Shannon Crissey, M.Ed.Erin Greager, M.Ed.

Lisa Pitale, M.Ed, BCBAUniversity of Washington

Haring CenterExperimental Education Unit

IntroductionWho are we?

Shannon Crissey, M.Ed. – EEU Preschool TeacherErin Greager, M.Ed. – EEU Project DATA teacherLisa Pitale, M.Ed., BCBA – EEU Project DATA teacher

Who are you? What population do you work with?How is inclusion addressed at your place of work?

Why are we presenting today?We are presenting today because of our strong belief in

inclusion and inclusive practices.

Questions we strived to answer this school year as special education teachers:- Why inclusion?- How can we turn a lot of “talk” into some “action”?- Does this action actually work? And if not, how can we MAKE it work?

Why inclusion?Arguments for inclusion:

Research articles: Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way: The Successful Inclusion of a

Child with Autism. By Janet Schmidt Inclusion in Play: A Case Study of a Child with Autism in an Inclusive

Nursery. By Fani Theodorou and Melanie Nind Inclusion Means Everyone! The Role of the Early Childhood Educator

when Including Young Children with Autism in the Classroom. By Shernavaz Vakil, Evonn Welton, Barbara O’Connor and Lynn S Kline.

Promoting a Lifetime of Inclusion. By Adelle Rezaglia, Meagan Karvonen, Erik Drasgow and Craig C Stoxen.

Inclusive Programming for Students with Autism. By Belinda W. Crisman

Civil rights:“Disability need not be an obstacle to success … It is my hope that …

this century will mark a turning point for inclusion of people with disabilities in the lives of their societies.” – Professor Stephen Hawking

“We know that equality of individual ability has never existed and never will, but we do insist that equality of opportunity still must be sought." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

“Inclusive education means that children will be included, made to feel valued and provide others with the opportunity to appreciate those who are different from themselves.” – Jeffrey Rudski, Professor of Psychology, Muhlenberg College

So what’s the challenge?Why is inclusion not happening on so many levels?

StaffingStudents’ behaviorGeneral education classroom too disruptive of an

environment for child to learn inWhat are the challenges happening in your school?

So what can we do about it?This is where our project comes in. We wanted to

show that if students needed a self-contained environment in order to learn classroom skills they could then generalize those skills to a more natural environment.

PurposeThe purpose of our project was to determine whether

students were able to generalize mastered objectives from the Project DATA classroom to the integrated pre-school classroom - but….why?

ParticipantsStudents between the ages of 3-5 who have an

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis.Students’ ability levels varied from mainly social-

emotional delays to more global delays in communication, cognition, behavior, and social development.

Setting: DATA Project

Integrated Early

Childhood Experience

Collaboration and

Coordination

Technical and Social Support

for Families

Quality of Life Influenced Curriculum

Extended, Intensive Instruction

Extended, Intensive Instructional Time

Instructional strategies are data-based and cross-disciplinary

Children’s need for support is matched to the type of instruction

Teaching procedures include discrete trials, naturalistic teaching techniques, response prompting strategies and visual supports

One-on-one and small groups

Technical and Social Support for Families

Emphasis on family-child relationships

Home based services offered

Emphasis on building supportive communities for families

“Families own the agenda”

“Quality of Life” Curriculum in the following areas:

AttendingImitationCommunicationPlaySocial interactionMatchingAdaptive skills

Focus on environment, child interest and motivation, and functional skills.

Focus on children’s ability to access typical environments.

Collaboration and CoordinationAcross Services

Increase consistency across environmentsAppropriate expectations across environmentsIncrease opportunities to practice skillsShare information about motivation and progressRegular meetings among teachersMeetings, visits, and email with other related

services

Project DATA ScheduleTime Activity

8:45 - 8:50

8:50 - 10:00

10:00 - 10:15

10:15 – 10:30

10:30 – 11:00

11:00 – 11:30

11:30 – 11:50

11:50 – 12:00

12:00 - 12:30

Arrival

2:1 Work Time

Snack

Small Group

2:1 Work Time

Recess

Lunch

Circle

Free Choice

Setting – Integrated PreschoolIntegrated Preschool Classroom

8 children diagnosed with a disability8 children who are typically developingTypically a 1:3 teacher/student ratioGeneral education curriculum modified to meet the needs

of diverse learners through adaptations, accommodations, embedded learning, and the use of peer models, along with other strategies.

