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

<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>, 2005, 40(1), 68–79
© <strong>Division</strong> on <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>
Us<strong>in</strong>g Simultaneous Prompt<strong>in</strong>g for Teach<strong>in</strong>g Various Discrete
Tasks to Students with Mental Retardation
Bunyam<strong>in</strong> Birkan
Anadolu University
Abstract: Effectiveness of a simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g procedure was evaluated for students with mental
retardation at different levels of schools (preschool, primary <strong>and</strong> secondary grades) us<strong>in</strong>g various discrete tasks.
Participants <strong>in</strong>cluded three students whose function<strong>in</strong>g levels ranged from typically develop<strong>in</strong>g to mild <strong>and</strong>
moderate mental disabilities. Effectiveness of a simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g procedure was evaluated through use
of a multiple probe design across behaviors <strong>and</strong> replicated across students. Results <strong>in</strong>dicated that the procedure
was successful <strong>in</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g targeted behaviors to all students. Students ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed target behaviors at high rates
up to 7, 18, <strong>and</strong> 25 weeks after tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> generalized responses across people, materials, <strong>and</strong> sett<strong>in</strong>gs.
Limitations <strong>and</strong> implications for future research are discussed.
Special educators strive for effective teach<strong>in</strong>g
strategies that m<strong>in</strong>imize errors <strong>in</strong> education
sett<strong>in</strong>gs (Gibson & Schuster, 1992; Tek<strong>in</strong> &
Kircaali-Iftar, 2001) Several effective, near-errorless
teach<strong>in</strong>g procedures used to teach children
with disabilities a variety of skills dur<strong>in</strong>g
the acquisition phase of learn<strong>in</strong>g have been
discussed <strong>in</strong> the literature (Wolery, Ault, &
Doyle, 1992) <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>clude constant <strong>and</strong> progressive
time delay. In addition to these procedures,
simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g (Gibson &
Schuster) also results <strong>in</strong> low student error
rates (Fetko, Schuster, Harley, & Coll<strong>in</strong>s,
1999).
Simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g is a systematic
form of the antecedent prompt <strong>and</strong> test procedure
because all trials are conducted with
zero second delays between the discrim<strong>in</strong>ative
stimulus <strong>and</strong> the teacher’s prompt. However,
simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g procedures are different
from antecedent prompt <strong>and</strong> test strategies
<strong>in</strong> two dist<strong>in</strong>ct ways. First, when us<strong>in</strong>g
simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g, a controll<strong>in</strong>g
prompt is always used. Antecedent prompt
The author is grateful to Dr. Gonul Kircaali-Iftar,
Director, Research Institute for the H<strong>and</strong>icapped,
for her <strong>in</strong>sightful review <strong>and</strong> feedback, <strong>and</strong> to Gazi
Acar, special education teacher, Research Institute
for the H<strong>and</strong>icapped, for collect<strong>in</strong>g reliability data.
Correspondence concern<strong>in</strong>g this article should be
addressed to Bunyam<strong>in</strong> Birkan, Anadolu Universitesi,
Engelliler Arastirma Enstitusu, 26470, Eskisehir,
TURKEY. E-mail: bbirkan@anadolu.edu.tr
68 / <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
<strong>and</strong> test procedures traditionally have not
used controll<strong>in</strong>g prompt as evidenced by variable
<strong>and</strong> sometimes high learner error rates
(Gibson & Schuster, 1992; Schuster & Griffen,
1993; Johnson, Schuster, & Bell, 1996). Second,
when us<strong>in</strong>g antecedent prompt <strong>and</strong> test
procedures, probe or test trials can occur at
any po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> time but usually have occurred
immediately after tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g trials <strong>in</strong> a modellead-test
format (Wolery et al., 1992). The
probe trials used dur<strong>in</strong>g simultaneous
prompt<strong>in</strong>g always occur immediately prior to
<strong>in</strong>struction.
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Schuster <strong>and</strong> Griffen (1993),
when us<strong>in</strong>g simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g, “A natural
discrim<strong>in</strong>ative stimulus is presented <strong>and</strong>
is followed immediately by a controll<strong>in</strong>g
prompt. Learners then imitate the prompt.
S<strong>in</strong>ce learners never have an <strong>in</strong>dependent opportunity
to respond dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>structional trials,
probe trials are conducted to assess the
transfer of stimulus control from the controll<strong>in</strong>g
prompt used dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>structional trials to
the natural discrim<strong>in</strong>ative stimulus” (p. 300).
Although not extensively researched like
other <strong>in</strong>structional strategies appear<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the
literature, research has shown some examples
of the effectiveness of simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g
<strong>in</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g tasks to students with mild <strong>and</strong>
moderate mental disabilities (Gibson & Schuster,
1992; Schuster & Griffen).
Though the number of studies report<strong>in</strong>g
use of simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g is limited, re-