|
| Evaluating Effective Strategies for Educating Children with Autism |
| Tuesday, May 27, 2008 |
| 12:00 PM–1:20 PM |
| Continental B |
| Area: AUT/DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Morten Haugland (Haugland Learning Center) |
| Discussant: John W. Eshleman (Optimal Instructional Systems) |
| Abstract: In the area of autism, finding efficient teaching strategies is critical in the acquisition of skills and the development of efficacious treatment for children on the spectrum. Three data-based studies will be presented outlining several strategies for teaching language, basic academics, and reading skills in the school setting. Procedures, results, implications and future directions will be discussed. |
| |
| A Comparison of Transfer of Stimulus Control or Multiple Control on the Acquisition of Verbal Operants in Young Children. |
| TRACI M. CIHON (The Chicago School of Professional Psychology) |
| Abstract: Transfer of stimulus control is commonly applied in language training programs that incorporate Skinner’s (1957) analysis of verbal behavior (e.g., Barbera & Kubina, 2005; Braam & Poling, 1983; Finkel & Williams, 2001; LeBlanc, Esch, Sidener, & Firth, 2006; Luciano, 1986; Miguel, Petursdottir, Carr, 2005; Watkins, Pack-Teixeira, & Howard, 1989). However, stimulus blocking may impede language acquisition by prohibiting transfer of stimulus control across verbal operants (Glat, Gould, Stoddard, & Sidman, 1994; Partington, Sundberg, Newhouse, & Spengler, 1994; Sundberg, Endicott, & Eigenheer, 2000). An alternative strategy is to teach verbal operants under multiple sources of control and subsequently fade out supplementary control. This study assessed the efficiency of teaching mand, tact, and echoic operants using transfer of stimulus control via simultaneous presentation or by using multiple control. The results suggest that three participants acquired the target operants with fewer teaching trials using multiple control and two participants acquired the target operants with fewer teaching trials using transfer of stimulus control. |
| |
| Promoting Efficiency: A Comparison of Two Teaching Protocols in the Education of Children with Autism. |
| GWEN DWIGGINS (The Ohio State University), Ralph Gardner III (The Ohio State University), Joshua Garner (Haugland Learning Center), Valerie E. Cook (The Ohio State University) |
| Abstract: Children with disabilities often require specialized instruction to reduce the educational gap, especially in the areas of acquisition, generalization, and retention (Binder & Watkins, 1990). Increased efficiency of teaching may potentially close the educational gap in less time allowing more benefit from the educational experience. Recent research has called for the evaluation of validated methods for teaching skills to individuals with autism (Carr & Frith, 2005; LeBlanc, Esch, Sidener, & Frith, 2006; Sautter & LeBlanc, 2006). The current study evaluated the effects of Lovaas Protocol (Lovaas, 2003) and Natural Environment Protocol (Partington & Sundberg, 1998) on skill acquisition, generalization, and retention. Participants ranged in age from 6- to10-years-old with a diagnosis of autism. Target behaviors were determined from skill repertoires performed at 10% or less accuracy. Participants were taught using both teaching methods. Data will be presented using a multiple baseline across sets of behaviors within participants. Generalization probes will also be presented. Strengths and limitations will be discussed related to the use of both teaching methods and suggestions for future research will be outlined. |
| |
| What Effect does Adding TAG Teaching have on Acquisition of Letter Writing Skills Using Fluency Based Procedures in Learners with Autism? |
| KRISTINE HAUGLAND (Haugland Consulting) |
| Abstract: Learners in a center-based program for children with autism were taught letter writing skills using fluency based procedures. TAG Teaching methods were then applied to target correct responses in a sample of letters to be learned. Each learner had half of the letters taught using fluency based procedures alone, while the remaining letters were taught with the addition of TAG Teaching methods. Data were collected on the acquisition rate and a per-minute frequency of correct letter formation. A comparison of the difference in rate of acquisition, based on pre-established criteria for correct and incorrect, was completed between letters taught using fluency based procedures alone and to those taught using fluency based procedures plus TAG Teaching. |
|
| |