|
| Building Fluency With New Skills Using Goal Setting and Mastery Criteria |
| Sunday, May 25, 2025 |
| 9:00 AM–9:50 AM |
| Convention Center, Street Level, 145 B |
| Area: EDC/EAB; Domain: Translational |
| Chair: Claire C. St. Peter (West Virginia University) |
| CE Instructor: Claire C. St. Peter, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: This symposium explores innovative goal-setting strategies in skill acquisition and fluency training across diverse populations, learning tasks, and instructional settings. The first presentation examines fluency versus percentage-based mastery criteria in training simple response chains to college students, providing insights into maintenance and generalization of skills. The study has broader implications for behavior-analytic supervision and client outcomes. The second presentation focuses on goal-setting strategies during math fluency interventions in elementary schools, comparing three approaches: "Beat Your Personal Best," the "x2 Minimum Celeration Line," and a no-goal control condition. There were benefits of shaping strategies that emphasized progressive performance goals. The third presentation investigates effects of different reinforcement densities through percentile schedules during math frequency-building interventions. By systematically varying reinforcement density, the study identifies optimal conditions for maximizing performance, though results indicate that individual factors may influence the effectiveness of goal-setting strategies. Taken together, these studies contribute to a nuanced understanding of how varied goal-setting parameters impact training outcomes, maintenance, and generalization, offering practical recommendations for behavior analysts seeking to refine instructional practices and enhance skill acquisition, retention, and fluency. |
| Instruction Level: Advanced |
| Keyword(s): Fluency, Goal setting, Reinforcement density, Skill acquisition |
| Target Audience: Intermediate Knowledge of Behavior Analysis: Familiarity with fundamental concepts in behavior analysis, including mastery criteria, fluency training, reinforcement schedules, and procedural fidelity. Understanding of Experimental Design: Awareness of common experimental designs used in behavior-analytic research, such as adapted alternating treatments designs and systematic replications, as these will be referenced throughout the presentations. Experience with Skill Acquisition Programs: Practical experience in implementing or supervising skill acquisition programs, particularly those involving chaining, fluency-based instruction, or other goal-setting strategies. Competence in Data Interpretation: Ability to understand and interpret graphical data, as findings will be presented using visual data displays (e.g., correct responses per minute across sessions). Interest in Applied Research: A keen interest in applied research that seeks to enhance training methods, retention, and generalization of skills across educational and therapeutic settings. |
Learning Objectives: 1. Describe how fluency-based and percentage-based mastery criteria impact the maintenance and generalization of skills, highlighting implications for behavior-analytic supervision and client training.
2. Compare and contrast different goal-setting strategies, such as "Beat Your Personal Best," "x2 Minimum Celeration Line," and no-goal conditions, and discuss their effectiveness in promoting skill acquisition in educational settings.
3. Evaluate effects of varying reinforcement densities, using percentile schedules, on the effectiveness of skill acquisition and fluency training, considering how individual factors may influence outcomes. |
| |
| Effects of Different Mastery Criteria on Training Chained Responses |
| (Basic Research) |
| MARISELA ALICIA AGUILAR (West Virginia University), Claire C. St. Peter (West Virginia University) |
| Abstract: In behavior analysis, individuals are often trained to a percentage-based criteria to demonstrate that they have mastered a skill. However, percentage-based mastery criteria may not result in long-term retention of the skill. In other areas of instruction, training to fluency resulted in multiple positive outcomes such as retention, endurance, and application of the skill beyond the training context. It is unclear the extent to which Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) train their supervisees to fluency, however it is known that majority of BCBAs train their clients to mastery using a percentage-based accuracy criterion. It seems logical that BCBAs would apply these same criteria to their supervisees. We evaluated the extent to which training individuals to a fluency or percentage-based accuracy criterion resulted in maintenance and generalization of completion of simple response chains. Individuals from a community sample learned to complete two arbitrary response chains in an adapted alternating treatments design. Implications for training to a fluency or percentage-based accuracy criterion when teaching behavior-analytic skills will be discussed. |
| |
| Comparing Three Approaches to Shape Performance During Daily Math Fluency Building for Urban Public Elementary School Students |
| (Applied Research) |
| ELIJAH RICHARDSON (University of North Carolina Wilmington; May Institute), Sarah Woodward (University of North Carolina Wilmington), Catherine Williams (University of North Carolina Wilmington) |
| Abstract: Precision teaching presently lacks a standard practice for setting daily performance goals. Vostanis et al. (2023) compared two common goal-setting approaches (Beat Your Personal Best and x2 Minimum Celeration Line) for building math fluency with autistic children and found both were similarly effective, but more effective than a control condition. However, their control condition differed from the others in multiple ways. The current experiment was a systematic replication of Vostanis et al. with a different population (urban public elementary school students), academic skill (addition and subtraction facts), and control condition modified to isolate the goal setting variable. Each day, students completed untimed practice, timed practice, and feedback. Using an adapted alternating treatments design, we compared three goal setting (shaping) conditions. In the Beat Your Personal Best condition, we set goals each day based on surpassing scores from the previous five timings. In the x2 Minimum Celeration Line condition, we set each goal based on the score that would be required to double performance each week. In the Control condition, we provided the same instruction, practice, and timings, but told participants to “do their best”, in place of a specific goal. All conditions, including the no-goal control, promoted fluency. |
| |
| A Parametric Analysis of Percentile Schedule Parameters for Daily Goal Setting Procedures During Math Frequency Building |
| (Applied Research) |
| SARAH WOODWARD (University of North Carolina Wilmington), Catherine Williams (University of North Carolina Wilmington), Elijah Richardson (University of North Carolina Wilmington; May Institute) |
| Abstract: We extended the literature on different percentile schedules parameters to evaluate effects of reinforcement density in a math fluency building intervention. We recruited three 2nd graders who had below grade level math scores at an urban public school. During baseline, participants received no instruction, feedback, or goal. During intervention, participants completed untimed and timed practice with corrective feedback. Timed practice ended after five timings, or they met their goal in that condition. We used an adapted alternating treatment design to compare setting the goal using three percentile schedules with a no-goal control condition. Percentile schedules generally defined by the formula of k=(m+1)(1-w), where m represents the reinforcement criterion, and w represents the reinforcement density. We evaluated three w-parameter values (w=.5, .3, and .1) with a m-value of 10. We measured correct responses per minute and cumulative goals met across sessions. Results generally showed that lower w values (higher reinforcement density) were more effective than a higher value (lower reinforcement density), although the optimal value and effect size were idiosyncratic. The no-goal control conditions tended to be just as effective or better than the other conditions but setting a goal can increase exposure to extinction when not met. |
|
| |