collaborative teaming to support preschoolers

8/8/2019 Collaborative Teaming to Support Preschoolers

1/21

TECSE 24:3 123142 (2004) 123

Collaborative Teaming to Support Preschoolers

With Severe Disabilities Who Are Placed in

General Education Early Childhood Programs

Researchers in 2 studies investigated the effectiveness of a general education/specialeducation collaborative teaming process in increasing the engagement, develop-ment, and learning of preschoolers with severe disabilities who were placed in

general education early childhood programs that operated under a team-teachingmodel. The process included monthly team meetings to develop educational and socialsupports for targeted preschoolers, which were then collaboratively implementedby the educational team members. Study 1 focused on 3 teams composed of early child-hood and special education teachers, instructional assistants, speechlanguage thera-pists, and parents who supported a child with significant disabilities attending one ofthe 3 participating preschools. Study 2 extended the collaborative teaming model to in-clude all preschoolers with disabilities attending one of the preschool programs fromthe first study who required intensive levels of support (4 children). The effectivenessof the collaborative development and implementation of support plansand the ex-tent to which the collaborative teaming process was judged to be natural to the exist-ing classroom culture and useful in producing positive child outcomeswas evaluatedin both studies.

Pam HuntGloria SotoJulie MaierNicole Liboiron

Soung BaeSan Francisco State

University

Address: Pam Hunt, San Francisco State University, Department of Special Education, 1600 Holloway Ave.,

San Francisco, CA 94132; e-mail: [email protected]

Inclusive education has emerged as a promising educa-tional practice for teaching young children with signifi-cant disabilities (Beckman et al., 1998; Guralnick, 2001;

Hanson et al., 1998; Hanson, Gutierrez, Morgan, Bren-nan, & Zercher, 1997; Odom, 2002; Rafferty, Piscitelli,& Boettcher, 2003). Although a single definition of in-clusion within the early education context is yet to be ac-cepted (Odom et al., 1996), there seems to be consensusabout some common features of inclusive programs. First,inclusive education occurs when young children with dis-abilities are members of the same classrooms and com-munity settings as their typically developing peers andreceive necessary services to accomplish the goals estab-lished for them by an educational team that includes theirparents and professionals. Second, these necessary services

are provided through a collaboration involving all mem-bers of the team. Last, outcome measures are collectedperiodically to assess whether the goals established bythe team for the preschooler are being met (Odom et al.,1996; Siegel, 1996).

A considerable body of literature has documentedthe positive outcomes of inclusive education for young

children with disabilities, including gains in cognitive, lan-guage, motor, and social development (Rafferty et al.,2003; see also Siegel, 1996, for a review). Fundamental to

the attainment of these outcomes are the abilities to com-municate with others and to participate in social interac-tions (Hanson et al., 1997). Because early interventionsettings typically encourage child-initiated learning andactive physical and social engagement among childrenand with the immediate environment, children with sig-nificant disabilities are at risk for social isolation andnonengagement. In fact, young children with moderate-to-severe disabilities have been consistently found tospend significantly less time in interaction with their typ-ically developing peers (see Odom et al., 1996, for a re-view). Without appropriate communication and social

supports designed to promote participation and socialinteraction, young children with significant disabilities areat risk of social isolation and, as a result, limited growth(Hanson et al., 1997).

Effective implementation of social and communi-cation supports for young children with significant dis-abilities necessarily requires the collaboration of all the


2/21

124 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 24:3

members of the educational team. In fact, a considerablebody of literature has established collaborative teamworkas one of the most critical components of quality inclu-sive early childhood education (e.g., Guralnick, 2001;Lieber et al., 1997; Odom, 2002). For young childrenwith significant disabilities, educational team membersmust work together to integrate an often complex arrayof supports for learning, mobility, and classroom partic-ipation (Odom et al., 1999).

The challenge of coordinating the contributions ofall team members is heightened by two facts: first, thetraditional roles and responsibilities of related servicepersonnel are changing, and second, a number of teammembers have overlapping functions within the inclusivemodel (Lieber et al., 1997). For example, parents, class-room teachers, special educators, speechlanguage ther-apists, and instructional assistants all have important rolesin teaching and supporting a wide range of communica-

tion and language skills.Unfortunately, a frequent problem that continues to

afflict inclusion teams in early childhood settings is theabsence of a team process for determining necessary com-munication and social supports. This problem may takeseveral forms: (a) individuals serving on the team do nothave a set of shared goals; (b) related service planning,implementation, and evaluation are conducted outside ofthe classroom and are unrelated to the educational pro-gram; (c) team meetings are scarce and, when they do oc-cur, concentrate on the overall Individualized FamilyService Plan (IFSP); and (d) families and school person-nel interact with related service personnel as experts

rather than as peers.The emergence of inclusion as a widespread practice

for the early childhood education of young children withsignificant disabilities necessitates conducting researchto identify the factors and processes that have a positiveimpact on the ability of educational personnel to provideinclusive services. The purpose of the two studies re-ported herein was to investigate the effectiveness of acollaborative teaming process designed to unify and in-tegrate educational, communication, and social supportsfor young children with significant disabilities includedin general preschool settings. Study 1 focused on three

educational teams (consisting of early childhood and spe-cial education teachers, instructional assistants, speechlanguage therapists, and parents) who supported a childwith significant disabilities attending one of the threeparticipating preschools. Study 2 extended the collabora-tive teaming model to include all preschoolers with signifi-cant disabilities who were members of one of the preschoolprograms from the first study. The investigation focusedon evaluating the impact of the collaboration process onchild outcomes and on the practicality and usefulness ofthe collaborative model when implemented for multiplechildren requiring more intensive levels of support.

STUDY 1

METHOD

Setting

This study was conducted at three preschools in one ofthe largest and most diverse school districts in the SanFrancisco Bay area. Two of the preschools had been in-cluding children with significant disabilities for 12 years;the third preschool had been including these children for18 years. The classrooms used a team-teaching model(Odom, 2002) whereby an early childhood educationteacher and a special education teacher shared responsi-bility for the education of all the children in their class-room. The two teachers collaborated in planning andimplementing all educational activities. In addition, in-structional assistants assigned by the districts preschool

and special education programs supported all of thechildren in the classroom. Preschool A had 22 typicalpreschoolers and 8 children with disabilities who weresupported by one general education instructional assis-tant and two special education instructional assistants.Preschool B had 25 typical preschoolers and 5 childrenwith disabilities who were supported by two general ed-ucation instructional assistants and two special educa-tion instructional assistants. Preschool C had 16 typicalpreschoolers and 3 children with disabilities who weresupported by one general education instructional assis-tant and two special education instructional assistants.

Participants

Focal Children. Ali was a 4-year-old boy of ArabAmerican descent. He was born healthy and reached de-velopmental milestones until a viral illness at approxi-mately 2 years of age led to ataxia. The results were severephysical and speech impairments and moderate cognitivedelays. He was in his second year of attendance at Pre-school A; however, he had missed the majority of theprevious school year due to surgery and illnesses. Ali de-veloped ocular flutter with nystagmus from the viral in-fection but did not wear corrective lenses. His auditory

abilities appeared to be in the normal range. In the pre-vious year, he had used a wheelchair for mobility; however,he could now move around school and home environ-ments while holding onto furniture or with assistancefrom others. His walking gait was slow and awkward, hehad difficulty balancing, and he often fell. Ali wore aprotective helmet. His fine-motor skills were limited tograsping items in his fist, and he required assistance tocomplete tasks in small and large groups. His primarymodes of communication were pointing, being in prox-imity, gazing, vocalizing, leading others by the hand, andpatting others for attention. He understood one-step di-


3/21


4/21


5/21

Collaborative Teaming to Support Preschoolers 127

nonengagement in classroom activities, increase the chil-drens attempts to initiate communicative interactionsin the context of instructional activities (e.g., askingquestions, making comments, answering questions), andincrease interactions between the children and their class-mates. Construction and implementation of these supportitems were handled as part of the collaborative teamingprocess, with some or all of the items on each supportplan serving as the functional independent variable.

The structure of the collaborative process allowedteam members to share their knowledge, experience, andskills. Each support item was developed through a processthat included sharing ideas and building on the sugges-tions of others. This collaborative problem-solving pro-cess had four key elements:

1. identifying the learning and social profilefor each of the focal children,

2. developing supports to increase eachchilds educational and social participationin classroom activities,

3. collaborative implementation of the plansof support, and

4. a built-in accountability system (Gian-greco, Cloninger, Dennis, & Edelman,1994; Merritt & Culatta, 1998; Salisbury,Evans, & Palombaro, 1997; West & Idol,1990).

At the beginning of the first UPS meeting for eachchild, team members reviewed the development of the

child in the areas of preacademics (i.e., prereading, pre-writing, and premath) and self-care (e.g., eating, toilet-ing). In addition, they described the extent and quality ofparticipation in classroom activities (e.g., contributing togroup activities, working without support from the in-structional assistant, participating in large-group activi-ties, working collaboratively in small-group activities,seeking needed assistance) and interactions with classmates(e.g., initiating and responding to interactions). The teamused this assessment information to build an initial sup-port plan through a brainstorming and consensus process.Each item on the UPS was suggested by individual mem-

bers of the team. The suggestion was followed by dis-cussion of the effectiveness and feasibility of the supportstrategy. If the team members agreed on the item, it wasadded to the childs support plan. The team used a UPSform that consisted of a sheet of paper listing each sup-port area. A grid on the right side of the paper was usedto identify which members of the team would be respon-sible for implementing each support. The grid also pro-vided a rating scale that could be used each month toevaluate the extent to which each support item was beingimplemented (i.e., not at all, somewhat, moderately well,

or fully). The monthly rating procedures prompted teammembers to more rigorously implement items rated assomewhat implemented and provided the opportunity forthem to discuss items that were not at all implemented.The latter items were often revised or deleted from the planbecause team members perceived them to be ineffectualor impractical to implement. Based on the team membersexperience in implementing each UPS, individual itemswere sometimes refined, expanded upon as learning oc-curred, or dropped, or additional items were added to theplan during subsequent meetings.

During the first UPS meeting for developing the ini-tial support plan, the senior investigators modeled theprocess. In subsequent meetings, the special educationteachers led the discussion. Members of the universityteam observed the discussion but did not contribute to it.They did, however, provide some feedback to membersof the team during the observation and data collection

processes.

Child Performance Measures andData Collection Procedures

Design. Child outcome variables were investigatedthrough a combination of data sources, including (a) sys-tematic observation of the levels of engagement and in-teraction patterns of the focal preschoolers utilizing amultiple baseline design across children (Kazdin, 1982)and (b) team interviews to elicit team members perspec-tives on the educational growth and social participationof the children. The three team interviews were conducted

once during baseline (i.e., 1 week prior to interventionimplementation) and twice during the intervention con-dition (i.e., 1 month postimplementation and at the endof the study).

Observational Measures. The Interaction and En- gagement Scale (IES; Hunt, Alwell, Farron-Davis, &Goetz, 1996; Hunt, Farron-Davis, Wrenn, Hirose-Hatae,& Goetz, 1997), which was designed to measure interac-tion and engagement variables, utilizes a partial-intervalrecording procedure (see Note 1). Each 10-min observa-tional period consisted of twenty 30-s intervals. Within

each interval, 15 s were allotted for observation and 15 sfor recording. During each interval, the observer notedthe firstcommunicative interaction (e.g., speech or touch-ing a symbol on a communication board to make a re-quest or comment) that involved the focal child. Theobserver also noted the identity of the interaction part-ner (e.g., a teacher, another child, an instructional assis-tant) and of the individual who initiated the interaction(i.e., the focal child or the partner). The observer also in-dicated the communicative function of the interaction(i.e., a request, protest, comment, or assistance to help the


6/21


partner accomplish some outcome) and the quality of theinteraction (i.e., positive, neutral, or negative). Finally, theobserver measured the engagement variables, including thelevel of engagement (i.e., active, passive, or not engaged)and the grouping pattern (i.e., child alone or with agroup), that occurred during the majority of each interval.

Each child was observed about once a week from De-cember through May during a session of approximately2 hours. Disruptions of this schedule occurred becauseof holidays, special school events, and child absences.The same instrumentation and procedures were used toobserve one classmate of the focal child. Classmate datawere used to identify normative patterns for each of thedependent variables. These classmates were selected bythe teachers, who had been asked by project staff toidentify three peers in the class who they considered tobe average socially and academically. One of the se-lected children was observed each session; the order of

observations of each of the three children was rotatedacross days.

Ten 10-min observations (5 for the focal child and5 for the classmate) were spaced across the 2-hr session,with each period separated by a 2-min break. The obser-vations were alternated between the focal child and hisor her classmate, and the order of observations (i.e., thefirst child to be observed) was systematically rotatedacross sessions. The observational period was scheduledduring morning small- and large-group activities and re-cess. Children in each of the three classrooms quickly ad-justed to the presence of the data collectors, who wereintroduced by their teacher as visitors who would be ob-

serving in their classroom during the school year.During baseline and after each UPS was imple-

mented, an independent observer (one of the senior in-vestigators) joined the data collectors on an average of32% of the sessions (33% for Ali, 32% for Amy, and32% for Tyrell). The level of agreement between the pri-mary data collector and the independent observer wascalculated by dividing the number of agreements on theoccurrence of variables during each observational inter-val by the total number of agreements plus disagreements,multiplied by 100. The mean percentage of interobserveragreement on the presence of each of the interaction and

engagement variables targeted by the IES was 96%(range = 93%99%), broken down as follows:

97% for communicative partner (range =94%100%),

96% for initiation of an interaction (range =90%100%),

95% for acknowledgment of the initiation(range = 86%99%),

93% for communicative function (range =80%98%),

98% for quality of the interaction (range =95%100%),

95% for level of engagement (range =87%100%), and

99% for child grouping patterns (range =

94%100%).

Data from the IES observations can be analyzed ina variety of ways; however, the predicted outcomes forthe current study were as follows:

1. decreases in the levels of nonengagement(not actively or passively engaged in activ-ity, that is, not attending to ongoing ac-tivity, not being attended to by staff orclassmates, or not assigned to a task orgiven materials);

2. decreases in the time the child is alone or

is working one-on-one with an instruc-tional assistant;

3. increases in interactions with peers thatwere neutral or positive in nature; and

4. increases in interactions initiated by thefocal children (e.g., making comments,asking questions).

Team Interviews. Team members perceptions ofchanges in the social and other classroom behaviors andthe educational progress of the three focal children wereassessed through an open-ended interview process imple-

mented three times in the course of the study: approxi-mately 1 week before implementation of the UPS, 1month after implementation, and at the end of the study.The question How is _____ doing? was asked acrossthe areas addressed by each UPS (i.e., preacademics andself-care, classroom participation, and social interactionwith peers). Responses were audiotaped and transcribedverbatim for later analysis.

Intervention Fidelity: ItemImplementation

The extent to which items on the UPS were implemented

(LeLaurin & Wolery, 1992) was evaluated during eachmonthly UPS meeting that followed development of theoriginal support plan. Team members and university proj-ect staff who observed in the classroom were asked torate the extent to which each item on the support planwas being implemented. As noted previously, rating op-tions were not at all, somewhat, moderately well, andfully. A consensus process was used in which each of theeducational team members and the classroom observersreported their rating for each item. All members of theteam agreed on an implementation rating for all UPS items


7/21


across each of the monthly meetings; however, if consen-sus was not reached, the majority opinion was used torate an item.

Ecological Validity:

Participants PerspectivesThe ecological validity of the UPS processthat is, theextent to which the collaborative teaming process wasnatural to the existing school culture and useful to theschool community (Gaylord-Ross, 1979)was evaluatedthrough a group interview conducted at the end of thestudy. Questions were designed to elicit perceptions ofthe process in terms of the following topics: (a) the waysin which the UPS process was helpful, (b) characteristicsof preschoolers who could benefit from the process, and(c) support items that they used with other preschoolers.

A senior investigator moderated the group inter-

view. During the interview, the moderator would askspeakers to clarify their responses or provide more detail.Team members responses were audiotaped and tran-scribed verbatim for later analysis.

Data Analysis

Behavioral Measures. At the end of each observa-tional session, data collectors summarized for each of thethree children and their classmates the percentage of to-tal intervals of observation (there were five sets of 20 in-tervals for each child) in which the targeted behaviors

occurred.

Interviews. The four members of the university teamused a group discussion and consensus process to analyzethe transcripts from each of the interviews conducted dur-ing three UPS meetings. Team members read each tran-script and, using a line-by-line analysis (Strauss & Corbin,1990), identified themes representing the perceptions ofthe interviewees on the categories of prereading, prewrit-ing, premath, self-care, small- and large-group participa-tion, and social interaction with peers. This was followedby a discussion of agreements and discrepancies in theanalyses. The team members then developed a summary

listing of themes within each category for each of thethree interview periods. Finally, they reviewed the identi-fied themes; eliminated redundancy; and identified andinterpreted patterns across categories, interview periods,and children (Krueger, 1998; Morgan, 1993). All mem-bers of the three educational teams provided memberchecks of analysis accuracy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)by reviewing tables that presented all of the identifiedthemes and subthemes. All participants indicated thatthe outcomes described on those tables accurately repre-sented their discussions.

These procedures were also used to analyze thetranscripts from the interviews of the three educationalteams at the end of the study to establish the ecologicalvalidity of the intervention. The categories for the initialanalysis corresponded to the structure of the interviewquestions. Member checks of the accuracy of the finalanalysis were provided to all members of the three edu-cational teams.

RESULTS

Child Outcomes

Observation. The results of the analysis of obser-vational data indicate that changes in preschooler per-formance associated with implementation of the UPSoccurred in four areas:

1. decreased levels of nonengagement inclassroom activities,

2. decreased occurrences of the targetedpreschoolers working alone or with aninstructional assistant in a one-on-onecontext,

3. increased interactions between the focalchildren and their classmates, and

4. increased focal childinitiated reciprocalinteractions with the teacher or otherpreschoolers (see Figures 1 and 2).

Before implementation of the UPS, the percentageof intervals in which the three focal children were not en-gaged in classroom activities was substantially higher thanthe average levels for the typical preschoolers (see Fig-ure 1). Following implementation, nonengagement levelsdecreased from an average of 36.3% (18%55%), 20.1%(8%33%), and 45.2% (25%58%) for Ali, Amy, andTyrell, respectively, to 4.1% (0%22%), 3.7% (1%10%),and 14.2% (5%31%), respectively. Alis and Amys levelsof nonengagement were commensurate with those of theirpeers for the majority of the intervention condition.Tyrells nonengagement level, although substantially re-duced, remained above that of his peers. Additional sup-

ports will be needed to promote full participation forTyrell.

The percentage of intervals in which the children werealone or working one-on-one with an instructional assis-tant during the baseline condition was also substantiallyhigher than the average levels for the typical peers (seeFigure 1). This was most dramatically the case for Aliand Tyrell. Following implementation of their supportplans, levels of being alone decreased from 43.3% (25%58%) for Ali and 37.5% (30%51%) for Tyrell to 4.1%(0%15%) for Ali and 12.2% (1%24%) for Tyrell. The


8/21


9/21

131

FIGURE 2. Study 1: Percentage of intervals of (a) interactions with other children and (b) child-initiated reciprocalinteractions with teachers or other preschoolers.


10/21


11/21

133

Ali

Amy

TABLE 2. Team Members Perspectives on Child Progress: Social and Educational Participation and Communicationand Language Development

Educational Preintervention Postintervention 1 Postintervention 2Student area performance performance performance

Social participation

Educationalparticipation

Communication/Language


Primarily initiated inter-actions with adults

Stayed with an adult,sometimes holding herhand

Occasionally attemptedto initiate interactionswith peers but failed tosustain them

Did not stay with peersduring large-group ac-tivities unless supported

by adults

Was easily distractedduring circle time

Worked one-on-onewith an adult for small-group activities

Communicated withtouch, proximity, point-ing, vocalizations, and

speech approximations

Said No and Yes torequest or reject food ordrink; said water (inArabic) and his grandfa-thers name

Made food choices bypointing to a picturesymbol from an array offive

Interacted primarilywith adults at school

Infrequently initiated in-teractions with eitheradults or peers

Did not engage in ex-tended play with peersat school

Sought out one friendfor play

Initiated interactions with peersmore frequently using touch,gestures, and vocalizations

Engaged in interactive play withpeers

Began to display disruptive be-haviors across structured andunstructured activities

Remained independently en-gaged in circle time when UPSitems were implemented (e.g.,sat next to an assigned peer andwas given an active role in theactivity)

Participated in small-group ac-tivities if facilitated by an adult

Continued to use nonverbalcommunication to make re-quests, choices, and to initiate

interactions

Used communication boardswith adults and peers acrosslarge- and small-group activitiesto make requests and choices

Preferred to interact with adultsand was shy with peers

Responded to peer questionsand engaged in conversationsthat they initiated

Engaged in parallel play at re-cess

Observed and imitated whatpeers were doing at recess

Developed friendships with fourpeers

Initiated and sustained peer in-teractions without adultfacilitation

Was an active member of large-group activities

Remained with the groupthroughout the activity

Remained in small-group activi-ties without facilitation

Communicated with peers andadults using a variety of vocal-izations and gestures

Used a communication boardwith a subjectverbobject lay-out to make requests duringlunch

Expanded use of communica-tion boards in a variety of set-tings with peers and adults

Said ball and water (inArabic) and some numbers

Enjoyed participating in smallgroups with children during

class activities and recess

Was verbally interacting withpeers

(table continues)


12/21

134

(Table 2, continued)


Educational

participation



Educationalparticipation

Did not like to partici-

pate in large-group ac-tivities except when shehad an active role

Removed herself fromcircle time activities

Participated in small-group activities facili-tated by an adult

Seldom initiated com-ments or conversationsbut was responsive tothe initiations of others

Communicated primar-ily with adults at school

Spoke in a soft voice atschool and used alouder voice at home

Communicated muchmore frequently withfamily members thanwith school staff orpeers

Used a variety of com-munication functions

and language structuresat home but not atschool

Was affectionate withpeers and adults atschool and at home

Watched peers but didnot initiate interactions

Seldom interacted withpeers in class or at recess

Only attended to large-group activities if therewas music and singing

Only remained in circlewith adult facilitation

Was able to participate in large-

group activities when the UPSitems were implemented (e.g.,sat next to an assigned peer,given an active role, and redi-rected by an adult)

Primarily used single words atschool

More often used whole sen-tences at home

Initiated some requests atschool

With adult facilitation, com-bined words to make a requestor comment

Responded to peers who weremore frequently initiating inter-actions

More often used nonverbal be-haviors to get peer attentionand to play with a peer

Actively participated in playwith peers without adult facili-tation for short periods of time

Attended to and participatedin more large-group activitieswhen UPS items were imple-mented (e.g., active activities,music, rhyming stories, sittingnext to positive peer models)

Watched and imitated peer

models during large- and small-group activities

Participated in small-groupactivities without adult facilitation

Spoke louder at school and waseasier to understand

Initiated more often to peersusing speech

More frequently stated com-plete sentences without facilita-tion and correctly used I andme

Expanded her vocabulary

Approached students and en-joyed playing with them acrossa variety of interactive activities

Was able to successfully com-municate with peers becausethey now understood the intentof his nonverbal behaviors

Was more responsive to peerassistance

Took turns with peers duringsimple, interactive computergames

Followed directions within thestructure of small- and large-group activities

Participated in calendaractivities during circle time

Amy

(cont.)

Tyrell

(table continues)


13/21


ability and helped them to consistently implement theplans of support.

Participants from two of the three teams thoughtthat the team meetings provided the opportunity to re-flect on their professional practices. One early childhood

education teacher remarked, Now, when we are meet-ing, I can look back and think, How can I improve onthis? It has helped me as a person. You know, if wegrow, the children grow. Once the teachers stop growing,children stop, too.

Team members across the three preschools com-mented that the UPS meetings gave parents the opportunityto provide input to other members of the educationalteam and hear reports concerning their childs progressat regular intervals. They also noted that the meetingshelped them in establishing a pattern of homeschoolcollaboration. One parent commented, As a parent, I likethe meetings because I get to hear how much Tyrell has

improved. It is nice to hear the improvements that hemade, and I need to hear that. Other members of Ty-rells team pointed out that the UPS meetings gave thema chance to celebrate his progress. The early childhood ed-ucation teacher commented, It has given us a chance toembrace Tyrell and the things that he has been learning.

Preschoolers Who Can Benefit From a UPS. Parti-cipants from each of the groups identified children at riskfor academic and social problems (in addition to the pre-schoolers with significant disabilities) as prime candidatesfor the development of academic and social plans of sup-

port implemented by general education and special edu-cation staff in inclusive educational programs. They de-scribed these children as having difficulty accessing thepreschool curriculum or adjusting to school or as havingbehavioral, social, communication, or emotional needs.

These participants believed that the children who were atrisk would benefit from curricular modifications andadaptations and social and behavioral supports devel-oped and implemented through a general and special ed-ucation collaborative teaming process.

Ideas for Other Preschoolers. Amys team memberscommented that developing the UPS for her increasedtheir awareness of the need to develop adaptations andsupports to meet the individual needs of all the children.The special education teacher said, Every time you areworking with one specific child, it helps the entire group,because if you do that for Amy, you have to do that for

Johnny, and Peter, and all children. And somehow youbroaden your perspective of what needs to be done. Teammembers mentioned that specific supports they also usedwith other children included communication boards, in-teractive activities to facilitate social interaction, social fa-cilitation strategies, and computer software (Tyrells team).

DISCUSSION

Three educational teams consisting of educators and par-ents collaboratively developed and implemented plans of

(Table 2, continued)



Was easily distracted bypeers

Participated in cookingand some art activitieswith adult facilitation

Watched students at thecomputer

Waved to say Hi

Reached for what hewanted

Signed more andfinished with adultfacilitation

Took adults by the handto make requests

Said ee for eat

More often watched peers dur-ing small group activity

Approached adults for assis-tance

Was more responsive to peerinitiations

Approached peers for assistance

Signed more and said hafor hi

Tyrell(cont.)

Note. UPS = unified plan of support.


14/21


support for the educational, social, and communicationand language development of three preschoolers who ex-perienced significant disabilities. The collaborative team-ing process provided a structure for parentprofessionalpartnerships that placed parents in a central decision-making role and gave all team members the opportunityto share their expertise and experience. In addition, thecollaborative teaming process promoted consistent im-plementation of the plans of support by all team mem-bers in both home and school settings.

Child performance outcomeswhich were based onbehavioral observations conducted across the school yearand team members perceptions of child progress that theyassociated with implementation of the support plandocumented changes in areas critical to full participation,development, and learning in preschool settings by thethree children with disabilities. These areas included in-creased participation and engagement in large- and small-

group educational activities and recess play, increasedinteractions with peers during class activities and at re-cess, increased initiated functional communication, andincreased engagement in literacy activities. Educationaland social supports that may have been associated withthese positive child outcomes included specific educationalmodifications and adaptations, social and communicationsupports, facilitation of active participation by all teammembers, carryover of supports to the childs home, andpeer partnerships.

STUDY 2

The second study extended the collaborative teamingmodel to four preschoolers with severe disabilities whohad attended Preschool B during the first study. A majorfocus of this investigation was on the ecological validityof the UPS process when it was implemented by educa-tional team members for multiple children who requiredmore intensive levels of support; therefore, the focus ofthe investigation was not only on evaluating the impactof the collaboration process on child outcomes but alsoon the practicality and usefulness of a collaboration modelbuilt upon regularly scheduled team meetings for each ofthe children, implementation by team members of multi-ple support plans, and full parent participation.

METHOD

Setting and Participants

During the second year of involvement in research activ-ity, Preschool B had 22 typical preschoolers and 6 childrenwith disabilities who were supported by two general ed-ucation and two special education instructional assis-tants. Three of the childrenin addition to Amy, whohad participated in the first studyrequired more inten-sive support to fully participate in and benefit from the

preschool program. They thus became the focus of oursecond study. The three additional participants wereDerrick, Joe, and Sonia.

Derrick was a 3-year-old boy of African Americandescent. A school district psychologist had diagnosedDerrick as having a significant intellectual disability. Thiswas his first year in preschool. He primarily communi-cated with one- to two-word utterances and some speechimitation, as well as by occasionally touching adults forattention. Derrick could follow one-step directions buthad difficulty attending to and completing tasks of lowinterest, and he was disruptive during both small- andlarge-group activities when he was not actively partici-pating.

Joe was a 4-year-old boy of African American de-scent who had also been diagnosed with a significant in-tellectual disability. This was his first year in preschool.

Joe had significant receptive and expressive language de-

lays. There was also a reported significant discrepancybetween his cognitive and language abilities. Joe primar-ily communicated with a few words, pointing, pulling,and grabbing (materials, adults, and peers). He had dif-ficulty attending to and completing tasks in both large-and small-group settings and would leave a group if notsupervised.

Sonia was a 5-year-old LatinaAsian American whohad Down syndrome. This was her third year in preschool.Her visual and auditory abilities appeared to be in thenormal range. She had delays in both gross-motor andfine-motor skills and needed some assistance to climbstairs and perform fine-motor tasks, such as hanging up

her coat, zipping, and drawing. She communicated withgestures, vocalizations, and a few words (Hi, Bye,No). Sonia could follow simple one-step directionsand participated in class routines when interested. Sheseldom initiated interactions with other persons exceptto greet a few select adults. Sonia often attempted toavoid participation in large- and small-group activitiesand needed adult assistance to participate successfully inclass activities.

The early childhood and special education teacherscontinued to participate as core members of each childseducational team. One general education and two special

education instructional assistants, who supported all fourof the children, were also members of the team. Oneparent participated in each of his or her childs monthlyteam meetings. Unfortunately, the newly assigned speechlanguage therapist was not able to continue working af-ter the first few weeks of our study and left before thesupport plans were developed, and this person was notreplaced by the district for the remainder of the year. Theloss of a team member with expertise in language devel-opment and augmentative and alternative communica-tion affected to some extent the teams efforts to supportchildren with significant speech and language delays.


15/21


Intervention: UPS Developmentand Implementation

The collaborative teaming process described in Study 1was implemented during the intervention condition forthis study. All aspects of the intervention were the same,

including the structure of the UPS, the organization ofthe UPS meetings, and the development of support itemsfor each of the four preschoolers.

Typically, UPS meetings focused on two of the pre-schoolers, with parents attending only that portion of themeeting that pertained to their child. Meetings werescheduled at times when parents were able to attend, andthey received reminder calls about meeting dates andtimes 1 day to 2 days before each meeting.

Performance Measuresand Data Collection Procedures

Design. Child outcomes were again investigated us-ing (a) systematic observation of the levels of engage-ment and interaction patterns of the four preschoolersand (b) team interviews to elicit team members perspec-tives on the educational growth and social participationof the children. Team interviews were conducted onceduring the baseline condition and again at the end of thestudy.

For Derrick, Joe, and Sonia, the observational mea-sures were collected in the context of a multiple baselinedesign. For Amy, the data represented maintenance andfurther development of skills acquired during the inter-

vention condition implemented in Study 1.

Observational Measures. The IES was used to mea-sure interaction and engagement variables. Predicted be-havioral outcomes for Study 2 included (a) decreases inthe levels of nonengagement in ongoing classroom activ-ities, (b) increases in interactions with peers that wereneutral or positive in nature, and (c) increases in interac-tions initiated by the focal children. The variable childalone or working one-on-one with an adult that had beenidentified for Study 1 was no longer relevant for Study 2because preschool staff members now arranged instruc-

tional and play contexts to ensure that children were notisolated or working only with an adult.The data collection procedures remained the same.

Each child was observed approximately once a weekfrom October through March. Derrick and Sonia, alongwith a typical classmate, were observed on 1 day, and Joeand Amy, along with a typical classmate, were observedon the next day. Preschool curriculum and activities forthe 2 days were the same. Nine 10-min observations (threefor the two focal children and three for the classmate)were spaced across an approximately 2-hr and 15-minsession.

During baseline and intervention conditions, a seniorinvestigator once again joined the data collectors on anaverage of 33% of the sessions (31% for Derrick andSonia, 35% for Joe and Amy). The level of agreement be-tween the primary data collector and the independent ob-server concerning the presence of each of the interactionand engagement variables targeted by the IES was 96%(range = 92%99%) For communicative partner, it was96% (range = 88%100%); for initiation of an interac-tion, it was 93% (range = 86%98%); for acknowledg-ment of the initiation, it was 93% (range = 86%100%);for communicative function, it was 93% (range = 81%100%); for the quality of the interaction, it was 99%(range = 94%100%); for the level of engagement, it was95% (range = 70%100%); and for child grouping pat-terns, it was 99% (range = 95%100%)].

Team Interviews. Procedures for conducting team

interviews to elicit team members perceptions of changesin the educational progress, engagement levels, and in-teraction patterns of the focal children were the same asthose implemented in Study 1. All interviews were led bythe special education teacher, and all members of theteam were encouraged to contribute their perspectives.

Intervention Fidelity:Item Implementation

The extent to which items on the UPS were implementedconsistently and accurately was again evaluated usingthe rating scale on the UPS and the consensus process de-

scribed in Study 1.

Ecological Validity of the UPS Process

As in Study 1, ecological validity was evaluated througha team interview conducted at the end of the study. Thefollowing interview questions were used in Study 2:

In what ways has the teaming process(meetings, development and implementa-tion of support plans) contributed to theprogress that the children have made?

How practical (difficult or easy) was theteaming process? What has been your role in participating in

this collaborative teaming process? Do you have suggestions for changing the

teaming process?

Data Analysis

Data analysis procedures for analyzing both behavioralmeasures and qualitative data were identical to thoseused in Study 1.


16/21


RESULTSChild Outcomes

Observation. The results of the analysis of observa-tional data documented decreases in the levels of nonen-gagement in classroom activities for Derrick, Joe, andSonia. Before intervention, the percentage of intervals inwhich they were not engaged was substantially higherthan those of their peers (see Figure 3). Following imple-mentation of the support plans, nonengagement levels de-creased from an average of 19.8% (15%22%), 27.2%(14%40%), and 24.1% (2%48%) for Derrick, Joe,and Sonia, respectively, to 8.1% (2%33%), 4.5% (0%17%), and 4% (0%8%), respectively. During the finalmonths of the study, nonengagement levels for each ofthe children approximated those of their peers. Amyslevels of nonengagement remained low and represented asubstantial change from her baseline levels in Study 1.

The average levels of child-initiated interactions in-creased from 7.3% (3%10%), 3.2% (2%7%), and2.6% (0%8%) for Derrick, Joe, and Sonia, respectively,during the baseline condition to 10.8% (0%23%),10.6% (5%17%), and 7% (0%17%) respectively, dur-ing intervention; however, variability in the performanceof Derrick and Sonia during the intervention conditionmakes it difficult to draw conclusions about interventioneffects. In addition, a review of the levels of one-on-one in-teractions between Derrick, Joe, and Sonia and their class-mates did not reveal significant changes in performancefrom baseline to intervention. Failure to demonstrate theimpact of the intervention on these two communication-

based dependent measures may be due to the unfortu-nate absence of a speechlanguage therapist from theeducational team meetings for Study 2.

Amy maintained the gains that she made during theStudy 1 intervention condition throughout Study 2. Heraverage level of nonengagement was 3.6% (0%14%),and the average percentage of intervals of being alone orworking one-on-one with an instructional assistant was2.2% (0%15%). The average percentages of intervals ofinteractions with other children and focus child-initiatedinteractions with the teacher or other preschoolers were11.5% (2%23%) and 11.6% (2%18%), respectively.

Interview. Team members perspectives regarding theeducational and social progress of each of the four pre-schoolers that they associated with implementation of theUPS included (a) attending to and actively participatingin large- and small-group activities, with decreased dis-plays of disruptive and avoidance behaviors; (b) joiningpeers for play during recess; (c) increasing communica-tive competency in a variety of contexts and routines;and (d) enjoying books and literacy activities and devel-oping a range of emerging literacy skills (see Note 3).

Intervention Fidelity: UPS Implementation

The team held six meetings for Derrick and Amy, five forJoe, and four for Sonia during the intervention condition.Implementation ratings for items on each childs UPSgathered at the first meeting following development of

the support plan indicated that for Derrick, 91% of thesupports were fully implemented; for Amy, 88% werefully implemented; for Joe, 92% were fully implemented;and for Sonia, 90% were fully implemented. Implemen-tation ratings gathered at the last meeting indicate that100% of the supports for Amy, Joe, and Sonia were fullyimplemented. For Derrick, 82% were fully implementedand 11% were implemented moderately well. These im-plementation ratings suggest a high degree of interventionfidelity throughout the intervention condition.

Ecological Validity: Participants

Perspectives

Contributions of Team Collaboration to Child Prog-ress. Team members once again emphasized the key rolethat regularly scheduled team meetings with a built-in ac-countability system played in the progress of each of thefour preschoolers. One team member commented, Wetake the time, and at that time, the child is the most im-portant thing in the world. Another member said, If wedidnt have these meetings, it would be very scattered; andwe would say, Oh, yes, Ill try that, but we never would.

Team members also emphasized that their experienceof shared ownership in developing and implementing the

plans of support increased their creativity and commit-ment. One member commented, Everybody wants thechildren to succeed, and they are all giving 100% be-cause they have ownership in the idea, and they want thechildren to learn. In addition, according to team mem-bers, team meetings gave them the opportunity to expe-rience pride when their implementation of the plans wassuccessful, and they all shared in the accomplishments ofthe children.

Team members talked about the opportunity to notonly share their ideas and expertise and listen to the ideasof others but also reflect on their professional growth.

The early childhood teacher said, What I personallygained from this was to look at my teaching skills, to thepersonal growth that I received. It helped me be moreobservant about every detail, so I felt growth.

Team Member Roles. All team members viewedthemselves and others as equals on the team. Parents de-scribed the importance of their role in bringing informa-tion about their child to the team and implementing thesupport plan at home. One parent commented, Part ofmy role is to share what Amy is doing at home and bring


17/21

139

FIGURE 3. Study 2: Percentage of intervals of nonengagement.


18/21


it to the team . . . to kind of contribute as a tag team:what we are trying at home, what you are trying atschool, and how we can build on these bridges.

Team members also described the ways in whichthey supported each other to implement the plan, withdifferent members at times taking a dominant role by mod-eling implementation of support items, developing mate-rials, and reminding other team members to implementitems on the support plan.

Practicality of the Teaming Process. All team mem-bers agreed that the collaborative teaming process waspractical and that it was not difficult to collaborativelydevelop support plans for a range of children with diverseneeds. They had no suggestions for changing the teamingprocess but agreed that it was challenging for staff andparents to find time to meet each month with no district-wide system in place to support team meetings. All mem-

bers agreed, however, that regularly scheduled teammeetings were essential.

DISCUSSION

Study 2 once again documented the effectiveness of thegeneral and special educational collaborative teaming pro-cess, with full parent participation, in increasing the ed-ucational and social progress of four preschoolers withsignificant disabilities who were members of general ed-ucation early childhood programs. In addition, the teaminterview conducted at the end of the study provided team

members with perspectives on the practicality and useful-ness of the collaboration model and the role that eachmember played in the process. Although team membersagreed that regularly scheduled team meetings and col-laborative, consistent implementation of the support itemscontributed substantially to the progress of each child andto the professional growth and effectiveness of educationalstaff who were members of the team, they also noted thatresources for explicitly creating opportunities, incentives,and training for such collaboration were needed.

GENERAL DISCUSSIONA general and special education collaborative process wasused to develop and implement plans designed to supportthe participation of young children with significant dis-abilities in typical preschool activities, such as circle time,arts, preliteracy and premath centers, free play, and sharedstorybook reading. Each UPS included a listing of educa-tional, communication, and social supports. Among theeducational supports the teams used were adaptations tomaterials and activities, instructional modifications, andpeer supports. Communication supports included low-

tech communication boards such as choice-boards, com-munication dictionaries, and photo albums, as well as theprovision of verbal modeling and scaffolding. Social sup-ports included peer supports and interactive activitiesand games, such as social toys and cooperative play. AsOdom and Bailey (2001) noted, learning and develop-ment are thought to occur through supported active par-ticipation in the social and educational activities androutines in the preschool classroom.

The documented effectiveness of the collaborativeteaming process in increasing the educational progressand social participation of the preschoolers was depen-dent upon the quality and fidelity of the support itemsidentified for each child by the educational team; in turn,the quality of the individual supports was increased by aprocess that provided a structure for melding and actu-alizing the expertise of teachers, specialists, and parents.The high level of consistent implementation of items on

the support plan was facilitated by the processs built-inaccountability system and the sense of ownership re-garding the process and individual support items experi-enced by team members.

All the teams that participated in these studies in-cluded parents as equal and full partners. In fact, parentparticipation was instrumental to the development andimplementation of the UPS. Parents provided crucial in-formation and ideas about how to better support theirchildren in the classroom, and that information was usedthroughout the UPS. The UPS process provided a formatfor the parentprofessional partnership mandated byfederal law and recommended by best practices. Indeed,

familyprofessional partnership is a basic principle thathas guided service delivery for young children with dis-abilities since the 1980s (Erwin, Soodak, Winton, &Turnbull, 2001). All of the families in our studies weremembers of nonAnglo-European cultures. The collabo-rative process afforded by the UPS provided the parentswith focused, respectful, appropriate, and effective op-portunities for shared decision-making (Hanson & Zer-cher, 2001; Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). Meetings wereheld at times when parents were able to attend, andasa resultparents attended all UPS meetings. As docu-mented by Erwin et al. (2001), parent participation in

inclusive preschool programs can be shaped by many fac-tors, such as entry experiences, school climate, personalperspectives, and parentprofessional relationships. Ac-cording to these authors, these factors interact with oneanother and influence the nature and quality of parentsparticipation in their childs education. Meaningful par-ticipation occurs when the parent feels like a valued mem-ber of the education team. The fact that the UPS formincluded their ideas and suggestions gave parents a tan-gible way to see that their contributions were valued.

All team members involved in both studies expressedsatisfaction with the collaborative process because it al-


19/21


lowed them to support one another and contribute to thedevelopment of educational and social supports for thefocus preschoolers, regardless of the members profes-sional status. The contributions of parents, teachers,instructional assistants, and specialists were equally re-garded and used in the development of supports. TheUPS process empowered all team members to contributetheir knowledge and ideas to the development of a sup-port plan while providing an ongoing opportunity formaking revisions to the plan if this was considered to beappropriate by the team. A strength of the UPS noted bymost teams was that the plan was child centered and in-tegrated supports based on classroom activities. The pre-school curriculum became the context for intervention;educational and social participation became the ultimategoals. Another strength noted by the teams was that theteaming process and product reflected what the teamswere doing to support the childs participation rather than

dwelling on what was preventing the child from partici-pating. The UPS allowed team members to shift frombarriers to supports and to move forward in that direc-tion.

Limitations

Despite the general benefits of collaborative teaming onchild outcomes described in our studies and further doc-umented in the literature, some considerations need to beaddressed (Odom & Bailey, 2001). Although the resultsof the study indicate that the UPS process provided apractical structure to support collaborative practices, the

financial resources for this effort were provided by auniversity research project. No program can be success-ful unless adequate resources are in place (Rafferty et al.,2003). To plan a quality inclusive program for childrenwith disabilities, early childhood educators require thesupport of and collaboration with parents and specializedstaff. A frequently identified major barrier is finding thetime and resources necessary for establishing a positive andeffective working relationship (Odom & Bailey, 2001).Building an inclusive community requires a commitmentof resources to establish regularly scheduled team meet-ings. West and Idol (1990) outlined a number of strategies

for increasing collaborative planning time, including (a)having the principal or other support staff teach a perioda day to release teachers for planning meetings, (b) hiringa floating substitute teacher to release teachers (perhapsfunded by the business community), and (c) altering theschool day once a week to provide time for staff to col-laborate without students.

A second consideration is the small sample size ofboth studies. This investigation restricted its focus to atotal of four educational teams and six preschoolers; al-though it provides insight into the collaborative process,the ability to generalize beyond the small sample is limited.

Conclusions

Implementing inclusive education for preschoolers withsignificant disabilities requires a collaborative effort bymembers of educational teams who share a vision of thefull social and educational participation of children with

disabilities in their school community. Successful collab-orative teaming, however, is dependent upon regularlyscheduled opportunities for members of educational teams,including parents, to share their expertise, identify com-mon goals, build plans of support, and determine respon-sibilities. Identifying and implementing structures forregularly scheduled planning time requires both adminis-trative support and staff motivation (West & Idol, 1990).Further research is needed to document the links betweeneffective implementation of models of collaborative team-ing and positive outcomes for preschoolers.

AUTHORS NOTES

1. This research was supported in part by U.S. Department of Educa-

tion Grant H324D010027. The content and opinions expressed

herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S.Department of Education, and no official endorsement should be

inferred.

2. The authors would like to thank the children and educational team

members who participated in this study.

NOTES

1. A copy of the IES is available from the first author.

2. A similar analysis of team members perceptions of the progress the

children made in the areas of preliteracy and premath is availablefrom the first author upon request.

3. A table presenting emergent themes representing the perceptions ofteam members regarding the progess of each of the children within

the categories of participation in large- and small-group activities;

social interaction with peers; and prereading, writing, and math isavailable from the first author upon request.

REFERENCES

Beckman, P. J., Barnwell, D., Horn, E., Hanson, M. J., Gutierrez, S., &

Lieber, J. (1998). Communities, families and inclusion. Early Child-

hood Research Quarterly, 13, 125150.

Erwin, E. J., Soodak, L. C., Winton, P. J., & Turnbull, A. (2001). I

wish it wouldnt all depend on me: Research on families and earlychildhood inclusion. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood in-

clusion: Focus on change (pp. 127158). Baltimore: Brookes.

Gaylord-Ross, R. J. (1979). Mental retardation research, ecological va-lidity, and the delivery of longitudinal education programs. The Jour-nal of Special Education, 13, 6980.

Giangreco, M. F. (2000). Related services research for students with

low incidence disabilities: Implications for speech-language pathol-

ogists in inclusive classrooms. Language, Speech and Hearing Ser-

vices in the Schools, 31, 230239.

Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., Dennis, R. E., & Edelman, S. W.(1994). Problemsolving methods to facilitate inclusive education.

In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and

collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering studentsand teachers (pp. 321346). Baltimore: Brookes.

Guralnick, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). Early childhood inclusion: Focus on

change. Baltimore: Brookes.


20/21


Hanson, M. J., Gutierrez, S., Morgan, M., Brennan, E. L., & Zercher,

C. (1997). Language, culture, and disability: Interacting influences

on preschool inclusion. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa-

tion, 17, 307336.Hanson, M. J., Wolfberg, P., Zercher, C., Morgan, M., Gutierrez, M.,

Barnwell, D., et al. (1998). The culture of inclusion: Recognizing di-

versity at multiple levels. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13,

185209.Hanson, M. J., & Zercher, C. (2001). The impact of cultural and

linguistic diversity on inclusive preschool environments. In M. J. Gur-

alnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 413

432). Baltimore: Brookes.

Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creatingsocially supportive environments for fully included students who

experience multiple disabilities. Journal of the Association for

Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21(2), 5371.

Hunt, P., Doering, K., Hirose-Hatae, A., Maier, J., & Goetz, L. (2001).

Across-program collaboration to support students with and with-out disabilities in a general education classroom. Journal for the

Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 240256.

Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Wrenn, M., Hirose-Hatae, A., & Goetz, L.

(1997). Promoting interactive partnerships in inclusive educational

settings. Journal of The Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 22, 127137.

Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., & Doering, K. (2003). Collaborative

teaming to support students at risk and students with severe dis-

abilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children,

69(3), 315332.Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Mller, E., & Goetz, L. (2002).

Collaborative teaming to support students with AAC needs in gen-

eral education classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Commu-nication, 18, 2035.

Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (2000). Teachers guides to inclusive prac-

tices: Modifying schoolwork. Baltimore: Brookes.

Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education:

Building reciprocal familyprofessional relationships. Baltimore:

Brookes.

Kazdin, A. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Analyzing & reporting focus group results.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

LeLaurin, K., & Wolery, M. (1992). Research standards in early inter-

vention: Defining, describing and measuring the independent vari-

able.Journal of Early Intervention, 15, 275287.

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 rela-tionships between professionals in inclusive programs for young

children. Early Education and Development, 8, 6782.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.Merritt, D. D., & Culatta, B. (1998). Language intervention in the

classroom. San Diego, CA: Singular.

Morgan, D. L. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of

the art. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Odom, S. L. (Ed.). (2002). Widening the circle: Including children with

disabilities in preschool programs. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Odom, S. L., & Bailey, D. (2001). Inclusive preschool programs: Class-

room ecology and child outcomes. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Earlychildhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 253276). Baltimore:Brookes.

Odom, S., Horn, E., Marquart, J. M., Hanson, M. J., Wolfberg, P.,

Beckman, P., et al. (1999). On the forms of inclusion: Organi-

zational context and individualized service models.Journal of Early

Intervention, 22, 185199.Odom, S., Peck, C. A., Hanson, M. J., Beckman, P. J., Kaiser, A. P.,

Lieber, J., et al. (1996). Inclusion at the preschool level: An ecolog-

ical analysis. Social Policy Report, 10(2-3), 1830.

Rafferty, Y., Piscitelli, V., & Boettcher, C. (2003). The impact of inclu-

sion on language development and social competence amongpreschoolers with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 467479.

Salisbury, C. L., Evans, I. M., & Palombaro, M. M. (1997). Col-

laborative problem-solving to promote the inclusion of young chil-

dren with significant disabilities in primary grades. Exceptional

Children, 63, 195209.

Siegel, B. (1996). Is the emperor wearing clothes? Social policy and the

empirical support for full inclusion of children with disabilities in

the preschool and early elementary grades. Social Policy Report,10(2-3), 217.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Groundedtheory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

West, J. F., & Idol, L. (1990). Collaborative consultation in the educa-

tion of mildly handicapped and at-risk students. Remedial andSpecial Education, 11, 2231.


21/21

collaborative teaming to support preschoolers

Documents