Immediate and Delayed Effects of Imposed Postfeedback Delays in Computerized Programmed Instruction

Abstract

A recent study (Crosbie & Kelly, 1994) showed that brief externally imposed postfeedback delays improved performance in computerized programmed instruction. The present experiment extended that analysis by using shorter sessions, a more powerful single-subject design, and better timing measures, and by assessing maintenance of training effects. College students completed 40 sets of Holland and Skinner's (1961) programmed text on behavior analysis in a computerized format in a two-component multiple schedule. In the components there was either no postfeedback delay or a 10-s postfeedback delay for each question. On average, delay improved performance by 7% during training, and this advantage was maintained and increased at both posttest (13%) and follow-up (17%). Subjects were satisfied with delay, and session time increased only slightly. Present results show that subjects work faster and more accurately, and have better maintenance when their pace is externally imposed rather than self-selected.

Effects of Response Cost in Computerized Programmed Instruction

“…The present 10 % improvement is greater than the 8% obtained by Crosbie and Kelly (1994) and the 7% obtained by Kelly and Crosbie (1997) , and represents 28% of total possible improvement, which is virtually identical with the results obtained in those previous studies. Hence, the present training effect size is slightly better than those obtained in previous studies, and is impressive given effect sizes commonly reported in studies of educational improvement (Kelly & Crosbie, 1997;Kulik, Jaksa, & Kulik, 1978;Johnson & Ruskin, 1977).…”

“…Given previous results with imposed postfeedback delays (Crosbie & Kelly, 1994;Kelly & Crosbie, 1997), the most obvious explanation for how punishment improved performance is that it slowed subjects' responding so that more study time was available. The significant increases in questionresponse time (where questions were read) and score-question time (where questions, responses, and correct answers were displayed simultaneously) provide evidence of convergent validity for that explanation.…”

“…The experimental space, computer equipment, screen display and layout, lesson format, exhibits, and a detailed account of a typical session are described in previous papers (Crosbie & Kelly, 1994;Kelly & Crosbie, 1997) and will only be summarized here. Subjects worked in a partitioned section of a laboratory.…”

“…For each frame presented on the computer screen, subjects constructed responses by typing on a keyboard, read the correct-answer feedback, then pressed either "C" or "I" to record the response as correct or incorrect, respectively. Previous studies (e.g., Crosbie & Kelly, 1994;Kelly & Crosbie, 1997) have shown that subjects score their responses accurately, and that self-scoring avoids problems that computers face with misspelling and synonyms. Immediately after a response had been scored, subjects pressed any key to continue.…”

“…In a subsequent study with similar procedures (Kelly & Crosbie, 1997), baseline performance was increased from 64% to 79% by using shorter sessions. Even with higher baseline performance, noncontingent delay produced 7% more correct answers than no delay, and that advantage was increased to 13% at posttest, and 17% at follow-up.…”