Understanding Curriculum Modifications PDF
Understanding Curriculum Modifications PDF
Understanding Curriculum Modifications PDF
Clinical Forum
Understanding Curriculum
Modifications and Embedded Learning
Opportunities in the Context of
Supporting All Childrens Success
Eva Horn
University of KansasLawrence
Rashida Banerjee
University of Northern ColoradoGreeley
406
LANGUAGE, SPEECH,
AND
HEARING SERVICES
IN
Further evidence for the call for greater accountability for students
achieving meaningful outcomes is provided by the Office of Special
Education Programs requirement in 2005 that states, in its annual
report on implementation of IDEA, that every state must submit
outcomes data for all children served through Part C and Part B
preschool programs between when they begin either Part C or Part B
preschool services and when they exit the program (Hebbeler,
Barton, & Mallik, 2007).
Meeting the mandate of access to the general curriculum
and documentation of child progress on federal child outcomes
requires educators and related services professionals, such as
speech-language pathologists (SLPs), not only to help the child
with special needs be in the general education classroom and
participate in the activities, but also to ensure that each child learns
the important curriculum content that is offered to all children in
early education programs (Kameenui & Simmons, 1999; Nolet &
McLaughlin, 2005; Simmons, Kuykendall, King, Cornachione, &
Kameenui, 2000). Converging empirical evidence has identified
key components of effective practices for supporting access to and
progress in the general preschool curriculum for young children
with disabilities (Horn, Lieber, Sandall, Schwartz, & Li, 2002;
McBride & Schwartz, 2003; Sandall et al., 2008). Using a building blocks analogy, Sandall and colleagues characterized these
evidence-based components as a set of stacked building blocks,
with the base being a high-quality early childhood program and
more specialized supports, including curriculum modifications,
embedded learning opportunities ( ELOs), and specialized instruction, nested on top. A modification and extension of this building
blocks model, recently proposed (Horn, Lieber, Palmer, & Butera,
2008) and illustrated in Figure 1, has at its foundation a highquality, universally designed curriculum that supports all childrens
access to and participation in the general curriculum. Childrens
individualized needs for supports are provided through instructional
individualization including curriculum modifications and ELOs.
The decision for when and what form the supports should take
is determined through assessment and by linking desired child
outcomes to curriculum content and the individualized child
supports.
The primary purpose of this article is to provide a closer look at
the individualization process in which we ensure that the individualized learning priorities for each child are appropriately addressed. First, to better understand the foundation on which the
407
408
LANGUAGE, SPEECH,
AND
HEARING SERVICES
IN
Instructional Individualization
A high-quality, universally designed curriculum incorporating
the four key aspects described in the previous section is essential
for ensuring not only access to, but also meaningful participation
across, daily routines and activities for all young children, particularly those with disabilities or those who are at risk for developing disabilities (DEC, 2007). However, the implementation of a
high-quality, universally designed curriculum does not take away
the need to make modifications to meet the individual needs of
specific children. To support the achievement of priority learning
outcomes for young children with disabilities, the universally designed general curriculum should be viewed as the cornerstone to
which all instruction is anchored or, as noted previously in Figure 1,
the foundational block in building an effective implementation
model ( Horn et al., 2008). How then do we address the next element
or block of the modelinstructional individualization?
An important function of an educational team (including but
not limited to early childhood special educators [ECSEs], SLPs,
and occupational therapists) for children with disabilities should
be to develop goals and objectives that (a) meet the unique needs
of the child, ( b) are meaningful for the child, and (c) are functional
in a variety of contexts (Noonan & McCormick, 1995; NotariSyverson & Schuster, 1995). However, these goals and objectives
must not become the childs curriculum. Developing appropriate
goals and supporting the individual needs of young children with
disabilities requires ECSEs to anchor their child program planning
in the expectation of the general education curriculum. Meeting
the mandate of access to and progress in the general curriculum
requires educators to help the child access the environment and
409
participate in the activities (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000). In addition, all team members must provide opportunities for the child
to learn the important content reflected in the curriculum that is
offered to all children in the early education program through a
variety of individualized supports and modifications. The following
vignette provides examples of the types of individualized instructional supports and curriculum modifications that can be planned
and implemented.
Trent attends a community preschool in which teachers and related
services personnel use a high-quality, universally designed curriculum.
