The Volta Review, Volume 114(1), Spring/Summer 2014, 727

Development of Basic
Concepts in Early Education
Programs for Children Who
Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Using Listening and Spoken
Language
Lauri H. Nelson, Ph.D.; Katherine L. Powell, M.S.; Sara E. Bloom, Ph.D.;
Benjamin Lignugaris/Kraft, Ph.D.
Purpose: Basic concepts are the academic building blocks for preschool children
in early education programs and are important for academic success and higher order
thinking. Recommended strategies for teaching basic concepts include using positive
examples, non-examples, highlighting critical features of concepts through
continuous conversion, initially isolating the concept and strategically integrating
new concepts with prior knowledge, strategizing the order in which the examples are
presented, and teaching generalization.
Method: This study provides a snapshot of how often 9 preschool teachers of
children who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) used four of the six strategies
positive examples, non-examples, continuous conversion, and isolating the concept
during a 20-minute lesson in which a new basic concept was taught.
Results: Results indicated that study participants frequently used positive
examples to teach basic concepts but did not consistently implement use of nonLauri H. Nelson, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor at the Department of Communicative Disorders
and Deaf Education at Utah State University in Logan. Katherine L. Powell, M.S., is a Deaf
Educator at the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education at Utah State
University. At the time of this manuscripts writing, Sara E. Bloom, Ph.D., was Assistant
Professor at the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation at Utah State University.
She is now with the Department of Child and Family Studies at the University of South
Florida in Tampa. Benjamin Lignugaris/Kraft, Ph.D., is Professor at the Department of Special
Education and Rehabilitation at Utah State University. Correspondence concerning this
manuscript may be addressed to Dr. Nelson at lauri.nelson@usu.edu.
Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

examples, continuous conversion, or concept isolation when introducing a new

concept.
Conclusions: Instruction that specifically incorporates recommended strategies
for teaching basic concepts may help children who are DHH optimize their academic
preparation for successful entry into mainstream kindergarten settings.

Introduction
Basic concepts are the academic building blocks of thinking and learning in
early education, central to cognitive discovery, daily conversations, and
classroom instructions (Solomon, Medin, & Lynch, 1999; Wilson, 2004). They
are words and concepts that a child must understand in order to perform
typical tasks, follow directions, participate in classroom activities and routines,
and engage in age-appropriate conversations. Engelmann and Carnine (1982)
stated, a basic concept is one that cannot be fully described with words (other
than synonyms). A communication for a basic concept, therefore, is one that
requires concrete examples (p.10). According to Boehm (1971, 2001a, 2001b),
general categories of basic concepts include: (1) temporal (e.g., start, finish,
before, slow, now, and later); (2) spatial (e.g., top, down, under, over, first,
before, together, and between); (3) quantity (e.g., more, less, many, some, most,
both, all, empty, and full); and (4) other general conceptual descriptors (e.g.,
tall, short, large, small, same, different, missing). Basic concepts can be difficult
for children since they have no constant referent. The toy largest in one group
may be smallest in another group (Boehm, 1982).
The acquisition of basic concepts is correlated with a preschool childs
overall linguistic and cognitive development and is a precursor to growth in
complex, higher-order thinking (Bracken, 1988, 1998; Howell & Bracken, 1992;
Klix, 1983; Wilson, 2004). Most domains of knowledge originate from
procuring basic concepts and the associated relationships that exist between
those concepts (Tennyson & Christensen, 1986). Children must acquire a strong
foundation in basic concepts to optimally establish the fundamentals of
academic subject areas. For example, the application of quantity concepts is
essential to mathematics instruction, and spatial or descriptive concepts serve
as precursors to grammatical foundations. How concepts are formed, used,
and updated are central questions in cognitive science (Solomon et al., 1999). As
preschool children improve their use and understanding of basic concepts at
concrete levels, they are better equipped to apply them at more abstract and
thought-provoking levels, a precursor to comprehension, reasoning, and
general thinking skills (Balat, 2009).
Children who lack sufficient acquisition of fundamental concepts essential
for linguistic development and higher-order complex learning tend to fall
8

