Examination of efficacious,efficient, and socially valid error‐correction procedures to teach sight words and prepositions to children with autism spectrum disorder

Prior research shows that learners have idiosyncratic responses to error‐correction procedures during instruction. Thus, assessments that identify error‐correction strategies to include in instruction can aid practitioners in selecting individualized, efficacious, and efficient interventions. The current investigation conducted an assessment to compare 5 error‐correction procedures that have been evaluated in the extant literature and are common in instructional practice for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Results showed that the assessment identified efficacious and efficient error‐correction procedures for all participants, and 1 procedure was efficient for 4 of the 5 participants. To examine the social validity of error‐correction procedures, participants selected among efficacious and efficient interventions in a concurrent‐chains assessment. We discuss the results in relation to prior research on error‐correction procedures and current instructional practices for learners with ASD.     

THE FACILITATIVE EFFECTS OF INCIDENTAL TEACHING ON PREPOSITION USE BY AUTISTIC CHILDREN

In a comparison of incidental teaching and traditional training procedures, three language-delayed autistic children were taught expressive use of prepositions to describe the location of preferred edibles and toys. Traditional highly structured training and incidental teaching procedures were used in a classroom setting, and generalization was assessed during free-play sessions. Results clearly indicate that incidental teaching promoted greater generalization and more spontaneous use of prepositions. These findings have important implications for language programming and teacher training, suggesting that incidental teaching should be included as a standard component of language development curricula for autistic and other developmentally delayed children.     

Interference of Sentence and Picture Contexts on Learning Prepositions

The effects of extra stimulus cues, such as pictures and sentences, on learning of preposition words were examined in two experiments. A one-way repeated-measures design was applied in the study. The results show that both sentences and pictures interfered with and blocked the learning of these context-dependent words in the simultaneous presentations. The superiority of feedback presentations over simultaneous presentations indicate that feedback techniques neutralize the blocking effect. More interestingly, however, the prepositions were learned more quickly in the absence of any context cues and this suggested that it is better to teach basic preposition words either by the presentation of them alone or if extra stimulus cues are to be used they should be presented as feedback.     

THE ACQUISITION OF PREPOSITIONAL MOTOR RESPONSES IN HANDICAPPED CHILDREN1

The acquisition of prepositional motor responses in three handicapped preschool children was analyzed for three pairs of prepositions. Generalization of prepositional knowledge at each stage of acquisition was assessed by a series of probe trials. In addition, an analysis of the control of prepositional responses when objects of the preposition (OP) and direct objects (DO) were relevant cues was conducted. The effect of this object-cue procedure, as well as a specially devised prompting technique on acquisition, was also determined. Results indicated substantial control by OPs whenever this cue was relevant, but this did not affect acquisition of prepositional concepts when these cues were eliminated. Analysis of the probe data and the prompting technique suggested various ways in which instructional programs for teaching prepositional knowledge to handicapped children could be constructed in a simple and efficient manner.     

TEACHING GENERALIZED RECEPTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE BEHIND-FRONT DISCRIMINATIONS TO TWO RETARDED CHILDREN1

Typically, a generalized discrimination for two linguistic forms (e.g., “behind the (noun)” and “in front of the (noun)”) has been developed in a sequence of three treatment conditions, with generative usage developed for each form consecutively in the first two conditions and a generalized discrimination developed for those forms in the third condition. Moreover, generalized discriminations have typically been measured by a set of unreinforced probes, rather than by first-trial performances across a series of new tasks, as in some studies that have taught generative usage of a single form of language. In this study, successive sets of instructions were presented to two children. Each set contained four tasks, the four possible combinations of two new nouns with the linguistic forms “Put the (noun) behind the (noun)” and “Put the (noun) in front of the (noun)”. For each set, receptive usage of nouns was taught, and then the four instructions were presented, once each, to test for generative usage of the prepositional forms. First-trial performances were never prompted. After a baseline of five sets of tasks, correct first-trial performances earned praise and tokens. Also, in each set with three or fewer such performances, the specific receptive discriminations were taught to a criterion before presentation of the next set. Successive sets were presented until all first-trial performances were correct in five consecutive sets, whereupon this generalized discrimination was reversed and subsequently reinstated. Similar procedures were then used to teach the same children a generalized productive-discrimination for the forms “behind the (noun)” and “in front of the (noun)”. This study demonstrated the development of generalized receptive and productive behind-front discriminations without the prior development of generative usage in each linguistic form and with measurement of the generalized discrimination across first-trial performances. The method may offer a less time-consuming procedure for the development and measurement of generalized discriminations in receptive and productive language.