




























































































Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Research on stimulus blocking during the transfer of stimulus control in verbal behavior. The study suggests that stimulus blocking may impede language acquisition by preventing the transfer of stimulus control across verbal operants. The document also discusses the role of stimulus blocking in transfer of stimulus control and its impact on the efficiency of language acquisition. It includes data from teaching trials and probe data, as well as a discussion of the basic research on transfer of stimulus control.
Typology: Exercises
1 / 209
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By Traci M. Cihon, M.A., BCBA
The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Nancy A. Neef, Adviser Professor Emeritus William L. Heward ________________________ Professor Phillip C. Ward Nancy A. Neef, Adviser College of Education & Human Ecology
ii
Verbal repertoires are often taught using transfer of stimulus control. Basic research suggests that stimulus blocking may occur during transfer of stimulus control. Stimulus blocking may impede the acquisition of new verbal operants by blocking a new stimulus from acquiring stimulus control. An alternative strategy is to teach verbal operants under multiple sources of control and then fade out additional sources of control. Teaching with multiple sources of control could prevent the occurrence of stimulus blocking. This study assessed the efficiency of teaching mand, tact, and echoic operants using transfer of stimulus control via Simultaneous Presentation and using multiple control. Five children with developmental disabilities participated. The results suggest that three participants acquired the target operants with fewer teaching trials using multiple control and two participants acquired the target operants with fewer teaching trials using transfer of stimulus control. These data provide preliminary support for the occurrence of stimulus blocking during transfer of stimulus control across verbal operants and may suggest benefits to using multiple control to establish verbal repertoires.
iv
My family, friends, and colleagues have been as critical to completing my dissertation as the previous research that influenced my research questions First, I would like to thank my mother, Sandra, and my father, Dan, for valuing education and encouraging me every step of the way. I can honestly say that I would not be here today if my father had not encouraged me to remain at Washington University after a Calculus examination during my first semester of undergraduate work. Another major influence has been my Aunt Mabel who has continually reminded me that every opportunity is a learning experience and that if I want something bad enough, a little hard work will make it possible. I would like to thank my little sister Ashlee for understanding that I could not see her as often as I would have liked and my brother Joe who reminded me to laugh, listened to me cry, and dropped everything when I needed him the most. Without him, I would not be writing this section. Second, I need to thank some amazing friends and colleagues. Jenny and Nicole, I think we said it all at our UNR graduation. Guy Bedient taught me so many things about life and behavior analysis that helped to make this dissertation and my career what it is. I will always think of you. Gwen Dwiggins is another individual who kept me from quitting this program. Thank you for moving in when you did, staying up late, waking me
v
up early, and simply being there. There are several people who deserve special thanks for helping me to stay ìbalancedî. Thank you Lilian, Amanda, and Ruth for teaching me how to let go and laugh without feeling guilty even when we had a paper due the next day. Thank you Jill for taking me to the lake to ski, to play with the kids, to write, and for reminding me of the parent perspective. I am particularly grateful to my Thursday night dart team for three years of scheduled nights of fun and great conversation not pertaining to school. I also need to express my gratitude to Erin Griebel. You will finish that law degree; it will be over before you know it. Renee VanNorman adopted me the first year of this program. Thank you for showing me the ropes. A special thanks is necessary for my IOA and treatment integrity data collectors Jamie Kirkpatrick, Erin Curran, Lilian Rodrigues, Amanda Guld, Ruth DeBar, Gwen Dwiggins, and Dorothy Morrison. Sorry I woke you all up early several days a week. None of this would have been possible without my exceptional committee members ñ Helen Malone, William Heward, and Phil Ward. Thank you for the hours of input and feedback each of you put into this project. Finally, a special thank you for the most amazing advisor a doctoral student could have. I am so fortunate to have worked with Nancy Neef who has made me a better writer, a better researcher, a better teacher, a better person, and a better behavior analyst. Thank you for sticking by me during all the life lessons I have learned while in this program even when it looked like I may not make it. I can only hope to become a behavior analyst of your caliber and prestige. Words cannot express the impact that you have made on my life and my career. Thank you!
vii
ìA comparison of study session formats on attendance and quiz performance in a collegecourse.î J. of Behavioral Education, (2007).
Major Field: Education and Human Ecology
viii
Abstract ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ..iiPage Dedication ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.iii Acknowledgments ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.....ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖiv Vita ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.vi List of Tables ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.xList of Figures ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖxi
Chapters
xi
Table Page 1 Verbal behavior ñ terms and definitions ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ. 2 Verbal operants ñ controlling variables ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.. 3 Results for each participantís preference assessments ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.. 4 Stimulus topography, stimulus preference, corresponding conditions, and first operant targeted. Asterisks represent operants faded out of sequence due to acquisition during baseline probes ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ..ÖÖÖÖÖ..
xiv
35 Multiple control teaching data for Javier ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ,Ö..ÖÖÖÖÖ. 36 Number of teaching trials to criterion for Javier ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ..ÖÖÖ.
