The effects of receptive and expressive instructional sequences on varied conditional discriminations

Three preschoolers with autism learned feature, function, and class labels. The team compared three teaching orders: expressive-first, receptive-first, and a mixed order.

Each child got all three orders in rapid rotation. The teacher ran discrete trials until the child hit mastery.

Expressive-first won. Kids reached mastery in fewer trials and showed more new, untaught answers.

Receptive-first was slowest for every child. Mixed sat in the middle.

Romo et al. (2025) extends the same question to bilingual toddlers. They still used alternating treatments, but swapped feature/function/class for Spanish-English noun labels. Their kids did not all do best with expressive-first; one child learned fastest with the mixed order. The difference is the skill: naming objects may follow different rules than naming features.

Burgess et al. (1986) seems to disagree. They found receptive-before-expressive worked better when teaching signs matched to already-known words. Look closer: they tested sign mapping, not new labels. Receptive knowledge was the starting tool, not the target skill.

Kodak et al. (2022) gives a heads-up. Their quick screener spots kids who fail at receptive ID because they cannot scan a field. If a child flunks that test, starting with expressive may skip the scanning hurdle altogether.

When you program feature, function, or class lessons, try expressive-first. You may cut trials and get free emergent skills. Still probe each learner: bilingual children or kids with weak scanning may need a tweak. Run a brief alternating-treatment probe for two sessions; let the data pick the order.