In 2 studies, I tested the effects of an observational conditioning-by-denial intervention on the demonstration of conditioned reinforcement by observation, observational performance, and observational acquisition of new operants. In Experiment 1, I selected 6 children educationally classified with autism spectrum disorder and multiple disabilities. The participants were 2 females and 4 males who ranged from 5.5-8.2 years old. Participants were selected from one school that implemented a Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling (CABAS®) approach. I conducted a series of pre-intervention reinforcer assessments that tested 1) the conditioned reinforcement effects of known reinforcing stimuli (edibles) and non-preferred stimuli (binder clips) on a mastered task, and 2) the reinforcement effects of non-preferred stimuli (binder clips) on 3 learning tasks across each participant. These reinforcer assessment probes showed all participants’ rates increased when a known reinforcer (edibles) was delivered compared to non-reinforcing stimuli (binder clips) on the mastered task. Participants did not demonstrate learning when delivered non-preferred stimuli (binder clips) for correct responses on learning tasks. Following the pre-intervention reinforcer assessments I conducted probes for a) conditioned reinforcement by observation b) observational performance and c) observational acquisition of new operants. Pre-intervention probes showed all participants did not demonstrate conditioned reinforcement by observation, or observational acquisition of new operants and 5 out of 6 participants did not demonstrate observational performance. The independent variable was an observational conditioning-by-denial intervention. During the intervention the participant was paired with a known peer, and both children were separated by a partition but were able to see and hear the researcher but not each other. The only thing both the participant and peer could see were each other’s transparent cups, which were attached with Velcro® to each child’s desk. Both participants were given a mastered task. Each time the peer emitted a response the experimenter delivered neutral stimuli (binder clips) into his/her transparent cup, in view of the participant. The intervention continued until the target participant vocally manded/requested for the neutral stimuli and/or made a physical attempt to gain access to the stimuli one or more times across two consecutive sessions. Post-intervention data suggest that neutral stimuli (binder clips) became conditioned reinforcers for mastered and learning tasks as function of the intervention for all 6 participants. Responses to denial of non-preferred stimuli delivered to a peer (conditioned reinforcement by observation), observational performance, and observational acquisition of new operant responses increased in 4 out of 6 participants who did not respond during pre-intervention probes. In Experiment 2, I sought to determine if conditioned reinforcement by observation is a verbal behavior developmental cusp. Experiment 2 was a replication of Experiment 1, with two different reinforcer assessments that tested: 1) the conditioned reinforcer effects of neutral stimuli when the participant was alone and 2) the conditioned reinforcer effects of neutral stimuli when the participant observed a peer play with neutral stimuli. Four males educationally classified with autism spectrum disorder and speech and language impairments participated in Experiment 2. Post-intervention data suggest that neutral stimuli (metal washers, s-hooks, spoon shelf supports) became conditioned reinforcers during the individual and peer reinforcer assessments as a function of the intervention for all 4 participants. Responses to denial of non-preferred stimuli delivered to a peer (conditioned reinforcement by observation), observational performance, and observational acquisition of new operant responses increased across all 4 participants who did not respond during pre-intervention probes. The results of both experiments suggest that a single intervention can establish all three types of observational learning. The results from Experiment 2 confirm that conditioned reinforcement by observation is a verbal behavior developmental cusp.

A cornerstone of much educational research in individualised and automated instruction (e.g., computer-based learning) is the assumption that learners be permitted to set the rate at which they work through the material to be learned. Experiments that have compared learning under conditions of self pacing (determined by the learner) and external pacing (determined by the experimenter), using a variety of tasks and populations, often have not supported this assumption. To evaluate the putative advantages of student self pacing in automated instruction, the studies in this thesis compared the effects of self-paced, and externally-paced, programmed instruction on student accuracy, retention efficiency, and satisfaction. Under self-pacing conditions, learners completely controlled the rate of progress through learning materials; that is, although the program paused when learners were required to provide answers, score answers, and proceed to the next item, it continued as soon as the learner pressed any key. External pacing was operationalised by programming a noncontingent 10-s postfeedback delay after every item; that is, learners could not progress to a subsequent item until the delay period was over. All relevant learning material for the current item was present during the delay. In a series of experiments using an alternating conditions design, learners completed approximately 40 sets of a programmed course in behaviour analysis (Holland & Skinner, 1961). A baseline of self-pacing conditions was followed by an experimental phase in which baseline conditions were randomly alternated with one or more experimental conditions. Later experiments also included a return to baseline conditions. In Experiments 1 and 2 externally-imposed delays resulted in greater accuracy than self pacing. This advantage occurred when the delays were accompanied by the study materials, but did not occur for a condition in which delays were presented without the learning material being visible. Hence, it was proposed that noncontingent postfeedback delays are effective because they provide a study opportunity which is otherwise not taken. In addition, imposing delays only slightly increased overall time to completion, and learners rated their satisfaction with external and self pacing similarly. Experiments 3 and 4 replicated the accuracy advantage found for external pacing, and showed also that material learned under these conditions was recalled better in both immediate and 1-month delayed posttests. These experiments also provided information about factors that influence efficiency during completion of materials. One of these factors was a requirement that, at the end of an instructional set, each question answered incorrectly be repeated until it was answered correctly (i.e., review feature). This is part of the standard implementation of programmed materials and had been employed in all conditions. In the earlier studies, externally-paced and self-paced conditions showed little difference in overall time to completion. It was apparent that although the externally-paced condition had an increased task time due to enforced delays, this condition did not take longer overall because more errors were made in self pacing, so more items were reviewed, and the overall time of a session was increased. Therefore, although imposing delays entailed a time cost, this was offset because it reduced the number of errors and time-consuming repeats. Experiment 4 demonstrated that when the review requirement was removed, noncontingent delays caused an increase in overall time to completion. Another factor determining efficiency was workrate during nondelay components of the task. Measures of the time learners spent responding, correcting responses, and continuing to subsequent frames, indicated that delays promoted faster workrates at each of these points. This was interpreted as evidence of a generalised escape motivation that is increased by being delayed and which offsets some of the time lost due to delays. The final two experiments investigated the effects of reviewing incorrect items on student performance because it had been a potential confound in previous experiments. Previously, both self-pacing and external-pacing conditions required subjects to repeat incorrect items until answered correctly. It is possible that because reviewing items increased time on task (like imposed delays), they also led to compensatory changes in workrate, and influenced timing and efficiency measures. Any such influence was not controlled across experimental conditions, however, because self pacing typically resulted in more errors and larger reviews, and any influence of review size on timing measures could not be separated from the effect of delays. It was found that, compared to a no-review condition, reviews reduced efficiency and had little influence on accuracy and retention. Hence, this feature was unlikely to have interacted with the delay variable in previous experiments. In conclusion, the results of the experiments show that self pacing reduced accuracy, retention, and workrates compared to external pacing. These studies indicate that learners often make poor choices about optimum learning conditions. They also show that small changes in the learning environment can result in consistent and substantial changes in learner performance, and that behaviour analysts have an important role to play in the design and implementation of instructional materials.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2001. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 141-148). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Kent State University, 2008. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed Jan. 20, 2010). Advisor: Lyle Barton. Keywords: Differential Reinforcement of Other behaviors; DRO; behavior intervention; autism; single subject design. Includes bibliographical references (p. 135-149).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 104-112). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Delaware, 2009. / Principal faculty advisors: Ardashpal S. Sethi and Jelena Mirkovic, Dept. of Computer & Information Sciences, Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed. Spec.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Central Florida, 2009. / Adviser: Rosemarye Taylor. Includes bibliographical references (p. 144-157).

Thesis (M.S.)--West Virginia University, 2003. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains vi, 82 p. : ill. (some col.). Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references.

Not available / text