Using an iTouch to Teach Core Curriculum Words and Definitions ...

Journal of Special Education Technology

Using an iTouch to Teach Core Curriculum Words and Definitions: Efficacy and Social Validity J. Matt Jameson Victoria Thompson Greg Manuele Diane Smith Hannah Egan Tiffany Moore University of Utah Media scholars have long recognized the interaction between the medium that conveys the information and the information that is conveyed. This study examined the relative impact of different low- and high-tech instructional mediums (e.g., flashcards and the iTouch) on the acquisition of general education contentreferenced sight words and definitions by students with significant cognitive disabilities. Results indicated that most of the students (three of the four students in the study) preferred high-tech instructional mediums during preference assessments prior to instruction. There was an increase in the tolerance for massed trials for preferred instructional mediums, but it was not meaningful. In spite of these data, there was minimal difference in the rates of skill acquisition or the social validity of the instructional mediums.

M

and environments that people with intellectual disabilities encounter. They suggest that high-tech mediums have the capacity to serve as cognitive prostheses for students with significant disabilities.

Decades later, high-tech mediums are used during instruction to provide support and access for students with significant cognitive disabilities to functional life skills and the general education curriculum. For example, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Smith, Davies, and Stock (2008) suggest that technology can provide powerful ways to address limitations in functioning along with accommodations and modifications to skills, routines, activities,

As special educators and researchers have embraced the potential of new technologies, there has been a corresponding rise in the number of peer-reviewed articles relating to technology use and students with disabilities. In fact, during 2009, there were more than 320 articles published in more than 31 journals relating to special education technology research and practice (Edyburn, 2010). For instance, Doyle and Giangreco (2009) looked at curriculum accessibility through an examination of presentation software used with high school students with intellectual disabilities. Video modeling of social and functional skills has been used in a variety of contexts to teach students with intellectual disabilities (Ayres & Langone, 2008; Charlop, Gilmore, & Chang, 2008; Cihak, Kessler, & Alberto, 2008; Cihak & Schrader, 2009; Mechling, Gast, & Fields, 2008).

cLuhan (1994) defines a medium as any extension of a person. He uses the metaphor of the hammer as an extension of the human arm, and that of the wheel as an extension of the human foot to describe this effect. The medium has the capacity to enable individuals to do more than their physical or intellectual limitations might otherwise allow. McLuhan suggested that a medium has the ability to impact people who use it, not only by the content delivered through the medium, but also by the characteristics of the medium itself. In essence, the medium impacts the experience of the content conveyed.

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

41

Journal of Special Education Technology High-tech mediums are being used increasingly to teach students with disabilities a wide variety of skills such as doing basic math (Bouck, Bassette, Taber-Doughty, Flanagan, & Szwed, 2009; Irish, 2002); taking tests (Lancaster, Schumaker, Lancaster, & Deshler, 2009); buying groceries (Ayres, Langone, Boon, & Norman, 2006; Hutcherson, Langone, & Ayres, 2004; Mechling, 2004; Mechling, Gast, & Langone, 2002); using a debit card (Mechling, Gast, & Barthold, 2003); or ordering at a fast food restaurant (Mechling & Cronin, 2006). Technology can be used to adapt and enhance content (Twyman & Tindal, 2006); to increase independence through self-monitoring and self-prompting (Davies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2003; Mechling, Gast, & Seid, 2010; Mechling & Stephens, 2009; Van Laarhoven, Johnson, van Laarhoven-Myers, Grider, & Grider, 2009); and to increase accessibility (Roberts, O’Sullivan, & Howard, 2005). The range and scope of technology-based interventions in special education has increased dramatically in recent years. While the findings are generally positive in terms of the impact of utilizing a number of different instructional mediums, there has been very little literature to date that has focused on the underlying principles that should drive the development and utilization of many of the high-tech mediums, especially multimedia devices, used by students with significant cognitive disabilities (Wehmeyer et al., 2008). In addition, there has been little research into the relationship of high-tech multimedia instruction to the behavioral principle that indicates the use of reinforcing stimuli as an instructional medium often results in an increase in the rates of desired behavior (DeLeon, Frank, Gregory & Allman, 2009). Finally, many of the studies of high-tech instructional mediums used by teachers and students with significant cognitive disabilities have focused on teacher and parent perceptions of social validity (e.g., Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, Reve, & Hoch, 2010) and only a few studies have explored student motivation to engage with high-tech instructional mediums (e.g., Mechling et al., 2002; Van Laarhoven, Johnson, et al., 2009). Compounding these issues is the need to validate the use of a wide variety of instructional mediums already being used in classrooms. Specifically, Auchincloss and McIntyre (2008) stress the importance of studies focused on the iTouch, and likely now the iPad, as instructional mediums for students with significant cognitive disabilities as they

42

offer features previously accessible only through expensive and specialized technologies. This study investigated four questions: First, when students are given a multiple preference assessment using the Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO) approach (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996), do students with significant cognitive disabilities choose high-tech instructional mediums (e.g., iTouch, desktop computer, Coin-u-lator) over other traditional instructional mediums identified in individualized ecological assessments as preferred instructional stimuli (e.g., books, puzzles, worksheets, flashcards)? Second, does students’ preference for high- or low-tech instructional stimuli increase their tolerance for massed instructional trials? Third, is there a difference in the acquisition of sight words presented through traditional instruction mediums (flashcards) to the acquisition of sight words presented through a high-tech medium (iTouch)? Finally, do students with significant cognitive disabilities and their teachers perceive any difference in the social validity of the low- and high-tech instructional mediums to learn general education core content sight words and definitions?

Method Participants Four students with significant cognitive disabilities and their teachers were recruited to participate in the study. The term significant cognitive disabilities was defined in Utah state law as having a measured Intelligence Quotient (IQ ) that is two standard deviations below the norm, as well as the presence of adaptive skill deficits that result in the need to have alternate academic standards applied to Annual Yearly Progress measures under the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Students were selected for participation based on the following criteria: (1) presence of significant cognitive disabilities, (2) enrollment in age-appropriate general education classes or community- based training settings for at least two periods a day, and (3) enrollment in a separate special education setting for part of the day. Participants with a history of significant problem behavior were excluded from the study. Students with disabilities. Debbie was a 14-year-old

female Hispanic student in the eighth grade. She was

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Journal of Special Education Technology classified as having an intellectual disability. Debbie had a Full Scale IQ of 52, as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children®—Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). Debbie was bilingual, speaking both English and Spanish. She was often very quiet, and did not readily participate in social interactions. Debbie had a Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) score of 25, which is five standard deviations below the norm for her age. This indicates a possible language delay or disability that could interfere with access to the general education curriculum. Debbie scored 42 on the Expressive Vocabulary Test, 4th Edition (EVT4), which is four standard deviations below the norm. She received speech and language services 40 minutes per week. Debbie was enrolled in three regular education elective classes per day, where accommodations and modifications were managed collaboratively with the regular education teacher and implemented by paraprofessionals and peer tutors. During the one remaining period of the day, she received a combination of instruction on individualized education program (IEP) goals and academic skills in a self-contained special education classroom. Sally was a 15-year-old female Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander in the eighth grade. She was classified as having an intellectual disability. Sally had a Full Scale IQ of 51 as measured by the WISC-IV. Sally had good receptive and expressive language skills. Her teacher did report that Sally often was reluctant to attempt unfamiliar tasks. She frequently enjoyed tutoring other peers with significant cognitive disabilities. Sally’s scores were extremely low (more than three standard deviations) on Word Reading and Reading Comprehension tests as measured on the Wechsler Intelligence Achievement Test (WIAT-II). She received speech and language services 40 minutes per week. Sally was enrolled for half of the day in general education elective classes, where accommodations and modifications were implemented in collaboration with the regular education teacher and implemented by paraprofessionals and peer tutors. During the other half of the day, she received a combination of instruction on IEP goals and academic skills in a selfcontained special education classroom. Kevin was a 14-year-old male Caucasian in the ninth grade. He was classified as having an intellectual disability. Kevin had a Full Scale IQ of 52 as measured by the WISC-IV. Kevin had significant deficits in receptive and

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

expressive language skills. Kevin had many friends and an easygoing personality. He was very motivated in this study and wanted to get it “perfect,” as he had high expectations for his performance. He had some slight dysfluency in his speech; however, he did not receive speech/ language services. Kevin was enrolled in five general education classes (in a two-day block schedule) where he received modifications and accommodations from the general education teacher. He spent the remaining three periods (over the two days) receiving instruction on his IEP goals in the self-contained classroom. Charity was a 21-year-old female Caucasian with Down syndrome attending a post-high-school program. She was classified as having an intellectual disability. Charity had a Full Scale IQ of 54 on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd Edition (WAIS-III) and performed equally as well on tasks requiring verbal ability and nonverbal ability. Charity received speech and language services 20 minutes per week. She struggled with the enunciation of her words and had significant dysfluency in her speech patterns unless she used self-management strategies. She was extremely social and looked for any opportunity to interact with others. Charity used much of her free time in the classroom exploring websites on the Internet. Charity spent half of her school day in a self-contained post-high-school setting, where she worked on her IEP goals, and half of the day at various job sites in the community, where she received community-based vocational and adaptive skills training. Special Education Teachers. A special education teach-

er implemented the training sessions and probes with Debbie, Sally, and Kevin. The teacher, age 49, had a Utah state teaching license in the area of special education with an endorsement in severe disabilities and a Master of Special Education degree. She had been a classroom teacher for two years and a paraprofessional for one year. She was proficient in the use of a variety of high-tech instructional mediums including SMART boards, iPods, computers, and other adaptive high-tech devices in her teaching. The second teacher, age 48, had a Master of Special Education degree and a Utah state teaching license in the area of severe disabilities. The teacher had four years of teaching experience in a post-high-school program. He was familiar with a variety of technologies to assist students in the post-high-school classroom,

43

Journal of Special Education Technology including augmentative communication devices, specialized software, and touch-screen technology for desktop computers.

