Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

change (2 nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Browder, D. M., & Grasso, E. (1999). Teaching money skills to individuals with mental retardation: A research review with practical applications. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 297–308. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. Y. (2008). A metaanalysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407–432. Bullock, J., Pierce, S., & McClellan, L. (1989). Touch Math. Colorado Springs, Co: Innovative Learning Concepts. Burns, M. (1996). How to make the most of math manipulatives. Instructor, 105, 45–51. Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Kit-hung, L., & Pierce, T. (2001). Teaching mathematics to students with mild-to-moderate mental retardation: A review of the literature. Mental Retardation, 39, 20–31. Cihak, D., & Foust, J. (2008). Comparing number lines and touch points to teach addition facts to students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23, 131–137. Copeland, S. R., Hughes, C., Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Fowler, S. E. (2002). An intervention package to support high school students with mental retardation in general education classrooms. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 32–45. Earnest, P. (1985). The number line as a teaching aid. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 411– 424. Fredrick-Dugan, A., Test, D., & Varn, L. (1991). Acquisition and generalization of purchasing skills using a calculator by students who are mentally retarded. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 381–387. Gilliam, J. (1995). Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Goldman, S., Pellegrino, J., & Mertz, D. (1988) Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning disabled students. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 223–265. Jitendra, A. K., & Xin, Y. (1997). Mathematical problem solving instruction for students with mild disabilities and students at risk for math failure: A research synthesis. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 412–438. Kokaska, S. (1975). Classroom techniques: A notation system in arithmetic skills. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 10, 96–101. Kramer, T., & Krug, D. A. (1973). A rationale and procedure for teaching addition. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 8, 140–145. Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114. Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Scruggs, T. E. (1991). Mathematics instruction for individuals with mental retardation: A perspective and research synthesis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 115–129. Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Shiah, R. (1997). Can computers teach problem-solving strategies to students with mild mental retardation? Remedial and Special Education, 18, 157–165. Miller, S. P., Butler, F. M., & Lee, K. (1998). Validated practices for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities: A review of literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1–24. Morin, V., & Miller, S. (1998). Teaching multiplication to middle school students with mental retardation. Education & Treatment of Children, 21, 22– 33. Nesbitt-Vacc, N., & Cannon, S. (1991). Cross-age tutoring in mathematics: Sixth graders helping students who are mentally handicapped. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 89–97. Podell, D., Tournaki-Rein, N., & Lin, A. (1992). Automatization of mathematics skills via Computer-assisted instruction among students with mild mental handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 200–206. Sandknop, P., Schuster, J., Wolery, M., & Cross, D. (1992). The use of an adaptive device to teach students with moderate mental retardation to select lower priced grocery items. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 219–229. Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R. (1988). Childhood Autism Rating Scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Scott, K. S. (1993). Multisensory mathematics for children with mild disabilities. Exceptionality, 4, 97–111. Secada, W. G., Fuson, K. C., & Hall, J. W. (1983). The transition from counting-all to counting-on in addition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 47–57. Simon, R., & Hanrahan, J. (2004). An evaluation of the touch math method for teaching addition to students with learning disabilities in mathematics. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 191–209. Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 249–274. Test, D., Howell, A., Burkhart, K., & Beroth, T. (1993). The one-more-than technique as a strategy for counting money for individuals with moderate mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 232–241. Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. Touch Math and Number Lines / 457
(1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Fourth Edition. Chicago: Riverdale. Van Luit, J., & Naglieri, J. (1999). Effectiveness of the MASTER program for teaching special children multiplication and division. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 98–107. Wisniewski, Z. G., & Smith, D. (2002). How effective is touch math for improving students with special needs academic achievement on math addition mad minute timed tests? Indiana University: South Bend, IN. (ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No. ED469445). Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Young, M., Baker, J., & Martin, M. (1990). Teaching basic number skills to students with a moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 83–93. Xin, Y. P., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A metaanalysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 207– 225. Received: 14 April 2009 Initial Acceptance: 14 June 2009 Final Acceptance: 8 September 2009 458 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2010
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Manuscripts Accepted for Future Pub
Page 7 and 8:
dents in classes that included stud
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE 1 Summary Descriptors of Meli
Page 11 and 12:
tions were conducted at their work
Page 13 and 14:
her function more independently wit
Page 15 and 16:
eluctant to engage in interactions.
Page 17 and 18:
ehaviors were consistent with Phill
Page 19 and 20:
disabilities. Second, it has promot
Page 21 and 22:
youth with severe disabilities. Min
Page 23 and 24:
parents of students with intellectu
Page 25 and 26:
tributed to such PSE program compon
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 2 Mean Scores of the 7 PSE Pr
Page 29 and 30:
that educators’ and parents’ po
Page 31 and 32:
gan, 1997). Despite the challenges
Page 33 and 34:
ing the total score of the Family A
Page 35 and 36:
with the identified factors being r
Page 37 and 38:
of a positive outlook has been docu
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics
Page 43 and 44:
ways in the same interviews where s
Page 45 and 46:
In a number of comments, respondent
Page 47 and 48:
practitioners assigned both issues
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
eliability (r .92) and good inter-
Page 53 and 54:
TABLE 2 EQCA Adaptive Behaviors: Me
Page 55 and 56:
TABLE 5 ERDCP: Means, SDs, and t Te
Page 57 and 58:
teen of these studies (90%) reveale
Page 59 and 60:
practice may have had an influence
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
ing to questions, (c) the learner f
Page 65 and 66:
around a small instructional table
Page 67 and 68:
TABLE 2 (Continued) 9. Guide studen
Page 69 and 70:
TABLE 3 (Continued) Student Steps B
Page 71 and 72:
TABLE 3 (Continued) Student Steps D
Page 73 and 74:
esponding to errors by interrupting
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 1. Teacher’s number of ste
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 2. Number of inquiry skills
Page 79 and 80:
TABLE 4 Results of Parent Survey It
Page 81 and 82:
data was not simply an artifact of
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
TABLE 1 Students’ Description Sub
Page 87 and 88:
served a communicative function. In
Page 89 and 90: Descriptive Analysis The first rese
Page 91 and 92: eakdown whenever it is the case. He
Page 93 and 94: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 95 and 96: stood attribution when two consecut
Page 97 and 98: within easy reach. The instructiona
Page 99 and 100: and provided Takao a pen with thin
Page 101 and 102: Figure 3. Percentages of correct re
Page 103 and 104: teacher whether we should fully hon
Page 107 and 108: components to be effective promptin
Page 109 and 110: ability (IQ 44, Stanford-Binet Inte
Page 111 and 112: TABLE 1 Task Analysis for Cooking R
Page 113 and 114: pographic); and (c) no response, ch
Page 115 and 116: Figure 2. Percentage of steps perfo
Page 117 and 118: Figure 4. Percentage of steps perfo
Page 119 and 120: ture audio feature of the PDA, but
Page 121 and 122: M. (1992). The effects of self oper
Page 125 and 126: TABLE 1 Stages of The Halliwick’s
Page 127 and 128: plete other steps (Tekin & Kɹrcaal
Page 129 and 130: Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 131 and 132: Martin, J. (1981). The Halliwick Me
Page 133 and 134: systematic instruction to teach fou
Page 135 and 136: also extremely low with a standard
Page 137 and 138: Procedural reliability probes measu
Page 139: Discussion The purpose of this stud
Page 143 and 144: focus on the important adults in th
Page 145 and 146: cording to the current environment
Page 147 and 148: that “she felt very inadequate in
Page 149: tive research. (2 nd Ed.). New Jers
Page 152: Search the entire archives of Educa
show all

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?