This study evaluated the effectiveness of using a researcher-developed iPad app with a 0- to 5-s constant time delay procedure to improve phonological awareness skills of young children with mild developmental delays in a small-group arrangement in a rural public elementary school in Southwest United States. The study was conducted using a multiple-probe design across three target phonemes and replicated with three young children. Results indicated all children not only improved their performance on their target phonemes but also learned some of their peers’ target phonemes through observational learning. Implications for using tablet computers in a small-group arrangement are discussed.
AldemireO.GurselO. (2014). The effectiveness of the constant time delay procedure in teaching pre-school academic skills to children with developmental disabilities in a small group teaching arrangement. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14, 733–740.
2.
AyresK. M.GastD. L. (2010). Dependent measures and measurement systems. In GastD. L. (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 129–165). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BurtonC.AndersonD. H.PraterM. A.DychesT. T. (2013). Video self-modeling on an iPad to teach functional math skills to adolescents with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28, 67–77.
4.
BusA. G.van IJzendoornM. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403–414.
5.
CampbellM. L.MechlingL. C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction with SMART Board technology: An investigation of observational and incidental learning of nontarget information. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 47–57.
6.
ChaiZ.AyresK. M.VailC. O. (2016). Using an iPad application to promote early literacy skills for young English language learners with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31, 14–25. doi:10.1177/0162643416633332
7.
ChaiZ.VailC. O.AyresK. M. (2015). Using an iPad application to promote early literacy development in young children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 268–278.
8.
ConnersF. A.RosenquistC. J.SlighA. C.AtwellJ. A.KiserT. (2006). Phonological reading skills acquisition by children with mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 121–137.
CummingT.Draper RodríguezC. (2013). Integrating the iPad into language arts instruction for students with disabilities: Engagement and perspectives. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28, 43–52.
11.
DemskiJ. (2011). ELL to go. T H E Journal, 38, 28–32.
12.
DunnL. M.DunnD. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.
13.
EarlyD. M.MaxwellK. L.BurchinalM.AlvaS.BenderR. H.BryantD.. . . ZillN. (2007). Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development, 78, 558–580.
14.
EhriL. C.NunesS. R.WillowsD. M.SchusterB. V.Yaghoub-ZadehZ.ShanahanT. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.
15.
FitzpatrickH.HardmanM. (2000). Primary school children’s collaboration: Task presentation and gender issues. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 375–387.
16.
FloresM.MusgroveK.RennerS.HintonV.StrozierS.FranklinS.HilD. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 74–84.
17.
GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (2010). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In GastD. L. (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 276–328). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
GlanderM. (2015). Selected statistics from the public elementary and secondary education universe: School year 2013–14 (NCES 2015-151). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
19.
JudgeS. L. (2001). Computer applications in programs for young children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 29–40.
20.
LedfordJ. R.LaneJ. D.ElamK. E.WoleryM. (2012). Using response prompting procedures during small group direct instruction: Outcomes and procedural variations. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117, 413–434.
21.
LoniganC.PhillipsK.CantorB.AnthonyJ.GoldsteinH. (2003). A computer assisted instruction phonological sensitivity program for preschool children at risk for reading problems. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 248–262.
22.
MacarusoP.HookP. E.McCabeR. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 162–172.
23.
MacarusoP.RodmanA. (2011). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction to support reading acquisition in English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 301–315.
24.
MacarusoP.WalkerA. (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for advancing literacy skills in kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 29, 266–287.
25.
MechlingL. C.GastD. L.KrupaK. (2007). Impact of SMART Board technology: An investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 1869–1882.
26.
MechlingL. C.GastD. L.ThompsonK. L. (2008). Comparison of the effects of SMART Board technology and flash card instruction on sight word recognition and observational learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23, 34–46.
27.
MuterV.HulmeC.SnowlingM. J.StevensonJ. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundation of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 665–681.
28.
ProvasnikS.KewalRamaniA.ColemanM.GilbertsonL.HerringW.XieQ. (2007). Status of education in rural America (National Center for Education Statistics Publication No. 2007-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
29.
ReevesC. (2003). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for rural schools and districts. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Library.
30.
ReidD. K.HreskoW. P.HammillD. D. (2001). Test of Early Reading Ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
SavageR.CarlessS. (2005). Phoneme manipulation not onset-rime manipulation ability is a unique predictor of early reading. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1297–1308.
33.
SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.CarlsonC. D.FoormanB. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282.
34.
SecordW.DonohueJ. (2002). Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology. Greenville, SC: Super Duper.
35.
SkibaR. J.SimmonsA. B.RitterS.GibbA. C.RauchM. K.CuadradoJ.ChungC. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288.
Vernon-FeagansL.GallagherK.KainzK. (2010). The transition to school in rural America: A focus on literacy. In EcclesJ.MeeceJ. (Eds.), Schooling and development (pp. 163–184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
VoressJ. K.MaddoxT. (2012). Developmental assessment of young children (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
