Using a Multicomponent Multimedia Shared Story Intervention with an iPad to Teach Content Picture Vocabulary to Students with Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

With the increased use of iPads in classrooms, special education teachers need methods for preparing students with developmental disabilities to access and use this technology for a variety of academic purposes. This study used a multiple probe design to examine a multicomponent multimedia shared story (MSS) intervention via an iPad to teach science vocabulary to three elementary students with developmental disabilities. The shared stories, delivered via an iPad, included photographs, text, and videos to purposefully support generalization of vocabulary. Furthermore, pre and post measures were taken to determine student gains in digital literacy skills through modeling without explicit instructions. Results demonstrated that all three students met the criterion for identifying picture vocabulary and maintained and generalized their vocabulary knowledge across other stimuli. Students also showed mastery of digital literacy skills. Implications for future research are discussed.

Full text

EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 40, No. 3, 2017
Pages 327–352
Using a Multicomponent Multimedia Shared
Story Intervention with an iPad to Teach Content
Picture Vocabulary to Students with
Developmental Disabilities
ChristopherJ. Rivera
MelissaE. Hudson
StacyL. Weiss
Alana Zambone
East Carolina University
Abstract
With the increased use of iPads in classrooms, special education teachers
need methods for preparing students with developmental disabilities to ac-
cess and use this technology for a variety of academic purposes. This study
used a multiple probe design to examine a multicomponent multimedia
shared story (MSS) intervention via an iPad to teach science vocabulary to
three elementary students with developmental disabilities. The shared sto-
ries, delivered via an iPad, included photo graphs, text, and videos to pur-
posefully support generalization of vocabulary. Furthermore, pre and post
mea sures were taken to determine student gains in digital literacy skills
through modeling without explicit instructions. Results demonstrated that
all three students met the criterion for identifying picture vocabulary and
maintained and generalized their vocabulary knowledge across other stim-
uli. Students also showed mastery of digital literacy skills. Implications for
future research are discussed.
Keywords: developmental disability, technology, iPad, vocabulary, multimedia
shared story
Mobile devices such as iPads are often used to enhance instruction
for students with developmental disabilities. Researchers have
reported that these devices can be highly engaging, promote atten-
tiveness, and are easily adapted to differentiate instruction. In addi-
tion, mobile devices are less stigmatizing compared to other forms of
Author Note: No research funding was involved and there was no conict of
interest. Address correspondence to: ChristopherJ. Rivera, Department of
Special Education, Foundations and Research East Carolina University, 104
Rivers Building East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858. E- mail: riv
erac@ecu . edu.

328 RIVERA et al.
assistive technology, and provide easy access due to their portability
and features (Doenyas, Simdi, Ozcan, Cataltepe, & Birkan, 2014; Kago-
hara etal., 2013, O’Malley, Lewis, & Donehower, 2013). The increased
use of mobile devices for both instruction and assessment highlights
the need for all students to attain digital literacy skills. Standards set
forth by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2014) suggest that stu-
dents should be able to use technology to collaborate with peers, solve
prob lems, and select appropriate technologies for suitable applications.
In addition, many students with developmental disabilities who par-
ticipate in national alternate assessments (e.g., Dynamic Learning Maps,
2014; National Center and State Collaborative, 2014) will need to be
competent with technology to demonstrate their knowledge and un-
derstanding through the assessments’ online components.
Research has demonstrated that students with developmental
disabilities can be taught to use mobile devices, though much of the
focus has been on teaching functional content (e.g., communication,
employment, leisure, transition skills; Kagohara etal., 2013). More re-
cent studies have evaluated mobile technology as a part of academic
instruction for similar populations. Smith, Spooner, and Wood (2013)
examined the effects of computer- assisted instruction (CAI) in combi-
nation with explicit instruction on the acquisition of science terms for
students with autism and intellectual disability. The researchers used
a single subject multiple probe design across participants to evaluate
the effects of the intervention, which utilized Keynote, an iOS slide
software, to pres ent interactive instructional slides to teach selected
science terms with an iPad. Results demonstrated a functional relation
between the CAI and an increase in correct responses for all partici-
pants. In another study, Creech- Galloway, Collins, Knight, and Bausch
(2013) used a multiple probe design across participants to evaluate the
efcacy of a simultaneous prompting (SP) procedure to teach the Py-
thagorean Theorem, via a video pre sen ta tion on an iPad. Four stu-
dents with intellectual disability participated in the study. Of the four
participants, three were able to successfully meet criteria (i.e., 100%
across three consecutive sessions), illustrating the effectiveness of the
intervention. Fi nally, Rivera, Mason, Moser, and Ahlgrim- Delzell
(2014) used a multimedia shared story (MSS) iPad intervention to help
a young En glish language learner increase expressive picture vocab-
ulary in both En glish and Spanish. A single subject alternating treat-
ments design was used to evaluate the effects of the MSS intervention
on vocabulary acquisition. In this study, the researchers paired vocab-
ulary with pictures illustrating the target word (e.g., a picture of a
buttery and the word buttery). Additionally, themed stories incorpo-

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 329
rating photos and short videos were developed to create an interactive
story that was read using an iPad. The multicomponent intervention
used a shared story method (Hudson & Test, 2011) and an embedded
model- lead- test (MLT) procedure (Wolery, Ault, Doyle, & Gast, 1986)
to teach vocabulary and further engage the student in the instructional
pro cess. Results showed a functional relation between the MSS iPad
intervention and En glish and Spanish vocabulary acquisition.
With the use of technology, such as iPads, becoming readily
available in special education classrooms it is impor tant to determine
best practices for using mobile devices to enhance academic instruc-
tion for students with developmental disabilities. Research has dem-
onstrated the positive effects technology has on literacy skills, such as
vocabulary acquisition, (Mechling, 2004; Rivera, Spooner, Wood, &
Hicks, 2013; Stockwell, 2007) and has shown that technology can be
used with prompting procedures to provide effective multicomponent
interventions (Creech- Galloway etal., 2013; Kagohara, 2011; O’Malley
etal., 2013).
An MSS is a multicomponent approach for teaching multiple
skills to students with developmental disabilities (see Rivera, 2013). The
basis of an MSS is an extension from traditional shared story interven-
tions (Hudson & Test, 2011), wherein an adult reads a book to a child
and engages that child in discussion about what is being read (Rivera,
2013). During these read- alouds, targeted skills can range from learn-
ing print concepts, vocabulary, or acquiring listening comprehension
skills. Unlike traditional shared story interventions, an MSS is essen-
tially a digital version of the shared story experience that can incorpo-
rate music, photo graphs, videos, and other interactive features to
increase engagement and provide added content/context to what is be-
ing read to a student. An MSS can be an adapted version of an existing
book or can be written to meet the individualized needs of a student
(Rivera, 2013). Moreover, MSS interventions can incorporate prompting
strategies that can be used to explic itly teach targeted skills.
Rivera etal. (2013) demonstrated the effective use of an MSS in-
tervention using constant time delay (CTD; Snell & Gast 1981) and
Rivera etal. (2014) used an MSS intervention with MLT to teach vo-
cabulary to culturally and linguistically diverse students with devel-
opmental disabilities. Although both studies helped students acquire
targeted vocabulary, there were several limitations (specically from
Rivera etal. [2014]) that should be addressed. The rst limitation was
the exclusion of generalization and maintenance data. Additionally,
the intervention was only conducted with one student limiting the
ability to generalize its efcacy across diverse learners.

330 RIVERA et al.
Another area of concern was the need to investigate the extent
to which students with developmental disabilities require instruction
to acquire digital literacy skills such as manipulating technological
devices (e.g., turning on an iPad, navigating to an application, power-
ing down a device, adjusting the volume). To date, there are a few
studies illustrating effective methods for teaching students with de-
velopmental disabilities to use mobile devices. For instance, Kelley,
Test, and Cooke (2013) taught students to use a video iPod as a means
for teaching pedestrian skills; however, the authors stated that only a
training script was used when teaching students to operate the device.
On the other hand, Kagohara (2011) used video modeling with a sys-
tem of least- to- most prompts to teach three adolescents to operate an
iPod to access entertainment videos. The extent to which students
with developmental disabilities require explicit and systematic in-
struction, or whether they can simply observe a specied be hav ior and
repeat that be hav ior without explicit instruction (e.g., in vivo model-
ing, Charlop- Christy, Le, & Freeman, 2000) to acquire digital literacy
skills, warrants additional research.
In response to previous research limitations, there is also a need to
determine the efcacy and efciency of MSS interventions for students
with developmental disabilities. The use of a SP compared to CTD and
a MLT procedure may enhance instructional efciency. SP, a near error-
less prompting procedure that provides the controlling prompt imme-
diately after the pre sen ta tion of a discriminative stimulus, can be an
effective instructional procedure when teaching discrete or chained
skills to students with disabilities (Morse & Schuster, 2004; Waugh, Al-
berto, & Fredrick, 2011). There are several benets of using SP. First,
teacher be hav ior does not change as it does with other prompting
procedures. Instructional sessions are conducted in the same format,
leading to fewer procedural errors by an interventionist. Next, there is
no need to teach students to wait to respond after the pre sen ta tion of a
stimulus, since the stimulus and controlling prompt are concurrently
presented. Fi nally, since only one correct response is reinforced there is
no need for differential reinforcement, and SP can be conducted using
an intermittent probe (probes or assessments conducted every two-
three sessions); allowing students fewer opportunities to respond in de-
pen dently, which may reduce the number of errors made during probes
(Reichow & Wolery, 2009; Tekin- Iftar, Kurt, & Acar, 2008).
The purpose of this current study was to systematically replicate
and extend Rivera etal. (2014). Specically, this study sought to in-
crease the number of participants, mea sure generalization and main-
tenance, and embed a SP procedure. This study addressed the fol lowing
research questions:

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 331
1. What are the effects of a multicomponent iPad- delivered MSS
intervention, with an embedded SP procedure on oral expres-
sive (i.e., picture) science content vocabulary acquisition for
elementary students with developmental disabilities?
2. To what extent were students able to generalize and maintain
skills taught?
3. To what extent were students able to acquire digital literacy
skills by observing modeled be hav ior without explicit
instructions?
4. What are educators’ perceptions of using technology for
teaching vocabulary and other science standards to students
with disabilities?
5. What are student perceptions of using the MSS via an iPad to
learn new vocabulary?
Method
Participants
The participants were three elementary- aged students identied
as having a developmental delay or intellectual disability. Identica-
tion of disability for two of the participants was determined with the
use of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (Reynolds & Kam-
phaus, 2003). The third participant was not formally evaluated by his
Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team, but was identied as
having a cognitive age of 17 months according to the Transdisciplinary
Play Based Assessment (Linder etal., 2008). Information provided in
each student’s IEP indicated that each had some difculties with ex-
pressive and receptive language and performing daily living skills
(e.g., dressing, tooth brushing). Students were enrolled in the same K-5
self- contained adapted curriculum classroom where they received the
majority of their daily instruction. They also attended some inclusive
classes with their non- disabled peers such as physical education, art,
and music. A summary of additional participant characteristics is
found in Table1.
Experimenter. The rst author, who had 10years of experience
working with students with developmental disabilities and special
education preser vice teachers, served as the primary interventionist
and implemented instruction. An undergraduate assistant in her se-
nior year was trained by the rst author and assisted in data collec-
tion throughout the intervention. Training consisted of role- playing
simulations to practice gathering procedural delity and interobserver

332 RIVERA et al.
agreement for the study. A criterion of 80% reliability was achieved
prior to beginning data collection.
Setting
The study took place in a rural elementary public school in the
eastern United States. The school served approximately 800 students,
of which over 60% received free or reduced- price lunch. At the time of
the study, the school was considered a Title I Focus School due to the
large gap between low achieving and high achieving subgroups of
students.
All baseline, instruction, maintenance, and generalization ses-
sions took place in the students’ separate special education classroom.
In this classroom, three additional students also received ser vices for
a total of six students in the classroom. There were four instructors in
the class, the lead special education teacher, two paraprofessionals,
and one university student- teacher intern. These sessions were con-
ducted in vari ous locations in the classroom, using a one- on- one for-
mat. During all sessions, the interventionist sat beside a participant
facing away from the rest of the classroom at a small table, while other
students received their daily lessons from the lead teacher and para-
Table1
Participant Demographics
Characteristics Martha Pablo George
Gender Female Male Male
Race Eu ro pean
American
Latino American African American
Age 6 6 8
IQ 66 RIAS N/A 57 RIAS
Disability Developmental
Delay
Developmental Delay Moderate Intellectual
Disability
Reading
Ability*
20 Sight Words Repeat Sight Words
When Prompted
20 Sight Words
Language Monolingual
(En glish)
Bilingual (En glish and
Spanish)
Monolingual (En glish)
Health
Prob lems
None Cystic Fibrosis,
Chronic Ear Infections
Motor Impairments
Right Arm and Left Leg
Note: RIAS—Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2003).
*Reading ability was gathered from current level of per for mance and academic
achievement from student IEPs.

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 333
professionals. Both the primary interventionist and student partici-
pants had their own iPads® during instructional sessions.
Materials
MSS materials and development. Two 10- inch iPads (Wi- Fi
16- gigabyte models, iOS 7.2) were utilized for the intervention. The ap-
plication iBooks Author (Apple Inc., 2014b) was used to create MSS
through an Apple Macbook Pro using Apple’s operating system of
10.9.2. iBooks Author is a software platform used to create digital
books that are published in Apple’s iTunes store to be downloaded
and read on an iPad. With the iBooks Author program, an author can
create rich multimedia books by inserting text and widgets (e.g., video,
music, pictures, web addresses, charts, tables) that are easily manipu-
lated by the user. Google Images and YouTube were used to gather
photo graphs and videos that were embedded in the MSS. To down-
load videos from YouTube, an add-on tool called Download YouTube
Videos as MP4 (Mozilla Firefox, 2014) was used. This web browser plu-
gin enables YouTube videos from FireFox’s Internet browser to be
downloaded into an MP4 format. When videos were selected and
downloaded, they were edited for length using iMovies (Apple Inc.,
2014c) and embedded into the MSS through the iBooks Author (Ap-
ple, Inc., 2014b). The length of selected videos was 30s to 45s.
Two digital books, 18 to 19 pages long, were created. Books were
comprised of two pre- teaching pages with target vocabulary, the story
(approximately 14–15 pages), and two review pages at the conclusion of
the story (i.e., same as pre- teaching pages). Stories were written using
suggested practices for shared stories by Justice and Kaderavek (2002)
and Rivera (2013). For example, books had designated areas for the in-
structor to stop and engage students in discussion. Text for the story
consisted of one or two sentences and a repeated story line, a story line
that summed up the main idea. Each book was designed to teach the
same target vocabulary (10 in total), but was written using dif fer ent
themes and dif fer ent photo graphs to represent the target stimulus in
multiple ways to improve generalization of vocabulary to other content.
Moreover, to ensure the intervention would be conducted within a rea-
sonable time, videos created of the target vocabulary (10 in total) were
divided so that each book would contain ve videos. Completed books
were then transferred to the participants’ iPads using iTunes, Apple’s
device management system. Once transferred, the digital books were
accessed on the iPad via the iBooks (Apple, 2014a) application.
Other materials. With the assistance of the lead special educa-
tion teacher, a district curriculum- pacing guide in science and the
Common Core Extend State Standards in En glish Language Arts

334 RIVERA et al.
(North Carolina State Board of Education, n.d.) were used to ensure
that the intervention was appropriately aligned and at grade level for
students. In the month prior to the intervention, students were working
on specic extended content science skills that included (a) learning
essential vocabulary such as dif fer ent parts of plants and animals,
(b) identifying and understanding living organisms, (c) identifying
dif fer ent environments (e.g., ocean, lake, mountain), and (d) determin-
ing the differences between plants and animals. In addition to these
materials, a MSS task analy sis (see Figure1; Rivera etal., 2014) and
data sheets for probe, intervention, generalization, and maintenance
sessions were developed.
Data Collection Procedures
Dependent variables. The dependent variables for this study
consisted of the percentage of correct responses on vocabulary probes
and the digital literacy assessment. A discrete trial data collection sheet
was used during vocabulary probe sessions and digital literacy assess-
ments to rec ord participant responses. Two responses were pos si ble: a
correct (+) was recorded when participants provided a correct response
within 6 s after the pre sen ta tion of a stimulus, or an incorrect (-) was
recorded if students were unable to provide a correct response within
6 s. Correct responses during vocabulary probes were dened as a stu-
dent stating the vocabulary word identied in the targeted picture. For
example, if the target vocabulary was stem, the correct expected re-
sponse was the vocal response “stem.” In like manner, correct responses
during the digital literacy assessment was dened as the student com-
pleting each step of a digital literacy task analy sis in de pen dently.
Interobserver agreement. The primary interventionist and an
undergraduate assistant served as the primary and secondary data
collectors. Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated using a trial-
by- trial agreement approach in which the total number of agreements
was divided by the total number of agreements plus disagreements
and then multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage score (Kennedy, 2005).
IOA was collected for all student responses across both phases. IOA
percentage scores were 100% for both baseline and intervention phases
for Martha, and George. IOA percentage scores for Pablo were 96% in
baseline and 100% during intervention. For generalization and main-
tenance phases, a mean of 50% of sessions were observed with 100%
agreement for all student responses.
Procedural delity. The primary interventionist and undergrad-
uate assistant collected procedural delity using a 27- step task analy-
sis. During delity, the primary interventionist and undergraduate
assistant checked off the number of steps completed during instruc-

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 335
tion using the task analy sis data form. Fidelity was calculated as the
total number of observed steps completed correctly divided by the
number of total steps and multiplied by 100. Procedural delity was
collected for a mean of 40% of intervention sessions across all partici-
pants with a score of 100% of completed steps.
Social validity. At the end of the study the lead teacher and
paraprofessionals were administered a social validity questionnaire,
developed by the research team, to determine the appropriateness and
feasibility of the intervention for students with developmental disabil-
ities. The questionnaire included eight items using a ve- point Likert
scale (i.e., 1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree) and one open- ended
question. Students were also given a social validity questionnaire,
which was read to them to determine their opinions of the interven-
tion. Their questionnaire included three questions: one closed item
(i.e., yes/no response) and two open- ended.
Experimental Design
A single- subject multiple- probe design across participants
(Horner & Baer, 1978) was used to determine the effects of the MSS
intervention on expressive science picture vocabulary acquisition for
participants. A minimum of ve baseline probes were administered
for each participant, as recommended by Kratochwill et al. (2010).
When the rst participant’s baseline data were low and stable, the par-
ticipant began receiving the intervention and all other participants
remained in the baseline phase. When the rst student’s data indi-
cated that she was approaching mastery of the targeted vocabulary,
another baseline probe was administered to each student to monitor
for treatment diffusion and the second participant began the interven-
tion phase. This staggered approach continued until all students re-
ceived the intervention.
Procedures
General procedures. Prior to the study, the lead special education
teacher and primary interventionist reviewed the district special edu-
cation curriculum guide (i.e., science extended content standards) and
developed a 100- picture pre- assessment. This assessment was then ad-
ministered to participants using Power Point (Microsoft Corporation,
2011) on a MacBook Pro laptop. Each slide consisted of two photo graphs
of the same stimulus (e.g., soil) with the name of the photo graph writ-
ten at the bottom of the slide in size 20 Times New Roman font. Before
the administration of the vocabulary pretest, participants were given
an attentional cue (e.g., Are you ready?) and scripted instructions (i.e., I
will point to a picture and I want you to tell me what you see. If you do

