Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 401–420 | Cite as

Using Brief Academic Assessments to Determine Generalization Strategies

  • Sara E. House RichEmail author
  • Gary J. Duhon
Original Paper
  • 318 Downloads

Abstract

This study examined the utility of brief academic assessments to identify effective generalization procedures for individual students. Specifically, the study built on the proposal that brief assessments of antecedent and consequence manipulations can identify the most effective generalization strategy for individual students. The design was an alternating treatments design nested within a multiple baseline across six students. Students learned how to solve a set of multiplication facts using a common strategy while spontaneous generalization to other sets of facts was measured. Next, researchers determined whether an antecedent- or consequent-based generalization strategy would be more effective for increasing generalization across multiplication skills and conducted an extended analysis with an alternating treatment phase to confirm results of the brief assessment. Results indicated that the assessment correctly identified the most effective generalization strategy for five of the six students.

Keywords

Generalization Math interventions Brief academic assessment Multiple baseline Alternating treatments design 

References

  1. Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 15–27.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayllon, T., Kuhlman, C., & Warzak, W. J. (1983). Programming resource room generalization using lucky charms. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 4(2), 61–67. doi: 10.1300/J019v04n02_06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, M. K., & Wagner, D. (2008). Determining an effective intervention within a brief experimental analysis for reading: A meta-analytic review. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 126–136.Google Scholar
  4. Carnine, D. (1980). Preteaching versus concurrent teaching of the component skills of a multiplication algorithm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Educations, 11(5), 375–379. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/748628.
  5. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  6. Daly, E. J, I. I. I., Bonfiglio, C. M., Mattson, T., Persampieri, M., & Foreman-Ya, K. (2006). Refining the experimental analysis of academic skills deficits: Part II. Use of brief experimental analysis to evaluate reading fluency treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(3), 323–331. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2006.13-05.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DuVall, T. D., McLaughlin, T. F., & Sederstrom, G. C. (2003). The differential effects of skip counting and previewing on accuracy and fluency of math facts with middle school children with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 18(1), 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.internationalsped.com/documents/ACFFE.doc.
  8. Fennell, F. M., Altieri, M. B., & Silver Burdett Ginn Firm. (1998). In mathematics the path to math success!. Parsippany, NJ: Silver Burdett Ginn.Google Scholar
  9. Freeland, J. T., & Noell, G. H. (2002). Programming of maintenance: An investigation of delayed intermittent reinforcement and common stimuli to create indiscriminable contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1023/A:1014329104102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galbicka, G. (1994). Shaping in the 21st century: Moving percentile schedules into applied settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 739–760. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-739.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haring, N., & Eaton, M. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  12. House, S., Duhon, G., Hastings, K., & Linden, S. (2009). Using generalization ratio to determine the amount of generalization between early literacy skills. Poster presented at American Psychological Association conference, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Kirby, K., & Bickel, W. (1988). Toward an explicit analysis of generalization: A stimulus control interpretation. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 115–129.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lloyd, J., Saltzman, N. J., & Kauffman, J. M. (1981). Predictable generalization in academic learning as a result of preskills and strategy training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(2), 203–216. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511005.
  15. McIntyre, S., Test, D., Cooke, N., & Beattie, J. (1991). Using count-bys to increase multiplication facts fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14(2), 82–88. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510516.
  16. Mesmer, E., Duhon, G., & Dodson, K. (2007). The effects of programming common stimuli for enhancing stimulus generalization of academic behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(3), 553. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.40-553.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mong, M. D., & Mong, K. W. (2012). The utility of brief experimental analysis and extended intervention analysis in selecting effective mathematics interventions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(2), 99–118. doi: 10.1007/s10864-011-9143-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Noell, G. H., Freeland, J. T., Witt, J. C., & Gansle, K. A. (2001). Using brief assessments to identify effective interventions for individual students. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noell, G., Roane, H., VanDerHeyden, A., Whitmarsh, E., & Gatti, S. (2000). Programming for communication in the classroom following an assessment of skill and performance deficits. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 429–442.Google Scholar
  20. Rhode, G., Morgan, D., & Young, K. (1983). Generalization and maintenance of treatment gains of behaviorally handicapped students from resource rooms to regular classrooms using self-evaluation procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16(2), 171. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1983.16-171.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Stokes, T. (1992). Discrimination and generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 429–432. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-429.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stokes, T., & Baer, D. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stokes, T., & Osnes, P. (1989). An operant pursuit of generalization. Behavior Therapy, 20(3), 337–355. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(89)80054-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weinstein, G., & Cooke, N. (1992). The effects of two repeated reading interventions on generalization of fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15(1), 21–28. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510562.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Union Public SchoolsTulsaUSA
  2. 2.School of Applied Health and Educational PsychologyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations