47th Annual Convention; Online; 2021
All times listed are Eastern time (GMT-4 at the time of the convention in May).
Event Details
Previous Page
|
| Comparing the Minimum Celeration Line and the Personal Best Goal-Setting Approaches During the Mathematical Practice of Students Diagnosed With Autism |
| Saturday, May 29, 2021 |
| 4:30 PM–4:55 PM |
| Online |
| Area: EDC |
| Instruction Level: Intermediate |
| Chair: Athanasios Vostanis (University of Kent) |
| CE Instructor: Athanasios Vostanis, M.S. |
| |
| Comparing the Minimum Celeration Line and the Personal Best Goal-Setting Approaches During the Mathematical Practice of Students Diagnosed With Autism |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| ATHANASIOS VOSTANIS (Tizard Centre, University of Kent), Ciara Padden (Tizard Centre, University of Kent), Aoife McTiernan (School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway), Peter Langdon (Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research, University of Warwick) |
| |
| Abstract: This study compared two-goal setting approaches found in the Precision Teaching literature, namely the minimum celeration line and the beat your personal best during the mathematical practice of three male students diagnosed with autism, aged 8 to 9. An adapted alternating treatments design with a control condition was embedded in a concurrent multiple baseline across participants design. Each approach was randomly allocated to either the multiplication/division (x÷) table of 18 or 19, while no approach was allocated to the x÷14 table that acted as a control. Instruction utilized number families and consisted of (a) untimed practice, (b) frequency-building, (c) performance criteria, (d) graphing, and (e) a token economy. Upon practice completion, an assessment of maintenance, endurance, stability, and application (MESA) was conducted. Participants improved with both conditions and maintained their performance well, while improvements with the control condition were weak. The beat your personal best approach was highlighted as slightly more effective in terms of average performance and more efficient in terms of timings needed to achieve criterion. No differences were identified in terms of learning rate (i.e., celeration) or performance on the MESA. More research is warranted to identify which goal-setting procedure is more appropriate for students in special education. |
| |
| Target Audience: Attendees should have basic knowledge of Precision Teaching and basic knowledge of goal-setting procedures used in behaviour analysis and education. |
| Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the presentation participants will be able to: (1) list the critical components of the two goal-setting procedures discussed; (2) list the benefits and limitations of each procedure, especially in terms of applying them with students with developmental disabilities. |
|
| |
BACK TO THE TOP
Back to Top