Scripted and Unscripted Science Lessons for Children with Autism and Intellectual Disability
Both scripted lessons and unscripted task analyzed lessons have been used effectively to teach science content to students with intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder. This study evaluated the efficacy, efficiency, and teacher preference of scripted and unscripted task analyzed lesson plans from an elementary science curriculum designed for students with intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder by evaluating both lesson formats for (a) student outcomes on a science comprehension assessment, (b) sessions to criterion, and (c) average duration of lessons. Findings propose both lesson types were equally effective, but unscripted task analyzed versions may be more efficient and were preferred by teachers to scripted lessons. Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are also discussed.
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorder Intellectual disability Science education Access to the general education Scripted lesson plans Task analysis
We would like to thank the following teachers and their students for their assistance in research: Emmaline Keubler and Megan Traynor, Woodford County Schools. Also, thank you to Ryane Williamson and Alyssa Carney for their contributions to this project.
VFK conceived of the presented idea, trained the teachers, and created measurement/data collection tools. VFK outlined the procedures and the unique contributions of the study. VFK and BC determined the analytical methods. VFK, BC, ADS, and ES collected data. MJM assisted in data entry and graphing data. VFK supervised the findings of this work. All authors contributed to the results, writing, editing, revisions, and the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The first author currently receives royalties from the published version of the curriculum used in the current study. At the time the study was conducted, a published version of the curriculum did not exist. Further, the curriculum contains both scripted and unscripted lesson versions so the first author does not recognize a direct benefit to finding one more beneficial than the other. Finally, the first author did not directly implement the study, and only assisted in the collection of interobserver reliability and procedural fidelity data. Finally, a management plan was approved by the University of Kentucky based on the COI.
- Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
- Browder, D. M., Trela, K., Courtade, G., Jimenez, B., Knight, V., & Flowers, C. (2012). Teaching mathematics and science standards to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 46(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910369942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (Eds.). (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th edn.). Boston, MA: Merrill.Google Scholar
- Collins, B. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Courtade, G. R., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. (2010). Training teachers to use an inquiry-based task analysis to teach science to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 378–399.Google Scholar
- Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (1989). Corrective reading series guide. New York: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Engelmann, S., Johnson, G., Carnine, L., Meyer, L., Becker, W., & Eisele, J. (1999). Corrective reading decoding strategies B2. Columbus, OH: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
- Englemann, S., & Bruner, E. (1988). Reading mastery I: DISTAR reading. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
- Englemann, S., Meyer, L., Johnson, G., & Carnine, L. (1999). Corrective reading skills decoding skills applications C. Columbus, OH: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
- Gast, D. L., Lloyd, B. P., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In D. L. Gast & J. R. Ledford (Eds.), Single case research methodology in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). New York: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
- Huitt, W. G., Monetti, D. M., & Hummel, J. H. (2009). Direct approach to instruction. In C. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Volume III, building a common knowledge base (pp. 73–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Jimenez, B., Knight, V., & Browder, D. (2012). Early science curriculum. Verona, WI: Attainment Company.Google Scholar
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.
- Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland adaptive behavior scales (2nd edn.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Stallings, J., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow through classroom observation evaluation, 1972–1973. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Tweed, A. (2004). Direct instruction: Is it the most effective science teaching strategy? National Science Teachers Association Reports. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=50045.
- Watkins, C. L., & Slocum, T. A. (2004). The components of direct instruction. In N. E. Marchand-Martell, T. A. Slocum & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to direct instruction (pp. 28–65). Boston, MA; Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler adult intelligence scale—fourth edition (WAIS–IV). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar