<%BANNER%>

Engagement Behaviors of Young Children with Disabilities

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045327/00001

Material Information

Title: Engagement Behaviors of Young Children with Disabilities Relationships with Preschool Teachers Implementation of Embedded Instruction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (357 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Rakap, Salih
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: children -- development -- disability -- embedded -- engagement -- instruction -- preschool -- professional
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Engagement is hypothesized to be an important mediating factor in young children’s development and learning. A major purpose of early intervention for young children with disabilities is to promote child engagement. While child engagement and related factors have been descriptively investigated since the 1970s, few studies have systematically examined relationships between practitioners’ implementation of instructional approaches and the engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities. One promising instructional approach designed to alter the engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities during preschool classroom activities is embedded instruction. The purpose of the present study was to investigate corollary relationships between the engagement behaviors of four young children with disabilities during two types of child-initiated activities and their teachers’ implementation of embedded instruction learning trials (EILTs). EILTs data were obtained from a previously conducted single-subject experimental study involving four teachers. The single-subject experimental study was designed to evaluate functional relationships between teachers’ exposure to three components of an embedded instruction professional development intervention and their implementation of EILTs. The present study explored changes in children’s engagement behaviors across single-subject experimental study phases and examined corollary relationships between teachers’ implementation of EILTs and child engagement behaviors. The Engagement Behavior Observation System: Research Version II (EBOS-RVII) was used in the present study to quantify child engagement behaviors. Data sources were 269 videotapes collected for the four participating children across the experimental phases of the single-subject study. The child-initiated activities captured on these videotapes were classified as either social-oriented or materials-oriented and the EBOS-RVII coding system was applied to children’s behavior within each type of activity. Child engagement behaviors and teachers’ implementation of EILTs across each experimental phase were examined separately relative to baseline. Results showed children generally exhibited higher-level engagement behaviors and teachers generally increased their implementation of EILTs across phases and activity types. Corollary relationships between child engagement behaviors and teachers’ implementation of EILTs were explored for each teacher-child dyad, using visual inspection and rank-order correlation analyses. Corollary relationships were found between select child engagement behaviors and teachers’ implementation of EILTs. Recommendations for future research and practice are provided based on study findings.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Salih Rakap.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Snyder, Patricia.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045327:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045327/00001

Material Information

Title: Engagement Behaviors of Young Children with Disabilities Relationships with Preschool Teachers Implementation of Embedded Instruction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (357 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Rakap, Salih
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: children -- development -- disability -- embedded -- engagement -- instruction -- preschool -- professional
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Engagement is hypothesized to be an important mediating factor in young children’s development and learning. A major purpose of early intervention for young children with disabilities is to promote child engagement. While child engagement and related factors have been descriptively investigated since the 1970s, few studies have systematically examined relationships between practitioners’ implementation of instructional approaches and the engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities. One promising instructional approach designed to alter the engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities during preschool classroom activities is embedded instruction. The purpose of the present study was to investigate corollary relationships between the engagement behaviors of four young children with disabilities during two types of child-initiated activities and their teachers’ implementation of embedded instruction learning trials (EILTs). EILTs data were obtained from a previously conducted single-subject experimental study involving four teachers. The single-subject experimental study was designed to evaluate functional relationships between teachers’ exposure to three components of an embedded instruction professional development intervention and their implementation of EILTs. The present study explored changes in children’s engagement behaviors across single-subject experimental study phases and examined corollary relationships between teachers’ implementation of EILTs and child engagement behaviors. The Engagement Behavior Observation System: Research Version II (EBOS-RVII) was used in the present study to quantify child engagement behaviors. Data sources were 269 videotapes collected for the four participating children across the experimental phases of the single-subject study. The child-initiated activities captured on these videotapes were classified as either social-oriented or materials-oriented and the EBOS-RVII coding system was applied to children’s behavior within each type of activity. Child engagement behaviors and teachers’ implementation of EILTs across each experimental phase were examined separately relative to baseline. Results showed children generally exhibited higher-level engagement behaviors and teachers generally increased their implementation of EILTs across phases and activity types. Corollary relationships between child engagement behaviors and teachers’ implementation of EILTs were explored for each teacher-child dyad, using visual inspection and rank-order correlation analyses. Corollary relationships were found between select child engagement behaviors and teachers’ implementation of EILTs. Recommendations for future research and practice are provided based on study findings.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Salih Rakap.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Snyder, Patricia.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045327:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIORS OF YOUNG CHILDREN WI TH DISABILITIES : RELATIONSHIPS WITH P MPLEMENTATION OF EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION By SAL I H RAKAP A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 201 3

PAGE 2

2 201 3 Salih Rakap

PAGE 3

3 To my wife erife Rakap, for her love, encouragement, and support To my son, mer Burak Rakap, for the love he has brought into our lives To my parents, M nevver Rakap and Mecit Rakap, whose continuous love, prayer, and support made my journey possible

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank everyone who supported me to complet e my doctoral studies. This journey would not have been accomplished without the tremendous support of many people. I especially thank Dr. Patricia Snyder, chair of my doctoral committee, for being a mentor, a teacher, and confidante I am tha nkful for your genuine kindness, endless generosity and support Your love of learning and passion for helping young children with disabilities and their families has been an inspi ration for me. Your wisdom, knowledge, and commitment to the highest standards inspired and motivated me. I appreciate the many hours you spent with me and on my behalf throughout my doctoral studies. I am grateful for the many opportunities you provided s o I could grow academically and personally I am also thankful for the continuing support of each member of my dissertation committee : Drs. Mary Louise Hemmeter, James Algina, Hazel Jones, and Maureen Conroy. Thank you for your expertise and guidance thro ugh out my doctoral studies. Your encouraging words, thoughtful criticism, constructive feedback, time, and attention greatly contributed to my doctoral studies and dissertation. It has been honor and privilege to learn from each of you. A special thank go es to my wife, erife, whose love and support encouraged me every step of the way. I am grateful for her constant and endless patience. I am also thankful for the many hours she stayed by my side and many hours she stayed home alone while I worked through the night in the office. I would like to thank my son, mer Burak, for the love he has brought into our life and for his always smiling face. I also

PAGE 5

5 want to thank my mom and dad for teaching me the value of hard work, believing in me, and always supporting my endeavors. Additional thanks go to my friends and colleagues in the Snyder research l ab : Tara McLaughlin, Crystal Crowe Bishop, Cathleen Pasia, Cinda Clark, and all others who have contributed. We have come a long way since we started in a small coding room in the doctoral student office Thank you for your friendship, encouragement and support Finally, this work would not have been possible wit hout the financial and resource support s from the Alumni Graduate Fellowship Fund of the University of Florida, a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences (R324A07008 ) to the University of Florida t he Center for Excellence in Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida and the Turkish Ministry of National Education.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 14 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 Background for the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 22 Features of Preschool Inclusion ................................ ................................ ....... 22 Support for Implementation of Naturalistic Instructional Approaches ............... 24 Naturalistic Instructional Approaches ................................ ............................... 25 Context for the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 26 Embedded Instruction ................................ ................................ ...................... 26 Intervention Studies on Child Engagement ................................ ...................... 29 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 34 Defining Engagement in Early Childhood ................................ ......................... 35 Measuring Engagement of Young Children ................................ ...................... 36 Activity Type in Preschool and Child Engagement ................................ ........... 39 Rationale for the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 41 Purp ose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 45 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 4 9 Naturalistic Instructional Approaches and Embedded Instruction ........................... 49 Development of Naturalistic Instructional Approaches ................................ ..... 52 Research base for Naturalistic Instructional Approaches and Embedded Instruction ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 61 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 69 Engagement ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 69 Research on Time on Task ................................ ................................ .............. 71 Rese arch on Mastery Motivation ................................ ................................ ...... 73 Eco behavioral Research ................................ ................................ ................. 76 Engagement Research ................................ ................................ ..................... 79 Class wide or group engagement measures ................................ .............. 79 Child level engagement measures ................................ ............................. 84 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 88 Activities as Contexts for Engagement ................................ ................................ ... 90

PAGE 7

7 Intervention Studies on Individual Child Engagement during Classroom Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 95 Description of the Studies ................................ ................................ ................. 97 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 106 Overall Summary of the Literature ................................ ................................ ........ 107 3 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 121 Context for the Pr esent Study ................................ ................................ ............... 122 Experimental Design ................................ ................................ ............................. 123 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 127 Teacher Recruitment ................................ ................................ ...................... 127 Child Re cruitment ................................ ................................ ........................... 128 Characteristics of the Participants ................................ ................................ .. 128 Settings and Materials ................................ ................................ .......................... 130 Procedures for the Phase II Feasibility Study ................................ ....................... 133 Procedures for the Present Study ................................ ................................ ......... 148 Selection of Videotapes ................................ ................................ .................. 149 Developing the Activity Classification Coding System ................................ .... 150 Classifying Child initiated Activities ................................ ................................ 151 Developing the Engagement Behavior Observation System Research Version II ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 153 Quantifying Engagement Behaviors and Par tners ................................ .......... 158 Conducting Reliability Observations for EBOS RVII ................................ ...... 160 Extracting Teacher Embedded Instruction Learning Trials Implementation Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 162 Graphing Child Engagement and Teacher Embedded Instruction Implementation Data ................................ ................................ ................... 163 Conducting Data Analyses ................................ ................................ ............. 163 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 180 Inter observer Agreement for Engagement Coding ................................ .............. 181 Research Question 1: Changes in Observed Child Engagement ......................... 182 Child 1: Devon Engagement Behaviors ................................ ........................ 183 Child 1: Devon Engagement Partners ................................ .......................... 189 Child 1: Devon Challenging Behaviors ................................ ......................... 193 Child 2: Arlene Engagement Behaviors ................................ ........................ 193 Child 2: Arlene Engagement Partners ................................ .......................... 200 Child 2: Arlene Challenging Behaviors ................................ ......................... 204 Child 3: Brian Engagement Behaviors ................................ .......................... 204 Child 3: Brian Engagement Partners ................................ ............................ 209 Child 3: Brian Challenging Behaviors ................................ ........................... 214 Child 4: Jessica Engagement Behaviors ................................ ...................... 214 Child 4: Jessica Engagement Partners ................................ ........................ 219 Child 4: Jessica Challenging Behaviors ................................ ....................... 223

PAGE 8

8 Learning Trials ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 223 Teacher 1: Nancy ................................ ................................ ........................... 224 Teacher 2: Betsy ................................ ................................ ............................ 225 Teacher 3: Kim ................................ ................................ ............................... 227 Teacher 4: D iana ................................ ................................ ............................ 228 Research Question 3: Corollary Relationships Between Child Engagement Behaviors and Teacher Implementation of Embedded I nstruction Learning Trials ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 229 Dyad 1: Nancy Devon ................................ ................................ .................. 230 Dyad 2: Betsy Arlene ................................ ................................ ................... 232 Dyad 3: Kim Brian ................................ ................................ ........................ 234 Dyad 4: Diana Jessica ................................ ................................ .................. 237 Summary of Findings Across Dyads ................................ ................................ ..... 239 Child Engagement Behavior ................................ ................................ ........... 239 Ch ild Engagement Partner ................................ ................................ ............. 243 .............. 244 Implementation of Embedded Instruction Learning Trials ........................... 246 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 295 Key Findings a nd Relationships to Previous Research ................................ ........ 295 Child Engagement Behavior ................................ ................................ ........... 295 Engagement Partners ................................ ................................ .................... 304 Studies Examining Relationships Between Instruction and Child Engagement ................................ ................................ ................................ 305 ................................ ...... 309 Embedded Instruction Learning Trials .............. 310 Contributions of the Present Study ................................ ................................ ....... 313 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 317 Recommendations for Future Research and Practice ................................ .......... 321 APPENDIX: CONSENT FORMS ................................ ................................ ................. 327 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 336 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 356

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Study characteristics ................................ ................................ .......................... 47 2 1 Description of and exampl es for milieu teaching procedures ........................... 111 2 2 Studies reviewed by type of naturalistic instructional approach, author(s), and year of publication ................................ ................................ ............................ 112 2 3 Descriptions of eco behavioral measures with engagement component .......... 114 2 4 Descriptions of class wide or group engagement measures ............................ 115 2 5 Descriptions of child level engagement measures ................................ ........... 116 2 6 Measurement of engagement by stud ies ................................ .......................... 118 2 7 Engagement codes and definitions by studies ................................ ................. 119 3 1 Characteristics of teacher participants ................................ .............................. 165 3 2 Characteristics of child participants ................................ ................................ .. 166 3 3 Content of four embedded instruction for early learning Tools for Teachers modules ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 167 3 4 Activity classification coding system codes and descriptions ........................... 1 70 3 5 Criteria for classifying activities in the Activity Classification Coding System ... 171 3 6 Information about the child initiated activities included in the present study ..... 172 3 7 Number of activities across experimental phases by participant and activity type ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 173 3 8 Percent agreement data for activity classification ................................ ............. 174 3 9 EBOS RV II engagement behavior codes and descriptions .............................. 175 3 10 EBOS RVII engagement partner and challenging behavior codes and abbreviated descriptions ................................ ................................ ................... 176 3 11 Comparison of E QUAL III, EBOS RVI, and EBOS RVII codes ....................... 177 4 1 Reliability for engagement coding by teacher child dyad ................................ .. 248 4 2 Occurrence and non occurrence agreement by engagement code .................. 249

PAGE 10

10 4 3 oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code .................... 250 4 4 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code ................................ ...................... 251 4 5 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code ................................ ...................... 252 4 6 oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ........ 253 4 7 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ................................ ......... 254 4 8 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement part ner code ................................ ......... 255 4 9 oriented and materials oriented activities by experime ntal phase and engagement code .................... 256 4 10 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code ................................ ...................... 257 4 11 oriented activities by experimental ph ase and engagement code ................................ ...................... 258 4 12 oriented and materials oriented activit ies by experimental phase and engagement partner code ........ 259 4 13 oriented activ ities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ................................ ......... 260 4 14 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ................................ ......... 261 4 15 or iented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code .................... 262 4 16 ata for social oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code ................................ ...................... 263 4 17 r materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code ................................ ...................... 264 4 18 both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ........ 265

PAGE 11

11 4 19 3) percent interval data for social oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ................................ ......... 266 4 20 ld 3) percent interval data for materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ................................ ......... 267 4 21 s (child 4) percent interval data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code ..... 268 4 2 2 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code ................................ ...................... 269 4 23 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code ................................ ...................... 270 4 24 oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 271 4 25 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ................................ ......... 272 4 26 oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code ................................ ......... 273 4 27 implemented EILTs by phase during both social oriented and materials oriented activi ties ................................ ................................ .............................. 274 4 28 implemented EILTs by phase during social orien ted activities ......................... 275 4 29 implemented EILTs by phase during ma terials oriented activities .................... 276 4 30 implemented EILTs by phase during both social oriented and materials oriented activities ................................ ................................ .............................. 277 4 31 e) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during social oriented activities ......................... 278 4 32 er 1 minute) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during materials oriented activities .................... 279 4 33 nd rate (per 1 minute) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during both social oriented and materials oriented activities ................................ ................................ .............................. 280

PAGE 12

12 4 34 implemented EILTs by phase during social oriented activities ......................... 281 4 35 implemented EILTs by phase during materials oriented activities .................... 282 4 36 implemented EILTs by phase during both social oriented and materials oriented activities ................................ ................................ .............................. 283 4 37 implemented EILTs by phase during social oriented activities ......................... 284 4 38 implemented EILTs by phase during materials oriented activities .................... 285

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Conceptual framework ................................ ................................ ........................ 48 3 1 Illustration of how data for the present study were obtained from the Phase II feasibility study database. ................................ ................................ ................ 178 3 2 Experimental phases of the Phase II feasibility study ................................ ....... 179 4 1 phase and activity type. ................................ ................................ .................... 286 4 2 Mean percentage of intervals Devon exhibited each engagement behavior and activity type.. ................................ ................................ .............................. 287 4 3 Mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with each engagement phase and activity type.. ................................ ................................ ................... 288 4 4 Mean percentage of intervals Arlene exhibited each engagement behavior and activity type.. ................................ ................................ .............................. 289 4 5 Mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with each engagement ntation of EILTs by phase and activity type. ................................ ................................ .................... 290 4 6 Mean percentage of intervals Brian exhibited each engagement behavior and activity type.. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 291 4 7 Mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with each engagement phase and activity type.. ................................ ................................ ................... 292 4 8 Mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited each engagement behavior and activity type.. ................................ ................................ .............................. 293 4 9 Mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with each engagement phase and activity type.. ................................ ................................ ................... 294

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF ABBRE VIATIONS A BI Activity based Intervention A CT Activity Categorization System C ASPER II Code for Active Student Participation and Engagement II C IA Child initiated Activity D EC Division for Early Childhood E AHCA Education for All Handicapped Children Act E BOS RVI Engagement Behavior Observation System Research Version I E BOS RVII Engagement Behavior Observation System Research Version II E CERS R Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Revised E IFEL Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project Team E ILT Embedded Instruction Learning Trial E IOS RVI Embedded Instruction Observation System Research Version I E QUAL III Engagement Quality Measurement System III E SCAPE Eco behavioral System for the Complex Assessment of Preschool Environments F APE Free and Appropriate Public Education I CER Individual Child Engagement Record I CS Individualized Curriculum Sequencing Model I DEA Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act I EP Individualized Educational Program L RE Least Restrictive Environment MTS Momentary Time Sampling N AEYC National Association for the Education of Young Children P IR Partial Interval Recording

PAGE 15

15 P L Public Law P LA CHECK Planned Activity Check R A Routine S TARE Scale for Teachers Assessment of Routines Engagement T Transition T BT Transition based Teaching T DA Teacher directed Activity

PAGE 16

16 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIORS OF YOUNG CHILDREN WITH DISA BI LITIES: EMBEDDED INST RUCTION By Salih Rakap May 2013 Chair: Patricia Snyder Major: Special Education Engag e me nt is hypothesized to be an important mediating factor in young A major purpose of early intervention for young children with disabilities is to promote child engagement. While child engagement and related factors ha ve been descriptively investigated since the 1970s, few studies have systematically examined instructional approaches and the engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities One promising instructional approach designed to alter the engagement behaviors of young children with disabil ities during preschool classroom activities is embedded instruction. The purpose of the present study was to investigate corollary relationships between the engagement behaviors of four young children with disab ilities during two types of child initiated a instruction learning trials (EILTs). EILTs data were obtained from a previously conducted single subject experimental study involving four teachers The single subject experimental study was designed

PAGE 17

17 exposure to three components of a n embedded instruction professional development intervention and their implementation of EILTs The present study explored changes in cross single subject experimental study phases and examined corollary relationships between EILTs and child engagement behaviors T he Engagement Behavior Observation System: Research Version II (EBOS RVII) was used in the present study to quantify child engagement behaviors. Data sources were 269 videotapes collected for the four participating children across the experimental phases of the single subject study The child initiated activities captured on these vi deotapes were classified as either social oriented or material s oriented and the EBOS RV II coding system was app lied within each type of activity. C hild engagement behaviors and teachers implementation of EILTs across each experime ntal phase were examined separately relative to baseline Results showed children generally exhibited higher level engagement behaviors and teachers generally increased the ir implementation of EILTs across phases and activity types C orollary relationships between child engagement behaviors a nd teacher i mplementation of EILTs were explored for each teacher child dyad, u sing visual inspection and rank order correlation analyses Corollary relatio nships were found between select child e implementation of EILTs R ecommendations for future research and practice are provided based on study findings

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The practice of including young children with delays or disabilities in early childhood settings in which all children play, develop, and learn has been in existence for over three decades (Odom, 2000; 2002). Data suggest the numbers of young children with disabilities being supported in inclusive early learning settings is growing (Grisham Brown, Schuster, Hemmeter, & Collins, 2000; Horn, Lieber, Li, Sandall, & Schwartz, 2000; Odom, 2000). The percentage of preschool children with disabilities receiving services in inclusive classroom se ttings increased from 40% in 1987 88 to 51% in 2007 (Odom, 2002; US Department of Education, 2010). According to a recent report provided to Congress by the U.S. Department of Education on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education A ct (IDEA; 2010), about one third of preschool age children with disabilities (34.1%) served under Section 619 of IDEA received all of their special education and related services full time in early learning settings primarily designed for children without disabilities and about 17% of preschool children with disabilities received these services part time in early learning settings mainly designed for children without disabilities. These data indicate that access to inclusive early learning settings for youn g children with disabilities has improved somewhat over a 20 year period (i.e., 11% increase). Nevertheless, more than half of preschool age children with disabilities served under IDEA are not receiving special education and related services in inclusive early learning settings. Several reviews of the literature have been conducted that focus on preschool inclusion (e.g., Buysse & Bailey, 1993; Buysse, Bailey, Smith, & Simeonsson, 1994; Odom, 2000; Odom & Diamond, 1998; Odom et al., 2004; Salend & Duhaney 1999).

PAGE 19

19 Select findings from these reviews have indicated that (a) children with mild disabilities are more likely to be enrolled in inclusive classrooms than children with severe disabilities, (b) the quality of environments in inclusive early childhood settings is comparable to quality in segregated classrooms or classrooms serving only typically developing children, (c) teachers and family members generally express positive attitudes toward the inclusion of young children with disabilities, and (d) implementation of individualized instructional approaches to create learning opportunities for children resulted in positive social, developmental, and academic outcomes for young children with disabilities who receiv ed services and supports in inclusive early learning settings when compared to their peers with disabilities who received services and supports in segregated classrooms. The latter finding from the inclusion reviews suggests that it is not only access to high quality inclusive ea rly learning settings but instruction received in those settings that is important (Snyder, McLaughlin, & Denney, 2011). Recommended practices in early childhood special education emphasize both access and participation as key features of inclusion (Divisi on for Early Childhood [DEC]/National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2009). Participation refers to child engagement and learning in everyday activities, settings, and environments. Participation in the preschool curriculum is enh anced when practitioners use intentional and systematic instructional approaches during ongoing activities and routines in inclusive early learning settings (Wolery, 2005). Naturalistic instructional approaches have been identified as intentional approache s to instruction that show promise for supporting the development, engagement, and learning of preschool children with disabilities. These

PAGE 20

20 approaches emphasize providing learning opportunities for children during ongoing classroom activities, routines, and transitions (Snyder, Hemmeter, McLean, Sandall, & McLaughlin, in press). Embedded instruction is a naturalistic instructional approach designed to promote child engagement and learning in everyday activities, routines, and transitions by focusing on what to teach (i.e., functional, generative, and measurable priority learning targets), when to teach (i.e., ongoing activities, routines, and transitions), how to teach (i.e., using intentional and systematic instructional procedures to create embedded learni ng opportunities), and how to evaluate (i.e., monitoring implementation of instruction and child progress toward achieving learning targets ) In embedded instruction, child engagement and learning is supported by identifying times and activities when [lear implemented in ongoing activities, routines, and transitions in preschool classrooms (Snyder et al., in press). Inclusive preschool classrooms include a variety of activities, some o f which primarily set the occasion for children to have social interactions with peers and adults (i.e., social oriented activities such as dramatic play in the housekeeping area; Hendrickson, Strain, Tremblay, & Shores, 1981; Martin, Brady, & Williams, 19 91; Quilitch & Risley, 1973; Tremblay, Strain, Hendrickson, & Shores, 1980) while others primarily involve the use or manipulation of classroom materials (i.e., materials oriented activities such as playing with blocks or puzzles; Hendrickson et al., 1981; Quilitch & Risley, 1973; Tremblay et al., 1980). These different types of activities can have unique

PAGE 21

21 & Galinsky, 2002; Vitiello, Booren, Downer, & Williford, 201 2 ). In addition, priority learning targets vary in the types of behaviors that are the focus for embedded instruction (e.g., social, pre academic, motor, language). Thus, certain activities might be more suitable for providing intentional and systematic instructi on on particular types of priority learning targets as part of embedded learning opportunities for preschool children with disabilities. In embedded instruction and other naturalistic instructional approaches, practitioners consider characteristics of acti vities and their demands, the for and implementing embedded learning opportunities (Snyder et al., in press). mbedded learning opportunities focused on specific learning targets during different types of activities might result in children demonstrating different engagement behaviors (Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999; McWilliam & Bailey, 1992; Snyder, Sandall et al., 20 09). A review of the literature conducted by Snyder et al. (2013) summarized the empirical literature on naturalistic instructional approaches. Of the 44 studies these authors reviewed, 15 specifically focused on embedded instruction. Across these 15 stu dies, the authors examined relationships between the use of embedded learning opportunities during ongoing classroom activities, routines, and transitions and child learning outcomes. Findings from the review showed that embedded instruction was an effecti ve approach for teaching children with disabilities a range of skills associated with different developmental domains (e.g., pre academic, communication, social, and motor) during ongoing classroom activities in inclusive preschool settings. None of these studies, however, investigated relationships between the implementation of

PAGE 22

22 embedded learning opportunities within an embedded approach to instruction and child engagement during ongoing classroom activities. Given engagement is considered to be a necessar y condition for learning and development (McWilliam, Trivette, & Dunst, 1985), it seems important to examine s implementation of embedded instruction. It is also important to examine wh ether observed engagement behaviors differ across different types of activities in the context of embedded instruction. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to quantify observed engagement of young children with disabilities during social orien ted and materials oriented classroom activities and examine corollary relationships between instruction. Background for the Study Features of Preschool Inclusion The joint posit ion statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) on early childhood inclusion highlights three defining features: (a) access, (b) participation, and (c) supports (DEC/NAEYC, 20 09). Access emphasizes providing young children with disabilities entre to a range of learning opportunities, activities, settings, and environments. Participation engagement and learning in everyda y activities, settings, and environments. To help ensure participation, naturalistic instructional approaches such as embedded instruction often are used. The support feature highlights the importance of having an infrastructure of systems level supports to assist professionals and organizations that

PAGE 23

23 provide inclusive services to young children with disabilities and their families. Some of these system level supports include incentives for inclusion, adjustments to staff child ratio to ensure that each chi providing practitioners with opportunities to participate in ongoing professional development activities to acquire knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to implement practices that support inclusi on and result in positive learning outcomes for young children with disabilities. This means practitioners working with young children with disabilities should have opportunities to access high quality professional development focused on research based ins tructional approaches such as embedded settings. With the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975, all public school systems were required t o provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for children and youth with disabilities. The FAPE provisions were extended to preschool age children (ages 3 to 5 years) during the reauthorization of the EAHCA in 1986 (P.L. 99 457). The 1986 reaut horization specified that states had 5 years to implement fully a preschool program for young children with disabilities, which became known as the Section 619 preschool program. Each successive reauthorization of the law has specified that FAPE should occ ur in the least restrictive environment (LRE) to the extent appropriate for the child. LRE for preschool children with disabilities has been interpreted to mean that young children with disabilities should have opportunities to learn in close proximity to peers without disabilities (Odom et al., 2004). Since the passage of P.L. 99 457, the LRE provision has been applied to preschool age

PAGE 24

24 children with disabilities and the number of children with disabilities supported in inclusive early childhood settings ha s increased somewhat during this time (Grisham Brown et al., 2000; Odom, 2000; 2002; US Department of Education, 2010). For inclusion to be successful and meaningful for practitioners and young children, designing early childhood settings and learning env ironments to facilitate access for preschool children with disabilities will not be sufficient. Children with disabilities need targeted or individualized instruction to participate fully in activities and routines designed to support their development and learning (Horn & Banerjee, 2009; Odom et al., 2004; Snyder et al., in press). Adults who interact with young children with disabilities in inclusive settings need to be able to implement naturalistic instructional approaches, such as embedded instruction, to promote the engagement and learning of young children with disabilities in typically occurring, developmentally appropriate activities (Buysse & Hollingsworth, 2009). Support for Implementation of Naturalistic Instructional Approaches Many preschool te achers report they lack confidence and competence to address the developmental and instructional needs of young children with disabilities in inclusive settings (Buysse, Wesley, Keyes, & Bailey, 1996; Early & Winton, 2001; Snyder, Denney, Pasia, Rakap, & C rowe, 2011). These practitioners also report the need for professional development to support their implementation of instructional approaches such as embedded instruction (Odom et al., 2004; Snyder et al., 2013 ; Snyder, Hemmeter, Meeker, Kinder, Pasia, & McLaughlin, 2012; Snyder & Wolfe, 2008) Although preschool teachers validated embedded instruction as a useful approach for teaching young children with disabilities ( Horn et al., 2000; Sandall & Davis, 2004), studies demonstrated it and other naturalisti c instructional approaches

PAGE 25

25 often are not implemented with fidelity by teachers without systematic support for implementation (Filla, Wolery, & Anthony, 1999; Horn et al., 2000; McBride & Schwartz, 2003; Pretti Frontczak & Bricker, 2001; Schuster, Hemmeter, & Ault, 2001; Smith, Warren, Yoder, & Feurer, 2004; Snyder, Hemmeter, McLaughlin, Algina et al. 2011 ). Odom (2009) reported that without professional development support that includes an individualized follow up component (e.g., coaching, performance fee dback, or consultation), practitioners are not able to implement multi component empirically supported practices such as naturalistic instructional approaches consistently and accurately. Efforts designed to help teachers of preschool children with disabil ities learn about and implement naturalistic instructional approaches, including embedded instruction, to support engagement and learning of these children should include a follow up component that provides teachers with support during their initial implem entation (Snyder et al., in press). Moreover, it is important to examine child engagement and learning. Naturalistic Instructional Approaches Naturalistic instructional approaches are used to provide intentional and systematic instruction during typically occurring classroom activities to young children with disabilities to support their engagement and learning. Several different terms have been used in the extant literat ure to refer to naturalistic instructional approaches. The most common approaches described in the literature include: (a) milieu teaching, (b) transition based teaching, (c) naturalistic teaching, (d) activity based intervention, (e) the individualized cu rriculum sequencing model, and (f) embedded instruction ( Snyder et al., 2013 ). Detailed descriptions of these approaches are presented in Chapter 2.

PAGE 26

26 Naturalistic instructional approaches involve four common features. First, instruction occurs within typica lly occurring classroom activities, routines, and transitions. Second, the content of instruction focuses on skills needed by the child to participate fully in these activities, routines, and transitions. Third, instructional learning trials are initiated consequence. Finally, intentional and systematic instruction is provided by adults who interact regularly with the child (Rule, Losardo, Dinnebeil, Kaiser, & Rowland, 1998; Snyder et al., 2013 ). Despite differences in the term used to refer to the naturalistic instructional approach a primary emphasis in each of these approaches is embedding instructional le arning trials to create opportunities for children to respond during typically occurring activities (Odom et al., 2004). The results of the systematic review of the literature conducted by Snyder et al. (2013) showed that when preschool teachers and other professionals implemented instructional learning trials frequently and with fidelity within the framework of naturalistic instructional approaches, including embedded instruction, children with disabilities had more opportunities to respond. As a result of receiving multiple and sufficient opportunities to respond and learn, these children acquired targeted skills; often generalized the skills across settings, people, and materials; and generally maintained the skills over time. Context for the Study Embed ded Instruction As one of the most commonly used naturalistic instructional approaches, embedded instruction shares the four features of naturalistic instructional approaches

PAGE 27

27 described previously. Snyder and her colleagues (2009) operationalized these feat ures by developing four procedural components for implementing embedded instruction. These include (a) considering what a child with disabilities knows and can do and what the child needs to learn and be able to do (i.e., target skills) to participate mean ingfully in activities, routines, and transitions (i.e., what to teach ); (b) identifying activities, routines, and transitions (and developmentally appropriate tasks within them) that typically occur during a preschool day in which it is logical and approp riate to provide instruction on target skills (i.e., when to teach ); (c) implementing embedded learning trials using intentional and systematic instructional procedures to provide opportunities for children to be engaged and to respond as well as to help c hildren learn the skills they need to participate meaningfully in everyday activities, routines, and transitions (i.e., how to teach ), and (d) evaluating implementation of embedded instruction and its impacts on child engagement and learning (i.e., how to evaluate ) In their review of the literature focused on naturalistic instructional approaches, Snyder et al. (2013) identified and reviewed 44 studies that examined the relationships between the use of embedded learning opportunities within naturalistic i nstructional approaches and child engagement and learning outcomes. Of the 44 studies reviewed, 15 specifically focused on investigating relationships between the use of embedded instruction and child learning outcomes. Forty five preschool children with d isabilities participated in the 15 studies. Thirty five intervention providers implemented embedded instruction across a variety of classroom activities and routines. The majority of the intervention providers were naturalistic intervention agents such as teachers,

PAGE 28

28 education teacher. The activities and routines in which embedded instruction was implemented included centers, small group, large group, circle, and meals. In t he 15 studies, embedded instruction learning trials (EILTs) were used by intervention agents to teach children with disabilities target skills associated with pre academic, communication, social, motor, adaptive, and cognitive domains. Findings from the re instruction to provide young children with disabilities with opportunities to respond and to learn was effective in helping these children acquire new skills associated with a variety of learning domains. A few studies reported generalization ( n = 6) and maintenance ( n = 5) data. Across these studies, 12 of 14 children generalized skills across different settings, materials, and people and 12 of 13 children maintained skills a s measured by follow up probes conducted from 1 to 4 weeks after the intervention ended. The findings from the review conducted by Snyder et al. (2013) showed that research evidence to date supports the use of EILTs within an embedded instruction approach for teaching preschool children with disabilities a range of skills in inclusive preschool settings. Nevertheless, none of the 15 embedded instruction studies included o pportunities for children to respond and child engagement. The review of the 44 studies included only one study (i.e., Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999) that examined relationships between naturalistic instruction and child engagement. This study used a single s ubject experimental multiple baseline across participants design to investigate relationships between naturalistic teaching (a different naturalistic instructional

PAGE 29

29 approach) during free play activities and the engagement of young children with disabilities Results of this study showed that the percentage of intervals in which participating children were actively engaged in free play activities increased for all three ch ildren maintained their active engagement during follow up sessions conducted weekly or bi weekly after the study ended until the end of the school year (i.e., 1 week to 8 weeks). A separate review of the literature was conducted for the present study to i dentify systematic instructional procedures durin g ongoing classroom activities ( which were not implemented as part of a n embedded instruction approach) and child enga gement. Three studies were identified (Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill, Gast, Maguire, & Vail, 2001; Danko, 2004). These three studies were not identified during the review conducted by Snyder and colleagues (2013), because terms the author(s) used to characteriz e interventions implemented in their studies differed from the search terms used by Snyder et al. to identify studies for their review. In the next section, these three studies targeting individual child engagement during ongoing preschool activities alon g with the study conducted by Malmskog and McDonnell (1999) are briefly described. Findings from these studies, together with the research evidence on embedded instruction, guided the development of the conceptual framework and the research questions for t he present study. Intervention Studies on Child Engagement Four studies were identified using systematic search procedures described in detail in Chapter 2 These studies examin ed relationships between the implementation

PAGE 30

30 of a naturalistic instructional a pproach (Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999) or the use of intentional and systematic instructional procedures during ongoing classroom activities and the engagement of young children with disabilities (Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Danko, 2004). These st udies were reviewed and characterized with respect to the (a) instructional procedure or approach investigated, (b) research method and design used, (c) characteristics of child participants, (d) activity in which the intervention was implemented, (e) inte rvention agent, (f) measurement of engagement, and (g) results. These descriptive characteristics of the reviewed studies are shown in Table 1 1. A detailed description of each study is provided in Chapter 2. Procedure or approach studied. Across the four studies, researchers investigated the effects of the implementation of several intentional and systematic instructional procedures or other intervention strategies on the observed engagement of young children with disabilities. The procedur es or interventions were (a) zone defense scheduling, incidental teaching, and data collection (Appanaitis, 2003); (b) picture cues and correspondence training procedures (Bevill et al., 2001); (c) visual support strategies (Danko, 2004); and (d) naturalis tic teaching strategies (Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). Method. In all four studies, the researchers employed single subject experimental research designs. The designs used were multiple probe design across participants (Bevill et al., 2001; Malmskog & McDo nnell, 1999), multiple probe, counterbalanced ABCD design across participants (Appanaitis, 2003), and multiple baseline design across participants (Danko, 2004).

PAGE 31

31 Child participants. Fifteen children with disabilities participated in the four studies. Of t he 15 participants, 9 were male and 6 were female. The studies included 10 Caucasian, 3 Hispanic, and 2 African American participants. Children ranged between 35 months to 66 months of age with a mean of 53 months. With respects to disabilities, children h ad autism ( n = 5), developmental delay ( n = 3), Down syndrome ( n = 3), communication disorder s ( n = 2), speech and language impairments ( n = 1), and severe multiple disabilities ( n = 1). Activities. Across the four studies, practitioners or researchers imp lemented the intentional and systematic instructional procedures during free play activities (Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999), or circle time (Danko, 2004). Free play activities in which the interventions were implemented included block center, water or sand table, house/kitchen center, book center, art, literacy center, listening center, computers, and play dough. Circle time activities involved attendance/greetings, calendar/weather, songs, lesson, and story. Interventio n agent. Intentional and systematic instructional procedures across the studies were implemented by either classroom teachers who regularly interacted with participating children with disabilities (Appanaitis, 2003; Danko, 2004) or a researcher who was con ducting the study (Bevill et al., 2001; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). Measurement of child engagement. Across the studies, child engagement during classroom activities was measured using observational engagement measures with different structures. In two s tudies (Bevill et al., 2001; Malmskog & McDonnell,

PAGE 32

32 behaviors as engaged and non engaged. In the Danko (2004) study, the researcher used an engagement measure that had three co des: active engagement, attentional engagement, and nonengagement. Appanaitis (2003) used the E Qual III (McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998), an observational engagement measure with multiple engagement codes to evaluate child engagement behaviors and engagement partners Across the four studies, the activities in which the interventions occurred and in which child engagement was measured were held constant in one study (Danko, 2004) and they varied in the other studies. In the Danko (2004) study, observed engagem ent of participating children was evaluated during circle time throughout the study. In the other studies, the type of activities in which the intervention was implemented varied iors and partners were not measured based on the type of play activities. Results. Across the four studies, the use of intentional and systematic instructional procedures during ongoing classroom activities was associated with positive changes in engageme nt of all participating children with disabilities and these effects were maintained for four children in two studies during the follow up sessions conducted weekly or every other week for approximately 8 weeks after the studies ended until the end of scho ol year (Danko 2004; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). Two of systematic instructional procedures and investigated corollary relationships between their implementation and child engagement (Danko 2004; Malmskog & McDonnell, use of intentional and systematic instructional procedures or a naturalistic instructional

PAGE 33

33 approach during ongoing class room activities to provide children with disabilities Research studies conducted with school age children have also demonstrated relationships among opportunities for stud their learning (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986; Johnson, McDonnell, Holzwarth, & Hunter, 2004; McDonnell, Thorson, McQuivey, & Kiefer number and type of opportunities students ha ve during classroom activities to respond has been found to be strongly associated with academic engaged time. In turn, academic engaged time (e.g., writing, problem solving, discussion, and debate) has been found to be a predictor of academic achievement. Although a similar link between classroom activities to create opportunities for young children to respond and child learning outcomes is established in the earl y childhood literature (e.g., Snyder et al., 2013 ), relationships between the former and child engagement has been explored in only four studies N one of these studies involved embedded instruction. Researchers measuring engagement with samples of school a ge children have also reported students have increased levels of engagement and, as a result, learn more effectively when their teachers intentionally and systematically deliver instruction with fidelity during classroom activities (Brophy, 1986; Brophy & Alleman, 1991). The way in which observed engagement is defined and measured in the early childhood literature is different than the way academic engaged time is defined and measured in school age literature. Academic engaged time in the school age litera ture typically is measured by calculating the amount of time a student is interacting with

PAGE 34

34 peers, adults, or materials. Although this method is similar to how engagement of young children was initially measured, early childhood researchers have proposed di fferent definitions for engagement and have developed additional measures to quantify observed engagement. Conceptual Framework In view of the evidence from the literature focused on relationships between intentional and systematic instructional procedure s for preschool children with disabilities and child engagement as well as literature related to opportunities to respond, academic engaged time, and learning of school age children, a need exists to examine further relationships among embedded instruction learning opportunities, child engagement, and child learning. Based on findings in the empirical literature, it is hypothesized that when practitioners implement EILT s intentionally, systematically, accurately, and with sufficient intensity during ongoing classroom activities, young children with disabilities will have more opportunities to respond. Increased opportunities to respond will result in positive changes in observed child engagement behaviors, and these positive changes in observed child engagem ent during ongoing Findings from several descriptive studies have documented that practitioners report they generally lack confidence and competence to implement multi compon ent, empirically supported practices such as embedded instruction consistently and accurately (Buysse et al., 1996; Pretti Frontczak & Bricker, 2001). High quality professional development that includes follow up support has been proposed as a mechanism fo practices (Snyder, Hemmeter, Sandall, & McLean, 201 0 ; Snyder, Denney et al. 2011).

PAGE 35

35 Figure 1 1 illustrates the hypothesized relationships among high quality professional development, and learning. Of particular interest for the present study are relationships between EILT s and observed engagement behaviors and partners of young children w ith disabilities. Defining Engagement in Early Childhood Engagement has been defined as the amount of time children spend interacting with their social and nonsocial environments at different levels of competence and in a developmentally and contextually a ppropriate manner (McWilliam & Bailey, 1992; McWilliam et al., 1985). Engagement is considered a necessary condition to promote development and learning (McWilliam et al., 1985). This conceptualization of engagement has been influenced by four lines of res earch: time on task and academic achievement (e.g., Fisher & Berliner, 1985; Fisher et al., 1978 as cited in Stallings, 1980 ; Greenwood, 1991), mastery motivation (e.g., Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2009; Jennings, Yarrow, & Martin, 1984; Morgan, MacTurk, & Hrncir 1995; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Turner & Johnson, 2003), eco behavioral assessment (e.g., Brown, Favazza, & Odom, 1995; Carta, Sainato, & Greenwood, 1988; Cataldo & Risley, 1973; Doke & Risley, 1972), and engagement research (e.g., Kishida & Kemp, 2009; M cWilliam & de Kruif, 1998; McWilliam et al., 1985). Researchers have proposed that high quality engagement is a critical factor that 1999; Jones & Warren, 1991; Kishida, Kemp, & Carter, 2008; McWilliam et al., 1985). More specifically, these and other researchers suggest that when engagement is intentionally and systematically promoted, young children with and without disabilities

PAGE 36

36 are likely to have more opportunities to respond and learn targeted behaviors within the developmentally appropriate activities of the preschool classroom (Kishida et al., 2008; McWilliam & Casey, 2008). Measuring Engagement of Young Children The importance of engagement in developmental change and its mediating this topic since the mid 1970s. Early studies of child engagement (a) examined the influences of environmental factors (e.g., group size, activity sched ule and type, arrangement of classroom materials, adult interaction styles ) on engagement (Doke & Risley, 1972; Dunst, McWilliam, & Holbert, 1986; LeLaurin & Risley, 1972) ; (b) Bailey, McWilliam, Ware, & Burchinal, 1993; McCormick, Noonan, & Heck, 1998; McWilliam & Bailey, 1995) ; and (c) compared engagement levels of children with and without disabilities (e.g., Cavallaro & Porter, 1980; Guralnick, 1990; Guralnick & Groom, 1987; Odom, Jenkins, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1982). Results from these studies showed that children with disabilities (a) tend to be engaged with the social and nonsocial environment for less time and at less advanced levels than children without disabilities (Cavall aro & Porter, 1980; Guralnick, 1990; Guralnick & Groom, 1987; Odom et al., 1982; (b) spend most of their time in early learning environments as passively nonengaged (Bailey et al., 1993); (c) spend more time interacting with adults than their peers when th ey are engaged (McWilliam & Bailey, 1995); and (d) play alone, meaning they often are not engaged with peers or adults (Cavallaro & Porter, 1980; Guralnick, 1990; Guralnick & Groom, 1987; Odom et al.,1982).

PAGE 37

37 Risley and his colleagues conducted several studi es focused on measuring engagement of preschool children who were at risk for delays and disabilities during typically occurring classroom activities and routines (Cataldo & Risley, 1973; Doke & Risley, 1972; LeLaurin & Risley, 1972; Montes & Risley, 1975) In these studies, (b) considered to be a dichotomous variable (i.e., engaged or nonengaged), (c) measured by the percentage of children participating in the planned a ctivity, and (d) examined and measured across groups of children, not for an individual child. Informed by the findings of research conducted by Risley and his colleagues that illustrated the relationships between factors related to the classroom environm ent and engagement of young children who are at risk for delays or disabilities, researchers developed an assessment approach, known as eco behavioral assessment to gather e arly childhood settings (Carta et al., 1988). This assessment approach has mainly been used to evaluate program quality and intervention effectiveness (e.g., Brown, Odom, Li, & Zercher, 1999; Carta, Atwater, Schwartz, & Miller, 1990; Carta, Greenwood, & Ro binson, 1987; Powell, Burchinal, File, & Kontos, 2008; Schwartz, Carta, & Grant, 1996). Nevertheless, several of the eco behavioral assessment systems included variables related to environment, teacher, and student, including student engagement. Within the eco behavioral assessment approach, individual child engagement is (a) evaluated as a subcategory under student related variables, (b)

PAGE 38

38 al., 1987), and (c) measured by the percentage of intervals in which a specific engagement behavior (e.g., manipulate, self care, transition, social) is observed. either engaged or nonengaged to examining hierarchical engagement behaviors and engagement partners occurred in the early 1990s as researchers began to develop measures to assess the engagement of individual children rather than evaluating engagement of all child ren in a classroom. McWilliam and Bailey (1992) proposed an engagement framework that specified five levels of competence associated with the engagement construct. Hierarchical engagement behaviors included non engaged, transient, undifferentiated, elabora tive, and sustained. In addition, this framework allowed researchers to quantify the engagement type (i.e., engaged with adult, peer, or material). Based on the framework developed by McWilliam and Bailey (1992), McWilliam and his colleagues have refined the engagement framework and developed or revised (i.e., hierarchical engagement behavior) and type (i.e., engagement partner). This framework has been operationalized on two measures: (a) the Engagement Quality Measurement System III [E Qual III; McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998] and (b) the Scale for Teachers Assessment of Routines Engagement [STARE; McWillliam, 2000]). The E Qual III (McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998) includes mult iple hierarchical engagement codes engagement behaviors. Engagement levels are persistence, symbolic, encoded, constructive, differentiated, focused attention, casual attent ion, undifferentiated, and nonengaged Engagement types are kid, grown up, object, and self (or body parts).

PAGE 39

39 Engagement is defined as the amount of time children spent interacting with the environment at different levels of competence and is measured using momentary time sampling procedures ( McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998 ) With the changes in the measurement of child engagement from quantifying the amount of time all children in a classroom or individual children in a classroom are engaged or nonengaged to ex amining hierarchical engagement behaviors and partners, researchers have beg u One factor influencing observed child engagement that has recently been investigated is the type of activities impl emented in preschool classrooms (e.g., Hamilton, 2005; Powell et al., 2008; Vitiello et al., 2012). Activity Type in Preschool and Child Engagement A variety of scheduled activities and routines take place in preschool classrooms. These include arrival, circle time, centers, free play, outside play, toileting, snacks, and meals (Hamilton, 2005). Some of these scheduled activities include different subtypes of activities. For example, free play or center time activities often provide children with opportun ities to select from a wide variety of concurrently available activities including literacy center, science center, dramatic play, computers, block center, art center, or games with rules. Many preschool play activities can be broadly classified as being p rimarily social oriented or materials oriented. In social oriented activities, activity characteristics and structures set the occasion for children to interact with peers or adults in the classroom. Although social oriented activities can often involve t he use and manipulation of classroom materials, the primary emphasis is on social interaction with people during the activity. In materials oriented activities, activity characteristics and structures set the occasion for children to play with classroom ma terials or focus on a

PAGE 40

40 task that involves manipulation of classroom materials. Although these activities might also include interactions with peers or adults, the main focus of observed child engagement often is on the materials. Researchers have acknowled ged that different classroom activities and routines have distinctive characteristics and task demands or expectations (Kontos et al., 2002; Powell et al., 2008; Vitiello et al., 2012) S ome activities therefore, might be more suitable for different types of embedded learning opportunities and these different types of embedded learning opportunities might set the occasion for children to demonstrate different observed engagement behaviors (Snyder, Sandall et al., 2009). For example, during a drawing activi ty that primarily involves manipulation or use of materials, practitioners can implement embedded learning opportunities where children respond using fine motor skills (e.g., holding a crayon and making marks on paper). The type of embedded learning opport unities delivered during activities that are mainly focused on the use of materials might occasion different engagement behaviors than embedded learning opportunities provided within a pretend play activity in which children interact with peers and adults. Several descriptive studies have investigated relationships between activity type Keyes, 1999; Powell et al., 2008 Vitiello et al., 2012). Findings from these studies hav e shown that child engagement behaviors vary based on the activity type. For example, Kontos et al. (2002) found that children were more likely to engage with materials during art activities (e.g., coloring) while Vitiello and her colleagues (2012) reporte d that a greater amount of positive engagement with peers took place during free play activities.

PAGE 41

41 Nevertheless, studies investigating the relationships between activity type and child engagement have been descriptive, and therefore the associations between these two instructional approaches such as embedded instruction have not been investigated. Moreover, the majority of these studies have primarily included typically developin g children. Accumulating r esearch evidence suggests relationships exist between activity type and child engagement behaviors. In addition, it is important to consider activity characteristics and demands when planning and delivering embedded learning oppo rtunities A need exists to examin e observed engagement behaviors and partners of children with disabilities during different types of classroom activities and in relation to Rationale for the Study Substantial empirical evidence exists in the early childhood special education literature to assert that naturalistic instructional approaches, including embedded instruction, are effective for teaching skills to preschool children with disabilities in inclusive preschool settings. Moreover, findings from a number of studies showed that with support for implementation through training or professional development, naturalistic intervention agents (e.g., classroom teachers, teacher assistants/aides, or paraprofessional) are able to implement these approaches with fidelity (Horn et al., 2000; McBride & Schwartz, 2003; Schepis, Ownbey, Parsons, & Reid, 2000; Snyder, Hemmeter, McLaughlin, Algina et al., implementati on of EILTs to create opportunities for children to respond during ongoing

PAGE 42

42 classroom activities not only helps children to acquire skills but also supports children to generalize and maintain skills. Four single subject experimental studies were identifie d that investigat ed the (Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Danko, 2004 ) or a naturalisti c instructional approach ( Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). None of these studies focused on examining classroom activities to create opportunities for children with disabilities to respond and ved engagement behaviors. R esearch has shown that embedded instruction learning trials were implemented frequently and accurately by practitioners when they receive d professional development ( Snyder, Hemmeter, McLaughlin, Algina et al., 2011). Moreover, re search has shown a positive relationship between outcomes ( Snyder, Hemmeter, McLaughlin, Algina et al., 2011). Given the positive relationship between the implementation of EIL Ts and child learning, embedded instruction might create intentional opportunities for children to respond and enhance The present study was designed to investigate corollary relationships b etween EILT s and observed child engagement behaviors and partners during two types of child initiated activities. To explore these corollary relationships, a measure was needed to quantify child engagement I n three o f the four studies previously reviewed ( Bevill et al., 2001; Danko, 2004 ; Malmskog &

PAGE 43

43 McDonnell, 1999 ) the researchers evaluated the relationships between the implementation of intentional and systematic instructional procedures and child engagement using engagement measures that had two (i.e., engaged and nonengaged), or three (i.e., active engagement, attentional engagement, or nonengagement) engagement behavior codes. Although this approach to measuring engagement allowed researchers to identify times wh en a child is engaged or not engaged, it does not permit a nuanced examination of the type of behaviors children demonstrate when they are engaged. For example, when basic engagement measures are used, advanced (e.g., completing puzzle) and low level (e.g ., watching a friend building a castle from blocks) engagement behaviors are grouped under the same on strategies by using a behavioral observation system (E Qual III ; McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998 ) that includes multiple codes for engagement level and type (Appanaitis, 2003). In the present study, the Engagement Behavior Observation System Research Versio n II (EBOS RVII; Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project [EIFEL Project] 201 2 ), an observational coding system adapted from the E QUAL III, was used to investigate observed child engagement behaviors and partners during social oriented and materia ls oriented activities and corollary relationships between child engagement behaviors and single subject experimental study. The EBOS RVII includes seven hierarchical codes to measure chi ld engagement behaviors and four codes to measure engagement partners and all codes are operationally defined.

PAGE 44

44 Three of the four studies that examined the changes in child engagement in ic instructional procedure were implemented during scheduled free play periods (Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999), while one study was implemented during circle time activities (Danko, 2004). A variety of short, sub activit ies are included within center and circle time activities, including a mix of social oriented and materials oriented activities. These activities with distinctive characteristics and demands set the occasion for a range of embedded learning opportunities for children with disabilities to respond and learn. The use of embedded learning opportunities focused on certain learning target skills might encourage children to demonstrate different engagement behaviors. Moreover, studies conducted with typically dev eloping children have shown that observed child engagement behaviors and partners vary based on activity type. None of the four reviewed studies examined the relationships between activity type and engagement behaviors and partners of young children with d isabilities when their teachers implemented embedded instruction or other intentional and systematic instructional approaches. The current study was designed to investigate corollary relationships between child engagement behaviors and partners and teacher s implementation of EILTs during social oriented and materials oriented classroom activities. One of the key features of naturalistic instructional approaches is that intentional and systematic instruction is provided by adults who interact regularly wit h the child. These adults m ight include preschool teachers, paraprofessionals, therapists, and assistant teachers. In only two of the four studies reviewed (Appanaitis, 2003; Danko,

PAGE 45

45 ocedures during ongoing classroom activities. The present study was designed to examine the implementation of embedded instruction and child engagement. Purpose of the Stud y The purpose of the present study was to investigate corollary relationships between the engagement behaviors of four young children with disab ilities during two types of child initiated instruction learning trials (EILTs). EILTs data were obtained from a previously conducted single subject experimental study involving four teachers ( EIFEL Project ; Snyder, Hemmeter, Sandall, & McLean, 2007). The single subject experimental study was design components of a n embedded instruction professional development intervention and their implementation of EILTs engagement behaviors across single subject experimental phases and examined corollary relationships between EILTs and child engagement behaviors T he Engagement Behavior Observation System: Research Version II (EBOS II) was used in the present stu dy to quantify child engagement behaviors. Data sources were 269 videotapes collected for the four participating children across the experimental phases of the single subject study. The child initiated activities captured on these videotapes were classifie d as either social oriented or materials oriented and the EBOS The following research questions were addressed in the present study:

PAGE 46

46 1. What changes occurred in observed child engagement behaviors during social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities across experimental phases? 2. change during social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities across experimental phases? 3. Were there corollary relationships between child engagement behaviors and teacher implementation of embedded instruction learning trials during social oriented and materials oriented child initiated a ctivities across experimental phases?

PAGE 47

47 Table 1 1. Study c haracteristics Citation Approach or Procedure Design Intervention Agent Duration of Training Session Treatment Fidelity Reported Appanaitis (2003) Zone defense scheduling, incidental teaching, and data collection procedures Multiple probe, counterbalanc ed ABCD single subject experimental design across participant Teacher 3, 30 45 min ute long training sessions Yes Bevill, Gast, Maguire, & Vail (2001) Picture display, picture display plus verbal prompt, and reinforcement of correspondence procedures Multiple probe, single subject experimental design across participants Researcher Not reported Yes Danko (2004) Visual support strategies Multiple baseline, single subject experimental design across participants Teacher 6 meetings in 2 weeks Yes Malmskog &McDonnell (1999) Naturalistic teaching strategies Multiple probe, single subject experimental design across participants Researcher Not reported Yes

PAGE 48

48 Figure 1 1. Conceptual f ramework (adapted from Dunst, 2000; Snyder, Denney et al. 2011)

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of the present study was to examine corollary relationships between observed engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities during child initiated, social oriented and materials embedded instruction learning trials (EILTs) This chapter presents a review of the literature rel ated to (a) the empirical evidence related to functional relationships between implementation of naturalistic instructional approaches, including embedded instruction, and child engagement and learning ; (b) defining and measuring child engagement ; (c) acti vities as contexts for engagement and learning ; and (d) the characteristics of intervention studies focused on observed engagement of young children with disabilities during ongoing classroom activities. The chapter is divided into four major sections. Th e first section reviews the literature related to naturalistic instructional approaches and embedded instruction. The second section reviews the literature on engagement and related constructs (i.e., time on task and mastery motivation) and discusses issue s related to defining and measuring child engagement. The third section describes studies that investigated the relationships between activity types and child engagement. The fourth section contains a review of four intervention studies that examined relationships between the use of intentional and systematic instructional procedures during ongoing classroom activities and observed engagement of young children with disabilities. Naturalistic Instructional Approaches and Embedded Instruction The last 35 years have witnessed dramatic changes in the services provided to young children with disabilities in the United States. I nstead of receiving educational

PAGE 50

50 and developmental services full time in segregated classrooms or schools, many young children with disabilities have access to inclusive early learning settings where children with and without disabilities play, develop, and learn together (Bricker, 2000; Hemmeter, 2000). Findings from reviews of the literature on pres chool inclusion (e.g., Buysse & Bailey, 1993; Buysse et al., 1994; Odom, 2000; Odom & Diamond, 1998; Odom et al., 2004; Salend & Duhaney, 1999) have repeatedly emphasized that for inclusion to be successful and meaningful for children with disabilities, pr actitioners must implement individualized instructional approaches to create learning opportunities for children to respond and learn. Recommended practices in early intervention consider both access and participation as key features of inclusion (DEC/NAE YC, 2009). While access highlights the importance of young children with disabilities having entre to a range of learning opportunities, activities, settings, and environments, participation extends the concept of nt and learning within everyday activities, settings, and environments. The p articipation of young children with disabilities in the preschool curriculum is enhanced when practitioners implement intentional and systematic instructional approaches during on going activities and routines in inclusive early learning settings (Wolery, 2005). Naturalistic instructional approaches have been identified as intentional and systematic approaches that show promise for supporting the development, engagement, and learni ng of preschool children within ongoing classroom activities by providing children with multiple op portunities to respond (Snyder et al, 2013).

PAGE 51

51 Snyder and colleagues (201 3 ) identified a number of naturalistic instructional approaches in the extant literature. These approaches included the individualized curriculum sequencing model, milieu teaching, naturalistic teaching, activity based intervention, transition based teachin g, and embedded instruction. Despite being referred to by different terms, these approaches share several common features. First, systematic and intentional instruction is delivered in the context of daily activities, routines, and transitions of early chi ldhood settings, including home, childcare centers, preschool classrooms, and other community settings. Second, learning targets and skills addressed during instruction are those that the child needs to meet activity ticipate more fully in ongoing activities and routines. Third, instructional episodes are generally child initiated or initiated by a behavior occurs, an instructional e pisode ends with a natural or logically planned consequence. Fourth, adults who implement naturalistic instructional approaches are those who interact with the child on a regular basis and who are natural participants in Horn & Banerjee 2009; Rule et al., 1998; Snyder et al., 2013 ). Although naturalistic instructional approaches share the four features described above, each approach also has unique features and procedural components. The next section provides a summary of research focused on naturalistic instructional approaches to support the engagement and learning of young children with disabilities and contains two parts. First, a brief history of the development of naturalistic

PAGE 52

52 instructional approaches is presented. S econd, the research base for naturalistic instructional approaches and embedded instruction is summarized. Development of Naturalistic Instructional Approaches Background. In early programs serving young children with disabilities, instruction was often trials. Discrete instructional trials begin with an instruction or question from the teacher (antecedent), followed by a response from the child, and a consequence delivered by the teacher Discrete trial instruction often occurs in a highly structured, teacher controlled manner and intertrial intervals are very short (often less than 3 sec) (Lovaas, Koegel, Simmons, & Long, 1973; Nordquist & Wahler, 1973; Snyder & Lindstedt, 1985). In disc rete trial instruction, the child and teacher often sit face to face at a table with trials until the child demonstrates acquisition and mastery typically at pre determ ined criterion levels (Delprato, 2001). This method of teaching has been repeatedly demonstrated to be effective for promoting skill acquisition and achieving fluency. Researchers, however, have questioned whether, without systematic programming, skills ar e generalized across people, settings, or materials, and whether learners are able to maintain and adapt skills learned in contrived contexts (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Elliot, Hall, & Soper, 1991; Hart & Risley, 1968; Stokes, Baer, & Jackson, 1974). In cidental teaching. In the 1960s, Hart and Risley developed a naturalistic teaching procedure referred to as incidental teaching. Incidental teaching was designed to increase the amount and complexity of language used by children who were from families iden tified as economically disadvantaged and also to increase generalized and

PAGE 53

53 interaction between an adult and a child, which arises naturally in an unstructured situation and which is used by the adult to transmit information, or give the child practice the child expresses interest in materials in the environment, and request assistan ce from the adult. For example, the child might look in the direction of an object and point nses (e.g., access to the material or activity). Hart and Risley conducted several studies to investigate the effectiveness of incidental teaching for facilitating language and communication skills of young children (Hart & Risley 1968; 1974; 1975; 1980). For example, Hart and Risley (1968) observed 11 children of families identified as economically disadvantaged during free play activities in preschool classrooms ov er 8 months and examined the effects of incidental associated with increases in unprompted use of compound sentences and spontaneous speech. Hart and Risley (1974) examined the effects of using incidental teaching on the spontaneous speech of 12 preschool children who were at risk for delays and disabilities during free play periods over 8 months and reported all 12 participants increased their use of noun and adjective no u n combination s to request. The studies conducted by Hart and Risley investigating the impacts of the implementation of incidental teaching during ongoing classroom activities only included

PAGE 54

54 children who were at risk for delays and disabilities due to the so cioeconomic status of their families and primarily focused on improving the language skills of these children. Milieu teaching. Using incidental teaching as a foundation and based on promising findings from research conducted by Hart, Risley, and colleagu es, other researchers have refined, extended, and experimentally validated the incidental teaching procedure. Mand model and naturalistic time delay procedures arose as an extension of incidental teaching in early 1980s (Halle, 1982; Halle, Baer, & Spradli n, 1981; Rogers Warren & Warren, 1980; Warren, McQuarter, & Rogers Warren, 1984). Later in the same decade, Warren and Kaiser (1986) referred to a set of teaching procedures including model, mand model, naturalistic time delay, and incidental teaching as m ilieu teaching Table 2 1 presents descriptions of and examples for milieu conversation is used as a milieu teaching, the adult arranges the environment to promote child engagement, and uses naturally occurring antecedents and consequences to teach target language skills to young ch ildren. A milieu teaching instructional trial begins when a child is interested or question results in a consequence that is inherent to the language response (Warren & Kaiser, 1986). In the early 1990s, the milieu teaching approach was expanded with the addition of responsive interaction strategies (e.g., taking and balancing verbal turns with a child,

PAGE 55

55 approach was called enhanced milieu teaching (Hemmeter & Kaiser, 1994; Kaiser, 1993; Kaiser & Hester, 1994). Both milieu teaching and enhanced milieu teaching were among the first multi component naturalistic instructional approaches described in the literature. Snyder et al. (2013) identified four studies in the literature that investigated the relationships between the use of milieu teaching procedure s during ongoing preschool activities and learning outcomes of young children with disabilities (i.e., Kaczmarek, Hepting, Dzubak, 1996; McCathren, 2000; Olive et al., 2007; Yoder et al., 1995). These studies included 42 children with disabilities and focu sed on teaching preschool children with disabilities communication and language skills. Across the studies, the researcher s all 42 children acquired the skills taught; 2 generalized and maintained the skills. Individualized curriculum sequencing model. Early naturalistic instructional approaches were developed to teach language and communication skills to young children with disabilities or those at risk. In the 1980s, a group of researchers at the University of Kansas developed the individualized curriculum sequencing model (ICS) to teach a variety of skills to c hildren and youth with significant disabilities and evaluated the effectiveness of the model (Bambara, Warren, & Komisar, 1988; Mulligan, Guess, Holvoet, & Brown, 1980). The ICS model focused on identifying curriculum content based on inter related skills child participated and providing instruction that sequenced trials in natural ways to emphasize the use of skills that were meaningful to the child in the context of ongoing activities or routi nes (Bambara et al.,1988; Holvoet, Guess, Mulligan, & Brown, 1980). According to Holvoet et al. (1980), identifying content that was relevant to the child and

PAGE 56

56 providing instruction that was sequenced meaningfully and conducted in relevant contexts would im approach, to facilitate generalization, skills were taught across a variety of classroom activities, in different locations, with different materials, and when possible, across trainers (Bamb ara et al., 1988). The ICS model helped inform the development of multi component naturalistic instructional approaches that were specific to early childhood (e.g., activity based instruction; Bricker & Cripe, 1989). Snyder et al. (2013) identified one st udy in the literature that investigated the ( Bambara et al., 1988). Using a multiple probe across behaviors single subject experimental research design, this study in vestigated the effects of the ICS model on the acquisition and generalization of skills from communication, motor, and pre academic domains by two preschool children with disabilities. Three skills were taught to each child within three different activitie s using a system of least prompts instructional procedure. Results indicated that both children acquired the three skills and one generalized all skills with at least 70% accuracy. Activity based intervention. Activity based intervention (ABI) was develo ped in the early 1990s as another naturalistic instructional approach to curriculum and instruction. ABI has been revised several times over 20 years (Bricker & Cripe, 1989, 1992; Bricker, Pretti Frontczak, & McComas, 1998; Pretti Frontczak & Bricker, 2004 ). directed, transactional approach that embeds uses logically occurring antecedents and consequences to develop functional and

PAGE 57

57 Frontczak and Bricker (2004) described ABI as a naturalistic approach that aims to app ropriate skills in young children by embedd ing multiple learning opportunities into ABI involves four key components: (a) using child directed, routine, and planned ac tivities, (b) providing multiple and varied embedded learning opportunities, (c) delivering timely and integral feedback and consequences, and (d) developing functional and generative skills (Pretti Frontczak & Bricker 2004). Snyder et al. (2013) identif ied two studies in the literature that examined the effects of using ABI during preschool activities on the learning outcomes of young children with disabilities (Apache, 2005; Losardo & Bricker, 1994). The two studies included 34 children with disabilitie s and focused on teaching young children with disabilities skills associated with communication and motor domains. The use of ABI was found to be effective in promoting skill acquisition for 34 children, generalization for 6 children, and maintenance for 6 children. Transition based teaching. In response to the findings of research showing that preschool children spent a high percentage of their time in transition between activities and areas during a school day (e.g., Sainato & Lyon, 1989; Sainato, Strain Lefebvre, & Rapp, 1987), Wolery and his colleagues developed transition based teaching (TBT) in the 1990s. Transition transitions as instructional opportunities and involves delivering a brief tri al or trials at the beginning of a transition ( Werts, Wolery, Holcombe Ligon, Vassilaros, & Billings,

PAGE 58

58 1992 instructional trial using a teaching procedure (e.g., progressive time delay or constant time delay) once a transition between activities or areas is initiated. Th e instructional trial or trials were typically brief and focused on a discrete (often pre academic) skill that was not necessarily relevant to the transition. The i ntent of this approach was to use the time spent in transition to maximize instructional time and therefore, to maximize learning opportunities presented to young children with disabilities (Werts et al., 1992; Wolery, Anthony, & Heckathorn; 1998 ). Snyder et al. (2013) identified three studies in the literature that investigated the effects of using TBT on learning outcomes of young children with disabilities (Werts, et al., 1992 ; Wolery et al., 1998; Wolery, Doyle, Gast, Ault, & Simpson, 1993). These stud ies included 11 children with disabilities and focused on skills associated with pre academic and communication domains. The use of TBT was found to be effective in promoting skill acquisition for 11 children, generalization for 7 children, and maintenance for 4 children. Naturalistic teaching. Naturalistic teaching is another multi component instructional approach that emerged in the literature in the late 1980s and1990s. This approach has an emphasis on the use of naturally occurring activities in the ch ild's everyday environment as instructional opportunities and addresses skills that are functional for the child ( Fox, & Hanline, 1993; Malmskog, & McDonnell, 1999; Peck, Killen, & Baumgart, 1989) In naturalistic teaching, instructional interactions (a) a re brief and distributed over a period of time during a school day, (b) are child initiated and

PAGE 59

59 consequences or feedback (Fox & Hanline, 1993; Rule et al., 1998). Snyder et al. ( 2013) identified 13 studies in the literature that investigated relationships between the use of naturalistic teaching during ongoing classroom activities and child learning outcomes (Table 2 2 lists the 13 studies ). These studies included 60 children with disabilities. Researchers primarily addressed skills from communication, social, pre academic, and motor domains. The use of naturalistic teaching during ongoing classroom activities was found to be effective in promoting skill acquisition for 56 children generalization for 11 children, and maintenance for 23 children. Embedded instruction. Embedded instruction first emerged in the literature in 1984, but the majority of the studies focused on this multi component naturalistic instructional approach have been implemented since 2000. Snyder et al. (in press) described embedded instruction as identifying times and activities when [learning activities, routines, and tr ansitions [of inclusive preschool classrooms]. In embedded instruction, child engagement and learning in everyday activities, routines, and transitions is supported by focusing on what to teach, when to teach, how to teach, and how to evaluate. What to tea ch refers to functional, generative, and measurable priority learning targets. When to teach emphasizes the use of ongoing activities, routines, and transitions as instructional contexts. How to teach highlights the use of intentional and systematic instru ctional procedures to create embedded learning opportunities and to provide embedded instruction learning trials ( EILT s ) How to evaluate refers to the

PAGE 60

60 activities for monitoring implementation of instruction and child progress toward achieving learning tar gets (Snyder et al., in press). Based on the literature reviewed, Snyder et al. (2013) identified six key procedural components for embedded instruction in their review of the literature focused on naturalistic instructional approaches. First, embedded ins truction addresses skills that support access, participation, and membership of young children with disabilities in an early learning classroom. Second, embedded instruction emphasizes providing children with disabilities opportunities to learn and master skills within the activities, routines, or transitions in which the use of the skills is logical and appropriate based on activity characteristics and demands. Third, practitioners teach skills to young children with disabilities within and across everyday activities, routines, or transitions to enhance generalization and adaptation. Fourth, in embedded instruction, authentic activities and materials that are readily available within ongoing classroom activities, routines, and transitions are used to suppor t engagement and learning of young children with disabilities. Fifth, practitioners use intentional and systematic instructional strategies to promote child engagement and learning. Sixth, practitioners monitor their implementation of EILT s and child progr ess toward achieving learning targets. Snyder et al. (2013) identified 15 studies in the literature that investigated the effects of using embedded instruction during ongoing classroom activities, routines, and transitions on child learning outcomes. Table 2 2 presents a list of these 15 studies. Findings associat ed with these studies were described in Chapter 1. The findings are summarized in the next section.

PAGE 61

61 Research base for Naturalistic Instructional Approaches and Embedded Instruction Snyder et al. (2013) conducted a systematic review to examine the empirica l literature focused on naturalistic instructional approaches. For a study to be included in this review, it had to meet four criteria. The study had to (a) be empirically based research focused on a naturalistic instructional approach, (b) be published in a peer reviewed journal, (c) include at least one child with a disability who was between the ages of 36 and 60 months at the beginning of the study, and (d) be implemented in the context of typically occurring activities, routines, or transitions of pres chool classrooms. Article search. The process to identify potential studies for the review involved four stages. First, an electronic search was conducted using all the databases in EBSCO Host and Web of Knowledge, and four databases in Wilson Web (i.e., Education Full Text, Education Index Retro, ERIC, Social Science Full Text). Combinations of the following search terms were used: embed*, transition based, natural*, incidental, activity based, milieu/enhanced milieu, responsive interaction, individualize d curriculum sequencing, strateg*, instruction/intervention/teaching, and presc*. Articles identified in this stage were screened using the inclusion criteria described above. Second, an ancestral hand search of the reference lists of all articles that me t the inclusion criteria from the initial screening was conducted. Moreover, an existing reference list for a grant that focused on embedded instruction for early learning was reviewed to ident ify additional studies (Snyder et al. 2007). Third, names of k nown researchers who have conducted research on naturalistic instructional approaches in early childhood settings were searched using the databases previously described.

PAGE 62

62 Fourth, studies identified through the hand search, grant reference list, and name sea rch were searched in EBSCO Host database to generate additional indexing or search terms. These terms were used to conduct an additional database search using EBSCO Host. Terms included language, teaching, preschool, imitation, and disabilit*. Database sea rches were not limited by time restrictions. The four stage process resulted in 696 unique articles. The abstract of each unique article identified through the search process was screened using a screening tool that was created based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria described previously. The screening processes resulted in 38 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Of 38 articles, 5 included multiple case studies or experiments (Table 2 2). Across these 5 articles, 12 case studies or experiments w ere reported and 11 met the inclusion criteria. Thus, the review included 44 studies from 38 articles that were published between 1981 and 2009. Across the 44 studies, six different terms were used by the researchers to characterize the naturalistic inst ructional approach implemented in their studies: embedded instruction ( n = 15), naturalistic teaching ( n = 13), milieu teaching ( n = 4), transition based teaching ( n = 3), activity based intervention ( n = 2), and individualized curriculum sequencing model ( n = 1). In four studies, a specific term was not used to refer to the naturalistic instructional approach. Snyder et al. (2013) referred to two studies as using a combined approach because the authors of the studies described the intervention as including two approaches. Culatta, Kovarsky, Theadore, Franklin, and Timler (2003) used a naturalistic instructional approach with direct instruction, and McBride and Schwartz (2003) examined the effects of activity based intervention

PAGE 63

63 followed by activity based in tervention with discrete trials. Table 2 2 shows the author(s) and publication year for each reviewed article by naturalistic instructional approach. In the section below, a brief summary of the findings from the review conducted by Snyder et al. (2013) w ith respect to the relationships between the implementation of the naturalistic instructional approaches and child learning outcomes is presented. The summary includes findings related to (a) the study participants (i.e., participating children and adults who implemented the naturalistic instructional approaches), (b) the research methods and designs, (c) skills addressed using naturalistic instructional approaches, and (d) skill acquisition, generalization and maintenance. In addition to the overall findin gs for all naturalistic instructional approaches across 44 studies, findings for the 15 embedded instruction studies are presented separately. Child participants. Two hundred and eighteen children with disabilities participated in the 44 studies focused on naturalistic instructional approaches. Across the 44 studies, 43 reported information about gender and 38 reported the mean ages for participating children. Studies included 68 female and 140 male children with disabilities. The mean age of participatin g children was 51.1 months ( SD = 7.3). Participating children had a variety of disabilities including developmental delay ( n = 101), speech and language delay ( n = 46), autism spectrum disorder ( n = 37), Down syndrome ( n = 12), cerebral palsy ( n = 7), multiple disabilities ( n = 5; e.g., deaf blind, intellectual and physical disabilities), and other disabilities ( n = 8; e.g., 13 q syndrome, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, mental retardation). For two children, a specific disability category was not reported but the researchers noted these children had delays.

PAGE 64

64 Forty five children with disabilities participated in the 15 studies in which an embedded instruction approach was used. Of 45 children, 33 (73%) were male and 12 (27%) were female. The mean age for participating children was 54.3 months ( SD = 5.7). developmentally delayed or at risk for developmental delay. Other disabilities that participating children had at study entry included speech and language delay ( n = 10; 22%), autism spectrum disorder ( n = 9; 20%), multiple disabilities (n = 4; 9%), cerebral palsy ( n = 3; 7%), Down syndrome ( n = 2; 4%), and other disabilities ( n = 2; 4%). A specific disability cate gory was not reported for one child across the reviewed studies but the researchers noted the child had delays. Adult participants. One hundred and thirty individuals implemented the naturalistic instructional approaches in the 44 studies. These individua ls included 66 preschool teachers, 39 teacher aids or assistant teachers, 14 graduate students, 4 therapists, 4 personal assistants, 2 researchers, and 1 special education teacher. and level of education was included in very few studies. teaching experience ( n = 21), level of education ( n = 19), gender ( n = 13), and age ( n = 6). For the studies reporting gender, 36 female and 1 male intervention providers were included. For the studies reporting age, the mean was 31 years (ranging from 23 to 55 years). Studies in which level of education was reported included 51 intervention providers who had or were work

PAGE 65

65 equivalent, and 1 with a Child Development Associate credential. For the studies reporting teaching experience of inte rvention providers, experience ranged from no experience to 22 years with a mean of 7.2 years ( SD = 5.2). The 15 studies focused on embedded instruction included 35 intervention providers including 16 (46%) teachers, 7 (20%) paraprofessionals, 5 (14%) researchers or graduate students, 4 (11%) personal assistants, 2 (6%) assistant teachers and 1 (3%) special education teacher. Across the 15 studies, 6 (40%) reported levels of education and teaching experiences of intervention providers. Information abou t the age and gender of intervention providers was provided in 4 (27%) studies and 1 (7%) study, respectively. For the stud ies in which gender was reported, 14 female and 1 male intervention providers were included. In the studies reporting age, the mean w as 30.5 years (ranging from 23 to 41 years). For the studies reporting education and teaching high school degree or lower. On average, these intervention providers had 8.5 years of teaching experience ( SD = 7.0). Research methods and designs. Across 44 studies focused on naturalistic instructional approaches, single subject experimental research designs were used in 40 studies; a two group pretest/posttest design was used in 2 studies; an observational, nominal descriptive design was used in one study; and a quasi experimental crossover design was used in one study. The single subject experimental research designs included multiple baseline designs across participants ( n = 22), behaviors ( n = 10), and settings ( n = 1); alternating treatments design ( n = 3); and ABAB/reversal design ( n = 3). One study used both a withdrawal and a multiple baseline across participants design.

PAGE 66

66 In the 15 embedded instruction studies, researcher s used a single subject experimental research design in 14 studies and an observational, nominal descriptive design in 1 study. The single subject experimental research designs included multiple baseline design across participants ( n = 10) and behaviors ( n = 2) and ABAB/reversal design ( n = 2). Target skills. In 43 of 44 studies focused on naturalistic instructional approaches, researchers reported the naturalistic instructional approach was used to address at least one targeted skill for participating chil dren. In the Schepis et al. (2001) study, the child focused skills targeted were not reported, but the researchers collected initiated cues during embedded instruction. Snyder et al. (2013) grouped target skills addr essed using naturalistic instructional approaches under six domain categories: (a) pre academic, (b) social, (c) communication, (d) motor, (e) adaptive, and (f) cognition. Across 43 studies in which target skills for participating children were reported, 2 6 studies addressed target skills from the communication domain, 18 studies addressed target skills from the pre academic domain, 11 studies addressed target skills from the social domain, 9 studies addressed target skills from the motor domain, 4 studies addressed target skills from the adaptive domain, and 2 studies addressed target skills from the cognitive domain. Across the 15 embedded instruction studies, 8 studies addressed target skills from the pre academic domain, 5 studies addressed target skill s from the communication domain, 3 studies addressed target skills from social and motor domains, and 1 study addressed target skills from adaptive and cognitive domains.

PAGE 67

67 Across the 44 studies reviewed, the Malmskog and McDonnell (1999) study was the only one that investigated the effects of teacher mediated naturalistic intervention strategies used during free play activities on the observed engagement of three young children with developmental delay. Snyder et al. (2013) categorized engagement with peers and materials under social and motor skill domains, respectively. A detailed description of this study is presented later in this chapter. Child learning outcomes acquisition. Data on skill acquisition were reported for 210 participating children with disa bilities in 43 studies. In the Pretti Frontczak and embedded instruction and did not report child outcome data. T his study was excluded from the summary of findings presented below. Of 210 children with disabilities for whom skill acquisition data were reported, 206 demonstrated acquisition of target skills after their teachers began to implement naturalistic instructional approaches. Only 4 children with disabilitie s did not a naturalistic instructional approach. Across 14 embedded instruction studies, skill acquisition data were reported for 38 children. Researchers reported positive outcomes associated with the use of embedded instruction for 37 of these children. In the Grisham Brown et al. (2000) study, baseline levels after embedded ins truction was initiated. Child learning outcomes generalization. Generalization data were reported for 49 children in 18 studies (i.e., 23% of all children and 40% of all studies). Researchers

PAGE 68

68 presented some form of evidence that 46 of the 49 children with disabilities for whom generalization data were reported generalized the skills they learned across settings, materials, people, or responses and only three children with disabilities did not generalize the skills they learned as part of the naturalistic in struction interventions. In 6 of the 14 studies focused on embedded instruction, researchers reported generalization data for 14 young children with disabilities (i.e., 37% of all children who participated in 14 embedded instruction studies). Of the 14 ch ildren, 12 generalized the skills they learned across new settings and responses. One child in Horn et al. (2000) study and one child in Venn et al. (1993) study did not generalize the newly learned skills across settings. Child learning outcomes maintena nce. Maintenance data were reported for 58 children with disabilities across 19 studies (i.e., 28% of all children and 43% of all studies). Of the 58 children for whom the maintenance data were reported, 50 demonstrated targeted skills during maintenance p robe sessions that were conducted, on average, 3.4 weeks after the intervention condition ended and 8 children with disabilities did not maintain skills. Researchers in 5 of the 14 embedded instruction studies reported maintenance data for 13 young childre n with disabilities (i.e., 34% of all children who participated in the 14 embedded instruction studies). Twelve of the 13 children who participated in studies focused on embedded instruction demonstrated targeted skills during maintenance probe sessions. O ne child in the Grisham Brown, Pretti Frontczak, Hawkins, and Winchell (2009) study did not demonstrate the targeted skill during maintenance probe sessions.

PAGE 69

69 Summary Several naturalistic instructional approaches have been developed to support engagement a nd learning of young children with disabilities within ongoing activities, routines, or transitions of preschool classrooms since the 1960s, beginning with incidental teaching and extending to multi component approaches such as activity based intervention and embedded instruction. Although different terms have been used to characterize these approaches, central to all naturalistic instructional approaches is embedding learning trials to create opportunities for children to respond with in typically occurri ng activities routines, or transitions (Odom et al., 2004). Researchers have within naturalistic instructional approaches (including embedded instruction approaches) acquisition, generalization, and maintenance). Nevertheless, only one study of those reviewed by Snyder et al. (2013) focused on examining the relationships between the use o f a naturalistic instructional approach (i.e., naturalistic teaching) and child types of classroom activities is needed. Engagement Engagement has been defined as the amount of time children spend interacting with their social and nonsocial environments at different levels of competence and in a developmentally and contextually appropriate manner (McWilliam & Bailey, 1992; McWilliam et al., 1985). Researchers in early childhood and early childhood special education have proposed that high quality engagement within and across environments

PAGE 70

70 evelopment and learning (e.g., Buysse & Bailey, 1993; De Kruif & McWilliam, 1999; Jones & Warren, 1991; Kishida et al., 2008; McWilliam et al., 1985). The importance of engagement in developmental change and its mediating ng has led early childhood researchers to conduct numerous research studies about this topic since the mid 1970s (e.g., Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Carta et al., 1987; Cavallaro & Porter, 1980; Danko, 2004; Doke & Risley, 1972; Guralnick & Groom 1987; Kishida et al., 2008; Krantz & Risley, 1977; LeLaurin & Risley, 1972; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999; McWilliam & Ware, 1994; Powell et al., 2008; Raspa, McWilliam, & Ridley, 2001). This research has resulted in more elaborate conceptualizations of ch ild engagement and engagement measures. Contemporary definitions of engagement encompass quantity (i.e., amount of time engaged) and quality (i.e., level of competence) components. This conceptualization of engagement has been influenced by four lines of r esearch: (a) time on task, (b) mastery motivation, (c) eco behavioral assessment, and (d) engagement. In this section, research on time on task, mastery motivation, and eco behavioral assessment, and engagement is reviewed and issues related to measuring child engagement are discussed. Content below is organized under four subsections. First, an overview of the research focused on time on task is presented. Second, research focused on mastery motivation is reviewed. Third, eco behavioral research influenci ng the current conceptualization and measurement of engagement is described. Fourth, an overview of research focused on child engagement is presented.

PAGE 71

71 Research on Time on Task The interest in time on task as an important instructional variable began as ea rly as the 1920s. Over the last 90 years, numerous research studies have examined the effects of time on task in relation to learning for students in grade schools. Early studies nts spent in school as an indicator of teacher effectiveness (e.g., Bloom, 1956; Bloom & Statler, 1957; Butler, 1925, as cited in Karweit, 1984; Finch & Nemzek, 1940; Ziegler, 1928, as fined broadly to include years of schooling and number of school days or hours per year (Butler, 1925, as cited in Karweit, 1984; Douglas & Ross, 1965; Karweit, 1976). Given the broad description of time and differences in how time was measured, estimates of the strength of the relationship between time and learning varied widely. Although early studies reported a positive relationship between time spent in school and learning, several studies conducted in the 1970s found no relationship between these two v ariables and concluded that learning depends on how students use the available time for learning, not just the amount of time available (Harnischfeger & Wiley, 1978; Stallings, Needels, & Stayrook, 1979). As a result, researchers began to investigate relat ionships between time on success. Time on task is defined as the amount of time children or students spend attending to or engaging with particular materials, activities, or tasks that have instructional goals (Berliner, 1990). Research on time on model of school learning developed in the 1960s (Carroll, 1963). In this model, time is considered a key learning variable and it is acknowledged that student s differ in the

PAGE 72

72 amount of time they need to learn specific content (Bloom, 1974). In an effort to identify variables that accounted for school learning, Carroll (1963) identified five variables that he proposed were closely associated with learning: (a) ap titude (i.e., the amount of time that a student needs to reach a criterion level of learning) ; (b) opportunity to learn (i.e., the amount of time given to a student for learning) ; (c) perseverance (i.e., the amount of time a student devotes to a learning t ask) ; instruction ; and (e) quality of instruction. The amount of time a student devotes to a learning task (i.e., time on task) and its relation to academic achievement has been investigated for many years and the link between these variables has been well established (Denham & Lieberman, 1980; Fisher & Berliner, 1985; Greenwood, 1991; Stallings, 1975; Stallings, Cory, Fairweather, & Needels, 1977; Wyne & Stuck, 1979). For example, Wyne and Stuck (1979) investigated the relationship between time on task and achievement in reading in underachieving elementary school students. This two group, pretest posttest design study showed that students whose teachers were trained to implement a curriculum designed to promote high le vels of time on task behaviors (i.e., intervention group) were on task significantly more than their peers who were in control group. Additionally, students in the intervention group received significantly higher scores on standardized reading tests than d id their peers in the control group. In the 1970s, Fisher and colleagues at Far West Laboratory conducted several as cited in Stallings, 1980; Stallings, 1975). As cited in Stallings (1980), Powell and Dishaw reported that allocated

PAGE 73

73 academic learning time ranged from 62 123 min utes per school day for second grade students and from 49 to 105 min utes for fifth grade st udents. In this study, the researchers found that the correlation between allocated learning time and student achievement varied depending on the type of achievement that was measured (e.g., reading or math). In another study, Stallings (1980) found that a mount of time allocated for reading, mathematics, and academic verbal interactions was related to student academic achievement. In two other studies, Fisher and colleagues found that students whose teachers were able to generate high levels of on task beha vior and low error rates in relation to student responding had students who evidenced higher levels of achievement when compared to student peers without these conditions (Fisher et al., 1978 as cited in Stallings, 1980 ; Fisher & Berliner, 1985). Several researchers have conducted literature reviews to examine the association between time on task and student achievement, and also have concluded that there is a significant positive correlation between the two variables (Frederick & Walberg, 1980; Karweit, 1 984; Stallings, 1980). Research on time on task was an initial attempt to investigate the amount of time students spend on tasks during classroom activities and their achievement in school. Although the majority of research related to time on task was cond ucted with school age children, findings from this research led early childhood researchers to consider how young children spend their time in early learning contexts and to examine observed child engagement (i.e., engaged/non engaged) during classroom act ivities. Research on Mastery Motivation In addition to time on task, theory and research related to mastery motivation has influenced current conceptualizations of observed child engagement. Mastery

PAGE 74

74 motivation is considered to be one of the core concepts in human development (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Roots of the mastery motivation construct can be traced back to the work of White (1959), who developed a framework to explain how human beings were able to master their environments in ways that could not be explained by maturation alone. According to White (1959), young children have an innate desire and intrinsic motivation to explore and learn about their environment. This desire and motivation is driven by satisfaction and self efficacy that results fr om successfully learning or mastering a skill (Parish, 2008). Several definitions of mastery motivation exist in the literature. Morgan et al. extrinsic reward, and leads an infant or young child to attempt to master tasks for t he core component of mastery motivation is persistence. According to Wachs and Combs (1995), mastery motivation includes three domains: (a) social mastery motivation, (b) object mastery motivation, and (c) gross motor mastery motivation. Social mastery moti to interact or engage with individuals in the environment to achieve a social goal. Children with high levels of social persistence tend to make repeated attempts to interact with other individuals (e.g., peers or adults) in the environment and engage in directed or exploratory interactions with the physical environment. Children with high levels of

PAGE 75

75 object persistence have a tendency to investiga te and work with objects (e.g., toys) for extended amount s of time while attempting to use them successfully. Gross motor master y motivation refers to the intrinsic drive to master play experiences and fundamental gross motor skills (Parish, 2008). Children with high levels of gross motor persistence tend to repeat motor tasks (e.g., throwing) until they can successfully perform the m (Pipp Siegel, Sedey, VanLeeuwen, & Yoshinaga Itano, 2003). The literature contains a number of studies that have demonstrated the association between mastery motivation behaviors in infancy and concurrent and future performance on measures of cognitive abilities, providing evidence for the role of Cuskelly, 2009; Jennings et al., 1984; Lange, MacKinnon, & Nida, 1989; Messer, Rachford, McCarty, & Yarrow, 1987; Niccols, At kinson, & Pepler, 2003; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Turner & Johnson, 2003; Yarrow, Morgan, Jennings, Harmon, & Gaiter, 1982). Research comparing infants and toddlers with and without disabilities in terms of the development of mastery motivation behaviors r evealed somewhat inconsistent results. For example, in a study comparing infants with Down syndrome with infants without disabilities, MacTurk, Vietze, McCarty, McQuiston and Yarrow (1985) found no noteworthy differences between the two groups in task pers istence. Ruskin, Mundy, Kasari, and Sigman (1994) also compared infants with Down syndrome with infants without disabilities and reported no noteworthy difference in terms of ratios of non goal oriented play with objects to goal directed mastery motivation Jennings, Connors, and Stegman (1988) compared children with physical disabilities with their same age peers

PAGE 76

76 without physical disabilities and found that children with physical disabilities exhibited lower levels of persistence on problem solving tasks t han their peers without disabilities. Current conceptualization of observed child engagement, particularly conceptualizations involving hierarchical engagement behaviors, includes some concepts from the mastery motivation literature (e.g., persistence, so cial mastery, object mastery). Eco behavioral Research Eco behavioral research focuses on assessment and intervention designed to reveal concurrent and sequential interrelationships between an individual and environmental stimuli (Greenwood, 1985). Eco b ehavioral assessment tools allow environmental variables. The goal of eco behavioral research is to determine the association between aspects of a classroom environment (e.g., teacher behavior, instructional activities, tasks, and grouping arrangements) and children's behaviors (e.g., engagement; Powell et al., 2008). With this approach, researchers obtain a more detailed description of what happens in the classroom by focusing on the likelihood of occurring with particular environmental conditions (Powell et al., 2008). The contributions of ecological theory and applied behavior analysis to early childhood special education are significant (Barnett et a l., 1997). These influences are observed in research focusing on examining engagement of young children in ecological contexts (McWilliam & Bailey, 1992). As a result of eco behavioral research, a number of observational assessment instruments have been de veloped to describe classroom instructional and interactional quality, including the relationships among

PAGE 77

77 instructional context, teacher, and child behaviors. In these eco behavioral assessment instruments engagement is often included as a child behavior c ategory. Eco behavioral measures with engagement c omponent Findings of the research focusing on investigating the relationships between factors related to classroom environment and engagement of young children with disabilities or those who are at risk for delay and disabilities (e.g., Doke & Risley, 1972; LeLaurin & Risley, 1972; Montes & Risley, 1975) led to the development of ecobehavioral assessment systems to obtain environmental and behavioral information about the experiences of young children wit h and without disabilities in early childhood settings (Carta et al., 1988). Researchers have primarily used this assessment approach to examine the quality of early childhood settings and the effectiveness of intervention efforts (e.g., Brown et al., 1999 ; Carta Atwater, Schwartz, & Miller, 1990; Carta, Greenwood, & Robinson, 1987; Powell et al., 2008; Schwartz et al., 1996). Two ecobehavioral assessment tools have been used widely: (a) the Eco behavioral System for the Complex Assessment of Preschool Env ironments (ESCAPE; Carta, Greenwood, & Atwater, 1985) and (b) the Code for Active Student Participation and E ngagement II (CASPER II; Brown et al. 1995). Table 2 3 provides descriptions of engagement components in these measures. Eco behavioral System for the Complex Assessment of Preschool Environments (ESCAPE). The ESCAPE (Carta et al., 1985) is an observational measure designed to quantify ecological, teacher, and student variables that affect program outcomes on a day to day basis. It includes three ma jor variable categories and 12 subcategories: (a) ecological variables (i.e., designated activity, activity initiator, materials, location, grouping, and composition); (b) teacher variables (i.e., teacher

PAGE 78

78 definition, teacher behaviors, and teacher focus); and (c) student variables (i.e., appropriate behavior, inappropriate behavior, and talk). behaviors are coded under the student variables category. Appropriate engagement behavior codes include attend, manipulate, self care, transitio n, gross motor, pretend, codes include off task, inappropriate location, self codes include talk to teacher, talk to peer, undirecte The ESCAPE uses momentary time sampling procedure to collect data during multiple classroom activities and routines. The observers follow an individual child while conducting the assessment and code s three subcategories at each 15 sec interval. Therefore, one pass through all 12 subcategories requires four, 15 sec intervals (totaling up to 1 min ute ). All scores are expressed as percentage of intervals. Inter observer agreement data reported by the authors ranged between 72% and 95% across subcategories (Carta et al., 1987). Code for Active Student Participation and Engagement II (CASPER II). The CASPER II was developed by revising the Code for Active Student Participation and Engagement and Eco behavioral System for the Complex Asse ssment of Preschool Environments (Brown et al., 1995) CASPER II is designed to assess eco behavioral variables that an individual child experiences within preschool settings. The measure includes seven ecological variables to gather information about preschool envi ronments and the behavior of adults and children within those en vironments. These variables include group arrangement, peer group composition, activity area, initiator of the activity, child behavior, child social behavior, and adult behavior Each variable includes

PAGE 79

79 hierarchical codes that are used during behavioral observations. Engagement behaviors are categorized under child social behavior. Engagement is defined as actively attending to or involved in an activity and does not include child or listening behaviors (Brown et al., 1999). A momentary time sampling procedure is used to collect contextual and behavioral information where observers watch a child for 2 sec and record one of the hierarchical codes for each of seven eco behavioral variables during the next 28 sec. In general, an assessment session lasts 30 min utes (Brown et al., 1999). Data for the hierarchical codes are reported as percentages of intervals. Brown and his colleagues (1999) reported inter observe coefficients for child social behaviors. The mean inter observer percentage agreement score across the child social behaviors was 75% (range = 38% to 94%). The mean kappa coefficient was .73 (range = .40 to 89). Engagement Research A number of engagement measures have been developed, field tested, and revised since the early 1970s. These engagement measures are grouped under two categories: (a) class wide or group engagement measures and (b) child level enga gement measures. Descriptions of class wide or group engagement measures and child level engagement measures are provided in Table 2 4 and Table 2 5, respectively. Class wide or group engagement m easures Planned Activity Check (PLA Check). Among the first engagement measures described in the literature was PLA Check, developed by Risley and his colleagues at the University of Kansas in the early 1970s. PLA Check was designed to quantify group engagement during planned preschool activities. The Planned Acti vity Check (PLA

PAGE 80

80 Check; Cataldo & Risley, 1973) was initially developed for program evaluation and comparison purposes in response to issues raised about the ineffectiveness of standardized tests administered to individual children as a way to evaluate clas sroom physical and social environment appears to be an almost universal indication of the Cataldo and Risley (1973) d efined engagement as active participation in planned activities and appropriate use of materials presented in the activity. PLA Check involves use this behavioral observation system, a list of materials and behaviors that are designated as appropriate is compiled for each activity. A group of children is observed at the end of predetermined intervals (e.g., 15 sec), and the children who are engaged in the materials or behaviors of interest are counted. The percentage of children who are appropriately engaged in behaviors and materials are calculated (Doke & Risley, 1972). This observational measure is used to differentiate engagement from nonengagement. Risley and his colleagues conducted several studies with preschool children using PLA Check in early 1970s (e.g., Doke & Risley, 1972; Krantz & Risley, 1977; LeLaurin & Risley, 1972; Montes & Risley, 1975; Quilitch & Risley, 1973; Twardosz, Cataldo, & Risley, 1974). In this research, they investigated the effects of environmental factors (e.g., classroom arrangements, materials, organization of daily routines) on two types of activit

PAGE 81

81 required to follow a schedule of activities in sequence, as when they were allowed to choose freely between several activity options. In another study, LeLaurin and Risley to that dividing classro oms into specific zones and assigning an adult for each zone shortened the length of transitions and resulted in increases in the percentage of children engaged. Studies using the PLA Check generally reported high levels of inter observer score agreement. For example, mean IOA percentage scores across the four studies ranged from 70% to 95% (Doke & Risley, 1972; LeLaurin & Risley, 1972; Quilitch & Risley, 1973; Twardosz et al., 1974). The PLA Check was developed to measure the engagement of a group of chil dren R esearchers involved in its development operationalized engagement as a dichotomous variable (i.e., engaged and nonengaged). In addition, the majority of the research studies conducted to examine observed child engagement using PLA Check only include d preschool children who were at risk for delays and not young children with disabilities. Additional research focused on defining and measuring observed child engagement for groups of children was conducted by other researchers and increasingly included children with disabilities (e.g., McWilliam & Bailey, 1995; McWilliam et al., 1985). This research mainly focused on examining the influence of

PAGE 82

82 researchers used an adapt ed version of PLA Check (called Engagement Check). Engagement Check. McWilliam et al. (1985) used a modified version of PLA Check to investigate the usefulness of behavior engagement as an outcome measure to evaluate two types of early intervention progra ms (i.e., traditional and non traditional). The majority of children served in traditional programs were children with mental retardation, while the non traditional programs served children with disabilities, children who were at risk for developmental del ays, and children who did not have disabilities. Classrooms in non traditional programs were physically arranged according to learning zones, used classroom schedules that allowed short and organized transitions from one zone to another, assigned personnel to learning zones, emphasized the use of incidental teaching for instruction, and focused on function based instruction within the context of ongoing classroom activities as opposed to isolated one to one instruction. Traditional programs focused on one t o one instruction and assignment of staff to individual children. When compared to non traditional classrooms that focused on engagement as the outcome of instruction, classrooms in traditional programs emphasized children's behavior at predetermined crite rion levels. In this study, engagement referred to the amount of time children spent interacting with the environment in a developmentally appropriate manner, which was operationally defined as reflected by vocalizing, According to the authors, a n instantaneous time sampling procedure was employed every 15 sec for the duration of the observation s ession (i.e., approximately 2 hour ). During behavioral

PAGE 83

83 observations, three aspects of the situation were coded: (a) the type of classroom activity that occurred, (b) the number of children present for the activity, and (c) the con textually appropriate, meaning appropriate for the activity in which the child participated. Overall classroom engagement was computed by calculating the percentage of children in the classrooms who were engaged during specified classroom activities. Find ings from this study showed that class wide engagement levels differed as a function of the program type and classroom activities within programs, and were more stable in the non traditional program. For example, while percentages of children engaged durin g large group and free play activities were relatively high for non traditional programs, percentage of children engaged during circle time was higher for traditional programs. Inter observer percentage agreement data were reported for the number of childr en present and for the number of children engaged. The mean inter observer percentage agreement scores were 91% (range = 80% to 95%) and 88% (range = 72% to 95%), respectively. The adapted version of PLA Check was called the Engagement Check (McWilliam, 1 998) and underwent several revisions. The difference between the two engagement measures (the PLA Check and Engagement Check) is that the latter measure does not require observers to list materials and behaviors that are considered appropriate for the acti Not requiring observers to list materials and behavior on the Engagement Check provides a way to measure engagement during different activities and routines of the preschool

PAGE 84

84 classrooms without developing inv entories of acceptable and expected behavior. Both measures treated engagement as a dichotomous variable. Child level engagement m easures In initial research focusing on engagement of young children with and without disabilities, engagement was often measured as a dichotomous variable (i.e., engaged and non engaged). In these studies, engagement usually was defined as active participation in the environment and investigators examined and measured engagement across groups of children (Doke & Risley, 1972; Krantz & Risley, 1977; LeLaurin & Risley, 1972; McWilliam & Bailey, 1995; McWilliam et al., 1985). A shift from gement as engaged and non engaged to examining quality (i.e., levels of competence) of observed engagement occurred in the early 1990s as researchers began to develop engagement measures to evaluate individual child engagement during classroom activities r ather than assessing engagement at the classroom level. proposed an engagement model that divided competence. The hierarchical engagement behaviors included non engagement, transient engagement, undifferentiated engagement, elaborative engagement, and sustained engagement. This model also allowed researchers to quantify engagement types. These included adults, peers, and materials. McWilliam and his colleagues have developed and revised several engagement include the Engagement Q uality Measurement System III (E Qual III; McWilliam & de

PAGE 85

85 Kruif, 1998) and the Scale for Teachers Assessment of Routines Engagement (STARE; McWillliam, 2000). In addition to these two measures, two other engagement measures were identified that used an ada pted version of the engagement model developed by McWilliam and Bailey (1992) These measures also are designed to measure individual child engagement: Individual Child Engagement Record (ICER; Kishida & Kemp, 2009) and the Engagement Behavior Observation System Research Version I I (EBOS RV I I; EIFEL Project, 201 2 ). Table 2 5 provides descriptions of child level engagement measures. Engagement Quality Measurement System III (E Qual III). The E Qual III (McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998) is an observational coding system that uses a momentary time sampling procedure. In this coding system, nine hierarchical engagement levels are categorized under five broad categories. These included sophisticated engagement (levels: persistence, symbolic, encoded, constructive), d ifferentiated engagement (level: differentiated), focused engagement (level: focused attention), unsophisticated engagement (levels: undifferentiated, casual attention), and non engagement. Engagement types included engagement with kid, grown up, object, a nd self. At the end of each observation session, the frequencies for each of the observed engagement level and type codes are summed individually and divided by the total number of intervals coded to obtain the percentage of intervals for each level and t ype of child engagement (McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998). S everal studies have been conducted using the E Qual III (de Kruif & McWilliam, 1999; Raspa et al., 2001). D e Kruif and McWilliam (1999) observed 62 infants and preschool age children with and without disabilities during free play, structured

PAGE 86

86 activities, and mealtimes in a university based childcare center to investigate multivariate relationships among developmental age, global engagement, and observed child engagement. Researchers used E Qual III to e valuate individual child engagement and trained four graduate students for 6 8 weeks to establish a minimum 80% level of agreement on all categories of the E Qual III. The mean inter observer agreement percentage scores across the engagement codes during t he study ranged from 94% to 99%, with an overall mean of 97%. Mean kappa scores across the codes ranged from .37 to .84, with an overall mean kappa value of .52. Rapsa et al. (2001) investigated the relationships between childcare quality and child engage ment by observing 78 toddlers in 17 childcare centers. Researchers used the E Quall III to measure individual child engagement and trained the observers to an inter observer percentage agreement score of 85% with a master code on three consecutive 5 min ute videotapes. Reliability checks were conducted for 148 observation sessions (21% of total number of sessions). Mean kappa coefficient across all engagement codes on the E Qual III was .63 (range = .35 .96), with a 93% interobser ver agreement on occurrenc e plus nonoccurrence. The results of this study showed that global classroom quality was related only to sophisticated engagement, not to other engagement levels. Scale for Teachers Assessment of Routines Engagement (STARE). The STARE (McWilliam, 2000) is another observational measure that is designed to quantify a school day. In this measure, the raters observe a child for 10 min utes during a classroom routine (e.g., arrival, circle time, centers/free play, snack/lunch, or outside)

PAGE 87

87 and first rate the amount of time the child is engaged with adults, peers, and materials using a 5 point scale (1 = none of the time to 5 = all of the time ). Next, the observer estimates the number of minutes the child spent in each of five levels of engagement (i.e., non engaged, unsophisticated, average, advanced, sophisticated). Casey and McWilliam (2007) presented data on interrater score reliability for the STARE. The ratings. Four children had disabilities, developmental delay ( n = 3) and Down syndrome ( n = 1), and one child did not have disabilities. They ranged from 22 m onths to 31 months in age. Four children were boys and one was a girl. The researchers did not provide information about the participating teacher. The teacher completed the STARE for two children per day for 10 consecutive days. Inter observer percentage agreement scores ranged between 91% and 100% for the engagement behavior categories and between 80% and 90% for engagement partners Individual Child Engagement Record (ICER). Kishida and Kemp (2009) developed an engagement measure known as the Individual Child Engagement Record (ICER) to provide researchers and practitioners with a way to measure child engagement during classroom activities. The ICER includes four engagement codes: (a) active engagement, (b) passive engagement, (c) active non engagement, a nd (d) passive non engagement. Kishida et al. (2008) investigated inter observer score agreement and concurrent score validity of the ICER. The study included five children with disabilities (three boys and two girls), with a mean age of 46.2 months (range = 31 months to 61 months). Children were enrolled in a university linked early intervention

PAGE 88

88 and structured group time activities. Each child was filmed for 10 min utes durin g each of three activities (15 10 min ute video clips, or 150 min utes in total). Three observers were trained on the E Qual III and ICER and reached criterion level of performance in inter observer percentage agreement scores with master codes before beginn ing study coding (i.e., 80% inter observer percentage agreement for 5 consecutive coding sessions for E Qual III and at least 80% inter observer percentage agreement for a session) The primary coder for the study was an early childhood special education t eacher, while the secondary observer was an undergradu a te student in psychology. The third coder was a senior researcher who was involved in the revisions of the ICER. Results of this study showed inter observer mean score agreement for discriminating enga gement from non engagement was 91.4%. I nterobserver agreement (I OA ) at 80% and above ( Kazdin, 1982) was reported for only one of the four individual engagement codes. With the exception of the active engagement code (mean IOA = 86.7%), the mean IOA scores reported were lower tha n 70%. A large positive and statistically significant correlation ( r = .98, p < .001) was reported between overall engage ment as measured by the ICER and the E Qual III (i.e., active plus passive engagement in the ICER and all engage d behaviors except undifferentiated in E Qual III). Summary Researchers evaluating the relationships between time and academic achievement in grade school defined and measured time by the number of years students spent in schools, the number of school day s in a school year, or the number of hours in a school day. Differences in definition and measurement of time resulted in mixed findings about the effects of time on achievement or learning. While several studies found a positive relationship between time spent in schools and academic

PAGE 89

89 achievement, other studies reported no relationship between the two variables (Harnischfeger & Wiley, 1978; Stallings et al., 1979). These equivocal findings led researchers to investigate how students use the time available f or learning and its relationship with academic achievement. The unit of measurement in this body of research was the amount of time students spent engaged with particular materials, activities, or tasks that have instructional goals (i.e., time on task), u sing direct reports. Neither direct observation nor self report methods used to measure the amount of time students spent on task allowed researchers to evaluate fully if students were engaged when they appeared to be engaged or when they reported that they were engaged. For example, a student who is looking at a page i n the book during a reading if the student is engaged in reading while looking at the book or if she or he is thinking about something else (e.g., her or his birthday party). In addition, students may report inaccurate information about their time on assmates ( a concept known as social desirability bias). At the preschool level, early research defining and measuring child engagement focused on examining classroom wide engagement rather than evaluating individual child engagement (e.g., Doke & Risley 1972; Krantz & Risley, 1977; LeLaurin & Risley, 1972; McWilliam et al., 1985). In this research, engagement was treated as a dichotomous variable (i.e., engaged versus nonengaged). A shift in the measurement of child engagement began in the early 1990s w hen researchers develop ed engagement measures to assess the quality of individual child engagement (e.g., EIFEL 201 2 ;

PAGE 90

90 McWilliam & Bailey, 1992; McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998; Kishida & Kemp, 2009). These measures have allowed researchers to not only quantify the amount of time children are engaged but also evaluate the quality of their engagement Activities as Contexts for Engagement Preschool classrooms include a variety of scheduled activities including circle time, center time, mealtime, self care routi nes, outdoor play, and transition. Some of these activities contain short subtypes of activities. For example, center time activities might include greeting, songs, calendar, weather, pre academic tasks (e.g., numbers, colors, shapes), and story. Likewise, center time or free play activities might include literacy center, science center, dramatic play, computers, block center, art center, floor toys, or games with rules. These different types of classroom activities can have unique characteristics and task 2012). For example, some activities such as dramatic play might set the occasion for children to interact with peers or adults, while others (e.g., puzzles, computers) primarily involve in teraction with materials (Hendrickson et al., 1981; Martin et al., 1991; Quilitch & Risley, 1973; Tremblay et al., 1980). Researchers have suggested that certain classroom activities might be more suitable for providing intentional and systematic instructi on on priority learning targets as part of embedded learning opportunities for preschool children with disabilities (Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999; McWilliam & Bailey, 1992; Snyder, Sandall et al., 2009). Practitioners using embedded instruction consider char acteristics and demands of as they plan for and implement embedded learning opportunities during logical and developmentally appropriate classroom activities (Snyder et al., in press). It has been

PAGE 91

91 focused on specific learning targets during different types of activities might result in children demonstrating different engagement behavio rs (Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999; McWilliam & Bailey, 1992; Snyder, Sandall et al., 2009). Several researchers have suggested that certain types of classroom activities elicit more competent or complex child behaviors (including engagement) than others (Ha deed & Sylva, 1996; Howes & Smith, 1995; Ko n tos et al., 2002; Ko n tos & Keyes, 1999). Powell and his colleagues (2008) grouped preschool classroom activities broadly in two categories as academic activities (shared book reading, circle time activities, matching, coloring, sorting activities) and play activities (free choice or center time activities) and noted these two broadly defined types of activities might occasion different child engagement behaviors. The authors asserted that free play activities activity types during a school q uality of engagement with peers, adults, and tasks. Although a number of researchers have acknowledged activity type and characteristics might have differential influences on child engagement, only a few studies have been conducted to date to investigate r elationships between different classroom activities and child engagement (Hamilton, 2005; Kontos et al., 2002; Kontos & Keyes, 1999; Powell et al., 2008 ; Vitiello et al., 2012 ). In an international study, Hamilton (2005) compared the influences of activit y types and characteristics on the engagement of Australian preschool children with

PAGE 92

92 Down syndrome ( n = 10) and their peers without disabilities ( n = 20) in inclusive preschool classrooms. The author used the ESCAPE (Carta et al., 198 5 ) to evaluate children children with disabilities was independent of the nature of the activity while children without disabilities demonstrated marked differences among activities. For children without d isabilities, high rates of social engagement were observed during dramatic play and outdoor play activities. Based on the findings, the author suggested that having access to different preschool classroom activities alone might not be sufficient for childr en with disabilities to demonstrate social engagement behaviors. Teacher or peer mediated instructional strategies (such as those that might be used as part of embedded instruction) were recommended to promote social interaction between children with and without disabilities. Kontos and her colleagues conducted a series of studies in which they investigated the relationships among child (age, gender, language) and classroom (activity, teacher involvement) characteristics and engagement with peers and obj ects (Kontos et al., 2002; Kontos & Keyes, 1999). In these studies, the researchers used the interactions with peers and the Howes Object Play Scale (Howes & Stewart, 1987) to ass the Kontos et al. (2002) study, the researchers observed 225 preschool children from 61 classroom in 46 early childhood centers in Hawaii using the Howes Peer Play Scale (Howes & Matheson, 1992) to evaluate chil

PAGE 93

93 study showed that when child and classroom contextual characteristics were controlled, activity were more likely to occur during creative activities (e.g., open ended art activitie s with no designated finished product such as finger painting, coloring) rather than activities that involve manipulatives or gross motor activities. In the Kontos and Keyes (1999) study, the researchers observed 60 preschool children over a 6 week period more likely to take place during dramatic play activities and in art activities (only when teachers were present). Social interaction between peers generally occurred when children were in an acti vity with a peer or a small number of peers. In another study, Powell et al. (2008) investigated the relationships among activity types, particular group configurations, teacher behaviors, and child engagement. These researchers observed child engagement behaviors of 138 children from low income, minority families in 12 classrooms across 12 urban schools. The engagement behaviors used in the study were actively engaged, attentive, disorganized, off task, and disengaged. Results of the study showed that du ring academic activities, children were most likely to be actively engaged if they were in a peer group and were monitored and provided affirmation by a teacher. During play activities, children were more likely to be actively engaged when they were playin g alone. Active engagement was defined as

PAGE 94

94 Vitiello and her colleagues (2012) investigated the sources of variability in prescho by including factors related to child (age, gender) and classroom activity settings (e.g., teacher structured activities, outdoor activities, and transitions). Participants were 283 preschool children from 84 classrooms primarily serving socioeconomically and times within a single school day using an observational measure known as inClass (Downer Booren, Lima, Luckner, & Pianta, 2010). Findings from this study showed that degree of positive engagement with peers and tasks took place during free play activities, w hile teacher structured activities were associated with more positive engagement with teachers; and (c) transitions were associated with less positiv e teacher and task engagement. Summary Advances in the measurement of engagement have led researchers to investigate factors that might influence observed child engagement behaviors and partners. Activity type and characteristics and instructional strategies are among the factors that have been researched. Several of the reviewed studies provide preliminary e vidence for relationships between activity type and observed child engagement behaviors and partners. The majority of these studies, however, were conducted with children who are at risk for delays or disabilities or children without disabilities. Only one study (Hamilton, 2005) included children with disabilities and findings from that study related to children with disabilities were contradictory to those associated with children without disabilities, suggesting that engagement behaviors and partners of c hildren with

PAGE 95

95 disabilities might not vary based on activity type. Moreover, these studies were descriptive or correlational and did not investigate relationships between activity type istic instructional approach, such as embedded instruction. Further research is needed to investigate the relationships between activity types and engagement of young children ruction. Intervention Studies on Individual Child Engagement during Classroom Activities The systematic review of the literature conducted by Snyder et al. (2013) showed embe dded instruction or other naturalistic instructional approaches were effective in teaching preschool children with disabilities a wide range of skills during ongoing activities occurring in preschool settings. As described earlier, none of the studies in w hich embedded instruction was examined and only one study focused naturalistic teaching (i.e., Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999) investigated relationships between of instruction during ongoing classroom activities and child engagement. In the present study, a literature review was conducted to identify additional studies (beyond Malmskog and McDonnell) that examined relationships between the use of intentional and systematic instructional procedures during ongoing classroom activities a nd the engagement of young preschool children with disabilities. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. For a study to be included in this review, it had to meet four criteria. First, the study had to be empirically based research focused on investigating the relationships between the use of intentional and systematic

PAGE 96

96 instructional procedures during ongoing classroom activities and engagement of young preschool childre n with disabilities. Second, the study had to be published in a peer reviewed journal or as a dissertation. Third, the study had to include at least one child with a disability who was between the ages of 36 and 60 months at the beginning of the study. Fourth, child engagement had to be reported as an outcome measure. Article search. A systematic review of the empirical literature was conducted to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. The process to identify potential studies for the review i nvolved two stages. In the first stage, an electronic search was conducted using seven databases in EBSCOhost Web (i.e., Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, Professional Development Collection, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Psy cINFO), two databases in Wilson Web (i.e., Education Full Text, Social Sciences Full Text), Web of Science, and Dissertation and Theses Full Text (Proquest). The term engagement was used along with c ombinations of the following search terms to conduct the electronic database search : child*, presc*, disability*, intentional, systematic, instruction*, intervention, strateg*, or procedure*. In this stage, 261 studies were identified and screened. Four studies were qualified for the review based on the inclusi on criteria (Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Danko, 2004 ; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999 ). In the second stage, an ancestral hand search of the reference lists of all three articles that met the inclusion criteria from the initial screening was conducte d. No additional study qualified for the review in this stage. Although some of the terms used in this review were also used by Snyder and colleagues (2013) in their systematic review of the literature focused on naturalistic

PAGE 97

97 instructional approaches, onl y one study included in their review qualified for this review (i.e., Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). In this section, the three studies identified from the literature review and the study conducted by Malmskog and McDonnell (1999) are described in detail. Th e studies are described in order based on their similarities with the present study. The study that is most similar to the current study (Appanaitis, 2003) is described last. Description of the Studies Malmskog & McDonnell (1999). The authors employed a multiple probe, single subject experimental design across three participants to assess the effects of researcher implemented adult mediated strategies often associated with naturalistic instructional approaches (i.e., joint attention, time delay, prompts) on the percentage of intervals in which participating children were engaged during play activities (e.g., block area, water or sand table, house/kitchen area, book area, art centers, and literacy center). In the baseline phase, classroom teachers were ins tructed to engage in routine interactions with children during play activities and the researcher (i.e., interventionist) was present during this phase so the presence of an observer was similar between the baseline and subsequent intervention phase. Durin g the intervention phase, the researcher implemented the intervention strategies during ongoing play activities in four phases. In Phase I, the researcher modeled the appropriate play behavior and provided the child with a verbal prompt to imitate without waiting for the child to initiate a response (0 sec delay). In Phases II and III, the researcher waited 20 sec for the child within 20 sec, reinforcement was provided. If the child did not engage within 20 sec,

PAGE 98

98 models and verbal prompts were provided in Phase II and only verbal prompts were provided in Phase III. In Phase IV, prompts were eliminated and reinforcement was provided at a reduced rate. Only the baseline pha se was staggered across participants. The researchers implemented successive phases based on a pre established criterion (i.e., when a child was engaged at least 75% of intervals for 3 consecutive days). g 30 min ute play activities across each study phase (Table 2 6 shows more information about measurement of engagement in this study). The researchers used two codes to measure engagement: actively engaged and not actively engaged (Table 2 7 shows definitio ns of engagement codes). Results showed that the percentage of intervals in which participants were actively engaged in play activities increased for all three children following the t for all three children were maintained as the level and amount of teacher assistance decreased. Two children were reported to maintain the percentage of intervals in which they were actively engaged after the intervention ended. Maintenance probes were c onducted 1 week after the participants reached criterion level of performance in the last intervention phase and continued until the end of the school year. In this study, the intervention strategies were implemented by the researcher (not by a natural int engagement behaviors were observed and evaluated during a variety of play activities including social oriented and materials oriented play activities. However, the influences

PAGE 99

99 examined based on the type of play activity. Bevill, Gast, Maguire, and Vail (2001). Bevill and her colleagues (2001) investigated the effects of an intervention package consisting of three phases (i.e., picture display, picture display plus verbal prompt, and reinforcement of correspondence) on the engagement of young children with signi ficant developmental delays during ongoing free play activities using a multiple probe, single subject experimental design across four participants. During the probe condition (phase A), the researcher (a) asked each participating child to sit at a table, (b) placed photographs of six activity options in front of the child, and (c) asked the child to select three activities, place their selection on the planning board, and play in each activity area for 7 min utes The activity options included housekeeping, dollhouse, blocks and transportation, books, listening center, computer, easel and painting, play dough, art, and music. The picture display condition (phase B) involved the same procedures used in phase A but in this condition, following completion of th e plan to play in three activity areas, the child was provided immediate consequences, regardless of their actual engagement during the play activities. During the picture display plus verbal prompt condition (phase C), once children completed their plan, received consequence for the plan, and hung their planning board, the investigator provided a verbal prompt to the children to remind them to look at their plan if they forgot what they were going to play and no other verbal prompts were provided to use th e board during the free play period. In the reinforcement of correspondence condition (phase D), children were provided consequences contingent upon correspondence between their plans and their play in

PAGE 100

100 each activity area. During a study phase, if a child r eached the criterion level of performance (i.e., completion of all three planned activities for 3 of 4 school days and being engaged during all intervals within three activities on each of 3 days), no further study phases were implemented. Data on childre min ute play activities (21 min utes total) across each study phase (Table 2 6 for more information about measurement of engagement in this study). The researchers defined engagement play area, appropriately interacting with materials in the manner in which they were intended to be used, with eyes open and focused on materials or which children were engaged during the play activities. Results of the study showed the use of t he instructional procedures were effective in increasing engagement for all four children. The level of instruction needed by each child to reach criterion varied. One child required only the picture display phase to reach criterion, one child required bot h picture display and picture display plus verbal prompt phases to reach criterion levels of performance, and the other two children required all three intervention phases to reach the criterion level of performance. In this study, one of the researchers implemented the intervention being investigated during play activities. Two engagement codes were used to characterize child engagement: engaged and non engaged. While children were observed during different play activities based on their choice of three a ctivities from the list of available

PAGE 101

101 classroom activities (which included both social oriented and materials oriented activities), the effects of implementation of intervention strategies on child engagement were not investigated based on the type of play activity. Danko (2004). This researcher examined the effects of an intervention that used visual supports to promote the engagement of three preschool children with autism during circle time using a multiple baseline across participant single subject expe rimental design. During the baseline condition, teachers were asked to conduct circle time activities in the way they typically did and they were not provided any specific information about how to interact with the children or conduct these activities. Dur ing the training phase, the researcher met with each teacher six times over 2 weeks in the circle time activities, and how to use visual support materials with children during circle time activities. Each training session lasted approximately 30 min utes In the training, teachers were taught three types of visual support strategies to use during circle time activities: (a) activity visual supports (e.g., adding props, han ds on materials, and actions to circle time) ; (b) instructional visual supports (e.g., visual schedule of circle time activities, creating song posters, using choice boards) ; and (c) organizational visual supports (e.g., providing clear visual boundaries, arranging environment to promote attention). In the intervention phase, teachers were instructed to use the visual support strategies during circle time activities. Circle time activities in which the intervention was implemented included attendance /greet ings, calendar/weather, songs, lesson, and story.

PAGE 102

102 strategies were collected during circle time activities 3 times a week in 10 15 min ute observation sessions during baseline and i ntervention phases of the study. No data on child engagement and teacher implementation were collected during the training phase. Maintenance data were collected once every other week for two children and their teachers until the end of the study (Table 2 6 for more information about measurement of engagement in this study). Three engagement categories were used to define child engagement: active engagement, attentional engagement, or nonengagement (Table 2 7 for definitions of engagement codes). Results o f the study showed teachers increased their implementation of visual support strategies from 30% 40% in baseline to 55% to 80% in the intervention phase. These increases were maintained during the follow up phase conducted once every other week for 6 10 we implementation of visual support strategies, the percentage of time in which children demonstrated (a) active and attentional engagement behaviors during circle time activities increased for 2 of 3 children and were maintained during the follow up phase conducted once every other week for 6 10 weeks after the intervention ended, and (b) nonengagement decreased below baseline levels for all three children and these decreases were maintained du ring the follow up phase. In this study, preschool teachers (natural intervention agents) implemented the intervention during a single scheduled classroom activity (i.e., circle time). Three engagement categories were used to characterize child engagement behaviors : active engagement, attentional engagement, or nonengagement. The researcher evaluated

PAGE 103

103 and changes in child engagement behaviors using visual analysis techn iques to interpret the results of the single subject experimental research design. Appanaitis (2003). Appanaitis (2003) conducted a research study to evaluate defense sche duling, incidental teaching, and data collection) on the engagement behavior of five preschool children with disabilities during free play activities using a multiple probe counterbalanced ABCD single subject experimental design. In this study, the A phase represented the baseline phase, B was the implementation of zone defense scheduling alone, C was the implementation of zone defense scheduling and incidental teaching together, and D was the implementation of all three strategies together. Zone defense sc heduling involved (a) arranging the environment to divide the classroom into clearly defined activity areas, and (b) assigning staff to be responsible for specific duties in each activity area to maximize the quantity of time that staff were available to c for help, interest in classroom materials) to initiate an interaction with them. Data hypothesi The order in which the strategies were implemented was counterbalanced across participants. In the bas eline phase, teachers were instructed to do what they would typically do during free play activities. In this phase, the researcher collected 30 min utes of

PAGE 104

104 engagement data 1 day each week for each of four children and 2 to 3 days each week (intensive basel ine) for the fifth child who was randomly selected to move into the intervention phase A first (Table 2 6 for more information about measurement of engagement in this study). The researcher used the E QUAL III (McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998) to measure childr QUAL III (i.e., persistence, symbolic, encoded, constructive, differentiated, focused attention, casual attention, undifferentiated, and nonengagement; Table 2 7 for definitions of engagement cod es) were subsequently grouped under five categories (i.e., sophisticated engagement, differentiated engagement, focused engagement, unsophisticated engagement and nonengagement) and four engagement types (i.e., with adults, peers, materials, and self). Ch ild engagement for each of five engagement categories were coded and graphed. Each child was required to have a stable baseline for all engagement categories before they entered the first intervention phase and their teachers received training on one of th e three strategies. Once the randomly selected first child reached a stable baseline for all engagement categories, the researcher provided training to his teacher on one of three strategies (e.g., data collection). The training session lasted 30 45 min ute s Following training, the teacher was instructed to implement the strategy. New intervention phases were introduced when the child had a stable data pattern for all engagement categories in the last three data points after the fifth data collection sessio n. Once the first child entered the first intervention phase, another child was randomly selected to start intensive baseline. The same procedures were implemented

PAGE 105

105 across all children. Maintenance data were collected for 2 of 5 participating children for 3 0 min utes 1 day each week for 4 5 weeks after the last intervention phase ended. Results of the study showed that compared to baseline levels, a slight increase in the percentage of intervals spent in sophisticated and differentiated engagement was observ ed for 4 of 5 children. For sophisticated engagement, the increase occurred after the introduction of the data collection procedure (i.e., the first intervention phase) for child 1, incidental teaching (i.e., the first intervention phase) for child 2, inci dental teaching with zone defense scheduling (i.e., the second intervention phase) for child 3, and all three procedures (i.e., the third intervention phase) for child 4. For differentiated engagement, the increase occurred after the introduction of the da ta collection procedure (i.e., the first intervention phase) for two children, and all three procedures (i.e., the third intervention phase) for two children. In addition, a slight decrease in the percentage of intervals spent in unsophisticated engagement or non engaged was observed for all 5 children. No changes were observed in focused attention. For unsophisticated engagement, the decrease occurred after the introduction of data collection procedure with incidental teaching (i.e., the second interventio n phase) for child 1, incidental teaching with zone defense scheduling (i.e., the second intervention phase) for child 2, all three procedures (i.e., the third intervention phase) for child 3, zone defense scheduling (i.e., the first intervention phase) fo r child 4, and the data collection procedure (i.e., the first intervention phase) for child 5. For nonengagement, the decrease occurred after the introduction of the data collection procedure (i.e., the first intervention phase) for child 1, incidental te aching (i.e., the first intervention phase) for child 2, incidental teaching with zone defense scheduling (i.e., the second

PAGE 106

106 intervention phase) for child 3, zone defense scheduling (i.e., the first intervention phase) for child 4, and the data collection p rocedure (i.e., the first intervention phase) for child 5. In this study, the researcher trained preschool teachers (natural intervention agents) to implement the strategies being investigated and provided detailed information about the training procedure s. The researcher used an engagement behaviors. Children were observed during different play activities (includ ing social oriented and materials oriented activities) depend ing on the classroom schedules. The percentage of intervals children were engaged in different types of play activities was not evaluated and reported separately. Summary The four studies described above examined the relationships between the use of inte ntional and systematic instructional procedures during ongoing classroom activities and the engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities. Each study used a single subject experimental research method. Three studies were implemented during free play activities and one study was implemented during circle time. In two studies, teachers and assistant teachers). In three studies, researchers either employed engagement or non engaged or used an engagement measure that contained three codes for measure with multiple engageme nt codes was used to evaluate levels and types of

PAGE 107

107 children with disabilities opportunitie engagement within ongoing classroom activities. Overall Summary of the Literature Early childhood special education literature contains substantial evidence to support the existence of a functional naturalistic instructional approaches such as embedded instruction and preschool naturalistic intervention agents (e.g., clas sroom teachers, teacher assistants/aides, or paraprofessional) are able to implement these approaches with fidelity when they receive support for implementation through training or professional development, (Horn et al., 2000; M cBride & Schwartz, 2003; Sch epis et al., 2000; Snyder, Hemmeter, McLaughlin, Algina et al., trials to create various opportunities for children to respond during ongoing classroom activities helps these children to acquire, ge neralize, and maintain targeted skills. Four single subject experimental studies were identified in the early childhood special education literature that examined the engagement of young children with systematic instructional procedures or a naturalistic instructional approach (Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Danko, 2004; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). None of these studies investigated relationships between c embedded instruction learning trials ( EILTs ) during ongoing classroom activities to create opportunities for children with disabilities to respond. Previous research ha s shown that EILT s can be implemented

PAGE 108

108 frequently and accurately by practitioners when they receive support through professional development ( Snyder, Hemmeter, McLaughlin, Algina et al., 2011). implement EILT s frequently and accurately to create opportunities for children to respond, this implementation is associated with positive child learnin g outcomes ( Snyder, Hemmeter, McLaughlin, Algina et al., 2011). Given the positive relationships between use of EILT s and child learning outcomes, early childhood researchers have hypothesized that embedded instruction might be an effective way to promote and and that engagement might be a mechanism related to child learning In three of the four studies reviewed, researchers evaluated the relationships between the implementation of intentional and systematic instructional procedures and child engagement usin g engagement measures that either had two (i.e., engaged and nonengaged), or three (i.e., active engagement, attentional engagement, or nonengagement) engagement behavior codes. Although t hese approach es to measuring engagement allowed researchers to ident ify whether a child is engaged or actively or attentively engaged they do not permit a nuanced examination of the type of behaviors children demonstrate when they are engaged. For example, when basic engagement measures are used, advanced (e.g., talking that occurred a week ago) and low level (e.g., watching a friend playing with sand) study conducted by Appanaitis (2003) examined associations b engagement and the implementation of in structional strategies using a behavioral

PAGE 109

109 observation system (E Qual III) that include d multiple codes for type and level of engagement. Three of the four studies that investigated the relationships between child engagement and use of intentional and systematic instructional procedure by teachers or researchers were implemented during scheduled free play periods ( i.e., Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). The other study was implemented during circle time activities (Danko, 2004). Center and circle time include a variety of short, sub activities, including a mix of social oriented and materials oriented activities. These activities, with distinctive characteristics and d emands, set the occasion for a range of embedded learning opportunities for children with disabilities to respond and learn. The use of embedded learning opportunities focused on various learning target skills might encourage children to demonstrate differ ent engagement behaviors. Moreover, studies conducted with children without disabilities have shown that child engagement behaviors and partners vary based on activity type. None of the reviewed studies investigated the relationships between activity type and engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities when their teachers or a researcher implemented embedded instruction or other intentional and systematic instructional approaches. One of the key features of naturalistic instructional approache s is that adults who interact with the child on a regular basis provide intentional and systematic instruction during ongoing classroom activities. In only two of the four studies (Appanaitis, 2003; ent the instructional procedures during ongoing classroom activities.

PAGE 110

110 Engagement is hypothesized to be an important mediating factor in young children with disabilities i s to promote child engagement. Embedded instruction has been identified as a promising instructional approach to alter the engagement behavior of young children with disabilities. Given the status of the extant literature, the purpose of the present study was to examine corollary relationships between observed implementation of EILT s during social oriented and materials oriented classroom activities.

PAGE 111

111 Table 2 1. Description of and examples for milieu teaching p rocedures Procedure Description Example Model Prompting a child verbally to imitate modeled language response. Child looks at cookie jar during snack. Mand/Model Prompting child verbally for communicative response and modeling response if the child fails to demonstrate the response. Child: No response. gives a hot dog to the child. Naturalistic time delay Waiting with an expectant look for child to initiate spontaneous request/interactions Before an activity on the playground, child is putting on his coat. Adult hold on the coat, looks at the child, and waits (usually 5 sec). the child. Incidental teaching Interaction between an ad ult and a child, which arises naturally in an unstructured situation and which is used by the adult to transmit information, or give the child practice in developing a skill. Adult opens the toy cabinet. Child tries to grab a toy from one of the shelves. top of the toy and wait expectantly. Child does not respond. Adult: child to take the car.

PAGE 112

112 Table 2 2. Studies reviewed by type of naturalistic i nstructional approach, author(s), and year of p ublication Approach Authors PY Embedded Instruction ( n = 15) Neef, Walters, & Egel* 1984 Venn, Wolery, Werts, Morris, DeCesare, & Cuffs 1993 Grisham Brown, Schuster, Hemmeter, & Collins 2000 Horn, Lieber, Li, Sandall, & Schwartz (3 studies) 2000 Daugherty, Grisham Brown, & Hemmeter 2001 Pretti Frontczak & Bricker 2001 Schepis, Reid, Ownbey, & Parsons 2001 Johnston, Nelson, Evans, & Palazola* 2003 Grisham Brown, Ridgley, Pretti Frontczak, Litt, & Nielson 2006 Macy & Bricker 2007 Grisham Brown, Pretti Frontczak, Hawkins, & Winchell (3 studies) 2009 Naturalistic Teaching ( n = 13) Halle, Baer, & Spradlin* 1981 Warren, McQuarter, & Rogers Warren 1984 Cavallaro & Poulson* 1985 Mudd & Wolery 1987 Peck, Killen, & Baumgart (2 studies) 1989 Fox & Hanline (2 studies) 1993 McDonnell 1996 Kohler, Strain, Hoyson, & Jamieson 1997 Malmskog & McDonnell 1999 Schepis, Ownbey, Parsons, & Reid* 2000 Kohler, Anthony, Steighner, & Hoyson* 2001 Milieu Teaching ( n = 4) Yoder, Kaiser, Goldstein, Alpert, Mousetis, Kaczmarek & Fischer* 1995 Kaczmarek, Hepting, & Dzubak* 1996 McCathren 2000 Olive, Cruz, Davis, Chan, Lang, O'Reilly, & Dickson* 2007 Transition Based Teaching ( n = 3) Werts, Wolery, Holcombe Ligon, Vassilaros & Billings 1992 Wolery, Doyle, Gast, Ault, & Simpson 1993 Wolery, Anthony, & Heckathorn 1998 Activity Based Intervention ( n = 2) Losardo & Bricker 1994 Apache 2005

PAGE 113

113 Table 2 2. Continued Approach Authors PY Individualized Curriculum Sequencing Model ( n = 1) Bambara, Warren, Komisar 1988 Combined Approach ( n = 2) Culatta, Kovarsky, Theadore, Franklin, & Timler 2003 McBride & Schwartz 2003 Other ( n = 4) Chiara, Schuster, Bell, & Wolery 1995 Schepis, Reid, Behrman, & Sutton 1998 Garfinkle & Schwartz 2002 Kern, Wolery, & Aldridge 2007 Note. n refers to the number of studies for each approach. Total number of studies included in the Snyder et al. (2013) review is 44. PY = publication year.

PAGE 114

114 Table 2 3. Descriptions of eco behavioral measures with engagement c omponent Measure Definition of Engagement Engagement Code Data Obtained ESCAPE (Carta et al., 1985) Appropriate behavior attend, manipulate, self care, transition, gross motor, pretend, academic work, Inappropriate behavior off task, inappropriate location, self stimulation, Talk to teacher, to peer, Percentage of intervals behaviors associated with each code observed CASPER II (Brown et al., 1995 ) Actively attending to or involved in an activity Social behavior directed to adult Negative social behavior directed to adult Social behavior directed to peer Negative social behavior directed to peer No social behavior Percentage of intervals behaviors associated with each code observed

PAGE 115

115 Table 2 4. Descriptions of class wide or group engagement m easures Measure Definition of Engagement Engagement Codes Data Obtained Planned Activity Check (Cataldo & Risley, 1973) Participation in planned activities and appropriate uses of materials presented in the activity Engagement Non engagement Percentage of children in classroom or group appropriately engaged in activities and with materials Engagement Check (McWilliam, 1998) Attention to or active participation in classroom activities as reflected by vocalizing, manipulating objects, looking, approaching, or affective expression Engagement Non engagement Percentage of children in classroom or group appropriately engaged in activities and wit h materials

PAGE 116

116 Table 2 5. De scriptions of child level engagement m easures Measure Definition of Engagement Engagement Code Data Obtained E QUAL III (McWilliam & de Kruif 1998) The amount of time children spend interacting with the environment at different levels of competence Engagement levels sophisticated engagement (levels: persistence, symbolic, encoded, constructive), differentiated engagement (level: differentiated), fo cused engagement (level: focused attention), unsophisticated engagement (levels: undifferentiated, casual attention) non engagement Engagement types kid, grown up, object, self Percentages of intervals behaviors associated with each engagement code are observed STARE (McWilliam, 2000) The amount of time children spend interacting with the environment at different levels of competence Engagement types adult, peer, material Engagement levels non engaged unsophisticated average advanced sophisticated Rating of the amount of time spent with adults, peers, and materials and rating of the complexity of child engagement ICER (Kishida & Kemp, 2009) The amount of time children spend interacting with their social and nonsocial environments at different l evels of competence and in a developmentally and contextually appropriate manner Engagement codes active engagement passive engagement active non engagement passive non engagement Percentage of intervals behaviors associated with each engagement code are observed

PAGE 117

117 Table 2 5. Continued Measure Definition of Engagement Engagement Code Data Obtained EBOS RVII ( EIFEL Project, 2012) The amount of time children spend interacting with their social and nonsocial environments at different levels of competence and in a developmentally and contextually appropriate manner Engagement behaviors sophisticated social combinatorial differentia ted attentional undifferentiated non engaged Engagement partners adult, peer, object, self Percentage of intervals in which behaviors associated with each engagement code are observed

PAGE 118

118 Table 2 6. Measurement of engagement by s tudies Citation Activity Engagement Measured Observational Procedure Length of Data Collection Session Nature of Observation Evaluation of Engagement based on Activity Type Appanaitis (2003) Play 15 sec interval momentary time sampling 30 min utes Live No Bevill, Gast, Maguire, & Vail (2001) Play 15 sec partial interval coding 21 min utes Video based No Danko (2004) Circle 10 sec interval momentary time sampling 10 15 min utes Live No Malmskog &McDonnell (1999) Play 30 sec interval momentary time sampling (2 sec at the end of the interval) 30 min utes Live No

PAGE 119

119 Table 2 7. Engagement codes and definitions by s tudies Citation Behavior Definition Appanaitis (2003) Persistence Involves some problem solving and some challenge; often indicated by failed first attempt; involves either changing strategies or using the same strategy again to solve the problem or reach a goal. Symbolic The use of conventional forms of behavior such as language, pretend play, sign language, drawings that allow the child to reflect on the past, talk about future, and construct new forms of expression through combinations of different symbols and signs. Encoded The use of conventional forms of behavior that are context bound and that depend on referents or perceptually present stimuli as a basis for evoking the behaviors. Constructive Manipulating the objects to create, make, or build something. Differentiated The coordination and regulation of behavior that reflects elaboration and progress toward conventionalization. Focused attention Includes watching or listening to features in the environment. Casual attention Attending to a sequence of things within 3 sec as opposed to attending to only one object or person within 3 sec Undifferentiated differentiating her/his behavior, using simple low level behaviors. Nonengaged Unoccupied and none of the other behaviors are occurring. Bevill, Gast, Maguire, & Vail (2001) Engagement Being in a pl anned play area, appropriately interacting with materials in the manner in which they were intended to be used, with eyes open and focused on materials or people in the activity area. Danko (2004) Active engagement Involves some physical or verbal display of participation in some activity and the use of materials or the self to interact with the environment. Attentional engagement Any behavior that is not overtly active in nature. This is generally a more passive form of participation in the activity. Nonengagement Unoccupied and none of the other behaviors are occurring.

PAGE 120

120 Table 2 7. Continued Citation Behavior Definition Malmskog &McDonnell (1999) Actively engaged Child is actively engaged in play activity; involved in verbal exchange related to play activity; or attending to instructor prompt; engaged in class management. Not actively engaged Child displays aggressive disruptive behaviors; is involved in sensory manipulation of materials; is moving around the classroom; has become distracted by other persons/events not involved in play activity; is watching other children who are interacting wi th play materials in an appropriate manner; is not actively engaged, is not actively engaged, but her/his behavior is not listed above. Note. In Appanaitis (2003) study, nine engagement levels were grouped under five categories for analyses and reporting. These categories included sophisticated engagement (levels: persistence, symbolic, encoded, constructive), differentiated engagement (level: differentiated), focused engagement (level: focused attention), unsophisticated engagement (levels: casual attention, undifferentiated), and non engagement (level: nonengagement).

PAGE 121

121 CHAPTER 3 METHOD The present study investigat ed corollary relationships between observed engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities during child initiated, social oriented and materials embedded instruction learning trials (EILTs) To explore these corollary relationships, changes in child engagement behaviors during child initiated activities across experimental phases of a single subject multiple baseline across teachers study were examined. on of EILT s duri ng two types of child initiated activities were examined across experimental phases. Finally, corollary relationships between observed engagement behaviors of young children with during two types of child initiated activities were explored. The present study used data collected as part of a larger study components of a professional development intervention a nd their frequent and accurate use of embedded instruction practices with preschool children with disabilities (Embedded Instruction for Early Learning P roject [EIFEL Project]; Snyder et al. 2007). The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methods u sed in the present study as situated within the EIFEL Project. A description of the context for the present study will be followed by the description of experimental design, participants, settings and materials, procedures for the Phase II feasibility stud y, and procedures for the present study. M ethodological details of the EIFEL Project will be presented prior to those of the present study, when appropriate.

PAGE 122

122 Context for the Present Study The EIFEL Project involved three phases. In Phase I, the profession al development intervention focused on embedded instruction, known as Tools for Teachers was developed and validated. In Phase II, three single subject experi mental design studies (multiple baseline across participants) were conducted at three different s ites to examine the feasibility of implementing each component of the professional development intervention and to evaluate systematically relationships between each accur ate use of embedded instruction practices. The three feasibility studies were preschool te of 3 study sites (i.e., Washington) for a total of 13 teachers and 13 children with disabilities across the sites. In Phase III, a randomized controlled potential efficacy group experimental trial was conducted to evaluate whether exposure to a professional accurate use of embedded instruction practices and child learning outcomes. Across the three site s, 36 teachers and 106 children with disabilities participated in the po tential efficacy study (Snyder et al. 2010). When the single subject experimental feasibility studies were conducted during Phase II of the EIFEL Project, relationships between each component of a professional development intervention (i.e., training, on site coaching, self coaching) and preschool EILTs were examined. implementation of EILTs was evaluated during child initiated activiti es teacher directed

PAGE 123

123 activities and routines or transitions C investigated. Video recorded data collected during child initiated activities as part of the single subject experimental feasibility study conducted in F lorida during Phase II of the EIFEL Project (hereafter referred to as Phase II feasibility study) were used to address the research questions in the present study. The child engagement data for the present study were obtained by using the Engagement Behav ior Observation System Research Version II (EBOS RVII; EIFEL Project, 2012). Use of this system permitted the investigator to code engagement behaviors for each target child during child initiated activities using the videotapes gathered as part of the Pha se II single subject experimental feasibility study. Data on initiated activities were extracted from the feasibility study database. Figure 3 1 illustrates how data for the present study were obtained from t he Phase II feasibility study database. Child engagement behavior and teacher implementation data were examined in the present study with reference to the experimental phases to which each teacher was exposed during the Phase II feasibility study. In add ition, corollary relationships between detailed description of how child engagement and teacher EILTs implementation data were obtained in the present study is provided under the Procedures for the Present Study subheading in this chapter. Experimental Design The Phase II feasibility study employed a multiple baseline across participants (teachers) single subject expe rimental research design (Baer et al. 1968) to investigate

PAGE 124

124 professional development intervention focused on embedded instruction and their frequent and accurate implementation of EILTs, and (b) relationships between them emitting a behavior specified as part of an EILT In single subject experimental research studies, a functional relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable is dete rmined by examining three types of changes within and between experimental phases: level, variability, and trend (Wolery & Harris, 1982). Level refers to the relative value of the data pattern for the dependent variable. Variability is defined as the dissi milarity of scores in a given experimental phase. Trend refers to the direction in which the data pattern is progressing (Tawney & Gast, 1984; Wolery & Harris, 1982). Changes in data within experimental phases may demonstrate threats to the internal valid ity of the research. For example, when there is variability in baseline data or baseline data patterns show changes in level and trend in therapeutic directions, implementation of the independent variable (i.e., intervention) is not recommended. If the ind ependent variable is implemented under the se or similar circumstances, the interpretation of experimental effects will be open to question and it will not be possible to draw strong conclusions based on the data (Wolery & Harris, 1982). Researchers visuall y inspect data to evaluate level, variability, and trend in baseline data before implementing an intervention and take action, when appropriate (e.g., extend baseline, identify factors c ontributing to variability or change in level or trend). Changes in level, trend, and variability (in some cases) in therapeutic directions are desirable between experimental phases and they must be replicated across several

PAGE 125

125 experimental manipulations to demonstrate a functional relationship between the time ser ies manipulation of the independent variable and the dependent measure. An increase in level, a decrease in variability, or a change in trend often is desirable (depend ing on the characteristics of the independent variable) after an appropriately stable ba seline phase. To conclude that a functional relationship has been established, the researcher must (a) record no changes or very little changes within experimental phases, (b) observe a clear change in level, trend, or both level and trend when the interve ntion is introduced, and (c) replicate the changes between conditions during additional data series of the experiment (Wolery & Harris, 1982). In general, to demonstrate experimental control with multiple baseline single subject experimental research designs, researchers first collect baseline data simultaneously across no less than three data series (e.g., across participants, behaviors, or settings). When investigators observe acceptable stability in level (indicated by no change or change in a contr a therapeutic direction), relatively small variability, and no trend or trend in a direction opposite of that predicted by the intervention in the baseline data series with a minimum of three data points, an intervention can be applied to the first baselin e series. Introduction of the intervention in the first data series should coincide with changes in level and trend in a therapeutic direction and decreases in variability, while the uninterrupted baseline series remains unchanged or shows changes in level variability, or trend in a contra therapeutic direction. When a criterion level of performance is observed in the first data series or the researcher judges that changes in level, trend, or variability are noteworthy in relation to the baseline phase, th e intervention can be implemented in the second

PAGE 126

126 baseline series and the same process is repeated until each target receives the intervention (Kazdin, 1982; Tawney & Gast, 1984). In some instances, an intervention can be implemented when there is (a) a rela tively small change in baseline level in a therapeutic direction, (b) some variability in baseline data, and (c) a relatively small trend in a therapeutic direction during baseline (Tawney & Gast, 1984) In the case of the Phase II single subject experime ntal feasibility study, following a baseline condition that was the same length for all four participants, the four teachers participated together in professional development workshops. The provision of the on site coaching intervention was lagged across e ach participant following the workshop phase. Two trained project coaches conducted all coaching sessions. Self coaching via a project developed w eb site was the second intervention series that was lagged across participants. Phase change decisions were ba sed on visual analysis of level, trend, and Figure 3 2 illustrates experimental phases of the Phase I I feasibility study. The present study employed a non experimental descriptive research design (Horn, Snyder, Coverdale, Louie, & Roberts, 2009; Lodico, Spaulding, &Voegtle, 2010; Mitchell & Jolley, 2007) to investigate corollary relationships between ch initiated social oriented and materials oriented activities across experimental phases of the professional development intervention. Descriptive research designs allow resear chers to examine the relationships between variables without drawing causal conclusions.

PAGE 127

127 Participants Participants in the present study included four teacher child dyads from the Phase II single subject experimental feasibility study conducted in Florida. In this section, descriptions of procedures used to recruit teacher and child participants for the Phase II feasibility study are followed by the presentation of characteristics of each teacher child dyad included in the present study. Teacher Recruitme nt Participating teachers were recruited from a public school system in north Florida where inclusive preschool practices were implemented in the early childhood special education program. To participate in the study, a teacher had to (a) be working in an inclusive preschool classroom that included young children with and without disabilities and at least one child with disabilities had to be enrolled with an individualized educational program (IEP), (b) be certified to teach in early childhood/early childh ood special education classroom, and (c) have at least 2 years of teaching experience working with young children with disabilities in inclusive settings. quality mean rating sco re of 4 (good) out of 7 on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Revised (ECERS R; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005). To recruit teachers for the study, researchers contacted the preschool program administrator in one school district and received perm ission to meet with teachers in the preschool program. A member of the research team met with all preschool teachers in the preschool program to explain the purposes of the study and provided informed consent forms to the teachers who were interested in st udy participation. Those who indicated interest were asked to provide written informed consent in the presence of a research team member

PAGE 128

128 ( Appendix A) Subsequently, a 2 hour classroom to complete the ECERS R. T he first four teachers who consented to study participation and whose classrooms received an overall environmental quality mean score of 4 on the ECERS R were included in the study. Child Recruitment Subsequent to recruitment of participating teachers, a children). For this purpose, teachers were asked to nominate children from their classroom who met the study inclusion criteria. To be eligible for p articipation in the study, a child had to have an IEP and be between 3 through 5 years of age at the onset of the study. Each consented teacher was asked to send a letter describing the study in parent friendly language and a consent form to the parents of each eligible child in her classroom (Appendix A) parents returned a signed informed consent form participated in the study (four children total). In addition to obtaining parental consent, chi ld assent to participate in the study was obtained from each child by a research team member (Appendix A) These four children were the child participants for the present study. Characteristics of the Participants Teacher child dyad 1: Nancy Devon. Nancy was a 55 year old Caucasian teaching children with disabilities and 23 years of teaching experience with young children. She held state certifications in mental disab ilities, early childhood, and art education for K 12 and had been working in the same school for 15 years at the onset of the Phase II feasibility study (Table 3 1 for teacher demographic information).

PAGE 129

129 Devon was a 40 month old boy with an IEP His race/et hnicity was reported as African the Phase II feasibility study began. His total score on the ABILITIES Index (Simeonsson & Bailey, 1991) was 44, with a mean functional abilities ratin g of 2.3 (range 1 to 5). Devon showed mild to moderate delays in 5 of 9 areas (i.e., behavior, intellectual functioning, limbs, intentional communication, and tonicity) measured by the ABILITIES Index (Table 3 2 for child demographic information and ABILIT IES Index scores). T eacher child dyad 2: Betsy Arlene. Betsy was a 56 year old Caucasian preschool teacher who indicated she had been working with young children with mast teaching young children and had been working in her current classroom for 4 months at the onset of the Phase II feasibility study Arlene was a 62 month old girl with an IEP. He r race/ethnicity was reported to be of the Phase II feasibility study. Arlene had a total score of 27 on the ABILITIES Index, with a mean functional abilities rating of 1 .4 (range 1 to 3). She showed mild delays in 3 of 9 areas (i.e., behavior, intellectual functioning, and intentional communication) as measured by the ABILITIES Index. Teacher child dyad 3: Kim Brian. Kim was a 47 year old Asian American preschool teacher appropriate certifications to teach children from birth to grade 6. Kim had 9 years

PAGE 130

130 experience teaching young children with disabilities and had been working in the same school for 2 years at the onset of the Phase II feasibility study. Brian was a 53 month old boy with an IEP. His race/ethnicity was reported to be Phase II feasibility study. His total score on the ABILITIES Index was 54, with a mean functional abilities rating of 2.8 (range 1 to 5). Brian showed mild to severe delays in 5 of 9 areas (i.e., behavior, limbs, intentional communication, tonicity, and integrity of physical health) measured by the ABILITIES Index. Teacher child dyad 4: Diana Jessica. Diana was a 45 year old Caucasian Phase II feasibility study, she had 16 years experience teaching young children wit h disabilities and had been working in the same school for 12 years. She held a certification in mental disabilities (K 12) and was working toward her autism endorsement. Jessica was a 65 month old girl with an IEP. Her race/ethnicity was reported as Cauc mean functional abilities rating of 1.9 (range 1 to 4). She showed mild to moderate delays in 4 of 9 areas (i.e., behavior, intellectual functioning, intentional communication, and integrity of physical health) measured by the ABILITIES Index. Settings and Materials This section provides information about the settings in which the Phase II single subject experimental feasibility study occurred and materials used in the Phase II study as well as those used in the present study.

PAGE 131

131 Settings All four classrooms in which each participating teacher taught were full day inclusive preschool class rooms located in one public elementary school. In addition to a lead teacher, each classroom had two assistant teachers available throughout the school day. All therapy services for children with disabilities across the four classrooms were implemented in a therapy room outside of the classrooms. Class sizes and the number of children with and without disabilities varied across the four classrooms. IEPs and 3 children without d isabilities (i.e., 11 children total) at the beginning of the Phase II feasibility study. On the ECERS good global classroom en vironmental quality. classrooms 2 and 3) at the beginning of the Phase II feasibility study. Of those, 10 children in each classroom had IEPs. On the ECERS c lassrooms received an average score of 4.5 and 4.8, respectively, indicating both had good global classroom environmental quality. Materials Throughout the Phase II feasibility study, teachers used the activities and materials that were available in thei r classrooms to deliver EILT s to the target children. No additional child focused materials were brought into the classrooms by researchers for the teachers or children to use. All teachers received embedded instruction implementation and practice guides a s part of the professional development intervention (Snyder, Hemmeter et al., 2009). In addition, they received teacher focused

PAGE 132

132 materials to help support their implementation of embedded instruction in the classroom (e.g., activity schedules, data collecti on forms, learning target forms). Materials used during the present study included classroom teacher and child related data obtained from the Phase II single subject experimental feasibility study, videotapes of child initiated activities collected du ring the Phase II feasibility study, the Activity Classification Coding System (ACCS; a duration recording system designed to classify an activity as social oriented or materials oriented), the Engagement Behavior Observation System Research Version II (EB OS RVII; an observational coding system developed to quantify child engagement behaviors), and the Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 a software to conduct behavioral observations and code activity type and engagement behaviors specified as part of the ACCS and EBO S RVII. Classroom level data obtained from the Phase II single subject experimental feasibility study database included ECERS R scores and numbers of children with and without disabilities in each classroom. Teacher level data extracted from the Phase II implem entation of EILT s during the child initiated activities included in the present study. Child level data extracted from the Phase II feasibility study database included child demographics and ABILITIES Index scores. These data were used for descriptive purp oses in the present study. The ACCS was used to determine whether the child initiated activities taken from the Phase II feasibility study videotapes for engagement coding in the present study were primarily social oriented or materials oriented. The EBOS RVII was used in the present study to generate data related to child engagement behaviors during child

PAGE 133

133 initiated social oriented and material oriented activities. Both activity classification and child engagement codes were applied using Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 observational coding software. Engagement data generated in the present study along with the teacher EILTS implementation data extracted from the Phase II feasibility study database were used to address the research questions in the present study Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 is a computer software program that supports coding of observed behaviors during video based or live observations. Coding is accomplished by clicking or tapping the corresponding button on a computer screen when a behavior aligne d with a coding category occurs. The software can be used to record the duration or frequency of behaviors of interest. At the end of each observation, the software creates a log file. Depending on the coding system built in the Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 ob servational coding software, the log files include information on duration, frequency, percentage, or rate of the behaviors observed as well as information about time stamps, environmental variables, notes made by the observer/coder, and other relevant dat a collected by the researcher. These data can be used to conduct further analyses on behaviors of interests. In the present study, Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 observational coding software was used to conduct behavioral observations for categorizing activiti es and quantifying child engagement behaviors. For each of these observation systems, a separate Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 project file was created and these files were used during coding. Procedures for the Phase II Feasibility Study This section describe s procedures used to conduct the Phase II single subject experimental feasibility study. The section begins with a description of procedures used to (a) collect classroom teacher and child level descriptive data ; (b) obtain learning

PAGE 134

134 targets from teache rs for each participating child, prior to implementation of the first experimental phase of the study embedded instruction learning trials (EILTs) Next, information on the procedures that guided implemen tation of Phase II feasibility study is presented by experimental phases (i.e., baseline, training, post training, on site coaching, self coaching, and maintenance). Collecting descriptive data. Upon receiving consent from teachers and families of partici pating preschool children with disabilities along with the child assent, trained our s and completed the ECERS R ( Harms et al., 2005 ). The ECERS R is designed to evaluate the global quality of preschool cl assrooms. To evaluate the quality of a classroom, a trained observer conducts a 2 h our observation (at minimum) in the classroom during ongoing activities. The ECERS R contains 43 items and 470 quality indicators divided into seven subscales that measure (a) space and furnishings (8 items and 82 indicators), (b) personal care routines (6 ite ms and 77 indicators), (c) language reasoning (4 items and 39 indicators), (d) activities (10 items and 101 indicators), (f) interactions (5 items and 53 indicators), (g) program structure (4 items and 45 indicators), and (e) parents and s taff (6 items and 73 indicators ). Each item is rated on a 7 point scale, with the odd number descriptors anchored as inadequate (1), minimal (3), good (5), and excellent (7). A total score for the entire classroom is obtained by averaging the individual item scores and ra nges from 1 to 7. Higher mean scores for the total and each subscale represent better global classroom quality. Clifford, Reszka, and Rossbach (2010) reported two types of score reliability data for the ECERS R: inter observer and internal consistency. Th e field test was conducted

PAGE 135

135 in 21 preschool classrooms during the summer of 1997. With respect to inter observer score reliability, the percentage of agreement across all 470 indicators was 86.1%, with no indicator having percentage agreement below 70% (Har ms et al., 2005). At the item level, the percentage of agreement was 48% for exact agreement and 71% for agreement within one point. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, Spearman rank order correlation coefficient, and interclass correlation coefficient for the total score were also calculated and they were .92, .87, and .92, respectively (Harms et al., 1998). The internal consistency score reliability of the ECERS R was evaluated at the subscale and total scale levels (Harms, et al., 2005). While the total scale internal consistency score reliability was .92, the internal consistency score reliability for the subscales ranged from .71 to .88. In addition, teachers completed a demographic information form The demographic form wa s a 20 item i nstrument that requested information from the teachers about their background (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity), work experience, and classroom. I nformation gathered from this form was used to describe participating teachers and their classrooms (i.e., s tudy settings). T he ABILITIES Index (Simeonsson & Bailey, 1991) was used to characterize the functional abilities of participating children in their classroom. The ABILITIES Index is a 19 item summated rating scale designed to profile the functional abilit ies and limitations of children across nine domains. These domains are (a) audition, (b) behavior and social skills, (c) intellectual functioning, (d) limbs (use of hands, arms, and legs), (e) intentional communication, (f) tonicity (muscle tone), (g) inte grity of physical health, (h) eyes (vision), and (i) structural status (shape, body form, and structure). Each ability

PAGE 136

136 domain indicator is scored on a 6 point scale ranging from normal functioning (1) to extreme limitation of functioning (6) Bailey and hi s colleagues (1993) investigated the score reliability of the index in a study involving 254 children, 213 parents, and 133 teachers and reported inter rater agreement of 67.2% for exact agreement and 86.2% for agreement within one rating point. Weighted k appa coefficients yielded a score of .60, while intra class correlation coefficients ranged from .60 to .73. Identifying learning targets. Prior to the first baseline data collection, teachers were asked to provide instructional objectives that specified for four target behaviors they w ere currently working on with the child. These learning targets were used to identify when EILT s occurred d uring classroom activities, routines, and transitions and whether the learning trials implemented were procedurally correct with respect to learning in relation to the targe t behavior specified in the learning target teacher based on her perspectives about their educ ational relevance for the target child. Project staff encouraged teachers to select a relevant target from social emotional, language, cognitive/literacy, and motor/adaptive domains, if appropriate for the child. Project staff was instructed to refer the t eachers to the district format for behavioral objectives if they asked question about how to write a behavioral objective. Teachers were not provided any additional information on how to write a behavioral objective during this stage. Teachers were asked t o provide four learning targets for the target

PAGE 137

137 child three other times during the Phase II feasibility study: before workshop training, before the on site coaching phase, and before the self coaching phase. Embedded Instruction Observation System Resear ch Version I. The Embedded Instruction Observation System Research Version I (EIOS RVI; EIFEL Project 2008a) was used as one of the dependent variable measures in the Phase II feasibility study. Data obtained from the EIOS RVI were graphed to conduct vi sual analyses of level, trend, and variability within and across the experimental study phases and to inform decisions about the experimental study phase changes. The EIOS RVI is a continuous event, observational coding system that is designed to quantify the frequency and accuracy of EILT s that a teacher implements with a target child during child initiated, teacher directed, and r outine or transition activities in the preschool classroom. A learning trial includes an antecedent, target behavior (or behav ior approximation), consequence, and error correction (if appropriate). An antecedent is described as an event that sets the occasion for a child behavior. Antecedents can be delivered by an adult, peer, or through environmental arrangements. Child behavi ors are observable actions (i.e., spoken, gestural, physical) performed by a target child after the presentation of an antecedent. The EIOS RVI allows researchers to determine whether the child behavior was a correct or incorrect behavior (as defined by th e behavior specified in the learning target), or if the child had target behavior. Consequences can be also delivered by an adult, peer, or through environmental arrang ements. An error correction is a procedure or a group of

PAGE 138

138 procedures that is applied immediately following incorrect child responding to obtain or approximate correct responding. The EIOS RVI was developed to record whether (a) antecedents, error correctio ns, and consequences are implemented as planned by the teacher, (b) the EILT s are implemented logically according to planned preschool activities and materials, and (d) EILT s are procedurally correct and complete. The EIOS RVI codes also permit researchers to quantify (a) the total number of EILT s implemented (frequency), (b) the number of EILT s with procedurally correct t eacher implementation (accuracy; including antecedent, consequence, and error correct ion ) and (c) the number of procedurally correct EILTs with a correct child behavior. In the case of error corrections, the EIOS RVI measures whether the target child behavior occu rs after the error correction and a consequence is provided following the tar get child behavior Snyder and her colleagues (2009) collected inter observer percentage agreement data in the Phase II feasibility study for approximately 33% of the EIOS RVI videotaped sessions during baseline, workshop, and each of the coaching phases. Overall, the mean inter observer percentage agreement for the total number of EILT s with procedurally correct teacher implementation and the number of procedurally correct EILT s with a correct child behavior was 83.1% ( SD = 18.5) and 83.1% ( SD = 17.9), respectively. Baseline During the baseline phase of the Phase II feasibility study participating teachers were asked to do what they would normally do to provide

PAGE 139

139 instruction to children on their learning targets. No further information was prov ided about the professional development intervention or embedded instruction. This condition was used to evaluate pre intervention performance of participants on dependent variables (i.e., frequency and accuracy of implementation of EILT s for teachers and performance on individualized learning target behaviors for children). implementation of EILT were collected by videotapi ng teacher and child interactions for approximatel y 2 hour s during classroom activities, routines, and transitions. The researchers used the Embedded Instruction Observation System Research Version I (EIOS RVI; EIFEL Project, 2008a) to quantify the frequen cy and accuracy of EILT s that a teacher implemented with a target child with a disability during child initiated, teacher directed, implementation of EILT ormance on their learning target behaviors across all four types of activities for each data point were available before the present of EILT ce on learning target behaviors were graphed for the four baseline sessions. Workshop training phase. Once baseline data had been collected for all four implementing EILT s and ch researchers introduced the workshop phase. The principal investigator for the Phase II feasibility study at the FL site conducted the workshop training series. All four teachers

PAGE 140

140 attended the workshop s at the same time. The workshop training sessions were implemented in a conference room at the school site. The workshops consisted of a series of four interrelated modules focused on embedded instruction. Seven wo rkshops were conducted for 14 hour s using four Tools for Teachers project developed modules and were completed in 4 weeks. The modules included an overview of embedded instruction (2.5 hour s) as well as practices associated with planning (4.8 hours), implementing (4.3 hours), and evaluating (4 ho ur s) embedded instruction. The modules were developed based on the three major components of embedded instruction (i.e., planning for embedded instruction, implementing embedded instruction, and evaluating embedded instruction). An overview module accompan ied these three modules. The scope and sequence of the content and format of the modules was based on a comprehensive review of the empirical literature focused on naturalistic instructional approaches and embedded instruction ( Snyder et al., 2013 ) and exi sting materials related to embedded i nstruction (e.g., Grisham Brown, Hemmeter, & Pretti Frontczak, 2005; Pretti Frontczak & Bricker, 2004; Sandall Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, 2005; Snell, 2007; Wolery, 2005). Table 3 3 shows the embedded instruction conte nt associated with each module. The overview module focused on describing the key concepts associated with embedded instruction practices. More in depth explanation of these concepts was presented in the remaining three modules. By the end of the overview module, participating teachers were expected to (a) identify reasons for using embedded instruction, (b) define embedded instruction, (c) describe the three steps of the embedded instruction process, (d) understand relationship between embedded

PAGE 141

141 instructio n and the general preschool curriculum, and (e) describe a complete EILT and understand the differences between complete and incomplete learning trials ( EIFEL Project, 2008b) The planning module focused on helping teachers learn to plan for EILT s to occur during ongoing activities, routines, and transitions of the preschool classrooms. In individual learning targets. When the planning module was completed, participating teachers were expected to (a) learn how to identify child learning targets that are appropriate for embedded instruction, (b) learn and practice breaking down IEP goals into intermediate objectives that lead to learning targets that are appr opriate for embedded instruction, (c) select appropriate times and activities for embedding relation to planned EILT s provided during classroom activities, (e) select ap propriate instructional procedures to use when implementing EILT s, and (f) develop instructional plans to support implementation of EILT s ( EIFEL Project, 2008c) The implementation module focused on instructional strategies for preschool teachers to use to implement embedded instruction within their classrooms during naturally occurring classroom activities, routines, and transitions. In this module, teachers were expected to learn (a) to use a variety of instructional procedures and identify the conditions under which each of these procedures might be used, (b) to identify and apply strategies for fading prompts, (c) to describe types of antecedents and consequences that might be used to deliver EILT s, (d) to define fidelity of implementation of EILTs and w hy it is important, and (e) to use matrices and the

PAGE 142

142 implementation checklists to prepare for and implement embedded instruction ( EIFEL Project, 2008d) Finally, the evaluation module focused on helping preschool teachers to learn how to evaluate (a) their implementation of embedded instruction practices and (b) whether their implementation of EILT s helped preschool children with disabilities to make progress on their learning targets. In this module, teachers also learned to use data based decision making p rocesses to modify their instruction or the learning targets they were working on with a child ( EIFEL Project, 2008e) By the end of this module, teachers were expected to (a) identify strategies to determine whether EILT s are implemented as planned, (b) c ollect, analyze, and interpret child data to judge if their implementation of EILT s is associated with positive child outcomes (i.e., making progress on learning target behaviors), and (c) describe strategies to adjust their instruction based on teacher im plementation and child outcome data ( EIFEL Project, 2008 e ) Each module had: (a) a workbook for teachers that contained PowerPoint slides, case study materials, and other interactive activities completed by participating teachers during each workshop; (b) an implementation practice guide that included supportive application resources to be used by teachers following each workshop; (c) a showed the implementation of embe dded instruction within authentic preschool activities, routines, and transitions. During the workshop training sessions, the trainer encouraged collective participation. A variety of active learning strategies were used to help preschool

PAGE 143

143 teachers learn the module content related to embedded instruction. These included the use of lecture, small group activities and discussions, large group discussions, video demonstrations, case study discussions, handouts, role plays, and practice exercise s. To establish coherence between workshop activities and classroom practices, teachers were provided opportunities to (a) practice skills and receive feedback from the trainers related to planning embedded instruction for children in their classrooms as p art of workshop activities, and (b) apply skills related to planning, implementing, and evaluating embedded instruction in their classrooms between workshop sessions. In re lated to planning, implementing and evaluating embedded instruction during the workshop discussions and activities. The trainer also helped participating teachers understand how embedded instruction is aligned with the preschool curriculum by connecting em bedded instruction practices to early childhood curricula and early learning foundations or standards (Snyder, Hemmeter et al., 2009). implementation of EILTs nce on learning target behaviors were collected and graphed for five sessions for all four teachers. Post training. Once the workshop training series was completed, a teacher was randomly selected to enter the on site coaching phase. This teacher demonstr ated decreasing trend with respect to her implementation of EILT s during the workshop training phase. The three remaining teachers were instructed to implement embedded instruction practices as they had learned about in the workshops while working with the target child on his/her learning targets. During post training and before on site coaching

PAGE 144

144 implementation of EILT s and child learning of target behaviors were gathered as describe d previously. On site coaching phase. The first teacher who entered the on site coaching phase received coaching once a week while the other three teachers continued in the post training phase, implementing embedded instruction without coaching support. Once the first teacher reached the criterion level of performance (i.e., 80% accurate implementation of EILTs for at least 3 sessions), she moved to the self coaching phase and the second teacher began the on site coaching condition if her data showed eith er relative stability or a decelerating trend in relation to embedded instruction implementation. The same process was repeated until each teacher received on site coaching (Snyder, Hemmeter et al., 2009). The four teachers in the Phase II feasibility stud y received 11, 14, 12, and 8 on site coaching sessions, respectively to reach the criterion level of performance and to enter the self coaching condition. Coaching was provided by two expert coaches who had training in early childhood or early childhood sp ecial education and experience working with young children with disabilities. Each coach was randomly assigned two teachers to coach. Both coaches were female and had doctoral degrees in early childhood special education. Their experience in working with y oung children with disabilities ranged from 12 to 14 years at the onset of the Phase II feasibility study. On site coaching included a face to face classroom observation each week and follow up debriefing session with performance feedback about targeted embedded instruction practices. Debriefing sessions were conducted live or through e mail when

PAGE 145

145 live debriefing was not able to occur due to logistical constraints. Across the four teachers in the Phase II feasibility study, the average length of a face to face classroom observation and a live debriefing session was 71 min utes and 34 min utes respectively. Debriefing via e mail was used 3 times across all 45 coaching sessions. The coaches used a systematic coaching protocol during the coaching sessions. The on site coaching protocol included four major components: (a) goal setting and action planning, (b) observation in preschool classrooms, ( c ) debriefing with the teacher, and ( d ) delivery of systematic performance feedback (including supportive and correct ive feedback) to teachers about their use of embedded instruction practices with children with disabilities. The feedback protocol used during debriefing included six components: (1) open the feedback meeting, (2) provide supportive feedback, (3) provide c orrective feedback, (4) provide targeted support, (5) discuss planned actions and needed resources, and (6) close the feedback meeting. Debriefing, including feedback, was conducted either face to face or via e mail following weekly observation sessions an d included the same components regardless of the format of delivery ( EIFEL Project, 2008f). The coaches used a variety of strategies during observation and debriefing to obser vation sessions included observation, modeling, problem solving discussion, side by side gestural and verbal support, environmental arrangements, and other help in the classroom. Strategies used in the debriefing sessions included problem solving discussio n, verbal and graphic based performance feedback, reflective conversation, goal setting, graphing data, video demonstration, role play, and offering resources and

PAGE 146

146 materials. Performance feedback was delivered weekly following observations either face to fa ce or via e mail. During the on site coaching phase, the same data collection procedures as s performance on learning target behaviors were also collected and graphed. Self coaching phase. Once the first teacher reached criterion level performance (i.e., 80% or greater accurate implementation of learning trials for at least 3 sessions) during on site coaching, she began the self coaching phase. Two of the remaining teachers began the self coaching phase when they reached the criterion level of performance on implementation of EILT s during the on site coaching phase. Although the fourth teacher rea ched criterion to move from on site to self coaching, the school year ended 1 week after she began self implementation of EILT s were collected during her self coaching phase. Once each teacher entered the self c oaching phase, she received a face to face, 1 h ou r training focused on an orientation to the self coaching website and to self coaching. This training included information about how to access and use the web site and to conduct self coaching. A trained pro ject staff member conducted the training session. Following the self coaching training, teachers in this phase were given access to the project Web site ( www.embeddedinstruction.net ) for self coaching. Th e website included a password protected section for the self coaching phase. Using the resources and materials on the website or materials teachers upload to the website, participating preschool teachers self monitor their planning, implementing, and evalu ating of

PAGE 147

147 embedded instruction practices. The self weekly during the feasibility study), videos that provided teachers w ith an orientation to the self coaching website, the self coaching process, and a graphing tool. The graphing tool was designed to support teachers in their planning for and evaluating the implementation of EILT s and to monitor child progress toward learni ng target behaviors. In addition, teachers received a weekly e mail from the project that encouraged them to (a) visit the self coaching section of the website, (b) complete the self coaching process, (Snyder, Hemmeter et al., 2009). The four teachers in Phase II feasibility study spent 14, 7, 2, and 1 week(s), respectively in the self coaching phase. Teacher 1 logged into the self coaching website 18 times across 14 weeks ( M = 1.3/week) and spent 35 min utes on average. Teacher 2 logged into the self coaching website 7 times across 7 weeks ( M = 1/week) and spent 26 min utes on average. Due to end of the school year, teachers 3 and 4 only spent 2 weeks and 1 week, respectively in the self coaching condit ion. Teacher 3 logged into the self coaching website 5 times across 2 weeks ( M = 2.5/week) and spent 28 min utes on average. Teacher 4 logged into the self coaching website 3 times across 1 week and spent 27 min utes on average. During the self coaching phas e, the same data collection procedures as on learning target behaviors were als o collected and graphed.

PAGE 148

148 Maintenance. Once the first teacher reached criterion level performance (i.e., 80% accurate implementation of learning trials for at least 3 sessions) during self coaching, she began a maintenance phase. The second teacher also beg an the maintenance phase when she reached the criterion level of performance on implementation of EILT s during the self coaching phase. The study was concluded due to the end of school year before the two remaining teachers moved to the maintenance phase. Once a teacher entered the maintenance phase, she was asked to implement EILT s during naturally occurring classroom activities as they were taught to do during the previous phases of the study. The teachers were allowed to use the project related materials on the website during the maintenance phase that were previously given to them during the self coaching phase. No further information and assistance was provided to the teacher during the maintenance phase. During the maintenance phase, the same data col lection procedures as times in 6 weeks with the first teacher and two times in 2 we eks with the second teacher. Procedures for the Present Study Implementation of the present study was guided by the following procedures: (a) selection of a subset of videotapes from the Phase II feasibility study ( i.e., child initiated activities); (b) de veloping the ACCS to determine whether a child initiated activity was social oriented, materials oriented, or characterized as other type of activity ; (c) classifying child initiated activities as primarily social oriented or material oriented, using the ACCS ; (d) developing and piloting the EBOS RVII ; (e) quantifying child engagement

PAGE 149

149 behaviors that occurred during child initiated social oriented and materials oriented activities identified during the previous step by condu cting behavioral observations using EBOS RVII codes and the Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 coding software ; (f) conducting interrater reliability observations for the EBOS RVII ; (g) extracting data from mentation of EILTs during the child initiated social oriented and materials oriented activities included in the present stud y; (h) graphing child engagement and teacher implementation data based on the experimental phase change patterns employed in the Pha se II feasibility study ; and (i) conducting data analyses Selection of Videotapes As described earlier, in the Phase II feasibility study, data to evaluate preschool c hild in each classroom for approximately 2 h ours per week during naturally occurring classroom activities, routines, and transitions and coding the videotapes using EIOS RVI ( EIFEL Project, 2008a). In the Phase II feasibility study, data collectors capture d at least one entire (a) child initiated activity (CIA), (b) teacher directed activity (TDA), and (c) routine (RA) or transition (T) during each data collection session across all participants and study phases. These 2 hour videotapes were segmented by ac tivity type (i.e., CIA, TDA, RA, and T) before behavioral observations using EIOS RVI were conducted. When there was more than one activity videotaped for an activity type during a data collection point, each activity was numbered sequentially in the order they occurred during videotaping (e.g., CIA1, CIA2, CIA3 or TDA1, TDA2, TDA3) and coded separately.

PAGE 150

150 In the extant literature, engagement behaviors of young children are usually e xamined during child initiated activities that last 5 15 min utes ( Appanaitis 2004; Danko, 2044; Kishiha & Kemp, 2006, 2009; McWilliam & Ware, 1994) To identify sufficient number of activities to assess engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities, videotapes of child initiated activities that were 4 min utes or longer were included in the present study. Videotapes of child initiated activities shorter than 4 min utes were not used in the present study The entire Phase II feasibility study database included a total of 344 child initiated activities. The student investi gator viewed all 344 videotapes and identified that 269 of these child initiated activities were 4 min utes or longer (78%). Decreasing the minimum length of activities from 5 minutes to 4 min utes increased the number of child initiated activities included in the present study by 15 activities. Child initiated activities that were 4 min utes or longer were selected and coded using the A ctivity Classification Coding System (A CCS ) to determine if each met the defined criteria for being classified as social orie nted or materials oriented activities. Developing the Activi ty Classification Coding System Upon selection of videotapes of child initiated activities that were 4 min utes or longer from the Phase II feasibility study database, a behavioral observation sys tem (i.e., Activity Classification Coding System [ACCS]) was developed to classify these child initiated activities as social oriented, materials oriented, or characterized as other (other activity 1 and other activity 2). The ACCS is a duration recording system and includes four mutually exclusive behavior codes: social behavior, material behavior, other behavior, and can't observe (Table 3 4 for code descriptions).

PAGE 151

151 To determine the activity category, an observer watched and coded the entire activity show n on the video clip based on the definitions and examples provided in the ACCS m anual, using the Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 observational coding software. When one of the four behavior codes occurred during an observation, the observer activated the key for that behavior code in the Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 screen and continued to watch the video clip without pressing another key until the target child demonstrated a behavior associated with a different code. When this occurred, the observer activated the key for the new behavior code and repeated the process until the end of the video clip for an activity. When the video ended, the observer recorded the percentage of time each behavior code occurred during the observation. A set of pre determined criteria was applied to the percentage of time each of four behavior codes occurred during an observation to classify an activity as social, materials, or other. For example, to be classified as a social oriented activity, the total percentage of time social behavior with adult plus social behavior with peer occurs during an activity must be 60% or higher (Table 3 5 for the criteria for activity classification). C lassifying Child initiated Activities The student investigator for the present study viewed and coded each child initiated activity that was 4 min utes or longer using the ACCS to determine the activity category classification for each child initiated activity. Activities classified as primarily s ocial oriented and materials oriented were used in the present study to examine child EILT s. Activities classified as other activity 1 and other activity 2 were excluded from the present study.

PAGE 152

152 As a result of the activity classification process, 191 out of 269 (71%) child initiated activities met the defined criteria for either social oriented or materials oriented and were included in the present study. Child initiated activitie s that were not categorized as either social oriented or materials oriented ( n = 78; 29%) were excluded from the present study. Table 3 6 shows information about the classification of activities for each teacher child dyad and Table 3 7 shows the number of activities across experimental phases by participant and activity type Two secondary coders were trained on the ACCS and conducted inter rater reliability observations for 26% of the total number of child initiated activities that were 4 min utes or long er and that were coded by the student investigator using the ACCS. Approximately one fourth of the child initiated activities were randomly selected across phases and participants. For example, if there were a total of 12 child initiated activities during a baseline phase for a child, 4 of these were randomly selected to conduct inter rater reliability observations. Secondary coder 1 was a first year doctoral student in early childhood special education and secondary coder 2 was a second stud ent in special education. Inter observer agreement during training and coding of the videotapes for the present study was calculated by dividing the number of activities in which primary and secondary coders agreed on the activity classification to the tot al number of activities coded. Each coder was required to complete the training procedures for the ACCS and to meet inter observer agreement standards using practice videotapes before coding videotapes included in the present study. Training of secondary coders for the ACCS included (a) reviewing the definitions and examples of codes ; (b) reviewing the criteria

PAGE 153

153 for activity classification ; (c) completing practice coding with two, 5 min ute videotapes developed for training purpose and determining the activity category ; and (d) comparing p ractice codes to an expert standard and receiving supportive and corrective feedback. Following the training, each coder was given a set of five videotapes to code and determine the activity category. The videotapes included child initiated activities deve loped for training purpose that were not part of the present study and that were 5 10 min utes in length. Each coder had to categorize at least 80% of the activities captured in five videotapes correctly (i.e., at least 4 of 5 activities) to code present st udy videotapes During training, both secondary coders reached the criterion level of performance (i.e., classifying correctly at least 80% of the activities captured in five videotapes) within the first s et of 5 videos. Secondary coder 1 classified 4 of 5 activities ( 80%) correctly. Secondary coder 2 classified 5 of 5 activities (100%) correctly. During the present study, secondary coders coded and categorized 70 of 264 activities (26%) for reliability across experimental phases and participants. These ac tivities were selected randomly across phases and across participants. Of these, in T he overall inter observer agreement percentage score was 93%. Inter observer ag reement data for activity classification for each teacher child dyad are shown in Table 3 8 Developing the Engagement Behavior Observation System Research Version II The Engagement Behavior Observation System Research Version II (EBOS RVII; EIFEL Project 2012) is a partial interval (15 sec), behavior observation system designed to quantify two dimensions of child engagement behaviors: engagement

PAGE 154

154 category and engagement partner. In this system, engagement is defined as the amount of time children spend in teracting with their social and nonsocial environments at different levels of competence and in a developmentally and contextually appropriate manner (McWilliam & Bailey, 1992; McWilliam et al., 1985). Engagement category codes on EBOS RVII include (a) so phisticated, (b) social, (c) combinatorial, (d) differentiated, (e) attentional, (f) undifferentiated, and (g) nonengaged (Table 3 9 for the definitions). The engagement partner codes include (a) peer, (b) peer content, (c) adult, (d) adult content, (e) ob ject, and (f) self. Challenging behavior is also coded if it occurs during an interval (Table 3 10 for the definitions). Definitions, examples, and decision rules related to engagement category codes, engagement partners, and challenging behaviors are incl uded in the EBOS RVII codebook ( EIFEL Project, 2012). The full version of the EBOS RVII codebook can be requested from the EIFEL Project. The EBOS RVII was developed by revising and refining the EBOS RVI (EIFEL Project, 2010), which was adapted from the Engagement Quality Measurement System III (E Qual III; McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998). In the following section, the adaptation of the EQUAL III to create the EBOS RVI is described. This is followed by the description of revisions and refinements completed on the EBOS RVI to develop the EBOS RVII. Table 3 10 shows the comparison of E Qual III, EBOS RVI, and EBOS RVII codes. Adaption of E Qual III to create EBOS RVI. Two graduate students and a principal researcher from the EIFEL Project team developed the EBO S RVI by adapting the E Qual III. During the adaption process, the team refined definitions for some of the engagement codes in the E QUAL III, revised the labels of engagement categories and engagement partners, created new engagement codes that were not addressed in the

PAGE 155

155 E QUAL III, combined some engagement codes included in the E QUAL III, developed additional decision rules and exemplars for engagement behavior codes, revised coding procedures from momentary time sampling to partial interval, and develop ed a manual and training module to enhance utility of the measure and evaluation of inter observer Qual III into two different codes on EBOS non verbal verbal initiations or actions. As shown in Table 3 1 1 the new codes were characterized as differentiated responding and differentiated action. As part of the adaptation, the researchers co mbined undifferentiated and casual attention codes from E RVI, because behaviors described in both engagement behavior categories were very similar to one another and hard to di fferentiate reliably during pilot work on the EBOS RVI. In addition, labels for two engagement behavior codes and one engagement partner code were changed so the new labels were more closely aligned with engagement behaviors Qual III was replaced with Rather than momentary time sampling (MTS) at the end of a 15 sec interval to select an engagement code associated with t he most advanced engagement behavior observed during the pre specified moment ( E Qual III), the EBOS RVI uses partial interval recording (PIR). This involves recording the code associated with the most advanced engagement behavior observed at any point dur ing an interval. The benefits and limitations of both MTS and PIR have been discussed in the literature (e.g., Green,

PAGE 156

156 McCoy, Burns, & Smith, 1982; Harrop & Daniels, 1986; Meany Daboul, Roscoe, Bourret, & Ahearn, 2007; Powell, Martindale, & Kulp, 1975). Mea ny comparison of the two methods showed treatment analysis interpretations for MTS were slightly more likely to match continuous duration coding, while PIR interpretations were slightly more likely to match continuous frequency coding. Give n the interest in implementation of EILT s, PIR was chosen for the EBOS. Prior to the present study, the EIFEL project team trained five coders to coding reliability criterio n of 80% mean agreement across engagement behavior codes. Across the five coders and four training sessions, the mean inter observer agreement was 83.2% ( SD = 10.2) for engagement behavior 86.8% ( SD = 7.3) for engagement partner, and 97.5% ( SD = 5.5) for challenging behavior. These five trained coders coded the videotapes gathered during the Phase III potential efficacy group experimental trial. Throughout the potential efficacy trial, a total of 397 sessions (i.e., 10 15 min ute videotapes) and 140 reliability sessions (35%) were coded. The mean inter observer agreement was 81.1% ( SD = 7.8) for engagement behavior, 84.0% ( SD = 7.7) for engagement partner, and 99.5% ( SD = 1.4) for challenging behavior (Snyder et al. 2010). Revision and refineme nt of EBOS RVI to develop EBOS RVII. For the purpose of the present study, EBOS RVI was revised and refined by the student investigator and the principal investigator from the EIFEL project based on data collected and analyzed as part of the EIFEL Phase II I potential efficacy study. The revised version of the system is known as the EBOS RVII. During this process,

PAGE 157

157 definitions, clarifications, and exemplars for the engagement behavior and engagement partner code s were refined, a new engagement behavior code w as created, labels for two engagement behavior codes were changed, two new engagement partner modifier codes were created, and the manual and training module were revised. Table 3 1 1 shows the comparison of E Qual III, EBOS RVI, and EBOS RVII codes. As par t of the refinement process, the definition for the representational engagement behavior code in EBOS RVI was revised and behaviors associated with the code were extended. As shown in Table 3 9 the new code was labeled RVII. Th e sophisticated engagement behavior code includes behaviors associated with the representational code (e.g., talking about stimuli that are not present in the immediate environment or talking about past or future events) as well as representational behavio rs related to writing, drawing, or painting. Minimal revisions were made to the definition of social engagement. For example, verbal behaviors that would be categorized as persistent in EBOS RVI (e.g., a ing her name twice) are included under the social engagement behavior code in the EBOS RVII. In addition, two new engagement partner modifiers for the social engagement code (i.e., peer content and adult content) were created to capture social interaction s between a target child and a peer or an adult that focus on pre academic skills. As shown in Table 3 9 operationally defined and added to the EBOS RVII, while two engagement behavior codes included in the EBOS RVI (i.e., persistent and constructive) were not included in the EBOS RVII. Persistent and constructive engagement behavior codes were not

PAGE 158

158 included because behaviors under these categories tended to occur only during certain types of classroom ac tivities. Although persistent and constructive engagement is not explicitly named in the EBOS RVII, engagement behaviors that meet the definition for these EBOS RVI code s are included under either the combinatorial or the social engagement behavior code on the EBOS RVII The definition of the differentiated action code in EBOS RVI was narrowed as several behaviors that required different levels of abilities were included under this engagement behavior code. As shown in Table 3 1 1 the new code with the re vised RVII. Some behaviors previously RVI were included under combinatorial engagement behavior code on the EBOS RVII (e .g., a child plays with two or more objects by combining them). Behaviors associated with the differentiated responding and focused attention codes in the EBOS RVI were collapsed into one code as behaviors associated with the two codes were similar, and t RVII, Also, additional clarifications were added to definitions for the undifferentiated engagement behavior code and the non engaged code. Quantifying Engagement B ehavior s and P artners Child initiated activ ities categorized as social oriented and materials oriented were coded by the student investigator, using the EBOS RVII (EIFEL Project, 2012) to quantify engagement behavior and engagement partners for each child participant across each experimental phase. EBOS RVII codes are applied using a partial interval engagement behaviors during each interval (15 sec), selects the most advanced

PAGE 159

159 engagement behavior code based on the behavio rs the target child exhibits during the interval, codes the corresponding engagement partner for the engagement behavior category selected during the interval, and selects a challenging behavior code if challenging behavior is observed to occur during the interval. The same procedures are repeated until the last interval is coded for an observation session. At the end of each observation session, the number of intervals in which each engagement behavior code occurs are summed and divided by the total number of intervals in the session to obtain a percentage score. In the present study, the Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 observational coding software program was used with the EBOS RVII codes. The software automatically stops the video at the end of each interval to allow the observer to select the engagement behavior and partner codes as well as a challenging behavior cod e (if it occurs). When the codes for an interval are selected, the observer activates the play icon in the Observer XT 10.5 screen and repeats the process for each 15 sec interval until the end of the videotape. Summary data obtained using the EBOS RVII is the percentage of intervals in which a specific engagement behavior or partner is coded during an activity (observation). After each child initiated activity was coded, this percentage was calculated for each engagement behavior and partner. The percent ages for a specific engagement behavior and partner were then averaged over the number of activities included in each experimental phase to calculate a mean percentage phase score. A mean percentage phase score for each engagement behavior and partner code was

PAGE 160

160 separately calculated for both social oriented and materials oriented activities, for only social oriented activities, and for only materials oriented activities. Conducting R eliabil ity Observations for EBOS RVII The student investigator in the pres ent study was the primary coder for the EBOS RVII. The secondary coder, who also conducted reliability observations for activity classification, was trained on the EBOS RVII and conducted reliability sessions for 35% of the total number of activities inclu ded in the present study. This coder, (a second RVI and was familiar with the system. In the present study, written training procedures developed by the EIFEL project team for the EBOS R VII were used to train coders and to establish coding reliability standards. The secondary coder was required to complete the training procedures specified in the EBOS RVII manual and to meet inter observer agreement standards using practice videotapes bef ore coding videotapes included in the present study. Coder training included (a) reading the codebook for the EBOS RVII ; (b) reviewing the EBOS RVII codes, code definitions, clarifications, examples, and non examples ; (c) completing two practice coding usi ng videotapes developed for training purpose s; and (d) comparing practice codes to an expert standard. During training, the coder received supportive and corrective feedback from the student investigator about the EBOS RVII, including clarification about c odes or discussion of established criteria for each code. Following training, the coder was given seven video clips to code. Each video clip captured a child initiated activity, followed the child throughout the activity and was 5 10 min utes in length. The coder had to reach at least 80% agreement with the expert

PAGE 161

161 standard across the five video clips for engagement behavior engagement partner and challenging behavior to meet established coding reliability criterion. To establish expert standards for the t raining videos, the student investigator and the principal investigator from the EIFEL project coded two practice and seven training video clips individually and compared their codes. Disagreements were resolved by reviewing the video clips simultaneously, discussing the observed child engagement behaviors, and reviewing the EBOS RVII manual. Once disagreements were resolved, a final coding file was created in the Noldus Observer XT 1 0.5 This final coding file was used to check the agreement between the e xpert standard and coding conducted by the secondary coder, and to calculate inter observer agreement percentage scores as part of establishing coding reliability following training. Inter observer agreement for EBOS RVII. Following training the secondary coder conducted reliability observation for 35% the total number of social oriented and materials oriented activities included in the present study. These activities were selected randomly across phases of the Phase II feasibility study and participants. For example, if there were 9 social oriented and materials oriented activities in a baseline phase for a child, 3 of these were randomly selected to conduct reliability observations. Inter observer percentage agreement scores and kappa scores (Cohen, 1960 ) were calculated and reported by each participating teacher child dyad. In addition, mean inter observer occurrence agreement and occurrence plus nonoccurrence agreement were calculated and reported for each engagement behavior and partner code separately Inter observer percentage agreement score was calculated for each session using the following formula: [total number of intervals in which both coders selected the

PAGE 162

162 same engagement code/total number of intervals in an observation session] X 100. Occurrenc e agreement was calculated using the following formula: [total number of intervals both coders selected a coding category /total number of intervals the same coding category was selected by at least one of the coders] X 100. Occurrence plus nonoccurrence a greement was calculated using the following formula: [total number of occurrence agreement + total number of nonoccurrence agreement/total number of intervals] X 100. Extracting Teacher Embedded Instruction Learning Trials Implementation D ata EIOS RVI da ta for the child initiated activities that met the criteria for social oriented and materials oriented activities were extracted from the EIOS RVI database to EILTs and child engagement behaviors. Data on the frequency o f total (number of procedurally correct plus procedurally inc orrect EILTs) and procedurally correct EILTs implemented by each teacher during each child initiated activity that met the criteria for social oriented or materials oriented activity and the length of each of these activit ies were extracted from the Phase II feasibility study database and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. These frequency data were used to calculate the percentage correc t child initiated activity. In addition, using the activity length data, a rate (per min ute ) score for correctly implemented EILTs during each child initiated activity was calculated. Data by act ivity ( session ) were then used to calculate mean percentage correct and rate phase scores based on the total number of social oriented and material oriented activities included in each experimental phase.

PAGE 163

163 Graphing Child Engagement and Teacher Embedded Ins truction Implementation D ata The mean percentage phase scores for each child engagement behavior code implementation of EILTs. Graphs were created for social oriented and ma terials oriented activities together as well as separately (Figures 4 1, 4 3, 4 5, and 4 7) The same procedures were used to gra ph data on engagement partners (Figures 4 2, 4 4, 4 6, and 4 8) Data on the mean rate of correctly implemented EILTs were gra phed separately by activity type for each teacher (Figure 4 9). Conducting Data Analyses Once the data were graphed, changes in child engagement behavior s and partner s in relation to baseline levels were descriptively investigated. Next, changes in teacher across experimental phases in relation to baseline were descriptively examined. Finally, the corollary relationship between changes in child engagement behaviors and across experimental phases were descriptively evaluated Descriptive evaluations of the corollary relationships between the changes in child engagement behaviors and order correlation analyses (Spearman, 1904). A series of two rank order correlation analyses were conducted The first analysis focused on investigating the association between child engagement behaviors and teacher EI LTs implementation across baseline, training, post training, and on site coaching ( r oc ). The second analyses focused on examining association between the two variables across baseline, training, po st training, and self coaching (r sc ). Child engagement and teacher implementation data

PAGE 164

1 64 from the maintenance phase were not included in the rank order correlation analyses. The same data analytic procedures were used to examine the relationships between EILTs

PAGE 165

165 Table 3 1. Characteristics of teacher p articipants Participant Gender Age (years) Ethnicity Teaching experience (years) Highest degree obtained Nancy Female 55 Caucasian 2 3 Betsy Female 56 Caucasian 34 Kim Female 47 Asian American 9 Diana Female 45 Caucasian 16

PAGE 166

166 Table 3 2. Characteristics of c hild p articipants Participant Gender Age (month) Ethnicity AI score a (Mean) Functional limitations b Devon Male 40 African American 44 (2.3) Behavior, intellectual functioning, limbs, intentional communication, and tonicity Arlene Female 62 Hispanic 27 (1.4) Behavior, intellectual functioning, and intentional communication Brian Male 53 Caucasian 54 (2.8) Behavior, limbs, intentional communication, tonicity, and integrity of physical health Jessica Female 65 Caucasian 39 (1.9) Behavior, intellectual functioning, intentional communication, and integrity of physical health Note. Possible score on ABILITIES Index ranges from 0 to 114. Response scale ranges from 1 = no limitations to 6 = extreme limitations in funct ion. a AI = ABILITIES Index. b Functional limitations were identified by ABILITIES Index scores of 3 or more.

PAGE 167

167 Tabl e 3 3. Content of four embedded instruction for early l earning Tools for Teachers m odules Overview Module Introduction Steps of embedded instruction Key components of embedded instruction Key components of child learning cycle The five types of instructional procedures and key features Relationship between instructional procedures and learning cycle Phases of learning: acquisition, fluency, maintenance, and generalization What we Teach Curriculum alignment Key features of learning targets for embedded instruction Where we Teach Identifying on going activities, routines, and transitions for meaningful instruction How we Teach Antecedents Behaviors Consequences Complete Learning Trials Incomplete Learning Trials How complete learning trials lead to learning Using complete learning trials in the classroom Massed and distributed trials Planning Module What we Teach How to identify learning targets Functional, generative, and measurable learning targets How to break down IEP goals into learning targets Bottom up approach to identifying goals Relationship between functional, generative, and measurable learning targets and embedded instruction When we Teach Making and using a classroom activity matrix Concepts of distributed and massed learning trials Using distributed learning trials to provide sufficient learning opportunities Using massed learning trials to provide sufficient learning opportunities Making and using an individual activity matrix Making and using an activity matrix for a scheduled classroom activity Using activity matrices to link learning targets to the general preschool curriculum How we Teach Instructional procedures

PAGE 168

168 Table 3 3. Continued Developing instructional plans Selecting antecedents Implementing Module Targeted Curricular Modifications Differences between universal and targeted curricular modifications When to use targeted curricular modifications How to use targeted curricular modifications Naturalistic Instructional Procedures Incidental teaching When to use incidental teaching How to use incidental teaching Naturalistic time delay When to use naturalistic time delay How to use naturalistic time delay Prompt/Prompt Fading Different types of prompts When to use different prompts When to use least to most prompting How to use least to most prompting When to use most to least prompting How to use most to least prompting Importance of fading prompts How to fade prompts Selecting Instructional Procedures Planned instructional procedures Antecedents and Consequences Logically occurring antecedents Planned antecedents Logically occurring consequences Planned consequences Planning antecedents and consequences Fidelity of Implementation Importance of implementation fidelity Considerations for checking implementation fidelity Using a fidelity checklist Spontaneous Learning Opportunities Recognizing and capitalizing on spontaneous learning opportunities

PAGE 169

169 Table 3 3. Continued Evaluating Module Introduction Key questions for evaluating embedded instruction Importance of evaluating embedded instruction Am I Doing It? Importance of evaluating implementation of embedded instruction Five steps of evaluating embedded instruction Reviewing planned vs. implemented complete learning trials Importance of collecting data on implementation How often data on implementation should be collected Methods of collecting data on implementation Using graphs to compare planned vs. implemented complete learning trials Methods for comparing planned vs. implemented complete learning trials Importance of examining quality of implementation How to make decisions about implementation of embedded instruction based on data Is it Working? Considerations for determining whether embedded instruction is working Dimensions of child behavior How dimensions of child behavior determine data collection Methods of data collection for monitoring child progress Determining child how often to collect data on child performance Determining when to collect data on child performance Determining where to collect data on child performance Determining who will collect data on child performance Collecting data on child performance and implementation at the same time Displaying data on child performance Summarizing data on child performance Do I Need to Make Changes? Interpreting data on implementation of embedded instruction and child performance Using data on implementation and child performance to inform future decisions about embedded instruction practice

PAGE 170

170 Table 3 4. Activity classification coding system c od es and d escriptions Code Description Social Behavior This code is selected when the target child and a peer or an adult are in the frame and interacting by playing with/manipulating the same material (or set of materials), sharing or exchanging materials, engaging in verbal or non verbal communication exchanges, exhibiting joint attention to the same materials, or exhibiting turn taking behaviors Material Behavior This code is selected when the target child is interacting with classroom materials without interacting with a peer or adult Other Behavior This code is selected when the target child is not interacting with peers, adults, or classroom materials This code is selected when the target child is out of video frame or when target child is in the video frame but what he/she is doing is not visible

PAGE 171

171 Table 3 5. Criteria for classifying activities in the Activity Classification Coding S ystem Category Criteria Social oriented activity a. Total percentage of social behavior code activated during the coded child initiated activity must be 60% or higher OR b. Total percentage of social behavior code activated during the coded child initiated activity must be at least 50% and there must be at least a 15% difference between the perc entage of social behavior code activated and the percentage of the second highest behavior code activated (i.e., material behavior or other behavior) Materials oriented activity a. Total percentage of material behavior code activated during the coded child initiated activity must be 60% or higher OR b. Total percentage of material behavior code activated during the coded child initiated activity must be at least 50% and there must be a 15% difference between the percentage of material behavior code activa ted and the percentage of the second highest behavior code activated (i.e., material behavior or other behavior) Other activity 1 a. Total percentage of other behavior code activated during the coded child initiated activity must be at least 41% Other activity 2 a. Activities that cannot be categorized as social oriented, materials oriented, or other activity 1 based on the criteria stated above should be categorized as other 2 Note. During coding for activity classification, behavior codes were activated based on the definitions provided in Table 3 4.

PAGE 172

172 Ta ble 3 6. Information about the child initiated activities included in the present s tudy Variable Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3 Dyad 4 Total Total # of CI activities 86 97 62 99 344 CI activities (4 min or longer) Frequency 55 82 50 82 269 Mean length 10 min 11 min 14 min 15 min 11 min Mean # of intervals 40 44 56 60 44 Social and materials oriented activities Frequency 45 61 30 55 191 Mean length 10 min 11 min 14 min 10 min 11 min Mean # of intervals 40 44 56 40 44 Social oriented activities Frequency 18 36 16 37 107 Mean length 9 min 10 min 15 min 10 min 11 min Mean # of intervals 36 40 60 40 44 Materials oriented activities Frequency 27 25 14 18 84 Mean length 11 min 13 min 13 min 9 min 11 min Mean # of intervals 44 52 52 36 44 Note. CI = Child initiated, min = minute.

PAGE 173

173 Table 3 7. Number of activities across experimental phases by participant and activity t ype Participant and Activity Type Baseline Training Post Training On site Coaching Self Coaching Maintenance Total Child Teacher Dyad 1 Social and Materials oriented 8 11 NA 11 8 7 45 Social oriented 4 2 NA 7 3 2 18 Material oriented 4 9 NA 4 5 5 27 Child Teacher Dyad 2 Social and Materials oriented 6 10 18 18 8 1 61 Social oriented 5 7 9 12 3 0 36 Material oriented 1 3 9 6 5 1 25 Child Teacher Dyad 3 Social and Materials oriented 7 7 22 11 8 NA 55 Social oriented 6 6 14 9 2 NA 37 Material oriented 1 1 8 2 6 NA 18 Child Teacher Dyad 4 Social and Materials oriented 3 5 16 6 NA NA 30 Social oriented 1 3 8 4 NA NA 16 Material oriented 2 2 8 2 NA NA 14 Note. NA is used when an experimental phase was not implemented for a teacher child dyad during the Phase II feasibility study.

PAGE 174

174 Table 3 8 Percent agreement data for activity c lassification Participa nt Activity Agreement (A) and Disagreement (D) # by Primary Coder # by Secondar y Coders % for Reliability A D % Dyad 1 55 14 26 12 2 86 Dyad 2 82 22 27 20 2 91 Dyad 3 50 13 26 13 0 100 Dyad 4 82 21 26 20 1 95 Overall 269 70 26 65 5 93

PAGE 175

175 Table 3 9 EBOS RVII engagement behavior codes and d escriptions Engagement Behavior Code Description Sophisticated (SE) The target child shows symbolic use of objects or language a (verbal or sign language) Social (SO) The target child shows use of conventional language b (verbal or sign), which is context bound and dependent on stimuli present in the immediate environment, to initiate or respond to an adult or peer Combinatorial (CE) The target child combines two or more objects performing at least two sequential actio ns with the objects Differentiated (DE) The target child shows functional use of object(s), verbal or motor imitation, object exchange or retrieval, use of non conventional vocalizations or gestures, or self talk about stimuli in the environment Attent ional (AE) The target child shows sustained listening to or watching of people or objects in the environment or follows a direction without a verbal response Undifferentiate d (UE) The target child shows repetitive behavior that does not change in response to distinct features of environmental stimuli or feedback Nonengaged (N) during a 15 sec interval do not meet the definitions for any other engagement category OR the target child e xhibits challenging behavior for the entire 15 sec interval Note. Operational definitions and examples of behaviors are available in the EBOS RVII manual. a focus on stimuli that are not present in the immediate environment, past events, or future events, or (b) it must be used within the context of a pretend play scenario. b interactions with or respond to an interaction initiated by an adult or peer about stimuli present in the immediate environment.

PAGE 176

176 Table 3 10 EBOS RVI I engagement partner and challenging behavior c odes and abbreviated d escriptions Code Description Engagement Partner Peer (P) This code is used when the target child is engaged with a peer or group of peers Peer Content (PC) This code is used when the target child is engaged with a peer or group of peers in a social interaction that focuses on pre academic skills Adult (A) This code is used when the target child is engaged with an adult or group of adults in the classroom (e.g., teacher, therapist, paraprofe ssionals, parents, or coach) Adult Content (AC) This code is used when the target child is engaged with an adult or group of adults in a social interaction that focuses on pre academic skills Object (O) This code is used when the target child is engaged with an object or group of objects (e.g., toy, classroom materials, utensil) Self (S) This code is used when the target child is engaged but not with adults or peers Challenging Behavior Low Intensity Challenging behaviors that distract a target child, peers, or a teacher from activities, routines, or instruction (e.g., not following adults directions, talking to a peer when not permitted, taking a toy from a peer without physical harm) and do not result in physical harm to people or proper ty High Intensity Challenging behaviors that disrupt the flow of classroom activities, routines, or instruction (e.g., verbal threats, aggression, profanity) and may result in physical or emotional harm that requires adult intervention Note. Operational definitions and examples of behaviors are available in the EBOS RVII manual.

PAGE 177

177 Table 3 1 1 Comparison of E QUA L III, EBOS RVI, and EBOS RVII c odes E QUAL III (McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998) EBOS RVI (EIFEL Project, 2010) EBOS RVII (EIFEL Project 2012) Engagement Behavior Category Persistent Persistent Sophisticated Symbolic Representational Social Encoded Social Combinatorial Constructive Constructive Differentiated Differentiated Differentiated responding Attentional Focused Differentiated action Undifferentiated Undifferentiated Focused attention Nonengaged Casual attention Undifferentiated Nonengaged Nonengaged Engagement Partner Kid Peer Peer Grown up Adult Peer Content Object Object Adult Self, body parts Self Adult Content Object Self

PAGE 178

178 Figure 3 1. Illustration of how data for the present study were obtained from the Phase II feasibility study database.

PAGE 179

179 Figure 3 2. Experimental phases of the Phase II feasibility study

PAGE 180

180 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of th e present study was to examine corollary relationships between instruction learning trials (EILTs) during c hild initiated, social oriented and materials oriented activities. These relationships were examined across experimental phases of a single subject experimental study conducted as part of a larger study focused on examining the impact of a professional dev implementation of embedded instruction. In the present study, three research questions were addressed: 1. What changes occurred in observed child engagement behaviors during social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities across experimental phases? 2. change during social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities across experimental phases? 3. Were there corollary relationships between child engagement behaviors and teacher implementation of embedded instruction learning trials during social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities across experimental phases? As de scribed in Chapter 3, d ata for the present study were obtained by (a) using videotapes collected as part of the single subject experimental study and coding initiated activities that met the inclusion criteria for social oriented and materials oriented activities, and (b) extracting data on

PAGE 181

181 teachers implementat ion of EILTs during these activities from the single subject Engagement Behavior Observation Sy stem Research Version II (EBOS RVII, EIFEL Instruction Observation System Research Version I (EIFEL Project, 2008a). R esults are presented in four sections. The first sect ion focuses on the reliability of observations conducted to evaluate child engagement behavior and engagement partner. Inter observer agreement scores for EBOS RVII engagement behavior, engagement partner and challenging behavior codes are reported for ea ch code separately as well as at the individual teacher child dyad level. In the next three sections, results are described with respect to each research question. Inter observer Agreement for Engagement Coding A secondary coder was trained on the EBOS RV II to conduct reliability observations for 35% of the total number of social oriented and materials oriented activities included in the present study (66 of 191 activities). The videotaped activities used for secondary coding were randomly selected by experimental phase, participant, and activity type. During training on the EBOS RVII the secondary coder reached the criterion level of performance (i.e., at least 80% agreement with the expert standard across five video clips) in seven sessions. Across the seven training sessions, mean inter observer percentage agreement was 84% (range = 71% 89%). For coding of study videotapes, mean inter observer percentage agreement and kappa scores were calculated and reported overall and for each participating te acher child dyad. Overall, the mean inter observer agreement percentage score for

PAGE 182

182 engagement behaviors was 85% (72% 100%) and the mean kappa score was .74 (range = .45 1.00) across all sessions and dyads. Overall, the mean inter observer agreement perc entage score for engagement partners was 81% (64% 100%) and the mean kappa score was .70 (range = .40 1.00) across all sessions and dyads. Table 4 1 shows the inter observer agreement percentage and kappa scores for each child teacher dyad. Mean occurr ence and occurrence plus nonoccurrence agreements for each EBOS RVII code are shown in Table 4 2. Research Question 1: Changes in Observed Child Engagement This section describes the results of the present study with respect to observed child engagement behaviors and partners as well as challenging behaviors. Results are presented for each child under three subsections: engagement behaviors, engagement partners, and challenging behaviors. In the engagement behaviors and partners subsections, results for e ach engagement behavior and partner code are presented separately and by activity type. The EBOS RVII is a partial interval (15 sec) behavior observation system. The engagement behavior category code associated with the most advanced engagement behavior observed at any point during an interval is selected and the corresponding engagement partner for the engagement behavior category selected during the interval is also recorded. Percent interval data reported for each engagement behavior code reflects the most advanced engagement behavior that occurred during an interval. Percentage data reported for each engagement partner are based on the engagement behavior code selected during the interval. The hierarchical nature of EBOS RVII behavior codes and use of partial interval coding means the child might have demonstrated less advanced engagement behaviors and might be engaged with other

PAGE 183

183 engagement partners corresponding with these less advanced engagement behaviors during an interval. These less advanced engag ement behaviors and different engagement partners are not captured by EBOS RVII, and, therefore, are not reflected in the data reported. Child engagement data were quantified for each coded child initiated, social oriented or materials oriented activity as the percentage of intervals in which a specific engagement behavior occurred. These data were averaged over the total number of both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the total number of activities classified as social oriented, and tot al number of activities classified as materials oriented within each experimental phase to calculate a mean percentage of intervals score for each engagement code by type of activity. Percentage interval data reported for challenging behaviors are based on the number of intervals in which challenging behavior was observed divided the total number of intervals in an observation. Mean percentage score changes in engagement behavior, engagement partner, and challenging behavior across experimental phases were evaluated relative to baseline levels. Child 1: Devon Engagement Behaviors Sophisticated engagement The mean percentage of intervals Devon exhibited sophisticated engagement behaviors during both social oriented and materials oriented activities was le ss than 1.5% across study phases, except for maintenance. During maintenance, sophisticated engagement occurred for 8% of coded intervals (Table 4 3). Similarly, during social oriented activities, Devon did not demonstrate any sophisticated engagement beha viors across phases of the study, except during maintenance ( M = 14%; Table 4 4). As shown in Table 4 5, in materials oriented activities, Devon

PAGE 184

184 demonstrated sophisticated engagement behaviors during the following phases: on site coaching ( M = 3%), self co aching ( M = 1%), and maintenance ( M = 6%). The percentage of intervals in which Devon exhibited sophisticated engagement behaviors during maintenance was somewhat higher for social oriented versus materials oriented activities ( M social = 8% versus M mate rial = 6%). In addition, he exhibited low levels of sophisticated engagement behaviors in materials oriented activities during the on site and self coaching phases compared to no sophisticated engagement behaviors during these phases in social oriented act ivities. Social engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, compared to baseline ( M = slightly during training (6% increase, M = 16%), and substantially during on site coaching (38% increase, M = 48%), self coaching (24% increase, M = 34%), and maintenance (19% increase, M = 29%; Table 4 3). Compared to baseline ( M = 12%), the mean percentage of intervals Devon demonstrated social engagement behaviors during activities classified as social increased significantly across experimental phases: training (31% increase, M = 43%), on site coaching (46% increase, M = 58%), self coaching (42% increase, M = 54%), and maintenance (27% increase, M = 39%; Table 4 4). Across activities classified as materials oriented, Devon demonstrated social engagement behaviors, on average, for 9% and 10% of the baseline and training intervals, respectively. Compared to baseline, the percentage of intervals in which he exhibited social engagement behaviors dur ing materials oriented activities increased

PAGE 185

185 considerably during on site coaching (21% increase, M = 30%), self coaching (13% increase, M = 22%), and maintenance (15% increase, M = 24%; Table 4 5). cross social oriented and materials oriented activities and it showed an ascending trend across the phases of the study during both activity types. However, social engagement during on site coaching and self coaching was higher for social oriented activiti es, when compared to materials oriented activities. Combinatorial engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, Devon showed moderately high levels of combinatorial engagement behaviors during baseline ( M = 48% of intervals) a nd training ( M = 53% of intervals) during on site coaching ( M = 21% of intervals) and by 12% during self coaching ( M = 36% of intervals). During maintenance, the percentage of intervals in which he exhibited combinatorial engagement behaviors increased to his baseline level ( M = 47%; Table 4 3). e ( M = 47% of intervals) and training ( M = 42% of intervals) phases during activities classified as social. Compared to baseline, the percentage of intervals in which Devon was engaged in combinatorial behaviors decreased considerably during on site coachi ng (31% decrease, M = 16%), self coaching (30% decrease, M = 17%), and maintenance (14% decrease; M = 33%; Table 4 4). Similarly, across activities classified as materials oriented, Devon exhibited relatively high levels of combinatorial engagement during baseline ( M = 49% of

PAGE 186

186 intervals) and training ( M = 56% of intervals). Compared to baseline, the percentage of intervals in which Devon was engaged in combinatorial behaviors decreased noticeably during on site coaching (19% decrease, M = 30%) and a little during self coaching (2% decrease, M = 47%). During maintenance, his level of combinatorial engagement increased by 4%, when compared to baseline ( M = 49%; Table 4 5). was moder ately high and comparable across activity types. Across subsequent phases during social oriented activities. Across materials oriented activities, the initial decrease in co mbinatorial engagement during on site coaching was followed by increases during self these last two phases was very similar to his baseline and training levels. Differentiated engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals Devon exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors decreased somewhat across phases of the study. When compared to baseline ( M = 29%), his level of differentiated engagement decreased by 3% ( M = 26%) during training, 2% ( M = 27%) during on site coaching, 6% ( M = 23%) during self coaching, and 16% ( M = 13%) during maintenance (Table 4 3). Across activities classified as social, entiated engagement was higher during baseline ( M = 21%) than his level of differentiated engagement during subsequent phases, except during on site coaching ( M = 22%). The mean percentages of intervals Devon was engaged in differentiated behaviors was 14% of intervals during

PAGE 187

187 training, 16% of intervals during self coaching, and 11% of intervals during maintenance (Table 4 4). Similarly, across activities classified as materials oriented, differentiated engagement was higher during baseline ( M = 36%) than his level of differentiated engagement during subsequent phases, except during on site coaching ( M = 37%). The mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged in differentiated behaviors was 28% during training, 26% during self coaching, and 14% during maintenance (Table 4 5). study followed a similar pattern for social oriented versus materials oriented activities. tiated engagement was observed during training. This was followed by an increase above the baseline level during on site coaching and decreases below baseline levels during the two subsequent phases. Although the pattern of change across phases was similar the mean percentage of intervals in which Devon exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors across study phases was always higher for materials oriented activities when compared to social oriented activities. Attentional engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, Devon exhibited attentional engagement behaviors for 12% of the intervals, on average, during baseline. The mean percentage of intervals he was engaged in attentional behaviors decreased by 9% during training ( M = 3%) and remained under 4% until the end of the study (Table 4 3).

PAGE 188

188 Across activities classified as social, Devon exhibited attentional engagement behaviors for 20% of intervals, on average, during baseline. The mean percentage of intervals in which atte ntional engagement occurred decreased by 19% during training ( M = 1%) and remained under 6% of the intervals during subsequent phases of the study (Table 4 4). During activities classified as materials oriented, Devon exhibited attentional engagement beha viors for less than 5% of intervals, on average, across phases of the study. He did not exhibit any attentional behaviors during the on site coaching phase of the study (Table 4 5). The percentage of intervals in which Devon exhibited attentional engagemen t behaviors during baseline was notably higher for social versus materials oriented activities ( M social = 20% versus M material = 4%). With the implementation of training, oriented activities decreased to 1% of t he intervals and remained comparable to his levels of attentional engagement for materials oriented activities across phases of the study. Undifferentiated engagement. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, activities categorized a s social, and activities categorized as materials oriented, the mean percentages of intervals in which Devon exhibited undifferentiated engagement behaviors were less than 2% across all phases of the study (Tables 4 3, 4 4, and 4 5). Differences in the mea n percentages of intervals in which he exhibited undifferentiated engagement behaviors across study phases during social oriented versus materials oriented activities were small and negligible.

PAGE 189

189 Non engagement. Similar to undifferentiated engagement, the m ean percentages of intervals in which Devon was non engaged were less than 2% across phases of the study during both social oriented and materials oriented activities (Table 4 3), activities classified as social oriented (Table 4 4), and activities classif ied as materials oriented (Table 4 5). Differences in mean percentages of intervals in which he was non engaged across study phases during social oriented versus materials oriented activities were very small and negligible. Child 1: Devon Engagement Part ners Peer. Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities included in the When compared to baseline ( M = 10%), the mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with peers decreased by 3% during training ( M = 7%) and 5% during self coaching ( M = 5%) and increased for by 2% during on site coaching ( M = 12%) and 5% during maintenance ( M = 15%). With respect to social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills, Devon was engaged with peers for less than 2% of the intervals across phases of the study, on average (Table 4 6). also varied across phases of the study. Compared to b aseline ( M = 10%), the mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with peers increased by 5% during training ( M =15%) and 13% during maintenance ( M = 23%), and decreased by 4% during on site coaching ( M = 6%) and 9% during self coaching ( M = 1%). With respect to social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills, Devon was engaged with peers, on average, for less than 3% of the intervals across phases of the study (Table 4 7).

PAGE 190

190 Across activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with peers was 9% during baseline. When compared to baseline, his engagement with peers decreased by 3% during training ( M = 6% of the intervals) and 2% during self coaching ( M = 7% of the intervals) and incr eased by 14% during on site coaching ( M = 23 % of the intervals) and 3% during maintenance ( M = 12% of the intervals). With respect to social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills, Devon was engaged with peers for less than 2% of the inter vals, on average, across phases of the study (Table 4 8). social oriented and materials oriented activities and it showed a variation across the phases of the study and across bot h activity types. While his levels of engagement with peers during on site coaching and self coaching were lower than his levels of engagement with peers during baseline across social oriented activities, his level of peer engagement during materials orien ted activities for on site coaching was higher than his level of peer engagement during baseline. Across study phases and activity types, the mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with peers that focused on pre academic skills was less than 3% and difference between activity types were small and negligible. Adult. phases of the study during both social oriented and materials oriented activities. Compared to baseline ( M = 6%), the me an percentage of intervals Devon engaged with adults during both social oriented and materials oriented activities increased by 5% during training ( M = 11%), 30% during on site coaching ( M = 36%), 26% during self

PAGE 191

191 coaching ( M = 32%), and 17% during maintena nce. A similar trend was observed in academic skills across the study phases. He was engaged with adults for less than 1% of the intervals during baseline, 4% during training, 14% during on site coachi ng (i.e., 13% increase over baseline performance), 11% during self coaching (10% increase over baseline performance), and 5% during maintenance (Table 4 6). During activities classified as social, the mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with adu lts also showed an ascending trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 9%), the mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with adults increased by 21% during training ( M = 30%), 44% during on site coaching ( M = 53%), 48% during self coaching ( M = 57%), and 19% during maintenance ( M = 28%). His level of social interaction with adults focused on pre academic skills also showed an ascending trend across study phases. He exhibited engagement with adults for 1% of the intervals during base line, 14% of intervals during training, 23% of intervals during on site coaching (22% increase over baseline performance), 25% of intervals during self coaching (24% increase over baseline performance), and 7% of intervals during maintenance (Table 4 7). D uring activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with adults increased across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 3%), the mean percentage of intervals Devon engaged with adults increased by 3 % during training ( M = 6%), 4% during on site coaching ( M = 7%), 14% during self coaching ( M = 17%), and 18% during maintenance ( M = 21%). He exhibited minimal levels of adult engagement focused on pre academic skills during

PAGE 192

192 training ( M = 1%), during self coaching ( M = 3%), and during maintenance ( M = 5%). No adult engagement with a pre academic skill focus was observed during baseline and on site coaching phases for materials oriented activities (Table 4 8). phases of the study for both activity types. His engagement with adults across study phases during social oriented activities was higher than during materials oriented activities. With respect to social interactions with adults focused on pre academic skil ls, the mean percentages of intervals he was engaged with adults across phases of the study were higher during social oriented activities when compared to materials oriented activities. Object. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities object engagement showed a descending trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 83%), the mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with objects decreased by 3% during training ( M = 80%), 33% during on site coaching ( M = 50 %), 25% during self coaching ( M = 58%), and 23% during maintenance ( M = 60%; Table 4 6). During social substantially following the baseline phase Compared to baseline ( M = 81%), the mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with objects decreased by 26% during training ( M = 55%), 43% during on site coaching ( M = 38%), 47% during self coaching ( M = 34%), and 35% during maintenance ( M = 46%; Table 4 7). During materials oriented activities, althou gh decreases from baseline were site coaching and during the subsequent phases, his levels of object engagement remained high. Compared to

PAGE 193

193 baseline and training ( M = 85%), the mean percentage of intervals Dev on engaged with objects decreased by 15% during on site coaching ( M = 70%), 12% during self coaching ( M = 73%), and 20% during maintenance ( M = 65%; Table 4 8). of the study during both activity types. However, decreases in object engagement during materials oriented activities were considerably smaller than during social oriented activities across all experimental phases. Self. Devon demonstrated self engagement behaviors only du ring the maintenance phase (14% of the coded intervals during social oriented and materials oriented activities and 20% of the coded intervals during materials oriented activities). He did not demonstrate any self engagement behaviors during activities cla ssified as social oriented (Tables 4 6, 4 7, and 4 8). Child 1: Devon Challenging Behaviors During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, activities classified as social, and activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentages of intervals in which Devon exhibited challenging behaviors were less than 2% across all phases of the study and challenging behavior did not increase or decrease significantly relative to baseline. Child 2: Arlene Engagement Behaviors Sophisticated engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, Arlene did not exhibit any sophisticated engagement behaviors during baseline. During training and post training, she demonstrated sophisticated engagement behaviors, on average, for 5% of coded intervals. A 2% increase from post training in sophisticated engagement was observed during on site coaching ( M =

PAGE 194

194 7%). During self coaching, Arlene exhibited sophisticated engagement behaviors for 3% of intervals, on average, a nd this behavior remained stable during the one maintenance activity coded (Table 4 9). Arlene did not exhibit any sophisticated engagement behaviors during baseline for activities classified as social. During training, the mean percentage of intervals she exhibited sophisticated engagement behaviors was 7% and this percentage remained stable until the self coaching phases in which she demonstrated sophisticated engagement behaviors for 1% of the coded intervals (Table 4 10). Across activities classified as materials oriented, Arlene did not exhibit any sophisticated engagement behaviors during baseline and training. During post training, the mean percentage of intervals she was engaged in sophisticated behaviors was 4%. During on site coaching, she demonstr ated sophisticated engagement, on average, for 7% of the intervals. This was followed by 5% of the intervals, on average, during self coaching. In one coded materials oriented activity during maintenance, she demonstrated sophisticated engagement behavior s for 3% of the intervals (Table 4 11). Arlene did not exhibit any sophisticated engagement behaviors during baseline across activity types. Although her level of sophisticated engagement during on site coaching and self coaching was above her baseline lev el, the mean percentages of intervals in which she exhibited sophisticated engagement behaviors were 7% or less across study phases and activity types. Social engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, compared baseline ( M = considerably during training (20% increase, M = 27%), post training (22% increase, M =

PAGE 195

195 29%), on site coaching (19% increase, M = 26%), and self coaching (11% increase, M = 18%). In one coded materials oriented ac tivity during maintenance, she demonstrated social engagement behaviors for 20% of the intervals coded (Table 4 9). Compared to the baseline phase ( M = 9%), the mean percentage of intervals Arlene demonstrated social engagement behaviors during activities classified as social increased significantly across training (24% increase, M = 33%), post training (24% increase, M = 33%), and on site coaching (24% increase, M = 33%). During self coaching, Arlene exhibited social engagement behaviors for 11% of the int ervals coded, on average, which was 2% higher than her baseline level (Table 4 10). Across activities classified as materials oriented, Arlene did not demonstrate any social engagement behaviors during one coded baseline activity. The mean percentage of intervals she exhibited social engagement behaviors across materials oriented activities was 13% during training and on site coaching, 26% during post training, and 22% during self coaching. In one coded maintenance activity, Arlene exhibited social engage ment behaviors for 20% of the intervals (Table 4 11). social versus materials oriented activities ( M social = 9% versus M material = 0%). A substantial increase was observed in s ocial engagement in the training phase across activity types. Improvements in social engagement during on site coaching was higher across social oriented activities, when compared to materials oriented activities, while improvement in social engagement dur ing self coaching was higher across materials oriented activities when compared to social oriented activities.

PAGE 196

196 Combinatorial engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, Arlene showed moderately high levels of combinatorial e ngagement behaviors during baseline ( M = engagement decreased by 19% during training ( M = 29%), 11% during post training ( M = 37%), 17% during on site coaching ( M = 31% of intervals) and 1% during self coa ching ( M = 47%). In one maintenance activity coded, the percentage of intervals she exhibited combinatorial engagement behaviors was 44% (Table 4 9). baseline ( M = 52% of intervals ) across activities classified as social. Compared to baseline, the percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged in combinatorial behaviors decreased considerably during training (23% decrease, M = 29%), post training (13% decrease, M = 39%), and on site coa ching (27% decrease, M = 25%). During self coaching, she demonstrated combinatorial engagement behaviors for 52% of the intervals coded. This was 1% above her baseline level (Table 4 10). Across activities classified as materials oriented, Arlene exhibite d combinatorial engagement behaviors for 24% of the intervals during the one baseline activity coded. Compared to baseline, the percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged in combinatorial behaviors increased somewhat during training (6% increase, M = 30%), post training (10% increase, M = 34%), on site coaching (20% increase, M = 44%), and self coaching (19% increase, M = 43%). In the one maintenance activity coded, the percentage of intervals she exhibited combinatorial engagement behaviors was 44% (Table 4 11).

PAGE 197

197 social oriented activities (except during the self coaching phase) and an ascending trend during materials oriented activities. During the self coaching phase in social or iented activities, the mean percentage of intervals she was engaged in combinatorial engagement behaviors was 1% higher than her baseline level. Differentiated engagement During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals Arlene exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors showed a descending trend across phases of the study. When compared to baseline ( M = 37%), her level of differentiated engagement decreased by 6% during training ( M = 26%), 12% during post t raining ( M = 25%), 7% during on site coaching ( M = 27%), and 13% ( M = 24%) during self coaching. In the one maintenance activity coded, the percentage of intervals she exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors was 26% (Table 4 9). Across activities cla ssified as social, decreased during subsequent phases when compared to baseline ( M = 33%). The mean percentages of intervals Arlene was engaged in differentiated behaviors was 29% during training (4% decrease), 1 8% during post training (25% decrease), 30% during on site coaching (3% decrease), and 32% during self coaching (1% decrease; Table 4 10). Similarly, during activities classified as materials oriented, differentiated engagement showed a d escending trend across phases of the study. In the one baseline activity coded, she was engaged in differentiated behaviors for 57% of the coded intervals. The mean percentage of intervals she exhibited differentiated

PAGE 198

198 engagement behaviors decreased by 20% during training ( M = 37%), 26% during post training ( M = 31%), 25% during on site coaching ( M = 32%), and 37% during self coaching ( M = 20%). In the one maintenance activity coded, the percentage of intervals in which she exhibited differentiated engagemen t behaviors was 26% (Table 4 11). showed a descending trend for both activity types. However, her levels of differentiated engagement across study phases were higher during materials o riented when compared to social oriented activities. Attentional engagement Arlene demonstrated attentional engagement behaviors at minimal levels throughout phases of the study across both social oriented and materials oriented activities. The mean percentage of intervals she exhibited attentional engagement behaviors ranged be tween 2% and 4% across the study phases (Table 4 9). Similarly, during activities classified as social, the mean percentage of attentional engagement intervals ranged between 0% and 3% across phases of the study. She did not show any attentional engagemen t behavior during training and self coaching (Table 4 10). Arlene did not demonstrate any attentional engagement behaviors in the one materials oriented baseline activity coded. The mean percentage of intervals she was engaged in attentional behaviors duri attentional engagement showed a descending trend. The mean percentage of intervals in which she exhibited attentional engagement was 4% during post training, 3% during

PAGE 199

199 on site coaching, and 6% during self c oaching. She was engaged in attentional behaviors for 3% of the intervals in the one maintenance activity coded (Table 4 11). The mean percentage of intervals in which Arlene exhibited attentional engagement behaviors during baseline was higher for social oriented versus materials oriented activities ( M social = 2% versus M material = 0%). Across social oriented during subsequent phases of the study. On the other hand, d uring materials oriented when compared to baseline. During post training, her attentional engagement decreased slightly and it remained stable until the end of the stud y. Undifferentiated engagement. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, activities categorized as social, and activities categorized as materials oriented, the mean percentages of intervals Arlene exhibited undifferentiated engageme nt behaviors were less than 2% across all phases of the study (Tables 4 9, 4 10, and 4 11). Differences in the mean percentages of intervals she exhibited undifferentiated engagement behaviors across study phases during social oriented versus materials ori ented activities were very small and negligible. Non engagement. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals Arlene was non engaged were 6% during baseline and 2% or less during subsequent phases of the study (Table 4 9). Similarly, across activities classified as social, Arlene was non engaged for 4% of the intervals during baseline and 1% of the intervals or less during subsequent phases (Table 4 10). During the one materials oriented baseline activity coded, Arlene was not engaged for 19% of

PAGE 200

200 the intervals. During subsequent phases, the mean percentage of intervals in which she was non engaged was 1% of the intervals or less (Table 4 11). Differences in the mean percentages of intervals Arlene was not en gaged across study phases during social versus materials oriented activities were small and negligible. Child 2: Arlene Engagement Partners Peer. Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities included in the ement with peers showed an ascending trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 5%), the mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with peers increased by 7% during training and self coaching ( M = 12%), 8% during post training ( M = 1 3%), and 2% during on site coaching ( M = 7%). In the one maintenance activity coded, she was engaged with peers for 6% of the intervals. With respect to social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills, Arlene was engaged with peers for less t han 3% of the intervals, on average, across phases of the study (Table 4 12). also showed an ascending trend across phases of the study (excluding the self coaching phase). Co mpared to baseline ( M = 6%), the mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with peers increased by 8% during training and post training ( M =14%), and 1% during on site coaching ( M = 7%). During self coaching, her level of peer engagement was 4% of th e intervals, which was 2% below her baseline level. With respect to social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills, Arlene was engaged with peers for less than 3% of the intervals, on average, across phases of the study (Table 4 13).

PAGE 201

201 Across activities classified as materials oriented, Arlene was engaged with peers for 0% and 6%, respectively, in one baseline and one maintenance activity coded. Compared to baseline, the percentage of intervals she was engaged with peers increased by 8% during training, 13% during post training, 6% during on site coaching, and 17% during self coaching. With respect to social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills, Arlene did not exhibit any peer engagement across phases of the study (Table 4 14). phases of the study for both activity types. Her level of peer engagement during on site coaching was higher for social oriented versus materials oriented activities ( M social = 7 % versus M material = 6%), while it was higher for materials versus social oriented activities ( M material = 17% versus M social = 4%) during self coaching. Adult. phases of the study dur ing both social oriented and materials oriented activities. Compared to baseline ( M = 4%), the mean percentage of intervals Arlene engaged with adults during both social oriented and materials oriented activities increased by 18% during training ( M = 22%) 17% during post training ( M = 21%), 24% during on site coaching ( M = 28%), and 7% during self coaching ( M = 11%). In the one maintenance activity coded, she was engaged with adults for 22% of the intervals. A similar trend was interactions with adults focused on pre academic skills across the study phases. She was engaged with adults for 1% of the intervals during baseline, 5% during training, 8% during post training and on site coaching (i.e., 7%

PAGE 202

202 increase over baseline level), and 1% during self coaching. In the one maintenance activity coded, she was engaged with adults for 9% of the intervals (Table 4 12). During activities classified as social, the mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with adults also showed an ascending trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 5%), the mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with adults increased by 23% during training ( M = 28%), 20% during post training ( M = 25%), 30% during on site coaching ( M = 35%) and 7% during self coaching ( M = 12%). Her level of social interaction with adults focused on pre academic skills also showed an ascending trend across study phases (excluding the self coaching phase). She was engaged with adults for 2% of the intervals during baseline, 7% during training, 10% during post training, 12% during on site coaching (10% increase over baseline level), and 1% during self coaching (1% decrease below baseline level; Table 4 13). During activities classified as materials oriented, t he mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with adults increased across phases of the study. During the one baseline activity coded, Arlene was not engaged with adults. Compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with adults increased by 8% during training, 16% during post training, 15% during on site coaching, and 10% during self coaching. In the one maintenance activity coded, she was engaged with adults for 22% of the intervals. She exhibited minimal levels of adult engagement focused on pre academic skills during post training ( M = 7%) and on site coaching ( M = 1%). In the one maintenance activity coded, she was engaged with adults for 9% of the intervals. No adult engagement with a pre academic skill focus was obser ved during baseline, training, and self coaching phases (Table 4 14).

PAGE 203

203 activity types and her engagement with adults during social oriented activities was higher than during mater ials oriented activities across study phases. With respect to social interactions with adults focused on pre academic skills, the mean percentages of intervals Arlene was engaged with adults across phases of the study were higher during social oriented act ivities when compared to materials oriented activities. Object. During both social oriented and materials engagement with objects showed a descending trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 84%), the mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with objects decreased by 21% during training and on site coaching ( M = 63%), 19% during post training ( M = 65%), and 11% during self coaching ( M = 73%). In the one maintenance activity coded, Arlene was engaged w ith objects for 70% of the intervals (Table 4 12). During social substantially following the baseline phase Compared to baseline ( M = 85%), the mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with objects decreased by 28% during training ( M = 57%), 24% during post training ( M = 61%), 29% during on site coaching ( M = 56%), and 3% during self coaching ( M = 82%; Table 4 13). During materials sh owed a descending trend. However, between phase changes were very small. In the one baseline activity coded, Arlene was engaged with objects for 81% of the intervals. Compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with objects d ecreased by 4% during training ( M = 77%), 12% during post training ( M =

PAGE 204

204 69%), 3% during on site coaching ( M = 78%), and 13% during self coaching ( M = 68%). In the one maintenance activity coded, Arlene was engaged with objects for 70% of the intervals (Table 4 14). of the study during both activity types. However, decreases in object engagement across phases of the study during materials oriented activities were considerably smaller than those occurred during social oriented activities. Self. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, and materials oriente d activities, Arlene demonstrated self engagement behaviors only during the post training phase for 1% or less of the intervals coded. She did not demonstrate any self engagement behaviors during activities classified as social (Tables 4 12, 4 13, and 4 14 ). Child 2: Arlene Challenging Behaviors During both social oriented and materials oriented activities and activities classified as social, the mean percentages of intervals in which Arlene demonstrated challenging behaviors were less than 1% across all phases of the study. She did not exhibit any challenging behaviors across the phases of the study during activities classified as materials oriented. Child 3: Brian Engagement Behaviors Sophisticated engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities and activities classified as social, the mean percentage of intervals Brian exhibited sophisticated engagement behaviors was 4% during baseline and 2% or less during the subsequent phases of the study (Tables 4 15 and 4 16). During acti vities

PAGE 205

205 classified as materials intervals or less, on average, across phases of the study (Table 4 17). Brian exhibited very minimal levels of sophisticated engagement across phases of the study duri ng both activity types. However, his levels of sophisticated engagement across phases of the study appeared to be slightly higher for social oriented activities when compared to materials oriented activities. Social engagement The mean percentage of inte rvals Brian exhibited social engagement behaviors during both social oriented and materials oriented activities varied across experimental phases. During baseline, he exhibited social engagement behaviors for 38% of the intervals, which increased by 15% du ring training ( M = 53%) and decreased by 15% during post training ( M = 38%). With the implementation of on site coaching, the mean percentage of intervals Brian demonstrated social engagement behaviors increased by 17% ( M = 53%; 15% increase over baseline level). During self M = 23%), which was 15% lower than his mean baseline level (Table 4 15). The mean percentage of intervals Brian exhibited social engagement behaviors also varied across phases during activities classified as social. During baseline, he was engaged in social behaviors for 40% of the intervals, followed by an 18% increase during training ( M = 58%). A 12% decrease in the mean percentage of intervals occurred between training and post tra ining ( M = 46%). During on site coaching, the percentage of intervals he exhibited social engagement increased by 15% ( M = 61%; coaching ( M = 37%) was 3% below his baseline l evel (Table 4 16).

PAGE 206

206 The mean percentage of intervals Brian exhibited social engagement during activities classified as materials oriented showed a descending trend across phases of the study. In the one baseline and the one training activity coded, he was e ngaged in social behaviors for 28% and 26% of the intervals, respectively. During post training, a 3% decrease was observed in the mean percentage of intervals ( M = 23%). A 4% decrease in the mean percentage of intervals occurred during on site coaching ( M = 19%; 9% below baseline level). Brian had the lowest level of social engagement ( M = 18%) during self coaching, which was 10% below his baseline level (Table 4 17). of the stu dy during social oriented activities and a descending trend during materials oriented activities. His levels of social engagement across study phases were higher during social oriented activities, when compared to materials oriented activities. Combinator ial engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented of the study. Compared to baseline ( M increased by 10% during p ost training ( M = 26%), 8% during on site coaching ( M = 24% of intervals), and 28% during self coaching ( M = 44%). During training phase, the mean percentage of intervals he exhibited combinatorial engagement behaviors was 4% (Table 4 15). Across activiti es classified as social, decreased from baseline ( M = 17%) to training ( M = 4%) and increased during the subsequent phases of the study. He was engaged in combinatorial behaviors for 14% of the intervals during post trainin g, 18% of the intervals during on site coaching (1%

PAGE 207

207 increase over baseline level), and 32% of the intervals during self coaching (15% increase over baseline level; Table 4 16). Brian exhibited combinatorial engagement behaviors for 11% and 3% of the interv als, respectively, during the one materials oriented baseline and one materials oriented training activity coded. The mean percentage of intervals he demonstrated combinatorial engagement behaviors was 46% during post training, and 48% during on site coach ing and self coaching (37% above baseline level; Table 4 17). social oriented activities and also during materials combinatorial engagement du ring on site coaching and self coaching phases were somewhat higher for materials oriented activities when compared to activities classified as social. Differentiated engagement During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean perc entage of intervals Brian exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors showed a descending trend across phases of the study. When compared to baseline ( M = 26%), his level of differentiated engagement decreased by 1% during training ( M = 25%), 3% during p ost training ( M = 23%), 12% during on site coaching ( M = 14%), and 3% during self coaching ( M = 26%; Table 4 15). The percentage of intervals Brian exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors during activities classified as social was somewhat stable acr oss baseline ( M = 21%), training ( M = 20%), and post training ( M = 23%). When compared to baseline, his level of differentiated engagement decreased by 8% during on site coaching ( M = 13%) and 5% during self coaching ( M = 16%; Table 4 16).

PAGE 208

208 Brian exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors for 56% and 55% of the intervals, respectively, during the one materials oriented baseline and one materials oriented training activity coded. The mean percentage of intervals in which he demonstrated differentiated enga gement behaviors was 24% during post training, 18% during on site coaching (38% below baseline level), and 25% during self coaching (31% below baseline level; Table 4 17). a desc engagement across study phases were higher during materials oriented when compared to social oriented activities. Attentional engagement During both social oriented and m aterials oriented the study. The mean percentage of intervals he was engaged in attentional behaviors was 13% during baseline, 11% during training, 10% during post traini ng, 7% during on site coaching (6% below baseline level), and 6% during self coaching (7% below baseline level; Table 4 15). The percentage of intervals Brian was engaged in attentional behaviors during activities classified as social was stable across bas eline ( M = 14%), training ( M = 12%), and post training ( M = 13%). Compared to baseline, his level of attentional engagement decreased by 8% during on site coaching ( M = 6%) and 1% during self coaching ( M = 13%; Table 4 16). During materials oriented activities, Brian exhibited attentional engagement behaviors for 6% of the intervals or less across phases of the study, with the exception

PAGE 209

209 of on site coaching where 14% of the intervals were coded as attentional engagement (Table 4 17). Although between showed a descending trend during social oriented activities. During materials oriented activities, his attentional engagement during on site coaching was higher than his att entional engagement during other phases. Undifferentiated engagement. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, activities classified as social, and activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentages of intervals Brian exhibited undifferentiated engagement behaviors were 4% or less across phases of the study (Tables 4 15, 4 16, and 4 17). Although the percentages of intervals in which Brian demonstrated undifferentiated engagement behaviors across phases of the study and activity types were very small, he demonstrated more undifferentiated engagement behaviors during social oriented activities, when compared to materials oriented activities. Non engagement. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, a ctivities classified as social, and activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentages of intervals in which Brian was non engaged was 3% or less across phases of the study (Tables 4 15, 4 16, and 4 17). Although the percentages of intervals of non engagement across phases of the study and activity types were very small, he was non engaged more often during social oriented activities when compared to materials oriented activities. Child 3: Brian Engagement Partners Peer. Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities included in the

PAGE 210

210 phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 4%), the mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with peers incr eased by 26% during training ( M = 30%), 6% during post training ( M = 10%), 4% during on site coaching ( M = 8%), and 8% during self coaching ( M = 12%). With respect to social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills, on average, Brian was enga ged with peers for 7% of the intervals during training, 2% during post training, and less than 1% during on site coaching. No social interaction focused on pre academic skills was observed during baseline and self coaching (Table 4 18). engagement with peers during activities classified as social showed an ascending across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 4%), the mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with peers increased by 27% during training ( M = 31%), 8% during post training ( M = 12%), 3% during on site coaching ( M = 7%), and 17% during self coaching ( M = 21%). With respect to social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills, on average, Brian was engaged with peers for 8% of the intervals during tra ining, 1% of intervals during post training, and less than 1% of intervals during on site coaching. No social interaction focused on pre academic skills was observed during baseline and self coaching (Table 4 19). Across activities classified as materials oriented, Brian was engaged with peers for 6% and 26%, respectively, in the one materials oriented baseline and the one materials oriented training activity coded. The percentage of intervals he was engaged with peers was 6% during post training, 10% durin g on site coaching (4% above baseline level), and 9% during self coaching (3% above baseline level). With respect to social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills, Brian was engaged with

PAGE 211

211 peers for 3% of the intervals, on average, during pos t training. No social interaction focused on pre academic skills was observed during any other phases of the study (Table 4 20). phases of the study for both activity types. His lev el of peer engagement during self coaching was higher for social oriented versus materials oriented activities ( M social = 21% versus M material = 9%), while it was higher for materials oriented versus social oriented activities ( M material = 10% versus M social = 7%) during on site coaching. Adult. during both social oriented and materials oriented activities. Compared to baseline ( M = 46%), the mean percentage of intervals Brian engage d with adults during both social oriented and materials oriented activities increased by 3% during on site coaching ( M = 49%) and decreased by 17% during training ( M = 29%), 13% during post training ( M = 33%), and 32% during self coaching ( M = 14%). With r espect to social interactions with adults focused on pre academic skills, on average, Brian was engaged with adults for 22% of the intervals during baseline, 15% during training, 12% during post training and on site coaching, and 5% during self coaching (T able 4 18). During activities classified as social, the mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with adults also varied across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 49%), the mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with adults increa sed by 8% during on site coaching and decreased by 16% during training ( M = 33%), 8% during post training ( M = 41%), and 23% during self coaching ( M = 26%). His level of social interaction with adults focused on pre academic skills showed a descending tren d

PAGE 212

212 across study phases. He exhibited engagement with adults for 25% of the intervals during baseline, 18% during training, 16% during post training, 13% during on site coaching (12% decrease below baseline level), and 17% during self coaching (8% decrease b elow baseline level; Table 4 19). During activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with adults showed a descending trend across phases of the study. Brian was engaged with adults for 28% and 6%, respect ively, in the one materials oriented baseline and the one materials oriented training activity coded. The mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with adults was 19 % during post training, 1 2 % during on site coaching, and 10 % during self coaching. He exhibited adult engagement focused on pre academic skills for 4% of the intervals during post training, 6% during on site coaching, and 1% during self coaching. In the one baseline activity coded, he was engaged with adults for 6% of the intervals. No adu lt engagement with a pre academic skill focus was observed during training (Table 4 20). oriented activities, while his engagement with adults showed a descending trend during m aterials oriented activities. In addition, his engagement with adults across study phases during social oriented activities was higher than during materials oriented activities. With respect to social interaction with adults that focused on pre academic s kills, the mean percentages of intervals Brian was engaged with adults across phases of the study were higher during social oriented activities, when compared to materials oriented activities. Moreover, the mean percentage of intervals he was engaged with adults that

PAGE 213

213 focused on pre academic skills decreased across phases of the study during social oriented activities. Object. During both social oriented and materials engagement with objects varied across phases of the study. Co mpared to baseline ( M = 47%), the mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with objects decreased by 11% during training ( M = 36%), 5% during on site coaching ( M = 42%), and increased by 9% during post training ( M = 56%) and 22% during self coaching ( M = 69%; Table 4 18). During social of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 44%), the mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with objects decreased by 13% during training ( M = 31%) and 10% during on site coaching ( M = 34%), and increased by 1% during post training ( M = 45%) and 7% during self coaching ( M = 51%; Table 4 19). During materials showed an ascending trend. H owever, between phase changes were very small. In the one materials oriented baseline and the one materials oriented training activity coded, Brian was engaged with objects for 67% and 61% of the intervals, respectively. Compared to baseline, the mean per centage of intervals Brian was engaged with objects increased by 8% during post training and self coaching ( M = 75%), and 10% during on site coaching ( M = 77%; Table 4 20). ori ented activities and showed an ascending trend across phases of the study during materials oriented activities. His engagement with objects during materials oriented

PAGE 214

214 activities was relatively higher than during social oriented activities across phases of t he study. Self. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, and social oriented activities only, Brian demonstrated self engagement behaviors only during the baseline phase for less than 1% of the intervals coded. He did not demonstrate any self engagement behaviors during activities classified as materials oriented (Tables 4 18, 4 19, and 4 20). Child 3: Brian Challenging Behaviors During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, activities classified as social, and act ivities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentages of intervals in which Brian demonstrated challenging behaviors were less than 2% across all phases of the study. Child 4: Jessica Engagement Behaviors Sophisticated engagement Across both s ocial oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited sophisticated engagement behaviors was 1% during baseline and post training, 5% during training, and 3% during on site coaching (Table 4 21). During social oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited sophisticated engagement behavior was 6% of the intervals or less across phases of the study (Table 4 22). The mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited sophisticated engagement behaviors was 3% of the intervals or less across phases of the study during activities classified as materials oriented (Table 4 23). Jessica exhibited very minimal levels of sophisticated engagement across phases of the study for both activity types. How ever, her levels of sophisticated

PAGE 215

215 engagement across phases of the study appeared to be slightly higher for social oriented activities when compared to materials oriented activities. Social engagement The mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited soc ial engagement behaviors during both social oriented and materials oriented activities showed an ascending trend across experimental phases. During baseline, she exhibited social engagement behaviors for 16% of the intervals, which increased by 16% during training ( M = 32%), 20% during post training ( M = 36%), and 25% during on site coaching ( M = 41%; Table 4 21). The mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited social engagement behaviors also showed an ascending trend across phases during activities cla ssified as social. During the one social oriented baseline activity coded, she was engaged in social behaviors for 28% of the intervals. Compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica demonstrated social engagement behaviors increased by 5% during training ( M = 33%), 22% during post training ( M = 50%), and 27% during on site coaching ( M = 55%; Table 4 22). The mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited social engagement during activities classified as materials oriented showed an ascendi ng trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 9%), the mean percentage of intervals Jessica demonstrated social engagement behaviors increased by 22% during training ( M = 31%), 13% during post training ( M = 22%), and 4% during on site coac hing ( M = 13%; Table 4 23). phases of the study during social oriented activities and during materials oriented

PAGE 216

216 activities. Her levels of social engagement across study phases were higher during social oriented activities when compared to materials oriented activities. Combinatorial engagement During both social oriented and materials oriented s combinatorial engagement showed an ascending trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M engagement increased by 17% during training ( M = 33%), and 12% during post training and on site coaching ( M = 28%; Tabl e 4 21). During social showed an ascending trend across phases of the study. In the one social oriented baseline activity coded, Jessica was engaged in combinatorial behaviors for 5% of the inte during training and on site coaching ( M = 18%), and 19% during post training ( M = 24%; Table 4 22). During materials owed an ascending trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 21%), M = 56%), 11% during post training ( M = 32%), and 25% during on site coaching ( M = 46%; Table 4 23). J social oriented activities and also materials combinatorial engagement across phases of the study were somewhat higher for materials orient ed activities when compared to activities classified as social.

PAGE 217

217 Differentiated engagement During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors showed a desce nding trend across phases of the study. When compared to baseline ( M = 61%), her level of differentiated engagement decreased by 35% during training ( M = 26%), 29% during post training ( M = 32%), and 45% during on site coaching ( M = 16%; Table 4 21). Simil arly, during social oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors showed a descending trend across phases of the study. In one social oriented baseline activity coded, Jessica was engaged in dif ferentiated behaviors for 58% of the intervals. Compared to baseline, M = 38%), 37% during post training ( M = 21%), and 40% during on site coaching ( M = 18%; Table 4 22). During materials oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals in which Jessica exhibited differentiated engagement behaviors also showed a descending trend across phases of the study. When compared to baseline ( M = 62%), her level of differentiated engagement dec reased by 52% during training ( M = 8%), 20% during post training ( M = 42%), and 50% during on site coaching ( M = 12%; Table 4 23). showed a descending trend for both activity types. D uring the baseline phase, her level differentiated engagement during on site coaching was higher for social oriented

PAGE 218

218 activities when compared to materials oriented activities ( M s ocial = 18% versus M material = 12%). Attentional engagement Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged in attentional behaviors was 3% or less during the first three phases of the study (i.e., baseline, training, and post training). During on site coaching, the mean percentage of intervals she exhibited attentional engagement behaviors was 10% (Table 4 21). Across activities classified as social, Jessica demonstrated attentional eng agement behaviors for 7% of the intervals during the one social oriented baseline activity coded. Across subsequent phases, the mean percentage of intervals she was engaged in attentional engagement was 3% or less (Table 4 22). Across activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged in attentional behaviors was 2% or less during the first three phases of study (i.e., baseline, training, and post training). During on site coaching, the mean percentage of inter vals was 26% (Table 4 23). Jessica exhibited low levels of attentional engagement across study phases and activity types, in general. Her differentiated engagement during on site coaching was higher for materials oriented activities when compared to social oriented activities ( M social = 3% versus M material = 26%). Undifferentiated engagement. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, activities classified as social, and activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentage s of intervals Jessica exhibited undifferentiated

PAGE 219

219 engagement behaviors were 2% or less across phases of the study (Tables 4 21, 4 22, and 4 23). Non engagement. During both social oriented and materials oriented activities, activities classified as social and activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentages of intervals in which Jessica was non engaged were 3% or less across phases of the study (Tables 4 21, 4 22, and 4 23). Child 4: Jessica Engagement Partners Peer. Across both social oriented and materials engagement with peers showed an ascending trend across phases. Compared to baseline ( M = 3%), the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with peers increased by 10% during training ( M = 13%), 5% during post training ( M = 8%), and 4% during on site coaching. Jessica did not exhibited social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills (Table 4 24). orien ted showed an ascending across phases. In the one social oriented baseline activity, she was engaged with peers for 3% of the coded intervals. Compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with peers increased by 10% during tra ining ( M = 13%), 7% during post training ( M = 10%), and 4% during on site coaching ( M = 7%). Jessica did not exhibit social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills during social oriented activities (Table 4 25). f engagement with peers during activities classified as materials oriented showed an ascending trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 3%), the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with peers increased by 10% during training ( M = 13%), 2% during post training ( M = 5%), and 3%

PAGE 220

220 during on site coaching ( M = 6%). Jessica did not exhibited social interactions with peers focused on pre academic skills during materials oriented activities (Table 4 26). nt with peers showed an ascending trend across phases of the study for both activity types. Her level of peer engagement during with peers during on site coaching was high er for social oriented versus materials oriented activities ( M social = 7% versus M material = 6%). Adult. phases of the study during both social oriented and materials oriented activiti es. Compared to baseline ( M = 17%), the mean percentage of intervals Jessica engaged with adults during both social oriented and materials oriented activities increased by 7% during training ( M = 24%), 16% during post training ( M = 33%), and 23% during on site coaching ( M = 40%). With respect to social interactions with adults focused on pre academic skills, on average, Jessica was engaged with adults for 1% of the intervals during baseline, 5% during training, 10% during post training, and 12% during on s ite coaching (Table 4 24). During activities classified as social oriented, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with adults also increased across phases of the study. In one social oriented baseline activity, she was engaged with adults fo r 30% of the intervals. Compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with adults increased by 16% during post training and 26% during on site coaching, and decreased by 2% during training. Similarly, her level of social intera ction with adults focused on pre academic skills showed an ascending trend across study phases. In the

PAGE 221

221 one social oriented baseline activity coded, she was engaged with adults for 3% of the intervals. On average, she exhibited engagement with adults that f ocused on pre academic skills for 4% of the intervals during training, 18% during post training, and 16% during on site coaching (Table 4 25). During activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with adu lts increased during the first two phases following baseline (i.e., training and post training) and decreased during the last phase (on site coaching). She was engaged with adults for 10% of the intervals during baseline, 18% during training, 19% during po st training, and 7% during on site coaching (3% below baseline level). She did not exhibit adult engagement focused on pre academic skills during baseline. The mean percentage of intervals she was engaged with adults that focused on pre academic skills was 6% of the intervals during training, and 2% of the intervals post training and during on site coaching (Table 4 26). the study during social oriented activities. In materials orie nted activities, her level of adult engagement increased during the first two phases of the study and decreased below baseline levels during on adults during social oriented activities was higher than d uring materials oriented activities across study phases. With respect to social interaction with adults that focused on pre academic skills, the mean percentages of intervals Jessica was engaged with adults across phases of the study showed an ascending t rend for both activity types. However, her engagement

PAGE 222

222 with adults was higher during social oriented activities when compared to materials oriented activities. Object. During both social oriented and materials engagement with objects showed a descending trend across phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 77%), the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with objects decreased by 16% during training ( M = 61%), 19% during post training ( M = 58%), and 25% during on site coaching ( M = 52%; Table 4 24). During social descending trend across phases of the study. In the one social oriented baseline activity coded, she was engaged with objects for 67% of th e intervals. Compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with objects decreased by 12% during training ( M = 55%), 24% during post training ( M = 43%), and 31% during on site coaching ( M = 36%; Table 4 25). During activities cl assified as materials oriented, the mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with objects decreased during the first two phases following baseline (i.e., training and post training) and increased above the baseline level during the last phase (on s ite coaching). She was engaged with adults for 82% of the intervals during baseline, 69% during training, 73% during after training, and 84% during on site coaching (2% above baseline level; Table 4 26). the study during social oriented activities. In materials oriented activities, her level of object engagement decreased during the first two phases of the study and increased abov e the baseline level during on

PAGE 223

223 with objects during materials oriented activities was considerably higher than during social oriented activities across study phases. Self. During both social oriented and mat erials oriented activities, social oriented activities, or materials oriented activities, Jessica did not exhibit self engagement behaviors (Tables 4 24, 4 25, and 4 26). Child 4: Jessica Challenging Behaviors During both social oriented and materials or iented activities, activities classified as social, and activities classified as materials oriented, the mean percentages of intervals in which Jessica demonstrated challenging behaviors were less than 2% across all phases of the study. Research Question Learning Trials initiated activities that met the inclusion criteria for social oriented and materials oriented activities. Results are presented for each teacher individually by activity type. EILTs. Teacher i mplementation data for each child initiated activity were averaged over the total number of both social oriented and materials oriented activities, total number of social oriented activities, and total number of materials oriented activities within an expe rimental phase to calculate a mean percentage and rate score for correct teacher implementation were evaluated relative to baseline levels.

PAGE 224

224 Teacher 1: Nancy During both social orien ted and materials oriented child initiated activities, compared to baseline ( M = 44%), the percentage of EILTs Nancy implemented correctly increased by 6% during training (M = 50%), 11% during on site coaching ( M = 55%), and 25% during self coaching ( M = 69%) and decreased by 8% during maintenance ( M = 36%). Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean rate per minute of correctly implemented EILTs increased by .3 trial during on site coaching ( M = .6) and .1 trial during self c oaching ( M = .4), and decreased by .2 trial during maintenance ( M = .1), when compared to baseline and training ( M = .3; Table 4 27 and Figure 4 1). During activities classified as social, compared to baseline ( M = 55%), the percentage of EILTs Nancy imple mented correctly increased by 16% during training ( M =71%), 18% during on site coaching ( M = 73%), and 38% during self coaching ( M = 93%). During maintenance, her correct implementation was 0%. Compared to baseline ( M = .4), the mean rate per min ute of cor rectly implemented EILTs during social oriented activities increased by .5 trial during training and on site coaching ( M = .9) and .2 during self coaching ( M = .6). The mean rate of correct implementation was 0 trials during maintenance (Table 4 28 and Fig ure 4 1). During activities classified as materials oriented, the percentage of EILTs Nancy implemented correctly varied across the phases of the study. Compared to baseline ( M = 33%), the mean percentage of EILTs Nancy implemented correctly increased by 1 2% during training ( M = 45%), 7% during self coaching ( M = 40%), and 9% during maintenance ( M = 42%), and decreased by 3% during on site coaching. With respect to

PAGE 225

225 trial d uring on site coaching ( M = <.1) and maintenance ( M = 1), and remained the same during training ( M = .2) and self coaching ( M = .2), when compared to baseline ( M = .2; Table 4 29 and Figure 4 1). ding trend across phases of the study (excluding maintenance) during social oriented activities, while it varied across phases during materials oriented activities. Across on site coaching and self coaching during social tage of correct implementation was two times higher than those reported during materials EILTs across study phases and activity types showed a similar pattern of change. T eacher 2: Betsy During both social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities, compared to baseline ( M = 20%), the percentage of EILTs Betsy implemented decreased by 20% during training ( M = 0%) and 3% during post training ( M = 17%) and inc reased by 33% during on site coaching (M = 53%) and 40% during self coaching ( M = 60%). In the one maintenance activity coded, her percentage of correct implementation of EILTs was 67%. Across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mea n rate per minute of correctly implemented EILTs by Betsy was .2 trial during baseline, no trials during training, <.1 trial during post training, .3 trial during on site coaching, and .3 trial during self coaching. In one maintenance activity coded, her r ate per minute of correct implementation of EILTs was .5 trial (Table 4 30 and Figure 4 1). During activities classified as social, compared to baseline ( M = 24%), the percentage of EILTs Nancy implemented correctly decreased by 24% during training ( M

PAGE 226

226 = 0% ) and 15% during post training ( M = 9%), and increased by 30% during on site coaching ( M = 54%) and 18% during self coaching ( M = 42%). In addition, compared to baseline ( M = .3), the mean rate per minute of correctly implemented EILTs during social orient ed activities remained the same during on site coaching ( M = .3) and self coaching ( M = .3), and decreased by .3 trial during training ( M = 0) and .2 trial during post training ( M = <.1; Table 4 31 and Figure 4 1). During activities classified as materials oriented, the percentage of EILTs Nancy implemented correctly showed an ascending trend across the phases of the study. In the one materials oriented baseline activity, her correct implementation was 0%. Similarly, during training, she did not implement a ny trials correctly ( M = 0%). The mean percentage of EILTs Nancy implemented correctly was 24% during post training, 50% during on site coaching, and 79% during self coaching. In the one materials oriented maintenance activity, her correct implementation w as 67%. Similarly, her rate per minute of correct implementation was 0 trial during one baseline activity. The mean rate of correct implementation was 0 trial during training, < .1 trial during post training, .3 trial during on site, and .4 trial during se lf coaching. In the one maintenance activity, her rate per minute of correct implementation of EILTs was .5 trial (Table 4 32 and Figure 4 1). site coaching and self coaching ph ases were above her levels of correct implementation during the baseline phase. Across activity types, the percentage of correct implementation during on site coaching was comparable. However, the percentage of correct implementation during self coaching w as higher for materials oriented activities

PAGE 227

227 versus social on site coaching and self coaching phases were comparable across activity types. Teacher 3: Kim During both social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities, compared to baseline ( M = 39%), the percentage of EILTs Kim implemented correctly increased by 15% during training (M = 54%), 10% during post training, and 26% during on site coaching and self coaching pha ses ( M = correctly implemented EILTs showed a generally descending trend. She implemented a mean rate of .6 trial during baseline. Compared to baseline, her mean rate of correctly implemented EILTs decreased by .2 trial during training ( M = .4), .4 trial during post training ( M = .2), and .2 trial during self coaching ( M = .4). During on site coaching, her mean rate of correctly implemented EILTs increased by .2 trial ( M =.8), when compared to baseline (Table 4 33 and Figure 4 1 ). During activities classified as social, compared to baseline ( M = 45%), the percentage of EILTs Kim implemented correctly increased by 18% during training and on site coaching ( M = 63%), 4% dur ing post training ( M = 49%), and 36% during self ute of correctly implemented EILTs showed a generally descending trend during social oriented activities. She implemented a mean rate of .8 trial during baseline. Compared to baseline, her mean rate of correctly implemented EILTs decreased by .4 trial during training ( M = .4), .6 trial during post training ( M = .2), and .4 trials during self coaching ( M = .4). During on site coaching, her mean rate of correctly implemented EIL Ts increased by .1 trial ( M = .9), when compared to baseline (Table 4 34 and Figure 4 1).

PAGE 228

228 Across activities classified as materials oriented, Kim did not implement any EILTs correctly during baseline and training phases. Her mean percentage of correct impl ementation was 50% during post training, 75% during on site coaching, and 59% during self coaching. Similarly, her rate per minute of correctly implemented EILTs was 0 trial during the one baseline activity and the one training activity coded. The mean rat e of correct implementation was .1 trial during post training and on site coaching, and .4 trial during self coaching (Table 4 35 and Figure 4 1). ascending trend throughout phase s of the study. Across activity types, the mean percentage of correct implementation during baseline and training phases were higher for social oriented activities when compared to materials oriented activities. Mean percentage of correct implementation du ring on site coaching was higher for social oriented activities versus materials oriented activities, while mean percentage of correct implementation during self coaching was higher for materials oriented activities versus social oriented activities. The m ean rate per minute of correctly implemented EILTs during on site coaching was higher than during baseline across activity types. However, the mean rate of correctly implemented EILTs during self coaching was higher than during baseline for materials orien ted activities only. Teacher 4: Diana During both social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities, compared to baseline ( M = 51%), the percentage of EILTs Diana implemented correctly increased by 6% during training (M = 57%), 8% during p ost training (M = 59%), and 20% during on site coaching ( M = ute of correctly

PAGE 229

229 implemented EILTs was .3 trial across baseline, training, and post training and it increased to .4 trial during on site coaching (Table 4 36 and Fi gure 4 1). In the one social implementation was 53%. Compared to baseline, the percentage of EILTs correctly implemented decreased by 3% during training ( M = 50%) and increased by 24% during p ost training ( M = 77%) and 29% during on site coaching ( M = 82%). In the one ute of correctly implemented EILTs was .5 trial. Her mean rate of implemented EILTs was .3 trial during training, .4 trial during post training, and .6 trial during on site coaching (Table 4 37 and Figure 4 1). During materials oriented activities, compared to baseline ( M = 50%), the percentage of EILTs Diana implemented correctly increased by 17% during training (M = 67%), decreased by 8% during post training (M = 42%), and remained the same during on site coaching ( M = ute of implemented EILTs was .1 trial during baseline, .3 trial during training, .2 trial during post training, and .1 trial during on site coaching (Table 4 38 and Figure 4 1). throughout phases of the study during social oriented activities and varied across the phases during materials oriented activities. Across materials oriented activities, her percentage of correct implementation during on site coaching was the same as her level of correct implementation during baseline. Research Question 3: Corollary Relationships Between Child Engagement Behaviors and Teacher Implementation of Embedded Instruction Learn ing Trials In this section, results are presented for the corollary relationships between changes in engagement behaviors and partners of participating children and their

PAGE 230

230 a implementation of EILTs were examined by comparing baseline mean percentage scores to mean percentage scores in on site coaching and self coaching. Second, o rder correlation analyses were conducted by using mean percentage (a) baseline, training, post training, and on site coaching ( r oc ); and (b) baseline, training, post trainin g, and self coaching ( r sc ). Results are presented for each teacher child dyad and by activity type. Dyad 1: Nancy Devon During both social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities, the mean percentage and rate of EILTs implemented corre ctly by Nancy increased during on site coaching and self coaching phases, when compared to baseline. As shown in Figure 4 mean percentage of intervals in which Devon exhibited soci al engagement behaviors increased above baseline levels during on site and self overall engagement with adults and his social interactions with adults that focused on pre academic skills increased during on site coaching and self c oaching phases in 3). In addition, when which Devon demonstrated combinatorial and differentiated engageme nt behaviors and his engagement with objects decreased during on site coaching and self coaching, when compared to baseline. When Nancy implemented EILTs correctly during the att entional engagement decreased considerably and remaine d

PAGE 231

231 very stable at low levels across successive phases of the study. Devon exhibited sophisticated, undifferentiated, and non engagement behaviors infrequently, as Nancy increased her correct implementation of EILTs across phases of the study. Results of t he rank order correlation analyses showed correct implementation of EILTs across phases of the study during both social oriented and materials oriented activities were ( r oc = r sc = 1.00) combinatorial ( r oc = r sc = .50) differentiated ( r oc = .50; r sc = 1.00), and attentional engagement ( r oc = 1.00; r sc = .87) behaviors as well as his engagement with adults ( r oc = r sc = 1.00), his social interactions with adults that focused on pre academic skills ( r oc = r sc = 1.00), and his engagement with objects ( r oc = r sc = 1.00) C orollary relationships were not examined for engagement behaviors that occurred infrequently (i.e., sophisticated, undifferentiated, and non engaged) in relation t of EILTs For social oriented activities, similar corollary relationships between the changes ( r oc = r sc = 1.00) and combinatorial ( r oc = r sc = 1.00) engagement behaviors as well as his engagement with adults ( r oc = r sc = 1.00), his social interactions with adults that focused on pre academic skills ( r oc = r sc = 1.00), and his engagement with objects ( r oc = r sc = 1.00) were found There were not cle behaviors during social oriented activities. For materials ation varied across

PAGE 232

232 ( r oc = 1.00; r sc = .50) and differentiated ( r oc = 1.00; r sc = .50) engag ement behaviors and attentional engagement behaviors as well as his engagement with peers, adults, objects and self of EILTs. Dyad 2: Betsy Arlene Across both social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities, Betsy implemented some EILTs correctly during baseline (20% correct) and no EILTs correctly during training. Following training, her correct im plementation of EILTs during child initiated activities began to increase. Compared to baseline high levels of correct implementation were only observed when on site coaching was implemented. The mean EILTs implementation percentage remained high during self coaching and percentage of correct implementation was higher during self coaching when compared to on site coaching. As shown in Figure 4 4, corresponding to increases in implementation of EILTs during child initiated social oriented and materials oriented and her differentiated engagement behaviors decreased. Similar to in creases in social 5). level of combinatorial engagement varied, indicating no clear corollary relationship between the two variables. Sophisticated, attentional, undifferentiated, and non

PAGE 233

233 engagement behaviors occurred very infrequently and remained stable across pha ses Results of the rank implementation of EILTs across phases of the study during social oriented and materials orien r oc = r sc = .60) and differentiated ( r oc = r sc = .40) engagement behaviors as well as her engagement with adults ( r oc = .40; r sc behaviors d occurred infreque ntly (i.e., sophisticated, attentional, undifferentiated, and non engaged). During social similar patters of change as described above for both social oriented and materials oriented acti vities. As shown in Figures 4 4 and 4 increased. Her levels of combinatorial and differentiated engagement behaviors as well as engage implementation of EILTs increased. Sophisticated, attentional, undifferentiated, and non engagement behaviors occurred infrequently and remained stable across phases of the study, a phases of the study during social

PAGE 234

234 social en gagement behavior ( r oc = .50; r sc = .74) as well as her engagement with adults ( r oc = .63; r sc behaviors and her engagement with object and peers did not seem to be associated with c During materials oriented activities, Betsy did not implement any EILTs correctly during child initiated activities coded in baseline and training phases and her correct implementation gradually increased starting in the post training phase. As shown in Figure 4 across study phases during materials engagement behaviors increased and her diff erentiated engagement behavior EILTs increased, order correlation the study during materials oriented activities were related to ch combinatorial ( r oc = r sc = .95) and differentiated ( r oc = .74; r sc = .95) engagement behaviors as well as her engagement with adults ( r oc = r sc social engagement behaviors did not seem to be associated wit correct implementation of EILTs. Dyad 3: Kim Brian During both social oriented and materials implementation of EILTs during child initiated activities showed an ascending trend across phases of the study. As shown in Figure 4 6, corresponding to increases in

PAGE 235

23 5 behaviors and decreases in his differentiated and attentional engagement behaviors els of social engagement varied across phases of the study, increase (Figure 4 gagement with adults varied across phases of the study level of social interactions with adults focused on pre academic skills showed a descending trend. Brian exhibited sophisticated, undifferentiated, and non engagement behaviors infrequently, as Kim increased her correct implementation of EILTs across phases of the study indicating no clea r corollary relationships. Results of the rank implementation of EILTs across phases of the study during social oriented and materials torial ( r oc = .40; r sc = .60), differentiated ( r oc = .80; r sc = .63), and attentional ( r oc = r sc = .80) engagement behaviors as well as his engagement with peers ( r oc = .40; r sc = .80) and social interactions with adults that focused on pre academic skills ( r oc = .63; r sc = .80). sophisticated, undifferentiated, and non engaged behaviors.

PAGE 236

236 During social ascending trend across phases of the study. As shown in Figure 4 6, corresponding to i oriented activities, as his engagement with adults that focused on pre academic skills decreased across Sophisticated, undifferentiated, and non engagement behaviors occurred infrequently and remained st and Brian levels of engagement with peer, adults, and objects were less evident during social oriente d activities. Results of the rank implementation of EILTs across phases of the study during social oriented activities r oc = r sc = .40), differen tiated ( r oc = .74; r sc = .80), and attentional ( r oc = .95; r sc = .63) engagement behaviors as well as his engagement with peers ( r oc = .63; r sc = .80) and adults focused on pre academic skills ( r oc = .63; r sc = agement behaviors and his engagement with adults and objects did not seem to be associated with changes in During materials increased dramatically during the last thr ee phases of the study. As shown in Figures 4 6 and 4

PAGE 237

237 study phases during materials engagement behaviors decreased and his com binatorial engagement behaviors as well Results of the rank order correlation analyse of EILTs across phases of the study during materials oriented activities were related to r oc = r sc = .95), combinatorial ( r oc = r sc = .95), and differentiated ( r oc = .95; r sc = .74) engagement behaviors as well as his engagement with objects ( r oc = .95; r sc and engagement with peers and adults did not seem to be associated with changes in s. Dyad 4: Diana Jessica During both social oriented and materials oriented child initiated activities, the study. As shown in Figures 4 8 and 4 9, corresponding to incre engagement behaviors as well as her engagement with adults (including social interactions that focused on pre academic skills) were observed. In addition, as D well as her engagement with objects were observed. Jessica exhibited sophisticated, attentional, undifferentiated, and non engagement behaviors infrequently, as Di ana increased her correct implementation of EILTs across phases of the study. Results of the rank across phases of the study during social oriented and materials oriented activiti es were

PAGE 238

238 r oc = 1.00), combinatorial ( r oc = .63), and differentiated ( r oc = .80) engagement behaviors as well as her engagement with adults ( r oc = 1.00) and objects ( r oc = gagement with EILTs. Corollary relationships were not examined for engagement behaviors that occurred infrequently (i.e., sophisticated, attentional, undifferentiated, an d non During social an ascending trend across phases of the study. As shown in Figures 4 8 and 4 9, implementation increased were the same as those reported above for both social oriented and materials oriented activities. Rank order correlation coefficients were similar to those reported for both so cial oriented and materials oriented activities. During materials increased during training and decreased during post training and on site coaching. As shown in Figures 4 8 and 4 9, changes in J r oc = .63) and differentiated ( r oc = undifferentiated, and non engagement behav iors as well as her engagement with peers, implementation of EILTs.

PAGE 239

239 Summary of Findings Across Dyads Child Engagement Behavior With respect to child engagement behaviors during both social oriented and materials oriented activities, although the percentages of intervals in which children engaged in sophisticated behaviors were very small, Arlene and Jessica increased their sophist icated engagement behaviors across the training and coaching phases of the engagement decreased with the introduction of training and remained below baseline across the su bsequent phases of the study. Devon demonstrated few sophisticated engagement behaviors until maintenance phase where he was engaged in sophisticated behaviors for 8% of intervals on average. During the training phase, the mean percentage of intervals in which all children engaged in social behaviors increased relative to baseline and these increases continued for 3 out of 4 children in subsequent phases. For Brian, the mean percentage of intervals in which he engaged in social behaviors remained stable du ring on site coaching when compared to training, and decreased below baseline levels during self coaching. As opposed to increases in social engagement behaviors, during the training phase, there was a decrease in the mean percentage of intervals in which differentiated behaviors occurred relative to baseline for all four children and differentiated engagement showed a generally decreasing trend across subsequent experimental phases. In terms of combinatorial engagement, there were mixed findings. When com pared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals in which children engaged in

PAGE 240

240 combinatorial behaviors increased for Brian and Jessica, and decreased for Devon and Arlene during on site coaching or self coaching. The mean percentage of intervals in which attentional behaviors occurred decreased in the training phase relative to baseline for Devon and Brian, and the decrease continued across the subsequent phases of the study. Arlene and Jessica demonstrated more attentional engagement behaviors duri ng on site coaching or self coaching when compared to baseline. Changes in the mean percentage of intervals children were non engaged or engaged in undifferentiated behaviors were minimal across all phases of the study. Similar to the findings reported for both social oriented and materials oriented activities, sophisticated engagement behaviors were observed infrequently across study phases and children during social oriented activities. The mean percentage of intervals Arlene and Jessica were engaged in s ophisticated behaviors increased in the training phase relative to baseline and remained above baseline levels during on site coaching. sophisticated engagement during social o riented activities decreased across phases of the study. The mean percentage of intervals children engaged in social behaviors increased in the training phase for all four children relative to baseline and remained above the baseline level across subsequen t phases for three of the four children. For combinatorial engagement during social percentages during on site coaching and self coaching were below his baseline and siderably during training and remained below baseline percentages until the self coaching phase where she exhibited

PAGE 241

241 combinatorial engagement behaviors slightly more than during baseline. The mean percentages of intervals Brian and Jessica were engaged in c ombinatorial behaviors during on site coaching and self coaching were higher than during baseline. With respect to differentiated engagement, mean percentage of intervals engaged in differentiated engagement behaviors during social oriented activities show ed a descending trend for Brian and Jessica across phases of the study. For both children, levels of differentiated engagement during on site coaching and self coaching orie nted activities decreased across the training and post training phases, and an increase was observed during on site and self coaching phases. Nevertheless, the mean percentage of intervals in which she was engaged in differentiated behaviors during on site coaching and self differentiated engagement was below his baseline levels during subsequent phases of the study, except during the on site coaching phase when he demonstrated differentiated engagement behaviors slightly higher than baseline. For 3 out of 4 children, attentional engagement generally showed a descending trend across phases of the study during social oriented activities. Undifferentiated engagement behaviors and non engagement were observed infreq uently across phases and children, and therefore, between phase changes in the mean percentage scores for undifferentiated engagement and non engagement were negligible. Similar to findings reported for both social oriented and materials oriented activiti es combined and social oriented activities, sophisticated engagement behaviors occurred infrequently for all children across study phases during materials oriented

PAGE 242

242 activities. Compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals children were engaged in sophisticated behaviors increased for Devon and Arlene during the training phase and remained above baseline levels during on site coaching or self coaching. Between phase changes for Brian and Jessica were negligible. The mean percentage of intervals en gaged in social behaviors during materials oriented activities increased for 3 out of 4 children with the introduction of training and remained higher than baseline percentages across subsequent phases of the study. nding trend across phases of the study. For 3 out of 4 children, the mean percentage of intervals engaged in combinatorial behaviors during materials oriented activities for on site coaching or self coaching phases was higher than baseline percentages. Th e mean percentage of intervals in which Devon exhibited combinatorial engagement behaviors during on site coaching and self coaching phases was below his baseline mean percentage. Differentiated engagement during materials oriented activities showed a des differentiated engagement during the on site coaching phase was slightly higher than his differentiated engagement during baseline. In terms of attentional engagement during materia ls engagement decreased across phases of the study. Arlene did not demonstrate any attentional engagement behavior during the only baseline activity coded. Her attentional engagement notably increased during the training phase. attentional engagement decreased considerably and remained stable across the

PAGE 243

243 site coaching was higher relative to baseline. Changes in undiffere ntiated engagement across phases of the study were very small and negligible across all four children during materials oriented activities. engagement decreased during the training phase relative to baseline and remained very lo w during subsequent phases of the study. Between phase changes in non engagement were negligible for Devon and Brian. Child Engagement Partner With respect to engagement partners of participating children during both social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals engaged with peers during the on site coaching phase was higher than the mean percentage of intervals engaged with peers during baseline for all four children. The mean percentage of intervals engaged with peer s during the self coaching phase was higher than baseline for 2 out of 3 children whose teachers received self coaching. Devon was engaged with peers less during self coaching when compared to baseline. During the training phase, the mean percentage of in tervals engaged with adults showed increases relative to baseline for 3 of 4 children and engagement with adults remained above baseline levels for all four children during the on site coaching phase for 2 of 3 children during self coaching. When compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals engaged with adults related to pre academic skills increased for 3 out of 4 children during on site coaching and for 1 of 3 children during self coaching. pre academic skills showed a engagement with adults related to pre academic skills was higher during on site coaching and lower during self coaching.

PAGE 244

244 With respect to engagement partners of participating children during social oriented activities, when compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals engaged with peers was higher for 3 of 4 children during on site coaching and 1 of 3 children during self coaching. When compa red to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals engaged with adults was higher for all children during on site coaching and for 2 of 3 children during self coaching. With respect to adult engagement focused on pre academic skills, 3 of 4 children during on site coaching and 1 of 3 children during self coaching had a mean percentage score higher than their baseline. With respect to engagement partners of participating children during materials oriented activities, when compared to baseline, the mean perce ntage of intervals engaged with peers was higher for all four children during on site coaching and 2 of 3 children during self coaching. When compared to baseline, the mean percentage of intervals engaged with adults was higher for 2 of 4 children during o n site coaching and for 2 of 3 children during self coaching. Adult engagement focused on pre academic skills was observed infrequently across phases of the study and children. Mean percentage of intervals engaged with objects during baseline was higher th an mean percentage of intervals engaged with objects during on site coaching for 2 out of 4 children and during self coaching for 2 out of 3 children. During materials oriented activities, self engagement was observed very infrequently across phases of the study and children. Data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities indicated that when compared to baseline, the mean percentage of correct implementation of EILTs increase d for 3 out of the 4 teachers with the implementation of training and the

PAGE 245

245 increase on percentage of correct implementation continued during on site coaching and self coaching. Likewise, the mean rate per minute of correctly implemented EILTs increased for 3 out of 4 teachers during on site coaching, when compared to baseline, and remained higher than baseline during self coaching for 1 teacher. For Betsy, mean percentage of correct implementation only increased with the implementation of on site coaching an d the increase continued during self coaching and maintenance. Her mean rate of correct implementation during baseline and on site coaching was equal, and an increase in the mean rate was observed during self coaching and maintenance. Between phase changes oriented activities were similar to those reported for both social oriented and materials oriented activities. For materials imp the training phase, decreased below her baseline performance during the on site coaching phase, and increased above baseline during self coaching and maintenance. Betsy and Ki m did not implement any EILTs correctly across baseline and training phases during materials oriented activities. During post implementation increased slightly relative to baseline and Kim had a notable increase in EILTs implement ation during materials oriented activities. Betsy improved her correct implementation substantially relative to baseline during on site coaching and self coaching and maintained it during the only materials oriented maintenance activity coded. Kim also inc reased her correct implementation during on site coaching and self coaching relative to post training. For materials

PAGE 246

246 implementation increased during training, decreased below her baseline levels during post training, an d increased to baseline performance levels during on site coaching. Implementation of Embedded Instruction Learning Trials Across social oriented and materials oriented activities, corollary r elationships four child engagement behaviors and three child engagement partners. of EILTs and social and combinatorial engagement behaviors for three children, differentiated engagement behaviors for all four children, attentional engagement behaviors for two children, peer engagement for one child, adult engagement for three children, object enga gement for two children, and social interactions with adults that focuses on pre academic skills for two children. Across activities classified as social oriented, corollary relationships were nd four child engagement behaviors and three engagement partners. A corollary relationship was observed engagement behaviors for three children, differentiated engagement behavi ors for two children, attentional engagement behaviors for one child, peer engagement for one child, adult engagement for three children, object engagement for two children, and social interactions with adults that focus on pre academic skills for two chil dren. During materials oriented activities, corollary relationships were identified behaviors and two engagement partners. A corollary relationship was observed

PAGE 247

247 correct implementation and social engagement behaviors for one child, combinatorial and differentiated engagement behaviors for all four children, adult engagement for one child, and object engagement for one child.

PAGE 248

248 Table 4 1. Reliability for engagement coding by teacher child d yad Participant Percent Agreement Kappa M Range M Range Engagement behavior Dyad 1 86 74 94 .74 .57 .86 Dyad 2 85 76 95 .76 .45 .91 Dyad 3 84 72 96 .72 .58 .91 Dyad 4 84 74 100 .73 .57 1.00 Overall 85 72 100 .74 .45 1.00 Engagement partner Dyad 1 81 68 94 .70 .51 .86 Dyad 2 80 66 89 .68 .40 .85 Dyad 3 80 64 96 .69 .51 .91 Dyad 4 81 65 100 .71 .54 1.00 Overall 81 64 100 .70 .40 1.00 Challenging Behavior Dyad 1 100 98 100 .89 .83 1.00 Dyad 2 99 97 100 .86 .77 1.00 Dyad 3 100 98 100 .94 .90 1.00 Dyad 4 99 96 100 .91 .77 1.00 Overall 100 99 100 .90 .77 1.00 Note. Percent agreement and kappa scores for engagement partner were calculated based on total number of intervals in which two coders agreed on engagement behaviors.

PAGE 249

249 Table 4 2. Occurrence and non occurrence agreement by engagement code Code Percent Occurrence Agreement Percent Occurrence + Nonoccurrence Agreement M Range M Range Engagement behavior Sophisticated 75 58 84 99 98 99 Social 88 83 92 93 91 93 Combinatorial 88 84 91 93 91 94 Differentiated 80 76 84 92 88 91 Attentional 76 67 78 98 96 99 Undifferentiated 33 0 57 100 99 100 Non engaged 48 0 100 100 99 100 Engagement partner Peer 75 64 85 96 94 99 Peer content 45 30 57 99 98 99 Adult 83 75 89 93 89 95 Adult content 70 65 73 94 92 98 Object 88 76 95 94 89 95 Self 35 0 70 100 99 100 Challenging Behavior 73 0 100 98 96 100

PAGE 250

250 Table 4 (child 1) percent interval data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 8) M 0 10 48 29 12 <1 <1 SD 9 21 15 14 1 1 Range 0 22 16 74 5 49 0 40 0 3 0 2 Training (N = 11) M 0 16 53 26 3 <1 1 SD 16 15 17 3 1 1 Range 0 59 38 86 0 49 0 11 0 3 0 3 On site Coaching (N = 11) M 1 48 21 27 1 0 0 SD 2 28 15 21 3 Range 0 6 2 88 0 44 2 76 0 7 Self coaching (N = 8) M <1 34 36 23 3 <1 1 SD 1 19 22 16 3 1 2 Range 0 3 8 65 6 68 0 44 0 8 0 3 0 5 Maintenance (N = 7) M 8 29 47 13 1 <1 <1 SD 7 12 15 7 2 1 1 Range 0 20 15 49 16 57 4 23 0 4 0 1 0 2 Total (N = 45) M 2 28 40 24 4 <1 <1 SD 4 23 21 17 7 1 1 Range 0 20 0 88 0 86 0 76 0 40 0 3 0 5 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Soc ial, COMB = Combinatorial, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged.

PAGE 251

251 Table 4 (child 1) percent interval data for social oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 4) M 0 12 47 21 20 0 0 SD 11 20 11 17 Range 0 22 26 69 5 30 6 40 Training (N = 2) M 0 43 42 14 1 0 1 SD 23 5 14 2 1 Range 27 59 38 45 3 24 0 3 0 1 On site Coaching (N = 7) M 0 58 16 22 2 0 0 SD 29 14 25 3 Range 2 88 0 36 2 76 0 7 Self coaching (N = 3) M 0 54 17 16 5 1 1 SD 12 16 14 4 2 2 Range 41 65 6 35 0 27 0 8 0 3 0 3 Maintenance (N = 2) M 14 39 33 11 0 0 1 SD 8 14 25 6 1 Range 8 20 30 49 16 51 7 16 0 2 Total (N = 18) M 2 43 28 19 6 <1 SD 5 27 20 17 11 1 Range 0 20 0 88 0 69 0 76 0 40 0 3 0 3 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatori al, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged

PAGE 252

252 Table 4 (child 1) percent interval data for materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 4) M 0 9 49 36 4 1 1 SD 7 26 15 5 2 1 Range 2 19 16 74 19 49 0 10 0 3 0 2 Training (N = 9) M 0 10 56 28 3 <1 <1 SD 6 15 17 4 1 1 Range 0 21 38 86 0 49 0 11 0 3 0 3 On site Coaching (N = 4) M 3 30 30 37 0 0 0 SD 3 17 14 10 Range 0 6 18 54 17 44 25 50 Self coaching (N = 5) M 1 22 47 26 2 0 1 SD 1 11 17 17 2 2 Range 0 3 8 38 22 68 6 44 0 5 0 5 Maintenance (N = 5) M 6 24 53 14 1 <1 <1 SD 5 10 5 8 2 1 1 Range 0 12 15 42 45 57 4 23 0 4 0 1 0 1 Total (N = 27) M 2 18 49 28 2 <1 <1 SD 3 13 17 16 3 1 1 Range 0 12 0 54 16 86 0 50 0 11 0 3 0 5 Note. SOPH. = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatorial, DIFF = Dif ferentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged

PAGE 253

253 Table 4 (child 1) percent interval data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 8) M 10 6 83 0 <1 <1 SD 11 8 12 <1 1 Range 0 32 0 25 64 94 0 1 0 3 Training (N = 11) M 7 11 80 0 1 4 SD 8 10 15 2 6 Range 0 28 0 31 41 100 0 5 0 18 On site Coaching (N = 11) M 12 36 50 0 <1 14 SD 15 33 26 1 18 Range 0 50 4 88 13 82 0 2 0 39 Self coaching (N = 8) M 5 32 58 0 0 11 SD 5 23 23 15 Range 0 14 5 65 28 92 0 43 Maintenance (N = 7) M 15 23 60 14 1 5 SD 11 8 14 38 1 3 Range 3 31 11 33 36 76 0 100 0 4 0 8 Total (N = 45) M 10 22 66 2 <1 7 SD 11 23 23 15 1 12 Range 0 50 0 88 13 100 0 100 0 5 0 43

PAGE 254

254 Table 4 (child 1) percent interval data for social oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 4) M 10 9 81 0 <1 1 SD 15 11 14 1 1 Range 0 32 0 25 64 94 0 1 0 3 Training (N = 2) M 15 30 55 0 2 14 SD 19 2 20 2 6 Range 1 28 28 31 41 69 0 3 10 18 On site Coaching (N = 7) M 6 53 38 0 <1 23 SD 7 30 24 1 18 Range 0 18 5 88 13 80 0 2 0 39 Self coaching (N = 3) M 1 57 34 0 0 25 SD 2 10 5 16 Range 0 3 46 65 28 38 11 43 Maintenance (N = 2) M 23 28 46 0 1 7 SD 12 7 15 1 0 Range 15 31 23 33 36 57 0 2 7 Total (N = 18) M 9 39 50 0 <1 15 SD 11 27 25 1 16 Range 0 32 0 88 13 94 0 3 0 43

PAGE 255

255 Table 4 (child 1) percent interval data for materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 4) M 9 3 85 0 0 0 SD 8 4 12 Range 0 19 0 7 68 93 Training (N = 9) M 6 6 85 0 1 1 SD 5 4 7 2 3 Range 0 16 0 13 78 100 0 5 0 7 On site Coaching (N = 4) M 23 7 70 0 0 0 SD 19 3 17 Range 6 50 4 12 46 82 Self coaching (N = 5) M 7 17 73 0 0 3 SD 6 12 14 3 Range 0 14 5 34 63 92 0 6 Maintenance (N = 5) M 12 21 65 20 1 5 SD 10 8 10 45 2 4 Range 3 27 11 30 53 76 0 100 0 4 0 8 Total (N = 27) M 10 11 77 4 < 1 2 SD 11 9 14 19 1 3 Range 0 50 0 34 46 100 0 100 0 5 0 8

PAGE 256

256 Table 4 child 2) percent interval data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 6) M 0 7 48 37 2 0 6 SD 15 16 18 4 8 Range 0 38 24 68 9 57 0 10 0 19 Training (N = 10) M 5 27 29 31 4 1 <1 SD 7 19 20 24 8 1 1 Range 0 20 5 59 0 65 0 81 0 25 0 3 0 2 Post training (N = 18) M 5 29 37 25 3 <1 0 SD 7 13 22 21 6 1 Range 0 18 8 49 0 83 3 76 0 19 0 3 On site Coaching (N = 18) M 7 26 31 30 3 <1 <1 SD 9 17 20 25 6 1 1 Range 0 27 3 56 0 72 4 80 0 24 0 2 0 2 Self Coaching (N = 8) M 3 18 47 24 4 <1 <1 SD 5 9 18 18 7 2 1 Range 0 14 7 30 18 78 0 57 0 21 0 5 0 4 Maintenance (N = 1) M 3 20 44 26 3 0 2 SD Range Total (N = 61) M 5 24 36 29 3 <1 1 SD 7 16 20 21 6 1 3 Range 0 27 0 59 0 83 0 81 0 25 0 5 0 19 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatorial, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged.

PAGE 257

257 Table 4 child 2) percent interval data for social oriented activities by experimental phase a nd engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 5) M 0 9 52 33 2 0 4 SD 17 12 17 4 6 Range 0 38 41 68 9 56 0 10 0 14 Training (N = 7) M 7 33 29 29 0 1 0 SD 7 20 21 17 1 Range 0 20 7 59 0 65 3 48 0 3 Post training (N = 9) M 6 33 39 18 2 0 0 SD 7 12 20 10 5 Range 0 18 18 49 0 72 5 40 0 14 On site Coaching (N = 12) M 7 33 25 30 3 <1 <1 SD 9 14 16 27 7 1 1 Range 0 27 6 56 0 57 7 80 0 24 0 2 0 2 Self coaching (N = 3) M 1 11 53 32 0 0 1 SD 1 6 25 23 2 Range 0 2 7 18 29 78 11 57 0 4 Maintenance (N = 0) M SD Range Total (N = 36) M 5 28 35 27 2 <1 1 SD 8 17 20 20 5 1 2 Range 0 27 0 59 0 78 3 80 0 24 0 3 0 14 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatori al, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged

PAGE 258

258 Table 4 child 2) percent interval data for materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 1) M 0 0 24 57 0 0 19 SD Range Training (N = 3) M 0 13 30 37 13 1 1 SD 9 25 41 10 1 1 Range 5 23 2 48 0 81 7 25 0 2 0 2 Post training (N = 9) M 4 26 34 31 4 1 0 SD 6 13 24 27 7 1 Range 0 18 8 43 3 83 3 76 0 19 0 3 On site Coaching (N = 6) M 7 13 44 32 3 0 0 SD 10 13 23 22 4 Range 0 25 3 39 17 72 4 61 0 9 Self coaching (N = 5) M 5 22 43 20 6 1 <1 SD 6 9 14 14 8 2 1 Range 0 14 8 30 18 52 0 31 0 21 0 5 0 2 Maintenance (N = 1) M 3 20 44 26 3 0 2 SD Range Total (N = 25) M 4 19 38 31 5 1 1 SD 7 13 20 24 7 1 4 Range 0 25 0 43 2 83 0 81 0 25 0 5 0 19 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatori al, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged

PAGE 259

259 Table 4 child 2) percent interval data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 6) M 5 4 84 0 2 1 SD 11 5 16 5 4 Range 0 26 0 12 59 100 0 12 0 9 Training (N = 10) M 12 22 63 0 0 5 SD 11 20 19 9 Range 0 38 2 71 26 81 0 24 Post training (N = 18) M 13 21 65 <1 <1 8 SD 11 16 14 1 1 13 Range 0 34 0 49 44 87 0 3 0 5 0 43 On site Coaching (N = 18) M 7 28 63 0 <1 8 SD 7 19 18 1 13 Range 0 23 0 60 38 97 0 2 0 44 Self coaching (N = 8) M 12 11 73 0 0 1 SD 10 8 11 1 Range 0 30 0 25 55 86 0 4 Maintenance (N = 1) M 6 22 70 0 0 9 SD Range Total (N = 61) M 10 20 67 <1 <1 6 SD 10 17 17 1 2 11 Range 0 38 0 71 26 100 0 3 0 12 0 44

PAGE 260

260 Table 4 child 2) percent interval data for social oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 5) M 6 5 85 0 2 2 SD 11 5 17 5 4 Range 0 26 0 12 59 100 0 12 0 9 Training (N = 7) M 14 28 57 0 0 7 SD 13 21 20 10 Range 0 38 7 71 26 79 0 24 Post training (N = 9) M 14 25 61 0 1 10 SD 12 16 14 2 13 Range 0 34 5 49 44 78 0 5 0 41 On site Coaching (N = 12) M 7 35 56 0 <1 12 SD 7 19 15 1 15 Range 0 16 3 60 38 86 0 2 0 44 Self coaching (N = 3) M 4 12 82 0 0 1 SD 4 13 6 2 Range 0 7 0 25 75 86 0 4 Maintenance (N = 0) M SD Range Total (N = 36) M 10 25 63 0 1 8 SD 10 19 19 2 12 Range 0 38 0 71 26 100 0 12 0 44

PAGE 261

261 Table 4 child 2) percent interval data for materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 1) M 0 0 81 0 0 0 SD Range Training (N = 3) M 8 8 77 0 0 0 SD 4 6 4 Range 5 12 2 15 73 81 Post training (N = 9) M 13 16 69 1 0 7 SD 10 16 13 1 14 Range 0 32 0 43 55 87 0 3 0 43 On site Coaching (N = 6) M 6 15 78 0 0 1 SD 8 9 13 2 Range 0 23 0 25 61 97 0 5 Self coaching (N = 5) M 17 10 68 0 0 0 SD 9 6 11 Range 8 30 0 14 55 82 Maintenance (N = 1) M 6 22 70 0 0 9 SD Range Total (N = 25) M 11 13 73 <1 0 3 SD 9 11 12 1 9 Range 0 32 0 43 55 97 0 3 0 43

PAGE 262

262 Table 4 child 3) percent interval data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 7) M 4 38 16 26 13 1 1 SD 6 19 10 18 17 3 2 Range 0 13 7 57 8 36 4 56 0 50 0 7 0 4 Training (N = 7) M 1 53 4 25 11 4 1 SD 2 16 4 15 4 3 2 Range 0 5 26 69 0 11 11 55 6 17 0 7 0 3 Post training (N = 22) M 2 38 26 23 10 <1 1 SD 4 18 22 17 6 1 2 Range 0 15 8 71 0 74 2 73 0 21 0 2 0 7 On site Coaching (N = 11) M <1 53 24 14 7 <1 1 SD 1 21 15 10 6 1 2 Range 0 3 7 81 6 49 0 33 0 20 0 3 0 5 Self coaching (N = 8) M 0 23 44 23 6 1 2 SD 14 19 14 7 2 3 Range 3 52 11 66 7 50 0 23 0 3 0 8 Total (N = 55) M 1 41 24 22 10 1 1 SD 3 20 20 15 8 2 2 Range 0 15 3 81 0 74 0 73 0 50 0 7 0 8 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatori al, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged

PAGE 263

263 Table 4 child 3) percent interval data for social oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 6) M 4 40 17 21 14 1 1 SD 6 20 10 14 18 2 2 Range 0 13 7 57 8 36 4 40 0 50 0 7 0 4 Training (N = 6) M 1 58 4 20 12 3 1 SD 2 11 4 7 4 2 2 Range 0 5 42 69 0 11 11 30 6 17 0 7 0 3 Post training (N = 14) M 2 46 14 23 13 1 1 SD 5 15 11 18 5 1 2 Range 0 15 14 71 0 34 2 73 2 21 0 2 0 7 On site Coaching (N = 9) M <1 61 18 13 6 <1 1 SD 1 12 11 10 5 1 2 Range 0 3 40 81 6 41 0 33 3 16 0 3 0 5 Self coaching (N = 2) M 0 37 32 16 13 2 0 SD 20 15 6 14 2 Range 23 52 21 42 12 21 3 23 0 3 Total (N = 37) M 2 50 15 19 11 1 1 SD 4 17 11 14 9 2 2 Range 0 15 7 81 0 42 0 73 0 50 0 7 0 7 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatori al, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged

PAGE 264

264 Table 4 child 3) percent interval data for materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 1) M 0 28 11 56 6 0 0 SD Range Training (N = 1) M 3 26 3 55 6 7 0 SD Range Post training (N = 8) M <1 23 46 24 6 0 0 SD 1 11 22 17 5 Range 0 2 8 37 0 74 6 56 0 17 On site Coaching (N = 2) M 0 19 48 18 14 0 0 SD 16 1 5 8 Range 7 31 47 49 14 22 8 20 Self coaching (N = 6) M 0 18 48 25 3 1 3 SD 8 20 15 3 2 3 Range 3 25 11 66 7 50 0 8 0 3 0 8 Total (N = 18) M <1 21 43 27 6 1 1 SD 1 10 22 17 5 2 2 Range 0 3 3 37 0 74 6 56 0 20 0 7 0 8 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatori al, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOE N = Nonengaged.

PAGE 265

265 Table 4 (child 3) percent interval data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 7) M 4 46 47 <1 0 22 SD 4 21 17 1 21 Range 0 8 11 70 30 71 0 3 0 50 Training (N = 7) M 30 29 36 0 7 15 SD 17 23 13 13 15 Range 14 61 6 62 24 61 0 36 0 33 Post training (N = 22) M 10 33 56 0 2 12 SD 13 20 20 6 10 Range 0 47 0 71 24 92 0 26 0 27 On site Coaching (N = 11) M 8 49 42 0 <1 12 SD 8 24 21 1 8 Range 0 29 0 75 19 90 0 3 0 26 Self coaching (N = 8) M 12 14 69 0 0 5 SD 14 17 13 12 Range 0 42 0 52 45 87 0 34 Total (N = 55) M 12 35 51 <1 2 13 SD 14 23 20 0 6 13 Range 0 61 0 75 19 92 0 3 0 36 0 50

PAGE 266

266 Table 4 child 3) percent interval data for social oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 6) M 4 49 44 <1 0 25 SD 4 22 16 1 22 Range 0 8 11 70 30 71 0 3 0 50 Training (N = 6) M 31 33 31 0 8 18 SD 18 22 8 14 15 Range 14 61 7 62 24 42 0 36 0 33 Post training (N = 14) M 12 41 45 0 1 16 SD 14 19 14 2 9 Range 0 47 5 71 24 73 0 7 0 27 On site Coaching (N = 9) M 7 57 34 0 <1 13 SD 9 17 11 1 7 Range 0 29 19 75 19 50 0 3 0 26 Self coaching (N = 2) M 21 26 51 0 0 17 SD 30 37 9 24 Range 0 42 0 52 45 58 0 34 Total (N = 37) M 13 44 40 <1 2 17 SD 16 21 14 <1 6 13 Range 0 61 0 75 19 73 0 3 0 36 0 50

PAGE 267

267 Table 4 child 3) percent interval data for materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 1) M 6 28 67 0 0 6 SD Range Training (N = 1) M 26 6 61 0 0 0 SD Range Post training (N = 8) M 6 19 75 0 3 4 SD 11 14 11 9 7 Range 0 32 0 33 60 92 0 26 0 16 On site Coaching (N = 2) M 10 12 77 0 0 6 SD 3 17 19 9 Range 7 12 0 24 63 90 0 12 Self coaching (N = 6) M 9 10 75 0 0 1 SD 7 8 8 1 Range 3 22 0 21 63 87 0 3 Total (N = 18) M 8 15 74 0 1 3 SD 9 12 10 6 5 Range 0 32 0 33 60 92 0 26 0 16

PAGE 268

268 Table 4 (child 4) percent interval data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N = 3) M 1 16 16 61 3 1 2 SD 1 14 12 13 3 2 2 Range 0 2 0 28 5 29 49 75 0 7 0 2 0 4 Training (N = 5) M 5 32 33 26 2 1 <1 SD 8 13 22 19 1 2 1 Range 0 18 17 50 12 62 7 54 0 4 0 4 0 2 Post training (N = 16) M 1 36 28 32 1 1 1 SD 2 20 16 20 2 2 1 Range 0 8 10 83 6 52 3 70 0 7 0 9 0 3 On site Coaching (N = 6) M 3 41 28 16 10 1 0 SD 6 25 17 10 20 2 Range 0 14 2 67 3 51 2 28 0 50 0 4 Total (N = 30) M 2 34 28 31 4 1 1 SD 4 20 17 21 9 2 1 Range 0 18 0 83 3 62 2 75 0 50 0 9 0 4 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatori al, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged

PAGE 269

269 Table 4 (child 4) percent interval data for social oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N =1) M 2 28 5 58 7 0 0 SD Range Training (N = 3) M 6 33 18 38 2 1 1 SD 10 17 7 14 2 2 1 Range 0 18 17 50 12 25 28 54 0 4 0 4 0 2 Post training (N = 8) M 1 50 24 21 2 0 1 SD 2 16 17 16 3 1 Range 0 4 36 83 6 50 3 46 0 7 0 3 On site Coaching (N = 4) M 4 55 18 18 3 1 0 SD 7 14 11 9 3 2 Range 0 14 35 67 3 29 7 28 0 7 0 4 Total (N = 16) M 3 47 20 26 3 1 <1 SD 5 17 14 17 3 1 1 Range 0 18 17 83 3 50 3 58 0 7 0 4 0 3 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatorial, DIFF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged

PAGE 270

270 Table 4 child 4) percent interval data for materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement code Phase SOPH SO COMB DIFF ATT UNDIF NOEN Baseline (N =2) M 1 9 21 62 1 2 3 SD 2 13 11 19 2 <1 2 Range 0 2 0 18 13 29 49 75 0 2 2 2 2 4 Training (N = 2) M 3 31 56 8 2 0 0 SD 1 9 8 2 0 Range 2 3 24 37 51 62 7 10 2 Post training (N = 8) M 1 22 32 42 1 2 <1 SD 3 12 15 19 2 3 1 Range 0 8 10 46 17 52 14 70 0 5 0 9 0 3 On site Coaching (N = 2) M 0 13 46 12 26 0 0 SD 15 7 14 34 Range 2 24 41 51 2 22 1 50 Total (N = 14) M 1 20 36 36 5 1 1 SD 2 12 16 24 13 3 2 Range 0 8 0 46 13 62 2 75 0 50 0 9 0 4 Note. SOPH = Sophisticated, SO = Social, COMB = Combinatorial, DI FF = Differentiated, ATT = Attentional, UNDIF = Undifferentiated, NOEN = Nonengaged

PAGE 271

271 Table 4 (child 4) percent interval data for both social oriented and materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N = 3) M 3 17 77 0 0 1 SD 2 15 14 2 Range 1 4 0 30 67 92 0 3 Training (N = 5) M 13 24 61 1 0 5 SD 6 11 17 1 4 Range 4 20 13 37 43 79 0 2 0 9 Post training (N = 16) M 8 33 58 <1 0 10 SD 12 23 21 1 16 Range 0 48 0 83 17 83 0 3 0 62 On site Coaching (N = 6) M 7 40 52 0 0 12 SD 3 28 27 14 Range 2 10 0 66 28 93 0 34 Total (N = 30) M 8 31 59 <1 0 9 SD 9 22 21 1 14 Range 0 48 0 83 17 93 0 3 0 62

PAGE 272

272 Table 4 child 4) percent interval data for social oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N =1) M 3 30 67 0 0 3 SD Range Training (N = 3) M 13 28 55 1 0 4 SD 8 13 21 1 5 Range 4 20 13 37 43 79 0 2 0 9 Post training (N = 8) M 10 46 43 0 0 18 SD 16 22 16 21 Range 0 48 10 83 17 64 0 62 On site Coaching (N = 4) M 7 56 36 0 0 16 SD 3 15 11 15 Range 3 10 34 66 28 53 0 34 Total (N = 16) M 9 44 45 <1 0 14 SD 12 20 17 1 17 Range 0 48 10 83 17 79 0 2 0 62

PAGE 273

273 Table 4 child 4) percent interval data for materials oriented activities by experimental phase and engagement partner code Phase Peer Adult Object Self Peer Content Adult Content Baseline (N =2) M 3 10 82 0 0 0 SD 2 14 15 Range 1 4 0 20 71 92 Training (N = 2) M 13 18 69 0 0 6 SD 4 6 9 1 Range 10 15 14 22 63 76 6 7 Post training (N = 8) M 5 19 73 <1 0 2 SD 4 14 11 1 4 Range 0 11 0 43 51 83 0 3 0 9 On site Coaching (N = 2) M 6 7 84 0 0 2 SD 6 9 13 3 Range 2 10 0 13 75 93 0 4 Total (N = 14) M 6 16 76 <1 0 2 SD 5 12 11 1 3 Range 0 15 0 43 51 93 0 3 0 9

PAGE 274

274 Table 4 27. teach er 1) percentage and rate (per 1 minute ) of correctly implemented EILT s by phase during both social oriented and materials oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 8) M 44 .3 SD 35 .3 Range 0 100 0 .9 Training (N = 11) M 50 .3 SD 47 .3 Range 0 100 0 .9 On site Coaching (N = 11) M 55 .6 SD 43 .7 Range 0 100 0 1.8 Self coaching (N = 8) M 69 .4 SD 47 .3 Range 0 100 0 1.0 Maintenance (N = 7) M 36 .1 SD 48 .1 Range 0 100 0 .2 Total (N = 45) M 51 .3 SD 43 .4 Range 0 100 0 1.8

PAGE 275

275 Table 4 teacher 1) percentage and rate (per 1 minute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during social oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 4) M 55 .4 SD 42 .4 Range 0 100 0 .9 Training (N = 2) M 71 .9 SD 40 .1 Range 43 100 On site Coaching (N = 7) M 73 .9 SD 35 .6 Range 0 100 0 1.8 Self coaching (N = 3) M 93 .6 SD 12 .3 Range 80 100 .4 1.0 Maintenance (N = 2 M 0 0 SD Range Total (N = 18) M 64 .7 SD 39 .5 Range 0 100 0 1.8

PAGE 276

276 Table 4 teacher 1) percentage and rate (per 1 minute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during materials oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 4) M 33 .2 SD 27 .2 Range 0 67 0 .4 Training (N = 9) M 45 .2 SD 49 .2 Range 0 100 0 .4 On site Coaching (N = 4) M 30 <.1 SD 45 .1 Range 0 100 0 .1 Self coaching (N = 5) M 40 .2 SD 55 .2 Range 0 100 0 .4 Maintenance (N = 5) M 42 .1 SD 49 .1 Range 0 100 0 .2 Total (N = 27) M 41 .1 SD 44 .1 Range 0 100 0 .4

PAGE 277

277 Table 4 (teacher 2) percentage and rate (per 1 minute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during both social oriented and materials oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 6) M 20 .2 SD 28 .3 Range 0 67 0 .9 Training (N = 10) M 0 0 SD Range Post training (N = 18) M 17 <.1 SD 30 .1 Range 0 100 0 .2 On site Coaching (N = 18) M 53 .3 SD 38 .2 Range 0 100 0 .8 Self coaching (N = 8) M 60 .3 SD 30 .2 Range 0 100 0 .7 Maintenance (N = 1) M 67 .5 SD Range Total (N = 61) M 32 .2 SD 36 .2 Range 0 100 0 .9

PAGE 278

278 Table 4 teacher 2) percentage and rate (per 1 min ute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during social oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 5) M 24 .3 SD 29 .4 Range 0 67 0 .9 Training (N = 7) M 0 0 SD Range Post training (N = 9) M 9 <.1 SD 17 <.1 Range 0 50 0 .1 On site Coaching (N = 12) M 54 .3 SD 38 .2 Range 0 100 0 .5 Self coaching (N = 3) M 42 .3 SD 29 .3 Range 0 67 0 .7 Maintenance (N = 0) M SD Range Total (N = 36) M 28 .2 SD 34 .2 Range 0 100 0 .9

PAGE 279

279 Table 4 (teacher 2) percentage and rate (per 1 min ute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during materials oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 1) M 0 0 SD Range Training (N = 3) M 0 0 SD Range Post training (N = 9) M 24 <.1 SD 38 .1 Range 0 100 0 .2 On site Coaching (N = 6) M 50 .3 SD 41 .3 Range 0 90 0 .8 Self coaching (N = 5) M 79 .4 SD 18 .2 Range 57 100 .2 .6 Maintenance (N = 1) M 67 .5 SD Range Total (N = 25) M 37 .2 SD 40 .2 Range 0 100 0 .8

PAGE 280

280 Table 4 teacher 3) percentage and rate (per 1 min ute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during both social oriented and materials oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 7) M 39 .6 SD 25 .5 Range 0 67 0 1.3 Training (N = 7) M 54 .4 SD 38 .3 Range 0 100 0 .9 Post training (N = 22) M 49 .2 SD 45 .2 Range 0 100 0 .9 On site Coaching (N = 11) M 65 .8 SD 38 .8 Range 0 100 0 2.4 Self coaching (N = 8) M 65 .4 SD 32 .5 Range 0 100 0 1.4 Total (N = 55) M 54 .4 SD 39 .5 Range 0 100 0 2.4

PAGE 281

281 Table 4 teacher 3) percentage and rate (per 1 min ute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during social oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 6) M 45 .8 SD 20 .4 Range 17 67 .1 1.3 Training (N = 6) M 63 .4 SD 32 .3 Range 17 100 .1 .9 Post training (N = 14) M 49 .2 SD 42 .3 Range 0 100 0 .9 On site Coaching (N = 9) M 63 .9 SD 40 .8 Range 0 100 0 2.4 Self coaching (N = 2) M 81 .4 SD 27 .4 Range 63 100 .1 .7 Total (N = 37) M 56 .5 SD 36 .6 Range 0 100 0 2.4

PAGE 282

282 Table 4 teacher 3) percentage and rate (per 1 min ute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during materials oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 1) M 0 0 SD Range 0 0 Training (N = 1) M SD Range Post training (N = 8) M 50 .1 SD 33 .2 Range 0 100 0 .5 On site Coaching (N = 2) M 75 .1 SD 35 0 Range 50 100 .1 .2 Self coaching (N = 6) M 59 .4 SD 34 .5 Range 0 100 0 1.4 Total (N = 18) M 50 .2 SD 45 .4 Range 0 100 0 1.4

PAGE 283

283 Table 4 teacher 4) percentage and rate (per 1 min ute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during both social oriented and materials oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 3) M 51 .3 SD 50 .3 Range 0 100 0 .5 Training (N = 5) M 57 .3 SD 32 .3 Range 0 75 0 .6 Post training (N = 16) M 59 .3 SD 44 .3 Range 0 100 0 1.0 On site Coaching (N = 6) M 71 .4 SD 37 .3 Range 0 100 0 .9 Total (N = 30) M 60 .3 SD 40 .3 Range 0 100 0 1.0

PAGE 284

284 Table 4 teacher 4) percentage and rate (per 1 min ute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during social oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 1) M 53 .5 SD Range Training (N = 3) M 50 .3 SD 43 .3 Range 0 75 0 .6 Post training (N = 8) M 77 .4 SD 34 .4 Range 0 100 0 1.0 On site Coaching (N = 4) M 82 .6 SD 14 .2 Range 67 100 .4 .9 Total (N = 16) M 72 .4 SD 32 .3 Range 0 100 0 1.0

PAGE 285

285 Table 4 (teacher 4) percentage and rate (per 1 min ute ) of correctly implemented EILTs by phase during materials oriented activities Phase % Rate Baseline (N = 2) M 50 .1 SD 71 .2 Range 0 100 0 .3 Training (N = 2) M 67 .3 SD 0 .3 Range 0 .1 .5 Post training (N = 8) M 42 .2 SD 47 .2 Range 0 100 0 .5 On site Coaching (N = 2) M 50 .1 SD 71 .1 Range 0 100 0 .1 Total (N = 14) M 48 .2 SD 45 .2 Range 0 100 0 .5

PAGE 286

286 Figure 4 1. Mean rate (per 1 min ute implementation of EILTs by phase and activity type (A) teacher 1; (B) teacher 2; (C) teacher 3; (D) teacher 4. A B C D

PAGE 287

287 Figure 4 2 Mean percentage of intervals Devon exhibited each engagement behavior and activity type. (A) both social oriented and materials oriented activities; (B) social oriented activities; (C) materials oriented activities. A B C

PAGE 288

288 Figure 4 3 Mean percentage of intervals Devon was engaged with each engagement phase and activity type. (A) both social oriented and materials oriented activities; (B) social oriented activit ies; (C) materials oriented activities. A B C

PAGE 289

289 Figure 4 4 Mean percentage of intervals Arlene exhibited each engagement behavior and activity type. (A) both social oriented and materials oriented activities; (B) social oriented activities; (C) materials oriented activities. A B C

PAGE 290

290 Figure 4 5 Mean percentage of intervals Arlene was engaged with each engagement partner and mean percentage of phase and activity type. (A) both social oriented and materials oriented activities; (B) social oriented activities; (C) materials oriented activities. A B C

PAGE 291

291 Figure 4 6 Mean percentage of intervals Brian exhibited each engagement behavior and activity type. (A) both social oriented and materials oriented activities; (B) social oriented activities; (C) materials oriented activities. A B C

PAGE 292

292 Figure 4 7 Mean percentage of intervals Brian was engaged with each engagement correct implementation of EILTs by phase and activity type. (A) both social oriented and materials oriented activities; (B) social oriented activities; (C) materials oriented activities. A B C

PAGE 293

293 Figure 4 8 Mean percentage of intervals Jessica exhibited each engagement behavior and activity type. (A) both social oriented and materials oriented activities; (B) social oriented activities; (C) materials oriented activities. A B C

PAGE 294

294 Figure 4 9 Mean percentage of intervals Jessica was engaged with each engagement phase and activity type. (A) both social oriented and materials oriented activities; (B) social oriented activities; (C) materials oriented activities. A B C

PAGE 295

295 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The primary purpose of the present study was to examine corollary relationships between observed engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities and their (EILTs) during child initiated classroom activities classified as social oriented and materials oriented. EILTs data were obtained from a previously conducted single subject experimental study involving four teachers (Snyder et al., 2009). The single subject experimental study was components of a n embedded i nstruction professional development intervention and their implementation of EILTs In the present study, data collected during the single subject study were used to quantify child engagement behaviors during social oriented and materials oriented child in EILT s during child initiated activities, and explore whether there were corollary EILT s during child initiated activiti es. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize and interpret key study findings, discuss these findings in relation to previous research, and describe the contributions of the present study. Limitations of the present study are noted and recommendations for future research and practice are offered. Key Findings and Relationships to Previous Research Child Engagement Behavior Children in the present study exhibited very low levels of sophisticated engagement behaviors across study phases and activity type s (mean percentage range

PAGE 296

296 across children = 1% 5%), and levels of their sophisticated engagement across study phases and activity types did not appear to be associated with the changes in their sophisticated engagement across children, study phases, and activity types m ight be partially explained by the developmental ages of participating children and their functional abilities. All four children in the present study had identified disabilities a nd an average score of 2.1 on the ABILITIES Index (range = 1.4 2.8) with functional limitations in 3 to 5 out of 9 areas. The mean ABILITIES Index score suggests the children had mild to moderate functional limitations overall but many of the children ha d functional limitations in ability areas that might preclude them from demonstrating sophisticated engagement behaviors as defined on the EBOS RVII (e.g., limitations in expressive language, limitations in motor skills). Previous studies investigating a ssociation between child engagement and developmental age or severity of disability reported positive relationships between child engagement and these two variables (Blasco, Bailey, & Burchinal, 1993; Casey, McWilliam, & Sims, 2012; de Kruif & McWilliam, 1 999; Kontos Moore, & Giorgetti, 1998; Malone, Stoneman, & Langone, 1994; McWilliam & Bailey, 1995). For example, Blasco et al. (1993) reported that children who were developmentally advanced exhibited more sophisticated engagement behaviors than did child ren who were less developmentally advanced. Similarly, Malone and colleagues (1994) found that engagement behaviors. Additional evidence for the relationship between sophi sticated engagement and developmental differences was found in the present study. Although

PAGE 297

297 levels of sophisticated engagement were low across children, phases, and activity types, Arlene engaged in sophisticated engagement behaviors slightly more often tha n the other children in the study. This finding might be partially explained by developmental differences between Arlene and the other three children. Arlene was the second oldest child in the study and her ABILITIES Index score was higher than the other c hildren, indicating that she had more functional abilities and fewer limitations than Devon, Brian, or Jessica. With respect to social engagement, previous nominal descriptive research focused on child engagement has reported that children with disabiliti es exhibit low levels of social engagement. Researchers have noted it is unlikely that levels of social engagement will increase without intervention (McWilliam & Bailey, 1995; McWilliam, Scarborough, & Kim, 2003). In the present study, three children show ed relatively low levels of social engagement behaviors during baseline across activity types, when compared to Brian whose social engagement during baseline ranged from 28% to 40% across the two types of activities (i.e. social oriented or materials orien ted). The introduction of the training component of the professional development intervention to teachers resulted in increases in the mean percentage of intervals that all children exhibited social engagement behaviors across both social oriented and mate rials oriented activities. This pattern was also noted for social oriented activities only for all four children and for three children when materials oriented activities only were analyzed. For three children (excluding Brian), the mean percentage of inte rvals in which social engagement occurred during on site coaching and self coaching was higher than during baseline across both activity types. In general, for these three

PAGE 298

298 children, changes in social engagement across study phases and activity types appear EILTs. Three findings with respect to social engagement are highlighted. First, a substantial increase in social engagement was observed during the training phase for three children, followed by relatively small changes during on site or self coaching. This finding would be expected if teachers started to spend more time with target children during the training phase to implement what they learned during the workshop training focused on language and social emotional skills involving interactions. Second, par ticipating children exhibited more social engagement behaviors overall across social oriented activities ( M = 41%, SD = 19%), when compared to materials oriented activities ( M = 19%, SD = 12%). This finding was expected, as there were more opportunities fo r participating children to interact with peers or adults during social oriented activities than materials oriented activities. Third, an unexpected finding was the increase in social engagement for three children across phases of the study during material s oriented activities, although this increase was smaller when compared to changes in social engagement during social oriented activities. The smaller increases in social engagement across study phases during materials oriented activities might be explaine d by the finding that teachers delivered a limited number of EILTs during these activities, reducing the number of intentionally planned opportunities to respond to adults or peers.

PAGE 299

299 For combinatorial engagement, two children (Devon and Arlene) in the prese nt study demonstrated combinatorial engagement behaviors for a noteworthy percentage of intervals during baseline across the two types of activities (mean range = 24% 52%), while the other two children (Brian and Jessica) exhibited combinatorial engageme nt behaviors less often (mean percentage of intervals range = 5% 21%). Across activity types, in general, a negative association between levels of combinatorial who had hig her levels of combinatorial engagement during baseline. An exception to this was the between materials oriented activities where a positive association between levels of combinatorial engagement and found. Moreover, across activity types, a positive association between levels of combinatorial children who had lower levels of combinatori al engagement during baseline. As expected, participating children exhibited more combinatorial engagement behaviors across materials oriented activities ( M = 42%, SD = 19%), when compared to social oriented activities ( M = 25%, SD = 16%). In addition, chi engagement during self coaching across both social oriented and materials oriented activities ( M = 42%, SD = 20%) was higher than their levels of combinatorial engagement during on site coaching ( M = 27%, SD = 17%). An unexp ected finding with respect to combinatorial engagement was the increase in combinatorial engagement for two children across phases of the study during social oriented activities given that combinatorial engagement behaviors involve interactions with materi als.

PAGE 300

300 With respect to differentiated engagement, Devon ( M = 29%) and Brian ( M = 26%) exhibited relatively low levels of differentiated engagement behaviors during baseline across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, when compared to Arle ne ( M = 37%) and Jessica ( M = 61%). Generally, differentiated engagement showed a declining trend across phases of the study, children, and activity types. This is a positive finding given the hierarchical structure of the engagement behavior codes, with differentiated engagement behaviors considered to be less advanced than combinatorial, social, or sophisticated engagement behaviors (Casey et al., 2012; McWilliam & Bailey, 1992; McWilliam & Ware, 1994 ; Raspa et al., 2001). Excluding ges of differentiated engagement during on site coaching across social oriented and materials oriented activities, the mean percentage of intervals children demonstrated differentiated engagement behaviors during on site coaching and self coaching across a ctivity types were lower than their baseline levels of differentiated engagement. It appears that decreases in differentiated engagement coincided with the increases in social engagement in most cases and combinatorial engagement in some cases. When teache result, their levels of differentiated engagement decreased. The findings related to more differentiated engagement during bas eline in the present study is similar to findings from previous research investigating child engagement. These studies reported children with disabilities who had mild developmental delays showed more differentiated engagement relative to other engagement behaviors (Appanaitis, 2003; Casey et al., 2012; Raspa, McWilliam, &

PAGE 301

301 engagement behaviors across experimental phases in the present study were contradictory to those repo rted in the study conducted by Appanaitis (2003). In this defense scheduling, incidental teaching, and data collection) on the engagement of five preschool children with disabilities during free play activities were examined. Results showed that 4 of the 5 children exhibited slight increases in differentiated engagement behaviors during the last intervention phase of the study. Minimal increases or no change in differ entiated engagement across the phases of the Appanaitis (2003) study vior that is not included as part of more or less advanced engagement behavior codes. When decreases in less advanced engagement behaviors differentiated engagement does not change In the present study, attentional engagement behaviors were infrequently observed across study phases, children, and activity types. This is a positive finding, given the focus of analysis for child engagement behaviors in the present study was child in itiated activities. Despite its infrequent occurrence, Devon and Brian, two children with the lower ABILITIES Index scores, had more coded intervals of attentional engagement during baseline across both activity types when compared to Arlene and Jessica. I implementation of EILTs across phases of the study, attentional engagement would

PAGE 302

302 decease during both social oriented and materials oriented activities. In general, only slightly. Previous research focuse d on child engagement has found that children with disabilities or children who are developmentally less mature exhibit higher levels of attentional engagement when compared to peers who are typically developing In addition, when examining relationships b etween type of activity and child engagement, attentional engagement has been shown to occur more frequently during certain types of activities (e.g., playing on the computer, reading book, or circle time) than others (e.g., playing with cars on the floor, building with blocks, playing at the sand table; Appanaitis, 2003; de Kruif & McWilliam, 1999; Kemp, Kishida, Carter, & Sweller, 2013; McWilliam & Bailey, 1995). Findings of the pres ent study with respect to lower levels of attentional engagement relative to other engagement behaviors is logical, given engagement was coded during child initiated activities and most children in the present study were actively engaged with people or materials during these activities (rather than passively attending). In the present study, the percentage of intervals in which children exhibited either undifferentiated engagement behaviors or were non engaged was very low during baseline and remained low across study phases and activity types. Child behaviors associated with these two engagement categories did not change in relation to teacher implementation of EILTs. The findings related to low levels of undifferentiated engagement were similar to those reported in previous studies (Appanaitis, 2003; Casey et al., 201 2; de Kruif & McWilliam, 1999; McMillen, 1999). However, levels of

PAGE 303

303 engagement in the present study were somewhat lower than those reported in previous studies (Appanaitis, 2003; Casey et al., 2012; de Kruif & McWilliam, 1999; McMillen, 1999) Casey and colleagues (2012) conducted an observational study with 61 children with disabilities in 31 inclusive classrooms located in public schools, private community programs, or Head Start programs to investigate relationships between child engagemen t and developmental quotients, incidental teaching, and peer interactions. Mean age and ABILITIES Index scores for participating children were 41 months and 1.9, respectively. The Engagement Quality and Incidental Teaching for Improved Education (E Qual IT IE; McWilliam & Casey, 2004) was used to collect data on child engagement and the occurrence of incidental teaching during child initiated activities. The authors reported that children were engaged in undifferentiated behaviors for 4% of the intervals ( SD = 2.49%) and were not engaged for 14% of the intervals ( SD = 11.51%). De Kruif and McWilliam (1999) also reported low levels of undifferentiated engagement ( M = 3.58%, SD = 6.04%) and somewhat higher levels of non engagement ( M = 7.13%, SD = 4.74%) in the ir observational study involving 61 children with and without disabilities. Overall, with respect to child engagement behaviors, results from the present study suggest children with disabilities generally exhibited more advanced levels of engagement behavi EILT s more accurately. Moreover, types of activities in which children with disabilities participated influenced their engagement behaviors. Children with disabilities demonstrated more combinatorial

PAGE 304

304 and differentiated en gagement behaviors during materials oriented activities and more social engagement behavior during social oriented activities. Engagement Partners With respect to engagement partners, previous child engagement research found that children with disabilitie s tend to play alone with materials (Cavallaro & Porter, 1980; Guralnick, 1990; Guralnick & Groom, 1987; Odom et al., 1982), and they spend more time interacting with adults than their peers in the classroom (McWilliam & Bailey, 1995). Baseline data in the present study supported these findings. During baseline across both types of activities, three children spent the majority of coded intervals engaged with objects and one child (Brian) was engaged with objects for a little less than half of the coded int ervals. Across all children and activity types, peer engagement occurred in less than 11% of the intervals during baseline. During baseline across activity types, adult engagement occurred in less than 10% of the intervals for two children (Devon and Arlen e), a little less than half of the intervals for one child (Brian), and between 10% and 30% of the intervals for one child (Jessica). For three of the four children across the two types of activities when compared to baseline, the percentage of intervals i n which they were engaged with objects decreased and percentage of intervals they were engaged with adults and peers increased during on site coaching and self coaching. correc adults and peers increased somewhat and their engagement with objects decreased In addition, corollary in so cial interactions with adults that focused on pre academic skills were found

PAGE 305

305 Studies Examining Relationships Between Instruction and Child Engagement To compare findings from the present study with other intervention studies described in Chapters 1 and 2 (i.e., Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Danko, 2004; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999) that focused on relationships between systematic instruction and child engagement, the mean percentage of intervals data for some engagement codes used in the present s tudy had to be combined given how engagement was quantified in the previous studies. As described in Chapter 2, in Appanaitis (2003), the E Qual III was used to evaluate child engagement. Nine engagement levels (behaviors) were grouped under five categori es in this study for analyses and reporting. These categories included sophisticated engagement (levels: persistence, symbolic, encoded, constructive), differentiated engagement (level: differentiated), focused engagement (level: focused attention), unsoph isticated engagement (levels: casual attention, undifferentiated), and non engagement (level: non engagement). To compare findings of the present study with findings from Appanaitis (2003), the mean percentages of intervals children were engaged in sophist icated, social, and combinatorial engagement behaviors were combined. This combined engagement category would be similar to the sophisticated engagement category in the Appanaitis (2003) study. In the present study, 3 of 4 children exhibited behaviors con sistent with the combined category in over 50% of baseline intervals. For the fourth child (Jessica), the mean percentage of intervals for the combined engagement category during baseline ranged from 31% during materials oriented activities to 35% during s ocial oriented activities. In addition, across children and activity types, the mean percentages of intervals for the combined engagement category during on site coaching and self

PAGE 306

306 coaching phases were always higher than the mean percentages of intervals fo r this category during baseline. For both social oriented and materials oriented activities, when compared to baseline, increases in the mean percentages of intervals for the combined engagement category ranged from 9% to 39% across children during on sit e coaching, and from 9% to 14% across children during self coaching. In Appanaitis (2003), 4 out of 5 participating children showed sophisticated engagement behaviors for less than 30% of the intervals during baseline, while one child showed sophisticated engagement for less than 50% of baseline intervals. Children showed very minimal increases in sophisticated engagement during the last intervention phase of the study when compared to baseline, even though their teachers were implementing more of the inte ntional instructional strategies in this phase. These findings differ from those in the present study. Across the two studies, differences in the mean percentages of intervals children age. Children in the present study were 7 months older, on average, than children who participated in Appanaitis (2003) study. However, comparisons of findings across the two studies also engagement behaviors more often than children in the Appanaitis study during baseline, site and self coaching. In addition, these gains were greater than those reported for c hildren in the Appanaitis study during the last intervention phase. This latter finding might suggest that initiated activities may promote more advanced levels of child engagement behaviors than the combinati on of incidental

PAGE 307

307 teaching, zone defense scheduling, and data collection intervention used in the Appanaitis study. To compare the findings of the present study with those of Bevill and colleagues (2001), Danko (2004), and the Malmskog and McDonnell (1999) studies, the mean percentages of intervals in which children were engaged in differentiated through sophisticated engagement behaviors as defined on the EBOS RVII were combined. This combined code would be similar to how Bevill et al. (2001) quantified en gagement, and how Danko (2004), and Malmskog and McDonnell (1999) defined active engagement. In the present study, the combined mean percentages of intervals for sophisticated, social, combinatorial, and differentiated engagement behaviors were very high a cross all phases of the study, activity type, and children (80% or more of the intervals). Despite very high mean percentages of intervals during baseline for the combined engagement category, increases in engagement were still noted in the present study f or two children across both social oriented and materials oriented activities, social oriented activities, and materials oriented activities, for one child during both social oriented and materials oriented activities and social oriented activities, and fo r one child during social oriented activities. In Bevill et al. (2001), the mean percentage of intervals in which children were engaged ranged between 22% and 67% during baseline. During the first intervention phase for the first teacher, child one reache d the criterion level of performance on engagement ( M = 99%, range = 98 100), while the other three children exhibited lower levels of engagement as their teachers remained in extended baseline (engaged, on average, in less than 34% of intervals). During t he intervention phase for the second

PAGE 308

308 teacher, the second child reached the criterion level of engagement performance ( M = 100%, range = 99 100), while the other two children exhibited lower levels of engagement as their teachers remained in extended baseli ne (engaged, on average, in less than 55% of intervals). The two other children reached criterion levels of engagement when their teachers were exposed to the intervention phase. Mean percentages of intervals engaged during intervention were 90% (range = 6 7% 100%) and 100% (99% 100%), respectively. The findings fr om this study suggest that when teachers use intentional intervention approaches within the context of naturally occurring classroom activities, levels of child engagement increased relative to bas eline. In the Danko (2004) study, two children demonstrated active engagement behavior infrequently (range = 0% of intervals 20% of intervals) during baseline, while = 0% 50%). During the intervention phase, percentages of intervals in which children were actively engaged increased for two children who were less engaged during baseline while it remained similar to the baseline for the third child. The range for the p ercentages of intervals in which children were actively engaged during the intervention phase data points was between 8% 88% for child one, 5% 53% for child two, and 20% 50% for child three. Overall, the intervention increased active engagement behav engagement behavior. In Malmskog and McDonnell (1999), the mean percentage of intervals in which children were activity engaged ranged between 5% and 46% during baseline. D uring intervention, increases in active engagement were observed for all three children and

PAGE 309

309 the mean range for percentage of intervals was between 62% and 93%. T he intervention implemented appeared to be effective in promoting active engagement of particip ating children. Overall, because the mean percentage of intervals in which children were actively engaged during baseline was high in the present study, when data from sophisticated, social, combinatorial, and differentiated engagement behavior codes were combined, a ceiling effect was introduced (i.e., active engagement could not increase significantly, if at all, across study phases). Although changes in the mean percentage of intervals of active engagement between baseline and on site coaching and self c positively associated with active child engagement as defined in the Bevill et al. (2001) Danko (2004) and Malmskog and McDonnell (1999) studies. Activity Characteristics and C Several descriptive studies that included children without disabilities have suggested that certain types or characteristics of classroom activities elicit more competent or complex child behaviors (including engagement behaviors) than others (Hadeed & Sylva, 1996; Howes & Smith, 1995; Kontos et al., 2002; Kontos & Keyes, 1999; Powell et al., 2008; Vitiello et al., 2012). These researchers have asserted that free play or child ile academic activities generally promote passive engagement. In the present study, data to evaluate engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities were collected during two types of child initiated activities. In general, participating children exhibited high levels of active engagement in the form of social, combinatorial, and differentiated engagement behaviors across these two types of child initiated activities. Findings from

PAGE 310

310 the present study with respect to the levels of observed active eng agement during child initiated activities supports the findings from this previous research. In addition, findings from previous studies showed peer to peer engagement occurred more often during free play than during teacher structured activities, while te acher structured activities were associated with more engagement with adults than with peers (e.g., Vitiello et al., 2012). Although peer and adult engagement partners were not compared across child initiated and teacher structured activities in the presen t study, children in the present study were more often engaged with adults than they were with their peers across both social oriented and materials oriented activities. The only study included in the literature review involving both children with and wit hout disabilities reported that engagement behaviors of young children without disabilities were influenced by the type and structure of activities in which they participated (Hamilton, 2005). However, the engagement behaviors of preschool children with di sabilities did not change based on the type of activity or its structure. These findings are inconsistent with the present study. In the present study, social engagement behaviors were more likely to occur during social oriented activities, while combinato rial and differentiated engagement behaviors were more like to occur during materials oriented activities. These findings suggest that the primary characteristics and structures of child initiated activities may occasion different engagement behaviors from young children with disabilities when teachers are implementing embedded instruction During both social oriented and materials oriented activities in the present study, plementation of EILT s showed an increase with the implementation of training, followed by a decrease in the mean percentage of correct implementation

PAGE 311

311 during post training. The lagged introduction of the on site coaching and self coaching components of the professional development intervention resulted in noteworthy increases in the percentage of correct EILTs implementation when compared to during social oriented or materials o riented activities. In general, the mean percentages of correct EILTs implementation across study phases during social oriented activities were higher than the mean percentages of correct implementation across study phases during materials oriented activit ies. Researchers have documented one childhood professional development are only minimally effective in helping teachers to acquire and master skills that will enable them to implement evidence based instructional practices such as embedded instruction. This type of professional development rarely results in changes in teacher 1996; Snyder, Denney et al. 2011). Moreover, researchers have repeatedly noted that if the desired outcome of early childhood professional development is application of skills in a practice context, high quality workshops must be followed by systematic and ongoing implementation su pports that include supportive and corrective feedback (e.g., coaching, mentoring, consultation; Bailey, McWilliam, & Winton, 1992; Bruder, Mogro Wilson, Stayton, & Dietrich, 2009; Palsha & Wesley, 1998; Snyder, Hemmeter et al. 2012; Winton, McCollum, & C arlett, 1997). During the Phase II feasibility study, teachers participated in seven high quality workshop sessions that consisted of four interrelated modules focused on key embedded instruction practices. These seven workshop training sessions were

PAGE 312

312 cond ucted for 14 h ours and were delivered over a 4 week period consistent with guidelines in the literature that suggest professional development should be sustained, cohesive, and focused on a targeted set of practices (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ). Following each workshop training session, teachers had opportunities to apply their new knowledge and skills in their classrooms with a target child with disabilities and receive feedback from the tra iner during subsequent workshop implementation during training is likely related to the structure and process EILTs imple mentation during post training suggests that workshops alone are likely not site coaching and self coaching intervention compo nents were introduced supports assertions in the professional development literature about the importance of follow up implementation supports. Although the percentage of correct implementation of EILT s increased during on site coaching and self coaching (when compared to baseline), the mean rates (per min ute ) for correctly implemented EILT s were low across teachers, study phases, and activity types. Generally, a small increase in the mean rate (per min ute ) was observed during on site coaching and self coa ching across teachers, when compared to baseline. Across study phases and teachers, the mean rate per min ute was higher during social oriented activities than materials oriented activities, meaning that teachers delivered more trials during social oriented activities when compared to materials oriented activities across phases of the study.

PAGE 313

313 Findings of this study with respect to low rate of instruction during naturally occurring classroom activities were not unexpected. Researchers investigating naturalist ic instructional approaches have reported that teachers are often not able to receive on priority learning targets during naturally occurring classroom activities might no t be sufficient for children to efficiently acquire and master certain skills (Wolery, 2012 ; Wolery & Hemmeter, 2011 ). For example, in a recent descriptive study, Casey and colleagues (2012) found that incidental teaching, a naturalistic instructional appr oach, was rarely used in inclus ive preschool classrooms. Across 10 min ute observations the mean number of 15 sec intervals in which an incidental teaching episode occurred across 31 teachers and 61 children was 3.9 ( SD = 3.20). Although teachers in the p resent study generally increased their rate (per 1 min ute ) of correctly implemented EILTs during on site coaching and self coaching when compared to baseline, the rate was still low. Additional research is needed to clarify the optimal dose of EILTs depend the preschool classroom. In addition, further research is needed to explore how much implementation support teach ers need and in what form to support their sustained implementation of embedded instruction practices, including correctly implementing EILTs. Contributions of the Present Study The inclusion of young children with disabilities in early childhood settings has been in existence for over three decades and the number of young children receiving services in inclusive settings has been increasing (Grisham Brown et al., 2000; Horn et

PAGE 314

314 al ., 2000; Odom, 2000; US Department of Education, 2010). Recommended practices in early childhood special education emphasize the importance of both access and participation as key features of inclusion (DEC/ NAEYC, 2009). While access emphasizes providing young children with disabilities entre to a range of learning opportunities, activities, settings, and environments; participation refers to engagement and learning in these activities, settings, and environments. Participation in everyday activities, set tings, and environments is enhanced when practitioners use intentional and systematic instructional approaches in inclusive early learning settings (Wolery, 2005). Naturalistic instructional approaches have been identified as intentional and systematic ap proaches that show promise for supporting the development, engagement, and learning of preschool children with disabilities within inclusive early childhood settings (Snyder et al., 2013). Embedded instruction is a naturalistic instructional approach that is designed to promote child engagement and learning in typically occurring or logical activities, routines, and transitions (Snyder, Sandall et al., 2009). Reviews of the literature focused on naturalistic instructional approaches have shown that these ap proaches, including embedded instruction, are effective for teaching a variety of skills to preschool children with disabilities in inclusive preschool settings (cf. Snyder et al., 2013). Although embedded instruction and other naturalistic instructional a pproaches have been found to be effective in helping young children with disabilities learn a range of skills, only four studies have investigated the engagement of young children with disabilities in relation to the implementation of intentional or system atic

PAGE 315

315 instructional procedures (Appanaitis, 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Danko, 200 ) or a naturalistic instructional approach during ongoing classroom activities ( Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). Previous studies have investigated relationships between child eng agement and including zone defense scheduling, incidental teaching, and data collection (Appanaitis, 2003); an intervention package consisting of picture display, picture d isplay plus verbal prompt, and reinforcement of correspondence (Bevill et al., 2001); a visual support intervention (Danko, 2004); and a group of adult mediated strategies often associated with naturalistic instructional approaches (i.e., joint attention, time delay, prompts; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). None of these studies focused on examining EILT s during ongoing classroom activities and observed engagement behaviors of young children wit h disabilities. In addition, only one of these studies examined child engagement using a hierarchical coding system. Therefore, the present study was unique because it implementation o f EILTs across experimental phases of a single subject experimental study Although previous studies reported that the implementation of the targeted intervention strategies resulted in increases in child engagement, in only two of the studies were the in terventions delivered by classroom staff (Appanaitis, 2003; Danko, 2004). In the present study, EILT s were implemented by preschool teachers during child initiated activities.

PAGE 316

316 The present study also contributes to the extant literature by using a hierarch ical engagement coding system to examine observed child engagement behaviors and engagement partners. In most of the previous research focused on the relationships between child engagement and the implementation of intentional and systematic instructional procedures, child engagement was evaluated using engagement measures that had two (i.e., engaged and nonengaged), or three (i.e., active engagement, attentional engagement, or nonengagement) engagement behavior codes (e.g., Bevill et al., 2001; Danko, 2004 ; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999). The one notable exception was engagement and the implementation of a package of intervention strategies was investigated by using a hierarchica l behavioral observation system (E Qual III) that included multiple codes for engagement behaviors and engagement partners. As described in Chapter 2, the E Qual III (McWilliam & de Kruif, 1998) includes nine hierarchical engagement levels categorized und er five broad categories. Although behavioral observations are conducted using the nine levels, results typically have been reported only for the five categories. Appanaitis (2003) did not examine changes in each of the nine engagement behaviors in relatio n to the intervention implemented. The present study was the first study to examine each child engagement behavior and partner as defined in the EBOS EILT s. Another contribution of the present study was the investigation of child EILT s during two types of child initiated activities (i.e., social oriented activities and materials oriented activities). Several descriptive studies have suggested that certain

PAGE 317

317 types of classroom activities elicit more competent or complex child behaviors than others (Hadeed & Sylva, 1996; Howes & Smith, 1995; Kontos et al., 2002;) and that activity types and characteristics might have differential in fluences on child engagement (Kontos & Keyes, 1999; Vitiello et al., 2012; Powell et al., 2008). However, these studies were descriptive and included children without disabilities. The only study that included children with disabilities (Hamilton, 2005) re ported findings contradictory to those that only included children without disabilities. Findings from the present study offer additional evidence on differential effects of activity types and characteristics on observed child engagement behaviors for youn g children with disabilities Research studies investigating the changes in child engagement in relation to implemented during scheduled free play periods (Appanaitis 2003; Bevill et al., 2001; Malmskog & McDonnell, 1999) or circle time activities (Danko, 2004). A variety of short activities are included within center and circle time, including a mix of social oriented and materials oriented activities. None of these studies investigated the relationships between primarily social oriented or primarily materials oriented child initiated activities and the engagement behaviors and partners of young children with disabilities when their teachers or a researcher implement ed intentional and systematic instructional strategies. The current study investigated child engagement behavior and partners during social oriented and materials oriented classroom activities across experimental ntation of EILTs. Limitations behaviors and partners in anticipated directions as well as corollary relationships with

PAGE 318

318 EILT s and identified different ial influences of activity type in relation to the occurrence of some engagement behaviors. Nevertheless, these limitation of the study was the small sample size inherent to the single subject experimental research design. External validity threats are present because of the small number of study participants enrolled in the present study and the lack of replication of present study findings in another single subject exper imental study. Another limitation of the present study was the small number of activities (data points) that were available in some of the experimental phases across the two types of child initiated activities. For example, there was only one social oriented activity during the baseline phase for one child, one materials oriented activity during the baseline phase for two children, one materials oriented activity during the training phase for one child, and one materials oriented activity durin g the maintenance phase for one child. Having a small number of activities in each experimental phase across the two types of activities might have impacted the representativeness of the data within phases and the interpretations of between phase compariso ns, and caused variability (large standard deviations) in the data (Moore, 1998; Yoder & Symons, 2010). An insufficient number of data points can lead to insufficient descriptions of behaviors in a given phase, and statistics reported for the phase may und er or over represent the behaviors of interest. Increasing the number of child initiated activities per phase across activity types could have resulted in more stable child and teacher performance, particularly considering the levels of variability for so implementation of EILTs.

PAGE 319

319 Another limitation of the present study related to the reliability of behavioral observations conducted to evaluate child engagement. Reliability of the observations on child engagem (Cohen, 1960) inter observer agreement across the majority of engagement behavior codes and teacher child dyads. However, i nter observer agreement percentage scores for several individual engagement behaviors were not as high as desired. Percentage agreement on the occurrence of engagement behaviors with low base rates (i.e., sophisticated engagement, undifferentiated engageme nt, and non engagement) was below 80%. With behaviors that occur infrequently, only one or two disagreements between observers on the occurrence of a behavior during an observation can result in extreme percent agreement reliability estimates. In addition, it is important to recognize that infrequently occurring behaviors also tend to yield low kappa estimates (Shrout, Spitzer, & Fleiss, 1987; Spitznagel & Helzer, 1985; Yoder & Symons, 2010). Another limitation of the present study related to the measuremen t of child engagement behaviors and partners was the type of behavioral recording system used. The EBOS RVII uses a partial interval (15 second) coding system, which involves recording the engagement behavior code associated with the most advanced child en gagement behavior observed at any point during an interval and noting the corresponding engagement partner for the engagement behavior code selected. Results reported in the present study with respect to child engagement behaviors represent the changes tha t occurred in the most advanced engagement behaviors observed during an interval. This means that less advanced engagement behaviors

PAGE 320

320 might have occurred during the same interval but the occurrence of these behaviors was not recorded or represented in the d ata reported in the present study. Similarly, data reported in the present study about engagement partners represent partners associated with the most advanced engagement behavior code selected not all partners with whom the child was engaged during an int erval. Restriction of the range of observed child engagement behaviors was the fifth limitation of the present study. Across the experimental phases, for the majority of time they were engaged, participating children demonstrated engagement behaviors that were in the middle of the hierarchy of engagement behaviors (e.g., differentiated engagement, combinatorial engagement, social engagement). As these engagement behaviors occurred frequently, it was possible to investigate the relative changes in these eng implementation of EILTs during social oriented and materials oriented activities. Non engagement and other lower level engagement behaviors (undifferentiated and attentional engageme nt) as well as sophisticated engagement behaviors were not observed frequently during baseline and subsequent phases across children and activity types. Therefore, it was difficult to examine relative changes in these engagement behaviors across phases of the study and implementation of EILTs. Finally, the present study employed a non experimental, descriptive design to investigate corollary associations between child engagement behaviors and partners, of EILTs during social oriented and materials oriented

PAGE 321

321 component of the professional development intervention) was manipulated in a previously conducted single subject experimen tal study. Recommendations for Future Research and Practice The findings and limitations of the present study were used to inform recommendations for future research and practice related to child engagement and embedded instruction. As the present study w as among the first to investigate corollary embedded instruction practices during child initiated social oriented and materials oriented activities, future studies should be c onducted to determine if findings are replicate d These replications could include direct replications or systematic replications conducted with children who have different types of disabilities or function al abilities. This study included children with pr imarily mild disabilities and mild to moderate functional limitations. The relationships between the engagement of young children with implementation of EILTs have not been ad dressed in the extant literature and should be investigated in future research. In addition, replication studies should include more observational data across phases for each type of activity. This will improve the representativeness of the data, which of ten is a limitation in descriptive observational research studies. Although there is no consensus regarding the number and duration of observations required to obtain a representative sample and reliable estimates of behavior, McWillliam and Ware (1994) su ggested that at least 30 15 min ute sessions (activities) would be needed to reliably estimate every engagement behaviors included in their engagement measure (i.e., a previous version of the E QUAL III; Dunst & McWilliam, 1988) and at least 40 15 min ute

PAGE 322

322 se ssions are required to obtain reliable estimates of engagement partners. Future research could also focus on investigating number and duration of observations needed to obtain a representative sample and reliable estimates of engagement behaviors to guide future research and practice. The present study focused specifically on investigating corollary relationships child initiated social oriented and materials oriented activities Preschool classrooms include a range of teacher directed, routine, and transition activities that have different activity characteristics and demands. Future research could investigate how child entation of EILTs during teacher directed activities, routines, or transitions. Future research should also focus on identifying typical levels of child engagement behaviors and partners during different types of naturally occurring classroom activities a cross a preschool day. Classroom activities can be grouped as social oriented and materials oriented activities, or as structured, unstructured, routine, or transition activities. Data on typical child engagement behaviors and partners during different cla ssroom activities could be used by researchers or practitioners to establish criterion levels of engagement for children with disabilities during an intervention study or during daily instructional practice or allow them to evaluate engagement behaviors of young children with disabilities in relation to typical levels of child engagement to help inform instructional decisions (Kishida & Kemp, 2006, 2010) Children with more significant delays and disabilities whose functional abilities are less developed t han those who participated in this study often spend the majority of

PAGE 323

323 their time non engaged or engaged in undifferentiated behaviors (McWilliam & Bailey, 1992). An important goal for practitioners who work with children with significant delays and disabili ties should be focused on helping these children to participate in typically occurring classroom activities and to promote more advanced levels of engagement (McWilliam & Bailey, 1992; McWilliam & Casey, 2008). While environmental arrangements might be suf ficient to promote active engagement for some children (e.g., children with mild delays and disabilities), other children might need direct support, assistive technology, or systematic instruction to become actively engaged in their physical and social env limitations, practitioners might need to use targeted or individualized instructional approaches to support active child engagement (Appanaitis, 2003; McWilliam & Casey, 2008). Practitioners shou ld also help children with disabilities to develop a repertoire of engagement behaviors so these behaviors can be used when needed based on the Excluding undifferentiated engagement behaviors and non engagement, several categories of engagement measured by EBOS RVII might be differentially appropriate for certain types of classroom activities (Casey & McWilliam, 2008; Kontos et al., 2002; Powell et al., 2008). For example, although considered a lower level of engagement on the EBOS RVII, attentional engagement may be appropriate during some parts of large group activities (e.g., attending to teacher during circle) or small group activities (e.g., watching while a teacher re ads a book to a small group of children). Likewise, characteristics of free play activities often set the occasion for social or sophisticated

PAGE 324

324 engagement (e.g., playing dress up with peers in dramatic play activities), while art activities or puzzle activi ties often set the occasion for combinatorial engagement as part of the EILTs (EIFEL Project, 2008b; Grisham Brown et al, 2005). Findings from the present study showed that during materials oriented activities, children with disabilities demonstrated differentiated and combinatorial engagement behaviors more often than other engagement behaviors and they were engaged with objects for the majority of the coded intervals. During social oriented activities, they generally demonstrated social engagement behaviors more often than other engagement behaviors. These findings suggest that during social oriented child initiated activities, EILTs focused on language or social emoti onal skills might be more efficiently and appropriately embedded while during materials oriented activities EILTs focused on fine motor or pre academic skills might be more efficiently and appropriately embedded. Another implication for future research an d practice based on findings from the present study is that preschool teachers were more likely to implement EILTs when they received professional development with a follow implementation of EILTs increased over baseline lev els with the implementation of high quality workshops and correct implementation increased further in most cases during on site coaching and self coaching phases. In addition, the rate of correct implementation i ncreased in most cases during the on site an d self coaching phase s when compared to baseline rates. This finding supports an emerging evidence base related to the importance of implementation supports to ensure fidelity of implementation of evidence based practices (Odom, 2009; Snyder, Hemmeter, &

PAGE 325

325 McLaughlin, 2011). Additional research is needed to examine the differential effectiveness of follow up support strategies and to clarify the optimal dose of follow up needed by practitioners to implement evidence based practices such as embedded instructi on frequently and with fidelity. In teacher education programs focused on preparing future early childhood practitioners, it is important to emphasize relationships among child engagement, type of classroom activities and their characteristics and demands the type of skills targeted as part of implementation of those instructional approaches, and the use of evidence based instructional approaches (Sandall et al., 2005; Wolery, 2005). Throughout pre service education, future practitioners should learn abou t and have opportunities to implement evidence engagement behavior and support their learning. They should receive performance feedback about their fidelity of implementation of the instruc tional approach, including the frequency and accuracy with which they implement instructional trials. Faculty should consider including in their curricula the embedded instruction framework and associated instructional practices developed by Snyder et al. (in press) related to what to teach, when to teach, how to teach, and how to evaluate. Engagement is considered a necessary condition to promote the development and learning of young children with and without disabilities A major purpose of early intervention for young children with disabilities is to promote child engagement (Bailey & Wolery, 1992). While child engagement and related factors have been descriptively investigated since the 1970s, few studies have systematica lly examined relationships

PAGE 326

326 behaviors of young children with disabilities. Findings from the present study suggest that engagement behaviors of young children with disabili ties can be altered during ongoing classroom activities when evidence based instructional approaches such as embedded instruction are used.

PAGE 327

327 APPENDIX CONSENT FORMS

PAGE 328

328

PAGE 329

329

PAGE 330

330

PAGE 331

331

PAGE 332

332

PAGE 333

333

PAGE 334

334

PAGE 335

335

PAGE 336

336 LIST OF REFERENCES Apache, R. R. G. (2005). Activity based intervention in motor skill development. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100 1011 1020. Appanaitis, H. A. (2003). Improving engagement in young children with disabilities (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses Full Text (Proquest) (AAT 3111986) Baer, D., Wolf, M., & Risley, R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1 91 97. Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, R. A., Ware, W. B., & Burchinal, M. A. (1993). The social interactions of toddlers and preschoolers in same age and mixed age play groups. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 14 261 2 76. Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, P. J., & Winton, P. J. (1992). Building family centered practices in early intervention: A team based model for change. Infants and Young Children, 5 73 82. Bailey, D., Simeonsson, R., Buysse, V., & Smith, T. (1993). Reliability of an index of child characteristics. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 35, 806 815. Bambara, L. M., Warren, S. F., & Komisar, S. (1988). The individualized curriculum sequencing model: Effects on skill acquisition and generalization Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13 8 19. Barnett, D. W., Lentz, F. E., Bauer, A. M., Macmann, G., Stollar, S., & Ehrhardt, K. E. (1997). Ecological foundations of early intervention: Planned activities and strategic sampl ing. The Journal of Special Education 30 471 490. Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3 35). New Yor k, NY: Teachers College Press. Bevill, A. R., Gast, D. L., Maguire, A. M., & Vail, C. O. (2001). Increasing engagement of preschoolers with disabilities through correspondence training and picture cues. Journal of Early Intervention 24 129 1 45. Blasco, P. M., Bailey, D. B., & Burchinal, M. A. (1993). Dimensions of mastery in same age and mixed age integrated classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 8 193 206. Bloom, B. S. (1956). The 1955 normative study of the tests of general educationa l development. School Review 64 110 124. Bloom, B. S. (1974). Time and learning. American Psychologist 29 682 688.

PAGE 337

337 Bloom, B. S., & Statler, C. R. (1957). Changes in the states on the tests of general educational development from 1943 to 1955. School R eview, 65, 204 221. Bricker, D. (2000). Inclusion: How the scene has changed. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 14 19. Bricker, D., & Cripe, J. (1989). Activity based intervention. In D. Bricker, Early education of at risk and handicapped i nfants, toddlers, and preschool children (2nd ed., pp. 251 274). Palo Alto, CA: VORT. Bricker, D., & Cripe, J. (1992). An activity based approach to early intervention Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Bricker, D., Pretti Frontczak, K., & McComas, N. (1998). An act ivity based approach to early intervention (2 nd ed.) Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41, 1069 1077. Brophy, A. L., & Alleman, J. (1991). Activities as instructional tools: A framework for analysis and evaluation. Educational Researcher, 20 9 23. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328 375). New York, NY: Macmillan. Brown, W. H., Favaza, P. C., & Odom, S. L. (1995). Code for active student participation and engagement revised (CASPER II): A training manual for observers (Unpublished observer training manual) Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion. Brown, W. H., Odom, S. L., Li, S., & Zercher, C. (1999). Ecobehavioral assessment in early childhood programs: A portrait of preschool inclusion. The Journal of Specia l Education 33 138 153. Bruder, M. B., Mogro Wilson, C. M., Stayton, V. D., & Dietrich, S. L. (2009). The national status of in service professional development systems for early intervention and early childhood special education practitioners. Infants a nd Young Children, 22 13 20. Buysse, V., & Bailey, D. B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental outcomes in young children with disabilities in integrated and segregated settings: A review of comparative studies. The Journal of Special Education 26 434 461. Buysse, V., Bailey, D. B. Smith, T. M., & Simeonsson, R. J. (1994). The relationship between child characteristics and placement in specialized versus inclusive early childhood programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 14 419 4 35

PAGE 338

338 Buysse, V., & Hollingsworth, H. L. (2009). Program quality and early childhood inclusion: Recommendations for professional development. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 29 119 128. Buysse, V., Wesley, P., Keyes, L., & Bailey, D. B. (1996). A ssessing the comfort zone of child care teachers in serving young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention 20 189 203. Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723 733. Carta, J. J., Atwater, J. B., Schwartz, I. S., & Miller, P. A. (1990). Applications of ecobehavioral analysis to study transitions across early childhood. Education and Treatment of Children 13 298 315. Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Atwater, J. B. (1985). ESCAPE: Ecobehavioral system for complex assessments of preschool environments. Kansas City KS : Research. Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Robinson, S. L. (1987). Application of an ecobehavioral approac h to the evaluation of early intervention programs. In R. Prinz (Ed.), Advances in behavioral assessment of children and families (Vol. 3, pp.123 155). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Carta, J. J., Sainato, D. M., & Greenwood, C. R. (1988). Advances in ecologica l assessment of classroom instruction for young children with handicaps. In S. L. Odom, & M. B. Karnes (Ed.), Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps (pp. 217 239). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Casey, A. M., & McWilliam, R. A. (2007). The STA assessment of routines engagement. Young Exceptional Children, 11, 2 15. Casey, A. M., McWilliam, R. A., & Sims, J. (2012). Contributions of incidental teaching, developmental quotients, and peers interactions to child engagement. Infants and Young Children, 25 122 135. Cataldo, M. F., & Risley, T. R. (1973). Planned activity checks: Materials for training observers. Lawrence, KS: Center for Applied Behavior Analysis. Cavallaro, S. A., & Porter, R. H. (1980). Peer prefe rences of at risk and normally developing children in a preschool mainstream classroom. American Journal on Mental Deficiency 84 357 366. Cavallaro, C. C. & Poulson, C. L. (1985). Teaching language to handicapped children in natural settings. Education & Treatment of Children, 8 1 24.

PAGE 339

339 Chiara, L., Schuster, J. W., Bell, J. K., & Wolery, M. (1995). Small group massed trial and individually distributed trial instruction with preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention 19 203 217. Clifford, R. M., Reszka S. S., & Rossbach H (2010). Reliability and validity of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Cohen J. A. (1960). A coe ff icient of agree ment for nominal scales. Education and Psychological Measurement, 20 37 46. Culatta, B., Kovarsky, D., Theadore, G., Franklin, A., & Timler, G. (2003). Quantitative and qualitative documentation of early literacy instruction. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 12 172 188. Danko, C. D. (2004). Improving the engagement levels of preschool children with autism through the use of a visual supports package during circle time. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses Full Text (Proquest) (AAT 3129694) Daugherty, S., Grisham Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2001). The effects of embedded ski ll instruction on the acquisition of target and non target skills in preschoolers with developmental delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21 213 221. DEC/NAEYC. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill NC : The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute. De Kruif, R. E. L., & McWilliam, R. A. (1999). Multivariate relationshi ps among developmental age, global engagement, and observed child engagement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 515 536. Delprato, D. J. (2001). Comparisons of discrete trial and normalized behavioral intervention for young children with autism. Jou rnal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31 315 325. Denham, C., & Lieberman, A. (1980). Time to l earn. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). three year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24 81 112. Doke, L. A., & Risley, T. R. (1972). The organization of day care environments: Required vs. optional activities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 5 405 420.

PAGE 340

340 Douglas, J. W. B., & Ross, J. M. (1965). The effects of absence on primary school performance. The British Journal of Educational Psychology 35 28 40. Downer, J. T., Booren, L. M., Lima, O. K., Luckner, A. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). The Individualized Classroom Assessment Scoring System (inCLASS): Preliminary reliability and validity of a system for observi ng preschoolers' competence in classroom interaction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25 1 16. Dunst, C. J. (2000). Everyday learning opportunities: Characteristics and conse quences. Learning Opportunities Report, 2 (1), 1 2. Duns t, C. J., & McWilliam, R. A. (1988). Cognitive assessment of multiply handicapped young children. In T. D. Wachs & R. Sheehan (Eds.), Assessment of young developmentally disabled children (pp. 213 238). New York NY : Plenum Press. Dunst, C. J., McWilliam, R. A., & Holbert, K. (1986). Assessment of preschool classroom environments. Diagnostique, 11, 212 232. Early, D. & Winton, P. (2001). Preparing the workforce: Early childhood teacher preparation at 2 and 4 year institutions of higher learning Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16 307 311. Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1986, 20 U.S.C. 5 1401 1485. Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2008a). EIOS RVI: Embedded instruction observation system Research version I. [Manual and training videos]. Unpublished instrument. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2008b). Tools for teachers: Overview module rofessional development series. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2008c). Tools for teachers: Planning module development series. Coll ege of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2008d). Tools for teachers: Implementing module development series. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2008e). Tools for teachers: Evaluating module development series. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2008f). Coaching preschool teachers to use embedded instruction practices [Manual and Coaching Protocols].

PAGE 341

341 Unpublished professional development material College of Education, University of Florida, Gaines ville, FL. Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2010). EBOS RVI: Engagement behavior observation system Research version I. [Manual and training videos]. Unpublished instrument. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Em bedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2012). EBOS RVII: Engagement behavior observation system Research version II. [Manual and training videos]. Unpublished instrument. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Elliott, R. O., Hall, K., & Soper, H. V. (1991). Analog language teaching versus natural language teaching: Generalization and retention of language learning for adults with autism and mental retardation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21 433 447. Fil play with adult prompts. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 93 108. Finch, F. H., & Nemzek, C. L. (1940). Attendance and achievement in secondary school. Journal of Educati onal Research 34 119 126. Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (1985). Perspectives on instructional time New York NY : Longman. Fox, L., & Hanline, M. F. (1993). A preliminary evaluation of learning within developmentally appropriate early childhood setti ngs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13 308 327. Fredrick, W. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1980). Learning as a function of time. Journal of Educational Research 73 183 194. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. ( 2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38 915 945. Garfinkle, A. N., & Schwartz, I. S. (2002). Peer imitation: Increasing social interactions in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive preschool classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22 26 38. Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2009). A longitudinal study of motivation and competence in children with Down syndrome: Early childhood to early adolescence. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 53 484 492.

PAGE 342

342 Green, S. B., McCoy, J. F., Burns, K. P., & Smith, A. C. (1982). Accuracy of observational data wit h whole interval, partial interval, and momentary time sampling recording techniques. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 4 103 118. Greenwood, C. (1985). Assessing eco behavioral relationships in special education (Ed), An eco behavioral approach to research in special education (pp. 19 35). Kansas University, Lawrence, KS. Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and academic achievement in at risk and non risk students. Exceptional Children, 57 521 535. Grisham Brown, J., Hemmeter, M. L., & Pretti Frontczak, K. (2005). Blended practice for teaching young children in inclusive settings. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company. Grisham Brown, J., Pretti F rontczak, K., Hawkins, S. R., & Winchell, B. N. (2009). Addressing early learning standards for all children within blended preschool classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29 131 142. Grisham Brown, J., Ridgley, R., Pretti Frontczak, K., Litt, C., & Nielson, A. (2006). Promoting positive learning outcomes for young children in inclusive classrooms: writing standards. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention 3 171 190. Grisham Brown, J., Schuster, J. W., Hemmeter, M. L., & Collins, B. C. (2000). Using an embedding strategy to teach preschoolers with significant disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10 139 162. Guralnick, M. J. (1990). Social competence and earl y intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 14 3 14. Guralnic, M. J., & Groom, J. M. (1987). Dyadic peer interactions of mil dly delayed and non handicapped preschool children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 92, 128 193. Hadeed, J., & Sylva, K. (1996). social and cognitive progress in day care Paper Presented at the Fifth European Early Childhood Education Research Association Conference on the Quality of Early Childhood Education, Paris. Halle J. W. (1982). Teaching functional language to the handicapped: An integrative model of natural environment teaching techniques. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 29 37. Halle, J. W., Baer, D. M., & Spradlin, J. E. (1981). Teache as a stimulus control procedure to increase language use in handicapped children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14 389 409.

PAGE 343

343 Hamilton, D. (2005). An ecobehavioral analysis of interactive engagement of children with developmental disabilities with their peers in inclusive preschools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52 121 137. Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Revised Edition New York NY : Teachers College Press. Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (2005). Early childhood environment rating scale revised edition (ECERS R) New York, NY: Teachers College Pr ess. Harnischfeger, A., & Wiley, D. E. (1978). Conceptual issues in models of school learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10 215 231. Harrop, A., & Daniels, M. (1986). Methods of time sampling: A reappraisal of momentary time sampling and partial interval recording. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 19 73 77. Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Establishing the use of descriptive adjectives in the spontaneous speech of disadvantaged children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1 109 120. Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1974). Using preschool materials to modify the language of disadvantaged children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 243 256. Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal of Applied B ehavior Analysis, 8 411 420. Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1980). In vivo language intervention: Unanticipated general effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13 243 256. Hemmeter, M. L. (2000). Classroom based interventions: Evaluating the past a nd looking toward the future. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20 56 61. Hemmeter, M. L., & Kaiser, A. P. (1994). Enhanced milieu teaching: Effects of parent implemented language intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 18 269 289. Hendr ickson, J. M., Strain, P. S., Tremblay, A., & Shores, R. E. (1981). Relationship between toy and material use and the occurrence of social interactive behaviors by normally developing preschool children. Psychology in the Schools, 18 500 504. Holvoet, J., Guess, D., Mulligan, M., & Brown, F. (1980). The individualized curriculum sequencing model (II): A teaching strategy for severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped 5 337 351.

PAGE 344

344 Horn, E., & Banerjee, R. (2009). Understanding curriculum modifications and embedded learning opportunities in the context of supporting all children's success. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40 406 415. Horn, E., Lieber, J., Li, S., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2000 ). Supporting young opportunities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20 208 223. Horn, C., Snyder, B. P., Coverdale, J. H., Louie, A. K., & Roberts, L. W., (2009). Educational research questions and study design. Academic Psychiatry, 33 261 267. Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with peers: Social and social pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28, 961 974. Howes, C., & Smith, E. W. (1995). Relations among child care quality, teacher behavior, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10 381 404. s play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23, 423 430. Jennings, K. D., Connors, R. E., & Stegman, C. E. (1988). Does a physical handicap alter the development of mastery motivation during the preschool years? Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 27 312 317. Jennings, K. D., Yarrow, L. J., & Martin, P. P. (1984). Mastery motivation and cognitive development: A longitudinal study from infancy through 3 years of age. International Journal of Behavioral Development 7 441 461. Johnson, J. W., McDonnell, J., Holzwarth, V., & Hunter, K. (2004) The efficacy of embedded instruction for students with developmental disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 6, 214 227. Johnston, S., Nelson, C., Evans, J., & Palazolo, K. (2003). The use of visu al supports in teaching young children with autism spectrum disorder to initiate interactions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19 86 103. Jones, H. A., & Warren, S. F. (1991). Enhancing engagement in early language teaching. TEACHING Exception al Children 23 48 50. Kaczmarek, L. A., Hepting, N. H., & Dzubak, M. (1996). Examining the generalization of milieu language objectives in situations requiring listener preparatory behaviors Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 16 139 167.

PAGE 345

345 Kais er, A. P. (1993). Parent implemented language intervention: An environmental perspective. In A. P. Kaiser & D. B. Gray (Eds.), Enhancing children's communication: Research foundations for intervention (pp. 63 84). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Kaiser, A. P., & H ester, P. P. (1994). Generalized effects of enhanced milieu teaching. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37 1320 1340. Karweit, N. (1976). A reanalysis of the effect of quantity of schooling on achievement. Sociology of Education 49 236 246. Karwei t, N. (1984). Time on task reconsidered: Synthesis of research on time and learning. Educational Leadership 41 33 35. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ke mp, C., Kishida, Y., Carter, M., & Sweller, N. (2013). The effect of activity type on the engagement and interaction of young children with disabilities in inclusive childcare settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28 134 143. Kern, P., Wolery, M., & Aldridge, D. (2007). Use of songs to promote independence in morning greeting routines for young children with autism. Journal Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37 1264 1271. Kishida, Y. & Kemp, C. (2006). A measure of engagement for children wit h intellectual disabilities in early childhood settings: A preliminary study. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 31 101 114. Kishida, Y., & Kemp, C. (2009). The engagement and interaction of children with autism spectrum disorder in seg regated and inclusive early childhood center based settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 29 105 118. Kishida, Y. & Kemp, C. (2010). Training staff to measure the engagement of children with disabilities in inclusive childcare centres. In ternational Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 57 21 41. Kishida, Y., Kemp, C., & Carter, M. (2008). Revision and validation of the Individual Child Engagement Record: A practitioner friendly measure of learning opportunities for children with disabilities in early childhood settings. Journal of Intellectual and Development Disability, 33, 158 170. Kohler, F. W., Anthony, L. J., Steighner, S. A., & Hoyson, M. (2001). Teaching social interaction skills in the integrated preschool: An examination of naturalistic tactics. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21 103 113. Kohler, F. W., Strain, P. S., Hoyson, M., & Jamieson, B. (1997). Merging n aturalistic teaching and peer based strategies to address the IEP objectives of

PAGE 346

346 preschoolers with autism: An examination of structural and child behavior outcomes. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12 196 206. Kontos, S., Burchinal, M. Howes, C., Wisseh, S., & Galinsky, E. (2002). An eco behavioral approach to examining the contextual effects of early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 239 258. Kontos, S., & Keyes, L. (1999). An ecobehavioral analysis of earl y childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14 35 50. Kontos, S., Moore, D., & Giorgetti, K. (1998). The ecology of inclusion. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 38 48. Krantz, P. J., & Risley, T. R. (1977). Behavioral ecology in the classroom. In K. D. (Ed.), Classroom Management: The Successful Use of Behavior Modification (2 nd Ed., pp. 349 367). New York NY : Pergamon Press. Lange, G., MacKinnon, C. E., & Nida, R. E. (1989). Knowledge, strate gy, and Developmental Psychology 25, 772 778. LeLaurin, K., & Risley, T. R. (1972). The organization of day to Journal of Appli ed Behavior Analysis 5 225 232. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research. From theory to practice San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Losardo, A., & Bricker, D. (1994). Activity based intervention and direct instruction: A comparison study. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98 744 765. Lovaas, O. I., Koegel, R., Simmons, J. Q., & Long, J. S. (1973). Some generalization and follow up measures on autistic children in behavior therapy Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6 131 166. Macy, M. G., & Bricker, D. (2007). Embedding individualized social goals into routine activities in inclusive early childhood classrooms. Early Child Development and Care, 177 107 120. MacTurk, R. H., Vietze, P. M., McCarty, M. E., McQuiston, S., & Yarrow, L. J. (1985). The organization of exploratory behavior in Down syndrome and nondelayed infants. Child Development 56, 573 581. Malmskog, S., & McDonnell, A. P. (1999). Teacher mediate d facilitation of engagement by children with developmental delays in inclusive preschools. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19 203 216.

PAGE 347

347 Malone, D. M., Stoneman, Z., & Langone, J. (1994). Contextual variation of correspondences among measures of play and developmental level of preschool children. Journal of Early Intervention 18 199 215. Martin, S., Brady, M., & Williams, S. (1991). Effects of toys on the social behavior of preschool children in in tegrated and nonintegrated groups: Investigat ion of a setting event. Journal of Early Intervention, 15 153 161. McBride, B. J., & Schwartz, I. S. (2003). Effects of teaching early interventionists to use discrete trials during ongoing classroom activities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23 5 17. McCall, R. B. (1995). On definitions and measures of mastery motivation. In R. H. MacTurk & G. A. Morgan (Eds.), Mastery motivation: Origins, conceptualizations, and applications (pp. 273 292). Norwood NJ: Ablex. McCathren, R. B. (2000). Teacher implemented prelinguistic communication intervention. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15 21 29. McCormick, L., Noonan, M. J., & Heck, R. (1998). Variables affecting engagement in inclusive preschool classrooms. Journal of Early Intervention, 21 160 176. McDonnell, A. P. (1996). The acquisition, transfer, and generalization of requests by young children with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Deve lopmental Disabilities 31 213 234. McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., McQuivey, C., & Kiefer engaged time of students with low incidence disabilities in general education classes. Mental Retardation, 35, 18 26. McMillen, B. J. (1999). Predictors of engagement in center based child care: Mediating and moderating effects. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses Full Text (Proquest) (AAT 9938192) McWilliam, R. A. (1998). Engagement Check II. Chapel Hill NC : Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. McWillliam, R. A. (2000). (STARE) Chapel Hill NC : Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. McWilliam, R. A., & Bailey, D. B. (1992). Promoting engagem ent and mastery. In D. B. Bailey & M. Wolery (Ed.), Teaching infants and preschoolers with disabilities (2nd Ed., pp. 230 255). New York NY : Macmillan Publishing Company. McWilliam, R. A., & Bailey, D. B. (1995). Effects of classroom social structure and disability on engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15 123 147.

PAGE 348

348 McWilliam, R. A., & Casey, A. M. (2004). Engagement quality and incidental teaching for improved e ducation (E Qual ITIE) Nashville, TN: Center for Child Development, Vande rbilt University Medical Center. McWilliam, R. A., & Casey, A. M., (2008). Engagement of every child in the preschool classroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Co. McWilliam, R. A., & de Kruif, R. E. L. (1998). E Chape l Hill NC : Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. McWilliam, R. A., Scarborough, A. A., & Kim, H. (2003). Adult interactions and child engagement. Early Education & Development, 14, 7 27. McWilliam, R. A ., Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (1985). Behavior engagement as a measure of the efficacy of early intervention. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities 5, 59 71. McWilliam, R. A., & Ware, W. B. (1994). The reliability of observations of young children's engagement: An application of generalizability theory. Journal of Early Intervention, 18 34 47. Meany Daboul, M. G., Roscoe, E. M., Bourret, J. C., & Ahearn, W. H. (2007). A comparison of momentary time sampling and partial interval reco rding for evaluating functional relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40 501 514. Messer, D. J., Rachford, D., McCarty, M. E., & Yarrow, L. J. (1987). Assessment of mastery motivation behavior at 30 months: Analysis of task directed activities Developmental Psychology, 23 771 781. Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2007). Research design explained 6th Ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Montes, F., & Risley, T. R. (1975). Evaluating traditional day care practices: An empirical approach. Child Care Quarterly 4 208 215. Moore, S. R. (1998). Effects of sample size on the representativeness of observational data used in evaluation. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 209 226. Morgan, G. A., MacTurk, R. H., & Hrncir, E. J. (1995). Mast ery motivation: Overview, definitions and conceptual issues. In: R. H. MacTurk, & G.A. Morgan (Ed.), Mastery m otivation: Origins, c onceptualizations, and a pplications ( pp. 1 18). Norwood, NJ: Ablex P ublishing Corporation. Mudd, J. M., & Wolery, M. (1987). Training Head Start teachers to use incidental teaching. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 11 124 133.

PAGE 349

349 Mulligan, M., Guess, D., Holvoet, J., & Brown, F. (1980). The individualized curriculum sequencing model (I): Implications from research on m assed, distributed, or spaced trial training. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 325 336. Neef, N. A., Walters, J., & Egel, A. L. (1984). Establishing generative yes/no responses in developmentally disabled children. Journal of App lied Behavior Analysis, 17 453 460. Niccols, A., Atkinson, L., & Pepler, D. (2003). Mastery motivation in young children with Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 121 133. Nordquist, V. M., & Wahler, R. G. (1973). Naturalistic treatment of an autistic child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 79 87. Odom, S. L. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and where we go from here. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educat ion, 20 20 27. Odom, S. L. (Ed.). (2002). Widening the circle: Including children with disabilities in preschool programs. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Odom, S. L. (2009). The tie that binds: Evidence based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29 53 61. Odom, S. L., & Diamond, K. E. (1998). Inclusion of young children with special needs in early childhood special education: The research base. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 13 3 25. Odom, S. L., Jenkins, J. R., Speltz, M. L., & DeKlyen, M. (1982). Promoting social integration of young children at risk for learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 5 379 387. Odom, S. L., Vitztum, J., Wolery, R., Lieber, J., Sa ndall, S., Hanson, M. J., et al. (2004). Preschool inclusion in the United States: A review of research from an ecological systems perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4 17 49. S. M. (2007). The effects of enhanced milieu teaching and a voice output communication aid on the requesting of three children with autism. Journal Autism and Devel opmental Disorders, 37 1505 1513. Palsha, S. A., & Wesley, P. W. (1998). Improving quality in early childhood environments through on site consultation. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18 243 253.

PAGE 350

350 Parish, L. E. (2008). te and physical activity response to three different motivational climates: Mastery, performance, and unplanned free play. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses Full Text (Proquest) (AAT 3317338) Peck, C. A., Killen, C. C., & Baumgart, D. (1989). Increasing implementation of special education instruction in mainstream preschools: Direct and gene ralized effects of nondirective consultation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22 197 210. Pretti Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2001). Use of the embedding strategy during daily activities by early childhood education and early childhood special educ ation teachers. Infant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal, 11 111 128. Pretti Frontczak, K. & Bricker, D. (2004). An Activity based approach to early intervention (3 rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes. Pipp Siegel, S., Sedey, A. L., VanLeeuwen, A. M., & Yoshinaga Itano, C. (2003). Mastery motivation and expressive language in young children with hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Education 8 133 145. Powell, D. R., Burchinal, M., File, N., & Kontos, N. (2008). An eco behavioral analysis of children's engagement in urban public school preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 108 123. Powell, J., Martindale, A., & Kulp, S. (1975). An evaluation of time sample measures of behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8 463 469. Quilitch, H. R., & Risley, T. R. (1973). The effects of play materials on social play. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 573 578. engagement. Early Education and Development 12 209 224. Risley, T. R. (1972). Spontaneous language and the preschool environment. In C. S. Stanlev (Ed.). Preschool programs for the disadvantaged: Five experimental approaches to early childhood education (pp. 92 110). Bal timore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. Rogers Warren, A., & Warren, S. (1980). Mands for verbalization: Facilitating the display of newly trained language in children. Behavior Modification, 4 362 382. Rule, S., Losardo, A., Dinnebeil, L. A., Kaiser, A., & Rowland, C. (1998). Research challenges in naturalistic intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 21 283 293. Ruskin, E. M., Mundy, P., Kasari, C., & Sigman, M. (1994). Object mastery motivation of children with Down syndrome. American Journal on Ment al Retardation 98 499 509.

PAGE 351

351 S ainato D., & L yon S. (1989). Promoting successful mainstreaming transitions for handicapped preschool children, Journal of Early Intervention 13 305 314. Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., Lefebvre, D., & Rapp, N. (1987). Faci litating transition times with handicapped preschool children: A comparison between peer mediated and antecedent prompt procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 285 291. Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. M. G. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education 20, 114 126. Sandall, S. R., & Davis, C.A. (2004, February). Learning to embed instruction: Effects of a field based project for preservice teachers. Paper presente d at the Conference on Research Innovations in Early Intervention, San Diego, CA. Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. J., & McLean, M. E. (Eds.). (2005). DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/e arly childhood special education Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Schepis, M. M., Ownbey, J. B., Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H. (2000). Training support staff for teaching young children with disabilities in an inclusive preschool setting. Journal of Positive Be havior Interventions, 2 170 178. Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Behrmann, M. M., & Sutton, K. A. (1998). Increasing communicative interactions of young children with autism using a voice output communication aid and naturalistic teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31 561 578. Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Ownbey, J., & Parsons, M. B. (2001). Training support staff to embed teaching within natural routines of young children with disabilities in an inclusive preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior A nalysis, 34 313 327. Schuster, J. W., Hemmeter, M. L., & Ault, M. J. (2001). Instruction of students with moderate and severe disabilities in elementary classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16 329 342. Schwartz, I. S., Carta, J. J., & Grant, S (1996). Examining the use of recommended intervention practices in early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 16, 251 272. Sexton, D., Snyder, P., Wolfe, B., Lobman, M., Stricklin, S., & Akers, P. (1996). Early interv ention inservice training strategies: Perceptions and suggestions from the field. Exceptional Children, 62 485 495. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood d evelopment Washington, DC: Natio nal Academy Press.

PAGE 352

352 Shrout, P. E., Spitzer, R. L., & Fleiss, J. L. (1987). Quantification of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis revisited. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44 172 177. Simeonsson, R. J., & Bailey, D. B. (1991). The ABILITIES index Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M, J. (1993). Motivation in classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Experimental Psychology 85 571 581. Smith, J. D., Warren, S. F., Yoder, P. J., & Feurer, I. (2004). Teachers' use of natural communication intervention strategies. Journal of Early Intervention 27 1 14. Snell, M. (2007). Effective instructional practices. TASH Connections 33 8 12. Snyder, P. A., Denney, M. K., Pasia, C., Rakap, S., & Crowe, C. (2011). Profe ssional development in early childhood intervention: Emerging issues and promising approaches. In C. Groark (Set Ed.) & L. A. Kaczmarek (Vol. Ed.), Early childhood intervention: Shaping the future for children with special needs and their families Vol. 3 E merging trends in research and practice (pp. 169 204). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., & McLaughlin, T. (2011). Professional development in early childhood intervention: Where we stand on the 25 th anniversary of P.L. 99 457. Journal of Early Intervention (Special issue in honor of the 25 th anniversary 33 357 370. Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., McLaughlin, T., Algina, J., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. (2011, April). Impact of professional develop embedded instruction practices. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., McLean, M., Sandall, S., & McLaughlin, T. (in press). Embed ded instruction to support early learning in response to intervention frameworks. In V. Buysse & E. Peisner Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood Baltimore MD : Brookes. Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., Meeker, K. A., Kinder K., Pasia, C., & McLaughlin, T. (2012). Characterizing key features of the early childhood professional development literature. Infants and Young Children 25 188 212. Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. E. (2007). Impact of professional practices: Research narrative Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=576 Snyd er, P., Hemmeter, M. L., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. (2009). Impact of professional instruction practices.

PAGE 353

353 [Grant Performance Report]. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Snyder, P. Hemmeter, M. L., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. (2010). Impact of professional instruction practices. [Grant Performance Report]. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Snyder, P. A., M cLaughlin, T., & Denney, M. K. (2011). Frameworks for guiding program focus and practices in early intervention. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 716 730). New York NY : Routledge. Snyder, P., Rakap, S., Hemmet er, M. L., McLaughlin, T., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. (2013). Naturalistic instructional approaches in early learning: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Manuscript submitted for publication. Snyder, L. S., & Lindstedt, D.E. (1985). Models of child language development. In E. Schopler & G. B. Mesibov (Eds.), Communication problems in autism (pp.37 57). New York, NY: Plenum. Snyder, P., Sandall, S., McLean, M., Hemmeter, M. L., McLaughlin, T., Edelman, L., & Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2009). Tools for teachers: Overview module development series. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Snyder, P., & Wolfe, B. (2008). The big three process components of effective professional development: Needs assessment, evaluation, and follow up. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Practical approaches to early childhood professional development: Evidence, strategies, a nd resources (pp. 13 51). Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press. Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72 101. Spitznagel, E., & Helzer, J. (1985). A proposed solution to the bas e rate problem in the Kappa statistics. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42 725 729. Stallings, J. (1975). Implementation and child effects of teaching practices in Follow Through classrooms. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 40 (Serial No. 163). Stallings, J. (1980). Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher 9 11 16. Stallings, J., Cory, R., Fairweather, J., & Needles M. (1977). Early childhood education classroom evaluation Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

PAGE 354

354 Stallings, J., Needles, M., & Stayrook, N. (1979). How to change the process of teaching basic reading skills in secondary schools. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Stokes, T., Baer, D., & Jackson, L. (1974). Program ming the generalization of a greeting response in four re tarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7 599 610. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Tremblay, A., Strain, P. S., Hendrickson, J. M., & Shores, R. E. (1980). The activity context of preschool children's social interactions: A comparison of high and low social interactors. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 380 385. Turner, L. A., & Johnson, B. (2003). A model of mastery motivation for at risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 495 505. Twardosz, S., Cataldo, M. F., & Risley, T. R. (1974). Open environment designed for infant and toddler day care. Journal of Applied Behavior A nalysis 7 529 546. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Twenty Nineth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G. Morris, A., DeCesare, L. D., & Cuffs, M. S. (1993). Embedding instruction in art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8 277 294. Vitiello, V. E., Booren, L. M., Downer, J. T., & W illiford, A. P. (2012). Variation in classroom and child factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27 210 220. Wachs, T. D. & Combs, T. T. (1995). The domains of in fant mastery motivation. In: R. H. MacTurk, & G. A. Morgan (Ed.), Mastery Motivation: Origins, c onceptualizations, and a pplications (pp 147 164). Norwood, NJ: Ablex P ublishing Corporation. Warren, S. F., & Kaiser, A. P. (1986). Incidental language teaching: A critical review. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51 291 299. Warren, S. F., McQuarter, R. J., & Rogers Warren, A. P. (1984). The effects of mands and models on the s peech of unresponsive language delayed preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49 43 52.

PAGE 355

355 Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Holcombe Ligon, A., Vassilaros, M. A., & Billings, S. S. (1992). Efficacy of transition based teaching with instructive feedback. Education and Treatment of Children, 15 320 334. White, R. W. (1959) Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review 66 297 323. Winton, P. J., McCollum, J ., & Catlett, C. (1997). Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models, and practical strategies. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Wolery, M. (2005). DEC recommended practices: Child focused practices. In S. Sandall, M. L. Hemmeter, B. J. Smith, & M. E. McLean (Eds.), DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childh ood special education (pp. 71 106). Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Wolery, M. (2012). Voices from the field. Young Exceptional Children, 15 (4), 41 44. Wolery, M., Anthony, L., & Heckathorn, J. (1998). Transition based teaching: Effects on Journal of Early Intervention, 21 117 131. Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Simpson, S. L. (1993). Comparison of progressive time delay a nd transition based teaching with preschoolers who have developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 17 160 176. Wolery, M., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2011). Classroom instruction: Background, assumptions, and challenges. Journal of Early Intervention, 3 3 371 380. Wolery, M., & Harris, S. R. (1982). Interpreting results of single subject research designs. Physical Therapy, 62 445 452. Wyne, M. D., & Stuck, G. B. (1979). Time on task and reading performance in underachieving children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11 119 128. Yarrow, L. J., Morgan, G. A., Jennings, K. D., Harmon, R. J., & Gaiter, J. L. (1982). experience. Infant Behavior and Development 5 131 142. Yoder, P. J., Kaiser, A. P., Goldstein, H., Alpert, C., Mousetis, L., Kaczmarek, L., & Fischer, R. (1995). An exploratory comparison of milieu teaching and responsive interaction in classroom applications. Journal of Early Intervention, 19 218 24. Yoder, P. J., & Symons, F. (2010). Observational measurement of behavior New York, NY: Springer.

PAGE 356

356 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Salih Rakap graduated from primary school in 1992, middle school in 1995, and high school in 1998. He earned h is on from the Gazi University in 2002. After his graduation, he worked as an elementary school teacher for 2 years. In February 2004, he was awarded a scholarship from the Turkish Ministry of National Education to pursue graduate studies abroad. He was among 20 individuals who were awarded the scholarship. He came to the United States in 2004 as an international student and completed a 1 year course of study at Boston University focused on English as a second language in order to prepare for his graduate stud ies. the University of Pittsburgh. He completed the program in 2007. In the same year, he applied to doctoral program in special education at the University of Florida and received acceptance with the award of an alumni fellowship to complete his studies. During his 6 years in the doctoral program, he has focused on inclusion in preschool, child engagement, naturalistic instructional approaches, social emotion al development of young children, professional development for preschool teacher, home based early intervention practices, and effect sizes in single subject experimental research. While completing his doctoral coursework, he taught two undergraduate level courses focused on introduction to special education and curriculum and instruction in early childhood special education. He worked as research assistant for three research projects funded by the Institute of Education Sciences. He has several peer review ed publications. He has been a reviewer for and a presenter at rom

PAGE 357

357 in Academic Achieveme of Florida. In 2013, he graduated with a Ph.D. in special education with a specialization in early childhood studies and a minor in research and evaluation methods. His career goal is to ass ume a faculty position at a research intensive university.