Embedded Simultaneous Prompting Procedure to Teach STEM Content to High School Students with Moderate Disabilities in an Inclusive Setting.

Effects of an embedded simultaneous prompting procedure to teach STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) content to three secondary students with moderate intellectual disabilities in an inclusive general education classroom were evaluated in the current study. Students learned discrete (i.e., geometric figures, science vocabulary, or use of technology to publish) and chained tasks (i.e., linear equation, Punnett square, or Internet research) from a peer tutor and paraprofessionals. Using a multiple probe across participants design, results showed students reached criterion in two to eight sessions and maintained the skills for one month following intervention. Generalization was also at higher levels than in the baseline condition. In addition, general education students who attended class with the participants expressed positive comments based on the intervention. The National Science Board has argued that every student in the United States “. . . deserves the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential” (NSF, 2010, p. v). As STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) permeates every aspect of our lives, it is crucial that all students have access to this content. Students benefit from science content by learning about themselves and the natural world; from engaging in technology by learning how to use smart phones, mobile devices, and computers; from engineering concepts by learning how to solve problems; and from math content by learning how to budget their money and determining how much they have for groceries (Science Pioneers, 2013). There is a national emphasis on preparing students for STEM careers; however, all citizens, even those not pursuing STEM careers, should be able to participate in the scientific and technical issues affecting our society (Matthews, 2007). Traditionally, students with disabilities have been underrepresented in STEM education, and students with moderate intellectual disabilities are especially at risk. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) emphasize the importance of high expectations for all students. According to Kleinert, Kearns, and Kennedy (1997), “. . . one of the keys to ensuring high expectations for every child is requiring that all students be included in measures of educational accountability” (p. 88). Based on these assertions, it is likely that assessments for all students, including alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) for students with moderate and severe disabilities (MSD), will be derived from the content recommended in the CCSS and NGSS. While practices for implementing the AAAAS vary from state to state, having access to the general education curriculum is key for promoting student progress in content areas. Jackson, Ryndak, and Wehmeyer (2010) argued that the interplay between context of Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amy D. Spriggs, Department of Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling, University of Kentucky, 229 Taylor Education Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0001. E-mail: amy.spriggs@uky.edu Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2016, 51(1), 41–54 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Teaching STEM Content to High School Students / 41 instruction and curriculum content is a critical consideration in student learning and progress since students with disabilities who are included in general education contexts are more likely to engage in activities related to grade level standards than students who are in self-contained settings. Hudson, Browder, and Wood (2013) conducted a literature review to evaluate evidence-based practices for students with MSD in inclusive contexts. Authors found embedded instruction (specifically using constant time delay [CTD]) to be an evidence-based practice. Embedded instruction can be defined as an instructor (teacher, paraprofessional, or peer) distributing trials throughout a lesson or naturally occurring routine in the inclusive classroom. Studies in the review focused on teaching reading and writing skills (e.g., Collins, Hall, Branson, & Holder, 1999), social studies skills (e.g., Collins, Evans, Creech-Galloway, Karl, & Miller, 2007), science skills (e.g., Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012), and math skills (McDonnell et al., 2006) to students with moderate and severe disabilities within general education classrooms. Hudson et al. (2013) commended researchers for evaluating procedures to teach a range of academic content in general education settings; however, they recommended additional research on strategies to teach complex and chained skills in inclusive environments. Further, only two quality studies in the review used simultaneous prompting (SP), suggesting a need for further research on this strategy in general education settings. In most of the quality studies reviewed in the Hudson et al. (2013) review, researchers used systematic instruction to teach students core content in general education settings. Methods of systematic instruction include the system of least prompts (SLP), time delay, and simultaneous prompting procedures. Perhaps the easiest and least time consuming method to implement is the SP procedure because the instructor presents the stimulus and the controlling prompt at the same time on each training trial, conducting daily probe trials prior to instructional trials to determine if the student has acquired the target skill (Collins, 2012). Collins et al. (2007) used the SP procedure to teach core content vocabulary to 4 students with MSD at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels, finding the procedure to be effective whether it was delivered in a segregated or an inclusive classroom setting. Riesen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, and Jameson (2003) and Head, Collins, Schuster, and Ault (2011) compared the efficiency of the CTD and SP procedures in teaching academic content (e.g., science and history vocabulary, state capitols) to middle or high school students with disabilities. In both studies, the researchers found the CTD and SP procedures to be equally effective, but the SP procedure was found to be slightly more efficient (i.e., faster acquisition of skills). A body of literature has emerged suggesting that, in addition to academic gains, inclusive settings offer the opportunity for positive social effects on students, both with and without disabilities (e.g., Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997). Results have indicated greater social benefits for students who were included full time in general education classrooms. For example, students who were included full time engaged in more frequent interactions with peers without disabilities, more social contacts across a wide range of activities and settings, higher levels of social support behaviors, larger friendship networks, and longer lasting relationships with peers. While prior research has shown promising effects as a result of teaching in inclusive classrooms, there are several limitations to the research. For example, few studies to date have taught students complex or chained skills in inclusive settings, and no studies exist evaluating STEM-related chained tasks. Hudson et al. (2013) recommended future research using SP in inclusive settings, and despite previous calls for research, sight word identification remains the skill most frequently addressed in these settings. In addition, no research exists on teaching STEM skills identified as part of the AA-AAS in a general education classroom using an embedded SP procedure. The goal of this study is to evaluate the effects of using an embedded SP procedure to teach STEMrelated tasks to students with moderate intellectual disabilities in an inclusive setting. The current study examined instruction on the state standards related to STEM content on which students taking part in the AA-AAS were tested. The study occurred in a suburban high school in a southern state, therefore fo42 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-March 2016 cusing on the state’s AA-AAS. The special education teacher and the general education teacher collaborated to develop a plan for instruction in the general education classroom to be delivered by a paraprofessional or a peer tutor, which included embedding the SP procedure into the natural routine of the general education classroom. Specifically, the current study focused on the following research questions: (a) Will the embedded SP procedure result in the acquisition of STEM content skills by students with moderate intellectual disabilities in the general education classroom? (b) Will peer tutors and paraprofessionals implement the embedded SP procedure with high levels of procedural fidelity? (c) Will the target students maintain the acquired skills over time? (d) Will the target students generalize the STEM skills to situations that simulate the AA-AAS? and (e) Will inclusion of the target students in the general education classroom result in positive social relationships with their peers without disabilities?