|Two Procedures for Accelerating the Rates of Learning for Preschoolers and Adults
|Sunday, May 28, 2017
|5:00 PM–5:50 PM
|Hyatt Regency, Capitol Ballroom 1-3
|Area: DEV/AUT; Domain: Applied Research
|Chair: Yu Cao (Columbia University Teachers College)
|CE Instructor: Yu Cao, Ph.D.
|Abstract: This symposium will present three papers whose focus is on one of two methods for accelerating rates of learning for preschoolers and adults: The establishment of Naming (in preschoolers) and the Teacher Performance Rate/Accuracy (TPRA) observational procedure (with graduate students). The first study compared the rates of learning of 60 children with and without Naming, revealing that the presence of Naming as a verbal behavior developmental capability was a significant predictor of learning. Further, when Naming was present there was no significant difference in the rate of learning between children with and without disabilities. The second paper tested the effects of Naming under conditions where learn unit instruction was presented directly versus conditions where instruction was modeled by the teacher (indirect instruction). Results indicated that children for whom the Naming capability had been established learned objectives faster under the indirect learn unit conditions. The third paper compared the use of a fidelity checklist to a tested Teacher Performance Rate/Accuracy (TPRA) observational procedure for training graduate students to implement the ADOS-2.
|Instruction Level: Intermediate
|Keyword(s): accelerated learning, Naming, preschoolers, procedural fidelity
The Effects of Naming on the Rate of Learning for Preschool Children With and Without a Disability
|YU CAO (Columbia University Teachers College)
The study investigated the effects of Naming on childrens rate of learning in a sample of 60 children that included children educationally diagnosed as preschoolers with a disability (n=42), and they typical peers (n=18). Children were 3.88 years on average at recruitment. Children with Naming were first identified, and then were matched with children without Naming by age, gender, disability status, and verbal behavior status. Learn units-to-criterion was used to measure childrens rate of learning, with a lower number of learn units-to-criterion indicating a faster rate of learning. The experimenter conducted a multiple regression analysis to determine whether the presence of Naming significantly predicted the rate of learning with and without disability status in the model. An independent T-test and a one-way ANCOVA were also conducted to determine whether disability status significantly predicted rate of learning when Naming was present. The results of the analyses revealed that Naming was a significant predictor of rate of learning with and without disability status in the model; further, when Naming was present, there was no significant difference on rate of learning between children with a disability and their typical peers.
|The Induction of the Verbal Developmental Capability of Naming and the Subsequent Acceleration of Learning by Observation
|R. Douglas Greer (Columbia University Teachers College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), MADELINE FORINASH (Columbia University Teachers College), Katherine M. Matthews (The Faison Center)
|Abstract: We tested the effects of the induction of the verbal developmental capability of Naming on the rate of acquisition of new operants under standard learn unit (SLU) and instructional demonstration learn unit (IDLU) conditions. Four participants with developmental delays were selected for the following study due to the absence of listener and/or speaker components of the Naming capability. A counterbalanced reversal design across participant dyads was conducted in which each participant’s rate of acquisition was compared under IDLU and SLU conditions before and after the acquisition of Naming. Dyad 1 consisted of Participants K and P, who underwent protocols until Naming was acquired before the participants in Dyad 2 (Participants S and H). Intensive tact instruction (ITI) and multiple exemplar instruction (MEI) were used to induce Naming by significantly increasing the frequency with which participants were reinforced for responding appropriately as a listener (point-to) or speaker (e.g., correctly saying the name of an item) to novel 2-dimensional operants. After the acquisition of Naming, learn units to criterion significantly decreased for all participants across academic objectives. Further, across SLU and IDLU baseline conditions, all participants required fewer learn units to master short-term objectives across IDLU conditions as compared to SLU conditions. Results indicate that while these four participants did not benefit from a teacher model prior to the induction of Naming, each of them learned math and textual responding objectives faster given a teacher model after acquiring the Naming capability.
|A Comparison of TPRA and a Fidelity Checklist on Six Graduate Students’
Accuracy of ADOS-2 Administration and Scoring
|LIN DU (Columbia University Teachers College), R. Douglas Greer (Columbia University Teachers College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)
|Abstract: The current study investigated the effects of using Teacher Performance Rate and Accuracy (TPRA) versus a fidelity checklist on training graduate students to implement the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2) with preschoolers with disabilities. The participants were six graduate students majoring in School Psychology and Intellectual Disabilities/Autism. The dependent variables were administration and scoring of the four modules in the ADOS-2, included selecting the correct module for the individual, completing all required tasks in the selected module without errors, managing potential problem behaviors appropriately, as well as the percentage of accuracy in total scores and coding of algorithm for autism spectrum disorders. All participants received training on coding the modules via the example videos prior to their administrations of the ADOS-2 assessments, in which the experimenter provided comparison coding and feedback. Three participants in Group 1 conducted the ADOS-2 assessment and received their feedback through TPRA, which analyzed the accuracy and rate of the participants’ performances and provided immediate and contingent consequences for their correct and incorrect responses. The other three participants in Group 2 conducted the ADOS-2 assessment and received their feedback through a fidelity checklist. Criterion was set at 80% accuracy across three sessions in Module One/Two and Module Three/Four.