Trent was diagnosed with a medical condition that resulted in general
developmental delay. He receives services from the local schools
IEP team, which includes an SLP who regularly visits the classroom
and works with the teachers and Trents parents to plan curriculum
modifications and individualized instruction. For example, Trent needs
some support to maintain active engagement. So working together,
the team developed a plan to provide for a variety of curriculum
modifications to ensure that Trents individualized needs for supports to
maintain active engagement are addressed. For example, when reading
the story that accompanies each lesson, the teacher makes room for
Trent to sit nearby so that he can see the book and experience fewer
distractions (i.e., provision of invisible support). This allows him to
access information along with the other children. Additionally, Trents
parents have a copy of the books that are used in the curriculum, and they
work ahead of the teachers to introduce Trent to the material so that he
will be able to benefit even more when the teacher introduces the books
in the classroom. Repeated exposures to a book is an example of a
curriculum modification in which the task was simplified (i.e., simplify
activity), thus allowing Trent to be actively engaged and responsive to the
discussion and content. The SLP suggested that Trents teacher also
encourage Trent to look at the book and talk with her about it during
center time, providing Trent with the curriculum modification of adult
support so that he can fully understand the content. In addition, the
teacher uses this time as well as other targeted opportunities during the
day to provide Trent with individualized instruction or ELOs to address
his individual learning priority of increasing expressive language
vocabulary and maintaining attentional focus. The SLP develops a
list of potential opportunities in the natural environment for Trent to
expressively use vocabulary from the books and models these for the
classroom staff when she is in the setting. Furthermore, the SLP embeds
work on Trents learning priorities into her individual interactions and
small-group session with Trent. (Lieber, Horn, Palmer, & Fleming,
2008)
Category
Environmental support
Material adaptations
Special equipment
Use of childrens preferences
Simplification of the activity
Adult support
Peer support
Invisible support
410
LANGUAGE, SPEECH,
Definition
Refers to adults altering the physical, social, and temporal environment in order to promote the childs
participation, engagement, and learning.
Occur when teachers modify materials so that the child can participate as independently as possible.
Includes homemade as well as commercially available therapeutic equipment.
Refers to adults identifying child preferences and integrating them into the activity to make it more motivating.
Refers to adults breaking a complicated activity into smaller parts or changing or reducing the steps involved.
Occurs when adults model an appropriate behavior, join the child in play, praise the child, and /or provide encouragement.
Refers to adults providing peers with support and training so that they can help children with severe disabilities
reach their learning objectives.
Occurs when adults rearrange aspects of naturally occurring activities to support the childs success in participating.
AND
HEARING SERVICES
IN
Peers also can help children with disabilities reach learning objectives. For example, Isaiahs peers could provide him with the
picture choices of the next center he would like to participate in and
then drive his chair to the area once he has indicated his choice.
Finally, invisible supports occur when adults rearrange aspects of
naturally occurring activities to support the childs success in participating. For example, if Isaiahs classmates were making a card with
a heart shape created by red paint fingerprints of each child as a
farewell gift to a volunteer, the adults could make sure that Isaiah
was first in line for placing his fingerprint because his accuracy of
hitting a target is limited and thus he would not be in danger of
placing his fingerprint on top of another childs.
ELOs. Used well, curriculum modifications like those described
above can certainly help support childrens active participation in
the activities and curriculum content of the early learning environment. However, curriculum modifications may not be sufficient
to ensure that the child has learning opportunities to meet the goals
and outcomes stated on his or her IEP or individualized family
service plan ( IFSP). In order to ensure that the child with disabilities
has learning opportunities to meet his or her individually defined
needs, an instructional modification might include providing opportunities for planned, brief instructional episodes across curriculum
activities to provide direct instruction for childrens individualized
learning needs and outcomes (Horn et al., 2002). Drawing from
411
Issues in Implementation
In a multitiered system of support like the one presented in
Figure 1, each component/lock fulfills an important role. The
412
LANGUAGE, SPEECH,
AND
HEARING SERVICES
IN
REFERENCES
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general
curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to
teachers. Education & Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental
Disabilities, 37(2), 123133.
Backus, O., & Beasley, J. (1951). Speech therapy with children. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Blackhurst, E., Carnine, D., Cohen, L., Kameenui, E., Longone, J.,
Palley, D., et al. (1999). Research connections in special education:
Universal design. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://ericec.org/
osep/recon5/rc5cov.html.
Branscombe, N. A., Castle, K., Dorsey, A. G., Surbeck, E., & Taylor,
J. B. (2003). Early childhood curriculum: A constructivist perspective.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate
practice in early childhood programs (rev. ed.). Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bricker, D., & Cripe, J. J. (1992). An activity-based approach to early
intervention. Baltimore: Brookes.
Bricker, D., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & McComas, N. R. (1998). An activitybased approach to early intervention (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Briggs, M. (1991). Team development: Decision-making for early intervention. InfantToddler Intervention, 1(1), 19.
Brown, W. H., McEvoy, M. A., & Bishop, N. (1991). Incidental teaching
of social behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(1), 3538.
Bruder, M. B. (1997). The effectiveness of specific educational/developmental
curricula for children with established disabilities. In M. Guralnick (Ed.),
The effectiveness of early intervention ( pp. 523548). Baltimore: Brookes.
Camarata, S., Nelson, K., & Camarata, M. (1994). Comparison of
conversation-based to imitation-based procedures for training grammatical structures in specifically language impaired children. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 14141423.
Carta, J., & Kong, N. Y. (2007). Trends and issues in interventions for
preschoolers with developmental disabilities. In S. L. Odom, R. H.
Horner, M. E. Snell, & J. Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental
disabilities ( pp. 181198). New York: Guilford Press.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2006). Universal design for
learning. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://www.cast.org/udl/.
Conn-Powers, M., Cross, A. F., Traub, E. K., & Hutter-Pishgahi, L.
(2006). The universal design of early education: Moving forward
for all children. Beyond the journal: Young children on the Web.
Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://journal.naeyc.org//btj/200609/
ConnPowersBTJ.pdf.
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality,
and child outcomes in childcare centers, public report (2nd ed.). Denver:
University of Colorado at Denver, Economics Department.
Crowe, L., Leiting, S., & Ogden, N. (1994, November). Inclusion plus
collaborative teaming equals success in early childhood education. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-LanguageHearing Association, New Orleans, LA.
413
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Palmer, S., & Butera, G. (2008). Childrens School
Success Curriculum Plus (CSS+): Supporting all childrens progress
in the general curriculum. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Sandall, S., Schwartz, I., & Wolery, R. (2002).
Classroom models of individualized instruction. In S. L. Odom (Ed.),
Widening the circle: Including children with disabilities in preschool
programs (pp. 4660). New York: Teachers College Press.
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Sandall, S. R., Schwartz, I., & Li, S. (2002).
Supporting young childrens IEP goals in inclusive settings through
embedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 20, 208223.
Hundert, J., & Hopkins, B. (1992). Training supervisors in a collaborative
team approach to promote peer interaction of children with disabilities in
integrated preschools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 385400.
Hundert, J., & Houghton, A. (1992). Promoting social interaction of
children with disabilities in integrated preschools: A failure to generalize.
Exceptional Children, 58(4), 311320.
Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Liboiron, N., & Bae, S. (2004). Collaborative
teaming to support preschoolers with severe disabilities who are placed in
general education early childhood programs. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 24(3), 123142.
Hutzler, Y., Chacham, A., Bergman, U., & Szeinberg, A. (1998). Effects
of a movement and swimming program on vital capacity and water
orientation skills of children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine
and Child Neurology, 40(3), 176181.
Law, J., Lindsay, G., Peacey, N., Gascoigne, M., Soloff, N., Radford, J.,
et al. (2002). Consultation as a model for providing speech and language
therapy in schools: A panacea or one step too far? Child Language
Teaching & Therapy, 18, 145163.
Lieber, J., Beckman, P. J., Hanson, M. J., Janko, S., Marquart, J. M.,
Horn, E., et al. (1997). The impact of changing roles on the relationships
between professionals in inclusive programs for young children. Early
Education and Development, 8, 6782.
Lieber, J., Horn, E., Palmer, S., & Fleming, K. (2008). Access to the general education curriculum for preschoolers with disabilities: Childrens
school success. Exceptionality, 16(1), 1832.
Lieber, J., Schwartz, I., Sandall, S., Horn, E., & Wolery, R. (1999).
Curricular considerations for young children in inclusive settings. In
C. Seefeldt (Ed.), Early childhood curriculum: A review of the research
( pp. 243264). New York: Teachers College Press.
Losardo, A., & Bricker, D. (1994). Activity-based and direct instruction: A
comparison study. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 98, 744765.
Lowenthal, B. (1995). Naturalistic language intervention in inclusive
environments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31(2), 114118.
Malmskog, S., & McDonnell, A. P. (1999). Teacher-mediated facilitation of engagement by children with developmental delays in inclusive
preschools. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 203216.
Marsh, C., & Willis, G. (1995). Curriculum: Alternative approaches,
ongoing issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill / Prentice Hall.
McBride, B., & Schwartz, I. (2003). Effects of teaching early interventionists to use discrete trials during activities. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 23(1), 517.
Kaczmarek, L., Pennington, R., & Goldstein, H. (2000). Transdisciplinary consultation: A center-based team functioning model. Education and
Treatment of Children, 23, 156172.
Kameenui, E., & Simmons, D. (1999). Toward successful inclusion of
students with disabilities: The architecture of instruction ( ERIC/OSEP
Mini Library on Adapting Curricular Materials, Vol. 1). Reston, VA:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.
