I will begin my Tribute to Fred Keller by reading to you a few quotations. "No one needs to be told today that the requirements for survival in the modern world are getting more complex, or that better education is needed everywhere. Our old ways are no longer good enough, and we all know it. The pressure on us to improve matters in this country, in our own schools, and at every level of instruction, is mounting daily." (Fred Keller in an Educational Technology Monograph: "A Programmed System of Instruction", 1969.)

"We live in an age of rapidly advancing technologies: we have harnessed nuclear energy, revolutionized our way of life with electronic computers, landed on the moon, and are standing on the threshold of a biotechnology that promises not only to make routine the exchange of vital organs among members of different species, but to engineer the basic nature of life itself. In the midst of these developments, psychologists have in the last decade begun perfecting the technological consequences of their discipline. The widespread application of principles of behavior analysis in clinics, hospitals, prisons, and schools has already validated the promise of an essential contribution to our advanced form of civilization which will be made by an effective technology of human behavior.

"It is surprising, therefore, that virtually no attention has been directed by psychologists toward the application of behavior technology to one of the most ubiquitous and widely shared aspects of their professional life -- college teaching. When one considers that the cornerstone of modern experimental psychology has been the investigation of the phenomena of learning, it is remarkable that the college classroom has been almost totally omitted from the list of experimental environments where such phenomena are isolated, studied, and controlled. ...

"The manner in which instructional material is presented, student performance is defined and evaluated, and grades distributed has changed but little since the founding of Harvard in 1639. ...

"As a profession, therefore, we cannot escape a share of the responsibility for the widespread and sometimes violent discontent with the educational process at the college level." (James Johnston and Henry Pennypacker, in "A Behavioral Approach to College Teaching," American Psychologist, 1971.)

" U. S. students will continue to "flunk math [and] science as long as it is taught as it now is. In 1960, in Roanoke, Virginia, an 8th-grade class, using primitive teaching machines and a hastily prepared program, went through all of 9th-grade algebra in half a year. Tested the following year, their retention was above normal. ...

"Computers are now much better teaching machines ..., but the basic principles of programmed instruction are not yet being followed. Why not? Possibly because cognitive psychologists, claiming an esoteric knowledge of how students think, opposed them. Students were to think as mathematicians think. The result, of course, was the New Math [and] the failure of the New Math is now clear. ...

"Good instruction demands two things: students must be told immediately whether what they do is right or wrong and, when right, they must be directed to the step to be taken next. A tutor can do that with a student or two, but it is quite beyond the reach of the teacher with 20 or 30 students. The teaching profession must turn, as all other professions have turned, to instrumentation. That will not dehumanize teaching; it will free it from what is now essentially the inhumane punitive formula of "study and learn or else"." (B. F. Skinner in "Teaching Machines," a Letter to the Editor of Science magazine, 1989)

"The science and mathematics education community is still recoiling from the latest results on student performance in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Although scores were not expected to be high, the fact that the nation's 12th graders were among the lowest performers was disheartening. ...

"U.S. 12th graders performed below the international average and among the lowest of the 21 countries that participated in the general science knowledge assessment. ...

"The science teacher is the single most valuable resource in the science education equation. There are many dedicated teachers in classrooms across the nation. But they cannot do the job alone. Our greatest challenge is for all of us -- teachers, parents, scientists, administrators, business leaders, and policy-makers -- to work together to change the system in which they work." (Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association, in an Editorial, "The Wake-Up Call We Dare Not Ignore," in Science magazine, March 13, 1998.

Let me continue with Mr. Wheeler: "There is a disconnect in the system. Students from around the world come to the United States to receive what is considered the best education in the world. We produce world-class scientists who continue to win Nobel prizes and make extraordinary contributions to many fields of science and technology. Yet at the same time, our universities and colleges fail to effectively train the teachers of our future scientists. We must overhaul the education of science teachers so they enter the classroom with both a strong knowledge of science and effective teaching skills. ... We must require teachers to take many more courses in science and show them how to direct student learning through inquiry and investigation. ... (W)e are optimistic that finally we are going in the right direction."

In my opinion, this all means nothing but more of the same failures. Fred Keller's second paragraph reads: "The problem that we face will not, I think, be solved by increasing the salaries of the teachers, by raising the standards of their education, or by bearing down upon their pupils. I don't think it will be solved by imitating the procedures of a few prestigious institutions, by publicizing the methods and achievements of earlier times, or even by appeal to Yankee ingenuity in the fields of automation and visual aids. These things have all been tried, and are not without value, but we need something more..."

Bill Buskist has just described PSI, Fred Keller's "something more" in the technology of instruction. If not before today, you have now heard about the defining features of The Keller Method, and about its demonstrated superiority over every other instructional method with which it has been compared, both in terms of learning and long-term retention of the material covered in a PSI course. In addition, participating students report greater satisfaction and enjoyment with the course, and a carry-over to other courses of healthier study habits.

When Fred Keller hosted a session at the Midwestern Psychological Association Annual Meetings in Chicago, in the Spring of 1969, slightly less than a year after "Good-bye, Teacher" appeared in print, there were six speakers and an audience of seven, the same six individuals plus Fred Keller.

A little over two years later, in September, 1971, at the meetings of the American Psychological Association, there was a symposium on PSI in honor of Fred Keller in which I had the honor to participate. The grand ballroom of the convention hotel was filled to capacity, with standing room only. For many years, there was an annual PSI Convention and many national, regional, and state association conventions with PSI sessions. A symposium at the Eastern Psychological Association meetings in 1996, "Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) Re-visited," drew a very small audience, nine people this time, to be precise, six plus the three speakers. The Keller Method is largely a memory these days, sadly so in my opinion.

In its heyday, hundreds of teachers, from elementary schools through graduate programs, used PSI. At the college level, there was hardly a discipline which did not have someone, somewhere, using this form of instructional technology, from physics at MIT to nuclear engineering at The University of Texas. At that initial Midwestern Psychological Association convention in 1969, five of the presentations described PSI courses in the analysis of behavior; mine described a general introductory survey course at Lafayette College using PSI, probably the first of its kind. In subsequent years, I used PSI in courses in learning, sensation and perception, experimental methods, and statistics. There were courses elsewhere in a great variety of psychology sub-disciplines, including personality, developmental, social, and clinical psychology. Many introductory textbooks in psychology had PSI adjunct materials such as PSI Study Guides and PSI Unit Tests. Most of these were poorly prepared and did a major disservice to the life and times of PSI.

The tables of contents of the Proceedings of the various PSI Conferences look almost like catalogs of university course offerings. That of Selected Papers from the Third and Fourth National Conferences on Personalized Instruction lists papers at the college level on writing, mathematics, statistics, music, history, French conversation, social sciences, ophthalmoscopy, and medical school biochemistry, as well as many in psychology. Contributors came from departments of psychology, education, foreign languages, mathematics, history, philosophy, English, pharmacy, music, biochemistry, and biology. There is even a paper on the "Role of personalized instruction in restructuring California intermediate and secondary education." Clearly, one of the Variations on a Theme came in the variety of disciplines represented.

A second kind of variation came very early in the use of PSI, especially within psychology. People began to experiment with various components of the system, asking questions such as: How long should a unit be? How many units should there be? What kinds of testing formats should be used? How many proctors are needed? How should proctors be reinforced, with money or course credit, or simply intrinsic rewards? What kind of training should a proctor have, before the course begins and on-going through the course? What is the best educational level for a proctor: peers within the course, more advanced students, graduate students, faculty members? How should the tendency on the part of students to procrastinate be handled: Should students be required to keep on target, thus disregarding the feature of self-pacing? Should what came to be known as a "Doomsday Contingency" be imposed on students who had not yet taken the first unit test at some point in a semester? How much time between retakes of a unit test should there be? Should unit tests be complemented by tests similar to conventional midterms and finals? What is the optimum definition of perfection? Is performance at 90% perfect enough, or 95%? These were tackled, and sometimes even answered experimentally by psychologists using PSI.

