|
| Try Try Again? An Evaluation of Error-Correction Procedures for Individuals With Delayed Learning Profiles |
| Sunday, May 28, 2017 |
| 3:00 PM–3:50 PM |
| Convention Center Mile High Ballroom 1C/D |
| Area: DDA/EDC; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Eli T. Newcomb (The Faison Center) |
| Discussant: Derek Jacob Shanman (Nicholls State University) |
| CE Instructor: Eli T. Newcomb, M.Ed. |
| Abstract: While many behavior analysts and educators identify error-correction as an important instructional component, there is insufficient evidence and agreement among professionals in respect to which procedures to use, for what types skills and training, and for what type of learner. Thus, these research efforts sought to isolate key contextual variables in making such determinations. Investigators examined response topography, participant level of verbal behavior, as well as participant preference for one variation of the error-correction rather than another. Each study included school-age student participants with developmental disabilities and was conducted within the provision of specialized education services. Procedures were based on work conducted by Kodak et al. (2016), McGhan and Lerman (2013), and Hanley et al. (1997). Results suggest that response topography, verbal behavior repertoires, and preference for differing preparations of the corrective feedback may have implications on which procedures to use and when. Results are also discussed in terms of verbal capabilities of the learner as well as the established history of reinforcement and punishment with each error-correction procedure. |
| Instruction Level: Intermediate |
| Keyword(s): error-correction, preference assessment, verbal behavior |
| |
| A Comparative Analysis of Correction Procedures on Correct Responding Across Multiple Academic Skill Programs |
| GRANT GAUTREAUX (Nicholls State University) |
| Abstract: Variations of corrective feedback procedures are integral parts of many behavioral and specialized educational programs. Discrete trial instruction, direct instruction and computer-aided instruction typically all incorporate some type of correction procedure as part of their instructional design. Although numerous studies have been conducted regarding comparative effectiveness of different correction procedures most of the results have indicated inconclusive findings regarding a single best type of correction procedure. We posit that one of the variables which has not been isolated in the previous research may be specific to the type of program the procedure is applied. Is it possible that selecting error correction procedures should be mitigated by the type of response emitted by the participant. For example speaker vs. listener or selection vs. production. We also attempted to identify effective correction procedures and the possible correlations with the level of verbal behavior of the participants and the types of programs the procedures are used with. In this study we used an alternating treatments design to compare the effects of 4 different correction procedures across 3 different types of programs. Results are discussed in terms of the correlations with specific procedures and the cusps and capabilities identified for each participant. |
| |
| Student Preference for Corrective Feedback and Further Effects on Acquisition Rates |
| ELI T. NEWCOMB (The Faison Center), Jennifer Graboyes Camblin (The Faison Center), Elizabeth Newcomb (The Faison Center), Ting Chen (The Faison Center) |
| Abstract: Whereas a number of studies have examined the impact of stimulus preference assessments and differential effects of error-correction procedures on learner acquisition rates, limited work has been done to synthesize these two areas of study. Thus, this study examined the combined effects of assessed preference for topographically dissimilar error-correction procedures on student acquisition rates in verbal behavior training programs. Four school-age students with developmental disabilities participated in the study, ages 8 through 14. To assess preferences for three distinct error-correction procedures the investigators utilized a modified version of what Hanley and colleagues (1997) devised to evaluate client preference for function-based treatment of problem behavior. After preference for error-correction was assessed, participants were exposed to instructional training conditions under which each error-correction was evaluated for both effectiveness and correspondence with the procedure identified as preferred during the assessment phase. Preliminary results suggest that procedures were effective in respect to assessing preference for differing types of error-correction; and further, that preferred procedures are associated with faster rates of acquisition in some cases. Results are also discussed in terms of the established history of reinforcement and punishment with each error-correction procedure. |
|
| |