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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>in</strong>structor <strong>in</strong> the present <strong>in</strong>vestigation did not deliver verbal prompts or correct errors with physical guidance. Specifically, the <strong>in</strong>vestigation attempted to answer two questions: (a) Is video prompt<strong>in</strong>g effective <strong>in</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g food preparation skills to secondary students with moderate disabilities, <strong>and</strong> (b) will the skills generalize to novel tra<strong>in</strong>ers, sett<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>and</strong> materials? Method Participants One male <strong>and</strong> two females <strong>in</strong> a self-conta<strong>in</strong>ed public high school classroom for students with functional mental disabilities (FMD) (i.e., moderate to severe disabilities) were participants <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>vestigation. Joe was a 16 year old male with a moderate mental disability <strong>and</strong> Down syndrome. He participated with modification <strong>in</strong> keyboard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> drama classes <strong>and</strong> received speech/language <strong>and</strong> occupational therapy. Based on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised (WISC-R, Wechsler, 1974), Joe had an IQ of 51. His Individual <strong>Education</strong> Plan (IEP) <strong>in</strong>cluded objectives for speech production, communication, social skills, <strong>and</strong> domestic skills (i.e., shopp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> food preparation). Joe was socially outgo<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> had a strong work ethic. He could stay on task <strong>and</strong> follow directions. Joe’s weakness was his <strong>in</strong>ability to read all written directions. Alley was an 18 year old female with a moderate mental disability <strong>and</strong> a communication disorder. She received special education services on a resource basis, participated <strong>in</strong> community-based <strong>in</strong>struction (CBI), <strong>and</strong> used modifications <strong>in</strong> physical education <strong>and</strong> basic guitar classes with peers without disabilities. Alley received speech/language <strong>and</strong> occupational therapy services. Based on the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974), she had an IQ of 45. Her IEP <strong>in</strong>cluded objectives for domestic skills (i.e., survival word recognition <strong>and</strong> cook<strong>in</strong>g), math skills (i.e., money <strong>and</strong> shopp<strong>in</strong>g skills), <strong>and</strong> communication. Alley had the ability to identify people, follow directions, <strong>and</strong> rema<strong>in</strong> on task. Her weakness was the <strong>in</strong>ability to speak <strong>in</strong>telligibly <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> complete sentences. Kelly was a 20 year old female with a moderate mental disability. Based on the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974), Kelly had an IQ of 49. She received special education services on a resource basis, participated <strong>in</strong> CBI, <strong>and</strong> used modifications <strong>in</strong> drama <strong>and</strong> human development classes with peers without disabilities. Kelly’s IEP objectives were for social skills, functional academics (i.e., written expression <strong>and</strong> read<strong>in</strong>g), <strong>and</strong> math skills (i.e., shopp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> food preparation). While her read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> comprehension skills were strengths, she had weaknesses <strong>in</strong> the ability to stay on task. Kelly often gazed around the room while twist<strong>in</strong>g her hair <strong>and</strong> was easily distracted by her surround<strong>in</strong>gs. The teacher assessed the follow<strong>in</strong>g prerequisite skills through observations: (a) ability to wait 5 s, (b) ability to attend to task for 20 m<strong>in</strong>, (c) ability to follow a verbal direction, (d) ability to imitate a visual model, <strong>and</strong> (e) visual acuity to watch a videotape. Parent permissions were obta<strong>in</strong>ed for all participants. Sett<strong>in</strong>g The teacher conducted screen<strong>in</strong>g, basel<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>and</strong> tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sessions <strong>in</strong> a one-to-one format with each participant. Instruction took place <strong>in</strong> the kitchen area of the FMD resource classroom. The students stood <strong>in</strong> front of the television <strong>and</strong> counter, stove, or microwave while perform<strong>in</strong>g the task presented on the video. Other students were engaged <strong>in</strong> seatwork or small group <strong>in</strong>struction at their desks or classroom tables. The teacher or classroom assistant verbally redirected any students who distracted the participants dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>struction. Materials <strong>and</strong> Equipment 36 / <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 Materials <strong>and</strong> equipment for the <strong>in</strong>vestigation <strong>in</strong>cluded a 25 <strong>in</strong>. color television with a VCR <strong>and</strong> a video prompt<strong>in</strong>g tape for each targeted cook<strong>in</strong>g skill (i.e., stove item, microwave item, <strong>and</strong> counter item). Additional materials <strong>in</strong>cluded data sheets, cook<strong>in</strong>g supplies (e.g., pots, pans, spoons), <strong>and</strong> food items. The video prompt<strong>in</strong>g tapes used a subjective viewpo<strong>in</strong>t (Norman et al., 2001) to demonstrate the cook<strong>in</strong>g tasks so that the student saw the task performed on the video from the same viewpo<strong>in</strong>t that would be seen if the student performed the task. Each video started by verbally stat<strong>in</strong>g the Sd (e.g., “Cook the
.”), <strong>and</strong> the teacher alternated between videotapes that used male <strong>and</strong> female voices. Follow<strong>in</strong>g the Sd for the task, the videotape showed a model of the task from start to f<strong>in</strong>ish <strong>and</strong> then aga<strong>in</strong> delivered the verbal Sd. A delay <strong>in</strong>terval of 0sor5sthen occurred. On the 0 s delay videotape, a verbal prompt paired with a model prompt of the first step of the cha<strong>in</strong>ed task immediately occurred, <strong>and</strong>, on the 5 s delay videotape, a verbal prompt paired with a model prompt of the first step occurred follow<strong>in</strong>g a5sdelay <strong>in</strong>terval. After each step was prompted, a 20 s colored frame appeared, giv<strong>in</strong>g the student 20 s to perform the prior step <strong>and</strong>/or the next step of the cha<strong>in</strong> before the videotape prompted a subsequent step of the task analysis. Skill Selection The teacher selected the target food preparation skills through preference test<strong>in</strong>g of the participants <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terviews with their parents, tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account the availability of the foods <strong>and</strong> equipment <strong>in</strong> the home sett<strong>in</strong>g. The target skills were similar <strong>in</strong> difficulty <strong>and</strong> number of steps per task analysis. The IEPs of each participant conta<strong>in</strong>ed cook<strong>in</strong>g or food preparation objectives, <strong>and</strong> the parents had addressed these skills <strong>in</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g for future assisted liv<strong>in</strong>g. Based on this <strong>in</strong>formation, the <strong>in</strong>vestigators targeted the follow<strong>in</strong>g skills: (a) a stovetop skill of prepar<strong>in</strong>g noodles (i.e., Ramen Noodles), (b) a microwave skill of prepar<strong>in</strong>g macaroni (i.e., Mac n M<strong>in</strong>utes), <strong>and</strong> (c) a countertop skill of mak<strong>in</strong>g a s<strong>and</strong>wich (i.e., peanut butter <strong>and</strong> jelly). Task analyses for each of these skills can be found <strong>in</strong> Table 1. Data Collection The teacher collected data on each participant’s ability to perform each step of the task analysis dur<strong>in</strong>g screen<strong>in</strong>g, basel<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>and</strong> tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sessions. She recorded a () for each correct response <strong>and</strong> a () for each <strong>in</strong>correct response. She def<strong>in</strong>ed a correct response as complet<strong>in</strong>g the step <strong>in</strong>dependently with<strong>in</strong> the allotted response <strong>in</strong>terval (20 s) follow<strong>in</strong>g the Sd or the previously completed step. She def<strong>in</strong>ed an <strong>in</strong>correct response as (a) not perform<strong>in</strong>g the step correctly (topographical error), (b) not perform<strong>in</strong>g the step <strong>in</strong> the correct order (sequence error), (c) not complet<strong>in</strong>g the step with<strong>in</strong> the allotted response <strong>in</strong>terval (20 s) follow<strong>in</strong>g the Sd or previously completed step (duration error), or (d) fail<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>in</strong>itiate a response with<strong>in</strong> 5softhe verbal Sd or previously completed step. Until a participant performed 100% correct responses for two sessions, the teacher used videotapes conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a 0-s response <strong>in</strong>terval. Dur<strong>in</strong>g all subsequent <strong>in</strong>structional sessions, she used videotapes with a 5-s delay <strong>in</strong>terval. Dur<strong>in</strong>g these CTD sessions, the teacher recorded a () <strong>in</strong> the “before” column when the students completed a step correctly <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>dependently with<strong>in</strong> the allotted response <strong>in</strong>terval (20 s) follow<strong>in</strong>g the Sd or the previously completed step <strong>and</strong> a () <strong>in</strong> the “after” column when the student completed the step correctly with<strong>in</strong> 20 s follow<strong>in</strong>g the video prompt. The teacher recorded a () <strong>in</strong>the “before” column for each <strong>in</strong>correct response with<strong>in</strong> 20 s follow<strong>in</strong>g the Sd or the previously completed step <strong>and</strong> a () <strong>in</strong> the “after” column for each <strong>in</strong>correct response with<strong>in</strong> 20 follow<strong>in</strong>g the prompt. The teacher also recorded a “T” for each topographical error, an “S” for each sequential error, <strong>and</strong> a “D” for each duration error. If a participant failed to <strong>in</strong>itiate a response with<strong>in</strong> 5softheprompt, the teacher recorded “NR” for no response. Procedure General procedures. The teacher taught the target food preparation skills <strong>in</strong> a one-to-one format us<strong>in</strong>g a CTD procedure with video prompt<strong>in</strong>g. As previously described, the teacher used videotapes that gave the student either 0sor5sto<strong>in</strong>itiate a step <strong>and</strong> 20 s to complete a step. If the student did not <strong>in</strong>itiate the step dur<strong>in</strong>g the response <strong>in</strong>terval (e.g., 5 s), the video provided a verbal prompt paired with a model prompt. Dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>struction, each student stood <strong>in</strong> front of the microwave, the stove, or the counter with the television positioned so the student could view the videotape while perform<strong>in</strong>g the target skill. Sessions took place Monday through Friday. Each session began with the teacher deliver<strong>in</strong>g the attentional cue (i.e., “Are you ready to cook?”). Us<strong>in</strong>g a multiple opportunity format, the teacher allowed the students to complete Video Prompt<strong>in</strong>g / 37
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 and 14: Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 15 and 16: Social Validity Informal feedback f
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: potatoes) in a mic
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?