All the above assume that Fred Keller's major contribution to learning and education lies in his formulation of PSI, known more affectionately as "The Keller Method." I do not think so. I think the most important contribution made by Fred is the vision that instruction and student learning belong in the domain of science, more specifically in the domain of experimental psychology, especially in the analysis of behavior. I think that the Personalized System of Instruction should be viewed as just one variation on this larger theme, albeit an important variation.

Everyone here is committed somehow to asking questions about behavior, maybe largely, or even exclusively, the behavior of rats and pigeons, maybe human behavior in applied settings. Fred Skinner spoke and wrote much about educational technology and experimented with teaching machines; he was the co-author with Holland of the programmed text, The Analysis of Behavior. Ernest and Julie Skinner Vargas are experimenting with Guided Design. Fred Keller experimented with the Personalized System of Instruction. How many of you are experimenting in any way with the teaching/learning interface?

In his article, "The Shame of American Education," Fred Skinner speaks bluntly to the problems of poor teaching and poor teachers. "Higher standards for students, merit pay for teachers, and all the other versions of punitive sanctions -- they are the things one thinks of first, and they will no doubt make teachers and students work harder, but they will not necessarily have a better effect. They are likely to lead to further defection. There is a better way: Give students and teachers better reasons for learning and teaching. That is where the behavioral sciences can make a contribution. They can develop instructional practices so effective and so attractive in other ways that no one -- student, teacher, or administrator -- will need to be coerced into using them."

When the Marquis de Lafayette, to whom Lafayette College owes its name, was about to leave his home to cast his lot with the fledgling American Colonies, he was asked why he would give up the comforts and pleasures of France to join George Washington and his ragtag army. His answer was a simple: "Cur non?" Why not? How many of you are experimenting in any way with the teaching/learning interface? Why not?

Let me return to Fred Keller's monograph whose opening sentences I quoted at the beginning of my talk. His concluding paragraph, speaking about PSI, reads as follow: "And the system I've described is surely not the best one. It is not even the only one." How many of you are experimenting in any way with the teaching/learning interface? Why not?

I have endeavored to pay tribute to Fred Keller, a giant in the analysis of behavior, a warm human being dedicated to the improvement of the teaching/learning interface, a friend to many of us here, and a name known to all of us. The Eastern Psychological Association has approved recently a proposal to endow its annual distinguished speakers' program by naming several lectureships for psychologists who are no longer living. Fred Keller is one of the three former presidents of EPA to be named, a great tribute.

The best tribute to Fred Keller will take place when those who know how to do better, do better. How many of you are experimenting in any way with the teaching/learning interface? Why not?

The Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) is also known, affectionately and quite commonly, as The Keller Method. When Fred Keller died at the age of 97, psychology lost an important behaviorist; many of us lost a good friend; and, the world lost a wonderful human being.

Robert Allan and Howard Gallup are trying to revitalize PSI by opening a home page on the internet. At this point in time, we envision a bibliography of publications on PSI, a directory of people using or interested in PSI, a library containing materials pertaining to PSI, and some place for opinions, questions, answers, and advices about PSI. We welcome any and all correspondence, ideas, and suggestions for the Personalized System of Instruction, past, present, and future. Our addresses are above; the Lafayette College Psychology Department home page is addressed: http://www.lafayette.edu. Click on: Academics, Departments & Majors, Psychology, Wed Links, and choose PSI and related topics.

"(1) The go-at-your-own-pace feature, which permits a student to move through the course at a speed commensurate with his ability and other demands upon his time.

