Artpiculo 1

Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, December 2006 (Ó 2006)
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-006-0115-x

Rethinking Natural Environment Practice: Implications from
Examining Various Interpretations and Approaches
Angie Y. Chai,1,4 Chun Zhang,2 and Marilyn Bisberg3

Early intervention professionals have implemented natural environment practices for over a
decade, despite the continueddebate on how to interpret and implement this practice. This
article reviews several theoretical frameworks for understanding natural environment practice,
and also summarizes different approaches for implementation. The authors present a model
for rethinking and redefining natural environment practice in the context of recent
approaches.
KEY WORDS: early intervention; natural environment;inclusion; natural learning opportunities; service
delivery.

that it is the Individualized Family Service Plan
(IFSP) team that determines whether alternative or
non-inclusive placements are justified by the individual needs of children (Bricker, 2001).
Despite the clarifications to the original legal
mandate, professionals remain confused about how
to interpret and deliver natural environmentpractices
(Dunst, Trivette, Humphries, Raab, & Roper,
2001b). Natural environment practice is often misinterpreted to imply inclusion, focusing on only one
aspect of the mandate. For example, professionals
may infer that, if children with disabilities are in the
presence of non-disabled peers, they are providing
services in a natural environment regardless of whether the inclusive environmentserves an appropriate
function for intervention with the particular child.
Unfortunately, focusing on settings alone merely
addresses the letter of the law, but does not adequately attend to its spirit (Jung, 2003). Shelden and
Rush (2001) suggest that a natural environment as a
concept is more than a place; it includes not only
where but also how services are provided.
Since the provisionsof IDEA focus on settings,
they exclude a wide range of possible learning opportunities that occur during various activities. Dunst,
Hamby, Trivette, Roob, and Bruder (2000) found that
family and community life is made up of a variety of

Federal legislation, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1991
(Public Law 102–119), requires that earlyintervention
services be provided in natural environments to the
maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the child.
With little guidance about what a natural environment is, early intervention professionals have been left
to interpret the mandate for themselves. The most
recent IDEA Amendments of Public Law 105–17
(1997) defines natural environments to include home
and community settings in whichchildren without
disabilities participate as well as settings that are
natural or normal for the child’s age peers who have
no disabilities. These amendments suggest that children should receive services in inclusive settings and
1

Graduate School of Education, Division of Psychological and
Educational Services, Fordham University, New York, NY 10023,
USA.
2
Graduate School of Education,Division of Curriculum and
Teaching, Fordham University, 113, West 60th Street, Room
1102, New York, NY 10023, USA.
3
Developmental Connections for Children, Inc., 75, Maiden Lane,
Ste. 335, New York, NY 10038, USA.
4
Correspondence should be directed to Angie Y. Chai, Graduate
School of Education, Division of Psychological and Educational
Services, Fordham University, 113, West 60thStreet, Room 1008,
New York, NY 10023, USA; e-mail: achai@fordham.edu

203
1082-3301/06/1200-0203/0 Ó 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

204
learning opportunities for young children. Those authors make distinctions between locations, activity
settings, and natural learning opportunities. Everyday
locations represent physical surroundings or places in
which children participate...