Comparison of One-to-One Embedded Instruction in General Education Classes with Small Group Instruction in Special Education Classes

Comparison of One-to-One Embedded Instruction in General

Education Classes with Small Group Instruction in Special

Education Classes

John McDonnell

University of Utah

Jesse W. Johnson

Shamby Polychronis, Tim Riesen and

Matt Jameson

Kelli Kercher

Abstract: A single subject alternating treatment design was used to compare the effectiveness of embedded and small-group instruction to teach vocabulary word definitions to four middle school students with developmental disabilities. Embedded instruction was implemented in the students’ general education classes. Students were taught to verbally define five vocabulary words drawn from the general curriculum. Instructional trials were distributed within and across the ongoing activities of the general education class. Instructional procedures included constant time-delay, differential reinforcement, and systematic error correction procedures. Small-group instruction was implemented in the students’ self-contained special education class. Students were taught to verbally define five vocabulary words drawn from the curriculum in their general education classes. Instruc-tional procedures for small-group instruction were identical to those used during embedded instruction. The small-groups included the target student and two peers who were randomly selected from his or her special education class. Small-group instruction employed an intrasequential format with spaced-trials (Collins et al., 1991; Reid & Favell, 1984). Results suggest that embedded and small-group instruction were equally effective in promoting the acquisition and generalization of the target skill. Results are discussed in terms of future research and implications for supporting the inclusion of students with developmental disabilities in general education classes.

Embedded instruction has recently received attention as a strategy for providing instruc-tion to students with development disabilities in general education classes (Johnson, & Mc-Donnell, 2004; Johnson, McMc-Donnell, Holz-warth, & Hunter, 2004; McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Riesen, 2002; Wolery, Anthony, Snyder, Werts, & Katzenmeyer, 1997). In

em-bedded instruction, students are taught skills within the ongoing routines of the perfor-mance setting. Embedded instruction is simi-lar to traditional discrete trial teaching for-mats in a number of ways. For example, the teacher systematically controls the presenta-tion of instrucpresenta-tional examples and imple-ments instructional procedures designed to support the student’s acquisition of the target skill. It differs in that the instructional trials are distributed within or across activities rather than being presented in a massed-trial or spaced-trial format. This is accomplished by arranging the environment and tasks so that instructional trials are presented during natu-ral opportunities such as during breaks in ac-tivities or when the student is in transition from one activity to another.

Johnson et al. (2004) used an embedded instruction format to teach three students The content of this report was developed under a

grant for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education (PR#H324C000131). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Correspondence concerning this arti-cle should be addressed to Dr. John McDonnell, The University of Utah, College of Education, De-partment of Special Education, 1705 E. Campus Center Dr., Rm 221, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9253.

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2006, 41(2), 125–138 © Division on Developmental Disabilities

with developmental disabilities who were en-rolled in general education classes. Each of the students were taught different skills in-cluding defining basic science concepts drawn from the general science curriculum, identify-ing sight words drawn from the general read-ing curriculum, and usread-ing an electronic com-munication device to make requests of classroom staff. For two students, embedded instruction was implemented by their general education teachers. Instruction was provided to the third student by a special education paraprofessional. The study used a multiple baseline across behaviors design to evaluate the effectiveness of embedded instruction. Re-sults showed that embedded instruction led to acquisition of the target skills by all three stu-dents. In addition, general education teachers and the paraprofessional were able to reliably implement embedded instruction in the rou-tines of the general education classes. Finally, teachers and the paraprofessional found em-bedded instruction to be an acceptable and effective strategy for meeting the needs of these students in their general education classes.

In another study, Wolery et al. (1997) taught general education teachers to use em-bedded instruction with three students with developmental disabilities who were included in typical elementary classes. Teachers used a constant time delay procedure to embed in-struction for students within the lessons being provided to students in the class. These skills included reading sight words during language arts instruction, naming the days of the week on which selected activities occurred during opening activities, and categorizing specific foods within the appropriate food group dur-ing science class. Results showed that students learned the targeted skills and general educa-tors were able to successfully implement em-bedded instruction within activities of the gen-eral education class.

While embedded instruction appears to be an effective strategy to meet the needs of stu-dents with developmental disabilities in gen-eral education classes, it is not clear whether it is as effective as other discrete trial instruc-tional formats. For example, small-group in-struction is frequently recommended as strat-egy for meeting the education needs of these students (Alberto, Sharpton, Sternberg, &

Waylor-Bowen, 1994; Browder, 2001; Ryndak & Alper, 2003; Snell & Brown, 2000; Westling & Fox, 2004; Wolery, Ault, & Doyle, 1992). Research has consistently shown that it is ef-fective in promoting acquisition of a variety of academic, communication, motor, self-help, and community living skills (Browder, Hines, McCarthy, & Fees, 1984; Collins & Stinson, 1995; Fickel, Schuster, & Collins, 1998; Kamps, Dugan, Leonard, & Daoust, 1994; Orelove, 1982; Schepis, Reid, & Fitzgerald, 1987; Wilson, Cuvo, & Davis, 1987). In addi-tion, small-group instruction formats can be designed to promote observational and inci-dental learning by group members (Doyle et al. 1990; Hanley-Maxwell, Wilcox, & Heal, 1982; Keel & Gast, 1992; Farmer, Gast, Wolery, & Winterling, 1991; Parker & Schuster, 2002; Schoen & Ogden, 1995; Singleton, Schuster, & Ault, 1995; Stinson, Gast, Wolery, & Collins, 1991; Whalen, Schuster, & Hemmeter, 1996). Further, studies comparing small-group and one-to-one discrete trial instruction have found that the two strategies are equally effec-tive (Benz, & Todd, 1991; Bourland, Jablon-ski, & Lockhart, 1988; Polloway, Cronin, & Patton, 1986; Reid & Favell, 1984).

There has been limited research comparing small-group instruction with instructional for-mats like embedded instruction in which in-structional trials are distributed within and across ongoing activities of the performance setting. In one study, Chiara, Schuster, Bell, & Wolery (1995) used an adapted alternating treatment design to compare the effectiveness of small-group massed-trial instruction with one-to-one distributed-trial instruction with eight preschool children with developmental delays. Children were taught to expressively label pictures of people in various occupa-tions, animals, and household objects. Data indicated that individual distributed-trail in-struction format was slightly more effective for six of the eight children.

A key feature of embedded instruction is the distribution of instructional trials within and/or across instructional activities (McDon-nell, 1998; Wolery, 2002). Although there is no commonly accepted definition of distribut-ed-trial training, it is frequently characterized as the interspersing of instructional trials for one task among other training trials for other tasks during an instructional session

(Bam-bara & Warren, 1992; Hepting & Goldstein, 1996; Mulligan, Lacy, & Guess 1982; Rule, Losardo, Dinnebeil, Kaiser, & Rowland, 1998; Westling & Fox, 2004). In contrast, small-group instruction formats typically use massed-trial or spaced-trial presentation of stimulus materials (Alberto et al., 1994; Brow-der, 2001; Collins, Gast, Ault, & Wolery, 1991; Reid & Favell, 1984; Ryndak & Alper, 2003; Snell & Brown, 2000; Westling & Fox, 2004; Wolery et al., 1992). However, the spaced-trial strategy has been used the most frequently in research studies on small-group instruction (Collins et al., 1991; Reid & Favell, 1984; Wol-ery et al., 1992). In a spaced-trial format, trials are presented to the student individually with a brief rest period, pause, or noninstructional activity inserted between each trial during the teaching session (Mulligan, Guess, Holvoet, & Brown, 1980). The spaced-trial format is com-patible with small-group instruction because it allows the teacher to present instructional tri-als to each group member individually in “round robin style.” In spite of its widespread use with students with developmental disabil-ities, there is no published research directly comparing small-group spaced-trial instruc-tion formats with other distributed trial or embedded instruction formats.

This study was designed to extend the re-search base in this area by comparing the relative efficacy of one-to-one embedded struction and a small-group spaced-trial in-struction format with four middle school students with developmental disabilities. Spe-cifically, we compared one-to-one embedded instruction implemented with each student in a general education class with small-group spaced-trial instruction implemented in the students’ self-contained special education class. Both instructional formats were imple-mented by the paraprofessional who sup-ported each student in his or her general education class.

Method

Participants and Setting

Four students with developmental disabilities and the paraprofessionals who supported them in general education classes partici-pated. Students were selected based on four

criteria: (1) the student was enrolled in at least two general education classes each day at the onset of the study; (2) the student’s edu-cational program focused on acquisition of skills that were part of the general education curriculum; (3) the parents or guardians of each student consented to their child’s partic-ipation; and (4) the student’s general educa-tion teacher agreed to allow the embedded instruction procedures to be implemented in their class.

Students with disabilities. Andrew was a 13-year old seventh-grader who was enrolled in four general education classes during the day. His IQ was 55 as measured by the WISC III. Andrew had very good expressive and recep-tive language skills and was able to carry out complex conversations with his peers and teachers. The embedded instruction proce-dure was implemented in his science class that had 27 students. The general education teacher employed numerous instructional strategies including class lecture and discus-sion, in-class textbook assignments, and sci-ence labs. Andrew was supported in the class by a special education paraprofessional who provided him with the necessary response prompts, error corrections, and social rein-forcement to complete regular class activities. Aaron was a 13 year-old seventh-grader with Autism. His IQ was 73 as measured by the WISC III. He had very good communication skills and he interacted with his peers and teachers when asked direct questions. He par-ticipated in four general education classes each day. The study was completed in his health class that had 28 students. The general education teacher used a variety of instruc-tional strategies including lecture and group discussion, small group activities, and inde-pendent seat work. Aaron received support to participate in the class from a special educa-tion paraprofessional. The paraprofessional’s primary responsibilities included providing prompts to help him stay on appropriate top-ics during discussions, and making the adap-tations and accommodations necessary to al-low him to complete written tasks or assignments.

Krista was a 14 year-old student with multi-ple disabilities in eighth grade. Her IQ was 55 as measured by the WISC III. She was able to engage in complex conversations with peers

and teachers but had difficulty articulating some words. Krista was also visually impaired and used enlarged print to complete written work. She used a powered wheel chair to travel to locations in the school. She partici-pated in four general education classes at the beginning of the study. Embedded instruction was implemented in her U.S. History class that had 29 students. The general education teach-er’s primary instructional strategies included lecture and independent seat work. She re-ceived support from a special education para-professional who made the necessary adapta-tions and accommodaadapta-tions in the ongoing activities of the general education class to al-low her to complete written tasks or assign-ments.

Ron was a 15 year-old ninth grade student with multiple disabilities. He had an IQ of 50 as measured by the WISC III. He had good expressive and receptive language skills and was able to engage in complex conversations with his peers and teachers. Ron used a pow-ered wheel chair to travel to locations in the school. He was enrolled in five general educa-tion classes during the school day. The inter-vention was implemented in his general edu-cation science class that had 27 students. The general education teacher used numerous in-structional strategies including class lecture and discussion, in-class textbook assignments, and science labs. Ron received support from a special education paraprofessional who pro-vided him prompts to help him stay on task. In addition, the paraprofessional made the nec-essary adaptations and accommodations to al-low him to complete written tasks or assign-ments.

Paraprofessionals. Three paraprofessionals implemented the embedded instruction and small-group instruction formats with the par-ticipating students. The first paraprofessional was a 19 year-old female who had two years of experience working in special education. She had completed high school and two district-sponsored inservice workshops on providing instruction and behavior support to students with disabilities. She provided support to Aaron in his Health class. The second para-professional provided support to Andrew and Krista. He was a 22 year-old male who had two years of experience working in special educa-tion. He had completed high school and had

also completed a district-sponsored in service workshops on general instructional strategies for students with disabilities. The third para-professional was 32 year-old female. She pro-vided support to Ron in his Science class. She was a high school graduate and had 10 years of experience working as a paraprofessional in special education programs for students with developmental disabilities. She had partici-pated in a number of district-sponsored inser-vice workshops on meeting the educational needs of students with disabilities.

Instructional Targets

Instructional targets were selected in cooper-ation with each student’s special and general education teachers. Students without disabili-ties in each of the general education classes targeted for the study were required to read and define key concepts and terms from a vocabulary list in the subject area (e.g., sci-ence, history). Based on this requirement, it was determined that students participating in the study would be taught to verbally define key vocabulary words. Each student’s general education teacher submitted a list of 20 vocab-ulary words from the general education cur-riculum. Vocabulary words were selected for instruction during a pretest in which students were presented with each word printed 3⫻5 flash cards and the verbal cue “What is the definition of the word ____?” Students’ re-sponses were recorded as correct or incorrect. Ten words that the students could not verbally define were subsequently selected for instruc-tion. Vocabulary words were randomly as-signed to one of two sets consisting of five words. One word set was taught to the student using embedded instruction in the general education class. The second set was taught using small-group instruction in the students’ special education class. Table 1 presents the words and definitions taught to each student in each condition.

Dependent Measures

Dependent measures used to compare the ef-ficacy of the two instructional formats were percent of correct responses during testing probes, percent of correct responses during

naturalistic probes, and number of instruc-tional trials to criterion.

Percent of correct responses during test probes. Test probes were conducted regularly by the authors to obtain a direct assessment of each student’s acquisition of the definitions taught in the two instructional formats. Although the embedded instruction procedures were car-ried out in the students’ general education classes, test probes were conducted in the spe-cial education classroom in order to avoid potential disruptions by the probe procedures to the instructional activities provided to

stu-dents without disabilities. Test probes were conducted with students during times when they were typically scheduled to be in the special education class. During the probes, one of the authors sat at a table in the class-room and presented the stimulus material to the student. Students were prompted to de-fine each word in both word sets. These words were randomly presented once to the students on a 3 x 5 in. flash card. Students were not provided feedback about their performance, but they were praised for attending and stay-ing on-task. Students’ responses were re-TABLE 1

Contents of the Instructional Sets

Student Embedded Instruction Set Small-Group Instruction Set Andrew Atom–The smallest part of an element. Cell—The basic unit of living things.