"(2) The unit-perfection requirement for advance, which lets the student go ahead to new material only after demonstrating mastery of that which preceded.

"(3) The use of lectures and demonstrations as vehicles of motivation, rather than sources of critical information.

"(4) The related stress upon the written word in teacher-student communications; and, finally:

"(5) The use of proctors, which permits repeated testing, immediate scoring, almost unavoidable tutoring, and a marked enhancement of the personal-social aspect of the educational process." (Keller, 1968)

Buskist, W., Cush, D., and DeGrandpre, R. J. (1991). The life and Times of PSI. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 215-234.

*Gallup, H. F. (1995) Personalized System of Instruction: Behavior Modification in Education. Talk given to the Psychology Club of Lafayette College.

*Gallup, H. F. (1996) Reviving PSI and Problems with Its Use. Paper presented as part of the Symposium: Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) Re-visited; Eastern Psychological Association Meetings in Philadelphia.

*Gallup, H. F. (1997) Fred Keller and PSI. Paper presented as part of the Keller and Schoenfeld Memorial Symposium; Eastern Psychological Association Meetings in Washington, D. C.

*Gallup, H. F. and Allan, R. W. (1996) Concerns with some recent criticisms of the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI). Submitted for publication in Teaching of Psychology, but not accepted; under revision.

Hartley, J. and McKeachie, W. J. ed. (1990). Teaching Psychology: A Handook: Readings from "Teaching of Psychology." Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Johnston, J. M. and Pennypacker, H. S. (1971) A Behavioral Approach to College Teaching. American Psychologist, 26, 219-244.

Keller, F. S. (1968) Goodbye, Teacher . . . . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79-89.

Keller, F. S. (1969) "A Programmed System of Instruction." EducationalTechnology Monographs, Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School District, Volume II, Number I.

Keller, F. S. and Sherman, J. G. (1982). The PSI Handbook: Essays on Personalized Instruction. Lawrence, Kansas: TRI Publications.

Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J., and Cohen, P. A. (1990). "Instructional technology and college teaching." In Hartley, J. and McKeachie, W. J. (eds.) Teaching Psychology: A handbook: Readings from "Teaching of Psychology." Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kulik, J., Kulik, C.-L. C., and Cohen, P. A. (1979). A meta-analysis of outcome studies of Keller's personalized system of instruction. American Psychologist, 34, 307-318.

Puente, A. E., Matthews, J. R., and Brewer, C. L. (eds.) (1992) Teaching Psychology in America: A History. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

Reboy, L. M. and Semb, G. B. (1991) PSI and Critical Thinking: Compatibility or Irreconcilable Differences? Teaching of Psychology, 18, 212-214.

Schwarz, B. (1997). Psychology, Idea Technology, and Ideology. Psychological Science, 8, 21-27.

Sherman, J. G. (ed.) (1974). Personalized System of Instruction: 41 Germinal Papers. Phillipines: W. A. Benjamin, Inc.

Sherman, J. G., Ruskin, R. S. and Lazar, R. M. (1978) Personalized Instruction in Education Today. Selected Papers from the Third and fourth National Conferences on Personalized Instruction. Washington, D. C., 1976, San Francisco, 1977.

Sherman, J. G., Ruskin, R. S., and Semb, G. B. (Eds.) (1982). The Personalized System of Instruction: 48 Seminal Papers. Lawrence, Kansas: TRI Publications.

Skinner, B. F. (1984) The Shame of American Education. American Psychologist, 39, 947-954.

Skinner, B. F. (1989) Teaching Machines. Letter to the Editor of Science, 243, 1535.

Wheeler, G. (1998) The Wake-up Call We Dare Not Ignore. Editorial in Science, 279, 1611.

* These references may be found on the internet on the home page for the Lafayette College Psychology Department. If you visit the site, we encourage you to register with us. The address is: http://www.lafayette.edu. Click on: Academics, Departments & Majors, Psychology, Wed Links, and choose PSI and related topics.