etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

ecipes and improving their accuracy over
baseline levels.
Increased independence was evident for
each student between baseline and intervention
conditions. For students, baseline levels
ranged from 42.8% to 58.5%. During intervention
when video prompting was used, independent
performance increased from
65.3% to 78.5%. However, a somewhat higher
percentage was found for students when video
modeling was used with percentages of independence
ranging from 74.3% to 87%. While
video modeling resulted in slightly greater
task performance, upon closer examination of
data, slight differences in student performance
were measured between the two video
instructional methods. For example, both Wes
and Rose were able to complete cooking tasks
more independently when using video modeling
whereas Brittany’s performance was
greater when using video prompting. Interestingly,
while each student indicated their preferred
video instructional system, only Rose
performed better with her nonpreferred system,
video modeling. Previous studies examining
student’s preferred instructional methods
indicate some correlation between
preference and performance (Taber-
Doughty, 2005; Taber-Doughty et al., 2008).
However, this remains an area in need of further
validation.
Two separate follow-up probes were conducted
to determine students’ ongoing level
of cooking independence. The first probe was
conducted to confirm the effectiveness of the
more effective intervention used during the
previous condition. The second probe examined
whether each student’s level of independence
when cooking would return to baseline
levels following withdrawal of the video system.
All three students demonstrated a continued
level of independence as observed during
intervention when using their more
effective video system. When those systems
were removed during the follow-up probe, the
level of independent functioning decreased
slightly for both Brittany and Wes while Rose
increased in her performance level. Thus, students
either improved in their cooking skills
or some carry-over effect existed as a result of
the similarity to the previous recipe completed
when using the video system. Future
research may seek to expand this condition
over more sessions to confirm the effects of
the video systems on student performance. In
addition, a more accurate measure of student
learning might compare student performance
on similar recipes (e.g., similar number of
steps, type of food, equipment needed, and
preparation steps) previously completed using
a video system as well as novel recipes requiring
only a few similarities.
While students in the present investigation
demonstrated increased independence in
cooking and following recipes when using
video modeling or video prompting, only
three students served as participants. Replication
is needed to confirm these results when
used by students who experience mild intellectual
disabilities. In addition, further studies
are needed to validate the use of video
prompting and video modeling by students
who experience high and low incidence disabilities.
While there is a growing body of
literature demonstrating the effectiveness of
these video strategies with students who experience
low incidence disabilities (e.g., Cihak et
al., 2006; Van Laarhoven et al., 2009) and
autism spectrum disorders (e.g., Charlop-
Christy & Daneshvar, 2003; Charlop-Christy,
Le, & Freeman, 2000), this research is still in
its infancy. When used by students who experience
mild intellectual disabilities, the present
investigation may represent the first to
involve this student population.
Although students in the current study were
generally successful in using video prompting
and modeling, one possible limitation to their
immediate success and independence may be
attributed to the equipment used to deliver
the videos. While lightweight and portable,
the iPod Nanos contained an extremely small
viewing screen. Students may have experienced
limitations while completing cooking
activities due to an inability to see video details.
As such, future studies may need to introduce
similar forms of portable equipment
yet with larger screens for delivering video
models and prompts. Another potential limitation
involves the teacher’s knowledge and
comfort level with the technology being used
to deliver the intervention. During the present
study, the teacher expressed enthusiasm
about using video prompts and modeling with
her students yet was hesitant about using the
iPods dues to her own lack of knowledge in
Video Modeling and Prompting / 509