Remedial and Special Education

http://rse.sagepub.com

Small Group Computer-Assisted Instruction With SMART Board Technology: An Investigation of

Observational and Incidental Learning of Nontarget Information
Monica L. Campbell and Linda C. Mechling
Remedial and Special Education 2009; 30; 47 originally published online Jul 2, 2008;
DOI: 10.1177/0741932508315048

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/1/47

Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Remedial and Special Education can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://rse.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009

 Remedial and Special Education
Volume 30 Number 1
January/February 2009 47-57
2009 Hammill Institute on
Disabilities
Small Group Computer-Assisted Instruction 10.1177/0741932508315048
http://rase.sagepub.com

With SMART Board Technology hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

An Investigation of Observational and Incidental

Learning of Nontarget Information
Monica L. Campbell
Linda C. Mechling
University of North Carolina Wilmington

This investigation examined the effectiveness of teaching letter sounds in a small group arrangement using computer-
assisted instruction with SMART Board technology and a 3s constant time delay procedure to three students with learning
disabilities. A multiple probe design across letter sound sets and replicated across students evaluate the effectiveness of the
program and students acquisition of other students letter sounds through observational learning. In addition, students were
assessed on their acquisition of incidental information presented in the instructive feedback statements following correct
responses to target and nontarget stimuli. Results indicate that (a) the program was effective in teaching letter sounds to
three students and (b) students acquired some letter sounds targeted for other students and incidental information (letter
names) presented in the instructive feedback statements for their own and other group members target stimuli. Findings are
discussed in terms of presenting small group instruction through interactive white board technology.

Keywords: learning disabilities; exceptionalities; reading instruction; computer-assisted instruction technology

P rograms for persons with disabilities continue to be

concerned for provision of instructional strategies
that are both effective (i.e., production of positive results)
and efficient (i.e., maximize instructional time; Keel &
Gast, 1992; Whalen, Schuster, & Hemmeter, 1996).
Efficient teaching procedures may (a) require fewer teach-
ing sessions or instructional trials, (b) use less instruc-
tional time to criteria, (c) produce fewer student errors,
(d) reduce teacher preparation time, or (e) be easier to
implement (Doyle, Schuster, & Meyer, 1996; Whalen
et al., 1996). Learning more information in the same
amount of instructional time has also been targeted as a
measure of efficiency whereby learners acquire (a) non-
target, educationally relevant information being taught to
other group members (observational learning; Farmer,
Gast, Wolery, & Winterling, 1991) or (b) nontarget infor-
mation added or imbedded to some part of the instruc-
tional trial sequence (incidental information) of the student
or other group members (Doyle et al., 1996).
Observational learning addresses the acquisition of addi-
tional, nontarget information by observing instruction and
behaviors of other group members (Doyle, Gast, Wolery,
Ault, & Farmer, 1990). A number of discrete skills have
been acquired through observational learning including
sight words (Schoen & Ogden, 1995; Winterling, 1990),
community referenced words (Farmer et al., 1991), manual
signs (Palmer, Collins, & Schuster, 1999), and math facts
(Fickel, Schuster, & Collins, 1998). Chained or multi-
stepped tasks have also been addressed including cooking
(Griffen, Wolery, & Schuster, 1992), laundry (Taylor,
Collins, Schuster, & Kleinert, 2002), folding clothes and
assembling envelopes (M. Wolery, Ault, Gast, Doyle, &
Griffen, 1991), bagging groceries (Wall & Gast, 1999), and
cleaning (Smith, Collins, Schuster, & Kleinert, 1999).
Students have learned observational information when
working in dyads (Wall & Gast, 1999; M. Wolery, Ault,
et al., 1991), small group arrangements (Farmer et al., 1991;
Fickel et al., 1998; Griffen et al., 1992; Palmer et al., 1999;
Schoen & Ogden, 1995; Winterling, 1990), and in one
Authors Note: Please address correspondence to Monica Campbell,
University of North Carolina Wilmington, Watson School of
Education, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403; e-mail:
campbellmo@uncw.edu.

Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009 47

48 Remedial and Special Education
study through observation of the teacher getting out and
putting away materials during instructional downtime
(Smith et al., 1999).
M. Wolery, Ault, Gast, Doyle, and Mills (1990) defined
incidental learning as acquisition of information that a
student is exposed to but not directly taught or reinforced.
When using incidental learning procedures, a student is
not directed to respond to the nontarget stimuli and is not
reinforced for doing so (Werts, Wolery, Holcombe, &
Gast, 1995). Incidental or extra nontarget stimuli can be
administered individually or in a small group and may be
added in the: (a) antecedent portion of the trial sequence,
(b) prompt hierarchy (i.e., picture prompt with added ver-
bal information; Doyle, Gast, Wolery, Ault, & Meyer,
1992; Gast, Doyle, Wolery, Ault, & Farmer, 1991; Jones
& Collins, 1997), or (c) consequent event.
As part of the antecedent, nontarget information may
be presented as the attentional cue (e.g., everyone spell
b-e-a-n-s before asking a student to read the word; Keel &
Gast, 1992; M. Wolery et al., 1990) prior to the task direc-
tion (e.g., teacher spells the word before asking What
word?; Gast, Doyle, Wolery, Ault, & Baklarz, 1991) or
within the task direction (e.g., teacher asks What dairy
product? rather than What word?; Doyle et al., 1996;
Roark, Collins, Hemmeter, & Kleinert, 2002).
Nontarget stimuli has most often been presented in the
consequent events of trials and referred to as instructive
feedback (Werts et al., 1995). As a consequent event,
information is presented in the praise statement
(Holcombe, Wolery, Werts, & Hrenkevick, 1993) or
immediately after delivering reinforcement (Gast, Doyle,
Wolery, Ault, & Kolenda, 1994). Werts et al. (1995)
defined three types of instructive feedback stimuli,
dependent on the behaviors required of the learner:
(a) parallelthose requiring the same response as the
target stimuli (naming numerals and naming number
words), (b) expansionthose requiring responses different
from the target stimuli and expanding the concept (reading
sight wordstarget, spelling the wordsnontarget, or
providing definitionsnontarget), and (c) novelthose
requiring responses from a different curricular domain or
unrelated to the target behavior (math factstarget, sight
wordsnontarget).
Finally, a number of studies have included procedures
for presenting both observational and incidental infor-
mation to learners in small group arrangements (Alig-
Cybriwsky, Wolery, & Gast, 1990; Doyle et al., 1990;
Gast, Wolery, Morris, Doyle, & Meyer, 1990; Schuster,
Morse, Griffen, & Wolery, 1996; Stinson, Gast, Wolery, &
Collins, 1991; Whalen et al., 1996).
Although research concerning observational and inci-
dental learning of information supports each as efficient
Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009
means for delivering instruction to students with disabili-
ties in a small group format, one potential problem with
group instruction and acquisition of nontarget information
is maintaining student attention (M. Wolery et al., 1990).
Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) has been described
as a means to increase motivation, attention, and time
on task (Okolo, Bahr, & Rieth, 1993). Using the features
of animation and sound, instruction can be presented
in an interactive format that may generate student inter-
est (Williams, Wright, Callaghan, & Coughlan, 2002).
Although provision of instructive feedback through a
computer-based program is supported (Werts, Wolery,
Gast, & Holcombe, 1996), limited research exists that
examines presentation of incidental or observational
information through this medium. Lee and Vail (2005)
presented incidental information (word definitions) in the
antecedent event of a computer-based reading program
noting that no other study to date had evaluated acquisi-
tion of extra information presented through CAI. As with
most CAI, Lee and Vail conducted all instructional ses-
sions in a 1 to 1 instructional arrangement. One reason for
this delivery format is the nature of small computer
screens and the inability of several students to view infor-
mation on the screen at one time. To address this issue,
Mechling, Gast, and Krupa (2007) used CAI and a large
interactive whiteboard screen to present grocery words to
students in a small group instructional arrangement. In
addition to acquiring their own words, measures of obser-
vational learning of other students grocery words sup-
ported use of CAI for delivery of small group instruction
when a large interactive screen was used.
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the
presentation of target and nontarget information to a small
group of students on a large interactive touch screen. The
study expanded available research with white board
technology to include evaluation of both incidental and
observational learning.
In addition, the study added to the available research in
the area of multisensory reading instruction. Simultaneous,
multisensoryalso referred to as visual auditory kines-
thetic tactileis one form of multisensory instruction and
requires the use of all senses at the same time to enhance
the memory and learning of students (Birsh, 1999). The
large interactive touch screen allowed the students to
simultaneously see, say, hear, and touch the letter sounds
for acquisition. Although multisensory instruction was
established in the 1920s, there has been a paucity of
research in the area.
The study addressed the following research question:
Would the use of computer-assisted instruction with
SMART Board technology, and a 3s constant time delay
(CTD) procedure taught within a small group arrangement

