|Further Evaluations of Instructive Feedback for Learners With Autism Spectrum Disorder|
|Saturday, May 25, 2019|
|10:00 AM–10:50 AM |
|Hyatt Regency West, Ballroom Level, Regency Ballroom D|
|Area: AUT/VRB; Domain: Applied Research|
|Chair: Patricia Zemantic (University of Oregon)|
|CE Instructor: Christopher A. Tullis, Ph.D.|
Instructive feedback (IF) is an effective strategy for increasing the efficiency of instruction. When presented within a discrete trial format, prompting and reinforcement are provided based on the learner’s response to primary targets, and no programmed consequences are provided based on the learner’s response to secondary targets. Several variations of IF have been evaluated in the literature and the effectiveness of these variations may relate to the underlying behavioral mechanisms that contribute to the effectiveness of IF. The studies in this symposium will examine the effectiveness of variations of IF and discuss how variations may relate to the mechanisms underlying the acquisition of targets exposed to IF. In the first study, Tullis and colleagues evaluated two arrangements of IF – one in which secondary targets were presented before a praise statement and one in which secondary targets were presented after a praise statement. Kopchak and colleagues examined two forms of IF. In one form, secondary targets and probes shared similar words. In the other form, secondary targets and probe questions did not share similar words. Zemantic and colleagues examined the effect of context by comparing the presentation of secondary targets in an instructional setting and a novel setting.
|Instruction Level: Intermediate|
|Keyword(s): Instructive Feedback, Skill Acquisition, Verbal Behavior|
|Target Audience: |
The content would be appropriate for practitioners to apply to clinical practice and graduate students.
|A Comparison of Secondary Target Location in Instructive Feedback Procedures|
|CHRISTOPHER A. TULLIS (Georgia State University), Ashley Gibbs (Georgia State ), Sarah Grace Hansen (Georgia State University), Maddie Butzer (Georgia State University )|
|Abstract: Instructive feedback (IF) is an effective strategy for increasing the efficiency of targeted instruction. Although effective, the mechanisms underlying the acquisition of secondary targets via IF are unknown. In the current investigation two forms of instructive feedback (IF) were compared to determine if indiscriminable contingencies were responsible, in part, for the acquisition of secondary targets during IF procedures. During teaching, IF stimuli were presented either before or after the praise statement for mastered tacts to two learners with autism spectrum disorder. Across both participants, IF before the praise statement resulted in faster acquisition of secondary targets that were maintained for 16–18 weeks post intervention. These results extend the IF literature by providing evidence that acquisition of secondary targets via IF may at least partially attributed to the occurrence of indiscriminable contingencies.|
A Comparison of Secondary Targets Procedures to Teach Auditory Tacts to Children With Autism
|Kayla Kopchak (Caldwell University), April N. Kisamore (Hunter College), Jason C. Vladescu (Caldwell University), Kenneth F. Reeve (Caldwell University), Regina A. Carroll (University of Nebraska Medical Center Munroe-Meyer Institute), MOLLY JOYCE (Hunter College)|
Although typical discrete trial instruction procedures are effective for teaching tacts to children with autism, they are often time consuming. Using a secondary targets procedure can help increase instructional efficiency. The purpose of the current study was to compare the effects of two variations of a secondary targets procedure on the acquisition of auditory tacts by children with autism. In one variation of the procedure, the secondary target expansion phrase and the probe question contained shared features (i.e., similar words). In the other variation, the secondary target expansion phrase and the probe question did not contain shared features (i.e., no similar words). In addition, the emergence of listener and speaker categorization were evaluated. All three participants learned to correctly tact the auditory stimuli (i.e., the primary targets). Participant 1 responded correctly to probe questions for only the shared features condition. Participant 2 responded correctly to probe questions for both the shared features and no shared features conditions. Participant 3 did not respond correctly to probe questions for either of the conditions. Listener categorization scores were higher than baseline levels for all participants following tact training. Speaker categorization scores were higher than baseline levels for Participants 1 and 2.
Instructive Feedback During High and Low Demand Contexts for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder
|PATRICIA ZEMANTIC (University of Oregon), Tracy Jane Raulston (Penn State), Christine Drew (University of Oregon), Mat C Luehring (University of Oregon), Hannah Barton (University of Oregon), Buket Erturk (University of Oregon ), Shaji Haq (Center for Behavioral Sciences, Inc.)|
Instructive feedback involves including extra stimuli (i.e., secondary targets) within instructional trials in order to increase the efficiency of instruction. No programmed consequences are provided based on the learners’ response to secondary targets. A number of behavioral mechanisms may play a role in the effectiveness and efficiency of instructive feedback, including the context. The current study evaluated the effect of context on the acquisition of secondary targets taught through instructive feedback in an instructional (high demand) and novel (low demand) context for two children with autism spectrum disorder. Both participants acquired secondary targets when presented in a high demand context when presented with primary targets. However, in the absence of primary targets, the low demand context was more effective and efficient for one participant, whereas the high demand context was more effective and efficient for the other participant. Both participants demonstrated generalized responding to novel therapists and untrained Wh-questions. Responding also maintained during probes conducted 2- and 4- weeks post mastery. Future directions for research and clinical applications of instructive feedback procedures are discussed.