This study investigated the effectiveness of a constant time delay procedure in teaching adolescents with learning or behavior disorders. Subject matter included social studies and health facts presented in small-group settings. In addition, the study assessed the effects of two attentional responses (general—looking at the target stimuli, or specific—repeating the teacher's question) on students' acquisition of other students' facts and of related nontarget information. Two types of feedback for correct responses were presented: praise plus additional information, and general praise only. Results of various measures indicate that (a) the constant time delay procedure was reliable and effective; (b) students not only acquired targeted facts with few errors, but also acquired some other nontargeted facts, such as information presented along with feedback; and (c) specific attentional responses facilitated acquisition of observational and incidental facts and maintenance of learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AultM. J.GastD. L., & WoleryM. (1988). Comparison of progressive and constant time delay procedures in teaching community-sign word reading. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 44–56.
2.
AultM. J.WoleryM.DoyleP. M., & GastD. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 346–356.
3.
BanduraA. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
4.
BernhardtA. J., & ForehandR. (1975). The effects of labeled and unlabeled praise upon lower and middle class children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 536–543.
5.
BillingsleyF. F., & RomerL. T. (1983). Response prompting and the transfer of stimulus control: Methods, research, and a conceptual framework. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 531–556.
6.
BillingsleyF. F.WhiteO. R., & MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
7.
BrowderP. M.MorrisW. W., & SnellM. E. (1981). Using time delay to teach manual signs to a severely retarded student. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16, 252–258.
8.
BrownV.HammillD., & WiederholtJ. (1978). Test of Reading Comprehension. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
9.
CybriwskyC.WoleryM., & GastD. L. (1990). Use of a constant time delay procedure in teaching preschoolers in a group format. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 99–116.
10.
DoyleP. M.WoleryM.AultM. J., & GastD. L. (1988). System of least prompts: A review of procedural parameters. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 28–40.
11.
GastD. L.AultM. J.WoleryM.DoyleP. M., & BelangerS. (1988). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching sight word reading to students with moderate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 117–128.
12.
GastD. L., & WoleryM. (1988). Parallel treatments design: A nested single subject design for comparing instructional procedures. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 270–285.
13.
GastD. L.WoleryM.MorrisL. L.DoyleP. M., & MeyerS. (1990). Teaching sight word reading in a group instructional arrangement using constant time delay. Exceptionality, 1, 81–96.
14.
HandenB. L., & ZaneT. (1987). Delayed prompting: A review of procedural variations and results. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 307–330.
15.
KinneyP. G.StevensK. B., & SchusterJ. W. (1988). The effects of CAI and time delay: A systematic program for teaching spelling. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9, 61–72.
16.
KowryM., & BrowderD. M. (1986). The use of delay to teach sight words by peer tutors classified as moderately mentally retarded. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 252–258.
17.
LeBlancJ. M., & RugglesT. R. (1982). Instructional strategies for individual and group teaching. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 129–137.
18.
PreciousC. (1985). Efficiency study of two procedures: Constant and progressive time delay in teaching oral sight word reading. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Special Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
19.
SchoenS. F. (1986). Assistance procedures to facilitate the transferor stimulus control: Review and analysis. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 62–74.
20.
SchusterJ. W.GastD. L.WoleryM., & GuiltinanS. (1988). The effectiveness of a constant time-delay procedure to teach chained responses to adolescents with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 169–178.
21.
StevensK. B., & SchusterJ. W. (1987). Effects of a constant time delay procedure on teaching written spelling to a learning disabled student. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 9–16.
22.
TawneyJ. W., & GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
23.
WechslerD. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.
24.
WestlingD. L.FerrellK., & SwensonK. (1982). Intraclassroom comparison of two arrangements for teaching profoundly mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 6, 601–608.
25.
WoleryM.BaileyD. B., & SugaiG. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
WoodcockR. W. (1973). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
