ERIC EJ941725: Effects of Direct Instruction on the Acquisition of Prepositions by Students with Intellectual Disabilities

2011·0.08 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2011, 44, 675–679 NUMBER3 (FALL2011)
EFFECTS OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION ON THE ACQUISITION OF
PREPOSITIONS BY STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES
S.CHRISTYHICKS,KERIS.BETHUNE,CHARLESL.WOOD,NANCYL.COOKE,AND
PAMELA J. MIMS
UNIVERSITYOFNORTHCAROLINAATCHARLOTTE
Some students with intellectual disabilities require explicit instruction of language skills,
includingprepositionuse;however,littleisknownabouteffectivewaystoteachprepositionuse
to this population. This study examined direct instruction (DI) to teach students to use and
respond to prepositions. Results indicated that DI was an effective way to teach prepositions.
Limitations anddirections for futureresearch are discussed.
Keywords: directinstruction, developmental disabilities, language
_______________________________________________________________________________
Languagedelaysorimpairmentsarecommon (1974) used verbal and physical prompts and
among students with intellectual disabilities reinforcement to teach prepositions (e.g., plac-
(Westling & Fox, 2000). Language includes ing an object next to, under, or on top of
nonvocal expressions (e.g., pointing to a ball to another object) to students with intellectual
askforaball)andvocalexpressions(e.g.,saying disabilities. Lee (1981) used praise and tokens
‘‘ball, please’’). Many students with intellectual to teach students with moderate intellectual
disabilitieshavedifficultyacquiringalargevocal disabilities and limited speech to use preposi-
repertoire (Gargiulo, 2009). Some students tions when stating the location (e.g., ‘‘on the
with language delays acquire language skills right,’’ ‘‘on theleft’’) of common objects.King,
(e.g., mands and tacts) incidentally; however, Moors, and Fabrizio (2003) used precision
other students require explicit instruction in teachingtoteachachildwithautismtorespond
these skills (Ganz & Flores, 2009). with and to prepositions and a range of objects
Prepositionuseisanobjectiveintegratedinto and object placement. The procedures used in
English language arts curricula in early elemen- these studies increased students’ preposition use
tary grades because this skill is critical to using or comprehension.
and responding to spoken and written language Despite these positive findings, there is a
(Branigan, Pickering, & McLean, 2005). Prior paucity of research on effective instructional
research on teaching prepositions has included methods for teaching prepositions to students
evaluations of prompting, reinforcement, and with intellectual disabilities. Direct instruction
precision teaching. Frisch and Schumaker (DI) is explicit, systematic, and scripted in-
struction designed to maximizeteacher efficien-
SupportforthisresearchwasprovidedinpartbyGrant cy and effectiveness (Engelmann & Carnine,
H324K040004 from the U.S. Department of Education
1991;Marchand-Martella,Slocum,&Martella,
andOfficeofSpecialEducationPrograms,awardedtothe
2004). DI is a well-researched model that has
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The opinions
expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy been effective for students with diverse learning
of the Department of Education, and no official needs (e.g., Adams & Engelmann, 1996;
endorsement shouldbe inferred.
Kinder, Kubina, & Marchand-Martella, 2005;
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Charles Wood, Department of Special Przychodzin-Havis et al., 2005), but the use of
Education and Child Development, University of North DI to teach preposition use to students with
Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd.,
intellectual disabilities has yet to be examined.
Charlotte,North Carolina(e-mail: [email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-675 Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
675
676 S. CHRISTY HICKS et al.
investigate the effects of DI on students’ was defined as a vocalization that included the
acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of target preposition and a noun that was the
using and responding to prepositions. object of the prepositional phrase (e.g., ‘‘The
ball is beside the book’’ or ‘‘beside book’’). In
receptive trials (i.e., responding to preposi-
METHOD
tions), the experimenter gave the participant a
Participants and Setting
verbal instruction that included a preposition
Paul and William were two 14-year-old
(e.g., ‘‘Put the ball between the books’’) and
African-American boys enrolled in a self-
presented the relevant objects. A correct
contained middle-school classroom in North
response consisted of positioning the objects
Carolina. They had been diagnosed with
as instructed. Each student’s target prepositions
multiple disabilities and had sufficient verbal
were presented in random order in each probe,
skills to communicate their basic needs. Each
using various objects from the set of 12 used
met the following inclusion criteria: (a) intel-
during instruction. No consequences were
lectual disability, (b) ability to vocally name
provided for correct or incorrect responses
common objects (e.g., pencil), and (c) inability
during probes.
to respond accurately to verbal instructions that
Direct instruction. Instruction consisted of
included positional prepositions. The interven-
four phases for each preposition. In each phase,
tion and probes were implemented in a small
DI was conducted using Engelmann and
room adjoining the classroom. Sessions, con-
Carnine’s (1991) instructional sequence for
ducted once per day, included a probe prior to
teaching concepts and a script developed by
instruction and lasted approximately 15 min.
the investigators. In Phase 1, the experimenter
used a model–test instructional procedure to
Procedure
teach prepositions (e.g., on) using two objects.
An initial assessment conducted prior to
The experimenter modeled five examples and
baseline served to identify nouns and target
nonexamples and then tested the participant on
prepositions for each participant. In this
seven different examples and nonexamples. To
assessment, participants were required to name
demonstrate the preposition on, the experi-
each of the 12 objects to be used during
menter placed the ball on top of the box in the
instructional sessions and probes to ensure
middleandsaid,‘‘thisison.’’Todemonstratea
proficiency in naming those objects. Baseline
nonexample,theexperimenterplacedtheballat
probesfollowedtheassessmentintheabsenceof
leastonefootawayfromtheboxandsaid,‘‘this
instruction.
is not on.’’ The experimenter varied the
Probes. Probes were conducted once per day
in baseline, at the beginning of each daily positions of the ball on the box and not on
teaching session during DI, and once per day the box to cover a range of possibilities. This
duringasubsequentmaintenancephase.Ineach demonstration of the concept (i.e., preposi-
probe, Paul received 16 probe trials that tions) allowed students to see examples and
targeted four prepositions, and William re- nonexamples of the concept prior to being
ceived 12 probe trials that targeted three asked to respond. To test participants after
prepositions. Two receptive and two expressive modeling the examples and nonexamples, the
trials were conducted for each preposition. In experimenterpositionedtheballonandaround
expressive trials, the experimenter showed the the box and asked, ‘‘Where is the ball?’’ In this
participant an object that was placed in relation phase, responses were defined as correct if the
to another object (e.g., a ball beside a book) students responded either ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘not on’’ to
then asked, ‘‘Where is it?’’ A correct response the appropriate stimulus. The experimenter
DIRECT INSTRUCTION ON PREPOSITIONS 677
delivered praise for all correct responses and the tree). In the second activity, a scavenger
verbally prompted a correct response after each hunt, students were instructed to hide items by
incorrect response. No receptive trials were following a verbal prompt that included a
conducted during the model–test procedure preposition and then provided vocal clues (e.g.,
until Phase 4. In Phase 1 and in subsequent ‘‘between the plants’’) using target prepositions
phases, the participant continued to receive to help the second observer find the items.
instruction until he responded correctly to the
Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement
lastthreeitemsduringtesting.Atthispoint,the
participant moved to the next phase. Data were collected on a trial-by-trial basis
In Phase 2, the experimenter followed the during probes, instructional sessions, and
same script to model and test examples and generalization activities using preprinted data
nonexamples but presented the nonexamples sheets. A response was scored as correct when it
met the definition of a correct response in the
less than four inches from the object identified
absence of prompting. During generalization
by the noun (e.g., ball held 1 in. off the table).
activities, functionally equivalent prepositions
A second change for this phase was that during
(e.g., under for beneath) and self-corrections
testing, the participants were required to
were scored separately from correct and incor-
respond to ‘‘Where is the ball?’’ with a
rect responses. During 31% of Paul’s sessions
preposition paired with a noun (e.g., ‘‘on
and 38% of William’s sessions, a second
table’’).Correct responses in this phase through
observer collected procedural fidelity data on
Phase 4 were defined as a vocalization that
theexperimenter’sinstructionandinterobserver
included the target preposition and a noun that
agreement data on student responses to probes.
was the object of the prepositional phrase.
The data records were compared on a trial-by-
In Phase 3, the model–test instructional
trial basis. Interobserver agreement was calcu-
procedures were the same as in previous phases,
lated by dividing the number of trials with
but the instructional objects were replaced with
agreement by the sum of agreements and
common classroom objects (e.g., pencil, book)
disagreements, and multiplying by 100%.
during testing. In Phase 4, instructions and
Interobserver agreement averaged 99%, and
materials were the same as in previous phases,
the experimenter completed all steps of the
and students were required to respond to a
intervention in observed sessions with 100%
verbal prompt to demonstrate comprehension
accuracy. Social validity data were collected
of the prepositions (e.g., ‘‘Put the pencil on the
fromfourteacherswhowereenrolledinasevere
book’’). A correct response consisted of posi-
disabilities teacher education program. A short
tioning the objects as instructed. After three
presentation of the study and results was given
consecutive presession probes at 100% accura-
to the group, and they responded to a brief
cy, instruction on that preposition was discon-
questionnaire in which they indicated that DI
tinued and another preposition was introduced.
was an appropriate and efficient way to teach
Generalization. Generalization data were
prepositions.
collected during two activities. In the first, the
experimenter read aloud three different, adapt-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ed, age-appropriate stories. Students answered
literal recall questions (e.g., ‘‘Where did The cumulative number of correct responses
Roberto hit the baseball?’’) and were required across prepositions in the daily probes for the
to point to the correct pictorial representation two participants is shown in Figure 1. These
of that scene from an array of four (e.g., over data indicate a functional relation between DI
thefence, againstthefence,over thetree,under and the students’ use of and response to
678 S. CHRISTY HICKS et al.
Figure 1. Cumulative number of correct responses across prepositions for Paul and William. During each probe,
students had two opportunities to respond to each preposition and two opportunities to use each preposition. BL 5
baseline;DI5 directinstruction.
prepositions. During the DI phase, the data The adapted books and the scavenger hunt
paths for all prepositions for both participants activities were used to conduct generalization
showed a steep increase, indicating rapid posttest probes. In the adapted book activities,
acquisition of prepositions. Participants re- Paul responded correctly in seven of the eight
quired an average of 1.3 sessions in each phase trials,andWilliamresponded correctlyin fiveof
to meet the mastery criterion. Performance the six trials. In the scavenger hunt, both
during the maintenance phase, when partici- participants’ performance was variable, with few
pants received no further instruction, was correct responses. Of Paul’s answers, there were
similar to performance during the DI phase. twocorrectresponses,twofunctionallyequivalent
DIRECT INSTRUCTION ON PREPOSITIONS 679
prepositions,twoself-corrections,andoneincor- Frisch, S. A., & Schumaker, J. B. (1974). Training
generalized receptive prepositions in retarded chil-
rectresponse.Williamgaveonecorrectresponse,
dren. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7,
four functionally equivalent prepositions, and 611–621.
one self-corrected response. Despite the positive Ganz,J.,&Flores,M.(2009).Theeffectivenessofdirect
instruction for teaching language to children with
resultsfromtheadaptedbookactivity,theextent
autism spectrum disorders: Identifying materials.
to which generalization occurred is not clear Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39,
becauseno pretestprobeswereconducted before 75–83.
Gargiulo,R.M.(2009).Specialeducationincontemporary
instruction. Future studies should measure gen-
society: An introduction to exceptionality. Thousand
eralizationthroughoutthestudytodeterminethe Oaks, CA:Sage.
extent to which participants are able to perform Kinder, D., Kubina, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E.
(2005). Special education and direct instruction: An
the tasks before, during, and after intervention.
effectivecombination.JournalofDirectInstruction,5,
Waystopromotegeneralizationalsomayneedto
1–36.
be investigated further. King, A., Moors, A. L., & Fabrizio, M. A. (2003).
Concurrently teaching multiple verbal operants
Another limitation of the study is that
related to preposition use to a child with autism.
instruction was delivered in a one-on-one
Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 19(1),
format, whereas DI is typically delivered in 38–40.
small groups. Future studies should investigate Lee,V.L.(1981).Prepositionalphrasesspokenandheard.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35,
small-group DI for teaching prepositions to
227–242.
students with intellectual disabilities. Marchand-Martella,N.E.,Slocum,T.A.,&Martella,R.
C. (2004). Introduction to direct instruction. Boston:
Allyn &Bacon.
REFERENCES Przychodzin-Havis, A. M., Marchand-Martella, N. E.,
Martella, R. C., Miller, D. A., Warner, L., Leonard,
Adams,G.L.,&Engelmann,S.(1996).Researchondirect B., et al. (2005). An analysis of corrective reading
instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: research. JournalofDirect Instruction,5,37–65.
EducationalAchievement Systems. Westling, D., & Fox, L. (2000). Teaching students with
Branigan,H.P.,Pickering,M.J.,&McLean,J.F.(2005). severe disabilities.Upper Saddle River,NJ:Merrill.
Primingprepositional-phraseattachmentduringcom-
prehension.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:Learn-
ing,Memory, andCognition, 31,468–481. Received June 17,2010
Engelmann,S.,&Carnine,D.(1991).Theoryofinstruction: Final acceptanceNovember 18, 2010
Principlesandapplications.Eugene,OR:ADIPress. Action Editor,Anna Petursdottir