Effects of an App Incorporating Systematic Instruction to Teach Spelling to Students With Developmental Delays

Abstract

This study used a multiple probe (conditions) design across behaviors to investigate the effects of an app for the tablet computer to teach spelling of academic content words to four students with developmental disabilities. The app delivered instruction using a model-lead-test format and students typed on the on-screen keyboard. The study also evaluated the acquisition of nontarget information presented by the app in the form of identifying photos and definitions of the spelling words. The results indicated that all students learned their spelling words using the app and generalized the spelling to paper and pencil. They maintained most of their stimuli and learned the majority of the nontarget information to which they were exposed. Findings are discussed in the context of using technology-aided instruction and interventions that incorporate systematic instruction to teach academics and deliver nontarget information.

Single-Case Writing Interventions for Students with Disorders of Intellectual Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…After coding, five of the 20 studies were rated as "does not meet standards" and were thus excluded. The two studies that met WWC Standards without reservation [32,33] and the 13 studies that met WWC Standards with reservation [22,28,31,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] were subjected to variable coding for study characteristics and included in the systematic review. The inter-assessor agreement was 100% on both classifying the rigor of the included studies and demonstrating their effect over time.…”

“…In addition, BC-SMD can only be calculated for identical measured outcomes in MPD or MBD across participants or treatment reversal/ABAB design [45]. Three of the included studies in the systematic review used other SCEDs (i.e., MPD across-behavior: [34,38,39]) and were therefore excluded from the meta-analysis. The study by Mims et al [35] was also excluded because of the lack of raw scores regarding the required dependent writing variables.…”

“…Across all the included studies, the IQs ranged from 40 to 74, with an average of 54.7, which corresponds to mild disorders of ID (c.f., [50]). Only three studies [33,34,42] reported participants' adaptive skills (Konrad et al [41] reported adaptive skills in only two of five participants), describing them as mild and moderate adaptive difficulties (c.f., [50]). All included studies reported the participants' genders and ages.…”

“…Writing methods: Six studies developed the writing intervention solely for students with disorders of ID [22,33,35,37,39,40], and nine studies adapted the existing writing intervention to this group of students [28,31,32,34,36,38,[41][42][43]. Three studies used an adapted version of the SRSD model: two focused on cognitive strategy instruction [41,42], and one included mnemonics and peer revision strategies [28].…”

“…Three studies used an adapted version of the SRSD model: two focused on cognitive strategy instruction [41,42], and one included mnemonics and peer revision strategies [28]. Six studies used typing as the method of writing [31,32,[34][35][36]40], and two studies included participants who used typing or handwriting [37,38]. The remaining studies used solely handwriting.…”