Sample Solution

for a little over seven years (McGee et al., 1983). One of the participants was fifteen years old, and the other participant was twelve years old (McGee et al., 1983). Incidental teaching occurred daily in the kitchen for a 45-minute session in the kitchen during preparation for lunches (McGee et al., 1983). The teacher would ask the student, “Are you ready to make sandwiches?” or a similar question to inquire readiness (McGee et al., 1983). When the child looked at the teacher without any off task or self-stimulatory behavior, the teaching procedure was initiated and the incidental teaching began (McGee et al., 1983). There was also generalization in the study across settings, just as standard incidental teaching, but only modified to aid the severe deficits in the children. The results yielded benefits that are similar to that of standard incidental teaching procedures because if the rapid acquisition and the promotion of generalization (McGee et al., 1983).

At times it is difficult to use prompts when teaching children with ASD new skills because they can be prompt dependent; however, it is difficult to not use any prompts because they are needed to teach the skill. Incidental teaching is a procedure, which aids the children to learn the skills in a natural environment, but there also isn’t a need for continual prompts (Hart and Risley, 1975). McGee et al. (1999) showed that incidental teaching generates less prompt dependency because the teacher prompts them to elaborate on that initiation, rather than starting with a word that was chosen randomly by the teacher that does not hold the child’s interest. It is important to have at least a prompt level system in placed in order to maintain a procedure that is not prompt dependent (McGee et al., 1986). Incidental teaching also generalizes across different settings and people without prompt dependence. The study completed by McGee and Daly (2007) showed that the social phrases learned in their study by the three autistic boys