Aprendizagem de relações nome-textura por meio de dois procedimentos de ensino por exclusão

• Malerbo, A. C. D. B. ^[1] ; Andréia Schmidt ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidade de São Paulo

     Universidade de São Paulo

     Brasil

     
• Localización: Acta comportamentalia: revista latina de análisis del comportamiento, ISSN 0188-8145, Vol. 25, Nº. 1, 2017, págs. 5-23
• Idioma: portugués
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Learning of name-texture relations in two exclusion teaching procedures
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen
  • português

    Procedimentos de ensino por exclusão têm sido utilizados no ensino de repertórios verbais para diferentes populações, mas predominantemente em relações nome/objeto ou figura (substantivos). O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a aprendizagem de relações nome-textura (adjetivos) em dois procedimentos de ensino por exclusão. Participaram 12 indivíduos com desenvolvimento típico (DT) e 12 com deficiência intelectual (DI), todos com desenvolvimento linguístico entre 5 e 6 anos. Os estímulos empregados foram palavras ditadas (nomes de texturas) e estímulos táteis (objetos confeccionados com texturas correspondentes aos nomes ditados). Os dois procedimentos de ensino eram baseados em tarefas de emparelhamento ao modelo: a) ensino padrão por exclusão (“pegue o objeto rugoso”); e b) ensino por exclusão com dica contextual adicional (“pegue o objeto rugoso, não o liso”). Todos os participantes eram expostos às duas condições e aprendiam duas relações nome-textura em cada uma.

    Sondas de aprendizagem e nomeação foram aplicadas em diferentes momentos. Ambos os grupos aprenderam as duas relações nas duas condições, mas os participantes DI precisaram de um número menor de blocos de ensino no procedimento com dica contextual. Não houve diferença entre grupos e condições na manutenção da aprendizagem. Discute-se o eventual papel facilitador dica adicional em procedimentos de ensino por exclusão.

  • English

    Studies about the role of responding by exclusion in vocabulary acquisition have focused on relations name-object or name-figure, but it is unclear whether this process is involved, and how, in the learning of different lexical categories (adjectives - properties of objects, for example). This study aimed to compare the learning of name-texture relations (adjectives) in two exclusion teaching procedures.

    The study included 24 subjects, 12 typically developing (TD Group) and aged 5 and 6 years, and 12 with intellectual disabilities, aged 8-13 years (ID Group), all with level of language development between 5 and 6 years. The stimuli used were dictated words (names of different textures) and tactile stimuli (objects made with different textures, referring to the dictated names). The procedure had five phases. The first investigated whether the participants knew the names of familiar textures (rough and smooth) - baseline. Next, in the first condition two textures (tabby and granulated) were taught using additional contextual cue (CC Condition). In the second condition, another two textures (wrinkled and velvety) were taught in a teaching by exclusion procedure (NC Condition). After each condition, learning probes were conducted. The learning criterion was 100% correct responses; teaching blocks were conducted to achieve this criterion. One week after each condition, naming and learning probes were conducted. In the third and fourth phase, general maintenance probes (naming and learning) and generalization probes - (different objects with the same taught textures) were held, followed the last phase. At baseline phase, 17 participants required direct teaching of smooth and rough textures, nine ID Group and eight TD Group. In Phase 2 (teaching of name-texture relations) all participants learned two name-texture relations in each teaching condition (NC Condition and CC Condition).

    Both groups learned the two relations in both conditions, but the ID participants needed fewer teaching blocks in the CC Condition. There was no difference between groups and conditions for the maintenance of learning: all participants showed good maintenance of stimuli learning over the three surveys. At generalization probes the results were less accurate than in maintenance probes; only two participants had very accurate performance in generalization probes and three other participants showed average performance. Overall, both groups had a poor performance in the naming of probes.

    It discusses the role of contextual cues in teaching by exclusion procedures. These procedures are important because they promote learning with few mistakes, especially in participants with intellectual disabilities, and their study will certainly lead to the development of more effective teaching procedures for different populations.