JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
1991)24,153-160
NUMBER
I
(SPRING 199 1)
TEACHING MEMORIZED SPELLING WITH A MICROCOMPUTER:
TIME DELAY AND COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION
KAY B. STEVENS, A. EDWARD BLACKHURST, AND DEBORAH Borr SLATON
UNIVERSTY OF KENTUCKY
A computer-assisted instruction program was evaluated that used a constant time-delay procedure
to teach 5 students 18 spelling words. In addition to delivering the instructional procedure, the
program managed the presentation of training content based on individual student responding and
collected instructional data on individual student performance. The procedure was effective at
teaching 4 of the 5 students the words, and generalization occurred from the computer-delivered
keyboard response format to a teacher-delivered hand-written response format. Maintenance data
varied among the students. The study demonstrated the feasibility of using microcomputers to
deliver time-delay instruction in special education classrooms and suggested several research questions
related to specific features of microcomputer-delivered time-delay instruction.
DESCRIPTORS: time delay, computer-assisted instruction, mildly handicapped, spelling, special education
Skinner (1986) provided a brief history of teaching machines and discussed the capabilities of computers to deliver effective programmed instruction,
especially during the acquisition phase of learning.
He emphasized that effective programmed instruction should prime the student for learning by providing correct models that may be easily imitated
by the learner and result in accurate responding.
Skinner conduded that the "small computer is the
ideal hardware for programmed instruction" (p.
110) and has the potential for being an effective
teaching machine.
Cipani (1985) described the compatibility of
time-delay prompt fading with computer-assisted
instruction (CAI). Time delay is a systematic instructional procedure containing many of the procedural components outlined by LeBlanc, Hoko,
Aangeenbrug, and Etzel (1985) as optimal teaching
procedures for students with learning difficulties.
Two types of time delay exist, constant and progressive, and both have been successful for learners
with mild to severe handicaps.
transferring stimulus control from a controlling
prompt signaling the correct response to the terminal discriminative stimulus (Snell & Gast, 1981;
Stevens & Schuster, 1988). This transfer of control
is accomplished by pairing the prompt with the
task request until the student can respond to the
task request without assistance of the prompt. With
constant time delay, a constant time interval is
inserted between the task request and the controlling prompt, giving the student time to respond
before the prompt if the answer is known or to
wait and receive the prompt if the answer is not
known. When the student is consistent at making
correct responses before the prompt, the behavior
is considered learned.
Research indicates that constant time delay has
been effective in teaching acquisition of a variety
of tasks to students who are mildly handicapped.
These tasks indude math facts (Cybriwsky &
Schuster, 1990; Mattingly & Bott, 1990), sight
word reading (Alig-Cybriwsky, Wolery, & Gast,
1990; Ault, Wolery, Gast, Doyle, & Martin, 1990;
Both types of time delay have the potential for Wolery, Ault, Gast, Doyle, & Mills, 1990), sciproviding nearly errorless learning conditions by ence and social studies facts (Wolery, Alig, Gast,
& Boyle-Gast, in press), and spelling words (KinThe authors thank Judith Mattingly for her cooperation ney, Stevens, & Schuster, 1988; Stevens & Schuster,
and efforts during the research project.
Address all correspondence to the first author, 229 Taylor 1987). All studies reported that the procedure was
Education Building, Department of Special Education, Uni- effective in teaching the targeted skills and that
versity of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506.
learning errors were minimal. For example, Kinney
153
154
KAY B. STEVENS et al.
et al. used a CAI time-delay program to teach 1
male student with spelling deficits 15 spelling words
in a tutoring setting.
The purpose of the present study was to extend
the previous time-delay research with mildly handicapped students by (a) examining the efficacy of
providing CAI time-delay instruction in spelling in
a public school dassroom rather than in a teacherdirected session or one-to-one private tutoring session and (b) adding a review bank feature that
permitted the computer to present training trials
for only those words in the training set on which
the student had not met a predetermined mastery
criterion. This change was made to examine the
effects of focusing instructional opportunities on
words that the student was not spelling correctly.
Typically, time-delay studies have conducted training on all items of a training set until criterion is
met on the entire set. However, the present study
used the unique features of the microcomputer to
manage the content items based on each student's
response history to "Waiting to Spell" (Stevens &
Blackhurst, 1988), a constant time-delay software
program.
respond to instructional and feedback phrases used
in the program, (d) use a simple scanning procedure
for finding keys on the keyboard that resulted in
typing a minimum of one correct letter per 3 s,
and (e) enter responses by typing on the keyboard
for each activity induded in the CAI program.
All experimental sessions occurred in the resource
room while the students sat at the microcomputer
with their backs to the dassroom and used the
program independently. During sessions, one teacher, four to 10 other students, and the experimenter
were present.
An Apple Ile® microcomputer system with
128K of random access memory, color monitor,
two 5.25-in. disk drives, Zip Chip accelerator,
ImageWriter printer, Slotbuster voice synthesizer,
and SONY headset were used during all demonstration, probe, and instructional sessions. "Waiting to Spell" (Stevens & Blackhurst, 1988), a software program authored using Apple SuperPILOT
and stored on two 5.25-in. disks, provided the
constant time-delay program.
The dassroom teacher recommended the training
content. During screening, the experimenter dictated 30 to 50 words to each student individually;
students responded in writing. Words spelled incorrectly on two consecutive sessions were selected
METHOD
for training. Each student's 18 target words were
Subjects, Setting, and Materials
divided into three word sets (Sets A, B, and C) of
Five students (3 females and 2 males), enrolled six words each.
in a suburban elementary school and placed in a
special education resource room, served as subjects. Experimental Design
A multiple probe design across word sets repThey ranged in age from 1 1 years 3 months to 12
across students (Gast, Skouge, & Tawney,
licated
years 3 months and were in fifth or sixth grade.
Three students were diagnosed as learning disabled 1984) was used to assess the effectiveness of the
and 2 were diagnosed as educable mentally hand- training procedures. Following completion of trainicapped according to the criteria of the school dis- ing on the first word set, each subsequent word set
trict. Each student's individual education program was then trained with the same procedures.
listed spelling as a weakness, and each scored more
than one standard deviation below the mean on a Procedure
Probe and training sessions. Table 1 presents
recent administration of the "Test of Written Spellprocedures for probe, 0-s, and 5-s delay trials. Each
ing" (Larsen & Hammill, 1986).
The results of direct observation indicated the trial is presented in terms of the instructional anfollowing prerequisite skills: (a) sit and attend to tecedents and feedback presented via the CAI proan instructional task for 20 min, (b) turn on the gram, as well as student response options. Prompts
microcomputer and load software, (c) read and consisted of a model of the correct spelling of the
155
TIME DELAY AND CAI
Table 1
Procedures for Probe, O-s, and 5-s Delay Trials
Possible student
Type of
trial
Instructional antecedent
Probe
A:a (Task request) "Spell
O-s delay
A: (Task request) "Spell
responses
."
(Immediately after the task request, the prompt appears.)
A & V: Correct spelling as prompt
5-s delay
A: (Task request) "Spell
."
(Five s after the task request, if the
student made no response, the
prompt appears.)
Instructional feedback
Correct
Incorrect or no response
Correct after prompt
V:b "Good."
No feedback
A & V: Praise statement
V: Scoreboard
Incorrect after prompt or
no response
Correct before prompt
A & V: Correction procedure
Incorrect before prompt
Correct after prompt
A & V: Praise statement
V: Scoreboard
A & V: Correction procedure
A & V: Praise statement
V: Scoreboard
Incorrect after prompt
A & V: Correction procedure
aA, presented aurally.
bV, presented visually.
word. Praise statements were one of 10 randomly
selected confirmation statements (e.g., "Good for
you!"). Two small scoreboards at the bottom of
the monitor cumulatively tallied unprompted and
prompted correct responses. Correction procedure
involved a voiced and printed message that said,
"No. Check your answer and press RETURN,"
which signaled the student to compare the response
to the model provided on the screen. This was
followed by a repetition of the same trial until a
correct response occurred on that word either before
or after the prompt.
A probe condition, consisting of a minimum of
three probe sessions, occurred prior to and following
training on each set of words. Probe sessions consisted of 18 trials; the 18 target words were randomly presented via the microcomputer as indicated in Table 1. Throughout all trials, students
had 30 s to respond by typing the word and pressing
the return key. Students could self-correct prior to
pressing the Return key by using the left arrow key
to erase. The microcomputer scored probe responses
and provided a printout indicating (a) percentage
of correct responses per word set per session, (b)
total session time, (c) the stimulus word presented
during each trial, and (d) the actual student response per trial.
During the first training session of each word
set, a O-s delay was used; each word was presented
randomly five times each for a total of 30 training
trials. During subsequent training sessions with that
word set, a 5-s delay was used, and the number
of trials became dependent on the students response
accuracy. Following each training session, a printout
was available indicating (a) number and percentage
of unprompted correct responses, (b) number of
prompted correct responses, (c) number of unprompted errors, (d) number of prompted errors,
(e) stimulus word presented during each trial, (f)
actual student response per trial, and (g) total session time.
Each student was required to meet two training
criteria per word set. The first criterion level required that individual words be spelled correctly
before the prompt on three consecutive trials. Because the words were intermixed and presented
randomly, three consecutive presentations of a single word could occur intermittently across any number of trials. As students met this criterion on individual words, the words were transferred by the
computer into a "review bank." When a word
moved into the review bank, no further training
trials were presented on that word during the session. Instead, remaining training trials were ran-
156
156KAY B. STEVENS et al.
domized among the words that had not met the
first level criterion.
At the beginning of each 5-s training session,
the microcomputer program scanned the review
bank. If the computer program found that a word
or words from the set being trained were in the
review bank (indicating the first level criterion had
been met during previous sessions), a review trial
was conducted on each word. Review trials were
identical to probe trials. As a result of review trials,
any word(s) spelled correctly remained in the review
bank; any word(s) misspelled moved back into the
training set. The student then had to meet the first
level criterion again in order to move the word back
into the review bank. Therefore, the number of
training trials per 5-s delay session depended on
the number of trails required to get all words into
the review bank or a maximum of 30 trials (whichever came first). A maximum of 30 training trials
was chosen because it approximated the number
of trials per session used in previous time-delay
spelling research studies with mildly handicapped
students (Kinney et al., 1988; Stevens & Schuster,
1987), and the amount of time needed for 30
training trials matched the preexisting classroom
schedule for time allotted to individual spelling
lessons.
The second criterion level required the student
to maintain all six words in the review bank for 2
consecutive days. To meet this criterion, the student
had to move all words into the review bank by
meeting the first level criterion. When this occurred
the computer program presented only review trials
on the words. If they were all spelled correctly, all
words remained in the review bank and no training
occurred that day. The following day, the words
were again tested with review trials. If they again
were all spelled correctly, the words were considered
learned and training on that word set ceased.
sessions. Posttest sessions occurred following the
first and third sessions ofeach microcomputer probe
condition on trained word sets. Fifteen days after
training on Set C words, a follow-up test occurred
to assess performance in the generalized format.
Feedback during generalization probes was withheld until the end of the session and consisted of
the teacher telling the students the number ofwords
they spelled correctly accompanied by one general
positive statement regarding their correct responding. A handwritten format exduding continuous
feedback was selected for testing generalization and
maintenance because it represented conditions under which students typically were required to demonstrate spelling skills.
