The most widely recognized and implemented tenet of the typical individualized program is self-pacing. This procedure allows students to learn when they are ready to learn and to assume responsibility for their own learning. For some students, self-pacing permits a certain degree of autonomy, which appeals to their sense of independence. However, the research on personality types and large-group and small-group instruction implies that not all students respond favorably. In a research project concerning pacing in programmed materials there was no significant difference between group instruction and
self-paced instruction (Schramm, 1964). Although the attention of the investigation was focused on a slightly different approach, results of another study found that students in a teacher-structured class progressed through the material faster and had significantly higher achievement scores than those in a student-structured class (Humphreys, 1974). Describing the reaction of his college-level students to individualized instruction, Aschermann (1974, p. 241) laments that his ''original enthusiasm has almost been washed away by the tide of his students' tears." The fault was due to the inability or unwillingness of the students to assume the responsibility for directing their own learning. The teacher's role in a self-paced class is to monitor student progress and to determine that each student is progressing at an optimum rate. Nor is the association between rate and degree of learning as simple as it may at first seem. Altman and Politzer (1971, p. 162) state, "Simply allocating more time is a highly inefficient way of increasing the rate and degree of learning. More essential is what the learner is doing in whatever time is available."
Noblitt (1975) examines the concept of self-pacing and systematization as they are interrelated in the learning process. The assumption is made that learning requires the organization and systematization of information being learned. The author outlines two problems associated with self-pacing. Both are related to those students who fail to maintain an adequate pace through the materials. If the learner proceeds too slowly, progress may be hindered by an inability to relate discrete linguistic elements, separated as they may be by rather lengthy periods of time, into a meaningful interrelationship necessary for systematization. Another problem which may accompany a slow pace is related to the model of language learning as being characterized by a series of interim grammars, which learners update periodically as they move toward the native language system in the second language. There is a tendency for this interim grammar to crystallize if movement through the materials becomes too sluggish. Thus, a certain speed seems to be necessary in order to remember the material, to relate it to other structures being learned, and to avoid a tendency toward crystallization of incomplete linguistic knowledge. Noblitt concludes that self-pacing cannot be the sole determinant of progress through the course materials. The teacher also bears a responsibility for helping the student maintain a satisfactory pace.