The cognitive structure of goal emulation during the preschool years. Francys Subiaul
Humans excel at both mirroring others’ actions (imitation) as well as others’ goals and intentions (emulation). Since most research has focused on imitation, here we focus on how social and asocial learning predict the development of goal emulation. We tested 215 preschool children on two social conditions (imitation, emulation) and two asocial conditions (trial-and-error and recall) using two touchscreen tasks. The tasks involved responding to either three different pictures in a specific picture order (Cognitive: Apple→Boy→Cat) or three identical pictures in a specific spatial order (Motor-Spatial Up→Down→Right). Generalized linear models demonstrated that during the preschool years, Motor-Spatial emulation is associated with social and asocial learning, while Cognitive emulation is associated only with social learning, including Motor-spatial emulation and multiple forms of imitation. This result contrasts with those from a previous study using this same dataset showing that Motor-Spatial and Cognitive imitation were neither associated with one another nor, generally, predicted by other forms of social or asocial learning. Together these results suggests that while developmental changes in imitation are associated with multiple—specialized—mechanisms, developmental changes in emulation are associated with age-related changes and a more unitary, domain-general mechanism that receives input from several different cognitive and learning processes, including some that may not necessarily be specialized for social learning.
Becoming a high-fidelity--Super--Imitator: What are the contributions of soci...Francys Subiaul
In contrast to other primates, human children’s imitation performance goes from low- to high-fidelity soon after infancy. Are such changes associated with the development of other forms of learning? We addressed this question by testing 215 children (26-59 months) on two social conditions (imitation, emulation)—involving a demonstration—and two asocial conditions (recall and trial-and-error)—involving individual learning—using two touchscreen tasks. The tasks required responding to either three different pictures in a specific picture order (Cognitive: Apple→Boy→Cat) or three identical pictures in a specific spatial order (Motor-Spatial Up→Down→Right). There were age-related improvements across all conditions. And imitation, emulation and recall performance were significantly better than trial-and-error learning. Generalized linear models demonstrated that motor-spatial imitation fidelity was associated with age and motor-spatial emulation, but cognitive imitation fidelity was only associated with age. While, this study provides evidence for multiple imitation mechanisms, the development of one of those mechanisms—motor-spatial imitation—may be bootstrapped by the development of another—motor-spatial emulation. Together, these findings provide important clues about the development of what is arguably a distinctive feature of human imitation performance.
Learning
Definition of learning
Imitation and law of learning
theories of learning
All the content is adapted from AIOU Course Code 8610-Human learning and development
Learning is defined as any relatively permanent change in behavior brought about by experience or practice. The brain physically changes when learning occurs to record what has been learned. Memory is essential for learning, as without the ability to remember experiences, learning cannot take place. Learning modifies behavior through experiences that are recorded in the memory. There are four key aspects to the definition of learning: it does not include temporary behavior changes, it does not refer to changes from maturation, it is not directly observable but manifests in activities, and it depends on practice and experience.
The document discusses three learning theories: behaviourist theory which focuses on observable behaviors and conditioning, constructivist theory which emphasizes that learning involves constructing one's own understanding through experiences, and situated learning theory which maintains that learning naturally occurs in authentic contexts. The theories have different implications for the learning environment, such as behaviorist emphasizing competency-based objectives, constructivism facilitating active participation, and situated learning incorporating social collaboration and communities of practice.
The document discusses three learning theories: behaviourist theory which focuses on observable behaviors and conditioning, constructivist theory which emphasizes that learning is constructed from experiences, and situated learning theory which states that learning occurs through social contexts and authentic activities; it provides characteristics and implications for each theory including how they inform learning environments.
This document discusses three hypotheses related to improving student learning:
1. Teachers who create a positive learning environment will positively impact student learning. A positive environment includes both physical (seating arrangements) and social elements.
2. Students who are more motivated will learn better. Intrinsic motivation leads to better outcomes than extrinsic motivation. Teachers can help develop student intrinsic motivation.
3. Learners learn best when teaching and learning styles are congruent. However, research findings are mixed and it is better for teachers to address a variety of styles through active learning.
The document analyzes each hypothesis, provides relevant research, and suggests recommendations for the teacher in the scenario to improve student learning based on the hypotheses
This is a Trident University course (MAE502), Module 1 Case (PowerPoint Presentation: What is Learning. What is Education. It is written in APA format, has been graded by an instructor (A), and includes references. Most higher-education assignments are submitted to turnitin, so remember to paraphrase. Let us begin.
The cognitive structure of goal emulation during the preschool years. Francys Subiaul
Humans excel at both mirroring others’ actions (imitation) as well as others’ goals and intentions (emulation). Since most research has focused on imitation, here we focus on how social and asocial learning predict the development of goal emulation. We tested 215 preschool children on two social conditions (imitation, emulation) and two asocial conditions (trial-and-error and recall) using two touchscreen tasks. The tasks involved responding to either three different pictures in a specific picture order (Cognitive: Apple→Boy→Cat) or three identical pictures in a specific spatial order (Motor-Spatial Up→Down→Right). Generalized linear models demonstrated that during the preschool years, Motor-Spatial emulation is associated with social and asocial learning, while Cognitive emulation is associated only with social learning, including Motor-spatial emulation and multiple forms of imitation. This result contrasts with those from a previous study using this same dataset showing that Motor-Spatial and Cognitive imitation were neither associated with one another nor, generally, predicted by other forms of social or asocial learning. Together these results suggests that while developmental changes in imitation are associated with multiple—specialized—mechanisms, developmental changes in emulation are associated with age-related changes and a more unitary, domain-general mechanism that receives input from several different cognitive and learning processes, including some that may not necessarily be specialized for social learning.
Becoming a high-fidelity--Super--Imitator: What are the contributions of soci...Francys Subiaul
In contrast to other primates, human children’s imitation performance goes from low- to high-fidelity soon after infancy. Are such changes associated with the development of other forms of learning? We addressed this question by testing 215 children (26-59 months) on two social conditions (imitation, emulation)—involving a demonstration—and two asocial conditions (recall and trial-and-error)—involving individual learning—using two touchscreen tasks. The tasks required responding to either three different pictures in a specific picture order (Cognitive: Apple→Boy→Cat) or three identical pictures in a specific spatial order (Motor-Spatial Up→Down→Right). There were age-related improvements across all conditions. And imitation, emulation and recall performance were significantly better than trial-and-error learning. Generalized linear models demonstrated that motor-spatial imitation fidelity was associated with age and motor-spatial emulation, but cognitive imitation fidelity was only associated with age. While, this study provides evidence for multiple imitation mechanisms, the development of one of those mechanisms—motor-spatial imitation—may be bootstrapped by the development of another—motor-spatial emulation. Together, these findings provide important clues about the development of what is arguably a distinctive feature of human imitation performance.
Learning
Definition of learning
Imitation and law of learning
theories of learning
All the content is adapted from AIOU Course Code 8610-Human learning and development
Learning is defined as any relatively permanent change in behavior brought about by experience or practice. The brain physically changes when learning occurs to record what has been learned. Memory is essential for learning, as without the ability to remember experiences, learning cannot take place. Learning modifies behavior through experiences that are recorded in the memory. There are four key aspects to the definition of learning: it does not include temporary behavior changes, it does not refer to changes from maturation, it is not directly observable but manifests in activities, and it depends on practice and experience.
The document discusses three learning theories: behaviourist theory which focuses on observable behaviors and conditioning, constructivist theory which emphasizes that learning involves constructing one's own understanding through experiences, and situated learning theory which maintains that learning naturally occurs in authentic contexts. The theories have different implications for the learning environment, such as behaviorist emphasizing competency-based objectives, constructivism facilitating active participation, and situated learning incorporating social collaboration and communities of practice.
The document discusses three learning theories: behaviourist theory which focuses on observable behaviors and conditioning, constructivist theory which emphasizes that learning is constructed from experiences, and situated learning theory which states that learning occurs through social contexts and authentic activities; it provides characteristics and implications for each theory including how they inform learning environments.
This document discusses three hypotheses related to improving student learning:
1. Teachers who create a positive learning environment will positively impact student learning. A positive environment includes both physical (seating arrangements) and social elements.
2. Students who are more motivated will learn better. Intrinsic motivation leads to better outcomes than extrinsic motivation. Teachers can help develop student intrinsic motivation.
3. Learners learn best when teaching and learning styles are congruent. However, research findings are mixed and it is better for teachers to address a variety of styles through active learning.
The document analyzes each hypothesis, provides relevant research, and suggests recommendations for the teacher in the scenario to improve student learning based on the hypotheses
This is a Trident University course (MAE502), Module 1 Case (PowerPoint Presentation: What is Learning. What is Education. It is written in APA format, has been graded by an instructor (A), and includes references. Most higher-education assignments are submitted to turnitin, so remember to paraphrase. Let us begin.
Learning involves acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, and understanding through various methods. There are many types of learning including experiential learning through direct experience, associative learning by forming connections between elements, observational learning through imitation, and informal learning from everyday situations. Learning also involves different domains such as cognitive learning of facts, psychomotor learning of physical skills, and affective learning of values and preferences.
This document provides an overview of several theories of human learning and their implications for teaching methods. It discusses behaviorism, meaningful learning theory, and humanistic psychology. Behaviorism, according to Pavlov and Skinner, views learning as the acquisition of behaviors based on environmental conditioning. Meaningful learning theory, from Ausubel, emphasizes relating new concepts to existing knowledge structures. Humanistic psychology, from Rogers, focuses on empowering learners and facilitating self-directed discovery. The document also covers types of learning, reasoning processes, and factors like intelligence and aptitude that influence learning. Finally, it analyzes several teaching methods and their strengths and weaknesses in applying learning theories.
The document discusses learning theories and concepts. It provides information on different learning theories associated with objectivism (behaviorism, information processing theory, systematic instructional design) and constructivism (social constructivism, scaffolding theory, discovery learning, multiple intelligences). It also discusses learner motivation using Keller's ARCS model and differentiates between andragogy and pedagogy as approaches to learning.
Human learning can be explained through various theories. Pavlov's classical behaviorism viewed learning as the formation of associations between stimuli and responses. Skinner's operant conditioning emphasized how operant behaviors are reinforced or punished in the environment. Ausubel's meaningful learning theory proposed that new information is related to what is already known through meaningful learning rather than rote memorization. Learning a foreign language involves different types of learning processes like stimulus-response learning, concept learning, and problem solving as learners continually solve problems by applying prior knowledge. Transfer, interference, and overgeneralization also impact second language learning.
Behaviorism and cognitivism are two theories of learning that differ in their perspectives. Behaviorism views learning as changes in observable behavior due to environmental experiences, while cognitivism sees it as changes in mental representations and associations from experiences. Both theories emphasize the role of environmental conditions and practice with feedback in facilitating learning, though they differ in areas like the role of errors, exposure, and the learner's level of activity.
Gagne's Hierarchy of Learning proposes that there are different types of learning that increase in complexity. The lowest four types tend to focus on behavioral aspects and include classical conditioning, operant conditioning, chaining, and verbal association. The higher four types focus more on cognitive aspects and include discrimination learning, concept learning, rule learning, and problem solving, with problem solving being the most complex type of learning according to Gagne's model.
The document discusses three learning theories: behaviourist theory which focuses on observable behaviors and conditioning, constructivist theory which emphasizes that learning is constructed from experiences, and situated learning theory which states that learning occurs through social contexts and authentic activities; it provides characteristics and implications for each theory including how they inform learning environments.
Behaviorism is a theory that human and animal learning can be objectively studied through conditioning and reinforcement without considering internal mental states. Key behaviorist theorists include Ivan Pavlov who conditioned dogs' reflexes, B.F. Skinner who taught behaviors to animals through operant conditioning with rewards, and Albert Bandura who showed observational learning through experiments like the Bobo doll study. Behaviorism influenced classroom practices by emphasizing rewarding good behaviors to shape learning through external stimuli rather than internal cognition.
This document discusses effective classroom management strategies. It covers classical and operant conditioning theories which can be applied to develop classroom routines and procedures. Classical conditioning involves pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to elicit a conditioned response. Operant conditioning uses reinforcement to increase desirable behaviors. The document emphasizes establishing clear expectations, routines, consequences, and using positive reinforcement. Effective classroom management allows instruction and learning to occur.
This document discusses various theories of learning including Thorndike's connectionism, Pavlov's classical conditioning, Skinner's operant conditioning, and Hull's reinforcement theory. It also covers concepts like transfer of training, learning styles, and metacognition. The key points are:
1) Several theories of learning are presented including association theories like Thorndike's connectionism and Pavlov's classical conditioning, as well as field theories like Gestalt psychology.
2) Factors that influence learning include characteristics of the learner, the learning experiences, resources available, and motivation.
3) Transfer of training refers to applying what is learned in one context to another context. Several theories attempt to explain how and why
Motivation is an internal drive that energizes and directs behavior. It arises from internal needs and desires. There are several theories that aim to explain the complex factors influencing motivation, including behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, psychoanalytic, and social learning theories. Effective strategies for motivating learners involve addressing attitudes, needs, stimulation, emotion, competence and reinforcement throughout the beginning, during and ending phases of the learning process.
The document discusses several theories of learning, including connectionist, cognitive, and social learning theories. Connectionist learning theory proposes that learning involves forming associations between stimuli and responses. It includes classical conditioning, in which organisms learn to associate stimuli with inherent responses, and operant conditioning, where voluntary behaviors are reinforced or punished. Cognitive learning theory emphasizes problem-solving, insight, and acquiring knowledge independently of direct experience. Social learning theory extends operant conditioning by suggesting that people can learn through observing and modeling others' behaviors.
I am happy to share this project with you all, who are currently pursuing Bed or D.El.Ed, etc. and preparing for CTET, UPTET, HTET, NET, etc. Knowledge acquired is worthy when it is useful for others. Happy Learning and All the Best.
Behaviourism or the behavioral learning theory is a popular concept that focuses on how students learn. ... This learning theory states that behaviors are learned from the environment, and says that innate or inherited factors have very little influence on behavior.
It contains the theories, like Trial and error theory of EL Thorndike,
Classical Conditioning by Ivan Pavlov, & Operant conditioning by BF Skinner.
Project By: Harshul Banodha, BEd
The study evaluated the effectiveness of training children with autism to imitate manipulations of objects using single-manipulation training versus multiple-manipulation training. Ten children received single-manipulation training, learning one way to manipulate each object. Two children received some single and some multiple-manipulation training, learning two ways to manipulate some objects. Results showed the multiple-manipulation training led to superior generalized imitation skills, but within-subject comparisons did not show clear benefits of multiple versus single training. The study aimed to determine the best methods for teaching generalized manipulative imitation.
This document provides information for students taking a summer behavioral psychology course, including:
1) An overview of the course schedule and expectations, which involves daily readings, homework, seminar discussions, and quizzes over material from the Principles of Behavior textbook.
2) Details about rat lab experiments and reports for students obtaining experience working with rats.
3) Contact information for the professor and teaching assistants, as well as policies on attendance, late work, and academic integrity.
4) Additional resources like optional activities for extra credit, study strategies, and sample student papers. The goal is to help students learn the material and fulfill requirements for the intensive summer course.
The Behavior Analysis Training System (BATS) at Western Michigan University offers an intensive two-year MA program in behavior analysis with a focus on training practitioners to work with children with autism. Students receive pre-approved coursework to become Board Certified Behavior Analysts and participate in a heavy workload that includes teaching undergraduate seminars. Financial support is limited, but the program provides opportunities for hands-on training and prepares students to work as autism practitioners in two years or less.
This document provides information for students enrolled in the Intermediate Autism Practicum at WoodsEdge Learning Center. It includes contact information for practicum supervisors and teaching assistants. It outlines student responsibilities, which include attending WoodsEdge for 10 hours per week and seminar for 2 hours per week. It describes how to code sessions and make phase changes. It also details the grading criteria, which includes points for WoodsEdge and seminar participation, monitoring scores, professionalism, and homework. Guidelines are provided for emailing homework assignments and the grading scale.
The document discusses various treatments for childhood and adolescent disorders. It describes behavioral therapies like applied behavior analysis and early intensive behavioral intervention that are commonly used and effective for autism spectrum disorders. For eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia, treatment involves nutrition, therapy to address underlying psychological issues, and hospitalization in severe cases. Behavioral disorders like ADHD are treated through parent training, school interventions, and child-focused treatments using behavioral modification approaches. Multisystemic therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and parent training programs are highlighted as effective treatments for conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder.
The document provides information about an advanced autism practicum program including:
- It is for students who have completed basic and intermediate autism practica and shown exemplary skills.
- Students will get more experience working directly with children and will develop skills in writing procedures, analyzing data, and addressing skill deficits.
- As part of the practicum, students will conduct a functional assessment, be introduced to various autism therapies, and design and implement an original procedure for the child they work with.
The BATS program trains students to be practitioners rather than researchers through an intensive 9-week summer course, teaching undergraduate seminars, and a project focused on acquiring practical skills. It emphasizes a dual focus on autism and organizational behavior management to prepare students for careers in both fields.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of training children with autism to imitate manipulations of objects using single-manipulation training versus multiple-manipulation training. Ten children received single-manipulation training, learning one way to manipulate each object. Two children received some single and some multiple-manipulation training, learning two ways to manipulate some objects. Results showed the multiple-manipulation training led to superior generalized imitation skills, but within-subject comparisons did not show clear benefits of multiple versus single training. The study aimed to determine the best methods for teaching generalized manipulative imitation, an important skill for acquiring new behaviors.
Learning involves acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, and understanding through various methods. There are many types of learning including experiential learning through direct experience, associative learning by forming connections between elements, observational learning through imitation, and informal learning from everyday situations. Learning also involves different domains such as cognitive learning of facts, psychomotor learning of physical skills, and affective learning of values and preferences.
This document provides an overview of several theories of human learning and their implications for teaching methods. It discusses behaviorism, meaningful learning theory, and humanistic psychology. Behaviorism, according to Pavlov and Skinner, views learning as the acquisition of behaviors based on environmental conditioning. Meaningful learning theory, from Ausubel, emphasizes relating new concepts to existing knowledge structures. Humanistic psychology, from Rogers, focuses on empowering learners and facilitating self-directed discovery. The document also covers types of learning, reasoning processes, and factors like intelligence and aptitude that influence learning. Finally, it analyzes several teaching methods and their strengths and weaknesses in applying learning theories.
The document discusses learning theories and concepts. It provides information on different learning theories associated with objectivism (behaviorism, information processing theory, systematic instructional design) and constructivism (social constructivism, scaffolding theory, discovery learning, multiple intelligences). It also discusses learner motivation using Keller's ARCS model and differentiates between andragogy and pedagogy as approaches to learning.
Human learning can be explained through various theories. Pavlov's classical behaviorism viewed learning as the formation of associations between stimuli and responses. Skinner's operant conditioning emphasized how operant behaviors are reinforced or punished in the environment. Ausubel's meaningful learning theory proposed that new information is related to what is already known through meaningful learning rather than rote memorization. Learning a foreign language involves different types of learning processes like stimulus-response learning, concept learning, and problem solving as learners continually solve problems by applying prior knowledge. Transfer, interference, and overgeneralization also impact second language learning.
Behaviorism and cognitivism are two theories of learning that differ in their perspectives. Behaviorism views learning as changes in observable behavior due to environmental experiences, while cognitivism sees it as changes in mental representations and associations from experiences. Both theories emphasize the role of environmental conditions and practice with feedback in facilitating learning, though they differ in areas like the role of errors, exposure, and the learner's level of activity.
Gagne's Hierarchy of Learning proposes that there are different types of learning that increase in complexity. The lowest four types tend to focus on behavioral aspects and include classical conditioning, operant conditioning, chaining, and verbal association. The higher four types focus more on cognitive aspects and include discrimination learning, concept learning, rule learning, and problem solving, with problem solving being the most complex type of learning according to Gagne's model.
The document discusses three learning theories: behaviourist theory which focuses on observable behaviors and conditioning, constructivist theory which emphasizes that learning is constructed from experiences, and situated learning theory which states that learning occurs through social contexts and authentic activities; it provides characteristics and implications for each theory including how they inform learning environments.
Behaviorism is a theory that human and animal learning can be objectively studied through conditioning and reinforcement without considering internal mental states. Key behaviorist theorists include Ivan Pavlov who conditioned dogs' reflexes, B.F. Skinner who taught behaviors to animals through operant conditioning with rewards, and Albert Bandura who showed observational learning through experiments like the Bobo doll study. Behaviorism influenced classroom practices by emphasizing rewarding good behaviors to shape learning through external stimuli rather than internal cognition.
This document discusses effective classroom management strategies. It covers classical and operant conditioning theories which can be applied to develop classroom routines and procedures. Classical conditioning involves pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to elicit a conditioned response. Operant conditioning uses reinforcement to increase desirable behaviors. The document emphasizes establishing clear expectations, routines, consequences, and using positive reinforcement. Effective classroom management allows instruction and learning to occur.
This document discusses various theories of learning including Thorndike's connectionism, Pavlov's classical conditioning, Skinner's operant conditioning, and Hull's reinforcement theory. It also covers concepts like transfer of training, learning styles, and metacognition. The key points are:
1) Several theories of learning are presented including association theories like Thorndike's connectionism and Pavlov's classical conditioning, as well as field theories like Gestalt psychology.
2) Factors that influence learning include characteristics of the learner, the learning experiences, resources available, and motivation.
3) Transfer of training refers to applying what is learned in one context to another context. Several theories attempt to explain how and why
Motivation is an internal drive that energizes and directs behavior. It arises from internal needs and desires. There are several theories that aim to explain the complex factors influencing motivation, including behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, psychoanalytic, and social learning theories. Effective strategies for motivating learners involve addressing attitudes, needs, stimulation, emotion, competence and reinforcement throughout the beginning, during and ending phases of the learning process.
The document discusses several theories of learning, including connectionist, cognitive, and social learning theories. Connectionist learning theory proposes that learning involves forming associations between stimuli and responses. It includes classical conditioning, in which organisms learn to associate stimuli with inherent responses, and operant conditioning, where voluntary behaviors are reinforced or punished. Cognitive learning theory emphasizes problem-solving, insight, and acquiring knowledge independently of direct experience. Social learning theory extends operant conditioning by suggesting that people can learn through observing and modeling others' behaviors.
I am happy to share this project with you all, who are currently pursuing Bed or D.El.Ed, etc. and preparing for CTET, UPTET, HTET, NET, etc. Knowledge acquired is worthy when it is useful for others. Happy Learning and All the Best.
Behaviourism or the behavioral learning theory is a popular concept that focuses on how students learn. ... This learning theory states that behaviors are learned from the environment, and says that innate or inherited factors have very little influence on behavior.
It contains the theories, like Trial and error theory of EL Thorndike,
Classical Conditioning by Ivan Pavlov, & Operant conditioning by BF Skinner.
Project By: Harshul Banodha, BEd
The study evaluated the effectiveness of training children with autism to imitate manipulations of objects using single-manipulation training versus multiple-manipulation training. Ten children received single-manipulation training, learning one way to manipulate each object. Two children received some single and some multiple-manipulation training, learning two ways to manipulate some objects. Results showed the multiple-manipulation training led to superior generalized imitation skills, but within-subject comparisons did not show clear benefits of multiple versus single training. The study aimed to determine the best methods for teaching generalized manipulative imitation.
This document provides information for students taking a summer behavioral psychology course, including:
1) An overview of the course schedule and expectations, which involves daily readings, homework, seminar discussions, and quizzes over material from the Principles of Behavior textbook.
2) Details about rat lab experiments and reports for students obtaining experience working with rats.
