-
LSHSS
Clinical Forum
Understanding CurriculumModifications and Embedded Learning
Opportunities in the Context ofSupporting All Childrens
Success
Eva HornUniversity of KansasLawrence
Rashida BanerjeeUniversity of Northern ColoradoGreeley
B oth the Individuals With Disabilities EducationAct ( IDEA)
Amendments of 1997 and IDEA 2004address access to the general
education curriculum inthe provision of educational services for
children and youth withdisabilities. A key feature of the concept
of access, as described inIDEA, Part B regulation, is the phrase
participation and progressin the general curriculum (Federal
Register, 2006). Specifically,IDEA contains statutory language
requiring that each students in-dividualized education program
(IEP) include a statement describ-ing how the childs disabilities
affect the childs involvement with
and progress in the general curriculum; the measurable goals
thatwill be set in order to enable the child to be involved with
and pro-gress in the general curriculum; and the services, program
modifi-cations, and supports necessary for the child to be involved
in andprogress in the general curriculum. It is clear from reading
the statuteand regulations that the intent of the mandate is to ask
educatorsto raise their expectations about learning outcomes by
providing amore challenging curriculum for students with
disabilities and tobe more accountable for students achieving
meaningful outcomes(Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002; Nolet &
McLaughlin, 2000).
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The primary purpose of this article is
toprovide a closer look at the individualization process
wherebyearly childhood professionals ensure that the
individualizedlearning priorities for each child are appropriately
addressed.Method: Early childhood professionals, including
speech-language pathologists (SLPs), are working to meet the
federalmandate of access to and progress in the general
curriculumfor children with disabilities. A promising approach to
achievingthis mandate is a multitiered model of support that has as
itsfoundation a high-quality, universally designed
curriculum.Following a brief description of the components of this
model, thediscussion shifts to a focus on the individualization
components.Childrens individualized needs for supports are provided
through
instructional individualization, including curriculum
modifica-tions and embedded learning opportunities.Implications:
Implementation of a multitiered model of supporthas direct
implications for the SLP working in preschool settings.The decision
for when and what form the supports should takeis determined
through assessment and by linking desired childoutcomes to
curriculum content and the individualized childsupports. In order
to be an effective team member in this process,the SLP must
understand the concepts and specific strategies thatform the
foundation for each tier.
KEY WORDS: individualization, access to general
curriculum,universal design for learning, embedded learning
opportunities
LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS Vol. 40 406415
October 2009 * American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
0161-1461/09/4004-0406
406
-
Further evidence for the call for greater accountability for
studentsachieving meaningful outcomes is provided by the Office of
SpecialEducation Programs requirement in 2005 that states, in its
annualreport on implementation of IDEA, that every state must
submitoutcomes data for all children served through Part C and Part
Bpreschool programs between when they begin either Part C or Part
Bpreschool services and when they exit the program
(Hebbeler,Barton, & Mallik, 2007).
Meeting the mandate of access to the general curriculumand
documentation of child progress on federal child outcomesrequires
educators and related services professionals, such
asspeech-language pathologists (SLPs), not only to help the
childwith special needs be in the general education classroom
andparticipate in the activities, but also to ensure that each
child learnsthe important curriculum content that is offered to all
children inearly education programs (Kameenui & Simmons, 1999;
Nolet &McLaughlin, 2005; Simmons, Kuykendall, King,
Cornachione, &Kameenui, 2000). Converging empirical evidence
has identifiedkey components of effective practices for supporting
access to andprogress in the general preschool curriculum for young
childrenwith disabilities (Horn, Lieber, Sandall, Schwartz, &
Li, 2002;McBride & Schwartz, 2003; Sandall et al., 2008). Using
a build-ing blocks analogy, Sandall and colleagues characterized
theseevidence-based components as a set of stacked building
blocks,with the base being a high-quality early childhood program
andmore specialized supports, including curriculum
modifications,embedded learning opportunities (ELOs), and
specialized instruc-tion, nested on top. A modification and
extension of this buildingblocks model, recently proposed (Horn,
Lieber, Palmer, & Butera,2008) and illustrated in Figure 1, has
at its foundation a high-quality, universally designed curriculum
that supports all childrensaccess to and participation in the
general curriculum. Childrensindividualized needs for supports are
provided through instructionalindividualization including
curriculum modifications and ELOs.The decision for when and what
form the supports should takeis determined through assessment and
by linking desired childoutcomes to curriculum content and the
individualized childsupports.
The primary purpose of this article is to provide a closer look
atthe individualization process in which we ensure that the
indi-vidualized learning priorities for each child are
appropriately ad-dressed. First, to better understand the
foundation on which the
individualized supports are built (i.e., the high-quality,
universallydesigned curriculum), background information on the
criticalelements of a high-quality curriculum is presented.
High-Quality, Universally Designed Curriculum
A curriculum can be described as the course of study fora given
group of learners. The curriculum provides a blueprint forchildrens
learning that the early education team can follow as itimplements
daily learning activities (National Association for theEducation of
Young Children and National Association of EarlyChildhood
Specialists in State Departments of Education [NAEYC&
NAECS/SDE], 2003). Just as a contractor building a house fora
family follows a blueprint to ensure that it meets expectations
forquality and design priorities, an early educator or SLP follows
acurriculum in order to meet community and family expectations
aswell as childrens unique learning needs. The curriculum is
morethan a collection of enjoyable activities that occur in the
preschoolclassroom; the curriculum is a set of plans and activities
that leadto childrens learning (Marsh & Willis, 1995). The
curriculumshould serve as a comprehensive guide for instruction and
day-to-day interactions with young children (Branscombe,
Castle,Dorsey, Surbeck, & Taylor, 2003; Trister-Dodge &
Bickart, 2003;Wolery & Sainato, 1996). The curriculum is the
what of earlyeducation; it is the content that the educators and
related servicesprofessionals provide and that the children learn
(Nolet&McLaughlin,2000). It is separate from the strategies or
procedures that are usedto teach children the content, although the
line between curriculumand instruction often is difficult to
separate in day-to-day practice.Four key conceptsdevelopmentally
appropriate practices (DAP),universal design for learning
principles, functional outcomes, andnaturalistic instructional
approachesheavily influence our beliefsabout the dimensions of
high-quality curriculum.
DAP. DAP describes an approach to curriculum and teachingthat
recognizes the child as an active participant in the
learningprocess who constructs meaning and knowledge through
interac-tions with people and materials in the environment
(Bredekamp& Copple, 1997). Decisions about the content of the
curriculumshould be based on at least three important kinds of
information:(a) child development and learning; (b) the strengths,
interests, andneeds of each individual child in the group; and (c)
the social andcultural contexts in which children live (Bredekamp
& Copple,1997). The curriculum should include skill development
as wellas opportunities for child-initiated interests and
activities. Further-more, from a DAP perspective, the early
educator or an SLP shouldplan for childrens individual needs and
interests by coordinat-ing, orchestrating, and facilitating
learning with active participa-tion by the children. For example,
the SLP should plan thechilds therapeutic goals, ensuring that the
goals (a) align withwhat is developmentally appropriate for the
child at his or her age,(b) capitalize on the childs strengths and
needs, and (c) are sen-sitive to the cultural and social
backgrounds of the child and his orher family.
Universal design for learning principles. Traditionally,
theprimary method used to address individualization has been
througheducators and related services personnel such as SLPs
workingtogether to address an individual childs needs for
individualizedmodifications (Orkwis, 2003). These efforts are
appropriate; how-ever, they are geared toward the individual child
and are added afterthe fact. Just as after-the-fact architectural
accommodations are
Figure 1. Framework for supporting all childrens access to
andprogress in the general curriculum.
Horn & Banerjee: Embedded Learning Opportunities 407
-
often awkward and expensive, making the curriculum
accessibleafter the fact can be time consuming, challenging for the
team, andbeneficial to only a small number of children at a given
time orwithin a given activity. A more efficient way to promote
access forall children is to address a range of user abilities and
needs withinthe general curriculum by incorporating flexible goals,
methods,and materials that accommodate learner differences.
These embedded accommodations, or universal design, forteaching
and learning provide team members with a blueprintfor creating
flexible goals, methods, and materials that accommo-date learner
differences (Center for Applied Special Technology[CAST], 2006, p.
8). Furthermore, incorporation of universal de-sign for learning
within an early childhood curriculum focuses oncreating learning
environments and adopting practices that allow foraccess and
participation by all children, regardless of individual,cultural,
or linguistic differences (Hanna, 2005). A curriculum
thatincorporates universal design for learning from the beginning
ratherthan as an after-the-fact adaptation provides all children
with avariety of formats for responding; using resources and
materials;demonstrating what they know; and expressing their ideas,
feelings,and preferences (National Center on Accessing the General
Curri-culum, 2003).
There are three components of the educational environmentthat
should be considered in a universal design for learning:
thephysical environment, the socialemotional environment, and
theteaching and learning environment (Conn-Powers, Cross,
Traub,& Hutter-Pishgahi, 2006). A review of the physical
environmentguided by the principles of universal design would
include ad-dressing such questions as whether space is sufficient
and arrangedin such a manner that all children can safely access
activities andmaterials. This includes the physical structures of
the classroomas well as other areas such as hallways and outdoor
spaces, playequipment and furnishings, storage, and classroom/
learningmaterials.
The socialemotional environment addresses the important
com-ponent of membership or belonging. In evaluating the
effective-ness of the classroom and classroom activities in
addressing thiscomponent, early education professionals must ensure
that allchildren are included and eliminate any potential actions
that mightsegregate or stigmatize a child. This has the potential
for being acritically important question for SLPs as they work
within classroomcontexts to provide specialized services and
supports.
It is through a review of the teaching and learning
environmentthat the educational team really gets at the heart of
whether or notthe curriculum meets the core principles of universal
design forlearning. Three key principles of universal design for
learning havebeen identified and are defined as follows:
& Multiple means of representation ensure that
instruction,expectations, and learning opportunities are provided
invarious formats and at different complexity levels, addressinga
range of ability levels and needs.
& Multiple means of engagement ensure that various
opportu-nities are presented for arousing childrens attention,
curiosity,and motivation, addressing a range of interests,
preferences,and personal learning styles. Engagement is maintained
byproviding various levels of scaffolding, repetition,
andappropriate challenges to ensure successful learning.
& Multiple means of expression ensure that children have
avariety of formats for responding; demonstrating what they
know; and expressing ideas, feelings, and preferences(Blackhurst
et al., 1999; CAST, 2006).
Building in these elements of flexibility ensures that
childrenare not bound by a single way of participating, nor do
childrenhave to wait to fail before supports are provided. Here
again,the role of the SLP is to understand these guiding principles
andwork together with the other team members to identify
potentialareas of concern or improvements for ensuring that the
principles arein place.
Functional outcomes. Traditionally, most early educators
havepromoted the belief that learning outcomes for young children,
in-cluding children with special needs, should be based on what
isexpected of typically developing children (Carta & Kong,
2007). Inthis scenario, curriculum content centers on mastery of
skills thatfollow a developmental sequence (McWilliam, Wolery,
& Odom,2001). A modification of this view, a functional
perspective, selectsskills based on their function in allowing the
child to participatemore fully in a variety of community settings.
In this approach,curriculum outcomes are adapted based on the
childs needs and thebelief that a clear reason for teaching each
skill must be identified.Pretti-Frontczak and Bricker (2004)
proposed that when taking afunctional outcomes perspective, all
skills targeted for instructionshould be immediately useful; usable
across settings, people, andmaterials; and part of the childs
natural daily environment. Func-tional outcomes are thus meaningful
to the child and promote theacquisition, generalization, and
maintenance of skills (Bricker, Pretti-Frontczak, & McComas,
1998; Kashinath, Woods, & Goldstein,2006). For example, an
expressive language goal of vocabularydevelopment may be defined in
functional terms by selecting theobjects/verbs to be taught to a
child from within the childs environ-ment, context, and natural
routines or within the childs repertoire.The SLP can play an
important role in supporting the educationalteam in ensuring that
functional outcomes are selected and inter-vention on these
outcomes is conducted within a functional per-spective. The SLP
brings to the table extensive knowledge in termsof the
developmental sequel of speech, language, and communica-tion and
can serve as a translator of the specific learning needs ofa young
child such that the intervention can be designed within acontext
that demonstrates immediate usefulness.
Naturalistic instructional approaches. As educators and SLPshave
attempted to meet the challenge of achieving meaningful,
func-tional outcomes in learning and development for all children,
theyhave embraced the use of naturalistic approaches (Lowenthal,
1995:Noonan & McCormick, 2006). These approaches attempt to
inte-grate the theories of Vygotsky, Piaget, and Dewey while using
learn-ing principles espoused by behavior analysts (Bruder, 1997,
p. 530).Similarly, group interventions (also known as group
therapies orgroup treatments) within the classroom environment have
been usedfor more than 50 years in speech and language studies
(e.g., Backus& Beasley, 1951; Nemoy & Davis, 1937). Group
interventionsensure a psychosocially enriched environment and
improved effi-ciency for SLPs (Goldberg, 1993). Also known by names
such asincidental teaching, milieu language intervention, and
activity-basedinstruction, naturalistic language intervention
approaches share sev-eral characteristics:
& The contexts for instruction are the natural social
andnonsocial learning opportunities and experiences of the
childsuch that instruction is conducted as situated learning
(Dunst,Hamby, Trivette, Raab, & Bruder, 2000).
408 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS Vol. 40
406415 October 2009
-
& The content or individualized goals for instruction
reflectthe skills needed by the individual child in order tomeet
the demands of natural, age-appropriate environments.The content in
turn grows with the child as the number ofenvironments in which the
child participates increases and thedemands for competence in the
environments change withtime (Yoder & Warren, 2001).
& Individual teaching episodes are typically very brief,
minimallyintrusive, and distributed or spaced over a period of
hours ordays. That is, the instructional episodes appear to the
observerto be similar to naturally occurring events (Wolery,
2001).
& Instructional interactions typically are child initiated
orthose that have been initiated by an adult based on the
childsfocus of attention and interest and thus take advantage ofthe
childs motivation in order to evoke a target behavior(Kaiser,
2000).
& The instructional interaction should reflect a goodness of
fitbetween the instructional method and the childs response
tointervention. For example, in using instructional prompts, ifthe
child demonstrates a resistance to physical prompts orguidance, the
adult should use other levels of prompts (e.g.,verbal guidance;
Dunst et al., 2000).
& The instructional interaction uses natural
consequencessuch as desired materials or events for the childs
responses(Bricker et al., 1998; Camarata, Nelson, & Camarata,
1994).
& The teachers who are implementing the
naturalisticinstructional interactions are the adults (e.g., early
educators,parents, siblings, caregivers, paraeducators) who
interact withthe child on a regular basis because of their
participation inthe childs everyday, natural environments (Kaiser
& Hester,1994).
Naturalistic instructional approaches can be implemented in
avariety of child learning environments and service delivery
models,including home visiting, child care, community preschools,
andpublic schools, as well across professionals, including
teachers,SLPs, school counselors, and occupational therapists.
Furthermore,naturalistic instructional procedures can be applied to
address avariety of skills and promote development in children
across avariety of developmentally important domains. For example,
theSLP may provide teachers with a list of target concepts or
wordsfrom the childs goals and suggest strategies to use these
conceptsin naturally occurring communication in the classroom in
order toreinforce and help generalize the concepts.
There is an extensive literature on the use of naturalistic
ap-proaches to promote skill acquisition in children with
disabilities(Rule, Losardo, Dinnebeil, Kaiser, & Rowland, 1998;
Seifert &Schwarz, 1991). Probably the earliest use of this
approach, calledincidental teaching by Hart and Risley (1968,
1975), was developedto facilitate childrens language and
communication skills. In-cidental teaching is characterized by an
unstructured activity suchas free play or snack; an initiation or
request (verbal or nonverbal)on the part of the child, which sets
the occasion for languagelearning; and a response from an attentive
adult. Hart and Risleyfound that children who participated in
teachers incidental inter-actions generally increased their
competence in producing languagetargets.
The incidental teaching approach was refined, extended,
andexperimentally validated in numerous studies by Warren,
Kaiser,
and their colleagues, who developed milieu teaching
procedures(e.g., Warren & Kaiser, 1988). Milieu teaching relies
on followingthe childs interests and embedding the teaching episode
intoongoing interactions between the teacher or SLP and the child.
Theprocedure was expanded and is now often referred to as
enhancedmilieu teaching, with the addition of environmental
arrangementstrategies and the use of components of responsive
interactionstrategies or strategies that promote a balanced
communicationexchange between the child and the adult in a
conversational man-ner (Kaiser, 2000). Evidence indicates that this
approach results inimprovement of childrens use of language during
conversations(Kaiser, 2000; Kaiser, Ostrosky, & Alpert, 1993;
McCathren &Watson, 2001; Warren, Yoder, Gazda, Kim, &
Jones, 1993).
In the 1990s, the use of naturalistic strategies was expandedto
address learning in domains other than language
development,including prelinguistic or alternative communication
(e.g., Garfinkle& Schwartz, 2002; McCathren & Watson, 2001;
Warren et al.,1993), cognitive (e.g., Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter,
1998), motor(e.g., Horn et al., 2002), social (e.g., Brown, McEvoy,
& Bishop,1991; Nordquist, Twardoza, & McEvoy, 1991), and
adaptive (e.g.,Venn et al., 1993). Thus, although initially
developed and researchedin the context of language and
communication intervention, overseveral decades, naturalistic
strategies have been shown to be effectiveacross a range of
behaviors and settings. Furthermore, naturalisticprocedures are
part of the recommended practices that are promotedfor use in the
field of early childhood special education/early in-tervention by
the Division for Early Childhood (DEC; Sandall,Hemmeter, Smith,
& McLean, 2005).
Instructional Individualization
A high-quality, universally designed curriculum incorporatingthe
four key aspects described in the previous section is essentialfor
ensuring not only access to, but also meaningful
participationacross, daily routines and activities for all young
children, partic-ularly those with disabilities or those who are at
risk for develop-ing disabilities (DEC, 2007). However, the
implementation of ahigh-quality, universally designed curriculum
does not take awaythe need to make modifications to meet the
individual needs ofspecific children. To support the achievement of
priority learningoutcomes for young children with disabilities, the
universally de-signed general curriculum should be viewed as the
cornerstone towhich all instruction is anchored or, as noted
previously in Figure 1,the foundational block in building an
effective implementationmodel (Horn et al., 2008). How then do we
address the next elementor block of the modelinstructional
individualization?
An important function of an educational team (including butnot
limited to early childhood special educators [ECSEs], SLPs,and
occupational therapists) for children with disabilities shouldbe to
develop goals and objectives that (a) meet the unique needsof the
child, (b) are meaningful for the child, and (c) are functionalin a
variety of contexts (Noonan & McCormick, 1995; Notari-Syverson
& Schuster, 1995). However, these goals and objectivesmust not
become the childs curriculum. Developing appropriategoals and
supporting the individual needs of young children withdisabilities
requires ECSEs to anchor their child program planningin the
expectation of the general education curriculum. Meetingthe mandate
of access to and progress in the general curriculumrequires
educators to help the child access the environment and
Horn & Banerjee: Embedded Learning Opportunities 409
-
participate in the activities (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000). In
ad-dition, all team members must provide opportunities for the
childto learn the important content reflected in the curriculum
that isoffered to all children in the early education program
through avariety of individualized supports and modifications. The
followingvignette provides examples of the types of individualized
instruc-tional supports and curriculum modifications that can be
plannedand implemented.
Trent attends a community preschool in which teachers and
relatedservices personnel use a high-quality, universally designed
curriculum.Trent was diagnosed with a medical condition that
resulted in generaldevelopmental delay. He receives services from
the local schoolsIEP team, which includes an SLP who regularly
visits the classroomand works with the teachers and Trents parents
to plan curriculummodifications and individualized instruction. For
example, Trent needssome support to maintain active engagement. So
working together,the team developed a plan to provide for a variety
of curriculummodifications to ensure that Trents individualized
needs for supports tomaintain active engagement are addressed. For
example, when readingthe story that accompanies each lesson, the
teacher makes room forTrent to sit nearby so that he can see the
book and experience fewerdistractions (i.e., provision of invisible
support). This allows him toaccess information along with the other
children. Additionally, Trentsparents have a copy of the books that
are used in the curriculum, and theywork ahead of the teachers to
introduce Trent to the material so that hewill be able to benefit
even more when the teacher introduces the booksin the classroom.
