EFFECTS OF SERIAL <i>VERSUS</i> CONCURRENT TASK SEQUENCING ON ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, AND GENERALIZATION<sup>1</sup>

Panyan, Marion C.; Hall, R. Vance

doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-67

Cited by 36 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Venn

Wolery²,

Greco³

1996

Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the effects of two schedules of implementing instruction (every-day and every-other-day) were compared. Six preschool children participated, 4 with typical development and 2 with disabilities (autism and pervasive developmental disorders). An adapted alternating treatments design was used to evaluate the effects of the two schedules. Children's performance on target behaviors, maintenance of the behaviors, generalization across persons and settings, and observational learning were assessed. The findings indicated that (a) 5 of the 6 children acquired all behaviors taught with both schedules, and 1 child acquired one behavior with each schedule; (b) all children acquired behaviors in the every-other-day schedule in fewer sessions, trials, and minutes of instruction than in the every-day schedule; (c) generalization and follow-up were not differentially affected by the two schedules; and (d) relatively little observational learning occurred. The results are discussed in terms of future research on scheduling instruction and implications for practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Venn

Wolery²,

Greco³

1996

Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In any case, the superiority of the simultaneous and combined techniques over the successive one for immediate acquisition of verbal labels was demonstrated. This conclusion is strengthened even further when previous data showing the superiority of the concurrent (i.e., simultaneous) procedure for promoting generalization are considered (Panyan & Hall, 1978;Schroeder & Baer, 1972).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 78%

A Comparison of Three Strategies for Teaching Object Names

Cuvo

Klevans

Borakove

et al. 1980

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…If the critical variable is simply insuring that subjects experience a diversity of training examples, then a more efficient technique may be training several examples concurrently, instead of serially. There are some data (Panyon & Hall, 1978;Schroeder & Baer, 1972) to suggest that concurrent training may facilitate generalization without increasing total training trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Generalized Effects of Productive Labeling Training Involving Common Object Classes

Anderson¹,

Spradlin²

1980

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Initially, a mentally retarded subject demonstrated, by matching-to-sample, appropriate classification of common stimuli (i.e., cars, bowls, hats, dolls, shoes, and books). Next he was taught to produce the correct verbal label (e.g., ''bowl'') for one member of each class. For four of the six stimulus classes, a single training example was not sufficient to produce generalization of the label to nontraining examples in the same class. However, each successive addition of one training example generally produced a systematic increase in the level of generalization. The specific number of training examples sufficient to produce generalization varied across the six experimental classes. In addition, receptive labelling probes, conducted after each successful demonstration of generalization in the productive modality, demonstrated no systematic changes in the accuracy of responses as productive training progressed. It was concluded that automatic generalization within or across response modalities is not necessarily an inevitable result, and therefore may require explicit programming.

show abstract

EFFECTS OF SERIAL VERSUS CONCURRENT TASK SEQUENCING ON ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, AND GENERALIZATION¹

Cited by 36 publications

References 5 publications

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

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

A Comparison of Three Strategies for Teaching Object Names

The Generalized Effects of Productive Labeling Training Involving Common Object Classes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

EFFECTS OF SERIAL VERSUS CONCURRENT TASK SEQUENCING ON ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, AND GENERALIZATION1

Cited by 36 publications

References 5 publications

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

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

A Comparison of Three Strategies for Teaching Object Names

The Generalized Effects of Productive Labeling Training Involving Common Object Classes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

EFFECTS OF SERIAL VERSUS CONCURRENT TASK SEQUENCING ON ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, AND GENERALIZATION¹