Teaching Problem Explanations Using Instructive Feedback

Abstract

Instructive feedback (IF) is a procedure in which extra information is presented to a participant during the consequence portion of instruction for other skills. Previous research has demonstrated that participants with intellectual disabilities may acquire a portion of non-targeted skills (secondary targets) without explicit instruction when extra information is presented. Previous research has demonstrated that IF has resulted in more efficient instruction for participants with disabilities as a whole. However, few studies have focused on participants with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Additionally, the measures of secondary target acquisition in past research have focused solely on discrete responses (e.g., one-word utterances). The current investigation extended the IF literature related to participants with ASD by including longer verbal responses as secondary targets and assessing maintenance for both primary and secondary targets. Across three participants, IF resulted in the acquisition of at least a portion of secondary targets without explicit teaching. For two participants, additional instruction was required before IF resulted in acquisition of secondary targets. Across all three participants, gains observed for both primary and secondary targets in intervention were maintained.

Promoting the development of verbal responses using instructive feedback

“…Even though several studies have used vocal IF related to the primary targets (e.g., Leaf et al, ; Loughrey et al, ; Tullis et al, ), our study is the first to test for intraverbals related to the primary and secondary targets. Our findings should be interpreted with caution, as we incorporated IF in the context of a previously mastered skill, which is not considered standard practice (Reichow & Wolery, ).…”

“…We made this modification to isolate inclusion of IF as the only independent variable. Future research may evaluate whether the same IF could be included during initial listener name training (e.g., Loughrey et al, ; Tullis et al, ); increasing the efficiency of our results to an even greater degree.…”

“…Variations of IF have been used in other disciplines and may be referred to as mapping (Carey & Bartlett, ) or vocal expansions (Scherer & Olswang, ). Results across a variety of studies suggest that learners may acquire both the primary and secondary targets, though responding was only explicitly required for the primary target (e.g., Delmolino, Hansford, Bamond, Fiske, & LaRue, ; Gast, Doyle, Wolery, Ault, & Kolenda, ; Leaf et al, ; Loughrey, Betz, Majdalany, & Nicholson, ; Reichow & Wolery, ; Tullis, Frampton, Delfs, & Shillingsburg, ; Vladescu & Kodak, ). Secondary targets have been presented during the antecedent (Vladescu & Kodak, ) or consequence portions of the trial (Delmolino et al, ), and may or may not have a relationship to the primary target (Gast et al, ).…”

“…Secondary targets have been presented during the antecedent (Vladescu & Kodak, ) or consequence portions of the trial (Delmolino et al, ), and may or may not have a relationship to the primary target (Gast et al, ). For example, Tullis et al () presented related IF in the consequence portion of the primary target trial. The experimenters presented the instruction for the primary target (e.g., “Show me the problem”) and after reinforcement was provided for the participant's selection of a picture from the array showing a problem (e.g., broken pencil) the instructor provided IF related to the primary target (e.g., “That's a problem because you can't write with it”).…”

“…However, Tullis et al () did not assess whether additional verbal responses, such as intraverbals, may have also emerged. The experimenters could have removed the pictures and asked the participant, “Why is a broken pencil a problem?” to assess if the response “because you can't write with it” would occur exclusively under control of the verbal stimulus.…”