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

further behind in educational growth and development (Alexander, Entwisle,

& Horsey, 1997). Alternatively, children who have mastered these skills tend to
make more rapid and meaningful academic progress (Stanovich, 1986; Walberg
& Tsai, 1983). Furthermore, the manner in which children experience success
and view their ability to learn is strongly correlated with their academic
motivation, effort, and ultimately, their outcomes (Jitendra & Kameenui, 1994).
Because knowledge of basic and relational concepts is an essential academic
foundation, kindergarten school readiness assessments commonly evaluate
childrens acquisition of basic concepts either through assessments focused
specifically on basic concepts, such as Boehm Test of Basic Concepts (3rd ed.)
(2001b) or Wiig Assessment of Basic Concepts (2004), or embedded in the
evaluation tasks of other preschool language, cognitive, academic, or
developmental assessments. In fact, Sterner and McCallum (1988) reported
that the understanding of basic concepts may be a better indicator of academic
achievement than measures of cognitive development. Given that basic
concepts are highly integrated into school readiness assessments and these
assessments are often used as baseline controls and predictors for academic
achievement, it holds that preschool instruction that provides strong
foundations in basic concepts development is important to a childs future
academic success (Kaufman, 1978; McIntosh, Brown, & Ross, 1995; Tramontana, Hooper, & Selzer, 1988).

Effective Strategies for Teaching Basic Concepts

Basic concepts learning has been described as generalizing all objects or
events that represent a class or set as examples of the concept and
discriminating non-examples of the concept as being outside the class or set
(Klausmeier, 1985; Rosch, 1975; Tennyson & Park, 1980). To identify evidencebased strategies for effectively teaching basic concepts to preschool-age
children, a search of the literature revealed over 50 articles that described the
importance of basic concepts instruction. Of those, 12 articles provided specific
teaching strategies that should be implemented when teaching basic concepts
to preschool-age children. An analysis of the teaching strategies recommended
within these 12 articles resulted in the compilation of six specific recommended
teaching techniques. As seen in Table 1, there was substantial agreement
among the authors regarding these six recommended strategies for teaching
basic concepts, in which they specified use of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Concept isolation
Positive examples
Non-examples
Continuous conversion
The order examples are presented
Teaching generalization
Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

Table 1. Literature analysis on recommended strategies for teaching basic concepts

Reference
Becker,
Engelmann,
& Thomas
(1971)
Day & Horner
(1986)
Engelmann &
Carnine
(1982)
Gersten,
White,
Falco, &
Carnine
(1982)
Klausmeier &
Hooper
(1974)
Martorella
(1972)
McKinney,
Larkins,
Ford, &
Davis III
(1983)
Merrill,
Tennyson, &
Posey (1992)
Tennyson &
Cocchiarella
(1986)
Tennyson &
Park (1980)
Van Patten,
Chao, &
Reigeluth
(1986)
Weinheimer &
Weisberg
(1987)
Total

Positive
Non- Concept Order of Continuous
Examples Examples Isolation Examples Conversion Generalization Total

5/6

5/6

6/6

5/6

6/6

4/6

5/6

6/6

6/6

4/6

5/6

4/6

12/12

12/12

12/12

10/12

8/12

6/12

Concept Isolation
During initial instruction, a concept should be presented in a way that allows
for only one interpretation of the concept. For example, if every demonstration
10

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

of the color red presented to the learner was a circle and every example
presented that was not-red was a square, two interpretations of the concept red
are availablethe color or the shape (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982). That is, the
learner may learn that all circles are labeled red. To isolate the concept red in the
teaching sequence, the teacher should include circles that are a different color
(e.g., orange and green) so only one interpretation of red is possible. Although
initially isolating concepts decreases confusion and increases the probability of
rapid acquisition (Martorella, 1972), the approach could result in a narrow
understanding of the concept. To solve this problem, initial teaching sequences
should always be followed by additional positive examples, integration of nonexamples, concept expansion, or generalization trials in which new applications are presented and the concept is strategically integrated into the learners
prior knowledge (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982; Kameenui, Carnine, Dixon,
Simmons, & Coyne, 2002).
Positive Examples
A central example (prototype) of a concept is presented, followed by several
more unique but positive examples of the concept. Upon presenting a range of
positive examples, the broad scope of a given concept is demonstrated. In other
words, by showing a wide range of positive examples that are the most
different from each other but still considered part of the set, children learn to
generalize all positive examples as part of that concept class. This is often
referred to as the sameness principle (Tennyson & Park, 1980).
Non-Examples
Purposeful use of non-examples provides contrasting representations in the
concept being taught. This helps children identify the critical attributes of the
concept and discriminate between positive and negative examples. Initially,
objects or ideas that are very different from the concept prototype should be
presented as non-examples for students to discriminate non-examples as being
outside the set of requirements for that concept. In so doing, students learn the
key features that establish a positive example as a representation of the concept,
and a non-example as not part of that concept. For instance, when teaching the
concept under, a teacher could place a small block under a bridge, then move the
block to a position that is not under the bridge. By changing only the relevant
features of the concept that make something under or not under, the students
can observe the defining characteristics of being under. Presenting two similar
instances in which one is an example and one is a non-example of the concept is
known as the difference principle (Tennyson & Park, 1980). An important rule to
follow when teaching with non-examples is using non-examples that are
already part of the childs comprehension repertoire. Students should not be
Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

11

exposed to new objects or concepts as non-examples simultaneously with the

new target concept being taught (Tennyson & Cocchiarella, 1986).
Continuous Conversion
Continuous conversion demonstrates the changes between examples and
non-examples while they are occurring. This enables students to focus on the
important features of a concept, or the change of placement, while disregarding
the rest (Simmons & Kameenui, 1990). For instance, if a teacher is
demonstrating how to read the temperature on a thermometer, he or she
might alternately place a thermometer in hot or cold water to show the mercury
in the thermometer rising or lowering to indicate temperature change. The
students see that the change in temperature is characterized by the movement
of the red line on the thermometer and not by anything else. It is important that
students are able to see the change while it is occurring. Otherwise, students are
only able to observe a difference in the thermometer in the morning when they
arrive at school and in the afternoon when they leave, possibly resulting in
confusion of the concept. The use of continuous conversion forces one to create
relevant and observable changes in the examples, with each example or nonexample becoming a modification of the previous example through observable
changes (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982).
Order of Examples
The order in which concepts are presented determines the efficiency of the
teaching sequence. Learners are better able to understand the basic
fundamentals of the concept when a teacher starts with easy trials in which
positive examples are very similar to the target concept and non-examples are
very different from the target concept. To minimize the number of examples
needed to demonstrate a concept, examples that share the greatest number of
features should be juxtaposed with each other. Tennyson and Park (1980) refer
to this strategy as the juxtaposition principle. This specific strategy is best
implemented over a period of time, gradually increasing the order of examples
from simple to more complex.
Generalization
Generalization of new concepts is reinforced across multiple applications
and settings by using a variety of examples in several different forms and
circumstances (Stokes & Baer, 1977). For instance, when teaching children to
generalize the color red to other shades of red, one could show several different
examples that share a quality of redness. These examples must be given the
same defining characteristic by always calling them red or by making a pile of
all things that are red and excluding objects that are not red. Generalization is a
12

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

critical component of concept teaching. If children do not generalize new

concepts, then learning new concepts serves little function.

Teaching Basic Concepts to Preschool Children Who Are

Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Approximately 12,000 babies who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) are
born each year in the United States, making it the nations most frequent
congenital birth disorder (White, 2007). Approximately 95% of children who
are DHH are born to parents who are hearing (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004),
with many families choosing listening and spoken language (LSL) as their
childs mode of communication so that they can become more successful
within family, social, and educational systems that rely on spoken language
(Alberg, 2011; Brown, 2006). According to the American Speech-LanguageHearing Association (2013), hearing loss in children can cause receptive and
expressive speech and language delays, and can have an adverse impact on
academic achievement, primarily due to language and literacy deficits.
However, with early detection of hearing loss, use of advanced hearing
technology (e.g., digital hearing aids, cochlear implants, FM systems), and
appropriate early intervention services, children who are DHH have the
potential to develop listening and spoken language, communicate with peers
with typical hearing, and attend their neighborhood schools (Goldberg &
Flexer, 2001; Kennedy et al., 2006; Moeller, 2000; Rhoades & Chisolm, 2000).
A primary goal of the LSL philosophy is for children to be educated in
mainstream educational settings (Archbold & Mayer, 2012; Berndsen &
Luckner, 2012; Broekelmann, 2012; Eriks-Brophy et al., 2006). Children who
are DHH will have better educational outcomes when professionals utilize
effective teaching strategies that focus on auditory perception development
(Cole & Flexer, 2011; Dornan, Hickson, Murdoch, & Houston, 2009),
language and literacy acquisition (Hayes, Geers, Treiman, & Moog, 2009;
Robertson, 2009), authentic learning experiences (Hay & Fielding-Barnsley,
2012), and enhanced incidental learning opportunities (Brown, Waring, &
Donkaewbua, 2008). Age-appropriate academic development is a critical
foundation for children who are DHH, including acquisition of basic
concepts necessary for successful integration into mainstream classes and
overall academic success.
The purpose of this study was to gain a snapshot view of the extent to which
educators of students who are deaf have used recommended strategies to
enhance concept acquisition in young preschool children who are DHH
enrolled in programs that emphasized the development of LSL skills.
Specifically, the study focused on how often preschool teachers used positive
examples, non-examples, and continuous conversion, and whether or not the
Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

13

teachers isolated the concept during initial instruction to highlight the critical
features of the concepts and to minimize potential for confusion.

Methods
Participants
Participants were nine female preschool teachers from classrooms that
focused on LSL development for preschool children who are DHH aged 36.
Gender homogeny in this context was not surprising given that 97.8% of
preschool teachers are female (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). Potential
participants were identified by locating all self-contained LSL preschool
programs within a state school for the deaf across a 125-mile region located in
the western portion of the United States, according to the following study
inclusion criteria:
1. Educators who teach in self-contained preschool programs specifically
for children who are DHH, who use hearing technology (e.g., hearing
aids, cochlear implants), and who use listening and spoken language as
their primary mode of communication.
2. Educators with specialized training in LSL strategies (e.g., LSL deaf
education masters degree or endorsement such as the Listening and
Spoken Language Specialist [LSLSt] certification).
3. Educators who hold 05 early childhood teaching licensure.
4. Educators with a minimum of 5 years teaching experience.
5. Educators who teach in no-cost, publicly funded programs.
Nine programs were identified that met study inclusion criteria, and all nine
teachers in these programs agreed to participate. Although non-categorical
special education preschool programs that served children who are DHH were
located in various school districts within the surrounding study region, these
programs did not meet study inclusion criteria, primarily because they did not
meet inclusion criteria #1 and #2. All class sizes ranged from 57 children per
class and were considered urban programs. Participants were informed of the
study goals and participation was voluntary. The small sample size is further
addressed in the study limitations section.
Procedures
Study participants were informed of the study purpose and were asked to
teach a 20-minute lesson on one of the following basic concepts according to the
learning needs of the children in their class: shorter, bigger, longer, under, next
to, and behind. These basic concepts were selected as the target concepts for this
study because comparative (shorter, bigger, longer) and non-comparative
14

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

concepts (under, next to, behind) are examples of the easiest basic concepts to
teach (Bracken & Panter, 2011; Engelmann & Carnine, 1982). A comparative
concept has a relative value based on the symbol which precedes it and has a
precise boundary. For example, teaching the concept that one animal is bigger
than another animal relies on a comparison object. A dog is bigger than a
mouse, but an elephant is bigger than a dog. Non-comparative concepts are
discrete, and the conceptual illustration does not depend on a comparative
example. For example, the concept under is always a positive example if one
object is under another, regardless of the previous example used by the teacher.
Study participants selected the basic concept topic according to the needs of
the class. Participants were informed that they would be observed on the
strategies they used to teach the basic concept and they had one week to
prepare their lesson.
Data Collection
During the 20-minute period during which the selected concept was taught,
the researcher observed the lesson and completed an observation form (see
Appendix A). Observation data were collected to document the extent to which
study participants used four strategiesspecifically, concept isolation, positive
examples, non-examples, and continuous conversionto teach the basic
concept, as recommended by previous studies shown in Table 1. Strategies
involving order of examples and concept generalization were not included
in this study because an informative evaluation of the use of these strategies
could not be observed within a single teaching segment, but would require
longitudinal observation of implementation over time.
Consistency throughout the data collection was maintained by following a
list of rules for coding each observation (see Appendix B). A second researcher
observed four of the nine observation sessions (44%) to ensure data were
collected consistently across all study participants and that the observation
data collection rules were being followed. Observational data between the two
researchers were compared and discussed to resolve any potential discrepancies to reach 100% reliability in following rules for coding. All observations
were completed within a two-week period.
Data Analysis
Engelmann and Carnine (1982) described over 100 lesson outlines for
teaching basic concepts using the recommended strategies. Of these lesson
outlines, approximately 20 were specific to teaching preschool children.
Engelmann and Carnine recommended that within a 20-minute time segment
teachers should initially isolate the concept to decrease the potential for concept
confusion, followed by implementation of six to eight positive examples, five to
six non-examples, and five to six instances of continuous conversion within the
Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

15

Table 2. Observation data on strategies for teaching basic concepts

Strategy
Unique
Positive
Examples
Unique
NonExamples
Continuous
Conversion
Isolating
Concept

Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Total
5

11

11

16

16

84

11

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

lesson plan. Data were recorded and analyzed to document whether or not
study participants initially isolated the concept, as well as the number of times
participants utilized the recommended strategies during the 20-minute time
segment.

Results
Teacher scores describing the number of times recommended strategies were
used to teach basic concepts to preschool children who are DHH are described
in Table 2.
Concept Isolation
As shown in the data collection sheet, concept isolation was scored as yes
or no, according to whether or not the teacher isolated the concept during the
initial concept introduction. Five of the nine participants (56%) initially
introduced the concept in isolation prior to integrating additional concepts and
strategies throughout their 20-minute lesson. The remaining four participants
did not isolate the concept when it was first introduced but rather incorporated
multiple concepts at the same time, such as attributes of colors, shapes,
numbers, or other descriptive components.
Positive Examples
The number of positive examples participants used during the 20-minute
lesson on a new concept varied. Some participants incorporated as few as five
positive examples compared with other participants who incorporated 16
positive examples, with a group average of 11 positive examples presented
16

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

within the 20-minute lesson. This average is higher than the recommended six
to eight suggested by Engelmann and Carnine (1982), with all but two
participants meeting the minimum suggested number of positive example
presentations.
There was variety in the types of positive examples the participants used,
even among those who were teaching the same concept. For example, three
participants chose to teach the concept under. One participant asked the
students to go under different objects around the room, the second participant
had the children place different objects under a particular item, and the third
participant read a book in which the children identified several animals going
under a variety of items, such as a tree, birdhouse, bridge, mountain ledge, and
waterfall.
Study participants were observed to use the same activity, replicated several
times, so that each child had an opportunity to participate. For example, during
a lesson on the concept shorter, one teacher asked each child to compare the
length of a rope to several objects around the room, such as compared to a train,
a book, and a horses tail. Although these comparisons occurred a number of
times during the lesson, this activity was scored as just one unique occurrence
of a positive example. Another teacher compared the height of all the children
in the class and asked each child to stand up to see whether or not they were
shorter than the teacher. Likewise, even though this activity occurred multiple
times, it was recorded as one occurrence of a positive example. All study
participants used frequent repetition and reinforcement of new language
associated with the concept.
Non-Examples
The use of non-examples appeared to be less intuitive for study participants
than did the use of positive examples. Four participants did not incorporate
non-examples during the 20-minute lesson, and three participants utilized one
occurrence of a non-example. One participant used three occurrences, and one
participant used five occurrences of a non-example during the 20-minute
lesson. For instance, during a lesson on the concept under, a child was sitting on
top of an object. The teacher emphasized to the children that their classmate
was not under the object, rather she was on the object, thus providing an
opportunity to reinforce the meaning of the target concept by providing a nonexample.
Considering the combined number of positive examples and non-examples
participants used in the present study, just 12% involved a non-example
concept comparison. The incorporation of non-examples was substantially less
than the Engelmann and Carnine (1982) recommendation of five to six within a
20-minute lesson segment. In fact, just one participant met this criterion with
her utilization of five non-examples.
Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

17

Continuous Conversion
Continuous conversion was also used infrequently, with just 4% of examples
and non-examples continuously converted. Six of the nine participants did not
incorporate continuous conversion at all within their 20-minute lesson. Two
participants used one instance of continuous conversion, and one participant
used two instances of continuous conversion to demonstrate the new concept.
For example, when teaching the concept behind, one teacher tapped sticks
together behind her back and asked her students to do the same. One student
was incorrectly tapping the sticks in front of himself. The teacher then tapped
her sticks in front of her and said You are tapping your sticks in front of you
like this; I want you to tap your sticks behind you (while moving her sticks
behind her back). This was counted as continuous conversion because the
students witnessed the critical change in movement that distinguished in front
from behind.
The use of continuous conversion in the present study was substantially
lower than the Engelmann and Carnine (1982) recommendation of incorporating five to six examples of continuous conversion within a 20-minute lesson
segment. From the perspective of the researcher, there were several potential
opportunities to use a continuous conversion strategy within each lesson for
each participant.

Discussion
The teachers of children who are DHH observed in this study provided a
wide variety of positive examples to engage students in learning a new concept,
and most teachers isolated the concept upon introduction. These study
participants rarely used non-examples or continuous conversion to teach basic
concepts during the lessons observed. The observed instructional time
consisted primarily of correcting student errors rather than intentional use of
non-examples or continuous conversion as teaching strategies.
Although the extant literature base did not include empirical data on the
utilization of strategies to teach basic concepts to children who are DHH,
teachers of these students may find that expanding their use of the strategies
identified as being effective for typically developing children may potentially
improve outcomes in children who are DHH. Children with congenital hearing
loss are at an increased risk of language and academic delays compared with
their peers with typical hearing and have fewer opportunities to learn through
incidental listening or by overhearing conversations and picking out key words
and concepts (Vohr et al., 2012). For example, children with typical hearing
often learn the primary colors by overhearing other children and adults label
objects by color. Children who are DHH may miss these key words and
18

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

descriptors during conversations and therefore may need to be taught the

primary colors more purposefully (Davis, 1974).
Children who are DHH and who use LSL as their primary mode of
communication benefit from teachers who effectively implement targeted
educational strategies that promote listening and language development
(Teagle & Moore, 2002). As seasoned teachers of the deaf, study participants
incorporated several specific LSL teaching strategies appropriate for fostering
auditory development, such as prompting acoustic phonemic cues and using a
higher number of auditory sound repetitions. However, their incorporation of
strategies for teaching basic concepts were not observed to be implemented as
frequently as the research suggests. Recommended strategies for teaching basic
concepts are likely to be effectively implemented within the lesson plan
without compromising auditory, speech, and language priorities. Additionally,
instruction that specifically incorporates recommended strategies for teaching
basic concepts may help each child optimize their academic preparation for
successful entry into mainstream kindergarten settings.
Appropriate and effective individualized instruction is the foundation of
special education services. An excellent teacher modifies instruction to meet
the specific needs of each child in the class and recognizes that some strategies
may be more effective than others for individual learners. This study provided
just a snapshot of the breadth of services and strategies implemented
throughout an entire preschool day and are not reflective of the full scope of
instruction within the classroom of the study participants. When teaching
students with special needs who are struggling to learn a basic concept,
teachers who effectively and appropriately adapt instruction to utilize
evidence-based recommendations within their lesson plans will significantly
increase the likelihood that children will make positive gains in establishing
strong foundations for future cognitive, linguistic, and academic success.

Study Limitations
A primary limitation of this study was the small number of participants. One
cannot generalize the data and conclusions recorded in this study to all teachers
of the deaf and hard of hearing in LSL classrooms. Also, each teacher was
observed just once during a single teaching session. It was possible that study
participants may actually implement more of the strategies for teaching basic
concepts within their class but were not observed using those strategies during
the observed teaching sequence.
In addition, two of the six strategies recommended for teaching basic
concepts were not included in this study. The strategies of teaching
generalization and systematically ordering the presentation of examples
were omitted from this study because they could not be observed during a
single observational session. Evaluation of these strategies would require
Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

19

exploration utilizing a longitudinal study design and should be investigated in

future research.
Although the study sample size was small, a potential strength of having a
small sample was the detail with which each individual case was analyzed.
This allowed extrapolation of qualitative details that may otherwise have been
hidden in a large sample study.
Child outcomes data were not collected in the present study. Therefore, the
recommendations for teaching basic concepts to children who are DHH,
including the direct impact on child outcomes, would require additional
research.

References
Alberg, J. (2011). Beginnings report: Change in communication choice over 10
years. FYI First Years Info. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Available at http://firstyears.org/fyi/2011-summer.htm
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997). From first grade
forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70,
87107.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2013). Effects of hearing
loss on development. Retrieved from: http://www.asha.org/public/
hearing/Effects-of-Hearing-Loss-on-Development/
Archbold, S., & Mayer, C. (2012). Deaf education: The impact of cochlear
implantation. Deafness and Education International, 14(1), 215.
Balat, G. U. (2009). Examining the knowledge of basic concepts of children
starting primary education. Early Child Development and Care, 179(7), 911918.
Becker, W. C., Engelmann, S., & Thomas, D. R. (1971). Teaching: A course in
applied psychology. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
Berndsen, M., & Luckner, J. (2012). Supporting students who are deaf or hard of
hearing in general education classrooms: A Washington state case study.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33(2), 111118.
Boehm, A. E. (1971). Boehm Test of Basic Concepts instruction manual. New York,
NY: Psychological Corporation.
Boehm, A. E. (1982). Assessment of basic concepts. In D. Paget & B.A. Bracken
(Eds.), The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (pp. 145116).
New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
Boehm, A. E. (2001a). Boehm Test of Basic Concepts-3. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Boehm, A. E. (2001b). Boehm Test of Basic Concepts-3: Preschool. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Bracken, B. A. (1988). Rate and sequence of positive and negative poles in basic
concept acquisition. Language, Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 19, 410417.
Bracken, B. A. (1998). Bracken Basic Concept Scale Revised. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
20

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

Bracken, B. A., & Panter, J. E. (2011). Using the Bracken Basic Concept Scale and
Bracken Concept Development Program in the assessment and remediation
of young childrens concept development. Psychology in the Schools, 48(5),
464475.
Broekelmann, C. (2012). Ihear Internet therapy program: A program by St.
Joseph Institute for the Deaf. The Volta Review, 112(3), 417422.
Brown, C. (2006). Early intervention: Strategies for public and private sector
collaboration. Paper presented at the 2006 Convention of the Alexander
Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Pittsburgh, PA.
Brown, R., Waring, R., & Donkaewbua, S. (2008). Incidental vocabulary
acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 136163.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). Household data annual averages. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf
Cole, E., & Flexer, C. (2011). Children with hearing loss: Developing listening and
talking, birth to six (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
Davis, J. (1974). Performance of young hearing-impaired children on a test of
basic concepts. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 342351.
Day, H. M., & Horner, R. H. (1986). Response variation and the generalization of
a dressing skill: Comparison of single instance and general case instruction.
Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7(2), 189202.
Dornan, D., Hickson, L., Murdoch, B., & Houston, T. (2009). Longitudinal study
of speech and language for children with hearing loss in auditory-verbal
therapy programs. The Volta Review, 109(2), 125.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and
applications. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
Eriks-Brophy, A., Durieux-Smith, A., Olds, J., Fitzpatrick, E., Duquette, C., &
Whittingham, J. (2006). Facilitators and barriers to the inclusion of orally
educated children and youth with hearing loss in schools: Promoting
partnerships to support inclusion. The Volta Review, 106(1), 5388.
Gersten, R., White, W. A., Falco, R., & Carnine, D. (1982). Teaching basic
discriminations to handicapped and non-handicapped individuals through
a dynamic presentation of instructional stimuli. Analysis and Intervention in
Developmental Disabilities, 2, 305317.
Goldberg, D. M., & Flexer, C. (2001). Auditory-verbal graduates: Outcome
survey of clinical efficacy. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12(8),
406414.
Hay, I., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2012). Social learning, language and literacy.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(1), 2429.
Hayes, H., Geers, A., Treiman, R., & Moog, J. (2009). Receptive vocabulary
development in deaf children with cochlear implants: Achievement in an
intensive auditory-oral educational setting. Ear and Hearing, 30, 128135.
Howell, K. K., & Bracken, B. A. (1992). Clinical utility of the Bracken Basic
Concept Scale as a preschool intellectual screener: Comparison with the
Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

21

Stanford-Binet for African-American children. Journal of Clinical Child

Psychology, 21, 255261.
Jitendra, A., & Kameenui, E. J. (1994). Review of concept learning models:
Implications for special education practitioners. Intervention in School &
Clinic, 30(2), 9199.
Kameenui, E. J., Carnine, D., Dixon, R., Simmons, D., & Coyne, M. (2002).
Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Kaufman, A. S. (1978). The importance of basic concepts in the individualized
assessment of preschool children. Journal of School Psychology, 16(3), 207211.
Kennedy, C. R., McCann, D. C., Campbell, M. J., Law, C. M., Mullee, M., Petrou,
S., et al. (2006). Language ability after early detection of permanent
childhood hearing impairment. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(20),
21312141.
Klausmeier, H. J. (1985). Educational psychology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Klausmeier, H. J., & Hooper, F. H. (1974). Conceptual development and
instruction. Review of Research in Education, 2, 354.
Klix, F. (1983). An evolutionary approach to cognitive processes and creativity
in human being. In R. Groner, M. Groner, & W. F. Bischof (Eds.), Methods of
heuristics (pp. 1936). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Martorella, P. H. (1972). Concept learning: Designs for instruction. Scranton, PA:
The Haddon Craftsment, Inc.
McIntosh, D. E., Brown, M. L., & Ross, S. L. (1995). Relationship between the
Bracken Basic Concept Scale and the Differential Ability Scales with an atrisk sample of preschoolers. Psychological Reports, 76, 219224.
McKinney, W., Larkins, A. G., Ford, M. J., & Davis III, J. C. (1983). The
effectiveness of three methods of teaching social studies concepts to fourthgrade students: An aptitude-treatment interaction study. American Educational Research Journal, 20(4), 663670.
Merrill, M. D., Tennyson, R. D., & Posey, L. O. (1992). Teaching concepts: An
instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. A. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent:
Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United
States. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138163. doi: 10.1353/sls.2004.0005
Moeller, M. P. (2000). Early intervention and language development in children
who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics, 106(3), E43.
Rhoades, E., & Chisolm, T. H. (2000). Global language progress with an
auditory-verbal approach for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The
Volta Review, 102(1), 524.
Robertson, L. (2009). Literacy and deafness: Listening and spoken language. San
Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, Inc.
22

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 192233.
Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1990). Developing instructional strategies: The
prevention of academic learning problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Solomon, K. O., Medin, D. L., & Lynch, E. (1999). Concepts do more than
categorize. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(3), 99105.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 21(4), 360407.
Sterner, A. G., & McCallum, R. S. (1988). Relationship of the Gesell
Developmental Exam and the Bracken Basic Concept Scale to academic
achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 26(3), 297300.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349367.
Teagle, H. F. B., & Moore, J. A. (2002). School-based services for children with
cochlear implants. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33(3),
162171.
Tennyson, R. D., & Christensen, D. L. (1986). Memory theory and design of
intelligent learning systems. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Tennyson, R. D., & Cocchiarella, M. J. (1986). An empirically based
instructional design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational
Research, 56(1), 4071.
Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. C. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of
instructional design research literature. Review of Educational Research, 50(1),
5570.
Tramontana, M. G., Hooper, S. R., & Selzer, S. C. (1988). Research on the
preschool prediction of later academic achievement: A review. Developmental
Review, 8(2), 89146.
Van Patten, J., Chao, C. I., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1986). A review of strategies for
sequencing and synthesizing instruction. Review of Educational Research,
56(4), 437471.
Vohr, B., Topol, D., Girard, N., St. Pierre, L., Watson, V., & Tucker, R. (2012).
Language outcomes and service provision of preschool children with
congenital hearing loss. Early Human Development, 88, 493498.
Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. (1983). Matthew effects in education. American
Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 359373.
Weinheimer, B., & Weisberg, P. (1987). Acquisition of basic concepts by
mentally retarded and nonretarded children through video-presented,
stimulus conversion procedures. Journal of Special Education Technology,
9(1), 4553.
White, K. R. (2007). Early intervention for children with permanent hearing
loss: Finishing the EHDI revolution. The Volta Review, 106(3), 237258.
Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

23

Wiig, E. (2004). Wiig Assessment of Basic Concepts. Greenville, SC: Super Duper
Publications.
Wilson, P. (2004). A preliminary investigation of an early intervention program:
Examining the intervention effectiveness of the Bracken Concept Development Program and the Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised with Head Start
students. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 301311.

24

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

Appendix A

Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

25

Appendix B
Rules for Observations

Examples (Positive or Negative)

Count as example if:


Item presented in the demonstration is unique from other items used in

examples. Teaching the concept UNDER: The star is under the box and
the triangle is under the box are two separate examples.

The range within the demonstration of the example is unique, even if the
same item/object has been used previously. Teaching UNDER: The star
is under the box in both examples, but with a unique configuration or
distance.

Do not count as example if:



26

The same example has already been demonstrated, even if to different

children. Teaching the concept UNDER: The star is under the box
presented to Child A and the star is under the box presented to Child B
counted as one example.

Nelson, Powell, Bloom, & Lignugaris/Kraft

Continuous Conversion
Count as continuous conversion if:


Must show relevant change by only changing one or two features to turn
a non-example into an example or an example to a non-example.
Teaching the concept UNDER: The teacher places the star under the box
for a positive example, and the children watch her move the star to the
top of the box for a negative example.
Children must see the change while it is occurring.

Do NOT count as continuous conversion if:



Demonstrations do not show the change while it is occurring: Teaching

the concept UNDER: The two examples are presented statically and the
children do not witness the change while it is occurring.

Isolating the Concept



Teach only one novel concept at a time. Teaching concept UNDER: If

children have not mastered the concept on top, teach the concept under
using the vocabulary under and not under.
Make a list of concepts that were taught or mentioned in the teaching
sequence and ask the teacher at the end of the session which concepts the
children had already mastered.

Development of Basic Concepts in Early Education Programs

27

Copyright of Volta Review is the property of Alexander Graham Bell Association for the
Deaf and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.