The Effects of the Mastery of Auditory Matching of Component Sounds to Words on the Rate
and Accuracy of Textual and Spelling Responses
Laura Lyons Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2014 © 2014 Laura Lyons All rights reserved ABSTRACT The Effects of the Mastery of Auditory Matching of Component Sounds to Words on the Rate
and Accuracy of Textual and Spelling Responses
Laura Lyons
Textual responding or a see print and say sound response, often called “decoding,” is a key component of reading. Teaching letter sounds and how to say these sounds together as words is a repertoire that allows students to become independent readers (McGuiness, 2004). However, some students have difficulty with blending letter sounds to read words (Carnine, 1997).
Spelling is the reciprocal process to textual responding (McGuiness, 2004). To spell, an individual must segment component sounds in a word to write the correct graphemes.
In two experiments, the experimenter tested the effects of the acquisition of matching component phoneme sounds to the words they comprise and vise-versa using an experimenter designed computer-based auditory match to sample (MTS) instructional program on textual responding and spelling of words with taught phonemes, and the rate of acquisition of new textual responses.
Participants in Experiment I included 6 kindergarten students and 3 preschool students who required many instructional trials to meet textual responding objectives. Participants in
Experiment II were 2 students (one kindergartener and one second grader) diagnosed with autism and 3 kindergarten students. Participants did not read words composed of letter sounds they had mastered. Results of Experiments I and II demonstrated a functional relation between the auditory matching program and textual responding and rates of learning for all participants.
Results are discussed from the perspective of the Verbal Behavior Developmental Theory (VBDT), in terms of the importance of verbal developmental cusps and the joining of listener and speaker repertoires in textual responding and spelling. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………….iv
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………….…vi
CHAPTER I: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE………………………………………………1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………1
Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………………4
Literacy……………………..…………………………………………………….4
Phonics Instruction……….………………………………………………………5
Textual Behavior……………………………………………………………….….7
Component and Composite Repertoires……….………………………………….9
Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence……………………………………………14
Spelling………………………………..…………………………………………14
Writing Systems…………………………………………………………….……16
Blending……………………………………………………………………….…17
Language and Reading……………………………………………………….…..19
Observing and Producing….……………………………………………21
i Emergent Behavior……………………………………………………24
Stimulus Equivalence…………………………………………….25
Relational Frame Theory….……….…………………………….27
Naming Theory…………………………………………………..28
Verbal Behavior Development Theory…….………………….….30
VBDT and Verbal and Academic Development…………………………………32
Speaker-as-own-Listener Behavior……………………………………..34
Overt and Covert Verbal Behavior……………………………………..35
Blending, VBDT, & Textually Responding……………..……………..37
Rational and Educational Significance………………..…………………………38
Research Questions………………………………………………………………38
CHAPTER II: EXPERIMENT I…………………………………………………………………40
Method…………………………………………………………………………………………40
Participants….……………………………………………………………………40
Setting and Materials……………………………………………………….……44 Procedure………………………………………………………………………………………49
Results……………………………………………………………………………………66
Discussion………..………………………………………………………………………74
CHAPTER III: EXPERIMENT 2…………………………………………………………….…79
Method……………………………………………………………………………79
Participants………………………………………………………………….…80
ii Setting…………………………………………………………………………82
Procedure………………………………………………………………………………………82
Results……………………………………………………………………………………85
Discussion………..………………………………………………………………………93
CHAPTER IV: GENERAL DISCUSSION………………………………………………96
Implications…………..…………………………………………………………….…99
Limitations………….………………………………………………………………..103
Future Research………………………………………………………………………104
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………104
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………106
Appendix A. Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………118
iii List of Tables
Table Page
1. AIL® Classroom Standard Tactics and Procedures………….….……………………………42
2. Participant Information for Experiment I……………….………………………………….43
3. Definitions of Component and Composite Textual and Spelling Responses………………53
4. Dependent Variable 1. Words and non-word morphemes…………………………………54
5. Dependent Variable 2. Word lists to calculate learn units to criterion………………………55
6. Dependent Variable 3. Words used during the vocal blending pre and post- intervention….57
7. Independent Variable: Auditory matching program phases and target words……………….63
8. Participant Information for Participants in Experiment II………………………….………..81
iv List of Figures
Figure Page
1. Morningside Phonics Page Photo……………………………………………………….……56
2. Example of Matching Component Sounds to Composite Words Computer/ipad Screen……62
3. Correct Textual Responses and Component Sounds and Textual Responses ………………69
4. Number of Correct Vocally Blended Phonemes for Participants in Experiment I…………70
5. Number of Learn Units to Criterion for Phonemes and Words for Participants 1-4 ………71
6. Learn units to criterion for Morningside Phonics© objectives for Participants 5 and 6……72
7. Number of Learn Units to Criterion for Phonemes and Words for Participants 7-9…………73
8. Correct Textual Responses and Component Sounds for Participants in Experiment II ….….88
9. Number of Learn Units to Criterion Participants in Experiment II ………………………….89
10. Number of Correctly Written Graphemes for Participants in Experiment II……..…….……90
11. Number of Correctly Written Graphemes and Correctly Written Graphemes………………91
12. Number of Words Spelled Correctly for Participants in Experiment II…….………………92
13. Number of Correct Vocally Blended Phonemes for Participants in Experiment II…….….…93
v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
“A family is people who make you feel at home.” I am so lucky to know and be a part of so many families. I am grateful to all of them. Thank you first to the Lyons family: Sid, Lisa,
Sidney, Lindsey, and Andrew. Your strength, humor, and support means more than you will ever know. Thank you to the Williams and Lyons families; from each of you I have learned the true meaning of unconditional love.
Thank you to my Hillcrest family; your enthusiasm and passion for helping children is both contagious and powerful. To the adults in room 21, I thank you for your tireless work and for always being your best selves for me and our students. Thank you Dr. O’Connell. I treasure all of your lessons. I hope that someday my actions deliver the kind of gratitude you deserve
(“who you are speaks so loud I can’t hear what you say”).
To the home I have found in the CABAS community, this is a place of greatness. I am humbled to be just a small part. My friends Alison, Elizabeth, Derek, Joanne, Haley, Laura,
Vanessa, Jenn, Jen, Cassie, and Michelle; Thank you for your friendship, leadership and compassion. Dr. Dudek, your brilliance is matched only by your kindness. Thank you, for teaching me to do well and be well in all things. Dr. Delgado, your lessons inside the classroom and outside have been nothing short of life changing. Your quiet kindness is something I hope to acquire because it is foundational to giving others confidence. Dr. Greer, thank you for truly being the world’s greatest teacher (of all things). Thank you for shaping so much what of I was into what I needed (and wanted) to become.
Thank you to my students: Wonderful tiny humans who have taught me more than I could ever teach them in ten lifetimes. You are the reason for all of this. My wish for all of you is to
vi love yourselves like I do; In a way so big it can not be measured or quantified - in a way so big it can not be held inside, but only shared. My hope is that you are never afraid to share your brilliance, for this is what you taught me.
And finally, to one special little boy who is no longer here with us, but never far from my heart and mind. To the boy and his family who endured so much to teach us so much. You taught me that the greatest gift is giving joy by being truly joyful inside your own self. And you taught me that every single heart movement matters, and how gracefully you deal with peaks and valleys makes you an inspiration. You showed me that you can change people by being who you are, if who you are is someone who laughs and plays and dances and does it all and tries to live without trying too hard. Your impact on my life has turned me into a person who laughs and plays and dances more joyfully than ever. It is now up to us to honor you and bring this joy out in each other. It’s up to us to be the best of what we are for everyone, in a way that makes us feel more full than empty. Thank you Danny. You are with me always.
vii 1
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Literacy is often the most important form of evidence used to gauge the educational progress of students (Crystal, 2005). In 1992, the functional illiteracy rate for nine-year old students in the United States was 43% (Mullis, Campbell, & Fartrup, 1993). In 2011, 66% of fourth grade students nationally performed below proficient levels in tests of reading comprehension (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). Students who fail to reach grade level performance in reading during early elementary school years continue to struggle throughout their educational careers (Juel, 1988). Shaywitz and Fletcher (1996) reported that
75% of students who tested below grade level in reading during elementary school remained below grade level upon entering high school. Because of the critical nature of reading, a great amount of attention is paid to how students learn to read and the curricula used to teach reading.
“Research shows that reading is far more complex and more amazing than anyone could possibly imagine.” (McGuiness, 2004, p. 347).
In reading instruction, a dominant method currently employed is the “whole word” method. This method has been “accepted universally without a shred of evidence attesting to its efficacy, while phonics advocates continually have to prove that phonics programs work.” (McGuiness, 2004, p. 186). “Phonics” instruction is a method of teaching reading based on human speech sounds which can successfully teach beginning reading (Baer, 1999). Phonics related interventions are significantly more effective and efficient than other methods 2
(McGuiness, 1997). Students taught to read using a “whole word” method must respond to each word as a discrete operant. “Whole word” methods of reading encompass what some call “sight word reading” (Ehri, 2005). Phonics instruction teaches students phoneme sounds and how to blend sounds in order to textually respond to words. Research has shown that student taught using the whole word method were worse, readers, spellers, and writers than students taught to read using a phonics based approach (Benuck & Peverly, 2004).
Phonics instruction teaches students to textually respond; that is, to see the letters that make up a word and emit the vocal speech sounds that have point to point correspondence with the printed phonemes (Greer, 2002). This process is often referred to as “decoding” in the reading literature (Dow & Baer, 2007). However, when students textually respond to graphemes and blend them into words, no code is involved (Rehfeldt, Barnes-Holmes, & Hayes, 2009;
Skinner, 1979). See-say repertoires are necessary operants for textual responding.
Textual responding is necessary in order to read, but not sufficient for a complete reading repertoire. A complete reading repertoire involves both textual responding and comprehension, but a textual responding repertoire is a perquisite for comprehension components. Before one can comprehend what one reads, one must have a fluent textual responding repertoire
(Dowhower, 1987; Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985). A student who is a fluent reader cannot only comprehend what he reads but also acquire more complex repertoires such as vocabulary, self- editing, and problem solving behaviors as a function of reading (Greer, 2002).
Phonics instruction is important for textual responding due to the nature of our writing system because “sounds are the basic unit for all writing systems.” (McGuiness, 1997). Writing systems are derivative and are based on speech sounds (Crystal, 2005). Our writing system maps 3 elements of language with graphemes (printed letters) (McGuiness, 2004). The speech-based foundations of our writing systems are why research shows correlations between language ability and reading (McGuiness, 2005). If the phoneme (a speech sound) is what a grapheme (print) represents, then textual responding (saying phonemes or combinations or phonemes after seeing a grapheme or combinations of graphemes) requires certain prerequisite verbal abilities.
When a student learns to textually respond, it is the first time he or she must respond at the phoneme or component sound level of a word. Speaking and listening to speech involves combinations of sounds, but beginning reading (textual responding) involves initially responding to phonemes in isolation, followed by the combination of these component sounds to a word.
Textual responding at a phoneme level first, followed by textual responding to a whole word involves both observing and producing, or listening and speaking repertoires. Students must listen to (observe) their own utterances of component phoneme sounds and produce (speak) the correct blend for the word.
In two experiments, I tested the role of the acquisition of the ability to match or select component or singularly uttered speech sounds to composite words, on the number of correct textual responses and spelling responses to words with mastered phonemes. The effects of this acquisition were also tested on the rate of acquisition of new textual responses and the participants’ vocal blending. In order to test for the role or acquisition of speaker-as-own- listener behaviors related to textual responding and spelling, I recorded whether responses were correct or incorrect, emitted overtly with each component phoneme being uttered separately first, or emitted without any other vocal verbal behavior. Before I offer an analysis of textual responding, listener-based phoneme and word selection, and its relation to verbal repertoires and 4 speaker-as-own-listener behaviors, I present a review of the literature on reading, phonemes and writing systems, emergent behavior, and verbal development specific to sound discriminations and blending.
Review of the Literature
Literacy
Textual behavior (textual responding) is one of six components of reading (Skinner,
1957; Staats, 1968). Textual behavior is necessary, but not sufficient for comprehending text or a complete reading repertoire. The central aspect of textual responding is the discriminative relations between the text and the verbal response (Rehfeldt et al., 2009). The visual stimulus and typically vocal response share point-to-point correspondence (Skinner, 1957). It is text
(printed letters, words, or sentences) that is the discriminative stimulus for the production of words as vocal responses.
Reading involves both textual responding and comprehension. Textual responding, to see letters and strings of letters and to say sounds or words, is what students are taught in early elementary school grades. Comprehension and acquiring new information through reading is dependent on an accurate and fluent textual responding repertoire (Torgesen & Hudsen, 2006).
It is also dependent on the reader listening to the content of what he or she has read (Greer &
Ross, 2008). Research showed that students who do not learn to textually respond by third grade never catch up (Francis, Shaywitz, Steubing, Shaywitz, Fletcher, 1996). As students progress through elementary grades, the national standards require the acquisition of new information through reading; therefore, in order for students to read to learn, they must learn to read; that is, to textually respond fluently. 5
Whole word instruction does not utilize the alphabetic writing system. Whole word instruction uses syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic information (Goodman, 1993). Research on whole word methods is scant and the phonics-like instruction that is embedded in this system is often inaccurate. Researchers describe whole word instruction as moving from whole-to-part rather than part-to-whole (Dahl, Scharer, Lawson, & Grogan, 1999).
Phonics Instruction
There are many curricula and instructional methods that use phonics-based approaches to teaching reading and spelling. However, many curricula introduce incorrect phonemic units or a large variety of phonological units (McGuiness, 2004). Despite these deficits in instructional sequences, there have been high correlations between phoneme manipulation skills and reading repertoires (Chencey, 1992). Wimmer, Mayringer, and Landerl (2002) conducted a correlation analysis and found that onset rhyme, phoneme-segmenting, and naming speed did not predict reading success, but learning which letters make which sounds (letter-sound correspondence) was correlated to increases in reading test scores. According to the authors of this study, because the phoneme is the sound unit that our alphabetic writing system employs, acquiring the ability to respond to graphemes with correct phonemes is the key to developing a more complex reading repertoire and a predictor of reading repertoires.
Other experiments showed that syllable segmenting, rhyming, and phoneme substitution did not have a significant effect on reading, but the acquisition of letter-sound correspondences did impact reading ability (Haddock, 1976; Lindenberg, Oloffson, & Wall, 1980; Share, Jorm,
Maclean, & Mathews, 1984; Yopp, 1988: cited from McGuiness, 2004). Still other studies showed that without explicit letter sound correspondence training, more students were at risk or 6 diagnosed with reading disabilities (Alexander, Anderson, Heilman, Voeller & Torgesen, 1991;
Brady, Fowler, Stone & Winbury, 1994).
The importance of phonics instruction is further emphasized when analyzing reading literature on individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. Because individuals who are deaf have limited experiences with the vocal sounds that print represents, reading is an incredibly difficult skill to acquire (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Kyle & Harris, 2006). Leybaet (1993) argues that the inability to hear phoneme sounds “is precisely what underlies the reading problems of deaf individuals” (p. 13).
In teaching reading to deaf individuals, many researchers emphasize that phonics instruction remains an absolute necessity and no alternatives (visual sign or coding) are effective substitutes (Hanson, 1991; Luetke-Nielsen & Stahlman, 2003; Wang, Trezek, Luckner & Paul,
2008). Research has also shown positive correlations between reading ability and phonemic awareness skills in deaf individuals (Colin, Magnan, Ecalle, & Leybaert, 2007; Perfetti &
Sandak, 2001). Another important factor in the reading abilities of deaf individuals is the use of subvocal rehearsal (saying words covertly). The rehearsal of speech in response to print yields improved reading ability (Conrad, 1979).
McGuiness (1997) argued that students often do not acquire letter-sound correspondences without explicit instruction. Phonics instruction teaches students to respond to the sounds at the base of language, which are the foundations for our writing system. Phonics employs a bottom- up approach - teaching the smallest parts first. 7
Textual Behavior
Phonics instruction teaches the component sounds of words, so that students can recombine these letter sounds when textually responding to novel words; therefore, it is more efficient since students can be taught a set amount of sounds, and then respond to them in many different phonemically transparent words. A major goal of phonics instruction is to teach letter sounds so that students can combine them when they respond to new words.
In Verbal Behavior (1957), Skinner defined textual behavior as “verbal responses under precise point-by-point control by the text.” Skinner (1957) described how minimal units were inducted, and therefore could be used in novel combinations. According to Skinner, point-to- point correspondence exists between the properties of the stimulus and the response in both echoic behavior and textual behavior (Skinner, 1957, p. 185). Individuals acquire echoic operants varying in length and complexities. Similarly, due to the correspondence between graphemes and phonemes, textual behavior can be taught as words, or in the larger units mentioned above. Skinner argued individuals can induct the sounds from learning to read (as in the whole word method). Through the acquisition of these larger units, regardless of the size of the unit that is reinforced, eventually, an individual develops a repertoire of small echoic units
(speech sounds) or small textual responses (phoneme-grapheme correspondence/ letter sounds).
The development of these base units can be a product of direct educational training, or may be inducted “as a by-product of the acquisition of those larger units,” (Skinner, 1957, p. 116).
Because both of these responses share point-to-point correspondence with the stimulus, this acquisition of minimal repertoires is possible due to the nature of echoic and textual behavior which allows for the smaller units to emerge and recombine into novel, or emergent, responses. 8
These minimal units do not often appear to serve a particular function themselves, and almost never appear in isolation except under direct educational circumstances. However, the acquisition of these minimal units appears to be crucial. The acquisition of minimal units allows an individual to recombine them to emit novel responses for the first time without any prior instruction. In the case of textual responding, once individuals acquire letter-sounds or phoneme- grapheme correspondences, they can emit them in response to novel combinations (unfamiliar words), without ever encountering the word before. For example, once a student learns to respond with the correct phoneme to the letters sh, i, and p, he or she can see them together, and sound out the word to produce the word “ship.” In the case of echoic behavior, once individuals acquire these sounds, they can speak new words without ever being reinforced for the particular utterance. This occurs when a student can say the /c/ sound when she says “rock,” the /a/ sound when she says “apple,” and the /t/ sound when she says “street,” and can say the word “cat” without ever being taught or reinforced for emitting a particular response. Separate observing and producing responses, which are often initially independent (Greer & Speckman, 2009) join when individuals emit echoic or textual responses.
Skinner’s treatment of minimal units in regards to textual behavior has obvious implications to the educational approach of teaching students to textually respond. If minimal repertoires (phonemes/ letter sounds) are taught, those minimal repertoires can be recombined
(abstracted) to textually respond to words, sentences, and phrases. Although Skinner did not explicitly state that direct instruction on these minimal repertoires would be more efficient than the induction of them from functional unit instruction, his explanation implies it. By teaching students phonemes directly, students can combine these phonemes to textually respond to many 9 functional units. Without direct instruction on minimal repertoires, students must acquire many larger units (words or phrases), enough to acquire the necessary discriminations between each minimal unit. This is what must occur when students are taught to read by sight (through the whole word approach).
Although initially theoretical, Skinner’s argument of minimal units in Verbal Behavior has applied educational importance. What Skinner described in this explanation of echoic and textual behavior has implications for an approach to and design of curricula and teaching.
Indirectly, Skinner proposed an explanation of how operants can be acquired and recombined to form more complex repertoires. What Skinner actually offered in his description of echoic and textual behavior specifically, and more generally in his explanation of other verbal operants, was an introduction to how educators could teach more effectively. The Congressionally mandated
National Reading Panel (NRP) found through a meta-analysis that explicit, systematic phonics instruction would improve students’ reading repertoires (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2011). Phonics instruction is more efficient than whole word methodologies; when students learn phonemes and how to blend them into words, they can respond to words they were never directly taught.
Component and Composite Repertoires
Other researchers with a behavior analytic epistemology have described the essential nature of minimal units that Skinner discussed. In 1965, Skinner’s student and colleague
Charles Ferster (1965) in his work Classification of Behavioral Pathology, stated “instructional programs that detect and instruct a minimal response set are considerably more efficient and 10 more powerful than programs that attempt to teach every stimulus response relation” (p. 30).
This publication, which was seven years after Verbal Behavior, and seven years prior to
Sidman’s seminal paper on stimulus equivalence (1971), was the first to bring Skinner’s explanation of minimal units, emergent behavior, and the operant class of textual behavior into direct educational context.
Alessi (1987) addressed something similar in his article which reviewed general case.
The article explained the contributions of Engelmann’s and Carnine’s curriculum design in direct instruction (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982). “General case” is an approach to teaching using multiple exemplar instruction (MEI), where students are taught essential stimulus control by responding to stimuli which share common features, and not responding to irrelevant properties of stimuli (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982). Alessi (1987) argued that students must be taught general patterns of responding, and these patterns would produce effective responding in untrained relations. In his reference to Engelmann and Carnine’s explanation of the necessity of multiple exemplar instruction, Alessi outlined the utility of these procedures for teaching students to textually respond. When a student is taught see-say repertoires for responding to printed letters (graphemes) with phonemes, blending combinations of these phonemes allows the child to textually respond to “nearly 500,000 words, yielding an average generative or multiplicative power of over 10,000. ... The child would be able to decode an average of 10,000 novel words for every discrete sound-symbol element taught. (Alessi, 1987, p. 18). Similar to
Ferster (1965), Alessi (1987) argued that many curricula have “infinite sets of relationships, each of which cannot be taught directly (p. 17). Alessi reviewed general case as a way to teach patterns of responding which would function to allow untrained relations to emerge. General 11 case procedures rotate exemplars to establish a particular pattern of responding (Greer &
Lundquist, 1976).
Untaught behaviors emerging as a result of taught component skills described by Ferster
(1965), Alessi (1987), and many others (Binder, 1988; Bloom, 1986; Gagne, 1967, 1970;
Johnson & Layng, 1994; Johnson & Street, 2004) is often called generativeness. Generativeness refers to the mastery of convergent responses to facilitate subsequent learning of more complex responses, or on the emergence of higher order or untaught operants (Catania, 2012; Johnson &
Layng, 1992). Textual responding to letter sounds (phoneme-grapheme correspondence) meets the criterion for a generative repertoire in that acquiring letter-sound correspondence “may allow reading of an infinite number of words. Learning phonemes has great generative potential because their recombination will allow reading without having to learn each word separately” (Bosch & Fuqua, 2001, p. 124).
Androris, Layng and Goldiamond (1997) used the term “contingency adduction” and applied it to the generative property of certain behaviors (Androris, Layng & Goldiamond,
1997). In the theory of contingency adduction, “new contingencies or performance requirements may recruit performances learned under other contingencies” (Androris, Layng & Goldiamond,
1997, p. 27). Contingency adduction theorizes that certain skills can be acquired under a specific set of conditions, and serve a different function under altering or novel conditions
(Andronis, Layng, & Goldiamond, 1997). Johnson and Layng (1992) claimed the moment the combination of the component skills results in new, more complex responses is the moment that contingency adduction occurs. Adduction might truly be the abstraction of stimulus control due 12 to a history of multiple exemplars under different conditions, where students acquire essential stimulus control or the way to respond. Or, the moment of contingency adduction might be the evidence of the emergence of particular verbal behavior developmental cusps or capabilities
(Greer & Speckman, 2009). Training multiple responses to a single stimulus, multiple stimuli to a single response, or multiple establishing operations to a single response are what allows these collateral behaviors to emerge (Greer & Du, 2013).
According to Johnson and Layng (1994) and Johnson and Street (2004), there are several hierarchical levels of skills that allow contingency adduction to take place. This hierarchy is used in the Morningside Model© of instruction (Johnson & Layng, 1994). The Morningside
Model© of instruction utilizes aspects of different teaching styles, such as Precision Teaching
(Lindsley, 1992). The skills taught include “tool skills,” “component skills,” and “composite skills.” Tool skills and component skills are much like the minimal units Skinner (1957) and
Ferster (1965) described. Composite skills are combinations of previously mastered component skills. Students are directly taught component skills so that more complex repertoires can emerge (Bloom, 1986). According to several behaviorists who support fluency instruction for component skills, contingency-shaped responding of component skills is a prerequisite to composite skill acquisition (Binder, 1996; Johnson & Layng, 1992; 1994; Johnson & Street;
2004; Lindsley, 1992). However, it can be argued that rate of responding or fluency is not the important entity here, but rather the training of multiple responses to a single stimulus is what allows composite skills to emerge. In textual responding, component skills of responding to 13 graphemes with the correct phonemes, can recombine into the composite skill of textual responding to words.
There are different ways behaviorists explain how contingency adduction can take place.
In textual responding, contingency adduction takes place under a “combined stimulus procedure,” whereby a new response class emerges under conditions differing from the original instructional contingencies (Johnson & Street, 2004). Johnson and Street, (2004) called this behavior under different guidance a “blend,” which is particularly appropriate in relation to textual behavior. The process of contingency adduction, specifically the “combined stimulus procedure” that occurs in textual responding parallels the processes of chemistry and evolution.
In textual responding, when a word is presented, letter sounds are taught, and then combined to form a composite. In chemistry, elements make up different atoms; these atoms then come together to create different molecules (Johnson & Layng, 1992; Lee & Anderson, 2001). In evolution, complex forms and novel behaviors emerge as a result of selection of simple forms by the environment (Skinner, 1969). Skinner (1969) draws this parallel between the emergence of more complex repertoires and variability in natural selection. “The environment selects simple forms and a more complex entity gradually emerges” (Johnson & Layng, 2004, p. 20). This occurs when students learn to textually respond, to see a grapheme and respond with the correct phoneme, separately at first, but then in words, sentences and phrases. “Words that are composed of new combinations of previously learned letters and sounds can be named the first time they are seen” (Mueller et. al, 2000). 14
Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence as a Component Repertoire
The component skills are taught in order for students to acquire composite textual responding repertoires as phoneme-grapheme correspondences, or letter-sound correspondences as cited in the reading literature (Haddock, 1976; Lindenberg, Oloffson, & Wall, 1980; Share,
Jorm, Maclean, & Mathews, 1984; Yopp, 1988: cited from McGuiness, 2004). The phoneme is the smallest “unit of speech that people can hear…” and it “corresponds to consonants and to vowels” (McGuiness, 2005, p. 440). Typically, phonemes are studied and analyzed by replacing a phoneme in a word or morpheme and determining whether or not the meaning of the word changes (Crystal, 2005), or if individuals can detect the differences (Liberman, Shankweiler,
Fischer, & Carter 1967). This “minimal pairs test” (substitutions of phonemes to determine differences in meaning) is what led to the identification of 44 phonemes in the English language
(Crystal, 2005; McGuiness, 2004; 1997). For example, individuals can recognize a particular sound as the “same” in words like bee, able, and rob, even though, when measured, these sounds have varying wavelengths (Crystal, 2005). Although the phonology of these sounds (the wavelengths) differ in terms of the topography or physical shape and form of the sound, the phoneme, as a singular unit, is the same.
Spelling
“Spelling and reading develop synergistically and reciprocally,” (Ehri, 2000). The acquisition of accurate spelling may aid in the acquisition of reading abilities (Gentry & Gillet,
1993) and the acquisition of reading abilities may aid in the acquisition of accurate spelling
(Adams, 1990; Ehri, 1989; Moats, 2005; Treiman, 1993). Phonemically transparent spelling
(invented spelling or spelling words the way they sound by representing each sound with a 15 grapheme) is a strong predictor of decoding skills (textual responding) (NELP, 2008), and instruction and improvement in one leads to improvement in the other (Otaiba, Puranik, Rouby,
Greulich, Sidler, & Lee, 2010). In a meta analysis of the academic abilities of kindergarten and first grade students, decoding and dictated spelling were highly correlated with one another,
(Lonigan, Schatschneider, & Westberg, 2009).
Because of this reciprocal relationship, according to McGuiness (2004), textual responding and spelling should be taught simultaneously. Compared to listening and speaking, learning to textually respond and to spell are “unnatural acts” (Gough & Hillinger, 1980), due to the blending and segmenting of speech sounds. Blending words in order to emit textual responses, and segmenting words to write separate graphemes to represent meaning, are the first times children contact and manipulate the smallest unit of speech.
Compared to early reading instruction, spelling instruction has received significantly less attention (Joshi & Aaron, 2005). Teaching spelling repertoires early on and effectively is essential. Like struggling readers who fall behind early; poor spellers in elementary school remain poor spellers in later grades (Juel, 1988). Effective spelling interventions include letter- sound correspondence (Treiman, 2000) and vocal segmentation training (Treiman, 2000;
O’Connor & Jenkins, 1995).
Essential for beginning spelling is the the knowledge that letters (graphemes) are visual depictions of speech sounds (phonemes) (the alphabetic principle) (Ehri 1989; Otaiba, Puranik,
Rouby, Greulich, Sidler, & Lee, 2010; Treiman, 2000). The association between print and sound is essential for the spelling and textual responding of novel words (Frith, 1985; Treiman, 2000).
The essential nature of this ability is due to the development of the English writing system. The 16 evolution of our particular orthography as an alphabetic writing system based on the smallest units of speech allows teachers to design systematic and transparent instruction for both reading and writing (Bear, Invernizzi, & Johnston, 2012). A spelling curriculum should be based on this logo-phonemic system in order for students to acquire accurate spelling repertoires (Wolf &
Kennedy, 2003).
Writing Systems
Because the English writing system is based on these speech sounds, in textual responding, the component skill, (Johnson & Layng, 2004) or minimal unit (Ferster, 1965;
Skinner, 1957), is phoneme-grapheme correspondence. “Each spoken language has its own gamut of sounds drawn from a literally infinite range of possible sounds. Writing systems represent some of this gamut, the proportion varies with the system, leaving readers to guess the rest” (Robinson, 2007, p. 37). Countries with transparent alphabets and orthographies (words represented and spelled how they sound) do not have high illiteracy rates (Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, 1997). English has a much higher degree of irregularity than many languages such as Korean, with other languages having more phonemic irregularity, such as Gaelic (Crystal, 2005; McGuiness, 1997; McGuiness, 2004). English speaking countries have high illiteracy rates, which are due in part to the nature of our writing system (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2011). Phonemic irregularity is defined as a lack of correspondence between phonemes and the graphemes that represent them (Crystal,
2005). This lack of correspondence in English is due to the fact that there are only six vowels and multiple spelling alternatives for both vowels and consonants (McGuiness, 2004). One 17 researcher claimed that there were 13.7 spellings for each phoneme sound, and 3.5 sounds for each letter of the alphabet (Crystal, 2005).
An alphabetic system is the design of most writing systems (Crystal, 2005). English,
French and Korean are often called “logo-phonemic,” alphabetic systems (Robinson, 2007). In an alphabetic writing system, there is correspondence between graphemes and phonemes, which allows the writing system to be economical. The alphabetic writing system attempts to create a clear relationship between human speech sounds and written letters (graphemes). Systems that have created this relationship are known as phonological systems (Crystal, 2005, p. 108).
Blending
As a reader, a student must acquire phoneme-grapheme correspondences as component repertoires, but in order to acquire a complete textual responding repertoire or for composite skills to emerge, students must blend component phonemes into words. Blending is defined as
“the act of joining a sequence of isolated phonemes into a word (i.e., /b/l/e/n/d/- blend)” (McGuiness, 2005). Segmenting, the reciprocal process, is defined as “the process of separating individual phonemes in a sequence (i.e., frame /f/r/a/m/e)” (McGuiness, 2005).
Blending is an essential component of sounding out novel words (Muller, 1973; Richardson &
Collier, 1971). When students can blend sounds together they have better reading fluency and prosody (Torgesen & Hudsen, 2006). Hoover and Gough (1990) and Pinnel et al. (1995) showed that students who could not blend to textually respond struggled with tasks involving fluency and comprehension (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Pinnel et al., 1995). Blending sounds into novel words involves a linear process. This may take place sound by sound (letter by letter).
Gradually, larger units are built up (Crystal, 2005; McGuiness, 2004). 18
In order to build up these larger units as composites and establish a blending repertoire, students must be directly and explicitly taught do to so (Muller, 1973). If students cannot blend sounds into new words, then each word must be acquired as a discrete operant (McGuiness,
2004); this would be like using a “whole word” or “sight word” approach.
Blending is the “most difficult component of reading to learn and to teach” (Haddock,
1976; Venezky & Chapman, 1970); therefore, in order to blend sounds to textually respond to untaught words, explicit blending instruction is necessary (Haddock, 1976). Blending separate phonemes into words requires changes in pronunciation (Crystal, 2005; Robinson, 2007), and for individual phonemes and their graphemes to combine into a complete utterance of pronunciation- through audible speech or subvocal speech (Venezky, 1970). Blending these minimal units
(phonemes) together to emit words is something that does not occur in learning to speak
(McGuinness, 2005).
Direct instruction for blending improves textual responding repertoires. Students who are taught letter sounds and blending correctly identify greater numbers of words than those who do not receive blending instruction (Carnine, 1977; Vandever & Neville, 1976). Colman (1970) taught participants through direct blending instruction. Results showed that students who received direct blending instruction were able to blend phoneme sounds to emit correct responses to novel words.
There are various curricula that attempt to teach blending. Direct instruction curricula teach students to listen to segmented or component phoneme sounds and “say it fast,” to emit the correct word (Englemann & Carnine, 1982). Similarly, in a different response type students must say the sound for each printed grapheme as it is tapped, and then emit the composite textual 19 response when an instructor slides his finger under the word. Many curricula move from hearing an instructor say segmented or component sounds, followed by students emitting the composite word to students sounding out each sound and then emitting the correct composite word (Jolly
Phonics, Words their Way, Sound & Letter Time) (Bear, 2000; Llyod, 1992; Rosenberg, 2006) .
Some intervention curricula aim to remediate a faulty reading instructional history and start with teaching students letter sounds and then move to teaching students to blend them fluently by introducing small combinations of morphemes and words (Morningside© Phonics) (Johnson &
Street, 2004).
All the curricula described above claim to teach students blending. All have similar methods of teaching letter sound correspondences, followed by sound blending. However, none of these curricula discuss what an instructor is to do if a student is not learning to blend sounds to read words. These curricula are tailored to teach phonemically transparent words and utilize a sequence in-sync with our writing system, but none take into consideration the auditory, visual, and vocal skills that may be essential for blending to occur. In addition, all assume the abstraction of blending to novel words instead to testing for or insuring it.
Language and Reading Repertoires
Blending is difficult due to the change in pronunciation (Crystal, 2005; Robinson, 2007).
Blending phoneme sounds into words may require certain verbal or language abilities. Language research provides us with a greater scientific advantage than reading research. “Unlike reading research, mainstream research on language development has continued with no setbacks and is one of the great success stories of the behavioral sciences,” (McGuiness, 2005, p. 10). Hurford and Sanders (1990) and Mody, Studdert-Kennedy and Brady (1997) linked speech-perception or 20 observation accuracy to reading ability; this link calls for an analysis and consideration of verbal abilities and their relationship to textual responding.
Based on a synthesis of language research, McGuiness (1997; 2005) proposed a sequence of early language development of an individual which affects textual responding repertoires. She argued that sensorily intact children babble, and that as long as a child can observe sounds (has the physical ability to hear), the sounds made in the child’s native language increase in frequency while he/she babbles. During the first year, infants are able to discriminate sounds, and because of this ability to discriminate, the hear-to-produce relationship is formed and more complex consonant clusters are emitted. Finally, the individual can then “recognize the basic unit of speech production” (McGuiness, 1997, p. 162). This explanation enhanced Skinner’s (1957) explanation of the source of reinforcement for echoic behavior.
Data from various experiments support the trajectory outlined by McGuiness (1997;
2005). Research has shown that infants not even a day old, and even in womb, can discriminate between, or attend to, vocal sounds (Aslin, Saffran and Newport, 1998; Decasper & Fifer, 1980;
Decasper & Spence, 1986: Friederici & Wessels, 1993; Holt, & Lotto, 2010; Mattys et al. 1999).
Eimas et al. (1971) found that infants at one and four months of age could make categorical perceptions for consonant vowel blends as measured by increased suckling. Aslin, Saffran, and
Newport (1998) conducted an experiment to test whether eight month old infants could discriminate and/or repeat regular phonemic patterns in their native language. Results showed that participants could both discriminate and produce regular phonemic patterns. Similarly,
Mattys et al. (1999) and Friedrici and Wessels (1993) found that nine month old infants could differentiate between legal and illegal consonant sequences in their native language. 21
Furthermore, a study conducted by Chaney (1992) yielded results that showed most children chosen for participation in the study could correct mispronounced phonemes in their own language before they were three years of age .
The above results that provide evidence that selection and discrimination have important implications. Further research reports that auditory discrimination is a prerequisite to the production of sounds (Holland, Raceymakers, & Crul, 1988), and the production of speech sounds is intimately tied to textual responding (McGuinness, 2005). The production and manipulation of speech sounds is what occurs when a student has all letter-sound correspondences in repertoire and encounters an unfamiliar word while textual responding.
Holland, Raceymakers, and Crul (1988) found that participants who could not discriminate sounds could not produce them accurately. McGuiness (2005) argued that this difficulty may be due to a lack of training, and stated that for some children, training at the phonemic level of words is necessary for both discrimination and production. Several studies support her argument and have found that training in auditory discriminations improves production responses and articulation (Choi, 2011; Eliot, 1999; Greer, Chavez-Brown, 2005: Jamieson & Rvachew, 1992).
Observing and Producing Repertoires
According to the Verbal Behavior Development Theory (VBDT), discrimination and production repertoires discussed above are observing and producing repertoires. Observing speech and the production of speech are initially separate repertoires and the joining of these repertoires are essential (Greer & Speckman, 2009), especially for textual responding.
Observing is operant behavior (Donahoe & Palmer, 2008; Holland, 1958; Moon, Lagercrantz, &
Kuhl, 2013; Werker, & Tees, 1984). When an individual observes, he or she makes contact with 22 a stimulus via one or more senses. It is experiences with certain stimuli that allow those stimuli to select out observing responses. Each observing response leads to the discrimination which provides reinforcement for the observing response.
Observing responses develop ontogenically, within the lifespan of an individual. When a child acquires conditioned reinforcement for observing responses, discrimination proceeds more quickly (Dinsmoor, 1983; Pereira-Delgado, Greer, Speckman, & Goswami, 2009; Tsai &
Greer, 2006). Evidence suggests that while a child is in utero, a mother’s voice is paired with nutrients and becomes a conditioned reinforcer (Decasper & Spence, 1987; Holt, 2010; Moon,
Lagercrantz, & Kuhl, 2013; Werker, & Tees, 1984). Shortly after birth, a child orients to the mother’s voice (now a conditioned reinforcer) and the voice is then paired with the mother’s face, which through a history of pairings, comes to have reinforcing properties itself.
Independent of these observing responses are an infant’s production responses. In womb and shortly after birth, infants emit swimming motions. These swimming motions are productive and initially independent. They are unrelated to observing responses (Donahoe &
Palmer, 2008; Meltzoff & Moor, 1983; Novak, 1996). However, these initially independent swimming motions join with observing. The primary reinforcer of nutrients is paired with the mother’s voice, which after birth, is paired with the mother’s face. The swimming motions are at first independent, but soon, the infant moves, in correspondence with the mother, and he or she contacts the “production” of what mother does. Because what mother says and what mother does are conditioned as reinforcers, producing the same movements as mother becomes a conditioned reinforcer as well. At first, simply “producing mom” is reinforcing, but over time and with a history of similar experiences, the correspondence itself becomes a reinforcer. 23
According to VBDT, the joining of observing and producing is essential for emergent relations
(Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer & Speckman, 2009).
The correspondence between observing and producing allows students to acquire generalized imitation, a key cusp in the verbal developmental trajectory (Greer & Du, 2013;
Greer & Speckman, 2009). Similarly, hear-say repertoires which are present when a student acquires an echoic repertoire, involve the joining of observing and producing behaviors. Hear- say responses are emulative behaviors, the outcome is copied, as opposed to the process being copied, as in the case of imitation.
Early observing responses have an impact on early speaker behavior. In generalized imitation, the reinforcement for imitation is the correspondence between another’s behavior and the student’s own behavior. This occurs in speaker behavior as well in that initial speaker behavior is often echoic responding. Echoics are verbal utterances that have point to point correspondence with the vocal utterance of another (Skinner, 1957). The reinforcement for emitting the same utterance of another is also the correspondence between them. Even though generalized imitation is different than echoic behavior in that in an echoic, one can only emulate the behavior (produce the same response without seeing how it was done), the joining of observing and producing responses allow reinforcement for correspondence to accrue.
