OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING AND THE EMERGENCE OF SYMMETRYRELATIONS IN TEACHING SPANISH VOCABULARY WORDS TO

TYPICALLY DEVELOPING CHILDREN

JOLINE RAMIREZ AND RUTH ANNE REHFELDT

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

One 9-year-old child was taught conditional discriminations between dictated names in Spanishand their corresponding pictures across three stimulus sets while her 10-year-old brotherobserved. Posttests revealed the emergence of symmetry relations in the form of oral namingskills by both children.

DESCRIPTORS: observational learning, second language, symmetry relations

_______________________________________________________________________________

The stimulus equivalence paradigm hasseldom been used to teach second-languageskills (see Joyce, Joyce, & Wellington, 1993),although it seems to be an efficient means ofteaching second-language words and phrases.Programming for the emergence of skills viaobservational learning might also lend itself tosecond-language instruction, because instruc-tion in most educational settings is provided ina group format. MacDonald, Dixon, andLeBlanc (1986) demonstrated that symmetryrelations between arbitrary line figures emergedin adults with mental retardation after theparticipants observed a peer being taught thebaseline conditional discriminations (see alsoRehfeldt, Latimore, & Stromer, 2003). Thepurpose of the present study was to examine theeffects of an instructional protocol that arrangedfor the emergence of symmetry relations in theform of picture naming via observation in thecontext of teaching Spanish vocabulary words.If effective, such a protocol may be aneconomical means of teaching second-languageand other academic skills.

METHOD

Participants

Two typically developing siblings with no priorhistory of formal instruction with the Spanishlanguage participated. Danny, who served as theobserver, was a 10-year 5-month-old boy, andWendy, who served as the learner, was a 9-year 2-month-old girl. Participants were compensatedwith $20 gift cards to an electronics store.

Setting and Apparatus

All sessions, which were approximately30 min long, took place in a room (0.9 m by1.2 m) with a desk, chair, computer monitor,and a laptop computer. During training, theobserver sat in an extra chair to the left of thescreen, approximately 30 cm from the learner.The experiment was programmed in MicrosoftVisual Basic Studio 2005.

Experimental Design

A multiple probe design (Hanley, Heal,Tiger, & Ingvarsson, 2007; Horner & Baer,1978) across three sets of four stimuli each wasused. Both participants completed pre- andposttest probe trials with all three sets of stimuli,but only Wendy completed conditional dis-crimination training with the three sets.

Stimuli

Three sets of four stimuli each were includedin the experiment, including animals (Set 1),

This study constituted the master’s project completedby the first author under supervision of the second authorin the Behavior Analysis and Therapy program atSouthern Illinois University.

Address correspondence to Ruth Anne Rehfeldt,Mailcode 4609, Rehabilitation Services Program, Reha-bilitation Institute, Southern Illinois University, Carbon-dale, Illinois 62901 (e-mail: rehfeldt@siu.edu).

doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-801

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2009, 42, 801–805 NUMBER 4 (WINTER 2009)

801

household furniture or appliances (Set 2), andclothing or jewelry items (Set 3).

Procedure

Pretests, posttests, and maintenance probes. Thematching of dictated Spanish names to thecorresponding picture was evaluated for bothparticipants for all three stimulus sets (A-Brelations). The participant who was not beingtested was out of hearing and visual rangeduring these test trials. Prior to pretest trials, theexperimenter told each participant, ‘‘You willhear a word and see four pictures. I want you toclick the mouse once on the picture that is yourchoice. You may click start when you areready.’’

Testing was conducted in eight-trial blocks.The presentation of the dictated name inSpanish marked the onset of each trial andwas followed half a second later by the displayof four comparison stimuli evenly spaced acrossthe center of the computer screen. Theparticipant was required to click the computermouse on a comparison stimulus to indicate hisor her selection. The order of sample-stimuluspresentations and the positioning of compari-son stimuli were determined randomly, buteach sample stimulus was presented twice pereight-trial block. No feedback was provided forcorrect or incorrect responses. Data collectionwas automated. Danny’s criterion for exclusionwas 50% accuracy or higher during the pretestsfor any of the stimulus sets.

The naming task (B-A symmetry relations)consisted of eight trials, with each individualstimulus being presented on the computerscreen twice. Trials began when the experi-menter asked the participant, ‘‘What is this inSpanish?’’ in the presence of one of the stimuli.Trials ended when the participant clicked on abutton marked ‘‘next’’ to advance to the nexttrial. Responses were recorded on paper by theexperimenter and were marked as correct if theparticipant articulated a word that sounded likethe correct name. Native-like pronunciationwas not required for a response to be scored as

correct. No feedback was provided for corrector incorrect responses. Symmetry relations wereinferred to be intact during pretests or to haveemerged during posttests when a participantscored seven of eight correct for three consec-utive eight-trial blocks.

If Wendy failed to demonstrate criterionperformance on posttests for either task, she wasexposed to one remedial block of conditionaldiscrimination training. If Danny failed todemonstrate criterion performance on posttestsfor either task, he watched Wendy complete oneadditional block of conditional discriminationtraining.

Maintenance probes for both tasks wereconducted 1 month after training.

Conditional discrimination training. Wendywas given the following instructions:

You will hear a word and see four pictures. I wantyou to click the mouse once on the picture that isyour choice. Do not talk to Danny or ask him forhelp. You may click start when you are ready.

Danny was provided with the followinginstructions: ‘‘You will watch and listen asWendy completes the task. Please pay carefulattention. Please do not talk to, answer, or helpWendy. Also, do not point to the right answer.’’Wendy’s training was conducted in eight-trialblocks, with each sample stimulus beingpresented twice per block. Training wasidentical to test probes for matching dictatednames to pictures except that automatedfeedback was provided for correct and incorrectresponses. Mastery criterion was seven of eightcorrect responses.

Interobserver Agreement and Dependent MeasureThe dependent measure was the percentage

of correct responses during test probes, withDanny’s performance being of primary interest.Interobserver agreement was collected duringthe naming test because data collection was notautomated during naming pretests or posttests.Iinterobserver agreement was assessed on 35%,48%, and 43% of the test trials for StimulusSets 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and was calculated

802 JOLINE RAMIREZ and RUTH ANNE REHFELDT

by dividing the number of agreements by thenumber of agreements plus disagreements andmultiplying by 100%. Agreement was 100%across all sets.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figures 1 and 2 show that neither Danny norWendy demonstrated criterion performance oneither task for any of the three stimulus setsduring pretest probes. Wendy did perform with100% accuracy on the picture identificationtask on her first pretest probe for Set 2, but the

relations were not stable, in that performanceon the task was no higher than 50% accurate onsubsequent pretest probes. She mastered Stim-ulus Sets 1 and 2 following one training blockand Set 3 following five training blocks.

Figure 1 shows that Danny did not demon-strate criterion performance on the conditionaldiscrimination or naming tests for Set 1 duringthe first posttest probes following training(although his scores were substantially higherthan his pretest scores). After observing Wen-

Figure 1. Percentage of Danny’s correct responses oneach stimulus set. Solid lines represent initial training, anddashed lines represent the observation of remedialconditional discrimination training blocks with Wendy.

Figure 2. Percentage of Wendy’s correct responses oneach stimulus set. Solid lines represent initial training, anddashed lines represent the completion of remedialconditional discrimination training blocks.

LEARNING SYMMETRY RELATIONS 803

dy’s first remedial training block, he demon-strated criterion performance on both tasksacross three posttests. Danny’s first posttestscore for Set 2 was at criterion for both tasks,but his accuracy on the subsequent naming testswas variable. Danny then watched Wendycomplete one training block with Set 2 andthen demonstrated criterion performance onboth tasks across three posttests. On Set 3, hedid not immediately demonstrate criterionperformance on both tasks (even though Wendyhad completed five training blocks), but did sofollowing his observation of Wendy’s comple-tion of one more training block. Thus, Dannyobserved one remedial training block for eachstimulus set before demonstrating criterionperformance on posttest probes.

Figure 2 indicates that Wendy did notdemonstrate criterion performance on eithertest on the posttests following training ofStimulus Set 1. For this reason, one block ofremedial conditional discrimination trainingwas conducted, after which two more posttestswere conducted for each task, on which sheagain failed to demonstrate criterion perfor-mance. Following a second block of remedialtraining, she met criterion performance on theconditional discrimination but not the namingtask. She was then directly taught one name forone stimulus in the set, after which she namedthe remaining stimuli in the set across threeposttests. Thus, three blocks of remedialtraining were conducted for Wendy followingfailed posttest performance for Set 1. Shedemonstrated mastery criterion on each trainingblock. She demonstrated criterion performanceon both tasks on the first three posttest probesfor Sets 2 and 3.

Danny performed with 100% accuracy onthe conditional discrimination and namingtasks for Stimulus Set 1 during maintenanceprobes (Figure 1). He performed with 75%accuracy on the conditional discrimination taskand 100% accuracy on the naming task for Set2, after which time he observed Wendy

complete one remedial block of conditionaldiscrimination training. He then performedwith 100% accuracy on the conditional dis-crimination task. He performed with 100%accuracy on the conditional discrimination taskand 50% accuracy on the naming task for Set 3.He then observed Wendy complete one reme-dial block of conditional discrimination train-ing, after which his performance on the namingtask did not improve. Following his observationof one more training block, he performed with100% accuracy on the naming task. Thus,Danny observed one block of remedial condi-tional discrimination training with Wendybefore he demonstrated skill maintenance onboth tasks for Sets 2 and 3.

Wendy performed with 100% accuracy onboth tasks for both Stimulus Sets 1 and 2 duringmaintenance probes, and 100% accuracy for theconditional discrimination task for Set 3, butonly 75% accuracy on the naming test for Set 3(Figure 2). One block of conditional discrimi-nation training with Set 3 was then completed,after which she performed with 100% accuracyon the naming task for the Set 3 stimuli.

These results demonstrate that symmetryrelations can emerge based on observation:Not only were the conditional discriminationsthat Wendy was taught acquired by Danny viaobservation, but the derived symmetry relations(picture naming) were found to emerge solelyon the basis of observing Wendy match dictatednames to pictures (see also MacDonald et al.,1986). To show the emergence of all untaughtrelations, Danny observed a very small numberof training blocks. Thus, arranging for theobservation of a peer completing conditionaldiscrimination training may be a desirableapproach to teaching basic language skills.

REFERENCES

Hanley, G. P., Heal, N. A., Tiger, J. H., & Ingvarsson, E.T. (2007). Evaluation of a classwide teaching programfor developing preschool life skills. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 40, 277–300.

804 JOLINE RAMIREZ and RUTH ANNE REHFELDT

Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probetechnique: A variation of the multiple baseline.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.

Joyce, B. G., Joyce, J. H., & Wellington, B. (1993). Usingstimulus equivalence procedures to teach relationshipsbetween English and Spanish words. Education andTreatment of Children, 16, 48–65.

MacDonald, R. P. F., Dixon, L. S., & LeBlanc, J. M.(1986). Stimulus class formation following observa-tional learning. Analysis and Intervention in Develop-mental Disabilities, 6, 73–87.

Rehfeldt, R. A., Latimore, D., & Stromer, R. (2003).Observational learning and the formation of classes ofreading skills by individuals with autism and otherdevelopmental disabilities. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 24, 333–358.

Received March 27, 2008Final acceptance August 11, 2008Action Editor, Chris Ninness

LEARNING SYMMETRY RELATIONS 805