Programming “Loose Training” as a Strategy to Facilitate Language Generalization

Abstract

This study investigated the generalization of spontaneous complex language behavior across a nontraining setting and the durability of generalization as a result of programming and "loose training" strategy. A within-subject, across-behaviors multiple-baseline design was used to examine the performance of two moderately retarded students in the use of is/are across three syntactic structures (i.e., "wh" questions, "yes/no" reversal questions, and statements). The language training procedure used in this study represented a functional example of programming "loose training." The procedure involved conducting concurrent language training within the context of an academic training task, and establishing a functional reduction in stimulus control by permitting the student to initiate a language response based on a wide array of naturally occurring stimulus events. Concurrent probes were conducted in the free play setting to assess the immediate generalization and the durability of the language behaviors. The results demonstrated that "loose training" was effective in establishing a specific set of language responses with the participants of this investigation. Further, both students demonstrated spontaneous use of the language behavior in the free play generalization setting and a trend was clearly evident for generalization to continue across time. Thus, the methods used appear to be successful for training the use of is/are in three syntactic structures.

The Facilitative Effects of Incidental Teaching on Preposition Use by Autistic Children

“…Substantial generalization resulted from use of (a) a "mand-model" technique with language-deficient preschool children (Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1980), (b) a "delay procedure" with severely language-delayed retarded children (Halle, Baer, & Spradlin, 1981), (c) "loose training" with moderately retarded children (Campbell & Stremel-Campbell, 1982), (d) "natural language training" with nonverbal autistic children (Koegel & O'Dell, 1982), and (e) "embedded instruction" with developmentally delayed, severely language-disordered children (Neef, Walters, & Egel, 1984). Although various components of these procedures differed from standard incidental teaching formats, each application involved prompting language in the context of naturally occurring stimuli.…”

Short-term syntax learning and generalization effects

“…The strategy, which consisted of scripted play with gradually decreasing models and cued opportunities, was implemented for 19 to 28 sessions before 90% criterion was reached for the four children. Other research has also indicated that achievement of generalized and automatized production of forms lags well behind high and stable performances in supportive teaching contexts (Campbell and Stremel-Campbell, 1982).…”

The Individualized Curriculum Sequencing Model: Effects on Skill Acquisition and Generalization

“…However, theory and experimental re search support the efficacy of individual model com ponents. Successful skill acquisition by learners with moderate to severe disabilities has been shown in studies that have distributed training trials within an instructional session (e.g., Dunlap, 1984;Kayser, Billingsley, & Neel, 1986;Mulligan, Lacy, & Guess, 1982) and across several different classroom activities or school routines (e.g., Campbell & Stremel-Campbell, 1982;Hunt, Goetz, Alwell, & Sailor, 1986). Further more, trial distribution alone (i.e., without functional trial sequencing and in-context instruction), has been shown to have advantages over the traditional massed trial training format.…”