EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHTLDREN Vol. 30, No. 1, 2007

A Comparison of One-to-One EmbeddedInstruction in the General Education Classroomand One-to-One Massed Practice Instruction in

the Special Education Classroom

J. Matt Jameson and John McDonnell

University of Utah

Jesse W. JohnsonEast Tennessee State University

Tim Riesen and Shamby PolychronisUniversity of Utah

Abstract

A single subject alternating treatment design was used to compare the relativeeffectiveness of one-to-one embedded instruction in the general educationclassroom and one-to-one massed practice instruction in a special educationclass. Four middle school students with developmental disabilities, theirspecial education teacher, and paraprofessional participated in the study.The results indicate that embedded instruction is an effective instructionalstrategy for students with developmental disabilities being served in inclusivesettings. However, the results indicate that there was some difference in theefficiency of the two instructional formats. Two students reached criterionmore rapidly in the one-to-one massed instructional intervention while theone-to-one embedded instruction was more efficient for one student. Therewas no difference between the interventions for the fourth student. Finally,the study validated previous research that found that'both special educationteachers and paraprofessionals can, with minimal training, accuratelyimplement embedded instructional interventions in the general educationclassroom. Implications for practitioners and researchers are discussed.

KEY WORDS: One-to-One Instruction, Embedded Instruction, Massed Instruction,Constant Time Delay, Inclusion, Students with Severe Disabilities

The number of students with developmental disabilities servedin inclusive settings has increased steadily over the last decade

(Lipsky & Gartner, 1996; U.S Department of Education, 2002). Researchhas suggested that inclusive educational programs have a number ofpotential educational and social benefits for both students with and

Correspondence to Matt Jameson, Department of Special Education, University ofUtah, 1705 East Campus Center Drive, MBH 221, Salt Lake City, UT 84112; e-mail: matt.jameson@ed.utah.edu.

Pages 23-44

JAMESON et al.

without disabilities (Cole, Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Harrower, 1999;Hunt & Goetz, 1997; McDonnell et al., 2003; Salend & Duhaney,1999). Despite the positive outcomes associated with inclusiveeducation, professionals have raised a number of concerns aboutproviding appropriate instruction for students with developmentaldisabilities in general education settings. Of increasing importanceis the need to empirically validate the effectiveness and efficiency ofinclusive instructional procedures for students with developmentaldisabilities and to compare them to traditional special educationdelivery procedures. Researchers and practitioners must begin to takewhat we know works out of separate special education classroomsand evaluate the procedures in the context of instructional delivery ininclusive settings. Specifically, there is a need to examine instructionalprocedures in general education settings that have been validated intraditional special education settings and provide the systematic andindividualized instruction needed by students with developmentaldisabilities (McDonnell, 1998; Schuster, Hemmeter, & Ault, 2001).

Previous research on embedded instruction as an instructionalstrategy has begun to address this issue (Harrower, 1999; McDonnell,1998; Wolery, Ault, & Doyle, 1992). Embedded instruction is a strategythat can be used to provide students with developmental disabilitiessystematic instruction within the typical routines of general educationclassrooms. Like more traditional teaching strategies used in specialeducation, embedded instruction allows the teacher to systematicallycontrol all the instructional procedures. The primary difference fromtraditional teaching formats is that the instructional trials are distrib-uted within and across class activities rather than being presentedrapidly one after the other in a massed practice format. This allowsthe instructional trials to be presented when naturally occurring op-portunities arise within the ongoing routines and activities of the gen-eral education setting.

There has been a great deal of research examining embed-ded instructional strategies used to teach young children with andwithout disabilities in inclusive early childhood settings (Wolery, etal., 1992; Wolery et al., 1997). For example, Chiara et al. (1995) usedembedded instruction to successfully teach picture naming skills tothree students identified as having developmental delays. Daugherty,Grisham-Brown, and Hemmeter (2001) found an embedded constanttime delay procedure to be effective for teaching target numbers tochildren with speech and language delays. Other studies have suc-cessfully used embedded instruction to teach preschoolers with sig-nificant disabilities Individualized Education Program (IEP) goalsin the context of naturally occurring inclusive preschool activities

24

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

(Grisham-Brown, Schuster, Hemmeter,& Collins, 2000; Horn, Lieber,Li, Sandall, & Schwartz, 2000). Studies have also shown that playskills of children with disabilities can be improved when instructionis embedded within play periods with peers without disabilities (Fox& Hanline, 1993), and peer imitation training can be successfully em-bedded into art activities for students with disabilities (Venn, Wol-ery, Werts, Morris, DeCesare, & Cuffs, 1993). Researchers have alsodemonstrated the utility of embedding instruction into naturally oc-curring activities and transitions in inclusive early childhood specialeducation settings (Wolery, Anthony, Caldwell, Snyder, & Morgante,2002; Wolery, Anthony,& Heckathorn, 1998).

Embedded instruction has recently received increased attentionas a strategy for providing instruction to school aged students withdevelopmental disabilities in general education classes (Johnson &McDonnell, 2004; Johnson, McDonnell, Holzwarth, & Hunter, 2004;Reisen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Jameson, 2003; Wolery etal., 1997). For example, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, and Reisen(2002) used embedded instruction to teach four students with moder-ate mental retardation to read or define words that were drawn froma vocabulary list in their general education classes. Students weretaught the skills in the context of naturally occurring activities in thegeneral education classes by a special education paraprofessional. Amultiple baseline across behaviors design was used to measure theeffects of embedded instruction on the targeted skills. Results of thestudy indicate that embedded instruction led to the acquisition andmaintenance of the target skills. The research also demonstrated thatparaprofessionals could successfully, and with a high degree of fidel-ity, implement the embedded instructional procedures during thenaturally occurring activities and transitions in the general educationclasses.

While embedded instruction appears to be a potentially usefulstrategy to provide systematic and individualized instruction to stu-dents with developmental disabilities in general education settings,there is little research that demonstrates that it is as effective as othermore traditional instructional strategies used in special education set-tings. For example, one-to-one discrete trial presentations have beencommonly used with children with developmental disabilities (Snell& Brown, 2000; Westling & Fox, 2004). One-to-one discrete trial train-ing is widely accepted as an effective instructional format for teach-ing skills in an intensive and efficient manner. The target skills aretaught within a highly structured format that provides clear andconcise instruction, additional prompts, and a reinforcer for success-fully performing the skill. The trials of instruction are provided on a

25

JAMESON et al.

single behavior in a massed fashion with only a brief pause betweentrials. These one-on-one instructional procedures have been viewedas highly effective for students with moderate to severe disabilities(Vaughn, Moody, & Schrumm, 1998). Existing research has primarilyfocused on the relative effectiveness of massed and distributed trialtraining on the learning of individuals with developmental disabili-ties (Dunlap, 1984; Mulligan, Guess, Holvoet, & Brown, 1980). Studieshave found both instructional formats to be effective for students withdevelopmental disabilities. Additionally, they have not found signifi-cant differences between the two instructional formats on the rates ofskill acquisition. For example, a study by A. McDonnell (1996) com-pared the effects of massed practice instruction to a combined massedpractice and distributed practice format on the acquisition, transfer,and generalization of prompted requests for five students with devel-opmental disabilities. Results indicated that there were only minimaldifferences in the relative effectiveness of the two trial distributionformats.

The purpose of the present study was to compare the rela-tive effectiveness of one-to-one embedded instruction to a one-to-onemassed trials instructional format. Specifically, we comparedone-to-one embedded instruction implemented with each student inone general education class with one-to-one massed trials instructionimplemented in the students' self-contained special education class.The instructional formats were implemented by the special educationteacher and a paraprofessional who supported the students in theirgeneral education classes.

Method

Participants and Settings

Four middle school students with developmental disabilities,their special education teacher, and a special education paraprofes-sional participated in the study. Students were selected for participa-tion based on the following criteria: (1) presence of developmentaldisabilities; (2) students had to be enrolled in age appropriate gen-eral education classes for a minimum of two hours each school day;(3) students had to receive part of their educational programming inseparate special education classes; (4) the student's parents or guard-ians must have given consent for participation in the study; (5) thestudent's general education teacher had to agree to allow the embed-ded instructional procedures to be implemented in their classrooms.

Students with disabilities. Bill was a 13-year-old male Hispanic stu-dent in the seventh grade with Down Syndrome. He was classified ashaving an Intellectual Disability. Bill had C-TONI intelligence scores

26

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

of 59 (Picture non-verbal), 64 (Geometric non-verbal), and 59 (Non-verbal). He typically used gestures and single syllable utterances tocommunicate with others. Bill was easily distracted and would oftenrefuse to work in his classes. He was enrolled in two general educa-tion classes. During the remainder of the day he received a combina-tion of instruction on IEP goals in a self-contained special educationclassroom and community-based instruction on functional life skills.The study was implemented in Bill's general education Foods Classwhere Bill was the only student with a significant disability, and inthe self contained special education classroom. The general educationteacher employed several instructional strategies including lecture,small group activities, and individual seat-work. Bill attended classindependently and his teacher arranged for the necessary adaptationsand accommodations needed for class participation. The special edu-cation setting used a variety of instructional strategies including wholeand small group activities, but the majority of instructional time wascharacterized by one-on-one instruction delivered by the special edu-cation teacher, paraprofessionals, and peer tutors.

Sarah was a 15-year-old female of Vietnamese background in theeighth grade. She was classified as having an Intellectual Disability.Sarah had C-TONI intelligence scores of 56 (Picture non-verbal), 67(Geometric non-verbal), and 51 (Nonverbal). Sarah had good receptivelanguage skills but had expressive skills that were limited to the use ofgestures, single words, and short phrases. Sarah was enrolled in twogeneral education classes during the school day. During the remain-der of the day she received a combination of instruction on IEP goalsin a self-contained special education classroom and community-basedinstruction. The study was implemented in Sarah's general educationTeen Living Class and in the self-contained special education class-room. Sarah was the only student with a disability in her Teen Livingclass. The general education teacher employed several instructionalstrategies including lecture, whole class and small group activities,and individual seat-work. Sarah attended class independently andher teacher arranged for the necessary adaptations and accommoda-tions needed for her to participate in the class. The special educationsetting primarily utilized one-on-one instruction delivered by the spe-cial education teacher, paraprofessionals, and peer tutors.

Andy was a 15-year-old male Caucasian with Down Syndrome inthe eighth grade. He was classified as having an Intellectual Disability.Andy had an IQ of 46 as measured by the WISC III. Andy had goodreceptive and expressive language skills but had difficulty articulat-ing some words. Andy was enrolled in three general education classesduring the school day. During the remainder of the day he received a

27

JAMESON et al.

combination of instruction on IEP goals in a self-contained special ed-ucation classroom and community-based instruction. The study wasimplemented in Andy's general education Earth Science Class and inthe self-contained special education classroom. The general educationteacher employed several instructional strategies including lecture,small group activities, and individual seat-work. Andy was the onlystudent with a disability, and he attended class independently. Histeacher arranged for the necessary adaptations and accommodationsto access the general education curriculum. The special education set-ting primarily utilized one-on-one instruction delivered by the specialeducation teacher, paraprofessionals, and peer tutors.

Toby was a 15-year-old male Caucasian in the eighth grade. Hewas classified as having an Intellectual Disability. Toby had a WISCIII IQ score of 46. Toby had good receptive language skills but hadexpressive skills that were limited to the use of single words and shortphrases. Toby also had problems articulating some words. He rarelyinitiated interactions with peers or special education staff. Toby wasenrolled in three general education classes during the school day.During the remainder of the day he received a combination of instruc-tion on IEP goals in a self-contained special education classroom andcommunity-based instruction. The study was implemented in Toby'sgeneral education Teen Living class and in the self-contained specialeducation classroom. The general education teacher employed sev-eral instructional strategies including lecture, small group activities,and individual seat-work. Toby attended class independently and histeacher arranged for the necessary adaptations and accommodationsneeded for him to complete assignments for the class. The special edu-cation setting primarily utilized one-on-one instruction delivered bythe special education teacher, paraprofessionals, and peer tutors.

Special education teacher. A special education teacher implement-ed the one-to-one massed and one-to-one embedded instructionalprocedures with Bill and* Sarah. The teacher, age 49, had a MEd. inSpecial Education and had a state teaching license in the area of Se-vere Disabilities. The teacher had 27 years of teaching experience andhas supported students with disabilities in general education classesfor 15 years. She reported that while there were no courses in her de-gree program that prepared her to support students with disabilitiesin inclusive settings, as a part of ongoing professional developmentshe had attended four workshops on how to teach students with dis-abilities in the general education setting.

Special education paraprofessional. A special education paraprofes-sional implemented the one-to-one massed and one-to-one embeddedinstructional procedures with Andy and Toby. The paraprofessional,

28

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

age 48, had received a High School Diploma and had four years ofparaprofessional experience. She had not completed any district train-ing on how to teach students with disabilities in the general educationclassroom, but had been actively involved in supporting students intheir general education classes for four years prior to the study.

Instructional Targets

The instructional targets for the study were selected collabora-tively with the students' special and general education teachers pri-or to the implementation of the study. Instructional targets were alldrawn from the general education curriculum and were consistentwith the content requirements for the students without disabilities inthe general education classes. Bill was taught to identify six cookingsymbols (i.e., Bake, Mix, Stir) from a picture cooking program thatwould enable him to complete the required cooking activities in hisgeneral education Foods class. Sarah was taught to identify ten shirtnecklines to complete a "Clothing and Fashion" unit in her generaleducation Teen Living class. Andy was taught to define six vocabu-lary terms from a unit on "States of Matter" completed by all studentsin his general education Science class. Toby was taught to identify theeight teen living themes used on a symbol chart to identify major classthemes by all students in his Teen Living general education class. Allthe symbols were simple line drawings combined with text that re-lated to movies the class watched that described the major themes ofthe class. For example, one symbol, "Best Friends Wedding," was rep-resented by the movie title written out over a line drawing of a wed-ding ring. Students in the Teen Living class were expected to use thesymbols to identify the themes of daily activities. All the target skillswere identical in content to the content requirements for the studentswithout disabilities in the respective general education classes. Theywere also consistent with the goals include in the students' IEPs andwere appropriate for their functioning level. The instructional targetswere matched in terms of difficultly and were randomly assigned toan experimental condition. The introduction of the instructional in-terventions was counterbalanced across participants, and the num-ber of instructional trials in each condition was controlled to ensurethey were equivalent. Table 1 presents the instructional targets andthe condition (one-to-one embedded and one-to-one massed) for eachof the four students.

Dependent Measures

The dependent measures used to compare the relative effective-ness of one-to-one embedded and one-to-one massed practice werethe percent of correct responding during testing probes, total trials to

29

JAMESON et al.

Table 1Instructional Sets

Student Instructional Format

One-to-One Embedded One-to-One Massed

Bill (Cooking Symbols Mix CutPreheat StirDip Melt

Sarah (Necklines) V Neck U NeckCrew JewelOff-the-shoulder SweetheartSquare KeyholeCowl Scoop

Andy (States of Matter) Boil - Change from liquid Solid - Keeps shape andto a gas size

Melt - Change from solid Liquid - Keeps size,to a liquid changes shape

Freeze - Change from Gas - Changes shape andliquid to a solid size

Toby (Teen Living Roxanne - Like yourself Mr. Mom - SociallySymbols) Mr Holland - Set goals approved gender roles

Best Friends Wedding - Mrs. Doubtfire - PreparePrepare for marriage for career

Bates Motel - Pee Weee - Have goodIndependence friends

Willy Wonka - Beresponsible

criterion, and the perceptions of the teacher and paraprofessional re-garding the utility and acceptability of the two instructional formats.

Percent of correct responses during test probes. Weekly test probeswere conducted by the authors to assess the acquisition of the targetskills taught through one-to-one embedded and one-to-one massedpractice. Although the embedded instruction was carried out in thegeneral education classroom, all the test probes were conducted inthe special education classroom in order to avoid disruption of thegeneral education classes. All the test probes were scheduled at timeswhen the students were normally in the special education classroom.During the test probes, one of the authors sat at a table in the specialeducation classroom and presented the stimulus materials to the stu-dent. The student was prompted to either identify the symbol, neck-line, or provide a definition. During the probes the students would.beasked to respond once to each of the stimuli in both instructional sets.The stimuli were randomly presented, and were the same materialsused in the instructional conditions. Students were not presented with

30

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

any feedback on their performance during or after the testing probes.The students were praised for attending and staying on task. Studentresponses were then recorded as either correct or incorrect. The per-cent of correct responses were then calculated for each test probe.

Total trials to criterion. The student's rates of acquisition underboth instructional conditions was assessed by calculating the totalnumber of instructional trials required for the student to meet in-structional criterion (performance of 100% accuracy on all the targetstimuli in the instructional condition for two consecutive test probes).In addition, the authors calculated the total number of instructionaltrials provided to each student in each session of both the one-to-oneembedded and one-to-one massed practice instructional proceduresto ensure their equivalence.

Social validity. Social validity was assessed by using a follow upquestionnaire to quantify the special educator's and the paraprofes-sional's perceptions of the instructional techniques. Using a Likertscale (1-Strongly Disagree to 6-Strongly Agree) the teacher and para-professional responded to eight questions and rating the practicality,efficiency, and effectiveness of the one-on-one embedded instructionalprocedures. In addition, they were encouraged to provided feedbackon comments on their questionnaires.

Instructional Design and Procedures

The study utilized a single subject alternating treatment design,(Holcombe, Wolery, & Gast, 1994) to compare the relative effective-ness of one-to-one embedded instruction in the general educationclassroom and one-to-one massed practice instruction in the spe-cial education class. The experimental conditions included baseline,one-to-one embedded instruction in the general education classroom,and one-to-one massed practice instruction in the special educationclass. The instructional formats were counterbalanced across the stu-dents.

Baseline. Baseline data were collected by the authors using thetesting probe procedures already described. Three baseline probeswere conducted for all the target stimuli to ensure behavioral stabilityprior to the implementation of the instructional interventions. Base-line data was collected on three consecutive days for each participant.Following baseline, all four participants had two different times for in-struction established, one in a general education classroom regularlyattended by the participants (one-to-one embedded instruction) andone in their special education classroom (one-to-one massed practice).The two instructional interventions were implemented and alternatedacross class periods in the same day.

31

JAMESON et al.

One-to-one embedded instruction in the general education class-room. In the one-to-one embedded instructional condition, the specialeducation teacher and the paraprofessional were provided with aninstructional script that outlined the embedded instructional proce-dures. Instructional trials were delivered during transitions, breaks,and any other naturally occurring opportunities in the routine of thegeneral education setting. The instructional set (i.e., flashcards) waspresented a minimum of three times in each session. The instructionalsets in each condition were presented the same number of times eachday. For example, if the instructors presented the instructional set fivetimes during the embedded instruction, the instructional set for theone-to-one massed trials was presented five times.

