Training Teachers in Inclusive Classrooms to Collect Data on Individualized Child Goals

Abstract

The progress-monitoring data collection is an essential skill for teachers serving children for whom the general curriculum is insufficient. As the field of early childhood education moves toward tiered service provision models, the importance of routine data collection is heightened. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of a training package on preschool teachers’ implementation of progress-monitoring strategies to collect data on children in need of supports beyond those provided through the general curriculum. This study employed a single-case experimental design in which generalized teacher behavior was collected within the context of the design. In addition, masked reliability data collectors were used throughout the study and an analysis of bias was conducted by a researcher unaffiliated with the study. Social and ecological validity data were collected using a multi-method approach.

Preparing Preschool Educators to Monitor Child Progress

“…Durations of the trainings and training components were either not determinable or not comparable across the studies. For example, Shepley et al (2020b) provided trainees with a video that depicted a narrative overview of target data collection procedures and multiple models of correct and incorrect implementations of the procedures. Shepley et al did not track how many times participants watched the video nor the duration of time that participants viewed the video.…”

“…Seven single-case multiple probe/baseline designs were evaluated against the standards for rigor established for this review. All three designs included in Shepley et al's (2020b) study were determined to be rigorous given that they met (a) the WWC standards, (b) the additional procedural fidelity requirement, and (c) there were no additional confounds present. No other designs were determined to be rigorous when compared against outlined criteria.…”

“…Low risk of bias was demonstrated by all studies for selective outcome reporting. Effect scores for each of the rigorous designs ranged from 3.56 to 5.00, each design was from the same study (Shepley et al, 2020b), and a total of four in-service preschool teachers were included across the three rigorous designs. Effect scores for designs that were not determined to be rigorous ranged from 1.11 to 5.00, and included 20 pre- or in-service preschool teachers.…”

“…The results of our review indicate that there remains a need for such a body of literature, given that we identified only one study containing a rigorous evaluation of teacher training on progress monitoring. Furthermore, this sole rigorous study addressed only a single aspect of progress monitoring (i.e., data collection; Shepley et al, 2020b) without presenting a discussion of how educators should analyze their progress monitoring data and use the data to inform their instruction. We interpret our findings as a cause for immediate concern, and a call to action for researchers and funding agencies to devote resources to learning more about how teacher training practices can support preschool educators in ensuring that their instruction is actually helping the children they serve.…”

“…Throughout the search process, reviewers also screened any articles that were identified though serendipitous methods. After completing all search methods, a total of four studies were identified that met our inclusion criteria (see Figure 1; Farmer, Wolery, Gast, & Page, 1988; Love, Horn, & An, 2019; Pellecchia et al, 2011; Shepley, Grisham-Brown, Lane, & Ault, 2020b).…”