Personalised System of Instruction in Teaching Mathematics
Abstract
The vast majority of children do not reach their full potential in terms of learning. The purpose of this study is to determine how successful teaching methods are for acquiring subject mastery. The present study was taken up to investigate the effectiveness of personalised system of instruction for teaching mathematics to middle school children. This study was conducted on middle school pupils as the concepts gained at this level will act as foundation and assist them in achieving their further educational goals. A quasi-experimental study was conducted on the middle school students of Nagpur city of Central Board of Secondary Education using pretest-posttest nonequivalent control group design. Each group consisted of 25 participants. One of the group was exposed to traditional teaching method and the other was exposed to personalised system of instruction. The scores were subjected to t test and the results revealed that experimental group performed better than the control group. Thus, the study encourages the use of PSI to improve performance of middle school children in the subject of mathematics. It is suggested that it can be used to gain mastery learning over concepts of mathematics as well as other subjects at the middle school level which can promote high school performance.
How to cite this article:
Vaishnav R. Personalised System of Instruction in Teaching Mathematics. Int J Adv Res Peace Harm Edu 2022; 7(1): 23-26.
References
1. Abadom GN. New strategies for optimizing learning outcomes in Mathematics in Ayodele S. O. (ed). Teaching strategies for Nigerian secondary school, 2002; 181-185.
2. Allan R, Gallup H. The PSI homepage 2002. Lafayette College website. http://ww2. lafayette. edu/~allanr/ psi. html
3. Bautist R. The effects of personalized instruction on the academic achievement of students in physics. International Journal of Arts & Sciences 2012; 5(5): 573.
4. Bloom BS. Learning for Mastery. In Evaluation Comment, Los Angeles. University of California, Centre for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs 1968; 1(2).
5. Bloom BS. Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw Hill. Burton 1976.
6. Brooke R, Ruthven A. The effects of contingency contracting on student performance in a PSI class. Teaching of Psychology 1984; 8: 87-89.
7. Buskist W, Cush D, DeGrandpre R. The life and times of PSI. Journal of Behavioral Education 1991; 1(2): 215-234.
8. Butler R, Kohler J, McElrath V et al. Modified Personalized System of Instruction vs. traditional lecture method of instruction using a within design at a small liberal arts college. Psychology 2015; 5(5): 317-326.
9. Crone-Todd D, Pear J. Applications of Bloom’s taxonomy to PSI. Behavior Analyst Today 2001; 3: 204-210.
10. Crosbie J, Kelly G. A computer-based Personalized System of Instruction course in applied behavior analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 1993; 25: 366-270.
11. Eyre H. Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction: Was it a fleeting fancy or is there a revival on the horizon? The Behavior Analyst Today 2007; 8(3).
12. Fanner J, Lachter G, Blaustein JJ et al. The role of proctoring in personalized instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1974; 5: 401-404.
13. Fox E. The Personalized System of Instruction: A flexible and effective approach to mastery learning. Evidencebased Educational Methods 2004; 201-221.
14. Friskawati GF, Ilmawati H, Suherman A. Effect of Personalized System for Instructions (PSI) on Physical Fitness of Senior High School nursing’s student. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2017; 180(1): 1-6.
15. Gallup HF, Allan RW. Concerns with some recent criticisms of the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) 2002. Lafayette College website. http://ww2. lafayette. edu/%7Eallanr/concerns. html
16. Hambleton IR, Foster WH, Richardson JTE. Improving student learning using the Personalised System of Instruction. Higher Education 1998; 35: 187-203.
17. Herzberg P. The Keller Plan: 25 years of personal experience. McMaster University website 2001. http://www. mcmaster. ca/learning/posped/Jan2001/ herzberg101. html
18. Hooda RC. Effects of Mastery Learning Strategy (MLS) on Students’ Achievement in Mathematics, Their Self- Concept and Attitude Towards Mathematics . Journal of Educational Research and Extension 1984; 21(1): 19-26. 19. Keller FS. Good-bye, teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1: 79-89.
20. Keller FS, Sherman JG. The Keller Plan handbook. Menlo Park, CA. : W. A. Benjamin 1974.
21. Kulik J, Bangert-Downs R. Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 1990; 60: 265-299.
22. Kulik J. PSI: A formative evaluation. Personalized instruction in higher education: Proceedings of the the second national conference. Washington, D. C. : Center for Personalized Instruction 1976.
23. Kulik JA. Meta-analytic studies of findings on computerbased instruction. In E. L. Baker and H. F. O’Neil (Eds.) Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ. : LEA Publishers 1994.
24. Kulik J, Kulik C, Cohen P. A meta-analysis of outcome studies of Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction. American Psychologist 1979; 34(4): 307-318.
25. Kulik J, Kulik C, Cohen P. A meta-analysis of outcome studies of Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction, American Psychologist 1979; 34(4): 307-318.
26. Kulik JA, Kulik CLC, Smith BB. Research on the Personalised System of Instruction. Personalised Learning and Educational Technology 1976;13; 23-29.
27. Lamal PA. Interest in PSI across sixteen years. Teaching of Psychology 1984; 11: 237-238.
28. Lowry W, Thornburg M. A workingbiography of the Keller plan (PSI). Logan, UT 1988.
29. Lui H. Development of an online course using a modified version of Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 2003.
30. Oliver, Kevin. Personalized System of Instruction 1999. Retrieved from http://www. edtech. vt. edu/edtech/ id/models/powerpoint/psi. pdf
31. Owolabi J, Olanipekun P, Iwerima J. Mathematics ability and anxiety, computer and programming anxieties, age and gender as determinants of achievement in basic programming. GSTF Journal on Computing (JoC) 2014; 3(4): 109.
32. Paiva R, Ferreira M, Frade M. Intelligent tutorial system based on Personalized System of Instruction to teach or remind mathematical concepts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2017; 33(4): 370-381.
33. Pascarella ET. Interaction of Prior Mathematics Preparation, Instructional Method and Achievement in the Self-Paced and Conventionally Taught Sections of Mathematics. Resources in Education (ERIC) 1978; 13(3)ED: 145856.
34. Polson D. Fred S. Keller and the Personalized System of Instruction. Athabasca University-Canada’s Open University, Centre for Psychology website 2000a. Retrieved from: http://psych. athabascau.ca/html/387/ OpenModules/Keller/
35. Sherman J. PSI today. The PSI Handbook: Essays on personalized instruction 1982; 72-78.
36. Sherman J. Reflections on PSI: Good news and bad. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis 1992; 25(1): 59-64. 37. Wichita State University. (n.d.). The Keller Plan. Retrieved from http://webs. wichita. edu/depttools/ depttoolsmemberfiles/belder/Question%202%20%20 Keller%20Plan. htm
2. Allan R, Gallup H. The PSI homepage 2002. Lafayette College website. http://ww2. lafayette. edu/~allanr/ psi. html
3. Bautist R. The effects of personalized instruction on the academic achievement of students in physics. International Journal of Arts & Sciences 2012; 5(5): 573.
4. Bloom BS. Learning for Mastery. In Evaluation Comment, Los Angeles. University of California, Centre for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs 1968; 1(2).
5. Bloom BS. Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw Hill. Burton 1976.
6. Brooke R, Ruthven A. The effects of contingency contracting on student performance in a PSI class. Teaching of Psychology 1984; 8: 87-89.
7. Buskist W, Cush D, DeGrandpre R. The life and times of PSI. Journal of Behavioral Education 1991; 1(2): 215-234.
8. Butler R, Kohler J, McElrath V et al. Modified Personalized System of Instruction vs. traditional lecture method of instruction using a within design at a small liberal arts college. Psychology 2015; 5(5): 317-326.
9. Crone-Todd D, Pear J. Applications of Bloom’s taxonomy to PSI. Behavior Analyst Today 2001; 3: 204-210.
10. Crosbie J, Kelly G. A computer-based Personalized System of Instruction course in applied behavior analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 1993; 25: 366-270.
11. Eyre H. Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction: Was it a fleeting fancy or is there a revival on the horizon? The Behavior Analyst Today 2007; 8(3).
12. Fanner J, Lachter G, Blaustein JJ et al. The role of proctoring in personalized instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1974; 5: 401-404.
13. Fox E. The Personalized System of Instruction: A flexible and effective approach to mastery learning. Evidencebased Educational Methods 2004; 201-221.
14. Friskawati GF, Ilmawati H, Suherman A. Effect of Personalized System for Instructions (PSI) on Physical Fitness of Senior High School nursing’s student. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2017; 180(1): 1-6.
15. Gallup HF, Allan RW. Concerns with some recent criticisms of the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) 2002. Lafayette College website. http://ww2. lafayette. edu/%7Eallanr/concerns. html
16. Hambleton IR, Foster WH, Richardson JTE. Improving student learning using the Personalised System of Instruction. Higher Education 1998; 35: 187-203.
17. Herzberg P. The Keller Plan: 25 years of personal experience. McMaster University website 2001. http://www. mcmaster. ca/learning/posped/Jan2001/ herzberg101. html
18. Hooda RC. Effects of Mastery Learning Strategy (MLS) on Students’ Achievement in Mathematics, Their Self- Concept and Attitude Towards Mathematics . Journal of Educational Research and Extension 1984; 21(1): 19-26. 19. Keller FS. Good-bye, teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1: 79-89.
20. Keller FS, Sherman JG. The Keller Plan handbook. Menlo Park, CA. : W. A. Benjamin 1974.
21. Kulik J, Bangert-Downs R. Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 1990; 60: 265-299.
22. Kulik J. PSI: A formative evaluation. Personalized instruction in higher education: Proceedings of the the second national conference. Washington, D. C. : Center for Personalized Instruction 1976.
23. Kulik JA. Meta-analytic studies of findings on computerbased instruction. In E. L. Baker and H. F. O’Neil (Eds.) Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ. : LEA Publishers 1994.
24. Kulik J, Kulik C, Cohen P. A meta-analysis of outcome studies of Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction. American Psychologist 1979; 34(4): 307-318.
25. Kulik J, Kulik C, Cohen P. A meta-analysis of outcome studies of Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction, American Psychologist 1979; 34(4): 307-318.
26. Kulik JA, Kulik CLC, Smith BB. Research on the Personalised System of Instruction. Personalised Learning and Educational Technology 1976;13; 23-29.
27. Lamal PA. Interest in PSI across sixteen years. Teaching of Psychology 1984; 11: 237-238.
28. Lowry W, Thornburg M. A workingbiography of the Keller plan (PSI). Logan, UT 1988.
29. Lui H. Development of an online course using a modified version of Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 2003.
30. Oliver, Kevin. Personalized System of Instruction 1999. Retrieved from http://www. edtech. vt. edu/edtech/ id/models/powerpoint/psi. pdf
31. Owolabi J, Olanipekun P, Iwerima J. Mathematics ability and anxiety, computer and programming anxieties, age and gender as determinants of achievement in basic programming. GSTF Journal on Computing (JoC) 2014; 3(4): 109.
32. Paiva R, Ferreira M, Frade M. Intelligent tutorial system based on Personalized System of Instruction to teach or remind mathematical concepts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2017; 33(4): 370-381.
33. Pascarella ET. Interaction of Prior Mathematics Preparation, Instructional Method and Achievement in the Self-Paced and Conventionally Taught Sections of Mathematics. Resources in Education (ERIC) 1978; 13(3)ED: 145856.
34. Polson D. Fred S. Keller and the Personalized System of Instruction. Athabasca University-Canada’s Open University, Centre for Psychology website 2000a. Retrieved from: http://psych. athabascau.ca/html/387/ OpenModules/Keller/
35. Sherman J. PSI today. The PSI Handbook: Essays on personalized instruction 1982; 72-78.
36. Sherman J. Reflections on PSI: Good news and bad. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis 1992; 25(1): 59-64. 37. Wichita State University. (n.d.). The Keller Plan. Retrieved from http://webs. wichita. edu/depttools/ depttoolsmemberfiles/belder/Question%202%20%20 Keller%20Plan. htm
Published
2022-06-25
How to Cite
VAISHNAV, Rajshree.
Personalised System of Instruction in Teaching Mathematics.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Peace, Harmony and Education, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 1, p. 23-26, june 2022.
Available at: <http://thejournalshouse.com/index.php/IntlJ-Education-Peace-Harmony/article/view/565>. Date accessed: 22 jan. 2025.
Section
Research Article
