This study examined effectiveness of simultaneous prompting system in teaching students with cognitive impairment to automate recall of multiplication facts. A multiple probes design with multiple sets of math facts and replicated across multiple subjects was used to assess effectiveness of simultaneous prompting on recall of basic multiplication facts. Two students with mild cognitive impairment at middle school level completed this intervention to recall 30 math multiplication facts between 0-12. Data collected over a period of approximately three and a half months indicated maintenance and generalization of the skill across materials, settings, and people.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkmanogluN., & BatuS. (2004). Teaching pointing to numerals to individuals with autism using simultaneous prompting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 326-336.
2.
Akmanoglu-UludagN., & BatuS. (2005). Teaching naming relatives to individuals with autism using simultaneous prompting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 401-410.
3.
BirkanB. (2005). Using simultaneous prompting for teaching various discrete tasks to students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 68-79.
4.
FickelK., SchusterJ., & CollinsB. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 219-244.
5.
GibsonA., & SchusterJ. (1998). The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching expressive word recognition to preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 247-267.
6.
GurselO.Tekin-IftarE.BozkurtF.Effectiveness of simultaneous prompting in small group: The opportunity of acquiring non-target skills through observational learning and instructive feedback.Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities41225–2432006
7.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, PL 105-17, 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ofPL 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq2004
8.
KennedyC.HornE.Including students with severe disabilitiesAllyn & BaconBoston, MA2004
9.
MccallumE.SkinnerC.TurnerH.SaeckerL.The taped-problems intervention: Increasing multiplication fact fluency using lowtech, class wide, time-delay interventionSchool Psychology Review35419–4342006
10.
MorseT.SchusterJ.National Council of Teachers of MathematicsSimultaneous prompting: A review of literature. Education and Training in Developmental DisabilitiesPrincipals and standards for school mathematicsAuthorReston, VA39153–1682000
11.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principals and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
12.
No Child left behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
13.
SingletonD. K.SchusterJ. W.MorseT. E.CollinsB. C.A comparison of antecedent prompt and test and simultaneous prompting procedures in teaching grocery words to adolescents with mental retardationEducation and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities34182–1991999
14.
SnellM.BrownF.Instruction of students with severe disabilitiesPrentice HallUpper saddle River, NJ2006th ed.
15.
Tekin-IftarE.AcarG.KurtO.The effects of simultaneous prompting on teaching expressive identification of objects: An instructive feedback studyInternational Journal of Disability, Development and Education50149–1672003
16.
VaughnS.BosC.SchummJ.Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroomsPearson Education, IncBoston, MA2007th ed.
17.
WestlingD.FoxL.Teaching students with severe disabilitiesPearson Education IncUpper Saddle River, NJ2004th ed.
18.
WoleryM.AultM.DoyleP.Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategiesLongmanNew York1992
