This article was downloaded by: [Thammasat University Libraries]On: 08 October 2014, At: 20:23Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 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

Preservice preparation in homevisiting: A national survey of earlychildhood undergraduate programsRena A. Hallam a b , Robyn L. Ridgley a & Martha J. Buell ca University of Kentucky , Lexington, KY, USAb Department of Family Studies , School of HumanEnvironmental Sciences , 315 Funkhouser Building,Lexington, KY, 40506–3212, USA Phone: +1–859–257–7750 Fax:+1–859–257–7750 E-mail:c University of Delaware , Newark, DE, USAPublished online: 25 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Rena A. Hallam , Robyn L. Ridgley & Martha J. Buell (2003) Preservicepreparation in home visiting: A national survey of early childhood undergraduate programs,Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 24:1, 19-26, DOI: 10.1080/1090102030240105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102030240105

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 whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation 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. Terms

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pergamon

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2003) 19-26

Journal of y

ChildhoodTeacher

Education

Preservice preparation in home visiting: a nationalsurvey of early childhood undergraduate programs

Rena A. Hallama,*, Robyn L. Ridgley a, Martha J. Buellb

a University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USAb University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Received 16 July 2002; accepted 25 June 2003

Abstract

Home visiting is an essential part of early childhood education and early childhood special education services.Recent changes and expansion of program services in the areas of Early Head Start and Early Intervention haveresulted in the provision of more home-based services for young children and their families. The current study is anational survey of undergraduate early childhood programs in NCATE accredited institutions regarding their in-clusion of key skills necessary for home visiting practice. Results of this study suggest that approximately half ofprograms include home visiting as part of field-experiences. Moreover, differences between program type (earlychildhood versus early childhood special education/blended) demonstrate that programs with a special educationcomponent are more likely to include home visiting skills within their curriculum. Programs that include home vis-iting field-experiences were more likely to address home visiting content within their undergraduate curriculum.© 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Home visiting programs have been prominentin the field of early childhood for decades (Wasik,1993). Children with disabilities (e.g., McBride &Peterson, 1997; Roberts, Behl, & Akers, 1996;Roberts & Wasik, 1990), those born prematurelyor with low birthweight (e.g., Barrera, Kitching,Cunningham, Doucet, & Rosenbaum, 1991; Roberts& Wasik, 1990; Sandall, 1991), and children at-riskfor school failure or from being removed from thehome (e.g., Roberts & Wasik, 1990; Wayman, Lynch,& Hanson, 1991) have been targets of home visitingprograms. In recent years, the number of serviceproviders supporting young children and their fam-ilies through home visits has increased (Gomby,Larson, Lewit, & Behrman, 1993). The last reautho-rization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

* Corresponding author. Present address: Department ofFamily Studies, School of Human Environmental Sciences,315 Funkhouser Building, Lexington, KY 40506-3212,USA. Tel.: +1-859-257-7750; fax: +1-859-257-3212.

E-mail address: rhallam@uky.edu (R.A. Hallam).

Act reemphasized the need to provide children withdisabilities services in their natural environments.For many children, their homes are the logical placeto provide these services. The National Early Inter-vention Longitudinal Study found 78% of children intheir nationally representative sample received earlyintervention services in their homes (U.S. Departmentof Education, 2002). Since 1995, Early Head Starthas been serving an increasing number of low-incomefamilies with infants and toddlers (U.S. Departmentof Health & Human Services, 2001). Many of theseprograms are providing services through home visitsor a combination of center-based and home visits.

Studies to determine the effectiveness of home vis-iting programs have produced mixed results (Gomby,Culross, & Behrman, 1999). A variety of factors im-pact the quality of home visiting programs as well asthe impact on children and families. Programs withmultiple sites, many times, vary in their effective-ness in meeting program goals across sites (Gilliam,Ripple, Zigler, & Leiter, 2000;Goodson, Layzer, St.Pierre, Bernstein, & Lopez, 2000; St. Pierre & Layzer,

1090-1027/$ - see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S1090-1027(03)00013-8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

20 R.A. Hallam et allJournal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2003) 19-26

2000; Wagner & Clayton, 1999). Clearly, characteris-tics of children and families enrolled in the programsalso may impact the effectiveness of a home visit-ing program (Wagner & Clayton, 1999). However,the home visitors' training and quality of interactionswith families may also impact whether home visitingprograms are effective in meeting the goals of pro-grams and needs of families (Duggan et al., 1999;Gomby et al., 1999). The preparation of early child-hood educators and special educators as home visitorshas not been thoroughly examined in the literature.

Some research has been conducted to determinewhat occurs during home visits. McBride and Peter-son (1997) observed home visitors providing servicesto children, birth to 3 years old with disabilities. Allof the home visitors in this study had a bachelor'sdegree or some training beyond a bachelor's degree.This observational research found that home visitorsspent most of their time interacting with the childin direct teaching situations with most interactionsfocusing on the child's development. However, whenworking with families with fewer resources, the homevisitors spent more time addressing family needs. Themajority of the home visitors had degrees in specialeducation. The researchers attributed the child focusof the home visits to the home visitors training asteachers, which tends to focus primarily on the impactthe teacher has on growth and learning of the child.

Roggman, Boyce, Cook, and Jump (2001) ex-amined home visiting within an Early Head Startprogram to determine the quality of the home visitsin terms of the relationships between the parents andhome visitors and home visitor-parent interactions.Data were gathered from the parents, home visitors,and observations of home visits. Most parents ratedthe home visiting program and home visitor posi-tively. Home visitors rated the home visits and theirrelationships with parents positively when the fami-lies seemed to be making progress. The researchersand home visitors indicated, "how well home visi-tors and parents worked together was related to howmuch parents seemed to benefit from the program"(p. 68). When home visitors were effective in encour-aging parent-child interactions, parents were moreengaged and home visitors indicated the familieswere making progress.

Home visitors vary in the amount and level oftraining they have received. Many are from the fieldsof health, education, or social service (Gomby et al.,1993; Roberts & Wasik, 1990; Wasik & Roberts,1994). Although there continues to be debate regard-ing whether home visitors should be professionalsor paraprofessionals, most agree extensive, relevanttraining is necessary for home visitors to be effectivein meeting the goals of programs and the fami-lies they serve (Gomby et al., 1993, 1999; Wasik,

1993; Wasik & Bryant, 2001). Programs that em-ploy paraprofessionals generally provide training fortheir home visitors (Black, Dubowitz, Hutcheson,Berenson-Howard, & Starr, 1995; Dawson et al.,1991; Duggan et al., 1999; Jarrett, Katz, Sharps,Schneider, & Diamond, 1998; St. Pierre & Layzer,1999; Wasik & Bryant, 2001). However, this trainingmay be minimal (Wasik & Roberts, 1994). Somecommon training components among these programsconsist of children's health and nutrition, child de-velopment, and knowledge of community resourcesand services (Black et al., 1995; Dawson et al., 1991;Jarrett et al., 1998). Programs also include trainingcomponents related to the specific population servedor goals of the programs.

Although most would agree with Roggman et al.(2001) that "the relative content and indicators ofa quality home visiting program depends on theprogram's purpose for using home visits as an in-tervention and the program's selection of specificstrategies to use in home visits for implementingthe intervention" (p. 54), research has documentedspecific training requirements or knowledge, skills,or experiences home visitors should possess in or-der to provide quality home visiting services. Homevisiting programs providing family-focused serviceswould require home visitors to attend to the needsand strengths of the child and family and emphasizeinteractions occurring between the parent and child(McBride & Peterson, 1997; Smith, 1995; Wasik &Bryant, 2001).

The process of home visiting requires planning,intervention, and assessment skills that focus on theneeds of parents/caregivers in addition to the needsof children. Home visitors should have a strongunderstanding of child development, assessment ofdevelopment, and strategies for supporting develop-ment (Baker, Squires, & Whiteley, 1999; McBride &Peterson, 1997; Smith, 1995; Wasik & Bryant, 2001).Understanding how to address special circumstancesfamilies' experience is also needed. Knowledge andskills related to specific community characteristics(e.g., socioeconomic status, cultural differences)and resources enable home visitors to sensitivelywork with families and provide necessary supports.Professional ethics and personal safety informationalso has been documented as necessary trainingcomponents.

The Child Development Associate (CDA) Na-tional Credentialing Program provides some trainingin home visiting for child care providers enrolled inthe program (Wasik, 1993; Wasik & Bryant, 2001).Few other programs exist for formally training indi-viduals to provide home visits. Gomby et al. (1993)supported the notion of increasing the number oftraining opportunities for home visitors by including

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

R.A. Hallam et al./Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2003) 19-26 21

home visiting components in college and universitytraining programs.

The inclusion of content on home visiting mustbe coupled with appropriate instructional and as-sessment strategies in undergraduate curriculum.Research in adult learning highlights the importanceof a variety of instructional approaches that empha-sizes the functionality of the particular content beingtaught (Taylor, Dunster, & Pollard, 1999). Specif-ically, adult learners need opportunities to practiceskills, as in field-based experiences, and they needto understand the application of particular informa-tion that can be facilitated in a variety of simulatedexperiences, such as case method of instructionand problem-based learning (Barer-Stein & Kompf,2001). Recommended practices in the assessmentof learning in teacher education programs highlightperformance-based strategies that emphasize com-petencies in particular areas (Barer-Stein & Kompf,2001; Donley & Napper, 1998).

Whether training programs within fields that pro-vide home visiting services include skills or knowl-edge needed by home visitors has not been examinedin the literature. Moreover, for those programs that doinclude such content, it is unclear how instructionalor assessment strategies are used in relationship tothis content. Wasik (1993) indicated few undergrad-uate and graduate programs, in fields that historicallyprovide home visits, provide a formal course in homevisiting. Content related to home visiting is generally"covered, usually only briefly, as part of other courseor field-experiences" (Wasik, 1993, p. 148). The Di-vision for Early Childhood (DEC) and the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children(NAEYC) have developed professional preparationstandards for the baccalaureate level for early child-hood professionals (Division for Early Childhood,1998; NAEYC, 2001). The standards include manyof the skills or knowledge needed by home visitors.DEC states explicitly that early childhood educatorsand special educators may be providing services tochildren and families within a variety of settings, in-cluding homes. The degree to which personnel prepa-ration programs in colleges and universities are in-cluding those skills within their programs is unknown.

With the growing number of home visitors pro-viding services to young children and their families,the variant effectiveness of home visiting programs,and the call for appropriate preparation of early child-hood educators by professional organizations in thefield, institutions of higher education have a respon-sibility to provide undergraduates in early childhoodeducation and early childhood special education withthe knowledge and skills to conduct home visits. Theliterature has provided a framework of componentsto include in coursework and training programs for

home visitors. The integration of those componentswithin existing or new courses and fieldwork experi-ences could provide the field with service providerswho are able to effectively support families and youngchildren with a variety of needs in their homes.

This study is the first attempt to document the ex-tent to which early childhood special education andearly childhood education programs within nation-ally accredited (i.e., National Council for Accredita-tion of Teacher Education) colleges and universitiesinclude components within their existing courseworkand field-experiences related to home visiting. Thestudy is a descriptive study designed to investigatewhether specific skills and knowledge needed to con-duct home visits are included in early childhood andearly childhood special education coursework and, ifso, what strategies are used within the courses to de-velop those skills.

1. Methods

All early childhood education and/or early child-hood special education programs residing in NCATEaccredited institutions were surveyed for this study.Based on the current NCATE list of accreditedprograms in the fall of 2001, researchers accesseduniversity websites to determine the current programcontact person as well as address information. Giventhe high degree of program review that NCATE ac-credited programs undergo, it was determined thatthe designated contact person would have a fairlyaccurate understanding of the program content andmethods employed to deliver this content. Threehundred twenty programs were surveyed based onthese criteria. One hundred forty-two programs re-sponded to the survey for a response rate of 44%. Ofthese 142 programs, 9 were graduate programs, and10 of the surveys were incomplete (4 programs onlyanswered the first 4 questions). Therefore, of the 142returned surveys 123 were included in this analysisfor a final usable response rate of 38%.

Of the 123 usable surveys, 87 (70.7%) of the pro-grams described their programs as early childhoodeducation, 5 (4.1%) of the programs described theirprograms as early childhood special education and 25(20.3%) described their programs as blended. Of the123 programs, 18 (14.6%) had been in existence for1-3 years, 11 (8.9%) of the programs report havingexisted for 3-5 years, 16 (13%) for 5-10 years and 73(59.3%) for 10 years or more. One hundred (81.3%)granted some type of early childhood teaching certi-fication as part of their program. Most of the respon-dents who completed the survey on behalf of their pro-gram have had extensive experience in preparing earlychildhood educators and special educators. While five

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

22 R.A. Hallam et all'Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2003) 19-26

Table 1Courses taught by survey respondents

Course

Foundations of Early ChildhoodChild Growth and DevelopmentPracticum in Early ChildhoodCurriculum MethodsIntroduction to Early ChildhoodEducation/Special EducationAssessment of Young ChildrenHome/School/CommunityOther

51 (41.5)57 (46.3)71 (57.7)90 (73)48 (39)20 (16.3)33 (26.8)45 (36.6)30 (24.4)

to evaluate and assess personal safety in home andneighborhood situations. For each skill, respondentswere to indicate whether or not the topic was coveredat the undergraduate level and if so, how the con-tent was delivered (readings, lectures, problem-basedlearning, and/or field-experiences). Additionally, re-spondents were to indicate the type of assessmentstrategy used to evaluate the area (standard multi-ple choice exams, essays/reflective papers, and/orperformance-based assessments). These responseswere not forced-choice, allowing respondents to se-lect multiple instructional and assessment strategiesas appropriate to their program.

(4%) had been teaching at the post-secondary levelfor fewer than 3 years, 74 (60%) had been teachingfor 10 or more years. Seventeen (13.8%) reported thatthey had taught 3-5 years and 24 (19.5%) indicatedthat they had taught 5-10 years. In terms of the peo-ple who actually filled out the questionnaire, all hadtaught an undergraduate regular or special educationcourse in the last 3 years. The types of courses taughtby the respondents are found in Table 1.

Respondents completed a four-page survey. Thesurvey included a list of skills important to effectivehome visiting as well as skills needed to support chil-dren and families in poverty. The information relatedspecifically to home visiting is reported in this article.Examples of these skills include knowledge of homeenvironments that are conducive for promoting childdevelopment, ability to communicate effectively withparents/families on an individual basis, and ability

2. Results

Sixty-three (51%) of survey respondents reportedthat their program included practica, field-experience,and/or student teaching that ensured pre-professionalstudents have home visiting experiences. Of thosewho reported including such experiences, qualitativedescriptions of these responses varied from shadow-ing a teacher conducting home visits as part of acenter-based program, class projects that involve atleast one home visit with a family, and comprehensivestudent teaching experiences in a home-based earlyintervention program. Of those reporting that homevisiting was not part of the experience, commentsranged from school district policies prohibiting homevisiting to placements that only provide center-basedservices to children and families.

Table 2Differences between program types

Content area

Parent-child interaction11

Natural learning opportunities6

Home promotes child developmentCommunicates effectively8

Personal safetya

Support family problem solvingb

Family supporta

Enhancing parent-child interaction15

Identify and access resources'1

Coordinate services'1

Knowledge of ecological andfamily systems theory

Develop, implement and evaluateindividualized intervention plansthat support children and families'5

Specialeducation/blended

21 (72%)27 (93%)26 (90%)27 (93%)16 (55%)22 (76%)25 (86%)23 (79%)26 (90%)25 (86%)26 (90%)

27 (93%)

Generaleducation

59 (68%)50 (58%)72 (84%)77 (90%)40 (47%)37 (44%)67 (78%)42 (49%)64 (74%)47 (55%)70 (81%)

48 (56%)

Home visitingpractica

50 (82%)48 (78%)54 (89%)60 (98%)37 (61%)43 (72%)56 (92%)45 (74%)53 (87%)47 (77%)53 (87%)

46 (75%)

No home visitingpractica

30 (57%)28 (53%)43 (81%)43 (81%)19 (36%)14 (26%)35 (66%)21 (40%)36 (68%)24 (45%)43 (81%)

29 (55%)

a Chi-square significant at the <.05 for differences between programs that include home visiting practica and those thatdo not.

b Chi-square significant at the <.05 level for both programs that include home visiting and for programs that include aspecial education component vs. those that are strictly general education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

R.A. Hallam et allJournal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2003) 19-26 23

The inclusion of home visiting was examinedby program type. Given the small number of earlychildhood special education programs, these pro-grams were combined with blended programs. Thus,general early childhood programs are compared withearly childhood programs with a special educationcomponent. Additionally, the differences betweenprograms that included a field-based experiencein home visiting were also examined. Differencesbetween groups were computed using Chi-square.The results of these analyses are presented inTable 2.

Results indicate that in all but two content ar-eas, the undergraduate programs that included afield-based home visiting experience were signifi-cantly more likely to offer students content in areasthat support critical home visiting skills. In addition,five areas that support skills in home visiting werepresent in significantly more programs that includeda special education component.

In terms of how the content is presented we as-sessed the various types of pedagogy used to con-vey the content as well as the strategies used to as-sess the content knowledge. The frequencies of ped-agogical strategy and assessments are provided inTable 3.

In general, the most frequently used instructionalstrategies were assigned readings and lectures. How-ever, field-based experiences and problem-basedlearning were more often used in the areas of com-municating effectively and family support. The mostcommon assessment strategy reportedly used wasessays/reflective papers.

3. Discussion

Results of this study highlight the need for moreattention to the preparation of early childhood per-sonnel in the area of home visiting. Only half ofthe sample indicated home visiting was an ensuredpart of the field-experiences of preservice teachersat the baccalaureate level. The inclusion of a homevisiting field-based experience seems particularlyimportant in preparing educators. Results of thisstudy indicate that those programs with some typeof field-experience in home visiting were also morelikely to cover relevant home visiting content. Thisfinding accentuates the need for the addition of homevisiting field-experiences along with the traditionalcenter-based field-experiences for early childhoodpersonnel. Previous research examining the effec-tiveness of home visits addresses the educationallevel of home visiting professionals (Gomby et al.,1999; Wasik, 1993); however, this research indicatesthat the nature of the educational experience may be

quite varied in that many programs are not address-ing home visits specifically within their curriculum.This distinction could account for the mixed resultsin home visiting efficacy and highlights the needfor the examination of specific home visiting educa-tional experiences in addition to general educationallevel.

Interestingly, early childhood special educationprograms or blended programs were much morelikely than traditional early childhood programs tocover home visiting content in their curriculum.Skills, such as utilizing natural learning opportuni-ties, supporting family problem solving, enhancingparent-child interaction, coordinating services, anddevelopment and implementation of individualizedintervention plans, were included in early childhoodspecial education and blended programs at a signifi-cantly higher level than in traditional early childhoodprograms. Clearly, the emphasis on early interventionservices for infants and toddlers with disabilities andthe growing focus on these services in the natural en-vironment are reflected in the inclusion of these prac-tices within these programs (McBride & Peterson,1997; Roberts, Behl, & Akers, 1996). This findingvalidates the usefulness of interdisciplinary person-nel preparation that includes both early childhoodand early childhood special education. Furthermore,it confirms that these programs recognize home vis-iting and content knowledge needed for home visitsas important components when training educatorsto work with infants, toddlers, and preschoolerswith and without disabilities. Indeed, if one is tobe an effective early interventionist, understandingof natural environment and how to elicit needs andconcerns from families during the IFSP process isessential. It seems that programs that prepare earlyinterventionists are well aware of the needs and doprovide students with some of the requisite contentknowledge.

However, results of instructional strategies re-lated to the home visiting skills suggests that contentis generally taught in a lecture-based format fol-lowed by the assignment of reading material withno clear patterns in problem-based learning andfield-based experiences. The most common formof assessment is reflective papers/essays. Whilelecture and written work are important and pro-vide a sound base for building additional knowl-edge, the need for more concrete experiences andperformance-based assessment is critical. If we areto meet the challenges of preparing competent andconfident early childhood practitioners, the fieldmust take responsibility for providing students withthe types of experiences and the associated as-sessments of skills that will prepare them for theworkplace.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 3Frequencies of instructional and assessment approaches by specific content areas

Content area

Parent-child interactionNatural learning opportunitiesHome promotes child developmentCommunicates effectivelyPersonal safetySupport family problem solvingFamily supportEnhancing parent-child interactionIdentify and access resourcesCoordinate servicesKnowledge of ecological and

family systems theoryDevelop, implement and evaluate

individualized intervention plans thatsupport children and families

Instructional

Assignedreadings

65 (50%)58 (45%)88 (68%)82 (64%)35 (27%)43 (33%)85 (66%)40 (31%)68 (53%)49 (38%)89 (69%)

53 (41%)

strategy

Lecture

65 (53%)57 (46%)86 (70%)82 (67%)40 (33%)45 (37%)77 (63%)39 (32%)72 (59%)50 (41%)94 (76%)

60 (49%)

Problem-basedlearning

35 (29%)31 (25%)43 (35%)62 (50%)18 (15%)55 (44.7%)55 (45%)34 (28%)46 (37%)38 (31%)30 (24%)

43 (35%)

Field-basedexperience

47 (38%)33 (27%)40 (33%)72 (59%)24 (20%)21 (17%)47 (37%)38 (31%)44 (36%)32 (26%)23 (19%)

44 (36%)

Assessment strategy

Multiple choiceexams

23 (19%)20 (16%)41 (33%)29 (24%)16 (13%)15 (14%)30 (24%)10 (8%)26 (21%)18 (15%)61 (50%)

29 (24%)

Essay/reflectivepapers

56 (46%)53 (43%)72 (59%)70 (57%)30 (24%)38 (31%)68 (55%)31 (25%)58 (47%)42 (34%)72 (59%)

45 (37%)

Performance-basedassessment

42 (34%)36 (29%)36 (29%)66 (54%)24 (20%)14(11%)40 (33%)34 (28%)45 (37%)35 (29%)22 (18%)

48 (39%)

o_t_

if

"S1

S19

§••J

8|5*§

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

R.A. Hallam et al/Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2003) 19-26 25

Home visiting practices are an essential part ofearly childhood practices. Recent changes and expan-sion in existing services, such as Early Head Start andearly intervention service, require that personnel inthe field be competent in the provision of home-basedservice delivery to young children and their families.The results of this study call for an increased empha-sis on home visiting preparation at the undergradu-ate level, preparation that includes skills in promotingchild development and parent-child interaction in thehome environment as well as field-based experiencesin home visiting practice.

References

Baker, C., Squires, J., & Whiteley, K. C. (1999). Homevisiting: A Vermont approach to working with youngchildren and their families. Waterbury, VT: VermontState Agency of Human Services (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED440732).

Barer-Stein, T., & Kompf, M. (Eds.). (2001). The craftof teaching adults (3rd ed.). Toronto: Irwin Pub-lishing.

Barrera, M. E., Kitching, K. J., Cunningham, C. C.,Doucet, D., & Rosenbaum, R L. (1991). A 3-year earlyhome intervention follow-up study with low birthweightinfants and their parents. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 10(4), 14-28.

Black, M. M., Dubowitz, H., Hutcheson, J., Berenson-Howard, J., & Starr, R. H. (1995). A randomized clinicaltrial for home intervention for children with failure tothrive. Pediatrics, 95, 807-815.

Dawson, R M., Robinson, J. L., Butterfield, R M., vanDoorninck, W. J., Gaensbauer, T. J., & Harmon,R. J. (1991). Supporting new parents through homevisits: Effects of mother-infant interaction. Topicsin Early Childhood Special Education, 10(4), 29-44.

Donley, J., & Napper, R. (1998). Assessment matters in adultlearning. Oxford: National Institute of Adult ContinuingEducation.

