Learning to Effectively Implement Constant Time Delay Procedures to Teach Spelling

Abstract

This study examined the effectiveness of a training procedure designed to teach a special education resource teacher the constant time delay procedures. In addition, the study examined the effectiveness of constant time delay procedures in teaching written spelling words to one 12-year-old male student with a learning disability. A multiple-probe design across behaviors was used to demonstrate the functional relationship between the time delay procedure and the student acquiring, maintaining, and generalizing 15 spelling words. The investigation specifically sought to address teacher-training issues related to instructional procedures, student acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. The teacher successfully implemented the procedure with 100% treatment integrity and the student learned to spell all 15 spelling words.

Teacher candidates’ mastery of phoneme-grapheme correspondence: massed versus distributed practice in teacher education

“…Many of these learning principles can be applied within teacher preparation in order to enhance the knowledge and skills of teacher candidates. Two such concepts are the use of constant time delay for the acquisition of specific skills (Hughes, Fredrick, & Keel, 2002) and the application of distributed practice (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013).…”

“…CTD minimizes student error and promotes active student engagement through multiple opportunities to respond with immediate, corrective feedback. A large body of research has demonstrated the efficacy of CTD across student populations and tasks (Campbell & Mechling, 2009;Head, Collins, Schuster, & Ault, 2011;Hughes et al, 2002;Walker, 2008). For this study, it was hypothesized that use of CTD procedures would support teacher candidate acquisition of phonemegrapheme correspondence knowledge (i.e., the letter c can represent two sounds, /k/ or /s/; diagraphs are two-letter combinations that represent a single phoneme) and skill (i.e., pronunciation of /k/ and /s/; /th/ and /sh/).…”

A Synthesis of Spelling and Reading Interventions and Their Effects on the Spelling Outcomes of Students With LD

“…Data on intervention fidelity are necessary to determine whether the intervention was implemented as intended and, therefore, whether the intended intervention is responsible for the outcomes reported. Despite differences are research design, six studies in this synthesis included evidence of fidelity of treatment in the study (Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996, Hughes, Frederick, & Keel, 2002Keel, Slaton, & Blackhurst, 2001;Lewis et al, 1998;Morton, Heward, & Alber, 1998;Telecsan, Slaton, & Stevens, 1999).…”

“…Three studies conducted multiple baseline designs (MacArthur, 1998;McNaughton, Hughes, & Ofiesh, 1997;Telecsan et al, 1999); one of these studies also incorporated withdrawal (MacArthur). Six studies implemented an alternating treatments design (Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996;Keel et al, 2001;MacArthur, 1999, Studies 1 and 2; McComas et al, 1996;Morton et al, 1998), and two reported case studies (Hughes et al, 2002;Masterson & Crede, 1999).…”

“…However, Lewis et al and Raskind and Higgins conducted intervention sessions once per week over the duration of the study. Three studies did not provide enough information to ascertain the duration of the intervention (Hughes et al, 2002;MacArthur, 1998;McNaughton et al, 1997).…”