A multiple probe design across behaviors and replicated across students assessed the effectiveness of a simultaneous prompting procedure in teaching expressive identification of photos of community signs to elementary students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Teaching occurred in a small group instructional arrangement. Students also received instructive feedback during the trial sequence. Data were analyzed to determine the acquisition of targeted and non-targeted information as well as the acquisition of stimuli through observational learning. Results indicate that the procedure was effective in teaching both students the targeted stimuli. In addition, the procedure was successful in teaching both students some non-targeted stimuli as well as stimuli targeted for the other member of the instructional group (i.e., observational learning). Future research implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertoP., JobesN., SizemoreA., & DoranD. (1980). A comparison of individual and group instruction across response tasks. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 5, 285–293.
2.
BillingsleyF. F., WhiteO. R., & MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
3.
CollinsB. C., GastD. L., AultM. J., & WoleryM. (1991). Small group instruction: Guidelines for teachers of students with moderate to severe handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 18–32.
4.
DoyleP. M., GastD. L., WoleryM., AultM. J., & FarmerJ. A. (1990). Use of constant time delay in small group instruction: A study of observational and incidental learning. Journal of Special Education, 23, 369–385.
5.
DoyleP. M., GastD. L., WoleryM., AultM. J., & MeyerS. (1992). Teaching discrete skills to students with moderate retardation in small-group instructional arrangements. Exceptionality, 12, 233–253.
6.
FarmerJ. A., GastD. L., WoleryM., & WinterlingV. (1991). Small group instruction for students with severe handicaps: A study of observational learning. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 190–201.
7.
FinkW. J., & SandallS. R. (1978). One-to-one vs. group academic instruction with handicapped and non-handicapped preschool children. Mental Retardation, 16, 236–240.
8.
GastD. L., DoyleP. M., WoleryM., AultM. J., & BaklarzJ. (1991). Acquisition of incidental information during small group instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 1–18.
9.
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.
10.
GibsonA. N., & SchusterJ. W. (1992). The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching expressive word recognition to preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 247–267.
11.
GriffenA. K., & SchusterJ. W. (1994). The acquisition of non-target information: A comparison of continuous versus intermittent presentation schedules. Manuscript submitted for publication.
12.
KeelM., & GastD. L. (1992). Small-group instruction for students with learning disabilities: Observational and incidental learning. Exceptional Children, 5, 357–368.
13.
MacFarland-SmithJ., SchusterJ. W., & StevensK. B. (1993). Using simultaneous prompting to teach expressive object identification to preschoolers with developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 17(1), 1–10.
14.
SchusterJ. W., & GriffenA. K. (1993). Using a simultaneous prompting strategy to teach a chained task to elementary students with moderate mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 229–316.
15.
SchusterJ. W., GriffenA. K., & WoleryM. (1992). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305–325.
16.
SheltonB. S., GastD. L., WoleryM., & WinterlingV. (1991). The role of small group instruction in facilitating observational and incidental learning. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the School, 22, 123–133.
17.
StinsonD. M., GastD. L., WoleryM., & CollinsB. C. (1991). Acquisition of non targeted information during small-group instruction. Exceptionality, 2, 65–80.
18.
TawneyJ. W., & GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
19.
WertsM. G., WoleryM., & HolcombeA. (1991). Instructive feedback: Increasing opportunities for learning through the addition of incidental information. Pittsburgh, PA: Allegheny-Singer Research Institute.
20.
WertsM. G., WoleryM., HolcombeA., & GastD. L. (1995). Instructive feedback: Review of parameters and effects. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 55–75.
21.
WoleryM., AultM. J., & DoyleP. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman.
22.
WoleryM., HolcombeA., WertsM. G., & CipolloniR. M. (1993). Effects of simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback. Early Education and Development, 4, 20–31.
