- Email: [email protected]
The effectiveness of a group discrete trial instructional approach for preschoolers with developmental disabilities
Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
The effectiveness of a group discrete trial instructional approach for preschoolers with developmental disabilities Mitchell Taubmana,*, Sally Brierleyb, Jennifer Wishnerc, Danielle Bakera, John McEachina, Ronald B. Leafa a
Autism Partnership, 200 C Marina Dr., Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA b Palm Springs Unified School District c Claremont Graduate University
Received 15 March 1999; received in revised form 29 July 1999; accepted 30 August 1999
Abstract Group behavioral classroom instruction for children with developmental disabilities has been shown to allow for increased efficiency, approximation to naturalistic arrangements, and enhanced opportunity for interaction, social teaching and observational learning. This study examines the effectiveness of a group instructional extension of one to one discrete trial teaching, which involves the overlapping of trials between students along with the use of sequential and choral group teaching. A multiple baseline design across tasks was employed to examine the effectiveness of the group instructional approach in promoting acquisition of educational skills among preschoolers with autism and other developmental disabilities. A time sample interval assessment of components of the group instruction was also conducted. The approach was demonstrated to consistently increase correct responding across the task areas. Results are discussed in terms of the advantages of the group instructional approach as an adjunct to one to one discrete trial instruction. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹1-562-431-9293x185; fax: ⫹1-562-431-8386. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Taubman). 0891-4222/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 8 9 1 - 4 2 2 2 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 6 8 - 3
206
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
1. Introduction Numerous investigations have demonstrated the effectiveness of discrete trial instruction and its permutations in producing positive change for persons with autism and other developmental disabilities in a wide range of behavioral areas including language, social skills, play skills, and self management (Lovaas, & Taubman, 1981; Lovaas, 1987; Stahmer & Schreibman, 1992; Kogel & Frea, 1993; McEachin, Smith, & Lovaas, 1993; Matson, Benavidez, Comptom, Paclawskyj, & Baglio, 1996). This approach, most typically and traditionally utilized in a one to one format, contains specific elements designed to promote behavior acquisition, repertoire expansion and facilitate generalized learning (i.e. learning to learn) in persons with autism (Lovaas, 1981; Leaf & McEachin, 1999). Group teaching arrangements for persons with autism and other developmental disabilities has been utilized to provide training in such areas as educational tasks (Werts, Caldwell, & Wolery, 1996), sight word reading (Schoen & Ogden, 1995), and money skills, pre-academics, language tasks, and shopping skills (Kamps, Walker, Maher, & Rotholz, 1992). Group teaching arrangements, provided in conjunction with essential one to one instruction, have the potential for offering several instructional advantages. Group instruction, for example, has been noted to allow for greater efficiency, closer approximation to naturalistic classroom arrangements, facilitation of inclusion, improved behavior management, and increased opportunity for communication, interaction, social teaching, and observational learning (Polloway, Cronin & Patton, 1986; Kamps, Walker, Locke, Delquadri, & Hall, 1990; Handleman, Harris, Kristoff, Fuentes, & Alessandri, 1991; Wolery, & Winterling, 1991; Kamps et al., 1992; Sigafoos, Roberts, Kerr, Couzens, & Baglioni, 1994; Schoen & Ogden, 1995). While one to one instruction is found across the range of academic settings, including in regular education classrooms, and its indispensable value to students with autism and other developmental disabilities has been broadly demonstrated (Lovaas, 1987; Goldstein & Hockenberger, 1991; Matson, et al., 1996), group instruction has been posited to include opportunities for the teaching of waiting skills, tolerance of intermittent attention, and incidental acquisition, as well as for enhancement of the generalization of these and other skills requisite to group learning in integrated settings (Alig-Cybriwsky, Wolery, & Gast, 1990). Group discrete trial arrangements have most typically been comprised of sequential instruction or choral responding (Quill, Gurry, & Larkin, 1989; Farmer, Gast, Wolery, & Winterling, 1991; Kamps, et al., 1991; Kamps, Dugan, Leonard & Daoust, 1994). In sequential instruction, one to one discrete trial teaching is provided to each student in a group on a rotating basis. Either single trials or a series of trials are provided before instruction is rotated to the next student. A trial for one student is always completed before another trial is initiated for a different student, and trials between students are independent from and unconnected to one another. While allowing for individualization of instruction and increased efficiency, sequential teaching limits opportunities for expe-
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
207
riencing some of the other benefits of group instruction. Since sequential instruction represents a series of one to one instructor led trials, peer communication and social interaction opportunities are diminished. In choral responding, discrete trial instruction is provided to all students within the group simultaneously, as each trial is provided concurrently to all students. While choral responding has been shown to be efficient, effective, and conductive to social and observational learning (Kamps, et al., 1992; Kamps, et al., 1994), it does not, by the nature of its arrangement, allow for significant individualization of programming, curricula, or within session tracking of progress or adjustments. Student to student interactions may be somewhat limited (Kamps, et al., 1992) and more instructionally, as opposed to socially, based (Kamps, et al., 1994). Frequently, prerequisite instruction in one to one arrangements (Handleman, et al., 1991; Kamps, et al., 1992; Lovaas, 1996) is recommended as preparation for group instruction. Further, it is advised that, in group discrete trial instruction whether sequential or choral, a trial with one student must be completed before another trial with a different student is initiated (Lovaas, 1981). Finally, uncertainties remain regarding the role and effectiveness of the instructional assistants within the approach (Polloway, et al., 1986; Kamps et al., 1990), as well as the essential components and the degree of fidelity shown to those elements in group discrete trial arrangements (Kamps, et al., 1994). The present research was designed to determine the effectiveness of a group discrete trial model which, in addition to sequential and choral components, included elements which promote overlapping instruction, that is instruction in which a trial for a student may be begun before a trial for another student is terminated. These elements were designed to facilitate skill acquisition in groups, foster increased opportunities for social interaction and interest, facilitate observational learning, and assist in behavior management, while allowing for individualization of curricula. Examined was the use of this group discrete trial model and its effectiveness in teaching educational tasks.
2. Method 2.1. Setting and participants The study was conducted in a preschool classroom for developmentally disabled children, located in a public elementary school. The classroom was categorized as a “Special Day Class: Preschool” and served eight students with developmentally disabilities. The classroom was decorated and designed to approximate a traditional preschool setting. As this study was conducted in an actual classroom, it was performed during and imbedded in the morning group circle-time period of the typical daily classroom routine. All eight students in the class served as participants. As this applied investigation was conducted during regular preschool operation, some students were
208
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
Table 1 Participant
Age
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4 4 4 4 4 3 3 5
years years years years years years years years
4 months 4 months 0 months 7 months 10 months 8 months 3 months 5 months
Diagnosis
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale composite score
Down’s syndrome Autism Down’s syndrome Fetal alcohol syndrome Autism Down’s syndrome Failure to thrive Borderline microcephaly and possible failure to thrive
71 51 60 67 58 60 70 67
occasionally absent and therefore not all participants were present for all sessions of the study. The mean number of students per session was 6.4 with a range from 5 to 8. Participant characteristics are presented in Table 1. Participants ranged in age from 3 years 3 months to 5 years 5 months, with a mean age of 4 years 3 months at the study’s initiation. Diagnoses for participants, determined independently of this study, were identified by examining existing school records. The reported diagnoses were: autism (2 participants), Down’s syndrome (3 participants), failure to thrive (1 participant), borderline microcephaly and possible failure to thrive (1 participant) and fetal alcohol syndrome (1 participant). Testing performed prior to and outside of the study included, for all participants, composite scores on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales which ranged from 51–71 and averaged 63, as well as a range of cognitive and/or language instruments which indicated delays for all participants. One teacher provided the group instruction with the assistance of two instructional aides. The instructor had two years of preschool teaching experience with three additional years of behavioral treatment experience in the field of autism. One instructional assistant had three years of experience in special day classes, two of which were with students with autism. The other had one and one half years in classes for students with autism. 2.2. Dependent Measures The percent of correct responses in trials across three instructional tasks served as dependent variables. Within the class, no additional instruction or training was provided for instructional targets outside of the intervention described below. Table 2 depicts instructional tasks by area and participant. A group preschool song activity comprised one of the instructional task areas. Targeted within this area were the performance of movements which corresponded to the content of an age appropriate song (“Big Bugs”), constituting imitation (e.g. students were
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
209
Table 2 Participant instructional tasks Participant
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Tasks Song Activity
Pre-Math
Movements To Song Movements To Song
Movements To Song Movements To Song
Sequential Placement Items In Container Sequential Placement Items In Container While Counting Aloud Sequential Placement Items In Container Sequential Placement Items In Container
Language
Movements To Song Movements To Song
Sequential Placement of Items In Container Sequential Placement of Items In Container
Movements To Song Movements To Song
Sequential Placement of Items In Container Sequential Placement of Items In Container
of of
of of
Receptive Pronouns“Touch Your/My Nose” Expanded Language-Color with Label
Receptive Instruction“Arms Up” Non-Vocal Expressive Language-Signing “I want ball” Receptive Labeling“Touch Chicken” Non-Vocal Expressive Labeling-Signing “Baby” Expressive Attributes-The Color Yellow Basic Conversation-“I Don’t Know”
provided the instruction “Do this” while the teacher modeled hands close together) and the following of receptive instructions (e.g. teacher provided the instruction “Wiggle fingers”). All students were taught the same movements (e.g. hands far apart when “big bugs” was sung during the song, hands close together when “small bugs” was sung). Goals did not differ between subjects on this task as their song activity skill deficits were uniform. For each participant, independent exhibition of all the song movements was necessary for correct performance to be scored. Comprising another task area was a pre-mathematics task. Targeted within this area was the placement, in response to the question, “How many?”, of eight identical items (plastic eggs), individually and sequentially into a container (basket) as a precursor to later pre-math tasks. The needs and skill levels of the participants required that goals in this area were uniform, except for one participant who was additionally required to count out loud as items were placed within the container. All items needed to be placed (and in the case of the one participant, counted) without prompts for the task to be scored correct. Language tasks constituted the final target area. In this area, either a receptive, vocal expressive, or nonvocal expressive language goal was targeted for each participant. The skill level of the participants allowed that a distinct and individualized language objective was targeted for each participant (see Table 2 for a listing of the specific language tasks for each participant). Independent perfor-
210
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
mance of the individualized language task was necessary for it to be scored as correct. 2.3. Baseline In order to assess participants’ performance prior to introduction of the group teaching approach, targeted skills were assessed during a baseline condition. During baseline, requests or presentation of opportunities for the performance of target behaviors were presented to all subjects within the group format, but no teaching was provided. That is, for the song target the song was presented, for the math tasks the question “How many?” was offered in the presence of the materials, and for the various individualized language goals, questions or instructions (e.g. “What is it?) were provided in their appropriate contexts or with materials as indicated. However, no prompts, feedback, consequences or any form or element of guidance or teaching were provided. To reduce frustration, for each participant all targets were presented only once during each of the baseline sessions. 2.4. Instructional intervention A group discrete trial instructional approach served as the independent variable in this analysis. Discrete trial methodology employed in this study was comprised of traditional components. Described in detail elsewhere (Leaf & McEachin, 1999), within the model, each trial included: instruction, prompting and prompt fading as necessary, opportunity for participant’s response, and differential reinforcement along with a brief interval between each trial. Within the group discrete trial model employed in this research, emphasis was always on the utilization of the least intrusive prompt and no aversive or punishing contingencies or techniques were used. Within this model, central focus was on abundant and compelling differential reinforcement and establishment of functional alternatives as a means for decreasing interfering or disruptive behavior. On pre-academic tasks, rich and largely social positive reinforcement was used to build desired responding, while mild instructive feedback (e.g. “Close, but not quite; Try again; etc.”), was offered in response to incorrect or off task responding. The group model examined in the present analysis incorporated the sequential and choral presentation of discrete trials but also included components in which trials between students overlapped and occurred concurrently. In the sequential group instruction, discrete trial instruction was provided to each participant on a random rotating basis. A trial for one participant is closed before another trial is initiated for another participant, and each trial between participants is independent from and unconnected to the other. During choral group instruction, every trial is presented concurrently for all participants in the group, and all are expected to provide the same response, chorus like, in unison. Overlapping group instruction involved the opening of trials for some participants before the closing of trials already initiated for others. In such a manner,
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
211
the trials were overlapping, with the learning, behaviors, or responses of one participant interconnected with those of another. This approach took many forms. As an example, one student may have been provided an instruction, and while he or she was performing the desired response, another student was provided an instruction which required attention and then a response to the teacher with regard to the first participant’s activities or performance. Both students were then provided feedback, and both trials were closed in close temporal proximity. In another example, when a student refused to respond to an instruction, no direct feedback was immediately given but a second student was given an instruction, successfully responded, and received enthusiastic praise which served as the consequence for the first student and closed the initial trial. As a third example, after an instruction was provided chorally to some members of the group, a similar but individualized instruction was immediately provided, conforming to developmental level and curriculum needs, to one student. This cued for that student, behavior which was comparable and synchronous to the responding of the rest of the group. All students were then provided feedback concurrently. Also included was instruction which required interactive, cooperative, or dependent responding on the part of two or more students (for example a task within which effort on the part of both students was necessary for completion) during which students’ trials were overlapped. Instruction also included the differential reinforcement of one or several students for appropriate group responding (e.g. attending, patient sitting, or helping) in the middle of another student’s trial. Since trials were presented on an individual basis, curricula, programming, and within session teaching adjustments (e.g. the fading of prompts) could be individualized. Additionally, since learning was overlapping and often interconnected, programmed and incidental opportunities for observational learning, that is, acquisition through the learning or responding of another (Keel & Gast, 1992; Hallenbeck & Kauffman, 1995), were abundant. Also, chances were increased for the promotion of joint attention, that is social orienting and referencing (Sigman, Arbelle, & Dissanayake, 1995; Mundy & Crowson, 1997), as well as social interest and skill development. Teacher roles in the group instruction consisted of providing instruction, prompts and consequences. The teacher was also responsible for the integration of the various group approaches, individualization of instruction, within session adjustments in teaching, and coordination with instructional assistants. The overlapping, concurrent element of the group instruction was conducive to the integration of efforts between the teacher and instructional assistants. Aides were placed behind the members of the group and coordinated with the teacher, who provided the majority of instruction and was positioned in front. In this arrangement, aides assisted in prompting as well as with the opening and/or closing of trials which, for some students, overlapped with trials directed at other students by the teacher. Aides were guided in their participation by the prompts, requests, and directions of the teacher. Finally, within the group model, overlapping, sequential, and choral teaching methods were integrated. For example, for a language goal which included the
212
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
teaching of an expressive label, instruction may have involved choral imitative trials with the label imbedded in a sing along, sequential direct teaching of the label receptively with students holding relevant items, and overlapping trials teaching the label expressively with the inclusion of modeling and observational learning. Rather than only adhering to a rigid, overly scheduled protocol, these elements were flexibly provided so that instruction was responsive to a number of within session factors. Examples of such factors included students’ need (e.g. a unique occurrence indicated a task previously taught chorally needed to be addressed sequentially), opportunity (e.g. a student had unexpectedly provided an observational model), within session progress (e.g. a student took an unanticipated leap in availability to choral instruction), and behavior difficulties (e.g. an increase in disruptive behavior suddenly indicated a need for overlapping instruction). With this flexible application, discrete trial guidelines and group teaching approaches were specified, structured and systematic. This interventional approach represented a combined responsiveness to procedural rule governance and within situation shaping (Jahr, 1998). 2.5. Design A multiple baseline design across instructional tasks was utilized to experimentally assess the effects of the group discrete trial instruction. After the collection of baseline data, the independent variable (the group discrete trial instructional intervention) was applied in staggered fashion to the pre-math task, the language task, and the song activity task areas. As this was a group intervention analysis, all subjects’ data were aggregated to measure effects by conditions. 2.6. Measurement and data collection All seventeen sessions of the study, through baseline and intervention conditions, were videotaped in order to minimize disruption to the classroom. Across all sessions, the actual time that the study was conducted, both baseline and intervention, ranged from 1.5 minutes to 18.5 minutes per session, with a mean of 8.5 minutes. Observer training involved the viewing and scoring of group instruction videotapes (produced prior to the present study) according to scoring guidelines and response definitions. After observer training, videotapes of the present investigation were observed and instructional trials were scored individually for each participant for each instructional goal across each session. Within each instructional trial, task, correctness or incorrectness of responding, and presence or absence of prompting were recorded. For each session a percentage correct was derived for each instructional goal for each participant by dividing the number of correct responses by the total number of trials (correct plus incorrect plus prompted trials). For each session the average percentage correct for the group of students was then derived for each task by calculating the mean percentage correct across participants.
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
213
Videotapes were also scored to assess occurrence of aspects of the independent variable, as a measure of the fidelity of the intervention to the group instructional model. For this analysis only, seven of the fourteen intervention sessions (sessions which contained at least some intervention) were randomly chosen. Across the intervention sessions, the amount of time of actual intervention ranged from 3.75 minutes to 18 minute per session, with a mean of 9 minutes. From each of the randomly selected seven sessions, three 1 minute time sample intervals were randomly selected. Each of these 21 randomly selected intervals were observed and scored, using partial interval measurement, for the presence or absence of all instructional staffs’ performance of sequential, choral, or overlapping group discrete trial instruction. Presence or absence of participation in the instruction by the aides was scored as well for all sample intervals. A percentage of the intervals which contained each of these independent variables was then derived for each sampled session as well as across all twenty-one intervals. 2.7. Inter-observer reliability In order to assess reliability of the data, two trained observers independently scored the videotapes, and their results compared. Reliability observations on targeted student tasks were performed on a trial by trial basis for 65% of the sessions, across all participants, tasks, and conditions. Reliability on the occurrence of independent variables (the degree of sequential, choral, and overlapping instruction and aide involvement) was calculated for 43% of the time sample intervals. For both measures, inter-observer reliability is represented by a percentage agreement and calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The mean for inter-observer reliability on targeted student tasks was 96%, with a range from 88% to 100%. The mean for inter-observer reliability on the presence of the independent variables was 86%, with a range from 67% to 100%.
3. Results 3.1. Dependent measures A failure of the video equipment on the third baseline day of the study caused the loss of observable data for that session. Anecdotal report indicated that data were comparable to and as stable as points prior to and following the lost session. Additionally, on two occasions, due to camera angle or sound quality, a participant response during an instructional trial was not discernable (on Session 7, 1 out of the 31 trials presented could not be scored, and on Session 15, 1 out of 36 trials was not scoreable). In Figure 1, the mean percentage correct for all students present for each
214
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
Fig. 1. Mean percent of correct responses across instructional tasks.
session, is provided for the three targeted tasks. As can be seen in Figure 1 for the pre-math instructional task, from baseline (mean ⫽ 6%) there was a substantial increase in the mean percent correct responses in intervention (mean ⫽ 59%), while levels of the other targeted behaviors, still in baseline, continued at low levels. For the language task, subsequent to baseline (mean ⫽ 2%), acceleration in the mean percent correct responding (mean ⫽ 73%) was demonstrated with the presentation of the group discrete trial instruction, while baseline continued to be
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
215
Table 3 For Each Sampled Session the Percent of Intervals (N ⫽3) and Across All Sampled Sessions the Percent of Intervals (N⫽21) Which Contained the Specified Group Instruction Element Sampled Session #
Overlapping
Choral
Sequential
Aide Instruction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All Intervals
100% 100% 67% 100% 67% 67% 100% 86%
100% 33% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%
33% 33% 67% 33% 0% 33% 33% 33%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
maintained for the third target area. After an extremely stable baseline (mean ⫽ 0%), performance also increased (mean ⫽ 40%) for the song activity task with a relatively brief period of introduction of the group instruction intervention. 3.2. Instructional intervention Table 3 presents, for each sampled session, the percentage of intervals which contained overlapping, choral, or sequential instruction elements. Additionally provided for each session is the percent of intervals within which the aides participated in the instruction. The percent of intervals out of the total twentyseven which contained the various independent variables are also presented. As depicted in Table 3, overlapping teaching occurred in a substantial portion of the sampled sessions, with generally less occurrence of choral instruction and with sequential teaching occurring the least. In Table 3 it can also be seen that among all 21 intervals in aggregation, 86% contained overlapping instruction, 67% contained choral elements, and 33% included sequential discrete trial teaching. Additionally, it can be noted that aides participated in the instruction in 100% of the sampled intervals.
4. Discussion This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a group discrete trial instructional approach that included overlapping, as well as choral and sequential elements. The results indicated that this group teaching approach was effective in establishing a series of educational skills for preschool students with autism and other developmental disabilities. The investigation also demonstrated that the overlapping component as well as instructional assistant involvement represented a substantial portion of this effective discrete trial instruction. A potential benefit of the overlapping model is the opportunity presented for individualization of instruction. In the present investigation, limited variability in
216
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
the needs and functioning level among participants restricted the degree to which instruction could be differentially tailored. Nevertheless, some individualization was possible. This factor was most evident in the concurrent instruction which occurred in the language goal area. Each target was individualized and ranged from a receptive instruction to a basic conversation task. With this range of tasks however, overlapping, concurrent instruction was not only viable, but was, in many cases, co-facilitative. For example, trials for a student who was learning a color expressively was imbedded in the learning of another that was being taught to expressively combine attributes with labels, enhancing the acquisition of both students. Additional investigation directed at specifying the variables essential to effective overlapping of individualized elements within a target area would lead to enhancement of the efficiency and instructional benefit of this aspect of the approach. Another potential benefit of the overlapping model is the opportunity afforded for social interaction and observational learning. As opposed to individual and along with sequential and group discrete trial instruction, overlapping teaching provides not only exposure to other students and their learning, but chances to teach generalized observational learning skills. Such an approach allows for systematic and directed observational instruction (for example “Do what that student is doing”) accomplished through the purposeful imbedding of students’ discrete trial instruction within each other’s teaching. While this study did not specifically analyze this dimension, within the high percentage of overlapping teaching demonstrated, much observational instruction and reciprocal engagement between students was informally noted. As anecdotal evidence of the approach’s conduciveness to observational learning, several participants acquired goals targeted for other participants, additional to and often more advanced than their own. Further examination of these properties of the overlapping approach, perhaps as compared to other discrete trial teaching, is certainly indicated. It might be inferred from the consistency and relative stability of the acquisition of target skills evidenced in this investigation, that behavioral difficulties were generally well managed and that limited interference by responding of this type was experienced. This finding was supported by informal observation and suggests the possible contributions of the overlapping group approach. Noted were instances in which trials containing disruptive behavior were overlapped with trials containing other students’ appropriate behavior and contingent reinforcement. Such trials appeared to have vicarious effects. Also, witnessed were incidents of students’ offering instructions, prompts, and feedback in response to other students’ mildly disruptive behavior and providing positive consequences for other’s appropriate responding. Informally, the positive effects of these peer mediated efforts were noted. Further observed were the opportunities afforded by the group approach to the directing of attention, in an extremely naturalistic manner not available in one to one instruction, away from attentionally motivated acting out behavior and toward other students in the group. Finally, witnessed was the diminishment of demand-provoked acting out as instructional requirements were rotated and apportioned across the entire group, as opposed to being
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
217
concentrated on one student. Formal and comparative investigation of these potential behavior management advantages is again warranted. Further investigation should also address the efficiency as well as naturalistic quality of the overlapping group instruction. In the present investigation, one of the interventional sessions for example, lasted 18 minutes. During that time, the high volume of effective, overlapping instruction afforded simultaneous yet individualized discrete trial teaching to the eight students present. This method was roughly equivalent to the teacher conducting two and a half hours of individual discrete trial instruction. Such efficiency suggests one potential way schools and school districts could provide access to practical yet effective discrete trial instruction, supplemental to one to one discrete trial teaching, when staffing is limited. Again, additional, comparative investigation is indicated. The group instruction with its overlapping elements presents in a very naturalistic manner. Conceivably, much instruction in regular education settings at most grade levels occurs in groups and involves interactive and overlapping engagement between students. This naturalistic aspect not only enhances the overall appeal of such behavioral instruction, but potentially facilitates the generalizability of instruction to included settings. Examination of the naturalistic quality of the overlapping group model, through comparison with regular education classrooms and those using only individual discrete trial techniques, as well as assessment of generalization to integrated environments would therefore appear advisable. The overlapping model investigated in this analysis, while demonstrated to be effective, represents a complicated instructional methodology. In addition to the inclusion of the myriad guidelines essential to competent discrete trial instruction, it involves the integration of the imbedding process, individualization of targets, and within session, across trials adjustments, along with precise orchestration between teachers and instructional assistants. Development of a training protocol for instruction in the model and demonstration of its replicability would appear essential to its utility. Further, the overlapping group model challenges certain tenets of discrete trial technique proposed as critical to success with students with autism, namely the need for trials between students to be distinct and the necessity of at least some requisite individual teaching (Lovaas, 1981; Handleman, et al., 1991; Kamps, et al., 1991; Kamps, et al., 1992; Lovaas, 1996). This, along with the prominence of the social and observational learning rationale for the overlapping approach, strongly indicates the need for further replication of this group model with an increased number of students with autism. The findings of the present investigation are encouraging as well as promising. In demonstrating the effectiveness of the combined choral, sequential, and overlapping group discrete trial instructional model, it suggests the potential benefit of the approach and value of continued and expanded analysis of its application as an effective, naturalistic, and efficient augmentive instructional alternative for students with autism and other developmental disabilities.
218
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
Acknowledgments The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Elizabeth Carr, Claudia Pass, Dr. Craig Borba, and the students, staff, and administrators of Palm Springs Unified School District. This investigation is dedicated to the memory of Katelyn Spates.
References Alig-Cybriwsky, C., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1990). Use of a constant time delay procedure in teaching preschoolers in a group format. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 99 –116. Farmer, J. A., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). Small group instruction for students with severe handicaps: A study of observational learning. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 190 –201. Goldstein, H., & Hockenberger, E. H. (1991). Significant progress in child language intervention: An 11-year retrospective. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 401– 424. Hallenback, B. A., & Kauffman, J. M. (1995). How does observational learning affect the behavior of students with emotional or behavioral disorders? A review of research. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 45–71. Handleman, J. S., & Harris, S. L. (1983). A comparison of one-to-one versus couplet instruction with autistic children. Behavioral Disorders, 9, 22–26. Handleman, J. S., Harris, S. L., Kristoff, B., Fuentes, F., & Alessandri, M. (1991). A specialized program for preschool children with autism. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 107–110. Jahr, E. (1998). Current issues in staff training. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19, 73– 87. Kamps, D. M., Dugan, E. P., Leonard, B. R., & Daoust, P. M. (1994). Enhanced small group instruction using choral responding and student interaction for children with autism and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 60 –73. Kamps, D. M., Walker, D., Dugan, E. P., Leonard, B. R., Thibadeau, S. F., Marshall, K., Grossnickle, L., & Boland, B. (1991). Small group instruction for school-aged students with autism and developmental disabilities. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 6, 1–18. Kamps, D. M., Walker, D., Locke, P., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1990). A comparison of instructional arrangements for children with autism served in a public school setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 197–215. Kamps, D. M., Walker, D., Maher, J., & Rotholz, D. (1992). Academic and environmental effects of small group arrangements in classrooms for students with autism and other developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder, 22, 277–293. Keel, M. C., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Small-group instruction for students with learning disabilities: Observational and incidental learning. Exceptional Children, 58, 357–368. Koegel, R. L., & Frea, W. D. (1993). Treatment of social behavior in autism through the modification of pivotal social skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 369 –377. Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (1999). A work in progress. Behavior management strategies and curriculum for intensive behavioral treatment of autism. New York, NY: DRL Books. Lovaas, O. I. (1981). Teaching Developmentally Disabled Children: The Me Book. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3–9. Lovaas, O. I. (1996). The UCLA young autism model of service delivery. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral Intervention for Young Children with Autism (pp. 241–248) Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
219
Lovaas, O. I., & Taubman, M. T. (1981). Language training and some mechanisms of social and internal control. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 363–372. Matson, J. L., Benavidez, D. A., Compton, L. S., Paclawskyj, T., & Baglio, C. (1996). Behavioral treatment of autistic persons: A review of research from 1980 to the present. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 433– 465. McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early intensive behavioral treatment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 359 –372. Mundy, P., & Crowson, M. (1997). Joint attention and early social communication: Implications for research on intervention with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 653– 676. Polloway, E. A., Cronin, M. E., & Patton, J. R. (1986). The efficacy of group versus one-to-one instruction: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 22–30. Quill, K., Gurry, S., & Larkin, A. (1989). Daily life therapy: A Japanese model for educating children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 625– 635. Schoen, S. F., & Ogden, S. (1995). Impact of time delay, observational learning, and attentional cuing upon word recognition during integrated small-group instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 503–519. Shelton, B. S., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). The role of small group instruction in facilitating observational and incidental learning. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 123–133. Sigafoos, J., Roberts, D., Kerr, M., Couzens, D., & Baglioni, A. J. (1994). Opportunities for communication in classrooms serving children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 259 –279. Sigman, M., Arbelle, S., & Dissanayake, C. (1995). Current research findings on childhood autism. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 30, 289 –294. Stahmer, A. C., & Schreibman, L. (1992). Teaching children with autism appropriate play in unsupervised environments using a self-management treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 447– 459. Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., & Wolery, M. (1996). Peer modeling of response chains: Observational learning by students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 53– 66.
The effectiveness of a group discrete trial instructional approach for preschoolers with developmental disabilities Mitchell Taubmana,*, Sally Brierleyb, Jennifer Wishnerc, Danielle Bakera, John McEachina, Ronald B. Leafa a
Autism Partnership, 200 C Marina Dr., Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA b Palm Springs Unified School District c Claremont Graduate University
Received 15 March 1999; received in revised form 29 July 1999; accepted 30 August 1999
Abstract Group behavioral classroom instruction for children with developmental disabilities has been shown to allow for increased efficiency, approximation to naturalistic arrangements, and enhanced opportunity for interaction, social teaching and observational learning. This study examines the effectiveness of a group instructional extension of one to one discrete trial teaching, which involves the overlapping of trials between students along with the use of sequential and choral group teaching. A multiple baseline design across tasks was employed to examine the effectiveness of the group instructional approach in promoting acquisition of educational skills among preschoolers with autism and other developmental disabilities. A time sample interval assessment of components of the group instruction was also conducted. The approach was demonstrated to consistently increase correct responding across the task areas. Results are discussed in terms of the advantages of the group instructional approach as an adjunct to one to one discrete trial instruction. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹1-562-431-9293x185; fax: ⫹1-562-431-8386. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Taubman). 0891-4222/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 8 9 1 - 4 2 2 2 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 6 8 - 3
206
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
1. Introduction Numerous investigations have demonstrated the effectiveness of discrete trial instruction and its permutations in producing positive change for persons with autism and other developmental disabilities in a wide range of behavioral areas including language, social skills, play skills, and self management (Lovaas, & Taubman, 1981; Lovaas, 1987; Stahmer & Schreibman, 1992; Kogel & Frea, 1993; McEachin, Smith, & Lovaas, 1993; Matson, Benavidez, Comptom, Paclawskyj, & Baglio, 1996). This approach, most typically and traditionally utilized in a one to one format, contains specific elements designed to promote behavior acquisition, repertoire expansion and facilitate generalized learning (i.e. learning to learn) in persons with autism (Lovaas, 1981; Leaf & McEachin, 1999). Group teaching arrangements for persons with autism and other developmental disabilities has been utilized to provide training in such areas as educational tasks (Werts, Caldwell, & Wolery, 1996), sight word reading (Schoen & Ogden, 1995), and money skills, pre-academics, language tasks, and shopping skills (Kamps, Walker, Maher, & Rotholz, 1992). Group teaching arrangements, provided in conjunction with essential one to one instruction, have the potential for offering several instructional advantages. Group instruction, for example, has been noted to allow for greater efficiency, closer approximation to naturalistic classroom arrangements, facilitation of inclusion, improved behavior management, and increased opportunity for communication, interaction, social teaching, and observational learning (Polloway, Cronin & Patton, 1986; Kamps, Walker, Locke, Delquadri, & Hall, 1990; Handleman, Harris, Kristoff, Fuentes, & Alessandri, 1991; Wolery, & Winterling, 1991; Kamps et al., 1992; Sigafoos, Roberts, Kerr, Couzens, & Baglioni, 1994; Schoen & Ogden, 1995). While one to one instruction is found across the range of academic settings, including in regular education classrooms, and its indispensable value to students with autism and other developmental disabilities has been broadly demonstrated (Lovaas, 1987; Goldstein & Hockenberger, 1991; Matson, et al., 1996), group instruction has been posited to include opportunities for the teaching of waiting skills, tolerance of intermittent attention, and incidental acquisition, as well as for enhancement of the generalization of these and other skills requisite to group learning in integrated settings (Alig-Cybriwsky, Wolery, & Gast, 1990). Group discrete trial arrangements have most typically been comprised of sequential instruction or choral responding (Quill, Gurry, & Larkin, 1989; Farmer, Gast, Wolery, & Winterling, 1991; Kamps, et al., 1991; Kamps, Dugan, Leonard & Daoust, 1994). In sequential instruction, one to one discrete trial teaching is provided to each student in a group on a rotating basis. Either single trials or a series of trials are provided before instruction is rotated to the next student. A trial for one student is always completed before another trial is initiated for a different student, and trials between students are independent from and unconnected to one another. While allowing for individualization of instruction and increased efficiency, sequential teaching limits opportunities for expe-
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
207
riencing some of the other benefits of group instruction. Since sequential instruction represents a series of one to one instructor led trials, peer communication and social interaction opportunities are diminished. In choral responding, discrete trial instruction is provided to all students within the group simultaneously, as each trial is provided concurrently to all students. While choral responding has been shown to be efficient, effective, and conductive to social and observational learning (Kamps, et al., 1992; Kamps, et al., 1994), it does not, by the nature of its arrangement, allow for significant individualization of programming, curricula, or within session tracking of progress or adjustments. Student to student interactions may be somewhat limited (Kamps, et al., 1992) and more instructionally, as opposed to socially, based (Kamps, et al., 1994). Frequently, prerequisite instruction in one to one arrangements (Handleman, et al., 1991; Kamps, et al., 1992; Lovaas, 1996) is recommended as preparation for group instruction. Further, it is advised that, in group discrete trial instruction whether sequential or choral, a trial with one student must be completed before another trial with a different student is initiated (Lovaas, 1981). Finally, uncertainties remain regarding the role and effectiveness of the instructional assistants within the approach (Polloway, et al., 1986; Kamps et al., 1990), as well as the essential components and the degree of fidelity shown to those elements in group discrete trial arrangements (Kamps, et al., 1994). The present research was designed to determine the effectiveness of a group discrete trial model which, in addition to sequential and choral components, included elements which promote overlapping instruction, that is instruction in which a trial for a student may be begun before a trial for another student is terminated. These elements were designed to facilitate skill acquisition in groups, foster increased opportunities for social interaction and interest, facilitate observational learning, and assist in behavior management, while allowing for individualization of curricula. Examined was the use of this group discrete trial model and its effectiveness in teaching educational tasks.
2. Method 2.1. Setting and participants The study was conducted in a preschool classroom for developmentally disabled children, located in a public elementary school. The classroom was categorized as a “Special Day Class: Preschool” and served eight students with developmentally disabilities. The classroom was decorated and designed to approximate a traditional preschool setting. As this study was conducted in an actual classroom, it was performed during and imbedded in the morning group circle-time period of the typical daily classroom routine. All eight students in the class served as participants. As this applied investigation was conducted during regular preschool operation, some students were
208
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
Table 1 Participant
Age
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4 4 4 4 4 3 3 5
years years years years years years years years
4 months 4 months 0 months 7 months 10 months 8 months 3 months 5 months
Diagnosis
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale composite score
Down’s syndrome Autism Down’s syndrome Fetal alcohol syndrome Autism Down’s syndrome Failure to thrive Borderline microcephaly and possible failure to thrive
71 51 60 67 58 60 70 67
occasionally absent and therefore not all participants were present for all sessions of the study. The mean number of students per session was 6.4 with a range from 5 to 8. Participant characteristics are presented in Table 1. Participants ranged in age from 3 years 3 months to 5 years 5 months, with a mean age of 4 years 3 months at the study’s initiation. Diagnoses for participants, determined independently of this study, were identified by examining existing school records. The reported diagnoses were: autism (2 participants), Down’s syndrome (3 participants), failure to thrive (1 participant), borderline microcephaly and possible failure to thrive (1 participant) and fetal alcohol syndrome (1 participant). Testing performed prior to and outside of the study included, for all participants, composite scores on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales which ranged from 51–71 and averaged 63, as well as a range of cognitive and/or language instruments which indicated delays for all participants. One teacher provided the group instruction with the assistance of two instructional aides. The instructor had two years of preschool teaching experience with three additional years of behavioral treatment experience in the field of autism. One instructional assistant had three years of experience in special day classes, two of which were with students with autism. The other had one and one half years in classes for students with autism. 2.2. Dependent Measures The percent of correct responses in trials across three instructional tasks served as dependent variables. Within the class, no additional instruction or training was provided for instructional targets outside of the intervention described below. Table 2 depicts instructional tasks by area and participant. A group preschool song activity comprised one of the instructional task areas. Targeted within this area were the performance of movements which corresponded to the content of an age appropriate song (“Big Bugs”), constituting imitation (e.g. students were
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
209
Table 2 Participant instructional tasks Participant
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Tasks Song Activity
Pre-Math
Movements To Song Movements To Song
Movements To Song Movements To Song
Sequential Placement Items In Container Sequential Placement Items In Container While Counting Aloud Sequential Placement Items In Container Sequential Placement Items In Container
Language
Movements To Song Movements To Song
Sequential Placement of Items In Container Sequential Placement of Items In Container
Movements To Song Movements To Song
Sequential Placement of Items In Container Sequential Placement of Items In Container
of of
of of
Receptive Pronouns“Touch Your/My Nose” Expanded Language-Color with Label
Receptive Instruction“Arms Up” Non-Vocal Expressive Language-Signing “I want ball” Receptive Labeling“Touch Chicken” Non-Vocal Expressive Labeling-Signing “Baby” Expressive Attributes-The Color Yellow Basic Conversation-“I Don’t Know”
provided the instruction “Do this” while the teacher modeled hands close together) and the following of receptive instructions (e.g. teacher provided the instruction “Wiggle fingers”). All students were taught the same movements (e.g. hands far apart when “big bugs” was sung during the song, hands close together when “small bugs” was sung). Goals did not differ between subjects on this task as their song activity skill deficits were uniform. For each participant, independent exhibition of all the song movements was necessary for correct performance to be scored. Comprising another task area was a pre-mathematics task. Targeted within this area was the placement, in response to the question, “How many?”, of eight identical items (plastic eggs), individually and sequentially into a container (basket) as a precursor to later pre-math tasks. The needs and skill levels of the participants required that goals in this area were uniform, except for one participant who was additionally required to count out loud as items were placed within the container. All items needed to be placed (and in the case of the one participant, counted) without prompts for the task to be scored correct. Language tasks constituted the final target area. In this area, either a receptive, vocal expressive, or nonvocal expressive language goal was targeted for each participant. The skill level of the participants allowed that a distinct and individualized language objective was targeted for each participant (see Table 2 for a listing of the specific language tasks for each participant). Independent perfor-
210
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
mance of the individualized language task was necessary for it to be scored as correct. 2.3. Baseline In order to assess participants’ performance prior to introduction of the group teaching approach, targeted skills were assessed during a baseline condition. During baseline, requests or presentation of opportunities for the performance of target behaviors were presented to all subjects within the group format, but no teaching was provided. That is, for the song target the song was presented, for the math tasks the question “How many?” was offered in the presence of the materials, and for the various individualized language goals, questions or instructions (e.g. “What is it?) were provided in their appropriate contexts or with materials as indicated. However, no prompts, feedback, consequences or any form or element of guidance or teaching were provided. To reduce frustration, for each participant all targets were presented only once during each of the baseline sessions. 2.4. Instructional intervention A group discrete trial instructional approach served as the independent variable in this analysis. Discrete trial methodology employed in this study was comprised of traditional components. Described in detail elsewhere (Leaf & McEachin, 1999), within the model, each trial included: instruction, prompting and prompt fading as necessary, opportunity for participant’s response, and differential reinforcement along with a brief interval between each trial. Within the group discrete trial model employed in this research, emphasis was always on the utilization of the least intrusive prompt and no aversive or punishing contingencies or techniques were used. Within this model, central focus was on abundant and compelling differential reinforcement and establishment of functional alternatives as a means for decreasing interfering or disruptive behavior. On pre-academic tasks, rich and largely social positive reinforcement was used to build desired responding, while mild instructive feedback (e.g. “Close, but not quite; Try again; etc.”), was offered in response to incorrect or off task responding. The group model examined in the present analysis incorporated the sequential and choral presentation of discrete trials but also included components in which trials between students overlapped and occurred concurrently. In the sequential group instruction, discrete trial instruction was provided to each participant on a random rotating basis. A trial for one participant is closed before another trial is initiated for another participant, and each trial between participants is independent from and unconnected to the other. During choral group instruction, every trial is presented concurrently for all participants in the group, and all are expected to provide the same response, chorus like, in unison. Overlapping group instruction involved the opening of trials for some participants before the closing of trials already initiated for others. In such a manner,
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
211
the trials were overlapping, with the learning, behaviors, or responses of one participant interconnected with those of another. This approach took many forms. As an example, one student may have been provided an instruction, and while he or she was performing the desired response, another student was provided an instruction which required attention and then a response to the teacher with regard to the first participant’s activities or performance. Both students were then provided feedback, and both trials were closed in close temporal proximity. In another example, when a student refused to respond to an instruction, no direct feedback was immediately given but a second student was given an instruction, successfully responded, and received enthusiastic praise which served as the consequence for the first student and closed the initial trial. As a third example, after an instruction was provided chorally to some members of the group, a similar but individualized instruction was immediately provided, conforming to developmental level and curriculum needs, to one student. This cued for that student, behavior which was comparable and synchronous to the responding of the rest of the group. All students were then provided feedback concurrently. Also included was instruction which required interactive, cooperative, or dependent responding on the part of two or more students (for example a task within which effort on the part of both students was necessary for completion) during which students’ trials were overlapped. Instruction also included the differential reinforcement of one or several students for appropriate group responding (e.g. attending, patient sitting, or helping) in the middle of another student’s trial. Since trials were presented on an individual basis, curricula, programming, and within session teaching adjustments (e.g. the fading of prompts) could be individualized. Additionally, since learning was overlapping and often interconnected, programmed and incidental opportunities for observational learning, that is, acquisition through the learning or responding of another (Keel & Gast, 1992; Hallenbeck & Kauffman, 1995), were abundant. Also, chances were increased for the promotion of joint attention, that is social orienting and referencing (Sigman, Arbelle, & Dissanayake, 1995; Mundy & Crowson, 1997), as well as social interest and skill development. Teacher roles in the group instruction consisted of providing instruction, prompts and consequences. The teacher was also responsible for the integration of the various group approaches, individualization of instruction, within session adjustments in teaching, and coordination with instructional assistants. The overlapping, concurrent element of the group instruction was conducive to the integration of efforts between the teacher and instructional assistants. Aides were placed behind the members of the group and coordinated with the teacher, who provided the majority of instruction and was positioned in front. In this arrangement, aides assisted in prompting as well as with the opening and/or closing of trials which, for some students, overlapped with trials directed at other students by the teacher. Aides were guided in their participation by the prompts, requests, and directions of the teacher. Finally, within the group model, overlapping, sequential, and choral teaching methods were integrated. For example, for a language goal which included the
212
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
teaching of an expressive label, instruction may have involved choral imitative trials with the label imbedded in a sing along, sequential direct teaching of the label receptively with students holding relevant items, and overlapping trials teaching the label expressively with the inclusion of modeling and observational learning. Rather than only adhering to a rigid, overly scheduled protocol, these elements were flexibly provided so that instruction was responsive to a number of within session factors. Examples of such factors included students’ need (e.g. a unique occurrence indicated a task previously taught chorally needed to be addressed sequentially), opportunity (e.g. a student had unexpectedly provided an observational model), within session progress (e.g. a student took an unanticipated leap in availability to choral instruction), and behavior difficulties (e.g. an increase in disruptive behavior suddenly indicated a need for overlapping instruction). With this flexible application, discrete trial guidelines and group teaching approaches were specified, structured and systematic. This interventional approach represented a combined responsiveness to procedural rule governance and within situation shaping (Jahr, 1998). 2.5. Design A multiple baseline design across instructional tasks was utilized to experimentally assess the effects of the group discrete trial instruction. After the collection of baseline data, the independent variable (the group discrete trial instructional intervention) was applied in staggered fashion to the pre-math task, the language task, and the song activity task areas. As this was a group intervention analysis, all subjects’ data were aggregated to measure effects by conditions. 2.6. Measurement and data collection All seventeen sessions of the study, through baseline and intervention conditions, were videotaped in order to minimize disruption to the classroom. Across all sessions, the actual time that the study was conducted, both baseline and intervention, ranged from 1.5 minutes to 18.5 minutes per session, with a mean of 8.5 minutes. Observer training involved the viewing and scoring of group instruction videotapes (produced prior to the present study) according to scoring guidelines and response definitions. After observer training, videotapes of the present investigation were observed and instructional trials were scored individually for each participant for each instructional goal across each session. Within each instructional trial, task, correctness or incorrectness of responding, and presence or absence of prompting were recorded. For each session a percentage correct was derived for each instructional goal for each participant by dividing the number of correct responses by the total number of trials (correct plus incorrect plus prompted trials). For each session the average percentage correct for the group of students was then derived for each task by calculating the mean percentage correct across participants.
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
213
Videotapes were also scored to assess occurrence of aspects of the independent variable, as a measure of the fidelity of the intervention to the group instructional model. For this analysis only, seven of the fourteen intervention sessions (sessions which contained at least some intervention) were randomly chosen. Across the intervention sessions, the amount of time of actual intervention ranged from 3.75 minutes to 18 minute per session, with a mean of 9 minutes. From each of the randomly selected seven sessions, three 1 minute time sample intervals were randomly selected. Each of these 21 randomly selected intervals were observed and scored, using partial interval measurement, for the presence or absence of all instructional staffs’ performance of sequential, choral, or overlapping group discrete trial instruction. Presence or absence of participation in the instruction by the aides was scored as well for all sample intervals. A percentage of the intervals which contained each of these independent variables was then derived for each sampled session as well as across all twenty-one intervals. 2.7. Inter-observer reliability In order to assess reliability of the data, two trained observers independently scored the videotapes, and their results compared. Reliability observations on targeted student tasks were performed on a trial by trial basis for 65% of the sessions, across all participants, tasks, and conditions. Reliability on the occurrence of independent variables (the degree of sequential, choral, and overlapping instruction and aide involvement) was calculated for 43% of the time sample intervals. For both measures, inter-observer reliability is represented by a percentage agreement and calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The mean for inter-observer reliability on targeted student tasks was 96%, with a range from 88% to 100%. The mean for inter-observer reliability on the presence of the independent variables was 86%, with a range from 67% to 100%.
3. Results 3.1. Dependent measures A failure of the video equipment on the third baseline day of the study caused the loss of observable data for that session. Anecdotal report indicated that data were comparable to and as stable as points prior to and following the lost session. Additionally, on two occasions, due to camera angle or sound quality, a participant response during an instructional trial was not discernable (on Session 7, 1 out of the 31 trials presented could not be scored, and on Session 15, 1 out of 36 trials was not scoreable). In Figure 1, the mean percentage correct for all students present for each
214
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
Fig. 1. Mean percent of correct responses across instructional tasks.
session, is provided for the three targeted tasks. As can be seen in Figure 1 for the pre-math instructional task, from baseline (mean ⫽ 6%) there was a substantial increase in the mean percent correct responses in intervention (mean ⫽ 59%), while levels of the other targeted behaviors, still in baseline, continued at low levels. For the language task, subsequent to baseline (mean ⫽ 2%), acceleration in the mean percent correct responding (mean ⫽ 73%) was demonstrated with the presentation of the group discrete trial instruction, while baseline continued to be
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
215
Table 3 For Each Sampled Session the Percent of Intervals (N ⫽3) and Across All Sampled Sessions the Percent of Intervals (N⫽21) Which Contained the Specified Group Instruction Element Sampled Session #
Overlapping
Choral
Sequential
Aide Instruction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All Intervals
100% 100% 67% 100% 67% 67% 100% 86%
100% 33% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%
33% 33% 67% 33% 0% 33% 33% 33%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
maintained for the third target area. After an extremely stable baseline (mean ⫽ 0%), performance also increased (mean ⫽ 40%) for the song activity task with a relatively brief period of introduction of the group instruction intervention. 3.2. Instructional intervention Table 3 presents, for each sampled session, the percentage of intervals which contained overlapping, choral, or sequential instruction elements. Additionally provided for each session is the percent of intervals within which the aides participated in the instruction. The percent of intervals out of the total twentyseven which contained the various independent variables are also presented. As depicted in Table 3, overlapping teaching occurred in a substantial portion of the sampled sessions, with generally less occurrence of choral instruction and with sequential teaching occurring the least. In Table 3 it can also be seen that among all 21 intervals in aggregation, 86% contained overlapping instruction, 67% contained choral elements, and 33% included sequential discrete trial teaching. Additionally, it can be noted that aides participated in the instruction in 100% of the sampled intervals.
4. Discussion This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a group discrete trial instructional approach that included overlapping, as well as choral and sequential elements. The results indicated that this group teaching approach was effective in establishing a series of educational skills for preschool students with autism and other developmental disabilities. The investigation also demonstrated that the overlapping component as well as instructional assistant involvement represented a substantial portion of this effective discrete trial instruction. A potential benefit of the overlapping model is the opportunity presented for individualization of instruction. In the present investigation, limited variability in
216
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
the needs and functioning level among participants restricted the degree to which instruction could be differentially tailored. Nevertheless, some individualization was possible. This factor was most evident in the concurrent instruction which occurred in the language goal area. Each target was individualized and ranged from a receptive instruction to a basic conversation task. With this range of tasks however, overlapping, concurrent instruction was not only viable, but was, in many cases, co-facilitative. For example, trials for a student who was learning a color expressively was imbedded in the learning of another that was being taught to expressively combine attributes with labels, enhancing the acquisition of both students. Additional investigation directed at specifying the variables essential to effective overlapping of individualized elements within a target area would lead to enhancement of the efficiency and instructional benefit of this aspect of the approach. Another potential benefit of the overlapping model is the opportunity afforded for social interaction and observational learning. As opposed to individual and along with sequential and group discrete trial instruction, overlapping teaching provides not only exposure to other students and their learning, but chances to teach generalized observational learning skills. Such an approach allows for systematic and directed observational instruction (for example “Do what that student is doing”) accomplished through the purposeful imbedding of students’ discrete trial instruction within each other’s teaching. While this study did not specifically analyze this dimension, within the high percentage of overlapping teaching demonstrated, much observational instruction and reciprocal engagement between students was informally noted. As anecdotal evidence of the approach’s conduciveness to observational learning, several participants acquired goals targeted for other participants, additional to and often more advanced than their own. Further examination of these properties of the overlapping approach, perhaps as compared to other discrete trial teaching, is certainly indicated. It might be inferred from the consistency and relative stability of the acquisition of target skills evidenced in this investigation, that behavioral difficulties were generally well managed and that limited interference by responding of this type was experienced. This finding was supported by informal observation and suggests the possible contributions of the overlapping group approach. Noted were instances in which trials containing disruptive behavior were overlapped with trials containing other students’ appropriate behavior and contingent reinforcement. Such trials appeared to have vicarious effects. Also, witnessed were incidents of students’ offering instructions, prompts, and feedback in response to other students’ mildly disruptive behavior and providing positive consequences for other’s appropriate responding. Informally, the positive effects of these peer mediated efforts were noted. Further observed were the opportunities afforded by the group approach to the directing of attention, in an extremely naturalistic manner not available in one to one instruction, away from attentionally motivated acting out behavior and toward other students in the group. Finally, witnessed was the diminishment of demand-provoked acting out as instructional requirements were rotated and apportioned across the entire group, as opposed to being
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
217
concentrated on one student. Formal and comparative investigation of these potential behavior management advantages is again warranted. Further investigation should also address the efficiency as well as naturalistic quality of the overlapping group instruction. In the present investigation, one of the interventional sessions for example, lasted 18 minutes. During that time, the high volume of effective, overlapping instruction afforded simultaneous yet individualized discrete trial teaching to the eight students present. This method was roughly equivalent to the teacher conducting two and a half hours of individual discrete trial instruction. Such efficiency suggests one potential way schools and school districts could provide access to practical yet effective discrete trial instruction, supplemental to one to one discrete trial teaching, when staffing is limited. Again, additional, comparative investigation is indicated. The group instruction with its overlapping elements presents in a very naturalistic manner. Conceivably, much instruction in regular education settings at most grade levels occurs in groups and involves interactive and overlapping engagement between students. This naturalistic aspect not only enhances the overall appeal of such behavioral instruction, but potentially facilitates the generalizability of instruction to included settings. Examination of the naturalistic quality of the overlapping group model, through comparison with regular education classrooms and those using only individual discrete trial techniques, as well as assessment of generalization to integrated environments would therefore appear advisable. The overlapping model investigated in this analysis, while demonstrated to be effective, represents a complicated instructional methodology. In addition to the inclusion of the myriad guidelines essential to competent discrete trial instruction, it involves the integration of the imbedding process, individualization of targets, and within session, across trials adjustments, along with precise orchestration between teachers and instructional assistants. Development of a training protocol for instruction in the model and demonstration of its replicability would appear essential to its utility. Further, the overlapping group model challenges certain tenets of discrete trial technique proposed as critical to success with students with autism, namely the need for trials between students to be distinct and the necessity of at least some requisite individual teaching (Lovaas, 1981; Handleman, et al., 1991; Kamps, et al., 1991; Kamps, et al., 1992; Lovaas, 1996). This, along with the prominence of the social and observational learning rationale for the overlapping approach, strongly indicates the need for further replication of this group model with an increased number of students with autism. The findings of the present investigation are encouraging as well as promising. In demonstrating the effectiveness of the combined choral, sequential, and overlapping group discrete trial instructional model, it suggests the potential benefit of the approach and value of continued and expanded analysis of its application as an effective, naturalistic, and efficient augmentive instructional alternative for students with autism and other developmental disabilities.
218
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
Acknowledgments The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Elizabeth Carr, Claudia Pass, Dr. Craig Borba, and the students, staff, and administrators of Palm Springs Unified School District. This investigation is dedicated to the memory of Katelyn Spates.
References Alig-Cybriwsky, C., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1990). Use of a constant time delay procedure in teaching preschoolers in a group format. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 99 –116. Farmer, J. A., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). Small group instruction for students with severe handicaps: A study of observational learning. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 190 –201. Goldstein, H., & Hockenberger, E. H. (1991). Significant progress in child language intervention: An 11-year retrospective. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 401– 424. Hallenback, B. A., & Kauffman, J. M. (1995). How does observational learning affect the behavior of students with emotional or behavioral disorders? A review of research. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 45–71. Handleman, J. S., & Harris, S. L. (1983). A comparison of one-to-one versus couplet instruction with autistic children. Behavioral Disorders, 9, 22–26. Handleman, J. S., Harris, S. L., Kristoff, B., Fuentes, F., & Alessandri, M. (1991). A specialized program for preschool children with autism. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 107–110. Jahr, E. (1998). Current issues in staff training. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19, 73– 87. Kamps, D. M., Dugan, E. P., Leonard, B. R., & Daoust, P. M. (1994). Enhanced small group instruction using choral responding and student interaction for children with autism and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 60 –73. Kamps, D. M., Walker, D., Dugan, E. P., Leonard, B. R., Thibadeau, S. F., Marshall, K., Grossnickle, L., & Boland, B. (1991). Small group instruction for school-aged students with autism and developmental disabilities. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 6, 1–18. Kamps, D. M., Walker, D., Locke, P., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1990). A comparison of instructional arrangements for children with autism served in a public school setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 197–215. Kamps, D. M., Walker, D., Maher, J., & Rotholz, D. (1992). Academic and environmental effects of small group arrangements in classrooms for students with autism and other developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder, 22, 277–293. Keel, M. C., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Small-group instruction for students with learning disabilities: Observational and incidental learning. Exceptional Children, 58, 357–368. Koegel, R. L., & Frea, W. D. (1993). Treatment of social behavior in autism through the modification of pivotal social skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 369 –377. Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (1999). A work in progress. Behavior management strategies and curriculum for intensive behavioral treatment of autism. New York, NY: DRL Books. Lovaas, O. I. (1981). Teaching Developmentally Disabled Children: The Me Book. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3–9. Lovaas, O. I. (1996). The UCLA young autism model of service delivery. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral Intervention for Young Children with Autism (pp. 241–248) Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
M. Taubman et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 22 (2001) 205–219
219
Lovaas, O. I., & Taubman, M. T. (1981). Language training and some mechanisms of social and internal control. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 363–372. Matson, J. L., Benavidez, D. A., Compton, L. S., Paclawskyj, T., & Baglio, C. (1996). Behavioral treatment of autistic persons: A review of research from 1980 to the present. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 433– 465. McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early intensive behavioral treatment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 359 –372. Mundy, P., & Crowson, M. (1997). Joint attention and early social communication: Implications for research on intervention with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 653– 676. Polloway, E. A., Cronin, M. E., & Patton, J. R. (1986). The efficacy of group versus one-to-one instruction: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 22–30. Quill, K., Gurry, S., & Larkin, A. (1989). Daily life therapy: A Japanese model for educating children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 625– 635. Schoen, S. F., & Ogden, S. (1995). Impact of time delay, observational learning, and attentional cuing upon word recognition during integrated small-group instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 503–519. Shelton, B. S., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). The role of small group instruction in facilitating observational and incidental learning. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 123–133. Sigafoos, J., Roberts, D., Kerr, M., Couzens, D., & Baglioni, A. J. (1994). Opportunities for communication in classrooms serving children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 259 –279. Sigman, M., Arbelle, S., & Dissanayake, C. (1995). Current research findings on childhood autism. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 30, 289 –294. Stahmer, A. C., & Schreibman, L. (1992). Teaching children with autism appropriate play in unsupervised environments using a self-management treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 447– 459. Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., & Wolery, M. (1996). Peer modeling of response chains: Observational learning by students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 53– 66.