Forward and Backward Chaining, and Whole Task Methods

Abstract

The effects of training by whole task, forward chaining, and backward chaining methods were examined in teaching vocational rehabilitation clients the construction of three assembly tasks. Clients learned to assemble a bicycle brake, a meat grinder, and a carburetor on three successive days by the three training methods in a counterbalanced design. The percentage of responses that were errors was, on the average, more than twice as great for subjects in the whole task method as for subjects in either chaining method (which did not differ). Total time to criterion did not differ among chaining and whole methods. Slower learning subjects benefited substantially from the systematic chaining procedures.

Comparing forward and backward chaining in teaching Olympic weightlifting

“…Weiss () found forward chaining more efficacious in teaching undergraduates to complete contrived tasks. Walls, Zane, and Ellis () found similar outcomes between chaining methods in teaching individuals with mild to moderate intellectual delays to assemble a bicycle brake, a meat grinder, and a carburetor. Slocum and Tiger () found similar efficacy with forward and backward chaining in teaching motor sequences to children.…”

Evaluating backward chaining methods on vocational tasks by adults with developmental disabilities

“…That is, the first component is taught to mastery, followed by the second taught to mastery, followed by the third, and so on until the last component is mastered (Cooper et al, ). This could be described as teaching A, then teaching AB, then teaching ABC, and then teaching ABCD (Walls, Zane, & Ellis, ). Reinforcement is only delivered when the current step in teaching is completed as per criterion.…”

“…With backward chaining, the last step of the chain is taught first with teaching progressing to the first step. That is, teach D, then teach CD, then teach BCD, then teach ABCD (Walls et al, ). Like forward chains, backward chains require cumulative responses to produce reinforcement.…”

An Assessment of the Efficiency of and Child Preference for Forward and Backward Chaining

“…Behavior analysts frequently employ response‐chaining procedures to teach multistep tasks that range from food preparation (Schuster, Gast, Wolery, & Guiltinan, 1988), family‐style dining (Wilson, Reid, Phillips, & Burgio, 1984), and self‐feeding (Hagopian, Farrell, & Amari, 1996) to Internet usage (Jerome, Frantino, & Sturmey, 2007), playing a game of darts (Schleien, Wehman, & Kiernan, 1981), making a corsage (Hur & Osborne, 1993), and assembling bicycle brakes, meat grinders, and carburetors (Walls, Zane, & Ellis, 1981). Response chaining involves breaking a task into its component parts via a task analysis and then sequentially teaching each individual component to mastery levels via prompting and differential reinforcement.…”

“…In contrast, Walls et al (1981) compared forward and backward chaining in assembling a bicycle brake, a meat grinder, and a carburetor with 22 people between the ages of 18 and 46 who had been diagnosed with mild to moderate intellectual delays and who were from a vocational rehabilitation center. The frequency of incorrect responses and total training time were similar across backward‐ and forward‐chaining conditions.…”