Kaiser, A. (2000). Teaching functional communication skills. In M. E. Snell
& F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed.,
pp. 453491). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Kaiser, A., & Hester, P. (1994). Generalized effects of enhanced milieu
teaching. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37(6), 13201340.
Kaiser, A., Ostrosky, M., & Alpert, K. (1993). Training teachers to use
environmental arrangement and milieu teaching with nonvocal preschool
children. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps,
18, 188199.
Kashinath, S., Woods, J., & Goldstein, H. (2006). Enhancing generalized
teaching strategy use in daily routines by parents of children with autism.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(3), 466485.
Kim, Y. T., & Lombardino, L. J. (1991). The efficacy of script contexts in
language comprehensive intervention with children who have mental
retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 4557.
Kohler, F. W., Anthony, L. J., Steighner, S. A., & Hoyson, M. (1998).
Teaching social interaction skills in the integrated preschool: An examination of naturalistic tactics. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 93103.
Kohler, F. W., Strain, P. S., Hoyson, M., & Jamieson, B. (1997). Merging
naturalistic teaching and peer-based strategies to address the IEP objectives of preschoolers with autism: An examination of structural and behavior outcomes. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
12, 196206.
414
LANGUAGE, SPEECH,
AND
HEARING SERVICES
IN
McWilliam, R. A., Wolery, M., & Odom, S. L. (2001). Instructional perspectives in inclusive school classrooms. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early
childhood inclusion: Focus on change ( pp. 503727). Baltimore: Brookes.
National Association for the Education of Young Children & National
Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments
of Education. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and
program evaluation: Position statement with expanded resources.
Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.naeyc.org/resources/
position_statements/CAPEexpand.pdf.
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (2003). Access
to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: A brief legal
interpretation. Retrieved December 21, 2007, from http://www.cast.org/
ncac/downloads/curriculum_access_legal.pdf.
Nemoy, E., & Davis, S. (1937). The correction of defective consonant
sounds. Boston: Expressions.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. (2005). Accessing the general curriculum:
Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum:
Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Noonan, M. J., & McCormick, L. (1995). Mission impossible? Developing meaningful IEPs for children in inclusive preschool settings. The
Frontline, 2, 13.
Noonan, M. J., & McCormick, L. (2006). Young children with disabilities
in natural environments: Methods and procedures. Baltimore: Brookes.
Nordquist, V. M., Twardoza, S., & McEvoy, M. A. (1991). Effects of
environmental reorganization in classrooms. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(2), 135152.
Smith, B., McLean, M., & Sandall, S. (2005, October). Putting DECs
recommended practices to work. Presentation to the 21st Annual International Conference of Young Children With Special Needs and their
Families, Portland, OR.
Smith, J. D., Warren, S. F., Yoder, P. J., & Feurer, I. (2004). Teachers use
of naturalistic communication intervention practices. Journal of Early
Intervention, 27(1), 311.
Trister-Dodge, D., & Bickart, T. (2003). Curriculum, assessment, and
outcomes: Putting them all in perspective. Children and Families, 17(1),
2832.
Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Morris, A., DeCesare, L. D., &
Cuffs, M. S. (1993). Embedding instruction in art activities to teach
preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 8, 277294.
Warren, S. F., & Kaiser, A. P. (1988). Research in early language intervention. In S. L. Odom & M. B. Karnes (Eds.), Early intervention for
infants and children with handicaps: An empirical base ( pp. 89108).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Warren, S. F., Yoder, P. J., Gazda, G. E., Kim, K., & Jones, H. A. (1993).
Facilitating prelinguistic communication skills in young children with
developmental delay. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36,
8397.
Wolery, M. (2001). Embedding constant time delay procedures in classroom activities. In M. Ostrosky & S. Sandall (Eds.), Teaching strategies:
What to do to support young childrens development. Young Exceptional
Children Monograph Series No. 3 ( pp. 8190). Missoula, MT: DEC/CEC.
Wolery, M., Anthony, L., Caldwell, N. K., Snyder, E. D., & Morgante,
J. D. (2002). Embedding and distributing constant time delay in circle
time and transitions. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22,
1425.
Wolery, M., & Sainato, D. (1996). General curriculum and intervention
strategies. In S. L. Odom & M. McLean (Eds.), Early intervention/early
childhood special education ( pp. 125158). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wolery, M., & Wilburs, J. S. (1994). Including children with special needs
in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Yoder, P. J., & Warren, S. F. (2001). Relative treatment effects of two
prelinguistic communication interventions on language development in
toddlers with developmental delays varied by maternal characteristics.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(1), 224237.
415