Association for Behavior Analysis International

The four papers in this symposium extend research demonstrating the application of principles of behavior analysis to improving learning in undergraduate and graduate courses. In a graduate course, Perrin and Wilson compared two methods of fluency-based practice of terms – see/say versus see/type definitions – and found both improved weekly quiz scores, though the see/type method was preferred. In an online graduate course, Axe, Chase, Breault, and Neault found that oral quizzes administered at the start of live sessions improved written quiz and exam scores. In a graduate course, Bird and Chase reduced procrastination by providing study materials contingent on completing practice quizzes, though students did not prefer distributing their practice until bonus points were contingent on distributed practice. Finally, in a study focused on low-performing students in an undergraduate course, Dalfen, Fienup, and D’Ateno showed that requiring a passing criterion on weekly quizzes improved exam scores. These studies will be discussed in terms of the behavior analytic strategies of fluency-based instruction, self-control, choice behavior, and mastery learning.

behavior analysts, professors, graduate students, researchers

Previous research has shown that a large percentage of students procrastinate and a majority of those students wish to reduce it. The purpose of experiment 1 of the current study was to replicate previous findings that contingent access to study materials would produce distributed studying patterns. The current study extended previous research by evaluating preference for treatment using both a choice procedure as well as an end-of-semester survey. Results indicated that although contingent access to study materials was successful at reducing procrastination, students chose to pace themselves when allowed. Given that the intervention was disliked by a vast majority of students and was time intensive for researchers, professors may be reluctant to use the contingent access intervention. Experiment 2 evaluated a treatment for procrastination that was likely to be preferred by the students and more efficient to implement. Effects of a bonus point contingency for pacing was evaluated. Results indicated that a majority of students who procrastinated opted to distribute their studying behavior to access bonus points in the course. The data from both studies are discussed in terms of recommendations for future research regarding the use of bonus points in college courses and implications of student and professor preference.