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

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.

Teaching Science Content and Practices to Students With Intellectual Disability and Autism

“…Five studies demonstrating positive effects used multiple exemplar training (i.e., providing the student with practice in a variety of stimulus conditions, response variations, and response topographies to promote generalization; Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007) to teach a total of 22 participants science content and science practices (Knight, Collins, Spriggs, Sartini, & MacDonald, 2018; Knight, Smith, Spooner, & Browder, 2012; Knight, Spooner, Browder, Smith, & Wood, 2013; Riggs, Collins, Kleinert, & Knight, 2013; Rivera, Hudson, Weiss, & Zambone, 2017). In addition, task analytic instruction (i.e., teaching chained tasks step by step; Spooner et al, 2011) was used across six methodologically sound studies demonstrating positive effects to teach 25 participants to complete steps in a science activity or experiment (Courtade, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2010; Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012; Knight et al, 2018; Knight et al, 2013; Rivera et al, 2017; Smith, Spooner, Jimenez, & Browder, 2013). Finally, five studies demonstrating positive effects used time delay to teach a total of 24 participants science content and practices (Collins et al, 2011; Jimenez et al, 2012; Knight et al, 2018; Riggs et al, 2013; Smith et al, 2013).…”

“…In addition, task analytic instruction (i.e., teaching chained tasks step by step; Spooner et al, 2011) was used across six methodologically sound studies demonstrating positive effects to teach 25 participants to complete steps in a science activity or experiment (Courtade, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2010; Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012; Knight et al, 2018; Knight et al, 2013; Rivera et al, 2017; Smith, Spooner, Jimenez, & Browder, 2013). Finally, five studies demonstrating positive effects used time delay to teach a total of 24 participants science content and practices (Collins et al, 2011; Jimenez et al, 2012; Knight et al, 2018; Riggs et al, 2013; Smith et al, 2013). Time delay is a response prompting procedure in which an instructor first provides a “teaching” round of instructional trials, or 0-s delay round.…”

“…To qualify as a potentially EBP, two to four studies with positive effects (and no neutral/mixed or negative effects) must support the practice (Cook et al, 2014). First, three studies—all methodologically sound and demonstrating positive effects—used model–lead–test to teach to teach 14 participants science terms, descriptors, and application of those terms (Knight et al, 2018; Knight et al, 2012; Knight et al, 2013). Applications of science terms in these studies included identifying the definition of the term, using the term in a sentence correctly, and identifying a picture illustrating the term.…”

“…Modeling of examples and nonexamples can increase generalization of learned vocabulary and concepts by sharpening stimulus control (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982). Third, graphic organizers (i.e., pictorial and graphic stimuli to promote comprehension; Arthur-Kelly, Sigafoos, Green, Mathisen, & Arthur-Kelly, 2009) were used in four methodologically sound studies demonstrating positive effects to support acquisition of science content and practices for 19 participants (Jimenez et al, 2012; Knight et al, 2018; Knight et al, 2013; Smith et al, 2013). Specifically, three of these (Jimenez et al, 2012; Knight et al, 2018; Smith et al, 2013) used a KWHL chart (what do you K now, what do you W ant to know, H ow will you find out, what did you L earn) illustrating students how science content and science practices are linked.…”

“…All 12 of the methodologically sound studies included student learning of at least one science practice (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Furthermore, four studies explicitly sought to teach science practices (Courtade et al, 2010; Jimenez et al, 2012; Knight et al, 2018; Smith et al, 2013), whereas the other eight studies addressed at least some of the science practices, even if this was not the purpose of their study.…”