Fluent Essays

see attachment response 6Guided Response: You are required to substantively respond in writing in the discussion board to at least two of your colleagues by Day 7 (the following Monday). Keep the conversation going! Ask questions and make connections for how the strategy might be applicable across students in your classroom. As you review the posts submitted by your peers, some responses may also consider how your topic may be similar (or different) to others in our class. Consider asking additional clarifying questions or providing sources to extend the discussion. This forum should be used as a scholarly platform to discuss similar or opposing ideas and career goals and to provide additional sources that you may have found helpful to your own learning and preparation. Though two replies are the basic expectation, for deeper engagement and application of the material, you are encouraged to provide responses to any comments or questions others have given to you (including your instructor) before Day 7. This ongoing engagement in the discussion will deepen the conversation while providing opportunities to demonstrate your content expertise, critical thinking, and real-world experiences with this topic. . Response 1 Maria 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?  In identifying EBP (Evidence-Based Practice) strategies to ensure that they promote both maintenance and generalization of a student IEP goals and objectives first, we must ask what is it that we are trying to accomplish? According to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services carefully forming a question helps to focus a literature search on practices intending to achieve particular outcomes (Child Welfare Information Gateway. n.d.). By asking the question, what is it we want from EBS, the better the result. For functional behavior importance, we must focus on both maintenance and generalization.  Maintenance of behavior is when it occurs throughout time. The notion we are teaching only valid if the learners can exhibit mastery of the concept over and repeatedly. Maintenance means that a student performs a response upon a time, even following implemented behavior plans that have been eliminated. Therefore, that means once all prompts and teaching methods have been removed, the skills that are taught will maintain over time. This concept is something all educators need to plan for especially for students with mild to moderate disabilities. Prompt fading is imperative here. This means educators should maintain past their teaching. If all prompts are never fade, then the skills will never get maintenance. For example, maintenance for bathroom skills: The teacher does not have to sequence the steps to go to the bathroom; keep the bathroom door open and the child will be able to use it anytimLearning 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. RequeO S N E S & L I E B L E I N AN EXPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION Pamela G. Osnes & Tara Lieblein University of South Florida The publication of the now classic article on generalization, “An Implicit Technology of Generalization” (Stokes & Baer, 1977), spurred interest in generalization as an active process rather than a passive process consisting primarily of a failure to discriminate between training and nontraining settings. Following their description of nine areas in which the extant behavioral research addressed generalization issues, a new interest in generalization of behavior change was borne. More than a decade later, their description of categories of techniques that purportedly could be used to produce generalization was refined in “An Operant Pursuit of Generalization” (Stokes & Osnes, 1989). Stokes and Osnes described 12 generalization-promoting strategies that were classified within three broader areas. Their description assisted the field in continuing to focus interest on the fundamental need for the results of behavioral interventions to generalize effectively and to be durable and for behavioral research to actively address generalization. Now, more than a decade following the publication of “An Operant Pursuit of Generalization” and a quarter century after “An Implicit Technology of Generalization” was published, the time has arrived to address the status of generalization-promotion by behavior analysts, both in their conceptual and empirical investigations. The publication of “An Implicit Technology of Generalization” (Stokes & Baer, 1977) resulted in a groundswell of interest in generalization as an active process that is important for behavior analysts to pursue directly to validate the effectiveness of behavioral programming. This classic article embedded in behavior analysis the realization that our work is functional not only when it produces immediate effects in the immediate environment that is targeted for change, but more importantly, when the effects are more widespread. Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) included generality of behavior change as one of the seven dimensions of applied behavior analysis, and concluded that, “in general, generalization should be programmed, rather than expected or lamented” (p 97). Their description of generality is consistent with the description provided by Stokes and Baer: “A therapeutic behavioral change, to be effective, often (not always) must occur over time, persons, and settings, and the effects of the change sometimes should spread to a variety of related behaviors” (p. 350). While acknowledging that their conceptualization of generalization was not consistent necessarily with the traditional understanding and descriptions of the phenomenon, they proceeded to provide a description of generalization as “...the occurrence of relevant behavior under different, non-training conditions (i.e., across subjects, 1977, 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