The primary purpose of this Investigation was to evaluate the effects of constant time delay (a near-errorless teaching strategy) in teaching preschoolers sight word reading in a group. A secondary purpose was to assess the effects of two attentional responses, specific (repeating the letter names) and general (looking at the stimulus cards) on observational and related, nontarget learning. A multiple probe design across pairs of words was used to evaluate the procedure. The results of the investigation indicate that (a) constant time delay was reliably implemented in a group setting, (b) constant time delay was effective in teaching all targeted stimuli in near-errorless fashion, (c) observational and related, nontarget learning (expressive labeling of words, receptive identification of words, matching words to pictures and pictures to words, and receptive spelling of words) occurred across students, and (d) the specific attending response resulted in greater expressive labeling, receptive identification, and receptive spelling of other children's target words than did the general attending response.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberto, P., Jobes, N., Sizemore, A., & Doran, D. (1980). A comparison of individual and group instruction across response tasks. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 285-293.
2.
Ault, M.J., Gast, D.L.,. & Wolery, M. (1988). Comparison of progressive and constant time delay in teaching community-sign word reading. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 44-56.
3.
Ault, M.J., Gast, D.L., Wolery, M., Doyle, P.M., & Eizenstat, V. (1988). Comparison of response prompting procedures in teaching numeral identification to autistic subjects. Journal of Austism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 627-636.
4.
Ault, M.J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P.M., & Gast, D.L. (1989). Comparative investigations of instructional strategies for students with moderate and severe handicaps: A literature review. Exceptional Children, 55, 346-356.
5.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
6.
Billingsley, F.F., & Romer, L.T. (1983). Response prompting and the transfer of stimulus control: Methods, research, and a conceptual framework. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 531-556.
7.
Billingsley, F.F., White, O.R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example . Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
8.
Browder, D.M., Hines, C., McCarthy, LJ, & Fees, J. (1984). A treatment package for increasing sight word recognition for use in daily living skills. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 191-200.
9.
Brown, F., Holvoet, J., Guess, G., & Mulligan, M. (1980). The individualized curriculum sequencing model (III): Small group instruction. Journal for the Association of the Severely Handicapped, 5, 352-367.
10.
Doyle, P.M., Gast, D.L., Wolery, M., Ault, M.J., & Farmer, J.A. (1990). Use of constant time delay in small group instruction: A study of observational and incidental learning. Journal of Special Education, 23, 369-385.
11.
Doyle, P.M., Wolery, M., Ault, M.J., & Gast, D.L. (1988). System of least prompts: A review of procedural parameters. Joumal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 28-40.
12.
Doyle, P.M., Wolery, M., Gast, D.L., Ault, M.J., & Wiley, K. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching preschoolers with developmental delays. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 1-22.
13.
Fink, W.T., & Sandall, S.R. (1978). One-to-one vs. group academic instruction with handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool children. Mental Retardation, 16, 236-240.
14.
Gast, D.L., Ault, M.J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P.M., & Belanger, S. (1988). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching sight word reading to students with moderate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation , 25, 117-129.
15.
Halle, J.W., Marshall, A.M., & Spradlin, J.E. (1979). Time delay: A technique to increase language use and facilitate generalization in retarded children . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 431-439.
16.
Handen, B.L., & Zane, T. (1987). Delayed prompting: A review of procedural variations and results. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 307-330.
17.
Johnson, C.M. (1977). Errorless learning in a multihandicapped adolescent . Education and Treatment of Children, 1, 25-33.
18.
Kleinert, H.L., & Gast, D.L. (1982). Teaching a multiply-handicapped adult manual signs using a constant time delay procedure. Jour. nal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6, 25-32.
19.
Koegel, R.L., & Rincover, A. (1974). Treatment of psychotic children in a classroom environment: Learning in a large group. Joumal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 7, 45-59.
20.
LeBlanc, J.M., & Ruggles, T.R. (1982). Instructional strategies for individual and group teaching. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities , 2, 129-137.
Oliver, P.R. (1983). Effects of teaching different tasks in group versus individual training formats with severely handicapped individuals. The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8, 79-91.
23.
Orelove, F.P. (1982). Acquisition of incidental learning in moderately and severely handicapped adults. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17, 131-136.
24.
Rotholz, D.A. (1987). Current considerations on the use of one-to-one instruction with autistic students: Review and recommendations. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 271-278.
25.
Schoen, S.F. (1986). Assistance procedures to facilitate the transfer of stimulus control: Review and analysis. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 62-74.
26.
Schuster, J.W., Gast, D.L., Wolery, M., & Guiltinan, S. (1988). The effectiveness of a constant time-delay procedure to teach chained responses to adolescents with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21,169-178.
27.
Singh, N.N. (1987). Overcorrection of oral reading errors: A comparison of individual- and group-training formats. Behavior Modification , 11, 165-181.
28.
Snell, M.E., & Gast, D.L. (1981). Applying delay procedure to the instruction of the severely handicapped. Journal of the Association for the Severely Nandicapped, 6, 3-14.
29.
Snell, M.E., & Zirpoli, T.J. (1987). Intervention strategies. In M.E. Snell (Ed.), Systematic instruction of persons with severe handicaps (pp. 110-149). Columbus, OH : Charles E. Merrill.
30.
Tawney, J.W., & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
31.
Westling, D.L., Ferrell, K., & Swenson, K. (1982). Intraclassroom comparison of two arrangements for teaching profoundly mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 6, 601-608.
32.
Wolery, M., & Brookfield-Norman, J. (1988). (Pre)Academic instruction for handicapped preschool children. In S.L Odom & M.B. Karnes (Eds.), Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps: An empirical base (pp. 109-128). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
