Recommendations for Using PowerPoint 2016/2020 to Create Individualized Matching to Sample Sessions on the iPad
- PDF / 795,042 Bytes
- 5 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 95 Downloads / 166 Views
TECHNICAL AND TUTORIALS
Recommendations for Using PowerPoint 2016/2020 to Create Individualized Matching to Sample Sessions on the iPad Tom Cariveau 1
&
Katelyn Hunt 1 & Miranda McCord 1
# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2020
Abstract A recent tutorial by Cummings and Saunders (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12, 483–490, 2019) described methods to arrange match-to-sample tasks using PowerPoint on laptops with touch screens. Similar paradigms may be used on tablet-based systems such as the iPad. Because iPads may be commonly used by behavior-analytic practitioners, modifications to the procedures described by Cummings and Saunders (2019) may facilitate the successful use of these systems in treatment programs. Here we describe additional procedures and settings that may increase practitioners’ success when using match-to-sample instructional arrangements on the iPad. Keywords Computer-based instruction . iPad . Matching to sample . PowerPoint
Cummings and Saunders (2019) recently provided a tutorial on arranging auditory–visual conditional discriminations using PowerPoint on laptops with touch screens. We were thrilled to see such a publication in Behavior Analysis in Practice, as the paradigm that is described is likely feasible to use in applied settings and may require lower response effort to prepare, modify, and individualize instructional stimuli compared to other methods (e.g., printed cards). As Cummings and Saunders (2019) noted, computerized systems may reduce practitioners’ reliance on other instructional materials (e.g., flash cards) during tabletop instruction. Although this may appear insignificant, the practical benefits are numerous, as instructional stimuli may be misplaced, lost, or destroyed. Computerized systems also allow for greater ease in preparing individualized targets, as it is not necessary to prepare physical stimuli. Similarly, packaged stimuli may commonly include outdated pictures (e.g., rotary telephones) that would not be relevant for a client’s programming. Other limitations of using physical stimuli include the considerable number of responses by the practitioner needed to arrange a single trial during conditional discrimination training. These
* Tom Cariveau [email protected] 1
University of North Carolina, Wilmington, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, NC 28407, USA
steps may make conditional discrimination training incredibly burdensome and time-consuming (e.g., presenting a different sample on every trial, rearranging at least three comparison stimuli out of sight of the client, and ensuring the correct comparison varies unsystematically across trials; Green, 2001). Indeed, prior descriptive studies have identified numerous components of conditional discrimination training that may be associated with procedural integrity errors, such as the presentation of the controlling prompt, clear instruction, randomization of the comparison array, and inadvertent prompting (Carroll, Kodak, & Fisher, 2013; Kodak, Cariveau, LeBlanc, Mahon, & Carroll, 2018). This is
Data Loading...
