Shannon Crissey, M.Ed.
Erin Greager, M.Ed.
Lisa Pitale, M.Ed, BCBA
University of Washington
Haring Center
Experimental Education Unit
Introduction
 Who are we?
 Shannon Crissey, M.Ed. – EEU Preschool Teacher
 Erin Greager, M.Ed. – EEU Project DATA teacher
 Lisa Pitale, M.Ed., BCBA – EEU Project DATA teacher
 Who are you?
 What population do you work with?
 How is inclusion addressed at your place of work?
Why are we presenting today?
We are presenting today because of our strong belief in inclusion
and inclusive practices.
Questions we strived to answer this school year as special
education teachers:
- Why inclusion?
- How can we turn a lot of “talk” into some “action”?
- Does this action actually work? And if not, how can we MAKE
it work?
Why inclusion?
 Arguments for inclusion:
 Research articles:





Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way: The Successful Inclusion of a
Child with Autism. By Janet Schmidt
Inclusion in Play: A Case Study of a Child with Autism in an Inclusive
Nursery. By Fani Theodorou and Melanie Nind
Inclusion Means Everyone! The Role of the Early Childhood Educator
when Including Young Children with Autism in the Classroom. By
Shernavaz Vakil, Evonn Welton, Barbara O’Connor and Lynn S Kline.
Promoting a Lifetime of Inclusion. By Adelle Rezaglia, Meagan
Karvonen, Erik Drasgow and Craig C Stoxen.
Inclusive Programming for Students with Autism. By Belinda W.
Crisman
Civil rights:
 “Disability need not be an obstacle to success … It is my hope that …
this century will mark a turning point for inclusion of people with
disabilities in the lives of their societies.” – Professor Stephen
Hawking
 “We know that equality of individual ability has never existed and
never will, but we do insist that equality of opportunity still must be
sought." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
 “Inclusive education means that children will be included, made to
feel valued and provide others with the opportunity to appreciate
those who are different from themselves.” – Jeffrey Rudski, Professor
of Psychology, Muhlenberg College
So what’s the challenge?
 Why is inclusion not happening on so many levels?
 Staffing
 Students’ behavior
 General education classroom too disruptive of an
environment for child to learn in
 What are the challenges happening in your school?
So what can we do about it?
 This is where our project comes in. We wanted to
show that if students needed a self-contained
environment in order to learn classroom skills
they could then generalize those skills to a more
natural environment.
Purpose
 The purpose of our project was to determine whether
students were able to generalize mastered objectives from the
Project DATA classroom to the integrated pre-school classroom
- but….why?
Participants
 Students between the ages of 3-5 who have an
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis.
 Students’ ability levels varied from mainly socialemotional delays to more global delays in
communication, cognition, behavior, and social
development.
Setting: DATA Project
Extended,
Intensive
Instruction
Technical and
Social Support
for Families
Integrated
Early
Childhood
Experience
Collaboration
and
Coordination
Quality of Life
Influenced
Curriculum
Extended, Intensive Instructional
Time
 Instructional strategies are data-based and crossdisciplinary
 Children’s need for support is matched to the type of
instruction
 Teaching procedures include discrete trials,
naturalistic teaching techniques, response prompting
strategies and visual supports
 One-on-one and small groups
Technical and Social Support for
Families
 Emphasis on family-child relationships
 Home based services offered
 Emphasis on building supportive communities for families
 “Families own the agenda”
“Quality of Life” Curriculum in the
following areas:







Attending
Imitation
Communication
Play
Social interaction
Matching
Adaptive skills
 Focus on environment, child interest and motivation,
and functional skills.
 Focus on children’s ability to access typical
environments.
Collaboration and Coordination
Across Services
 Increase consistency across environments
 Appropriate expectations across environments
 Increase opportunities to practice skills
 Share information about motivation and progress
 Regular meetings among teachers
 Meetings, visits, and email with other related services
Project DATA Schedule
Time
8:45 - 8:50
8:50 - 10:00
10:00 - 10:15
10:15 – 10:30
10:30 – 11:00
11:00 – 11:30
11:30 – 11:50
11:50 – 12:00
12:00 - 12:30
Activity
Arrival
2:1 Work Time
Snack
Small Group
2:1 Work Time
Recess
Lunch
Circle
Free Choice
Setting – Integrated Preschool
 Integrated Preschool Classroom
 8 children diagnosed with a disability
 8 children who are typically developing
 Typically a 1:3 teacher/student ratio
 General education curriculum modified to meet the needs
of diverse learners through adaptations, accommodations,
embedded learning, and the use of peer models, along with
other strategies.
Setting – Preschool Schedule
Time
12:30 – 12:40
12:40 – 12:55
12:55 – 1:15
1:15 – 1:35
1:35 – 1:55
1:55 – 2:30
2:30 – 2:45
Activity
Arrival
Opening Circle
Small Group
Recess
Snack
Free Choice
Closing Circle
Procedure – Initial Steps
 Objective initially taught in Project DATA classroom
 1:2 teacher/student ratio
 Principles of applied behavior analysis
 Limited distractions
 Discrete trials or embedded learning with peer
Procedure - Criterion
 Objective closed: 80% proficiency across 2 consecutive
days
 Communication between Project DATA staff and
integrated preschool team to discuss what each objective
looked like and how it was to be tested within the
integrated preschool setting.
Procedure – Tested in preschool classroom
 Delivered in the context of the preschool classroom within
naturally occurring activities.
 Testing was delivered by the researcher who lowered her
body to the child’s level, gained eye contact, lessened
distracters as much as possible, and delivered a clear,
concise probe.
Data Collection
 Criteria for chosen objectives
 Discreteness
 Extent to which they were natural preschool behaviors

(ie: object imitation, following directions, etc.)
Data Collection
 Objectives were tested for generalization during specified




“generalization check” weeks after the objective closed in
Project DATA.
Data were collected using whatever data collection system was
already established within the preschool classroom
(clipboards, index cards attached to ring on teacher’s waist,
etc).
+ for independently demonstrating behavior
- for no response or incorrect response
Each testing probe given five times; child scored either 20%,
40%, 60%, 80%, or 100% per objective
General timeline of project
 September: met with all preschool and Project DATA
teachers to explain the project and determine who the
“classroom facilitators” would be.
 Facilitators were classroom assistants who were in charge
of administering generalization trials within their
classrooms and collecting data on each child’s response.
Timeline (con’t)
 October: First generalization check took place.
Project DATA teachers recorded mastered
objectives in classroom binders. Facilitators
transferred objectives on to classroom data
sheets and tested for generalization that week.
 December: Second generalization check took
place
Timeline (con’t)
 January: Researchers met with facilitators
to discuss project thus far and correct any
changes necessary.
 February: Third generalization check took
place
Timeline (con’t)
 Early March: Researchers met to discuss
aspects of project that were successful vs. not
successful and what possible reasons might
be.
 Solutions discussed and changes made
accordingly
 Late March: Fourth generalization check took
place.
Here’s what it looked like!
 Video of objective being taught in Project DATA
classroom
 Video of objective being tested in preschool
classroom
Discussion
 What are elements that seem feasible in your
classroom/center?
 Are there any elements that would not work?
Why? How could you problem solve this?
Now for the fun
part…
Student X
Student W
Student V
Student U
Student T
Student S
Student R
Student Q
Student P
Student O
Student N
Student M
Student L
Student K
Student J
Student I
Student H
Student G
Student F
Student E
Student D
Student C
Student B
Student A
Results
Generalization Rates
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Percent Generalization
30%
20%
10%
0%
Results – High Functioning
Generalization Rates - High Functioning
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Percent Generalization
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student
B
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
N
R
T
X
Results – Low Functioning
Generalization Rates- Low Functioning
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Percent Generalization
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student
A
C
I
L
M
O
P
Q
S
U
V
W
Results Discussion
 Data interpretation
 Students overall generalized at an average
rate of 68%
 High-functioning students generalized at an
average rate of 74%
 Low-functioning students generalized at an
average rate of 61%
Project Discussion
 What was successful about the project?
 Unforeseen challenges?
Discussion (con’t)
.
 External vs. natural settings should be as
similar as possible (including how testing
trials are delivered)
 Some students showed lower levels of
generalization
 Children with more severe forms of ASD
may not generalize as well
Discussion (con’t)
 Problems: If buy-in is not there then generalization
may not happen with consistency or fidelity.
 Discussion: How to promote buy-in for
generalization and inclusion?
 How will this continue to inform our future practice?
 How does this relate to the current state of special
education? Is it feasible?
Thank you!
Questions?
Please email us with any additional questions!
Shannon Crissey – connors8@u.washington.edu
Erin Greager – bryce12@gmail.com
Lisa Pitale – lapitale@u.washington.edu