Comparison of Direct Instruction and Simultaneous Prompting Procedure on Teaching Concepts to Individuals with Intellectual Disability Semiha C ¸ elik Ilgi Private Special Education Centre Sezgin Vuran Anadolu University Abstract: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency, effectiveness, maintenance effects and social validity of two instructional methods, Direct Instruction and Simultaneous Prompting Procedure, on teaching concepts (long, old, few and thick) using a parallel treatments design. All sessions were conducted at a private special education center in a one to one teaching arrangement. Results showed that (a) both direct instruction and simultaneous prompting procedures were effective on three of four participants, while direct instruction was effective on one of participants, (b) simultaneous prompting procedure was found more efficient than direct instruction procedure in terms of the number of trials and incorrect responses, (c) participants maintained concepts at the first, third and the fifth weeks following the intervention, and (d) social validity data supported results of the study. Limitations and future implications for research and practice were also discussed. In the pre-school period, children learn qual- itative and verbal concepts of color, shape, dimension, quantity, and direction and they reinforce this learning with their experiences. If children with intellectual disability learn the concepts and have the abilities which are con- sidered as preconditions for the primary edu- cation in the pre-school education program, they can effectively benefit from the program taught in the first years of primary education along with their peers without disabilities. Without being included in a systematic in- struction process, children with intellectual disability are unable to learn the concepts which typically developing children naturally learn on their own in the family and social environments (Nelson, Cummings, & Boltman, 1991). Studies which reveal that individuals with intellectual disability can learn many skills and concepts through direct instruction (DI) and simultaneous prompting procedure (SP) have been conducted (Birkan, 2002; Gu ¨rsel, 1993; Kırcaali-I ˙ ftar, Birkan, & Uysal, 1998; Varol, 1992). In providing systematic teaching expe- riences to children with intellectual disability, it has been observed that in addition to the intensive use of teaching approaches based on applied behavior analysis, in concept teach- ing, direct instruction is used extensively (Eri- pek, 2003; Kırcaali-I ˙ ftar, Birkan, & Uysal, 1998). As well as its use in concept teaching, direct instruction is used in teaching units and concepts related with reading, writing, math and science (Becker, 1976; Gu ¨ rsel, 1993; Kırcaali-I ˙ ftar et al., 1998; Rosenshine, & Ste- vens, 1986). Direct instruction relies on the theory of a teacher eliminating the wrong re- sponses through teaching plans, arranging the classroom for teaching, organizing mate- rials to be used in teaching, and planning when and how feedback will be given to stu- dents. Direct instruction envisions presenting the correct feedback without upsetting the students. The cycle (teaching, assessment, re- teaching if needed, assessment) involved in all the courses conducted with direct teaching includes the presentation of the new and/or problematic topics during or at the end of the course. Therefore, direct instruction does not allow students to unlearn the skill/knowledge aimed to be taught with the firming cycle. In the firming cycle, rather than “re-learning” Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sezgin Vuran, Faculty of Education, Anadolu University, Dept. of Special Education, Es- kisehir 26470, TURKEY. E-mail: svuran@anadolu. edu.tr Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2014, 49(1), 127–144 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Direct Instruction and Simultaneous Prompting / 127 rich3/z1f-etdd/z1f-etdd/z1f00114/z1f2813d14g mcintyrn S6 1/6/14 16:21 Art: z1f-2813