Disclaimer: This dissertation has been written by a student and is not an example of our professional work, which you can see examples of here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.

Probe-based Learning Intervention Impact on Safety Skills

Info: 6547 words (26 pages) Dissertation
Published: 22nd Oct 2021

Reference this

Tagged: Education


Students with disabilities must be taught how to perform appropriately in potentially harmful situations. In this research study, five students with disabilities learned how to safely pick up and throw away shattered dishes (plates, cups) from a sink, a table, and a floor. The first dishes used for props were plastic, which were then replaced with real shattered dishes. The efficiency of the intervention was assessed using a variety of probe designs. The results showed that the intervention was effective in teaching the skills. Data was collected one week on baseline (probe), one-week of instructional trials (training) was then performed, and after the training a follow-up was completed, with good results. Thankfully, no one was injured in any part of the class sessions.

Table of Contents





Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………..5


Participants and Setting………………………………………...………………….5




Data Analysis………………………………………………………………….…12








A goal for students with disabilities in the long run is to give them the skills they need to live as independently as possible as members of society. Students with disabilities, such as autism spectrum disorders and other developmental disabilities, also need safety training. For students with disabilities, focusing on practical skills leads to a more independent life. Students with disabilities a lot of times have trouble warning others of stressful occasions in their lives, as well as difficulties judging unsafe situations and leaving or avoiding them. If those skills are not learned, students with disabilities can face safety risks. Therefore, students with disabilities should learn about unsafe situations.

Rogers and Johnson (2018) note that students with disabilities need to be supported in major life activities. According to them, multiple disabilities include orthopedic impairment, intellectual disability, deafness, and blindness. Some of the areas where students with such disabilities need to be supported include enjoying their leisure time, during ordinary domestic activities, and in social life. The students also need to be supported in their educational institutions. In the US, this explains why these students are isolated and trained in separate special education classrooms. Stephenson et al. (2012) also notes that students with disabilities used to be trained separately in the past. However, the emergence of inclusive philosophies has facilitated the inclusion of these students in general classrooms.

Students with disabilities are taught life skills throughout their educational years in different ways. As many life skills as possible should be demonstrated in the classroom. We should create opportunities for students to apply their learned skills in real-life situations. Since there are so many different scenarios when cooking, it can be difficult to find out how to teach kitchen safety skills. Various outcomes can be expected depending on the circumstances. There are a lot of skills and principles to learn, and it’s hard to predict exactly what students will need to know. However, the better you can train the students to take care of themself, the less likely he or she will be faced with an emergency situation that he or she will be unable to handle. There are a lot of skills to teach and breaking them down and practicing on them a little each day will make it seem less likely to teach them all. We just need to recognize the student’s level of comprehension and teach in the way that he or she learns best, and to test the student’s knowledge regularly while teaching these skills.


The purpose of this research study is to see how useful probe-based learning interventions for high school students with disabilities on life skills (kitchen safety and emergency response) are. This research project assesses the effect of the interventions of student with disabilities in relation to particular abilities, after the interventions have been completed for the time span specified.

Research Questions

This research study explores two questions: What is the impact of probe-based learning on the kitchen safety skills of high school students with disabilities? What is the impact of probe-based learning on the emergency safety skills (if hurt in kitchen) of high school students with disabilities?

Definition of Terms

  • Disability – This is a condition of the mind or body that makes a person unable to do things ordinary people do.
  • Special needs education – This is education focused on imparting knowledge and skills on people with disabilities.
  • Safety skills - Are any skills that an individual needs to be safe and independent in the community setting.


Participants and Setting

My study focused on five students in my class, ranging in age from 18 to 21 years, who are enrolled in high school in a classroom designed for students with severe disabilities. Three of the students are studying in person (Brenda L (BL), Edward M (EM), and Robert C (RC)) during baseline, while the other two are only learning remotely (Alicia M (AM), and Emanuel C (EC)). Then AM was switched to in-person learning and performed the instructional trials in the school setting. We (the paraprofessionals and I) started life skills training in the school kitchen area classroom (cooking, washing dishes, and so on), and we found that students were handling dangerous dishes in unsafe ways. The students were then assessed on required skills before beginning the study, which included:

  • the ability to follow basic instructions from the teacher or paraprofessional
  • a clear understanding of how to say the difference between shattered and unshattered dishes
  • when asked to do simple imitation of a teacher’s or paraprofessional’s behavior
  • the chance to wait for a prompt for up to ten seconds and stay focused for up to fifteen minutes
  • success on each trial criterion (i.e., wash dishes, clean a table, sweep floors)

Parents of remote learning students were informed before the students participated in the study because their assistance was going to be needed during certain sections of the task.

Table 1 Participating students




Special Education Services






















Plastic damaged objects (such as plastic cups, glasses, and plates) were used, as well as actual shattered dishes. The selection of trial examples was inspired by the teaching of general situation that students may come across. Pots, plates, and glass dishes in different colors, and sizes, were used for the trials. Dishwashing and floor cleaning trials were also done with basic household products. Trials were done on a one-to-one basis in our school kitchen classroom and in our classroom, which is right next door to the kitchen. The two remote learning students used their home kitchen with the help of an adult in the room and virtual support from teacher or paraprofessional. I or a paraprofessional gave instruction on a regular basis. Other activities were given to students who were not getting instruction in a separate area from the classroom.

For this study, I considered the tasks of removing and throwing away shattered dishes from a sink, a table with dishes, and a floor. Below are the steps students were assessed on.

Table 2 Tasks procedures




  • Get gloves and put them on.
  • Get gloves and put them on.
  • Get gloves and put them on.
  • Dislodge the drain stopper with a utensil. Allow the water in the sink to drain.
  • Grab the dustpan.
  • Tear a piece of paper towel and place it in the dustpan with any shattered dish parts.
  • Remove all dishes that are not shattered and put them on the side of the sink.
  • Holding the dustpan, put the large, shattered dishes in the dustpan. Place dishes that have not been shattered in the sink. Empty dustpan in trash.
  • Empty dustpan into trash and throw away paper towel.
  • Bring the trash barrel over to the sink.
  • Grab some paper towels. Holding a dustpan under the table, wipe shattered objects into the dustpan with the paper towels.
  • Move furniture from the place where there are shattered dishes on the floor.
  • Grab big pieces of shattered dishes and throw them in the trash.
  • Empty dustpan into trash and throw away paper towels.
  • Sweep the shattered dishes onto the dustpan with the broom.
  • Wash and rinse unshattered dishes in the sink.
  • Wash and rinse unshattered dishes in the sink.
  • Empty dustpan in trash.
  • Grab some paper towels. Push small pieces of shattered dishes into drain stopper with the paper towels. Throw away paper towels in trash.
  • Grab some paper towels. Push small pieces of shattered dishes into drain stopper with the paper towels. Throw away paper towels in trash.
  • Put furniture back in its place.
  • Remove drain stopper. Empty what is in it in the trash.
  • Remove drain stopper from sink. Empty objects in trash.
  • Return the broom, dustpan to their proper locations.
  • Return drain stopper to the sink.
  • Return drain stopper back to the sink.
  • Return trash barrel to proper location.
  • Return dustpan to proper location.
  • Return to dishwashing activity.

Students were exposed to some risk as a result of their participation. That is, if shattered dishes were unintentionally mishandled, there was a chance a student might be hurt. The following safety measures were put in place to reduce the likelihood of this risk:

  • to reduce the probability of errors and potential injury, constant time delay techniques were used
  • the students were required to wear latex gloves during the study
  • students were instructed to use a kitchen utensil to dislodge the drain stopper in order to avoid putting their hands into a sink containing shattered dishes that were not noticeable
  • the students were not allowed to handle shattered objects until they had shown success with plastic damaged objects (i.e., 100% unprompted correct reactions during one trial)
  • incorrect trial procedures were stopped by the teacher or paraprofessional
  • to prevent harm from small pieces of dishes and to eliminate an example of negative conduct, dishes were not shattered in front of the students


There were three types of trials used: probe, instructional trials, and follow-up. Individual trials were done on a regular basis and lasted no more than fifteen minutes. Trials more than fifteen minutes were not conducted, because students would lose interest in the project. We tend to not prolong activities with our students for more than fifteen minutes at a time, to prevent loss of interest. A student participated in a kitchen safety skill task involving shattered dishes during each trial which included: a sink filled with water, dishes, and cups, a table with dishes, or the floor. Before each trial, shattered dishes were put in the work area before each trial. The teacher or paraprofessional would then say the overall attention question if they are ready. It was then followed by a request for a detailed task assessment with what task they were to begin with (e.g., they were told to begin with the dishes). When the student realized the items were shattered, he or she started working on the task specified in the scenario.

