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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 1 Participants’ Test Scores PPVT-III EOWPVT ORF 1 ORF scores suggesting a reading comprehension concern (Good & Kaminski, 2003). Austin. Austin was 7 years 5 months old at <strong>the</strong> onset of <strong>the</strong> study. He is an Asian/Hispanic male with Asperger syndrome. Austin received his reading instruction in a self-contained classroom setting. In a review of his cumulative folder, Austin’s reported strengths included determining relationships between abstract figures, as well as detecting patterns. He has greater difficulty with tasks that involve defining words and stating similarities between words. On <strong>the</strong> Differential Ability Scales (DAS), Austin received a general conceptual ability score of 101. His score on nonverbal reasoning subtests was significantly higher at 133 than his verbal reasoning score, 73. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, Austin’s scores on <strong>the</strong> PPVT-III was over one standard deviation below <strong>the</strong> mean, 83, yet his score on <strong>the</strong> EOWPVT was in <strong>the</strong> average range for his chronological age, 92, indicating a discrepancy between expressive and receptive language. On <strong>the</strong> ORF subtest, Austin read 78 words per minute, which is above benchmark for his age (i.e., 40 words per minute). Yet, on <strong>the</strong> RF subtest when asked to tell about what he just read, his retell consisted of five words related to <strong>the</strong> story. Barry. When <strong>the</strong> study began, Barry was 8 years 7 months old. Barry is a Hispanic male with autism. He received reading instruction in both his self-contained and mainstream settings. His reported IQ score in his cumulative folder of 112 was obtained from <strong>the</strong> Leiter-R test of nonverbal intelligence, and is considered average for his chronological age. On language measures, Barry’s scores were suggestive of difficulty with both expressive and receptive language. Specifically, Barry’s performance on <strong>the</strong> EOWPVT was over one stan- RF 2 IQ Score Austin 83 92 78 5 101 Barry 70 78 87 3 112 Chris 76 68 66 0 92 1 Reported in words per minute 2 Reported in words related to <strong>the</strong> story 370 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 dard deviation below <strong>the</strong> mean, and his score on <strong>the</strong> PPVT-III was two standard deviations below <strong>the</strong> mean for his age. On <strong>the</strong> DIBELS ORF subtest, Barry read 87 words per minute, just below <strong>the</strong> 2 nd grade benchmark of 90 words; however, on <strong>the</strong> RF subtest he was able to retell three words related to <strong>the</strong> story. Chris. Chris was 7 years 8 months at pretesting. He is a Caucasian male with pervasive developmental disorder. He receives his reading instruction in both a self-contained and mainstream classroom setting. On <strong>the</strong> Leiter-R nonverbal intelligence test, Chris received an IQ score of 92, an average score for his age. Strengths noted in his cumulative folder included performance on visual matching tasks, and his ability to discriminate information and complete concrete tasks. On preliminary descriptive measures, Chris demonstrated difficulty on both expressive and receptive assessments. Chris scored more than one standard deviation below <strong>the</strong> mean on <strong>the</strong> PPVT-III, and greater than two standard deviations below <strong>the</strong> mean on <strong>the</strong> EOWPVT. On <strong>the</strong> DIBELS ORF subtest, Chris read 66 words per minute, which is below <strong>the</strong> 2 nd grade benchmark of 90 words a minute. When asked to tell everything he remembered about what he read on <strong>the</strong> RF subtest, Chris did not respond. Nine general education peers participated in <strong>the</strong> study. Peers attended <strong>the</strong> same school and grade level as <strong>the</strong> student with ASD, and were students with whom <strong>the</strong> children with ASD had <strong>the</strong> opportunity to interact during a typical school day. General education students were recruited because of <strong>the</strong>ir effective interpersonal skills as determined by each participant’s mainstream teacher.
TABLE 2 Codes of Student Question Generation and Responding Setting Code Code Definition Subcategories and Subcategory Definition Student Generated Question All three students with ASD received <strong>the</strong>ir education in a self-contained special education classroom. Each participant was mainstreamed in a general education classroom setting for at least one class, approximately 60 minutes each day. The intervention occurred in a small room located outside <strong>the</strong> general and special education classrooms. The classroom was used for parent pick-up and dropoff, occupational <strong>the</strong>rapy, special area activities, etc. The setting was familiar to all participants with ASD. Experimental Design A student generated question directed toward peer Student Responses Any communicative act in response to a peer question that is unprompted A single-subject multiple baseline design across participants was employed to clearly establish <strong>the</strong> effects of <strong>the</strong> intervention on each participant’s ability to generate and respond to questions related to a reading selection. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> multiple baseline design is well-suited to <strong>the</strong> practical requirements of applied research and does not require <strong>the</strong> Related: A question in direct reference to <strong>the</strong> story that contains a question word (who, what, when, where, why, how) and an element of <strong>the</strong> story (character, setting, event, problem, solution) Unrelated: A question containing an appropriate question word and information unrelated to <strong>the</strong> story Prompted: A related question formed following a researcher prompt (i.e., verbal prompt, modeling, or corrective feedback) Unprompted: A related question formed without a preceding researcher prompt (i.e., verbal prompt, modeling, or corrective feedback) Related response: Any communication act directly related to <strong>the</strong> story in response to a question that does not follow corrective feedback/modeling from <strong>the</strong> researcher Unrelated response: Any communication act unrelated to <strong>the</strong> story in response to a question Echoic: Any imitation of an utterance in response to a question withdrawal of intervention procedures (Neuman & McCormick, 1995). Dependent Measures To formulate a question about text, <strong>the</strong> reader must process <strong>the</strong> information read and create a question that reflects content (Palinscsar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine et al., 1996; Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003). Forming questions in direct relation to content requires <strong>the</strong> responder to interpret meaning from <strong>the</strong> text (Palinscsar & Brown). Question generation has also demonstrated improvements in student ability to respond to questions focusing on <strong>the</strong> main idea (NICHD, 2000). Therefore, dependent measures focused on <strong>the</strong> participants’ ability to generate and respond to questions related to <strong>the</strong> content of reading material. The frequency of student-generated questions was coded as related or unrelated to <strong>the</strong> book and as prompted or unprompted. Table 2 provides a description of each of <strong>the</strong> codes. Reciprocal Questioning / 371
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: 4-45). Because the
Page 101 and 102: TABLE 3 Examples of Elements of a S
Page 103 and 104: Figure 2. Self-monitoring checklist
Page 105 and 106: TABLE 4 Example Question Words, Thi
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?