Instructional Demonstrations are More Efficient Than Consequences Alone for Children with Naming

Abstract

Prior research found that without the naming cusp, children did not learn from instructional demonstrations presented before learn units (IDLUs) (i.e., modeling an expected response twice for a learner prior to delivering an instructional antecedent), however, following the establishment of naming, they could. The present study was designed to compare the rate of learning reading and mathematics objectives in children who showed naming using IDLUs compared to standard learn units (SLUs) alone (comparable to three-term contingency trials). In Phase 1, a pre-screening phase, we demonstrated that four typically developing males, 3 to 4 years of age, had naming within their repertoire, meaning they were able to master the names of novel 2-D stimuli as both a listener and a speaker without explicit instruction. Using the same participants in Phase 2, we compared rates of learning under two instructional methods using a series of repeated AB designs where conditions (IDLUs versus SLUs) were counterbalanced across dyads and replicated across participants. The participants learned more than twice as fast under IDLU conditions and showed between 30% and 50% accuracy on the first presentation of a stimulus following a model. The IDLU condition was more efficient (fewer trials to criterion) than the SLU condition. These findings, together with prior findings, suggest that the onset of naming allows children to learn faster when instructional demonstrations are incorporated into lessons.

The Emergence of Bidirectional Naming Through Sequential Operant Instruction Following the Establishment of Conditioned Social Reinforcers

“…The acquisition of BiN is fundamental because these skills can improve the educational prognosis (Gilic & Greer, 2011) and accelerate the rate of learning through exposure to others' demonstrations (Choi, Greer, & Keohane, 2015;Greer, Corwin, & Buttigieg, 2011;Greer, Pistoljevic, Cahill, & Du, 2011;Hranchuk, Greer, & Longano, 2018). It may turn out that a priority in future work with children with autism will be the establishment of standard social consequences as reinforcers as early on as possible because social behaviors, such as BiN, are necessarily maintained by such consequences in the natural environment.…”

An Experimental Comparison of In-Person and Remote Instruction for Preschoolers with Disabilities

“…The experimenter modeled object-names for Nat, Dente, and David prior to presenting trials with an independent response requirement. This was based on previous research demonstrating children with Inc-BiN benefit from such models (Hranchuk et al, 2019 ). Experimenters presented three echoics as a response prompt (Billingsley & Romer, 1983 ) prior to introducing an independent response requirement for Jales, Clement, and Mike.…”

Verbal behavior development theory and relational frame theory: Reflecting on similarities and differences

“…Children who do not demonstrate Inc‐UiN need to be taught both the listener and speaker responses. Children who demonstrate Inc‐BiN can emit the untaught listener and speaker response from demonstration conditions alone (i.e., simply being exposed to object–name relations; Hranchuk et al, 2019). Furthermore, recent evidence shows that more complex verbal behavior emerges once Inc‐BiN is established (Cahill & Greer, 2014; Greer & Du, 2015).…”