See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330057109

Early Childhood Special Education Teachers' Use of Embedded

Learning Opportunities Within Classroom Routines and
Activities

Article  in  Infants and Young Children · January 2019

DOI: 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000132

CITATIONS READS

10 850

3 authors, including:

Christan Coogle Jennifer Ottley

George Mason University The Ohio State University
43 PUBLICATIONS   396 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Finalizing manuscripts for submission and collecting data! View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christan Coogle on 25 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Infants & Young Children
Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 3–19
Copyright C 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Early Childhood Special

Education Teachers’ Use of
Embedded Learning
Opportunities Within
Classroom Routines and
Activities
Naomi L. Rahn, PhD; Christan Grygas Coogle, PhD;
Jennifer R. Ottley, PhD
Embedded learning opportunities are one evidence-based practice for addressing individualized
education program goals for young children with special needs. In this study, we used quantitative
and qualitative methods to analyze 8 early childhood special education teachers’ use of embedded
learning opportunities during the usual conditions of typical classroom activities. We analyzed
video-recorded 10-min segments of adult-directed, child-directed, and routine activities for each
teacher’s use of embedded learning opportunities to address their children’s individualized edu-
cation plan goals. In addition, we gathered qualitative data on teachers’ perceptions, barriers, and
needed supports regarding embedded learning opportunities. Teachers used embedded learning
opportunities infrequently, but there was significant variation among teachers. Teachers used ver-
bal antecedents (e.g., directives, questions, and models) most frequently and were most likely to
address children’s communication goals. There were no differences in the rate of teachers’ use
of embedded learning opportunities across activity types. Teachers reported needing supports
such as training and additional staff to implement embedded learning opportunities. Implications
for teacher training and research are discussed. Key words: early childhood special education,
embedded learning opportunities, individualized education program, naturalistic instruction

S PECIAL EDUCATION law mandates that

children with disabilities receive their ed-
ucation in the least restrictive environment
Author Affiliations: College of Education and
Human Services, West Virginia University,
Morgantown (Dr Rahn); Early Childhood Education
Program, College of Education and Human
Development, George Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia (Dr Coogle); and Department of Teacher
Education, Ohio University, Athens (Dr Ottley).
Dr Rahn is now with the Wisconsin Department of
Children and Families, Madison.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Correspondence: Christan Grygas Coogle, PhD,
Early Childhood Education Program, College of Ed-
ucation and Human Development, George Mason
University, 4400 University Dr, Fairfax, VA 22030
(ccoogle@gmu.edu).
DOI: 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000132
(Individuals With Disabilities Education Im-
provement Act, 2004). Because of this and
our shifting social values regarding inclusive
practices, children with and without disabil-
ities are more frequently learning together
(Division for Early Childhood/National Asso-
ciation for the Education of Young Children,
2009). With this inclusive shift, early child-
hood special education (ECSE) teachers are
required to address a variety of learning out-
comes for children in early childhood class-
rooms. In classrooms serving young children
with special needs, the ECSE teachers are en-
couraged to use naturalistic instruction (NI),
which provides opportunities for children to
practice developmentally and socially mean-
ingful skills within the context of everyday
activities (Division for Early Childhood [DEC],
3

Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 4 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2019
2014). Common features of NI include (a) im-
plementation during typical routines and ac-
tivities, (b) intentionally designed learning op-
portunities consisting of an antecedent and a
consequence, (c) focusing on useful and im-
portant skills to ensure the child’s participa-
tion in activities, and (d) implementation by
familiar adults (Snyder, Rakap, et al., 2015).
Naturalistic instruction has been identified
as effective in promoting the learning of
young children with special needs (Hart &
Risley, 1975; Rule, Losardo, Dinnebeil, Kaiser,
& Rowland, 1998) and has been used to teach
a variety of skills (Horn, Lieber, Li, Sandall,
& Schwartz, 2000; VanDerHeyden, Snyder,
Smith, Sevin, & Longwell, 2005). In a recent
review of NI, Snyder, Rakap, et al. (2015)
found that almost all young children with spe-
cial needs enrolled in the studies acquired
target skills. Rakap and Parlak-Rakap (2011)
conducted a review of 16 studies that pro-
vided insight into the usability of NI in a
variety of settings (e.g., Head Start, commu-
nity preschools, ECSE classrooms) and for
targeting diverse child outcomes (e.g., cog-
nitive, communication, motor). Collectively,
these studies demonstrate the extensive re-
search that has been conducted over the past
20 years on NI and the potential of this
method in enhancing outcomes for young
children with special needs. Even so, Rakap
and Parlak-Rakap’s review suggests that more
research is necessary to better understand
teachers’ use of NI and the types of activi-
ties during which it may be ideal for teachers
to implement the practice.
EMBEDDED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
A core component of NI is embedded learn-
ing opportunities (ELOs). Embedded learn-
ing opportunities are child-focused, instruc-
tional episodes implemented during typically
occurring routines (Horn & Banerjee, 2009;
Johnson, Rahn, & Bricker, 2015; Sandall &
Schwartz, 2008). When implementing ELOs,
teachers use logically occurring antecedents
(i.e., events that initiate the learning oppor-
tunity and trigger the desired behavior) and
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
consequences (i.e., events that occur imme-
diately after the desired behavior to reinforce
the child) to develop functional and gener-
alizable skills (Johnson et al., 2015). Embed-
ded learning opportunities are central to NI as
they are child-specific and provide structure
to promote children’s development (Sandall &
Schwartz, 2008). Given the individualization
of ELOs for each child, ELOs create oppor-
tunities to target goals within a child’s indi-
vidualized education plan (IEP). The IEP pro-
vides a road map for intervention through the
selection of skills that “help a child become
adaptive, competent, socially connected, and
engaged and that promote learning in natu-
ral and inclusive environments” (DEC, 2014,
p. 11). Embedded learning opportunities sup-
port the implementation of the IEP by pro-
viding an intentional, structured, and planful
way in which ECSE teachers can provide mul-
tiple opportunities for children to practice IEP
skills within typical classroom routines and
activities. As such, ELOs support children’s
acquisition of new skills. This is important,
as the field has identified that children need
multiple practice opportunities to attain skills
(Johnson et al., 2015).
Research suggests that children with spe-
cial needs can achieve learning objectives
when teachers use ELOs (e.g., Fox & Hanline,
1993; Grisham-Brown, Hemmeter, Schuster,
Collins, 2000; Horn et al., 2000). However, re-
search shows that teachers in early childhood
classrooms use ELOs infrequently (Pretti-
Frontczak & Bricker, 2001). Pretti-Frontczak
and Bricker (2001) coded observations of
teachers with a target child for whom they
had written two IEP objectives. Teachers used
ELOs in 4.3%–18.1% (mean = 9.7%) of the pos-
sible 3,588 intervals. Embedded learning op-
portunities were most likely to consist of the
teacher asking questions or providing a verbal
model. Teachers were most likely to use ELOs
when working one-on-one with children and
least likely to use ELOs during large-group ac-
tivities.
In a second study of ELOs, Noh, Allen, and
Squires (2009) observed and recorded the use
of ELOs by master’s level preservice teachers

