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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3. Number of correct responses for Yasem<strong>in</strong> 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. ter, 1992; MacFarl<strong>and</strong> et al., 1993; Tek<strong>in</strong> & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002; Wolery et al., 1993), elementary students (Schuster et al., 1992; Schuster & Griffen, 1993; S<strong>in</strong>gleton et al., 1995) <strong>and</strong> high school students (Johnson et al., 1996). S<strong>in</strong>ce this study was conducted with preschool <strong>and</strong> elementary students for teach<strong>in</strong>g discrete tasks, the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of the study extend the current literature about simultaneous prompt- 76 / <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>in</strong>g procedure when students’ levels of schools are taken <strong>in</strong>to consideration. In addition, these f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs, taken with those from previous on simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong>dicate that the procedure is easy to use (e.g., Gibson & Schuster). Thus, it may have broad application <strong>in</strong>clusive sett<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> early <strong>and</strong> elementary education contexts (Wolery et al., 1993). Second, students were taught several tasks
TABLE 1 Instructional Data for Each Student <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> Set Through Criterion Student/Set No. tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sessions No. tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g trials No. tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g errors <strong>in</strong> the same study. Only one other study was located that taught more than one tasks us<strong>in</strong>g different stimuli to a small group of students (Fickel et al., 1998). Us<strong>in</strong>g different prompts (i.e., verbal <strong>and</strong> manual) across students is also an additional contribution. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Fickel et al., “This is important given the trend toward the use of <strong>in</strong>clusive sett<strong>in</strong>gs with students with disabilities. This trend will require students to learn <strong>in</strong> more heterogeneous sett<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> group will place dem<strong>and</strong>s on teachers for teach<strong>in</strong>g diverse students with<strong>in</strong> the same <strong>in</strong>structional group” (p. 239). Third, several reasons may exist for conduct<strong>in</strong>g research <strong>in</strong> which effective <strong>and</strong> systematic strategies are exam<strong>in</strong>ed for teach<strong>in</strong>g students with mental retardation <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusive classrooms. Almost all teachers want to: (a) teach their students with maximum effectiveness <strong>in</strong> a m<strong>in</strong>imum amount of time, (b) overcome barriers for children who have diverse learn<strong>in</strong>g needs, (c) teach different concepts <strong>and</strong> skills, <strong>and</strong> (d) avoid teach<strong>in</strong>g different k<strong>in</strong>ds of tasks with different stimuli across students with vary<strong>in</strong>g cognitive abilities because of perceived difficulty. However, our <strong>in</strong>dependent variable reliability data <strong>in</strong>dicated that the tra<strong>in</strong>er implemented the required teacher behaviors with a high degree of accuracy. Whatever the reason, as more students with mental % tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g errors <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> time (m<strong>in</strong>:sec) Daily probe time (m<strong>in</strong>:sec) No. of Probe errors % probe errors Erol 1 15 45 0 0 135 m<strong>in</strong> 18 s 45 m<strong>in</strong> 05 s 17 37 2 11 33 0 0 99 m<strong>in</strong> 16 s 33 m<strong>in</strong> 08 s 9 27 3 5 15 0 0 45 m<strong>in</strong> 44 s 15 m<strong>in</strong> 12 s 5 33 Total 31 93 0 0 280 m<strong>in</strong> 18 s 93 m<strong>in</strong> 25 s 31 33 Yunus 1 16 48 0 0 144 m<strong>in</strong> 01 s 58 m<strong>in</strong> 23 s 13 27 2 8 32 0 0 96 m<strong>in</strong> 55 s 24 m<strong>in</strong> 01 s 8 25 3 5 15 0 0 45 m<strong>in</strong> 22 s 15 m<strong>in</strong> 15 s 4 26 Total 29 95 0 0 286 m<strong>in</strong> 18 s 97 m<strong>in</strong> 39 s 25 26 Yasem<strong>in</strong> 1 12 60 0 0 96 m<strong>in</strong> 36 s 48 m<strong>in</strong> 36 s 21 35 2 16 80 0 0 128 m<strong>in</strong> 19 s 64 m<strong>in</strong> 42 s 39 48 3 5 25 0 0 40 m<strong>in</strong> 05 s 20 m<strong>in</strong> 23 s 11 44 Total 33 165 0 0 265 m<strong>in</strong> 00 s 133 m<strong>in</strong> 41 s 71 43 Gr<strong>and</strong> Total 93 353 0 0 831 m<strong>in</strong> 36 s 324 m<strong>in</strong> 45 s 127 35 retardation, especially those with low <strong>in</strong>cidence disabilities, move <strong>in</strong>to heterogeneous <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusive classroom sett<strong>in</strong>gs for <strong>in</strong>structional purposes, additional research will be needed to guide the <strong>in</strong>structional efforts of classroom teachers <strong>and</strong> paraprofessionals (Fickel et al., 1998). Fourth, amount of time that is spent on daily probe sessions must be considered when implement<strong>in</strong>g a simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g procedure. In this study, simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>volved high probe time to criterion. However, this <strong>in</strong>structional procedure resulted <strong>in</strong> high student performance dur<strong>in</strong>g ma<strong>in</strong>tenance <strong>and</strong> generalization probe sessions as it was <strong>in</strong> other studies with simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g (e.g., S<strong>in</strong>gleton et al., 1999). S<strong>in</strong>ce a major goal of education for students is to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> generalize acquired behaviors, the additional probe time that may be associated with simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g may be defensible. However, additional research is needed before def<strong>in</strong>itive statements can be made (S<strong>in</strong>gleton et al.,). F<strong>in</strong>ally, the students with mild <strong>and</strong> moderate disabilities are believed to have benefited from this <strong>in</strong>struction. Although they had no history with simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g procedure, they acquired <strong>and</strong> generalized all of their targeted <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed Simultaneous Prompt<strong>in</strong>g for Teach<strong>in</strong>g Discrete Tasks / 77
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 and 78: Maintenance Probe
Page 79: Figure 2. Number of correct respons
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?