A Comparison of Three Strategies for Teaching Object Names

Abstract

Researchers in applied behavior analysis have been charged to provide large-scale demonstrations of the outcomes of evaluations. In this research, three experiments were conducted to examine the relative efficacy of three methods of presenting stimuli in object naming tasks. Stimuli were introduced successively, simultaneously, or using a combination of the two procedures. College adults, mentally retarded children and adolescents, and preschool children were taught to produce the names of five Hebrew letters, English words, or American coins, respectively. Presentation method was a between-subjects treatment in a factorial design. Results from the series of systematic replications were consistent in showing better posttest performance for subjects in the Simultaneous and Combined conditions. Further, follow-up data in Experiment III showed that retention was also superior for subjects trained by the Simultaneous or Combined methods. Although the acquisition criterion was met in fewer trials by subjects in the Successive condition, only several minutes more training time was required by the Simultaneous and Combined conditions. From a cost-effectiveness point of view, either of the latter two techniques should be favored over the Successive procedure for teaching verbal naming skills.

Effects of serial and concurrent training on acquisition and generalization

“…Similar to G. L. Schroeder and Baer, Panyan and Hall found no substantial differences in training time required between serial and concurrent training, increases in accuracy on probe trials that immediately followed a concurrent training phase, and either minimal increases or decreases in accuracy on probe trials that immediately followed a serial training phase. Cuvo et al (1980) further extended previous research by teaching object names to 30 undergraduate students (Experiment 1), 36 institutional residents with intellectual disabilities (Experiment 2), and 30 preschool children (Experiment 3). Subjects were taught the names of Hebrew letters, English words, or names of American coins, respectively, using serial (successive), concurrent (simultaneous), or a combined procedure.…”

“…Cuvo et al () further extended previous research by teaching object names to 30 undergraduate students (Experiment 1), 36 institutional residents with intellectual disabilities (Experiment 2), and 30 preschool children (Experiment 3). Subjects were taught the names of Hebrew letters, English words, or names of American coins, respectively, using serial (successive), concurrent (simultaneous), or a combined procedure.…”

“…Whereas G. L. Schroeder and Baer (1972) and Panyan and Hall (1978) compared the effects of serial and concurrent training on response generalization, few studies (e.g., C. M. Schroeder et al, 1998) have assessed the effects of the two training methods on stimulus generalization. In addition, although Cuvo et al (1980) evaluated the two methods with respect to acquisition of tacts, they did not assess generalization of the tact. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of the serial and concurrent methods of training sufficient exemplars in acquisition of target responses and stimulus generalization to untrained stimuli in the area of tact training.…”

Effects of Every-Day and Every-Other-Day Instruction

“…Several studies have documented that task variation (delivery of trials on multiple skills within a single instructional session), as compared with teaching one skill at a time, results in more rapid learning (Doyle, Wolery, Auk, Gast, & Wiley, 1989;Dunlap, 1984); greater generalization and maintenance (Cuvo et al, 1980;Panyan & Hall, 1978); increased motivation (Dunlap & Koegel, 1980); and decreases in problem behaviors (Winterling, Dunlap, & O'Neill, 1987). These positive findings for task variation exist despite the fact that learning two or more skills at the same time would appear to be more difficult than learning one skill at a time.…”

Efeitos Do Número De Exemplares Sobre Aquisição E Generalidade De Desempenho Em Crianças Diagnosticadas Com Transtorno Do Espectro Do Autismo (Tea)

“…A utilização de múltiplos exemplares de estímulos, por exemplo, tem sido de fundamental importância no planejamento da generalização (Baer 1981;Stokes & Baer, 1977). Na literatura, há exemplos de comparação de métodos de ensino, que são discutidos em termos de estabelecimento de repertórios, bem como de sua generalização (e.g., Cuvo et al, 1980). No estudo de Cuvo et al, um delineamento fatorial foi utilizado para comparar a eficácia de métodos de apresentação de estímulos (sucessivo, simultâneo e combinado) no ensino de nomeação.…”