A Comparison of Three Prompting Methods for Training Software Use

Thorlakur Karlsson*, Philip N. Chase

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study evaluated the effectiveness of three strategies for training college students to use a computer spreadsheet program. Twenty-eight subjects were trained with materials that either prompted correct responding throughout training (continuous prompting), progressively delayed the prompt presentation over trials (prompt delay), or progressively added keypress choices to a command menu over trials (addition-of-choices). Subjects who were trained with continuous prompting made twice as many errors on a posttest as subjects who were trained with prompt delay or addition-of-choices. These differences were statistically significant. We conclude that continuous prompting, which is used in many commercially available training materials, may contribute to the high cost of computer instruction and that prompt-fading methods facilitate training and potentially reduce the cost of training.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)27-44
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Organizational Behavior Management
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 20 May 1996

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
ABSTRACT, This study evaluated the effectiveness of three strategies for training college students to use a computer spreadsheet program. Twenty-eight subjects were trained with materials that either prompted correct responding throughout training (continuous prompting), progressively delayed the prompt presentation over trials (prompt delay), or progressively added keypress choices to a command menu over trials (addition-of-choices). Subjects who were trained with continuous prompting made twice as many erron on a posttest as subjects Thorlakur Karlsson is affiliated with the University of Iceland. Philip N. Chase is affliated with West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. Address correspondence to Thorlakur Karlsson, University of Iceland, Oddi vid Sturlugotu, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland, or to Philip N. Chase, Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6040. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Kendra Duckworth in the data collection. The research for this paper was supported by thc Psychology Alumni Fund of West Virginia University. This work was part of a dissertation submitted by the first author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Department of Psychology, West Virginia University.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Comparison of Three Prompting Methods for Training Software Use'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this