What are the Learning Principles tutorials about?
The series of eleven sets of instructional frames (roughly 30 each) introduces respondent and operant conditioning principles to an individual unacquainted with or wishing to review basic concepts. The entire series of eleven sets takes the typical user an average of a little less than two hours, however they should not be attempted in one sitting. The estimated time per set is approximately ten minutes, with a range of 6 to 16 minutes. Treatment of concepts is consistent with original usage in the field of behavior analysis. The tutorials are a broad introduction appropriate to the beginning of an applied workshop or academic course. They are also appropriate for a segment of a general course that includes the behavioral point of view. They would function well as a first week assignment prior to classroom discussion. The concepts the tutorials teach can be found here.
Can the entire set of tutorials be accomplished in one sitting?
The sets must be done sequentially because the concepts build upon each other. Each frame of content requires the user to fill in a missing word or answer a question as it progressively builds the user’s response strength. Thus, this method of instruction requires close attention to each and every word in frames. Sets of frames should be completed without interruption of any kind. Frames require remembering what has just preceded that frame. The user cannot go backwards in the program to search for answers and must respond from developing memory. Normally, each set takes an average of ten minutes to complete when the user has no interruptions of any kind. The user should NOT attempt to do all sets in the sequence in a short time due to the intensity of concentration required. At least a short break should occur between sets. A percent correct score appears in the upper left portion of the screen as the user works through the tutorials. If the percent correct score falls below 70%, the user is automatically returned to the beginning of that set of frames to try again. Users having English as a second language may need to work through tutorials multiple times.
Do the tutorials cost the user anything?
The tutorials are free to the public at one site on the Web. As the user works through them records are accumulated at the site for use by the author for revision of the content where necessary. However, the users' records from this public site cannot be used for verification by an instructor due to technical and privacy issues.
How could instructors assign the tutorials to users and be sure the users accomplished them at a minimum level of proficiency?
One way, of course, is for instructors to point their students to the public site, compose their own posttests for the tutorials, administer the tests in class, and score them. This, however, requires the effort of creating, administering, and scoring, as well as the consumption of class time.
An easier and inexpensive solution is to arrange to have a webmaster send records of usage directly by email to the instructors. However, this requires setting up a private URL just for that instructor’s workshop or class. While instructors would not have direct access into website data, they can ask for student performance records to be sent to them periodically—possibly in concert with their assignment deadlines. Providing this service to possibly many different instructors in separate classes will consume webmaster time, however. If such feedback is desired by the instructor, each student or workshop member will be required to pay a one-time fee of $5.00 (through PayPal) for website management of their data and continually providing it to the instructor.
However, there is a cost FREE way for an instructor to get verification of student completion of the tutorial "sets". The student can copy the final frame that summarizes the student's performance by highlighting this summary, then copying it and pasting into an email message to the instructor. Or the student can screen copy the entire terminal frame and send that to the instructor. (Some students may need instruction on how to screen copy.) This way introduces a great many email messages and the instructor may wish to create a designated alternative email address just for collecting tutorial performances.
Why is this form of instruction more effective?
The technology of automated interactive instruction carefully employs the differential reinforcement of developing behavior. To be reinforced, a behavior must first be emitted. To some extent we privately “emit” behavior as we passively read and listen. In a sense, we “echo” it when we are already inclined to say it. However, during instruction the strengthening of this emitted behavior is not assured without external confirmation and reinforcement. For example, one can read passively “read” or “listen” while actually thinking about something else for some moments. In doing so we miss the concurrence of concepts being presented. This problem is prevented with automated interactive delivery. Concepts are deliberately paired together during instruction and such concurrence is assured when the user MUST OVERTLY emit required components in order to move forward. Thus, differential reinforcement and confirmation of learning can be precisely arranged in sequential steps. Experimental research has clearly demonstrated that required overt emission of behavior during the process of instruction more firmly establishes the behavior and, further, the behavior more readily generalizes to application elsewhere. See Kritch and Bostow, 1998 (http://www.jeabjaba.org/jaba/articles/1998/jaba-31-03-0387.pdf).
What is different about the tutorials at this site from most of on-line instruction?
Those familiar with operant conditioning argue that “learning” is best defined as a change in behavior, not a mental process. Even when one “does math in one’s head” these chains of behavior are almost always first established overtly before they recede to the covert level. Unfortunately, most on-line instruction today fails to employ differential reinforcement of active overt behavior. Instead, much of it is little more than a textbook with links to pages and video. Few creators of the on-line instruction are familiar with operant conditioning techniques--significantly those called priming and prompting. In many cases, on-line instruction does not sequentially build from basic concepts to complex ones. In contrast, well-designed programmed instruction requires the construction of a matrix of concepts, sequential ordering of the concepts, and deliberately placed frames that interrelate the developing concepts. In well programmed instruction some frames contain rules and examples, some examples then rules. Review frames are carefully inserted. Generalization to new situations is carefully structured. And most importantly, trial testing of new programs identifies the inadequacy of instructional sequences. With well programmed instruction user PERFORMANCE is the hinge pin for revision. This recognizes that the student is always “right.” The solution to poor student performance is program revision, not claiming student inadequacy. The ultimate test of good instruction is, of course, whether the learner engages more effectively with the world at large.
I want to require my students or workshop participants to work through the tutorials. What do I do?
You can assign the work but in order to make sure the learners work through all the tutorials you will either make up your own in-class posttest addressing key concepts (http://www.scienceofbehavior.com/learnprin/answers.html) or have us send you the records. If you elect to get the records from us (possibly multiple times to fit your deadlines) you will require each student to pay a one-time payment of $5.00 via Paypal for the intermittent forwarding of records to you. You will not receive records about students failing to pay this small fee and may elect to give a your own posttest to verify their knowledge. To commence the process of setting up a special URL for only your students/participants send an email message to Darrel Bostow (bostow@gmail.com).