Recently I was supervising a session in which the current goal was for the child to identify cards by category. The teacher was placing three cards in a messy array, and asking “Where’s the animal?” or “Point to the food.”

When the child got it right, the teacher did a great job of providing reinforcement. However, if the student didn’t respond correctly, the conversation might look like this:

TEACHER: What is this? (Pointing to zebra)

STUDENT: No response.

TEACHER: Come on. You know this one.

STUDENT: Horse?

TEACHER: No. You know this one. Remember we did a puzzle earlier with this animal.

STUDENT: Animal?

TEACHER: What animal? Remember the puzzle?

While the intention of the teacher is understandable, this is not an evidence-based error correction procedure. We don’t want our student practicing errors. Often, you might see your student is making the same error over and over. This means there has been in error in our teaching, and we need to make adjustments. Many times, the error is in how we correct errors.

The example described above is one that I commonly see when supervising. Many of our students don’t have strong listening comprehension skills, so continuing to give clues isn’t teaching our student to respond to “What is this?” but is actually teaching them to respond to some other stimulus. The very first recommendation I had as this teacher’s supervisor was to be clear with the discriminative stimulus.

But how should we correct the student’s initial error? There are several commonly used, evidence-based error correction procedures, but the most effective procedures vary from individual to individual. It’s valuable to assess the evidence-based procedure that is most effective for you individual student prior to beginning teaching procedures. This will make your teaching more effective and efficient.

There is a lot of research about error correction procedures for individuals with autism. Carroll, Joachim, St. Peter, & Robinson (2015) clearly outline four commonly used procedures and explain how to assess an individual’s response to each procedure. Carroll, Owsiany, & Cheatham (2018) utilized a short assessment for determining which of five commonly used procedures may work best for a specific individual. Starting with these two articles can clarify how to best move forward with your students or clients.

WRITTEN BY SAM BLANCO, PhD, LBA, BCBA

Sam is an ABA provider for students ages 3-15 in NYC. Working in education for twelve years with students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and other developmental delays, Sam utilizes strategies for achieving a multitude of academic, behavior, and social goals. She is also an assistant professor in the ABA program at The Sage Colleges.

The post Sticking to Clear Sds and Planning Error Correction Procedures appeared first on Different Roads to Learning Blog.