Training Classroom and Resource Preschool Teachers to Develop Inclusive Class Interventions for.pdf
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
http://pbi.sagepub.com
Training Classroom and Resource Preschool Teachers to Develop Inclusive Class Interventions for
Children With Disabilities: Generalization to New Intervention Targets Joel P. Hundert Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 2007; 9; 159 DOI: 10.1177/10983007070090030401
The online version of this article can be found at: http://pbi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/159
Published by: Hammill Institute on Disabilities
and
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions can be found at: Email Alerts: http://pbi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://pbi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Training Classroom and Resource Preschool Teachers to Develop Inclusive Class Interventions for Children With Disabilities:
Generalization to New Intervention Targets
Joel P. Hundert Abstract: Four preschool supervisors were individually trained in a collaborative team ap-
McMaster University, Hamilton, proach in which classroom and resource teachers together developed a plan to increase the peer Ontario, Canada interactions of the entire class, including children with disabilities. The purpose of the research was to assess the generalization of effects to a new program target (children’s on-task behavior during circle time) and over time (3 months). The experimental phases of baseline, supervisor training, and follow-up were introduced in a multiple-baseline design across four preschool classes, each containing 2 children with disabilities. Behaviors of teachers, 8 children with dis- abilities, and 8 comparison children were measured during daily 20-min training sessions (in- door play periods) and generalization sessions (circle time). Results indicated that following supervisor training, teachers increased their focus on groups of children that included children with disabilities in both training and generalization sessions. After supervisor training, children with disabilities and comparison children increased their peer interactions during training ses- sions and their on-task behavior during circle time. Changes in teachers’ and children’s behav- iors in both settings were maintained at the 3-month follow-up observation. Implications for teacher training and consultation are discussed.
There is no longer much debate about whether to include Myles, & Kamps, 1997), higher rates of disruptive behavior children with disabilities in general education settings. The
(Gadow, Devincent, Pomeroy, & Azizian, 2005; Reese, Rich- major challenge is how to plan the involvement of children
man, Belmont, & Morse, 2005), less developed academic with disabilities so that they and their typically developing
skills (Simpson, de Boer-Ott, & Smith-Myles, 2003), and classmates benefit maximally from the arrangement. The
more difficulty following classroom routines (Bryan & placement of children with disabilities in close physical
Gast, 2000) than their classmates.
proximity to typically developing peers without associated Interventions introduced in general education class- interventions tends not to result in gains in the social ad-
rooms to address these deficits in children with disabilities justment of the children with disabilities (Guralnick &
have typically been developed by experimenters and edu- Groom, 1988; Hundert, Mahoney, Mundy, & Vernon, 1998).
cational staff trained in their implementation (e.g., Kohler, Compared to typically developing peers, children with dis-
Anthony, Steighner, & Hoyson, 2001). In some situations, abilities placed in general classroom environments tend to
interventions for children with disabilities in inclusive play by themselves or interact with an adult, engage in
classrooms have been conducted by resource (special edu- more immature forms of play, and be rated by peers as
cation) teachers (e.g., Sarokoff & Sturmey, 2004) or para- nonpreferred play partners (Koegel, Koegel, Frea, & Fredeen,
professionals (e.g., Grisham-Brown, Schuster, Hemmeter, 2001; McGrath, Bosch, Sullivan, & Fuqua, 2003; Pierce-
& Collins, 2000) who work directly with children with dis- Jordan & Lifter, 2005).
abilities while the general education teacher teaches the In addition to deficits in peer interactions, children
rest of the students. The success of inclusion of children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms have been found to
with disabilities may depend on a collaboration of re- show more frequent off-task behavior (Young, Simpson,
source and classroom teachers in the development of in-
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
With few exceptions, teachers have not been trained to develop interventions for use in the inclusive setting to accommodate children with disabilities. Interventions tar- geting specific deficits of preschoolers with disabilities in inclusive settings tend to be developed by consultants or experimenters without close collaboration with those im- plementing the interventions and without teaching imple- menters how to develop interventions themselves (Hunt, Soto, Maier, Liboiron, & Bae, 2004).
Training teachers to adapt their class activities to ac- commodate the needs of children with disabilities in one programming area (e.g., increased peer interaction) has the potential to result in teachers’ applying that training to different programming areas for the same children. If that proves to be the case, training teachers to develop inclusive class interventions would be a cost-effective alternative to providing consultation and training for each child with disabilities and each intervention target individually.
In Hundert and Hopkins (1992), preschool supervi- sors trained pairs of classroom and resource teachers to adapt class plans to produce increased interactions among peers in the class, including children with disabilities. They found an increase in the peer interactions of children with disabilities and in the proportion of time that teachers spent interacting with groups that included children with disabilities. Changes in both child and teacher behaviors generalized from indoor play sessions to outdoor play ses- sions. In another intervention, three day care teachers re- ceived feedback from a “coach” on their teaching, followed by suggestions for improvement (Henderson, Gardner, Kaiser, & Riley, 1993). Based on these suggestions, teachers set goals for how they would improve their teaching. Coaching produced an increase in teachers’ use of effective teaching procedures and a corresponding increase in the social interactions of children with disabilities.
In the study by Peck, Killen, and Baumgart (1989), three preschool teachers received two individual sessions of nondirective consultation in which they viewed a video- tape or received a verbal review by a consultant of their interactions with children with disabilities. With guided questioning from the consultant, the teachers then gener- ated ideas for possible interventions for identified child objectives. The teachers evaluated the ideas, narrowed them down to one or two for implementation, and received positive feedback from the consultant. Following consulta- tion, there was an increase in teachers’ use of prompts and consequences and in children’s targeted behaviors, both in
a training setting and a generalization setting. These studies suggest that with instruction, feedback, and supervision, teachers of preschoolers with disabilities can improve their teaching practices in the classroom, help- ing to bring about gains in child targeted performance. Yet
Kontos, Moore, and Giorgetti (1998) found that preschool teachers were significantly more likely to ignore children with, than without, disabilities in their classes. Similarly, Hundert, Mahoney, and Hopkins (1993) found that class- room teachers showed significantly less interaction with children with disabilities than did resource teachers in the same class.
Promising interventions for classroom teachers to as- sist children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms cannot require prohibitively high teacher effort (Kohler, Anthony, Steighner, & Hoyson, 2001) and need to be practical to implement within the typical organizational structure of general education classrooms (Polychronis, McDonnell, Johnson, & Jameson, 2004). Types of teaching tactics that are effective and practical and can be embedded within the instructional routines of inclusive classrooms would in- clude (a) tactics to structure the learning environment to elicit the targeted child behavior, such as peer groupings (Chandler, Fowler, & Lubeck, 1992; Laushey & Heflin, 2000) or the selection and placement of materials (Chand- ler, Fowler, & Lubeck, 1992; Kim et al., 2003); and (b) tac- tics to embed instructions within classroom routines, including correspondence training (Morrison, Sainato, Benchaaban, & Endo, 2002; Odom, McConnell, & McEvoy, 1992), constant time delay (Chiara, Schuster, Bell, & Wol- ery, 1995), prompting procedures (Tate, Thompson, & McKerchar, 2005), and group contingencies (McConnell, Sisson, Cort, & Strain, 1991). The increased use of these tactics would be expected to result in an increase in class- room teacher behaviors directed toward groups of children that include children with disabilities within the classroom.
Hundert (1994) conducted an ecobehavioral analysis of the effects of teacher training delivered by supervisors on co-occurrences of teacher and child behaviors. He found that after teacher training there was a significant in- crease in the conditional probability of interactive play of children with disabilities when teacher behaviors were di- rected toward groups of children that included children with disabilities. Interventions that result in increased teacher prompting, instruction, or reinforcement directed toward children with disabilities within inclusive groups may be an important component of teacher training (Chandler, Lubeck, & Fowler, 1992; Tate, Thompson, & McKerchar, 2005).
Although the effect of helping teachers to develop their own interventions for children with disabilities has been examined for generalization across settings (Hundert & Hopkins, 1992; Peck et al., 1989) and over time (Hen- derson et al., 1993), there has been little or no examination of whether training teachers to develop their own inter- vention strategies will generalize to teachers’ development of interventions for different instructional targets for the same children. Generalization of teacher training may be enhanced if the training is delivered by a teacher’s supervi- sor (Green, Rollyson, Passante, & Reid, 2002).
160
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
Volume 9, Number 3, Summer 2007
The purpose of the present study was to examine academic skills. Class 2 contained 15 children ranging in whether, following training showing preschool classroom
age from 3.3 to 4.1 years, including Ellen, age 3.4 years, and resource teachers together how to develop an inter-
who had been diagnosed with a communication disorder vention with a specific focus on one intervention target
with a developmental delay, and Jennifer, age 3.4 years, (peer interaction during play sessions), teachers would be
who had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy and a moder- able to apply the training to the development of a different
ate developmental delay. Both had significant delays in intervention target (on-task behavior during circle time),
communication, social skills, and preacademic skills. Class for which no specific information was provided in train-
3 had 16 children ranging in age from 4.0 to 5.1 years, with ing. Maintenance of the effects of teacher training to a
Tom, age 4.1 years, and Sam, age 4.9 years, each diagnosed 3-month follow-up observation was also evaluated.
with a moderate developmental delay that included signif- icant delays in communication, social skills, and preacad-
Method
emic skills. Class 4 contained 14 children ranging in age from 4.1 to 5.8 years. In that class, Cam, age 5.5 years, had
PARTICIPANTS
been diagnosed with autism, a behavior disorder, and a language delay, and Adrian, age 4.9 years, had been diag-
Four teachers, 8 children with disabilities, and 8 compari-
nosed as having a language delay.
son children were drawn from four urban preschool cen- All of the children with disabilities were rated by ters, each containing 40 to 60 children organized into
classroom teachers as having few friends, difficulty staying classes of 14 to 18. Each preschool center was under the di-
on task during circle time, and problems following class- rection of a supervisor who was trained and experienced in
room routines. Subsequent observation of these children early childhood education but had no specialized back-
indicated that their interactions with peers during play pe- ground in planning for children with disabilities. Supervi-
riods was about one half the level shown by typically de- sors were responsible for the general operation of the
veloping children in the same classes. Similarly, the level of preschools, including teachers’ programming for classes
on-task behavior shown by children with disabilities was and individual children.
substantially lower than that displayed by comparison Four female classroom teachers had community col-
children.
lege diplomas in early childhood education and a mean There were two purposes of involving comparison of 17.8 years of teaching experience (range = 7–22 years).
children in the study. The first was to determine if the in- Each class was assigned a part-time resource teacher to fa-
clusive class plan developed by teachers would have a pos- cilitate the inclusion of children with disabilities. Resource
itive effect on the behavior of typically developing children teachers were trained in early childhood education, with
in the class. The second purpose was for the comparison additional community college training in special educa-
children to serve as a benchmark for the behavior of the tion for children with disabilities. Resource teachers had a
children with disabilities (Fox & McEvoy, 1993). Compar- mean of 7.7 years of experience and worked at a center for
ison children were selected by the classroom teachers at
a mean of 4.7 hr a day 3.8 days a week. random from the typically developing children in the same Resource teachers were responsible for developing In-
class and matched for gender and age, plus or minus dividualized Education Programs (IEPs) for children with
3 months. The 5 boys and 3 girls who served as compari- disabilities, drawing on input from paraprofessionals or
son children ranged in age from 3.1 to 5.8 years, with a classroom teachers, but implementation of IEPs tended to
mean of 3.9 years. Written informed parental consent was rest with the paraprofessionals or classroom teachers. Sim-
obtained for the participation of all children. ilarly, resource teachers were not typically involved in the development or implementation of plans for an entire
SETTINGS
class. All 8 children with disabilities in the four preschool
Daily 20-min observations of child and teacher behaviors classes participated in the study. No child with disabilities
were recorded during both indoor play sessions (training at any of the three preschools was excluded from the study.
setting) and circle time sessions (generalization setting). All 8 children with disabilities had difficulties in peer in-
Play sessions were selected because they tend to promote teraction and on-task behavior identified in their IEPs. The
high rates of peer interaction (Honig & McCarron, 1988).
5 boys and 3 girls were all identified as having a special Circle time was selected because it has been associated need under Ontario guidelines. Class 1 contained 18 chil-
with low levels of task engagement for preschool children dren ranging in age from 3.1 to 4.1 years. In that class Gary,
(Greenwood, Carta, Kamps, & Arreaga-Mayer, 1990). age 3.1 years, and Linda, age 3.8 years, had each been diag-
During play sessions, classrooms were organized into nosed with a moderate developmental delay. They had
designated play areas (e.g., sand play, kitchen center, global delays in all areas of development, with particu-
dress-up center, vehicle center), each with associated play lar weaknesses in communication, social skills, and pre-
materials. Circle time was held in the morning for all class- materials. Circle time was held in the morning for all class-
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
A concurrent multiple-baseline design across classrooms was used to examine changes in teacher and child behav- iors after the introduction of teacher training in the col- laborative development of an inclusive class intervention. During baseline, teacher and child behaviors were re- corded without the benefit of training. Following baseline, preschool supervisors trained resource and classroom teachers to develop a plan to increase the peer interactions of all children in a class, including the children with dis- abilities. Generalization of teacher training to children’s and teachers’ behaviors during circle time was monitored.
Baseline After 3 days for participants to become accustomed to the
presence of observers, coding of teacher and child behav- iors was conducted under natural conditions during daily play sessions and circle time. Teachers were unaware of what behaviors were being recorded. At the beginning of this condition, supervisors asked the teachers to improve the peer interactions and on-task behavior of the class, including the children with disabilities. Supervisors gave no direction to teachers about how to bring about these changes.
Teacher Training After 16 to 24 days of baseline, classroom and resource
teachers were trained as a team to develop interventions to increase the peer interactions of all children in the class, with particular focus on the children with disabilities. During an initial 45-min meeting, the supervisor gave each teacher a written manual (available from the author) that indicated how to adapt a class plan to accommodate the needs of children with disabilities. The specific interven- tions covered by the training included both tactics to arrange the environment to elicit the child target behavior and tactics to embed teacher instruction, prompting, and reinforcement within inclusive groups of children. The manual described intervention components associated with adapting class programming under the headings of organizational arrangement (e.g., arranging the groupings of children), curriculum and activities (e.g., play materials), and instructional behaviors (e.g., prompting, reinforce- ment). Specific examples of applying intervention compo- nents to increasing peer interactions (e.g., clear demarcation of play areas, use of “social” toys, use of peer initiation training) were included in the training. Teachers were also provided with a planning form that guided them to con- sider whether they had each of several identified compo-
nents of an effective inclusive class plan in place, and if not, to plan how to make adaptations to incorporate these components. Resulting inclusive class plans were expected to include measurable objectives and a description of meth- odology for direct measurement of program outcomes.
During a second 45-min meeting with supervisors, classroom and resource teacher teams presented their in- clusive class plans on the form provided (see Table 1) and received positive feedback from supervisors. Supervisors evaluated whether each of 18 criteria of the training con- tent were included in the play session plans developed by teacher pairs. Supervisors also commented on the com- pleteness of the plans and ensured that all components of the training that teachers received were considered in their plans. All teacher plans did show that the teacher pairs at- tended to all of the training components. Within 2 weeks of implementation of the teachers’ plans, supervisors ob- served the plans in the classrooms and commented on pos- itive aspects of the intervention during a third 45-min session. No additional information was provided on how to develop interventions, nor did supervisors comment on the plans developed for on-task behavior. The number and length of training sessions were the same for all teacher pairs. A summary of the class plans developed by teacher pairs is shown in Table 1.
Prior to training, there were no systematic plans in place in any of the classes to increase child–peer interac- tions or foster improvement in any other area. The plans developed by each teacher pair were submitted to a judge naive to the purpose of the research who rated the plans on each of 18 criteria representing the content of training. All plans for play sessions and circle time sessions were rated as meeting at least 17 of the 18 criteria.
Follow-Up Three months after the end of teacher training, three fur-
ther observations were conducted of teacher and child be- haviors during both play and circle time sessions. Teachers were asked to conduct their classroom routines and inter- act with children as usual.
SUPERVISOR PREPARATION
Supervisors were taught how to train teachers using a writ- ten manual, role-playing, and practice. Two methods were used to determine the extent to which supervisors adhered to the trained protocol. First, supervisors completed a 17- item checklist indicating whether specific components of the collaborative team approach were followed. Second, supervisors were asked to audiotape each of their two meetings with teachers, and these tapes were later scored against 17 criteria by a judge who was naive to the purpose of the study. Supervisors’ self-ratings and the judge’s rat- ings indicated that the four supervisors met 100% of the criteria.
162
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
Volume 9, Number 3, Summer 2007
Table 1. Programs Developed by Teachers to Promote Peer Interaction and Increase On-Task Behavior Program
Peer interaction Target behaviors
Increased following of
Reduced conflicts
Increased peer initiation
Had more play
partners Physical arrangement
directions
of interactions
Planned the position of
Increased the distance
Rearranged furniture
Increased teacher
supervision Curriculum and activities Used signs to prompt di-
children in the circle
among play activities
Increased rotation of play Varied toys that are
Increased rotation
of play material Instructional behaviors
rect following
material
available
Increased teacher
Increased teacher physi-
Rehearsed how to ask
Used puppet mod-
prompting
cal and verbal prompts
peer to play
eling to prompt interaction
On-task behavior Target behaviors
Increased child
Increased child attending
Increased child attending Increased child
attending Physical arrangement
participation
Enriched teacher–child
Used two small circles
Changed order of
Stopped high
ratio
activities
motor activities before circle
Curriculum and activities Selected activities that
Used mats indicating
Had set routine to begin
Increased novelty
required child
child seating
circle time
of activities
participation
Instructional behaviors
Increased teacher physi-
Increased teacher praise
Increased teacher
Increased teacher
cal proximity to
for attending
prompting of peers
praise for
prompt participation
attending
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
the teachers’ use of the specific tactics introduced in the teacher training. Definitions of teacher focus codes and
Three trained coders recorded the behaviors of the class- interobserver reliability results are shown in Table 2. room teachers, the children with disabilities, and the
comparison children during play and circle time sessions.
Child Behaviors
Observers were situated outside the immediate area of ac- tivity but close enough to observe and hear the interac-
Child social interaction codes, adopted from Odom and tions of teachers and children. Observers recorded a child’s
McEvoy (1988), are shown in Table 2, along with inter- or teacher’s behavior on a momentary time sampling basis
observer reliability results. Of particular interest were using 10-s signals emitted by an audiotape via earphones.
changes in children’s interactive play (IP). Observers then recorded the behaviors of another partici-
pant 10 s later. To control for possible order effects, each
Coder Training
participant was observed once a minute, with the sequence The coders were four paid research assistants who had randomly determined each session.
completed, or were about to complete, undergraduate de- grees in the social sciences. They each received 12 hrs of
Teacher Behaviors training in the response definitions and the observation Prior to the study, classroom teachers did not use many
system. Training consisted of written instructions, model- strategies to involve children with disabilities in class rou-
ing, feedback, and practice observation using videotapes of tines outside of circle time sessions. Teacher behavior cate-
a play session at a preschool class not participating in the gories were adopted from the teacher focus subcategory of
study. Training continued with individual observers until the Eco-Behavioral System for Complex Assessments of Pre-
each achieved 90% accuracy on a paper-and-pencil quiz school Environments (ESCAPE; Carta, Greenwood, & At-
similar to that described by Stanley and Greenwood (1981) water, 1986). Classroom teacher behavior directed toward
and at least 80% agreement with the author on three con- groups of children that included a child with disabilities
secutive practice observations.
was selected because that measure has been associated with Reliability checks of observers’ coding were conducted increased peer interactions of children with disabilities in
on approximately one third of sessions. Here, a second inclusive classrooms (Hundert, 1994) and was expected to
observer simultaneously but independently observed the reflect general changes in teacher behavior associated with
same individual as the first observer, using sound cues
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
Table 2. Response Definitions and Interobserver Reliability for Teacher and Child Behavior Codes Interobserver reliability:
M (range) Code
Abbreviation
Definition
Teacher behavior codes
Individual child with
95.9 disabilities
(I+)
Teacher was located within 3 m of 1 child with disabilities (who
may have been in a group or isolated), and her verbal or non-
verbal behavior was directed exclusively toward that child.
Individual child
100.0 without disabilities
(I–)
Teacher was located within 3 m of 1 child without disabilities
(who may have been in a group or isolated), and her verbal and nonverbal behavior was directed exclusively toward that child.
Group with 1 or
96.2 more children
(G+)
Teacher’s verbal or nonverbal behavior was directed to a group
(75–100) with disabilities
that included 1 or more children with disabilities (e.g., asking
children to put away their toys).
Group without a
75.0 child with
(G–)
Teacher’s verbal or nonverbal behavior was directed toward a
(0–100) disabilities
group that did not include a child with disabilities (e.g., dis-
tributing aprons to a group of children without disabilities who were about to play with water toys).
100.0 No response
Other teacher
(OT)
Teacher directed her behavior toward the other teacher.
(NR)
Teacher made no observable response directed to another indi-
vidual or group (e.g., looking at a child).
Child behavior codes
Training sessions Isolated/
81.0 occupied play
(IO)
Child was engaged in a play activity (e.g., pushing a toy truck,
(0–100) Proximity play
coloring) but was more than 2 m away from any other child.
(PP)
Child was engaged in a play activity within 2 m of at least 1
other child but was not interacting either verbally or non-
verbally with another child.
Interactive play
(IP)
Child was engaged in a play activity within 2 m of at least 1
other child and was interacting with another child, either ver-
bally (e.g., talking about a play activity) or nonverbally (e.g., allowing another child to take turns playing with a toy, listen- ing when another child was talking specifically to him or her).
Negative play
(NP)
Child exhibited an aggressive, hostile, or rejecting behavior—
verbal (e.g., yelling) or nonverbal (e.g., pushing, sticking out tongue, threatening to hit)—toward another child.
Teacher (TI)
89.8 interaction
Child displayed a verbal (e.g., talking) or nonverbal (e.g., sitting
on lap) behavior directed to a teacher or other adult in the
No play
(No)
Child was not engaged in any play activity (e.g., watching other
(40–100) Generalization sessions
children).
Disruptive (D)
84.9 behavior
Child was out of seat or place without permission, talking out,
(67–100) On-task
hitting, or interfering with other children’s attention to task.
(On)
Child was looking at the teacher; responding to questions; par-
ticipating; following instructions; or waiting to receive in-
structions, feedback, materials, or teacher attention.
Off-task
(Off)
Child was not engaged in teacher-assigned activities.
Volume 9, Number 3, Summer 2007
from the first observer’s audiotape via earphones with a teacher training and maintained those heightened levels Y-adapter. Reliability calculations were based on occur-
3 months later (see Figure 1). Mean levels of teacher be- rences only and consisted of the number of agreements
havior directed toward inclusive groups (G+) in play ses- plus the number of disagreements multiplied by 100. Mean
sions were low during baseline but increased more than reliability coefficients for teacher and child behavior codes
sixfold after the introduction of teacher training (from are shown in Table 2.
7.6% to 21.6% for Teacher 1, from 3.9% to 22.2% for Teacher 2, from 1.3% to 29.6% for Teacher 3, and from
Results
0.5% to 13.2% for Teacher 4). Except for Teacher 1, there was very little overlap in the data points between baseline
TEACHER BEHAVIORS
and teacher training phases. These enhanced levels of teacher G+ were maintained 3 months later, with teachers
All four teachers increased the amount of time they fo- spending a mean of 28.2% of their time focused on inclu- cused on inclusive groups of children from baseline to
sive groups of children during play sessions.
Figure 1. Percentage of teacher behaviors per session directed to inclusive groupings of children. Note. Arrows indicate the third session of teacher training delivered by supervisors.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
Similar, but more moderate, increases in teacher be- teacher training, and follow-up phases. The results suggest havior occurred during circle time sessions. As shown in
that there was a slight increase in interactive play for some Figure 1, baseline levels of teacher G+ during circle time
of the participants (Gary, Ellen, and Tom), no increase in sessions were higher than during play sessions, likely due
interactive play for other participants (Jennifer, Sam, Adrian, to classroom teachers’ addressing comments to the entire
and Cam), and unclear results for Linda. Levels of child IP, group in circle. Table 3 shows the mean teacher behaviors
including any gains, were maintained during follow-up, during experimental phases. Each teacher showed an im-
with a mean of 33.8% across the 8 children. mediate increase in the mean amount of G+ after teacher
Figure 3 represents the percentage of each child’s on- training (from 62.1% during baseline to 74.4% during
task behavior during circle time sessions and suggests that teacher training for Teacher 1, from 50.7% to 67.3% for
there was a slight to moderate increase in the on-task be- Teacher 2, from 45.9% to 72.7% for Teacher 3, and from
havior of children with disabilities after the introduction 22.7% to 41.3% for Teacher 4). Teacher 4 showed an in-
of teacher training. The mean percentage of on-task be- creasing trend in G+ over the course of baseline, which ob-
havior for the 8 children with disabilities increased from fuscates any further increase during teacher training.
68.8% during baseline to 83.3% during teacher training. These increases in teacher G+ were maintained 3 months
Increased levels of children’s on-task behavior during cir- later, when means were 69.3% for Teacher 1, 68.7% for
cle time sessions were maintained 3 months later, with a Teacher 2, 61.7% for Teacher 3, and 70.0% for Teacher 4.
mean of 72.0%.
With some exceptions, a reduction in teacher focus on Means of children’s behaviors during play and circle noninclusive groups (G−) and individual children without
time sessions for the children with disabilities are shown in disabilities (I−) was associated with the increases in teacher
Table 4. It can be seen that increases in IP during play ses- G+. There was little or no change in teacher focus on indi-
sions were associated with reductions in proximity play vidual children with disabilities (I+). Following training,
(PP) for all of the children with disabilities except Elaine, teachers had more interactions with inclusive groups than
and with a decline in teacher interaction (TI) for Gary, with noninclusive groups and individual children without
Jennifer, Ellen, Tom, and Sam.
disabilities.
COMPARISON CHILDREN CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
Also shown in Table 4 are the results for the comparison Figure 2 shows the percentage of interactive play for each
children during the play and circle sessions. The occur- child with disabilities during play sessions in the baseline,
rence of IP in comparison children increased from a mean
Table 3. Mean Teacher Behavior Percentages in Play and Circle Time Sessions
OT NR Teacher and behavior
Teacher 1 Baseline
13.7 8.1 44.2 8.4 7.6 62.1 16.6 0.4 9.1 9.4 8.8 11.6 Supervisor training
17.1 4.9 40.9 17.9 21.6 74.4 5.7 0.8 5.8 0.9 8.8 1.1 Follow-up
17.8 4.9 28.5 14.8 36.0 69.3 6.8 0.5 6.3 0.9 4.6 9.6 Teacher 2
Baseline 15.3 6.4 35.8 24.2 3.9 50.7 7.7 1.6 4.8 0.8 32.5 16.3 Supervisor training
10.8 5.7 18.3 13.9 22.2 67.3 2.8 0.7 12.3 1.9 33.6 10.4 Follow-up
12.8 4.4 15.8 12.8 23.3 68.7 3.0 0.8 8.5 0.8 36.6 12.5 Teacher 3
Baseline 21.4 11.6 34.4 28.2 1.3 45.9 1.8 0.6 15.3 0.3 25.8 13.4 Supervisor training
21.3 6.7 20.9 10.9 29.6 72.7 1.1 0.0 15.5 0.8 11.7 8.9 Follow-up
28.5 14.9 18.0 12.5 21.0 61.7 1.5 0.0 12.5 0.8 18.8 10.1 Teacher 4
Baseline 6.1 2.1 39.1 29.8 0.5 22.7 5.4 7.9 6.6 5.2 42.3 32.3 Supervisor training
7.6 3.2 36.3 24.1 13.2 41.3 0.7 1.1 7.7 4.5 34.5 25.8 Follow-up
Note. I+ = focus on individual child with disabilities; I− = focus on individual child without disabilities; G+ = focus on inclusive groups; G− = focus on noninclusive groups; OT = focus on other teacher; NR = no response; P = play session; C = circle time.
Volume 9, Number 3, Summer 2007
Figure 2. Percentage of interactive play in each training session for children with disabilities.
of 23.9% during baseline to a mean of 39.5% during (M = 82.0%) and increased further during teacher training teacher training, averaged across the 8 comparison chil-
(M = 92.5%), an increase that was maintained in follow- dren, and continued with a mean of 41.8% during follow-
up (M = 91.8%).
up. Increases in the children’s IP tended to be associated with a decline in PP for all comparison children except Ann (M = 49.6% during baseline to 38.6% during teacher
CONSUMER SATISFACTION
training). It is interesting to note that the mean IP among the children with disabilities during teacher training
At the end of the study, resource and classroom teachers (32.9%) approximated the mean IP among the comparison
were asked to rate their satisfaction with the training. children during teacher training (38.6%) and was higher
Teachers rated their agreement with statements about the than the mean IP shown by the comparison children dur-
acceptability of the intervention on a 5-point Likert scale. ing baseline (23.9%).
Results are shown in Table 5.
The on-task behavior of the comparison children Teachers rated teacher training as acceptable, result- during the circle time tended to be high during baseline
ing in more effective programs to promote social interac-
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
Figure 3. Percentage of on-task behavior in each generalization session for children with disabilities.
tions; helpful; and making their job less difficult. Although associated increase in teacher interactions with inclusive still positive, teachers rated the ease of working out strate-
groups of children, mixed results for child target behaviors gies lower than the other questions. Subsequent discus-
in the training situation (peer interaction in play sessions), sions with teachers during a debriefing suggested that
and slight to moderate increases in child target behaviors although they found the intervention effective, it took a
in the generalization situation (on-task behavior during considerable amount of their time to plan and execute.
