Tact training versus bidirectional intraverbal training in teaching a foreign language.

Two Spanish-speaking adults wanted to learn more English words.

The teacher tried two lesson plans. Plan A mixed tact drills (point to the object, say the English word) with native-to-English intraverbal drills (hear "mesa," say "table"). Plan B used only English-to-Spanish intraverbal drills (hear "table," say "mesa").

An alternating-treatments design flipped the plans every session so each person got both.

Plan A created more brand-new correct English words the adults had never practiced.

The extra words popped up right away and stayed.

Plan B helped less with new English production; it only strengthened the reverse direction.

Paul et al. (1987) also compared two verbal packages and saw no difference. Their adults learned correspondence skills equally well with or without the say-do link. The gap: R studied rule-following, not second-language, and used neurotypical adults with ID. Same design, different target.

Weil (1984) ran an alternating-treatments study with kids and again found one package clearly stronger. The behavioral safety manual beat the talk-only manual, matching Katerina’s finding that the richer, bidirectional package wins.

Ortiz et al. (2022) took apart a verbal package piece by piece. They showed that simpler can be enough for some learners. Katerina’s tact + intraverbal combo is the opposite: more parts, more payoff. Together the papers flag when to add pieces (language goals) and when to drop them (awareness goals).

If you teach labels, second languages, or any intraverbal web, start with native-to-foreign plus tact trials. You will get free new responses without extra teaching time. Check the learner’s progress after a few sessions; if the gains stall, then add the reverse direction as review, not as the main dish.