8
This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College] On: 08 December 2014, At: 17:14 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20 BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION Margaret Shaeffer a , Gail B. Bass a , Peggy Mohr a & Carla Hess a a University of North Dakota Published online: 03 Aug 2006. To cite this article: Margaret Shaeffer , Gail B. Bass , Peggy Mohr & Carla Hess (1998) BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 19:2, 165-170, DOI: 10.1080/0163638980190211 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163638980190211 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

  • Upload
    carla

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]On: 08 December 2014, At: 17:14Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TOUNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES:DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHERIN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIALEDUCATIONMargaret Shaeffer a , Gail B. Bass a , Peggy Mohr a & CarlaHess aa University of North DakotaPublished online: 03 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Margaret Shaeffer , Gail B. Bass , Peggy Mohr & Carla Hess (1998)BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHERIN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 19:2,165-170, DOI: 10.1080/0163638980190211

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163638980190211

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Page 2: BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:14

08

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCESTO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES:DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHERIN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

Margaret B. Shaeffer, Gail Bass, Peggy Mohr, and Carla HessUniversity of North Dakota

INTRODUCTION

Having professionals from multiple disciplinesat the same table in an effort to provide qualityservices to young children with disabilities andtheir families is not just a good idea, but ismandated through Federal legislation. In fact,both Part B and Part H (Part C under the reau-thorization) call for evaluation and assessmentto be "multidisciplinary" in nature (Odom &McLean, 1996). What does this mean?According to the legislation, multidisciplinaryis defined as the involvement of two or moredisciplines or professions in the provision ofintegrated and coordinated services (Section303.17).

In spite of this mandate, however, there arefew, if any opportunities for preservice stu-dents in early intervention to learn the skillsnecessary for effective multidisciplinary team-ing prior to entering the work field. The pur-pose of this paper is to describe the process

that one University experienced in order todevelop and implement programs for preser-vice opportunities in multidisciplinary collab-oration for students who will work with youngchildren with disabilities and their families.

This process began as a small group offaculty sharing their philosophies and ideas.However, it eventually evolved into a wellorganized, broad-based faculty team repre-senting multiple disciplines and developingshared courses. Not all of this was becauseof our campus-based efforts. In the fall of1997, Project SCRIPT through the FrankPorter Graham Child Development Center atthe University of North Carolina at ChapelHill identified North Dakota as a participantin its national effort to develop more interdis-ciplinary experiences for preservice profes-sionals. Our early efforts, however, have hada definite impact on our present success. Itis those early steps that are described in thispaper.

• Margaret B. Shaeffer, Department of Teaching and Learning, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202-7189; Tel: 701 777-4719; E-Mail: [email protected].

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION, 1998, pp. 165-170 ISSN 0163-6388Copyright © 1998 Ablex Publishing Corporation All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:14

08

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

166 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION Vol. 19, No. 2,1998

Teaming Concept

When working with young children withdisabilities and their families, early childhoodeducators may find themselves working sideby side with professionals from other fieldssuch as physical therapy, occupational therapy,speech therapy, social work, and/or nursing.Knowing how to work with others whose edu-cational backgrounds and training may be sig-nificantly different from your own is anecessary professional skill and one especiallycritical if we are to maximize the potential ofthe young child with disabilities.

Teaming can take on many different formsand may be described based on the role andfunction of each of the team members. Whileseveral types of teams have been identified,basically three types of teaming are utilized inearly intervention: multidisciplinary, interdis-ciplinary and transdisciplinary (Briggs, 1997).

Multidisciplinary approaches call forindividual members to complete dis-crete assessment procedures, reporttheir findings to the larger group andthen individually be responsible forimplementing goals.Interdisciplinary approaches requirethat team members also individuallyevaluate the child, but the goal settingand planning for intervention is done asa team, rather than by individual mem-bers.Transdisciplinary approaches call for afar different approach to the process ofboth evaluation and implementation. Inthis approach, one individual may beassigned the responsibility of assessingthe child in all areas, under the consul-tation of various disciplines. Goal plan-ning is done by the entire team based onthat information. Implementation of thegoals is completed by one individual,again with consultation from the otherdisciplines. Regardless of the approachused in the teaming process, the con-cept iteself strongly supports the notion

that the whole child must be consideredwhen planning for intervention.

This concept of using a teaming approach inthe delivery of programs to young childrenwith special needs has a direct impact on howwe provide preservice education for profes-sionals. Traditionally, the individual fieldsinvolved in early intervention develop a seriesof courses that are very discipline specific. Theimportance of collaboration with other profes-sionals may be addressed in some of thecourses as well as the importance of teaming.However, little has actually been done to pro-vide opportunities at the preservice level forstudents to observe models of collaboration,let alone practice collaboration prior to enter-ing the field. The University of North Dakotahas been no exception.

Programs at theUniversity of North Dakota

The University of North Dakota is a landgrant institution that provides extensive under-graduate and graduate programs for individu-als who desire to work with young childrenand their families. In addition to programs inboth early childhood and early childhood spe-cial education leading to certfication, occupa-tional therapy, physical therapy, andcommunication sciences and disorders degreesare available. Traditionally, these programshave operated as discrete units on campus.Each works effectively to ensure that studentsmeet the standards established by the disci-plines as entry level professionals. Preserviceeducational experiences which focus on work-ing with very young children and their familiesare provided in each discipline. These experi-ences vary widely in their scope and sequence,and are closely aligned with each discipline'srequirements for certification/licensing. As aresult students acquire basic foundations inearly intervention that are similar, but by andlarge, their programs are quite different fromeach other.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:14

08

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 5: BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

Bridging Differences to Uncover Similarities 167

In the past, grant funds have been used toprovide minimal opportunities for preservicestudents to be exposed to a multidisciplinaryperspective. In the spirit of collaboration,departments have shared grant resources topurchase materials used in preservice educa-tion. At one point, a grant supported an elec-tive course for students with a focus oncollaboration, which was team taught by fac-ulty in education, occupational therapy, physi-cal therapy, and communication sciences anddisorders. With faculty turnover and the termi-nation of grant money, however, the coursewas redesigned and no longer reflected themultidisciplinary approach that it once did.However, the good news was that the groundhad been broken for endless possibilities ininterdisciplinary work.

Core faculty in education, physical therapy,occupational therapy and communication sci-ences and disorders continued to support thespirit and intent under which the interdiscipli-nary efforts had been originally conducted.Conversations were held on a regular basis asalternative funding sources were explored.While no additional grant money was pro-cured, the faculty continued to meet. As aresult, a process was initiated that has had along term effect on the development of inter-disciplinary programs at the University.

Tools for Successful Teaming

Briggs (1997) identified the tools for suc-cessful teaming as: Commitment, collabora-tion, and communication. As the UND facultyteam worked toward developing a viable pro-cess for interdisciplinary activities to happen,they clearly modeled the "Three C's"

The growth of the team reflected the fivestages of team development documented in theliterature(Blanchard, Carew, & Parisi-Carew,1990; Kelly, 1991; Montebello, 1994; Robbins& Finley, 1995; Tuckman, 1965). These areidentified as: Forming, storming, norming,performing and transforming. The five stageschronicle team development from an unevenbeginning and role identification to the devel-

opment of team members who operate as a sin-gle unit, now expanding, building, andgenerating new ideas. The actual work that theteam accomplished during these stages isworth noting. The concrete activities may pro-vide guidelines for other teams that are strug-gling to realize their potential. We have gonethrough several phases that could perhaps bestbe described as "becoming a team," data gath-ering, program planning and implementaiton.

Our cycle of development has been muchlike other life cycles, with development occur-ring in spurts and plateaus. On occasion, teammembers were in different places and onlythrough time and conversation did we arrive atsimilar—perhaps not the same—point in ourthinking. Perhaps, most importantly, thesephases are continually being recycled as newideas are presented and discussed, or as newmembers join our group. At the same time, wealso face new hurdles to jump in our separateacademic spheres, and we find ourselves then"back to square one," but still moving forward.

Becoming

The first step in the process was perhaps themost difficult. It required individuals to cometogether to brainstorm ideas on how we mightpossibly improve our preservice educationprograms. While the faculty membersinvolved all worked in a relatively small envi-ronment, our interactions with each other hadbeen perhaps typical of others in academia. Weshared common committees and campus expe-riences, maybe even a student or two. But ourprofessional conversations in the past hadmore likely been about "our program" and"your program." In a similar manner, studentshad been "our students" and "your students."

One of our first tasks was to identify anddefine common vocabulary, so that we knewwhen we used similar words that we all meantthe same thing. For example, pediatrics has abroad definition in the field of occupationaland physical therapy and extends to age 21.For early childhood educators, the termdescibes a much more limited age span.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:14

08

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 6: BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

168 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION Vol. 19, No. 2,1998

Likewise, we needed to become moreknowledgeable about each other's programsand the competencies that guided these. Attimes, we may have felt that we were more dif-ferent than alike as we discussed the focus andpurpose of our programs.

However, we kept returning to the point oforigin—that of providing the best possible pre-service for our students—to regroup and redi-rect our efforts. We were very excited at whatwe perceived to be the needs of those in earlychildhood intervention and began to identifypossible links between and among our pro-grams. This first step of allowing time for get-ting to know each other and to share ideas andphilosophies should be emphasized. It pro-vided the foundation for all of our future con-versations and provided us with a point ofreference. At this point, we began to feel con-fident that we were finally identifying the pos-sibility for improving our programs. It soonbecame apparent that we needed to validateour concerns. We turned to our colleagues indirect services for more information and sup-port.

Data Gathering

The second step in the process focused onexpanding our data base from simply thosearound the table to include direct service pro-viders in early intervention. A questionnairewas developed in the hopes of gathering infor-mation from direct service providers aboutadditional personnel needed in the field andalso ideas on how to best prepare those profes-sionals.

A survey was sent to two groups: those pro-viding direct services and to administrators ofprograms providing those services. A sampleof physical therapists, occupational therapists,speech and language pathologists and earlychildhood special educators was drawn fromprofessional lists in the state. Administratorsof all of the programs in the state servingyoung children and their families were alsotargeted to respond to the survey.

The response was a 52% return rate foradministrators and a 40% return rate for directservice providers. It is beyond the scope of thispaper to present the specific results of the sur-vey. However, of particular interest to theinterdisciplinary faculty group was the indica-tion of a definite need for better prepared pro-fessionals in all four disciplines and also formore specific preparation in the areas of team-ing and collaboration with other disciplines.

This data was encouraging. The facultynow knew that the need for interdisciplinarywork was necessary. So far, two critical ele-ments of the process were being met. First, fac-ulty were developing a teaming relationshipthrough ongoing discussions with each other.Second, the need for interdisciplinary experi-ences in preservice education were validatedby professionals working in the field. The nexttask was to specifically identify what thoseexperiences might look like.

Identifying the Experiences

The University of North Dakota was at adistinct advantage at this point. As mentionedearlier, discussions among faculty membersabout the possibilities of interdisciplinary pro-gramming had been going on for some time.Attempts at procuring outside funding throughgrants had required that careful thought begiven to possible courses. These initial ideasserved as the foundation for building proposalsfor possible interdisciplinary courses thatwould support the needs of the practicing pro-fessionals and as a result, the third step in theprocess had a good start.

Reflection on the roles, responsibilitiesand conditions under which teaming takesplace resulted in the faculty identification ofpossible opportunities for shared class experi-ences for preservice students. Five experi-ences were identified. These included: (1) acourse which provided an overview of eachof the disciplines; (2) an interdisciplinaryassessment and programming course thatjoined together a cohort of students and fac-ulty in the identification and planning for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:14

08

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 7: BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

Bridging Differences to Uncover Similarities 169

children and families; (3) an interdiscipli-nary assessment class that could focus oninfants; (4) a family focused course promot-ing interdisciplinary early intervention andschool-based therapy practices; and finally,(5) a course that could focus on low inci-dence disabilities with a medical and educa-tional perspective.

The courses were designed to presentopportunities for students to study withlarger groups of students that reflected all ofthe disciplines and also to study in smallergroups of same-discipline students. Thesefive courses were to be electives for the stu-dents. Each course would be cross listed sothat each discipline would have its studentsregister under a number specific to its depart-ment. In that way, each department couldcapture a certain number of FTEs. Ininstances where the classes were modifica-tions of existing classes, faculty typicallyassigned to teaching the course wouldreceive credit for the teaching. When smallgroup sessions were necessary, the facultywould absorb these sessions as "part ofload" in addition to their regular teachingassignment. This commitment by faculty toadd work to already heavy teaching,research and service faculty requirementswas critical, if the program was to be initi-ated.

Students' perspectives on additional coursework was another matter. In North Dakota, asin several states, entry level positions requirethe minimum standards mandated by each dis-cipline and may range from a bachelor'sdegree to master's level certification. There isno single endorsement or certification that isrequired for all disciplines in order to workwith young children with disabilities and theirfamilies. The experiences being proposedwould only be successful if they were providedas part of an existing program or if incentives(i.e., tuition waivers) could be provided to stu-dents who participated. Tuition waivers werenot a viable optiion without grant support, soincorporating the experiences into existing

classes seemed to be the most logicalapproach.

Faculty were again called upon "to give tothe cause." Rather than requiring an overloadfor the new experiences or a reduction in loadto participate, faculty agreed instead to incor-porate the new classes, as much as possible,into existing classes or through a section of"special problems" or "readings" electives inorder to draw students.

Present Directions

The infamous "Flood of 1997" in GrandForks, North Dakota interrupted our work.Our discussions and planning came to a sud-den halt in April, 1997 when our campuswas closed for the remainder of the term dueto the disastrous flooding conditions. Whenwe regrouped for the fall semester, our planstook a new twist. North Dakota was chosenas a site to participate in the national ProjectSCRIPT activities through ihe University ofNorth Carolina-Chapel Hill's project. Sincethe Spring of 1997, we have taken our firststeps to new levels. The group has grownfrom four departments to seven. We nowhave a faculty team representing not onlyeducation, physical therapy, occupationaltherapy, and communication sciences anddisorders, we have added nursing, socialwork, and recreational therapy. In the fall of1998, we will pilot a new course that will beteam taught by faculty from all seven disci-plines. Students will work directly with fami-lies and special needs children in cohortteams with models from the faculty team.The course is being cross listed so that eachdepartment will receive FTE credit. Enroll-ment is limited to five students per disci-pline and faculty are teaching as part of theload.

Summary

The faculty continue to be excited andenriched through our ongoing discussionsand planning. While we are starting with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:14

08

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 8: BRIDGING THE DIFFERENCES TO UNCOVER THE SIMILARITIES: DISCIPLINES WORKING TOGETHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION

170 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION Vol. 19, No. 2,1998

only one course, our hope is that it willexpand to include other experiences for ourstudents. We know that the effort is worththe work, but we also recognize that in orderto institutionalize our ideas we need to for-malize the process. To that end, we are con-tinuing to develop ideas for additionalcourses as well as working together for aunified set of competencies to be recognizedby our state, specifically for those in earlyintervention that are collaborative in nature.

According to the proposed stages of teamdeveloping, we would probably be placed inthe "performing" stage. Our goal is that wewill reach the "transforming" stage, experi-encing change not only in our programs, butin ourselves, as professionals, as we broadenour perspectives.

Our dedication is clear. We have sur-vived floods and budget cuts and continueour discussions and planning. At the basisof our work is the belief that in order foreffective teaming and collaboration to workin the field, it must begin through modelingand course work at the preservice level. Wewill continue to work toward that vision.

REFERENCES

Blanchard, K., Carew, D., & Parisi-Carew, E.(1990). The one minute manager builds high per-formance teams. New York: William Morrow.

Briggs, M. (1997). Building early interventionteams: Working together for children and fami-lies. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActAmendments of 1991, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400et. seq.

Kelly, M. (1991). The adventures of a self-manag-ing team. Erlanger, KY: Pfeiffer.

Kurtz, L., Dowrick, P., Levy, S., & Batshaw, M.(Eds.), (1996). Handbook of developmental dis-abilities: Resources for interdisciplinary care.Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Montebello, A. R. (1994). Work teams that work.Minneapolis, MN: Best Sellers.

Odom, S., & McLean, M. (Eds.) (1996). Earlyintervention/early childhood special educa-tion: Recommended practices. Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

Robbins, H., & Finley, M. (1995). Why teams don'twork: What went wrong and how to make it right.Princeton, NJ: Peterson's/Pacesetter Books.

Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence insmall groups. Psychological 634, Bulletin, 384-399.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:14

08

Dec

embe

r 20

14