Teaching Organizational Skills to Children with High ...daddcec.org/Portals/0/CEC/Autism_Disabilities/Research/... · Teaching Organizational Skills to Children with High ... plus

Teaching Organizational Skills to Children with HighFunctioning Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome

Kimberly Powers Dorminy, Deanna Luscre, and David L. GastUniversity of Georgia

Abstract: A multiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a file box systemplus self-monitoring on the organizational skills of four fourth and fifth grade students with high functioningautism (HFA) and Asperger’s Syndrome (AS). Instruction took place in general education classrooms andconsisted of teaching students to arrange academic materials (worksheets, note pages, study guides etc.) in aportable file box with hanging folders. Students were also taught to self-monitor their accuracy. The percentageof correctly filed items and the number of seconds it took students’ to retrieve requested items were the dependentvariables assessed across conditions. Results showed that the percentage of correctly filed items increased and thenumber of seconds required to locate specific items decreased with the use of the file system box. These findingsdemonstrate how a simple noninvasive and affordable classroom modification can improve performance ofchildren with HFA and AS in general education classrooms.

Autistic disorder (AD) is a neurodevelopmen-tal disability with varying degrees of qualitativeimpairments in social interaction and commu-nication, stereotypic repetitive interests or be-haviors, and delays in social interaction, com-municative language or play (AmericanPsychiatric Association, 2000). Children withAsperger’s Syndrome (AS) subsume the socialimpairment of AD, but retain an interest inothers, whom they distance by their sociallyodd behaviors (Elder, Caterino, Chao, Shack-nai, & De Simone, 2006). Circumscribed in-terests are present as in AS, but often areconfined to amassing large amounts of infor-mation about a specific topic (Tantam, 1991).Unlike AD, speech develops normally in chil-dren with AS, but nonverbal pragmatic abnor-malities make social conversations pedanticand unproductive (Asperger, 1991). Absentfrom diagnostic criteria, yet prominent inboth autism and Asperger syndrome (Pen-nington, Bennetto, McAlcer, & Roberts, 1996)are difficulty with inhibition, initiation, atten-tion, flexibility, and self regulation, commonlyassociated with the “organizational aspect of

executive function” (Killiani, Moore, Reh-bein, & Moss, 2005).

Executive functions are “brain-based skills”(p. 817) that begin to develop in the first yearsof life (Griffith, Pennington, Wehner, & Rog-ers, 1999) and result in “the ability to maintainan appropriate problem-solving set for attain-ment of a future goal” (Welsh & Pennington(1988, p.201). Children with autism spectrumdisorders (ASD) have consistently demon-strated impaired executive functioning defi-cits on tests that measure planning, inhibitingpre-potent responses, and mental flexibility(Hill, 2003). Deficiencies in executive func-tioning may be primary cognitive deficits inautism (Ozonoff & Jensen, 1999).

Although more positive outcomes are asso-ciated with AS than AD (Klin, Sparrow, Ma-rans, Carter, & Volkmar, 2000), both disor-ders result in classroom performance deficits.Neuropsychological profiles of children withAS, which include deficits in fine and grossmotor skills, visual motor integration, visualspatial perception, nonverbal concept forma-tion and visual memory, are consistent withnonverbal learning disabilities (Klin, McPart-land, & Volkmar, 2005, p. 103). Educationalinterventions (e.g., developing visual-spatialorganizational skills) used for children withhigh functioning autism (HFA), Asperger’s

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Deanna Luscre, 3250 BrownThrasher Trace, Cumming, GA 30041.

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2009, 44(4), 538–550© Division on Developmental Disabilities

538 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-December 2009

Syndrome (AS), and nonverbal learning dis-abilities (NLD) are often interchangeable(Hooper & Bundy, 1998).

Students with HFA and AS, are increasinglyreturning to general education classroomsfrom pull-out programs (Tincani, 2007; Simp-son, 2004). A summary objective when teach-ing students with disabilities in a general ed-ucation classroom is to provide them withskills to become independent learners. Chil-dren with HFA or AS often depend on adultsfor completing assignments, transitioning be-tween activities, and staying on-task (Bryan &Gast, 2000; Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli, &MacFarland, 1997). Once adult support is pro-vided they frequently learn to rely on supportin the future. Young, Simpson, Myles, andKamps (1997) reported that when paraprofes-sionals were more than 2 feet from assignedstudents with autism, greater interaction oc-curred with the general education classroomteacher. In order to reduce reliance on adultsand prompt dependency students with ASDneed to be taught how to independently ac-cess information (Simpson, 2001, 2004).

Students with ASD commonly experiencedifficulty organizing their thoughts and pro-cessing auditory stimuli. When teachers, stu-dents, and educational personnel can enter aclassroom and understand classroom expecta-tions, structure is in place (Iovannone, Dun-lap, Huber, & Kincaid, 2003). Visual supportsfor children with autism compensate for diffi-culties they experience in attention, auditoryprocessing, sequencing, and organization(Hodgdon, 1995). These supports serve as vi-sual cues that increase compliance by remind-ing students of behaviors they are expected toexhibit (Odom et al., 2003). When correctlyimplemented, visual supports can help chil-dren with ASD sequence daily events, organizetheir environment, and prepare for transition-ing to another activity (Quill, 1995; Hodgdon,1995). Structured teaching and environmen-tal modifications will increase the child’s in-dependence by making the environment andits expectations more understandable (Mesi-bov, Shea, & Schopler, 2005, chap. 4).

Organization is a fundamental principle ofstructure that supports the acquisition of lan-guage, appropriate behavior, social interac-tions, and academic goals (Iovannone et al.,2003). Visual organizational supports, such as

picture schedules or work systems are visualstrategies considered as standard for manychildren with autism (Prizant & Wetherby,2005; Odom et al., 2003). Children with au-tism frequently have difficulty organizing per-sonal belongings and school related materials(Arick, Krug, Fullerton, Loos, & Falco, 2005).A recent investigation of the needs of collegestudents with ASD emphasized that for stu-dent success there is a need for organizationalstrategies, due to executive functioning defi-cits, (Adreon & Durocher, 2007). The earlierstudents on the autism spectrum are taughtorganizational strategies the greater the like-lihood they will succeed in their educational,vocational and personal pursuits.

Visual schedules have been shown to beeffective in helping students with ASD orga-nize their daily activities. They have also beenshown to be effective in teaching students totransition independently, thus reducing theneed for adult prompting. Dettmer, Simpson,Myles, and Ganz (2000), for example, taughttwo elementary aged boys with autism to fol-low a portable schedule of daily activities as-sembled in a photo album. This resulted in asubstantial decrease in prompts delivered bythe teacher and a reduction in the time it tookstudents to respond to adult instructions athome and in the community. Visual activityschedules have also been successful in increas-ing the on-task and on-schedule behaviors ofelementary students with ASD (Bryan & Gast,2000). Stromer, Kimball, Kinney, and Taylor(2006) demonstrated how activity schedules,presented on a computer, could enhance stu-dents’ ability to use multiple cues and thengeneralize information to the classroom envi-ronment. They admitted, however, that com-puters were more expensive, more time con-suming, and less portable than simple visualactivity schedules.

Self-monitoring has also been shown to bean effective strategy for increasing indepen-dent performance by children with ASD.Shearer, Kohler, Buchan, and McCullough(1996) taught three preschoolers to monitortheir activity engagement and social interac-tion by moving beads to indicate a completedsocial exchange, a self-management skill asefficient as prompting by an adult. Studentswho learn self-regulation strategies requireless support from peers and adults, and are

Teaching Organizational Skills / 539

viewed by others as having greater learningpotential than previously demonstrated (Weh-meyer, Yeager, Bolding, Agran, & Hughes,2003). Shimabukuro, Prater, Jenkins, andEdelen-Smith (1999) investigated the effectsof self-monitoring on the academic perfor-mance of students with learning disabilities.Results were increased academic productivity,accuracy, and on-task behavior during inde-pendent work. Gains in productivity weregreater than gains in accuracy, but an im-provement was seen in both areas once stu-dents learned the self-monitoring procedure(Shimabukuro et al., 1999).

Self-evaluation in the form of goal setting,and self-graphing the number of daily home-work assignments completed, resulted in en-hanced homework completion for middleschool students with learning disabilities(Trammel & Schloss 1994). A seventeen yearold boy with AS increased independent home-work assignment recording across academicsubjects through the use of a personal digitalassistant (Myles, Ferguson, & Hagiwara, 2007).Results suggest that teaching students withHFA and AS to self-monitor their academicbehaviors is a useful skill throughout theireducation.

Effective organizational strategies are re-quired for success in all educational settingsregardless of level. Elementary age studentswith ASD, for example, need to learn how toretrieve books, notebooks, papers etc. from anarray of materials, when requested to do so,and they need to do so in a reasonableamount of time. This requires that that theylearn an effective and efficient strategy thatdoesn’t call undue attention to their executivefunctioning deficits. By the time students tran-sition to middle school, particularly if they arefully included in the general education pro-gram, they are expected to independently or-ganize their school materials and locate itemswithin a reasonable time period. With thisobjective in mind, the current study was de-signed to answer the following questions: Willelementary age children with HFA and AS, a)increase the percentage of items correctlyfiled across a school day, and b) decrease thenumber of seconds needed to retrieve a re-quested item when using a file box organiza-tional system?

Method

Participants

Four Caucasian male students attending apublic school in a large metropolitan city andranging in ages 9 years 4 months to 10 years 3months participated in this study.

All students met Georgia eligibility require-ments for autism which were characteristicsimpacting (1) developmental rates and se-quences, (2) social interaction and participa-tion and (3) verbal and non-verbal communi-cation resulting in an adverse effect on astudent’s educational performance (GeorgiaDepartment of Education, 2008a). Three ofthe students were eligible for special educa-tion services under Georgia autism eligibilitycriteria because of behaviors associated withAsperger’s Syndrome (AS). Georgia autism el-igibility can apply to students with otherDSM-IV spectrum disorders including Asper-ger’s syndrome (Georgia Department of Edu-cation, 2008b). One student received Georgiaautism eligibility based on characteristics asso-ciated with high functioning autism. Table 1presents diagnostic and related information.All students were included full time in a gen-eral education classroom and received sup-port services from the special educationteacher or a paraprofessional two to five hoursper day. The remaining time in the generaleducation classroom was spent without specialsupport.

Evan received autism support five hours perday in the general education fourth gradeclassroom and attended the gifted educationprogram for four hours per week. AlthoughEvan had an above average cognitive ability,his lack of organizational skills adversely af-fected his performance in the classroom. Hecompleted assignments accurately andquickly, but put them in his desk where theywere forgotten, lost or thrown away beforethey were turned in to teachers to be graded.

Ben, a fifth grader, received two and a halfhours of special education support per day inthe general education classroom. Despite anaverage full scale IQ, Ben had difficulty orga-nizing his school materials. Due to a deficit influency, he did not finish work in the timeallotted and was expected to complete it ata later time. He often put unfinished assign-


TA

BL

E1

Des

crip

tion

ofP

arti

cipa

nts

Part

icip

ants

Gra

deA

geA

utis

mEl

igib

ility

SPED

Supp

ort

WIS

C-IV

*St

anda

rdiz

edA

chie

vem

ent

Scor

es

Eva

nfi

fth

9ye

ars

4m

onth

sA

sper

ger

Syn

drom

e5

hrs

auti

smpe

rda

y4

hrs

gift

edpe

rw

kFu

llSc

ale:

120

Ver

bal:

102

Perc

eptu

alR

easo

nin

g:13

5

WJ-I

II**

:O

ral

Exp

ress

ion

:10

8B

road

Rea

din

g:11

4A

cade

mic

Skill

s:12

2A

cade

mic

Kn

owle

dge:

110

Ben

fift

h10

year

s3

mon

ths

Asp

erge

rSy

ndr

ome

2.5

hrs

auti

smpe

rda

yFu

llSc

ale:

100

Ver

bal:

119

Perc

eptu

alR

easo

nin

g:10

0

WJ-I

II**

:O

ral

lan

guag

e:11

7St

ory

Rec

all:

144

Aca

dem

icFl

uen

cy:

77W

riti

ng

flue

ncy

:83

App

lied

Prob

lem

s:10

5Ja

kefo

urth

9ye

ars

10m

onth

sA

utis

m3

hrs

.au

tism

per

day

No

Full

Scal

eIQ

Ava

ilabl

eW

J-III

**:

Bro

adre

adin

g:99

Bas

icre

adin

gsk

ills:

110

Aca

dem

icsk

ills:

100

Aca

dem

icfl

uen

cy:

102

Patr

ick

four

th9

year

s11

mon

ths

Asp

erge

rSy

ndr

ome

5.5

hrs

.au

tism

per

day

Full

Scal

e:86

Ver

bal:

110

Perc

eptu

alR

easo

nin

g:84

K-T

EA

***:

Rea

din

gD

ecod

ing:

98R

eadi

ng

Com

preh

ensi

on:

88

*W

ISC

-IV

�W

echs

ler

Inte

llige

nce

Scal

efo

rC

hild

ren-

Four

thEd

ition

(Wec

hsl

er,

2004

).**

WJ-I

II�

Woo

dcoc

kJo

hnso

nII

I(W

oodc

ock,

McG

rew

&M

ath

er,

2000

).**

*K

-TE

A�

Kau

fman

Tes

tof

Educ

atio

nal

Ach

ieve

men

t(K

aufm

an&

Kau

fman

,19

85).

Spec

ial

Educ

atio

nsu

ppor

tfr

omau

tism

prog

ram

was

not

one/

one,

but

shar

edw

ithot

her

stud

ents

with

autis

mpl

aced

inth

ere

gula

red

ucat

ion

clas

sroo

m.


ments in his desk, under books, or with otherassignments and forgot or lost them. Failing tocomplete or turn in assignments negativelyaffected Ben’s grades.

Jake received three hours of special educa-tion support per day in the general educationclassroom. Although Jake completed grade-level assignments rapidly and accurately, hedid not put them in the appropriate folder,but put them in his desk where they becamelost and subsequently were not turned in to begraded. Jake needed to improve his ability tofile completed work in the classroom. Jakehad deficits in gross/fine motor abilities, pre-servative/stereotypical behaviors, and delaysin pragmatic language.

Patrick received five and a half hours ofspecial education support per day in the gen-eral education classroom where his perfor-mance was in the “low average” range. Threeof these hours were provided in a one-on-onearrangement in the general education class-room from the special educator or parapro-fessional. Support was provided to helpPatrick complete his assignments and submitthem to the appropriate teacher in a timelymanner. Patrick finished assignments and,like other participants, put them in his desk orinside unrelated books and when asked wasunable to find them resulting in a zero grade.

Prior to the study all participants were as-sisted by the special education teacher orparaprofessional to retrieve and organize re-quired materials. Over time, it became evidentthat for these students to become successfullearners, independent filing and retrievingstrategies needed to be learned. Participants’IEPs included goals to improve organizationalskills. None of the participants had previousexperience with the file box system to orga-nize class materials, but did have experiencewith visual strategies, including activity sched-ules and behavioral prompts (e.g., postedclassroom rules, hand gestures etc.). No otherorganizational strategies had been attemptedwith students.

Students were selected for participation inthe study because of their full inclusion in thegeneral education classroom, with the expec-tation that they could perform at grade level,and their organizational skill deficits that neg-atively impacted their progress. All studentshad good attendance records having missed

six or fewer school days the previous year.Parents signed consent forms and studentssigned assent forms prior to the start of thestudy.

Settings and Arrangements

Baseline and intervention conditions wereconducted in three general education class-rooms (two fourth grade classes and one fifthgrade class) throughout the school day. Gen-eralization assessments were administered instudents’ homes by parents. Classroom ar-rangements were similar in each of the class-rooms. Student desks were arranged in clus-ters of five to six desks. Participants did not sitat the same cluster. During intervention eachstudent had his filing box sitting on the floorbeside his desk for easy access. Most of theacademic instruction took place at a dry eraseboard on the front wall of each classroom thatwas easily visible to all students. The dailyschedule was posted on the front wall of theclassroom. Students also had a copy of theirdaily schedules at their desks. The generaleducation teacher and special educationteacher collaborated in classroom instructionand provided assistance to students as needed.The special education teacher and first authorwas the primary investigator in this study.

Materials

During baseline condition, seven two-pock-eted 9½ in � 12 in card stock weight filefolders were available to students for organiz-ing materials. These file folders were to bestored in students’ desks. Student organiza-tional materials used during intervention andgeneralization conditions included a 14 in � 9in � 11 in plastic file box, seven 9½ in � 12 ingreen hanging file folders with ½ in � 2 inlabels, and an 8 in � 5 in plastic pencil box. Alabel was attached to the top of each folderidentifying the following curricular contentareas: math, reading, grammar, spelling, so-cial studies, and science. The seventh folderwas designated for 8 ½ in � 11 in wide rulednotebook paper. These materials were to beused by students to place all assignments re-lated to each of the curricular content areas inthe appropriate folder and in the file box.Students’ self-monitoring charts were divided


into seven columns, one for the date and onefor each curricular content area sequenced tofollow the student’s daily schedule. In thehome setting, neither the file box nor theself-monitoring chart was used by parents. Stu-dents brought home the file folder for thecurriculum content area in which they hadhomework.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables in this study were: a)percentage of papers, notes, handouts, studyguides, books, and workbooks filed in the ap-propriate folder for each curriculum area andb) number of seconds it took a student toretrieve a requested item. Each classroom had1-2 items to be filed per curriculum area eachday, resulting in 6-12 items that should befiled daily. During the generalization condi-tion, the number of completed homework as-signments placed in the correct file folder wasrecorded upon the student’s return to school.Retrieval time was recorded by counting thenumber of seconds it took a student to locateand submit a requested item. These data werecollected on the average of every three daysacross all conditions with a minimum of threedays in any one condition.

Experimental Design

A multiple baseline design across participantswas used to evaluate the effectiveness of thefile box organizational system. Initially base-line data were collected on all four students’filing and item retrieval behaviors during thesame time period. Once baseline data werestable for a minimum of three days, the inter-vention (file box) condition was introduced tothe first student, while the other students re-mained in baseline (file folder) condition.Once the first student’s data reached crite-rion, the file box system was introduced to thesecond student, and so on until all studentswere introduced to the intervention. Experi-mental control would be demonstrated withinthe context of a multiple baseline designacross participants if: a) stable baseline levelswere maintained for each participant prior tothe introduction of the file box system; b) theintroduction of the intervention was systemat-ically staggered across participants; c) upon

introduction of intervention, not before,there was an immediate increase in the per-centage of items filed correctly and a concom-itant decrease in the number of seconds ittook a student to retrieve requested items; andd) this effect was replicated across each of thefour participants (i.e., inter-subject direct rep-lication) (Kennedy, 2005).

General Procedure

To assure students understood what was ex-pected of them, the special education teacherapproached each student before first periodclass, waited for eye contact, and then deliv-ered the prime, “Don’t forget to keep yourmaterials organized today”. Student file fold-ers (baseline condition) and file boxes (inter-vention condition) were checked 5 days aweek at the end of the school day prior todismissal. The teacher and student spent 5-10min checking whether study guides, notes,textbooks, handouts, worksheets etc. werefiled correctly. No reinforcement system wasin place for filing or retrieving items duringbaseline or intervention conditions.

Procedure

Baseline condition. During baseline condi-tion, data were collected on students’ filingskills, using manila file folders, and withoutthe use of the file box system intervention. Atthe beginning of each school day, the specialeducation teacher delivered the verbal prime,“Don’t forget to keep your desk organizedtoday.” At the end of each academic period,students were expected to place unfinishedand completed work, notes, handouts etc. intoone of two pockets in their file folder for theappropriate curricular area. At the end of theschool day, the teacher checked student fold-ers for the number of appropriately fileditems, and when incorrect, instructed studentsto put items “in the correct folder.” No rein-forcement was provided for correctly filingitems.

File box system condition. On the first day ofthe intervention condition when studentswere to use the file box system, the specialeducation teacher taught participants how touse the file box system and self-monitoringchart. Individual training was conducted dur-


ing one 10-15 min session in the general edu-cation classroom at the beginning of the firstschool day. The teacher placed curriculumfolders in the file box on the floor beside eachparticipant’s desk and arranged them in se-quential order following the classroom dailyschedule. The student was instructed to re-move everything from his desk and to file eachpaper and textbook in its appropriate folderinside the file box. Once all items in the stu-dents’ desk were filed correctly, the student’sdesk was turned 180 degrees so that he couldnot put any work or materials inside the desk.The student was then taught to self-monitorhis filing responses on a daily organizationalchart by circling “�” if all items were filedcorrectly, or “�” when misfiled.

During intervention, students were re-minded at the beginning of the day “Don’tforget to keep your desk organized today.”They were expected to independently filetheir curricular materials throughout the day.At the end of each academic period as in-structed during training, students looked intotheir file box, organized their materials, andthen and circled � or – if their items for thatsubject were organized. At the end of theschool day, the special education teacher en-tered the general education classroom, and asthe student observed, she recorded the num-ber of correctly and incorrectly filed items inthe student’s file box. During intervention,participants were rated on how accurately theyplaced materials in the filing box, and howlong it took them to file specific academicmaterials.

The percentage of correctly filed items wascalculated and the data graphed. Durationper occurrence data on the length of time ittook for the student to locate and hand theteacher a specific requested item from his filebox were collected on the average of onceevery three days at a different time of day. Asin baseline condition no adult prompts, cor-rections, or reinforcers were delivered duringthe intervention condition.

Reliability

The paraprofessional supporting students inthe general education classroom collected re-liability data 20% of all sessions across bothconditions for all students on the number of

correctly filed items. A minimum one reliabil-ity check was made per condition. Durationper occurrence reliability data was collectedon 20% of all sessions and at least once percondition for each student. Interobserver re-liability data were calculated using the point-by-point method in which the number ofagreements were divided by the number ofagreements plus disagreements and multi-plied by 100 (Cooper, Heron, & Heward,2007). Overall mean interobserver agreementwas 97.3% (92.8%-100%).

Procedural reliability checks on teacher be-haviors (delivering the daily prime, “Don’t for-get to keep your desk/box organized”; noadult prompting during intervention; no rein-forcement for correct filing) occurred in 20%of all sessions across both conditions for allstudents. Procedural reliability was calculatedby dividing the number of correct adult be-haviors by the number of planned behaviorsand multiplying by 100 (Billingsley, White, &Munson, 1980). The mean accuracy for class-room adults following prescribed procedureswas 94.6% (89.2%-100%).

Results

Effectiveness data. Figure 1 presents thepercentage of items filed correctly across base-line (file folder) and intervention (file boxsystem plus self monitoring) conditions. Asshown for each of the four students, after astable baseline was established and upon in-troduction of the intervention, there was animmediate increase in the percentage of dailyassignments filed correctly, not before. Figure2 summarizes the percent of items filed cor-rectly for each participant in baseline and filebox conditions, in a bar graph. Summary datashow that the four students filed between 45%�71% of items correctly during the baselinecondition (Jake M � 72%, 71%–73%; BenM � 55.7%, 50%–62%; Evan M � 56.7%,50%–73%; Patrick M � 53.75%, 45%–67%),while during the intervention condition theyfiled between 70%–100% of items correctly(Jake M � 97.96%, 80%–100%; Ben M �95.9%, 80%–100%; Evan M � 94.6%, 75%–100%; Patrick M � 88.75%, 70%–100%). Sub-stantial increases in the percentage of itemsfiled correctly were replicated across studentsonly upon introduction of the intervention


Figure 1. Percentage of correctly filed items in baseline and file box paired with self-monitoring.


condition. Percentage of NonoverlappingData (PND) across baseline trend and inter-vention condition was 100% for all students,further showing the effectiveness of the filebox system plus self-monitoring.

Efficiency data. Figure 3 presents students’mean number of seconds to retrieve teacherrequested items across baseline and interven-tion conditions. These data show an immedi-ate and sustained decrease in retrieval timeduration for all four students upon introduc-tion of the file box organizational system. Forindividual participants mean duration frombaseline to intervention conditions decreasedas follows: Jake, M � 42.3s (R � 40s-45s) to12.75s (R � 10s-20s); Ben, M � 46.5s (R�36s-57s) to 13.6 (R � 10s-26s); Evan, 45.8s (R �36s-53s) to 17.25s (R � 10s-28s); Patrick, 54s(R � 50s-66s) to 17.31s (R � 15s-20s). The netmean improvement in duration retrieval timewas 29.55s for Jake, 32.9s for Ben, 28.55s forEvan, and 36.63s for Patrick. The PND forduration retrieval time was 100% for all fourparticipants

Social validity data. General educationteachers rated participants’ organizationalskills pre and post intervention, and saw animprovement in classroom performance ofthe students when they began using the filingsystem. Students turned their work in on timeand did not ask for extra copies of assign-ments as often as they had before using thefiling system. When students were assignedhomework in different subject areas, theypulled corresponding file folders from the filebox and placed them into their backpack.Parents reported that once the filing systembegan, their child did not have as many miss-ing assignments that had to be re-done; how-

ever, better filing at school did not result inimproved organization of school papers athome.

Discussion

Results of this study demonstrate that a simplefile box system paired with self-monitoring is amore effective and efficient organizational ap-proach than a traditional file folder approachin which students’ store their academic assign-ments and materials inside their desks. Stu-dents, all of whom were diagnosed with ASD,learned how to use the file box system andself-monitoring chart within one 10-15 mintraining session on one day. An immediateimprovement in a) percentage of items cor-rectly filed and b) number of seconds to re-trieve an item requested by their teacher wasobserved for all four students. Students withHFA and AS, as well as other students (learn-ing disabilities, intellectual disabilities) whohave difficulties organizing their school mate-rials may benefit from this simple and afford-able organizational system for keeping trackof their notes, worksheets, assignments, books,and materials kept at their desks. The file boxsystem allowed students to locate their workmore quickly when asked and it decreased thefrequency of their comments related to frus-tration when classroom materials could not befound. Locating assignments so they can beturned in on time can positively impact class-room performance and grades.

Self-monitoring charts in the current studyserved as visual reminders to keep their fileboxes organized. Unlike Bryan and Gast(2000), in which graduated guidance was usedto teach students with HFA and AS to usevisual activity schedules, the current investiga-tion required only one 10-15 min session toteach students how to use both the file boxsystem and self-monitoring chart. Systematicprompt fading was not required. If systematicand often time consuming prompt fadingstrategies are not required, they should not beused. Teachers and therapists need to assessstudents’ need for assistance prior to selectinga teaching strategy. As in the case of partici-pants in this study, all of whom were imitative,a simple adult model plus verbal descriptionteaching approach was effective in teachinghow to use the intervention. Prompt depen-

Figure 2. Percentage of correctly filed items foreach participant during baseline and filebox condition.


dency is not uncommon among children onthe autism spectrum and, as described by Gi-angreco, et al. (1997) and Young et al. (1996)difficult to change once established. As dem-onstrated in this study a simple visual teachingstrategy (modeling) and simple visual organi-

zational system (file box) plus self-monitoringimmediately eliminated the need for adult as-sistance to help students organize their classmaterials.

A strength of this investigation is that it theintervention was designed and implemented

Figure 3. Number of seconds it took students to locate specific items.


by a special education teacher, in a publicschool, serving nine children with ASD in acollaborative arrangement within general ed-ucation classrooms. Because of this the eco-logical validity of the findings is increased. Aspreviously mentioned the intervention waslow cost both in teacher time expenditure andmaterial costs. There were, however, limita-tions to the study to which we recommendprocedural changes. First, reliability data werenot collected on the number of seconds ittook students to retrieve items requested bythe teacher. This was an unfortunate oversightthat requires that retrieval time duration find-ings be viewed as tentative. These data shouldbe taken a minimum of 20% of all sessions inwhich data were collected and reported and atleast once in each condition. Second, socialdata were not collected from student partici-pants. Although effective, the use of a plasticfile box may have been embarrassing for stu-dents to use since they are not commonly usedby “typical” peers in general education class-rooms. Finally, it remains to be determinedwhether or not students would continue touse the file box system over a prolonged pe-riod without prompting.

Future research should address generaliza-tion of findings to other settings (home, voca-tional etc.) and other populations who exhibitexecutive functioning deficits that impedetheir academic performance. Students withAS have been shown to benefit from visualsupports to understand auditory-based in-struction (Griswold, Barnhill, Myles, Hagi-wara, & Simpson, 2002). The file box systemcould decrease the amount of time requiredto complete homework assignments if it wereused at home as well as at school. If parentswere to use a similar file system at home tohelp organize their child’s home routines,their reliance on auditory prompts to get theirson to complete assigned chores may be de-creased. It would be useful to determine if thefile box system plus self-monitoring would beeffective for students on the spectrum whencompleting long term school projects. Also,studies investigating whether the file box sys-tem could be modified to assist students withlocker and book bag organization are war-ranted. Although the current study targetedelementary age students, older students withHFA and AS who attend middle and high

schools may benefit from a similar organiza-tional system, taking into consideration theage appropriateness of materials, due to thecomplexity, variety and quantity of their as-signments.

In spite of study limitations, this investiga-tion adds to the applied research literaturerelated to the remediation of executive func-tioning skill deficits exhibited by children withASD. The intervention was effective and effi-cient, as well as affordable, and warrants con-sideration by teachers and others workingwith individuals special needs.

References

Adreon, D., & Durocher, S. (2007). Evaluating thecollege transition needs of individuals with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Interven-tion in School and Clinic, 42, 271–279.

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnosticand statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.Text Revision). Washington, DC: American Psy-chiatric Association.

Arick, J. R., Krug, D. A., Fullerton, A., Loos, L., &Falco, R. (2005). School-based programs. In F. R.Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.),Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental dis-orders: Vol. 2. Assessment, interventions and policy(2nd ed., pp. 925–976). New Jersey: Wiley.

Asperger, H. (1991). Autistic psychopathy in childhood.(U. Frith, Trans.). Cambridge University Press:New York, NY. (Original works published 1944,1952).

Billingsley, F., White, O., & Munson, R. (1980).Procedural reliability: A rationale and example.Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.

Bryan, L. & Gast, D. (2000). Teaching on-task andon-schedule behaviors to high-functioning chil-dren with autism via picture activity schedules.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30,553–566.

Cooper, J, Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2007). Appliedbehavior aalysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Dettmer, S., Simpson, R., Smith Myles, B., & Ganz,J., (2000). The use of visual supports to facilitatetransitions of students with autism. Focus on Au-tism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 163–169.

Elder, L. M., Caterino, L. C., Chao, J., Shacknai, D.,& De Simone, G. (2006). The efficacy of socialskills treatment for children with Asperger syn-drome. Education and Treatment of Children, 29,635–663.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Luiselli, T. E., &


MacFarland, S. Z. C. (1997). Helping, or hover-ing? Effects of instructional assistant proximity onstudents with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64,7–18.

Georgia Department of Education. (2008a). Autismrules and regulations. Retrieved April 9, 2008 fromhttp://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_exceptional.aspx?PageReq-CIEXCAutism.

Georgia Department of Education. (2008b). Stan-dards, instruction and assessment: Special educationservices and supports. Retrieved April 9, 2008 fromhttp://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_exceptional.aspx?PageReq-CIEXAutism.

Griffith, E., Pennington, B., Wehner, W., & Rogers,S. (1999). Executive functions in young childrenwith autism. Child Development, 70, 817–832.

Griswold, D. E., Barnhill, G. P., Myles, B. S., Hagi-wara, T., & Simpson, R. (2002). Asperger syn-drome and academic achievement. Focus on Au-tism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17, 94–103.

Hill, E. (2003). Executive dysfunction in autism.Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 26–32.

Hodgdon, L. A. (1995). Visual strategies for improvingcommunication. Troy, MI: Quirk Roberts.

Hooper, S. R., & Bundy, M. B. (1998). Learningcharacteristics of individuals with Asperger syn-drome. In E. Schopler, G. B. Mesibov, & L. J.Kunce (Eds.), Asperger syndrome or high-functioningautism? (pp. 317–342). NY: Plenum Press.

Iovannone, R., Dunlap, G., Huber, H., & Kincaid, D.(2003). Effective educational practices for stu-dents with autism spectrum disorders. Focus onAutism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3),150–165.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman N. L. (1985). Kaufmantest of educational achievement. Circle Pines, MN:American Guidance Service.

Kennedy, C. (2005). Single-case designs in educationalresearch. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Killiani, R. J., Moore, T., Rehbein, L., & Moss, M. B.(2005). Memory and executive functions in au-tism. In M. Bauman & T. L. Kemper (Eds.), Theneurobiology of autism (pp. 59–64). Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

Klin, A., McPartland, J., & Volkmar, F. R. (2005).Asperger syndrome. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul, A.Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds), Handbook of autism andpervasive developmental disorders: Volume one: Diagno-sis, development neurobiology and behavior (pp. 88–125). NJ: Wiley.

Klin, A., Sparrow, S. S., Marans, W. D., Carter, A., &Volkmar, F. R. (2000). Assessment issues in chil-dren and adolescents with Asperger syndrome. InA. Klin, F. R. Volkmar & S. S. Sparrow (Eds.),Asperger syndrome (pp. 309–339). NY: Guilford Press.

Mesibov, G. B., Shea, V., & Schopler, E. (2005). TheTEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. NewYork: Springer Science and Business Media, Inc.

Myles, B. S., Ferguson, H., & Hagiwara, T. (2007).Using a personal digital assistant to improve therecording of homework assignments by an ado-lescent with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autismand Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 96–99.

Odom, S., Brown, W., Frey, T., Karasu, N., Smith-Canter, L., & Strain P. (2003). Evidence-basedpractices for young children with autism: contri-butions for single-subject design research. Focuson Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18,166–175.

Ozonoff, S., & Jensen, J. (1999). Brief report: Spe-cific executive function profiles in three neurode-velopmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Devel-opmental Disorders, 29, 171–177.

Pennington, B. F., Bennetto, I., McAleer, O., &Roberts, R. J. (1996). Executive functions andworking memory: Theoretical and measurementissues. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasegor (Eds.),Attention, memory and executive function (pp. 327–348). Baltimore: Brookes.

Prizant, B. M., & Wetherby, A. M. (2005). Criticalissues in enhancing communication abilities forpersons with autism spectrum disorders. In F. R.Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.),Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental dis-orders: Vol. 2. Assessment, interventions and policy(2nd ed., pp. 925–976). New Jersey: Wiley.

Quill, K. (1995). Visually cued instruction for chil-dren with autism and pervasive developmentaldisorders. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 10(3), 10–20.

Shearer, D. D., Kohler, F. W., Buchan, K. A., &McCullough, K. M. (1996). Promoting indepen-dent interactions between preschoolers with au-tism and their nondisabled peers: An analysis ofself-monitoring. Early Education and Development,7, 205–220.

Shimabukuro, S., Prater, M., Jenkins, A., & Edelen-Smith, P. (1999). The effects of self-monitoring ofacademic performance on students with learningdisabilities and ADD/ADHD. Education and Treat-ment of Children, 22, 397–414.

Simpson, R. L. (2001). ABA and students with au-tism spectrum disorders: Issues and consider-ations for effective practice. Focus on Autism andOther Developmental Disabilities, 16, 68–71.

Simpson, R. L. (2004). Finding effective interven-tion and personnel preparation practices for stu-dents with autism spectrum disorders. ExceptionalChildren, 70, 135–144.

Stromer, R. Kimball, J. W., Kinney, E. M., & Taylor,B. A. (2006). Activity schedules, computer tech-nology, and teaching children with autism spec-trum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Develop-mental Disorders, 21, 14–24.

Tantam, D. (1991). Asperger syndrome in adult-hood. In U. Frith (Ed.), Asperger syndrome (pp.147–183). NY: Guilford Press.


Tincani, M. (2007). Beyond consumer advocacy:Autism spectrum disorders, effective instructionand public schools. Intervention in School andClinic, 43, 47–51.

Trammel, D., & Schloss, P. (1994). Using self-re-cording, evaluation, and graphing to increasecompletion of homework assignments. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 27, 210–219.

Wechsler, D., (2004). Wechsler intelligence scale forchildren, fourth edition. San Antonio, TX: HarcourtPublishers.

Wehmeyer, M., Yeager, D., Bolding, N., Agran, M.,& Hughes, C. (2003). The effects of self-regula-tion strategies on goal attainment for studentswith developmental disabilities in general educa-tion classrooms. Journal of Developmental and Phys-ical Disabilities, 15, 79–91.

Welsh, M. & Pennington, B. (1988). Assessing fron-tal lobe functioning in children: Views from de-velopmental psychology. Developmental Neuropsy-chology, 4, 199–230.

Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2000).Woodcock-Johnson III, Itasca, IL: Riverside Publish-ing.

Young, B., Simpson, R. L., Smith-Myles, B. S., &Kamps, D. M. (1996). An examination parapro-fessional involvement in supporting inclusion ofstudents with autism. Focus on Autism and OtherDevelopmental Disabilities, 12, 31–38.

Received: 14 May 2008Initial Acceptance: 16 July 2008Final Acceptance: 17 October 2008


Documents

Teaching Organizational Skills to Children with High ...daddcec.org/Portals/0/CEC/Autism_Disabilities/Research/... · Teaching Organizational Skills to Children with High ... plus