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

the acquisitions with 100% accuracy. In addition,
some <strong>in</strong>appropriate behaviors often observed
dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>struction <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusive classrooms
(e.g., be<strong>in</strong>g off-task, non compliance,
<strong>and</strong> aggression toward others) did not occur
dur<strong>in</strong>g this study. The subjects were observed
to smile, cooperate, <strong>and</strong> participate appropriately
throughout the study. Future research
should assess levels of <strong>in</strong>appropriate behaviors
exhibited by students when engaged <strong>in</strong> various
group <strong>and</strong> one-to-one <strong>in</strong>struction arrangements
as well as with various <strong>in</strong>structional
strategies (e.g., simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g,
model-lead-test, system of least prompts) <strong>and</strong>
techniques (e.g., active versus passive error
correction procedures).
Although results of this study were positive,
data should be viewed cautiously s<strong>in</strong>ce several
limitations exist. First, there are several arguments
aga<strong>in</strong>st one-to-one <strong>in</strong>struction provided
out of <strong>in</strong>clusive classrooms such as removal of
students from the regular classroom for certa<strong>in</strong>
periods, <strong>and</strong> difficulties <strong>in</strong> provid<strong>in</strong>g coord<strong>in</strong>ation
between resource room <strong>and</strong> regular
classroom (All<strong>in</strong>gton & Johnston, 1989;
Kircaali-Iftar, 1992; Reisberg & Wolf, 1986;
Ste<strong>in</strong>, Le<strong>in</strong>hardt, & Bickel, 1989). Second, although
all tasks taught <strong>in</strong> this study were discrete
tasks, they have different forms. Therefore,
these skills may require different
learn<strong>in</strong>g abilities. Third, <strong>in</strong>struction was delivered
<strong>in</strong> a room that is not located <strong>in</strong> the
students’ schools. Fourth, a high rate of probe
errors occurred <strong>in</strong> the study. This is consistent
with other studies us<strong>in</strong>g simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g
procedures (Gibson & Schuster, 1992;
Griffen et al., 1998; Schuster et al., 1992; S<strong>in</strong>gleton
et al., 1995; Fickel et al., 1998). On the
other h<strong>and</strong>, no tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g error occurred dur<strong>in</strong>g
tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g with all students; whereas 33%
errors occurred dur<strong>in</strong>g daily probe sessions
with Erol, 26% errors occurred dur<strong>in</strong>g daily
probe sessions with Yunus, <strong>and</strong> 43% errors
occurred dur<strong>in</strong>g daily probe sessions with
Yasem<strong>in</strong>. These f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g are consistent with
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of previous studies (e.g., S<strong>in</strong>gleton et
al., 1999). Future research may assess effects
of <strong>in</strong>termittent daily probe sessions on acquisition
of the target behaviors. Additionally,
provid<strong>in</strong>g corrective feedback <strong>in</strong> the consequent
event dur<strong>in</strong>g these daily probe sessions
may decrease error rates currently found.
In conclusion, results suggest the possibility
of further research with students across <strong>in</strong>tel-
lectual function<strong>in</strong>g levels. This is particularly
important as the trend <strong>in</strong> education moves
towards more <strong>in</strong>clusive sett<strong>in</strong>gs. Teachers <strong>in</strong>
<strong>in</strong>clusion classes are expected to be responsible
for teach<strong>in</strong>g many skills to more than one
child with differ<strong>in</strong>g diagnoses. In this case,
this study can be replicated with small <strong>and</strong>
large group arrangement to help teachers
<strong>and</strong> observational learn<strong>in</strong>g can be <strong>in</strong>vestigated.
In addition, similar skills can be exam<strong>in</strong>ed
us<strong>in</strong>g the effectiveness of different
teach<strong>in</strong>g methods. Moreover, although simultaneous
prompt<strong>in</strong>g has been compared to
other <strong>in</strong>structional procedures when teach<strong>in</strong>g
discrete tasks (i.e., Schuster et al., 1992), the
effects <strong>and</strong> efficiency of the simultaneous
prompt<strong>in</strong>g procedure should be compared to
other strategies (e.g., progressive time delay,
constant time delay, system of least prompts,
etc.) with various discrete tasks so that teachers
can provide the most appropriate <strong>in</strong>struction
possible to students (Parrott, Schuster,
Coll<strong>in</strong>s, & Gassaway, 2000).
References
78 / <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
All<strong>in</strong>gton, R. L., & Johnston, P. (1989). Coord<strong>in</strong>ation,
collaboration, <strong>and</strong> consistency: The redesign
of compensatory <strong>and</strong> special education <strong>in</strong>terventions.
In R. E. Slav<strong>in</strong>, N. L. Karweit, & N. A.
Madden (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk
(pp. 141–152). Boston: Allyn <strong>and</strong> Bacon.
Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Gast, D. I., Doyle, P. M., &
Mart<strong>in</strong>, C. P. (1990). Comparison of predictable
<strong>and</strong> unpredictable trial sequences dur<strong>in</strong>g smallgroup
<strong>in</strong>struction. Learn<strong>in</strong>g Disability Quarterly, 13,
12–29.
Bill<strong>in</strong>gsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980).
Procedural reliability: A rationale <strong>and</strong> an example.
Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
Brown, F., & Holvoet, J. (1982). Effects of systematic
peer <strong>in</strong>teraction on the <strong>in</strong>cidental learn<strong>in</strong>g of two
severely h<strong>and</strong>icapped students. Journal of the Association
for the Severely H<strong>and</strong>icapped, 78(4), 19–28.
Dogan, O. S., & Tek<strong>in</strong>-Iftar, E. (2002). The effects of
simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g on teach<strong>in</strong>g receptively
identify<strong>in</strong>g occupations from picture cards. Research
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 23, 237–252.
Dogan, S., Guden, M., & P<strong>in</strong>ar, H. (2001). Okumaya
basliyorum. Devlet Kitaplari, Milli Egitim Basimevi-Istanbul.
Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. I., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., &
Meyer, S. (1992). Teach<strong>in</strong>g discrete skills to students
with moderate mental retardation <strong>in</strong> small
group <strong>in</strong>structional arrangements. Exceptionality,
3, 233–253.