аЯрЁБс > ўџ
ы э ўџџџ с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС 7 №П bjbjUU 8і 7| 7| § Ё F џџ џџ џџ l ,# ,# ,# ,# Q Q Q Q 8 а 4 | Q Р . H д ( ќ ќ ќ Ђ Ђ Ђ ? A A A A A A $ юЅ Ј м e Q Ђ Ђ Ђ Ђ Ђ e ?Н ,# ,# ќ ќ z ?Н ?Н ?Н Ђ к ,# ! ќ Q ќ ? ?Н Ђ ? ?Н ?Н ЧЦ Y d #F LD Р Q K ќ q6IЪ Q xK mЈ $ F l K є 0 Р ѓL XA ъЈ Ќ Ў ъЈ K ?Н Q Q ,# ,# ,# ,# й
USE OF EMBEDDED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN DAILY ROUTINES
BY EARLY INTERVENTION/EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS
Jina Noh
David Allen
Jane Squires
University of Oregon
The purpose of this descriptive study was to investigate the frequency with which teachers use embedded learning opportunities across activities and objectives in inclusive preschool settings. Six student teachers participated and twelve children from three to five years old with and without disabilities participated in the study. Two trained data collectors tallied the frequency of embedded learning opportunities implemented by six student teachers during the daily program activities. Results suggested that the six student teachers frequently used embedded learning opportunities most often during daily routines, including transition, toileting, table activities, and circle time rather than during arrival, departure, free play, and snack activities. The teachers were more likely to use embedded learning opportunities to address certain objectives such as following directions. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Naturalistic teaching approaches are defined as systematic approaches that use typically occurring routines and activities in natural environments as the teaching context (Noonan & McCormick, 1993). Professionals in early intervention/early childhood special education (EI/ECSE) recommend naturalistic teaching approaches as more effective and fun for children. For example, the guidelines in developmentally appropriate practices ADDIN EN.CITE Bredekamp19971DAP, 1Bredekamp, S.1997Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8Washington, DCNational Association for the Education for Young Children(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, as well as the Division for Early Childhood (Sandall, McLean, & Smith, 2000) of the Council for Exceptional Children, support the use of naturalistic teaching approaches for young preschool children. The effectiveness of naturalistic teaching techniques to improve communication, social, and adaptive skills of young children with disabilities has been supported by several studies ADDIN EN.CITE Fox199380Fox, L.Hanline, M. F.1993A preliminary evaluation of learning within developmentally appropriate early childhood settingsTopics in Early Childhood Special Education13308-327(Fox & Hanline, 1993).
Natural teaching approaches include several intervention strategies such as the mand-model and incidental teaching. The mand-model strategies (Warren, McQuarter, & Rogers-Warren, 1984) involve adults modeling and requesting a response based upon a child's interest. For example, a teacher asks the child to tell what he wants; if the child does not respond or responds incorrectly, the teacher can model the correct response. Incidental teaching strategies (Hart & Risely, 1975) are similar to mand-model strategies in terms of the development of childrens language, but they focus more on the child's initiations. Activity-based intervention (ABI), another naturalistic teaching approach, has recently been studied as an approach for young children with and without disabilities to improve childrens development beyond the language skills (Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2004).
Activity-based intervention is a naturalistic teaching approach that is defined as a child-directed, transactional approach that embeds intervention on childrens individual goals and objectives in routine, planned, or child-initiated activities, and uses logically occurring antecedents and consequences to develop functional and generative skills (Bricker, Pretti-Frontczak, & McComas, 1998, p. 11). ABI is comprised of four key features: (a) use of child-directed activities, (b) use of logically occurring antecedents and consequences, (c) use of functional and generative skills, and (d) embedding learning opportunities into routine, planned, or child-initiated activities. A number of studies of naturalistic approaches such as ABI have focused on examining the effectiveness of embedding childrens learning targets in everyday activities. The effectiveness of specific intervention strategies (e.g., progressive time delay, constant time delay, incidental teaching, prompting) during daily routines has also been studied ADDIN EN.CITE Horn200090Horn, E.Lieber, J.Li, S. M.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2000Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunitiesTopics in Early Childhood Special Education20208-223(Horn, Lieber, Li, Sandall, & Schwartz, 2000).
