Potential Applications of Behavioral Fluency for Students With Autism

Abstract

Curricula for students with autism do not take into account levels of learning such as behavioral fluency. Behavioral fluency addresses accuracy as well as speed of response. We posit that fluency increases the functionality of skills for students with autism and should be systematically programmed into a curriculum. To discuss the application of fluency for students with autism, we present background related to response competence, critical learning outcomes associated with behavioral fluency, and how fluency fits into a hierarchy of learning. We apply the concept of behavioral fluency to individuals with autism and suggest that research continue.The lifelong consequences of autism create a need for a wide range of effective educational and therapeutic programs. One of the most critical variables in effective education is the curriculum. As a scope and sequence of instruction, a good curriculum designates what students will learn and in what order (Engelmann, 1997). A curriculum identifies the terminal skills the student will display at the end of a program, allowing teachers to program instruction and monitor progress. An effective curriculum-based program for students with autism should result in functional behaviors, age-appropriate skills, and present connections within (e.g., adding basic math facts and later applying that skill to addition facts with regrouping) and across (e.g., a social skill like greeting people and a vocational skill like working at a cash register) curricular domains (Scheuermann & Webber, 2002). Good curricula function like a road map, providing the teacher with clear directions to a final destination. Currently available curricula, however, do not take into account levels of learning such as fluency. We posit that fluency increases the functionality of skills for students with autism and should be systematically programmed into a curriculum.

Developing Behavioral Fluency for Students With Autism

“…With the emergence of applications of precision teaching for students with autism (Cauley, Brian, & Snider, 2003;Cohen, 2005;Fabrizio & Moors, 2003;Kerr, Smyth, & McDowell, 2003;Kubina, Morrison, & Lee, 2002;Kubina & Wolfe, 2005;Zambolin, Fabrizio, & Isley, 2004) a general model for efficiently building fluency for students with autism can be described.…”

Improving Essential Numeracy Skills in Primary Schoolchildren Using a Brief Fluency-building Intervention: A Randomised Control Trial

“…PT is a measuring system that helps teachers ensure that every child in a class maintains rapid and successful learning. This approach has had considerable success across a number of educational settings and academic areas, with children in mainstream schools (Beck and Clement 1991;Miller and Calkin 1997;Chiesa and Robertson 2000;Hughes et al 2007), undergraduate students (Beverley et al 2009), children with autism, (Zambolin et al 2004;Kubina et al 2002;Kubina and Wolf 2005;Kerr et al 2003), and other special educational needs (Solis et al 2003). Combined with regular teaching, PT can represent a powerful accelerated learning approach, when effectively amalgamated with other evidencedbased methods of instruction (such as Direct Instruction) to provide highly effective learning environments (Binder and Watkins 1990;Binder 1990;Sante et al 2001;Morelle et al 1995;Kubina et al 2009).…”

On the use of fluency training in the behavioral treatment of autism: A commentary

“…1 However, the number of accessible published empirical articles has remained low in comparison. A search of the published literature (to identify peer-reviewed articles, the PsycINFO and ERIC EBSCO Host databases were searched using the terms autism and either precision teaching, fluency, or rate building for all years) resulted in only 20 articles on the use of fluency training for learners with autism: five discussion articles that explicitly recommended fluency training for learners with autism (Kerr, Smyth, & McDowell, 2003;Kubina, Morrison, & Lee, 2002;Kubina & Wolfe, 2005;Kubina & Yurich, 2009;Lindsley, 2001), three descriptions of educational and therapeutic programs (Greer, 1997;Hung, Rotman, Costentino, & MacMillan, 1983;Kerr, Campbell, & McGrory, 2002), and 12 data-based reports (Almon-Morris, Fabrizio, Foley, & Abrahamson, 2005;Cauley, Brian, & Snider, 2003;Cohen, 2005;Fabrizio, Pahl, & Moors, 2002;Fabrizio & Schirmer, 2002;Fienup & Doepke, 2008;Isley, Almon-Morris, Pahl, & Fabrizio, 2005;King, Moors, & Fabrizio, 2003;McElwee & Munson, 2002;Zambolin, Fabrizio, & Isley, 2004).…”

“…In the area of behavioral education, behavioral fluency has been defined as a combination of response accuracy and response rate (Binder, 1996). Proponents of fluency training argue that one should teach to a predetermined ''optimal'' rate of accurate responses (the fluency aim) rather than teaching only to an accuracy criterion (e.g., percentage correct) to produce better learning outcomes (Kubina & Wolfe, 2005). These outcomes include improved long-term maintenance (i.e., retention), the ability to display skills in the face of distracting environmental stimuli (i.e., endurance), and an increased likelihood of component skills being appropriately combined into a composite skill (i.e., application) (Binder; Kubina & Wolfe).…”