Four students with moderate mental retardation were taught to read or define words that were included on vocabulary lists of three junior high school general education classes using embedded instruction. Students were taught these skills during instructional and management activities of the general education classes by special education paraprofessionals. Effectiveness of embedded instruction for these students was assessed using a multiple baseline across behaviors design. Results indicate that embedded instruction led to the acquisition and maintenance of the target skills. Paraprofessionals successfully implemented the embedded instruction procedures in general education classes. Results are discussed in terms of future research and implications for inclusive educational programs for students with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownL., FarringtonK., KnightT., RossC., & ZieglerM. (1999). Fewer paraprofessionals and more teachers and therapists in educational programs for students with significant disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 250–253.
2.
DunlapL. K., & DunlapG. (1987). Using task variation to motivate handicapped students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(4), 16–19.
3.
FoxL., & HanlineM. F. (1993). A preliminary evaluation of learning within developmentally appropriate early childhood settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 308–327.
4.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.
5.
Gaylord-RossR. J., & HolvoetJ. F. (1985). Strategies for education of students with severe handicaps. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
6.
GiangrecoM. F., BroerS. M., & EdelmanS. W. (1999). The tip of the iceberg: Determining whether paraprofessional support is needed for students with disabilities in general education settings. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 281–291.
7.
GiangrecoM. F., & PutnamJ. (1991). Supporting the education of students with severe disabilities in regular education environments. In MeyerL. H., PeckC. A., & BrownL. (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 245–270). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
8.
GuessD., & HelmstetterE. (1986). Skill cluster instruction and the individualized curriculum sequencing model. In HornerR. H., MeyerL. H., & FredericksH. D. B. (Eds.), Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies (pp. 221–250). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
9.
HalvorsenA. T., & SailorW. (1990). Integration of students with severe and profound disabilities. In Gaylord-RossR. (Ed.), Issues and research in special education (pp. 110–172). New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
HarrowerJ. (1999). Educational inclusion of children with severe disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 1, 215–230.
11.
HocutA. M. (1996). Effectiveness of special education: Is placement the critical factor?The future for children: Special education for students with disabilities, 6(1), 77–102.
12.
HuntP., & GoetzL. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3–29.
13.
KaiserA. P., OstroskyM. M., & AlpertC. L. (1993). Training teachers to use environmental arrangement and milieu teaching with nonvocal preschool children. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 188–199.
14.
KaiserA. P., YoderP. J., & KeetzA. (1992). Evaluating milieu teaching. In WarrenS. F. & ReichleJ. (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 9–47). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
15.
KauffmanJ. M. (1990). Restructuring in sociopolitical context: Reservations about the effects of current reform proposals on students with disabilities. In LloydJ. W., SinghN. H., & ReppA. C. (Eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 57–66). Sycamore IL: Sycamore Publishing Company.
16.
LosardoA., & BrickerD. (1994). Activity-based intervention and direct instruction: A comparison study. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 744–765.
17.
McDonnellJ. (1998). Instruction for students with severe disabilities in general education settings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 199–215.
18.
MeyerL. H., PeckC. A., & BrownL. (1991). Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
19.
National Association of State Boards of Education Study Group on Special Education (1992, October). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.
SnellM. E., & BrownF. (2000). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed.). New York: Merrill.
22.
TawneyJ. W., & GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
23.
VennM. L., WoleryM., WertsM. G., MorrisA., DecesareL. D., & CuffsJ. S. (1993). Embedding instruction in art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 277–294.
24.
WarrenS. F. (1992). Facilitating basic vocabulary acquisition with milieu teaching procedures. Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 235–251.
25.
WestlingD. L., & FoxL. (2000). Teaching students with severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
26.
WoleryM. (1996). Early childhood special and general education. In McWilliamR. A. (Ed.), Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention: A professional resource (pp. 185–216). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
27.
WoleryM., AnthonyL., SnyderE. D., WertsM. G., & KatzenmeyerJ. (1997). Training elementary teachers to embed instruction during classroom activities. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 40–58.
28.
WoleryM., AnthonyL., & HeckathornJ. (1998). Transition-based teaching: Effects on transitions, teacher's behavior, and children's learning. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 117–131.
29.
WoleryM., AultM. J., & DoyleP. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe Disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. New York: Longman.
30.
WoleryM., HolcombeA., CybriwskyC. A., DoyleP. M., SchusterJ. W., AultM. J., & GastD. L. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 239–266.
31.
WoleryM., & SchusterJ. W. (1997). Instructional methods with students who have significant disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 61–79.
