The influence of instructive feedback presentation schedule: A replication with children with autism spectrum disorder

The team compared three ways to give extra information during discrete trials. Kids with autism got the same primary task each time. The only change was how often the teacher added a bonus fact.

One schedule gave the extra fact every single trial. Another gave it every other trial. A third used a mixed pattern. Each child tried all three schedules in turn.

Every-other-trial worked best. Kids learned the bonus facts faster and kept them longer. Every-trial slowed things down. Mixed fell in the middle.

The same result showed up in every child. Less turned out to be more.

Yaw et al. (2014) also used instructive feedback with autistic kids. They saw gains even when the bonus words were shown every trial. The difference is they worked with children who used AAC devices. The current study used vocal learners. Same tool, different modality, same happy outcome.

Cubicciotti et al. (2019) tested trial order instead of feedback timing. They found the best order changes from child to child. Nottingham et al. found the best feedback schedule stayed the same across kids. Together the papers say: tweak the trial, not the kid.

Murphy et al. (2014) fixed stubborn errors by making consequences pop. Nottingham et al. fixed speed by spacing feedback. Both show small DTT changes can unlock learning.

You can cut your feedback in half and still get more learning. Try presenting the secondary target every other trial during familiar programs like sight words or labels. Track the data for a week. If the child keeps pace, you just saved time for extra trials or play. Less teacher talk, more kid progress.