Comparing Natural and Artificial Environments in Training Self-Care Skills to Group Home Residents

Freagon, Sharon; Rotatori, Anthony F.

doi:10.1177/154079698200700308

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Simulation training procedures, in which controlling stimuli or their approximations are presented outside their normal stimulus context, have been used to teach developmentally disabled individuals a variety of independent living skills, induding pedestrian (Page, Iwata, & Neef, 1976), public transportation (Neef, Iwata, & Page, 1978), clothing selection (Nutter & Reid, 1978), restaurant (van den Pol et al, 1981, telephone (Homer, Williams, & Stevely, 1987), leisure (Giangreco, 1983), and purchasing skills (Haring, Kennedy, Adams, & Pitts-Conway, 1987;Nietupski, Welch, & Wacker, 1983). In other investigations, however, skills acquired through simulation training have failed to generalize to natural community environments (Coon, Vogelsberg, & Williams, 1981;Freagon & Rotatori, 1982;Marchetti, McCartney, Drain, Hooper, & Dix, 1983;McDonnell, Homer, & Williams, 1984;Morrow & Bates, 1987). Such findings have led some authors to argue for in vivo instead of classroom-based instruction (Belmore & Brown, 1978;Brown et al, 1983;Ford & Mirenda, 1984; Hill, Wehman, & Horst, 1982;McDonnell et al, 1984;Vogelsberg, Williams, & Bellamy, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In Vivo Versus Simulation Training: An Interactional Analysis of Range and Type of Training Exemplars

Neef¹,

Lensbower²,

Hockersmith³

et al. 1990

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyzed the role of the range of variation in training exemplars as a contextual variable influencing the effects of in vivo versus simulation training in producing generalized responding. Four mentally retarded adults received single case instruction, followed by general case instruction, on washing machine and dryer use; one task was taught using actual appliances (in vivo) and the other using simulation. In vivo and simulation training were counterbalanced across the two tasks for the 2 subject pairs, using a within-subjects Latin square design. With both paradigms, more errors were made after single case than after general case instruction during probe sessions with untrained washing machines and dryers. These results suggest that generalization errors were affected by the range of training exemplars and not by the use of simulated versus natural training stimuli. Although both general case simulation and general case in vivo training facilitated generalized performance of laundry skills, an analysis of training time and costs indicated that the former approach was more efficient. The study illustrates a methodology for studying complex interactions and guiding decisions on the optimal use of instructional alternatives.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In Vivo Versus Simulation Training: An Interactional Analysis of Range and Type of Training Exemplars

Neef¹,

Lensbower²,

Hockersmith³

et al. 1990

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In all three studies, generalization to natural environments occurred after classroom-based instruction. In addition, a recent small-group study by Freagon and Rotatori (1982) demonstrated that training self-care skills in natural environments and at natural times during the day failed to enhance generalization over training under contrived conditions. Since the evidence with regard to natural vs. artificial environments is contradictory, this area particularly deserves attention.…”

Section: Natural Vs Artificial Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Since the evidence with regard to natural vs. artificial environments is contradictory, this area particularly deserves attention. Small-group studies such as the one by Freagon and Rotatori (1982) might be useful in determining the relative efficacy of the two approaches. Natural vs. artificial materials There is considerable empirical information about the generalizability of tasks taught with natural (i.e., real, three-dimensional materials) vs. artificial materials.…”

Section: Natural Vs Artificial Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model for Analyzing Instructional Components To Facilitate Generalization for Severely Handicapped Students

Donnellan

Mirenda

1983

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model is presented for analyzing the components of instructional programs that are likely to affect generalization with severely handicapped students. The literature is summarized in terms of such issues as natural vs. artificial environments, materials, cues, and contingencies. The authors also review empirical evidence about the relative efficacy of serial vs. concurrent presentation, prompts vs. corrections, and various instructional arrangements. Suggestions are offered for implementation, and research needs are described for several components. Future research on the interactive effects of the components with each other and with the learners' characteristics are discussed.

show abstract

Comparing Natural and Artificial Environments in Training Self-Care Skills to Group Home Residents

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

In Vivo Versus Simulation Training: An Interactional Analysis of Range and Type of Training Exemplars

In Vivo Versus Simulation Training: An Interactional Analysis of Range and Type of Training Exemplars

A Model for Analyzing Instructional Components To Facilitate Generalization for Severely Handicapped Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About