Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2. Percentage of correct responses for CS, GS, <strong>and</strong> AH (Group 2). after the tenth <strong>in</strong>tervention session <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that level for three consecutive sessions. Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance. Dur<strong>in</strong>g ma<strong>in</strong>tenance, CS correctly completed between 80% <strong>and</strong> 96% of the steps, with a mean of 86% correctly completed steps. CS ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that level for two 10 / <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>-March 2005 months. GS correctly completed between 92% <strong>and</strong> 100%, of the steps for the n<strong>in</strong>e ma<strong>in</strong>tenance sessions over one <strong>and</strong> one half months, with a mean of 97%. Last, AH correctly completed between 63% <strong>and</strong> 77% of the steps, with a mean of 69% correctly completed. AH was <strong>in</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>tenance for 1 month.
Social Validity Informal feedback from two special education teachers <strong>and</strong> four general education teachers regard<strong>in</strong>g their satisfaction of the procedure <strong>and</strong> results was obta<strong>in</strong>ed. Both special education teachers noted that participants <strong>in</strong> both groups were more conscientious about their behavior. One teacher made the comment that their behavior had improved because students did not know when they would be observed. They wanted to do a good job <strong>in</strong> all their classes because of their participation <strong>in</strong> the study. These teachers felt that this was positive experience for participants. In addition, they <strong>in</strong>dicated that overall ability to follow<strong>in</strong>g directions improved both <strong>in</strong> the general education <strong>and</strong> special classrooms. Four general education teachers commented that participants seemed to participate more <strong>in</strong> class <strong>and</strong> completed their work at a more consistent level than before the <strong>in</strong>tervention. The teachers were satisfied with the changes <strong>in</strong> student behavior <strong>and</strong> completion of work tasks after directions were followed. They also noted that as participants began to monitor their own behavior, they needed less teacher-directed supervision. The art teacher commented that, although AH is better at follow<strong>in</strong>g directions, he was still unable to leave other classmates alone while work<strong>in</strong>g. Discussion These f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs suggest that students with moderate to severe disabilities successfully employed self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g to promote their participation <strong>in</strong> general education. With appropriate supports, there is no question that students with moderate to severe disabilities will benefit <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusive education, <strong>and</strong> selfmonitor<strong>in</strong>g represents a potentially effective self-directed support (Hughes et al., 2002). Dramatic changes <strong>in</strong> performance levels were observed for all students, <strong>and</strong> these changes were ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed for all participants up to two months after the <strong>in</strong>tervention was withdrawn. Additionally, the social validation data obta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>dicated that both special <strong>and</strong> general educators <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>vestigation observed positive changes <strong>in</strong> the students’ performance <strong>and</strong> believed that the strategy enhanced students’ participation <strong>in</strong> class. Despite ample illustrations of the positive effects of self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g (see Agran, 1997; Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 1998), there are relatively few <strong>in</strong>vestigations of self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g conducted <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusive sett<strong>in</strong>gs with students with moderate to severe disabilities (Gilberts et al., 2001; Hughes et al., 2002). This study provides further evidence that students with moderate to severe disabilities can monitor their own behavior <strong>in</strong> a general education sett<strong>in</strong>g. In addition to a lack of empirical studies, available data also suggest that a limited number of teachers <strong>in</strong>struct their students on how to use their strategy. Agran et al. (1999) reported that 35% of the teachers <strong>in</strong> their sample taught their students to self-monitor, with only 3% <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that they have observed their students us<strong>in</strong>g this strategy. Wehmeyer et al. (2000) reported that 50% of the teachers <strong>in</strong> their sample taught their students to selfmonitor, despite the fact that the majority of respondents rated this strategy as be<strong>in</strong>g very important. The paucity of <strong>in</strong>vestigations on effects of self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> failure by teachers to teach these strategies, are surpris<strong>in</strong>g for at least two reasons. First, self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g is relatively easy to teach <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>corporate <strong>in</strong>to classroom activity (Agran, 1997). It requires the student to discrim<strong>in</strong>ate a response <strong>and</strong> record its occurrence <strong>in</strong> some manner. There are numerous reports that students with severe disabilities can acquire these component responses (see Agran, 1998; Wehmeyer et al., 1998). Second, the strategy has great potential effectiveness across a variety of adaptive skills. As Baer (1984) noted, self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g may function as a discrim<strong>in</strong>ative stimulus to cue desired responses. As such, it may also enhance generalization <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>tenance by provid<strong>in</strong>g the student with a self-directed common stimulus across sett<strong>in</strong>gs. Last, as a student-directed learn<strong>in</strong>g strategy, self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g enhances student motivation by transferr<strong>in</strong>g ownership of data collection from teacher to student <strong>and</strong>, by do<strong>in</strong>g so, permits the student to assess <strong>and</strong> evaluate his or her own performance. As Wehmeyer et al. (2000) noted, many teachers may not <strong>in</strong>struct students with moderate to severe disabilities to self-monitor, along with other student-directed learn<strong>in</strong>g strategies, because they believe that such students are <strong>in</strong>capable of learn<strong>in</strong>g to use such strategies; <strong>in</strong> effect, Self-Monitor<strong>in</strong>g / 11
Page 1 and 2: Education
Page 7 and 8: Using Self-Monitor
Page 9 and 10: monitor their frequency of follow<s
Page 11 and 12: instructional task
Page 13: Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 17 and 18: itoring procedure.
Page 19 and 20: ple characteristics of communicatio
Page 21 and 22: TABLE 1 Demographic Information, St
Page 23 and 24: TABLE 2 Levels of Social Preference
Page 25 and 26: esponses given by students
Page 27 and 28: (1997). The effects of peer network
Page 29 and 30: his or her monitorin</stron
Page 31 and 32: the five minute pe
Page 33 and 34: the token system (see Figures 1 <st
Page 35 and 36: ing, number of tok
Page 37 and 38: self-monitoring to
Page 39 and 40: potatoes) in a mic
Page 41 and 42: .”), and the tea
Page 43 and 44: While hearing the
Page 45 and 46: Figure 2. Graphic data for Alley. O
Page 47 and 48: Joe met criterion of 100% correct r
Page 49 and 50: trials. Ninth, det
Page 51 and 52: Computer-Based Video Instruction to
Page 53 and 54: ing materials. He
Page 55 and 56: Generalization Probe Procedures Pri
Page 57 and 58: Figure 1. Hyperstudio “card” wi
Page 59 and 60: to emit the behaviors, multiplied b
Page 61 and 62: curred after the prompt. Dur<strong
Page 63 and 64: ulation train<stro
Page 65 and 66:
enhance the indepe
Page 67 and 68:
een a part of the expected rout<str
Page 69 and 70:
Figure 4. Kent’s performance on c
Page 71 and 72:
Mirenda, P., Wilk, D., & Carson, P.
Page 73 and 74:
search indicates t
Page 75 and 76:
sions were conducted week days afte
Page 77 and 78:
Maintenance Probe
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 2. Number of correct respons
Page 81 and 82:
TABLE 1 Instructional Data for Each
Page 83 and 84:
Fetko, K. S., Schuster, J. W., Harl
Page 85 and 86:
lar challenge for school personnel
Page 87 and 88:
TABLE 1 Participant Demographic Cha
Page 89 and 90:
vidually identified feedin<
Page 91 and 92:
(i.e., before the in</stron
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 2. Graphic display of Nate
Page 95 and 96:
TABLE 2 Individual and</str
Page 97 and 98:
tion, this rate in
Page 99 and 100:
A functional relationship was estab
Page 101:
Search the entire archives of <stro
show all

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?