Coping and Children with Disabilities · Coping and Children with Disabilities III Des stratégies d'adaptation pour des enfants à déficience intellectuelle dans des classes régulière

Coping and Children with Disabilities

Coping strategies of children with an intellectual disability in regular and special classrooms

Karen Cohen Gazith

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology McGill University, Montreal, Canada

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfilrnent of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in Educational Psychology

August 28,1996

Running head: Coping and Children with Disabilities

National Library 1+1 of,,a Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington OttawaON KiAON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada

Your fia Votre referencr,

Our file Notre retefence

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of ths thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de

reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othemise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

. . Coping and Children with Disabilities u

Coping strategies of children with an intellectual disability in regular and special classrooms

Abstract

Adaptive coping behaviors of children with a mild to moderate intellectual disability educated in regular and special classrooms were examined usùig a comparative design incorpodng both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Children's coping behaviors were examined using the Coping Inventos, (Zeitlin, 1985) and their behavior was assessed using the Child Behavior Checkfisr (Achenbach, 199 1). Children with an intellectual disability integrated in regular classrooms were found not to exhibit more adaptive coping behaviors than their counterparts in special classrooms. Descriptive analyses delineated several factors within both environments that influence child.ents coping efforts such as dependency on adults, extemal control, the quality of instruction, the social organization of the classroom, and the lack of direct instruction in developing children's adaptive coping efforts. Recommendations from the current study focus on the need for children with an intellectual disability to be provided with direct instruction of adaptive coping behaviors and facilitated o p p o d t i e s to learn through trial and error in order to become more autonomous copers.

. . . Coping and Children with Disabilities I I I

Des stratégies d'adaptation pour des enfants à déficience intellectuelle dans des classes régulière ou spécialisée.

Résumé

Des enfants en difficulté d'apprentissage avec un comportement d'adaptation adaptif. ayant une incapacité mentale légère ou modéré et qui reçoivent leur formation pédagogique dans une classe régulière ou spéciale. ont été soumis à des tests comparatifs utilisant des analyses quantitative et analytique. Leur comportement d'adaptation a été examiné en utilisant le "Coping Inventory" (Zeitlin. 1985), et le "Child Behavior Checklist" (Achenbach, 199 1 ). Les enfants ayant une incapacité intellectuelle et intégrés dans une classe régulière n'ont démontré aucune différence dans leur cornportment d'adaptation par rapport à ceux dans une classe spécialisée. Des analyses descriptives ont dépeints plusieurs facteurs a l'intérieur de classes régulières et spécialisées qui influencent les efforts de ces enfants à se libéres de leur dépendance envers les adultes. du contrde extérieur et du manque de direction dans le développement d'un comportement adaptif. La présente étude recommande que les enfants ayant une incapacité intellectuelie reçoivent un enseignement spécifique partant sur les comportement d'adaptation ainsi que des experiences d'apprentissage qui incluent les procédés essai et erreur afin de les rendre plus autonomes.

Coping and Children with Disabilities iv

1 would like to express my appreciation to those individuals who have been instmental in îhe completion of this doctoral dissertation.

First, 1 would like to express my appreciation to Dr. JefEey Derevensky who is not only committed to a standard of excellence, but who is also committed to providing students with the academic guidance needed to meet this very challenging endeavor.

1 would also like to thank Dr. Evelyn Lusthaus whom I have always admired for her compassion, sincerity and insights in her professional and personal endeavon. Your on-going guidance was invaluable. Mary Maguire, you assisted me in the very complex domain of qualitative research and 1 thank you. 1 would also like to thank Mike Hoover whose expert advice was critical to the completion of this research project, Julie Brennan who was most helpful as a research assistant, and Diane Bernier for translating the abstract into French.

I am also grateM to my family and fnends for their constant support: my husband Tsafrir Gazith, rny two children Benjamin and Adam, and my dear fiiends whose names I will not mention in fear of leaving someone out. This research was funded by Fonds Pour La Formation De Chercheurs Et L'Aide A La Recherche and by the Scomsh Rite Foundation of the Roeher Institute.

I would like to express my gratitude to the administrators, teachers, and psychologists who allowed me to corne into their schools and classrooms and were most gracious. Thank you to dl the children who were equally welcoming and hospitable.

Finally, this research project is written in loving mernov of my mother Dena Cohen who instilled in her children the value of education. More important, she exemplified caring, compassion, and acceptance of others in al1 that she did, and for that 1 ttiank her.

Coping and Children with Disabilities v

Coping Strategies of Children with an InteUectual Disability in Regular and Special Classrooms

Chapter 1 . Introduction . . . .

Chapter 2 . Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CopingBehavior 5

D e f ~ t i o n s of Coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Stress and Coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Processes Involved in Coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factors Related to Coping 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persona1 and Social Factors in Coping 11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived Control and Coping 13

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coping and Children with an Inteliechial Disability 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coping Studies 16

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coping and Adaptive Behavior 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modelling, Social Relationships. and Cophg 21

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surnmary and Research Questions 24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 3 . Methodology 27 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Children in Regdar Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Children in Special Classes 29

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quantitative Methods 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measures and Instruments 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coping Effort: Coping Lnventory 30

Behavior Problems: Child Behavior Checklist . . . . . . . . . 31 IQ: Kaufrilan Brief Intelligence Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Demographic Variables: Parent Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 33

Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Chiidren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teachers 33 Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Qualitative Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Student Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Coping and Children with Disabilities vi

Teacher and Teacher Assistant Observations . . . . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom Observations 37

Role of Researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Document Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Reliabiliv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 4: Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Effectiveness of Children's Coping EfTorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Differences Withui Categones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Differences Between Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Personal Variables and Coping Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Characteristics of Good and Poor Copers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

EffectiveCopers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Ann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Neil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Nicholas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

IneffectiveCopers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Liane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Cathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Annie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Coping Efforts of Children in Regular and Special Classroorns . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group DifEerences W i h n Categories 54

Group Differences Between Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom Practices and Children's Coping Efforts 59

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of the Teacher Assistant 59 External Control of the Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Content of the Cuniculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Engaged Time of Shidents with the Cmiculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Opportunity to lnteract with Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opportunity to Develop Independence 70 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 5: Discussion 75 Effectiveness of Children's Coping Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persona1 Variables and Coping Behavior 80

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Good and Poor Copers 81 Coping Efforts of Children in Regular and Special Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Coping and Children with Disabilities tii

Classroom Practices and Children's Coping Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RoIe of the Teacher Assistant 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extemal Control of the Teacher 88

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Content of the Curriculum 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engaged Tirne with the Curriculum 90

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opporhullty to Interact with Peers 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opportunity to Develop Independence 91

Chapter 6 . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Educational Lmplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Future Research and Limitations of the Current Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 OnginalContributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A: Operational Definitions Used in Coping Inventory 109

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B: Field Note Reference 1 1 1 Appendix C: Typical Physical Configurations in Regular and Special Classrooms . . 112

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D: Sample Teacher InteMew 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix E: Key Words for Interpretation 115

Tables Table 1: Characteristics of Subjects in R e g d u and Special Cllissroom Groups . . . . . 28

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2: Quantitative Measures Under Investigation 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3: Qualitative Components and Rationales 3G

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4: Coping Levels for Children Across Groups 42 Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations for Coping Subscales and Bipolar

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimension Scores Across Groups 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6 Correlations Among the Variables for Al1 Children 46

Table 7: Means and Standard DeMations for Cophg Subscale and Bipolar . . . . . . . . . . . Dimension Scores for Regular and Special Classroom Groups 55

Coping and Children with Yisabilities viii

Figures Figure 1 : Category Scores for Children in Regular and Special Classroom Groups . . 58 Figure 2: Category and Dimension Scores for Children in the Regdar and

Special Class Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Coping and Children with Disabilities 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The ability to generate and use successful coping strategies and the

irnplementation of such strategies in the management of interpersonal and academic skills

is cntical for the development of a well adjusted person (Zeitlin, 1 985). While

researchen examining the constnict of coping have d e h e d it in several ways, there exists

much consensus in the literature with respect to the overail conceptualization of coping

behavior. Coping is a process by which individuals use the resources available to them to

help them adapt to threatening or potentially gratifjmg events in their life (Wayment &

Zetlin, 1989).

Nonhandicapped children usually acquire coping strategies and skilis naturally as

they develop. These children acquire a repertoire of coping strategies that enables them

to deal effectively with diverse situations (Zeitlin & Williamson, 1990). Children with

cognitive deficits, however, have difficulty developing successful coping behaviors

because their problem solving abilities, critical to the development of adaptive behaviors,

are resûicted limited (Zeitlin, 1985). They often require direct instruction in

attaining adaptive behavior and social skills because they experience difficulty in

psychosocial development and social adjustment (Kamann & Won& 1993; Lewis &

Doorlag, 1995; Snell, 1983; Winzer, 1990).

Researchers in the area of adaptive behaviors of children with an intellechial


disability have outlined certain deficiencies in the children's ability to use a variety of

strategies and shifi plans according to specific situations (Kamann & Won& 1993;

Zeitlin, 1985; Zeitlin & Williamson, 1990). These chiidren tend to be restricted by the

limited number of strategies within their behavioral and cognitive repertoire and often use

passive rather than active strategies when confkonted with a difncult situation (Brinker &

Lewis, 1982; Wayment & Zetlin, 1989). This lack of flexibility and adaptability

subsequently impedes their coping efforts and leaves them highly vulnerable to

developing maladaptive behaviors (Calhoun & Beattie, 1987).

A variety of coping strategies employed by nonhandicapped children and adults

has been delineated in previous research (Lazarus & Folkman 1984; Murphy & Moriarty,

1976; Zeitlin, 1985). Researchers have suggested that these strategies are highly

dependent upon situational, environmental, and personal variables (Altshuler & Ruble,

1989; Gunnar 1987; Rothbaum, 1979). However, studies investigating the relationship

between various educational environments and children's ability to cope successfully

w i t h those environments are limited.

Researchers studying the development of children who have an intellectual

disability have also indicated ba t educational environments affect the children's

development (Lewis & Doorlag, 1995; Snell, 1983; Stainback & Stainback, 1990). Many

researchen have suggested that integrated classrooms, in which children widi an

intellectual disability l e m with nonhandicapped children in the same classroom, may

facilitate children's attainment of successful social and problem solving skills, through


modelling and exposure to successful skills employed by other children (Emmer.

Evextson, Clements, & Worsham, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Stainback &

Stainback, 1990; Towfighy-Hooshyar & Zingle, 1984). However, these researchen have

emphasized the necessity of implementing strategies that enhance leamhg and social

interaction within the integrated environment. In order for children with an intellechial

disability to mode1 behaviors of their nondisabled peers and to cope with the demands of

an integrated environment, fundamental practices of inclusive education must be

incorporated within the fabric of the classroom (Alper, 1996; Biklen, 1985; Myles &

Simpson, 1989; Thomas-Chase, Correa, & Voelker-Morsink, 1995; Udvari-Solner &

Thousand, 1995). These practices include: (a) adaptation of curriculum to meet

individual needs,

(b) the use of effective teaching strategies, (c) collaboration between teachers and teacher

assistants, (d) a collaborative leaming environment, and (e) the implementation and

facilitation of strategies to encourage peer relationships between children with an

intellectual disability and their nondisabled peen.

While much has been written about integrated education, very little is hown

about the relationship between the coping strategies employed by children with an

intellecnial disability and their integration into regular classroom environments. In light

of this, the present study examines the coping behavior of children with an intellectual

disability in regular and special education classrooms. The purpose of the shidy is to

increase our understanding of (a) how children with an inteilectual disability are coping

Coping and Chîldren with Disabilities 4

with everyday school events, (b) how their persona1 characteristics may be affecthg their

coping behavior, (c) how children who are "good" copen and "poor" copers ciiffer in their

coping efforts, (d) how effectively the children are coping in different educational

environments, and (e) how the environrnents may be enhancing or impeding the children's

development of effective coping strategies. The current study addresses these questions

using both qualitative and quantitative methods and analyses.


CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Coping Behavior

. . ewtions of Co=

Many definitions of coping have been delineated in the psychological literature.

According to Lazams, Averill and Opton (1970), this is a result of the word being used as

an intuitive term. For example, Zeitlin (1980) conceptualizes coping as "an active

adaptation process of using strategies to manage one's world" @. 139). Lazams and

Folkman (1984) are more specific in their definition of what constitutes coping behavior.

They suggest that coping behaviors are "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral

efforts to manage specific extemal and/or interna1 demands appraised as taxing or

exceeding the resources of the person" (p. 14 1). Despite various definitions, the key

concepts remain the same. Specifically, coping is a process whereby individuals use the

resources available to them to deal effectively with the events in their environment.

Coping behaviors have been differentiated according to (a) coping effort, (b)

coping flexibility, (c) coping function, (d) coping resources, (e) coping styles, and (f)

copiog responses (Compas, 1987). Coping efforts refer to effortfid versus noneffortful

foms of coping; this distinguishes between instinctual behaviors (refiexes) and deliberate

attempts to cope with stresson in the environment. Lazarus and Foikman (1984) have

argued that the coping paradigm should include only those behaviors that are deliberate,


therefore excluding instinctual behaviors that are beyond the individual's control. They

have drawn this distinction to limir the scope of behaviors that can be considered as

coping efforts. Further, they emphasized that al1 coping attempts to manage events in the

environment should be examine4 not only those that result in mastery. Conversely,

Murphy and Moriarity (1976) have examined a broader range of behaviors fiom reflexes

present at birth to automatized mastery of behaviors.

Fîexibility in coping is defmed as ones's ability to ascertain what coping strategies

to use under various situations. A critical dimension of coping outlined in the Coping

Inventory (Zeitlin, 1985), an instrument designed to rneasure adaptive coping, is the

dimension of flexibilitylrigidity. According to Zeitlh, what distinguishes effective

coping fiom poor coping is the ability to use a variety of coping strategies, and the ability

to shift strategies depending on situational demands.

Functions of coping relate to the intentions or goals of the individuai. FoUanan

and Lazams (1980) delineated two main functions of coping: (a) to act on the stressor

(e.g., reduce the stress) or (b) to regulate one's emotional state associated with the stressor

(e-g., to respond ca ldy in the face of a stressful event). The ability to distinguish

between ineffective and effective coping strategies, which are often situationdly

dependent, is of critical importance in the development of adaptive coping. This

construct relates to the flexibilitylngidity dimension in that individuals must possess the

flexibility needed to alter strategies according to the situation at hand. Individuals must

ascertain whether altering the problem will lead to effective resdts, or if it would be more


beneficiai to alter their emotional reaction to the problem.

Coping resources are particularly pertinent to the concept of coping. Coping

resources include those attitudes and skills that lead to successful resuits across varymg

situations. Specifically, these resources include attitudes about the self (e.g., self esteem,

ego strength), the world (e.g., belief in mastery), intellectual skills (e.g., cognitive

flexibility, problem solving skills, analyûc abilities, knowledge), and interpersonal skills

(e-g., communication skills, social cornpetence). Resources can be divided m e r into

social and psychological resources (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Socid resources consist

of social networks and social variables, whereas psychological resources are persona1

dispositions that aid or hinder adaptive coping.

Coping styles are conceptualized as the habitual ways of coping with an event.

They have been conceptualized dong the bipolar dimensions of activelpassive,

productive/nonproductive, and flexiblehigid (Zeitlin, 1985). Finally, coping responses

are the specific cognitive or behavioral actions, be they overt or covert, that are used to

adapt to the environment (Menaghan, 1983).

tress and C a

As with coping, stress has also acquired many definitions; hence, there is M e

confomiity (Lazams, 1966). îrior to the 1960fs, stress was the predominant term used to

refer to a threatening or potentially gratifylng event in an individual's life. However,

Lazarus (1966) contended that while stress is an inevitable human emotion, it is one's

utilization of coping mechanisms that influences adaptation to the environment.


niere is growing awareness of the many individual differences and situational

factors that influence the way in which individuals cope. Coping and seess are

interrelated in that the extent to which a situation is perceived as stressful is influenced by

both interna1 resources (e.g., strategies used to deal with stressfbl events) and extemal

resources (e.g.. the use of peers and adults to help the individual deal with the stressful

event). Children who have limited coping resources have particular difficulty coping

with stressful situations where adaptive coping efforts are required. According to Zeitlin

(1985), stressful situations generate three types of behaviors: (a) active coping behavion,

where new behaviors are at~empted and leamed; (b) perseveratory coping behaviors,

where only a narrow band of coping strategies are used, servuig to protect the child rather

that facilitate learnhg; and (c) ineffective coping behaviors, where behaviors are so

ineffective they result in total isolation fiom rational interactions.

ocesses Involved m C m

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) have emphasized the importance of examining the

processes that individuals go through in their attempts to cope with daily life events.

One important part of the coping process occurs when the individual judges a situation as

harrnful or benign (Lazarus et al., 1970). Initially, an individual appraises and assesses

the level of danger attributed to a particular situation. The three levels of appraisal are

primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, and reappraisal. Rimary appraisal is

conceptualized as the judgement that a particular situation may be harmful, beneficial, or

irrelevant. Secondary appraisal relates to the perception of the range of coping

Coping and CMdren with Disabilities

alternatives that can be employed in order to achieve mastery over a given situation.

Reappraisal occurs when there is a change in the original perception. Four basic

rnethodological stmtegies have been used to investigate the cognitive processes of

appraisal and reappraisd. These processes are direct manipulation, indirect manipulation,

inferences fkom self report data, and manipulation by the selection of dispositional factors

(Lazanis et al., 1970).

Another critical dimension of the coping process relates to how individuals make

the decision about how to direct their coping efforts. Lazams and F o h a n (1984) have

drawn an important distinction between two types of coping, one designed to alter the

stimuli causing the stress, and the other designed to regulate emotiond responses to the

problem. In order to employ adaptive coping strategies, it is criticai that individuals

appraise whether or not it is within their capability to alter the stimuli causing the stress

or whether it would be more effective to alter their emotional response to the problem.

The former is defined as problem focused coping and the latter as emotion focused

coping.

Problem focused strategies are similar to problem solWig strategies. These

strategies are often drected at defullng the problem, generating alternate solutions,

weighting the alternatives in terms of their costs and benefits, choosing among them, and

acting (Lazanis & Folkman, 1984).

Ernotion focused coping is employed when individuals perceive that a particular

situation cannot be altered; hence, they attempt to alter their perception of the situation.

Coping and Children with Disabilities 1 0

Strategies used to alter exnotional responses to specific situations include avoidance,

minimization, distancing, selective attention, positive cornparison, and wrestling positive

value fiom negative events (Lazanis & F o h ~ 1984). In some situations, emohon

focused strategies result in a change in the perception of the situation without changhg

the objective situation. This strategy is equivalent to reappraisal, where the threat is

diminished by changing the meaning of the situation.

The distinction between problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies is

important. In order for individuals to deal effectively with a stressful situation they must

ascertain whether or not the perceived stressfbl situation cm be altered. If the situation

can be altered (e-g., a student needing help to complete a mathematical equation) then

problem-focused coping would be an adaptive way of dealing with the stressful event.

However if the situation cannot be altered (e.g.. cancellation of school due to inclement

weather), then emotion-focused coping would be the most adaptive way to deal with the

situation.

Murphy and Moriarity (1976) identified a fiamework similar to that of Lazams

and Follanan (1984). They outlined two types of coping techniques. Coping 1 is

characterized by active problem solving and manipulation of resources and opportunities

to meet environmental demands. Coping II refers to the attainment of interna1

equilibrium for the maintenance of control durhg stressful events. The former is

analogous to problem-focused coping while the latter is similar to emotion-focused

coping.

Coping and Children 4 t h Disabilities 11

Factors Related to Coping

Perzpnal andSnçial Factors in Co-

The way in which individuals appraise life events is highly influenced by various

rnediatuig factors. These factors include personal and social resources, individual

differences, cognitive level, and age. In order to understand the process that individuals

go through in their attempt to cope with events, changes, and stressors in their

environment, it is important to obtain a clear understanding of the mediating variables

that interact with, and influence, various coping behaviors.

Personal and social resources have been identified as important variables in

helping individuals cope with daily events (Billings & MOOS, 198 1 ; Haan, 1977). Adults,

having greater resources than children, as well as superior skills at using their resources,

can use these resources to alleviate stress and assist them in their coping endeavors

(Chandler, 1982). Social support has been i d e n ~ e d as a crucial element in adult coping

efforts. Two dimensions of social support that are relevant to children's coping behaviors

are affective versus idonnational, and adult versus peer support (Altshuler & Ruble,

1989). Young children seek affective support by tuming to caretakers for reassurance,

becorning astute as to the usefùlness of adults as affective support systems. Parental

caregiving that is stable, warm, and responsive has been identified as critical in the

development of cornpetence in children (Gunnar, 1987). As children develop, they begin

to use more informational and peer type support systems in order to assist them in their

coping efforts (Altshuler & Ruble, 1989).


What is stressful for one individual is not necessarily stressfd for another; hence,

individual differences remain an important component in the examination of coping

behavion (Gunner, 1987; Lazanis & Folkman, 1984). Adaptive behaviors of individuals

with an hteuecnial disability have traditionally been identified as ineffective and

nonflexible; however, both inter- and intra-individual differences are prevalent for these

individuals, thus adding another dimension to the multitude of variables that may

influence their coping efforts.

The cognitive levels and ages of children also d u e n c e the ways in which they

cope with a stressful event. Metacognitive awareness (e.g., understandmg of a stresshl

event) and manipulation ( e g , awareness of the various ways of dealing with stressful

events) are important strategies in terms of adaptive coping behavior under different

situations. Because the task of determinhg which strategy will be most effective in

certain situations is particularly dificult for children, younger children tend to use

behavioral forms of coping, such as distraction or avoidance, as opposed to more

cognitive forms, such as problem solving (Roth & Cohen, 1986). Mischel and Mischel

(1983) examined the developrnent of metacognitive strategies, specifically those related

to self control behavior. TheK results indicated that with age, children becorne more

aware of when self control strategies are adaptive in meeting situational demands.

Many theories used to explain the stress coping paradigm are based upon adult

models of coping (Ryan- Wenger, 1992). With continued research addressing chldren's

coping behaviors, it is becoming increasingly evident that a coping paradigm specific to

Coping and CMdren with Disabilities 1 3

c hildren remains critical for three basic reasons: (a) children's stressors are significantly

different fiom those of ad&, (b) the stresson experienced by children are often outside

their irnmediate control, and (c) the coping strategies that individuals use are highly

dependent upon their cognitive level, and as such, children's cognitive abilities are

significantly difYerent fkom those of adults (Ryan-Wenger, 1 992).

Chandler (1982) has addressed the stress-coping paradigm fiom a developmental

perspective and maintains that children move from being self centered to becoming

increasingly responsible in both school and family Me. They l e m to live in a world with

others and develop social skills that enable them to do so. Life, within this context, is a

continuing effort to cope with the multitude of daily demands placed on children as they

grow.

Perceived control is another very important variable that is related to coping

behavior. Extensive research has been conducted in this area. Researchers have defmed

the construct as the role that individuals believe that they have in influencing events in

their lives and the ability to avoid avenive events (Skinner, Chapman & Baltes, 1988).

Concephially, perceived control emphasizes the importance of actions as the

central unit of analysis, rather than responses. Actions are defmed as intentional

behaviors that are goal oriented and have sequential components. Perceived control is

based on the belief that everyday actions involve a relationship among agents (the

individual involved), means (causes for events), and ends (goals or outcornes). There are


three sets of beliefs about the relationship among these three components. First, control

beliefs are seen as the relationship that exists between the agent and the desired outcome.

Specifically this is dehed as the extent to which the individual can achieve the desired

outcome. Second, meadends beliefs imply an understanding that certain causes are

more effective than others in achieving desired results. Finally, agency beliefs concems

the extent to which individuals believe that they possess the means to achieve desired

goals.

A relationship between perceived control and coping has been posited. Literature

in this area has addressed the importance of control-related beliefs (Compas, Malcaine, &

Fondacaro, 1988). Beliefs about the extent to which individuals control events in their

environment influence the degree to whch they will attempt to master or change negative

or unpleasant events. Perceptions of control are either enhanced or dimuùshed as a result

of perceived effectiveness or ineffectiveness of personal efforts (Compas et al., 1988) and

the ability to l e m contingent relationships (Gunnar, 1979).

In order to gain an accurate perception of control one must be able to appraise

events as to their controllability. This is what Forsythe and Compas (1987) referred to as

"goodness of fit". ïhey emphasized the importance of examining how individuals

appraise events. Specifically, coping effectiveness is based upon an individual's ability to

use coping strategies that are adaptive given a specific situation. In order for this to occur

an individual must ascertain the controllability of events. Roblem-focused coping is

more adaptive given a controllable event or one perceived as controllable while emotion-


focused coping is more adaptive given an uncontrollable event. This requires however,

that an individual cornprehend the notion of contingency.

From a developmental perspective, six-to-eight year-old children have been found

to grossly overestimate contingency. Nine-to eleven year-old children's estimations of

contingency becorne more accurate, and pre-adolescents and adolescents can differentiate

between ability and effort (Compas, Banez, Malcame & Worsham, 1991). Researchers

examining the coping efforts of young children have found that when they are in

situations that are particularly stressfd, they attempt to cope by using "social referencing"

(Campos & Stenberg, 198 1 ; Lemer, Baker & Lemer, 1985). Young children are

dependant upon cues fkom adults in an attempt to cope with stressful situations, but as

they develop, they begin to understand the notion of contingency and the relationship

between their own actions and subsequent results.

Children with an intellectual disability, however, may have more dificulty than

other children in gaining an understandmg of c o n ~ g e n c y and developing a sense of

control. in order for an individual to perceive a sense of control, the outcome must be

controllable, and the agent must have the means to achieve the desired outcome (Weisz,

198 1). In many cases, however, children with an intellectual disability are inhibited fiom

recogniPng the relationship between desires and outcomes. In order to best understand

the relationship between desires, possible solutions, and outcomes, the individual must be

in a position to exercise the right to manipulate outcomes. Critical to the enhancement of

control is an environment that enables individuals to exercise control over outcomes. As a


result of extemal controls imposed on individuals with an intellectual disability, they are

ofien inhibited fiom exercising control over their lives and attempting to develop more

independent means of coping with stressfbl events (Shulman , Carlton-Ford, Levian, &

Hed, 1995).

Coping Behaviors of Children with an Intellectual Disability

While there is a growing body of research in the area of coping behaviors of

children (Chandler, 1982; Compas et ai., 199 1; Mischel & Mischel, 1983; Roth & Cohen,

1986; Ryan-Wenger, 1992), there is only a small body of literature regarding the coping

behaviors of children with an intellectual disability. Researchers who have examined

coping and children with an intellectual disability have found that these children exhibit

fewer adaptive coping strategies than their nondisabled peers. They tend to be more

erratic and less systematic in their functioning than other children (Shulman et al.. 1995;

Zeitlin, 1985; Zeitlin & Williamson, 1990).

Adaptive coping behavior requires that the individual accurately appraise and

actively respond to the stressful situation. Adaptive copers produce effective coping

strategies either from their own coping repertoire or by seeking social advice (Shulman et

al., 1995). However, individuals with an intellectual disability are deficient in their

ability to use competent strategies when required to deal with a stressfid situation. Their

ability to plan ahead, evaluate outcomes, and complete specific tasks are problematic.

Furthemore, their social slcill difficulties may prevent them fiom seeking advice fmrn


peers (Shulman et al., 1995). When individuals with an intellectual disability tum to

others, primarily adults, for social support, it is often a reflection of their dependency

rather than an indication of their social competence (Ritter, 1989). Furthemore,

researchers in this area (Shulman et al., 1995; Wayment & Zetlin, 1989; Zetlin & Turner,

1985) have posited that families of children with disabilities many encourage this

dependency .

ln a study conducted by Wayment and Zetlin (1989) îhey found that nondisabled

children responded to stressfid situations, such as feeling victimized, with active self

strategies (e.g., hostility, negotiation, and confrontation). However, students with

learning handicaps produced passive responses to stresshl situations (e.g., emotion and

suppression). According to Wayment and Zetlin, expenences that encourage dependency

and continued exposure to failure may result fiom the passive responses of these children.

In addition, children with an intellectual disability exhibit a sipficant amount of

perseveratory coping behavior (Zeitlin, 1985). Specifically, rather than using effective

coping behaviors that are situationally appropriate, they have limited coping repertoires,

often displaying similar behaviors independent of the specific situation (e.g., rocking back

and forth when hstrated by a difficult academic task). Little work has been done,

however, on the question of whether children with an intellectual disability can develop a

broader range of coping behaviors that are situationally specific.

Much of the research in the area of coping and individuals with an intellectual

disability focuses upon children's skills without taking into account the educational

Coping and C hildren with Disabilities 1 8

environmental and factors w i t h that environment that lead to successful adaptation

(Compas, 1987). Researchen in this area have not yet addressed the possible role of the

children's educational histories, including the settings in whch they have been educated

and the interventions that have been used. Zeitlin and Wiliiamson (1990) are among the

authors who have called for researchers to examine the environmental variables that may

influence the coping abilities of children with a disability. The children's educational

placement in a regular class or special class is a potentially important consideration in

their acquisition of successful coping behaviors.

op-d Adaptive Behavior

Although there is little research specifically on the coping behavior of children

with an intellectual disability, there is a great deal of research on their adaptive behavior,

a term closely related to coping. Various definitions of coping and adaptive behavior are

used in the literature; however, most make a similar distinction between these two terms.

Coping is usually a more specific term, used to refer to leamed behaviors one uses in

adapting to the stressful demands of the environment (Lazanis & Folkman, 1984; Zeitlin,

1985). The tem adaptive behavior has generally been defined withùi a more limited

context. Adaptive behavior refers to the manner in whch individuals perfonn an expected

task. Leland (1978) defined adaptive behavior to be the ability to adapt to environmental

demands that are focused on independent functioning, persona1 responsibility, and social

responsibility. Bnllninks, Thurlow, and Gilman (1987) delineated two key subconcepts

of adaptive behavior, persona1 skills and social skills, and emphasized their importance

Coping and Children wit h Disabilities 1 9

with regard to individual's ability to function in the cornmunity.

Adaptive behavior has typically been cited in the literature in reference to the

process of adjustment and adaptation manifested by individuals with disabilities (e.g.,

Bruininks, et al., 1987; Cone, 1987; Hanison, 1987; Hom & Fuchs, 1987; Kamphaus,

1987; Schneider & Byrne, 1984). Considerable research conducted in the area of mental

retardation has also focused upon chldren's adaptive behavior, a construct that

emphasizes the capacity to respond to specific demands of the immediate environment in

age-appropriate ways (Bniininks et al., 1987; Homs & Fuchs, 1987). In addition, the

focus on adaptive behavior has fkequently been used to educate children with a disability

by teaching skills that will help them fit into society and enhance their integration with

others.

Although researchers once viewed adaptive behavior as a fixed and stable point

dong a developmental continuum (Cohen, 1988), they now see it as a highly flexible

constmct. Many researchers have attempted to examine whether adults with disabilities

b c t i o n more adaphvely in envkonments that more closety resembled typical,

nonsegregated environments than they do in special residential placements. Results have

indicated that individuals who have been deinstitutionalized have had higher instances of

person-to-person interactions and increased opportunities to develop adaptive behavior

skills than individuals who continued to live in institutional settings (Kleinberg &

Galligan, 1983). Furthemore, in their study on the eEects of deinstitutionalization,

Bjaames and Butler (1974) found that community-care facilities more closely resembled


typical environments than institutions; hence, they were more conducive to penonal and

social development.

Researchers who have focused on children have found sunilar results. Yando and

Zigler (197 1) posited that children who were deinstitutionalized had superior problem

solving skills than individuals residing in institutions. They used the tem

outerdirectedness to refer to the degree to which individuals apply problem solving skills

to solve problems. rather than depend on cues fiom others. Noninstitutionalized

individuals were more outerdirected. The authors concluded that the individuals' adaptive

behavior was a product of their experiences and their ability, as opposed to merely

resulting fkom their intellectual capabilities. Thus. the literature on adaptive behavior of

children with an intellectual disability suggests that the oppomuiity to mode! the behavior

of nondisabled peers may be an important component in their acquisition of adaptive

behavior.

With a similar focus on the importance of environment, Bjaarnes and Butler

(1974) suggested that in order to obtain an accurate picture of the adjustment of

individuals with a disability into the community, it is important to examine the total

environment and its influences, rather than merely focus on personality characteristics

and diagnoses. Many researchen have indicated that children in segregated environments,

not having the opportunity to model the behavior of nonhandicapped peers, lack

opportunities to model and manifest behaviors that are adaptive in typical, nonsegregated

Coping and CMdren with Disabilities 2 1

environrnents (Bjaarnes & Butler 1974; Brady, McEvoy, Gunter, Shores, & Fox, 1984;

Madden & Slavin, 1983).

d C w

As Bandura (1965) has demonstrated in much of his research, children learn

through modeling the behavion of othen. Researchers and practitioners who began

investigating the potential benefits of integrated classrooms examined the effectiveness of

nonhandicapped peers as models of adaptive behaviors (Porter & Richler, 199 1 ;

Stainback & Stainback, 1990; Stainback, Stainback & Forest, 1992). They found that

students with an intellectual disability in integrated classrooms seemed to benefit f+om

their exposure to the various social and acadernic activities engaged in by

nonhandicapped peers. These findings were consistent with other researchers who had

delineated the benefits of modeling, especially on the acquisition of social skills (Alper,

1996; Gotûnan , Gonso, & Shuler, 1976; Gresham, 198 1 ; Gresham & Nagle,

1980).

Studies examining the benefits of peer modeling and peer mediated instruction

have also shown the effectiveness of these practices within the integrated classroom

(Brady et al., 1984; Madden & Slavh, 1983). In these environments, children with a

disability have the opporîunity to l e m and apply newly acquired skills. Such sethgs

may contain the necessary requisites for social cornpetence; for example, naturally

occming rediorcers, an increased number of peers acting as teachers, and a wide variety

of social situations (Brady et al., 1984).


However, simply placing students together physically in a classroom is not a

sufficient way of enbanchg modeling (Schuiz, Carpenter & Tumbull, 199 1). Children

need systematic instruction in terms of learning how to mode1 appropriate peer behaviors.

Accordingly, students need to l e m how to attend to appropriate behaviors, retain the

information they have leamed, practice the newly acquired behaviors, and be provided

with incentives for their efforts (Bandura. 1977).

Closely linked to the process of modeling is the development of social

relationships. In an examinabon of the importance of social relationships arnong

children, Hartup (1989) found that through these relationships children leam to deal with

the social world around them. Interacting with others enables children to coordinate their

actions with the actions of others, as they increase their understanding of themselves and

the world around them. This is the beginning of learning social skills and socially

appropriate behaviors (Hartup, 1989).

Hamip (1989) discussed two types of relationships that are of equal importance in

the development of a child. Vertical relationships exemplify the relationship between

children and those who have greater power such as parents, care givers, and teachers.

Through these relationships children are provided with nurturance and are taught to

control undesirable behavior. Basic social skills, an important component of adaptive

behavior, develop within these relationships. Horizontal relationships provide children

with oppominities to elaborate these skills with other children. These relationships hold a

critical role in the development of later fuactioning (Hartup, 1989).


There is no reason to assume that both vertical and horizontal relationships hold

any less importance for children with an intellectual disability than they do for their

nondisabled peers. In fact, they are perhaps more important because deficits in social

skdls represent one of the most pervasive weaknesses exhibited by children with an

intellectual disability (Winzer, 1990).

When given the opportunity, children with an intellectual disability lem a great

deal through social interactions with other children (Madden & Slavùi, 1983; Stainback &

Stainback, 1990; Villa, Thousand, Stainback, & Stainback, 1992). They l e m adaptive

coping behaviors, including how to develop social relationships, how to modulate

aggressive behavior, and how to cooperate and respect others.

Many researchers have addressed the advantages of leaming social skills in

integrated classrooms (Alper 1996; Guralnick & Groom, 1987; Madden & Slavin, 1983).

Integrated environments provide students with oppominities to exhibit their newly

acquired skills while tying thern into natural communities of reinforcement. A cyclical

effect occurs in that once students l e m adaptive social behaviors they are more likely to

develop social relationships, which in tum M e r reinforces their acquisition of adaptive

behaviors. Some of the sîrategies employed to teach social skills in these classrooms

consist of coachmg, modeling, counseling, direct reinforcement, and group contingencies.

Techniques such as coaching and symbolic modeling have been especially effective in

enhancing social skills in socidy isolated children (Gottman et al., 1976; Gresham &

Nagle, 1980).


Sîudies examining the impact of peer influence on adaptive behavior have noted

that students with an intellectual disability engaged in low incidences of maladaptive

behaviors when integrated into regular classrooms (Gresham & Nagle, 1980). According

to investigators there were two possible reasons underlying this hding. First, it was

believed that students' appropriate behavion were partially shaped by their

nonhandicapped peers. Second, stricter behavior standards were set by their peers.

In all, there is evidence that educating children with intellectual disabilities in

regular classroom environments may provide them with the opportunities to mode1 the

other children's behavior and develop social relationships with them. Integrated

environments in which teachers encourage and structure reciprocal relationships between

children with a disability and their nondisabled classrnates appea. to be conducive to the

development of adaptive behavior and coping efforts. These relationships may serve to

improve the coping behaviors of children who have an intellectual disability. They learn

fiom the other children the varied coping strategies they use, thereby developing a larger

and more flexible repertoire of coping behaviors for thernselves.

Summq and Research Questions

It is apparent that children with an intellectual disability are particularly Milnerable

to maladaptive coping behaviors, as a result of a limited repertoire of coping behaviors

and the rigidity with which they attempt to cope with stressful yet commonplace events in

their lives. Furthemore, while typical nine-year-old children begin developing coping

behaviors that enable them to appraise situations and implement solutions that are most


appropriate given a particular situation, children with an intellectual disability seem to

experience difficdty with this challengmg task and remain dependent upon adults to

guide them in their efforts.

Researchers who have studied coping behavior of children having an ùitellectual

disability have emphasized the differences that exist between these children and their

nondisabled counterparts (Shulman et al., 1995; Zeitlin, 1985; Zeitlin, 1982; Zeitlin &

Williamsoq I W O ) .

In other research conducted with inâividuals who have an intellectual disability.

environmental factors have been found to affect the adaptive behavior of adults living in

the community and the social behavior of children attending school (Emmer et al.. 1994;

Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Kleinberg & Galligan, 1983; Yando & Zigler, 197 1).

Researchers have found that children with an intellectual disability who are well

integrated into regular cl assrooms have benefitted fiom their interactions with

nondisabled peers, through the processes of modeling the nondisabled children's behavior

and developing social relationships with them. Researchers have found that children in

integrated classrooms have improved social and academic outcornes, in cornparison to

children in special classrooms, when teachers adapt curriculum and structure positive

peer interactions (Alper, 1996; Stainback & Stainback, 1990).

Because many studies examining the coping efforts of children with an intellectud

disability have not examined the influence of the type of classroom environment upon

the coping behaviors of these children, the primary purpose of this study is to compare


the coping behaviors of children in regular and special classrooms and to examine some

of the practices in the classroorn envkonments that may be influencing the children's

development of adaptive coping behaviors. This study also attempts to expand upon the

small body of existing literature about the coping efforts of individuals with an

intellectual disability. A comparative design is employed to examine the following

research questions:

1. How effectively do students with an intellectual disability cope with everyday

cornmonplace events?

2. Are there personal variables that influence the coping behaviors of children with

an intellectual disability?

3. What are the characteristics of "good" and "poor" copers?

4. Do the coping strategies employed by children with an intellectual disabiiity in

integrated classrooms differ fiom the strategies used by children with a disability in

special classrooms?

5. Are there classroom practices that influence children's coping behavior?


CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

Two school boards within the greater Montreal area agreed to participate in the

study. Special education consultants w i t h . each of the school boards provided lists of

students with an intellectual disability and principals w i h h each school set up meetings

with teachers of children with an intellectud disability. Parent consent forms were

distributeci, and parents who agreed to have their child participate in the study were

included in the sample. Information as to the age and IQ of each student was available

through school records.

Sixty-seven children with an intellectual disability, matched for age, gender, IQ

and socioeconomic status participated in this study. Children cornprised two groups,

educated in either regular classrooms (RC) or special education classrooms (SC).

Children ranged in age from 7 to 15 yean with an average of 1 1.30 years (SD = 2.03).

n ie mean age of the girls was 11.54 years (SD = 1.80) and the mean age of the boys was

11.12 years (SD = 2.19). The sample consisted of 38 boys (57%) and 29 girls (43%).

The IQ scores ranged fiom mild to moderate with a mean IQ of 58.73 (SD = 9. W), 58.7 1

(SD = 10.30) for girls and 58.74 (SD = 9.83) for boys.

Placement within an integrated classroom was dependent upon one or more of the

following factors: (a) school board policy, @) parental wishes, andlor (c) teacher

recommendations. The largest number of participants came fkom a school board where a


universal integration policy had been implemented.

Children within the segregated classroom were selected fkom a school board and a

special school. While these children may have been recomrnended for special school

placement by teachers based upon their level of performance. no significant differences

were found in subsequent analyses of intelligence test scores. Characteristics of children

within the two classroom groups are presented in Table 1.

en ui Resllpr C b

This group consisted of 37 children between the ages of 7 and 15 years

(M = 10.75, SD = 2.15) There were 17 girls and 20 boys in the sample. Children in this

group had an intellectual disability in the mild to moderate range (IQ ranging from 40 to

69, M = 59, SD = 9.42). Children ranged fkom grade one to grade six and had been

educated for at least two years within regular classrooms for 80% of the school &y.

A total of 15 schools within two school boards in the Greater Montreal area were

included in the study. Thirteen of the schools were Anglophone with French immersion

classes and two were Francophone with English as a second language. Al1 children

within the Anglophone schools were in Engtish classes except one Anglophone student

who was in a French immersion classroom (Anglophone children being insmcted in

French).

Coping and C hildren with Disabilities 2 9

Table 1

haractenstics of S u u c t s -Re andSpecial C l a s x x .- .

Reguiar (n=37) Special (n=30)

M SIIT % M %

Children's Ages in Years

7 to 10

I l to 15

Gender

BOY

Girl

IQ

40 to 54

55 to 70

çhildren in S D ~ C b

This group consisted of 30 children between the ages of 7 to 14 years (M = 1 1.96,

SD= 1.86). Nine of the children were girls and 2 1 were boys. They had an intellectual

disability in the mild to moderate range (IQ ranging fiom 40-70, M = 58, SD = 10.72),

and were educated in special classes for children with intellectual disabilities in the

Greater Montreal area for at Ieast two years. Children attended these classes for the

entire school day and were grouped according to both age and ability therefore there were

no traditional grades.


-ua

This study used a comparative design to examine two groups of children with a

mild to moderate intellectual disability in regular and special classrooms. It included

both a quantitative and a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis.

Quantitative analyses enabled the examination of whether clifferences in coping behaviors

between children in the two classroom environments were present. Qualitative measures

were used to provide a more in-depth examination of the different classroom

environments and the factors present within those envkonrnents that enhanced or

impeded children's coping efforts.

Quantitative rnethods were used to obtain domat ion on the children's coping

efforts, their behavior problems, IQ, and demographic variables. Information was

gathered through the cooperation of admstrators, teaching staff and parents.

Quantitative measures are summarized in Table 2.

I n v e m The Coping hventory (CI) (Zeith, 1985) is a

48- item obsewationd instrument used to assess adaptive coping behavior of children

aged three to 16 years. It is divided into two categories: coping with the self and coping

with the environment. Coping with the self refers to behaviors used to meet persona1

needs, while coping with the environment refers to behaviors used to adapt to the

demands and pressures of the environment. Each of the two categories in the subtests

Coping and ChiIdren with Disabilities 3 1

Table 2

Measure Instrument Procedure

Coping effort Coping Inventory (CI) Completed by classroom teacher

Behavior problems Child Behavior Checkiist Completed by classroom (CBCL) teacher

Kadinan Brief Intelligence Administered to child by (K-Bit) researcher

Demographic variables Parent questionnaire Completed by parent

incorporates three dimensions of coping styles: productive, active, and flexible. A

productive coping style refers to behaviors that are socially responsible and enhance self

esteem. A flexible coping style is one where copers use a variety of coping behaviors and

can shifi plans according to a specific situation. Active copers are those that initiate and

sustain actions both mentally and physically. A more in-depth description of the

operational definitions used in the Coping Inventory is presented in Appendix A. The

rater uses a 5-point Likert scale to score the instrument. A score of 1 refen to behaviors

that are pot effective and a score of 5 refers to behaviors that are effective rnost of the

iime. The rater can be anyone who is f d l i a r with the child, and is usually completed by

a teacher or parent. The global score provides an adaptive behavior summary index

(AM) and the higher the score, the more effective the coping behavior.

Reliability of the measure has been conducted through tests of interna1


consistency, inter-rater reliability, and standard error of measurement. Mesures of

intemal consistency are reported to range fiom .84 to .98, with the AB1 h a h g a

reliability index of .97. Inter-rater reliability coefficients were above .78

for al1 subscales. The standard enor of measurement was between .O26 and .O30 for al1

subtests (Zeitlin, 1985).

ehamor p m b h n s : Child Behawor Ch&ist (CBCL). The CBCL (Achenbach,

199 1) is a 1 1 8-item teacher-report fonn used to assess behavioral problems of children

fiom four to 16 yean. The checklist was devised to discruninate between children who

are adapting successfully and those who will need support for emotional/behaviord

problems. The CBCL incorporates a 3-point scale to assess teacher perceptions of

behavior problems (e.g., social withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety and depression,

social problems, thought problems, attention problems, delinquent behavior and

aggression). The checklist also incorporates cornpetency items such as getting dong

with others and success in specific academic subjects (e.g., mathematics, language arts,

science). The competency items are measured using a scale of below average, average,

and above average. The rater is asked to complete the checklist focusing on current

behaviors. The CBCL velds a total score and subscores (e.g., intenializing and

externalizhg).

A nomative sample of children was constnicted by rating four to 18 year old

children, al l of whom had not received mental health services or special school seMces

within the preceding 1 bmonth period.


The CBCL has test-retest reliability of .87 for the competence scales and -89 for

the problem scales over a seven-day period. Long term stability of scale scores were

5 2 for competence scales and .71 for problem scales. Discriminative validity is

supported by the ability of the scale to discriminate between referred and nonreferred

children. The scale controls for gender and age differences in behavior problems.

nef -nce T a . The KaufÎnan Brief Intelligence Test

(K-BIT) (Kaufhan & Kaufriian, 1990) is a brief, individually administered intelligence

test that measures both verbal and nonverbal intelligence and provides a Ml-scale IQ.

The assessment can be admuiistered to individuals that range in age fiom four to 90

years. The test is composed of two subtests: Vocabulary (including Expressive

Vocabulary and Definitions) and Matrices. Vocabulary rneasures verbal, school related

skills, and verbal concept formation. Matrices measure nonverbal skills and the ability to

solve new problems. Standard scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.

in tems of reliability scores the Vocabulary reliability scores are reported to have a mean

score of .92 and the Matrices reliability scores range between .74 to .95.

The K-BIT takes approximately twenty minutes to complete and can be

administered by technicians or paraprofessionals if they have had sufncient training in

using the instrument.

c d i e s : Par- Demographic information regardhg

the socioeconomic status of the children, whether both parents reside in the home, birth

order, and number of siblings was included in a questionnaire.


Children. Children who had not received a psychoeducational assessment within

the past three years were individually administered the K-BIT ( K a h a n & KaufÎnan,

1990). This assessment took approximately 20 minutes and was conducted during the

school day. Measures were taken, such as calling the child to the office, to ensure that

the other children were not aware that the child was being assessed.

Teachers. The researcher met with the teacher (usually in groups) and explained

the different elements of the CI and the CBCL. Specifically, the researcher reviewed

what it was measuring and how it was administered. Afl teachers worked with a teacher

assistant and therefore the teachers were asked to complete the inventories with the

teacher assistant to enhance reliability. In the case of a disagreement on a particular item

they were asked to discuss the item until they agreed. If they could not agree on the item

they were told to include both responses. The teachers were given two weeks to

complete the ùiventory for each target child.

P a r a Letters were sent to parents, dong with the consent f o m and a

demographic questionnaire. The researcher telephoned all the parents who had not

retumed the questionnaire and reminded them to complete and return the form to their

child's school.

Traditional qualitative data collecting techniques were employed within the curent

study (Bogden & Biklen, 1992; Miles & Huberman, 1994). These techniques include

Coping and Children with Disabiiities 3 5

participant observations, both formal and infomal interviews, and document andysis.

Table 3 presents the rationale for the qualitative components used in ths investigation.

b s a

hident observatiom Thuty-five children within the two groups were randornly

selected by the researcher for focused observation. The coping strategies that were

employed by each child were documented during three daily activities: rnathematics,

language arts, and recess. These three different areas were chosen because they present

distinct oppominities for observation of social interactions with peers and teachers.

Mathematics is usually the most structured of the three activities, and presumably

interactions between children and

teachers are greatest during this activity. Language arts is generally less rigd and

presents increased oppominities for student interactions within a formal classroom

structure. During recess children interacted primarily with one another in a non-

stnictured atmosphere in various venues (e.g., on a jungle jim, in the playgound, or in the

classroom).

Student coping efforts were divided into three domains: (a) interactions with

teachers and teacher assistants; (b) interactions with peers; and (c) interactions with the

environment. A coping behavior was considered as any attempt by the student to manage

a particular situation (e.g., yelling at a teacher, asking for help, or refrainhg fYom difficult

work).


. . u-ve Cmonents and

Component Rationale

Observations Examination of students' coping efforts S tudents Teachers' responses to students' coping efforts Teachers and teacher assistants Teachers' classroom sûategies Classroom environment Relationships between teacher and assistant, teacher and

student, and assistant and student

Interviews S tudents Teachers

Document analysis Books Stencils

Teachers' perceptions of students' adaptation to school environment Teachers' rationales for implementation of classroom strategies Students' perceptions of their adaptation to classroom structure and events

Understanding of curriculum and coping behavior of students Interaction between curriculum and coping behavior of students

The researcher observed each student separately for at least three, thirty minute,

observations per activity (e.g., mathemahcs, language arts, and recess) totaling a

minimum of 4.5 hours per child. Handwritten field notes were taken on site and

transcribed ont0 a computer. An example of the style and format of the field notes is

presented in Appendix B. The observations took place twice a week for five weeks and

were collected over a three month period fkom March, to May, 1993. To ensure that the

class memben and the children being obsewed were unaware ba t they were being


shgled out, the classroom teacher was instructed to ùifonn the class that the researcher

was observing the classroom teacher. Observations were recorded as field notes and

subsequently coded for emerging thernes.

observatk. Classroom teachers and teacher

assistants were observed. The primary foci of these observations centered on five areas

of teacher behavior. The fïrst area of focus was the examination of strategies

implemented to encourage social interaction and modeling between children with an

intellectual disability and children without disabilities. The second area focused on the

extent to which teachers and teacher assistants encouraged or impeded the development

of independent coping behaviors. Third, the way in which teachers responded to children

was also examined (e.g., teacher use of positive reinforcement or punitive measures).

The fourth area of examination focused on the teaching style of the teacher (e-g.,

classroom lecture, individual seat work or group work). Finally, other teaching behavior

that took place w i t h the classroom that could potentially be informative in

understanding the coping behaviors of the children (e.g., special activities such as circle

tirne) was recorded.

1. The classroom environment was another focus of the

observations. The different classroom environrnents were compared in ternis of the

interactions that existed between the classroom teacher and assistani, the classroom

teacher and the child with an intellectual disability, and between the teacher assistant and

the nondisabled child. The interaction between the assistant and the child with an


intellechial dîsability seemed critical because these children spent most of the day

involved in interactions with an assistant. Thus, students' overall coping efforts and their

adaptiveness were examined in the context of the environment in which the coping efforts

took place.

In addition, observations focused on the presence or absence of certain variables

and the extent to which these variables were implemented in different classrooms. These

variables included (a) the leaniing structure in the classroom (e.g., individual or

collaborative); (b) peer interaction in both acadernic and social contexts; (c) teaching

style (e-g., wann and caring or punitive); (d) the structure of the cunîculum ( e g , multi-

level or lower grade level); and (e) the extent to which teachers and teacher assistants

collaborated in the planning and implementation of prograrns for children with an

intellectual disability.

in addition, the physical configurations of the classroom were included in the

observation component. The typical arrangement of the regular and special classrooms is

included in Appendix C.

Role of researcher. The researcher assumed the role of a participant observer. She

spent an hour in each classroom prior to documenting observations. During some of the

observation penods the researcher positioned herself at the back of the classroom

attempting to be as unobtnisive as possible. In addition, efforts were made by the

researcher to accommodate to the needs and desires of each classroom teacher, and not to

impose herself on the classroom structure. During some observation penods, children


seemed to be highly cognizant of the fact that someone was observing their classroom and

appeared somewhat disturbed by the intrusion. On those days the observation period was

temiinated and the researcher retumed on another day.

ews

Structured and nonstmctured interviews were conducted for both children with an

intellectual disability and their teachers. Children's i n t e ~ e w s were predominantly

unstnictured and open-ended in order to pennit the children to express themselves on

issues related to school work and peers. However, during the structured interviews the

children were asked specific questions related to perceptions of their adaptation to school,

specific issues related to school work and peer relations.

Teacher i n t e ~ e w s followed a predominantly stmctured format where the

objective was to understand the teachers' perception of how the children with an

intellectual disability were coping within their classroom. In addition, questions were

asked to the teachers to obtain an understanding of their teaching style and the strategies

that were purposefully implemented within the classroom. An example of a structured

iiterview is presented in Appendix D.

An additional component of the examination was the analysis of the cunicular

materials (e.g., books and stencils). An examination of the curricular materials used in

the designated periods added to the understanding of the events that were taking place

withùi the classroom.


To ensure inter-rater reliability on both the CBCL and the CI, the classroom

teacher and the teacher assistant completed the forms together. Observations and teacher

i n t e ~ e w s were also used as a rneans of v e r i w g consistency between the teachers'

evaluation of a child's coping efforts and child's achial coping behavior. While two

observers would have ensured greater reliability for the qualitative component of the

study, the teachers were very reticent about having hvo observers in the classroom.

However, the fact that there was only one observer encouraged the teachers to provide

detailed and privileged information that potentially would not have been disclosed had

there been two observers in the classroom.


CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

A comparative design was used to examine the copuig behaviors of children with

an intellectual disability in regular and special classrooms. The results are organized in

five sections according to the questions addressed in the study. Both quantitative and

qualitative analyses were conducted to respond to the various questions. With respect to

the qualitative component of the study, patterns of behaviors and responses were

Research Question 1. How Effatively Do Children with an lntellectual Disability Cope with Commonplace School Events?

The coping styles of al1 children were assessed according to the Coping Inventory

(CI). The key words used to interpret the Coping [nventory are presented in Appendix E.

Scores fiom 1 .O to 2.1 suggest ineffective or minimally effective coping. Mid-range

scores between 2.2 and 3.1 indicate inconsistency in adaptive behaviors, specifically

behaviors that are effective in some situations but not in others. Scores fkom 3.2 to 5.0

suggest effective behaviors most of the time. The Adaptive Behavior Index score (AM)

reflects the total score on the CI.

The mean coping score for al1 children in this study was 2.9 1 (SD = .78),

suggesting that these children produced coping behavion that were effective in some

similar situations. As seen in Table 4, 85.72% of AB1 scores fell in the mid to upper

ranges (2.2-5.0). Similarly, on the two categories of the CI (Self and Environment),


Table 4

J ,evels for C l d r a Across G r o u

Coping Inventory Score

Coping level Total score CI Self scores CI (AB0 Environment

score -- - -- - - -- -- -

1.0 - 2.1 14.29% 19.05% 20.69% (Lneffective or Minimal1 y Effective)

2.2 - 3.1 47.62% 47.62% 39.68% (Inconsistency in Adaptive Behavior)

3.2 - 5.0 38.10% 33.33% 39.68% Effective Behaviors Most of the Tirne

80.95% of CI-Self scores and 79.36% of CI-Environment scores fell withui this range.

The mean AB1 score for al1 children was 2.95 (SD = 0.76). These findings suggest that in

this study, teachers thought that most of their students with an intellectual disability

coped at best inconsistcntly, while some did so effectively, with everyday school events.

Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine whether there were

differences in how the students scored on the two categories (Self and Environment) and

the three individual dimensions (Productive, Active and Flexible) for al1 children in the

study. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 5.


Table 5

eans and Standard Deviations for C o ~ i n e Subscales and Bi~olar

- - - - - - -

CI Categories and Dimensions

CI Self

Active

Productive

Flexible

CI Environ

Active 2.49

Productive 3 .O3

Flexible 2.97

. . ifferences wiithin Categones

Differences were found among the three individual dimensions of both the CI-Self

and the CI-Environment categories. Regarding the individual dimensions of the Self

category (Self-Active, Self-Productive, and Self-Flexible) significant Merences were

observed [E(2, 124) = 34.83, p < .001]. Post Hoc (C Matrix) analyses indicated that the

Self-Productive scores were significantly higher than the Se15Flexible scores

[E(l, 62) = 57.44, p < .O0 11 and the Self-Active scores were significantly higher than the

Self-Flexible scores [E(1, 62) = 42.93, p < .001]. According to Zeitlin (1985) flexible

copers are those individuals who possess a wide repertoire of coping behaviors and are


able to enact the most appropriate behavior according to a specific situation, productive

copers are socially responsible and enact behaviors that enhance self esteem and effect

desired results, and active copers initiate and sustain actions. The results of t h s part of

the study suggest that in the Self category, the children's ability to produce active and

productive coping behaviors was superior to their ability to demonstrate flexible coping

efforts.

With respect to the individual dimensions of the Environment category

(Environment-Active, Environment-Productive, and Environment-Flexible) significant

differences were also observed [r(2, 124) = 5.40, p < .O 11. Post Hoc (C Matrix)

analyses indicated differences between the Environment-Productive and the

Environment-Active dimensions [E(l, 62) = 9.70, p < .01]. This finding indicates that

children in this study were more capable at effecting coping efforts that were productive

as compared to their ability to effect coping behaviors that were active.

ifferences between Categoner

Intra-individual cornparisons (repeated measures ANOVA) showed no difference

between the scores for the CI-Self and the CI-Environment categones. However,

significant differences were found when comparing individual dimensions between the

Self and the Environment categories. The Self-Active dimension was sigmficantly higher

than the Environment-Active dimension [E(l, 62) = 6.90, p < -051 indicating that children

were able to initiate and sustain actions that met their own personal needs but had

dificulty initiating and sustaining actions that conformed to environmental demands.


The Environment-Flexible dimension was significantly higher than the Self-Flexible

dimension [E(1,62) = 39.74, p < .O011 such that children were berter at effecting

coping stratedes that met environmental demands than they were at enacting coping

behaviors that met their own personal needs.

In surn, the overall Coping lnventory scores of children in this study suggest that

the majority of students were inconsistent in their coping efforts. Most of the children

presented coping behaviors that were effective in some situations but not in others. This

is supported by the students' significantly lower scores on the Flexible as compared to the

Productive and Active dimensions. These scores indicated that children in this study

experienced greatest difficulty in situations where they needed to enact flexible coping

behaviors: that is, where they were required to shift to a new coping strategy in response

to a specific situation. This difficulty was especially pronounced in meeting their own

needs as compared to meeting environmental needs. In addition, the students'

inconsistent coping abilities were also reflected in their comparatively low scores on the

Environment-Active dimension, indicating that they experienced dificulty coping with

situations in which they had to initiate and maintain coping efforts related to the

demands of their environment.

Research Question 2. Are There Persona1 Variables that Affect Children's Coping Behavior?

Correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationship between

children's coping style and their behavioral conduct, age, and IQ. A correlation


Table 6

Correlations Among the Variables for AI1 Children

CI CI ABI CBCL CBCL CBCL Agc IQ Self Env [nt Es t Total

CI Self - Self dimension of the CI CI Env - Enklronment dimension of the CI CBCL - Adaptive Behavior Index or the total CI score CBCL Int - Internai score of the CBCL CBCL Ext - Extemal score of the CBCL.

coefficient mamx showing the significant correlations is presented in Table 6. There was

a significant negative correlation (r = 4 7 , p < .05) between children's total coping score

(as rneasured by the CI) and their behavioral problems (as measured by the CBCL). There

were also sipificant correlations between the subscales of the CI (CI-Self and CI-

Environment) and the dimensions of the CBCL (interna1 and extemal). The negative


correlations are a result of an inverse relationship between these variables, such that

a higher AB1 score indicates more adaptive coping behaviors and a lower CBCL score

indicates more effective coping behaviors.

In sum, while age and IQ were not correlated with children's coping behavior.

there was a relationship between their overall behavior problems and their coping effort.

T h i s relationship suggests that, within the context of the classroom, effective copers

tended to present fewer behavior problems than less effective copers.

Research Question 3. What are the characteristics of good copers and poor copers?

Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to address this question.

A t-test was used to compare the 10 most effective copers and the 10 most ineffective

copers on age, IQ, gender, and behavior. Using qualitative analyses, good and poor

copers were profiled to explore their behavioral characteristics.

Regarding the quantitative anafysis, t-tests revealed that the only significant

difference between the good and poor copers was on their behavioral conduct

(1(19)= 12.47, p < -00 1). Significant differences between the effective and ineffective

copers were observed for the intemal dimension of the CBCL (1(19)=6.64), p c -00 1) and

for the external dimension of the CBCL (1(19)=6.70, p < .001). nie mean score for the

interna1 dimension of the CBCL was 49.90 (SD = 4.18) for the effective copers and 67.60

(SD = 7.3) for the ineffective copers. The mean score for the external dimension of the

CBCL was 45.80 (SD = 6.40) for the effective copers and 64.30 (SD = 5.95) for the

Copine and Children with Disabilities 35

ineffective copers. These findings suggest that children who presented effective coping

behaviors scored as meeting their persona1 needs and adapting to the demands of the

encironment also presented few behavioral problerns.

With respect to the qualitative analysis. eight children were selected for specific

case profiles. Al1 children were @en pseudonyms. Four of these children were assessed

by their teachers as effective copers and four children were assessed as ineffective

copers. The profiles are presented below. followed by an examination of the behavioral

characteristics that were common to each group of copers.

Characteristics of Good and Poor Copers

Effective Copers

The following profiles consist of effective copers who received scores of 3.0 and

above on the CI. A common characteristic of these copers was their acute awareness of

their needs and their ability to effectively pursue these needs.

AM .4nn was a twelve-year-old child who attended a grade four regular classroom.

Although she was two years older than her grade four classmates, she was not a ta11 child and physically it appeared as though she was the same age as her peers. Arui's AB1 score was 3 .O (3 .O on the Self category and 3.9 on the Environment category). Her IQ score was 46 and her CBCL score was 64.

Am displayed coping behaviors that were both productive and active. Wlen situations were structured and nonthreatening, Ann followed the routine with ease. She followed classroom rules and procedures dong with her classmates such as entering class. greeting the teacher at the door, taking her seat, and conversing with fiiends. According to Ann's teachers she was a productive coper in that she could express her needs in a socially acceptable way. The process of Am's adaptation to the classroom was difficult at &es. especially when she was experiencing problems at home. She would corne to school angry and would resist working. During that time, her teachers provided her with ways of dealing with her anger such as leaving the classroom for short periods.


Am's teachers cited her most adaptive behaviors (where she received scores of 4 and 5) on the Self- Active dimension of the CI. Specifically. she was adaptive in tems of showing others when she was angy; she could ask for help when needed and initiate actions to have her needs met. She also received scores of 5 on her ability to accept and give w m t b and support to others. Ann exhibited more ineffective behaviors in the Environment-Productive dimension. Her teachers indicated that she had difficulty staying on task and hctioning with minimal external structure.

Am's teachers were concerned about specific problematic areas such as her poor fuie motor control and her visual and gross rnotor problems. They found her to be very challenging but enjoyed having her in their classroom. While Am's progress was slow. it was steady.

k The second exarnple provides an account of an individual who had a very bright

disposition and was adept at dealing with diverse situations. Lee was a fourteen-year old girl in a grade six regular class who had been integrated since grade one. Her teachers arciculated that hcr best traits were her adaptability. her positive attitude. and her warm smile. Her AB1 score was 3.5 (3.6 on the Self category and 4.4 on the Environment category). Her IQ was in the moderate range and her CBCL score was 56.

Lee was productive in tems of meeting her own needs. Her coping style enabled her to find ways to handle new and difficult situations. to respond effectively to external control. and to exhibit a sense of self wortti. She was able to meet her own needs. particularly in the area of controlling impulses so that they did not interfere with her learning. Lee's teachers articulated that this was an important quality. Her least effective behaviors where she received three scores of 2, were shown when she had to manage high stress situations, to initiate actions, and to demonstrate independence and self reiiance.

Observational analysis supported teacher reports of her productive and active coping style. When she was bothered by a classrnate (e-g.. someone speaking loudly to a peer during teacher directed instruction). she would vocalize her displeasure and students responded to her requests. Lee appeared to be very rnuch in control of what happened to her and was able to enlist help from others (e-g.. during group work when she needed a selection of a story clarified or during recess when she needed assistance from the teacher on duty).

The active and positive nature with which Lee dealt with difficult situations and the successful results that ensued M e r encouraged her use of effective coping behavior. According to her teacher, she was detennined to be treated like everyone else and would often refuse what she perceived to be unnecessary special attention (e.g., wrïting a test at a different time than her classrnates). Her teachers responded to her requests and tried to ensure that whenever possible. she would not be singled out.


Neil Neil was a fifieen year old child in a special classroom. His AB1 score was 4.2,

with a 4.3 on the Self and a 4.1 on the Environment categorîes. His IQ was 44 and his CBCL score was 5 1.

Neil's most effective behaviors, where he received scores of 5, were on the Self- Productive dimension (e.g., uses language to communicate needs, demonstrates a happy feeling and does not frustrate easily) and the Self-Active dimension (e.g., asks for help when needed and initiates actions to get needs met). His lowest scores, where he received 3's, were on the Environment-Active dimension (e.g., stimulates others) and the Environment-Flexible dimension (e-g., gives warmth and support).

Neil was a very happy child with a constant srnile on his face. According to his teacher, he followed classroom rules and was a very diligent worker. He displayed productive coping behaviors primarily in terms of his ability to ask for help and meet his own needs. One day, when Neil was told that he was going to be the captain of the sports team, he asked his teacher if he could leave class a few minutes earlier than his classmates so that he could change into his gym clothes and wait for the other students in the gym. Neil was very persistent and was able to complete his work despite the often chaotic nature of the classroom. Neil needed a lot of assistance on academic tasks and would work arduously until his work was completed. When he was aware of the fact that he was conducting himself incorrectly. he would immediately ask for assistance.

Nicholas Nicholas was a fourteen-year-old child in a special classroom. His AB1 score was

4.3 with a 4.4 on the Environment dimension and a 4.1 on the Self dimension. His IQ was 70 and his CBCL score was 6 1. His teachers reported that Nicholas was a very easygoing child with a keen sense of d e t e d a t i o n . When he set his mind to something he would persevere until he reached his goal. When he was working on a certain project he enlisted the help of his teacher. In addition, he adapted very well to new situations. One day the classroom teacher had to leave the class to assist a student. The assistant took over, and although they had been workmg on a language arts activity, the assistant began writing math problems on the board. Whereas many students became angxy and refused to alter activities, Nicholas quietly took out his mathematics exercise book and began working.

Nicholas received several scores of 5 on the Self-Productive dimension (e.g., has confidence in his ability to l e m and do things) and on the Self-Active dimension (e.g., child initiates actions to have his needs met). His lowest scores were also on the Self- Productive dimension. He received scores of 2 on items such as: child responds to extemal control and is able to handle anxiety.


In sum effective copers appeared to have a clear sense of their needs and were

able to articulate these needs in ways that were deemed socially acceptable. When they

needed help they were able to ask for it and receive it fiorn their teachers, assistants, and

classmates. When dissatisfied with events or situations within their immediate

surroundings. they were able to express this dissatisfaction and generally obtain positive

results. These positive outcomes provided them with reinforcement to continue their

efforts.

The following four profiles are of students who received scores below 1.5 on the

Coping Lnventory. They presented ineffective coping behaviors, primarily with regard to

the narrow range of strategies they used in dealing with stressful situations, meeting their

desires or needs. or making independent choices.

w Mary was nine years of age and attended a grade two regular classroom. Her AB1

score was 1.8, with a 1.7 on the Self dimension and a 1.8 on the Environment dimension. Her IQ was 67 and her CBCL score was 74. While Mary was in a class with 20 students, she worked primarily with a teacher's assistant.

Despite Mary's overall low coping score, she was able to actively meet her own needs in some specific situations. She loved to read and would often sit on the carpet and read with a fiend. There were also situations in which Mary exhibited productive coping efforts, both with regard to herself and her environment. Her teacher assessed her as demonstrating a happy feeling, ofien being involved in activities with peers, and maintainhg a sense of curiosity.

Through teacher interviews it became apparent that Mary's overall ineffective score was mainly a result of her hstrating easily. in addition, she was rated as being ineffective in her ability to handle anxiety, demonstrate confidence, and develop independence.


Although Mary seemed to have the ability to actively fuifil her own needs, she was unable to deal with frustrations or aversive events in her surroundings. She was very rigid in tems of her responses to aversive events and she would often reach the point of anger and hstration whereby she would scream, flail her hands, and lash out at whoever was nearby.

Liane Liane was seven years of age and attended a grade one regular classroom. Her

AB1 score was 2.3, with a score of 2.6 on the Self subscale and a 1.8 on the Environment subscale. Her IQ was in the moderate range and her CBCL score was 65.

Liane's most adaptive behaviors were on the Self-Productive dimension where she received two scores of 4 on the item "Child does not fiutrate easily" and "Chld has a healthy pleasure in being herself." She also received a score of 4 on the item indicating that the child is hked and accepted by others. Liane's ineffective behaviors were in the area of handling new situations, dealing with her anxiety. and demonstrating confidence in her ability to leam new things.

Liane's teachen were most concerned about her level of dependence, primarily in the area of acadernic tasks. Through observation, it was noted that this dependence seemed to be solicited by both Liane and the assistant. For example, one afiemoon Liane was working on a math stencil where she had to add pictures of various anllnals. She was unable to count the two groups of turtles and therefore began tapping her pencil. The assistant seemed to become agitated and said, "Liane, would you put down the pencil. It seems to be distracting you fiom getting the answer." Liane quickly put down her pencil. A few moments later Liane asked "Can I pick up my pencil and use it to help me count?"

In tems of social interaction, Liane, while having a sense of what she hoped for in tems of social acceptance, seemed unable to satisG her needs. Her classrnates did not make fun of her, yet they had not fully accepted her within the classroom. Whenever she attempted to include herself in their activities, her peers blatantly excluded her. While teachers expressed a desire for her to become more independent in both social and academic areas, it was not clear how the teacher or assistant made efforts to achieve this goal.

Çathr The third child profiled was an eleven-year-old girl in a special education

elementary school. Her teachers described her as a very obstinate child whose obstiname lirnited her progress. The positive traits, as articulated by her teachers, were her above average Me skills and ability to demonstrate a tremendous sense of responsibility. Cathy received an AB1 score of 2.0, with a 2.5 on the Environment category and a 1.5 on the Self subscale. Her IQ was 48 and her CBCL score was 69.

Cathyfs least adaptive behaviors were on the Self-Productive and Self-Active dimensions. She received scores of 1 on items describing her ability to demonstrate


confidence, use mental ability effectively (at her own level of functioning), apply what she h a leamed to new situations, and compensate for thuigs that she is unable to do because of physical, mental or emotional problems.

Similar to the other students profiled, Cathy seemed to have a keen sense of her needs but often used maladaptive means to achieve them. She frequently became angry and aggressive when she codd not get what she wanted. Typically, Cathy's way of dealing with unpleasant situations, such as another student not lending her a pencil or her not knowing the answer on an exam was by yelling at those around her until she was physically removed from the classroom.

Annie The fourth profiled child was Annie, a thirteen-year-old child in a special

education classroom. Annie's AB1 score was 1.9 with a 2.1 on the Self score and 1.7 on the Environment score. Amie's IQ was 42 and her CBCL was 69.

Annie had sigmficant academic needs and required a lot of support and attention from her teachers. However it was difficult for her to express her needs since her ability to communicate was impeded. She would often use non-effective means of getting attention, such as yelling out for the teacher. She was very rigid in her coping efforts in that she would yell for help from her desk, despite the fact that her efforts rarely brought positive results. According to her teachers. she had become very passive in her efforts to cornplete academic work. even when it was not beyond her level. Presumably she had leamed that her efforts rarely brought positive results and therefore she did not actively attempt to initiate actions that would help her anain her needs (e.g.. academic support and attention fiom her classmates and teachers).

Annie's most effective behaviors were on the Self-Productive dimensions where she received scores of 3 and 4 on items such as "Child generally demonstrates a happy feeling." Her most ineffective behaviors were on the Self-Active and Self -Flexible dimensions where she received scores of 1 on items such as "Child initiates actions to g t needs met."

Annie's profile provides another example of a chld who used very ineffective means of attaining her needs and wants even though she was aware of what her needs and wants were. The lack of positive results seemed to b d e r her ability to initiate more effective means of reaching her goal, and instead she became very passive in her coping efforts.

Similar to the effective copers described in the first set of profiles, these

ineffective copers seemed to be aware of their wants or needs (e.g., being accepted by

peers or succeeding at academic tasks). However, unlike effective copers, the ineffective


copers used perseveratory and ineffective strategies that prevented them from positively

intluencing their surroundings. The coping behaviors used by the adaptive copers were

met with successfûl results, M e r reinforcing their efforts to maintain adaptive coping

strategies. However, the inability of the ineffective copers to positively influence what

happened to them and to maintain some level of control over their surroundings seemed

to diminish their efforts to attempt more effective behaviors.

Research Question 4. Do the Coping Strategies of Children in the Regular Class and the Special Class Differ?

A ftest was conducted to determine whether children integrated within replar

age-appropriate classrooms (RC) exhibited more adaptive coping strategies than their

counterparts in special classrooms (SC). The mean ABI score for the RC group was 2.79

(SD = 0.63). suggesting inconsistent effectiveness, while the rnean AB1 score for the SC

group was 3.12 (SD = 1.62). also showhg effectiveness in some situations but not in

others. Thus there were no statistically significant differences b e ~ e e n the two groups on

their AB1 scores.

Funher analyses examined whether there were sipifkant differences between the

two classroom goups related to the CI'S two categories (Self and Environment) and three

dimensions (Productive, Active, and Flexible). Means and standard deviations for each

of the categories and dimensions scores for the two groups are presented in Table 7.

Significant differences between the regular class and special class groups were found for

two of the six possible comparisons. Specifically, children in the RC group scored


Table 7

Means and Standard Devia tio ' n for Copin g Subscale and Bi~olar Dime nsion Scor es fo r

Rewlar and Special Classroom Groups

RC Group SC Group

lkka.L SD Mean SD

CI Self

Active 3 .O7 O. 73 3 .11

Productive 2.92 0.73 3 .O5

Flexible 2.17 0.87 2.83

CI Environ

Active 2.49 0.80 3 2 0

Productive 3.03 0.87 3 -24

Flexible 2.97 0.70 3.01

AB1 Score 3.79 0.63 3.12

(1 = 3.00. p < 0.0 1) and environment-active (1 = 3.00, p . 0.0 1) . Thus in comparing the

two groups on overall and subscale scores of the CI, little difference was found.

. . fferences Within Catepries

Analyses were done to examine whether children within each of the two groups

differed on specific dimensions within the two categories. With regard to the Self

category for the RC group, significant difierences between dimensions were observed


[E (1,68)=32.08, &< -00 1). A post hoc andysis (C matrix cornparison) indicated that the

Self-Flexible scores were significantly lower than both the Self-Productive scores

[E(1.34)=5 1-82, pc.0 1 1 and the Self-Active scores [E( l.34)=40.84, p < -00 11. With

regard to the Self category for the SC group, differences in dimensions were also

obsewed [E(1,54)=6.88, p < -011. A post hoc analysis (C matrix) revealed that the Self-

Flexible scores were significantly lower than both the Self-Productive scores

[E(1,27)=15.51. p < -0011 and the Self-Active scores [E(1,27)=8.54. &< -011.

In sum, for both groups with regard to the Self category. children's ability to

exhibit Flexible coping behaviors was significantly lower than their ability to be both

Productive and Active copers.

With regard to the Environment category for the RC group, sipficant differences

between dimensions were observed [E (1$8)=15.14, p < .001]. A post hoc analysis

(C matrix) revealed that children within this group were less effective enacting Active

coping as compared to Productive coping behaviors [E (1.34)=23.43, p < -00 11, and

similarly were more effective with regard to Flexible coping as compared to Active

coping [E(1,34)=16.72, p < .001].

Ln sum, on the environment category, there were significant differences between

groups on the dimension scores for the RC group but not for the SC group. Thus, the SC

group exhibited greater consistency its dimension scores than did the RC group.

fferences between C-ones

Within each group, the Self and Environment categories for each of the


dimensions were compared. As seen in Figure 1, significant differences for the RC

group were obsewed between the Self-Active and the Environment-Active dimensions

[E (1,34)=16.35, p< 0.00 11. For the SC group, differences were found only on the Self-

Flexible and Environment-Flexible dimensions, again with the Self-Flexible dimension

being significantly less than the Environment-Flexible dimension [E (1,27)=7.07,

a< .(Il]. Furthemore, children fiom both the RC and the SC groups were found to

exhibit a more rigid coping style with regard to themselves (Self-Flexible) than with

regard to the environment (Environment-Flexible). The data support a trend indicating a

greater difference between the dimensions for the RC group than for the SC group.

showing that children in the RC g o u p have less ability to both meet their persona1 needs

and confonn to environmental demands (see Figure 2).

in sum, while the two classroom groups did not differ on their global AB1 . there

were trends in their coping styles that differed. Children in the SC group tended to have

greater consistency in their scores: when they received effective scores on the

Environment category they also received effective scores for the Self category.

According to Zeitlin (1985). in order for children to maintain integrated functioning there

has to be consistency in terms of their ability to meet their personal needs and conform to

environmental demands. in contrast, children in the RC group were inconsistent in their

Self and Environment scores. When they received effective scores on one category, they

received ineffective scores on the other category, thus preventing them fiom achieving

integrated functioning. This may have resulted in greater frustration for them.

Copine and Children with Disabilities 58

Regular Class

Special Class

Productive

Active

Flexible

Productive

Active

Flexible

Coping Scores Profile

Environment

Figure 1: Category Scores for Children in the Regular and Special Classroom Groups

Coping and Children wîth Disabilities

COPING PROFILE

1 2 3 4 5 Nonproductive 1 I I I J Productive

\:.

Passive Act ive

Rigid Flexible

Regular Class

1 2 3 4 5 Non productive 1 I I I I Productive

1:. Passive i I I 1: I i Active

Rigid 1 I I 1 Flexible

Special Class

Figure 2: Category and Dimension Scores for Children in the Regular and Special Classroom Groups


Research Question 5. Are there classroom practices that seem to affect the development of students' adaptive coping behaviors?

Through observational analyses. specific practices that seemed to either inhibit or

facilitate children's coping behavior were identified. These practices are organized and

discussed below into six areas: (a) role of the teacher assistant. b) extemal control of the

teacher, (c) content of the cuniculum, (d) engaged time of students with regard to the

cumculum, (e) opportwities for students to interact with peers, and ( f ) oppominities for

students to develop independence. Classroom practices in each of these areas will be

outtined in relation to whether they enhanced or hindered children's coping efforts.

Role of the Teacher Assistant

In many cIassrooms, teacher assistants used some practices that seemed to impede

children's ability to learn adaptive coping behaviors. The assistant often sat adjacent to

the children to whom they were providing support and fkequently provided students with

solutions to problems, rather than allowing hem to generate their own solutions. The

assistants seemed unable to detemine when their presence was essential and when the

children could cope on their own, or with the help of a fellow classrnate. An example of

this "over supportt' is illustrated in the following vignette.

When a ten-year-old student in a special class did not have colored pencils for a drawing activity, the teacher told her to ask a peer. These types of interventions often occurred without providing the child with an opportunity to act on his/her own initiative. An additional example of creating situations of over support occurred in a regular classroom with an eight-year-old student who had a persistent runny nose. The assistant continued to get a tissue for the student and wipe her nose without allowing her to do this on her own (M # 10.7:05.07.93).


In regular classrooms, the teacher assistant often rnaintained primary responsibility

for the integrated child, which encouraged the classroom teacher to reduce the child's

responsibility for the academic and social success of the child as a member of the

classroom. An exarnple of this was observed in a classroom with a girl named Laura.

Laura was waiting in line with other students to show her completed math stencil to the

teacher. The assistant noticed that while waiting in line, Laura became restless; therefore

she told her that she. not the teacher, could correct the mathematics sheet.

in both the regular and special classrooms the "over" support provided to children

with an intellectual disability seemed to have a deleterious effect on their ability to leam

adaptive coping behavior. The children's capacity to cope with the many challenges

within their classroom by learning more appropriate responses to events was affected by

their lack of experience in using trial and error. These children had few oppominities to

independently develop a repertoire of adaptive coping behaviors, partly because they

were given immediate solutions to problems.

In contrast. teacher assistants who were adept at facilitating children's adaptive

coping efforts seemed to be able to evahate when their assistance was required and when

the students could work independently. This occurred primarily in regular classrooms.

Within these classrooms, peers played a vital role in the inclusion of a child within the

classroom. "Buddy" systems were established whereby each week another child was

responsible for ensuring that the needs of a child with a disability were being met (e.g.,


accompanying the child to the washroom, helping the child with hdher jacket). The

buddy also helped the integrated child with academic tasks. At tirnes, the nondisabled

peers seemed to have a remarkable ability to evaluate when their help was required and

when they should elicit the child's independence. An example of this was evident in a

classroom where Marian, a child with a moderate intellectual disability, and her friend

Judy, who did not have a disability, were in the reading corner. Marian was asked to

choose a book that she could read with Judy. Even though it took her 15 minutes to

chose a book, Judy waited patiently and encouraged Marian to continue searching.

Marian eventually found a book and the two girls read together in the reading comer.

Within classrooms where teacher assistants did not over support the integated

child, the teacher had primary responsibility for al1 students, including the child with a

disability. The assistant was there to provide support not only to t h i s one child, but to al1

children within the classroom. In these cases, the assistant facilitated rather than impeded

the social functioning of the child. This was accomplished prirnady through the creation

of situations that encouraged interaction among students, in addition to guiding children

as they were involved in these interactions. The results were apparent in the child's

overall functioning within the classroom, parcicularly in the arena of social interactions

and increased independence. Uniike children who were "shadowed" by an assistant,

these more adaptive copers were provided with opportunities to interact with al1 facets of

their classroom environment. Through these interactions they were able to use trial and

error leaming in the acquisition of appropriate coping strategies.


External Control of the Teacher

Another element that appeared to affect children's coping behavior in rnany

classrooms was the level of external control imposed on the children in areas involvuig

academic performance and social interactions. A high level of extemal control seemed to

diminish the child's ability to develop problem-solving strategies in relation to coping

witb events in the environment. In addition, it seemed to lirnit their development of an

intemal mechanism for coping with stresshl events. During one observation session in a

special classroom, the teacher used a very punitive approach in dealing with her students.

even though she described her students as being self sufficient and independent. She

fiequently reprimanded them and punished them for what she perceived to be undesirable

behavior. This was problematic, primaily because the students seemed to be unaware of

the teacher's concept of acceptable behavior, and this ofien led to corûlicts between the

teacher and her students. The following example illustrates the external control imposed

on these children and in tum, their feelings of hstration. It illustrates how this teacher

reinforced cornpliance as opposed to independence or self-expression.

A special class student was asked to read a passage f?om a book. The teacher became annoyed when he did not know the place and remarked that unless he followed along with the class, he would never learn to read. The student grew indignant with the teacher's criticism and responded vehemently that he knew how to read and that she shodd not talk to him that way. The teacher reproached him and sent him to the corner for a time out period. He attempted to explain his

initial response perceived as rude, but without success. While in the corner, his behavior became increasingly disruptive. The teacher thought that he was banging on the wall, disrupting students in the next classroom, so she left him in the time out comer for the remainder of the period (twenty minutes). At the end of the period the teacher asked the students to place their cards on their desks so

Coping and C hildren with Disabilities 64

that they could receive or lose points. Some students received points for what the teacher referred to as good behavior. The student who spent the lesson in the time out corner received five demerit points. The teacher punished him without telling him why she found his initial behavior unacceptable, nor did she explain to the rest of the class why they were being rewarded (FN 2.12: 04. 26.93).

Within this classrooms children were unable to express their dissatisfaction or

attempt independence without being subjected to extemal control. There were many

situations w i t h the various classrooms in which children's attempts to cope appeared to

be hindered by the extemal control that was placed on them.

In contrast, there were teachers who created a more egalitarian classroom

atmosphere by enabling children to express themselves, even if at times their self

expression was somewhat disruptive, as is illustrated in the following example.

AM, an ten year old child in a regular classroom had corne to school upset because, as the teacher later discovered, she had just found out that her mother was expecting a child. The teacher pennitted Ann to r o m around the classroom, understanding that she was unable to focus on her work. Later that morning. the teacher and Ann discussed the ways in which she could deal with her unhappiness (FN 14.2: 05.26.93).

Teachers with a less controlling approach provided children with opportunities to

act out various coping behaviors, thus giving them the chance to moderate their efforts to

cope with stressfd school events. Punishment was generally used as a last resort.

Furthemore, when the punishments were given, the teacher clearly explained to the

students what they had done wrong and how they could ameliorate their behavior in the

future.


Content of the Cumculum

The way in which the curriculum was structured within the different classroorns

seemed to affect children's overall coping behavior as well. Curriculum in which there

was no continuity in the presentation of material and in the development of skills seemed

to place great strains on children's coping resources. in these classrooms, the prùnary

method of teaching involved the use of work sheets. Teachers introduced new topics by

handing out stencils and only occasionally did they teach through direct instruction. In

these situations, the students became very agitated and anempted to cope with the tedium

of the curriculum by leaving the classroom, talking to neighbours, or yelling and

disturbing classrnates. Teachers using this method of teaching articulated in interviews

that there was no established curriculum; thus they were responsible for developing their

own standards of what and how to teach.

An example of the lack of continuity in the cumculum was evident in a particular

classroom in which a teacher handed out worksheets on analogies. Upon its completion

students were given mathematics sheets to complete. Following the mathematics

exercises the teacher handed out sheets on conjunctions. While some children were able

to cope with this type of instruction, many children seemed unable to deal with the

monotony and tried to physically leave the classroom. Others became very passive and

would wait for instructions before attempting to do any work on their own.

Conversely, adaptive coping efforts seemed to be enhanced in classroorns whereby

the objectives within each of the subject areas were clearly delineated. Student


performance and evaluation were built around ski11 acquisition, and new skills were built

on previously leamed ones. This is illustrated in the foliowing example.

Two children with special needs in the moderate range were working on a laquage arts unit where, dong with all the students in class, they were pubiishing a fictitious story. The individual elements, critical to publishing a story, were reviewed with the class as a whole and reinforced on an individual basis with these two students. Expectations were significantly modified to enable them to write a story at their own ievel and participate in the activity with the rest of the class. Their final accomplishment was readhg their story aloud in fiont of the class. These students were very newous at the thought of presenting their work to the class. One of the students expressed her desue to have the teacher sit next to her while she read the story. Following the presentation they was clearly proud of their achievement (FN 17.3 7:04.08.93).

These children's ability to cope with complex material, perfom tasks that were

comparable to those of their classmates, and share their finished products with their

classmates led to their feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment. The clarity of

objectives and the modifications made to the assignrnent enabled students to work

independently and develop mastery with regard to the curriculum. The outcome was that

students were able to initiate actions leadmg to increased self esteem and control over

their environment.

d Time of StudemsH

Both too much and too little time spent on task seemed have a negative impact on

children's adaptive coping efforts. Withh many of the regular classrooms, there was

immense pressure placed on children with an intellectual disability to perfom

continuously with veiy few breaks. The work expectation for these children was ofien


more ngorous and often exceeded the expectations held for the typical children in the

classroom. Nondisabled students engaged in academic activities for reasonable lengths of

time given their age, fiom fifieen to thirty minutes, and would take self-appointed breaks.

However, students with an intellectual disability typically worked with a teacher assistant

and would shifi From one activity to another without a break. The lack of down time and

the intense dyadic situation that existed between the student and the teacher assistant

seemed to manifest itself in these children being unable to make decisions and develop

coping strategies independent of the assistant. The following example illustrates the

intense pressure placed on an integrated child.

A child was reviewing words using flashcards. Twenty minutes into the activity she seemed to Iose interest. She looked around the classroom and noticed a book in the corner that incited her interest. She asked the assistant if she could read the book for a few minutes and she was told that she could look at the book for five minutes when they fuiished reading. The child flailed her hands in fiutration for a few minutes and then continued reading. When she f ~ s h e d readuig, the assistant told her that she could glance at the book for five minutes. Most of the children in the classroom were also involved in a silent reading activity but would stop and take a break without having to ask permission (as long as they were not disruptive) (FN 6.27: 05.07.93).

In other classrooms there was a signuicant amount of wasted time, a factor that

also had a negative impact on children's coping behavior. The primary reasons for the

wasted t h e seemed to be the nature of the curriculum and the students' dependency on

their teachers. Typicdly, in these classrooms the cmiculum consisted of sheet work,

resulting in students spending an excessive amount of t h e waiting for their work to be

corrected or waiting for the subsequent assignment. Furthemore, students spent


considerable tirne involved in activities that could be perceived as not have much learning

value (e.g., copying lengthy pieces of material fiom the board).

The lack of down time or the excess wasted time seemed to impede the

developrnent of children's coping skius, paticularly in terms of their ability to become

active copers, as they were not provided with opportunities to develop strategies toward

independent problem solving. These students were often put in highly hstrating

situations to begin with. and when they began to experience hstration because of the

stresshl situation and attempt to develop a means by which they could regulate their

frustration. they were lnhibited fiom doing so.

In contrast, children who were in classrooms where the engaged time was well

balanced with break hme seemed to benefit. Children in integrated into regular

classrooms who worked under the same conditions as their nondisabled classrnates were

fortunate in that they were not required to work with very few breaks. Within these

classrooms the teacher assistant worked in collaboration with the classroom teacher and

together they were responsible for the social and academic progress of the integrated

child. Much of the planning took place pnor to the child entering the classroom. This

enabled the child to work alongside peers with minor or significant modifications to the

curriculum, or whenever possible to work on the same cumiculurn as the classroom

students. For exarnple, Mary, a ten-year-old child with a significant disability, was

working on a collaborative activity involving addition and subtraction. The teacher

assistant had prepared the child beforehand with a lot of drill and practice so that the


child would be able to work with her classrnates. Children who were provided with

oppomuiities to work independently appeared to benefit greatly fiom feelings of

accomplishrnent and success.

~ominiîy for Students to Interact with Peers

W i t h both regular and special classrooms the oppominities for children to

interact with their peers seemed to have an effect on their coping behavior. In the regular

classrooms. there was often a large discrepancy between the over support provided to

children withn the regular classroom and the lack of support provided to them during

fiee play outside the classroom (e.g.. on the playground at recess time). This discrepancy

appeared to place great strain on their coping resources. Dunng free time. integrated

children had very few support systems, resulting in them "fending" for themselves. a

tremendous contrast to the nature of support that took place withn the classrooms.

During fiee play time, many integrated children seemed content to remain on the

periphery and would either follow along in whatever activity the other students were

doing. or would sit in a corner watching others. However, occasionally integrated

children wanted to take a more active role in these activities, and despite their efforts,

their fiequent inability to master the d e s of the game resulted in them not being

welcomed by their peers. lnitially they persisted and seemed able to cope with the

noticeable negative feedback. Their first few efforts were attempted in a socially

accepted manner. However, there came a point at which the children with an intellechial


disability could no longer cope with the exclusion in a socially acceptable way and ofken

became aggressive, as illustrated below.

A group of boys were playmg a game that involved throwing a basketball against the side of the school wall. Initially, the child attempted to include himself in the game by grabbing the bail harshly and throwing it without direction. A student came up to him, grabbed the bal1 away and demanded that he not grab it again. He left this area and tried to join a group of younger boys who were playing tag. Again, he was slightiy rough and awkward in his attempt to include himself in the game. He tried to grab the shirt of one participant who became angry and insisted that this child not be included in the game. 'This child persiste& however, becoming increasing aggressive and clearly having a difficult tirne coping with his inability to find a group of students with whom he could play. He eventually became very rough and the teacher on duty intervened and reprimanded him for his agression (FN 16.44: 05.3 1.93).

A six year old girl was following her classmates around the school yard during recess. Initially, she observed fiom a distance as they picked dandelions. She then attempted to join in. However, instead of picking flowen she picked the stems and threw away the flowers. The children did not make any effort to include her, yet she continued to include herself in their activity. Her obvious imitation of their behavior annoyed the two students and they physically attempted to exclude her by turning their backs to her and walking away. She persevered and continued following them until the recess bel1 rang (M 1 1.16: 05.04.93).

Thus the social requisites placed on these children during free time seemed to

exceed their capability, especially because there were so few oppomuiities withui the

classroorn to develop strategies to deal with conflictual situations with peers.

Within the special classrooms, there was less of a diseepancy between the support

provided to students inside and outside of the classroom. In these situations,

corhontations occuning during fiee time were resolved by the teachers on duty.

Therefore, although students were unable to sustain actions while developing coping


skills to deal independently with difficult situations. these social exchanges seerned to

place less of a strain on their coping resources than for integrated students.

In surn, children's coping efforts were enhanced in classrooms whereby children

were provided with opportunities to interact with one another both within the classroom

as well as during fiee tirne. Al1 children benefitted fkom the time that teachers devoted to

teaclung conflict resolution skills and appropriate social interactions. This type of direct

teaching provided children with guided expertise in acceptable social behavior. and this

enabled them to transfer their knowledge and leamed behavior £kom the classroom to the

school yard.

oortunity for Students to Develo!, Independence

Within many of the classrooms few oppominities were provided to children to

develop coping behaviors independent of their teachers and teacher assistants. Within the

regular classrooms, the dependency of integrated students seemed to be encouraged.

Rarely were they provided with opportunities to smggle and develop rneans of coping

with difficult or stressful situations on their own. However. despite the encouragement

of dependency, most integrated students were persistent in their desires to be like other

students and they would seize any opportunity to elicit independence and to socialize

with peers. The fact that independence and self initiated behavior was encouraged with

nondisabled students seemed to compel integrated students to attempt to initiate

independence as well. The curriculum was set up for the nondisabled students such that

autonomy was a necessity, particularly during center time when students were involved in


different activities in different corners of the classroom. The following example

illustrates an attempt made by a student in a regular classroom to work independently.

A ten year old girl had completed a math activity at one of the centers and decided to work on the computer. Even though she was proficient ui the use of the computer and could access the word garne she wanted to use, the assistant stood beside her. After a couple of minutes she told the assistant that she wanted to work alone and that the assistant should help someone else (FN 10.38:05.04.93).

Withn the special classroom the nature of the activities was such that students

were highly dependent on teachers for constant academic assistance and intervention in

terms of resolving peer conflicts. Because academic tasks generally involved students

completing worksheets, they depended on teachers to give them the next worksheet or to

correct their completed work. In addition, these students were in situations in which al1

of their classrnates were equally dependent on teachers and assistants; as a result it

appeared as though they did not feel compelled to initiate independence. They seemed to

accept being dependent on teachers and did not make any observable attempts toward

independence. An example of the level of dependency was evident in one of the special

classrooms with a twelve year old girl who was consistently calling upon the teacher or

teacher assistant for support.

Following outdoor recess one child called the teacher over to her desk because her socks were wet and she wanted them dried. She then asked the teacher if she could look for her glass case that she had apparently misplaced. Once these tasks were completed, she took out her books and immediately called upon the teacher's assistant because she was unsure of the task (FN 4.8: 03.8.93).

Within these situations of encouraged dependency, children became very passive.

It was easier for them to ask for help rather than attempt to confiont situations


independently; therefore, they made few efforts to initiate actions and resolve problems.

h addition, they had few successful independent coping efforts, resulting in little

reinforcement to attempt to cope on their owri.

independence, while generally not encowged, was fostered in classrooms in

which teachers seemed to hold strong convictions that children should l e m to cope as

independently as possible within the context of their surroundings. Typically, within

these classrooms collaboration between the teaching assistant and the classroom teacher

was promoted. Furthemore, the ctmiculurn was designed such that independence was a

requirement for al1 students. Within these classrooms the assistant stood ai am's length

and encouraged peer involvement. In one particular classroom, a child with a moderate

intellectual disability was m i n g around the track during gym class. While the assistant

was assiped to work with this child during gym, she stood at a distance and watched as

this child arduously ran around the track until another child held ont0 her and helped her

around the track. instances of independence were also observed with regard to students

cornpleting individual projects. They would ask for assistance but were encouraged to

find solutions on their own, using the resources available to them in the classroom.

Unlike the children who were encouraged to developed patterns of dependency.

these children were reinforced for any attempt at initiating independence. The

opportunities provided to these children to become actively involved with al1 facets of

their environment enabled them to experiment with numerous strategies in their effort to

become autonomous and effective copers.


smw

Most children in this study were assessed by their teachers as using effective

coping behaviors in at least some daily school events. They were found to expenence

greatest difficulty enacting flexible as opposed to rigid behaviors; that is, difficulty in

being able to use a variety of coping behaviors to meet different stressful events. Their

scores on the Self-Flexible dimension were significantly lower than their scores on the

Self-Active and Self-Productive dimensions of the Coping Inventory.

Results of the correlational analysis used to assess whether the students' coping

behavior was related to their persona1 variables of age, IQ and behavior problems

suggested that the only factor that was related to children's overall coping ability was

their behavioral difficulties, as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist. Both the

overall behavioral score and the two dimensions (intemal and external) were related to

coping efforts.

Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were employed to examine the

characteristics of good and poor copers. Quantitative results suggested that personal

variables of age, gender, and IQ were not significantly related to good and poor copers.

The oniy significant difference between these two groups of copers was on the behavioral

measure: good copers had fewer behavioral problems than did poor copers. Qualitative

analysis provided evidence that both good and poor copers were aware of their primary

wants and needs (e.g., social acceptance and academic success). However, only the good

copers were capable of meeting their needs in appropriate ways such that positive results


ensued (e.g. asking for assistance to accomplish a dificult task). The positive feedback

that resulted both in tems of personal satisfaction and reinforcement from peers and

teachers further encouraged their use of effective coping.

With regard to differences between the coping efforts of children in regular and

special classrooms, no significant diReremes were found on the overall coping inventory.

However, there were sipificant differences on individual dimensions of the inventory.

Students in special classrooms were more effective than students in regular classrooms in

the Self-Flexible and Environment-Active dimensions of the Coping Inventory.

Furthemore, the Self and the Environment categories were more consistent for children

in special classrooms than for children in regular classrooms making the children in

special classrooms more "integrated copers."

Finally. qualitative analyses suggested that certain classroom practices seemed to

enhance or inhibit chldren's ability to leam adaptive coping behaviors. Practices that

appeared to encourage effective coping efforts were those that provided the opportunity

for students to use hial and error in leaming and practicing a vax-iety of coping responses.

These practices included the restricted use of teacher assistants as "shadows," a teaching

style that allowed students to express opinions, and an environment in which students

followed an established cum'culurn, were engaged in c ~ c u l a r tasks for an appropriate

amount of t h e , and had oppoxtunities to leam to interact effectively with their peers and

to leam to solve problems independently.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the coping behaviors of children wiîh

rnild to severe intellechial disabilities who were educated in regdar and special

classrooms. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were employed to investigate (a)

how effectively children with an intellectual disability coped with cornmonplace school

events. (b) what persona1 factors seemed to affect their coping efforts, (c) the

charactenstics of good and poor copers, (d) whether the coping strategies of children in

the regular and the special classes differed, and (e) classroom teacher practices that

dfected the development of children's coping efforts. The fuidings will be discussed with

regard to these five areas.

Effectiveness of Children's Coping Efforts

In this study. 87% of al1 children received coping scores between 2.2-5.0. This

range sugests that most of the children used effective coping efforts in sorne or in many

situations. Of particular difficulty for these childreq however, was the ability to use a

variety of strategies and to shift strategies depending upon the specific situation. This

diffïculty was indicated by their significantly lower scores on the Self-Flexible dimension

as compared to both the Self-Productive and Self-Active dimensions of the Coping

Inventory. In order to be flexible with regard to coping efforts, individuals m u t appraise

7 7

each situation and produce the most appropriate response accordingly. The majority of

children in this study coped by perseverating through the use of a narrow and rigid

repertoire of coping behaviors.

This study supports previous research positing that children with an intellectud

disability are restrictive in both the number of coping strategies that they use and in their

ability to shift strategies according to a specific situation. Zeitlin and colleagues (Zeitlin,

1980; Zeitlin & Williamson, 1990) attributed children's weakness in this area to their

particular dificulty with self initiated behavior and the inability to alter strategies based

on the particular situation (Zeitlin & Williamson, 1990). in addition, Wayment and

Zeitlin (1989) found that students with learning problems exhibited a less self negotiated

style and were more emotional in their responses than were non leaming disabled

children. According to Zeitlin ( 1985), children's inability to use diverse coping behaviors

is brought about through a general lack of environmental support.

From the observational data and the qualitative analyses, there appeared to be

three distinct categories of events w i h the classroom envkonments that required the use

of adaptive coping efforts of children with an intellectual disability Fint, children in al1

the classroom environments had to deal with social issues inside and outside the

classroom. The issues differed in the various environments with regard to form and

intensity, yet in both the integrated and the segregated classrooms the apparent pressure

on these children to deal with these situations was evident. Second, academic task was an

area that was often a source of stress for children with an intellectual disability. This area

incorporates the difficulty of the task itself and the circurnstances not directly related to

the task ( e g . length of t h e involved in the same activity). The third area viewed as a

source of stress related to unpleasant or unexpected events that took place in the regular

and special classrooms.

Ryan-Wenger ( 1992), in her examination of 16 empirical studies focusing on

children's coping efforts, produced an expansive list of 15 specific strategies used by

children (ranging Born infancy to adolescence) in coping with situations in their

environment. Some of the situations are cornmonplace, and others are more threatening

(e.g., hospitalization). Through the compilation of these studies, Ryan-Wenger

developed a taxonomy of coping strategies that includes such strategies as: aggressive

responses; behavioral acts ( e g , avoidance, distraction); cognitive acts (e-g.? avoidance,

distraction, problem solving, restruciuring); emotional acts (e.g., emotional expression):

and various means of gaining support (e-g., social, spiritual).

The children in this study responded in only a few ways to the social pressures

with which they were confronted. Children with intellectual disabilities in regular

classrooms tended to use more prosocial behaviors in their attempts to involve themselves

in social situations. Initially, these children used "emotional expressions" (e.g., asking

students if they could be included in the activity, or expressing their dissatisfaction with

aggressive acts of othen). When these emotional efforts were met without success, many

of these children resorted to either aggressive acts or acts that isolated them from their

peers. Typically these children would either physically isolate themselves (e.g., playing

in the corner by themselves) or act

of any social interaction. Children

79

foolishly (e-g., spitting) that resulted in the cessation

with intellectual disabilities in special classrooms

4

4

appeared to be under less pressure to be included in social activities with their peers.

Teachers would either establish activities that included d l students or students would

involve themselves in activities by themselves or with peers. However when problems

arose they tended to resort to aggression as an initial means of solvhg problems.

In terms of dealing with acadernic difficulties children in regdar classrooms who

worked prùnarily with a teacher assistant dealt with mcult tasks by emotional

expression (e-g., asking for a break) or self controllhg activities such as self stimulatory

behaviors (e-g.. flailing their hands or rockuig bacli and forth). Within special

classrooms, observations were noted that there was seemingly less pressure placed on

these children to perform. When children found the task to be dificult, they asked for

help. M e n they did not want to engage in the activity, they tended to use behavioral

avoidance. Whiie children in both regular and special classrooms fkequently asked for

help when needed, few children could solve problems by themselves.

Finally, when students in all classroom situations were confronted with seemingly

aversive or unexpected events, while their initial reactions were aggressive (e.g., physical

attacks), children in reylar classrooms used self-controlhg activities (e.g., emotion

management) seemingiy because they could observe the acceptable behaviors of

80

nondisabled peers. Children in special classrooms were more aggessive in their attempt

to deal with the aversive event or situation and typically teacher intervention was

required.

in al1 situations, children with intellectual disabilities tended to use a limited

number of strategies. In terms of children's effons to cope with academic taslis, here too.

children used either self-controlling or aggressive efforts but very few chldren anempted

more cognitive strategies. While this would be a parcicular challenge to chldren with

intellectual disability. clearly efforts could be made to help them develop their ability to

appraise these specific situations and attempt to implement very basic cognitive strategies

such as read the question a second t h e (cognitive problem solving) or think about a

reward or to tell oneself it's acceptable (cognitive restructunng). According to Kamann

and Wong (1993) directly teachmg students with disabilities appropriate coping strategies

(e-p.. self talk) is an effective means of altering their responses to stressful situations.

Althou@ chldren in the present study used a limited number of strategies they

were more capable in terms of using diverse strategies to meet environmental hstrations

and challenges than they were at meeting their personal needs. It is reasonable to

speculate that children received significantly higher scores on the Environment-Flexible

subscale than the Self-Flexible subscale because of the extensive support provided to

these children to confom to environmental demands (e-g., sitting quietly at desks and

complete stencils). Classroom observations indicated that there was less focus on

proviciing them with the means to acquire adaptive cophg strategies that could enable

them to meet their persona1 needs.

Children in this study also had problems initiating and sustaining actions to deal

with dBïcult situations. According to Zeitlin (1985), opportunities for children to

interact with different facets of their immediate environment are essentid if they are to

develop expertise and confidence in initiating behaviors that will ultimately lead to

successful results. Through practice in ski11 development and trial-and-error learning.

children are encouraged to attempt various coping strategies that will eventually lead to

positive results, thus increasing their sense of self worth and their feelings of competency

and mastery over their surroundings. Within the current study, school related problems

that arose were often resolved through solutions generated by teachers or teacher

assistants. Thus, students were not motivated to generate their own solutions to

problems, nor were they provided with opportunities to leam to use classrnates or other

resources as a means of finding substitutes for their hstrations.

Penond Variables and Coping Behavior

Results of the cment study suggest that the only variable that affected chddren's

coping style was their behavioral conduct. Specifically, effective copers displayed

adaptive behavioral conduct, whereas ineffective copers displayed conduct problems.

Dumg interviews, teachen articulated that they were most concemed with students who

consistently used aggression or other acting out behaviors to resolve confhcts. Equally

8 2

concerning to teachers was the inability of these children to recognize the ineffecîiveness

of their acts in ternis of meeting their extemal or intemal needs. According to Zeitlin

(1985), three types of behaviors may be generated in response to stresshl situations. The

first type of behaviors involve active coping where new behaviors are attempted and

learned. The second class of less effective responses involves perseveratory acts. These

behaviors protect the child rather than facilitate new leaming. Finally, the most

ineffective responses generated by maladaptive copers are those tbat are so ineffective

that they result in total isolation fiom rational interactions. Accordmg to both teacher

interviews and observational analyses, the aggressive acts of these ineffective copers

resulted in them beuig cut off fiom interactions with their classmates and teachers.

Therefore, they were unable to modulate their aggressive acts through interactions with

their environment.

Conversely, effective copers in this study employed socially acceptable ways of

dealing with difficult situations. The positive feedback that they received from their

classmates and teachers encowaged their continued efforts to attempt and master

effective coping strategies.

Characteristics of Good and Poor Copers

Results of the present study indicated several differences between good and poor

copers. Through the quantitative analysis, good copers were found to exhibit

significantly more adaptive behavioral conduct than poor copers. They used a wider

range of coping efforts and could execute coping strategies that were effective given a

particular situation. Teachers articulated that children who displayed acting out

behaviors were incognizant of the fact that their behaviors were not producing desirable

results.

Through the more in-depth qualitative analysis of the coping efforts of effective

and ineffective copers, it was apparent ba t good copers could meet their own needs in a

socially acceptable manner despite the complexity of the situation and the obstacles with

which they were presented. They actively engaged in coping efforts and displayed

flexibility with regard to effecting the best solution aven the situation (e-g., eliciting peer

rather than teacher support when engaged in activities with peers). in addition to

employing a range of coping behaviors that were effective given the specific situation,

these copers were also productive and active in their coping efforts. According to both

teacher reports and observational analysis, it was apparent that effective copers were able

to initiate and maintain efforts to meet their own personal needs. For example, it was

very important for many of the children in reylar classrooms that they not be singled

out. When situations occurred whereby they felt that they were being given special

treatment (e-g., witing a test outside of the classroom so that they can be @en extra

assistance), they would resist the intervention, usually by offering an alternate plan (e-g.,

having a classrnate help them or writing a simpler test so that they could complete it on

their own). They were persistent in their demands yet appropriate in their efforts. The

positive results that ensued enabled them to be productive in their coping efforts.

Presumably, their ability to effect positive results enhanced their self esteem and enabled

them to maintain control over their environment. a factor critical to the development of

productive coping efforts.

Conversely, the students who were poor copers responded v e v impulsively to

difficult situations and in doing so, they often disturbed both students and teachers.

Teacher assistants seemed to have the expectation that these children would respond

maladaptively. Therefore they kept the chifdren very close at hand rather than giving

them oppomuiities to attempt more adaptive responses without teacher assistant

intervention. The apparent ineffectiveness with whch the poor copers dealt with

stressful situations prevented them fiom maintainhg control over their environment. It is

reasonable to speculate that the lack of positive outcornes lefi hem unrnotivated to

attempt more adaptive response to stressful situations.

According to researchers in the area of coping and children with an intellectual

disability (e.g., Shulman et al., 1995; Zeitlin & Williamson 1990), children with

disabilities are less capable than nondisabled children of effectively appraising and

deciding upon adaptive responses in dealing with stresshl situations. However. in the

present study, differences were observed between the ineffective and effective copers, al1

of whom had an intellectual disability, in ternis of their ability to maintain effective

coping strategies in dealing with seemingly stresshl events. Zeitlin (1985) and Kamann

and Wong (1995) discussed the importance of teaching children with disabilities

strategies that will facilitate their use of adaptive coping behaviors. Effective copers, in

this study, were provided with direct instruction in developing strategic repertoires,

8 5

enabling them to respond autonomously to diEcult situations (e.g., conflicts with peers,

cMficult class work). Furthemore, they were able to experiment with their newly leamed

behaviors in interactions with peers. The fmdings of this study with regard to good and

poor copers represent possible trends that require M e r investigation.

Coping Efforts of Children in Regular and Special Classrooms

Resutts of this study did not support the hypothesis that children with an

intellectual disability integrated into regular classrooms would develop more effective

coping behaviors than their counterparts in speciai classrooms.

There are several reasons that might explain why children in regular classrooms

did no better than children in special classrooms. First, the children had minimal

opportunity to interact with peers. Researchers examining the stress coping paradigm

have explicated the importance of extemal resources (e.g., social support) in facilitating

the development of adaptive coping behaviors (Billings & Moos, 198 1). Through

interactions with others, individuals leam to moderate their own behaviors and fmd

support to deal with stressful events. Futthemore, according to Gunnar (1987), as

chddren develop they move away from their preference for adult support toward peer

support in dealing with stressful events.

Chtldren in regular classrooms who were involved in dyadic relationships with a

teacher assistant for most of the day were observed to have few opportunities to interact

with classrnates. Therefore it is reasonable to speculate that these children were at a

disadvantage because of the lack of peer interactions that could facilitate the leaming of

8 6

adaptive coping. While children educated in special classrooms were also provided with

over support that impeded their ability to develop independence. they were provided with

more oppomuiities to interact with classrnates and had more freedom to move about

within the classroom.

Second, children in regular classrooms had pressure imposed on them to confom

to environmental demands (e.g., engage in work for very long periods without a break)

with far less emphasis placed on satisfjang their own wants or needs. According to

Zeitlin (1985), when children are able to cope with environmental demands but are

ineffective in meeting persona1 needs, hstration results. Children with an intellectual

disability in the regular classroom were observed to be under constant adult supervision.

with few oppominities to initiate their own actions.

environmental iules, yet they had not been provided

meet their own needs.

They were required to meet

with ample opportunities to Iearn to

The tendency to encourage integrated children to conform to the environment

( eg . not cause disruptions, stand out in any way). perhaps at the expense of meeting

their own wants and needs, was seen in the quantitative as well as the qualitative analysis.

Children in the regular and specid classrooms were observed to have different patterns

with regard to meeting their own needs (Self category) and conforming to environmental

noms (Environment categov). When children in the regular classrooms did well on

coping with the environment they did poorly on coping with themselves, suggesting an

inconsistent coping profüe that favored a response to environmental needs over their own.

87

In contrast, children educated in special classrooms presented a more consistent

coping style. Although they also were more adaptive in tems of meeting environmental

noms than meeting personal needs, this was tme for al1 dimensions, with the result that

they were more integrated copen. According to Zeitlin (1985). in order to maintain

integrated functioning (which is contrasted with vulnerabili ty), adaptive copers must

maintain a balance between meeting their own needs and conforming to the needs of the

environment . Children in replar classrooms were observed to have particular difficulty

maintaining a balance between personal wants and needs and environmental demands.

Findy, it is possible that the chddren did not do beaer in integrated classrooms

because the classrooms lacked some of the "essential" ingredients of an inclusive

classroom. Proponents of integated education have fkequently emphasized that in order

for students to reap the benefits of social and academic expenences with nondisabled

peers, fundamental elements must be incorporated withui al1 domains of the classroom

(Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Villa et al., 1992). These elements uiclude (a) cumculum

modification to meet the individual needs of students? yet parallel to the regular

~uniculum; (b) opportunities for social interaction with peers within both academic and

social contexts; (c) social, emotional and academic support provided primarily by the

classroom teacher not the teacher assistant; (d) support fiom the teacher assistant to al1

members of the classroom not just the integrated child; and (e) the ability of the teacher

and teacher assistants to distance thernselves and enable integrated chddren to work

independently or coilaboratively with the support of peers. The absence of some or al1

8 8

these fundamental variables appeared to have had negative effects on children's attempts

to cope effectively withm more complex environments.

Classroom Practices that Anected Children's Coping Efforts

Role of Teacher Assistants

In many of the classroorns observed kacher assistants provided children with

excessive support in terms of dealing with diffkult situations, thus apparently impeding

their ability to leam adaptive coping through mal and error. A hamiful outcorne of the

teacher assistants' over support was the influence it had on inhibithg the development of

a varied coping repertoire, a nidimentaiy factor in the development of adaptive coping

behaviors (Zeitlin & Williamson, 1990). Furthemore, children in thïs study were not

provided with opportunities to execute difTerent responses to situations in an attempt to

comprehend the notion of con~gency , particularly in how their responses influenced

outcornes. Important to the constnict of coping is the relationship between children's

understanding of their actions and the consequences that follow. Accordhg to

researchers in this area (e.g., Compas et al., 1991: Rothbaum, 1979), children must have

opportunities to master or alter events in their swoundings to begin to comprehend this

relationship. As children develop emotionally and cognitively, they increase their

understanding of contingency, and the role they play in influencing life events. However,

in this study, many teacher assistants "shadowed" the children with an inteliectual

disability so closely that they were not provided with oppomuiities to attempt Merent

responses to sihiations perceived as stressful.

8 9

In contrast, in the more positive situations, the role of the assistant was not one of

"shadow," but rather, one of entire class supporter. Much of their involvement took place

before the child's entry into the classroom. Both the teacher and teacher assistant worked

collaboratively in developing and irnplernenting a set of objectives. Within this type of

classroom, the teacher had prirnary responsibility for al1 students, including the child with

a disability, and the assistant was there to provide support to dl children. Ln these

situations, the assistant facilitated rather than impeded the social functioning of the child.

Using direct inshuction, the assistant provided the children with tools that enabled them

to respond independently and more adaptively to difficult school situations.

The role of teacher assistant as a collaborator for the whole classroom is

consistent with the literature on inclusive education. Researchers in the area of

interactive teaming (Thomas-Chase et al., 1995) explicate the importance of creating

teams of educators working together to meet a common goal. In order to maximize the

effectiveness of teacher support systems, team members should not operate in isolation to

support only those children with a disability, but should work together within the context

of the entire classroom and the school as a whole.

The extent to which extemal control was imposed on these children M e r added

to their inability to develop a diverse coping repertoire. Extensive research in the area of

perceived control has defmed this construct as the role that Uidividuds believe that they

have in infiuenciog events in their lives (Skinner et al., 1988). Perceptions of control are

90

either enhanced or diminished because of perceived effectiveness in dealing with these

events. Furthemore, to have control over one's life and maintain the motivation to

control events, the outcomes must be controllable and the individual must have the skills

to exercise Uus con~ol . In many classroorns, children were often in situations in which

they were unable to exercise control over their lives, and this seerned to result in their

relinquishing attempts to make their own decisions and initiate actions.

The content of the curriculum, and its possible impact on the students' coping

behavior, was Luilied to the issue of control. When the cumculum appeared to be well

organized and rnodified to meet the children's academic level, there was little confusion

about what students had to do to meet their teachers' expectations. However, in situations

where the cuniculum was not well organized, and the teaching methodology was rnainly

one of giMng students seat work that had little continuity. students appeared confused

about what they were required to do. This often led to their inability to develop maste ry.

It was dificuit for them to develop autonomy or self reliance with regard to academic

tasks. This added to their inability to maintain control over their environment, a factor

according to Zeitlin (1985) that is a critical component of developing adaptive coping

behaviors.

Researchers studying teaching effectiveness have underlined the importance of

creating a coherent integrated c u m i c u l ~ in order for students to achieve academic

success. Teacher practices that have been delineated as enhancing student learning are

9 1

(a) developing and prioritizing leamhg goals and objectives; (b) actively teaching new

concepts and then creating small learning groups to review these concepts;

(c) continuously reviewing and referring to objectives throughout the course of

instruction; (d) keeping seatwork activities to a minimum, and (e) ensuring that the

activities are productive, carefully prepared, and actively supenised. The incorporation

of these effective teaching practices encourages student involvement and mastery of the

curriculum for al1 students (Brophy & Good, 1986; Lewis & Doorlag. 1995).

m e d Tune with the Cumculum

Many students in this study were observed to have had either too Little or too much

engaged leaming time and this seemed to affect both their ability to develop mastery as

well as to develop independent leaniing habits. Researchers in the area of teacher

effectiveness have highlighted the importance of keeping noninstmctional t h e to a

minimum, rnaintaining a brisk Pace of instruction, and keeping transition times short

(Lewis & Doorlag 1995). According to these researchers it is important for teachers to

maintain a proper balance between engaged t h e and fiee tirne. la this study, there were

many situations in whch there was too much or i n ~ ~ c i e n t amounts of engaged time.

. . ~ominities to Interact wth P e a

Ln this study, children's interactions with their peers were often found to be

problematic. Integrated children often seemed deterniined to involve themselves in social

activities with their peers; however, when many efforts on theû part were rejected they

92

inevitably responded with aggression. They had the desire to be socially accepted but

they received little guidance to achieve this end.

According to Lazarus (1966), stress occurs when the demands placed on an

individual are beyond their "adjustive power." The excessive demands placed on these

children to interact approprïately seemed to exceed their capability; thus they were lefi

deplete of resources to cope with this rejection. Haan's (1977) Mew of coping

emphasizes the importance of a "goodness of fit" between the child's coping resources

and the demands placed on that child. Given the very demanding tasks the children were

observed to faced. and the extent to which they were presented with problems on a daily

basis. they clearly needed help in meeting the challenges of socializing with peers.

ominity to Develop Independence

The notion of dependency is critical to an individual's ability to cope. To deal

effectively with the multitude of diverse elements in any environment, individuals must

develop a repertoire of coping behaviors, many of which corne about through trial and

error. It is difficult, if not impossible, to develop a copuig repertoire when this ability to

learn through mal-and-en-or is impeded. A pervasive level of dependency was observed

in most classrooms, both special and regular. In almost al1 the situations observeci, the

children with an intellectual disability had almost no chance to develop independence

because solutions to many of their classroom problems were generated by the teachen or

teacher assistants. However, the passive acceptance that these children were observed to

have exhbited in tems of enabling adults to control many stressful situations in their

lives, seemed to be encouraged and reinforced by the adults thernselves. In these

situations, children who l e m e d to depend on adults for guidance and support adhered to

their role of subordinate, and tended to respond to stressful situations with a passive

acceptance of the responses effected by adults.

It was evident through interview data that teachers were aware of this

dependency. They frequently expressed concern that the sîudents could not accomplish

simple tasks (e.g., independently putting on their coats or working on academic tasks).

However, the teachers did not seem to be aware of their involvement in creating this

dependency. This was especially tnie for the teacher assistants, who seerned to believe

that their role as assistants was to "shadow" these children and perform the necessary

tasks so that they could f i c t ion within their respective classrooms. Researchers who

had examined the coping behaviors of children with a disability described how childrenfs

efforts were affected by their dependency on adults (Zeitlin & Williamson, 1990). in this

study, the adults seemed to reinforce the children's dependency upon them.

Those who have studied the interactions between children with disabilities and

their parents have addressed the phenornenon of parents not respecting their children's

need for autonomy as their children move into adolescence (Shulman & Rubintroit, 1987;

Zetlin & Turner, 1985). These researchers found that parents of children with

disabilities tended to be controlling and to dictate how their children should respond to

various situations, and this negatively impacted on the child's ability to become

autonomous in the development of coping behaviors. These children tend to respond to

94

the extemal control irnposed on them by their parents by passively accepting their role of

dependent. A similar phenornenon was observed in the present study with regard to the

relationship between students with an intellechial disability and teacher assistants. The

assistants tended to encourage dependency and many children accepted this dependency

on addts.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

Educational Implications

This study has documented a number of educational factors that may have

uuluenced the coping behaviors of children with an intellectud disability within both

regular and special classroorns. These factors wiil be addressed, followed by

implications for classroom teachers and suggestions for fiiture research.

Based upon existing research and the qualitative analyses of the present

study. it appears that the social organization of the classroom was a very important factor

regarding the coping behaviors of children in the current study. To create classrooms that

enhance social connections among children with and without disabilities the process of

integrahon must go beyond cosmetic changes within the classroom (e.g., rearranging the

b i t u r e ) . Students should be provided with authentic opportunities to engage in

meaningful academic and social tasks with their peers. W e examples of such

opportunities were evident (e.g., ongohg discussions of conflict resolution or

collaborative math activities where the task was set up such that al1 children were

encouraged to work together), there were few instances where collaboration went beyond

surface features. Current models of collaborative leamhg (Stevens & Slawi, 1995)

suggest going beyond sudace features of cooperation to authentic opportunities for

students to leam withm the social context of the classroom. Lazams (1966) discussed

intrinsic properties that are common to an array of stimuli that an individual is confkonted

9 0

wi th in his/her interactions with the environment. Children with an intellectual disability

need to leam what those properties are within their natural context and have authentic

oppomullties to cope with these events.

The opportunity to l e m social skills appeared to be another important dimension

that influenced the children's coping behavior in this study. In order for children with an

intellectual disability to learn prosocial behaviors fiom their nondisabled peers they

should be provided with oppominities both within the acadernic confines of the classroom

and the unsûuctured play time, enabling them to interact with peers. As Guralnick and

Groom (1987) have articulated, these children need to be provided with naturally

occurring and purposeful oppominities to l e m social skiiis fiom their nondisabled peers.

Moreover, a cycljcal effect occurs in that once children begin to develop social behaviors.

they are more likely to develop social relationships thus further reuiforcing their

motivation to mode1 and experiment with observed social behaviors (Madden & Slavin,

1983). In addition, researchers have focused on the benefits of social bonds and

relationships, and interdependence arnong shidents with a disability and nondisabled

peers, as prerequisites to accepting diversity and developing tolerance of others (Johnson

& Johnson 1994). Accordingly, the development of these social bonds can best be

facilitated through programs that enhance acceptance and tolerance of diversity (Hamip,

1989; Johnson & Johnson, 1983), .

Collaborative leaming is conceptually an effective way of achieving these

important objectives and laying the foundation for reciprocal relationships between

97

children with a disability and their nondisabled peers. Ln this study there were few

classroorns where coilaborative leaming strategies were implemented in a comprehensive

way. For the most part, children were observed to be working independently with few

oppominities to interact in social and academic contexts. Nondisabled students worked

under the guidance of the classroom teacher and the integrated student worked under the

guidance of the assistant. However, there were exceptions, when teachers were effective

in encouraging social interaction as a vehicle for students to learn fkom one another.

The quality of instruction was also found to be an important factor in developing

children's coping behavior. Children with intellectual disabilities shoufd be provided with

coherent and relevant instruction. The importance of direct instruction pertaining to

problem solving strategies and accurate appraisal of situations appears to be critical to the

development of adaptive coping behaviors (Forsythe & Compas, 1987; Gottman et al.,

1976; Gresham, 198 1; Gresham, & Nagle, 1980; Lazams & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus et al.,

1970). However it was notably lacking in many observed classrooms. Appraisal is

particularly critical in both detemiining whether a situation is benign or harmfid and

effecting an appropriate solution. According to Calhoun and Beattie ( 1989), the ability to

accwately appraise a situation is dependent upon cognitive development and problem

solving ability and this ofien leaves children with an intellectual disability at a

disadvantage. However, there were infiequent opportunities provided to the children to

appraise events in their classrooms and respond adaptively to diverse situations.

The children's dependence on teachers and teacher assistants is deemed a M e r

98

factor that inhibited the development of adaptive coping. The over-support of the staff

seemed to reinforce the "at risktt passive and dependent behaviors of children with an

intellechial disability. In many classroom situations it appeared as though the "at risk"

behavior was induced by educational factors. in classrooms where support was given

only when needed and students were encouraged to develop independence and self

sufficiency, the children were found to have exhibited more adaptive coping behaviors

(despite their level of cognitive impairment).

In view of these fmdings. several recommendations for teacher training can be

made. First teacher training should involve the development of strategies to deal with the

needs of children in a pluralistic society. Chldren with an intellectual disability present a

unique situation in tems of their particular needs. Specifically, these children appear to

require adapted instruction o p p o d t i e s to interact with nondisabled peers, and

activities to develop independent coping strategies, particdarly because of a vulnerability

toward dependency on adults (Ze i th and Williamson, 1990).

Second, it is recommended that teachers receive instruction about how to set up a

collaborative classruom environment, how to foster peer relationships, and how to

develop instruction such that children will learn to become independent thinkers. Third.

it is suggested that both preservice and i n s e ~ c e training provided to teachers go beyond

packaged programs to opportunities for teachers to reflect on their own philosophy about

teaching and about how children l e m . Accordingly, teachers should be enabled to bring

forth their own value system with the awareness that their beliefs about education will

influence their teachuig practices. To this end, teachers should be provided with

oppominities to reflect their own practices that encourage meaningfid learning activities

that accommodate individual differences.

Finally. teachers need training in how to create a classroorn in which children with

an intellectual disability can be included in the social and intellectual fabric of the

classroom, for in order for them to benefit fkom the inclusion within replar classrooms.

the oppominities that enable them to learn through involvement in social and academic

situations with peers must be present.

Future Research and Limitations of the Current Study

To understand how children's efforts develop over time in different environments.

future research should address this issue within the framework of a longitudinal study.

Within the confines of the present study a longitudinal examination of children's coping

efforts was not possible, although it would have been highly valuable. An exambation of

children's coping efforts within the fiamework of a longitudinal study could focus on the

irnplementation of a program that focuses on coherent instructional strategies that

encourage self sufficiency and the ability to effect productive active and flexible

strategies within the context of an integrated classroom. In addition, future research

could focus on training teachers in both regular and special classrooms to incorporate

methods that teach children varied coping strategies, and the skills to ascertain situations

and select adaptive responses.

There are several limitations of the current study that need to be addressed. First,

100

this study may only be generalized to urban children with intellectual disabilities in

similar school situations. A larger sample size including children fiom both nual and

urban school settings should be used in future studies. Second, the use of additionai

coping inventories would be valuable in terms of expanding upon the domains of coping.

Onginal Contributions

The most important contribution of the cment study was the emphasis placed on

examining the context withm which children with intellectual disabilities function and its

possible d u e n c e s on coping behavior. A preliminary investigation, the current study

conveys the importance of developing a berter understanding of how to provide these

children with positive opportunities and learning experiences that will enable hem to

become more adaptive copers.

Most research to date has focused on the fact that children with an intellectual

disability are, for the most part, maladaptive in their coping efforts. Studies conducted in

this area delineate the apparent deficiencies of children with intellectual disabilities with

little emphasis or explanation of potential educational factors that influence these

deficiencies. Withui the context of this exploratory investigation, important weaknesses

or areas of vulnerability are explore4 not only in the children but in their environments.

Specific educational practices are addressed that seem most influentid in impeding

children's coping effort.

The use of both quantiative and qualitative analyses to examine coping behaviors

of children with an intellectual disability has not been previously done. This mode1 of

101

incorporating both quantitative and qualitative aspects of children's coping behaviors may

be a useful paradigm for examining coping behaviors of al1 children.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (199 1). Manlrai for rhe Child Behavior Checkiïsr 4-18 and 1991 Profile.

Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Alper, S. (1996). Interacting with nondisabled peers. In D.L. Ryndak & S . Alper (Eds.),

Cirrricitlttrn content for sttrdents with moderare and severe disabifities in inclusive

seltings. Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

Altshuler, J. L., & Ruble, D. N. (1989). Developmental changes in children's awareness of

strategies for coping with uncontrollable stress. Child Development, 60, 1 3 3 7- 1349.

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of

imitative responses. Joitrnal of Personalit). and Social Psychologr: 1, 589-595.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social fearning theop. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Biklen, D. ( 1985). Achieving the complete schoof: Sfrategiesfor eflective mainstreaming. New

York: Columbia University Press.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R.S. (198 1). The role of coping responses and social resources in

attenuating the stress of life events. Joirrnal of Behmiorai Medicine, 4, 1 3 9- 1 56.

Bjaames, A. T., & Butler, E. W. (1974). Environmental variation in community care facilities

for mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 429-439.

Bogden, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative researchfor educurzon: Ai7 in~rodircrion to

theory and n~ethods (2nd ed.). Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

1 0 3

Brady, M. P., McEvoy, M.A., Gunter, P., Shores, RI., & Fox, J.J. (1 984). Considerations for

socially integrated school environments for severely handicapped students. Educatioi~

and Training of the Menrally Reîarded, 24, 247-253.

Brider, R. P., & Lewis, M. (1982). Diseovering the competent handicapped infant: Topics in

early chiidhood education. Special Edrrcution, 2, 1 - 16.

Brophy, J. & Good T L . (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Bruininks, R. H., Thurlow, M., & Gilman, C.J. (1987). Adaptive behavior and mental

retardation. The Journal oj'Speciul Edtîca;ion, 21, 69-88.

Calhoun, M. L.. & Beame, J. (1987). School competency needs of mildly handicapped

adolescents. Adolescence, 22, 555-563.

Campos, J., & Stenberg. C. (198 1). Perception, appraisal, and emotion: The onset of social

referencing. In M. Lamb & L. Shemod (Eds.), Injànt social cogni~zon: Empirical and

theorerical considerarions (pp 273 -3 14). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chandler, M. ( 1982). Childrer? irnder srress: Unders~adzj~g entorionul u@slmeni reaclions.

Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Cohen H. (1988). Measurement of adaptive behavior: Ongins, trends, issues. Children and

Yotcth Services, 1 O, 3 7-8 1.

Compas, B. E. (1987). Assessment of major and daily stressful events during adolescence: The

adolescence perceived events scale. Jotrrnal oj'Constîlting and C h i c d Psychologv, 55.

534-54 1.

104

- Compas, B. E., Banez, G. A., Malcame, V., & Worsham, N. (199 1). Perceived control &

coping with stress: A developmental Perspective. Jotrrnal of Social Issiies. 4 7. 23-34.

Compas, B. E., Malcaine, V.L., & Fondacaro, K.M. (1988). Coping with stressful events in

older children and adolescents. Joirrnal of Consuiting and Clinical Psycholog; 56.

405-4 1 5 .

Cone, J. D. (1 987). Intervention planning using adaptive behavior instruments. Journal of

Specicd Ediictcntion 2 1, 127- 148.

Emmer, E. T., Evertson. C M . . Clements, B.S. & Wonham. M.E. (1994). Classruonl

rnanagemen~fur secondary reachers. (3rd ed.). Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

Folkman. S.. & Lazanis. R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle aged community

sample. Jotrrnai of'Heafrk and Social Behavior. 21. 2 19-239.

Forsythe. C. J.. & Compas, B. E. ( 1987). Interaction of cobpitive appraisals of stressful events

and coping: Testing the goodness of fit hypothesis. Coptirii:e Therap?* & Research. I I .

473-485.

Gottman, J., Gonso. J. & Shuler, P. (1976). Teaching social skills to isolated children.

Joiirnal o fA bnonnal Child Psychology. 4. 179- 197.

Gresham, F. M. (1 98 1 ). Social skills training with handicapped children: A review. ReiVew of

Edidcarional Research, 5 1, 13 9- 1 76.

Gresham, F. M., & Nagle, R.J. (1980). Social skills training in children: Responsiveness to

modelling and coaching as a f ic t ion of peer orientation. Jozrrnal of Considting and

Clinical Psychology, 48, 7 1 8-729.

105

Gunnar. M. R. ( 1979). Contingent stimulation: A review of its role in early development. In S.

Levine & H. Ursin (Eds), Coping and healfh New York: Plenum Press.

Gunnar, M. R. (1987). Psychological studies in stress and coping: An introduction. Chiid

Deve/opment, 58, 1403-1407.

Guralnick, M. J. & Groom, J. M. (1 987). The peer relations of mildly delayed and

nonhandicapped preschool children in mainstreamed playgroups. Child Developmenr. 58.

1556-1572.

Haan, N. ( 1977). Coping and dtfeerding: Process ofself-environmenf organiza~iott. New York:

Academic Press.

Hamison, P. L. ( 1 987). Research with adaptive behavior scales. Joiirnal of Specid Edricarion.

21, 37-68.

Hamip. W. W. ( 1989). Social relationships and their significance. American P.~ycho/ogrsr. 44,

120- 126.

Hom, E., & Fuchs, D. (1987). Using adaptive behavior in assessrnent and intervention: An

overview. Joitrnal ofSpecia2 Ediicarion. 2 1 , 1 1-26.

Johnson, R., & Johnson. D. W. (1983). EEects of cooperative, competitive, and indidualistic

leaming experiences on social development. Exceptional Children. 49, 323-329.

Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic

leaming experiences on social development. Excepfional Children, 49, 323-329.

1 0 6

Kamann, M. P.. & Wong, B. Y. L. (1993). Inducing adaptive coping self statements in children

with learning disabilities through self instruction. Journal of Learnirlg Disabilities. 26.

63 0-63 8.

Kamphaus, R. W. (1987). Conceptual and psychomehic issues in the assessrnent of adaptive

behavior. Journal o/Special Education, 21, 27-35.

Kauhan, A. S., & Kauhan, N. L. (1990). Kauhan Brief Intelligence Test. Toronto: Psycan.

Kleinberg, J., & Galligan, B. (1983). Effects of deinstitutionalization on adaptive behavior of

mentally retarded adults. American Joirrnal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 2 1-27.

Lazanis. R. S. (1966). Ps~cho/ogicul s1res.r and the copingprocess. New York: McGraw-Hill

Lazams, R. S., Averill, J. R., & Opton Jr., E. M. (1970). Toward a cognitive theory of emotion.

In M.B. Arnold (Ed.), Feelings and ernotions. New York: Academic Press.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folliman. S. (1984). Stress. Appraisaf a M o p i n g . New York: Springer.

Leland, H. (1978). Theoretical considerations of adaptive behavior. In W.A. Coulter & H.W.

Morrow (Eds.). Adaptive Behuvior: Concepts X Measirrernent @p. 21-44) New York:

Gmne & Stratton.

Lemer. J. V., Baker, N.. & Lemer, R. M. (1985). A person-context goodness of fit mode1 of

adjustment. In P.C. Kendall (Ed.), Adwnces in cognitive-behavioral researclt and

therapy (Vol 4, pp 1 1 1- 136). New York: Academic Press.

Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (1995). Teaching special students Ni the mainstream. (4th ed. ) .

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

107

Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. F. (1983) Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic

and social outcomes. Review ofEdrtcarionol Research, 53, 5 19-569.

Menadian, E. G. (1 983). Individual Coping Efforts: Moderators of the relationship between

life stress and mental health outcomes. In Howard B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychologzca/

Srress: Trends in Theory and Research (pp. 157- 19 1). New York: Academic Press.

Miles, M. B., & Hubennan, A. M. ( 1994). Qtialztia~ive dala ana/ysb: An expanded sourcebook

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mischel, H. N., & Mischel, W. (1983). The development of children's knowledge of self

control strategies. Child Developn~ent. 54. 603-609.

Murphy, L. B.. & Moriarity. A. (1976). C'dnerubility, cuping undgrow~h. New Haven. CT:

Yale University Press.

hlyles, B. S.. & Simpson. R. L. (1989). Regular educators' modification preferences for

mainstreaming mildly handicapped children. .Journal ofSpecia/ Ehcaf ion . 2, 479-49 1 .

Pearlin, L .I. &: Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Joztrilal ofHealfh and Sociaf

Rehmior, 19, 2-2 1.

Porter, G., & Richler, D. (1 99 1). Changing Canadian Schools. Toronto: The Roeher Institute.

Ritter, D. (1989). Social cornpetence and problem behavior of adolescent girls with learning

disabilitities. Learning Disabiliiies, 22, 460-46 1.

Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance and coping with stress. Americun

Psychologist, 41, 8 13-8 19.

Rothbaurn, P. (1979). Coping behavior and locus of control in cluldren. Journal of

Personaliry, 4 7, 1 1 8- 1 35.

Ryan-Wenger, N. M. (1 992). A taxonomy of children's coping strategies: A step toward theory

development. American Journal ofOrrhopsychiafry 62, 256-263.

Schneider, B. H. & Byme, B. M. (1984). Predictors of successful transition from self

contained special education to regular class seîhg. P s y c h o l o ~ in the Schools. 21. 375-

380.

Schulz, J. B., Carpenter. C .D.. & Turnbull, A. P. ( 199 1 ) . h4ainstrearning Exceptionai Srzidertr-s:

A p ide for classroom leachers. Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

Shulman. S., Carlton-Ford, S., Levian, R., Hed, S. (1995). Coping styles of leaming disabled

adul ts. Jozrn~al of' Yotith and Adolescence. 24, 28 1 -294.

Shulman, S.. & Rubintroit. C.I. (1987). The second indi\lduation process in handicapped

adolescents. Jozirnal ofadolescence. 10, 33 73-3 83.

Skinner. E. A.. Chapman. M., & Baltes. P.B. (1988). Control, means-ends and agency beliefs:

A new conceptualizahon and its measurement during childhood. Joi(rnal of'Prrsomlip

and Social Psychology, 54, 1 1 7- 1 3 3.

Snell, M. E. (1983). Systematic instniction of the moderateiy and severely handicapped (2nd

ed.). Columbus OH: Merrill.

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1 990). Sipport networks for inclusive schooiing. Baltimore:

Paul H. Brookes.

i09

- Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Forest, M. (1992). Encouraging peer supports and friendships.

Teaching Exceprional Chimen, 24, 6- 1 1.

Stevens, R. J., & Slavin S. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and

writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. The Elementary

School Joitrnal, 95, 24 1-262.

Thomas-Chase, T. C., Correa, V. I., & Voelker-Morsink, C. (1995). Interactive teaming:

Consirltution and collaboration in special programs. NJ : Simon & Shuster.

Towfighy-Hooshyar, N., & Zingle, H. ( 1984). Regular class students' amtudes toward

integrated multipl y handicapped peers. A mericun Journal of Mental Dejiciei~cy C18. 63 0-

637.

Udvari-Solner, A. & Thousand J. S. (1995). in R.A. Villa & J.S. Thousand (Eds.), Creai~ng an

incltrsive school. VA: ASCD.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Stainback, W., & Stainback. S. ( 1 997). Res~n~critringfor caring

awt efictive edircalion. Baltimore: Paul H . Brookes.

Yando, R., & Zigler, E. (197 1 ). Outerdirectedness in the problem solving of institutionalized

and noninstitutionalized normal and retarded children. Developmental Psycholog, 4,

277-288.

Wayment, H.A. & Zetlin, A.G. (1989). Coping responses of adolescents with and without mild

leaming handicaps. Menrd Re~ardu~ion. 2 7, 3 1 1 -3 16.

Weisz, J.R. (198 1). fllusory contingency in children at the state fair. Deveiopmental

Psychology, 1 7,48 1-489.

110

Winzer, M. ( 1990). Children wirh exceptionaMy: A Canadian perspectiw (2nd ed.) .

Scarborough: Prentice Hall.

Zeitlin, S. ( 1980). Assessing coping behavior. Arnericar? Jozirnal ofOr~hop.ychia/q: 30, 139-

144.

Zeitlin, S. (1982). Assessing Coping Behaviors in children with leaming disabilities.

Ekcep f ional Child, 29, 43-5 1 .

Zeitlin, S. ( 1 985). Coping lnleenroty. Bensenville. IL: Scholastic Testing SeMce.

Zeitlin. S.. & Williamson, G.G. (1990). Coping characteristics of disabled and nondisabled

young children. Anierican Jozrrnul c~'Or/hop.vj*chiu~y, 60, 404-4 1 1 .

Zetlin. AG. & Turner. J.L. ( 1 985). Transition fiom adolescence to adulthood: Perspectives of

mental ly retarded individual s and their families. .4mericun Joirrnal of Menfa/ Beficiency,

XI), 570-579.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

O~erational Definitions used in the Copin Inventorv [Zeitlin. 1985)

Coping is a general terni for the leamed behaviors used to meet persona1 needs and adapt

to the demands of the environment.

Ada~tive Copinq takes place when the chiid is open to new experiences, is able to care

for oneself and meet the demands of the environment.

Maladaptive Copinn Behaviors are characteristic of an individual who "defeats efforts to

care for oneself' and responds inappropnately to the demands of the environment.

Çnping Style is the way one typically manages the world by using specific strategies.

Coping style describes a characteristic way of behaving not a specific behavior. Three

bipolar dimensions are used to describe coping style: (a) productive-nonproductive. (b)

flexible-ngid and (c) active-passive.

Productive-Nonproductive. Productive coping behasiors are socially responsible.

enhance self esteem and effect desired results. In order for a child to be effective in this

domain he/she rnust respond to social dernands and influence what happens by

maintaking some control over personal needs and environmental demands.

Nonproductive coping behaviors are socially irresponsible dirninish self esteem and do

not produce desired results.

-&. Flexible copers use a variety of coping strategies and are able to shift

plans or reformulate ideas according to the specific situation. Rigid copers produce the

same strategies regardless of the particular situation and the results that ensue.

11 3

Active-Passive. Active copers initiate and sustain actions both mental and physical. They

have many opportunities to develop relationships and interests and fmd substitutions for

their frustration. Passive copers do not inihate or sustain actions. They tend to withdraw

or resist involvement.

APPENDiX B

Field Note Reference: 3.27: 04.19.93 Holly School Mrs Kraft Apri126, 1993 8: 15

--

obs. students given too much time to wnte in journal- should be given 10 minutes-she needs more structure

Observations

on board: Journal x words alpha capt L case Alpha order snack-recess math

Michelle works very slowly but she is very involved in her work. I

I Amy doing very little actual work

Students are very dependent on teachers.

she raises her hand and waits for 1 Little work done help independently

Michelle raises her hand 1 took Amy approx 1\2 hr to copy what's written on the board

aide sits next to Michelle to help her h t e in her journal. she dictates to the aide - he writes and then she reads. michelle needs a lot of help. raises hand and waits patiently.

APPENDK D

S a r n ~ l e Teacher Interview

Question: Please describe the situations in which Eric copes best.

Response: Eric copes best one on one with one adult or one other child. He doesn't cope

will in group lesson which is often involves discussion and not enough visual stimuli for

him. He t u e s out and ofien plays with something on the floor.

Question: What are some of the advantages for Eric, being included classrooms with

nondi sabled children.

Response: The biggest advantage for Elon is that he models the behaviors of the students.

He also models inappropriate behavior which is also important. He ofien works with

paiblers and enjoys interacting with them.

Question: Please describe the relationship between Eric and his peers.

Response: Eric is well accepted by his peers. At the b e g i ~ i n g he was very shy and he

would move away f o m othen. Now he only does this with new people. Sometimes he is

involved with students outside during recess but most ofien he is on the periphery as an

observer. When playing he often doesn't know what to do.

Question: What are some coping strategies that Eric utilizes in particularly dificult

situations.

Response: Eric doesn't have ways to cope with frustration, When he is hstrated he

repeats hirnself. He tends to get fixated on certain things. He has a very difficult time

with limitations. He gets very angry.

When things are motivating for example mammals -he concentrates and works well.

When he is lost he tends to go back to things that he knows and feels comfortable with.

He grasps on to things that are easy for him and gets fixated.

IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED - A IMAGE . lnc = 1653 East Main Street - ,=A Rochester, NY 14609 USA -- -- - - Phone: 71 6/482-O3ûû -- -- - - Fax: 71 6/288-5989

O 1993. ~gplied Image. lm. All Rights Reserved

Documents

Coping and Children with Disabilities · Coping and Children with Disabilities III Des stratégies d'adaptation pour des enfants à déficience intellectuelle dans des classes régulière