Behavior Analysis in Higher Education

(1)

Behavior Analysis in Higher

Education

Behavior Analysis in Higher

Education

Alexis Apel, Kaitlin Thibodeau, & Dr. James Diller Alexis Apel, Kaitlin Thibodeau, & Dr. James Diller

Problems with the Higher Education

System

Problems with the Higher Education

System

Student work is not adequately reinforced (Keller, 1968) or it is maintained by long-term contingencies (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Students are taught as if they all work at the same pace (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Students do not receive individualized attention (Keller, 1968)

Only a small portion of students are active participants in each classroom (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Student work is not adequately reinforced (Keller, 1968) or it is maintained by long-term contingencies (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Students are taught as if they all work at the same pace (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Students do not receive individualized attention (Keller, 1968)

Only a small portion of students are active participants in each classroom (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Classroom Strategies Based on Behavior

Analysis

Classroom Strategies Based on Behavior

Analysis

Programmed Instruction

Personalized System of Instruction

Interteaching

Precision Teaching

Computer-Based Instruction

Programmed Instruction

Personalized System of Instruction

Interteaching

Precision Teaching

Computer-Based Instruction

Common Characteristics of

Behavior-Analytic Educational Methods

Common Characteristics of

Behavior-Analytic Educational Methods

Management of educational consequences

Division of course material into small units

Multiple opportunities for response

Observable behavior as a measurement of learning

Individualized instruction

Emphasis on social validity (Bernstein & Chase, 2013)

Management of educational consequences

Division of course material into small units

Multiple opportunities for response

Observable behavior as a measurement of learning

Individualized instruction

(2)

Programmed Instruction (PI): Procedure

Clear learning objectives

Small units of material

Logical progression of material

Active and frequent response

Immediate feedback

Priming, prompting, and fading (Fernald & Jordan, 1991)

Clear learning objectives

Small units of material

Logical progression of material

Active and frequent response

Immediate feedback

Priming, prompting, and fading (Fernald & Jordan, 1991)

Programmed Instruction: Examples

Programmed Texts

Programmed Instruction: Examples

Lloyd and Knutzen (1969)’s programmed psychology course

All students responded at a high and steady rate

Fernald and Jordan (1991) tested students who had received PI and read a conventional textbook on three course units in psychology

Students who received PI and students who learned from a conventional textbook performed similarly

PI was less time intensive

Lloyd and Knutzen (1969)’s programmed psychology course

All students responded at a high and steady rate

Fernald and Jordan (1991) tested students who had received PI and read a conventional textbook on three course units in psychology

Students who received PI and students who learned from a conventional textbook performed similarly

PI was less time intensive

Programmed Instruction: Benefits

Kulik, Cohen, and Ebeling’s (1980) meta-analysis found that when significant differences in PI and lecture classes are found, the difference favors PI

There is no difference in withdrawal rates between PI and conventional instruction (Kulik et al., 1980)

PI is less time intensive (Kulik et al., 1980)

Feedback in programmed instruction can lead to better student learning outcomes (Jaehnig & Miller, 2007)

Kulik, Cohen, and Ebeling’s (1980) meta-analysis found that when significant differences in PI and lecture classes are found, the difference favors PI

There is no difference in withdrawal rates between PI and conventional instruction (Kulik et al., 1980)

PI is less time intensive (Kulik et al., 1980)

Feedback in programmed instruction can lead to better student learning outcomes (Jaehnig & Miller, 2007)

(3)

Programmed Instruction: Limitations

Fewer than half of the studies comparing PI and lecture have found significant differences in student learning outcomes (Kulik et al., 1980)

Outcomes typically differ by 2 points (Kulik et al., 1980)

Student ratings of programmed instruction are mixed (Kulik et al.1980)

Fewer than half of the studies comparing PI and lecture have found significant differences in student learning outcomes (Kulik et al., 1980)

Outcomes typically differ by 2 points (Kulik et al., 1980)

Student ratings of programmed instruction are mixed (Kulik et al.1980)

Personalized System of Instruction (PSI):

Procedure

Personalized System of Instruction (PSI):

Procedure

Mastery of course material is required before a student can continue

Use of proctors to grade student work

Self-pacing

Use of printed study guides to direct learning

Use of lecture as reinforcement contingent upon student work (Keller, 1968)

Mastery of course material is required before a student can continue

Use of proctors to grade student work

Self-pacing

Use of printed study guides to direct learning

Use of lecture as reinforcement contingent upon student work (Keller, 1968)

Personalized System of Instruction: The

Keller Plan

Personalized System of Instruction: The

Keller Plan

Course material was divided into units

Classroom served as a study hall

Students could request testing

Tests were graded immediately by proctors

Students who demonstrated mastery were allowed to continue

Students who did not pass had to restudy the material and were allowed to retake the test at another time without penalty

Lectures were used as reinforcement for completion of student work (Keller, 1968)

Course material was divided into units

Classroom served as a study hall

Students could request testing

Tests were graded immediately by proctors

Students who demonstrated mastery were allowed to continue

Students who did not pass had to restudy the material and were allowed to retake the test at another time without penalty

Lectures were used as reinforcement for completion of student work (Keller, 1968)

Personalized System of Instruction:

Benefits

Personalized System of Instruction:

Benefits

Students using PSI have significantly higher exam scores and final grades, by about 8 points (Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1979)

Students retain more information for longer periods of time using PSI (Bernstein & Chase, 2013; Kulik et al., 1979)

There are no significant differences in withdrawals between PSI and traditional classrooms (Kulik et al., 1979)

Students generally rate PSI as better than traditional teaching methods (Kulik et al., 1979)

Students using PSI have significantly higher exam scores and final grades, by about 8 points (Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1979)

Students retain more information for longer periods of time using PSI (Bernstein & Chase, 2013; Kulik et al., 1979)

There are no significant differences in withdrawals between PSI and traditional classrooms (Kulik et al., 1979)

Students generally rate PSI as better than traditional teaching methods (Kulik et al., 1979)

(4)

Personalized System of Instruction:

Limitations

Personalized System of Instruction:

Limitations

Self-pacing component leads to procrastination (Bernstein & Chase, 2013; Eyre, 2007), but contingency management has shown to be effective in mitigating this problem (e.g. Brooke & Ruthven, 1984)

Grade distributions are either negatively skewed or bimodal (Bernstein & Chase, 2013)

Administrators may feel that instructors are not actually teaching when they use PSI (Eyre, 2007)

PSI is more time intensive for the instructor (Bernstein & Chase, 2013; Eyre, 2007)

Self-pacing component leads to procrastination (Bernstein & Chase, 2013; Eyre, 2007), but contingency management has shown to be effective in mitigating this problem (e.g. Brooke & Ruthven, 1984)

Grade distributions are either negatively skewed or bimodal (Bernstein & Chase, 2013)

Administrators may feel that instructors are not actually teaching when they use PSI (Eyre, 2007)

PSI is more time intensive for the instructor (Bernstein & Chase, 2013; Eyre, 2007)

Interteaching: Procedure

Students use a preparation guide to get ready for each unit

Students discuss the guide during class

The instructor monitors and facilitates discussion

Students complete a record of the session

Instructor uses the records to construct lectures before the next interteaching session (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Students use a preparation guide to get ready for each unit

Students discuss the guide during class

The instructor monitors and facilitates discussion

Students complete a record of the session

Instructor uses the records to construct lectures before the next interteaching session (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Interteaching: Examples

Saville, Zinn, Neef, Norman, & Ferreri (2006) alternated interteaching and conventional instruction in a special education course

Students’ test scores were higher following interteaching than following lecture

Students scored better on final exam questions based on interteaching than questions based on lecture

Saville, Zinn, Neef, Norman, & Ferreri (2006) alternated interteaching and conventional instruction in a special education course

Students’ test scores were higher following interteaching than following lecture

Students scored better on final exam questions based on interteaching than questions based on lecture

(5)

Interteaching: Benefits

Interteaching results in improved student learning outcomes (Dunn, Saville, Baker, & Marek, 2013)

Instructors can avoid being redundant during lectures (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Student are self-paced within a class period, rather than an entire course (Boyce & Hineline, 2002; Saville et al., 2005)

Students generally give positive feedback about interteaching (e.g., Saville et al., 2006)

Interteaching results in improved student learning outcomes (Dunn, Saville, Baker, & Marek, 2013)

Instructors can avoid being redundant during lectures (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Student are self-paced within a class period, rather than an entire course (Boyce & Hineline, 2002; Saville et al., 2005)

Students generally give positive feedback about interteaching (e.g., Saville et al., 2006)

Interteaching: Limitations

Instructors spend a small amount of time lecturing (Boyce & Hineline, 2002), but instruct more often than in other behavioral methods (Saville, Zinn, & Elliott, 2005)

If no class credit is contingent upon effective interteaching sessions, quality of the sessions may suffer (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Poor students often choose to work together (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Instructors spend a small amount of time lecturing (Boyce & Hineline, 2002), but instruct more often than in other behavioral methods (Saville, Zinn, & Elliott, 2005)

If no class credit is contingent upon effective interteaching sessions, quality of the sessions may suffer (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Poor students often choose to work together (Boyce & Hineline, 2002)

Precision Teaching (PT): Procedure

Monitoring of student performance

Movement cycles e.g. writing 10 digits per minute

Acceleration and deceleration of learning for weekly growth statements

Celeration lines are used to predict future learning (Brent, 1977)

Proficiency levels: standard level of performance

Monitoring of student performance

Movement cycles e.g. writing 10 digits per minute

Acceleration and deceleration of learning for weekly growth statements

Celeration lines are used to predict future learning (Brent, 1977)

(6)

Precision Teaching: Examples

Zaritsky (1973): used PT to record the amount of homework students handed in

Significant increase in homework hand-ins

Spangler and Hankins (1975): Compared students using PT and conventional instruction in an adolescent psychology class

Students using PT performed better on a midterm exam

Zaritsky (1973): used PT to record the amount of homework students handed in

Significant increase in homework hand-ins

Spangler and Hankins (1975): Compared students using PT and conventional instruction in an adolescent psychology class

Students using PT performed better on a midterm exam

Precision Teaching: Benefits

Data driven (Brent, 1977)

Student performance

Teaching decisions

Conclusions can be drawn from PT charts without formal training (Brent, 1977)

Students prefer PT over conventional methods (Doughty et al., 2004)

Data driven (Brent, 1977)

Student performance

Teaching decisions

Conclusions can be drawn from PT charts without formal training (Brent, 1977)

Students prefer PT over conventional methods (Doughty et al., 2004)

Precision Teaching: Limitations

Some studies find a positive impact of PT on student performance (Doughty, Chase, & O’Shields, 2004), but most of these studies do not control for the effects of practice or reinforcement rate

Studies that control for these effects have generated inconclusive results (Doughty et al., 2004)

Time intensive (Brent, 1977)

Some studies find a positive impact of PT on student performance (Doughty, Chase, & O’Shields, 2004), but most of these studies do not control for the effects of practice or reinforcement rate

Studies that control for these effects have generated inconclusive results (Doughty et al., 2004)

Time intensive (Brent, 1977)

Computer-Based Instruction (CBI):

Procedure

Computer-Based Instruction (CBI):

Procedure

Computer-Assisted Instruction: A computer teaches directly (Kulik & Kulik, 1987; Pear & Novak, 1996)

Computer-Managed Instruction: A computer performs major tasks (Kulik & Kulik, 1987; Pear & Novak, 1996)

Computer-Enriched Instruction: A computer performs supplemental tasks (Kulik & Kulik, 1987)

Computer-Assisted Instruction: A computer teaches directly (Kulik & Kulik, 1987; Pear & Novak, 1996)

Computer-Managed Instruction: A computer performs major tasks (Kulik & Kulik, 1987; Pear & Novak, 1996)

Computer-Enriched Instruction: A computer performs supplemental tasks (Kulik & Kulik, 1987)

(7)

Computer-Based Instruction: Examples

Computer-Aided Personalized System of Instruction (CAPSI; Pear & Novak,

1996)

Mastery, self-pacing and the use of proctors

Students studied material and took tests using the computer program

Computerized programmed instruction in an education course (Kritch & Bostow, 1998)

Small units, active response and immediate feedback

Material was presented on the computer and students responded electronically

Computer-Aided Personalized System of Instruction (CAPSI; Pear & Novak, 1996)

Mastery, self-pacing and the use of proctors

Students studied material and took tests using the computer program

Computerized programmed instruction in an education course (Kritch & Bostow, 1998)

Small units, active response and immediate feedback

Material was presented on the computer and students responded electronically

Computer-Based Instruction: Benefits

Computer-based instruction has a positive impact on student learning outcomes (Kulik & Kulik, 1987)

Computer-assisted instruction requires a high level of student participation (Pear & Novak, 1996)

Computer-based instruction is less time intensive than non-computerized methods (Kulik & Kulik, 1987)

Student ratings are moderate to high (Kulik & Kulik, 1987; Pear & Crone-Todd, 1999; Pear & Novak, 1996)

Computer-based instruction has a positive impact on student learning outcomes (Kulik & Kulik, 1987)

Computer-assisted instruction requires a high level of student participation (Pear & Novak, 1996)

Computer-based instruction is less time intensive than non-computerized methods (Kulik & Kulik, 1987)

Student ratings are moderate to high (Kulik & Kulik, 1987; Pear & Crone-Todd, 1999; Pear & Novak, 1996)

Computer Based Instruction: Limitations

Students report disliking the lack of interaction with the professor and the

lack of scheduled class time (Pear & Novak, 1996)

Some variations of CBI have high withdrawal rates (e.g. Pear & Crone-Todd, 1999)

Effect sizes for computer based instruction were larger in studies of shorter duration (Kulik & Kulik, 1987)

Students report disliking the lack of interaction with the professor and the lack of scheduled class time (Pear & Novak, 1996)

Some variations of CBI have high withdrawal rates (e.g. Pear & Crone-Todd, 1999)

Effect sizes for computer based instruction were larger in studies of shorter duration (Kulik & Kulik, 1987)

Future Directions

Behavior-analytic educational methods are not widely implemented (Bernstein & Chase, 2013)

Methodological issues

Philosophical differences

Behavior-analytic instruction offers solutions to problems in higher education

Behavior-analytic educational methods are not widely implemented (Bernstein & Chase, 2013)

Methodological issues

Philosophical differences

Behavior-analytic instruction offers solutions to problems in higher education

(8)

References

 Bernstein, D. & Chase, P. N. (2013). Contributions of behavior analysis to higher education. In G. J. Madden (Ed.), APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis: Vol. 2. Translating Principles Into Practice (523-543)

 Boyce, T. E., & Hineline, P. N. (2002). Interteaching: A strategy for enhancing the user-friendliness of behavioral arrangements in the college classroom. The Behavior Analyst, 25(2), 215-225.

 Brent, G. (1977). Precision teaching: Principles and applications. Education & Treatment of Children, 1(1), 35-46.

 Brooke, R. R., & Ruthven, A. J. (1984). The effects of contingency contracting on student performance in a PSI class. Teaching of Psychology, 11(2), 87-89. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1102_7

 Doughty, S. S., Chase, P. N., & O'Shields, E. M. (2004). Effects of rate building on fluent performance: A review and commentary. The Behavior Analyst, 27(1), 7-23.

 Dunn, D. S., Saville, B. K., Baker, S. C., & Marek, P. (2013). Evidence-based teaching: Tools and techniques that promote learning in the psychology classroom. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 5-13. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12004

 Eyre, H. L. (2007). Keller's Personalized System of Instruction: Was it a fleeting fancy or is there a revival on the horizon?. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(3), 317-324. doi:10.1037/h0100623

 Jaehnig, W., & Miller, M. L. (2007). Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review. The Psychological Record,57(2), 219-232.