Providing standards-based instruction in core content areas for individuals with moderate and severe disabilities is a hot topic in the field of special education, and teachers struggle to find the best methods for providing high-quality standards-based instruction in core content areas that also has personal relevance for the students. This investigation evaluated the effectiveness of a simultaneous prompting procedure to teach four adolescents with moderate intellectual disabilities to use the Pythagorean theorem to solve real-life scenarios (i.e., sewing, using a ladder, finding dimensions of a screen) shown on a short video on an iPad. A multiple probe design across participants evaluated the effectiveness of the procedure. Results indicate the participants acquired the skill of using the Pythagorean theorem and generalized it to additional real-life, novel problems. Social validity, limitations, and implications for practitioners are also discussed.
AyresK. M.LowreyK. A.DouglasK. H., & SieversC. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can't brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21.
2.
AyresK. M.LowreyK. A.DouglasK. H., & SieversC. (2012). The question still remains: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts: A reply to Courtade, Spooner, Browder, and Jimenez (2012). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 14–22.
3.
BillingsleyF. F.WhiteO. R., & MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: Rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
4.
BottgeB. A., & WatsonE. (2002). Using video-based math problems to connect the skills and understandings of incarcerated adults with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17, 25–38.
5.
BrowderD. M.JimenezB., & TrelaK. (2012). Grade-aligned math instruction for secondary students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 373–388.
6.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerR.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.HarrisA. A., & WakemanS. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407–432.
7.
BrowderD. M.TrelaK.CourtadeG.JimenezB.KnightV., & FlowersC. (2012). Teaching mathematics and science standards to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 26–35. doi: 10.1177/0022466910369942
8.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.FlowersC.RickelmanR. J., & PugaleeD. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 2–16.
9.
BrownL.BranstonM. B.Hamre-NietupskiS.PumpianI.CertoN., & GruenwaldL. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological-age-appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.
10.
CollinsB. C. (2007). Moderate and severe disabilities: A foundational approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
11.
CollinsB. C. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
12.
CollinsB. C.EvansA.Creech-GallowayC.KarlJ., & MillerA. (2007). Comparison of the acquisition and maintenance of teaching functional and core content sight words in special and general education settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 220–233.
13.
CourtadeG.SpoonerF.BrowderD., & JimenezB. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 3–13.
14.
EvmenovaA. S., & BehrmannM. M. (2011). Research-based strategies for teaching content to students with intellectual disabilities: Adapted videos. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 315–325.
15.
FetkoK. S.SchusterJ. W.HarleyD. A., & CollinsB. C. (1999). Using simultaneous prompting to teach a chained vocational task to young adults with severe intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 318–329.
16.
HasselbringT. S.SherwoodR. D.BransfordJ. D.MertzJ.EstesB.MarshJ. (1991, May). An evaluation of specific videodisc courseware on student learning in a rural school environment (pp. 1–111). The Learning Technology Center Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.
17.
HornerR. D., & BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
18.
HuntP.McDonnellJ., & CrockettM. (2012). Reconciling an ecological curricular framework focusing on quality of life outcomes with the development and instruction of standards-based academic goals. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37, 139–152.
19.
JorgensenC. (2005). Least dangerous assumption: A challenge to create a new paradigm. Disability Solutions, 6, 1–9.
20.
KagoharaD. M.van der MeerL.RamdossS.O'ReillyM. F.LancioniG. E.DavisT. N. (2013). Using iPods and iPads in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systemic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147–156.
21.
KarlJ.CollinsB. C.HagerK. D.SchusterJ. W., & AultM. J. (2013). Teaching core content embedded in a functional activity to students with moderate cognitive disabilities using a simultaneous prompting procedure. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 363–378.
22.
KnightV.McKissickB., & SaundersA. (2013). A review of technology-based interventions to teach academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 43, 2628–2648. doi: 10.1007/s10803-013-1814-y
23.
MaciagK. G.SchusterJ. W.CollinsB. C., & CooperJ. T. (2000). Training adults with moderate and severe mental retardation in a vocational skill using a simultaneous prompting procedure. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 306–316.
24.
MechlingL. (2011). Review of twenty-first century portable electronic devices for persons with moderate intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 24, 479–498.
25.
MechlingL. C.PridgenL. S., & CroninB. A. (2005). Computer-based video instruction to teach students with intellectual disabilities to verbally respond to questions and make purchases in fast food restaurants. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 47–59.
26.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). The Equity Principle. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Retrieved June 1, 2013 from.
27.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
28.
ParrottK. A.SchusterJ. W.CollinsB. C., & GassawayL. J. (2000). Simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback when teaching chained tasks. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 3–19.
29.
RiggsL.CollinsB. C.KleinertH., & KnightV. (2013). Teaching principles of heredity to high school students with moderate and severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 38, 30–43.
30.
SaundersA.BethuneK.SpoonerF., & BrowderD. (2013). Solving the common core equation: Teaching mathematics CCSS to students with moderate and severe disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45, 24–33.
31.
SingletonK. C.SchusterJ. W., & AultM. J. (1995). Simultaneous prompting in a small group instructional arrangement. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 218–230.
32.
SpoonerF.KnightV. F.BrowderD. M., & SmithB. R. (2012). Evidence-based practices for teaching academic skills to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 374–387. doi: 10.1177/0741932511421634
33.
TawneyJ. W., & GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research designs in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
34.
ZamboR. (2005). The power of two: Linking mathematics and literature. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10, 394–399.
