This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Collins, B. C. Articles by Miller, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparison of the Acquisition and Maintenance of Teaching Functional and Core Content Sight Words in Special and General Education Settings

Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling at the University of Kentucky, bcoll01{at}uky.edu

Abby Evans

Strode Station Elementary School

Carey Creech-Galloway

Clark Country Middle School

Jennifer Karl

George Rogers Clark High School

Angela Miller

George Rogers Clark High School

In this investigation, the acquisition of both functional and core content sight Words Was compared as replicated across three formats: direct massed trial instruction in a special education resource room, direct distributed trial instruction in a general education classroom, and embedded distributed trial instruction in a general education classroom. Four students With moderate disabilities across three age groups participated. During direct instructional trials, both functional and core content sight Words Were presented using a constant time delay procedure. During embedded trials, the students received instruction in the same manner as their peers Without disabilities (e.g., teacher lecture, Worksheets, activities). Although the results varied slightly across participants, there Were minimal differences in the acquisition and maintenance of both functional and core content sight Words across the three presentation formats.

References

• Billingsley, F., White, O., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229—241.
• Branham, R.S., Collins, B.C., Schuster, J.W., & Kleinert, H. (1999). Teaching community skills to students with moderate disabilities: Comparing combined techniques of classroom simulation, videotape modeling, and community-based instruction. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 170—181.
• Brown, L., Branston, M.B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenwald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 81—90.
• Browder, D., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in "No Child Left Behind." The Journal of Special Education, 37, 157—163.
• Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algozzine, B., & Karvonen, M. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 165—181.[CrossRef]
• Browder, D.M., & Xin, Y.P. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 130—153.
• Collins, B.C. (2007). Moderate to severe disabilities: A foundational approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Collins, B.C., Branson, T.A., Hall, M., & Rankin, S.W. (2001). Teaching secondary students with moderate disabilities in an inclusive academic classroom setting. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 13, 41—59.[CrossRef]
• Collins, B.C., & Griffen, A.K. (1996). Teaching students with moderate disabilities to make safe responses to product warning labels. Education & Treatment of Children, 19, 30—45.
• Collins, B.C., Hall, M., Branson, T., & Holder, M. (1999). Acquisition of related and nonrelated nontargeted information presented by a teacher within an inclusive setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 223-237.
• Helmstetter, E., Curry, C.A., Brennan, M., & Sampson-Saul, M. (1998). Comparison of general and special education classrooms of students with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 216—227.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., & Gast, D.L. (1994). Comparative single-subject research: Description of designs and discussion of problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, 119—145.
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 120 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
• Kennedy, C.H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 31—47.
• Logan, K.R., & Malone, D.M. (1998). Instructional contexts for students with moderate, severe, and profound intellectual disabilities in general education elementary classrooms. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 33, 62—75.
• McDonnell, J., Johnson, J.W., Polychronis, S., Riesen, T., Jameson, M., & Kercher, K. (2006). Comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in general education classes with small group instruction in special education classes. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 125—138.
• McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., & McQuivey, C. (1998). The instructional characteristics of inclusive classes for elementary students with severe disabilities: An exploratory study. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 415—437.
• McLeskey, J., Henry, D., & Hodges, D. (1999). Inclusion: What progress is being made across disability categories? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(3), 60—64.
• Miller, C., Collins, B.C., & Hemmeter, M.L. (2002). Using a naturalistic time delay procedure to teach nonverbal adolescents with moderate-to-severe intellectual disabilities to initiate manual signs. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14, 247—261.[CrossRef]
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (2002)
• Palmer, T., Collins, B.C., & Schuster, J.W. (1999). The use of a simultaneous prompting procedure to teach receptive manual sign identification to adults with disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11, 179—191.[CrossRef]
• Sindelar, P.T., Rosenberg, M.S., & Wilson, R.J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education & Treatment of Children, 8, 67—76.
• Tawney, J., & Gast, D. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
• Wechsler, D. (1997). The Wechsler intelligence scale for children III. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
• Wechsler, D. (2003). The Wechsler intelligence scale for children IV. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
• Wilkinson, G.S. (1993). Wide range achievement test 3. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
• Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education services? Is one place better than another? The Journal of Special Education, 37, 193—199.

Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 22, No. 4, 220-233 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/10883576070220040401


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Collins, B. C. Articles by Miller, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?