Picking the Pros\: Discussion of the Four Phased Strategy
-
Discussion of the Four Phased Strategy
First, the questionnaire entitled “Early Intervention Professional Priority List of Content” was prepared (mailed or faxed) to a total of 79 professionals for the purpose of delineating the relative importance of information on the zero to three year-old developmental period and key child development concepts. A content analysis of twenty questionnaires in the following ten areas was made: (1) child development, (2) atypical development, (3) family issues, (4) legislation/policies, (5) health care/safety, (6) service options/strategies, (7) family priorities. (8) collaboration, (9) IFSPs/service coordination and (10) professional development (see table one).
Second, the “Family – Professional Partners Intervention Report” was sent to 79 professionals who described their attitudes toward family participation as a component of early intervention. The reports of 37 respondents stressed (a) home-school linkage, (b) inclusive practices, (c) early intervention as prevention. These perceptions were incorporated into the goals and objectives of he curriculum in all ten content areas.
Third, “Data Sheet for Families, Parents and Significant Others,” was sent to 79 professionals and family members. They listed specific developmental priorities for 0 to 36 month old infants and toddlers, representing parent-professional’s knowledge of child development. These ideas were used to inform content related in each family story/activity. - Description of typical growth and development
- Listing of common causes of developmental delays and disabilities
- Defining the family-centered focus of intervention
- Description of parts H and B of PL 99-457 and amendments
- Description of roles of parents, family, children and professionals in the early intervention process and the function of the IFSP
- Identifying techniques to communicate with families to receive and provide information
- Listing strategies for empowering families to become primary decision-makers
-
Curriculum Writing Phase
Parents and professionals met weekly for 14 weeks to construct 18 family stories and 20 activities from which 12 stories and 12 activities were selected at random and field tested.
Collaborative teams used an activity-based approach to brainstorm, develop, refine, and simulate activities related to verbatim family stories told to the work group. A protocol for writing the curriculum entitled “Protocol for Developing Family Stories and Activities (The Step-by-Step Process)” was followed: - Title the activity: write a description of the family story and the activity that accompanies it. How is the title related to the story?
- State family goals in “family terms.” Are goals in the families own words?
- Write content objectives from ten content areas next to goal statements.
-
Practice the steps co-trainers will take in order to conduct the activity
Family stories are read aloud as the first action step
Activity procedures are 1-15 steps in length
Activity materials are matched to steps
Activity guidance is given by both a parent and professional
Activity setting is described
Outcome questions are written. What content knowledge is addressed? What skills from the following areas will help you work with families on a daily basis?
Physical/motor
Affect/Self help
Social/emotional
Cognitive/perceptual
Verbal/language
What family values emerged from this story and activity? List any obstacles and barriers to the curricular development of activity.
Each professional and parent filled out a checklist entitled, “Curriculum Development Phase: Evaluation Sheet for Curriculum Activities” at each session, to assure that activities addressed more than one of the ten (10) content areas. Results show that nine out of 24 activities provided coverage for over four (4) areas. An average of 4-1/2 content areas was provided per activity. Atypical development, child development, family issues and service options were most frequently represented in the activities (see table 2).
- Field Testing Phase
Twenty activities were field tested at sites located in the northeastern, central, and southern regions of Ohio in a total of seven counties. Two hundred twenty professionals and parents participated in the field testing. Participants and trainers completed the 15-Minute Post-Training Questionnaire for EI Professionals. Trainers and outside evaluators completed an evaluation of the stories and activities using the report entitled, “Implementation Evaluation For Outside Evaluators and Trainers.”
Analysis of these reports revealed that the most frequently omitted training step was the restating and reviewing of family goals. For the first ten training sessions evaluated, 80% of the respondents indicated satisfaction with the training and indicated they would recommend the training to others. Twenty-seven training sessions showed continued satisfaction, particularly with the family stories and the co-training model which featured a parent and professional paired together. Results of these post-training evaluations were used to revise the family stories, family story activities and content objectives. These revisions resulted in a closer alignment among the family goals, family story activities, and content objectives subsumed under ten content areas.
-
Summary
The Curriculum Project demonstrated that an early intervention curriculum comprised of family-centered activity-based activities can successfully reflect a shared expertise perspective. As conceptualized, to be effective, the Curriculum Project family story activity-based philosophy must be placed at the core of the curriculum. Mutual help and collaborative efforts of parents and professionals made the training model “work.”
The field testing yielded identifiable conditions and curriculum elements to maximize successful implementation of the curriculum. They are as follows: - Co-trainers need to be provided in advance with clearer guidelines explaining how to conduct the session. The manual should instruct trainers to review directions in advance of training and emphasize the importance of following the suggested activity steps. These guidelines should be designed to encourage participants to demonstrate their personal knowledge base. Participants need to be informed that they are both consultants and consultees in the action of each activity.
- Accompanying materials, which consist of handouts, need to be clearly labeled and easily cross-referenced to facilitate use during training.
- The content objectives for each activity must be repeated and summarized by the training participants at the end of the session.
- Consistent with maximum university classroom clock hours, the training sessions should not exceed three hours. Six 3-hour training blocks should be acceptable based on the results of the field testing. Informal feedback obtained from participants of longer training sessions indicated that the amount of content delivered and amount of participant interaction required with the content needs to be contained in a 3-hour or less time block.
- Clearly label and paginate all handouts for easy referencing.
- Advise trainers to refrain from discussing their confusion or dissatisfaction with some activity components during the training session.
- Emphasize to the trainers the importance of adequate advance preparation and/or provide an easy-to-follow sequential guide sheet.
- The objectives need to be reviewed before the activity is initiated.
