Elise Turner
Alexandra Greenfield
Kristina Patrick
Douglas Chute

•
Teaching theory developed by Fred Keller
•
First implemented in 1963 in a short-term laboratory at Columbia University
•
Pilot study employed at Brasilia during the following year
•
Also called: o The Fred Keller Plan o Personalized System of Instruction (PSI)

•
1. Self-Pacing o Students take quizzes in sequence and at a pace set by themselves o No arbitrary deadlines for quizzes o Advantages:
1. Allows students to work according to their schedule
2. Accounts for the fact that students read, study
and learn at different rates
3. Incentive to complete the course early

•
2. Unit Mastery o Students master each unit before they are permitted to study the next one o Unit: small parcels of information o No ‘cost’ assigned to retaking quizzes o Advantage:
 Allows students to learn the material completely before moving on to the next unit

•
3. Lectures and demonstrations for motivational purposes o Attendance is not required o Quizzes and tests will not include questions regarding material presented in lecture o A motivational tool to inspire students to study further

•
4. Emphasis on the written word o Communication between student and teacher and student and proctor occurs within the medium of the written word o Teacher provides students with written resources which the student studies o Quizzes cover material on these written
resources o Students must actively read, study and respond
in writing to questions over textual material

•
5. Use of undergraduate proctors o Chose for previous mastery of course content o Administers quizzes, provides feedback and available for help o Advantages:
 Permits:
•
1. Repeated testing
•
2. Immediate scoring of quizzes
•
3. A personal/social aspect of the course

•
Kellerization has shown to produce better test performance in: o Multiple Choice
Examinations o Final Examinations o Essay Examinations

•
Kellerization was superior in: o 1. Final examination scores
 When aptitude is controlled for, students taking Kellerization courses scored higher on final examinations than those taking traditional courses
 Variance in grades was lower in Kellerization courses o 2. Instructor-assigned course grades o 3. Course ratings
 Overall quality
 Learning
 Enjoyment
 Workload

•
No difference between Kellerization and traditional courses in: o 4. Course completions o 5. Student study time

•
Essential to student performance in a Kellerization course: o 1. Unit mastery o 2. Many short unit quizzes o 3. Immediate feedback on quiz performance o 4. The number of review units built into the course

•
Not vital to student performance in a Kellerization course: o 1. Self-pacing o 2. Amount of tutorial help from proctors o 3. Optional Lectures
•
These components enhance student performance within Kellerization and traditional courses

•
Disagreement amongst researchers as to what constitutes a true
Kellerization course
•
Universities block Kellerization courses from being offered
•
Faculty complain of time-intensive nature of administering a Kellerization course

Computer Aided Personalized System of Instruction (CAPSI) o Developed by University of Manitoba in 1984 o Chief functions:
 1. Deliver the unit tests, midterm and final examination
 2. Assign short, essay-type completed unit tests and examinations to markers
 3. Keep track of all course data o Differences between traditional Kellerization:

1. No class meetings
 2. Peer reviewers rather than proctors
 3. Unit tests graded by two peer reviewers
 4. Involves a midterm and final

5. Exams graded by the teacher

Benefits of CAPSI: o 1. Can increase the number of students that one instructor can teach in a given course o 2. Allows for more proctors o 3. Universities offer a richer educational experience by offering a variety of different approaches to teaching
CAPSI vs. traditional teaching methods o Student performance was higher in CAPSI sections than non-CAPSI sections

•
Unit exams are available online rather than through a software
•
Became available in 1994
•
Use of online learning environment (OLE)
•
CAPSI implemented through OLE o Increased class attendance and use of discussion boards o Motivations and learning approaches did not change o Learning approach (deep vs. surface) was not important for success o Unit test grades were higher in the web-based CAPSI course o Higher student appreciation in web-based CAPSI course

•
General Psychology course at Drexel University for non-Psychology majors
•
N = 609 o Live class n = 577
• o Online class n = 32 •
No demographic data available
Course components o Live or online lectures o Resources and discussion boards available on Blackboard Learn o 5 open-book online exams

•
Open-resource
•
20 questions o 15 randomly pulled from question bank of 1,000-2,000 questions o 5 randomly pulled from 20-30 lecture-based questions created by
• instructor
1 hour long
•
As many exam attempts as desired within 2 week period
•
Highest score achieved was counted as exam grade

Adaptations of Traditional Kellerization
Traditional
Kellerization Psychology 101
Self-pacing with no arbitrary deadlines for quizzes
2-week exam windows to take tests as many times as desired

Adaptations of Traditional Kellerization
Traditional
Kellerization
Unit mastery
Psychology 101
Students not required to master unit before progressing to next unit

Adaptations of Traditional Kellerization
Traditional
Kellerization Psychology 101
Lectures and demonstrations for motivational purposes
Optional attendance for lectures, but several lecture-based exam questions

Adaptations of Traditional Kellerization
•
Traditional
Kellerization o Emphasis on written word •
Psychology 101 o Lecture slides not provided o Discussion boards replaced short answer exam questions

Adaptations of Traditional Kellerization
Traditional
Kellerization Psychology 101
Feedback provided by undergraduate proctors
Computer provided exam feedback; graduate TAs were available for additional help

Online class had significantly lower overall grade ( M = 83.06, SD = 10.53) than the in-person class ( M = 87.94, SD = 6.83), t (32.46) = 2.59, p = .01

Overall, participants attempted the exams a mean of 3.97 times ( SD =
2.73).
Number of attempts significantly differed by exam for both class types, p < .001

Number of attempts was significantly lower for online than face to face students across exams, p = .009
Significant interaction effect of exam number and class type, p = .04

•
Across exams and classes, there is a significant negative relationship between attempt number and grade, p < .001
•
Students with fewer attempts performed better ( p < .001)

•
Students’ performance declined based on number of attempts ( p <
.001)
•
No interaction effect for class type and attempt on grade

•
Subjectively, students reported: a. Reading more of the textbook b. Utilizing online resources presented through the course website
•
Live lecture attendance decreased from historical records for the same lecturer

•
Repeated attempts do not improve performance
•
Performance improved across exams while attempts decreased, with the exception of the final exam
•
Class format differed by: o Performance o Number of attempts per exam

•
Implementation of a modified form of Kellerization was possible for both live and online courses using
Blackboard Learn
•
Kellerization did not lead to grade inflation
•
Students became better at finding correct answers while needing fewer attempts
•
Confirmed component analysis regarding effect of proctor interaction

•
Limitations o No information available on demographic differences between online and live course o Analysis did not account for attrition
•
Future Research o Examine relationship between student self-pacing of examinations and performance o Investigate cases of suspected cheating and cap future maximum exam attempts at 10