Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of Generalization
University of Utah
April 12, 2011 Generalization Background Technological and Philosophical Advancements Why Should I Care? Long, long ago . . . in 1977. . . Generalization is defined as: Some of my Favorite Generalization "Quotes" Instructional Why Implement Strategies? Program Design Let's Get Started! Summary References People with disabilities Educators Ultimate expectations Despite these advancements How many? 33.1 million Chances are good Generalization is critical Ensure future autonomy and an elevated quality of life In the article, "An Implicit Technology of Generalization," Stokes and Baer explained that generalization is . . . "... a 'natural' outcome of any behavior-change process" "... a fundamental concern of applied behavior analysis" and "... many theorists considered generalization to be a passive phenomenon" “. . . the occurrence of relevant behavior under different, non-training conditions (i.e., across subjects, settings, people, behaviors, and/or time) without the scheduling of the same events in those conditions as had been scheduled in the training conditions.” (Stokes & Baer, 1977) “. . . behavioral research and practice should act as if there were no such animal as ‘free’ generalization—as if generalization never occurs ‘naturally,’ but always requires programming.” (Stokes & Baer, 1977) “Generalization across time is generally described as the durability of responding over time.” (Noell, Connell, & Duhon, 2006) “If generalization seemed absent or insignificant, it was simply to be assumed that the teaching process had managed to maintain unusually tight control of the stimuli and responses involved, allowing little sampling of their varieties.” (Stokes & Baer, 1977) “The more similar the novel teacher, materials, and setting are to the training teacher, materials, and setting… the more likely stimulus generalization will occur.” (Crockett, 2009) Strategies 1. Train and Hope
Hope that generalization will occur
Probes conducted and documented
Ninety percent reported successful generalization
Sufficient to meet the goals of the modification programs?
What does data reflect?
Some researchers' view of non-generalization 2. Sequential Modification
Generalization absent? Procedures initiated
Systematized procedure that formalizes and allows evaluation of behaviors
Apply same successful techniques to all settings 3. Introduce to Natural Maintaining Contingencies
Transfer of control
More autonomous vs helplessness
Increased peer reinforcement 4. Train Sufficient Exemplars
Plethora of examples and lessons
Valuable and cost-efficient outcome
Diversity of exemplars = maximum generalization
Optimal combination of sufficient and diverse exemplars to yield most valuable generalization
AKA: Multiple Exemplar Training
No specific criteria used for selecting stimuli 5. Train Loosely
AKA: incidental teaching, naturalistic teaching, nonintensive teaching, or minimal intervention
Little control over stimuli presented and correct responses allowed
Less structured activities proven successful
Easy interpretation of the nature of successful teaching techniques 6. Use Indiscriminable Contingencies
Prevent ready discrimination
Greater durability of behavior change
Intermittent schedules 7. Program Common Stimuli
Sufficient stimulus components
Use of peers
Simulations, schedules, picture cues
Naturally occurring environmental elements
Increase stimulus similarity to achieve generalization 8. Mediate Generalization
Students monitor and report own behavior
Students less dependent on teachers
Self-management procedures, such as self-instruction
Self-instruction strategy includes:
Teacher performs task (teacher instructs aloud); student observes
Student performs task (teacher instructs aloud)
Student performs task (student self-instructs aloud)
Student performs task (student self-instructs covertly/whisper)
Most promising of all techniques? 9. Train "To Generalize"
Reinforce as if an explicit behavior
Reinforcement if particular behavior performed in new setting
According to Stokes and Baer (1977), why were few studies of this type found in literature? More Instructional Strategies Teach Functional Target Behaviors Specify a Fluency Criterion Teach in the Natural Setting General Case Programming General Case Programming A Feature of Direct Instruction: Systematic approach Smallest number of examples to produce largest amount of learning Instructional sequences Complex procedures Skills taught through a range of stimulus situations and response variations Skill:
Should be used
Should not be used, and
Is irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 Locations, persons, conditions
Variation in the skill Define Instructional Universe Define Range of Relevant Stimulus and Response Variation Relevant features of all settings
Variations in actions Select example sets for teaching and probe testing Range of conditions within universe
All required behaviors
Positive and Negative teaching examples (Very different, then reduce differences) Sequence Teaching Examples Concurrent teaching of components
Teach as many examples as possible within instructional sessions Teach the Examples Use skill acquisition strategies
Concurrent training and/or serial training
Prompting strategies and/or correction strategies Test with Non-Trained Probe Examples Test student performance under each condition initially identified What Makes General Case Programming so Complex? All members of collaborative team to consider a variety of conditions where behavior/skill will occur
All relevant variations identified, taught, and tested
Note: General Case Programming provides the most empirically-validated method for achieving generalization The purpose of designing this of General Case Programming severe disabilities to take and deliver phone messages. is to teach students with Albert, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (7th ed.). New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
Bicard, D. F., Horan, J., Plank, E., & Covington, T. (2010). May I take a message? Using general case programming to teach students with disabilities to take and give phone messages. Preventing School Failure, 54(3), 179-189.
Crockett, M. (2009). Generalization and maintenance. [PowerPoint slides]. Slide 9.
Donnellan, A. M., & Mirenda, P. L. (1983). A model for analyzing instructional components to facilitate generalization for severely handicapped students. The Journal of Special Education, 17(3), 317-331.
Duhon, G. J., House, S. E., Poncy, B. C., Hastings, K. W., & McClurg, S. C. (2010). An examination of two techniques for promoting response generalization of early literacy skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 62-75.
Noell, G. H., Connell, J. E., & Duhon, G. J. (2006). Spontaneous response generalization during whole word instruction: Reading to spell and spelling to read. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 121-130.
O’Neill, R. E. (1990). Establishing verbal repertoires: Toward the application of general case analysis and programming. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 113-126.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.
United States Department of Labor. (n.d.). Office of disability employment policy. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/odep/faqs/people.htm
Watkins, C. (2008). From DT to DI: Using direct instruction to teach students with ASD. Association for Behavior Analysis International, 31(3). Retrieved from http://www.abainternational.org/ABA/newsletter/vol313/Watkins.asp
Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2009). Teaching students with severe disabilities, (4th ed.). New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
Locations: Classroom, office, hallway, home People: Teacher, Paraprofessional, Parent, Peer Tutor Conditions:
(1) Student gives message to person, immediate delivery
(2) Student gives message to person, delayed delivery Skill Variations:
Unusable push button phone, classroom working phone, cell phone, home phone 1. Define Instructional Universe 2. Define Range of Relevant Stimulus and Response Variation Phone, caller, message pad, writing tool, time, date, phone number, message Student is asked to retrieve information: name of caller, message, time, date, phone number Relevant features of settings: Table, chair, couch, desk Variations in actions: Phone receivers, flip phone 3. Select Example Sets for Teaching and Probe Testing Teaching: Push button phone, classroom working phone, message pad, writing tool, various scripts Probe: Cell phone, home phone, different writing tool, non-duplicated scripts Script to evaluate own behavior while talking on the phone (“Did you write the caller’s name?” “Did you write the caller’s phone number?”, etc.) Positive and Negative teaching examples:
Non-working push button phone, classroom working phone, working cell phone and home phone 4. Sequence Teaching Examples Concurrent teaching of components for every phone call:
1. Answer the phone
2. Write the date and time of the call
3. Write the caller's name
4. Write the caller's phone number
5. Transcribe the message
6. Read the message back to the caller
7. Ask for clarification
8. Make changes, if necessary
9. Write name (student signs name at bottom) 5. Teach the Examples Skill acquisition strategies: Role-play simulation to teach message taking and delivery steps All instructors rotate teaching assignments with all students Correction prompt during training sessions Small group and/or one-on-one instruction Tangible materials used 6. Test with non-trained Probe Examples Sequentially conduct training for each message category Counter-balance: Each student will begin with one of the two message categories Settings vary between hallway, office, and home Generalization of Program Design Thirty scripts Each script follows one of two types of message categories (15 each); NOT used in training sessions No scripted message used more than one time Number scripts Numbered scripts used for data analysis No reinforcement or correction Possible Limitations Possible Future Research Will General Case Programming, alone, facilitate student performance? Will repeated exposure facilitate student performance? Generalization data will be tightly controlled as
students will answer scripted calls from instructors Message pad style may be varied to broaden generalization Additional phone types may be used Legislation Special educators prepare students to function Helps ensure students with disabilities will also be living in least restrictive environments in the future Increasing inclusion Large numbers of students with disabilities General educators aware of techniques What Can I Do? Ask yourself: 1. Has the skill been acquired? 2. Can the student acquire reinforcers (natural or otherwise) without performing the skill? 3. Does the student perform part of the skill? Teach with natural environments in mind Diversify and use multiple exemplars:
Vary staff or caregivers for training
Vary settings Teach concurrently Use natural cues as soon as possible Reinforce intermittently Teach self-management techniques Increase delays in reinforcement delivery Reinforce instances of generalization Individualized Drawbacks for Implementation Time Collaboration Students more proficient at learning Generalization critical for success: Academic
Functional daily living
Elevated quality of life Instructional strategy implementation Get started right away, because . . . generalization and maintenance of behavior change, “If teachers do not aim for they are not teaching as effectively as they could.”(Bicard et al., 2010, p. 179) Outcome goal Small group and/or one-on-one instruction
Eliminate artificial prompts; natural stimuli program using the six steps Students may be taught to call out and gather info Provide fewer opportunities to respond to reduce repeated exposure factor