The Impact of Social–Behavioral
Learning Strategy Training on the
Social Interaction Skills of Four
Students With Asperger
Syndrome
Marjorie A. Bock
This study examined the effect of a social–behavioral learning
strategy intervention (SODA) on the social interaction skills of
4 elementary school children with Asperger syndrome (AS).
More specifically, the study investigated the effect of SODA
training on the abilities of 4 children with AS to participate in
cooperative learning activities, play organized sport games, and
visit with their peers during lunch. A multiple-baseline-across-
settings design (Tawney & Gast, 1984) was used to analyze
social behavior without SODA (baseline) and with SODA (inter-
vention) during fourth- or fifth-grade social studies cooperative
learning activities, noon recess, and lunch. Maintenance probes
occurred once a month for 5 months following completion of
the intervention. The participants benefited from the SODA
intervention. They presented increased percentages of time
spent learning cooperatively, playing organized sport games,
and visiting during lunch when SODA training began. When
SODA training discontinued, they maintained high performance
across all study conditions, nearly matching those achieved by
4 peers without disabilities. In addition, the participants pre-
sented long-term memory of SODA 1 month after maintenance.
O
ne of the primary features of Asperger syndrome (AS)
is social interaction deficits that occur across the life-
span (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Cesa-
roni and Garber (1991) noted that adolescents with AS are
often unable to understand the social customs associated with
dating and other age-expected interactions. This confusion re-
garding social customs continues through adulthood. Thus,
it is not unusual to find adults with AS who experience high
levels of social isolation and frustration (Cesaroni & Garber)
that may be due, in part, to significant deficits in executive
function (EF; Ozonoff, 1998), including (a) inhibiting irrele-
vant responses, (b) modifying behavior based on environmen-
FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
VOLUME 22, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 2007
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on June 3, 2015
PAGES 88–95
tal feedback, (c) exacting rules from experience, and (d) dif-
ferentiating essential from nonessential information. Studies
supporting executive functioning deficits in children with AS
raise several questions: First, can children with AS learn think-
ing strategies that will effectively guide their information pro-
cessing during social interactions? Second, if so, will children
with AS use these thinking strategies to guide their informa-
tion processing during social interactions? And third, if used,
will these strategies facilitate effective problem solving by chil-
dren with AS when they participate in social interactions?
SODA (Bock, 2000, in press) is a social–behavioral learn-
ing strategy developed for children and adolescents with AS.
It provides a set of rules meant to help these youngsters attend
to relevant social cues, process these cues, and select specific
social skills they will use as they participate in a social activity.
When using SODA these youngsters learn to stop (S), observe
(O), deliberate (D), and act (A). The first three steps (S, O,
and D) include three to five self-talk questions or statements
to guide information processing. The final step (A) helps
youngsters develop a specific list of things they will say and do
when participating in the social activity (see Figure 1).
The purpose of the current study was to replicate and
extend learning strategy research investigating the effects of
social–behavioral learning strategy training on the social inter-
action skills of adolescents with AS. The current study repli-
cated prior research by (a) using the same social–behavioral
learning strategy (SODA); (b) using a SODA story and teach-
ing script derived from the real-life experiences of the study
participants for training sessions; (c) comparing each partici-
pant’s social behavior with that of a peer without disabilities
before, during, and after training; and (d) teaching the par-
ticipants to use SODA across three social activities they en-
counter daily at school. The current study extended prior
research by (a) implementing the SODA intervention with
 VOLUME 22, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 2007
89

4 children with AS and (b) implementing strategy training in

the inclusive elementary classrooms attended by these children.

Method
Participants
Four male elementary students participated in this study. They
ranged in age from 9 years 3 months to 10 years 6 months at
the beginning of the study (see Table 1 for information about
each participant.) All were from middle income families that
lived in rural communities in the northern plains region of the
United States. An independent child psychiatrist diagnosed
each with AS prior to study participation. Diagnosis was made
on the basis of a full clinical assessment, including a detailed
developmental history, psychometric testing, and direct as-
sessment of social interaction skills by a clinician experienced
in the diagnosis of autism and AS. The participants’ nonverbal
IQs fell within the normal range, and each met the criteria
specified in the fourth edition, text revision, of the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–IV–TR;
American Psychiatric Association, 2000) for lack of gross lan-
guage delay development. No participant had a history of pre-
vious or current psychiatric or neurological disorder aside from
AS. At the time of the study, no participant received prescribed
medications. In addition, for 1 year prior to the study, each
participant received social skills instruction within the Theory
of Mind “mind-reading” intervention model (Howlin, Baron-
Cohen, & Hadwin, 1999) for approximately 2.5 hours per FIGURE 1. SODA strategy.
week. Immediately preceding study participation, the partici-
pants completed the informal assessment activities associated
with this intervention model. Their scores ranged from 86%
to 96%. The other study participants were boys without dis- TABLE 1
Participants’ Ethnicity, Age, Grade, IQ, and
abilities from the participants’ classes. They were selected at
Theory of Mind
random and served as the control participants for this study.
Participant Ethnicity Agea Grade IQb TofMc

Settings and Interventionists Bob Caucasian 9-5 4 104 86%

Study activities took place in the elementary schools attended Joe Native American 9-4 4 100 92%
by the participants and were implemented by the special edu- Alex Caucasian 10-6 5 98 96%
cators who worked with the participants with AS. Each of the Craig Caucasian 9-3 4 110 96%
educators held a master’s degree in special education and a
graduate certificate in autistic spectrum disorders and had aYears-months. bNonverbal intelligence quotient. cTheory of Mind informal as-

taught students with AS for a minimum of 5 years. The special
educators helped the author create SODA stories and teach-
ing scripts for the participants with AS and taught the partic-
ipants with AS to use SODA. In addition, four paraeducators
and two university graduate students collected data three times
a day throughout the study, during cooperative learning ac-
tivities in social studies, noon recess, and lunch.
sessment performance.
(baseline) and with SODA (intervention) during fourth- or
fifth-grade social studies cooperative learning activities, noon
recess, and lunch. Maintenance probes occurred once per
month for 5 months following completion of intervention
activities.

Research Design Dependent Measures and Data Collection

A multiple-baseline-across-settings design (Tawney & Gast, The dependent measure for Bob, Joe, Alex, and Craig con-
1984) was used to analyze social behavior without SODA sisted of three planned replacement behaviors taught through

Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on June 3, 2015

 FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
90

SODA. The replacement behaviors were to (a) participate in
cooperative learning activities for the duration of the activities
during fourth- or fifth-grade social studies, (b) play an orga-
nized sport game (e.g., kick-ball) for the duration of noon re-
cess, and (c) visit with one or more peers while eating lunch
for the duration of lunch period. Bob, Joe, Alex, and Craig
participated in cooperative learning activities when they (a) sat
with their respective cooperative learning groups, (b) listened
to their group members, (c) provided information relevant to
the learning activity, and (d) helped create and/or present the
groups’ final projects. They played an organized sport game
when they (a) joined one of the two teams playing the orga-
nized sport game, (b) played the game following the rules, and
(c) used appropriate social skills while playing the game (e.g.,
waited turn, used appropriate language). Finally, they visited
with peers during lunch when they (a) sat at the lunch table
with one or more peers, (b) listened to their peers’ conversa-
tion, (c) shared relevant information or posed relevant ques-
tions as they listened to their peers’ conversations, and (d) used
appropriate social skills while eating lunch (e.g., used a nap-
kin, carried tray to dump station).
Prior to the study, the author trained the four paraeduca-
tors and two university graduate students to record all in-
stances of the replacement behaviors presented by the students
and their peers to a minimum of 90% accuracy over three con-
secutive sessions. They used stopwatches to document how
long the participants spent (a) participating in cooperative
learning activities during fourth- or fifth-grade social studies,
(b) playing organized sport games during noon recess, and
(c) visiting with one or more peer during lunch. Once the
study began, they collected data during each social studies
class, each noon recess, and each lunch period across all study
phases. Since the duration of the data collection sessions var-
ied during the study, the total duration of the replacement be-
havior for each session was converted to a percentage of time
per session so that the data could be compared across sessions.
The paraeducators and graduate students were blind to the
study’s purpose.
Interobserver Reliability. Interobserver reliability was
calculated for 100% of the sessions across all study phases. It
was determined by calculating the scores for these sessions and
counting the number of agreements between the two ob-
servers divided by the number of agreements plus disagree-
ments multiplied by 100 (Tawney & Gast, 1984). The mean
interobserver reliability across all study phases was 93%, 96%,
95%, and 97% for Bob, Joe, Alex, and Craig and their peers,
respectively.
Procedural Reliability. The author gathered procedural
reliability data once during each study phase using a study pro-
cedure checklist. This checklist identified each of the steps the
special educators must complete when teaching SODA to the
participants with AS. Procedural reliability was determined by
dividing the number of correct steps by the total number of
correct and incorrect steps and multiplying by 100 (Tawney &
Gast, 1984). The mean procedural reliability across all study
phases was 98%, 100%, 100%, and 100% for the special edu-
cation teachers who worked with Bob, Joe, Alex, and Craig,
respectively.
Procedures
Before the study began, the author collaborated with the spe-
cial education teachers to write one SODA story each for Bob,
Joe, Alex, and Craig for social studies, noon recess, and lunch
period, for a total of 12 stories. Each story incorporated the
SODA strategy shown in Figure 1. In addition, each included
self-question and self-answer statements. While the self-question
statements came from the SODA strategy, the self-answer
statements were individualized for each participant. Finally, as
shown in Figure 2, the SODA stories were written in the first
person and described the specific social–behavioral difficulties
the participants presented.
Once the SODA stories were written, the special educa-
tion teachers and the author created teaching scripts for each.
The scripts contained questions meant to teach Bob, Joe,
Alex, and Craig the specific SODA components and the self-
question statements associated with each. The scripts also con-
tained questions meant to verify how their teachers and peers
would feel and act when they behaved as described in the
SODA story. The scripts contained questions meant to elicit
other ideas regarding how the participants might act in each
setting. In addition, the scripts contained questions meant to
help the participants identify how their teachers and peers
would feel and act if they decided to do or say one of these
things. Finally, the scripts contained specific directions regard-
ing how the special education teachers should react to correct
and incorrect responses. Consequently, the teaching scripts in-
cluded questions and statements such as (a) “What does the
D in SODA represent?” (b) “Yes, the D represents deliberate,”
(c) “What five questions do you ask yourself when you delib-
erate?” and (d) “That’s right, you ask yourself . . . .”
Phase A: Baseline. The paraeducators and graduate stu-
dents recorded baseline data once per day across all three set-
tings for each of the participants. If Bob, Joe, Alex, or Craig
bothered their peers during baseline, they received corrective
feedback (e.g., “Joe, please go to your desk and complete the
assignment by yourself ”). No other intervention occurred
during this phase.
Phase B: Intervention. Immediately before social stud-
ies, recess, and lunch, the participants read the SODA stories.
When each child finished reading his story, he raised his hand
to discuss the story with his special education teacher. Using
the SODA teaching scripts, the teachers discussed the stories.
As soon as they finished, the participants went to social stud-
ies, recess, or lunch. The paraeducators and graduate students
continued to record data across all three settings once a day
for each participant during the SODA intervention phase.

Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on June 3, 2015

 VOLUME 22, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 2007
91

SODA Teaching Script: Introduce the student to this activity by saying, “SODA is a strategy some people use to
figure out what to do and say when confused. The following short story shows how you can use SODA to figure out what
to do and say when you work with your group in social studies. Please read the story silently and raise your hand when you
are finished so we can talk about it.”

SODA: Working With My Social Studies Group

Directions: Read the following story silently. When you are finished raise your hand to let your teacher know you are
ready to discuss the story.
Sometimes when I work with my group in social studies
I get into trouble and am sent back to my desk to work by
myself. Mr. Smith, my social studies teacher, tells me that I
should stay at my desk and work by myself until I am “. . .
ready to work with the students in my group.” This confuses
me because I am always ready to work with the students in
my group. When I work with the students in my group I talk
with them. I talk about rivers in North America. I list them,
tell where they originate and their length, and how many
states they travel through. Sometimes the students in my
group ask me to draw a map showing one of the rivers.
Sometimes they tell me that we aren’t supposed to talk
about rivers. Sometimes they raise their hands and tell
Mr. Smith that I am making it hard for them to do the as-
signment. I think that I am working with the students in my
group, but then Mr. Smith sends me to my desk to do the
assignment by myself. When I join my group in social stud-
ies I am going to use SODA to help me figure this out.
When I join my group in social studies I will Stop. I will
then ask myself, “Where should I go to observe?” (I
will sit in my chair to observe.) I will ask myself, “What is
the room arrangement?” (I will notice if the students put
their chairs and desks in a different location to work in their
groups.) Finally, I will ask myself, “What is the routine?” (I
will look at the board in the front of the room to see what we
are supposed to do as we work in our groups.)
I will then Observe. While observing I will ask myself,
“What are the students in my group doing?” (I will
watch the students in my group to see what they are doing.
They may be reading the assignment directions. They may
be deciding how to do the assignment. They may be decid-
ing what part of the assignment each group member will
do. They may be deciding what they will turn in to the
teacher at the end of the assignment.) I will then ask myself,
“What are the students in my group saying?” (I will
listen to the students in my group to hear what they are say-
ing. They may be asking what they are supposed to do.
They may be saying what they are supposed to do. They
may be talking about who will do what to complete the as-
signment. They may be talking about what they will turn in
to the teacher at the end of the assignment.) I will also ask
myself, “What happens when the students in my
group say and do these things?” (The students may
smile as they complete the group assignment. Mr. Smith
may smile and help each group of students as they work on
the group assignment.)
I will then Deliberate about my observations. To help
me deliberate, I will ask myself, “What would I like to
do?” (I now realize that we work in groups to help us com-
plete our social studies assignments. I would like to work
with my group to complete our group assignments.) I ask
myself, “What would I like to say?” (I realize that we can
visit about the social studies assignment as we work in our
groups. I would like to visit about the assignment with the
students in my group I will ask them what we are supposed
to do, how we will do this, what they will each do, and what I
should do. I will also ask for help when I need it. If I can, I will
help the students in my group when they ask for help.) I will
ask myself, “How will the students in my group feel
when I do and say these things?” (They will feel happy.)
I will ask myself, “How will the students in my group
act when I do and say these things?” (They will let me
work with the group on the social studies assignment. They
will not talk with Mr. Smith about me. I will not be sent to my
desk to do the assignment by myself.) And finally, I will ask
myself, “Why will the students in my group act this
way?” (They want to complete the group social studies as-
signment and earn a good grade. They want me to do this
too. That is why they will let me work with them.)
After I’ve completed my deliberations, I will decide how
I will Act when I work with my group in social studies.
I can now see that when I talk about rivers during our group
activities in social studies, they cannot complete the group
activity. They will earn a bad grade. This makes them mad.
Then they talk to Mr. Smith about me. Mr. Smith then asks
me to go to my desk and do the activity by myself. If I talk
about the group assignment and help my group complete
the assignment, they will feel happy and want me to stay and
work with them. When I join the social studies group I plan
to:
(a) Read the assignment directions posted on the
board in the front of the room;
(b) tell the students in my group that I want to help
them do the assignment;
(c) listen as the students in my group decide how to
do the assignment;
(d) volunteer to do the part of the assignment that I
can do well;
(e) complete my part of the assignment and give it to
the group leader; and
(f ) help the group either turn the assignment in to
Mr. Smith.

FIGURE 2. SODA story.

Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on June 3, 2015

 FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
92

Phase C: Maintenance. The paraeducators and graduate

students collected data across all three settings once per month
for 5 months after the participants completed the SODA train-
ing activities.

Postintervention Assessment. One month after the

end of the maintenance phase, the author interviewed Bob,
Joe, Alex, Craig, and the special educators who taught them
SODA to evaluate the social validity or overall usefulness of the
program. Students were asked the following questions:

1. SODA is a strategy you learned this year. What four

things does SODA tell you to do?
2. What three questions do you ask yourself when you stop?
3. What three questions do you ask yourself while you
observe?
4. What three questions do you ask yourself while you
deliberate?
5. What action did you take when you followed SODA?
6. Have you continued to use SODA? Why or why not?
7. If you have continued to use SODA, please share
(a) when you have used it, (b) how you have used it,
and (c) how well, in your opinion, it worked.
8. Are there other ways you might consider using SODA?
Why or why not?
9. Overall, what is your opinion of SODA?

Educators were asked:

1. Overall, how effective was SODA for your student(s)?

Upon what do you base this evaluation?
2. Please share your thoughts regarding how SODA could
be taught more effectively.
3. Will you use SODA with this student again? If so, how? If
not, why not?
4. Overall, what is your opinion of SODA and its ease of
implementation?

Results
As indicated in Figures 3 through 6, the mean percentages of
time Bob, Joe, Alex, and Craig spent participating in cooper-
ative learning activities in social studies, playing organized
sport games at noon recess, and visiting with peers at lunch
during baseline fell at or below 23%. They increased signifi-
cantly the first day each participated in SODA training. Fur-
ther, they maintained high performance levels over a 5-month
period after they finished SODA training.
During the cooperative learning condition, Bob showed a
gain of 58.00% from baseline (with a mean of 6.67%) to SODA
intervention (with a mean of 64.67%). Similarly, during the
noon recess condition, he showed a gain of 67.46% from base-
line (with a mean of 3.29%) to SODA intervention (with a
mean of 70.75%). In addition, during the lunch condition, he
showed a gain of 44.18% from baseline (with a mean of 0.82%)
FIGURE 3. Percentage of time Bob and his peer spent
learning cooperatively, playing organized sport games, and
visiting at lunch.
to SODA intervention (with a mean of 45.00%). Further,
Bob’s performance levels actually increased during the 5 months
after he finished SODA training, reaching 77.80% for cooper-
ative learning, 84.80% for noon recess, and 49.00% for lunch.
Bob’s peer showed high percentages of time—ranging from
90.00% to 100.00%—learning cooperatively, playing orga-
nized sport games during noon recess, and visiting with peers
during lunch (see Figure 3).
As shown in Figure 4, Joe showed a gain of 52.58% from
baseline (with a mean of 20.00%) to SODA intervention (with
a mean of 72.58%) during the cooperative learning condition.

Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on June 3, 2015

 VOLUME 22, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 2007
93

FIGURE 4. Percentage of time Joe and his peer spent FIGURE 5. Percentage of time Alex and his peer spent
learning cooperatively, playing organized sport games, and learning cooperatively, playing organized sport games, and
visiting at lunch. visiting at lunch.

Similarly, he showed a gain of 71.27% from baseline (with a
mean of 9.86%) to SODA intervention (with a mean of
81.13%) during the noon recess condition. In addition, he
showed a gain of 41.48% from baseline (with a mean of 7.27%)
to SODA intervention (with a mean of 48.75%) during the
lunch condition. Further, Joe sustained performance levels
over the 5 months after he finished SODA training, maintain-
ing 76.00%, 81.80%, and 49.20% for the cooperative learning,
noon recess, and lunch conditions, respectively. Joe’s peer
showed high percentages of time—ranging from 84.00% to
96.00%—learning cooperatively, playing organized sport
games during noon recess, and visiting with peers during
lunch.
As shown in Figure 5, Alex showed a gain of 47.67% from
baseline (with a mean of 16.00%) to SODA intervention (with
a mean of 63.67%) during the cooperative learning condition.
Similarly, he showed a gain of 74.43% from baseline (with a
mean of 12.57%) to SODA intervention (with a mean of
87.00%) during the noon recess condition. In addition, he
showed a gain of 41.93% from baseline (with a mean of 3.82%)
to SODA intervention (with a mean of 45.75%) during the
lunch condition. Further, Alex sustained performance levels
over the 5 months after he finished SODA training, maintain-
ing 68.00%, 88.60%, and 48.40% for the cooperative learning,
noon recess, and lunch conditions, respectively. Alex’s peer
showed high percentages of time, ranging from 79.00% to

Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on June 3, 2015

 FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
94
FIGURE 6. Percentage of time Craig and his peer spent
learning cooperatively, playing organized sport games, and
visiting at lunch.
94.00%, learning cooperatively, playing organized sport games
during noon recess, and visiting with peers during lunch.
Craig showed a gain of 55.00% from baseline (with a mean
of 22.00%) to SODA intervention (with a mean of 77.00%)
during the cooperative learning condition. Similarly, he showed
a gain of 65.63% from baseline (with a mean of 18.00%) to
SODA intervention (with a mean of 83.63%) during the noon
recess condition. In addition, he showed a gain of 51.66%
from baseline (with a mean of 14.09%) to SODA intervention
(with a mean of 65.75%) during the lunch condition. Further,
Craig sustained performance levels over the 5 months after he
finished SODA training, maintaining 78.80%, 84.40%, and
66.60% for the cooperative learning, noon recess, and lunch
conditions, respectively. Craig’s peer showed high percentages
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on June 3, 2015
of time—ranging from 74.00% to 89.00%—learning coopera-
tively, playing organized sport games during noon recess, and
visiting with peers during lunch (see Figure 6).
Bob, Joe, Alex, and Craig answered Interview Questions 1
through 5 accurately, demonstrating long-term memory of the
SODA strategy. They each also indicated that they continued
to use SODA as their teachers had taught them because it
helped them make sense of what their peers did during social
studies group, at noon recess, and at lunch. Further, Bob in-
dicated that he had tried to use SODA in other classes at
school to help him make sense of what his teachers and peers
did during those classes. The special education teachers each
rated SODA as a highly effective intervention for their student
with AS. They based their evaluations on the data collected
during the study and their student’s interest in continued use
of SODA. They each described SODA as “easy to implement.”
In addition, they each said it was “fairly easy” to create the
SODA stories and teaching scripts.
Discussion
Bob, Joe, Alex, and Craig each benefited from the SODA in-
tervention. They presented increases in the percentages of
time they spent participating in cooperative learning activities
during social studies, playing organized sport games during
noon recess, and visiting with peers during lunch after SODA
training began. When SODA training discontinued, they
maintained the performance levels they attained during SODA
training. In fact, Bob showed increased mean performance lev-
els across intervention and maintenance phases for each study
condition. And finally, all of the participants demonstrated
long-term memory (Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning, 1995) of
SODA 1 month after maintenance. Their long-term memory
included both declarative knowledge recall of the SODA com-
ponents and self-questions or self-statements and procedural
knowledge recall regarding actual ongoing use of SODA (An-
derson, 1993; Squire, 1987). Based on the information they
provided in the follow-up interviews, their procedural knowl-
edge recall involved identification of new, appropriate behav-
iors they were presenting during the cooperative learning and
noon recess study phases. In addition, the information Bob
shared in the follow-up interview indicated that his procedural
knowledge recall extended beyond the study conditions to
other classes throughout the school day.
The study results reported here support those reported by
Bock (in press). Similar to that study, the present one provides
evidence that SODA training may lead to improved social–
behavioral problem solving by children with AS. Similar to the
participant in the earlier study, Bob, Joe, Alex, and Craig
learned how to understand the mental states of other persons
during weekly social skills instruction derived from the The-
ory of Mind mind-reading intervention model (Howlin et al.,
1999). Further, their performances on the informal mind-
reading assessment activities associated with this model imme-
 VOLUME 22, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 2007
diately preceding study participation indicated that they had
both the declarative and procedural knowledge recall to use
these skills in the social situations they encountered on a daily
basis at school. Prior to SODA training, they had not been
using these skills to help them navigate these challenging so-
cial situations. Frith (2003) suggested that this is fairly com-
mon for persons with AS. She noted that while persons with
AS can learn how to understand the mental states of others,
their use of this knowledge in daily situations is insufficient for
normal social communication and social–behavioral problem
solving. The results from the current study suggest that SODA
may teach children and adolescents with AS who have learned
how to understand the mental states of others the metacogni-
tive process, or learning strategies, needed to facilitate their so-
cial communication and social problem solving.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations to this study. First, because it was
a single-subject study, results must be limited to the study par-
ticipants. Thus, numerous replications producing similar results
are needed to verify generality of findings to other children
with AS (Tawney & Gast, 1984). Second, future researchers
should include generalization probes over several months fol-
lowing intervention to confirm intervention effect on long-
term procedural memory for the study participants (Anderson,
1993; Squire, 1987). And third, future research should exam-
ine the requisite skills (e.g., mind-reading) needed to benefit
from SODA.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Marjorie A. Bock, EdD, is an associate professor of special education at
the Associated Colleges of Central Kansas. Her current interests include
brain research and education of students with autism spectrum disor-
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on June 3, 2015
95
ders. Address: Marjorie A. Bock, Associated Colleges of Central Kansas,
210 S. Main, McPherson, KS 67460; e-mail: marjorie@acck.edu
NOTE
I thank the participants, their teachers, and their paraeducators for
their help with this study. I have learned a great deal from each of them.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC:
Author.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. The Ameri-
can Psychologist, 48, 35–44.
Bock, M. (2000). The impact of social behavioral learning strategy
training on the social interaction skills of eight students with Asperger
syndrome. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Dakota.
Bock, M. A. (in press). A social behavioral learning strategy inter-
vention for a child with Asperger syndrome: A brief report. Re-
medial and Special Education.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1995). Cognitive
psychology and instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Cesaroni, L., & Garber, M. (1991). Exploring the experience of
autism through first hand accounts. Journal of Autism and Devel-
opmental Disorders, 21, 303–313.
Frith, U. (2003). Autism: Explaining the enigma (2nd ed.). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Howlin, P., Baron-Cohen, S., & Hadwin, J. (1999). Teaching chil-
dren with autism to mind-read: A practical guide. New York: Wiley.
Ozonoff, S. (1998). Assessment and remediation of executive dys-
function in autism and Asperger syndrome. In E. Schopler, G. G.
Mesibov, & L. J. Kunce (Eds.), Asperger syndrome or high-func-
tioning autism? (pp. 199–219). New York: Plenum Press.
Squire, L. R. (1987). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special
education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.