The present study addresses the effectiveness of embedding learning opportunities using ABI. Embedding is defined as a process that occurs across daily activities (child directed, routine, and planned), offering multiple and varied learning opportunities that in turn elicit desired responses from children (i.e., demonstrating functional and generative skills) that are supported by timely and integral feedback or consequences that are supported by timely and integral feedback or consequences that are directly related to a contingent on childrens behaviors. (Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2004, p. 31). Several terms such as embedded learning opportunities ADDIN EN.CITE Horn200090Horn, E.Lieber, J.Li, S. M.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2000Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunitiesTopics in Early Childhood Special Education20208-223Sandall2002281Sandall, S. R.Schwartz, I. S.2002Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needsBaltimoreBrookesHorn2001297Horn, E.Lieber, J.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2001Embedded learning opportunities as an instructional strategy for supporting children's learning in inclusive programsOstrosky, M.Sandall, S.Teaching strategies: What to do to support young children's developmentLongmont, COSopris WestNonograph Series No. 3Young exceptional childrenHorn200090Horn, E.Lieber, J.Li, S. M.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2000Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunitiesTopics in Early Childhood Special Education20208-223Sandall2002281Sandall, S. R.Schwartz, I. S.2002Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needsBaltimoreBrookes(Horn et al., 2000; Horn, Lieber, Sandall, & Schwartz, 2001; Sandall & Schwartz, 2002), embedded instruction ADDIN EN.CITE Daugherty200170Daugherty, S.Grisham-Brown, J.Hemmeter, M. L.2001The effects of embedded skill instruction on the acquisition of target and non-target skills in preschoolers with developmental delaysTopics in Early Childhood Special Education21213-221Fox199380Fox, L.Hanline, M. F.1993A preliminary evaluation of learning within developmentally appropriate early childhood settingsTopics in Early Childhood Special Education13308-327Chiara199560Chiara, L.Schuster, J. W.Bell, J. K.Wolery, M.1995Small-group massed-trial and individually distributed-trial instruction with preschoolersJournal of Early Intervention19203-217Sewell1998180Sewell, T. J.Collins, B. C.Hemmeter, M. L.Schuster, J. W.1998Using simultaneous prompting within an activity-based format to teach dressing skills to preschoolers with developmental delaysJournal of Early Intervention21132-145Venn1993190Venn, M. L.Wolery, M.Werts, M. G.Morris, A.DeCesare, L. D.Cuffs, M. S.1993Embedding instruction into art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peersEarly Childhood Research Quarterly8277-294(Chiara, Schuster, Bell, & Wolery, 1995; Daugherty, Grisham-Brown, & Hemmeter, 2001; Fox & Hanline, 1993; Sewell, Collins, Hemmeter, & Schuster, 1998; Venn et al., 1993), and embedding goals and objectives into daily activities ADDIN EN.CITE Losardo1994100Losardo, A.Bricker, D.1994Activity-based intervention and direct instruction: A comparison studyAmerican Journal on Mental Retardation98744-765Kohler1998140Kohler, F. W.Anthony, L. J.Steighner, S. A.Hoyson, M.1998Teaching social interaction skills in the integrated preschool: An examination of naturalistic tacticsTopics in Early Childhood Special Education2193-103(Kohler, Anthony, Steighner, & Hoyson, 1998; Losardo & Bricker, 1994) have been used with a slightly different meaning (Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2001).
The embedding of learning opportunities has been used to target goals and objectives on individualized educational plans (IEP) and individualized family support plans (IFSP) of young children with disabilities in inclusive preschool classrooms. Multiple opportunities to practice goals and objectives within the context of daily routines can be provided through embedding, and this improves childrens learning and developmental progress. For example, if a childs goal is to use five action words to describe objects, people, or events, a teacher could embed learning opportunities to target the childs goal during outside play. While the teacher and child are playing outside with a ball, the teacher could provide the child with opportunities to practice several action words such as catch, kick, throw, roll, and bounce as the child engages in play. Table 1 presents examples of embedding goals and objectives during daily routines.
Table 1.
Examples of Embedding Goals and Objectives during Daily Routines
Goals and Objectives
Routines
Embedded Learning Opportunities
Uses two hands to manipulate objects, each hand performing different movement
Table activity
When making fruit salad, the teacher encourages the child to cut fruits such as bananas and strawberries into small pieces with a child-safe kitchen knife, to open or close the lids on yogurt or granola containers, and to tie or button their smocks.
Uses 1-2 words to request, inform, and greet
Snack
The teacher interrupts the child who is reaching for the food or places the food within his or her sight but unreachable. Then the teacher asks, what do you want? If the child does not respond, then the teacher might model, Say, I want ______ (e.g., cookie, juice) or prompt the child to communicate a need for assistance
Follows directions of three or more related steps that are not routinely given
Free play
When the child asks the teacher if he or she can paint, the teacher can says, Sure you can. First, get a smock, Then, get a piece of paper, and bring it to the easel.
Embedded learning opportunities during routines provide promising intervention strategies for several reasons. First, embedding does not require changes in the classroom routine, teachers ongoing responsibilities, materials, or additional staff. Second, caregivers, peers, and therapists can be involved as well as teachers in the use of embedded learning opportunities ADDIN EN.CITE Horn200090Horn, E.Lieber, J.Li, S. M.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2000Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunitiesTopics in Early Childhood Special Education20208-223Sandall2002281Sandall, S. R.Schwartz, I. S.2002Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needsBaltimoreBrookesWolery1994267Wolery, M.1994Implementing instruction for young children with special needs in early childhood classroomsM. WoleryJ. S. WilbersIncluding children with special needs in early childhood programsWashington, DCNAEYC6151-166Pretti-Frontczak2001160Pretti-Frontczak, K. L.Bricker, D. D.2001Use of the embedding strategy by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachersInfant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal11111-128Pretti-Frontczak2001160Pretti-Frontczak, K. L.Bricker, D. D.2001Use of the embedding strategy by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachersInfant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal11111-128Pretti-Frontczak2001160Pretti-Frontczak, K. L.Bricker, D. D.2001Use of the embedding strategy by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachersInfant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal11111-128Pretti-Frontczak2001160Pretti-Frontczak, K. L.Bricker, D. D.2001Use of the embedding strategy by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachersInfant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal11111-128Pretti-Frontczak2001160Pretti-Frontczak, K. L.Bricker, D. D.2001Use of the embedding strategy by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachersInfant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal11111-128Pretti-Frontczak2001160Pretti-Frontczak, K. L.Bricker, D. D.2001Use of the embedding strategy by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachersInfant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal11111-128(Horn et al., 2000; Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2001; Sandall & Schwartz, 2002; Wolery, 1994). Third, the use of embedded learning opportunities provides multiple chances for children to practice target goals within daily routines and to generalize their skills across situations ADDIN EN.CITE Losardo1994100Losardo, A.Bricker, D.1994Activity-based intervention and direct instruction: A comparison studyAmerican Journal on Mental Retardation98744-765Pretti-Frontczak2001160Pretti-Frontczak, K. L.Bricker, D. D.2001Use of the embedding strategy by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachersInfant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal11111-128Sandall2002281Sandall, S. R.Schwartz, I. S.2002Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needsBaltimoreBrookesWolery2002200Wolery, M.Anthony, L.Caldwell, N. K.Snyder, E. D.Morgante, J. D.2002Embedding and distributing constant time delay in circle time and transitionsTopics in Early Childhood Special Education2214-25(Losardo & Bricker, 1994; Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2001; Sandall & Schwartz, 2002; Wolery, Anthony, Caldwell, Snyder, & Morgante, 2002). Fourth, the use of embedded learning opportunities is applicable in inclusive programs as well as with various curricular models. Fifth, the use of embedded learning opportunities focuses upon childrens interests and motivation which many facilitate their learning and development ADDIN EN.CITE Sandall2002281Sandall, S. R.Schwartz, I. S.2002Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needsBaltimoreBrookesPretti-Frontczak2001160Pretti-Frontczak, K. L.Bricker, D. D.2001Use of the embedding strategy by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachersInfant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal11111-128(Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2001; Sandall & Schwartz, 2002).
Previous studies on embedded learning opportunities have investigated the feasibility of teachers or caregivers embedding childrens goals and objectives into daily routines ADDIN EN.CITE Horn200090Horn, E.Lieber, J.Li, S. M.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2000Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunitiesTopics in Early Childhood Special Education20208-223Venn1992300Venn, M. L.Wolery, M.1992Increasing day care staff members' interactions during caregiving routinesJournal of Early Intervention16304-319Wolery2002200Wolery, M.Anthony, L.Caldwell, N. K.Snyder, E. D.Morgante, J. D.2002Embedding and distributing constant time delay in circle time and transitionsTopics in Early Childhood Special Education2214-25Woods2004270Woods, J.Kashinath, S.Goldstein, H.2004Effects of embedding caregiver-implemented teaching strategies in daily routines on children's communication outcomesJournal of Early Intervention26175-193(Horn et al., 2000; Venn & Wolery, 1992; Wolery et al., 2002; Woods, Kashinath, & Goldstein, 2004). Studies have also investigated the effect of embedded learning opportunities on childrens developmental progress (Fox & Hanline, 1993; Horn et al., 2000; Venn et al., 1993; Woods, Kashinath, & Goldstein, 2004). For example, Wolery and colleagues (2002) investigated the use of embedding and distributing trials during circle time and transitions. Results showed that teachers were successfully embedding learning objectives, and children acquired and generalized the target behaviors. Woods et al. (2004) investigated the effects of embedding caregiver-implemented teaching strategies into daily routines to improve childrens communication skills. Findings indicated that caregivers were capable of embedding teaching strategies within daily routines, and children improved targeted communication skills. University practicum students were found to successfully use embedding strategies within an inclusive program to teach the acquisition and generalization of fine motor, cognitive, and language skills (Fox & Hanline, 1993).
Venn, Wolery, Werts, and colleagues (1993) conducted a study of embedding time delay procedures into art activities to teach three children with severe disabilities to imitate their peers. Results showed that all three boys learned to imitate their peers. Findings from other studies also indicated that embedding strategies resulted in improvement in picture naming (Chiara, Schuster, Bell, & Wolery, 1995), counting objects ADDIN EN.CITE Daugherty200170Daugherty, S.Grisham-Brown, J.Hemmeter, M. L.2001The effects of embedded skill instruction on the acquisition of target and non-target skills in preschoolers with developmental delaysTopics in Early Childhood Special Education21213-221(Daugherty, Grisham-Brown, & Hemmeter, 2001), language/communication ADDIN EN.CITE Horn200090Horn, E.Lieber, J.Li, S. M.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2000Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunitiesTopics in Early Childhood Special Education20208-223Schwartz1996170Schwartz, I. S.Carta, J. J.Grant, S.1996Examining the use of recommended language intervention practices in early childhood special education classroomsTopics in Early Childhood Special Education16251-272Woods2004270Woods, J.Kashinath, S.Goldstein, H.2004Effects of embedding caregiver-implemented teaching strategies in daily routines on children's communication outcomesJournal of Early Intervention26175-193(Horn et al., 2000; Schwartz, Carta, & Grant, 1996; Woods, Kashinath, & Goldstein, 2004), learning social skills such as listening ADDIN EN.CITE Brigman1999110Brigman, G.Lane, D.Switzer, D.Lane, D.Lawrence, R.1999Teaching children school success skillsJournal of Educational Research92323-329(Brigman, Lane, Switzer, Lane, & Lawrence, 1999), and fine motor skills ADDIN EN.CITE Horn200090Horn, E.Lieber, J.Li, S. M.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2000Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunitiesTopics in Early Childhood Special Education20208-223Sewell1998180Sewell, T. J.Collins, B. C.Hemmeter, M. L.Schuster, J. W.1998Using simultaneous prompting within an activity-based format to teach dressing skills to preschoolers with developmental delaysJournal of Early Intervention21132-145(Horn et al., 2000; Sewell, Collins, Hemmeter, & Schuster, 1998).
To date few studies have addressed how frequently teachers embed learning opportunities in inclusive preschool settings. There is even some concern that a high frequency of embedding opportunities may interrupt ongoing activities and childrens social interactions ADDIN EN.CITE Horn200090Horn, E.Lieber, J.Li, S. M.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2000Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunitiesTopics in Early Childhood Special Education20208-223Carta199540Carta, J. J.1995Developmentally appropriate practice: A critical analysis as applied to young children with disabilitiesFocus on Exceptional Children272-14Cavallaro199350Cavallaro, C.Haney, M.Cabello, B.1993Developmentally appropriate strategies for promoting full participation in early childhood settingsTopics in Early Childhood Special Education13293-307Wolery2002200Wolery, M.Anthony, L.Caldwell, N. K.Snyder, E. D.Morgante, J. D.2002Embedding and distributing constant time delay in circle time and transitionsTopics in Early Childhood Special Education2214-25Horn200090Horn, E.Lieber, J.Li, S. M.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2000Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunitiesTopics in Early Childhood Special Education20208-223(Carta, 1995; Cavallaro, Haney, & Cabello, 1993; Horn et al., 2000; Wolery et al., 2002). Pretti-Frontczak (1996) suggested that children who made the most progress on targeted skills were not necessarily paired with teachers who embedded most often. However, some researchers believe that frequent high quality opportunities for practicing target skills will increase learning and development of children with special needs ADDIN EN.CITE Horn2001297Horn, E.Lieber, J.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2001Embedded learning opportunities as an instructional strategy for supporting children's learning in inclusive programsOstrosky, M.Sandall, S.Teaching strategies: What to do to support young children's developmentLongmont, COSopris WestNonograph Series No. 3Young exceptional childrenSandall2002281Sandall, S. R.Schwartz, I. S.2002Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needsBaltimoreBrookesSchwartz1996170Schwartz, I. S.Carta, J. J.Grant, S.1996Examining the use of recommended language intervention practices in early childhood special education classroomsTopics in Early Childhood Special Education16251-272Horn2001297Horn, E.Lieber, J.Sandall, S.Schwartz, I.2001Embedded learning opportunities as an instructional strategy for supporting children's learning in inclusive programsOstrosky, M.Sandall, S.Teaching strategies: What to do to support young children's developmentLongmont, COSopris WestNonograph Series No. 3Young exceptional children(Horn et al., 2001; Sandall & Schwartz, 2002; Schwartz, Carta, & Grant, 1996). Studies regarding the importance of intensity or amount of learning opportunities are needed (Wolery & Bailey, 2002).
Pretti-Frontczak and Bricker (2001) found that teachers rarely (i.e., around 12 times within 120 minutes or 9.7% of intervals observed) embedded learning opportunities to teach targeted goals and objectives, and children only received opportunities to practice developmental skills approximately 12 times a day based upon half-day schedules of typical preschool programs (i.e., 2-3 hours per class). Teachers used embedded learning opportunities most often in one-on-one situations by asking questions, providing verbal models, and engaging in a language or pre-academic activity with instructional materials (Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2001).
The present study was designed to investigate the frequency with which teachers use embedded learning opportunities with children enrolled in inclusive preschools. This study examined three research questions: (a) How often do teachers embed learning opportunities of children's targeted objectives into daily routines?; (b) How often do teachers embed learning opportunities into daily routines across classroom activities?; and (c) How often do teachers embed learning opportunities into daily routines across childrens objectives?
Method
Setting and Participants
This descriptive study was conducted in a five-week summer preschool program operated by the Early Intervention Program at the University of Oregon. It is a model activity-based intervention program that provides a safe and supportive environment for children from ages three to five years to elicit developmentally- and age-appropriate skills as well as teacher-training experience for Master's students.
Six Masters students served as teachers in the inclusive classroom that included twelve children with and without disabilities (i.e., 4 girls, 8 boys; 4 typically developing children, 8 children with disabilities). Two children were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder; one child with emotional disorder; and five children were labeled as developmentally delayed. The program operated three consecutive days per week, three hours per day, for five weeks. The classroom routines included arrival, table activities, circle, outside play, toileting, snack, free play, clean up, and departure sessions.
The six teachers (one male and five female) were Masters students who had completed 3 terms of graduate work and were scheduled to graduate at the end of the summer term in which the preschool program took place. They had a variety of pre-training experience and qualifications ranging from Montessori primary certification and six years teaching experience, to Head Start, community preschool, and elementary school teaching experience for two years.
Table 2
Childrens Disabilities, Gender, Age, and Target Objectives
Teachers had completed three terms of course work and 600 hours of field experience at the time of the study. They had learned to write high quality goals and objectives (i.e., functionality, generality, instructional context, measurability, hierarchical relation between long range goal and short-term objective) based upon the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (Bricker, 2002) and to embed learning opportunities into daily routines. For the summer program, the teachers wrote two learning objectives across developmental domains for all twelve children based on family priorities. Childrens disabilities, gender, age, and target objectives are summarized in Table 2.
Child
Age
Gender
Disability Diagnosis
First Objective
Second Objective
1
4
Male
Typically developing
Follows directions
Copies letters of name23.5FemaleTypically developingFollows directions Takes turns with others34MaleDevelopmental delayFollows directions Takes turns with others45.5MaleAutism spectrum disorderFollows directions Responds appropriately to directions during large group activities54MaleTypically developingFollows directions Initiates cooperative activities63MaleDevelopmental delayFollows directions Demonstrates understanding of
8 different colors74FemaleDevelopmental delayFollows directions Demonstrates understanding of
8 different colors84FemaleTypically developingFollows directions Rides/steers tricycle93FemaleDevelopmental delayUses toiletUses 4-5 word sentences to inform others103MaleDevelopmental delayIndicates need to use toiletUses 2-3 word sentences
to inform others115.5MaleEmotional disorderInitiates cooperative activityUses simple strategies
to resolve conflicts124.5MaleAutism spectrum disorderInitiates greetings with peersInteracts with others
as play partners
Measurement Procedure
For this study, embedded learning opportunities were operationally defined as contexts or teacher's actions designed to intentionally elicited children's targeted goals and objectives including:
Arranging the environment in a purposeful manner (e.g., putting materials slightly out reach of the child, forgetting to put utensils at mealtime)
Providing new materials/activities (e.g., placing a measuring cup in the water table activity to practice pouring)
Adapting materials/activities (e.g., adapting utensils, scissors, etc. per childs needs)
Providing performance cues by using verbal prompt (e.g., comments, questions, and requests), nonverbal prompt (e.g., waiting), visual prompt (e.g., pictures, toys), auditory prompt, modeling, and physical guidance (Horn et al., 2000).
Two research assistants with Masters level training in EI/ECSE collected data during three and half weeks of a five-week program. Each research assistant recorded the number of embedded learning opportunities, activities, and objectives used for embedded learning opportunities. Each teacher was observed in one interval of 20 minutes, broken down into four 5-minute segments. Four teachers were observed per day, for a total of 760 minutes among the six teachers. The teachers were unaware of the types of data that were being collected.
Observations were conducted during a variety of classroom activities each day. Table 3 provides a summary of the intervals/segments and minutes of teacher observations. The teachers were observed unequally during this study because of events such as absence of teachers and research assistants.
Table 3.
Summary of Number of 20-Minute Intervals and 5-Minute Segments and
Total Minutes of Teacher Observations
Teacher
Number of
20-Minute Intervals
Observed
Number of
5-Minute Segments Observed
Total minutes1 8321602 6 241203 8 321604 7 281405 5 201006 4 16 80Total38152760
Observers counted embedded learning opportunities only when the teachers attempted to elicit a specific behavior and the child responded. A response was counted as an attempt at the behavior or no attempt at the behavior by the child. When eliciting the behavior, the teacher needed to be in proximity of the child (i.e., within 2-3 feet). An opportunity was not counted if the child did not hear or was not aware of the teacher eliciting the specified behavior. An opportunity was not counted if the research assistants were unable to observe the teachers embedded opportunities such as arranging the environment. An opportunity was not counted if directions were given for all children rather than just the taught child.
Interobserver Agreement
The two research assistants were trained using videotape and direct observation until they reached at least 85% interobserver agreement. Reliability checks were conducted on approximately 20% of total observations throughout the study (i.e., 7 times on the basis of 38 20-minute intervals). Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of observer agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100 ADDIN EN.CITE Richards1999321Richards, S. B.Taylor, R. L.Ramasamy, R.Richards, R. Y.1999Single subject research: Applications in educational and clinical settingsSan DiegoSingular Publishing Group(Richards, Taylor, Ramasamy, & Richards, 1999). Agreement levels ranged from 85.71 % to 100 % with an average of 94.57 % throughout the study.
Results
Data were collected and summarized in terms of frequency of embedded learning opportunities provided by each teacher across activities and objectives. First, the frequency of embedding learning opportunities in various daily routines was summarized per 20-minute interval and per 5-minute segment across each teacher, including total, weighted mean, and weighted standard deviation, as shown in Table 4. The mean of the number of embedded learning opportunities per 20-minute interval and 5-minute segment were weighted by the number of 20-minute intervals and 5-minutes segments because of the unequal observation intervals across teachers. The weighted standard deviations were calculated to reflect the weighted variances of the weighted means.
The first question, How often do teachers embed learning opportunities of children's targeted objectives into daily routines? examined the frequency with which the six teachers embed learning opportunities of children's targeted objectives into daily routines. The average number of embedded learning opportunities for all teachers was 7.87 times within a 20-minute interval and 1.97 times within a 5-minute segment. However, the number of embedded learning opportunities varied across the six teachers. For example, teacher #1 embedded learning opportunities 10.88 times within a 20-minute interval and 2.72 times within a 5-minute segment while teacher #4 embedded learning opportunities only 1.6 times within a 20-minute interval and 0.39 times within a 5-minute segment.
Table 4.
Frequency and Percent of Embedded Learning Opportunities across Teachers
TeachersNumber of 5-Minute Segments Observed
(Minutes)Total Number of Embedded Learning Opportunities
OccurredNumber of Embedded Learning Opportunities
Per 20-Minute intervalNumber of Embedded Learning Opportunities
Per 5-Minute segment132 (160)8710.882.72224 (120)6210.332.58332 (160)617.631.91428 (140)111.570.39520 (100)5010.002.50616 (80)287.001.75Total152 (760)299..Weighted mean..7.871.97Weighted
standard
deviation..3.340.83
The second question, How often do teachers embed learning opportunities into daily routines across classroom activities? examined the overall frequency with which the six teachers embed learning opportunities of children's targeted objectives into daily routines across activities. Teachers tended to use embedded learning opportunities for certain activities such as transition, toileting, table, outside, and circle activities rather than arrival, departure, free play, and snack activities. The frequency and percent of embedded learning opportunities observed across activities are summarized in Table 5. Teachers use of embedded learning opportunities were frequently observed during transition (i.e., 5.71 times within a 5-minute segment, or 26.74%) and toileting (i.e., 5.5 times within a 5-minute segment, or 25.74%), and were not observed during departure.
Table 5.
Frequency and Percent of Embedded Learning Opportunities across Activities
ActivitiesTotal Number of 5-Minute Segments
Observed (minutes)
Total Number of Embedded Learning Opportunities
OccurredNumber of Embedded Learning Opportunities Per 5-Minute SegmentPercent of Embedded Learning Opportunities
Occurred
Arrival
4 (20)
41.004.68Table activity20 (100)522.6012.17Circle14 (70)342.4311.36Outside30 (150)371.235.77Snack13 (60)151.155.40Toileting2 (10)115.5025.74Transition7 (35)405.7126.74Free play61 (305)1061.748.13Departure1 (5)000Total152 (760)29921.37100
The third question, How often do teachers embed learning opportunities into daily routines across childrens objectives? examined the overall frequency with which the six teachers embed learning opportunities of children's targeted objectives into daily routines across objectives. As shown in Table 6, teachers were most likely to embed learning opportunities to address the objective, follows directions (i.e., 33.75 times within a 5-minute segment, or 66.5%). Objectives targeting social skills such as initiating cooperative activities, taking turns with others (i.e., 1.5 times within a 5-minute segment, or 2.96%), and interacting with others as play partners (i.e., 2 times within a 5-minute segment, or 3.94%) were less frequently observed. Objectives addressing social-communication skills like using a multi-word sentence to inform others (4.5 times within a 5-minute segment, or 8.87%) were rarely observed. Embedded learning opportunities to address such objectives as copying letters of name and riding/steering tricycles did not occur during observation periods. Embedded learning opportunities were frequently observed with children who had the objective of follows directions (e.g., Child 3, Child 4, Child, 7), whereas it was rarely observed with other children who did not have this as a goal (e.g., Child 8, Child 9, Child 10). Embedded learning opportunities appeared to depend on childrens objectives rather than disabilities because there were no significant differences between children with disabilities and children without disabilities in terms of the frequency of embedded learning opportunities.
Table 6.
Frequency and Percent of Embedded Learning Opportunities across Childrens Objectives
Objectives
(The number of children who had objectives)Total Number of Embedded Learning Opportunities
OccurredNumber of Embedded Learning Opportunities
Per ObjectivePercent of Embedded Learning Opportunities
OccurredFollows directions given (8)270
33.75
66.50Demonstrates understanding of 8 different colors (2) 52.504.93Initiates cooperative activities (2) 31.502.96Uses 2-3 or 4-5 word sentences to inform others (2) 94.508.87Takes turns with others (2) 31.502.96Resolves conflicts using simple strategies (1) 55 9.85Interacts with others as play partners (2) 423.94Other objectives (5) 000Total299.100
Discussion
The purpose of this descriptive study was to investigate the frequency with which teachers used embedded learning opportunities across classroom activities and children's objectives in inclusive preschool settings. The results from this descriptive study add to the current literature on how often teachers embed learning opportunities into daily routines to address childrens targeted objectives. Specifically, this study provided information regarding the frequency of embedded learning opportunities across teachers, activities, and objectives. The results also add to previous research findings by using advanced practicum teachers in an inclusive classroom.
Teachers embedded learning opportunities an average of 7.87 times in each 20-minute interval with children with and without disabilities in a preschool program that operated three hours per day, three days per week. Pretti-Frontczak and Bricker (2001) found that seven early childhood and early childhood special education teachers embedded learning opportunities on an average of 12 times within a 120-minute period or 2 times within a 20-minute period. Compared to this previous study, teachers in the present study provided much more frequently embedded learning opportunities in daily routines to address childrens objectives (i.e., a projected 72 times a day, 216 times per week). Differing results from the two studies could possibly be the result of the characteristics of teachers in the present study who were already intensively trained to implement embedded learning opportunities. In addition, childrens objectives in this summer program might have facilitated embedding because special materials and activities were not needed (e.g., following directions). In addition, findings indicated that whereas teacher #1 embedded learning opportunities 10.88 times within a 20-minute interval, teacher #4 embedded learning opportunities only 1.6 times within a 20-minute interval. Different results between teachers could possibly be the results of differing levels of expertise or different individual personalities or teaching philosophies.
Results from this study suggest teachers were more likely to embed childrens objectives during transition, toileting, table activities, and circle time rather than other activities. A possible explanation regarding lower frequency with certain activities may be that teachers were unable to embed childrens objectives because of classroom roles and responsibilities. For example, some teachers were conducting assessments, preparing planned activities, or taking notes for parents during ongoing classroom activities. While Horn et al. (2000) indicated that teachers found it difficult to embed learning opportunities during group activities, the present study suggests embedded learning opportunities can frequently occur during group activities such as circle time. Type of embedded objectives may interact with the types of activities in which the objectives are embedded. For example, the teachers frequently embedded the objective of follows directions during group activities.
Teachers appeared to provide multiple and varied learning opportunities to address certain types of objectives. They were most likely to embed learning opportunities to address the target objective of follows directions compared with other objectives. However, they may find it more difficult to embed certain objectives such as riding tricycles because of the need for particular materials and activities. Social-communication and social objectives may be embedded more easily than other objectives because they do not require specific materials. For example, a social-communication objective such as use of 2-3 words to inform others may be embedded across various daily activities during arrival, snack, or circle time. However, embedded learning opportunities on these objectives were rarely observed in the study, perhaps because parents did not target these objectives in this summer classroom.
Findings from this study regarding frequency of embedded learning opportunities need to be considered with caution. First, a small number of trained teachers, children, and objectives were observed in a model program. The teachers were trained with a specific focus on embedded learning opportunities, which may have increased the number of observed embedded activities. Second, most of the children with disabilities in this inclusive class had mild to moderate developmental delays and none had more severe disabilities. Embedded learning opportunities for children with severe disabilities may be more challenging and may influence how teachers embed learning opportunities into a variety of classroom activities. In addition, all of the children with disabilities were in their first classroom placement and may have had an initial positive adjustment to classroom rules, peer interaction, and teachers instructions. Thus, the participants and setting in the present study may not accurately represent teachers and children in typical community-based programs.
A third limitation of the present study is that numbers of observations across teachers and activities were not equal. As stated before, each teachers and activity was observed unequally because of events like the absence of teachers and unavailability of observers.
Fourth, childrens progress toward learning objectives was not observed in this study. Findings indicated that teachers frequently embedded childrens objectives but it could not be concluded that the children benefited from a high frequency of embedded learning opportunities because progress was not measured. Pretti-Frontczak (1996) concluded that young children with disabilities benefited when their goals and objectives were embedded frequently. However, she found the frequency of embedded learning opportunities was not the only factor in childrens progress; a child who made the most developmental progress was not necessarily paired with a teacher who embedded most often.
Based upon these limitations above, there are several implications for future research in inclusive classrooms for young children. First, future studies should examine the functional relationship between the high frequency of embedded learning opportunities and childrens progress toward targeted goals and objectives. Second, the type of teaching strategies used with embedded learning opportunities and the quality of how learning opportunities are embedded should be examined. Finally, the effectiveness of embedding learning opportunities across various types of children as well as across goals and objectives in a wide range of early intervention programs under a range of differing philosophies needs to be examined.
