quality in ecec - up · the quality of child interactions in family and child care contexts and...

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


* 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.


“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.


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?


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)


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).


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.”


coordinated action of the 3 Ministries


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)


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)




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



Doing the same as peersTotal Activities /routine

(ECA)QIEMQIEM

Measures

Measures

Measures



Individualized Goals;Individualized interventionsImplementation

InteractionsToneResponsiveness

DirectivenessResponsiveness

Individualized GoalsIndividualized interventionsImplementation

InteractionsToneResponsiveness



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



APR (Assessment of Peer Relations

Guralnick, 2003)


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



•Descriptive analyzes•Differences between ECA1 & ECA 6•Correlations between participation components

Content analyzes of teachers behaviors

CORELATIONS

Measures





Guralnick, 2003)

Vineland

Interviews & Focus Group

QIEM (Quality of Incl. Exp. Measure; Wolery, et.

al., 2000)


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


4.2


Iniciations without response

OBSERVATION


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


4.2


Iniciations without response

OBSERVATION


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



4.2



OBSERVATION


(QIEM)


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



4.2



OBSERVATION


(QIEM)



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


4.2



OBSERVATION


(QIEM)

Social involvement with peersRole and activity structure strategies

Management Strategies


INITIAL CASE STUDYMariana

Turn-taking

Non-social involvement with peers

QUESTIONNAIRE


4.2



OBSERVATION


(QIEM)




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


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


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


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



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


CORRELATIONS ANALYSES

Association between dimensions of the inclusive experience:

Process/Process

Engagement Adult-Child Contacts


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



Accessibility

Participation

Engagement

Child-Child

Interactions

Involvement .34* .44** .22 .38**

Tone of interactions .20 .18 .08 .31*

Responsiveness / Support

.22 .17 .31* .31*



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


STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES

p <.01r = .62

p < .01r = -.53


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


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


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)



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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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

112

Thank you

[email protected]

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

quality in ecec - up · the quality of child interactions in family and child care contexts and...

Documents