Research Article

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

Volume: 10 Number: 1 August 12, 2018
  • Serife Yucesoy-ozkan *
  • Emrah Gulboy
  • Feyat Kaya
EN

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

Abstract

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. 

Keywords

References

  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 Unpublished mas-ter’s thesis.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.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

-

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Serife Yucesoy-ozkan * This is me
Türkiye

Emrah Gulboy This is me
Türkiye

Feyat Kaya This is me
Türkiye

Publication Date

August 12, 2018

Submission Date

June 12, 2018

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2018 Volume: 10 Number: 1

APA
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, 10(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.454433