Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 437–458 | Cite as

Comparison of simultaneous prompting with and without error correction in teaching science vocabulary words to high school students with mild disabilities

  • Patti Johnson
  • John Schuster
  • Jennifer K. Bell
Regular Papers

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of simultaneous prompting with and without error correction during daily probe sessions in teaching science vocabulary words. The teacher presented the vocabulary word definitions as instructive feedback during training sessions. Five 16–17 year old students with disabilities participated in an adapted alternating treatments design that evaluated the simultaneous prompting strategy, error correction and instructive feedback. Instruction occurred in a group format using choral responding. The results indicate that (a) all students learned to read the vocabulary words, (b) simultaneous prompting with error correction was slightly more efficient for three of the five subjects in learning the targeted words, and four of the five students made fewer errors in this condition, (c) all students preferred simultaneous prompting with error correction over simultaneous prompting without error correction, (d) words mastered in both conditions generalized equally, (e) there were minimal differences between the two conditions in the collected maintenance data, and (e) students experienced only minimal improvement in their ability to define vocabulary words (instructive feedback). Discussion focuses on issues for further research and implications for instructional practice with simultaneous prompting, error correction and instructive feedback.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., & Martin, C. P. (1990). Comparison of predictable and unpredictable trial sequences during small-group instruction.Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 12–29.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, L., Schachter, M., Winkler, A., & Wolfe, S. (1986).Concepts and challenges in life science. New York: Globe.Google Scholar
  3. Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example.Behavior Assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
  4. Brigance, A. H. (1977).Brigance diagnostic inventory of basic skills. N. Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, B. C., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Wolery, M. (1991). Small group instruction: Guidelines for teachers of students with moderate to severe handicaps.Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 18–32.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, J. O. (1987). Stimulus control. In J. O. Cooper, W. L. Heron, & D. W. Heward (Eds.).,Applied behavior analysis (pp. 293–326). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  7. Gibson, A. N., & Schuster, J. W. (1992). The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching word recognition to preschool children.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 247–267.Google Scholar
  8. Griffin, A. K., & Schuster, J. W. (1996).The acquisition of non-target information: A comparison of continuous versus intermittent presentation schedules. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  9. MacFarland-Smith, J., Schuster, J. W., & Stevens, K. B. (1993). Using simultaneous prompting procedures to teach expressive object identification to preschoolers with developmental delays.Journal of Early Intervention, 17(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  10. Schuster, J. W., & Griffin A. K. (1990). Using time delay with task analyses.Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(4), 49–53.Google Scholar
  11. Schuster, J. W., & Griffin A. K. (1993). Teaching a chained task with a simultaneous prompting procedure.Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schuster, J. W., Griffen, A. K., & Wolery, M. (1992). Comparison of the simultaneous prompting procedure and constant time delay procedure in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation.Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Singleton, K. C., Schuster, J. W., & Ault, M. J. (1995). Simultaneous prompting in a small group arrangement.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities.30, 218–230.Google Scholar
  15. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984).Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  16. Van Houten, R. (1993). Rote vs. rules: A comparison of two teaching and correction strategies for teaching basic subtraction facts.Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 147–159.Google Scholar
  17. Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., & Gast, D. L. (1995). Instructive feedback: Review of parameters and effects.Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 55–76.Google Scholar
  18. Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-revised. Cleveland: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  19. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992).Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Werts, M. G., & Cipolloni, R. M. (1993). Effects of simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback.Early Education and Development, 4, 20–31.Google Scholar
  22. Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Holcombe, A., Billings, S. S., & Vassilaros, M. A. (1993). Instructive feedback: A comparison of simultaneous and alternating presentation of non-target stimuli.Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patti Johnson
    • 1
  • John Schuster
    • 2
  • Jennifer K. Bell
    • 2
  1. 1.Jessamine County SchoolsJessamine County High SchoolNicholasville
  2. 2.Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation CounselingUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations