Effects of Response Cost in Computerized Programmed Instruction

Abstract

Punishment improves discrimination learning, and programmed instruction is an elaborate form of discrimination training, so the present experiment assessed whether punishment also improves performance on programmed instruction. The cost of such improvement in terms of increased training time and dissatisfaction of subjects also was assessed. Three college students completed a computerized version of Holland and Skinner's (1961) programmed text. One subject received a two-component multiple schedule within a reversal design, and two subjects received the same twocomponent multiple-schedule without a return-io-baseline phase. During baseline, subjects received 5¢ for each frame completed, regardless of whether responses were correct or incorrect. Multipleschedule conditions were either baseline conditions or a loss of 5¢ for each incorrect response (punishment). Punishment improved performance by 10%, increased training time by 15%, and did not affect reported satisfaction. The most likely mechanisms for this improved performance are that punishment increased study time or the salience of stimuli. This experiment showed that punishment can improve performance by one letter grade without subject dissatisfaction or significantly increasing training time.

Effect of Time-Out on Adult Performance of a Visual Discrimination Task

“…These results also provide evidence that the effectiveness of time-outs to enhance learning can be extended to tasks that generate relatively little proactive interference across trials. These results are also consistent with the research that has demonstrated that punishers can enhance performance to a greater degree than reinforcers alone (Harris & Tramontana, 1973;Munson & Crosbie, 1998;Penney, 1967;Penney & Lupton, 1961;Stevenson, et al, 1959). The results of the current study coincide with the research showing that punishers of greater magnitude (Camp et al, 1967), including time-outs of longer duration (Ferster & Appel, 1961;Hobbs, Forehand, & Murray, 1978;Zimmerman & Ferster, 1963), are more effective at altering behavior than punishers of lesser magnitude.…”

“…Punishment for incorrect responses, combined with reinforcement for correct responses, enhances task performance to a greater degree than when reinforcement for correct responses is used alone (Harris & Tramontana, 1973;Munson & Crosbie, 1998;Penney, 1967;Penney & Lupton, 1961;Stevenson, Weir, & Zigler, 1959). In one study, adults, randomly assigned to one of four groups that differed in the contingencies for correct and incorrect responses, learned a discrimination task (Trent, 1983).…”

An Evaluation of Computer‐based Programmed Instruction for Promoting Teachers' Greetings of Parents by Name

“…In recent years, computer-based instruction has been used to teach a range of skills to normally developing adults. The skills include concepts and principles of behavior analysis (Miller & Malott, 1997;Munson & Crosbie, 1998;Tudor, 1995), use of computer software (Karlsson & Chase, 1996), computer programming commands (Kritch & Bostow, 1998), and programmed instruction design (Tudor & Bostow, 1991). The instructional programs have often been guided by the principles of programmed instruction (Skinner, 1968), which involves segmenting complex skills into their subcomponents, with each component taught to mastery in a series of steps in which prompting is initially provided frequently and then gradually, systematically, and completely faded.…”

Feedback Types in Programmed Instruction: A Systematic Review

“…munson and Crosbie (1998) showed that punishment (5¢ earned for correct, 5¢ lost for incorrect) was better than baseline (5¢ earned for each response). This may be a punishment effect, but it could as easily be a reinforcement effect, given that the 'punishment' condition also involved a reinforcement contingency that was not present in the baseline condition.…”