Using Systematic Instruction and Graphic Organizers to Teach Science Concepts to Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders and Intellectual Disability

Abstract

Literacy in science is important for all students and is one component of access and progress in the general education curriculum. One barrier to science literacy for students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is the extensive amount of vocabulary involved in comprehending science content. Based on the inherent link between vocabulary knowledge and comprehension, graphic organizers (GOs) paired with explicit instruction can improve vocabulary as well as comprehension for students with disabilities. Using a multiple probe design, three students with ASD and intellectual disability were taught various scientific concepts related to convection (e.g., precipitation, condensation) via systematic instruction that included constant time delay and multiple exemplars of a teacher-directed GO. A functional relation was demonstrated between the GO with systematic instruction and students’ number of correct steps completed on the task analysis. Future research and implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords

science graphic organizer comprehension systematic instruction students with ASD and intellectual disability

Literacy in science for all students has been emphasized in legislation and the National Science Education Standards (National Academy of Sciences, 1996; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). Furthermore, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) mandates that all students have access to and make progress in the general curriculum, including the content area of science. To make progress in science content, all students need to understand scientific vocabulary and demonstrate conceptual knowledge (Grossen, Carnine, Romance, & Vitale, 2011). Experts have noted that although many students have difficulties with abstract concepts, students with disabilities have challenges resulting in lower performance outcomes than their typically developing peers (Carnine & Carnine, 2004; Cawley, Kahn, & Tedesco, 1989).

One barrier students face in learning science content is the extensive amount of vocabulary typically taught in science classes (e.g., Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1992; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Okolo, 2008). For students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), vocabulary acquisition in any content area is a challenge due to limited or complete lack of oral language abilities (McDuffie, Yoder, & Stone, 2005). Nation, Clarke, Wright, and Williams (2006) examined the reading skills of children with ASD and found 65% demonstrated reading comprehension at least one standard deviation below the population mean. In addition, one third of the sample showed severe reading comprehension impairments. In a recent review of the literature on reading instruction for students with ASD, Whalon, Otaiba, and Delano (2009) found only five studies in which researchers investigated interventions to increase vocabulary and comprehension. Findings from these limited investigations suggest that students with ASD will need effective instructional practices to make gains in reading. Whalon et al. found only three studies where researchers included instructional delivery methods validated to be effective for teaching students with ASD vocabulary words; across these studies, either one-on-one instruction (i.e., presenting a single direction on an index card) or peer mediated instruction (i.e., cooperative learning groups) was used. Only one set of researchers in this comprehensive literature review used a “procedural facilitator”; however, graphic organizers (GOs) were not used in any of the studies reviewed. There is an apparent lack of studies in which GOs are used with students with ASD.

GOs, paired with explicit instruction, have been an effective method for improving vocabulary and comprehension for students with learning disabilities and other high incidence disabilities (Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004). Although the research on GOs for students with ASD is limited, research on the use of visual supports (e.g., jigs, picture cues, Picture Exchange Communication System) for this population is well established in the literature (National Autism Center, 2010). In contrast to visual supports, GOs are “procedural facilitators” that may include visual displays, diagrams, or outlines to help students organize key concepts and vocabulary from their reading (Baker, Gersten, & Scanlon, 2002). Students with disabilities can use GOs to learn the interrelationships between and among concepts (Horton, Lovitt, & Bergerud, 1990). For example, Diebold and Waldron (1988) found that when students with severe to profound hearing losses used labeled diagrams to depict the different stages of the water cycle, they were able to recall information better than when the students used the standard picture and text condition alone.

Researches suggest GOs are most beneficial when there is explicit, teacher-directed instruction on how to effectively use them, including modeling and independent practice with feedback (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999). Horton et al. (1990) studied the effects of GOs on science and social studies exam scores with middle and high school students in general and special education. Researchers found students scored higher on science exams following the use of individualized GOs with teacher guidance to augment science information.

In these prior studies, general education students and students with learning disabilities who were provided systematic instruction and GOs made progress in the general education curriculum. As the research on using GOs for students with ASD is limited, systematic instruction using constant time delay (CTD), modeling examples and nonexamples, and multiple exemplar training may provide additional support for instruction with a GO. CTD is an evidence-based practice for teaching words and pictures to students with severe developmental disabilities (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009). CTD has been used to teach a variety of functional (Collins, Branson, & Hall, 1995) and academic skills (Browder & Minarovic, 2000) to students with severe developmental disabilities. It also has been used to teach vocabulary and definitions to students with mild to moderate disabilities (Jitendra, Edwards, Sacks, & Jacobson, 2004). In time delay, the target stimulus (e.g., science word) is paired with an immediate prompt (e.g., model of reading the word) for a predetermined number of “zero delay” teaching trials. The prompt then is delayed by a specified number of seconds (e.g., 4 s) to allow the student to anticipate the correct response. When effective, time delay promotes transfer of stimulus control from a prompt to a target stimulus (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).

