Self-Monitoring Checklists for Inquiry Problem-Solving...

Self-Monitoring Checklists for Inquiry Problem-Solving:Functional Problem-Solving Methods for Students with

Intellectual Disability

Bridget MillerUniversity of South Carolina

Teresa Taber-DoughtyPurdue University

Abstract: Three students with mild to moderate intellectual and multiple disability, enrolled in a self-containedfunctional curriculum class were taught to use a self-monitoring checklist and science notebook to increaseindependence in inquiry problem-solving skills. Using a single-subject multiple-probe design, all studentsacquired inquiry problem-solving skills during exposure to functional guided science inquiry lessons anddemonstrated the problem-solving skills independently. Students successfully generalized inquiry problem-solvingskills to two functional problem scenarios during a generalization phase.

Students enrolled in a functional curriculumfocus on life skills for greater post high schoolautonomy (Snell & Brown, 2011). While thiscurricular approach centers on skills associ-ated with community, domestic, vocational,and recreational/leisure domains oftentaught in community-based or self-containedsettings, IDEA (2004) mandates all studentshave access to the general curriculum and areprovided instruction in least restrictive envi-ronments (LRE), including inclusive class-room settings. Providing instruction in theirLRE, ranging from self-contained classroomsto inclusive settings, raises expectations for allstudents with disabilities and can increase ed-ucational performance resulting in improvedoutcomes (Karger, 2005).

Congress passed the No Child Left BehindAct (NCLB) in 2001 to create an equal oppor-tunity for all children to receive a high-qualityeducation and attain proficiency on stateachievement standards and assessments (20U.S.C. § 6301). Overall, this law focused onensuring that all students with a disability haveaccess to a high quality education, continued

educational opportunities, high academic ex-pectations, and exposure to the academics oftheir peers without disabilities (Hitchcock,Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002). While a gen-eral curricular focus may prepare many stu-dents with and without disabilities for partici-pation in statewide assessments, some maylack the cognitive skills to participate success-fully or gain the skills necessary for post-schoolfunctioning (Ayers, Lowery, Douglas, & Siev-ers, 2011). Thus, NCLB allowed for an alter-native curriculum and assessment to meettheir individual learning needs. However, tomeet the law’s accountability measure, law-makers required that alternative assessmentsand curriculum be linked to grade-level stan-dards (Ayers et al., 2011; Yell, Drasgrow, &Lowery, 2005). For students who access a func-tional curriculum, few models for teachingand modifying general academic content inan alternative manner exist in the literature(Browder et al., 2012; Courtade, Spooner, &Browder 2007; Spooner, Knight, Browder,Jimenez, & Warren, 2011).

Ayers and his colleagues (2011) questionedif students with a moderate to severe intellec-tual disability should be learning general ed-ucation content when the instructional prior-ity should be spent on functional skills.Currently, researchers are investigating howacademic content (e.g., mathematics, science,literacy) can be provided to students with

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Bridget Miller, Department of In-struction and Teacher Education, University ofSouth Carolina, Wardlaw College, 170C, 820 MainSt., Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail: [email protected]

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2014, 49(4), 555–567© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Self-Monitoring Checklists / 555

moderate intellectual disability (Browder etal., 2012). For example, Jimenez and col-leagues (2012) reported success in teachingstudents with a moderate intellectual disabilityto use inquiry science skills. Students acquiredskills related to changing weather patterns,life cycles, and earth formations using peermediated time delay and guided inquirymethod knowledge charts. The instructionalcontent for students within a functional cur-riculum generally focuses on the topics ofweather, health, money and measurement(Browder et al., 2012; Spooner, Ahlgrim- Del-zell, Kohprasert, Baker, & Courtade, 2008),topics that seem to hold the most functionalvalue for this population. Yet these studies failto connect content to functional daily livingsituations and help students generalize skillsto functional applications. Collins, Hager, andGalloway (2011) found success using time de-lay procedures to teach students with a mod-erate intellectual disability combined gradelevel and functional content related to cook-ing, dressing for the weather (science), sightwords, information in the news (languagearts), and the skills to apply sales tax to itemsin local advertisements, as well as the order ofoperations, making the integration of sciencecontent meaningful for students in a func-tional curriculum by applying it to meaningfuldaily skills. Thus, investigators noted that thefield should continue to identify evidence-based practices that provide access to grade-level academic content mandated by law,while providing functional and meaningfuloutcomes for students with a mild to moder-ate intellectual disability (Courtade et al.,2007; Collins, Karl, Riggs, Galloway & Hagar,2010; Miller, 2012). Unfortunately, one aca-demic content area in which little researchexists is in the area of science for individualswho experience a moderate intellectual dis-ability (Browder et al., 2012). Without mean-ingful science instruction and research in thisarea, investigators may be unable to identifyrelevant instructional strategies and foci forpreparing students with an intellectual disabil-ity to gain relevant life skills in the areas ofproblem-solving and actively interacting withthe world around them (Miller, Krockover, &Doughty, in press).

