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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 1. Number of correct responses for Erol dur<strong>in</strong>g full, daily, ma<strong>in</strong>tenance <strong>and</strong> generalization probe sessions. Closed circles represent daily probe, full probe, <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>tenance probe data, <strong>and</strong> open circles represent generalization probe data. Generalization Data Generalization probe data were collected on students’ performance across different people, stimuli, <strong>and</strong> sett<strong>in</strong>gs before <strong>and</strong> after tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g. Before <strong>in</strong>struction, students were given a generalization pre-test. Dur<strong>in</strong>g the pre-test students could not identify their targeted stimuli. After <strong>in</strong>struction, all students responded with 100% accuracy on all stimulus sets dur<strong>in</strong>g post-test for generalization probe session. Discussion 74 / <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 The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g for
Figure 2. Number of correct responses for Yunus dur<strong>in</strong>g full, daily, ma<strong>in</strong>tenance <strong>and</strong> generalization probe sessions. Closed circles represent daily probe, full probe, <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>tenance probe data, <strong>and</strong> open circles represent generalization probe data. teach<strong>in</strong>g various tasks to students with mental retardation. In addition, ma<strong>in</strong>tenance <strong>and</strong> generalization of the targeted stimuli were assessed. Several conclusions can be drawn from the results of this study. First, simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g was effective <strong>in</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g various tasks to students with mental retardation. All students acquired their targeted stimuli with<strong>in</strong> 93 tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sessions (conducted over a period of 2 months) <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed the behaviors up to 7, 18, <strong>and</strong> 25 days with 100% accuracy. Data collected dur<strong>in</strong>g pretests <strong>and</strong> posttests <strong>in</strong>dicated that students generalized their acquired behaviors across persons, sett<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>and</strong> materials with 100% accuracy. Previous studies have used simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g with preschoolers (Dogan & Tek<strong>in</strong>-Iftar, 2002; Gibson & Schus- Simultaneous Prompt<strong>in</strong>g for Teach<strong>in</strong>g Discrete Tasks / 75
Page 1 and 2:
Education
Page 3 and 4:
Education
Page 5 and 6:
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 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: Maintenance Probe
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?