Case Study 2
For the area of intervention, my focus is on finding intervention strategies that would help her to improve her mathematic ability so as to help her cope with what is being taught in the classroom.
Journal Article: Constructivist mathematics education for students with mild mental retardation
As young children with mild mental retardation often face difficulty acquiring basic mathematics skills, I found that it was necessary to research on the ways to help Kim develop the necessary skills for grasping basic mathematics concepts. Mathematics, being more than just an ordinary subject, it plays an important role in the child’s life because it exist even in daily routines and mastering it would benefit the child through the growing up process.
The intervention strategy which I have researched on is a comparison regarding effectiveness of instructions based on guided instructions and direct instructions. When most people think that helping children develop their set of strategies to grasp basic facts and concepts is an effective way to help children with mild mental retardation learns, it was actually shown that most children actually face more difficulty with learning, if the strategy use is inadequate. In the strategy used, the focus of research was on the type of instructions used. According to Van Luit and Naglieri (1999) as stated in the research article, “teaching step-by-step from concrete to abstract, working with materials to mental representations and providing task-relevant examples certainly helps.” Therefore, it increases the emphasis for teachers to provide instructions is direct and detailed, in order for them to understand what is required for them to do. Through making use of direct instructions, teachers also provide systematic and explicit instructions for the children to carry out, without stressing them out.
In this article, the use of direct instruction is also compared to the use of a more constructivist-based instruction, which focuses on the child’s own production and constructions. As most practitioners believe that the constructivist approach towards education is more beneficial towards young children as they get to explore the materials, formulate their understanding and then develop the abstract problem solving skills. Although the constructivist approach are also mentioned to help children develop and acquire more useful and transferable knowledge, there is currently little empirical evidence to date to support the effects of this kind of education.
The intervention process involved two groups of students, the control group, children who received direct instructions (DI) and the experimental group, children who received guided instructions (GI). In the group where direct instruction is being used, children always start off with a recap of what was done in the previous lesson. After which, if children demonstrate ability to solve such tasks, teacher would then introduce a new task while being explained to about how to solve the problem. In this scenario, the emphasis is on the process of explanation of the strategy to be used. Although children in the experimental group also go through the same procedure of reviewing what they learnt in the previous class, they would proceed to learning more concepts when the children demonstrate full understanding on what is being taught. Although it seems similar to using direct instruction, more emphasis is placed on the discussion of possible solution procedures and strategies by the children.
As reported under the results, significant improvement was observed from children who received direct instruction when compared to children who received guided instruction. Furthermore, children who received direct instruction also improved significantly in strategy adequacy while this improvement was not observed on children who received guided instruction.
Personally, I feel that this intervention strategy is very beneficial to the child as it focuses on understanding the child first before designing the set of instructions especially for her. By adopting this method, child’s strengths are also emphasized and child learns in her most comfortable way. When the child is able to do the things planned for them, she would then develop a sense of achievement and competence.
When the child’s self-confidence towards learning is increased significantly, she would be more encouraged to learn and question, as she knows that her queries would always be answered by caring and understanding educators. As teachers plan for direct instructions, understanding towards the child’s ability is always displayed, therefore, the child sees that their teacher really understand them, and know what they are capable of doing.
In conclusion, I think that in order to make better adjustments to cater to the needs of the child and to facilitate integration of the child into the classroom, the teacher need to gain a very deep understanding on the child, before she moves on to planning for the direct instructions. On an overall basis, there is nothing much in the sense where I think needs improvement, but I would say that consistency is very much needed when making use of direct instruction, as consistency would help the child familiarize her with the skills of doing things.
Especially for children with mild mental retardation, I think it is important to make use of direct instruction because each child’s learning ability and speed is different. Therefore, using guided instruction might not be as feasible as they would be required to brainstorm for ideas by themselves, and they would not be able to move on if insufficient help was provided. By using the idea of direct instruction, the child would also adapt to the method of learning, and slowly, they would be able to do things more efficiently and effectively than they had planned.
Reference:
Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2005). Constructivist mathematics education for students with mild mental retardation. European Journal of Special Needs Education , 20 (1), 107-116. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Ang Xin Yi Michelle Group A
(1) CASE 2 - Kim
(2) Area of intervention: To improve existing mathematical concepts and introduce new mathematical concepts to Kim
(3) Journal article: Constructivist mathematics education for students with mild mental retardation
i) The intervention
In this study, two interventions (instructional programmes) are compared: guided instruction versus directed instruction.
Directed instruction (DI)
Lessons in DI will start with a repetition of what was done in the previous lesion. When the students show enough knowledge of the pervious lesson, the teacher will proceed to the content of the actual lesson. The teacher will introduce a new task and explain the process of how to solve the task.
The focus is on the explanation of the strategy used to solve the task. If needed, concrete materials are used to help in the explanation. After one or two examples are presented, several tasks are then practiced and discussed within the group, which is later followed by an individual practice period. This is when students familiarize themselves with the involved tasks and create connections to the mental solutions of the problems.
However, when a child applies a new strategy that has not been taught, the teacher may acknowledge that the strategy is a possible for solving the problem, but will ask the child to apply the strategy being taught. Students using this method learn to work with a strategy decision sheet to aid them in choosing the most appropriate strategy.
DI is an explicit teaching of new strategies and is intended to help students expand their strategy repertoires. The children are instructed to follow the example of the teacher, when a new strategy is taught.
Guided instruction (GI)
Similarly, GI lessons starts with a recap of the previous lesson. However, what the students do and say in this phase is actually taken as the starting-point for the actual lesson. When the students do not fully comprehend the tasks discussed in the previous lesson, the teacher will focus again on those tasks. Otherwise, the next topic will be introduced.
In GI lessons, discussions are always centred on the contributions of the children. This means that topics and strategies differing from the teacher’s may arise. Similar to the DI lessons, GI lessons also has a phase of a group practice, followed by individual practice.
The contrast between DI and GI is; greater attention is given to the discussion of possible solution procedures and strategies during GI lessons. More attention is given to the individual’s contributions. When the teacher presents a problem, the children brainstorm for possible solutions. The teacher acts as a facilitator, asking questions and encouraging the discovery of new strategies by scaffolding. The teacher does not demonstrate a particular strategy.
Therefore, when the children do not discover a strategy, the strategy will not be discussed. However, the teacher does structure the discussions during lessons by helping students to classify various strategies by asking them about the usefulness of the strategies.
(ii) Effectiveness (as reported in the journal article)
The two experimental groups, one using DI and the other using GI, were found to differ significantly from each other. The DI group showed greater improvement than the GI group in multiplication ability and strategy competency. These findings further supported additional research that students in special education benefited best from directed instruction. (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998; Xin & Jitendra, 1999; Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003; Timmermans & Van Lieshout, 2003)
Student in DI group learned how to apply the strategies by modeling the teacher. It is obvious that this is more effective for students with mild mental retardation (MMR). The strategy competency of students in the GI group did not improve. Furthermore, they made more mistakes in the multiplication test as compared to their peers in DI condition.
Nonetheless, the two groups were similar in two measures; automaticity and strategy diversity. It seemed that automatic mastery of multiplication facts can be reached with both methods and is less dependent on the student’s strategy use (Lin et al, 1994).
The students in the DI condition, who learned a specific set of strategies, could apply it competently. Ironically, those in the GI condition who were given the freedom to use as many strategies as they want, did not make us of more strategies. It seemed that most of the students with MMR in both conditions learned only a few (three to four) strategies, and these strategies were enough to meet the test requirements.
This is agreeable with the theory that students with MMR have problems handling a large range of strategies and they benefit most from instruction that involves explicit teaching of a small yet competent range of strategies (Jones et al, 1997; Van Luit & Naglieri).
To conclude, the two groups did not differ in automaticity or strategy diversity. But the DI group improved more in multiplication ability and strategy adequacy as compared to the GI group.
(iii) Personal evaluation how the child will benefit from this intervention
From the reading, I feel that Kim will benefit from the directed instruction method. However, that is not to say that I will totally omit the choice of the guided instruction method. Since Kim has only a very basic knowledge of math, (rote count up to 30, recognize numbers up to 20 and write numbers up to 15), I feel that the DI method will be more appropriate for her at this point of time.
In the case of children with MMR, they will have even more difficulty with reaching automatic mastery of basic facts as their strategy use is still not adequate. When students are unable to retrieve basic facts on their automatically, they have to depend on strategies (Kerkman & Siegler, 1997). Through repetitions, they may become more adept in applying a certain strategy and start to associate problems with their own solutions (Lin et al., 1994).
The DI method will work better because Kim has not yet possess a substantial amount of prior knowledge. Therefore, she might not be able to produce possible solutions or strategies on her own.
(iv) Adjustments to cater to the needs of the child and to facilitate integration of the child / the intervention activity into your classroom
As this was done in an elementary school setting in a Dutch school, the skills and objectives of this intervention might be relevant for Kim’s case. For example, the article used the student’s multiplication ability and strategy competency to assess the two different instructional programmes.
However, I feel that these concepts are too challenging for Kim, due to her limited knowledge of Math at present moment. It would be more appropriate for her to enhance on the concepts she already know, such as rote counting. Once she has mastered that, I would introduce Kim to new mathemactical opeartions such as addition and subtraction.
Another adjustment I would make is to ensure that I adopt both instructional methods, in order to cater to the needs of the other children in the classroom as well. Although research has shown that children with MMR learn better through the DI method, I believe that exposing Kim through the GI method is possible as she will learn more through the years.
Furthermore, the GI method will allow Kim and her classmates to discuss strategies. This will promote interaction and peer learning among the class. This may also help in Kim’s social and communication skills, as she can see how her peers brainstorm for ideas, and she may pick up and model the appropriate behaviours from them.
Reference:
Jones, E. D., Wilson, R. & Bhojwani, S. (1997) Mathematics instruction for secondary students with leaming disahilities, Journal of Leaming Disabilities, 30, 151-163.
Kerkman, D. D. & Siegler, R. S. (1997) Measuring individual differences in children's addition strategy choices, Leaming and Individual Differences, 9, 1-18.
Kroesbergen, E. H. & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2005). Constructivist mathematics education for students with mild mental retardation. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20, 107-116. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier.
Lin, A., Podell, D. M. & Tournaki-Rein, N. (1994) CAI and the development of automaticity in mathematics skills in students with and without mild mental handicaps. Computers in the Schools, 11,43-58.
Swanson, H. L. & Hoskyn, M. (1998) Experimental intervention research on students with leaming disabilities: a meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277-321.
(2) Area of intervention: To improve existing mathematical concepts and introduce new mathematical concepts to Kim
(3) Journal article: Constructivist mathematics education for students with mild mental retardation
i) The intervention
In this study, two interventions (instructional programmes) are compared: guided instruction versus directed instruction.
Directed instruction (DI)
Lessons in DI will start with a repetition of what was done in the previous lesion. When the students show enough knowledge of the pervious lesson, the teacher will proceed to the content of the actual lesson. The teacher will introduce a new task and explain the process of how to solve the task.
The focus is on the explanation of the strategy used to solve the task. If needed, concrete materials are used to help in the explanation. After one or two examples are presented, several tasks are then practiced and discussed within the group, which is later followed by an individual practice period. This is when students familiarize themselves with the involved tasks and create connections to the mental solutions of the problems.
However, when a child applies a new strategy that has not been taught, the teacher may acknowledge that the strategy is a possible for solving the problem, but will ask the child to apply the strategy being taught. Students using this method learn to work with a strategy decision sheet to aid them in choosing the most appropriate strategy.
DI is an explicit teaching of new strategies and is intended to help students expand their strategy repertoires. The children are instructed to follow the example of the teacher, when a new strategy is taught.
Guided instruction (GI)
Similarly, GI lessons starts with a recap of the previous lesson. However, what the students do and say in this phase is actually taken as the starting-point for the actual lesson. When the students do not fully comprehend the tasks discussed in the previous lesson, the teacher will focus again on those tasks. Otherwise, the next topic will be introduced.
In GI lessons, discussions are always centred on the contributions of the children. This means that topics and strategies differing from the teacher’s may arise. Similar to the DI lessons, GI lessons also has a phase of a group practice, followed by individual practice.
The contrast between DI and GI is; greater attention is given to the discussion of possible solution procedures and strategies during GI lessons. More attention is given to the individual’s contributions. When the teacher presents a problem, the children brainstorm for possible solutions. The teacher acts as a facilitator, asking questions and encouraging the discovery of new strategies by scaffolding. The teacher does not demonstrate a particular strategy.
Therefore, when the children do not discover a strategy, the strategy will not be discussed. However, the teacher does structure the discussions during lessons by helping students to classify various strategies by asking them about the usefulness of the strategies.
(ii) Effectiveness (as reported in the journal article)
The two experimental groups, one using DI and the other using GI, were found to differ significantly from each other. The DI group showed greater improvement than the GI group in multiplication ability and strategy competency. These findings further supported additional research that students in special education benefited best from directed instruction. (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998; Xin & Jitendra, 1999; Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003; Timmermans & Van Lieshout, 2003)
Student in DI group learned how to apply the strategies by modeling the teacher. It is obvious that this is more effective for students with mild mental retardation (MMR). The strategy competency of students in the GI group did not improve. Furthermore, they made more mistakes in the multiplication test as compared to their peers in DI condition.
Nonetheless, the two groups were similar in two measures; automaticity and strategy diversity. It seemed that automatic mastery of multiplication facts can be reached with both methods and is less dependent on the student’s strategy use (Lin et al, 1994).
The students in the DI condition, who learned a specific set of strategies, could apply it competently. Ironically, those in the GI condition who were given the freedom to use as many strategies as they want, did not make us of more strategies. It seemed that most of the students with MMR in both conditions learned only a few (three to four) strategies, and these strategies were enough to meet the test requirements.
This is agreeable with the theory that students with MMR have problems handling a large range of strategies and they benefit most from instruction that involves explicit teaching of a small yet competent range of strategies (Jones et al, 1997; Van Luit & Naglieri).
To conclude, the two groups did not differ in automaticity or strategy diversity. But the DI group improved more in multiplication ability and strategy adequacy as compared to the GI group.
(iii) Personal evaluation how the child will benefit from this intervention
From the reading, I feel that Kim will benefit from the directed instruction method. However, that is not to say that I will totally omit the choice of the guided instruction method. Since Kim has only a very basic knowledge of math, (rote count up to 30, recognize numbers up to 20 and write numbers up to 15), I feel that the DI method will be more appropriate for her at this point of time.
In the case of children with MMR, they will have even more difficulty with reaching automatic mastery of basic facts as their strategy use is still not adequate. When students are unable to retrieve basic facts on their automatically, they have to depend on strategies (Kerkman & Siegler, 1997). Through repetitions, they may become more adept in applying a certain strategy and start to associate problems with their own solutions (Lin et al., 1994).
The DI method will work better because Kim has not yet possess a substantial amount of prior knowledge. Therefore, she might not be able to produce possible solutions or strategies on her own.
(iv) Adjustments to cater to the needs of the child and to facilitate integration of the child / the intervention activity into your classroom
As this was done in an elementary school setting in a Dutch school, the skills and objectives of this intervention might be relevant for Kim’s case. For example, the article used the student’s multiplication ability and strategy competency to assess the two different instructional programmes.
However, I feel that these concepts are too challenging for Kim, due to her limited knowledge of Math at present moment. It would be more appropriate for her to enhance on the concepts she already know, such as rote counting. Once she has mastered that, I would introduce Kim to new mathemactical opeartions such as addition and subtraction.
Another adjustment I would make is to ensure that I adopt both instructional methods, in order to cater to the needs of the other children in the classroom as well. Although research has shown that children with MMR learn better through the DI method, I believe that exposing Kim through the GI method is possible as she will learn more through the years.
Furthermore, the GI method will allow Kim and her classmates to discuss strategies. This will promote interaction and peer learning among the class. This may also help in Kim’s social and communication skills, as she can see how her peers brainstorm for ideas, and she may pick up and model the appropriate behaviours from them.
Reference:
Jones, E. D., Wilson, R. & Bhojwani, S. (1997) Mathematics instruction for secondary students with leaming disahilities, Journal of Leaming Disabilities, 30, 151-163.
Kerkman, D. D. & Siegler, R. S. (1997) Measuring individual differences in children's addition strategy choices, Leaming and Individual Differences, 9, 1-18.
Kroesbergen, E. H. & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2005). Constructivist mathematics education for students with mild mental retardation. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20, 107-116. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier.
Lin, A., Podell, D. M. & Tournaki-Rein, N. (1994) CAI and the development of automaticity in mathematics skills in students with and without mild mental handicaps. Computers in the Schools, 11,43-58.
Swanson, H. L. & Hoskyn, M. (1998) Experimental intervention research on students with leaming disabilities: a meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277-321.
Leong Min Zhi, May (Group B)
Case 1 –Communication and social skills
(i) the intervention - Multicomponent intervention in Play
This play intervention uses 3 components to increase social communication between children. Children will first plan their play together with an adult on a play theme to facilitate their play. Next, children will play independently using conversational interaction. The adult will be at the side observing and facilitating when needed. The adult will model and prompt the child to sustain the play between the children. Lastly, children will evaluate their play interaction with their peers and evaluate own contributions and feelings towards the play.
The article states that this intervention includes 2 main focus, adult mediated strategies and peer-mediated strategies. The adult needs to plan high interest activities to engage the child with limited social communication skills in play activities with peers. This allows the child to enhance the social bonding with peers and at the same time, enhance the child’s communication opportunities with the peers. The adult needs to provide responses and prompts to the child too when the child has a lack of vocabulary to describe his/her thoughts and feelings. Thus, the adult will model his/her language and teach new behavior so that the child can learn the appropriate words for interaction. For the peer mediated strategy, the child will do different kinds of play with peers to interact, model and learn from the each other.
(ii) its effectiveness (as reported in the journal article)
The study shows that after the intervention, there is an increase in the children’s descriptive utterance and request among them. The children are able to use different words to describe things, verbalize their thoughts and feelings. In the process, teacher’s guidance of redirection, direction and prompts are essential to enable the child to continue the play process and find the right words to describe his/her thoughts. The children are also seen to be using an increase number of different words. The play is more interactive and peer directed and they are able to work well together. Minimal negative behavior was seen. The children were able to share ideas and engage in communication.
(iii) your personal evaluation how the child will benefit from this intervention
Annie is an academically normal developing child but she has speech impairment due to her facial deformities at birth, which result in her negative social behavior as she was shy to verbalize her feelings. I think this way of reaction is normal for the child as she may lack confidence in herself and yet do not know the right way to communicate. Thus, the lack of communication skills was lead to behavior and social difficulties. I feel that with this intervention, Annie and her peers will have the chance to interact with each other and get to know each other more. The peers need to know that she is no different from any other children and Annie need to learn to use simple words to show her feelings instead of hurting action. This play intervention allows Annie to work together with her peers and I think that it is an effective way to foster peer acceptance and friendship. Annie will be able to learn to verbalize her thoughts and feelings to her peers during the play. Both teacher and peer support in class is very important for the child’s growth. Teacher need to take on the important role of guidance for the children too. With that, the children will understand why Annie has this problem and come out with ways to help her instead of teasing at her.
(iv) your suggestions how you can make adjustments to cater to the needs of the
child and to facilitate integration of the child / the intervention activity into
your classroom.
