Then the linear structures allows us to introduce more tangible conditions implying stability of the residual method.
There was a qualitative difference between the two conditions in the number of times the facets were included in the posttest, with facets being more frequently included in the responses from the students in the tangible model condition than the image condition (Table 3).
Each participant was randomly assigned to one of three groups in the tangible model condition (n = 15) or one of three groups in the image condition (n = 17).
Students in the tangible model condition included random molecular collisions in their explanation somewhat more often than did students in the image condition (Table 3).
In addition, the tangible model condition had a lower fraction of posttest responses that did not include any facet compared with the image condition, and the most complex responses were found in the tangible model group, with some responses including four facets (Table 4).
Results indicate that the antecedent communication intervention reduced challenging behavior in the subsequent tangible test condition for all three students.
A tentative difference was observed in response complexity, with more multifaceted responses in the tangible model condition.
Students in the tangible model condition incorporated reversibility in their responses to the open-ended test item more frequently than did students in the image condition (Table 3).
Students in the tangible model condition used the facets of self-assembly in their open-ended posttest responses more frequently than students in the image condition.
