Running Head: SOCIAL PARTICIPATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
Dr. Sue Walker Ph. D.
Lecturer, School of Early Childhood
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Australia
The study reports an analysis of the social integration of six focus
children with developmental disabilities in four preschool programs and their
relative competences in relation to the typically developing children in the
early childhood programs. For the 85 children in the preschool programs,
including the children with developmental disabilities, peer acceptance was
measured with sociometric interviews; social competence was rated by teachers;
and observations of play activities and social engagement were made during four
free play periods. A social constructivist analysis focuses on how learning was
supported in the settings and implications are drawn about how opportunities
for learning could be extended in inclusive early childhood programs.
Keywords: social competence, inclusive programs, early childhood
It is an expectation that young children with
developmental disabilities should be able to engage meaningfully in all aspects
of an inclusive program through a supportive environment that enables these
children to form relationships with peers. Social competence difficulties
experienced by children with developmental disabilities and the resultant
social isolation within inclusive settings are critical issues to be addressed
if these children are to reap the benefits of inclusion and access the range of
learning opportunities available to their peers. It can no longer be assumed
that, a priori, a child is limited in capacities to learn by the presence of
developmental limitations. Instead, greater understanding is needed about, and
why, children learn as a function of their participation in shared interactions
with peers and adults in inclusive settings.
Social competence is defined as adaptive functioning
within the social environment. Such competence requires abilities to achieve
personal goals while maintaining positive relationships with others (Howes,
1988; Rubin & Krasnor, 1992). According to Guralnick (2002), the level of
social integration in inclusive programs of young children with developmental
disabilities is largely a function of their peer-related social competence.
However, understanding the mechanisms though which social competence develops
is not well understood for these children. Within inclusive settings, young
children with even mild developmental delays exhibit difficulties with peer
interaction over and above what might be expected by their developmental status
(Guralnick, 1999). Problems in peer-related social competence are evident for
many of the important social tasks of early childhood, including peer group
entry, conflict resolution and maintaining play, and for broader aspects of
social competence such as emotional regulation and social information
processing (Guralnick, 2005). These difficulties inhibit opportunities to fully
participate in the early childhood programs.
The social separation experienced by young
children with disabilities in inclusive settings is the result of two powerful
forces. First, child characteristics, in terms of general cognitive,
communicative and behavioral problems associated with the childŐs disability,
impact on the childŐs ability to engage in positive social interactions with
peers (Guralnick, 2000). Second, the perceptions or beliefs of typically
developing children about children with disabilities may influence the
likelihood that they will seek engagement with children with additional needs.
Thus, the teacher has an important role to create a learning community in which
all children are valued. Associations have been found between the quality of a
teacher-child relationship and peer acceptance of that child (Birch & Ladd,
1997; Hughes, Cavell, & Wilson, 2001). Children are aware of teachersŐ
differential interactions with others and use this information to develop their
judgments about their peersŐ competencies and desirability as social and play
partners. Young children are aware of how teacher interactions with their peers
differ and use this information to make inferences regarding the teacherŐs
attitude towards other children.
Ecological factors that play a role in
successful social integration include the nature of play activities provided by
teachers in the setting, as well as the amount of structure and active support
for engagement that teachers give. Nabors Willoughby and Badawi (1999) found
that children with special needs were more likely to be engaged in play with
typically developing peers when the play activities provided made fewer demands
on language or cognitive skills. Similarly, Malmskog and McDonnell (1999)
reported that increased adult involvement in the play of young children with
disabilities resulted in greater engagement of these children in the physical
and social environment. However, despite these emerging insights on how
ecological factors may impact on social integration, there is limited
theorizing that provides a strong conceptualization about how young children
with developmental disabilities learn in inclusive programs.
Over the last decade, social constructivist
theory has had a considerable impact on early childhood educational practice
(Penn, 2005). A social constructivist perspective, the term used to describe
the cognitive theory of Vygotsky, focuses on the interdependence of social and
individual processes in the development of knowledge (Palinscar, 1998).
Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the social orientation of cognitive development: Ňwhat
the child is able to do in collaboration today, he will be able to do
independently tomorrowÓ (p. 206). Social constructivist theory provides a
framework to inform best practice about inclusion in early childhood programs.
Such a perspective has had limited discussion in the inclusion debate (Mallory
& New, 1994). It can explain the processes for understanding childrenŐs
learning and provide guiding principles for teachers in their practices. While
naturalistic intervention strategies (Bricker & Cripe, 1992) reflect
practices grounded in the theories of Vygotsky, a more explicit recognition of
the tenets of social constructivism could inform the manner in which teachers
understand childrenŐs learning in inclusive settings.
Features of social constructivist theory that
contribute to understanding how children might learn within inclusive programs
include: the role of social activity in learning; the contributions of the
active learner to his or her own development; and the importance of supporting
learning through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Vygotsky (1978)
described the ZPD as Ňthe distance between the actual developmental level and
the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under
adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peersÓ (p. 85). Children
with developmental disabilities can be supported to engage in increasingly more
complex levels of play with peers that can be charted from mere sociability to
cooperative play characterized by reciprocal verbal and non-verbal interactions
that lead to new social and cognitive understanding. Teachers have the
opportunity to understand childrenŐs learning through their social interactions
with peers and adults.
Rogoff (1990) elaborated the features of social
constructivist theory through her conceptualization of apprenticeship, guided
participation and participatory appropriation. In optimal circumstances
children live in ecological contexts that actively support their apprenticeship
role which facilitates their physical, cognitive and social-emotional
development. All children regardless of individual differences belong to and
should be valued as members of the community. Interactions with companions,
adults and children, in social settings such as early childhood programs can
provide guidance, support, challenge, and the impetus to learn. Thus the social
construction of knowledge (i.e., learning) requires understanding by teachers
about guided participation and how childrenŐs skills and conceptual knowledge
can be enhanced through their social interactions which might be child- or
peer-initiated and through the planned activities provided by the adults.
Through transactions with more skilled partners children, including those with
developmental disabilities, ultimately internalize shared understanding about
the norms, practices and values in the setting and increase their ability to
function at a more independent level. Teachers can arrange for childrenŐs
participation in activities and offer resources that support and challenge
their thinking. The inclusion of children with developmental disabilities in a
community of learners provides all participants with opportunities to learn.
Social constructivist theory can inform
understanding about how play interactions with peers support the learning of
young children with developmental disabilities in inclusive programs. The
potential exists through play for children to learn through their interactions
with their peers. Through cooperative play activities, reciprocity between
peers develops, as language and actions become more complex. Increased
cognitive demands are placed on participants to provide explanations of their
actions to peers, negotiate shared understanding of the goals of the play, and
solve problems that lead to new learning for all participants. While learning can
occur through engagement in solitary play, it is the cognitive challenges
afforded through cooperative play that have the potential for significant
learning to occur for individuals.
Through the theoretical lens of social
constructivism, teachers observe childrenŐs level of social and cognitive
understanding in their play and plan opportunities to increase the level of
social engagement and the cognitive challenges. Teachers can look for teachable
moments to provide encouragement or assist the child to sustain engagement
(Brown, Odom, & Conroy, 2001). When environments enable frequent
participation in shared activities in which children take responsibility for
directing those activities children become skilful in their own right to
marshal and build their own scaffolding to enhance their learning (Claxton
& Carr, 2004).
Social integration is achieved when young
children with disabilities receive sufficient support to make social
connections with typically developing children. Thus, it is important to examine
the degree of social integration that occurs within inclusive early childhood
programs and the conditions under which social connections are made. Increased
understanding of the nature of play interactions of young children with
developmental disabilities in inclusive settings can inform teacher education
and professional development about how the social competencies of children with
language and cognitive delays can be enhanced to increase social participation.
Two SEDUs were approached to identify focus
children with disabilities in their programs who were also attending regular
preschool programs. Criteria for identification of the children in the SEDU to
be included in this research project were: children had global developmental
delays (likely to be children with diagnoses of II, ASD and SLI); without any
sensory or physical impairments; and mild to severe levels of developmental
delay.
Four preschools that had children from SEDUs
attending were then approached and asked to participate in the project. The
preschool teachers negotiated relevant parental permissions for all children in
the program to also participate in the study. The final sample comprised 6
focus children who attended an SEDU and 79 children who did not participate in
any special education program. In three preschools, there was one focus child
with a disability. In the fourth preschool, there were three focus children
attending, including two siblings.
Preschools in Queensland provide play-based
programs in the year before children enter Year 1 of primary school. Children
attend preschool in the year that they have their fifth birthday. Preschools
offer a part-time and non-compulsory program - either with sessional programs
(usually of 3 hours) on five days per week or whole day programs (usually 6
hours) for five days per fortnight. Preschool programs are staffed by a
qualified teacher, with a degree in early childhood education and a teacher
aide who may hold a certificate level qualification as a teaching assistant.
Preschools usually provide extended periods for
free play activities, indoor and outdoor, during the daily program. Preschools
in this study typically had indoor activity centers which included an area with
props for dramatic play (e.g., home corner); areas for sensory play (e.g., play
doh, clay, collage, painting); areas with construction materials (e.g., blocks
or lego); and a book corner and activity areas for accessing writing or drawing
materials. In the outdoor play area, there are usually areas for sand and water
play, as well as fixed and moveable structures for gross motor activities
(e.g., climbing, sliding, and an obstacle course).
For the total sample of 85 children
participating across the 4 preschools, the mean age was 60.2 months (SD -
4.38). This sample represented at least 85% of the children within each
preschool group. This is an acceptable group participation rate for the use of
the sociometric procedure as used in the study. The sample included 36 boys and
49 girls. The 6 focus children (3 boys, 3 girls) had mild to severe
developmental delays and diagnosed disabilities of SLI, ASD and II were
confirmed by the SEDU. In three preschools, there was 1 focus child, and, in
the fourth preschool, there were 3 focus children, including 2 siblings. This
latter situation was not viewed as a difficulty for the study focus since many
preschools frequently have a number of children with disabilities included and,
therefore, is more typical of an inclusive setting. In actuality, this
situation revealed some interesting outcomes related to the research objectives.
Descriptive information about the focus children is presented in Table
1.
_______________________________
Insert Table 1 here
_______________________________
Data were collected for all participating
children through individual sociometric interviews, teacher ratings of
childrenŐs social competence, and observations of childrenŐs social and play
activities during free play sessions. The data was collected late in the
preschool year in order to ensure that the focus children were familiar with
the setting, peers and teachers, as well to ensure that the typically
developing peers were also familiar with the focus children.
Sociometric interviews were conducted with all
participating children to measure childrenŐs social status. Social status is
the level of peer acceptance of a child within the peer group. A child's status
was assessed using a sociometric technique that requires children to state
their preference for other children according to specific characteristics, such
as how much they like to play with another child. The advantage of sociometric
measures is that they are peer reports, as opposed to parent or teacher ratings
of social acceptance, and thus provide information about a child's status from
the viewpoint of their peers. In the present study, sociometric data were
collected using a three-point play rating scale. Children were asked to rate
each other child in the group according to how much they liked to play with
them. Sociometric rating scales
are reliable and valid measures of peer acceptance with preschool-aged children
(Asher & Hymel, 1981; Olson & Lifgren, 1988; Maassen, van Boxtel, &
Goossens, & Bokhorst, 2005; Wasik, 1987). The use of rating scales to rate
each other child also enabled reciprocal friendships to be identified.
Prior to commencing the sociometric interviews,
a photograph was taken of each child in the preschool group for whom parental
permission had been obtained for participation. The use of photographs
increases the reliability of the sociometric measure for preschool-aged
children (Asher & Hymel, 1981). Although the prime purpose in the use of
the measure was to gauge the level of peer acceptance of the focus children by
the other children in the preschool group, the focus children participated. The
experienced research assistant who administered the sociometric measure
considered that, through the use of the procedure to teach children about the
task (described in the next paragraph), the focus children did understand the
intent of the task and completed it successfully.
In the present study, plastic models of a
variety of fruit (e.g., apple, banana, lemon) were used to teach children how
to rate their preferences. Children were prompted to sort the presented food
models into one of three boxes representing ŇI like this a lotÓ, ŇI like this a
little bit or sometimesÓ and ŇI donŐt like this very muchÓ. Once children demonstrated that they
understood the task, photographs of each of the childrenŐs classmates were
presented in turn and children were asked to post the photograph into one of
three boxes representing ŇI like to play with this child a lotÓ, ŇI like to
play with this child a little bit or sometimesÓ and ŇI donŐt like to play with
this childÓ. A score from 1 (ŇI donŐt like to play with this childÓ) to 3 (ŇI
like to play with this child a lotÓ) was assigned to each box.
For each child an average (mean) play rating
was computed from the peer ratings across their preschool group. From this mean play rating, social
status categorizations of popular, average and unpopular could be determined.
