Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teacher-Implemented Video Prompting on an iPod Touch to Teach Food-Preparation Skills to High School Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders

Abstract

A multiple-probe-across-behaviors design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of video prompts delivered on an iPod Touch to teach food-preparation skills to two high school students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and intellectual disability. The special education teacher implemented the procedure in the high school classroom. Student data are interpreted to conclude that video prompting on an iPod Touch was effective in increasing independent performance of both students. The special education teacher was able to implement the procedure with a high degree of fidelity without disrupting the ongoing instructional activities of the classroom. Teacher ratings of the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the procedures suggested that teacher viewed video prompting on an iPod Touch as a practical, effective, and efficient strategy for teaching food-preparation skills to students with ASD and intellectual disability.

Keywords

autism spectrum disorders video modeling daily living skills independence

In recent years, a growing number of researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of video-based instruction on students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Corbett and Abdullah (2005) suggest that video-based instruction is particularly well suited for students with ASD because it can be adapted in such a way as to allow instruction to match their learning and behavioral characteristics. Researchers have identified how some of the features of ASD can be addressed in video-based instruction. For example, overselective attention (Lovaas, Schreibman, Koegel, & Rehm, 1971) and avoidance of face-to-face attention (Charlop-Christy, Le, & Freeman, 2000) may be overcome by using video-based instruction. In addition, some individuals with ASD show a strong preference for visual stimuli (Kinney, Vedora, & Stromer, 2003; Shipley-Benamou, Lutzker, & Taubman, 2002). Cardon and Azuma (2012) found that children with ASD showed a preference for a video recording of a puppet show over an actual live show with the same puppets.

Video-based instruction is grounded in Bandura’s (1977) research on Social Learning Theory. Observational learning refers to a process in which an individual acquires a new skill or obtains information by observing the actions of a model. Modeling is defined as the process by which an individual or model demonstrates a behavior that can be imitated. Video modeling involves an individual watching another person, or him- or herself in the case of video self-modeling, perform a skill or behavior on a video, then imitating the actions of the model. Over the past several decades, video modeling and video-based instruction have been used to teach a vast array of skills to a diverse group of individuals (Charlop-Christy, et al., 2000). Video modeling has been used to teach students with ASD a variety of skills, including self-help (Lasater & Brady, 1995; Schreibman, Whalen, & Stahmer, 2000), social language (Maione & Mirenda, 2006; Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2003), play skills (MacDonald, Clask, Garrigan, & Vangala, 2005) academic skills (Kinney et al., 2003), and generalized imitation skills (Kleeberger & Mirenda, 2010). In a meta-analysis, Bellini and Akullian (2007) examined 23 single-case design studies investigating the effectiveness of video modeling and video self-modeling implemented with children and adolescents with ASD. These authors calculated the percentage of nonoverlapping data points (PND) as a measure of overall effectiveness for three categories of dependent variables: behavioral functioning, social-communicative skills, and functional skills. They reported moderate intervention effectiveness for social-communication and functional skills. When comparing PND across intervention, maintenance, and generalization phases, the highest levels of effectiveness were associated with functional skills instruction. These results led the authors to conclude that video modeling met the criteria as an evidence-based practice for teaching critical skills to students with ASD.

While video modeling usually involves the individual watching the performance of an entire skill before imitating the performance of the model, video prompting involves breaking a skill down into individual steps and developing a separate video segment for each step (Van Laarhoven, Johnson, Van Laarhoven-Myers, Grider, & Grider, 2009). Participants usually watch a segment and then perform the step by imitating the actions of a model. The learners usually watch one or two steps at a time rather than the entire video. While video modeling has been shown to be effective for teaching chained tasks to students with mild disabilities (Taber-Doughty et al., 2011), video prompting may be more effective than video modeling for teaching complex skills to students with moderate and severe disabilities. For example, Cannella-Malone et al. (2006) compared the relative effectiveness of video modeling and video prompting by teaching pairs of daily living skills to six secondary students with autism and moderate disabilities. They found video prompting to be more effective than video modeling for all participants. In a similar study with students with severe disabilities, Cannella-Malone et al. (2011) found that video prompting was more effective than video modeling for six of the seven participants. In fact, video modeling did not result in any significant skills acquisition for five of the seven participants.

In recent years, researchers and practitioners have extended the use of video modeling and video prompting through the use of portable handheld devices such as iPods, iPads, and other devices. Handheld devices appear to have great potential for reducing the need for external prompts and facilitating the independence of learners with special needs (Blood, Johnson, Ridenour, Simmons, & Crouch, 2011; O’Connell, Freed, & Rothberg, 2010; Van Laarhoven et al., 2009). In addition to being highly portable and relatively inexpensive, these devices are increasingly easier to operate (Hammond, Whatley, Ayres, & Gast, 2010). Devices such as the iPod Touch require little or no adaptation to be used by students with significant disabilities (Kagohara et al., 2011). iPods are socially acceptable and commonly used by individuals with and without disabilities (Newton & Dell, 2011). Van Laarhoven et al. (2009) assessed the effectiveness of video prompting combined with video feedback delivered on a fifth-generation video iPod to teach vocational skills to a high school student with moderate disabilities. Using the iPod, a 17-year-old boy with moderate disabilities successfully learned three complex vocational tasks at a community-based animal shelter. Each task involved a sequence of 41 to 52 steps, most of which had to be performed in precise order.

In another study using fifth-generation iPods, Cihak, Fahrenkrog, Ayres, and Smith (2010) used video modeling, combined with a system of least prompts to facilitate successful transitions for four elementary students with ASD. The students were video recorded while they transitioned from one activity to another and the videos were edited to remove any occurrence of challenging or off-task behavior. Students were taught to operate the iPods to view short segments of themselves just prior to transition times. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed in the context of an ABAB design. All four participants showed increases in independent transitions when the combination of video modeling and system of least prompts was implemented and decreases when the intervention was withdrawn. Although the students required teacher assistance, provided through a system of least prompts, the level of assistance students needed decreased across sessions. These two studies demonstrate the efficacy of teaching students with disabilities to independently operate a handheld device.

While Van Laarhoven et al. (2009) and Cihak et al. (2010) used video prompting delivered on an iPod Touch to teach skills to students with moderate or severe disabilities, Cihak and colleagues focused on successful transitions, whereas Van Laarhoven and her colleagues taught complex chained tasks. These two studies also differ in terms of location and agent of instructional delivery. While Cihak and colleagues conducted their study in an elementary school setting and the students’ teacher implemented the intervention, Van Laarhoven and her group of researchers implemented their study in a vocational setting. We sought to extend previous findings by teaching complex functional food-preparation skills to secondary students with moderate disabilities with the intervention implemented by the students’ teacher in the context of ongoing instruction in the classroom. We also assessed the extent to which students with moderate disabilities could learn to operate an iPod Touch independently to access video prompts. Finally, we assessed the efficacy and acceptability of using iPods to deliver video-based functional skills instruction in a high school classroom.

Method

Participants

Jerry

Jerry was a 17-year-old male with moderate intellectual disability and autism. Jerry’s teacher reported that he has had a medical diagnosis of autism since 1997. No specific autism-scale results were available. On his most recent intellectual assessment, he obtained a Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition (WISC-III) verbal IQ score of 46, a performance IQ score of 55, and a Full Scale IQ Score of 48. Although Jerry could communicate verbally using simple sentences, he did not speak often and relied on pictures and printed words to make choices and answer questions. Jerry was often prompt dependent. Even after he had learned a new skill, he would wait for a verbal or gestural cue before initiating a task. Even when he was prompted to begin a task, he would frequently stop after completing the first step and wait for additional prompts before he would continue.

Alex

Alex was a 17-year-old male with moderate intellectual disability and cerebral palsy. Alex’s teacher reported that he had an educational diagnosis of “having characteristics of autism,” and qualified for special education services under the “multiple disabilities” category. No specific autism-scale results were available. His most recent intellectual assessment indicated an estimated Performance IQ Score of less than 46 and a Stanford-Binet IV partial composite default IQ score of 36. Alex was nonverbal and infrequently used a handheld electronic communication device. Alex communicated primarily through the use of gestures and rarely communicated spontaneously. He was easily distracted and had a great deal of difficulty with fine motor tasks. When Alex encountered difficulty with a task, he would often stop after one or two attempts.