Instead of using dramatic play, I may adapt it to a role play or drama session for the 6 years old. I will first plan the play by come out with a social story similar to Annie’s together with the children and get the children, including Annie to be in the play. I will get the children to think, share and empathize with the child who is being teased at and ask them how they will react to it, or what are the possible ways to react. I will prompt the children to think whether the action is right or not and what is the solution to the problem. Next, the children will practice and form the drama on their own with me guiding at a side. They will need to interact and share ideas with one another on how they should act. Annie may use other alternative to verbalize her thoughts like using response whiteboard to elaborate her points if she is unable to say the word. After the play, the children will debrief on the play and say how they feel about the play and their interactions with the friends. I think this will increase the interaction among the peers to let them know each other better and develop the confidence for Annie to speak out or write out her feelings.
Reference:
Craig-Unkefer, L. A., & Kaiser, A. P. (2002). Improving the social communication skills of at-risk preschool children in a play context. Topics in Early Childhood special education, 22(1), 3-13. Retrieved September 6, 2009, from EBSCOhost Child Development & Adolescent Studies: http://ezproxy.wheelock.edu:2239/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=3&sid=1a4083c7-47ee-464e-8e9b-2612b6099c26%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=fgh&AN=6463966
(i) the intervention - Multicomponent intervention in Play
This play intervention uses 3 components to increase social communication between children. Children will first plan their play together with an adult on a play theme to facilitate their play. Next, children will play independently using conversational interaction. The adult will be at the side observing and facilitating when needed. The adult will model and prompt the child to sustain the play between the children. Lastly, children will evaluate their play interaction with their peers and evaluate own contributions and feelings towards the play.
The article states that this intervention includes 2 main focus, adult mediated strategies and peer-mediated strategies. The adult needs to plan high interest activities to engage the child with limited social communication skills in play activities with peers. This allows the child to enhance the social bonding with peers and at the same time, enhance the child’s communication opportunities with the peers. The adult needs to provide responses and prompts to the child too when the child has a lack of vocabulary to describe his/her thoughts and feelings. Thus, the adult will model his/her language and teach new behavior so that the child can learn the appropriate words for interaction. For the peer mediated strategy, the child will do different kinds of play with peers to interact, model and learn from the each other.
(ii) its effectiveness (as reported in the journal article)
The study shows that after the intervention, there is an increase in the children’s descriptive utterance and request among them. The children are able to use different words to describe things, verbalize their thoughts and feelings. In the process, teacher’s guidance of redirection, direction and prompts are essential to enable the child to continue the play process and find the right words to describe his/her thoughts. The children are also seen to be using an increase number of different words. The play is more interactive and peer directed and they are able to work well together. Minimal negative behavior was seen. The children were able to share ideas and engage in communication.
(iii) your personal evaluation how the child will benefit from this intervention
Annie is an academically normal developing child but she has speech impairment due to her facial deformities at birth, which result in her negative social behavior as she was shy to verbalize her feelings. I think this way of reaction is normal for the child as she may lack confidence in herself and yet do not know the right way to communicate. Thus, the lack of communication skills was lead to behavior and social difficulties. I feel that with this intervention, Annie and her peers will have the chance to interact with each other and get to know each other more. The peers need to know that she is no different from any other children and Annie need to learn to use simple words to show her feelings instead of hurting action. This play intervention allows Annie to work together with her peers and I think that it is an effective way to foster peer acceptance and friendship. Annie will be able to learn to verbalize her thoughts and feelings to her peers during the play. Both teacher and peer support in class is very important for the child’s growth. Teacher need to take on the important role of guidance for the children too. With that, the children will understand why Annie has this problem and come out with ways to help her instead of teasing at her.
(iv) your suggestions how you can make adjustments to cater to the needs of the
child and to facilitate integration of the child / the intervention activity into
your classroom.
Instead of using dramatic play, I may adapt it to a role play or drama session for the 6 years old. I will first plan the play by come out with a social story similar to Annie’s together with the children and get the children, including Annie to be in the play. I will get the children to think, share and empathize with the child who is being teased at and ask them how they will react to it, or what are the possible ways to react. I will prompt the children to think whether the action is right or not and what is the solution to the problem. Next, the children will practice and form the drama on their own with me guiding at a side. They will need to interact and share ideas with one another on how they should act. Annie may use other alternative to verbalize her thoughts like using response whiteboard to elaborate her points if she is unable to say the word. After the play, the children will debrief on the play and say how they feel about the play and their interactions with the friends. I think this will increase the interaction among the peers to let them know each other better and develop the confidence for Annie to speak out or write out her feelings.
Reference:
Craig-Unkefer, L. A., & Kaiser, A. P. (2002). Improving the social communication skills of at-risk preschool children in a play context. Topics in Early Childhood special education, 22(1), 3-13. Retrieved September 6, 2009, from EBSCOhost Child Development & Adolescent Studies: http://ezproxy.wheelock.edu:2239/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=3&sid=1a4083c7-47ee-464e-8e9b-2612b6099c26%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=fgh&AN=6463966
Pavethra Surendiran ( Group A)
Case 1
Improve on Annie’s speech impairment and communication difficulties.
Based on the case study of Annie, she appears to be a rather shy and withdrawn kid who has average academic abilities. The reason as to why she bites her classmates and is shy around them is probably because of her facial deformities and also because of her difficulty in communicating with peers. She would feel frustrated and irritated as she is not able to express her feelings as and when she wants to. From the findings, it has been stated that music does help to promote speech in children. Research has found that music techniques help to increase breathing and muscle control among children( Peters, 2000, Cohen, 1994), stimulate vocalization ( Staum, 1989), develop receptive and expressive language skills ( Miller, 1982) and improved articulation skills ( Zoller,1981). Humpal (1991) and Cassity ( 1992) demonstrated how preschoolers with speech-language disorders demonstrated social communication skills in music group activities with non-disabled peers. Herman (1985) mentioned how children point to music symbol pictures in order to contribute to group story songs and what feelings they want to express. ( Darrow, 1987 , Knapp, 1980) stated that signing and manual communication can be used to express song lyrics, and signs and singing to achieve a communication experience. Zoller ( 1991) stated that “ Musical activities stress nonverbal forms of communication and often surpass physical, cultural, intellectual and emotional limitations (p. 272).”
I refer to the case study of Allen who is a 4 year old boy who also had difficulties with speech and received speech language therapy at home. Allen faced problems with the comprehension of words and was not able to construct proper sentences. It was also noticed that Allen seldom interacted with his peers and did not engage in play-time with his friends at school. During the speech-language therapy assessment, Allen responded to “no” by stopping whatever he was doing and used consistent vocalizations for different family members. During the music therapy assessment, it was found that Allen usually walked towards a music source such as the cd player or a musical instrument. The most significant improvement was when he chose a picture of an instrument that he wanted and pressed a voice output device to say “hello” at appropriate times during the “hello” song. The results indicated that the social interaction increased at a 1:1 setting when music was used as reinforcement. Additionally, when the “ brown bear, brown bear, what do you see?” book was sung to him, he responded by sitting and smiling at the therapist for about 5 minutes. It was noticed that Allen’s classroom activity engagement was increased when music was used in an activity. Hence, they decided to increase the amount of music that was being made use of in the classroom environment. There was an increased amount of spontaneous greetings, increased engagement in an activity. This improvement was seen as a positive one and the therapists moved on to big group activities where Allen faced a challenge of waiting for his turn. He was able to wait for an increased amount of time and responded to repeated lines in the music by using a voice output device from several songs. They conducted 10 treatment sessions and most teachers felt that the post treatment had the best results when compared to the rest. Going back to Annie’s case, I feel that music therapy would be a good way to get her to communicate her feelings to those around her. Also, since she also has social difficulties because of her facial deformities, music would be a good way for her to come out of her shy nature and socialize with her peers.
When I read this article, I personally was surprised with the result because I didn’t know that music actually helps speech impairment. After reading this article I realize that music is a good way to improve on children’s communication skills. As music is also a general favourite amongst the young ones, they would enjoy moving around and listening to music. Focusing on a favourite aspect of the child is important so that the child doesn’t get bored and lose interest. I feel that through this intervention, Annie would be able to increase her level of speech and engage in more activities with her friends without biting them and thus would encourage more of her peers approaching her and playing with her. Furthermore, music therapy can build on Annie’s counting skills as she would have to count the number of beats before pressing on the voice output device. Before integrating this activity in my classroom I would let children have a trial run and see the outcomes of it. I would encourage every child to be involved in this activity and I am sure most of them would want to be involved as it would be fun and engaging. I would read books that encourages musical activities and try to get all of them involved. However I would choose activities that range from simple to complex so that the children will feel motivated when they learn that they are able to do the activity. I would make it more interesting by providing reinforcements and prizes for those who show results and improvements so as to encourage them. I would also get them to come with an activity together so that Annie will also feel more involved along with her friends.
Reference:
Geist, K., McCarthy, J., Rodgers-Smith, A., & Porter, J. (2008, December). Integrating Music Therapy Services and Speech-Language Therapy Services for Children with Severe Communication Impairments: A Co-Treatment Model. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(4), 311-316. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
Umairah Bte Abdullah, Group A
I chose the article “Integrating Music Therapy Services and Speech-Language
Similar to Annie, the child in the case study has difficulties in interacting with his friends. However, when the case study was carried out, some of the activities are done 1:1 and others are done with his peers. On top of that, both children have difficulties with their speech because of physical deformities. Therefore, I feel that this intervention can be applied for Annie’s case and she will benefit from this integration of music into speech therapy. Firstly, Annie is performing up to standards academically and she only receives therapy from an external source. From this, I gather that she needs more emphasis on her therapy and according to the chosen intervention; it can be done through musical activities in class. Apart from having difficulties with her speech, Annie also has difficulties with social interactions among her peers. This is mainly because of her facial deformities which resulted in her being teased by her classmates. From this situation, I assumed that Annie bites her classmate out of the frustration of constantly being mocked at. Therefore, I feel that with this intervention, there can be an opportunity where the classmates will be involved in the activity together with Annie, and they will have a greater understanding of her situation.
First and foremost, I feel that it is important to raise awareness of Annie’s condition to her peers prior to the intervention. I would use appropriate management techniques such as raising awareness of Annie’s condition to her classmates positively. I would ensure that there will not be anymore teasing and would introduce ways where the classmates can work together to help Annie excel further. With musical activities like singing songs, there are repetitive words and at one go, Annie will be able to repeat the same words a number of time. From this, I would definitely carry out music activities that would allow for such opportunities and experiences. I would plan my lessons around musical activities that can benefit Annie. Furthermore, musical activities can be done in groups and this will allow for Annie and her peers to work together thus improving their relationship. Therefore, to me, it is most important to first break the barrier between Annie and her peers through activities and positive reinforcements as I feel that her social and behavioral problems are effects of the relationship she has with them.
Reference:
Geist, K., McCarthy, J., Rodgers-Smith, A. & Porter, J. (2008). Integrating Music Therapy Services and Speech-Language Therapy Services for Children with Severe Communication Impairments: A Co-Treatment Model.
Retrieved on
http://web.ebscohost.com.libwww3.np.edu.sg/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=104&sid= b72fd286-4de8-4129-b43e- 4ebbf37d5d26%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d #db=aph&AN=36182179#db=aph&AN=36182179
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tan Wei Sian | Group A
(1)
C A S E 1
(2)
Social emotional is the area I have selected for the child for intervention. Social emotional is a critical area of development which affects how one will perform in school and daily life. The ability to recognize and express emotions appropriately, maintain relationships with peers and adults, solving social problems, manage difficult emotions as well as participating in group activities are some of the critical skills that has to be developed during preschool years (Hemmeter et al., 2008). According to Raver (2003), research has shown that social emotional development has a close relationship with ones academic performance.
(3)
Article: “Social Stories™ Improve the On-Task Behavior of Children With Language
Impairment”
The intervention (As stated in research journal)
Setting
Children are being diagnosed by a speech-language pathologist when they are in prekindergarten and kindergarten. Teachers work together with the speech-language pathologist to identify 3 (Brent, Matthew, Rodney) children with social skill deficits and challenging behaviors. One of the children is Brent, 6 years old and has a condition pretty much similar to the one in Case Study 1 (speech impairment, appropriately interacting with peers and controlling his impulsivity).
The intervention is carried out in his own mainstream classroom for Brent and Matthew. They were removed during the transition from circle time to writing. The books were read to the participants in a hallway outside their classroom or in the teacher’s office. During baseline, the participants were read a random selection of children’s storybooks from the speech-language pathologist’s classroom. Each participant’s specific Social Story™ was read during intervention. Other than the book reading, direct interactions with the first author did not occur. Data were collected in children’s classrooms. Brent participated in circle time, immediately followed by journal writing in the same first-grade classroom. His classroom teacher and 21 students were present during this time. No other adults were present in Brent’s classroom. Brent was not exposed to the Social Story™ of Matthew, and vice versa. In addition, they did not sit near each other during writing.
Procedures
Children’s teachers, their speech-language pathologist, their parents, and the first author provided information about potential behaviors to be targeted for intervention. Some of the identified behaviors were the previously described challenging behaviors but were not well suited for a Social Story™ (e.g., echolalia). The targeted behaviors were selected by the first author, and those selected behaviors tended to distract other children in the classroom and impede participants' social involvement. Hence, the responses were well suited for a Social Story™ intervention. The behaviors targeted in this study were also consistent with each child’s individualized education plan (IEP), but the specific behaviors were not operationalized in the IEP. Thus, the behaviors targeted in the Social Story™ intervention were not being addressed by the classroom teacher or speech-language pathologist.
The first author wrote one Social Story™ for each child according to Gray and Garand’s (1993) guidelines, including the sentence ratio. Two speech-language pathologists familiar with writing and using Social Stories™ reviewed each story and checked for adherence to the guidelines and sentence ratio (Gray, 1998; Gray & Garand, 1993). During intervention, the first author read the Social Story™ to participants each day immediately before their targeted routine (i.e., math, circle time, writing). The children were then asked three to four questions regarding what they would do during the targeted routine (e.g., “What will you do during math?”) to assess their comprehension. They did not take the Social Story™ with them to the subsequent routine. The first author then observed the targeted routine from the back of the classroom. Each Social Story™ was printed on 5.5- by 8.5-inch white paper. The title was in 36-point and the story was in 20-point Times New Roman font. Pictures were icons taken from Boardmaker (Mayer-Johnson, 1981). The pages of the book were laminated and bound with a black binder on the left side.
Teacher’s Behavior
Teachers were blind to both the start of intervention and the specific content of the Social Story™. The number of prompts (e.g., physically or verbally redirecting the child, pointing to the child’s work) and social reinforcers (e.g., providing a positive verbal comment, patting the child’s back, smiling) teachers gave each participant during the targeted activity was recorded during each session. Using a continuous interval recording procedure, we coded in situ only the first instances of teacher behaviors across 15 s during 5-min routines.
Experimental Design and Conditions
A multiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the effects of the Social Story™ intervention (Kazdin, 1982). During baseline, each participant was read a children’s book and then participated in his typical classroom routine. The intervention was introduced when no apparent trend in the targeted behavior was evident. During intervention, the Social Story™ was read to the child prior to the activity and the child was asked the comprehension questions. After the child correctly responded to each question, he returned to his targeted routine. Throughout the study, each reading took less than 5 min.
Generalization and Follow-Up
For purposes of generalization, 5-min probes were conducted for each participant during baseline and intervention. Target behaviors were measured when the child was in the presence of different people, activities, and settings (see Table 3). Direct interactions with the first author did not occur, and the Social Story™ was not read. Five weeks following the end of intervention, data for two follow-up sessions were recorded. Again, the Social Story™ intervention and direct interactions with the first author did not occur.
Data collection
• Scoring protocol and coding system for before and after research
• Fidelity checklist for every intervention session
The Effectiveness (As stated research journal)
Brent’s baseline on-task performance was variable often at the low end of the normative range. Only one datum was above the peer mean, and four data points were more than 1 standard deviation below the mean. His baseline mean percentage of intervals of on-task behavior during writing was 59% (SD = 18.8). Social comparison data showed that peers were on-task 80% (range = 25% to 100%) of the time during writing. During the Social Story™ intervention, Brent’s mean on-task behavior increased to 86% (SD = 11.4). At follow-up, his mean was 93% (SD = 3.5). Thus, his on-task intervention data and generalization probes were regularly above the peer comparison means, which were maintained at follow-up.
Brent’s behaviors were the least problematic and, at baseline, were the closest to the level of his peers. Following intervention, he completed his writing assignment and was often on-task. Brent generalized his behaviors to different activities within his classroom and different situations throughout the school day.
Your personal evaluation how the child will benefit from this intervention
She cannot control her emotions and impulsivity. The child gets to see solutions she can use to deal with her friends’ teasing in the story. When the similar problems are faced again, she can apply the solutions appropriately base of what she recalls from the story. With facilitation and positive reinforcement, I believe that improvement can be seen as time goes by. As teacher tells the story, interaction is visible when the teacher asks the child questions. This encourages the child to speak up more, be more introvert.
your suggestions how you can make adjustments to cater to the needs of the child and to facilitate integration of the child / the intervention activity into your classroom.
Rather than using animation, using pictures of classroom environment, including pictures of the children in the story might be a better idea. I believe this is easier for the child and the classmates to relate. Share the story with the whole class instead of telling them alone.
The child is shy and withdrawn at times so what the teacher can do is to start sharing the story and asking questions when the child is alone, followed by small groups, moving on slowly to big groups.
References
Hemmeter, M. L., Santos, R. M., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2008). Preparing Early Childhood
Educators to Address Young Children’s Social-Emotional Development and Challenging
Behavior A Survey of Higher Education Programs in Nine States. Journal of Early Intervention, 30(4). Retrieved September 4, 2009, from the EBSCOhost database.
Raver, C. C. (2003). Young Children's Emotional Development and School Readiness. ERIC
Digest, July 2003. Retrieved September 4, 2009, from the ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education database.
Schneider, N., & Goldstein, H. (2009). Social Stories™ Improve the On-Task Behavior of
Children With Language Impairment. Journal of Early Intervention, 31(3), 250-263.
Retrieved October 9, 2009, from the EBSCOhost database.
C A S E 1
(2)
Social emotional is the area I have selected for the child for intervention. Social emotional is a critical area of development which affects how one will perform in school and daily life. The ability to recognize and express emotions appropriately, maintain relationships with peers and adults, solving social problems, manage difficult emotions as well as participating in group activities are some of the critical skills that has to be developed during preschool years (Hemmeter et al., 2008). According to Raver (2003), research has shown that social emotional development has a close relationship with ones academic performance.
(3)
Article: “Social Stories™ Improve the On-Task Behavior of Children With Language
Impairment”
The intervention (As stated in research journal)
Setting
Children are being diagnosed by a speech-language pathologist when they are in prekindergarten and kindergarten. Teachers work together with the speech-language pathologist to identify 3 (Brent, Matthew, Rodney) children with social skill deficits and challenging behaviors. One of the children is Brent, 6 years old and has a condition pretty much similar to the one in Case Study 1 (speech impairment, appropriately interacting with peers and controlling his impulsivity).
The intervention is carried out in his own mainstream classroom for Brent and Matthew. They were removed during the transition from circle time to writing. The books were read to the participants in a hallway outside their classroom or in the teacher’s office. During baseline, the participants were read a random selection of children’s storybooks from the speech-language pathologist’s classroom. Each participant’s specific Social Story™ was read during intervention. Other than the book reading, direct interactions with the first author did not occur. Data were collected in children’s classrooms. Brent participated in circle time, immediately followed by journal writing in the same first-grade classroom. His classroom teacher and 21 students were present during this time. No other adults were present in Brent’s classroom. Brent was not exposed to the Social Story™ of Matthew, and vice versa. In addition, they did not sit near each other during writing.
Procedures
Children’s teachers, their speech-language pathologist, their parents, and the first author provided information about potential behaviors to be targeted for intervention. Some of the identified behaviors were the previously described challenging behaviors but were not well suited for a Social Story™ (e.g., echolalia). The targeted behaviors were selected by the first author, and those selected behaviors tended to distract other children in the classroom and impede participants' social involvement. Hence, the responses were well suited for a Social Story™ intervention. The behaviors targeted in this study were also consistent with each child’s individualized education plan (IEP), but the specific behaviors were not operationalized in the IEP. Thus, the behaviors targeted in the Social Story™ intervention were not being addressed by the classroom teacher or speech-language pathologist.
The first author wrote one Social Story™ for each child according to Gray and Garand’s (1993) guidelines, including the sentence ratio. Two speech-language pathologists familiar with writing and using Social Stories™ reviewed each story and checked for adherence to the guidelines and sentence ratio (Gray, 1998; Gray & Garand, 1993). During intervention, the first author read the Social Story™ to participants each day immediately before their targeted routine (i.e., math, circle time, writing). The children were then asked three to four questions regarding what they would do during the targeted routine (e.g., “What will you do during math?”) to assess their comprehension. They did not take the Social Story™ with them to the subsequent routine. The first author then observed the targeted routine from the back of the classroom. Each Social Story™ was printed on 5.5- by 8.5-inch white paper. The title was in 36-point and the story was in 20-point Times New Roman font. Pictures were icons taken from Boardmaker (Mayer-Johnson, 1981). The pages of the book were laminated and bound with a black binder on the left side.
Teacher’s Behavior
Teachers were blind to both the start of intervention and the specific content of the Social Story™. The number of prompts (e.g., physically or verbally redirecting the child, pointing to the child’s work) and social reinforcers (e.g., providing a positive verbal comment, patting the child’s back, smiling) teachers gave each participant during the targeted activity was recorded during each session. Using a continuous interval recording procedure, we coded in situ only the first instances of teacher behaviors across 15 s during 5-min routines.
Experimental Design and Conditions
A multiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the effects of the Social Story™ intervention (Kazdin, 1982). During baseline, each participant was read a children’s book and then participated in his typical classroom routine. The intervention was introduced when no apparent trend in the targeted behavior was evident. During intervention, the Social Story™ was read to the child prior to the activity and the child was asked the comprehension questions. After the child correctly responded to each question, he returned to his targeted routine. Throughout the study, each reading took less than 5 min.
Generalization and Follow-Up
For purposes of generalization, 5-min probes were conducted for each participant during baseline and intervention. Target behaviors were measured when the child was in the presence of different people, activities, and settings (see Table 3). Direct interactions with the first author did not occur, and the Social Story™ was not read. Five weeks following the end of intervention, data for two follow-up sessions were recorded. Again, the Social Story™ intervention and direct interactions with the first author did not occur.
Data collection
• Scoring protocol and coding system for before and after research
• Fidelity checklist for every intervention session
The Effectiveness (As stated research journal)
Brent’s baseline on-task performance was variable often at the low end of the normative range. Only one datum was above the peer mean, and four data points were more than 1 standard deviation below the mean. His baseline mean percentage of intervals of on-task behavior during writing was 59% (SD = 18.8). Social comparison data showed that peers were on-task 80% (range = 25% to 100%) of the time during writing. During the Social Story™ intervention, Brent’s mean on-task behavior increased to 86% (SD = 11.4). At follow-up, his mean was 93% (SD = 3.5). Thus, his on-task intervention data and generalization probes were regularly above the peer comparison means, which were maintained at follow-up.
Brent’s behaviors were the least problematic and, at baseline, were the closest to the level of his peers. Following intervention, he completed his writing assignment and was often on-task. Brent generalized his behaviors to different activities within his classroom and different situations throughout the school day.
Your personal evaluation how the child will benefit from this intervention
She cannot control her emotions and impulsivity. The child gets to see solutions she can use to deal with her friends’ teasing in the story. When the similar problems are faced again, she can apply the solutions appropriately base of what she recalls from the story. With facilitation and positive reinforcement, I believe that improvement can be seen as time goes by. As teacher tells the story, interaction is visible when the teacher asks the child questions. This encourages the child to speak up more, be more introvert.
your suggestions how you can make adjustments to cater to the needs of the child and to facilitate integration of the child / the intervention activity into your classroom.
Rather than using animation, using pictures of classroom environment, including pictures of the children in the story might be a better idea. I believe this is easier for the child and the classmates to relate. Share the story with the whole class instead of telling them alone.
The child is shy and withdrawn at times so what the teacher can do is to start sharing the story and asking questions when the child is alone, followed by small groups, moving on slowly to big groups.
References
Hemmeter, M. L., Santos, R. M., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2008). Preparing Early Childhood
Educators to Address Young Children’s Social-Emotional Development and Challenging
Behavior A Survey of Higher Education Programs in Nine States. Journal of Early Intervention, 30(4). Retrieved September 4, 2009, from the EBSCOhost database.
Raver, C. C. (2003). Young Children's Emotional Development and School Readiness. ERIC
Digest, July 2003. Retrieved September 4, 2009, from the ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education database.
Schneider, N., & Goldstein, H. (2009). Social Stories™ Improve the On-Task Behavior of
Children With Language Impairment. Journal of Early Intervention, 31(3), 250-263.
Retrieved October 9, 2009, from the EBSCOhost database.
Katherine Koh- Group B
The intervention:
The Teaching Pyramid is a “promotion, prevention, and intervention model”. (Fox, Dunlap, Hemmeter, Joseph, & Strain, 2003), It represents a three-tiered model that focuses on children's social-emotional development as well as to practice strategies in dealing with children's challenging behavior; especially those with special needs.
The consistent aim of the Teaching Pyramid model is to support children's social-emotional development and to decrease the tendencies of challenging behaviors. This intervention model provides good support for behavioral management as well as the instructional practices that encompasses a) effective instruction for children (b) strategies to enhance children’s social-emotional development (c) implementing personalized positive behavior support for children with the most severe behavior challenges.
The Teaching Pyramid model focuses on the child’s strengths. It is designed (a) to be adopted in settings where children spend their time in, (b) is based on developing children’s social-emotional competence, (c) focuses on bridging good relationships with families so as to support the child, and (d) involves the main caregivers of the child to build on the viability of the approach.(Power, 2003). Furthermore, the teaching pyramid constitutes of 4 major levels:
1. Establish good relationships with children, families and co-workers: A universal approach that applies to all in the early childhood setting.
2. Design a learning environment that engages and supports children.
3. Teaching emotional and social skills: Involves secondary interventions to specifically address the behavioral problems of children at risk.
4. Develop personalized interventions for children with more severe and challenging behavioral problems.
Effectiveness:
This three-tiered intervention model helped to establish progressive results of the child, family, and program levels. Children are more engaged when there are lesser changes in routine; when expectations are clearly communicated across as well as the teacher’s role in giving clear instructions and feedback to the children. Along with an engaging and interactive environment, the tendencies for children to feel agitated and exhibit problem behaviors will lessen. In the first two levels of the Teaching Pyramid, modeling and equipping the child with positive social skills, the child will then be able to establish more positive relationships with his or her peer. This will also encompass understanding and acceptance amongst peers in a diverse classroom. In the third level of the teaching pyramid, the process of managing oneself will bring about positive changes in the way the child behaves. In the last level of the Teaching Pyramid, the teaching replacement skills that is being practiced brings about affirmative behavioral changes depending on the efficiency with which a replacement skill is taught, the consistency with which training is implemented, and the length of time the child has engaged in the challenging behavior This multi-tiered model has the potential to enhance young children's social-emotional competence and decrease the occurrences of challenging behavior. In addition, positive family and program outcomes support a multitiered model that has breadth and depth in meeting a range of individual needs.
Personal evaluation on how the child will benefit from this intervention
I believe that the Teaching Pyramid benefits children, especially one with special needs. As Anne has facial deformities from young, her self-esteem is quite low. Especially when her friends tease her, this model helps Anne to know the appropriate social responses to the situation. Another aspect of this model emphasizes on the importance of an engaging environment. I feel that when the environment is non-threatening, inclusive and interactive, it will open up many more opportunities for independent learning and peer interaction. This will in turn foster stronger bonds between the children in the class; and thus work towards an inclusive environment.
Suggestions
I believe that the intervention strategies in this model is best done using hands-on materials and direct experiences. For example in level 3 of the Teaching Pyramid, i would use role-play to model the right social responses for Anne. In level 2 of the teaching pyramid, I would suggest the teacher to set up learning centers that promotes learning of the six different curriculum areas. As such, Anne will have ample opportunities to interact and learn together with her peers. This will create a more inclusive atmosphere for Anne. The learning centers can focus on hands-on activities from multiple intelligences, thus even though Anne has mild speech problems, she can still explore and learn just like her peers
References:
Hemmeter, M.L., Ostrosky, M., Fox, L. (2006). Social and emotional foundations for early learning: a conceptual model for intervention. Volume 35, Number 4. Retrieved 5 September 2009, from EBSCOHost website: http://web.ebscohost.com.libwww3.np.edu.sg/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=3&sid=019fd66c-4fdb-4455-a8ff-77e98f8badf2%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=23852639
The Teaching Pyramid is a “promotion, prevention, and intervention model”. (Fox, Dunlap, Hemmeter, Joseph, & Strain, 2003), It represents a three-tiered model that focuses on children's social-emotional development as well as to practice strategies in dealing with children's challenging behavior; especially those with special needs.
The consistent aim of the Teaching Pyramid model is to support children's social-emotional development and to decrease the tendencies of challenging behaviors. This intervention model provides good support for behavioral management as well as the instructional practices that encompasses a) effective instruction for children (b) strategies to enhance children’s social-emotional development (c) implementing personalized positive behavior support for children with the most severe behavior challenges.
The Teaching Pyramid model focuses on the child’s strengths. It is designed (a) to be adopted in settings where children spend their time in, (b) is based on developing children’s social-emotional competence, (c) focuses on bridging good relationships with families so as to support the child, and (d) involves the main caregivers of the child to build on the viability of the approach.(Power, 2003). Furthermore, the teaching pyramid constitutes of 4 major levels:
1. Establish good relationships with children, families and co-workers: A universal approach that applies to all in the early childhood setting.
2. Design a learning environment that engages and supports children.
3. Teaching emotional and social skills: Involves secondary interventions to specifically address the behavioral problems of children at risk.
4. Develop personalized interventions for children with more severe and challenging behavioral problems.
Effectiveness:
This three-tiered intervention model helped to establish progressive results of the child, family, and program levels. Children are more engaged when there are lesser changes in routine; when expectations are clearly communicated across as well as the teacher’s role in giving clear instructions and feedback to the children. Along with an engaging and interactive environment, the tendencies for children to feel agitated and exhibit problem behaviors will lessen. In the first two levels of the Teaching Pyramid, modeling and equipping the child with positive social skills, the child will then be able to establish more positive relationships with his or her peer. This will also encompass understanding and acceptance amongst peers in a diverse classroom. In the third level of the teaching pyramid, the process of managing oneself will bring about positive changes in the way the child behaves. In the last level of the Teaching Pyramid, the teaching replacement skills that is being practiced brings about affirmative behavioral changes depending on the efficiency with which a replacement skill is taught, the consistency with which training is implemented, and the length of time the child has engaged in the challenging behavior This multi-tiered model has the potential to enhance young children's social-emotional competence and decrease the occurrences of challenging behavior. In addition, positive family and program outcomes support a multitiered model that has breadth and depth in meeting a range of individual needs.
Personal evaluation on how the child will benefit from this intervention
I believe that the Teaching Pyramid benefits children, especially one with special needs. As Anne has facial deformities from young, her self-esteem is quite low. Especially when her friends tease her, this model helps Anne to know the appropriate social responses to the situation. Another aspect of this model emphasizes on the importance of an engaging environment. I feel that when the environment is non-threatening, inclusive and interactive, it will open up many more opportunities for independent learning and peer interaction. This will in turn foster stronger bonds between the children in the class; and thus work towards an inclusive environment.
Suggestions
I believe that the intervention strategies in this model is best done using hands-on materials and direct experiences. For example in level 3 of the Teaching Pyramid, i would use role-play to model the right social responses for Anne. In level 2 of the teaching pyramid, I would suggest the teacher to set up learning centers that promotes learning of the six different curriculum areas. As such, Anne will have ample opportunities to interact and learn together with her peers. This will create a more inclusive atmosphere for Anne. The learning centers can focus on hands-on activities from multiple intelligences, thus even though Anne has mild speech problems, she can still explore and learn just like her peers
References:
Hemmeter, M.L., Ostrosky, M., Fox, L. (2006). Social and emotional foundations for early learning: a conceptual model for intervention. Volume 35, Number 4. Retrieved 5 September 2009, from EBSCOHost website: http://web.ebscohost.com.libwww3.np.edu.sg/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=3&sid=019fd66c-4fdb-4455-a8ff-77e98f8badf2%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=23852639
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)