Reliability
Response reliability was evaluated by examining
the microcomputer-generated data sheets that recorded each student's actual response and the microcomputer's scoring of each response. The experimenter (a) scored the student's response as
printed on the data sheet, (b) compared her score
to that of the computer, and (c) checked the computer calculations for total types of responses (correct and incorrect before and after the prompt).
Reliability checks were conducted once per phase
during probe, 0-s, and 5-s delay phases for a total
of nine checks per student. Reliability was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the
number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Response reliability was 100%.
Procedural reliability was conducted via extensive previewing of CAI lessons prior to classroom
application, as well as 20 direct observation sessions
during program implementation. During each observation, the five essential components of the timedelay procedure were checked for accuracy. Reliability was calculated by dividing the number of
instructional components delivered accurately by
Generalization and Maintenance Probe Sessions the total number of components under observation.
Generalization probe sessions consisted of the Procedural reliability was 100%.
teacher or experimenter dictating previously trained
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
words to individual students and the students writFigures 1 and 2 depict performance data for 2
ing the words on a piece of paper. Pretests for
generalization occurred prior to the first training of the 5 students during probe and review trials.
157
TIME DELAY AND CAI
6-
Probe
Condition
I
Probe
Probe
Condition Review Bank Condition
Review Bank
Set A
Set B
II
m
Probe
Review Bank Condition Followup
IV
Set C
5.-
W~\
4.
32tn
1.
<
0.-
..*-
0
*
*
Trainnyno
K/A
Computer probe
orreview
i HAandwritten Probe
iew
65
CO
a)
40)
32-
1.
0
z
6-
5.
0
4
(
2.
3.
Two data points durig
1.
0.
1.-
.
\ ,
I
.
1
,1
i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011212313414516171819 20 21222324252627
Sessions
Figure 1. Number of words spelled correctly during
sessions for Jake.
computer
1'
,9
8 2930313233343536
7 3839
40
probe, review bank, and handwritten generalization
(Data for all 5 subjects are available from the first Therefore, asterisks have been plotted on the graphs
author.) Due to the software design, it was im- to mark those sessions. Breaks in the abscissa inpossible to have words in the review bank during dicate Christmas vacation and the 15 days prior to
the first two training sessions of each word set. follow-up probes.
Probe
Review Bank
Set A
Probe
Condition III
Review Bank
Set B
Probe
Condition II
A ru
6543CO 21
'1
(Handwritten Probe)
A
zA
-
0CO
x
U)
65T CO 4W 3X 202
0
1
iA
-
:s
O
..-.--. SI * * * *
-
:z
654-
0,32
a
We 2-
(Two
1
data
points durin
o,?nesession
-1
2
3
4 5 6 7
8
9
101l1213
l5ig148449202152i3i4252627282930533233435i6ki839io~142T
445
Sessions
Figure 2. Number of words spelled correctly during
sessions for Todd.
computer
probe, review bank, and handwritten
generalization
158
158 KAY B. STEVENS et al.
Four of the 5 students performed similarly following the introduction of training. Figure 1 is
representative of the 4 successful students. These
4 students met the accuracy criterion of two consecutive review sessions at 100% correct on six
words; this outcome was replicated across three
word sets per student. Figure 2 shows performance
for Todd. Todd was the exception and was removed
from the study after training on two word sets
because of the excessive amount oftime he required
to meet the training criteria and the lack of generalization and maintenance that occurred following
training. In addition, he exhibited frequent inappropriate and noncompliant behaviors during training that disrupted instruction.
The application of CAI with noncompliant students has been reported to be problematic in previous interventions. For example, Landeen and Adams (1988) compared the effectiveness of penciland-paper drill and practice with computer-assisted
drill and practice on math facts with students with
behavior problems. They reported that the students
sometimes stopped responding when computer
feedback indicated an error and otherwise engaged
in a variety of inappropriate behaviors during CAI.
Based on these findings, it is likely that CAI may
not be best used with some students unless teacher
supervision and feedback are also provided. Therefore, the generalizability of findings across subgroups of students with mild handicaps is questionable and requires further investigation.
Percentage of errors during training was calculated for the 4 students who completed the study
by dividing the number of errors by the number
of training trials for each word set. The average
error rate across all students was 12.8%; the range
of errors was 8.6% to 19.4%. Possibly the most
attractive element of the time-delay procedure is
the potential for errorless learning due to the option
of waiting for the prompt before responding. The
12.8% average error rate reported here is higher
than those reported in previous studies involving
time-delay with students who were mildly handicapped (Ault et al., 1990; Kinney et al., 1988;
Mattingly & Bott, 1990; Stevens & Schuster, 1987).
Error rates reported in these studies ranged from
0.4% to 4.8% across all subjects and training trials.
Aspects unique to the computer-assisted format
used in the present study that may have contributed
to the higher error rate indude (a) the microcomputer's delivery ofpositive feedback statements and
points on a scoreboard did not serve as reinforcers
for correct responding; (b) the correction procedure
delivered the same information as the controlling
prompt, so guessing and not guessing resulted in
similar consequences; and (c) there was no authority
figure present during the CAM lessons (e.g., a teacher) whose presence may have inhibited nonwait
errors (errors before the prompt). Future systematic
investigations of CAI time-delay lessons might manipulate those variables to evaluate error rates.
An analysis of probe condition data for the 4
students who completed the study showed that
scores on posttraining computerized probes varied
and were often below the 100% correct responding
exhibited at the end of training. These declines in
accuracy during computerized probes are cause for
concern because they are more substantial than reported for posttraining probe conditions in other
time-delay investigations involving learners with
mild handicaps (Kinney et al., 1988; Mattingly &
Bott, 1990; Stevens & Schuster, 1987). One procedural difference that may account for these findings is that previous studies continued training on
all items in the training set until each student reached
criterion on the entire set. This is in contrast to the
item-by-item criterion for moving words into the
review bank used in this study. It is possible that
requiring criterion on an entire set facilitated maintenance because, as individual words met criterion,
training trials continued on those words until all
words in the set met criterion. In addition, the
review bank feature of the present study did not
allow the interspersal ofknown and unknown training content, because learned content was omitted
from training. Interspersing known items with unknown items during spelling instruction has been
found to increase the rate of acquisition and facilitate maintenance when teaching students with
mental retardation (Neef, Iwata, & Page, 1980).
These findings suggest several areas for future investigation, induding (a) comparing mastery cri-
159
TIME DELAY AND CAl
terion by sets and by items to darify the desirability
of the review bank feature; (b) comparing various
levels of mastery criterion, induding accuracy, fluency, and consistency across sessions; (c) interspersing known with unknown items by either leaving
in words after they are learned or induding already
known words at the outset; and (d) investigating
the effects of supplementing the time-delay procedure with follow-up activities such as handwriting
activities and word puzzles.
Performance on tests of generalization across presentation and response formats permitted several
further analyses. First, prior to training, none of
the words were spelled correctly when dictated by
the teacher and handwritten by the student. The
first generalization data point following training on
each word set represented immediate generalization. During that probe, all students responded
with 100% accuracy across all sets of words with
the exception of 1 student, who misspelled one
word in Set C. These findings indicate that immediate generalization from computer training to
a teacher-dictated handwritten format occurred
without the need for continuous consequences for
correct responding. However, the 100% correct responding was not maintained on subsequent generalization probes. In the 1 5-day follow-up probes,
80.6% was the mean correct. After 2 of the students
(Mona and Willie) received additional training consisting of two 5-s delay training sessions for Willie
and three 5-s delay sessions for Mona, they received
higher follow-up probe scores than the other 2
students, who received no additional training. Although follow-up training was not a planned part
of this research and occurred only because the 2
students requested it, it may serve as an effective
component of a CAl instructional package and
warrants further evaluation.
