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
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
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.
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.
Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example.Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kerr, J. Y. K. (1985). Photo Cue Cards. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders, Inc.
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.
Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1973).Stanford-Bind Intelligence Scale. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Wechsler, D. (1974).Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.
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.
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.
Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1990).Efficiency of instruction: Conceptual framework and research directions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wolery, M., Doyle, P.M., Ault, M.J. et al. Effects of presenting incidental information in consequent events on future learning. J Behav Educ 1, 79–104 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00956755
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00956755