In this study, the effects of teacher-provided simultaneous prompting and computer-assisted simultaneous prompting for teaching content-area vocabulary words to students who are deaf or hard of hearing were compared using a multiple probe across behaviors with an embedded alternating treatments design. Participants included three second-grade students at a residential school for the deaf in the southeastern United States. Results were mixed, with teacher- and computer-based instruction being equally effective for two students while only teacher-provided instruction was effective for one student who had concomitant disabilities. Social validity surveys for students indicated all three preferred learning vocabulary with the computer. The study extends the literature showing that simultaneous prompting may be an effective instructional strategy for students who are deaf or hard of hearing and that computer-assisted simultaneous prompting may be a useful tool to provide independent learning opportunities for some students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Implications for classroom instruction and directions for further research are discussed.
AlbertoP. A.TroutmanA. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
2.
AndersonD. R.LorchE. P. (1979). A theory of the active nature of young children’s television viewing. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Biennial meeting, San Francisco, CA.
3.
BarkerL. J. (2003). Computer-assisted vocabulary acquisition: The CSLU Vocabulary Tutor in oral-deaf education. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 8, 187–198.
4.
BennettD. L.GastD. L.WoleryM. (1986). Time delay and system of least prompts: A comparison in teaching manual sign production. Education & Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 117–129.
5.
ColemanM. B. (2009). PowerPoint is not just for business presentations and college lectures! Using PowerPoint to enhance instruction for students with disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6. Retrieved fromhttp://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol6/iss1/art5
6.
ColemanM. B.HurleyK. J.CihakD. F. (2012). Comparing teacher-directed and computer-assisted constant time delay for teaching functional sight words to students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 280–292.
7.
DillonC. M.de JongK.PisoniD. B. (2012). Phonological awareness, reading skills, and vocabulary knowledge in children who use cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 17, 205–226.
8.
EasterbrooksS. (1999). Improving practices for students with hearing impairments. Exceptional Children, 65, 537–554.
9.
EasterbrooksS. R.StonerM. (2006). Using a visual tool to increase adjectives in the written language of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27, 95–109.
10.
FredrickL. D.DavisD. H.AlbertoP. A.WaughR. E. (2013). From initial phonics to functional phonics: Teaching word-analysis skills to students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 49–66.
11.
FungP.ChowB. W.McBride-ChangC. (2005). The impact of a dialogic reading program on deaf and hard-of-hearing kindergarten and early primary school-aged students in Hong Kong. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 82–95.
12.
GolosD. B. (2010). Deaf children’s engagement in an educational video in American sign language. American Annals of the Deaf, 155, 360–368.
13.
Haptonstall-NykazaT. S.SchickB. (2007). The transition from Fingerspelling to English print: Facilitating english decoding. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 12, 172–183.
14.
LedfordJ. R.LaneJ. D.ElamK. L.WoleryM. (2012). Using response-prompting procedures during small-group direct instruction: Outcomes and procedural variations. American Journal on Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 117, 413–434.
15.
LucknerJ. L.CookeC. (2010). A summary of the vocabulary research with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 155, 38–67.
16.
MassaroD. W.LightJ. (2004). Improving the vocabulary of children with hearing loss. Volta Review, 104, 141–174.
17.
MechlingL. C.GastD. L.KrupaK. (2007). Impact of SMART board technology: An investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1869–1882.
18.
MorseT. E.SchusterJ. W. (2004). Simultaneous prompting: A review of the literature. Education & Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 153–168.
19.
NezhadH. Y.AtarodiI.KhaliliM. (2013). From multimodal learning to impact of multimedia (multimodal) learning on the vocabulary achievement of the EFL deaf students. New Media & Mass Communication, 12, 22–29.
20.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
21.
PuenteA.AlvaradoJ. M.HerreraV. (2006). Fingerspelling and sign language as alternative codes for reading and writing words for Chilean deaf signers. American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 299–310.
22.
RoarkT. J.CollinsB. C.HemmeterM. L. (2002). Including manual signing as nontargeted information when using a constant time delay procedure to teach receptive identification of packaged food items. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 19–38.
23.
SchiavettiN.WhiteheadR. L.MetzD. E. (2004). The effects of simultaneous communication on production and perception of speech. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 9, 286–304.
24.
SewardJ.SchusterJ. W.AultM. J.CollinsB. C.HallM. (2014). Comparing simultaneous prompting and constant time delay to teach leisure skills to students with moderate intellectual disability. Education & Training in Autism & Developmental Disabilities, 49, 381–395.
25.
SiboldC. (2011). Building English language learners’ academic vocabulary: Strategies and tips. Multicultural Education, 18, 24–28.
26.
SmithB. R.SchusterJ. W.CollinsB.KleinertH. (2011). Using simultaneous prompting to teach restaurant words and classifications as non-target information to secondary students with moderate to severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 251–266.
27.
YawJ. S.SkinnerC. H.ParkhurstJ.TaylorC. M.BooherJ.ChambersK. (2011). Extending research on a computer-based sight-word reading intervention to a student with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 44–54.
