Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 55–75 | Cite as

Instructive feedback: Review of parameters and effects

  • Margaret G. Werts
  • Mark Wolery
  • Ariane Holcombe
  • David L. Gast
Tom Haring Memorial Issue: Part I

Abstract

We present a review of the existing research on instructive feedback. Instructive feedback is a method of presenting extra, non-target stimuli in the consequent events of instructional trials (e.g., during praise statements). Students are not required to respond to those additional stimuli and are not reinforced if they do. The research is reviewed in terms of the characteristics of participants involved, the settings and instructional variables used, and the findings that emerged. The findings indicate that a wide range of students by age and disability were included and that most studies occurred in special education contexts. When used with response prompting procedures in a variety of direct instructional arrangements, students acquire and maintain some of the instructive feedback stimuli. Thus, teachers are encouraged to use instructive feedback in their direct instructional activities. Areas of future research include using instructive feedback in new contexts and examining methods for presenting instructive feedback. In addition, the use of instructive feedback to influence future learning and stimulus class formation should be investigated.

Key words

instructive feedback direct instruction incidental learning students with disabilities response prompting strategies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps.Exceptional Children, 55, 346–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carper, J. (1990).The use of individualized group instruction with students with moderate to severe handicaps. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
  3. Demchak, M. (1990). Response prompting and fading methods: A review.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 603–615.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Farmer, J. A. (1990). Use of constant time delay in small group instruction: A study of observational and incidental learning.Journal of Special Education, 23, 369–385.Google Scholar
  5. Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Gast, D. L. (1988). System of least prompts: A review of procedural parameters.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 28–40.Google Scholar
  6. Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Wiley, K. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching preschoolers with developmental delays.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 1–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, B. J. (1989).The effects of a computer-assisted instruction program using the constant time delay procedure to teach spelling of abbreviations to adolescents with mild learning handicaps. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
  8. Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Baklarz, J. L. (1991). Acquisition of incidental information during small group instruction.Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 1–18.Google Scholar
  9. Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Kolenda, J. L. (1994). Instructive feedback: Effects of number and type.Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 313–334.Google Scholar
  10. Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Farmer, J. A. (1991). Assessing the acquisition of incidental information by secondary-age students with mental retardation: A comparison of response prompting strategies.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 64–80.Google Scholar
  11. Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Morris, L. L., Doyle, P. M., & Meyer, S. (1990). Teaching sight word reading in a group instructional arrangement using constant time delay.Exceptionality, 1, 81–96.Google Scholar
  12. Handen, B. L., & Zane, T. (1987). Delayed prompting: A review of procedural variations and results.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 307–330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrell, P. L. (1990).Effects of independent and interdependent group contingencies on acquisition, incidental learning, and observational learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
  14. Holcombe, M. A. (1991).Efficiency of instruction: Embedding future target behaviors in the consequent events for correct responses. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
  15. Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., & Hrenkevich, P. (1993). Effects of instructive feedback on future learning.Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 359–285.Google Scholar
  16. Janssen, C., & Guess, D. (1978). Use of function as a consequence in training receptive labeling of severely and profoundly retarded individuals.AAESPH Review, 3, 246–258.Google Scholar
  17. Kaiser, A. P., Yoder, P., & Keetz, A. (1992). Evaluating milieu teaching. In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.),Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 9–47). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.Google Scholar
  18. Kayser, J. E., Billingsley, F. F., & Neel, R. S. (1986). A comparison of in-context and traditional instructional approaches: Total task, single trial versus backward chaining, multiple trials.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 28–38.Google Scholar
  19. Keel, M. C., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Small-group instruction for students with learning disabilities: Observational and incidental learning.Exceptional Children, 58, 357–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (1989).Teaching students with learning problems (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  21. Schuster, J. W., Griffen, A. K., & Wolery, M. (1992). Comparison of the simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation.Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305–325.Google Scholar
  22. Shelton, B., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). The role of small group instruction in facilitating observational and incidental learning.Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 123–133.Google Scholar
  23. Snell, M. E. (1993).Systematic instruction of students with severe disabilities (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  24. Stinson, D. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Collins, B. C. (1991). Acquisition of nontarget information during small-group instruction.Exceptionality, 2, 65–80.Google Scholar
  25. Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Morris, A., DeCesare, L. D., & Cuffs, M. S. (1993). Embedding instruction in art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 277–294.Google Scholar
  26. Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Holcombe, A. (in press). Using instructive feedback to make learning more efficient.Teaching Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  27. Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., & Frederick, C. (1993). Effects of instructive feedback related and unrelated to the target behaviors.Exceptionality, 4, 81–95.Google Scholar
  28. Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., & Neumont-Ament, P. (1992).Stimulus equivalence established through instructive feedback. Unpublished manuscript. Allegheny-Singer Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  29. Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Vassilaros, M. A., Billings, S. S. (1992). Efficacy of transition-based teaching with instructive feedback.Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 320–334.Google Scholar
  30. Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Venn, M. L., Demblowski, D., & Doren, H. (1994).Effects of transition-based teaching with instructive feedback in mainstreamed kindergarten classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  31. Wise, C. J. (1990).Teaching word recognition of complex vocabulary words in a small group setting with students labeled mildly handicapped. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
  32. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992).Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting procedures. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Wolery, M., Cybriwsky, C., Gast, D. L., & Boyle-Gast, K. (1991). Use of constant time delay and attentional responses with adolescents.Exceptional Children, 57, 462–474.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., Meyer, S., & Stinson, D. (1991). Effects of presenting incidental information in consequent events on future learning.Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 79–104.Google Scholar
  35. Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C. A., Doyle, P. M., Schuster, J. W., Ault, M. J., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 239–266.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Werts, M. G., & Cipollone, R. M. (1993). Effects of simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback.Early Education and Development, 4, 20–31.Google Scholar
  37. Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Holcombe, A., Billings, S. S., & Vassilaros, M. A. (1993). Instructive feedback: A comparison of simultaneous and alternating presentation of non-target stimuli.Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 187–204.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret G. Werts
    • 4
  • Mark Wolery
    • 1
  • Ariane Holcombe
    • 2
  • David L. Gast
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryMedical College of Pennsylvania and Hahnemann UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Special EducationVanderbilt UniversityNashville
  3. 3.Department of Special EducationUniversity of GeorgiaAthens
  4. 4.Child and Family Studies ProgramAllegheny-Singer Research InstitutePittsburgh

Personalised recommendations