You are on page 1of 23

Professional Development in Embedded

Instruction

Mary McLean, Ph.D. - University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee


Patricia Snyder, Ph.D. - University of Florida
Susan Sandall, Ph.D. - University of Washington
Mary Louise Hemmeter, Ph.D. - Vanderbilt University

A previous version of this presentation was delivered at the annual meeting of


the American Educational Research Association
April 2011
New Orleans, LA

Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences


R324A070008
Embedded Instruction
Multi-component approach to provide
intentional and systematic instruction
on priority learning targets
during typically occurring
activities, routines, and transitions
to support
child engagement and learning
Key Components
EC PD “Need” Relevant
for Present Study
• Descriptive studies have shown many
early childhood practitioners do not feel
– Competent
– Confident
• To meet the needs of young children with
disabilities in inclusive learning contexts
– Access
– Participation
Theory of Change: Abbreviated

Tool Kit
PD 

(Multi‐media 
Intervention

materials)
Teachers’ 
Frequent 
and  Child 
Workshops Increased Child 
Accurate  Engagement 
(high‐quality/ Learning 
interactive) Use of 
Opportunities and Learning
Embedded‐
Instruction 
Coaching Practices
(on‐site coaching 
or self‐coaching)

Instructional Instructional
Contextual
“Quality” “Effectiveness”
Variables
Potential Efficacy Study
• Conducted in FL, WA, and WI

• 36 preschool teachers
– 3 sites
– 11 to 13 teachers per site

• 106 children across 3 sites


– 2-3 “target” children with disabilities in each
teacher’s classroom
Design
• Teachers were randomly assigned to one of
three conditions at each site
– Tools for Teachers workshops plus on-site coaching
– Tools for Teachers workshops plus self-coaching
– Wait-list comparison (control)

• Proximal outcome measures: 5 occasions


– Before and after workshops
– 2nd month and 4th month of coaching
– After intervention

• Distal outcome measures: pre and post


– Before workshops
– After intervention
Teacher Information
On‐site  Self‐Coaching Control
Coaching  (n = 12) (n = 12)
(n = 12)
Female 12 12 11
8
Race               White/Non‐Hispanic                    10 9
African American 1 0 2
Hispanic                    1 1 0
Othera 2 1 1
Education      Bachelor 6 9 8
Master 6 3 4b
ECSE Trainc Yes 9 8 9
No 2 4 3
Yrs. M = 9.3 M = 6 M = 7.5
Experience in EC SD = 6.0 SD = 4.0 SD = 4.2
8
Child Information
All participating children were identified with disabilities that
qualified them to receive education and related services under
Section 619 of IDEA.

All children enrolled in the study had IEP

On‐site Coaching  Self‐Coaching Control


(n = 35) (n = 36) (n = 35)
30 males 25 males 27 males
Gender
5 females 11 females 8 females

Mean Age in Mos. 48.6 46.8 52.7


(SD) (8.7)  (8.1) (8.4)

Mean ABILITIES  1.8  1.7  1.7 


Index score (SD)  (.5)  (.4)  (.6)

9
Primary Research Questions
• What is the relationship between exposure to PD intervention and
teachers’ frequent and accurate use of embedded-instruction
practices?
– Developing quality learning targets (LTRS)
– Implementing planned learning opportunities (EIOS)
– Delivering complete learning trials (EIOS)

• Do scores on standardized measures of key preschool indicators


(pre-academic, literacy, language, and social-emotional behavior)
differ among children whose teachers were involved in each of the
three experimental PD conditions?

• What are teachers’ perspectives about embedded instruction and


the professional development they received?
Experimental Intervention
• Teachers in both PD experimental conditions received:
– 16.5 hours of workshops
– Implementation guides and materials
– Digital video camera
• On-site coaching
– Observation, debrief, and email feedback
– Mean # sessions = 16
– Mean duration of observation = 73.9 min (SD = 19.5)
– Mean duration of debrief = 39.3 min (SD = 12.1)
• Web-based coaching*
• Wait-list control teachers received workshops,
implementation guides, digital video camera and access
to web site at end of study
Procedural Fidelity:
Workshops
• Workshop Implementation Guides

• Workshop Fidelity Checklist


– 96.8% (range = 93.6% -99.4%)

• Instructional Strategies Used by Trainer

• Time Allocated versus Time Spent


Procedural Fidelity: Coaching
Orientation Early Latter Email Final All
(n = 12) (n = 24) (n = 65) (n = 76) (n = 12) Sessions
(n = 189)

Coach report 98.6 96.7 98.1 98.5 100.0 98.2


% coaching log (2.1) (3.7) (2.7) (3.7) (3.2)
indicators
M (SD)

No. of sessions 4 5 15 25 4 53
with second
observer

Second observer 100 91.8 95.7 96.3 97.9 96.1


% coaching log (9.2) (3.4) (4.9) (4.2) (5)
indicators
M (SD)

13
Procedural Fidelity:
Self-Coaching
• Fidelity self-coaching orientation session

– 97.2% (range 91.7%-100%)

• Fidelity weekly e-mail reminder to teachers


in the self-coaching condition
– 100%
Select Findings
Coaching Strategies: Observation
Coaching Strategies: Debrief

17
Self-Coaching and Website Use
Self-
# of visits Average time # of action # of forms
coaching
every 2 on site per plans uploaded to
video
weeksa visitb (min) submittedc the site
submitted
High Users
Teacher A 1.6 36 3 9 Yes
Teacher B 1.6 19 4 16 Yes
Moderate
Users
Teacher C .6 54 0 4 No
Teacher D 1.2 19 1 0 Yes
Teacher E .6 42 1 0 Yes
Teacher F .4 13 1 0 Yes
Teacher G .4 34 2 1 Yes
Teacher H 1.2 27 0 0 No
Teacher I .2 42 0 6 No
Low Users
Teacher J 0 n/a 0 0 No
Teacher K 0 n/a 18 0 0 No
Teacher Implementation Data

Note. LTRS Total Score represents percentage of quality indicators. EIOS scores measured as rate
based on number of trials implemented for a child on one learning target every 15 min. On average,
teachers implemented trials for 2-3 children with 2-3 learning targets for each child.
* Refers to statistically significant main effect at p < .05
EIOS: Teacher Implementation
“Embedded” Complete Learning Trials

20
Child Outcome Data

Note. TERA-3 = Test of Early Reading Ability-Third Edition; PLS-4 = Pre-


school Language Scale Fourth Edition.
* Refers to significant main effect at p < .05
Social Validity Data:
PD Intervention
Limitations and Implications
• Limitations
– A priori power analyses based on alpha .20
– Standardized and decontextualized child outcome measures
– Metrics used to evaluate “dosage” of self-coaching
• Implications
– High-quality workshops sufficient for improving quality
of learning targets
– On-site coaching to improve frequency and accuracy
of embedded instruction learning trials
– Different implementation supports for different
components of embedded instruction
– Social validity data strong, particularly for workshops
plus on-site coaching