In this study, the effects of two schedules of implementing instruction (every-day and every-other-day) were compared. Six preschool children participated, 4 with typical development and 2 with disabilities (autism and pervasive developmental disorders). An adapted alternating treatments design was used to evaluate the effects of the two schedules. Children's performance on target behaviors, maintenance of the behaviors, generalization across persons and settings, and observational learning were assessed. The findings indicated that (a) 5 of the 6 children acquired all behaviors taught with both schedules, and 1 child acquired one behavior with each schedule; (b) all children acquired behaviors in the every-other-day schedule in fewer sessions, trials, and minutes of instruction than in the every-day schedule; (c) generalization and follow-up were not differentially affected by the two schedules; and (d) relatively little observational learning occurred. The results are discussed in terms of future research on scheduling instruction and implications for practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agran, M., Test, D., & Martin, J. E. (1994). Employment preparation of students with severe disabilities. In E. C. Cipani & F. Spooner (Eds.), Curricular and instructional approaches for persons with severe disabilities (pp. 184–212). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1988). Comparison of progressive and constant time delay procedures in teaching community-sign word reading. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 44–56.
3.
Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 346–356.
4.
Bambara, L. M., & Warren, S. F. (1993). Massed trial revisited: Appropriate applications in functional skill training. In R. A. Gable & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation (pp. 165–190). Baltimore: Brookes.
5.
Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
6.
Chiara, L., Schuster, J. W., Bell, J., & Wolery, M. (1995). Small group massed-trial and individually-administered distributed-trial instruction with preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 203–217.
7.
Cuvo, A. J., Klevans, L., Borakove, L. S., Borakove, S., Van Lunduyt, J., & Lutzker, J. R. (1980). A comparison of three strategies for teaching object names. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 249–257.
8.
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., & Wiley, K. (1989). Establishing conditional discriminations: Concurrent versus isolated-intermix instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 349–362.
9.
Dunlap, G. (1984). The influence of task variation and maintenance tasks on the learning and affect of autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 41–64.
10.
Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R. L. (1980). Motivating autistic children through stimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 619–627.
11.
Dyer, K., Dunlap, G., & Winterling, V. (1990). Effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of students with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 515–524.
12.
Fleischer, K. H., Belgredan, J. H., Bagnato, S. J., & Ogonosky, A. B. (1990). An overview of judgment-based assessment. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10, (3), 13–23.
13.
Godby, S., Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1987). A comparison of time delay and system of least prompts in teaching object identification. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 283–306.
14.
Halle, J. W., Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Collet-Klingenberg, L. (1993). Applying contextual features of general case instruction and interactive routines to enhance communication skills. In R. A. Gable & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation (pp. 231–267). Baltimore: Brookes.
15.
Haring, T. G. (1993). Research basis of instructional procedures to promote social interaction and integration. In R. A. Gable & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation (pp. 129–164). Baltimore: Brookes.
16.
Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., & Hrenkevich, P. (1993). Effects of instructive feedback on future learning. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 359–385.
17.
Hoyson, M., Jamieson, B., & Strain, P. S. (1984). Individualized group instruction for normally developing and autistic-like children: The LEAP curriculum. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 8, 157–172.
18.
Kamps, D. M., Dugan, E. P., Leonard, B. R., & Daoust, P. M. (1994). Enhanced small group instruction using choral responding and student interaction for children with autism and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 60–73.
19.
Koegel, R. L., Dyer, K., & Bell, L. K. (1987). The influence of child-preferred activities on autistic children's social behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 243–252.
20.
Koegel, R.L., & Koegel, L. K. (1995). Teaching children with autism: Strategies for initiating positive interactions and improving learning opportunities.Baltimore: Brookes.
21.
LeMay, D., Griffin, P., & Sanford, A. (1977). Learning accomplishment profile.Winston-Salem, NC: Kaplan Press.
22.
Liberty, K. A., & Haring, N. G. (1990). Introduction to decision rule systems. Remedial and Special Education, 11, (1), 32–41.
23.
McCarthy, D. (1972). Manual for the McCarthy scales of children's abilities.San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
24.
Panyan, M. C., & Hall, R. V. (1978). Effects of serial versus concurrent task sequencing on acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 153–158.
25.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
26.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
27.
Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Morris, A., DeCesare, L. D., & Cuffs, M. S. (1993). Embedding instruction in art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 277–294.
28.
Warren, S. F., & Reichle, J. (Eds.). (1992). Causes and effects in communication and language intervention.Baltimore: Brookes.
29.
Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., & Gast, D. L. (1995). Instructive feedback: Review of parameters and effects. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 55–75.
30.
Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (1995). Teaching students with severe disabilities.Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall/Merrill.
31.
Winterling, V., Dunlap, G., & O'Neill, R. E. (1987). The influence of task variation on the aberrant behaviors of autistic students. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 105–119.
32.
Wolery, M., Anthony, L., Snyder, E. D., Werts, M. G., & Hackathorn, J. (in press). Training elementary teachers to embed instruction during classroom activities. Education and Treatment of Children.
33.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P.M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies.White Plains, NY: Longman.
34.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., & Griffen, A. K. (1992). Choral and individual responding during small group instruction: Identification of interactional effects. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 289–309.
35.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C. A., Doyle, P. M., Schuster, J. W., Ault, M. J., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 239–266.