The stimuli were presented to the students on 3x5 index cards.Instructional procedures consisted of constant time delay, differentialreinforcement, and error correction. The discrete instructional trialswere distributed over the span of a single class period and instruc-tional sessions were to occur daily until skill acquisition was dem-onstrated. If the participant responded correctly, they were praised.If the participant response was incorrect they received verbal errorcorrection. For example, during embedded instruction in the generaleducation classroom, Bill's special education teacher would utilizenaturally occurring instructional opportunities (e.g., time at the startof class when the teacher is handing back assignments to students)in his Foods class to present a target cooking symbol on a 3x5 indexcards and ask "Bill, what does this symbol mean?" Bill immediatelyreceived a verbal prompt (0 second time delay-ie. "Bill, this symbolmeans bake.") to ensure that there were no opportunities for an incor-rect response. Bill's response was coded. If his response was correct hewas praised. Error correction would follow every incorrect response.Specifically, the instructor would indicate that he had made an incor-rect response by saying "no," then providing a model for the correctresponse. For example, if Bill responded incorrectly to the stimulus for"bake," the instructor would say "No, Bill. This symbol means bake."The student was praised if they responded to the model. This formatwould continue until he reached instructional criteria for a phase shift(Two consecutive instructional sessions at 100% accuracy). In the sec-ond phase, Bill would receive the verbal prompt after a three secondtime delay. Instructional trails were distributed over a 40 minute gen-eral education class period. Training was completed when he met theinstructional criteria of two consecutive test probes at 100% accuracywith no prompts. The instructional techniques were identical for allfour students.

32

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

One-to-one massed practice in the special education classroom. In theone-to-one massed instructional format, the special education teacherand the paraprofessional were again provided with an instructionalscript. The same instructional procedures were used in the one-to-onemassed trials format and the embedded instruction. However, in theone-to-one massed trials format, the instruction was delivered in thecontext of the special education classroom. In addition, instead of dis-tributing the trials, all the trials were massed together with each stim-ulus presented one after another with no pauses or breaks. Instructionwas conducted as part of a 40 minute session in which students re-ceived one-to-one instruction on several objectives one after another.For example, Bill was provided instruction on the food symbols usedin the study along with instruction on functional sight words, writinghis name, counting money, and telling time.

Training and Procedural Fidelity

The special education teacher and the paraprofessional weretrained to implement the two instructional interventions during a halfhour training session conducted prior to the implementation of thestudy. The training included a summary of the current research andrationale for embedded instruction and massed practice. The specialeducator and paraprofessional were also given the training using theinstructional scripts that were individualized for each participant.The training scripts provided an outline of the constant time delayprocedures, reinforcement, and error correction procedures. The pro-cedures were modeled by the first author, then the special educatorand paraprofessional implemented the instructional procedures andwere provided feedback. Training was continued in both the gen-eral and special education classes. The training concluded when boththe special educator and paraprofessional were able to implement theinstructional interventions with 100% accuracy for two consecutiveobservations.

Fidelity data were collected on the special educator's andparaprofessional's implementation of the one-to-one embedded andone-to-one massed practice instructional interventions. The first au-thor conducted the fidelity observations in both the general and spe-cial education settings during 27.1 % of all the instructional sessions.The observations measured the procedural fidelity of the instructionalinterventions. The author utilized a checklist that tracked the deliveryof instructional cues, error correction procedures, and reinforcementfor each instructional trial. If the implementation of each step of theinstructional script was correct, the observer would record a "+." Ifthere was an error on either the delivery of instructional cues, error

33

JAMESON et al.

correction procedures, or reinforcement the observer would record a"-." The special educator's and paraprofessional's procedural fidelitywas calculated by dividing the number of steps implemented correctlyby the total number of steps and multiplying by 100. The mean fidel-ity across the special educator's and paraprofessional's instructionalinterventions in the one-to-one embedded condition was 99.4% witha range of 98 to 100. The mean fidelity across the special educator'sand paraprofessional's instructional interventions in the one-to-onemassed trials condition was 99.2% with a range of 97 to 100.

Reliability

Interobserver reliability data on student performance was gath-ered during 90% of all testing probes. During the probes, one of the au-thors would implement the test probe procedure while another wouldobserve. Both authors independently recorded whether the student'sresponse to the stimulus material was correct or incorrect. Reliabilitywas calculated by dividing the number of agreements between theindividual implementing the test probe and the observer by the totalnumber of trials and multiplying by 100. Interobserver agreement was100% across all observations.

Results

Percent of Correct Responses During Testing Probes

Figures 1-4 show the percent of correct responses during each ofthe experimental conditions. These data indicate that both one-to-oneembedded instruction and one-to-one massed practice were effec-tive in teaching the students the targeted skills. All four participantsreached the established criterion in both instructional interventions.However, these data also indicate differences between the instruc-tional interventions for some students. The data for Toby indicate nodifference between the two instructional techniques. Andy reachedcriterion more rapidly with the one-to-one embedded instruction.The one-to-one massed practice was more effective for Bill and Sarah,though only by one test probe session for Bill.

Total Trials to Criterion and Trials Per Instructional Session

Table 2 summarizes the total trials to criterion and the total num-ber of trials per instructional session for each student in each instruc-tional format. In the one-to-one embedded condition, Bill required 240discrete trials to reach criterion. He received an average of 15 trialsper instructional session and completed the training in 16 days. In theone-to-one massed practice condition, Bill required 150 discrete trials

34

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

Baseline Intervention120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6

Probe Sessions

Figure 1. Percent of Correct Response During Test Probe for Bill.

120 Baseline Intervention

100

80

o One-to-OnE60 o• • Instruction

o_ 40 Embedded Instructior

20

0 W=7=&MEF,

7

35

Figure 2. Percent of Correct Response During Test Probe for Sarah.

