The Effects of Interspersal Training Versus High‐density Reinforcement on Spelling Acquisition and Retention

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of interspersing known items during spelling instruction on new words for three mentally retarded students. Following a baseline consisting of the presentation of 10 test words per session, a multielement design was implemented. During interspersal training sessions, previously mastered words were presented alternately with each of 10 test words. During high-density reinforcement sessions, 10 test words were presented and additional reinforcement was provided for task-related behaviors. Throughout all conditions, test words were deleted and replaced after meeting a mastery criterion. Periodic retention tests were administered over mastered words and a cumulative retention test was administered at the end of the experiment. Results showed that high-density reinforcement did facilitate performance over baseline; however, intersperal training was superior to the other conditions in terms of both acquisition rate and short-and long-term retention. In addition, students preferred the interspersal condition when offered a choice.

Effects of Immediate and Delayed Error Correction on the Acquisition and Maintenance of Sight Words by Students With Developmental Disabilities

“…Third, delayed error correction provided massed practice (i.e., two or more repeated trials on the same word) of words missed more than once during instruction. Evidence suggests that skills taught with distributed practice (i.e., practice trials separated by at least one other trial or unit of instruction) are learned better than those taught with massed practice (e.g., Neef, Iwata, & Page, 1980). Fourth, during massed-practice error correction, students may have imitated the teacher's model without looking closely at the printed word (particularly during the second and third correction of the same word), thereby decreasing the probability of transfer of stimulus control from the teacher's verbal models to the target stimuli, the word cards.…”

The Effects of Interspersed Maintenance Tasks on Academic Performance in a Severe Childhood Stroke Victim

“…When maintenance variables are interspersed in the sessions, more correct responses and, therefore, more rewards are likely to occur if the child is on task. However, although high-density reinforcement may improve performance, interspersal training has been shown to be superior to high-density reinforcement in terms of acquisition rate and short-and long-term retention (Neef et al, 1980). Thus, the density of reinforcement may not be entirely responsible for the improvements.…”

“…One variable that has been especially influential is the interspersal of previously acquired (maintenance) tasks among new (acquisition) tasks (cf. Dunlap, 1984;Neef, Iwata, & Page, 1980;Schroeder & Baer, 1972). The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a constant acquisition task condition ver-sus a condition that interspersed maintenance trials among acquisition trials on the motivation and academic performance on a young severe stroke victim.…”

Some contingencies of spelling

“…Behavior analytic research has emphasized children's performances on daily or weekly spelling tests in educational settings. These studies have investigated the effects of contingent free time (Rapport & Bostow, 1976), the Good Behavior Game (Axelrod & Paluska, 1975), parent tutoring (Broden et al, 1978), peer tutoring (Harris et al, 1972), interspersal training (Neef et al, 1980), teacher modelling (Gettinger, 1985;Kauffman et al, 1978;Nulman & Gerber, 1984), and delayed matching (Gettinger, 1985) on performance in spelling tests. As important as these studies are, they cannot provide all we would want from an operant account of spelling.…”

“…Variables relevant to this issue include overtraining (i.e., increasing the number of trials of standard performance before training ceases) and frequent reviews of words previously trained (Broden et al, 1978). A study by Neef et al (1980) suggests that overtraining with regular reviews can increase retention. In two other studies, distributed practice with a few words practiced each day produced better retention than did massed practice with many words practiced at one time (Fishman, Keller & Atkinson, 1968;Rieth et al, 1974).…”