Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examined the effects of an intervention that integrated peer-mediated instruction (PMI) with augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) using speech-generating devices (SGDs). Nine trained peer tutors without disabilities taught science concepts and modeled use of SGDs following a script to three elementary school students with significant cognitive disabilities in Taiwan. Using a multiple baseline across participants design, results showed the PMI with AAC intervention was effective in improving participants’ targeted science knowledge. In addition, participants increased their communicative interactions with peers and increased the use of different communication modes during the science experiment activities with the implementation of PMI with AAC, when compared to the communication responses during the general teaching strategy.

Keywords

peer-mediated instruction augmentative and alternative communication speech-generating device significant cognitive disabilities science instruction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.

Apanasionok

M. M.

Hastings

R. P.

Grindle

C. F.

Watkins

R. C.

Paris

(2019). Teaching science skills and knowledge to students with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 56(7), 847–880. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21531

Beukelman

D. R.

Mirenda

(2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Paul H. Brookes.

Brock

M. E.

Huber

H. B.

(2017). Are peer support arrangements an evidence-based practice? A systematic review. The Journal of Special Education, 51(3), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917708184

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

(2006). Teaching language arts, math, & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Paul H. Brookes.

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Harris

Wakeman

(2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440290807400401

Browder

D. M.

Trela

Jimenez

(2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220040301

Browder

D. M.

Wakeman

S. Y.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Algozzine

(2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200401

Brown

Sherbenou

R. J.

Johnsen

S. K.

(1997). Test of nonverbal intelligence (3rd ed.). Pro-Ed.

10.

Carter

E. W.

Kennedy

C. H.

(2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer support strategies. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100402

11.

Chung

Y.-C.

Carter

E. W.

(2013). Promoting peer interactions in inclusive classrooms for students who use speech-generating devices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(2), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807714492

12.

Cooper-Duffy

Perlmutter

D. G.

(2006). Developing math and science skills in general education contexts. In Browder

D. M.

Spooner

(Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 245–265). Paul H. Brookes.

13.

Dunn

L. M.

Dunn

L. M.

(1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Revised. American Guidance Service.

14.

Dymond

S. K.

Renzaglia

Gilson

C. L.

Slagor

M. T.

(2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.32.1.1

15.

Ehsan

Rispoli

Lory

Gregori

(2018). A systematic review of STEM instruction with students with autism spectrum disorders. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 5(4), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-018-0142-8

16.

Engleman

Carnine

(1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. Eugene, OR: ADI Press.

17.

Finson

K. D.

Ormsbe

C. K.

Jensen

M. M.

(2011). Differentiating science instruction and assessment for learners with special needs, K-8. Corwin.

18.

Goodwin

(1997). The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. In Resnick

Saljo

Pontecorvo

Burge

(Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 111–140). Springer.

19.

Goossens

(1989). Aided communication intervention before assessment: A case study of a child with cerebral palsy. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618912331274926

20.

Hudson

M. E.

Browder

D. M.

Jimenez

B. A.

(2014). Effects of a peer-delivered system of least prompts intervention and adapted science read-alouds on listening comprehension for participants with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(1), 60–77.

21.

Hudson

M. E.

Rivera

C. J.

Grady

M. M.

(2018). Research on mathematics instruction with students with significant cognitive disabilities: Has anything changed? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 43(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796918756601

22.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. §1400, H.R. 1350.

23.

Jameson

J. M.

McDonnell

Polychronis

Riesen

(2008). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46(5), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1352/2008.46:346-363

24.

Jimenez

B. A.

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

DiBiase

(2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800303

25.

Knight

V. F.

Smith

B. R.

Spooner

Browder

(2012). Using explicit instruction to teach science descriptors to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1258-1

26.

Knight

V. F.

Wood

McKissick

B. R.

Kuntz

E. M.

(2019). Teaching science content and practices to students with intellectual disability and autism. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519843998

27.

Ministry of Education. (2003a). Grade 1-9 science and technology curriculum guidelines.

28.

Ministry of Education. (2003b). The white paper for science education in Taiwan.

29.

Ministry of Education. (2009). The newly revised curriculum guidelines for students with special needs (NRCGSSN).

30.

Ministry of Education. (2018). The new curriculum framework for grades 1-12: Nature and science. https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-15486,c639-1.php?Lang=zh-tw

31.

Romski

M. A.

Sevcik

R. A.

(1996). Breaking the speech barrier: Language development through augmented mean. Paul H. Brookes.

32.

Smith

B. R.

Spooner

Jimenez

B. A.

Browder

(2013). Using an early science curriculum to teach science vocabulary and concepts to students with severe developmental disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 36(1), 1–31.

33.

Sparrow

S. S.

Balla

D. A.

Cicchetti

D. V.

(1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. American Guidance Service.

34.

Spooner

Knight

Browder

Jimenez

DiBiase

(2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1–2), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.62

35.

Tan

J.-W.

Y.-P.

Chen

M.-C.

Chen

C.-C.

(2016). Use of aided language stimulation to improve communicative participation and listening comprehension for three students with developmental disabilities. Bulletin of Eastern-Taiwan Special Education, 18, 327–367.

36.

Trembath

Balandin

Togher

Stancliffe

R. J.

(2009). Peer-mediated teaching and augmentative and alternative communication for preschool-aged children with autism. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 34(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250902845210

37.

Trottier

Kamp

Mirenda

(2011). Effects of peer-mediated instruction to teach use of speech-generating devices to students with autism in social game routines. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2010.546810

38.

Villanueva

M. G.

Taylor

Therrien

Hand

(2012). Science education for students with special needs. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.737117

39.

Wickman

P. O.

Östman

(2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10036

Effects of Peer-Mediated Instruction With AAC on Science Learning and Communitive Responses of Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities in Taiwan

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References