When comparing generalization probe scores with
microcomputer probe scores occurring within 30
min of one another (computer probes conducted
first), generalization scores exceeded microcomputer
probe scores on 15 occasions (29.4%), were equal
to computer scores on 31 occasions (60.7%), and
were lower than computer probe scores on five
occasions (9.8%). These findings suggest that errors
were more likely to occur during responses made
on the computer than during handwritten responding. One explanation might be that some errors
were due to incorrect typing rather than to not
knowing how to spell the word, suggesting the
need for fiuher examination of typed versus written
responses. In addition, prompting students to monitor their responses on the screen before advancing
the program might be a necessary component of
CAI.
The CAI constant time-delay spelling program
used in this study provided preliminary evidence
as to the efficacy of delivering time-delay instruction
in a microcomputer format. Results indicated that
such an approach to instruction, although in need
of refinement and additional research, represents a
promising development in technology-assisted instruction.
REFERENCES
Alig-Cybriwsky, C., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1990).
Use of a constant time delay procedure in teaching preschoolers in a group format. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 99-116.
Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., &
Martin, C. P. (1990). Comparison of predictable and
unpredictable trial sequences during small-group instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 12-29.
Cipani, E. (1985). Using time delay fading in the design
of CAI. The Computing Teacher, 12, 12-13.
Cybriwsky, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (1990). Using constant time delay procedures to teach multiplication facts.
Remedial and Special Education, 11, 54-59.
Gast, D. L., Skouge, J. R., & Tawney, J. W. (1984).
Variations of the multiple baseline design: Multiple probe
and changing criterion designs. In J. W. Tawney & D.
L. Gast (Eds.), Single subject research in special education (pp. 239-252). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Kinney, P. G., Stevens, K. B., & Schuster, J. W. (1988).
The effects of CAI and time delay: A systematic program
for teaching spelling.journal ofSpecial Education Technology, 9, 61-72.
Landeen,J.J., & Adams, D. A. (1988). Computer-assisted
drill and practice for behaviorally handicapped learners:
Proceed with caution. Education and Treatment of
Children, 11, 218-229.
Larsen, S. C., & Hammill, D. D. (1986). Test of written
spelling. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
LeBlanc, J. M., Hoko, J. A., Aangeenbrug, M. H., & Etzel,
B. C. (1985). Microcomputers and stimulus control:
From the laboratory to the classroom. Journal ofSpecial
Education Technology, 7, 23-30.
160
KAY B. STEVENS et al.
Mattingly, J. C., & Bott, D. A. (1990). Use of a constant
time delay procedure in teaching facts to mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 56, 438-449.
Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1980). The
effects of interspersal training versus high-density reinforcement on spelling acquisition and retention. Journal
of Applied Bebavior Analysis, 13, 153-158.
Skinner, B. F. (1986, October). Program instruction revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 103-110.
Snell, M. E., & Gast, D. L. (1981). Applying time delay
procedures to the instruction of the severely handicapped.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 6, 3-14.
Stevens, K. B., & Blackhurst, A. E. (1988). Waiting to
spell [Computer program]. Lexington, KY: Department
of Special Education, University of Kentucky.
Stevens, K. B., & Schuster, J. W. (1987). Effects of a
constant time delay procedure on the written spelling
performance of a learning disabled student. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 10, 9-16.
Stevens, K. B., & Schuster, J. W. (1988). Time delay:
Systematic instruction for academic tasks. Remedial and
Special Education, 9, 16-21.
Wolery, M., Alig, C., Gast, D. L., & Boyle-Gast, K. (in
press). General and specific attentional responses: Acquisition and maintenance of target, observational, and
incidental behaviors. Exceptional Children.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., & Mills,
B. M. (1990). The use of choral and individual spelling
attentional responses in teaching sight words during small
group instruction. Remedial and Special Education,
11(5), 47-58.
Received January 26, 1990
Initial editorial decision April 3, 1990
Revisions received June 25, 1990; July 30, 1990;
August 20, 1990
Final acceptance September 11, 1990
Action Editor, David P. Wacker