Effects of an App Incorporating Systematic Instruction to Teach Spelling to Students With Developmental Delays

Abstract

This study used a multiple probe (conditions) design across behaviors to investigate the effects of an app for the tablet computer to teach spelling of academic content words to four students with developmental disabilities. The app delivered instruction using a model-lead-test format and students typed on the on-screen keyboard. The study also evaluated the acquisition of nontarget information presented by the app in the form of identifying photos and definitions of the spelling words. The results indicated that all students learned their spelling words using the app and generalized the spelling to paper and pencil. They maintained most of their stimuli and learned the majority of the nontarget information to which they were exposed. Findings are discussed in the context of using technology-aided instruction and interventions that incorporate systematic instruction to teach academics and deliver nontarget information.

Keywords

systematic instruction app spelling nontarget information disabilities

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Dahri

McLaughlin

T. F.

Derby

K. M.

Belcher

Weber

K. P.

(2013). An evaluation of the direct instruction model-lead-test procedure and rewards on rote counting, number recognition, and rational counting with a preschool student with developmental delays. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 2, 98–109.

Anohina

(2005). Analysis of the terminology used in the field of virtual learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 8, 91–102.

Ault

M. J.

Bausch

M. E.

(Eds.). (2012). Apps for all students: A teacher’s desktop guide. Alexandria, VA: Arlington, VA: Technology and Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children (TAM).

Ayres

Ledford

J. R.

(2014). Dependent measures and measurement systems. In Gast

D. L.

Ledford

J. R.

(Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 85–104). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bausch

M. E.

Ault

M. J.

Tammaro

(2012). Apps for all: Introduction. In Ault

M. J.

Bausch

M. E.

(Eds.), Apps for all students: A teacher’s desktop guide (pp. 1–5). Alexandria, VA: Arlington, VA: Technology and Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children (TAM).

Billingsley

F. F.

White

O. R.

Munson

A. R.

(1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.

Bouck

Satsangi

Flanagan

(2016). Focus on inclusive education: Evaluating apps for students with disabilities: Supporting access and success. Childhood Education, 92, 324–328. doi:10.1080/00094056.2016.1208014

Bracken

McCallum

(1998). Universal nonverbal intelligence test. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Bryant

B. R.

Kang

E. Y.

Kim

M. K.

Lang

Bryant

D. P.

Pfannestiel

(2015). Performance of fourth-grade students with learning disabilities on multiplication facts comparing teacher-mediated and technology-mediate interventions: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 255–272. doi:10.1007/s10864-015-9218z

10.

Bulkley

McLaughlin

T. F.

Neyman

Carosella

(2012). The effects of a model, lead, and test procedure to teach letter name and sound identification to elementary school students with learning disabilities. Electronic International Journal of Educational Research, 3, 50–64.

11.

Campbell

M. L.

Mechling

L. C.

(2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction with SMART Board technology: An investigation of observational and incidental learning of non-target information. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 47–57. doi:10.1177/0741932508315048

12.

Chai

Vail

C. O.

Ayres

K. M.

(2015). Using an iPad application to promote early literacy development in young children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 268–278. doi:10.1177/0022466913517554

13.

Coleman

M. B.

Hurley

K. J.

Cihak

D. F.

(2012). Comparing teacher-directed and computer-assisted constant time delay for teaching functional sight words to students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 280–292.

14.

Collins

B. C.

(2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

15.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

16.

Cooper

R. J.

, & Associates. (2011). Spell-a-word (Version xx) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/spell-a-word/id480176452?mt=8

17.

Gast

D. L.

Doyle

P. M.

Wolery

Ault

M. J.

Baklarz

J. L.

(1991). Acquisition of incidental information during small group instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 1–18.

18.

Gast

D. L.

Lloyd

B. P.

Ledford

J. R.

(2014). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In Gast

D. L.

Ledford

J. R.

(Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 251–296). New York, NY: Routledge.

19.

Howell

Sidorenko

Jurica

(1987). The effects of computer use on the acquisition of multiplication facts by a student with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 336–342. doi:10.1177/002221948702000606

20.

Knight

McKissick

B. R.

Saunders

(2013). A review of technology-based interventions to teach academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2628–2648. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-1814-y

21.

Knight

V. F.

Smith

B. R.

Spooner

Browder

D. M.

(2011). Using explicit instruction to teach science descriptors to students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 378–389. doi:10.1007/s10803- 011-1258-1

22.

Knight

V. F.

Wood

C. L.

Spooner

Browder

D. M.

O’Brien

C. P.

(2015). An exploratory study using science eTexts with students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 30, 86–99. doi:10.1177/1088357614559214

23.

Lee

Vail

C. O.

(2005). Computer-based reading instruction for young children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20, 5–18. doi:10.1177/016264340502000101

24.

Ledford

J. R.

Lane

J. D.

Elam

K. L.

Wolery

(2012). Using response prompting procedures during small-group direct instruction: Outcomes and procedural variations. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117, 413–434. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.413

25.

Martella

R. C.

Nelson

J. R.

Marchand-Martella

N. E.

O’Reilly

(2012). Comprehensive behavior management: Individualized, classroom, and schoolwide approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Mechling

L. C.

Gast

D. L.

Krupa

(2007). Impact of SMART board technology: An investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 37, 1869–1882. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0361-9

27.

Moore

Calvert

(2000). Vocabulary acquisition for children with autism: Teacher or computer instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 359–362. doi:10.1023/A:1005535602064

28.

M. W.

Kim

M. K.

Kang

E. Y.

Bryant

B. R.

(2016). How to find good apps: An evaluation rubric for instructional apps for teaching students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51, 244–252. doi:10.1177/1053451215589179

29.

Pennington

(2010). Computer-assisted instruction for teaching academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of the literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 239–248. doi:10.1177/1088357610378291

30.

Pennington

R. C.

Stenhoff

D. M.

Gibson

Ballour

(2012). Using simultaneous prompting to teach computer-based story writing to a student with autism. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 389–406. doi:10.1353/etc.2012.0022

31.

Peterson

McLaughlin

T. F.

Weber

K. P.

Anderson

(2008). The effects of a model, lead, and test technique paired with visual prompts with a fading procedure to teach “where” to a 13-year-old echolalic boy with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 20, 31–39. doi: doi:10.1007/s10882-007-9077-1

32.

Purrazella

Mechling

L. C.

(2013). Evaluation of manual spelling, observational and incidental learning using computer-based instruction with a tablet PC, large screen projection, and a forward chaining procedure. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 218–235.

33.

Roark

T. J.

Collins

B. C.

Hemmeter

M. L.

Kleinert

(2002). Including manual signing as nontargeted information when using a constant time delay procedure to teach receptive identification of packaged food items. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 19–38. doi:10.1023/A:1014381220940

34.

Schlosser

R. W.

Blischak

D. M.

(2004). Effects of speech and print feedback on spelling by children with autism. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 848–862. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/063)

35.

Smith

B. R.

Schuster

J. W.

Collins

B. C.

Kleinert

(2011). Using simultaneous prompting to teach restaurant words and classifications as non-target information to secondary students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 251–266.

36.

Sparrow

S. S.

Cicchetti

D. V.

Balla

D. A.

(2005). Vineland adaptive behavior scale (2nd ed.). Livonia, MN: Pearson.

37.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Kemp-Inman

Wood

L. A.

(2014). Using an iPad2® with systematic instruction to teach shared stories for elementary-aged students with autism. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 30–46. doi:10.1177/1540796914534631

38.

Stevens

Rosenshine

(1981). Advances in research on teaching. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2, 1–9.

39.

Tammaro

M. T.

Jerome

M. K.

(2012). Does the app fit? Using the Apps Consideration Checklist. In Ault

M. J.

Bausch

M. E.

(Eds.), Apps for all students: A teacher’s desktop guide (pp. 23–31). Reston, VA: Technology and Media Division (TAM) for the Council for Exceptional Children.

40.

Tanji

Noro

(2011). Matrix training for generative spelling in children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavioral Interventions, 26, 326–339. doi:10.1002/bin.340

41.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

D. H.

Richter

S. M.

White

Mazzotti

Walker

A. R.

… Kortering

(2009). Evidence-based practice in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115–128. doi:10.1177/0885728809336859

42.

Vedora

Stromer

(2007). Computer-based spelling instruction for students with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 489–505. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2006.06.006

43.

Wechsler

(2004). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed.). London, England: Pearson.

44.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Smith

S. J.

Davies

D. K.

Stock

(2008). The efficacy of technology use by people with intellectual disability: A single-subject design meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23, 21–30. doi:10.1177/016264340802300303

45.

Weng

P.-L.

Taber-Doughty

(2015). Developing an app evaluation rubric for practitioners in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30, 43–58. doi:10.1177/016264341503000104

46.

Whalen

Moss

Ilan

A. B.

Vaupel

Fielding

MacDonald

… Symon

(2010). Efficacy of TeachTown: Basics of computer-assisted intervention for the intensive comprehensive autism program in Los Angeles Unified School District. Autism, 14, 179–197. doi:10.1177/1362361310363282

47.

Wolery

Ault

M. J.

Doyle

P. M.

(1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman.