Matching
Contents
- Effects of an Embedded Prompt on Attending and Discrimination
- An Alternating Treatment Design with Matching-to-Sample: Error Correction and Errorless Learning with Time Delay
- Teaching Simple and Conditional Discrimination
Effects of an Embedded Prompt on Attending and Discrimination
Roxy Gayle (2014)
Abstract
Matching-to-sample is a skill that generally needs to be acquired early on in discrete trial training curriculum in order for children to learn more complex discrimination skills and progress to other educational goals (Fisher, Kodak, & Moore, 2007Fisher, 2007). When a child makes an incorrect response during a matching-to-sample procedure, most commonly least-to-most prompting (e.g. progressing from modeling the response to physically prompting) is used until the target response occurs (Fisher, 2007). The problem is that prompting may not require the individual to attend or discriminate between the stimuli and/or may cause prompt dependence. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect on correctness of responding during a matching-to-sample task by increasing attending to stimuli in children diagnosed with autism. An observing response (DORs) was used to prompt participants to make discriminated responses between three stimuli while making a match-to-sample response. The child was required to touch the sample stimulus and corresponding comparison stimuli before the opportunity to respond independently was presented. Using an AB design, trials to mastery criterion (three consecutive sessions of 80% or better) were assessed. This intervention may provide the behavior analysis community with more evidence and support on observing responses to promote discrimination and attending to stimuli when teaching matching procedures.
An Alternating Treatment Design with Matching-to-Sample: Error Correction and Errorless Learning with Time Delay
Sam Moberg (2013)
Abstract
For many children with Autism Spectrum Disorders, matching-to-sample is a skill generally acquired early on using discrete trial training and is a prerequisite for learning more complex discriminations as the curriculum progresses. When this skill is not acquired, it can lead to deficits in abilities that impede other areas of learning. A common approach is to use an error correction procedure in which a prompt, typically following a least-to-most prompting strategy, occurs after an incorrect response has been made. Another alternative is errorless learning which involves the manipulation of a task to reduce the possibility for errors to be made (Mueller, Palkovic & Maynard, 2007). For the purpose of this project, a comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of an error correction and errorless learning procedure in the acquisition of matching-to-sample was conducted for two children diagnosed with autism in an early childhood developmental delay classroom at a special education public school. Prior to intervention, both learners matched stimuli correctly at below chance levels of responding (0-40%). A three-phase alternating treatment design was used to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of both teaching strategies. Aaron progressed from three stimuli to four following 260 trials of the error correction procedure; no progress was made with the errorless learning procedure following 280 trials. Aaron mastered the matching procedure with error correction after 500 trials. Isabelle did not progress from three stimuli with either procedure following 320 trials of each. The results of this study suggest that errorless learning may not be the best teaching strategy for matching-to-sample procedures and other discriminations for all learners as suggested by Green (2001).
Keywords
matching, errorless learning, matching to sample, time delay
Materials
- Procedures
- Datasheet
- Errorless Learning Protocol
- Treatment Integrity
Teaching Simple and Conditional Discrimination
Samantha Roan (2015)
Abstract
Complex matching skills require conditional discriminations (Green, 2001). Conditional discriminations are significantly more difficult than simple discriminations due to the fact that a conditional discrimination requires the learner to discriminate each sample and comparison stimulus from every other sample and comparison stimulus along two or more separate dimensions (i.e. shape and color or color and sound). In contrast, simple discriminations require a discrimination along only one dimension (i.e. shape, color, or sound). Green (2001) further explained that teaching simple visual discrimination can aid in the establishment of these conditional discriminations. The purpose of the current study is to teach simple visual discrimination to a child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder to aid in the development of conditional discriminations. The child demonstrated the discriminative skill under everyday visual stimulus control, but not under instructional stimulus control. Further, she showed extremely delayed progress through the matching procedures in the classroom curriculum. This study uses a variety of teaching methods, all without the use of vocal discriminative stimuli. The results of this study will help to accelerate the acquisition of complex matching skills in children with already delayed progress through a discrete trial curriculum.