in an inclusive early childhood program. Grad-
uate research assistants (RAs) observed class-
room activities for a total of 760 min. On av-
erage, the preservice teachers provided 7.87
ELOs per 20-min interval (range = 1.57–10.88
per min); however, Noh et al. did not assess
whether this reflected significant differences
across participants. Preservice teachers used
ELOs most often during transitions and toilet-
ing and least often during arrival, departure,
free play, and snack. Collectively, preservice
and in-service teachers may not be using ELOs
to address the IEP goals of children with spe-
cial needs and when they do use ELOs, they
may be selecting only a few antecedents or
types of activities. It is unclear the extent to
which differences exist in teachers’ use of
ELOs.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to better understand how ECSE teachers use
ELOs to support children with special needs.
First, we sought to describe how often and
in what contexts ECSE teachers use ELOs to
address children’s IEP goals. Second, we were
interested in understanding teachers’ percep-
tions of and experiences using ELOs. Specific
research questions included the following:
1. What is the proportion of 15-s intervals
within 10-min videos during which ECSE
teachers use ELOs?
2. During which type of activity (adult-
directed, child-directed, routine) are
ECSE teachers most likely to use ELOs?
3. Do ECSE teachers differ in the frequency
with which they use ELOs?
4. Which types of antecedents do ECSE
teachers use most frequently?
5. Which types of IEP goals are ECSE teach-
ers most likely to address using ELOs?
6. What is the rationale for when and how
ECSE teachers implement ELOs?
7. What barriers or challenges do ECSE
teachers perceive in their use of ELOs?
8. What supports do ECSE teachers need to
implement ELOs more frequently?
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Embedded Learning Opportunities 5
METHODS
Research design
We used quantitative and qualitative meth-
ods to examine ECSE teachers’ use of ELOs
in early childhood classrooms. To answer re-
search questions 1 through 5, we used a de-
scriptive design and incorporated numerous
strategies to ensure the internal and exter-
nal validity, reliability, and objectivity of our
quantitative findings (see Table 1). For exam-
ple, to strengthen the internal validity of the
study, our ECSE teachers were blind to the
objectives of the study and provided several
video recordings so that we could observe
their practices on multiple occasions. In addi-
tion, our data coders were naı̈ve to the study
objectives (objectivity) and double-coded 20%
of sessions to ensure interobserver agreement
(reliability).
To answer research questions 6 through
8, we used qualitative methods. To increase
rigor, we used multiple methodological strate-
gies to ensure that the data were credible,
transferable, dependable, and confirmable
(Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, &
Richardson, 2005; McWilliam, 2000; Pat-
ton, 2002). These methods included utilizing
a code–recode strategy (dependability) and
having ECSE teachers review findings to en-
sure that our transcript was accurate and that
it captured their perspectives of ELOs (credi-
bility). We provide a thorough description of
the methodological strategies used to increase
rigor in Table 1 and within the “Interviews,
Data Coding” section.
Setting and participants
Participants included eight White ECSE
teachers working in three counties in one
Mid-Atlantic state. Seven teachers were fe-
male and one was male. All were certified to
teach ECSE. Their highest level of education
completed was a bachelor’s (n = 1), master’s
(n = 6), or doctoral (n = 1) degree. Teach-
ers’ mean years of experience working with
children with special needs were 6.88 (range
= 1-13) years. All taught in public preschool

Table 1. Strategies to Ensure Research Quality and Rigor
Quantitative Term Quantitative Strategies Employed
Internal validity Participants naı̈ve to study design and
objectives
Repeated observations of each participant and
activity type
Operational definitions of coding variables
External validity Diverse participant characteristics
Observations across 3 activity types across
several weeks
Reliability Interobserver agreement coded for 20% of
sessions across participants and activity
types
Objectivity Coders naı̈ve to study design and objectives
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
6
Qualitative Term Qualitative Strategies Employed
Credibility We sent the typed interview record to participants as
a method of member checking to confirm our
findings
We utilized an external auditor who was unfamiliar
with the study to conduct reliability to ensure that
our findings were grounded
Transferability We utilized particularizability by reporting data from
seven teachers and provided details regarding their
classroom make up to determine the transferability
to educators in their own environment
External auditors
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2019
Dependability We used a code–recode strategy through pattern
coding to ensure that our data were dependable
External auditors
Confirmability Methodological triangulation
We acknowledged and reflected on our own biases
to engage in researcher reflexivity to ensure that
our data were confirmable
External auditors

classrooms housed within elementary school
buildings. Participants 1 through 5 and Par-
ticipant 8 taught in publicly funded inclu-
sive preschool classrooms designed to pro-
vide universal access to preschool to prepare
all preschool children, including typically de-
veloping children and children with special
needs, for kindergarten. Each inclusive class-
room included up to 15 typically developing
4- and 5-year-old children who were enrolled
in the universal preschool program and up
to five children between 3 and 5 years of
age with special needs. Participants 6 and
7 taught in self-contained ECSE classrooms.
Self-contained classrooms did not include typ-
ically developing children; each classroom in-
cluded up to five children with special needs
between 3 and 5 years of age. Each class-
room included one teacher and one parapro-
fessional. All programs were full day and op-
erated 4 days per week.
Twenty-one children with IEPs participated
in the study. Each classroom included be-
tween one and five participating children who
ranged in age from 3 to 5 years at the begin-
ning of the study. All children were identified
as having a developmental delay; children had
a wide range of needs from mild language
and social delays to significant cognitive im-
pairments with delays across all areas of de-
velopment. Children had between two and
17 total IEP goals, up to three of which were
coded for this study (see Table 2). Goals that
were not observable or that included multi-
ple skills were not coded to ensure reliable
measurement. For children with more than
three appropriate goals, the first author ran-
domly selected three goals for coding to in-
crease feasibility for coders who were watch-
ing videos for multiple children (e.g., four per
classroom) who each had multiple goals (e.g.,
12 total goals across the four children).
Observational component
Procedures
Before beginning the study, the authors
obtained institutional review board approval.
After teachers provided informed consent
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Embedded Learning Opportunities 7
and received consent from families of all
children in their classrooms, the first author
provided them with an iPad and a Swivl,
a base for holding the iPad that moves
with the teacher during video recording.
The iPad included the Swivl application for
video recording. Teachers video recorded
themselves teaching during three activities
(i.e., circle time [adult-directed], free play
[child-directed], and mealtime [routine]) for
at least 10 min on 3 separate days within
a 1-month period. The researchers selected
the three types of activities during which
teachers would collect data based on an exist-
ing framework of early childhood classroom
activities (Johnson et al., 2015). Teachers
started the video recording at the beginning
of each activity. Teachers were asked to teach
as usual and did not receive any training or
directions to use ELOs to address IEP goals, as
the goal of the study was to capture teachers’
typical practice. We collected three videos
of each activity for each teacher (i.e., nine
total videos per teacher), with the exception
of two teachers. Participant 8 provided only
four videos because of personal constraints.
Participant 3 provided nine total videos but
unintentionally recorded an additional circle
time session and one less free play activity.
When all video recording was completed, the
first author collected the equipment and a list
of each child’s IEP goals from the teacher.
Measures and materials
All three authors collaborated to develop
a modified version of a 15-s partial interval
sampling observation tool (i.e., PROBE; Pretti-
Frontczak, Capt, Leve, & Waddell, 1995) to
code teachers’ use of ELOs. We modified the
PROBE by eliminating a portion of the tool
specific to identifying whether a skill was
measurable or not measurable; this portion
of the tool was unnecessary because we in-
cluded only IEP goals that were observable
in this study. We defined ELOs as teaching
behaviors that (a) were directed toward an
individual child with an IEP, (b) allowed the
child to practice one of his or her IEP goals,
(c) were part of an ongoing activity in the
 8 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2019

Table 2. Total and Coded IEP Goals by Developmental Area for Each Child

Goal Area
Total Total
Teacher Child Goals Coded Comm Cog Soc Adap FM

1 1a 9 3 3
1b 11 3 2 1
1c 6 2 2
1d 3 2 2
1e 8 2 2
2 2a 6 3 1 1 1
2b 6 3 1 1 1
2c 10 3 1 1 1
2d 13 3 1 1 1
3 3a 7 3 2 1
3b 7 2 2
3c 9 1 1
4 4a 8 3 1 2
5 5a 3 2 2
5b 4 2 2
6 6a 11 3 1 1 1
6b 7 2 1 1
6c 17 3 2 1
6d 7 2 2
7 7a 9 3 1 1 1
8 8a 7 3 2 1

Note. Adap = adaptive; Cog = cognitive; Comm = communication; FM = fine motor; Soc = social–emotional.

classroom, and (d) allowed the child to con-
tinue to participate in the activity in which
he or she was already engaged. See Table 3
for a description of how coders determined
whether or not a teaching behavior was an
ELO. To supplement our coding of ELOs,
we used definitions from an ecobehavioral
observation tool (SCOPE; Pretti-Frontczak &
Capt, 1997) used in previous research (Pretti-
Frontczak & Bricker, 2001) to record (a)
type of activity, (b) the teacher’s instructional
antecedent, and (c) type of IEP goal. See
Table 4 for definitions of antecedents. To de-
termine the type of IEP goal, we used the As-
sessment, Evaluation, and Programming Sys-
tem (AEPS; Bricker, 2002), which allowed us
to have a consistent method for identifying
the developmental area (e.g., gross motor,
cognitive) that was addressed in each IEP goal.
The AEPS was selected because it is a widely
used curriculum-based assessment that is part
of a larger programming system focusing on
ELOs within everyday routines and activities
as a primary intervention strategy (Bricker,
2002).
Coder training and reliability
assessment
Four undergraduate RAs were trained to
code teachers’ ELOs based on the PROBE
and SCOPE procedures using video clips that
were not used in study results (i.e., sections of
videos beyond the first 10 min) until at least
80% agreement was reached on whether or
not an ELO was observed in an interval and
if so, the antecedent type. When there were
disagreements during training, coding proce-
dures were refined as needed to reach con-
sensus on codes. When 80% agreement was
reached, a total of 670 min of video footage
(the first 10 min of each activity) was coded
using partial interval recording. Research

Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Embedded Learning Opportunities 9

Table 3. Coding Questions for Determining ELO and Antecedent Type in Each 15-s Interval

Question Responses Next Step

Did the teacher direct a teaching behavior toward an Yes or No Yes—Go to the next
individual child? Yes = teacher specifically looks at, question
talks to, provides physical assistance to, or otherwise No—Not an ELO; go to
directs teaching toward individual child. No = the next interval
teacher looks at, talks to, directs attention to whole
group; teacher is not engaged in teaching behavior
(e.g., preparing materials).
Was the teaching behavior directed toward a child with Yes or No Yes—Go to the next
an IEP? Yes = teacher looks at, talks to, provides question
physical assistance to, or otherwise direct teaching No—Not an ELO; go to
toward child with IEP. No = teacher looks at, talks to, the next interval
provides physical assistance to child who does not
have an IEP.
Which child? Child code Go to the next question
Did the teaching behavior allow the child to practice an Yes or No Yes—Go to the next
IEP goal? Yes = teaching behavior provides child with question
opportunity to practice skill on IEP. No = teaching No—Not an ELO; go to
behavior is unrelated to a goal on IEP. the next interval
Which area of development does goal address? AEPS goal area Go to the next question
Was the teaching behavior part of an ongoing classroom Yes or No Ye—Go to the next
activity? Yes = teaching behavior is a part of ongoing question
activity. For example, for a child who has an IEP No—Not an ELO; go to
objective to identify colors, if the child is painting, the next interval
teaching must occur within context of painting
activity (e.g., teacher asks the child which paint color
he or she would like). No = teaching behavior is not
part of ongoing activity (e.g., teacher asks child to
leave painting to identify colors on flashcards.
Did teaching behavior allow the child to continue Yes or No Yes—Go to the next
participating in an activity in which he or she was question
engaged? Yes = teaching behavior allows the child to No—Not an ELO; go to
continue an action or maintain interest within the next interval
activity. For example, during play when the child is
building a zoo, if the child has an objective to count
objects using one-to-one correspondence, the teacher
asks the child how many animals are in his zoo. No =
teaching behavior requires the child to shift attention
away from that in which he or she is interested or
engaged. For example, the teacher asks the child to
count how many children are playing in block area,
shifting the child’s attention away from building zoo.
Is it an ELO (i.e., yes to all questions above)? Yes or No Yes—Go to the next
question
No—Go to the next
interval
Which antecedent did the teacher use to address goal? Antecedents Go to the next interval
(Table 2)

Note. AEPS = Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System; ELO = embedded learning opportunities; IEP =
individualized education plan.

Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 10 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2019

Table 4. Coding Definitions for Antecedentsa

Antecedent Definition Exclusions

Physical Assistance The teacher provides the child with The teacher performs skill for
physical guidance or help to the child
practice target behavior.
Directives Verbal commands or statements Suggestions/recommendations
phrased as imperatives telling the (code as Prompt)
child to behave in a certain way or
that provide instructions.
Questions Utterances phrased as a question or
having upward inflection at the
end.
Prompt Declarative sentences recommending Imperatives/commands (code
that a child do something; phrased as Directive)
as suggestions.
Clue Any nonverbal event, action, gesture, Verbal directives or prompts
or look.
Model Verbal Adult demonstrates the target skill
through verbalizations or sign
language.
Model Physical Adult demonstrates the target skill
through physical action.
Information Adult provides comments or Questions
explanations to elicit a Directives
noncommunication target skill.
Provides Material Adult gives child materials that
provide an opportunity to practice
target skill.
Singing/Reading/Signing During singing, reading, talking, or
signing, the adult directs attention
toward child, places emphasis on
target skill, and pauses 2 s for the
child to respond.
Directs Others Directs another adult or peer to Whole group instructions
provide antecedent related to
target skill and expects the child to
immediately practice skill.

a Adapted from The System of Classroom Observations for Program Evaluation (SCOPE), by K. Pretti-Frontczak and

D. B. Capt, 1997, Kent, OH: Kent State University. Unpublished manuscript. Used with permission.

assistants watched 15 s of a video, paused the
video, and answered a series of questions lead-
ing to a decision about whether or not a teach-
ing behavior was an ELO and if so, what type
of antecedent was delivered. Research assis-
tants defined the beginning of an ELO as the
moment the teacher delivered an antecedent.
For each 15-s interval, RAs recorded only the
first observed ELO in the interval. Research
assistants double-coded 25% of the videos to
ensure interrater reliability. We calculated re-
liability using the total agreement method
(Kennedy, 2005). Reliability was 96.7% (range
= 83%–100%) for occurrence of ELOs and
95.8% (range = 80%–100%) for antecedent
type.

Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Data analysis
The first and third authors analyzed data
from the video recordings using descriptive
and inferential statistics to answer quanti-
tative research questions 1–5. More specifi-
cally, we used proportions, frequency counts,
means, and ranges to describe teachers’ use
of ELOs. To analyze data for Questions 2 and
3, we also used the Levene Statistic (test-
ing for homogeneity of variance), χ 2 (Ques-
tion 2) and η (Question 3; testing for statisti-
cal independence), 1-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA), and the Welch Statistic (to correct
for violations of homogeneity of variance).
Interviews
Procedures
After the teacher completed the video
recordings, the second author invited the
teacher to participate in a semistructured
individual phone interview of 12 questions
regarding each teacher’s understanding, train-
ing, and use of ELOs to gain in-depth infor-
mation related to participants’ perspectives
about ELOs (Patton, 2002). Our semistruc-
tured interviews lasted approximately 45 min.
The second author asked a scripted question
and utilized probes when necessary to gain
more information or clarification, and she
typed the participant’s responses. She then
used member checking by e-mailing the typed
record to the teacher and asking the teacher
to verify that she had captured their responses
correctly (Patton, 2002). All participants en-
gaged in this process except Participant 8,
who did not complete the interview because
of personal constraints. An external auditor
(trained graduate assistant not involved in
the study beyond reliability) then reviewed
25% of the data across themes and subthemes
to determine agreement regarding analysis.
Reliability was 100% for coding of participant
responses to themes and subthemes.
Data coding
The second author copied all typed par-
ticipant responses into an Excel spreadsheet
to answer research Questions 6 through 8.
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Embedded Learning Opportunities 11
The second author analyzed the data using
starter codes that aligned with the interview
questions to form themes (Miles & Huberman,
1994). Our subthemes emerged from units of
meaning that we identified from the partici-
pant responses, and we chunked these units
of meaning together utilizing pattern coding
(Miles & Huberman, 1994).
We used multiple strategies to ensure the
rigor and quality of the qualitative data analy-
sis (Brantlinger et al., 2005; McWilliam, 2000).
To ensure the data’s credibility, we used (a)
member checking by sending participants the
typed records of the interviews to confirm
that our transcripts were both accurate and
captured their perspectives regarding ELOs
and (b) an external review of our research
findings by an individual who was not en-
gaged in this research (external auditor) to en-
sure interpretive quality. The external auditor
also confirmed the dependability of the data,
as did the code–recode strategy in which the
authors reexamined previously coded con-
tent when new meaning units emerged and
throughout the analysis process to ensure ac-
curacy. To ensure transferability, we were
particular about the selection and descrip-
tion of participants (ECSE teachers within in-
clusive classrooms) and engaged the exter-
nal auditor to ensure that we adequately de-
scribed the participants. Finally, we ensured
confirmability by reflecting on our bias dur-
ing analysis and utilizing an unbiased external
auditor (see Table 1; Brantlinger et al., 2005;
Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002).
RESULTS
Teacher use of ELOs
Our first research question addressed the
proportion of intervals during which teachers
used ELOs that addressed IEP goals. On av-
erage, teachers used ELOs to address the tar-
geted IEP goals in 9.0% of 15-s intervals (range
= 0%–75%). Median use across teachers was
0%, with more than half (55.2%) of the obser-
vations containing no ELOs that addressed the
targeted IEP goals (see Table 5).
 12 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2019

Table 5. Percentage of Intervals Containing Embedded Learning Opportunities by Activity,