Duggan, A. K., McFarlane, E. C., Windham, A. M., Rohde,C. A., Salkever, D. S., Fuddy, L., Evaenberg, L. A.,Buchbinderr, S. B., & Sia, C. J. (1999). Evaluation ofHawaii's Healthy Start Program. The Future of Children,9(1), 66-90.

Gilliam, W. S., Ripple, C. H., Zigler, E. F., & Leiter,V. (2000). Evaluating child and family demonstrationinitiatives: Lessons from the Comprehensive ChildDevelopment Program. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 15, 41-59.

Gomby, D. S., Culross, P. L., & Behrman, R. E. (1999).Home visiting: Recent program evaluations-analysis andrecommendations. The Future of Children, 9(1), 4—26.

Gomby, D. S., Larson, C. S., Lewit, E. M., & Behrman, R. E.(1993). Home visiting: Analysis and recommendations.The Future of Children, 3(3), 6-22.

Goodson, B. D., Layzer, J. I., St. Pierre, R. G., Bernstein,L. S., & Lopez, M. (2000). Effectiveness of a

comprehensive, five-year family support program forlow-income families: Findings from the ComprehensiveChild Development Program. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 15(1), 5-39.

Jarrett, M. H., Katz, K. S., Sharps, P., Schneider,S., & Diamond, L. T. (1998). Pride in ParentingTraining Program: A curriculum for training layhome visitors. Infants & Young Children, 11(1), 61-72.

McBride, S. L., & Peterson, C. (1997). Home-based earlyintervention with families of children with disabilities:Who is doing what? Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 17(2), 209-233.

National Association for the Education of Young Children.(2001, July). NAEYC guidelines revisions: NAEYCstandards for early childhood professional preparationbaccalaureate or initial licensure level. Retrieved May16, 2002, from www.naeyc.org/profdev/prep_review/preprev-2001.htm.

Roberts, R. N., Behl, D. D., & Akers, A. L. (1996).Community-level service integration within homevisiting programs. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 16(3), 302-321.

Roberts, R. N., & Wasik, B. H. (1990). Home visitingprograms for families with children birth to three:Results of a national survey. Journal of EarlyIntervention, 14(3), 274-284.

Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., & Jump,V. K. (2001). Inside home visits: A collaborativelook at process and quality. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 16, 53-71.

Sandal], S. R. (1991). Developmental interventionsfor biologically at-risk infants at home. Topicsin Early Childhood Special Education, 70(4), 1-13.

Smith, L. E. (1995). Healthy Families California: Areview of standards and best practices in homevisiting programs across California. Sacramento, CA:California Consortium to Prevent Child Abuse (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED41 1952).

Taylor, R., Dunster, L., & Pollard, J. (1999). And thishelps me how? Family child care providers discuss trai-ning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(3), 285—312.

The Division for Early Childhood. (1998, April). Personnelstandards for early education and early intervention:Guidelines for licensure in early childhood specialeducation. Retrieved May 16, 2002, from http://www.dec-sped.org/positions/concept95.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). To assure thefree appropriate public education of all children withdisabilities: 23rd annual report to Congress on theimplementation of the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act. Jessup, MD: Education PublicationCenter.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2001,January). Building their futures: How Early HeadStart programs are enhancing the lives of infants andtoddlers in low-income families. Washington, DC: TheCommissioner's Office of Research and Evaluation andthe Head Start Bureau.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

26 R.A. Hallam et al./Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2003) 19-26

Wagner, M. M., & Clayton, S. L. (1999). The parents asteachers program: Results from two demonstrations. TheFuture of Children, 9(1), 91-115.

Wasik, B. H. (1993). Staffing issues for home visitingprograms. The Future of Children, 3(3), 140-157.

Wasik, B. H., & Bryant, D. M. (2001). Home visiting:Procedures for helping families (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Wasik, B. H., & Roberts, R. N. (1994). Home visitorcharacteristics, training, and supervision. FamilyRelations, 43, 336-342.

Wayman, K. I., Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J.(1991). Home based early childhood services: Culturalsensitivity in a family systems approach. Topicsin Early Childhood Special Education, 10(4), 56-75.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014