Description of Students
CA (years,
Student Gender months)
Jessica F (6, 8)
Michael M (6, 3)
Toby M (5, 7)
Note: CA = chronological age; WISC-III = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III; LD = learning disability; TERA-3 = Test of Early
Reading Ability-3; CBM = Curriculum-Based Measure.
result in students with learning disabilties: (a) naming
target letter sounds, (b) naming nontarget letter sounds of
other students through observational learning, (c) acquir-
ing nontarget information (letter names) presented in feed-
back statements of their target stimuli, and (d) acquiring
nontarget information (letter names) presented in the
feedback statements of other group members? Nontarget
stimuli were presented in the consequent portion (feed-
back statement) of each instructional trial.
Method
Participants
Three kindergarten students (two males and one female)
with learning disabilities (Table 1) participated in the
study and were selected based on their individualized
educational plan (IEP) objectives for increasing letter and
sound identification. Students were screened for the fol-
lowing entry-level skills: (a) visual ability to see letters
on the SMART Board screen, (b) ability to hear other
students responses and instructor directions, (c) verbal
imitation of letter sounds and names, (d) ability to attend
up to 15 min in a small group arrangement, and (e) wait
response of 3s. All students had experience with large
and small group instruction and computer-assisted instruc-
tion using a desktop computer and 1 to 1 instruction.
Setting and Instructional Arrangement
All sessions took place in a resource classroom of the
elementary school. During CAI sessions, the three students
sat in a horizontal row of chairs positioned approximately
2 ft to the right of the SMART Board. The instructor sat
to the left of the SMART Board, and the computer hard
drive and projector were positioned approximately 9 ft in
front of the screen.
Screening and Letter Selection
Fifty-two letter sounds, and 52 letter names were
screened individually by presenting lower and upper
Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009
Campbell, Mechling / SMART Board Technology 49
Table 1
WISC-III TERA-3 CBM (Letters
Diagnosis (Full Scale) (Standard Score) and Sounds)
LD 104 87 7/4
LD 87 76 8/2
LD 117 100 7/1
case letters to each student on a PowerPoint slide using
the SMART Board. During each session, 52 letter sounds
(trials) were screened by presenting one lower or upper
case letter on the screen and asking, What sound?
Screening of sounds was followed by presenting the 52
letters, one at a time, on the screen and asking, What let-
ter? Letters were randomly presented out of alphabetical
sequence. A total of 104 trials were conducted during
each screening session across three sessions. Eighteen
letters were selected from the list of unknown letters
across the three students.
Materials and Equipment
SMART Board technology was used throughout this
study. A SMART Board is a large, interactive whiteboard
with a touch-sensitive screen. Computer images are pro-
jected onto the whiteboard, and students are able to access
and control the applications by pressing on the touch-
sensitive surface. The SMART Board was attached to the
USB port of a Dell Optiplex Pentium Class computer.
Images were projected onto the SMART Board screen
using a Sony Digital Projector. Multiple exemplars of
lower case letters in 303 Arial font were presented on
PowerPoint slides during probe conditions and CAI using
the SMART Board. Actual letter size was 2 ft in height on
the 58 in. 42 in. SMART Board screen. During instruc-
tion, a set of three slides were used to present each letter
sound trial. First, a slide contained the target letter in the
middle and an arrow button on the bottom right corner of
the slide. The arrow was used by the instructor to advance
to the next slide using an action-setting button. The task
direction (What sound?) was delivered by the instructor
with this slide. The second slide presented a nonidentity
matching task. The slide contained three letters in a hori-
zontal row across the middle of the slide and the task
direction, Touch______(letter sound)? was delivered. A
text box hyperlinked to the next slide was used to create
the target letter sound so that the correct selection (student
touching the letter on the interactive SMART Board
screen) advanced the program to the next slide (touching
the surface of the board functions as a mouse click and
50 Remedial and Special Education
Figure 1
Percentage of Unprompted Correct Target Sounds Identified Across Three Sets for Jessica
settings were programmed so that one touch served as one
left mouse click). The PowerPoint transition feature on a
mouse click was turned off to prevent advancement of
slides by inadvertent touching on an area of the screen or
touching another letter on the screen.
The final slide in the set of three slides presented again
the single target letter in the center of the slide and the
statement, Yes, (letter name) says (letter sound) was
delivered by the instructor. An arrow button at the bottom
right side of the slide was then used to advance the pro-
gram to the next set of target letter slides. During probe
sessions only, the first slide with a single letter was used.
Response Definitions and Data Collection
Four dependent variables were measured: (a) naming of
target letter sounds, (b) naming of nontarget letter sounds
of other students, (c) naming of nontarget letter names
provided in the feedback statement, and (d) naming of
Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009
nontarget letter names provided in the feedback statement
of other students. During probe conditions for target letter
sounds, nontarget letter sounds, and nontarget letter
names, student responses for naming sounds or letters were
recorded as (a) correctstudent said the correct letter
sound or name within 3s of the instructor presenting the
PowerPoint slide and the question, What sound? or
What letter? or (b) incorrectthe student said an incor-
rect sound or letter name within 3s of the letter presenta-
tion, or (c) no responsestudent emitted no response
within 3s after the letter presentation on the slide.
During SMART BoardCTD instruction, student
responses for naming letter sounds were recorded as
(a) unprompted correct (initiating and correctly saying
the letter sound within 3s of the presentation of the printed
letter and delivery of the task direction, What sound?),
(b) unprompted incorrect (saying an incorrect letter sound
within 3s of presentation of the printed letter and task
direction), (c) prompted correct (saying the correct letter

