Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:21:50.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching Sight Word Recognition to Preschoolers with Delays Using Activity-Based Intervention and Didactic Instruction: A Comparison Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Sung-Jin Hong  and
Coral Kemp
Sung-Jin Hong
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Sydney, Australia
Coral Kemp*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Sydney, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, 2109. Email: coral.kemp@speced.sed.mq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An alternating treatments design was used to compare the effectiveness of activity-based intervention and didactic instruction to teach sight word reading to four young children with developmental delays attending an inclusive child care centre. Following the collection of baseline measures, the two interventions, counterbalanced for word lists and order of intervention, were implemented twice a week for six weeks. Acquisition of the sight words was assessed by the interventionist in pre-teaching probes and also by a special education teacher known to the children but independent of the research team. Maintenance data were collected three weeks after the intervention was completed. The results indicated that there were no differences between the two instructional approaches in relation to acquisition and maintenance of sight word reading for three of the four children. Features of each intervention and the implications of the findings are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , September 2007 , pp. 89 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Block, M. E., & Davis, T. D. (1996). An activity-based approach to physical education for preschool children with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricker, D., & Cripe, J. (1992). An activity-based approach to early intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
Bricker, D., Prettti-Frontczak, K., & McComas, N. R. (1998). An activity-based approach to early intervention (2nd ed.) Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
Browder, D. M., & Xin, Y. P. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153.Google Scholar
Chiara, L., Schuster, J. W., Bell, J., & Wolery, M. (1995). Small-group massed-trial and individually-distributed-trial instruction with pre-schoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugherty, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2001). The effects of embedded skill instruction on the acquisition of target and nontarget skills in preschoolers with developmental delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 213–221.Google Scholar
Garfinkle, A., & Schwartz, I. S. (2002). Peer imitation: Increasing social interactions in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive preschool classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 26–38.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1984). Griffiths Mental Development Scales: Scale 2. Wycombe, Bucks, UK: Test Agency Limited.Google Scholar
Grisham-Brown, J., Schuster, J. W., Hemmeter, M. L., & Collins, B. (2000). Using an embedding strategy to teach preschoolers with significant disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanline, M. F. (2001). Supporting emergent literacy in play-based activities. Young Exceptional Children, 4(4), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanline, M. F., & Fox, L. (1993). Learning within the context of play: Providing typical early childhood experiences for children with severe disabilities. Journal of Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. W., & McDonnell, J. (2004). An exploratory study of the implementation of embedded instruction by general educators with students with developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 46–63.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Losardo, A., & Bricker, D. (1994). Activity-based intervention and direct instruction: A comparison study. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 744–765.Google ScholarPubMed
Malmskog, S., & McDonnell, A. P. (1999). Teacher-mediated facilitation of engagement by children with developmental delays in inclusive preschools. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 203–216.Google Scholar
McBride, B. J., & Schwartz, I. S. (2003). Effects of embedding caregiver-implemented teaching strategies in daily routines on children’s communication outcomes. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 175–193.Google Scholar
Pretti-Frontczak, K. L., Barr, D. M., Macy, M., & Carter, A. (2003). Resources related to activity-based intervention, embedded learning opportunities, and routines-based instruction: An annotated bibliography. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandall, S., McLean, M. E., & Smith, B. J. (Eds.) (2000). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (1995). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. Google Scholar
Sewell, T. J., Collins, B. C., Hemmeter, M. L., & Schuster, J. W. (1998). Using simultaneous prompting within an activity-based format to teach dressing skills to preschoolers with developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 132–145.Google Scholar
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Snyder, P., Smith, A., Sevin, B., & Longwell, J. (2005). Effects of complete learning trials on child engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Morris, A., DeCesare, L. D., & Cuffs, M. S. (1993). Embedding instruction in art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 277–294.Google Scholar
Wiig, E. H., Secord, W., & Semel, E. (1992). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—preschool. Toronto: Canada: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wolery, M., Anthony, L., Caldwell, N. K., Snyder, E. D., & Morgante, J. (2002). Embedding and distributing constant time delay in circle time and transitions. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 14–25.Google Scholar
Wolery, M., Ault, M., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar