etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

culate tip and total bill after a meal in a restaurant). Researchers recommend that providing opportunities to use the strategy in real context is a key component to ensure that learners have mastered functional use of money (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008). Future researchers need to include both training and probing of functional skills for generalization to real life situations using simulations, role play, and training in multiple settings. On the other hand, although we did not directly assess learners’ ability to perform the task in real life situations three students from the experimental group reported that they applied the TIP strategy in the restaurant and calculated the tip and total bill using the calculator from their cell phones. As an assistive technology to compensate for the difficulties with mathematic computation, the use of cell phone calculator may be more appropriate for young adults with disabilities because of its portability, compatibility, and social appropriateness (Raskind, 1998). With an increasing availability and use of cell phone, teaching learners to use a cell phone calculator may be a logical extension of the TIP strategy we implemented in the study. Practical Implication Teaching functional living skills will prepare young adults with disabilities to be successful in daily living, places of employment, and education (Alwell & Cobb, 2009). Such instruction will improve their quality of life and opportunities that may result in self-determination (Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Stang, 2008). Compared to the typical duration and intensity level of teaching functional life skills for young adults with disabilities (i.e., three to four months at an intensity of a few times per week; Alwell & Cobb, 2009), the TIP strategy required only six sessions with a total duration of approximately three hours. In addition, the teacher expressed satisfaction with the strategy and instructional procedures. He indicated that he wanted to use the TIP strategy instruction procedures in the upcoming year. The results of the study also indicate that the TIP strategy instruction may be a promising strategy to teach learners with disabilities to solve for problems that required using percentage values in a variety of contexts. It is possible that educators can enhance the utility and impact of the TIP strategy by including procedures that promote the use of strategy beyond the context in which it was taught and teach learners how to modify the components of the strategy to meet the new and different task demand (Deshler et al., 1996; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2003; Maccini, McNaughton, & Ruhl, 1999; Montague, 1997; Montague & Dietz, 2009). Conclusion Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of cognitive strategy instruction in academic areas for students with learning disabilities. This study extended the research by utilizing the strategy instruction in the area of functional mathematical and problem solving skills with postsecondary students with severe learning disabilities and mild mental retardation. Researchers should continue this line of research for young adults with intellectual disability with a focus on generalization and a more flexible use of the strategy. References Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. (2009). Functional life skills curricular interventions for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 82. Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guildford Press. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51. Browder, D. M., & Grasso, E. (1999). Teaching money skills to individuals with mental retardation: A research review with practical applications. Remedial & Special Education, 20, 297. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A. A., & Wakeman, S. Y. (2008). A metaanalysis on teaching matehmatics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407–432. Brown, D., & Frank, A. R. (1990). Let me do it! -- Self-monitoring in solving arithmetic problems. Education & Treatment of Children, 13, 239–248. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental 356 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Carter, E. W., Lane, K., Pierson, M. R., & Stang, K. K. (2008). Promoting self-determination for transition-age youth: Views of high school general and special educators. Exceptional Children, 75, 55–70. Case, L. P., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 26, 1–19. Deshler, D. D., Ellis, A. K., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love Publishing. Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, B. K. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: Part I. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 108–117. Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2002). Preparing youth to exercise self-determination. Journal of Disability Policy Studies Special Issue: Self-determination, 13, 113–118. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Enhancing the mathematical problem solving of students with mathematics disabilities. In H. L. Swanson (Ed.), Handbook of learning disabilities. New York: Guildford Press. Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J. W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special education: Group experimental design. Journal of Special Education, 34, 2–18. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149. Halpern, A. S. (1993). Quality of life as a conceptual framework for evaluating transition outcomes. Exceptional Children, 59, 486–498. Hughes, C. A., & Smith, J. O. (1990). Cognitive and academic performance of college students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 66–79. Hutchinson, N. L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problems solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34–63. Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. (1996). The effects of schema-based instruction on the mathematical word-problem-solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 422–431. Kirby, J. R., & Becker, L. D. (1988). Cognitive components of learning problems in arithmetic. Remedial & Special Education, 95, 7–16. Lerner, J. (1993). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (1997). Mathematics interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 168–176. Maccini, P., McNaughton, D., & Ruhl, K. L. (1999). Algebra instruction for students with learning disabilities: Implications from a research review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 113–126. Miller, S. P., & Hudson, P. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, <strong>47</strong>–57. Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, <strong>47</strong>–56. Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230–248. Montague, M. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164–177. Montague, M. (2001). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230–248. Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 37–44. Montague, M., & Dietz, S. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75, 285–302. Patton, J. P., Cronin, M. E., & Bassett, D. S. (1998). Math literacy: The real-life math demands of adulthood. In S. A. Vogel & S. Reder (Eds.), Learning disabilities, literacy, and adult education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Raskind, M. H. (1998). Literacy for adults with learning disabilities through assistive technology. In S. A. Vogel & S. Reder (Eds.), Learning disabilities, literacy, and adult education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Reid, R. C., & Lienemann, T. O. (Eds.). (2006). Strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities. New York: Guildford Press. Rivera, D., & Smith, D. D. (1988). Using a demonstration strategy to teach midschool students with learning disabilities how to compute long division. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 77–81. Schmidt, J. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Alley, G. R. (1989). Effects of generalization instruction on the written language performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in the main- Functional Mathematical Skill / 357
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 and 100: opening of the lesson, the teacher
Page 101 and 102: TABLE 4 Total Number of Items Answe
Page 103 and 104: Figure 2. Total number of procedura
Page 105: serve both cognitive (e.g., self in
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
show all

etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?