Effects of Video Games as Reinforcers for Computerized Addition Performance

Abstract

This study examined the effects of video games as reinforcers for computer-assisted math performance Four students were presented with addition problems on a computer for 15 minutes daily. Using a multielement design, all students were exposed to two variable ratio (VR 10 and VR 5) and a No-Games reinforcement condition. Neither schedule of reinforcement increased student accuracy or had a substantial effect on the rate of correct responses. In the No-Games reinforcement condition, students had more opportunities to respond and a greater number of correct answers. The authors suggest that programmers of educational software incorporate reinforcement procedures that consume minimal amounts of computer time to maximize instructional efficiency.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barlow

D.H.

Hayes

S.C.

(1979). Alternating treatment design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199–210.

Becker

H.J.

(1986, June). Reports from the 1985 national survey. Instructional Uses of School Computers, pp. 1–12.

Behrmann

M.M.

(1984). Handbook of microcomputers in special education. San Diego: College-Hill Press.

Chaffin

Maxwell

Thompson

(1982). ARCED curriculum the application of video game formats to educational software Exceptional Children, 49, 173–178.

Cosden

M.A.

Gerber

M.M.

Goldman

S.R.

Semmel

D.S.

Semmel

M.I.

(1986). Survey of microcomputer access and use by mildly handicapped students in Southern California. Journal of Special Education Technology, 7, 5–13.

Cosden

M.A.

Leiber

(1986). Grouping students on the computer. Academic Therapy, 22, 165–172.

Goldman

S.R.

Semmel

D.S.

Cosden

M.A.

Gerber

M.M.

Semmel

M.I.

(1985). Special education administrators' policies and practices on microcomputer acquisition, allocation, and access for mildly handicapped children: Interfaces with regular education (Tech. Rep. No. 10). Santa Barbara: University of California, Project TEECH.

Green

J.O.

(1984, February 23–28). B.F. Skinner's technology of teaching. Classroom Computer Learning, pp. 10–12, 29.

Hall

R.V.

Delquadri

J.C.

Harris

(1977). Opportunity to respond: A new focus in the field of applied behavior analysis. Paper presented at meeting of Midwest Association of Behavior Analysis, Chicago.

10.

Stanley

S.O.

Greenwood

C.R.

(1983). How much “opportunity to respond” does the minority disadvantaged student receive in school? Exceptional Children, 49, 370–373.

11.

Uiman

J.D.

Sulzer-Azaroff

(1975). Multielement baseline design in educational research In Ramp

Semb

(Eds.), Behavior analysis: Areas of research and application (pp 377–391). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

12.

Van Houten

Morrison

Jarvis

McDonald

(1974). The effects of explicit timing and feedback on compositional response rate in elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 547–555.

13.

Watkins

(1985). The math machine (version 2.0). Phoenix: Southwest Ed Psych Services.