. Very few students expressed concerns or complaints about the differences in treatment conditions.

Dependent Variables and Statistical Analyses Four dependent variables--withdrawal rate, rate of progress, final examination performance, and attitude--were analyzed in this study. For all statistical analyses, alpha was set at .05.

Withdrawal rate was measured by cal- culating, for each treatment group, the number of students who withdrew from the course and the number who completed it. A chi-square analysis was used to compare these figures across treatment groups.

Each student's rate of progress was measured by the number of deadlines met (i.e., the number of instucfional units the student mastered on or before the suggested deadlines). Multiple-regression analysis was employed to study the factors affecting rate of progress. The predictor variables used in the regression equation were entered in the following order: grade-point average (GPA) and score on the I-E scale (entered as a block), followed by treatment group, followed by the interaction between GPA and treatment group and the interaction between locus of control and treatment group (entered as a block). Grade-point average was included in the analysis because previous research had indicated that there was a positive relationship between GPA and student performance in PSI courses (Aus- tin & Gilbert, 1973; Bostow & O'Connor, 1973; Kulik, Kulik, & Hertzler, 1977; Reiser, 1980).

Multiple-regression analysis was also used to examine the factors affecting student performance on the final examination. The predictor variables used in the analysis were ordered as follows: GPA, rate of progress, and score on the I-E scale (entered as a block); followed by treatment group; followed by the interaction between GPA and treatment group and the interaction between locus of control and treatment group (entered as a block).

An 11-item, Likert-type questionnaire was used to assess student attitude toward


TABLE 1 Multiple Regression Analysis for Rate of Progress

Proportion Source of Variance df F

GPA .11146 1 10.00"

I-E Score .01562 1 .76

Treatment Group .11959 2 6.03*

Residual .75333 76

*p < .01

the course. Nine of the items measured student attitude toward a particular aspect of the course, such as pacing procedures, grading procedures, and instructional procedures. The other two items assessed whether students felt they (a) paid dose attention to the suggested deadlines, and (b) understood the course procedures. A chi-square analysis was used to compare the three groups' responses to each item.

RESULTS

Withdrawal Rate Of the 100 students originally enrolled in course, only seven withdrew. Four (12.9%) of the students in the reward group withdrew, as did two (5.7%) in the penalty group, and one (2.9%) in the control group. A chi-square analysis indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference in the percentage of students who withdrew from each group.

Rate of Progress Analysis revealed that the two interactions examined (GPA x treatment group and I-E score x treatment group) did not have a significant effect on student rate of progress, F(4, 72) = .26, p > .25, R 2 = .0108. Therefore , the in terac t ion terms were dropped from the regression model.

As indicated in Table 1, there was a difference in the rate at which students in the three treatment groups proceeded through the course, F(2, 76) = 6.03, p < .01. Among students who completed the course, those in the penalty group met 61.6% of the deadlines they encountered, whereas those in

the reward group met 43.8%, and those in the control group met 22.2%.

Further analysis revealed that students in the penalty group met significantly more deadlines than did students in the control group, t (76) = 3.47, p < .001. There were no other differences in rate of progress among the three treatment groups.

The rate at which students proceeded through the course was also significantly affected by GPA, F(1,76) = 10,00, p < .01. In general, the higher a student 's GPA, the more rap id ly the s tuden t p roceeded through the course.

Rate of progress was not affected by student perception of locus of control as measured by scores on the I-E scale.

Final Examination Performance Final examination performance was not significantly affected by the two interactions (GPA x treatment group and I-E score x treatment group), F(4, 71) = .64, p > .25, R 2 = .007; therefore, the interaction terms were dropped from the regression model.

Final examination performance did not differ significantly among the three treatment groups. Mean scores on the final examination were 49.2 (SD = 5.2) for the penalty group, 48.9 (SD = 5.1) for the reward group, and 48.3 (SD = 5.2) for the control group.

