This is bad, and it's far too common: Struggling learners fail to generalize what they've learned in class. When it's needed in other places, it seems "lost" or "foreign" to them.
In the example below, what Marco seems to have mastered in his resource program, he doesn't apply outside of class. Like many struggling learners, he has problems with a mysterious sounding concept: stimulus generalization.
Marco's mother
Marco's mother — a composite of many parents I've known — embodies the problem. Almost nightly, her fears wake and terrify her at 4 a.m. She said:
"Marco's teacher uses a great reinforcement system with him. He works hard to earn the rewards, and he's starting to enjoy learning. And he has a great IEP. It's only February, and his teachers tell me he's achieved his annual reading goals. So now, he's ready for new ones.
"His teacher and case manager say he's learned to recognize and understand lots of words. Every month, they show me his weekly progress tests, and they discuss them with me. But I wonder if the tests are wrong. What they say he's learned in resource class, he can't do at home, in his other classes or anywhere else. When he and I were in the supermarket, he couldn't read any of the words he read on the MP3 recordings from his resource teacher.
"What's wrong with him? If he does well in resource but no place else, what will happen to him? It's scary. He'll suffer. This is not real learning."
Unfortunately, Marco is not alone. Other struggling learners have problems with stimulus generalization.
In essence, Marco's resource teacher and case manager are probably right. In resource, he probably learned and remembered a lot. Elsewhere, however, he seems to have "lost" it. To his detriment, his IEP ignores stimulus generalization.
According to Robert A. Gable and Jo M. Hendrickson, stimulus generalization occurs when students respond correctly "to stimuli that differ from those present at the time of the intervention." Thus, as the next section will explain, programs that fail to address struggling learners' problems with stimulus generalization — problems like Marco's — are failing to meet the purpose of school.
The purpose of school
On the surface, the purpose of school seems simple and straightforward: to prepare students to become successful, self-sufficient, well-adjusted citizens who make positive contributions to society. In terms of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), the purpose of school and thus education is to meet children's "unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living."
In other words, schools are a means to an end. The purpose of education, including special education, goes beyond what struggling learners can do in school. The purpose is to effectively prepare them to function successfully, throughout life, in structured and unstructured environments, in and out of school.
Thus, stimulus generalization embodies the purpose of school.
In fact, without Marco generalizing what he's learning in resource class, he's gaining little. Given his abilities, his program is failing to effectively prepare him "for further education, employment and independent living."
Moreover, if his program continues to disregard his difficulties with stimulus generalization, his special and general education teachers will have to re-teach him everything important — wherever it's needed. Impossible.
Consequences
Fortunately, most children have few if any serious problems with stimulus generalization. But for struggling learners who do, Paul A. Alberto and Anne C. Troutman offer an excellent reason for schools to systematically promote stimulus generalization:
"It is meaningless to change behavior [or to strengthen academic abilities] unless the change can be made to last and behavior will occur in settings other than the original training site and in the absence of the original trainer. ... Special educators must prepare their students to perform in situations where systematic contingency management programs may not be available."
In Marco's situation, his resource class is the original training site, his teacher is the original trainer, and her reinforcement system is his systematic contingency management program.
Marco's mother expressed an important insight: If Marco can't apply what he learns — when and where it's needed — his life will be fraught with difficulties. I have a similar question: If struggling learners don't generalize the knowledge and skills they've mastered in class, such as subtraction, memory strategies and social competence, how successful will they fare in our competitive society? To me, the consequences are troubling; they'll be steep, debilitating and long-lasting.
In line with this, John W. Maag makes clear that:
"An important goal of any behavior management technique [and academics] is to promote generality of behavior change. ... [But] rarely will generalization occur simply by 'training [classroom teaching] and hoping' ... Generalization programming should be built into any intervention from its inception. It may be too late to program generalization if it is only addressed after an intervention has produced a desired behavior change."
Extending this line of reasoning to IEPs, Gable and Hendrickson assert that: "The measure of an IEP team's success rests on the extent to which positive changes in student behavior improve his or her life chances in school and beyond."
So, how will parents and teachers know if a child is successfully generalizing? The answers are usually straightforward. When he's away from specific classes or therapies — those in which he learned what he needs to generalize — does he routinely do so? And does he limit stimulus generalization to the right situations?
If the answers are yes, he's generalizing. For many children, this is or is almost natural. But for some struggling learners, success requires teachers to strategically integrate stimulus generalization into their lessons. The list is inclusive; it goes beyond math, reading and special education.
After teachers, and in some cases specialists, accurately identify the problem and its current causes, they need to plan, implement, monitor and adjust their interventions to foster stimulus generalization. And for those learners who don't relate their in-school instruction to the outside world, achieving success is easier said than done. But often, it can be done.
Stimulus generalization
Stimulus generalization occurs when "a child responds correctly to a variety of settings, people, materials and times of day." Accordingly, Marco needs to quickly and accurately assess the nature of nontraining situations. In other words, he needs to quickly and accurately assess all potential reading situations — in his other classes, at home and elsewhere — to see if he should apply what he's learned in resource class.
If appropriate, he should apply it. He should read whatever it's appropriate to read, when and wherever it's appropriate, in line with his abilities. Like Marco, other struggling learners should assess their current environments to identify any meaningful hints (stimuli) signaling they should correctly apply what they've learned.
If Marco sees large, explicit in and out signs on a supermarket's doors, he should use his knowledge to go in the in door and out the out door. When a 12-year-old sees his favorite uncle for the first time in weeks, it should signal him to say something like, "Hi Uncle David."
When you think of stimulus generalization problems in the social and behavioral areas, think of April and Bella, two 14-year-old twins who attend separate classes at Plattsburgh New York's Supportive Interventions Institute (SII), a hypothetical special education school that specializes in adolescents' anger and behavioral problems.
At SII, both twins do extremely well. Minute-by-minute, their behavior is quite good. In SII's highly structured, well-staffed and well-run system of applied behavior analysis, they enjoy abundant attention and ongoing opportunities to earn points to "buy" reinforcers they want.
Their home, however, is vastly different. It's where most of their problems arise. It's where they lose control. It's where they're angry. It's where they suddenly burst into rage against one another. It's where their parents can't provide the frequent attention and reinforcement they need.
Their parents can't do what SII can. They have long drives to and from work as well as other important and pressing obligations. They don't have a sophisticated system of applied behavior analysis like SII. They don't have the knowledge, skill, energy and opportunity needed to run such a program, a program that provides April and Bella with the frequent reinforcement they crave. Nor does their home display SII charts, photos or objects that might encourage them to use what they learned at SII.
All this, plus their verbal, sometimes physical histories of sibling rage encourages more clashes. When April or Bella sees a good opportunity to attack the other, she attacks. They disregard SII's lessons on active listening, problem solving and conflict resolution. Their hostility and anger create intense, ongoing anxiety and despair throughout their home.
As I have learned in my 30-plus years of teaching graduate school, directing and coordinating programs, helping families, and observing, evaluating and assisting numerous special education programs, Marco, April and Bella have company. Other struggling learners have difficulty with stimulus generalization.
Because of this, some — like April and Bella — suffer greatly. So do their families.
Complexity
Stimulus-generalization instruction can prove complex, especially when it needs to occur in places like McDonald's or a struggling learner's home. Causes of complexity often involve staffing, insurance, transportation, curriculum coordination and permissions for off-site instruction.
To minimize or prevent such complexity, IEP teams need to write off-site instruction into struggling learners' IEPs. This requires teams to place explicit, valid and comprehensive justifications for off-site instruction in the IEPs' Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP).
Teams should then use the justifications and other PLAAFP information to develop meaningful, measurable and manageable goals and progress monitoring plans — ones that clearly prepare learners to succeed in the kinds of environments they'll face as they seek greater independence. Soon afterward, teams should get the needed permissions and arrange for staffing, transportation and continuous curriculum coordination with all the learners' teachers.
Complexity can increase if school administrators believe the instructional responsibility of schools ends at school borders. Consequently, they're prone to resist efforts to remedy stimulus-generalization problems that require off-site instruction. Regrettably, many parents of struggling learners automatically accept this centuries-old tradition.
From an educational perspective, this ignores IDEA's statements and Congress' findings that support community involvement: "An effective educational system serving students with disabilities should ... promote transition services and coordinate state and local education, social, health, mental health and other services, in addressing the full range of student needs, particularly the needs of children with disabilities who need significant levels of support to participate and learn in school and the community."
By not providing or arranging for essential off-site instruction and related supports, schools may well be ignoring IDEA's requirement for individualization that's responsive to learners' "unique needs" and sufficiently prepares each learner "for further education, employment, and independent living."
(In the preceding paragraph, the phrase "may well" is a caution about the federal courts. I raise this issue as educational and legal perspectives can easily differ. Moreover, the degree to which federal circuit courts differ about the student benefits needed to achieve a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) often affects what states and schools will do to help struggling learners. Some circuit courts require greater and some lesser benefit. As of October 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that may create a uniform federal standard of benefit for all struggling learners.)
In-school and parent efforts
Fortunately, solutions to many stimulus-generalization problems can effectively focus on in-school and parent efforts. If, for example, Marco's general education teachers start to help him generalize, he can probably generalize what he's learned in resource class to his other classes.
Some of these teachers, an aide or a socially and academically competent student might review Marco's new words with him in both his resource and his general education rooms. This takes only minutes and doesn't involve special teaching strategies. He might also watch himself on short videos, successfully reviewing words with some of his general education teachers.
His parents can also foster stimulus generalization. At home, they can help him review his words. They might do the same in or near community locations, like libraries and restaurants.
IEPs and instruction
Successful efforts to strengthen stimulus generalization require strong IEPs with goals that directly and decisively stress it. Here's a sample of a goal and sequential objectives that start the process for Jose, a struggling learner who needs direct instruction in the community.
Generalization Goal 1: On four successive occasions at a busy McDonald's, Jose will independently order a medium smoothie and independently pay for it with the exact amount of dollar bills and change.
Generalization Objective 1: Using real money, Jose will make change of a dollar using three different sets of coins. By the end of the first marking period, he will achieve this correctly on two of two trials daily over 10 successive school days.
Generalization Objective 2: Using real money, Jose will make change of $5 using three different sets of $1 bills and coins. By the end of the second marking period, he will achieve this correctly on two of two trials daily over 10 successive school days.
Generalization Objective 3: At a relatively empty McDonald's, Jose will order a medium smoothie and independently pay for it with the exact amount of dollar bills and change. He will correctly and independently do this on four successive occasions by the end of thethird marking period.
Generalization Objective 4: At a busy McDonald's, Jose will order a medium smoothie and independently pay for it with the exact amount of dollar bills and change. He will correctly and independently do this on four successive occasions by the end of the four marking period.
As you can see, Jose's goal requires teaching him outside of school, in a real McDonald's. Teachers, however, will likely need to first teach him the essential, underlying concepts and skills in school.
This may involve watching and discussing videos of the local McDonald’s and role-playing: "I'd like an order of hot cakes." The videos and role-playing are not ends in themselves; they simply start the process of teaching Jose to generalize.
Most likely, fostering stimulus generalization will also require teaching variations of this goal, variations that focus on ordering food in a variety of restaurants, with a variety of menus, servers and ordering practices. At one restaurant, a female server might ask, "What would you like?" At another, a male server might ask, "How can I help you?" For Jose to generalize, he will probably need guided and independent experiences in a variety of restaurants.
Jose's fourth objective asks him to order a medium smoothie and independently and correctly pay for it at a busy McDonald's. This will likely require training loosely in school and helping Jose to observe the McDonald's at a busy time.
Training loosely tends to gradually and systematically move away from highly-valued special education structures, ones that are relatively quiet, organized, academically focused and systematically reinforcing. In contrast, looser structures tend to be somewhat noisy, disorganized-looking, less focused and free of planned reinforcement.
Because training in looser structures starts to mirror the reality that struggling learners face outside of school, they tend to support generalization. For Jose, they can help him transition from Objective 3 (ordering at a relatively empty McDonald's) to Objective 4 (ordering at a busier — and probably noisier — one).
For April and Bella, looser structures at SII might help them generalize to their home's noisier, somewhat disorganized, less focused and less reinforcing environment.
Families
As previously discussed, families can sometimes help. To succeed, they need ample time, opportunity, energy, flexibility, optimism, patience, emotional strength and instructional ability.
Usually, parents and children also need strong, positive relationships. If any of these is missing, success may prove impossible.
Obviously, April and Bella's parents can't satisfy these requirements. In their home, they're going to need ongoing professional help. Ideally, the teen's school will provide such services or arrange for them through other sources of funding and services.
If so, the parents — and if possible, April and Bella — should collaborate with all their in-home staff to create and implement a strong program of counseling and applied behavior analysis. If the parents can't effectively implement all or part of the proposed program, the professionals alone will need to do so.
To prevent possible confusion and to extend what's working at SII, April and Bella's in-home behavioral program should, in some respects, closely resemble SII's. Simultaneously, the power of the SII program to generalize might well increase if it provides April and Bella with lots of help to behave appropriately and use their social and behavioral skills in modestly noisy, unstructured situations, like their home.
Its power might also increase if, with April and Bella, it uses video self-modeling. This involves showing April and Bella short videos of their acting appropriately at home, while their teachers verbally reinforce them for using SII's listening, problem-solving and conflict-resolution strategies. The videos might also be used to elicit discussions of what worked, what didn't and why.
Two sets of problems, however, may impede the potential stimulus generalization effects of April and Bella's SII program and any proposed in-home one. The first set involves their parents' numerous obligations and depleted energy. The second, and perhaps the far more controlling one, is April and Bella's history of frequent, nasty and intense conflicts with one another.
If they continue to frequently and suddenly rage against one another, efforts to support stimulus generalization may fail. Regardless of their in-home staff's or parents' efforts to prevent or resolve these rages, the sisters' intense hostility may prove insurmountable. Other solutions will then be needed.
The classroom
Fortunately, most struggling learners do not need in-home or extensive community support from professionals. Often, teachers and schools can successfully promote stimulus generalization by bringing the home and community into their classrooms.
Teachers, for example, can create activities in which struggling learners view and discuss photos and videos of their generalizing in their communities.
In class, learners can interview community visitors, such as librarians, firefighters and supermarket managers. Teachers might also fill their classrooms with items from the learners' homes and communities, which learners can use during role-play simulations and teachers can use during other type lessons. These items might promote stimulus generalization.
Consider this hypothetical example of bringing the community into the classroom. For years, Juana's parents have supported her ambition to become a firefighter. When she visits her aunt's fire station, she listens carefully, attends to what's happening and painstakingly does what she's asked to do.
In reading class, however, it's different. Here, she's usually disruptive and off-task.
Luckily, Ms. McCormick, a friendly, nurturing and directive firefighter is part of her union's mentoring program for reading. When tutoring Juana in school, she has agreed to wear her blue uniform. Hopefully, her uniform will improve Juana's reading behavior and attention to tasks, producing good gains in reading.
Similarly, procedures and stimuli that substantially improve struggling learners' behavior and academics in one class might work in others and at home. For example, if Juana has learned to listen carefully, attend to tasks and make reasonable efforts to succeed in reading, and her reading teacher and Ms. McCormick have reinforced this — while the teacher wore blue and Ms. McCormick wore her blue firefighter's jacket — Juana's other teachers and parents might well wear blue clothing.
Additionally, Juana's parents and general education teachers might use the same reinforcement procedures her reading teacher and Ms. McCormick used to improve her behavior. For a few weeks, her reading teacher might also co-teach reading with some of Juana's other teachers. One or a combination of these possibilities may well improve Juana's attentiveness and on-task behavior at home and in all her classes.
Conclusion
For struggling learners without the will, capacity or knowledge to readily generalize to appropriate situations, it's imperative that their IEPs, teachers and support staff knowledgeably, skillfully and systematically remedy their difficulties. This helps to satisfy the moral imperative that drives many school personnel: "to improve students' lives." It also helps schools to satisfy IDEA's purpose — to effectively prepare struggling learners "for further education, employment and independent living."
To meet IDEA's purpose for struggling learners with stimulus generalization difficulties, IEP teams need to develop IEPs that decisively state, in their PLAAFP, goals and progress-monitoring sections, the importance of systematic instruction to strengthen stimulus generalization.
Though it may sound idealistic, successfully implementing such IEPs will not only improve the lives of struggling learners and their families, but seeing learners' make important growth will likely strengthen the satisfaction of teachers and other school staff — two powerful, important goals.
