HDCD 6335: Intervention Paradigms

Course Syllabus
Spring 2010 Tuesdays & Thursdays 1:00-2:15, CB1 1.106

Instructor Contact Information

Professors: Dr. Margaret Tresch Owen

Office Hours: Thurs. 10-11:00 or by appointment
Office: GR 4.826, 972-883-6876
Email: mowen@utdallas.edu

Course Pre-requisites, Co-requisites, and/or Other Restrictions

There are no formal prerequisites for this class, although it is helpful if students have taken the following courses as an
undergraduate: Child or Lifespan Development, Research Strategies or Design.

Course Description
Intervention Paradigms is a core course in the Master’s Program in Human Development and Early Childhood
Disorders that covers the historical, theoretical, research, and political underpinnings of early intervention for infants
and young children with special needs and their families. Early intervention are introduced and discussed in relation to
the three cultures of science, policy, and practice. A primary goal of this course is an understanding of major
philosophical shifts in attitudes regarding early intervention; this includes the concepts of “primary prevention,”
“inclusion,” “family-centered early intervention”, and “natural environments.” The course covers methodological issues
in evaluations of the effectiveness of early intervention, “evidence-based practice,” and reviews both classic and
current evaluation research findings addressing early intervention programs and practices. The course places early
intervention within contemporary developmental theory as a basis for understanding the array of services
encompassing “early intervention,” the mechanisms through which early intervention programs can be understood, and
findings with respect to the effectiveness of early intervention.

Student Learning Objectives/Outcomes

After completing the course students should be able to
1. Identify and describe key milestones in public policies governing early intervention; in particular, the evolution of
Part C of Public Law 99-457 and Early Head Start.
2. Define major theoretical viewpoints and their application to practices in early intervention.
3. Critique the research methods used in the field of early intervention evaluation studies.
4. Critically evaluate conclusions regarding effectiveness of early intervention.
5. Synthesize and evaluate research findings on early intervention.

Early Intervention Specialist Competencies

EV/ASST 1 – The EIS understands the purposes and importance of early identification and referral.
PROF 8 – The EIS explains the importance of early intervention.
PROF 12 – The EIS understands how adult expectations influence children’s development.

Required Readings

Assigned readings can be obtained through electronic databases accessed through the UTD library, eReserves
through the McDermott Library, and postings on the course’s eLearning site.

Assignments

Course Website: Course announcements, any revisions to assignments or the syllabus, and reading assignments
will be posted on eLearning. You are responsible for checking this site frequently to remain aware of course
announcements, schedules for presentations, etc, and obtaining readings that aren’t in assigned texts or available
through the UTD library. Email to students enrolled in this class will only be sent to your UTD email address. If
corresponding with the instructor, please use your UTD email.

1
Reading & Class participation: Your class attendance and participation in class discussions are critical for mastery
of the material and successful performance in this course. The assigned readings should be completed before each
class. Please read and study the assigned readings before class and bring your questions and ideas to class.

Exams: There will be three in-class exams. Their format will be discussed in class. Studying for the exams is a big
part of the learning process in this class. The exams are designed to help you synthesize and apply the course
content.

Written synthesis of empirical studies of early intervention and oral presentation: You will locate 3 journal
articles describing empirical studies evaluating the effectiveness early intervention and its practices. These articles
should pertain to a similar topic, such as (1) evaluations of programs targeting children with a specific disability (e.g.,
drug-exposed infants, Down Syndrome, autism) or risk factor (e.g., low-birth-weight, poverty, parents with mental
illness) (2) a feature of early intervention (e.g. intensity of treatment, class-based services compared to home-based,
etc.), or (3) continued follow-up evaluations of the effectiveness of a particular early intervention program (e.g.,
Avance, HIPPY, IHDP, Abecedarian). The written integrative summary will be limited to 750 words. References for the
articles you will summarize are due in the second month of the semester. You will share the results of one of the
studies with the class in a 5-10-minute verbal report (no power point) that will occur in the final section of the class.
Provide written material for your classmates with the article reference and major points of the findings.

Grading Policy: Course grades will be determined from (1) three in-class exams (25% each); (2) a 10-minute
presentation of results from an empirical study of early intervention (10%); a written synthesis of three empirical
studies of early intervention services and/or practices (10%); (4) class participation (10%).

Exam Policy: Alternative exam dates cannot be arranged, except in cases of serious illness or family emergencies
(e.g. death in the family). No make-up tests will be given.
Late Assignment Policy: The written synthesis of early intervention studies is due on the designated date and will not
be accepted late unless prior approval is given.
Extra credit work will be available through attendance and evaluation summary of certain specified
educational lectures, with prior approval from the instructor.

Class Attendance is expected. Attendance and class participation will contribute to your course grade.

2
Schedule of Topics, Assignments, and Academic Calendar

Jan. 11 Introduction, course overview and organization

Jan. 13 Special lecture: Jennifer Tackett, University of Toronto, GR3.302, 1:30

Register for the Center for Children and Families Annual Forum

Jan. 13, 18 History of early childhood intervention in the U.S.

Meisels, S.F. & Shonkoff, J.P. (2000). Early childhood intervention: A continuing evolution. In J.P.
Shonkoff, & S. F. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 3-31). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Guralnick, M. J. (2005). An overview of the developmental systems model for early intervention. In
M. J. Gualnick, (Ed.), The developmental systems approach to early intervention (pp. 3-28).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Jan. 20 Special lecture: Jackie Nelson, University of North Carolina-Greensboro

GR 2.302, 1:30 – 2:30
“Emotions in the Family: Transmission, Socialization, and Development”

Jan. 25 The critical period controversy

Bruer, J.T. (2001). A critical and sensitive period primer. In Bailey, D. B. et al. Critical thinking about
critical periods (pp. 3-26). Baltimore: Brookes.

Bailey, D. (2002). Are critical periods critical for early childhood education? The role of timing in
early childhood pedagogy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 281-294.

Jan. 27, Feb. 8 Developmental bases of vulnerability and resilience

Garbarino, J. & Ganzel, B. (2000). The human ecology of early risk. In J.P. Shonkoff, & S. F. Meisels
(Eds)., Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 76-93). New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Werner, E.E. (2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In J.P. Shonkoff, & S. F. Meisels
(Eds)., Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 115-132). New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Luthar, S. S., Sawyer, J. A., Brown, P. J. (2006). Conceptual issues in studies of resilience. Annals of
the New York Academy of Science, 1094, 105-115.

Feb. 3 UT Dallas Children & Families Forum – Galaxy Rooms, Student Union – written reflections due
Feb. 8

Feb. 10 Theoretical bases of early childhood intervention – ecological and transactional models

Sameroff, A. (2009). In Sameroff, A, (Ed.) The transactional model of development: How children
and contexts shape each other (pp. 3-21). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association,
2009. pp. 3-21.

Sameroff, A. J. (2004). Ports of entry and the dynamics of mother-infant interventions. In S. C.

McDonough & K. L. Rosenblum (Eds.), Treating parent-infant relationship problems: Strategies for
intervention (pp. 3-28).

3
 Spiker, D., Boyce, G.C., & Boyce, L.K. (2002). Parent-child interactions when young children have
disabilities. International review of research in mental retardation, 25, 35-70.

Feb. 15, 17 Theoretical bases: attachment, and infant mental health

Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment theory and research (pp. 3-20). New York: Guilford.

Cassidy, J., Woodhouse, S.S., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Powell, B., & Rodenberg, M. (2005).
Examination of the precursors of infant attachment security: Implications for early intervention and
intervention research. In L.J. Berlin, Y. Ziv, L. Amaya-Jackson, & M.T. Greenberg (Eds.), Enhancing
early attachments: Theory, research intervention, and policy (pp. 34-60). New York: Guilford.

Feb. 22-- Submit journal article references for written summary assignment and designate which study you will
present in class.

Feb. 22 Enhancing early attachments

Powell, B., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Marvin, R. S. (2009). The circle of security. In C. H. Zeanah
(Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (3rd ed.) (pp. 450-467). NY, US: Guilford Press.

Van IJzendoorn, M.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & Juffer, F. (2005). Why less is more: From the
Dodo Bird Verdict to evidence-based interventions on sensitivity and early attachments. In Enhancing
early attachments. (pp. 297-312).

Feb. 24 Exam #1

Mar. 1 Eligibility for early intervention

Benn, R. (1994). Conceptualizing eligibility for early intervention services. In D.M. Bryant, & M.A.
Graham, (Eds), Implementing early intervention (pp. 18-45). New York: Guilford.

La Paro, K.M., Olsen, K., & Pianta, R.C. (2002). Special education eligibility: Developmental
precursors over the first three years of life. Exceptional Children, 69, 55-66.

Mar. 3 Sociocultural context

Garcia Coll, C.T., & Magnuson, K. (2000). Cultural differences as sources of developmental
vulnerabilities and resources. In J.P. Shonkoff, & S. F. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood
intervention (pp. 94-114). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mar. 8 Inclusion

Bailey, D., McWilliam, R.A., Buysse, V., & Wesley, P.W. (1998). Inclusion in the context of
competing values in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 27-47.

Bricker, D. (2000). Inclusion: How the scene has changed. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 20(1), 14-19.

Macy, M.G., & Bricker, D.D. (2007) Embedding individualized social goals into routine activities in
inclusive early childhood classroom. Early Child Development and Care, 177, 107-120.

Belkin, L. (2004). Lessons of classroom 506. New York Times Magazine.

Mar. 10 Primary prevention: Child care as a setting for early intervention

4
 Ramey, R. T., Campbell, F. A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L.
(2000). Persistent effects of early childhood education on high-risk children and their mothers. Applied
Developmental Science, 4, 2-14.

Caughy, M. O., DiPietro, J., & Strobino, M. (1994). Day care participation as a protective factor in the
cognitive development of low income children. Child Development, 65, 457-471.

SPRING BREAK MARCH 14-19

Mar. 24 Screening and surveillance

Gilliam, W. S. Meisels, S. J., & Mayes, L. C. (2005). Screening and surveillance in early intervention
systems. In M. J. Guralnick, (Ed.), The developmental systems approach to early intervention (pp. 73-
98). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Zero to Three issue (TBA)

Mar. 26 Home visiting programs: Primary and secondary prevention in at-risk children

Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., Pettitt, L., Sidora, K.,
Morris, P., & Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and
antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 280, 1238-124.

Mar. 31 Exam #2

Apr. 2 TBA or Exam #2 will be moved to this date)

(meetings of Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal)

April 7 Program evaluation

National Forum on Early Childhood Program Evaluation. (2007). Early childhood program
evaluations: A decision-maker’s guide. Cambridge, MA: Center on the Developing Child, Harvard
University. Download from http://developingchild.harvard.edu/reports_and_working_papers

Warfield, M. E., & Hauser-Cram, P. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation in early childhood intervention
programs. In M. J. Guralnick, (Ed.), The developmental systems approach to early intervention (pp.
351-372). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Apr. 7, 9 Evaluation of early intervention: quasi-experimentation and issues of research validity

Gomby, D.S. (1999). Understanding evaluations of home visitation programs. The Future of Children,
Vol. 9, No.1. [www.futureofchildren.org] – Select 2 to review & submit titles of those reviewed and
abstract of findings.

Apr. 14 Evaluation of early intervention: What do we know now—work with low-income children
Presentations – group 1

Farran, D.C. Another decade of intervention for children who are low income or disabled: What do
we know now? In J.P. Shonkoff, & S. F. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention
(pp. 510-548). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[review sections on children who are low-income]

Blair, C. & Ramey, C.T. (1997). Early intervention for low-birth-weight infants and the path to
second-generation research. In M.T. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention, (pp. 77-
98). Baltimore: Brookes.
5
April 16 Evaluation of early intervention: What do we know now—work with children with disabilities
Presentations – group 2

Farran, D.C. Another decade of intervention for children who are low income or disabled: What do
we know now? In J.P. Shonkoff, & S. F. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention
(pp. 510-548). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[review sections on children who have disabilities]

Apr. 21 Cost/benefit analyses of early intervention

Presentations – group 3

Barnatt, W.S. Economics of early childhood intervention. In J.P. Shonkoff, & S. F. Meisels (Eds.),
Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 589-611). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ludwig, J., & Phillips, D. (2007). The benefits and costs of Head Start. Social Policy Report of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 21(3). Electronic access to the Social Policy Report is
available at the Report’s website: http://www.srcd.org/spr.html

Apr. 23 Evaluations of Early Head Start

Presentations – group 4

Building their futures: How Early Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers
in low-income families, Summary Report, January 2001

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrch/reports/building_summary/building_exesum.pdf

Apr. 28 The evolving role of evaluation in policy and program development

Presentations – group 5

Ramey, C.T., & Ramey, S.L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist,
53, 109-120.

McCartney, K., & Weiss, H. (2007). Data for a democracy: The evolving role of evaluation in policy
and program development. In J.L. Aber, S.J. Bishop-Josef, S.M. Jones, K.T., McLearn, & D.A.
Phillips (Eds), Child development and social policy (pp. 59-76).

April 30 Exam #3

Student Conduct & Discipline and regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883-6391).

The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at
Dallas have rules and regulations for the orderly and efficient
conduct of their business. It is the responsibility of each student
and each student organization to be knowledgeable about the rules
and regulations which govern student conduct and activities.
General information on student conduct and discipline is contained
in the UTD publication, A to Z Guide, which is provided to all
registered students each academic year.
The University of Texas at Dallas administers student discipline
within the procedures of recognized and established due process.
Procedures are defined and described in the Rules and
Regulations, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System,
Part 1, Chapter VI, Section 3, and in Title V, Rules on Student
Services and Activities of the university’s Handbook of Operating
Procedures. Copies of these rules and regulations are available to
students in the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff
members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules
A student at the university neither loses the rights nor escapes the
responsibilities of citizenship. He or she is expected to obey
federal, state, and local laws as well as the Regents’ Rules,
university regulations, and administrative rules. Students are
subject to discipline for violating the standards of conduct whether
such conduct takes place on or off campus, or whether civil or
criminal penalties are also imposed for such conduct.
Academic Integrity
The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility
and academic honesty. Because the value of an academic degree
depends upon the absolute integrity of the work done by the
student for that degree, it is imperative that a student demonstrate
a high standard of individual honor in his or her scholastic work.
Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, statements,
acts or omissions related to applications for enrollment or the
6
award of a degree, and/or the submission as one’s own work or
material that is not one’s own. As a general rule, scholastic
dishonesty involves one of the following acts: cheating, plagiarism,
collusion and/or falsifying academic records. Students suspected
of academic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Plagiarism, especially from the web, from portions of papers for
other classes, and from any other source is unacceptable and will
be dealt with under the university’s policy on plagiarism (see
general catalog for details). This course will use the resources of
turnitin.com, which searches the web for possible plagiarism and is
over 90% effective.
Email Use
The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the value and
efficiency of communication between faculty/staff and students
through electronic mail. At the same time, email raises some issues
concerning security and the identity of each individual in an email
exchange. The university encourages all official student email
correspondence be sent only to a student’s U.T. Dallas email
address and that faculty and staff consider email from students
official only if it originates from a UTD student account. This allows
the university to maintain a high degree of confidence in the
identity of all individual corresponding and the security of the
transmitted information. UTD furnishes each student with a free
email account that is to be used in all communication with
university personnel. The Department of Information Resources at
U.T. Dallas provides a method for students to have their U.T.
Dallas mail forwarded to other accounts.
Withdrawal from Class
The administration of this institution has set deadlines for
withdrawal of any college-level courses. These dates and times are
published in that semester's course catalog. Administration
procedures must be followed. It is the student's responsibility to
handle withdrawal requirements from any class. In other words, I
cannot drop or withdraw any student. You must do the proper
paperwork to ensure that you will not receive a final grade of "F" in
a course if you choose not to attend the class once you are
enrolled.
Student Grievance Procedures
Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on
Student Services and Activities, of the university’s Handbook of
Operating Procedures.
In attempting to resolve any student grievance regarding grades,
evaluations, or other fulfillments of academic responsibility, it is the
obligation of the student first to make a serious effort to resolve the
matter with the instructor, supervisor, administrator, or committee
with whom the grievance originates (hereafter called “the
respondent”). Individual faculty members retain primary
responsibility for assigning grades and evaluations. If the matter
cannot be resolved at that level, the grievance must be submitted
in writing to the respondent with a copy of the respondent’s School
Dean. If the matter is not resolved by the written response
provided by the respondent, the student may submit a written
appeal to the School Dean. If the grievance is not resolved by the
School Dean’s decision, the student may make a written appeal to
the Dean of Graduate or Undergraduate Education, and the deal
will appoint and convene an Academic Appeals Panel. The
decision of the Academic Appeals Panel is final. The results of the
academic appeals process will be distributed to all involved parties.
Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in
the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff members are
available to assist students in interpreting the rules and regulations.
Incomplete Grade Policy
As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for
work unavoidably missed at the semester’s end and only if 70% of
the course work has been completed. An incomplete grade must
be resolved within eight (8) weeks from the first day of the
subsequent long semester. If the required work to complete the
course and to remove the incomplete grade is not submitted by the
specified deadline, the incomplete grade is changed automatically
to a grade of F.
Disability Services
The goal of Disability Services is to provide students with
disabilities educational opportunities equal to those of their non-
disabled peers. Disability Services is located in room 1.610 in the
Student Union. Office hours are Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m.; Tuesday and Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The contact information for the Office of Disability Services is:
The University of Texas at Dallas, SU 22
PO Box 830688
Richardson, Texas 75083-0688
(972) 883-2098 (voice or TTY)
Essentially, the law requires that colleges and universities make
those reasonable adjustments necessary to eliminate
discrimination on the basis of disability. For example, it may be
necessary to remove classroom prohibitions against tape recorders
or animals (in the case of dog guides) for students who are blind.
Occasionally an assignment requirement may be substituted (for
example, a research paper versus an oral presentation for a
student who is hearing impaired). Classes enrolled students with
mobility impairments may have to be rescheduled in accessible
facilities. The college or university may need to provide special
services such as registration, note-taking, or mobility assistance.
It is the student’s responsibility to notify his or her professors of the
need for such an accommodation. Disability Services provides
students with letters to present to faculty members to verify that the
student has a disability and needs accommodations. Individuals
requiring special accommodation should contact the professor after
class or during office hours.
Religious Holy Days
The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a student from class
or other required activities for the travel to and observance of a
religious holy day for a religion whose places of worship are
exempt from property tax under Section 11.20, Tax Code, Texas
Code Annotated.
The student is encouraged to notify the instructor or activity
sponsor as soon as possible regarding the absence, preferably in
advance of the assignment. The student, so excused, will be
allowed to take the exam or complete the assignment within a
reasonable time after the absence: a period equal to the length of
the absence, up to a maximum of one week. A student who notifies
the instructor and completes any missed exam or assignment may
not be penalized for the absence. A student who fails to complete
the exam or assignment within the prescribed period may receive a
failing grade for that exam or assignment.
If a student or an instructor disagrees about the nature of the
absence [i.e., for the purpose of observing a religious holy day] or if
there is similar disagreement about whether the student has been
given a reasonable time to complete any missed assignments or
examinations, either the student or the instructor may request a
ruling from the chief executive officer of the institution, or his or her
designee. The chief executive officer or designee must take into
account the legislative intent of TEC 51.911(b), and the student
and instructor will abide by the decision of the chief executive
officer or designee.
These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the
discretion of the Professor.