One of the basic assumptions of programmed instruction is that the student should be allowed to proceed at his own rate. As has been pointed out (5, p. 249), it is the logic of this fearure rather than the research that has made it generally acceptable to psychologists. A review of the literature made in 1963 did not reveal experimental evidence to support this basic assumption. Quite to the contrary, the published studies indicated that rate of pacing, within limits, does not affect performance ( l,2,4). The present study atrempred to assess the relationship between pacing and achievement on objective test items. The first 372 frames, 186 operation frames and 186 answer frames, from Holland and Skinner's The Artalysis of Behavior (3),l were reproduced on 35-mm. filmstrip for presentation with a filmstrip projector equipped with remote control. This material was presented to 179 college freshmen enrolled in courses in introductory psychology before learning was discussed in the course. Students were assigned to two groups: Group 1, the experimental group, was paced by E, and Group 2, the control group, was allowed to smdy the material by self-pacing. These groups were matched on the basis of grade-point averages and sex. A pre-test of the material was given to all Ss to determine the level of performance prior to exposure to the programmed material. The control or self-paced group took more than twice the time to study the material needed by the experimental paced group. At the end of the study period, all Ss were given a paper-and-pencil examination composed of 16 verbatim operation frames from the Holland and Skinner material. Eight items required that learned principles be applied to a new situation. There was no difference in performance between groups on this test. REFERENCES 1. CURTIS, H. A., & KROPP, R. P. Experimental analysis of the effects of various modes of item presentation on the scores and factorial content of tests administered by visual and audio-visual means. Audio-visual Communication Review, 1962, 19, 89-9 1. 2. FRY, E. B., BRYAN, G. L., & RIGNEY, J. W. Teaching machines: an annotated bibli