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

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