sound within 3s after the verbal model of the letter sound),
(d) prompted incorrect (saying an incorrect letter sound
within 3s after the instructors verbal model), or (e) no
response (failure to initiate saying a sound within 3s after
the verbal model).
Experimental Design and
General Procedures
Procedures followed those of the Keel and Gast (1992)
study, which evaluated observational learning (sight words)
and incidental learning of related nontargeted infor-
mation (spelling and definitions) during small group
instruction and the Mechling et al. (2007) study, which
evaluated observational learning of sight words delivered
to students with moderate disabilities using SMART
Board technology. Sessions were conducted 4 to 5 days
a week in the morning or afternoon and lasted approxi-
mately 10 min for individual sessions and 20 min for
small group sessions. Small group instructional sessions
were conducted when at least two of the three students
were present. The instructor said the target letter sounds
of the absent student.
A multiple probe design (Tawney & Gast, 1984) across
three letter sets and replicated across three students was
used to evaluate the effectiveness of CAI with SMART
Board technology and a 3s CTD procedure in teaching
students to name letter sounds.
The order of experimental conditions was (a) target
letter sound probe condition (1:1 arrangement), (b) non-
target letter sound observational probe condition (1:1
arrangement), (c) nontarget letter name probe condition
(1:1 arrangement), and (d) CAI SMART Board with CTD
instruction (small group arrangement) on each letter sound
set until 100% group criterion was reached. Maintenance
checks were built into the design through probe sessions
of previously presented targeted and nontargeted stimuli.
Probe Procedures
Target letter sounds. Probe sessions to measure nam-
ing letter sounds were conducted prior to instruction of
Set 1 and immediately after all students reached criterion
on each of their respective sets of sounds. Probe sessions
on target sounds were individually conducted for a min-
imum of three sessions or until performance stabilized.
Sessions consisted of 18 trials: (3 trials per 6 target
sounds). During probe trials, a general attentional cue
was provided. After an attentional response was obtained,
the instructor advanced the PowerPoint program to the
first slide containing a single letter and delivered the task
Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009
Campbell, Mechling / SMART Board Technology 51
direction, What sound?, and waited 3s for a response.
Students received descriptive verbal praise for correct
answers and on the average of every 3 trials for attend-
ing. A graphic (e.g., an outline of a hand for students to
high five the SMART Board, which was programmed
to advance to another slide with a thumbs up sign)
and positive verbal statement (e.g., Great work) with
applause audio appeared intermittently and at the end of
each session. Incorrect or no responses were ignored and
the instructor immediately advanced the program to the
next slide presenting the next letter.
Observational learning: Nontarget letter sounds.
During SMART Board CTD instruction, students could
hear and see their classmates or instructor read letter
sounds. Target letter sounds for each student served as
observational letter sounds for the other students. Students
were tested individually on their ability to name letter
sounds during one session at the end of each of four target
probe conditions. Observational probe condition sessions
consisted of 18 trials (6 target letter sounds and 12 nontar-
get letter sounds) for one session. Observational learning
trials were conducted identically to target probe condition
trials described in the previous section for letter sounds.
Incidental learning: Letter names. During SMART
BoardCTD instruction, students were exposed to letter
names of their target letter sounds and those of other
students which were not directly taught. After acquiring
target letter sounds, responses to nontarget, instructive
feedback stimuli (letter names) were assessed in probe
sessions. The students ability to name letters was
assessed individually during nontarget (incidental) probe
conditions during one session at the end of each of
four nontarget probe conditions. Sessions consisted of
21 trialsone trial for each of a students six nontarget
stimuli (letter names) and one for each of the other
students nontarget stimuli (letter names). During probe
trials, a general attentional cue was provided. After an
attentional response was given, the instructor advanced
the PowerPoint program to the first slide containing a
single letter, delivered the task direction, What letter?
and waited 3s for a response. Students received descrip-
tive verbal praise for correct answers and on the aver-
age of every 3 trials for attending. A graphic (e.g., an
animation such as a smiley face winking) and positive
verbal statement (e.g. Outstanding) appeared intermit-
tently on slides and at the end of each session. Incorrect
or no responses were ignored and the instructor immedi-
ately advanced the program to the next slide presenting
the next letter.
