The researchers in this study used a multiple baseline design across dyads to examine the effects of professional development with coaching to train general education teachers to use a simultaneous prompting procedure when teaching academic core content to students with autism and the effects of the procedure on the students’ outcomes. Three teacher–student dyads participated in the study. Results showed that (a) teachers acquired the ability to use the simultaneous prompting procedure with 100% accuracy, maintained the acquired teaching behaviors over time, and generalized them in teaching new academic content to their students; and (b) students acquired the targeted academic content, maintained it over time, and generalized it across different persons and settings. In addition, the students acquired instructive feedback stimuli added to instruction and maintained these over time as well. Last, both the opinions of the teachers and students about the social validity of the study were positive. Future research is needed to support these findings.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
2.
BarnedN. E.KnappN. F.Neuharth-PritchettS. (2011). Knowledge and attitudes of early childhood preservice teachers regarding the inclusion of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 302-321. doi:10.1080/10901027.2011.622235
3.
BatuS. (2008). Care-giver provided home-based instruction using simultaneous prompting for teaching home skills to individuals with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 541-555.
4.
BatuS. (2014). Effects of teaching simultaneous prompting through visual supports to parents of children with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 505-516.
5.
BillingsleyF.WhiteO. R.MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
6.
BrittonN. S.CollinsB. C.AultM. J.BauschM. E. (2015). Using time delay procedure to teach support personnel to use a simultaneous prompting procedure. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Advance online publication, 1-12. doi:10.1177/1088357615587505
7.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF. (2003). Understanding the purpose and process of alternate assessment. In RyndakD.AlperS. (Eds.), Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings (2nd ed., pp. 51-72). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
8.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.WakemanS.TrelaK.BakerJ. N. (2006). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 309-321.
9.
ChristensenD. L.BaioJ.BraunK. V.BilderD.CharlesJ.CostantinoJ. N.Yeargin-AllsoppM. (2016). Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years–Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2012. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 65(3), 1-23. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6503a1
10.
CollinsB. C. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
11.
ColozziG. A.WardL. W.CrottyK. E. (2008). Comparison of simultaneous prompting procedure in 1:1 and small group instruction to teach play skills to preschool students with pervasive developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 226-248.
12.
CookB. G.SchirmerB. R. (Eds.). (2006). What is special about special education: The role of evidence-based practices. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
13.
DybdahlC. S.RyanS. (2009). Inclusion for students with fetal alcohol syndrome: Classroom teachers talk about practice. Preventing School Failure, 53, 185-195. doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.3.185-196
14.
FetkoE. E.CollinsB. C.HagerK. D.SpriggsA. D. (2013). Embedding science facts in leisure skill instruction conducted by peer tutors. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 400-411.
15.
GastD. L.LloydB. P.LedfordJ. (2014). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 251-296). New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
GilliamJ. E. (1995). Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
HeinrichS.CollinsB. C.KnightV.SpriggsD. A. (2016). Embedded simultaneous prompting procedure to teach STEM content to high school students with moderate disabilities in an inclusive setting. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 41-54.
19.
HorneP. E.TimmonsV. (2009). Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 273-286. doi:10.1080/13603110701433964
20.
HudsonM. T.Hinkson-LeeK.CollinsB. C. (2013). Teaching paragraph composition to students with emotional/behavioral disorders using the simultaneous prompting procedure. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 139-156. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9167-8
21.
JonesM. L. (2009). A study of novice special educators’ views of evidence-based practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 101-120. doi:10.1177/0888406409333777
22.
KearneyC. A.DurandV. M. (1992). How prepared are our teachers for mainstreamed classroom settings? A survey of post-secondary schools of education in New York State. Exceptional Children, 59, 6-11.
23.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.HughesM. T.ArguellesM. E. (1999). Sustaining research based practices in reading: A 3-year follow-up. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 263-274.
24.
KohlerF. W.CrilleyK. M.ShearerD. D.GoodG. (1997). Effects of peer coaching on teacher and student outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 240-250.
25.
