.n.

1‘ ‘o
.x :
v‘hfl‘“

 

Q'-
n
2

,

Andree . u.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.1 34,233 is
...€.u§.i.!:
. s . ,

kt.
i
f:

 

1H? fia’:

\‘l

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

MOTHER-CHILD INTERACTION: A COMPARISON OF
YOUNG CHILDREN WITH OR WITHOUT SPECIAL NEEDS
IN AN INCLUSIONARY PLAYGROUP SETTING

presented by

Debra Louise Lively

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Special Education

degree in

am m

Major professor

 

 

Date ll'b‘Ol

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

It! 9 g: m7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClHC/DatoDuopfifrp. 1 5

MOTHER-CHILD INTERACTION: A COMPARISON OF YOUNG CHILDREN
WITH OR WITHOUT SPECIAL NEEDS IN AN INCLUSIONARY
PLAYGROUP SETTING
By

Debra Louise Lively

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education

2002

ABSTRACT
MOTHER-CHILD INTERACTION: A COMPARISON OF YOUNG CHILDREN
WITH OR WITHOUT SPECIAL NEEDS IN AN INCLUSIONARY
PLAYGROUP SETTING
By

Debra Louise Lively

The early organization of parent-cth interaction is the basis for language, cognitive
and social emotional development. Play has been identified as a primary avenue to enhance
these skills. Few studies have been conducted on how parents of young children with
special needs interact with their caregivers, particularly in the earliest years prior to
entering school.

The work completed by researchers Betty Hart and Todd Risely (1995) yielded
significant differences in the number of words used and positive statements generated to
young children by their parents based on socio-economic level. Fewer words and negative
statements later correlated to the children’s cognitive development and school success.
Since socio-economic status demonstrated differences, similar differences could be possible
with respect to caregivers of children with special needs. In view of the lack of this
empirical data, further investigation seemed crucial.

The purpose of this study was to observe, compare, and record how mothers
interacted, verbally and non-verbally, with their young children (with and without special
needs) while participating in an inclusionary playgroup environment. Mothers were
interviewed before and after attending their scheduled playgroup session in an effort to
determine how comfortable they felt while participating. Four mother-child dyads, two
children with special needs and two without, from the same socio-economic group were

observed to see if differences existed. Analysis of the transcriptions were conducted using

 

 

an ad;

(8!ch

intcra

form

W 3y

takit

com

and

3LTI

p05

5pc

qu

SP

an adapted form of Hart and Risley’s Juniper Project (1995) coding system and non-verbal
categories established by the SKI‘I-II Institute to determine if differences in parent-child
interaction existed. Pre- and post-interviews were analyzed and coded using an adapted
form of Appl, Fahl-Gooler, and McCollum’s coding system (1997).

Results of this study indicated that there were more similarities than differences in the
way mothers communicated with their young children. Mothers exhibited similar turn-
taking trajectories, frequency of social episodes, and consistent responses to their children’s
communication attempts. They tended to produce more words, more variety of utterances,
and. longer social episodes while participating in mutual play as compared to all other
activity contexts. In addition, mothers displayed a similar number of times when they
conveyed warmth, used gestures, facial expression, eye contact, pointing, inflection, and
positive statements. The differences found in this study were that mothers of children with
special needs tended to use more purposeful touching, executed more non-verbal turns,
used more negatives and imperatives, spent less time engaged in mutual play, asked fewer
questions at a higher level of thinking, and generated fewer words to their children within
specific age groups.

Research has indicated that some of the above differences can have a detrimental effect
on children’s overall development. Therefore, early intervention programs need to support,
guide, and inform caregivers of their critical role in enhancing their children’s language and
cognitive development through positive interactions that are rich in both non-verbal and
verbal language. Providing play opportunities for children with special needs with their

caregivers and playmates their own age will allow for this positive interaction to occur.

Copyright by
DEBRA LOUISE LIV ELY

2002

DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my loving husband Richard, daughter Sarah and
son David. My husband’s continual support...truly helped me finish. I can still hear him

say, “You can do it.” Those words, his love, and understanding made this dream possible.

 

drc
cha
gui

la:

Ph.

ma

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are so many people I would like to thank who helped me fulfill a life—long

dream. First and foremost, I would like to thank David Stewart, Ph.D., my dissertation

chair, for all of his wonderful patience and encouragement. His knowledge and expertise

guided the development of my research project from its infancy to its completion. For this,

I am sincerely grateful.

In addition, my dissertation committee, Carol Sue Englert, Ph.D., Troy Mariage,

Ph.D., and Holly Brophy-I-Ierb, Ph.D. provided positive support and insight that assisted in

making my dissertation a worthy contribution to the field.

A special thank you is due to the following people:

Gabbie, who spent countless hours sitting next to me reviewing data, ensuring
reliability, and providing the encouragement that kept me going.

Lisa for her knowledge, expertise and patience in helping to develop the Access
program used for data analysis.

Sally who assisted in coding interviews, verifying reliability, and providing
positive support.

Saginaw Valley State University undergraduates who helped with the videotaping

of observations.

Saun for her invaluable expertise in formatting my dissertation and keeping me

calm through the process.

vi

0 My family (Mom, Dad, and brother Tom).

0 Colleagues and friends for their encouragement and support.

But above all, I would like to thank the mothers and their young children for
participating in my research study...their participation made this dissertation a reality. I feel

truly blessed to have had the wonderful support of so many.

vii

 

 

 

[.18

CH.
[NI

 

CH}

CH;
ME".

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................... x

CHAPTER I:

INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................. 4
Need for the Study ................................................... 5
Assumptions ........................................................ 7
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................... 8

CHAPTER 11:

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................... 10
Introduction ....................................................... 10
The Importance of Play .............................................. 10
Play and Cognitive Development ....................................... 15
Play and Language Development ....................................... 17
Adult Interaction and Play ............................................ 19
Children with Special Needs and Play ................................... 22
Summary ......................................................... 25

CHAPTER III:

METHOD ............................................................ 27
Research Questions ................................................. 27
Research Design .................................................... 28
Operational Definition of Key Terms .................................... 29
Instrumentation .................................................... 32
Participants ....................................................... 40
Procedure ......................................................... 45
Data Collection .................................................... 47
Data Analysis ...................................................... 52

CHAPTER IV:

RESULTS ............................................................ 56
Differences in the Type and Frequency of Non-Verbal Cues .................. 57
Differences in Types of Mother’s Verbal Interaction ........................ 6O
Differences in Amount and Length of Social Episodes ....................... 68
Differences in Parental Perceptions ..................................... 74

viii

CHAPTER V:

DISCUSSION ......................................................... 80
Introduction ....................................................... 80
Discussion ........................................................ 83
Implications ....................................................... 88
Limitations ........................................................ 92
Conclusion ........................................................ 93

APPENDIX A ......................................................... 96

APPENDIX B ........................................................ 100

APPENDIX C ........................................................ 108

APPENDD( D ........................................................ 120

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 122

Figure 3.1:
Figure 4.1:
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:

Figure 4.5 :

Figure 4.6:
Figure 4.7:

Figure 4.8:

LIST OF FIGURES

Final Participant and Playgroup Characteristics ..................... 44
Participants’ Identifiers ....................................... 5 6
Non-Verbal Communication of Mothers .......................... 57
Comparison of Vocal Behaviors of Mothers ........................ 6O
Kinds of Utterances for Mothers ................................ 63

Contexts and Activity Context Where Mothers Generated Most

Utterances ................................................. 65
Frequency of Words .......................................... 67
Average Number of Turns Over Four Sessions ...................... 71
Average Number of Social Episodes for Each Mother-Child Dyad ....... 71

 

 

 

 

 

worki
Ridii
corre
theu'
inclu
(Sree
{host

Ping

PFOV
Met
ITO”
KICV
Pete.
that

Dare]

the C

CHAPTER I:

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few decades there has been increasing interest among professionals
working with parents and young children to examine the manner in which parents interact
with their young children. Some researchers have reported statistically significant
correlations between the way in which parents interact with young children and the rate of
their developmental growth. Consistent findings have been cited for a wide range of dyads,
including children from low socioeconomic (SES) families (Hart 85 Risley, 1995 ; Walker,
Greenwood, Hart, 8c Carta, 1994), those born prematurely (Beckwith 85 Cohen, 1989) and
those with severe developmental disabilities (Brooks-Gunn 86 Lewis, 1984; Mahoney,
Finger, 8C Powell, 1985 ).

It has been implied that previous research regarding parent-child interaction has
provided momentum to the design of early intervention services (Sandall, 1993; Thorp 8C
McCollum, 1994). Most intervention efforts, however, have been conceptualized primarily
from a child-focused, directive-teaching framework (e.g., McBride 8C Peterson, 1997;
McWilliam, Tocci, 8C Harbin, 1995; Meisels, Dichtemiller, 8C Liaw, 1993). McBride and
Peterson (1997) discovered, after observing 160 home-based early intervention sessions,
that the interventionists primarily worked with the child rather than focusing on the
parent-child relationships. The content of these interactions focused almost exclusively on

the child’s development or caretaking needs rather than on enhancing or developing skills

that are t
llmlttd c
program}
by pmnu

children (

 

with mil
framewor
dcvcloprr
that may
parents 0
Special [It
Hov
interaqe
importar
area of [2
N'O‘I'Car
Studied \
prediqo
Year; 0!:
nine and
during u
Child he;
his to le

that are critical for parents. Based on this rational, it would seem reasonable that the
limited effectiveness of some traditional child-focused, teacher-directed early-intervention
programs need to redirect their focus to accelerate developmental growth in young children
by promoting parental interactive qualities that supports the development and well-being of
children (Farran, 1990). Investigation that examines the way parents of young children
with mild to moderate disabilities interact would seem to be a crucial step in developing a
framework for future programming of early intervention programs and enhancement of
developmental abilities. This could be of particular importance when looking at differences
that may exist between parents of young children with special needs as compared to
parents of young children who do not have any identified developmental delays or other
special needs.

How caregivers (welfare families, working class families, and professional families)
interacted with their children was examined by Hart and Risley (1995) who supported the
importance of parents as first teachers of their children in the early years, particularly in the
area of language development. For more than two years they observed one-year-old and
two-year-old children and their caregivers interacting. In addition, 29 of the 42 children
studied were tested in third grade to determine the importance of vocabulary growth as a
predictor of later performance in school. For the 29 children observed when they were 1—2
years old, rate of vocabulary growth at age three was strongly associated with scores at age
nine and ten. The results indicated that frequency of words produced by the caregiver
during interaction with the child did make a difference. It appears then that the more a
child hears of one or another aspect of the language, the greater the opportunity the child
has to learn it (Hart 85 Risley, 1995, p. xi). These differences in the amount of early family
experience translated into striking disparities in the children’s later vocabulary growth rate,

2

vocabul.
though I
htflncfi.t
cxperier

more sli

Adt
of the S(
as an or
each pat
Partners
Comets.
a Parent
amount

\ll'h
(1999) (
PTOmpt
restatem
and‘takg
“Huh?“
‘0 direq
fully Par
qutsthn

generate

vocabulary use, and IQ test scores. The conclusions of their report indicated that even
though children have the same kinds of experiences with language and interactions in their
homes, children born into homes with fewer economic resources have fewer of these
experiences. Consequently, they learn fewer words and acquire a vocabulary of these words
more slowly. Hart and Risley’s research demonstrated the importance of the amount of
language experience in relationship to cognitive development.

Additional investigation conducted by Hart and Risley (1999) showed the importance
of the social dance as the context of language experience. They described the social dance
as an opporttmity for parents to attend and invite children to join in talking, in which what
each partner does governs what the other does. When the mother and child become true
partners, “the social world of the infant gradually shifts into that of an apprentice to
conversation” (Hart 8c Risley, 1999, p. 186). Hence, conversation contributes positively to
a parent-child relationship. Their data implied that the important concern for parents is the
amount of dancing they engage in with their child.

When looking at the social dance between parents and children, Hart and Risley
(1999) observed parents’ use of questions. They found questions were the most frequent
prompt used by parents. Additional prompts included parent praise, imitation, and
restatement. But it was parents asking questions that appeared to foster much of the give-
and-take communication. With young children, 15% of parents’ questions were “What?” or
“Huh?” As children’s ability in answering questions about things improved, parents began
to direct children’s attention to what the children should notice and remember to more
fully participate in family conversations. Parents maintained interactions by asking hard
questions and supplying the answers themselves. Responses and utterances parents
generated by their children varied by the amount of waiting parents did before responding.

3

 

ll signifit

children ‘

 

their part

Urili
to push I
question-
(Berk CV
being Sig
by parer
interacr
Parents

0n deli:

ST A11 5

If significant differences are noted in the effect of this give-and-take social dance, young
children with special needs could potentially be at greater risk for optimal development if
their parents engage less in the dance.

Utilization of Bloom’s questioning techniques suggests that children will be challenged
to push themselves beyond a lower level of thinking (Cummings, 1980). In addition,
questions are viewed as critical in scaffolding children’s language and critical thinking skills
(Berk 8c Winsler, 1995). Berk and Winsler indicated that the use of questions is seen as
being significant for classroom communication. Based on this, the types of questions used
by parents could have an effect on their child’s development. Therefore, investigating the
interaction between parents with young children who have special needs compared to
parents of young children who do not exhibit any special needs can have a positive impact

on defining the way services should be delivered in early intervention programs.

STATEMENT or THE PROBLEM

Early childhood educators have long cherished the belief that spontaneous play can
nourish children’s intellectual and social development (Athey, 1984; Davidson, 1996;
Kostelnik, Soderman 8c Whiren, 1993; Santrock 8c Yussen, 1992). Play makes both direct
contributions at given stages and long-range indirect contributions by providing a basis for
further learning. Vygotsky (1978) identified the importance of play for children with
special needs as extremely critical to promote higher-level thinking. He further described
that play for children with special needs must have the same general goals as that of
typically developing children (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995 ). Thus, play has been identified as one
avenue where positive parent-child interaction can occur regardless of whether a child has a
disability or not. This study attempted to investigate and compare parent-child interaction

4

 

(verbal ai
wucmk
the toys.

available

rs.)

F C“'

[noderate

(verbal and non-verbal) in an inclusive playgroup setting. An inclusive playgroup setting

was chosen to allow parents an opportunity to play and interact in an environment where

the toys, group participants, teacher as facilitator, and activities would be constant and

available. The following questions were addressed.

1.

Is there a difference in the type and frequency of non-verbal cues (inflection, eye
contact, getting down on the child’s level, touch, pointing, facial expression, and
gestures) generated by a mother of a young child who has mild to moderate
special needs as compared to a mother of a young child who does not demonstrate
any delays or other special needs?

Is there a difference in a mother’s verbal interaction (kinds of utterances
specifically the type of questions, frequency of words, use of positive and negative
statements) when engaging a young child with/without special needs during play
in an inclusionary playgroup setting?

Are there differences in the amount and length of episodes of social interaction
(turn-taking) or floor holding (continuations) generated by either mother during
play in an inclusionary playgroup setting?

Is there a difference in parental perceptions as to how they feel about playgroups,
including the benefits, goals, support, and differences? And do parental differences

exist in how they define play, inclusion, and their role in facilitating their child’s

play?

NEED FOR THE STUDY

Few studies have been conducted on how parents of young children with mild to

moderate special needs interact with their caregivers. More significantly, there is little

5

research t
children \
consisten‘
positive 5

provided

One
the benel
CXttnt at
enough c
lm'estiga
of Verbal
groWing
deem}. a
Caregli'er

Han
dependec

0n the an

research that provides comparative data on the two groups identified for this study. Young
children with special needs may be at increased risk for cognitive delays if caregivers
consistently demonstrate lower levels of questioning, fewer words, more negative than
positive statements, and less wait time during play. Hart and Risley’s (1999) research
provided a simple message for parents:

When you talk with your children a lot about things that are not
important, you automatically give them experiences that are important
to their cognitive and emotional learning. While your children are little,
your conversation matters. Children get better at what they practice, and
having more language tools, more nuances, more fluency, more steps in
the social dances of life is likely to contribute at least as much to your
children’s futures success as their heredity and their choice of friends

(p. xiii).

One aspect of a caregiver’s responsibility is to create a setting and atmosphere in which
the benefits of language and cognition are maximized. The challenge is to determine the
extent an adult should enter the play setting, as play can be adversely affected by not
enough or too much adult involvement (Enz 8c Christie, 1993). The information gained by
investigating the adult’s role in play and whether adult interaction increases the child’s use
of verbal and non-verbal language has the potential of being useful, specifically to the
growing field of early interventionists and parenting education. Such information can be
directly applied in the home or playgroup situation in determining the actions of the
caregiver in relating to their child during play.

Hart and Risley’s (1999) data showed the magnitude of children’s accomplishments
depended less on the material and educational advantages available in the home and more
on the amount of experience children were able to accumulate with their parents. This was
critical with respect to language, affirmative feedback, symbolic emphasis, gentle guidance,

and responsiveness. It is their belief that by the time children are three years old, even

 

intensive :
children l

I

ll int:
iImportant
engage th.
PTOSpeQ t
Communii

to Promoi

& Chen, ;
PFOCess (3

may be be

Assuwm
The f1

LE

intensive intervention cannot make up for the differences in the amount of such experience

children have received from their parents in those earliest years.

Within the varied activities parents arranged for their children, we could
see a curriculum of planned experiences, society’s agenda for
transforming the amorphous, amoral behavior of a newborn into the
skilled self-sufficiency of a 3 year-old. Society delegates to parents the
implementation of this child-rearing curriculum and gives them almost
complete control over the presentation, timing, and sequencing of
experiences. Nearly everything the children saw or heard was conditional
upon their parents; everything they knew about the structure of the
world was referenced to their own experience in the family (Hart 85
Risley, 1995, p. 181).

If interventionists could provide parents of young children information identifying the

importance of their role in facilitating language and support for using strategies that help

engage their child in rich conversations, then parents would potentially have a greater

prospect to enhance their parent-child interactions. By learning more about the

communication process and the uniqueness of parent-child interaction, it should be possible

to promote optimum development for young children with special needs (McCollum, Ree,

86 Chen, 2000). Furthermore, perceptions of interactions become part of the assessment

process (McCollum, Ree, 8c Chen, 2000). Since assessment is ongoing, these perceptions

may be beneficial in guiding intervention strategies, planning and implementation.

ASSUMPTIONs

The following assumptions aided in guiding this research project.

1.

Before attending an inclusionary playgroup, parents would be provided with the
playgroup daily schedule (parent-child play-structured and non-structured
activities) and would have a choice of which group they wished to participate in

based on an appropriate age range for their child.

7

 

r.)
m

ORC‘XVIZ

This
includes 1
Chapter
del’elom
needS On

lDCludeS

10.

11.

Parents and children had been enrolled in a parent home-based education program
for at least six months and had attended a previous inclusionary playgroup
ten—week session in the same facility.

Parents would be committed to attend playgroups on a regular basis.

When a child or parent was ill, videotaping would not occur and data would not
be collected.

English was the primary language of all participants studied.

Each individual child’s cognitive and language level was considered similar as
demonstrated by current developmental testing.

The playgroup site would be adequately supplied.

The location of the playgroup site and availability of materials would remain
constant.

Comparison groups would be of similar socio-economic status.

Participating children would be in the age range Of 18—48 months.

Participating children identified as having disabilities would be eligible under the

Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired Category (POHI).

ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION

This study is presented from an ethnographic, Observer point of view. Chapter I

includes material on the purpose and rationale for the study including assumptions.
Chapter II consists Of a review of the literature about the importance of play to enhance the
development of language, how adult interaction impacts play, and the effect of special
needs on play. The methodology in this study is described in Chapter III. Chapter IV

includes the analysis of the results of the study. For this chapter, the researcher used

8

 

 

informant
audio and
records. pl.
the finding
reflections.

for the find

information from Observations during inclusionary playgroups, pre- and post-interviews,
audio and video-taped recordings, field notes, and a collection of various artifacts (school
records, playgroup brochures, program newsletters, and lesson plans). Chapter V contains
the findings and conclusions Of the study along with further research recommendations and

reflections. Information from the analysis Of the data was used to generate an explanation

for the findings.

 

m4

 

bnRODLcn
In this
lltClamreg
the role of
influence
role of th
Play envi-

The Ch 3?

THE I Mp

Play
e”gages
experier
mnSPOI
even me
develop
or her t}

Rogers {

CHAPTER 11:

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, four critical literatures focusing on play are examined. These four
literatures lead to the specific research questions addressed in this study. In the first section,
the role of play and how play impacts cognitive development are examined. Following, the
influence of play on language development is discussed. The next two sections explore the
role of the adult during play interaction and how children with special needs can impact the
play environment, particularly, with respect to the feelings experienced by the caregivers.

The chapter concludes with a brief synthesis of the review of literature.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PLAY

Play is considered by some to be the most important activity in which the young child
engages (Kostelnik, Soderman, 8c Whiren, 1993). As today’s children continue to
experience pressure (e.g., poverty, parental substance abuse, single parenting, lack Of
transportation, non-educated parent, unemployment, disability) in their lives, play becomes
even more crucial. Play increases affiliation with peers, releases tension, advances cognitive
development, increases exploration, and provides a safe haven in which a child can test his
or her theories about the world (Athey, 1984; Nicolopoulou, 1993; Rogers 8c Ross, 1986;

Rogers 8: Sawyers, 1988). Play increases the probability that children will converse and

10

 

interact wit

 

assume later
In play.
abstract tho
find that a l
begins to It
Illalteebeli:
Langt
understan
P13)" that l
Eithour C
And prob
OPPOTTHI
0f 1align.
children

engaged

interact with each other. During this interaction, children practice roles that they will
assume later in life.

In play, children recreate their environments. Their principal task is to produce
abstract thought from concrete experience: when a child decides to be a barber, he may
find that a bristly block serves as a razor. This discovery will be important to him as he
begins to master the use of language, which is also made up of symbols (McKimmey, 1993).
Make-believe depends heavily on verbalization.

Language is necessary to set scenes in play situations as well as to make behavior
understandable to Others participating in the play episode. Since sociodramatic play, that is,
play that involves other persons in a dramatic pretend play situation, cannot proceed
without cooperation between players, verbalization also serves as a means of management
and problem solving (Klugman 8c Smilansky, 1990). Play offers young children the
Opportunity to practice language systems, especially the pragmatic system; which is the use
of language in different situations for different functions. Pragmatic categories to evaluate
children’s use Of language were developed by Halliday (1978) who believed that children
engaged in symbolic play with peer interaction used more cohesive oral language.

Children’s cognitive development does not occur in a social vacuum. According to
Santrock and Yussen (1992), Vygotsky recognized this important point about children more
than a half century ago. Vygotsky described play as the leading facilitator of development
in young children, wherein children learn to think abstractly and impose arbitrary meaning
on objects and actions. Vygotsky theorized that elementary mental functions shift to a
higher mental functions as a consequence of social interaction, which changes the child’s
intellectual Operation (Vygotsky, 1962). Social experience can shape the way of thinking
and interpreting the world available to young children. Because Vygotsky regarded

11

 

language a:
functioning
children's .
higher fun
transmitter
social con1
from Othc
developm
bftween a
the level i
level of tl
gllidance
1992; V)

Allo
Oppomu
Emergm
adultS it
more CC

learning

language as a critical bridge between the sociocultural world and individual mental
functioning, he viewed the acquisition of language as the most significant milestone in
children’s cognitive development (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995 ). In addition, he theorized that
higher functions, such as thought and language are socially formed and culturally
transmitted. According to Vygotsky, language, which first serves children as a means of
social contact with other people, becomes a tool of thinking available to the child. Input
from others promotes development if it is within a child’s “zone of proximal
development.” Vygotsky defined the zone of proximal development as the distance
between a child’s actual and potential development levels. The lower level Of the ZPD is
the level of problem solving in which the child can work independently. While the upper
level of the ZPD is too difficult for children to master alone but can be mastered with the
guidance and assistance of adults or more highly-skilled children (Santrock 8c Yussen,
1992; Vygotsky, 1978).

Allowing parents an opportunity to participate in play provides young children an
opportunity to engage with a mature play partner where they can act more competently in
emerging make-believe play behaviors (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995 ). Through interaction with
adults in the zone of proximal development, children gradually learn to perform more and
more complex steps in an activity (e.g., completing puzzles); at the same time children are
learning that activities are made up of actions and with guidance these actions can be
mastered (Vygotsky, 1978). Upon mastery, children can do an activity as well as describe it.
The parent is not teacher as much as a joint participant in recurring learning experiences
(Vygotsky, 1978). Providing a playgroup environment that is developmentally appropriate,
allows parents the ability to engage in joint play with their child. The social environment
(inclusionary playgroup) is the necessary scaffold, or support system, that will assist parents

12

in developi
importance
the role of

Jean I
Piaget belt
that whicl
Piaget. is :
concept 0
make Sen:
Process P.
cxaminin
develOpn
which is :
IDre‘Oper;
Of a Chilc
Se'chd y.
in their I

Coordlna

in developing competencies in their young children. Vygotsky’s theories emphasized the
importance of social interaction, language as a tool, the zone of proximal development, and
the role of play in children’s development (Lauritzen, 1992).

Jean Piaget (1962) saw play as assimilation of external stimuli to fit internal schemas.
Piaget believed children must actively construct their knowledge, that they only understand
that which they discover, invent, or interpret for themselves. Mental growth, according to
Piaget, is activated by states of disequilibrium caused by discrepancies between the child’s
concept of reality and the physical nature of the social environment. The child, needing to
make sense of the world, strives to resolve the conflict and thus, growth occurs through the
process Piaget called equilibration (Lauritzen, 1992; Nicolopoulou, 1993). Piaget, in
examining play, classified play into stages that corresponds with stages of cognitive
development: 1) practice play, which dominated the sensorimotor period; 2) symbolic play,
which is seen in the pre-operational stage; and 3) games with rules, which develops in the
pre-operational period but is prominent during the concrete operational stage. The quality
of a child’s play changes dramatically as they approach their second year of life. During the
second year of life, young children begin to demonstrate a developing symbolic functioning
in their play, and by their third birthday, play actions become increasingly more
coordinated and cohesive as reflected in their development of sequential combinations of
symbolic play schemes (Casby, 1991). Therefore, the focus of this study looked at children
who were at least 18-40 months of age chronologically and cognitively.

Piaget maintained that both language and play are manifestations of the symbolic
ability that emerges toward the end of the sensorimotor period. According to Piaget (1971),
the symbolic function is the bridge between sensorimotor activities of the infant and the
operational intelligence of the school-age child. Ability to use a symbol to represent objects

13

 

or anorher s.

 
  
  

represent-at:
that are not
adult intelli.
Nicolopoult
contributing
given prima
Play (3
child even
is innate tc
be masterc
OPPOmIni'
inside One
ememeh.
dC‘VelOpm
child’s En
1992). Sc
order to c
In Vii
PFOgram I
(Ellqnd3 2
activities,
teaChErg t.

SUCCESSful.

or another symbol is the essence of operational thought. This ability to form mental
representations or images allow young children to think of and imagine objects and events
that are not physically present. For Piaget, symbolic function is the basis for all forms of
adult intelligence, including thought and language (Athey, 1984; Lauritzen, 1992;
Nicolopoulou, 1993). Piaget acknowledged the social component of play as having a
contributing role in learning, however, the peer context, not the adult-child context was
given primacy (Pellegrini 8c Galda, 1993).

Play can also be described as an activity that is without frustrating consequences for the
child even though it is a serious activity (Bruner, 1983). Brunet stated that while language
is innate to human beings, language must be nurtured through repetition and experience to
be mastered. Development of thought may in large measure be determined by the
opportunity for dialogue, with dialogue then becoming internal and capable of running off
inside one’s head on its own (Brunet, 1983). Bruner (1983) theorized that social context is
extremely important in understanding children’s language, cognitive, and social
development. In addition, he stressed the role of parents and teachers in constructing a
child’s environment and argued that adults scaffold children’s learning (Santrock 8c Yussen,
1992). Scaffolding, as described by Bruner, is adult intervention in a child’s learning in
order to encourage higher levels of cognitive, language, or social skills (Davidson, 1996).

In view of the fact that many educators and parents prefer their child’s out-of-home
program to have an educational focus, play often becomes the victim of this new concept
(Elkind, 2001). As a result, children’s spontaneous play is being replaced with structured
activities, both at home and at school. This practice reflects an earnest desire by parents and
teachers to provide what is best for the child. Everyone wants children to compete
successfully in our complex, hurry-up world. Because parents of special-needs children

14

 

often feel e
student rol«
adult-direc
This appm
able to ad;
responsibi
promotes

such as \'

as facilita
out-0H“-

PLAY A5

often feel even more compelled to assist their child in learning, they tend to take a teacher-
student role rather than a parent-child role (Marschark, 1997). Unfortunately, structured,
adult-directed activities are not as likely to help children make the most of their childhood.
This approach to education will not give children the skills and attitudes they need to be
able to adapt to the demands of the future (Rogers 86 Sawyers, 1988). Granting the child
responsibility in choosing their own activities, with the parent providing minimal direction,
promotes learning and mastery over their own behavior (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995). Theorists
such as Vygotsky (1962), Rogoff (1990), and Bruner (1983) advocated the role of the adult
as facilitator in play situations to encourage children’s learning. Thus, a primary focus of
out-of-home programs should be providing opportunities that focus on playing rather than

teaching.

PLAY AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

Rubin, Fein, and Vandenberg (1983) examined the relationship between play and
cognitive development. Play has been linked to problem-solving, coping skills, creative
drinking, and the development of language (Iohnson, Christie, 8c Yawkey, 1987). Play
changes with, and therefore reflects, children’s development. Researchers have attempted
to classify these changes by observing children’s play. On the surface, children’s play looks
quite simple. However, play touches on every aspect of development and learning. As
supported by various researchers (Athey, 1984; Klugman 8c Smilansky, 1990; Lauritzen,
1992; Nowak-Fabrykowski, 1994), play offers children the opportunity to develop higher
order of thinking such as:

O ability to solve problems;

0 ability to reason through symbolic play;

15

Dun
behavior.
cognitive
given stir
seen in cl
that sot‘i.‘
hfinick (
the devel
enEdged
field We
adVanceC'

Sara
Style and
OpPOFTun
dramatic
Cognitive

O ability to solve logical operations, such as Object constancy;
O ability to test hypothesis;

0 ability to experiment with creativity;

0 ability to experiment with language;

0 ability for social skill development.

Dunn and Herwig (1992), attempted to examine the full range of social-cognitive play
behavior. Specific issues that were addressed included the relationship between social-
cognitive play, intelligence, and divergent thinking (the generation of many ideas from a
given stimulus). It was hypothesized that higher levels of cognitive performance would be
seen in children displaying higher levels of cognitive play. The authors’ findings suggested
that social play that was facilitated by adults and peers enhanced cognitive development.
Minick (1996) supported this concept through his discussion of Vygotsky’s belief regarding
the development of a child’s play activity. He agreed with Vygotsky’s view that by being
engaged in play, “thought and meanings are liberated from their origins in the perceptual
field, providing the foundation for the further development of speech and its role in
advanced forms of thinking and imagination” (Minick, 1996, p. 43).

Saracho’s (1995) study explored the relationship between young children’s cognitive
Style and their play behaviors. In their study, 2,400 preschool children were given the
opportunity to engage in free choice play activities (physical, manipulative, block, and
dramatic play). Results demonstrated a significant interaction (p<0.01) between age,
cognitive style, and sophistication level of play. Cognitive levels and sophistication of play

increased as children matured.

16

PLAY .L'
La:
primar}
univers.
learners
caregive
repeater
develop]
[an
COmprel‘.
311d Rislt
POSSible'
t’IOm oth
311d orga
SentenCeS
during pr

ObleCts‘ a

PLAY AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Language is central to a child’s development (Vygotsky, 1962). Acquisition of the
primary language is a developmental achievement that is remarkable not only for its
universality but for the speed with which it occurs. The success of the children as language
learners becomes dependent on the facilitators in their environment (Rogoff, 1990). Since
caregivers are the primary facilitators from birth, the emphasis they place on providing
repeated language interactions becomes even more crucial to their children’s positive
development.

Language requires the mastery of two reciprocal modes of performance,
comprehension and production, which develop together. Language was defined by Hart
and Risley (1995) as “the mental organization of the knowledge that makes communication
possible” (p. 12). Comprehension presupposes the ability to differentiate language stimuli
from other auditory input and to infer meanings. Production requires the ability to select
and organize the sound of the language in ways that produce meaningful words and
sentences in relevant language environments. In symbolic play, which reaches its peak
during preschool years, children use language and gestures to transform the identities of
objects, actions, and people. Symbolic play is a social and abstract activity involving object
substitution and role playing (Lauritzen, 1992). In order to take part in social play, children
must be able to (a) distinguish between reality and pretend, (b) abstract rules for structuring
play, and (c) cooperatively construct or have a common image of the theme. Make believe
depends heavily on verbalization. Words take the place of reality in such ways as:
declaration of change of identity (“I’m the barber”), substituting speech for action (“I’m
cutting your hair”), and setting the scene (“We’re in the barber shop”) (Klugman 8c
Smilansky, 1990). Boyatzis and Watson (1993) observed 48 preschool children to

17

inveStig
goal wa
childret
Strongly
by the C
and in F
Sawyers
Md

see if a r
COgnitivc
mOther. '
C Llld.s 3‘
mean 1m
p13." usin;
the devel.
Skills usin
lsbel
housekeq
young chi.
groups in ,
through [h
’"bICQs‘ f]l
Vocabmar}.

kommllnica

investigate the symbolic quality of their representations for objects that were absent. The
goal was to determine if there was a developmental trend in the object representation of
children. The results showed the symbolic quality of the children’s gestures and words were
strongly related to age (p<.001), with more sophisticated representations being performed
by the older subjects. The similarity in the development of the use of symbols in language
and in pretend play has been widely recognized (Athey, 1984; Giffin, 1984; Rogers 86
Sawyers, 1988).

McCune (1995) observed 102 preschool children in their homes during play time to
see if a relationship between the development of play and language that corresponded with
cognitive development existed. Play episodes were videotaped both with and without the
mother. Transcripts of the child’s language were made along with descriptions of the
child’s accompanying actions. Transcripts were evaluated for word combinations as well as
mean length of utterance (MLU). The videotapes were also analyzed for particular levels of
play using a scale that ranked representational play actions. McCune’s findings supported
the developmental view that language acquisition is integrated with other developmental
skills using play as the medium.

Isbell and Raines (1991) investigated the effects of three types of play centers (blocks,
housekeeping, and changing thematic center) on the oral language production of twenty
young children ages four through six. Language samples were collected by videotaping four
groups in fifteen-minute play sessions per week for five weeks as the groups rotated
through the three centers. Three hundred minutes of language samples were examined for
subjects’ fluency, number of communication units, mean length of utterances (MLU), and
vocabulary diversity. The findings indicated: (a) the subjects’ fluency, number of
communication units, MLU, and vocabulary diversity were greater in the block center than

18

in the hm

 

productir .
SUl‘lC‘LTS I"
center. Tl-
environm

fluency an

ADLIT bit

 

Child
When chilc
themes‘ pl
However‘
to Perforn
1995). Bo
in Play sit
Demons"
Nutty b;
Specific p
Provokes
The ,de

t0 the SR

in the housekeeping center, but no significant difference was found between the language
production and vocabulary diversity of males and females in the three centers; and (b)
subjects produced more oral language and used more diverse vocabulary in the block
center. This study seemed to suggest that the block center could be an effective
environment to provide young children with opportunities to develop their oral language

fluency and use more diverse vocabulary.

ADULT INTERACTION AND PLAY

Children’s play is a different phenomenon when under the control of adults than it is
when children have the leeway to develop their play in the direction with materials,
themes, playmates, and time frames that they choose themselves (Nicolopoulou, 1993).
However, under Vygotsky’s theory, a more sophisticated play partner encourages the child
to perform above the levels that could be achieved alone (Bornstein 8c Tamis-LeMonda,
1995 ). Bornstein and Tamis-LeMonda (1995 ) investigated the effect of adult interventions
in play situations. They defined two types of interventions: demonstration and solicitation.
Demonstration provides children with information about how to engage in a particular
activity by modeling the action of an adult. Solicitation encourages a child’s participation in
specific play activities. Actions are suggested but a distance is maintained. Solicitation
provokes the child to conjure scenarios and produce activities appropriate for the situation.
The study suggested that the solicitation type of interaction might make a critical difference
to the growth of a child’s symbolic play. Interactions that are responsive to children’s
expressed interests serve to extend and elaborate symbolic engagement and motivate
further exploration. According to the authors, intrusive intervention, which attempted to
direct attention to an Object not currently the focus of play, affected the play negatively.

19

Adult
increase rl
maximize
in the zon
need to pr
children bl
supptiirtive
child‘s eng
interaction
Interaction
examined I
teachers. A
role in theg
in faCilitati
Some COnn

the Chi ld S(

 

 

of allowing

Btofen
duting pm I
“hat Paren

Ol their ”a;

known to e

 

Adult participation in play can provide a scaffold to raise children’s social interaction,
increase the level of play, and generally create a setting in which the benefits of play are
maximized while the conflicts and confusion are minimized (Ford, 1993). Keeping the child
in the zone of proximal development is important for the enhancement of cognition. Adults
need to provide assistance when children need help but reduce the amount of assistance as
children become more competent in their play (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995). Responsive and
supportive interactions provide young children with appropriate challenges. A young
child’s engagement with a task and willingness to continue with a task are maximized when
interaction with the adult is warm and responsive. Thus, the emotional tone of the
interaction is fundamental for scaffolding to occur (Berk 8C Winsler, 1995). File (1994)
examined the cognitive and social complexity of children’s play and their interactions with
teachers. Also examined were teacher beliefs about children’s social development and their
role in these processes. Classroom observations revealed that teachers were more directive
in facilitating the cognitive play of children than the social play. Permitting children to have
some control over the environment suggests that the adult often must stand back and allow
the child some independence. Children’s learning is promoted by developing mastery over
their own behavior (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995 ). Playgroups where parents have an opportunity
to interact with their child in a safe, consistent environment will help to foster the concept
of allowing children opportunities to choose the activities they wish to explore.

Brofenbrenner (1979) studied the behaviors and attitudes of teachers and parents
during play with young children. He concluded that children’s competency was affected by
what parents and teachers did with them during play. Teachers have preferences as a result
of their training and experience. Parents also have preferences. Fathers, for example, are
known to engage in rough and tumble play with children more than mothers. Mothers, on

20

the other |
rhymes. T
McQueen
infant spe.
participate
comparist
have been
taped in a:
children st
er al. (193;
Should be .
Play it
EXPCtiencc
mlfn'entitr
plat/’5 imp.-
and Peer hi
the D'Pes 0
and how th
Play behavi
0Ccasi0ns. -
stage mama.
play lead6r
language. T

Childrenss p

 

 

 

the other hand, are more likely to engage in language play, whether song, conversation, or
rhymes. These differences can impact play positively or negatively. Affleck, McGrade,
McQueeney, and Allen (1982) determined that parents who had been involved in parent-
infant special education groups showed greater responsiveness to their young children and
participated more fully in the “give and take” necessary for effective communication than
comparison parents. Accordingly, the parents who are participating in this research study
have been involved in a special education program for at least one year prior to being video
taped in an inclusionary playgroup setting. Consequently, the mothers of the young
children with special needs would be considered similar to those groups studied by Affleck
et al. (1982). Therefore, the mothers’ abilities for demonstrating positive interactions
should be encouraging.

Play interventionists argue that direct teacher involvement can enrich children’s play
experiences and maximize play’s impact on their intellectual and social development. Non-
interventionists express concerns that excessive teacher intervention can interfere with
play’s impact on development by reducing opportunities for discovery, problem solving,
and peer interaction during play (Enz 8c Christie, 1993). Enz and Christie ( 1993) looked at
the types of play styles used by teachers in play settings, the consistency of the play styles,
and how the different styles had an effect on children’s oral language, literacy activity, and
play behaviors. Four teachers were videotaped interacting with playgroups on two separate
occasions. The authors determined that four types of adult play roles were observed: (1)
stage manager, (2) co-player, (3) play-leader, and (4) director. It was determined that the
play leader style generated intense pretend play, which in turn stimulated the children’s
language. Thus, Enz and Christie (1993), concluded that teacher involvement can enhance
children’s play as long as it was not directive or intrusive.

21

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND PLAY

With the passage of P.L. 94—142 that stated every child is eligible to receive a free and
appropriate public education in the “least restrictive environment” educators were directed
to plan instructional programs for students with disabilities. These programs were to be
implemented in the most normal environment possible given the educational needs of the
child. Embedded within the mandate was the acknowledgment that schools serve an
important function for these children, especially as it relates to socialization. With the re-
authorization of this law in 1990 called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), services were expanded to include children from birth to twenty—one (formerly
five to eighteen). Emphasis was placed on special education programs providing services to
young children, birth to three.

Recent years have witnessed an increase in the number of preschool children enrolled
in non-specialized, early care and education programs designed primarily for children
without disabilities (W olery 8c Bredekamp, 1994). With this emergence of inclusionary
programs as a major alternative service for young children, policy makers and
administrators often identify inclusion as a primary service option rather than a service that
was previously provided due to parental advocacy (Odom, 2000). The underlying principle
of inclusion maintains that by providing an environment for children with disabilities with
peers without disabilities, positive social and emotional gains for children with disabilities
will occur. While there is much literature to support inclusion in school-based
programming and the benefits of these settings for school-aged children, little empirical
inquiry to date has explored the benefits of inclusion for infants or toddlers in typical

community environments (Buysee 8c Bailey, 1993).

22

Guralt
competenc
importanct
their child:
{Guralnick
contacts w
(Guralniclt
for parent:
about typi.

Appl.
Who had a
Concerns. '
“‘hO had a
1996. Ah}
the Plat-gr.
Parents; tl
their chilc
Suggegtjm
mmbna

Crucial l0

 

Playgmuz
Resc-

develOPn

 

Guralnick and Neville (1997) described the importance of the central role of social
competence with peers in the lives of young children with disabilities and affirmed the
importance of such interaction. Parents of children with special needs have stated they want
their children to interact and form friendships with peers who are developing normally
(Guralnick, 1994; Strain, 1990). For children with disabilities, the opportunity for “social
contacts with peers in their neighborhood and community appear to be more limited”
(Guralnick 8c Neville, 1997, p. 594). Benefits of inclusion include increased opportunities
for parents to interact with families of children who are developing typically and to learn
about typical child development (Bailey 8c McWilliam, 1990; Lamorey 8c Bricker, 1993).

Appl, Fahl-Gooler, and McCollum (1997) reported parents of children with disabilities
who had attended inclusive parent-child playgroups wanted services that supported their
concerns. Their study explored the feelings of comfort and discomfort of twelve parents
who had attended inclusive playgroups (Parents Interacting With Infants) from 1987 to
1996. Although interviews were completed a year or more after the parents had attended
the playgroups, the researchers were able to identify four major themes projected by these
parents: they recalled having goals for themselves; identified benefits for themselves and
their children; identified difficulties they experienced in the groups; and provided some
suggestions pertaining to factors supporting parental involvement. Since parental feelings of
comfort and discomfort have the potential of affecting parent-child interaction, it seems
crucial for the researcher to investigate parental feelings immediately following the
playgroup experience.

Researchers such as Hanson (1985) and Hanes (1985) have acknowledged the
importance of parent education programs in the enhancement of relationships and skill
development of both parents and young children with disabilities. Due to the very nature of

23

pairgroups.
trawling.

lltllt‘ it
through thr
the “reads."
nteratti it»
during the
det'elopin;
llrderber;

Corn:-

and hard

 

mSIhlflit-t‘.
different (
reSllllS dt )4

{dared to

 

’-

ln 0

and laugh

 

 

playgroups, parental education would seem ongoing as a result of the modeling,
networking, and activities covered.

Little research exists regarding play and parent-child interaction of very young (birth
through three years of age) children with special needs. Much of the literature focuses on
the “readability” of infants and young children rather than the parent-infant or parent-child
interactions (Berger, 1990). More research exists regarding children with special needs
during the pre-school years. Preschool children with disabilities, who may have difficulty
developing socially, may subsequently have difficulty when social skill is required in play
(Lederberg, Ryan, 86 Robbins, 198 6).

Cornelius and Hornett (1990) explored the cognitive and social play behaviors of deaf
and hard-Of-hearing kindergarten children (mean age of 5.8 years) with regard to classroom
instructional mode and communication strategies. Their study included observation of two
different classrooms, one using sign communication and the other an oral approach. Their
results documented several important differences in children’s play behaviors that were
related to the method of instruction:

Children who used sign played house, made milk shakes, pretended they
were riding busses, and reenacted a barbershop complete with invisible
scissors. They signed to exchange rules, create new recipes, and continue
the play frame. Children in the oral-based class primarily engaged in
solitary play, rarely vocalized, made few gestures and did not
demonstrate interactive or cooperative forms of play behavior (Cornelius
8c Hornett, 1990, p. 319).

In other words, positive play leads to healthy social skill development among children
and language communication that allows and supports positive play needs to be
encouraged. Cornelius and Hornett (1990) confirmed the importance of the adult to

include communication through signs and other physical forms (i.e., gestures, eye contact,

24

facial exptf‘
hearing kint
interaction
Furthermor

were obserr

Ststsuttr

The r.-
critical int;
theory that
Which mus
constant. 2'
environm,
Skills.

Child
0mm abt
Children I.
“P5 (Bum
Way Categ-
5003] CCU I
’mPOHan:

SlDCe
ll-tel'amrt

 

facial expression, body language) to support positive play schemes for deaf and hard-of-
hearing kindergarten children. This study investigated and compared the parent-child
interaction of two separate dyads in an attempt to discover what differences existed.
Furthermore, identified differences, the kind, frequency, and quality of those differences,

were observed and recorded.

SUMMARY

The role of play in developing children’s cognitive, language, and social identities is of
critical importance. Wertsch and Tulviste (1996) suggested in their discussion of Vygotsky’s
theory that children are unique, but that children’s individualities have common features,
which must be developed. Since the play environment for this study was considered
constant, mothers and children were able to communicate and interact in shared concrete
environments providing the opportunity for the development of common knowledge and
skills.

Children develop more sophisticated language and social skills as they reason with
others about play situations. According to language stimulation research, in order for
children to develop intellectual oral language competence, they must interact with grown-
ups (Bruner, 1983). Hart and Risley’s research demonstrated that differences existed in the
way caregivers (grown-ups) interacted with their young children, particularly in relation to
social economic status. The differences they identified provided crucial information that is
important for a child’s future school success.

Since children with special needs are often at a greater disadvantage educationally, the
literature supports play as a positive avenue for learning, emphasizing the role of an adult
or a more capable peer to scaffold the child’s language, and cognitive development

25

(Vygotsky.
differences '

mth specia.

 

needs or de

 

(Vygotsky, 1978; Berk 8c Winsler, 1995 ). This study aimed to investigate potential
differences that could exist in the way mothers communicate and play with their children

with special needs as compared to mothers and young children without identified special

needs or delays.

26

ResEiRcH

The F
lIllCl'a‘CTlUl
were com:
develOpm
Young chi
obvious Ct
Phi’Sically
511356mm
and CDllat

mesfigat

CHAPTER III:

METHOD

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The purpose of this study was to determine if differences existed between parent-child
interactions of two different groups, two mother-child dyads in each group. Two dyads
were composed of parents and young children who did not have any identified
developmental delays or special needs while the other two dyads included parents and
young children who had been identified as having a mild to moderate disability without any
Obvious cognitive delays. Both children with a disability for this study were identified as
Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired (POHI). If significant differences exist as
suggested in the literature, the impact of the findings may have the potential of supporting
and enhancing early intervention strategies. In order to accomplish this task of
investigation, the following research questions were addressed:

1. Is there a difference in the type and frequency of non-verbal cues (inflection, eye
contact, getting down on the child’s level, touch, pointing, facial expression, and
gestures) generated by a mother of a young child who has mild to moderate
special needs as compared to a mother of a young child who does not demonstrate
any delays or other special needs?

2. Is there a difference in a mother’s verbal interaction (kinds of utterances

specifically the type of questioning, frequency of words, use of positive and

27

negative statements) when engaging a young child with/without special needs
during play in an inclusionary playgroup setting?

3. Are there differences in the amount and length of episodes of social interaction
(turn-taking) or floor holding (continuations) generated by either mother during
play in an inclusionary playgroup setting?

4. Is there a difference in parental perceptions as to how they feel about playgroups,
including the benefits, goals, support, and differences? And do parental differences

exist in how they define play, inclusion, and their role in facilitating their child’s

play?

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study was designed to examine, assess, and compare the interaction between
parents and children from two different groups: two mothers and two young (18—40
months) children with mild to moderate special needs (without any obvious cognitive
delays) and two mothers and two young (18-40 months) children without any identified
special needs or developmental delays. Mothers and children were observed the first 30—40
minutes (free play/parent interaction time) of four hour-long playgroup sessions during an
eight-week period in an urban setting.

This research consisted of descriptive and comparison data. Descriptive methods were
used to explain (a) the responses parents gave from parental interviews, (b) the types of
questioning used by parents, (c) kinds of utterances, and (d) types/frequency of
communication verbally and non-verbally initiated by parents. Comparison data included

Comparisons of (a) frequency of the number of words used, (b) frequency of questioning, (c)

28

activity contexts, (d) adjacency contexts, and (e) comparison of episodes of social

interaction and floor holding.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
Context Areas for the Inclusionary Playgroup
Housekeeping Area:

The housekeeping area was a designated play area where children had an opportunity
to recreate daily experiences through social dramatic play. This area was equipped with the
following: toy kitchen appliances and utensils, child size table and chairs, child sized couch
and chair, dolls and doll beds, doll high chair, and miscellaneous props such as play food,
telephone, and brooms. In addition, this area included a cash register, doll house, and push
toys such as a vacuum cleaner, grocery cart, and doll stroller. These toys remained constant

during all of the playgroup sessions.

Gross Motor/Block Area:

The gross motor/block area was a designated play area where children had an
opportunity to use large muscles (slide, climb, go in, out and through, build with blocks,
play with balls, toss bean bags). This area was equipped with the following: a large slide
with a small house underneath supporting the structure, ball pit, large climbing cube,
blocks, tunnel, and a large tent car. The tunnel and the large tent car were the only items
that were not used on a consistent basis. The car and the tunnel were introduced during
separate weeks of the ten—week playgroup session, a decision made by the playgroup

facilitators. All other items remained consistent.

29

Sensory Tin
The se
opttrrunit
table. This
Whtl’t tten
insrmmen
has on M

[lllli‘llgll ("it

Table Ac

The
to comp].
Were can
Some of
closing c
book; ,
dimmed

and dirt}

BOokT‘
The

half the

Sensory/Fine Motor Area:

The sensory/fine motor area was a designated play area where children had an
opportunity to use small muscles and experience different elements in a three-bin sensory
table. This particular area included a workbench, Lego building blocks, and a sensory table
where items were changed weekly (beans, rice, goop, cotton balls, water, musical
instruments, pom-pons, and packing peanuts). Whatever items were used in the sensory
bins on Monday of a particular week were continued to be used at each playgroup

throughout the entire week.

Table Activity Area:

The table activity area was a designated play area where children had an opportunity
to complete projects or practice specific skills defined by the teacher/facilitator. Activities
were carefully planned by the facilitator and were implemented by the parent and child.
Some of the following activities were provided: matching Objects/pictures, Opening and
closing containers, putting items in and taking out, painting, gluing, puzzles, homemade
books, and sequencing activities. These structured activities tended to be more parent
directed and were introduced by the facilitator. Activities were considered developmental

and different for each age group.

Book/Toy Area:

The book/toy area was a designated play area where children could play with books,
have their mother read to them, and/or play with small toys located in a toy box and on a
small shelf. In this area several books were available for parents to share with their young

child. Some of the toys available included the following: stacking toys, doctor kit, surprise

30

hits. sl

entire pl

Epsode

For
tieldrer
nun.lt
imitlili
verbal t
patio;
ceded ;
When a
Kthli
Elle ln
month.
lDltrac
touchii
fpisod.

allfl‘na

HOor |
F1.
cohilnt

and asl

boxes, shape sorter, and banjo. These books and toys remained constant throughout the

entire playgroup session.

Episode of Social Interaction

For purposes of this study, an episode of social interaction occurred when parents and
children engaged in social behavior with one another. Each interaction was considered a
turn. Turns for adults and children included initiation, response, continuation, scaffolding,
imitation, prompted behavior, and no response. These turns consisted of verbal or non-
verbal communication. An episode of social interaction was coded only when each
participant took alternate turns, for instance, mother-child or child-mother. An episode was
coded as ending when the person addressed did not verbally answer within 15 seconds or
when a partner continued to hold the floor for 15 seconds or longer. Longer episodes of
social interaction could be long bouts of stimulating the child through affectionate play and
talk. In Hart and Risley’s (1999) research, children did most of the initiating. For 12—19—
month-old children, still babbling most of the time, they recorded an average of ninety—six
interactional episodes per hour. More than half (59%) were initiated by the children’s
touching, babbling, or offering their parents something. In this study, the minimum of an
episode included two alternating turns while the maximum episode included nineteen

alternating turns.

Floor Holding (Continuations):

Floor holding occurred when parents engaged in social monologues where they
continued to hold the young child’s attention, talking, filling in the child’s turn, touching
and asking questions to prompt the child to respond, and/or pointing and showing

31

$le

Your

E3 -
EL

Pm
ll:
llll;

Ill:

something to the child. In Hart and Risley’s (1999) research they found that before
children could talk, parents tended to do more floor holding. However, after the children

were talking, the children took over the floor holding (Hart 8c Risley, 1999).

Young Children with Special Needs:

The two young children with special needs included in this study were identified as
having a specific disability by a multi-disciplinary evaluation team and were currently
enrolled in a public school parent-infant special education program. The children were
categorized as Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired (POHI). Each playgroup session
had at least 1—4 children identified with special needs. All children with special needs met
the federal requirements in one or more of the following categories: Physically and
Otherwise Health Impaired (POHI), Hearing Impaired (HI), Visually Impaired (VI), Pre-
Primary Impaired (PPI), Speech and Language Impaired (SPL), Autistically Impaired (AI),
Mentally Impaired (MI), Severely Multiply Impaired, and Emotionally Impaired (EI). Even
though the two children for this study were identified as POHI, current testing indicated
their cognitive abilities were within a normal range. The multi—disciplinary evaluations
completed by the Special Educator, the Psychologist, and the Physical and Occupational
Therapist, included observations, tests of motor function, standardized testing (Baley), and

developmental checklists (Brigance and Early Intervention Developmental Profile).

INSTRUMENTATION
The following instruments were used to record data.

1. Initial (Pre) Interview Protocol adapted from Appl, Fahl-Gooler, and McCollum
(1997):

32

Ar,

L'zlifl'lt

'
.4 .11‘“
9.1.1:.“

It: the 1
WELL“
mreni.
mren'r.
they ar
more e
The re
torrid
were l
llllllg.

linen

An adaptation of their instrument was used, as their research did not include a pre-
interview phase. This instrument was given to all mothers before they attended the first
week of their chosen playgroup session. At least two age-appropriate sessions were
available to each family. Participants were contacted individually two to three weeks prior
to the interview. During this initial contact, mothers were asked to identify where they
would prefer the interview to take place and to identify a convenient time for the
interview. According to Seidman (1991), equity in building the relationship between the
interviewer and participants begins by this initial contact. Allowing participants to feel as if
they are making some of the decisions about the interview, helps keep the process fair and
more equitable. All mothers indicated they preferred their home for this initial interview.
The researcher informed each mother that all information discussed would be kept
confidential and that interviews would last approximately one hour. All initial interviews
were held at participants’ homes and lasted approximately one hour each. Interviews were
audio-taped in an effort to include all information shared by each mother. The initial
interview protocol included the following questions:

1. What other community groups have you been involved in with your child? If you

were involved, what were some of the features of those groups?

2. What, if anything is unique about “Play to Learn” groups?

3. What are your goals for your child within the playgroup? What are your goals for

yourself?

4. How would you define play?

5. Share your ideas concerning the concept of inclusion.

6. If opportunities exist, will you share information about your child (disability,

progress) with other parents?

33

7. How comfortable are you with sharing information?

8. How do you feel you facilitate your child’s play?

2. Follow Up (Post) Interview Protocol adapted from Appl, Fahl-Gooler, and McCollum

(1997):

The follow-up interview protocol was adapted to include information regarding how
the parents defined play, inclusion, and their role in facilitating their child’s play. These
concepts were not included in Appl, Fahl-Gooler, and McCollum’s original interview
protocol, but were considered by the researcher a necessary component. Understanding
each mother’s concept of play, inclusion, and their role in facilitating their child’s play was
considered important due to the potential influence their understanding might have on the
quality of their interactions with their child. All of the other questions were taken directly
from Appl, Fahl-Gooler, and McCollum’s interview protocol with the exception of
question number four which included specific activities from the playgroup each mother
attended.

This adapted instrument was given to all parents within thirty days following the last
attended playgroup session. Mothers were asked one week prior to the last video-taped
session of playgroup when and where a final interview could occur. Once again, mothers
were informed that information shared would be kept confidential, interviews would last
approximately one hour and they would have a choice of where and when the interview
would take place. All but one interview was held in the participants’ home. The final
interview with the mother of the younger general education child was held onsite due to
her convenience. Interviews were audio—taped in an effort to include all information shared
by each parent. The final interview protocol included the following questions:

1. What, if anything was unique about the “Play to Learn” group you attended?

34

.J

' .JJ

\n

(Om.

2. Were your goals for your child achieved? Were the goals you set for yourself
achieved?

3. How would you define play? Share your ideas concerning the concept of
inclusion.

4. In thinking about the major components of the groups (welcome, play time, group
time, snack time, and closing time), what facilitated your involvement? How did
the facilitators involve you? How did other parents help you feel involved? How
would you describe barriers to your involvement?

5. In what ways were you listened to and responded to in a supportive and positive
fashion? How was your feedback about the groups elicited and used?

6. What opportunities did you have to share information about your child
(disability/progress) with other parents? How comfortable were you with this?

7. What enhanced your sense of belonging? What impeded your sense of belonging?
Do you think other parents felt the same?

8. What information that was provided did you find useful? What was not useful?

9. What else would you have liked the facilitators to do? What recommendations do
you have for future facilitators, other parents?

10. How did you feel you facilitated your child’s play?

3. Non-verbal Categories from the SKI*HI Non-verbal Communication Within
Utterances Form C (The SKI’HI Model, A Resource Manual for Family-Centered
Home-Based Programming for Infants, Toddlers, and Preschool-Aged Children with
Hearing Impairments) (Watkins, 1993):

Some of the categories from the checklist were used to chart data for non-verbal

communication initiated by parents within individual utterances. These categories included

35

CCETDFIlU

nan-re

ll
Dfierg
enhan,
needs
ofnon
mehui
SOme (
rol0q
CCKllIlE
and (g
adaplr

I

inflection, eye contact, getting down on the child’s level, touch, facial expression, and
gestures. In addition, pointing, conveyance of warmth, and positive and negative
communication were recorded for each utterance initiated by each parent. Each child’s
non-verbal information was coded but did not include the category getting down on the
child’s level.

4. Transcription Coding System for inclusionary playgroup observations adapted from

Betty Hart’s 1986 Juniper Gardens Language Project coding system:

This observation coding system was used to analyze data represented in Meaningful
Differences (Hart 8C Risley, 1995 ). In addition, the researcher contacted Dr. Hart for
enhanced understanding of the coding system to make adaptations to meet the project
needs. Adaptations necessary included the following: (a) a more comprehensive description
of non-verbal/non-vocal behaviors, (b) a change in the context descriptors from home to
inclusionary playgroups including specific playgroup areas, (c) a change and deletion of
some of the unnecessary linguistic categories, ((1) a change in the interaction code categories
to focus attention on participating mothers, (e) a change from number coding to category
coding using Microsoft Access, (0 a more comprehensive description of kinds of utterances,
and (g) a more detailed list of activity context codes. The following briefly discusses the
adapted coding system. For a comprehensive description of the coding system and
examples see Appendix C.

1. A child’s vocalizing and talking with his mother in an inclusionary playgroup

setting.

2. A mother’s vocalizing and talking with her young child in an inclusionary

playgroup.

36

Cf‘ll

col

by r
{her
to t

the

Iurr.

and

3. A child’s social and behavioral (non-verbal) interactions with his mother in an

inclusionary playgroup setting.

4. A mother’s social and behavioral (non-verbal) interactions with her young child in

an inclusionary playgroup.

5. The activity context of a child and mother’s social interactions.

6. The frequency and length of social episodes.

Social interaction codes describe components of the child’s social interactions and the
context in which they occurred. These included social turns, social episodes, interaction
codes, activity context codes, and behavioral exchanges. Social turns were the basic units of
interaction that were recorded in this system. They included (a) all verbal comments made
by the child or by anyone who was present during the observation (regardless of whom
they were directed to), (b) all vocalizations without words that were made by the child or
to the child, and (c) selected non-vocal social behaviors that were made by the child or to
the child. Turns were identified as follows:

1. Verbal behavior — Each sentence or sentence fragment was
considered a separate turn. Fragments or single words that stood
alone and that were separated by definite pauses were considered to
be separate turns.

2. Non-verbal behavior — If a non-verbal behavior (such as touching)
accompanied a verbal or vocal turn, the non-verbal behavior was
considered to be part of the same turn. If the non-verbal behavior
was separated from verbal behavior by a response from the partner,
the non-verbal behavior was coded as a separate turn.

An interaction code and an adjacency code were recorded for every turn. In addition,
turns received social context codes (a) context (where the social interactions took place),

and (b) activity context (what mother and child were doing).

37

it;

W35

the

hi

erg

her
the

the

inf]

incl
app.
and

Chil

Turns that involved the child (i.e., those that were either emitted by or directed to the
child) were grouped into social episodes. An episode was composed of one or more
successive turns between the child and one or more social partner(s), with the exception
that the turns within an episode had to occur within 15 seconds of each other (i.e., if there
was at least a 15 -second pause after a turn, the episode was considered to end). In addition,
the turn was considered ended if one partner continued holding the floor.

Mother and child were in the same room during all the sessions and most of the time
they were in the same play areas. The activity context codes describe what the child and the
mother were doing in the different play areas, whether the child was playing
independently, engaged in mutual play with mother, being redirected by the mother,
engaged in a child care activity, or doing something that was not considered in one of the
above listed activities.

The adjacency condition described the relationship of the coded behavior to the
behavior of the partner. An initiated condition was the first social turn to occur between
the child and a partner, mainly the mother, after there were at least 15 seconds in which
the child was not involved in an interaction. For example, the child ran from the sensory
table and went into the tent car and made sounds. The mother followed the child and stood
in front and said, “Where’s your wipers?”

Response was the turn that a person took within 15 seconds after a partner’s turn. This
included verbal and non-verbal turns. For instance, the child said, “I gonna be a doctor
appointment.” Mom said, “Oh, you gonna be a doctor?” Child nodded head up and down
and took the stethoscope to put in his ears. Mom put the head of stethoscope on her chest.

Child said, “I can hear it.” However, no response was coded when either child or mother

38

{thl
WKH

She;

15 se
63g:
Starr.
consl
exam

‘ball.

prom

Slang

qualir
Stare:

facial

Unint
were .

Slate“

did not respond to partner within 15 seconds. An example of this was when mother said,
“Where is the ball?” and the child did not respond and walked over to the table.

A continuation was coded when the partner who took the previous turn did not
receive a response or did not allow time for a response within 15 seconds and continued
with another turn. An example of this was when one mother said, “What color is that?”
She continued after a few seconds, “Can you tell me what color the elephant is?”

When a person made a complete and exact replication of the partner’s last turn within
15 seconds, it was considered an imitated condition. For example, one child said, “yuck,
fingers,” holding his fingers up. Mother said, “yuck, fingers,” holding her fingers up.
Scaffolds that built upon imitations were coded. Only those direct expansions were
considered when the mother expanded the child’s expressive language directly. For
example, the child said, “macaroni.” Mother said, “macaroni and cheese.” Child said,
“ball.” Mother said, “That’s a big red ball.”

When the partner physically guided a behavior, it was considered prompted. Verbal
prompts were recorded under vocal behaviors. This was evident when the clean up song
started playing because the mother held the child’s finger and led him to put toys away.

Behavioral exchanges included limited vocal codes, which were additions or
qualifications of verbalizations such as inflection, positive statements, and negative
statements. Non-vocal codes included eye contact, child’s level, touch, gesture, pointing,
facial expression, and conveyance of warmth.

Each verbal turn was recorded exactly in the way it was emitted by the speaker.
Unintelligible words within a verbal turn were identified as “Can’t understand.” All words
were counted. Vocalizations were identified according to their function (declarative,
statement, w-question, exclamation, yes/no question, label, negative, and imperative).

39

‘5,“

 

 

and

elle‘:

Par

Par
011
Ph}
idc:
Pfe

Orl

5. Interview Coding System adapted from Appl, Fahl-Gooler, and McCollum (1997):
Statements made by parents were coded and put into the following categories for
pre/post-interviews: (a) facilitators (supported parents, helped parents feel accepted and
provided a sense of belonging in the groups, established a relationship between facilitators
and parents and/or children, demonstrated planning and facilitation of the playgroup,
elicited parent input and feedback, and encouraged suggestions), (b) goals (for self and for
the child), (c) benefits (for self and for the child), (d) personalization (shared personal
information regarding the child and/or self, and openly indicated degree of
comfortableness), (e) groups (indicated strengths and concerns, identified specific
components, suggested improvements), (f) differences and comparisons (commented about
their personal or child’s differences, provided information on child’s special needs, and
valued differences), (g) differences and comparisons of community child groups, and (h)
other (defined play, inclusion, and their role in facilitating play). For a comprehensive

listing of categories and examples see Appendix B.

PARTICIPANTS

Subjects for this project were selected on a voluntary basis from participants registered
to attend weekly inclusionary playgroups and whom their special education teacher or
parent educator recommended. Special education teachers were instructed to ask families
on their caseloads (similar socioeconomic status who had children that were identified as
Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired) if they wanted to participate in the study. All
identified participants were from similar socio-economic backgrounds and had attended a
previous playgroup session. Four of six families with a child eligible as Physically and
Otherwise Health Impaired were identified as somewhat interested in participation. Two

40

consented to participate. The mother-child dyads without special needs were identified by

their parent educators. Parent educators were asked to identify children in similar age

groups and from a similar socioeconomic level as the identified families with young

children who had special needs. The first two contacted agreed to participate. Four mother-

child dyads, two involving young children 18—40 months with special needs and two dyads

within the same age span without any identified delays or special needs were observed,

videotaped, and interviewed. The following describes the participants.

Families of Children with Disabilities

The two young children with special needs were identified as having a similar
disability (Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired) by a multi-disciplinary
evaluation team (MET). The older child (38 months) was identified as having
cerebral palsy and a unilateral hearing loss, while the younger child (21
months) was identified as having endocrine problems in addition to
congenital cataracts that had been removed at 6 weeks of age.

Each child’s MET report, individualized family service plan, and health
records were current and available to the researcher for review.

Cognitive levels for children with disabilities were considered within a
normal range.

Weekly home visit services were provided by a certified special education
teacher using Project AHEAD: Resources for Service Providers of Infants,
Toddlers, and Young Children With Special Needs and Their Families and
Child Care Providers At Home and At Daycare (Rowan, 1997) and, Hawaii
Early Learning Program (Parks, 1992) as primary resources.

41

Each family attended one weekly hour-long inclusionary playgroup session

over a ten-week period.
Each child and parent attended playgroups during the previous school year

and was enrolled in a special education parent infant program.

Families of Children Without Disabilities

Based on their most current Ages and Stages Questionnaires Developmental
Profile kept in the child’s school file, the two young children without
identified special needs performed at developmentally appropriate levels
(communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem solving, and personal
social skills).

Each child’s family service plan, Ages and Stages Questionnaires, and health
records were current and available to the researcher for review.

Monthly home visit services were provided by trained personnel (para-
educators or individuals with a bachelor’s degree) who used the nationally
recognized models: Parents As Teachers (1999), and Project AHEAD (Rowan,
1997). PAT was designed for parents of infants and toddlers in the general
population, and AHEAD for families with infants and toddlers who have
special needs and their child care providers.

Each family attended one weekly hour-long inclusionary playgroup session
over a ten—week period.

Each child and parent attended playgroups during the previous school year
and had participated in other activities provided by the Birth—5 general
education program

42

All participating children included in this study were enrolled in an inclusionary Birth
Through Five Educational Program in an urban setting. Odom (2000) reported that the
quality of preschool inclusion programs is critical. If the design of a program takes into
account the environment, specific organization, location, and the needs of the child and
family, then this excellence of programming has a better chance of occurring. In this
program all home visitors (special educators and general education parent educators) have
worked closely together in planning inclusionary playgroups, family meetings, and issues
regarding individual child progress since the winter of 1998. Due to the nature of this
collaborative relationship between general and special education, more opportunity for
integrated services has been made available to families. Thus, this program had the quality
characteristics recommended by Odom (2000) and Odom and McLean (1993) as necessary
for positive inclusion.

Registered participants had an opportunity to attend one of two age-appropriate
inclusionary playgroups offered at different times to accommodate parents’ schedules.
Figure 3.1 describes characteristics of each child, mother, and inclusionary playgroup in

this study.

43

Figure 3.1: Final Participant and Playgroup Characteristics

 

 

 

 

Number of
Age Range of Special
Group and Gender of Race of Education Time of

Mother-Child Dyads Number Children Children Children Group
Child Identified as POHI 19—29 M—10 C-8 3 TH
Agez21 months, Race: C months F—8 AA—6 9:30-
1 older sibling H—2 10:30 a.m.
Mother: 18 Children Multi-Z
Age: 39, Race: C
Educ. Level: Some College
Stay At Home Mom
Child Identified as POHI 30—48 M—7 C-3 2 W
Age:38 months, Race: AA months F—4 AA-5 5:00—
1 older sibling H-2 6:00 p.m.
Mother: 11 Children M—l
Age: 29, Race: AA
Educ. Level: B.A.
Employed
General Educ: Child 19-29 M—1 1 C—5 3 T
Age:29 months, Race: AA months F—8 AA—7 10:30-
2 older step-siblings H—5 1 1:30 a.m.
General Educ: Mother 19 children M—2
Age: 29, Race: AA
Educ. Level: B.A.
Employed
General Educ: Child 30—48 M—5 C—8 1 W
Age:39 months, Race: C months F—lO AA—4 1:00-
2 older siblings H—2 2:00 p.m.
General Educ: Mother 15 children M—l
Age: 33, Race: C
Educ. Level: Some College
Employed

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key: Gender: M=Male; F=Female
Race: C= Caucasian; AA=African American; H = Hispanic; M= Multi—racial
Time of Group: T=Tuesday; W=Wednesday; TH=Thursday

Educ: = Educational
_

44

The mothers who participated were from a similar socio-economic status. Three of the
four mothers were employed while one mother chose to stay home with her child. All
families had health insurance and had income considered within the middle-income range.
This is of particular importance based on the findings conducted by Hart and Risley (1995)
where variation in socio-economic status demonstrated disparity in the frequency of words
generated by the parent. All of the children for this study were in the age range of 18—48
months; all were boys; two attended groups for the 15—29 month age range (one special
education and one general education), and two attended groups for the 30-48 month range

(one special education and one general education).

PROCEDURE
Sample

Informed consent procedures were initiated in June of 2001 by obtaining approval
from the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS). After permission was granted by UCRIHS (August 14, 2001, Appendix A), the
researcher contacted school personnel to obtain a list of parents that would meet the
following criteria and who indicated a possible interest in being in the research study:
families from similar socio-economic status; families who had participated in their
respective programs (special/general education program) for at least six months; children
from the Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired (POHI) Eligibility Category with
cognition considered to be within a normal range; and children within the 18—48 month
age range. Four of six families with special needs children (POHI) were identified as being

Somewhat interested. After sharing the UCRIHS consent form and the goals of the project,

45

two of the families agreed to participate. Following, recommended families with young
children without special needs were contacted. The first two mothers contacted agreed to
participate. All four mothers signed UCRIHS consent forms allowing permission to
participate in this research project.

The selected four mother-child dyads agreed to attend a weekly inclusionary playgroup
in an urban setting. Groups consisted of no more than nineteen children who were between
the ages of 18 to 48 months and their respective caregivers. Diversity in culture (Caucasian,
African American, Hispanic, and multi-cultural) and ability (PPI, SPL, POHI, and general
population without any identified disabilities) were represented in the playgroups. A lead

teacher and assistant who encouraged positive parent-child interactions facilitated each

playgroup.

Setting

Playgroups were located in an urban school building. The playgroup area had its own
entrance and exit, which did not interfere with the general operation of the school. The
playgroup area was quite large and organized into the following well-defined spaces:
housekeeping, book/toy, table activities, gross motor/block, and sensory/fine motor. Shelves
and areas were labeled with copies of digital pictures and words. The entire room was
carpeted and divided by furniture and area rugs. As one entered the room, a sign-in sheet,
nametags, and handouts describing the weekly theme were provided. The adjoining
bathroom was equipped with two toilets, one child sized and one adult sized. The
playgroup was considered to be adequately supplied with developmentally appropriate

materials (see Appendix D for the layout of the inclusionary playgroup setting).

46

DATA COLLECTION

General

Mother-child interactions were videotaped during the parent-chfld play time
component in an inclusionary classroom conducive for young children’s play located in an
inner-city school during a scheduled ten-week play-to-learn session (Fall 2001) provided by
the Birth Through Five Educational Program. An effort was made to videotape and
transcribe six of eight sessions for each mother—child dyad. However, due to illness,
technological difficulties, and the time allowed by the program for taping, four sessions
(3 0—40 minutes each) for each mother and child dyad were videotaped. Videotaping of
each mother-child dyad occurred during the free play/table activity time. Free play/table
time activity length was not always consistent due to variation of when the facilitator
turned on the music to transition the children and mothers into clean up time. In addition
to the videotape, the researcher took field notes. These data were later transcribed, coded,
and analyzed. For comparison purposes, the second, third, fourth, and fifth session
attended by each dyad were used for transcriptions. An exception to this was the younger
child (21 months) with special needs. During the fifth session attended, his mother reported
he was not feeling well. The researcher felt that even though the fifth session had been
videotaped, it would be better to videotape, transcribe, and code the sixth session he
attended for comparisons.

In the spring of 2001, the Birth Through Five Educational Program held a ten—week
playgroup session. All of the children for this study had attended one or more of those
previously held playgroups. Therefore, all children and families were familiar with the

routine and materials available in the room.

47

The observations were carried out by the researcher and four trained student assistants.
The researcher has a history of working with parents and young children who have special
needs. Throughout her career (29 years), she has been required to observe children and
parents, take extensive field notes, and write observation reports. She conducted a previous
pilot study as part of her practicum, where extensive field notes were taken and videotapes
transcribed and coded. Prior to this study, the researcher trained the student assistants.
Three practice sessions were held to discuss this research project, the importance of
capturing mother and child interactions, and the operation of equipment. To avoid the
effect of the presence of an observer and a video-operator, the researcher discussed with
the students how to help families habituate to observation so they could relax and behave
naturally.

During the observation, the researcher and student assistants tried to position
themselveslso as not to deter from the naturalistic environment of the classroom setting.
For each observation, the researcher focused on each dyad’s verbal communication but
made written notes of non-verbal components of social interactions, the context, and
sequence of interactions. Events were recorded as they occurred using abbreviations when
applicable. Immediately following the observation, the researcher and student assistant
reviewed the videotape as it was being transferred from the digital tape to VHS tape. A
room adjacent to the playgroup room had been made available for this purpose. At that
time, additional notes and corrections were made to the original field notes.

After the observation, the researcher used the written notes and the VHS video to
prepare a detailed and complete transcript of the observation. These transcripts, and the

video were reviewed multiple times and put into transcript worksheets using the computer

48

software program Microsoft Excel. After that, data were transferred to a data base
developed for this program using Microsoft Access.

As the researcher completed each final transcription, social interaction codes were
assigned to each turn, the function of each verbal utterance was identified, and the amount
of words in each utterance was counted. Each verbal utterance and behavioral exchange
was coded. While watching the video, a stopwatch was used to accurately measure the time
mother and child spent in each area. Throughout this study, mothers were encouraged to

play with their child as they typically did when they attended previous playgroup sessions.

Videotaping

Technological advances have expanded our abilities to understand interactions
between parents and children (Beebe 8C Lachmann, 1988; Stern, 1977). Videotaping
parents and children interacting has allowed us to view an interaction and then to review it
to see how the interaction developed and what each partner did to influence the other’s
behavior (Stern-Bruschweiler 8c Stern, 1989). Thus, allowing the researcher multiple
opportunities to review these interactions, which was critical in viewing non-verbal
communication. Accuracy of transcripts was enhanced by multiple reviews of videotapes.
The children and their mothers were familiarized with the video camera one week prior to
filming the first playgroup session. Brief segments of this first session were videotaped but
not transcribed. This helped to identify potential problems with the camera that could be
critical to this study such as battery problems, camera position, and transferring digital
tapes to VHS tapes. Only one mother and child were videotaped during a playgroup session
allowing the researcher an opportunity to observe and focus attention on one mother—child
dyad at a time.

49

A small, hand-held, digital camera with a wide-angle zoom lens and a high quality
mounted microphone was used. This allowed the videotaping to occur more easily as the
children frequently moved from area to area. A tripod with a camera was found to be
cumbersome and did not allow the movement necessary, particularly in videotaping verbal
and non-verbal communication necessary for this study. Even though the microphone was
considered of good quality and the video-operator was relatively close to the participants,
at times it was difficult to hear the children’s utterances. Mounting microphones on the
table also did not allow the freedom for mothers and children to move. Program facilitators
felt that microphones on the table would be disruptive to their organization. Thus,
microphones were not allowed to be placed in different locations around the room. Having
experience with practicing videotaping on the first week of inclusionary playgroups was
beneficial in that it allowed the researcher the opportunity to focus primary attention to
verbalizations during subsequent observations. When verbalizations were not understood,
they were coded as “can’t understand.” Digital tapes were transferred to VHS tapes in

order to be viewed more easily by the researcher.

Interviews

How comfortable mothers felt when they interacted with their children could have a
tremendous impact on the results of this study. Therefore, the researcher analyzed pre- and
post-interview data to determine the level of comfortableness among participants. Appl,
Fahl-Gooler, and McCollum’s (1997) study examined how comfortable mothers of children
with special needs felt while attending inclusionary playgroups. They cited as a limitation
of their study the length of time from attendance in the playgroups until they actually

interviewed participants. In addition, they discovered that parents of children with

50

disabilities want to have input with respect to their feelings. For this reason, the researcher
felt it critical to interview mothers before and immediately following attendance to
inclusionary playgroups to share their feelings and experiences. Parents’ understanding of
play, inclusion, how they facilitate their child’s play, and general feelings of
comfortableness were examined. One—time interviews that last one hour or less are not
likely to provide the depth of information with respect to a participants’ thoughts, ideas, or
beliefs (Rubin 8C Rubin, 1995 ). Therefore, each mother was interviewed prior to the
videotaping and at the conclusion of the play-to-learn group sessions in an attempt to gain
more insight into her perceptions. Each interview lasted approximately one hour and was
audiotaped. Since interviewing is considered both a research methodology and a social
relationship (Seidman, 1991), the researcher tried to strike a balance in preserving the
autonomy of each mother by keeping the focus of attention to the experiences they had
with participants in the playgroup setting. The relationship that was developed with the
participating families was critical in developing a balanced rapport that was necessary for
the interview process to occur more fully. Seidman (1991) discussed the importance of this
relationship as a balancing act to developing an appropriate rapport with each participant.
He further implied that rapport implies getting along with each other, a harmony with, but
that one must be careful of the “we” relationship that can develop. For that reason, the
researcher was careful to try to maintain a positive balance with the relationship that grew
over the weeks required for videotaping. Audio-taped interviews were transcribed of
interviews using a laptop computer. Written transcriptions were coded, compared, and data

categorized.

51

DATA ANALYSIS
Inclusionary Playgroup Observations

Mother-child interaction was examined with the following questions guiding the
analysis. What type and frequency of non-verbal cues do participants use? What types of
verbal interactions are used by participants in relationship to adjacency condition, activity
context, kinds of utterances, and number of words? What kinds of positive and negative
interactions are shared between mothers and their children? And what is the frequency and
length of social episodes (turns) mothers and children engage in?

Individual utterances as well as extended utterances were analyzed by the researcher
using an adaptation of Hart and Risley’s (1995 ) Juniper Coding System (Appendix C), and
non-verbal categories taken from the SKI*HI parent interaction observation checklist form
C (Watkins, 1993). A Microsoft Access program was developed to include all of the
necessary categories required to answer the research questions for this study. The Access
program allowed the researcher to filter individual items based on specific categories. A few
examples of filtering data are included in the following: (a) family ID, mother, kinds of
utterances (imperatives), and context (where—what area); (b) family ID, mother, kinds of
utterances (imperatives), activity code (what they were doing); (c) family ID, mother,
context (where-what area), negatives; (d) family ID, mother, negatives, activity code (what
they were doing); and (e) family ID, mother, adjacency condition (continuations) context
(where—what area). Data can be filtered even more specifically when looking at individual
observed sessions. Making comparisons of interactions from the first videotaped session to
the last session videotaped could be extremely useful in looking at changes in interactions.
The choice in using this program to analyze data was based on its tremendous ability to

filter data in a variety of combinations. Being able to filter the data, allowed the researcher

52

to look at specific elements needed to answer the research questions. Verbal and non-verbal
turns were more easily analyzed using this system. Other systems were available and
reviewed, but did not seem to meet the needs of the questions since a major portion of this
study looked at non-verbal behaviors. Non-verbal aspects of communication have been
recorded as being extremely important in getting and holding attention and in helping to
get messages across to children. Support for non-verbal communication has been cited in
research, which indicated, “93% of the impact a parent has on a young child is due to the
non-verbal aspects of communication...touch, gestures, inflection, and facial expression,”
and “7% is due to the actual words that are used” (Mehrabian cited in Clark 86 Watkins,
1985). Thus, this program was developed to include verbal and non-verbal aspects of

communication.

Reliability for Observed Transcripts of Inclusionary Playgroups

The researcher and a graduate assistant thoroughly reviewed the adapted coding
system prior to coding any sessions. One randomly selected transcript was coded together
by the researcher and graduate assistant to ensure that coding for categories was clearly
understood. Any issues or confusions raised were clarified before scoring additional
videotapes and transcriptions. Next, 20% of the remaining videotapes and transcripts, one
for each of the three remaining mother and child dyads, were given to the graduate
assistant to view and code for reliability purposes. Reliability was calculated separately for
the social and linguistic interaction categories. The graduate assistant that assisted with
reliability coding has a 23-year history of working with families who have children ages
two through five. Before her graduate study in early childhood education, she was principal
of an early childhood/kindergarten bilingual program.

53

An agreement in coding was counted when the two observers coded the same
information. For example, to score an agreement on a social interaction code, such as
adjacency condition, both observers had to assign the same function to the turn. The
following categories were coded: interaction code, adjacency condition, activity context,
inflection, eye contact, child’s level, touch, gesture, pointing, facial expression, negative
statements, positive statements, and conveyance of warmth. To score an agreement on a
linguistic code, such as kind of utterance, both observers had to assign the same function to
the utterance. The following categories were coded: utterance, word count, and kind of
utterance. Reliability was calculated separately for each social interaction and linguistic
code category with the following formula:

Agreements/(Agreements+Disagreements) x 100%

Percentage agreements computed for social interaction codes ranged from 60% to
100% with a mean of 89.8%. Percentage agreements computed for linguistic interaction
codes ranged from 89% to 97% with a mean score of 93%. Whenever disagreement
occurred, the researcher and graduate assistant reviewed the segment until 100%
agreement was achieved. Following this procedure, the researcher coded the remaining
data independently. Every time the researcher had a question regarding a social interaction
or linguistic code, the graduate assistant reviewed the segment with the researcher until

mutual agreement was reached.

Pre- and Post-Interviews
The discourse of pre- and post-interviews with participating mothers was analyzed for
the level of comfortableness they shared in their exchanges. An adaptation of Appl, Fahl-

Gooler, and McCollum’s ( 1997) interview coding system was used as the framework to

54

analyze the transcribed interviews. The following categories were added to provide
additional information relative to the purpose of this study: specific acknowledgment of
comfortableness, definitions of play, definitions of inclusion, and how mothers facilitated
their child’s play. Given that the interview protocol was used prior to and after the
playgroup sessions, the protocol was changed slightly for the initial interview to reflect how
participating mothers might feel, whereas the interview at the end of the sessions
demonstrated how participating mothers actually felt. Observing differences in their
responses pre and post enhanced the researchers understanding of their level of

comfortableness.

Reliability for Transcripts of Pre- and Post-Interviews

Each transcription was coded and analyzed by the researcher and a parent-infant
educator to ensure reliability. This parent-infant educator has thirty years experience
working with young children who have disabilities. Her current position, which she has
held for the past three years, has been specifically to work with families who have young
children with special needs in a home-based setting. Codes assigned to transcriptions were
discussed with the researcher and the parent-infant educator until 100% agreement was
achieved for designated coded categories. All eight transcriptions were coded and analyzed

in this manner.

55

CHAPTER IV:

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to determine if differences existed in the way mothers
interacted with their young children in an inclusionary playgroup: children with special
needs and children without special needs. Several figures represented in this section of this
thesis are presented in color. When describing the results, participants were identified
according to Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Participants’ Identifiers

 

 

 

 

Identifier Description
MCSl Mother of 21-month-old child with special needs
C51 21-month-old child with special needs
MCSZ Mother of 38-month-old child with special needs
C52 38-month-old child with special needs

MC1 Mother of 29-month-Old child without special needs
C1 29-month-old child without special needs
MC2 Mother of 39-month-child without special needs
C2 39-month-old child without special needs

Percentages of the type and frequency for a specific social interaction were based on an

individual’s number of turns. For example, out of a total of 1,151 turns, one mother had

56

333 behavioral exchanges without words (29%). Percentages were taken into consideration
when making comparisons. Calculations were rounded to the nearest tenth.

In addition to viewing the differences in interaction, the researcher attempted to
discover how comfortable mothers were while attending inclusionary playgroups by
completing, transcribing, and coding pre- and post-interviews with participants. Results for

both parts of this study are described next.

DIFFERENCES IN THE TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF N ON-VERBAL CUES

Question number one of this study investigated the differences in how mothers
communicated with their young children (with and/or without special needs) using the
following non-verbal cues: (a) warmth, (b) eye contact, (c) facial expression, (d) child’s
level, (e) gesture, (f) touch, and (g) point. The percentages in Figure 4.2 are based on each
mother’s non-verbal communication in relationship to their individual total turns.

Figure 4.2: Non-Verbal Communication of Mothers

 

 

 

 

 

100

gg I MCSZ
93 I MCS1
g8 E] MC1
lg E1 MC2

 

 

 

 

57

The mothers of children with special needs showed less percentage of demonstrating
conveyance of warmth (MCSl =2.5%; MC82= 1.5%; MC1=3.9%; and MC2=2.8%). The
differences between all mothers is minimal. Mothers of the children without special needs
conveyed more warmth during mutual play, whereas MCSl and MCSZ displayed more
warmth in the activity context “other” category.

With respect to eye contact, MC2 (48.2%) and MCSZ (45.4%) used more eye contact
than MC1 (10.1%) and MCSl (13.8%). MC2 generated eye contact during 48.2% of her
turns and MCSZ generated eye contact during 45.4% of her turns. MCSZ and MC2 were
the mothers of the older toddlers. Three of the four mothers generated more eye contact
during mutual play. MCSZ used more eye contact during redirecting. In fact, she used more
redirection than any other parent. Since parents of special needs children often feel even
more compelled to assist their child in learning, they tend to take a teacher-student role
rather than a parent-child role (Marschark, 1997). Redirection can be considered as part of
the “teacher” role.

Three of the four mothers—MCSI, MCSZ, and MC1—were very similar when using
facial expression. Facial expression was used significantly more by MC2. Percentages were
as follows: MCSl =7.6%; MC82=6.5%; MC1 =7.2%; and MC2= 18.1%. All mothers used
more facial expression while participating in mutual play. Play gives permission for
participants to act silly, thus, this may be one reason why more facial expression was used
during mutual play.

Both mothers of children without special needs spent more time on their child’s level
(MC2=85.9%; MC1 =65 %). Mothers of children with special needs were very similar with
MCSZ at 56% and MCSl at 55%. All mothers remained on their children’s level more
often while participating in mutual play.

58

All mothers were fairly similar in their use of gestures. MCSI (3.2%) used gestures the
least amount while MC1 (5.3%) used gestures the most. MC52 (4.8%) and MC2 (4.6%)
were quite similar. All mothers used more gestures when engaged in mutual play except for
MCSl. All mothers used gestures in different context areas (MCSl—sensory/fine motor;
MCS2—table; MC 1-gross/motor block; MC2-housekeeping).

Both mothers of children with special needs used more purposeful touching than
mothers of children without special needs. MC52 (24%) and MCSl (9%) used touching as
a means of redirecting or trying to get their child’s attention in the table activity area and
gross motor area, respectively. These findings may indicate that since MC52’s child is
older, she may be more concerned that he complete projects put forth by facilitators as a
way of preparing him for school. MCSl may have used more touch in the gross
motor/block area due to her concern that he may get hurt. The other mothers (MC1 =5 %
and MC2=7.2%) used touch during mutual play and in the housekeeping area. These
mothers used more playful touch.

In general all mothers pointed about the same percentage of time (MC52=6.2%;
MC1 =5 .2%; MC2=7%). Yet, MCSl pointed the most (8.9%). All mothers used more
pointing during table activities. Mothers of older toddlers pointed for teaching and
redirecting, while mothers of younger toddlers used more pointing during mutual play.
Examples of this included the following: MC52 said, “Put the animal on the paper,” as she
pointed. Whereas, MCSI said, “Look at that,” as she pointed to items in the sensory table.

For C2 and C52 (Older toddlers), table activities may have been the area where most
pointing occurred due to the importance mothers assigned to getting their child ready for
school. These feelings were expressed during the pre- and post-interviews. Mothers
identified projects as an important part of playgroups.

59

The final analysis of the data found that there were few differences in the ways
mothers of children with special needs and mothers of children without special needs
communicated non-verbally to their young children. The major differences were noted in
the category of touching behaviors and being on their child’s level. Mothers of children
with special needs touched their children significantly more than the other mothers and
were not on their child’s level as frequently as mothers of children without special needs.
Even though mothers of children with special needs conveyed less warmth, the difference

did not appear significant.

DIFFERENCES IN TYPES OF MOTHER’S VERBAL INTERACTION

Question number two of this research investigation addressed how mothers
communicated verbally to their young children with and/or without special needs. Verbal
interaction included the following categories: (a) inflection, (b) negative statements, (c)
positive statements, (e) kinds of utterances, and (0 frequency of words. Figure 4.3 identifies
categories inflection, negative statements, and positive Statements.

Figure 4.3: Comparison of Vocal Behaviors of Mothers

 

Vocal Behaviors

 

WI T
j

 

 

 

 

 

S
5 m1
0
5 MCSZ El lnflection
o 50 100 I "“9”?”
I Posrtlve

 

 

 

Percentage Compared to Each
Mother's Total Utterances

 

 

 

60

MC2 (83%) and MCSl (25%) produced more utterances with interesting inflection.
However, MC1 (13.2%) accompanied her utterances with the least amount of inflection.
MC1 and MC51 used inflection in the gross motor/block area, while MC52 used more
inflection in the table activity area and MC2 in housekeeping. All mothers but MC52 used
more inflection while participating in mutual play, whereas MC52 used more inflection
when redirecting her child.

The percentages of negative statements used by mothers were as follows: (a)
MC51=2.5%, (b) MC52= 12.7%, (c) MC1 =0.4%, and (d) MC2= 1.2%. These differences
appeared significant. MC1 and MCSl generated more negatives in the sensory/fine motor
area, MC52 in housekeeping, and MC2 in book/toy and table activities. Most of the
negatives used by MC52 happened when she was redirecting. The remaining three mothers
used more negative statements during activity context “other” category.

With respect to positive statements, MC2 (7.7%) generated the most positive
comments to her child. Her child, however, generated the least amount of positive
statements and the greatest amount of negative statements compared to all of the other
children. This raised question with regard to the concept of modeling. In this case MC2
modeled positive behavior, yet, her child did not replicate her model. In addition, it is
uncertain how this mother communicates in other environments. Perhaps, she uses more
negatives in different settings. The use of positive comments for the other mothers are
reported as follows: (a) MC51=3.5%, (b) MC52= 1.7%, and (c) MC1 =2.8%). Both
mothers of children with special needs generated the majority of their positive comments in
the sensory/fine motor area. MC1 generated more in the gross motor/block area while

MC2 in the table activity area.

61

The final analysis for inflection, negative statements, and positive statements Show
several similarities. A major difference, however, was noted in the use of negative
statements. There did not appear to be any significant difference in inflection based on
mothers of children with special needs as compared to mothers of children without special
needs. Inflection appeared to be related to the mother’s style when playing. All of the
children used more inflection when involved in mutual play. Notable differences were
observed in the amount of negative statements that mothers of children with special needs
generated to their children as compared to mothers of children without special needs. Both
mothers of the children without special needs generated more positive comments to their
children during mutual play, whereas the mothers of children with special needs generated
more positive statements during the activity context “other” category. Mothers of the
children with special needs children may have felt more compelled to teach their child

rather than to engage and enjoy playing with their child.

Kinds of Utterances

Figure 4.4 represents the kinds of utterances mothers used. Utterance percentages were
calculated using the number of times the kind of utterance was used divided by the total
number of turns with words. Negative statements in this grouping were statements where
“No” was used in isolation to express refusal or denial, it was considered a negative kind of
utterance. For example, mother asked the child if he wanted to do a table activity; child
answered, “No.” Imperatives were grouped by whether they were directing or requesting.

Figure 4.4 demonstrates each mothers’ use of kinds of utterances.

62

Figure 4.4: Kinds of Utterances for Mothers

 

 

g —I—- M082
g + M081
g —-x— MC1
0- + M02

 

 

 

 

Utterance

 

 

 

With regard to questions, MC2 generated more Wh-questions than any other mother.
MC2 generated 26% Wh-questions of her total utterances (verbal turns); MC1 =9%;
MC52= 10%; MC51 =9%. Analysis of the discourse involving questions was further
evaluated to see how the questions asked fit into Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive
Domain (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation)
(Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, 8c Krawthwohl, 1956).

Most of the questions used by mothers was at the knowledge level, however, some of
the questions generated were at higher levels. The mothers of children with special needs
asked fewer higher-level Wh-questions during the four taped sessions. Of MCSZ’s total
number of Wh-questions, 4% were considered higher-level questioning, for example, “Why
can’t I put that right there? What happened?” MC51 had 7% at higher levels, for example,
“What does that do? How are you going to get out?” MC1 had 13% at higher levels, as in
“What does it smell like? What do you use this for?” MC2 had 11% at higher levels, such
as “How are we going to eat if you have all of the silverware? What happened?”

63

According to Hart and Risley (1995) about 15 % of the questions parents provided
younger children were “What?” or “Huh?” Findings in this study did not support that fact.
“Huh?” was used very infrequently, twice by MC52 and four times by MC1. The question
“What?” was used, but rarely in isolation. “What? Where? and Who?” were the most
frequently used questions by all parents, with MC2 using the most variety in her
questioning. Parents directed their children’s attention through questions to what the
children should notice. Hart and Risley’s (1995), study showed that parents maintained
interaction by often asking hard questions and supplying the answers themselves. This
pattern was apparent in this discourse analysis.

The percentage of yes/no questions, declaratives, negatives (only including “no”
statements), and statements were similar among the group. It was the imperative utterance
used for giving direction that seemed to show the greatest difference. Thirty—seven percent
(37%) of the utterances for MC52 were considered imperatives, while MC2 used only
12%. MC51 (23%) and MC1 (27%) were more similar with their use of imperatives.
labeling was fairly similar except for MC52 who used only 3% of her utterances for
labeling. Since MC52 reported that her child “talks a lot,” she may not see a real need to
label objects. MC 1 and MC51 (younger toddlers) used exclamations more frequently.

When looking at the context and activity context, Figure 4.5 identifies where each
kind of utterance occurred most often, and describes what the mother and the child were
doing when these frequent utterances happened. For example, MC51 used more Wh-
questions in the housekeeping area for teaching. Whereas, MC1 used more Wh-questions

in the housekeeping area while engaged in mutual play.

64

Figure 4.5 : Contexts and Activity Context Where Mothers Generated Most Utterances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind of Utterance Identifier Context Activity Context
Wh-Question MC51 Housekeeping Teach
MC52 Book/Toy Teach
MC1 Housekeeping Mutual Play
MC2 Housekeeping Teach
Y/N Questions MC51 Gross Motor/Block Mutual Play
MC52 Table Activities Mutual Play
MC1 Housekeeping Mutual Play
MC2 Housekeeping Mutual Play
Declarative MC51 Gross Motor/Block Other
MC52 Book/Toy Mutual Play
MC1 Housekeeping Mutual Play
MC2 Housekeeping Mutual Play
Negative “No” only MC51 Gross Motor 8c Transition Other
MC52 Table Redirecting
MC 1 Book/Toy Redirecting
MC2 Table Other
Imperative MC51 Gross Motor/Block Mutual Play
MC52 Table Redirecting
MC1 Gross Motor/Block Mutual Play
MC2 Table Mutual Play
Statements MC51 Gross Motor/Block Other
MC52 Table Other
MC1 Housekeeping Mutual Play
MC2 Housekeeping Mutual Play
Label MC51 Sensory/FM Teach
MC52 Table Teach
MC1 Table Mutual Play
MC2 Housekeeping Mutual Play
Exclamation MC51 Gross Motor/Block Mutual Play
MC52 Sensory Mutual Play
MC1 Gross Motor/Block Mutual Play
MC2 Housekeeping Mutual Play

65

The activity context that seemed to enhance more variation of utterances was mutual
play. Three of four mothers used the majority of Wh-questions to teach and all mothers
used more Y/N questions while mutually playing. The use of “no” was the only grouping
that did not occur during mutual play. Areas that showed more frequency for different
utterances for the mothers of children with special needs were the book/toy, table activity,
and gross motor/block as described in Figure 4.5. The other two mothers showed more
frequency for different utterances in the housekeeping and gross motor/block areas. Thus, a
common area for both groups was the gross motor/block area. For the mothers of young
children with special needs, the concept of teaching was seen more frequently than with the
other two mothers.

Final analysis suggests that mothers of children with special needs ask fewer higher-
level questions than mothers of children without special needs. The questions Who? What?
and Where? were used most often by all mothers. The declarative, yes/no question, “no”
statements, exclamations, and labeling were considered quite similar for all mothers. It was
the imperative utterance that showed the most difference. Mothers of children with special
needs as a group tended to use the imperative utterance more often. The percentage of

utterances appeared to be enhanced when all mothers were engaged in mutual play.

Frequency of Words

Figure 4.6 demonstrates the number of words, total number of turns, the mean length
of utterance (MLU, average number of words per turn), and the average number of words
per minute generated by each participant during the four videotaped, transcribed, and

coded inclusionary playgroup sessions. The last two columns identify the context where the

66

greatest numbers of words were used and the activity context, which designates the activity
that produced the most words.

Figure 4.6: Frequency of Words

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mother Total Total Mean Average Context For Activity
Child Number Number Length of Number Most Words Context For
of of Verbal Utterance of Words Most Words
Words Turns (ML U) Per
(Words) Minute
With Special Needs
Sensory/ Fine Mutual Play
MC51 3,001 687 4.36 22 Motor (3 7%)
Sensory/ Fine Mutual Play
C51 156 117 1.33 1.02 Motor (35%)
Redirecting
MC52 3,55 9 818 4.35 24.5 Table Activities (3 7% of
total words)
Sensory/ Fine Mutual Play
CS2 1,679 560 2.99 12.33 Motor (36%)
Without Special Needs
Mutual Play
MC1 3,036 729 4.16 24.5 Book/Toy (59%)
Housekeeping Mutual Play
C1 468 191 2.45 3.33 8C Table (58%)
. Mutual Play
MC2 4,640 1,017 4.56 30.5 Housekeeping (48%)
C2 730 3 13 2.33 4.66 Housekeep‘“g Mutual Play

86 GM/ Block (55%)
—

Mothers of children without special needs generated more words to their children than
mothers of children with special needs. Their average number of words per minute was 27,
as compared to 23 words per minute for mothers of children with special needs. Words per
minute were calculated by taking the total number of words and dividing that by the

67

amount of time. The MLU per turn showed more similarities than differences. All were in
the 4—5 word per utterance range. This was calculated by taking the total number of turns
minus the turns without words divided by the number of words generated by each
participant. All but one of the mothers used more words while engaged in mutual play.
MC52 used more words while redirecting her child.

C52 averaged more words per minute and more turns than all of the other children.
His verbal skills were considered a definite strength. When comparing the mean length of
utterance, the children ranged from 1—3 words. C51 generated fewer words per MLU; C52
produced the most at 2.99 words per MLU. The children without special needs were very
similar with C1 having a MLU of 2.45 words and C2 an MLU of 2.33 words. Two of the
children used more words in the same context as their mothers (C51 and C2). C52 used
most words in the sensory/ fine motor area. This coincided with his mother’s second highest
area where she produced 27 words per minute. All of the children used more words while

engaged in mutual play.

DIFFERENCES IN AMOUNT AND LENGTH OF SOCIAL EPISODES

Research question number three aimed to find out if differences existed in the amount
and length of episodes of social interaction (turn-taking) or floor holding (continuations)
generated by mothers of young children with or without special needs. A total of 7,637
turns were transcribed, coded, and analyzed, out of which MC52 executed 1,151 turns,
MC51 =886, MC1=903, and MC2= 1,163. Turns were viewed in two separate ways: turns
that involved only a behavioral exchange (no words) and turns that involved words with or
without behavior. The mothers of children with special needs used a greater percentage of

turns without words than the mothers of children without special needs (MC52=29%;

68

MC51 =22%; MC1 = 19%; and MC2=13%). AS a minimum, a social episode occurred
when one individual took a turn followed by the other individual taking a turn. Some

examples of each family’s turns are presented in the following.

MC52/CS2
Child: “Mama, I want chair,” as the child picked up the chair.
Mother: “You got it,” mom looked at him.
Child: “Mama, I want to bring it over,” as he carried the chair closer to mom.
Mother: “You can sit right here,” as mom helped child put the chair down.
Child: “Right here?” as child grabbed the chair and looked at mom.
Mother: “You got it,” as she nodded her head up and down.
Child: “Mama, help me,” as he tried to sit in the chair.
Mother: “Ok, say please.”
Child: “Please.”

Child continued so the social episode ended with 9 turns.

MCSI/CSI
Mother: “Yes, I found it,” as mother held up a clock.
Child: “It clock,” looking at mom.
Mother: Handing the clock to the child, “Do you like it?”
Child: “Clock.”
Mother: “Yes, it is,” looking at child.
Child: “Clock,” putting it down on the table.

Mother: “Is that your favorite thing?” as she looked at him.

69

Mother continued so the social episode ended with 7 turns.

MC 1/C1
Child: Got play blood pressure cuff as mom watched.
Mother: Gave child her arm and looked at him.
Child: Put cuff on her arm.
Mother: “You hurting mama’s arm.”
Social episode ended as mother continued with a repetition of her last utterance. Thus,

this episode contained 4 turns.

MC2/C2

Mother: Pointing to play knives, “Are these dangerous?”

Child: Nodded head yes.

Mom: “They don’t let little kids play with them, do they?”

Child: Shook his head no as he put some silverware in the tray.

Mother: “Where does this red one go?” as she held up a red Spoon.

Child: He took the spoon and put it into the correct spot.

Mother: “Good job,” as mom smiled and looked at him.

This episode ended as mom continued with another turn. This social episode had 7
turns. Social episodes in this study had as few as two turns and a maximum of nineteen
turns.

Figure 4.8 demonstrates the number of social episodes for each mother-child dyad.
Social episodes (alternating turns) represented in Figure 4.7 are based on the average

number of turns for each context area over four sessions.

70

Figure 4.7: Average Number of Tums Over Four Sessions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area MC52 MC51 MC2 MC 1
Gross Motor/Block 15 .25 25 .5 1 1.25 17
Table Activities 39.75 8.75 27.5 13
Sensory/Fine Motor 17 20 9.5 12
Book/Toy 23.5 7 21.5 8.5
Housekeeping 13.75 22.75 34 25.25
Transitions 5 .75 1 2.5 4.25

The housekeeping area promoted more social episodes (alternating turns) than any
other area. This supports Vygotsky’s theory regarding representational play where make-
believe play within a socio-cultural context serves as an influential zone of proximal
development (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995 ). This, in turn, can advance children to higher levels
of cognitive development. The housekeeping area fosters an environment where imaginary

situations and representational play can occur.

Figure 4.8: Average Number of Social Episodes for Each Mother-Child Dyad

 

 

45
4o

35 +Mcsz
3g +Mt32
20 m1
15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

MC52 and MC2 demonstrated similar turn-taking trajectories except with respect to
the housekeeping area. MC1 and MC51 exhibited a similar course except in the
sensory/fine motor context. Even though dyads spent different amounts of time in each
area, they tended to show similar patterns in the average number of social episodes they
produced. There did not appear to be any significant difference between mothers of young
children with special needs and mothers of children without special needs in the number of
social turns. Age seemed to play a more important role with respect to differences.

When analyzing social episodes per minute (social episodes for all sessions/time over
four sessions), the following data emerged: (a) dyad, MC52/C52=3.47 social episodes per
minute; (b) dyad, MC51/C51 =2.65; (c) dyad, MC1/C1=2.58; and (d) dyad
MC2/C2=2.93. A smaller number per minute could indicate longer social episodes, or
could indicate time in which one partner tended to hold the floor longer not allowing for
the social dance as described by Hart and Risley (1999). It was the give and take that was
seen as critical in fostering positive communication. Therefore, the researcher further
analyzed the data by figuring the percentages of longer versus shorter social episodes. Since
the give and take of partners was considered important, social episodes longer than six
turns were considered to enhance the social dance more. The mothers of the children
without special needs and their children had a larger percentage of social episodes that
were seven turns or more. The percentage for dyad MC52/C52 was 16%, dyad
MC51/C51 = 14%, dyad MC 1/C1 = 17%, and dyad MC52/C2= 18%. Although the
percentages for dyads with children who had special needs were less, the range was not
considered significant.

MC2 held the floor 38% of her total turns, MC52=27%, MC1 =39%, and
MC51 =38%. All mothers responded to their children with similar percentages:

72

MC52=47%, MC51 =8%, MC1=49%, and MC2=47%. Mothers of children with Special
needs used more prompts in their interactions: MCSZ= 13%, MC51=6%, MC1 =3%, and
MC2=3%. This may or may not be directly related to their child’s disability. Berk and
Winsler (1995 ) discussed the consequence of changing the way a child participates in
activities of his/her culture (play culture). According to their review of Vygotsky’s theory,
limiting full participation can limit the development of higher-cognitive functioning. Data
raised the question of parental prompting as a way of controlling how a child participates
in activities.

Since the literature indicated that fluency and number of communication units were
greater in the block context, the researcher examined that area to identify if results
coincided with Isbell and Raines’ ( 1991) findings. Twenty—five percent (25 %) of all social
episodes were in the housekeeping area and 18% were in the gross motor/block area. This
difference could be due to the fact that the block area was combined with gross motor
activities, possibly luring the children away from playing only with blocks. The inclusionary
playgroup was designed to meet the needs of all students, thus the researcher could not
separate activities.

Final data analysis with respect to social episodes suggests that the number of turns
generated by each dyad seemed to be related more to age than to disability. The older
toddlers and their mothers generated more total turns than the younger toddlers and their
mothers. Mothers of children with special needs produced a greater percentage of their
turns without words and used more prompts than the mothers of children without special
needs. Of all context areas, the housekeeping area appeared to produce the most social
episodes. Dyads demonstrated similar patterns in the average number of turns they took.
However, mothers of children without Special needs tended to have a greater percentage of

73

turns that were 7 turns or longer. In addition, mothers of children without special needs
held the floor longer. When the mothers engaged and sustained the conversation, they
allowed their child more language opportunities as a partner in conversation. All mothers

responded to their children with similar percentages.

DIFFERENCES IN PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS

Data that answers question number four of this research investigation, “IS there a
difference in parental perceptions as to how they feel about playgroups?” and “Are there
differences in they way they define certain terms?” is presented in sub categories that
correlates with the coding system: (a) level of comfortableness and support for parents; (b)
goals and benefits of the group; and (c) definition of play, inclusion, and their role in

facilitating their child’s play.

Level of Comfortableness, and Support for Parents

All mothers indicated that they were comfortable sharing information about their child
with other individuals in the group and other individuals in the community. There did not
appear to be a difference with the level of comfortableness among mothers. MC2 and MC1
responded with comments such as “I am very comfortable,” and “I’m easy-going and there
is no shyness about not being personal.” MC52 and MC51 gave comparable statements
about their level of comfortableness: “Very comfortable...I always have been as far as
sharing formation about (child’s name)...Don’t know why, but I guess the more I talk about
it, the more people you talk to, the better you feel,” and “I’d have to say I felt very

comfortable...always comfortable...I never felt like an outsider.”

74

Both mothers of children with special needs indicated that it was difficult to access
other community groups, such as swimming, karate, Sunday school, and story hour at the
library. Thus, the inclusionary playgroup provided their children an opportunity to interact
with the general population. They stated that the groups “made you feel welcomed,”
“always were very friendly,” and that “nothing impeded a sense of belonging.” They both
specified how the facilitators encouraged them to interact and were there as a support
system. Fear of trying things at home was somewhat eased by trying new things at
playgroups. MC51 stated, “I was freaking out to let him try new things...the ladies knew all
about choking, so I felt very confident letting him eat there...I felt safer.”

All mothers indicated that they felt they were listened to. MC52 and MC51 stated the
following: “They (facilitators) were just there...asking for my suggestions...just the way
they looked at me, the way they talked to me...lot of eye contact showed me they listened
to me,” and “The survey was a good way to ask for feedback...I suggested they move sing
song time along and they listened...they changed it.” Mothers of children without special
needs gave similar responses.

Additional evidence to support their level of comfortableness was demonstrated
through the personalization of the information they shared. Mothers discussed barriers,
however, all of the barriers (work schedules, being tired, and choosing a session that was a

bad time for their child, but a good time for them) did not inhibit them from attending.

Goals and Benefits of the Groups
MC51 indicated in both the pre- and post-interview a sense of isolationism. She was a
“stay-at-home-mom” and acknowledged a desire to network with other parents. Thus, this

was a primary goal for her, one that was repeated throughout the interview. One major

75

theme that emerged was her criticism that the structure of the group did not allow time for
parent-to-parent communication other than snack time. She commented that she realized
the primary goal of the group was to “promote the interaction of parent to child,” but that
she would like “more sharing time with parents.” She suggested that parents meet outside
of playgroup on an individual basis. Her comments suggested that she did not feel her goal
had truly been met.

Other mothers indicated the same goal to network with other parents, but that goal
did not appear to be their major concern. MC52, MC2, and MC 1 indicated that a primary
goal of playgroup was to interact with their child: “If we were at home, I would find
several other things to be doing...like cleaning or something else to be doing instead of
playing with him...I like that one-to-one interaction; It forces me to play with him, instead
of saying go play, I say come and play with me; Playgroup enhances my relationship with
my son...I need to learn also how to play with him so he can learn.” Since these three
mothers work, playgroups may be fulfilling a need of forced interaction allowing parents to
believe that they are spending quality time with their children.

MC51 saw playgroup as an extension of what she had taught her child: “He learns
most of his colors and letters and things like that from me, but it (playgroup) reinforces it
in a different environment.” Her primary goal for her child was to be able to interact with
other children his age. This was a similar goal expressed by all parents. In addition, all
mothers stated that they saw the playgroup as a way to prepare their child for school and
liked the attention their child received from the facilitators: “They gave him special
attention; When you see someone else interacting with your child ...that gets you
motivated.” School readiness seemed particularly important for mothers of the older

children. All mothers Specified that the goals for their children had been met.

76

Strengths of the groups for mother of young children without Special needs centered
around activities provided during the groups such as finger plays, centers, themes, and age-
specific activities. MC52 and MC51 provided more personal information about their
feelings and when discussing the strengths of the groups: “I love the fact that parents are
allowed to stay with their children; love the fact that parents can exchange ideas and
thoughts; I really like to see how he interacts with children his own age while I am there.”
Both parents indicated the importance and possibly a sense of security in being able to be
there with their children. Another key issue raised as a strength of the group, was the fact
that the group supported diversity: “He is going to be a more well-rounded person...
because he is not just around one particular race, disability, or personality.. .that may be

kind of far fetched since he is only three...but that is how I feel.”

Definition of Play, Inclusion, and Their Role in Facilitating Their Child’s Play

All mothers had Similar definitions of play and seemed to personalize information
more in the post-interview than in the pre-interview phase. Play was identified as
interaction between parent and child, having fun, learning, exploring, and sharing new
experiences. Mothers indicated the importance of play as necessary for learning.

When discussing inclusion, the mothers of the children with special needs saw
inclusion as a way to have their child participate in the normal day-tO-day activities. MC52
referred to her child as having a disability and referred several times to his specific
disability. However, MC51 referred less often to her child as having a disability and used
the words “special needs” in her description. MC52 indicated her support for inclusion

with the following description:

77

I like it (inclusion). It is not just a separate playgroup for children with
disabilities. I like (child’s name) being around other children without
disabilities because to me (child’s name) doesn’t know he has a
disability...so I don’t want him...I mean it is good for him to be around
children with disabilities, but also I can see him trying to keep up and
that makes me feel good...I can see him trying to keep up with children
who don’t have a disability. 50 I really like that because they are not
separated.

Her poignant description supports the literature and the importance of inclusion for
parents. MC 1 and MC2 also supported the concept of inclusion. MC 1 saw inclusion more
as a benefit to children who have Special needs rather than to her child. MC2 on the other
hand, described inclusion as a benefit to both groups: “Inclusion means bringing children
with special needs and children that do not have special needs together to learn from each
other different ways other children live...different ways other children play...I think this
makes children more tolerant of other people that are different from themselves.”

When analyzing how parents felt they facilitated their child’s play, they all responded
with similar answers. All mothers indicated that they would let their children choose
activities in which they wanted to participate. They would go along with what their child
chose most of the time and that they would have fun playing together. Choice was seen as
important by all parents; however, parents indicated they would encourage their children
to try different activities. But in the end, the child would ultimately be the leader of the
play. During the observations, the researcher felt that the children generally chose where
they wanted to play. Mothers tended to follow their children’s lead, except during table
activities. It seemed that mothers asked their children more often if they wanted to go do a
specific projeCt at the table. Children appeared willing, but especially with the younger
children, the mothers looked as if they used more encouragement. The older children

seemed more interested.

78

Clearly, the participating dyads viewed the observed inclusionary playgroups as a
benefit to them and to their children. By their comments, mothers experienced a sense of
belonging, received support from the facilitators in the playgroups, and they felt
comfortable. The way a program is designed and operated can enhance parents’ self-esteem
and motivation for participation (Fallon 8c Harris, 1992). Just as Fallon and Harris
concluded, this program appeared to provide the necessary elements that would enhance
parents’ self-esteem and motivation. Thus, parent-child interactions should be at an

optimum level. Therefore, observations for this study were considered to be true.

79

CHAPTER V:

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the study was to identify if differences existed in the way mothers
communicated with their young children (children with and without special needs) in an
inclusionary playgroup setting. In addition, the level of each mothers’ comfortableness
while participating in the groups was evaluated. Chapter IV presented and analyzed the
data from the study. Findings and conclusions relating to each of the research questions
were stated. To bring the results of this investigation into perspective and to present a
summary of possible implications, this chapter is designed to provide an overview including
an introduction that re-establishes a framework, a discussion, possible implications,

limitations, conclusions, and recommendations.

INTRODUCTION

The theoretical basis of this investigation emphasized the acquisition of communication
skills through early parent-child interactions as a foundation for acquiring language
(Bruner, 1983). Hart and Risley (1995 ) pointed out specific differences in the interactions
of caregivers, which later translated into striking disparities regarding children’s future
vocabulary growth, vocabulary use, and school success. Thus, identifying and
understanding the differences that occur in the interactions of mothers who have young

children with special needs, as compared to the interactions of mothers who have young

80

children without special needs can prove to be beneficial to mothers, children, and early-
intervention programs.

The literature suggests that play can and should have an important role in nourishing
children’s intellectual and social development (Davidson, 1996). Play provides the perfect
medium because every child develops at a different rate, and through play children are
allowed to improve their own structure with the materials provided (Kostelnik, Soderman
8c Whiren, 1993). Growth through play is possible because a young child’s mental
structures are at a stage of development where they are optimally stimulated and challenged
by the possibilities inherent in play situations (Athey, 1984).

Vygotsky’s approach to children with special needs had its foundation in the premise
that higher mental functioning occurs by the children’s opportunities to experience positive
interaction with adults and peers in an encouraging environment (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995).
Berk and Winsler further suggested that this environment needs to allow the children an
opportunity to be included as much as possible with the regular activities of the primary
culture. With that in mind, the mother-child dyads in this investigation were provided a
sensitive environment where they were supported and treated respectfully. This allowed
dyads to be fully integrated into the social activities of an appropriate play and age culture.
Allowing children the opportunity to be integrated into this culture provided mothers and
children the positive experience necessary to produce optimal mother-child interactions.
Interview results recognized that parents placed primary importance on their children being
included in activities provided for all children.

Vygotsky’s theory emphasized development as a process of learning where guidance
provided by interaction with more skilled individuals promotes positive development

(Rogoff, 1990). Rogoff further described Vygotsky’s model as a method that resembles

81

“apprenticeship,” where a novice works together with a more skilled partner collaborating
to solve problems jointly in the zone of proximal development. This allows the novice
(child) an Opportunity to go beyond his level of independence. The concept of joint
problem solving happens between these partners. Participating mothers and children were
allowed an opportunity to nurture this relationship of “apprenticeship” by playing in a
consistent and encouraging environment. For this study, mothers and children were
considered as those partners.

Identifying potential differences and similarities in how mothers communicate with
their young children (with and without Special needs) has the potential of providing
strategies for early interventionists to increase the quality of caregiver-child interactions.
Previous research implied that parent-child interaction provides momentum to the design
of early intervention services (Sandall, 1993; Thorp 8c McCollum, 1994). Thus, enhancing
communication right from the beginning is apt to improve the mental functions of children
with special needs. Some researchers have reported Statistically significant correlations
between the way in which parents interact with their young children and the rate of their
developmental growth. Consistent findings have been cited for a wide range of dyads,
including children from low socioeconomic families (Hart 8C Risley, 1995; Walker,
Greenwood, Hart, 86 Carta, 1994), those born prematurely (Beckwith 86 Cohen, 198 9),
and those with severe developmental disabilities (Brooks-Gunn 8C Lewis, 1984; Mahoney,
Finger, 8c Powell, 1985). Consequently, the need to understand differences in mother-child
interaction becomes even more critical. This investigation attempted to provide some
evidence of the existing differences between mother-child dyads and some possible

outcomes that have the potential of guiding early—intervention programs.

82

DISCUSSION

In this study the researcher observed more similarities than differences in the way
mothers of young children with and without special needs communicated with their young
children. These similarities may have been supported by the level of comfortableness that
each mother felt while participating in the inclusionary playgroup setting and the general
atmosphere and structure of the groups. Specifically, mothers exhibited similar turn-taking
trajectories and frequency of social episodes. The difference seen in the production of social
episodes occurred with respect to the length of the episode. Mothers of children without
special needs tended to have longer episodes where they engaged in the social dance as
described by Hart and Risley (1999). These differences were not considered significant, yet
important enough to be taken into account. Thus, caregivers of children who have special
needs should be made aware of the importance of extending children’s language by
engaging in longer and richer turn—taking episodes to reduce potential differences that may
impact their child’s language development.

All mothers demonstrated consistent responses to their children’s communication
attempts. They tended to produce more words, more variety of utterances, and longer
social episodes while participating in mutual play as compared to all other activity context
areas. As a result, these observations support previous research regarding the positive
influence that play can have on mother-child interaction and children’s cognitive and
language development. This relationship between play, cognitive, and language
development has been supported by researchers such as Rubin, Fein, 8c Vandenberg (1983),
Vygotsky (1978), and Brunet (1983). When mothers participated with their children in

mutual play, they did not produce any negative statements. Therefore, mutual play as an

83

activity context should be encouraged to enhance consistency in mothers responding to
their young children.

More variety of utterances was observed in the gross motor/block area; however, more
social episodes were produced in the housekeeping area. Therefore, housekeeping and
gross motor/block areas ought to be considered as positive play settings that encourage
constructive language interactions. This supports Vygotsky’s theory regarding
representational play where make—believe play within a socio-cultural context serves as an
influential zone of proximal development (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995 ). In addition, supporting
Vygotsky’s concept, the “tools” provided in both of these areas seemed to enhance make-
believe play.

Some differences that existed in the way mothers of children with special needs
interacted as compared to mothers of young children without special needs raises important
issues. These differences, as reported in the literature, could have the potential of
negatively impacting the positive development of their young children.

The mothers of children with special needs tended to use more purposeful touching,
executed more turns that did not include words, used more negatives, spent less time
engaged in mutual play, asked fewer questions, used more imperatives, spent less time on
their child’s level, and generated fewer words to their children within specific age groups.
The fact that mothers used more purposeful touching could be viewed from different
perspectives: (1) touch may have been viewed positively as a means to provide stimulation
and to convey warmth; (2) touch may have been used more often to direct and attract their
children’s attention because mothers indicated a strong desire for their child to participate
in designated activities and fit in the inclusionary setting; (3) touch may have been directly

related to the children’s disability as Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired, because

84

mothers often used touch to assist the children to complete activities that posed physical
difficulty for them. If all of these points of view are regarded, they may well explain the
increase in the touching behaviors of these mothers.

Concerns regarding future language and cognitive development were raised, since
mothers of children with special needs generated more turns without words and fewer
words to their children than mothers of children without disabilities. If children with
special needs hear fewer words then the general population, risks for future cognitive
growth and language development are likely to occur. Hart and Risley’s (1995) research
conclusions support that the amount of words used has a direct correlation to language and
cognitive development. Due to these differences, strategies that enhance a mother’s
interaction skills would seem crucial. Mothers need to understand that the frequency of
words they generate is important to the development of their child’s language and cognitive
growth. By generating fewer words, mothers may truly be impacting their child’s cognitive
growth and optimum learning potential.

Children who are exposed to negative and critical statements or expressions can
become frustrated, which can often lead to fewer attempts to communicate (Clark 8C
Watkins, 1985 ). Much research has investigated the relationship between negative and
positive statements and the effect these statements have on self-perceptions. Positive
interactions were associated with high self-esteem, while negative interactions were
associated with low self-esteem (Blake 8: Slate, 1993; Burnett 8c McCrindle, 1999;
Campbell, 1989; Elgin, 1980). The fact that mothers of children with special needs
generated more negative statements than the mothers of children without special needs

causes concern for their young children’s optimum social-emotional development.

85

When the mothers were interviewed, they both indicated a strong desire for their child
to participate in programs provided for all children and a desire for their children to do
well. This was shared in both pre- and post-interviews. Consequently, this caused the
researcher to consider the following questions: (a) Were the parents so concerned with
their child’s ability to fit into the primary play “culture” that they focused much of their
attention on redirection and making their child mind? (b) Were the negatives initiated
because the mothers felt their children did not meet their expectations?

If these parents continue to generate more negative statements than the general
population, these children with special needs would seem to be in jeopardy of having low
self-esteem as they get older. A child who is often exposed to negative statements may not
learn how to cope with frustration. Being more easily frustrated, these children may be
prone to struggle more with school tasks, which ultimately can lead to school failure.
Heightened awareness of the mother’s use of negative statements will undoubtedly impact
their children’s self-esteem and frustration levels.

The mothers of children with special needs spent less time than the mothers of
children without Special needs engaged in mutual play. The effect of this could have
influenced the variety of their utterances, frequency of words, and the length of social
episodes. Mutual play was found to encourage and enhance mother—child interactions. This
caused the researcher to wonder why mothers of children with special needs participated
less in mutual play as compared to the other mothers. Were they more focused on having
their children participate, therefore, not truly enjoying the playful experience that
playgroups provided? Possible evidence for this attitude was seen in their responses from
the interviews. Both mothers (MC51 and MC52) wanted their children to have an

opportunity to engage in activities with children their own age; they wanted their children

86

to become more prepared for school. This implied the importance mothers placed on
participation resulting in possible stress related to their expectation.

The second thought that emerged focused on the differing styles of mothers’
communication. Did the communicative interaction styles of the mothers of children with
special needs differ from the other two mothers of children without special needs? Hayden
and Fivush’s (1996) research indicated that during free play mothers exhibit two different
styles, one that is considered conversational and eliciting (questioning, affirming, more
participation) and one that is directive (directives, commands, and negations). The mothers
of children with special needs may have a more directive communicative style indicating
that their style influenced their interactions.

The mother of the older child with special needs used imperatives approximately three
times more often than the mother of the child without special needs who was the same age.
Differences in the younger children were minimal (3% difference). This lack of difference
may be related to development, since the younger children engaged less in the directed
table activities. More imperatives were generated to the older child with special needs
during table activity time for redirection purposes. The table activity context also produced
more imperatives for the older child without special needs, but those imperatives were used
more frequently during the activity context of mutual play rather than redirecting. This
raises question with regard to the following issues: (1) Do table activities promote more
imperatives because of the very nature of being project oriented requiring more help and
direction? Hayden and Fivush ( 1996) discovered that contexts that involved goal-specific
toys (e.g., puzzles and shape sorters) demonstrated a higher rate of directives used by
mothers. Since table activities were considered more goal oriented, this could explain some

of the differences. Convergent tasks that use a more sequential or project—oriented

87

 

discourse may involve more directions to meet the goal of task completion and efficacy. (2)
Did the mother of the special needs child feel more compelled to have her child complete
the activity even if he chose not to participate? (3) Did the mother feel that by completing
the designated project her son would be considered doing well and just like all of the other
kids in the group? During the interviews, a sense of the importance of participating and
having access to age-appropriate activities was highlighted by this mother. (4) Is this
difference related to stylistic differences in the way mothers’ structure conversations within
the same context? Research has indicated that mother’s speech characteristics do vary as a
function of the context (e.g., Hudson, 1990; McCabe 8c Peterson, 1991; Reese 8c Fivush,
1993). Further investigation with respect to these issues would seem appropriate.

With respect to questioning, mothers of children with special needs asked fewer
questions as a group and their questions were at a lower level relative to Bloom’s
Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain. Questions are viewed as critical in scaffolding
children’s language and critical thinking skills (Berk 8c Winsler, 1995 ; Gall 8c Rhody,
1987). Berk and Winsler indicated that the use of questions is seen as being significant for
classroom communication. With that in mind, if children with special needs were exposed
to fewer questions and ones at a lower level of critical thinking, then they would be
potentially denied the opportunity of developing higher levels of critical thinking and of

having future school successes.

IMPLICATIONS
1. Early intervention programs need to support continued investigation to determine if
differences exist in the way mothers communicate with their young children (with or

without special needs).

88

In spite of the fact that generalizations cannot be made, evidence supporting
critical differences makes it essential for further investigation. If some of these
differences are seen in the larger population of special education, then children who
are already at risk may truly never reach their maximum language and cognitive
potentials. Early intervention programs have an opportunity to enhance services to
families by understanding these differences and being more prepared to assist mothers
in enhancing mother-child interactions. Even in the most ideal and supportive context,
the inclusionary playgroup, there may be deeply held beliefs by parents, likely well
intended, that may create a constellation of communicative behaviors that either deny
direct access to language opportunities or provide the disposition that lowers
expectation for independent thinking.

Early-intervention programs may want to consider providing small inclusionary
playgroups in a home setting. Home settings may have more of a positive impact on
the way caregiver’s interact with their young children. Investigation of interactions in a
home setting would seem appropriate for future research.

Early-invention programs should be encouraged to focus their instruction on
enhancing the positive interactions of mothers and young children, especially dyads
where special needs are involved.

A balanced intervention should be the goal of adults who become involved in
children’s play. As Berk (1994) pointed out, adult intervention is most successful when
adults recognize children’s current level of cognitive competence and build on that
competence.

Early interventionists need to avoid putting mothers in the role of teacher, especially,

if the interaction is directive and controlling.

89

 

Even though the children in this study showed some differences in their speech
and language abilities, play allowed these various levels to be enhanced individually.
Challenges in this study may be directly related to the difficulty mothers had in
identifying what truly constituted play. It seemed that when the mothers viewed the
activity as play, by engaging in mutual play, the communication interactions were
richer. In contrast, when the mothers viewed the activity as “teaching,” play
interactions appeared more compromised. In general, mothers showed an
understanding that play was beneficial. However, by getting into a teaching mode, they
tended to structure the tasks not allowing for incidental learning that often
accompanies play. Educators need to avoid putting mothers in the role of teacher by
facilitating opportunities for playful experiences between mother and child. These
playful experiences can provide more Opportunities for mothers to enhance their
child’s overall development.

Early-intervention programs need to assist mothers in developing their use of both
non-verbal and verbal skills to enrich and extend conversations.

In order for maximum benefits to occur, a facilitator’s role should not be to limit
and restrict, but rather to extend and enrich (Ford, 1993). Both mothers of the special
needs children tended to redirect and teach their children more, both verbally and
non-verbally, potentially restricting positive outcomes. Encouraging mothers to use
positive statements and limit negative statements has the potential of building the
child’s self-esteem. Children with disabilities are already at a disadvantage for future
school success. Therefore, assisting mothers in understanding the role of play, the
importance of using positive statements, increasing the number of words they use, and

promoting higher-level thinking skills by using questions Offers children a better

90

chance for future success. If early interventionists assist mothers in becoming good
observers of their child’s signals, then the communicative interactions between
themselves and their children have a stronger potential of being enhanced. If mothers
want their children with special needs to be successful in school, then they must be
made aware of the importance of the interactions they engage in with their children
right from the beginning.

Early-intervention programs need to help mothers understand the importance of play
and how a positive play environment can affect language and cognitive development.

The success of the children as language learners becomes dependent on the
facilitators in their environment. Since mothers are the primary facilitators from birth,
the emphasis they place on providing repeated language interactions becomes even
more crucial to their children’s positive development. Through play, mothers are
provided an opportunity to extend and expand their child’s language potential in an
environment that promotes rich communicative experiences. This in turn is likely to
have a positive impact on the child’s cognitive, emotional, and social development.
Early-intervention programs that provide young children with disabilities an
opportunity to participate in the “culture” of children their own age needs to be
provided. Allowing mothers an opportunity to provide input with respect to these
groups seems fundamental.

As stated by the mothers of the children with special needs in this study, an
important goal for their children was to be able to participate fully in the culture of
children their own age. Playgroups provided that opportunity. Programs that
encourage participation of young children with or without special needs allow

caregivers the realization of this goal of full participation. Parents indicated the

91

 

importance of feeling responded to in a positive, encouraging manner. Their ideas and
thoughts need to be incorporated into the planning of such groups to enhance their
level of comfortableness; because, depending on how comfortable parents feel in a
playgroup setting is likely to affect their interactions. By providing inclusionary
playgroups that promote this positive atmosphere, the interactions of mothers may be

more similar than different.

LIMITATIONS
The reader is cautioned to avoid generalizing the findings to populations beyond those
participating in the study. The amount of interpretations of any kind of research,
quantitative as well as ethnographic/qualitative, is unlimited, and this study should be
considered for the researcher as well as for the reader an event that has the potential of
generating new ideas and or problems. Specific limitations for this study are identified
below:
1. Children with multiple disabilities (i.e., deaf-blind, mentally and physically
challenged) were not studied.
2. The sample size was small, limiting any generalizations.
3. The children who participated in this study were only boys, thus limiting
conclusions.
4. Since the playgroup site was constant, only urban families participated.
5. The researcher did not have any input into the designated activities and materials
explored during playgroup sessions. It was felt that the placement of certain
materials might have interfered with some of the non-verbal communication

generated by each mother. An example of this included placing books on the table

92

 

for the mothers to view with their children instead of the book area. This did not
encourage the same level of warmth and touch that occurred in the book area, a
more natural setting for book sharing.

At times dialogue was difficult to hear due to background noise, inadequacy of the
equipment, and the researcher’s inability to get too near to the participants. Thus,
some of the turns were coded as “can’t understand,” when true dialogue was
produced. It was felt that close proximity to the participants could potentially
influence their social interaction. This was evident on a few occasions when the
videogtapher moved close to the participants, the child noticed the camera,
stopped playing, and smiled into the camera lens.

It was not always easy to clearly identify non-verbal cues due to the position of the
camera and the position of the mother. Mothers often stood in front of their
children blocking the view for videotaping and for field note taking, thus, making
it difficult to consistently read all non-verbal cues.

Even though parents indicated a high level of comfortableness while participating
in the playgroups, observations of play in the family’s home setting could have

provided different results.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the two primary goals for early-intervention programs that emerged

from this investigation should emphasize the importance of the mother’s role in facilitating

language and they should provide opportunities for children and mothers to participate in

playgroups where they feel comfortable and accepted. Early interventionists need to

provide support, guidance, and information regarding the critical nature of the mother’s

93

role in facilitating their children’s language and cognitive development through positive
interactions that are rich in both non-verbal and verbal language. Providing play
opportunities for children with special needs with their mothers and playmates their own
age allows for positive interaction to occur. This may be the primary step towards helping
children with special needs to be fully integrated with children their own age. The message
for mothers is critical. If they desire optimal opportunities for their children as the mothers
did in this study, then early-intervention programs must see that mothers are provided with
information that will enhance and expand their children’s language potential. The amount
of words, positive statements, level of questioning, and engagement in mutual play mothers
provide can make the critical difference for the future success of their children. Thus, the
responsibility of early intervention programs needs to focus on facilitating these positive

experiences between mother and child.

94

 

APPENDICES

95

APPENDIX A

UCRIHS APPLICATION

96

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND

GRADUAns‘,_ (ZZP37VASS:::;;/x”

STUDIES

Int Vice Presldent
for Research

iigan State University
ministration Building
51 Lansrng, Michigan

48824-1046

517/355—2180
FAX 517/3532976

I Is an JfllmeIM-JUIOII,
1’ Windy msliMion.

h4l(3lil(3/\ll SIEAfllEl

U N I V E R SIT Y
August 15, 2001

 

TO: David STEWART
343 Erickson Hall
MSU

RE: IRB # 00-193 CATEGORY: 2-F EXPEDITED
RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: August 14, 2001

TITLE: PARENT CHILD INTERACTION IN AN INCLUSIONARY PLAYGROUND SETTING:
COMPARISON OF CHILDREN WITH AND WITHOUT SPECIAL NEEDS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT’S RENEWAL.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form.
A maximum of four such expedited renewal are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work. notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human
subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@pilot.msu.edu.

Sincerely,

Ashir Kumar, M.D.
Chair. UCRIHS

AK: kj

cc: Debra Lively
11353 Lake Circle Dr.
Saginaw, MI 48609

97

 

 

Consent Form For Parent/Child Participation

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of parent child interaction
during “play to learn groups." This study is part of a doctoral dissertation and
continuation of a pilot project conducted by Debbie Lively, doctoral candidate at
Michigan State University. During this study, Debbie Lively will be observing parent-
child “play to learn" groups in an attempt to discover how parents and young children
interact. A video camera will be used to capture any information that may be missed
during the actual observation. In addition to observation and videotaping, Debbie will
conduct interviews with parents prior to and following the ten-week playgroup sessions.
Debbie Lively will discuss results with parents regarding parent-child interaction,
observations, and interviews. The play to learn group will not be interfered with,
Debbie Lively will simply‘be an observer.

 

In addition to obtaining your permission for you to be observed, videotaped, and
interviewed, permission is needed to tape and observe your child. Taping will occur l
during the month of September, October and November during your child’s “play to l
learn group.” You will be observed at least four times and no more than eight times,

with each observation period lasting about 45 minutes.

 

All data collected will be treated with the strictest confidence, your name or your child’s
name will not be used in any reports about this project and any identifying
characteristics of you or your child will be disguised. If you are videotaped, then this
videotape will not be viewed by anyone other than you, the researcher, Debbie Lively,
the dissertation committee and two early childhood teachers who will assist in verifying
data. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Participation in this study is voluntary and you may st0p participating at any time
without penalty. If you do not participate in this study, or stop participating in this
study, you and your child will continue to be full members in the play to learn group.
Your signature below indicates consent for yourself and for your child to participate in
this study, which will include observation(s), videotaping of playgroup time, and a
private interview.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the nature of the research, please
contact Debbie Lively, Michigan State University Doctoral candidate, at 497-4975. If
you have any questions or concerns relating to your participation in this study, you may
contact Dr. David Wright who is the Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects, at 517-355-2180.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Debbie Lively

98

uunino HI‘I'HUVAL run
THIS project EXPIRES:-

AUG 1 4 2002

SUBMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
ONE MONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

You (print your name) agree to allow yourself and your child

to participate in a project that is designed to provide a better
understanding of parent-child interactions during play to learn groups. The
participation will require at least 4 sessions of about 45 minutes duration but entail no
more than eight sessions. The project will take place during the months of September,
October and November of this year and will be directed by Debbie Lively, a doctoral
student at Michigan State University who is also an Associate Professor at Saginaw
Valley State University and can be contacted at 497-4975. Participation in this project
is voluntary and you may stop participating at any time during the project without
penalty. If you do not participate in this study, or stop participating, you and your child
will continue to be full members in the play to learn group.

 

The purpose and the nature of this project have been explained. Agreement to be
videotaped if given, will result in a videotape that will not be viewed by anyone other
than you, the researcher, Debbie Lively, the dissertation committee and two early
childhood teachers who will assist in verifying data. In all discussions about this
project, confidentiality will be maintained and the name of the participants will not be
mentioned.

Participants may ask questions at anytime during the project. In the unlikely event of
any injury as a result of this project, no reimbursement, compensation or free medical
care is offered by Michigan State University.

Consent given for participation in the study.

 

 

 

Child’s Name: (Please Print)
Parent/Guardian: (Please Print)
Parent/Guardian Signature: (Please Print)
Date:

 

Consent given to be videotaped during this study.

 

 

 

Child’s Name: (Please Print)
Parent/Guardian: (Please Print)
Parent/Guardian Signature: (Please Print)
Date:

 

99

 

 

 

APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW CODING SYSTEM

Adapted from Appl, Fahl-Gooler and McCollum (1997)

The following categories and codes were used for pre/post interviews with all parents.

With each subcategory examples of statements made by parents is provided.

 

Categories/Codes/Examples (taken from pre- and post-interview transcriptions)
Examples are provided in the following manner:

S=mother of children with special needs; N=mothers of children without special needs

#1 Facilitators
_1_a._ Support provided
5: “They encouraged me to interact; I liked the fact there is always a person who has
experience...I felt very confident.”
N: “They gave him one on one attention; they are just someone to ask questions to

when you don’t have someone to turn too.”

LL), Helping parents feel acceptgd and a sense of pelpnging in the gropps

S: “I felt very welcomed; they were always very friendly; you didn’t feel like an
outsider walking in.”
N: “I know that other parents love to come to playgroup even if their child was

having a tantrum...they showed up the next week.”

100

_1_e, Relationship between facilitators and parents aneflor children

S: “The girls used a lot of tact and tried their best not to hurt somebody’s feelings; I
just think the girls were really positive and completely understood how you felt.”

N: “They gave (Child) special attention; if he was acting like he wasn’t interested in
an art project, they would get him more involved by getting excited.”

id; Planning gpd facilitating the group

5: “They coordinated everybody; they were real directive with regard to centers.”

N: “They left it up for us to learn how we had to show the child how to fix the
puzzles...stepping back and letting it be the child and parent.”

g Eli itin aren in ut feed ack

S: “The survey was a great idea; lots of eye contact, this showed me they listened;
they were just there asking for my suggestions.”

N: “I liked the survey.. .parents were able to give their opinions how the playgroup
helped them learn about their child’s development; I suggested they move sing
song time along and they listened.”

if, Suggestiene for future feeilitgtere

S: “More movement; maybe organize craft time better; shorten music time; have a
set time where parents are sitting down with their kids; Probably educate parents
more to interact with their child.”

N: “Have one week set aside for music and just music all session long; shorten finger

plays.”

101

#2 Goals
23.. M
S: “Meeting other mothers, exchanging ideas, seeing other children at the same age
level and seeing how they are doing; interacting with other parents and if there
was a child with another disability...we could talk about our success stories.”
N: “Learning things I don’t know; enhance my relationship with my son.”
& Fer ehild
S: “Sharing; work on his attention span; interact with other children his age; be
more prepared for preschool.”
N: “Sharing; to explore and have fun; enhance his social skills; prepare him for

preschool.”

#3 Benefits

3A Fer self

5: “Seeing other children at the same age level and see how they are doing...I
haven’t been around young children in a long time; it forces me to play with him.”
N: “I like the one on one time; it was nice to see how he grows.”
fl).- Mild
S: “He’ll be more prepared for preschool; him being included in normal day to day
activities; he has a variety of other children to play with.”
N: “When he gets into preschool, he will have centers and he will already be

acquainted with that type of teaching; peer interaction; he found new areas to

explore.”

102

#4 Personalization

4 P rson ' frmation r ' he child

5:

“He is so shy; he is funny about textures; oh, he was taking Tai Kwan Do for
awhile, but he was not successful.”

“We picked a hard time because it was (Child’s name) nap time...maybe that is
why he had a difficult time at circle time; I feel he was a little bit more mature

than the other children.”

3b, P r o alinfor ationr ardin self

5:

N:

“I was going to get involved in other groups but I was not able too...they didn’t
meet (child’s) needs; I was freaking out to let him try new things; I would see
parents who have a child with a disability.... I would always try to encourage
them; before (Child) it was easy...easy to learn and be laid back, but (Child) came
along and things changed, but for the better.”

“My work schedule was a barrier; I wish he would have liked circle time more.”

1e, 0 enl indicate comf rta leness attendin la rou s

S: “Real comfortable...I don’t get all teary eyed anymore that was the first two
weeks; very comfortable...I have always been very comfortable to share
information about (child).”

N: “I would share information definitely...no shyness about not being personal; I
don’t have anything to hide...I am very comfortable.”

#5 Groups

gag Grogps in general: strengths and concerns

Strengths

103

8: “Love the fact that parents are allowed to stay with their children; love the fact
that parents exchange ideas and thoughts; structure; project and new themes.”
N: “A place to learn how to interact with your baby/toddler; able to fit my work
schedule; themes and centers.”
Concerns
S: “I do wish they would get together more parents...maybe outside of playgroups;
structure doesn’t allow for parent interaction; the long time children had to sit for
circle time.”
N: “Circle time was too long; not orderly at the beginning; finger plays were to
long.”
fl; Specifie eomponeng: plaflime, diecussiene, sneek, the environmentzeeging,
materialslhgdeuts

S: “Center time-free play/group times were good...they brought him out of his shell;
snack time and circle time helped with his attention span.”

N: “I really liked the handouts, time for reading different things to make sure what
the baby is doing is on target; I liked the table activities because it encourages him
to do things that he would not be given the opportunity to do necessarily at
home.”

,3, Suggestions for improving the groups

5: “Give parents a little more time to interact; more movement; probably educate
parents to interact more with their children.”

N: “Shorten the fingerplays; keep a routine; have parents sit down and talk at the

beginning. ”

104

#6 Differences and Comparisons

gag P en comm nts h it hil ’s 'ffer nces

S:

N:

“Before (child) it was easy...easy to learn and laid back...but (child) came and
things changed, but for the good; (Child) doesn’t have a siblings, cousins or other
children close to his age close by to give him an opportunity to interact.”

“I’ve shared his story numerous times (chronic otitis media); he is more mature.”

Q, Parent comments about their own personal differences

S:

.2

“I don’t know if they (other parents) understand the meaning of playgroups but
some parents just come and sit and watch their children playing instead of playing
with them; I am a stay at home mom; a couple of parents taught me what not to
do; some of them are involved in the welfare program.”

“I could share my experiences with someone else, like my mother who hasn’t been
around young children in over 20 years; none of them had an attitude that they

didn’t want to be here.”

§_c_. Providing information about the child’s special needs

5:

“I would see parents who have a child with a disability...I always try to encourage
them and tell them my story...once I was in their shoes...at that point I was still
worried and concerned; I like (child) being around other children without
disabilities because to me (child) doesn’t know he has a disability...so I don’t want
him...I mean it is good for him to be around children with disabilities but also
without cuz I can see him trying to keep up and that makes me feel good; (child)
has special needs but he needs to be included in normal day to day

activities...normal classroom activities; I think there was one time when we were

105

sitting down with marshmallows that I brought up the difficulty he has with

contrast...l mentioned something about that contrast is not good for him.”

.6_c_l_. Valuing differences

S: “I think it’s good to have a variety... to be around all kinds of people is a plus; he
is going to be a more well rounded person because he is not around one particular
race or group of people.”

N: “It’s a good experience to have a variety of children in the playgroup; bringing a

variety of children together makes children more tolerant of other people that are

different from themselves.”

#7 Differences/Comparisons of community parent-child groups
5: “I was going to get involved in other groups, but they didn’t meet (child) needs;
some parents won’t participate because they feel the program is an extension of a

welfare program.”

N: “He goes to nursery now and was involved in church nursery before that;
swimming classes at they Y were positive.”
#8 Other

3; Definition of play

5: “Interaction between parent and child; anything to him right now is play.”
N: “Fun, busy work, laughter, exploring and learning; lots of imagination, free time,
free spirit.. .you’re not restricted by any rules.. .you just play where your

imagination takes you.

106

 

 

Slims—011

S.

“I think it is good for him to be included...he has to keep up with other
children...I don’t always see him in special education; having special needs but at
the same time being included in normal day to day activities.”

“Putting two different types together and coming together doing the same; if a

 

child has a difficulty it will help to have the normal child to teach them; not

restricting your playgroups or your play by any definition of a child you are P-
inviting...all children at any developmental stage to your playgroup; I think

inclusion makes children more tolerant of other people that are different from I

themselves.”

fig Role in facilitation of play

5:

“He basically picked what he wanted to do; I tried to keep him focused; we just
had fun playing together; a big kid playing with a little kid; let him decide mostly;
we just kink of went with the flow.”

“I did what he wanted to do and he did what I wanted him to do; I tried to
encourage him; it was hard for me to get him to change; I didn’t push him; I

thought he should pick what he wanted to do.”

107

APPENDIX C
TRANSCRIPTION CODING SYSTEM
Adapted from The Juniper Gardens Language Project 1986 developed by Betty I-Iart, Ph.D.

(Hart 8C Risley, 1995)

This observation system was adapted to collect detailed information on the following.
1. A child’s vocalizing and talking with his mother in an inclusionary playgroup setting.
2. A mother’s vocalizing and talking with her young child in an inclusionary playgroup.
3. A child’s social and behavioral (non-verbal) interactions with his mother in an
inclusionary playgroup setting.
4. A mother’s social and behavioral (non-verbal) interactions with her young child in an
inclusionary playgroup.
5. The activity context of a child and mother’s social interactions.

6. The frequency and length of social episodes.

Definitions for specific categories are presented in two sections as follows:
A. Social Interaction Codes—Codes that describe components of the child’s social
interactions and the context in which they occurred.

B. Linguistic Use Codes—Codes that describe linguistic function of verbal utterances.

108

Outline of Social Interaction Codes
A. Codes for Activity Context:

The general context of contact between the child and mother

0 Play

0 Mutual Play
0 Teach

O Redirecting
0 Child Care
0 Other

B. Interaction Codes:

The person who emitted a coded social behavior

0 C—Child

O M—Mother

O FA—Father

O AA—Another Adult
0 AC—Another Child

O F—Facilitator
C. Adjacency Condition:

The relationship of a coded social behavior to the partner’s social behavior

0 Initiated

0 Response

0 Continuation

O Imitated

O Prompted Behavior

109

O No Response
0 Scaffold (Extension)

D. Context:

The play area where the social behavior took place

0 Housekeeping
O Sensory/FM

Table Activities

GM/Block

Book/Toy

0000

Transition
E. Behavioral Exchange:
The qualifications or additions to vocal or verbal social behaviors
Vocal Codes:
Inflection
0 Positive Statement
0 Negative Statement
Nonvocal Codes:
0 Eye Contact
Child’s level
Touch
Gesture
Pointing

Facial Expression

OOOOOO

Conveyance of Warmth

110

Definitions of Social Interaction Codes
The following conventions were used in describing the system’s procedures and definitions:
A. Units of Social Interaction:

Social Turns

In this study, turns were the basic units of interaction that were recorded in this

system. They included: a) all verbal comments made by the child or by anyone who was

 

present during the observation (regardless of whom they were directed to); b) all
vocalizations without words that were made by the child or to the child; and c) selected

non vocal social behaviors (to be described later) that were made by the child or to the

 

child. Turns were identified as follows:

1. Verbal behavior—Each sentence or sentence fragment was considered a separate
turn. Fragments or single words that stood alone and that were separated by
definite pauses were considered to be separate turns.

2. Nonverbal behavior—If a nonverbal behavior (such as touching) accompanied a
verbal or vocal turn, the nonverbal behavior was considered to be part of the same
turn. If the nonverbal behavior was separated from verbal behavior by a response
from the partner, the nonverbal behavior was coded as a separate turn.

An interaction code and an adjacency code were recorded for every turn. In addition turns

received social context codes: Context—where the social interactions took place, and

 

Activity Context—what Mother and Child were doing.

B. Social Episodes:
Turns that involved the child (i.e., those that were either emitted by or directed to the
child) were grouped into social episodes. An episode was composed of one or more

111

successive turns between the child and one or more social partner(s), with the exception
that the turns within an episode had to occur within 15 sec. of each other (i.e., if there was
at least a 15 sec. pause after a turn, the episode was considered to end). In addition, the

turn was considered ended if one partner continued holding the floor.

C. Activity Context Codes:

Mother and child were in the same room during all the sessions and most of the time

 

they were in the same play areas. The Activity Context Codes describe what the Child and

 

the Mother were doing in the different play areas:

Play: Either mother or child were engaged in independent play.

Mutual Play: Mother and child were engaged together in: (a) dramatic play; (b)
playing a structured game such as playing ball; (c) doing an art project together; (d) reading
or looking at a book together; (e) exploring materials or (f) motor play such as crawling
and creeping through a tunnel. The mother was actively participating in the activity with
the child.

Teach: Parent taught, demonstrated or modeled for the child.

Redirecting: Either child or mother redirected attention or changed activity or play
area.

Child Care: Mother and child were engaged in a routine care activity such as putting
on and taking off clothes or washing hands.

Other: Mother and child were doing something different from what was considered in

the above.

112

D. Interaction Codes:
The interaction code identified the person who emitted the social behavior. One of the
following was recorded for each turn:
Child: The child who was the focus of the observation.
Mother: The child’s mother who participated in playgroup activities with their child.
Father: The child’s father who did not participate in playgroup, but who visited the
child and mother briefly when they were participating in playgroup.
Facilitator: Any of the adult playgroup organizers who set up the play areas.
Another Child: Any other child who participated in playgroup with his/her own mother.
Another Adult: Any other adult who was present during the observation.

Observer: Person who observed and carried out the study.

E. Adiacency Condition:

The adjacency condition described the relationship of the coded behavior to the
behavior of the partner. One of the following was recorded for each turn:
Social behaviors involving the child:

1. Initiated—An initiated condition was the first social turn to occur between the
child and a partner, mainly the mother, after there were at least 15 seconds in
which the child was not involved in an interaction. Note: Vocalizations that the
child made to himself were considered to be directed to the mother. E.g.: The
Child ran from the sensory table and went into the tent car and made sounds. The
Mother followed the child and stood in front and said, “Where’s your wipers?”

2. Response—A response was the turn that a person took within 15 seconds after a

partner’s turn. This included verbal and non-verbal turns. E.g.: Child, “I gonna be

113

 

 

a doctor appointment.” Mom said, “Oh, you gonna be a doctor?” Child nodded
head up and down and took the stethoscope to put in his ears. Mom put the head
of stethoscope on her chest. Child said, “I can hear it.”

Continuation—A continuation was coded when the partner who took the previous
turn did not receive a response or did not allow time for a response within 15
seconds and continued with another turn. E.g.: Mother said, “what color is that?”
Mother continued after a few seconds, “can you tell me what color the elephant
is?”

Imitated—When the person made a complete, exact replication of the partner’s
last turn within 15 seconds, it was considered an imitated condition. E.g.: Child
said, “yuck, fingers,” holding his fingers up. Mother said, “yuck, fingers,” holding
her fingers up.

Prompted Behavior—The person’s behavior was physically guided by the partner.
E.g.: When the clean up song started playing, the Mother held the Child’s finger
and led him to put toys away.

No Response—This code was used to mark when either Child or Mother did not
respond to partner within 15 seconds. E.g.: Mother said, “Where is the ball?”
Child did not respond and walked over to the table.

Scaffold—Only direct scaffolds (expansions) were considered when the Mother
built on the child’s expressive language by expanding on his utterances. E.g.:
Child said, “macaroni.” Mother said, “macaroni and cheese.” Child said, “ball.”

Mother said, “That’s a big red ball.”

114

F. Behavioral Exchange:

Vocal Codes: Additions or qualifications of verbalizations

a.

b.

Inflection—Special tone or interesting intonation accompanying an utterance.
Positive Statement—The Mother described (1) positive aspects of the child to
build his self-esteem or (2) acceptable aspects of the child’s behavior. She let the
child know that the child’s behavior was appropriate, good, interesting or
otherwise in accordance with the rules of the culture. E.g.: “You get’em cuz you’re
big and tough.” “You are so smart...give me 5.”

Negative Statement—The Mother described (1) aspects of the child that were
against the child’s self esteem, or (2) unacceptable aspects of the child’s behavior.
She let the child know that the child’s behavior was inappropriate or bad in the
terms of the culture. E.g.: Mother said, “He likes watching other kids being
brave,” (negative tone indicating he was scared and not brave). Mother said, “Stop

it! You’re bad!” “Don’t throw them.” “Not so loud.” “Out of your mouth.”

Non-Vocal Codes: When they occurred during vocal or verbal turns they were

recorded as qualifiers to the vocal/verbal turn. If they occurred apart from vocal/verbal

turns they were recorded as separate turns.

a.

b.

Eye contact—The person purposefully looked at the other person in the eyes.
Child’s level—Mother got down to child’s level whether by sitting on a chair or
on the floor, kneeling down or lying down on the floor or by bending over
enough to be at child’s level. E.g.: Child went to bin in Sensory/Fine Motor Area.

Mother kneeled next to him and started playing with water.

115

 

c. Touch—The person purposefully touched the partner—included patting, playful
pinching, hugging, leaning against, picking up child, holding child’s hand, etc.
E.g.: Mom patted child’s back for completing the table activity.

d. Gesture—The person used body language such as shrugging shoulders, shaking,
nodding, waving, reaching, motioning, etc. E.g.: Mother was reading a book. She
moved the book towards the child and growled as she smiled. Child shrieked and
raised his shoulders. Mother said, “do you want to go to the table?” Child shakes
head no.

e. Pointing—The person pointed with extended index finger to an object, person or
place. E.g.: Mother and Child were in the Housekeeping Area. Child said, “I
remember that one” as he pointed to a baby doll on the sofa.

f. Facial Expression—Look in the face such as a smile, laughing, excitement,
sadness, happiness, worry, anger, jolt, anxiety, shock, panic, etc. E.g.: She moved
the book towards the child and growled as she smiled.

g. Conveyance of Warmth—The person showed affection towards the other. E.g.:
Mother congratulated Child on his success with a puzzle. She said “Good job!”
and tickled him. Mother said, “Is that a pickle?” She used a silly voice and

snuggled into the child’s neck.

Outline of Linguistic Codes
A. Utterance

B. Number of Words

C. Kind of utterance

O Declarative

116

 

 

Statement
W-Question
Exclamation
Y/N Question
Label

Negative

OOOOOOO

Imperative:
O Direction

O Request

Definitions of Linguistic Codes

A.

Utterance: Each verbal turn was recorded exactly in the way it was emitted by the
speaker. Unintelligible words within a verbal turn were identified as “Can’t
understand.”
Number of words: The amount of words in each verbal turn were counted and
recorded in a column on the spreadsheet. If the vocalization was entirely unintelligible
a 0 was recorded in this column. Contractions and hyphenated words were counted as
one word. E.g.: isn’t, you’re, I’ll, bye-bye, etc.
Kind of Utterance: Vocalizations were identified according to their function.
0 Declarative: The speaker presented information to the bearer using a
complete sentence, e.g.: “Mom helps you.” I did that.” However, the
sentence might not have all of the components, e.g.: “1 taking my baby for a

walk.” “I gonna slide.”

117

 

‘_'I'
‘va‘w- .

 

Statement: The speaker presented information to the bearer using an

incomplete sentence, e.g.: “Another one.” “I pee pee.”

W-Question: Interrogative beginning with who, what, when, where, why,

how. E.g.: “What is it?”

Exclamation: A vocalization accompanied by inflection or change in tone was

considered an exclamation, e.g.: “I did it!” “Look!” “Momma, come here!”

Vocalizations such as “Oh, Wee, Yeah, OK, Yum, Hey, and Oops” were

considered exclamations even though they were not always accompanied by

overt inflection.

Y/N Question: Questions that could be answered yes or no, e.g.: “Do you

want to paint?” “You too big?”

Label: The speaker gave something an identity, a name, a quality, e.g.: “That

is a hammer.” “Looks like a fingernail.” “Ball.” “Kind of sticky.”

Negative: When “No” was used in isolation to express refusal or denial, it

was considered a Negative kind of utterance, e.g.: Mother asked the child if

he wanted to do a table activity. Child answered, “No.”

Imperative: The speaker expressed an order, a command, a suggestion or a

request expressed with an imperative construction.

O Direction: The speaker directed or ordered the hearer to take action,
e.g.: “Put it here.” “I there.” “Go play with him.” “Turn it around.”
“Look at this.”

O Request: The speaker asked the bearer to do something, e.g.: “Please let
me see”; or suggested a course of action including herself, e.g.: “Let’s put

glue on here.”

118

 

O Exceptions: (a) When directions were given in a playful manner they
were considered requests, e.g.: “Come here and give me a kiss.” “Better
get me some fires.” (b) When “Be careful” or “Careful” were said
without a demanding tone or inflection they were interpreted as

requests.

119

 

APPENDIX D

INCLUSIONARY PLAYGROUP SETTING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120

 

 

Token
Salary/FineMooor T
IE I I J]
O O
r—n h
0 O
t ‘390
00 L_J \__.J
R stomach O O
a TableActivities
P
\_s (4”) 9 I
DOC) u
BooHI'oy H l .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

121

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Affleck, G., McGrade, B., McQueeney, M. Sc Allen, D. (1982). Relationship—focused early
intervention in developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 49, 25 9—261.

Appl, D.J., Fahl-Gooler, F., Sc McCollum, J.A. (1997). Inclusive parent-child play groups:
I-Iow comfortable are parents of children with disabilities in the group? Infant-Toddler
Intervention, 7(4), 235-249.

Athey, I. (1984). Contributions of play to development: child’s play development. In T.D.
Yawkey 8c A.D. Pellegrini (Eds.). Child’s Play: Developmental and Applied (pp. 9—28).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bailey, DB. 86 McWilliam, RA. (1990). Normalizing early intervention. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 33-47.

Beckwith, L. 8c Cohen, SE. (1 98 9). Maternal responsiveness with pre-term infants and
later competency. New Directions for Child Development, 43, 75-87.

Beebe, B. St Lachmann, F. (1988). The Contribution of mother-infant mutual influence to
the origins of self and object representations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 5, 305-337.

Berger, J. (1990). Interactions between parents and their infants with down syndrome. In

D. Cicchetti 8c M. Beeghly (Eds.). Children with Down Syndrome: A Developmental
Perspective (pp. 101-146). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Berk, LE. (1994). Vygotsky’s theory: The importance of make-believe play. Young
Children, 50(10), 30—39.

Berk, L. St Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood
education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.

Blake, RC. St Slate, J.R. (1993). A preliminary investigation into the relationship between

adolescent self-esteem and parental verbal interaction. The School Counselor, 41,
8 1-8 8 .

Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.]., Hill, W.H., 8c Krawthwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (1 95 6).
Taxonomy of education objectives; the classification of educational goals by a
committee of college and university examiners. New York: Longmans.

122

 

Bornstein, M.H. Sc Tamis-LeMonda, OS. (1995). Parent-child symbolic play: Three
theories in search of an effect. Developmental Review, 15, 382-400.

Boyatzis, C. 8C Watson, M. (1993). Preschool children’s symbolic representation of objects
through gestures. Child Development, 64, 729—735.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brooks-Gunn, J. 86 Lewis, M. (1984). Maternal responsivity in interactions with
handicapped infants. Child Development, 55, 782—793.

Brooks-Gunn, J., McCarton, C.M., Casey, P.H., McCormick, M.C., Bauer, C.R.,
Bernbaum, J.C., et al. (1994). Early intervention in low birthweight, premature

infants: Results through age 5 from the Infant Health Development Program. journal
of American Medical Association, 272, 125 7-1262.

Bruder, M.B. 8c Dunst, C.J. (1999/2000). Expanding learning opportunities for infants and
toddlers in natural environments: A chance to reconceptualize early intervention. Zero
to Three, 20(3), 34—36.

Bruner, J. (1983). Play, thought and language. Peabody journal of Education, 60(3), 60—69.

Burnett, RC. St McCrindle, A. (1999). The relationship between significant others’ positive
and negative statements, self-talk and self-esteem. Child Study journal, 29(1), 39—48.

Buysee, V. 8c Bailey, D.B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental outcomes in young
children with disabilities in integrated and segregated settings: A review of
comparative studies. journal of Special Education, 26(4), 434—461.

Campbell, B. (1 98 9). When words hurt: Beware of the dangers of verbal abuse. Essence,
20, 86.

Casby, M. (1991). Symbolic Play: A developmental framework. Infant-Toddler
Intervention, 1(3), 219-231.

Clark, T.C. 8c Watkins, S. (1985). The SKI ”HI Model: Programming for hearing impaired
infants through home intervention, 4th Ed. Logan, UT: SKI‘HI Institute, Utah State
University.

Cornelius, G. Sc Hornett, D. (1990). The play behavior of hearing-impaired kindergarten
children. American Annals of the Deaf, 135(4), 316—321.

Cummings, C. (1980). Teaching makes a difference. Edmonds, WA: Teaching, Inc.

Davidson, J. (1996). Emergent literacy and dramatic play in early education. Albany, NY:
Delmar Publishers.

123

 

Dunn, L. 8C Herwig, J. (1992). Play behaviors and convergent and divergent thinking skills
of young children attending full-day preschool. Child Study journal, 22(1), 23-3 8.

Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986. (1986). Public Law 99—45 7.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Elgin, S. (1980). The gentle art of verbal self-defense. Boston, MA: Prentice-Hall.

Elkind, D. (2001). The hurried child: growing up too fast too soon, 3rd Ed. Cambridge,
MA: Perseus Publications.

Enz, B. 8c Christie, J. (1993). Teacher play interaction styles and their impact on children’s

oral language and literacy play. Paper presented at: National Reading Conference.
Charleston, SC.

Fallon, M. 85 Harris, M. (1992). Encouraging parent participation in intervention
programs. Infant-Toddler Intervention, 2(2), 141—146.

Farran, D. (1990). Effects of intervention with disabled and disadvantaged children: A
decade review. In 8.]. Meisels 8c J.P. Shonkoff (Eds.). Handbook of Early Childhood
Intervention (pp. 5 01—5 3 9). New York: Cambridge University Press.

File, N. (1994). Children’s play, teacher-child interactions, and teacher beliefs in integrated
early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 223-140.

Ford, S. (1993). The facilitator’s role in children’s play. Young Children. 486, 66—69.

Gall, M.D., 8c Rhody, T. (1987). Review of research on questioning techniques. In W.W.
Wilen (Ed.). Questions, Questioning Techniques, and Effective Teaching (pp. 23-48).
Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Giffin, H. (1984). The coordination of meaning in the creation of a shared make-believe
reality. In Bretherton, I. (Ed.). Symbolic Play: The Development of Social
Understanding. New York: Academic Press.

Guralnick, M.J. 8c Neville, B. (1997). Designing early intervention programs to promote
children’s social competence. In M.J. Guralrick (Ed.). The Effectiveness of Early
Intervention (pp. 5 79—610). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Guralnick, M.J. (1994). Mothers’ perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of early
childhood mainstreaming. journal of Early Intervention, 18, 168-183.

Halliday, M. (1978). language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language
and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

124

 

Hanes, M. (1985). Parent training: An overview and synthesis. In S. Harel 8c N.J.
Anastasiow (Eds.). The At-Risk Infant: Psycho/Socio/Medical Aspects. Baltimore, MD:
Paul Brookes Publishing.

Hanson, M.J. (1985 ). An analysis of the effects of early intervention services for infants and
toddlers with moderate and severe handicaps. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education Quarterly, 5, 36-51.

Hart, B. 8c Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MA: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Hart, B. 8C Risley, T. (1999). The social world of children learning to talk. Baltimore, MA:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Hayden, C. 8c Fivush, R. (1996, April). Contextual variation in maternal conversational
styles. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(2), 200—227.

Hudson, J.A. (1990). The emergence of autobiographical memory in mother-child
conversations. In R. Fivush 8c J.A. Hudson (Eds.). Knowing and Remembering in
Young Children. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Isbell, R. 8c Raines, S. (1991). Young children’s oral language production in three types of
play centers. journal of Research in Childhood Education, 5(2), 140—146.

Johnson, J.E., Christie, M., 8c Yawkey, T. (1987). Play and early development. Chicago,
IL: Scott Foresman and Co.

Klugman, E. 85 Smilansky, S. (Eds.) (1990). Children’s play and learning: Perspective and
policy implications. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kostelnik, M., Soderman, A., 8: Whiren, A. (1993). Developmentally appropriate programs
in early childhood education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Lamorey, 5. 8c Bricker, D. (1993). Integrated programs: Effects on young children and
their parents. In C. Peck, S.L. Odom 86 D. Bricker (Eds.). Integrating Young Children
with Disabilities into Community Programs: Ecological Perspectives on Research and
Implementation. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Lauritzen, P. (1992). Facilitating integrated teaching and learning in the preschool setting:
A process approach. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(4), 531-550.

Lederberg, A., Ryan, H., 8c Robbins, B. ( 198 6). Peer interaction in young deaf children:

The effect of partner hearing status and familiarity. Developmental Psychology, 5(22),
691—700.

125

 

Mahoney, G., Finger, 1., 8C Powell, A. (1985). Relationship of maternal behavioral style to
the development of organically impaired mentally retarded infants. American journal
of Mental Deficiency, 90(3), 296—3 02.

Marschark, M. (1997). Raising and educating a deaf child. New York: Oxford University
Press, Inc.

McBride, S.L. 8c Peterson, C. (1997). Home-based intervention with families of children
with disabilities: Who is doing what? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
17(2), 209—233.

McCabe, A. 8c Peterson, C. (1991). Getting the story: A longitudinal study of parental
styles in eliciting narratives and developing narrative skill. In A. McCabe 8c C.
Peterson (Eds.). Developing Narrative Structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCollum, J.A., Ree, Y., Chen, Y. (2000). Interpreting parent-infant interactions: Cross—
cultural lessons. Infants (’9' Young Children, 12(4), 22—23.

McCune, L. (1995). A normative study of representational play at the transition to
language. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 198—206.

McKimmey, M. (1993). Child’s play is serious business. Children Today, 22(2), 14—15.

McWilliam, R.A., Tocci, L., 8c Harbin, G. (1995). Services are child oriented and families
like it that way—But why? (Findings: Early Childhood Research Institute on Service
Utilization). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

Meisels, S.J., Dichtemiller, M., 85 Liaw, F. (1993). A multidimensional analysis of early
childhood intervention programs. In C.H. Zeanah (Ed.). Handbook of Infant Mental
Health (pp. 361—3 85). New York: Guilford Press.

Minick, N. (1996). The development of Vygotsky’s thought: An introduction to thinking
and speech. In H. Daniels (Ed.). An Introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 28—5 2). New York:
Routledge.

Nicolopoulou, A. (1993). Play, cognitive development and the social world: Piaget,
Vygotsky and beyond. Human Development, 36, 1-23.

Nowak-Fabrykowski, K. (1994). Can symbolic play prepare children for their future? Early
Child Development and Care, 102, 63—69.

Odom, S. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and where we go from here. Topics
in Early Childhood Education, 20(1), 20—27.

Odom, S. 86 McLean, M.E. (Eds.) (1993). DEC Recommended Practices: Indicators of
quality in programs for infants and young children with special needs and their families.

126

 

Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproductions
Service No. 370—25 3).

Parents As Teachers. (1999). Born to learn curriculum: Implementation guide. St. Louis,
MO: Parents As Teachers National Center Inc.

Parks, S. (1992). HELP at home—Hawaii early learning profile activity sheets for parents.
Palo Alto, CA: Vort Inc.

Pellegrini, A. 8c Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A re-examination of symbolic play and
literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 163-175.

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton
Publishers.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. Ripple 8c V. Rockcastle (Eds.). Piaget
Rediscovered (pp. 7—19). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic
regulations and cognitive processes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reese, E. 8c Fivush, R. (1993). Parental styles of talking about the past. Developmental
Psychology, 29(3), 5 96—606.

Rogers, C. 86 Sawyers, J. (1988). Play in the lives of children. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.

Rogers, D. 8c Ross, D. (1986). Encouraging positive social interaction among young
children. Young Children, 41, 12-17.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Rowan, L. (1997). Project AHEAD: Resources for service providers of infants, toddlers, and
young children with special needs and their families and child care providers at home
and at daycare. Logan UT: Hope Inc.

Rubin, K., Fein, G., 8c Vanderberg, C. (1983). Play. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.).
Carmichael ’5 Manual of Child Psychology: Social Development. New York: Wiley.

Rubin, H.J. 8c Rubin, LS. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sandall, S.R. (1993). Curricula for early intervention. In W. Brown, S.K. Thurman, 85 LP.

Pearl (Eds.). Family-Centered Early Intervention with Infants and Toddlers: Innovative
Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (pp. 129-172). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

127

 

Santrock, J. 8c Yussen, S. (1992). Child development, 5th Ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown
Publishers.

Saracho, O. (1995). Relationship between young children’s cognitive style and their play.
Early Child Development and Care, 113, 77-84.

Seidman, LE. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers for
education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stern, D. (1977). The first relationship: Infant and mother. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Stern-Bruschweiler, N. 85 Stem, D. (198 9). A model for conceptualizing the role of
mother’s representational world in various mother-infant therapies. Infant Mental
Health journal, 10(3), 142-146.

Strain, RS. (1990). Least restrictive environment for preschool children with disabilities:
What we know and what we should be doing. journal of Early Intervention, 14,
291-296.

Thorp, E.K. 8C McCollum, J.A. (1994). Defining the infancy specialization in early
childhood special education. In L]. Johnson, R.J. Gallagher, M.J. LaMontague, J.B.
Jordon, J.J. Gallagher, P.L. Hutinger, 8c M.B. Karnes (Eds.). Meeting Early
Intervention Challenges: Issues from Birth to Three (pp. 167—183). Baltimore: Brookes.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman, (Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., 86 Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of school outcomes
based on early language production and socio-economic factors. Child Development,
65, 606—621.

Watkins, 8. (Ed.) (1993). The SKI “HI model a resource manual for family-centered home-
based programming for infants, toddlers, and preschool -aged children with hearing
impairment. Logan, UT: Hope Inc.

Wertsch, J. 8C Tulviste, P. (1996). LS. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental
psychology. In H. Daniels (Ed.). An Introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 5 3-74). New York:
Routledge.

Wolery, M. 86 Bredekamp, S. (1994). Developmentally appropriate practice and young
children with special needs: contextual issues in the discussion. journal of Early
Intervention, 18, 331—341.

128