Comparing Equivalence‐Based Instruction to a PowerPoint Video Lecture to Teach Differential Reinforcement Descriptors to College Students
Equivalence-based instruction beats lecture for teaching DR facts that must be matched or sorted, but lecture catches up when learners must write explanations.
01Research in Context
What this study did
College students learned about differential reinforcement. Half used a computer program that built equivalence classes. The other half watched a PowerPoint video lecture.
Both groups took the same tests right after and one week later. The tests had two kinds of questions: matching pictures to words and short-answer writing.
What they found
On matching tests, the equivalence group scored higher than the lecture group. On writing tests, both groups improved the same amount.
The edge for equivalence held up a week later. Still, lecture worked fine when students had to explain ideas in sentences.
How this fits with other research
Busch et al. (2010) showed that equivalence classes can double the facts students learn without extra teaching. Kelly-Sisken et al. now ask whether that bonus beats a regular lecture. Answer: yes for selection tests, no for written ones.
Ferguson et al. (2022) found progressive discrete trial teaching faster and more liked than equivalence-based instruction. The new study keeps the ‘EBI versus something else’ design but swaps the rival to lecture and keeps the edge for EBI on matching tasks.
Together the papers say: EBI shines when the goal is quick, accurate matching or sorting. If you need fluent explanations, other formats catch up.
Why it matters
When you train staff or parents, think about the test they will face. Need them to pick the right DR procedure from a list? Use equivalence-based drills. Need them to write a plan or explain it to a caregiver? Add practice with spoken or written explanations. Mix both methods and you cover all bases.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a five-minute matching drill to your next training slide deck, then keep the writing quiz you already use.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
ABSTRACTDifferential reinforcement (DR) procedures involve systematically arranging the environment to increase the future frequency of socially important behaviors while minimizing or eliminating problem behaviors. The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of computerized stimulus equivalence‐based instruction (EBI) to a pre‐recorded voiceover PowerPoint lecture to teach definitions and examples of differential reinforcement procedures to college students. The three classes comprised textual stimuli characterizing differential reinforcement of other (DRO), alternative (DRA), and incompatible (DRI) behavior. Each class contained three members: name, definition, and short vignette examples. To program for generalization, two vignette exemplars were used during training while a third exemplar was used to assess stimulus generalization. We used a between‐subjects group design to compare pretest and posttest performances of EBI and lecture participants across (a) computer match‐to‐sample (MTS), (b) card sorting, and (c) written tests (fill‐in and multiple‐choice), with the latter two used to determine the degree to which class‐consistent responding generalized from selection‐based responding to other response topographies (i.e., sorting and writing). Results demonstrated that EBI produced greater score increases than lecture for MTS and card sorting tests, but increases were comparable for the two groups for both fill‐in and multiple‐choice written tests. Another posttest at 1 week showed maintenance of performance gains. Implications for using EBI to teach behavior analytic content are discussed.
Behavioral Interventions, 2025 · doi:10.1002/bin.70002