Science through Inquiry

Science standards integrate both self-determi-nation and problem-solving skills though in-quiry methods and can provide both func-tional and content instruction for studentswith an intellectual disability. The functionalcurriculum that includes skills of daily prob-lem-solving, adaptability and general indepen-dence in the area of life skills (Brown et al.,1979; Parrish & Stodden, 2009), aligns withthe objectives of the National Science EducationStandards (NSES) and includes problem-solv-ing, adaptability, and understanding the nat-ural world. The Next Generation ScienceStandards (NGSS) (National Academy of Sci-ence, 2011) focus on limited core conceptsand ideas and are designed around scientificinquiry (National Science Teacher Associa-tion, 2011). Spooner et al., (2011) proposethat inquiry should be a major focus of scienceinstruction for students with an intellectualdisability and should focus on problem-solvingskill sets compared to memorization of sci-ence vocabulary that holds less functionalvalue.

The NRC (2000) defined inquiry as “a set ofinterrelated processes by which scientists andstudents pose questions about the naturalworld and investigate phenomena; in doingso, students acquire knowledge and develop arich understanding of concepts, principles,models, and theories” (p. 214). Students in afunctional curriculum can use inquiry to prob-lem-solve, adapt in daily living situations, andmake decisions. Jimenez, Browder, & Court-ade, (2010) found that students with a mod-erate intellectual disability acquired self-di-rected learning of inquiry skills during scienceinstruction almost immediately. Students wereable to use self-directed learning prompts toacquire and gain independence in inquiry sci-ence lessons in both chemistry and physicalscience and generalize it to the general sci-ence classroom following individualized in-struction.

Inquiry

Inquiry methods of instruction are designedto address processing and thinking skills innatural contexts where both the concepts andskills are acquired and strengthened by the

556 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2014

learner (Hammerman, 2006). One commoninquiry model known as the 5E’s (Engage-ment, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration,and Evaluation) is successful in K-12 scienceinstruction and is accepted as best practice inscience education (Bybee et al., 2006, NRC1996). Jimenez et al., (2010) modified the5E’s into what we Know (K), Want to know(W), How we found out (H), and what weLearned (L), making a KWHL chart where stu-dents were able to successfully self-monitortheir progress through guided inquiry lessons.

Inquiry is a dynamic process where studentscontinually shape and reshape their thoughtsbased on new knowledge and experiences(Hammerman, 2006). Full inquiry is student-driven, where the teacher acts as a facilitatorand provides guidance. Guided inquiry meth-ods are still student-driven with teacher asfacilitator, but allows for a more structuredoutline to be provided. For students with anintellectual disability, guided inquiry methodscan be used (NRC 1996) where a facilitator orvisual cue guides students to the posed ques-tion for investigation, or the facilitator pro-vides it versus a student-generated question;the facilitator or visual cue guides student toobservations to be made or data to collect; thelearner is guided to, or provided possible con-nections; and the learner can be providedwith broad guidelines to sharpen and commu-nicate, or is guided and prompted to makelogical explanations. In addition to guidancefrom the facilitator, interventions to assist stu-dents in self-monitoring their progressthrough instruction can be integrated withguided science inquiry to promote increasedindependence for students with an intellec-tual disability.

Self-Monitoring and Inquiry Task Analysis

Increased independence and the ability toself-monitor behaviors is a key objective forstudents with an intellectual disability (Snell &Brown, 2011). Self-monitoring is a skill withinthe self-management paradigm containingseveral strategies designed to facilitate an in-dividual’s ability to manage his or her ownbehavior (Shapiro, 1981). The ability to self-monitor can increase students’ independencewhen performing given tasks and promotesgreater autonomy and increased quality of life

(Agran, Cavin, Wehmeyer, & Palmer, 2006).When acquiring self-monitoring skills, stu-dents may require additional supports (Jime-nez et al., 2012). Common supports used forself-monitoring include checklists (Cooper &Browder, 2000), self-operated audio prompts(Tabert, Albert, & Fredrick, 1998), and video-models. When implemented in community(Mechling, Gast, & Langone, 2002), leisure(Taber-Doughty, Patton, & Brennan, 2008),domestic (Bidwell & Rehfeldt, 2004), and vo-cational settings (Allen, Bowen, Burke, Renes,& Wallace, 2010) self prompting systems ledto greater independent functioning, task tran-sition, and performance accuracy for studentswith a moderate to severe intellectual disabil-ity.

Inquiry as a Tool to Self-Monitor Problem-Solving

For students with an intellectual disability, sci-entific inquiry can serve as a self-monitoringstrategy for problem-solving. Students can fol-low the five steps of inquiry as they self-moni-tor their progress through solving a problem.Asking, Did I question? Plan? Observe? Investi-gate? and Explain?, each can use inquiry stepsto self-monitor how they problem-solve. Theuse of video modeling, adapted science note-books, checklists, and picture prompts can beused to support the self-monitoring of inquiryskills. For example, Miller, Krockover andDoughty (in press) used self-operated pictureprompts to represent inquiry task steps andplaced them in student’s science notebookswhen completing science activities. Theyfound that students with a moderate intellec-tual disability successfully acquired sciencecontent through the use of both traditionalscience and electronic notebooks in conjunc-tion with guided science inquiry instruction.Students not only learned to self-monitortheir own behavior, they did so while acquir-ing and following the steps of scientific in-quiry during life science and chemistry in-struction. As such, students demonstrated apotential for acquiring and applying a set ofcomplex problem-solving skills in an academicarea typically not considered part of a func-tional curriculum.

With increasing numbers of students withdisabilities participating in inclusive classroomsettings, more research is needed to confirm


the success of effective practices. Thus, con-tinued research is needed to investigate thebenefits of both guided inquiry and the use ofself-monitoring supports for completing sci-ence inquiry instruction for both functionalscience content and generalization of inquiryskills to daily living problem-solving applica-tion. The current study examined the effec-tiveness of self-operated checklists and self-recording using a science notebook duringguided science inquiry instruction. Specifi-cally, students with a mild or moderate intel-lectual disability self-monitored their own be-havior during guided science inquiry activitiesusing a checklist and science notebook. Datawere also gathered on students’ ability to gen-eralize problem-solving skills to daily problemsituations.

Method

Participants and Settings

Three students were recruited from a localrural Midwest middle school through theirclassroom teacher. To participate in the study,students were a) identified as having a mild ormoderate intellectual disability as determinedby a valid measure such as the Weschler Intel-ligence/Stanford-Binet test and a moderate tosevere adaptive behavior score on theVineland or comparable assessment, b) ofmiddle school age, and c) enrolled in a func-tional curriculum. In addition, parental/guardian consent was provided for all studentsto participate in addition to student assent.For each participating student, no sciencecontent instruction was part of his or her cur-rent curriculum and each received no prior

science instruction. See Table 1 for informa-tion on each student.

Phoebe. Phoebe was identified as having amultiple disability that included language,speech, and an intellectual disability, ADHD, acleft palate, and other health disabilities. Herfull-scale IQ score was 63 (Weschler) and heradaptive behavior on the Vineland-II was 56.She was placed in a self-contained classroomand received instruction in a functional cur-riculum. According to her classroom teacher,she was eager to participate in any activity andactively engaged in discussions and activities.Her teacher reported that Phoebe struggledwith social skills, demonstrating short temper-ament and lack of patience with her peers byraising her voice, rolling her eyes, sighing,throwing her arms down, and walking awayfrom them while they were speaking. Phoebealso demonstrated difficulty maintaining at-tention when working on a task, often driftingoff topic, or engaging in a verbal confronta-tion with a peer due to a disagreement ordislike of their contribution to the given task.

Claire. Claire was identified with multipledisabilities that included a language, seizure,and intellectual disability as well as otherhealth impairments. Her IQ score was 64(Kaufman) and her adaptive behavior on theAdaptive Behavior Assessment System SecondEdition (ABAS-2) was 47. She was served in aself-contained classroom and received instruc-tion in a functional curriculum. According tothe classroom teacher, Claire required repeti-tion and prompting over long periods of timefor acquisition and maintenance of new con-cepts. In addition, she required frequent ver-bal prompts to complete unfamiliar activities.Claire was able to decode text but struggled to

TABLE 1

Student Characteristics

StudentChronological

Age EthnicityAdaptiveBehavior IQ Primary Disability Secondary Disabilities

Claire 12 Caucasian 47c 64b Intellectual Disability Lang/Seizure,Phoebe 13 Caucasian 56d 63a Intellectual Disability Speech/language, ADHD,

Cleft palateChester 12 Latino 55c 46a Intellectual Disability IADHD, Lang

a WISC-IV, b Kauffman, c ABAS-2, d Vineland-II


comprehend longer narratives. She was ableto read and comprehend single functionalwords and text read aloud to her. She was alsoable to write short sentences, spelling phonet-ically. According the Claire’s teacher, shestruggled in mathematics, but demonstratedthe ability to do simple addition and subtrac-tion using illustrations and manipulatives.Claire was also able to measure when cookingusing standard units.