Observing and producing (listener and speaker repertoires) are also involved in textual responding. When an individual textually responds, he or she must observe or listen to his or her own speaker behavior. 24
Observing responses are important operant responses. As verbal behavior developmental cusps, observing responses allow students to contact new contingencies and potentially learn faster (Greer & Ross, 2008; Rosalez-Rouise & Bear, 1996). Sensorily intact individuals contact the appropriate environmental contingencies to acquire conditioned reinforcement through a history of pairings that begin in utero. Once students acquire conditioned reinforcement for observing responses and relevant production or speaker behavior, observing and producing can join. This connection is important for imitation, echoic behavior, textual behavior, and the joining of listener and speaker responses, which allows students to become fully verbal individuals (Greer & Speckman, 2009).
Emergent Behavior
According to VBDT, the joining of observing and producing and listener and speaker responses are important for verbal and academic development (Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer &
Speckman, 2009). It is the listener, and related observing responses, that provide the source for emergent behavior (Greer, 2009). The emergence of untaught behaviors and abstraction has been defined and explained in various ways within the behavior analytic literature. Englemann and
Carnine (1982) defined abstraction as “essential stimulus discrimination.” Staats (1968) spoke of relations and teaching and provided a method of reading, while three years later Sidman
(1971) defined and tested stimulus equivalence and outlined the six components of reading.
Sidman’s explanation of emergent behavior is often seen as foundational in the field of behavior analysis due to its connection to language.
After Sidman’s theory of stimulus equivalence, other theories which attempted to explain emergent behavior followed. Relational Frame Theory (RFT) (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 25
2001), the Naming Theory ( Horne & Lowe, 1996), and VBDT (Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer &
Speckman, 2009) all explain emergent behavior within the context of verbal behavior. All of these theories of language and emergent behavior have a similar empirical underpinning, but all have different foci.
Stimulus equivalence. In Sidman’s (1971) seminal case study, he trained an intellectually disabled male to match spoken words to printed words, and spoken words to pictures of words. As a result of this instruction, the student could then match printed words to pictures without being directly trained, demonstrating comprehension. Even more important than Sidman’s intervention establishing comprehension of words by a student with a disability, was the phenomenon of the emergence of untrained behaviors as a result of taught ones.
Sidman called this phenomena stimulus equivalence, and explained that if experimenters trained certain relations of equivalence (such as picture to word and picture to text), then untaught relations would emerge (word to text).
Sidman (1994) explained the various equivalence relations that could emerge without direct training using parallels to mathematics: reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. Reflexivity was defined as A=A (A picture of an apple equals another picture of an apple.), a match to sample (MTS) relationship. Symmetry was defined as A=B, so B=A, a generalized identity match (A picture of an apple equals the spoken word “apple”). The third type of equivalence relation was transitivity. In this relation (A=B, and B=C, so A=C) two relationships were trained directly and an untaught relationship emerged (A picture of an apple equals the spoken word
“apple,” and the spoken word “apple” equals the printed word apple, so the picture of an apple also equals the printed word apple.). 26
After he interpreted the results of the original experiment, Sidman conducted many other experiments that tested these equivalence relationships (Sidman & Willson-Morris, 1974).
During these experiments, Sidman tested the three relations described above (reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity), but also worked on expanding stimulus classes and testing for the full equivalence relation (Sidman & Tailby, 1982). This full equivalence relation was the combined relations of symmetry and transitivity, and was tested by training several A=A and
B=B and C=C relationships, then training certain exemplars of A, B, and C in A=B and B=C relationships, and finally testing the transitive relation with stimuli not trained in A=B or B=C
(Bush, Sidman, & de Rose, 1989).
Stimulus equivalence was one of the first phenomena to explain emergent behavior and it had implications for how behavior analysts define how individuals acquire new operants; stimulus equivalence also influenced instructional sequence. Sidman’s theory demonstrated that, as a result of stimulus discriminations and their relationships to each other, individuals could respond in ways which were never directly trained, after having just one directly trained relation
(Sidman, Cresson, Willson-Morris, 1974).
Following his experiments, Sidman (1977) identified six components of effective reading. These instructional components included: 1. presence versus absence of visual discrimination; 2. initial form versus visual discriminations; 3. addition discriminations (such as between letters); 4. generalized identity matching (with letters through stimulus control shaping); 5. auditory visual match to sample; and, 6. auditory visual matching with corresponding printed words (Sidman, 1986). These components of reading within the context of the stimulus equivalence paradigm allowed other researchers to investigate how certain 27 behaviors could be taught in order for other responses or response classes to emerge without being trained directly. Again, the implication of Sidman’s reading components, but more importantly stimulus equivalence, was that it prompted behavior analysts to work towards ways of teaching less in order for students to learn more, and also prompted researchers to explain the development of verbal and academic emergent behavior.
Relational frame theory. Influenced by both Sidman’s work and Skinner’s theory of verbal behavior, Hayes proposed relational frame theory (1989). Relational frame theorists argue that stimulus equivalence is not an innate ability that arose from natural selection (as argued by
Sidman), rather it is a higher order operant, acquired through a history of multiple exemplar experiences (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2000). Relational frame theorists expanded stimulus equivalence describing not just equivalence relations, but other derived relations such as coordination, opposition, deictic, spatial, and several others (Hayes, Barnes-
Holmes & Roche, 2001). RFT aligns with the phenomenon of stimulus equivalence in that it states that language can be extended through equivalence, but RFT extends stimulus equivalence by stating that an individual acquires equivalence through “a history of arbitrarily applicable relational responding,” (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes & Roche, 2001).
According to Hayes et. al. (2001) framing relationally is a generalized operant class because the responses are contextually controlled. Relating is a learned behavior, resulting from a history of contextually controlled multiple exemplars. The utility of relational responding is social behavior (Greer, 2008). Within RFT, Hayes and Hayes (1989) identify three different ways of relating: 1.) Mutual entailment; 2.) Combinatorial entailment; and, 3.) Transformation of stimulus functions (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Cullinan, & Leader, 2004). Mutual 28 entailment is a relation in which one responds to one stimulus in terms of another (a is smaller than b, he is smarter than him). In this relation, one can see that relational responding is an operant in that there is a clear three-term contingency in that an individual responds to one stimulus in terms of another based on the contextual environmental cues. Combinatorial entailment combines two relations much like the property of transitivity in stimulus equivalence.
Here, two relations are combined (Night is dark, dark is scary, so night is scary. Or, “I am her son, and she is my mother’s daughter, so she is my sister.”). The third relationship is the transformation of stimulus functions. This occurs when a property of a certain stimulus changes functions, and stimuli related to it also change function (this can happen within different frames like coordination or opposition).
These three relationships can occur and co-occur across a variety of different frames
(Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001). A frame is a characteristic of a functional property that allows individuals to relate certain stimuli to each other depending on the contextual cues.
An example of a frame is the frame of coordination, which is much like the property of reflexivity identified in stimulus equivalence. A frame of coordination is a frame of equivalence in that one stimulus is the same as another. Other examples of frames include opposition, distinction, temporal (location), spatial, deitic (perspective taking; “I can only be here now,”) and several more. According to RFT, these frames emerge and expand as a result of exposures to multiple exemplars, and each frame may need its own instructional history to emerge.
Naming theory. In 1996, Horne and Lowe wrote a conceptual paper titled “The Origins of Naming an Other Symbolic Behavior.” The authors define naming as “a higher order, bi- directional behavioral relation combining listener and speaker behaviors so that the presence of 29 one presupposes the other,” (p. 207). In other words, if a child has naming, he/she can learn a word as a listener, and without any direct instruction, are able to emit the speaker response, or learn a word in a speaker function and emit the listener response. To begin outlining how naming is acquired, Horne and Lowe (1996) begin with an adult tacting a stimulus in the presence of a child. After multiple occurrences and exemplars of an adult tacting a stimulus in the presence of the child and also with the adult interacting with the stimulus, the child learns to emit a listener response. This response could be orienting towards the stimulus, pointing to it, or manipulating it in a functional way. For example, if an adult tacts spoon, the child may pick up the spoon and pretend to eat with it. As a function of multiple exemplars, a student may also expand his/her stimulus classes; for example, a child may see a red ball, and having never seen a red ball before, go pick it up when his mother says, “Where’s the ball?”
After the student is reinforced for emitting the listener behavior, he or she begins to produce an echoic. An echoic is a verbal operant that has point-to-point correspondence with the vocal verbal behavior of another individual (Skinner, 1957). An echoic is not a response to a particular environmental stimulus, but is occasioned by the verbal behavior of another. An echoic occurs when an adult tacts a stimulus, the child emits the listener behavior, and echoes the tact the adult emitted. Because the adult tacting the stimulus occasions listener behavior, the child echoing the adult sustains his or her own listener behavior.
As children are exposed to more stimuli and more exemplars, the initial overt echoic becomes covert. The covert echoic may be the reinforcement in naming (Greer and Speckman,
2009; Lowenkron, 1991). Also, stimulus-stimulus pairing through second order Pavlovian conditioning may also provide reinforcement (Greer & Longano, 2010). 30
A series of experiments conducted by Horne, Lowe, and colleagues, (Horne, Hughes,
Lowe 2006; Lowe, Horne & Randall, 2004; Lowe, Horne, Harris, 2005) further investigated various aspects of the naming relation. Through these experiments, researchers found that naming’s bidirectionality component was essential for language acquisition, and for categorization. In other words, Horne and Lowe (1996) suggest that an adult’s voice functions as a classically conditioned stimulus. When a child hears his or her own echoic, the response produces the same reinforcing properties. Most of the research from these theorists focused on naming in terms of categorization.
Greer and other behavior analysts have identified naming as a verbal developmental cusp that is also a capability, in that once acquired, students can learn more, learn faster, and also learn in a new way (Greer & Speckman, 2009). In a series of experiments, Greer and colleagues found that protocols can be used to induce the naming capability in students who are lacking it (Fiorile
& Greer, 2007; Gilic & Greer, 2011; Greer, Corwin, & Buttigieg, 2011; Greer et al., 2005; Greer,
Stolfi, & Pistoljevic, 2007). In these experiments, naming was a dependent variable, as experimenters aimed to test the effects of various procedures on the acquisition of the naming capability. Naming changes how students can learn in a traditional education setting and their ability to learn from a teacher model (Greer, Corwin, & Buttigieg, 2011).
Verbal Behavior Development Theory (VBDT). The Verbal Behavior Development
Theory (VBDT) is a theory of verbal development that incorporates both naming and relational responding perspectives (Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer & Speckman, 2009). The empirical body of research, which is the foundation of VBDT, suggests that certain instructional histories, sequences of experiences, and the acquisition of particular motivating operations as a result of 31 acquired conditioned reinforcers allow for the acquisition of operants and eventually lead to an individual becoming truly verbal (Greer & Speckman, 2009; Greer & Du, 2013). According to
VBDT, listener and speaker repertoires develop independently, each with its own instructional history. These listener and speaker repertoires are phylogenetically and perhaps neurologically independent, but join as a result of cultural experiences through experiences associated with the basic principles of behavior (Greer, 2008).
The crux of VBDT is speaker-as-own-listener behaviors, one of which is naming.
According to VBDT, once an individual acquires speaker-as-own-listener behaviors and has bi- directionality between speaker and listener responses within the same skin, he or she is truly verbal (Greer & Speckman, 2009). This is a position Greer and colleagues hold in common with both Naming and RFT theorists (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes & Roche, 2001; Horne & Lowe, 1996;
Greer & Ross, 2008). VBDT uses an RFT approach to naming, by providing a history of multiple exemplars across listener and speaker responses to induce the naming capability in students who lack it (Fiorile & Greer, 2007; Gilic & Greer, 2011; Greer, Stolfi & Pistoljevic,
2007). Recently, VBD theorists argue that multiple exemplar experiences provide a shift in reinforcement. Greer and colleagues argue that if the reinforcer changes, the behavior will follow (Greer & Du, 2013).
Stimulus equivalence, RFT, naming, and VBDT all attempt to explain emergent behavior.
Stimulus equivalence explained the emergence of untrained relationships as a phenomenon
(Sidman, 1994). In stimulus equivalence, emergent behavior occurred due to the direct training of other relationships (Sidman, Cresson & Willson-Morris, 1974). RFT and naming explain 32 emergent behavior as a result of multiple exemplars (Hayes et. al, 2001; Horne & Lowe, 1996).
According to Hayes et al. (2001), an individual becomes truly verbal when he or she can respond relationally. More specifically, in naming, an individual is truly verbal when he or she has bi-directionality across listener and speaker responses (Horne & Lowe, 1996). VBDT incorporates both RFT and naming positions claiming that Naming is relational responding and emergent behavior occurs and is truly verbal when an individual responds relationally across listener and speaker behaviors within the same skin (Greer & Ross 2008; Greer & Speckman,
2009). The joining of listener and speaker behaviors are important to further academic and verbal development and are specifically related to initial textual responding and blending.
VBDT and a Trajectory of Verbal and Academic Development
Verbal Behavior Development Theory (VBDT) (Greer & Du, 2013; Greer & Ross, 2008;
Greer & Speckman, 2009) may be the only theory of ontogenetic verbal development which inductively grew out of empirical research conducted with students with and without native disabilities. Through successfully inducing behavioral cusps and/or cusps that were capabilities in students who were lacking them, results suggested sequences of experiences and the acquisition of operants or higher order operants that eventually led to an individual becoming truly verbal.
The inductively developed verbal developmental trajectory in VBDT has become both the foundation of the theory as well as a curriculum. Not only does VBDT provide the trajectory of the cusps and capabilities identified as steps in the progression through this trajectory, VBDT has also identified protocols which function to induce cusps when they are not present in an individual’s repertoire. 33
The protocols function to induce cusps, and many of these cusps are prerequisites to the capability of naming, which is joint stimulus control over listener and speaker responses. These protocols provide individuals with the necessary instructional histories for cusps to emerge.
Greer and Du (2013) proposed that these protocols condition new reinforcers which create the relevant motivating operations. Behaviors emerge as a result of newly acquired reinforcers.
VBDT also identified protocols to induce cusps that are capabilities. Capabilities allow individuals to learn in ways they could not before. The joining of various observing and producing repertoires, followed by the joining of listener and speaker repertoires, allows for further verbal, and more advanced academic development.
The induction of verbal developmental cusps are important for students because little or no progress can be made at the next level of verbal development until the previous cusp is acquired. Behavioral cusps are operants that create changes that are more than just the operant change itself. Cusps allow organisms to contact new environments so that they can learn new things and potentially learn faster (Rosales-Ruiz & Baer, 1996). Cusps “expose organisms to more relevant teaching contingencies” (p. 537). Many protocols have demonstrated that by successfully inducing particular verbal developmental cusps, students: 1.) contact new environments (Keohane, Luke, & Greer, 2008; Pereira-Delgado, Greer, Speckman, & Goswami,
2009); 2.) learn in one topography and emit a response in another, untaught topography (Eby,
Greer, Tullo, Baker, & Pauly, 2010; Greer, Yuan, & Gautreaux, 2005 ); 3.) learn faster than prior to the emergence of the cusp (Greer, Chavez-Brown, Nirgudkar, Stolfi, & Rivera-Valdes, 2005;
Tsai & Greer, 2006); and/or, 4.) learn in a new way (Fiorile, & Greer, 2007; Gilic & Greer, 2011;
Greer Stolfi, & Pistoljevic, 2007; Pereira-Delgado & Greer, 2009; Pereira Delgado, Speckman, 34
& Greer, 2010). From the VBDT perspective, if a student is not learning through certain contingencies, or does not acquire an operant despite direct instruction and the use of research- based tactics, a cusp is missing from the student’s verbal repertoire and a protocol must be used to induce it.
Textual Responding as Speaker-as-own-Listener Behavior
Textual responding to words by blending taught phonemes is emergent, suggesting that blending phonemes is, in fact, an operant class. In order to blend the sounds of taught printed phonemes into words, students must listen to their own speaker behavior. Speaker-as-own- listener behavior is identified in VBDT (Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer & Speckman, 2009) and demonstrated and induced in three cusps: naming, self-talk conversational units (Greer & Ross,
2008; Lodhi & Greer, 1989), and say-do correspondence (Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer &
Speckman, 2009). Blending is another example where speaker-as-own-listener repertoires may be involved.
In reading, textual responding to novel arrangements of component speech sounds is both emergent behavior and speaker-as-own-listener behavior. Blending mastered component phonemes in novel combinations is both emergent and speaker-as-own-listener behavior because
1.) blending as an operant class can be done for novel words, and 2.) a student encountering a novel word may sound out each component sound (i.e., /c/-/a/-/p/), and must listen to his or her own speaker behavior in order to emit the correct word (“cap”).
Speaker-as-own-listener behaviors emerge during the lifetime of a individual as a result of a history of experiences, provided children are sensorily intact (Greer & Speckman, 2009).
Listener repertoires are observing repertoires and speaker repertoires are producing repertoires. 35
Through cultural contingencies and a history of multiple exemplars, these repertoires come together and individuals become truly verbal and can learn the names for things simply from hearing them (the capability of naming), do what they say they will do, govern their own listener as a speaker (say-do correspondence), “talk to themselves,”(self-talk conversational units), and perhaps hear sounds they emit and put them all together to say or to textually respond to words.
Speaker-as-own listener cusps have empirical histories to support that these repertoires are often emitted overtly (Greer & Longano, 2009). For example students may make toys “speak to each other” (Lodhi & Greer, 1989), students might recite what they are going to do before they do it (Greer & Ross, 2008), or “rehearse” out loud a name of a stimulus of which they had just heard the name (Greer & Longano, 2010). After many experiences, some of these behaviors drop to the covert level.
Overt and Covert Verbal Behavior
Skinner (1957) addressed how echoic and textual behaviors move from the overt to covert level of responding. Skinner’s explanation of overt and covert responses allows educators to induct how to teach students to blend phonemes into a textual response at the covert level, emitting a single, whole word composite response to a string of letters (a word), and also to textually respond to longer texts covertly (“read to oneself”).
Skinner argued that there are several ways or reasons why overt behavior becomes covert. These reasons included, punishment, ease of execution, and automatic reinforcement. In several sections of Verbal Behavior (1957), Skinner argued that when a behavior was punished by a listener in a particular environment, it was likely to be suppressed to a covert level.
Educationally, this is significant to textual responding at early and more advanced stages. 36
Students segmenting each phoneme separately, followed by emitting the textual response to a word, are often told to “sound the word out in your head.” Similarly, many students who have recently acquired a fluent textual responding repertoire will read stories overtly, even when the only audience present is themselves; it may be educationally issued punishment (“read silently”) that suppresses this textual behavior to the covert level.
The second reason Skinner proposed for behavior moving from an overt to a covert response was that, as behavior becomes easier to emit, it drops to a covert level of responding
(Skinner, 1957). This ease of execution hypothesis may also serve to explain the transitions of the textual behaviors outlined above. As the blending repertoire becomes stronger, or the separate phoneme responses are fluent, students may emit the blended textual response without first segmenting each phoneme sound overtly. It can be argued that textual responding to passages and books moves to the covert level when the textual responding repertoires at that level are mastered and fluent.
Skinner offered a third potential reason why verbal behavior transitions from an overt to a covert response. According to Skinner, “verbal behavior is especially likely to drop below the overt level, because it can continue to receive reinforcement by being useful to the speaker in many ways” (Skinner, 1957, p. 141). This usefulness described by Skinner can be classified as automatic reinforcement in the form of the speaker being the audience affecting the strength of the behavior. In other words, the speaker is his own audience, or speaker-as-own-listener
(Skinner, 1957). Skinner (1957) argued that textual responses would not become covert until
“the reader was able to respond to the stimulation arising from covert reading and thus achieve 37 continuous automatic reinforcement” (p. 179). Although not directly proposed, perhaps Skinner was arguing that textual responding moves to a covert level when there is a certain degree of comprehension. This process of textual responding moving from overt to covert is an essential component that allows for textual responding to be more efficient, and, therefore, for a complete reading repertoire to emerge.