Ms. Freely

Ms. Freely was a 30-year-old special education teacher with a master’s degree in special education. She had an Illinois cross-categorical certification and had been teaching for 5 years at the beginning of the study. Alex and Jerry were assigned to her for part of the school day. All baseline, instructional, and maintenance sessions in the study were conducted by Ms. Freely.

Prior to participation in the study, Ms. Freely had very limited experience using an iPod. She reported that her experience was limited to listening to music that someone else had put on her iPod. She also reported that she “knew basic functions only.” Ms. Freely said she had read about video modeling in her graduate coursework but rarely used video modeling as part of her classroom instruction.

Setting and Materials

All baseline and instructional sessions were conducted in a self-contained high school special education classroom late in the morning during the “Kitchen Basics” class in which Jerry and Alex were enrolled. During this class, the teacher and a paraprofessional worked with eight students (including the two participants) on instructional goals related to nutrition, meal planning, and cooking and preparing different foods. The classroom was equipped with a kitchen area that included a stove, sink, microwave oven, refrigerator, and cabinets for materials. Instruction on academic skills, functional academics, and daily living skills took place in different areas of the classroom.

Instructional tasks

Both students had instructional goals related to cooking and food preparation. The teacher was asked to select three food-preparation tasks based on the following criteria: (a) The food items were highly preferred by the participant, (b) the item could be prepared and consumed within the available time period, and (c) the food-preparation tasks had to be of similar difficulty and contain approximately the same number of steps in the task analysis. The teacher developed a task analysis for three cooking tasks: preparing a fruit smoothie, cooking macaroni and cheese in a microwave, and cooking a frozen pizza in a microwave. These tasks were selected because both participants preferred them. The two participants also had a goal on their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) related to cooking independently. The three tasks had a similar number of steps and were rated by an occupational therapist (OT) and two special education teachers as being similar in level of difficulty. An OT reviewed the tasks analyses and was present when the video segments were recorded. During the recording, the OT made suggestions for positioning and the use of adaptations (e.g., a plastic letter opener to open sealed plastic wrap). All of the OT’s recommendations were incorporated into the videos.

Video prompts

The video segments from which video prompts were made were recorded on a Cannon ZR500 handheld digital-video recorder. The teacher served as the model for the performance of all three food-preparation tasks. Videos were recorded in one session after the students had left for the school day. The first author operated the camera while the teacher modeled the performance of each task. The teacher performed each step after the first author read the task analysis out loud. After a step was recorded, the first author briefly reviewed the recording in the viewer located on the camera. The step was rerecorded if the actions of the model were not clear or if an important feature associated with the task was not clearly visible (e.g., the numbers on the microwave oven). The video for each task included a variety of camera viewpoints; the video segments for some steps showed a full view of the teacher. For example, a step for one task showed a wide-angle view of the teacher going to a refrigerator to get a tub of yogurt. As the teacher reached into the refrigerator, the camera zoomed in to clearly show the item that was being retrieved. At other times, the camera zoomed in to show other fine details such as the line on a measuring cup, the keypad on a microwave oven, or the buttons on a blender.

Once the video sequence for a task was recorded, the digital file was transferred to an HP laptop computer via a Firewire connection. The video was edited using Pinnacle Studio 14 editing software (Avid Technology, Inc., 2009–2010). Figure 1 shows a screen capture of the editing software as a video segment is being created and then saved in a format compatible with an iPod Touch.

Figure 1.

Computer screen shots of video editing.

A series of video prompts were created for each food-preparation task. Individual video prompts included one, two, or three steps from a task analysis, depending on the level of difficulty and complexity of the steps. A total of 10 to 11 video prompts were developed for each task. Each completed video prompt was saved in MP4 format and transferred from the laptop computer to an iPod Touch using iTunes software on the laptop and the Picture Scheduler application on the iPod Touch. Once the video segments were transferred to the iPod Touch, the Picture Scheduler application (Jankuj & Van Laarhoven, 2008–2011) was used to set up a visual sequence of steps. Figure 2 shows the Picture Scheduler screen with the sequence of steps for two of the three cooking tasks.

Figure 2.

Task analysis screens for the video prompts set up on an iPod Touch using the Picture Scheduler application.

The steps for each task were numbered and appeared with a two- to four-word written description of the step alongside a thumbnail picture showing the most salient feature of the step. When the students touched the screen at the location of a thumbnail picture or three-word descriptor, the video associated with that step opened and played on the full screen of the iPod (see Figure 2). After each video segment played, the screen returned to the previous view and the student performed the step that had been modeled in the video prompt.

After the student completed a step and would not need to watch the video prompt again in that session, the student swiped his finger across the step to make a red “delete” button appear. When the student touched the “delete” button, the step disappeared and the next step moved up to the top. Following this procedure for each step, the student always started the video prompt by touching the step that was on the top of the sequence. This procedure also allowed students to watch the video prompt a second time if necessary before deleting the step for the remainder of the session. Prior to a subsequent session, the lists of steps in the task analysis sequence were restored on the iPod by opening a saved version of the list.

Research Design

A multiple-probe-across-behaviors design (Gast, Skouge, & Tawney, 1984) was used to assess the effectiveness of video prompts delivered on an iPod Touch. This design demonstrates a functional relation when the subject shows an immediate increase in the dependent variable when the intervention is sequentially implemented across three or more target skills (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). Baseline data were collected on the three tasks for each student. Video prompts were then implemented on one randomly chosen task while baseline continued on the remaining two tasks. Once the students showed a clear ascending trend in the first task, instruction was implemented with the second task and finally with the third task.

Dependent Variables

Percentage of steps completed independently

Each data sheet listed the steps in the task analysis associated with the skill the student was learning. An observer recorded a step as having been performed independently when the student completed the step after viewing the video prompt with no teacher assistance. At the end of each session, the observer counted the number of steps on which the student was independent and calculated the percentage of steps on which the student was independent for that session.

Teacher prompts to perform task

If the student did not begin to perform the appropriate step of the target task within 5 s of viewing the video prompt, the teacher began a three-step prompting hierarchy. To simplify instruction, the same prompting hierarchy was used for both students. The teacher first prompted the student to watch the video prompt once again. If the student did not begin the next step within 5 s or made an error, the teacher modeled the correct performance of the step. If the student did not perform the step correctly in response to the model, the teacher provided partial physical assistance to perform the step. If a prompt was provided, observers entered the highest level of assistance required for the student to perform the step. This process was repeated for each step in the task analysis for each skill.

Teacher prompts to use iPod Touch

If the student did not independently follow the sequence of steps to view video prompts on the iPod within 5 s, the teacher initiated the same prompting hierarchy as used to prompt task performance. Observers recorded the highest level of assistance provided by the teacher to operate the iPod.

Data Collection and Reliability

The first, second, or fourth author collected data on the students’ performance and the teacher’s implementation during each baseline and instructional session. Prior to the beginning of the study, the observers practiced by observing a student who was not a participant in the study while he operated the iPod and prepared a snack. Practice sessions continued until each observer reached an interobserver agreement (IOA) of 95% with the other two observers. During baseline and instructional sessions, an observer stood near the kitchen area of the classroom. The observer was close enough to see the iPod screen and hear the audio output of the device as well as verbal prompts and directions from the teacher. Two observers were present during 25% of the baseline and instructional sessions; the observers stood far enough apart to prevent them from seeing the data sheet of the other observer. IOA was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. IOA on student performance ranged from 94% to 100% across all observations (M = 98%).

Procedures

Teacher training

Ms. Freely participated in two 30-min training sessions before baseline sessions were conducted. The first author modeled the procedures for baseline and instructional sessions with a student who did not participate in the study. After each demonstration, Ms. Freely implemented the procedures and was provided with immediate feedback on her performance. During the second session, Ms. Freely implemented the procedures with 100% fidelity as measured by an implementation checklist.

iPod training

Prior to the beginning of the video-prompting phase of the study, the participants were taught to operate the iPod Touch to access the video prompts. A series of video prompts was developed for a simple task that was not a targeted skill (i.e., folding a tee shirt). A constant time-delay procedure was used to teach both participants the chain of behaviors associated with viewing video prompts using the Picture Scheduler application. Initially, each step was modeled with no delay until the students imitated the sequence of operating the iPod and folding the shirt three times. After the third completion of the chain, the students were given 5 s to independently operate the iPod and complete the step before a model prompt was provided. Training continued until the student independently completed the sequence two consecutive times. Jerry learned to independently operate the iPod after one training session and Alex operated the iPod independently after three sessions.

Baseline

Prior to the first baseline session, Ms. Freely took the students to the kitchen area and reviewed where the supplies needed for all three dishes were located (e.g., a cabinet was opened to show where measuring cups were located, the refrigerator was opened to show where yogurt and frozen fruit were kept). After reviewing the location of supplies, the teacher asked the students to perform the task being assessed (e.g., “please make a smoothie”). The teacher waited 5 s to give the student the opportunity to perform the first step. If the student did not begin the step within 5 s or if the student began to perform the step incorrectly, Ms. Freely performed the step to set the student up to perform the next step. A 5-s latency period was chosen because Ms. Freely was already using time-delay procedures as part of her instruction, and students were used to this procedure. For some steps, the order of performance was not important (e.g., get yogurt, get milk, get half-cup measuring cup); these steps were counted as correct regardless of the order in which the student performed them. This procedure was repeated for each step until the task was completed.

Video prompting

During the video-prompting condition, students were presented with video prompts on an iPod Touch using the Picture Scheduler application. The iPod was placed on a kitchen counter with the application open and the correct task sequence displayed (see Figure 2). Students started the first video prompt by touching the picture or text associated with the step. The video opened and played on the full iPod screen (see Figure 3.). After watching the video prompt, the student was expected to attempt to complete the demonstrated step. If the student did not begin to complete the step within 5 s, the teacher prompted the student to watch the prompt a second time before providing a model prompt followed by partial physical assistance. The teacher waited 5 s at each prompt level. If the student began to perform a step incorrectly, the teacher went to the controlling prompt of partial physical assistance.

Figure 3.

Screen shots from video prompts for three steps in the “smoothie” sequence.

Maintenance

A maintenance session was conducted after the students met criteria on each task. Data collection occurred in the spring semester. Therefore, maintenance data were collected after a shorter period of time on the third task, compared with the first two tasks, due to the ending of the school year. The procedures for maintenance sessions were the same as those used during video modeling sessions.

Implementation Fidelity

Each data sheet contained an implementation checklist. During each session, observers indicated if the teacher did or did not conform to each of the implementation guidelines for prompting task performance, as well as for prompting iPod use. Fidelity data were collected for each step in the task analysis for each skill. If the teacher’s behavior matched the checklist the observer recorded a plus (+). If the teacher’s behavior deviated from the checklist, the observer recorded a minus (−). Level of instructional fidelity with the checklist was calculated by dividing the number of instructional steps implemented correctly by the total number of steps and multiplying by 100%. The teacher’s fidelity with the implementation checklists ranged from 96% to 100% across observations. The mean fidelity across sessions was 99%.

Results

Alex

Figure 4 shows the percentage of steps Alex independently completed for each of the cooking tasks during baseline, video prompting, and maintenance phases. During baseline, Alex completed 10% to 20% of the steps associated with each task independently. When video prompting on the iPod Touch was introduced, he showed a steady trend of acquisition on the first two tasks (smoothie, mac, and cheese), and a more immediate change in level of the third task (pizza). Alex reached criterion in 13 sessions on the first task and in 7 sessions on the second and third tasks. When maintenance probes were conducted after the last instructional session for each task, Alex completed all three tasks with 100% independence.

Figure 4.

The percentage of steps Alex performed independently when provided with video prompts on an iPod Touch.

Table 1 shows the average percentage of steps on which Alex required additional prompts from the teacher to successfully perform the food-preparation task, as well as the percentage of steps on which he required a prompt to operate the iPod Touch. The average percentage of steps Alex required to perform the tasks decreased substantially from the first task to the second task (28.8%–14.7%) and increased slightly with the third task (16.5%). In regard to prompts to use the iPod Touch, Alex required a prompt on 42% of the steps of the first task, 15% of the steps of associated with the second task, and 2% of the steps of on the third task.

Table 1.

Percentage of Steps on Which the Teacher Delivered a Prompt to Use the iPod.

Task	Steps with prompts to perform task (%)	Range (%)	Steps with prompts to use iPod (%)	Range (%)
Alex
Task 1: Smoothie	28.8	0–80	42	50–100
Task 2: Mac and cheese	14.7	0–36	15	5–27
Task 3: Pizza	16.5	0–30	2	0–10
Jerry
Task 1: Mac and cheese	6.5	0–21	10	0–15
Task 2: Pizza	3.3	0–10	4	0–9
Task 3: Smoothie	0	0–0	0	0

Jerry

Jerry showed an immediate and sustained increase in his level of performance on each task when video-based instruction was implemented. Figure 5 shows the percentage of steps Jerry performed independently during baseline and when video prompts were presented on an iPod Touch.

Figure 5.

The percentage of steps Jerry performed independently when provided with video prompts on an iPod Touch.

On the first task (mac and cheese), Jerry went from 40% independent in baseline to 80% independent in the first session of intervention. He met the criteria (i.e., two consecutive sessions at 100% independence) in six instructional sessions on the first task, three sessions on the second task (smoothie), and two sessions on the third task (pizza). Jerry maintained a criterion level of performance on all three tasks when a maintenance probe was conducted after the instructional sessions had been completed. Table 1 shows the percentage of steps on which Jerry required a prompt from the teacher to successfully perform each of the three tasks. The teacher delivered a prompt on 6.5% of the steps of the first task and on 3.3% of the steps on the second task; she provided no prompts on the third task. Jerry required prompts to use the iPod Touch on 10% of the steps for the first task and 4% for the second task. He did not require teacher prompts to operate the iPod during instruction on the third task.

Discussion

In this study, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of video prompting delivered on an iPod Touch, to teach food-preparation skills to high school students with ASD. We also sought to assess the extent to which students with moderate disabilities could learn to independently operate iPods to access video prompts. In addition, we sought to determine whether the video-prompting procedure could be effectively implemented by a classroom teacher in the context of the ongoing routine of the school day. The effectiveness of the teacher implemented video-prompting procedure was assessed by teaching a series of three food-preparation skills.

Both students learned to perform three different cooking tasks when video prompts were presented on an iPod Touch. Alex and Jerry showed a clear increase in the percentage of steps completed independently when video prompting on the iPod was sequentially presented in the context of the multiple probe design. Jerry required fewer sessions to reach criterion with each subsequent task, and Alex went from requiring 13 sessions to meet criterion on his first task to seven sessions on his second and third tasks. When examining the graphs, it is apparent that both participants showed an immediate increase in independent performance when video prompting was presented on each subsequent task. These results suggest that Alex and Jerry were becoming more efficient in learning to use the video prompts as the study progressed.

Over the course of the study, both students eventually learned to operate the iPods independently to access the video prompts. Despite the fact that Alex and Jerry received training on using the iPod prior to the beginning of the study, they required some prompts from the teacher to access the video prompts associated with the targeted food-preparation skills. However, by the time the students were presented with video prompts for the third skill in the series, Alex required a prompt to use the iPod on only 2% of the steps, and he was totally independent with his iPod use during the last three sessions of the final task. Jerry did not require prompts to use the iPod after he met criteria on the second food-preparation skill. These data suggest that students with ASD and moderate intellectual disability can learn to independently operate devices such as an iPod Touch to access video prompts. In addition, prior to the study, both students were extremely prompt dependent, yet they were eventually able to complete three relatively complex chains of behaviors with no direct prompting from the teacher. Our results are similar to those of previous researchers examining video prompting and video-based instruction using handheld devices (Cihak et al., 2010; Van Laarhoven et al., 2009; Van Laarhoven, Van Laarhoven-Myers, & Zurita, 2007) in addition to learning the targeted skills, the students learned to operate the devices independently.

In this study, all baseline and instructional sessions were conducted by the classroom teacher while other students were performing different cooking tasks or other instructional activities in the same general area. We interpret the data to show that the teacher implemented the video-prompting procedure with a high degree of fidelity. Even with the distractions of three to four other students working on different cooking tasks, the teacher and the participants were able to remain focused on the task at hand and complete the targeted food-preparation skills. This suggests that video prompting delivered on a device such as an iPod Touch can be a practical and effective strategy in classroom settings.

At the conclusion of the study, the teacher gave very high ratings on the perceived effectiveness and acceptability of the intervention (see Table 2). Although she acknowledged that the intervention required her to restructure some of the instructional activities in the classroom, she indicated that once the students were independently using iPods and performing the tasks, she was able to fade her presence and only monitor students for safety purposes.

Table 2.

Teacher Acceptability and Utility Rating.

Question	Rating anchors	Teacher rating
1. How well did the video-prompting procedures meet the needs of students?	1 = poor; 7 = excellent	7
2. How costly (in terms of resources) was it to carry out the video-prompting procedure?	1 = not costly; 7 = very costly	3
3. How likely is video prompting to make permanent improvements in learning for the students?	1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely	7
4. How likely is it that you would do this procedure again?	1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely	7
5. How disruptive was the video-prompting instruction to ongoing classroom instruction?	1 = not disruptive; 7 = very disruptive	2
6. How effective was video prompting on the iPod Touch?	1 = not effective; 7 = very effective	7
7. How serious were the learning problems of the students participating in the study compared with other students in the class?	1 = not serious; 7 = very serious	6

Limitations

Although the results of this study can be used to provide support for the use of video prompts on devices such as an iPod Touch, there are a number of important limitations. First, only two students participated in the study. The extent to which the results can be generalized to other students is limited. Future researchers could involve participants who vary in age, gender, and type of disability. In addition, this study did not return to baseline conditions after the students reached criteria with the iPod Touch video prompting. One could argue that the students were not actually performing the tasks independently as video prompts were still being provided. Previously, researchers have shown that student performance can sometimes decrease when video models or video prompts are withdrawn (Cihak et al., 2010). It also could be argued that the teacher’s prompts were simply replaced by video prompts. However, by the end of the study, the video prompts were entirely under the control of the students, and the iPod Touch is viewed more as an adaptive device or prosthesis. The limited number of baseline data points is another potential limitation of the study. The teacher was concerned that baseline sessions were aversive to the students and expressed concerns about repeated baseline sessions over the course of the study. Although the data obtained in the baseline sessions were consistent with the teacher’s instructional data, and each student showed a clear and immediate increase in performance when the video modeling procedure was implemented, in the future, researchers should utilize at least 3 to 5 data points in baseline.

Finally, the video materials were developed in the classroom with the assistance of the first and second authors. Although the teacher was involved with every aspect of the creation of the video prompts and with setting up the iPods, the researchers took the primary responsibility for developing and setting up these materials. To truly assess the efficiency of video prompting on iPods, further studies should be conducted to address training school staff to develop, edit, and set up mobile devices for students use.

Devices such as an iPod Touch have exciting potential for improving lives and facilitating independence of students with ASD and intellectual disability. Researchers should continue to explore how this technology can most effectively be put to use in school settings.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Avid Technology, Inc. (2009–2010). Pinnacle Studio (version 14) [Computer software]. Mountain View, CA: Pinnacle Systems.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bellini

Akullian

(2007). A meta-analysis of video modeling and video self-modeling interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children, 73, 261–284.

Blood

Johnson

J. W.

Ridenour

Simmons

Crouch

(2011). Using an iPod Touch to teach social and self-management skills to an elementary student with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education & Treatment of Children, 34, 299–322.

Cannella-Malone

H. I.

Fleming

Yi-Cheih Wheeler

Basbagill

A. R.

Singh

(2011). Teaching daily-living skills to seven individuals with severe intellectual disabilities: A comparison of video prompting and video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 144–153.

Cannella-Malone

H. I.

Sigafoos

O’Reilly

de la Cruz

Edrisinha

Lancioni

G. E.

(2006). Comparing video prompting to video modeling for teaching daily living skills to six adults with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 344–356.

Cardon

Azuma

(2012). Visual attending preferences in children with autism spectrum disorders: A comparison between live and video presentation modes. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1061–1067.

Charlop-Christy

M. H.

Freeman

K. A.

(2000). A comparison of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 537–552.

Cihak

D. F.

Fahrenkrog

Ayres

K. M.

Smith

(2010). The use of video modeling via a video iPod and system of least prompts to improve transitional behaviors of students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 103–115.

10.

Corbett

B. A.

Abdullah

(2005). Video modeling: Why does it work for children with autism? Journal of Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention, 2, 2–8.

11.

Gast

D. L.

Skouge

J. R.

Tawney

J. W.

(1984). Multiple baseline designs. In Tawney

J. W.

Gast

D. L.

(Eds.), Single subject research in special education (pp. 226–268). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

12.

Hammond

D. L.

Whatley

A. D.

Ayres

K. M.

Gast

D. L.

(2010). Effectiveness of video modeling to teach iPod use to students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 525–538.

13.

Jankuj

Van Laarhoven

(2008–2011). Picture scheduler [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.jankuj.com/Picture_Scheduler.html

14.

Kagohara

D. M.

Sigafoos

Achmadi

van der Meer

O’Reilly

M. F.

Lancioni

G. E.

(2011). Teaching students with developmental disabilities to operate an iPod touch to listen to music. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2987–2992.

15.

Kinney

E. M.

Vedora

Stromer

(2003). Computer-presented video models to teach generative spelling to a child with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 22–29.

16.

Kleeberger

Mirenda

(2010). Teaching generalized imitation skills to a preschooler with autism using video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 116–127.

17.

Lasater

M. W.

Brady

M. P.

(1995). Effects of video self-modeling and feedback on task fluency: A home-based intervention. Education & Treatment of Children, 18, 389–408.

18.

Lovaas

O. I.

Schreibman

Koegel

R. L.

Rehm

(1971). Selective responding by autistic children to multiple sensory input. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 211–222.

19.

MacDonald

Clask

Garrigan

Vangala

(2005). Using video modeling to teach pretend play to children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 225–238.

20.

Maione

Mirenda

(2006). Effects of video modeling and video feedback on peer directed social language skills of a child with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 106–118.

21.

Newton

Dell

A. G.

(2011). Mobile devices and students with disabilities: What do best practices tell us? Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(3), 47–49.

22.

Nikopoulos

Keenan

(2003). Promoting social initiations in children with autism using video modeling. Behavioral Interventions, 18, 87–108.

23.

O’Connell

Freed

Rothberg

(2010). Using Apple technology to support learning for students with sensory and learning disabilities. Boston, MA: Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family National Center for Accessible Media, WGBH Educational Foundation.

24.

Schreibman

Whalen

Stahmer

(2000). The use of video priming to reduce disruptive transition behavior in children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 3–11.

25.

Shipley-Benamou

Lutzker

J. R.

Taubman

(2002). Teaching daily living skills to children with autism through instructional video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 165–176.

26.

Taber-Doughty

Bouck

E. C.

Kinsey

Jasper

A. D.

Flanagan

S. M.

Bassette

(2011). Video modeling and prompting: A comparison of two strategies for teaching cooking skills to students with mild intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 499–513.

27.

Van Laarhoven

Johnson

J. W.

Van Laarhoven-Myers

Grider

K. L.

Grider

K. M.

(2009). The effectiveness of using a video iPod as a prompting device in employment settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 119–141.

28.

Van Laarhoven

Van Laarhoven-Myers

T. L.

Zurita

L. M.

(2007). The effectiveness of using a pocket pc as a video modeling and feedback device for individuals with developmental disabilities in vocational settings. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 4, 28–45.

29.

Wolery

Bailey

D. B.

Sugai

G. M.

(1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.