Effects of Pacing Contingencies in a PSI-Taught College-Level Golf Course

• Other Authors: Leech, James R. (authoraut)
• Format: Others
• Language: English; English
• Published: Florida State University
• Subjects: Sports sciences
• Online Access: http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-3142

College-level physical education programs address the demand for physical activities through the use of Instructional Physical Activity Programs (IPAPs) which are still sometimes referred to as Basic Instructional Programs (BIPs). Currently, physical education is in an emerging new stage of instruction focused on model-based instruction (Metzler, 2005). One model, Personalized System of Instruction (Keller, 1968), also known as PSI, is centered on several key features: an emphasis on the written word, the teacher acting as a motivator, the use of student self-pacing, mastery-based learning, and the use of student proctors. Within physical education settings, the use of proctors is not emphasized however the remaining key features are emphasized. Fox (2004) suggests that several key features of PSI need to be redefined for the 21st century since they are not as necessary as once perceived. The most widely mentioned key feature seen as being problematic and recommended for change is an emphasis on self-pacing since students have been shown to struggle and procrastinate when no pacing contingencies have been set for students to use (Eyre, 2007). Using a quasi-experimental mixed-method design, the purpose of this study was to investigate the use of flexible-pacing vs. self-pacing by incorporating classroom-based pacing contingencies such as instructor-recommended deadlines and student-set deadlines on students' pacing rate, course completion rate, withdrawal rate, student achievement measures (golf-skills & golf-knowledge), and attitudes. Three PSI-taught, IPAP golf course sections consisting of 22 days of a PSI unit were used. Each course section represented a different pacing condition group. The three pacing condition groups used in this study included: SP = Self-pacing only group (n = 23); IRD = Instructor-recommended deadlines group (n = 24); SSD = Student-set deadlines group (n = 24). Within each of these pacing condition groups, a sub-group based on golf-skill ability-level was created from golf-skill pre-test results to determine lower-skilled, moderate-skilled, and higher-skilled golf students. Preliminary measures taken for each pacing condition group included PSI model fidelity being met along with other preliminary measures indicating no differences among the three pacing condition groups on students' initial golf-skill and golf-knowledge, students' outside-of-class golf participation and instructor's teaching behaviors. These preliminary measures were used to conclude that any differences based on pacing rate, course completion rate, withdrawal rate, attitudes, and achievement were a result of the pacing contingencies groups and not due to other extraneous variables such as prior golf-skill or golf-knowledge, outside-of-class golf participation, instructor's teaching behaviors or due to the PSI model not being faithfully implemented. The quantitative results from this study indicated that flexible-pacing is advantageous for increasing lower- and moderate-skilled pacing rates as well as increasing students' overall perception of a PSI-taught IPAP golf course. Flexible-pacing is particularly advantageous for increasing course completion rates for lower-skilled students. However, for higher-skilled students, flexible-pacing provides little advantages. Additionally, while differences were significantly different within each pacing condition group from pre- to post-test for both golf-skill and golf-knowledge achievement measures, no differences were found among the pacing condition groups for the post-test measurement. A student attitudes survey revealed that while all three pacing condition groups rated aspects of the course very highly, the two flexible-pacing contingency groups (IRD and SSD) rated aspects of the course significantly greater than the SP group on several measures such as effectiveness of the course at increasing students' golf-skill ability and overall rating of the course. Since no students withdrew from the course, this was not tested. The qualitative results indicated several key differences between students who were able to complete all course workbook tasks versus students who were unable to complete all course workbook tasks. Themes present among students who were able to complete all tasks included: able to successfully pace themselves; learned specific skills/concepts; increased preference for course workbook; used the instructor-recommended deadlines and found them helpful; and had a motivation to learn. Themes present among students were unable to complete all course workbook tasks included: decreased ability to pace themselves; misperception of golf & no mention of learning specific golf skills/concepts; decreased preference for course workbook; thought that pacing contingencies could have helped if used; and indicated no mention of motivation or determinism. These results support the use of flexible-pacing over self-pacing in PSI-taught courses in physical education settings due to significant improvements on several key measurements especially for lower- and moderate-skilled students. However, caution should be used if pacing contingencies are to be used for higher-skilled students. Future research should continue to examine flexible-pacing with different physical education content and different age levels. === A Dissertation submitted to the School of Teacher Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. === Spring Semester, 2011. === March 17, 2011. === Model-Based Instruction, Personalized System of Instruction, PSI, Pacing Contingencies, Self-Pacing, Flexible-pacing, Physical Education, Instructional Model === Includes bibliographical references. === Thomas Ratliffe, Professor Directing Dissertation; Robert Reiser, University Representative; Michael Mondello, Committee Member; Jeffrey James, Committee Member.