The effects of self-instructional training on job-task sequencing: Suggesting a problem-solving strategy.
ABSTRACT Investigated the effects of a self-instructional training package on the job-task sequencing of 4 mentally retarded students (aged 18–20 yrs, IQs 43–65). The effects of training on the Ss' task completion and task repetition were also examined. Findings indicate that training increased job-task sequencing for all Ss. Data reveal increases in task completion for 3 Ss and decreases in task repetition for all Ss. Target behaviors were maintained up to 3 mo posttraining. Results support the use of self-instruction in the vocational training of mentally retarded persons. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
- SourceAvailable from: auburn.edu[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Self-management procedures, such as self-monitoring, self-administering consequences, and self-instructing, are frequently taught to people with developmental disabilities. In this paper, research examining the use of self-management procedures is reviewed and critiqued. Areas for future investigation are discussed.Research in Developmental Disabilities 02/1992; 13(3):211-27. · 3.40 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Two adults with developmental disabilities were taught task-analytic self-instructive skills for a sorting task requiring the discrimination of what two pictures had in common. They were taught the prerequisites: (1) naming all the two elements of all the pictures they would sort; (2) sorting pictures according to experimenter instructions; and (3) saying what pairs of pictures had in common. This training was quickly mastered, but proved insufficient for correct performance of the subsequent criterion sorting task requiring an in-common discrimination. The in-common discrimination required to look at pairs of pictures with one element in common, be told for each pair, Put the in-commons here and the others there, and then be handed a series of relevant pictures to sort. Failure at that task was remediated by evoking a task-analytic self-instruction (SI), What do they have in common? The first time the experimenter stopped asking that question, the participants did not say anything relevant and did not sort correctly; when the experimenter resumed the questioning, self-instructive answers and correct sorting were recovered immediately. That remained true just long enough to show that the participants' correct sorting depended on having a relevant SI evoked by the experimenter. Thereafter, the participants sorted most problems correctly whether the experimenter asked the question or not; the participants typically said before sorting, and without experimenter prompts or questions, what the particular pair presented to them had in common. That typically correct performance was then tested with new problems. Generalization was perfect in one participant. The other participant stated a correct SI before sorting but did not comply with it consistently and sorted imperfectly. This noncompliance with SI was remediated by telling the participant to say for each picture why it was placed where it was, which produced correct sorts in compliance with SI. Correct performance deteriorated when told to stop this intensive SI, and recovered when told to reintensify SI for each picture.Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 01/2003; 15(4):281-298. · 0.89 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is an emerging recognition that self-determination is an important outcome for youth with disabilities. This article presents a definitional framework of self-determination as an educational outcome and describes essential characteristics of self-determined behavior. Within this framework, students become self-determined young people through the development and acquisition of a set of component elements of self-determined behavior. The article introduces these component elements and discusses implications for educational instruction.Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 01/1997; 9(3):175-209. · 0.89 Impact Factor