Settings The study was conducted in two settings. The first study setting (Debbie, Sally, and Kevin) was a segregated middle school classroom for students with significant cognitive disabilities. It was a large rectangular classroom room divided in half with a movable divider. The front wall was covered with three large whiteboards, and the side walls had storage units and shelving for classroom and student materials and several computer work stations. The movable classroom divider was typically closed, making it the back wall of the instructional space. During the study, participants sat at a four-person table in a group work area on the opposite side of the room from their desks. Participants worked individually with their teacher on the targeted skills during the instructional sessions. At any given point, there were between 3 and 12 other students with disabilities in the classroom; they were working at their desks. There also were a varying number of peer tutors and paraprofessionals supporting students in the independent work area on complete core content and IEP goals.

words linked to the eighth grade Health Education Core, Standard 2: Students will use nutrition and fitness information, skills, and strategies to enhance health. Kevin was taught to identify and define eight words linked to the ninth grade Science Core, Standard 3: Student will understand that gravity, density, and convection moves the Earth’s plates and this movement causes the plates to impact other Earth systems. Debbie was taught eight sight words and definitions that related to the eighth grade Science Core, Standard 2, Objective 3: Investigate and measure the effects of increasing and decreasing the amount of energy in a chemical or physical change and relate the type of energy added to the motion of the particles. Charity learned to identify and define eight sight words related to the Critical Work Skills Core, Standard 3, Objective 2: Examine and discuss professional and ethical behavior. This standard was identified through the state Career and Technical Education Core and was designed to assist students to meet their personal education and career goals, whether that should be immediate job entry or additional education or training opportunities.

Dependent Measures

Setting two was located in a segregated classroom in a district building dedicated to the post-high-school program for students with disabilities. The classroom was organized into four sets of long, group worktables that filled the majority of the room. There were several computer workstations in the center of the room and a teacher workspace located in one corner. During the study, the participant worked at one of the group tables with the teacher, while between two and six other students worked with paraprofessional support staff at other tables in the room.

This study examined four primary dependent variables. The first, students’ preference of instructional mediums, was measured using the MSWO approach (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996). Second, the study examined the tolerance for massed instructional trials and the relationship to preference for instructional mediums. Third, the acquisition of the target skills by the students was assessed through the percentage of correct responses during weekly probe sessions in the special education classroom, number of trials to criterion, and error rates. Finally, the social validity of the utility, acceptability, and outcomes of the instructional medium were evaluated using surveys and a follow-up preference assessment.

Instructional Targets

Preference Assessment

The instructional targets (see Table 1) for the study were selected collaboratively by the students’ special education teacher and the principal investigator prior to study implementation. The instructional targets were selected to increase vocabulary and access to the general education core curriculum for the students, and were linked to grade level standards in classes in which they were enrolled. Sally learned to identify and define eight sight

44

Data were collected at 5-second intervals for 5 minutes (100 intervals) to identify the instructional mediums with which the student preferred to engage. Ratio data (number of intervals with stimulus/total number of intervals) are reported as a percentage of time engaged with the items. The process was repeated three times prior to initiating instruction. The MSWO was conducted one additional time one day after students reached JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Journal of Special Education Technology

Table 1 Instructional Targets Student

Instructional Format I-Touch Words

Sally

Kevin

Debbie

Charity

Flashcard Words

Definitions

Definitions

Healthy

You are not sick

Senses

See, hear, smell, touch, taste

Brain

What you think with

Muscles

Lets your body move

Emotions

Your feelings

Protein

Meat and eggs

Nutrition

How food works in your body

Calcium

Helps your bones grow strong

Debris

Scattered pieces of something

Evacuate

To move out of danger

Geysers

Springs that shoot out heated water and steam

Obliterate

Completely destroy

Seismic

Shaking of the earth

Pyroclastic

Hot mixture of rocks, water, and gases

Tremendous

Great in size

Viscous

Thick, syrupy consistency

Drench

Very wet

Blizzard

Big snowstorm

Drizzle

Light rain

Diminish

Make less

Humidity

Amount of water in the air

Dreary

Gray clouds

Swelter

Very hot

Frigid

Very, very cold

Self-starter

Work on your own without being told what to do

Imaginative

Looking for new ways to solve a problem

Cooperative

Willing to help out

Persistent

Not quitting

Effective

Doing the job right

Responsible

Taking care of your duties

Enthusiasm

Excited to work

Flexible

Doing different jobs easily

instructional criterion on the targeted skills and an additional time to see if preferences for the instructional mediums had changed after they had used the iTouch as an instructional medium.

Percent of Correct Responses During Test Probes A research assistant and the classroom teachers conducted weekly tests probes to assess the acquisition of the sight words and definitions across the different instructional mediums. Although the students were taught and tested in the self-contained classroom, they did not miss any opportunities for participation in inclusive regular education settings. Each student’s rate of acquisition under the instructional conditions was assessed by dividing the total number of correct responses in each

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

instructional condition by the total number of responses and multiplying by 100 (percent of correct responses = total number of correct responses/total number of possible responses X 100). The percent of correct responses was calculated for each test probe. The instruction continued until all students reached 100 percent mastery over two consecutive data probes. The stimuli were presented on the same medium in the probe condition as was used during instruction.

Tolerance for Instructional Trials In order to assess if students were more tolerant of instructional trials using one of the two mediums, they were provided with a release cue (i.e., a red laminated card) to terminate training after a minimum of five instructional trials were completed during an instructional

45

Journal of Special Education Technology session. Once students completed five trials, the teachers gave them the red card and told them that as soon as they were done or wanted to do another activity they just needed to give the teacher the card; once a word set was complete to ensure equivalence within experimental conditions, instruction was terminated. Instruction was terminated after 15 instructional trials if a student did not use the release cue. Data were collected on the number of instructional trials students tolerated using each of the instructional mediums. The release cue procedures were identical for each of the experimental conditions.

Research Design and Procedures The study utilized multiple preference assessments with a single-subject adapted alternating treatment design (Holcombe, Wolery, & Gast, 1994; O’Neill, McDonnell, Billingsley, & Jenson, 2010) to compare the relative efficacy of teaching sight words with flashcards and with an iTouch to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Surveys and interviews were used to measure social validity. Each instructional intervention was conducted one time per day with each participant until the instructional criterion was met. The introduction of the interventions was counterbalanced across participants.

Total Trials to Criterion and Error Percentage Each student’s rate of acquisition under both instructional conditions was assessed by calculating the total number of instructional trials required to reach instructional criterion (100% accuracy for two consecutive trials). In addition, the number of errors during instruction was tracked for each student (see Table 3). The total number of errors made during instruction was divided by the total number of instructional trials and multiplying by 100 to get a percent gave an overall error percentage (overall error percentage = total number of errors/ total number of instructional trials X 100).

Social Validity Social validity was assessed by using a follow-up questionnaire about the acceptability and potential outcomes of using the low- (flashcards) and high-tech instructional platforms (iTouch). Using a Likert scale (1-Strongly Disagree to 6-Strongly Agree) the teacher and students responded to eight questions rating the practicality and effectiveness of the iPod and the flashcards. No student had the literacy skills necessary to complete the survey independently, so the research assistant and teacher read the survey questions and potential responses and then recorded the student’s verbal responses. The mean and range of responses is reported in Table 4. In addition, teachers and students were encouraged to provide feedback or comments on the questions they were asked. Specifically, teachers and students were asked follow-up questions relating to perceptions of targeted skills that would allow them to participate more fully in the general education setting and curriculum.

46

Preference Assessment The authors used the MSWO approach (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996) to assess the relative reinforcement of four items identified through ecological assessment to be preferred instructional mediums in addition to the iTouch (five items in total for each participant). In the MSWO approach, all the items were arranged on a table and were accessible to the student at the same time. Once the student selected an item, engaged with the item, and discarded the item, it was not placed back in the stimulus array so it could not be selected again during the assessment. The position of each instructional medium in the array was assigned randomly during each assessment. The MSWO procedure was repeated three times prior to initiating instruction with one follow-up assessment to see if the reinforcing impact of high- and low-tech instructional mediums had changed after instruction.

Baseline Data Collection Baseline data were collected on the primary dependent variable (i.e., word and definition acquisition). Baseline data collection continued until behavioral stability had been established (three consecutive data points with no more than 10% variance). Data were collected by the teachers and a principal investigator in the special education classroom. In the baseline sessions, the teacher presented the student with the stimulus of the instructional medium used for training (i.e., four words on paper flashcards or four words using an iTouch application). The teacher asked, “What is this word and what is its definition?” To be recorded as a correct response, the student had to say the word and recite the exact definition. If the student responded correctly, the response was

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Journal of Special Education Technology marked as correct. If the student did not respond correctly, the response was marked as incorrect. A percentage was calculated for each baseline session by taking the number of correct responses and dividing by the total number of responses, then multiplying by 100 (baseline session = number of correct responses/total number of responses X 100). The student did not receive any error correction or instructional feedback during the baseline condition. Students were given verbal praise for staying on task during the probes. Inter-rater reliability was conducted for 100% of the baseline probe sessions.

the response was recorded. If the student’s response was incorrect, he or she received verbal error correction and the response was recorded as an error. Introduction of the instructional mediums was counterbalanced across participants. Two participants were taught using the iTouch first each day, and two students were taught using the flashcards first each day. Teachers implemented both instructional interventions every day.

Sight Word Instruction using the I-Touch

The same instructional procedures were used with the traditional flashcards (Table 2) as were used with the iTouch instruction. The stimuli were designed to approximate the iTouch medium as closely as possible. Font size, font color, and flashcard design were identical in appearance for both mediums. Instructional procedures consisted of constant time delay, differential reinforcement, and error correction. The instructional trials were massed together into a single one-on-one instructional session and teachers were provided with an instructional script. The instructional sessions occurred daily until the students reached the criterion for completion (100% for two consecutive probe sessions).

Once instructional targets were identified, the principal investigator created web-based flashcards using the Quizlet™ (http://quizlet.com/) application. This application allows teachers to create a free account and then create flashcard decks (or use existing decks stored on the website). Quizlet flashcard decks can be added to, edited, and modified through the website at any time. Teachers synced each iTouch to their desktop computer and downloaded the free application, Flashcard Touch (http://www.agilislab.com/). The iTouch flashcard application had an internal link to Quizlet flashcard decks, where teachers simply downloaded virtual flashcard sets designated for their participants. For this study, four decks of Quizlet cards were made, one for each of the student participants. The targeted stimuli were presented to the students on a third generation iTouch. Students were not explicitly trained in the use of the medium prior to use in instruction. The Flashcard Touch application was started and the relevant sight word and definition folder was opened for the student, but the student handled and manipulated the device during all training sessions. Instructional procedures consisted of constant time delay, differential reinforcement of correct and incorrect responses, and error correction. The instructional trials were massed together into a single one-on-one instructional session, and teachers were provided with an instructional script and one half-hour training session where they modeled the instructional procedures with the principal investigator until they followed the protocol reliably. Instructional sessions occurred daily until the criterion for completion was achieved (100% for two consecutive probe sessions). If the student responded correctly, he or she received positive reinforcement in the form of verbal praise and JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Sight Word Instruction Using Traditional Flashcards

Tolerance for Trials In order to assess if students were more tolerant of instructional trials using one of the two mediums, the number of instructional trials was tracked for each instructional session. Data were reported as total number of trials to criterion using each instructional medium.

