Using Instructive Feedback to Teach Extra Language Skills

Instructive feedback is a simple strategy: after a learner responds correctly, you add a brief “extra fact” without requiring them to repeat it. This study explored whether learners can pick up that extra information on their own, and whether it works differently when teaching with pictures versus spoken questions alone. For clinicians juggling efficiency and learner engagement—especially in telehealth—these findings offer practical guidance worth considering.

What is the research question being asked and why does it matter?

This study asked a practical question: if you add a short extra fact (instructive feedback) during teaching, will a learner pick up that information without being directly taught? The extra information is called a secondary target because the learner isn’t prompted to say it and doesn’t earn reinforcement for saying it during teaching.

The researchers also wanted to know whether instructive feedback works similarly across two common teaching formats. One uses a picture plus a question (tact teaching). The other uses only spoken questions with no picture (intraverbal teaching). This matters because clinicians often choose between “teach with visuals” and “teach with questions”—especially in telehealth, where visuals are easy to share but not always available.

A second goal was to see if echoing might help. Some learners repeat parts of what we say (echoics), even when we don’t ask them to. If echoing appears right before secondary targets start showing up in probes, that could help you decide when instructive feedback is a good fit—and when it may be too difficult.

Finally, the study asked the learner which teaching style he preferred. When two methods work equally well, letting the learner choose can improve cooperation, reduce stress, and support dignity without sacrificing skill building.

What did the researchers do to answer that question?

The researchers worked with one 6-year-old autistic child during telehealth sessions at home. They first tested to find targets he didn’t already know, then created sets of primary targets (the main skills being taught) and secondary targets (the extra facts delivered as instructive feedback).

They ran two teaching conditions. In the tact condition, the clinician showed a picture on screen and asked a question like “What is it?” In the intraverbal condition, the clinician asked spoken questions like “What does the heart do?” with no picture. In both conditions, after the learner responded to the primary target, the clinician added one short instructive feedback statement containing the secondary target (for example, “And a spleen filters blood”).

Learning was checked using probe sessions where the child was asked both the primary question and then the secondary question. During probes, the clinician didn’t prompt and didn’t provide reinforcement for correct answers—only neutral feedback. During teaching sessions, they used echoic prompts with a progressive prompt delay at first, then a 10-second delay later, with praise for correct primary responses. The extra fact was still delivered after the trial, but the child wasn’t required to repeat it.

The researchers also tracked how often the child echoed the primary target and how often he echoed the instructive feedback statement, counting both full and partial repeats. After the first set, they offered a single choice between “learn with pictures” and “learn with questions” using a concurrent-chains setup, then taught later sets.

Because this involved one child in a short study, the results mainly show what’s possible—not what will happen for most learners. The order of probe questions was always primary then secondary, which could have helped the child answer the secondary question. Also, in the tact condition, a picture stayed on screen, which may have indirectly supported responding even though the secondary question was supposed to be intraverbal.

How you can use this in your day-to-day clinical practice

If you’re already running DTT for tacts or intraverbals, consider adding instructive feedback as a low-effort way to build extra language. The basic move is simple: after you reinforce a correct primary response, add one short sentence with the extra information you want the learner to acquire. Keep it brief and clear. Don’t turn it into a second demand. Then, separately, probe the secondary target with a direct question to see if it was picked up.

Don’t assume secondary targets will emerge for every learner. In this study, the child did learn secondary targets, but he also showed a lot of echoing during teaching. If your learner rarely echoes or has weak imitation, instructive feedback may not stick—and you may need to teach the secondary targets directly instead of waiting for them to emerge. A reasonable clinical step is to try instructive feedback with a small set first and watch the data before scaling up.

Pay attention to echoic behavior during teaching, even if you’re not directly targeting echoics. In this study, echoing changed over time: early on, the child echoed primary targets more; later, he echoed secondary statements more as primary targets became strong. This suggests a simple practice: when primary targets are becoming easy, listen for whether the learner starts repeating pieces of the instructive feedback. More echoics of the extra facts may signal that secondary targets are ready to emerge in probes.

If your learner doesn’t echo the instructive feedback at all, you can still try to support access without making it compliance-heavy. You might slow your delivery, use a clear pause, or ensure the learner is attending before you deliver the instructive feedback. You could also consider teaching echoic skills as a separate goal when appropriate for the learner’s communication—but don’t assume that requiring repetition will automatically create real learning. The study didn’t test a condition where the learner was required to echo the secondary statement, so don’t treat that as an evidence-based upgrade.

When choosing between tact-style teaching (visual plus question) and intraverbal-style teaching (spoken questions only), this study doesn’t give a clear winner. The child learned in both formats, and the faster condition changed across sets. Your best takeaway isn’t “always teach with pictures” or “always teach with questions.” Instead, treat both as reasonable options and make the choice based on the learner, the goal, and what you can deliver with high fidelity.

One strong, practical takeaway: include learner preference when you can. This child chose the tact format when given a choice, even though both formats worked. In practice, you can offer a simple choice—”Do you want to learn with pictures or with questions?”—then honor it when both options are clinically acceptable. Plan to offer choices more than once over time, because a single choice on one day may not reflect stable preference.

Be careful about how you probe and what you conclude. In the study, the secondary question always came right after the primary question. In your own programming, you may want to check whether the learner can answer the secondary question when it’s asked later, mixed with other questions, or asked by a different person. If secondary targets only appear when the primary question was just asked, you may be seeing short-term cueing rather than durable learning.

If you use telehealth, this study supports that you can run these teaching trials and still see learning—as long as sessions are structured and the caregiver isn’t coaching responses. Keep visuals simple, reduce distractions, and ensure your prompting and timing are consistent. Remember that this was one learner with a fairly strong language base, so be cautious applying the same plan to learners who are early in verbal development or who struggle to attend to a screen.

Finally, keep learner dignity in focus. Instructive feedback should feel like extra helpful information, not a trick or pressure tactic. Use it when it makes learning smoother, when the learner is comfortable, and when your data show it’s working. If probes show secondary targets aren’t emerging after a fair try, switch to direct teaching rather than repeating the same plan longer than needed.

Works Cited

Anderson, B. K., & Wiskow, K. M. (2025). Acquisition of secondary targets during tact and intraverbal instruction with instructive feedback. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 41, 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-025-00215-z