Fluent Essays

See attachment titled dq6Week 6 - Discussion No unread replies.No replies. Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated. Promoting Maintenance and Generalization Incorporating objectives focused specifically on maintenance and generalization into IEP goals is best practice. Goals for maintenance and generalization focus on long term outcomes for students with mild to moderate disabilities. The readings and Instructor Guidance this week provided you with EBP strategies that promote maintenance and generalization of IEP goals. Initial Post: Post an initial response that addresses the following areas using the discussion board forum: Select only one of the following bullets to focus your discussion with your peers. Be sure to include both scholarly sources and personal experiences; also consider posing questions related to your discussion to your colleagues within your initial post to extend the conversation through their guided response: · Based on the readings, what are the long-term effects of maintenance and generalization instructional practices on the outcomes of students with mild to moderate disabilities? How can educators promote positive outcomes through goal development or EBP strategies? Or · How can you identify and evaluate EBP strategies to promote maintenance and generalization of IEP goals and objectives across skills for students with mild to moderate disabilities? How can these concepts be incorporated directly into IEP goals and objectives?ESE668: EVIDENCE-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD TO MODERATE DISABILITIES Instructor Guidance Week 6 Congratulations! Welcome to the final week of ESE 668: Evidence-Based Instructional Methods for Students with Mild to Moderate Disabilities. Please be sure to review the Week Six homepage for this course to see: · The specific learning outcomes for the week. · The schedule overview. · The required and recommended resources. · The introduction to the week. · A listing of the assessments. Next, be sure to read this entire Instructor Guidance page. Overview This week, we will discuss one final component needed in EBP methods for students with mild to moderate disabilities: Maintenance and generalization of skills. Now is the time to reflect upon all you have learned and experienced in this course. In Week Six, you will prepare your Final Project consisting of the requirements in the guidance.  Intellectual Elaboration Stages of Skill Development and Learning When a student is presented with a new skill, there are four stages of learning they will go through (Young, West, Howard, & Whitney, 1986): 1. Acquisition. 2. Fluency. 3. Maintenance. 4. Generalization. As educators, our initial aim is acquisition. Goals and objectives must be written using S.M.A.R.T. for this express purpose of skill acquisition. What about the other stages? Is it enough for a student to be able to perform a skill in the classroom? What about their efficiency in doing so? Fluency involves accuracy and speed. If a student can add numbers when provided a problem on paper, is it enough that she is successful in doing so in 30 minutes per problem? Probably not. We also need to consider writing goals to ensure fluency of skills. Maintenance of Skills Now what about maintenance? Will skills be helpful for our students if they are able to fluently complete the skill in the classroom when it is taught, but a week later cannot perform the skill as a prerequisite for the next stage of the task? What about if a student was able to complete math facts fluently in 5th grade, but did not maintain the skill after secondary school? Goals must be explicitly written to consider maintenance of skills. One way to do this is to align goals and objectives with CCSS as we discussed in Week Four of this course. When we have long-term goals that build upon the previously mastered skills, we promote maintenance of acquired skills over time. Technology of Generalization in Special Education “Generalization refers to the transfer of what is learned in one setting or situation to another setting or situation without explicit teaching or programming in the second transfer setting.” --Autism Ontario, 2011, pg. 35 One of your required readings this week is a seminal article discussing the technology of generalization, which is often a missed step in the education process. We cannot assume that all students with passively generalize the skills they have learned in the classRequired Resources Articles Burns, M. K., Egan, A. M., Kunkel, A. K., McComas, J., Peterson, M. M., Rahn, N. L., & Wilson, J. (2013).  Training for generalization and maintenance in RTI implementation: Front-loading for sustainability . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(2), 81-88. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12009 · The full-text version of this article is available through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. This article discusses ways in which programming for generalization and maintenance can be incorporated into interventions such as RTI. This article will support your Promotion Maintenance and Generalization discussion this week. Osnes, P. G., & Lieblein, T. (2003).  