Setting – Preschool ScheduleTime Activity

12:30 – 12:40

12:40 – 12:55

12:55 – 1:15

1:15 – 1:35

1:35 – 1:55

1:55 – 2:30

2:30 – 2:45

Arrival

Opening Circle

Small Group

Recess

Snack

Free Choice

Closing Circle

Procedure – Initial StepsObjective initially taught in Project DATA classroom

1:2 teacher/student ratioPrinciples of applied behavior analysisLimited distractionsDiscrete trials or embedded learning with peer

Procedure - CriterionObjective closed: 80% proficiency across 2 consecutive

daysCommunication between Project DATA staff and

integrated preschool team to discuss what each objective looked like and how it was to be tested within the integrated preschool setting.

Procedure – Tested in preschool classroomDelivered in the context of the preschool classroom within

naturally occurring activities. Testing was delivered by the researcher who lowered her

body to the child’s level, gained eye contact, lessened distracters as much as possible, and delivered a clear, concise probe.

Data CollectionCriteria for chosen objectives

DiscretenessExtent to which they were natural preschool behaviors

(ie: object imitation, following directions, etc.)

Data CollectionObjectives were tested for generalization during specified

“generalization check” weeks after the objective closed in Project DATA.

Data were collected using whatever data collection system was already established within the preschool classroom (clipboards, index cards attached to ring on teacher’s waist, etc).

+ for independently demonstrating behavior- for no response or incorrect responseEach testing probe given five times; child scored either 20%,

40%, 60%, 80%, or 100% per objective

General timeline of projectSeptember: met with all preschool and Project DATA

teachers to explain the project and determine who the “classroom facilitators” would be. Facilitators were classroom assistants who were in charge

of administering generalization trials within their classrooms and collecting data on each child’s response.

Timeline (con’t)October: First generalization check took place.

Project DATA teachers recorded mastered objectives in classroom binders. Facilitators transferred objectives on to classroom data sheets and tested for generalization that week.

December: Second generalization check took place

Timeline (con’t)January: Researchers met with

facilitators to discuss project thus far and correct any changes necessary.

February: Third generalization check took place

Timeline (con’t)Early March: Researchers met to discuss

aspects of project that were successful vs. not successful and what possible reasons might be.Solutions discussed and changes made

accordinglyLate March: Fourth generalization check took

place.

Here’s what it looked like!Video of objective being taught in Project

DATA classroomVideo of objective being tested in preschool

classroom

DiscussionWhat are elements that seem feasible in your

classroom/center?

Are there any elements that would not work? Why? How could you problem solve this?

Now for the fun part…

Results

Results – High Functioning

Results – Low Functioning

Results DiscussionData interpretation

Students overall generalized at an average rate of 68%

High-functioning students generalized at an average rate of 74%

Low-functioning students generalized at an average rate of 61%

Project DiscussionWhat was successful about the

project?Unforeseen challenges?

Discussion (con’t).

External vs. natural settings should be as similar as possible (including how testing trials are delivered)

Some students showed lower levels of generalizationChildren with more severe forms of ASD

may not generalize as well

Discussion (con’t)Problems: If buy-in is not there then generalization

may not happen with consistency or fidelity. Discussion: How to promote buy-in for

generalization and inclusion?How will this continue to inform our future practice?How does this relate to the current state of special

education? Is it feasible?

Thank you!Questions?

Please email us with any additional questions!

Shannon Crissey – connors8@u.washington.edu

Erin Greager – bryce12@gmail.com

Lisa Pitale – lapitale@u.washington.edu