THE EFFECTS OF STUDY QUESTIONS AND GRADES ON STUDENT TEST PERFORMANCE IN A COLLEGE COURSE<sup>1</sup>

Semb, George; Hopkins, B. L.; Hursh, Daniel E.

doi:10.1901/jaba.1973.6-631

Cited by 30 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, high levels of academic responding have been reported as characteristic of peer tutoring, due to the increased rate of task presentation, tutors calling for and prompting responses, and the use of immediate error correction (Delquadri,Greenwood,Stretton,& Hall,521 19841 171, [521][522][523][524][525][526][527][528][529][530][531][532][533][534][535][536][537][538] NUMBER4 (wiNm 1984) 1983; Dineen, Clark, & Risley, 1977;Trovato & Bucher, 1980). In PSI, study objectives, student access to course materials, frequent test taking, and frequent interactions with proctors have been related to increased study time and greater student engagement with course content (Born, Gledhill, & Davis, 1972;Born & Herbert, 1971;Kirigin, Braukmann, Atwater, & Wolf, 1982;Semb, Hopkins, & Hursh, 1973). The use of contingencies and rules has also been linked to gains in ontask and work behaviors during instruction and subsequent academic outcomes (Cobb & Hops, 1973;Greenwood et al, 1979;Hops & Cobb, 1974;Medland & Stachnik, 1972;Packard, 1970).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teacher‐versus Peer‐mediated Instruction: An Ecobehavioral Analysis of Achievement Outcomes

Greenwood

Dinwiddie

Terry

et al. 1984

J of App Behav Analysis

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, we compared the effects of instructional arrangements that varied in: (a) teacher versus peer mediators, (b) methods used, (c) levels of student academic responding generated, and (d) content taught and tested. Instructional arrangements (i.e., tasks, structure, teacher position, teacher behavior) and students' levels of academic responding were measured by an observation system which served as an index of the independent variables. Students' accuracy on weekly spelling, arithmetic, and vocabulary tests and pre-and post-standardized achievement tests (Experiments 2 and 3 only) were the dependent variables. Results indicated that the classwide peer tutoring, compared to the teacher's procedure, produced more student academic responding and higher weekly test scores, regardless of treatment order or subject matter content (Experiment 1). The four lowest performing students in each class, in particular, benefited from peer tutoring, often performing as well as the other students. These findings were replicated in Experiments 2 and 3 wherein content taught/tested was also manipulated. Standardized test score gains were higher in those areas in which peer tutoring was used longest. Issues related to the functional analysis of instruction and achievement gain are discussed.DESCRIPTORS: academic behavior, peer tutoring, classroom, elementary studentsOnly within the last 5 years have standardized achievement outcomes been causally attributed to teaching (Becker, 1977(Becker, , 1978Becker & Gersten, 1982;Brophy, 1979). Investigations of teaching practices that produce academic gains are beginning to yield exciting information on how to arrange lessons, how these arrangements affect student behavior, and in the long term, how they

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teacher‐versus Peer‐mediated Instruction: An Ecobehavioral Analysis of Achievement Outcomes

Greenwood

Dinwiddie

Terry

et al. 1984

J of App Behav Analysis

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Azrin, Rubin, O'Brien, Ayllon, and Roll (1968), Buell, Stoddard, Harris, and Baer (1968), Miller and Miller (1970), Phillips (1968), Siegel, Lenske, and Broen (1969), and Wahler (1969) used noncontingent reinforcement as a reversal control procedure; Guess, Sailor, Rutherford, and Baer (1968), Osborne (1969), Reynolds and Risley (1968), and Semb (1973) used DRO for this purpose. Peterson, Cox, and Bijou (1971), after using noncontingent reinforcement to reverse the study behavior ' of special-education students, implemented DRO to decrease further the behavior in the reversal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior and Noncontingent Reinforcement as Control Procedures During the Modification of a Preschooler's Compliance1

Goetz

Holmberg

LeBlanc

1975

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and noncontingent reinforcement were compared as control procedures during the modification of a 3-yr-old preschooler's compliance. The recorded reinforcer was teacher proximity (within 3 ft (0.9 m) of the subject for at least 5 sec) which was often accompanied by positive verbal comments that varied in content across experimental conditions. The verbal content during contingent reinforcement might have been: "Thank you for picking up the blocks"; during noncontingent reinforcement: "You're wearing a pretty dress"; and during DRO: "I don't blame you for not picking up because it isn't any fun". Contingent reinforcement increased compliance in all manipulation conditions. Noncontingent reinforcement decreased compliance during two reversal conditions. However, the behavior was variable and did not decrease to the low levels reached during the two DRO reversals.DESCRIPTORS: compliance, DRO, noncontingent reinforcement, operant, reversals, teacher behaviorIn addition to extinction, both noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) have been used as control procedures for evaluating reinforcementbased behavior-modification techniques. For example, Azrin, Rubin, O'Brien, Ayllon, and Roll (1968), Buell, Stoddard, Harris, and Baer (1968), Miller and Miller (1970, Phillips (1968), Siegel, Lenske, andBroen (1969) of special-education students, implemented DRO to decrease further the behavior in the reversal.These applied studies did not compare the two procedures in terms of how rapidly the response decreased or how durable was its elimination. Although Peterson et al. (1971) used both noncontingent reinforcement and DRO for a reversal, they did not directly compare the two as control procedures. Instead, after a baseline and a treatment condition, they first used noncontingent reinforcement for a reversal and then immediately reduced the target behavior even further by implementing DRO. That sequence of two conditions prevents their direct comparison for efficiency, rapidity, or durability of response elimination. DRO may have seemed more effective in these ways because of its interaction with the weakening already produced by the preceding noncontingent reinforcement. That is, DRO was applied to a lower rate of behavior than was noncontingent reinforcement.In two animal studies, response elimination during DRO was compared with that during extinction. Uhl and Garcia (1969) (SPRING 1975)

show abstract

“…An advantage of this design is that only a short baseline is required. Furthermore, it is particularly useful in analysing complex behaviours such as maths performance (Harris & Sherman, 1973) Hopkins & Hursh, 1973). It is also useful when there is a likelihood that differential effects will emerge relatively quickly, thus maximising the use of experimental time.…”

Section: Basic Within-subject Research Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Single‐subject Research Methodology in Special Education

Berryman

Cooper

1982

Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the importance and use of single-subject experimental analysis for special education practitioners. Brief descriptions are presented for the basic N = 1 research designs available to evaluate instructional and treatment strategies. The ability of these designs to control threats to internal validity is examined and the present state of measuring and interpreting single-subject data is described. Replication of studies is discussed as the ultimate test of the effectiveness of an intervention. The need for documentation of procedures and results is seen as a primary means for allowing practitioners to incorporate research and methodology into their own practices and as part of the process of developing an effective instructional technology for people with special education needs.Within the field of special education, there is an increasing demand from both consumers and professionals for practitioners to be accountable for the outcomes of the instructional practices that they employ in the delivery of service to clients with special education needs. This is a healthy demand as it reflects an optimism by concerned members of the community that socially valued outcomes of special education procedures can exist. Such an optimism is well justified. Research findings over the past decade have indicated empirically that the use of systematic instruction based on behavioural principles can result in clients acquiring a diverse array of social and academic "classroom behaviours, vocational skills, daily living skills and other social skills that are critical for age-appropriate community functioning (for example

show abstract

THE EFFECTS OF STUDY QUESTIONS AND GRADES ON STUDENT TEST PERFORMANCE IN A COLLEGE COURSE¹

Cited by 30 publications

References 8 publications

Teacher‐versus Peer‐mediated Instruction: An Ecobehavioral Analysis of Achievement Outcomes

Teacher‐versus Peer‐mediated Instruction: An Ecobehavioral Analysis of Achievement Outcomes

Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior and Noncontingent Reinforcement as Control Procedures During the Modification of a Preschooler's Compliance1

The Use of Single‐subject Research Methodology in Special Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

THE EFFECTS OF STUDY QUESTIONS AND GRADES ON STUDENT TEST PERFORMANCE IN A COLLEGE COURSE1

Cited by 30 publications

References 8 publications

Teacher‐versus Peer‐mediated Instruction: An Ecobehavioral Analysis of Achievement Outcomes

Teacher‐versus Peer‐mediated Instruction: An Ecobehavioral Analysis of Achievement Outcomes

Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior and Noncontingent Reinforcement as Control Procedures During the Modification of a Preschooler's Compliance1

The Use of Single‐subject Research Methodology in Special Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

THE EFFECTS OF STUDY QUESTIONS AND GRADES ON STUDENT TEST PERFORMANCE IN A COLLEGE COURSE¹