52 Remedial and Special Education
Computer-Assisted Instruction With SMART
BoardConstant Time Delay Procedure
Computer-assisted instruction using SMART Board
technology and 3s CTD procedure was used to teach six
letter sounds to each student, three sets of two letter
sounds. Each student received 10 trials during each session
(2 letter sounds 5 trials). Each PowerPoint program was
designed so that each student received one turn during each
computer presentation of 3 trials. Target letter sounds for
each student are listed in Table 2; target letter sounds of
other students served as observational letter sounds. The
first letter of a students name was placed in small 10 in.
font at the bottom right of the slide to cue the instructor to
gain the attention of the student whose target letter was on
the screen by saying the students name.
Instruction began after target letter sound probe and
nontarget letter sound probe sessions and when stability
was reached for all three students in the target probe
condition. All sessions took place in a small group arrange-
ment (1:3) using the SMART Board and a 3s CTD proce-
dure. The first session for each letter set consisted of 0s
prompt delay trials. The first slide appeared containing
one letter followed by the instructor delivering the task
direction, What sound? and immediately provided the
controlling verbal prompt of the letter sound. Following
the students correct response, the computer program was
advanced by the instructor to the nonidentity matching
slide with three letters (target letter and two others) and the
task direction, Touch ____ (target sound). The instructor
immediately touched the correct letter during 0s trials that
advanced to the final slide showing the target letter and the
instructor delivering the feedback statementthat is, Yes,
(letter name) says (letter sound). Sessions continued at 0s
until each student in the group reached 100% prompted
correct responses for saying their two letter sounds.
Thereafter, a 3s prompt delay interval was inserted
between the presentation of the letter and the delivery of
the controlling prompt. Unprompted and prompted correct
responses were followed by the instructor advancing to
the next slide containing the three letters. Unprompted
incorrect responses, prompted incorrect responses, or no
responses after a prompt were followed by the instructor
saying the correct letter sound and advancing the slide.
During 3s trial presentations, students touch of the correct
letter on the screen (from the array of 3 letters) in response
to the direction, Touch _____(target sound), advanced
the program to the final slide showing the target letter and
the instructor delivering the feedback statementthat
is, Yes, (letter name) says (letter sound). A criterion was
defined as all students responding 100% unprompted
correct for one session when reinforced on a continuous
Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009
Table 2
Target (Letter Sounds) and Nontarget
(Letter Names)a
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
Letter Sound/ Letter Sound/ Letter Sound/
Letter Name Letter Name Letter Name
Jessica mj cx EA
Michael Gy im rl
Toby bu ga qw
a. Target letter sounds of other students served as observational
information.
schedule of reinforcement. Students were also reinforced
at the end of each session by playing a game on the
SMART Board screen (i.e., concentration or matching
game). All students were required to reach criteria on their
set of letter sounds before implementation of the next
target and nontarget probe condition and SMART
BoardCTD instruction. Students who reached criterion
early continued working on their letter sound set until all
students achieved criterion.
Reliability
Interobserver agreement and procedural reliability data
were collected simultaneously on 33% of all sessions, with
at least one reliability check per condition. Interobserver
agreement was calculated using the point-by-point method
in which number of instructor and observer agreements
was divided by number of agreements plus disagreements
multiplied by 100. Procedural reliability data were col-
lected on the following instructor behaviors and com-
puter functions: (a) instructor gaining attention by saying
a students name, (b) delivering task direction, (c) wait-
ing the appropriate delay interval before delivering the
verbal model prompt (small group instruction), (d) advanc-
ing the slides, (e) requiring correct imitation of the model
before advancing the computer program to the nonidentity
matching slide (small group instruction), and (f) deliver-
ing reinforcement. Procedural reliability agreement was
determined by dividing number of each observed
instructor behavior by the number of opportunities to
emit that behavior, multiplied by 100 (Billingsley, White,
& Munson, 1980).
Mean interobserver agreement when recording student
responses was 99.1% across all participants and conditions,
99.7% for target and probe sessions (range = 98.1100),
and 98.2% during small group computer-assisted instruc-
tion (range = 93.3100). Mean procedural agreement
was 99.9% for probe sessions (range = 99.8100), and
99.7% during small group computer-assisted instruction

Figure 2
Percentage of Unprompted Correct Target Sounds Identified Across Three Sets for Toby
(range = 97.8100 ). Procedural disagreement was because
of failure to deliver feedback statements and presentation
of two extra slides during the first probe session.
Results
Target Letter Sounds
Figures 1 to 3 show the effectiveness of computer-
assisted instruction with SMART Board technology and a
3s CTD procedure in teaching letter sounds to students
with learning disabilties. The percentage of unprompted
correct responses on each letter sound set across the three
students is presented in each figure. Prior to and during
each probe condition prior to introducing a new set,
students were unable to name any of their target letter
sounds with the exception of Probe 1 when Jessica named
the sound for J and Toby said the letter sound for b
Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009
Campbell, Mechling / SMART Board Technology 53
one trial. Upon introduction of small goup instruction with
SMART Board technology plus CTD for each letter sound
set, unprompted correct responding increased to criterion
level for each student. Criteria was reached within six ses-
sions for Sets 1 and 2, whereas Set 3 required 12 instruc-
tional sessions. Jessica had difficulty with naming the sound
for letter E. She confused the sound with the letter sound
for A in her same set and the sound for letter i from
Michaels Set 2. Maintenance probe sessions indicate that
all students maintained their ability to name the sounds of
their target letter sets up to 50 days for Set 1, 31 days for
Set 2, and 3 days for Set 3.
Observational Learning:
Nontarget Letter Sounds
Acquisition of other students target letter sounds is
shown in Table 3. Percentage of correct responding is
54 Remedial and Special Education
Figure 3
Percentage of Unprompted Correct Target Sounds Identified Across Three Sets for Michael
reported across each probe condition for each set of
letter sounds. Data in the white section represents prein-
struction and data in gray (right of downward step pro-
gression) represents postinstruction. The stair-step
shading from left to right shows when instruction began
on letter set. It appears that all students learned, through
observation, some of the other students target sounds by
presenting instruction via the SMART Board and CTD.
Although correct reading of nontarget, observational
letter sounds remained low until letter sounds were
introduced during small group instruction, data indicates
that each student was able to name some sounds of other
students prior to introduction of new sets. Michael was
able to name 16.7% of other students letter sounds prior
to instruction of a new set and 83.3% immediately fol-
lowing small group instruction with a new set of sounds.
Toby named 33.3% of others sounds prior to small group
instruction and 83.3% following instruction. Jessica
named 25% of others sounds before and 58.3% after
Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009
instruction. It should also be recognized that although
students did not continue to review or observe previously
introduced letter sounds of other students, Toby was able
to name 100% of others sounds from Set 1 during the
last probe, although he only named 75% of the sounds
correctly immediately following observation of those
sounds during small group instruction. It is therefore
possible that students were being exposed to sounds fol-
lowing their introduction through small group SMART
Board and CTD instruction.
Incidental Learning: Letter Names
Data on incidental learning of letter names (reading of
letter names presented in the feedback statement of group
members letter sounds) are presented in Table 3. Data
in the white section represents preinstruction and data in
gray (right of downward step progression) represents post-
instruction. Gains were made by each student following
 Campbell, Mechling / SMART Board Technology 55

Table 3
Percentage Correct for Naming (Nontarget) Observational Sounds and
Naming (Nontarget) Incidental Letter Names
Letter Sounds Letter Names

Probe 1 Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 4 Probe 1 Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 4

Jessica
Set 1 0 50 50 50 66.7 100 100 100
Set 2 0 25 25 25 100 100 100 100
Set 3 0 25 50 100 83.3 100 100 100
Michael
Set 1 25 75 75 75 50 33.3 66.7 100
Set 2 0 0 100 100 83.3 83.3 83.3 100
Set 3 0 0 25 75 50 33.3 50 100
Toby
Set 1 25 75 75 100 66.7 66.7 83.3 83.3
Set 2 0 25 75 75 83.3 50 100 100
Set 3 0 25 50 100 83.3 83.3 66.7 100

introduction of letter names in feedback statements,
however, all students were able to correctly name some of
their target and observation letters prior to the introduction
of the first set and prior to the introduction of all subse-
quent new sets. Jessica in particular was able to name
88.9% of all letters prior to their introduction. Following
small group instruction and exposure to letter names in
feedback statements, she named 100% of the target and
nontarget letters. Toby showed the greatest gains in inci-
dental learning of letter names. He was able to name 61.6%
of target and nontarget letter names prior to instruction of
a new set and 88.9% immediately following small group
instruction with a new set. Michael demonstrated an
acquisition of only one new letter name following small
group instruction. He named 66.7% prior to small group
instruction and 72.2% following instruction. It should
again be recognized that although students did not continue
to receive exposure to letter names through feedback
statements, Michael and Toby continued to show gains in
their ability to name letters in subsequent probe condi-
tions. Michael was able to name 100% of all letters dur-
ing the final probe even though he was only able to name
66.7% of the letters in Set 1 and 83.3% of the letters in
Set 2 during Probe 3 and a decrease in his ability to name
letters after the introduction of Set 1. Likewise, Toby was
able to name 66.7% of the letters in Set 1 immediately
following incidental information through feedback state-
ments and 83.3% during the final probe condition.
Discussion
The purposes of the study were to evaluate the effec-
tiveness and efficiency of CAI with SMART Board
technology and CTD to teach students with learning dis-
abilities in a small group arrangement. Results are sup-
portive for (a) acquisition of target information presented
in a small group arrangement via a large interactive white-
board screen, (b) acquisition of peers target and nontarget
information through observation, and (c) acquisition of
incidental information embedded in feedback statements
of instructional trials. Although students did not acquire
all of the nontarget stimuli through observation of other
students letter sounds or incidentally through feedback
statements of letter names, Schuster et al. (1996) stated
that most studies evaluting observational learning report
that students do not acquire all of their peers stimuli and
state the importance of future research that evaluates
procedures that maximize learning of nontarget stimuli.
Werts et al. (1995) further suggested that the use of these
procedures may set up the students to more rapidly learn
the information when it is targeted for direct instruction.
Studies that measured effects of instructive feedback on
future learning of stimuli have found that students acquired
future target stimuli more quickly and required fewer ses-
sions to criterion compared to initial instruction of target
stimuli (Holcomb et al., 1993; M. Wolery, Doyle, et al.,
1991; T. Wolery, Schuster, & Collins, 2000). Future
research with interactive whiteboard technology may wish
to evaluate the time it takes (efficiency) to acquire the
information when it is later taught directly.
In addition to learning nontarget sounds through obser-
vation and letter names presented in feedback statements,
students may have acquired skills through exposure to
content in their kindergarten classroom environment.
Although classroom teachers were instructed not to
teach or reinforce each students six target sounds, it was

Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009

56 Remedial and Special Education
impossible for the students to receive daily instruction
in a vacume. Letters were posted around the classroom
and students were likely indirectly exposed to names in
a variety of unidentified means. Although the procedures
may have set up the students to learn the information from
other sources, this conclusion can not be formed from
the current study.
Letter names were selected for the feedback statement
because of the identified need in each students IEP and
the functionality of the skill. Results of the study support
learning of this information, and it is recommended that
teachers select educationally relevant stimuli to include
as incidental nontarget information.
In summary, results of the study support previous find-
ings that the amount of information a student learns may be
increased by including nontarget stimuli as observational
information or by including incidental information in the
feedback statements of group members. The study adds to
the limited research examining presentation of incidental
or observational information through computer assisted
instruction. It appears that information can effectively and
efficiently be presented through new technologies such as
large screen, interactive whiteboards. This technology now
allows computer-based presentation of information, draw-
ing on the features of animation, sound, and interaction,
while providing the information on a large screen that can
be viewed in small groups or by the entire classroom.
In addition, this study offers a contribution to the litera-
ture on simultaneous, multisensory instruction. The results
of this study suggest that students were able to efficiently
master the letter sounds by using the interactive features of
this technology. That is, students obtained new information
(i.e., new letter sounds) as a result of simulateously hearing
the sound, seeing the letter, and touching the letter.
Future research should continue to evaluate this form of
delivery of instruction across disability types and varying
group sizes, keeping in mind that although cost may be a
current barrier to access, new technology is increasingly
becoming present in schools. Yet to be studied are the
effects of additional features of whiteboard technology,
such as video streaming and delivery of instruction via the
Internet (Gerard, Widener, & Greene, 1999) when teaching
students with disabilities in small group arrangements.
References
Alig-Cybriwsky, C., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1990). Use of a constant
time delay procedure in teaching preschoolers in a group format.
Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 99116.
Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural
reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment,
2, 229241.
Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009
Birsh, J. (1999). Multisensory teaching of basic skills. Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Farmer, J. A.
(1990). Use of constant time delay in small group instruction: A
study of observational and incidental learning. Journal of Special
Education, 23, 369385.
Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Meyer, S. (1992).
Teaching discrete skills to students with moderate mental retar-
dation in small-group instructional arrangements. Exceptionality,
3, 233253.
Doyle, P. M., Schuster, J. W., & Meyer, S. (1996). Embedding extra
stimuli in the task direction: Effects on learning of students with
moderate mental retardation. The Journal of Special Education,
29, 381399.
Farmer, J. A., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). Small
group instruction for students with severe handicaps: A study of
observational learning. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation, 26, 121132.
Fickel, K. M., Schuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. (1998). Teaching differ-
ent tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 219244.
Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Baklarz, J. L.
(1991). Acquisition of incidental information during small group
instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 119.
Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Farmer, J. A. (1991).
Assessing the acquisition of incidental information by secondary-age
students with mental retardation: Comparison of response prompting
strategies. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 6380.
Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Kolenda, J. L.
(1994). Instructive feedback: Effects of number and type. Journal
of Behavioral Education, 4, 313334.
Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Morris, L. L., Doyle, M. P., & Meyer, S.
(1990). Teaching sight word reading in a group instructional
arrangement using constant time delay. Exceptionality, 1, 8196.
Gerard, F., Widener, J., & Greene, M. (1999, February 28-March 4).
Using SMART Board in foreign language classes. Paper presented
at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Griffen, A. K., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. W. (1992). Triadic instruction
of chained food preparation responses: Acquisition and observa-
tional learning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 193204.
Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., & Hrenkevick, P. (1993).
Effects of instructive feedback on future learning. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 3, 259285.
Jones, G. Y., & Collins, B. C. (1997). Teaching microwave skills to
adults with disabilities: Acquisition of nutrition and safety facts
presented as nontargeted information. Journal of Developmental
and Physical Disabilities, 9, 5978.
Keel, M. C., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Small-group instruction for students
with learning disabilities: Observational and incidental learning.
Exceptional Children, 58, 357369.
Lee, Y., & Vail, C. O. (2005). Computer-based reading instruction for
young children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 20, 518.
Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Krupa, K. (2007). Impact of SMART
Board technology: An investigation of sight word reading and
observational learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disabilities 37, 18691882.
Okolo, C. M., Bahr, C. M., & Rieth, H. J. (1993). A retrospective
view of computer-based instruction. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 12, 127.

Palmer, T., Collins, B. C., & Schuster, J. W. (1999). The use of simul-
taneous prompting procedure to teach receptive manual sign iden-
tification to adults with disabilities. Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities, 11, 179191.
Roark, T. J., Collins, B. C., Hemmeter, M. L., & Kleinert, H. (2002).
Including manual signing as nontargeted information when using
a constant time delay procedure to teach receptive identification of
packaged food items. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 1938.
Schoen, S. F., & Ogden, S. (1995). Impact of time delay, observational
learning, and attentional cuing upon word recognition during
integrated small-group instruction. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 25, 503519.
Schuster, J. W., Morse, T. E., Griffen, A. B., & Wolery, T. (1996).
Teaching peer reinforcement and grocery words: An investigation
of observational learning and instructive feedback. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 6, 511533.
Smith, R. L., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Kleinert, H. (1999).
Teaching table cleaning skills to secondary students with moderate/
severe disabilities: Facilitating observational learning during instruc-
tional downtime. Education and Training in Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 342353.
Stinson, D. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Collins, B. C. (1991).
Acquisition of nontargeted information during small-group instruc-
tion. Exceptionality, 2, 6580.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special
education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Taylor, P., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Kleinert, H. (2002).
Teaching laundry skills to high school students with disabilities:
Generalization of targeted skills and nontargeted information.
Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 37, 172183.
Wall, M. E., & Gast, D. L. (1999). Acquisition of incidental infor-
mation during instruction for a response-chain skill. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 20, 3150.
Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Holcombe, A. (1996). Sneak
in some extra learning by using instructive feedback. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 24, 7071.
Downloaded from http://rse.sagepub.com by nabah bah on April 28, 2009
Campbell, Mechling / SMART Board Technology 57
Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., & Gast, D. L. (1995).
Instructive feedback: Review of parameters and effects. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 5, 5575.
Whalen, C., Schuster, J. W., & Hemmeter, M. L. (1996). The use of
unrelated instructive feedback when teaching in a small group
instructional arrangement. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 188202.
Williams, C., Wright, B., Callaghan, G., & Coughlan, B. (2002). Do
children with autism learn to read more readily by computer assisted
instruction or traditional book methods? Autism, 6, 7191.
Winterling, V. (1990). The effects of constant time delay, practice in
writing or spelling, and reinforcement on sight word recognition
in a small group. Journal of Special Education, 24, 101116.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., & Griffen, A. K.
(1991). Teaching chained tasks in dyads: Acquisition of target and
observational behaviors. Journal of Special Education, 25, 198220.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., & Mills, B. M.
(1990). Use of choral and individual attential responses with con-
stant time delay when teaching sight word reading. Remedial and
Special Education, 11, 4758.
Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., Meyer, S., &
Stinson, D. (1991). Effects of presenting incidental information
in consequent events on future learning. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 1, 79104.
Wolery, T., Schuster, J., & Collins, B. (2000). Effects on future learn-
ing of presenting non-target stimuli in antecedent and consequent
conditions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 7794.
Monica L. Campbell is an assistant professor of special education at
the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Her current interests
include high incidence disabilities, reading strategies, multimedia
instruction, and direct instruction.
Linda C. Mechling is an associate professor of special education at the
University of North Carolina Wilmington. Her current interests include
moderate to severe intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorders,
computer-based video and multimedia instruction, and functional skills.