Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2002-3
Effectiveness of Simultaneous Prompting on the Acquisition of Observational and Instructive Feedback Stimuli When Teaching a Heterogeneous Group of High School Students
This study used a multiple probe design to examine the effectiveness of a simultaneous prompting teaching procedure when teaching a small group of high school students. Acquisition of observational and non-target stimuli also was assessed. Participants included students 15 to 19 years old whose functioning level ranged from typically developing to moderate disabilities. Data indicate that using a simultaneous prompting procedure to teach a heterogeneous group of high school students was effective. All students met criterion on each set, only after the simultaneous prompting procedure was introduced. The acquisition data for the observational and instructive feedback stimuli, as well as maintenance and generalization data for the targeted stimuli also are reported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AultM. J., WoleryM., GastD. L., DoyleP. M., & MartinC. P. (1990). Comparison of predictable and unpredictable trial sequences during small- group instruction.Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 12-29.
2.
BillingsleyF., WhiteO. R., & MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example.Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
3.
CaldwellN. K., WoleryM., WertsM. G., & Cald-wellY. (1996). Embedding instructive feedback into teacher-student interactions during indepen- dent seat work. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 459-480.
4.
ChiaraL., SchusterJ. W., BellJ. K., & WoleryM. (1995). Small-group massed-trial and individually- distributed-trial instruction with preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 203-217.
5.
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 Retar- dation, 26, 18-32.
6.
DoyleP. M., GastD. L., WoleryM., AultM. L., & MeyerS. (1992). Teaching discrete skills to stu- dents with moderate mental retardation in small- group instructional arrangements. Exceptionality, 3, 233-253.
7.
EichingerJ., & WoltmanS. (1993). Integration strategies for learners with severe multiple disabil- ities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(1), 18-21.
8.
FarmerJ. A., GastD. L., WoleryM., & WinterlingV. (1991). Small group instruction for students with severe handicaps: A study of observational
9.
learning.Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 190-201.
10.
FickelK. M., SchusterJ. W., & CollinsB. C. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 219-244.
11.
FinkW. T. and SandallS. R.1978. One-to-one vs. group academic instruction with handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool children. Mental Retardation, 16, 236-240.
12.
FiscusR. S., SchusterJ. W., MorseT. E., & CollinsB. C. (in press). Teaching elementary students with cognitive disabilities food preparation skills while embedding instructive feedback in the prompt and consequent event. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities.
13.
GastD. L.DoyleP. M.WoleryM.AultM. J.BaklarzJ. L. (1991). Acquisition of incidental information during small group instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 1-18.
14.
GriffenA. K., SchusterJ. W., & MorseT. E. (1998). The acquisition of instructive feedback: A com- parison of continuous versus intermittent presen- tation schedules. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 42- 61.
15.
JohnsonP., SchusterJ. W., & BellJ. K. (1996). Comparison of simultaneous prompting with and without error correction in teaching science vo- cabulary words to high school students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 437- 458.
16.
KeelM. C., & GastD. L. (1992). Small-group in- struction for students with learning disabilities: Observational and incidental learning. Exceptional Children, 58, 357-368.
17.
OreloveF. P. (1982). Acquisition of incidental learning in moderately and severely handicapped adults.Education and Training of the Mentally Re- tarded, 17, 131-136.
18.
SchusterJ. W., & GriffenA. K. (1993). Teaching a chained task with a simultaneous prompting pro- cedure. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 299- 315.
19.
SchusterJ. W., GriffenA. K., & WoleryM. (1992). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and con- stant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate men- tal retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305-325.
20.
SchusterJ. W., HemmeterM. L., & AultM. J. (2000). Inclusion of students with moderate and severe disabilities in general education classrooms: Instructional and social variables. Manuscript submitted for publication.
21.
SchusterJ. W., MorseT. E., GriffenA. B., & Wol- ery, T. (1996). Teaching peer reinforcement and
22.
grocery words: An investigation of observational learning and instructive feedback.Journal of Be- havioral Education6511-533
23.
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 Schools, 22, 123-133.
24.
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.
25.
SingletonD. K., SchusterJ. W., MorseT. E., & CollinsB. C. (1999). A comparison of antecedent prompt and test and simultaneous prompting procedures in teaching grocery words to adoles- cents with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 182-199.
26.
TawneyJ. W., & GastD. L. (1984). Single subject re- search in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
27.
WertsM. G., WoleryM., HolcombeA., & GastD. L. (1995). Instructive feedback: Review of pa- rameters and effects. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 55-75.
28.
WertsM. G., WoleryM., LigonA. H., VassilarosM. A., & BillingsS. S. (1992). Efficacy of transition-based teaching with instructive feedback.Ed- ucation and Treatment of Children, 15, 320-334.
29.
WoleryM., AultM. J., & DoyleP. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities:
30.
Use of response prompting strategies. New York: Long- man.
31.
WoleryM., AultM. J., GastD. L., DoyleP. M., & GriffenA. K. (1991). Teaching chained tasks in dyads: Acquisition of target and observational be- haviors. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 198- 220.
32.
WoleryM., BaileyD. B., & SugaiG. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
33.
WoleryM.DoyleP. M.AultM. J.GastD. L.MeyerS.StinsonD. (1991). Effects of pre- senting incidental information in consequent events on future learning. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 79-104.
34.
WoleryM., HolcombeA., WertsM. G., & Cipol- loniR. M. (1993). Effects of simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback.Early Education and Development, 4, 20-31.
35.
WoleryT. D., SchusterJ. W., & CollinsB. C. in press. Effects of future learning of presenting non-target stimuli in antecedent and consequent conditions. Journal of Behavioral Education.
36.
WoleryM., WertsM. G.., HolcombeA.., BillingsS. S.., & VassilarosM. A..1993. Instructive feed- back: A comparison of simultaneous and alternating presentation of non-target stimuli.Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 187-204.
