Article

Journal of Special Education Technology

2016, Vol. 31(1) 14-25
Using an iPad App to Improve ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:

Phonological Awareness Skills in sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0162643416633332
jst.sagepub.com
Young English-Language Learners
With Disabilities

Zhen Chai1, Kevin M. Ayres2, and Cynthia O. Vail2

Abstract
This study evaluated the efficacy of using a researcher-developed iPad app that incorporated to 0-5 s constant time delay
procedures to improve phonological awareness skills in young English-language learners with disabilities. A multiple probe design
across three target phoneme sets and replicated with three students was used to evaluate experimental control. All students
mastered their target phonemes and also learned some of the nontarget information (vocabulary) from the vocabulary models
provided during instruction. Further, they generalized the skills across materials and maintained the majority of the skills after 3
weeks post-intervention. Findings are discussed with regard to using researcher-developed apps in daily instruction.

Keywords
iPad instruction, young children with disabilities, English-language learners, phonological awareness, constant time delay
procedures

Literacy has a great impact on people’s quality of life. Specif-
ically, those with disabilities who can read tend to have more
self-confidence, more chances to be employed, more chances to
live independently, and are more readily accepted by others
(Erickson, 2005). Phonological awareness (PA) skills are essen-
tial in helping children become independent readers (National
Reading Panel [NRP], 2000). For students with and without
disabilities, PA skills are significantly related to their reading
skills (Lemons & Fuchs, 2009; Olson & Wise, 1992; Wise,
Sevcik, Romski, & Morris, 2010). Blachman (2000) defined
PA skills as the “awareness of the phonological segments in
speech” (p. 483), including phonemes as well as the larger units
in spoken language, such as syllables and rhyming words (NRP,
2000). While they may require more time to master PA skills than
their typically developing peers (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001),
students with disabilities benefit from specific PA interventions
(Conners, Rosenquist, Sligh, Atwell, & Kiser, 2006; Kennedy &
Flynn, 2003; van Bysterveldt, Gillon, & Moran, 2006).
English-Language Learners (ELLs) With Disabilities
The number of ELLs in U.S. public schools is growing fast.
During the 2010–2011 school year, 10% of public school stu-
dents were identified as ELLs (Aud et al., 2013). These students
are required to read at the same level as their monolingual peers
(Leafstedt, Richards, & Gerber, 2004). Similar to native English
speakers, ELLs’ PA skills predict their later reading skills
(Lafrance & Gottardo, 2005; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey,
2003), and PA training helps them prevent future reading failure
(Snow, Burns, & Griffith, 1998).
Young ELLs face dual language challenges at the same time
(Brisk & Harrington, 2000). Even those with high reading levels
may have more difficulty in acquiring PA skills in English
compared to native English speakers (Brice & Brice, 2009),
so young ELLs with disabilities may encounter even greater
challenges (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Difficulties
in acquiring reading skills may increase academic failure in the
future (August & Shanahan, 2006). Without specific intensive
training, young ELLs with disabilities may not make satisfac-
tory improvement in their PA skills (NRP, 2000). Previous
research shows that explicit PA instruction that works for mono-
lingual students is beneficial to ELLs as well (Chiappe, Siegel,
& Wade-Wolley, 2002; Shanahan & Beck, 2006). However,
1
Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, New Mexico
State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
2
Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education, The Uni-
versity of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Zhen Chai, Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders,
New Mexico State University, P. O. Box 30001, MSC 3SPE, Las Cruces, NM
88003, USA.
Email: chai@nmsu.edu
Chai et al.
there is a paucity of empirical studies addressing how to teach
PA skills to young ELLs with disabilities (NRP, 2000).
Computer-Assisted PA Training
Research demonstrates that reading instruction for students with
disabilities should be intensive, specific, and comprehensive
(Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). Computer-assisted instruction
(CAI) is an effective and efficient method to teach academic
skills to students with disabilities because computers usually
provide more chances for practice, instruction can be individua-
lized based on the student’s ability, students can receive imme-
diate feedback and reinforcement, and students are often more
motivated (Hitchcock & Noonan, 2000; Xin, 1999).
The results of studies of computer-assisted PA training are
promising: Students benefited from computer-assisted PA train-
ing either when it was used as supplementary instruction or
when it was used alone (e.g., Barker & Torgesen, 1995; Foster,
Erickson, Foster, Brinkman, & Torgesen, 1994; Lonigan, Phil-
lips, Cantor, Anthony, & Goldstein, 2003; Macaruso, Hook, &
McCabe, 2006; Macaruso & Walker, 2008; Mitchell & Fox,
2001; Wise, Ring, & Olson, 2000). When comparing CAI with
teacher directed instruction (TDI), Mitchell and Fox (2001)
found that the outcomes for the two groups did not differ sig-
nificantly, indicating computer-based PA instruction was as
effective as TDI in promoting the development of PA skills.
Research also suggests that CAI might be helpful to close the
gap between low performers and their peers. Students who scored
lowest in the experimental group made significantly more gains
than those in the control group, and the gap between those low
performers and their regular peers diminished in the treatment
group after training (Macaruso et al., 2006; Macaruso &
Walker, 2008). Macaruso and Rodman (2011) extended their
previous studies by recruiting younger children and more at-
risk students. They employed a pretest–posttest group design to
examine the effectiveness of using teacher-implemented CAI to
improve PA skills for preschoolers and low-performing kinder-
garteners in typical school settings. Both the treatment and
control groups made significant gains during the school year;
however, when compared to the control group who received the
same literacy instruction without CAI, the preschool group who
received CAI training scored significantly higher in PA skills.
The results indicate young children who are at risk can benefit
from computer-assisted reading instruction.
The IPad App “Touch Sound”
Recent legislation directs special education teachers to provide
instruction using evidence-based practices (EBPs; individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004; No Child
Left Behind, 2002). Spooner, Knight, Browder, and Smith
(2012) conducted a literature review to identify EBPs to teach
academic skills to students with severe disabilities. Results sug-
gest that time delay procedures are effective in teaching literacy
and other academic skills, and differential reinforcement has
always been paired with prompting procedures. When
15
designing “Touch Sound”, researchers combined these EBPs
with technology to enhance its effectiveness.
As defined by McClannahan and Krantz (1999), prompts are
“instructions, gestures, demonstrations, touches, or other things
that we arrange or do to increase the likelihood that children will
make correct responses” (p. 37). However, student will not
master the target behavior unless the prompt is removed, so
researchers embedded 0-5 s constant time delay (CTD) proce-
dures into “Touch Sound” to transfer stimulus control from
prompts to task directions. Once a student achieves 100% cor-
rect responding under the simultaneous prompt condition, a
fixed period of time (i.e., 5 s) is imposed between the task
direction and the prompt (Wolery, Ault, & Doyle, 1992). Pre-
vious research indicates that CTD procedures are effective and
efficient in teaching academic skills to young children with
disabilities (e.g., Appelman, Vail, & Lieberman-Betz, 2014;
Doyle, Wolery, Gast, Ault, & Wiley, 1990; Ledford, Gast, Lus-
cre, & Ayres, 2008), and they can also be successfully combined
with technology (e.g., Campbell & Mechling, 2009; Chai, Vail,
& Ayres, 2015; Lee & Vail, 2005). Finally, Karsten and Carr
(2009) compared the effects of differential reinforcement and
nondifferential reinforcement on skill acquisition for children
with autism, and results indicate more reliable skill acquisition
when using differential reinforcement. The researchers incorpo-
rated differential reinforcement in the design of “Touch Sound”.
Research Questions
Chai, Vail, and Ayres (2015) evaluated the use of “Touch
Sound” to teach PA skills to three young native English speak-
ers with developmental delays. The results show that all three
children mastered their target phonemes after the intervention,
generalized the target skills across materials, and maintained
the skills 4 and 7 weeks after the intervention was completed.
The current study is a systematic replication of Chai et al.
(2015) study by working with young ELLs with disabilities.
Specifically, it addressed the following research questions:
Research question 1: Will young ELLs with disabilities
improve their receptive identification of initial phonemes
with the help of the iPad app “Touch Sound”?
Research question 2: If young ELLs with disabilities
improve their performance, can they maintain the skills after
the intervention is completed?
Research question 3: Can young ELLs with disabilities gen-
eralize the target behavior across materials?
Research question 4: Will students learn the incidental
learning information (vocabulary) which is presented as mod-
els by “Touch Sound” during intervention?
Method
Participants
Three young ELLs with disabilities participated in the study.
They all attended a rural primary school (pre-K through second
16
grade) in a southwest state of United States, where all students
qualified for free or reduced lunch. The total enrollment of the
school was 580 in 2013, where 99.14% of the students were
from lower socioeconomic status, 84.8% were Hispanic, and
28.6% were ELLs. The school provided a dual language pro-
gram for its students, which meant teachers delivered instruction
in English one day and in Spanish in the next day. The three
students were recommended by their teachers as needing addi-
tional support in reading and had associated individualized edu-
cational plan goals.
Spanish was the primary language spoken at home for all
three students. They all had 1—2 years of experience with CAI,
as there were two computers in each of their classrooms, but the
exact quantity and quality of their CAI experiences were
unknown because their teachers varied on how much they used
CAI. All three students had history with playing games on a
tablet computer, but none of them had received instruction using
iPad apps. Moreover, none of them had experience with CTD
procedures. All three students received PA training in their
classes, so they could conduct some PA tasks, but their perfor-
mance was well below grade level and was not consistent.
Before intervention, students were screened for the following
skills: (a) visual ability to see the pictures on the iPad, (b) audio
ability to hear the directions, (c) verbal imitation of phonemes and
words, (d) ability to wait for 5 s for prompts, (e) ability to follow one-
step directions, and (f) ability to attend to a teacher-directed activity
up to 10 min. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV (PPVT-IV;
Dunn & Dunn, 2007) and the Test of Early Reading Ability
(TERA-3; Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 2001) were administered to
all students to get a general profile of their literacy performance.
Santiago was a 7-year, 2-month-old Hispanic boy. He was
eligible for special education and related services with the diag-
nosis of speech and language impairments (SLI) and specific
learning disabilities. He was placed in a second grade collabora-
tive classroom and also received speech intervention in a sepa-
rate class for 30 min per week. The standard scores representing
his performance were 85 (−1 SD) on PPVT-IV and 74 (−1.73
SD) on TERA-3. He scored “Poor” on Alphabet subtest in
TERA-3 and “Below Average” on Conventions and Meaning
subtests. Santiago exhibited strengths in social skills and weak-
nesses in articulation and motivation. He could use full sen-
tences to express himself in English, but he was only 75%
intelligible during connected speech. He would easily become
frustrated and give up if he was given a challenging task.
Pedro was a 6-year, 11-month-old Hispanic boy diagnosed
with SLI. He was placed in a first grade collaborative class and
received 30-min intervention in speech in a separate class every
week. He scored 77 (−1.53 SD) on PPVT-IV and 66 (−2.27 SD)
on TERA-3. His performance on all three TERA-3 subtests was
“Poor”. Pedro’s strengths were in social interactions and non-
verbal tasks, and weaknesses were in language and communi-
cation. He was very quiet most of the time. He generally didn’t
express his feelings or his needs unless he was asked. He could
understand most “wh-” questions and used short sentences in
English with prompting. He understood and named common
household objects, animals, toys, and school supplies.
Journal of Special Education Technology 31(1)
Lucas was a 6-year, 6-month-old Hispanic boy. He received
special education services under the category of developmental
delays. He was in the same class as Pedro. Lucas scored 77 (−1.53
SD) on PPVT-IV and 64 (−2.47 SD) on TERA-3. He performed
“Very Poor” on Alphabet subtest and “Poor” on Conventions and
Meaning subtests in TERA-3. Lucas was a student with strengths
in social skills and weaknesses in attention. He was very verbal
and liked to share his stories with others. He had good receptive
communication, and he could express himself in English using
short sentences. He had difficulty in focusing on tasks in class.
Settings and Materials
All sessions were conducted in a 1:1 format in an unoccupied
resource room in the students’ school. During the sessions, each
student sat at a child-sized kidney-shaped table, and the
researcher sat next to the student to collect data and to provide
technical assistance if needed. A 16 GB iPad running iOS 7 was
used throughout intervention, probe, and incidental learning
probe sessions. An iPad app “Touch Sound” was developed
by the first author. The software used to develop the app
included Keynote® and Audacity® Version 2.0.5.
Screening and Phoneme Selection
Each student was screened individually on 21 initial phonemes
through the use of 5 × 8 in. index cards. Three sessions were
conducted across 3 consecutive days. In each session, each pho-
neme was randomly presented 3 times. During each trial, the
researcher showed the index card. The top row of the index card
was a picture of an object; and the bottom row displayed three
pictures of other objects, one of which started with the same pho-
neme as the object on the top row. The researcher pointed to the top
picture and said, for example, “This is bus. Point to the picture that
starts with the same sound as bus.”; then stated the labels for the
other three pictures while pointing to them (e.g., apple, ball, cat).
The student had 5 s to respond. The student received verbal praise
from researcher for correct responses, and incorrect or no
responses were ignored. Six target phonemes were selected for
each student based on the criterion that the student made more
than three incorrect responses across nine trials (Table 1). A pho-
neme with a relatively lower percentage of accuracy was paired
with another phoneme with a relatively higher percentage of accu-
racy. The three pairs of target phonemes were randomly assigned
to the first, second, or third set to be taught.
Incidental Learning Information Screening and Selection
After the target phonemes were identified but before interven-
tion started, each student was asked to verbally name pictures of
18 words that started with their target phonemes (i.e., three
words for each target phoneme). Three sessions were conducted
over 3 consecutive days. During each screening session, the
student was asked to name 54 pictures (i.e., three different pic-
tures for each word). Each picture was presented in the middle
of a Keynote slide on the iPad. The researcher pointed to the
Chai et al.
Table 1. Target Phonemes for Instruction.
Student Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
Santiago /n/, /f/ /l/, /θ/ /v/, /d/
Pedro /l/, /j/ /k/, /w/ /v/, /dʒ/
Lucas /b/, /h/ /l/, /d/ /p/, /v/
Table 2. Incidental Learning Information for Each Student.
Student Words
Santiago needle, fist, lobster, thermometer, vacuum, dentist
Pedro lobster, yawn, koala, walrus, vacuum, jar
Lucas binocular, hydrant, lobster, dentist, parachute, vacuum
picture and asked, “What is it?” Student was given 5 s to
respond. Verbal praise was given if the student correctly named
the picture, and incorrect or no responses were ignored. Six
words (i.e., one word for each target phoneme) were selected
for each student (see Table 2) as incidental learning information,
based on him making no correct responses for naming those
pictures over three consecutive sessions.
Dependent Variable and Response Definitions
The target behavior of the study was that student touched a
picture of an object whose name started with the same initial
phoneme as the given object picture within 5 s after the task
direction. The dependent variable was the percentage of
unprompted correct identification. Five possible responses
were recorded: (a) an unprompted correct was recorded when
the student touched the correct picture within 5 s after a task
direction, (b) an unprompted incorrect was recorded when
the student touched an incorrect picture within 5 s after the
task direction, (c) a prompted correct was recorded when the
student touched the correct picture within 5 s after the task
direction followed the prompt, (d) a prompted incorrect was
recorded when the student touched an incorrect picture
within 5 s after the task direction followed the prompt, and
(e) a no response was recorded when the student failed to
touch any picture within 5 s after the task direction followed
the prompt.
Experimental Design and General Procedures
A multiple probe design (Gast & Ledford, 2010) across three
phoneme sets and replicated across three young ELLs with dis-
abilities was used to evaluate the effectiveness of “Touch
Sound” in improving PA skills. In order to evaluate experimen-
tal control, intervention for the next set of target phonemes did
not begin until the student had reached criterion on the previous
set, which was 100% unprompted correct over five consecutive
sessions. The threats to internal validity (i.e., history and
maturation) were controlled with the staggered introduction of
intervention. The threats to instrumentation were controlled by
17
collecting interobserver reliability data. The external validity
was addressed by the replication of the results across the three
students.
The study consisted of the following conditions: (a) probe,
(b) “Touch Sound” intervention, (c) generalization, (d) inciden-
tal learning probe, and (e) maintenance. Three 6-trial interven-
tion sessions were conducted 4–5 days a week in the morning or
at noon. The probes were conducted before the intervention
started, and when the student reached the criterion on each set.
Generalization of target information and acquisition of inciden-
tal information were assessed using a pretest/posttest paradigm.
Maintenance data were collected 3 weeks after the intervention
was completed.
“Touch Sound” Intervention
“Touch Sound” is a researcher-developed iPad app to teach
young children to receptively identify initial phonemes. Screen
shots of “Touch Sound” are presented in Figure 1. At the begin-
ning of a session, the researcher loaded “Touch Sound”. A
smiling face appeared on the iPad screen, and the app delivered
a welcome message. The student advanced the program by
touching the arrow.
“Touch Sound” involves 0-5 s CTD procedures. During the
0-s delay sessions, at the beginning of each trial, the student was
presented with a picture of an object whose name started with
the target phoneme on the top row of the iPad screen and three
pictures of other objects on the bottom row. The label for one
object on the bottom row began with the target phoneme and the
other two did not. Simultaneously, the app delivered the task
direction, “This is pear. Please touch the word that starts with
the same sound as pear. Duck, paw, owl.” Following the task
direction, the app delivered the controlling prompt immediately
(e.g., “Paw starts with the same sound as pear.”). After that, the
student got 5 s to respond to the question. If the student made a
prompted correct, the praise screen would be presented, on
which a picture of balloons, a smiling face, or fireworks, and
the two pictures of objects that started with the same sounds
were presented, and at the same time, student received descriptive
verbal praise (e.g., “Excellent! Pear and paw begin with /p/.”)
from “Touch Sound”. If the student made a prompted incorrect or
no response, he would be shown the end screen, which depicted
only the two pictures that began with the same sound and “Touch
Sound” provided corrective feedback (e.g., “Pear and paw begin
with /p/.”). Once the student reached 100% of prompted correct
in one session, he was introduced to the 5 s delay sessions.
During the 5 s delay sessions, after the initial task direc-
tion, the student had 5 s to respond. An unprompted correct
led the student to the praise screen. An unprompted incorrect
led the student to the prompt screen, on which the pictures of
the two distractors faded leaving only the correct choice, and
at the same time, “Touch Sound” delivered the verbal prompt
(e.g., “Paw starts with the same sound as pear.”). After the
prompt screen, the student got a second chance to respond to
the question. Either a prompted correct, a prompted incor-
rect, or a no response led the student to the end screen.
18 Journal of Special Education Technology 31(1)

Title Screen Direction Screen End Screen

Correct Response

Great job! “Pear” and

“paw” begin with /p/.

This is “pear”. Please touch Controlling Prompt Second Try

the picture that begins with
the same sound as “pear”.
Duck, paw, owl.

Incorrect or
No Response within 5s
“Paw” begins with the “Pear” and “paw”
same sound as “pear”. begin with /p/.

Figure 1. Major screenshots of “Touch Sound”.

Probe Procedures two words during the intervention for the other two sets of
phonemes.
All probe sessions were delivered through the iPad app. Each
Incidental learning probes were conducted to examine
session consisted of 18 trials. The six target phonemes for each
whether students learned the words through the vocabulary
student were randomly presented 3 times. Probe sessions were
models provided by “Touch Sound”. Each incidental learning
conducted for a minimum of three consecutive sessions over at
probe session included 18 trials. Each word was randomly pre-
least 2 days or until the student’s performance demonstrated a
sented 3 times with different pictures. During each session, after
zero-accelerating or descending trend. During each probe ses-
the student’s attention was obtained, the researcher loaded Key-
sion, the student’s attention was secured by touching the smil-
note slides on the iPad. In the middle of each slide, there was a
ing face. After the direction screen, the student was led to the
picture that represented a word. The researcher asked, “What is
first trial. The first screen of each trial in the probe sessions
it”? and the student was given 5 s to respond. During probe
was displayed as the same format as the first screen of each
sessions for incidental information, student’s responses were
trial in the intervention sessions. After the task direction, stu-
recorded as (a) correct, when student named the object within
dent was given 5 s to respond. A correct response led the
5 s after the task direction; (b) incorrect, when student gave an
student to the praise screen, on which a smiling face was
incorrect name of the object within 5 s after the task direction; or
shown, and the app delivered verbal praise, for example,
(c) no response, when student failed to give any answer within 5
“Good job!” An incorrect or no response was ignored, and the
s after the task direction. The researcher gave the student verbal
next trial was introduced.
praise if the student correctly named the picture and ignored an
incorrect or no response.
Incidental Learning Probe Procedures
The words that were used for incidental learning were
embedded into “Touch Sound”. The student was exposed to two
Generalization and Maintenance Assessments
words that started with target phonemes in each session either as After the intervention was completed, each student was assessed
the given word or as one of the three choices. For example, to see if he could generalize the skills across materials because a
Lucas’s Set 1 of target phonemes were /b/ and /h/. The words paper-and-pencil mode is still most commonly used in class.
that were selected as incidental learning information were Generalization was assessed by asking the student to use a
“binocular” and “hydrant.” Lucas saw the two words once in pencil to circle the picture of an object whose name started with
every session during Set 1 instruction, and he did not see these the same phoneme as the given object on a worksheet, prior to
Chai et al.
instruction and after instruction was completed for all three sets
of phonemes. The worksheets were printed in color on a piece of
8.5 × 5.5 in. white paper. Each generalization session consisted
of 18 trials (six target phonemes randomly presented 3 times).
For each trial, one picture of an object that started with the target
phoneme was presented on the top row, and three choices were
listed horizontally on the bottom row. After providing a general
attentional cue, the researcher handed the student a pencil and
the worksheet and delivered the direction. Then the researcher
pointed to the first trial, for example, “This is cookie. Please
circle the word that starts with the same sound as cookie. Apple,
bear, koala.” The student was given 5 s to respond; then
received verbal praise if he circled the correct answer (e.g.,
“Excellent!”). Incorrect or no responses were ignored, and the
researcher immediately delivered the task direction for the next
trial. Maintenance data were collected 3 weeks after the inter-
vention on the third set of target phonemes was completed. The
maintenance probe procedures were identical to the other iPad
delivered probes described above.
Results
Reliability
Twenty percent of the probe and intervention sessions were
recorded for all three students and at least once per condition
for each student. Two trained observers viewed the videotapes
and collected the interobserver reliability data and procedural
fidelity data. Interobserver reliability on the dependent measure
was calculated using the point-by-point method, with the num-
ber of agreement divided by the number of agreement plus
disagreement and multiplied by 100 (Cooper, Heron, &
Heward, 2007). The interobserver reliability on the dependent
variable averaged 99.2% (range = 98.4–100%).
Procedural fidelity was calculated during the same sessions
as the interobserver reliability, and data were collected on the
iPad app functions: (a) delivering student’s attentional cue,
(b) delivering task direction, (c) giving the appropriate delay
interval before delivering the controlling prompt, (d) deliver-
ing appropriate controlling prompt, and (e) delivering praise.
Procedural fidelity was calculated based on the number of
behaviors performed correctly divided by the number of
planned opportunities, multiplied by 100 (Billingsley, White,
& Munson, 1980). Mean procedural fidelity was 92.7%
(range = 89.3–100%) for all the iPad app functions across
probe and intervention conditions. The researcher encountered
more technical problems at the beginning of the intervention,
for example, the presentation type changed from “links only”
to “normal” when the app was transferred to iPad, and this
would change the order the slides presented. When a technical
problem happened, the researcher would fix it before the next
session.
Target Phonemes Acquisition and Maintenance
Santiago. Prior to instruction, Santiago showed an average of
unprompted correct responses of 66.67%, 83.33%, and
19
61.11% for Sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Figure 2). To take a
close look at the incorrect responses he made before interven-
tion, Santiago made 2 unprompted incorrect responses (22.22%)
on /n/ and 4 (44.44%) on /f/ out of the 9 trials; he made
4 unprompted incorrect responses (22.22%) on /l/ and
2 (11.11%) on /θ/ out of 18 trials; and 7 unprompted incorrect
responses (25.93%) on /v/ and 14 (51.86%) on /d/ out of 27 trials.
Visual analysis shows that Santiago’s performance improved
immediately after the introduction of “Touch Sound” interven-
tion for all three sets of target phonemes, and the level of
unprompted correct responses increased to 100% correct during
intervention. The number of sessions to criterion was three, two,
and nine for Sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The percentage of
nonoverlapping data point values (PND) between baseline and
intervention was 71.43% for Set 1, 83.33% for Set 2, and
84.62% for Set 3. Santiago maintained the skills at 100% of
accuracy for all three sets of his target phonemes during the
maintenance assessment.
Pedro. Pedro’s performance on his three sets of target phonemes
is presented in Figure 3. Prior to intervention, Pedro demon-
strated a mean percentage of correct responses of 66.67%,
72.22%, and 57.41% for Sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. He made
2 (22.22%) unprompted incorrect responses on /l/ and 4
(44.44%) on /j/ out of 9 trials, 3 (16.67%) unprompted incorrect
responses on /w/ and 7 (38.89%) on /k/ out of 18 trials, and
15 (55.56%) unprompted incorrect responses on /v/ and
8 (29.63%) on /dʒ/ out of 27 trials.
It took Pedro 6, 13, and 8 intervention sessions to reach the
criterion for Sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The PND between
baseline and intervention was 60% for Set 1, 64.71% for Set 2,
and 75% of Set 3. During the 3-week follow-up, Pedro’s per-
formance on Set 2 was maintained at 100% accuracy, his per-
formance on Sets 1 and 3 has decreased to 83.3% of accuracy,
and he made one incorrect response on phonemes /l/ and /v/,
respectively.
Lucas. Figure 4 shows that Lucas successfully learned all his
target phonemes taught through “Touch Sound”. Before inter-
vention, the mean percentage of correct responses on Sets 1, 2,
and 3 of his target phonemes were 55.56%, 69.44%, and
72.22%, respectively. Lucas made 4 unprompted incorrect
responses (44.44%) on both /b/ and /h/ of Set 1 out of 9 trials;
7 (38.89%) and 4 (22.22%) unprompted incorrect responses on /
l/ and /d/, respectively, out of 18 trials; and 10 (37.04%) and 5
(18.52%) unprompted incorrect responses on /p/ and /v/ out of
27 trials prior to intervention.
After introduction of intervention, Lucas’s performance on
the target phonemes demonstrated a change of level, and he
spent 7, 10, and 6 intervention sessions in reaching the criter-
ion for Sets 1, 2, and 3. The PND between baseline and inter-
vention was 63.64%, 57.14%, and 60% for Sets 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. Lucas maintained the skills at 100% of accuracy
for Sets 2 and 3 and at 83.33% of accuracy for Set 1 at 3-week
follow-up.
20 Journal of Special Education Technology 31(1)

Baseline iPad with CTD Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 4 Maintenance

0s 5s
100
80
60
40
Set 1
20
0
Percentage of Correct Responses

100
80
60
40
20 Set 2

100
80
60
40
Set 3
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
Sessions
Probe Prompted Correct Unprompted Correct

Figure 2. Percentage of unprompted correct responses across three sets of target phonemes for Santiago.

Incidental Learning Efficiency Data

The percentage of correct responses of incidental learning
information (vocabulary) was collected. Prior to intervention,
no student correctly labeled any of the incidental learning
information. All students made gains following the interven-
tion, and they were able to correctly identify some of the
vocabulary presented as models by “Touch Sound”. San-
tiago, Pedro, and Lucas acquired an average of 44.44%,
27.78%, and 44.44% of the incidental learning information,
respectively.
Efficiency of intervention was evaluated via the number of instruc-
tional sessions to criterion for each set of target phonemes. Table 3
summarizes the efficiency data. The total number of instructional
sessions needed to reach criterion for all three sets of target pho-
nemes ranged from 14 to 27 sessions. The number of sessions to
criterion for each set of target phonemes ranged from 2 to 13
sessions. The length of each instructional session was about 4 min,
so the total instructional time for each student to master all three
sets of target phonemes was less than 2 hr.

Generalization Social Validity

Generalization data were collected on students’ receptive iden-
tification of target initial phonemes when the task was shown
on worksheets. During pretest, Santiago demonstrated a per-
centage of correct responses of 66.67%, 83.33%, and 83.33%
for Sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Pedro’s performance was at a
level of 33.33%, 66.67%, and 66.67% accuracy for Sets 1, 2,
and 3. Lucas demonstrated at 66.67% correct responses on all
three sets. However, all three students increased their perfor-
mance on all three sets of target phonemes to 100% accuracy
during posttests.
Social validity data were collected after the intervention was
completed and were evaluated through a teacher-completed
questionnaire and informal interview of the students. The social
validity questionnaire contained five questions that were related
to the teachers’ opinions on the goals, outcomes, inclusion of
iPad, and suggestions for future studies. Three teachers who
worked closely with the students, that is, their general education
teachers and special education teacher, completed the question-
naire. All teachers believed that identification of initial pho-
nemes was an important skill to teach; using an iPad app to
Chai et al. 21

Baseline iPad with CTD Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 4 Maintenance

0s 5s
100
80
60
40
20 Set 1
0
Percentage of Correct Responses

100
80
60
40
20 Set 2

100
80
60
40
20 Set 3
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
Sessions
Probe Prompted Correct Unprompted Correct

Figure 3. Percentage of unprompted correct responses across three sets of target phonemes for Pedro.

teach PA skills was a great idea and, if possible, they would like
to use it with their students. PA skills were no longer a focus of
their daily instruction, so they did not observe any dramatic
changes in target behaviors in their daily instruction, though
one teacher mentioned that one student showed more positive
attitude toward school. Informal interview of the students
revealed that they all liked to work on the app.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of
using an iPad application with 0-5 s CTD procedures to teach
young ELLs with disabilities to receptively identify initial pho-
nemes. Visual analysis of data (Gast & Spriggs, 2010) was used
to identify if a functional relation existed. The results indicate
that all students mastered their target phonemes after introduc-
tion of intervention and maintained a majority of their skills 3
weeks after the intervention for Set 3 was completed. They all
generalized the skills to paper-and-pencil mode with 100%
accuracy across all three sets of target phonemes. Although not
being taught directly, all students made some gains on the inci-
dental information (vocabulary) through the vocabulary models
provided by the app. The results of this study add to the limited
EBPs for teaching PA skills to young ELLs with disabilities.
Similar to their monolingual peers with disabilities, young ELLs
with disabilities benefited from computer-assisted PA
instruction.
Incidental teaching is an efficient procedure for teaching
students with disabilities, and it provides an opportunity for
students to learn nontarget but relevant information during
instruction (Appelman et al., 2014; Campbell & Mechling,
2009; Keel, Slaton, & Blackhurst, 2001; Ledford, et al.,
2008). Results of these studies show that students with disabil-
ities learned some incidental information even if it was not
taught directly during intervention. The results of current study
were consistent with previous research, and all three students
made some improvement (range: 27.78%–44.44%) on inciden-
tal information, which was provided as vocabulary models dur-
ing the instruction.
Limitations of the Study
At the beginning of the intervention, after the researchers had
identified the target phonemes for each student, a letter was sent
to their teachers asking them not to provide direct instruction on
these target phonemes; however, it was impossible to com-
pletely eliminate their learning opportunities on these phonemes
in class or at home. Thus, the internal validity of the study may
22 Journal of Special Education Technology 31(1)

Baseline iPad with CTD Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 4 Maintenance

0s 5s
100
80
60
40
20 Set 1

0
Percentage of Correct Responses

100
80
60
40
20 Set 2
0

100
80
60
40
20 Set 3
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Sessions
Probe Prompted Correct Unprompted Correct

Figure 4. Percentage of unprompted correct responses across three sets of target phonemes for Lucas.

be weakened. The study only involved three young ELLs with Table 3. A Summary of Efficiency Data.
disabilities. Even though they all mastered their target pho-
Student Set Number of Sessions to Criterion
nemes, the external validity was limited. More studies need to
be conducted with students of different characteristics to Santiago 1 3
strengthen the external validity. 2 2
Another limitation is the ceiling effect observed in the study. 3 9
All three students learned some PA skills prior to intervention, Total 14
Mean 4.67
and the accuracy of their performance before intervention was
Pedro 1 6
pretty high, leaving very little scale to show improvement dur- 2 13
ing and after intervention. Some may argue that they were not 3 8
perfect candidates for research. However, two of the students Total 27
were first graders and one was a second grader. The expectation Mean 9
for them to perform these PA skills should be at 100% accuracy. Lucas 1 7
Only six initial phonemes were selected for each student in 2 10
3 6
the current study. Even though the results are positive, it is
Total 23
impossible to demonstrate an impact on the students’ reading Mean 7.67
performance. This is probably the reason why teachers failed to
detect any changes in students’ behaviors in reading activities.
Future research should include more phonemes in order to see may have caused the students’ low performance on incidental
progress in literacy. learning information.
Finally, the researchers tried to include only common words
as incidental learning information during the intervention. How-
ever, it was not an easy task to find different words that started Recommendations for Future Research
with the target phonemes and also had a digital picture readily This study used one-on-one instruction in an unoccupied
available. As a result, some less common words were used. This resource room, which is of high cost with regard to personnel
Chai et al.
and resources and deprives students of peer interactions and
observational learning opportunities (Aldemire & Gursel,
2014). In the future, studies can be conducted using small group
instruction in the classroom with typical distractors and record
the interactions between the students. The current investigation
did not evaluate the effects of PA training on early reading
development. Future research should include this piece and
evaluate the students’ ability to use the newly learned phonemes
to decode words. Another area that future research may examine
is the effects of motivation on learning when using the iPad for
instruction. Students in the current study were very excited to
work on the iPad. Being able to play games on iPad after inter-
vention was a great motivation for them.
Educational Implications
The advantages of using a researcher-developed iPad app
include allowing the researchers to incorporate an evidence-
based method, like CTD, into the study, and tailoring the app
based on each participant’s needs. Using Keynote gives teach-
ers the opportunity to develop their own apps for their stu-
dents, but it also has some limitations. For example, it is very
time consuming to develop the slides. For each trial, the
researchers needed to develop seven slides. Keynote for iPad
is not 100% compatible with Keynote for Mac, so transferring
the app from a Macbook to an iPad caused problems. Some-
times the hyperlinks worked on Mac but failed when trans-
ferred to the iPad. The delay interval also changed at times
during the transfer. Although the researchers tested the app
several times before the intervention, there were still technical
mishaps during the intervention. That is the reason why pro-
cedural fidelity was lower compared to Chai et al. (2015)
study. Fortunately, the development of a commercially avail-
able version of “Touch Sound” is in process and will be avail-
able on iTunes in 2016.
The results of the current study show some preliminary
promise for today’s classroom teachers. The iPad app “Touch
Sound” can be used as an effective and efficient tool to assist
young children who struggle with PA skills to catch up with
their peers. Informal conversations with teachers who worked
directly with the participants on a daily basis revealed that they
thought that “Touch Sound” could be easily used in their daily
instruction, especially in the literacy center. With the response to
intervention (RtI) approach, educational apps can be used to
meet the needs of students of all levels. Taking “Touch Sound”
as an example, it can be used at literacy centers for the majority
of students as a supplement to practice their PA skills. Students
at Tier 2 can use the app during small group activities to get
more practice; and for students who are at Tier 3, the app can be
used for intensive training on the specific phonemes that have
not been mastered.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
23
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
Aldemire, O., & Gursel, O. (2014). The effectiveness of the constant
time delay procedure in teaching pre-school academic skills to chil-
dren with developmental disabilities in a small group teaching
arrangement. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14,
733–740.
Appelman, M., Vail, C. O., & Lieberman-Betz, R. G. (2014). The
effects of constant time delay and instructive feedback on the acqui-
sition of English and Spanish sight words. Journal of Early Inter-
vention, 36, 131–148.
Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X.,
& Zhang, J. (2013). The condition of education 2013 (NCES 2013-
037). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences.
Audacity (Version 2.0.5) [Computer software]. (2013). Retrieved from
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in
second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel
on Language-minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barker, T., & Torgesen, J. K. (1995). An evaluation of computer
assisted instruction in phonological awareness with below average
readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 89–103.
Billingsley, E., White, O., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability:
A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
Blachman, B. A. (2000). Phonological awareness. In M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research (vol. III, pp. 483–502). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brice, R. G., & Brice, A. E. (2009). Investigation of phonemic
awareness and phonic skills in Spanish-English bilingual and
English-speaking kindergarten students. Communication Disorders
Quarterly, 30, 208–225.
Brisk, M. E., & Harrington, M. M. (2000). Literacy and bilingualism:
A handbook for ALL teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Campbell, M. L., & Mechling, L. C. (2009). Small group computer-
assisted instruction with SMART board technology: An investi-
gation of observational and incidental learning of nontarget
information. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 47–57.
Chai, Z., Vail, C. O., & Ayres, K. M. (2015). Using an iPad application
to promote early literacy development in young children with dis-
abilities. Journal of Special Education, 48, 268–278.
Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic
diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal
study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369–400.
Conners, F. A., Rosenquist, C. J., Sligh, A. C., Atwell, J. A., & Kiser, T.
(2006). Phonological reading skills acquisition by children with
mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27,
121–137.
Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2007). Applied behavior analysis
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
24
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Ault, J. J., & Wiley, K. (1990).
Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts
in teaching preschoolers with developmental disabilities. Research
in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 1–22.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test
(4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Erickson, K. (2005). Literacy and persons with developmental disabil-
ities: Why and how? Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Mon-
itoring Report 2006, Literacy for Life.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom
and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 203–212.
Foster, K. C., Erickson, G. C., Foster, D. F., Brinkman, D., & Torgesen,
J. K. (1994). Computer administered instruction in phonological
awareness: Evaluation of the DaisyQuest program. The Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 27, 126–137.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. (2010). Multiple baseline and multiple probe
designs. In D. L. Gast (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in
behavioral sciences (pp. 276–328). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gast, D. L., & Spriggs, A. D. (2010). Visual analysis of graphic data. In
D. L. Gast (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral
sciences (pp. 199–233). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hitchcock, C. H., & Noonan, M. J. (2000). Computer-assisted instruc-
tion of early academic skills. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 20, 145–158.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL
108-466, 20 U. S. C. §1400, H. R. 1350.
Karsten, A. M., & Carr, J. E. (2009). The effects of differential rein-
forcement of unprompted responding on the skill acquisition of
children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42,
327–334.
Keel, M. C., Slaton, D. B., & Blackhurst, A. E. (2001). Acquisition of
content area vocabulary for students with learning disabilities. Edu-
cation and Treatment of Children, 24, 46–71.
Kennedy, E. J., & Flynn, M. C. (2003). Training phonological aware-
ness skills in children with Down syndrome. Research in Develop-
mental Disabilities, 24, 44–57.
LaFrance, A., & Gottardo, A. (2005). A longitudinal study of phono-
logical processing skills and reading in bilingual children. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 26, 559–578.
Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber, M. (2004). Effective-
ness of explicit phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk
English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
19, 252–261.
Ledford, J., Gast, D. L., Luscre, D., & Ayres, K. (2008). Observational
and incidental learning by children with autism during small group
instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38,
86–103.
Lee, Y., & Vail, C. O. (2005). Computer-based reading instruction for
young children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Tech-
nology, 20, 5–18.
Lemons, C., & Fuchs, D. (2009). Phonological awareness of children
with Down syndrome: Its role in learning to read and the effective-
ness of related interventions. Research in Developmental Disabil-
ities, 31, 316–330.
Journal of Special Education Technology 31(1)
Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of
first-grade reading in Spanish speaking English-language learners.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 482–494.
Lonigan, C., Phillips, K., Cantor, B., Anthony, J., & Goldstein, H.
(2003). A computer assisted instruction phonological sensitivity
program for preschool children at risk for reading problems.
Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 248–262.
Macaruso, P., Hook, P. E., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of
computer-based supplementary phonics programs for advancing
reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of Research
in Reading, 29, 162–172.
Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2011). Benefits of computer-assisted
instruction to support reading acquisition in English language lear-
ners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 301–315.
Macaruso, P., & Walker, A. (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted
instruction for advancing literacy skills in kindergarten children.
Reading Psychology, 29, 266–287.
McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (1999). Activity schedule for
children with autism: Teaching independent behavior. Bethesda,
MD: Woodbine.
Mitchell, M. J., & Fox, B. J. (2001). The effects of computer
software for developing phonological awareness in low-
progress readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 40,
315–332.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on
reading and its implications for reading instruction (Report of the
subgroups). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115, §1425,
20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002).
Olson, R. K., & Wise, B. W. (1992). Reading on the computer with
orthographic and speech feedback: An overview of the Colorado
remediation project. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 4, 107–144.
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (2001). Test of early
reading ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.
Shanahan, T., & Beck, I. L. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for
English-Language Learners. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.),
Developing literacy in second-language learners (pp. 415–488).
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing
reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Spooner, F., Knight, V. F., Browder, D. M., & Smith, B. R. (2012).
Evidence-based practices for teaching academic skills to students
with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Edu-
cation, 33, 374–387.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). National assessment of
educational progress (NAEP): The nation’s report card: Read-
ing 2007, trends in achievement levels by race/ethnicity.
Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/data.
asp
van Bysterveldt, A. K., Gillon, G. T., & Moran, C. (2006). Enhancing
phonological awareness and letter knowledge in preschool children
Chai et al.
with Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Devel-
opment, and Education, 53, 301–329.
Wise, B. W., Ring, J., & Olson, R. K. (2000). Individual differences in
gains from computer-assisted remedial reading. Journal of Experi-
mental Child Psychology, 77, 197–235.
Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Romski, M., & Morris, R. D. (2010). The
relationship between phonological processing skills and word and
nonword identification performance in children with mild intellec-
tual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31,
1170–1175.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with
moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting stra-
tegies. White Plains, NY: Longman.
25
Xin, J. F. (1999). Computer-assisted cooperative learning in integrated
classrooms for students with and without disabilities. Information
Technology in Childhood Education, 1, 61–78.
Author Biographies
Zhen Chai is an assistant professor in the Department of Spe-
cial Education and Communication Disorders, New Mexico
State University.
Kevin M. Ayres and Cynthia O. Vail are professors in the
Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education,
The University of Georgia.
Copyright of Journal of Special Education Technology is the property of Technology &
Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children (TAM) and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.