2021, 9999, 1-15 Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis NoneR 9999 0) Teaching a small forcign language vocabulary to children using tact and listener instruction with a prompt delay Mariéle Diniz Cortez ® Deparcamento de Psicologia, Universidade Federal de Sio Carlos, io Carls, Bra and Insticuto Nacional de Cigncia ¢ Teenologia sobre Comportamento, Cogaigio ¢ Ensino, Brazil Leticia F. da Silva® Departamento de Piclogia, Universidade Federal de Sio Carlos, So Catlos, Bra Mirela Cengher © Department of Paychology, University of Mayland, Bakimore Councy Rafael H. Mazzoca® Departamento de Pisog, Universidade Fede de Sio Calon Sio Calas, Br and Tasco "Nacional de Céncae Tecnologia sobre Comportmento, Cognisio Enno, Bra Caio F. Miguel © Deparenen of Poychology, Calomia State Universi, Sacrament, “This study consisted of systematic replication of previous research examining the effects of cee and listener instuction on the emergence of native-to-foreign (NF) and. foreig-to-native (GN) incaverbals in children who had experienced difcukies learning to rad and write. We ausigned diferent sets of imal o tact and lence conditions, and taghs 4 children to tact oF respond at lintenery in a foreign language using a progresive prompt delay with diferenil ein- forcement All pariipancs mastered tats and listener tesponss in the foreige language. For all pat~ Seipancs,cact instruction yielded greater emergence of intaverbals compared to lene instruction, Tac instruction also produced all possible bidirectional (NF and FN) intrverbals relations for 3 of 4 parcipans, but listener instruction never resulted in the emergence ofall posible relations ‘These rerutsreplieste previs findings naggesting that tact insriction ie a more efcent way (0 ‘each 3 foreign language and extend thems to progressive prompt delay procedures ‘Key words The study was supported by grants fiom CNPq, (#465686/2014-1) and FAPESP (42014/50909-8), both swatded co she National Insite of Science and Technol- ‘ogy on Behavior, Cognition, and Teaching (INCT-ECCE). “The sxcond author had 2 research scholarship fiom CNPq (PIBIC). The fourth author had a research scholarship fom. the Coordenacio de Apetegcamento de Pesoal de Nive Superior (CAPES, # $8887-488435/2020-00). This seudy war parilly financed by the Coordenagio de Apereigoamento de Pesoal de Nivel Superior ~ Brasil (CAPES; Finance Code 001). We thank Deby G. de Sous leader of the INCT ECCE, for her encouragement and suppor. ‘Address correspondence co: Mariéle Diniz Cone, Departamento de Pricologis, Universidade Federal de Si0 Carlos, Via Washington Luis Km 235, Sie Catlos, SP 13965-905, Brazil. Email: masile@euficar br doi: 10.1002/jaba 885 emergent behavior, foreign language, intravetba, listener, act ‘There are as many bilingual children as chere are monolingual children in the world, with 21% of the school-aged children in the United States of, America growing up in bilingual households (Lowry, 2020). In the process of learning their native language, neurorypical children learn co sespond as listeners (eg, by pointing to objects or following directions) and as speakers (ie, by acquiring the basic verbal operants, such as the mand, the tact, the echoic, and the intraverbal; Hore & Lowe, 1996; Skinnet, 1957). Once these functional relations are formed, children develop stimulus classes consisting of verbal and nonverbal stimuli (eg., the picture of a dog, the (© 2021 Society for che Experimental Analysis of Behavior (SEAB).2 Mariéle Diniz: Cortez et al und of barking, and the auditory stimulus “dog”), and their speaker and listener repertoires become integrated such that learning a novel rela- tion typically results in the emergence of others (Ge, bidirectional naming: Miguel, 2016) Learning a foreign-language vocabulary may bbe conceptualized as adding additional stimuli to already established stimulus (eg. Fienup et al, 2010), which may be more cfficient than establishing novel stimulus classes (eg. Nedeleu et al, 2015). For example, a child whose native language is English may learn that “dog” in Portuguese is “cachorro” (ie., intraverbal relation between the native and foreign stimuli). This instruction serves to add the auditory stimulus “‘cachorro” to an already established class that may include actual dogs, pictures of dogs, the English printed word dog, and the English auditory stimulus “dog,” This class expansion may lead the child to say “cachorro” in the presence of a picture of a dog (i.e., tact relation), select the picture of the dog when hearing the word “cachorro” (je, listener relation), and say “dog” when hearing “‘cachorto” (ie, reverse intraverbal rela- tion) without direct instruction. There is a growing body of literature examin- ing the effectiveness of teaching a foreign lan guage using behavior analytic procedures (Cortez et al, 2020; Daly & Dowvani, 2020; Davidson & O'Connor, 2019; Dounavi, 2011, 2014; Matter et al, 2020; May et al, 2016, 2019; Pet- ursdotir & HafliDadéuir, 2009; Pecursdottir et al, 2008; Rosales et al, 2012; H. Wu & Miller, 2007; W. I. Wu et al., 2019), Overall, these studies focused on ceaching a subset of skills (eg. listener and tact responses) and probing the ‘emergence of others (e.g, intraverbal responses) to evaluate the most effective and efficent arrangements, The current study represents a sys- tematic replication of Pecursdottir et al. (2008) and Cortez et al. (2020), both of which com: pared the effects of tact and listener instruction fon the emergence of bidirectional intraverbals (ce, native co foreign and foreign to native). Pecursdottir et al. (2008) assigned four 5-year old Icelandic children to either a tact or a listener insruction condition. The authors praised correct independent responses in a foreign language (ie, Spanish) and corrected errors inc nonresponding) by providing the correct vocal response or pointing to the correct stimulus during tact and listener instruction, respectively. ‘The par- ticipants were required to engage in an active response during error correction, by echoing the expetimenter’s vocal response (in the tact condi- tion) or imitating the pointing response to the cor rect stimulus (in the listener condition). Pre- and postinstruction, the authors conducted bidirec- tional intraverbal probes (ic, Spanish-Ieclandic and Ieelandie-Spanish) in the absence of reinforce ‘ment, co evaluate the emergence of this verbal operant. Participants acquired tacts and listener responses in Spanish. However, listener instruction did not result in the emergence of intraverbals as reliably as tact instruction, This outcome is impor- tant as it can inform the development of eflective and efficient procedures to teach a forcign language. A possible ct al, (2008) was the use of a between-subjects design with a small number of participants (ie., two for each condition), so the observed differences could have been a function of par- rant characteristics, Ina follow-up study, Cortez et al. (2020) conducted within-subject comparisons of tact and listener instruction neurotypical Brazilian children, between 7 and 9 years of age. The authors assigned six different stimuli to each condition (ie, tace and listener instruction) using an adapted alternating treatments design (Sindelar et al., 1985). The authors implemented the same experimental conditions as Petursdotcir et al. (2008) and replicated all procedures including the reinforcement parameters and the error correction while teaching English words to native Portuguese speakers. The outcomes were consistent with Petursdottir et al. (2008), in that tact yielded greater limitation of Petursdowir with sixTeaching a Foreign Language 3 intraverbal emergence than listener instruction, especially for the native-to-foreign relation, Both Pecursdottir et al. (2008) and Corez et al. (2020) implemented an error correction procedure with an active response when pattici- pants responded incorrectly or when they did not respond within 10 s of the presentation of the discriminative stimulus. This arrangement stands in contrast to errorless procedures, such. as a progressive prompt delay, during which immediate prompts ate programmed. before being delayed (Walker, 2008). The primary purpose of the present study was to replicate previous comparisons of tact and_ listener instruction using a progressive prompt delay instead of providing prompts only following errors. We speculated that using prompt-delay procedures instead of error correction proce- dures might enhance the emergence of bidirec- tional intraverbals because of the temporal parameters of prompting and prompt fading. Specifically, during initial cals of tact instruc- tion, participants are presented with a target picture and immediately prompted to respond in the foreign language. Given that the target picture already evokes a tact in the native lan- guage, participants could tact the picture this ‘way before echoing the experimenters prompt in the foreign language. Emitting responses in both languages may serve to establish their intraverbal relation (i.c., contiguous usage; Skinner, 1957). The same could happen during listener instruction, when participants may tact, the picture indicated by the experimenter's prompt in the native language while echoing its foreign name (ie, the sample). Indeed, research shows that prompts can play an impor- tant role primarily due to their temporal rela tion with the sample and comparison stimuli (Gee et al., 2020). On the other hand, when relying solely on error correction procedures, participants may simply respond co targets (ie, tac) in their native language and not respond in the foreign language untill several seconds later, if an incorrect response is made and a prompticorrection is delivered. This delay may weaken or slow down the establish- ‘ment of intraverbals. In addition, participants are more likely to contact reinforcement and less likely to make errors when an ertorless procedure (ie., constant and progressive-prompt delays) is employed (Sidman & Stoddard, 1967; Touchette, 1968). For these reasons, the general- iy of foreign language instruction and evalua tions of their relative effectiveness should be replicated across different prompting procedures, especially the ones that have the potential to increase che emergence of untrained relations. For example, if a particular procedure were to enhance the effects of listener instruction on emergent relations, differences bevween tact and. listener instruction might be eliminated Another limitation of Cortez. et al. (2020) and Pevussdotcir et al. (2008) is that the authors did not report treatment integrity or maintenance data, Data confirming the integ- tity of the independent variable are necessary to evaluate the internal validity of the studies. In addition, long-term maintenance is a social and ecological goal of research examining the acqui- sition of a foreign language. Thus, in addition to employing a progressive prompt delay instead of error correction procedures, we extended the procedures described in the afore- mentioned studies by (a) collecting treatment incegrity data, and (b) evaluating the long-term effects of the teaching procedures ‘Method Participants and Setting Participants were four children aged 7 to 9 years old (P1 to P4; two boys and two gies) who attended the same public school. They resided in Brazil, and their native language was Portuguese. ‘The participants did not have any documented diagnoses; however, they were referred by their teachers to a behavior-analytic. research program that aimed to increase reading and writing skills (de Souza et al, 2009) because4 Mariéle Diniz: Cortex et al of their deficits in these arcas. Their reading skills were assessed prior to this study and the assess- ment was conducted as part of a large reading and writing behavior-analytic teaching program (as described in de Souza et al, 2009). All partic- ipants scored below 33% connect reading responses in the assessment, which was com- posed of 15 sample words Even though participants did not receive any formal education in another language, it is pos- sible that they were incidentally exposed to English through TV shows, movies, and adver- tising billboards. Therefore, to control for their possible previous learning history, the experi menters only included English words that par- ticipants could not emit as (acts or respond to as listeners during the preassessment (described below). Sessions occurred on average 3 days per week and lasted 10 to 15 min (owo to four six-trial blocks per session). They were conducted in a 3 by 3 m laboratory room with cwo rectangular desks, six chairs, and a digital camera used to record sessions. Stimulus Selection and Stimulus Assignment Stimuli included 18 color pictures (8 cm by 10 cm) displayed on a white background and their corresponding English and Porcuguese spoken words (auditory stimuli) taken from Cortez et al. (2020). The pictures depicted six animals, six fruits, or six kitchen items. Table 4 and instruction conditions, each participant was exposed to only ewo G-stimulus sets. The Howevs ring intraverbal pre- and posttests sets were assigned to cach participant based on their performance during the preassessment and intraverbal pretest (see “Preassessment” and “Intraverbal Pre- and Posttest” sections) Initially, the experimenter conducted the pre- assessment and the intraverbal pretest only with ‘owo out of the three stimulus sets (ie, animal and fruit sets). The experimenter replaced an entire stimulus set if participants responded correctly to the same target or more than one target two different times during intraverbal pretests. Therefore, because P1 and P3 responded correctly to some stimuli in the fruit category during the intraverbal pretest, the experimenters introduced a third stimulus set consisting of six kitchen items, After determin- ing the two stimulus sets for each participant based on preassessment and intraverbal pretest results, the experimenter replaced a single target if the participants (a) responded, on average, 33%) and above a level indicative of chance (ie throughout the listener trial blocks, (6) responded correctly to the same target wo different times during the tact tests (see Tact and Listener Tests section) The two 6-stimulus sets assigned for each participant consisted of fruits and animals for P2 and P4, and animals and kitchen appliances for P1 and P3 (See Table 1). Stinvuli in each set were part of the same category to ensure social relevance. Stimuli were selected for each Targes Words in Portuguese (Native Language) and English (Foreign Language) for Each Stimulus Set ine imal Kien Kee Fomugune Engle Ponuguce Eaghah Fomgune Engle Now “pole ‘cachor Dog Cale Spoon Unt Gaye Gate cat Gao Fok Lanna Orange Pisa Bid Face rife Peege Peach Vacs Cow Copo Git Goisbe Guava Pee Foch Fogio Stove Pea Paar Gavala Horse Canees MugTeaching a Foreign Language 5 set based on the following criteria: (@) the num- ber of syllables in each word (Le. foreign words were one-syllable words except for three words in the fruit set which were two-syllable words fapple, guava, and orangel), (b) initial letters could only be the same if the configuration of the words was different, (c) the configuration of words within a set could not be similar, (d) she ‘visual stimuli had to be of different shape and color to ensure visual disparity within a. set (©) participants’ performance during the incraverbal pretest, tact, and listener tests was similar across target stimuli, () participants could pronounce each word in the foreign and native languages during the preassessment, and (@) participants could act the words in Portu- guese during the preassessment. The experi menters determined that stimuli met the first three criteria (a to d) prior to collecting data ‘One improvement over Cortez et al. (2020) was that the experimenters counterbalanced the assignment of one stimulus set (ie., animal set) to conditions (ie, tact or listener) across partic ‘pants (Grow & LeBlanc, 2013) to better equate stimulus difficulty across conditions. That is, the experimenter assigned the animal set co the listener condition for two participants (P2 and PA) and the tact condition for the other two participants (PI and P3). In Cortez et al. (2020), the animal set was assigned to the tact condition for 5 out of 6 participants. The experimenter was not able to counterbalance the second stimulus set to conditions across participants due to cheir performance during the incraverbal pretests. Specifically, P1 and P3 responded correctly to some stimuli in the fruit category during the intraverbal pretest, and as a result, the experimenters introduced a third stimulus set consisting of six kitchen items. In the present study, P1 and P3 received tact instruction on the animal set and. listener inscruction on the kitchen items set. P2 and P4 received tact instruction on the fruit set and lis- tener instruction on the animal set. Dependent Variables and Response Measurement The dependent variables included indepen- dent correct tact and listener responses during instruction, number of six-trial blocks to mas- tery, and correct Native-to-Foreign (NF) and Forcign-to-Native (FN) intraverbal_ responses during pre-and posttest. A tact was recorded as correct when the participant emitted a vocal response in the presence of the visual stimulus and the instruction “What is this in English?”, and the vocal response corresponded to the visual stimulus (c.g. the participant said “dog” when presented with the picture of a dog). For tact instruction, this response had to occur prior to the prompt (independent response). A correct listener response was recorded when participants pointed to the visual stimulus corresponding to its English (forcign) name after the instruction “Point to the [English name]!” For listener instruction, the response had to occur prior to the gestural prompt. Dur- ing the tact instruction condition, an incorrect response consisted of failure to respond before the prompt, or emitting a response that did not correspond to the visual stimulus before the prompt (eg. saying “cow” when presented with a picture of a dog). For listener instruction trials, an incorrect response consisted of failure to point before the prompt, pointing to a visual stimulus that did not correspond to the vocal discriminative stimulus (cg., pointing t a cow when being instructed to point co dog), or pointing to two or more stimuli concurrently. Correct tact and listener responses were defined. the same way at pretest blocks except the response had to occur within 10 s (no promp®) During the intraverbal trials, a conrect response was recorded when participants vocalized the English (foreign) equivalent of the Portuguese (native) word or vice-versa within 10 s of the question “How do we say [Portuguese name] in English?” or “What docs [English name] mean in Portuguese?” respectively. The experimenters6 Mariéle Diniz: Cortez et al probed both the NF and the FN intraverbals to evaluate whether bidirectional relations between stimuli in che two languages emerged. For pre assessment, correct responses were recorded when participants accurately tacted the visual stimuli in Portuguese (native) and echoed the English (foreign) word corresponding to the thin. 10 s of the questions “What is Say [English word],” respectively. The ‘experimenter recorded all these data on paper ‘We also collected data on overt echoic responses during listener instruction. The pur- pose of collecting these data was to evaluate whether spontaneous overt echoics in the for cign language would be correlated to the estab- lishment of responses. and the emergence of intraverbals. The experimenter watched the session-recorded videos to collect data on the overt echoie responses. An echoic response had point-to-point correspondence with the antecedent auditory stimulus [Foreign name] and occurred before or during the par ticipants’ pointing response. listener Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Integrity A second observer independently collected data, watching the recordings of sessions, on 50% of all test trial blocks and a mean of 57.2% (range, 55.4 to 59.6%) of all instruc tional trial blocks for all participants. An agree ment was scored for each trial during which the ‘experimenter and the second observer recorded fa correct or incorrect response. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the num- ber of agreements by the sum of agreements and disagreements and mukiplying by 100. ‘The ewo observers agreed on 100% of the test trials. Mean agreement for instruction was 100% for P1 and P2, 99.5% for P3, and 99.3% for P4. The same independent observer also recorded data on the experimenter's imple- mentation during probes and instruction ses- sions to assess treatment integrity. Data on treatment integrity were collected for 50% of all probe trial blocks and for a mean of 56.2% of all instructional trial blocks. During probe conditions, the second observer collected data fon the experimenter (a) providing the target question, (b) waiting up to 10 s for the partici pants to respond, and (c) providing no conse- quences contingent on the participants’ correct for incorrect responses. During instructional conditions, the independent observer collected data on the experimenter (a) presenting the visual stimuli, (b) providing the verbal discrimi- native stimulus corresponding to each condi- tion (“What is this in English?” and “Poine co the [English name]” for the tact and the lis- tener trials, respectively), (©) providing the prompt corresponding to each condition (vocal or gestural) according to the scheduled prompt presentation, (d) waiting up to 10 s for the pa ticipants to respond, and (c) providing social consequences (e.g., praise) if the participants’ response was correct (higher magnitude of the social consequence for independent responses compared to the prompted ones) or providing corrective feedback if the participants’ response vwas incorrect. Treatment integrity was calcu- laced by dividing the number of trials in which the experimenter implemented all steps cor rectly by the total number of trials per block, and multiplying by 100. Mean treatment integ- rity averaged 100% for probe conditions (incraverbal tests and maintenance), 94% for tact instruction, and 98% for listener instruc- tion. Across participants, we collected treatment integrity data for an average of 57.2% (range, 55.4% to 59.6%) of all instructional cial blocks. Mean treatment integrity for instruction, (tact plus listener) was 100% for P1, 88.8% for 2, 99.5% for P3, and 99% for P4. Experimental Design ‘We used an adapted alternating treatments design (Sindelar et al, 1985) to compare the acquisition of listener and tact responding, andTeaching a Foreign Language 7 a pretest-posttest design to compare the emer gence of bidirectional intraverbal responses. ‘The order of instructional trial blocks was quasirandomized, with the addition that the same type of instruction (e.g. tact instruction) was not presented for more than three consecu tive trial blocks. Procedure All instructions and questions were presented in Porcuguese (native language) by the experi- menter who remained seated in front of the participant during all experimental conditions. Preassessment Before the beginning of the study, the exper- imenter conducted a preassessment to evaluate whether participants could correctly tact the visual stimuli in Portuguese (native language) and correctly echo the English word (foreign language) corresponding co the stimuli. ‘The experimenter conducted this preassessment 0 ensure that participants had a similar instruc- tional history with the words in Portuguese (ie. they could all tact them), as well as to ensure that they could pronounce the words in English and, therefore, respond correctly when presented with echoic prompts (deseribed in the Instruction section below). During the tact assessment, the experimenter presented a visual stimulus (ie., a picture) and asked, “What is this?” During the echoic assessment, the experimenter presented a vocal stimulus (ie., a word in the foreign [English] language) and said “Say (English word).” The experimenter did not present any visual stimuli during the echoic assess- ment. The experimenter provided social con- sequences, such as statements of praise (c.g. “Very good!"), contingent on both prompted and independent costect responses. For incorrect responses, there were no programmed consequences; the experimenter simply moved on to the next trial or terminated the assessment after the last trial The experimenter conducted one 18-trial block (ie., one tial for each of the three G-stimuli sets) with each participant. All par- ticipants correctly tacted in Portuguese, as well as correctly echoed all English words. Experimental Conditions Intraverbal Pre- and Posttest. Before tact and listener instruction began and following mastery in each condition, the experimenter evaluated intraverbal responses across NF and EN directions. During the pretest, the experi- menter conducted «wo 6-trial blocks for each stimulus set for each type (NF or FN) of intraverbal relation, resulting in a total of four G-trial blocks for each stimulus set. During the posttest, the experimenter conducted only one G-trial block for each stimulus set for each type (NF and FN) of intraverbal relation. Before the test commenced, the experimenter presented the following vocal instruction: Twill ask you some questions to identify which words you already know in English There is no problem if you do not know any of chem because I will each you later. During the test, I cannot say if you are right or wrong, ol? During NF trials, the experimenter asked partici- pants, “How do we say [Portuguese name] in English?” During FN tials, the experimenter asked participants “What does [English name] “The experimenter didnot mean in Portuguese present the visual stimuli during intraverbal pre- test trials for either type of question. During pre- and postests, the experimenter did not provide any programmed consequences contingent on responding. Since participants attended a main- stream school, they likely had prior exposure 0 thin schedules of reinforcement and petiods of extinction. Therefore, we did not anticipate chat pre- and posttest conditions would decrease or extinguish responding.8 Mariéle Diniz: Cortex et al ‘The posttest was conducted immediately after participants met the mastery criterion in a condi- tion. ‘The only exception was P2 who, after attaining the mastery criterion for the first time in the listener condition, got sick and had a break of 10 days. Due to this temporal gap, the experimenter did not conduct the intraverbal posttest when the participant returned and instead continued the instruction blocks until P2 met the mastery criterion for the second time. Before the posttest, the experimenter pres- ‘ented the following instructions, “I will ask you some questions, identical co those I asked you at the beginning of our activity. During the test, T cannot say if you are right or wrong, ok?” Inuaverbal posttest tials were identical to incraverbal pretest trials, except the participants were exposed to only one 6-ttial block in each direction (ie, NF and FN) for each stimulus set. Tact and Listener Tests. Listener and tact responding were evaluated following the intraverbal pretest and before instruction. Each target was presented once within cach six-trial block of tact or listener trials for a particular set. The order and the positions of the stimuli within cach block were predetermined on the datasheet. The instructions presented co the participants by the experimenter before the tact. and listener test trials were similar to the intraverbal pre- and posttest. During the tact test, the experimenter held 2 visual stimulus (ic, one piewure of a specific stimulus set at a time) in font of the participant and asked, “What is this in English?” During the listener test, the ‘xperimenter presented three visual stimuli (ie, chtee pictures fiom the same set) arranged horizontally on a table and instructed the partici- pant to “Point to [Foreign name}.” Each stimulus in each set served both as a positive and a negative ‘comparison stimulus across tials. The experi- menter rotated the position of comparison stimuli before each ial presentation. During tests, no prompting or consequences were delivered. PL emitted one comect tact response during the fourth test block. The remaining participants (P2, P3, and P4) did not emit any correct responses during tact test trials All participants responded at a level indicative of chance during listener test wials (ic, 33% oF less). Data on tact and listener tess ate available upon request Tact and Listener Instruction. Before the first session, the experimenter presented the fol- lowing instructions: I will eeach you some words in English in ‘wo different ways. In the first way, T will show you some pictures and then I will ask you their names in English. In the see- ‘ond way, I will ask you to point co one of three pictures afer Tsay its name in English. In the beginning, I will give you some prompts, so you don’t need to worry if you don’t know the correct answer. I will help you, of? For both conditions (.¢., tact and listener), the experimenter conducted six-trial blocks in which the order of stimulus presentations within each block was randomized, Tact Condition. Tact ils were initiated as described in the tact test that is, the experi menter presented the visual stimulus to the p ticipants and asked, “What is this in English?” ‘Then, the experimenter presented echoie pro- pts (ic., the experimenter’s vocalizations of the correct responses) using a progressive promptdelay procedure (Walker, 2008). Ini tially, the experimenter provided the echoic prompts immediately (0-s delay) afier the pre- sentation of the visual stimulus and the ques- tion “What is this in English?” The delay between the visual stimulus presentation and the cchoic prompt was gradually increased by 2s (ie, Os, 28 43). The experimenter increased the delay to the prompt up to 4s: there was no need to implement error correc tion before or after discontinuing. prompting after the 4-s mark, The error correction proce dure consisted of the experimenter presenting the prompt 0s alter participants’ incorrect response, followed by the presentation of theTeaching a Foreign Language 9 next trial, Correct responses (i.e., vocalizations of the corresponding name in English) canceled the scheduled prompt presentation. ‘The experimenter increased the prompt delay when- ever participants responded 100% correct (ie., independent or prompted responses) for three consecutive six-trial blocks. If participants made an error, the experimenter presented the prompt and recorded the response as incorrect. The experimenter provided social consequences consisting of statements of praise contingent on. correct independent and prompted responses. The magnitude of the social consequences was greater for independent responses than for prompted ones (Karsten & Carr, 2009). That is, for the prompted correct responses, the experimenter presented only one statement of praise (c.g, “Very good!"). However, for the independent responses, the experimenter pres- ented cither two or more statements of praise (Very good! You are doing a great job!”) or fone statement of praise (“Excellent job!”) plus high five or claps. The mastery criterion was 100% correct independent responses for three consecutive six-trial blocks. Listener Condition. Duting the listener con- dition, che experimenter simultaneously pres- ented three visual stimuli that belonged to the same set and said, “Point to [Foreign name]!” The experimenter provided gestural prompts (pointing) using the progressive prompt-delay procedure described in the tact condition. The experimenter implemented the same correction procedure, type of consequences, and mastery criterion as in the tact condition. Follow Up. For P3 and P4, we assessed the maintenance of the bidirectional intraverbal responses 14 and 30 days, respectively, after the completion of the study. The time of the follow-up probes differed as a function of the participants’ availability. We were not able to conduct follow-up probes with PI and P2 due to their unavailability (ie., summer vacation) The follow-up trials and parameters were iden- tical o the intraverbal postcest trial. Results Figure 1 shows the number of correct responses during instruction, intraverbal pre-and posttests, and follow-up assessment for all partici pants. None of the participants responded cor rectly during intraverbal pretests, exception; PI responded correctly once in the first FN trial block with the listener instruction stimuli, but such performance was not observed during che second FN ial block (Le., PI emit ted only incorrect responses). Correct intraverbal responses increased for all participants from pre- to posttest across both conditions Overall, the tact condition produced higher levels of emergent intraverbals than the listener condition. Three participants (P1, P2, and P3), demonstrated full emergence of intraverbal responses (ie., they responded correctly to all relations probed) in both directions (ic., NF and FN) in the tact condition. The remaining participant, P4, responded correctly in all NF incraverbal trials and 5 out of 6 FN intraverbal trials. In contrast, in the listener condition, all participants demonstrated partial emergence of incraverbal responses (ie., they responded cor- rectly to some, but not al, relations). P1 dem- onstrated full emergence of intraverbals in F? trials and their performance in NF trials was also highly accurate (ie., 5 out of 6 correct responses). For P2, the listener condition led to the full emergence of NF intraverbal responses, but only partial emergence of FN intraverbals (3 out of 6 correct responses). P3 and P4 showed partial emergence in both directions; P3 correctly responded in 3 out of 6 correct responses for FN and 2 out of 6 correct responses for NF; P4 responded correctly to 5 out of 6 trials in both NF and FN tials. Overall, tact instruction produced full emer- gence of bidirectional intraverbal relations for three participants (P1, P2, and P3); that is, all the relations probed emerged in both NF and EN tials. For P4, only one relation did not emerge in both directions; that is, the10 Mariéle Diniz, Cortez et al Figure 1 [Number of Correct Independent Responses in Native s-Forcign (NE) and Forign-ty Native (FN) Inovaverbal Tet and dr ing Imruction Invraverbal Number of Corect Independent Responses Ineraverbal Testsee os |e Fv iravertal Om Finaverba Follow Up s4cays 15 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 BS 90 ‘ial Blocks Note, The asterisk indiates that instruction continaed after a 10-day bres fr P2, participant presented full emergence of intraverbal in NF trials but responded correctly in 5 out of 6 FN ils, However, for the lis- tener instruction, the emergent relations were rot bidirectional. For example, PI and P3 showed higher levels of emergent responding for NF intraverbals compared to the FN intra- verbals and P2 showed greater emergence of intraverbals in the FN tials compared to the NF tials. PA responded correctly to 5 out of 6 rials in both NF and FN rials but their wo incorrect responses (one in each direction) did not occur for the same stimulus in both directions P3 and P4 were also exposed to a follow-up session conducted 14 and 30 days after theTeaching a Foreign Language u posttest, respectively, In the tact condition, the participants maintained 100% accuracy in one intraverbal direction only (ve., NF tials). In the other direction, P4 maintained the perfor- mance presented during the posttest (ie., 5 out of 6 correct responses), and P3, who presented full emergence of FN intraverbal responses dur- ing the posttest, responded correctly for 4 out of 6 relations. In the listener condition, P3 maintained the performance for the NF «rials but showed a slight increase in the number of EN intraverbals (.c., they emitted four correct, responses as compared to two correct responses during the posttest). P4 also showed a slight increase in the number of FN intraverbal cor rect responses (ie., they emitted six correct responses compared to five correct responses during the posttest), but showed a slight decrease in the number of NF correct responses (c., they emitted four correct responses com- pared to five correct responses during the posttest. All participants reached the mastery criterion across conditions. The number of six-trial blocks required to meet the criterion in each condition varied considerably across partici- pants (ce., minimum of 11 and maximum of 47 sixttial blocks). Three participants (P2, P3, and PA) attained mastery-level responding slightly sooner in the listener condition and PI met the mastery criterion sooner in the tact condition, However, there was no difference in the average number of six-tril blocks required to reach the mastery criterion between the tact (M = 28) and listener (M = 28) conditions across participants. ‘There did not appear to be any relation between the number of blocks to mastery criterion and the degree of emergence during intraverbal probes (see Figure 1) We also collected data on. overt cchoic responses during all listener instruction trials to evaluate whether spontaneous overt echoics in the forcign language would facilitate the estab- lishment of listener responses (see Table 2). P4 emitted overt echoic responses in 54% of all Table2 Percentage of Overt Echie Reponse during All Litter Instruction Trials » on Ps _ listener instruction trials. The remaining partic- ipants did not emit overt echoic responses dur ing listener trials, even though they all learned. the listener responses and demonstrated the emergence of intraverbals. Therefore, it appears that overt echoic responses were not necessary or correlated with the acquisition of listener responses. Discussion We evaluated the effects of tact and listener instruction on the emergence of bidirectional incraverbals in children whose native language was Portuguese. All participants mastered tacts and listener responses in English. The number of (six-tial) blocks to mastery varied across par- ticipants: however, there was no difference in the average number of blocks required to reach the mastery criterion between the tact and the listener conditions. Given that stimuli for one stimulus set (ie, animal set)—were counterbalanced across participants, these pre- liminary outcomes suggest that stimulus param ters (6g. salience, disparity, difficulty) did not differentially affect acquisition across condi- tions. All participants demonstrated the emer- gence of intraverbals to some degree. In the tact condition, three of the four participants showed the emergence of all intraverbal rela- tions probed, and one showed the emergence of 5 of the G EN relations probed and the emergence of all NF intraverbal relations pro- bed. In contrast, listener instruction never resulted in the emergence of all possible12 Mariéle Diniz: Cortez et al relations. These results suggest that the intra- verbals that emerged following listener instruc tion were not bidirectional for all participants Overall, the tact condition yielded greater ‘emergence of bidirectional intraverbals than the listener condition. ‘This study adds to the literature by replicating the effects of tact and listener instruction on the ‘emergence of bidirectional intraverbals using an cerrorless teaching procedure. Across studies, both listener and tact conditions increased correct responses in intraverbal probes; however, tact instruction resulted in greater emergence of intr verbals compared to _ listener (eg. Cortez et al, 2020; Petursdottir et al,, 2008), Further, NF intaverbals occurred toa higher degree than FN intraverbals in previ cous studies, suggesting emergent intraverbal rela- tions may not always be bidirectional. In the current study, tact instruction produced biditec~ tional intraverbal emergent relations (ic., the same level of NF and EN intraverbal responding) for three participants, In contrast, the emergent relations were not always bidirectional in the lis tener instruction condition. Also, the listener instruction condition produced great variability across participants in the number of NF and FN relations that emerged. Overall, this study increases the generality of research confirming. that tact instruction produces more emergent intraverbal responding when compared to listener instruction (Cortez ot al, 2020; Petursdottir et al, 2008). In addition, this study extends pre- vious research by demonstrating that tact and lis- tener instruction with an etrorless teaching procedure resulted in greater emergence of bidi- rectional intraverbals compared to other teaching procedures employed in previous studies (de, trial and error with an active response error correction, as employed in Cortez et al., 2020 and Perursdottir et al., 2008), bus did nos alter the relative effectiveness of tact and listener instruction, ‘The outcomes of both Cortez et al. (2020) and Pecursdortir ct al. (2008) may have been confounded by the fact that participants had more exposure and contacted more reinforce- ment during tact instruction, which may explain why intraverbals emerged to a higher degree in this condition (eg., Kay et al, 2020). However, in the current study, differences in tials to criterion were small for participants who reached mastery in listener before tact instruction, and on average, participants met the mastery criterion in the same number of trials across conditions. ‘This outcome suggests that differential exposure and reinforcement history did not impact the acquisition and emergence of verbal operants. (Coon & Miguel, 2012). Therefore, all things being equal, tact instruction still resulted in superior emergence of bidirectional intraverbals. Future studies should attempt to equate the number of instruction trials across verbal operants to better assess emergence. According to Petursdottir et al, (2008) and Belloso-Diaz and Pérea-Gonzilez (2016), tact instruction may result in greater emergence of intraverbals because participants learn to pro- duce the specific vocal _topographies. (ic, foreign words). In contrast, listener instruction establishes the foreign words as auditory stimuli for a selection-based response (Michacl, 1985). During intraverbal probes, the correct response for NE intraverbals con- sisted of the foreign word that was specifically reinforced during tact instruction, albeit under different stimulus conditions. In our study, during the NF probes, participants had to emit the same vocal response (i.e, foreign word) as during tact instruction. ‘This may have resulted in greater intraverbal emergence in the tact condition as compared to the listener condition for all participants. Fucure research should fur ther examine this issue. ‘We collected data on overt echoie responses uring listener instruction to evaluate whether echoing the words in the foreign language facil- itated the establishment of listener responses and intraverbal emergence. Only one of fourTeaching a Foreign Language 13 participants emitted overt echoic responses dur ing the listener instruction tials; however, all participants learned the listener responses and demonstrated the emergence of intraverbals. These results suggest that overt echoic responses were not necessary or correlated with the acquisi tion of listener responses. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that participants engaged in covert cchoics during listener instruction. Future studies should isolate the effects of echoic behavior on the acquisition of listener behavior and the subsequent emergence of intraverbals. This can be accomplished by employing condi- tions where participants can cither (a) engage in echoic behavior, or (b) be prevented from doing s0 (eg. Clough et al, 2016; Miller et al, 2021). Ic is important to nore that we only collected maintenance data with two participants, and these data were collected only once due to partici pants’ unavailability (summer vacation). Addition- ally, maintenance outcomes were variable across pattcipants, and the source of this variablicy is unknown. However, even though our mainte- nance data are limited and the outcomes variable, this is one of the fist studies focused on teaching. a foreign language using a behavior-analytic approach that has reported such data, Future studies should collect follow-up data across partic pants at different points in time (eg. 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months postmastery) to evaluate the longitudinal effects of the teaching procedures. One limitation of this study is that we did implement within-subject replications (ce., we only taught one set of stimuli to mas tery in each condition), and neither did. previ- ous studies on the topic except for Matter et al. (2020). Within-subject replications would screngthen experimental control by ensuring that the optimal procedure is identified for each participant. This is especially important because there were small differences in efficiency (Ge, trials to criterion) between condicions, which could be attributed to uncontrolled vari- ables or confounds inherent wo the adapted alternating treatments design (e.g., unequal difficulty, multiple treatment interference, and. history). Similarly, we implemented a pretest— posttest comparison to evaluate emergent incraverbal responding. Future studies could improve upon this design, for example, by combining an adapted alternating treatments design with a multiple baseline across behaviors and intermittent intraverbal_ probes. Another limitation is that we were only able to counter balance the assignment of one stimulus set across conditions and participants, ‘This limita- tion was caused by the fact that some partici- pants responded correctly when presented with stimuli from the other stimulus sets during the preassessment and, as a result, these sets had to be replaced with new ones. Nevertheless, future studies should aim to counterbalance all stimu: Jus sets actoss conditions and_ participants. Finally, we had a criterion in place co increase the delay to the prompt contingent on correct, independent responding, but we did not imple- ment a criterion for decreasing the delay to the prompt contingent on incorrect responding, This limitation likely did not affect our out- comes, as all participants met the pre determined mastery criterion; however, future studies should include criteria both for the increase and for the decrease of the delay when using progressive prompt-delay procedures. There are several other directions for fucure studies that are worth exploring. Research on. teaching a foreign language using a verbal behavior framework has so far focused on teaching small sets of stimuli (e.g., three per set in the current study), Such research can help clarify the optimal procedures, which could, in turn, inform how to teach a broader forcign language repertoire, As such, we recommend that future studies (a) increase the number of stimuli assigned to each condition, or (b) teach combinations of stimuli (e.g., noun and adjec- tive) co improve on the social and ecological validity of this line of research. Second, future research should explore the role of preference for stimuli on the acquisition of a forcign14 Mariéle Diniz: Cortex et al language repertoire, W. L. Wu et al. (2019) suggested that teaching mands in a foreign lan- ‘guage may be more efficient than ceaching tacts or intraverbals, likely due to the motivational variables (Michael & Miguel, 2020) present during instruction. If motivational variables play an important role in learning a foreign lan- guage, then future research should manipulate these variables when teaching tacts and intra verbals (eg, by teaching participants co tact preferred objects, or lesting participants choose the topic of the conversation). Finally, farure studies may investigate the social validity of these procedures by evaluating participants’ preference for instructional formats using a eoncurrent-chains preference (eg, Hanley, 2010) ‘The outcomes of this study support the use of errorless ceaching procedures in teaching a small vocabulary in a foreign language to chi dren with learning difficulties. Further, this study provided preliminary data on the maince nance of this small vocabulary. Verbal behavior research should continue to explore variables that increase the efficiency of instruction when teaching a forcign language to inform the devel- ‘opment of empirically supported curricula REFERENCES Bellos-Dins, C, & Pérez-Gonsziles, L, A. (2016), Emer: gence of symmetialintaverbae facilated by learn ing. skilr with the inttavetbal responses. The Prychological Record, 6612), 269-281. hespeida or 10.10074240752-016-0169-0 ‘Clough, C_W., Meyer, C. S., & Miguel, C. F. (2016). “The eee of blocking and joint contrl taining on sequencing visual stimuli. The Analuis of Verbal Behavior, 3212), 242-264, ‘atpslfdo.org/10.1007/ +#40616.016.0067. Coon, J. T., & Miguel, C.F. (2012). The rele of increaed exposure. to tanser-ofstimulue-cor procedures on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(8), 657-66. hps:fdoiog/ 10.1901 aba 2012.45-657 Cone, MD, Santos Le, Quint A E, Silveita, M.V_, & de Rove, J.C. (2020). Leatning ign language: Elects of tact and listenes sion on the emergence of bidirectional intaverbale, Journal of Applied Behavior Anal, 53(1), 884-492. hespe:doiorg/10.1002/jabs.559) Daly, D., 8¢ Dounavi, K. (2020). A comparison of tact ‘raining and bidirectional ineraverbal raining teaching 2 foreign language: A refined rephition Prychologcal Record, 70.2), 243-255, hepeldoi orgl 10.10071340732-020-00396.0, Davidion, S.J, & O'Connor, R.E. (2019). An interven ‘ion using morphology to derive word meanings for English language learners. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy, 522), 394-407. heepsifdotorg/10.1002/ jaba539 de Soura, D. G. de Rose, J. C. Faleros, TC, Bortolo, R. Hanna, ES, & Mellvane, W. 1 (2005). ‘Teaching generative reading via recombina sion of minimal textual unite A legacy of vetbal bbehavior to children in Brail. neeeational Journal of Pycbolegy and Prycholeical Therapy, 9, 19-44, hetpwnewnebi nlm, nih. gov/ pubmed 19960112 Dounavi, A. (2011). A comparison between tact and inraverbal training in the acquisition ofa foreign lan guage. European Journal of Behavior Analyis, 12() 239-248. ups:lfdoi ong/10.1080/15021149.2011 1143436 Dounavi, K. (2014). Tact valning versus bidirectional incaverbal taining in seaching a foreign language Journal of Applied Behavior Anabyie, 471}, 165-170. beep orgi10.1002saba.86 ip. D. M, Covey, D. P., & Critefield, T. 5. 1010). Teaching brain-behavior relations economi: cally with stimuli equivalence technology. Jowrua of Applied Behavior Anaiys, 43(2), 19-33. heaps (org/10.1901/jaba,2010.48-19 Gee PA, Schneider, K. A, Devine, B. & Pecursdotie. A I. (2020). Beets of exror-comtingent prompts depend on temporal arrangement of simul Im aymbolie matching to sample. Journal of Behavioral Education, 29. 657-674. epsiida.org/10-1007! 510864-019.09338-5 Grow, L., 8 LeBlanc. L. (2013). Teaching teceprive lan- {guage sills. Behavior Analytic in Practice, 61), 56-75. Fespe:idoiorg/10.1007/BF03391791 G. P. (2010). Toward efctive and pref rimming: A cae for the objective me Social valiity with recipients of behavio-ch grams. Behavior Analis in Practice, 3(1), 13-21 hups:fwww.nebi als ih govipubmed 22479668 Horne, P. J, & Lowe, C.F. (1996). On the aigins of ‘naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Bebavior, 6513), 185-241 hetpidoiorg/10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185, Karsten, A. M., & Cart, J. E. (2009). The effeces of di ferential reinforcement of unprompted responding on ‘he skill aeqisition of children with auciem. ournal of Applied Behavior Analyis, £2(2), 327-334. beep! oi otg/ 10.1901 aba 2009-42-32 Kay, J.C, Kisamote, AN. Visdescu, . Sidenes, ‘T. M., Reeve, K. F, TaylorSanta, C., & ies HalTeaching a Foreign Language 15 Pantano, N. A. (2020). Eee of exposure co pro- imper on the acquisition of inwaverbale in children swith autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Bebavior Analy, 53(1), 493-507. herp! /do.ong 10 1002/)aba.606 Lowry, L. (2020, November 2"). Bilingualism in your ‘children: Separating fact ftom fiction, Resrieved fiom Ineplfnw hanen org/elpt-infotaricles! bilingualism in-young:childreseparating face F ep Mater, AL, Wiskow, KM. & Donaldson, J. M. (2020). A’ comparison of methods to teach foreign language target to young childsen. Journal of Applied Behavior Anaiys, 53(1), 147-166. hacpsildol.org/10. 1002Fjaba 545 May, R., Chick, J, Manuel, 5, & Jones, R. (2019) Examining the elfets of group-based instuction on ‘emergent second-language skills in young children, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 523), 667-681 ‘nuepeffdokorg/10.1002/jaba 563, May, R. J. Downs, R, Marchant, A, & Dymond S (2016). Emergent verbal behavior in preschool ehil- den lestning a second language. Journal of Applied Behavior Anaiyss, 49, 71-716. haepssidotorg/10. 1002/jaba301 Michael, J (1985). ‘Two kinds of verbal behavior pls a posible third. The Analyis of Verbal Behavior, 30), 1-4 hepsl/doiong/10.1007/8F03392802 Michael, J. & Miguel, C. F. (2020). Motivating opess- tuons. In J. O. Cooper, T. E, Heron, 8 W. L. Heward, Applied behavior analyse, Third Edition (pp. 372-394), Beason Miguel, C. F, (2016). Common and inteaverbal bidirec- tional naming. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 3212), 125-158, heepl/doiorg/10.1007/640616 016.0066-2 Millet, A. C., Cox, R.E., Swension, R.M., Oliveira, J. C.D, & Peeursdocix, AL. (2021). Effects of lode ing cchoie responses on tact emergence following stimulus pairing. Eurypean Journal of Behavior Analy: uae, Advance online publication hispe/doi.org/10, 1080/15021149.2021.1896070 Nedeleu, RL, Fields, L, & Ameen, F. (2015). Avbitrry ‘conditional. discriminative functions of meaningful simali and enhanced equivalence clase formation, Journal of the Experimental Analyt of Behavior, 103(2), 349-360. hp:/doi org/10.1002/jeab.141 Pecurdosis, A 1, 8 HafiDadécit, R. D. (2008). A. ‘comparison of four sratgies for teaching a small frcign-language vocabulary. Journal of Applied Behav say Analysis, 4203), 685-690. bepstldoiofg/10.1901/ jba.2009.42-685, Pewardottis, AL, Olfaldeie, R, & Ardsis, B. (2008). ‘The effects of tact and listener tsining on the emergence of bidtecional intavebal relations Journal of Applied Behavior Analis, 418). 411-415, ‘neqpelfdosorg/10,190 jabs 2008.41-411 Rosales, R, Rehlelét, R.A, & Hellman, N. (2012) Examining the wiity of the stimlus psiting observa tion procedure with preschool children learing a see- fond language. Journal of Applied Bebavior Analy 451), 173-177. eapslidot.org/10.1901/jaba2012. 45.173 Sidiman, M.. 8 Stoddard, L. T. (1967). The effectiveness ‘of fading in programming 2 simulancous form dis- crimination. for retarded children. Journal of the Experimental Analysts of Bebavior, 10, 3-15. hepsi! dot.org/10.1901 /eab.1967.10-3 Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M.S. & Wilbon, R. J (1985). An adapted alternating eatmemts design for ineersctional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8(1), 67-76 Skinnet,B. F(1957). Verbal Behavior. Prentice Hall Toucherte, P. E, (1968). The effects of graduated stimu- Tus change on che acquisition ofa simple discrimina- tion in severely rearded boys. Journal of the Experimental Analyisof Behavior, 11(2), 39-48, Inepedosorg/10.1901 eab. 1968.11.39 Walker, G. (2008). Constant and progresive sme delay procedures for teaching cildees with autism: A lier- acute teview. Journal of Autom and Developmental Disorder, 38), 261-275. buepstldoiorg/10.1007/ £10803.007-0390-4 Wa, H,, & Miller, LK, (2007). A tutoring package 10 teach pronunciation of Mandarin Chinese character. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 0(3), 583-586. ‘nepeldosorg/10.1901 aba 2007.40.58 Wa, W. L, Lechago, S.A, & Rettig, L.A. (2019). Com: ‘ating mand taining and other instructional methods to teach a foreign language. Journal of Applied Behar doy Analyt, 52(3), 652-666. bepstldei.org/10.1002/ jaba 564 Received November 5, 2020 Final acceptance September 24, 2021 Acton Editor, Anna Peswrdorsr