Publication Date
8-2015
Document Type
Project
Degree
Master of Arts in Education (MA)
MA Concentration
Special Education
Keywords
constant time delay, 4-step error correction procedure, receptive number identification, multiple baseline, mathematics instruction
Advisors
Linda Haymes, Pamela A. Redmond, Jim O'Connor
Abstract
With the laws that are currently put in place in our nation there is no question that students with disabilities will receive an education; however, what this education will look like varies depending on state, county, school district, or teacher. Although there are several laws that spell out what should be taught and how things should be taught. The education still may look different depending on program, district, teacher, etc. What is known is that educators should be using evidenced based practices. In order for teachers to make informed decisions about evidenced based practices, an in depth review of evidence based practices and/or potentially evidenced based practices is needed to adhere to federal and state regulations as well as adequately serve the target population. The proposed study will look at two different learning strategies, which are employed in classrooms today; Constant time delay, an errorless learning technique, and the four-step error correction procedure. Both of these strategies were tested to see which one better improved accuracy of receptive number identification. The design of the study was a counter balance treatment that used a multiple baseline design with a replication across two students. This design was used to examine the difference in effects of the errorless procedure and the error correction procedure. Although the students did improve in their accuracy of receptive number identification for the targeted numbers what caused this increase could not be confirmed.
Recommended Citation
Hardy, M. I. (2015). Ooops! A Comparison Study: Errorless Prompting v. Error Correction Prompting. Retrieved from https://touroscholar.touro.edu/tucgsoe/168
Poster