The raw scores for the children within each preschool group were standardized
in order to remove the effects for group size variations. A child with a high
score, defined as a z score of at least +1.0, was classified as popular. A
child with a low score, defined as a z score of -1.0 or lower, was classified
as unpopular. Children with z scores between -1.0 and +1.0 were classified as
average.
Focus childrenŐs social competence was measured
by teacher report using the Profile of Peer Relations. This inventory is used to assess childrenŐs
typical social and play behaviors with their peers (Walker, Irving &
Berthelsen, 2002; Walker, 2005). Teachers were asked to rate the competence of
children on the identified social and play behaviors. The items assess the
frequency of positive and negative play behaviors; strategies used by children
when attempting to gain entry into the play of other children; involvement in
conflict situations; and use of conflict resolution strategies. There are 23
items on the inventory. Ratings are made on a four-point scale with a range of
1 (rarely) to 4 (almost always). There are three scales derived from factor
analyses on the inventory. These are called Prosocial Behavior (8 items); Aggressive Behavior (9 items); and Withdrawn Behavior (6 items). Item ratings are summed and mean
scores are derived for each scale.
Observations of social and play activities were
made in each preschool for 4 free play periods, each of 1 hour in duration,
across a period of 2 to 3 weeks. Observations were made of all children for
whom parental permission had been given who were present in the preschool group
on each occasion. A time sampling technique was used to record each childŐs
social and play activities at 5 minute intervals in each observation session.
Observations of all children in the group were possible by using a location
plan of the physical environment, for indoors and outdoors, and noting
additional activities set up in the indoor and outdoor environment on any day,
prior to beginning the time-sample observations. The observer then was able to
systematically observe each area of the indoor or outdoor environment using a
rotational system to observe each location in the preschool environment and the
activities of each child at any location within the 5 minute time blocks. A
similar observational procedure has been used by Hestenes and Carroll (2000).
The research assistant had completed the sociometric procedure with each child
prior to the observations, and completed the observation sessions in each
preschool on a sequential basis, so she could readily identify each child in
the group during the observation sessions.
The observational categories focused on two
dimensions of the childrenŐs engagement in play activities and recorded at each
interval. The categorization scheme was adapted from that used by Hestenes and
Carroll (2000). The observational dimensions are Social Engagement and Play Activities. The Social Engagement categories used in this study were titled cooperative
play, social conversation, parallel play, onlooker play, solitary play,
transition between activities, unoccupied, and teacher interactions. The Play
Activities categories were
pretend play, sensory play, construction play, literacy activities, gross motor
play, and functional play. These categories are defined in Table 2.
_______________________________
Insert Table 2 here
______________________________
The observational schema encompassed both more
complex behaviors and low demand behaviors that require different levels of
communicative and cognitive competence (Nabors et al., 1999). For social
engagement, cooperative play and social conversation could be considered of
higher demand because language between peers is required to sustain
interactions. Lower social demand categories were parallel, onlooker and
unoccupied play. For solitary behavior, the level of cognitive demand in a
problem-solving task (e.g., completing a puzzle) may be high so no assumptions
were made about the level of demand. For play activities, pretend play was
considered of higher demand and functional activities were considered as low
demand. There were no assumptions made about the level of cognitive demand for
transition between activities, teacher interaction, or the other play
categories. It also cannot be assumed that children will engage in high demand
social and cognitive activities at all times. The level of social engagement
and complexity in the nature of the play in which children engage may vary
considerably across any play period. However, it was expected that the focus
children with developmental disabilities would spend less time in social and
play activities that placed higher demand on their social and cognitive
competencies.
Across the 4 observation sessions, the number
of observations per focus child ranged from 36 to 44 with a mean number of
observations per child of 40. Prior to the start of the observational sessions,
the research assistant and one researcher in the study trialed the
observational system in a preschool not included in the research and reviewed
the categories through discussion after observational sessions to arrive at a
final version of the observational measure. Within the main study, the same
researcher and the research assistant independently used the observational
system for 10% of the total observations obtained in the study. Inter-observer
agreement for categorizing the behaviors on each dimension for the observation
sessions in which two observers participated averaged 80.47% agreement. The
data collection was completed by 1 research assistant. She was a qualified
early childhood teacher and she had previous experience in observational
research in early childhood settings.
In this section, comparisons between the
typically developing group and the focus group of children with disabilities
are made on the various measures.
The level of social competence of the children
was based on teacher reports from the Profile of Peer Relations. Data from teacher ratings were available for
80 children in the study. ChildrenŐs scores were derived for prosocial,
aggressive and withdrawn behaviors. A comparison of means on each factor scale
for the focus children and typically developing children indicated that, as a
group, the focus children were rated as less likely to engage in prosocial
behavior; more likely to engage in aggressive behavior; and more likely to
engage in withdrawn behaviors than typically developing children.
Non-parametric tests of significance
(Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.05,
two-tailed) were used to test for differences on the mean scale scores between
the groups of typically developing peers and the group of focus children with
disabilities. Non-parametric tests require no assumptions to be met about the
distribution of scores; involve rank ordering to minimize the possible effects
of outliers; and differences in sample size between the groups can be
accommodated (Siegel, 1956). The findings from the tests of significance
between the groups are, strictly speaking, not generalizable to any specific
larger population which is possible when inferential statistics are used.
However, given the manner of recruitment the findings may not be dissimilar to
those that would be found with comparable samples of children in similar early
childhood settings.
The results from the non-parametric tests,
found significant differences between the two groups for all 3 scales on the
social competence measure. Focus group children were less socially competent by
teacher report for prosocial behavior (Mann-Whitney U = 68.00, p = 0.017), more aggressive (Mann-Whitney U = 37.50, p
= 0.002), and more likely to
be withdrawn (Mann-Whitney U = 74, p = .023). Means and standard deviations for each of
these subscales and the results of the tests of significance for group
differences are presented in Table 3. Therefore, from the teacher ratings, the
children with disabilities in this study were identified as less socially
competent then their typically developing peers.
_______________________________
Insert Table 3 here
_______________________________
The proportion of the number of observations in
which each child was observed to be engaged in each type of social engagement
to the total number of observations for social engagement for that child was
calculated. There was wide variation in the nature of childrenŐs social
engagement. In Table 4, the proportions for each category for focus children
and typically developing children are presented. As discussed in the previous
section, non-parametric tests of significance (Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.05, two-tailed) were used to test for proportional
differences between the groups on each social engagement category. There were
no significant differences between groups on any category. While these results
must be considered with caution because of the differences in the sizes of the
groups compared, they indicate that the focus children were able to participate
socially in the preschool settings with comparable engagement levels to
typically developing children across all categories of social behavior.
_______________________________
Insert Table 4 here
_______________________________
The proportional frequency for the number of
observations in which each child was observed to be engaged in each type of
play activity to the total number of observations made for play activities was
calculated. Observations made of childrenŐs play, in part, reflected the level
of complexity of the play, pretend play was considered of higher demand because
language between peers was required in such play interactions. Functional play
was considered of low cognitive demand. In all other categories, there may be
more of less cognitive demand and complexity. As for the observations of social
engagement, there was considerable variation in the proportional frequencies in
which children engaged in different activities within, and across, the groups.
In Table 5, proportional differences for the nature of play are presented. The
differences between the proportions were tested using the non-parametric test,
Mann-Whitney U. There were no significant differences between the groups on the
proportion of time that children engaged in any of the play activities. This
indicates that all the focus children were capable of engagement in the various
levels of play.
_______________________________
Insert Table 5 here
_______________________________
A current theme in education is Ôlearning how
to learnŐ. Inclusion in integrated settings can afford such opportunities to
children with developmental disabilities. Using a social constructivist
perspective can lead to increased professional understanding of how the
learning of young children with developmental disabilities can be facilitated
in inclusive settings. Previous research has indicated that young children with
disabilities are often socially isolated or excluded within inclusive early
childhood settings (Guralnick et al., 2006). The present study explored this
proposition in Australian preschool settings. While overall, the focus children
had fewer reciprocal friendships than the typically developing children, there
was enough evidence to support the impression that the focus children were
capable of more extensive and productive social engagement than the programs,
in general, afforded.
While the sample size of focus children was
small, nevertheless there was evidence of their social acceptance by peers.
This is in contrast to Guralnick and Groom (1988) who reported that preschool
children with even mild developmental delays were isolated within
ŇmainstreamedÓ programs and rarely formed reciprocal friendships. However, the
findings in this study are in line with Hestenes and Carroll (2000) who in an
observational study found that typically developing children spent less time
interacting with children with disabilities than might be expected given the
proportion of children with and without disabilities in the preschool
classrooms. While the focus children in the present study all had at least one
reciprocal friendship, it is worth noting that several of these friendships
were formed with other children who might also be experiencing social
difficulties or who also had a developmental disability. Guralnick (1996)
suggested that the formation of a reciprocal friendship is both socially and
cognitively demanding and highly dependent on childrenŐs overall peer-related
social competence. Our findings suggest that, in the absence of appropriate
intervention, children will be unlikely to develop the skills required to
enable them to sustain reciprocal friendships with their typically developing
peers.
As a group, compared to their typically
developing peers, children with developmental disabilities in this study were
rated by their teachers as more likely to engage in aggressive and withdrawn
behaviors and less likely to engage in prosocial behaviors. Broadhead (2001,
2006) noted that, for social engagement, children need to draw simultaneously
on skills in a number of areas including initiating and sustaining
interactions, successfully entering play, and developing a shared sense of
direction and goal orientation. For positive social interactions to occur,
children must have the skills not only to engage in cooperative behaviors but
also to enter play groups and maintain play (Guralnick, 2001). Mahoney,
Robinson, and Powell (1992) found that children with disabilities were more
likely to initiate play activities with their peers in programs where adults
were responsive and child-centered in their practice than in programs that were
teacher-directed and oriented to direct instruction. Yoder, Kaiser, and Alpert
(1991) also found that child-centered teaching practices resulted in greater
gains in communication skills for children with severe disabilities than did
direct instruction.
A childŐs learning is not a straight forward
progression from sociability to cooperation in learning through reciprocal and
cognitive engagement with peers. Progress in learning for the child can be
enhanced or impeded by what teachers understand about young childrenŐs
capacities for learning and the quality of play opportunities afforded to them
to engage with others. Through scaffolding, teachers can help to build
relationships with peers to nurture reciprocity and sustain interactions.
Progress in learning for young children with disabilities can arise from two
sources, from within the child and beyond the child. A key factor in drawing
these two sources together is the quality of the teacherŐs knowledge, thinking
and decision-making (Bennett, Wood & Rogers, 1997) and the teacherŐs
capacity to take advantage of the teachable moment (Brown et al., 2001) which
provides the scaffolding needed for learning.
The key elements in a social constructivist
approach is the emphasis on the value of culturally relevant social activities
and the recognition of the contributions that individuals make to their own
learning. It underscores the important role of teaching for cognitive
development. Social constructivism can inform effective practices that are
applicable to the broad range of abilities of children who participate in
inclusive classrooms. The teaching strategies employed can be driven by common
principles. Mallory and New (1994) identify the following principles: the
inclusive classroom functions as a community of learners to accommodate and
value everyone; children with developmental disabilities require direct
instruction on the part of adults so that they acquire functional competence in
specific skills; social relationships are the catalyst for learning so that
materials and activities provide all young children with opportunities for
cooperative play that can accommodate different levels of competencies; and
children are provided with opportunities to play together in activities that
reflect their interests which, in turn, motivate them to engage in cooperative
play.
Social communication is the basis on which an
integrated teaching-learning process can take place. The pedagogical
implications of social constructivist theories are that teachers need to pay
close attention to the learner, the nature of the tasks in which children
engage; and to their own role in supporting learning (Wood & Bennett,
1999). Teachers have a responsibility to set the scene, to orchestrate the
resources and activities in a way that creates an inviting and potentiating
environment for all of the children (Claxton & Carr, 2004). If
collaboration is the goal then teachers can arrange situations for engagement
as necessary. Teachers can scaffold childrenŐs learning trajectories and direct
childrenŐs attention toward aspects of situations that are judged to be
important. A social constructivist perspective entails a view that teachers
have a responsibility for understanding the nature and level of each childŐs
learning and to use that knowledge to construct their practices in a way that
is relevant for particular children in particular contexts. Such a perspective
can inform practices for inclusion that are based on a very dynamic model of
childrenŐs learning.
Asher, S. R. (1990). Recent advances in the study of peer rejection. In
Asher, S. R. & Coie, J. D. (Eds.), Peer rejection in early childhood, (pp. 3-14). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Asher, S. R. & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social competence and
peer relations: Sociometric and
behavioral assessment. In J.D. Wine & M.D. Smye (Eds.), Social
competence, (pp. 125-127). New
York: Guildford.
Bennett, N., Wood, E., & Rogers, S. (1997). Teaching through
play. TeachersŐ thinking and classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship
and childrenŐs early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61 -79.
Bricker, D. D., & Cripe, J. J. (1992). An activity-based approach
to early intervention.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Broadhead, P. (2001). Investigating sociability and cooperation in four
and five year olds in reception class settings. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 9 (1), 24 – 35.
Broadhead, P. (2006). Developing an understanding of young childrenŐs
learning through play: The place of observation, interaction and reflection. British
Educational Research Journal, 32
(2), 191 – 207.
Brown, W. H., Odom. S. L., & Conroy, M. A. (2001). An intervention
hierarchy for promoting young childrenŐs peer interactions in natural
environments. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21 (3), 162 – 175
Claxton, G., & Carr, M. (2004). A framework for teaching learning:
The dynamics of disposition. Early Years, 24 (1), 87 -97
Guralnick, M. J. (1999). The nature and meaning of social integration of
young children with mild developmental delays in inclusive settings. Journal
of Early Intervention, 22 (1),
70-86.
Guralnick, M. J. (2000). Early childhood intervention. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15 (2), 68-80.
Guralnick, M. J. (2002). Involvement with peers: Comparisons between young
children with and without DownŐs syndrome. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 46 (5),
379-393.
Guralnick, M. J. (2005). Early intervention for children with
intellectual disabilities: Current knowledge and future prospects. Journal
of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 18, 313-324.
Guralnick, M. (n.d.). Assessment of Peer Relations. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington,
Center on Human Development and Disability.
Guralnick, M. J., Connor, R. T., Hammond, M., Gottman, J. M. &
Kinnish, K. (1996). Immediate
effects of mainstreamed settings on the social interactions and social
integration of preschool children. American Journal on Mental Retardation,
100 (4), 359-377.
Guralnick, M. J. & Groom, J. M. (1988). Friendships of preschool
children in mainstreamed playgroups. Developmental Psychology, 24, 595-604.
Guralnick, M. J., Hammond, M. A., Connor, R. T., & Neville, B.
(2006). Stability, change, and correlates of the peer relationships of young
children with mild developmental delays. Child Development, 77 (2), 312 – 324.
Hestenes, L. L & Carroll, D. E. (2000). The play interactions of young children with and without
disabilities: Individual and
environmental influences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (2), 229-246.
Howes, C. (1988). Peer interaction of young children. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 53 (1, Serial No. 217).
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Wilson, V. (2001). Further evidence
of the developmental significance of the teacher-student relationship. Journal
of School Psychology, 39, 289
– 302.
Maassen, G. H., van Boxtel, H. W., & Goossens, F. A.. (2005).
Reliability of nominations and two-dimensional rating scale methods for
sociometric status determination. Applied Developmental psychology, 26, 51 - 68.
Mahoney, G., Robinson, C. & Powell, A. (1992). Focusing on
parent-child interaction: The bridge to developmentally appropriate practices. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education 12 (1), 105-120.
Mallory, B. L. & New, R. (1994). Social constructivist theory and
principles of inclusion: Challenges for early childhood special education. Journal
of Special Education, 28 (3),
332 – 337.
Malmskog, S. & McDonnell, A. P. (1999). Teacher mediated facilitation of engagement by children with
developmental delays in inclusive preschools. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 19 (4),
203-216.
Nabors, L., Willoughby, J. & Badawi, M. A. (1999). Relations between
activities and cooperative playground interactions for preschool-age children
with special needs. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11 (4), 339-352.
Olson, S. L., & Lifgren, K. (1988). Concurrent and longitudinal
correlates of preschool peer sociometrics: comparing rating scale and
nomination measure. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9, 409 – 420.
Palinscar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching
and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345 -375.
Penn, H. (2005). Understanding early childhood: Issue and
controversies. Maidenhead,
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rubin, K H. & Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Social withdrawal,
inhibition and shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rubin, K. H. & Krasnor, L. R. (1992). Interpersonal problem solving
and social competence in children. in V. B. Hasset & M. Herson (Eds.), Handbook
of social development: A lifespan perspective, (pp. 283-324). New York: Plenum Press.
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics from the behavioral
sciences. McGraw Hill. Sydney.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
mental processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1933)
Walker, S. (2005) Gender differences in the relationship between young
children's peer-related social competence and individual differences in theory
of mind. Journal of Genetic Psychology 166 (3), 297-312.
Walker, S., Irving, K. & Berthelsen, D. (2002). Gender influences on
preschool childrenŐs social problem solving strategies. Journal of Genetic
Psychology 163 (2), 197-210.
Wasik, B. H. (1987). Sociometric measures and peer descriptors of
kindergarten children: A study of reliability and validity. Journal of
clinical Child Psychology, 16 (3),
218 – 224.
Wood, E. & Bennett, N. (1999). Progression and continuity in early
childhood education: Tensions and contradiction. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 7 (1),
5 -16.
Yoder, P.J., Kaiser, A. P. & Alpert, C. L. (1991).
An exploratory study of the interaction between language teaching methods and
child characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 155 - 167.
Table 1. Children with
Disabilities: Gender, Age and Description of Disability
|
Focus children |
Gender |
Age (months) |
Description of Disability |
|
Kassie |
Female |
72 |
Severe Speech and Language Impairment |
|
Amy |
Female |
77 |
Down Syndrome |
|
Gary |
Male |
70 |
Autistic Spectrum Disorder |
|
Kelly |
Female |
60 |
Down Syndrome |
|
Mark |
Male |
64 |
Speech and Language Impairment |
|
Liam |
Male |
60 |
Speech and Language Impairment |
Table 2. Description of
Observational Coding Categories
|
Category |
Description |
|
Social Engagement |
|
|
Cooperative play |
Child is actively engaged in play with others
with reciprocal verbal and non-verbal interactions for sustained periods. |
|
Social conversation |
Child engages in conversational turn taking
for at least 10 seconds. |
|
Parallel play |
Child is engaged in play close to others who
have similar activities but is not interacting. |
|
Onlooker play |
Children are watching activities of othersŐ
without interaction. |
|
Solitary play |
Child is engaged with materials but not with
other children. |
|
Transitions |
Child is moving between activities. |
|
Unoccupied |
Child is alone and not actively engaged. |
|
Teacher interaction |
Child is interacting with an adult in the
setting. |
|
Play activities |
|
|
Pretend play |
Pretend activities with props including
dramatic role-play. |
|
Sensory play |
Play with materials, such as dough, paint,
water and sand. |
|
Construction play |
Play with manipulative materials, such as
blocks and puzzles. |
|
Literacy activities |
Activities with writing, numbers/letters
games, including looking at books. |
|
Gross motor activities |
Large motor activities with fixed or moveable
equipment, including obstacle courses, balls and bicycles. |
|
Functional activities |
Child uses simple repetitive movements with
or without objects. |
Table 3. Profile of Peer
Relations: Means, standard
deviations, and significance of group differences
|
Social competences scales |
Focus Children (n = 5) |
Typically developing children (n = 75) |
Mann-Whitney U |
|||
|
|
M |
SD |
M |
SD |
U |
p |
|
Prosocial |
2.31 |
.44 |
3.01 |
.61 |
68.00 |
.017 |
|
Aggressive |
2.16 |
.28 |
1.34 |
.50 |
37.50 |
.002 |
|
Withdrawn |
1.94 |
.26 |
1.60 |
.46 |
74.00 |
.023. |
Table 4. Social engagement:
Means, standard deviations and significance of group differences
|
Social engagement |
Focus Children (n = 6) |
Typically Developing Children (n = 78) |
Mann-Whitney U |
|
|||||
|
|
M |
SD |
M |
SD |
U |
p |
|
||
|
Cooperative play |
20.89 |
9.78 |
24.97 |
16.56 |
216.00 |
.755 |
|
||
|
Social conversation |
23.47 |
3.65 |
25.83 |
10.76 |
195.00 |
.498 |
|||
|
Parallel play |
22.10 |
11.67 |
28.43 |
16.03 |
177.00 |
.322 |
|
||
|
Onlooker play |
4.82 |
5.51 |
4.04 |
5.06 |
222.50 |
.836 |
|||
|
Solitary play |
9.24 |
7.03 |
5.18 |
5.56 |
149.00 |
.135 |
|
||
|
Transitions |
2.94 |
2.97 |
3.10 |
4.02 |
221.50 |
.817 |
|||
|
Unoccupied |
3.98 |
3.79 |
3.57 |
5.85 |
185.00 |
.345 |
|||
|
Teacher interaction |
17.05 |
10.19 |
11.88 |
9.47 |
149.00 |
.139 |
|||