SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH AUTISM: GENERAL CASE TRAINING AND OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING

1
SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH AUTISM
GENERAL CASE TRAINING AND OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING

• Elif Tekin-Iftar, Ph.D.
• Research Institute for the Handicapped, Anadolu
  University (AU), Eskisehir, TURKEY
• eltekin_at_anadolu.edu.tr
• Bunyamin Birkan, Ph.D.
• Tohum Foundation, Istanbul, TURKEY
• bbirkan_at_tohumotizm.org

2
RATIONALE

• There is not such a study investigating the
  combined effects of progressive time delay (PTD)
  with general case training (GCT) and
  observational learning (OL) on teaching chained
  skills to children with autism.
• The reasons for the present study can be grouped
  as
• There is a need to examine the effects of PTD on
  teaching chained behaviors.
• There is a need to replicate the effects of GCT.
• There is a need to investigate the possible ways
  of increasing instructional efficacy via OL.

3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• Does using PTD combined with GCT and OL to teach
  response chains in a small group (teaching one
  child and having two observers) result in
• acquisition of the instructed response chains,
• generalization to similar response chains,
• maintenance in a one week follow up assessment,
  and
• observational learning of the instructed chains?

4
METHODParticipants

• Three Turkish children (all boys) with autism
  participated in the study.
• All students attended the primary school on a
  full time basis during the study.
• They were able to perform most of the self care
  skills.
• Their areas of weaknesses include social
  interaction, communication with others, and daily
  living skills etc.

5
Settings and Materials

• All sessions were conducted at the cafeteria of
  the Institute.
• No one was available during the sessions.
• Various kitchen utensils, food, kitchen
  appliances, data collection forms and handycam
  camera were used for recording.
• Training sets and generalizaition sets were
  formed.
• One set was used during training and the other
  two sets were used to test the generalization.
• (continued)

6

• Generic task analyses were developed for training
  sets and generalization sets (15 to 27 steps).
• The materials were selected as follow
• An instructional universe was defined.
• Among the alternatives in the instructional
  universe the best example (the common one) was
  selected.
• Generic task analyses were developed for each of
  the target behaviors of each student.
• The stimulus and response variations were
  determined.

7
Experimental Design

• A multiple probe design across food and drink
  preparation skills and replicated across students
  was used.
• The dependent variable Percentage of correct
  responses on performing the steps of the
  analyses.
• The independent variable was PTD combined with
  GCT and OL.
• Dependent variable reliability 97 and 99
  across experimental sessions across students.
• Independent variable reliability 98.5 accuracy
  with the PTD sessions and 100 accuracy across
  other instructional settings across students.

8
Assessment ConditionsGCT and OL conditions

• Pretest-postest design was used to test
  generalizaition and acquisition of the OL.
• These sessions were tested individually.
• After the criterion was met, posttest condition
  was conducted.
• There was one trial in these conditions.
• The OL probe sessions were conducted just like
  generalization probe session.

9
Baseline/Probe and Maintenance Conditions

• A trial was conducted in these sessions.
• Single opportunity method was used.
• Four second response interval was waited.
• Maintenance probe conditions were conducted one
  week after the instruction.
• These conditions were conducted just like full
  probe conditions.
• Reinforcers were faded during maintenance.
• FR schedule (completion of the steps of task
  analysis) was used in the maintenance sessions.

10
Instructional ProceduresGroup arrangements and
general procedures

• Each target behavior was taught in a small group
  (n3) by delivering instruction with PTD.
• While working with one of the students other
  students were encouraged to observe the
  instruction.
• Two training sessions with two trials were
  conducted in a week.
• Criterion 100 correct responding without
  prompt.
• CR, VR3 and FR schedule was used.

11
PTD Sessions

• A PTD was used within total task format.
• Verbal nad physical prompts were utilized.
• 0 s delay interval was used in the initial
  session.
• 2 s time increment was identified for delay
  interval.
• Maximum delay interval was determined as 8 s.
• Possible student responses Two types of correct
  responses, and three types of incorrect
  responses.
• Verbal reinforcement for correct responses and
  error correction for incorrect responses were
  provided.

12
RESULTSEffectiveness
Figure 1. Percentage of correct responses without
prompt for food and drink preparation skills for
Ogulcan during probe, time delay, and maintenance
probe sessions.
13
Figure 2. Percentage of correct responses without
prompt for food and drink preparation skills for
Ulas during probe, time delay, and maintenance
probe sessions.
14
Figure 3. Percentage of correct responses without
prompt for food and drink preparation skills for
Ali during probe, time delay, and maintenance
probe sessions.
15
Efficiency
16
Generalization and Acquisition of OL

• Altghough participants performed 0 correct
  responding on the generalization sets during
  pretest conditions, they generalized and
  maintained the reponse chains with 100 accruracy
  across generalization sets.
• OL data showed that the participants gained their
  peers behaviors through observation with 100
  accuracy.

(continued)
17
CONCLUSION

• Data showed that all students acquired and
  maintained the skills through PTD combined with
  GCT and OL.
• Students were able to acquire response chains of
  the student in the group through observation and
  generalized the acquired skills to similar
  response chains.
• These findings are similar to those in the
  previous studies (e. g., Browder, Snell,
  Wildonger, 1988 Frederick-Dugan et al., 1991).
• The present study enhances the current literature.

18
LIMITATIONS

• The small number of students participated in the
  study limits the generalization of the findings.
• A functional relationship regarding the
  generalization and OL findings could not obtained
  in the study.
• Even though the findings were replicated across
  three students, the results regarding these
  parameters should be interpreted cautiously.
• Maintenance effect of PTD could be examined only
  a week after training due to summer vacation.
• A cost analysis regarding the obtaining foods for
  each student did not conducted in the study.

19
RECOMMENDATIONS

• Larger number of students from different learning
  and behavioral characteristics should be
  included.
• Obtaining a functional relationship between the
  outcomes and OL and GCT rather than the
  descriptive findings can be planned.
• Error analysis can be conducted when replicating
  the findings.
• Inserting instructive feedback stimuli such as
  nutrition facts of food, safety food information,
  dietary information can be planned.
• Social validation checks can be applied in the
  future studies.
• Embedding format in natural context can be
  designed.

20
REFERENCES

• Alberto, P. A., Troutman, A. C. (1995). Applied
  Behavior Analysis for Teachers (4th ed.). Upper
  Saddle River, New Jersey Merrill.
• Browder, D. M., Snell, M. E., Wildonger, B. A.
  (1988). Simulation and community-based
  instruction of vending machines with time delay.
  Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded,
  23, 175-185.
• Browder, D., Snell, M. E. (2000). Teaching
  Functional Academics. In M. E. Snell F. Brown
  (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe
  disabilities (pp 493-542). Upper Saddle River,
  New Jersey Merrill.
• Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., Heward, W. L.
  (1987). Applied Behavior Analysis. Upper Saddle
  River, New Jersey Merrill.
• Farmer, J. A., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M.,
  Winterling, V. (1991). Small group instruction
  for students with severe handicaps A study of
  observational learning. Education and Training in
  Mental Retardation, 26, 190-2001.
• Frederick-Dugan, A., Test, D. W., Varn, L.
  (1991). Acquisition and generalization of
  purchasing skills using a calculator by students
  who are mentally retarded. Education and Training
  in Mental Retardation, 26, 381-387.
• ONeill, R. E., Faulkner, C., Horner, R. H.
  (2000). The effects of general case training of
  manding repsonses on children with severe
  disabilities. Journal of Developmental and
  Physical Disabilities, 12, 43-60.
• Snell, M. S. (1982). Analysis of time delay
  procedures in teaching daily living skills to
  retarded adults. Analysis and Intervention in
  Developmental Disabilities, 2, 139-155.
• Sprauge, J. R., Horner, R. H., (1984). The
  effects of single instance, multiple instance,
  and general case training on generalized vending
  machine use by moderately and severely
  handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior
  Analysis, 17, 173-278.
• Steere, D. E., Pancsofar, E. L., Powell, T. H.,
  Butterworth, J. (1989). Enhancing instruction
  through general case programming. Teaching
  Exceptional Children, 21, 22-24.
• Tekin-Iftar, E., Acar, G., Kurt, O. (2003). The
  effects of simultaneous prompting on teaching
  expressive identification of objects An
  instructive feedback study. International Journal
  of Disability, Development, and Education, 50,
  149-167.
• Wolery, M. Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M. (1992).
  Teaching students with moderate to severe
  disabilities Use of response prompting
  strategies. NY Longman Publishing Group.
• Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., Sugai, G. M. (1988).
  Effective teaching Principles and procedures of
  applied behavioral analysis with exceptional
  students. Boston Allyn and Bacon.