While membership in a particular treatment group did not affect final exam performance, grade-point average did. As indicated in Table 2, GPA accounted for a significant portion (19.4%) of the variance in final examination scores, F(1, 75) = 14.21, p < .001. The other predictor variables (I-E

46 ECTJ SPRING1984

TABLE 2 Multiple Regression Analysis for Final Examination Performance

Proportion Source of Variance df F

GPA .19376 1 14.21"

Rate of Progress .00453 1 .10

I-E Score .00797 1 .54

Treatment Group .00709 2 .34

Residual .78665 75

*p < .001

score and rate of progress) did not have a significant effect on final exam performance.

Attitude For each of the nine questionnaire items designed to measure student attitude toward a particular aspect of the course, there were no significant differences in responses across the three treatment groups. Student attitude in each of the groups was generally favorable, with at least 63% of the students in each treatment group responding posi- tively to each item.

Response to the item regarding student understanding of course procedures also did not differ across the three treatment groups. Over 86% of the students in each treatment group indicated that they had a clear understanding of course procedures.

The number of students indicating they paid dose attention to the suggested deadlines for taking unit quizzes did differ significantly among the treatment groups, X2(8) = 3.02, p < .001. In the penalty group, 77% of the students indicated they paid close attention to deadlines, compared to 50 % in the reward group, and 23% in the control group.

DISCUSSION

.This study indicates that student procrastination in PSI courses can be reduced by presenting students with a pacing schedule and penalizing them for failing to maintain that schedule. The data provide evidence that these results can be obtained without

adversely affecting student attitude or final examination performance.

For the most part, previous research findings seem to be consistent with the present results. Research has shown that student rate of progress is improved and final examination performance is unhindered when pacing procedures involving penal- ties are employed (Reiser, 1977; Robin & Graham, 1974; Semb et al., 1975). In addition, several studies have indicated that student attitudes are as positive under a penalty approach as they are under a self- paced procedure (Calhoun, 1976; Morris et al., 1978; Reiser, 1980; Reiser & Sullivan, 1977; Semb et al., 1975). There have been, however, some exceptions to this finding (Fernald et al., 1975; Robin & Graham, 1974).

In those studies in which penalty approaches to pacing were viewed less favor- ably than other approaches, the differences in attitudes between groups were moder- ate. In one case, mean student ratings dif- fered by .40 on a seven-point scale (Fernald et al., 1975). In the other case, although students in a self-paced group had more positive attitudes about pacing than students in a teacher-paced group, overall course ratings did not differ be tween groups (Robin & Graham, 1974).

Is the use of a reward procedure also an effective means of reducing student procrastination? Unlike the penalty procedure employed in this study, the reward procedure did not have a significant effect on the rate at which students progressed through the course. However, other studies have indicated that procrastination can be reduced by employing rewards (Bijou et al.,


1975; Powers et al., 1973; Semb et al., 1975). While the preponderence of evidence in-

dicates that a reward approach can reduce procrastination, the relative merits of a penalty approach and a reward approach are unclear. There have been few studies comparing these approaches. The current study indicates that a penalty procedure may be the best means of reducing procrastination, but a previous study indicates that either a reward or penalty approach will work well (Semb et al., 1975). Given these conflicting results, it appears necessary to conduct further research comparing the relative merits of these approaches, examining their effects on student procrastination, as well as on other variables.

Why is it important to reduce student procrastination in a PSI course? Some studies have indicated that students who proceed through a course at a rapid or steady pace do better on final examinations than students who procrastinate (Allen et al., 1974; Henneberry, 1976; Santogrossi & Roberts, 1978). This was not the case in this study; the rate at which students proceeded through the course did not have an effect on final examination performance. In another recent study, similar results Were obtained (Reiser, 1980). Thus, it appears that the relationship between rate of progress and final examination performance in a PSI course also needs to be examined further.

It has also been found that students who procrastinate in PSI courses are more likely to withdraw from those courses (Born & Herbert, 1971; Born & Whelan, 1973; Glick & Semb, 1978). This study provides limited support for that notion. All of the students who withdrew failed to meet any of the suggested deadlines. However, one-third of the students who did complete the course also failed to meet any suggested deadlines. Furthermore, while the penalty procedure employed in this study did reduce student procrastination, it did not have an effect on student withdrawl rate. This may have been due to the relatively low withdrawal rate (2.9%) among students in the self-paced group. In previous studies, significant differences in withdrawal rates were found only in those instances where at least 20%

of the students in the self-paced groups withdrew (Reiser, 1977; Riedel et al., 1977; Semb et al., 1975).