Embedded Instruction

"5,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Probe Sessions

JAMESON et al.

Baseline

1 2 3 ' 4 5 6

Probe Sessions

Intervention120

100

80

60

40

20

07 8 9 10

Figure 3. Percent of Correct Response During Test Probe for Andy.

Baseline Intervention

120 -

100.

80 -

u

E*

060-

CL40 -

20 -

0-

One to oneInstruction

EmbeddedInstruction

4,1 2 3 4

Probe Sessions

56

Figure 4. Percent of Correct Response During Test Probe for Toby.

36

"a,

00

a)

a,. One-to-OneInstruction

Embedded Instruction

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

Table 2Total Trials to Criterion Per Instructional Set and Average Trials Per

Session

Embedded Instruction Massed Instruction

Student Total Trials to Average Trials Total Trials to Average TrialsCriterion Per Session Criterion Per Session

Bill 240 15 150 15

Sarah 615 19.2 505 20.2

Andy 255 13.4 342 12.7

Toby 245 13.6 245 13.6

to reach criterion. He received an average of 15 trials per instructionalsession and had the training completed in 10 days. In the one-to-oneembedded condition, Sarah required 615 discrete trials to reach cri-terion. She received an average of 19.2 trials per instructional sessionand completed the training in 32 days. In the one-to-one massed prac-tice condition, Sarah required 505 discrete trials to reach criterion.She received an average of 20.2 trials per instructional session andcompleted the training in 25 days. Andy required 255 discrete trialsdefining states of matter in the one-to-one embedded instruction con-dition. He received an average of 13.4 trials per instructional sessionand met criterion after 19 days. In the one-to-one massed practicecondition, Andy required 342 trials with an average of 12.7 trials perinstructional session. It took Andy 27 days to reach criterion. Toby re-quired 245 discrete trials in the one-to-one embedded condition. Thetraining was completed after 18 sessions with an average of 13.6 trialsper instructional session. In the one-to-one massed practice condition,Toby required 245 trials per target stimuli and had an average of 13.6trials per instructional session. He met criterion after 18 instructionalsessions.

Social Validity

The social validity of the embedded instructional techniques wasrated quite highly by both the special education teacher and the para-professional (see Table 3). Likert scale data indicated that both prac-titioners found embedded instruction to be a practical, efficient, andeffective instructional technique. The data indicate that the promptingstrategies were easy to use, met the unique instructional needs of thestudents, and allowed the students to participate more fully in thegeneral education classroom (X=6, Strongly Agree). In addition, the

37

JAMESON et al.

Table 3Social Validity Data

Embedded Instruction Massed Practice

1. The response prompting Mean - 6 Mean - 6strategy met the needs of the Range - N/A Range - N/Astudent (

2. The response prompting Mean - 6 Mean - 6strategy was easy to use Range - N/A Range - N/A

3. Using the response prompting Mean - 5.5 Mean - 5.5strategy with the student did Range - 5-6 Range - 5-6not take a lot of my time

4. The response prompting Mean - 6 Mean - 6strategy was effective in Range - N/A Range - N/Apromoting the student'slearning

5. Using the response prompting Mean - 5.5 Mean - 5.5strategy did not disrupt Range - 5-6 Range - 5-6the educational program ofstudents without disabilitiesin the class.

6. I will use the response Mean - 6 Mean - 6prompting strategy again Range - N/A Range - N/Awith students with severedisabilities.

7. The response prompting Mean - 6 Mean - 6strategy would be effective for Range - N/S Range - N/Sother students with disabilitiesin my class

8. The resonse prompting Mean - 6 Mean - 6strategy allowed the student Range - N/A Range - N/Ato participate more fully in thegeneral education curriculum

data indicate that the response prompting strategy did not disruptthe educational program of the students without disabilities in thegeneral education classes (X= 5.5). Finally, the special education teach-er and the paraprofessional indicated that the embedded instructionprocedure would be effective for other students with disabilities andthat they would use the teaching format again (X=6). Both the specialeducation teacher and the paraprofessional commented that the re-sponse prompting procedures were effective in both settings and thatthe embedded procedures made students more a part of their generaleducation classes. In addition, the paraprofessional noted that one ofthe students began to verbally communicate more often when the re-sponse prompting procedures were used.

38

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

Discussion

While embedded instruction appears to be a potentially usefulstrategy to provide systematic and individualized instruction to stu-

dents with developmental disabilities in general education settings,there has been little research that demonstrates that it is as effective asother more traditional instructional strategies used in special educa-tion settings. The purpose of this study was to compare the relativeeffectiveness of one-to-one embedded instruction implemented in the

general education classroom with traditional one-to-one massed trialsinstruction in a special education classroom. The data show that em-bedded instruction is an effective instructional strategy for studentswith developmental disabilities being served in general educationsettings. In addition, both the special education teacher and parapro-fessional were able to implement the embedded instructional strate-gies with a high degree of fidelity. These findings are similar to other

research that has suggested that embedded instruction is an effectiveinstructional strategy for students with developmental disabilities ingeneral education settings (Johnson & McDonnell, 2004; Johnson, etal., 2004; Reisen et al., 2003; Wolery et al., 1997). This finding is impor-tant as it provides additional empirical support for embedded instruc-tion as an effective instructional strategy for students with develop-mental disabilities in general education settings.

