Don't Be Obtuse! How the Right Angle Uses Strong Skill Areas to Teach Weak Ones

This week, I’m content to veer off to talk about something that’s been a game-changer for me in my world of ABA: using a learner’s strong skill area to teach a weaker one. If you’re familiar with my platform, I like to prompt clinicians and educators to teach skills from “a variety of angles”, especially if a kiddo is struggling with a program. In a future post I’ll also touch on the transformative idea of “learning channels”, yet another concept that revolutionized my ABA practice.

For now, let’s start as simple as we can. We, as BCBAs, are no strangers to the verbal operants. We treat them as milestones, the holy grail of teaching learners to communicate effectively, and rightfully so. But I think we forget that these operants are more than mere milestones; they are the essence of communication, with each area being a vital component of fluently communicating.

When working with learners, we often see uneven skill levels across different operants. Some kids might be amazing in the echoic department, repeating anything you throw at them, while—at the same time—struggling with vocalized manding, leaving their desires unvoiced.

What we often fail to realize is this: We can (and should) use a strong operant (or skill area) to bolster their weak ones.

I’ll show you what I mean.

Imagine a learner like the one we just mentioned: they’re awesome with echoics but maybe haven’t quite got the hang of manding. They’re vocal, sure, but when it comes to vocalizing their needs—nothing.

How do we tackle this?

By getting creative and teaching manding from more than one angle...and through the operant they are strong in.

Traditionally, we might target vocal manding directly: we might hold out an iPad, waiting for them to miraculously mand for it. We hold out the reinforcer we know they are motivated for, we wait, they say what it is, and we give it to them. That’s the end goal, after all. Again, this teaches manding more directly.

But let’s think outside the box and leverage their echoic strength.

In addition to the direct approach, what if we came at vocalized manding more indirectly. Run those echoic trials, but twist them to include reinforcer names. "Say ‘iPad’!" they echo, and voila, they get the iPad (maybe even if they didn’t know they want it). Maybe we do it again with fruit snacks, trains, cars, or Play-Doh. We don’t hold it out and wait to hand it over to them (in the way a contrived mand trial might work). Instead, we simply ask them to echo the name of a thing they like…and the thing that they echo shows up. (Important note: They have the option to NOT engage with the thing that shows up.)

In these situations, depending on their motivation, we’re indirectly (sneakily, in fact) teaching the components for manding, using their echoic prowess as a stepping stone.

How about, another example of a “multi-angular” approach to programming a specific skill?

Say we have a learner who’s vocal but struggles with intraverbal or tacting skills, especially when it comes to labeling family members. Suppose this learner shines in receptive identification and matching. Where do most of us start? Well, if we want to teach tacting we run a tacting program. We hold up a pic of “mom”, ask them who it is, and they say who it is. Right? That’s tacting/labeling, straight and narrow, cut and dried.

But what if that isn’t enough, and just rifling through that prompt hierarchy isn’t going to do the trick? What if we could broaden our horizons? What if we approached the concept of labeling “mom” from additional angles?

Angle #1: Receptive Identification. Besides direct tacting, why not dip our toes into receptive identification? We already know that they’re strong in this area, right? Lay out those family photos, ask them to “Point to mom!” and then—once they’ve selected “mom” ask them, “Who is it?” Going this route uses a strong skill area (receptive identification) to target the weak skill area (tacting).

Angle #2: Matching to Sample. Let’s not stop there. Through matching exercises, we can supplement our tacting goals, as well. Have them match a picture of “mom” from an array, and post-match, prompt them to label (“Who did you match?”/ “Who is it?”). This exercise hones their ability to pick out core features and solidify their conceptual understanding of “mom.” And, again, we used a strong skill area (matching) to target the weak skill area (tacting).

These are basic examples but I really, really want to challenge BCBAs to go after targets from different angles. Using this approach, using strengths to address weaknesses, we have the potential to create a more holistic and effective learning experience. You’ve heard me say it before, but we’re unifaceted sometimes.

We know how to prompt. We know how to reinforce. But, often, we don’t know how to teach. Changing prompt hierarchies or upping the ante on Skittles isn’t enough. But enriching our toolkit with varied, strategic, comprehensive approaches can be.

Next time you’re faced with a learner struggling in a particular area, take a step back. Could you be teaching it from more angles? Don’t get stuck in a one-track mind; explore, adapt, and innovate. If you need inspiration, I encourage you to check out BxMastery, I’ve outlined thousands of ideas like this.

Stay tuned for our deep dive into “learning channels” next week. Happy Friday!