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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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>tellectual 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.
Fetko, K. S., Schuster, J. W., Harley, D. A., & Coll<strong>in</strong>s, B. C. (1999). Us<strong>in</strong>g simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g to teach a cha<strong>in</strong>ed vocational task to young adults with severe <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities. <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> Mental Retardation <strong>and</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 34, 318–329. Fickel, K. M., Schuster, J. W., & Coll<strong>in</strong>s, B. C. (1998). Teach<strong>in</strong>g different tasks us<strong>in</strong>g different stimuli <strong>in</strong> a heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral <strong>Education</strong>, 8, 219–244. Gibson, A. N., & Schuster, J. W. (1992). The use of simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g for teach<strong>in</strong>g expressive word recognition to preschool children. Topics <strong>in</strong> Early Childhood Special <strong>Education</strong>, 12, 247–267. Griffen, A. K., Schuster, J. W., & Morse, T. E. (1998). The acquisition of <strong>in</strong>structive feedback: A comparison of cont<strong>in</strong>uous versus <strong>in</strong>termittent presentation schedules. <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> Mental Retardation <strong>and</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 33, 42– 61. Johnson, P., Schuster, J. W., & Bell, J. K. (1996). Comparison of simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>and</strong> without error correction <strong>in</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g science vocabulary words to high school students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral <strong>Education</strong>, 6, 437– 458. Kircaali-Iftar, G. (1992). Teacher <strong>and</strong> student characteristics which <strong>in</strong>fluence teacher preferences for resource <strong>and</strong> consultation approaches. Eskisehir: Publications of Anadolu University. Kilicoglu, B., Micozkadioglu, S., & Dede, A. (2001). Matematik Kitabi. Devlet Kitaplari, Milli Egitim Basimevi-Istanbul. MacFarl<strong>and</strong>-Smith, J., Schuster, J. W., & Stevens, K. B. (1993). Us<strong>in</strong>g simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g to teach expressive object identification to preschoolers with developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 50–60. Parrott, K. A., Schuster, J. W., Coll<strong>in</strong>s, B. C., & Gassaway, L. J. (2000). Simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>structive feedback when teach<strong>in</strong>g cha<strong>in</strong>ed tasks. Journal of Behavioral <strong>Education</strong>, 10, 3–19. Reisberg, L., & Wolf, R. (1986). Develop<strong>in</strong>g a consult<strong>in</strong>g program <strong>in</strong> special education: Implementation <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terventions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19, 1–14. Schuster, J. W., & Griffen, A. K. (1993). Teach<strong>in</strong>g a cha<strong>in</strong>ed task with a simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g procedure. Journal of Behavioral <strong>Education</strong>, 3, 299– 315. Schuster, J. W., Griffen, A. K., & Wolery, M. (1992). Comparison of simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> constant time delay procedures <strong>in</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral <strong>Education</strong>, 2, 305–326. S<strong>in</strong>gleton, D. K., Schuster, J. W., Morse, T. E., & Coll<strong>in</strong>s, B. C. (1999). A comparison of antecedent prompt <strong>and</strong> test <strong>and</strong> simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g procedures <strong>in</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g grocery words to adolescents with mental retardation. <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> Mental Retardation <strong>and</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 34, 182–199. S<strong>in</strong>gleton, K. C., Schuster, J. W., & Ault, M. J. (1995). Simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a small group <strong>in</strong>structional arrangement. <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> Mental Retardation <strong>and</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 30, 218–230. Ste<strong>in</strong>, M. K., Le<strong>in</strong>hardt, G., & Bickel, W. (1989). Instructional issues for teach<strong>in</strong>g students at risk. In R. E. Slav<strong>in</strong>, N. L. Karweit, & N. A. Madden (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp. 155–187). Boston: Allyn <strong>and</strong> Bacon. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). S<strong>in</strong>gle subject research design <strong>in</strong> special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Tek<strong>in</strong>, E., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (2001). Ozel egitimde yanlissiz ogretim yontemleri (Erroorless learn<strong>in</strong>g procedures <strong>in</strong> special education). Ankara, Turkey: Nobel Yay<strong>in</strong>evi. Tek<strong>in</strong>, E., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (2002). Comparison of the effectiveness <strong>and</strong> efficiency of two response prompt<strong>in</strong>g procedures delivered by sibl<strong>in</strong>g tutors. <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> Mental Retardation <strong>and</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 37, 283–299. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teach<strong>in</strong>g students with moderate <strong>and</strong> severe h<strong>and</strong>icaps: Use of response prompt<strong>in</strong>g strategies. NY: Longman. Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Werts, M. G., & Cipolloni, R. M. (1993). Effects of simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>structive feedback. Early <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> Development, 4, 20–31. Received: 7 August 2003 Initial Acceptance: 2 October 2003 F<strong>in</strong>al Acceptance: 15 February 2004 Simultaneous Prompt<strong>in</strong>g for Teach<strong>in</strong>g Discrete Tasks / 79
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 and 80: Figure 2. Number of correct respons
Page 81: TABLE 1 Instructional Data for Each
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?