Repeated exposures to a book is an example of acurriculum
modification in which the task was simplified (i.e.,
simplifyactivity), thus allowing Trent to be actively engaged and
responsive to thediscussion and content. The SLP suggested that
Trents teacher alsoencourage Trent to look at the book and talk
with her about it duringcenter time, providing Trent with the
curriculum modification of adultsupport so that he can fully
understand the content. In addition, theteacher uses this time as
well as other targeted opportunities during theday to provide Trent
with individualized instruction or ELOs to addresshis individual
learning priority of increasing expressive languagevocabulary and
maintaining attentional focus. The SLP develops alist of potential
opportunities in the natural environment for Trent toexpressively
use vocabulary from the books and models these for theclassroom
staff when she is in the setting. Furthermore, the SLP embedswork
on Trents learning priorities into her individual interactions
andsmall-group session with Trent. (Lieber, Horn, Palmer, &
Fleming,2008)
To facilitate the process of describing the
instructionalindividualization block (illustrated in the vignette
above) ofthe implementation model presented in Figure 1, the block
hasbeen grouped into two sets of strategies (i.e., curriculum
mod-ifications and ELOs) and is described in detail in the
followingsections.
Curriculum modifications. A curriculum modification is achange
in a classroom activity or material that allows a child
toparticipate (Sandall et al., 2008). Note that while in early
childhood,the distinction is not as clear, services for school-age
children makea distinction between the terms accommodation and
modification.Whereas accommodation is an alteration of an
environment, cur-riculum format, or equipment that allows a child
with a disabilityto gain access to content, modification is a
change in the curriculumitself, leading to individualization of the
curriculum in order toincrease the childs participation and
effective inclusion in theclassroom (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000).
Increased participationcreates more opportunities for the child to
learn. A curriculummodification strategy should be used when the
child is interestedin the ongoing activity but is not able to fully
participate or maynot stay with the activity long enough. The key
is to help the childparticipate. Researchers from the Early
Childhood Research Insti-tute on Inclusion identified and described
eight types of modifica-tions and adaptations to support a childs
inclusion in the classroom:environmental support, material
adaptations, special equipment,use of childrens preferences,
simplification of the activity, adultsupport, peer support, and
invisible support (Horn, Lieber, Sandall,Schwartz, & Wolery,
2002; Lieber, Schwartz, Sandall, Horn, &Wolery, 1999; Sandall
et al., 2008). Table 1 provides a brief descrip-tion of each
category.
Three of the modification strategies address changing or
addingmaterials or events within the classroom (i.e., those things
thatare external to the child). Environmental support refers to
alteringthe physical, social, and temporal environment to promote
thechilds participation, engagement, and learning. For example,
theteacher of Isaiah, a 4-year-old child with significant physical
lim-itations, changed the layout of the various areas of the
classroomslightly in order to enable Isaiahs wheelchair to be moved
easilyfrom one area of the classroom to another even when one of
hispeers with less experience and skill was driving. Material
adap-tations occur when teachers modify materials so that the
childcan participate as independently as possible. Examples of
materialadaptations for Isaiah might include stabilizing materials
such astaping the paper for painting to the table, using Velcro
straps to holdthe paintbrush in Isaiahs hand to compensate for his
weak grasp,using nonskid backing under the paint cup, and using
contact paperas backing for collages because gluing is too
difficult for him.Special equipment is another modification that
might be used tosupport Isaiah. Special equipment includes homemade
as well ascommercially available therapeutic equipment. For
example, Isaiah
Table 1. Curriculum modification categories and definitions.
Category Definition
Environmental support Refers to adults altering the physical,
social, and temporal environment in order to promote the
childsparticipation, engagement, and learning.
Material adaptations Occur when teachers modify materials so
that the child can participate as independently as possible.Special
equipment Includes homemade as well as commercially available
therapeutic equipment.Use of childrens preferences Refers to adults
identifying child preferences and integrating them into the
activity to make it more motivating.Simplification of the activity
Refers to adults breaking a complicated activity into smaller parts
or changing or reducing the steps involved.Adult support Occurs
when adults model an appropriate behavior, join the child in play,
praise the child, and /or provide encouragement.Peer support Refers
to adults providing peers with support and training so that they
can help children with severe disabilities
reach their learning objectives.Invisible support Occurs when
adults rearrange aspects of naturally occurring activities to
support the childs success in participating.
410 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS Vol. 40
406415 October 2009
-
has a special switch positioned on the tray of his adapted
wheelchairat all times that he can press to call for assistance.
Similarly,Isaiahs portable 4-symbol speech output device allows him
to bean active participant in the classroom.
Two of the modification strategies focus on matching
activitieswith the childs abilities and preferences: use of
childrens pref-erences and simplification of the activity. If the
child is not takingadvantage of the available opportunities, the
adults can identify thechilds preferences and integrate them into
the activity to make itmore motivating. For a child with Isaiahs
physical and movementchallenges, a physical therapist might
indicate a need for Isaiahto actively participate in moving his
limbs, particularly his legs. Toaddress this need, Isaiahs early
education team, seeing that Isaiahreally loves to participate in
the finger play activities of openinggroup time, could add some
songs that require peddling and step-ping movements of the
childrens legs and praise Isaiah for his ef-forts at moving his
legs like his friends. The SLP could then addphrases for Isaiahs
favorite activity on his speech output device. Sim-plifying a
complicated activity by breaking it into smaller parts orchanging
or reducing the steps involved is the second strategy in thisgroup.
Returning to Isaiah for an example, when completing puz-zles with
the other children, Isaiah could be provided with a puzzlein which
only two and later three pieces are out of place. Isaiah couldthen
use a sliding movement to slide the pieces into their correct
slots.
The final set of modification strategies focuses on
providingadult, peer, or invisible support to the child. In adult
support, anadult may model an appropriate behavior, join the child
in play,praise the child, and /or provide encouragement to the
child. For achild like Isaiah, the following scenario might
occur.
With paintbrush in hand and everything set up to paint, Isaiah
iswatching the other children as they paint. The adult joins in,
commentingto Isaiah that she, too, really enjoys seeing what the
other childrenare painting. She then turns to Isaiah and says, Lets
see what youcan paint. She then assists Isaiah in getting paint on
his brush andpraises Isaiahs brush strokes on the paper, noting
that he has the samecolor as another child.
Peers also can help children with disabilities reach learning
ob-jectives. For example, Isaiahs peers could provide him with
thepicture choices of the next center he would like to participate
in andthen drive his chair to the area once he has indicated his
choice.Finally, invisible supports occur when adults rearrange
aspects ofnaturally occurring activities to support the childs
success in partici-pating. For example, if Isaiahs classmates were
making a card witha heart shape created by red paint fingerprints
of each child as afarewell gift to a volunteer, the adults could
make sure that Isaiahwas first in line for placing his fingerprint
because his accuracy ofhitting a target is limited and thus he
would not be in danger ofplacing his fingerprint on top of another
childs.
ELOs. Used well, curriculum modifications like those
describedabove can certainly help support childrens active
participation inthe activities and curriculum content of the early
learning environ-ment. However, curriculum modifications may not be
sufficientto ensure that the child has learning opportunities to
meet the goalsand outcomes stated on his or her IEP or
individualized familyservice plan ( IFSP). In order to ensure that
the child with disabilitieshas learning opportunities to meet his
or her individually definedneeds, an instructional modification
might include providing op-portunities for planned, brief
instructional episodes across curriculumactivities to provide
direct instruction for childrens individualizedlearning needs and
outcomes (Horn et al., 2002). Drawing from
the rich history of research in naturalistic language
interventionprocedures noted earlier (i.e., Hart & Risely,
1975), early educationprofessionals have recommended embedding
intervention acrossmultiple domains of learning into existing
curriculum activities andhome routines (Bricker & Cripe, 1992;
Davis, Kilgo, & Gamel-McCormick, 1998; Horn et al., 2002;
Noonan &McCormick, 2006;Wolery &Wilburs, 1994).
Furthermore, DECs recommended prac-tices (Sandall et al., 2005)
endorse embedded instruction as anevidence-based practice and state
that specialized procedures(e.g., naturalistic instructional
strategies and prompt/prompt fadingstrategies) are embedded and
distributed within and across activi-ties (Sandall et al., 2005, p.
91).
Embedding is a procedure in which children are given
op-portunities to practice goals and objectives that are included
withinan activity or event in a manner that expands, modifies, or
adaptsthe activity/event while remaining meaningful and interesting
tochildren (Bricker et al., 1998, p. 13). These teaching episodes
havesometimes been referred to as ELOs (Horn et al., 2002). ELOsare
based on the premise that in order for many children to
achievetheir learning objectives, providing access to the general
early child-hood curriculum is insufficient. In order for children
with disabil-ities to learn new or more complex skills within the
context ofthe general curriculum and early learning and care
environments,the early education team needs to provide instruction
throughmodeling, verbal prompting, and physical guidance. Members
ofthe early education team, including the SLP, should identify
theopportunities that are most salient to individualized learning
ob-jectives and embed short, systematic instructional interactions
thatsupport childrens achievement of goals within existing
routinesand activities. For example, rather than the SLP setting up
specialsessions to have Isaiah (the child with multiple
disabilities notedearlier) learn to indicate choice with an eye
gaze, the SLP couldgo to the classroom during center time, join
Isaiah in his group, andembed the use of choice into the ongoing
activity. The SLP couldalso work together with the classroom staff
to identify and planfor additional practice opportunities for
Isaiah throughout theschool day. For example, the SLP could set it
up so that Isaiah mustchoose between two peers photographs to
indicate by whom hewants to sit during the opening circle, or
between a drawing of a cupor spoon to indicate whether he is ready
for a drink or bite of foodduring his snack, or between two symbols
for center options toindicate to which center he would like to move
next, and so on.Thus, the SLPs role in supporting the achievement
of a childsindividual learning outcomes is as a guide in
identifying outcomesand opportunities within the natural curriculum
of the group andhome setting and modeling the intervention
techniques to facilitatethe childs progress toward achieving the
outcome.
With ELOs, the activities and routines become the structurefor
supporting childrens learning. Many of the activities are
childinitiated, so they presumably are motivating (Bricker &
Cripe,1992). By embedding effective instruction into fun and
motivatingactivities, learning often occurs more quickly (Losardo
& Bricker,1994). More importantly, because the children have
learned theskill in a more natural setting, they are more likely to
be able to usethe skill when they need it to obtain an item or
participate in anactivity. Teachable moments are recognized,
created, and used toenhance a childs developmental progress. As
with all good in-struction, progress toward achieving learning
objectives is moni-tored. Instructional decisions such as
progressing to more complexor next level skills or changing the
instructional procedures are
Horn & Banerjee: Embedded Learning Opportunities 411
-
made through careful analysis of data collected. The focus is
onaccess to and participation in fun, enjoyable, and
interestingactivities for young children while making learning
progress.
A systematic review of the empirical literature related to ELOs
orembedded instruction was completed as a part of the DEC
recom-mended practices project (Sandall et al., 2005). The
systematic re-view showed that ELO practices have substantial
empirical support(e.g., Ducharme, Lucas, & Pontes, 1994;
Hundert & Houghton,1992; Hutzler, Chacham, Bergman, &
Szeinberg, 1998; Kim &Lombardino, 1991; Losardo & Bricker,
1994; OConnor, Notari-Syverson & Vadasy, 1996; Pratt,
Heintzelman, & Deming, 1993;Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker,
2001; Sewell, Collins, Hemmeter, &Schuster, 1998). These
practices have been shown to be effectivefor teaching young
children a variety of functional and develop-mentally appropriate
skills, including language, early literacy, andsocial skills
(Daugherty, Grisham-Brown, & Hemmeter, 2001; Filla,Wolery,
& Anthony, 1999; Fox & Hanline, 1993;
Grisham-Brown,Shuster, Hemmeter, & Collins, 2000; Horn, Lieber,
Sandall, Schwartz,& Li, 2002; Kohler, Anthony, Steighner, &
Hoyson, 1998; Kohler,Strain, Hoyson, Jamieson, 1997; Malmskog &
McDonnell, 1999;Schwartz, Carta,&Grant, 1996; Sewell et al.,
1998; Venn et al., 1993).Furthermore, an ELO approach has been
shown to enhance general-ization of learned skills (Fox &
Hanline, 1993; Losardo & Bricker,1994; Wolery, Anthony,
Caldwell, Snyder, & Morgante, 2002).
In addition to evidence of their effectiveness with
children,ELOs have been rated favorably by members of the early
childhoodteam, including educators and related services personnel
(Hornet al., 2002; Sandall, Schwartz, & LaCroix, 2004). As part
of thefield validation of DECs recommended practices, when
respon-dents were asked to indicate whether they thought embedded
learn-ing strategies should be a recommended practice, 88%
eitheragreed (30%) or strongly agreed (58%) (Smith, McLean, &
Sandall,2005). However, studies have also demonstrated that
embeddedlearning strategies frequently are not used with high
levels of fidel-ity (Filla et al., 1999; Horn et al., 2002; McBride
& Schwartz, 2003;Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2001;
Schuster, Hemmeter, & Ault,2001; Smith, Warren, Yoder, &
Feurer, 2004).
Thus, to reiterate, ELOs have an empirical research base andwide
theoretical and practical support in early
intervention/earlychildhood special education. However, the lack of
clear evidencefor the widespread use of ELOs certainly points to a
need for furtherstudy. In addition, we would argue that embedded
learning strat-egies have the strongest likelihood of being a
useful and effectiveinstructional tool if they are viewed as part
of a continuum of in-structional practices designed to support
active participation andmeaningful learning by young children with
a disability within thenatural everyday environment and general
curriculum. That is, asan instructional strategy, ELOs should be
reserved to address theinstructional and learning needs of a child
when a high-qualitycurriculum and curriculum modification are not
sufficient. Saidanother way, the role of the ELO in a multitiered
level of supportis to provide for direct instructional
opportunities directed towardthe childs individual, unique learning
priorities, which may notbe addressed, or with enough intensity, to
allow the child to achievethe desired learning outcome.
Issues in Implementation
In a multitiered system of support like the one presented
inFigure 1, each component/ lock fulfills an important role.
The
curriculum promotes high expectations for all childrens
growth,learning, and development. Instructional individualization
throughcurriculum modifications provides for a first level of
accommoda-tions for differences in learning style, strengths, and
needs notedthrough initial assessment and through ongoing
documentationof the childs responses to the curriculum and learning
activities.ELOs as the highest level or most intensive support
allow for max-imized individualization but still within the context
of a common,inclusive environment. Although the components of a
multitieredmodel make logical sense, have relatively solid
empirical support,and are solidly embedded in recommended
practices, significantchallenges toward full realization of
positive outcomes for chil-dren still remain. Three obvious
challenges relate to understandingand validating the multiple tiers
as a package, implementing acollaborative teams approach to service
delivery, and addressing theissue of high implementation
fidelity.
Extensive literature in early intervention promotes
collabora-tive teaming between educators (both general and
special), SLPs,other related services professionals, and families
(e.g., Briggs,1991; Hanline, Nunes, & Worthy, 2007; Hundert
& Hopkins, 1992;Hunt, Soto, Maier, Liboiron, & Bae, 2004;
Law et al., 2002; Pea& Quinn, 2003). Although a collaborative
team approach is crit-ical to support positive child outcomes in an
inclusive classroom(Guralnick, 2001; Kaczmarek, Pennington, &
Goldstein, 2000;Lieber et al., 1997; Odom, 2002), challenges to
implementingeffective collaboration exist. These challenges include
conflictinggoals among team members, lack of communication between
teammembers, and the reality that families and school
personnelinteract with related service personnel as experts rather
than aspeers (Hunt et al., 2004, p. 124). Further, too often
interventionby the related services professionals takes place
outside of class-rooms and may be unrelated to the classroom goals.
To the heartof this issue are two factorslack of adequate resources
and lackof adequate preservice trainingthat serve as barriers to
the estab-lishment of collaborative environments (Crowe, Leiting,
& Ogden,1994). Providing time and space for regular meetings
betweenprofessionals is crucial. Further, it is imperative for our
traininginstitutions to train our professionals to instill the
practice of mutualgoals, shared responsibilities and
accountability, and parity amongprofessionals.
Probably nothing affects the quality of the intervention
thatyoung children with a disability receive more directly than
theknowledge and skills of the adults who work and play with
them(Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995). As
ourevidence base for strategies and practices continues to
expand,one of our most significant challenges continues to be the
highfidelity of implementation of these practices on a frequent
andregular basis in the everyday, real world for young children
(Carta& Kong, 2007). The young child with disabilities may
receive his orher teaching and learning opportunities in a variety
of places andat the hands of a variety of different adults with a
range of (andoftentimes limited) background knowledge, skills, and
formaltraining. Promoting frequent and high-fidelity implementation
ofevidence-based practices in this context requires that we
rethinkthe research-to-practice translation process. There is a
growingrecognition that in order to close the research-to-practice
gap, newand creative approaches to dissemination and professional
devel-opment are needed (Greenwood & Abbott, 2001; Greenwood
&Maheady, 2001). We need to provide clearer identification
andarticulation of our evidence-based practices, as well as
professional
412 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS Vol. 40
406415 October 2009
-
development and technical assistance in the use and
implementationof the practices. Our focus must be on ways to ensure
frequentand high-fidelity implementation of a coordinated set of
effectivepractices, such as those offered through various
multitiered or multi-level models of support, that result in
positive outcomes for theyoung child with disabilities.
REFERENCES
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the
generalcurriculum for students with significant disabilities: What
it means toteachers. Education & Training in Mental Retardation
& DevelopmentalDisabilities, 37(2), 123133.
Backus, O., & Beasley, J. (1951). Speech therapy with
children. Cam-bridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Blackhurst, E., Carnine, D., Cohen, L., Kameenui, E., Longone,
J.,Palley, D., et al. (1999). Research connections in special
education:Universal design. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from
http://ericec.org/osep/recon5/rc5cov.html.
Branscombe, N. A., Castle, K., Dorsey, A. G., Surbeck, E., &
Taylor,J. B. (2003). Early childhood curriculum: A constructivist
perspective.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997).Developmentally
appropriatepractice in early childhood programs (rev. ed.).
Washington, DC:National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
Bricker, D., & Cripe, J. J. (1992). An activity-based
approach to earlyintervention. Baltimore: Brookes.
Bricker, D., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & McComas, N. R. (1998).
An activity-based approach to early intervention (2nd ed.).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Briggs, M. (1991). Team development: Decision-making for early
inter-vention. InfantToddler Intervention, 1(1), 19.
Brown, W. H., McEvoy, M. A., & Bishop, N. (1991). Incidental
teachingof social behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(1),
3538.
Bruder, M. B. (1997). The effectiveness of specific
educational/developmentalcurricula for children with established
disabilities. In M. Guralnick (Ed.),The effectiveness of early
intervention (pp. 523548). Baltimore: Brookes.
Camarata, S., Nelson, K., & Camarata, M. (1994). Comparison
ofconversation-based to imitation-based procedures for training
grammat-ical structures in specifically language impaired children.
Journal ofSpeech and Hearing Research, 37, 14141423.
Carta, J., & Kong, N. Y. (2007). Trends and issues in
interventions forpreschoolers with developmental disabilities. In
S. L. Odom, R. H.Horner, M. E. Snell, & J. Blacher (Eds.),
Handbook of developmentaldisabilities ( pp. 181198). New York:
Guilford Press.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2006). Universal design
forlearning. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from
http://www.cast.org/udl/.
Conn-Powers, M., Cross, A. F., Traub, E. K., &
Hutter-Pishgahi, L.(2006). The universal design of early education:
Moving forwardfor all children. Beyond the journal: Young children
on the Web.Retrieved September 29, 2008, from
http://journal.naeyc.org//btj/200609/ConnPowersBTJ.pdf.
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost,
quality,and child outcomes in childcare centers, public report (2nd
ed.). Denver:University of Colorado at Denver, Economics
Department.
Crowe, L., Leiting, S., & Ogden, N. (1994, November).
Inclusion pluscollaborative teaming equals success in early
childhood education. Paperpresented at the annual convention of the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, New Orleans, LA.
Daugherty, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2001).
Theeffects of embedded skill instruction on the acquisition of
target andnontarget skills in preschoolers with developmental
delays. Topics inEarly Childhood Special Education, 21, 214221.
Davis, M. D., Kilgo, J. L., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1998).
Youngchildren with special needs. Needham Heights, MA: Viacom.
Division for Early Childhood. (2007). Promoting positive
outcomes forchildren with disabilities: Recommendations for
curriculum, assessment,and program evaluation. Retrieved January 4,
2008, from http://www.dec-sped.org.
Ducharme, J. M., Lucas, H., & Pontes, E. (1994). Errorless
embeddingin the reduction of severe maladaptive behavior during
interactive andlearning tasks. Behavior Therapy, 25, 489501.
Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., &
Bruder, M. B.(2000). Everyday family and community life and
childrens naturallyoccurring opportunities. Journal of Early
Intervention, 23, 151164.
Federal Register. (2006). Department of Education 34 CFR Parts
300and 301 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With
Dis-abilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities;
Final Rule.71(156), 4654046845.
Filla, A., Wolery, M., & Anthony, L. (1999). Promoting
childrens con-versations during play with adult prompts. Journal of
Early Intervention,22, 93110.
Fox, L., & Hanline, M. F. (1993). A preliminary evaluation
of learningwithin developmentally appropriate early childhood
settings. Topics inEarly Childhood Special Education, 13,
308327.
