EFFECT OF RESPONSE PRACTICE VARIABLES ON LEARNING SPELLING AND SIGHT VOCABULARY

Four experiments were conducted to examine variables associated with response practice as an instructional technique for individuals with intellectual disabilities. In Experiment 1, the effect of the cover component in the “cover write” method was evaluated, as were the comparative effects of writte...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied behavior analysis 1995, Vol.28 (2), p.155-173
Main Authors: Cuvo, Anthony J., Ashley, Kristin M., Marso, Kimberly J., Zhang, Bingju Lucy, Fry, Troy A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescents
Adult Education
Behavior
Behavior Disorders
Biological and medical sciences
Developmental Disabilities
Drills (Practice)
Experiments
Instructional Effectiveness
Intellectual disabilities
Intellectual Disability
Learning
Medical sciences
mental retardation
Positive reinforcement
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
response practice
Secondary Education
Sight Vocabulary
Special education. Orthophony
Spelling
Spelling Instruction
Teaching Methods
Treatments
Vocabulary Development
Word Recognition
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Four experiments were conducted to examine variables associated with response practice as an instructional technique for individuals with intellectual disabilities. In Experiment 1, the effect of the cover component in the “cover write” method was evaluated, as were the comparative effects of written versus oral practice of spelling words by rehabilitation clients. The results showed that the cover procedure generally did not enhance performance over and above that produced by practice alone, and written practice generally was not superior to oral practice. Experiment 2 demonstrated that less response practice (i.e., five times) was as effective as more practice (i.e., 10 and 15 times) for teaching spelling to adolescents with developmental disabilities. Experiments 3 and 4 also showed that even less response practice (i.e., one time) was as effective as more practice (five times), and irrelevant practice following errors was as effective as relevant practice for teaching spelling and sight vocabulary to adolescents with behavior disorders and developmental disabilities, respectively. The findings suggest that a parsimonious procedure of limited response practice and positive reinforcement may be effective for the tasks and populations studied.
ISSN:0021-8855
1938-3703
DOI:10.1901/jaba.1995.28-155