Discussion

Establishing a Behavioral Context for Learning for Students with Autism

L. Juane Heflin and Paul A. Alberto

The principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA) have demonstrated utility for promoting learning and behavior change in students with autism spectrum disorders. ABA provides an effective technology and strong research substantiation for the sys- tematic development of environments and methodologies that are conducive to learn- ing. The physical and temporal environments must be managed to highlight salient stimuli and support the direct teaching and shaping of appropriate behavior while using clear antecedent cues and discriminative stimuli in a climate of reinforcement. Systematic instruction requires the use of empirically based techniques within a con- text of errorless learning, data-based individualization of instruction, predictability, consistency, and programmed generalization. ABA requires that noninferential assess- ment demonstrate a functional relationship between student outcomes and the context and strategies implemented.

he field of applied behavior

analysis (ABA) is the study of the -~~- science of behavior (Baer, Wolf,

& Risley, 1968; Skinner, 1953). As its

tenets are applied across various disci-

plines, at least two core elements consis- tently recur. First is the application of the principles of operant conditioning. Be- havior is the focus and is seen to develop and change as a result of interactions with the environment. When applied to the discipline of education, stimulus control and reinforcement theory are variables systematically managed for learning and instruction. This structure is applied to instruction to make it effective, efficient, clinically significant, generalizable, and replicable. The second core element is

ABA’s research culture. From defining the elements of theory to documentation of an application of theory, ABA re- quires, and has a history of, empirical re- search. Application to education requires

noninferential assessment and ongoing documentation through observational

data collection. Efficacy is documented

through internal replication (functional relationship) and external replication (generalizability). When these elements are brought to bear to improve perfor- mance or solve social problems the tech- nology is called applied behavior analysis (Baer et al., 1968). Thus, applied behav- ior analysis is a field of study that focuses on the systematic application of the prin- ciples of the science of behavior. An extensive body of research litera-

ture substantiates application of ABA to the education of students with autism

spectrum disorders (ASD). Reviews of the literature have documented hun-

dreds of empirical research studies (An- derson & Romanczyk, 1999; Cohen &

Volkmar, 1997; Matson, Benavidez, Compton, Paclawskyj, & Baglio, 1996). This ever-growing body of research pro-

vides the foundation for generalizable statements concerning the efficacy of

ABA strategies with students with ASD. As made evident in these reviews, an ap- plication of ABA to education and in- struction takes many forms. For example, within one-to-one instruction there is the

discrete trial strategy (Lovaas, 1987; Mc- Gee, Krantz, Mason, & McClannahan, 1983) as well as strategies such as time delay (Charlop & Walsh, 1986; Wolery, Ault, & Doyle, 1992). In addition to its application to one-to-one instruction, various researchers have explored ABA- based strategies for group instruction

(Kamps, Walker, Maher, & Rotholz, 1992). Instructional approaches in ABA include applications of stimulus control and reinforcement theory, consistently and systematically applied and documented.

In a review of effective educational

practices, Hurth, Shaw, Izeman, Whaley, and Rogers (1999), concluded that the way in which the classroom environment

is arranged, the nature of the instruc- tional materials, and the teaching strate- gies used all influence the learning of in- dividuals with ASD. These are the very variables that are managed within a be- havioral perspective of learning and in- struction through stimulus control and reinforcement. The management of such variables can either promote or hinder active engagement, recognized as one of the best predictors for positive student outcomes (Logan, Bakeman, & Keefe, 1997). Failure to establish supportive en-

94

vironments and interactions will lead to

disengagement in students with ASD

(Kasari, Sigman, & Yirmiya, 1993). Therefore, the use of ABA to establish a context for learning that promotes high levels of engagement is characterized by (a) creating a supportive classroom envi- ronment and (b) creating a systematic in- structional environment.

Supportive Classroom Environment

Creating an environment that supports the identified learning needs of students is basic to instruction. The neurologi- cal differences believed to underlie ASD

may best be addressed through environ- mental manipulations and modifications (Rogers, 1999). Environments that are not carefully arranged can be chaotic and distracting, calling students’ attention to irrelevant details, disrupting sustained fo- cus, and occasioning challenging behav- ior (Fischer, Bullock, Rotenberg, & Raya, 1993; J. Taylor & Carr, 1993). Addi- tionally, environments that do not take into account the sensory differences common in students with ASD will in- hibit rather than support learning (Duker & Rasing, 1989). To counter these dis- tractions and inhibitions, the environ- ment should communicate expectations and contingencies, as well as support the unique learning characteristics of students with ASD (Earles, Carlson, & Bock, 1998; Sasso, Peck, & Garrison-Harrell, 1998). This can be accomplished by structuring physical and temporal components, us- ing visual/concrete systems, and creating a climate of reinforcement.

Physical Structure

Siegel (1999) suggested that problems processing environmental stimuli are one of the core deficits in individuals with ASD that contribute to learning difficul- ties. Therefore, the physical environment should emphasize salient stimuli and mini- mize competing distractions (Rogers &

DiLalla, 1991). The environment should be arranged so there are clear boundaries and designations to differentiate areas (An-

derson, Campbell, & Canon, 1994; Stain- back, Stainback, & Froyen, 1987). Boun- daries can be established with materials

or furniture, such as placing bookshelves between work areas, or through con- trived means, such as putting masking tape on the floor to indicate where stu- dents are to assemble. Students should

be directly taught the behaviors that are expected for each area (Anderson et al, 1994) so that the area becomes the dis- criminative stimulus for appropriate be- havior. For example, students should be taught the behaviors expected during group times in the group area, during in- dividual work times when they are alone at their own work areas, and during un- structured time when they are to make choices from available options in a free- play area.

Physical proximity must be considered when designing the physical structure of a classroom. Spacing needs are dictated by the individual student and by the in- structional task. Areas crowded with peo- ple and materials can overstimulate stu- dents and provoke avoidance behavior. For example, some students are averse to being in close proximity to others. These students need additional space if they are expected to focus on the instructional task and not on efforts to get away from the others. However, students should be taught to tolerate the close proximity of others for periods of time that reasonably meet student and instructional needs. Toleration of such proximity will require direct instruction through shaping pro- cedures. With shaping, the student is told the goal and the teacher accepts and reinforces increasing approximations of that goal. For example, in teaching stu- dents the spacing toleration required of group situations, over time the teacher systematically reinforces reduced dis-

tance between group members until they reach the goal of reasonable proximity for instruction.

Temporal Structure In addition to structuring the physical environment, consideration should be

given to how time is allocated in instruc- tional settings. Some students will have

less ability to sustain attention to instruc- tional tasks than others. Frustration is

created for educators and students with

expectations that students stay engaged in a task for periods of time that exceed the students’ capabilities or that exceed the amount of time needed to complete the task. A common example is evident during group activities; some students will be able to attend for an entire task, whereas others should be allowed to leave to go to another before the activity is

completed. The length of time a student will stay engaged can vary according to activity and time of day. Instructional

tasks that require more concentrated ef fort should be scheduled for times when the student is most alert and aware. Time

on task can be lengthened and sustained through use of interval schedules of re- inforcement (Egel, 1981). This allows time to be the organizing factor for stu- dent reinforcement rather than perfor- mance or task completion.

Another temporal consideration is the sequencing of a variety of activities in

which the student is asked to engage. Planning the day so that a variety of ac- tivities are scheduled has been shown to

reduce disruptive behavior (Munk & Repp, 1994) and increase performance (Dun- lap & Koegel, 1980; Weber & Thorpe, 1989). The day can be divided into

blocks of time in which highly preferred activities are used to reinforce participa- tion in less preferred activities (Premack Principle). Activities that consist of high levels of movement can be interspersed with activities that are more sedentary. For students with ASD, scheduling sen- sory activities that target specific sensory systems throughout the day may be nec- essary to enable the student to focus and

engage (Prizant & Rubin, 1999). For ex-

ample, some students will need to engage in sensory-arousing activities (e.g., jump- ing, swinging, spinning) prior to activi- ties requiring concentrated effort. Other students will benefit from activities in-

corporating deep pressure in order to calm down from exposure to high levels of stimulation.

For most students with ASD, the key to providing a temporal structure that supports learning is to clearly define and

95

depict scheduled activities to create an il- lustration of the sequence of daily events (MacDuff, Krantz, & McClannahan, 1993). The importance of visual depic- tions will be described more fully in the next section but warrants mention rela-

tive to temporal structure. In defining the schedule, specify time allotments for particular activities. To depict the sched- ule, illustrate the activities in a mode

meaningful to the student as an antece- dent prompt. For some students, these schedules should be created using objects to represent the activities. Students who understand symbolic representations can use schedules created with photographs, pictures, icons, or words. Logistically, schedules will be most useful if each ac-

tivity is depicted separately so that if the order of the routine changes, a modified schedule can be quickly arranged. Up- coming changes in routines can be re- viewed with the student using his or her own schedule. This can enhance the

student’s ability to predict upcoming se- quence changes, activities, and inter-

actions (Huntington, 1998). Such pre- dictability of events reduces disruptive behavior (Dawson & Lewy, 1989; Fer- rara & Hill, 1980) and, ultimately, stu- dents will assume responsibility for creat- ing and controlling their own schedules (Pierce & Schreibman, 1994). Transi- tions that occur within a predictable rou- tine and have been cued will be more eas-

ily taught and made than transitions that are unexpected. The use ofvisual or object prompts supports smoother transitions

(Dettmer, Simpson, Myles, & Ganz, 2000).

Visual/Concrete Systems Research has demonstrated the difficulty with which individuals with ASD process

auditory information, and their relative strength in the area of visual-spatial pro- cessing (Goldfarb & Braunstein, 1958; Lincoln, Courchesne, Harms, & Allen, 1995). When attending to speech, chil- dren with autism tend to attend to selec-

tive parts of the message, failing to pro- cess multicomponent stimuli (Burke &

Cerniglia, 1990). However, the ability of individuals with autism to attend to pic- tures is equivalent to that of typically

developing persons (Garretson, Fein &

Waterhouse, 1990) and may be the pre- ferred modality for many (Grandin,1995 ). The use of visual supports has been

suggested as representing best practice for those with ASD (Prizant & Rubin, 1999) and should be used to convey requests and expectations as well as to support skill development (Boucher &

Lewis, 1989). Providing information vis- ually serves as an antecedent prompt that facilitates comprehension by students

with ASD. Visual systems have been used with individuals with ASD to facilitate

receptive language, joint attention, and communicative gesturing (Quill, 1997), to increase adaptive behaviors (Newnan et al., 1995) and to decrease maladaptive behaviors (Groden & LeVasseur, 1995; Quill, 1995). Behavioral changes result- ing from the use of visual supports have been demonstrated to maintain over time

(MacDuff et al., 1993; Pierce & Schreib-

man, 1994). Visual/concrete systems of support in-

clude not only the object or picture schedules mentioned in the preceding section but also the use of visual means

to depict expectations and provide direc- tions. This form of stimulus control can

be used when, for example, rather than telling a student to go to a different area of the room, an object from that area or a picture of that area could be shown to communicate the expectation. The con- crete nature of the stimuli heightens the likelihood that the student will be able to

process the information and respond as requested.

In addition to the stimulus control

properties of visual/concrete systems, their use has emerged as an effective means for supporting and eliciting communication in students with ASD. Recognized for years as effective means of alternative

communication, visual/concrete systems have been developed to teach individuals with ASD to initiate communication

(Bondy & Frost, 1994) and facilitate un- derstanding of the meaning and intent of others’ communication (Gray, 1995). The ready availability and systematic use of objects, icons, and printed words in the classroom has demonstrated utility for eliciting and clarifying communication.

Climate of Reinforcement

Reinforcement is necessary for individ-

uals to acquire and subsequently use new behaviors. An instructional climate of re-

inforcement will be created with four

main factors. First, there must be an em- pirical basis for the selection of the conse- quences categorized as reinforcing. Indi- viduals with ASD may be most motivated

by atypical reinforcers (Anderson & Ro-

manczyk, 1999). Researchers have devel- oped systematic strategies for assessing items an individual would prefer and would find reinforcing (Windsor, Piche, & Locke, 1994). Two methods are com- monly used to identify preferences in

individuals with disabilities. One utilizes

the simultaneous presentation of two items requiring a forced choice, with the item selected most often identified as the

preferred (Newton, Ard, & Homer, 1993). Another method incorporates the careful analysis of reaction when a single item is presented (Green, Reid, Canipe, &

Gardner, 1991), with a preference iden- tified by demonstration of enjoyment. Once preferences have been identified, the guidelines for effective reinforcement underscore that reinforcement must be

varied in order to prevent satiation and

the loss of the reinforcing properties of the consequence (Alberto & Troutman, 1999 ).

Specific to individuals with autism, the reinforcing nature of sensory stimulation and stereotypies has been demonstrated to be as effective as edible or social rein-

forcers (Ferrari & Harris, 1981), resis- tant to satiation (Rincover & Newsom, 1985), and effective for increasing cor- rect responding without a concomitant increase in the stereotypic behaviors in other settings (Wolery, Kirk, & Gast, 1985). However, the use of reinforcers that are not related to the task may cre-

ate a situation-specific response that is

not demonstrated in other settings (Lo- vaas, 1977). Rather, reinforcement should be related to the response (Koegel &

Williams, 1980; Litt & Schreibman, 1981) in order to promote skill acquisition with more generalized use. For example, ra- ther than being given a piece of a cookie for saying &dquo;ball,&dquo; a student is given the

96

ball to play with when it is labeled. Mc- Gee et al. (1983) suggested that educa- tors identify what children desire and

limit access to these reinforcing items, al- lowing access only when they become available within the natural context and

ensuring that they are delivered contin- gent upon performance of a desired be- havior. For example, cookies are available only during snack and then given only when the student requests &dquo;cookie.&dquo;

Second, utilizing behavioral momen- tum may enhance a climate of reinforce- ment. According to Nevin, Mandell, and Atak (1983), behavior that is being maintained through reinforcement may continue to be demonstrated even after

the reinforcement conditions are changed. Other researchers have explored this no- tion by presenting an instruction that had previously not been successfully fol- lowed after a series of instructions that the children had typically followed. The idea of a low probability request being responded to appropriately if followed by a series of high probability requests has been demonstrated to have merit for com-

pliance (Mace et al., 1988) across multi- ple trainers (Davis, Brady, Williams, &

Hamilton, 1992) but only if the low

probability request followed the high probability requests within five seconds (Houlihan, Jacobson, & Brandon, 1994).

Third, in order to create a context

conducive to engagement, the environ- ment should be evaluated in light of the student’s sensory preferences and needs (Janzen, 1996; Kientz & Dunn, 1997). Students with ASD will have idiosyn- cratic sensory systems that will require support within the environment (Wing, 1997). Modifying the environment so that the student is spared sensory stimuli that are personally aversive and provided heightened access to sensory stimuli that are desired can enhance engagement and

comfort, establishing the environment as reinforcing. For example, the use of in- direct lighting may be more calming to someone with an easily overstimulated visual system and playing music can sup- port the sensory system of someone with

high need for auditory stimulation. Fourth, a climate of reinforcement will

be created through positive interactions

with others in the environment. Unfor-

tunately, it is well documented that teach- ers tend to provide more negative than positive feedback to students (Strain, Lambert, Kerr, Stagg, & Lenkner, 1983; Thomas, Presland, Grant, & Glynn, 1978). Research has demonstrated that by sim- ply increasing the number of positive statements made to students, teachers can significantly decrease inappropriate behavior and increase the overall motiva- tional climate of the classroom, leading to student participation in the ongoing activities (Lewis & Strain, 1978; Suther- land, Wehby, & Copeland, 2000). En- hancing motivation in this manner,

thereby maintaining a high success rate, contributes to a climate of reinforcement

(McEachin & Leaf, 1999).

Systematic Instructional Environment

The establishment of a supportive class- room environment is a critical step in the

provision of an appropriate education for students with ASD. Equally important are the subsequent methodology and programming elements used to promote the learning of skills and to support the meaningful utilization of those skills. A systematic instructional environment is

evident when empirically based instruc- tional technology is used within a

broader framework of instructional con-

siderations that addresses the importance of errorless learning, data-based individ- ualization of instruction, predictability, and consistency. Additionally, the princi- ples of ABA emphasize the importance of ensuring that skills are generalized to contexts outside the instructional set-

ting.

Instructional Technology .

Teaching within a framework of ABA re- quires the application of behavioral prin- ciples and technology to instruction. The behavioral relationships are presented as the components of the basic behavioral unit of instruction-the trial. An instruc- tional trial is a structured opportunity for a response, in the presence of an antece-

dent, followed by a consequence: S-R-S. The accumulated change in behavior from this interaction with the environ- ment is learning.

Research supports the effectiveness of a variety of instructional strategies that are used within managed, step-by-step elaborations of the basic trial. Incorpo- rating these trial management strategies arranges for the systematic transfer of

stimulus control from an instructional

(controlling) prompt to the teacher or a natural stimulus. Antecedent prompt procedures and response prompt proce- dures are instructional strategies that extend the basic trial (Alberto & Trout-

man, 1999; Harris, 1995; Pierce & Ep- ling, 1999; Wolery et al., 1992).

Antecedent prompt strategies include prompt-and-test procedures, in which

the teacher presents a prompt and then

totally removes it, and prompt-and-fade procedures, in which the teacher presents a prompt and then systematically re-

moves it until the teacher or natural stim- ulus controls the response. An example of a prompt-and-test procedure is seen

when the teacher removes the pieces of construction paper that serve as markers

for students to stand on to line up to see

if the students can still maintain appro-

priate lining-up behavior. With a prompt- and-fade procedure, the same teacher

would systematically make the pieces of construction paper smaller and smaller un- til they disappeared. Antecedent prompts that have been used with students with

ASD include modeling (Charlop & Mil-

stein, 1989; Koegel & Frea, 1993; Pierce & Schreibman, 1997); picture, auditory, and tactile prompts (Pierce & Schreib-

man, 1994; Taber, Seltzer, Heflin, &

Alberto, 1999; Taylor & Levin, 1998); verbal scripts (Krantz & McClannahan, 1993); proximity (Lovaas,1981 ); and jigs (Schopler, Mesibov, & Hearsey, 1995).

Teachers may also select from several

response prompting strategies. These

strategies use the basic response prompts (i.e., full and partial physical assistance, model, gesture), either individually, as in the case of time delay, or in various

combinations, as in the case of response hierarchies. Considerable research has

been conducted on a variety of response

97

prompting strategies with students with ASD, including the use of time delay and the system of least-to-most prompts strategies (Wolery et al., 1992). When using time delay, a single response

prompt is selected and its use is faded by systematically inserting an amount of time between the teacher’s direction (or natural cue) and the response prompt in order to achieve the transfer of stimulus control. Time delay has been used across curricula with students with ASD in areas

including communication skills (Buffing- ton, Krantz, McClannahan, & Poulson, 1998; Charlop & Trasowech, 1991; Char- lop & Walsh, 1986; Matson, Sevin, Box, Francis, & Sevin, 1993; Matson, Sevin, Fridley, & Love, 1990); social skills (Gena, Krantz, McClannahan, & Poulson, 1996; Harris, Handleman, & Alessandri,1990); academics (Ault, Wolery, Gast, Doyle, &

Eizenstat, 1988; Heckaman, Alber, Hooper, & Heward, 1998 ); and domes- tic skills (Schoen & Sivil, 1989). When using the system of least to most

prompts, transfer of stimulus control is based on systematic use of a hierarchy of response prompts. Following the deliv- ery of an instructional cue, response

prompts of gradually increasing assis-

tance are provided until the student per- forms the correct response. The transfer

of stimulus control occurs as the student is reinforced for correct performance at less intrusive amounts of assistance. The

system of least prompts has been used with students with ASD in curriculum areas such as communication skills

(Duker & Morsink, 1984; Godby, Gast & Wolery, 1987), social skills (Breen, Haring, Pitts-Conway, & Gaylord-Ross, 1985), academics (Ault et al., 1988; Heckaman et al., 1998), and domestic skills (Smith & Belcher, 1985).

In addition to antecedent and re-

sponse prompting strategies, trial man- agement tools include the systematic modification of the format of trial pre- sentations. Trial presentation options in- clude massed trials, distributed trials, spaced trials (Mulligan, Guess, Holvoet, & Brown, 1980), and collective trials. With massed trials, the same response is occasioned in quick successive trials

within an instructional session (AAAA, as

in: Hand me a red one, Hand me a red

one, Hand me a red one, Hand me a red

one). The use of distributed trials in-

volves intermixing of responses from dif- ferent programs within instructional

sessions (ABCD, as in: Pick up the red glove, Show me how you put on a glove, What is that you have?, Give the glove to James). Spaced trials require the student to perform a response with intervening intervals of time, which can be across the day (e.g., distribute two cookies during snack, distribute two crayons for art, dis- tribute two napkins for lunch, distribute two balls for physical education). Collec- tive trials occur when trials are presented sequentially to students within a group (e.g., James, touch your nose; Mary, touch your nose; Alan, touch your nose). Massed trials may be preferable for quick acquisition of skills, especially of a motor skill; for practicing a fine motor step of a task analysis with which a student is hav- ing difficulty performing or is perform- ing inconsistently; or as a component of an error correction procedure. However, skills learned through massed trials may not sustain and are rarely demonstrated in contexts outside the instructional one.

Distributed trials are preferable for gen- eralization and understanding of the context within which a response is to be

used. Spaced trials are used to provide practice and enhance learning during maintenance and generalization phases of instruction. Collective trials offer the distinct advantages of distributing the tri- als and of incorporating the antecedent prompting technique of modeling, and they may enhance motivation. However, not all students will attend to relevant models. One aspect of trial management involves the selection of a trial format.

Choices from among the available op- tions will be dictated by the needs of the student. Each of the options will be used in the systematic instruction of every student.

Instructional Considerations

Systematic instructional strategies bring the advantage of near errorless learning. The strategies are constructed so as to minimize the opportunity for student er-

ror, which increases the efficiency of learning. The efficiency of the learning process is further advantaged by task

management tools such as task analysis, easy-to-hard sequencing, and task varia- tion, and by trial management tools such as massed and distributed trials, and most particularly systematic antecedent and re- sponse prompting strategies.