Prior to the start of training, each student’s performance on each task was assessed using two types of probe trials using only plastic damaged objects. The ability of a student to complete an entire task was assessed in a total task probe trial. The teacher or paraprofessional received an affirmative reaction to the overall attention prompt before leading the student to perform a task in a complete task probe study. At that time, the number of correctly performed reactions that were independently performed were counted. Each phase of the mission took ten seconds to begin and three minutes to complete. A three-minute time limit was required because students had difficulty, they need time to process details, putting on latex gloves and small pieces of shattered dishes took longer to locate, remove, and throw away. The trial was stopped if the student did not answer for ten seconds or made an incorrect reaction.

Following the completion of a full task probe trial, a random chance probe trial was conducted. These assessments were designed to see whether a student could complete all of the steps of a task as they were presented one by one. The teacher or paraprofessional introduced each step of the task in a random order during these trials. The student was asked to turn away from the task while the teacher set up the props to minimize the chance that the teacher’s set up of objects would unintentionally indicate the correct way to do a move. After that, the student was told to keep working. Each phase of the mission took ten seconds to begin and three minutes to complete. The assessment of the move was stopped, if the student did not react for ten seconds.


Students’ performance was assessed as correct or incorrect during probe trials. The correct reactions were the ones that followed the descriptions in the task analyses and were completed in under three minutes. Steps not following the task description, no reactions, or those beyond the three minutes response time were counted as incorrect. When the students indicated that they were done or that the trial was over, they were taken to the classroom and given other activities while the other students were being assessed. For each student, probe trials were conducted for at least two consecutive trials prior to the start of instruction on a specific task, or until the data was stable.

A process sequence consisting of an introduction presentation, a pre-task presentation, and a continuous time delay procedure was used to teach the process of the task. Each instructional trial included two trials. A trial was the ability to complete the task in its entirety. After finishing the first trial, the student was given a break for about one to two minutes. While the student took a short break, the objects were placed again for the second trial.

Before the first trial with the shattered dishes, the teacher or paraprofessional would give an introduction and a pre-task presentation. The introduction provided the basis for safely handling shattered dishes. During the pre-task presentation, the teacher or paraprofessional demonstrated each task in order and included a description of each task. After that, a trial was run with a zero second time delay. During this trial, the focus prompt and task to be performed were given by the teacher or paraprofessional. At each task, the student was given a prompt to follow, and the teacher issued penalties.

After giving the prompt and assigning the task with a ten second delay, the teacher or paraprofessional waited for the student to answer. The teacher or paraprofessional gave the prompt, if the student did not begin the task within ten seconds, and then the student would do the same as the teacher’s or paraprofessional’s actions. Each task took the students three minutes to complete. If the student started a task before the teacher or paraprofessional gave the prompt to begin, the student received a penalty. Starting from the second and following tasks of the trials, the ten seconds delay was counted as soon as the prior step’s penalties were given. Before a student achieved 100% unprompted correct reactions to all phases of the task, plastic objects were used during trial sessions. Real shattered dishes were used in the rest of the teaching and follow-up trials. During these trials the teacher and paraprofessionals were ready to intervene and to prevent students from any harm. Also, during this time one of the students that was on remote learning was switched to in-person learning and participated from this point on in-person during the rest of the study.

The use of real shattered dishes then began during the instructional trials. The students were marked in five categories. If the right unprompted answers were given during the ten seconds constant time delay and within three minutes, they were counted accurate. Only correct reactions given without prompting were counted in the data. The student got a prompted correct answer whether he or she started and finished the correct task within ten seconds of receiving the leading prompt. The teacher’s or paraprofessional’s leading prompt while demonstrating the correct way was to verbally outline each step of the sequence:

  • with each task, a student’s reaction did not reach the task specification,
  • a student finished a work time in a different order than required, or
  • a student took longer than three minutes to complete a task.

If the student performed poorly after the prompt was delivered, or if he or she did not complete the task within the three-minute time limit, prompt mistakes were counted. The student got a no-answer if he or she did not initiate a task within ten seconds of receiving the prompt. The teacher recorded the student’s first reaction after introducing the task request or the prompt.

Students were given verbal reinforcement for each correct task, both unprompted and prompted. Incorrect task was stopped, and the teacher or paraprofessional would tell the student to wait for them to demonstrate it to them, if they did not know how to do the task. Before the student could complete the task right, he or she was given modification trials. The task was completed after one session of 100% unprompted correct reaction to each of the support.

In two follow-up trials after the instructional trials, the students’ success on each of the three activities was assessed. With two exceptions, these trials were completed one week and two weeks after interventions and were the same as the individual probe trials. First, while students waited for a prompt, they were given help, errors were stopped, and the incorrect task was completed for the student. Second, dishes that had been shattered were now included. These changes were made to help with the review of the students’ outcomes on some of the shattered dish’s tasks.

Data Analysis

The efficiency of the intervention in training students to safely pick up and throw away shattered dishes was assessed using a multiple probe design through students and pretend across tasks. The trial areas were set up with at least three sequential probe trials before training on a certain task, then training one task to criterion, probing the remaining tasks for overview, and doing two follow-up trials after criterion success on a task.

Data on consistency was collected for both the dependent and independent trials. For 55% of probe trials, 50% of instructional trials, and 94% of follow-up trials, the teacher collected reliability data on student performance. A point-by-point method of analyzing multiple student understandings. Student understanding during probe trials was 90-95%, 95% for instructional trials, and almost all at 100% for follow-up trials.

The independent trial’s reliability was done at the same time as the student performance results. The teacher’s accuracy in delivering the lesson, pre-work presentation, general listening signal, task order, wait period, prompt, and penalties are assessed. With two exceptions, reliability figures were 100%: waiting during the delay times was 95%, and providing penalties was 90%.


Figures 1 through 3 indicate the number of correctly executed steps during baseline probe trials and daily instructional trials after teaching five students to perform the sink task and three students to perform the table and floor tasks. All students performed incoherently and at relatively low levels during the baseline probe settings. Several routine changes were made for AM to reach criterion level performance on the sink task. After several probe trials, she was not making unprompted correct reactions on Steps 6 and 7 of the tasks during her trials at home. Therefore, four additional zero seconds trials were conducted on those steps. Second, because AM made two prompted errors at the zero seconds delay, the guiding prompt was changed to a physical prompt on Steps 6 and 7 for the remainder of training on the sink task. The ten seconds delay was set in place on Step 7 after two additional zero seconds trials with the guiding physical prompt, and then ten seconds delay was set in place on Step 6 after two additional zero seconds trials with the guiding physical prompt. All remaining trials stayed at ten second’s delay. The modifications were successful in getting criterion level performance. The data was marked, when we saw AM make criterion on the task at least two times.

For the other four students the training of the sink task performed at criterion level after a few mistakes. They all made an error at their first trial of the task but then made minimal ones throughout the rest of their performance, it is reflected on the data sheet. In the week that the probe trials were performed, students had two opportunities to do the task completely. If support was needed the teacher or paraprofessional would step in the give the required support to the student. There was a total of 120 errors were made. Of these errors, 101 (84%) were unprompted and 19 (16%) were prompted.


Follow-up trials were scheduled at approximately two weeks following the completion of the probe trials on each task the results showed that most students met criterion. Those that needed to be prompted, were only prompted once in the step(s) they needed it. On the sink task at trial one post-probe trial, BL, EM and performed at 100% correct unprompted tasks. AM performed 9 of 10 steps correctly, EC performed 6 out of 10 steps correctly and RC performed 4 of 10 steps correctly. On the table task at two weeks post-probe trials, BL and EM performed at criterion levels, and EC performed 9 of 10 steps correctly. At two weeks post-probe trials on the table task, AM, BL, and EM remained at criterion, and RC and EC made errors on several steps. On the floor task at two weeks post-probe trials, BL and EM performed at criterion levels. AM made one error and EC, and RC made several errors. If you noticed that at one-week post-probe trials (instructional trials) most students made errors on their first try at the task but were aware of their errors and made no or less errors during the rest of the trial.


The results of this research study indicated a probe-based consisting of a focus lecture, pre-task demonstration, and a ten second constant time delay procedure that it was effective in teaching the skills of picking up and throwing away shattered dishes from a sink, a table that contained dishes, and a floor. Study of the follow-up data at one-week after the probe trial indicated that 4 of 5 students could perform the sink task, all students could perform the table task, and the floor task. At the instructional trial, the data was mixed. EM performed at criterion on the table task, and BL and RC remained at criterion on the floor task. However, EC and RC could not complete the sink or table task without assistance, and AM required assistance on the sink task. Selecting instructional objects that were similar to common household dishes appeared to help simple performance across instructional tasks. The students had no difficulty handling the many types of shattered dishes that were used.

This research used a trial-and-error approach to teach the students safety skills during the household skills instruction. As a consequence, no single independent variable attribute can be assumed to play a causal function. Just one of the elements, or a combination of them, may have provided results similar to those seen in this study. Matson, J. (1980) used a social modeling procedure which involved teacher demonstrating, student practice, and probe trials. Given the significance and difficulty of teaching home safety skills to students with disabilities, a care package rather than one of the independent variables provided alone could be optimal for teaching these skills.

The study was done like other researchers did in using constant time delay to teach connected tasks to students with disabilities (Horn, A., et al., 2020; Francis, R., et al., 2020; Kurt, O., & Tekin-Iftar, E., 2008; Park, J., et al., 2021). The error rates in those studies were usually low, and my results back up those conclusions. Teaching skills that can injure students requires several thoughts and requirements, one of which is trying to remove errors. Using less error reaction prompting procedures like continuous time delay, either alone or in conjunction with other practices, as in the current study, may be a secure and effective way of teaching other skills where student errors could be detrimental.

As a result, this study has both real-world and academic implications: First, students were protected from harm, because of the use of time delay that minimized the risk of errors; such techniques should be followed by teachers or paraprofessionals teaching home safety skills. Second, the study of time delays was expanded to include a new and significant ability area (i.e., safe handling of shattered dishes). Its use in combination with other abilities that pose a risk of harm should be explored. The sink job proved to be a complicated and challenging task for AM. Gradual time delay may have aided skill development by allowing for a more gradual and less rapid transition of incentive power, as well as reducing the likelihood of errors caused by the initial short reaction period. Since she had previously acquired other skills successfully, a constant time delay was used (e.g., making grilled cheese). Several other researcher have commented on the use of simulations to teach functional and generalized skills (Spivey, C.E. & Mechling, L.C. (2016) Ayres, K.M., & Langone J. (2008)). One of the principal advantages of simulation training is that students can be protected from risks associated with potentially dangerous activities. Before introducing the students to real shattered dishes, we used imitation to guarantee they had learned how to safely treat shattered materials when the likelihood of harm was low. This method of ability development ensures that students’ subsequent contact to potentially harmful materials is closely supervised by teachers or paraprofessionals.


The effectiveness of these instruction data is deterred by the students’ poor performance in follow-up trials for some of the students. Their poor performance may be explained by a variety of factors. First, the success criterion of one trial of 100% right unprompted reaction on each of three supporting activities was likely insufficient. In recollection, having prolonged training for several additional trials to support a smooth post-training success could have been helpful. In this research, I needed to complete it in a short amount of time, and as a result, continuance was not set nor was I able to do a full study on safety skills on emergency situations. I was able to ask students informally what they would do if they got a cut on their hand from the shattered dishes. BL, EM, AM, were able to say they would need to see the nurse, if in school. Further study in this field may confirm high levels of post-training success by offering opportunities for the skills to be exercised frequently and retrained if necessary. Secondly, the students’ daily tasks in other environments were not included in the home safety skills. Given the situation we are in (pandemic), I was not able to provide trials to students in remote learning in persons in the students’ natural environments. Post-training performance might be enhanced by communicating with relevant persons in the students’ environments and informing them of the types of skills being taught and the competencies of the students as a result of such training.

The high number of sequence errors in the one-week follow-up probe trials were concerning because the students might have performed better if they had been assessed using a more functional criterion (i.e., was the student hurt during the mission, was the student not feeling well, and was the shattered dish removed from the area?). We chose to teach the skills in a safe environment because we wanted to avoid causing any harm to the students or anyone else. We were highly cautious based on the findings of the instructional study. Following research could shed more light on this by using a probe trial in which students conduct the task while wearing protective gear. The student would only be stopped if there was a significant risk of being hurt. To score students for training, the student’s success on a practical criterion could be combined with the results of completed trials and random probe trials.


The most challenging aspect of this project was deciding on an instrument that I could use for my students, as I only had three in-person and two remote learning students at the start of the research. Having the two students remote learn necessitated the assistance of an adult at home, which meant that the adult would have to be able to help set up, purchase the materials (which I provided), and clean up afterward. It was also difficult to judge the trials at first and getting the adult to act correctly or not intervene was difficult. It became easier for them to help without getting in the way over time. Having one of the students return to school for in-person learning made it easier to conduct the trials with her. For the past year, I've been teaching online, and a combination of online and in-person on a daily basis, and it has been difficult to teach many skills to my students online because they need a lot of hands-on learning and visuals. This research process taught me that if my students are given the right learning techniques, they will perform at their best. Which, in my opinion, is true for all disabled students. The intervention used in this study can be used in a variety of other curricula. I want to use the intervention I learned in the future to teach other skills to my students (i.e., crossing the street, emergency evacuations, etc.).


Ayres, K.M., & Langone J. (2008). Video Supports for Teaching Students with Developmental Disabilities and Autism: Twenty-Five Years of Research and Development. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340802300301

Francis, R., Winchester, C., Barton, E., Ledford, J., & Velez, M. (2020). Using Progressive Time Delay to Increase Levels of Peer Imitation During Play With Preschoolers With Disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 125(3), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-125.3.186

Horn, A., Gable, R., Bobzien, J., Tonelson, S., & Rock, M. (2020). Teaching Young Adults Job Skills Using a Constant Time Delay and eCoaching Intervention Package. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419828983

Karl, J., Collins, B. C., Hager, K. D., & Ault, M. J. (2013). Teaching core content embedded in a functional activity to students with moderate intellectual disability using a simultaneous prompting procedure. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(3), 363-378. Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.lib.umb.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.umb.edu/scholarly-journals/teaching-core-content-embedded-functional/docview/1503770353/se-2?accountid=28932

Kurt, O., & Tekin-Iftar, E. (2008). A Comparison of Constant Time Delay and Simultaneous Prompting Within Embedded Instruction on Teaching Leisure Skills to Children with Autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121408316046

Matson JL. Preventing Home Accidents: A Training Program for the Retarded. Behavior Modification. 1980;4(3):397-410. doi:10.1177/014544558043008

Park, J., Bouck, E., & Fisher, M. (2021). Using the Virtual–Representational–Abstract With Overlearning Instructional Sequence to Students With Disabilities in Mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 54(4), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920912527

Rogers, W., & Johnson, N. (2018). Strategies to Include Students with Severe/Multiple Disabilities within the General Education Classroom. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 37(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14434/pders.v37i2.24881

Spivey, C. E., & Mechling, L. C. (2016). Video modeling to teach social safety skills to young adults with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51(1), 79-92. Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.lib.umb.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.umb.edu/scholarly-journals/video-modeling-teach-social-safety-skills-young/docview/1764709700/se-2?accountid=28932

Stephenson, J., O’Neill, S., & Carter, M. (2012). Teaching Students with Disabilities: A Web-based Examination of Preparation of Preservice Primary School Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n5.5





Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

All Tags

Content relating to: "Education"

Education is the process of teaching or learning, especially systematically during childhood and adolescence, in a school or college, or the knowledge that someone gains from this. Post study, education can mean the imparting or acquiring of specific knowledge or skills required for a task, or profession for example.

Related Articles

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: