|
| International Symposium - Imitation and Observational Learning: Analysis, Methodological Issues, and Applications |
| Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
| 3:00 PM–4:20 PM |
| Betsy A |
| Area: DEV/EAB; Domain: Basic Research |
| Chair: Jacob L. Gewirtz (Florida International University) |
| Discussant: Maricel Cigales (Advance Behavior Consulting) |
| CE Instructor: Maricel Cigales, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: The aim of this symposium is to present further analysis, discuss current methodological developments and applications in the area of imitation and observational learning. A paper by Goyos analyzes the behavior of the observer during a matching-to-sample task taking into account the necessary simple and conditional discriminations, antecedent stimuli, motivational operations, observing and touching responses, and consequences. Brown and Poulson will review the concept of observational learning and the operant research on generalized imitation with the goal of identifying procedures to teach learners with autism to imitate in ordinary environments. A stimulus-control account of imitation in ordinary environments is included in this paper with the goal of the development of effective teaching procedures. As the stimulus equivalence technology develops and becomes more powerful, the need to teach a larger number of learners increases, and learning by imitation or observation may be a powerful tool to accomplish this. The objectives of the paper by Goyos & Dias are to develop a control procedure for the observing responses during a matching-to-sample (MTS) task. Secondly, the study investigated whether a model could function as a conditioned reinforcer for the observing response, and third, whether learning a first conditional relation via observational learning would transfer to new conditional relations. |
| |
| Observational Learning: A Contingency Analysis. |
| A. CELSO GOYOS (Universidade Federal de São Carlos) |
| Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to present a contingency analysis of observational learning (OL). The provenance of OL has been suggested to be philogenetically determined as a fixed pattern of behavior, but it has also been understood as operant behavior. Furthermore, it has been treated differently from imitation. OL still bears important practical implications, and is considered an effective teaching strategy, mainly to quickly install simple social and linguistic repertoire. In OL, the child behavior may formally resemble the behavior of the model, but not necessarily, or may generate the same results, or still, may or may not be reinforced for that particular behavior. Learning a conditional discrimination task via OL is quite complex. The context in which learning takes place usually involves the presence of an adult and maybe of other children. The task itself may allow the child to respond directly, or to emit an observing response. The analysis put forward describes evocative and reinforcer-establishing effects of antecedent events, people or stimuli, discriminative and conditioned reinforcing functions of stimuli generated by model behavior, and generalized or conditioned reinforcers that may maintain OL behavior. OL may involve many operant classes. Practical applications of the present analysis are discussed. |
| |
| Discriminating which Fork to Use: Teaching Selective Imitation to People with Autism. |
| ANN K. BROWN (Queens College, City University of New York and REED Academy), Claire L. Poulson (Queens College, City University of New York) |
| Abstract: There is a literature on operant conditioning procedures to teach imitative repertoires to learners with autism. Yet, very little empirical research has focused on the teaching of imitation to learners with autism in ordinary environments. Typically developing individuals imitate the behavior of others in ordinary social environments. One possible reason that learners with autism do not imitate in ordinary environments is they are not observing the relevant discriminative stimuli that set the occasion for imitative responding. Another possible reason that learners with autism fail to imitate in ordinary environments is they are not observing the unprogrammed reinforcement contingencies that serve to maintain imitative responding for typically developing individuals in ordinary environments. This paper will review the concept of observational learning and the operant research on generalized imitation with the goal of identifying procedures to teach learners with autism to imitate in ordinary environments. A stimulus-control account of imitation in ordinary environments is included in this paper with the goal of the development of effective teaching procedures. Imitation in ordinary environments is discussed in relation to the discriminative stimuli that occasion imitative responding and the unprogrammed reinforcement contingencies that maintain imitative behavior. |
| |
| Analysis of the Observing Response during Matching-to-Sample Tasks and the Formation of Equivalence Classes. |
| A. CELSO GOYOS (Universidade Federal de São Carlos), Aline Favaro Dias (Universidade Federal de São Carlos) |
| Abstract: This study attempted to develop a control procedure for the observing responses during a matching-to-sample (MTS) task. As a second objective, the study investigated whether a model could function as a conditioned reinforcer in those tasks, and third, whether learning a first conditional relation via observational learning would transfer to new conditional relations. Seven children with normal development ranging in age from 8 to 9 years participated in the study. The participants were experimentally naïve, five of which were attending second grade and two were attending third grade in a brazilian elementary school. A pre-test with the conditional relations to be taught was applied and they all did not reach performance above 50% of correct selections. In a MTS task, a sample stimulus was presented, followed by a clic with the mouse on it and the presentation of three comparison stimuli and a ‘help key’ identified on the screen by the “?” sign. Selections of the “?” button was followed by the presentation of an animation on the computer screen which replicates exactly the same trial, but with a different spatial distribution of the comparison stimuli, and an arrow pointing to the correct selection, and followed by a social consequence (“well done”, “excellent”, and so forth). Next, the computer presents the trial in the same position as it was before the participant pressed the “?” button, but without the button. The computer program registered the frequency of “?” pressings. Selections of a comparison were followed by a 2 s intertrial interval and by the beginning of the next trial. The experimental stimuli were familiar pictures, presented on the screen within a small white square measuring 4.5cm by 4.5 cm. Identity training with familiar stimuli was introduced first to teach the experimental task; all correct trials were followed by a reinforcer, and it was followed by a pre-test of the BA, CA, AB, AC, CB, and BC relations. Next, BA relations were trained followed by BA tests. The difference between BA training and BA tests was the presence of the “?” button during the former. After criterion of 100% correct selections on BA tests was met CA training was introduced, followed by CA tests. After 100% correct selections was met on CA, BA and CA trials were randomly mixed together, with 0% probability of reinforcement. During this session, the participants didn’t have access to the “?” button. After criterion of above 90% correct selections was met, tests f |
|
| |