A Building Blocks Model

http://yec.sagepub.comYoung Exceptional Children

DOI: 10.1177/109625060100400301 2001; 4; 3 Young Exceptional Children

Susan Sandall, Ilene Schwartz and Gail Joseph A Building Blocks Model for Effective Instruction in Inclusive Early Childhood Settings

http://yec.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children

can be found at:Young Exceptional Children Additional services and information for

http://yec.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://yec.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://yec.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/4/3/3 Citations

by Catarina Grande on October 28, 2008 http://yec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

3A Building Blocks Modelfor Effective Instructionin Inclusive EarlyChildhood Settings Susan Sandall, Ph.D.,Ilene Schwartz, Ph.D., and

Gail Joseph, Ph.D.,University of Washington

~ nterestingly, as inclusion hasbecome a more common optionfor preschool children with dis-abilities, how we describe theseearly childhood programs has

changed. The center of the,~

conversation has shifted from~Bt the instructional strategies

&dquo; that are traditionally used in._

_ special education settings.&dquo;. &dquo;&dquo; toward attempting to under-~~~

stand the complex relation-~~t ships between the classroom~N ecology, adult behavior, andJ~ child behavior. Sometimes, it

~3!~ seems, in the excitement over~~~ inclusion, we have dropped~~~

all discussion of instruction~~~

from our vocabularies and~~~

our interactions with fami-~N~ lies, students, and profession-~~.

als from other disciplinesjjj~~ (e.g., early childhood educa-

tion). This trend is very trou-bling for a number of reasons.First and foremost, specializedinstruction is the cornerstone ofwhat we do in special education.A primary goal of early childhoodspecial education is to attempt tochange childrens developmental

trajectories by intervening earlywith specialized instruction. Weare attempting to remediate delayscaused by the childs disabilitiesand prevent any secondary disabil-ities from developing. When wework with families to developIndividual Education Plans weare making an implicit contractwith them to provide specializedinstruction. What we have learnedthrough inclusion and workingclosely with professionals in earlychildhood education is thatspecialized instruction generallydoes not require special places,special materials, zor special activities.

~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~&dquo;

~ _ ifl jbe;j s6&dquo; to P,orrieti~e ov er i~cl ssi~ o~ s

~~te~e~t d ~~~ d~sG~ oe~b~~a~~e ~l~P,55~lllll/lll/iii/ illiJ1~

.~st ~ctio er~ctio~s .o~wal~s iyoo~d o~~ ~~t d .~~ofessv~~&dquo;&dquo;i /?f dotb el


4What it does require is specialplanning, special training, and spe-cial attention.

As part of the Early ChildhoodResearch Institute on Inclusion(Odom et al., 1996) we have beenexamining the barriers and facilita-tors to inclusion. One area ofresearch that we have conductedover the past five years is to exam-ine how adults provide instructionto and support the participation ofchildren with disabilities in inclu-sive programs. We have observedin inclusive early childhood pro-grams across five states and talkedto teachers, parents, administra-tors, and policy makers. In anattempt to synthesize findings in a manner that is easily accessible to

~~~~~~ ~ ~

providers, stu- ~~ c~-~dents, families,

~be Soland researchers, IOOW .yYB

~ ~

we developed the ~

s ~ A

&dquo;Building Blocks ur p ose

~e o~ S~i~1 at ~Model.&dquo; The purpose o-f ~of this model is to

~t~ (describe the range of ~ Betypes of support and tB1a-t ~e~instruction that is necessaryto make inclusion successfulfor young children with disabili-ties. It is important to note thatalthough the model appears linear,it does not imply that these differ-ent strategies are hierarchical, orthat a teacher and child must tryone before moving on to the next.The challenge is to figure out howmuch support a child needs witha specific behavior or skill at aspecific time given a specific con-text and to provide that level ofsupport. Too much support mayresult in children becoming over

akers. in an cont-1ize findings

r B,B,,-e oB,B,t of tl

i easily ~~

~~ oigw~ ~,~ t,,easily

~~e~,ge . Is to t a child

~OY of teo Ic ti

iB1e cha. ch s~~~o~ . yc beha.~~o IB10 W .yYBB,B,C 1B1 ~ ~Sr -neCBB . r B C tB .yYBeb ive , eeeds WB t a- sr -neCBBB 10

ose of s~~~1 at CL toof sV eBB BeveB 0 Oft. classro, ;1d that goals and obji

reliant on adult support. Too littlesupport will result in childrenbeing unsuccessful, and may leadto decreasing rates of participationand increasing rates of challengingbehaviors.

The Building BlocksModel

The Building Blocks Modelevolved from many research activi-ties and professional developmentexperiences including visits toclassrooms, conversations with

parents and teachers,~~~

and preparation and

000-..Oto continuing educatione oixt of teachers and otheri~19 team members. We

a- cB1iBa learned that teach-~,-t v beha~~r

~.

a

ers often struggle~tC ~ pit CL with issues such

t~YvIe 0~ae as providingVecBBB yta to v 10 e sufficienta-rta to instruction

~te1-t ~,

within d

,~ SIXV activity-basedo classrooms, matching

goals and objectives withappropriate instructional methods,and deciding what amount ofassistance is needed by a child andwhen to provide such assistance.The Model is guided by our goalof successful inclusion of youngchildren with special needs incommunity-based early childhoodclassrooms. We sought to identifyexisting or develop new strategiesthat meet the standards of practi-cality and effectiveness while sup-porting and enhancing a youngchilds inclusion.

The Building Blocks Model(see Figure 1) consists of four

components, or blocks. Our modelshares characteristics with otherframeworks for guiding instructionin early childhood education.Bredekamp and Rosegrant (1992)provide a continuum of teachingbehaviors to describe the range ofbehaviors (from nondirective todirective) used by early childhoodteachers in their interactions withchildren. Odom and Brown (1993)offer a hierarchy of interventionapproaches for teaching socialskills. Bailey and McWilliam(1990), in an article based on thenormalization principle, describehow environmental arrangements,teaching strategies, and familyfocus can vary within earlyintervention programs but that thecriteria for quality programs areeffectiveness and normalization.

High Quality EarlyChildhood Program

Sean is a four-year-old boywith a severe communicationdisorder. Although he hasdifficulty interacting with hispeers in activities that requiremuch verbal interaction orhave complex rules, he isvery interactive and success-ful during recess and othergross motor activities. In fact,his mother reports that he&dquo;swims like a fish&dquo; and is oneof the stars of his swimmingclass at the local communitycenter.

This example reminds us thatjust because children have anidentified disability does not meanthat they need specializedinstruction or special services in


5Figure 1: The Building Blocks Model for Effective Instruction

every aspect of their lives. Formany children with disabilities,during some part of their day, theywill be able to participate fully andsuccessfully in a high quality pro-gram designed for all childrentheir age. For most young childrenwith disabilities, however, highquality early childhood programsare necessary but not sufficient topromote participation and learn-ing. For these children we need tobegin with a high quality programand add additional support andinstruction.

Defining quality in earlychildhood programs is a complexand difficult task. It requires thatadults consider the social andcultural contexts of childrenslives and develop programs thatare safe, engaging, responsive, andculturally and linguistically rele-vant. Rather than attempting todescribe the components of ahigh quality program here, we

refer you to the many outstandingdocuments produced by theNational Association for theEducation of Young Children(NAEYC) on this subject (e.g.,Bredekamp & Copple, 1997;Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp,2000).

Modifications andAdaptations

Alberto is a four-year-old boyenrolled in a mixed age,) mixed ability preschool class-

j room. He has global developmental delays and uses a) walkey One of his IEP objec-1 tives is to use tools such as) crayons, markers, eating= utensils, and so forth. During

free choice time, the artcenter is almost always avail-

? able and is one activity area that could provide learning

and practice opportunities.

T~~Alberto often chooses t~asarea but has difficulty usingpaintbrushes, scissors, andother tools that are availablein this centey So, his teachermade some changes to thecenter with Alberto in mind.She added a tabletop easel,paint pots with tops on them,loop scissors, and made someof the crayons and markerslarger by taping foamaround them.

i~- Teachers and others can make

modifications, adaptations, andaccommodations to their class-room activities, routines, andlearning centers in order toinclude children with disabilitiesand other special needs and toenhance their participation in theclassroom. In our example,Albertos teacher adapted some ofthe classroom materials and addedsome adaptive equipment. Herintention was to use relativelysimple and nonintrusivemodifications toenhance

LAI

&dquo;t1 co111V Bei-

s

De iirBirt~ 0~,-a-.yYB s is It ,-e(B B,B,i,-es . BB100~ j V,- yog t(1.s ~. the socv(irt iBBicB,B, BtS cO fBsiae- t tS 0Bth ~,t ~d~~ ~~ oilte:~ts oi elogtB1a-t a- BB (iB cort te1- eveBOVa-tt cyt~~ . ~ . eS (ifBcl s(iBe, erB~a-C; BCLYA (&dquo;Vtt&dquo;, lii)f,$ OYva ale ScLiel liltvtyall~cB1B BMefB-

s tB1(i t a-,-e

C, B t vB-,-a-B

vyoq&dquo; 1(1.111 fBsive, a-rt Bev(it1 . t~l~~i11J&dquo;~ 1e(1rt 0. Birt~BB ~


6Albertos participation in the artcenter and, thus, to increase hisskill with the sorts of tools used byyoung children. The key consider-ation of a modification or adapta-tion is that the change is to theongoing activity or materials inorder to achieve and maximizethe childs participation. Theunderlying assumption is that byincreasing access to activities andmaterials and by increasing oppor-tunities, the child will take advan-tage of such opportunities andconsequently develop and learn.

Wolery and colleagues (1994)surveyed general early childhoodeducators and found that teachersreported that modifications werean acceptable instructional strategyin inclusive classrooms. To identifythe types of modifications that areactually made, we conducted focusgroups in five states with morethan 100 participants includingteachers, therapists, and directors/supervisors (Sandall et al., 2000).We asked questions related tothe modifications used in earlychildhood settings that allowincorporation of childrens IEPobjectives into ongoing classroomactivities and routines. Participantsoffered numerous descriptions andexamples, which we grouped intothe eight categories listed follow-ing with their accompanyingdescriptions:

1. Environmental Support-Altering the physical, social,and temporal environment topromote participation, engage-ment, and learning.

2. Materials Adaptation-Modifying materials so that thechild can participate as inde-pendently as possible.

3. Simplifying the Activity-Simplifying a complicated taskby breaking it into smallerparts or reducing the numberof steps.

4. Using Child Preferences-Identifying and integrating thechilds preferences for materi-als or activities so that thechild takes advantage of avail-able opportunities.

S. Special Equipment-Special oradaptive devices that allow achild to participate or increasea childs level of participation.

6. Adult Support-An adult inter-vening or joining the activity tosupport the childs participa-tion and learning.

7. Peer Support-Utilizingpeers to increase a childsparticipation.

8. Invisible Support-A purpose-ful arrangement of naturallyoccurring events within anactivity.The effectiveness of a particu-

lar modification is evaluated byobservation of the target childsparticipation. Does participation

increase? The next step is to evalu-ate whether or not the child thentakes advantage of the activity orroutine to practice and expand onexisting skills and knowledgeand/or to learn new skills. If not,other instructional strategies arewarranted.

Embedded LearningOpportunities

Jasmine is a five-year-oldchild with autism. She is

Ienrolled in a half-day, inclu-sive preschool classroom. She:also receives home-based ser-vices. While she has begun touse verbal expression to makerequests at home, she remainsquiet and passive at school.Her classroom and hometeachers devise a plan toencourage Jasmines verbalrequesting at school. First,

the teacher will name the II&dquo; food, toys, or materials.

Then, the teacher will waitexpectantly for Jasmine toask for something. If Jasmine

does ask for something, theteacher will comply with the

. request and praise her. Ifjasmine does not use wordsto request, the teacher will

.provide a prompt by com- ,menting on the items again.While there are many nat-urally occurring times during ,the school day to prom ptverbal requests, the teachers &dquo;decide to concentrate on snack and small group timesand to try to embed at least ten opportunities within ,these activities each day.


7Early childhood teachers iden-tify the opportunities most salientto the individualized learningobjectives for the child and takeadvantage of the childs interestsby embedding short systematicinstructional interactions into theexisting classroom activities androutines in order to enhance thechilds learning. We call thisapproach embedded learningopportunities (ELO). In the exam-ple, Jasmines teachers identifiedhigh probability learning times,incorporated a relatively simplebut systematic instructional strat-egy (i.e., time delay), and imple-mented it on a regular andconsistent basis.

The key characteristics of ELOare that the instructional interac-tion is planned and embeddedwithin an ongoing activity orroutine. The individualized,targeted objective may be differentfrom or more specific than thegeneral goal of the activity orroutine in which it is embedded.Similar approaches have beenadvocated by a number of writers(e.g., Bricker & Cripe, 1992;Davis, Kilgo, & Gamel-McCormick, 1998; Noonan &McCormick, 1995; Wolery &Wilbers, 1994). Bricker and Cripe(1992) call the approach &dquo;activity-based instruction.&dquo; A growingnumber of research studies (e.g.,Fox & Hanline, 1993; Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1997; Horn,Lieber, Sandall, Schwartz, & Li, inpress; Kaiser, Yoder, & Keetz,1992; Venn, Wolery, Werts,Morris, DeCesare, & Cuffs, 1993)have examined the effectiveness

of embedding instruction withgenerally positive results.

The steps for implementingELO in the classroom are asfollows:

1. Clarify the learning objectiveand determine the criteria.

2. Gather baseline information todetermine the childs currentlevel of performance.

3. Use an activity matrix or othertype of planning form to selectactivities, areas, or classroomroutines in which instructioncan reasonably be embedded.

4. Design the instructionalinteraction and write it on aplanning form, such as an &dquo;IEPat a Glance&dquo; (adapted fromMcCormick & Feeney, 1995).

S. Implement the instruction,providing the number ofopportunities as planned inthe previous step.

6. Keep track of the opportunitiesprovided.

7. Periodically (e.g., every twoweeks or whenever you believethat the child has achieved theobjective) conduct a probe tomonitor the childs progress.The purpose of ELO is to

increase the teaching and learningopportunities provided to thechild. The effectiveness of theapproach with a particular childor objective is evaluated by thechilds progress. If the child ismaking progress toward achievingthe targeted objective, the instruc-tion continues. However, if thechild is not making reasonableprogress, it is time to make achange.

Explicit Child-DirectedInstruction

Emily is a five-year old with .

Documents

A Building Blocks Model