|
| Strategies for Promoting Acquisition and Discrimination in Early Language Development |
| Sunday, May 30, 2004 |
| 3:00 PM–4:20 PM |
| Clarendon |
| Area: EDC/DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Rachel H. Thompson (University of Kansas) |
| Abstract: Learning Objectives
The learner will identify three teaching components used to facilitate language acquisition.
The learner will identify two teaching components used to facilitate the development of simple or conditional discriminations.
The learner will define, and provide examples of, generalization and discrimination. |
| |
| The Direct and Indirect Effects of Infant Sign Language Training |
| RACHEL H. THOMPSON (University of Kansas), Paige M. McKerchar (University of Kansas), Kelly A. Dancho (University of Kansas) |
| Abstract: Researchers and clinicians have recommended that sign language be taught to typically developing children during their first two years of life; however, existing research does not provide adequate information regarding appropriate methods of sign training. We used physical prompting and prompt fading to teach manual signs to three children between the ages of 7 and 13 mos. Data were collected on the occurrence of prompted and independent signs as well as crying and other attempts to obtain the preferred item. Interobserver agreement was assessed during a minimum of 30% of sessions and mean agreement was above 80% for both participants. Sign training was successful in producing independent signing in all three children. The total duration of sign training prior to acquisition ranged from 1.25 to 4 hours. |
| |
| Towards an Analysis of Mand Generalization |
| EMMA HERNANDEZ (University of Kansas), Gregory P. Hanley (University of Kansas), Einar T. Ingvarsson (University of Kansas), Jeffrey H. Tiger (University of Kansas) |
| Abstract: Strategies that produce generalized responding are valuable, especially with regards to language acquisition, because relatively little training results in large behavior changes. The conditions that result in generalized manding were analyzed in the current study. First, we demonstrated in a reversal design that pointing and single-word utterances were the predominant manding responses of two preschool boys (ages and 4 and 5, respectively) even though both boys were able to vocally tact the materials for which manding was assessed. Multiple baseline designs across responses (vocal mand topographies that specified preferred materials) were then used to demonstrate the extent to which differential reinforcement of single-word mands (e.g., “Cars”) or framed mands (e.g., “Can I have the cars, please”) would result in the emergence of other single-word and framed mand forms (e.g., mands for music, puppets, or puzzles) not directly taught. Prompting and differential reinforcement of one or two mand frames resulted in the emergence of other framed mands for both participants. Interobserver agreement data were collected during 41% of observations and averaged 98.9% (range, 91.7 to 100%). Practical implications for teaching mands to children with developmental delays and methodological implications for the study of generalization will be discussed. |
| |
| A Comparison of Procedures to Facilitate Discrimination during PECS Training |
| DAVID M. WILSON (University of Florida), Brian A. Iwata (University of Florida) |
| Abstract: The Picture-Exchange Communication System (PECS) has become a popular method for teaching communication to individuals with severe developmental disabilities, especially autism. An important aspect of PECS acquisition is the ability to discriminate among visual stimuli that serve as the basis for communication. After acquiring single picture-object matching during PECS training and subsequently failing to show the ability to discriminate between picture-object pairs, individuals with developmental disabilities were exposed to two procedures in an attempt to facilitate discrimination. Both procedures involved increasing the disparity between the S+ (preferred) and S- (nonpreferred) selections. One procedure emphasized differential consequences by increasing the magnitude of S+ and decreasing the preference ranking of S-. The other procedure emphasized stimulus control by increasing the visual salience of S+. The procedures were compared on a within-subject basis in multielement designs. Results showed that the consequence-based intervention often was sufficient to produce discrimination; however, some individuals benefited only from the stimulus-control intervention. Results are discussed in terms of relative efficiency of the procedures and the need to determine which approach seems more appropriate on an individual basis. |
| |
| Aggregate Data on the School-wide Implementation of a Discrimination Curriculum |
| CAMMARIE JOHNSON (New England Center for Children), Alison R. Moses (Marlborough Public Schools), Dwayne A. White (Mascoma Valley Regional School District), Gina Green (Private Practice, San Diego, CA), Susan N. Langer (New England Center for Children), Rebecca P. F. MacDonald (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Sufficiency of teaching procedures and curriculum levels in NECC’s Discrimination Curriculum was evaluated. The curriculum was comprised of hierarchical levels, each representing different skills: simple visual discrimination; nonconditional and conditional identity matching; arbitrary visual-visual and auditory-visual matching; and equivalence class development. Skills not demonstrated on brief trial-and-error pretests were trained to criterion with either a delayed cue (DC) or session skill (SS) teaching procedure. Posttests were conducted to verify training performance. The prevalence of teaching procedure used across all students (N=40) was DC (52%), SS (33%), DC and SS (10%), and remedial (5%). SS was used most often in lower curriculum levels (e.g., simple discrimination), but learned session skills often did not generalize across levels. A multiple baseline design was used with 4 students to evaluate whether all levels were necessary between simple and conditional discrimination. Two students required training on simple discrimination with a sample stimulus, and 2 required further training on nonconditional discriminations before demonstrating conditional discrimination performances. Sampled interobserver agreement scores (N=9) exceeded 90%, and were collected in 18% of pretests and 47% of posttests. |
|
| |