While all four participants reached criterion under each experi-mental condition, embedded instruction was less efficient for two ofthe students. For Bill, the embedded instruction required 110 morediscrete trials and six more instructional sessions than the massedinstruction. For Sarah, the embedded instruction required 110 morediscrete trials and seven more instructional sessions than the massedinstruction format. The two instructional techniques were equally ef-fective for the third student, Toby, who required the same numberof discrete trials and instructional sessions in each instructional for-mat. The embedded instruction was the most efficient instructionalstrategy for the fourth student. For Andy, the embedded instructionrequired 87 fewer discrete trials and eight fewer instructional sessionsthan the massed instruction. Additional research is needed to deter-mine if these patterns would be replicated across other students andwhat factors influence the acquisition of the targeted skills in embed-ded and one-to-one massed trials.

There are a number of potential explanations for the differenc-es in the outcomes of the respective instructional procedures. First,there may be characteristics of certain learners that lend themselvesto more efficient instruction in each of the experimental conditions.For example, for Bill, the increased behavioral demands of the general

39

JAMESON et al.

education setting may have served as an impediment to efficient in-struction. It was observed that Bill had more difficulty attending tothe embedded instructional strategy while in the general educationsetting. The embedded instruction often occurred during breaks andtransitions within the routines of the general education class. As a re-sult, it often took Bill several cues to attend to the instruction and notthe noise and movement of his classmates. While similar behaviorswere observed during the massed trials in the special education class-room, the instructional strategy could be used to mass all the trials,into times when the classroom distractions were minimal.

Secondly, some discrete discrimination tasks, especially whenthe relevant dimensions of the discriminations are quite similar, maybe more efficiently instructed using a massed trial schedule. It maybe that the massed feedback given for errors in the massed trials re-sults in better skill acquisition when the relevant stimulus dimensionsare minimally different. For example, Sarah's targeted instructionalset was the identification of 10 clothing necklines for her Teen Livingclass. While many of the discriminations had clearly different stimulusdimensions (e.g., turtle neck and v-neck), others had minimal differ-ences (e.g. crew neck and round neck). With the embedded strategy,Sarah had no difficulty learning the target stimuli that had distinc-tive discrimination characteristics, it was only on the discriminationswere there was minimal difference that the massed trails seemed tohave been a more effective instructional strategy. Future researchshould investigate the embedded instructional procedures to identifythe types of skills (e.g., discrimination tasks or chained tasks) that aremost effectively taught using embedded instructional procedures.

There are a number of limitations of this study that should benoted. Primarily, the relatively small number of students who partici-pated in the study limits the generalizations that can be made aboutthe effectiveness of embedded instruction and massed trials to larg-er populations. In addition, the study only examined the efficacy ofutilizing the instructional procedures when teaching academic tasksrequiring discrete responses rather than more complex chains of be-havior. There is a lack of research demonstrating that embedded in-struction can be used to teach these more complex behaviors. Finally,the data do not give any indication as to the types of response errorsmade under each instructional technique. As a result, it is not clear ifthe types of errors found in each condition were identical.

In spite of these limitations, the results suggest that embeddedinstruction holds promise as an instructional strategy for practitio-ners who are supporting students with developmental disabilitiesin general education settings. It should be noted that other research

40

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

(Wolery et al., 1997) has demonstrated that general education teacherscan be trained to deliver embedded instruction to students with devel-opmental disabilities in inclusive general education classes. However,for the purpose of this study, special education personnel were used todeliver the instruction to ensure an equivalent comparison of the twoinstructional procedures. At this point, it remains unclear whetherone-to-one embedded instruction or the more traditional one-to-onemassed trial instruction is more effective, but the results suggest thatreliance on massed trial training formats may not be the only effectiveway to ensure systematic and individualized instruction. Additionalresearch is needed to determine what factors may influence the rela-tive efficacy of these instructional strategies for students.

Acknowledgment

The content of this report was developed under a grant from theOffice of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education(PR# H324C000131). However, the contents do not necessarily repre-sent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should notassume endorsement by the Federal Government.

References

Chiara, L., Schuster, J., & Bell, J., & Wolery, M. (1995). Small-groupmassed-trial and individually-administered-distributed-trialinstruction with preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 19,203-217.

Cole, C.M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress ofstudents across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Re-tardation, 42,2, 136-144.

Daugherty, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M.L. (2001). The ef-fects of embedded skill instruction on the acquisition of targetand non-target skills in preschoolers with developmental de-lays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 213-221.

Dunlap, G. (1984). The influence of task variation and maintenance oftasks of the learning and affect of autistic children. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 37, 41-64.

Dunlap, G., & Koegel. R.L. (1980). Motivating autistic children throughstimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13,619-627.

Fox, L., & Hanline, M.F. (1993). A preliminary evaluation of learningwithin developmentally appropriate early childhood settings.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 308-327.

41

JAMESON et al.

Grisham-Brown, J., Schuster, J.W., Hemmeter, M.L., & Collins, B.C.(2000). Using embedded strategy to teach preschoolerswith significant disabilities. Journal of Behavior Education, 10,139-162.

Harrower, J. (1999). Educational inclusion of children with severe dis-abilities. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 1, 215-230.

Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. (1994). Comparative single sub-ject research: Descriptions of designs and discussions of prob-lems. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 119-145.

Horn, E., Lieber, J., Li, S., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2000). Support-ing young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings throughembedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 20, 208-223.

Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational pro-grams, practices, and outcomes for students with severe dis-abilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.

Johnson, J.W., & McDonnell, J. (2004). An exploratory study of the im-plementation of embedded instruction by general educatorswith students with developmental disabilities. Education andTreatment of Children, 27, 46-63.

Johnson, J.W., McDonnell, J., Holzwarth, V., & Hunter, K. (2004). Theefficacy of embedded instruction for students with develop-mental disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Jour-nal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 6, 214-227.

Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusive education and school re-structuring. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controver-sial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives(pp. 31-43). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

McDonnell, A. (1996). The acquisition, transfer, and generalization ofrequests by young children with severe disabilities. Educationand Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabili-ties, 31, 3, 213-234.

McDonnell, J. (1998). Instruction for students with severe disabilitiesin general education settings. Education and Training in MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 199-215.

McDonnell, J., Johnson, J.W., Polychronis, S., & Riesen, T. (2002). Theeffects of embedded instruction on students with moderatedisabilities enrolled in general education classes. Educationand Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabili-ties, 37, 363-377.

42

EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION

McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., Disher, S., Mathot-Buckner, C., Mendel,J., & Ray, L. (2003). The achievement of students with devel-opmental disabilities and their peers without disabilities ininclusive settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 3,224-236.

Mulligan, M., Guess, D., Holvoet, J., & Brown, F. (1980). The individ-ualized curriculum sequencing model: Implications from re-search on massed, distributed, and spaced-trial training. Jour-nal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 325-336.

Orelove, F.P., & Sobsey,D. (1996). Educating Children with Multiple Dis-abilities: A Transdisciplinary Approach (3 rd ed.) Baltimore, MA:Paul H. Brooks

Polychronis, S., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J., Riesen, T., & Jameson, M.(2004). A comparison of two-trial distribution schedules inembedded instruction. Focus on Autism and other Developmen-tal Disabilities, 19, 3, 140-151.

Riesen, T., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J., Polychronis, S., & Jameson, M.(2003). A comparison of time-delay and simultaneous prompt-ing within embedded instruction in general education classeswith students with moderate to severe disabilities. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 12, 4, 241-259.

Salend, S., & Duhaney, L. (1999). The impact of inclusion on studentswith and without disabilities and their educators. Remedialand Special Education, 20, 114-126.

Schuster, J.W., Hemmeter, M.L., & Ault, M.J. (2001). Instruction of stu-dents with moderate and severe disabilities in the elementaryclassrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 329-341.

Snell, M., & Brown, F.(2000). Instruction of students with severe disabili-ties (6 th ed.). New York: Merrill.

Tawney, J.W, & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single subject research in special educa-tion. New York: MacMillan.

U.S. Department of Education (2002). 24th annual report to Congress onthe implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vaughn, S., Moody, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Broken promises: Read-ing instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64,211-225.

Venn, M.L., Wolery, M., Werts, M.G., Morris, A., DeCesare, L.D. &Cuffs, J.S.(1993). Embedding instruction in art activities toteach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers. Ear-ly Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 277-294.

43

JAMESON et al.

Westling, D.L., & Fox, L. (2004). Teaching students with severe disabilities(3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Wolery, M., Anthony, L., Caldwell, N.K., Snyder, E.D., & Morgante,J.D. (2002). Embedding and distributing constant time delayin circle time and transitions. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 22, 14-25.

Wolery, M., Anthony, L., & Heckathorn, J. (1998). Transition basedteaching: Effects on transitions, teacher's behavior, and chil-dren's learning. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 117-131.

Wolery, M. Anthony, L., Snyder, E.D., Werts, M.G., & Katzenmeyer,J. (1997).Training elementary teachers to embed instructionduring classroom activities. Education and Treatment of Chil-dren, 20, 40-58.

Wolery, M., Ault, M.J., & Doyle, P.M. (1992). Teaching students withmoderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strate-gies. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C., Doyle, P., Schuster, J., Ault,M., et al. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses:A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, andmethodological parameters. Research in Developmental Dis-abilities, 13, 239-266.

44

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: A Comparison of One-to-One Embedded Instruction inthe General Educatio

SOURCE: Education and Treatment of Children 30 no1 F 2007PAGE(S): 23-44

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.