Skill Acquisition Probes The research assistant, with the special education teacher, conducted weekly probes in a self-contained special education setting to evaluate the skill acquisition demonstrated by the students. Responses were scored either as correct or incorrect. The dependent measure was the percent of correct responses. The percentage was calculated by dividing the total number of correct responses by the total number of responses and multiplying by 100 (total number of correct response/total number of responses X 100 = probe percentage). The instruction continued until

47

Journal of Special Education Technology Table 2 Sight Word Instruction Using Traditional Flashcards Instructional Script Discriminate/Define the word “Healthy”

48

Discriminate/Define the word “Senses”

Instructional Materials

iTouch, flashcard application, release card, data collection materials.

Flashcards, release card, data collection materials.

Instructional Conditions

Student is sitting at a desk with the instructional materials.

Student is sitting at a desk with the instructional materials.

Instructional Process

Instructional cue: “X, it is time to work on our sight word definitions.”

Instructional cue: “X, it is time to work on our sight word definitions.”

Step One

The teaching should initially be taught in the 0-sec time delay. 1. Present iTouch with application open and target word displayed. 2. “X, what does this word mean?” Say word. Immediately provide a verbal prompt with a model (i.e., “X, this is …” .while providing the definition). There should not/but can be errors at this level of prompt. If there are errors implement the error correction procedures below.

The teaching should initially be taught in the 0-sec time delay. 1. Present flashcard with word on front, definition on back. 2. “X, this word is ______________. What does this word mean?” Say word and what it means. Immediately provide a verbal prompt with a model (i.e., “X, this is …” while providing the definition). There should not/but can be errors at this level of prompt. If there are errors implement the error correction procedures below.

Step Two

Once the step has been completed successfully three consecutive times at the 0-sec time delay then move to 3-sec time delay and repeat the process.

Once the step has been completed successfully three consecutive times at the 0-sec time delay then move to 3-sec time delay and repeat the process.

Error Correction Procedures

If the student responds incorrectly (in either the 0- or 3-sec time delay) say, “X, no that is not correct.” Then provide a verbal prompt with a model (i.e., “X, this is…” while you model the desired behavior). Repeat this until the correct response is given. The step is marked incorrect if it is necessary to repeat the instructional cue to get the desired behavior.

If the student responds incorrectly (in either the 0or 3-sec time delay) say, “X, no that is not correct.” Then provide a verbal prompt with a model (i.e., “X, this is…” while you model the desired behavior). Repeat this until the correct response is given. The step is marked incorrect if the teacher has to repeat the instructional cue to get the desired behavior.

Instructional Feedback Summary

Begin all instruction (unless student consistently got a step correct in baseline condition) with 0-sec time delay using a verbal prompt and an instructional model (i.e., you model the expected behavior). When the student gets any step correct three times is a row, move to 3-sec time delay. If the student misses two responses at the 3-sec time delay then go back to 0-sec time delay until the student has gotten three consecutive correct responses. Then try the 3-sec again. All prompts should be verbal.

Begin all instruction (unless student consistently got a step correct in baseline condition) with 0-sec time delay using a verbal prompt and an instructional model (i.e., you model the expected behavior). When the student gets any step correct three times is a row, move to 3-sec time delay. If the student misses two responses at the 3-sec time delay then go back to 0-sec time delay until the student has gotten three consecutive correct responses. Then try the 3-sec again. All prompts should be verbal.

Data Collection Procedures

Mark if the student responded correctly or incorrectly (data collection form). Deliver instruction for 4 days then do acquisition probes on Day 5. Generalization probes also can be done on Day 5/6.

Mark if the student responded correctly or incorrectly (data collection form). Deliver instruction for 4 days then do acquisition probes on Day 5. Generalization probes also can be done on Day 5/6.

Reinforcement Procedures

Verbal praise.

Verbal praise.

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Journal of Special Education Technology the students had demonstrated 100% mastery over two consecutive data probes.

Reliability Interobserver reliability data on student preference were collected during 100% of the preference assessments, 23% of the training sessions, and 100% of the weekly probes. During the probes, one of the authors would implement the test procedures while a research assistant observed. Both observers independently recorded whether the student’s response to the target stimulus was correct or incorrect. Reliability was calculated by dividing the number of agreements between the observers by the total number of trials and multiplying by 100. Interobserver agreement was 100% across all experimental conditions.

computer, but did engage briefly with the iTouch during one preference assessment. Only Sally spent any interval during the pretraining preference assessment engaged with a low-tech instructional medium (puzzle). After instruction, all students, with the exception of Charity, continued to prefer high-tech instructional mediums (Figure 2). Three of the students chose to engage with high-tech mediums for 100% of the preference assessment (iTouch and Coin-u-lator). Charity was the only student who spent the majority of the follow-up preference assessment engaging with a low-tech medium

Figure 2 Post-training preference assessment. ͳͲͲ ͻͲ

Results

ͺͲ ͹Ͳ

Figure 1 Pre-training preference assessment. ͳͲͲ ͻͲ ͺͲ ͹Ͳ ‹‘—…Š

͸Ͳ

Žƒ•Š…ƒ”†•

ͷͲ

‘’—–‡”

ͶͲ

ƒ‡

͵Ͳ

–Š‡”

ʹͲ ͳͲ Ͳ ‡˜‹

Žƒ•Š…ƒ”†•

ͷͲ

Figure 1 shows the students’ preferences for ecologically identified instructional mediums over three preference assessments that were given before the start of baseline data collection. All students showed a clear preference for high-tech rather than low-tech instructional mediums. During pretraining, all students except Sally clearly preferred engaging with the iTouch. Kevin and Debbie showed the greatest interest in the iTouch, engaging with it for the majority of the three assessments. Charity spent almost 100% of her time with a desktop

ƒŽŽ›

‹‘—…Š

͸Ͳ

Preference Assessments

‡„„‹‡

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Šƒ”‹–›

‘’—–‡”

ͶͲ

ƒ‡

͵Ͳ

–Š‡”

ʹͲ ͳͲ Ͳ ƒŽŽ›

‡˜‹

‡„„‹‡

Šƒ”‹–›

during the preference assessment (flashcards).

Percent of Correct Responses During Testing Probes Figures 3 – 6 show the percent of correct instructional probe responses during each of the experimental conditions. These data indicate that both the iTouch and traditional flashcards were effective in teaching the students the targeted skills. All four participants reached the established criterion using both instructional interventions. Visual analysis of the trend, level, and stability of the instructional probe data shows no significant difference in the rates of acquisition. However, the data also indicate some minor differences between the instructional interventions for some students. Specifically, it appears that the iTouch resulted in slightly quicker rates of acquisition during training for Sally and Debbie.

49

Journal of Special Education Technology

Figure 3

Figure 6

Debbie acquisition probe data.

Charity acquisition probe data.



100

%DVHOLQH



,QWHUYHQWLRQ



Intervention

80 70

L7RXFK



)ODVKFDUGV

  

Percent Correct



3HUFHQW&RUUHFW

Baseline

90

50 40 30



20



10



Flashcards

60

iTouch

0



















1

2

,QVWUXFWLRQDO3UREHV

3

4

5

6

7

Instructional Probes

Tolerance for Trials Figure 4 Sally acquisition probe data. 

%DVHOLQH

,QWHUYHQWLRQ

 

3HUFHQW&RUUHFW

 

L7RXFK

  

)ODVKFDUGV

   













,QVWUXFWLRQDO3UREHV

Figure 5

Instructional Sessions and Trials to Criterion

Kevin acquisition probe data.

Despite this increase in a tolerance for trials, there was no real impact on the overall number of sessions it took for each student to reach criterion (see Table 3). The data show that all students, except Kevin, reached criteria in fewer instructional trials using a low-tech medium. The difference between the total trials to criterion and the probe data may be a result of the high error rates with the low-tech instructional mediums.

100 90

Intervention

Baseline

80 70

Precent Correct

Table 3 summarizes the total number of sessions and trials to criterion for each instructional medium. The table also includes error percentages. All of the students except for Kevin, who had an equivalent number of trials in each condition, tolerated more trials using the iTouch than using traditional flashcards. Charity tolerated, on average, two more trials per word using the iTouch. Sally tolerated, on average, one more trial per word using the iTouch. Debbie tolerated, on average, .5 more trials per word using the iTouch. The error percentage was significantly higher for all the students except Charity and Kevin when using the low-tech instructional medium. For the other two students, error rates ranged from two to three times higher when using flashcards than when using a high-tech instructional medium. Charity had consistently high error rates, and Kevin consistently low error rates, in both instructional conditions.

60 iTouch

50 40 30

Flashcards

20 10 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Instructional Probes

50

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Journal of Special Education Technology

Table 3 Sessions and Trials to Criterion and Error Percentage iTouch

Student Debbie

Sessions Total to Trials to Criterion Criterion 11

Flashcards

Average Trials per Session

Error Percentage

Sessions Total to Trials to Criterion Criterion

112

10.58

8.89%

12

121

Average Trials per Session

Error Percentage

10.08

19.81%

Sally

8

81

10.13

11.11%

8

73

9.13

27.40%

Kevin

9

107

11.89

5.77%

9

107

11.89

3.74%

11

111

10.90

50.40%

11

88

Charity

Social Validity Social validity ratings for both the high- and low-tech interventions are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Results indicate that teachers and students can use high-tech mediums successfully with and without prior experience. Both students and teachers saw the low- and high-tech mediums as effective instructional interventions that resulted in learning. Although students and teachers found both of the instructional mediums to be useful and effective, they did not all agree that learning sight

8

51.14%

words pulled from the general education core resulted in greater access to the general education curriculum. The student data indicated that students found the flashcards to have a greater impact on their ability to participate meaningfully in their inclusive classes, while teacher data indicated that they perceived the flashcards to be a less effective support for learning general education content.

Table 4 Student Social Validity iTouch Mean I have used an iTouch/flashcards before.