Applied behavior analysis provides a data-based culture for the classroom. In- structional decisions are data based, which fosters individualized decision-

making. Ongoing data collection allows for the systematic identification of effec- tive elements of instruction for a par- ticular student, and determination of

functional relationships between the in- structional strategy and the student’s

performance. Decisions concerning ad- justments to instruction are made based on such measurements. This makes deci-

sions about instruction noninferential, based directly on documented student performance.

Systematic behavioral instruction pro- vides for the regularity of the step- by-step arrangement, elaboration, and presentation of the elements of the in- structional trial. This regularity provides a predictable routine for the learning pro- cess. This allows for consistent and reli- able implementation by the teacher. Thus the student with ASD is provided pre- dictability about the process of learning. The regularity and predictability allow the student to learn the process by which instruction is to take place. Once learned, the structure of the basic instructional

strategies may be applied across curricu- lar content and tasks.

Within a behavioral context, consistency refers to both the internal consistency present in the use of instructional strate-

gies and to the external consistency car- ried across teachers and environments.

Consistently associating a discriminative stimulus, a behavior, and a reinforcing consequence will heighten the likelihood that a skill will be demonstrated and maintained. For this reason, each educa-

tor is encouraged to use the same in- structional or controlling cue until an objective has been mastered (Anderson, Taras, & Cannon, 1996). The principles

98

of ABA would also support that consis-

tent consequences are key to acquiring or eliminating behavior and that inconsis- tency is the surest way to increase errors.

Along with consistency within an in-

structional context, learning will be facil- itated if the consistency is carried across environments. All persons striving to

promote learning in the student with ASD should communicate similar expec- tations and respond with consistent con- sequences to promote skill acquisition and use. However, once a student has mastered a skill, the high levels of consis- tency need to be systematically modified to promote more generalized demon- stration and maintenance of learned be- havior.

Generalization

Two types of generalization that are of concern for students with ASD are stim-

ulus generalization and generalization across time (Koegel, Koegel, & O’Neill, 1988). Stimulus generalization is the abil- ity to perform a skill in a context other than the one in which the skill was ini-

tially taught. As has been noted, during initial skill acquisition there is consider- able control exercised around the cues, students’ responses, and the conse-

quences provided. Although this is nec- essary given the rigidity of certain learn- ing characteristics of students with ASD and for errorless learning paradigms, there comes a point when in order for the new response to be functional for the stu-

dent, the ability to use the skill appropri- ately in untrained contexts is important. This can clearly be seen for students func- tioning in inclusive environments in the school and community. Stimulus gen- eralization must be planned for as a

regular component of instruction, and incorporated into the instructional envi- ronment by expanding the set of instruc- tional antecedents. This expanded set

should include variations of request cues,

materials, people, and settings, which were not incorporated into acquisition training (Anderson et al., 1996). Skills must be at a student’s command not only in contexts other than instructed but at

times other than during instruction. Gen-

eralized use of a skill across time is re-

sponse maintenance. As with stimulus

generalization, this form of generaliza- tion must be programmed during in-

structional planning. Instruction for gen- eralization requires systematic instructional strategies that are incorporated into the instructional environment (Dawson &

Osterling, 1997; Haring, 1988; Powers, 1992; Schloss & Schloss, 1985). A num- ber of strategies and techniques have been found useful in promoting general- ization and are described elsewhere. For

stimulus generalization these may in-

clude the introduction of multiple or suf- ficient exemplars (Stokes & Baer, 1977; Stokes & Osnes, 1988 ), and general case programming (Horner & MacDonald, 1982). Practice in natural settings with naturally occurring reinforcers enhances generalization (Matson et al., 1996). For response maintenance these may include

a gradual thinning of the schedule of re- inforcement, use of distributed trials, and instruction in the value of secondary re- inforcers (Anderson et al., 1996).

Summary ,

ABA has a research-based history of suc- cessful interventions for the instruction of students with ASD. Various ABA prin- ciples are employed to create behavioral contexts in the broad classroom environ- ment and in the more narrowly focused instructional environment. Each of the

various educational strategies described is considered a research-based procedure. These strategies were developed, and their efficacy and efficiency verified, through empirical research. Thus, there is an ex- tensive body of professional literature

that documents hundreds of studies on

environmental considerations and in-

structional strategies that trace the de- velopment of step-by-step procedures, along with consideration of variables

such as task, response class, materials, en- vironments, levels of learning, and stu- dent characteristics, to allow for general- izable statements and evidence of their

efficacy. The principles of ABA provide educators the opportunity to select from a broad array of strategies those combi-

nations that will help their students be the most successful. ABA also presents a framework for testing the validity of the strategies selected against student perfor- mance, thereby linking student out-

comes to instructional decision-making.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

L. Juane Heflin is an assistant professor of edu- cational psychology and special education at Georgia State University. She is coordinator of the teacher-training program in autism spec- trum disorders. Paul Alberto is a professor of educational psychology and special education at Georgia State University. He is director of the Program in Multiple and Severe Disabilities. Address: L. Juane Heflin, Georgia State Uni- versity, Dept. of EPSE, University Plaza, At- lanta, GA 30303-3083.

REFERENCES

Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (1999). Ap- plied behavior analysis for teachers (5th ed. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Anderson, S. R, Campbell, S., & Cannon, B. O. (1994). The May Center for Early Childhood Education. In S. L. Harris &

J. S. Handleman (Eds.), Preschool education programs for children with autism (pp. 15- 36). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Anderson, S. R., & Romanczyk, R. G. (1999). Early intervention for young children with autism: Continuum-based behavioral mod- els. JASH, 24, 162-173.

Anderson, S. R., Taras, M., & Cannon, B. O. (1996). Teaching new skills to young chil- dren with autism. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral interven- tion for young children with autism: A man- ual for parents and professionals (pp. 181- 194). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Ault, M., Wolery, M., Gast, D., Doyle, P., &

Eizenstat, V. (1988). Comparison of re- sponse prompting procedures in teaching numeral identification to autistic subjects. Journal of Autism and Developmental Dis- orders, 18, 627-636.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of ap- plied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.

Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (1994). The picture exchange communication system. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 9(3), 1-19.

Boucher, J., & Lewis, V. (1989). Memory im-

pairments and communication in relatively

99

able autistic children. Journal of Child Psy- chology and Psychiatry, 30, 99-122.

Breen, C., Haring, T., Pitts-Conway, V., &

Gaylord-Ross, R. (1985). The training and generalization of social interaction during breaktime at two job sites in the natural en- vironment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 41-50.

Buffington, D., Krantz, P., McClannahan, L., & Poulson, C. (1998). Procedures for teach- ing appropriate gestural communication skills to children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 535-545.

Burke, J. C., & Cerniglia, L. (1990). Stimu- lus complexity and autistic children’s re-

sponsivity: Assessing and training a pivotal behavior. Journal of Autism and Develop- mental Disorders, 20, 233-253.

Charlop, M., & Milstein, J. (1989). Teaching autistic children conversational speech us- ing video modeling. Journal of Applied Be- havior Analysis, 22, 275-285.

Charlop, M., & Trasowech, J. (1991). In-

creasing autistic children’s daily sponta- neous speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 747-761.

Charlop, M., & Walsh, M. (1986). Increasing autistic children’s spontaneous verbaliza- tions of affection: An assessment of time

delay and peer modeling procedures. Jour- nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 307- 314.

Cohen, D. J., & Volkmar, F. R. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of autism and pervasive develop- mental disorders (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Davis, C. A., Brady, M. P., Williams, R. E., & Hamilton, R. (1992). Effects of high- probability requests on the acquisition and generalization of responses to requests in young children with behavior disorders.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 905-916.

Dawson, G., & Lewy, A. (1989). Arousal, at- tention, and the socioemotional impair- ments of individuals with autism. In G.

Dawson (Ed.), Autism: Nature, diagnosis and treatment (pp. 49-74). New York: Guilford Press.

Dawson, G., & Osterling, J. (1997). Early intervention in autism: Effectiveness and

common elements of current approaches. In M. J. Guralnick (Eds.), The effectiveness of early intervention: Second generation re- search (pp. 307-326). Baltimore: Brookes.

Dettmer, S., Simpson, R. L., Myles, B. S., &

Ganz, J. B. (2000). The use of visual sup- ports to facilitate transitions of students

with autism. Focus on Autism and Other De-

velopmental Disabilities, 15, 163-169.

Duker, P., & Morsink, H. (1984). Acquisition and cross-setting generalization of manual signs with severely retarded individuals. Jour- nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 93-103.

Duker, P. C., & Rasing, E. (1989). Effects of redesigning the physical environment on self- stimulation and on-task behavior in three

autistic-type developmentally disabled indi- viduals. Journal of Autism and Develop- mental Disorders, 19, 449-460.

Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R. L. (1980). Moti- vating autistic children through stimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 619-627.

Earles, T., Carlson, J., & Bock, S. J. (1998). Instructional strategies to facilitate success- ful learning outcomes for students with autism. In R. Simpson & B. S. Myles (Eds.), Educating children and youth with autism (pp. 55-112). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Egel, A. (1981). Reinforcer variation: Impli- cations for motivating developmentally dis- abled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 345-350.

Ferrara, C., & Hill, S. (1980). The responsive- ness of autistic children to the predictabil- ity of social and nonsocial toys. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10, 51-57.

Ferrara, M., & Harris, S. L. (1981). The lim- its and motivating potential of sensory stimuli as reinforcers for autistic children.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 339-343.

Fischer, K., Bullock, D., Rotenberg, E., &

Raya, P. (1993). The dynamics of compe- tence: How context contributes directly to skill. In R. H. Wozniak & K. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and think- ing in specific environments (pp. 93-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Garretson, H., Fein, D., & Waterhouse, L.

(1990). Sustained attention in autistic chil- dren. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 101-114.

Gena, A., Krantz, P., McClannahan, L., &

Poulson, C. (1996). Training and general- ization of affective behavior displayed by youth with autism. Journal of Applied Be- havior Analysis, 29, 291-304.

Godby, S., Gast, D., & Wolery, M. (1987). A comparison of time delay and system of least prompts in teaching object identifica- tion. Research in Developmental Disabili- ties, 8, 283-305.

Goldfarb, W., & Braunstein, P. (1958). Re-

sponses to delayed auditory feedback in schizophrenic children. In P. H. Hoch &

J. Zubin (Eds.), Psychopathology of commu-

nication (pp. 174-191). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Grandin, T. (1995). Thinking in pictures. New York: Doubleday.

Gray, C. (1995). Teaching children with

autism to "read" social situations. In K. A.

Quill (Ed.), Teaching children with autism: Strategies to enhance socialization and com- munication (pp. 219-241). Albany, NY: Delmar.

Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., Canipe, V. S., &

Gardner, S. M. (1991). A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification

processes for persons with profound multi- ple handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 537-552.

Groden, J., & LeVasseur, P. (1995). Cogni- tive picture rehearsal: A system to teach self control. In K. A. Quill (Ed.), Teaching chil- dren with autism: Strategies to enhance

communication and socialization (pp. 287- 306). Albany, NY: Delmar.

