Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. After <strong>the</strong> researcher asked three questions (as outlined in step 4 above), she verbally prompted a participant to ask a question: “Who would like to ask a question?” If <strong>the</strong> student did not ask a question in five seconds, <strong>the</strong> researcher provided a verbal prompt: “What did we learn about on this page?” Did we just learn about a character or an event?” If <strong>the</strong> student failed to ask a question in 5 seconds, <strong>the</strong> researcher modeled question generation. 7. The researcher and participants rotated around <strong>the</strong> table asking each o<strong>the</strong>r questions during this initial session. After session 2, <strong>the</strong> researcher no longer generated questions with participants and provided scaffolding to include verbal prompting, modeling and corrective feedback as needed (see Table 5). Scaffolding was used when children with ASD and/or <strong>the</strong>ir general education peers had difficulty forming/re- Figure 3. Reciprocal questioning materials sponding to questions. Students had access to all needed materials during each session, including <strong>the</strong> self- monitoring checklist (Figure 2). Interrater Reliability 376 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 A special education graduate student was taught to code student and researcher behavior for reliability purposes. To learn coding procedures, <strong>the</strong> researcher and student assistant watched videotapes taken during a pilot study of storybook reading using <strong>the</strong> same procedure but in a one-to-one situation with a researcher and student. The graduate student and researcher watched <strong>the</strong> videos and coded researcher and student behaviors until 80% agreement was reached for three out of five consecutive coding sessions. Agreement was reached by session 3. At this time, <strong>the</strong> graduate student began coding intervention data for reliability. Interrater reliability was calculated by divid-
TABLE 4 Example Question Words, Think Aloud Procedures, and Questions Story Element Question Word Think Aloud Question Setting Where “I just learned something new about <strong>the</strong> setting.” I am going to ask a question using ‘where’ because ‘where’ is a good question word when asking about setting.” Character Who “We just found out about a character. ‘Who’ is a good question word when asking a character question.” Event Why “We found out that Arthur did something. He borrowed books from <strong>the</strong> Brain. So I can ask a question about an event.” Problem Why “Oh, Arthur is not sleeping well. I am going to ask a question about <strong>the</strong> problem using why.” Solution What “We just found out that Mr. Ratburn helped solve Arthur’s problem. I am going to ask a question about <strong>the</strong> solution, using what.” ing <strong>the</strong> number of agreements by <strong>the</strong> number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. In addition, a Kappa coefficient was calculated. Interrater reliability was assessed for 30% of all collected student data. Reliability of prompted and unprompted student generated questions was 85% with a Kappa value of .62, considered “good” agreement (Cooper & Hedges, 1994). Reliability of unprompted and prompted student responses was 90% with a Kappa value of .68, also considered “good” agreement (Cooper & Hedges). Data Analysis To gain a better understanding of <strong>the</strong> intervention effects on individual performance, all data obtained are presented graphically (Parsonson & Baer, 1992). The data were graphed and visually inspected by investigating <strong>the</strong> degree as well as variability of change to determine intervention effects (Barlow & Hersen, 1984; Kamil, 1995). Treatment Fidelity A graduate student coded a randomly selected 30% of all intervention and baseline sessions “Where did Arthur have his pet business?” “Who is helping Arthur write his story?” “Why did Arthur borrow books from <strong>the</strong> Brain?” “Why is Arthur not sleeping well?” “What did Mr. Ratburn do to help Arthur solve his problem?” to document <strong>the</strong> specified intervention procedures (see procedures section for a description). Data collection consisted of frequency counts of researcher prompting, instructional steps completed, and presence of needed materials. The researcher adhered to procedures during all baseline and intervention segments viewed 100% of <strong>the</strong> time. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, appropriate materials were presented in 100% of all baseline sessions, and 92% of <strong>the</strong> time during intervention. Results Visual inspection of <strong>the</strong> data (presented in Figures 4 and 5) reveals a functional relationship between <strong>the</strong> implementation of a reciprocal questioning intervention delivered in cooperative pairs and question generation and responding of <strong>the</strong> three children with ASD. That is, once intervention began, all three children increased frequency of unprompted question generation and responding during reading. Question Generation Figure 4 illustrates <strong>the</strong> frequency of unprompted and prompted questions generated Reciprocal Questioning / 377
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Self-Determination in Relation to H
Page 9 and 10:
ticipants (a) believed the<
Page 11 and 12:
Field notes were used to document <
Page 13 and 14:
ling information, medical history a
Page 15 and 16:
Home. Jack lived with his mo<strong
Page 17 and 18:
we felt strongly that we needed inf
Page 19 and 20:
literature, mostly to do with <stro
Page 21 and 22:
tion? The national consumer survey.
Page 23 and 24:
Figure 1. Proposed intersection of
Page 25 and 26:
teaching in each program for five y
Page 27 and 28:
also used to support and challenge
Page 29 and 30:
Despite Paula’s description of an
Page 31 and 32:
The paraprofessionals at Harborvill
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 2. Resultant intersection of
Page 35 and 36:
learning opportunities relevant to
Page 37 and 38:
Bouck, E. C. (2005). Service delive
Page 39 and 40:
Thirty Year Review of Safety Skill
Page 41 and 42:
TABLE 1 Safety Skill Studies Refere
Page 43 and 44:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Reference Par
Page 45 and 46:
found differences only in efficienc
Page 47 and 48:
skill for integrating persons with
Page 49 and 50:
treatment of a burn) may take sever
Page 51 and 52:
created video programs to teach stu
Page 53 and 54: and on-schedule behavior and decrea
Page 55 and 56: TABLE 1—(Continued) Author(s) Mor
Page 57 and 58: trums, aggression) in a four-year-o
Page 59 and 60: (Quill, 1995). Furthe</stro
Page 61 and 62: following picture prompt training.
Page 63 and 64: medication, for example anticonvuls
Page 65 and 66: TABLE 1 Number of Facilities That U
Page 67 and 68: Snoezelen on a variety of behaviors
Page 69 and 70: Kapell, D., Nightingale, B., Rodrig
Page 71 and 72: ity being on the c
Page 73 and 74: communication turns (i.e., initiati
Page 75 and 76: Definitions of Target Behaviors and
Page 77 and 78: student gave the p
Page 79 and 80: Figure 2. Bob’s performance data.
Page 81 and 82: contact increased 41% from baseline
Page 83 and 84: Figure 5. Eric’s performance data
Page 85 and 86: Figure 6. Jen’s performance data.
Page 87 and 88: to students with severe disabilitie
Page 89 and 90: The use of arm splints has been suc
Page 91 and 92: Figure 1. Intervention results for
Page 93 and 94: sions, he engaged in hand mouthing
Page 95 and 96: Effects of a Reciprocal Questioning
Page 97 and 98: 4-45). Because the
Page 99 and 100: TABLE 2 Codes of Student Question G
Page 101 and 102: TABLE 3 Examples of Elements of a S
Page 103: Figure 2. Self-monitoring checklist
Page 107 and 108: Figure 4. Frequency of prompted and
Page 109 and 110: Figure 5. Frequency of unprompted s
Page 111 and 112: their children to
Page 113 and 114: and lack of random selection makes
Page 115 and 116: prehension-monitoring activities. C
Page 117 and 118: all three participants who passed b
Page 119 and 120: TABLE 2 Leisure Activities Used in
Page 121 and 122: papers were removed and the
Page 123 and 124: was 68% (range 42% to 83%). In <str
Page 125 and 126: Teaching Test-taking Strategies to
Page 127 and 128: ing experiences beginning at <stron
Page 129 and 130: short essay question. Items were ei
Page 131 and 132: plication of the t
Page 133 and 134: Figure 2. Percent correct on <stron
Page 135 and 136: aseline probes, data were highly va
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?