Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 79–104 | Cite as

Effects of presenting incidental information in consequent events on future learning

  • Mark Wolery
  • Patricia Munson Doyle
  • Melinda Jones Ault
  • David L. Gast
  • Stacie Meyer
  • Dawn Stinson
Article

Abstract

The effects of presenting future target stimuli in the consequent event following correct responses to current target stimuli were examined in two experiments teaching eight students with moderate handicaps to name photographs. In Experiment I, progressive time delay was used to teach two sets of photographs. During instruction, correct responses to one set of stimuli resulted in praise and presentation of the printed word for the person in the photograph (future condition). In the second set, a correct response was followed by praise alone (non-future condition). After establishing criterion level performance on both sets of photographs, students were taught to read the printed word from each of the two sets. Experiment II was a systematic replication of Experiment I. Four students from a different classroom also were taught to name two sets of photographs. An adapted alternating treatments design was used in each experiment. The results indicated that (a) all students learned to name the photographs; (b) presentation of future target stimuli (words) in consequent events resulted in seven of the eight students learning to read some of the words; and (c) the total number of sessions, trials, errors, and percentage of errors

Keywords

Time Delay Correct Response Health Psychology Level Performance Criterion Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in the instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps.Exceptional Children, 55, 346–356.Google Scholar
  2. Billingsley, F. F., & Romer, L. T. (1983). Response prompting and the transfer of stimulus control: Methods, research, and a conceptual framework.Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8, 3–12.Google Scholar
  3. Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example.Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
  4. Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Gast, D. L. (1988). System of least prompts: A review of procedural parameters.Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 12, 28–40.Google Scholar
  5. Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Farmer, J. A. (1990). Small group instruction: A study of observational and incidental learning.Journal of Special Education, 23, 369–385.Google Scholar
  6. Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Baklarz, J. L. (in press). Acquisition of incidental information during small group instruction.Education and Treatment of Children. Google Scholar
  7. Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Morris, L., Doyle, P. M., & Meyer, S. (1990). Teaching sight word reading in a group instructional arrangement using constant time delay.Exceptionality, 1, 81–96.Google Scholar
  8. Kerr, J. Y. K. (1985). Photo Cue Cards. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instruction research.Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.Google Scholar
  10. Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1973).Stanford-Bind Intelligence Scale. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. Wechsler, D. (1974).Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.Google Scholar
  12. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (in press).Teaching students with moderate and severe handicaps: Use of response prompting procedures. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Wolery, M., Cybriwsky, C., Gast, D. L., & Boyle-Gast, K. (in press). General and specific attentional responses: Acquisition and maintenance of target, observational, and incidental behaviors.Exceptional Children. Google Scholar
  14. Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1990).Efficiency of instruction: Conceptual framework and research directions. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Wolery
    • 1
  • Patricia Munson Doyle
    • 2
  • Melinda Jones Ault
    • 2
  • David L. Gast
    • 3
  • Stacie Meyer
    • 4
  • Dawn Stinson
    • 5
  1. 1.Project LEARN, Early Childhood Intervention ProjectAllegheny Singer Research InstitutePittsburgh
  2. 2.Department of Special EducationUniversity of KentuckyLexington
  3. 3.Department of Special EducationUniversity of GeorgiaAthens
  4. 4.Fayette County Public SchoolsLexington
  5. 5.Madison County Public SchoolsRichmond

Personalised recommendations