This article was downloaded by: [University of Aberdeen]

On: 26 December 2014, At: 21:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Exceptionality: A Special
Education Journal
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hexc20

Reflections on 'Effects of
Instructive Feedback Related
and Unrelated to Target
Behaviors'
Mark Wolery , Margaret Gessler Werts & Ariane
Holcombe
Published online: 08 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Mark Wolery , Margaret Gessler Werts & Ariane Holcombe (1993)
Reflections on 'Effects of Instructive Feedback Related and Unrelated to Target
Behaviors', Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 4:2, 117-123, DOI: 10.1207/
s15327035ex0402_5

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex0402_5

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 21:48 26 December 2014
 Exceptionality, 4(2), 117-123
Copyright o 1993, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Reflections on "Effects of Instructive

Feedback Related and Unrelated to the
Target Behaviors"
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 21:48 26 December 2014

Mark Wolery, Margaret Gessler Werts, and

Ariane Holcombe
Department of Psychiatry
Allegheny-Singer Research Institute

Instructive feedback involves presenting extra, nontarget stimuli during the

consequent events of direct instruction. Students are not expected to respond to
these stimuli and are not reinforced if they do. The stimuli simply are presented.
We have used instructive feedback in more than 20 studies; in this article, we
attempt to answer three questions: (a) Why study instructive feedback?, (b) what
causes students to acquire instructive feedback stimuli?, and (c) what questions
about instructive feedback remain unanswered? By posing and responding to
these questions, we hope to stimulate the interest of other investigators in this line
of research.

WHY STUDY INSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK?

In the past 20 years, a number of direct instructional strategies were devised and
evaluated for teaching learners who have disabilities (Demchak, 1990; Wolery,
Ault, & Doyle, 1992). These strategies are based on an operant understanding of
how stimulus control is established and transferred. Specifically, stimuli that do
not have control are presented, and students are differentially reinforced for
performing the desired behaviors in the presence of those stimuli. Of course, to
get students to do the behavior so that it can be differentially reinforced the
teacher must deliver prompts that already control the behavior. Over trials,
prompts are faded, and control is transferred to the target stimuli that did not
initially have control. Thus, many of the effective strategies involve systemati-
cally presenting stimuli to students, providing and removing prompts, and
delivering differential consequences based on students' responses. When such

Requests for reprints should be sent to Mark Wolery, Department of Psychiatry, Early Childhood
Intervention Program, Allegheny-Singer Research Institute, 320 East North Avenue, Pittsburgh,
PA 15212.
 118 WOLERY, WERTS, HOLCOMBE

strategies are used, learners of varying ages (preschoolers to adults) with many
different disabilities acquire the skills being taught.
Instructive feedback became the focus of our studies because we were
interested in evaluating means for making these effective strategies more effi-
cient. Studies of efficiency inherently involve a comparative question: Is one way
of teaching superior to another? Operationally, we viewed efficiency in two ways:
(a) Does one strategy result in more rapid learning to criterion than another as
measured by the number of trials or minutes to criterion?, and (b) does one
strategy result in broader learning than another as measured by the number of
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 21:48 26 December 2014

behaviors acquired? The rationale for studying efficiency is to devise strategies

that allow learners with disabilities to acquire as much as possible in the smallest
amount of time.
The research with instructive feedback indicates that it can be used to increase
the efficiency of effective strategies. Instructive feedback allows learners to
acquire additional behaviors without increasing the amount of time devoted to
teaching. Thus, with little extra effort on the teacher's part (identifying instructive
feedback stimuli and presenting them during the consequent events), students
have the opportunity to learn substantially more. However, as described next,
much remains to be learned about how to use instructive feedback to increase
efficiency; thus, we believe subsequent studies are needed.

WHAT CAUSES STUDENTS TO ACQUIRE

INSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK STIMULI?

Our instructive feedback research has focused on whether different types of

learners will require instructive feedback stimuli, the conditions under which it
works, and methods for delivering it. We have not attempted to evaluate
hypotheses about why instructive feedback results in learning, although this
question seems important.
Students are not required to respond overtly to the instructive feedback stimuli,
and reinforcement is not delivered. Thus, reinforcement for responding in the
presence of a stimulus (traditional method for establishing stimulus control) does
not seem useful in explaining why students learn to respond accurately to the
instructive feedback stimuli. In most cases, the target and the instructive feedback
stimuli require different responses. Thus, stimulus generalization (i.e., from the
target to the instructive feedback stimulus) is not a robust explanation for the
learning that occurs.
A potential explanation, however, is observational learning. In many of the
instructive feedback studies, the teacher "does the behavior" (is a model) when
delivering the instructive feedback stimuli. For example, if the task is naming
pictures of fruits and vegetables (e.g., oranges, grapes, apples, corn, carrots,
peas, etc.), then the instructive feedback stimuli could be classification informa-
tion (e.g., "It's a fruit," or "It's a vegetable"). The teacher would show a picture
of oranges (target stimulus); say, "What's this?"; provide the child with time to
respond or prompt a response; praise the child's response; and add, "It's a fruit."
Thus, the teacher has provided a model of the instructive feedback stimulus.
 REFLECTIONS 119

Although the model is not reinforced as in some observational learning studies,

it remains a possible explanation.
Although observational learning may be a useful explanation for most
instructive feedback studies, its explanatory power is weak in some studies. In
these studies, teachers have not modeled the behavior but have simply shown a
card containing the instructive feedback stimulus (Holcombe, Wolery, Werts, &
Hrenkevich, 1993; Wolery et al., 1991). A potential explanation in this case
would be incidental learning-that is, acquisition of stimuli that are present in the
instructional context but are not the focus of instruction. The question becomes:
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 21:48 26 December 2014

What causes children to learn incidentally, or which conditions appear to

facilitate incidental learning?
Observational and incidental learning may be useful explanations, but we
suspect a couple of other forces may be operating. We have not evaluated them
and do not have convincing evidence of their influence. These are association
with reinforcement and demand characteristics.
By definition, instructive feedback stimuli are presented during the consequent
events for students' responses. As a result, they occur contiguously with the
delivery of reinforcers. It may be that presenting stimuli in close temporal prox-
imity to reinforcers increases students' attention to those stimuli and increases the
probability of learning. In most studies, the instructive feedback was presented
only after correct responses; in the other studies, it was presented following correct
and incorrect responses. In all studies, reinforcement initially occurred for all
correct responses. Thus, with the exception of a small percentage of responses, the
instructive feedback stimuli and reinforcers were delivered either simultaneously
or in close temporal proximity. This association could be tested by presenting the
instructive feedback stimuli only in the consequent events for error responses. Such
studies would be interesting academically but would have limited practical im-
plications. In the studies, we used response-prompting strategies (e.g., constant or
progressive time delay) that minimize student errors. We did this to increase the
likelihood that stimulus control would be transferred from the prompt to the target
stimulus efficiently. Because the purpose of using instructive feedback is to in-
crease efficiency, we have not used it with strategiesthat allow many errors to occur
(e.g., error correction or trial-and-error learning).
The second force that may be important is demand characteristics; specifically,
the assumption is that if the teacher repeatedly tells and/or shows a student
something, then he or she ought to learn it. Or in a more operant explanation, if
a student has been reinforced in the past for learning what the teacher has shown,
then the probability of accessing reinforcers in the future may be dependent on
learning whatever the teacher is consistently presenting. Although this is an
intriguing explanation, devising an experiment to test it is difficult, and we have
not attempted it. We have used subjects (e.g., preschoolers with disabilities) who
had minimal histories with direct instruction in a structured sense, but each of
them undoubtedly had histories that would teach them the rule: "Learn what
adults do or show you."
Currently, we believe that instructive feedback stimuli are acquired through
observational and/or incidental learning that occur(s) in a context where demand
characteristics are operating and where the instructive feedback stimuli are
 120 WOLERY, WERTS, HOLCOMBE

presented contiguously with reinforcers. The current study (Werts, Wolery,

Holcombe, & Frederick, this issue) was designed to rule out another explanation:
Conceptual links between the target and instructive feedback stimuli were
responsible for the learning. Students were taught target stimuli and shown
instructive feedback stimuli that were from the same or different conceptual
domains. Because students acquired both types of instructive feedback stimuli,
some factor other than conceptual links must account for that learning.

WHAT QUESTIONS ABOUT INSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK

Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 21:48 26 December 2014

REMAIN UNANSWERED?

Many questions remain unanswered about the use of instructive feedback, and
these questions can be grouped into three categories regarding how instructive
feedback stimuli are selected, presented, and used in unique applications.

Selection of Instructive Feedback Stimuli

With the exception of our current study (Werts et al., this issue), the instructive
feedback stimuli have been conceptually related to the target stimuli (i.e., those
being taught directly). Our target study, however, indicates that conceptual links
are not a necessary condition for acquisition of the instructive feedback
information. Nonetheless, in practice, conceptual links are probably desirable.
Although we have not studied selection variables, several deserve investigation.
First, we suspect that more instructive feedback information will be required
when it is as easy or easier than the target stimuli. We suspect, but cannot
confirm, that if students have a history of responding to particular types of
stimuli, then the instructive feedback may be easier to learn. Also, we suspect that
students' prior knowledge about a given content area is an important factor in
predicting how much instructive feedback stimuli would be acquired. For
example, if the instructive feedback stimuli are written words (e.g., for pictures
of various entities), then students are more likely to acquire them for entities for
which they have a referent (e.g., they could label the actual object). These
assumptions should not be surprising, but they warrant investigation.
Second, we suspect that interest/preference may be an important dimension on
which to select instructive feedback stimuli. In Experiment 1 of the target study
(Werts et al., this issue), students made comments that indicated they "liked"
sessions when state outlines were the instructive feedback rather than percent-
ages; in addition, they learned larger percentages of these. However, docu-
menting interest/preference (unstable constructs to be sure) is a difficult propo-
sition; thus, devising experiments to test it are, at best, risky.
Third, we suspect that instructive feedback stimuli occur on some continuum
from novel to familiar. The placement of stimuli on this dimension may well
influence the amount of attention that is devoted to the instructive feedback
information and, thus, the amount of learning that occurs. Studies of such an
assumption, however, are fraught with the confound that what is initially novel
becomes more familiar with each successive trial.
 REFLECTIONS 121

Unfortunately, studies of difficulty, interest/preference, and novelty/

familiarity cannot be conducted in isolation. All instructive feedback stimuli
contain each facet-a level of difficulty, interest/preference, and novelty/
familiarity-and these dimensions vary across subjects and perhaps across time.
To date, none of these variables have been the subject of inquiry, and their effects
on acquisition and generalization are speculative.

Presentation of Instructive Feedback Stimuli

Several factors are involved in presenting instructive feedback. We have evalu-

Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 21:48 26 December 2014

ated some of the conditions under which instructive feedback appears to work.
For example, we have found it effective in one-to-one instruction (Wolery et al.,
1991), small-group instruction (Werts et al., this issue), and in transition-based
teaching (i.e., single trials implemented during in-class transitions; Werts,
Wolery, Holcombe-Ligon, Vassilaros, & Billings, 1992). In most studies, only
one instructive feedback stimulus is presented for each target behavior; however,
students can learn when two instructive feedback stimuli are presented for each
target behavior -either simultaneously on every trial or separately on alternating
trials (Wolery, Werts, Holcombe, Billings, & Vassilaros, 1993). However, in most
studies, delivery of the instructive feedback was quite similar. Specifically, one
instructive feedback stimulus was presented for each target behavior, the
instructive feedback did not vary across trials (e.g., it was said in the same tone
of voice; or, if on cards, it was in the same print, size, and color throughout
instruction and was presented for the same target behavior), the instructive
feedback followed each correct response, and the instructive feedback was only
assessed prior to instruction and after criterion-level responding was established.
Presently, our recommendations about instructive feedback must contain these
qualifications. However, manipulation of these factors may result in differential
effects on learning.
First, we do not know if students would acquire these instructive feedback
stimuli for each target behavior; but if they do, then this would substantially
increase the efficiency of instruction. Second, we do not know the effects of
intermittent presentation of instructive feedback stimuli (e.g., every third correct
response); however, we do know that presenting two instructive feedback stimuli
for each target behavior on alternating trials is about as effective as presenting
two stimuli for each target behavior simultaneously on all trials. Intermittent
presentation may result in more attention to the instructive feedback and
subsequently more learning. Third, we suspect that varying the presentation of
the instructive feedback (e.g., changing voice tone, using various size prints,
using different colors of print, varying target behaviors, etc.) may enhance
attention to the instructive feedback and thus promote learning. Because varied
presentation appears to facilitate generalization of target stimuli, logic would
suggest that varied presentation would also promote generalization of instructive
feedback stimuli. Fourth, we have not tested the effects of intermittent assess-
ment of students' acquisition of instructive feedback stimuli during instruction.
However, if demand characteristics are operating, then intermittent (e.g., every
other day assessment in separate daily probes) might result in more rapid
 122 WOLERY, WERTS, HOLCOMBE

acquisition of and perhaps more generalization of the instructive feedback

information. Each of these presentation variables, however, interact with the
selection variables discussed earlier and should be studied in that context.

Unique Applications of Instructive Feedback

At least three unique applications exist for instructive feedback, and each are
relatively unexplored. First, in a couple of studies (Holcombe, Wolery, Werts, &
Hrenkevich, in press; Wolery et al., 1991), researchers have assessed the effects
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 21:48 26 December 2014

of instructive feedback on the rapidity of later learning when instructive feedback

stimuli are taught directly. During initial instruction selected target behaviors
were taught and instructive feedback stimuli were presented; after students
acquire the target behaviors, the instructive feedback stimuli were directly taught
(sometimes with additional instructive feedback and sometimes without it). This
arrangement clearly results in large savings of instructional time. However, in all
of these studies, the target stimuli and the instructive feedback stimuli have the
same responses (e.g., a picture and a word for that picture, numerals and
corresponding number words, etc.). Future research should address whether the
instructive feedback in this arrangement can be used when the target and
instructive feedback stimuli require different responses (e.g., reading a word and
spelling it).
Second, we are interested in whether the presentation of instructive feedback
can be used to establish stimulus equivalence. In traditional stimulus equivalence
work, students are taught that A is equal to B; then they are taught that B is equal
to C; and then they are tested to determine whether A and C are treated as
equivalent. Our question is whether teaching A is equal to B and showing C
through instructive feedback can result in A and C being treated as equivalent. If
this is so, then substantial advancement will be made in our understanding of how
conceptual classes can be formed.
Third, we are interested in whether instructive feedback can be used to teach
chains of behavior. In other words, if students are required to learn a sequence
of behaviors, can some of the behaviors be presented only through instructive
feedback and some of them be presented through direct instruction? For a
nonfunctional example, when teaching students to say the letters of the alphabet
in order, could some chunks of letters be taught through direct instruction and
others presented only through instructive feedback? A-B-C-D could be taught
directly, E-F-G-H can be presented through instructive feedback, I-J-K-L
through direct instruction, M-N-0-P through instructive feedback, and so on.
The important issues are whether this would result in more efficient learning than
teaching the alphabet directly and whether maintenance of the entire chain would
be differentially affected.

SUMMARY

Using instructive feedback appears to increase the efficiency of instruction; thus,

we recommend that teachers integrate it into their direct instructional sessions.
 REFLECTIONS 123

However, the mechanisms that cause students to learn instructive feedback

stimuli are, at this time, merely hypotheses. Further, many questions remain to be
studied about how to select and present instructive feedback stimuli and about its
unique applications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is based on investigations supported by the U.S. Department of

Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 21:48 26 December 2014

Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Field-

Initiated Program Grant H023C00125. However, the opinions expressed do not
necessarily reflect the policy of the U.S. Department of Education and no official
endorsement should be inferred.
We are grateful to all our colleagues, the teachers, and the students who
participated in this research.

REFERENCES

Demchak, M. A. (1990). Response prompting and fading methods: A review. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 94, 603-615.
Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., & Hrenkevich, P. (1993). Increasing the efficiency of
future learning by manipulating current instruction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., & Hrenkevich, P. (in press). Effects of instructive
feedback on future learning. Journal of Behavioral Education.
Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe-Ligon, A., Vassilaros, M. A., &Billings, S. S. (1992). Efficacy
of transition-based teaching with instructive feedback. Education and Treatment of Children, 15,
320-334.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe
disabilities: Use of response prompting strategia. White Plains, NY: 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., Werts, M. G., Holcombe, A., Billings, S. S., & Vassilaros, M. A. (1993). Comparison
of simultaneous and alternating presentation of non-target information. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 3, 187-204.