3) Contact information for the professor and teaching assistants, as well as policies on attendance, late work, and academic integrity.
4) Additional resources like optional activities for extra credit, study strategies, and sample student papers. The goal is to help students learn the material and fulfill requirements for the intensive summer course.
The Behavior Analysis Training System (BATS) at Western Michigan University offers an intensive two-year MA program in behavior analysis with a focus on training practitioners to work with children with autism. Students receive pre-approved coursework to become Board Certified Behavior Analysts and participate in a heavy workload that includes teaching undergraduate seminars. Financial support is limited, but the program provides opportunities for hands-on training and prepares students to work as autism practitioners in two years or less.
This document provides information for students enrolled in the Intermediate Autism Practicum at WoodsEdge Learning Center. It includes contact information for practicum supervisors and teaching assistants. It outlines student responsibilities, which include attending WoodsEdge for 10 hours per week and seminar for 2 hours per week. It describes how to code sessions and make phase changes. It also details the grading criteria, which includes points for WoodsEdge and seminar participation, monitoring scores, professionalism, and homework. Guidelines are provided for emailing homework assignments and the grading scale.
The document discusses various treatments for childhood and adolescent disorders. It describes behavioral therapies like applied behavior analysis and early intensive behavioral intervention that are commonly used and effective for autism spectrum disorders. For eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia, treatment involves nutrition, therapy to address underlying psychological issues, and hospitalization in severe cases. Behavioral disorders like ADHD are treated through parent training, school interventions, and child-focused treatments using behavioral modification approaches. Multisystemic therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and parent training programs are highlighted as effective treatments for conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder.
The document provides information about an advanced autism practicum program including:
- It is for students who have completed basic and intermediate autism practica and shown exemplary skills.
- Students will get more experience working directly with children and will develop skills in writing procedures, analyzing data, and addressing skill deficits.
- As part of the practicum, students will conduct a functional assessment, be introduced to various autism therapies, and design and implement an original procedure for the child they work with.
The BATS program trains students to be practitioners rather than researchers through an intensive 9-week summer course, teaching undergraduate seminars, and a project focused on acquiring practical skills. It emphasizes a dual focus on autism and organizational behavior management to prepare students for careers in both fields.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of training children with autism to imitate manipulations of objects using single-manipulation training versus multiple-manipulation training. Ten children received single-manipulation training, learning one way to manipulate each object. Two children received some single and some multiple-manipulation training, learning two ways to manipulate some objects. Results showed the multiple-manipulation training led to superior generalized imitation skills, but within-subject comparisons did not show clear benefits of multiple versus single training. The study aimed to determine the best methods for teaching generalized manipulative imitation, an important skill for acquiring new behaviors.
This document contains the results of several surveys assessing the experiences and opinions of graduates of the Behavior Analysis Training System (BATS) program. The surveys addressed how often graduates use concepts of behavior analysis, conduct research, supervise staff, and more. Graduates reported using behavior analytic concepts often and that the BATS program improved their understanding of behavior analysis. They also generally found the skills taught to be relevant to their career objectives.
JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIORTHE DEVELO.docxcroysierkathey
This study demonstrated a method for teaching imitation to children who initially lacked imitative behaviors. The researchers used food reinforcement to teach subjects to imitate a series of motor responses demonstrated by an experimenter. Over time, as similar responses were reinforced, the subjects' unreinforced imitation of novel responses increased. The results suggest that reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model can establish imitation and induce novel imitative behaviors without direct training.
Psych 635February 23, 2016Transfer of Learning.docxamrit47
This document provides instructions for a student assignment on functional research and programming for an interior design project. It outlines key areas for students to research, including project space location requirements, specific functions and areas to study, and technical specifications to consider. Students must research the functional needs and specifications for a café/lounge and retail store located in an airport terminal. Specific functions and areas to research include food facilities, retail displays, private/public services, managerial services, and supportive functions. Technical specifications to study for each area include floors, walls, ceilings, lighting, HVAC, electrical/sound, doors/windows, and special features. The goal is to help students identify the functions and technical requirements to effectively design the proposed spaces
The document summarizes key aspects of Social Learning Theory and Cognitivism. Social Learning Theory, developed by Bandura, focuses on how behavior is learned through observation and modeling within a social environment. Bandura's Bobo doll experiments demonstrated how children imitate aggressive behaviors they observe in adults. Cognitivism views learning as involving internal cognitive processes like attention, memory, and motivation that influence how behaviors are reproduced. Piaget's stages of cognitive development describe how children's thinking abilities develop from sensorimotor to formal operations.
Edward Thorndike was an American psychologist known for pioneering the field of comparative psychology and establishing the law of effect, exercise, and readiness. Through experiments with animals, such as putting cats in puzzle boxes, he determined that learning is the result of forming associations between stimuli and responses through a process of trial and error. Thorndike proposed three laws of learning: readiness, exercise, and effect - where behaviors are strengthened by satisfaction or weakened by annoyance through repeated practice over time. His work significantly influenced the study of educational psychology and emphasized the role of motivation and feedback in the learning process.
This document provides an overview of learning theory and different types of learning. It discusses classical conditioning, operant conditioning, observational learning, and insight learning. Classical conditioning involves associating stimuli, like Pavlov's dogs learning to associate food with a bell. Operant conditioning is demonstrated through rat training experiments. Observational learning occurs through observing others, like children learning from parents. Insight learning involves understanding through connecting ideas. The document also discusses cognitive processes, memory, and factors that influence learning motivation.
1) Observational learning occurs when people learn new behaviors or information from watching others.
2) Studies show that children are more likely to imitate aggressive behaviors they observe in adults. In one famous study, children who saw an adult act aggressively towards a Bobo doll were more likely to later act aggressively towards the doll themselves.
3) Several factors influence observational learning, including attention to the model, memory of the model's actions, ability to reproduce those actions, and motivation based on consequences for the model.
Neo behaviorism (Facilitating Learning)Mary Mae Hero
This document discusses neo-behaviorism and two of its major theorists, Edward Tolman and Albert Bandura. It summarizes Tolman's purposive behaviorism, including his concepts of cognitive maps, latent learning, intervening variables, and that reinforcement is not essential for learning. It then summarizes Albert Bandura's social learning theory, including concepts like observational learning, modeling, vicarious reinforcement, and the four conditions necessary for effective modeling.
This study examined the behaviors of 10-month-old infants as they learned to use a cane to retrieve an out-of-reach toy. Infants were categorized as successful if they pulled the cane and retrieved the toy at least three times. The study found that both successful and unsuccessful infants spent more time intentionally exploring rather than unintentionally exploring. While both groups were attentive, successful infants exhibited more goal-oriented behaviors compared to non-goal oriented behaviors, whereas unsuccessful infants performed equal amounts of both. Unsuccessful infants also spent more time looking at the experimenter than successful infants. The results provide insight into how infants' exploration facilitates understanding of tools.
Social Learning Theory proposes that people can learn through observation of others. Bandura conducted the Bobo Doll experiment showing children observing an adult acting aggressively towards a doll, which increased aggressive behavior in the children. Social Learning Theory assumes that learning can occur without behavior change by observing models and outcomes, and cognition influences learning through expectations of reinforcement or punishment.
The document discusses different types and theories of learning. It begins by defining learning as a relatively permanent change in behavior due to past experiences. It then discusses classical conditioning by Ivan Pavlov and operant conditioning by B.F. Skinner as theories of learning. It explains the concepts of reinforcement, punishment, and shaping behavior. The document also provides an example of using time outs instead of punishment for children. Overall, the document provides an overview of behavioral learning theories and concepts such as classical conditioning, operant conditioning, reinforcement, and punishment.
Running head DISCIPLINE-BASED LITERATURE REVIEW 1Discipli.docxsusanschei
Running head: DISCIPLINE-BASED LITERATURE REVIEW 1
Discipline-Based Literature Review
Junius Applewhite
PSY 620
Professor: Jeral Kirwan
January 22, 2018
- 1 -
[no notes on this page]
DISCIPLINE-BASED LITERATURE REVIEW 2
Discipline-Based Literature Review
Introduction
Every human being in the world since birth until the time of death spends a huge amount
of time learning new things. People also learn how to improve what they already know or
learned in the past. Even though other forms of animals learn too, human beings are more
advanced in learning because they actually study the diverse means of learning, refining and
classifying material through Learning and Cognition discipline. Generally, this paper highlights
some constructs or categories that build some of the most current works in learning and
cognition. Besides focusing on these constructs, this paper will highlight any ethical concerns
that may be in existence. Among the constructs that will be featured in this paper is Operant
conditioning, Classical conditioning, Behaviorism and Social learning theory
Operant conditioning
Operant conditioning is a learning method that was developed by B. F. Skinner and that
occurs through punishments and rewards for behavior. There is a link created between behaviors
and consequences in operant conditioning. Practically, operant conditioning is a reversible
behavior study maintained through schedules of reinforcements (Saul, 2015). According to
operant conditioning, learning of a behavior cannot be achieved just through motivations and
internal thoughts. Skinner believed that a behavior’s external causes should be the only
considerations. Skinner’s theory of ‘operant’ only considers external factors that have effect on
a behavior as well as its consequences. Under operant conditioning, there are reinforcements and
punishments which both have effects on behavior.
- 2 -
1
1. since birth
from birth [Jeral Kirwan]
DISCIPLINE-BASED LITERATURE REVIEW 3
Reinforcement involves a process where a behavior’s frequency or rate is increased
through presenting a stimulus soon after the behavior display. The event that leads to
enhancement of probability of a behavior being repeated is known as a reinforcer. Reinforcers
are in two categories which include positive reinforcers and negative reinforcers. Positive
reinforcers are encouraging or favorable stimuli given after a behavior display. They strengthen
the chances of a behavior through provision of an extra thing. For instance, a student rewarded
for passing an exam is likely to work hard again and pass more exams so that he can get more
rewards. On the other hand, negative reinforce is the removal of unfavorable stimuli after a
behavior display. With the removal of unfavorable stimuli, the response o ...
1) Social learning mechanisms like statistical learning, implicit learning, learning by imitation, and learning by analogy allow humans to learn complex behaviors from each other.
2) Imitation and social interaction are important for learning, as statistical learning alone is not sufficient for tasks like language acquisition. Infants learn best from live, social interactions rather than isolated media exposure.
3) Understanding others' intentions through mind reading abilities like imitation may be crucial for social learning mechanisms like observational learning to function effectively.
Albert Bandura conducted the famous Bobo doll experiment in 1961 to study social learning theory. In the experiment, children observed an adult acting aggressively or non-aggressively towards a Bobo doll. The children who observed aggression were much more likely to imitate that aggressive behavior when interacting with the doll themselves later, supporting the idea that learning can occur through observation. Social learning theory posits that learning is a cognitive process that occurs within a social context through observation, imitation of models, and internal mental states, rather than just behavioral conditioning.
Classical and operant conditioning are two types of learning processes studied in psychology. Classical conditioning involves associating a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to elicit a conditioned response, while operant conditioning uses reinforcement and punishment to shape behaviors. Applied behavior analysis uses principles of operant conditioning to modify behaviors by increasing desirable ones and decreasing undesirable ones. Observational learning and social cognitive approaches also influence behaviors by modeling and social support. Self-regulated learning involves students planning tasks, monitoring performance, and reflecting on outcomes in a cyclical process to improve skills. Providing distance learning modules for tertiary students in the Philippines with opportunities for teacher guidance could support self-regulated learning.
psychology and learning Essay
Essay on Learning Can Be Fun
Learning Behavior Essays
Concept of Learning Essays
E-learning Essay
Essay about Learning Styles
E- Learning Essay
Essay on Learning How to Learn
What Is Learning Essay
Cognitive development of children and adolescentsRamil Gallardo
The document summarizes several theories of cognitive development in children and adolescents. It discusses Piaget's stages of cognitive development which include the sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational stages. It also outlines Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory which emphasizes the role of social interaction in cognitive development. According to this theory, social and cultural tools are transmitted through imitative, instructed, and collaborative learning. Vygotsky also introduced the concept of the zone of proximal development. Finally, the document briefly mentions information-processing theory which views cognition as analogous to a computer that processes information.
Working Memory Constraints on Imitation and EmulationFrancys Subiaul
Does working memory (WM) constrain the amount and type of information children copy from a model? To answer this question, preschool age children (n = 165) were trained and then tested on a touch-screen task that involved touching simultaneously presented pictures. Prior to responding, children saw a model generate two target responses: Order, touching all the pictures on the screen in a target sequence 3 consecutive times and Multi-Tap, consistently touching one of the pictures two times. Children’s accuracy copying Order and Multi-Tap was assessed on two types of sequences: low WM (2 pictures) load and high WM (3 pictures) load. Results showed that more children copied both Order and Multi-Tap on 2- than on 3-picture sequences. Children that copied only one of the two target responses, tended to copy only Order on 2-picture sequences but only Multi-Tap on 3-picture sequences. Instructions to either copy or ignore the multi-tap response did not affect this overall pattern of results. In sum, results are consistent with the hypothesis that WM constrains not just the amount but also the type of information children copy from models; Potentially modulating whether children imitate or emulate in a given task.
The Importance Of Social Learning Theory And Goal SettingStacey Cruz
Social learning theory proposes that people learn through observing and modeling behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes of others. Key aspects include observational learning, imitation, and modeling reinforced behaviors. Studies provide evidence, such as children imitating aggressive behaviors seen in adult models, supporting the theory that observation and modeling influence learning. However, some limitations exist, like the possibility of other factors influencing behaviors beyond just observation. Overall, social learning theory and supporting studies suggest people learn in a social context through watching and replicating the actions of others.
The document summarizes different teaching methods for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), including direct instruction approaches and naturalistic strategies. Direct instruction involves teacher-directed lessons with scripted curriculum and repetition, while naturalistic strategies are more student-led and incorporate incidental teaching, modeling, expansions, and time delay. The document also discusses activity-based instruction, which embeds individual student goals within routine activities and follows the student's lead and interests.
Insight learning is a complex form of learning that involves manipulating mental concepts to develop adaptive behaviors. It can be seen when a chimpanzee figures out how to stack boxes to reach a banana that is out of reach, demonstrating novel problem solving. Experiments by Kohier showed that chimpanzees are capable of insight learning. Observational learning is learning that occurs through observing and imitating others' behaviors, such as when children learn new behaviors by modeling parents and peers. Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment demonstrated that children are more likely to imitate aggressive behaviors they observe being modeled if there are no negative consequences for the model. Bandura identified four key steps for successful observational learning: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation
Similar to Establishing a generalizedmanipulativeimitationrepertoireinchildrendiagnosedwithautism_mathesis_breannehartley (1) (20)
This document analyzes the behaviors of ogres, fairytale creatures, and a talking donkey using behavioral principles. It describes scenarios where an ogre roars to avoid annoying protests from villagers. It also explains how the donkey pesters to avoid having its gumdrop button removed. Finally, it discusses how the donkey gets love from a dragon by pointing out its teeth but no love when pointing out larger teeth.
This document describes a behavioral intervention plan for a 6-year-old girl, Ava, to improve her homework completion. The plan uses principles of extinction by having the mother ignore tantrums. It also uses differential reinforcement by providing breaks on an iPad for asking politely. Additionally, it applies punishment prevention by withholding breaks if Ava asks inappropriately. Through these strategies, Ava's disruptive behaviors decreased from 10 to 1-2 during homework and her completion time improved from 30 to 17-20 minutes.
This document discusses behavioral principles like reinforcement, extinction, escape, discrimination, and pairing procedures as they relate to the characters and plotlines in the television show Friends, which followed the lives of six friends living in New York City over ten seasons from 1994 to 2004. It provides examples of how behaviors were reinforced when followed by desirable outcomes, extinguished when no longer followed by rewards, and how characters would escape uncomfortable feelings or discriminate between opportunities based on social contingencies established between the characters.
This document discusses different techniques for training a dog named Stella, including plain reinforcement, shaping with reinforcement, deprivation as a motivating operation, differential reinforcement procedures, and discrimination training using physical prompts. Plain reinforcement involves reinforcing a behavior after it occurs with a treat. Shaping breaks a behavior down into steps and reinforces progress toward the final behavior. Deprivation is used as a motivating operation by withholding breakfast. Differential reinforcement reinforces one behavior and extinguishes others. Discrimination training uses cues and prompts to teach the dog to respond only to specific commands.
Will is kidnapped by the Demogorgon and displays a survival behavior chain, including going to the phone to call for help, running to the shack to hide, loading a shotgun for self-defense. After being rescued from the Upside Down, Will coughs up a slug from the Upside Down that was causing an aversive feeling in his throat. Eleven lifts a van telepathically to avoid being captured by government henchmen. Eleven starts wearing "pretty clothes" to feel more accepted after receiving praise and approval from her peers. Dustin is able to pass through tunnels by giving Dart, his pet Demogorgon, a nougat bar as a reinforcer.
The document discusses how well-designed video games use principles of behavioral psychology to improve player skills through punishment and reinforcement contingencies. Specifically, it explains that higher difficulty levels feature harsher punishments for ineffective behaviors, encouraging players to experiment with new strategies. In contrast, lower difficulties provide less punishment and more frequent reinforcement, slowing the learning process and allowing suboptimal behaviors to persist. The document concludes that players choosing higher difficulties are effectively forced through behavioral contingencies to expand their skills and strategies.
Squidward has an undying love for his clarinet. He initially struggled to produce sound but learned that blowing air while pressing keys produces notes. However, when the town complained about his playing, he stopped. He then realized the complaints only occurred when his window was open. Later, he played in a field but the jellyfish reacted badly until he learned to play in tune. Eventually his frustration with Spongebob led him to break his clarinet by hitting Spongebob with it, receiving a penalty.
This document summarizes a behavioral analysis of a 12-year-old beagle named Lily. Several of Lily's behaviors were analyzed including sitting, moving after sitting, begging for food, and panting. Marshmallows were used as a reinforcer to increase sitting behavior. Moving after sitting was punished by spraying water and saying "no" to decrease that behavior. Begging and panting occurred more frequently around the author in the kitchen where food was given, demonstrating stimulus discrimination. The author's giving of food to stop Lily's panting reinforced that aversive behavior in a sick social cycle. Extinction without reinforcement was used to decrease panting and begging.
This document provides tips on using behavioral contingencies to train a boyfriend to clean. It discusses using reinforcement like access to the fridge for picking up clothes. It also discusses punishment like making him rewash clothes if they are put in the wrong pile. For taking out the trash, praise is given when the boyfriend does it while home but not when away. Total task presentation breaks cleaning tasks into small, praised steps like picking up, tying, and taking out the trash bag. Vacuuming removes stinky carpet smells.
This document outlines the importance of professionalism and monitoring scores for an undergraduate practicum course at WoodsEdge. Professionalism scores make up 1500 possible points and are deducted for issues like missing data or improper interactions. Monitoring scores involve supervisors observing tutoring sessions to ensure correct implementation of procedures, with students receiving feedback. The document details the components supervisors evaluate for different session types and the point deduction process for errors. Maintaining high professionalism and monitoring scores is essential for obtaining an A in the course.
Dead Man Test Blues: A Final Fiesta Project completed during the Conditioning and Learning course at WMU. This project is based on the Principles of Behavior Analysis 7th Edition authored by Dr. Dick Malott and Joseph Shane.
This document provides guidance on structured play for students with special needs. Structured play is similar to incidental teaching, where learning opportunities are embedded within typical activities to motivate students to practice skills. During structured play, tutors should work on generalization, maintenance of skills, and language development through child-initiated activities lasting 5-7 minutes. Examples of how to incorporate targets during activities like songs, a rocking chair, castle, and ball are provided. Tutors are reminded to keep it child-initiated, fun, and end on a positive note.
1) The document discusses procedures for discrimination training, including using preferred and non-preferred icons, error correction, and correspondence checks.
2) A non-preferred item is something the student does not like, while a neutral item is something they will interact with but is not a strong reinforcer.
3) The four-step error correction procedure involves modeling, practice, distraction, and repetition of the exchange if incorrect.
The document discusses teaching students with communication impairments the skills of persistence and distance using icon exchange. Phase 2 teaches students to persistently travel a distance to exchange an icon with their tutor. Persistence involves repeatedly engaging behaviors to get the tutor's attention, like shoving the icon in their hand. Distance refers to how far the student must travel to make an exchange, such as 2 feet between the student, book, and tutor. The document provides tips for prompting persistence and distance and examples of behaviors to expect from students at different phases of learning.
1. The document discusses strategies for enticing, prompting, and maintaining motivation during icon exchange training. Enticing involves playing with a reinforcer to gain the student's attention and motivate exchange. Prompting is when the tutor models or physically guides the student to complete an exchange. Maintaining motivation requires frequent preference assessments, using a variety of highly preferred reinforcers, and not allowing access to reinforcers for too long.
2. Key tips include playing appropriately with reinforcers during enticing, avoiding unintentional prompts, and coding "No MO" if no reinforcer motivates the student rather than running unmotivated sessions.
3. Examples are provided for enticing, prompting, motivation versus no
This document discusses motivational operations (MOs) and how they affect learning and performance with respect to reinforcers. MOs increase the effectiveness of reinforcement and the number of responses that produce reinforcement. Deprivation of a reinforcer increases relevant learning while satiation temporarily decreases it. To prevent satiation, reinforcers should be limited or broken into smaller portions. MOs are important to consider when running procedures with children to keep them motivated by identifying reinforcers and limiting access to them. Conducting preference assessments can help determine effective reinforcers when motivation decreases.
This document provides information for students enrolled in the Psychology 3570 practicum at WoodsEdge Learning Center. It outlines the schedule and expectations for the practicum. Students are expected to work 10 hours per week at WoodsEdge in 2-hour shifts. They must also attend a weekly 2-hour seminar. The seminar will include discussions of assigned readings from the textbook "Let Me Hear Your Voice" as well as presentations from the teaching assistant. Students will be graded based on their participation at WoodsEdge and in seminars, homework assignments, quizzes over the readings, and professionalism/monitoring evaluations.
The document outlines the phases and subphases of Icon Exchange, a communication program used to teach functional communication skills. It describes Phases 2 through 5, which focus on distance and persistence, discrimination, adding a sentence strip, and tacting. Phase 2 teaches children to communicate from increasing distances and persistently get a communicator's attention. Phase 3 builds discrimination between preferred and non-preferred icons. Phase 4 adds a "I want" sentence strip. Phase 5 introduces tacting, or labeling items, using an "I see" icon.
This document discusses monitoring criteria for tutors working with special populations. It outlines a prompt hierarchy for corrections ranging from verbal to physical prompts. It also lists criteria for monitoring the delivery of reinforcers and corrections, including ensuring reinforcers are delivered immediately and are effective, pairing social with tangible reinforcers, and using neutral intonation for corrections. The timing, attending, implementation, and intonation for both reinforcers and corrections should be monitored to determine if procedures are being followed properly.
Extra learning opportunities (ELOs) are informal teaching moments that occur outside of formal procedures. ELOs involve presenting a stimulus, eliciting a response (correct or incorrect), and providing consequences. ELOs can utilize previously mastered skills and occur in a variety of settings, like the booth, playroom, or common area. ELOs should provide variety, generalize skills, build behavioral momentum, and be used during transitions or downtime to keep the child engaged through constant reinforcement at least every 3 seconds. Only social reinforcers should be used for ELOs, with physical prompting for incorrect responses followed by reinforcement.
More from Behavior Analysis Training System, WMU (20)
Establishing a generalizedmanipulativeimitationrepertoireinchildrendiagnosedwithautism_mathesis_breannehartley (1)
1. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 1
Running Head: GENERALIZED MANIPULATIVE-IMITATION
Establishing a Generalized Manipulative-Imitation Repertoire
in Children Diagnosed with Autism
Breanne K. Hartley
Western Michigan University
2. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 2
Abstract
Though we often teach manipulative imitation to children with autism , there is
little evidence that this imitative skill then transfers to novel manipulations or novel
objects. However, a generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire is important because
generalized imitation leads to the acquisition of new skills, such as social and play skills.
This study evaluates the necessity of training multiple imitative manipulations per object
in order to establish generalized manipulative-imitation.
The study took place in an Early Childhood Developmental Delay (ECDD)
Preschool Classroom in a public special-education school in Southwest Michigan. Two
groups were compared: One group consisted of ten children who received single-
manipulation training, and another group consisted of two children who received some
single-manipulation training and some multiple-manipulation training.
The intention, with the multiple-manipulations training group, was to train two
manipulations, rather than one, with the same object, to determine if such training would
facilitate the acquisition of a generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire. Results
showed that the generalized manipulative-imitation repertoires of the children in the
multiple-manipulations training group were far superior to the repertoires of the children
in the single-manipulation training group. However, within-subject comparisons of
generalized imitation with one manipulation versus two manipulations per object failed to
show a difference. This may have been due to within-subject interaction between the
training of multiple-manipulations and single-manipulations.
3. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 3
Establishing a Generalized Manipulative-Imitation Repertoire
in Children Diagnosed with Autism
Imitation is an important skill taught to children with autism and occurs when
“the form of the behavior of the imitator is controlled by similar behavior of the model”
(Malott, 2008 p. 241). It is assumed that once imitative behavior has been reinforced,
then children may show a generalized imitative repertoire. Generalized imitation is
defined as “imitation of the response of a model without previous reinforcement of
imitation of that specific response” (Malott, 2008 p. 242). In other words, when a child is
shown a novel imitative response, the child will imitate that response without previous
training. However, those unreinforced, generalized imitative responses will only occur if
other, previously learned imitative responses have been reinforced. One theory, (Malott,
2008) of generalized imitation credits “imitative reinforcers” for automatically
reinforcing generalized imitative responses and thereby maintaining those imitative
responses, even though they may never receive any other sort of reinforcement. Imitative
reinforcers are “stimuli arising from the match between the behavior of the imitator and
the behavior of the model that function as reinforcers” (p. 250). This match becomes a
learned reinforcer because it has frequently been paired with the delivery of the reinforcer
that was contingent on correct imitative responses. The imitator sees and feels his/her
behavior match the model’s behavior, and that imitation automatically produces visual
and proprioceptive reinforcing stimuli.
4. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 4
Generalized imitation is an important skill for children with autism to attain
because: (a) imitation leads to the acquisition of other behaviors (Ingersoll &
Schreibman, 2006; Lovaas, 1981; Peterson & Whitehurst, 1971; Young et al., 1994) and
children who do not imitate have difficulty learning appropriate behavior (Malott, 2008).
These “other behaviors” that are acquired through generalized imitation include social,
verbal, and intellectual skills. (b) Generalized imitation is also a critical pre-requisite skill
that is required in order to benefit from certain types of prompts, such as modeling (Leaf
& McEachin, 1999; MacDuff et al., 2001). Modeling, when used as a prompt, is critical
because it allows the child to acquire new skills without the intrusiveness of physical
prompting. The ideal learning scenario occurs when a teacher models a new behavior for
the child and the child immediately imitates that new behavior without additional
prompting.
Types of Imitation
The three forms of imitation include vocal imitation, which is the imitation of
sounds and words, physical imitation (also referred to as pantomime imitation or motor
imitation) which is the imitation of body movements, and manipulative-imitation (also
referred to as toy-play imitation) which is imitation of object manipulation. The
remainder of this paper will focus on identifying the key variables in developing a
generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire in children with developmental delays,
specifically autism.
5. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 5
Manipulative-imitation. Manipulative-imitation, imitation of object manipulation,
is an important imitative skill for all children. For example, imitating the behavior of a
model will facilitate the learning of playing with toys appropriately by imitating play
behavior of peers. In addition to appropriate toy play behavior, children and adults
acquire new manipulative skills through imitation, such as how to hold a hammer, and
how to type an email. It is especially important for all children to establish a generalized
manipulative-imitation repertoire because they must learn that objects can be used in
several ways. Burgess et al. (1970) and Young et al. (1994) said generalized
manipulative-imitation occurs when novel object manipulations are developed before
direct shaping is involved and unreinforced object manipulations are maintained as long
as other object manipulations are reinforced.
Teaching Imitation
There is a limited amount of literature discussing methods for training generalized
imitation, including generalized manipulative-imitation. One study that addressed the
notion of training multiple-manipulations to acquire generalized imitation was Young, et
al. (1994). The authors attempted to demonstrate that training specific response
topographies, within each of the three types of imitation (manipulative-imitation, physical
imitation and vocal imitation), would facilitate generalization between imitation types.
During training, all three types of imitation were trained using multiple examples;
however, each manipulation consisted of actions within a sequence of a response. For
example, multiple examples with a stuffed animal in the study consisted of “hugging the
animal to the chest with both arms and twisting from side to side”. By contrast, typically
this “hugging” response would be considered one manipulation rather than an example of
6. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 6
“multiple” manipulations as described by Young, et al(1994). Therefore, it could be
argued that this study went against the notion that multiple-manipulations should be
trained, per object, in order to facilitate a generalized imitation repertoire. Nonetheless,
the purpose of the study was to determine whether imitation would generalize across
response types of imitation. For example, would manipulative-imitation generalize to
physical imitation? It was demonstrated that imitation generalized within a response type,
but it did not generalize across response types. Additionally, Young et al. (1994) point
out that the number of manipulations required during training, in order to establish
generalized imitation, is still unknown because this study used three imitative classes and
did not obtain between class generalized imitation.
There are a variety of strategies, supported by the principles of behavior, used to
teach children with autism to imitate. However, there is little rationale and/or research to
support these various strategies. The most frequently used components in teaching
children diagnosed with autism to imitate include the establishment of pre-requisite skills,
the use of a specific discriminative stimulus, the use of prompting and prompt fading, and
teaching discrimination. In the present study, the teaching strategy that is investigated
includes teaching discrimination. More specifically, the question was posed regarding
how to more reliably get generalized manipulative-imitation using discrimination
training.
Discrimination. Green’s (2001) description of discrimination is relevant to
teaching children with autism to imitate manipulations of objects because when the tutor
says “Do this”, along with a model of pushing the car back and forth, (the antecedent
stimulus), the child must match the tutor’s behavior by also pushing the car back and
7. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 7
forth (the response) which will result in receiving a reinforcer (the consequence). If the
child were to tap the car on the desk immediately after the tutor modeled pushing the car
back and forth, then the child would not receive the reinforcer. In order to ensure that the
child’s imitative response is controlled by the tutor’s model of the response, and not
simply on the presence of the toy, the child should be taught at least two different
imitations with the same toy. Teaching two different imitative responses at the same time,
and randomly rotating the two responses, requires that the child attend to the modeled
manipulations before consistently receiving reinforcers. For example, teaching only one
imitation when the car is presented (e.g., push the car back and forth) may be detrimental
because, each pushing response will be reinforced, regardless of the manipulative
behavior of the model. Therefore, the child would never need to attend to the tutor’s
behavior in order to make a reinforced response. In other words, teaching at least two
different manipulations with the same object (e.g., the car) would require the child to
attend to the tutor’s behavior of manipulating the car.
Study 1: Evaluation of Current Classroom Procedures;
Training One Manipulation Per Object
It was suspected that the lack of discrimination training during manipulative-
imitation instruction was such a substantial problem that it was hindering the
establishment of a generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire in the study’s classroom
setting. Without discrimination training, it was unclear whether the child’s manipulations
were simply under stimulus control of the object (e.g., the car vs. the doll) or imitative
stimulus control of the tutor’s modeled manipulation (e.g., rolling vs. jumping the car). In
8. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 8
order to determine how wide spread this problem was, preliminary data were collected.
Method
Setting
This study took place in an Early Childhood Developmental Delay (ECDD)
classroom in a public special education school in Southwest Michigan. The classroom
was the first of three classrooms that constituted the Autistic Impaired (AI) preschool
program. About fifteen children were in the classroom at any one time, and attended
school year-round. Their ages ranged from18-months to 5 years. Typically these children
attended the program for three hours per day, five days per week.
The classroom was also the setting for the Autism Practicum offered through
Western Michigan University’s (WMU) Psychology Department. Undergraduate and
graduate students learned how to implement discrete-trial training with the children in the
classroom. Typically undergraduate students from WMU were the only ones
implementing one-on-one discrete-trial training with the children. They were supervised
by experienced second-year MA or PhD students.
Children
A child was selected for this study based on the criterion that the child must have
completed manipulative-imitation training with nine manipulations involving a different
toy for each manipulation. A manipulation was considered completed based on the
9. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 9
mastery criteria of three consecutive ten-trial sessions at 80% accuracy or greater, or two
consecutive sessions at 90% accuracy or greater. For example, the tutor would model
pushing a car back and forth, hugging a doll, or talking on a phone (see Appendix A. for
details). The ten children who met these criteria were the children in this study.
As was the standard procedure in this classroom, these children were not tested
prior to manipulative-imitation training for independent object manipulation either with
the trained manipulations or with the manipulations used in generalization testing.
Procedure
Training. Prior to the generalization assessment, which constitutes this study,
each child had been trained using the following standard procedure for this classroom:
Initially the children were trained simultaneously with two different toys (e.g., a car and a
doll). The child was trained to imitate one manipulative response modeled by the tutor
for each toy. Once the child met mastery criteria for those two toys then a third toy, with
its corresponding manipulation, was added. The tutor would then model the manipulative
responses for all three toys, but only record data on the most recently introduced toy.
Then, once the child met mastery criteria for these three toys, a fourth toy with its
corresponding manipulation was added. Again, the tutor modeled the manipulative
responses for all four toys, but only record data on the most recently introduced toy. This
sequence would continue until all nine toys were randomly rotated during a ten-trial
session. The procedure was considered mastered once the child appropriately
manipulated all nine toys at the mastery criteria.
Testing. After meeting a criterion for completion of this training, from five to
10. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 10
twenty sessions of over training on that procedure were given, with this overtraining
taking place during one to three extra weeks.
Within one to four weeks of completion of overtraining, testing was done to
determine how well the child’s manipulative-imitation repertoire had maintained and to
determine whether their repertoire had generalized to untrained toys and manipulations.
This testing was done by presenting the original nine models of trained manipulations,
with their corresponding objects, and also models of novel combinations of trained
manipulations and objects (e.g., instead of rolling the car and talking on the phone a
novel combination would be “talking” on the car and putting the phone on your head)
(see Table 1).
Trained manipulations and novel manipulations were tested for each object before
going on to the next object. For example, the experimenter modeled the action “push the
car” then modeled the action “talk on the car” (holding the car to ear like a phone) before
moving on to the next object, the doll. All of the testing was done in extinction, so
reinforcers were not given for correct responses and corrections were not given for
incorrect responses. Eighteen trials were conducted during testing, which included one
trial for each manipulation.
11. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 11
Table 1
Training and Testing Manipulations
Stimuli Trained Novel Object/Manipulation
Manipulations Combinations
(Training) (Testing)
Car Push the car “Talk” on the car
(put car to ear)
Doll Hug the doll Push the doll
(like a car)
Bottle & Doll Feed the doll with Brush hair with the bottle
the bottle
Hat & Doll Put the hat on the Put hat on your head*
doll
Book Read the book Tap the book on the table*
Blocks Stack the blocks Put the blocks side by side*
Toy Phone Talk on the phone Put the phone on your elbow*
(put phone to ear)
Hairbrush & Brush the doll’s hair Touch hairbrush to your nose*
Doll
Peg & Pegboard Put the peg in the Roll the peg on table*
hole
Asterisks indicate manipulations that were completely novel (manipulations that had not been
previously trained).
There were three ways the children could have responded for each manipulation
modeled by the experimenter: (a) “Responding without a model” indicated that the child
manipulated the object appropriately, before the experimenter modeled the action. This
opportunity to respond independently was given by presenting each of the objects, one at
a time, on the child’s desk for three seconds before the manipulation was modeled. This
12. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 12
was done to assess whether the child would do the trained manipulation independent of
the model’s behavior, thereby indicating that the behavior was under the stimulus control
of the object and possibly not imitative stimulus control. The opportunity to respond
before the manipulation was modeled was only provided for manipulations that had
previously been trained during the initial manipulative-imitation training sessions and not
for the novel manipulations. (b) “Independent response with a model” meant that, without
prompting, the child independently manipulated the object in a way that had just been
modeled by the experimenter. A response was marked as an “independent response with
a model” only if it had not previously been manipulated without a model (“responding
without a model”). (c) “Prompted response with a model” meant that the child required
some sort of physical prompting in order to make the modeled response. These responses
were prompted to make sure the children were engaged with the testing and so the
children could make a correct response. The prompted data, however, were not reported.
To demonstrate imitative stimulus control, the child would imitate the model’s
trained manipulated of the toy. To demonstrate generalized imitative stimulus control, the
child would imitate the model’s novel manipulation of the toy.
Results
Nine of ten of the children manipulated at least one of the nine mastered objects
prior to the experimenter’s model of the manipulation (making a “response without a
model”). Seven of ten of the children manipulated at least 50% of the objects prior to the
model (Fig. 2). Therefore, it is not clear if they had acquired manipulative imitation for
those objects. Therefore mastery of their manipulative-imitation procedure, may often
have produced the skill of manipulating objects rather than the skill of imitating a
13. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 13
model’s manipulation of objects. Seven of ten of the children responded independently to
only five or fewer of the novel imitations, and children 9 and 10 were unable to imitate
any novel actions. In other words, those two children did not demonstrate a generalized
manipulative-imitation repertoire.
On the other hand, child 1 was able to imitate all of the novel actions, thereby
demonstrating an excellent generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire. Eight of the ten
children demonstrated some generalized manipulative imitation. However, because the
children had not been tested for generalized manipulative imitation, prior to their training,
it is not clear the extent to which they had that skill before imitation training. But it is
clear that the current procedure is inadequate to reliably train manipulative imitation for
most, if not all, of the children.
100
90
Percentage Correct
80
70
60
Response with a model
50
Response without a model
40
30
20
10
0
Novel
Novel
Novel
Novel
Novel
Novel
Novel
Novel
Novel
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Novel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Children
Figure 1. Testing for the amount of generalized manipulative-imitation for mastered and novel
manipulations. These data are arranged so that the children, on the X axis, are arranged in order
from the most amount of generalized manipulative-imitation to the least amount of generalized
manipulative-imitation.
14. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 14
As the first bar in Figure 2 shows, on average, for nearly 60% of the test trials
with the trained manipulations, the children properly manipulated the object prior to the
models manipulation of the object. So only 40% of the test trials with the trained
manipulations were available for the children to demonstrate manipulative imitation; and
they did demonstrate this imitation on 60% of those available trials (second bar of Fig. 2).
A combination of these data show that the children were able to do the proper
manipulations of the relevant toys on about 84% of the trials, though it is not clear how
much of this resulted from the training procedure and how much resulted from prior
training. In addition, the children showed generalized imitation on 40% of the trials with
novel manipulations (third bar of Fig. 2), though, again, it is not clear how much of this
resulted from the training procedure.
100
80
Percentage Correct
60
40
20
0
Mastered Manipulations Mastered Manipulations given Generalized Novel
without a Model the Opportunity to Respond Manipulations with a Model
Figure 2. Average percentage of responding for children in study 1 in the following categories:
a). generalized novel manipulations with a model, b). mastered manipulations given the
opportunity to respond, and c). mastered manipulations without a model.
There is considerable variability among the 10 children in terms of the number of
trials to mastery of the manipulative imitation procedure (Fig. 3). The correlation
15. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 15
between the number of trials to mastery and the percentage of generalized manipulative-
imitations is r = -0.56 (Fig.4). It may be that the children’s skills at generalized
manipulative imitation (either acquired before or during this training) facilitated their
acquisition of novel manipulative imitations; or it may be that both rate of acquisition and
generalization of imitation are a function of a third factor.
1600
1400
1200
Number of Trials
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Children
Figure 3. Number of trials to mastery of the manipulative-imitation procedure.
100
90
Percentage of Generalized
80
70
Imitation
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Number of Trials to Mastery
Figure 4. Correlation between the number of trials to mastery of the manipulative-imitation
procedure and the amount of generalized imitation.
16. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 16
Discussion
Although all 10 of the children in this study had mastered all 9 of the
manipulations previously trained, and although the majority of the children maintained
most of those manipulations after training, the majority of those children failed to
demonstrate generalized manipulative imitation on most of the novel combinations of
familiar objects with familiar or similar manipulations. But, for the children to benefit
maximally from the imitation training that is a component of nearly all early behavioral
intervention programs, it is crucial that those children acquire generalized imitation and
not just the specific imitations trained. In the case of manipulative imitation, it is essential
that the child’s behavior be under the stimulus control of the model’s behavior and not
just the object being manipulated. Getting stimulus control by the model’s behavior
might be facilitated by not reinforcing manipulations prior to the model’s manipulation of
the object (informally observed prior to this study) and by training the imitation of two or
more manipulations on some of the objects.
Furthermore, the prevention of unnecessary training might result from assessing
the child’s imitative repertoire before starting training and by probing for generalized
imitation throughout training. On the other hand, probing for generalized imitation during
training might prevent the premature termination of the imitation training.
17. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 17
Study 2: An Experimental Analysis of the Use of Multiple-Manipulations Per Object in
Achieving Generalized Manipulative Imitation
In Study 1, training single manipulations per object failed to produce reliable
generalized manipulative imitation with preschool children diagnosed with autism.
Perhaps the children’s behavior was under the stimulus control of the objects being
manipulated and not the manipulative behavior of the model. In that case, the training
procedure would be unlikely to establish generalized manipulative imitation. However,
training with multiple manipulations with some of the objects should result in stimulus
control by the behavior of the model, as well as stimulus control by the object, itself, and
should, therefore, be more likely to establish generalized manipulative imitation.
Therefore, this study used a training procedure involving multiple manipulations with
some of the objects.
Method
Setting
The setting for study 2 is the same setting as in study 1.
Children
Two children were selected for this study. They had an attending repertoire, did
not have a strong imitation repertoire, and they had no previous imitation training. Ashley
was 2 years and 6 months old at the start of the training and had been enrolled in the
classroom for one month. Tony was 2 years and 7 months old and had been enrolled in
classroom for three months.
18. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 18
Materials
The materials consisted of ten objects: matchbox car, plastic doll, plastic toy
phone, straw doll hat, story book, plastic drinking cup, toothbrush, plastic hammer, two,
wooden square blocks, and paper napkin.
Identification of Reinforcers
Twice per week each child participated in reinforcer assessments for tangible
reinforcers (objects and toys) and edible (food and drink The reinforcer assessment for
tangible reinforcers took place in a toy area within the classroom. The toy area contained
a wide variety of toys the child might have chosen by freely sampling the toys. The child
could play with a chosen toy for approximately ten seconds, then that toy was placed in
the child’s reinforcer bin (each child in the classroom had a reinforcer bin that held all of
that child’s tangible and edible reinforcers). The child was then given another opportunity
to sample the selection of toys until he or she chose approximately seven toys. The
reinforcer assessment for edible reinforcers took place in the child’s booth (work station).
The child had the opportunity to choose between several foods and drinks by sampling
the item for approximately ten seconds, as in the tangible reinforcer preference
assessment, then that edible item was placed in a baggie and added to the reinforcer bin.
Approximately, three to five edible reinforcers would be chosen. Then, because
children’s preferences change frequently, prior to each training session, an array of
approximately five toy and five edible reinforcers (from the previous assessment session),
were put on the desk in front of the child. Then, a brief multiple-stimulus assessment
without replacement (MSWO) (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996) was conducted to identify the
three most highly preferred items. The item (either tangible or edible) that was selected
19. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 19
first was used as a reinforcer for that session. If during the procedure the edible or
tangible reinforcer lost its reinforcing value (i.e. the child pushed the tangible reinforcer
away or did not eat the edible reinforcer) then another MSWO was conducted.
Procedure
20. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 20
Pre-training testing. Each child was tested to determine whether he or she
demonstrated an imitative object-manipulation repertoire. All ten objects (previously
listed in the Materials section) were tested with two different manipulations. Therefore, a
total of twenty manipulations were probed, which included the manipulations that the
children received training on. During pre-testing, the experimenter modeled an action
with an object (e.g., push the car across the desk) while simultaneously saying, “Do this”.
The child’s response was recorded as either: (a) a “response without a model” which
signified that the child made the correct response prior to the experimenter’s model of the
correct response, (b) an “independent response with model” which signified that the child
made the correct response independently after the experimenter’s model of the correct
response, or (c) a “prompted response with a model” which signified that after the
experimenter modeled the correct response, prompting was required in order for the child
to make the correct response. A least-to-most prompting hierarchy was used throughout
the testing session; therefore, the child was given 2-3 seconds to respond independently
after the model was shown. Then, if the child did not respond within that time period, the
experimenter provided a gestural prompt while simultaneously modeling the action.
Again, if the child still did not respond with the added gestural prompt within 2-3
seconds, the experimenter added a partial physical prompt while once more
simultaneously modeling the action. Lastly, if the child still did not respond within 2-3
seconds, the experimenter provided a full physical prompt, while simultaneously
modeling the action.
The experimenter then modeled a different action with the same object (e.g., jump
the car on the desk) while simultaneously saying, “Do this”, and again recorded the
21. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 21
child’s response as described previously. The experimenter followed this format for all
ten objects. Neither child manipulated any of the toys or showed manipulative-imitation.
22. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 22
Imitation training. Both children were assigned the same three objects (car, doll,
and phone) to be used during imitative object manipulation training, in keeping with the
criterion that the children imitated neither of the two modeled actions with these objects
during pre-testing. For each child, imitation of object manipulation was trained by
modeling two different manipulations using one object, and by modeling only one
manipulation for the other two objects. For example, Tony was trained to imitate two
manipulations with the car (pushing the car across the desk and jumping the car on the
desk), but he was trained to imitate only one manipulation with the doll (hug the doll) and
the phone (talk on the phone). Ashley was also trained to imitate manipulations in that
way; however, the objects and their corresponding actions were rotated so that neither of
the children was trained to imitate two actions with the same object. For example, Ashley
was trained to imitate two actions with the doll (hug the doll and kiss the doll), but she
was only trained to imitate one action with the car (push the car) and the phone (talk on
the phone).
23. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 23
Before each session the experimenter conducted a prompting probe trial using a
least-to-most prompt hierarchy to determine the level of prompting needed to achieve a
correct response. A prompting probe trial was conducted for each of the three objects.
During the prompting probe trial, in order to avoid extinction effects, a reinforcer was
provided for both prompted and unprompted responses. During training, the experimenter
started with the prompt level that was needed during the prompting probe trial for each
object and its corresponding manipulation. Then, the experimenter conducted five trials
of each object using the level of prompting that was required to evoke a correct response
in the initial prompting probe trials. In other words, during each session, four prompting
probe trials were run (one probe trial for each of the four manipulations) and twenty
training trials were run (five training trials for each of the four manipulations).
It should be noted that the intrusiveness of the prompting varied from child to
child. In other words, a full physical prompt for one child may be more intrusive than a
full physical prompt for another child. For example, when initially training the response
of jumping the car with Tony, a full physical prompt required placing his fingers around
the car to make a grasping response while simultaneously pulling the car into the air to
make a jumping response. On the other hand, Ashley did not require additional full
physical prompting to grasp the car.
