Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 259–285 | Cite as

Effects of instructive feedback on future learning

  • Ariane Holcombe
  • Mark Wolery
  • Margaret Gessler Werts
  • Patricia Hrenkevich
Papers

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of presenting instructive feedback for current target behaviors when teaching preschoolers in dyads to name four stimulus variations. Behaviors for each of the four types of stimuli were divided into two sets and instructed sequentially with a 3-second constant time delay procedure. During instruction, correct responses to one set of behaviors received a token, verbal praise, and presentation and verbal description of the future target stimuli in one daily session. In the other daily session, correct responses received only tokens and verbal praise. A parallel treatments design (Gast & Wolery, 1988) was used to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of the two conditions. Results indicate that: (a) three of the four children learned all future behaviors, (b) presentation of instructive feedback did not interfere with learning, and (c) in terms of direct instruction time required by the teacher, future behaviors were acquired more efficiently.

Key words

constant time delay instructive feedback numerals preschoolers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albin, R. W., & Horner, R. H. (1988). Generalization with precision. In R. H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.),Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings (pp. 99–120). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey D., & Wolery, M. (1992).Teaching infants and preschoolers with disabilities. Columbus: Merrill.Google Scholar
  3. Billingsley, F. F., While, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example.Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
  4. Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (1992).Reaching potentials through appropriate curriculum and assessment. National Association lor the Education of Young Children: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Carr, E. G. (1988). Functional equivalence as a mechanism of response generalization. In R. H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.),Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings (pp. 221–241). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1988). Parallel treatments design: A nested single subject design for comparing instructional procedures.Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 270–285.Google Scholar
  8. Haring, N. G. (Ed.) (1988).Generalization for students with severe handicaps: Strategies and solutions. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  9. Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., & Hrenkevich, P. (1992).Increasing the efficiency of future learning through instructive feedback. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  10. Kostelnik, M. J. (1992). Myths associated with developmentally appropriate practice.Young Children, 47 (4), 17–23.Google Scholar
  11. Newborg, J., Stock, J., Wnek, L., Guidubaldi, J., & Svinicki, J. (1984).Battelle Developmental Inventory. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research.Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.Google Scholar
  14. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.Google Scholar
  15. Strain, P. S., McConnell, S. R., Carta, J. J., Fowler, S. A., Neisworth, J. T., & Wolery, M. (1992). Behaviorism in early intervention.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12 (1), 121–142.Google Scholar
  16. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992).Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Werts, M. G., & Cipolloni, R. M. (1993). Effects of simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback.Early Education and Development, 4, 20–31.Google Scholar
  20. Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1979).Preschool Language Scale. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ariane Holcombe
    • 1
  • Mark Wolery
    • 1
  • Margaret Gessler Werts
    • 1
  • Patricia Hrenkevich
    • 2
  1. 1.Allegheny-Singer Research InstitutePittsburgh
  2. 2.St. Peters Child Development ProgramsPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations