Six pairs of moderately or severely handicapped adults were taught to identify sight words. Words directly taught to one student in every pair served as words incidentally presented to the other student and vice versa. Following each training session students were given individual probes on their directly taught and incidentally presented items as well as on a set of untrained control words. The results showed that most of the adults learned words that were incidentally presented and that they maintained performance across sets of words.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ClobuciarG., CorleyE., FisherM., HargreavesL., & LillyM. (1977). More joy of cooking. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois.
2.
AlbertoP., JobesN., SizemoreA., & DoranD. (1980). A comparison of individual and group instruction across response tasks. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 285–293.
3.
BiberdorfJ. R., & PearJ. J. (1977). Two-to-one versus one-to-one student-teacher ratios in the operant verbal training of retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 506.
4.
BrownL., HermansonJ., KlemmeH., HaubrichP., & OraJ. (1970). Using behavior modification principles to teach sight vocabulary. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2, 120–128.
5.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
6.
FavellJ. E., FavellJ. E., & McGimseyJ. F. (1978). Relative effectiveness and efficiency of group vs. individual training of severely retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 104–109.
7.
FinkW. T., & SandallS. R. (1980). A comparison of one-to-one and small group instructional strategies with developmentally disabled preschoolers. Mental Retardation, 18, 34–35.
8.
HartmannD. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103–116.
