效率和儿童对特定提示程序的偏好

IF 1.2 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Behavioral Education Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1007/s10864-024-09563-7
Paige B. Eyler, Jennifer R. Ledford
{"title":"效率和儿童对特定提示程序的偏好","authors":"Paige B. Eyler, Jennifer R. Ledford","doi":"10.1007/s10864-024-09563-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Prompting procedures are often used for teaching discrete skills, but limited comparative data exist to help guide practitioners to select a specific procedure for a given child. Chazin and Ledford (Journal of Behavioral Education 30:684–707, 2021) asserted that comparisons were needed in contexts where participants had prerequisite skills required for all procedures and could differentiate between procedural variations (e.g., understood when to use which strategy). In this study, we used adapted alternating treatments designs to assess the efficiency of constant time delay and system of least prompts when teaching expressive and receptive identification of discrete targets to young children who (a) could wait for a prompt and (b) demonstrate the ability to determine when they should wait for assistance or make a guess. We also used a simultaneous treatments procedure to evaluate preference for one procedure relative to the other. Both procedures were effective for teaching young children discrete skills. Preference results were variable across participants, but consistent across time (i.e., once participants were exposed to both contingencies their preference for one remained relatively consistent over time). Implications for practice and future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47391,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Education","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiency and Child Preference for Specific Prompting Procedures\",\"authors\":\"Paige B. Eyler, Jennifer R. Ledford\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10864-024-09563-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Prompting procedures are often used for teaching discrete skills, but limited comparative data exist to help guide practitioners to select a specific procedure for a given child. Chazin and Ledford (Journal of Behavioral Education 30:684–707, 2021) asserted that comparisons were needed in contexts where participants had prerequisite skills required for all procedures and could differentiate between procedural variations (e.g., understood when to use which strategy). In this study, we used adapted alternating treatments designs to assess the efficiency of constant time delay and system of least prompts when teaching expressive and receptive identification of discrete targets to young children who (a) could wait for a prompt and (b) demonstrate the ability to determine when they should wait for assistance or make a guess. We also used a simultaneous treatments procedure to evaluate preference for one procedure relative to the other. Both procedures were effective for teaching young children discrete skills. Preference results were variable across participants, but consistent across time (i.e., once participants were exposed to both contingencies their preference for one remained relatively consistent over time). Implications for practice and future research are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Education\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-024-09563-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-024-09563-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

提示程序通常用于教授不连续的技能,但现有的比较数据有限,无法帮助指导从业者为特定儿童选择特定的程序。Chazin和Ledford(《行为教育杂志》30:684-707,2021年)认为,需要在参与者具备所有程序所需的先决技能并能区分程序变化(例如,了解何时使用哪种策略)的情况下进行比较。在本研究中,我们采用了适应性交替处理设计,以评估在向幼儿教授离散目标的表达式和接受式识别时,恒定时间延迟和最少提示系统的效率,这些幼儿(a)可以等待提示,(b)表现出有能力判断何时应该等待帮助或进行猜测。我们还采用了同步处理程序,以评估幼儿对一种程序的偏好程度。两种程序都能有效地教授幼儿离散技能。不同参与者的偏好结果不尽相同,但在不同时间的偏好结果是一致的(也就是说,一旦参与者接触了这两种应急方法,他们对其中一种方法的偏好就会随着时间的推移而保持相对一致)。本文讨论了对实践和未来研究的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Efficiency and Child Preference for Specific Prompting Procedures

Prompting procedures are often used for teaching discrete skills, but limited comparative data exist to help guide practitioners to select a specific procedure for a given child. Chazin and Ledford (Journal of Behavioral Education 30:684–707, 2021) asserted that comparisons were needed in contexts where participants had prerequisite skills required for all procedures and could differentiate between procedural variations (e.g., understood when to use which strategy). In this study, we used adapted alternating treatments designs to assess the efficiency of constant time delay and system of least prompts when teaching expressive and receptive identification of discrete targets to young children who (a) could wait for a prompt and (b) demonstrate the ability to determine when they should wait for assistance or make a guess. We also used a simultaneous treatments procedure to evaluate preference for one procedure relative to the other. Both procedures were effective for teaching young children discrete skills. Preference results were variable across participants, but consistent across time (i.e., once participants were exposed to both contingencies their preference for one remained relatively consistent over time). Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Behavioral Education
Journal of Behavioral Education EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Education is an international forum dedicated to publishing original research papers on the application of behavioral principles and technology to education. Education is defined broadly and the journal places no restriction on the types of participants involved in the reported studies--including by age, ability, or setting. Each quarterly issue presents empirical research investigating best-practices and innovative methods to address a wide range of educational targets and issues pertaining to the needs of diverse learners and to implementation. The Journal of Behavioral Education is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal whose target audience is educational researchers and practitioners including general and special education teachers, school psychologists, and other school personnel.  Rigorous experimental designs, including single-subject with replication and group designs are considered for publication. An emphasis is placed on direct observation measures of the primary dependent variable in studies of educational issues, problems, and practices.  Discussion articles and critical reviews also are published.
期刊最新文献
Using Constant Time Delay to Teach Sight Words to Students Identified as Deafblind Applying “Mastery” Criteria to Sets and Individual Operants: A Replication with Preschoolers with Disabilities The Effect of a Tiered Professional Development Framework on Check-In/Check-Out Treatment Fidelity Efficiency and Child Preference for Specific Prompting Procedures Social and Ecological Validity of the Good Behavior Game: A Systematic Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1