Past research regarding embedded learning opportunities has mostly focused on embedding teaching strategies of childrens goals and objectives in daily routines. A very limited number of studies has targeted how often teachers embed learning opportunities across activities and objectives throughout a classroom day. A better understanding of teachers use of embedded learning opportunities might provide a foundation for providing high-quality training on the effective use of embedded learning opportunities. Further, this line of research related to embedding childrens goals and objectives across daily routines is the first step toward second-generation research (Guralnick, 1997) emphasizing specific and effective intervention strategies to meet the needs of all young children and their families.
References
ADDIN EN.REFLIST Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education for Young Children.
Bricker, D. (Series Ed.). (2002). Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children (2nd ed., Vols. 1-4). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Bricker, D., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & McComas, N. (1998). An activity-based approach to early intervention. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Brigman, G., Lane, D., Switzer, D., Lane, D., & Lawrence, R. (1999). Teaching children school success skills. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 323-329.
Carta, J. J. (1995). Developmentally appropriate practice: A critical analysis as applied to young children with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27, 2-14.
Cavallaro, C., Haney, M., & Cabello, B. (1993). Developmentally appropriate strategies for promoting full participation in early childhood settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 293-307.
Chiara, L., Schuster, J. W., Bell, J. K., & Wolery, M. (1995). Small-group massed-trial and individually distributed-trial instruction with preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 203-217.
Daugherty, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2001). The effects of embedded skill instruction on the acquisition of target and non-target skills in preschoolers with developmental delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 213-221.
Fox, L., & Hanline, M. F. (1993). A preliminary evaluation of learning within developmentally appropriate early childhood settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 308-327.
Guralnick (1997). The effectiveness of early intervention. Baltimore: Brookes.
Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411-420.
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Li, S. M., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2000). Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 208-223.
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2001). Embedded learning opportunities as an instructional strategy for supporting children's learning in inclusive programs. In S. Sandall (Ed.), Teaching strategies: What to do to support young children's development (Vol. Nonograph Series No. 3). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Kohler, F. W., Anthony, L. J., Steighner, S. A., & Hoyson, M. (1998). Teaching social interaction skills in the integrated preschool: An examination of naturalistic tactics. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 93-103.
Losardo, A., & Bricker, D. (1994). Activity-based intervention and direct instruction: A comparison study. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 744-765.
Noonan, M., & McCormick, L. (1993). Early Intervention in natural environments: Methods and procedures. Belmont, CA: Brookes/Cole Publishing Co.
Odom, S. L. (2002). Widening the circle: including children with disabilities in preschool program. NY: Teachers college press.
Pretti-Frontczak, K. L., & Bricker, D. D. (2001). Use of the embedding strategy by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachers. Infant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal, 11, 111-128.
Pretti-Frontczak, K. L., & Bricker, D. D. (2004). An activity-based approach to early intervention (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R. Y. (1999). Single subject research: Applications in educational and clinical settings. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
Sandall, S., McLean, M., Smith, B. (2000). DEC Recommended Practices in Early
Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education. Longmont, CO, Sopris West.
Sandall, S. R., & Schwartz, I. S. (2002). Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needs. Baltimore: Brookes.
Schwartz, I. S., Carta, J. J., & Grant, S. (1996). Examining the use of recommended language intervention practices in early childhood special education classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 251-272.
Sewell, T. J., Collins, B. C., Hemmeter, M. L., & Schuster, J. W. (1998). Using simultaneous prompting within an activity-based format to teach dressing skills to preschoolers with developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 132-145.
Venn, M. L., & Wolery, M. (1992). Increasing day care staff members' interactions during caregiving routines. Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 304-319.
Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Morris, A., DeCesare, L. D., & Cuffs, M. S. (1993). Embedding instruction into art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 277-294.
Warren, S. F., McQuarter, R. J., & Rogers-Warren, A. P. (1984). The effects of mands and
models on the speech of unresponsive language- delayed preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 43-52.
Wolery, M. (1994). Implementing instruction for young children with special needs in early childhood classrooms. In M. Wolery & J. S. Wilbers (Eds.), Including children with special needs in early childhood programs (Vol. 6, pp. 151-166). Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Wolery, M., Anthony, L., Caldwell, N. K., Snyder, E. D., & Morgante, J. D. (2002). Embedding and distributing constant time delay in circle time and transitions. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 14-25.
Wolery, M. & Bailey, D. B. (2002). Early childhood special education research. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 88-99.
Woods, J., Kashinath, S., & Goldstein, H. (2004). Effects of embedding caregiver-implemented teaching strategies in daily routines on children's communication outcomes. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 175-193.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 24 No 2 2009
PAGE 24
PAGE 1
Psychiatric Diagnoses 1
І Л Н w x ѓ '
(
. / я
№
Ф Х к л т ь ) M Љ T U А Б Д ) х ч ( G H I Й &