SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education / 2018 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

Teaching Children with Intellectual Disabilities through Video Prompting: Smartphone vs. Tablet

Serife YUCESOY-OZKAN
Emrah GULBOY
Feyat KAYA
Pages
33–49
Publication Date
2018-08-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Implications for future research are discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz The study aims to determine whether video prompting differs when provided on smartphone compared with tablet in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in teaching leisure skills to children with intellectual disabilities, which types of errors exhibited by participants and the opinions of the mothers on the social validity of the study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Four children with intellectual disabilities, aged 66-81 months participated in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Implications for future research are discussed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler Video Prompting · screen size · smartphone

Özet

Öz The study aims to determine whether video prompting differs when provided on smartphone compared with tablet in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in teaching leisure skills to children with intellectual disabilities, which types of errors exhibited by participants and the opinions of the mothers on the social validity of the study. Four children with intellectual disabilities, aged 66-81 months participated in the study. An adapted alternating treatments design show that video prompting was effective on both video prompting provided via smartphone and tablet on teaching leisure skills, however video prompting presented through the smartphone was more effective than video prompting presented through tablet. There was no significant difference between the efficiency of VP provided on the smartphone and tablet in terms of number of sessions and errors; however, VP provided on the tablet was slightly more efficient in terms of total training time. In addition, the most common errors in probe sessions were sequence and duration errors, and the opinions of the participants’ mothers regarding the social validity of the study were positive. Implications for future research are discussed.

🔖

Cite This Article

YUCESOY-OZKAN, S., GULBOY, E., KAYA, F. (2018). Teaching Children with Intellectual Disabilities through Video Prompting: Smartphone vs. Tablet. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 33–49. https://ajindex.com/articles/137761

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Acungil, A. T. (2014). Effectiveness of tablet computer instruction pro-grams presented via audio-visual technologies on teaching the use of tablet to students with intellec-tual disabilities. Unpublished mas-ter’s thesis. Anadolu University In-stitute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir. Obtained from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
  2. Aykut, Ç., Dağseven-Emecen, D., Dayı, E., & Karasu, N. (2014). Teaching chained tasks to students with in-tellectual disabilities by using VP in small group instruction. Educa-tional Science: Theory and Prac-tice, 14, 1082-1087.
  3. Bennett, K. D., Gutierrez, A., & Hons-berger, T. (2013). A comparison of VP with and without voice-over narration on the clerical skills of adolescents with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 1273-1281.
  4. Bereznak, S., Ayres, K. M., Mechling, L. C., & Alexander, J. L. (2012). Vid-eo self-prompting and mobile technology to increase daily living and vocational independence for students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Developmen-tal and Physical Disabilities, 24, 269-285.
  5. Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Mun-son, R. (1980). Procedural reliabil-ity: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
  6. Cannella-Malone, H. I., Brooks, D. G., & Tullis, C. A. (2013). Using self-directed VP to teach students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 169-189.
  7. Cannella-Malone, H. I., Fleming, C., Chung, Y. C., Wheeler, G. M., Basbagill, A. R., & Singh, A. H. (2011). Teaching daily living skills to seven individuals with severe in-tellectual disabilities: A comparison of VP to VM. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 144-153.
  8. Cannella-Malone, H. I., Wheaton, J. E., Wu, P., Tullis, C. A., & Park, J. H. (2012). Comparing the effects of VP with and without error correc-tion on skill acquisition for stu-dents with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 332-344.
  9. Chan, J. M., Lambdin, L., van Laar-hoven, T., & Johnson, J. W. (2013). Teaching leisure skills to an adult with developmental disa-bilities using a VP intervention package. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Dis-abilities, 48, 412-420.
  10. Cihak, D., Alberto, P. A., Taber-Doughty, T., & Gama, R.I. (2006). A com-parison of static picture prompting and VP simulation strategies using group instructional procedures. Focus on Autism and Other De-velopmental Disabilities, 21, 89-99.
  11. Collins, B. C., Hall, M., & Branson,