This investigation used a multiple-probe-across-participants design to examine the effects of using a simultaneous prompting procedure to teach four secondary students with mild intellectual disabilities the employment task of caring for plants in a greenhouse. The instructor also embedded photosynthesis science content as nontargeted information within instructional trials on the task analysis. Following the intervention, all four participants achieved criterion on the employment task and increased their knowledge of core science content. Maintenance data indicated students retained both skills for up to 8 weeks following intervention. Implications for practice and suggestions for research are 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.
BartholomewA.PapayC.McConnellA.Cease-CookJ. (2015). Embedding secondary transition in the common core state standards. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 329–335. doi:10.1177/0040059915580034
3.
BillingsleyF.WhiteO. R.MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
4.
BouckE. C. (2010). Reports of life skills training for students with intellectual disabilities in and out of school. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 1093–1103. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01339.x
5.
BrittonN. S.CollinsB. C.AultM. J.BauschM. E. (2015). Using a constant time delay procedure to teach support personnel to use a simultaneous prompting procedure. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1088357615587505
6.
CollinsB. C. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
7.
CollinsB. C.HallM.BransonT.HolderM. (1999). Acquisition of related and nonrelated factual information presented by a teacher within an inclusive setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 223–237.
8.
CollinsB. C.KarlJ.RiggsL.GallowayC. C.HagerK. D. (2010). Teaching core content with real-life applications to secondary students with moderate and severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(3), 52–59.
9.
CourtadeG. R.SpoonerF.BrowderD. M. (2007). Review of studies with students with significant cognitive disabilities which link to science standards. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 43–49.
10.
Creech-GallowayC.CollinsB. C.KnightV.BauschM. (2013). Using a simultaneous prompting procedure with an iPad to teach the Pythagorean Theorem to adolescents with moderate intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 222–232. doi:10.1177/154079691303800402
11.
FetkoE. E.CollinsB. C.HagerK. D.SpriggsA. D. (2013). Embedding science facts in leisure skill instruction conducted by peer tutors. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 400–411.
12.
GastD. L. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
GravesT. B.CollinsB. C.SchusterJ. W.KleinertH. (2005). Using video prompting to teach cooking skills to secondary students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 34–46.
14.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
15.
KarlJ.CollinsB. C.HagerK. D.AultM. J. (2013). Teaching core content embedded in a functional activity to students with moderate intellectual disability using a simultaneous prompting procedure. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 363–378.
16.
KazdinA. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
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.
18.
NormanJ. M.CollinsB. C.SchusterJ. W. (2001). Using video prompting and modeling to teach self-help skills to elementary students with mental disabilities in a small group. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 5–18.
RiggsL.CollinsB.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.
21.
WoleryT. D.SchusterJ. W.CollinsB. C. (2000). Effects on future learning of presenting non-target stimuli in antecedent and consequent conditions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 65–77.
22.
WoodcockR. W.MatherN.McGrewK. S.SchrankF. A. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
