A PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF STUDENT-SET DEADLINES IN A PERSONALIZED CHILD DEVELOPMENT COURSE

Self-pacing is a highly rated component of the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI). However, when students are permitted to complete course tasks at their own rate, they often delay work until the end-of-the-semester. Slow rates of progress have been associated with lower course grades and higher rates of course withdrawal for procrastinating students and increased pressure on instructional staff and other members of the academic community. A number of solutions to the procrastination problem have been suggested. Most common among them is the imposition of instructor-set deadlines. Although effective in regulating student pacing rates, deadlines set by the instructor may not be sensitive to individual student concerns or learning abilities. Recently, PSI instructors have stressed the need to include students in the determination of pacing arrangements and to train students to share in this responsibility.;Permitting students to schedule their own deadlines for course tasks is a viable procedure for engaging students in the determination of pacing arrangements for a PSI course. Course progress rates and staff involvement with schedule monitoring are directly related to the number of deadlines imposed. Replication of the quiz question procedure is warranted. The optimal number of deadlines necessary to maintain adequate rates of progress will need to be empirically determined for each new PSI application. Finally, training students to apply their own consequences for schedule compliance and assessment of the generalizability of the scheduling skill need to be undertaken.;The present studies provided students with detailed instruction for establishing individual learning calendars and investigated procedures for bringing students into contact with their schedules. The first experimental procedure required students to respond to a quiz question assessing schedule compliance. Other experimental procedures required students to comply with 15, nine, or five student-set deadlines. Experimental procedures were compared to instructor-set deadline conditions. Results did not indicate significant differences among conditions for academic performance measures. However, students required to monitor their progress or required to comply with 15 student-set deadlines progressed at significantly faster rates than comparison students. While there were no differences on pacing measures for the nine deadline conditions, self-scheduling students in the five deadline condition progressed at slower rates than comparison students. Students in the quiz question condition and students in the 15 and nine deadline student-scheduling conditions also complied with their schedules to a significantly greater degree than comparison students. There were no differences between the five deadline conditions for measures of schedule compliance. No meaningful differences among conditions were indicated for student ratings of scheduling procedures. Finally, a multiple regression analysis indicated that a student's self-reported GPA is a significant predictor of date of course completion.