Professional Development in Embedded Instruction

8/6/2019 Professional Development in Embedded Instruction

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/professional-development-in-embedded-instruction 1/23

Professional Development in EmbeddedInstruction

A previous version of this presentation was delivered at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association

April 2011New Orleans, LA

Funded by the Institute of Education SciencesR324A070008

Mary McLean, Ph.D. - University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeePatricia Snyder, Ph.D. - University of Florida

Susan Sandall, Ph.D. - University of Washington

Mary Louise Hemmeter, Ph.D. - Vanderbilt University



Embedded InstructionMulti-component approach to provideintentional and systematic instruction

on priority learning targets

during typically occurringactivities, routines, and transitions

to supportchild engagement and learning





EC PD “Need” Relevantfor Present Study

• Descriptive studies have shown manyearly childhood practitioners do not feel – Competent

– Confident• To meet the needs of young children with

disabilities in inclusive learning contexts – Access – Participation



Theory of Change: Abbreviated

Teachers’

Frequent

and

Accurate

Use of

Embedded ‐

Instruction

Practices

Increased Child

Learning

Opportunities

Child

Engagement

and Learning

Workshops(high ‐ quality/

interactive)

Coaching(on ‐ site coaching

or self ‐ coaching)

P D I n t er v en t i on

Tool Kit(Multi‐ media

materials)

ContextualVariables

Instructional“Quality”

Instructional“Effectiveness”



Potential Efficacy Study

• Conducted in FL, WA, and WI

• 36 preschool teachers

– 3 sites – 11 to 13 teachers per site

• 106 children across 3 sites – 2-3 “target” children with disabilities in each

teacher’s classroom



Design• Teachers were randomly assigned to one of

three conditions at each site – Tools for Teachers workshops plus on-site coaching – Tools for Teachers workshops plus self-coaching – Wait-list comparison (control)

• Proximal outcome measures: 5 occasions – Before and after workshops – 2 nd month and 4 th month of coaching

– After intervention

• Distal outcome measures: pre and post – Before workshops

– After intervention



Teacher InformationOn ‐ site

Coaching

(n = 12)

Self ‐ Coaching(n = 12)

Control(n = 12)

Female 12 12 11Race White/Non ‐ Hispanic

African American

Hispanic

Other a

8 10 9

1 0 2

1 1 0

2 1 1

Education BachelorMaster

6 9 8

6 3 4b

ECSE

Trainc

YesNo 9 8 92 4 3

Yrs.Experience in EC

M = 9.3 M = 6 M = 7.5

SD = 6.0 SD = 4.0 SD = 4.2

8



Child Information

On ‐ site Coaching

(n = 35)

Self ‐ Coaching

(n = 36)

Control

(n = 35)

Gender30 males5 females

25 males11 females

27 males8 females

Mean Age in Mos.(SD)

48.6(8.7)

46.8(8.1)

52.7(8.4)

Mean ABILITIES Index score (SD)

1.8

(.5)

1.7

(.4)

1.7

(.6)

9

All participating children were identified with disabilities thatqualified them to receive education and related services underSection 619 of IDEA.

All children enrolled in the study had IEP



Primary Research Questions• What is the relationship between exposure to PD intervention and

teachers’ frequent and accurate use of embedded-instructionpractices? – Developing quality learning targets (LTRS) – Implementing planned learning opportunities (EIOS) – Delivering complete learning trials (EIOS)

• Do scores on standardized measures of key preschool indicators(pre-academic, literacy, language, and social-emotional behavior)differ among children whose teachers were involved in each of the

three experimental PD conditions?

• What are teachers’ perspectives about embedded instruction andthe professional development they received?



• Teachers in both PD experimental conditions received: – 16.5 hours of workshops

– Implementation guides and materials – Digital video camera

• On-site coaching – Observation, debrief, and email feedback – Mean # sessions = 16 – Mean duration of observation = 73.9 min ( SD = 19.5) – Mean duration of debrief = 39.3 min ( SD = 12.1)

• Web-based coaching*• Wait-list control teachers received workshops,

implementation guides, digital video camera and accessto web site at end of study

Experimental Intervention



• Workshop Implementation Guides

• Workshop Fidelity Checklist – 96.8% (range = 93.6% -99.4%)

• Instructional Strategies Used by Trainer

• Time Allocated versus Time Spent

Procedural Fidelity:Workshops





• Fidelity self-coaching orientation session

– 97.2% (range 91.7%-100%)

• Fidelity weekly e-mail reminder to teachersin the self-coaching condition – 100%

Procedural Fidelity:Self-Coaching



Select Findings



Coaching Strategies: Observation



Coaching Strategies: Debrief

17



Self-Coaching and Website Use# of visits

every 2weeks a

Average timeon site pervisit b (min)

# of actionplans

submitted c

# of formsuploaded to

the site

Self-coaching

videosubmitted

High Users

Teacher A 1.6 36 3 9 Yes

Teacher B 1.6 19 4 16 YesModerateUsers

Teacher C .6 54 0 4 No

Teacher D 1.2 19 1 0 Yes

Teacher E .6 42 1 0 Yes

Teacher F .4 13 1 0 Yes

Teacher G .4 34 2 1 YesTeacher H 1.2 27 0 0 No

Teacher I .2 42 0 6 No

Low Users

Teacher J 0 n/a 0 0 No

Teacher K 0 n/a 0 0 No18



Teacher Implementation Data

Note. LTRS Total Score represents percentage of quality indicators. EIOS scores measured as ratebased on number of trials implemented for a child on one learning target every 15 min. On average,

teachers implemented trials for 2-3 children with 2-3 learning targets for each child.* Refers to statistically significant main effect at p < .05



EIOS: Teacher Implementation

“Embedded” Complete Learning Trials

20





Social Validity Data:

PD Intervention



• Limitations – A priori power analyses based on alpha .20 – Standardized and decontextualized child outcome measures – Metrics used to evaluate “dosage” of self-coaching

• Implications – High-quality workshops sufficient for improving quality

of learning targets – On-site coaching to improve frequency and accuracy

of embedded instruction learning trials

– Different implementation supports for differentcomponents of embedded instruction – Social validity data strong, particularly for workshops

plus on-site coaching

Limitations and Implications

Professional Development in Embedded Instruction

Documents