This study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of using a small-group-massed-trial instructional format to an individually administered distributed-trial format in teaching preschool children with and without disabilities to name pictures. The trainer identified three pairs of pictures for each of 8 participants (37-59 months). Students learned the first pair in a small-group instructional arrangement with a massed-trial format and the second pair individually with a distributed-trial format. The third pair served as a no-instruction control set. Training included a constant time delay procedure with both formats, and an adapted alternating treatments design evaluated the effects. All children acquired the naming behaviors regardless of the instructional format; however, for 6 of the 8 children, distributed instruction was slightly more efficient. The procedures resulted in errorless learning for 3 children, and the embedded instruction resulted in fewer errors and lower error percentages for 3 of the 5 remaining children. These findings are discussed in terms of designing effective and efficient instructional programs in mainstreamed contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alig-Cybriwsky, C., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. (1990). Use of a constant time delay procedure with general and specific attentional responses in teaching preschoolers in a group format. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 99–116.
2.
Alpern, G., Boll, T., & Shearer, M. (1980). Developmental profile II.Aspen, CO: Psychological Development Publications.
3.
Bailey, D. B., & Wolery, M. (1992). Teaching infants and preschoolers with disabilities (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
4.
Bambara, L. M., Warren, S. F., & Komisar, S. (1988). The individualized curriculum sequencing model: Effects on skill acquisition and generalization. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 8–19.
5.
Barnett, D. W., & Carey, K. T. (1992). Designing interventions for preschool learning and behavior problems.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Billingsley, F., White, O., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
7.
Bradley-Johnson, S., Sunderman, P., & Johnson, C. M. (1983). Comparison of delayed prompting and fading for teaching preschoolers easily confused letters and numbers. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 327–335.
8.
Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8: Expanded edition.Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
9.
Bredekamp, S. (1993). The relationship between early childhood education and early childhood special education: Healthy marriage or family feud?. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 258–272.
10.
Bricker, D., & Cripe, J.W. (1992). An activity-based approach to early intervention.Baltimore: Brookes.
11.
Collins, B. C., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Wolery, M. (1991). Small group instruction: Guidelines for teachers of students with moderate to severe handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 18–32.
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Wiley, K. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and system of least prompts in teaching preschoolers with developmental delays. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 1–22.
14.
Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R.L. (1980). Motivating autistic children through stimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 619–628.
15.
Dunn, L., & Smith, J. (1965). Peabody language development kits.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
16.
Fishman, E. J., Keller, L., & Atkinson, R.C. (1968). Massed versus distributed practice in computerized spelling drills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 290–296.
17.
Fox, L., & Hanline, M.F. (1993). A preliminary evaluation of learning within developmentally appropriate early childhood settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 308–327.
18.
Guza, D. S., & McLaughlin, T.F. (1987). A comparison of daily and weekly testing on student spelling performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 373–376.
19.
Helmstetter, E., & Guess, D. (1986). Application of the individualized curriculum sequencing model to learners with severe sensory impairments. In L. Goetz, D. Guess, & K. Stremel-Campbell (Eds.), Innovative program designs for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 255–282). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
20.
Kaiser, A. P., Yoder, P., & Keetz, A. (1992). Evaluating milieu therapy. In S. F. Warren & J. Riechle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 9–47). Baltimore: Brookes.
21.
Mulligan, M., Guess Holvoet, J., & Brown, F. (1980). The individualized curriculum sequencing model (I): Implications from research on massed, distributed or spaced trial training. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 325–336.
22.
Mulligan, M., Lacy, L., & Guess, D. (1982). Effects of massed, distributed and spaced trial sequencing on severely handicapped students performance. The Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 48–61.
23.
Novick, R. (1993). Activity-based intervention and developmentally appropriate practice. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 403–417.
24.
Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & McEvoy, M. E. (1992). Social competence of young children with disabilities: Issues and strategies for intervention.Baltimore: Brookes.
25.
Reid, D. H., & Favell, J. (1984). Group instruction with persons who have severe disabilities: A critical review. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 167–177.
26.
Reith, H., Azelrod, S., & Anderson, R., & Hathaway, F., & Wood, K., & Fitzgerald, C. (1974). Influence of distributed and daily testing on weekly tests. Journal of Educational Research, 68, 73–77.
27.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M., & Wilson, R. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
28.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
29.
Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., & Morris, A., DeCesare, L.D., & Cuffs, M. S. (1993). Using progressive time delay in arts/crafts activities to teach peer imitation to preschoolers with disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 277–294.
30.
Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe-Ligon, A., Vassilaros, M. A., & Billings, S. S. (1992). Efficacy of transition-based teaching with instructive feedback. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 320–334.
31.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe handicaps: Use of response prompting strategies.White Plains, NY: Longman.
32.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., & Griffen, A. K. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching chained tasks. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 243–257.
33.
Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Simpson, S. (1993). Comparison of progressive time delay and transition-based teaching with preschoolers who have developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 160–176.
34.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., & Cybriwsky, C., Doyle, P.M., Schuster, J. W., Ault, M. J., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 239–266.
35.
Wolery, M., & Wolery, R.A. (1992). Promoting functional cognitive skills. In D. B. Bailey & M. Wolery (Eds.), Teaching infants and preschoolers with disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 521–572). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
