Strategies in Teaching: Errorless learning and High-P Commands

Errorless Learning

What is Errorless Learning? Procedure where a correct response by student is prompted by the instructor Errors are prevented Correct responding is reinforced Prompts are then systematically faded (responding transferred to the demand) Note developed from Terrace research in 1963

Why Use Errorless Learning? Preventing student errors: Ensures high levels of correct responding  learning is paired with a pleasurable experience (positive reinforcement) Can save time when teaching new skills Reduces escape motivated behaviors

General Errorless Procedure Prompt Give demand Provide prompt (no delay) Student gives correct response Student is reinforced Transfer Repeat demand Fade prompt Distract Give distractor demand Student responds/reinforced Check Repeat initial demand Prompt is faded Prompt: describe zero second time delay Transfer: when fading prompt, fading to point of still preventing errors. Could be fading prompt topography or increasing time delay prompt. Distract: already mastered skill Check: prompt faded to point in transfer trial

Using Errorless Learning **Prompt – Transfer – Distractor – Check** Staff: “What do you want” (holding juice box) Staff: (no delay) “Juice” Student: echoes “Juice” Staff: “Right! What do you want?” Student: “Juice” Staff: “Nice talking, here’s your juice” (while giving sip of juice to student) Staff: “Touch your nose” Student: touches nose Staff: “Good listening. What do you want?” Student: “Juice” (gets sip of juice)

Video Example www.autismtrainingsolutions.com Click on: “Resources” tab “Video” “Errorless Learning Strategy”

Correcting Errors **Error - Prompt – Transfer – Distractor – Check** Staff: Points to picture of dog and says “What is it?” Student: “Cat” Staff: “What is it? Dog” Student: “Dog” Staff: “What is it? Duh (making D sound)” Staff: “Right! What is it?” Staff: “Show me waving” Student: waves and then “Nice waving. What is it?”

Error correction Video www.autismtrainingsolutions.com Click on: “Resources” “Video” “Error Correction”

Considerations for Implementing Errorless Procedure Consider the prompting that will be needed to produce a correct response (physical, model, gesture, verbal) Use prompt fading (delaying prompt or next level in most-to-least hierarchy). Physical (providing physical guidance/contact to student) Model (demonstrating the skill) Gesture (giving a cue without physical contact with student, such as making a motion, pointing, etc.) Verbal (providing a verbal cue) Give examples of prompt fading

Let’s Practice! Break into groups; each group gets an envelope with 3 cards (ABC, 123, circle triangle square, red blue green, cookie dog bicycle)

High-P Commands (aka: Behavioral Momentum)

What is Behavioral Momentum? Presenting a series of commands that have a high probability (High-P) of occurrence prior to presenting a low probability (Low-P) command High-P commands are reinforced and build “momentum” for complying with the low-p command

Why Use Behavioral Momentum? Research has shown can increase compliance Mention research with compliance in socialization, accepting non-preferred foods, and medical exams

High P Procedure Identify High-P commands (>80% compliance) Prompt High-P command Provide immediate reinforcement for compliance Repeat steps “B” and “C” until there have been 3-5 consecutive successful High-P trials Prompt Low-P command

Using Behavioral Momentum Staff: determines waving, jumping, and rubbing hands occur >80% of trials Staff: “Show me waving.” Student: waves hand Staff: “Good job.” “Jump up.” Student: jumps up Staff: “Good job.” “Rub your hands together.” Student: rubs hands together Staff: “Good job.” “Brush teeth” while giving brush to learner. (low-p) Student: brushes teeth Staff: “Awesome brushing” and reinforces with favorite song

Behavioral Momentum Video http://youtu.be/0hkMrDzq8L4

Considerations for Using High-P Commands Ensure noncompliance of low-p commands is not due to not understanding the command or lack of prerequisite skills. Word Low-P requests in a positive manner (i.e., “don’t lay down” vs. “sit up”) High-P responses are more effective when they can be performed quickly and require little effort Choose reinforcers that will not interfere with subsequent requests Mention reinforcers like m&M, verbal praise, social praise

Let’s Practice! Break into groups; each group gets an envelope with 2 cards: 1 card has a list of high-p commands and 1 card has a list of low-p commands

References Davis, C. A., Brady, M. P., Hamilton, R., McEvoy, M. A., & Williams, R. E. (1994). Effects of high-probability requests on the social interactions of young children with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 619-637. Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B. J., Belfiore, P., Brown, D. K. (1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123-141. Meier, A. E., Fryling, M. J., & Wallace, M. D. (2012). Using high-probability foods to increase the acceptance of low-probability foods. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 149-153. Nevin, J. A., Mandell, C., & Atak, J. R. (1983). The analysis of behavioral momentum. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 49-59. Oliver, R. & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Applying behavioral momentum to increase compliance: Why Mrs. H. RRReved up the elementary students with the Hokey-Pokey. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 75-94. Riviere, V., Becquet, M., Peltret, E., Facon, B., Darcheville, J. (2011). Increasing compliance with medical examination requests directed to children with autism: effects of a high-probability request procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44. 193-197. Terrace, H. (1963). Discrimination learning with and without “errors.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 223-232. Touchette, P. E. & Howard, J. S. (1984). Errorless Learning: Reinforcement contingencies and stimulus control transfer in delayed prompting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17 175-188. Witt J. C, & Wacker D. P. (1981) Teaching children to respond to auditory directives: An evaluation of two procedures. Behavior Research of Severe Developmental Disabilities, 2, 175–189.