Professional Development in Embedded
Instruction
Mary McLean, Ph.D. - University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Patricia Snyder, Ph.D. - University of Florida
Susan Sandall, Ph.D. - University of Washington
Mary Louise Hemmeter, Ph.D. - Vanderbilt University
A previous version of this presentation was delivered at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association
April 2011
New Orleans, LA
Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences
R324A070008
Embedded Instruction
Multi-component approach to provide
intentional and systematic instruction
on priority learning targets
during typically occurring
activities, routines, and transitions
to support
child engagement and learning
Key Components
EC PD “Need” Relevant
for Present Study
• Descriptive studies have shown many
early childhood practitioners do not feel
– Competent
– Confident
• To meet the needs of young children with
disabilities in inclusive learning contexts
– Access
– Participation
Theory of Change: Abbreviated
Intervention
PD Tool Kit
(Multi‐media materials)
Workshops
(high‐quality/
interactive)
Coaching
Teachers’ Frequent and Accurate Use of Embedded‐
Instruction Practices
Increased Child Learning Opportunities
Child Engagement and Learning
(on‐site coaching or self‐coaching)
Contextual
Variables
Instructional
“Quality”
Instructional
“Effectiveness”
Potential Efficacy Study
• Conducted in FL, WA, and WI
• 36 preschool teachers
– 3 sites
– 11 to 13 teachers per site
• 106 children across 3 sites
– 2-3 “target” children with disabilities in each
teacher’s classroom
Design
• Teachers were randomly assigned to one of
three conditions at each site
– Tools for Teachers workshops plus on-site coaching
– Tools for Teachers workshops plus self-coaching
– Wait-list comparison (control)
• Proximal outcome measures: 5 occasions
– Before and after workshops
– 2nd month and 4th month of coaching
– After intervention
• Distal outcome measures: pre and post
– Before workshops
– After intervention
Teacher Information
On‐site Coaching (n = 12)
Self‐Coaching
(n = 12)
Control
(n = 12)
12
12
11
8
Race White/Non‐Hispanic 10
9
African American
1
0
2
Hispanic 1
1
0
Othera
2
1
1
Education Bachelor
Master
6
9
8
6
3
4b
ECSE Trainc Yes
No
9
8
9
2
4
3
Yrs.
Experience in EC
M = 9.3
M = 6
M = 7.5
SD = 6.0
SD = 4.0
SD = 4.2
Female
8
Child Information
All participating children were identified with disabilities that
qualified them to receive education and related services under
Section 619 of IDEA.
All children enrolled in the study had IEP
On‐site Coaching (n = 35)
Self‐Coaching
(n = 36)
Control
(n = 35)
30 males
5 females
25 males
11 females
27 males
8 females
Mean Age in Mos.
(SD)
48.6
(8.7) 46.8
(8.1)
52.7
(8.4)
Mean ABILITIES Index score (SD) 1.8 (.5) 1.7 (.4) 1.7 (.6)
Gender
9
Primary Research Questions
•
What is the relationship between exposure to PD intervention and
teachers’ frequent and accurate use of embedded-instruction
practices?
– Developing quality learning targets (LTRS)
– Implementing planned learning opportunities (EIOS)
– Delivering complete learning trials (EIOS)
•
Do scores on standardized measures of key preschool indicators
(pre-academic, literacy, language, and social-emotional behavior)
differ among children whose teachers were involved in each of the
three experimental PD conditions?
•
What are teachers’ perspectives about embedded instruction and
the professional development they received?
Experimental Intervention
• Teachers in both PD experimental conditions received:
– 16.5 hours of workshops
– Implementation guides and materials
– Digital video camera
• On-site coaching
–
–
–
–
Observation, debrief, and email feedback
Mean # sessions = 16
Mean duration of observation = 73.9 min (SD = 19.5)
Mean duration of debrief = 39.3 min (SD = 12.1)
• Web-based coaching*
• Wait-list control teachers received workshops,
implementation guides, digital video camera and access
to web site at end of study
Procedural Fidelity:
Workshops
• Workshop Implementation Guides
• Workshop Fidelity Checklist
– 96.8% (range = 93.6% -99.4%)
• Instructional Strategies Used by Trainer
• Time Allocated versus Time Spent
Procedural Fidelity: Coaching
Orientation
(n = 12)
Early
(n = 24)
Latter
(n = 65)
Email
(n = 76)
Final
(n = 12)
All
Sessions
(n = 189)
Coach report
% coaching log
indicators
M (SD)
98.6
(2.1)
96.7
(3.7)
98.1
(2.7)
98.5
(3.7)
100.0
98.2
(3.2)
No. of sessions
with second
observer
4
5
15
25
4
53
100
91.8
(9.2)
95.7
(3.4)
96.3
(4.9)
97.9
(4.2)
96.1
(5)
Second observer
% coaching log
indicators
M (SD)
13
Procedural Fidelity:
Self-Coaching
• Fidelity self-coaching orientation session
– 97.2% (range 91.7%-100%)
• Fidelity weekly e-mail reminder to teachers
in the self-coaching condition
– 100%
Select Findings
Coaching Strategies: Observation
Coaching Strategies: Debrief
17
Self-Coaching and Website Use
# of visits
every 2
weeksa
Average time
on site per
visitb (min)
# of action
plans
submittedc
# of forms
uploaded to
the site
Selfcoaching
video
submitted
Teacher A
1.6
36
3
9
Yes
Teacher B
Moderate
Users
Teacher C
1.6
19
4
16
Yes
.6
54
0
4
No
Teacher D
1.2
19
1
0
Yes
Teacher E
.6
42
1
0
Yes
Teacher F
.4
13
1
0
Yes
Teacher G
.4
34
2
1
Yes
Teacher H
1.2
27
0
0
No
Teacher I
.2
42
0
6
No
Teacher J
0
n/a
0
0
No
Teacher K
0
n/a
0
0
No
High Users
Low Users
18
Teacher Implementation Data
Note. LTRS Total Score represents percentage of quality indicators. EIOS scores measured as rate
based on number of trials implemented for a child on one learning target every 15 min. On average,
teachers implemented trials for 2-3 children with 2-3 learning targets for each child.
* Refers to statistically significant main effect at p < .05
EIOS: Teacher Implementation
“Embedded” Complete Learning Trials
20
Child Outcome Data
Note. TERA-3 = Test of Early Reading Ability-Third Edition; PLS-4 = Preschool Language Scale Fourth Edition.
* Refers to significant main effect at p < .05
Social Validity Data:
PD Intervention
Limitations and Implications
• Limitations
– A priori power analyses based on alpha .20
– Standardized and decontextualized child outcome measures
– Metrics used to evaluate “dosage” of self-coaching
• Implications
– High-quality workshops sufficient for improving quality
of learning targets
– On-site coaching to improve frequency and accuracy
of embedded instruction learning trials
– Different implementation supports for different
components of embedded instruction
– Social validity data strong, particularly for workshops
plus on-site coaching