336 RIVERA et al.
not know the word, it’s okay. I want you to try your best). Participants
were given 6 s to provide a correct response. From this assessment, the
primary interventionist and lead special educator identied 10 vocabu-
lary words (i.e., soil, roots, seed, bean, farm, spring [the season], cotton,
petal, farm, calf) that participants commonly were unable to verbally
identify. This list was then used to develop two thematic MSS books
(i.e., Spring time at the Farm, Shopping at the Market).
A 9- step task analy sis using the iPad was developed by the pri-
mary interventionist and validated by the lead special education
teacher. During the pre- assessment, students were given an iPad,
turned off, and were asked to complete steps of the task analy sis. Stu-
dents were asked to (a) turn the iPad on; (b) unlock the device; (c) open
the iBook application; (d) locate and open a mock MSS, that had been
created for the pre- assessment; and (e) once in the book the primary
interventionist would turn the iPad upside down and ask if students
could orient the book in the correct manner. As the interventionist
continued reading through the story, students were asked to complete
the remaining steps in the task analy sis (see Table2). During the as-
sessment, correct in de pen dent responses were recorded and reinforce-
ment was not provided. If a student performed a step incorrectly the
interventionist would move onto the next step or complete the step for
the student, keeping the student from viewing the correction. After
this pre- assessment and baseline data were collected, participants
were then presented the MSS intervention, which was implemented
using the MSS task analy sis protocol (see Figure1). Instructional ses-
sions and vocabulary probes ranged from 10 to 12 min in duration and
were conducted on a daily basis for 2 to 3 weeks in the morning. Both
MSS books were read to participants in an alternating fashion through-
out instructional sessions. When participants met the criterion set for
the intervention, generalization and maintenance probes were then
administered. At the conclusion of the nal intervention probe, the
digital literacy posttest was administered.
Vocabulary probes. Each probe was conducted in a similar
manner as was done during the picture vocabulary pretest. Partici-
pants were shown a total of 10 Power Point (Microsoft Corporation,
2011) slides, one at a time, that contained two dif fer ent photo graphs
(i.e., training stimuli) of the target vocabulary with the word typed in
the center, under neath the photo graphs. At the beginning of each
probe session, the interventionist provided explicit instructions to
participants (e.g., “I’m going to point to a picture and I want you to
tell me what it is. If you do not know what it is that’s okay. Try your
best”). Participants were given 6 s to respond. Throughout probe ses-
sions, general verbal praise was given for participant work be hav ior

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 337
(e.g., “Good job— you are working hard!”) and slides were shufed
prior to every new probe session. All vocabulary probe sessions were
conducted intermittently, two to three days out the week, depending
on student attendance.
Intervention. A 27- step task analy sis protocol (Figure1) em-
ployed for Rivera etal. (2014) was used for this study. The protocol
included teaching early literacy skills (e.g., text awareness, vocabulary)
while giving participants an opportunity to practice digital literacy
skills (e.g., turning on the iPad, accessing the appropriate application
among other applications, locating the book within the iBook applica-
tion). In addition, a SP procedure with intermittent probes delivered
every other day (Reichow & Wolery, 2009; Tekin- Iftar etal., 2008) was
used for this study.
Pre- teaching. At the beginning of instructional sessions, the in-
terventionist used an anticipatory set (i.e., an activity or stimulus) de-
signed to engage a participant in the activity. For example, before
reading a story that discussed the vari ous parts of a ower, the inter-
ventionist showed dif fer ent owers to the participant and encouraged
him to smell, touch, and look at the vari ous parts of the ower. Next, the
interventionist and participant began the MSS (see steps 1–5, Figure1).
Prior to reading the story, a pre- teaching phase was implemented. This
portion of instruction included two pages containing ve photo graphs
each of all targeted vocabulary, for a total of 10 picture vocabulary pre-
sen ta tions. It is impor tant to note that each MSS presented the same
target vocabulary; however, each book displayed dif fer ent photo graphs
of the vocabulary for a total of 20 photo graphs (i.e., training stimuli). A
SP procedure was used during pre- teaching and for subsequent system-
atic instructional trials. During pre- teaching, the interventionist rst
secured the learners attention by providing instructions for the task
(e.g., Today we are going to review our new vocabulary words. I’m going
to point to a picture [discriminative stimulus] and I want you to repeat
after me). After task instructions, the interventionist pointed to a pic-
ture accompanied by the controlling prompt (i.e., model of the correct
verbal response). Verbal praise (e.g., “Good saying ___”) was provided
for correct responses. If participants failed to respond the correct verbal
response was repeated. At the end of the pre- teaching phase, a praise
statement was given to participants in regards to good work be hav-
iors (e.g., “I liked the way you listened”).
Readings. Next, the interventionist began reading the story (see
steps 6–18, Figure 1) stopping at specic locations to systematically
teach targeted picture vocabulary (e.g., Rivera etal., 2014). Each target
vocabulary was presented in the same format within each MSS. For
example, when a target vocabulary appeared, two photo graphs, one

