Educational Research Single Su :: essays research papers

Educational seekSingle-Subject CritiqueEstablishing Discriminative check up on of Responding Using operable and Alternative Reinforcers During useful Communication learningWayne W. Fisher, David E. Kuhn, and Rachel H. Thompson appropriateness of research interrogative sentence or purposeThe purpose of this research was fire and of value as it focused on problems that often occur when Functional Communication Training (FCT) is in use. This study sought to find efficacious solutions as in demand(p) &8220. . .responses whitethorn be weakened and destructive carriages may reemerge . . . when fundings of communication are delayed or denied due to impossibility or inconvenience of the phencyclidine or instructors ability to provide said reinforcement in a timely manner. &8220. . .procedures are needed to increase the potentiality of FCT in situations in which it is impractical or impossible to deliver a given reinforcer.Research formulate and design rationaleThis study was un holy fixed up into 4 phases (the fourth phase &8220. . .was completed with only 1 role player in only one condition because of time limitations on the musicians&8217 hospital admission.) mannikin 1 Functional Analyses and Descriptive Assessments. Alternating manipulation with no service line design. &8220During this analysis, a test condition . . .and a guarantee condition were compared victimization a multi-element design. Phase 2 Communication and favouritism Training. Phase 3 Treatment Evaluation of FCT with Discriminative Stimuli. Between series, alternating(a) treatment (ABAB) design was used to compare FCT + EXT vs. act as + EXT in both conditions for one participant (Amy) and in one condition for one participant (Ned). Phase 4 Independent Effects of FCT and EXT. Between series, alternating treatment and a last(a) treatment design was used to compare FCT/ present (w/o EXT) vs. EXT entirely with the final series being strictly FCT/ACT (w/o EXT).The order of prese ntation for Amy&8217s discrimination training were &8220. . .stimulus-present and stimulus-absent periods that were alternated each 30 s for the duration of the 10-min seance. For Ned, &8220. . .one SD at a time was presented for 1 min. The order of the root three SD presentations in a given session was randomized, without replacement thereafter, the order remained constant. Phase 1 was &8220conducted to test the hypotheses generated by the results of. . .descriptive assessments. . .to visualise whether . . .destructive behavior was calculate maintained by both attention and gate to tangible items, provided under specific stimulus conditions for Amy. . .and whether destructive behavior was maintained by .Educational Research Single Su essays research written document Educational ResearchSingle-Subject CritiqueEstablishing Discriminative Control of Responding Using Functional and Alternative Reinforcers During Functional Communication TrainingWayne W. Fisher, David E. Kuhn, and Rachel H. ThompsonAppropriateness of research question or purposeThe purpose of this research was interesting and of value as it focused on problems that often occur when Functional Communication Training (FCT) is in use. This study sought to find effective solutions as desired &8220. . .responses may be weakened and destructive behaviors may reemerge . . . when reinforcements of communication are delayed or denied due to impossibility or inconvenience of the caregiver or instructors ability to provide said reinforcement in a timely manner. &8220. . .procedures are needed to increase the effectiveness of FCT in situations in which it is impractical or impossible to deliver a given reinforcer.Research design and design rationaleThis study was broken up into 4 phases (the fourth phase &8220. . .was completed with only 1 participant in only one condition because of time limitations on the participants&8217 hospital admission.) Phase 1 Functional Analyses and Descriptive Assessment s. Alternating treatment with no baseline design. &8220During this analysis, a test condition . . .and a control condition were compared using a multi-element design. Phase 2 Communication and Discrimination Training. Phase 3 Treatment Evaluation of FCT with Discriminative Stimuli. Between series, alternating treatment (ABAB) design was used to compare FCT + EXT vs. ACT + EXT in two conditions for one participant (Amy) and in one condition for one participant (Ned). Phase 4 Independent Effects of FCT and EXT. Between series, alternating treatment and a final treatment design was used to compare FCT/ACT (w/o EXT) vs. EXT alone with the final series being strictly FCT/ACT (w/o EXT).The order of presentation for Amy&8217s discrimination training were &8220. . .stimulus-present and stimulus-absent periods that were alternated every 30 s for the duration of the 10-min session. For Ned, &8220. . .one SD at a time was presented for 1 min. The order of the first three SD presentations in a given session was randomized, without replacement thereafter, the order remained constant. Phase 1 was &8220conducted to test the hypotheses generated by the results of. . .descriptive assessments. . .to determine whether . . .destructive behavior was multiply maintained by both attention and access to tangible items, but under specific stimulus conditions for Amy. . .and whether destructive behavior was maintained by .