Chester. Chester was identified with a mul-tiple disability that included other health im-pairments, moderate intellectual disability,ADHD, and language disability. His full-scaleIQ score was 46 (Wechsler) with an adaptivebehavior score on the ABAS-2 of 55. He wasserved in a self-contained classroom where hereceived instruction in a functional curricu-lum. According to his teacher, he was an en-thusiastic student who was always willing toassist his peers. His teacher described him asconfident and not afraid to try new tasks.Chester demonstrated strong decoding andcomprehension skills and was able to recallinformation he read and heard. He was alsoable to write short sentences. Chester’s class-room teacher noted he struggled with mathe-matics, but was able to add and subtract usingmanipulatives and measure using standardand non-standard units.

Setting

Instruction took place in a room adjacent tothe main classroom. The room was a kitchen-ette consisting of cabinets with basic kitchenutensils, a sink, refrigerator and microwave.The room contained two round tables withfive chairs at each with access to a large corri-dor next to a wall of windows for viewing theoutdoors as well as direct access to an outsidefield. This space was considered ideal for sci-ence lessons as it was away from other studentsand provided direct access to class materials.

Independent and Dependent Variables

The independent variable was a self-monitor-ing checklist and the use of a science note-book that guided students through the fiveinquiry problem-solving steps of generating aquestion, making observations, creating aplan to answer the question, conducting an

experiment, and explaining their findings.The dependent variable was the percent oftask analysis steps each student completed in-dependently during inquiry problem-solvingactivities. Inquiry problem-solving activitieswere divided into task analysis steps and mea-sured during baseline and intervention condi-tions.

Materials

Checklists. The checklist consisted of an 8�� 11� laminated paper containing five picturesymbols and representing the five steps of in-quiry (Question, Observe, Plan, Experiment,and Explain). Beside each image were twocolumns labeled “Completed” and “To Do”with boxes below each column. In each box,students could write a check mark as theycompleted a given task. The 8� � 11� checklistwas laminated or both durability and for theuse of dry erase markers (Vis-a-vis). This en-abled to checklist to be placed inside the frontof the student’s science notebook and be re-used in each lesson (See Figure 1).

Science Notebooks. These consisted of a com-posite notebook with student’s names on thefront. Using images or text, students used thenotebook to record their findings and obser-vations during each inquiry phase to assistthem in planning their investigation. Eachguided inquiry science lesson consisted of avariety of materials the students manipulatedduring investigations.

Science Lessons. The inquiry science lessonsrepresented all areas of the sciences fromearth space, science and technology, life sci-ence, and physical science and were alignedwith the National Science Standards (NRC,1996). For example, students were instructedon ultra violet (UV) rays using plastic UVbeads, tanning oil and varied levels of sun-screens. Other lessons used inquiry methodsto introduce the topic of measuring windspeed and direction, as students engineeredanemometers with cups, pencils, pushpinsand straws, to investigate changing weatherpatterns and how to dress, while anothertaught forces and motion as they exploreddensity of liquids, and making observations asthey made density bottles and learned aboutthe importance and consequences of mixingmaterials such as medicines.


Figure 1. Self-Monitoring Checklist: Science inquiry problem-solving task analysis


Experimental Design

A single subject multiple probe design wasused to demonstrate the functional relation-ship between the self-monitoring checklist forproblem-solving during guided inquiry in-struction and level of independent perfor-mance (Horner et al., 2005; Kennedy, 2005).This design was selected as it exposed studentsto fewer sessions in baseline and reduced thelikelihood of a carryover effect due to pro-longed exposure to guided science inquiryinstruction (Gast, 2010). This design also al-lowed investigators to use probe sessions dur-ing baseline, compared to continuous base-line measures (Kennedy 2005) thus likelypreventing student burnout and possible rein-forcement of baseline behaviors over the pro-longed periods of time used in other multiplebaseline designs (Gast, 2010).

Data Collection

Event recording was used to document thenumber of task steps students completed in-dependently for each task. Event recordingprocedures were selected as they provided arepresentation of student’s actions under allconditions (Kennedy, 2005). By consideringthe percent of independence across lessonsand generalization phases, intervention effec-tiveness and validity of guided science inquirymethods as it pertains to student’s typical rou-tines was more clearly demonstrated.

Procedure

Baseline. During this condition, studentswere exposed to three different science les-sons on the topic of what colors attract heat(reflection), mixing liquids (density), andramps (forces and motion). The facilitatorprovided students with a notebook, pencil,and markers before the lessons began andexplained to students how to use the sciencenotebooks and their connection to a scien-tist’s field notebooks. Students were directedto draw or write about the activities they com-pleted during their sessions. They were askedto draw five different pictures: 1) What theywanted to learn about the topic, 2) what theyobserved, 3) what they could do to find outabout it, 3) what experiment they did, and 4)

what they found out. Lessons were structuredfollowing a guided inquiry approach wherethe students guided the investigation and asystem of least prompts was available to pro-vide support as necessary. The facilitatornoted the student’s level of independence forinitiating the five task analysis steps of inquiryproblem-solving: a) generating a question, b)making observations, c) creating a plan toanswer the question, d) conducting an exper-iment, and e) explaining their findings. If thestudent initiated the step, the facilitator re-corded a (�) on the task analysis. If the stu-dent required any prompt, the facilitator re-corded a (�) on that step.

Pre-Intervention Training. Following base-line, students participated in two, 30-minutetraining sessions to use the inquiry checklistsand to learn the five steps of the tasks analysisrepresented by the icons on the checklist (seeFigure 2). During training, the facilitator firstmodeled the use of the checklist and demon-strated for students how to use the sciencenotebook. For example, the facilitator showedChloe the picture of her density bottle andchecked off the first box that illustrated theicon for Asking a Question, “Chloe, last time thefirst thing you did was looked at my bottle andasked, ‘How can I make that?’ You asked aquestion. This was the first thing you did inour last session which is the first step on thechecklist, what was your next step?” The facil-itator then continued through the task analy-sis showing students the parallel of their activ-ities to the checklists. To assess student’s useof the checklists, students were provided abrief formative assessment during the secondtraining session. Each was provided a varietyof five balls and asked which would be goodfor small kids to use to play in the water. “Findthe balls that won’t sink.” The facilitator thenprompted, “Use your checklist and your note-book to find out for me, OK.” Phoebe andChloe required one verbal prompt to “Look atyour checklist, what should you do next?” Forthe step, “How can you find out?” Chesterused the checklist independently with hisnotebook.

Intervention. During this condition, proce-dures remained consistent with baseline withthe integration of the self-monitoring check-list for five-science guided inquiry lessons. Stu-dents were provided with self-monitoring


checklists and a dry erase marker. The topic ofthe session was introduced to the student togenerate discussion of the topic. For example,Did you hear the tornado sirens last night? Todaywe are going to talk about what to investigate to doduring a tornado to keep safe. Students then usedtheir checklists to follow inquiry stepsthroughout the lesson. If students were

prompted to use their checklist, it wascounted as a prompt. Due to the nature ofguided inquiry where the teacher guided stu-dents to further develop previous ideas, eachwas required to independently initiate the in-quiry step to count as completing that stepindependently. For example, if the studentplanned and began conducting the experi-

Figure 2. Level of independence during guided inquiry with use of self-monitoring checklist.


ment yet required facilitator assistance, it wasconsidered independent. Student perfor-mance was also independent if the studentinitiated an original plan and later modified itfollowing questions and discussions with theteacher.

Generalization. Following intervention, stu-dents participated in a generalization phaseconsisting of two sessions. Each session fol-lowed the same procedures as interventionbut inquiry problems included functional sit-uations. Two generalization phases mirroredintervention where students were providedself-monitoring checklists and provided afunctional problem to solve. For example, stu-dents were presented with a broken shoelaceand asked, “Do you have any idea how you couldhelp me fix this? Use your Checklist and notebooklike we usually do.” Students were then pro-vided with a variety of materials such as glue,scissors, scotch tape, masking tape, markers,and string. Data were recorded on the num-ber of task steps students completed indepen-dently.

Social Validity

Social validity interviews were conducted toexamine the social appeal, applied value, andpracticality of the intervention used in thestudy. A revised Treatment Acceptability Rat-ing Form (TARF-R) (Reimers & Wacker,1988) consisting of 13 Likert style questionswas used to conduct an interview with studentsat the conclusion of the study. The facilitatorread the questions and possible responsesaloud to students, explaining the scale. Stu-dents then recorded their response using pa-per and pencil.

Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Fidelity

Interobserver agreement (IOA) was collectedby a second trained independent observer for33% of baseline sessions, 40% of interventionsessions, and 50% of generalization sessions toensure the reliability of data for each student.IOA was calculated as the number of agree-ments divided by the number of agreementsplus disagreements, multiplied by 100. IOAfor all sessions for each student resulted in100%. A measure of treatment fidelity was alsoconducted to ensure that each intervention

procedure was accurately and consistently im-plemented. To ensure treatment fidelity, achecklist containing the task analysis of theintervention procedures was created and a vol-unteer was trained in its use to monitor thefacilitator during intervention sessions. Treat-ment fidelity was conducted for 40% of theintervention sessions resulting in 95% treat-ment fidelity, and 50% of the generalizationphases resulting in 100% for all students.

Results

Results indicated all students acquired thesteps in the inquiry problem-solving routineand were able to perform steps independentlyusing the self-monitoring checklist duringguided science inquiry instruction. Each wasalso able to generalize the use of the checklistto functional problem-solving scenarios dur-ing a generalization phase. Figure 2 illustratesstudent performance using in inquiry check-lists and science notebooks during baseline,intervention, and generalization conditions.

Claire. During baseline, Claire indepen-dently completed an average 6.67% of inquirytask analysis steps when completing scienceinvestigations. During intervention, the levelimmediately increased to an average 96% withthe use of the self-monitoring checklist duringscience instruction. This level remained highduring the generalization phase with an aver-age 96% of inquiry task analysis steps com-pleted independently when using self-moni-toring checklists to complete functionalproblem-solving lessons. Visual analysis indi-cated no overlapping data between baselineand intervention phases. Baseline indicates aslight variation in data ranging from 0%–20%.Intervention data ranging between 80%–100% indicated minimal variation. During thegeneralization phase, visual analysis indicatedthat the trend remained stable and high at90% with little variation in the data rangebetween 80%–100%.

Phoebe. Phoebe’s independence whencompleting inquiry task analysis steps duringscience instruction averaged 6.67% duringbaseline. During intervention this mean im-mediately increased to high levels with a meanof 100% when using self-monitoring checklistsduring science instruction. This high level wasmaintained during the generalization phase


with a mean of 100% when using the self-monitoring checklists during functional prob-lem-solving instruction. Visual analysis indi-cated no overlap in data between baseline andintervention phases. Data within phases indi-cate little no to variation with a range in base-line data between 0%–20%, and no variationin intervention or generalization. Overall,data demonstrated an immediate and stableupward trend across baseline into interven-tion and generalization phases.

Chester. When investigating science con-cepts during baseline, Chester’s average whenindependently completing inquiry task analy-sis steps was 6.67% (Range: 0%–20%). Duringintervention, this showed an immediate in-crease to 100% with the use of the self-moni-toring checklist. This increase in performancecontinued during the generalization phasewith an average of 100% independence ofinquiry task analysis steps with the use of theself-monitoring checklist for functional prob-lem-solving activities. Visual analysis indicatedno overlap in data between baseline and in-tervention phases. During baseline his datademonstrated a slight variation ranging from0%–20%. During both the intervention andgeneralization phases, visual analysis indicatedno variation. The overall data demonstratedan immediate positive stable trend from base-line to intervention and into generalization.

Social Validity

Social validity measures were conducted usingthe Treatment Acceptability Rating Form(TARF-R) (Reimers & Wacker, 1988) witheach student. Students listened to each ques-tion and recorded their responses. All threestudents indicated they enjoyed doing sciencelessons and wanted to continue doing scienceinvestigations. Two students expressed that us-ing the science notebooks were useful duringtheir lessons, while one expressed, “I just likedoing things.” All three verbally indicated thechecklists helped them recall the steps fordoing science investigations and wanted tocontinue using them in the future. Studentsexpressed that they would recommend sci-ence lessons and checklists to their friendsand use them for other areas of instruction.

Discussion

All students in this study increased their inde-pendence in guided inquiry procedures withthe use of self-monitoring checklists and sci-ence notebooks and all were able to general-ize the inquiry skills from science content in-struction to functional problem-solvingsituations during the generalization phase.These findings support those by Jimenez et al.(2010) suggesting inquiry problem-solvingmethods for students with intellectual disabil-ity can be acquired in a short period of time.Inquiry methods hold great potential for stu-dents with an intellectual disability, as theywere able to generalize steps to solve dailyproblems in the generalization phase support-ing Spooner et al.’s, (2011) suggestion thatinquiry processes are an appropriate sciencecontent connection for students in a func-tional curriculum.

This study confirmed previous findings in-dicating the effectiveness of science inquirymethods when used by students with a mild tomoderate intellectual disability. Claire,Phoebe, and Chester were all able to indepen-dently engage in science inquiry activities(Jimemez et al., 2010, 2012). Additionally, theeffectiveness of checklists as a means of self-monitoring was also confirmed (Cooper &Browder, 2000). Each student was able toquickly acquire the skills to independentlymonitor his or her own inquiry behavior usingthe checklist. Finally, the ability to teach stu-dents with an intellectual disability who wereengaged in a functional curriculum how touse inquiry (Jimemez et al., 2012; Miller,Krockover, & Doughty, in press) was con-firmed as all three demonstrated immediatechanges in level of performance in both coreacademic context and functional daily situa-tions. Independent inquiry was not only appli-cable in the context of scientific investigationbut students generalized it to a self-monitor-ing tool for functional problem-solving situa-tions.

A need exists to identify interventions forintegrating content instruction in meaningfulcontexts for individuals with an intellectualdisability that result in functional outcomes.The present investigation expanded Jimenezet al. (2010) results examining the effective-ness of inquiry methods as a functional skill


for secondary students with an intellectual dis-ability. To ensure inquiry skills generalized toreal world problem-solving in the presentstudy, students completed applied activitiesthat required them to use their science in-quiry skills in a functional way. The resultingevidence supports the use of guided scienceinquiry when teaching students with an intel-lectual disability to problem-solve and lendsitself to functional problem-solving. All threestudents successfully used the self-monitoringinquiry checklist and generalized it to func-tional problem-solving situations. During in-tervention sessions, students remained on taskand engaged with materials. Claire and Ches-ter immediately asked questions and touchedmaterials upon entering the room. However,Phoebe was more reserved and would wait forthe teacher to initiate an activity before han-dling materials. Once a session began, shewould become very talkative and easily manip-ulated the available materials. When design-ing an original birdfeeder, Phoebe originallyclosed off access to the birdseed inside. Theteacher commented and asked, “I like yourdesign. Can you tell me about it?” WhenPhoebe talked about her feeder she noticedthe design flaw and revised her feeder, initiat-ing the design, observations and explanationsindependently. The use of physical materialsduring investigations engaged students in ac-tivities and they expressed that they liked hav-ing choices in what materials they could useand activities they could do. Futures studiesshould continue to focus on functional inves-tigations that involve the use of physical ma-terials. In addition, with the advent of technol-ogy and various digital tools, investigatorsmight examine how independently studentsare able to solve science problems that arefunctional in nature when using virtual ma-nipulatives.

While students always remained on task dur-ing science activities, Claire required frequentprompts to record (write or draw) her re-sponses into her science notebook. This maybe attributed to her active engagement in theongoing activity and unwillingness to stop torecord her observations. Writing was also notan activity she favored and one in which shestruggled. Concomitantly, all students verballyexpressed numerous ideas during their sci-ence activity, when asked to record their find-

ings in their notebooks, they would write ordraw only a single idea. This may also be as-cribed to their poor writing skills and in-creased level of engagement with the activi-ties. Future studies should investigate moreactivity-based recording, for example studentsdocumenting their experiments throughvideo logs during the activity. Methods such asthis may be more appealing to Claire as ameans to record her findings during instruc-tion. Alternatively, for students who dislikewriting and traditional science notebook pro-cedures, alternative formats such as dictation,use of audio, digital video recoding and othertechnologies should be investigated.

Limitations

The current study had several limitations. Useof the science notebooks during the guidedinquiry science instruction was distracting andat times a barrier for Claire who disliked thewriting aspect. Although she was very verballyexpressive during instruction, she appeared tonot like recording ideas in the science note-book. She continually avoided the use of thescience notebook by pushing it off to the sideand when prompted to use the notebook, shequickly jotted down a word or two or drew aquick picture before returning to her activity.During the social validity interview she indi-cated that using the science notebook was OKbut that she wouldn’t want to continue usingit in the future. Future studies should consideralternative means of science note bookingsuch as dictation software or video cameraentries which could be recorded on iPads oriPods, as well as other problem-solving andcritical thinking interventions that may notrequire the use of recording information. An-other limitation was that students only com-pleted two functional problems using inquiryskills during generalization. Future studiesshould explore the application of inquiryproblem-solving methods in-vivo across set-tings for a variety of daily living scenarios. Forexample, having students apply inquiry prob-lem-solving methods across community set-tings or in a social context when working withsocial scenarios. Another area for further in-vestigation is the use of self-monitoring check-lists and the versatility of checklists acrossfunctional tasks, and the use of dynamic


checklists that are available on mobile devicessuch as cell phones and other electronicsthrough applications that may hold functionfor students with a moderate intellectual dis-ability.

References

Allen, K. D., Bowen, S. L., Burke, R. V., Renes, D., &Wallace, D. P. (2010). Use of video modeling toteach vocational skills to adolescents and youngadults with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Education& Treatment of Children, 33, 339–349

Agran, M., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S.(2006). Participation of students with moderateto severe disabilities in the general curriculum:The effects of the self-determined learning modelof instruction. Research and Practice for Persons withSevere Disabilities, 31, 230–241

Ayers, K. M., Lowery, K. A., Douglas, K. H., & Siev-ers, C. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’tbrush my teeth: What happens when the curricu-lar focus for students with severe disabilities shifts.Education and Training in Autism and DevelopmentalDisabilities, 46, 11–21.

Bidwell, M. A., & Rehfeldt, R. (2004). Using videomodeling to teach a domestic skill with an em-bedded social skill to adults with severe mentalretardation. Behavioral Interventions, 19, 263–274.

Browder, D., Trela, K., Courtade, G. R., Jimenez,B. A., Knight, V., Flowers, C. (2012). Teachingmathematics and science standards to studentswith moderate and severe developmental disabil-ities. Journal of Special Education, 46, 26–35.

Brown, L., Branston, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S.,Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979).Age appropriate and functional curricular con-tent for severely handicapped adolescents andyoung adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter,P., Carlson J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N.(2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Originsand effectiveness. Office of Science Education Na-tional Institutes of Health, Colorado Springs, CO.

Cooper, K. J., & Browder, D. M. (2000). Preparingstaff to enhance active participation of adults withsevere disabilities by offering choice and prompt-ing performance during a community purchasingactivity. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22,1–20.

Collins, B. C., Hager, K. L., & Galloway, C. C.(2011). Addition of functional content duringcore content instruction with students with mod-erate disabilities. Education and Training in Autismand Developmental Disabilities, 46, 22–39.

Collins, B. C., Karl, J., Riggs, L., Galloway, C. C., &

Hagar, D. K. (2010). Teaching core-content withreal life applications to secondary students withmoderate and severe disabilities. Teaching Excep-tional Children, 43(1), 52–59.

Courtade, G. R., Spooner, F., & Browder,D. M.(2007). Review of studies with students withsignificant cognitive disabilities which link to sci-ence standards. Research & Practice for Persons withSevere Disabilities, 32, 43–49.

Gast, D. L. (2010). Single-subject research methodologyin behavioral sciences. NY: Taylor & Frances

Hammerman, E. (2006). 8 Essentials of inquiry-basedscience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G.,Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based prac-tice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71,165–179.

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R.,(2002). Providing new access to the general cur-riculum universal design for learning. TeachingExceptional Children, 35(2), 8–17.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004,120 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1997).

Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., &Warren, D. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science us-ing peer-mediated embedded instruction for stu-dents with moderate intellectual disability. Excep-tional Children, 78, 301–317.

Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., & Courtade, G.(2010). An exploratory study of self-directed sci-ence concepts learning by students with moder-ate intellectual disabilities. Research & Practice forPersons with Severe Disabilities, 34, 33–46.

Karger, J. (2005). What IDEA and NCLB suggestabout curriculum access for students with disabil-ities. The universally designed classroom: Accessiblecurriculum and digital technologies, 69–100. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educa-tional research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Mechling, L., Gast, D. L., & Langone, J. (2002).Computer-based video instruction to teach per-sons with moderate intellectual disabilities toread grocery aisle signs and locate items. Journal ofSpecial Education, 35, 224–240

Miller, B. (2012). Ensuring meaningful access toscience curriculum for students with significantcognitive disabilities, Teaching Exceptional Children,44(6), 16–25.

Miller, B., Krockover, G. H., Doughty, T. (in press).Using iPads to teach inquiry science to studentswith intellectual disabilities: A pilot study. Journalof Research in Science Teaching.

National Academy of Science. (2011). Report brief:Board on science education. A framework for K12science education: Practices, crosscutting con-


cepts, and core ideas. Science Education at theNational Research Council.

National Research Council. (1996). National scienceeducation standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and theNational Science Education Standards. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Teacher Association. (2011).NSTA reports: Anticipating the next generation sciencestandards. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id�59290

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No107–11-, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Parrish, P. R., & Stodden, R. A., (2009). Aligningassessment and instruction with state standardsfor children with significant disabilities. TeachingExceptional Children, 41(4), 46–56.

Reimers, T. M., & Wacker, D. P. (1988). Parents’ratings of the acceptability of behavioral treat-ment recommendations made in an out patientclinic: A preliminary analysis of the influence oftreatment effectiveness. Behavioral Disorders, 14,7–15.

Shapiro, H. (1981). Implementing P.L. 94–142 inthe high school: A successful in-service trainingmodel. Education, 102, 47–52.

Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2011). Instruction of stu-dents with severe disabilities (7th ed). Upper SaddleRiver, N J: Merrill, Prentice-Hall.

Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., Jimenez, B., &Warren, D. (2011). Evaluating evidence- basedpractice in teaching science content to studentswith severe developmental disabilities. Research &Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(2),62–75.

Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Kohprasert, K.,Baker, J., & Courtade, G. (2008). Content analysisof science performance indicators in alternativeassessment. Remedial and Special Education, 29,343–351.

Taber-Doughty, T., Patton, S. E., & Brennan, S.(2008). Simultaneous and delayed video model-ing: An examination of system effectiveness andstudent preferences. Journal of Special EducationTechnology, 23(1), 1–18

Taber, T., Alberto, P., & Fredrick, L. (1998). Use ofself-operated auditory prompts by workers withmoderate mental retardation to transition inde-pendently through vocational tasks. Research inDevelopmental Disabilities, 19, 327–345.

Yell, M. Y., Drasgrow, E., & Lowery, K. A. (2005). Nochild left behind and students with autism disor-ders. Focus on Autism Disorders and DevelopmentalDisabilities, 20, 130–139.

Received: 21 February 2013Initial Acceptance: 30 April 2013Final Acceptance: 16 July 2013


Self-Monitoring Checklists for Inquiry Problem-Solving...

Documents

Transcript of Self-Monitoring Checklists for Inquiry Problem-Solving...