etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3. Kyle’s percentages correct of targeted vocabulary with computer-assisted and teacher directed conditions. teacher-directed CTD condition, the mean percentage of words read correctly increased to 75.83% and Jake reached criteria after six sessions. During the computer-assisted CTD condition, his mean percentage of words read correctly increased to 72.8% and he reached criterion after seven sessions. Although the percentage of words read correctly was similar, Jake attained the targeted words more efficiently during the teacher-directed CTD condition. Therefore, the teacher-directed CTD procedures were re-implemented to teach the words related to making a pizza. Jake’s mean percentage of words read correctly was 88.75% and he required four sessions to reach criterion. When the picture prompt was removed, Jake’s mean performance increased to 94% following three sessions. During the generalization phase, Jake read and completed 100% of the task analysis to make a pizza. See Figure 4 for Jake’s results. Social Validity Students completed a one-on-one survey with the researcher to measure the social validity and student approval of the CTD conditions. All students agreed that they enjoyed using the computer to practice reading, thought the computer helped them improve their reading, and enjoyed making the snack. Students all expressed interest in using the computer again for reading instruction. Two out of the three students agreed that they enjoyed working individually with the teacher during teacher-directed CTD sessions. Kyle was the only participant that was unsure how he felt toward the teacher-directed CTD condition. He also was the only student who reached criterion more efficiently during the computer-assisted CTD condition. All participants expressed enjoyment in their participation of making the snack at the completion of the study. A teacher survey was designed to assess the classroom teacher and teaching assistant’s approval and social validity of the strategies used. Both teachers strongly agreed with each of the questions on the survey. The classroom teacher additionally responded that she noticed the participants’ increase in completion of other classroom responsibilities in order to participate in their sessions for the study. Interobserver Reliability and Procedural Integrity All sessions were recorded using a digital audio recorder for the purposes of interobserver reliability and procedural fidelity. Interobserver reliability and procedural fidelity data were collected on a minimum on 33% of sessions for each student. To determine the percentage of interobserver reliability, the num- 288 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
Figure 4. Jake’s percentages correct of targeted vocabulary with computer-assisted (CAI) and teacher directed (TD) conditions. ber of agreements was divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements. Procedural integrity was determined by rating the researcher’s adherence via a checklist of intervention procedures. Means for interobserver reliability and procedural integrity were 100%. Discussion The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of teaching functional sight words to students with moderate intellectual disability using teacher-directed and computer-assisted constant time delay. Results indicated both conditions were effective in teaching sight word reading to all three students. However, the results showed two of the three students learned words more efficiently during the teacher-directed CTD condition in terms of trials to criterion. Of the three participants, the student with autism, Kyle, was the only student to reach criteria more quickly during the computerassisted CTD condition. This difference could be due to Kyle’s difficulty in maintaining higher teacher demands during the teacherdirected CTD condition compared to the computer-assisted CTD condition. This is consistent with Coleman-Martin, et al. (2005) which demonstrated preference for learning via PowerPoint for a student with autism. Fur- ther research may be necessary to confirm this finding. Alternatively, Joe and Jake both displayed a preference for the teacher-directed CTD condition. Joe’s data indicated that both conditions were equally effective for teaching sight words. He achieved 91% during the third session for each condition. However, in the teacher-directed condition, he continued at 91% for two more sessions, thus reaching criterion, while he fell back to 82% accuracy for one session. Therefore, teacher-directed CTD was only slightly more efficient for Joe. In terms of effectiveness, Joe reached 100% accuracy on his last session of computerassisted CTD whereas he did not reach 100% during teacher-directed instruction. Jake’s data displayed a clear fractionation between the two conditions after the third session. His data indicate that computer-assisted instruction may not be the best strategy for him. This could be due to many factors including increased adult attention or difficulty attending to computerized stimuli. Jake seemed to have difficulty focusing on the computer presentations rather than other classroom activities, whereas he was more attentive during teacherdirected instruction. Nonetheless, he was able to reach criterion with computer-assisted instruction. In terms of time efficiency, teacher-directed CTD sessions were shorter in average duration Teacher-Directed and Computer-Assisted Constant Time Delay / 289
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Autism an
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 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: TABLE 3 Mean Percentage of Correct
Page 41 and 42: man-Martin et al. (2005) by demonst
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 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 95 and 96:
Education and Training in Autism an
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 and 106:
serve both cognitive (e.g., self in
Page 107 and 108:
and quasi-experimental designs for
Page 109 and 110:
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 123 and 124:
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 139 and 140:
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?