Investigating Generalization Difficulties During Instruction in Language for Learning

Abstract

Language for Learning is a language curriculum that research supports as effective for teaching language skills to young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, most of this research has measured direct acquisition and it is unclear to what extent the skills taught in Language for Learning generalize beyond the context of the curriculum. Our purpose for this study was to evaluate the effects of Language for Learning for producing generalization of labeling skills of two children with ASD when implemented in public school classrooms by the participants' teachers. We used a multiple probe design across language skills to investigate several types of generalization: to untrained visual stimuli, to novel sequences of instructions, and to novel instructors. Results indicate that Language for Learning was effective in producing generalization to untrained visual stimuli and to a novel instructor for one skill, but that responding was tightly controlled by the specific sequence of verbal instructions used within the curriculum for other skills. We discuss possible explanations for our findings as well as areas for future research.

A Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Applications of Direct Instruction with Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Flores and Ganz ( 2007 , 2009 ) evaluated reasoning skills within the Corrective Reading curriculum (Engelmann et al, 2002 ). Of note, Wolfe et al ( 2018 ) implemented the full Language for Learning curriculum but results for only particular skill strands were graphed.…”

“…Of note, Wolfe et al ( 2018 ) implemented the full Language for Learning curriculum but results for only particular skill strands were graphed.…”

“…Duration ranged from 10 min per session (Flores et al, 2016 ) to 90 min per session (Shillingsburg et al, 2015 ). In some cases, the number of exercises or lessons addressed per session were reported, rather than the duration (e.g., Thompson et al, 2012 ; Wolfe et al, 2018 ). Sessions were conducted multiple times per week in all instances in which dosage was reported and lasted from 4 weeks (e.g., Flores & Ganz, 2014 ) to multiple years (e.g., Kamps et al, 2016 ).…”

“…A one-to-one instructional format was used in seven studies (e.g., Flores et al, 2016 ; Frampton et al, 2020 ; Head et al, 2018 ; Infantino & Hempenstall, 2006 ; Shillingsburg et al, 2015 ; Thompson et al, 2012 ; Wolfe et al, 2018 ) and dyad format in three studies (e.g., Flores et al, 2013 , 2016 ; Thompson et al, 2019 ). Specific rationale for the selection of one-to-one, dyad, or group instruction was not consistently provided.…”

“…Specific rationale for the selection of one-to-one, dyad, or group instruction was not consistently provided. Several authors noted that one-to-one instruction is not unusual for learners with ASD in school contexts (Shillingsburg et al, 2015 ; Wolfe et al, 2018 ). In addition, one-to-one instruction may be the only method possible for children receiving services in their homes (e.g., Infantino & Hempenstall, 2006 ; Wolfe et al, 2018 ).…”