During imitation training, the child was required to be looking at either the model
or the object to be manipulated prior to the experimenter’s modeling the response.
Strategies for achieving this varied depending on how the child responded. For example,
the experimenter might have begun by saying the child’s name. If the child did not look
upon hearing his or her name, then the experimenter held the imitation object in the
24. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 24
child’s line of vision until the child visually tracked the object as it was being moved
back and forth. Once the child looked at the object, the experimenter manipulated it for
that trial. Trials did not begin until a child was looking at either the experimenter or the
object.
Additionally, the children were never given the opportunity to respond before a
model was provided. For example, the experimenter would model the manipulation
(pushing the car) with her car, and then she gave the child his or her car once the initial
model was completed. Therefore, there were no instances when the children’s behaviors
of manipulating the object prior to the experimenter’s model were reinforced.
Training was continued until each of the four manipulations had met 80% mastery
criterion (i.e., the child had, at some point, gotten at least four out of five, 80%, correct
for each manipulation). However, the child was not required to meet this criterion for
each of the four imitations in the same session.
Generalization probing. Generalization probing was done during manipulative-
imitation training to determine how much generalized manipulative-imitation each child
had acquired throughout the training sessions. Probes were conducted for each of the
three objects once the child met 80% (or greater) independent responding for each of the
objects and their corresponding actions.
Probing consisted of novel actions modeled by the experimenter, with each of the
three objects. The probed actions included: car – put the car on your head, doll – stand
the doll on the desk, and phone – put the phone on your tummy. When the probe criteria
was met (80% correct imitation), the experimenter would intersperse three probe trials
randomly within the five training trials. Therefore, a total of nine trials were conducted
25. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 25
for each object when probe trials were conducted.
Imitation post-training testing. After a child had mastered a set of manipulative
imitations, the experimenter ran one session of post-training testing to determine how
much generalized manipulative-imitation that child had acquired. These tests were the
same as the pre-training tests with the same objects and manipulations. As in the
imitation pre-training testing, all ten objects were tested with two different manipulations,
including the manipulations the child had been trained on. To be considered to have
obtained a generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire, the child needed to respond
correctly and independently on 80% (sixteen out of twenty) of the post-training testing
trials.
Results & Discussion
Multiple Manipulation Training
The children participating in multiple-manipulations training acquired a
generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire, upon the completion of imitation training.
Ashley acquired generalized manipulative imitation after mastering one set of three
objects and four manipulative-imitations, and Tony acquired generalized manipulative
imitation after three sets of training (with a total of three objects and six manipulations).
This is in comparison to children in Study 1, who received single-manipulation training
with a total of nine objects, and for whom only one child, of these ten children,
demonstrated a complete generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire.
Ashley
26. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 26
During pre-testing, Ashley independently imitated 25% of the model’s
manipulations (first column of Fig. 5); therefore, she had not demonstrate a general
manipulative-imitation repertoire. Then, after meeting the 80% mastery criterion during
manipulative-imitation training for each of the objects (car, phone, and doll), Ashley’s
generalized imitative responding rose to 82% (third column of Fig. 5).
The 25% pre-training test score included a total of twenty manipulations. During
pre-training testing, Ashley did not demonstrate independent responding for the
following four manipulations: hug the doll, kiss the doll, push the car, and talk on the
phone. Therefore, these were the four manipulations on which she received training. She
acquired those imitative skills quickly, having met the 80% mastery criterion for each of
the four manipulations by the eighth session. Then generalization probes were conducted,
interspersed throughout the next four training sessions (note that a ‘push the car’
generalization probe was accidentally conducted a session early). These generalization
probes consisted of novel manipulations with the three trained objects (the dotted lines in
the second column of Fig.5). For example, Ashley was trained on ‘push the car’ and the
generalization probe for the car was ‘put the car on your head’ (a manipulation that had
not received previous training). The generalization probe data for Ashley show no more
generalization to novel responses, trained with objects that had received multiple
manipulation training, than with objects that had received single-manipulation training.
In fact, the generalization probes showed that Ashley demonstrated considerable
generalized manipulative-imitation with all three objects, regardless of the number of
manipulations trained with each of those objects.
Ashley’s post-training test showed 82% independent imitative responding with
27. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 27
generalization to novel objects and novel manipulations in contrast to 25% independent
imitative responding before training began. (Note that although the post-training test
included the four trained manipulations, those manipulations were not included in the
post-training test percentage). These results, along with the pre-training test percentage of
imitation, the acquisition of responding for the trained manipulations, the generalization
probe sessions, and the post-testing percentage of responding are depicted in Fig. 5. In
some sessions, Ashley made no independent responses, in which case the percentage of
correct responses were recorded as zero (this is also the case for Tony’s responding, Fig.
6). For example, this was the case for the first seven sessions of hug the doll (Fig. 5). The
generalization probes are depicted in the Fig. 5 for all four manipulations. It should be
noted that the generalization probes for ‘hug the doll’ and ‘kiss the doll’ are the same
and, therefore, only shown with ‘hug the doll’ manipulations. (this is also the case for
multiple-manipulations per object for Tony, Fig. 6). It should also be noted that incorrect
responses for generalization probes were non-responses rather than responses that did not
match the model’s manipulation of the object (this was also the case for Tony’s incorrect
responding during generalization probes).
28. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 28
Figure 5. Ashley’s data, including pre-training percentage of imitation, the acquisition of manipulative
imitation during training, the generalization probe sessions, and the post-training percentage of
correct responding.
Tony
During the imitation pre-training test Tony only independently imitated one of
the twenty responses (see the first column in Fig. 6). During the pre-training test, Tony
did not demonstrate independent responding for the following six manipulations: hug the
doll, kiss the doll, feed the doll, push the car, jump the car and talk on the phone.
Therefore, these were the six manipulations he received training on.
Training Set One. Once Tony met the 80% criterion for manipulative-imitation
29. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 29
training with the push the car, jump the car, talk on the phone, and hug the doll (see the
second column in Fig. 6), he failed to show substantial generalized imitation of novel
responses with the trained objects (see the dotted line data points in the second column of
Fig. 6). His generalized imitation rose to only 19% (see the third column in Fig. 6).
Therefore, we trained with a second set of manipulative-imitations.
Note that the ‘push the car’ response fell to 0% accuracy at the end of training set
one, as ‘jump the car’ responses rose to 100% accuracy. These two responses began
interfering with one another, as Tony’s responding came to consist of a blend between
pushing the car and jumping the car.
Training Set Two. The second set of trained imitations consisted of two
manipulations with the doll (hug the doll and kiss the doll) and still one manipulation
with the phone (talk on the phone). ‘Hug the doll’ was one of the manipulations, which
had already been trained in the first training session, and ‘kiss the doll’ was a newly
introduced manipulation. Again, Tony did not demonstrate any generalization with the
trained objects to novel manipulations (as indicated by the generalization probes in
column four of Fig. 6). However, it should be noted he did look at the model on each
generalization probe. However, in all cases he either made an incorrect response, or
simply looked at the experimenter and made no response.
Once Tony met the 80% mastery criterion for this new manipulation, a second
manipulative-imitation post-training test was conducted in order to determine if
generalized manipulative-imitation had been acquired (fifth column in Fig. 6). But, again,
Tony did not demonstrate generalized manipulative-imitation; instead he independently
imitated only 13% of the imitations. However, he did acquire the novel manipulation
30. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 30
(kiss the doll) more quickly than he had acquired the previously learned manipulations.
During the first training session, on average, Tony met the 80% criterion on the
seventeenth session in comparison to the second training set for which Tony met the 80%
criterion on the sixth session. His behavior was still not generalizing to novel
manipulations with familiar objects, therefore, we conducted a third training set (sixth
column in Fig. 6).
Training Set Three. The third training set included two manipulations with the car
(which were re-introduced from the first training set) and three manipulations with the
doll, including the new manipulation of feeding the doll (putting your finger to the doll’s
mouth as if it were a bottle). A third novel manipulation was added to the training with
the doll in order to determine if we could obtain response generalization once Tony had
been trained to independently imitate three manipulations (hugging the doll, kissing the
doll and feeding the doll) with one object (the doll). This third training set was the only
one to include all multiple-manipulations on each object; the phone, with a single-
manipulation, was not included. This third novel manipulation, feed the doll, was
acquired in only one training session, in contrast to seventeen sessions for the first
training set and six sessions for the second training set.
Upon meeting the mastery criterion of 80% in the third training set, a third post-
test was conducted with the novel manipulations and objects (the seventh column in Fig.
6). This third post-test showed that Tony had acquired a generalized manipulative-
imitation repertoire. Tony achieved 81% accuracy on this third post-training test of
generalized manipulative-imitation, in contrast to the other post-test scores of 19% and
13%.
31. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 31
The first two sets of generalization probe trials, conducted during training set one
and two, did not show any generalization. Yet, the third set of generalization probe trials
showed a substantial amount of generalization. In other words, the third set of
generalization probe trials showed that Tony demonstrated considerable generalized
manipulative-imitation with all three objects. Note that training set two did not include
any manipulations with the car, and the car manipulations were not clearly discriminated
at the end of training set one. However, he performed well with the car manipulations
during the third post-training test, and this good performance would seem to be due to the
generalization of his manipulative-imitation repertoire. And, as with Ashley, although,
there were no differences in generalized manipulative imitations between the objects
trained with a single-manipulation and those trained with multiple-manipulations, Tony
also did acquire a generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire.
33. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 33
Figure 6. Tony’s data, including pre-testing percentage of imitation, the baseline responding for the six
trained manipulations, the acquisition of manipulative imitation for each of the three training sets, the
Multiple-Manipulations Training Participants
generalization probe sessions, and the post-testing percentage.
34. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 34
In this within-subject analysis it was anticipated that training two manipulations
per object was crucial in producing an increase in a child’s generalized manipulative-
imitation repertoire. It was predicted that training two manipulations per object would
require the child’s responding to be under imitative stimulus control of the model’s
behavior rather than simply under the stimulus control of the presence of the object.
Therefore, gaining true imitative stimulus control would facilitate the acquisition of a
generalized imitation repertoire. However, for both children, there were no clear
differences in generalization between the objects that received single-manipulation
training and the objects that received multiple-manipulations training. It is possible that
both children acquired generalized manipulative-imitation on the basis of the multiple-
manipulations training with some objects, and it was that training which resulted in
generalized manipulative-imitation to the novel responses that had received only single
manipulative-imitation training. Once generalization occurred it spread across all objects
and manipulations therefore making it difficult to discern whether or not additional
manipulations contributed to the generalization. Ashley displayed ceiling effects in her
responding, meaning she demonstrated generalized manipulative-imitation during post-
testing with novel objects and manipulations after a minimal amount of imitation
training. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether training two manipulations with the
doll, in comparison to training only one manipulation with the car and the phone,
facilitated generalization of novel manipulations for Ashley. Overall, Tony was trained
on two manipulations with the car, three manipulations with the doll, and one
manipulation with the phone. However, there were no differences in the amount of
generalization between these trained objects.
35. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 35
These results are contrary to our expectations and may point to the limitation in
the within subjects design as the acquisition of generalized imitation may have interfered
with detection of a difference between multiple-manipulations and single-manipulations
per object. A group design may be more appropriate to compare differences in the
acquisition and establishment of a generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire. The
differences between children who received single-manipulation training and the children
who received multiple-manipulations training will be described below.
Single-Manipulation versus Multiple-Manipulation Training Participants
There were several differences between the single-manipulation training group,
from Study 1 and the multiple-manipulations training group, from Study 2. The most
salient differences include: (a) the training of multiple-manipulations, for some of the
objects, for one group versus the training of only single-manipulations, for all of the
objects, for the other group, (b) the use of most-to-least prompting, and the reinforcement
of prompted responses, for the multiple-manipulations training group versus the use of
least-to-most prompting, and no reinforcement for prompted responses, for the single-
manipulation training group, and (c) the extinction of reinforcement for correct
manipulations made prior to the model for the multiple-manipulations group versus the
informally observed reinforcement of correct manipulations made prior to the model’s
manipulation for the single-manipulation group.
Percentage of Generalized Manipulative-Imitation Acquired
There was a substantial increase in generalized manipulative-imitation
36. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 36
demonstrated by the children who received multiple-manipulations training compared to
the children who received single-manipulations training. The differences between the
overall percentages of generalized imitation demonstrated, for each child, upon the
completion of manipulative-imitation training is shown in Fig. 7.
Ashley
Tony
Percentage of Generalized Imitation Study 2: Multiple-
manipulations
Training
100 Figure 7. Comparison between the percentage of generalized manipulative-imitations acquired by
Study 1: Single-
children in study 1 and study 2. manipulation Training
80
Percentage Correct
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Children
Trials to Mastery
Although Tony needed more training sessions than Ashley to acquire
generalized manipulative-imitation, both children acquired generalized
manipulative- imitation in fewer number of trials than most of the children who
received single-manipulation training. All but two of the children who
Study 1: Single- Study 2: Multiple-
manipulation Training manipulations
received single-manipulation training were given considerably more training trials
Training
than those with the multiple-manipulation training, but they achieved considerably less, if
any, generalized manipulative-imitation, as a result. Also the multiple-manipulations
training involved only three objects for manipulation, whereas the single-manipulation
37. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 37
Tony Ashley
training involved nine objects.
Figure 8. Comparison between the number of trials required to establish a generalized
Trials to Mastery
manipulative-imitation repertoire by children in study 1 and study 2.
1600
1200
Trials
800
400
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Children
Prompting Strategies
The single-manipulation training group received least-to-most prompting with no
reinforcement of prompted responses; whereas the multiple-manipulations training group
received most-to-least prompting with reinforcement of prompted responses. The
prompting strategy used during training might impact the rate of acquisition of each
manipulative-imitation; so the prompting strategy is confounded with the number of
manipulations per object. However, there is no reason to think the prompting strategy
would affect the amount of generalized manipulative-imitation once the original
manipulations were mastered.
Reinforcing versus Extinguishing Responding Prior to the Model
With the multiple-manipulations training group, the experimenter extinguished
responses made prior to the model’s demonstrating the correct response. This might have
38. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 38
made it more likely that the children’s behavior would come under the stimulus control of
the model’s behavior and thereby under better imitative stimulus control, than simply
under the stimulus control of the manipulated object. If better imitative stimulus control
did result, this might account for the greater generalized imitation that occurred with the
single-manipulation training group where reinforcement could follow correct responding
prior to the model’s modeling. During post-training tests, on all but one trial, the two
children in the multiple-manipulations training group waited for the experimenter to
model the correct response before they responded, with both trained manipulations and
untrained manipulations (Fig. 9). It should be noted that “mastered” indicates trained
responses that had met the 80% mastery criterion during the training sessions, and
“novel” indicates novel responses with object that had never been trained. The mastered
responses include pushing the car, hugging the doll, and talking on the phone. The novel
responses include the children’s putting the car on their head, standing the doll on the
table, and putting the phone on their tummy.
100 Figure 9. Post-training manipulative-imitation and generalized manipulative-imitation.
Responses with a model indicate responses made after a model of the manipulation had been
Percentage Correct
80
demonstrated by the experimenter. Responses without a model indicate responses made prior to
60 a model of the manipulation that had been demonstrated bywith a model
Response the experimenter.
40 Response without a model
20
0
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Mastered
Novel
Novel
Novel
Novel
Ashley Tony 1 Tony 2 Tony 3
39. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 39
During post-testing Ashley waited for a model of the manipulation before making
a response during each trial (as shown by Fig. 9). Tony had been trained with three
separate training sets of stimuli and manipulations. During the first post-test, Tony waited
for a model and responded at 100% accuracy with the mastered manipulations, and he
waited for a model and responded at 33% accuracy (1 out of 3) for the novel
manipulations. During the second post-test, Tony waited for a model and responded at
100% accuracy with the mastered manipulations, and he waited for a model for the novel
manipulations but he did not make any correct responses with the those manipulations.
During the third post-test, with the mastered manipulations Tony waited for a model in
two of three trials and responded at 100% accuracy for those two trials, but he also
responded prior to the model in one of the three trials, still making a correct response
with that object. He then waited for a model and responded at 100% accuracy (3 out of 3)
for the novel manipulations. Ideally this type of responding is what we would like to see
because it demonstrates that the responses are under imitative control rather than object
stimulus control.
On the other hand, there was a considerable premature responding (responding
prior to the model) by children in the single-manipulation training group (refer to Fig. 1).
This suggests that the procedure of preventing the child from responding prior to the
model was effective in preventing the occurrence of premature responses, as was done
with the children who received multiple-manipulation training. Also, preventing
responding prior to the model may have increased the likelihood that the responses made
by the children were under imitative stimulus control of the behavior of the model.
Additional Benefits of Multiple-Manipulation Training
40. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 40
In addition to the benefits, previously described, for training multiple-
manipulations per object to teach manipulative-imitation, other benefits were also
identified for this type of training. These benefits included acquiring generalized physical
imitation and acquiring generalized manipulative-imitation to novel tutors and settings.
Generalized Physical Imitation
Physical imitation is the imitation of body movements, such as raising arms,
stomping feet, clapping hands, touching nose, and waving goodbye. These children did
not receive specific training on any type of physical imitation, yet this repertoire emerged
with the acquisition of a generalized manipulative-imitation. (A complete list of the trials
of physical imitation that were probed with the children can be found in Appendix E.).
Although each child’s physical imitation repertoire was not assessed prior to
manipulative-imitation training, the lack of a manipulative-imitation suggests the
physical imitation was absent as well.
The establishment of generalized physical-imitation, is not surprising, as
manipulative-imitation, in essence, is a form of physical imitation. Both types of
imitation require body movements; however, in manipulative-imitation the component of
object manipulation is added. In both physical and manipulative imitation, the child is
largely matching the proprioceptive stimuli arising from his or her movements with the
visual stimuli arising from the model’s behavior. Therefore, with manipulative-imitation,
the children were also trained on a component of physical imitation.
Generalization to Novel Tutors
For both multiple-manipulations children, their generalized physical imitation and
generalized manipulative-imitation generalized to novel tutors and novel settings. Both
41. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 41
children were tested with a sample of ten manipulative-imitation responses and ten
physical imitation responses with familiar tutors; and both children showed considerable
generalization to those tutors (Fig. 12). These tutors were familiar to the children in that
they had worked with the children on a daily basis doing other discrete-trial training, as
was typical in their classroom.
100
90
Percentage Correct
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Phys. Man. Phys. Man. Phys. Man. Phys. Man.
Im. Im. Im. Im. Im. Im. Im. Im.
Tutor 1 Tutor 2 Tutor 1 Tutor 2
Tony Ashley
Figure 10. Generalization of manipulative-imitation to tutors who had not trained the manipulative-
imitation.
.
Stimulus Generalization
One child who received multiple-manipulations training, Tony, demonstrated
stimulus generalization to novel objects prior to demonstrating generalized manipulative-
imitation with novel imitative responses. For example, he generalized from trained
manipulations (push the car) to novel objects (push the hammer); but he did not
generalize from trained manipulations with an object (push the car) to novel
manipulations with the same object (put the car on your head). Tony consistently and
independently imitated recently trained manipulations (hugging, kissing, talking, feeding,
42. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 42
jumping, and pushing) with at least six novel objects (hammer, block, toothbrush, hat,
book, and cup) as shown in Fig. 11. (These data were collected after the second training
set of objects/manipulations were mastered.)
100
90
80
Percentage Correct
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hugging Kissing Talking Feeding Jumping Pushing
Figure 11. Tony demonstrated much stimulus generalization, generalizing trained
manipulations to novel objects. Each manipulation listed along the X axis was modeled using
the following objects: hammer, block, toothbrush, hat, book, and cup. Tony correctly imitated
all six trained actions with up to six novel objects.
.
This finding may indicate that the “slower learners” will first acquire imitation of
mastered manipulations with novel objects prior to imitation of novel manipulations with
43. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 43
familiar objects. Additionally, Ashely’s results demonstrate that some children may not
need an intensive imitation intervention, with many multiple-manipulations per object, in
order to acquire a generalized manipulative-imitation repertoire. However, other children,
like Tony, may need more intensive training in order to acquire a generalized
manipulative-imitation repertoire. At this point it is not clear which children will fall in
which category.
Caveats
Generalized manipulative-imitation was more quickly acquired and more
extensive than anticipated; therefore, a within-subject design, as used in the second study,
may not have been appropriate. The transfer of training from one element (multiple
manipulations with one object) to another element (single manipulations with another
object) may have prevented the multi-element design from having the independence
necessary to show any superiority of the multiple-manipulations training over the single-
manipulations training. However, a comparison between the children trained with single-
manipulations and the children trained with multiple-manipulations does strongly suggest
the considerable value of multiple-manipulations training. But, that comparison involves
several confounding factors: the conducting of an imitation assessment prior to training,
the use of most-to-least prompting combined with reinforcement of prompted responses,
extinction of responses that occurred prior to the model’s modeling the appropriate
manipulation, generalization probes throughout training, imitation training until a
generalized imitation repertoire was produced, and the implementation of the procedure
by the experimenter (a doctoral student, with six years experience, rather than first-
semester undergraduate practicum students). For that reason, it is not completely clear
44. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 44
which components contributed to the superiority of the performance of the of multiple-
manipulations group. Therefore, this study needs to be replicated in a group design,
where all elements but the single- vs. multiple-manipulations components are held
constant.
Conclusions
In conclusion: (a) Multiple-manipulations training produced a generalized
manipulative-imitation repertoire. (b) Typically it also produced a generalized
manipulative-imitation repertoire in fewer trials than the majority of children who
received single-manipulation training alone. (c) For some children, if they received
multiple-manipulations training with one object, it may suffice to do concurrent single-
manipulation training with a small number of other object to produce generalized
manipulative-imitation. (d) Multiple-manipulations training may decrease the extent that
the child’s manipulation is under the stimulus control of the object rather than the
conditional stimulus control of the object and the model’s behavior. (e) Multiple
manipulations training can produce generalized physical imitation as well as generalized
manipulative-imitation. (f) Multiple-manipulations training may produce generalized
imitation of trained manipulations to novel objects before it produces generalized
imitation of novel manipulations of trained or novel objects.
46. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 46
References
Burgess, R.L., Burgess J.M., & Esveldt, K.C. (1970). An analysis of generalized
imitation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 39-46.
DeLeon, I.G. & Iwata, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation
format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 29, 519-533.
Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: advances in
stimulus control technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 16, 72-85.
Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2006) Teaching reciprocal imitation skills to young
children with autism using naturalistic behavioral approach: effects of language
pretend play, and joint attention. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 36, 487-505.
Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (1999). Work in progress: Behavior management strategies
and a curriculum for intensive behavioral treatment information. New York:
DRL Book, LLC.
Lovaas, O. I., Ackerman, A., Alexander, D., Firestone, P., Perkins, M.,Young, D. B.,
Carr, E. G., & Newsom, C. (1981). Teaching developmentally disabled children:
The ME book. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
MacDuff, G.S., Krantz, P.J., & McClannahan L.E. (2001). Prompts and prompt fading
strategies for people with autism. In C. Maurice, G. Green & R.M. Foxx (eds)
(2001) Making a difference: Behavioral intervention for Autism. Pro-Ed: Autsin,
TX.
47. Generalized Manipulative-Imitation 47
Malott, R.W. (2008). Principles of Behavior. Uppers Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Peterson, R. F., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1971). A variable influencing the performance of
generalized imitative behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 1-9.
Young, J.M., Krantz, P., McClannahan, L.E., & Poulson, C.L. (1994). Generalized
imitation response-class formation in children with autism. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 27, 685-697.