A Comparison of Intervention Approaches Using the iPad

Research has indicated that an interactive, naturalistic style of instruction facilitates vocabulary learning (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2010; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2005; Brett, Rothlein, & Hurley, 1996). Evidence also suggests that direct instruction is effective for children with language impairment (Jenkins, Pany, & Schreck, 1978; Boehm, 1986; Siefert & Schwarz, 1991). A reduced fast-mapping ability is characteristic of children with language impairment (Rice, Buhr, & Nemeth, 1990), necessitating additional support when providing vocabulary instruction (Steele & Mills, 2011) . As many forms of technology are being integrated into educational settings, it is imperative to consider the effects of technology on vocabulary instruction. Little evidence comparing approaches to using the iPad as an intervention tool exists. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two intervention approaches using the iPad: using the device alone versus pairing the device with scaffolding. Basic concepts provide the foundation for advanced language learning and are imperative for academic achievement; therefore, basic concepts were chosen as targets for the intervention. Four children who were receiving speech/language therapy services for a language delay participated in this study. A single-subject modified alternating treatment design was used. Intervention was provided to each subject individually in two 30-minute sessions per week for five weeks. Both treatment approaches were used with each student. The current study revealed using the iPad in intervention was an effective strategy for teaching basic concepts to children with a language delay. However, due to a limited number of subjects and a limited amount of time for the study, the results were not sufficient enough to determine the efficacy of different intervention approaches using the iPad