Using Technology to Deliver Immediate Corrective Feedback to Preservice Teachers

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG

Journal of Behavioral Education [jbe] ph168-jobe-455498 November 14, 2002 16:28 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 2002 (C© 2002), pp. 231–241

Using Technology to Deliver Immediate CorrectiveFeedback to Preservice Teachers

Mary Catherine Scheeler1,3 and David L. Lee2

Teacher preparation programs are under scrutiny for their role in the troubledAmerican educational system. If American education is to improve, teacher edu-cators must identify and encourage teachers to use effective teaching practices. Apromising technique for increasing use of teaching practices is providing feedbackto teachers on newly acquired behaviors. The focus of this study was to examinethe effects of immediate corrective feedback on one specific teaching behavior,use of three-term contingencies, to preservice teachers. A multiple baseline designacross participants was used to evaluate the effects of immediate corrective feed-back, delivered via a wireless FM listening system. Immediate corrective feedback(as compared with delayed feedback) was shown to be an effective way to increasepreservice teacher completion of three-term contingency trials by all participants.These findings and other considerations for additional research using feedbackare addressed.

KEY WORDS: feedback; teacher training; three-term; contingency trials; supervision.

Field experiences are considered to be an important if not the most impor-tant component of teacher preparation (Buck, Morsink, Griffin, Hines, & Lenk,1992; Giebelhaus, 1994; Lignugaris-Kraft & Marchand-Martella, 1993; Morgan,Gustafson, Hudson, & Salzberg, 1992; Sudzina & Knowles, 1993; Warger &Aldinger, 1984). However, Buck et al. (1992) reported that general and specialeducation teachers did not feel they were supervised consistently and closelyenough in their field-based experiences. This is unfortunate in that researchers have

1Senior Lecturer, Department of Educational Psychology, School Psychology, and Special Education,The Pennsylvania State University.

2Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, School Psychology, and Special Educa-tion, The Pennsylvania State University.

3Correspondence should be directed to Mary Catherine Scheeler, Penn State Great Valley, 30 EastSwedesford Road, Malvern, PA 19355; e-mail: [email protected].

231

1053-0819/02/1200-0231/0C© 2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG


232 Scheeler and Lee

demonstrated repeatedly that teachers can and do positively adjust their teachingpractices when they receive constructive, systematic feedback about their teachingperformance (Greenwood & Maheady, 1997). Feedback delivered on a regularbasis is therefore critical to teacher development.

Scheeler, Ruhl, and McAfee (in press) reviewed empirical studies on thenature and impact of providing various forms of feedback to teachers. Accord-ing to the literature, effective feedback is: (a) systematic, corrective, and posi-tive (Englert & Sugai, 1983; Sharpe, Lounsbery, & Bahls, 1997; Cossairt, Hall,& Hopkins, 1973; Hao, 1991); and (b) immediate (Coulter & Grossen, 1997;O’Reilly, Renzaglia, Hutchins, Koterba-Buss, Clayton, Halle, & Izen, 1992;O’Reilly, Renzaglia, & Lee, 1994). Thus, feedback that is corrective and immediateis eminently applicable to teacher training.

Principles of operant learning theory indicate that precise, immediate, fre-quent feedback increases efficacy and efficiency of learning in school aged stu-dents (Van Houten, 1980; Wallace & Kauffman, 1973). If feedback is delayed,it allows learners to practice errors, especially in the acquisition phase of learn-ing and when learners are allowed to repeat errors, they learn to perform skillsincorrectly (Heward, 1997). In teacher training, most supervisory feedback pro-vided to preservice teachers is delayed, not immediate, and relies upon use of fieldnotes and anecdotal reporting with feedback occurring after the teaching episode(Giebelhaus, 1994; Hindman & Polsgrove, 1988; Sharpe et al., 1997). This delaylikely decreases effectiveness and efficiency of supervisor feedback.

Several researchers have examined the effects of immediate and delayed su-pervisor feedback on teacher instructional behavior. O’Reilly et al. (1992) andO’Reilly et al. (1994) examined the effects of immediate feedback on teacher useof appropriate prompts and positive consequences. Similarly, Coulter and Grossen(1997) documented the effects of immediate feedback on error correction pro-cedures (by a student teacher with school-aged students) and teacher delivery ofpositive consequences. The immediate feedback procedure was similar in all threestudies. Each time the teacher incorrectly performed the target instructional be-havior, the supervisor would interrupt the instruction, identify the error, and askthe teacher how he/she could correct the error. If necessary, the supervisor wouldverbally describe the appropriate procedure while modeling the correct behavior.Delayed feedback occurred 1 to 3 days following the observation in the study byO’Reilly et al. (1992) and O’Reilly et al. (1994), and either immediately after theteaching session or the same day, in the study by Coulter and Grossen. Immediatefeedback resulted in faster acquisition of effective teaching behaviors and greateroverall accuracy in the use of those behaviors than delayed feedback in all threestudies. In addition, O’Reilly et al. (1994) documented maintenance of the effects atfive weeks, and Coulter and Grossen reported maintenance at least two weeks posttreatment. Although the results of these studies suggested immediate feedback wasmore effective than delayed feedback, O’Reilly et al. (1994) cautioned that deliver-ing immediate feedback within the context of an ongoing lesson may be disruptive.

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG


Immediate Corrective Feedback 233

Advances in technology, however, may allow supervisors to deliver immediatefeedback without disrupting instruction. One type of technology, first reported inan article by Korner and Brown (1952) and known originally as a mechanical thirdear, is a wireless FM listening system made up of two principle parts—a receiverand a transmitter. This “bug in the ear” (BIE) technology has been used to deliverimmediate feedback in a variety of situations with a variety of people, includingtraining psychometrists (Baum, 1976), as well as teaching mothers more successfulparenting skills, instructing dentists studying pedodontics, and teaching interviewskills to medical students (Hunt, 1980). More recently, Giebelhaus (1994) usedBIE to communicate with preservice teachers by delivering specific prompts on 14discrete behaviors when the teacher engaged in undesirable instructional behaviorduring the lesson. Although the experimental group scored higher on measures ofinstructional behavior than comparisons, only one of the 14 discrete skills targetedfor change (asking questions) improved at a statistically significant level.

The purpose of the present study was to integrate research on immediacyof feedback and technology as a method to deliver that feedback. More specif-ically we asked, what are the effects of immediate corrective feedback via BIEon the completion of three-term contingency trials delivered by preservice teach-ers? Three-term contingency trials are basic units of instruction in which studentslearn new behaviors by getting chances to respond and receive feedback on theappropriateness of their responses (Axelrod & Hall, 1999). Skinner used the three-term contingency trial frame (antecedent, behavior, and consequence) in his earlyapplication of behavior analysis to education in the form of programmed instruc-tion (Albers & Greer, 1991). In two separate studies, Albers and Greer found thatrates of correct responding of junior high school students during math instructionwere significantly increased when the rates of three-term contingency trials wereincreased. Given that the three-term contingency trial is a strong predictor of ef-fective instruction (Albers & Greer, 1991), it was the positive teaching behaviorfocused on in this study.

METHOD

Participants and Setting

Three preservice teachers (referred to hereafter as teachers) enrolled in aspecial education practicum at a large eastern university participated in the study.These teachers were selected from an initial pool of 8 practicum students based ontheir willingness to participate in the study and because they were able to obtainparental permission for their students to be videotaped. The teachers were told thatthey would be participating in a study on teacher training.

Mia and Scott, held general education teaching certificates and were workingtoward certification in special education. They were not teaching in special educa-tion classrooms and were considered to be preservice special education teachers.

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG



General education teaching experience ranged from seven years for Mia to sixyears for Scott. The third participant, Laura, had no teaching certificate and noteaching experience. All three participants were non-traditional, adult learners.Each had completed a baccalaureate degree program in a field other than specialeducation prior to entering the certification program.

The practicum was a three credit graduate level course taken after 33 creditsin special education theory and methodology. The class met in a university-basedclassroom, one night a week for a fourteen-week period. During this practicum,the teachers were instructed to practice direct instruction procedures for 90 min-utes with a single student with special learning needs on an individual educationprogram (IEP) academic goal(s). Direct instruction is defined as a set of teachingbehaviors where goals are clear, there is sufficient time allocated, content cover-age is extensive, student performance is monitored, and feedback is immediate andrelevant to the academic task. In direct instruction, the teacher selects and controlsthe goal, materials, and pace of instruction (Rosenshine & Berliner, 1978).

The IEP goals that were selected were all in the area of reading. Laura andScott worked on decoding skills (e.g., increasing fluency with their students withsuch tasks as direct instruction in decoding blends and vowel sounds in multisyl-labic words, oral repeated readings, and reading flashcards for vocabulary review).Mia worked on blends and vowel combinations with her student.

The special needs students instructed by the teachers were all males betweenthe ages of nine and ten. The study was conducted by a doctoral candidate inspecial education with extensive teacher supervisory experience.

Dependent Measures and Experimental Design

Teachers’ use of completed three-term contingency trials served as the mea-sure of intervention effectiveness. Component parts of the three-term contingencyframe in this study were: (a) antecedent (presented by the teacher), (b) response(by the student), and (c) consequence (delivered by the teacher).

A three-term contingency trial was counted as complete when the teacherpresented an antecedent direction (e.g., “Read this word”) and then responded toa correct response by the student with verbal praise (e.g., “Good” or “Right”) orto a student error with a correction. A three-term contingency trial was countedas incomplete when the teacher presented the antecedent and failed to provideeither correction or praise for the student’s response to the antecedent. Because thenumber of opportunities for three-term contingency trials varied across teachersand sessions, the number of completed three-term contingency trials deliveredwas divided by the total number of opportunities to deliver three-term contingencytrials per session (complete trials+ incomplete trials) and multiplied by 100 todetermine a percentage for each session. A video camera was positioned in therear of the room throughout the entire study (baseline and intervention conditions),and allowed for later coding of the dependent variable.

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG



Each component of the trial was recorded independently using an observa-tion format similar to Albers and Greer (1991). A data sheet consisting of threecolumns was used to document three-term contingencies. The first column waslabeled teacher antecedent, the second was labeled pupil response (with subhead-ings labeled correct, incorrect, and none), and the third column was labeled teacherconsequence (with subheadings of correction and praise). A trial was recorded ifa checkmark was placed in the antecedent and response columns. If a checkmarkwas placed in the antecedent, response, and consequence columns for a row, a com-pleted three-term contingency trial was recorded. Group responses, either verbalor written were not recorded as trials.

A multiple baseline across participants design was used to evaluate the effectsof immediate corrective feedback on the percentage of three-term contingencytrials completed by the three preservice teachers.

Procedures

Baseline

A verbal review consisting of an explanation of three-term contingency trialsand modeling of a three-term contingency trial was provided to each teacher im-mediately before beginning the study. During the baseline condition, all teachersreceived corrective feedback on completion of three-term contingency trials 10–15 minutes after the instructional session in a post-teaching conference. Thus, thefeedback during baseline was corrective, but delayed. Incomplete trials were iden-tified using specific examples from the lesson and feedback consisted of how tocomplete the trial. Specific praise was given during the conference for completedthree-term contingency trials. The duration of each conference was approximately5 minutes.

Laura was the first teacher to move to the intervention phase because of alow and stable baseline. Mia was next to move into intervention separated by oneweek from Laura. Scott remained in baseline longer because he was selected forjury duty. This commitment delayed Scott’s arrival to the practicum site on twooccasions, limiting his availability for training using BIE, which postponed theimplementation of the intervention.

Intervention

During the intervention phase the lesson content remained the same, butthe teacher received immediate corrective verbal feedback on his/her delivery ofthree-term contingency trials from the supervisor using a wireless FM listeningsystem (BIE). The supervisor wore a transmitter and a headset microphone whilesitting in the back of the room (approximately 4 m away) inwhich instruction

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG



was occurring. The teacher used the pocket receiver and earphone to hear thesupervisor’s feedback.

Prior to the start of intervention, each teacher had two practice sessions usingBIE to acclimate to wearing the device. For the first training session the teacherdelivered instruction to a graduate assistant in a simulated lesson. In the secondtraining session the teacher wore the device while teaching a 10 minute lessonwith his/her student in the classroom setting. One or two word phrases, related tothe lesson (such as, “pacing,” to speed up or slow down the pace) were used forpractice. Feedback regarding three-term contingencies was not given during thesepractice sessions.

For experimental sessions, immediate feedback was defined as feedback de-livered within one to three seconds after the instructional behavior was observed.The supervisor used one of the following phrases when using BIE to deliver feed-back, (a) “Give feedback on (name behavior),” when the teacher failed to deliverany consequence to a student’s response, therefore not completing the three-termcontingency trial; (b) “Correct error by (name the correction, e.g., “doing a fact cor-rection,” or “doing a rule correction”),” if the correction was attempted but com-pleted incorrectly; or (c) “Good feedback to (name of student).” No follow-upconference was provided during the intervention phase.

It is important to note that each participant successfully completed a course oneffective instruction prior to this practicum and had already successfully completeda series of simulated lessons using direct instruction techniques to teach lessonson facts, rules, and concepts. Therefore, corrective feedback on specific behaviorsdelivered to the participants could be succinct and concise. The same held true forcorrective feedback delivered during baseline conditions.

Interobserver Agreement

A graduate assistant, who was na¨ıve to the purpose of the study, independentlycollected data from the video tapes for agreement purposes. Training for agreementsessions consisted of instructions and corrective feedback using videotapes of theparticipants during two different training sessions. Training continued until thesupervisor and graduate assistant reached 90% of agreement on the occurrence ofcomplete and incomplete three-term contingency trials on one 10-minute sampleof observations.

Agreement data were collected on the percentage of complete/incompletethree-term contingency trials during a minimum of 20% of both baseline and in-tervention sessions. An agreement was scored when both observers documentedeither a completed three-term contingency trial or an opportunity to complete atrial. Percentage of agreement was computed by dividing the number of agree-ments by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%.Agreement data for the percentage of three-term contingency trials completed

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG



during baseline was 100% for Laura, 96% for Mia, and 96%, for Scott. Agreementdata for percentage of three-term contingency trials completed during interventionwas 95%, 98%, and 87% for Laura, Mia, and Scott respectively.

Social Validity

Social validity was assessed using a questionnaire administered to teachersat the completion of the study. Teachers were asked the following questions: 1)Was receiving immediate feedback helpful? and 2) Was the BIE a distraction?

RESULTS

Figure 1 represents the results for Laura, Mia, and Scott. Baseline percentagesof three-term contingency trials for Laura (with no teaching experience) were lowand stable, averaging 16%, and ranging from 14% to 18%. Mia’s completionbehavior during baseline had a slightly increasing trend and averaged 52% witha range between 40% and 65%. Scott remained in the baseline phase the longestwith a total of 8 sessions. During baseline, Scott’s instructional behavior was morevariable, averaging 79% but ranging from 55% to 97% for completion of three-term contingency trials. In addition to the percentage of three-term contingencytrials completed, the number of three-term contingency trials introduced was alsodocumented. On average, Mia, Laura, and Scott introduced 13.5, 18.33, and 26.88trials respectively during baseline sessions.

With the introduction of the intervention procedures, the percentage of com-pleted three-term contingency trials increased for Laura. Across this phase, Lauracompleted an average of 85% of three-term contingency trials (range= 72–97).Mia’s behavior during intervention also increased but to a lesser extent, with anaverage of 84% completion of three-term contingency trials, (range= 79–89). Theintervention slightly increased the mean percentage of three-term contingency tri-als for Scott (M = 87%, range= 69– 96). The immediate corrective feedbackdelivered to Scott also reduced the variability of his instructional behavior. Just asin baseline, the number of three-term contingency trials delivered was assessed.The mean number of three-term contingency trials delivered increased for bothMia (36.6) and Laura (36.8). However, the number of trials delivered by Scott (25.0)decreased slightly when the intervention was implemented.

After completing the study, all three teachers were asked two questions toassess the social acceptability of the intervention. All three teachers respondedthat receiving immediate feedback was helpful and using the BIE technologywas not distracting to them or to their students. It is unclear whether studentsheard feedback delivered to the teacher via BIE, but at no time during the studydid students question its use by the teacher or respond to supervisor’s feedbackdelivered to the teacher via BIE.

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG



Fig. 1. Percentage of three-term contingency trials completed by preservice teachers.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of immediate cor-rective feedback on the completion of three-term contingency trials by preser-vice teachers in an instructional situation. The results indicated that immediate

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG



corrective feedback was more effective than a traditional delayed feedback proce-dure in increasing the completion of three-term contingency trials. These findingssupport those reported elsewhere that have demonstrated that immediate correctivefeedback is effective in promoting acquisition of effective teaching skills (e.g., ap-propriate use of systems of instructional prompts) in preservice teachers (Coulter& Grossen, 1997; O’Reilly et al., 1992; O’Reilly et al., 1994).

Immediate corrective feedback may be effective because it precludes practic-ing of incorrect responses and makes relevant discriminative stimuli more salient byreducing the time between feedback and behavior (see Malott, Whaley, & Malott,1997 for discussion on feedback and prompting). When corrective feedback isdelivered in a consistent and immediate manner, the learner can resume his/heractive responding more quickly, keeping number of opportunities to respond (orpractice), high (Skinner, Shapiro, Turco, Cole, & Brown, 1992). This increase inopportunities to respond may strengthen the instructional response of the teacherand ultimately result in more learning trials for students.

Previous researchers have indicated that immediate corrective feedback maynot be appropriate for all settings and students because the interruption may reduceinstructional momentum (e.g., O’Reilly et al., 1994). However, the current studydiffers from those prior works in that a wireless FM listening system (BIE) wasused to deliver the immediate corrective feedback. The main advantage of usingthis covert method to deliver feedback is that the teacher is the only one awarethat feedback is being delivered. The teachers in the current study reported thatthey easily adjusted to wearing the listening device and it became a quick way toreceive feedback. Future research may focus on practical issues including super-visor acceptability of BIE technology as a means to provide immediate feedbackand efficiency of supervision using the technology.

Our results differ slightly from those obtained by Giebelhaus (1994) whofound that immediate feedback delivered via BIE was not effective across all in-structional variables assessed. However, our use of pre-training on the use of BIEand supervisor’s use of short, specific feedback statements may have been helpfulin preventing disruptions in the flow of instruction and may help explain the differ-ences between our results and those obtained by Giebelhaus (1994). Supervisorsmay wish to consider both pre-training and use of concise feedback statementswhen using immediate feedback with preservice teachers in clinical or classroomsettings.

An anecdotal finding in this study was that the average number of immedi-ate feedback phrases required was low and similar for all three teachers. Morespecifically, three positive statements (e.g., “good correction”) and one correctivefeedback phrase were delivered by the supervisor, on average, for each 10-minuteinstructional session. Thus, the target behavior may have been influenced by arelatively small number of immediate corrective feedback statements. Future re-searchers may wish to further examine the efficiency of this intervention by varyingthe length of feedback delivered.

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG



Although the results of this study are positive, they must be interpreted withinthe limitations of the study. First, fidelity of treatment data were not collected. Fu-ture studies should examine variables such as latency and nature of feedback con-tent. Also, student learning was not assessed. In teacher training research, there areeffects to consider in addition to changes in teachers’ behavior. Certainly, increasedlearning trials for students resulting from increased effective teaching behaviors isbeneficial. However, future research on providing feedback to teachers should alsoinclude assessment of student learning to determine if changes in teacher behavioraffected changes in student behavior. Another limitation was that the study wasconducted over a relatively brief time period within the context of a one-semesterclass, which ended before maintenance data could be collected. Future researchersmay increase the length of the intervention to allow for fading of treatment, theassessment of maintenance, and generality of the findings to more applied set-tings. Finally, there is a slight ascending trend in baseline data for two of threesubjects. However, this increase in baseline over time was not unexpected becausethe students were receiving traditional (delayed), corrective feedback during thistime and use of traditional feedback is promising as a supervisory practice whenit is specific, corrective and/or positive feedback (Cossairt et al., 1973; Englert &Sugai, 1983; Hao, 1991; Sharpe et al., 1997).

Despite these limitations, our results support using immediate feedback de-livered via technology with preservice teachers. If teachers do, in fact, continueto practice the same techniques throughout their teaching career that got themthrough their first year of teaching (Griffen & Kilgore, 1995), teacher super-visors must ensure that the techniques these teachers initially use and practiceare correct. Use of immediate corrective feedback with teachers is a way topromote correct skill practice more efficiently, thereby providing more learn-ing trials for both teachers and pupils, ultimately promoting fluency of desiredbehaviors.

REFERENCES

Albers, A. E., & Greer, R. D. (1991). Is the three-term contingency trial a predictor of effectiveinstruction?Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 337–354.

Axelrod, S., & Hall, R. V. (1999).Behavior modification: Basic principles(2nd ed.). Austin, TX:Pro-ed.

Baum, D. (1976). An application of the “bug-in-the ear” communication system for training psychome-trists.Counselor Education and Supervision, 15,309–310.

Buck, G., Morsink, C., Griffin, C., Hines, T., & Lenk, L. (1992). Preservice training: The role of field-based experience in the preparation of effective special educators.Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 15,108–123.

Cossairt, A., Hall, V., & Hopkins, B. L. (1973). The effects of experimenter’s instructions, feedback,and praise on teacher praise and student attending behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,6, 89–100.

Coulter, G. A., & Grossen, B. (1997). The effectiveness of in-class instructive feedback versus after-class instructive feedback for teachers learning direct instruction teaching behaviors.EffectiveSchool Practices, 16,21–35.

P1: GVG/GMF P2: GVG



Englert, C. S., & Sugai, G. (1983). Teacher training: Improving performance through peer observationand observation system technology.Teacher Education and Special Education, 6, 7–17.

Giebelhaus, C. R. (1994). The mechanical third ear device: A student teaching supervision alternative.Journal of Teacher Education, 45,365–373.

Greenwood, C. R., & Maheady, L. (1997). Measurable change in student performance: Forgottenstandard in teacher preparation?Teacher Education and Special Education, 20,265–275.

Griffen, C., & Kilgore, K. L. (1995). Framing the problems of practice: The effects of self-assessmentin a study of special education students’ internships.Teacher Education and Special Education,18,56–71.

Hao, R. (1991). The effects of corrective and non-corrective feedback on changing undesirable ver-bal teaching behavior. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1990).Dissertation Abstracts International, 52.

Heward, W. (1997). Four validated instructional strategies.Behavior and Social Issues, 7, 43–48.Hindman, S. E., & Polsgrove, L. (1988). Differential effects of feedback on preservice teacher behavior.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 11,25–29.Hunt, D. D. (1980). “Bug-in-the-ear” technique for teaching interviewing skills.Journal of Medical

Education, 11,964–966.Korner, I. N., & Brown, W. H. (1952). The mechanical third ear.Journal of Consulting Psychology,

16,81–84.Lignugaris/Kraft, B., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1993). Evaluation of preservice teachers’ interactive

teaching skills in a direct instruction practicum using student teachers as supervisors.TeacherEducation and Special Education, 16,309–318.

Malott, R. W., Whaley, D. L., & Malott, M. E. (1997).Elementary principles of behavior(3rd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Morgan, R. L., Gustafson, K. J., Hudson, P. J., & Salzberg, C. L. (1992). Peer coaching in a preservicespecial education program.Teacher Education and Special Education, 15,249–258.

O’Reilly, M. F., Renzaglia, A., Hutchins, M., Koterba-Bass, L., Clayton, M., Halle, J. W., & Izen,C. (1992). Teaching systematic instruction competencies to special education student teachers:An applied behavioral supervision model.Journal of the Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 17,104–111.

O’Reilly, M. F., Renzaglia, A., & Lee, S. (1994). An analysis of acquisition, generalization and mainte-nance of systematic instruction competencies by preservice teachers using behavioral supervisiontechniques.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29,22–33.

Rosenshine, B. V. & Berliner, D. C. (1978). Academic engaged time.British Journal of TeacherEducation, 4, 3–16.

Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K., & McAfee, J. (in press). Providing performance feedback to teachers: Areview.Teacher Education and Special Education.

Sharpe, T., Lounsbery, M., & Bahls, V. (1997). Description and effects of sequential behavior practicein teacher education.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 68,222–232.

Skinner, C. H., Shapiro, E. S., Turco, T. L., Cole, C. L., & Brown, D. K. (1992). Comparison of self-and-peer-delivered immediate corrective feedback on multiplication performance.The Journal ofSchool Psychology, 30,101–116.

Sudzina, M. R., & Knowles, J. G. (1993). Personal, professional and contextual circumstances of studentteachers who “fail”: Setting a course for understanding failure in teacher education.Journal ofTeacher Education, 44, 254–262.

Van Houten, R. (1980).Learning through feedback.New York, NY: Human Sciences Press, Inc.Wallace, G., & Kauffman, J. (1973).Teaching children with behavior problems.Columbus, Ohio:

Charles E. Merrill.Warger, C. L., & Aldinger, L. E. (1984). Improving student teacher supervision. The preservice con-

sultation model.Teacher Education and Special Education, 7, 55–163.

Documents

Using Technology to Deliver Immediate Corrective Feedback to Preservice Teachers