Haring, N. G. (1988). Generalization for children with severe handicaps: Strategies and solutions. Seattle: University of Wash- ington Press.

Harris, S. (1995). Educational strategies in au- tism. In E. Schopler & G. Mesibov (Eds.), Learning and cognition in autism (pp. 293- 307). New York: Plenum Press.

Harris, S., Handleman, J., & Alessandri, M.

(1990). Teaching youths with autism to of fer assistance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 297-305.

Heckaman, K., Alber, S., Hooper, S., &

Heward, W. (1998). A comparison of least- to-most prompts and progressive time delay on the disruptive behavior of students with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 171-201.

Horner, R. H., & MacDonald, R. S. (1982). A comparison of single instance and general case instruction in teaching a generalized vocational skill. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7(3), 7-20.

Houlihan, D., Jacobson, L., & Brandon, P. K. (1994). Replication of a high-probability request sequence with varied interprompt times in a preschool setting. Journal of Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, 27, 737-738.

Huntington, D. (1998). Classroom manage- ment: Promising and effective practices for students with developmental disabilities. In A. Hilton & R. Ringlaben (Eds.), Best and promising practices in developmental disabil- ities (pp. 255-261). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Hurth, J., Shaw, E., Izeman, S., Whaley, K., & Rogers, S. (1999). Areas of agreement about effective practices among programs serving young children with autism spec-

100

trum disorders. Infants and Young Chil- dren, 12(2), 17-26.

Janzen, J. E. (1996). Understanding the na- ture of autism: A practical guide. San Anto- nio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders.

Kamps, D., Walker, D., Maher, J., & Rotholz, D. (1992). Academic and environmental effects of small group arrangements in class- rooms for students with autism and other

developmental disabilities. Journal of Au- tism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 277- 293.

Kasari, C., Sigman, M., & Yirmiya, N. (1993). Focused and social attention of autistic children in interactions with famil- iar and unfamiliar adults: A comparison of autistic, mentally retarded, and normal chil- dren. Development and Psycholopathology, 5, 403-414.

Kientz, M. A., & Dunn, W. (1997). A com- parison of the performance of children with and without autism on the Sensory Profile. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 530-537.

Koegel, R., & Frea, W. (1993). Treatment of social behavior in autism through the mod- ification of pivotal social skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 369-377.

Koegel, R. L., Koegel, L. K., & O’Neill. R.

(1989). Generalization in the treatment of autism. In L. V. McReynolds & J. E. Sprad- lin (Eds.), Generalization strategies in

the treatment of communication disorders (pp. 116-131). Toronto: B. C. Decker.

Koegel, R L., & Williams, J. A. (1980). Di- rect versus indirect response-reinforcer rela- tionships in teaching autistic children. Jour- nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 537- 547.

Krantz, P., & McClannahan, L. (1993). Teaching children with autism to initiate to peers: Effects of a script-fading procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 121-132.

Lewis, B. L., & Strain, P. S. (1978). Effects of feedback timing and motivational content on teachers’ delivery of contingent so-

cial praise. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 423- 429.

Lincoln, A. J., Courchesne, E., Harms, L., &

Allen, M. (1995). Sensory modulation of auditory stimuli in children with autism and receptive developmental language disorder: Event-related brain potential evidence. Jour- nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 521-539.

Litt, M. D., & Schreibman, L. (1981). Stim- ulus-specific reinforcement in the acquisi- tion of receptive labels by autistic children.

Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disorders, 1, 171-186.

Logan, K. R., Bakeman, R., & Keefe, E. G. (1997). Effects of instructional variables of engaged behavior of students with disabili- ties in general education classrooms. Excep- tional Children, 63, 481-497.

Lovaas, O. I. (1977). The autistic child: Lan- guage development through behavior modifi- cation. New York: Irvington Press.

Lovaas, O. I. (1981). Teaching developmen- tally disabled children: The ME book. Balti- more: University Park Press.

Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual

functioning in young autistic children. jour- nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3-9.

MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClanna-

han, L. E. (1993). Teaching children with autism to use photographic activity sched- ules : Maintenance and generalization of complex response chains. Journal of Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, 26, 89-97.

Mace, F., Hoch, M., Lalli, J., West, B., Bel- fiore, P., Pinter, E., & Brown, D. (1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of

noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behav- ior Analysis, 21, 123-141.

Matson, J., Benavidez, D., Compton, L., Pa- clawskyj, T., & Baglio, C. (1996). Behav- ioral treatment of autistic persons: A review

of research from 1980 to the present. Re- search in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 433-465.

Matson, J., Sevin, J., Box, M., Francis, K., &

Sevin, B. (1993). An evaluation of two methods for increasing self-initiated verbal- izations in autistic children. Journal of Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, 26, 389-398.

Matson, J., Sevin, J., Fridley, D., & Love, S. (1990). Increasing spontaneous language in three autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 227-233.

McEachin, J., & Leaf, R. (1999). Discrete trial teaching. In R Leaf & J. McEachin

(Eds.), A work in progress: Behavior man- agement strategies and a curriculum for intensive behavioral treatment of autism (pp. 131-148). New York: DRL Books.

McGee, G. G., Krantz, P. J., Mason, D., &

McClannahan, L. E. (1983). A modified in- cidental-teaching procedure for autistic

youth: Acquisition and generalization of re- ceptive object labels. Journal of Applied Be- havior Analysis, 16, 329-338.

Mulligan, M., Guess, D., Holvoet, J., &

Brown, F. (1980). The individualized cur- riculum sequencing model (1): Implica- tions from research on massed, distributed,

and spaced trial training. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 325-336.