Blending, VBDT, and Textual Responding
After dissecting the theories and studies outlined above, several themes emerge. The first is that due to the nature of our writing system and our logo-phonemic alphabet, students learning to textually respond should be taught to see letters (graphemes) and say the sounds (phonemes) that correspond with them (letter-sound correspondence). Once students can do this, they must be taught to blend these separate sounds into novel combinations to read new words. However, saying these sounds while listening in order to blend them together may be separate or independent repertoires. If these repertoires are independent, a history of experiences must be provided to join them. VBDT has several tested protocols which are effective in joining independent repertoires, but none published to date address an inability to hear one’s own utterances of component speech sounds and say them as a composite word. Results from the auditory matching protocol (Chavez-Brown, 2005; Choi, 2012; Vause, Harapiak, Martin & Yu,
2003) showed that matching (listener responses) improved or induced speaker-as-own-listener behaviors. Procedures that use the matching and discrimination of sounds may have an effect on speaker-as-own-listener behavior specific to textual responding and the joining of listener and speaker repertoires. 38
Rationale and Educational Significance
“Most people have encountered the struggle that takes place as a child is learning to read” (Crystal, 2005, p. 123). Research summarized throughout has shown that students behind in reading do not catch up, and that struggles in reading are due to inadequate instruction. Many textual responding programs fail to teach letter-sound correspondences as see-say repertoires, perhaps the most crucial element of instruction due to the nature of our alphabetic writing system. Research outlined in this chapter also showed that another essential component of reading instruction is the ability for children to blend those phoneme sounds into words.
Developmental experiments on language and on the connection between language abilities and learning to read showed that discriminations between sounds are important to learning to produce sounds and to textually respond. Discrimination training increases students’ ability to produce and manipulate sounds (Chavez-Brown, 2005; Choi, 2012; Vause, Harapiak,
Martin & Yu, 2003).
All of these data are important, and the perspective of VBDT on verbal development and textual responding will compliment other disciplines and allows for the investigation of the necessary verbal repertoires involved in, or necessary for, the development of a complete and fluent textual response repertoire.
Research Questions
The research questions addressed in this study are as follow: 1.) Does mastery of an auditory-matching program for matching separate phoneme sounds and words affect the number of correct textual responses to words with mastered phonemes, or words with new phonemes? 2.) 39
Do students acquire textual responses at a faster rate after the mastery of the auditory-matching program? 3.) Does this auditory-matching intervention increase vocal blending responses? 4.)
Does the auditory-matching program affect speaker-as-own listener abilities at various levels, allowing students to emit correct textual responses after emitting each phoneme overtly, or allow students to emit only a correct textual response? 40
Chapter II
EXPERIMENT 1
Method
Participants
The Participants included seven males and two females, all four to six years of age.
Participants 1-6 were selected from a general education kindergarten classroom in a public elementary school, and Participants 7, 8, and 9 were selected from a private, publicly funded preschool. Both classrooms implemented the Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling (CABAS®) and Accelerated Independent Learner (AIL®) models of education
(www.cabasschools.org), whereby all instruction was individualized for each student (see Table 1 for standard classroom procedures). Participants 1, 2, 3 and 4 were typically developing students. Participants 5, 6, and 7 were diagnosed with language and communication impairments. Participants 8 and 9 were pre-schoolers with an unspecified disability.
All participants were accustomed to receiving frequent reinforcement in the form of praise or points, contingent on correct responses to academic instruction along with rule following behavior. The participants traded in their points for backup reinforcers, which included free time or play/leisure activities, such as reading books, coloring or playing with toys and participating in games. Additionally, the participants were accustomed to the daily routine within an Accelerated Independent Learner Classroom, which includes various methods of instructional delivery such as small groups, peer tutoring, choral responding, and response boards (See Table 1 for a complete list). The experimenter determined the participants’ existing repertoires of educational achievement by implementing CABAS® specific assessments (Greer & 41
McCorkle, 2009), along with district mandated assessments. The combined results of the assessments showed that all of the participants functioned as listeners and speakers, could match, but not textually respond to print stimuli, and demonstrated one to one correspondence for printed words. Additionally, all of the participants had the listener component of naming, self- talk, say-do correspondence, listener literacy, and generalized visual (2D and 3D) matching in repertoire (Greer & Ross, 2008) (refer to Table 2 for a detailed summary of participant information). The experimenter selected the participants for the current study based on their low levels of accuracy on textual response probes, during which they were required to respond to words consisting of phonemes they had previously learned to both a mastery (90% accuracy) and a rate criterion. All of the participants emitted fewer than 50% correct responses during those probe sessions. More specifically, the current participants responded errorlessly to the individual letter sounds within the sequence of a given word, but did not blend those sounds together in order to emit the correct textual response. These participants had been previously instructed in beginning reading skills using a variety of different curricula, but had made little to no progress in textually responding to words. As such, the experimenter selected these participants in order to test the effects of an instructional intervention, one that required them to match words to corresponding component sounds, on their subsequent textual response behavior. 42
Table 1
Procedures and tactics present in all AIL® classrooms
AIL® Standard Procedures and Tactics
Rules in Place TPRA Graphs-weekly Permanent product Book for each student Reinforcement for Rule Decision Graphs-weekly AIL summary Grid updated Following 4/min TPRAs Point System LU Graphs + & Total-daily LPs for Reading Names on Desk LU to meet an objective- LPs for Math weekly Transitions recorded Module Graphs-weekly Graphs for Self-Management (Graphs) Comportment CABAS® Ranks Posted Class Total & Correct LU- (Graphs available)- for Daily specific students (IEP) Back-Up Reinforcers Peer Tutoring LU to meet an objective Weekly & cumulative objectives weekly Fluency- Math & Reading Observational System of Class wide TPRAs- Instruction cumulative weekly Book Reports Choral Responding/ PSI- Folders Response Boards Small Groups and data sheets- teachers taking data
All tactics listed above are outlined in Greer (2002). 43
Table 2
Participant Characteristics 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the correct responses following observation. following the correct responses f the name. hearing while the stimuli e the name. hearing while the stimuli d c b a ! 2009). Greer & (Greer & Speckman, Ross, 2008; protocol developmental a verbal to this assessment. according repertoire in cusp/capability Development (Greer, procedures Assessment 2009). A Note: A Observational learning refers to the ability to observe a peer receive instruction on a set of stimuli and then emit then a set and on of stimuli instruction receive a peer to observe refers to the ability learning Observational Transcription from a model. to letters, or sentences copy words, refers to the ability Full Naming refers to the ability to the emit the tact for a stimulus after receiving instruction on matching matching on instruction to the emit tact refers to after the ability for a stimulus receiving Naming Full matching on instruction of out of 3 after to a field receiving to stimuli point refers to the ability Naming Listener instruction. direct without to a motor movement imitate refers to Imitation the ability Generalized stimuli. 3 dimensional of 2 and exemplars to match various refers to the ability Matching Generalized
Age 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IEP denotes that the participant had the cusp/capability in repertoire according to the Verbal according repertoire in the cusp/capability had that the participant denotes Behavior No No No No Mands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tacts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Generalized Matching Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Generalized No d Immitation Induced Induced Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes enotes that the participate did not posses the not posses did that the participate enotes denotes that the cusp was induced using using induced that was the cusp denotes Transcription Letters Letters Letters Letters Letters Letters Letters Letters Words Listener Listener Naming Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Naming Induced Induced Induced Full Yes Yes Yes No No No Observational Learning Induced Induced Induced Induced No No No No No 44
Setting
For Participants 1-6, the experimenter conducted all of the pre and post-intervention probe sessions and intervention sessions within an experimental area that consisted of child-sized tables and chairs, while the other students participated in independent work, silent reading, or small group instruction, under the supervision of one or two instructors. The experimental area, located in the far corner of the classroom, included a partition that served as a barrier between the experimental area and the rest of the classroom. The partition functioned to minimize distractions within the experimental area, and to prevent the other students in the classroom from observing the experimental sessions. During all pre and post-intervention probe sessions, the experimenter sat directly next to the participant. During the pre and post-intervention probe sessions, the participant and experimenter both sat in chairs at the table. During the intervention sessions, the participant and experimenter sat side by side in front of a desktop or laptop computer.
For participants 7, 8, and 9, the experimenter conducted all pre-and post-intervention and intervention sessions in a preschool classroom, which consisted of 12 student desks arranged into three clusters of four, along with one circular table. Both the participant and experimenter sat in plastic, child- sized chairs.
The experimenter conducted a majority of the auditory matching intervention sessions on either a Macbook Air or a 2011 Mac desktop computer, both located on a 60 cm by 60 cm square table at the front of the classroom. The experimenter used the same computers to videotape the participants during the experiment, in order to obtain interobserver agreement. The experimenter conducted the remainder of the auditory matching intervention sessions on a touch screen 45
Microsoft Dell computer, which was located in another room within the school and had been designated for one on one instruction.
Materials
During the pre and post intervention sessions, the experimenter used the following materials: 1.) A list containing 60, two to five phoneme words and non-word morphemes,
comprised of short phonemes (/m/, /a/, /s/, /t/, /ee/, /i/, /r/, /d,/ /th/, /ck/)1 (See Table 3); 2.) Two lists, each containing 20 words that were comprised of both the aforementioned short phonemes along with three additional phonemes(20 words containing c, o, f, or 20 words containing n, l, w)
(See Table 5); 3.) Lists of phonemes, /c/, /o/, /f/, or /n/, /l/, /w/; 4.) An additional, 20 item list, that contained both words and non-word morphemes comprised of the phonemes (/m/, /a/, /s/, /t/,
/ee/, /i/, /r/, /d/, /th/, /ck/) (See Table 6); 5.) Sheets from the Morningside Phonics© curriculum, containing either vowel/consonant (VC) (i.e., ac), consonant/vowel (CV) (i.e., ti), or consonant/ vowel/consonant (CVC) (i.e., mop) combinations, printed on index cards (216 by 269 mm) in 12 point Times New Roman font (for Participants 5 and 6) (See Figure 1); and, 6.) Additional items used for recording and graphing data (e.g., pens, data sheets, graphs).
During the tests for the dependent variables, the experimenter used word lists that were printed, in black ink, size 16 Times New Roman font, on white sheets of computer paper (216 by
269 mm). In order to measure learn units to criterion, the experimenter presented the participant with individual index cards (76.2 x 127mm) that contained words that were comprised of previously mastered phonemes or newly acquired phonemes, each printed with black ink in Arial font, size 72.
1 Phoneme notation is not written as the international phonemic alphabet (IPA) designations. 46
Materials used during the intervention sessions. The experimenter conducted all of the auditory matching of component speech sounds and composite word sessions, either on a Macbook Pro laptop computer (2008), a Dell desktop computer (2003), a Macbook Air computer (2011), or a Mac desktop computer (2011), using the PowerPoint® for Mac (2008) application. Throughout the intervention, both the participants and the experimenter wore headphones connected to the computer through a splitter (“Y” cord), which ensured that each heard the same sounds simultaneously and without any extraneous auditory distraction.
The auditory matching program included 10 instructional phases, with 20 target exemplars or trials per phase (See Table 7). Each of the exemplars/trials within each phase contained either a target composite word (i.e., mad) or component phonemes (segmented word)
(i.e., /m/-/a/-/d/), to which the participants were required to respond by matching the word with the correct component sounds, or vice-versa. Each slide contained a horizontal line across the middle, with a single (sample) button above and three (comparison) buttons below the line
(Figure 2). During each trial, the experimenter pressed the top (sample) button, then each of the bottom three (comparison) buttons, followed by the top (sample) button again, along with the vocal antecedent, “match.” The participant responded by pointing-to or placing his finger on, one of the bottom three (comparison) buttons. The experimenter immediately activated the corresponding chosen button by clicking the mouse. The experimenters delivered vocal praise
(“Wow, you did it!”) following correct responses, and a correction following incorrect responses.
During the correction procedure, the experimenter repeated the entire antecedent presentation
(sample button, three comparison buttons, sample button with vocal antecedent, “match”), chose the correct comparison button, then re-presented the antecedent and provided the participant with 47 an opportunity to press the correct button without a model. The experimenter presented the same correction procedure until the participant emitted the corrected response independently and accurately, prior to continuing on to the next slide and learn unit. The experimenter did not deliver reinforcement following accurate responses emitted during the correction procedure.
Progress through successive phases required the participants to make increasingly finite discriminations in order to match component sounds to progressively more complex words.
During Phase 1, which served as an introduction to, or training in, the intervention procedures, the participants’ matched rhyming words. During Phase 2, in which the participants matched component CVC sounds (segmented phonemes) to corresponding blended CVC words, the non- exemplar words did not share any phoneme sounds with the target exemplar (i.e., m-a-t: sip/bed/ mat) and vice-versa (i.e., mat: s-i-p/b-e-d/m-a-t). During Phase 3, the exemplar and non- exemplar CVC words had the same initial phonemes (i.e., s-a-d: sad/ sit/ sop). Throughout
Phase 4, the exemplar and non-exemplar CVC words had the same vowel sounds (i.e., m-a-d: tap/mad/ rat), and in Phase 5, the same vowel patterns, but in CCVC and CVCC words (i.e., /th/-/ a/-/t/: that, math, rack). Phases 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 included four and five phoneme words, with exemplar and non-exemplar words sharing several of the same phonemes (for a complete list of target words and phases see Table 5).
During the auditory matching intervention, the experimenter presented Multiple
Exemplar Instruction (MEI), across component phonemes and composite words. The following represents an example of the instructional sequence within a given phase: Slide (1) (component sounds to composite word): The experimenter’s antecedent included pressing the top (sample) button (resulting in the sounds, “/m/-/a/-/t/”), each of the three bottom (comparison) buttons 48
(resulting in the words, “sit,” “bed,” and “mat,” respectively), followed again by the top (sample) button (resulting in the sounds, “/m/-/a/-/t/”), to which the participant was required to respond by pointing to or pressing the correct comparison button (“mat”); Slide (2) (composite word to component sounds): The experimenter’s antecedent included pressing the top (sample) button
(resulting in the word, “sad”), each of the three bottom (comparison) buttons (resulting in the sounds,“/d/-/o/-/g/,” “/s/-/a/-/d/,” “/m/-/e/-/t/,” respectively), followed again by the top (sample) button (resulting in the word, “sad”), to which the participant was required to respond by pointing to or pressing the correct bottom (comparison) button (“/s/-/a/-/d/”).
Design
The current study included a delayed multiple-probe design across participants, in which the experimenter conducted pre-experimental probe trials with each participant directly prior to the intervention. The experimenter implemented this particular design in order to control for maturation and instructional history of the participants.
The experimental sequence was as follows: 1) The experimenter conducted pre- experimental probe sessions with Participant 1, which involved delivering learn units across three new phonemes and words made up of those and previously mastered phonemes, then calculating his/her rate of learning (i.e., number of learn units to mastery criterion).; 2) The experimenter conducted pre-experimental probe sessions to test whether Participant 1 (a) textually responded to phonemic words and non-word morphemes and (b) vocally blended phonemes spoken by an experimenter.; 3) The experimenter began the auditory matching for blending intervention with Participant 1.; 4) After Participant 1 met mastery criterion for all phases in the auditory matching intervention, the experimenter conducted post-intervention 49 probe sessions, which involved delivering learn units across three new phonemes and words made up of those phonemes, then calculating his/her rate of learning (i.e., number of learn units to mastery criterion); 5) Once Participant 1 demonstrated an increased number of correct responses on the post-intervention probes over that of pre-intervention, the experimenter implemented the same experimental sequence with Participant 2.
The experimenter continued in this manner (pre-experimental probe sessions, auditory matching for component sounds and composite words intervention, post-experimental probe sessions) until a given participant completed the entire sequence, and did not begin the pre- experimental probes or intervention until the previous participant completed the post- experimental probes and/or acquired 20 new words used to measure learn units to criterion (rate of learning).
Procedure
Pre- experimental sessions. Prior to the onset of the study, the experimenter delivered learn units in order to teach all participants to master responses to the target graphemes with the correct phonemes /m/, /a/, /s/, /t/, /ee/, /r/, /i/, /d/, /th/, /ck/, (90% correct responses across two 20 learn unit sessions or 100% x 1). During the pre-experimental instructional sessions, the experimenter pointed to a grapheme on a piece of paper or on a PowerPoint® slide, and waited three seconds for the participant to emit the correct sound. If the participant emitted the correct response, the experimenter reinforced the behavior with vocal praise. If the response was incorrect, the experimenter said the correct sound, and the participant was required to echo until he/she emitted the correct response. The experimenter taught four phonemes at a time, across 50 blocks of 20 learn unit sessions (5 repetitions of each phoneme, counterbalanced for order effects).
Following mastery criterion (90% x 2 consecutive sessions or 100% x 1 session) of the target phonemes, the experimenter began rate instruction, during which the participant was required to respond to 30 previously mastered phonemes with zero incorrect responses per minute. The experimenter presented the participant with a sheet of 60 phonemes (/m/, /a/, /s/, /t/,
/ee/, /r/, /i/, /d/, /th/, /ck/), and instructed him/her to read the sounds as fast he/she could. The experimenter started the timer immediately following the vocal antecedent. After the participant read the 60 phonemes, the experimenter stopped the timer and recorded the duration of the session. If the participant made any errors, the experimenter provided corrections following the session. During the correction procedure, the experimenter pointed to the target phoneme and said the correct response, which the participant was required to echo. Next, the experimenter calculated the numbers of correct and incorrect responses per minute. Rate sessions continued until the participant met the mastery criterion of 30 correct responses per-minute with zero incorrect responses per minute.
Pre- and Post- Intervention Tests of the Dependent Variables
Dependent variable 1: Textual responses to words with mastered phonemes. The first dependent variable consisted of the numbers of correct textual responses emitted to words made up of the mastered phonemes /m/, /a/, /s/, /t/, /ee/, /r/, /i/, /d/, /th/, /ck/ (i.e., that, steer, sat).
The experimenter allowed the participant to first emit textual responses to each component phoneme sound, if necessary, and component and composite responses were recorded and coded.
During these sessions, the participant sat at a child-sized desk with the words listed in chart form 51 on a piece of paper in front of him/her (Table 3). The experimenter pointed to each word and the participant had 3s to respond, either with the correct textual response, or with each component phoneme followed by the correct textual response. After the participant emitted a response to the word, or 3s passed, the experimenter pointed to the next word. Each trial was unconsequated, in that the experimenter provided no feedback or reinforcement. The experimenter repeated this procedure for all 60 words on the page. The experimenter recorded a plus (+) for correct responses (emission of the correct textual response, or emission of each component phoneme separately followed by the correct textual response), and a minus (-) for incorrect textual responses (whether or not the participant said each component sound correctly prior to emitting the incorrect textual response).
Dependent variable 2: Rate of acquisition of new phonemes and textual responses
The rate of acquisition of new phonemes and textual responses also served as a dependent variable, as measured by the numbers of learn units required to reach mastery criterion. After the participants acquired 10 phonemes to mastery (/m/, /a/, /s/, /t/, /ee/, /r/, /i/, /d/, /th/, /ck/), experimenters taught three new phonemes (/c/, /o/, /f/ or /l/, /w/, /n/) along with 20 words made up of previously mastered and target phonemes (i.e., cat, mac, fit, etc.) (Table 4). The experimenter presented learn unit instruction for all phonemes and words, until the participant demonstrated correct responses to all target words and phonemes in a consecutive fashion. The experimenter calculated the participants’ rate of acquisition (number of learn units to criterion) by adding the numbers of learn units delivered across all instructional sessions.
During the post-intervention probe sessions, the experimenter taught three new phonemes
(/c/, /o/, /f/ or /w/,/l/, /n/) and words made up of these three phonemes in each group, then 52 calculated the participants’ rate of acquisition (number of learn units to criterion). The experimenter conducted the post-intervention sessions in the same manner as the pre- intervention sessions, with the exception of different target phonemes and words taught.
The experimenter calculated the numbers of learn units to criterion required for
Participants 5 and 6 to achieve mastery of objectives scripted from the Morningside Phonics© curriculum (Figure 1). These objectives included vowel/consonant (vc) combinations, consonant/ vowel (cv) combinations, or consonant/vowel/consonant (cvc) combinations. The experimenter followed the above mentioned procedures for calculating the numbers of learn units to criterion for Participants 5 and 6, and the only difference was that the Morningside
Phonics© materials were used instead of the 20 words.
Dependent variable 3: Number of correct vocally blended words. For Participants
1-6, an additional dependent variable included the numbers of correct vocal blending responses emitted after listening to the experimenter say the corresponding component speech sounds
(individual phonemes). During the pre-and post-intervention sessions, the experimenter conducted 20 unconsequated probe trials, in which she said two to five separate component phonemes, to which the participant was required to respond by saying the composite word (Table
6). For example, the experimenter presented the sounds “/m/-/a/-/t/,” and the correct response was “mat.” The session began with the experimenter stating: “I will say parts of this word slowly and you will say them together fast.” The experimenter provided the participant with two models followed by twenty different words to which the participant was to respond. 53
Table 3 Definitions of Codes Used in Scoring Textual and Spelling Responses Textual Responses
Code Definition Example 1 Correct textual response “cat” in response to the written word cat 2 Overt emission of component phonemes “/c/a/t/—cat” in response to the written word followed by the correct textual response cat 3 Overt emission of component phonemes “/c/a/t/—pan” in response to the written followed by the incorrect textual response word cat 4 Incorrect overt emission of component “/c/i/p/—cip” in response to the written phonemes or incorrect textual response word cat or “pan” in response to the word cat
Spelling Responses
Code Definition Example 1 Correctly written grapheme writes a for the phoneme “/a/“ 2 Overt emission of phoneme prior to or while participant says “/a/” while writing a in writing the correct phoneme response to “/a/“ 3 Overt emission of phoneme prior to or while participant says “/a/“ and writes i in response writing the incorrect phoneme to “/a/“ 4 Incorrect overt emission of phonemes or Participant says “/i/“ and writes i in response incorrect written response to “/a/“ or participant writes i in response to “/a/“ 54
Table 4 Dependent Variable 1: Words and Non-word Morphemes Consisting of Previously Mastered Phonemes. it is at
dat sid tat
rat mat sat
sad mad dad
sam rid mid
mis dis tim
see mit ris
rick sick tick
mick rack tack
sack mack dack
mist mast tast
miss diss rist
that thin meet
seet seem deem
math rath this
deer deed smit
stam trad stad
tham thist trick
stick thick street
tree teeth sreeth Words in bold were words participants were also asked to spell in pre and post-intervention sessions in Experiment II. 55
Table 5 Dependent Variable 2: Word Lists and Phonemes Taught to Mastery in order to Calculate Rate of Acquisition. o, f, c n, l, w cat sal
cit nat
con wit
fat till
fifth deel
feed weed
dot still
feet neet
feer sand
cast last
creep steel
fast land
cam not
rock than
sock mill
rof feel
thof won
free lad
cot mal
com strill 56
Figure 1 Morningside Phonics© Curriculum Slice
57
Table 6 Dependent Variable 3: Words used During the Vocal Blending Sessions. tat sam mis rid mit mick sack tast miss thin math seem deer smit stam street tree stick deed meet 58
Definition of correct responses to pre-and post- intervention probes: Tests of the dependent variable. During the textual response probe sessions, a correct response was defined as the participant’s vocal emission of a textual response that included the point-by-point phonemes of the corresponding composite word, such that, at least two independent observers did not hear component sounds or separate phonemes within the response. The experimenter recorded a one (1) following those instances in which the participant emitted only the correct textual response (i.e., responded, “cat,” to the printed word cat).
A correct overt blend was defined as the participant’s vocal emission of the correct component phonemes, or fractured sounds that composed the word, followed by the correct blending or textual response of the whole word. The experimenter recorded a two (2) following those instances in which the participant emitted correct responses to the individual phonemes
(said, “/c/-/a/-/t/”), then emitted the correct textual response (“cat”).
An incorrect blend was defined as the participant’s vocal emission of the correct component phonemes, or fractured sounds that composed the word, followed by the incorrect blending or textual response of the whole word. The experimenter recorded a three (3) following those instances in which the participant emitted correct responses to the individual phonemes
(said, “/c/-/a/-/t/” in response to the printed word cat), but did not emit the correct textual response (i.e., responded, “cow,” or anything other than, ”cat”,” to the printed word cat).
An incorrect response was defined as the participant saying an incorrect word or non- word morpheme in response to the target word on the page, or the participant emitting incorrect phoneme sounds to the individual phonemes that made up a word. The experimenter recorded a four (4) following those instances in which the participant emitted only the incorrect textual 59 response or the incorrect component phonemes (i.e., responded “pizza” to the printed word cat, or /c/ /i/ /t/ to the printed word cat).
For the verbal blending probes, the experimenter recorded a correct response with a plus
(+) and an incorrect responses with a minus (-). A correct response was defined as the participant saying the word that corresponded to the combinations of phonemes emitted vocally by the experimenter. An incorrect response was defined as the participant emitting any other verbal vocalization, or emitting no response.
Independent variable: Auditory matching for blended and component speech sounds.
The independent variable was a computer based auditory matching program of component speech sounds and composite words, created in PowerPoint®. During each learn unit of the intervention, the experimenter presented a screen that consisted of four buttons arranged in a triangle formation, with one button located at the top of the triangle (at the top of the computer screen), and three buttons beneath (one exemplar and two non-exemplars) (Figure 1).
The top button contained the target component (segmented) sounds (“/s/-/a/-/ck/”), or target word (“sack”), which the participant was required to match to the corresponding word or component sounds. The bottom buttons included one positive exemplar and two negative exemplars. For example, if the top button produced the target word, “sit,” each bottom button produced the following component sounds, button 1: “/s/-/i/-/t/;” button 2: “/s/-/a/-/t/;” button
3: “/s/-/i/-/p/.” If the top button produced “/m/-/a/-/p/,” each bottom button produced the following words: button 1: “mit;” button 2: “mop;” button 3: “map.”
The procedures for conducting the auditory matching intervention are described below.
The experimenter directed the participant’s attention toward the computer screen, and then 60 clicked the top button, followed by the remaining three bottom buttons, moving in a counter clockwise or clockwise direction around the screen. The experimenter changed directions across successive learn units, to control for side bias. Additionally, the target sounds were located in different positions across the bottom of the screen, to control for a user’s potential side-bias.
Next, the experimenter clicked the top button along with presenting the vocal antecedent,
“match.” The participant was required to respond by pointing to the correct button that matched the target sound. The experimenter or participant then touched the circle to which the participant pointed. The experimenter allowed the participants to re-click the bottom buttons in order listen to the sounds again, prior to making a selection. If the participant pointed/clicked on the correct button, the experimenter delivered vocal praise. If the participant pointed to or clicked on the incorrect button, the experimenter re-presented the entire antecedent along with the correct response, followed by another re-presentation of the antecedent followed by the vocal antecedent, “match,” to which the participant was required to respond by pointing to the correct button. Each session consisted of 20 learn units (one learn unit per slide).
The auditory matching program consisted of 10 phases. Each phase targeted a different phoneme pattern, in a three, four, or five-phoneme word or non-word morpheme. The target discriminations were between words with the same initial sounds, final sounds, vowel sounds, end rhymes, and short and long vowel patterns (Table 5).
Criterion for mastery of each phase was set at 100% (20 correct responses) accuracy within a single session, or 90% (18 or 19 correct responses) accuracy across two consecutive sessions, after which the participant moved to the next phase of the program. Following a participant’s achievement of mastery criterion on phase 10, the experimenter conducted an 61 unconsequated probe session with a novel set of words. If the participant responded with 80% accuracy during this session, he/she continued on to the post-intervention probe sessions. If the participant did not respond with 80% accuracy during the probe session with a novel set of words, he/she moved back to Phase 7 of the auditory matching program and was required to repeat Phases 7-10 to criterion levels.
Definition of correct responses during intervention sessions. A correct response during the intervention sessions was defined as the participant pointing to or pressing the button that produced the word or the component speech sounds that matched the word or sounds produced by the top button (i.e., if top button produced the word, “man,” and the participant selected the bottom button that produced the sounds, “/m/-/a/-/n/”). Mastery criterion for all intervention sessions was preset at 100% accuracy across a single session, or 90% accuracy across two consecutive sessions, and 80% accuracy across one session during the first session of a novel set of words. The experimenter recorded a plus (+) if the participant matched the auditory samples correctly and a minus (-) if the participant did not match the samples correctly. 62
Figure 2 Independent Variable: Auditory Matching Program Phases and Target Words
This is an example of the auditory matching program screen. Pressing each button activated a spoken word or component speech sounds. The top example is what participants saw on each slide. The bottom example shows the buttons, with an example of words that were played when each button was pressed. 63
Table 7
Independent Variable
1 RHYME WORDS (training) a mat/map/sat b tim/tid/dim c mad/map/sad d dad/rad/dat e sim/rim/ sid 2 CVC words different words (all parts of CVC a mat/ sit/ bed b sad/ met/ dog c mit/ top/ dad d rat/ mug/ pig e rid/ pot/ bet 3 CVC words different (vowel and consonant) endings a sad/sit/sop b mad/ mop/ mit c mid/ man/ mud d tim/ top/ ted e sit/ sap/ sod 4 CVC words with same vowel sounds a mit/ rid/ sip b sat/ mad/ rap c rid/ tip/ sit d mad/ tap/ rat e tat/ cab/ sap 5 CCVC/CVCC words with same vowel sounds a tick/ mist/ this b sack/ rath/ mask c mist/ disk/ rick d that/ math/ rack e meet/ read/ seek 64 6 CVC words with first phoneme different a sad/mad/dad b sit/ mit/ bit c mat/ bat/ pat d rid/ bid/ sid e sam/ ram/ bam 7 CVC words with last phoneme different a mad/ map/ mat b sat/ sad/ sap c mit/ mid/ mick d tab/ tat/ tap e sam/ sad/ sat 8 CCVC/CVCC words with one phoneme different a stick/ tick/ stim b math/ mat/ rath c mist/ mith/ rist d stand/ stam/ sand e thick/ tick/ this 9 ee words a see/me/ ees b meet/ meet/ feed c deer/ deed/ reed d seem/ seed/ teem e reet/reed/meet 10 5 letter/ phoneme blends a street/ steem/ treet b sticks/ ricks/stids c trick/thick/trist d teeth/ teed/ deeth e dreeth/dreed/sreeth
10 Novel Sets (5 letter/ phoneme blends) a maths/stath/trath b dricks, sticks,smicks c thath/stack/drack d rists/trist/smiths e micks/macks/smick 65
Post-Intervention Tests of the Dependent Variable
After the participant achieved the mastery criterion across all auditory matching phases, the experimenter conducted post intervention probe sessions for all of the dependent variables.
Post-intervention probe sessions were identical to pre-intervention sessions, except that the rate of acquisition probe, which included different target phonemes than those used during the pre- intervention probe sessions (target phonemes included: (/w/, /l/, /n/) or (/c/, /o/, /f/), as this post- probe was counterbalanced across participants, and words consisting of those and previously mastered phonemes). Prior to the intervention, the experimenter taught Participants 5 and 6 to mastery one Morningside Phonics© objective prior to the intervention, and another Morningside
Phonics© objective in the sequence following the intervention.
Interobserver Agreement
Point-by- point interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of interval agreements by the total number of interval agreements and disagreements and multiplying this number by 100. Interobserver agreement was conducted by a trained observer with a CABAS® Rank of Teacher I or higher. All observers were working towards their master’s degree in applied behavior analysis.
Interobserver agreement was conducted for 100% of probe sessions for Participant 1, with a mean agreement of 98%. IOA was conducted for 100% of probe sessions for Participant
2, with a mean agreement of 100%. Interobserver agreement was conducted for 90% of probe sessions for Participant 3, with a mean agreement of 100%, and for 93% of sessions for
Participant 4, with a mean agreement of 100%. Interobserver agreement was calculated for
100% of pre and post intervention sessions for Participants 3 and 4. Interobserver agreement 66 was 100%. Point by point interobserver agreement was calculated for 100% of pre and post intervention sessions for vocally blending, textual responses to words with previously mastered phonemes for participants 5-9 using a computer video camera. Interobserver agreement was
100% for participants 5, 6, and 9 across all variables, 95% for Participant 7, and 93% for
Participant 8.
Results
Results are shown in Figures 3-7, and are as follows:
Figure 3 shows the number of correct textual response, and segmented phonemes followed by the correct blended responses to words and non-word morphemes made up of previously mastered phonemes. During pre-intervention sessions, Participant 1 emitted 4 correct textual responses, and 4 responses where he segmented each sound and then blended them to the correct textual response out of 60. Participant 2 emitted 10 correct textual responses, and 7 of those responses were where he segmented each sound and then blended them to the correct textual response. Participant 3 emitted 37 correct and 31 segmented correct responses.
Participant 4 emitted 26 correct textual responses, and 16 of those responses were segmented textual responses. Participant 5 emitted 6 correct textual response, and 5 correct segmented responses, while Participant 6 emitted 8 correct and 4 for those responses were segmented correct textual responses. Participant 7 emitted 4 correct textual responses to all words made up of previously mastered phonemes and 2 overtly segmented, correct textual responses, Participant
8 emitted 0 correct responses of any kind, and Participant 9 emitted 11 correct responses prior to the intervention . 67
Following the intervention, the number of correct textual responses and segmented and blended correct textual responses increased for all participants. Participant 1 emitted 41 correct textual response and 40 of those responses were correct textual responses after first segmenting each phoneme. Participant 2 emitted 52 textual responses and 28 segmented correct responses.
Participant 3 emitted 55 and 32 correct responses and Participant 4 emitted 53 and 25 of those correct responses were segmented responses. Participant 5 emitted 28 correct textual responses and 18 overtly segmented, correct textual responses. Participant 6 emitted 40 textual responses and 36 segmented responses. Participant 7 emitted 57 correct textual responses, and 17 of this responses were overtly segmented, correct textual responses. Participant 8 emitted 51 correct textual responses, and emitted 15 overtly segmented, correct textual responses. Participant 9 emitted 55 and 10 correct responses respectively.
Figure 4 shows the number of vocally blended words emitted by participants 1-6.
Participant 1 emitted 7 correct response prior to the intervention. Participant 2 emitted 7,
Participant 3 emitted 15, Participant 4 emitted 14, Participant 5 emitted 5 and 2 correct response prior to the intervention, and Participant 6 emitted 10 and 9 correct blended responses.
During post-intervention sessions, Participant 1 emitted 18 correct responses, Participant
2 emitted 15 correct responses, and Participant 3 emitted 17 correct responses following the intervention, while Participant 4 emitted 19 correct responses following the intervention.
Participant 5 emitted 15 correct responses following the intervention, and Participant 6 emitted
16 correct responses following the intervention.
Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the number of learn units required to meet a reading objective consisting of three new phonemes and 20 new words consisting of previously mastered 68 phonemes and the newly acquired ones. Prior to the intervention, Participant 1 required 104 learn units to meet criterion (90% x 1), Participant 2 required 116 learn units, Participant 3 required 140, and Participant 4 required 178 learn units to meet criterion. Participant 7 required
262 learn units, Participant 8 required 238 learn units, and Participant 9 required 247 learn units to meet criterion.
Following the intervention, Participant 1 required 43 learn units to meet criterion,
Participant 2 required and 43 learn units, Participant 3 required 45 learn units, and Participant 4 required 30 learn units following the intervention. The number of learn units required for
Participant 7 to meet criterion was 23 learn units. Participant 8 required 33 learn units and
Participant 9 required 21 learn units to meet criterion.
Figure 7 shows the number of learn units required for Participants 5 and 6 to meet criterion (90%x 1) on a phonics objective (using the Morningside Phonics© Curriculum).
Following the intervention, the number of learn units required for Participant 5 to meet criterion on a Morningside Phonics© lesson decreased from 614 learn units to 80 learn units. The number of learn units required for Participant 6 to meet criterion decreased from 580 learn units to 120 learn units.
The results of this experiment showed that following the auditory matching program segmented and blended speech sounds, all participants emitted increased numbers of correct textual responses, decreased incorrect responses, and higher rates of acquisition for novel phonemes and blended words. 69
Alex TR 0 1 60 Blends 4 40 Participant 1 45 Component Phonemes and Textual Responses 30 Composite Textual Responses Dorothy TR 0 3 24 Blends 0 7 28 15
0 James 0 0 6 23 60 0 0 31 32 Participant 2 45
Brandon 0 0 0 10 28 30 0 0 0 16 25 15
Oscar 0 0 0 0 4 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 21 60 Frank 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 Participant 3 0 0 0 0 0 14 8 36 45
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 30
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
0 1 2 3 4 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 60 Participant 4
45
30 60 15 Segmented Textual Responses 0 45 1 2 3 4 5 60 Participant 5 30 45
30 15 15
0 0 1 2 3 Untitled 1 Untitled 2 Untitled 3 Untitled 4 Untitled 5 Untitled 6 Untitled 7 60 60 ParticipantParticipant B6
45
45 30
15 30 0 Untitled 1 Untitled 2 Untitled 3 Untitled 4 Untitled 5 Untitled 6 Untitled 7 Untitled 8 Correct Textual Responses and Segmented Phonemes and Textual Responses to Words with Mastered Phonemes Mastered with Words Responses to Textual and Phonemes ResponsesSegmented and Textual Correct 15 60 Participant 7
45
0 Responses Correct 30 1 2 3 Untitled 1
15
2007 2008 2009 2010 0 Untitled 1 Untitled 2 Untitled 3 Untitled 4 Untitled 5 Untitled 6 Untitled 7 Untitled 8 Region 1 27 36 63 143 60 Region 2 55 43 80 48 Participant 8 45
30
15
0 60 Untitled 1 Untitled 2 Untitled 3 Untitled 4 Untitled 5 Untitled 6 Untitled 7 Untitled 8 Untitled 9 Untitled 10
45 Participant 9 30
15
0 Untitled 1 Untitled 2 Untitled 3 Untitled 4 Untitled 5 Untitled 6 Untitled 7 Untitled 8 Untitled 9 Untitled 10 Untitled 11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 3: This figure shows the number of correct textual responses with overtly emitted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 component phonemes and textual responses to words and non-word morphemes with previously 60 mastered phonemes during pre and post-intervention sessions for all participants in Experiment I. 45 Experimenters recorded if the participant emitted the correct textual response (black section of
30 bar) or emitted each component phoneme followed by the correct textual response.
15
0 Untitled 1 Untitled 4 Untitled 7 Untitled 10 70
Participant 1 alex 20 pre ioa pre post post ioa 7 7 18 17 15 10 James pre ioa pre post post ioa 5 15 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 2 dorothy 0 15 Participant 2 0 7 15 14 17 15 19 10 Brandon 14 19 5 James 0 1 2 3 oscar 20 Participant 3 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 10 0 0 5 5 0 2 10 0 15 9 1 2 3 4 20 16 Participant 4 15
10
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 20 Participant 5
0 0 15 17 Phonemes Blended Vocally of Correct Number 15 0 0 0 14 19 10
Brandon 5
0 Untitled 1 Untitled 2 Untitled 3 Untitled 4 Untitled 5 Untitled 6 Untitled 7
20 Participant 6 15 10 5 0 Untitled 1 Untitled 2 Untitled 3 Untitled 4 Untitled 5 Untitled 6 Untitled 7 Untitled 8
Figure 4: This figure shows the number of correct vocally blended phonemes emitted by Participants 1-6 during pre and post-intervention sessions in Experiment I. Correct responses were when the participant vocally emitted the correct word in response to the segmented or component phonemes vocally emitted by the experimenter. 71
LU to Crit 0 0 180 Participant 1 dorothy 0 116 43 116 0 135 alex 104 43 43 140 james 140 45 45 90 travis 120 45 christian 140 0 Brandon 178 30 0 0 0 1 2 dorothy 178 180 30 Participant 2 135 0 0 Dorothy 90 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 614 0 1 2 3 80 580 180 120 Participant 3 135 90 45 0 1 2 3 4
180 Number of Learn Units to Criterion Units to of Learn Number Participant 4 135
90
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 5: This figure shows the number of learn units to criterion it took for Participants 1-4 to master 3 new phonemes and 20 new words in Experiment I. Learn units to criterion were calculated after the participants emitted 90% correct responses during a single session. Learn units to criterion were calculated by adding the number of learn units delivered during all instructional sessions.
Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention alex
700
525
350
175
0 Untitled 1 Untitled 3 Untitled 5
Untitled 1 dorothy 0 116 alex 104 43 james 140 45 Brandon 178 30 7 8 9 72
Oscar 614 80 Frank 0 580 120 0 0 0 0 0 580 120
700 Participant 5
525
350
175
0
700 Participant 6
525 Number of Learn Units to Criterion Units to of Learn Number
350
175
0
Figure 6: Number of learn units to criterion for Morningside Phonics© objectives for Participants 5 and 6 in Experiment I. Learn units to criterionUntitled were 1 calculated after the participants emitted 90% correct responses during a single session which consisted of 20 different non-word morphemes. Learn units to criterion were calculated by adding the number of learn units delivered during all instructional sessions. 60 Participant A Blend out of 60 words Pre-int probe Post-int probe CR * instructional history, some words on list in repertoire prior to experiment 45 correct 2 40 segmented/correct blend 2 17 incorrect 30 1 segmented /incorrect blend 26 2 30
Dolch* 11 15 abstraction Pre- (c,o,n,f) Post (l,n,w) 262 23 0
LR Blend out of 60 words Blend out of 60 words 60 Pre-int probe Pre-int probe Post-int probe Participant B correct 0 0 36 segmented/correct blend 0 0 15 45 incorrect 0 54 2 segmented /incorrect blend 0 6 7 0 30 Dolch* 0 6 abstraction Pre- (c,o,n,f) Pre- (c,o,n,f) Post (l,n,w) 15 0 238 33
PBS 0 Blend out of 60 words 60 Pre-int probe Post-int probe Participant C Number of Learn Units to Criterion Units to of Learn Number correct 11 45 0 0 0 11 45 segmented/correct blend 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 45 incorrect 49 0 Participant A segmented /incorrect blend 0 5 30 Dolch* 15
15 abstraction Pre- (c,o,n,f) Post (l,n,w) 247 21 0 0 247 21 73
Correct Textual Responses and Segmented Phonemes and Textual Responses to Words with Mastered Phonemes Mastered with Words Responses to Textual and Phonemes ResponsesSegmented and Textual Correct 0 JW Blend out of 60 words Pre-int probe Post-int probe 300 correct 2 Participant 7 segmented/correct blend 2 incorrect 47 225 segmented /incorrect blend 9 Participant B Dolch* 7 150 abstraction Pre- (c,o,n,f) Post (l,n,w) 273 LUC 75
SC Blend out of 60 words 0 Pre-int probe Post-int probe correct 0 300 Participant 8 segmented/correct blend 0 incorrect segmented /incorrect blend 225
Dolch* 150 abstraction Pre- (c,o,n,f) Post (l,n,w) 351 LUC (then I stopped) 75
0 Number of Learn Units to Criterion Units to of Learn Number 300 Participant 9
225
150
75
0
Figure 7: This figure shows the number of learn units to criterion for phonemes and words for Participants 7, 8, and 9 in Experiment I. Learn units to criterion were calculated after the participants emitted 90% correct responses during a single session. Learn units to criterion were calculated by adding the number of learn units delivered during all instructional sessions. 74
Discussion
Results of the study suggested that the mastery of all phases of the auditory matching program for component speech sounds and composite words was effective in increasing overall correct textual responses and correct textual responses where participants first emitted each component sound and then the correct textual response. The mastery of the auditory matching program also decreased the numbers of learn units required to meet a textual responding objective for all participants. The results of this study had interesting implications for teaching students to textually respond and how instructors should plan instruction.
There seemed to have been two groups of participants: 1.) those who could not textually respond correctly even with the overt emission of component phonemes prior to the intervention, but could following the intervention; and, 2.) those who could textually respond correctly only after emitting each phoneme overtly prior to the intervention, but could textually respond without emitting these phonemes following the intervention. These results suggest that there may be different levels of the joining of listener and speaker repertoires (speaker-as-own-listener behaviors) as overt and covert responses in regards to reading. This is a crucial skill for developing more advanced reader behavior.
Participant 1 emitted no correct textual responses with or without first saying each component sound (phoneme) in the words. Following mastery of the auditory matching program, the participant could textually respond but only when overtly emitting each component sound in the word first; that is, almost all textual responses he emitted following the intervention involved him saying each phoneme aloud before blending the sounds together to emit the correct textual response. This indicated that the intervention may have induced a missing component of 75 his speaker-as-own-listener repertoire, and allowed him to hear his own segmented words and blend them to textually respond.
Results from Participants 5 and 6, students diagnosed with language and communication impairments, are much like the data for Participant 1, who had no formal diagnosis, but had faulty echoic behavior. Like Participant 1, both participants emitted very few correct textual responses whether they emitted the component sounds first or not. During the pre-intervention sessions, these participants emitted each sound in the word in the correct sequence, but did not emit the correct composite textual response following the emission of these phonemes.
Following the intervention, the number of words for which the participants emitted component phonemes followed by the textual response increased, with small increases in textual responses without this overt emission.
Conversely, Participants 2, 3, and 4 emitted some correct textual responses when first overtly emitting each component sound prior to intervention, but few correct textual responses without overtly emitting those phonemes. These results suggested that the auditory matching intervention resulted in them textually responding without saying component sounds first.
Participants 7, 8, and 9 all had the full-naming capability and still benefited from the intervention, suggesting that it may be a different type of speaker-as-own-listener behavior specific to blending one’s own phoneme emissions. Naming is a speaker-as-own-listener behavior, but the speaker-as-own listener behavior induced involved hearing component sounds and producing the composite word. In addition, these participants had a more controlled and known instructional history and over a year of experience of protocols and instruction through the learn unit. Experimenters knew what repertoires had been taught and how all reading and 76 spelling instruction had been introduced to the participants. These factors may have contributed to the drastic decrease in learn units required to master the objectives, and to the increases in textual responses. This operant class (i.e., blending, or the selection of component and composite speech sounds) may have been key to the development of textual responding behavior.
It is also important to note that participants 7-9 did not contact the independent variable as a reading intervention. These participants were not struggling with learning to textually respond. Instead, the independent variable served as a method of teaching reading that dramatically decreased the amount of instruction the participants needed acquire new textual responses.
The results of this study suggested the intervention was effective on several levels. For participants with low numbers of correct textual responses, segmented or composite textual responses, the intervention functioned to increase the number of correct textual responses, but specifically textual responses where the participants segmented all phonemes vocally first
(emitted component sounds), before emitting the correct textual response. For participants who emitted more correct textual responses when they first segmented the phonemes, the intervention functioned to increase the number of correct textual responses (perhaps segmenting became covert or unnecessary). These results may inform what particular experiences are necessary in order to become a fluent textual responder. Data showed that participants who were taught phoneme sounds needed to possess or master the matching of component sounds to the words they comprise before the participants could segment and blend phonemes into words, or textually respond to words made up of mastered phonemes. 77
There were several limitations to the study. Prior to the intervention, all participants except for Participant 5 and Participant 6 only participated in a single pre-probe for each dependent variable. Future studies should use a non-current multiple probe design or have participants take part in several probe sessions prior to the implementation of the independent variable. In addition, there may have been a ceiling effect during the vocal blending probes for
Participants 3 and 4. Perhaps a vocal blending probe with more phonemes or non-word morphemes would be a better measure of this skill. These participants could blend phonemes they heard vocally, but could not blend phonemes they overtly said themselves. This might suggest a speaker-as-own-listener component involved in blending and segmenting in order to textually respond.
When analyzing these primary results from the perspective of the VBDT, there are several possible implications. The results suggest that there is a speaker-as-own-listener component to textual responding and the ability to match component sounds to words or words to component sounds, and may be a verbal behavior developmental cusp. Once participants mastered auditory matching of component sounds and composites they were able to textually respond and acquire new textual responses at a faster rate.
The results showed that the acquisition of the ability to match component sounds with the words they comprise led to correct textual responses to phonemically transparent words.
Combining and separating component sounds is at the base of our writing system (Robinson,
2007). Textual responding and spelling are reciprocal processes and should be taught simultaneously (McGuiness, 2004). Textual responding involves saying component sounds together (blending), while spelling involves taking a word and emitting (through the written 78 topography) each component phoneme sound sequentially. To spell phonetically, an individual must break apart (segment) a word into its component parts.
Both textual responding and spelling involve component parts of language (phonemes and the graphemes that represent them). Experiment II aimed to test the effects of the mastery of matching component sounds to composite words on textual responding and spelling behaviors. 79
Chapter III
Experiment II Method Participants
Participants in Experiment II were five elementary school students between five and eight years of age. Participants were selected from a kindergarten through second grade public elementary school located in a suburb of a major metropolitan area.
Participant A was an eight year-old male diagnosed with autism. Participant C was a six- year old male diagnosed with autism. Participant E was a five-year old male diagnosed with autism. Participants A, C, and E were selected from a self-contained classroom for students with multiple disabilities that implemented the CABAS® system of instruction. Participants B and D were a five-year old females selected from a CABAS® AIL general education kindergarten class
(see Table 8 for a detailed description).
All participants functioned at listener and speaker levels of verbal behavior. Participants did not textually respond, but could match textual stimuli, and had one to one correspondence for printed words in repertoire. Identical to Experiment I, participants were selected to participate in the study after they emitted fewer than 50% correct responses on a textual response probe consisting of words made up of phonemes. These participants could all respond to taught letter sounds, but did not blend the sounds together to emit the correct textual responses for words made up of these sounds. 80
Table 8
Participant information for participants in Experiment II
observation. following the correct responses f the name. hearing while the stimuli e the name. hearing while the stimuli d c b a ! 2009). Greer & (Greer & Speckman, Ross, 2008; protocol developmental a verbal to this assessment. according repertoire in cusp/capability Development (Greer, procedures Assessment 2009). A Note: A Observational learning refers to the ability to observe a peer receive instruction on a set of stimuli and then emit then a set and on of stimuli instruction receive a peer to observe refers to the ability learning Observational Transcription from a model. to letters, or sentences copy words, refers to the ability Full Naming refers to the ability to the emit the tact for a stimulus after receiving instruction on matching matching on instruction to the emit tact refers to after the ability for a stimulus receiving Naming Full matching on instruction of out of 3 after to a field receiving to stimuli point refers to the ability Naming Listener instruction. direct without to a motor movement imitate refers to Imitation the ability Generalized stimuli. 3 dimensional of 2 and exemplars to match various refers to the ability Matching Generalized D C B A E Yes Yes Yes IEP No No Yes Age denotes that the participant had the cusp/capability in repertoire according to the Verbal according repertoire in the cusp/capability had that the participant denotes Behavior 5 5 6 5 8 Mands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tacts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Generalized Matching Induced Yes Yes Yes Yes Generalized Immitation Induced Yes Yes Yes Yes No d Induced enotes that the participate did not posses the not posses did that the participate enotes Transcription denotes that the cusp was induced using using induced that was the cusp denotes Letters Letters Letters Letters No Listener Listener Naming Yes Yes No No No Naming Full Yes Yes No No No Observational Learning Induced Yes No No No 81
Setting
Pre- and post-intervention probe sessions and intervention sessions took place in the same settings as Experiment I for Participants 1-6.
Materials
Materials used for the dependent variables. Materials used for tests of the dependent variables were identical to those used in Experiment I. Additional materials included lined paper and pencils for tests of pre- and post-intervention dictated spelling responses.
Materials used during intervention sessions. Materials used in Experiment II were identical to those used during Experiment I with the exception on an i-pad instead of a desktop or laptop computer used to run the auditory matching intervention sessions.
Design
The design of the study was a delayed non-concurrent design across participants whereby all participants participated in two pre-intervention tests for all dependent variables prior to the intervention phase of the experiment. The first participant took part in two pre-intervention sessions for tests of the dependent variables, followed by the intervention sessions, and post- intervention sessions (which were identical to the pre-intervention sessions for tests of all dependent variables). Following the post-intervention sessions, the next participant took part in two pre-intervention probes for all dependent variables and then continued with the experimental sequence. The experimenter employed a delayed non-concurrent design in order to control for maturation and instructional history. 82
Each participant took part in the sequence that is outlined below, and no participant began any phase of the experiment until the previous participant completed all post-intervention probe sessions.
Procedure
Pre- experimental sessions. All pre-experimental sessions were run identically to
Experiment I. In addition, participants were asked to write the letter/s that make up the phoneme sounds (/m/, /a/, /s/, /t/, /ee/, /r/, /i/, /d/, /th/, /ck/). If participants wrote each letter/s correctly when asked to “write /__/,” then the participant began to take part in pre-experimental sessions. If the participant did not write these correctly, he or she participated in dictated spelling instruction where he or she was asked to write the letter/s that made up the targeted phoneme sounds. This instruction continued until the participant wrote the correct letter/s for each phoneme three consecutive times.
Pre- and Post- Intervention Tests of the Dependent Variables All pre-intervention sessions were identical to Experiment I. In addition to all the tests of the dependent variables in
Experiment I, participants also took part in additional tests for correct responses to dictated spelling words.
Dependent variable 4: Dictated spelling responses to words with mastered phonemes. An additional dependent measure in Experiment II was the number of correctly written graphemes and words with phonemes that the participants were taught to textually respond to and to write. These words were the first 20 to which the participants were asked to textually respond (Table 3 in bold). During this pre-intervention probe, the experimenter asked the student to “spell______.” The participant had 10s to write the word. Each trial was 83 unconsequated, in that the experimenter will provide no feedback or reinforcement. This procedure was repeated for all 20 words. The experimenter recorded the number of correct graphemes the participant wrote in the word while emitting no vocal verbal behavior, the number of correct letters the participant wrote in the word as they simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound, the number of incorrect graphemes written with no vocal verbal behavior emitted, and the number of incorrect graphemes written as the participant simultaneously emitted the phoneme sounds.
Pre and post-intervention tests of the written spelling responses and textual responses for words with mastered phonemes were counter balanced in order to control for order effects, that is
Participants 2, 3, and 6 participated in spelling sessions first followed by textual response probes and Participants 1, 4, and 5 participated in textual response probes followed by spelling probes.
Definition of correct responses to pre-and post- intervention probes: Tests of the dependent variables. All definitions for correct and incorrect responses for test of dependent variables were identical to those in Experiment I. The additional dependent variable is defined below.
During dictated spelling pre and post-intervention sessions, the experimenter recorded the number of correct graphemes written in correspondence to the correct phoneme. A correct response was defined as the grapheme being in the correct sequence in the word. An incorrect response was defined as the incorrect grapheme written, an omission of a grapheme, or a correct grapheme written in the wrong sequence for spelling the word. For example if a participant spelled stick, s-i-g, there were two correct responses (s-i) and two incorrect responses (omission of t, incorrect g instead of ck). If the participant spelled stick s-k-i-t-ck, there were three correct 84 responses (s, i, and ck), and two incorrect responses (k in place of t and t after the incorrect phoneme). Correct and incorrect responses to dictated spelling sessions were coded much like textual responding sessions, using a one (1) to record a correct response, a two (2) for a correct response emitted when the participant was also vocally saying the phoneme, a three (3) for an incorrect response when the participant vocally emitted the correct phonemes, but wrote them incorrectly, and a four (4) for an incorrect response when the participant emitted no vocal verbal behavior when writing and responding incorrectly.
Independent Variable: Auditory Matching for Blended and Segmented Speech Sounds
The independent variable was identical to the independent variable in Experiment I, but was run using an i-pad.
Post-Intervention Tests of the Dependent Variable
Post-intervention tests of the dependent variable were identical to Experiment I, with the addition of the dictated spelling test added as an additional dependent variable.
Interobserver Agreement
Point-by- point interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of interval agreements by the total number of interval agreements and disagreements and multiplying this number by 100. Interobserver agreement was conducted for 50% of probe sessions for Participant A, with a mean agreement of 100%. IOA was conducted for 100% of probe sessions for Participant B, with a mean agreement of 98% (range 96%-100%).
Interobserver agreement was conducted for 50% of probe sessions for Participant C, with a mean agreement of 100%, and for 50% of sessions for Participant D, with a mean agreement of 100%. 85
Interobserver agreement was calculated for 50% of pre and post intervention sessions for
Participant E. Interobserver agreement was 95%. Results
Results are shown in Figures 8-12, and are summarized below.
Figure 8 shows the number of correct textual responses, and the emission of component phonemes followed by the correct blended textual responses to words and non-word morphemes made up of previously mastered phonemes. Prior to the intervention, Participant A emitted 3 correct textual responses, and 21 and 16 responses where he emitted each component sound and then blended them to the correct textual response out of 60. Participant B emitted 7 and 6 correct textual responses, and 20 responses where she emitted each component sound and then blended them to the correct textual response. Participant C emitted 6 correct and 8 and 2 responses where he emit the component phonemes followed by the correct response. Participant D emitted 7 and 5 correct textual responses, and 25 and 21 component sounds textual responses. Participant E emitted 3 correct textual response, and 7 and 6 correct component phoneme textual responses.
Following the intervention, the number of correct textual responses and correct responses where participants first emitted component phonemes and blended correct textual responses increased for all participants. Participant A emitted 4 correct textual responses and 48 correct textual responses after first emitting each phoneme. Participant B emitted 48 textual responses and 4 correct responses after emitting each phoneme. Participant C emitted 6 correct textual responses and 34 correct responses where he first emitted component phonemes, and Participant 86
D emitted 45 and 7 correct responses. Participant E emitted 5 correct textual responses and 33 correct textual responses after first emitting all component phonemes.
Figures 9 shows the number of learn units required to meet a reading objective consisting of three new phonemes and 20 new words consisting of previously mastered phonemes and the newly acquired ones. Prior to the intervention, Participant A required 180 learn units to meet criterion (90% x 1), Participant B required 72 learn units, Participant C required 500, and
Participant D required 131 learn units to meet criterion. Participant E required 140 learn units.
Following the intervention, Participant A required 64 learn units to meet criterion,
Participant B required and 23 learn units, Participant C required 120 learn units. The number of learn units required for Participant D to meet criterion was 29 learn units. Participant E required
80 learn units to meet criterion.
Figure 10 shows the number of the number of correct graphemes written, and the vocal emission of component phonemes followed by the correct grapheme written to 20 words and non-word morphemes made up of previously mastered phonemes. Figure 11 shows the number of word spelled correctly. Participant A emitted 7 and 8 correctly written graphemes, and 33 and
32 correctly written graphemes when he simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound out of 61 phonemes. He spelled 5 words correctly during both pre-intervention spelling sessions.
Participant B emitted 38 and 24 correctly written graphemes, and 8 and 20 correctly written graphemes when she simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound. Participant C emitted 15 and 10 correctly written graphemes, and 18 and 12 correctly written graphemes when he simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound. Participant D emitted 8 and 6 correctly written graphemes, and 45 and 40 correctly written graphemes when he simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound. 87
Participant E emitted 2 and 1 correctly written graphemes, and 32 and 27 correctly written graphemes when he simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound.
Following the mastery of the auditory matching program Participant A emitted 16 correctly written graphemes, and 31 correctly written graphemes when he simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound. He spelled 10 words correctly. Participant B emitted 41 correctly written graphemes, and 20 correctly written graphemes when he simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound. She spelled 14 words correctly. Participant C emitted 3 correctly written graphemes, and 49 correctly written graphemes when he simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound. He spelled 11 words correctly. Participant D emitted 53 correctly written graphemes, and 5 correctly written graphemes when she simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound. She spelled
20 words correctly. Participant E emitted 0 correctly written graphemes, and 55 correctly written graphemes when he simultaneously emitted the phoneme sound. He spelled 13 words correctly.
Figure 12 shows the number of vocally blended words emitted by participants.
Participant A emitted 6 and 5 correct response prior to the intervention. Participant B emitted 13 and 11 correct responses. Participant C emitted 9 and 6. Participant D emitted 6 correct responses. Participant E emitted 0 correct responses.
During post-intervention sessions, Participant A emitted 15 correct responses, Participant
B emitted 19 correct responses, and Participant C emitted 13 correct responses following the intervention, while Participant D emitted 14 correct responses following the intervention.
Participant E emitted 8 correct responses following the intervention. CHARLIE ioa Trajan 100% ioa 100% ioa pre pre post pre pre pre pre post correct 3 3 4 correct 0 0 6 6 6 seg correct 21 16 48 seg correct 0 0 8 2 34 seg icorrect 36 40 8 seg icorrect 0 0 46 52 20 in 0 1 0 in 0 0 0 0 0
ioa ioa LEYLA pre pre pre post correct 0 6 7 48 seg correct 0 20 20 4 seg icorrect 0 21 20 4 in 0 13 13 4
CHARLIE ioa Trajan 100% ioa 100% ioa pre pre post pre pre pre pre post Melanie correct 3 3 4 correct 0 0 6 6 6 correct seg correct 0 21 0 16 048 seg7 correct 5 0 45 0 8 2 34 seg correct seg icorrect 0 36 0 40 0 8 32seg icorrect 30 0 7 0 46 52 20 in 0 1 0 in 0 0 0 0 0 seg icorrect 0 0 0 21 25 8 in 0 0 ioa 0 ioa 0 0 0 Yadir LEYLA pre pre pre post correct 0 6 7 48 correct 0 0 0 0 3 3 seg correct 0 20 20 4 seg correct seg icorrect 0 0 0 21 020 4 0 7 6 seg icorrect in 0 0 0 13 013 4 0 48 50 in 0 0 0 0 2 1
Melanie Jo correct 0 0 0 7 5 45 correct seg correct 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 30 0 7 2 2 2 seg icorrect 0 0 0 21 25 8 seg correct 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 33 in 0 0 0 0 0 0 seg icorrect Yadir 0 0 0 0 0 54 54 22 in correct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 2 0 Participant 3 seg correct 0 0 0 0 7 6 seg icorrect 0 0 0 0 48 50 in 0 0 0 0 2 1 Number of Vocally Blended Responses NumberVocally of
Jo correct 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 seg correct 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 33 seg icorrect 0 0 0 0 0 54 54 22 in 0 0 60 0 0 0 1 2 0 Participant 3 Number of Vocally Blended Responses NumberVocally of
60 88 Participant 1 60 Participant A 48 Participant 1 Pre-intervention 36 60 Participant A Post-intervention 24 45 12 30
15 0 Post-intervention 60 Pre-intervention Participant B 0 60 48 Participant B pre 1 pre 2 post 45 pre 2 post pre 1 36 30 24 15 Component Phonemes and Correct Textual Response 12 0 60 Correct Textual Response 0 Participant C 45 60 Participant C 30 48 15 36 0 24 Participant D 60 Number of Words Read Correctly NumberWords of 12 45
Number of Words Read Correctly NumberWords of 0 30 Participant D 60 15 48 0 60 Participant E 36 45 24 30 12 15 0 0 60 Participant E 48 36 24 12
0 Figure 8: This figure shows the number of correct textual responses with overtly emitted component phonemes and textual responses to words and non-word morphemes with previously mastered phonemes during pre and post-intervention sessions for all participants in Experiment II. Experimenters recorded if the participant emitting the correct textual response (black section of bar) or emitted each component phoneme followed by the correct textual response. yadir 0 0 0 0 320 Charlie Trajan Leyla Pre Post Pre post 0 72 23 180 64 0 500 120 0 0 500 120 maline 0 0 0 131 29 Jo 0 0 0 0 140 80 89
Participant A
180 150 Participant 1 120 90 60 30 0 180 Participant B 150 120 90 60 30 0 510 500 Participant C 480 400
30090 20060 10030
NumberLearnof UnitsCriterion to 0 Participant D 180 150 120 90 60 30 0 180 Participant E 150 120 90 60 30 0 Figure 9: This figure shows the number of learn units to criterion for phonemes and words for all participants in Experiment II. Learn units to criterion were calculated after the participants emitted 90% correct responses during a single session. Learn units to criterion were calculated by adding the number of learn units delivered during all instructional sessions. 61 total- Charlie Letters Pre Pre Post words PRE words pre words post Participant A 1 7 8 16 5 5 10 20 2 33 32 31 Melanie Melanie Participant 1 16 3 17 17 14 1 0 0 0 8 8 53 12 4 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 40 40 5 Pre-intervention 3 0 0 0 10 11 3 8 4 0 0 0 3 2 0 4 0 Trajan words 0 0 0 11 11 20 20 Letters Pre Pre Pre Pre Post words PRE words pre wordswords PRE pre words post Participant B 1 0 0 15 10 3 0 0 4 3 11 16 2 0 0 12 18 49 12 3 0 0 4 13 9 8 4 0 0 30 20 0 4 0
LEYLA Pre Pre Pre Pre Post words PRE words pre words post 20 Participant C 1 0 0 38 24 41 0 8 7 14 16 2 0 0 8 20 20 12 3 0 0 2 0 8 4 0 0 13 17 4 yadier 0 0 0 0 7 Spelled Correctly NumberWords of 0 0 0 0 0 15 20 Participant D 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 48 12
words 8 0 0 0 0 5 5 13 4 Jo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 20 Participant E 0 0 0 0 32 27 55 16 0 0 0 0 6 13 2 0 0 0 0 21 20 0 12 8 words 4 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 90
60 Participant A 50 40 30 20 10 0 60 Participant B 50 40 30
20 10 0 60 Participant C Component Phonemes and Correct Grapheme 50 Correct Grapheme 40 30 20 10 NumberCorrectof Graphemes Written 0 60 Participant D 50 40 30 20 10 0 60 Participant E 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 10: This figure shows the number of correctly written graphemes with and without overtly emitted component phonemes to words and non-word morphemes with previously mastered phonemes for participants in Experiment II. There were 20 words and 61 phonemes total. The Experimenter measured if participants wrote the correct grapheme (black section of the bar), or vocally emitted the phoneme and wrote the grapheme (grey section of the bar). 91
Participant A 20 61 Participant 1 16 total- Charlie Pre-intervention 12 Letters Pre Pre Post words PRE words pre words post 8 1 7 8 16 5 5 10 4 2 33 32 31 Melanie Melanie 0 3 17 17 14 1 0 0 0 8 8 53 20 4 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 40 40 5 Participant B 3 0 0 0 10 11 3 16 4 0 0 0 3 2 0 12 8 Trajan words 0 0 0 11 11 20 4 Letters Pre Pre Pre Pre Post words PRE words pre wordswords PRE pre words post 1 0 0 15 10 3 0 0 4 3 11 0 2 0 0 12 18 49 20 Participant C 3 0 0 4 13 9 16 4 0 0 30 20 0 12 8 LEYLA Pre Pre Pre Pre Post words PRE words pre words post 4
1 0 0 38 24 41 0 8 7 14 Spelled Correctly NumberWords of 0 2 0 0 8 20 20 20 Participant D 3 0 0 2 0 16 4 0 0 13 17 yadier 12 0 0 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 0 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 20 Participant E words 16 0 0 0 0 5 5 13 12 Jo 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 32 27 55 0 0 0 0 0 6 13 2 0 0 0 0 21 20 0 Figure 11: This figure shows the number of correctly written whole words to words and non- word morphemes with previously mastered phonemes for participants in Experiment II. The words experimenter asked the participant to “write the word” and the participant had to write the word. 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 5
60 Participant A 50
40
30
20
10
0 60 Participant B 50
40
30
20
10
0 60 Participant C 50 40 30 20 10 NumberCorrectof Phonemes Written 0 60 Participant D 50 40 30 20 10 0 60 Participant E 50 40 30 20 10 0 CHARLIE Trajan pre pre post pre pre pre pre ioa 100% 12 9 14 100% ioa 0 0 9 6 13 others with taught 6 5 15 melanie 0 0 0 6 6 14 LEYLA yadir pre pre post 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 15 20 others with taught 0 13 11 19 jo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 iman 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 Participant A Post-intervention 16 Pre-intervention 12
8 4 0 20 Participant B 16 12
8 4 0 20 Participant C 16 12 8
4 Blended Responses NumberVocally of 0 20 Participant D
16 12 8 4
0 Participant E 20 16 12
8 4 0 Figure 12: This figure shows the number of correct vocally blended phonemes emitted by participants during pre and post-intervention sessions in Experiment II. Correct responses were when the participant vocally emitted the correct word in response to the segmented or component phonemes vocally emitted by the experimenter. 93
Discussion
Results showed that the mastery of all phases of the auditory matching program increased the number of correct component sounds followed by the composite textual responses and/or composite textual responses for all participants. Similarly, the number of correct graphemes written in words increased for all participants. As in Experiment I, there seemed to be two different groups of participants: participants who could not accurately blend to emit correct textual responses even after emitting component sounds, and participants who could blend to accurately textually respond, but only after emitting component phoneme sounds overtly.
Following the intervention, those who blended inaccurately could emit correct composite textual responses after overtly emitting each component sound, and those who could blend accurately no longer emitted component sounds, but instead simply textually responded to the words.
These results also generalized to spelling, as those participants who emitted incorrect graphemes while emitting the phoneme sounds, emitted the correct grapheme and phoneme sounds following the intervention. Those participants who did emit some correct graphemes while emitting the phoneme sound, no longer emitted the phoneme sound following the intervention. The patterns of 1.) overt component responses followed by incorrect composite responses changing to overt component responses followed by correct composite responses and
2.) overt component responses followed by correct composite responses changing to correct composite responses were shown across both textual responding and spelling.
As in the case of Experiment I, these types of responses also were evident in learn units to criterion. Participants A, C and E, who could not blend accurately prior to the intervention, required many learn units to reach criterion (500-180) to master 20 novel phonemically 94 transparent words. Essentially, all words were acquired as discrete operants or as “sight words.”
The data made evident that these participants did not have the ability to blend component phonemes to emit the composite word. Following the intervention, these participants decreased the number of learn units required to acquire 20 new phonemically transparent words, but still needed to be consequated at least once upon seeing the word to acquire the blended composite response
On the other hand, Participants B and D, who initially needed fewer learn units to criterion to master the 20 words prior to the intervention (131-72), responded correctly to many of the words the first time following the intervention, needing no consequence as they may have abstracted blending as an operant class. These results showed that the ability to blend component phonemes into composite words meets the criterion for a verbal behavior developmental cusp in that it allows students to learn faster and contact textual stimuli in a different way.
Participants in Experiment II showed greater improvements in vocal blending responses following the mastery of the auditory matching procedure than participants in Experiment I. All participant responses increased to at least 14 out of 20 correct responses following the intervention, which showed that the intervention also affected this repertoire. Several previous experiments showed that vocal blending training increased the textual responding in beginning readers (Carnine, 1977; Colman, 1970; Vandever & Neville, 1976); perhaps the intervention led to an increase in this repertoire, which collaterally affected textual responding.
Because all participants increased the number of correct textual responses, spelling responses, vocal blending responses, and decreased the number of learn units to criterion for 95 phonemically transparent words, the results supported McGuiness (2004) in that spelling and reading should be taught simultaneously. In addition, the results showed that the ability to match component sounds to composite words and vice-versa improved both textual responding and spelling.
Results from pre-and post spelling sessions showed greater numbers of correct responses than textual response sessions. Perhaps this is due to an instructional history of writing component sounds. In textual responding, participants were taught to textually respond to component sounds, but never composite words; however, students were taught to write the grapheme for a component sound but never in sequence to spell a word. This instructional history could account for the difference. 96
Chapter IV
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The mastery of auditory matching of component speech sounds to composite words increased the number of correct textual responses for participants in Experiments I and II, and increased the number of correct textual responses and spelling responses for participants in
Experiment II. The number of learn units required to master 20 new textual responses decreased for all participants. The increases in the rate of acquisition of new textual responses are especially important data and suggest that the ability to match components to composite words, and vise-versa, may be a verbal developmental cusp necessary for efficient acquisition of textual responses.
Data from Experiments I and II showed various levels of responding and different levels of speaker-as-own listener behaviors. During pre-intervention sessions there were two types of textual responding. There were participants who emitted correct component sounds, but emitted incorrect composite word responses (i.e., “/c/,/a/,/t/-“cape”). There were also participants who emitted the correct component sounds followed by the composite word (i.e., “/c/,/a/,/t/-“cat”), but did not emit the correct composite textual response without first emitting all the component phonemes. Following the mastery of matching component speech sounds to words, the participants who emitted correct component sounds, but incorrect composite textual responses, emitted an increased number of correct composite textual responses after first emitting the component sounds. The participants who were already emitting these types of responses emitted an increased number of composite textual responses without emitting any component sounds 97 prior to the response. These results suggest that the participants who did not emit correct composite textual responses even after emitting the component sounds may have acquired a speaker-as-own listener repertoire of listening to their own emission of component sounds, thus enabling them to emit the correct textual response. Participants who could emit composite textual responses after first emitting component sounds may have acquired this speaker-as-own- listener behavior at the covert level, or the ease of execution of blending may have allowed this behavior to become covert, as suggested by Skinner (1957).
Data from the vocal blending probes were also noteworthy. Several participants in
Experiments I and II emitted high levels of correct responding prior to the intervention, but did not emit correct textual responses even after emitting each component sound first. These data together further provide evidence for blending to textually respond as speaker-as-own-listener behavior. Participants could blend sounds when another individual emitted them, but could not listen and blend their own component speech sound utterances prior to the intervention.
Data on the number of learn units required to meet criterion also showed a difference in these two groups. Although the number of learn units to criterion decreased for all participants, the number of learn units differed between the two groups of participants. Participants who did not emit correct composite words prior to the intervention required many learn units to criterion
(range, 700-180) to acquire the new textual responses taught. These participants were learning each word as a discrete operant. Following the intervention, these participants could emit the component sounds and then emit the correct composite textual response, and required only a few presentations of each word to blend the component phonemes and emit the correct textual response. 98
The participants who emitted correct textual responses after overtly emitting component sounds initially required fewer learn units to meet criterion (range, 145-72) compared to the participants described above. Following the intervention, most of these participants emitted the correct textual response without any instruction on the word and only required learn units on words with complex consonant combinations in the beginning of words (strill, and still).
Similar results were shown in pre and post-intervention tests of dictated spelling responses. Participants who emitted correct overt phonemes and incorrect graphemes were able to emit correct phonemes and correctly write more graphemes following the intervention.
Participants who emitted correct graphemes when also vocally emitting the phonemes were able to write the correct graphemes without overtly emitting the phoneme sounds.
These results further suggested that the mastery of matching component sounds and composite words is a verbal behavior developmental cusp that involves various levels of speaker- as-own-listener behavior and because it resulted in an increase in the rate of learning for all participants. Participants who did not emit correct textual or spelling responses may have not possessed this cusp; therefore, the participants could not contact the acquisition of new textual responses through the learn unit. Participants who could emit correct responses when overtly emitting component phoneme sounds, had experiences through the intervention that aided in the ease of execution of these responses which allowed them to drop to the covert level. Both levels of textual responding required the production of an accurate blend. The repertoire of matching component speech sounds and composite words allowed for the accurate production of these blends. 99
Data from the textual responding and spelling sessions also showed that participants emitted more correct spelling responses than textual responses prior to and following the intervention. These data suggest that segmenting from a composite word to component sounds may be less complex than blending from component sounds to composite words as in the case of textually responding. For example, spelling the word stick involved participants sounding out while simultaneously writing the graphemes /s/-/t/-/i/-/c/-/k/, while textually responding involved blending the observed graphemes’ corresponding phonemes together /stick/.
McGuinness, (2004) argued that textual responding and spelling responses should be taught simultaneously. Data from Experiment II supported this, in that one repertoire could potentially pull along the other. All participants increased in the number of correct textual and spelling responses after the intervention. Perhaps the intervention functioned to improve both types of responses, or an increase in one yielded an increase in the other.
Implications
Results of both studies showed that mastering matching component sounds to composite words and vise-versa improved textual responding (in Experiments I and II) and spelling repertoires (in Experiment II). Perhaps, as stated in the research on general case (Englemann &
Carnine, 1982), it was the rotation of various sounds and responses (multiple exemplar instruction-MEI) that allowed the ability of blending component phonemes into composite words to emerge. Another possibility is that the history of the same sounds in various words allowed for this generalization or abstraction of stimulus control. The mastery of auditory matching of component sounds to composite words allowed participants who could not emit composite word 100 textual responses or correct spelling responses when saying the phonemes to do so, or to do so without vocally emitting the component phonemes.
Results from studies that utilized the auditory matching procedure (Chavez-Brown, 2005;
Choi, 2012) showed that the auditory matching program increased correct echoic responses. The mastery of discriminating and matching sounds improved vocal production responses. The auditory matching procedure may have induced the abstraction of sameness of auditory stimuli which improved the observation and production of speech sounds. In Experiments I and II participants could not blend. These participants parallel the participants in the original auditory matching studies who could not echo in that following the mastery of matching sounds and words, they improved the production of blends. The discrimination and matching at the component to composite level of speech sounds improved the production of blends, just like the mastery of matching words improved echoic responses for participants in previous auditory matching experiments (Chavez-Brown, 2005; Choi, 2012). The cusps of auditory matching and auditory matching for blending are crucial in that the discrimination improves and joins with productive responding. These steps are necessary for echoic responding and for blending sounds into composite words.
The results from Experiments I and II provide support for the necessity of the induction of verbal behavior developmental cusps for further verbal and academic development. The results of the current study suggested that matching component phoneme sounds to words may be a verbal developmental cusp. Once students acquired the repertoire of matching component sounds to composite words and vice-versa, they could textually respond to print made up of 101 phonemes they had been taught. In addition, the results showed that students who could blend taught phonemes into words learned faster than when they could not.
VBDT research has led to empirical evidence of collateral behaviors that result as a function of the acquisition of certain cusps and certain capabilities. VBDT also identifies several speaker-as-own-listener cusps (self talk conversational units, say-do correspondence, and the naming capability). Self-talk, say-do correspondence, and naming all involve listening (with understanding) to one’s own speaker behavior. Blending component sounds one utters into reading novel words and segmenting phonemes from composite words and writing the corresponding graphemes are examples of speaker-as-own-listener behavior. Listening to one’s own speech sounds emitted when responding to phonemes and saying them all together in a word, or listening to one’s own segmented echoic and writing the correct spelling of a word, involves listening while responding also as a speaker in rotated fashion. These responses seemed to be initially overt responses (like self-talk, and echoic responses in naming), but then dropped to the covert level.
In VBDT, cusps are often induced, and their induction leads to the emergence of other- collateral behaviors. For example, when books are conditioned, students acquire textual responses at a faster rate (Tsai & Greer, 2006). Another example is when two-dimensional objects acquire reinforcement and students can then match stimuli (Delgado et. al , 2009). In the present study, the matching of component speech sounds with composite words was the repertoire that was taught and mastered, but the experimenter saw collateral effects and increases in textual responding and spelling responses in addition to the mastery of the taught behavior. 102
Recently, Greer and Du (2013) identified conditioned reinforcers which provide the establishing operations for the emergence of certain cusps. The above examples demonstrate that the acquisition of conditioned reinforces is key to the acquisition of behavioral cusps, and cusps that are capabilities. Perhaps the auditory matching intervention provided the necessary instructional history for reinforcement of listening at the phoneme level of speech sounds which is essential for phoneme blending and word segmenting.
VBDT offers a trajectory of verbal and academic development across the lifespan of an individual. Early cusps associated with textual responding involve conditioned reinforcement for observing books and conditioned reinforcement for 2D print. In the current trajectory outlined by VBDT, other cusps necessary for reading include reading joining the naming repertoire and textual response fluency (textually responding at 80 words per minute). To date, no cusp associated with initial textual responding, blending, or segmenting has been identified. Data from these studies suggest that the matching of component speech sounds and composite words should be included in the trajectory along with conditioned reinforcement for books and print and textually responding at 80 words per-minute.
Various curricula teach phoneme-grapheme correspondence and then move to textual responding to morphemes and words. Direct instruction curricula provide systematic reading instruction by simultaneously adding and rotating sounds and words. By rotating these sounds and words as well as response topographies, students acquire “essential stimulus control” (Englemann & Carnine, 1982), and learn to textually respond to novel words. It is this rotation of exemplars and topographies that may assist in the emergence of cusps. Perhaps for reading, specifically the mastery of matching component sounds to words, this cusp would 103 eliminate the need for much of this rotated multiple exemplar instruction and expedite the rate of learning of textual responses. Future research should investigate the induction of this cusp before, during, and after instruction through a direct instruction curriculum, and measure the rate of acquisition or the progression through the curriculum.
Limitations
This study was not without limitations. The most prominent limitation was in the experimental design. Although data showed that the intervention was effective in increasing textual and spelling responses, a control group who received regular reading instruction with a controlled number of learn units would help determine if the auditory matching intervention was more effective than other reading instruction or other procedures that claim to evoke blending like vocal blending and segmentation training or phonemic awareness skills (syllable segmenting and phoneme substitution) (Bear, 2000; Llyod, 1992; Rosenberg, 2006).
Another limitation was the lack of control of exposure to print and writing during the time of the study. While participants were in the intervention phase of the experiment, they did not receive reading or spelling instruction. This instruction was substituted with the auditory component and composite sound matching intervention. However, throughout the study, participants attended library and computer classes which may have included writing or reading instruction. Classes were only offered once every six days and participants took part in them no more than two times while in the intervention phase of the experiment. 104
Future Research
The results of the experiment provide opportunities for future research which should use a non-concurrent multiple probe design with a control group in order to test the effects of the intervention as compared to other reading instruction. The study should also be conducted with different sound combinations and longer words and non-word morphemes used in the dependent variables.
Future studies should also aim to test the effects of the mastery of component to composite sound matching with students with longer reading instructional histories, who are still below grade level. In addition, using this intervention with students who have had no print instruction would be interesting. That is, have students master the auditory matching first, and then teach letter sounds and probe for textual responding.
An additional variable that is important to measure during future studies is the rate of responding for textual responses to previously mastered phonemes. The latency between the presentation of the word and the textual response may be an indication of whether or not participants are textually responding to component sounds covertly.
Conclusion
The current studies provided evidence that the mastery of matching component sounds to composite words or composite words to component sounds, is important to textual responding and to spelling. Furthermore, the results suggested the mastery of this matching may qualify as a verbal behavior developmental cusp in that, once acquired, participants in the study learned at a faster rate than prior to mastering matching component sounds and composite words. As the 105 introduction and literature review of this paper illustrated, reading is a large predictor of academic achievement, and students who start behind often never catch up. Data from these studies suggested that students in early elementary school who struggle to read words after acquiring letter sounds may be missing this auditory matching cusp, and that mastery of matching component to composite sounds may improve textual responding repertoires. 106
References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Alessi, G. (1987). "Generative strategies and teaching for generalization". The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 5, 15–27.
Alexander, A., Anderson, H., Heilman, P.C., Voeller, K.S., and Torgesen, J.K. (1991). Phonological awareness training and remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia 41, 193-206. Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Rouby, A., Greulich, L., Sidler, J., & Lee, J. (2010). Predicting kindergartners’ end of year spelling ability from their reading, alphabetic, vocabulary, and phonological awareness skills, and prior literacy experiences. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 171-183.
Andronis, P. T., & Layng, T. V. J. & Goldiamond, I. (1997). Contingency adduction of "symbolic aggression" by pigeons. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 5-17. Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R. & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by human infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321-324. Baer G. T. & Row, R. S. (1999) Self-paced phonics: A text for education. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey; Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall. Bear, D. R. (2000). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill. Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., & Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2012). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction, 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bear, D., Templeton, S., Helman, L., & Baren, T. (2003). Orthographic development and learning to read in different languages. In G. C. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 71-95). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y. & Cullinan, V. (2000). Relational frame theory and Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour: A possible synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23,69-84. 107
Benuck, M. & Peverly, S. T. (2004). The effect of orthographic depth on reliance upon semantic context for oral reading in English and Hebrew. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 281-299. Binder, C. (1988). Precision Teaching: Measuring and attaining exemplary academic achievement. Youth Policy, 10, 12-15.
Bloom, B. S. (1986). The hands and feet of genius: Automaticity. Educational Leadership, 43, 70-77.
Bosch, S., & Fuqua, R. W. (2001). Behavioral cusps: A model for selecting target behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 123-125.
Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., & Winbury, N. (1994). Training Phonological Awareness: A Study with Inner-City Kindergarten Children. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 26-59. Bush, K. M., Sidman M., de Rose T. (1989) Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51,29–45. Carnine, D. W. (1977). Phonics versus look-say: Transfer to new words. Reading Teacher, 30, 636-640. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J. Kameenui, E. J. (1997). Direct Instruction Reading (Third Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, Inc. Catania, A. C (2012). Learning. Corn-wall on Hudson, NY: Sloan Publishing. Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. I. (2000). Theorizing about the relationship between ASL and reading. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 221–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaney, C. (1992). “Language Development, Metalinguistic Skills, and Print Awareness in 3- Year-Old Children.” Applied Psycholinguistics 13(4), 485–514.
Chavez-Brown, M. (2005). The effects of the acquisition of a generalized word match-to- sample repertoire on the echoic repertoire under mand and tact conditions (Doctoral dissertation, 2005, Columbia University. Retrieved on 11/5/09 from http:// www.wagner.edu/faculty/mcbrown/sites/wagner.edu.faculty.mcbrown/files/download.pdf. 108
Choi, J. (2012). Effects of Mastery of Auditory Match-to-Sample Instruction on Echoics, Emergence of Advanced Listener Literacy, and Speaker as Own Listener Cusps by Elementary School Students with ASD and ADHD. (Doctoral dissertation, 2012, Columbia University. Retrieved on 1/3/ 2014 from http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P: 12165. Coleman, E. (1970). Collecting a data base for a reading technology. Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph, 61, 1-23. Colin, S., Magnan, A., Ecalle, J., & Leybaert, J. (2007). Relation between deaf children’s phonological skills in kindergarten and word recognition performance in first grade. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 139–146. Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child. London: Harper and Row. Crystal, D. (2005). How Language Works. New York, NY. The Penguin Group. Dahl, K.L, Scharer, P.L., Lawson, L.L., & Grogan, P.R. (2001). Rethinking phonics: Making the best teaching decisions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mothers’ voices. Science, 208, 1174–1176.
DeCasper, A. J., & Spence, M. J. (1986). Prenatal maternal speech influences newborns’ perception of speech sounds. Infant Behavior and Development, 9, 133–150.
Dinsmoor J.A. (1983). Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.6, 693–728.
Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (2008). Learning and complex behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dow, R. S & Baer, T. G. (2007). Self-paced phonics: A text for educators. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second- grade transitional readers' fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389-40.
Eby C.M, Greer R.D, Tullo L.D, Baker K.A, & Pauly R. (2010). Effects of multiple exemplar instruction on the transformation of stimulus function across written and vocal spelling instruction responses by students with autism. The Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis.5, 20–31. Retrieved from http:// baojournal.com/SLP-ABA%20WEBSITE/SLP-ABA%20VOL-5/SLP-ABA-5-1.pdf. 109 Ehri, L.C. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 356-365. Ehri, L. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20 (3), 19-49. Ehri, L. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171(3968), 303-306.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.
Ferster C. B. (1965) Classification of behavioral pathology. In Research in Behavior Modification (Ed. by Krasner L. and Ullmann L.). Holt, Rinehart &: Winston, New York.
Fiorile C.A, & Greer R.D. (2007). The induction of naming in children with no echoic-to-tact responses as a function of multiple exemplar instruction. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior. 23, 71–88.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebing, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3-17.
Friederici, A.D. and Wessels, J.M. (1993). Phonotactic knowledge of word boundaries and its use in infant speech perception. Percept. Psychophysiology, 54, 287-295.
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. Patterson, J. Marshall & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading. (pp. 301–330). London: Erlbaum. Gagné, R. M. (Ed.). (1967). Learning and individual difference. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, INC.
Gagne, R. M. (1970) The learning of concepts IN Clarizio, H. F., Craig, R. C. & Mehrens W. A. (Eds.) Contemporary Issues in Educational Psychology 230-237. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gentry, J. R. & Gillet, J. W. (1993). Teaching Kids to Spell. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 110
Gilic L, & Greer R.D. (2011). Establishing naming in typically developing children as a function of multiple exemplar speaker and listener experiences. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior. 27, 157–178.
Goodman,K. S. (1993). ”Phonics Phacts," Nebraska Language Arts Bulletin, Vol. 5:2, January, pp. 1-5.
Gough, P . B., & Hillinger, M. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 180-196. Greer, R. D. (2008). The Ontogenetic Selection of Verbal Capabilities: Contributions of Skinnerâ €™s verbal behavior theory to a more comprehensive understanding of language, International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8(3), 363-386.
Greer, R. D. (2002). Designing Teaching Strategies: An Applied Behavior Analysis Approach. New York, NY: Academic Press. Greer, R. D., Chavez-Brown, M. Nirgudkar, A. S., Stolfi, L., & Rivera-Valdes, C. (2005). Acquisition of fluent listener responses and the educational advancement of young children with autism and severe language delays, European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6(2), 1-20. Greer R.D, Corwin A, Buttigieg S. (2011). The effects of the verbal developmental capability of naming on how children can be taught. Acta de Investigacion Psicologia 1, 23–54. Greer R. D., & Du L., (in press). Identification and Establishment of Reinforcers that Make the Development of Complex Social Language Possible. The Psychological Record. Greer, R. D., & Longano, J. (2010). A rose by naming: How we may learn to do it. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 26, 73-106.
Greer, R. D., & Lundquist, A. (1976). Discrimination of musical form through "conceptual"[general case operations] and "non conceptual" successive approximation strategies. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 47, 8-15. Greer, R. D. & Ross, D. E. (2008). Verbal behavior analysis: Inducing and expanding complex communication in children with severe language delays. Boston, Allyn & Bacon. Greer, R. D. & Speckman, J. (2009). The integration of speaker and listener responses: A theory of verbal development, The Psychological Record. 59, 449-488. 111
Greer R.D, Stolfi L, & Pistoljevic N. (2007). Emergence of naming in preschoolers: A comparison of multiple and single exemplar instruction. European Journal of Behavior Analysis. 8, 119–131.
Greer R. D, Yaun L, & Gautreaux G. (2005).Novel Dictation and Intraverbal Responses as a Function of a Multiple Exemplar Instructional History. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior. 21, 99–116. Haddock, M. (1976). Effect of an auditory and an auditory-visual method of blending instruction on the abilities of pre-readers to decode synthetic words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 825-831. Hanson, V. L. (1991). Phonological processing without sound. In S. Brady & D. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 153-161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press. Holland J.G. (1958). Human vigilance. Science. 61–67. Holt, L. L. & Lotto, A. J. (2010). Speech perception as categorization. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 1218-1227. Hoover, W.A. & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of Naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241. Hurford, D. P., & Sanders, R. E. (1990). Assessment and remediation of a phonemic discrimination deficit in reading disabled second- and fourth-graders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 396-415. Jamieson, D. G., & Rvachew, S. (1992). Remediating speech production errors with sound identification training. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 16, 201–210.
Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1994). The Morningside model of generative instruc- tion. In R. Gardner, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. W. Eshleman & T. A. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior Analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 173-197). 112
Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47, 1475-1490.
Johnson, K.R., & Street, E.M. (2004). The Morningside Model of Generative: What it means to leave no child left behind. InstructionCambridge, MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.
Joshi, R. M. & Aaron, P. G. (Eds.) (2005). Handbook of orthography and literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: a longitudinal study of fifty-four children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255. Keohane D, Luke N, & Greer R.D. (2008). The things we care to see: The effects of the rotated protocol immersion on the emergence of early observing responses. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Interventions. 5, 23–39.
Kyle F.E., & Harris M.(201). (2010). Predictors of reading development in deaf children: a three year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. doi:10.1016/ j.jecp.2010.04.011. Lee, F. J. & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Does learning of a complex task have to be complex? A study in learning decomposition. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 267-316.
Leybaet, J. (1993). Reading in the deaf: The roles of phonological codes. In M. Marschark & D. Clark (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on deafness. (pp. 269-306). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Liberman, I.,Shankweiler,D., Fischer, W., Carter, B.(1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
Lindsley O.R. (1992). Why aren't effective teaching tools widely adopted? J Applied Behavior Anal. 25(1), 21–26. Lloyd, S. (1992). The Jolly Phonics Handbook. Jolly Learning Ltd. Essex, United Kingdom.
Lodhi S., & Greer, R.D. (1989). The speaker as listener. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 51, 353–360. 113
Lonigan C.J., Schatschneider C, Westberg L. Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy; 2008. Identification of children’s skills and abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling. National Early Literacy Panel; pp. 55–106. Retrieved from http:// www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html. Lowe C.F, Horne P.J, Harris F.D.A, Randle V.R.L. (2002) Naming and categorization in young children: Vocal tact training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 78, 527– 549. Lowenkron B (1991). Joint control and the generalization of selection-based verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 121-126. Luetke-Stahlman, B., & Nielsen, D. C. (2003). The contribution of phonological awareness, and receptive and expressive English to the reading ability of deaf students exposed to grammatically accurate English. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 464-484. Lundberg, I., Olofsson, A., and Wall, S. (1980). Reading and spelling skills in the first School years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21, 159-173. Mattys, S. L., Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Morgan, J. L. (1999). Phonotactic and prosodic effects on word segmentation in infants. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 465-494.
McGuinness, D. (1997). Why Our Children Can't Read, and What We Can Do about It. Free Press, New York City. McGuinness, D. (2004). Early Reading Instruction: What Science Really Tells Us about How to Teach Reading. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Ma; London, England: A Bradford Book. McGuinness, D. (2005). Language Development and Learning to Read: The Scientific Study of How Language Development Affects Reading Skill, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Meltzoff, A.N. & Moore, M.K. (1983). Newborn Infants Imitate Adult Facial Gestures, Child Development, 54, 702-709.
Moats, L. C. (2005). How spelling supports reading: And why it is more regular and predictable than you think. American Educator, 12-22, 42-43. 114
Mody, M., Studdert-Kennedy, M. & Brady, S. (1997). Speech perception deficits in poor readers: Auditory processing or phonological coding?, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 64: 199–231.
Moon, C., Lagercrantz, H., & Kuhl, P. K. (2012). Language experienced in utero affects vowel perception after birth: a two-country study, Acta Pediatrica, 102, 156-160.
Mueller, M. M., Olmi, D. J., & Saunders, K. J. (2000). Recombinative generalization of within- syllable units in pre-reading children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 515-531.
Muller, D. (1973). Phonic blending and transfer of letter training to word reading in children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 5, 13-15.
Mullis, I. V. S., Campbell, J. R., & Farstrup, A. (1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from http:// www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html. National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012–457). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Nirgudkar, A. S., Stolfi, L., & Rivera-Valdes, C. (2005). Acquisition of fluent listener responses and the educational advancement of young children with autism and severe language delays. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6, 123-134. Novak, G. (1996). Developmental psychology: Dynamical systems and behavior analysis. Reno, NV: Context Press.
O'Connor, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1995). Improving the generalization of sound/symbol knowledge: Teaching spelling to kindergarten children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 29, 255-275. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1997), The OECD Report on Regulatory Reform: Synthesis, Paris. 115
Pereira-Delgado, J. A., & Greer, R. D. (2009). The effects of peer monitoring training on the emergence of the capability to learn by observing instruction received by peers. The Psychological Record, 59, 407-434.
Pereira-Delgado J, Greer R.D, Speckman J, & Goswami A. (2009). Effects of conditioning reinforcement for print stimuli on match-to-sample responding in preschoolers. Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis.3.2–3.3, 60–77.
Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2001). Literacy Education. In N. J. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Pergamon, Oxford. Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K.K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., and Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and read- ing fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–188.
Rehfeldt, R. A., Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2009). Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.
Richardson, E., and Collier, L. (1971). Programmed tutoring of decoding skills with third- and fifth-grade non-readers. Journal of Experimental Education. 39, 57-64.
Robinson, A. (2007). The story of writing; Alphabets, hieroglyphs and pictograms. London: Thames & Hudson.
Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1996). A behavior- analytic view of development. In E. Ribes & S. W. Bijou (Eds.), Recent approaches to behavioral development (pp. 155–180). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Rosenberg, M. (2006). Scholastic Research Foundation Paper. Sound & Letter Time: Building Phonemic Awareness and Alphabet Recognition Through Purposeful Play.
Share, D.L., Jorm, A.F., Maclean, R., and Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of Individual differences in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324. Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1995). Defining and classifying learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 507–57. 116
Sidman, M. (1971) Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5-13. Sidman M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In: Thompson T, Zeiler M.D, editors. Analysis and integration of behavioral units. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1986. pp. 213–245. Sidman M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative. Sidman, M., Cresson, O. & Willson-Morris, M. (1974). Acquisitions of matching to sample via mediated transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21-42. Siman, M. & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5-22. Sidman, M. & Willson-Morris, M. (1974). Testing for reading comprehension: a brief report on stimulus control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 327-332. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Acton, MA: Copely Publishing Group and the B. F. Skinner Foundation. Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement-A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Skinner, B. F. (1979). The shaping of a behaviorist. New York: Knopf. Staats, A. W. (1968). Learning, language, and cognition: Theory, research, and method for the study of human behavior and its development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Studdert-Kennedy, M., Mody, M. & Brady, S. (2000). Speech perception deficits in poor readers: A reply to Denenberg’s critique. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 317-321.
Torgesen, J.K. & Hudson, R. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers. In S.J. Samuels and A. Farstrup (Eds.). Reading fluency: The forgotten dimension of reading success. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children. New York: Oxford University Press. 117
Treiman, R., & Bourassa, D. C. (2000a). Children’s written and oral spelling. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 183–204. Tsai, H. & Greer, R. D. (2006). Conditioned preference for books and faster acquisition of textual responses by preschool children. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Interventions.3.1, 35-60.
Vause, T., Harapiak, S.M., Martin, G.L., & Yu, C.T. (2003). Predictive validity of auditory discriminations in persons with intellectual disabilities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 10.
Vandever, T. R., & Neville, D. D. (1976). Transfer as a result of synthetic and analytic reading instruction. American Journal of Mental Deficiency , 80, 498–503 . Venezky, R.L. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.
Wang, Y., Trezek, B. J., Luckner, J., & Paul, P. V. (2008). The role of phonology and phonologically related skills in reading instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 396-407. Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984a). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7,49-62. Wimmer H, Mayringer H, Landerl K. (1998). Poor reading: A deficit in skill-automatization or a phonological deficit. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 321–340. Wolf, M. & Kennedy, R. (2003). How the origins of written language instruct us to teach: A response to Steven Strauss. Educational Researcher, p. 26-30. Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159-177. 118
Appendix A
Definition of Terms
Auditory Matching- Auditory matching is a listener based match-to-sample program where an individual observes a target sound or word and a positive and negative exemplar/s of sounds. The individual is then taught to select the positive exemplar - the sound that is the same as the target sound or word.
Blending-“the act of joining a sequence of isolated phonemes into a word” (i. e. /b/l/e/n/ d/-blend) (McGuiness, 2005).
Capability-A capability is a higher order operant that allows an individual to learn in a new way (Greer & Speckman, 2009). Verbal Behavior Development Theory (VBDT) (Greer &
Ross, 2008; Greer & Speckman, 2009) identified three verbal behavior developmental capabilities: generalized imitation, Naming, and observational learning. Each is defined as a capability in that once a student acquires these repertoires, they can learn in a way they could not before. According to VBDT, all capabilities are cusps, but not all cusps are capabilities.
Component Sounds- Component sounds are the isolated phoneme sounds in a word, or minimal units (Skinner, 1957) that make up a word. For example, the word cat, has three component sounds; /c/, /a/,/t/.
Cusp- A cusp is an operant that once acquired, allows an individual to contact new environments and potentially learn faster (Rosalez-Ruiz & Baer, 1997).
Dictation- Dictation is writing the correct graphemes in response to spoken phonemes, morphemes, or words (often referred to as spelling). 119
Grapheme- A grapheme is a printed letter that represents a singular spoken phoneme (i.e. the printed letters th, represent the spoken phoneme /th/).
Learn Unit- The learn unit is a series of interlocking three-term contingencies between a teacher and a student (Albers & Greer, 1991). The learn unit involves antecedents, behaviors, and consequences of the teacher and student. A learn unit involves the teacher gaining student attention, presenting a clear antecedent, the student responding, and contingent upon the student’s response, the teacher delivers reinforcement or the correction which involves the student performing the correction.
Match-to-Sample Instruction (MTS)- Match-to-sample instruction involves the presentation of a target stimulus and a positive exemplar and negative exemplar/s. The student is taught to select the stimuli that matches the target stimulus. Match-to-sample instruction can be completed across different response topographies such as visual matching or auditory matching.
Multiple Exemplar Instruction (MEI)- Multiple exemplar instruction is an instructional tactic used to teach essential stimulus control or to join independent repertoires. Multiple exemplar instruction involves various (multiple) exemplars of a stimulus, or multiple exemplars across topographies, where students must respond differently to the same stimulus.
Naming-Naming is a higher order operant that allows an individual to acquire language incidentally (Horne & Lowe, 1996). A student who has the naming capability in repertoire can hear another tact a stimulus and later tact the same stimulus without ever being reinforced for the speaker response (Greer & Speckman, 2009).
Phoneme- the smallest “unit of speech that people can hear”; it “corresponds to consonants and to vowels” (McGuiness, 2005, p. 440). 120
Textual Responding-“verbal responses under precise point-by-point control by the text”
Skinner (1957). Textually responding is the component of reading that involves seeing printed letters, words, or phrases and saying the phoneme, or word/s that correspond to the printed graphemes (i.e., An individual sees the printed word STOP, and says “stop.”).
Segmenting-“the process of separating individual phonemes in a sequence” (i. e., frame / f/r/a/m/e) (McGuiness, 2005).
Speaker-as-Own-Listener- Skinner (1957) identified the rotation of the speaker and the listener within the same skin, when an individual acted as the listener to his or her own speaker behavior. Greer & Ross (2008), identified three particular cusps involved in speaker-as-own- listener behavior. These include, naming, self-talk conversational units, and say-do correspondence.