An explicit technology of generalization . The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 364-374. doi:10.1037/h0099994 · The full-text version of this article is available through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. This article builds upon the seminal article from Stokes and Baer (1977) to extend the strategies that can be used for targeting generalization of skills. This article will support your Promotion Maintenance and Generalization discussion this week. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977).  An implicit technology of generalization (Links to an external site.) . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349-367. doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349 · The full-text version of this article is available through the National Center for Biotechnology Information website at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311194/pdf/jaba00113-0179.pdf. This seminal article on generalization provides seven strategies for promoting generalization of skills. This article will support your Promotion Maintenance and Generalization discussion this week. Recommended Resource Article Young, K.R., West, R., Howard, V., & Whitney, R. (1986).  Acquisition, fluency training, generalization, and maintenance of dressing skills of two developmentally disabled children (Links to an external site.) . Education and Treatment of Children, 9(1), 16-29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42898943 · This article on stages of learning provides a background on acquisition, fluency, generalization, and maintenance of skills. This article will support your Promotion Maintenance and Generalization discussion this week.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(2), 81–88 C© 2013 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children Training for Generalization and Maintenance in RtI Implementation: Front-Loading for Sustainability Matthew K. Burns, Andrea M. Egan, Amy K. Kunkel, Jennifer McComas, Meredith M. Peterson, Naomi L. Rahn, and Jennifer Wilson University of Minnesota Response to Intervention (RtI) is being implemented as a new initiative in PK-12 schools with increasing frequency. However, the model must be sustained at the school level, which is potentially difficult due to a number of challenges brought about by systems change. This article applied the Stokes and Baer (1977) framework for programming for generalization and maintenance of behavior change to suggest specific activities in which schools could engage to better ensure RtI sustainability. We specifically discussed ways to (1) introduce to natural maintaining contingencies, (2) train with sufficient exemplars, (3) train loosely, (4) program common stimuli, (5) mediate generalization, and (6) train to generalize. Directions for future research are included. Response to Intervention (RtI) and other multitiered inter- vention systems are being adopted nationwide with increas- ing frequency (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster & Saunders, 2009) to increase student achievement for all students, reduce re- ferrals to special education, and close existing achievement gaps (Fuchs, Fuchs & Stecker, 2010). RtI has the potential to positively affect both systemic and student outcomes (Burns, Appleton & Stehouwer, 2005), but, some question whether the RtI movement will sustain over time (Burns, 2007; Ys- seldyke, 2005). RtI initiatives must ultimately be sustained at the school level, and organizations adopting a system of RtI are faced with a multitude of challenges brought about by systems change (Grimes, Kurns & Tilly, 2006). Previous research has found that implementation integrity could be a serious threat to the validity of RtI models (Gansle & Noell, 2007). For example, school personnel consistently assessed fidelity of implementation for interventions that oc- curred at tier 2, but did not assess fidelity at tier 1, and the alignment between tiers was not explicit (Hill, King, Lemons & Partanen, 2012). Moreover, implementation integrity of problem-solving teams (PSTs) was low to the point of po- tentially affecting student outcomes (Burns & Symington, 2002). Some of the challenges regarding implementation in- tegrity can be avoided by building on the existing knowledge of the school personnel, streamlining processes, and using a clear system of communication between interventionist and teacher (Johnson, Pool & Carter, 2012). However, implemen- tation integrity can still wane as the implementation moves further from the initial supports (Burns & Symington, 2002; Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow & Swank, 1999), which further highlights the need to focus on sustainability. Reque1977, 10, 349-367 AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION TREVOR F. STOKES AND DONALD M. BAER THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA AND THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Traditionally, discrimination has been understood as an active process, and a technology of its procedures has been developed and practiced extensively. Generalization, by con- trast, has been considered the natural result of failing to practice a discrimination technology adequately, and thus has remained a passive concept almost devoid of a technology. But, generalization is equally deserving of an active conceptualization and technology. This review summarizes the structure of the generalization literature and its implicit embryonic technology, categorizing studies designed to assess or program generalization according to nine general headings: Train and Hope; Sequential Modifi- cation; Introduce to Natural Maintaining Contingencies; Train Sufficient Exemplars; Train Loosely; Use Indiscriminable Contingencies; Program Common Stimuli; Mediate Generalization; and Train To Generalize. DESCRIPTORS: generalization, treatment-gain durability, followup measures, main- tenance, postcheck methodology Traditionally, many theorists have considered generalization to be a passive phenomenon. Gen- eralization was not seen as an operant response that could be programmed, but as a description of a natural outcome of any behavior-change process. That is, a teaching operation repeated over time and trials inevitably involves varying samples of stimuli, rather than the same set every time; in the same way, it inevitably evokes and reinforces varying samples of behavior, rather than the same set every time. As a conse- quence, it is predictable that newly taught re- sponses would be controlled not only by the stimuli of the teaching program, but by others somewhat resembling those stimuli (Skinner, 1953, p. 107ff.). Similarly, responses resembling those established directly, yet not themselves ac- tually touched by the teaching procedures, would appear as a result of the teaching (Keller and Preparation of this paper was supported in part by PHS Training Grant 00183, Program Project Grant HD 00870, and Research Grant MH 11739. Reprints may be obtained either from T. F. Stokes, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2, or D. M. Baer, Depart- ment of Human Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045. Schoenfeld, 1950, p. 168ff.). Thus, generaliza- tion was something that happened, not some- thing produced by procedures specific to it. If generalization seemed absent or insignifi- cant, it was simply to be assumed that the teach- ing process had managed to maintain unusually tight control of the stimuli and responses in- volved, allowing little sampling of their varie- ties. This assumption was strongly supported by the well-known techniques of discrimination: by differential reinforcement (in general, by any differential teaching) of certain stim1977, 10, 349-367 AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION TREVOR F. STOKES AND DONALD M. BAER THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA AND THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Traditionally, discrimination has been understood as an active process, and a technology of its procedures has been developed and practiced extensively. Generalization, by con- trast, has been considered the natural result of failing to practice a discrimination technology adequately, and thus has remained a passive concept almost devoid of a technology. But, generalization is equally deserving of an active conceptualization and technology. This review summarizes the structure of the generalization literature and its implicit embryonic technology, categorizing studies designed to assess or program generalization according to nine general headings: Train and Hope; Sequential Modifi- cation; Introduce to Natural Maintaining Contingencies; Train Sufficient Exemplars; Train Loosely; Use Indiscriminable Contingencies; Program Common Stimuli; Mediate Generalization; and Train To Generalize. DESCRIPTORS: generalization, treatment-gain durability, followup measures, main- tenance, postcheck methodology Traditionally, many theorists have considered generalization to be a passive phenomenon. Gen- eralization was not seen as an operant response that could be programmed, but as a description of a natural outcome of any behavior-change process. That is, a teaching operation repeated over time and trials inevitably involves varying samples of stimuli, rather than the same set every time; in the same way, it inevitably evokes and reinforces varying samples of behavior, rather than the same set every time. As a conse- quence, it is predictable that newly taught re- sponses would be controlled not only by the stimuli of the teaching program, but by others somewhat resembling those stimuli (Skinner, 1953, p. 107ff.). Similarly, responses resembling those established directly, yet not themselves ac- tually touched by the teaching procedures, would appear as a result of the teaching (Keller and Preparation of this paper was supported in part by PHS Training Grant 00183, Program Project Grant HD 00870, and Research Grant MH 11739. Reprints may be obtained either from T. F. Stokes, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2, or D. M. Baer, Depart- ment of Human Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045. Schoenfeld, 1950, p. 168ff.). Thus, generaliza- tion was something that happened, not some- thing produced by procedures specific to it. If generalization seemed absent or insignifi- cant, it was simply to be assumed that the teach- ing process had managed to maintain unusually tight control of the stimuli and responses in- volved, allowing little sampling of their varie- ties. This assumption was strongly supported by the well-known techniques of discrimination: by differential reinforcement (in general, by any differential teaching) of certain stim