Understanding curriculum modifications.pdf

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


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.


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


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


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, 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.


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].


Documents

Understanding curriculum modifications.pdf