Effects of Active Student Response During Error Correction on the Acquisition, Maintenance, and Generalization of Sight Words by Students With Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

We used an alternating treatments design to compare the effects of active student response error correction and no-response error correction during sight word instruction. Six students with developmental disabilities were provided one-to-one daily sight word instruction on eight sets of 20 unknown words. Each set of 20 words was divided randomly into two equal groups. Student errors during instruction on one group of words were immediately followed by the teacher modeling the word and the student repeating it (active student response instruction). Errors on the other group of words were immediately followed by the teacher modeling the word while the student attended to the word card (no-response instruction). For all 6 students, the active student response errorcorrection procedure resulted in more words read correctly during instruction, same-day tests, nextday tests, 2-week maintenance tests, and generality tests (words read in sentences).

Effects of Immediate and Delayed Error Correction on the Acquisition and Maintenance of Sight Words by Students With Developmental Disabilities

“…The combined results of this study and the two previous studies (Barbetta, Heron, & Heward, 1993;Barbetta, Heward, & Bradley, 1993) provide additional support for error correction that is direct, immediate, and ends with the student actively emitting the correct response. Future research should assess the impact of this type of error correction within a more complete instructional context.…”

“…In the first study, whole-word error correction (the teacher stated the whole word and the student repeated it) provided after each sight-word reading error was more effective than phonetic-prompt error correction (the teacher provided phonetic prompts) for all 5 students (Barbetta, Heward, & Bradley, 1993). In the second study, whole-word error correction was implemented with and without the student repeating the correct response during each error-correction episode (Barbetta, Heron, & Heward, 1993). All 6 students in that study acquired and maintained words at a higher rate when each error-correction episode ended with the student making an active response, compared to the no-response procedure in which the students "paid attention" as the teacher modeled the correct response.…”

Effects of error correction during assessment probes on the acquisition of sight words for students with moderate intellectual disabilities

“…Researchers also examined the effects of active student responding during error correction in the acquisition of sight words (Barbetta, Heron, & Heward, 1993;Worsdell et al, 2005). Barbetta, Heron et al examined the effects of active student responding (i.e., teaching providing corrective feedback and a second opportunity for student to respond to the stimulus) versus a no-response condition (i.e., teacher provide corrective feedback with no opportunity for student to respond to the stimulus).…”

“…. Error correction for individuals with intellectual disabilities should be direct (Barbetta, Heward, & Bradley, 1993), immediate (Barbetta, Heward, Bradley, & Miller, 1994;Worsdell, Iwata, Dozier, Johnson, Neidert, & Thomason, 2005), and ensure active student responding (Barbetta, Heron, & Heward, 1993;Worsdell et al, 2005). compared the effects of a direct word-supply approach to a word-analysis approach in providing error correction during sight-word instruction for students with mild intellectual disabilities (MID).…”

“…While both procedures were more effective than conditions which provided no feedback, researchers demonstrated that immediate feedback was more effective than delayed feedback in teaching sight words to students with intellectual disabilities. Researchers also examined the effects of active student responding during error correction on the acquisition of sight words (Barbetta, Heron, et al, 1993;Worsdell et al, 2005). Barbetta, Heron, et al examined the effects of active student responding (i.e., teacher providing corrective feedback and a second opportunity for student to respond to the stimulus) versus a no-response condition (i.e., teacher provides corrective feedback with no opportunity for student to respond to the stimulus).…”