Teacher, and Antecedent

Activity Mean SD Median Minimum Maximum

Adult-directed 3.6% 6.9% 0% 0% 25%

Child-directed 12.7% 20.7% 0% 0% 73%
Routine 11.2% 19.6% 0% 0% 75%
Teacher
1 9.9% 17.6% 0% 0% 53%
2 2.0% 5.0% 0% 0% 15%
3 1.9% 1.9% 3.0% 0% 5%
4 1.5% 2.6% 0% 0% 8%
5 0.3% 1.0% 0% 0% 3%
6 30.0% 17.3% 27.5% 10% 73%
7 15.0% 26.7% 0% 0% 75%
8 15.0% 22.5% 6.3% 0% 48%
Antecedent
PA 0.24% 1.17% 0% 0% 9%
DI 0.69% 1.79% 0% 0% 9%
QU 0.51% 1.39% 0% 0% 9%
PR 0.66% 2.10% 0% 0% 15%
CL 0.03% 0.17% 0% 0% 1%
MV 0.49% 2.09% 0% 0% 16%
MP 0.01% 0.12% 0% 0% 1%
IF 0.01% 0.12% 0% 0% 1%
PM 0.27% 1.29% 0% 0% 9%
SR 0.00% 0.00% 0% 0% 0%
DO 0.01% 0.12% 0% 0% 1

Note. CL = clue; DI = directive; DO = directs others; IF = information; MP = model physical; MV = model verbal;
PA = physical assistance; PM = provides material; PR = prompt; QU = question; SR = singing/reading or continual
signing/verbalization.

Our second question addressed the types
of activities during which teachers were
most likely to use ELOs. Teachers submitted
24 circle time videos, 22 free play videos,
and 21 mealtime videos. Teachers used ELOs
in 3.6% of intervals during circle time activ-
ities, 12.7% of intervals during free play ac-
tivities, and 11.2% of intervals during meal-
time activities (see Table 5). We checked for
statistical independence using the χ 2 test of
independence. We found no association be-
tween teachers and the type of activity; χ 2
(14) = 2.51, p = 1.0. We conducted a Levene
test because the variances between activity
types did not appear equal. The Levene Statis-
tic was significant (p = .002), indicating that
the variances were not equal between activ-
ity types. We then conducted an ANOVA and
used the Welch statistic, which corrects for
heterogeneity of variance among the groups.
There was no significant difference (p = .065)
in teachers’ use of ELOs based on activity
type.
Our third research question addressed
whether teachers differed in the frequency
with which they used ELOs for the targeted
IEP goals. Teachers’ mean use of ELOs ranged
from 0.3% to 30% of intervals (see Table 5).
We checked for statistical independence us-
ing the η value. We found an association
between teachers and their frequency of
ELO use (η = .698). We again conducted a

Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Embedded Learning Opportunities 13

Levene Statistic, which indicated that these
differences were not equal between teach-
ers (p = .000). An ANOVA with the
Welch statistic indicated that teachers signifi-
cantly differed in the frequency with which
they used ELOs for the targeted IEP goals
(p = .003).
Our fourth research question examined
antecedents ECSE teachers used most fre-
quently to address IEP goals. Teachers used
directives, questions, prompts, and verbal
models most frequently (in 49%–69% of inter-
vals containing ELOs; see Table 5). Teachers
used physical assistance and the provision of
materials in 24%–27% of intervals. Teachers
used clues, physical models, information,
singing/reading/signing, and directs others in
0%–3% of intervals.
Our fifth research question examined
which types of IEP goals teachers were most
likely to address using ELOs. Whereas 33.9%
of children’s total IEP goals coded in this
study addressed communication, 78.9% of
these goals were addressed at least once in
an ELO. Cognitive goals accounted for 37.5%
of children’s total IEP goals, but only 28.6% of
these goals were targeted at least once during
ELOs. Children’s social and fine-motor goals
accounted for 14.3% and 12.5% of the total IEP
goals, respectively, with 37.5% and 42.9% of
these goals being the focus of teachers’ ELOs
at least once. Only one IEP goal targeted adap-
tive skills and the teacher addressed it with an
ELO.
Teacher perceptions and experiences
using ELOs
Reported ELO use
Theme 1, reported ELO use, aligned with
research Question 6, which addressed the ra-
tionale for when and how teachers imple-
ment ELOs. Theme 1 was defined as details
surrounding ELOs, such as what skills were
being taught, group size, how teachers used
ELOs, specific teaching strategies, the setting,
and teachers’ description of their own use
of ELOs. Reported ELO use made up 61% of
the total data and seven participants had data
within this theme (see Table 6 for percentage
of total data and the number of participants
providing data for each theme). The following
subthemes made up Theme 1: types of activ-
ities, specific teaching strategies, child goals,
group size, and the teacher’s rationale for us-
ing ELOs.

Table 6. Qualitative Data Within Themes and Subthemes

Themes and Subthemes NP NC Percentage

Reported ELO use 7 51 61

Types of activities 7 20 39
Specific strategies 7 13 39
Goals 7 8 16
Group size 6 6 12
Rationale 4 4 8
Challenges 7 14 17
Logistics and resources 7 7 50
Skills 7 7 50
Supports 7 15 18
Desired supports 7 8 53
Training 7 7 47
Outliers 3 3 4

Note. ELO = embedded learning opportunity; NC = number of codes within each theme and subtheme; NP = number
of participants who had data within each theme and subtheme.

Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 14 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2019
Types of activities
Seven participants indicated that they use
ELOs during structured (e.g., circle time, art
activity, game) activities or a combination
of structured and unstructured (e.g., block
play, play in housekeeping area, outdoor play)
activities. For example, Participant 6 stated,
“The best times are circle time and small
group because you can really focus on that
learning activity with that child and it is easier
to manage that way.”
Specific strategies
Seven participants identified using ELO
strategies such as in sight out of reach,
prompting, reinforcement, and modeling. For
example, Participant 3 said, “We frequently
put preferred items out of reach but visible to
increase requesting. With students who have
some speech, we use modeling and prompt-
ing to elicit more than one word . . . .” She
identified specific strategies including, “Ver-
bal and physical prompts, peer and adult mod-
eling, verbal praise.”
Goals
Seven participants identified teaching goals
related to the state’s early learning standards
as well as individual child needs. For example,
Participant 2 said, “ . . . When you look at the
cognitive, social emotional skills those are all
things that we focus on from the IEP and the
early learning standards framework so those
are things that we are required to work on.”
Group size
Six participants provided data related to
working with children in a variety of group
size settings. For example, when we asked
Participant 4 about ELOs, she stated, “I would
use them through all [types of routines] be-
cause I use them through all activities through
the day. I do not think I do more of one than
the other.”
Rationale
Four participants discussed functional
learning opportunities as their rationale for
using ELOs. For example, Participant 6 stated,
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
“I really think especially in this kind of class-
room every kind of activity is an opportunity
for learning opportunities . . . we embed it in
every activity all day long.”
Challenges
Theme 2, challenges, aligned with research
Question 7, which was related to difficulties
experienced by teachers. Theme 2 was de-
fined as specific barriers teachers identify that
make it difficult for them to use ELOs. Seven
participants had data within this theme. The
following subthemes made up Theme 2: logis-
tics and resources, and child skills.
Logistics and resources
Seven participants identified large class
sizes, individualizing instruction, and access
to resources as challenges they face. For ex-
ample, Participant 1 stated, “I think in my
classroom I have 20 kids this year and nine
of them are on IEPs so finding time to work
on ELOs for each kid can be stressful . . . .” Par-
ticipant 5 identified access to resources such
as materials and time as challenges she expe-
riences.
Child skills
Seven participants identified communica-
tion and social skills as difficult to address. Par-
ticipants also acknowledged specific activities
as challenging contexts for providing ELOs re-
lated to communication and social skills. Par-
ticipant 3 said, “It is difficult to plan for com-
munication skills . . . of our four students with
communication issues, two are willing and
able to imitate speech acts when prompted.
Two of them will not, so addressing communi-
cation skills is a challenge.” Participant 2 said,
“I think the hardest ones to plan for are social
skills . . . most of the children with IEPs are
[identified with] autism so they don’t want
to necessarily interact with one another ....”
Participant 5 stated, “I think writing can be a
challenging activity for some of the kids . . .
also cognitive skills such as trying to build
things . . . .”

Supports
Theme 3 aligned with research Question 8,
which was related to supports needed by
teachers to implement ELOs. Theme 3 was de-
fined as resources teachers have received or
would like to receive to enhance their use of
ELOs. Seven participants provided data within
this theme, and the two subthemes were de-
sired supports and training.
Desired supports
Seven participants discussed a decrease in
class size, more staff, training, money, and a
decrease in nonteaching tasks as needed sup-
ports. Participant 6 said,
This year it is a matter of we are just feeling
[more] outnumbered than we have in years past
. . . more adults would always help but it is unreal-
istic so [we use] visuals and schedules but not all
children want or use them . . . .
Participant 7 indicated that trainings spe-
cific to special education would be helpful.
Participant 5 said, “I would like more money
. . . so if I think I need something like materi-
als I get it.” Participant 4 stated, “The biggest
help would be freeing up teachers’ time . . . .
Training
Seven participants identified both their
higher education experiences and profes-
sional development as sources of training
related to ELOs. For example, Participant
3 stated, “During my master’s work in ECSE,
almost all courses addressed ELO[s].” Partici-
pant 2 said, “ . . . We have trainings now with
PBS and how we can do those pro-social skills
and integrate those things into the day....”
DISCUSSION
Our study expands on the existing literature
by providing quantitative data that describe
when and how teachers use ELOs and quali-
tative data that provide insights into teacher
perceptions of ELOs, barriers to implementa-
tion, and supports needed to increase teacher
use of this important mechanism for address-
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Embedded Learning Opportunities 15
ing the needs of young children with special
needs.
Teachers’ infrequent use of ELOs
The teachers in our sample used ELOs with
about the same frequency as teachers in Pretti-
Frontczak and Bricker’s (2001) study. Teach-
ers in the study by Noh et al. (2009) imple-
mented ELOs more frequently than teachers
in our study. Although the participants in the
study by Noh et al. (2009) were preservice
teachers, they had received very specific and
intensive training in using ELOs and were
working in a model ECSE classroom. Partic-
ipants in the Pretti-Frontczak and Bricker’s
(2001) study had received training on writ-
ing IEP goals, wrote two IEP goals for each
child, and were observed for their use of ELOs
related specifically to those goals. In contrast,
our data were collected with practicing teach-
ers in school district classrooms who received
no direct training or suggestions to use ELOs
to address IEP goals. Thus, our study may
provide a more representative and authentic
sample of the frequency with which teachers
use ELOs to address IEP goals within inclusive
classroom settings.
Teachers’ descriptions indicate that they
perceived their use of ELOs to be more fre-
quent than our quantitative data suggest. For
example, Participant 3 reported “frequently
[putting] preferred items out of reach but
visible to increase requesting,” yet this par-
ticipant used ELOs in fewer than 2% of the
measured intervals. This discrepancy may be
due to challenges with implementation (i.e.,
teachers know what ELOs are but have dif-
ficulty putting them into practice). This may
also indicate that teachers need more struc-
tured ways to use the IEP as a road map for
translating IEP goals into practice opportuni-
ties in the classroom. Another possible expla-
nation is a difference in definitions. Teach-
ers in our study appeared to define ELOs
to include a broad range of skills. For ex-
ample, one participant described using ELOs
to address readiness and self-help skills that
were in the state’s early learning standards
but not included in children’s IEPs. Another
 16 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2019
possibility is that teachers may have addressed
IEP goals that we did not code in our analysis;
although this could have led to an underes-
timation of teachers’ use of ELOs, our ran-
domization of goals to include in the research
would have made this difference purely due
to chance. Finally, it may also be that teach-
ers did not match their teaching to the child’s
interest or focus of attention. During coding,
when teachers interrupted the child’s activ-
ity, this was not coded as an ELO. In future
training efforts, it may be critical to stress the
key ingredients of ELOs including that the an-
tecedent needs to focus on the IEP goal and
allow the child to continue his or her current
activity.
Teachers use ELOs across a variety
of activities
Our findings were consistent with previous
research (Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2001),
in that teachers in our study used ELOs less
often in adult-directed activities than in child-
directed and routine activities; although this
value was not statistically significant (p =
.065), it did have practical importance in that
teachers were three times more likely to use
ELOs during child-directed and routine activi-
ties than adult-directed activities.
Interestingly, there were some discrepan-
cies between what we observed and what
teachers reported. Participants 2 and 6 in-
dicated using ELOs during structured activi-
ties. Participant 1 indicated a preference to-
ward structured activities but did suggest that
she takes advantage of child-led activities as
well. Participants 5 and 7 indicated using both
structured and unstructured activities and wa-
vered between which they perceived using
more frequently. Participant 4 said that she
uses ELOs during both structured and unstruc-
tured activities. In addition, all teachers ex-
cept Participant 5 indicated using ELOs during
one-on-one, small groups, and/or large group
activities. Participant 3 indicated that she uses
them in small groups, whereas Participants
1, 2, 6, and 7 indicated using ELOs across
all types of activities; however, these partici-
pants also indicated preferences toward small
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
group interactions due to aspects such as
child focus and the type of IEP goal. Partici-
pants 4 and 5 did not identify a preference but
rather indicated that they used ELOs across all
types of activities.
Teachers use verbal antecedents to
address communication goals
Similar to Pretti-Frontczak and Bricker’s
(2001) findings in which teachers used ques-
tions and verbal models most frequently, ECSE
teachers in our study were most likely to
use the following antecedents: directives, ver-
bal prompts, questions, and verbal models.
In addition, all teachers in our study who
completed the interview reported using vari-
ous antecedents such as prompting, reinforce-
ment, modeling, and specific environmental
arrangement strategies to promote communi-
cation. Both our quantitative and qualitative
data show that ECSE teachers most often pro-
vide verbal antecedents, whether through di-
rectives, questions, or verbal models. Physi-
cal assistance and physical models were used
less frequently and the remaining antecedents
coded were used infrequently.
This study provides new information about
teachers’ use of ELOs and IEP goals. Over
half of the ELOs teachers delivered addressed
communication goals. Although communica-
tion goals were addressed with the greatest
frequency in our quantitative analysis, when
interviewed, some teachers discussed provid-
ing ELOs for communication goals as challeng-
ing. Teachers also indicated that social goals
were challenging to address (e.g., for children
with autism spectrum disorder); teachers ad-
dressed social goals much less frequently than
communication goals in our sample. Despite
our focus on IEP goals, teachers in our sam-
ple described providing ELOs targeting gen-
eral skills (e.g., social skills, communication)
for all children and addressing early learning
standards in addition to individualized goals
for children with IEPs. Importantly, this in-
formation indicates that ECSE teachers may
be using ELOs to support children’s learning
more often than our data suggest, but that they
are targeting early learning objectives more

