KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OFINTERVENTION STRATEGIES FOR YOUNG CHILDRENWITH MILD LEARNING AND BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS

Eufimia Tafa and Gregory ChlouverakisUniversity ofCrete, Greece

AbstractThe aim ofthis study was to identify intervention strategies that kindergarten teachers in

Greece consider acceptable and actually use in the classroom when dealing with children withmild learning and behavior problems, as well as to examine whether teachers' years ofexperience affected their perceptions for acceptability and frequency ofuse for those strategies.One hundredfifty four (154) kindergarten teachers ratedforty (40) intervention strategies usinga 4-point Likert scale in two ways: first, according to how reasonable they thought each strategywas, and second, how often they used it in their classroom during the academic year. Principalcomponent analysis showed that specialist consultation/data collection, teacher positiveintervention, parent/teacher consultation and teacher negative intervention were the four factorsfor acceptability while teacher positive intervention/data collection, specialists consultation, andteacher negative intervention were the threefactors for use. Additionally, thirty-eight (38) ofthekindergarten teachers who filled the questionnaires volunteered to give an interview. In thoseinterviews, the reasons why kindergarten teachers do not use certain strategies in the classroomwere explored A comparison ofGreek teachers' perceptions with those oftheir USA colleaguesis discussed

ResumeCette etude vise a identifier les strategies d'intervention que les instituteurs d'ecoles maternellesgrecques estiment valables et, de fait, utilisent en classe lors de leurs interactions avec desenfants connaissant de legers problemes d'apprentissage et de comportement. Elle examineegalement l'influence de l'experience que possedent ces instituteurs sur leur perception de lavalidite et de la frequence d'utilisation de ces strategies. Cent cinquante quatre (154) instituteursd'ecoles maternelles ont evalue quarante (40) strategies d'intervention en utilisant une echelleLikert de 4 points, d'une part selon leur estimation de la validite de chaque strategie, et d'autrepart selon la frequence de leur utilisation sur une annee academique. L 'analyse factorielle amontre que les quatre facteurs de validite correspondaient au recours a l'opinion despecialistes/la collecte de donnees, I'intervention positive de I'instituteur, la conferenceparent/instituteur et I'intervention negative de I'instituteur, alors que I'intervention positive del'instituteur/ la collecte de donnees, le recours a l'opinion de specialistes et l'interventionnegative de I'instituteur en determinaient la pratique. De plus, trente huit (38) des instituteursd'ecoles maternelles qui ont rempli le questionnaire ont accepte d'etre interviewes. Grace acesentrevues, les raisons pour lesquelles les instituteurs d'ecoles maternelles n 'utilisent pascertaines strategies ont ereexplorees. Une comparaison des perceptions des instituteurs grecsavec celles de leurs collegues des Etats-Unis s 'ensuit.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD 32(2). ISSN 0020-7187

45

ResumenEl proposito de este estudio fue el de identificar estrategias de intervencion que los

profesores de pdrvulos en Grecia consideran aceptable y que utilizan en sus aulas al tratar conniiios con problemas de aprendizaje leves y de comportamiento, asi como examinar si los aiiosde experiencia de los profesores afectaron sus opiniones para aceptar estas estrategias y lafrecuencia en que se utilizan. Ciento cincuenta cuatro (154) profesores de pdrvulos clasificaroncuarenta (40) estrategias de intervencion usando una escala de 4-puntos "Likert" en dosmaneras: primero, cuan razonable ellos pensaron que estaba cada estrategia, y segundo, conque frequencia 10 utilizan en sus aulas durante el aiio academico. El andlisis del componenteprincipal mostro que la coleccion de datos/consultas del especialista, la intervencion positivadel profesor, la consulta de padres/maestros y la intervencion negativa del profesor fueron loscuatro factores para aceptabilidad, mientras que la coleccion positiva del profesor dedatos/intervencion, consulta de especialistas, e intervencion negativa del profesor fueron los tresfactores para el uso. Ademds, treinta y ocho (38) de los profesores de pdrvulos que llenaron loscuestionarios se ofrecieron voluntariamente a dar una entrevista. En esas entrevistas, lasrazones por las que los profesores de pdrvulos no utilizan ciertas estrategias en el aula fueronexploradas. Una comparacion de las percepciones de los profesores griegos con los de suscolegas de los E.E. U U se discute.

IntroductionThe current trend in special education emphasizes the right of every child to attend an

inclusive school, where all children, with or without special needs, are accepted by their peersand the other members of the school community (Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996;Putnam, 1995). Special educators and families of children with special needs are convinced thatintervention strategies should start in kindergarten (Buswell & Schaffner, 1990). Theirconviction is further supported by research findings showing that educating children with andwithout disabilities in the same settings is appropriate for both (Bruder & Brand, 1995;Guralnick, 1994; Guralnick, Connor & Hammond, 1995).

The development and implementation of an inclusive educational program for youngchildren with special needs in kindergarten depends on many factors, such as: the views of thekindergarten teacher on inclusive education, access to specialized staff, suitability of the schoolbuilding, flexibility of curriculum and appropriateness of equipment (Cook, Tessier & Klein,1996; Hunt & Goetz, 1997; Marchant, 1995). Because kindergarten teachers in Greece are veryoften asked to include in their classrooms young children with various problems, their ability toplan educational programs for children with special needs is of paramount importance (Tafa,1995). Their knowledge and experience in implementing intervention strategies to amelioratesuch problems is crucial.

Prior research has shown that there are various intervention strategies that could be usedby kindergarten teachers for young children with learning and behavior problems (Hankerson,1982; McAllister, 1991; Peterson & McConnell, 1993; Roberts, Bailey & Nychka, 1991). Todevelop relevant and effective curriculum for early childhood education, it is important to takeinto consideration the strategies that will have a therapeutic effect. Such planning helps teachersfocus upon the child's significant strengths and weaknesses as a way of dealing with eachproblem. Strategies, like the right positioning of the furniture and "comers" of the classroom,that provide emotional support for young children, promote help from peers, contribute toincreased motivation and encouragement from teachers have proved very effective in the

46

progress of children with learning and behavior problems (Bailey, Clifford & Harms, 1982;Bruder & Brand, 1995; Cook, Tessier & Klein, 1996; Loventhal, 1995; McEnoy, Fox &Rosenberg, 1991).

The acceptance of intervention strategies, as well as the frequency of their use byteachers in the classroom has been the subject of various studies (Glomb & Morgan, 1991;Johnson & Pugach, 1990; Matrens, Peterson, Witt & Cirone, 1986; Witts & Elliott, 1982).Intervention strategies that are considered effective in dealing with children with learning orbehavior problems are often not used by teachers either because they believe that other methodsare more effective, or because of reasons beyond their control (e.g., not enough time, shortage ofspecialized staff, and lack of skills or training).

Research findings regarding intervention strategies that are acceptable and could be usedin classrooms showed that elementary school teachers favored intervention strategies that: (a) donot require external support from specialists (Algozzine, Ysseldyke, Christenson & Thurlow,1983), (b) do not take a lot of time to implement (Elliott, Witt, Galvin & Peterson, 1984) and (c)do not affect the child with special needs or his classmates (Witts, Elliot & Martens, 1984; Witt& Martens, 1983). It has also been demonstrated that teachers prefer to use positive interventionstrategies that reward the child than strategies that punish child behavior. Even when punitiveintervention strategies are used, they tend to be mild (Elliott, Witt, Galvin & Peterson, 1984).

Martens, et. al., (1986) explored the relation between acceptability, ease ofimplementation and frequency of use of intervention strategies for children with behaviorproblems. They argued that intervention strategies that are considered acceptable, easier toimplement, and frequently used, are those that require teachers' use of a signal to redirect childattention and those that manipulate tangible rewards. On the contrary, strategies that removechildren from their classroom were less acceptable and were seldom used.

Johnson and Pugach (1990) studied the relation between acceptability and frequency ofuse of intervention strategies in children with mild behavior and learning problems. In that studythey asked 232 teachers to rate 57 strategies on two 4-point Likert scales: one for acceptabilityand one for frequency of use. It was found that teachers: (a) accepted and used more frequentlystrategies that they can use themselves in the classroom, a finding that suggests that theyconsider themselves the primary source for accommodating the children's needs, and (b) theyoften accepted and used strategies involving consultation either with the school principal orcolleagues, with psychologists, special educators, and they also used special support services.Since this study included teachers in the USA, it would be interesting to explore whetherteachers in other parts of the world accept and use similar strategies when dealing with youngchildren that have mild learning and behavior problems. Moreover, most research studies so farhave been focused on intervention strategies that teachers of older children accepted and used inthe classroom. Given the number of young children (5 - 6 years old) who exhibit learning andbehavior problems, it is important to pay greater attention to the intervention strategies thatkindergarten teachers accept and use in their classrooms.

The purpose of this study was to examine which intervention strategies Greekkindergarten teachers consider acceptable and which they use frequently in their classrooms todeal with young children with mild learning and behavior problems. Furthermore, this studyexamined whether teachers' years of experience affected their perceptions on acceptability andfrequency ofuse.

47

MethodSample

The sample for this study was 154 kindergarten teachers that work in schools of Atticaand of Crete in Greece. The sample from the Cretan population consisted of 69 kindergartenteachers that worked in various parts of Crete during May, the end of the academic year 1997­1998. The Attica sample consisted of 85 kindergarten teachers who worked in various areas ofAttica and attended Inservice Training Seminars during the same time period. One hundred fortytwo (142) kindergarten teachers had a two-year Diploma from Pedagogical Colleges and 12 hada four-year bachelor degree. Teachers' years of experience ranged from 1 to 30, with an averageof 13 years.Materials

For the purpose of this study a questionnaire that was partly based on the "TeacherIntervention Questionnaire" by Johnson and Pugach (1990) was used. The questionnaire wasadapted to meet the needs of this study and was shortened from 57 to 40 items. Teachers wereasked to rate each intervention strategy on two 4-point Likert scales, according to: (a) howacceptable each strategy was for implementation in a kindergarten classroom and (b) how oftenthey used it during the current academic year. The acceptability scale ranged from "notacceptable" (coded value=l) to "very acceptable" (coded value=4) and the frequency of usescale from "never" (coded value=l) to "always" (coded value=4). To establish content validityof the instrument, three experienced independent kindergarten teachers, that were not included inthe sample of this study, were asked to review the items. Items were revised until there was100% agreement among the reviewers on both the content validity and the wording of each item.Procedure

Questionnaires were distributed to 215 kindergarten teachers. Questionnaires to theCretan sample were sent by mail and questionnaires to the Attica sample were handed out by thefirst author during a training seminar. Questionnaires were accompanied by a cover letterexplaining the goals of the study, giving instructions on how to complete them and defining"mild learning and behavior problems" as difficulty to: comprehend concrete concepts,understand and follow instructions, concentrate on a specific task for a period of time, cooperatewith other children or express feelings in an appropriate manner. Of the 215 questionnaires, 154were returned yielding a response rate of 71.6%. Finally, 114 of those were analyzed because theremaining 40 had too many missing responses.

Thirty-eight teachers volunteered for a phone interview with the first author each lastingabout 15 minutes. They were asked mainly the reasons why they gave very high or very lowscores on certain strategies in their questionnaires, why they thought that these were eitherinfrequently used or not at all acceptable and why they were either frequently or never used. Allthe interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Each interview was analyzed by using contentanalysis (Vamvoukas, 1991). The interview responses were coded by the two researchers.Initially, a temporary coding system of categories was created. After a detailed analysis of theresponses, seven categories were developed.ResultsQuestionnaires

Table 1 shows the mean rankings for acceptability and for frequency of use for the 40intervention strategies. The mean rankings of the strategies ranged from 1 (not acceptable ornever used) to 4 (very acceptable or always used). By and large, the strategies for acceptabilityranked close to those for use. Nevertheless, on 9 items, notable exceptions were identified; the

48

rank order between acceptability and frequency of use in some items differed by more than 10places in the ranking order (see Table 2). More specifically, talking with specialists or SchoolAdvisor about a child's academic or behavioral problem or using alternative materials weredeemed acceptable but were seldom used. On the other hand clarifying behavioral expectationsto the child and applying specific reinforcers for an appropriate behavior were often used thoughthey were not considered acceptable.

Table 1: Ranking order for acceptability and frequency ofuse.~tem Acceptability Frequency ofuseWo Intervention Strategies

Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD3 Encourage and support child's academic 1 3.96 0.18 1 3.75 0.52

mprovement.27 Encourage and support child's behavioral 2 3.92 0.38 3 3.68 0.61

mprovement15 [Emphasize good qualities of child's behavior. 3 3.89 0.32 2 3.69 0.4814 [Ialk with child's parents about behavioral problem. 4 3.89 0.35 5 3.49 0.7839 [Ialk with school specialist about child's academic 5 3.83 0.37 27 2.38 1.10

problem.8 Give child more explanations for the activities' 6 3.78 0.48 4 3.57 0.65

!performance.20 Examine child's health or family situation. 7 3.78 0.46 9 3.28 0.8632 [Ialk with child's parents about academic problem. 8 3.76 0.47 6 3.34 0.8321 Provide additional drill or practice. 9 3.75 0.49 7 3.32 0.731 Observe child outside the classroom. 10 3.69 0.60 17 2.98 0.86

31 Try different reinforcers. 11 3.68 0.50 8 3.28 0.7628 Use a different grouping technique. 12 3.68 0.56 18 2.80 0.9112 Talk with other teachers about child's behavioral 13 3.68 0.57 14 3.05 0.86

problem.18 Use alternative materials. 14 3.68 0.67 32 2.31 1.114 Talk with specialist about child's behavioral 15 3.67 0.60 33 2.24 1.08

problem.37 Talk with other teachers about child's academic 16 3.66 0.61 11 3.19 0.86

problem.33 Talk with School Advisor about child's academic 17 3.62 0.63 30 2.33 1.16

problem.13 Compile data about child's behavioral problem in 18 3.59 0.56 15 3.01 0.84

class.40 Talk with School Advisor about child's behavior 19 3.58 0.66 31 2.32 1.18

problem.6 Develop specific teaching methods. 20 3.56 0.62 19 2.75 0.8416 Clarify behavioral expectations to the child. 21 3.53 0.63 10 3.20 0.779 Analyze subskills and teach prerequisite skills first. 22 3.51 0.73 12 3.18 0.82

38 Record child's learning problem in observable 23 3.46 0.67 22 2.51 0.94erms.

49

2 [Record child's behavioral problem in observable 24 3.42 0.74 23 2.50 0.95erms.

30 Present same information at a slower pace or in a 25 3.40 0.59 16 2.99 0.80~ifferent sequence.

35 ~sk for parents' everyday contribution in the 26 3.37 0.74 20 2.70 1.06classroom.

23 Apply specific reinforcers for an appropriate child's 27 3.36 0.80 13 3.14 0.87behavior.

5 gnore inappropriate behavior and use a positive 28 3.05 0.98 21 2.60 0.92approach.

24 Request for more staff. 29 3.01 1.11 38 1.52 0.9136 Ask for help from other teachers. 30 2.98 0.92 29 2.33 0.9934 Promise a specific reinforcement. 31 2.92 1.00 26 2.42 0.9611 Use peer tutors. 32 2.85 0.76 35 2.11 0.7719 Move the child to another spot in the classroom. 33 2.82 1.05 25 2.44 1.0022 Give systematic corrective feedback frequently. 34 2.73 0.91 24 2.46 0.8617 Establish specific consequences for inappropriate 35 2.71 1.05 28 2.34 0.95

behavior.25 Call class's attention and enlist support to change 36 2.70 1.04 34 2.22 0.96

child's inappropriate behavior.26 Change physical arrangement of the classroom. 37 2.62 1.09 36 2.09 1.0429 nvite the parent in the classroom for a period of 38 2.38 1.03 37 1.66 0.83

ime.10 1M0ve the child to another classroom. 39 1.38 0.77 40 1.13 0.437 ~solate the child from the classroom. 40 1.16 0.53 39 1.18 0.59

Table 2: Strategies that differ by more than 10 places in the ratingsbetween frequency of use and acceptability

Strategies that rank higher in Rank Strategies that rank higher in Rankacceptability than in difference frequency ofuse than in differencefrequency ofuse acceptabilityTalk with specialist about child's 18 Clarify behavioral 11behavioral problem. expectations to the child.Use alternative materials. 18 Apply specific reinforcers 14

for an appropriate child'sbehavior

Talk with School Advisor about 13child's academic problem.Talk with school specialist about 22child's academic problem.Talk with School Advisor about 12child's behavior problem.

50

Principal component analysis was used to extract the factors for acceptability and frequency ofuse. The analysis revealed a 4 - factor model for acceptability and a 3 - factor model for use. Thenumber of factors was based on the Scree plots (Catell, 1966). The rotated factor loadings areshown in Table 3, whereas eigenvalues and the percentage of variance explained by the factorsare presented in Table 4.

Table 3: Rotated factor loadings for acceptability and frequency of use.ACCEPTABILITY

Help from Positive Parent / teacher NegativeSpecialists Intervention Consultation Intervention

Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading Item LoadingNo. No. No. No.

2 0.53 9 0.51 12 0.74 10 0.464 0.60 21 0.55 14 0.55 11 0.4813 0.57 23 0.59 18 0.61 17 0.5815 0.60 27 0.67 30 0.52 19 0.5916 0.49 32 0.58 35 0.50 22 0.4538 0.59 33 0.46 36 0.45 25 0.6439 0.49 37 0.62

Table 3: Rotated factor loadings for acceptability and frequency of use (continued).FREQUENCY OF USE

Positive Helpfrom NegativeIntervention Specialists Intervention

Item Loading Item Loading Item LoadingNo. No. No.

2 0.59 4 -0.47 11 0.463 0.53 17 0.66 26 0.556 0.55 25 0.46 29 0.479 0.52 33 -0.4712 0.4613 0.5314 0.5615 0.4618 0.4920 0.5521 0.4627 0.5131 0.5232 0.6535 0.6738 0.6039 0.6040 0.51

51

Table 4: Eigenvalues and percent ofvariance explained by each ofthe factorsFactors for acceptability Eigenvalue %of

varianceSpecialists Consultation/Data Collection 6.6 16.6Teacher Positive Interventions 3.0 7.5Parent/Teacher Consultation 2.5 6.3Teacher Negative Interventions 2.3 5.6

Factors for use Eigenvalue %ofvariance

Teacher Positive 7.5 18.7InterventionslDataCollectionSpecialists Consultation 2.9 7.2Teacher Negative Interventions 2.3 5.7

The first of the factors (see Table 3) generated for acceptability represents SpecialistConsultationlData Collection and includes items, such as talking with psychologists, specialeducators, or other specialists and recording data on children's behavior problems. The secondfactor represents Positive Teacher Intervention and includes items, such as encouraging,supporting and providing reinforcement for children when they tried to improve in terms ofbehavior or learning. The third factor represents Parent/Teacher Consultation and includes itemssuch as talking with other kindergarten teachers or parents to find ways to work on children'sbehavior and learning problems. The fourth factor represents Negative Teacher Intervention andincludes items such as moving the child to another spot in the classroom or establishing othertypes of consequences for inappropriate behavior.

As far as the frequency of use of strategies are concerned, the first factor representsPositive Teacher Intervention/Data Collection and includes items such as encouraging,supporting and reinforcing children's attempts to improve their behavior and learningperformance, as well as collecting data on children's problems. This factor is similar to thePositive Teacher Intervention factor generated for acceptability, but it also includes items onData Collection. The second factor represents Specialist Consultation and includes items, such astalking with psychologists, special educators, or other specialists, as well as with SchoolAdvisors about ways to work on the child's behavior and learning problems. The third factorrepresents Negative Teacher Intervention and is very similar in structure to the Negative TeacherInterventions factor generated for acceptability.

Table 5 shows teacher's perceptions according to their years of experience. Nosignificant differences were found for the acceptability of the strategies between experiencedteachers (more than 10 years of teaching experience) and less experienced teachers (less than 10years of teaching experience). However, there are significant differences in the frequency of use.Experienced kindergarten teachers are more likely to use strategies that are listed in Table 5.Interviews.

All phone interviews were recorded and transcribed. Every interview was evaluated withthe "content analysis" method (Vamvoukas, 1991, p. 263-281). A temporary system of categorieswas initially formed. After a detailed analysis and study of the initial categories, seven categorieswere defined. The following are the constructed categories:

52

Table 5: Percent of teachers who use the intervention strategies very oftenor always by years of experience

Intervention Strategies Experience

< 10years > 10 yearsRecord child's behavioral problem in observable terms 32 57Talk with other teachers about child's behavioral problem. 24 41Emphasize good qualities of child's behavior 59 79Use alternative materials 26 49Provide additional drill or practice 30 57Invite the parent in the classroom for a period of time 0 10Talk with child's parents about child's academic problem 43 62Ask for help from other teachers. 0 30

1. The problem gets worse: kindergarten teachers argued that the intervention has anegative impact on the child and exacerbates the problem.

Example: "The continuous correction of the child's answers puts stress on him/her anddiscourages him/her."

2. Creates a different problem: kindergarten teachers indicated that when they use anintervention strategy their aim was to solve a problem and not to create a new one.Example: "If a child's parents go to class, the other children may want their parents to goas well."

3. Labelling the child: kindergarten teachers argued that they should not put "labels" onchildren.Example: "If you move the child in another class then he becomes the 'black sheep' inboth classes."

4. Ignorance of the strategy's implementation: Kindergarten teachers indicated that theydon't know how to implement a given strategy.Example: "I can not record data in observable terms because I am not familiar with thisprocedure. "

5. Difficulty of accessing experts: Kindergarten teachers argued that they need experts'opinions, but it is difficult to access them.Example: "I need them often and I would like their help, but they are nowhere tobe found. We don't have a school psychologist."

6. Lack of an adequate number of School Advisors: Kindergarten teachers indicated thatthere are not enough of them, and they end up meeting them rarely.Example: "Where are they to be found? I have never seen him!" or" The advice he gaveme was very vague, not ofmuch help."

7. Inappropriate strategy: kindergarten teachers argued that they consider this strategyineffective.Example: "Children of this age cannot apply the strategy of 'peer tutoring'."

Table 6 shows the number and percent of teachers' responses for each category.These data indicated that teachers tried to justify why they did not use certain interventionstrategies. The most frequent reasons, stated by the teachers, for not using an intervention

53

strategy were that this strategy makes the problem worse (22.1%), creates a differentproblem (19.2%) or stigmatizes the child (17.3%). Less frequent reasons were theirignorance of the strategy's implementation (15.4%), their difficulty of accessing experts(10.6%) or School Advisors (9.6%), and their belief of the strategy's inappropriateness(5.8%).

Table 6: The number and percent of teachers' responses for each categoryCategories Number of Percent (%)

Responses1 The problem gets worse 23 22.12 Creates a different problem 20 19.23 Labeling the child 18 17.34 Ignorance of the strategy's implementation 16 15.45 Difficulty of accessing experts 11 10.66 Lack of inadequate School Advisors 10 9.67 Inappropriate strategy 6 5.8

DiscussionKindergarten teachers' ratings

The purpose of this study was to examine what intervention strategies kindergartenteachers do consider acceptable and which ones they use frequently in their classrooms to dealwith young children with mild learning and behavior problems. The examination of kindergartenteachers' ratings of items on the questionnaires showed that they gave high ratings to interventionstrategies that encourage and support children and emphasize their positive qualities. On theother hand, they gave low ratings to strategies that result in isolating pupils from the classroom,moving them to another classroom, taking privileges away from them, or excluding them frompreferred activities. These findings are very positive since previous studies have shown thatmotivation and encouragement from the teacher are very effective on children with learning andbehavior problems (e.g. Lovitt, 1989).

In addition, it was found that kindergarten teachers favor strategies, such as givingexplanations for the activities' performance, providing additional drill or practice, using differentgrouping techniques, or developing teaching methods specific to the children's needs. Thesestrategies result in long-term problem resolution. This seems to be better understood byexperienced kindergarten teachers, since a higher percentage of them use those strategies moreoften than teachers with fewer years of teaching experience (see Table 5).

Kindergarten teachers would rather examine children's health or family situation, and talkwith children's parents to find out ways to work on behavior or learning problems, than ask forparental input or invite them for observation in the classroom. It seems that teachers would liketo find out from parents the roots and causes of children's problems and try to alleviate them, butthey do not want parents as potential partners in the classroom. They may think that parents'attitudes create more problems in the classroom, or they may even be afraid of criticism. Eventhe more experienced teachers rarely invite the parents in their classrooms. Indeed, only one inten of experienced teachers invites parents in the classroom (see Table 5).

Kindergarten teachers prefer talking with their colleagues about ways to work onchildren's behavior or academic problems than asking for their help. Even kindergarten teacherswith more than ten years of teaching experience are reluctant to ask for help very often from

54

their colleagues (see Table 5). It would be interesting to explore the factors that prevent teachersto seek out collegial help.

Finally, there were strategies that teachers strongly accepted but did not use frequently,such as talking with school psychologists, special educators, school advisors, or other specialistsabout ways to work on children's behavior or academic problems. One explanation for thisdiscrepancy may be that, although teachers find these strategies helpful, they do not use themdue to the lack of specialists in schools or due to the time it takes to allocate specialists outsidethe school system. Another explanation may be that they prefer to rely on themselves to solveproblems.Factor Structures

Specialist consultation, teacher positive and negative interventions were the threecommon factors for acceptability and frequency of use. Kindergarten teachers consider schoolpsychologists, special educators or school advisors to be absolutely necessary to meet youngchildren's needs in a regular kindergarten classroom.

Two factors for both ratings were related to direct teacher intervention, one for positiveand one for negative. The fact that positive teacher intervention is a more powerful factor thannegative in both ratings is a very comforting finding showing that kindergarten teachers not onlyperceive themselves as the primary resource for dealing with children's mild behavior andlearning problems, but also that they choose positive strategies that support and encouragechildren to resolve their problems, not strategies that are punishing the children.

Kindergarten teachers consider data collection procedures a useful tool in conjunctionwith specialist consultations and positive teacher intervention. Finally, they believe thatconsulting parents and other teachers provides useful information about the child's problems aslong as they stay outside of the classroom.Interviews

The most frequent reasons given by kindergarten teachers for not using certain strategieswere: (a) their belief that the intervention would make the situation worse either by creating adifferent problem or by stigmatizing the child, (b) their ignorance of the implementation ofintervention techniques, (c) their difficulty having access to specialists or school advisors, and,(d) their belief of the strategies' inappropriateness. Lack of access to specialists may make theteachers feel "alone" resulting, in our opinion, in their refusal to include young children withlearning or behavior problems in their classrooms, and insisting on referring them to resourcerooms or special classrooms. Moreover, the scarcity of specialist's consultations may createfeelings of insecurities that prevent them from applying effective intervention strategies andsuggest the need for continuous inservice training.Comparison of present and prior research findings

The results of this study were in many ways similar to those found by Johnson andPugach (1990). Consultation from various sources, teacher interventions and data collection wereimportant factors for acceptability for teachers in the USA and Greece, even though the relativeimportance of these acceptability factors differed between teachers in the two countries. Teacherintervention was, by far, the most powerful factor for USA teachers, while for Greek teachers themost powerful factor was consultation and advice from specialists. Positive and negative teacherintervention was a less powerful factor for Greek teachers.

The opposite was observed for the frequency of use factors. Positive teacherintervention/data collection was the most important factor for use for Greek teachers, while forUSA teachers, teacher intervention was the distant second factor for use, far behind principal

55

involvement. Finally, it should be noted that, while parent involvement was a factor foracceptability and not for frequent use for Greek teachers, the reverse was noticed for the USAteachers; parent involvement was not a factor for acceptability, but was a factor for use, albeit theleast important.

Similar results were also found in both studies regarding the explanations that teachersgave for not using various intervention strategies. Teachers in both countries claimed that themost frequent reason for not using an intervention strategy was their conviction that theintervention would make the situation worse, would create a different problem, or wouldstigmatize the child.

As mentioned above, the results of those two studies were similar in many ways eventhough, they were conducted in countries that differ culturally and economically and despite thepossible differences in teachers' training and the educational systems that are put into practice.Teachers in both countries perceived themselves as the primary source for accommodating theneeds of children with mild learning and behavior problems. This is an encouraging finding sinceclassroom teachers should be the backbone of any intervention program for children with specialneeds. Moreover, in both studies teachers considered consultation, either from specialists or fromthe principal, to be necessary when trying to meet special children's needs in a regular classroom.In other words, teachers need help in order to include children with mild learning or behaviorproblems in the regular classroom. However, Greek teachers put emphasis on a specialist'sconsultation, while American teachers put emphasis on principal involvement. These differencesmight be explained by the variations between the two educational systems. School principals inGreece do not have authority over teachers since the latter do not depend on the former for theirprofessional advancement. Additionally, the fact that Greek teachers do not see parents aspartners in their classroom might be a shortcoming of the Greek educational system. Parents inGreece are still not actively involved in the educational programs of schools, and teachers havedifficulty cooperating with them.

In conclusion, the findings of this study provided a profile of the intervention strategiesthat Greek kindergarten teachers of this sample accept and consider useful in dealing with youngchildren with mild learning and behavior problems. These findings are generally in agreementwith the profile of the intervention strategies that teachers in other parts of the world use in theirclassroom when confronted with older children with mild learning and behavior problems.However, further research is needed to examine why teachers in Greece do not ask for help fromtheir colleagues and why they dislike parental involvement in their classrooms.

ReferencesAlgozzine, B., Ysseldyke, IE., Christenson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1983). A factor analysis of

teachers' intervention choices for dealing with students' behavior and learning problems.Elementary School Journal, 84, 189-197.

Bailey, D.B., Clifford, R.M. & Harms, T. (1982). Comparison of preschool environments forhandicapped and non-handicapped children. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 2, 9-20.

Bruder, M.B. & Brand, M. (1995). A comparison of two types of early interventionenvironments serving toddler age children with disabilities. Infant Toddler Intervention,~(3), 207-217.

56

Buswell, B. & Schaffner, C.B. (1990). Families supporting inclusive schooling. In S. Stainback& W. Stainback (Eds.). Support networks for inclusive schooling. Baltimore: PaulBrooks Publishing.

Cattel, RB. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,1245-276.

Cook, RE.., Tessier, A & Klein, M.D. (1996). Adapting early childhood curricula for childrenin inclusive settings. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Elliott, S.N., Witt, J.C., Galvin, G.A & Peterson, R (1984). Acceptability of positive andreductive behavioral interventions: factors that influence teachers' decisions. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 22, 353-360.

Glomb, N.K. & Morgan, D.P. (1991). Resource room teachers' use of strategies that promote thesuccess of handicapped students in regular classrooms. The Journal of Special Education,25(2),221-235.

Guralnick, M.J., & Groom, J.M. (1988). Peer interactions in mainstreamed and specialisedclassrooms: A comparative analysis. Exceptional Children, 54, 415-425.

Guralnick, M.J., Connor, RT. & Hammond, M. (1995). Parent perspectives of peer relationshipsand friendships in integrated and specialised programs. American Journal on MentalRetardation, 99(5), 457-476.

Guralnick, M.J. (1994). Mothers' perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of early childhoodmainstreaming. Journal ofEarly Intervention, 18(2), 168-183.

Hankerson, H.E. (1982). Intervention strategies are the key to relevant curriculum and effectiveinstruction in early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 8, 31-43.

Hunt, P. & Goetz, L.. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, andoutcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31(1),3-29.

Johnson, L.J. & Pugach, M.C. (1990). Classroom teachers' views of intervention strategies forlearning and behavioral problems: which are reasonable and how frequently are theyused? The Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 69-84.

Karagiannis, A, Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1996). Rationale for inclusive schooling. In S.Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore: PaulBrookes Publishing.

Lovitt, T.C. (1989). Introduction to learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Lowenthal, B. (1995). Strategies that promote social skills in toddlers with special needs in the

inclusive setting. Infant-Toddler Intervention, 5(1), 15-22.Marchant, C. (1995). Teachers' views of integrated preschools. Journal of Early Intervention,

19(1),61-73.Martens, B.K., Peterson, RL., Witt, J.C. & Cirone, S. (1986). Teacher perceptions of school­

based interventions. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 213-223.McAllister, J.R (1991). Curriculum-Based behavioral interventions for preschool children with

handicaps. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(2),48-58.McEvoy, M.A, Fox, J.J. & Rosenberg, M.S. (1991). Organising preschool environments:

suggestions for enhancing the development/learning of preschool children withhandicaps. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(2), 18-28.

Peterson, C.A. & McConnell, S.R (1993). Factors affecting the impact of social interaction skillsinterventions in early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 13(1),38-56.

57

Putnam, J.W. (1995). Co-operative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating diversity inthe classroom. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.

Roberts, J.E., Bailey D.B. & Nychka, H.B. (1991). Teachers' use of strategies to facilitate thecommunication of preschool children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention,!.~J4), 358-376.

Tafa, E. (1995). Preschool intervention in inclusive kindergarten classrooms. In E. Tafa (Ed.).Inclusive education for children with learning and behavioral problems. Athens: EllinikaGrammata.

Vamvoukas, M. (1993). Introduction to psychopedagogic research and methodology. Athens:Grigori.

Witt, J.C. & Elliott, S.N. (1982). The response cost lottery: a time efficient and effectiveclassroom intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 20(2), 155-161.

Witt, lC. & Martens, B.K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions.Psychology in the Schools, 20, 510-517.

Witt, lC., Elliott, S.N., & Martens, B.K. (1984). Acceptability of behavioral intervention used inclassrooms: The influence of amount, of teacher time, severity of behavioral problem,and type of intervention. Behavioral Disorders, 9, 95-104.

Witt, lC., Martens, B.K. & Elliott, S.N. (1984). Factors affecting teachers' judgements of theacceptability of behavioral interventions: Time involvement, behavior problem severity,and type of intervention. Behavior Therapy, 15, 204-209.

58