Teaching peer reinforcement and grocery words: An investigation of observational learning and instructive feedback

Schuster, John W.; Morse, Timothy E.; Griffen, Ann B.; Wolery, Tim

doi:10.1007/bf02110520

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the study supports learning through observation using CBI, so do other traditional methods, such as presenting sight words on flash cards (Collins & Stinson, 1994Farmer, Gast, Wolery, & Winterling, 1991;Schoen & Ogden, 1995;Schuster, Morse, Griffen, & Wolery, 1996). Therefore, the question is whether there is a difference between the use of traditional flash cards and SMART Board technology for teaching sight word reading to a small group of students.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Comparison of the Effects of Smart Board Technology and Flash Card Instruction on Sight Word Recognition and Observational Learning

Mechling

Gast²,

Thompson

2008

J Spec Educ Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the effectiveness of SMART Board, interactive whiteboard technology and traditional flash cards in teaching reading in a small-group instructional arrangement. Three students with moderate intellectual disabilities were taught to read grocery store aisle marker words under each condition. Observational learning (students learning other group members' words) was also assessed across each condition. The effectiveness of the two procedures was evaluated using an adapted alternating-treatments design (AATD) across two conditions and replicated across students. Results indicated that both SMART Board and flash card instruction were effective in teaching target sight words. However, students read a greater percentage of observational words when words were presented using SMART Board technology.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Comparison of the Effects of Smart Board Technology and Flash Card Instruction on Sight Word Recognition and Observational Learning

Mechling

Gast²,

Thompson

2008

J Spec Educ Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It may be that error rates as high as 14% (well below chance responding) are still low enough for the procedure to produce the desired outcomes. In their review on time delay, Schuster, Morse, Griffen, and Wolery (1996) noted the importance of correcting errors versus ignoring them when using time delay. All of the experiments described how the teacher responded to errors.…”

Section: Time Delay Refers To the Delay In Teachermentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Time Delay to Teach Literacy to Students with Severe Developmental Disabilities

Browder

Ahlgrim‐Delzell

Spooner

et al. 2009

Exceptional Children

131

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of the literature was conducted for articles published between 1975 and 2007 on the application of time delay as an instructional procedure to teach word and picture recognition to students with severe developmental disabilities in an effort to evaluate time delay as an evidence-based practice. A total of 30 experiments were analyzed using quality indicators for single-subject design research. In general, we found that time delay was an evidence-based practice for teaching picture and sight word recognition supported by standards for evidence-based practice proposed by Horner et al. (2005). We discuss lessons learned in summarizing a body of literature to define an evidence-based practice and suggestions for better defining the practice.

show abstract

“…Sight word reading has been among the skills taught within a small group arrangement (Wolery, Ault, Doyle, Gast, & Griffen, 1992) with students acquiring target sight words and related incidental information (Doyle, Gast, Wolery, Ault, & Meyer, 1992;Stinson, Gast, Wolery, & Collins, 1991), as well as learning nontarget words through observational learning (Collins & Stinson, 1994Farmer, Gast, Wolery, & Winterling, 1991;Schoen & Ogden, 1995;Schuster, Morse, Griffen, & Wolery, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Impact of SMART Board Technology: An Investigation of Sight Word Reading and Observational Learning

Mechling

Gast

Krupa

2007

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of SMART Board technology, an interactive electronic whiteboard, and a 3s constant time delay (CTD) procedure was evaluated for teaching sight word reading to students with moderate intellectual disabilties within a small group arrangment. A multiple probe design across three word sets and replicated with three students was used to evaluate the effectiveness of SMART Board technology on: (a) reading target grocery words; (b) matching grocery item photos to target grocery words; (c) reading other students' target grocery words through observational learning; and (d) matching grocery item photos to observational grocery words. Results support use of this tool to teach multiple students at one time and its effects on observational learning of non-target information.

show abstract

Teaching peer reinforcement and grocery words: An investigation of observational learning and instructive feedback

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

Comparison of the Effects of Smart Board Technology and Flash Card Instruction on Sight Word Recognition and Observational Learning

Comparison of the Effects of Smart Board Technology and Flash Card Instruction on Sight Word Recognition and Observational Learning

Using Time Delay to Teach Literacy to Students with Severe Developmental Disabilities

Impact of SMART Board Technology: An Investigation of Sight Word Reading and Observational Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About