Molecule—A combination of two or more atoms.

Traits—Physical characteristics. Element—Matter in which all atoms are the

same.

Diffusion—The method by which substances move in and out of cells. Compound—Chemical combination of two

or more elements.

Mitosis—A cell’s nucleus divides in two. Density—A measure of mass. Heredity—Passing traits from parents to

offspring.

Aaron Environment—The physical surroundings. Pessimist—Someone who looks for the bad.

Stress—The body’s response to change, pressure, and demands.

Consequences—The result of an action. Optimist—Someone who looks for the

good.

Goal—Something we want to accomplish. Peers—People your age. Health—Physical, mental, and social

well-being.

Values—Principles we live by. Behave—Act a certain way.

Krista Citizen—A member of a country. Civics—The study of being a good citizen. Election—Choosing someone for office or

deciding something by voting.

Current events—Important events that are happening right now.

Economy—The way a country runs its industry, trade, and finance.

Revolution—An uprising that changes the government.

Civil Rights—Rights granted to all citizens. Boycott—Refusing to buy certain goods. Government—The control and

administration of a country.

Suffrage—The right to vote. Ron Ecosystem—All living and nonliving things

in an area.

Biosphere—All living things. Food Chain—A series of events one

organism eats another.

Food Web—Overlapping food chains in an ecosystem.

Chemical Bond—The force that holds two atoms together.

Metabolism—The process by which cells turn fuel into energy.

Matter—Anything that has weight and takes up space.

Element—Matter in which all atoms are the same.

Molecule—A combination of two or more atoms.

corded as either correct or incorrect. Percent-age of correct responses was then calculated for each word group. During Baseline, test probes for each student were conducted on three consecutive school days. During inter-vention, test probes were conducted weekly throughout the duration of the study.

Percent of correct responses during naturalistic probes. Students’ ability to respond to mate-rials typically used in the general education classroom was assessed using naturalistic probes. The probes were conducted by the paraprofessionals in the general education classroom during transition or breaks in class-room activities. Probe procedures were similar for all of the students except that the stimulus material varied for each student based on the general education class. Target words were presented to Andrew, Aaron, and Ron via classroom worksheets that were given to all students in the classes. These work sheets were used by the general education students to complete classroom assignments developed by the classroom teacher. Target words were pre-sented to Krista via the “CVW” (clever vocab-ulary words) study guides. Students used these guides to study for U.S. history tests. During the probes, each of the target words was pre-sented once to the student during the class session. The probe trials were distributed throughout the period. The paraprofessional would point to one of the target words on the stimulus materials and prompt the student to verbally define the word. No feedback was provided to the student about his or her per-formance. However, the student was praised for attending and staying on-task during the probe session. Students’ responses were re-corded as either correct or incorrect. Percent-age of words defined correctly was calculated for each probe session. During baseline, nat-uralistic probes for each student were con-ducted on three consecutive school days. Dur-ing intervention, naturalistic probes were conducted weekly throughout the duration of the study.

Trials to criterion. Students’ rate of acquisi-tion under both instrucacquisi-tion formats was calcu-lated by counting the total number of trials required for the students’ to achieve a perfor-mance criterion of 100% accuracy in defining the words in a set on two consecutive test probes. Total trials to criterion were

estab-lished by counting the number of times the words were presented to a student across in-structional sessions until he or she met the performance criterion.

Experimental Design

An adapted alternating treatment design was used to assess the effectiveness of embedded and small-group instruction formats (Hol-combe, Wolery, & Gast, 1994). Experimental conditions included baseline, embedded in-struction, and small-group instruction. Stu-dents received embedded instruction and small-group instruction each school day. For two of the students, small group instruction occurred in the morning when they were re-ceiving instruction in the special education class and embedded instruction occurred in the afternoon in their general education classes. For the other two students, the time of embedded and small group instruction was reversed.

Baseline. Baseline data were gathered us-ing the test and naturalistic probe procedures described above.

Embedded instruction. Each paraprofes-sional was provided with an embedded in-struction script that delineated the steps of the instructional procedures. Procedures in-cluded constant time-delay, differential rein-forcement, and error correction. Instructional materials consisted of the five words assigned to the embedded instruction condition printed on 3⫻5 inch flash cards.

Paraprofessionals were instructed to present the word set an equivalent number of times to the student’s previous small-group instruction session. For example, if the stu-dent had received five presentations of the word set during the previous small-group in-struction session, the paraprofessional would present the word group for the embedded instruction condition five times. This process was used to ensure that students received an equal number of instructional trials in each condition. Embedded instruction trials were presented to students during natural transi-tions or breaks in ongoing classroom routines. In step one of the instructional procedure, the paraprofessional presented a flash card to and an instructional cue (i.e., “What is the definition of this word?) to the student. The

paraprofessional then immediately modeled the correct definition (0 s delay). The student was expected to imitate the model provided by the paraprofessional. For example, when An-drew was presented with the flash card with the word “peers” printed on it and the instruc-tional cue, the paraprofessional would imme-diately say “the definition of peers is ‘people your own age’.” Andrew was expected to re-peat the model provided by the paraprofes-sional. If he imitated the model correctly he was praised.

If the student did not respond immediately to the model or did not correctly imitate the model, the paraprofessional would indicate that he or she made an incorrect response, repeated the initial prompt, and then said “say the definition after me.” The student was pro-vided with feedback (e.g., “That is the defini-tion of the word _____.”) when he or she imitated the model correctly during the error correction procedure. Instruction continued using a 0 s delay until the student correctly read or defined all the words in the word group with a model on two consecutive pre-sentations.

The same instructional procedures were used during the second step of the embedded instruction. However, the paraprofessional de-layed the presentation of the model for 3-s after the flash card was presented to the stu-dent. The student was praised if he or she correctly responded within the 3 second delay period. If the student gave an incorrect re-sponse, the paraprofessional implemented the error correction procedure.

Small-group instruction. The paraprofes-sional that provided embedded instruction to a student in his or her general education class also implemented small-group instruction with him or her in the special education class. Paraprofessionals were provided with an in-structional script to guide their teaching be-haviors for small-group instruction. Instruc-tional procedures were identical to those used in the embedded instruction condition and included constant time-delay, differential re-inforcement, and error correction. These in-structional procedures were used with all members of the small-group. The stimulus material for the target student included the words assigned to the small-group instruction condition prior to the beginning of the study.

The other two students in the group were taught to either read five community-based sight words (e.g., Men, Women) or label five international symbols (e.g., Men, Women). These words or symbols were selected by the students’ special education teacher and were consistent with the goals and objectives in-cluded in their Individualized Education Pro-gram (IEP).

The small-groups included the target stu-dent and two peers who were randomly se-lected from his or her special education class. Small-group instruction employed an intrase-quential format with spaced-trials (Collins et al., 1991; Reid & Favell, 1984). Instructional trials were presented to each student individ-ually in round robin style. That is, the para-professional would provide each student with instruction using the procedures described above and then he or she would move to the next student in the group. The paraprofes-sional was instructed to intermittently praise the students who were not receiving instruc-tion for attending and waiting quietly for their turn. The small-group instruction sessions were 20 min in length. This time period was scheduled because it matched the typical amount of time scheduled by the special edu-cation teacher to implement instructional programs with students in her class. The para-professionals were asked to present the word set to the target student at least three times during the 20 min small-group session. How-ever, they were encouraged to provide more trials to the student if time allowed.

Paraprofessional Training and Procedural Fidelity Prior to the implementation of the study, the paraprofessional staff was trained to imple-ment the embedded and small-group instruc-tion procedures during a one-hr training ses-sion. Training included a summary of the research on embedded instruction and small-group instruction, and a review of instruc-tional procedures and data collection proce-dures. Paraprofessionals were provided with a specific instructional script for each of the instruction formats. The script outlined the specific steps for implementing the response prompting, reinforcement, and error correc-tion procedures. One of the authors modeled the implementation of each script for the

paraprofessionals and then provided them feedback about their implementation of the scripts during role play. The role plays contin-ued until the paraprofessionals could imple-ment the steps of both scripts with 100% ac-curacy.

Paraprofessional training and feedback was continued during the first several training ses-sions in each condition. Training was carried out in each student’s general education class-room in the embedded instruction condition and the special education class in the small-group instruction condition. Training contin-ued until each paraprofessional could imple-ment the steps of the script in each condition with 100% accuracy on two consecutive ses-sions.

