Advertisement

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 48, Issue 7, pp 2542–2557 | Cite as

Scripted and Unscripted Science Lessons for Children with Autism and Intellectual Disability

  • Victoria F. Knight
  • Belva Collins
  • Amy D. Spriggs
  • Emily Sartini
  • Margaret Janey MacDonald
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Autism spectrum disorder Intellectual disability Science education Access to the general education Scripted lesson plans Task analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Author Contributions

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.

References

  1. Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
  2. Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs, S. L., & Flowers, C. (2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant cognitive disabilities using group randomized trial research. Exceptional Children, 75, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (Eds.). (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th edn.). Boston, MA: Merrill.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, B. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  6. Cooke, N. L., Galloway, T. W., Kretlow, A. G., & Helf, S. (2011). Impact of the script in a supplemental reading program on instructional opportunities for student practice of specified skills. The Journal of Special Education, 45(1), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (1989). Corrective reading series guide. New York: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Englemann, S., & Bruner, E. (1988). Reading mastery I: DISTAR reading. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Englemann, S., Meyer, L., Johnson, G., & Carnine, L. (1999). Corrective reading skills decoding skills applications C. Columbus, OH: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Gagne, R. M. (1962). The acquisition of knowledge. Psychological Review, 69(4), 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Jimenez, B., Knight, V., & Browder, D. (2012). Early science curriculum. Verona, WI: Attainment Company.Google Scholar
  16. Jimenez, B. A., Lo, Y., & Saunders, A. (2014). The additive effects of scripted lessons plus guided notes on science quiz scores of students with intellectual disabilities and autism. Journal of Special Education, 47, 231–244.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912437937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knight, V. F., Smith, B. R., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. M. (2011). Using explicit instruction to teach science descriptors to students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1258-1.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, B. T., Krockover, G. H., & Doughty, T. (2013). Using iPads to teach inquiry science to students with moderate to severe intellectual disability: A pilot study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 887–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.
  20. Nowicki, B. L., Sullivan-Watts, B., Shim, M. K., Young, B., & Pockalny, R. (2013). Factors influencing science content accuracy in elementary inquiry science lessons. Research in Science Education, 43, 1135–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smith, B. R., Spooner, F., Jimenez, B., & Browder, D. M. (2013). Using an early science curriculum to teach science vocabulary and concepts to students with severe developmental disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 36, 1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland adaptive behavior scales (2nd edn.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  23. Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D. M., Jimenez, B., & DiBiase, W. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based practices in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spooner, F., Knight, V. F., Browder, D. M., & Smith, B. R. (2011). Evidence-based practices for teaching academic skills to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 374–387.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511421634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stallings, J., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow through classroom observation evaluation, 1972–1973. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.Google Scholar
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler adult intelligence scale—fourth edition (WAIS–IV). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victoria F. Knight
    • 1
    • 6
  • Belva Collins
    • 2
  • Amy D. Spriggs
    • 3
  • Emily Sartini
    • 4
  • Margaret Janey MacDonald
    • 5
  1. 1.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  3. 3.UK College of EducationUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Curriculum and InstructionWestern Illinois UniversityMacombUSA
  5. 5.Explore Community SchoolNashvilleUSA
  6. 6.Department of Special EducationVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations