The Effects of Time Delay Procedures on the Acquisition, Maintenance, and Generalization of Spelling Sight Words for Elementary Students with High-incidence Disabilities
Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Jenna Ott, B.A. Graduate Program in Educational Studies
The Ohio State University
2019
Thesis Committee:
Dr. Moira Konrad, Advisor Dr. Sheila Morgan
Copyright by Jenna Ott
2019
Abstract
Reading is a skill in which many students with disabilities perform at a lower level than their peers without disabilities. While previous studies have shown that learning how to read does not automatically help students learn how to spell, learning how to spell does help children learn how to read. Immediate feedback, immediate self-correction, and repetition have been found to be effective components of effective spelling instruction intervention packages. The current study examined the effects of adding technology to the Time Delay strategy on student’s acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of spelling sight words, and also the student’s ability to read those sight words in isolation and fluently in text. This study examined the effects of the Time Delay procedure on sight word spelling for kindergarten and first grade elementary students with high-incidence disabilities in an urban school setting.
A multiple baseline single-subject design was used to determine the effectiveness of the
Time Delay strategy to teach 15 unknown Dolch Sight Words. These sight words were selected based on an assessment given to determine which words students could not read, and also could not spell. Unknown sight words were put into 3 sets of 5 words each. The Time Delay intervention was used to help students practice spelling these words and a probe for all 15 words was conducted after each session. This allowed maintenance measures to be recorded every trial after set 1 was complete. Generalization was measured as well. The student practiced spelling the word on a tablet but was probed with the materials of paper and pencil. The student was also generalizing what was practiced during the probe because he or she was asked to then read the word both in isolation and in a sentence. Results show that the Time Delay intervention was effective in the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of sight words for all participants. In
i addition, results from student and teacher questionnaires indicate that Time Delay was a socially valid intervention.
ii Dedication
This study is dedicated to my family, whose continuous love, reassurance, and encouragement have made my continuing education possible. This study is also dedicated to my students, past and future, who inspire me each and every day.
iii Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Moira Konrad, for her continued willingness to help and attention to detail throughout the entirety of this project. I thank Meghan O’Neil for her time commitment and support with data collection in this study. I thank Alana Telesman for her help with the revision of this thesis. I am so grateful for your contribution to this work. I also wish to thank the wonderful students and staff who made the development and completion of this study possible.
iv
Vita
April 30, 1988………………………………... Born, Dallas, Texas
June 8, 20010………………………………… B.S. Elementary Education, Berea College, Kentucky
June 30, 2014 …………………………………. 4 Year Resident Early Childhood (P-3) License State Department of Education, Ohio
June 30, 2017 …………………………………. 1 Year Supplemental Early Childhood Intervention Specialist (P-3) License State Department of Education, Ohio
June 30, 2018 …………………………………. 5 Year Professional Early Childhood Intervention Specialist (P-3) License State Department of Education, Ohio
June 30, 2018…………………………………... 5 Year Provisional Early Childhood (P-3) License State Department of Education, Ohio
Fields of Study
Major Field: Educational Studies
v Table of Contents
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………..i
Dedication …………………………………………..……………………………………iii
Acknowledgements ------iv
Vita ……………………………………………………………………………………….v
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………….x
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………xi
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………1
Chapter 2: Method…………………………………………………………………………6
Institutional Review Board Approval……………………………………………...6
Setting ……………………………………………………………………………..6
Participants ………………………………………………………………………..7
Zeke………………………………………………………………………………..7
Kelly ………………………………………………………………………7
Shaniya ……………………………………………………………………7
Geoffrey …………………………………………………….……………..8
Definition of Measurement of Dependent Variables ……………………………………...8.
Number of words spelled correctly ………………………………………………..8
Number of words read correctly in isolation ………………………………………8
Number of words read correctly in sentences …………………………….……….8
Data Collection Procedures ………………………………………………………………..9
Materials ……………………………………………………………………………………9
Experimental Design ……………………………………………………………………….9
vi Treatment Integrity and Interobserver Agreement………….………………………………10
Procedures …………………………………………………………………………………..11
Baseline……………………………………………………………………………...11
Intervention ………………………………………………………………………....11
Maintenance…………………………………………………………………………12
Generalization…………………………………………………………………….…12
Social Validity……………………………………………………………………….12
Data Analysis Plan ………………………………………………………………………….13
Chapter 3: Results …………………………………………………………………………..14
Interobserver Agreement (IOA) …………………………………………………….14
Treatment ……………………………………………………………………………14
What is the Effect of the Time Delay Strategy on Students’ Numbers of Words Spelled
Correctly? ……………………………………………………………………………15
Zeke…………………………………………………………………………..15
Kelly ………………………………………………………………………….15
Shaniya ……………………………………………………………………….16
Geoffrey ………………………………………………………………………17
What is the Effect of the Time Delay Strategy on Students’ Numbers of Words Read
Correctly in Isolation? ……………………………………………………………….18
Zeke…………………………………………………………………………...18
Kelly ………………………………………………………………………….18
Shaniya ……………………………………………………………………….19
Geoffrey ………………………………………………………………………19.
vii What is the Effect of the Time Delay Strategy on Students’ Numbers of Words Read
Correctly in sentences? ……………………………………………………………..20
Zeke………………………………………………………………………….20
Kelly ……………………………………………………..………………….20
Shaniya ………………………………………………………………………21
Geoffrey ……………………………………………………………………...21
Social Validity ……………………………………………………………………….22
What are the students’ opinions about the Time Delay strategy and its
effects? ……………………………………………………………………………….22
What are the teachers’ opinions about the Time Delay strategy and its
effects? ……………………………………………………………………………….23
Chapter 4: Discussion ……………………………………………………………………….38
What is the Effect of the Time Delay Strategy on Students’ Numbers of Words Spelled
Correctly? …………………………………………………….………………………39
What is the Effect of the Time Delay Strategy on Students’ Numbers of Words Read
Correctly in Isolation and in Sentences. …...………………………………………….40
Will Students maintain the Spelling of Sight Words ………………………………… 40
Will Students Who Use the Time Delay Procedure Generalize the Correct Spelling of
Sight Words, as Measured by Reading those Words in Sentences...... 41
Social validity ………………………………………………………………………….41
Implication For Practice………………………………………………………….…….43
Limitations and Future Research……...……………………………………..…………43
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………..46
viii References…………………………………………………………………………..47
Appendixes A: Post Instructional Probe Data Sheet (WSC)……………………….49
B: Post Instructional Probe Data Sheet (WRC)……………………….51
C: Post Instructional Probe Data Sheet (WRCS………………………53
D: Time Delay Strategy Data Sheet…………………………………...55
E: Intervention Script………………………………………………….58
F: Treatment Integrity Checklist………………………………………62
G: Probe Script………………………………………………………...65
H: Interobserver Agreement for Post Session Probe Data Form………67
I: Social Validity Survey for Student. ………………………………...69
J: Social Validity Survey for Teachers…………………………………72
ix
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Participant information. ……………………………………………………………...14
Table 3.1: The students’ opinions about the Time Delay strategy and its effects……………….36
Table 3.2: The teachers’ opinions about the Time Delay strategy and its effects……………….37
x
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Figure 3.1 The total number of words spelled correctly for Zeke………………….24
Figure 3.2 The total number of words spelled correctly for Kelly……………………………...25
Figure 3.3 The total number of words spelled correctly for Shaniya…………………………..26
Figure 3.4 The total number of words spelled correctly for Geoffrey………………………….27
Figure 3.5 The total amount of words read correctly in isolation for Zeke……………………..28
Figure 3.7 The total amount of words read correctly in isolation for Shaniya………………….29
Figure 3.8 The total amount of words read correctly in isolation for Geoffrey ………………...30
Figure 3.9 The total amount of words read correctly within a sentence by Zeke ………………31
Figure 3.10 The total amount of words read correctly within a sentence by Kelly…………..…32
Figure 3.11 The total amount of words read correctly within a sentence by Shaniya………a..33
Figure 3.12 The total amount of words read correctly within a sentence by Geoffrey………….34
xi Chapter 1: Literature Review
Reading proficiency is a strong contributing factor in predicting future outcomes for children. Children who do not read well are more likely to be retained in school, drop out of high school, become teen parents, or enter the juvenile justice system (Connor et al., 2014). Effective literacy instruction gives students a chance to pursue their passions and engage with their community because reading is a vital skill for acquiring new knowledge both in and out of school (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000).
Unfortunately, students with high-incidence disabilities are often unable to read at the same levels as their peers (Stevens et al., 2016). In a meta-analysis of reading outcomes for students with high-incidence disabilities, students with high-incidence disabilities had lower initial reading achievement when compared to students without disabilities (Stevens et al., 2016).
For young students, low scores in the following areas predict that a child will have future reading difficulty: phonemic awareness, rapid naming of letters, numbers, objects, and print awareness
(Grossen, 1997).
One way to improve early intervention for students with high-incidence disabilities is to focus on the area of reading with explicit instruction in spelling. This connection between spelling performance and reading performance has been documented in studies by Morris and
Perney (1984) and Wade and Siegel (1997). Although learning how to read does not automatically translate into spelling proficiency, there is evidence that students who exhibit weaknesses in spelling are more likely to have educational deficits than their peers without weaknesses in spelling (Friend & Olsen, 2008). Spelling problems are common for students with high-incidence disabilities, yet they rank as some of the most difficult problems to remediate
(Darch, Kim, Johnson, & James, 2000).
1 Rule-governed instruction is an effective method of instruction for that which contains predictable rules such as spelling. Rule-governed behavior is a verbal description of a contingency. For example, a person is told that touching a hot stove will burn her, and she does not touch it, she following a rule (i.e., exhibiting rule-governed behavior). If she touched a hot stove and determined never to do it again, she would be exhibiting contingency-shaped behavior.
If a student learns a set of rules to spell (e.g., “i before e, except after c”), that student will be able to exhibit rule-governed behavior.
Letter sound relationships are rule governed. Students should be systematically taught these rules through effective phonics instruction so that students understand the alphabetic principle. The alphabetic principle is the understanding that letters represent sounds which form words. This is the basis of decoding letter sounds in words in order to read and also identifying the individual sounds in words in order to spell. The goal of phonics instruction is not that children be able to state the rules governing letter-sound relationships. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate fluency and understanding of the alphabetic principle, the principle that there are systematic relationships between letters and sounds (Anderson, 1985).
Although teaching phonics and spelling rules is the most important aspect of spelling instruction, limiting instruction to these rules will leave gaps for children who demonstrate difficulty with reading and spelling. Simple memorization in the teaching of spelling is still an important aspect of instruction that benefits struggling readers because not all words decode by perfect rule. Some words are not able to be broken down into any sort of pattern and must be memorized if they are to become part of the reader’s or speller’s repertoire. These words are known as sight words. Sight words are very important for young children to master because they
2 account for up to 75% of the words used in beginning children’s printed material (Kear &
Gladhart, 1987).
The learning time required to master new academic material such as sight words varies from student to student and situation to situation (Bloom, 1974). Increasing time alone does not necessitate automatic increases in learning. Increasing time spent working toward mastering academic material may not maximize learning rates if students are not responding to the academic material presented (Berliner, 1984). Time Delay, an evidence-based instructional procedure, is a method of teaching that provides many opportunities to respond with very few errors. This study seeks to determine if the method of Progressive Time Delay is effective at teaching the spellings of sight words to students with high-incidence disabilities.
Time Delay is an effective method for teaching students with high-incidence disabilities a variety of discrete skills such as sight words (Collins, 2012). This intervention is effective because it gives students numerous opportunities not only to respond, but to respond correctly.
When implementing a Time Delay procedure, the instructor implements errorless learning conditions by selecting a prompt that is most likely to result in a correct response in the majority of instructional trials. As the instructional trials continue, and the student reaches criterion, the instructor gradually increases the time between the onset of the task direction and the prompt until the student can respond without assistance of the prompt.
Time Delay procedures are especially effective during the acquisition phase of learning because they provide models of correct form to aid the student in acquiring new knowledge. This method of teaching discrete skills often leads to learners reaching criterion in a shorter period of time or a shorter period of instructional trials (Collins, 2012). The implementation of Time
3 Delay procedures has benefits for teachers and students because they are easy for teachers to implement and easy for students to avoid errors that often lead to frustration and wasted time.
At this time there are very few studies that implement a Time Delay procedure for the teaching of spelling sight words. A study that investigated the differential effects of two spelling procedures—Cover Copy Check (CCC) and Time Delay (TD)— on students’ overall acquisition and maintenance of learned words, Cover Copy Check resulted in more words learned over TD.
Despite these findings, researchers noted that CCC was more time intensive and students did not maintain gains as well as they did with other instructional methods such as TD (Cates et al.,
2006). This study indicated that both procedures resulted in students mastering criteria for success. The Time Delay procedure was more efficient however, requiring less trials to criteria
(Cates et al., 2006). The purpose of this study was to add to this body of research to identify effective procedures for teaching the spelling of sight words.
One criticism of the Time Delay procedure is that the procedure can be monotonous, and children can become bored simply repeating the same task for multiple repetitions throughout the session (citation?). The effect of Time Delay with the addition of technology to teach the spelling of sight words has yet to be explored. This study will explore the effects of teaching students how to spell sight words while practicing on a tablet while using their finger to write. Commonly cited benefits of using technology include increased motivation and increased time on task
(Musti-Rao & Plati, 2015). Technology is able to increase student performance in academic areas (Carver, 2016). Carver (2016) found that 58% of teachers reported an increase in student engagement, and 23% reported increased student understanding as well. The overall positive perceptions that students and teachers share about technology integration in the classroom make
4 the use of Time Delay with technology very promising. A tablet was chosen in this study because of the engaging nature of technology.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of adding technology to the Time
Delay strategy on student’s acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of spelling sight words, and also the student’s ability to read those sight words in isolation and fluently in text. This study examined the effects of the Time Delay procedure on sight word spelling for kindergarten and first grade elementary students with high-incidence disabilities in an urban school setting.
1. What are the effects of progressive Time Delay spelling procedures with an
electronic writing notepad app on students' reading of those sight words in isolation?
2. What are the effects of progressive Time Delay spelling procedures with an electronic
writing notepad app on students' spelling of those sight words?
3. Will students be able to generalize sight word reading to sentences?
4. What are the opinions of students and teachers about the intervention and its effects?
5 Chapter 2: Method
Institutional Review Board Approval
Before data collection began, the researcher submitted an exemption application to the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Ohio State University. The IRB determined the study
(described below) to be exempt. A letter of permission was obtained from the cooperating school’s school leader, which documented her willingness to allow a student researcher to conduct a study with students in her building. In addition, parental permission forms were collected for all participants, and student’s verbal acceptance was obtained preceding data collection.
Setting
The study took place in a primary school in Columbus, Ohio, that taught students in kindergarten and first grade. The school housed 360 students and 32 teachers (including administrators and paraprofessionals). The student population was 89.2% Black, 2.9% Hispanic,
4.2% Multiracial, and 3% white with 12.5% of students with disabilities, and 100% determined eligible to receive free breakfast and lunch.
Data collection took place during the students’ Phonics English and Language Arts block in the school’s resource room/staff meeting room. The room contained a teacher desk, a comfy corner, and u-shaped table with five chairs containing chair pockets with all necessary supplies, an easel on wheels and 6 adult tables each with 6 adult sized chairs. The room contained three walls that are entirely made of windows overlooking the playground and forest areas behind the school.
The Time Delay intervention took place 3 to 4 days a week in the resource room.
Students typically worked while other students were not in the room, but if another student was
6 in the room, they were with another adult working quietly. When students entered the room, they would grab the tablet and set it up. They were allowed to draw on the tablet’s drawing app until it was time to begin. They sat at the U table facing the window, while the teacher sat the opposite direction to face the student.
Participants
Four students were the subject of this study. Two of the students were in kindergarten and two were in first grade. Each student had been identified with a disability. The students were selected for participation because they had overall lower reading scores on classroom assessments and parental permission for participation (see Table 2.1).
Zeke. Zeke was a 7-year-old African-American male in the first grade who had been diagnosed with ED. He scored a 69 standard score on the spelling portion of the Woodcock
Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Zeke was beginning his first full year of receiving special education services in the areas of reading. Zeke received 100 minutes per week of reading intervention in the resource room and 40 minutes per week of social skills training (SST).
Kelly. Kelly was a 6-year-old African-American female in the first grade who had been diagnosed with a Specific Learning Disability. She scored a 76 standard score on the spelling portion of the Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Kelly was in her first year of receiving special education services in the areas of reading, writing, and math. Prior to the year of this study, she received speech and language services only. Kelly received 20 minutes a day in the resource room for each subject including reading, writing, and math and 200 minutes per month in speech.
Shaniya. Shaniya is a 5-year-old African-American female in kindergarten who had qualified for special education services under the label of speech and language delay. Shaniya
7 entered kindergarten unable to read any sight words. Shaniya received 90 minutes a month of speech instruction.
Geoffrey. Geoffrey is a 5-year-old African-American male in kindergarten. He was diagnosed with autism. He receives speech and occupational therapy in addition to interventions in both reading and math.
Definition and Measurement of Dependent Variables
Three dependent variables were measured in this study including (a) ability to spell sight words correctly on paper, (b) the ability to read sight words in isolation, and (c) the ability to read the sight words in sentences. A probe was given after each intervention session to asses each dependent variable.
Number of words spelled correctly (WSC). The primary dependent variable was the number of correct sight words spelled. A probe given after each intervention session consisted of
15 words to be spelled. The researcher said, “spell ___” for all 15 words and collected data. The words were counted as correct if they were spelled correctly. Total correct words were added up and graphed after each probe (see Appendix A).
Number of words read correctly in isolation (WRC). The secondary dependent variable was the number of total sight words read in isolation. The experimenter showed the student a word on an index card and said, “What word?” for all 15 words and collected data. The word was counted as correct if it was read within 3 seconds. Words read correctly were tallied, and the total was graphed (see Appendix B).
Number of words read correctly in sentences (WRCS). Finally, the experimenter probed for the third dependent variable. The researcher showed a sentence on a strip of paper with a target sight word included in the sentence. Students were directed to read the sentence. The
8 experimenter prompted the students on all words except the target sight word. The participant’s response was scored as incorrect if he or she took longer than 3 seconds to respond, responded incorrectly, or said nothing at all (see Appendix C).
Data Collection Procedures
During the intervention phase, the researcher collected student data on whether or not the student was able to spell the word correctly with the Time Delayed prompt using a data sheet
(see Appendix D). Post intervention, a separate probe was administered. The researcher used a data tracker to denote which words were spelled correctly, were read correctly in isolation, and were read correctly in isolation (see Appendixes A, B, and C). Student performances were graphed, and their performance level, trend, and variability were assessed with visual inspection and compared across phases and tiers to determine a functional relation.
Materials
Technology was an integral part of this study. A tablet writing app was used in place of paper and pencil. This writing app allowed students to pick a font and write with their finger by touching the screen in the shape of the letter. In addition to the tablet, researchers used a clipboard to keep track of data trackers for each student. Sight words were stored on individual 3 x 5 index card piles for each student, and sentences were stored in an envelope with each student’s name. The index cards and enveloped were clipped to each other for ease of service delivery.
Experimental Design
This study examined the effects of using technology to implement Time Delay procedures on sight word spelling and reading for first graders with high-incidence disabilities. A multiple baseline across word sets design was used to measure effects of intervention on ability
9 to spell and read sight words in isolation and sentences (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Each word set consisted of 5 sight words. Pre-baseline and baseline probes were administered to each participant in order to identify an individualized set of unknown words for each student (15 words).
Intervention began after baseline was stable. Each word set moved to the maintenance phase once the student reached a mastery criterion of 100% spelling accuracy and 80% reading accuracy over 2 consecutive sessions. Once a word set moved into maintenance, the next word set was introduced to the intervention phase and followed the same procedure. For example, while set A was in the intervention phase, sets B and C continued in baseline. Once set A reached mastery criterion and moved into maintenance, set B was introduced to the intervention phase, but set A was continuously probed.
Treatment Integrity and Interobserver Agreement
In order to collect treatment integrity and interobserver agreement (IOA) data, a random sample of intervention sessions (What percent of total sessions? Put that here in parentheses) were observed by the second data collector. The second researcher was trained in the intervention protocol by receiving training on the Intervention Script (see Appendix E) and used a Treatment Integrity Checklist to record observation of correct procedural steps throughout the intervention session (see Appendix F).
Trial-by-trial IOA was used to calculate WSC agreement data. When using trial-by-trial
IOA, the number of agreements was divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100. An agreement was any trial in which both evaluators scored a correct
(checkmark) or incorrect (-). A disagreement was any trial in which the evaluators scored differently. A random number of post-session spelling evaluations and generalization measures
10 were scored by both the experimenter and the second data collector. The second data collector received training in scoring WSC, WRC, and WRCS by the primary researcher and collected data during each phase of the study (i.e., baseline, intervention, and maintenance). The second researcher was trained on how to conduct and score the probe using the probe script (see
Appendix G) collected data using an Interobserver Agreement for Post Session Probe Data Form
(see Appendix H).
Procedures
Baseline. All students continued to receive daily spelling instruction from their classroom teacher. The program used to teach spelling was Open Court. The targeted sight words were chosen by having the student read through a list of pre-primer Dolch sight words during the pre- baseline phase. Once 25 words had been identified as unknown by the student for two days in a row, the words were sorted based on equal distribution of difficulty level into three sets of five words (discarding some words so that 15 remained).
Baseline data were collected over the next three to five days: The students were asked to spell and read the words in isolation for all three sets of five words. Additionally, the student was probed on their ability to read the words in sentences as a way to measure for generalization of the reading of sight words.
Intervention. After stable baseline responding was established, the student began the intervention phase (Time Delay) for the first set of words. At this time, he or she was asked to spell the first word of set 1 on a tablet device. At the exact same time, the researcher showed the student the correct spelling of the word on an index card with a brightly colored spelling of the word (simultaneous prompting). Once the student wrote the word correctly, the researcher said,
“Yes, t-h-e spells the.” The student practiced all 5 words in the set this way, and then did this one
11 more time. During each round of practice with simultaneous prompting, the student practiced all
5 sight words again, but instead of the researcher showing the correct answer at the same time, the researcher increased the Time Delay by 1 second. If the student correctly wrote the word before the 1 second was up, the researcher said, “Yes! t-h-e spells the.” If the student did not write the word correctly before the 1 second was up, the researcher pointed to the card with the correct spelling of the word, said the spelling of the word and said, “try again.” The researcher then waited for the student to write the word, and exclaimed, “Yes! t-h-e spells the.” If the student needed prompting on a word, the researcher would not increase the Time Delay for the next round. At the end of that session, the student was probed on the spelling (and reading) of all
15 words.
Maintenance. The student progressed to the next set of words when he or she was able to reach a criterion level of 100% accuracy for the spelling of all five words and 80% accuracy for the reading of the sight words in that set across two consecutive sessions. Once mastery criteria were met, the word set moved to "maintenance" and were probed daily after intervention to determine if students continued to maintain their gains.
Generalization. To measure generalization, students read their target sight words in research-created sentences. Specifically, during baseline, the researcher presented the student with 15 sentences, each containing one of the target words. Students was asked to read the sentence. The researcher prompted the student through the sentence by providing any unknown words for the student. The only word that was "counted" was the target word for that sentence.
Social Validity. Students who participated in the study and teachers who observed the instructional practice completed questionnaire in which they were asked questions about their
12 opinions on the instructional procedures of Time Delay on teaching students how to spell and read sight words (see Appendixes I and J).
Data Analysis Plan
As the data were collected, the experimenter created a graph using a multiple-baseline across word sets design. Each participant had three graphs consisting of three sets each, one tier for each word set. The first graph represented the amount of words spelled correctly across all phases, the second graph represented the amount of words read correctly, and the third graph represented the amount of words read correctly in sentences.
The multiple-baseline design allowed the experimenter to determine a functional relation between the Time Delay strategy and the dependent variables. “A functional relation exists when a well-controlled experiment reveals that a specific change in one event (dependent variable) can reliably be produced by specific manipulations of another event (the independent variable)” (Cooper et al., 2007, p. 4). If the intervention was a success, the participant would be able to spell and read more sight words in isolation and in text than they were able to in the baseline phase. In order to verify success, student performances were graphed, and their performance level, trend, and variability were assessed and compared across phases and tiers.
13
Age/ Gender Race Label Reading Spelling Specially Grade Level b SS a Designed Instruction
Zeke 7 year Male African- ED Beginning of 69 Reading, old first American Kindergarten SST grader Reading Level
Kelly 6 year Female African- SLD Beginning of 76 Reading, old first American Kindergarten Writing, grader Reading Math, SST Level
Shaniya 5 year Female African- SLD Beginning of N/A Speech old American Kindergarten Kinder- Reading garten Level Student Geoffrey Male African- Autism Beginning of N/A Reading, American Kindergarten Math, Reading Writing, Level Speech, and Occupational Therapy a Woodcock Johnson IV-Test of Achievement b STEP (Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress) Individual Achievement Test
Table 2.1. Participant information.
14 Chapter 3: Results
The purpose of this study was twofold: First researchers examined the effects of incorporating technology to deliver progressive Time Delay on elementary students’ acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of spelling sight words. Second, researchers examined students’ ability to read those sight words both in isolation and fluently in text. This study examined these effects on kindergarten and first grade elementary students with specific learning disabilities in an urban school setting.
Results from this study are reported in the following chapter. First, interobserver agreement on the dependent variables including correct sight words spelled, sight words read in isolation, and sight words read in sentences will be reported. Next, treatment integrity will be summarized to verify the study’s validity. Finally, each participant’s results will be reported in addition to results for social validity questionnaires.
Interobserver Agreement (IOA)
A second observer was present for 23% of all sessions, conditions, and participants for a total of 24 lessons. Across these sessions, conditions, and participants, researchers demonstrated
100% agreement.
Treatment Integrity
A second observer was present for 24 (23%) of the sessions in which the Time Delay strategy was implemented. The observer completed a checklist during each session to verify that the primary researcher was accurate in the execution of the Time Delay intervention. The second observer marked a dash check mark for each step completed accurately, marked N/A for steps that were not applicable, and left the step blank if it was completed inaccurately or missed.
Treatment Integrity ranged from 92%-100% with a mean score of 98.81%.
15 Numbers of Words Spelled Correctly (WSC)
Zeke. Zeke completed 28 sessions of Progressive Time Delay with the experimenter.
During baseline, his WSC was 0 for Set 1. Zeke’s WSC for Set 2 had a mean of .6 (range: 0-2), and Set 3 had a mean of 2 (range: 1-3). During intervention, his WSC increased to a mean of 4.3
(range: 3-5) for Set A, a mean of 3.1 (range 3-5) for Set B, and a mean of 3.8 (range: 3-5) for Set
C. Zeke was in maintenance for 12 sessions for Set 1, six sessions for Set 2, and one session for
Set 3.
During maintenance, his WSC had a mean of 4 (range: 2-5) for Set A and a mean of 4.7
(range: 4-5) for Set B. Due to limitations involving the end of the school year causing the study to end, Set C words were unable to be probed for maintenance. Zeke’s results show an increase in level from baseline to intervention in sets 1 and 2. In Set 3, no increase was noticed because
Zeke began to show an increasing trend line while in baseline. In Set 1 an immediate increase occurred and Zeke’s data showed an increasing trendline that displayed a stable pathway. The variable data in Set 2 showed an immediate increase in trend from baseline to intervention, but was not displaying an increasing trendline. The data in Set 3 displayed a stable pathway.
Kelly. Kelly completed a total of 39 sessions of Progressive Time Delay. During baseline, she had 0 WSC for Set 1 and 2. On Set 3, Kelly had a mean of .3 WSC (range: 0–1)
During intervention, her WSC increased to 2.7 (range: 0–5) for Set 1, 3.4 (range: 0–5) for Set 2, and 2.5 WSC (range 3–5) for Set 3. The intervention phase of each set entered the maintenance phase as soon the criteria for mastery was reached. Kelly was in maintenance for 27 sessions for
Set 1, 14 sessions for Set 2, and two sessions for Set 3. During maintenance, her WSC had a mean of 4.7 (range: 3-5) for Set 1. Set 2 had a mean of 2.9 (range: 1-5) and Set 3 had a mean of
4.6 (range: 4-5). The data for the intervention phase in Set 1 was variable in performance but
16 showed an immediate increase in level from baseline to intervention. In Set 2, Kelly’s data displayed a more stable pathway. The data in Set 2 did not progress as quickly as the data in Set
1, but still displayed an increasing trend line. Kelly’s data in Set 3 displayed a moderately variable pathway while showing an immediate increasing trendline.
Shaniya. Shaniya completed 22 sessions of Progressive Time Delay with the experimenter. During baseline, her WSC was 0 for Set 1 and 2. Shaniya’s WSC for Set 3 had a mean of 0.7 (range: 0-1). During intervention, her WSC had a mean of 4.2 (range: 0-1) for Set 1, a mean of 2.9 (range: 3-5) for Set 2, and 5 WSC for Set 3. Shaniya was in maintenance for 14 sessions for Set 1, six sessions for Set 2, and three sessions for Set 3. During maintenance, her
WSC had a mean of 4.7 (range:4-5) for set 1, a mean of 3.5 (range 3-5) for set 2, and a mean of
3.6 (range: 3-4) for Set 3. Shaniya’s results show an immediate increase in level from baseline to intervention for each set of words. In Set 1, Shaniya scored 0 WSC in baseline and scored 4
WSC after one instructional trial. In each set, the data of Shaniya suggests an increasing trendline across all intervention phases. In Set 1 and 3 an immediate increase occurred, but in set
2 a gradual increase was noticed. In all sets a minimal amount of variability was noticed.
Geoffrey. Geoffrey completed 18 sessions of Progressive Time Delay with the experimenter. During baseline, his WSC was zero for Set 1. Zeke’s WSC for Set 2 had a mean of .66 (range: 0-2) and Set 3 had a mean of 1.16 (range: 0-2). During intervention, his WSC had a mean of 3.4 (range: 0-5) for Set 1, a mean of 4.4 (range: 3-5) for Set 2, and a mean of 5 WSC for Set 3. Geoffrey was in maintenance for 14 sessions for set A, nine sessions for set B, and six sessions for set C. During maintenance, his WSC had a mean of 4.8 (range: 4-5) for Set 1, and was 5 for Set 2. Set 3 had a mean of 4 (range: 3-5). Geoffrey’s data show an increase in level from baseline to intervention for each set of words. In Set 3, the data displays a gradual increase
17 in trend and has a stable pathway with no variability. In set 2 an immediate increase in trend is established with low variability once again. In Set 1 an immediate increase in trend was establish with criteria for mastery being reached in the first two instructional periods completed in that word set.
Numbers of Words Read Correctly (WRC) in Isolation
Zeke. Zeke was probed each session for his ability to read the sight words in isolation on an index card. During baseline, his WRC had a mean of .5 (range: 0-5) for Set 1. For Set 2, Zeke had a mean of .5 (range: 0-2). Set 3 baseline data showed a mean of 1.6 (range: 0-3). During intervention, his WRC had a mean of 3.8 (range: 2-5) for Set 1, a mean of 2.8 (range: 2-4) for Set
2, and a mean of 3.3 (range: 2-4) for Set 3. Zeke’s maintenance period for Set 1 included two booster sessions. His WRC in Set 1 had a mean of 4.4 (range: 3-5). Set 2 had a mean of 3.8
(range: 3-5). Zeke’s WRC in Set 3 had a mean of 4. His WRC results in maintenance showed a variable trend in all 3 sets. His results show an increase in level from baseline to intervention for each set of words except in Set 3 where an increasing trend line was displayed during baseline.
The trendline in Set 1 showed an immediate change in level and then proceeded throughout the instructional trials with an increasing trend line and a slight amount of variability. The trendline in Set 2 was highly variable and did not show an increasing trend line. The baseline data for Set
3 was highly variable and began to increase before the intervention began for those words. The data showed a slight increase in trendline with a stable pathway.
Kelly. Kelly was probed each session for her ability to read the sight words in isolation on an index card. During baseline, her WRC was 0 for set 1, 2, and 3. During intervention, her
WRC had a mean of 3.1 (range:2-5) for Set 1, a mean of 2.8 (range: 0-5) for Set 2, and a mean of
2.8 (range: 1-5) for Set 3. During maintenance, her WRC had a mean of 4.3 (range: 2-5) for Set
18 1, had a mean of 2.9 (range: 1-5) for Set 2, and a mean of 4.5 (range: 4-5) for Set 3. Kelly’s results show an increase in level from baseline to intervention for each set of words. In each set, the data of Kelly suggests an increasing variable trend across all intervention phases. In set 1 an immediate increase occurred, but in sets 2 and 3 a gradual increase was noticed.
Shaniya. Shaniya was probed each session for her ability to read the sight words in isolation on an index card. During baseline for Set 1 and 2 her mean WSC was 0. Her mean score was 1 for Set 3. During intervention, her WRC had a mean of 3.2 (range: 1-5) for Set 1, a mean of 2.9 (range: 1-4) for Set B, and a range of 4 to 5 with a mean of 4.6 for Set 3. During maintenance, her WRC was 5 for Set 1 and had a mean of 3.6 (range: 4-5) for Set 2. Shaniya’s
WRC had a mean of 4.6 (range: 4-5) for Set 3. Shaniya’s results show an increase in level from baseline to intervention for each set of words. In sets 1 and 2 a gradually increasing trendline is established, as well as a stable pathway with minimal variability. In Set 3 an immediate increase occurred with no variability displayed.
Geoffrey. Geoffrey was probed each session for his ability to read the sight words in isolation on an index card. During baseline, his WRC had a mean of 4.6 (range: 1-3) for Set 1.
For Set 2 Geoffrey had a mean of 3.3 (range: 1-4). Set 3 baseline data showed a mean of 3.3
(Range: 2-5). During intervention, his WRC showed a mean of 4.6 (range: 3-5) for Set 1, a mean of 4.4 (range: 4-5) for Set 2, and a mean of 5 for Set 3. His results show a very slight increase in level from baseline to intervention for Set 3. The data path during the intervention stage of Set 3 show minimal variability. Sets 1 and 2 show an increasing trendline in baseline and display data in the intervention phase this is high level and stable. Geoffrey’s WRC in Set 1, 2, and 3 had a maintenance had a mean of 5. His WRC results in maintenance showed a stable trend in all 3 sets.
19 Number of Words Read Correctly in Sentences (WRCS).
Zeke. Zeke was probed each session for his ability to read the sight words in isolation on an index card. During baseline, his WRCS had a mean of .5 (range: 0-5) for Set 1. For Set 2,
Zeke had a range of 0-2 for baseline and a mean of .1.3. Set 3 baseline data had a mean of 1
(range: 0-3). During intervention, his WRCS had a mean of 2.6 (range: 2-5) for Set 1, a mean of
2.6 (range: 1-4) for Set 2, and a mean of 1.8 (range: 1-4) for Set 3. The data collected for Zeke display show a gradual increase in level from baseline to intervention for Set 1 with minimal variability. The data in Set 2 has a very minimal increase in level from baseline to intervention and has a moderate amount of variability. Set 3 data begins lower in intervention than baseline.
The data shows an increasing trendline with a stable pathway. Zeke’s maintenance period for Set
1 included 1 booster session. His WRCS in Set 1 had a mean of 3.7 (range: 2-5). Set 2 had a mean of 4.2 (range: 3-5). Zeke’s WRCS in Set 3 had a maintenance of 4. His WRCS results in maintenance showed a variable trend in Set 1 and an increase in trendline in Set 2. Set 3 did not have a trial of maintenance due to time constraints in the school setting.
Kelly. Kelly was probed each session for her ability to read the sight words in isolation on an index card. During baseline, her WRCS was 0 for Set 1 and 2. Her data for Set 3 had a mean of .5 (range: 0-2). During intervention, her WRCS had a mean of 1.4 (range:0-3 for Set 1, a mean of 2.2 (range: 0-5) for Set 2, and a mean of 2.5 (range: 1-4) for Set 3. Kelly’s results show an increase in level from baseline to intervention for each set of words. In Set 1, the data of
Kelly has a steep increasing trendline with minimal variability. Set 2 displays another steep increasing trendline with minimal variability. The trendline in Set 3 was slow to show an increase in level and was highly variable. During maintenance, her WRCS had a mean of 3.8
20 (range 2-5) for Set 1, a mean of 3.81(range: 2-5) for Set 2, and a mean of 4 for Set 3. Her data during maintenance indicates a variable trend in Set 1 but a stable trend in 2 Set 2 and 3.
Shaniya. Shaniya was probed each session for her ability to read the sight words in isolation on an index card. Her WRCS during baseline had a mean of .3 (range: 0-1) for Set 1, a mean of .1 (range: 0-1) for Set 2, and was 0 for Set 3. During intervention, her WRCS had a mean of 2.6 (range: 1-4) for Set 1, a mean of 2.7 (range: 0-4) for Set 2, and a mean of 4 for Set 3.
Shaniya’s results show an increase in level from baseline to intervention for each set of words.
During set 1 and 2 an immediate difference was noticed with the data displaying a steep trendline with minimal variability. In Set 3, and immediate level change occurred with Shaniya’s baseline
WRCS score being 1 for the entirety of baseline and jumping instantaneously to a score of 4 for the intervention phase. During maintenance, her WRCS had a mean of 4.1 (range: 3-5) for Set 1.
Set 2 had a mean of 3.7 (range: 3-4). Shaniya’s WRCS had a mean of 3.3 (range: 2-4) for Set 3.
Maintenance data remained similar to intervention data with no major changes noticed in trend level. Set 3 data displayed more variability in maintenance than during the intervention phase.
Geoffrey. Geoffrey was also probed each session for his ability to read the sight words in isolation on an index card. During baseline, his WRC had a mean of 1.8 (range: 1-3) for Set 1.
For Set 2 Geoffrey had a mean of 3.3 (range: 1-4). Set 3 baseline data had a mean of 3.3 (range:
2-5). During intervention, his WRC had a mean of 4.6 (range: 3-5) for set A a mean of 4.4
(range: 4-5) for Set 2, and a mean of 5 for Set 3. His results show an increase in level from baseline to intervention for Set 1. A change in the trendline date was noticed from baseline to intervention in Set 3. In Set 1 and Set 2, no changed was detected as Geoffrey’s baseline levels began to rise before intervention began. Data showed minimal variability during the intervention and maintenance phase of the experiment.
21 Social Validity
Each student was given a social validity questionnaire at the end of the study. The questionnaire consisted of 4 questions, each requiring the student to circle the corresponding smiley face that indicated his or her agreement with the question using five faces with varying degrees of smiles or frowns. A face with a large smile indicated a “yes” answer with strong positive feelings in response to the question whereas a smaller smiler indicated a “yes” answer with less strong positive feelings. A face with a neutral face was presented that indicated the student did not feel positive or negative feelings regarding the question being asked. A face with a slight frown indicated a “no” answer with less strong negative feelings, and a large frown face indicated a “no” answer with strong negative feelings in response to the question. All 4 students indicated that they found it important to learn how to spell sight words with strong positive feelings. When asked if they believed learning how to spell sight words would help them become better readers, one student indicated that he or she agreed with this statement with strong positive feelings, two students indicated they agreed with this statement with less strong positive feelings, and one student (25%) indicated that they agreed with this statement with strong negative feelings. When asked if the students liked to learn how to spell sight words 1 student (25%) marked strong positive feelings, 1 student (25%) marked less strong positive feelings, 1 student
(25%) marked neutral feelings, and 1 student (25%) marked strong negative feelings. The final question asked if the students would want their friends to learn how to spell sight words too.
Three students (75%) marked they had strong positive feelings about having their friends learn how to spell sight words. One student had less strong negative feelings about his or her friends learning how to spell sight words.
22 The intervention specialist and teacher assistant from participants’ general education setting also completed social validity questionnaires. Questionnaires consisted of four questions which prompted participants to rate their responses by marking the appropriate smiley face that has a large indicated a “yes” answer with strong positive feelings in response to the question whereas a smaller smiler indicated a “yes” answer with less strong positive feelings. A face with a neutral face was presented that indicated the student did not feel positive or negative feelings regarding the question being asked. A face with a slight frown indicated a “no” answer with less strong negative feelings, and a large frown face indicated a “no” answer with strong negative feelings in response to the question. Both teachers stated they felt strongly positive that it was important for students to learn how to spell sight words, they were satisfied with the results of the Time Delay procedure on the teaching of students how to spell sight words, the ability to spell sight words positively affected the students ability to read, and they were satisfied with the length of time required to implement the Time Delay procedure. Additionally, all teachers marked “yes” for a question that asked whether they would be willing to implement this instructional procedure in their classroom. When asked what would make the teacher more likely to use this intervention in their classroom, one teacher responded that “having extra time to ensure more opportunities for more one on one time in the classroom” would be necessarily. The results of these questionnaires are presented in 3.1 and 3.2
23 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number Figure 3.1 The total amount of words spelled correctly by Zeke. Note: Open dots indicate that a booster session was completed prior to the probe in addition to the current treatment.
24 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number Figure 3.2 The total number of words spelled correctly for Kelly.
25 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number Figure 3.3 The total number of words spelled correctly for Shaniya.
26 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number Session Number Figure 3.4 The total number of words read in sentences for Geoffrey.
27 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number Session Number
Figure 3.5 The total amount of words read correctly in isolation by Zeke. Note: Open dots indicate that a booster session was completed prior to the probe in addition to the current treatment.
28 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number
Figure 3.6 The total number of words read in isolation for Kelly.
29
Baseline Time Delay Maintenance
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number
Figure 3.7 The total number of words read in isolation for Shaniya.
30 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number Figure 3.8 The total number of words read in isolation for Geoffrey.
31 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance Number of Words Correct Words of Number
umber of Words Correct Words umber of N
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number Figure 3.9 The total amount of words read correctly within a sentence by Zeke. Note: Open dots indicate that a booster session was completed prior to the probe in addition to the current treatment.
32 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number Figure 3.10 The total number of words read in sentences for Kelly.
33 Baseline Time Delay Maintenance
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number
Figure 3.11 The total number of words read in sentences for Shaniya.
34
Baseline Time Delay Maintenance Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Number of Words Correct Words of Number
Session Number
Figure 3.12 The total number of words read in sentences for Geoffrey.
35
Strong Less Neutral Less Strong
Positive Strong strong Negative
Positive Negative
Do you find it is important to learn 100% 0% (0)
how to spell sight words? (4)
Do you believe that learning how to 25% 50% 25%
spell sight words will help you (1) (2) (1)
become a better reader
How much did you like learning to 25% 25% 25% 25%
spell sight words? (1) (1) (1) (1)
Would you want your friend to learn 75% 25%
how to spell sight words too? (3) (1)
Table 3.1: The students’ opinions about the Time Delay strategy and its effects.
36
Strong Less Neutral Less Strong
Positive Strong strong Negative
Positive Negative
How important is it for students to 100% 0% (0)
learn how to spell sight words? (4)
How satisfied are you with the results 100% 0% (0)
of Time Delay on teaching students (4)
how to spell sight words?
Has the ability to spell sight words 100% 0% (0)
positively affected the students (4)
ability to read?
How satisfied are you with the length 100% 0% (0)
of time required to implement the (4)
Time Delay per day?
Table 3.2: The teachers’ opinions about the Time Delay strategy and its effects
37
Chapter 4: Discussion
Students need effective instruction to acquire important sight words in order to improve their reading and spelling. This study investigated whether Time Delay could effectively teach students to spell, read, and identify sight words in isolation and embedded within sentences.
Findings showed that when provided with Time Delay procedures, students could improve the total number of sight words spelled correctly (WSC) and the number of sight words read correctly in isolation (WRC). Moreover, two-week follow up data for all but one participant show that the remaining three participants continued to be able to show an increase in amount of
WSC, WRC, and WRCS indicating that each student was able to maintain the ability to spell and read the sight words they had been taught. The results of this study also show participants generalized reading words in isolation to correctly reading them within the context of a sentence
(WRCS).
These effects on Time Delay are consistent with previous studies. In a study that investigated the differential effects of two spelling procedures—Cover Copy Check (CCC) and
Constant Time Delay (CTD)— on students’ overall acquisition and maintenance of learned words, students did not maintain gains as well as they did with other instructional methods such as CTD (Cates et al., 2006). The data of this study continue to build a body of evidence that
Time Delay procedures are a viable teaching method for the reading of sight words (Swain,
Lane, & Gast, 2014). Other studies found that Time Delay was also an effective method for teaching the spelling of sight words. These studies demonstrate the effectiveness of Time Delay by reporting that one participant was able to maintain all sets of words with an average of 93% accuracy or higher even during maintenance (Hughes, Fredrick, & Keel, 2002). In a study by
38 Ross and Stevens (2003), each of 3 participants were able to score 100% when probed after intervention and during maintenance as well.
The findings of this study add to the literature by demonstrating the effectiveness of Time
Delay as an intervention that not only teaches the spelling of sight words, but also the effect of learning how to spell sight words on the participants ability to read that word in a sentence.
Using Time Delay procedures to teach the spelling of sight words not only increases the overall ability to spell the sight word being taught, but also to read the sight word in isolation and in the context of a sentence. In addition, this study found that utilizing technology during the Time
Delay procedure added an element of student engagement that has not yet been part of the research conducted with Time Delay and the spelling of sight words. The experimenter will elaborate on these findings in this chapter. Discussion will also include an analysis of the findings for each of the dependent variables (i.e., total number of words spelled correctly, total number of words read correctly in isolation, and total number of words read correctly written within a sentence).
What Are the Effects of the Time Delay Strategy on the Number of Words Students Spelled
Correctly?
A functional relation between the Time Delay intervention and each participant’s total number of WSC was found in this study. When comparing mean baseline WSC scores (1.21) to mean intervention WSC scores (3.51), there was a mean increase of 2.30 WSC which was a percent increase of 190%.
39 What are the effects of the Time Delay strategy on the number of words students read correctly in isolation and within a sentence?
A functional relation between the Time Delay intervention and each participant’s total number of WRC was found in this study. When comparing mean baseline WRC scores (1.65) to mean intervention WRC scores (3.45), there was a mean increase of 1.84 WRC. This was a percent increase of 180%. These scores continued to stay at an increased level during the maintenance phase when intervention on that set of words ceased to exist.
In addition, when comparing mean baseline generalization scores to mean intervention generalization scores, there was also an increase in scores. When comparing mean baseline
WRCS scores (1.46) to mean intervention WRCS scores (3.01), there was a mean increase of
1.55 WRCS. This was a percent increase of 155%.
Will Students Maintain the Spelling of Sight Words?
Regardless of the set of sight words the participant was currently receiving intervention for, each student was probed for all words in every set at the end of the session. When the participant met mastery criteria for spelling and reading the sight words in isolation, the intervention on that set of sight words ended and that set of sight words began to be probed for maintenance. In addition, three out of four students were probed at least once within a two-week span without having received intervention. The mean maintenance score across all participants in each set was 4.24 WSC, 4.34 WRC, and 3.89 WRCS. These data show even after ceasing intervention for several weeks, students were still able to spell sight words successfully. Two out of three participants demonstrated the ability to spell words even after intervention ended. One exception was with participant Zeke who exhibited a lower maintenance rate for one set of words in the middle of the study. After two booster sessions, which consisted of using the Time Delay
40 procedure to reteach the words from the previous set along with the words from the current set, he was back on track and exhibited the highest overall maintenance average.
Will Students Who Use the Time Delay Procedure Generalize the Correct Spelling of Sight
Words, as Measured by The Student’s Ability to Read Those Words in Sentences?
Few research studies have investigated the effects of Time Delay on the generalization of learning how to spell a sight word, as measured by the student’s ability to read those words in sentences. All participants increased the number of words they correctly read in a sentence from baseline to maintenance after receiving intervention in spelling sight words. These findings suggest that Time Delay can effectively help student generalize sight word spelling to reading.
Exceptions to these findings were seen with Zeke and Geoffrey. Zeke was unable to participate in maintenance probes for Set 3. Geoffrey displayed an increasing trend line in baseline for set B.
He continued spelling all five words correctly during maintenance.
In addition to measuring generalization by measuring the amount of sight words a participant can now read within a sentence post intervention, this study was also designed in such a way that all probe results were utilized using a different medium than that of the intervention.
Specifically, the intervention used the tablet and participant wrote with their finger, but during the probe the participant wrote all answer on paper with pencil. The change in medium shows that students are able to generalize spelling sight words from technology to simple paper and pencil.
Social Validity
Results from student and teacher questionnaires verify that intervention was socially valid. Teachers felt strongly that it was important for students to learn how to spell sight words.
They were satisfied with the results of the Time Delay procedure for teaching students how to
41 spell sight words and also noted that the ability to spell sight words positively affected the student’s ability to read. Teachers also mentioned that they were satisfied with the length of time required to implement the Time Delay procedure and state they would be willing to try this procedure in their classrooms.
Overall, participants seemed very engaged in participating in each session while using the tablet. Students found the technology used in this intervention to be engaging and often did not want to switch to writing on paper and pencil when it was time to be probed. Students were not as thrilled about the probe that tested for maintenance every session including all words in all three sets every session. There were 2-4 sessions for 2 out of the 4 students where the student was unable to participate in all three stages of the probe and was not able to be probed for the generalization measure which required the students to read sentences with the sight words embedded in it. Most challenges were due to behavioral issues that caused the student to quit working. The one incident where this was not the case was due to an unplanned fire drill that required us to evacuate the school.
Student responses on the questionnaires were more varied. The answers filled out by the students indicated that all four students found it important to learn how to spell sight words. Not all students believed that learning how to spell sight words would help them become a better reader. One student strongly disagreed with the statement while the other three selected slightly positive and strongly positive emotions. The answers to the question “How much did you like learning to spell sight words?” was highly varied with each student selecting a different answer ranging from strongly positive to strongly negative. It may be that the participants did not understand the question as three out of four students selected strongly positive for if they would want their friend to learn how to spell sight words also.
42
Implications for Practice
The results of this study suggest that Time Delay can be beneficial in the classroom for increasing the amount of sight words students with high-incidence disabilities can spell and read.
This intervention was efficient, easy, and took very little time. A teacher implementing this intervention would require only a few materials: sight word list, index cards, and electronic device (tablet or smart phone). The added engagement which is created with the addition of the electronic device to use instead of traditional writing methods makes this intervention fun for students and easy for teachers. In order to assess for mastery, the teacher should consider using paper and pencil methods just once a week or every five instructional trials instead of every session which is what was used in this study for the purpose of research. This places less demands on the classroom teacher and allows this intervention to be more practical in the classroom.
Limitations and Direction for Future Research
One limitation to this study was the order of the administered probes which asked student to spell and then read words. This order may have caused participants to appear to have learned to read the words from participating in the Time Delay intervention, when they may have actually learned to read the words from the probe itself. For example, during the time Geoffrey was a participant in the Time Delay intervention for Set 3 his WRC in isolation scores showed an immediate increase while his WSC scores showed a gradual increase. It is possible that during the probe, Geoffrey remembered the words he had been asked to spell, and was more likely to be able to read those words when asked to read the words in the second portion of the probe. In another example, Geoffrey’s baseline scores for WRC in isolation showed an increasing trend for
43 sets 1, 2, and 3 while the Time Delay intervention for the spelling of those words had not yet begun. It is likely that Geoffrey used the information gleaned when asked to spell the words from the probe to be more likely to read the words in the second portion of the probe. In future studies, administrators might consider administrating the probes in a different order, however the current administration of probes consisted of spelling the word first and reading the word second was to ensure that the student did not pick up on the spelling of the word by looking at the flashcard first when asked to read the word.
A second limitation to this study was the inability for the researcher to increase the frequency of instructional trials. Due to limitations of the researcher’s schedule, instructional trials were only able to run with participants 2 to 3 times per week. It is possible that the amount of instructional trials per intervention would have been less if the time in between instructional trials were closer together. It is possible that if the instructor had been able to run instructional trials 5 times per week with each student the results of this study would show faster progress and less instructional trials to criteria. In addition, the limitation of extended breaks from school resulted in several missing weeks of data that slowed progress overall for all participants. During the duration of this study, periods of one and two weeks were missed for separate holidays and a final period of one week was missed for inclement weather. This being said, only one student showed decline over the periods of this break. It is for this reason that Zeke was given 2 booster sessions in set 1. Additionally, due to the timing of this study, the school year ended before one student was able to be probed for maintenance. Time restraints posed a limitation on this study.
A third limitation is that the sentences used for probes were not varied. It is possible that students memorized the sentences and that the increase of scores in WRCS is a result of repeat exposure rather than reading the word in context.
44 Future research should account for the fact that tablet expectations need to be taught and reinforced prior to time on tablet. One might consider establishing an incentive of free time on the tablet after the intervention and probe have been completed in order to focus the time spent with the child on the tablet. Students did not like giving up the tablet to participate in the probes after the intervention that required pencil and paper. By the time students were required to read sentences, most were reporting to be tired and ready to go back to class. A possible way to keep participants on track with the tablet during the intervention and on task throughout the entirety of the probe at the end of the intervention is to promise a set amount of free tablet time at the end if engaging in appropriate behavior throughout the instructional trial and probe.
Students who have greater deficits in spelling to measure the effectiveness of Time Delay with this population should also be considered in replicated studies. Three out of four of the participants were assessed in reading using STEP (Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of
Progress) at the beginning of the year coming in on grade level (even though they were still behind typically developing peers for their chronological age).
The teachers who were involved in this study reported 100% satisfaction with the procedure for the intervention and the results of the study. Teachers may struggle to be able to identify time to use this intervention individually with students. Future research should also include using the TD intervention with students in small groups instead of continuing to focus on this intervention for individuals.
This study would benefit from being replicated with attention to removing the limitations from this current study, which would include changing up the order of probes after each instructional trial to ensure that one probe does not skew the data from the proceeding probe.
45 Future research may want to consider asking students to read words before they spell them or place time gaps in between the administration of such probes.
Shorter periods of time in between each instructional trial should also be considered.
Trials should be conducted during a season where prolonged periods of time where students cannot be instructed are not expected due to holiday breaks and inclement weather.
Finally, future research should address varying the sentences that students are asked to read in the probe. If the sentences were unique each time the probe was administered, results would truly show whether the student was growing in their ability to read the words in the context of a sentence.
Conclusion
This study was designed to determine the effects of the Time Delay strategy on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of the spelling of sight words for students with high-incidence disabilities. Results indicate that the Time Delay intervention was effective in increasing both the total number of words spelled correctly and total number of words read correctly both in isolation and sentences produced by elementary students with high-incidence disabilities. The use of TD is highly recommended as an effective, socially valid spelling intervention to increase the number of words students spell correctly their everyday writing.
46
Bibliography
Anderson, R. C. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: the report of the Commission on Reading. Springfield: ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
Berliner,D.C.(1984).The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching n P.L.Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching (pp. 51–84). Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. New York: Longman.
Cates, G. L., Dunne, M., Erkfritz, K. N., Kivisto, A., Lee, N., & Wierzbicki, J. (2006). Differential effects of two spelling procedures on acquisition, maintenance, and adaption to reading. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 71–82.
Connor, C. M., Alberto, P. A., Compton, D. L., & OConnor, R. E. (2014). Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers. Ncser 2014- 3000. Place of publication not identified: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
Darch, C., Kim, S., Johnson, S., & James, H. (2000). The strategic spelling skills of students with learning disabilities: The results of two studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 15–27.
Friend, A., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Phonological Spelling and Reading Deficits in Children With Spelling Disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(1), 90–105. doi: 10.1080/10888430701773876
Grossen, B. (1997). 30 Years of research: what we now know about how children learn to read. Springfield, VA: ERIC reports.
Hughes, T. A., Fredrick, L. D., & Keel, M. C. (2002). Learning to Effectively Implement Constant Time Delay Procedures to Teach Spelling. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(3), 209–222.
Karoly, L. A., Kilburn, M. R., & Cannon, J. S. (2005). Early childhood interventions: proven results, future promise. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Kear, D. J., & Gladhart, M. A. (1983). Comparative Study to Identify High-Frequency Words in Printed Materials. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57(3), 807–810. doi: 10.2466/pms.1983.57.3.807
47 Morris, D., & Perney, J. (1984). Developmental spelling as a predictor of first-grade reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 441–457.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: teaching children to read: an evidence- based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.?
Ross, A. H, & Stevens, K. B (2003). Teaching Spelling of Social Studies Content Vocabulary Prior to Using the Vocabulary in Inclusive Learning Environments: An Examination of Constant Time Delay, Observational Learning, and Instructive Feedback. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(4), 287–309.
Musti-Rao, S., Lo, Y.-Y., & Plati, E. (2014). Using an iPad® App to Improve Sight Word Reading Fluency for At-Risk First Graders. Remedial and Special Education, 36(3), 154– 166. doi: 10.1177/0741932514541485
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2
Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2016). The Effects of Reading Fluency Interventions on the Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension Performance of Elementary Students With Learning Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(5), 576–590. doi: 10.1177/0022219416638028
Swain, R., Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014, November 12). Comparison of Constant Time Delay and Simultaneous Prompting Procedures: Teaching Functional Sight Words to Students with Intellectual Disabilities and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10864-014-9209-5
Wade-Woolley, L., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). The spelling performance of ESL and native speakers of English as a function of reading skill. Spelling, 73–92. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-3054- 9
48
Appendix A: Post Instructional Probe Data Sheet (WSC)
49
Student Name: ______Skill: ______
Directions: Post Instructional Probe (Spelling) 1. Record all of the instructional targets in the column on the left. 2. Collect Data every trial. Enter the current date at the top of the page. 3. Record student behaviors each trial a. Independent correct = 1 ; Incorrect = 0 Correct responses are defined as reading the word correctly 4. When finished, sum the number of check sin each column and write it in the bottom box. Shade the correct number of boxes.
Spelling Targets Date
or this goes those first its way very found your use always because many these Sum
50
Appendix B: Post Instructional Probe Data Sheet (WRC)
51
Reading words in Isolation Targets Date
or this goes those first its way very found your use always because many these Sum
52
Appendix C: Post Instructional Probe Data Sheet (WRCS)
53
Reading Sentences Targets Date
or this goes those first its way very found your use always because many these Sum
54
Appendix D: Time Delay Strategy Data Sheet
55 Student Name: ______Skill: ______Directions: During Instruction 1. Record all of the instructional targets in the column on the left. 2. Collect Data every trial. Enter the current date at the top of the page. 3. Record student behaviors each trial a. Independent correct = check mark; Prompted Correct = P; Incorrect after prompt= I; Unable to respond = - -- Correct responses are defined as spelling the word correctly
Targets Date
its
way
very
found
your
Time Delay
Targets Date
its
way
very
found
your
Time Delay
Targets Date
its
way
very
found
your
Time Delay
56
Targets Date its way very found your
Time Delay
57
Appendix E: Intervention Script
58 Intervention Script
(Day 1)
Instructor: Today we are going to use this tablet to learn how to spell our sight words. When I give you the tablet, I’m going to ask you to spell some words. You will then use your finger to write the letters that spell the word on the tablet. Let’s practice now! When I say, “Write your name” write your name. Ready? Write your name.
Student: Writes name
Instructor: Great job! That’s how you use the tablet to spell words. Now I’m going to give you a sight word. I’m also going to show you the answer of how to spell it so if you are stuck you can look at the word card. Ready?
0-second Time Delay
Instructor: Spell ______(instantly holds up correct spelling on index card).
Student: Correctly spells word
Instructor: Great job! Yes, ______spells the word.
Or
Student: Incorrectly spells word
Instructor: Points to the correct spelling on the card and reads the spelling of the card. “__
__ __ spells _____. Try again.”
Instructor repeats for all 5 words
Criterion is met when students are able to master 100% of the words. When this happens, the student will move on to a session with increased time below. The student will repeat the 0-second
Time Delay if mastery is not met.
59
1-second Time Delay
Instructor: Spell ______(instantly holds up correct spelling on index card).
Student: Correctly spells word
Instructor: Great job! Yes, ______spells the word.
Or
Student: Incorrectly spells word
Instructor: Points to the correct spelling on the card and reads the spelling of the card. “__
__ __ spells _____. Try again.”
Instructor repeats for all 5 words
Criterion is met when students are able to master 100% of the words. When this happens, the student will move on to a session with increased time below. The student will repeat the 0 or 1- second Time Delay if mastery is not met. The student will practice the sight words a total of 4 times.
2-second Time Delay
Instructor: Spell ______(instantly holds up correct spelling on index card).
Student: Correctly spells word
Instructor: Great job! Yes, ______spells the word.
Or
Student: Incorrectly spells word
Instructor: Points to the correct spelling on the card and reads the spelling of the card. “__
__ __ spells _____. Try again.”
60 Instructor repeats for all 5 words
Criterion is met when students are able to master 100% of the words. When this happens, the student will move on to a session with increased time below. The student will repeat the 0, 1, or
2-second Time Delay if mastery is not met. The student will practice the sight words a total of 4 times.
3-second Time Delay
Instructor: Spell ______(waits 3 seconds before holding up correct spelling on index card).
Student: Correctly spells word
Instructor: Great job! Yes, ______spells the word.
Or
Student: Incorrectly spells word
Instructor: Points to the correct spelling on the card and reads the spelling of the card. “__
____ spells _____.” Try again. Instructor repeats for all 5 words two time.
Criterion is met when students are able to master 100% of the words, 2x in a row. When this happens, the student will move on to a session with increased time below. The student will practice the sight words a total of 4 times.
61
Appendix F: Treatment Integrity Checklist
62 Steps: Day 1 Check when completed Step 1: Instructor reviews tablet instructions by saying, “I’m going to say, Spell _____.” You will then use your finger to write the letters that spell the word on the tablet.
Step 2: Instructor has student practice with name.
Step 3: Instructor says “spell _____” and instantly holds up correct spelling of word (0-second Time Delay)
Step 4 If student gets it right, instructor says, “Great job! Yes, _ _ _ spells the word. If student gets it wrong, instructor points to the correct spelling on the card, and says “______spells _____. Try again.” Step 5 If student gets 100% mastery, instructor begins 1 second Time Delay, If student gets less than 100% mastery, instructor repeats 0 second Time Delay.
Step 6 If student gets 100% mastery, instructor begins 2 second Time Delay, If student gets less than 100% mastery, instructor repeats 0 or 1 second Time Delay.
Step 7 If student gets it right, instructor says, “Great job! Yes, _ _ _ spells the word. If student gets it wrong, instructor points to the correct spelling on the card, and says “______spells _____. Try again.” Step 8 If student gets 100% mastery, instructor begins 2 second Time Delay, If student gets less than 100% mastery, instructor repeats 0, 1, or 2 second Time Delay.
63
Steps: Day 2 + Check when completed Step 1: Instructor reviews tablet instructions by saying, “I’m going to say, Spell _____.” You will then use your finger to write the letters that spell the word on the tablet.
Step 2: Instructor has student practice with name.
Step 3: Instructor says “spell _____” and instantly holds up correct spelling of word (0-second Time Delay)
Step 4 If student gets it right, instructor says, “Great job! Yes, _ _ _ spells the word. If student gets it wrong, instructor points to the correct spelling on the card, and says “______spells _____. Try again.” Step 5 If student gets 100% mastery, instructor begins 1 second Time Delay, If student gets less than 100% mastery, instructor repeats 0 second Time Delay.
Step 6 If student gets 100% mastery, instructor begins 2 second Time Delay, If student gets less than 100% mastery, instructor repeats 0 or 1 second Time Delay.
Step 7 If student gets it right, instructor says, “Great job! Yes, _ _ _ spells the word. If student gets it wrong, instructor points to the correct spelling on the card, and says “______spells _____. Try again.” Step 8 If student gets 100% mastery, instructor begins 2 second Time Delay, If student gets less than 100% mastery, instructor repeats 0, 1, or 2 second Time Delay.
64
Appendix G: Probe Script
65 Probe Script
Instructor: Spell ______? (When student finishes writing the word, they will go on to the next one.
If student takes longer than 3 seconds to start writing, instructor will repeat the word. If the student waits longer than 3 more seconds, the instructor will say, “let’s try a new word”)
Repeat for all words
Instructor: We are going read our words. When I show you the card, read the word as best you can. Ready? What word? (If student reads or does not read the word within three seconds, move on to the next one).
Repeat for all words.
Instructor: Next we are going to read these words in sentences. I can help you with some of the words, but not with all of them. It is ok if you miss some of the words. I am going to say “read the sentence” and point to the sentence on the piece of paper. Ready?
Instructor: Read the sentence (point to 1st sentence on paper). If student hesitates on any word longer than 3 seconds, except the target word, provide that word. If student hesitates on target word longer than 3 seconds, say “go on to the next word” and repeat for all words in the sentence.
Repeat directions for all sentences
66
Appendix H: Measurement Procedural Reliability Form for Post Session Probe
67
Steps Check when completed Step 1: Instructor says “I am going to hold up a word and say, “spell _____”
Step 2: After instructor says “Spell ____” they wait 3 seconds before repeating the word unless the student has spelled the word already.
Step 3 After instructor has repeated word, they wait another 3 seconds before stating, “let’s try a new word.” They do not repeat the prior word again.
Step 4: Instructor says, “When I show you the card, read the word as best you can.”
Step 5: Instructor shows next card after the student reads the original card, or after 3 seconds (whichever comes first). Instructor does not prompt to read the word again after 3 seconds.
Step 6: Instructor says “Finally, I am going to hold up a sentence and have you read it. I can help you with some words but not all”
Step 7: Instructor waits 3 seconds before prompting an unknown word for each sentence.
Step 8: Instructor does not prompt target sight word in each sentence
68
Appendix I: Social Validity Survey for Students
69 Student Survey
Do you find that it is important to learn how to spell sight words?
Do you believe that learning how to spell sight words will help you become a better reader?
How much did you like learning to spell sight words?
70 Would you want your friend to learn how to spell sight words too?
71
Appendix J: Social Validity Survey for Teachers
72 Teacher Survey
How important is it for students to learn how to spell sight words?
How satisfied are you with the results of Constant Time Delay on teaching students how to spell sight words?
Has the ability to spell sight words positively affected the students ability to read?
73 How satisfied are you with the length of time required to implement Constant Time Delay per day?
Would you be willing to utilize this instructional method in your classroom? YES or NO
What would make you more likely to use this intervention in your classroom? ______
74