Coaching Teachers to Use a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure to Teach Core Content to Students With Autism

Abstract

The researchers in this study used a multiple baseline design across dyads to examine the effects of professional development with coaching to train general education teachers to use a simultaneous prompting procedure when teaching academic core content to students with autism and the effects of the procedure on the students’ outcomes. Three teacher–student dyads participated in the study. Results showed that (a) teachers acquired the ability to use the simultaneous prompting procedure with 100% accuracy, maintained the acquired teaching behaviors over time, and generalized them in teaching new academic content to their students; and (b) students acquired the targeted academic content, maintained it over time, and generalized it across different persons and settings. In addition, the students acquired instructive feedback stimuli added to instruction and maintained these over time as well. Last, both the opinions of the teachers and students about the social validity of the study were positive. Future research is needed to support these findings.

Review of Interventions Supporting Secondary Students with Intellectual Disability in General Education Classes

“…An additional 116 articles were excluded, primarily because one or more of the inclusion criteria were not met. However, studies were also excluded when (a) an intervention was delivered in a special education setting and only generalization effects were examined in a general education classroom (Whitby, 2013), (b) cognitive information (e.g., IQ scores) was not provided for students with autism who received interventions in general education classrooms (Brown & Mirenda, 2006; Halle, Ninness, Ninness, & Lawson, 2016; Staniland & Byrne, 2013; Tekin-Iftar, Collins, Spooner, & Olcay-Gul, 2017), (c) the location in which the intervention was delivered was not clear (Light, Binger, Agate, & Ramsay, 1999; Shogren, Palmer, Wehmeyer, Williams-Diehm, & Little, 2012), (d) a study did not report or disaggregate results for students with intellectual disability (e.g., Cushing & Kennedy, 1997; Wehmeyer et al, 2011), and (e) a study did not demonstrate randomization or group equivalence at baseline (Palmer, Wehmeyer, Gipson, & Agran, 2004). Third, we applied forward and backward search techniques to all included articles.…”

El desempeño profesional del profesorado de apoyo y sus aportaciones al desarrollo de una educación inclusiva

“…Gran parte de los conflictos que emanan de las propias prácticas de apoyo en los centros se podrían resolver con una mayor colaboración por parte de todos los profesionales. Han sido muchos los autores que mencionan la necesidad de crear grupos de trabajo en los centros centrados en el apoyo educativo (Arnaiz et al, 2010;Gallego, Jiménez Toledo, & Corujo, 2018;Verdugo & Rodríguez, 2012;Tekin-Iftar, Collins, Spooner, & Olcay-Gul, 2017).…”

Best Practices for Students With Moderate and Severe Disabilities: A Rural Retrospective

“…Sometimes academic classes are not seen as an appropriate setting for students with MSD to access content (Ryndak et al, 2014); at other times, the hovering of paraprofessionals interferes with students’ opportunities to interact with their peers without disabilities (Westling, Fox, & Carter, 2015). Often, general education teachers resist inclusive placements because they are not familiar with evidence-based strategies that have been shown to be effective in teaching content to students with MSD (e.g., Tekin-Iftar, Collins, Spooner, & Olcay-Gul, 2017) as well as in managing challenging behavior (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012). While the basic philosophy behind inclusive services for student with MSD is sound (Stainback, Stainback, & Ayres, 1996), full inclusion is not yet a practice that all schools are ready to implement.…”

“…For example, Creech-Galloway, Collins, Knight, and Bausch (2013) taught the Pythagorean theory to students with MSD within the context of meaningful activities; Riggs, Collins, Kleinert, and Knight (2013) taught functional applications of genetics when teaching biology; and Karl, Collins, Hager, Schuster, and Ault (2013) taught literacy, algebraic equations, and the principles of force within the context of reading a recipe, creating a shopping budget, and baking a cake, respectively. While it is possible to teach core content in a meaningful way, researchers still are searching for ways to combine functional skills and core content in inclusive settings (Collins, Branson, Hall, & Rankin, 2001; Tekin-Iftar et al, 2017).…”

“…If instruction is indicated, the students then receive prompted trials in which they are guided through making a correct response. This type of prompting can be provided by a general education teacher (Tekin-Iftar et al, 2017), a paraprofessional (Heinrich, Collins, Knight, & Spriggs, 2016), or a peer tutor (Heinrich et al, 2016) in an inclusive setting and can consist of providing verbal directions, verbal or physical models, or physical guidance, depending on which will result in a correct response from the student. The lesson simply occurs as planned by the teacher with special instructional trials inserted periodically so that the student with MSD receives enough prompting to make correct responses.…”