Student pacing in a master's level course: Procrastination, preference, and performance
Lock the next lesson until the last one is done—procrastination drops even if students grumble.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Bird et al. (2021) tested a simple rule in a master's course. Students could open new study materials only after they finished the prior unit. This contingent access alternated with free access to everything at once.
The researchers tracked when students studied, how much they put off work, and which option they said they liked more.
What they found
Forced pacing cut procrastination. Students finished units earlier and avoided last-minute cramming.
Yet, when asked, they still picked the wide-open access. They liked choice even though it hurt their timing.
How this fits with other research
Einfeld et al. (1995) saw the same pattern with test deadlines. Multiple small deadlines beat one big one, keeping college students on a steady track instead of a late rush.
Stoddard et al. (1971) added daily quizzes and got the same steady work. Both older studies line up with Bird: tighter schedules kill the scallop.
Taber-Doughty (2005) flips the coin. She let high-school students pick their prompting style. When they chose, they learned faster. Bird shows the opposite tug-of-war: students prefer freedom, yet do better under rules. Together they warn us that preference and performance can clash.
Why it matters
You can cut student procrastination with contingent access, but you must sell it. Build in small wins, clear deadlines, or badges to keep the feel of choice. Try a hybrid: release the next lesson only after a quick quiz, yet let learners pick the quiz time. State the rule up front so they see structure as helpful, not harsh.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one gated step in your online module; open item B only after the learner scores 80% on item A.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Previous research has shown that many students procrastinate, but wish that they did not do so. The current study replicated research that compared distribution of studying under contingent access to study materials and noncontingent access to study materials in a graduate-level course (Perrin et al., 2011). It extended Perrin et al. (2011) in three ways. First, it evaluated preference for the treatment using a choice procedure; second, the choice procedure allowed for the elimination of an order confound; and third, different measures were used to evaluate performance results. Although contingent access to study materials was successful at reducing procrastination, students typically chose the noncontingent access condition. Preference on the end-of-semester survey aligned with choices made throughout the semester. The data are discussed in terms of implications and recommendations for future research regarding the design of graduate coursework to address student pacing along with student and professor preference.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2021 · doi:10.1002/jaba.806