A Comparison of Activity-Based Intervention and Embedded Direct Instruction When Teaching Emergent Literacy Skills

Abstract

This replication study focused on the effectiveness of two different intervention approaches, activity-based intervention and embedded direct instruction, on the acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of phonological awareness, a key area of emergent literacy, by preschool children with language delays. Five male preschool participants with language delay were treated with a modified alternating-treatments design. Embedded direct instruction was more effective and efficient in the acquisition of phonological awareness skills for preschool children with language delays. Embedded direct instruction was also more effective in the generalization of emergent literacy skills to probe generalization sessions, as well as in the percentage of maintained skills. Preschool children who are at risk of acquiring foundational skills necessary for the development of conventional literacy would benefit from an explicit, systematic instructional approach. Embedded direct instruction provided the structure necessary to promote effective and efficient acquisition of skills, as well as generalization and maintenance of learning.

Naturalistic Instructional Approaches in Early Learning

“…In 6 of 43 studies, a secondary purpose was to compare instructional approaches or instructional formats. Three studies compared activity-based intervention with direct instruction (Apache, 2005; Botts, Losardo, Tillery, & Werts, 2014; Losardo & Bricker, 1994). One study compared milieu teaching with responsive interaction (Yoder et al, 1995) and another compared small group or one-to-one massed-trial instructional format with a distributed-trial format (Wolery, Doyle, Gast, Ault, & Simpson, 1993).…”

Gelişimsel Yetersizliği Olan Çocuklarla Rutin Temelli Öğretim Yaklaşımlarının Uygulandığı Çalışmaların İncelenmesi

“…Upon evaluating the studies in terms of the generalization dimension, it was observed that in five of the studies generalization sessions were organized (Bakkaloglu, 2008;Botts et al, 2014;Horn et al, 2000;Kashinath et al, 2006;Woods et al, 2004) and in nine of the studies no study in relation to generalization was carried out. When the studies were examined under the heading of maintenance, it was observed that in six of the studies maintenance sessions were held after teaching the target skills (Bakkaloglu, 2008;Botts et al, 2014;Daugherty et 838 GİZEM ERGİN-İBRAHİM H. DİKEN 2019, 20(4) al., 2001, Grisham-Brown et al, 2000Kashinath et al, 2006;Woods & Goldstein, 2003), and no study in relation to maintenancewas conducted in eight studies.…”

“…Upon examining the studies under the heading of the independent variable, it was observed that in five studies activity-based teaching/embedded teaching intervention programs (Bakkaloglu, 2008;Botts et al, 2014;Dunst et al, 2001;Horn et al, 2000;Woods & Goldstein, 2003), in seven studies response clue methods embedded in home/school routines and various teaching strategies (Daugherty et al, 2001;Dunlap et al, 2006;Dunst et al, 2001;Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 2001;Kashinath et al, 2006;Macy & Bricker, 2007;Salisbury et al, 2012), in one study the development of a questionnaire (Dunst et al, 2000), and in one study the observation of routines and child initiatives (Kishida & Kemp, 2006) were discussed.…”

Using Digital Texts in Interactive Reading Activities for Children with Language Delays and Disorders: A Review of the Research Literature and Pilot Study

“…A wide variety of interventions to address early literacy skills in children with language delays and disorders have been investigated, including phonological awareness interventions, 11,12 shared or interactive book reading, 13,14 sight word instruction, 15,16 vocabulary instruction, 17 and print awareness interventions. 18,19 Remediation, however, is often challenging.…”