etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

strategy. The teacher asked the students to explain the purpose of the TIP strategy and provided examples of when the strategy can be used. The teacher then checked student comprehension by asking them to verbally describe in their own words what they would do during each step. Following verbal elaboration, the teacher used “rapid-fire practice” to promote student memorization of each step of the strategy (Deshler et al., 1996). Using this activity, the teacher asked the students to name the steps of the TIP strategy in succession individually. As students became more fluent with the verbalization of each step, the teacher gradually increased the difficulty of the activity by increasing the speed and calling on students randomly. The teacher also gradually erased words from each step on the board until all three steps were invisible. The teacher reminded the students to use the letters in TIP to help them remember the steps. After the majority of the students memorized the steps, the teacher asked the students to rehearse the steps with a partner. The teacher conducted an individual oral quiz at the end of the class. To reach the mastery criterion, the student must have (a) described the purpose of the TIP strategy and (b) named and explained each of the three steps in order without referring to a cue card or receiving additional prompts. If a student did not reach the 100% accuracy criterion on the oral quiz, the teacher provided additional feedback and asked the student to return to the seat and practice it with a partner. The teacher used a verbal practice checklist to track students’ attempts at passing the oral quiz. Stage 5. The purpose of the lesson was to ensure that students mastered the use of the TIP strategy with guided practice. During the guided practice, the teacher and the students collaboratively completed two problems. Initially, the teacher told the students to use the TIP strategy by saying “You see the word tip in the question. That will help you remember the TIP strategy and its three steps. Each letter represents one step. You need to tell yourselves each step so that you will know how to find the answers.” At the beginning of the second problem the teacher only reminded the students of the strategy by asking “What strategy will you use and tell yourself what the first step is and complete it.” The teacher also frequently checked the accuracy of each step by eliciting choral responses (e.g., “Tell me, what’s the number on your calculator?”). After successful completion of the two problems collaboratively, the teacher provided the students with an opportunity to practice the skill independently. As the students worked on the four problems independently, the teacher monitored student performance by walking around the room, provided feedback to the students, and prompted the students to use think-aloud process. At the end of the class, the teacher collected and graded students’ independent work. All students completed the four problems on the worksheets independently with a minimum accuracy of 95% or above. Stage 6. The purpose of the learning stage was to provide students with additional opportunities to practice the strategy independently. As the students worked on the independent worksheets containing 10 problems requiring calculating tip and total bill the teacher continued to monitor student performances of the tasks. At the conclusion of the lesson, the teacher collected their work and praised their performance. Dependent Variables The dependent variables were total number of problems answered correctly on the target items (i.e., items that required calculating tip and total bill) and the generalization items. We also analyzed the total number of procedural errors (i.e., no answer, guessing, and wrong operation) students made as identification of mathematical error patterns can help educators improve instruction and student learning (Case et al., 1992; Montague, 1992). Data Collection Students in both experimental and comparison groups took the test before the intervention (pretest) and immediately following the intervention (posttest). Students in the experimental group also took a maintenance test 8 weeks after completion of the intervention. To ensure assessment integrity, the researcher developed a scripted protocol to administer 350 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
TABLE 4 Total Number of Items Answered Correctly by Students in the Comparison and Experimental Group Variable Pretest M(SD) the tests. At the beginning of each test, the teacher asked the students to complete the tasks with the following statement: “This is not a test or an assignment. It will not count towards your grades. Try your best to answer these questions. If you don’t know how to answer the question, make an ‘X’ on it and go to the next one. You have 15 minutes to work on these problems. It is okay if you don’t finish all the questions in 15 minutes. If you finish early, raise your hand and I will collect your worksheets. If you need a calculator, please raise your hand and I will give you one.” At the end of the 15 minutes, the teacher stopped the test and collected students’ answer sheets. A graduate student graded the probes. Reliability and Procedural Integrity The researcher developed procedural checklists for individual lessons based on the scripted lesson plans. The researcher trained a graduate student to observe the lessons and check the treatment integrity data using the procedural checklists. The procedural integrity was calculated by the total number of steps completed by the teacher divided by the total number of available steps on the procedural checklist. We collected treatment integrity data for all of the intervention sessions and it was 100% across the sessions. One graduate student who was not involved in the data collection and was blind to the participants in both comparison and treatment groups conducted the interobserver reliability checks for all of the probes independently. Interobserver agreement was calculated by total number of agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements multiplied by 100%. Given the Comparison Experimental Posttest M(SD) Pretest M(SD) objective nature of the answers, the mean agreement for total number of questions answered correctly on the target items were 99% (range between 92% to 100%) and 100% on the generalization items. Results Posttest M(SD) Maintenance M(SD) Target .00 (.00) .20 (.45) .40 (.89) 19.60 (.89) 16.80 (6.61) Generalization .20 (.45) .40 (.89) .00 (.00) 10.20 (1.30) 7.60 (5.32) Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of total number of questions answered correctly by the students on the pretest, posttest, and maintenance probe. Students in the comparison group scored an average of 0 on the target items on the pretest and .20 on the posttest with a gain score of .20. With regard to the generalization items (Table 5), students in the comparison group scored an average of .20 on the pretest and .40 on the posttest with a gain score of .20. Students in the experimental group scored an average of .40 on the target items on the pretest and 19.60 on the posttest with a gain score of 19.20. With regard to the generalization items, students in the experimental TABLE 5 Analysis of Gain Scores on the Target and Generalization Items between the Comparison and Experimental Group Variable Target Items Gain Score Generalization Items Gain Score * p .001 Comparison M (SD) Experimental M (SD) Mean Difference .20 (.45) 19.20 (.45) 19.00* .20 (1.10) 10.20 (1.30) 10.00* Functional Mathematical Skill / 351
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
ities. Scholars have argued that do
Page 9 and 10:
discussions were held with 12 addit
Page 11 and 12:
TABLE 1 A Sample of Community Funds
Page 13 and 14:
et al., 2007). At the school, stude
Page 15 and 16:
students opportunities to work and
Page 17 and 18:
Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K.
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
of words, and in the short term wer
Page 23 and 24:
TABLE 3 Word Lists List No. Trainin
Page 25 and 26:
TABLE 6 Pairwise Comparisons on Pos
Page 27 and 28:
Word Identification or Word Attack
Page 29 and 30:
erate to severe disabilities. Excep
Page 31 and 32:
ess in a variety of subjects includ
Page 33 and 34:
TABLE 1 Target Vocabulary Words by
Page 35 and 36:
Figure 1. Example of PowerPoint Sli
Page 37 and 38:
TABLE 3 Mean Percentage of Correct
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 4. Jake’s percentages corr
Page 41 and 42:
man-Martin et al. (2005) by demonst
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
used in the study that did not foll
Page 47 and 48:
lected. Stories were read in a quie
Page 49 and 50: y determining the number of interva
Page 51 and 52: with the removal of the interventio
Page 53 and 54: Accordingly, recent research has in
Page 55 and 56: Method Participants Four male child
Page 57 and 58: TABLE 2 Play Scale - Developmental
Page 59 and 60: elated utterances, which were used
Page 61 and 62: Figure 1. Ian’s Progress in Play
Page 63 and 64: Figure 3. Ryan’s Progress in Play
Page 65 and 66: Figure 5. Social Validity: Average
Page 67 and 68: (2000). A comparison of video model
Page 69 and 70: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 71 and 72: Method Participants Four high schoo
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 1 Task Analyses for all Tasks
Page 75 and 76: Figure 1. Holly multiple baseline g
Page 77 and 78: Figure 3. Norman multiple baseline
Page 79 and 80: ing at photographs. Jake only requi
Page 81 and 82: tion, some aspects of the target be
Page 83 and 84: table video aids may lead to greate
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 2 Task Analyses Including Vid
Page 87 and 88: table.” During the session, the t
Page 89 and 90: Figure 2. Percent of steps with err
Page 91 and 92: ter the 15 th session. With table w
Page 93 and 94: our students, it may have been diff
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 2 Participants Demographic Da
Page 99: opening of the lesson, the teacher
Page 103 and 104: Figure 2. Total number of procedura
Page 105 and 106: serve both cognitive (e.g., self in
Page 107 and 108: and quasi-experimental designs for
Page 111 and 112: & Cobb, 2002). Generalization, the
Page 113 and 114: academic activities in the classroo
Page 115 and 116: Procedure Baseline. In this multipl
Page 117 and 118: condition for each student. With th
Page 119 and 120: was repeated across all participant
Page 121 and 122: Boning, R. A. (1997). SRA Specific
Page 125 and 126: TABLE 1 Student demographic informa
Page 127 and 128: ping, dining out, voting) and diffe
Page 129 and 130: TABLE 2 Content Standards, Alternat
Page 131 and 132: Student Achievement Figures 3-6 pro
Page 133 and 134: Figure 4. Student data across math
Page 135 and 136: Figure 6. Student data across math
Page 137 and 138: A second limitation of the current
Page 141 and 142: y students with intellectual disabi
Page 143 and 144: TABLE 1 Studies of Mathematics Inte
Page 145 and 146: subject design to provide an interv
Page 147 and 148: Neef and colleagues (2003) demonstr
Page 149 and 150: abilities. Education and Training i
Page 151 and 152:
show all

etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?