Introduction
Activity-based Intervention
Activity-based Intervention (ABI) is a strategy that help infants or young children reach their functional abilities through play, routines, and daily activities (Johnson, Rahn, & Bicker, 2015). ABI maps out intervention efforts onto or integrates them into daily interactions that children experience. The approach uses daily transactions that occur in the child’s physical and social environment. It also enhances children’s learning and use of important developmental skills (Johnson et al, 2015). There are four elements in ABI – child-directed, routine, and planned activities; Multiple and varied learning opportunities; functional and generative goals; timely and integral feedback or consequences.
Comparison literature of ABI
All four research articles are different in their country of research – Israel, Turkey, and United States of America. From the four studies, the research age group is mainly 3 – 6 years old. All of the research articles have different purpose, number of participants, needs and type of test. In the research done by Bakkaloglu (2008), their purpose of study is to examine the use of ABI on transition skills. The research was done based on seven children with developmental disabilities. Pre-test and post-test were conducted using the Preschool Transition Skills Assessment Scale (PTSAS). In the research done by Rahn, Coogle and Storie (2016), their purpose of study is to compare the use of Dialogic reading and activity based learning on the expressive use of thematic vocabulary. The research was done on three children with different developmental disabilities. Pre-test and Post-test was conducted using Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and Expressive Vocabulary Test. In the research done by Botts, Losardo, Tiller and Wets (2012), the purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of the two different approaches on phonological awareness – Embedded Direct Instruction and Activity-Based Intervention. The research was done on five children with mild to moderate language impairment. Pre-test and post-test was conducted using both standardize and informal testing. In the research done by Cohen-Mimran, Reznik-Nevet and Korona-Gaon (2016), it examines the effect of ABI approach on two intervention groups – children from Low socioeconomic and Middle socioeconomic. The research was done based on 220 children.
Effectiveness of ABI on various domains
ABI approach has helped to improve various domains in children’s development. Studies have shown that ABI is effective in the development of children’s language skills. In the research done by Cohen-Mimran, Reznik-Nevet and Korona-Gaon (2016), ABI approach is effective in developing children’s developing language – vocabulary, Syntax and Narrative. The outcome of the results have shown that children have scored higher in their post-test as compared to the pre-test. This can be further supported by Rahn, Coogle and Storie (2016), where results have shown that ABI resulted in an increase in scores from pre-test to post-test where it helped children to enhance their thematic vocabulary. The result outcome of the research done by Botts, Losardo, Tillery and Werts (2012) also show improvements in the children’s development of emerging literacy skills.
Other than language skills, research have shown that ABI is effective in improving children’s transition skills such as – following instructions, collecting materials, lining up and working independently skills was taught (Bakkalogu, 2008). To assess the effectiveness of ABI, PTSAS was conducted “before instruction phase”, “instruction phase” and “after transaction phase” (Bakkalogu, 2008). Results of PTSAS have shown significant increase in scores from “before instruction phase” to “after transaction phase” (Bakkalogu, 2008).
These research have shown similarity in their positive results in various domains of children’s development using the ABI approach. Hence, ABI approach is effective in improving different domains of children’s development.
However, in some research they mention that other methods/practices are more effective than ABI. The research done by Cohen-Mimran, Reznik-Nevet and Korona-Gaon (2016), suggest that Embedded Direct Instruction (EDI) is more effective as compared to ABI. They mention that EBI is more effective in learning generalization and maintenance of phonological awareness.. ABI results have shown that none of the participations met the criteria of 100% accuracy for alliteration and blending of sounds. Results have also shown that EBI have a faster rate for children to acquire the target skills.
In another research done by Rahn, Coogle and Storie (2016), results suggested that Dialogic Reading (DR) is more effective than ABI. As compared to ABI, children maintained the use of vocabulary better in DR.
Effectiveness of ABI on various background
In the research done by Cohen-Mimran et al. (2016) where they compare the effectiveness of ABI on kindergarten children with different socioeconomic groups – middle socioeconomic (MSES) and low socioeconomic (LSES). Results have shown ABI have positively impact on both MSES and LSES children. In comparison to MSES children who did not receive ABI, children who received ABI scored significantly higher in expressive language.
The study done by Rahn, Coogle and Storie (2016), the study was done based on children who are in poverty and have special needs – communication delay, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and cleft palette. In a similar study done by Botts et al (2012) focuses on children age 4 -5 years diagnosed with mild to moderate language impairment. The study done by Bakkalogu (2008) also conducted their research based on children with developmental disability – Cerebral Palsy and Down syndrome.
Contrary, the study done by Cohen-Mimran et al. (2016) focus of study is mainly on the socioeconomic of the kindergarten age children. Their study may include either typical or atypical children or even both.
Despite of the different abilities, age, needs and socioeconomic group, ABI is still effective.
Limitations
However, there are limitations in this approach. ABI is a time consuming approach, some range of interventions in the four study ranges from 2 – 7 months. Due to time constraint there was no follow up after post-test was done (Cohen-Mimran et al, 2016). This leads to an uncertainty if ABI is efficient for children to show continuous improvement in their concept and skills in the long run. In addition, not all participants received the same amount of intervention as some were absent for school (Rahn et al, 2016). This may cause inaccuracy to the test.
Critique
As mention above, the study done by Cohen-Mimran, Reznik-Nevet and Korona-Gaon (2016), suggested that EDI is more effective as compared to ABI. However, it does not mean that ABI is not effective. Even though the use of EDI has a higher success rate, I feel that this approach may not be beneficial for children with disability. EDI is a teacher directed approach where it is a planned, scripted and activities are chosen with little attention to child’s interest and motivation. Research have shown that EDI approach is less effective in maintaining and generalization of skill (Ozen & Eregenekon, 2011). For example, using EDI teacher teaches child steps of washing hands during the lesson. They may know how to wash their hand, but they may not know when they should wash their hands. As for ABI approach, it is authentic learning and it is taught based on the child’s naturalistic environment (CITE). For example, child goes to the toilet when he/she comes out, teacher is there to assist and teach him how to wash his hand. With this the child will know that when their hand is dirty, they have to wash their hands. To put it simply, ABI provides meaning for the children’s actions, and thus allowing generalization to happen seamlessly.
To ensure accuracy in results, I agree that children should be exposed to the same amount of intervention. One suggestion is to pick students who have consistent attendance or teachers can keep track the amount of intervention session being done.
I agree that follow up should be done. Follow up is important in monitoring the effectiveness of strategy and it is also to help students to put what they have learnt into practice (Webb & Jones, 2009). In addition, teachers can use the follow up results measure the effectiveness of strategy so that modifications and adaptations can be done.
One suggestion teacher can do is giving homework or task for their students to do at home. Teachers can collaborate with parents so that students continue to learn at home – transference of skill. For example, the student learns how to sweep the floor in school. Teacher can collaborate with parents and get their child to sweep the floor at home. Parent can video of their child and sent it to their teacher. Teachers can then check if the child is able to grasp the concept in different situations. Since skills and concept is embedded in children’s natural settings, more learning opportunities will be given to children to put what they have learn in school at home.
In local special needs schools such as Serving People with Disabilities (SPD) adopts the usage of ABI approach in their curriculum. SPD’s senior teacher, Ms Chew, elaborates on the how they incorporated ABI into their AEPS curriculum model and how routine activities can be benefit for children with disabilities (SPD, 2018). They incorporated ABI by linking their assessment outcome developmental goals, intervention activities and evaluation strategies together (SPD, 2018). Environment is one of the most important factor in ABI. To engage in meaning and purposeful interactions, they use the child’s natural settings as it provides them a sense of familiarity. In addition, they provide children with activities that interest them so that it will interest them for a longer time resulting in acquiring generalize developmental skills. However, ABI is not well used in mainstream preschools as they are more academic based, structured and teacher directed.
I agree that ABI is effective in teaching children regardless of the needs, age, socioeconomic. In my opinion, ABI can benefit children in both mainstream and special needs school. According to Ozen and Ergenekon (2011), ABI is effective in teaching both preschool children and children with different type of disabilities in both academic and non-academic. Since Singapore is moving towards inclusion, mainstream schools should adopt the usage of ABI. The use of ABI in mainstream schools can promote inclusion as this approach can support all children. In Singapore centers such as Pats’ Schoolhouse believes in authentic learning where skills and concepts are taught in their natural settings. As mentioned above, research have shown that ABI can help children to improve their language and transition skills. Hence, by integrating ABI into their curriculum provides ample opportunities for all children to learn without the need to use extra curriculum time.
As mentioned, it is proven that ABI is a highly effective approach that is beneficial for all. To ensure that it is used to its full potentials, teachers have to be properly trained. To create efficiency, preservice teachers can be trained and taught when they are undertaking their diploma or degree in early intervention. So, when they enter the workforce, they will be ready and equipped with the sufficient knowledge. Teachers who are already in the workforce, schools can also send their them to attend ABI workshops so that they can integrate into their curriculum
Conclusion
From the four articles reviewed, ABI is effective in children’s academic and functional skills such as transition skills, language and literacy. Even though EDI is more effective and fast in acquiring results, ABI is able to ensure generalization and maintenance of skills and concepts. These articles are all based on overseas context. In local context, bringing ABI into mainstream school and special needs school will benefit all children. In conclusion, ABI is a good approach to be adapted in Singapore’s education.