37 Number of teaching trials to criterion for each operant by condition for Javier.Colored squares represent when each operant was acquired ÖÖ..ÖÖÖÖÖÖ..
then, involves fading stimulus and response prompts to transfer stimulus control from the prompt or supplementary stimulus to the target discriminative stimuli (Cooper et al., 2007). Transfer of stimulus control is used commonly in educational settings to teach individuals to use behaviors under new or different stimulus conditions. Teaching a child to answer an addition problem is one example. Many children can repeat what someone else says (if a teacher says, ìfiveî, the student can say, ìfiveî in response). Saying, ìfiveî is under the stimulus control of the teacherís vocal behavior, ìfive.î Therefore, the teacher can present an oral or written stimulus ì2 + 3 =î and say, ìfive,î immediately after, prompting the student to emit the correct response. The student will be more likely to emit the correct response ìfiveî in the presence of ì2 + 3 =î (or when shown, 2 + 3 =) given the additional stimulus of the teacher saying, ìfive.î The presentation of the two stimuli (ìtwo plus threeî and ìfiveî) creates what is called a compound stimulus. After a series of successful trials in which the compound stimulus is presented, the teacher can start to increase the delay between the instruction, ì2 + 3 =?î, and the prompt, ìfive,î until the student is saying, ìfiveî, after the teacher says ì2 + 3 =î. Essentially, transfer of stimulus control enables the learner to respond to new discriminative stimuli, which allows the learner to use behavior in a variety of environments. Skinner (1957) emphasized the importance of stimulus control throughout his account of verbal behavior. In Verbal Behavior, Skinner provided a functional account of the behavior of a speaker. He categorized several classes of verbal behavior (see Table 1
for a list of verbal operants and definitions and Table 2 for the controlling variables for common verbal operants). He called these classes of verbal behavior verbal operants and distinguished them from other accounts of language by using definitions that suggest each operant is controlled by the environment. Skinner (1957, 1968) also described stimulus control and its role in learning to communicate and used transfer of stimulus control as an explanation for how individuals learn new verbal behavior such as memorizing poems and learning from illustrated dictionaries. To memorize a poem, stimulus control is transferred from a nonauditory verbal stimulus (print or text) to covert vocal verbal stimulus without point-to-point correspondence with the response (repeating the poem to oneself), thereby taking responding from textual control to intraverbal control. Skinner illustrated tact acquisition through transfer of stimulus control from the text to the picture (e.g., transfer from textual to tact). Although these examples provide a conceptual explanation for how transfer of stimulus control may occur during acquisition and learning, neither Skinner nor other researchers have provided empirical support. Transfer of stimulus control is commonly applied in language training programs that incorporate Skinnerís (1957) analysis of verbal behavior (e.g., Barbera & Kubina, 2005; Braam & Poling, 1983; Finkel & Williams, 2001; LeBlanc, Esch, Sidener, & Firth, 2006; Luciano, 1986; Miguel, Petursdottir, Carr, 2005; Watkins, Pack-Teixeira, & Howard, 1989). However, stimulus blocking may impede language acquisition by prohibiting transfer of stimulus control across verbal operants (Glat, Gould, Stoddard, &
Operant Antecedent Consequence Echoic Vocal verbal stimulus Generalized conditioned reinforcer Tact Nonverbal stimulus Generalized conditioned reinforcer Mand Deprivation or satiation Item characteristic of the response form Textual Written stimulus Generalized conditioned reinforcer Intraverbal Verbal stimulus Generalized conditionedreinforcer
Table 2. Verbal operants and controlling variables.
Sidman, 1994; Partington, Sundberg, Newhouse, & Spengler, 1994; Sundberg, Endicott, & Eigenheer, 2000). During transfer of stimulus control the original controlling stimulus (e.g., teacher says, ìfiveî) may block the acquisition of control by the new stimulus (e.g., ì2 + 3 =î) for the first few transfer trials. For example, when a response is first taught as an echoic or imitation response, (e.g., the teacher says, ìcookieî and the student says, ìcookieî), the teacher can then use this response to help the child ask for a cookie given a state of deprivation of cookies (i.e., a mand). Transfer of stimulus control can be arranged. After a time period without access to cookies, the teacher says, ìcookieî, the student will repeat the word and learn to say ìcookieî when in a state of deprivation for cookies. Stimulus blocking may preclude the emission of responses under new stimulus control. If stimulus blocking occurs, the new stimulus (period of time
without access to cookies) may not acquire control over the response because of the previous history of the teacherís prompt (teacher says, ìcookieî). This may prevent the child from accessing cookies, particularly when the teacher is not present. Another example is illustrated by Didden, Pinsen, and Sigafoos (2000) who noted that, ìprevious conditioning of a verbal response to a picture [tact/label] may block conditioning of the verbal response to its written equivalent [textual/decoding] when the picture and word are presented as a compound stimulusî (p. 317). The delay in language acquisition that occurs as a function of stimulus blocking poses a serious problem in the development of language, particularly for individuals who are non-speakers or who have limited verbal skills. In these cases, language acquisition can make significant changes in oneís quality of life. However, it is possible that responses taught under compound stimulus control might minimize the effects of stimulus blocking. For example, if the child is taught to say, ìcookieî when the teacher says ìcookieî after the child has not had access to cookies, it is more likely that the response will be emitted under either stimulus condition alone. This outcome is supported by Fields (1979), Singh and Solman (1990), and Didden and colleagues (2000) who suggested that variations in the original controlling stimuli can foster more rapid acquisition of stimulus control by minimizing stimulus blocking. However, few studies provide empirical support for stimulus blocking in verbal behavior (Didden et al.; Singh & Solman). Rather, references to stimulus blocking in verbal behavior have been made post hoc (Glat et al., 1994; Partington et al., 1994; Sundberg et al., 2000). In addition, research that has explicitly examined stimulus blocking has