Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Quality in ECEC:EARLY INTERVENTION AND INCLUSIVE PRESCHOOL
CONTEXTS
Ana Isabel [email protected]
Seminar“Children wtith disabilities: Focus on Human Rights and interventionUniversity of Pretoria
1 February 2013
Demographics , cultural and socio-economic issues in
Portugal
Why focus developmental research on ECEC
The emergence of ECI – legal issues and practices in
Portugal
In service training and research on ECI
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences - University of Porto, Portugal
Quality in ECEC:EARLY INTERVENTION AND INCLUSIVE PRESCHOOL
CONTEXT
Total Population – 10,561,61410,561,614
Population 0-6 year – 666.762666.762 (6.4%)(6.4%)
Infant mortality – 2,5 per 1,0002,5 per 1,000
Unemployment – 9.4%** / 15%9.4%** / 15%
Illiteracy – 9%9%
Families with disabled people – 14%14%
Poverty – 17,9% 17,9% population/ 20,6% 20,6% families w children
Maternal Education – 70% < secondary70% < secondary**
Area – 92 391 KM2
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences - University of Porto, Portugal
* INE, Lisboa (2012); (PORDATA, 2011) **(OCDE, 2008).
SOME INFORMATION ABOUT PORTUGALSOME INFORMATION ABOUT PORTUGAL*
• Portugal is the poorest and the least educated country in
Western Europe.
• Cheap labor that once sustained Portugal's textile industry has
vanished to Asia.
• The former Eastern Bloc countries that joined the EU in 2004
offer lower wages and workers with more schooling.
SOME INFORMATION ABOUT PORTUGALSOME INFORMATION ABOUT PORTUGAL*
“We have always had some problems related with education. That's been like that since the 16th century.“
The repressive dictatorship that ruled Portugal from 1926 to 1974 had the idea:
"that people should not have ambition to be something different than what they were,"
The result was widespread illiteracy and little formal schooling; just three years were compulsory.
António Nóvoa, historian and rector of the University of Lisbon.
SOME INFORMATION ABOUT PORTUGALSOME INFORMATION ABOUT PORTUGAL*
Pre-school Education
1st level4 years
2 nd level2 years
3 rd level3 years
Secondary school
3 years
University/Polytechnic
Compulsory Schooling – 5 to18 years
12 years - 9th grade
WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST YEARS?
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences - University of Porto, Portugal
Schools struggle to accommodate an influx of
immigrants from Portugal's former colonies in Africa,
such as Angola and Guinea-Bissau.
A push to evaluate teachers triggered strikes and
demonstrations in 2008, souring relations between teachers' unions and the
government.
The political life of education ministers is measured in
months: since the dictatorship ended in 1974,
there have been 29.
Portugal- 28%Turkey – 30,3%Mexico – 33,6%Spain – 52,1%Italy – 53,3%Greece – 61,1%Iceland – 61,1%...Ireland – 69,5%.UK – 69,6%.Sweeden – 85%Germany –85,3%.US – 89%Czech Rep – 91.Japan – 100%(OECD, 2008)
Ell Pais, 2012
• Sociopolitical changes following the 1974 revolution,
• increased women’s access to labor and• restarted the debate on ECEC
• Portugal has the highest rate of mothers working full time in the European Union.
• In 2005• 69.1% of mothers with children under 2 years• 71.8% of mothers with children between 3 and 5 were employed
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2007).
SOME INFORMATION ABOUT PORTSOME INFORMATION ABOUT PORTUGALUGAL*
In 1975 – UNESCO report• precarious state of preschool services in Portugal • need to create 12,000 new classrooms for ECEC
(UNESCO, 1982)
Public law recommending the implementation of a network of public preschool services
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM -- ECECECEC
In the last two decades – coverage rate:
• 4 M - 3 years - increased from 5.8% in 1984 to 30.2% in 2008
• 3 to 6 years - increased from 32% in1984 to 78.8% in 2008.
State funded early educational services are still insufficient
(Conselho Nacional de Educação, 2011)
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM -- ECECECEC
2006:
Almost 90% of children aged 5–6 years were enrolled in ECEC .
2009:
Central government mandated universal preschool for 5-year-olds
WHAT ABOUT QUALITY?
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2008).
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM -- ECECECEC
Considering the risk of poverty and low maternal education:
quality of preschool contexts is of crucial relevance in Portugal
Short and long-term effects of developmentally appropriate, high-quality ECEC on children’s cognitive, language, and social outcomes
as well as on later school achievement.
(Burchinal, Roberts, Nabors, & Bryant, 1996; Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002; Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008; Pessanha, 2008; Vandell, Belsky, Burchinal, Steinberg, &
Vandergrift, 2010).
Short and long-term effects of developmentally appropriate, high-quality ECEC on children’s cognitive, language, and social outcomes
as well as on later school achievement.
(Burchinal, Roberts, Nabors, & Bryant, 1996; Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002; Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008; Pessanha, 2008; Vandell, Belsky, Burchinal, Steinberg, &
Vandergrift, 2010).
High-quality preschool (3 years) - subsequent positive outcomes in mathematics and reading. (7 years)
Low quality preschool - no cognitive benefits in primary school; outcomes did not significantly differ from the children who did not attend preschool
• Cross-context influences on children’s social-emotional outcomes
• detrimental effects of double jeopardy
(i.e., low-quality home and ECEC environments)
• compensatory effects of high quality ECEC for children from lower-
quality home environments
Watamura, Phillips, Morrissey, McCartney, & Bub, 2011)NICHD child care study (1997, 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2006)
Early Childhooh Care EducationECCE Study (1992-1998)
The quality of child interactions in family and child care contexts and their impact on child socio-
cognitive development(2000-2004)
Contextos e Transição(2005-2008)
Longitudinal study of child engagement and adaptation
(2005-2007)
Engagement of children with SEN in child care and pre-school
Qualidade em contexto de creche: Ideias e práticas
(2004-2005)
Studies on child care and pre-school quality
Bioecological Model of Development
Microssystem
Mesossiystem
Exossoystem
Macrossiystem
Proximal Processesof interaction
Distal processes of interaction
RequestsResourcesStrengths
(Bronfenbrenner, 2001; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998)
Criança
CrecheJardim-de-infância
Microssistema
Modelo Bioecológico / Modelo Transaccional
ENVOLVIMENTO
ESTILOS DE ENSINO
Perfil de Incapacidade Idade Cronológica Temperamento
Variáveis da Pessoa
Presença da educadora da EE O número de crianças por adulto O número de horas de apoio Características Interactivas Variáveis do Contexto e do Processo
Objectos
ParesEducador da
Educação Especial
Pre-school QualityA relative Concept
Values
Belifs
Needs
Power
Ideas/Point of View
The concept of Quality(Moss, 1994)
EARLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
ADMINISTRATION Staff Program Management Selection Resources for care Funding Recruitment Resources for Play Recruitment (children) Training Evaluation Protocols Evaluation Connection with parents Building and areas
q
Groups/Classrooms Structures (support conditions)
People Space/materials Regular Patterns Ratio Adult-child Space Opening period Age (child, teacher) Area (indoors and outdoors) Schedule Gender (child, Teacher) Space organization Rules Teacher training Routines Ethnicity Material Parent Involvement Attitudes and believes equipment for care, of teachers learning and play Materials Merchandise Maintenance Accessibility
Processes/Interaction Child - Child
Child - Material Child - Adult Adult - Adult
Individual - Group
Sociocultural Intervention in adeprived Comunity
(1992-1996)
ECI Project(1996-on course)
Applied Reseach
Workshops for ECI Professional
Pluridisciplinary counsultationArena Assessment
Professional Development
Studies on ECI
Workshops for ECI Professional
26
•Universal/proactive policies & programs
•Promotion & well-being
Families: good
functioning
Families: some problems
•High risk/proactive policies & programs
•Prevention of maltreatment
Families: at risk for
maltreatment
Abused children
•Reactive/indicated policies & programs
•Prevention from deterioration
Families: require intensive protection
services
INTERVENTIONSINTERVENTIONS
CONTEXTCONTEXT
The continuum Promotion -Prevention – Intervention
Recommendations
adopting a culture of accountability across all dimensions of service provision
developing and instituting evidence-based practice
implementing comprehensive systems of professional development
and collaborating with an early care and education movement
Bruder (2010)
As a field - the provision of educational or therapeutic services
to children under the age of 8 (Sigel, 1972)
Legislatively - years from birth to age 3, although the term
early childhood special education or preschool special education
has been used to describe the period of preschool years (ages
3-5).
ECI - defined by age range
as opposed to disability etiology or category
Challenge:
variety of needs displayed by the children and families - diversity of
backgrounds, family structures, and disability types (Scarborough et al., 2004)
Most common trait
for some reason (biological risk, environmental risk, established risk, or a combination)
their development has been compromised and
they are experiencing a delay between what is expected for their age and
what they are able to do across one or more developmental domains
(cognition, motor, communication, adaptive).
ECI
the experiences and opportunities afforded infants and toddlers (and
preschoolers) with disabilities
by the children's parents and other primary caregivers (including service
providers)
that are intended to promote the children's acquisition and use of behavioral
competencies to shape and influence their prosocial interactions with people
and objects.
(Dunst, 2007, p. 162)
1. Services for families and children (Bruder, 2000, 2001; Dunst, 2000).
2. Short attention span & active learning style of young children -interventions based on family's priorities for a child's everyday routines and activities (Bruder, 2001; Dunst, 2007).
3. Developmental milestones across traditional domains of behavior (Bruder, 1994; Hanson & Bruder, 2001).
PORTUGUESE LEGISLATION ?
11stst filterfilterReferral
Assessment
School Executive
councilMultidisciplinary TeamDep. Special Education
Psychology ServicePARENTS
• Health Centers
• Specialized resource Centers
• Schools of reference
• Specialized unites
TechnicalTechnical--pedagogical reportpedagogical report•• summary of assessment datasummary of assessment data
•• classification classification -- ICF (WHO)ICF (WHO)
•• data base for IEPdata base for IEP
22ndnd filterfilter
Confirms ReportConfirms ReportDetermines implicationsDetermines implications
Document justifying Document justifying nonnon--approvalapproval
DL 3/2008
towards inclusive communities?
• Restrains TARGET POPULATION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION
students (3-18) with significant limitations at the activity and participation level in one or several life domains as a consequence of functional and structural body alterations of a permanent nature, resulting in prolonged difficulties at the levels of communication, learning, mobility, autonomy, interpersonal relationships and social participation.
• Defines parents’ rights and duties in their parental role and introduces procedures to implement in case they do no exert their right to participate, as well as when parents disagree with proposed educational measures
LegislationLegislation (DL 281/09)(DL 281/09)Sistema Nacional de Intervenção Precoce na Infância (SNIPI)
Early InterventionEarly Intervention
“…to guarantee developing conditions for children 0 to 6 with body functions or structures that limit their personal and
social growth, and their participation in the activities that are typical for their age, as well as for children at high risk for
developmental delay.”
“…measures of integrated support centered on the child and on the family, including actions of preventive and of
rehabilitative nature, namely in the scope of education, health and social welfare.”
LegislationLegislation (DL 281/09)(DL 281/09)Sistema Nacional de Intervenção Precoce na Infância (SNIPI)
coordinated action of the 3 Ministries
LegislationLegislation (DL 281/09)(DL 281/09)Sistema Nacional de Intervenção Precoce na Infância (SNIPI)
PrimaryPrimary preventionprevention
• Universality of access – timely detectionand referral (health in first line)
• Monitoring - children and families thatare not immediately eligible
• Assessment _ child’s developmentalpotential + needed modifications in theenvironment based on the ICF-CY
• References to Family and Communityparticipation.
• Articulation of 3 Ministries + Technical
Supervision Nucleus.
• ICF-CY as a framework in the assessment-intervention process
IncongruencesIncongruences
• Two Laws from 3 to 6
• “Risk resulting from alterations in bodyfunctions or structures; “High Risk fordevelopmental delay”
• “Centered on the child and on thefamily” - BUT: few references to thefamily based on the model centered onprofessionals partnership role in decisionmaking.
• Integrated actions BUT no references toa primary case provider; Intervention innatural settings; Need for annualevaluation report -- Is the articulationthought to be casuistic in nature?
• Technical supervision nucleus BUT - roleof coordination or in-service training?
An over-view of Integrating Specialized Services of Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) North Region
35%
13%
36%
16%
10%
7%
6%
21%
56%
16%
57%27%
<3 anos De 3 a 6 anos Mais de 6 anos
16%
57%
27%
<3 anos De 3 a 6 anos Mais de 6 anos
An over-view of Integrating Specialized Services of Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) SNIPI - 150 ELI
ELIELI
Comissão Coordenação
NacionalSNIPI
Subcomissão Regional Norte
Subcomissão Regional Centro
Subcomissão Regional Alentejo
Subcomissão Regional LVT
Subcomissão Regional Algarve
NSTDistrital
NSTDistrital
NSTDistrital
NSTDistrital
ELI ELIELI ELIELI
ELIELI
ELI
ELI
ELI
ELI
ELIELI
ELI ELI ELI
ELI
ELI
ELI
ELIELI
ELI
ELI
ELI
ELI
ELI
ELI ELI
ELIELIELI
ELI
ELI
ELI
ELI
ELIELI
(…)
(…)(…)
(…)
NSTDistrital
NSTDistrital
NSTDistrital
NSTDistrital
NSTDistrital
NSTDistrital
NSTDistrital
NSTDistritalNST
Distrital
NSTDistrital
(…)
(…) (…)
36 ELI41 ELI
37 ELI 31 ELI
5 ELI
CONTRIBUTION OF THE ICF-CY TO THE STUDY
OF PARTICIPATION IN CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES AT EARLY AGES[FCT - RIPD/CIF/109664/2009]
Research team:Ana Isabel Pinto (FPCEUP),Teresa Leal (FPCEUP),Catarina Grande (FPCEUP),Susana Castro (FPCEUP),Isabel Felgueiras,Isabel Chaves de Almeida (ISEC),Mats Granlund (SHSJU),
Research assistants :Vera Coelho (FPCEUP),Tiago Ferreira (FPCEUP),
Research consultants :Rune Simeonsson (NC – CHU)
Eva Björck-Âkesson (SHSJU),
Development and Participation
Bioecological Perspective and Transactional Model(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Bronfenbrenner, 2001, 2005; Sameroff, 2009)
TIME HEALTHDEVELOPMENTFUNCTIONING
TIME
Development and Participation
FUNCTIONING“umbrella term for all those
approaches that focus on general functioning and it acknowledges the importance of exploring strategies to
assist individuals and families to accommodate diversity within their
everyday lives”(Bornman & Almqvist, 2007)
HEALTHDEVELOPMENTFUNCTIONING
Quality of PARTICIPATIONas an indicator
The notion of Participation
PARTICIPATION?
• Involvement in Life Situations (WHO, 2001).
• The way in which a child takes part in everyday activities: the way by which the child shows interest, engagement, competence, developmentally and socially appropriate behaviors in the social opportunities that he/she is confronted with, such as the different daily routines (Dunst, 2001)
The notion of Participation
PARTICIPATION?
Engagement
Social Relations
Independence
ENGAGEMENT as a predictor of
• LEARNING(Farran, 2012)
• DEVELOPMENT (de Kruif & McWilliam, 1999)
McWilliam & Hornstein (2007)
The notion of participation
• The ultimate goal of every intervention is to promote children’s positive participation;
• Participation may be improved by:
conducting assessment-intervention procedures embedded in daily routines;
using a functional approach to document developmental outcomes;
focusing on peer social competence as a good indicator of children‘s participation.
Focus of study
Concepts: “QUALITY”: comprises interactive feature
Goodness of Fit Goodness of Fit PERSON/ENVIRONMENT PERSON/ENVIRONMENT
“PARTICIPATION”: Nodal Point between the Person and the Environment (Granlund, 2008)
Portuguese context: Special Education Law DL 3/2008; Early Childhood Intervention law DL 281/2009;
International Classification of Functionality, Disability and Health for Children and Youth (WHO, 2007).
(Thomas & Chess, 1977)
Purpose of the study
47
Applied research in ECI
To investigate the quality of inclusive early childhood experiences by
identifying practices thought to promote positive outcomes in pre-school children with disabilities
To characterize different components of peer relations
To identify aspects that may promote goodness of fit between child and environment concerning social competence in peer interactions
AIMSExamine the contributions of the functional focus of the ICF-CY to
improve Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) practices
o Identify the congruence of commonly used ECI instruments withICF – CY domains;
o Identify activity limitations, participation restrictions andassociated environmental factors of children in inclusive preschoolsettings;
o Describe the ICF –CY based outcome measurement ofintervention;
o Study factors associated with children’s participation ininclusive settings.
THE ICF-CY FRAMEWORK WAS USED TO:
Develop assessment-intervention proceduresoTo document developmental outcomes
oProvide evidence for assigning severity levels
oPromote interdisciplinary team communication
oDesign and implement rehabilitation plans
Document the progress of child’s development through time.
STUDY DESIGN
ReassessmentReassessment
• Quality of Inclusive Experiences Measure
(Wolery, Brashers & Grant, 2000)
• Vineland (Sparrow, Balla, & Ciccheti, 1985)
• Assessment of Peer Relations(Guralnick, 2003)
• Interviews• Focus group
AssessmentAssessment
••Abilities Index Abilities Index ((SimeonssonSimeonsson, & , & Bailey1991)Bailey1991)
••QualityQuality of Inclusive of Inclusive Experiences Measure Experiences Measure ((WoleryWolery, ,
BrashersBrashers & Grant, 2000)& Grant, 2000)••Assessment of Peer Relations Assessment of Peer Relations
((GuralnickGuralnick, 2003), 2003)••VinelandVineland (Sparrow, (Sparrow, BallaBalla, & , &
CicchetiCiccheti, 1985), 1985)••Carolina Curriculum Carolina Curriculum (Johnson(Johnson--
Martin, Martin, AttermeierAttermeier & & Hacker,1996)Hacker,1996)••InteviewsInteviews
InterventionIntervention
•Design and implementation of educational plans based on child´s
participation,
••PluridisciplinaryPluridisciplinary,,
••Monitoring processMonitoring process
PARTICIPANTS
Age (Months) N Mean SD Range50 47.46 11.03 17 -72
Disabilities Frequency PercentLanguage acquisition delay 2 4Multiple disabilities 2 4Cerebral palsy 4 8Autism spectrum disorders 5 10Global development delay 11 22Genetic syndromes 4 8Other 22 44Total 50 100
• 50 Children with disability, their teachers and families
27 boys and 23 girls
PARTICIPANTS
Abilities Profile global results
MEASURES AND VARIABLES
Measures Variables Procedures
Abilities Index(Simeonsson & Bailey, 1991)
Child Disability Profile Index filled by teachers
Vineland(Sparrow, Balla, & Ciccheti, 1985)
Adaptive behavior: • language•Socialization•Daily life skills
Interviews
Quality of Inclusive Experiences Measure (QIEM)(Wolery, Brashers, & Grant, 2000)
• Program Goals and Purpose (91,67 %)• Staff Supports and Perception (100%)• Accessibility (98.33%)• Individualization (96%)• Participation in same activities (ICC = .99)• Engagement (ICC = .98)• Adult-Child Contacts (75.24%)• Child-Child Interactions (96.92%)
Document analysis, questionnaires, interviews and observation
Assessment of Peer Relations (APR)(Guralnick,1992)
•Social Engagement (7 itens)•Emotional Inadequateness (5 itens)•Adequate Emotional Regulation (3 itens)•Maintained Play –Inadequate strategies (2 itens)•Maintained Play – Adequate strategies (4 itens)•Role Strategies (3 itens)
•Clinical tool
•Teachers read questionnaire and observe children’s interactions in classroom.
•Completion by research team in interview format
basis for intervention
Carolina Curriculum (Johnson-Martin, Attermeier & Hacker,1996)
Developmental measureContext observationsInterviews
PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION COMPONENTSCOMPONENTS
Measures
Measures
Measures
Measures
Engagement Experience(time)
Engagement Experience(time)
Number of interactionsLength of interactions;
Peer relations
Number of interactionsLength of interactions;
Peer relations
T1Cronbach‘s
Alpha
T2Cronbach‘s
Alpha
Nº Itens
Social Engagement .80 .75 7
Emotional Inadequateness .59 .60 5
Adequate Emotional Regulation .77 .65 3
Maintained Play –Inadequate
strategies.60 .63 2
Maintained Play – Adequate strategies .75 .84 4
Role Strategies .94 .93 3
Peer Relationsdimensions
Adapted from Assessment of Peer Relations (APR; Guralnick, 2003)
PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION COMPONENTSCOMPONENTS
Measures
Measures
Measures
Measures
ECA (Ecol. Cong. Assess for Class.
Act. and Rout.; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
Engagement Experience(time)
Engagement Experience(time)
Total Engagement Experience (time)
Length of interactions;Number of interactions
Peer Relations
Length of interactions;Number of interactions
Peer RelationsSocial Engagement
Engagement peer/ adultTotal Activities /routine
(ECA)
QIEMAPR (Assessment of Peer
RelationsGuralnick, 2003)
QIEMAPR (Assessment of Peer
RelationsGuralnick, 2003)
Independence in routine
Autonomous performanceTotal Activities /routine
(ECA)
Presence in the same activity
Presence in the same activity
Presence in the same activity
Doing the same as peersTotal Activities /routine
(ECA)QIEMQIEM
Measures
Measures
Measures
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
Individualized Goals;Individualized interventionsImplementation
InteractionsToneResponsiveness
DirectivenessResponsiveness
Individualized GoalsIndividualized interventionsImplementation
InteractionsToneResponsiveness
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
ECA (Ecol. Cong. Assess for Class. Act. and Rout.; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
TSRS (Teach. Styles Rat. Scale; Mcwilliam, Scarborough, Bagby & Sweeney, 1998
DATA ANALYZES STRUCTURE
Measures
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
APR (Assessment of Peer Relations
Guralnick, 2003)
APR (Assessment of Peer Relations
Guralnick, 2003)
Vineland
Abilities Index
Vineland
Mean diferecnes between M1 e
M2
CORRELATIONS BETEWEN QIEM DIMENSIONS AND CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
(ABILITIES INDEX AND VINELAND)
CORRELATIONS BETEWEN APR COMPOSITE VARIABLES AND CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
(Vineland)
interviews Interviews & Focus Group
DESCRIPTIVE
ANALYZES
DESCRIPTIVE
ANALYZES
Content analyzes
Content analyzes
Case Study
Measures
ECA (Ecol. Cong. Assess for Class. Act. and Rout.; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
TSRS (Teach. Styles Rat. Scale; Mcwilliam, Scarborough, Bagby & Sweeney, 1998
•Descriptive analyzes•Differences between ECA1 & ECA 6•Correlations between participation components
Content analyzes of teachers behaviors
CORELATIONS
Measures
ECA (Ecol. Cong. Assess for Class. Act. and Rout.; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
TSRS (Teach. Styles Rat. Scale; Mcwilliam, Scarborough, Bagby & Sweeney, 1998
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et. al., 2000)
APR (Assessment of Peer Relations
Guralnick, 2003)
Vineland
Interviews & Focus Group
QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et.
al., 2000)
APR (Assessment of Peer Relations
Guralnick, 2003)
Content analyzes
Vineland
Abilities Index
interviews
INITIAL ASSESSMENT:
- INITIAL CASE STUDY- (highlights the quality of the inclusive experience and the peer interactions
results)
INITIAL CASE STUDY
Mariana
Disability Profile(ABILITIES)
41 MonthsDown Syndrome
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Normal
Suspected disabilityMild disability
Moderate disabilitySevere disability
Profund disability
Mariana
0
1
2
3
4
d110
d115
d132
d1501
d1370
d3102
d330
d350
d410
d4155
d4401
d4402
d445
d450
d455
d465
d53000
d53001
d53010
d53011
d540
d5500
d5501
d5600
d5608
d7402
d7500
d7504
Activities and Participation
Mary's functioning
Functionality Profile Functionality Profile –– based on APR and CCPSN based on APR and CCPSN
Needs:Self-careMobility
Strengths:
Communication
Strengths: Learning and
applying knowledge
Communication
Mariana
Needs:• Architecture
• Attitudes from care providers
• Products for mobility
Strengths:• Supports and
relationships• Health and
education services
Environmental Factors
Mariana
INITIAL CASE STUDY
Mariana
Quality Of Inclusive Classroom
(QIEM)
0 2 4 6
Program Goals and …
Staff Supports and …
Acessibility
Individualization
Participation
Engagement
Adult-Child Contacts
Child-Child Interactions
1 Very Poor2 Poor3 Mediocre4 Good5 Excellent
INITIAL CASE STUDY
14,29
27,27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
% Initiations child W / SEN without response
% Initiations PEER without response
Mariana
Engagement with peers(1 – 5 scale)
4.2
Participation in same activitiespeers90%
Iniciations withoutresponse
OBSERVATION
Quality Of Inclusive Classroom(QIEM)
INITIAL CASE STUDY
2.92
3.4
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Mean nº of turn-taking / initiation
Mean nº of turn-taking / interaction
Mariana
Turn-taking
Engagement with peers(1 – 5 scale)
4.2
Participation in same activitiespeers90%
Iniciations without response
OBSERVATION
Quality Of Inclusive Classroom(QIEM)
INITIAL CASE STUDY
3
4
2
3
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Mariana
Turn-taking
Non-social involvement with peersQUESTIONNAIRE
Engagement with peers(1 – 5 scale)
4.2
Participation in same activitiespeers90%
Iniciations without response
OBSERVATION
Quality Of Inclusive Classroom(QIEM)
1: rarely; 2 sometimes; 3 frequéntly; 4 almost always
INITIAL CASE STUDY
4
2
4
1 1 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Mariana
Turn-taking
Non-social involvement with peersQUESTIONNAIRE
Engagement with peers(1 – 5 scale)
4.2
Participation in same activitiespeers90%
Iniciations withoutresponse
OBSERVATION
Quality Of Inclusive Classroom
(QIEM)
1: rarely; 2 sometimes; 3 frequéntly; 4 almost always
Social involvement with peers
INITIAL CASE STUDY
1
3 3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Informative response
Maintains frame of reference
Agreeable
Mariana
Turn-taking
Non-social involvement with peersQUESTIONNAIRE
Engagement with peers(1 – 5 scale)
4.2
Participation in same activitiespeers90%
Iniciations withoutresponse
OBSERVATION
Quality Of Inclusive Classroom
(QIEM)
1: rarely; 2 sometimes; 3 frequéntly; 4 almost always
Social involvement with peers
Role and activity structure strategies
INITIAL CASE STUDY
4
1
3
4
3
1
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Mariana
Turn-taking
Non-social involvement with peers
QUESTIONNAIRE
Engagement with peers(1 – 5 scale)
4.2
Participation in same activitiespeers90%
Iniciations withoutresponse
OBSERVATION
Quality Of Inclusive Classroom
(QIEM)
Social involvement with peersRole and activity structure strategies
Management Strategies
1: rarely; 2 sometimes; 3 frequéntly; 4 almost always
INITIAL CASE STUDYMariana
Turn-taking
Non-social involvement with peers
QUESTIONNAIRE
Engagement with peers(1 – 5 scale)
4.2
Participation in same activitiespeers90%
Iniciations withoutresponse
OBSERVATION
Quality Of Inclusive Classroom
(QIEM)
Social involvement with peers
Role and activity structure strategies
Management Strategies
Assessment of PeerRelations
(APR)
CASE STUDY CONCLUSIONS
74
Quality of inclusive experiences
Individualization of practices is still consistently poor
Higher % in performing the same activities as other children BUT
still poor quality of engagement in these everyday life events
Higher % of initiations with response both by child and by peers
BUT short length of interactive sequences
Low developmental value
Proximal processes (motor of development) require prolonged and frequent interactions
Findings Quality of inclusive Experiences
0
0
0
50.0
4.5
4.5
.0
.0
4.5
9.1
13.6
27.3
13.6
27.3
22.7
13.6
68.2
68.2
9.1
22.7
22.7
50.0
59.1
36.4
22.7
22.7
22.7
.0
13.6
9.1
18.2
36.4
4.5
.0
54.5
.0
45.5
9.1
.0
13.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Program Goals and Purpose
Staff Supports and Perception
Acessibility
Individualization
Participation
Engagement
Adult-Child Contacts
Child-Child Interactions
Very poor
Poor
Mediocre
Good
Excellent
Findings - Assessment of Peer Relation
4.5
31.8
18.2
9.1
31.8
50.0
13.6
27.3
18.2
27.3
18.2
36.4
31.8
27.3
22.7
22.7
18.2
22.7
45.5
13.6
9.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Unoccupied
Solitary Play
Prefers adults
Ignore
Unaware
Non-Social Involvement with peers
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Almost always
Findings - Assessment of Peer Relation
4.5
9.1
9.1
13.6
18.2
27.3
18.2
59.1
72.7
72.7
45.5
31.8
40.9
13.6
4.5
9.1
27.3
22.7
18.2
9.1
9.1
4.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Parallel play
Onlooker
Brief exchanges
Comple. / Reciprocal Play
Maintained Play
Complex S. Pretend Play
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Almost always
Role and activity structure strategies
78
31.8
27.3
31.8
40.9
18.2
4.5
18.2
27.3
31.8
4.5
22.7
27.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Informative Response
Frame of reference
Agreeable
NeverRarelySometimesOftenAlmost always
Findings - Assessment of Peer Relation
Management Strategies
79
22.7
31.8
31.8
27.3
27.3
36.4
31.8
54.5
13.6
22.7
22.7
18.2
4.5
13.6
31.8
18.2
22.7
9.1
4.5
27.3
13.6
18.2
4.5
50.0
31.8
4.5
4.5
.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Disangage
Escalate
Excessive Escalation of Conflite
Desintegrate
Reciprocates
Deescalates
NeverRarelySometimesOftenAlmost always
Findings - Assessment of Peer Relation
CORRELATIONS ANALYSES
Association between dimensions of the inclusive experience:
Process/Process
Engagement Adult-Child Contacts
Child-Child Interactions
Participation .54** .16 .60**
Engagement .23 .59**
Adult-Child Contacts .34*
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
CORRELATIONS ANALYSES
Association between Adult/Child Contacts sub-dimensions and:
• Child Characteristics
• Other QIEM dimensions
Index_Total Vineland_Total
Involvement -.33* .35*
Tone of interactions -.14 .12Responsiveness / Support -.23 .10
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Accessibility
Participation
Engagement
Child-Child
Interactions
Involvement .34* .44** .22 .38**
Tone of interactions .20 .18 .08 .31*
Responsiveness / Support
.22 .17 .31* .31*
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Children´s problems identification
Microsystem
Mesosystem
Biossystem
• Diagnostic• Development areas• Body structures and functions
• Child activity and particpation
Envirionmental factors
relation between child characteristics
and environment
Children´s problem in the pre-school contextPlanning and implementing intervention: problems
Team work
1 reference to the articulation between families and comunity services
Adjustment between child characteristics
and environment
Articulation with families
Meetings and informal contacts with families!Low specification about the meetings goals and products
Negative features of
families
Bronfenbrenner, 2005, Bronfenbrenner
& Morris, 1998*Grande, C., Ferreira, T., Pinto, A., Cunha, M. & Coelho, V. (junho 2012). Funcionalidade e participação das crianças: Perspetivas de docentes em contextos inclusivos. Comunicação oral a apresentar no 12º Colóquio internacional de Psicologia e Educação, Lisboa.
INITIAL ASSESSMENT: INTERVIEWS ANALYSES
PLANNING INTERVENTION PHASE
(1) Functionality Profile
(2) Team meeting
(3) Functional goals protocol (adapted from Adolfsson, 2008)
(4) Intervention Plan:“Leaning Opportunities embedded in the routines”
(1) Functionality Profile
(2) Team meeting
(3) Functional goals protocol (adapted from Adolfsson, 2008)
(4) Intervention Plan:“Leaning Opportunities embedded in the routines”
Initial assessment
• Carolina Curriculum (Johnson-Martin, Attermeier & Hacker,1996)
• Assessment of Peer Relations
(Guralnick, 2003)
•Teachers interviews
•Context observations
This measures were previously mapped with the ICF-CY (WHO, 2007)
DEVELOPED MATERIALS
Functional goals protocol (adapted from Adolfsson, 2008)
Current situation /Problem ExplanationFunctional Problem
Functional Goal
Intervention (who; with
whom; where)
Functionality profileCIF-CJ
Code/Qualifier Descriptor
Act
iviti
es&
Parti
cipa
tion
Intervention Plan:“Leaning Opportunities embedded in the routines”
DEVELOPED MATERIALS
Intervention Plan for _____________
Routines ActivitiesIntervention Dimensions
(...)
Functional goal: (...)
Engagement 1 2 3 4 5
Independence 1 2 3 4 5Social relations 1 2 3 4 5
Strategies: (...)
Evaluation:
Not achieved Not achieved (...)Emergent Emergent (...)Achieved Achieved (...)
Notes:
T
Functional goal: (...)
Engagement 1 2 3 4 5Independence 1 2 3 4 5Social relations 1 2 3 4 5
Strategies: (...)
Evaluation:
Not achieved Not achieved (...)Emergent Emergent (...)
Achieved Achieved (...)
Notes:(...) (...) (...) (...)
Participation in the Routine
Engagement: 1 2 3 4 5 Independence: 1 2 3 4 5 Social relations: 1 2 3 4 5
MONITORING
Ecological Congruence Assessment Adaptation (ECA) (Wolery, Brashers, Grant & Pauca, 2000)
once a month during six months
Notes about teachers’ behavior (based on the Teaching Styles Rating Scale (TSRS, McWilliam, Scarborough, Bagby, & Sweeney, 1998)
two observation moments
ECA (1) ECA (2) ECA (3) ECA (4) ECA (5) ECA (6)
TeacherBehavior
(1)
TeacherBehavior
(2)
Plan review –team meeting
Plan review – team meeting
M1 M6M5M4M3M2
Plan review –team meeting
Initial planning –team meeting
Ecological Congruence Assessment (ECA)
ROUTINE ACTIVITY CHID’S PARTICIPATION ENGAGEMENTO* SUPPORT NOTES STRATEGIES
Is the child doingthe same thing aspeers?Yes No If no: What is the
child doing? What are
peers doing?
Engaged:1 2 3 4 5
With peers With adults With objects With the self
Does the e child requires more helpthan peers?
Yes No If yes, for what is the help given?
Needs help getting engaged Needs help staying engaged Needs help dealing with the peers Doesn’t have skills to do activity
Modulation/suggestions__ (number)SpontaneousRequestedRelated to whichcompetence?____________________During the activityIn another momentNo suggestions weregiven
Adapted version of the Ecological Congruence Assessment (ECA; Wolery, Brashers, Grant & Pauca, 2000)
INTERVENTION PROCESS - SOCIAL PARTICIPATION
ARRIVAL
p <.01r = -.85
p =.05r = -.48
p =.32r = -.25
p =.06r = .47
p =. 10r = - .44
INTERVENTION PROCESS - SOCIAL PARTICIPATION
STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES
p <.01r = .62
p < .01r = -.53
INTERVENTION PROCESS - SOCIAL PARTICIPATION
FREE PLAY
INTERVENTION PROCESS - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPONENTS
OF PARTICIPATION OVER THE ASSESSMENT-INTERVENTION PROCESS
VariablesSame
activitySocial
engagementAutonomy Total
EngagementNon social
engagementNeed Help
Same activity-
Social engagement .50** -
Autonomy .30* .56** -
Total Engagement .41* .62** .68** -
Non social engagement -.25 -.82** -.61** -.61** -
Need Help -.15 -.41* -.95** -.63** .55** -
Results show that the considered components of social participation
engagement
social relations
independence
presence in same activities
were consistently associated with each other, providing evidence for the concept of social participation
MONITORING – SOME CONCLUSIONS
Pinto, A.I., Grande, C., Coelho, V., Ferreira, T., Castro, S. & Leal, T. (agosto 2012). Social Participation in Portuguese Early Childhood Inclusive Settings. Comunicação apresentada na Early Childhood Intervention Australia 10th Biennial National Conference. Perth, Australia
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Redirects Introduces Informes Elaborates Follows Acknowledges Praises
Arrival
Structured
Free Paly
p < .01 r = -.51p <.05
r = .36p <.05 r = -.39
p <.01 r = .50
MONITORING - TEACHERS BEHAVIORS ANALYZES
Pinto, A.I., Grande, C., Coelho, V., Ferreira, T., Castro, S. & Leal, T. (agosto 2012). Social Participation in Portuguese Early Childhood Inclusive Settings. Comunicação apresentada na Early Childhood Intervention Australia 10th Biennial National Conference. Perth, Australia
MONITORING - TEACHERS BEHAVIORS ANALYZES
Teachers behaviors analyzes*
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Redirects Introduces Informes Elaborates Follows Acknowledges Praises
Arrival
Structured
Free Paly
Directive behavior
Responsive Behaviors
.74 < α < .83
Pinto, A.I., Grande, C., Coelho, V., Ferreira, T., Castro, S. & Leal, T. (agosto 2012). Social Participation in Portuguese Early Childhood Inclusive Settings. Comunicação apresentada na Early Childhood Intervention Australia 10th Biennial National Conference. Perth, Australia
Teachers behaviors analyzes: main conclusions*
Teachers’ responsiveness
Associated with
Child non-participation
• Non-social engagement• Less time in engagement • Less time in total engagement• Need of support• Lack of independence
Positive associations with:
Child participation
• Social engagement• Total time engaged• Independence• Being in same activity
Teachers’ directiveness
Pinto, Grande, Coelho, Ferreira, Castro & Leal (Perth, August, 2012)
MONITORING – SOME CONCLUSIONS
MONITORING – SOME CONCLUSIONS
Plans frequent adjustment during the monitoring process: main conclusions*
*Coelho, V., Leal, T., Ferreira, T. & Pinto, A. (junho 2012). Contributo da monitorização dos planos de intervenção para a promoção da participação. Comunicação oral a apresentar no 12º Colóquio internacional de Psicologia e Educação, Lisboa.
o Adults - crucial role in promoting children's development,
o Monitoring the engagement “time” is not sufficient!
Fundamental to perceive the engagement levels in order to
evaluate the efficacy of the interventions.
Context of activities• Adults involved with children with SEN:
Promote participation and engagementencouraging interaction with peers
Establish collaboration between teachers:
Elaborative and responsive interactions
MONITORING – SOME CONCLUSIONS
Results emphasize the need of teachers training
Engagement Observation Procedure
Effect of engagement learning and development
Interactive Behaviors Engagement
Tools for observation and to reflect their practices
• Monitoring the interactions less use of redirectsand greater use of elaborative interactions
MONITORING – SOME CONCLUSIONS
RE-ASSESSMENT
Quality of Inclusive Experiences Measure (Wolery, Brashers & Grant, 2000)
Vineland (Sparrow, Balla, & Ciccheti, 1985)
Assessment of Peer Relations(Guralnick, 2003)
Interviews
Focus group
• Interview to the regular teachers• Filled out by the faculty research team member
A new scipt was created
• with 16 regular teachers•with 16 special education teachers
p < .05
r = .50
0
1
2
3
4
5
Same activity Engagement
T1
T2
p =.15r = -.22
p < .05r = .50
0
5
10
15
20
25
Interactions with response Length of interactions
T1
T2
p < .05r = .36
INTERACTIONS WITH RESPONSE & LENGTH OF INTERACTIONS
Routines based intervention at a global level had
But no effects on
Regular teachers' level• Adult-child contact
Child level • Global time of Engagement • Length of interactions
Positive results in the Inclusive Classroom Experiences
Regular teachers’ level• Individualization of practices
Child level • Participation in same activity• Increase in the number of interactions with response
MAIN CONCLUSIONS
Pinto, A.I., Grande, C., Coelho, V., Ferreira, T., Castro, S. & Leal, T. (agosto 2012). Social Participation in Portuguese Early Childhood Inclusive Settings. Comunicação apresentada na Early Childhood Intervention Australia 10th Biennial National Conference. Perth, Australia
0
1
2
3
4
Social engagement
Emotional Inadequateness
Adequate Emotional Regulation
Maintain Play (inadequate)
Maintain Play (adequate )
Role Strategies
T1
T2
p < .01r = .45
p < .05r = -.41
PEER RELATIONS: COMPOSITE VARIABLES (APR)
Routines based intervention at a global level had
But no effects on
Child participation
• No increase in children’s emotional adequateness
• No increase in maintaining play strategies
Positive results:
Child participation
• decrease in children’s emotional inadequateness
• Increase in role strategies• Increase in social engagement• Decrease in non-social
engagement
Pinto, A.I., Grande, C., Coelho, V., Ferreira, T., Castro, S. & Leal, T. (agosto 2012). Social Participation in Portuguese Early Childhood Inclusive Settings. Comunicação apresentada na Early Childhood Intervention Australia 10th Biennial National Conference. Perth, Australia
MAIN CONCLUSIONS
Discussion
Teachers’ responsiveness
Associated with
Child non-participation
• Non-social engagement• Less time in engagement • Less time in total engagement• Need of support• Lack of independence
Positive associations with:
Child participation
• Social engagement• Total time engaged• Independence• Being in same activity
Teachers’ directiveness
Discussion
Routines based intervention at a global level had
But no effects on
Regular teachers' level• Adult-child contact
Child level • Global time of
Engagement • Length of interactions
Positive results in the Inclusive Classroom Experiences
Regular teachers’ level• Individualization of practices
Child level • Participation in same activity• Increase in the number of interactions with response
Discussion
Routines based intervention at a global level had
But no effects on
Child participation
• No increase in children’s emotional adequateness
• No increase in maintaining play strategies
Positive results:
Child participation
• decrease in children’s emotional inadequateness
• Increase in role strategies
• Increase in social engagement
• Decrease in non-social engagement
Discussion
A central feature of peer-related social competence problems appears to be an inability to organize behavior in a coherent and consistent manner to maintain play
Patterns of change over time involving children’s ability to engage in complex forms of play, such as maintaining social exchanges (group play), are of special interest.
(Guralnick, Hammond, Connor, & Neville, 2006)
109
Implications for Practice
• Intervention should account for:
• Differences both in the child and in peers’ capacity to initiate andto respond;
• The length of turn-taking sequences by child’s initiation;
• The discrepancies between observation, child’s Participation /Engagement and the ratings of teachers/parents about the child’ssocial competence strategies with peers.
• Intervention at a global level, although necessary may not besufficient
• Specific Intervention may be crucial to positively address child’sParticipation in life situations.
110
Implications for Future Research
Measurement issues: Questionnaires (at one point in time), assessment of perceptions
focusing on a broad array of behaviors.
- More adequate for assessing stability over time- Base for Intervention focused in adults’ attitudes (child’s environment)
Observational methods: assessment of detailed categories of behavior useful for descriptions of narrative behavior and changes over time in the context.
(Fabes, Martin & Hanish, 2009)
111
Almqvist, L., Hellnäs, P., Stefansson, M., & Granlund, M. (2006). “I can play!” young children’s perceptions of health. Pediatric rehabilitation, 9(3), 275-84.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making humans being human. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The Bioecological Model of Human Development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner. (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 993-1028. New York, NY: Wiley.
Farran, D. (June, 2012). Social and Relational Environments – Preschools and Parents. Study presented at the Environmental Assessment and Intervention in Early Childhood course. Jönköping University.
Guralnick, M J. (2001). A developmental systems model for early intervention. Infants and Young Children, 14(2), 1-18.
Guralnick, M. J. (2003). Assessment of Peer Relations. Child Development and Mental Retardation Center. University of Washington.
McCormick, L., Noonan, M. J., & Heck, R. (1998). Variables affecting engagement in inclusive preschool classrooms. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 160-176.
References
McWilliam, R. A., Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (1985). Behavior engagement as a measure of the efficacy of early intervention. Analysis and Intervention on Developmental Disabilities, 5, 59-71.
McWilliam, R., & Hornstein, S. (2007). Measure of Engagement, Independence and Social Relashionships (MEISR). Siskin Institute.
Sameroff, A. J. (2009). Conceptual issues in studying the development of self-regulation. In S. L. Olson & A. J. Sameroff (Eds.). Regulatory Processes in the Development of Behavior Problems: Biological, Behavioral, and Social-Ecological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simeonsson, R. J., & Bailey, D. B. (1991). ABILITIES Index. Chapel Hill, NC:Frank Porter Graham Development Center, University of North Carolina.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V.(1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service
World Health Organization (2007). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – Children and Youth. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Wolery, M., Paucca, T., Brashers, M. S., & Grant, S. (2000). Quality of Inclusive Experiences Measure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Center.
References
Wilson, L. L., Mott, D. W., & Batman, D. (2004). The Asset-Based Context Matrix: A Tool for Assessing Children’s Learning Opportunities and Participation in Natural Environments. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24(2), 110-120.
McWilliam, R., & Hornstein, S. (2007). Measure of Engagement, Independence and Social Relashionships (MEISR). Siskin Institute.
Farran, D. (June, 2012). Social and Relational Environments – Preschools and Parents. Study presented at the Environmental Assessment and Intervention in Early Childhood course. Jönköping University.
References