User:Josh.Pritchard.DBA/programmedInstruction

Programmed instruction (PI) uses behavioral techniques to shape students skills. Compared to the traditional model of instruction that “transmits” learning matter to students via a lecture presentation with an attempt to “fill students with knowledge”; PI regards learning as the acquisition of a behavioral skill set (Vargas & Vargas 1991; Newsome, 2008). Simply, learning is something that an organism does, that it previously could not do (Vargas & Vargas 1991). PI utilizes highly structured instructional materials that engage students in the learning environment, instead of remaining passive receivers of knowledge. This allows students to practice the learning material on their way to achieving mastery (Vargas & Vargas 1991, Chase, Johnson & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1986). PI bases this instructional philosophy on the concept that as a behaving organism, a student learns best by actively engaging with the course material and by the consequences of that interaction.

Five Methods
In order to accomplish this goal all PI programs use five specific methods to target what the student should learn, how they should accomplish this throughout the course period, and the consequences that select the desired behavior (Vargas & Vargas 1991; Fernald & Jordan 1991; Kulik, Schwalb & Kulik, 1982). These five consist of the following: behavioral objectives, reinforcement, activity rate, successive approximation, and mastery progression. Simply stated, PI removes the subjective decisions of course development and progression and replaces them with data driven approaches that create effective learning environments. Behavioral objectives serve to provide the instructor and the student with a specific target goal to be achieved throughout the course. In order to be effective the objective must include the criteria that are required for material mastery. A behavioral goal might describe the topography, duration, intensity, fluency and frequency of the required behavior. The behavioral objective also states the appropriate uses of the material, as qualifications for successful course mastery (Fernal & Jordan, 1991; Vargas & Vargas 1991; Dagen, 2007). An example of an appropriately stated behavioral objective would be “the student will completely read the article, and finish the 10 question quiz with 80% accuracy, in no more than 20 minutes.” This example states what the student should do in order to complete the task: read the article, complete the quiz, finish within a specific time frame, as well as achieve a rate of 80% correct in order to display mastery. This goal provides the instructor with a specific measurement criterion that enables him or her to identify when the student is ready to be presented with more complex material (Dagen, 2007). An objective of this nature greatly differs from most traditionally stated educational goals in that it provides the student and instructor with the knowledge of a specific starting and ending point. Both are aware of what needs to be accomplished; thus when this goal is achieved there is no potential for subjective biases in the grading process. Most traditional educational goals inherently create biases with ambiguous objectives stated in such ways as “improve student’s reading comprehension.” A crucial component of behavioral analytic education is a reinforcer. A reinforcer is a stimulus presented to a leaner contingent on a behavioral response. As a result of this consequence the probability of the behavior reoccurring increases (Vargas & Vargas, 1991; Skinner 1938). Thus, in PI, reinforcers are used to increase the rate of correct responses. Reinforcers in PI are used frequently but only when correct responses are given. If a student’s response is correct the student receives confirmation of the accurate response and advances in the course work. Confirmation and advancing are consequences that likely strengthen the study behaviors leading to further correct answers. Incorrect answers lead the student back to the material for review and the question is repeated for the student to attempt to answer correctly. Once again this differs from the current traditional trend in the educational system in which students are infrequently reinforced for learning, thus creating confusion between correct and incorrect responses. In some cases, reinforcement of undesired behaviors, such as disruptive behaviors (i.e., shouting out in class) are reinforced by instructor attention, and correct responses (i.e., working quietly on math problems) goes unnoticed causing a decrease in desired responses, while increasing disruptive behaviors. By reinforcing correct behaviors instructors are given tools which allow them to increase appropriate academic behaviors while at the same time eliminating disruptive actions (Dagen, 2007). The activity rate component of PI is directly related to the aspect of reinforcement. Students access reinforcement by having the opportunity to actively engage with relevant learning material. The more opportunity students have for reinforcement, the more likely they are to correctly respond to the curriculum and make advancement in that material (Vargas & Vargas, 1991). Secondly, it requires students to assume responsibility for their learning achievements and environment; rather than placing the full responsibility on how the instructor’s disseminates information (Newsome, 2008). Both the instructor and the student are now accountable for success. The successive approximation component of PI utilizes another core behavior analytic concept, shaping. Shaping is defined as “the reinforcement of successive approximations to a target behavior” (Miltenberger, 2004). Shaping progressively builds behavioral repertoires by slowly reinforcing progressively more advanced responses until the target goal is met; at the same time faulty or less advanced behavioral responses are extinguished by removing reinforcement for these actions. In an educational setting successive approximation always starts with material that a student can provide correct responses for and then as quickly as possible, the student is supplied with more complex material to interact with (Vargas & Vargas 1991). For example students beginning an educational training would start by responding to forced choice, yes/no questions. This form of questioning is much easier to respond to than open ended questions. This open ended evaluation procedure, however, would be used later in the shaping process, after high rates of correct responding are achieved from the forded choice questions (Dagen, 2007). Shaping then in the educational setting moves from teaching gross discrimination skills to fine discrimination skills. The question is then asked, what about those students who are more advanced than others? In response to this question Vargas and Vargas (1991) developed a branching system. While the course material is organized in a logical structure, individual students can choose the order in which to progress; thus branching is a non-linear educational format that allows students to go backward or forward in the shaping system if need be. Ultimately, this allows for educational flexibility; more advanced students are allowed to proceed at their own pace while those who are less advanced are able to progressively add to their behavioral repertoire in order to eventually match the repertoires of other class mates. The use of mastery progression is also a key component of PI. This crucial aspect of PI involves mastery of one level of educational subject material before the student can progress to more difficult educational curriculum (Vargas & Vargas 1991). Students can only progress through the shaping process by showing mastery of the material. Students are required to actively participate by utilizing this type of successive building. High rates of active responding allow multiple opportunities for reinforcement. As the rates of responding increase along with reinforcement opportunities, learning progresses at a faster pace than in most traditional settings (Vargas & Vargas, 1991). If students are required to display mastery before moving on to more difficult subject material, it then becomes inherent in the PI system that frequent testing is required. This leads to yet another departure from the traditional mode of education; students are frequently tested for mastery, verses testing at greater time intervals, that cover larger quantities of material (i.e., a midterm and final). By structuring a course with frequent exams, students are have the opportunity to come in contact with material that is difficult more often, thus allowing more learning opportunities (active participation and opportunities for reinforcement), as well, a written record is created of the individual’s learning processes.