Download complate issue - Ozean Publications

Ozean Journal of Social Sciences 2(3), 2009Before beginning to study maintenance reliability, instructors were told how the instruction would beconducted by the researcher to do the independent variable reliability. While the researcher wasfollowing up the data obtained after the maintenance, he/she put (+) and (-) signs on the IndependentVariable Reliability Form by deciding if the instructors conducted the articles on this form where everystep of the maintenance was divided into articles. The calculation of independent variable reliability wasconducted by “Observed Instructor Behaviors/ Planned Instructor Behavior x 100” formula for 50%instruction sessions for each subject determined by Independent Appointment Table. As a result of thestudy conducted by the researcher, the independent variable reliability was found 90%.PROCEDUREBaseline and Instruction Sessions. Baseline, probe, follow-up, and generalizing data were collected byprepared data collecting tools. In the determination of performance levels by data collecting tools, theprocess below was pursued.1. The subject was made to pay attention.2. After the first step, the verbal response was strengthened (great, very good)3. The subject was provided stimulant suitable for the concept. “Sara, touch the objects in front of youand show me the rough one.”4. We waited for the subject to react for 5 seconds after the instruction.5. If the subject had managed the first step in the concept analysis, the sign “+” was placed on the datacollecting table. If he had not been able to manage, the sign “-“ was placed.6. Each step in the concept analysis was evaluated as above.7. The data on beginning, inspecting, and follow-up were collected until obtaining stability.8. The number of steps which have been carried out accurately by the subject was recorded in the graph.Using direct instruction method. The teaching session was conducted by utilizing direct teachingmethod. In these sessions, five teaching sets were used in each teaching session. These sets werecomposed of two tools which were rough and smooth. An individual instruction programme wasdesigned to teach the detected opposite concept. In the programme, the direct instruction method wasused.1. The subject paid attention to the tool sets.2. If the attention had been paid, it was reinforced verbally (great, very good).3. The subject was made to touch each object in the tool sets.4. While teaching the object, the subject was told “Look, this square is rough-smooth.”5. The same training was done in each one of the five teaching sets.In the instruction sessions, the subject was made to pay attention to the study as it was ensured in thebaseline level and probe sessions. When the subject concentrated, he or she was appreciated orally. Thenthe directive relating to the concept was presented by saying “Look, this square is rough.” and the subjectwas made to touch it. The reactions of the subject were appreciated orally (such as well done, great).After touching, the subject was directed by saying “Look, this square is smooth.” after waiting for 5seconds. After 5 more seconds, the subject was directed by saying “Now, touch the squares in front ofyou and show me the smooth/rough one”. We waited him/her for 5 sec. to respond to the direction. If thesubject had responded correctly, he/she was appreciated by saying “Well done, great.” and his or herhead was patted. If not, the maintenance was continued by giving clues until the subject gave the correctresponse. This maintenance was given to all subjects. Until they met the established criteria, the161