This study examined the effects of scripted lessons (SLs) alone and in combination with guided notes during science instruction on science quiz scores of three elementary students with moderate to severe intellectual disability and autism. This study used a multiple probe across three science units design with replication across students and included four conditions of baseline, SLs, scripted lessons plus guided notes (SLs + GNs), and maintenance. Results showed a change in level from baseline to the SLs condition for all three participants and additional slight improvement in scores during the SLs + GNs condition for two participants. Furthermore, acquisition of science content was maintained over time for all participants. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
AbbedutoL.NuccioJ. B. (1991). Relation between receptive language and cognitive maturity in persons with intellectual disability. American Journal of Intellectual disability, 96, 143–149.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
AultM. J.WoleryM.DoyleP. M.GastD. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in the instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 346–356.
4.
BrowderD. M.Cooper-DuffyK. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in “No Child Left Behind.”Journal of Special Education, 37, 157–163.
5.
BrowderD. M.Courtade-LittleG.WakemanS.RickelmanR. J. (2006). From sight words to emerging literacy. In BrowderD. M.SpoonerF. (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 63–91). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching language arts, math, & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
8.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.HarrisA.WakemanS. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407–432.
9.
BrowderD. M.TrelaK.CourtadeG. R.JimenezB. A.KnightV.FlowersC. (2010). Teaching mathematics and science standards to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022466910369942
10.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.
11.
BursuckW. D.DamerM. (2007). Reading instruction for students who are at risk or have disabilities. Boston, MD: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
CarnineD. W.SilbertJ.Kame’enuiE. J.TarverS. G. (Eds.). (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Merrill.
13.
CourtadeG. R.JimenezB.TrelaK.BrowderD. M. (2008). Teaching to science standards: An inquiry based approach for middle and high school students with moderate and severe disabilities. Verona, WI: Attainment Company.
14.
CourtadeG. R.SpoonerF.BrowderD. M. (2007). Review of studies with students with significant cognitive disabilities which link to science standards. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 43–49.
15.
DowningJ. E. (2008). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
DoyleP. M.GastD. L. (1990). Use of constant-time delay in small group instruction: A study of observational and incidental learning. Journal of Special Education, 23, 1–16.
18.
DymondS. K.OreloveF. P. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities?Exceptionality, 9, 109–122.
19.
GastD. L.DoyleP. M. (1991). Acquisition of incidental information during small group instruction. Education & Treatment of Children, 14, 1–15.
20.
GunterP. L.ReedT. M. (1997). Academic instruction of children with emotional and behavioral disorders using scripted lessons. Preventing School Failure, 42, 33–43.
21.
GurselO.Tekin-IftarE.BoskurtF. (2006). Effectiveness of simultaneous prompting in small group: The opportunity of acquiring non-target skills through observational learning and instructive feedback. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 225–243.
22.
HornerR. H.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation on the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
23.
HummelJ. H.VennM. L.GunterP. L. (2004). Teacher-made scripted lessons. In MoranD. J.MalottR. W. (Eds.), Evidence-based educational methods (pp. 95–108). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
JimenezB. A.BrowderD. M.CourtadeG. R. (2009). An exploratory study of self-directed science concept learning by students with moderate intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 34, 1–14.
26.
JimenezB. A.KnightV.BrowderD. M. (in press). Early science: An inquiry based approach for elementary students with moderate and severe disabilities. Verona, WI: Attainment Company.
27.
KonradM.JosephL. M.EveleighE. (2009). A meta-analytic review of guided notes. Education & Treatment of Children, 32, 421–444.
28.
LazarusB. D. (1991). Guided notes, review, and achievement of secondary students with learning disabilities in mainstream content courses. Education & Treatment of Children, 14, 112–127.
29.
MartinN. A.BrownellR. (2005). Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT) (3rd ed.). Torrance, CA: Western Psychology Services.
30.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Pub. L. No 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, U.S.C. §§ 6301 (2002).
32.
SpoonerF.KnightV.BrowderD.JimenezB.DiBiaseW. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 62–75.
33.
StringfellowJ. L.MillerS. P. (2005). Enhancing student performance in secondary classrooms while providing access to the general education curriculum using lecture format. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 1, 2–16.
34.
TrelaK.JimenezB. A.BrowderD. M. (2008). Teaching to the standards in mathematics: A literacy-based approach for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Verona, WI: Attainment Company.
