teaching functional sight words to students with shari ...sharidaisy.com/documents/thesis.pdf ·...

Functional Sight Words

Teaching Functional Sight Words to Students with

Developmental Disabilities: A Comparison of Whole W ord

and Constructed-Response Instruction

Shari Daisy, M.Ed.

Simmons College

Send all correspondence to: Shari Daisy, M.Ed. 16 Chestnut Circle Merrimack, NH 03054 [email protected] (603) 429-2073


ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect iveness of

two instructional methods on the learning of functi onal sight

words by school-age children. Three students with developmental

disabilities participated in the study as part of a classroom-

based implementation of whole word instruction usin g a popular

commercially available curriculum (Edmark) and a te acher

designed constructed-response curriculum. An alter nating

treatments design was used to assess the effectiven ess of the

two approaches. The dependent variables were numbe r of sight

words read/spelled correctly, latency of response, and duration

of response. In addition, trials to criterion, ret ention of

sight words, duration of lessons, and stimulus gene ralization

were measured. Comprehension of sight words was di rectly

trained. The constructed-response lessons also add ressed issues

of student choice, student preferences, and instruc tion through

the use of social games.


THE PROBLEM

According to some, reading is unnatural in that alt hough

most children learn to speak through observational learning,

they require instruction from others in order to le arn how to

read (Gough & Hillinger, 1980; Stanovich, 1994). A long with

reading instruction, children also require an abili ty to analyze

phonemes (often called phonological awareness) in o rder to

become successful readers (Stanovich, 1994). Stude nts with

developmental disabilities may have particular diff iculties with

analyzing and processing words into their smaller u nits or parts

(Stanovich, 1994). This may be why much of the sig ht word

research geared towards instruction of students wit h

developmental disabilities utilizes techniques invo lving whole

word strategies.

However, this focus on the whole word does not addr ess

issues that students with developmental disabilitie s may have

with stimulus overselectivity. According to Lovaas , Schreibman,

Koegel, and Rehm (1971), stimulus overselectivity ( also called

stimulus blocking, restricted stimulus control, or selective

stimulus control) occurs when “attention to one sti mulus in a

complex stimulus situation blocks or inhibits the a ttention to

another cue also present” (p. 220). When students have

difficulties with stimulus overselectivity, it may negatively

impact their ability to generalize to reading words in context


(Lovaas, Koegel, & Schreibman, 1979; Lovaas et al., 1971).

Problems with stimulus overselectivity while readin g sight words

are characterized by attending to certain topograph ical features

of the word (e.g. the first letter, the length, the shape) and

then making reading errors based on an inability to attend to

all of the relevant stimuli (i.e. all the letters i n the word

and the order of the letters). An example of stimu lus

overselectivity while reading sight words would be the

substitution of “fun” for “fat” or “chicken” for “c hildren.”

Along with the problems of reading being unnatural and

students with developmental disabilities having dif ficulties

with phonological awareness and stimulus overselect ivity, in a

meta-analysis of 48 sight word research studies pub lished

between 1980 and 1997, only 46% measured comprehens ion and only

4 of the 48 studies measured stimulus and response

generalization to functional use of the sight words taught

(Browder & Xin, 1998). Although 87% of the studies trained to

mastery, the essential problem for the student’s fu nctional

application is, “What good is it knowing how to ver balize a word

if I don’t know what it means, and I don’t know how or when to

use it?”

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

In the meta-analysis and review of sight word resea rch

conducted by Browder and Xin (1998), there were sev eral


variables identified related to effectiveness in te aching sight

words. These included: postresponse interventions (prompts,

feedback, students repeating words after correction ), larger

word sets, and opportunities for generalization or application.

There was no significant difference regarding effec tiveness for

type of reinforcement used, time delay procedures, error level,

or instructional format (Browder & Xin, 1998). As stated

previously, a major weakness in the sight word lite rature is a

lack of focus on comprehension, generalization, and functional

use outcome measures.

A variety of whole word instructional strategies ha ve also

been identified in the research as effective in tea ching sight

words including: flashcards, picture-to-text or te xt-to-picture

matching, text-to-text matching, repetition, errorl ess learning,

interspersal training, prompting strategies includi ng constant

time delay, stimulus fading, and reinforcement (Bel fiore,

Skinner & Ferkis, 1995; Browder & Xin, 1998; Collin s & Griffen,

1996; Conley, Derby, Roberts-Gwinn, Weber, & McLaug hlin, 2004;

Cuvo & Klatt, 1992; Fossett & Mirenda, 2006; Kirby, Holborn &

Bushby, 1981; Neef, Iwata & Page, 1977; Winterling, 1990).

Out of the literature on stimulus equivalence, rese arch in

constructed-response has also shown promising resul ts in

teaching students to read and spell sight words (de Rose & de

Souza, 1996; Dube, McDonald, McIlvane, & Mackay, 19 91; Lee-


Vieira, Mayer, & Cameron, 2006). In a comprehensiv e article

published in 1992, Stromer, Mackay and Stoddard rev iewed a

variety of classroom applications of stimulus equiv alence

techniques. Included was a thorough description of constructed-

response, a technique that focuses on visual discri mination,

sequencing, and direct manipulation of the letters in the word.

During a constructed-response lesson, the student u ses letters

(typically letter tiles) to construct words by matc hing-to-

sample with systematic fading of the model (Stromer et al.,

1992). The authors hypothesized that since constru cted-response

involves the student attending to individual letter s in a word,

it might also address problems related to stimulus

overselectivity (Stromer et al., 1992).

THE SOLUTION

To date, despite the large research base indicating a

variety of effective techniques in teaching sight w ords, there

has not been a study directly comparing the whole w ord approach

to the constructed-response approach. Due to the i ssues raised

previously in regards to difficulties students with

developmental disabilities may have with stimulus

overselectivity, it is crucial that if one instruct ional

approach is more effective than another it be ident ified. Also,

any research conducted on functional sight word ins truction must

address concerns with functional use outcome measur es.


The purpose of this study was to:

1. Attempt to identify any significant differences in the

learning outcomes of functional sight words when ta ught using

a popular commercially available whole word approac h (Edmark)

compared to instruction using a constructed-respons e approach.

2. Assess learning of sight words using a variety of o utcome

measures: number of sight words read/spelled corre ctly,

latency of response, duration of response, trials t o

criterion, retention, and stimulus generalization t o

functional text (e.g. menus).

3. Directly include instruction in comprehension by us ing the

actual sight word items during all lessons (whole w ord and

constructed-response).

4. Compare the efficiency of instruction by keeping du rational

time measures of all lessons taught.

5. Include components of social validity and the ident ification

of behavioral cusps.

6. Address issues of student choice, student preferenc es, and

instruction through the use of social games (during

constructed-response sessions).

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING


Three middle school students with developmental

disabilities participated in this study: Kristy a 15-year-old

female, Tom a 13-year-old male, and Felicia a 12-ye ar-old non-

verbal female. All three students had received ins truction in

sight words using the Edmark reading curriculum for several

years and had made gains in their sight word recogn ition base.

However, their special education teacher was concer ned with

difficulties they were having with stimulus general ization and

stimulus overselectivity. All aspects of the study were carried

out in a separate special education classroom in th e students’

public middle school.

SOCIAL VALIDITY

This study addressed two of the three levels of so cial

validation identified in Wolf’s article on social v alidity:

selection of goals valued by the society and select ion of

procedures that are socially acceptable (1978). In preparing

for the study, parents of the students were surveye d regarding

their views on the importance of their child learni ng how to

read a menu, learning through the use of games, and being

exposed to the actual foods/drinks represented by t he sight

words.

All of the parents stated that it was important for their

child to learn how to play games and supported the use of games

in instructional sessions. Two of the three parent s stated


learning how to read a menu was an important skill that would

improve their child’s autonomy and independence. A lthough one

parent stated that, “any chance to read is a good t hing” she

also felt that her child might not need the skill s ince she

would not be going to a restaurant alone. Although all of the

parents stated that exposure to different foods/dri nks would be

helpful, one parent was doubtful that her child wou ld expand her

food repertoire, where another was hopeful that it may encourage

her child to try different foods.

BEHAVIORAL CUSPS

Functional sight words that had the potential to s erve as a

behavioral cusp were selected for instruction in th is study.

Rosales-Ruiz and Baer (1997) defined a behavioral c usp as “a

behavior change that has consequences for the organ ism beyond

the change itself, some of which may be considered important”

(p. 434). It was determined that by teaching the s tudents words

they may encounter while reading menus at restauran ts and fast

food establishments, additional opportunities could become

available to them including communication with othe rs in the

community, independence, and choice and decision ma king.

RESPONSE DEFINITIONS AND DATA COLLECTION

Number of sight words read/spelled correctly, dura tion of

response (for words spelled), and latency of respon se (for words

read) were the primary dependent variables used to assess the


effectiveness of the interventions. A correctly re ad/spelled

word was defined as a word that was pronounced or s pelled

exactly as written within 10 seconds of the present ation of the

discriminative stimulus. For Kristy and Tom, the d iscriminative

stimulus was the visual presentation of the sight w ord written

in lower case text on an index card. For Felicia, the

discriminative stimulus was the verbal cue “spell” along with

the verbal pronunciation of the sight word. Latenc y of response

was defined as the duration of time between the pre sentation of

the discriminative stimulus and the beginning of th e student’s

verbal response. Duration of response was defined as the

duration of time between the presentation of the di scriminative

stimulus and the completion of the student’s writte n response.

Duration and latency times were rounded to the near est second.

Secondary dependent variables included: trials to

criterion, retention of sight words, duration of le ssons, and

stimulus generalization. Trials to criterion was d efined as the

number of times the student identified the sight wo rd (e.g.

verbalizing, pointing, circling, etc.) during the w hole word

instructional session or the number of times the student

constructed the sight word during the constructed-r esponse

instructional session. Retention of sight words wa s defined as

the percentage of previously taught sight words cor rectly

read/spelled within 10 seconds of the presentation of the


discriminative stimulus. Duration of lessons was d efined as the

total elapsed time from the beginning of the lesson to the end

of the lesson. Stimulus generalization was defined as number of

previously taught sight words correctly read/pointe d to within

10 seconds of the presentation of the discriminativ e stimulus (a

menu paired with the verbal cue “read this” or “fin d the word

_____ ”).

DESIGN

An alternating treatments design was used to compa re the

effectiveness of sight word learning using a whole word

instructional approach and a constructed-response i nstructional

approach (Barlow & Hayes, 1979). Sight words selec ted for the

study came from The Edmark Functional Word Series: Fast

Food/Restaurant Words. The words in the series were divided in

half, with words 1-50 designated for whole word ins truction as

described in the Edmark Teacher’s Guide and words 5 1-100

designated for constructed-response instruction. I nstructional

sessions were randomly alternated between the two m ethods.

Outcome sessions were conducted every 10 words taug ht, with 5

words taught using whole word instruction and 5 wor ds taught

using constructed-response instruction. Inter-obse rver

reliability checks were conducted during 20% of the outcome

sessions.

MATERIALS


Materials used during the whole word instructional sessions

were taken from The Edmark Functional Word Series: Fast

Food/Restaurant Words and included a word recognition text, a

vinyl display mask, and worksheets.

During constructed-response sessions, materials inc luded: a

small white board, 3 different colors of dry erase markers, a

dry eraser, and games/letters used to construct the target word.

Four games were available for students to choose fr om: unifix

cubes labeled with individual lower case letters, S pill and

Spell (a game with upper case letter dice), Nerdy W ordy (a game

that included upper case letter dice and a grid to place the

letters in), and Letter Perfect (a game that involv ed placing

upper case letter tiles in a plastic grid).

An item representing the target word for the lesson

(typically a food item) was used during all instruc tional

sessions, both whole word and constructed-response.

PROCEDURES

BASELINE

Kristy and Tom were presented with the 100 sight wo rds

selected for the study one at a time. Words were w ritten in

lower case text on index cards and the students wer e directed to

read them. Kristy correctly read 5 of the 100 word s and Tom

correctly read 8 of the 100 words. During the base line measure,


Kristy made numerous errors based on the topography of the

words.

Felicia was initially presented an array of 6 of th e 100

sight words at a time and directed to point to a ta rget word.

With this initial assessment, Felicia was able to i dentify 39 of

the 100 words, however it was hypothesized that she was

discriminating using an exclusion technique (based on the first

letter of the word). Therefore, a second test was administered

where using pencil and paper Felicia was directed t o spell the

39 words she had initially correctly identified. U sing spelling

as an outcome measure, Felicia correctly spelled 7 of the 100

words. It was determined that spelling would be an appropriate

outcome measure for Felicia since it would also all ow her to

communicate with others in the community who were n ot familiar

with her signs and gestures.

WHOLE WORD SIGHT WORD INSTRUCTION

Whole word instruction procedures were designed us ing the

Edmark curriculum and teacher’s guide, with one exc eption: at

the beginning of the lesson, students were primed w ith the item

representing the target word for the lesson. Durin g priming,

students were told the word that they would be lear ning and

informed that at the end of the lesson they could t ry the target

food/drink. This step was intended to directly tra in for

comprehension of the word. It was hypothesized tha t by directly


experiencing (through sight, smell, touch, and tast e) the word

that they were learning to read, students’ comprehe nsion would

be positively affected.

Using the vinyl display mask and the word recognit ion book

from the Edmark curriculum materials, students were presented

with isolated lines of text. Each line of text var ied, but

could include the target word, nonsense words, dist racter words,

and other fast food/restaurant words. Depending on the line of

text (noted by a key for the instructor in the marg in), students

were directed to point to or verbalize specific wor ds. Since

Felicia is non-verbal, lessons were modified so tha t she could

choose from two alternatives when the lesson requir ed

verbalization (e.g. “Is this bacon or burger?” comb ined with the

instructor’s palms presented for Felicia to point t o). Praise

was provided on a CRF schedule. Criterion to move on to the

next lesson was no more than four errors during the word

recognition lesson.

Word recognition was followed by a series of works heets

reinforcing the target word and reviewing previousl y taught

words. Worksheets varied, but typically involved s tudents

drawing a line from a picture of the word to text f orm of word,

circling the word, and writing the word. Criterion was 80%

accuracy. If students did not meet this criterion, errors were

reviewed and a clean copy of the worksheet was give n.


After all students had completed the lesson, the g roup

prepared and sampled the item of the day.

CONSTRUCTED-RESPONSE SIGHT WORD INSTRUCTION

As in whole word instruction, at the beginning of the

lesson students were primed with the item represent ing the

target word for the lesson. Students were told the word that

they would be learning and informed that at the end of the

lesson they could try the target food/drink. As st ated

previously, this step was intended to directly trai n for

comprehension of the word. Students then chose whi ch game they

would like to use for the lesson out of four possib le options.

Once the game was chosen, the instructor selected t he letters

that would be needed to construct the target word, along with

three distracter letters. All other letters were r emoved from

the learning area.

Using a white board, students were initially provi ded with

a full written model of the target word and directe d to “spell

____“ by matching-to-sample. Students used their l etter

cubes/tiles/dice to construct the target word, raci ng to see who

could finish the fastest. Praise for correct respo nses was

provided on a CRF schedule. If students made an er ror, verbal

and gestural prompts were provided to ensure a corr ect response

on the second try. After construction of the word, students

were cued to read the word and then spell it. For the non-


verbal student, the instructor read and spelled the word as she

tracked with her finger. Criterion to move on the next step in

the fading process was 100% accuracy.

Subsequent trials faded the model via backward chai ning.

(Backward chaining was chosen as the fading procedu re after

surveying regular education teachers and probing th e method with

both regular education students and the target stud ents. It was

determined that fading via backward chaining allowe d for

additional ordinal terminology instruction when cue s such as

“what’s first?” and “what’s next?” were used. Back ward chaining

also facilitated successful completion of the word, which may be

reinforcing for the learner.) Once students could construct the

word without a model, one distracter letter at a ti me was

included in the letter pool. Criterion to move on to the next

word in the program was 100% accuracy with three di stracter

letters present.

To address issues of stimulus overselectivity that arose

during the study (it was noted that Kristy was sele ctively

attending to the size and placement of the model), trials were

randomly varied in regards to the written model tha t was

provided. Each trial, the instructor used differen t colored

markers, different size text, lower case letters, u pper case

letters, varied placement on the white board, and d ifferent

letter shapes.


As in whole word instruction, after all students h ad

completed the lesson, the group prepared and sample d the item of

the day.

DAILY REVIEW

Each school day students reviewed all previously t aught

words, regardless of the method used to teach them. Kristy and

Tom were presented with the words in a variety of f ormats (flash

cards, white board, written on paper) and asked to read them out

loud. Felicia was told the words and asked to spel l them. If

students were incorrect, they were told the correct answer and

asked to repeat it.

OUTCOME TESTS

Outcome tests were conducted every 10 words taught , with 5

words taught using whole word instruction and 5 wor ds taught

using constructed-response instruction. Outcome te sts were

conducted utilizing the same procedures as in basel ine, with

Kristy and Tom verbally pronouncing the target word s and Felicia

spelling the target words. Stimulus generalization tests were

conducted after 30 words were taught. During stimu lus

generalization tests, students were given menus obt ained from

restaurants in their community and asked to find or read

specific target words in designated areas of the me nu. The

instructor used blocking techniques when the menus were visually

overwhelming.


INTER-OBSERVER AGREEMENT AND TREATMENT INTEGRITY

Inter-observer agreement was measured during 50% o f

Felicia’s outcome tests and 33% of Tom and Kristy’s outcome

tests. Inter-observer agreement was calculated for both

response accuracy and time measures (duration or la tency

depending on the participant). Treatment integrity was measured

during 13% of the instructional sessions. Checklis ts were

developed for both instructional methods and a trai ned observer

collected data regarding accuracy on the part of th e instructor.

RESULTS

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Felicia’s learning acquisition outcome results are

displayed in Figure 1. During the baseline measure , Felicia

accurately spelled 1 word selected for the Edmark c ondition and

2 words selected for the constructed-response condi tion. During

the first phase of the intervention, which included a daily

review, Felicia accurately spelled more words taugh t in the

constructed-response condition in the first two out come tests.

In the third outcome test she accurately spelled mo re words

taught in the Edmark condition. Words 31-40 were t aught without

a daily review. This resulted in Felicia being una ble to spell

any of these words accurately in the final spelling outcome

test. However, when given an outcome test based so lely on

identification, she was able to identify all of the words taught


in the Edmark condition and 4 out of 5 words taught in the

constructed-response condition.

Although not indicated on Figure 1, comparable out comes for

Felicia’s duration of response were obtained by the completion

of the study. During the last outcome test, Felici a spelled

words taught in the Edmark condition with an averag e of .61

letters per second and words taught in the construc ted-response

condition with an average of .65 letters per second .

Figure 1.

Learning Acquisition Outcomes - Felicia

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

baseline (out of all

40 words)

test 1 spelling test 2 spelling test 3 spelling test 4 spelling ID test (words 31-

40)

percent correct

Edmark Constructed-Response

Baseline With Daily Review No Daily Review

0%

During the three retention tests (see Figure 2), F elicia

showed improvement in her ability to accurately spe ll words

taught in the Edmark condition as demonstrated by j umps from 60%


accuracy to 90% accuracy to 100% accuracy. Retenti on of words

taught in the constructed-response condition varied . Felicia

spelled 100% of the constructed-response words corr ectly in the

first retention test, 80% in the second test, and 8 7% in the

final test.

Felicia’s stimulus generalization outcomes (identif ying

target words in local menus) are also presented in Figure 2.

Felicia demonstrated the ability to generalize to a varied

stimulus by accurately identifying 15 of 15 words t aught in the

Edmark condition and 14 out of 14 words taught in t he

constructed-response condition.

Figure 2.

Learning Retention and Generalization Outcomes - Felicia

100% 100%

90%

60%

100%

87%

80%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

test 1 test 2 test 3 stimulus generalization

(words 1-29)

percent correct


Spelling Using Paper and Pencil Identifying in Menus


Tom’s learning acquisition outcome results are dis played in

Figure 3. During the baseline measure, Tom accurat ely read 2

words selected for the Edmark condition and 1 word selected for

the constructed-response condition. During the fir st phase of

the intervention, which alternated between Edmark a nd

constructed-response instruction, Tom accurately re ad more words

taught in the Edmark conditions than in the constru cted-response

conditions. The second phase of the intervention e liminated

constructed-response instruction and substituted Ed mark with an

observing response (verbally spelling the target wo rds while

pointing to the letters). This resulted in Tom rea ding all of

the words taught in the Edmark with observing respo nse condition

and 4 out of 5 of the words taught in the tradition al Edmark

condition.


Figure 3.

Learning Acquisition Outcomes - Tom

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

baseline (out of all 30

words)

test 1 test 2 test 3

percent correct

Edmark Constructed-Response Edmark with Observing Response

Baseline EM and CR EM and EMO

During the first retention test (see Figure 4), To m

accurately read 100% of the words taught in both th e Edmark and

constructed-response conditions. His performance d ecreased

during the second retention test, with 80% accuracy reading

words taught in the Edmark condition and 90% accura cy reading

words taught in the constructed-response condition. Retention

tests were not administered for words taught in the final phase

of the intervention (Edmark and Edmark with observi ng response).

Tom’s stimulus generalization outcomes (identifying target

words in local menus) are also presented in Figure 4. Tom

demonstrated the ability to generalize to a varied stimulus by

accurately identifying 14 of 15 words taught in the Edmark


condition and 12 out of 14 words taught in the cons tructed-

response condition.

Figure 4.

Learning Retention and Generalization Outcomes - Tom

93%

100%

80%

86%90%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

test 1 test 2 stimulus generalization (words 1-29)

percent correct


Reading on Flashcards Identifying in Menus

Kristy’s learning acquisition outcome results are d isplayed

in Figure 5. During the baseline measure, Kristy a ccurately

read none of the words selected for the Edmark cond ition and 1

word selected for the constructed-response conditio n. During

the first phase of the intervention, which alternat ed between

Edmark and constructed-response instruction, Kristy accurately

read the same number of words in the first outcome test for

words taught in the two different conditions. In t he second

outcome test, Kristy accurately read more words tau ght in the


Edmark condition than in the constructed-response c ondition. The

second phase of the intervention eliminated constru cted-response

instruction and substituted Edmark with an observin g response

(verbally spelling the target words while pointing to the

letters). This resulted in Kristy reading all of t he words

taught in the traditional Edmark condition and 2 ou t of 5 words

taught in the Edmark with observing response condit ion.

Figure 5.

Learning Acquisition Outcomes - Kristy

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

baseline (out of all 30

words)

test 1 test 2 test 3

percent correct


Baseline EM and CR EM and EMO

During the first retention test (see Figure 6), Kr isty

accurately read 80% of the words taught in the Edma rk condition

and 100% of the words taught in the constructed-res ponse

condition. Her performance increased during the se cond


retention test for words taught in the Edmark condi tion and

decreased for words taught in the constructed-respo nse

condition. Retention tests were not administered f or words

taught in the final phase of the intervention (Edma rk and Edmark

with observing response).

Kristy’s stimulus generalization outcomes are also

presented in Figure 6. Despite significant blockin g of

extraneous text, Kristy was unable to identify any of the target

words in menus from local restaurants. It was susp ected that

the combination of too much distracting text and sm all font size

resulted in her being unable to generalize.

Figure 6.

Learning Retention and Generalization Outcomes - Kristy

0% 0%

80%

90%

100%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

test 1 test 2 stimulus generalization (words 1-29)

percent correct


Reading on Flashcards Identifying in Menus


INSTRUCTIONAL EFFICIENCY

Figures 7 through 12 show the results of the instr uctional

efficiency measures for all three participants. Fo r all

participants, the Edmark condition involved more tr ials to reach

criterion. However, constructed-response instructi onal lessons

had significantly higher time durations. During th e final phase

of the interventions for Tom and Kristy, instructio nal

efficiency was comparable between the traditional E dmark

condition and the Edmark with observing response co ndition.

Figure 7.

Instructional Efficiency in Trials to Criterion - Felicia

211

135

123

112

29

5647

32

0

50

100

150

200

250

words 1-10 words 11-20 words 21-30 words 31-40

trials to criterion



Figure 8.

Instructional Efficiency in Trials to Criterion - Tom

75

95

123123

152

200

0

50

100

150

200

250

words 1-10 words 11-20 words 21-30

trials to criterion


EM and CR EM and EMO

Figure 9.

Instructional Efficiency in Trials to Criterion - Kristy

257

153

123

97 100

115

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


trials to criterion




Figure 10.

Instructional Efficiency in Lesson Duration - Felicia

30

36

4039

46

8789

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

words 1-10 words 11-20 words 21-30 words 31-40

duration of lessons in minutes


Figure 11.

Instructional Efficiency in Lesson Duration - Tom

40

6164

95

131

84

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140






Figure 12.

Instructional Efficiency in Lesson Duration - Kristy

62

76

63

136

184

75

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200





INTER-OBSERVER AGREEMENT AND TREATMENT INTEGRITY

Inter-observer agreement for Felicia’s responses w as

recorded during 2 of her 4 outcome tests. For both tests there

was 100% agreement on the accuracy of Felicia’s res ponses.

There were slight differences in agreement on durat ion of

response (no more than one second), which resulted in 77% and

93% agreement on duration.

Inter-observer agreement for Tom and Kristy’s resp onses was

recorded during 1 of their 2 outcome tests. There was 95%

agreement on the accuracy of Tom’s responses and 80 % agreement

on his latency of response. There was 100% agreemen t on the


accuracy of Kristy’s responses and 92% agreement on her latency

of response. As in Felicia’s IOA, the differences in agreement

during the time measures were never more than one s econd.

Out of 100 total lessons taught, 13 were observed to

measure procedural integrity. Three different inst ructors

participated in the Edmark condition. Instructor 1 was observed

4 times and her accuracy ranged from 93% to 100% wi th an average

of 98%. Instructor 2 was observed 3 times and her a ccuracy

ranged from 84% to 94% with an average of 90%. Ins tructor 3 was

observed 2 times and her accuracy ranged from 82% t o 92% with an

average of 87%. Only one instructor participated i n the

constructed-response condition (the author) and she was observed

4 times. Her accuracy ranged from 96% to 100% with an average

of 98%.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to compare the effec tiveness

of two instructional methods on the learning of fun ctional sight

words by school-age children. Results varied for e ach of the

three participants. For Felicia, the component tha t impacted

her learning the most was not the instructional met hod, but

rather the daily review. For Tom, Edmark instructi on was more

effective than constructed-response; but Edmark wit h an

observing response was even better. For Kristy, tr aditional

Edmark instruction was the most effective method.


In terms of instructional efficiency, Edmark was c learly

superior. On average, Edmark instructional lessons took half

the time of constructed-response lessons despite re quiring more

trials to reach criterion. Culturally, Edmark was also the more

accepted method by the teaching staff in the classr oom.

A secondary purpose of this study was to directly t rain for

comprehension and assess for stimulus generalizatio n, areas that

are currently lacking in published research. Altho ugh

comprehension was not assessed in the current study , it was

directly trained through the use of priming before each lesson.

In addition, promising results were obtained for tw o of the

participants in regards to their ability to general ize their

learning to different stimuli (identification of ta rget words in

real menus). As a result of this study, instructio n in

restaurant/fast food words was terminated for Krist y. It was

determined that due to her unsuccessful attempts at stimulus

generalization, most likely due to the overwhelming textual

features on menus, this was not an appropriate area to focus on.

Instead, her functional sight word program began to focus on

community signs (which typically are limited in the ir extraneous

text).

As in the meta-analysis and review of sight word re search

conducted by Browder and Xin (1998), this study als o found no

significant differences in terms of instructional f ormat as most


effective to teach sight words. Instead, students benefited

most from systematic instruction with opportunities for daily

review and practice. It is hoped that the results obtained in

this study will encourage teachers to not only choo se an

efficient instructional method to teach sight words , but also

one that is maximally effective for each individual student,

with the understanding that each student may requir e a different

method.


References

Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating

treatments design: One strategy for comparing the

effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199-210.

Belfiore, P. J., Skinner, C. H., & Ferkis, M. A. (1 995).

Effects of response and trial repetition on sight-w ord

training for students with learning disabilities.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 347-348.

Browder, D. M., & Xin, Y. P. (1998). A meta-analys is and

review of sight word research and its implications for

teaching functional reading to individuals with mod erate

and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special

Education, 32(3), 130-153.

Collins, B. C., & Griffen, A. K. (1996). Teaching students

with moderate disabilities to make safe responses t o

product warning labels. Education and Treatment of

Children, 19(1), 30-45.

Conley, C. M., Derby, K. M., Roberts-Gwinn, M., Web er, K.

P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2004). An analysis of ini tial

acquisition and maintenance of sight words followin g

picture matching and copy, cover, and compare teach ing

methods. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 339-

350.


Cuvo, A. J., & Klatt, K. P. (1992). Effects of com munity-

based, videotape, and flash card instruction of

community-referenced sight words on students with m ental

retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,

499-512.

de Rose, J. C., de Souza, D. G., & Hanna, E. S. (19 96).

Teaching reading and spelling: Exclusion and stimul us

equivalence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29,

451-469.

Dube, W. V., McDonald, S. J., McIlvane, W. J., & Ma ckay, H.

A. (1991). Constructed-response matching to sample and

spelling instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 24, 305-317.

Fossett, B., & Mirenda, P. (2006). Sight word read ing in

children with developmental disabilities: A compari son

of paired associate and picture-to-text matching

instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities,

27, 411-429.

Gough, P., & Hillinger, M. (1980). Learning to rea d: An

unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 171-

196.

Kirby, K. C., Holborn, S. W., & Bushby, H. T. (1981 ). Word

game bingo: A behavioral treatment package for impr oving


textual responding to sight words. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 14, 317-326.

Lee-Vieira, A., Mayer, M. D., & Cameron, M. J. (200 6).

Constructed-response spelling and literacy developm ent:

An application in an urban classroom. Behavioral

Interventions, 21, 111-122.

Lovaas, O. I., Koegel, R. L., & Schreibman, L. (197 9).

Stimulus overselectivity in autism: A review of

research. Psychological Bulletin, 86(6), 1236-1254.

Lovaas, O. I., Schreibman, L., Koegel, R., & Rehm, R.

(1971). Selective responding by autistic children to

multiple sensory input. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

77(3), 211-222.

Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1977). T he

effects of known-item interspersal on acquisition a nd

retention of spelling and sightreading words. Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 738.

Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps:

A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior

analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,

533-544.

Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Constructivism in reading

education. The Journal of Special Education, 28(3),

259-274.


Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., & Stoddard, L. T. (1992 ).

Classroom applications of stimulus equivalence

technology. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2(3), 225-

256.

Winterling, V. (1990). The effects of constant tim e delay,

practice in writing or spelling, and reinforcement on

sight word recognition in a small group. The Journal of

Special Education, 24(1), 101-116.

Wolf, M. W. (1978). Social validity: The case for

subjective measurement or how applied behavior anal ysis

is finding its heart. The Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 11, 203-214.

teaching functional sight words to students with shari ...sharidaisy.com/documents/thesis.pdf ·...

Documents