Partners in Improving Social Communication in Children With Disabilities in Urban Early Childhood Settings

Partners in Improving Social Communication in Children With Disabilities in Urban Early Childhood Settings

Ya-Chih Chang, Jennifer B. Symon, Mitch Fryling
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-6438-0.ch009
OnDemand:
(Individual Chapters)
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

This present chapter describes the focus and aims of the partners in improving social communication in early childhood special education (PISCES) program at California State University, Los Angeles (Cal State LA). The chapter begins with an overview of the aims and focus of the PISCES program in general; providing an interdisciplinary and collaborative training experience to graduate students in early childhood special education and applied behavior analysis who provide services to minimally verbal children with disabilities. After describing the context of the University, the shared experiences of students in the two programs are described in detail. These shared experiences include coursework, fieldwork, and PISCES specific activities. After describing the PISCES program, the authors consider some of the lessons learned, and importantly, how some features of the PISCES program can be sustained going forward. The chapter concludes with a call for ongoing, community-based action research to further inform service provision with early childhood special education populations.
Chapter Preview
Top

Literature Review

Theoretical Differences

Training in early childhood emphasizes developmentally appropriate practices for education services for young children with and without disabilities. Assessments, goals, and interventions are determined based on children’s developmental levels, which requires knowledge and clear understanding of typical child development. In this sense one might imagine that professionals in ECSE may place emphasis on selecting developmentally appropriate goals, and in articulating their work in a developmental context. On the other hand, ABA professionals conduct their work from a behavior analytic theoretical foundation. Following from this, it would make sense that ABA professionals might place emphasis on measuring behavior in an objective manner, assuring there is careful progress monitoring including graphing and visual analysis, assessment of environmental factors related to behavioral targets, technical fading procedures, and more. Given this, it would also make sense that workers in the area of ECSE may often place relatively less emphasis on the strengths of ABA, and that ABA professionals may often place relatively less emphasis on the strengths of ECSE (see Greer & Ross, 2008 for examples of behavioral work integrating developmental context). These theoretical differences represent both a challenge and opportunity for the promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset