generalization of learned objectives from project data to the integrated preschool classroom
DESCRIPTION
Generalization of Learned Objectives from Project DATA to the Integrated Preschool Classroom. Shannon Crissey, M.Ed. Erin Greager, M.Ed. Lisa Pitale, M.Ed, BCBA University of Washington Haring Center Experimental Education Unit. Introduction. Who are we? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Shannon Crissey, M.Ed.Erin Greager, M.Ed.
Lisa Pitale, M.Ed, BCBAUniversity of Washington
Haring CenterExperimental Education Unit
IntroductionWho are we?
Shannon Crissey, M.Ed. – EEU Preschool TeacherErin Greager, M.Ed. – EEU Project DATA teacherLisa Pitale, M.Ed., BCBA – EEU Project DATA teacher
Who are you? What population do you work with?How is inclusion addressed at your place of work?
Why are we presenting today?We are presenting today because of our strong belief in
inclusion and inclusive practices.
Questions we strived to answer this school year as special education teachers:- Why inclusion?- How can we turn a lot of “talk” into some “action”?- Does this action actually work? And if not, how can we MAKE it work?
Why inclusion?Arguments for inclusion:
Research articles: Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way: The Successful Inclusion of a
Child with Autism. By Janet Schmidt Inclusion in Play: A Case Study of a Child with Autism in an Inclusive
Nursery. By Fani Theodorou and Melanie Nind Inclusion Means Everyone! The Role of the Early Childhood Educator
when Including Young Children with Autism in the Classroom. By Shernavaz Vakil, Evonn Welton, Barbara O’Connor and Lynn S Kline.
Promoting a Lifetime of Inclusion. By Adelle Rezaglia, Meagan Karvonen, Erik Drasgow and Craig C Stoxen.
Inclusive Programming for Students with Autism. By Belinda W. Crisman
Civil rights:“Disability need not be an obstacle to success … It is my hope that …
this century will mark a turning point for inclusion of people with disabilities in the lives of their societies.” – Professor Stephen Hawking
“We know that equality of individual ability has never existed and never will, but we do insist that equality of opportunity still must be sought." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
“Inclusive education means that children will be included, made to feel valued and provide others with the opportunity to appreciate those who are different from themselves.” – Jeffrey Rudski, Professor of Psychology, Muhlenberg College
So what’s the challenge?Why is inclusion not happening on so many levels?
StaffingStudents’ behaviorGeneral education classroom too disruptive of an
environment for child to learn inWhat are the challenges happening in your school?
So what can we do about it?This is where our project comes in. We wanted to
show that if students needed a self-contained environment in order to learn classroom skills they could then generalize those skills to a more natural environment.
PurposeThe purpose of our project was to determine whether
students were able to generalize mastered objectives from the Project DATA classroom to the integrated pre-school classroom - but….why?
ParticipantsStudents between the ages of 3-5 who have an
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis.Students’ ability levels varied from mainly social-
emotional delays to more global delays in communication, cognition, behavior, and social development.
Setting: DATA Project
Integrated Early
Childhood Experience
Collaboration and
Coordination
Technical and Social Support
for Families
Quality of Life Influenced Curriculum
Extended, Intensive Instruction
Extended, Intensive Instructional Time
Instructional strategies are data-based and cross-disciplinary
Children’s need for support is matched to the type of instruction
Teaching procedures include discrete trials, naturalistic teaching techniques, response prompting strategies and visual supports
One-on-one and small groups
Technical and Social Support for Families
Emphasis on family-child relationships
Home based services offered
Emphasis on building supportive communities for families
“Families own the agenda”
“Quality of Life” Curriculum in the following areas:
AttendingImitationCommunicationPlaySocial interactionMatchingAdaptive skills
Focus on environment, child interest and motivation, and functional skills.
Focus on children’s ability to access typical environments.
Collaboration and CoordinationAcross Services
Increase consistency across environmentsAppropriate expectations across environmentsIncrease opportunities to practice skillsShare information about motivation and progressRegular meetings among teachersMeetings, visits, and email with other related
services
Project DATA ScheduleTime Activity
8:45 - 8:50
8:50 - 10:00
10:00 - 10:15
10:15 – 10:30
10:30 – 11:00
11:00 – 11:30
11:30 – 11:50
11:50 – 12:00
12:00 - 12:30
Arrival
2:1 Work Time
Snack
Small Group
2:1 Work Time
Recess
Lunch
Circle
Free Choice
Setting – Integrated PreschoolIntegrated Preschool Classroom
8 children diagnosed with a disability8 children who are typically developingTypically a 1:3 teacher/student ratioGeneral education curriculum modified to meet the needs
of diverse learners through adaptations, accommodations, embedded learning, and the use of peer models, along with other strategies.
Setting – Preschool ScheduleTime Activity
12:30 – 12:40
12:40 – 12:55
12:55 – 1:15
1:15 – 1:35
1:35 – 1:55
1:55 – 2:30
2:30 – 2:45
Arrival
Opening Circle
Small Group
Recess
Snack
Free Choice
Closing Circle
Procedure – Initial StepsObjective initially taught in Project DATA classroom
1:2 teacher/student ratioPrinciples of applied behavior analysisLimited distractionsDiscrete trials or embedded learning with peer
Procedure - CriterionObjective closed: 80% proficiency across 2 consecutive
daysCommunication between Project DATA staff and
integrated preschool team to discuss what each objective looked like and how it was to be tested within the integrated preschool setting.
Procedure – Tested in preschool classroomDelivered in the context of the preschool classroom within
naturally occurring activities. Testing was delivered by the researcher who lowered her
body to the child’s level, gained eye contact, lessened distracters as much as possible, and delivered a clear, concise probe.
Data CollectionCriteria for chosen objectives
DiscretenessExtent to which they were natural preschool behaviors
(ie: object imitation, following directions, etc.)
Data CollectionObjectives were tested for generalization during specified
“generalization check” weeks after the objective closed in Project DATA.
Data were collected using whatever data collection system was already established within the preschool classroom (clipboards, index cards attached to ring on teacher’s waist, etc).
+ for independently demonstrating behavior- for no response or incorrect responseEach testing probe given five times; child scored either 20%,
40%, 60%, 80%, or 100% per objective
General timeline of projectSeptember: met with all preschool and Project DATA
teachers to explain the project and determine who the “classroom facilitators” would be. Facilitators were classroom assistants who were in charge
of administering generalization trials within their classrooms and collecting data on each child’s response.
Timeline (con’t)October: First generalization check took place.
Project DATA teachers recorded mastered objectives in classroom binders. Facilitators transferred objectives on to classroom data sheets and tested for generalization that week.
December: Second generalization check took place
Timeline (con’t)January: Researchers met with
facilitators to discuss project thus far and correct any changes necessary.
February: Third generalization check took place
Timeline (con’t)Early March: Researchers met to discuss
aspects of project that were successful vs. not successful and what possible reasons might be.Solutions discussed and changes made
accordinglyLate March: Fourth generalization check took
place.
Here’s what it looked like!Video of objective being taught in Project
DATA classroomVideo of objective being tested in preschool
classroom
DiscussionWhat are elements that seem feasible in your
classroom/center?
Are there any elements that would not work? Why? How could you problem solve this?
Now for the fun part…
Results
Results – High Functioning
Results – Low Functioning
Results DiscussionData interpretation
Students overall generalized at an average rate of 68%
High-functioning students generalized at an average rate of 74%
Low-functioning students generalized at an average rate of 61%
Project DiscussionWhat was successful about the
project?Unforeseen challenges?
Discussion (con’t).
External vs. natural settings should be as similar as possible (including how testing trials are delivered)
Some students showed lower levels of generalizationChildren with more severe forms of ASD
may not generalize as well
Discussion (con’t)Problems: If buy-in is not there then generalization
may not happen with consistency or fidelity. Discussion: How to promote buy-in for
generalization and inclusion?How will this continue to inform our future practice?How does this relate to the current state of special
education? Is it feasible?
Thank you!Questions?
Please email us with any additional questions!
Shannon Crissey – [email protected]
Erin Greager – [email protected]
Lisa Pitale – [email protected]