Effectiveness of Manipulatives During Shared Reading to Teach - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Effectiveness of Manipulatives During Shared Reading to Teach Vocabulary to Children with Down Syndrome Kara Kaniefski Spring 2020

IMPORTANCE OF SHARED BOOK READING • Shared book reading is beneficial to development of children • Builds positive relationships • Teaches preacademic skills • Provides language learning opportunities • An expansive vocabulary is linked to later school and reading success • Recognized need to teach vocabulary to young children • Optimize learning opportunities that can occur during shared reading (Shared Reading, 2020; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994; Coyne, Simmons, Kame'enui, & Stoolmiller, 2004)

CURRENT RESEARCH BASE • Shared reading vocabulary interventions proven to increase target word knowledge • Emphasizing target word • Extra-textual talk • Use of manipulatives before reading, asks open-ended questions throughout, and provides extension activities after • Suggests viable interventions for a relatively homogenous group of children (Blewitt & Langan, 2016; Gonzalez et. al., 2014; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasik, et al., 2006 )

STUDENTS WITH DOWN SYNDROME • Characteristics of individuals with Down syndrome • Auditory processing difficulties • Speech delays/lack of clarity • Relative strength in visuospatial processing skills (Dahle & McCollister, 1986; Downs & Balkany, 1988; Peuschel, Gallagher, Zartler, & Pezzullo, 1987)

RATIONALE • Gaps in the existing literature surrounding the adaptation/application of interventions to children with disabilities, specifically Down syndrome • Current interventions may not work • Based in an auditory processing activity • Engage students through dialogue • Current study • Application of vocabulary intervention to children with Down syndrome • Use of manipulatives to increase receptive word identification for children with Down syndrome • Support application success: • Children with Down syndrome have better visual than auditory learning

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. Is the use of manipulatives (e.g., figures representative of important characters, objects) during shared book reading more efficient than shared book reading without manipulatives at increasing target word accuracy for a children with Down syndrome as assessed through brief probes? 2. Does the use of shared reading with manipulatives sustain a higher level of engagement than shared reading without manipulatives? 3. Do EC professionals rate the use of shared reading as an important component of the preschool day for language learning as compared to other activities (e.g., centers, free play, recess, meal times)?

PARTICIPANTS

PARTICIPANTS • Participant (1): Arlo • 54 months • African American male • Down syndrome • Primary Implementor (1) • 24-years-old Caucasian female • B.A. in Special Education • Current Master’s student in Early Childhood Special Education • Secondary Coders (2) • 26-year-old male • 23-year-old female • B.A. in Child Development • B.A. in English and Education • Current Master’s student in Early • Current Master’s student in Early Childhood Special Education Childhood Special Education

SETTING • Empty classroom at child’s university-affiliated preschool • Implementor and participant only present • Table and chairs of an appropriate size for the participant

MATERIALS • 3 book sets (each set is comprised of the book, corresponding manipulatives, 6 laminated target word stimuli cards) • ABC Animal Jamboree by Giles Andreae • Rumble in the Jungle by Giles Andreae • Night Night Jungle by Amy Parker • 12 laminated distractor cards • Laminated “First, Then” board with 6 laminated tokens • Participant specific reinforcer • Spotify iPhone app • Canon mini digital camera and tripod • Dell desktop computer with Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, and ProcoderDV capabilities

BEHAVIOR SETS

DEPENDENT VARIABLES • Target word accuracy • Primary – used for decision changes • Measured through brief probes • Engagement • Secondary • Measured through 5-s momentary time sampling of shared reading sessions

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Adapted Alternating Treatments Design (AATD) • Utilizes the rapid, iterative alternation of conditions to answer a comparison question • Why it is was chosen: • Primary DV is an accelerating, non-reversible behavior • Controls for threats to internal validity – separation of treatments • Addition of control condition allowed for detection of history and maturation • Favorable when compared to a parallel treatments design (PTD) or rapid acquisition design (RAD) • Procedural infidelity and multitreatment were still threats to internal validity (Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson, 1985; Shepley, Ault, Ortiz, Vogler, & McGee, 2019)

STUDY TIMELINE Comparison Phase Probes 1. Retention Probe 2. Intervention At least 3 probes per Sessions condition before 3. Retention probe intervention Shared Reading Shared Reading Baseline without Control Maintenance with Manipulatives Manipulatives Shared Reading and Shared Reading and Independent Reading Probe Probe of Book and Probe At least 5 sessions At least 5 sessions At least 5 sessions

PROBES 1. Lay out three stimuli cards (with pictures similar to those in the book) 2. Implementor: ”show me [target word]” 3. Following choice (right or wrong) offer brief verbal praise 4. Present token 5. Remove all stimulus cards 6. Repeat for each target word (six) 7. Three-minute reinforcement period 8. Repeat steps 1-7 for 6 target words again, counterbalancing position and distractors

COMPARISON PHASE • Implementation of three rapidly alternated conditions • Alternation of conditions were randomized • Two of the same condition could not occur consecutively and each condition must occur at least once per five sessions • Set to continue until a priori criterion of at least 80% across two conditions was met

SHARED READING WITH MANIPULATIVES • Implementor: “let’s read” • Neutral acknowledgement of participant contributions (“mhm”, “yeah”) • Target words • Label introduction of manipulative • Allowed 15-s to interact with manipulative • Removal of manipulative while simultaneously presenting a token • Implementor: “we are all done reading” • 3-min break with access to reinforcers • Transition to probe procedures

EXAMPLE

SHARED READING WITHOUT MANIPULATIVES • Implementor: “let’s read” • Neutral acknowledgement of participant contributions (“mhm”, “yeah”) • Target words • Point to picture of corresponding word, first time that it is read • Implementor: “we are all done reading” • 3-min break with access to reinforcers • Transition to probe procedures

CONTROL • Participant provided book • Implementor: “let’s read” • 3-mins • No attention from implementor • End session after 3-mins or when participant says they are all done with “we are all done reading” • 3-min break with access to reinforcers • Transition to probe procedures

CONDITION FEATURES

RESULTS – RECEPTIVE TARGET WORD ACCURACY

ANALYSIS OF CORRECT RESPONDING ACROSS ITEMS

RESULTS – ENGAGEMENT

INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT • Agreement was calculated used the point-by-point method • ([number of agreements]/[agreements + disagreements]) x 100 • IOA sessions were randomly decided based on a random number generator

PROCEDURAL FIDELITY • A quality of occurrence of aspects of the intervention • Behavior did not occur (0) • Occurred mostly/often (1) • Occurred always (2) • PF to be collected for 100% of sessions

SOCIAL VALIDITY • Blind raters were recruited to subjectively measure the procedures and goals of the intervention • Demographics (N=8) • Age range: 22-59-years-old (Mn = 47.88) • Experience: 0-30 years (Mn = 11.56) • Caucasian, female • 75% bachelors, 25% masters

SOCIAL VALIDITY

SOCIAL VALIDITY

SOCIAL VALIDITY

DISCUSSION • An increase in target word vocabulary for both shared reading formats • Appears to be no differentiation when accounting for differences in knowledge of target words during baseline • No clear differentiation in engagement, but Arlo was more engaged in 80% of the shared reading with manipulative sessions • Based on social validity data, shared book reading with manipulatives condition was on average ranked high for child engagement, enjoyment, effectiveness as a language learning opportunity, and feasibility

LIMITATIONS • Only one participant • Differences in correct responding during baseline • Limiting time through which the study was conducted

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE • Children with Down syndrome are able to learn receptive labels from book reading • Use of manipulatives during shared reading may be more appropriate but not necessarily effective/efficient than shared book reading without manipulatives for vocabulary instruction • Use of manipulatives may sustain engagement better than a typical shared reading context