Assignment: Using A-B-A-B and Multiple Baseline Designs

j c

ContentServer.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Assignment: Using A-B-A-B and Multiple Baseline Designs

A COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL-GROUP INSTRUCTION WITH SIMULTANEOUS PROMPTING FOR

TEACHING THE CONCEPT OF COLOR TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY

Hale Dere ÇiftÇi Altınokta Rehabilitation Association, Ankara, Turkey

Z. fulya temel Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

In this study the aim was to examine the effectiveness of individual and small-group instruction with simultaneous prompting to teach the concept of color to 10 children aged between 4 and 12 years who had been assessed as being at a level of development between 37 and 48 months. The single-subject research model of intersubject multiple probing was used. Data were gathered with a personal information form, the Gazi Early Childhood Development Assessment Tool (GECDAT; Temel, Ersoy, Avcı, & Turla, 2004), the Red/Yellow Color Concept Test (Alptekin, 2000), and the Blue/Green Color Concept Assessment Form designed for this research. It was found that simultaneous prompting was effective in teaching the concept of color via either individual and small-group instruction since all the children performed at a similar level and were successful in learning the colors.

Keywords: children with a mental disability, concept education, simultaneous prompting, small-group instruction, individual instruction.

Children with a mental disability can be educated in many areas and in many different ways. The main goal of education for people with a mental disability

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2010, 38(4), 479-494 © Society for Personality Research (Inc.) DOI 10.2224/sbp.2010.38.4.479

479

Hale Dere Çiftçi, PhD, Training Coordinator, Altınokta Special Education and Rehabilitation Association, Ankara, Turkey; Z. Fulya Temel, Professor, Child Development and Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. Appreciation is due to reviewers including: Neriman Aral, PhD, Child Development and Education, Ankara Üniversitesi Ev Ekonomisi, Yüksekokulu Çocuk Geliþimi, ve Eðitimi Bölümü, Içaydinlike, Ankara, 06130, Turkey, Email: [email protected] Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Hale Dere Çiftçi, Altınokta Special Education and Rehabilitation Centre, Erzurum Mah, Geçim Sok, Kat 1, No 21, Kurtuluş, Ankara, Turkey. Phone: +90-312-3199033; Fax: +90-312-3622091; Email: [email protected]

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY480

is to improve their life functions, enable them to live independently, maximize their cognitive capacity, and equip them with skills (Gargiulo, 2003) in motion, language and speech, social, and independent living. Children with a mental disability learn in both individual and small-group instructional situations and these programs also tend to emphasize the development of conceptual bases for future learning (Bowe, 2004; Taymaz Sarı, 2003).

Children with a mental disability have difficulty in using effective learning and retention strategies, hypothesizing, transferring knowledge from short- to long-term memory, and generalizing what they have learned (Bee & Boyd, 2006; Blackhurst & Berdine, 1993; Culatta & Tompkins, 1999; Davison & Neale, 1998; Gargiulo, 2003; Gargiulo & Kilgo, 2005; Hallahan & Kauffman, 2006; Korinek & Polloway, 1993; Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank, & Smith, 2004; Wolpert, 1996). Therefore, cognitive learning is a challenge for children with a mental disability and individual instruction is critical to their education.

An individual education program is one that is custom designed to suit the performance level of the individual and assessed via specially designed forms (MEB, 2000; Seligman, 2000). In individual education, the child can focus his/her attention more easily with the help of one-on-one work conducted in a stimulation-controlled room. Learning happens faster and more easily. The quality of education is improved as instruction is given according to the child’s needs and level of performance and ability. In individual instruction the child’s performance and skills can better be assessed (Allen & Cowdery, 2005; Blackhurst & Berdine, 1993; Hooper & Umansky, 2004; Seligman, 2000; Venn, 2004; Walters & Blane, 2000). Since children’s level of disability, individual characteristics, and ways of learning will differ, all children working within the same small group cannot be expected to learn at the same pace and to the same level. Thus, while one child with a mental disability may learn with a certain method, material, or work, another may be unable to do so. Individual instruction programs, on the other hand, are based on the individual learning style and method of the child and thus lead to more effective learning.

