A Review of Chaining Techniques: Implications for Future Research and Practice.

摘要: Although chaining procedures are a major instructional technique used in training severely handicapped learners, very little is known about which of these (i.e., forward and backward total task presentation) has the most betieficial effect on learning. In this paper studies that have compared reviewed along dimensions independent variables, dependent subject apparatus design, method analysis. general, results mixed. Potential explanations differences offered. Procedures then examined to see creates an optimal picture learning procedural variation may such investigated. Guidelines for future research assistance interpreting present investigations Use various techniques frequently as conditioned (secondary) reinforcer cited behavioral special education previous response. literatures applied setting series discreet severely/profoundly retarded behaviors precede terminal response learners (e.g., Azrin & Foxx, 1971; Azrin, analyzed into links, steps, or teachable com Schaeffer, Wesolowski, 1976; Gold, 1972, ponents. Gaylord-Ross (1982) Sailor Hunter Bellamy, Watson UzGuess (1983) call component analysis "task zell, 1981). Chaining also reanalysis" suggest ceived substantial attention introductory commonly methods well textbooks field The application (Greer, Anderson, Olde, 1982; sequence order components Repp, 1983; Guess, 1983;Snell, 1983). taught. There three widely types A chain specified responses, each settings: Backward chaining, associated with unique stimulus condition, delivery at completion presentation, last link. Kelleher (1966) BelAlthough all lamy, Inman, Schwarz (1978) prise salient portion relevant condition method/strategies by trainers should function two ways: first, link there paucity re act discriminative stimulus, i.e., set search comparisons procedures, occasion subsequent Sulzer-Azaroff Mayer (1977) chain, second, Sternberg Adams indicate insufficient evidence draw clear conclusions 1 authors would like acknowledge supabout be port Mary K. Dykes, Henry S. Pennypacker, cause not much been conducted University Florida; Harold W. Heller Terry human subjects. L. Rose, North Carolina Charlotte; r , . t ir i j* i_ t* t" ii ^ purpose examine James E. Judith Favell Carol Tnvette, • » f Western Center, Morganton, Carsynthesize area pro olina, during development manuscript. cedures train mentally Meda Smith, thanked persons. key concentration de typing final manuscript gree variables choice drafts. measurement system evoked those 114 / Education Training Mentally Retarded-April 1984 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.145 Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:56:13 UTC All use http://about.jstor.org/terms interact indepengether. When using procedure dent variable(s) produce (TT), learner begins first step Because lack documentation task, but every trained literature trial until performs whole researchers predetermined criterion (Gold, 1976). who comparison least TT, higher functioning individuals mild/modevery trial, performing erate) included review. unit without assistance. It review definitions Table 1, under Comparisons Chaining, Forward investigation succinctly stated inves Total Task Presentation tigators observing effects similar op erational representative sample comsubject responding. parison Dependent Variables. careful Ta chaining. Comparison proceble suggests variab|es dures appropriate, timely, level invesof imerest are; (a) time t(J criterion; (b) number ligation because work (Arzin et al., incorrect reSponses; (c) correct Peterson, Close, 1975; resp0nses; (d) rate responses; (e) Uzrate responses. Another likely 1981) identified effectiveness pendem variab,e tHals tQ criterion. From isolation. through perspective, defined "the comparative difcess assigning numbers units objects ferential nuances deor evems„ (johnston 1980, pendent rate) will bep 119)> a„ come apparent. outcomes invesinvestigation adhere ligations look features trja,s criterion). few tbe found meet second cri terion measurement, standard accompany responses per minute). Independent Procedural do Subject Subjects study appear differ substantially. For example, (BC), usually, one Walls, Zane, Ellis (1981) mild/mod time, reverse sequence, starting erate persons (I.Q. range specified) step. Next, while Volgelsberg Spooner becomes "training step" populations, he/she already Guess comment learned (the step). continues, TT tends favored adding new perworking cognitively forms other steps previously students, particularly teaching personnel asso ciated secondary independently. (FC), programs. On hand, when were made populations mild/moderate, Nettlebeck criterion, Kirby, Walls 1981), being added cedure did superior results, trainee task. FC, Apparatus skills nec some differences. essary assemble coaster bicycle brake Patterson, Panyon, Wyatt, Morales (1974), different than necessary perform dressing tasks separate criteria before linking them tothese could generally grouped 115 Synthesis Variables