Garfinkle, A., & Schwartz, I. (2002). Peer imitation:
Increasing socialinteractions in children with autism and other
developmental disabilitiesin inclusive preschool classrooms. Topics
in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 22(1), 2638.
Goldberg, S. A. (1993). Clinical intervention: A philosophy
andmethodologyfor clinical practice. New York: Macmillan.
Greenwood, C. R., & Abbott, M. (2001). The research to
practice gapin special education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 24,276289.
Greenwood, C. R., & Maheady, L. (2001). Are future teachers
aware ofthe gap between research and practice and what they should
know?Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 333347.
Grisham-Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M. L. (1998). Writing IEP
goals andobjectives: Reflecting an activity-based approach to
instruction for youngchildren with disabilities. Young Exceptional
Children, 3(1), 210.
Grisham-Brown, J. L., Schuster, J. W., Hemmeter, M. L., &
Collins,B. C. (2000). Using an embedded strategy to teach
preschoolers withsignificant disabilities. Journal of Behavior
Education, 10, 139162.
Guralnick, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). Early childhood inclusion: Focus
onchange. Baltimore: Brookes.
Hanline, M. F., Nunes, D., & Worthy, M. B. (2007).
Augmentative andalternative communication in the early childhood
years. Young Children,62(4), 7882.
Hanna, E. I. (2005). Inclusive design for maximum accessibility:
A prac-tical approach to universal design (PEM Research Rep. No.
05-04).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educational Measurement.
Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Establishing the use of
descriptiveadjectives in the spontaneous speech of disadvantaged
preschool chil-dren. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,
109120.
Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1975). Incidental teaching of
language inthe preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8,
411420.
Hebbeler, K., Barton, L., & Mallik, S. (2007). Assessment
and account-ability for programs serving young children with
disabilities. RetrievedJuly 22, 2007, from
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/eco.
Horn & Banerjee: Embedded Learning Opportunities 413
-
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Palmer, S., & Butera, G. (2008).
Childrens SchoolSuccess Curriculum Plus (CSS+): Supporting all
childrens progressin the general curriculum. Lawrence: University
of Kansas.
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Sandall, S., Schwartz, I., & Wolery,
R. (2002).Classroom models of individualized instruction. In S. L.
Odom (Ed.),Widening the circle: Including children with
disabilities in preschoolprograms (pp. 4660). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Sandall, S. R., Schwartz, I., & Li, S.
(2002).Supporting young childrens IEP goals in inclusive settings
throughembedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early Childhood
SpecialEducation, 20, 208223.
Hundert, J., & Hopkins, B. (1992). Training supervisors in a
collaborativeteam approach to promote peer interaction of children
with disabilities inintegrated preschools. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 385400.
Hundert, J., & Houghton, A. (1992). Promoting social
interaction ofchildren with disabilities in integrated preschools:
A failure to generalize.Exceptional Children, 58(4), 311320.
Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Liboiron, N., & Bae, S.
(2004). Collaborativeteaming to support preschoolers with severe
disabilities who are placed ingeneral education early childhood
programs. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 24(3),
123142.
Hutzler, Y., Chacham, A., Bergman, U., & Szeinberg, A.
(1998). Effectsof a movement and swimming program on vital capacity
and waterorientation skills of children with cerebral
palsy.Developmental Medicineand Child Neurology, 40(3), 176181.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.
(1997).Retrieved August 19, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA/.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.
(2004).Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://idea.ed.gov.
Kaczmarek, L., Pennington, R., & Goldstein, H. (2000).
Transdisciplin-ary consultation: A center-based team functioning
model. Education andTreatment of Children, 23, 156172.
Kameenui, E., & Simmons, D. (1999). Toward successful
inclusion ofstudents with disabilities: The architecture of
instruction (ERIC/OSEPMini Library on Adapting Curricular
Materials, Vol. 1). Reston, VA:ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities
and Gifted Education.
Kaiser, A. (2000). Teaching functional communication skills. In
M. E. Snell& F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with
severe disabilities (5th ed.,pp. 453491). Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Kaiser, A., & Hester, P. (1994). Generalized effects of
enhanced milieuteaching. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
37(6), 13201340.
Kaiser, A., Ostrosky, M., & Alpert, K. (1993). Training
teachers to useenvironmental arrangement and milieu teaching with
nonvocal preschoolchildren. Journal of the Association for Persons
With Severe Handicaps,18, 188199.
Kashinath, S., Woods, J., & Goldstein, H. (2006). Enhancing
generalizedteaching strategy use in daily routines by parents of
children with autism.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 49(3), 466485.
Kim, Y. T., & Lombardino, L. J. (1991). The efficacy of
script contexts inlanguage comprehensive intervention with children
who have mentalretardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
34, 4557.
Kohler, F. W., Anthony, L. J., Steighner, S. A., & Hoyson,
M. (1998).Teaching social interaction skills in the integrated
preschool: An exam-ination of naturalistic tactics. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Educa-tion, 21, 93103.
Kohler, F. W., Strain, P. S., Hoyson, M., & Jamieson, B.
(1997). Mergingnaturalistic teaching and peer-based strategies to
address the IEP objec-tives of preschoolers with autism: An
examination of structural and be-havior outcomes. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities,12, 196206.
Law, J., Lindsay, G., Peacey, N., Gascoigne, M., Soloff, N.,
Radford, J.,et al. (2002). Consultation as a model for providing
speech and languagetherapy in schools: A panacea or one step too
far? Child LanguageTeaching & Therapy, 18, 145163.
Lieber, J., Beckman, P. J., Hanson, M. J., Janko, S., Marquart,
J. M.,Horn, E., et al. (1997). The impact of changing roles on the
relationshipsbetween professionals in inclusive programs for young
children. EarlyEducation and Development, 8, 6782.
Lieber, J., Horn, E., Palmer, S., & Fleming, K. (2008).
Access to the gen-eral education curriculum for preschoolers with
disabilities: Childrensschool success. Exceptionality, 16(1),
1832.
Lieber, J., Schwartz, I., Sandall, S., Horn, E., & Wolery,
R. (1999).Curricular considerations for young children in inclusive
settings. InC. Seefeldt (Ed.), Early childhood curriculum: A review
of the research( pp. 243264). New York: Teachers College Press.
Losardo, A., & Bricker, D. (1994). Activity-based and direct
instruction: Acomparison study.American Journal ofMental
Retardation, 98, 744765.
Lowenthal, B. (1995). Naturalistic language intervention in
inclusiveenvironments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31(2),
114118.
Malmskog, S., & McDonnell, A. P. (1999). Teacher-mediated
facilita-tion of engagement by children with developmental delays
in inclusivepreschools. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 19, 203216.
Marsh, C., & Willis, G. (1995). Curriculum: Alternative
approaches,ongoing issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill /Prentice
Hall.
McBride, B., & Schwartz, I. (2003). Effects of teaching
early interven-tionists to use discrete trials during activities.
Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 23(1), 517.
McCathren, R. B., & Watson, A. L. (2001). Facilitating the
developmentof intentional communication. In M. Ostrosky & S.
Sandall (Eds.), Teach-ing strategies: What to do to support young
childrens development.Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series,
3, 2535.
McWilliam, R. A., Wolery, M., & Odom, S. L. (2001).
Instructional per-spectives in inclusive school classrooms. In M.
J. Guralnick (Ed.), Earlychildhood inclusion: Focus on change ( pp.
503727). Baltimore: Brookes.
National Association for the Education of Young Children &
NationalAssociation of Early Childhood Specialists in State
Departmentsof Education. (2003). Early childhood curriculum,
assessment, andprogram evaluation: Position statement with expanded
resources.Retrieved July 22, 2007, from
http://www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/CAPEexpand.pdf.
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (2003).
Accessto the general curriculum for students with disabilities: A
brief legalinterpretation. Retrieved December 21, 2007, from
http://www.cast.org/ncac/downloads/curriculum_access_legal.pdf.
Nemoy, E., & Davis, S. (1937). The correction of defective
consonantsounds. Boston: Expressions.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. (2005). Accessing the general
curriculum:Including students with disabilities in standards-based
reform (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general
curriculum:Including students with disabilities in standards-based
reform. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Noonan, M. J., & McCormick, L. (1995). Mission impossible?
Devel-oping meaningful IEPs for children in inclusive preschool
settings. TheFrontline, 2, 13.
Noonan, M. J., & McCormick, L. (2006). Young children with
disabilitiesin natural environments: Methods and procedures.
Baltimore: Brookes.
Nordquist, V. M., Twardoza, S., & McEvoy, M. A. (1991).
Effects ofenvironmental reorganization in classrooms. Journal of
Early Inter-vention, 15(2), 135152.
414 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS Vol. 40
406415 October 2009
-
Notari-Syverson, A., & Schuster, S. (1995). Putting
real-life skills intoIEP/IFSPs for infants and young children.
Teaching Exceptional Chil-dren, 27, 2932.
OConnor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. F. (1996).
Ladders toliteracy: The effects of teacher-led phonological
activities for kindergar-ten children with and without
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63(1),117130.
Odom, S. L. (Ed.). (2002). Widening the circle: Including
children withdisabilities in preschool programs. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Orkwis, R. (2003). Universally designed instruction. ERIC/OSEP
Digest.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED475386).
Pea, E. D., & Quinn, R. (2003). Developing effective
collaboration teamsin speech-language pathology: A case study.
Communication DisordersQuarterly, 24(2), 5363.
Pratt, S. R., Heintzelman, A. T., & Deming, S. E. (1993).
The efficacyof using the IBM speech viewer vowel accuracy module to
treat youngchildren with hearing impairment. Journal of Speech and
HearingResearch, 36, 10631074.
Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2004). An
activity-based approach toearly intervention (3rd ed.). Baltimore:
Brookes.
Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. D. (2001). Use of the
embeddingstrategy by early childhood education and early childhood
specialeducation teachers. Infant and Toddler Intervention: The
Transdisci-plinary Journal, 11, 2946.
Rule, S., Losardo, A., Dinnebeil, L., Kaiser, A., & Rowland,
C. (1998).Translating research on naturalistic instruction into
practice. Journal ofEarly Intervention, 21, 283293.
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. J., & McLean, M. E.
(2005).DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for
practicalapplication in early intervention/early childhood special
education.Longmont, CA: Sopris West.
Sandall, S., Schwartz, I. S., Joseph, G. E., Chou, H. Y., Horn,
E. M.,Lieber, J., et al. (2008). Building blocks for teaching
preschoolers withspecial needs. Baltimore: Brookes.
Sandall, S., Schwartz, I., & LaCroix, B. (2004).
Interventionists per-spectives about data collection in integrated
early childhood classrooms.Journal of Early Intervention, 26(3),
161174.
Schuster, J. W., Hemmeter, M. L., & Ault, M. J. (2001).
Instruction ofstudents with moderate and severe disabilities in
elementary classrooms.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16,
329341.
Schwartz, I. S., Carta, J., & Grant, S. (1996). Examining
the use of rec-ommended language intervention practices in early
childhood specialeducation classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 16,251272.
Seifert, H., & Schwarz, I. (1991). Treatment effectiveness
of large groupbasic concept instruction with Head Start students.
Language, Speech,and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 6064.
Sewell, T. J., Collins, B. C., Hemmeter, M. L., & Schuster,
J. W. (1998).Using simultaneous prompting within an activity-based
format to teachdressing skills to preschoolers with developmental
delays. Journal ofEarly Intervention, 21, 132145.
Simmons, D. C., Kuykendall, K., King, K., Cornachione, C.,
&Kameenui, E. J. (2000). Implementation of a schoolwide reading
im-provement model: No one ever told us it would be this hard!
LearningDisabilities Research & Practice, 15(2), 92100.
Smith, B., McLean, M., & Sandall, S. (2005, October).
Putting DECsrecommended practices to work. Presentation to the 21st
Annual Inter-national Conference of Young Children With Special
Needs and theirFamilies, Portland, OR.
Smith, J. D., Warren, S. F., Yoder, P. J., & Feurer, I.
(2004). Teachers useof naturalistic communication intervention
practices. Journal of EarlyIntervention, 27(1), 311.
Trister-Dodge, D., & Bickart, T. (2003). Curriculum,
assessment, andoutcomes: Putting them all in perspective. Children
and Families, 17(1),2832.
Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Morris, A., DeCesare, L.
D., &Cuffs, M. S. (1993). Embedding instruction in art
activities to teachpreschoolers with disabilities to imitate their
peers. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 8, 277294.
Warren, S. F., & Kaiser, A. P. (1988). Research in early
language inter-vention. In S. L. Odom & M. B. Karnes (Eds.),
Early intervention forinfants and children with handicaps: An
empirical base ( pp. 89108).Baltimore: Brookes.
Warren, S. F., Yoder, P. J., Gazda, G. E., Kim, K., & Jones,
H. A. (1993).Facilitating prelinguistic communication skills in
young children withdevelopmental delay. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 36,8397.
Wolery, M. (2001). Embedding constant time delay procedures in
class-room activities. In M. Ostrosky & S. Sandall (Eds.),
Teaching strategies:What to do to support young childrens
development. Young ExceptionalChildren Monograph Series No. 3 (pp.
8190). Missoula, MT: DEC/CEC.
Wolery, M., Anthony, L., Caldwell, N. K., Snyder, E. D., &
Morgante,J. D. (2002). Embedding and distributing constant time
delay in circletime and transitions. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 22,1425.
Wolery, M., & Sainato, D. (1996). General curriculum and
interventionstrategies. In S. L. Odom & M. McLean (Eds.), Early
intervention/earlychildhood special education ( pp. 125158).
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wolery, M., &Wilburs, J. S. (1994). Including children with
special needsin early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National
Association forthe Education of Young Children.
Yoder, P. J., & Warren, S. F. (2001). Relative treatment
effects of twoprelinguistic communication interventions on language
development intoddlers with developmental delays varied by maternal
characteristics.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
44(1), 224237.
Received March 1, 2008Revision received July 8, 2008Accepted
October 23, 2008DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0026)
Contact author: Eva Horn, University of Kansas, 1122 West
CampusDrive, Lawrence, KS 66045. E-mail: [email protected].
Horn & Banerjee: Embedded Learning Opportunities 415