However, small-group instruction is at least as common as individual instruction in special education. In small-group instruction, several children with similar or different disabilities, talents, and characteristics strive to achieve a common goal and support each other (Johnson & Bauer, 1992). This results in improved communication and social interaction among the children and their peers. While group instruction gives children opportunities to learn by observing in a less limiting environment, it also enables teachers to use their time more cost-effectively and makes education more economical (Gürsel, Tekin-İftar, & Bozkurt, 2006; Johnson-Martin, Attermeier, & Hacker, 2004; Kathleen, Schuster, & Collins, 1998; Keel & Gast, 1992; Lerner, Lowenthal, & Egan, 2003; Rothstein, 1971; Westwood, 1997). At the same time, small-group instruction develops

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY 481

group awareness, which in turn helps a child with a disability to communicate with other children, collaborate, and achieve with them in a shared environment. When children gain group awareness, they communicate about their work, act and solve problems together, and support each other (Hill & Gutwin, 2004).

As can be seen, individual and small-group instruction both have advantages in the education of children with a mental disability. Either method may be used depending on a child’s developmental needs. In this study the effectiveness of simultaneous prompting used in individual and small-group instruction is compared when teaching the concept of color to children with a mental disability.

METHOD

ParticiPants There were 10 participants in the study. Four of them constituted the pilot

group, and the remaining six formed the experimental group. In the pilot group, two children received individual instruction and the other two were taught in a small group. In the experimental group, three children received individual instruction, and the other three received small-group instruction.

Criteria for inclusion in the study were that the children were attending preschool education programs, were able to focus their attention for a minimum of 5 minutes, to understand and follow verbal instructions, to establish verbal communication, to choose between two alternatives, and were trainable.

Of the experimental group, 4 were boys and 2 were girls. The age range was 4-12 years. Three children had Down Syndrome; others had been diagnosed as having a mental disability. Their level of loss ranged between 40 and 60%. Three children had been diagnosed as having a disability at birth, one had been diagnosed at six months, while two had been diagnosed at age 4. All children had received individual and small-group education for between 2 months and 10 years, and none were being educated outside the school. They had either not worked on the concept of color before the study or were shown through tests not to be able to identify colors.

Of the pilot group, 3 were boys and there was 1 girl. The age range was 4- 10 years. All four children had a mental disability and one also had a physical disability. Their level of loss ranged between 40 and 60%. The disability of three was diagnosed at 6 months and the other two children were diagnosed at age 4. All children had received individual and small-group education for between 3 months and 3 years, and none were being educated outside the school. They had either not worked on the concept of color before the study or were shown through tests not to be able to identify colors.

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY482

setting and Materials The evaluation of all participants (elimination, full probe, daily probe,

maintenance probe, generalization) was performed in a controlled education environment. Instructional sessions for individual instruction were organized in an individual training room, and sessions for small-group instruction were organized in a small-group training room. These rooms were arranged in such a way as to prevent the children from being affected by outside stimulants. Three- dimensional objects, pictures showing the same and different objects, and large- sized pictures were used in instructional sessions.

exPeriMental design The single-subject research model of intersubject multiple probe model was

used in this study. The dependent variable of the study was the learning of the concept of color, and the independent variable was the instructional method.

screening Procedures In order to select the children who would take part in the study, teachers of

the children attending the preschool program of the special education center where the study was conducted were contacted. Children’s files were examined, and information was obtained about children who met the study criteria and had not yet learnt the concept of color. These children were then observed during individual and group instruction. Twelve children were identified who met the criteria and had not learnt the concept of color. These children were administered the Gazi Early Childhood Development Assessment Tool (GECDAT; Temel, Ersoy, Avcı, & Turla, 2004) and a total of 10 children whose level of development was assessed as between 37 and 48 months and who were shown not to know about the concept of color were chosen to take part in the study. GECDAT is a development assessment tool for Turkish children aged 0-72 months and is also used to plan their education and identify developmental problems at an early stage. It contains a total of 249 items in 4 subtests (psychomotor, cognitive, linguistic, socioemotional). The Ankara sample of the tool consisted of 1,980 children. Reliability studies included split-half test (internal consistency) and interrater reliability studies.

The children were also given the Red/Yellow (Alptekin, 2000) and Blue/Green Measurement Tools as a full probe test. As a result of this, the random sampling method was used to assign these children for instruction. In addition, parents were asked to complete a personal information form about their family and their children.