Munk, D. D., & Repp, A. C. (1994). The re- lationship between instructional variables and problem behavior: A review. Excep- tional Children, 60, 390-401.

Nevin, J., Mandell, C., & Atak, J. (1983). The analysis of behavioral momentum.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be- havior, 39, 49-59.

Newnan, B., Buffington, D., O’Grady, M. A., McDonald, M.E., Poulson, C. L., &

Hemmes, N. S. (1995). Self-management of schedule following in three teenagers with autism. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 190- 196.

Newton, J. S., Ard, W. R., Jr., & Horner, R H. (1993). Validating predicted activity preferences of individuals with severe dis- abilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy- sis, 26, 239-245.

Pierce, K. L., & Schreibman, L. (1994). Teaching daily living skills to children with autism in unsupervised settings through pictorial self-management. Journal of Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, 27, 471-481.

Pierce, K., & Schreibman, L. (1997). Multi- ple peer use of pivotal response training to increase social behaviors of classmates with autism: Results from trained and untrained

peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,157-160.

Pierce, W. D., & Epling, W. F. (1999). Behav- ior analysis and learning (2nd ed.). Colum- bus, OH: Prentice Hall.

Powers, M. D. (1992). Early intervention for children with autism. In D. E. Berkell (Ed.), Autism: Identification, education, and treat- ment (pp. 225-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-

baum.

Prizant, B. M., & Rubin, E. (1999). Con- temporary issues in interventions for autism

spectrum disorders: A commentary. JASH, 24, 199-208.

Quill, K. A. (1995). Visually cued instruction for children with autism and pervasive de- velopmental disorders. Focus on Autistic Be- havior, 10(3), 10-22.

Quill, K. A. (1997). Instructional considera- tions for young children with autism: The

rationale for visually cued instruction. Jour- nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 697-714.

Rincover, A., & Newsom, C. D. (1985). The relative motivational properties of sensory and edible reinforcers in teaching autis-

tic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 237-248.

101

Rogers, S. J. (1999). Intervention for young children with autism: From research to prac- tice. Infants and Young Children, 12(2), 1-16.

Rogers, S. J., & DiLalla, D. L. (1991). A comparative study of the effects of a devel- opmentally based instructional model on young children with autism and young chil- dren with other disorders of behavior and

development. Topics in Early Childhood Spe- cial Education, 11(2), 29-47.

Sasso, G. M., Peck, J., & Garrison-Harrell, L. (1998). Social interaction setting events: Experimental analysis of contextual vari-

ables. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 34-43. Schloss, P. J., & Schloss, C. N. (1985). Con-

temporary issues in social skills research with mentally retarded persons. The Jour- nal of Special Education, 19, 269-282.

Schoen, S., & Sivil, E. (1989). A comparison of procedures in teaching self-help skills.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Dis- orders, 19, 57-71.

Schopler, E., Mesibov, G. B., & Hearsey, K. (1995). Structured teaching in the

TEACCH system. In E. Schopler & G. B.

Mesibov (Eds.), Learning and cognition in autism (pp. 243-268). New York: Plenum.

Siegel, B. (1999). Autistic learning disabilities and individualized treatment for autistic spec- trum disorders. Infants and Young Chil- dren, 12(2), 27-36.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human be- havior. New York: Free Press.

Smith, M., & Belcher, R (1985). Teaching life skills to adults disabled by autism. Jour-

nal of Autism and Developmental Disabili- ties, 15, 163-175.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Froyen, L. (1987). Structuring the classroom to pre- vent disruptive behavior. Teaching Excep- tional Children, 16, 12-16.

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An im- plicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.

Stokes, T. F., & Osnes, P. G. (1988). The de- veloping applied technology of generali- zation and maintenance. In R. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.), Gener- alization and maintenance (pp. 5-19). Bal- timore: Brookes.

Strain, P. S., Lambert, D. L., Kerr, M. M., Stagg, W., & Lenkner, D. A. (1983). Nat- uralistic assessment of children’s compli- ance to teacher’s requests and conse-

quences for compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 243-249.

Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. R. (2000). Effect of varying rates of be- havior specific praise on the on-task behav- ior of students with EBD. Journal of Emo- tional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 2-8.

Taber, T., Seltzer, A., Heflin, L.J., & Alberto, P. (1999). Use of self-operated auditory prompts to decrease off-task behavior for a

student with autism and moderate mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other De-

velopmental Disabilities, 14, 159-166. Taylor, B., & Levin, L. (1998). Teaching a

student with autism to make verbal initia-

tions: Effects of a tactile prompt. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 651-654.

Taylor, J. C., & Carr, E. G. (1993). Recipro- cal social influences in the analysis and in- tervention of severe challenging behavior. In J. Reichle & D. Wacker (Eds.), Com- municative approaches to the management of challenging behavior (pp. 63-81). Balti- more: Brookes.

Thomas, J. D., Presland, I. E., Grant, M. D., & Glynn, T. L. (1978). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in Grade 7 classrooms. Journal of Autism and Devel- opmental Disorders, 11, 91-94.

Weber, R. C., & Thorpe, J. (1989). Compar- ison of task variation and constant task

methods for severely disabled in physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quar- terly, 6, 338-353.

Windsor, J., Piché, L. M., & Locke, P. A.

(1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation models. Research on Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.

Wing, L. (1997). Syndromes of autism and atypical development. In D. J. Cohen &

F. R. Volkmar (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (2nd ed., pp. 148-170).

Wolery, M., Ault, M., & Doyle, P. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe

disabilities. New York: Longman.

Wolery, M., Kirk, K., & Gast, D. L. (1985). Stereotypic behavior as a reinforcer: Effects and side effects. Journal of Autism and De- velopmental Disorders, 15, 149-161.