Another reason for reducing student procrastination in PSI courses is that such a reduction can lessen the end-of-semester strain on instructional staff and facilities. This was certainly the case in this study. During the last few weeks of the semester, students in the control group crowded the instructional facility and kept the instructional assistants constantly busy. Students in the penalty group, however, by proceed- ing through the course at a steadier pace, did not tax the system during the last few weeks.

What factors besides pacing conditions affect the rate at which students progress through a PSI course? This study confirmed what other studies have indicated: Grade- point average affects rate of progress (Allen et al., 1974; Born & Whelan, 1973; Santo- grossi & Roberts, 1978). Students with higher grade-point averages tend to proceed more rapidly through PSI courses. This holds true regardless of the pacing contingencies employed.

A factor that did not affect the pace of students in this study was student perception of locus of control. A student's rate of progress was not affected by whether the student felt reinforcement was externally controlled or believed reinforcement to be contingent upon personal behavior. This finding was similar to results obtained in a previous study (Reiser, 1980).

As was also the case in a previous study (Reiser, 1980), perception of locus of control did not have an effect on final examination performance. However, unlike the previous study, in this study, final examination scores were not affected by the interaction between pacing procedures and perception of locus of control. This finding is particu- larly interesting because the experimental as well as the instructional procedures employed in the two studies were very similar.

One difference between the two studies was the emphasis placed on meeting deadlines. In both studies, at the beginning of the semester, students were given copies of a pacing schedule and were informed of the pacing contingencies they would be work-

48 ECTJ SPRING1984

ing under. In the first s tudy, however, there were no systematic a t tempts during the course of the semester to remind s tudents of the importance of maintaining an adequate pace. In contrast, in the present study, the deadl ine for passing each unit quiz was posted in large print in the testing and s tudy areas, and, as each deadline passed, the names of those students who were keeping pace were p r o m i n e n t l y d i sp layed . This s imple difference between the two studies most likely was a pr imary factor in increas- ing the percentage of deadlines met from approximately 25% in the first s tudy to 43% in the present study.

Given that this one difference in procedures between the two studies had a pro- nounced effect on the percentage of deadlines met, it is not unreasonable to speculate that it may have also affected the nature of the interaction between the pacing con- t ingencies and s tuden t locus of control scores. As Cronbach and Snow (1977, p. 493) indicate, interactions are "sure to wan- der in and out of view" as changes in in- s t ruc t iona l or expe r imen ta l cond i t i ons occur across studies. Further studies should help to identify how various instructional condit ions, such as the emphasis placed upon reminding s tudents of deadlines, affect the interaction between pacing procedures and locus of control.

While several research questions must still be answered, it seems clear that by modifying the self-pacing feature of PSI courses, s tudent procrastination can be reduced without adversely affecting withdrawal rate, att i tudes, or final examination performance. Future research should be di- rected toward identifying the most appropriate al ternat ives to the self-paced approach and the condi t ions under which those alternatives should be employed.

REFERENCES

Allen, G. J., Giat, L., & Chemey, R. J. Locus of control, test anxiety, and student performance in a personalized instruction course. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 968-973.

Austin, S. N., & Gilbert, K. E. Student performance in a Keller Plan course in introductory electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 1973, 41, 12-18.

Bijou, S. W., Morris, E. K., &Parsons, J. A. A PSI course in child development with a procedure for reducing student procrastination. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 1976, 1, 36-40.

Bloom, B. S. Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1968, /(Whole No. 2).

Born, D. G., & Herbert, E. A further study of personalized instruction in large university classes. Journal of Experimental Education, 1971, 40, 6-11.

Born, D. G., & Whelan, P. Some descriptive characteristics of student performance in PSI and lecture courses. Psychological Record, 1973, 23, 145-152.

Bostow, D. E., & O'Connor, R. J. A comparison of two college classroom testing procedures: Required remediation versus no remediation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1973, 6, 599-607.

Calhoun, J. F. The combination of elements in the personalized system of instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 1976, 3, 73-76.

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington, 1977.

Fernald, P. S., Chiseri, M. J., Lawson, D. W., Scroggs, G. F., & Riddell, J. C. Systematic ma- nipulation of student pacing, the perfection requirement, and contact with a teaching assis- tant in an introductory psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 1975, 2, 147-151.

Gagn6, R. M. The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, 1977.

Glick, D. M., & Semb, G. Instructor-set pacing contingencies versus the absence of such contingencies in a personalized university course. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 1978, 3, 131- 138.

Henneberry, J. K. Initial progress rates as related to performance in a personalized system of instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 1976, 3, 178-181.

Keller, F. S. "Goodbye t e a c h e r . . . " Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 79-89.

Keller, F. S. Ten years of personalized instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 1974, 1, 4-9.

Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Hertzler, E. C. Modu- lar college teaching with and without required remediation. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 1977, 2, 70-75.

Miller, L. K., Weaver, F. H., & Semb, G. A procedure for maintaining student progress in a personalized university course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 87-91.


Morris, E. K., Surber, C. F., & Bijou, S. W. Self- pacing versus instructor-pacing: Achieve- ment, evaluations, and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 70, 224-230.

Powers, R. B., Edwards, K. A., & Hoehle, W. F. Bonus points in a self-paced course facilitates exam-taking. The Psychological Record, 1973, 23, 533-538.

Reiser, R. A. The interaction between locus of control and three pacing procedures in a personalized system of instruction course. Educa- tional Communication and Technology Journal, 1980, 28, 194-202.

Reiser, R. A., & Sullivan, H. J. Effects of self- pacing and instructor-pacing in a PSI course. The Journal of Educational Research, 1977, 71, 8-12.

Riedel, R. C., Harney, B., LaFief, W., &Finch, M. The effects of time as a contingency on student performance in an individualized course. In B. A. Green (Ed.), Personalized instruction in higher education: Proceedings of the second national conference. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Uni-

versity, Center for Personalized Instruction, 1976.

Robin, A., & Graham, M. Q. Academic responses and attitudes engendered by teacher versus student pacing in a personalized instruction course. In R. S. Ruskin & S. F. Bono (Eds.), Personalized instruction in higher education: Proceedings of the first national conference. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, Center for Personalized Instruction, 1974.

Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psy- chological Monographs, 1966, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).

Santogrossi, D. A., & Roberts, M. C. Student variables related to rates of pacing in self-paced instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 1978, 5, 30-33.

Semb, G. Conyers, D., Spencer, R., & Sanchez- Sosa, J. J. An experimental comparison of four pacing contingencies in a personalized instruction course. In J. M. Johnston (Ed.), Behavior research and technology in higher education. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1975.

AWARDS PROGRAM FOR OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS IN

INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

This year, the Division for Instructional De- velopment, which is part of the Association of E d u c a t i o n a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d Technology (AECT), will offer awards to recognize outs tanding achievements in the ins t ruc t iona l d e v e l o p m e n t f ield. These awards will be presented at the AECT Na- tional Convention, which will be held in Anaheim, California, next January. Award categories this year are:

�9 Outs tanding Practice in Instructional Development

�9 Outs tanding Book in the Instructional Development Field

�9 Outs tanding Journal Ar t ide in the In- structional Development Field

�9 Ou t s t and ing Gradua te S tuden t Re- search in Instructional Development

�9 President ia l Award for Ou t s t and ing Service in the Division for Instructional Development

Information about these awards, includ- ing how to make nominat ions for them, may be obtained by writing:

Dr. Robert A. Reiser, Chairman DID Awards Commit tee Depar tment of Educational Research,

Development and Foundat ions 305D Stone Building Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306

reducing student procrastination in a personalized system of instruction course

Documents