In addition to challenges with vocabulary and comprehension, students with ASD often have difficulty with generalization of a skill learned in one context to another context (National Research Council, 2001). To address the concern of generalization of science concepts, training sessions for GOs would need to incorporate not only explicit instruction for using the GO but also strategies to promote generalization (e.g., sufficient exemplars; Stokes & Baer, 1977). Teaching using multiple exemplars and modeling of examples and nonexamples can increase generalization of learned vocabulary and concepts (Engelmann & Carnine, 1991; Kame’enui & Simmons, 1990).

Multiple exemplar training has been used to teach acquisition and generalization of affective behavior in children with ASD (Gena, Krantz, McClannahan, & Poulson, 1996). In the training of sufficient exemplars, generalization to the untrained stimulus (e.g., GO) and to untrained responses (e.g., placement of vocabulary words on the GO) occurs as a result of training sufficient exemplars (rather than all) of the possible stimulus consequences and responses. We conducted this study to extend the limited research in science for students with ASD and intellectual disability by evaluating the extent to which a GO and systematic instruction could improve acquisition and generalization of science concepts by students with ASD and an intellectual disability.

Method

Participants

The participants for this study were three urban middle school students (one female and two male) with ASD and intellectual disability. Prior to implementation of the study, special education teachers were provided the inclusionary criteria and teachers nominated students within their classroom that met all inclusionary criteria. Inclusion criteria included (a) IQ score that characterizes the student as having a moderate to severe intellectual disability (IQ <55), (b) meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria for autism, (c) adequate vision and hearing to interact with the materials, (d) able to communicate verbally or with an augmentative communication device, and (e) consistent attendance record (i.e., no more than two absences per month).

Melanie was a 14-year-old female diagnosed with ASD and moderate intellectual disability according to her last evaluation completely by the school district (IQ 44, Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test; Bracken & McCallum, 1998). Based on the Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills–Revised (CIBS-R; Brigance, 1999), her grade-equivalent oral reading score was at the fifth-grade level, and her grade-equivalent score in reading comprehension was at the third-grade level. Brandon was a 13-year-old male diagnosed with ASD and moderate intellectual disability according to his last evaluation completely by the school district (IQ 40, Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). Based on the CIBS-R, his grade-equivalent oral reading score was at the sixth-grade level, and his grade-equivalent score in reading comprehension was at the third-grade level. Chucky was a 14-year-old male diagnosed with ASD and moderate intellectual disability according to his last evaluation completely by the school district (IQ 55, Leiter International Performance Scale–Revised; Roid & Miller, 1997). Based on the CIBS-R, his grade-equivalent oral reading score was at the third-grade level, and his grade-equivalent score in reading comprehension was at the second-grade level.

The interventionist for this study was a graduate assistant (GA) in a special education doctoral program. The GA had 10 years of experience with students with ASDs and other significant disabilities as a teacher and autism behavior specialist. The GA conducted all instructional and assessment sessions.

Setting

The study took place in an urban public middle school in the southeast. The students with ASD were served in a resource room. The interventionist sat with the students at a table or desk located within the classroom. Scheduling of sessions occurred during the students’ science period and before they participated in inquiry-based science lessons.

Variables and Reliability

Independent variables

The independent variable was a treatment package of systematic instruction. The interventionist instructed each student individually. Systematic instruction consisted of the following steps: (a) using a CTD procedure to teach vocabulary words and definitions, (b) instruction of concepts using examples and nonexamples, (c) “teaching loosely” using the GO, (d) teaching using multiple exemplars of the GO, and (e) connecting the concepts to the big idea of “Convection.” Intervention sessions occurred between 4 and 5 days per school week and lasted approximately 15 min each day.

Procedural reliability

Procedural reliability was measured for the implementation of the probe and instructional procedure for 25% of sessions across all conditions. Procedural fidelity was calculated by dividing the number of correct behaviors actually performed by the number of behaviors that should have been performed and multiplying by 100%. Mean procedural fidelity across sessions was 100% for all students.

Dependent variable

The dependent variable was the accurate demonstration of conceptual knowledge of “convection.” The dependent variable was measured by the number of independent, correct steps in a 16-step task analysis. Each step of the task analysis was scored as either unprompted correct or incorrect. Students were given a score of “0” for an incorrect, prompted, or no response; and a score of “1” for an independent, correct response. Baseline and ongoing probes used a multiple opportunity method; the interventionist gave the students the opportunity to perform all steps of the task analysis without prompting or specific feedback.

Interobserver reliability

Interobserver reliability on student responding included scoring the responses of the students for demonstrating vocabulary comprehension and conceptual knowledge by number of correct steps in the task analysis using an item-by-item method for event recording. Interobserver reliability was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%, and was collected for at least 25% of sessions across all conditions. The mean interobserver agreement was 98.9% for Melanie, 100% for Brandon, and 99.3% for Chucky.

Procedures

General procedures

During all conditions, students were provided with an array of four selections for each of the vocabulary questions, a GO, and a generalization question based on the steps in the task analysis. The researchers selected vocabulary and concepts according to grade-aligned science content from general education content.

Baseline and ongoing probes

During baseline, students received science instruction from the classroom teacher, but did not learn the topic of convection or use GOs paired with systematic instruction. During baseline and ongoing probes conducted prior to each teaching session, the interventionist told the students they would be learning about a science concept. Students were then given a GO approximately the size of a sheet of paper and words for the definitions. Probes for the conceptual understanding of “convection” using the steps in the 16-step task analysis were used as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Convection Task Analysis for Completing the GO.

Objectives	Materials	Correct student response	Score
1. Teacher asks student, “Which is (the definition of evaporation)?”	Pictures/words with “evaporation” and three distracters	Student points to or verbally chooses the correct picture/word “evaporation”	0/1
2. Teacher asks, “Where do you think evaporation goes on our graphic organizer?”	Untrained graphic organizer (GO) with relevant and irrelevant stimuli	Places the picture/word “evaporation” in a correct area (e.g., above the water, hills, but below clouds and sun, and with lines representing movement in the direction of going up) on the GO.	0/1
	Picture/word with “evaporation”
3. Teacher asks, “Which is (the definition of condensation)?”	Pictures/words with “condensation” and three distracters	Student points to or verbally chooses the correct picture/word “condensation”	0/1
4. Teacher asks, “Where do you think condensation goes on our graphic organizer?”	Untrained (GO) with relevant and irrelevant stimuli	Places the picture/word “condensation” in a correct area (e.g., above the water, hills, and on or near a cloud) on the GO.	0/1
	Picture/word with “condensation”
5. Teacher asks, “Which is (the definition of precipitation)?”	Pictures/words with “precipitation” and three distracters	Student points to or verbally chooses the correct picture/word “precipitation”	0/1
6. Teacher asks, “Where do you think precipitation goes on our graphic organizer?”	Untrained (GO) with relevant and irrelevant stimuli	Places the picture/word “precipitation” in a correct area (e.g., above the water, hills, and under or near a cloud) on the GO.	0/1
	Picture/word with “precipitation”
7. Teacher asks, “Which is (the definition of heated)?”	Pictures/words with “heated” and three distracters	Student points to or verbally chooses the correct picture/word “heated”	0/1
8. Teacher asks, “Where do you think heated goes on our graphic organizer?”	Untrained (GO) with relevant and irrelevant stimuli	Places the picture/word “heated” in a correct area (e.g., either on the land or water, and near evaporation) on the GO.	0/1
	Picture/word with “heated”
9. Teacher asks, “Which is (the definition of cooled)?”	Pictures/words with “cooled” and three distracters	Student points to or verbally chooses the correct picture/word “cooled”	0/1
10. Teacher asks, “Where do you think cooled goes on our graphic organizer?”	Untrained (GO) with relevant and irrelevant stimuli	Places the picture/word “cooled” in a correct area (e.g., above the water, hills, in the sky somewhere—opposite of the “heated”—demonstrating a cyclic effect) on the GO.	0/1
	Picture/word with “cooled”
11. Teacher asks, “Where do you think the first arrow goes?”	Untrained (GO) with relevant and irrelevant stimuli	Places the first arrow in a cycle pattern demonstrating heated areas rising and cooling areas lowering. First arrow going in clockwise direction.	0/1
	arrows to demonstrate “water cycle” concept
12. Teacher asks, “Where do you think the second arrow goes?”	Untrained (GO) with relevant and irrelevant stimuli	Places the second arrow in a cycle pattern demonstrating heated areas rising and cooling areas lowering. Second arrow going in clockwise direction.	0/1
	arrows to demonstrate “water cycle” concept
13. Teacher asks, “Where do you think the third arrow goes?”	Untrained (GO) with relevant and irrelevant stimuli	Places the third arrow in a cycle pattern demonstrating heated areas rising and cooling areas lowering. All arrows going in clockwise direction.	0/1
	arrows to demonstrate “water cycle” concept
14. Teacher asks summarizing question. “What is this a graphic representation of?”	Untrained (GO) with relevant and irrelevant stimuli	Correctly answers question about the concept of the lesson	0/1
	Picture/word with “convection” and three distracters
15. Teacher asks, “What is the definition of ‘convection’?”	Definition of “convection” and three distracters	Student points to or verbally chooses the correct definition of “convection”	0/1
16. Teacher asks a prediction question.	Untrained “if, then statement” with pictures and words	Correctly predicts (hypothesizes) what would happen in another environment. Is able to generalize to another situation.	0/1
	Correct answer out of four

Note. GO = graphic organizer.

CTD to teach vocabulary words and definitions (Phase I)

The treatment package was implemented in four phases (see Table 2). First, CTD was used to teach the student the vocabulary and definitions. CTD began with 0-s delay sessions in which the interventionist presented an array containing the word and three distracters in random order with an immediate model of pointing to the correct target word while saying, “I’ll point to the word condensation. Now you point to the word.” If the student did not imitate the model, the interventionist physically guided the response. This same procedure was repeated by giving the definition of the word with the question, “Which is ___ (definition)?” These 0-s trials were repeated until the student correctly imitated the model prompt for two consecutive sessions for word identification and definition. Then the interventionist used 5-s delay sessions in which the array was presented, but the student was given up to 5 s to anticipate the correct response. If the student made an error, one 0-s delay round was repeated and the student was told, “If you do not know, wait and I will help you.” When the student demonstrated 100% unprompted corrects for two consecutive sessions, the next word and definition were introduced (Zhang, Gast, Horvat, & Dattilo, 1995).

Table 2.

Intervention Components.

Phase	Component
I: CTD	(0-s delay) Teacher presents target word/definition in an array of four.
	(0-s delay) Teacher models pointing to the target word/definition and says, “This is the word ____. Now you point to ___.”
	(0-s delay) Teacher provides error correction if needed.
	(0-s delay) Teacher repeats the trials until student correctly imitated the model prompt for two consecutive trials.
	(5-s delay) Teacher presents target word/definition in an array of four.
	(5-s delay) Teacher waits up to 5 s for student’s response.
	(5-s delay) Teacher provides error correction for incorrect response (e.g., “This is the word __. Now you point to it”) or provides verbal praise for correct responses.
II: Explicit instruction—examples and nonexamples of vocabulary	Teacher tells student the target word and definition (e.g., “When a liquid changes to a gas, it is evaporation”).
	Teacher models an example of target word (“My turn. This picture shows evaporation.”).
	Teacher models a nonexample of the target word (“My turn. This picture does not show evaporation. It has water, a liquid, but there is no gas.”)
	Teacher leads the student using a new example of the target word (“With me: This picture shows evaporation”).
	Teacher leads the student using a new nonexample of the target word (“With me: This picture does not show evaporation. It has the gas, but no liquid.”)
	Teacher tests the student using a new example (“Your turn. Does this picture show evaporation?”)
	Teacher tests the student using a new nonexample (“Your turn. Does this picture show evaporation?”)
III: Using the GO (model)	(MODEL) With GO 1, teacher tells student the target word and definition (e.g., “When a liquid changes to a gas, it is evaporation.”)
	(MODEL) With GO 1, teacher says, “This is where it goes on our GO. Now you try it.”
III: Vocabulary and using the GO (guided practice)	(LEAD) With GO 1, teacher asks the student the target word based on the definition (e.g., “When a liquid changes to a gas, it is _____________?”). Teacher redirects to correct word if there is a mistake (PP).
	(LEAD) With GO 1, teacher asks, “Where do you think__________ goes on our graphic organizer?”
IV: Vocabulary and using the GO (independent)^a	(INDEPENDENT) With a NOVEL GO, teacher asks the student the target word based on the definition (e.g., “When a liquid changes to a gas, it is _____________?”) Teacher redirects to correct word if there is a mistake (VP).
	(INDEPENDENT) With a 2nd NOVEL GO, teacher asks, “Where do you think__________ goes on our graphic organizer?” (If student is still having difficulty at this level, go back to model phase with a new GO and start over).
	(INDEPENDENT) Using a NOVEL GO, teacher asks the student, “Where do the arrows go?”
	Repeat Steps 8 to 13 for concept of convection.
	Teacher asks an “if/then” prediction question (e.g., “Knowing what you know about the water cycle, if hot air raises in this room, what will happen to cold air?”).

Note. CTD = constant time delay; GO = graphic organizer; PP = physical prompt; VP = verbal prompt.

Use a NOVEL GO.

Instruction of concepts using explicit instruction (Phase II)

Once students knew all vocabulary and definitions related to the big idea of “convection” (e.g., precipitation, condensation) using CTD, the interventionist taught the concepts related to “convection” using explicit instruction (e.g., examples and nonexamples, model-lead-test procedure) using a T-chart (i.e., a table with two columns in the shape of the letter T for sorting) with the words “Yes” on the left and the word “No” on the right side of the chart. First, the interventionist modeled the correct answer for the student. In the model, the interventionist presented an example picture of the concept for the student, including clarifying the critical and variable attributes of the concept (e.g., “This is precipitation. Here is the cloud and here is the rain falling to the ground. I am going to put this under “Yes” on our T-chart”). Then the teacher led the student using a different example of the same concept (i.e., “Do it with me. This is precipitation. Here is the cloud and here is the rain falling to the ground.”). Next, the teacher tested the student by presenting a third example of the concept and asked, “Is this an example of precipitation? Why or why not?” In addition to providing examples for the student using model-lead-test procedure, the teacher also provided close-in and divergent nonexamples using the same method described above (e.g., “See, this has a cloud, but does not have rain. It is not precipitation.”). After the initial model-lead-test procedure of demonstrating examples and nonexamples of the concept, the student was asked to sort multiple examples and nonexamples to identify correct examples of the concept using the “yes” and “no” on the T-chart.

Teaching loosely using the GO (Phase III)

Once students could identify all concepts related to “convection,” the instructor used the concept of “teaching loosely” to teach students where the vocabulary word was placed on the GO. The instructor systematically altered the presence of relevant and nonrelevant stimuli for each GO during instruction, thereby decreasing the chance that a functionally irrelevant factor (e.g., sun) acquired faulty stimulus control of the target behavior (i.e., performing the steps in the task analysis). For example, in the case of “precipitation,” the students first learned that the definition was “when clouds get heavy and water falls to the earth.” The student was explicitly taught that on the GO, the word “precipitation” was placed on/near a cloud with rain, snow, hail, and sleet (see Figure 1). In this case, the relevant stimuli for “precipitation” were a cloud with rain, snow, hail, or sleet below the cloud. Irrelevant stimuli might include the sun behind the cloud.

Figure 1.

Example of a complete graphic organizer showing convection.

Teaching using multiple exemplars of the GO (Phase IV)

Finally, to increase generalization, and to ensure the student was not simply memorizing placement of the vocabulary word on the GO without an understanding of the concept, the interventionist used multiple exemplars of the GO to teach the vocabulary concepts. For example, on some GOs, the weather pattern was shown with a mountain scene and a lake. In others, there was an ocean and palm trees (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Trained and untrained exemplars of convection.

Connecting the concepts to the big idea of convection

The CTD procedure was followed for connecting the arrows between concepts, and for learning the definition of convection. For example, the interventionist would say, “heated water causes evaporation.” As the interventionist said, “causes,” she put the arrow in between “heated” and “evaporation.” At 0-s delay, the student then imitated this model of placing the arrow. As described for vocabulary, physical guidance was used if the student did not place the arrow. After two consecutive trials of correct imitation of the 0-s delay model, the interventionist waited 5 s for the student to anticipate where to place the error.

Finally, a prediction question was asked at the end of the session to determine whether the students could generalize the conceptual knowledge of “convection.” The interventionist used a visual “if, then” statement (with pictures, as appropriate) to ask the students a prediction question. For instance, in the following question, “if hot air rises, then cold air ____,” a correct response would be to point to the word “falls.” If the student did not respond or chose the wrong answer, the interventionist modeled the correct response.

Ongoing and generalization probes

Prior to each teaching session, the interventionist probed each student’s performance using the same procedures as baseline. During these probes, trained and untrained GOs were used to assess whether students were able to generalize the concept across materials.

Maintenance

One week after a student’s performance met criterion of 15 correct out of a total of 16, maintenance data were collected on the mastered task analysis to determine retention of the definitions and concepts. Maintenance probes were conducted in the same manner as the baseline probes. Maintenance data pertaining to the third participant were not collected due to the end of the school year.

Experimental Design

A multiple probe across students design (Gast, 2010; Horner & Baer, 1978) was chosen because continuous assessment of comprehension acquisition and conceptual knowledge during the baseline phase may have led to student frustration and subsequent refusal to participate in future instructional trials. There were three experimental conditions: (a) baseline, (b) GO training with systematic instruction, and (c) maintenance. Generalization sessions occurred across all three conditions when the untrained GOs were probed.

The interventionist conducted a minimum of three one-to-one baseline probes with different exemplars for each student with a disability prior to introduction of the independent variable. In addition, it is important to note that the sequences of GOs during probe and intervention conditions were counterbalanced in an effort to control for threats to internal validity.

The interventionist looked for a stable or decreasing trend in the data via visual inspection of the graphs, and when this occurred, intervention with the instruction occurred. When the first student reached 15 out of 16 correct on the task analysis for 2 consecutive days, the interventionist continued with the next student.

Results

Figure 3 shows each student’s number of correct responses on the task analysis for “convection.” During baseline, Melanie completed a mean of 3.3 steps on the task analysis (range = 0–7). During intervention, she reached criteria for mastery (i.e., 15 out of 16 correct responses) in 8 sessions, with a mean of 12.5 (range = 8–16). Brandon completed a mean of 2.6 steps on the task analysis (range = 0–6) during baseline. During intervention, Brandon reached criteria for mastery in seven sessions, with a mean of 12 steps completed on the task analysis (range = 5–16). Chucky completed a mean of 2.6 steps on the task analysis (range = 0–6) during baseline. Chucky reached criteria for mastery within eight sessions, with a mean of 9.5 steps completed on the task analysis (range = 4–15) during intervention. Maintenance probes for Melanie and Brandon show that both participants were able to maintain correct responses on the convection task analysis at high rates. Due to the end of the school year, the researcher was not able to collect maintenance data for Chucky.

Figure 3.

Each student’s number of correct responses on the task analysis for “convection.”

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of GOs and systematic instruction on the comprehension of science vocabulary and accurate demonstration of the concept of “convection” by students with ASD and an intellectual disability. We found a functional relation between the intervention and the number of correct steps completed on the task analysis to demonstrate the concept of convection. Furthermore, all students mastered the steps of the task analysis in eight or fewer sessions.

Providing GOs to students, or teaching students with disabilities to create GOs, is an effective tool for teaching relationships among concepts (Darch & Carnine, 1986; Foster-Havercamp, 1988; Horton et al., 1990) and for increasing vocabulary and comprehension by students with learning disabilities (Kim et al., 2004). The National Reading Panel (2000) recommended the use of GOs as an instructional method for promoting text comprehension. In an Institute of Education Sciences (IES) practice guide report, Pashler et al. (2007) suggested that there is a moderate level of evidence to support the use of graphics used in combination with verbal descriptions to promote student learning. Our findings can be used to offer additional confirmation for the use of explicit, verbally directed GOs to teach science vocabulary and concepts to middle school students with ASD and intellectual disability. Based on the abundant research on the effects of visual supports to teach academic and social skills to students with ASD (National Autism Center, 2010) combined with the challenges in comprehension many students with ASD face, GOs along with systematic instruction may be a beneficial approach for this population.

In addition to offering empirical support for the use of GOs, we have contributed to the literature base for using CTD to teach vocabulary from the general education curriculum (Collins, Evans, Creech-Galloway, Karl, & Miller, 2007; Jameson, McDonnell, Polychronis, & Riesen, 2008). Researchers suggest that CTD is an evidence-based practice for teaching literacy, such as general education vocabulary, science content (e.g., science vocabulary, verbally describe surrounding when lost) and mathematics (numbers, basic computation, and measurement) to students with severe disabilities (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008; Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006; Spooner, Knight, Browder, Jimenez, & DiBiase, 2011).

Students need to grasp vocabulary to understand “big ideas” in science (Grossen et al., 2011). Participants in our study learned not only the vocabulary and definitions but also understood how the concepts related to one another to form a big idea of convection. For example, students learned definitions of key terms (e.g., heated, precipitation, evaporation), as well as how these concepts related to one another (e.g., heated water causes evaporation) to understand the concept of convection. Researchers have proposed the idea of conceptual learning as a logical next step in meaningful science learning for students with severe disabilities, including students with ASD (Knight, Browder, Agnello, & Lee, 2010; Spooner et al., 2011).

Understanding is an important component of comprehension. For any student to understand a concept, having a clear definition is helpful. In this study, students first had to understand the definitions of the words associated with convection (e.g., precipitation, condensation). When they understood the definitions, then they learned through examples and nonexamples the “concepts” of the words (e.g., precipitation, condensation, evaporation) using discrimination training. The conceptual understanding of “convection” as a process was demonstrated when students were asked to correctly place each word (i.e., concept) on novel, or untrained GOs. Students were asked to use the GOs independently; that is, without response prompts (e.g., verbal prompts) or additional stimulus prompts (e.g., Velcro).

As students with ASD are increasingly included in general education classes with their typical peers (Kluth & Darmody-Latham, 2003), identification of effective instructional methods for all students across content areas is essential. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) promotes the identification of practices that meet the needs of all of the learners in the classroom by designing flexible and supportive curricula with accessible curriculum (e.g., goals, methods, materials, assessments; Rose & Meyer, 2002).

Researchers endorse the use of UDL as a method for promoting science for all students (Curry, Cohen, & Lightbody, 2006), as well as to meet the needs of students with ASD (Hart & Whalon, 2008), but no research exists for this population to support these endorsements. GOs can be used to enhance the three areas of UDL; representation, expression, and engagement. For example, as students with ASD and an intellectual disability often have challenges with comprehension, one solution for teachers is to offer students completed GOs in the beginning of a science lesson or unit, thereby increasing the likelihood that the big ideas of that lesson/unit are made explicit. In this example, the information is represented in an attainable format by using a GO (vs. reading from a textbook), students can express their understanding more easily than writing a paragraph, and the visual supports in the GO may be more engaging for some students with ASD than a verbal lecture.

Limitations

One limitation of the study is that an instructional package was used (i.e., GOs, systematic instruction using CTD and multiple exemplars), so it is not known whether all of the components from the instructional package are needed. A component analysis of the instruction would reveal the degree to which certain components of the package may be more effective than others. A second limitation was the generalization of the results across settings. This study was conducted in a resource room for students with ASD; it is not known whether the results would generalize to a general education science class. In addition, maintenance data were collected 1 week after the intervention concluded, so it is not known whether the changes in behavior would have maintained for a longer period of time. The final limitation is that the investigator rather than the classroom teacher conducted the study; however, the classroom teacher applied the methods used in this study to another content area (i.e., social studies) as a result of watching the researcher implement the procedures (Schenning, Knight, & Spooner, 2013). Despite the relative ease of implementation, teachers would likely need to receive training on the components of the instructional package to implement the strategy in their own classrooms.

Suggestions for Future Research

There is a significant amount of work that should be addressed by future research as not much investigation has been done in the area of teaching comprehension skills to this population. In this study, comprehension of the concept “convection” was demonstrated when students were asked to apply the 16-step task analysis to novel GOs, which included variations of the concepts they had previously learned. Students could not have simply memorized correct placement of the terms and arrows, as the correct placement of the terms (i.e., placement of the relevant and irrelevant stimuli on the GO) changed with each untrained GO. To complete the steps, students had to know the definition of the concept (e.g., precipitation), be able to apply the concept to a novel context (i.e., an untrained GO), and connect each concept with one another to form the overarching concept of “convection” (i.e., using the “causes” statements in combination with the arrows). Comprehension of the concept “convection” was further confirmed when students were able to generalize the ideas from convention to answer novel “if/then” statements.

Comprehension is critical to the development and maintenance of academic skills. An additional area of exploration would be to move the location of the setting to one that would be viewed as more inclusive, as the ultimate placement for these students would be in the general education setting alongside their typically developing peers. For example, replication of this study to a small group format in a general education setting would be beneficial. In addition, as technology is increasingly used in classrooms, it would be interesting to see whether this study could be replicated using a device such as a Smartboard™ for group use, or an iPad™ for personal use.

Because this was a treatment package that included CTD, modeling examples and nonexamples, and multiple exemplar training, it is unclear as to which aspects of the intervention contributed the most to student comprehension of the concept of convection using a GO. Although CTD has been established as an evidence-based practice, and multiple exemplar training is well established in the literature for teaching students with severe disabilities a variety of skills, additional research is needed to determine the effect of modeling using examples and nonexamples for students with severe disabilities, including students with ASD.

Recommendations for Practice

There are at least three recommendations for the practical implementation of GOs. First, teachers can use GOs as a means to provide flexible responses by students to show engagement, expression, and alternate forms of representation (i.e., three components of UDL). Second, it will be important to recognize that GO strategies will need to be used in combination with other effective instructional practices (CTD, training multiple exemplars, mode-lead-test). It is highly likely that a GO strategy used in isolation without coupling it with some other training procedure would be ineffective in increasing comprehension skills or some other academic behavior. Third, GOs are a common tool used in the general education setting. As the population of students with ASD is on the rise, general education teachers can work with special educators to determine the most effective methods for teaching GO use to students with ASD.

Summary

To have a full educational opportunity, students with ASD need science education that addresses the range of standards taught to all students. The challenge of science instruction is that it requires conceptual learning that can be difficult for students with ASD, especially if they also have an intellectual disability. We demonstrated that using GOs and systematic instruction can promote conceptual learning. Future research is needed to see whether students can maintain or improve this pace of conceptual learning in the ongoing pace of the general science curriculum. Although some students may not be able to master all science concepts in the general curriculum, they might attain the “big ideas” for each chapter or unit of instruction if systematic instructional procedures like those introduced in this study are applied.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The conceptualization and analysis for this project took place while Victoria Knight and Bethany Smith were doctoral students at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Support for this research was provided in part by Grant No. R324A080014 from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, awarded to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Baker

Gersten

Scanlon

(2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 65–77.

Bracken

B. A.

McCallum

R. S.

(1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT). Chicago, IL: Riverside.

Brigance

A. H.

(1999). Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills–Revised (CIBS-R). North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.

Browder

D. M.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Spooner

Mims

P. J.

Baker

(2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364.

Browder

D. M.

Minarovic

T. J.

(2000). Utilizing site words in self instruction and training for employees moderate mental retardation and competitive jobs. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 78–89.

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Harris

Wakeman

S. Y.

(2008). A meta-analysis for teaching mathematics to individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 404–432.

Browder

D. M.

Wakeman

S. Y.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Algozzine

(2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.

Carnine

(2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 203–218.

10.

Cawley

J. F.

Kahn

Tedesco

(1989). Vocational education and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 630–634.

11.

Collins

B. C.

Branson

T. A.

Hall

(1995). Teaching generalized reading of cooking product labels to adolescents with mental disabilities through the use of key words taught by peer tutors. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 65–75.

12.

Collins

B. C.

Evans

Creech-Galloway

Karl

Miller

(2007). Comparison of the acquisition and maintenance of the teaching functional and core content sight words in special and general education settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 220–233.

13.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

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

14.

Curry

Cohen

Lightbody

(2006). Universal design in science learning. Science Teacher, 7, 32–37.

15.

Darch

Carnine

(1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240–246.

16.

Diebold

T. J.

Waldron

M. B.

(1988). Designing instructional formats: The effects of verbal and pictorial components on hearing impaired students’ comprehension of science concepts. American Annals of the Deaf, 133, 30–35.

17.

Engelmann

Carnine

(1991). Theories of instruction: Principles and applications. Eugene, OR: Association for Direct Instruction.

18.

Foster-Havercamp

(1988). Twin strategies for reading improvement. Vocational Education Journal, 63, 36–37.

19.

Gardill

M. C.

Jitendra

A. K.

(1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 2–17.

20.

Gast

D. L.

(2010). Single-subject research in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

21.

Gena

Krantz

P. J.

McClannahan

L. E.

Poulson

C. L.

(1996). Training and generalization of affective behavior displayed by youth with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 291–304.

22.

Grossen

B. J.

Carnine

D. W.

Romance

N. R.

Vitale

M. R.

(2011). Effective strategies for teaching science. In Coyne

M. D.

Kame’enui

E. J.

Carnine

D. W.

(Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed., pp. 181–212). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

23.

Hart

J. E.

Whalon

K. J.

(2008). 20 ways to promote academic engagement and communication of students with autism spectrum disorder in inclusive settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 116–120.

24.

Horner

R. D.

Baer

D. M.

(1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.

25.

Horton

S. V.

Lovitt

T. C.

Bergerud

(1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12–22.

26.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990).

27.

Jameson

J. M.

McDonnell

Polychronis

Riesen

(2008). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 346–363.

28.

Jitendra

A. K.

Edwards

L. L.

Sacks

Jacobson

L. A.

(2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.

29.

Kame’enui

E. J.

Simmons

D. C.

(1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

30.

Kim

Vaughn

Wanzek

Wei

(2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of the research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118.

31.

Kluth

Darmody-Latham

(2003). Beyond sight words: Literacy opportunities for students with autism. Reading Teacher, 56, 532–534.

32.

Knight

Browder

Agnello

Lee

(2010). Academic instruction in ELA, math, and science for students with severe disabilities (Invited manuscript). Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(7), 1–14.

33.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–411.

34.

McDuffie

Yoder

Stone

(2005). Prelinguistic predictors of vocabulary in young children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1080–1097.

35.

Nation

Clarke

Wright

B. J.

Williams

(2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 911–919.

36.

National Academy of Sciences. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

37.

National Autism Center. (2010). National standards project. Retrieved from http://www.nationalautismcenter.org/pdf/nsp_report_overview.pdf

38.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (on-line). Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.cfm

39.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

40.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115, § 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002).

41.

Pashler

Bain

Bottge

Graesser

Koedinger

McDaniel

Metcalfe

(2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available from http://ncer.ed.gov

42.

Roid

G. H.

Miller

L. J.

(1997). Letier International Performance Scale–Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.

43.

Rose

Meyer

(2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

44.

Schenning

Knight

Spooner

(2013). Effects of structured inquiry and graphic organizers on social studies comprehension by students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 526–540. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.12.007

45.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Okolo

C. M.

(2008). Science and social studies for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–24.

46.

Spooner

Knight

Browder

Jimenez

DiBiase

(2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 62–75.

47.

Stokes

T. F.

Baer

D. M.

(1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–368.

48.

Whalon

K. J.

Otaiba

K. A.

Delano

M. E.

(2009). Evidence-based reading instruction for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 3–16.

49.

Woodcock

R. W.

McGrew

K. S.

Mather

(2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

50.

Zhang

Gast

Horvat

Dattilo

(1995). The effectiveness of a constant time delay procedure on teaching lifetime sports skills to adolescents with severe to profound intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 51–64.