KretlowA. G.BartholomewC. C. (2010). Using coaching to improve fidelity of evidence-based practices: A review of the literature. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 279-299. doi:10.1177/0888406410371643
26.
KretlowA. G.CookeN. L.WoodC. L. (2012). Using inservice and coaching to increase the accurate use of research-based strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 348-361. doi:10.1177/0741932510395397
27.
KretlowA. G.WoodC. L.CookeN. L. (2011). Using in-service and coaching to increase kindergarten teachers’ accurate delivery of group instructional units. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 234-246. doi:10.1177/0022466909341333
28.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L.LuscreD.AyresK. M. (2008). Observational and incidental learning by children with autism during small group instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 86-103. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0363-7
29.
LoughreyT. O.BetzA. M.MajdalanyL. M.NicholsonK. (2014). Using instructive feedback to teach category names to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 425-430. doi:10.1002/jaba.123
30.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2006).
31.
PenningtonR. C.StehnhoffD. M.GibsonJ.BallouK. (2012). Using simultaneous prompting to teach computer-based story writing to a student with autism. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 389-406. doi:10.1353/etc.2012.0022
32.
PloesslD. M.RockM. L. (2014). eCoaching: The effects on co-teachers’ planning and instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 191-215. doi:10.1177/0888406414525049
33.
ReichowB.WoleryM. (2011). Comparison of progressive prompt delay with and without instructive feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 327-340. doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-327
34.
RiesenT.McDonnellJ.JohnsonJ. W.PolychronisS.JamesonM. (2003). A comparison of constant time delay and simultaneous prompting within embedded instruction in general education classes with students with moderate to severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 241-259. doi:10.1023/A:1026076406656
35.
ScheelerM. C.McKinnonK.StoutJ. (2012). Effects of immediate feedback delivered via webcam and bug-in-ear technology on preservice teacher performance. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 77-90. doi:10.1177/0888406411401919
36.
SchoplerE.ReichlerR.RennerB. (1988). The Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological.
37.
SmithB. R.SchusterJ. W.CollinsB. C.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.
38.
SmithG. J.Richards-TutorC.CookB. G. (2010). Using teacher narratives in the dissemination of research-based practices. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 67-70. doi:10.1177/1053451210375301
39.
SpoonerF.DymondS. K.SmithA.KennedyC. H. (2006). What we know about accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 277-283.
40.
StahmerA. C.CollingsN. M.PalinkasL. A. (2005). Early intervention practices for children with autism: Descriptions from community providers. Focus on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 20, 66-79.
41.
TekinE.Kircaali-IftarG. (2002). Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of two response prompting procedures delivered by sibling tutors. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 283-299.
42.
Tekin-IftarE. (2003). Effectiveness of peer delivered simultaneous prompting on teaching community signs to students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 77-94.
43.
Tekin-IftarE. (2008). Parent-delivered community-based instruction with simultaneous prompting for teaching community skills to children with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 249-265.
44.
Tekin-IftarE. (2012). Çoklu başlama düzeyi modelleri [Multiple baseline designs]. In Tekin-IftarE. (Ed.), Egitim ve davranis bilimlerinde tek-denekli arastirmalar [Single subject research in educational and behavioral sciences] (pp. 181-216). Ankara: Turk Psikologlar Dernegi [Turkish Psychological Association].
45.
Tekin-IftarE.KurtO.AcarG. (2008). Enhancing instructional efficiency through generalization and instructive feedback. International Journal of Special Education, 23, 147-158.
46.
VladescuJ. C.KodakT. M. (2013). Increasing instructional efficiency by presenting additional stimuli in learning trials for children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 805-816. doi:10.1002/jaba.70
47.
VuranS.Olçay GülS. (2012). On-the-job training of special education staff: Teaching the simultaneous prompting strategies. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12, 2101-2110.
48.
WongC.OdomS. L.HumeK.CoxA. W.FettigA.KucharzykS.. . .SchultzT. R. (2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A comprehensive review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1951-1966. doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2351-z
49.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK.MatherN. (2001). The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
50.
YoonK. S.DuncanT.LeeS. W. Y.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf
