The Generalized Effects of Productive Labeling Training Involving Common Object Classes

Abstract

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.

Naming, the Formation of Stimulus Classes, and Applied Behavior Analysis

“…Because an important educational objective is to establish a flexible, bidirectional verbal repertoire (Hayes, 1991;, it would be important to know how receptive and expressive skills can become functionally related to one another. Ample data suggest that such skills may on occasion function independently (e.g., Anderson & Spradlin, 1980;Guess & Baer, 1973; and see reviews by Goldstein, 1993;Stromer & Mackay, in press).…”

Using Key Instructional Elements to Systematically Promote Social Skill Generalization for Students with Challenging Behavior

“…under a variety of conditions (i.e., in different class periods and times; with different staff, students) and to perform variations of the targeted social skills, such as sharing (e.g., while eating lunch, using playground equipment, working with materials in a group), which are the intended outcomes of stimulus and response generalization (Albin & Horner, 1988;Anderson & Spradlin, 1980;Dunlap, Koegel, & Koegel, 1984;Horner, McDonnell, & Bellamy, 1986;Horner, Sprague, & Wilcox, 1982;Sprague & Horner, 1984;Stokes & Baer, 1977) Fifth, enabling students to respond to natural cues and contingencies is critical to maximize generalization of acquired skills in target environments (Stokes & Baer, 1977). School and community settings are rich with naturally occurring social opportunities.…”

Toward an Explicit Analysis of Generalization: A Stimulus Control Interpretation

“…However, the method of sufficient exemplars was explicitly described as a more systematic introduction of reinforcement and as a method involving repeated presentation of new exemplars. These new exemplars would probably constitute a stimulus class desired for control (e.g., Anderson & Spradlin, 1980;Stokes et al, 1974), although this was not a condition Stokes and Baer specified. In instances where insufficient generalization occurs because extraneous stimuli have come to control behavior, this tactic may lead to elimination ofthe extraneous control (e.g., Garcia, 1974;Griffiths & Craighead, 1972).…”