Teaching Vegetable Names to Children with Down Syndrome: A Small Group Study *

1. Teaching Vegetable Names to Children with Down Syndrome:A Small Group Study* Sema BATU Anadolu University ResearchInstitutefortheHandicapped E-mail: esbatu@anadolu.edu.tr *Thepresentationwill be published in EurasianJournal of EducationalResearch, 25, 2006.

2. Group instruction is getting more and more important • More studies should focus on group arrangements and effective teaching techniques

3. Direct instruction is used by teachers usually by dividing the skills or components into small steps. • It also requires the teacher to reduce the prompts from the most to the least until the student performs the acquired skills independently.

4. Related Studies • Schloss, Alper, Young, Arnold-Reid, Aylward and Dudenhoeffer (1995) examined the effectiveness of a direct instruction procedure involving modeling and guided practice on the acquisition of functional sight words in 1:1 format. Three participants with mental retardation and behavior disorders took place in the study.

5. Related Studies (continued) • Kircaali-Iftar, Birkan, and Uysal (1998) examined the effects of structural and natural language use during direct instruction in teaching colors and shapes to children with moderate mental retardation in 1:1 format.

6. Related Studies (continued) • Losardo and Bricker (1994) compared the effectiveness of activity-based intervention and direct instruction on teaching object names to preschool children with developmental disabilities in group settings.

7. Purpose • The purpose of the present study was to examine: • (1) if direct instruction was effective in teaching vegetable names in a group setting to pre-school children with down syndrome, • (2) if the participants would maintain the skills they learned four and five weeks after the intervention completed,

8. Purpose (continued) • (3) if the participants would generalize the skills they learned across trainers, settings and materials, • (4) the opinions of the parents of the participants about the importance of the study.

9. MethodParticipants • Prerequisite skills: • (a) to keep his/her attention on an activity for at least 10 minutes, • (b) to follow basic instructions given by the trainer, • (c) to be able to name one worded objects, and • (d) to have the skills needed to take part in a small group instruction environment.

10. Participants(continued) • Asli was six and Seda was four years old. They had limited verbal language use. The criterion for completing the training sessions of each set for Asli and Seda was 90-100% correct responses. • Ahmet was six years old. He had very limited verbal language skills. The criterion for completing the training sessions of each set for Ahmet was 75-80% correct responses.

11. Materials • Fifteen pictures were used to teach the names of the vegetables. The pictures were stuck on teaching tables of 20 cm X 40 cm pasteboards. • For generalization across materials, real vegetables were used. • Chocolate, mandarin and baby doll were used as reinforcers . • A stopwatch and a video camera were used.

12. Table 1. Teaching Sets • 1st Teaching set 2nd Teaching set 3rd Teaching set Onion Mushroom Eggplant Green peas Leek Corn Tomatoes Cabbage Potatoes Spinach Radish Cucumber Pumpkin Carrot Pepper

13. Trainer, Observer and Data Collector • The trainer was an assistant professor. • The generalization trainer was an assistant professor in the field of special education. • The observer was a doctoral student. • The data collector was a senior student in the department of special education.

14. Procedure • Experimental procedure of the study consisted of full probe, training, maintenance, and generalization sessions.

15. Full probe sessions • The first full probe session was conducted before the first training session for collecting the baseline data of the participants. • Other full probe sessions were conducted after the participants met the criterion during training sessions. • Full probe sessions were conducted in a one to one environment. • During all full probe sessions 30 trials were conducted. • During all probe sessions, data collector was present with the trainer in order to collect data simultaneously.

16. Full probe sessions were conducted with the following order: • placing the materials on the desk, • presenting an attentional que (i.e., “Are you ready to work with me?”), • presenting the task direction (i.e., “Tell me what is the name of this vegetable?”), • waiting the 5s interval for the participant’s response, • rewarding the correct response orally, or • ignoring the incorrect response. The second trial was started five seconds after finishing the first trial.

17. Direct instruction training sessions (a) establishing the need, (b) modeling the skill, (c) role playing the skill, (d) feedback, and (e) generalization and transfer.

18. Maintenance sessions • Maintenance sessions were conducted four and five weeks after the last full probe session was conducted with each participant. • Maintenance sessions were conducted the same as the full probe sessions. • During maintenance sessions, participants were reinforced with tangible reinforcers (i.e. mandarins, etc.) for their cooperation and attention.

19. Generalization sessions • Generalization data were collected across materials, settings and trainers. • All generalization data were examined via a pre- and post-test design. • Pre-test sessions were conducted after the first full probe session. • Post-test sessions were conducted after each participant met the criterion.

20. Generalization across materials data were collected with real vegetables. • Generalization across settings data were collected in a market in the campus. • Generalization across trainers data were collected with an assistant professor in the area of special education.

21. Experimental design • A multiple probe design across behaviors was used to examine the effectiveness of direct instruction in teaching vegetable names to a small group of pre-school children with Down syndrome.

22. Reliability • For the reliability data, two kinds of reliability data were collected: inter observer reliability and procedural reliability. • 30% of all probe, training, maintenance and generalization sessions were examined for the reliability data.

23. Interobserver Reliability Data Full Pr. Tr. M G • Asli 98 % 92 % 80 % 100 % • Seda 94 % 87 % 87 % 100 % • Ahmet 98 % 88 % 90 % 97 %

24. Procedural Reliability Data • Results showed that the trainer implemented the planned steps during all sessions with 99% (range= 98-100%) accuracy for all the participants (range= 98-100) during all sessions.

25. Social Validity • A six item questionnaire was prepared: (1) Do you think it is important for your child to learn vegetable names?, (2) In which ways do you think that the study was important?, (3) Do you think there is an advantage of the study being conducted in group setting? If yes, what are these?, (4) Are there any parts that you didn’t like about the study? If yes, what are these?,

26. (5) Are there any differences after the study was completed in your child? If yes, what are these?, and (6) If a similar study was to be conducted with your child, would you be willing for that?

27. ResultsInstructional Data • The results of the present study revealed that direct instruction was: • effective in teaching vegetable names to a small group of pre-school children with Down syndrome • effective for generalization of the skills taught during the study. • All of the participants met the criterion of the study.

31. Maintenance and Generalization Data • Maintenance data were collected four and five weeks after the intervention was completed. • It can be seen on the figures that the participants maintained the skills they learned very successfully both on the fourth and the fifth weeks.

32. Generalization Data

33. Social Validity Data The answers from the mothers of the participants were very positive. Mothers mentioned that: • they were very happy that their children learned the names of different vegetables, • group arrangement was an advantage of the study for their children, • they would give permission for their children’s taking part in a similar study in the future.

34. Discussion • The findings of the study were consistent with some other research pointing that direct instruction was an effective way of teaching various skills to individuals with developmental disabilities. • The criterion for each subject was determined individually. Since the general performance of Ahmet was below the other participants during the activities in the class, the criterion was determined depending on his performance. During the training sessions,Ahmet met his own criterion but as a good point to be mentioned, during maintenance sessions he performed 100% correct responses for all teaching sets.

35. Recommendations • It can be suggested to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of direct instruction with another teaching procedure (e.g., errorless teaching procedures). • The study can be replicated with individuals with other developmental disabilities (e.g., autism).

36. References • Gast, D.L. (1990). Use of constant time delay in small group instruction: A study of observational and incidental learning. Journal of Special Education, 23(4), 369-386. • Kircaali-Iftar, G., Birkan, B., & Uysal, A. (1998). Comparing the effects of structural and natural language use during direct instruction with children with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33(4), 375-385. • Kircaali-Iftar, G., & Tekin, E. (1997). Tek denekli arastirma yontemleri (Single subject research methods). Ankara, Turkey: Turk Psikologlar Dernegi Yayinlari. • Losardo, A. & Bricker, D. (1994). Activity-based intervention and direct instruction: A comparison study. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 98(6), 744-765.

37. Mills, P.E., Cole, K.N., Jenkins, J.R., & Dale, P.S. (2002). Early exposure to direct instruction and subsequent juvenile delinquency: A prospective examination. Exceptional Children, 69(1), 85-96. • Schloss, J., Alper, S., Young, H., Arnold-Reid, G., Aylward, M. & Dudenhoeffer, S. (1995). Acquisition of functional sight words in community-based recreation settings. Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 84-96. • Tawney, W. J., & Gast, L. D. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.