Full-Probe conditions The full-probe sessions in this study were held in order to a) identify the

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY 483

baseline ability of the children to undertake education, b) compare their baseline and completion level performance, and c) reveal the associative relationship between dependent-independent variables and compare the effects of individual and small-group instruction given through simultaneous prompting in the teaching of the concept of color.

In full-probe sessions, the Red/Yellow Color Concept Test designed by Alptekin (2000) and the Blue/Green Color Concept Test designed in parallel by the researchers for this study were used as measurement tools.

Full-probe sessions were conducted simultaneously in individual training rooms. They were conducted for each child over 3 consecutive days in 3 different sessions.

instructional Procedures Instructional sessions were trials with zero seconds waiting time. In these

sessions, the children were given skills instruction and controlling prompts simultaneously.

For a trial run and testing of the materials used each session was conducted with the pilot groups before individual and small-group administration. In the pilot group, two children were given individual instruction, and the other two were taught together. When necessary, adjustments were made in the trials and materials, and then the experiment was conducted with the children being instructed individually or as part of a small group.

Nine sessions were organized for teaching about each of the four colors (red, yellow, blue, and green) making 36 sessions in all. Each session included 10 trials, making a total of 360 trials for the four colors.

Individual and small-group instruction sessions were held daily, 3 times a week. The teaching of each color continued for three weeks. The teaching of all four colors occurred over 12 weeks.

When the program for simultaneous prompting was being prepared, and when administering each activity, it was divided into the following stages: In the first stage, the target stimulant was given as skill instructions. In the second stage, the controlling prompt was given. Verbal and modeling prompting were used together; picture prompting was also used at times. The third stage was planned in the form of zero seconds trials (no waiting time between the stimulation-prompt). The fourth stage involved daily probing sessions. In the fifth and sixth stages, the response gap and time between trials was set at 5 seconds. The seventh stage included repeated trials to reinforce correct responses (by verbal reinforcers, applause, physical rewards in early sessions) while incorrect responses or no response were ignored. In the eighth stage, reactions of the children in each session were recorded in the Instructional Sessions Record Sheet. The last stage included implementation, recording, and adjusting the process according to the

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY484

child’s performance. As the children were observed to be making process the process was continued as set out.

daily Probe sessions

Daily probe sessions were held to assess how well the children were achieving the goals and target behaviors of the instructional sessions. These were conducted individually with both individual and small-group participants immediately before the instructional sessions in the individual training room. Six daily probe sessions were conducted for each color, amounting to a total of 24 daily probe sessions altogether.

For each color, the daily probes of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sessions were conducted before the 5th session; the probes of the 5th and 6th sessions were conducted before the 7th session; and the daily probes of the 7th, 8th, and 9th sessions were conducted before the 1st session of the next color.

Each daily probe session for each color consisted of 10 trials. These daily probe sessions included trials towards the goals and target behaviors of the instructional sessions.

The children were expected to give correct responses in at least 8 of the 10 trials in the daily probe sessions. In cases where eight correct responses were not obtained, the next instructional session was not initiated and a new session was organized to teach the goals and target behaviors of the session which the child had not yet mastered. This process continued until a minimum of eight correct responses was received.

For each color, the responses of the children were recorded during the daily probe sessions in the Daily Probe Sessions Record Sheet for each color.

Maintenance Probe sessions Maintenance probe sessions were conducted to identify the extent of children’s

retention of the information given during instruction. These sessions were run on days 7, 14, and 21 after the completion of the series of instructional sessions for each color.

Each maintenance probe session included 20 trials containing the goals and target behaviors of all instructional sessions. Each session made use of different two- and three-dimensional objects, picture cards, and pictures. The sessions were conducted on the principle of the thinning of reinforcers. In the first maintenance probe session, each correct response was reinforced verbally by continuous reinforcement. At the end of the session, a physical reward was offered. Similarly, in the second maintenance probe session, each correct response from the participants was verbally reinforced by continual praise. However, no physical reward was given at the end of the session. In the last maintenance probe session, only fixed-ratio reinforcement was used for correct responses. In

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY 485

all maintenance probe sessions, incorrect responses by the children were ignored. In each maintenance probe session, the children’s responses were recorded in the Maintenance Probe Session Record Sheet.

generalization Probe sessions In this study, generalization probe sessions geared towards the goals and target

behaviors of the instruction and maintenance probe sessions were conducted by using the Red/Yellow/Blue/Green Color Concept Form designed by the researchers. The generalization sessions were organized after the completion of instructional sessions for each color. In these sessions, the response gap in trials and time between trials was 5 seconds. The generalization sessions results were recorded in a Color Concept Form Record Sheet prepared separately for each color.

reliability Reliability data were collected from at least 20% of all sessions. Dependent and

independent variable reliabilities were collected in the same sessions. The point- by-point method was used in dependent variable reliability, which was calculated by dividing interobserver agreement into the sum of interobserver agreement and interobserver disagreement and taking its percentage (agreement / agreement + disagreement x 100). Independent variable reliability was calculated by dividing the observed implementer behavior into the planned implementer behavior and taking its percentage (Kırcaali-İftar & Tekin, 1997; Tekin-İftar & Kırcaali-İftar, 2004). The observed implementer behaviors were: 1) preparing materials, 2) focusing child’s attention, 3) offering skills instruction, 4) offering controlling prompt (only in instructional sessions), 5) waiting for response (5 seconds), 6) reacting to child’s response (praising correct behavior), 7) waiting to proceed to the next trial, and 8) praise for attention and cooperation.

RESULTS

The figures show the comparative achievement of the study groups. In each figure, the vertical axis shows the number of trials and the horizontal axis shows the sessions. In each session, the criterion was at least 8 correct trials out of 10.

In the maintenance sessions, there were 20 trials but the evaluation was based on 10 trials that could be shown in the figure. The 20 trials were divided into two and their average taken. For each color, a total of three maintenance probe sessions were held.

In the generalization session, there were 30 trials but the evaluation was based on 10 trials that could be shown in the figure. The 30 trials were divided into three and their average taken. For each color, one generalization session was held.

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY486

As shown in the baseline data in Figure 1, the achievement level of children who had small-group instruction (between levels 0 and 1) was lower than that of children who received individual instruction (between levels 1 and 2) for the color red. However, a significant increase was observed in the performance level of both groups in the implementation sessions. The achievement level of the two groups ranging between 0 and 2 in the baseline data increased in the first session to 9 for children who received individual instruction, and 8 for those who instructed in a small group. In the second session, the achievement level for individual instruction rose to the level of 10, and that for small-group instruction to 9. In the third session, small-group instruction achievements equaled the performance level of children who received individual instruction, and this level of achievement was maintained in later sessions. In maintenance and generalization sessions, both groups scored an achievement level of 9. This suggests that the instruction program was effective for both individuals and groups.

Baseline Experimental Sessions Maintenance Generalization

Individual instruction

Group instruction

N um

be r

of t

ri al

Figure 1. Baseline, experimental sessions, maintenance, and generalization data levels of learning to identify the color red for children receiving individual and small-group instruction.

Baseline Experimental Session Maintenance Probe Generalization

1. sym. 1.S. 2. sym. 2.S. 3. sym. 3.S.

1. sym. 2. sym. 3. sym. 1.S. 2.S. 3.S. 4. sym. 5. sym. 6. sym. 4.S. 5-6.S. 7-8-9.S.

1. sym. 2. sym. 3. sym. 1. Main. 2. Main. 3. Main

1. sym. Single S.

Meaning of the symbols: Notes: sym. = symbol, S. = session, Main. - Maintenance. Each dot denotes one session.

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY 487

Figure 2 shows the baseline, daily probe, maintenance, and generalization data levels for the concept of yellow taught through individual and small-group instruction. As shown in the figure, a comparison of achievement performance in baseline and implementation sessions showed that both groups scored between 0 and 3 at entry to the experiment. In implementation sessions, the achievement performance of both groups rose to levels 9 and 10. In maintenance sessions, children who received individual instruction maintained their performance at level 10 in all three sessions. In the second and final maintenance sessions, the performance of children who received small-group instruction was at level 9. For the generalization session, both groups’ performance level of 9 showed that simultaneous prompting could be used as effectively in small-group instruction as in individual instruction in teaching the concept of color.

Baseline Experimental Sessions Maintenance Generalization

Individual instruction

Group instruction

N um

be r

of t

ri al

Figure 2. Baseline, experimental sessions, maintenance, and generalization data levels of learning to identify the color yellow for children receiving individual and small-group instruction. Notes: As for Figure 1.

The third figure shows the baseline, daily probe, maintenance, and generalization data levels for the concept of blue. At entry to the program, both groups were at a maximum achievement performance level of 2. With the implementation sessions, both groups increased their performance level to 10, and maintained it in all of the future sessions. In all three maintenance sessions, individual- instruction children maintained their performance at level 9. As for the children instructed in a small group, their performance level of 10 in the first maintenance session decreased to 8 in the second maintenance session. However, it rose to 9 again in the final maintenance session. Even though the performance of the children in the small group fell, it was at level 10 in the generalization session, revealing the method to be effective using both types of instruction.

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY488

The fourth figure shows the baseline, daily probe, maintenance, and generalization data levels for the concept of green. Both groups had a similar baseline achievement performance (between levels 1 and 2), which increased significantly after the program of instruction (level 10). The children instructed in a small group maintained their performance level of 10 in all implementation sessions. On the other hand, children instructed individually achieved a performance level of 9 in the first and last sessions, and 10 in all other sessions. In maintenance sessions, children instructed individually scored 10 in the first maintenance session, and 9 in the second and last maintenance sessions. Small- group children scored 9 in all three maintenance sessions. An equal performance level from the two groups in the generalization session showed the program was effective using both instructional methods.

Baseline Experimental Sessions Maintenance Generalization

Individual instruction

Group instruction

N um

be r

of t

ri al

Figure 3. Baseline, experimental sessions, maintenance, and generalization data levels of learning to identify the color blue for children receiving individual and small-group instruction. Notes: As for Figure 1.

Baseline Experimental Sessions Maintenance Generalization

Individual instruction

Group instruction

N um

be r

of t

ri al

Figure 4. Baseline, experimental sessions, maintenance, and generalization data levels of learning to identify the color green for children receiving individual and small-group instruction. Notes: As for Figure 1.

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY 489

DISCUSSION

In this study we aimed to compare the effectiveness of simultaneous prompting with individual and small-group instruction in teaching the concept of color to children with a mental disability. The findings show that simultaneous prompting was effective in both individual and small-group instruction when teaching the concepts of red, yellow, blue, and green. Wolery and Schuster (1997) also suggest the use of simultaneous prompting in small-group instruction. Chiara, Bell, Schuster, and Wolery (1995), Kamps, Walker, Locke, Delquadri, and Hall (1990), McDonnell et al. (2006), Schoen and Ogden (1995), and Shelton, Gast, Wolery, and Winterling (1991) have also stated that group instruction is at least as effective as individual instruction. Kamps, Dugan, Leonard, and Daoust (1994) and Reese and Snell (1991) showed in their studies that small-group instruction is effective in the education of children with a disability. The results of this study corroborate these findings from the literature.

In the teaching of the concept of yellow, children who received individual instruction had a performance level of 10. On the other hand, those in the small group had a performance level of 10 in the first maintenance session, but 9 in the second and last maintenance sessions. Both groups had a similar generalization achievement performance in the generalization session. These results may be attributed to the facts that when instruction is given one-on-one in a stimulation- controlled room, the child is better able to focus his or her attention on the work at hand, individual interests and needs are taken into account, and learning occurs more easily and faster (Allen & Cowdery, 2005; Blackhurst & Berdine, 1993; Hooper & Umansky, 2004; Walters & Blane, 2000). In small-group instruction, the results may be attributed to enhanced communication with peers, adaptation to the group, group work, easier development of social skills such as sharing, and more opportunities for learning through observation (Keel & Gast, 1992; Lerner et al., 2003; Rothstein, 1971; Westwood, 1997). Berrong, Schuster, Morse, and Collins (2007), Brown and Holvoet (1982), Doyle, Gast, Wolery, Ault, and Meyer (1992), Gast, Wolery, Morris, Doyle, and Meyer (1990), Gast, Doyle, Wolery, Ault, and Baklarz (1991), and Wolery, Cybriwsky, Gast, and Boyle-Gast (1991) used small-group instruction to work with children with a mental disability and concluded that this was an effective way for these children to learn. The results of the present study also support the findings of those studies.

In teaching the concept of blue, children who received individual instruction maintained their performance level at 9 in all three maintenance sessions. Children in the small group, on the other hand, achieved a performance level of 10 in the first maintenance session, but this went down significantly in the second maintenance session. However, an increase occurred in the last maintenance session. This rapid decrease in the small-group performance level

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY490

in the second maintenance session may have resulted from a short-term health problem experienced by one of the children in the group. With the recovery of this child, an increase was seen again at the last maintenance session. Even though differences could be seen in the performance of the two groups, their generalization achievement levels were equal. This implies that both groups learnt to identify blue. Ault, Wolery, Gast, Doyle, and Martin (1990), Kamps et al. (1991), Kamps, Walker, Maher, and Rotholz (1992), Keel and Gast (1991), Palmer, Collins, and Schuster (1999), and Singleton, Schuster, and Ault (1995) used small-group instruction in their studies and stated it to be effective.

In teaching the concept of green, children who received individual instruction achieved a performance at level 9 in the first and last implementation sessions, and at level 10 in other sessions. Children in the small group, on the other hand, achieved a performance level of 10 in all sessions. In maintenance and generalization sessions, both groups maintained their achievement performance at level 9. Even though the last maintenance session had to be postponed because of a 2-week school vacation, both groups maintained their performance level after the second maintenance session. This implies that simultaneous prompting is useful in teaching the concept of color through individual and group instruction. Fickel, Schuster, and Collins (1998), Gürsel et al. (2006), and Parker and Schuster (2002) also used simultaneous prompting in small-group instruction and found it to be effective.

As a result, in this study we have shown that simultaneous prompting was as effective in small-group instruction as it was in individual instruction in teaching the concepts of the colors red, yellow, blue, and green to children with a mental disability.

REFERENCES

Allen, K. E., & Cowdery, G. E. (2005). The exceptional child: Inclusion in early childhood education. New York: Thomson Delmar Learning.

Alptekin, S. (2000). Zeka özürlü öğrencilere renk ve şekil kavramlarının açık anlatım ve basamaklandırılmış yöntemle sunulmasının etkililiği [Effectiveness of presentation of color and shape concepts to mentally disabled children through clear explanation and graded method]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., & Martin, C. P. (1990). Comparison of predictable and unpredictable trial sequences during small-group instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(1), 12-29.

Bee, H., & Boyd, D. (2006). The developing child (11th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Berrong, A. K., Schuster, J. W., Morse, T. E., & Collins, B. C. (2007). The effects of response cards on active participation and social behavior of students with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19(3), 187-199.

Blackhurst, A. E., & Berdine, W. H. (1993). An introduction to special education (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publisher.

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY 491

Bowe, F. (2004). Early childhood education: Birth to eight. New York: Thomson Delmar Learning. Brown, F., & Holvoet, J. (1982). Effect of systematic peer interaction on the incidental learning of

two severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 19-28.

Chiara, L., Bell, J., Schuster, J. W., & Wolery, M. (1995). Small-group massed-trial and individually- distributed-trial instruction with preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 19(3), 203-217.

Culatta, R. A., & Tompkins, J. R. (1999). Fundamentals of special education: What every teacher needs to know. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Davison, G. C., & Neale, J. M. (1998). Abnormal psychology (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Meyer, S. (1992). Teaching discrete skills to students with moderate mental retardation in small group instructional arrangements. Exceptionality, 3, 233-253.

Fickel, K. M., Schuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8(2), 219-244.

Gargiulo, R. M. (2003). Special education in contemporary society: An introduction to exceptionality (7th ed.). Belmond: Thomson Wadsworth Learning Inc.

Gargiulo, R. M., & Kilgo, J. L. (2005). Young children with special needs. United States: Thomson Learning.

Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Baklarz, J. L. (1991). Acquisition of incidental information during small group instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 14(1), 1-18.

Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Morris, L. L., Doyle, P. M., & Meyer, S. (1990). Teaching sight word reading in a group instructional arrangement using constant time delay. Exceptionality, 1, 81-96.

Gürsel, O., Tekin-İftar, E., & Bozkurt, F. (2006). Effectiveness of simultaneous prompting in small group: The opportunity of acquiring non-target skills through observational learning and instructive feedback. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 41(3), 225-243.

Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (2006). Exceptional learners (10th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Hill, J., & Gutwin, C. (2004). The MAUI toolkit: Groupware widgets for group awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 13(5/6), 539-571.

Hooper, S. R., & Umansky, W. (2004). Young children with special needs (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Johnson, L. J., & Bauer, A. M. (1992). Meeting the needs of special students: Legal, ethical, and practical ramifications. California: Corwin Press.

Johnson-Martin, N. M., Attermeier, S. M., & Hacker, B. J. (2004). The Carolina curriculum for infants and toddlers with special needs (3rd ed.). London & Sydney: Brookes Publishing.

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 disability. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 60-73.

Kamps, D. M., Walker, D., Dugan, E., Leonard, B., Thibadeau, S., Marshall, K., et al. (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 one-to-one instruction by peers, one-to-one instruction by adults, and small group instruction with children with autism. 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 Disabilities, 22, 277-293.

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY492

Kathleen, M. F., Shuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8(2), 219-244.

Keel, M. C., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Small-group instruction for student with learning disabilities: Observational and incidental learning. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96(1), 63-80.

Kırcaali-İftar G., & Tekin, E. (1997). Tek denekli araştırma yöntemleri [Single subject research design]. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.

Korinek, L., & Polloway, E. (1993). Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation. In R. A. Gable & F. W. Steven (Eds.), Social skills: Review and implications for instruction for students with mild mental retardation. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Lerner, J. W., Lowenthal, B., & Egan, R. W. (2003). Preschool children with special needs (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allyn & Bacon.

McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., Riesen, T., Jameson, M., & Kercher, K. (2006). Comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in general education classes with small group instruction in special education classes. Education and Training in Developmental Disability, 41(2), 125-138.

MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2000). Özel eğitim hakkında kanun hükmünde kararname ve özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği [Statutory decree about special education and directive for special education services]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.

Palmer, T., Collins, B. C., & Schuster, J. W. (1999). The use of a simultaneous prompting procedure to teach receptive manual sign identification to adults with disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11(2), 179-191.

Parker, M. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2002). Effectiveness of simultaneous prompting on the acquisition of observational and instructive feedback stimuli when teaching a heterogeneous group of high school students. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability, 37(1), 89-104.

Reese, G., & Snell, M. E. (1991). Putting on and removing coats and jackets: The acquisition and maintenance of skills by children with severe multiple disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26(4), 398-410.

Rothstein, H. J. (1971). Mental retardation (reading and resources). Sydney: Rinehart and Winston Inc.

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(5), 503-519.

Seligman, M. (2000). Conducting effective conferences with parents of children with disabilities (9th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Singleton, D. K., Schuster, J. W., & Ault, M. J. (1995). Simultaneous prompting in a small group instructional arrangement. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30(3), 218-230.

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.

Taymaz Sarı, O. (2003). Zeka özürlülere beceri öğretimi [Teaching skills to the mentally disabled]. In A. Kulaksızoğlu (Ed.), Farklı gelişen çocuklar [Children developing differently] (1st ed.). Istanbul: Epsilon Yayınları.

Tekin-İftar, E., & Kırcaali-İftar, G. (2004). Özel eğitimde yanlışsız öğretim yöntemleri (Errorless learning procedures in special education). Ankara: Nobel Basım ve Dağıtım.

Temel, F., Ersoy, Ö., Avcı, N., & Turla, A. (2004). Gazi Early Childhood Development Tool – GECDAT [Gazi Erken Çocukluk Galişimi Değerlendirma Aracı – GEÇDA]. Ankara: Rekmay Ltd Şti.

TEACHING COLORS TO CHILDREN WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY 493

Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., & Smith, S. J. (2004). Exceptional lives (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice.

Venn, J. J. (2004). Assessing students with special needs (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Walters, A. S., & Blane, K. K. (2000). Mental retardation. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (2nd ed., pp. 271-281). New York & London: The Guilford Press.

Westwood, P. (1997). Commonsense methods for children with special needs: Strategies for the regular classroom (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Wolery, M., Cybriwsky, C. A., Gast, D. L., & Boyle-Gast, K. (1991). Use of constant time delay and attentional responses with adolescent. Exceptional Children, 57, 462-474.

Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. W. (1997). Instructional methods with students who have significant disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 61-79.

Wolpert, G. (1996). The meaning of inclusion and Down Syndrome. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fs4txt.htm

Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

individual use.