Fidelity data were collected on the parapro-fessionals’ implementation of the instruction formats during 20% of all embedded instruc-tion sessions and 20% of all small-group in-struction sessions. Fidelity observations were conducted by one of the authors in the gen-eral education classroom during embedded instruction sessions and in the special educa-tion class during small-group instruceduca-tion. Fi-delity assessments were focused on the corre-spondence of the paraprofessionals’ teaching behaviors with the teaching steps outlined in the instructional scripts. If a paraprofessional implementation of a step of the instructional procedures matched those described in the scripts then the observer would record a “⫹.” The observer would record a “⫺” if the para-professional incorrectly implemented an in-structional step. The level of procedural fidel-ity with scripts was calculated by dividing the number of steps implemented correctly by the number of correct plus incorrect steps and multiplying by 100. Mean fidelity across all paraprofessionals during embedded instruc-tion sessions was 99.8% ranging from 90 to 100%. Mean fidelity across all paraprofession-als during small-group instruction was 100%. Reliability

Interobserver reliability data on student per-formance was gathered during 93% of all test-ing probes. Durtest-ing the probes, one of the authors would observe the implementation of the test procedures with a student. The ob-server independently recorded whether the

student’s response to stimulus material was correct or incorrect. Reliability was calculated by dividing the number of agreements be-tween the individual implementing the probe and the independent observer, by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multi-plying by 100. Interobserver agreement was 100% across all observations.

Interobserver reliability data on student performance during naturalistic probes was conducted on 95% of all sessions. During the probes, one of the authors would observe the paraprofessional implementing the naturalis-tic test procedures. The observer would inde-pendently record whether the student’s re-sponse to the natural stimulus material was correct or incorrect. Reliability was calculated by dividing the number of agreements be-tween the paraprofessional and the indepen-dent observer by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Interobserver agreement was 100% across all observations.

Results

Performance During Test and Naturalistic Probes Figures 1– 4 show the percent of correct re-sponses during the test and naturalistic probe sessions for each student in embedded and small-group instruction. Data indicate that the students learned to define the target words in both the embedded and small-group instruc-tion condiinstruc-tions. In addiinstruc-tion, the naturalistic probe data indicates that the students’ were able to define the words when presented using materials developed by their general educa-tion teachers.

Trials to Criterion

Data indicate there were no differences in the number of instructional trials students re-quired to meet the performance criterion in embedded and small-group instruction. An-drew required 435 trials to reach criterion in both the embedded and small-group instruc-tion formats. He received an average of 16.1 trials during instructional sessions under both conditions. Aaron required 490 trials to reach criterion in each of the two conditions. He received an average of 17.5 trials per

instruc-tion session in each condiinstruc-tion. Krista reached criterion in each condition after being pro-vided 615 trials. She was propro-vided an average of 16.2 trials per session in the embedded and small-group instruction conditions. Finally, Ron needed 585 instructional trials to reach criterion in both conditions. He was provided an average of 15.4 trials per session in each of the two conditions.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare embedded instruction implemented in

stu-dents’ general education classes with small-group instruction implemented in their spe-cial education class. Data suggest that these strategies were equally effective in promoting the students’ acquisition of the target skills. In addition, students were able to generalize their responses to novel stimulus materials de-veloped by their general education teachers for other members of the class. Our results are consistent with those of Chiara et al. (1995) who found that a one-to-one distributed trial instructional format was equally, or slightly more effective than a small-group massed-trail format for preschool children with disabilities. Figure 1. Test and naturalistic probes for Andrew.

The present study extends the research in this area by comparing embedded instruction with small-group spaced-trial instruction. The small-group spaced-trial approach is fre-quently used by teachers because it allows in-structional trials to be presented individually to group members in a “round robin style.” Thus, the teacher can provide systematic in-struction to students with different instruc-tional objectives and who need different levels of instructional support. Results suggest that embedded instruction was as effective as the small-group format with the students partic-ipating in this study. This finding is impor-tant because it provides additional empirical support for the efficacy of instructional for-mats that distribute instructional trials within and across activities in the perfor-mance setting. Consequently, embedded

in-struction provides practitioners with an additional strategy to meet the unique edu-cational needs of students when instruction in traditional discrete trial formats is not practical.

Results also suggest that embedded instruc-tion carried out in general educainstruc-tion classes was as effective for students in this study as small-group instruction carried out in their self-contained special education class. This finding is not surprising given that both for-mats employed the same empirically validated instructional procedures. Equally important, the paraprofessionals were able to reliably im-plement these procedures in both settings. These data provide additional evidence that carefully designing and implementing instruc-tion is a more important factor in promoting student learning than where instruction is de-Figure 2. Test and naturalistic probes for Aaron.

livered (McDonnell, 1998; Wolery & Schuster, 1997).

Embedded instruction has several critical features that make it a desirable approach for supporting the participation of students with developmental disabilities in general educa-tion classes. First, as just discussed, embedded instruction can be designed to incorporate teaching procedures that have consistently been shown to enhance learning outcomes for students. Second, embedded instruction can be designed to accommodate the unique learning needs of the students and the char-acteristics of the instructional targets. The ne-cessity of tailoring instruction to individual students is widely recognized as a

fundamen-tal principle of effective special education ser-vices. Finally, embedded instruction proce-dures allow students to receive consistent opportunities to learn specific skills within the ongoing activities of the general education class. In this study, the paraprofessional was able to provide students multiple instructional trials each day on the target skills across a variety of instructional activities. This is a pos-itive finding given that some studies have sug-gested that general education teachers and researchers perceive discrete trial training strategies as incompatible with the typical or-ganization structures of many general educa-tion classes (Billingsley & Kelley, 1994; Jack-son, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000). It seems Figure 3. Test and naturalistic probes for Krista.

likely that the long-term acceptance of inclu-sive education programs will hinge upon the development of instructional approaches, like embedded instruction, that are both effective and “fit” with general education classes (Mc-Donnell, 1998; Wolery, 2002).

Finally, data suggest that students were able to generalize target skills to a limited sample of materials (e.g. worksheets and other mate-rials) found in the general education classes. This is important because generalization to non-trained stimuli and performance contexts is a well-documented problem for students with developmental disabilities (Horner, Dun-lap, & Koegel, 1988; Snell & Brown, 2000; Westling & Fox, 2004). Additional research is necessary to more systematically examine the features of embedded instruction that effect students’ generalization of skills.

Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, the small number of students who participated limits generalizations about the relative effectiveness embedded and small-group spaced-trial instruction. Second, the study only measured the efficacy of these pro-cedures in teaching discrete academic tasks, rather than more complex chains of behav-iors. It is not clear whether behavior chains could be taught through the use of embedded instruction or what effect various trial distri-bution strategies might have on the acquisi-tion and generalizaacquisi-tion of such behaviors. Fi-nally, we did not directly assess the perceptions of paraprofessionals and teachers about the social validity of the two instruc-tional formats. Previous research suggests that embedded instruction is readily accepted by these two groups ( Johnson & McDonnell, Figure 4. Test and naturalistic probes for Ron.

2004; Johnson et al., 2004; McDonnell et al., 2002) and anecdotal reports from paraprofes-sionals participating in the study were positive about the acceptability and utility of both for-mats.

Despite these limitations, results suggest that embedded instruction holds promise as a strategy for practitioners who are supporting students with developmental disabilities in general education classes. It also appears that these students can learn important skills when trials are distributed within and across typical activities in general education classes. This suggests that traditional reliance on massed-trial training formats may not be necessary to ensure that students receive systematic and highly effective instruction. Additional re-search is need to compare embedded instruc-tion with other discrete trial formats such one-to-one massed-trial instruction and small-group massed-trial instruction.

References

Alberto, P. A., Sharpton, W., Sternberg, L., & Way-lor-Bowne, T. (1994). Components of an instruc-tion technology. In L. Sternberg (Ed.), Individu-als with profound disabilities: Instructional and assistive technology(pp. 287–332). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Bambara, L. M., & Warren, S. F. (1992). Massed trials revisited: Appropriate applications in func-tional skill training. In R. A. Gable & S. F. Warren (Eds.),Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation(pp. 165–190). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Benz, M. R., & Todd, A. W. (1991). Group versus individual instruction for teaching daily living skills to students with severe handicaps.Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabili-ties, 16,81–95.

Billingsley, F., & Kelley, B. (1994). An examination of the acceptability of instructional practices for students with severe disabilities in general educa-tion settings.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19,75– 83.

Bourland, G., Jablonski, E. M., & Lockhart, D. L. (1988). Multiple-behavior comparison of group and individual instruction with persons with men-tal retardation.Mental Retardation, 26,39 – 46. Browder, D. M. (2001).Curriculum and assessment for

students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York: Guilford Press. Browder, D. M., Hines, C., McCarthy, L. J., & Fees, J. (1984). A treatment package for increasing sight word recognition for

use in daily living skills.Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19,191–200.

Chiara, L., Schuster, J. W., Bell, J. K., & Wolery, M. (1995). Small-group massed-trial and individually distributed-trail instruction with preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 19,203–217. Collins, B. A., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Wolery, M.

(1991). Small group instruction: Guidelines for teachers with moderate and severe handicaps. Edu-cation and Training in Mental Retardation, 26,18 –32. Collins, B. C., & Stinson, D. M. (1995). Teaching generalized reading of product warning labels to adolescents with mental disabilities through the use of key words.Exceptionality, 5,163–181. Doyle. P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., &

Meyer, S. (1992). Teaching discrete skills to stu-dents with moderate mental retardation in small group instructional arrangements.Exceptionality, 3,233–253.

Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Farmer, J. A. (1990). Use of constant time delay in small group instruction: A study of observa-tional and incidental learning.The Journal of Spe-cial Education, 23,369 –385.

Farmer, J. A., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). Small group instruction for students with severe handicaps: A study of observational learning.Education and Training in Mental Retar-dation, 26,190 –201.

Fickel, K. M., Schuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group.Journal of Behavioral Education, 8,219 –244.

Hanely-Maxwell, C., Wilcox, B., & Heal, L. W. (1982). A comparison of vocabulary learning by moderately retarded students under direct in-struction and incidental presentation.Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17,214 –221. Hepting, N. H., & Goldstein, G. (1996). What’s natural about naturalistic language intervention? Journal of Early Intervention, 20,249 –265. Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1994).

Comparative single-subject research: Description of designs and discussion of problems.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14,119 –145. Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R. L. (1988).

Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2000).

Useful practices in inclusive education: A prelim-inary view of what experts in moderate and severe disabilities are saying.Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25,129 –142. Johnson, J. W., McDonnell, J., Holzwarth, V., &

Hunter, K. (2004). The efficacy of embedded in-struction for students with developmental disabili-ties enrolled in general education classes.Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 6,214 –227.

Johnson, J. W., & McDonnell, J. (2004). An explor-atory study of the implementation of embedded instruction by general educators with students with developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 27,46 – 63.

Kamps, D. M., Dugan, E. P., Leonard, B. R., & Daoust, P. M. (1994). Enhanced small group in-struction using choral responding and student interaction for children with Autism and Devel-opmental Disabilities.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99,60 –73.

Keel, M. C., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Small-group in-struction for students with learning disabilities: Observational and incidental learning.Exceptional Children, 58,357–369.

McDonnell, J. (1998). Instruction for students with severe disabilities in general education settings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33,199 –215.

McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Riesen, T. (2002). The effects of embedded in-struction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmen-tal Disabilities, 37,363–377.

Mulligan, M., Guess, D., Holvoet, J., & Brown, F. (1980). The individualized curriculum sequenc-ing model (I): Implications from research on massed, distributed, and spaced trial training. Journal of the Assocaition for the Severely Handicapped, 5,325–336.

Mulligan, M., Lacy, L, & Guess, D. (1982). Effects of massed, distributed, and spaced trial sequencing on severe handicapped students’ performance. The Journal of the Association for the Severely Handi-capped, 7,48 – 61.

Orelove, F. (1982). Acquisition of incidental learn-ing in moderately and severely handicapped adults.Education and Training in Mental Retarda-tion, 17,131–136.

Parker, M. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2002). Effectiveness of simultaneous prompting on the acquisition of observational and instructive feedback stimuli when teaching a heterogenous group of high school stu-dents.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37,89 –104.

Polloway, E. A., Cronin, M. E., & Patton, J. R. (1986). The efficacy of group versus one-to-one instruction: A review.Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 7,22–30.

Reid, D. H., & Favell, J. H. (1984). Group instruc-tion with persons who have severe disabilities: A critical review. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9,167–177. Rule, S., Losardo, A., Dinnebeil, L., Kaiser, A., &

Rowland, C. (1998). Translating research on nat-uralistic instruction into practice.Journal of Early Intervention, 21,283–293.

Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (2003).Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.

Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., & Fitzgerald, J. R. (1987). Group instruction with profoundly re-tarded persons: Acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of a remunerative work skill.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20,97–105.

Schoen, S. F., & Ogden, S. (1995). Impact of time delay, observational learning, and attentional cu-ing upon word recognition durcu-ing integrated small-group instruction.Journal of Autism and De-velopmental Disorder, 25,503–519.

Singleton, K. C., Schuster, J. W., & Ault, M. J. (1995). Simultaneous prompting in a small group instructional arrangement.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30,218 –231.

Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2000).Instruction of stu-dents with severe disabilities(6th ed.). New York: Merrill. Stinson, D., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Collins, B. C. (1991). Acquisition of nontargeted information during small-group instruction. Ex-ceptionality, 2,65– 80.

Whalen, C., Schuster, J. W., & Hemmeter, M. L. (1996). The use of unrelated instructive feedback when teaching in small group instructional arrange-ment.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31,188 –202. Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2004).Teaching students

with severe disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Wilson, P. G., Cuvo, A. J., & Davis, P. K. (1986). Training a functional skill cluster: Nutritious meal planning within a budget, grocery list writ-ing, and shopping. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6,179 –201.

Wolery, M. (2002). Recommended practices in child-focused interventions. In S. Sandall, M. E. McLean, & B. J. Smith (Eds.),DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education(pp. 29 –37). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Wolery, M. Anthony, L., Snyder, E. D., Werts, M. G., & Katzenmeyer, J. (1997). Training elementary teachers to embed instruction during classroom activities.Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 40 –58.

Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992).Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies.New York: Longman. Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. W. (1997). Instructional methods with students who have significant disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31,61– 80.

Received: 8 November 2004 Initial Acceptance: 5 January 2005 Final Acceptance:1 May 2005