Effects of modeling rote versus varied responses on response variability and skill acquisition during discrete‐trial instruction

The team taught kids with autism to name categories like “animals” or “foods” using discrete-trial lessons.

In some lessons the adult modeled one answer every time (rote). In other lessons the adult gave a different example each trial (varied).

They flipped the two styles back-to-back to see which helped kids learn faster and answer more flexibly later.

Varied modeling made kids give different answers only right after the lesson. The effect vanished by the next day.

Half of the children learned the categories more slowly when the model kept changing.

Bottom line: mixing up the demo did not create lasting flexibility and sometimes got in the way of learning.

Paranczak et al. (2024) show that a few minutes of DTI can build rich, creative language networks in neurotypical kids. Peterson’s kids with autism did not gain that kind of flexibility from varied modeling alone.

Mace et al. (1990) found that one clear demo plus fading cut errors in half for kids with disabilities. Peterson’s rote condition lines up with that success: one steady model worked best.

Fields et al. (1991) saw that children taught through shaping adapted faster later. Peterson’s varied modeling was not true shaping; it simply swapped examples without letting the child contact new consequences, so flexibility never locked in.

When you run intraverbal category drills, pick one clear exemplar and stick with it until the child masters the set. Save variety for after the skill is firm, or use true shaping and reinforcement for novel answers. This keeps acquisition speedy and avoids extra errors.