Errorless learning group presentation

Errorless learning: 

Errorless learning Janelle Takesono Andrew Rego Naohito Miura October 2, 2011

In a nutshell…: 

In a nutshell… The learner does not have to make mistakes as she or he learns new information or new procedures. Contrast with trial and error learning.

Appropriate Target Population: 

Appropriate Target Population Learners across age groups who… Frequently make mistakes Lack confidence (or may be anxious) Do not remember their learning experiences and the feedback they receive (memory impairment ) Have significant cognitive impairments Can be used to teach any content

Reasons for using errorless learning: 

Reasons for using errorless learning Emotionality of errors Self-generation of errors Significant anxiety resulting from errors Significant discouragement, sadness, and/or depression

Concerns with Errorless Learning: 

Concerns with Errorless Learning In a 1994 study, Dr. Louise Duffy and Jennifer G. Wishart looked at the success of a group of 6-16 year old children with Down’s syndrome and compared it to a group of 6-17 year old children without Down’s syndrome. Both groups were asked to perform tasks that tested their ability to discriminate between stimuli. Then, using errorless learning, both groups of children were taught discrimination, and given a post test.

Methods: 

Methods Experiment #1 Eight students with Down’s Syndrome and eight without - Three different sessions over six week period, sessions one to three weeks apart Session = pre-test, errorless learning, post-test Aim of the test was to have children help Mr. Plimp find his friend, Mr. Wug . Children were shown three cards and selected Mr. Wug During training, alternative answers faded in Experiment #2 Seven students with Down’s Syndrome New discrimination test Tested once weekly for three weeks Asked to locate a given character, “ nim ” One trial set in each of the pre- and post-tests included a “ wug ” (from previous test)

Results of Experiment One: 

Results of Experiment One In all cases, training scores improved for all sessions Session One’s growth in scores for both groups of children show immediate results Group with Down’s syndrome seems to have shown greater growth

Results of Experiment Two: 

Results of Experiment Two - Children had difficulty differentiating between “ wug ” and “ nim ,” especially because of the transfer Children showed a clear preference for the “ wug ,” even though they were told to look for the “ nim ” Even with errorless learning, o riginal discrimination was given priority over the new one

Analysis: 

Analysis Errorless learning can have positive effects on learning by students with Down’s syndrome However, a failure to understand why an answer is wrong, can lead to a deeper understanding of the topic Errorless learning may be positive because it gives students with Down’s syndrome, who may be frustrated because of exaggerated experience of failure, a positive learning experience and more motivation

Taking it into Class:: 

Taking it into Class: Errorless learning can and should be used for students with IEPs, especially those who may seem unmotivated During the “We Do” section of presentation, the teacher may fade in correct answers through flashcards (blank and written) or other devices, i.e.: “Who is the main character in the story?” “What is five times five?” However, the teacher should gradually remove errorless learning once student becomes more confident - Not doing so may result in students adopting superficial task stradegies

Slide 11: 

Errorless Learning Review and Practical Application for Teaching Children with Pervasive Developmental Disorders

Slide 12: 

Six General Techniques Used Stimulus Fading Stimulus Shading Response Prevention Delayed Prompting Stimulus Fading or Shaping through superimposition

Slide 13: 

Example of Stimulus Fading Moore and Goldiamond (1964) Students presented with a choice of a triangle (S+) and a slightly rotated triangle (S-)

Slide 14: 

The incorrect choice (S-) was then removed from the screen leaving on the correct choice for the student to select The incorrect choice was gradually faded onto the screen while the student was prompted to select the S+ choice The end result was that the student was able to select the correct choice even though the incorrect choice was present on screen.

Slide 15: 

Cipani and Madigan (1986) Used stimulus fading to teach coin discrimination to children Materials used during the study: Coins of different shape and value

Slide 16: 

Student asked to “Touch penny” After a series of successful trials, a new coin was added at a distance. Student is still told prompted to touch the penny with the new coin gradually brought to the same level as the penny. The experiment concludes with the student still selecting the penny when prompted, even with other coins introduced in front of the student.

Slide 17: 

In the case of children with Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD), errorless learning techniques are effective for teaching discrimination learning Errorless learning techniques can easily be applied to early interventions. The variety of methods of application fit into the time and financial constraints of parents Faster learning=greater benefit for the student.

A Comparison of Within- and Across- Session Progressive Time Delay Procedures for Teaching Sight Words to Individuals with Cognitive Delays: 

A Comparison of Within- and Across- Session Progressive Time Delay Procedures for Teaching Sight Words to Individuals with Cognitive Delays Sean D. Casey The Behavior Analyst Today- Volume 9, Issue 9.3 - 9.4

What the study was about:: 

What the study was about: The effectiveness of within-session and across-session variations of a progressive time delay procedure for teaching sight words was evaluated for 5 students with cognitive delays.

Participant Information and Instructional Stimuli Taught: 

Participant Information and Instructional Stimuli Taught

Slide 21: 

Errorless learning = No delay = A delay of 0 seconds

Procedure: 

Procedure Participants were exposed to five target stimuli using two variations of progressive time delay procedures (within- and across-session) in an alternating treatments design

Result: 

Result Data indicated that the within-session time delay procedure was the most effective procedure for each participant . Within-session time delay Average number of words correct per session = 15.7 Average percentage of errors committed = 8.6% Across-session time delay Average number of words correct per session = 5.0 Average percentage of errors committed = 30.8%

Implications for the Classroom: 

Implications for the Classroom Results highlight the importance of selecting appropriate time delay procedures for errorless learning. Across-session time delay procedures might be easier to implement, but should we implement it if it’s ineffective? More research needed to close research to practice gap

Citations: 

Citations Wishart , J. G., & Duffy, L. A. (1994). The Stability and Transferability of Errorless Learning in Children with Down's Syndrome . Down Syndrome Research and Practice , 51-58. Mueller , M. M. and others. ( n.d. ). Errorless learning: Review and practical application for teaching children with pervasive developmental disorders - Mueller - 2007 - Psychology in the Schools - Wiley Online Library. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20258/abstract Casey, S. D. ( n.d. ). A Comparison of within- and across-Session Progressive Time Delay Procedures for Teaching Sight Words to Individuals with Cognitive Delays. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_& ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ862242&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ862242 Tutorial: Errorless Learning. ( n.d. ). Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http://www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/errorless_learning.html