William McInerney, Ph.D. Laurie Dinnebeil, Ph.D. Lyn Hale, Ph.D. Margie Spino, M.A. Judith Herb College of Education University of Toledo DEC Conference - Albuquerque, N.M. October 16, 2009 Supporting Effective Consultation in Itinerant Pre-K SPED Services: Tools for Success

IECSE Services Across U.S. OSEP does not require SEAs to report number of children receiving itinerant services OSEP does not report number of children receiving itinerant services OSEP does report number of children served in different educational environments

OSEP Part B 619 Educational Environments Regular EC program at least 80% of time Regular EC program 40%-79% of time Regular EC program less than 40% of time Home Separate class Separate school Residential facility Service provider location

Number of Children Ages 3-5 yrs. Served Under IDEA Part B 619, in U.S. (2007)

Percent of Children Ages 3-5 yrs. Served under IDEA Part B 619 in U.S. ( ) 65% 67% 64% 63% 64%

Massed vs. Distributed Practice Massed Practice Child instructed with same materials, multiple times in single session, without a break EXAMPLE: Identifying basic shapes for 20 minutes in one day Distributed Practice Child practices with same or different materials, multiple times, with breaks between instruction/ practice EXAMPLE: Practice identifying basic shapes for 10 mins. during sessions scheduled several times per week

Research Support: Distributed Practice Adults  Ebbinghaus, 1885/1964  Donovan & Radosevich, 1999, meta-analysis  Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted & Rohrer, 2006, meta- analysis Children - ages 3 months to 8 years old  Childers & Tomasello, 2002 (word learning)  Rea & Modigliani, 1985 (spelling, math)  Rovee-Collier, 1995 (visual recognition)  Seabrook, Brown, & Solity, 2005 (phonics)

Distributed Practice Research Results Better Learning with Distributed Practice

OBJECTIVES OF CONSULTATION: Multiple Levels of Influence and Effect The Process of Consultation in IECSE Services

Components of Effective IECSE Consultation Service Model Monitoring of Child Progress Analysis of Learning Environment Feedback/Partner Progress Prioritizing Child IEP Objectives Transfer of Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes & Values Administrative Support Interpersonal Communication Skills Communication with Families Self-Advocacy & Professional Development

Level 1 - Addressing Priority IEP Objectives Review of IEP to Determine Options for Instruction  Use of MEPI Process with ECE Partner Teacher

MEPI Model for Determining Level of Intensity of Intervention Planning Model IEP Intervention Planning with Consultation ‘Partner’ Maturation - Biological Influence Environment - Facilitative effect of materials, routines, etc. Peer Mediation - Structured peer interactions Intensive - Direct intervention necessary

M = Maturation / Biology Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill is likely to improve as a result of biological development and experience without significant teacher or peer involvement (e.g. minor articulation problems, grasping of objects, dressing skills, response to peer communication bids)

E = Environmental Support Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill is likely to improve as a result of child access to materials or teacher ‘engineering’ of learning (or home) environment’. Will securing items in a variety of containers and placing out of child’s reach result in increased opportunities for fine motor skill development and communication (e.g. seeking desired toy/item with or w/o request for assistance)?

P = Peer Intervention / Support Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill is likely to improve as a result of child interaction with competent peers. Teacher organization of ‘peer buddies’ and cooperative activity groups will increase opportunities for imitation learning (via peer modeling). Also peer ‘expectations’ for social interaction and communication may provide ‘motivation’ to target child to improve skill or behavior

I = Intensive / Direct Intervention Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill requires IMMEDIATE intervention and/or will enhance child’s acceptance in learning community. Examples would include aggressive behavior, very limited communication skills, very limited personal mobility, and toilet training (if developmental indicators present). Child would not be expected to make reasonable progress toward acquisition of this skill/behavior without DIRECT and consistent teacher intervention.

Level 1 - Addressing Priority IEP Objectives Matching of Priority Learning Objectives with Curriculum  Development of Planning Matrix (Objectives x Activity) with ECE Partner Teacher

Level 1 - Addressing Priority IEP Objectives Matching of Priority Learning Objectives with Teaching Strategies  Development of Planning Matrix (Objectives x Activity x Teaching Strategy) with ECE Partner Teacher

Tools For Monitoring Child Progress

Level 1 - Addressing Priority IEP Objectives Monitoring of Progress of Child with IEP  Selection of Appropriate Monitoring Procedure and Form

Monitoring Stages of Skill Acquisition

Monitoring Level of Assistance - Coding of Prompt Levels Child ’ s Name: Steven L. Skill/Behavior: Steven will hold 4 “ brush( 1/2 ” diameter) and create 6 “ stroke on paper or other art materials. PA - Hand (H) / Elbow (E) Teacher/peer support M - Peer or teacher modeling V - Verbal prompt - peer/teacher I - Independent - No assistance * MOD - Independent with modified brush / utensil

Time Sampling

Level 2 - Addressing Professional Development Objectives of ECE Partner Teacher: Expansion of Knowledge and Skills Discussion of Awareness of ECE Partner Teacher of SPED Teaching Strategies Identification of Resources to Support Expansion of SPED-related Knowledge Identification of Resources to Support Expansion of SPED-related Skills

Level 3- Addressing Personal Development Objectives of ECE Partner Teacher Consideration of Professional Career Objectives of ECE Partner Teacher Consideration of Formal Education Objectives of ECE Partner Teacher

Evaluating the Success of Itinerant Consultation Just as we need to verify that children achieve IEP objectives, we need to verify that consultants and consultees have achieved their objectives in the consultation process.

General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant Consultation General… Increase opportunities for partner to practice communication skills. Specific… Provide partner with at least two opportunities to initiate interactions with her peers during snack time.

General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant Consultation General… Help Riley to remain engaged with toys and materials. Specific… During center time, help Riley play with a specific toy or material for at least 3 minutes.

General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant Consultation General… Increase Jenni’s knowledge in regards to working with a child who has special needs. Specific… Jenni will identify four characteristics of children with Down syndrome and describe how those characteristics affect learning.

General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant Consultation General… Enhance Pat’s ability to provide individualized instruction to the child with special needs. Specific… Pat will correctly use a system of backward chaining to help Jeremy put on his coat twice a day—once at recess and once when it’s time to go home.

General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant Consultation General… Improve the quality of Parker’s learning environment. Specific… Tanisha and Erin (ECE teachers) will increase the number of materials (e.g., blocks of different sizes, shapes, and colors, signs, cars, and toy people) in the block area in order to expand opportunities for learning for Parker and the other children in the classroom.

Judging the Success of a Consultation Relationship Did the consultation session go as planned? What does the data tell us (reflection) ? How was the learning environment changed ? What effect did it have on the child’s learning? Did the consultee acquire the knowledge and/or skills that were targeted for the session? How do you know? Was the consultee satisfied with the outcome of the session re: knowledge/skill gains? How do you know?

Following up …

Examples of Consultation Support Level 1 Providing information on how IEP objectives can be prioritized with respect to factors that may be related to child progress via MEPI Model Prioritizing IEP objectives with respect to intensity of intervention via MEPI Model Addressing IEP objectives in typical pre-K activities via MATRIX planning tool Linking IEP objectives with typical pre-K activities and general education learning objectives via MATRIX planning tool Using monitoring forms to assess child progress on IEP objectives

Examples of Consultation Support Level 2 Providing basic information on disability conditions Providing basic information on implications of disability on child development Providing information on special education teaching strategies Demonstrating/modeling special education teaching strategies that are linked to specific IEP objectives Providing information on the process of screening and assessment and eligibility for SPED services in Part C and Part B 619 programs Providing information on the process for determination of LRE placement in the IEP process

Examples of Consultation Support Level 3 Providing resources that can inform and support professional competence of ECE partners Providing resources that can inform and support formal education objectives of ECE partners Resources: web links, videos, articles, modeling, digital photos, LEA website, list serve, iPod apps, cell phone images, links to state certification/licensing information, college and university teacher preparation programs, professional development/advocacy groups e.g. CEC-DEC, NAEYC, etc.

Progression of Consultation Partnership

General References Buysse & Wesley (1993): The Identity Crisis in ECSE Jung (2003): Why Limit Interventions to Professionals' Visits? McCollum & Yates (1994): Dyad as Focus, Triad as Means McWilliam (2005): Teams focus on "between- session" times

Project DIRECT Web Site Web Site Includes: Training Modules related to Itinerant ECSE Services Articles and Links to Resources Professional Development Tool (P.I.E.C.E.S.) Information re: Training Sessions

Contact Information: Laurie Dinnebeil, Ph.D. – Bill McInerney, Ph.D. – Lyn Hale, Ph.D. – Margie Spino, M.A. – Judith Herb College of Education - MS 954 The University of Toledo 2801 W. Bancroft St., Toledo, OH 43606