Effects of computer-assisted instruction on correct responding and procedural integrity during early intensive behavioral intervention

A Comparative Study of the Effect of Computer-based Instruction and Problem-solving Instruction on the Students’ Creativity

“…It seems that one contributing factor to an increase in creativity in computer-based instruction is the degree of freedom which the students might achieve (Kodak, Fisher, Clements, & Boouxsein, 2011). This freedom may be expressed in several forms, (e.g., the instruction is presented at the learners' own learning rate, the students can work more on the areas of difficulties, they can refer to previous sections more easily in order to study more, they can make use of various ways to answer their questions and do their homework without any limitation).…”

“…As the instruction is presented through making use of natural pictures, attractive and appropriate colors, various and numerous materials and examples, on-time feedback throughout the teaching process and working with the computer, positive enthusiasm, interest and motivation for learning would increase and this, in turn, would lead to an increase in creativity (Kodak et al, 2011). On the other hand, it seems that problem-solving instruction builds up lower degrees of motivation as a result of utilizing less number of pictures and colors, less feedback and more lectures and lower degrees of students' participation which would lead to lower degrees of creativity.…”

Measurement scale influences in the evaluation of sight‐word reading interventions

“…Flash card procedures can enhance rapid and accurate sight-word reading in students with disabilities (Browder & Xin, 1998;Hilton-Mounger, Hopkins, Skinner, & McCane-Bowling, 2011;Kodak, Fisher, Clements, & Bouxsein, 2011;Nist & Joseph, 2008;Yaw et al, 2011). A typical flash card sight-word trial is modeled after a traditional stimulus-responsestimulus (S-R-S) learning trial (Albers & Greer, 1991;Browder & Lalli, 1991).…”

“…Researchers have evaluated computer-based systems designed to teach students sight words using flash-card-like learning trials with fixed response intervals ranging from 2 s to 5 s (Hilton-Mounger et al, 2011;Kodak et al, 2011;Yaw et al, 2011Yaw et al, , 2012. Although 5-s intervals may provide sufficient time for students to respond (Riley, 1986;Rowe, 1974), evidence suggests that briefer response intervals can increase the pace of responding, which may enhance learning-trial strength (Carnine, 1976;Darch & Gersten, 1985;Hawkins, Skinner, & Oliver, 2005;Robinson & Skinner, 2002).…”

Evaluation of the nonverbal reading approach for two 12 to 13-year-old students with ASD

“…For example, interventions that have investigated TAI with students with ASD have found improved reading skills in terms of vocabulary, sight word, and word recognition (Coleman-Martin, Heller, Cihak, & Irvine, 2005;Massaro & Bosseler, 2006;Yaw et al, 2011). Appropriately designed TAI strategies may be effective for students with ASD when they: (a) use fixed visual cues such as pictures or words; (b) offer an opportunity to engage in a one-on-one teaching format, similar to the discrete trial teaching component of ABA (Bernard-Opitz, Sriram, & NakhodaSapuan, 2001;Steege & Mace, 2007); (c) resemble an errorless learning strategy when designed in such a manner (Mueller, Palkovic, & Maynard, 2007); and (d) ensure correct implementation of various prompting procedures (Kodak, Fisher, Clements, & Bouxsein, 2011). Of the studies reviewed, one method that utilized a phonics-based approach to teach students with ASD and language impairments to identify words using TAI was the Nonverbal Reading Approach (Coleman-Martin et al, 2005).…”