Comparing Teacher-Provided and Computer-Assisted Simultaneous Prompting for Vocabulary Development With Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Abstract

In this study, the effects of teacher-provided simultaneous prompting and computer-assisted simultaneous prompting for teaching content-area vocabulary words to students who are deaf or hard of hearing were compared using a multiple probe across behaviors with an embedded alternating treatments design. Participants included three second-grade students at a residential school for the deaf in the southeastern United States. Results were mixed, with teacher-and computer-based instruction being equally effective for two students while only teacher-provided instruction was effective for one student who had concomitant disabilities. Social validity surveys for students indicated all three preferred learning vocabulary with the computer. The study extends the literature showing that simultaneous prompting may be an effective instructional strategy for students who are deaf or hard of hearing and that computer-assisted simultaneous prompting may be a useful tool to provide independent learning opportunities for some students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Implications for classroom instruction and directions for further research are discussed.

Combining teacher‐Led and technology‐assisted instruction to improve phoneme blending to read words for elementary students with disabilities

“…Reagan et al concluded that Lexia SOS was an effective computer‐assisted instructional programme, but stated that it could have been improved with additional teacher‐led direct instruction. This is in line with studies in which teacher instruction was superior to technology‐based instruction in regard to learning outcomes for students with disabilities (Coleman, Cherry, Park, Moore, & Cihak, 2015; Coleman, MacLauchlan, Cihak, Martin, & Wolbers, 2015). In other reading studies with less conclusive results, researchers still posit that, when implemented well, TAI is a helpful addition to teacher instruction (e.g., Chambers et al, 2008).…”

“…Results of both studies extend the previous research by demonstrating that technology can be used to supplement, rather than to supplant, explicit teacher‐led instruction. Prior studies (Coleman, Cherry, et al, 2015; Coleman, MacLauchlan, et al, 2015) have demonstrated that teacher‐led instruction is superior to technology‐based instruction for some students with disabilities. From a research perspective, the combined interventions in the current studies do not allow for separate analysis of the contribution of teacher‐led versus technology‐led instruction.…”

“…The two studies included user‐friendly, teacher‐made technology‐based activities; one study incorporated self‐modelling into the technology component. PowerPoint software was selected for these studies rather than specialized software primarily because it is ubiquitous and familiar for teachers and students and has a small research base for providing individualized instruction for students with disabilities (Coleman, MacLauchlan, et al, 2015; Coleman‐Martin et al, 2005; Parette, Hourcade, Boeckmann, & Blum, 2008; Yaw et al, 2011; Yaw et al, 2012).…”

The Design of an Adaptive Content Management Learning System for Children with Autism

“…Rodríguez, Saz, Lleida, Vaquero, and Escartín (2008) reported that communication technologies provided persons with speech disorders the ability to communicate with others. Coleman, MacLauchlan, Cihak, Martin, and Wolbers (2015) found that the strategy of using PowerPoint presentations to teach vocabulary had a positive effect on improving the vocabulary of third-grade hearing impaired students in secondary school. Furthermore, in a study by Ferreira, Travassos, Sampaio, and Pereira-Guizzo (2013) which analysed the impact that the assistive technology of computer games had on children with Cerebral Palsy who were unable to speak, the results revealed that the children used the communication forms of sound or facial expressions, suggesting that assistive technologies are important for social interaction.…”

Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting to Error Correction for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…The authors used a multiple baseline design and demonstrated that SP was effective in teaching all participants to calculate time. In 2015, Coleman and colleagues taught vocabulary words to three children who were deaf or hard of hearing using either teacher-provided SP or computer-assisted SP. Through the use of an alternating treatment design, the results showed that teacher-provided SP and computer-assisted SP were equally effective and efficient for two participants, and for one participant, teacher-provided SP was the only procedure that was effective.…”