Teaching Problem Solving Skills to Elementary Age …daddcec.org/Portals/0/CEC/Autism_Disabilities/Research/... · Teaching Problem Solving Skills to Elementary Age Students ... (d)

Teaching Problem Solving Skills to Elementary Age Studentswith Autism

Debra L. Cote, Vita L. Jones, Crystal Barnett, Karin Pavelek, andHoang Nguyen

California State University, Fullerton

Shannon L. SparksUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas

Abstract: Students with disabilities need problem-solving skills to promote their success in solving the problemsof daily life. The research into problem-solving instruction has been limited for students with autism. Using aproblem-solving intervention and the Self Determined Learning Model of Instruction, three elementary agestudents with autism were taught to set personal goals related to their academic achievement, identify problems,and self-evaluate their problems-solving skills. A multiple-probe design was used, and data suggested that allstudents achieved and maintained their self-set goals.

Inclusive general education settings providenumerous benefits for students with signifi-cant disabilities (Ryndak, Ward, Alper, WilsonMontgomery, & Storch, 2010). However,Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeyer, and Hughes(2002) note that the demands of the generaleducation classroom, pose a challenge for stu-dents with autism who lack problem-solvingskills. Because often students with autism lackproblem-solving skills it greatly impacts theirinteractions with others (Agran & Wehmeyer,2005; Friend, 2011; Wehmeyer, Shogren,Zager, Smith, & Simpson, 2010). Wehmeyer etal. (2010) found that students with autismhave difficulty generating solutions to theirproblems. Alderson-Day and McGonigle-Chal-mers (2010) emphasized that because stu-dents with autism approach problems in edu-cational settings differently, support should beprovided only after developing a careful as-sessment of individual characteristics. Often,students with disabilities (e.g., autism, intellec-tual disability) do not receive problem-solvinginstruction, because teachers question thebenefits (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003). Yet,

these students can benefit from instructionthat teaches them how to identify problems,research possible solutions, evaluate choices,and self-reflect (Agran et al., 2002).

Problem-solving competencies help stu-dents with disabilities solve both simple andcomplex problems that arise throughout theschool day and during their interactions withteachers and peers (Glago, Mastropieri, &Scruggs, 2009). These behaviors are especiallyimportant for students with autism who are ininclusive general education settings. Problem-solving instruction increases the acquisition ofself-determination skills and teaches these stu-dents how to self-regulate their behaviors(Agran et al., 2002; Palmer & Wehmeyer,2003; Palmer, Wehmeyer, Gipson, & Agran,2004). It is key that explicit problem-solvinginstruction begins when students are in theelementary grades to increase the likelihoodthat they generalize and maintain these skillsthroughout life (Cote, 2011). As students de-velop these skills they are better prepared tohandle the every day expectations of inclusiveand natural environments (Agran et al., 2002;Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003).

Researchers note the importance of teach-ing students with autism, multiple disabilities,and intellectual disability to problem solve(Agran & Wehmeyer, 2005; Cote, 2009; Glago,2005). Palmer et al. (2004) examined the ef-

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Debra L. Cote, California StateUniversity, Fullerton, Department of Special Educa-tion, College Park 570, P.O. Box 6868, Fullerton,CA 92834-6868. E-mail: [email protected]

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2014, 49(2), 189–199© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Problem Solving Skills / 189

fects of a problem-solving intervention with stu-dents who were included in the general educa-tion classroom. In their study, students receivedfive weeks of problem-solving training, utilizingthe Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction(SDLMI) (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug,& Martin, 2000). Palmer et al. (2004) found thatstudents improved in their problem-solvingskills and significantly increased their success ininclusive settings. In another study (Cote, 2009;Cote et al., 2010), four middle school studentswith intellectual disability were taught a prob-lem-solving intervention (adapted from Glago,2005). Researchers found that students learnedto identify problems and possible solutions,identify best solutions, and self-evaluate. Thedata suggests that the instruction was effective inincreasing students’ skill performances of prob-lem solving and students generalized their skills.

Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeyer, and Hughes(2001) researched the use of a self-regulatedproblem-solving strategy to improve the be-haviors of six students with multiple disabili-ties. Students received problem-solving in-struction using the SDLMI (Wehmeyer et al.,2000). Data were collected on students’ per-formances of the target behaviors and onmeeting their goals. Agran et al. (2001) foundsignificant differences, pre and post-interven-tion, in students’ performances of problemsolving, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Inanother study, Agran et al. (2002) examinedthe effects of a self-regulated problem-solvingintervention on target behaviors in four mid-dle-school-age students with disabilities (i.e.,multiple, autism, intellectual). Students iden-tified target behaviors and set goals (e.g., fol-lowing directions, contributing to class discus-sions, hands to self) that they wanted to meet.Agran et al. (2002) found that students im-proved in their problem-solving skills as a re-sult of the intervention.

Findings from the limited research suggestthe importance of teaching problem-solvingskills to facilitate students with disabilities inachieving their goals. To further the researchbase, this study’s methodology is partial repli-cation of an existing research line (Agran etal., 2001; 2002; Agran, Cavin, Wehmeyer, &Palmer, 2006; Cote et al., 2010; Glago, 2005;Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003). This study incor-porates the teaching of a problem-solvingstrategy (Cote, 2009) to three elementary age

students with autism spectrum disorder(ASD). Unlike previous studies, researcherscompared students’ pre post performance oftarget behaviors using an interval recordingmethod. This study was designed to assess theefficacy of a problem-solving intervention forstudents with autism to gain skills in problemsolving, goal setting, self-evaluation, and goalattainment. Four research questions (Cote,2009; Cote et al., 2010) were evaluated: (a)what were the effects of problem-solving in-struction on the skill performances of prob-lem solving in students with ASD, (b) to whatdegree were students with ASD able to identifythe steps of problem solving, (c) to what de-gree did students with ASD maintain their skillperformances of problem solving, and (d)what were teacher perceptions about imple-menting the problem-solving strategy to in-crease skill performances of problem solvingin students with ASD?

Method

Participants

Student participants. Three elementary agestudents with autism participated in the study.Two students were fully included in the gen-eral education classroom and one student re-ceived special education services in a self-con-tained setting (i.e., specialized day class).Students selected for the study included twomales and one female. See Table 1 for specificstudent characteristics.

Mary. Mary was a 9-year-old fourth-gradeCaucasian female with autism. She was creative,yet, withdrawn. She often played alone orwalked the schoolyard following lunch. Thegeneral education teacher shared that Mary didwhat she wanted (e.g., read a book) during anon-preferred activity, the daily language review(e.g., DRL). The general and special educationteachers wanted Mary to follow teacher instruc-tions. Daily, Mary struggled with starting andfinishing the DLR assignment.

The general education and special educa-tion teachers agreed that Mary needed to im-prove on her writing and that missing themorning assignment was setting her up forfailure. When other students were working onthe DLR assignment, Mary was observed play-ing a game on the computer, reading a book

190 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2014

without permission, or sitting on the groundin a corner of the classroom designated as thelibrary center. The teacher would direct Maryto start the DLR, yet, Mary expressed that shewas bored with the assignment and that itwasted her time.

Brett. Brett was an 11-year-old sixth-grademale student with autism. Brett was fully in-cluded in the general education classroom,with pullout support for mathematics (i.e.,resource room). Brett required little personalteacher assistance to complete assignments.However, Brett struggled with maintaining fo-cus during the daily math instruction. Whengiven a teacher direction to complete a mathassignment, Brett became unfocused, laid hispencil down and exhibited the following be-haviors: scanned the classroom, out of seat,and talked back to the teacher (e.g., “This istoo hard I am out of here”). During oneteacher student observation, Brett expressedthat the teacher should lower her standardsfor him. When the teacher asked Brett to starta math assignment, Brett expressed that hedid not want to complete the assignment us-ing a paper and pencil. Therefore, Brett sel-dom completed math assignments.

Brett’s special education teacher desiredthat he participate as required during mathinstruction, yet, he was receiving failing markson uncompleted and partially completed as-signments. The teacher indicated that Brettwould benefit from the problem-solving inter-vention, particularly since he was transitioningto middle school. Additionally, the teacherwas concerned that Brett had poor problem-solving skills and that these skills would beneeded in middle school. Additionally, theteacher expressed that Brett needed to in-crease his participation as required (i.e., per-cent of time).

Robert. Robert was an 11 year-old sixth-grade African American male student with au-tism. He received special education services ina self-contained classroom. Robert struggledwith maintaining focus on a task during thelanguage arts lesson. Rather than remainingfocused on the lesson, Robert looked aroundthe classroom, picked at fingers/pencil eraser,and frequently left his seat. When the teachergave an assignment or instructed everyone tochoral read, Robert exhibited the above be-haviors. In an effort to redirect Robert, theteacher called Robert’s name aloud or tappedon the next word in the text.

The consequences of Robert’s behaviorswere incomplete assignments and loss of timefrom instruction due to the teacher’s one onone prompting. Additionally, the teachernoted that she and the team had tried varioussupports to help Robert remain focused (e.g.,timer), yet he struggled. She suggested thatRobert was a good candidate for the problem-solving intervention, since he lacked the skillsto maintain focus during the language artslesson.

Setting

This study was carried out in an urban ele-mentary school setting located in a westernstate. The school served 482 students and de-mographics included the following ethnici-ties: 37% Hispanic, �1% African American,7% Asian/Pacific Islanders, 43% Caucasian,and �1% American Alaskan/Native Ameri-can. Thirty six percent of students were eligi-ble for free or reduced lunch.

Problem-solving training for the three stu-dents was conducted in the resource room.The teacher worked one on one with studentsat a kidney shaped table. Instruction occurred

TABLE 1

Student Participants

Student Age Ethnicity Grade IQ Disability Target Behavior

Mary 9 Caucasian 4 88 Autism Follow instructionsBrett 11 Caucasian 6 109 Autism Participate as requiredRobert 11 African American 6 * Autism Focus on task

* Unavailable due to state law (Larry P v. Riles, 1979).


at the same time of the day, every day of theweek for each student (i.e., 1:15–1:30). Theteacher utilized a crate where student work-sheets, flash cards, a white board, storybooks,and materials were stored.

Materials and Supplies

Materials included the: (a) Daily Script for Prob-lem-Solving Instruction, (b) Problem-Solving StepMeasure, (c) A Parent’s Guide to the Self-Deter-mined Learning Model for Early Elementary Stu-dents, and (d) A Teacher’s Guide to ImplementingSelf-Determined Learning Model of InstructionEarly Elementary Version (Palmer & Wehmeyer,2002a, b). Supplies included student createdflash cards i.e., 3 � 5 index) that were createdfrom a problem-solving worksheet (i.e., Coteet al., 2010). The worksheet listed three prob-lem-solving steps (i.e., what’s the problem,how can you fix it, why would it work) (Agranet al., 2002; Cote, 2009; Glago, 2005; Palmer &Wehmeyer, 2002a, b). Additional supplies in-cluded storage crates, scissors, glue sticks,white board, dry erase markers, and problem-solving storybooks (e.g., An Evening at Alfie’s,Hughes, 1984; Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2002a, b;Princess Smartypants, Cole, 1986). Audio re-cordings were made of teacher instructionand student responses (i.e., Olympus DigitalVoice Recorder).

Experimental Design

A multiple-probe design (Horner & Baer,1978) across three students was used to deter-mine the efficacy of the problem-solving inter-vention. There were baseline, treatment, andmaintenance phases in the study.

Dependent Variables

Teachers, students, and researchers identifieddependent behaviors that were related to eachstudent’s individualized education program(IEP). The dependent variable was the per-cent of time each student engaged in the tar-get behavior during classroom observations.Student target behaviors were: Mary, percentof time following teacher instructions; Brett,percent of time participating as required; andRobert, percent of time maintaining focus ontask. Student non-target goals were: Mary, per-

cent of time out of seat, reading a book with-out permission; Brett, percent of time talking,out of seat; Robert, percent of time lookingaround the classroom, and out of seat. Crite-rion was set at 80% of the time engaged in thetargeted behavior on three successive occa-sions. Researchers used a 15-second partialinterval recording method (Bicard, & Bicard,2010). Observation periods were 15-minutesin length.

Independent Variable

A problem-solving strategy was the indepen-dent variable (Cote et al., 2010; Cote, 2011).The teacher followed a daily script to teachstudents three problem-solving steps in settinga goal. A Teacher’s Guide to Implementing theSelf-Determined Learning Model of InstructionEarly Elementary Version (Palmer & Wehmeyer,2002b) was used to help students self-selectgoals.

Measurement and Data Collection

Criterion performance for dependent/targetbehaviors was measured using percentage oftime students exhibited the target behaviors.Additionally, performance was set at a mini-mum of three data points at 80% criterion onthree consecutive occasions (Horner et al.,2005). The primary researchers, (i.e., two uni-versity professors) and three trained secondaryobservers (i.e., graduate students) collectedbaseline, intervention, and maintenance data.

Procedural Fidelity

The primary researchers and secondary ob-servers used a Procedural Fidelity Checklist toassess treatment integrity. The checklist facil-itated their recording the teacher’s adherenceto the daily script outline. Procedural datawere collected during each student trainingsession. Using a percentage, the primary in-vestigators and secondary observers scored theteacher’s following the steps outlined in thescript.

Data Collectors

The primary researchers were responsible for:(a) teacher/interrater training, (b) collecting


consent and assent forms (i.e., district,teacher, parent, student), (c) administeringpre and post assessments, and (d) trainingsecondary observers. Both primary research-ers and secondary observers collected treat-ment and procedural fidelity data.

Experimental Procedures

Phase One: Pre-Study. During phase one,the primary researchers obtained district,school, principal, and teacher consent. Next,parent consent and student assent were col-lected. Parents were given copies of A Parent’sGuide to the Self-Determined Learning Model forEarly Elementary Students and parent questionsabout the research were answered (Palmer &Wehmeyer, 2002a).

Teacher Training. Prior to the study, thefirst author and teacher met for one-on-onetrainings (i.e., four). The teacher was giventhe Daily Script for Problem-Solving Instruction, ATeacher’s Guide to Implementing the Self-Deter-mined Learning Model of Instruction Early Elemen-tary Version (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2002b) andproblem-solving research articles (e.g., Cote etal., 2010). The teacher asked questions, madenotes, and expressed that she had a clear un-derstanding of the procedures.

Baseline

Prior to treatment, researchers observed stu-dents during their everyday classroom activi-ties. Partial interval data recording startedwhen the teacher instructed or gave a direc-tive to start an assignment. Daily observationswere scored in 15 second intervals and record-ing stopped after 15-minute sessions. Duringeach 15-second interval the researchers scoredthe student’s targeted behavior with a plus orminus. For example researchers sat in chairsbehind or to the side of students in order tomaintain a good view. Students’ baseline datawere collected in their individual classrooms(i.e., Mary, general education classroom;Brett, resource room; Robert, self-containedclassroom). When students’ baseline datawere stable they were introduced to treatment(Cote, 2009; Horner & Baer, 1978; Horner etal., 2005; Tawney & Gast, 1984).

Mary was included in the first level of thedesign. Mary received three baseline trials.

Brett received three baseline trials and twoprobes. Robert received three baseline trialsand four probes. The teacher asked each stu-dent to complete the pre intervention mea-sures. Each student was given the forms tocomplete during a one on one session withthe teacher. The data provided the research-ers with additional information on students’perceptions of their problem-solving skills andknowledge of the three problem-solving steps.Students completed the forms independently.The forms included a problem-solving ques-tionnaire and problem-solving step measure(Cote, 2009).

Phase Two: Intervention

The teacher followed a daily script to intro-duce students to the problem-solving interven-tion. During the treatment condition, stu-dents received 15-minutes of instruction(Cote, 2009). The treatment session was con-ducted in a one on one arrangement (i.e.,teacher-student). Each student was told thathe or she would be learning three problem-solving steps. The teacher gained student at-tention by writing the lesson goals on a smallwhiteboard (e.g., identify the problem, iden-tify the solution). The teacher gave each stu-dent a Problem-Solving Step Worksheet (Cote,2009; Cote et al., 2010). The worksheet con-tained clip art pictures that corresponded tothe three questions. A detective symbolizedstep one, what’s the problem? A nurse symbol-ized step two, how can you fix it? A joyful girlsymbolized step three, why would it work? Stu-dents cut and glued pictures and writtenprompts on 3 � 5 unruled index cards. Theteacher prompted (e.g., verbal, gestural) stu-dents to learn and recall the problem-solvingsteps.

The teacher facilitated student comprehen-sion of a problem and solution using problem-solving storybooks (An Evening at Alfie’s,Hughes, 1984; Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2002a,b). The teacher read the book to students andguided them in identifying the characters’problems and solutions. Following the activity,a discussion occurred in which the teacherasked students to identify the character’sproblems and barriers to finding solutions.The teacher talked to students about some of


the difficulties to solving problems and find-ing solutions.

Next, the teacher presented students withthe SDLMI worksheets (i.e., Exploring My Inter-ests, Set a Goal, Take Action, Adjust Goal) tofacilitate their identifying a self-set goal(Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2002a, b). The teacherdiscussed with each student an IEP goal onwhich he or she could improve on. With theteachers help each student was provided witha specific goal to work on. The teacher ex-plained to students that the problem-solvingsteps would help them in meeting their goals.The teacher encouraged and reinforced stu-dents’ responses as they worked out problemsand solutions. The teacher incorporated stu-dent’s daily problems into the session. Forexample, the teacher discussed the possibilitythat the student might not want to complete aspecific academic assignment. The teacherdiscussed solutions to the problems andcoached students to reflect on the three prob-lem-solving steps. As students reviewed thesteps they were asked to reflect on why choos-ing a best solution would work for each oftheir problems. The teacher took time to role-play the problem and solution. The research-ers audio recorded the teacher’s instructionduring intervention (i.e., Olympus Recorder).

Mary

During intervention, the teacher taught andreviewed the three problem-solving steps withMary. Next, she utilized problem-solving sto-rybooks to facilitate discussion of problemsand solutions. With the support of theteacher, Mary was able to identify the charac-ter’s problem and solutions. Then the teacherpresented Mary with the Exploring My Interestworksheet (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2002a, b).She asked Mary to identify what she liked todo at school and home. She also asked Mary toidentify what she wanted to learn. The teacherguided Mary in identifying four things, one ofwhich was to complete the daily practice. Marywas facilitated in identify a goal, that is, an-swering problems and editing sentences (i.e.,DLR). When asked what Mary could change,Mary expressed, “I need to change my moodto a happy mood.” Mary indicated that shewanted to complete the DLR, since she knewthat it would help her get a good job, spell/

write better, go to college, and get goodgrades.

The teacher brainstormed with Mary whatshe could do to remove the current barriers tostarting and completing the DLR. Since Marywas creative, the teacher facilitated her in cre-ating a DLR table that she could keep at herdesk. The table contained five boxes for thedays of the week, assignment, grade, andchoices. Since Mary loved reading books, shesnapped a picture of a book, and inserted it inthe table. The general and special educationteachers discussed Mary’s use of the table dur-ing the DLR activity. Mary and the teachersagreed that when Mary completed the DLRassignment, she would raise her hand and waitfor the general education teacher to grade herwork. Following the teacher assigning a grade,Mary could choose a next step activity (e.g.,reading a book, completing a review). Thegeneral education teacher did not provideMary with any prompts or cues to use the DLRchart. The general education teacher was sur-prised to see that Mary was eager to use herself-created DLR chart. Mary raised her handafter completing the DLR assignment, and theteacher assigned a grade. Mary was expectedto get an A on the assignment in order to meetthe set criteria.

Brett

The teacher facilitated Brett in learning thethree problem-solving steps. She and Brettread and discussed the problems and solu-tions of the characters presented in the prob-lem-solving storybooks. Next, the teacher pre-sented Brett with the Exploring My Interestworksheet (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2002a, b).Brett expressed a strong interest in playingcomputer games, of which the teacher utilizedin the problem-solving intervention. Theteacher guided Brett in expressing what hedid to solve the problems presented in com-puter games. The teacher stressed how thethree problem-solving steps could be used inplay and most importantly in the classroom.The teacher guided the discussion aroundBrett’s need to complete math assignmentswhen in the resource room. Brett and theteacher identified the problem (i.e., non-par-ticipation), possible solutions, and a best solu-tion.


One of Brett’s IEP goals included a sensorybreak; however, the teacher discussed the im-portance of Brett’s participation when re-quired before taking the sensory break. Theteacher emphasized that his continued partic-ipation would be highly regarded in middleschool (e.g., next year). Both teacher andBrett brainstormed what he could do to par-ticipate as required during math instruction.The teacher and Brett created a chart onwhich he recorded his daily participation.Brett set a goal to participate as required dur-ing the math lesson. The student recorded hisbehavior using a chart that was displayed be-hind the teacher’s desk.

Robert

Robert was taught the three problem-solvingsteps. During intervention, the teacher readproblem-solving storybooks and discussedcharacter problems and solutions. Robert washelped to complete the Exploring My Interests,Phase 1, Set a Goal, Phase 2, Take Action, andPhase 3, Adjust a Goal worksheets (Palmer &Wehmeyer, 2002a, b). Using the Exploring MyInterests worksheet, Robert scribed intereststhat included reading, old cars, and going tothe movies with his parents. The teacher cap-tured and used Robert’s movie interests whenteaching the intervention. For instance, whenRobert shared the story of a young dolphinwhose tale was lost in a crab trap, the teacherdiscussed possible solutions. The teacher wascreative in discussing with Robert how theproblem-solving steps were used in the storyand how the same steps could be applied inthe classroom. Robert had difficulty under-standing the impact of his behaviors duringthe language arts lesson. He demonstrated alack of understanding what focused behaviorslooked like. Therefore, the teacher modeled afocused behavior (e.g., reading when calledon) and an unfocused behavior (e.g., lookingaround the room) and shared pictures of stu-dents who were focused on a teacher. Theteacher helped Robert to realize that heneeded to remain focused. Next, the teacherand Robert role-played allowing him opportu-nities to demonstrate the behaviors.

Robert agreed that he had a hard time stay-ing focused during the language arts lesson.Robert expressed that ideas popped into his

head whenever the teacher read, however, hewanted to focus with his eyes and ears (i.e.,Exploring My Interests, What do I want to learn).The teacher and Robert problem solved solu-tions for remaining focused. As a result, Robertchose an appropriate solution. Robert utilized asmall tablet to scribe ideas that came into hishead. He quickly wrote down the idea (e.g.,identified as a brain pop up) and saved them toshare with the teacher when the lesson ended.Robert selected the goal of remaining more fo-cused during his teacher’s language arts lesson(i.e., self-contained classroom).

Mary was included in the first level of themultiple probe design. Brett and Robert con-tinued to receive weekly baseline probes.When Mary met criteria (i.e., followed teacherdirections 80% of the time on three successiveoccasions), Brett was introduced to treatment.Robert continued to receive baseline probesuntil Brett demonstrated criterion (i.e., partic-ipated as required 80% of the time on threesuccessive occasions). Lastly Robert began theintervention condition until he demonstratedcriterion on three successive occasions (i.e.,maintained focus 80% of the time).

Phase Three: Post Treatment

During a pre-treatment assessment, Mary,Brett, and Robert were unable to identify thethree problem-solving steps. However, fourweeks post treatment, the teacher adminis-tered the Problem Solving Step Measure andasked students to identify the three problem-solving steps. Mary, Brett, and Robert recalledthe three problem-solving steps.

Two follow up maintenance probes were con-ducted at two and four weeks post intervention.The primary researchers conducted the mainte-nance probe observations. The data were gath-ered in the students’ classrooms (i.e., Mary, gen-eral education; Brett, resource room; Robert,self-contained) to assess students’ maintenanceof target behaviors.

Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Reliability

The primary researchers and secondary observ-ers conducted daily direct observations of theteacher’s implementing the problem-solving in-tervention. The primary researchers and sec-ondary observers practiced data recording until


interobserver agreement (i.e., three sessions at100% agreement) was established. The percentagreements were calculated by dividing thenumber of agreements by the number of agree-ments plus disagreements and then multiplyingby 100. Interobserver agreement was 98.4% dur-ing 20% of random sessions across baseline,intervention, and maintenance.

Procedural reliability data were collected onthe teachers’ correct implementation of theproblem-solving treatment (i.e., rubric toscore teacher instruction). The researchersused plus or minus symbols to score the pro-cedural fidelity checklist. In particular theteacher was evaluated on: telling studentswhat they would be doing and why, teaching/reviewing the problem-solving steps, deliver-ing cues or prompts, using problem-solvingstory books, presenting problem situations,helping students define problems, facilitatingstudents’ in identifying possible solutions, de-livering feedback, and embedding opportuni-ties for role-play/discussion. The treatmentinterobserver agreement was 98% during 20%of random intervention sessions.

Results

Baseline and Treatment Results

Students’ mean percentages were averagedduring each phase (i.e., baseline, treatment,maintenance). An examination of data indi-cates that students met the set criteria follow-ing treatment. Mary’s baseline data demon-strated variability (M � 17, range 0–25);treatment data demonstrated a gradual pro-gression of accelerating trend (M � 49, range,0–95). Brett’s baseline data demonstrated astable trend (M � 25, range 22–30); treatmentdata did not demonstrate an immediatechange with the introduction of treatment,however a gradual progression of acceleratingtrend was demonstrated (M � 63; range, 17–93). Robert’s baseline data demonstrated highvariability (M � 35, range, 20–55); treatmentdata did not demonstrate immediate changeswith the introduction of treatment, howeverdemonstrated high variability (M � 55, range20–95). Students varied in the number oftreatment sessions needed to meet criteria.The number of sessions was: Mary, 9; Brett, 9;and Robert, 11. Treatment data suggested that

students learned how to set goals, problemsolved, and met self-set goals as a result of thesystematic problem-solving instruction.

Maintenance

Maintenance data were gathered two and fourweeks post intervention. All observations wereconducted in students’ classrooms. Duringmaintenance probe observations, Mary, Brett,and Robert maintained the problem-solvingskills. Maintenance data were: Mary, M � 88,range, 83–93; Brett, M � 92, range 90–93;Robert, M � 84, range, 82–86. See Table 2 formean percentages (i.e., baseline, treatment,maintenance). See Figure 1 for a visual ofbaseline, treatment, and maintenance data.

Social Validity

A social validity measure (Cote, 2009) wasused to score the benefits of the problem-solving strategy. The teacher scribed that thestrategy was: fairly easy to implement, facili-tated students in seeking assistance, effectivein teaching problem solving, appropriate forstudents’ ability levels, and facilitated studentsin identifying solutions. In an unsolicitedemail, the teacher indicated that the studentshad benefited very much and that she wouldteach the strategy the following year. She ex-pressed that: Mary’s parents were happy thatshe had made improvements, Brett was com-pleting his math work independently, andRobert was doing great. See Table 3 forteacher social validity data.

Conclusion

Research into problem-solving training hasbeen limited for students with disabilities.

TABLE 2

Baseline, Treatment, and Maintenance, MeanPercentages

Student Baseline Treatment Maintenance

Mary 17% 49% 88%Brett 25% 63% 92%Robert 35% 55% 84%


This study replicated (i.e., partial) and ex-panded on prior problem-solving research

(Agran et al., 2001, 2002, 2006; Cote et al.,2010; Glago, 2005; Palmer & Wehmeyer,

Figure 1. Students’ with Autism Use of the Problem-Solving Strategy.


2003). A teacher used a problem-solving inter-vention (Cote et al., 2010) and phases fromthe SDLMI (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2002a, b) toteach three elementary age students with au-tism to set and meet goals, identify problems,and self-evaluate their problems-solving skills(Agran et al., 2002). These students were suc-cessful in achieving their self-selected goals.The results from this study can be useful whenplanning instruction for students with autism(Agran et al., 2002; Glago, 2005; Palmer &Wehmeyer, 2002a, b). The findings demon-strated a functional relationship between theintervention and students achieving the prob-lem-solving skills that helped them to reachand maintain goals.

Implications

The results of the research have several infer-ences for teacher practice. Foremost, data sug-gested that students identified problems,brainstormed possible solutions, self-set goals,and maintained goals. This research empha-sizes the importance of educators teachingstudents with autism how to problem solvestarting at a young age (Agran et al., 2002;Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003). Second, theteacher highly rated the problem-solving in-tervention noting that it was a practical strat-egy for teaching students with autism how to

problem solve. The teacher noted that all stu-dents had benefitted from the intervention.

However, further research is warranted toevaluate strategies that have been found toincrease problem-solving skills in studentswith disabilities. Problem-solving skills can bet-ter support students with autism in generaleducation settings. Teachers can scheduletime during the day to teach students to prob-lem solve. A scheduled time allows studentsopportunities to acquire problem-solvingskills with a teacher’s guided practice, role-play and assessment of skills.

Limitations and Future Research

The study has some limitations. Results of thisproblem-solving intervention reflect the expe-riences of a small sample of students who wereidentified with autism. Therefore, the effectsof these results may be difficult to generalizeto other students in various geographic set-tings. The students included in the researchpossessed good oral communication skills;therefore, the effects of the problem-solvinginstruction may be problematic when gener-alizing to students with autism with limitedoral communication. The data were gatheredon students’ performances of target behaviorsin various classroom settings. Therefore, at-tention should be used when simplifying theeffects for generalization across persons andsettings.

The teacher provided individualized in-struction to all students. However, future re-search should examine the results of instruct-ing students with autism in a small groupformat (Mims, Hudson, & Browder, 2012).Additionally, future problem-solving studiescould include a larger diverse sample size andinclude students from a larger geographicarea (i.e., schools, districts). Maintenancedata were gathered at two and four weeks postintervention; further replication can include alonger maintenance phase.

References

Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Wehmeyer, M. L., &Hughes, C. (2001). Teaching students to self-reg-ulate their behavior: The differential effects ofstudent-vs teacher-directed reinforcement. Re-search in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 319–332.

TABLE 3

Social Validity Measure

Problem-Solving Intervention Response

Was fairly easy to implement Strongly AgreeFacilitated students in seeking

needed assistanceStrongly Agree

Was effective in teachingstudents to problem solve

Strongly Agree

Was feasible in the amount oftime required to teach it

Agree

Was appropriate for thestudents’ ability levels

Strongly Agree

Facilitated students inidentifying solutions toproblem situations

Strongly Agree

Was useful in teaching self-determination

Strongly Agree

Would be continued post-study Strongly Agree


Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Wehmeyer, M. L., &Hughes, C. (2002). Increasing the problem-solv-ing skills of students with developmental disabili-ties participating in general education. Remedialand Special Education, 23, 279–285.

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

Agran, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (2005). Teaching prob-lem solving to students with mental retardation.In M. L. Wehmeyer & M. Agran (Eds.), Mentalretardation and intellectual disabilities teaching stu-dents using innovative and research-based strategies(pp. 255–271). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Alderson-Day, B., & McGonigle-Chalmers, M.(2010). Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane? Category use inproblem-solving in children with autism spectrumdisorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disor-ders, 41, 555–565.

Bicard, S. C., & Bicard, D. F. (2010). Measuringbehavior. Retrieved on June 20, 2011, from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/case_studies/ICS-014.pdf

Cole, B. (1986). Princess Smartypants. New York: G. P.Putnam’s Sons.

Cote, D. L. (2009). Increasing skill performances ofproblem solving in students with intellectual disabilities.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universityof Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Cote, D. (2011). Implementing a problem-solvingintervention with students with mild to moderatedisabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46,259–265.

Cote, D. L., Pierce, T., Higgins, K., Miller, S., Tandy,R., & Sparks, S. (2010). Increasing skill perfor-mances of problem solving in student with intel-lectual disabilities, Education and Training in Au-tism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 512–524.

Friend, M. (2011). Special education contemporary per-spectives for school professionals (3rd ed.). Upper Sad-dle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Glago, K. D. (2005). The effect of problem solvingself-determination instruction on elementary stu-dents with learning disabilities and emotional dis-abilities (Doctoral dissertation, George MasonUniversity, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional, 66(2), 549.

Glago, K. D., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E.(2009). Improving problem solving of elementarystudents with mild disabilities. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 30, 372–380.

Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe

technique: A variation of the multiple baseline.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.

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

Hughes, S. (1984). An Evening at Alfie’s. New York:Random House Children’s Books.

Mims, P. J., Hudson, M. E., & Browder, D. M.(2012). Using read-alouds of grade-level biogra-phies and systematic prompting to promote com-prehension for students with moderate and se-vere developmental disabilities. Focus on Autismand Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 67–80.

Palmer, S. B., & Wehmeyer, M, L. (2002a). A parent’sguide to the self-determined learning model for earlyelementary students. Lawrence, KS: The Beach Cen-ter on Disability.

Palmer, S. B., & Wehmeyer, M, L. (2002b). A teach-er’s guide to implementing self-determined learningmodel of instruction early elementary version. Law-rence, KS: The Beach Center on Disability.

Palmer, S. B., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Promot-ing self-determination in early elementary school.Remedial and Special Education, 24, 115–126.

Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K., &Agran, M. (2004). Promoting access to the gen-eral curriculum by teaching self-determinationskills. Exceptional Children, 70, 427–439.

Ryndak, D. L., Ward, T., Alper, S., Wilson Montgom-ery, J., & Storch, J. F. (2010). Long-term outcomesof services for two persons with significant dis-abilties with differing educational experiences: Aqualitative consideration of the impact of educa-tional experiences. Education and Training in Men-tal Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 45,323–338.

Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subjectresearch in special education. Columbus, Ohio:Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mith-aug, D. E., & Martin, J. E. (2000). Promotingcausal agency: The self-determined learningmodel of instruction. Exceptional Children, 66,439–453.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K., Zager, D., Smith,T. E. C., & Simpson, R. (2010). Research-basedprinciples and practices for educating studentswith autism: Self-determination and social inter-actions. Education and Training in Autism and De-velopmental Disabilities, 45, 475–486.

Received: 23 August 2012Initial Acceptance: 18 October 2012Final Acceptance: 15 January 2013


Documents

Teaching Problem Solving Skills to Elementary Age …daddcec.org/Portals/0/CEC/Autism_Disabilities/Research/... · Teaching Problem Solving Skills to Elementary Age Students ... (d)