EFFECTS OF TWO TEACHER‐PRESENTATION RATES ON OFF‐TASK BEHAVIOR, ANSWERING CORRECTLY, AND PARTICIPATION¹

Abstract

Off-task behavior, correct answering, and participation during beginning reading instruction were recorded for two low-achieving first-grade children during two different rates of teacher presentation. A slow-rate presentation (A) was compared with a fast-rate presentation (B) in an ABABAB design. In slow-rate presentation, there was a delay between the children's response and introduction of the next task. In fast-rate presentation, there was no delay. A new teacher taught during the final AB phases, which allowed for a brief replication. Both teachers were reminded on a fixed-interval 90-sec schedule throughout all phases of the experiment to praise the subjects, thus preventing a confounding of social praise and rate of teacher presentation. Fast-rate presentation was accompanied by a lower per cent occurrence of off-task behavior for both Subjects 1 and 2. For Subject 1, correct answering and participation were more frequent during all three fast-rate phases. For Subject 2, correct answering and participation were more frequent during the fast-rate phases after the first reversal.

Relative Effects of Whole‐word and Phonetic‐prompt Error Correction on the Acquisition and Maintenance of Sight Words by Students With Developmental Disabilities

“…Whole-word error correction represents a low-cost, simple-to-use tactic that can easily be incorporated into teacher-led dassroom instruction using either traditional methods of onestudent-at-a-time responding or group-response methods (Carnine, 1976;Heward, Courson, & Narayan, 1989). Whole-word error correction can be taught to parents, paraprofessionals, and students for use in home-based instruction or peer and crossage tutoring programs (e.g., Barbetta Cooke et al, 1983;Delquadri et al, 1983).…”

“…Whole-word error correction can be taught to parents, paraprofessionals, and students for use in home-based instruction or peer and crossage tutoring programs (e.g., Barbetta Cooke et al, 1983;Delquadri et al, 1983). In addition, it may prove to be more efficient than providing phonetic prompts (which after several additional incorrect responses by the student often end with the teacher providing whole-word prompts anyway), which would allow instruction to progress at a faster pace (Carnine, 1976).…”

Antecedent Control of Oral Reading Errors and Self‐corrections by Mentally Retarded Children

“…bury, Baer, & Baer, 1976), and pacing of instructions (Carnine, 1976;Koegel, Dunlap, & Dyer, 1980) are often used by teachers during academic instruction.…”

An examination of teacher instruction and student engagement involving adolescents with and without challenging behavior.

“…In this context, effective instruction has been described within an instructional sequence as including management, organization and instructional strategies (Conroy, 2009;Gunter et aL, 2002), the opportunity for engagement with academic content (Brophy, 1983) and the use of scheduling and proximity to promote on task behavior (Guardino & Fullerton, 2010). Further, the specific strategy involving teacher use of opportunities to respond is associated with improved academic performance (Kern & Clemens, 2007;Sutherland et aL, 2003;Sutherland & Wehby, 2001), decreased disruption (Kern & Clemens, 2007;Sutherland et aL, 2003) and increased levels of student engagement (Carnine, 1976;Carnine & Fink, 1978;Haydon, et aI., 2010;Haydon, et aI., 2009). …”

“…or pointing to a student as the question is asked. Increasing the frequency of opportunities to respond has been linked to increased engagement with the instruction and content delivered (Carnine, 1976;Carnine & Fink, 1978;Haydon, et aI., 2010;Haydon, et aI., 2009). …”