338 RIVERA et al.
Multimedia Shared Story: Steps Steps Observational
Notes
Text Awareness
1. Anticipatory set/Attention grabber: Sensory stimulation
Description:
(Auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic, gustatory (taste), olfactory)
2. Gives the student an opportunity to turn on and unlock iPad
3. Gives the student an opportunity to find and open the iBook
application
4. Gives student(s) an opportunity to open own book (1) without
being told, then (2) prompts as necessary
5. Pre-teaching: Prior to the story teacher will identify target picture
vocabulary/object that will appear in the story through an
instructional slide (Simultaneous prompting, I will point to a
word and say it then I want you to repeat after me)
6. Teacher reads title
7. Gives student(s) an opportunity to point to/say title on iPad or
checks for student to respond
8. Teacher reads author's name
9. Gives student(s) an opportunity to say/point to author's name on
iPad or checks for student to respond
10. Teacher asks prediction question. (What do you think this story
will be about?)
11. Gives student(s) an opportunity to answer prediction question
12. Teacher models turning page on iPad
Simultaneous Prompting Procedures During Reading
13. Teacher reads bold target vocabulary and references the picture
within the story (pointing to or drawing attention to)
14. Teacher provides 1 round Simultaneous Prompting (1X, I say
and you say after me)
Figure1. MSS task analy sis protocol.
from the original training stimuli and an additional photo graph dif-
fer ent from training stimuli, were displayed to aid in generalization
(e.g., yellow ower, red ower). Photo graphs were presented in these
pages and the vocabulary word was used within a sentence. In total,
participants were exposed to four dif fer ent photo graphs for each tar-

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 339
get vocabulary word throughout the entire intervention, which
equated to 40 photo graph repre sen ta tions (20 training stimuli, 20 gen-
eralization photo graphs). After the sentence was read, the interven-
tionist would conduct another SP trial, telling the participant to repeat
after him, pointing to the picture accompanied by the controlling
prompt. As is customary with shared stories, the primary interven-
tionist used interactive be hav iors (Justice & Pullen, 2003) such as ex-
panding on concepts or answering questions participants had during
the lesson, to further engage them in discussion about what was be-
ing read or seen in photo graphs (see Figure2).
15. Provides reinforcement for correct answers only
16. Provides the student with a definition of the target picture
vocabulary or uses the word in a different sentence
17. Follows steps 12-16 for remaining target picture vocabulary
18. If student response is incorrect no reinforcement is given,
teacher provides an additional simultaneous prompting procedure
Text Awareness Continues
19. Teacher points to each word in chosen sentence while reading
aloud on "text point page"
20. Gives student(s) an opportunity to point to chosen line on "text
point page" on the iPad
21. Gives student(s) an opportunity to imitate a repeated story line
(underlined in story)
22. Gives student(s) an opportunity to anticipate turning page
without being told.
23. Gives student(s) an opportunity to interact with multimedia
features of the story
24. At the end of the story teacher asks student(s) if initial
predication was correct
25. Review slide is presented and Simultaneous Prompting (SP)
round is conducted (final 3rd round)
26. Provides reinforcement for correct answer
27. If incorrect provides no reinforcement and provides an
additional SP round
Key: N/A (Not applicable)
- Not completed
Completed
Figure1. (continued)

340 RIVERA et al.
Figure2. MSS example.

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 341
Multimedia. Following preselected instructional trials during
the reading, specic pages in the story included a video of the target
vocabulary (see steps 19–24, Figure1). For instance, if in the previous
SP trial the vocabulary was petal, a video displaying several owers
with dif fer ent petals would play. During this phase of instruction, the
interventionist engaged the participant in discussion about what he or
she was viewing and further contextualized the vocabulary (e.g., “Pet-
als come in dif fer ent colors. They can provide nectar or food to in-
sects and help with pollination, which can help plants reproduce”). At
the end of the story, the pre- teaching phase was presented again as a
nal review (see steps 25–27, Figure1).
Digital literacy skills. During intervention sessions, the pri-
mary interventionist purposefully withheld explicit instructions
from participants on how to use the iPad. Throughout instruction, the
interventionist and a participant each had an iPad and when the ses-
sion began, the interventionist slowly modeled the steps in the digital
literacy skills task analy sis while the student participant followed
along on his or her own iPad. If a participant was unable to complete
a step in the task analy sis, the interventionist completed the step for
him or her and continued through the remaining steps. The digital
literacy skills posttest was administered to each participant once each
student demonstrated mastery of the primary dependent mea sure.
Generalization and maintenance. Generalization and mainte-
nance vocabulary probe sessions were conducted two times after
each participant met the mastery criterion (i.e., 80% of words correct
across three consecutive sessions). Generalization and maintenance
phases were completed in an alternating fashion for four weeks. For
example, during week one, a generalization vocabulary probe was
Table2
Digital Literacy Skills Task Analy sis
1. Turn on iPad.
2. Unlock iPad.
3. Open iBook application.
4. Find and open digital book (within the iBook application).
5. Orient book.
6. Swipe screen to turn page.
7. Access media content (play video).
8. Zoom in on video.
9. Once book is complete, exit out of application (pressing home button).

342 RIVERA et al.
conducted and then, during week two, a maintenance vocabulary
probe was conducted, and so on. Both generalization and maintenance
probes were administered in the same manner as vocabulary probes
during baseline and intervention phases. Unlike maintenance probes,
generalization probes utilized photo graphs that were dif fer ent from
those used during intervention.
Results
Figure 3 represents the percentage of correct participant re-
sponses during vocabulary probe sessions. Martha’s baseline data were
stable with a range of 0 to 10% of words correct. During intervention,
there was both a therapeutic change in level and trend. Intervention
scores ranged from 60 to 100% with a mean of 87%. Martha met crite-
rion in 10 instructional sessions. For Pablo, baseline data were also sta-
ble with a range of 0 to 10%. During intervention, a therapeutic change
in trend was achieved; however, the immediate change in level was not
as con spic u ous as Martha’s level. Pablo’s per for mance had a range of 20
to 90% of words correct with a mean of 54% of words when in the inter-
vention phase. He reached mastery in 17 instructional sessions. Fi nally,
similar to Martha, George demonstrated positive changes in both level
and trend from baseline to intervention. When in baseline, George’s
per for mance ranged from 0 to 10% of words correct. During interven-
tion he scored an average of 70 to 100% of words correct with a mean of
84%. George reached mastery in nine instructional sessions.
Figure3 also displays participants’ abilities to maintain and gen-
eralize vocabulary over a 4- week period after the study was completed.
Martha was able to generalize and retain all targeted vocabulary during
these phases. Pablo’s initial generalization and maintenance scores were
80 and 90%, respectively. In the nal 2 weeks, these scores declined to 60
and 70%. Fi nally, George had a 100% score for generalization data and
scored 90% and 100% for maintenance.
Figure4 represents the percentage of digital literacy skills par-
ticipants demonstrated before and after the study. Martha’s pretest
showed she was only able to complete four out of nine steps (44%);
Pablo, three out of nine steps (33%); and George, ve out of nine steps
(55%). At the end of the study, all participants completed 100% of the
steps in de pen dently on the digital literacy task analy sis posttest.
Social Validity
The lead teacher and paraprofessionals completed a social valid-
ity questionnaire about the intervention to determine the appropriate-