circle time). Any increases in teacher and child behaviors continued 3 months later. The intervention plans devel-
Discussion
oped by the teachers to address (a) peer interactions and (b) on-task behavior (see Table 1) were quite different
This study found that after teacher training, teacher teams from one another, but both were associated with increases developed inclusive class interventions, and there was an
in teacher behaviors directed toward inclusive groups of
Volume 9, Number 3, Summer 2007
Table 4. Mean Behavior Percentages of Children With Disabilities and Comparison Children
Circle time sessions Child
Play sessions
Children with disabilities
Gary Baseline
13.5 0.3 45.8 17.7 0.3 23.7 0.5 79.2 20.9 Supervisor training
1.9 1.2 31.9 45.0 0.0 19.4 0.0 87.9 12.1 Follow-up
2.7 1.7 27.7 63.3 0.7 4.0 0.0 81.0 19.0 Linda
Baseline 5.1 1.1 62.1 6.8 0.0 25.2 3.1 78.2 21.5 Supervisor training
5.1 1.0 39.8 28.4 0.0 26.2 0.0 90.2 9.8 Follow-up
6.2 1.3 35.8 33.0 0.0 23.7 2.7 97.3 0.0 Jennifer
Baseline 13.2 5.1 45.6 11.4 0.0 24.3 0.0 78.5 21.5 Supervisor training
10.7 6.9 16.8 55.5 0.0 10.1 0.0 85.2 14.1 Follow-up
11.3 7.3 12.7 61.7 0.0 7.0 0.0 95.7 4.3 Ellen
Baseline 15.3 7.1 32.9 11.3 0.0 33.4 0.0 62.0 38.0 Supervisor training
8.6 4.1 56 21.5 0.0 9.9 0.0 81.7 18.3 Follow-up
9.0 8.3 34.7 28.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 78.0 22.0 Tom
Baseline 6.5 4.5 58.5 5.3 0.0 21.2 0.0 82.2 17.2 Supervisor training
21.0 6.1 28.4 27.8 0.0 15.0 0.0 98.3 1.7 Follow-up
12.7 9.3 29.7 38.7 0.0 9.7 0.0 98.3 1.7 Sam
Baseline 6.4 3.9 53.5 6.4 0.0 30.2 0.9 79.4 19.6 Supervisor training
10.2 5.8 40.6 22.4 0.0 18.7 0.0 93.3 6.7 Follow-up
11.3 6.7 36.7 22.0 0.0 23.3 0.0 84.7 15.3 Adrian
Baseline 11.1 1.4 38.5 31.7 0.0 15.8 0.0 79.5 23.5 Supervisor training
14.1 2.7 13.2 55.4 0.0 16.7 0.0 94.9 5.1 Follow-up
11.7 3.9 11.0 53.7 0.0 19.7 0.0 92.3 7.7 Cam
Baseline 18.1 4.8 36.9 2.7 2.4 35.2 24.4 11.3 64.3 Supervisor training
9.5 6.0 40.3 7.3 2.0 34.0 3.5 35.0 61.5 Follow-up
Comparison children
John Baseline
10.0 2.4 48.8 32.0 0.0 6.8 0.3 87.4 12.3 Supervisor training
5.9 0.0 30.2 55.0 0.4 8.5 0.0 93.4 6.6 Follow-up
7.2 1.2 22.8 61.0 0.9 7.7 0.0 94.5 5.5 Elsie
Baseline 8.6 0.6 60.8 15.4 0.8 13.8 0.0 84.6 15.4 Supervisor training
9.4 3.3 23.3 48.9 0.6 14.4 0.0 94.9 5.1 Follow-up
8.1 4.1 25.3 47.8 0.8 13.9 0.0 92.4 7.6 Alice
Baseline 14.5 3.8 53.5 14.2 0.0 14.0 0.0 80.1 19.9 Supervisor training
14.6 8.2 43.8 22.4 0.0 10.6 0.0 91.1 8.9 Follow-up
12.9 5.0 32.9 31.5 0.0 17.7 0.0 93.6 6.4 Ann
Baseline 16.8 4.5 39.9 19.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 83.9 16.1 Supervisor training
8.4 3.5 21.2 29.1 0.0 7.7 0.0 91.2 8.8 Follow-up
7.9 2.6 47.2 33.5 0.0 7.8 0.0 88.5 11.5 (Table continues)
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
(Table 4 continued)
Circle time sessions Child
Play sessions
Bradley Baseline
5.4 7.5 78.0 23.9 0.0 15.2 0.0 83.4 13.6 Supervisor training
11.1 0.0 40.8 41.8 0.0 6.4 0.0 93.3 6.7 Follow-up
9.3 3.3 31.8 43.5 0.0 12.1 0.0 90.1 19.9 Mike Baseline
10.3 1.3 54.6 22.8 0.4 10.4 0.4 83.2 16.3 Supervisor training
6.4 0.0 52.9 37.4 0.0 3.3 0.0 95.0 5.0 Follow-up
8.2 1.0 48.8 29.7 0.8 11.5 0.6 91.1 8.9 Tom Baseline
6.3 1.1 47.2 34.9 0.0 10.5 0.0 75.1 24.9 Supervisor training
9.3 0.7 36.4 43.6 0.0 10.0 0.0 87.4 12.6 Follow-up
11.2 0.7 29.7 48.9 0.0 9.5 0.0 89.1 10.9 Sam Baseline
9.8 3.6 44.9 29.2 0.0 12.6 0.0 78.9 21.2 Supervisor training
8.7 2.2 33.2 31.5 0.0 21.0 0.0 93.8 8.2 Follow-up
Note. No = no play; IO = isolated or occupied play; PP = proximity play; IP = interactive play; NP = negative play; TI = teacher interaction; D = disruptive behavior; On = on-task behavior; Off = off-task behavior.
Table 5. Mean Responses to Items on the Teacher Feedback Questionnaire
Item
Mean score (range)
1. The way in which the supervisor went about attempting to assist was more acceptable to you than the 4.1 (3–5) manner in which other changes have occurred in your setting.
2. The changes to your program have made your job less difficult. 3.8 (2–4) 3. The manner in which you worked out strategies was more helpful than typically is the case.
3.9 (3–4) 4. The manner in which you worked out strategies was easier than typically is the case.
3.6 (2–5) 5. The strategy you developed for social interaction was more effective than what you were previously doing.
Note. 1 = very strongly disagree, 5 = very strongly agree.
children and an increase in targeted behavior among the of the inclusive class plans, there was an increase in the children both with and without disabilities.
amount of teacher behavior (instruction, prompts, and re- The increases in classroom teacher behaviors directed
inforcement) directed toward inclusive groups of children. toward inclusive groups of children is likely a product of
There was a reduction in teacher focus on individual the teachers’ implementation of the interventions they de-
children without disabilities and noninclusive groups of veloped. Prior to the study, responsibility for objectives for
children, and no change in teacher interactions with indi- children with disabilities would have fallen to resource
vidual children with disabilities. Associated with increased teachers and paraprofessionals, who would have tended to
teacher interactions with inclusive groups was a mixed in- design interventions for these children in isolation from
crease in child–peer interactions during play sessions and class plans.
a slight to moderate increase in child attending during cir- In the training delivered by supervisors, teachers were
cle time sessions. This study suggests that teachers can taught tactics for arranging environments to elicit child
learn strategies previously found to be effective in inclusive target behaviors and tactics to embed instruction, prompts,
classrooms through training delivered by their supervisors. and feedback within classroom routines. With supervisor
This study replicates that of Hundert and Hopkins feedback, teacher teams then considered the content of
(1992), which found that teacher training to develop in- training to modify their class plans. With the introduction
clusive class interventions increased child and teacher be-
Volume 9, Number 3, Summer 2007
haviors during indoor play sessions and generalized to in- feel “proud of their accomplishments” and “confident in creases in the same behaviors during outdoor play. The
themselves.”
current study adds to the knowledge about teacher train- Second, helping teachers develop their own interven- ing by finding that following training to develop inclusive
tions allows them to fit the intervention to the needs of the class interventions, teachers applied the training to the
particular children and routines of the setting. A process- development of interventions for a different child target,
oriented approach invites participants to tailor an inter- with associated increases in teacher and child behaviors. It
vention to fit their situations so that it is acceptable and also illustrates a collaborative planning approach in which
feasible to implement. Moes and Frea (2000) found that a general and special education teachers together developed
prescriptive treatment program for a child with autism class plans to address targeted outcomes for all children in
that was not developed in collaboration with the family the class, including children with disabilities.
and was not sensitive to family routines produced little im- The current study differs in at least two ways from
provement in the child’s challenging behaviors and com- previous studies in which training or consultation was
pliance. In contrast, a treatment plan developed with the provided to teachers to help them develop interventions
family was effective in reducing the child’s challenging be- for children with disabilities (Henderson et al., 1993; Peck
haviors and in improving compliance. et al., 1989). First, the teachers were teamed and followed a
A third advantage of the teacher training is that it may general collaborative process through which they designed
be a low-cost way to deliver service. In most preschool set- their own interventions, rather than being coached indi-
tings, it is simply not feasible to have a consultant design a vidually. Odom et al. (2004) have identified a collaborative
program for each identified need of each child with dis- planning process as an important component of the inclu-
abilities and train teachers in its implementation. In the sion of children with disabilities, especially when the roles
present study, teacher training took approximately 2 hrs to of the classroom and resource teachers are unclear.
conduct for each supervisor. Even greater efficiency for
A second difference is that teacher training was deliv- consultants may be achieved by training supervisors as a ered by the teachers’ supervisors, and supervisors’ active
group or using a pyramid training strategy (Neef, 1995). involvement in training may have been an important com-
There are several limitations to this study. Although ponent in the obtained effects. Graden, Casey, and Bon-
there was a check on the fidelity of teacher training imple- strom (1985) reported that one of the differences between
mented by supervisors and on whether interventions devel- schools that were and were not successful at implementing
oped by teacher teams met the criteria established during
a prereferral intervention system was the visible support of training, there was no direct measure of whether teachers administration. Similarly, there was little change following
implemented their plans as designed. Without information in-service instruction of residential staff in treatment pro-
on the consistency between planned and implemented cedures for persons with mental retardation until supervi-
teacher activities, it is difficult to attribute changes in sors were also trained in the procedure and how to instruct
teacher and child behaviors to the developed interventions. staff (Shore, Iwata, Vollmer, Lerman, & Zarcone, 1995).
A second limitation is the lack of demonstration of Teachers may be able to acquire programming skills, but
which components associated with teacher training were their generalized application of those skills may depend
responsible for the obtained effect on teacher and child be- upon supervisor actions that encourage and reinforce teacher
haviors. The obtained effects of teacher training may not efforts (Ingham & Greer, 1992). The level of behavior
require all of the components that were introduced. A change found in the current study might not have been
component analysis of teacher training in a collaborative achieved had training been delivered by people other than
team approach would help to identify which aspects of the the supervisors. The approach of using indigenous super-
procedure are critical and how to enhance the effect fur- visors as trainers and encouraging a collaborative process
ther.
for the development of interventions is consistent with the
A third limitation is that there was already an existing directions of positive behavior supports as described by
relationship between resource and classroom teachers be- Carr et al. (2002).
fore the study began. Classroom teachers already had a Training staff to develop their own interventions has
system for planning for the class, and resource teachers al-
a number of advantages over training staff to implement ready had a process for planning for individual children ready-designed programs. First, there is evidence of in-
with disabilities. Teacher training encouraged the class- creased commitment to implementation when imple-
room and resource teachers to develop one plan together menters are involved in the development of programs
that targeted the entire class, including the children with (Burgio, Whitman, & Reid, 1983; West & Idol, 1987; York
disabilities. The effectiveness of this teacher training may & Vandercook, 1990). At a debriefing session held after the
be limited to similar situations in which a planning process study, several teachers and supervisors commented that
is in place for the class, as well as for individual children being involved in the design of the program made them
with disabilities, and a resource teacher and a classroom
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
teacher have a preexisting relationship. Training classroom
Grisham-Brown, J., Schuster, J., Hemmeter, M. J., & Collins, B. C. (2000).
and resource teachers as a team to develop inclusive class