Margaret Gessler Werts

Embedding Instruction in Art Activities to Teach Preschoolers with Disabilities to Imitate Their Peers.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of embedding a procedure called progressive time delay (a direct teaching strategy) in art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers. Three children (one with autism, one with developmental delays and visual impairments, and one with severe language disabilities with autistic features) participated in the study. Five requests to imitate their peers were embedded into each daily art activity for each child and their responses were recorded. A multiple probe design across subjects was used to evaluate the procedures. The findings indicated that embedding the progressive time delay procedure into art activities produced high levels of imitation of the novel responses of their peers in a nearly errorless fashion. In addition, the levels of peer imitation increased in a generalization (transfer) activity (i.e., fine motor area) after instruction was used in the art activities. The results are discussed in terms of delivering instruction during ongoing preschool activities in classrooms enrolling both children with and without disabilities.

Instructive feedback: Review of parameters and effects

We present a review of the existing research on instructive feedback. Instructive feedback is a method of presenting extra, non-target stimuli in the consequent events of instructional trials (e.g., during praise statements). Students are not required to respond to those additional stimuli and are not reinforced if they do. The research is reviewed in terms of the characteristics of participants involved, the settings and instructional variables used, and the findings that emerged. The findings indicate that a wide range of students by age and disability were included and that most studies occurred in special education contexts. When used with response prompting procedures in a variety of direct instructional arrangements, students acquire and maintain some of the instructive feedback stimuli. Thus, teachers are encouraged to use instructive feedback in their direct instructional activities. Areas of future research include using instructive feedback in new contexts and examining methods for presenting instructive feedback. In addition, the use of instructive feedback to influence future learning and stimulus class formation should be investigated.

Teachers' Perceptions of the Supports Critical to the Success of Inclusion Programs

Two mail surveys, one with a follow-up, were conducted to determine if consensus existed among general and special education teachers on (a) the conditions and supports that are critical to including children with substantial disabilities in general education classrooms and (b) problems faced in implementing inclusive education. The data were collected in three stages. The first stage was a questionnaire sent to teachers in Pennsylvania who had experience including children with moderate to severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Through two open-ended questions, they were asked to identify critical supports for inclusion and major problems they faced when including children with disabilities. For the second stage, the same respondents were asked to rate the importance of the categories of supports and to rate the significance of the problems they faced. The results indicated that training, support from a team of professionals, and having help in the classroom were mentioned by a large portion of the respondents. The third stage involved a national sample of elementary, general education teachers responding to the open-ended questions. The respondents in the national sample (teachers who may or may not have been involved in a supported program of inclusion) identified the same three supports more often than other supports.

The Extent and Nature of Preschool Mainstreaming A Survey of General Early Educators

This article describes a mail survey of general early childhood educators to determine the extent to which they are and have been engaged in preschool mainstreaming. Four groups of early childhood educators were surveyed: those employed by Head Start, public school pre-kindergarten, public school kindergarten, and community preschool/ child care programs. Participants were randomly selected from the nine U.S. Bureau of the Census regions. Of the 893 mailed questionnaires, 483 (54.1%) were returned and coded. The results indicated that (a) nearly three-fourths (74.2%) of the responding programs reported enrolling a child with a diagnosed disability, (b) the percentage of mainstreamed programs increased across the five years studied, (c) children from all diagnostic categories listed on the survey were enrolled in some programs, (d) the diagnostic category of speech/language impaired was the most frequently reported category followed by developmental delays and behavior disorders, and (e) the ages of enrolled children with diagnosed disabilities varied by program type. The limitations of these findings and their implications for preschool mainstreaming are discussed.

What Parents Tell Us About Paraeducators

This study examined parent perceptions of the paraeducators role. Observations of paraeducators and students with disabilities were conducted in inclusive classrooms. Some paraeducators worked as general classroom assistants, while others worked one-on-one with students with special needs. Each parent of a child with special needs was shown graphs reflecting the percentage of time their childs paraeducator was observed in various roles and interacting with students and adults. Parents were interviewed about their knowledge and perceptions of the paraeducator working in their childs classroom. Results indicated parents were pleased with their childrens paraeducators. However, parents offered several recommendations for improving the use of paraeducators, including the need for more training and better communication between parents and school personnel. Responses of parents suggest paraeducators are perceived as “teachers” and should be professionally valued and present at Individualized Education Program meetings and parent conferences. Implications are discussed.

Effects of Instructive Feedback on Future Learning.

This study evaluated the effects of presenting instructive feedback for current target behaviors when teaching preschoolers in dyads to name four stimulus variations. Behaviors for each of the four types of stimuli were divided into two sets and instructed sequentially with a 3-second constant time delay procedure. During instruction, correct responses to one set of behaviors received a token, verbal praise, and presentation and verbal description of the future target stimuli in one daily session. In the other daily session, correct responses received only tokens and verbal praise. A parallel treatments design (Gast & Wolery, 1988) was used to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of the two conditions. Results indicate that: (a) three of the four children learned all future behaviors, (b) presentation of instructive feedback did not interfere with learning, and (c) in terms of direct instruction time required by the teacher, future behaviors were acquired more efficiently.

Instructive Feedback: Effects of a Presentation Variable

Instructive feedback involves presenting extra nontarget stimuli in the consequent events of instructional trials and not requesting students to respond to those stimuli during instruction. The purposes of this study were to evaluate whether students (a) would acquire the behaviors for instructive feedback stimuli when those stimuli were presented after trials on any of a set of target behaviors rather than after a given target behavior and (b) acquired instructive feedback behaviors during acquisition of target behaviors or after mastery of those target behaviors. Four 11-year-old boys with mild disabilities participated, instruction occurred in their special education classroom, and a multiple-probe design across sets of behavior was used. Results indicate that the students (a) acquired their target behaviors, (b) acquired a high percentage of the behaviors for instructive feedback stimuli, and (c) generally acquired instructive feedback responses while acquiring target behaviors. The findings are discussed in terms of future research on instructive feedback and implications for practice.

Perceptions of Paraeducators on Job Retention

Retaining paraeducators is reported to be an issue for some schools. Jobs with more favorable working conditions are said to draw paraeducators from education. The purpose of this study was to investigate issues related to retention or attrition of paraeducators. Structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants, drawn from two public school districts in North Carolina. Participants included both stayers (those who remain on the job) and leavers (those who left the job) to achieve a balance of information. Four major findings emerged: (a) the length of time paraeducators stayed on the job; (b) the primary reason for taking a job as a paraeducator; (c) difficulties with low pay; and (d) issues related to working conditions.

Instructive feedback: A comparison of simultaneous and alternating presentation of non-target stimuli

Instructive feedback involves presenting extra, non-target stimuli in the consequent events for childrens responses. Two methods of presenting instructive feedback during direct instruction were compared. These methods involved presenting two extra stimuli on all trials, and presenting the two extra stimuli separately on alternating trials. Preschool students were taught coin combinations using a constant time delay procedure with instructive feedback stimuli added to both praise and correction statements. An adapted alternating treatments design was used to evaluate the two methods of presenting instructive feedback. The students were assessed to determine the extent to which instructive feedback stimuli were learned. The results indicate that students learned some of the instructive feedback stimuli and no consistent differences in the effectiveness of the two presentation methods were noted. Further, relationships between the two instructive feedback stimuli appeared to be established. Implications for instruction and future research are discussed.

Knowing What to Expect: Introducing Preservice Teachers to IEP Meetings

M than five million IEP conferences are conducted each year. Despite the number of meetings, many IEPs are not educationally useful or legally correct (Bateman & Linden, 1998). A common concern for principals and special education directors hiring new special education teachers is their lack of information concerning IEP development and experience establishing parent relationships that are required to produce valid, family-centered, and legally compliant IEPs (Gelzheiser, McLane, Meyers, & Pruzek, 1998; Huefner, 2000). For decades prior to the enactment of P.L. 94-142, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), parents and family members were totally alone in their burden of educating and caring for their children with disabilities. IDEA not only guaranteed a free and appropriate education for all children, it also mandated parent involvement (Simpson, 1996). Parental participation as a right enforceable by law was possibly the most radical provision of the law. This provision is based on the assumption that parental participation is beneficial to both parents and professionals and is a vehicle to hold schools accountable to parents and students (Turnbull, Turnbull, & Wheat, 1982 as cited in Rock, 2000). Congress upheld these assumptions in two reauthorizations of P.L. 94-142; IDEA 1997 strengthens and expands the role of parents (Bateman & Linden, 1998). IEPs have been identified as the most significant component of IDEA. Two major elements characterize IEPs. First, the IEP meeting is a process of joint decision-making for parents and professionals. Second, the IEP document describes and documents decisions made by parents and professionals (Simpson, 1996). While the IEP provides a tool that is intended to be used to initiate and implement a parent-professional partnership facilitating an effective and appropriate education for children with disabilities, the legal rights of children and parents and the mandate for parent involvement do not always result in a positive parent teacher partnership (Simpson, 1996). Despite the emphasis on active family involvement and the ongoing rhetoric regarding collaboration, there are many reports indicating that family involvement continues to be passive or submissive participation (Ferguson, Ferguson, & Jones, 1988; Gallivan-Fenlon, 1994; HanleyMaxwell, Whitney-Thomas, & Pogoloff, 1995; Harry, 1992). Passive participation cannot be the ideal or most productive role in light of the fact that family members are generally the one constant in the lives of individuals with disabilities. Family members often remain actively involved, providing or obtaining supports and services throughout the life span (Ferguson, Ferguson, Jeanchild, Olson, & Lucyshyn, 1993). Contradictions often exist between professional espoused values related to family involvement and the reality of daily practices when interacting with families (Pogoloff, 1997).