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 343
ness and feasibility of the intervention. Responses ranged from 4.33 to
4.66. Generally educators agreed that (a) vocabulary acquisition was
an essential skill and that technology used was appropriate for stu-
dents (m= 4.33, m= 4.66); (b) students can benet from multicomponent
interventions and that students with disabilities should learn digital
literacy skills (m= 4.66, 4.66); (c) materials used in the study could be
easily incorporated in the the school day to teach a lesson (m= 4.33);
Figure3. Percentage of correct responses on vocabulary probes. Closed circles
represent probes, open circles represent generalization, and closed squares
represent maintenance data.

344 RIVERA et al.
(d) students were using the new vocabulary in class and outside of the
classroom (m= 4); and (e) given the opportunity they would use simi-
lar technology to facilitate instruction in the future (m= 4.66). Th e
open- ended question asked educators to describe obstacles they faced
when trying to teach similar skills to students with developmental
disabilities and how a MSS intervention may or may not help. One re-
spondent indicated, “The hardest thing about trying to teach content
vocabulary to students with signicant disabilities is trying to keep
their attention. With the technology we have, it helps keep the students
interested in what they are learning.” Another respondent mentioned,
“Interventions such as this help to increase generalization skills as they
provide students with multiple means of repre sen ta tion . . . allowing
students to gain a deeper understanding.” All students expressed that
they enjoyed learning new science vocabulary on the iPad, that music
and videos were their favorite aspects of the lesson, and they would not
change anything about the lessons.
Discussion
A visual analy sis of the graph (see Figure3) reveals a functional
relation between the introduction of the MSS intervention and the per-
centage of correct responses from vocabulary probes. All three par-
ticipants met the criteria for acquiring the science picture vocabulary
through the MSS intervention; however, there were differences in
Figure 4. Pretest and posttest results of digital literacy steps correctly com-
pleted by participants.

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 345
their per for mances. Martha and George were able to learn, general-
ize, and maintain words in fewer instructional sessions compared to
Pablo (i.e., ve and six probe sessions for George and Martha com-
pared to 17 probe sessions for Pablo). Pablo’s per for mance might have
been impacted by several factors. Pablo displayed more prob lem be-
hav iors (e.g., dgeting, difculty concentrating) during instructional
sessions, and he was absent from several instructional sessions due to
illness. Despite these issues, Pablo met the criterion for mastery and
maintained his knowledge of words at the criterion level. He did dem-
onstrate some difculties with generalization and overall had a slight
decrease in per for mance in the second maintenance and generaliza-
tion probes. A third probe would have been advantageous to develop
a trend and determine if the second probe was only a temporary de-
crease in per for mance. Such data would be useful in verifying whether
or not he would have beneted from additional instruction to main-
tain and generalize vocabulary at a higher level.
All three participants demonstrated mea sur able improvements
in digital literacy skills in the absence of explicit instructional program-
ing. Although participants had some prior knowledge of how to use
an iPad, none were able to successfully complete all steps of the digital
literacy skills task analy sis before the intervention. For example, George
could not unlock the iPad, and Pablo and Martha were not able to exit
out of the iBook application. Over the course of the intervention, par-
ticipants acquired the steps needed to operate iPads through observing
modeled be hav ior. This study demonstrates that some students with
developmental disabilities can acquire digital literacy skills through
observation and repetition, without applying systematic instructional
techniques (e.g., Kagohara, 2011). Considering that mobile devices are
an impor tant component of students’ educational experience (Partner-
ship for 21st Century Skills, 2014) it becomes impor tant to evaluate mul-
tiple methods for providing instruction in digital literacy skills.
The ndings of this study support and extend previous research
in several ways. First, this study corroborates the extant lit er a ture that
iPads can be used as a way to promote both academic and functional
skills (Creech- Galloway etal., 2013; Kagohara etal., 2013; Rivera etal.,
2014; Smith etal., 2013). More specically, the ndings add to the few
studies on teaching vocabulary to students with developmental dis-
abilities (e.g., Rivera etal., 2014). Understanding how to use iPads and
other mobile devices as a means to promote academic skills is increas-
ingly impor tant considering that special education teachers must teach
grade level standards.
Next, this study supports the use of a shared story format in con-
junction with systematic instruction, specically SP, as a way to teach

346 RIVERA et al.
vocabulary to students with developmental disabilities. Previous
studies using MSS interventions have successfully taught En glish and
Spanish vocabulary to young En glish learners with a moderate intel-
lectual disability using either a CTD or MLT procedure (Rivera etal.,
2013; Rivera etal., 2014). This study extends the lit er a ture on the use of
MSS by utilizing a SP procedure while demonstrating positive changes
in skill acquisition during probes, generalization, and maintenance
phases for monolingual participants with disabilities.
Fi nally, this study supports and extends the ndings of Rivera
etal. (2014) by demonstrating the benets of combining multimedia
theory (Mayer, 2005), and evidence- based strategies such as shared
stories (Hudson & Test, 2011) and SP (Waugh etal., 2011) within a mul-
ticomponent intervention for students with disabilities. By providing
multicomponent interventions that utilize best practices, participants
with varying disabilities, as those represented in this study, may be
better equipped for learning.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
The study results should be interpreted in light of several limi-
tations and recommendations for future research. First, this study
was a multicomponent intervention including many best practices.
The extent to which individual components (SP, iPad use, multimedia
features) had the most impact on student learning is unknown. How-
ever, developing multifaceted interventions could help meet the edu-
cational needs of diverse learners (e.g., Rivera etal., 2014). A benet of
a MSS is that multiple skills can be taught in a lesson in a short amount
of time. The primary focus of this research was on teaching picture
vocabulary within the context of a science MSS lesson. Although pic-
ture vocabulary was taught successfully, and this study adds to the
emerging body of research for students with developmental disabili-
ties learning science concepts (Spooner, Knight, Browder, Jimenez, &
DiBiase, 2011), additional research is needed for more meaningful
evaluation of a MSS intervention. For instance, additional mea sure-
ments of other skills such as students’ abilities to dene content vo-
cabulary taught, or teaching more complex science concepts should
be investigated (e.g., how the soil’s nutrients and water retention sup-
ports the growth of plants; North Carolina State Board of Education,
n.d.). Future research should examine how multicomponent interven-
tions can thoroughly teach multiple skills by gathering additional data
that can further verify the efcacy of such interventions.

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 347
Since there were no baseline mea sures for generalization, the
extent to which changes in be hav ior can be attributed to the multi-
component intervention are also limited. A better mea sure of general-
ization would have been to provide a pretest consisting of dif fer ent
target photo graphs at the commencement of the study and then test-
ing students at the end of intervention. Future research should ensure
pretesting to strengthen generalization results. In like manner, although
students demonstrated improvements in their digital literacy, without
an experimental control for the pre- intervention and post- intervention
assessment of digital literacy skills, it is not pos si ble to determine if
modeling alone was responsible for the increase in skills. In spite of
the fact that students were able to master digital literacy skills through
observation, it is impor tant for future researchers to evaluate how
such skills should be taught to students with developmental disabili-
ties, and whether or not more systematic instructional methods should
be employed.
Next, an outside interventionist, the rst author, rather than a
member of the classroom staff delivered the intervention. While this
was useful for the initial evaluation of the intervention, and the class-
room’s educators indicated the intervention would be feasible to use,
additional research is needed on the use of a MSS intervention by
classroom staff (see Rivera etal., 2014 for the MSS intervention con-
ducted by a classroom teacher). It is necessary for classroom staff to
take the lead when conceptualizing and implementing an intervention
to better ensure continued use of that intervention (Coburn, 2003) and to
determine what kind of supports and training might be needed in the
future. All classroom staff can and should be involved in intervention
implementation. In addition to the classroom teacher, paraprofessionals
have effectively provided instruction for students (e.g., McDonnell,
Johnson, Polychronis, & Risen, 2002; Spooner, Rivera, Browder, Baker, &
Salas, 2009). Investigating paraprofessionals’ use of the MSS could also
ensure the generalization of student knowledge across individuals. Fur-
thermore, paraprofessionals could be involved in the development of
the MSS by locating relevant pictures and videos. Additional research is
needed to understand how educators can continue to develop and use
MSS without extensive researcher support.
Moreover, this intervention was delivered individually to stu-
dents; however, the use of higher student- teacher ratios with SP pro-
cedures can allow for more efcient instructional situations, and
students with developmental disabilities can gain additional knowl-
edge and skills through peer observation (Morse & Schuster, 2004).
Future research should examine if a small group instructional setting

348 RIVERA et al.
is a more efcient, but still effective, method for students gaining tech-
nology skills, compared to the deliberate modeling of the interven-
tionist in this study.
Fi nally, this study was unique as it employed an intermittent
probe format during data collection (Reichow & Wolery, 2009; Tekin-
Iftar etal., 2008). Waugh etal. (2011) argue that intermittent probes,
rather than the traditional daily assessment probes used during a SP
strategy, help to reduce student errors by providing students more
practice before having to respond in de pen dently. Despite the use of
intermittent probes, in this study, there is no way to truly determine
the effects of this assessment strategy on student data due to the use
of the multicomponent intervention. Future research should directly
compare traditional daily assessment probes and intermittent probes
when using SP and closely monitor the rate of skill acquisition and
students’ errors to determine each technique’s efciency.
Implications for Practice
There are several implications for practice that can be garnered
from this study. First, the use of the iPad paired with the MSS provided
students with opportunities to engage in an interactive lesson, which
incorporated components of universal design for learning (UDL; Cen-
ter for Applied Special Technology, 2013). For instance, the use of the
MSS intervention was engaging. Stories can be adapted and multimedia
functions embedded to represent information in multiple ways, and stu-
dent expression can be altered to match in de pen dent response modes.
As indicated by Rivera etal. (2014), a MSS multicomponent platform
can be used to teach skills to a wide range of diverse learners.
A second implication for practice is that the use of the iBooks
Author (Apple, Inc., 2014b) application and additional software al-
lowed for the creation of personalized text and gave the intervention-
ist the ability to hand- select multimedia functions that could be most
benecial to students. A third benet to using the MSS intervention is
the ability to edit les and load them onto multiple Apple mobile de-
vices (iPod, iPad, iPad mini, iPhone), thus increasing portability and
le sharing between users (e.g., parents and prac ti tion ers). Instruc-
tional sessions were short, lasting for approximately 10 min, and could
be easily conducted in vari ous locations.
Despite the benets of a MSS and simplicity in implementing the
intervention in a classroom, one drawback can be the time and skill it
takes to develop a MSS. Making materials can be a tedious pro cess (e.g.,
laminating, adapting physical books, creating schedules). In the case
of developing a MSS, familiarity and access to iPads® and the neces-
sary software is needed. The learning curve in using software, such

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 349
as iBooks Author (Apple, Inc., 2014b), will vary among prac ti tion ers,
but once the necessary skills are acquired the time spent creating a
MSS will depend on the content and amount of information that will
be included. Rivera (2013) provides guidelines on how to create a MSS
using more readily available software (i.e., Power Point).
Though development can be time consuming, depending on an
educator’s skill set, MSS interventions can act as a benecial supple-
ment to current literacy instruction employed in the classroom. The
combination of evidence- based practices, multimedia theory, and
UDL can ensure lessons that meet the varying needs of students with
developmental disabilities. In today’s twenty- rst- century classrooms,
educators and other prac ti tion ers need to utilize technology in appro-
priate ways while also ensuring students can access those same
technologies to improve their academic outcomes.
References
Apple Inc. (2014a). iBooks [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://
itunes . apple . com / us / app/ ibooks/id364709193
Apple Inc. (2014b). iBooks Author [Computer software]. Retrieved from
https:// itunes . apple . com / us / app / ibooks- author/id49015
2466?mt=12
Apple Inc. (2014c). iMovie [Computer software]. Retrieved from
https:// itunes . apple . com / us / app / imovie/id408981434?
mt=12&ls=1
Center for Applied Special Technology (2013). About universal de-
sign for learning. Retrieved from http:// www . cast . org / udl
/ index . html
Charlop - Christy, M. H., Le, L., & Freeman, K. A. (2000). A comparison
of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching children
with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
30(6), 537–552.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to
deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
Creech- Galloway, C., Collins, B. C., Knight, V., & Bausch, M. (2013). Us-
ing simultaneous prompting procedure with an iPad to teach
the Pythagorean theorem to adolescents with moderate intel-
lectual disability. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 38, 222–232.
Doenyas, C., Simdi, E., Ozcan, E. C., Cataltepe, & Birkan, B. (2014).
Autism and tablet computers in Turkey: Teaching picture

350 RIVERA et al.
sequencing via a web- based iPad application. International
Journal of Child- Computer Interaction, 2, 60–71.
Dynamic Learning Maps. (2014). Retrieved from http:// www . dynamic
learningmaps . org /
Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. (1978). Multiple- probe technique: A variation
of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Be hav ior Analy sis, 11,
189–196.
Hudson, M. E., & Test, D. W. (2011). Evaluating the evidence base of
shared story reading to promote literacy for participants with
extensive needs. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Dis-
abilities, 36, 34–35.
Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2002). Using shared story book reading
to promote emergent literacy. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
34(4), 8 –13.
Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions for
prompting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence- based
approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23,
99–113.
Kagohara, D. M. (2011). Three participants with developmental dis-
abilities learn to operate an iPod to access age- appropriate
entertainment videos. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20,
33–43.
Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O’Reilly, M. F., Lan-
cioni, G. E., Davis, T. N., . . . Sigafoos, J. (2013). Using iPods and
iPads in teaching programs for individuals with developmen-
tal disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 34, 147–156.
Kelley, K. R., Test, D. W., & Cooke, N. L. (2013). Effects of picture
prompts delivered by a video iPod on pedestrian navigation.
Exceptional Children, 79, 459 –474.
Kennedy, C. (2005). Single case designs for educational research. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S.
L., . . . Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single- case designs technical docu-
mentation. Retrieved from http:// ies . ed . gov / ncee / wwc / pdf
/ wwc _ scd . pdf
Linder, T. W., Anthony, T. L., Bundy, A. C., Charlifue- Smith, R., Hafer,
J. C., . . . Rooke, C. C. (2008). Transdisciplnary play- based assess-
ment TPBA 2ndedition. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.

VOCABULARY AND DIGITAL SKILLS 351
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer,
R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (31–
38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Risen, T. (2002). Effects of
embedded instruction on students with moderate disabilities
enrolled in general education classes. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(4), 363 –7 7.
Mechling, L. C. (2004). Effects of multimedia, computer- based instruc-
tion on grocery shopping uency. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 19, 23–34.
Microsoft Corporation. (2011). Power Point [Computer software]. Re-
trieved from https:// www . microsoft . com / en - us / download
/ conrma tion . aspx ? id = 45872
Morse, T. E., & Schuster, J. W. (2004). Simultaneous prompting: A re-
view of the lit er a ture. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 39(2), 153–168.
Mozilla Firefox. (2014). Download YouTube videos as MP4. Retrieved
from https:// addons . mozilla . org / en - US / refox / addon /down
load - youtube /
National Center and State Collaborative. (2014). Retrieved from http://
www . ncscpartners . org /
North Carolina State Board of Education. (n.d.). North Carolina essen-
tial standards, K-2 science. Retrieved from http:// www
. ncpublicschools . org / docs / acre / standards / new - standards
/ science / k - 2 . pdf
O’Malley, P., Lewis, M.E., & Donehower, C. (2013). Using tablet comput-
ers as instructional tools to increase task completion for stu-
dents with autism. Retrieved from http:// www . eric . ed . gov
/ ERICWebPortal / search / detailmini . jsp ? _ nfpb = true&
_ &ERICExtSearch _ SearchValue _ 0 = ED541157&ERICExtSearch
_ SearchType _ 0 = no&accno = ED541157
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2014). Framework for 21st century
learning. Retrieved from http:// www . p21 . org / our - work / p21
- framework
Reichow, B., & Wolery, M. (2009). Comparison of everyday and every-
fourth- day probe sessions with the simultaneous prompting
procedure. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 79 – 89.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2003). Reynolds intellectual assess-
ment scales. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

352 RIVERA et al.
Rivera, C. J. (2013). Multimedia shared stories: A dif fer ent approach to
teaching emergent literacy skills to diverse learners. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 45(6), 38– 45.
Rivera, C. J., Mason, L. L., Moser, J., & Ahlgrim- Delzell, L. (2014). The
effects of an iPad® multimedia shared story intervention on
vocabulary acquisition for an En glish Language learner. Jour-
nal of Special Education Technology, 29, 31–48.
Rivera, C. J., Spooner, F., Wood, C. L., & Hicks, S. C. (2013). Multimedia
shared stories for diverse learners with moderate intellectual
disability. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(4), 53–68.
Snell, M. E., & Gast, D. L. (1981). Applying time delay procedures to
the instruction of the severely handicapped. The Journal of the
Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 3–14.
Smith, B. R., Spooner, F., & Wood, C. L. (2013). Using embedded
computer- assisted explicit instruction to teach science to stu-
dents with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spec-
trum Disorders, 7, 433–443.
Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., Jimenez, B., & DiBiase, W. (2011).
Evaluating evidence- based practice in teaching science content
to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research &
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1–2), 62–75.
Spooner, F., Rivera, C. J., Browder, D. M., Baker, J. N., & Salas, S. (2009).
Teaching Emergent Literacy Skills Using Cultural Contextual
Story- Based Lessons. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 34(3–4), 102–112.
Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intel-
ligent mobile phone- based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 20, 365–383.
Tekin- Iftar, E., Kurt, O., & Acar, G. (2008). Enhancing instructional ef-
ciency through generalization and instructive feedback: A
single- subject study with children with mental retardation.
International Journal of Special Education, 23, 147–158.
Waugh, R. E., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). Simultaneous
prompting: An instructional strategy for skill acquisition. Ed-
ucation and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities,
46, 528–543.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D. L. (1986). Comparison of
instructional strategies: A lit er a ture review. (U.S. Department of
Education, Grant No. G008530197). Lexington, KY: Depart-
ment of Special Education.

Reproduced with permission of
copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.