often than children’s IEP goals. This finding
may suggest that teachers are experiencing
challenges associated with providing ELOs
that align with children’s IEP goals. In ad-
dition, although it is imperative to provide
learning opportunities related to children’s in-
dividualized goals, it is equally important for
children to have access to the general educa-
tion curriculum and to present these learning
opportunities in an age- and developmentally
appropriate manner, such as through ELOs for
preschool children. This information presents
a new direction for future research to de-
scribe the content targeted through ELOs and
to what extent it provides access to the gen-
eral education curriculum.
Supporting teachers to overcome
barriers to implementing ELOs
Although all teachers used a range of 0–
16 ELOs throughout all videos, during the in-
terview, teachers in our study reported sev-
eral barriers to using ELOs similar to those
described in the study by Horn et al. (2000),
such as feeling overwhelmed by implement-
ing ELOs within the context of balancing
their other various responsibilities in the class-
room. Teachers in our study reported aspects
of program infrastructure that they believed
would be helpful in increasing their use of
ELOs (e.g., smaller class sizes, access to addi-
tional materials). Interestingly, these charac-
teristics have been found to be unrelated to
children’s outcomes; rather, it is the quality of
teacher–child interactions that have been pos-
itively associated with preschool children’s
school readiness (Mashburn et al., 2008);
however, providing teachers with resources
that strengthen their use of ELOs and their
interactions with children may be beneficial.
Implications for teacher training
and classroom practice
Our results from the teacher interview
suggest several implications for preservice
teacher preparation and in-service profes-
sional development. Although some teachers
in our study had many years of experience
and reported knowing what ELOs were and
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Embedded Learning Opportunities 17
how to use them, they still used them rarely
in the classroom. To increase teachers’ use of
ELOs focused on children’s IEP goals, teach-
ers may need additional training to help them
transfer skills learned in preservice programs
to their work in the field. Additional research
is needed to determine what types of sup-
port teachers may need to implement ELOs
beyond their preservice preparation program.
For example, there is a growing body of liter-
ature suggesting that coaching is a promis-
ing method for bringing evidence-based prac-
tices into the early childhood classroom
(Coogle, Ottley, Rahn, & Storie, 2018; Coogle,
Ottley, Storie, Rahn, & Burt, 2018; Snyder
et al., 2018). Providing coaching to in-service
teachers on ELOs while they are in the act
of teaching in their classrooms may help in-
crease transfer of this skill from higher educa-
tion classrooms to teaching practice.
Limitations and future research
directions
There are several limitations to consider
when interpreting the results of this study.
First, our sample included only eight teach-
ers from one geographic region of the United
States, making it difficult to generalize find-
ings. It is unknown whether our results would
be replicated in a study with more teachers
and with teachers from different parts of the
United States or other countries. In addition
to aiding with generalizing findings, coding
data for more teachers might have allowed
us to perform more nuanced analyses (e.g.,
looking at how ELO use varies by teacher
and child characteristics). Second, we coded
data for only three child IEP goals. Thus, it is
possible that teachers provided ELOs on skills
we did not measure or on the general educa-
tion curriculum, which would have increased
teachers’ mean use of ELOs. In addition,
the types of antecedents teachers used may
have been impacted by children’s IEP goals
(e.g., more communication goals may have
led teachers to use more verbal antecedents).
Third, although consequences are an impor-
tant part of the ELO to ensure learning, we did
not code the teachers’ use of consequences,
 18 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2019
as this was not part of the original PROBE
measure and we were most interested in fo-
cusing on how teachers created opportuni-
ties for children to practice skills. Fourth, we
coded only the first 10 min of each video.
Teachers may have demonstrated increased
use of ELOs in the middle or end of the rou-
tine. Fifth, we did not collect data through-
out all parts of the classroom day, preclud-
ing conclusions about teacher use of ELOs
during routines outside of meals, circle time,
and free play. Sixth, only seven of the eight
teachers participated in the interview, limit-
ing our qualitative data to seven participating
teachers.
In future studies, researchers might con-
sider gathering data from a larger sample of
teachers in several geographic regions of the
United States to increase the generalizability
of findings. In addition, researchers should
code all observable IEP goals and consider
coding early learning standards rather than
limiting coding to three IEP goals. As conse-
quences are a critical portion of the ELO for
children’s learning, researchers should con-
sider including an analysis of consequences
in addition to antecedents. Other valuable in-
formation might be related to the number
of opportunities that are missed in providing
ELOs. Researchers might consider exploring
this topic. Researchers should also collect data
during all routines, including transitions, and
on more days of instruction to strengthen the
conclusions that can be drawn about teach-
ers’ use of ELOs within each type of activity.
REFERENCES
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., &
Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in spe-
cial education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
doi:10.1177/001440290507100205
Bricker, D. (Series Ed.). (2002). Assessment, evaluation,
and programming system for infants and children
(2nd ed., Vols. 1–4). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Coogle, C. G., Ottley, J. R., Rahn, N. L., & Sto-
rie, S. (2018). Bug-in-ear eCoaching: Impacts on
novice early childhood special education teachers.
Journal of Early Intervention, 40, 87–103. doi:
10.1177/1053815117748692
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Finally, although our study focused on teacher
use of ELOs, future research should also exam-
ine child outcomes in relation to teacher use
of ELOs (e.g., variations in child outcomes
during particular activities or in relation to
the types of antecedents implemented; Sny-
der, Rakap, et al., 2015).
CONCLUSION
Naturalistic instruction is a well-accepted
and evidence-based method for ECSE teachers
to provide opportunities for young children
with special needs to practice critical skills
to enhance their participation and inde-
pendence in preschool classroom routines
and activities (Snyder, Rakap, et al., 2015).
Within this framework, ELOs are the primary
vehicle through which teachers plan and
deliver intentional learning opportunities
while allowing children to continue engaging
in meaningful, ongoing activities (Horn &
Banerjee, 2009). For many young children,
particularly those with significant disabilities,
numerous opportunities to respond will be
necessary to assist them in acquiring new
skills (Johnson et al., 2015). Ensuring that
young children with special needs receive an
adequate number of opportunities to practice
targeted IEP goals will require more carefully
planned preservice teacher training and ongo-
ing professional development with particular
attention to supports that will help teachers
use ELOs with adequate frequency to meet the
needs of young children with special needs.
Coogle, C. G., Ottley, J. R., Storie, S., Rahn, N. L., &
Burt, A. (2018). Performance-based feedback to en-
hance pre-service teachers’ practice and preschool
children’s expressive communication. Journal of
Teacher Education. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1177/0022487118803583
Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended
practices in early intervention/early childhood spe-
cial education 2014. Retrieved from http://www.
dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices
Division for Early Childhood/National Association for the
Education of Young Children. (2009). Early child-
hood inclusion: A joint position statement of the

Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the Na-
tional Association for the Education of Young Chil-
dren (NAEYC). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
Fox, L., & Hanline, M. F. (1993). A preliminary
evaluation of learning within developmentally
appropriate early childhood settings. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 308–327.
doi:10.1177/027112149301300308
Grisham-Brown, J., Hemmeter, J.W., Schuster, M. L., &
Collins, B. C. (2000). Using an embedding strat-
egy to teach preschoolers with significant disabili-
ties. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 139–162.
doi:10.1023/A:1016688130297
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1975). Incidental teaching of lan-
guage in the preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 8, 411–420. doi:10.1901/jaba.1975.8-411
Horn, E., & Banerjee, R. (2009). Understanding cur-
riculum modifications and embedded learning op-
portunities in the context of supporting all chil-
dren’s success. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 40, 406–415. doi:10.1044/
0161-1461(2009/08-0026)
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Li, S., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2000).
Supporting young children’s IEP goals in inclusive
settings through embedded learning opportunities.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20,
208–223. doi:10.1177/027112140002000402
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act,
20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Johnson, J. J., Rahn, N. L., & Bricker, D. (2015). An
activity-based approach to early intervention (4th
ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educa-
tional research. New York, NY: Pearson.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J.
T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., . . . Howes, C. (2008).
Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten
and children’s development of academic, language,
and social skills. Child Development, 79, 732–749.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x
McWilliam, R. A. (2000). Author and reviewer guide-
line series: Reporting qualitative studies. Journal
of Early Intervention, 23, 77–80. doi:10.1177/
105381510002300202
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub-
lications.
Noh, J., Allen, D., & Squires, J. (2009). Use of em-
bedded learning opportunities within daily routines
by early intervention/early childhood special edu-
cation teachers. International Journal of Special
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
Embedded Learning Opportunities 19
Education, 24, 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.
internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evalu-
ation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2001). Use of the
embedding strategy during daily activities by early
childhood education and early childhood special ed-
ucation teachers. Infant-Toddler Intervention: The
Transdisciplinary Journal, 11, 111–128. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ629406
Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Capt, D. B. (1997). The system
of classroom observations for program evaluation
(SCOPE). Unpublished manuscript. Kent, OH: Kent
State University.
Pretti-Frontczak, K., Capt, D. B., Leve, C., & Waddell,
M. L. (1995). PROBE recording form. Unpublished
manuscript. Eugene, OR:University of Oregon.
Rakap, S., & Parlak-Rakap, A. (2011). Effectiveness of
embedded instruction in early childhood special
education: A literature review. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 19, 79–96.
doi:10.1080/1350293X.2011.548946
Rule, S., Losardo, A., Dinnebeil, L., Kaiser, A., & Row-
land, C. (1998). Translating research on natural-
istic instruction into practice. Journal of Early
Intervention, 21, 283–293. doi:10.1177/1053815
19802100401
Sandall, S. R., & Schwartz, I. S. (2008). Building blocks
for teaching preschoolers with special needs (2nd
ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Snyder, P. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & Fox, L. (2015).
Supporting implementation of evidence-based prac-
tices through practice-based coaching. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 35, 133–143.
doi:1177/0271121415594925
Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., McLean, M., Sandall,
S., McLaughlin, T., & Algina, J. (2018). Effects
of professional development on preschool teach-
ers’ use of embedded instruction practices. Ex-
ceptional Children, 84, 213–232. doi: 10.1177/
0014402917735512
Snyder, P. A., Rakap, S., Hemmeter, M. L., McLaughlin,
T. W., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. E. (2015). Naturalis-
tic instructional approaches in early learning: A sys-
tematic review. Journal of Early Intervention, 37,
69–97. doi:10.1177/1053815115595461
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Snyder, P., Smith, A., Sevin,
B., & Longwell, J. (2005). Effects of complete
learning trials on child engagement. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 25, 81–94.
doi:10.1177/02711214050250020501