Abstract
Instructive feedback involves presenting extra, non-target stimuli in the consequent events for children's responses. Two methods of presenting instructive feedback during direct instruction were compared. These methods involved presenting two extra stimuli on all trials, and presenting the two extra stimuli separately on alternating trials. Preschool students were taught coin combinations using a constant time delay procedure with instructive feedback stimuli added to both praise and correction statements. An adapted alternating treatments design was used to evaluate the two methods of presenting instructive feedback. The students were assessed to determine the extent to which instructive feedback stimuli were learned. The results indicate that students learned some of the instructive feedback stimuli and no consistent differences in the effectiveness of the two presentation methods were noted. Further, relationships between the two instructive feedback stimuli appeared to be established. Implications for instruction and future research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beery, K. K. (1967).Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration. Chicago: Follett.
Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example.Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
Deese, J. E., & Hulse, S. H. (1967).The Psychology of Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981).Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Furukawa, J. M. (1970). Chunking method of determining size of step in programmed instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 247–254.
Gardner, M. (1979).Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
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.
Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Baklarz, J. L. (1992).Acquisition of incidental information presented in consequent events. Manuscript submitted for publication.
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.
Gleason, M., Carnine, D., & Vala, N. (1991). Cumulative versus rapid introduction of new material.Exceptional Children, 57, 353–358.
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (1986).Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Harrell, P., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., DeMers, S. T., & Smith, P. (1992).Effects of independent and interdependent group contingencies on acquisition, incidental learning, and observational learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Holcombe-Ligon, A., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., & Hrenkevich, P. (1992).Increasing the efficiency of future learning by manipulating current instruction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Johnson, G., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1987). Effects of instructional design variables on vocabulary acquisition of LD students: A study of computer assisted instruction.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 206–213.
Khan, L., & Lewis, N. (1986).Khan-Lewis Phonological Analysis. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instruction research.Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1985).Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1973).Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Wechsler, D. (1974).Manual for the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe-Ligon, A., Vassilaros, M. A., & Billings, S. S. (1992).Transition-based teaching: Acquisition of target and incidental behaviors. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992).Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.
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.
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, 12, 239–266.
Wolery, M., Holcombe-Ligon, A., Werts, M. G., Cipolloni, R. (in press). Effects of simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback.Early Education and Development.
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Evatt, R. L. (1969).Preschool Language Scale. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wolery, M., Werts, M.G., Holcombe, A. et al. Instructive feedback: A comparison of simultaneous and alternating presentation of non-target stimuli. J Behav Educ 3, 187–204 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00947035
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00947035