4.75

I liked to learn using the iTouch/Flashcards.

6

The iTouch/Flashcards were easy to use.

5.5

Using the iTouch/Flashcards did not take a lot of my time.

6

The iTouch/Flashcards did not distract the other students around me.

Range 1– 6

Mean

Range

6

NA

NA 4–6

6

NA

6

NA

5.25

3–6

6

NA

NA

6

NA

NA 2– 6

6

NA

5

2– 6

5

NA 2– 6

I would like to use the iTouch/Flashcards again in my classroom.

6

The iTouch/Flashcards would help other students in my classroom learn.

6

I learned things that helped me in my other classes or work.

4.25

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Flashcards

51

Journal of Special Education Technology

Table 5 Teacher Social Validity iTouch Mean

Range 1– 6

Mean

Range

6

NA NA

I have used an iTouch/Flashcards before.

3.5

The instructional medium met the needs of the students.

6

NA

6

The instructional medium was easy to use.

6

NA

6

NA

Using the instructional medium did not take too much of my time.

6

NA

5.5

5– 6

The instructional medium was appropriate and did not disrupt the learning of others.

5

2– 6

6

NA

I will use the instructional medium again in my classroom.

6

NA

6

NA

The instructional medium would be effective for other students in my classroom.

6

NA

6

NA

6

NA

4

2– 6

The instructional medium allowed the student greater access to the general education or vocational core curriculum.

Discussion Implications This study demonstrated that teachers could use an iTouch as a high-tech instructional medium to effectively teach core content sight words to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Both teachers and students found the interventions and instructional mediums to be socially valid. However, the instruction was no more efficient or effective when using the high-tech medium than when using the low-tech medium of paper-based flashcards. The difference in the number of instructional sessions for each student was minimal and the trend, level, and stability of the probe data show minimal differences between the instructional interventions. In essence, the medium did not affect the message being conveyed. It seems likely, as other media scholars have suggested, that the medium is more akin to a produce cart (Clark, 1983). The quality of the material conveyed is more dependent upon the content and in its presentation than the medium itself. In this case, the use of a controlled stimulus (Graff & Green, 2004), constant time delay response prompting (Dogoe, Banda, Lock, & Feinstein, 2011; Head, Collins, Schuster, & Ault, 2011); error correction (Goodson, Sigafoos, O’Reilly, Cannella,

52

Flashcards

& Lancioni, 2007; Waugh, Alberto, & Fredrick, 2011); and differential reinforcement (Auld, Belfiore, & Scheeler, 2010; Sira & Fryling, 2012) seemed to mitigate any reinforcement effect produced by engaging with a preferred instructional medium. The instructional method, not the instructional medium, has the greatest impact on learning outcomes. Student preference for high-tech mediums did seem to predict an increased willingness to engage with the iTouch, or at a minimum tolerate more trials when it was in use. However, this difference is not meaningful as there was no real difference in the rates of skill acquisition as measured by the probe accuracy. The error rates also were much higher for several students when using the flashcards. One would likely have concluded that an increased tolerance for trials and a lower error rate using the iTouch would have impacted the rate of skill acquisition, but that was not the case. The lack of generalization or maintenance data makes it impossible to tell if the different mediums, and the learning experience with them, resulted in differential levels (deeper) of learning. Future research needs to look at the importance of error rates in student learning when using multimedia instructional mediums.

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Journal of Special Education Technology

Limitations There are a number of limitations to this study. First, the small population size is a potential threat to external validity. Second, the adapted alternating treatment design has the potential for carryover effect. This study simply looked at pre- and post-instruction perceptions of the instructional mediums. These preferences likely shifted several times during the study, but the authors felt that doing daily preference assessments would have had too great an impact on instructional time. An additional limitation is the lack of generalization and maintenance data that would illustrate the impact of learning core vocabulary words and definitions on participation and access to general education settings and content.

Future Research Finally, future research needs to focus on expanding the number of high-tech instructional devices that are validated for use by students with significant cognitive disabilities. Most important, while this study minimized the potential instructional supports (multimedia with auditory and visual input) available in today’s high-tech instructional mediums, future research needs to focus on the devices and their capacity to enhance instruction through an evidence base that would provide teachers with guidelines on how to best utilize the features of the devices to maximize student learning outcomes.

References Auchincloss, C., & McIntyre, T. (2008). iPod “Teach”: Increased access to technological learning supports through the use of the iPod Touch. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), 45 –59. Auld, R. G., Belfiore, P. J., & Scheeler, M. (2010). Increasing preservice teachers’ use of differential reinforcement: Effects of performance feedback on consequences for student behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 169 –183. Ayres, K., & Langone, J. (2008). Video supports for teaching students with developmental disabilities and autism: Twenty-five years of research and development. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(3), 1– 8. Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., Boon, R. T., & Norman, A. (2006). Computer-based instruction for purchasing skills. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 253 –263.

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3

Blum-Dimaya, A., Reeve, S., Reeve, K., & Hoch, H. (2010). Teaching children with autism to play a video game using activity schedules and game-embedded simultaneous video modeling. Education and Treatment of Children, 33, 351–370. Bouck, E. C., Bassette, L., Taber-Doughty, T., Flanagan, S. M., & Szwed, K. (2009). Pentop computers as tools for teaching multiplication to students with mild intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 367–380. Charlop, M., Gilmore, L., & Chang, G. (2008). Using video modeling to increase variation in the conversation of children with autism. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(3), 47– 66. Cihak, D., Kessler, K., & Alberto, P. (2008). Use of a handheld prompting system to transition independently through vocational tasks for students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 102 –110. Cihak, D., & Schrader, L. (2009). Does the model matter? Comparing video self-modeling and video adult modeling for task acquisition and maintenance by adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(3), 9 –20. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445 – 459. Davies, D. K., Stock, S. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). A palmtop computer-based intelligent aid for individuals with intellectual disabilities to increase independent decision making. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 182 –193. DeLeon, I., Frank, M., Gregory, M., & Allman, M. (2009). On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ration schedule assessments of stimulus value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 729 –733. DeLeon, I., & Iwata, B. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519 –533. Dogoe, M. S., Banda, D. R., Lock, R. H., & Feinstein, R. (2011). Teaching generalized reading of product warning labels to young adults with autism using the constant time delay procedure. Education and Training in Autism & Developmental Disabilities, 46(2), 204 –213. Doyle, M., & Giangreco, M. (2009). Making presentation software accessible to high school students with intellectual disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(2), 24 –31. Edyburn, D. (2010). 2009 year in review: What have we learned lately about special education technology and practice? Milwaukee, WI: Knowledge by Design. Goodson, J., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., Cannella, H., & Lancioni, G. E. (2007). Evaluation of a video-based error correction procedure for teaching a domestic skill to individuals with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 458 – 467 Graff, R. B., & Green, G. (2004). Two methods for teaching simple visual discriminations to learners with severe disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 295 –307.

53

Journal of Special Education Technology Head, K., Collins, B., Schuster, J., & Ault, M. (2011). A comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching state capitals. Journal Of Behavioral Education, 20, 182 –202.

Mechling, L. C., & Stephens, E. (2009). Comparison of selfprompting of cooking skills via picture-based cookbooks and video recipes. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 218 –236.

Holcombe-Ligon, A., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. (1994). Comparative single-subject research: Description of designs and discussion of problems. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 119 –145.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq.

Hutcherson, K., Langone, J., & Ayres, K. (2004). Computer assisted instruction to teach item selection in grocery stores: An assessment of acquisition and generalization. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 33 – 42. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C §§ 1400 et seq. Irish, C. (2002). Using peg- and keyword mnemonics and computerassisted instruction to enhance basic multiplication performance in elementary students with learning and cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 29 – 40. Lancaster, P. E., Schumaker, J. B., Lancaster, S. C., & Deshler, D. D. (2009). Effects of a computerized program on use of the testtaking strategy by secondary students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 165 –179. McLuhan, Marshall (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mechling, L. C. (2004). Effects of multimedia, computer-based instruction on grocery shopping fluency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 23 –34. Mechling, L. C., & Cronin, B. (2006). Computer-based video instruction to teach the use of augmentative and alternative communication devices for ordering at fast-food restaurants. Journal of Special Education, 39, 234 –245. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Barthold, S. (2003). Multimedia computer-based instruction to teach students with moderate intellectual disabilities to use a debit card to make purchases. Exceptionality, 11, 239 –254. Mechling, L., Gast, D., & Fields, E. (2008). Evaluation of a portable DVD player and system of least prompts to self-prompt cooking task completion by young adults with moderate intellectual disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 42, 179 –190. Mechling, L., Gast, D., & Langone, J. (2002). Computer-based video instruction to teach persons with moderate intellectual disabilities to read grocery aisle signs and locate items. Journal of Special Education, 45(3), 224 –240. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Seid, N. H. (2010). Evaluation of a personal digital assistant as a self-prompting device for increasing multi-step task completion by students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(3), 422 – 439.

54

O’Neill, R., McDonnell, J., Billingsley, F. & Jenson, W. (2010). Single case research designs in educational and community settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Roberts, J., O’Sullivan, J., & Howard, J. (2005). The roles of emerging and conventional technologies in serving children and adolescents with special needs in rural and northern communities. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 84 –103. Sira, B., & Fryling, M. (2012). Using peer modeling and differential reinforcement in the treatment of food selectivity. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(1), 91–100. Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using a computer-adapted, conceptually-based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 5 –16. Van Laarhoven, T., Johnson, J. W., Van Laarhoven-Myers, T., 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. Van Laarhoven, T., Zurita, L., Johnson, J., Grider, K., & Grider, K. (2009). Comparison of self, other, and subjective video models for teaching daily living skills to individuals with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 509 –522. Waugh, R. E., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). Effects of error correction during assessment probes on the acquisition of sight words for students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(1), 47–57. Wehmeyer, M., Palmer, S., Smith, S., Davies, D., & Stock, S. (2008). The efficacy of technology use by people with intellectual disability: A single-subject design meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(3), 21–30.

Author Notes J. Matt Jameson is an assistant professor, and Victoria Thompson, Greg Manuele, Diane Smith, Hannah Egan and Tiffany Moore are Masters’ students, in the Department of Special Education, University of Utah. Correspondences should be addressed to J. Matt Jameson, 1705 East Campus Center Drive, MBH 112, College of Education, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. Email to [email protected]

JSET 2012 Volume 27, Number 3